April 15, 2021: A Community Conversation Regarding Tsehum Harbour and Tsehum Lagoon

From the invitation to attend the Tsehum Harbour and Lagoon Community conversation on Thursday, April 15, 2021:

In the mid 1800’s as settlers were arriving on the Saanich Peninsula, the sheltered waters and lush foreshores of Tsehum Harbour and Tsehum Lagoon (then known as Shoal Harbour) were prime habitat for waterfowl and many other wild creatures. Flocks of Brant geese interrupted their migrations to rest here and feed. Commercial hunters harvested them so aggressively that by 1930 the numbers of visiting Brant geese were seriously reduced, so much so that the Government of Canada established a Migratory Bird Sanctuary encompassing Tsehum Harbour and Roberts Bay, as it had done a decade earlier along the foreshore of Victoria.

Establishing these two migratory bird sanctuaries was effective in curtailing over-hunting but has not prevented the degradation of the sanctuary itself due to residential and commercial development on its shores. We also realize that the loosely framed and under-enforced bylaws currently in place in both Sidney and North Saanich have not been effective either in preventing harm to the Sanctuary. Ironically, Tsehum Harbour, Tsehum Lagoon and and Roberts Bay, squarely within the Sanctuary, have become three of the most degraded nearshore areas on the Saanich Peninsula due to (partial list):

 Contaminated runoff from storm sewers, streets and highways, waterfront properties, industrial activities

 Cumulative effects of over 3000 pleasure craft moored in the harbour (anti-fouling paint, fuel and lubricants, garbage and other effluvia (particularly Styrofoam particles))

 Loss of shoreline trees (aging plus removals)

 Degradation of beaches due to seawalls and sea-level rise

The day-to -day stewardship of our local natural endowment (our naturehood) has become the responsibility of local municipal governments staffed by people who we know and who live among us. Thus, as voting citizens, we share with them the responsibility for establishing and directing the necessary stewardship.

Here are the “desired outcomes” of this initiative (of which the Community Conversation is a part):

  • Respectful cooperation with the WSANEC Leadership Council and the Tseycum First Nation to ensure that their interests and values are included in this conversation and in the future management/protection of this area.
  • Endorsement by North Saanich and Sidney municipal governments of the Shoreline Protection Act and other associated Coastal Regulations
  • Increased monitoring of the area and more vigorous enforcement of regulations commensurate with its special ecological nature and Development Permit Area regulations.
  • The formation of an Intermunicipal Tsehum Harbour Task Force (Sidney and North Saanich) focusing on enforcement, monitoring and management, community involvement, particpation by both federal and provincial governments and a multi-year budget.
  • Shift Tsehum Harbour and Lagoon from a Development Permit Area to a Special Development Area so as to allow for more specific protections.

These outcomes would not only ensure a prompt and effective response to problems as they arose but also would discourage attempts to circumvent clearly established regulations.

Here is a link to the entire report of the Community Conversation:


Some responses from the 45 +/- attendees are repeated below:

  • Many attendees stressed that monitoring and enforcement is essential and that the current situation must be addressed with a budget and staff commensurate with the Development Permit Area designations and fragile ecological nature of the Harbour and Lagoon.
  • Focus attention on what can be done now.  Don’t wait for the CRD, province or federal government to respond.
  • First Nation rights and interests must be addressed in any go forward option.
  • ‘Stop finger-pointing’ and using the complicated jurisdictions as an excuse to do nothing and ignore the situation.  Do what you can do within your jurisdictions and that in itself will lead to positive change.  ‘Stop blaming and do your job’. ‘Take back your management role and do it’.
    • ‘Perhaps Sidney-North Saanich could co-fund a bylaw officer and boat to ensure that current bylaws and regulations are being monitored and enforced’.  ‘Such a position would also raise the public profile of the situation’.
    • Couldn’t special sensitive zones be demarcated – for eel grass in particular.
  • We are witnessing ‘death by a thousand cuts’. The cumulative nature of this situation is leading to a ‘tipping point’ and we are on the verge of losing ‘the naturalness’ of this important area.
    • There was a suggestion that since Section 17 of the Land Act can designate reserves, withdrawals, notations and prohibitions why not apply Section 17 to the Lagoon portion of the Sanctuary as it is so sensitive?
  • ‘The time to act is now’.  Don’t wait for the CRD to get the proposed Harbours Initiative in place.
    • As an aside, a number of attendees voiced concern about the CRD Harbours Initiative and that it will be a ‘bureaucratic nightmare’ and ‘besides spending lots of money on reports nothing will happen’.  It was seen as a measure that staff would embrace more than the public.
  • Tsehum Harbour and Lagoon and Roberts Bay aren’t mutually exclusive. Success will only be achieved through cooperation and alignment of policy and practices. ‘I sure hope that Sidney and North Saanich wake up and work together’.
  • The moorage, derelict boat dilemma stems from legislative and organizational changes by the federal government. ‘They have clearly failed’. 
    • And it is clear that the municipality can make a difference, witness the recent positive actions by North Saanich in relation to the mess near Lillian Hoffar Park.
  • Is it now time for the CWS to update and enhance the Migratory Bird Convention Act and associated Regulations to reflect the current state of the environment so they can address more than harm to bird nests and their eggs.
    • Glad to see the increased attention to off-leash dogs.
  • I don’t understand why housing and development is allowed to encroach right up to the Sanctuary, riparian areas and creeks – clearly in contravention of the current bylaws and regulations.    ‘Where is the will to do the right thing?’  These fringe areas must be protected to conserve the beaches and foreshore.
  • Why aren’t boats registered like vehicles.  There is such a system in Washington State and it is working well.
  • Any management must be framed with the context of climate change and an overall biodiversity strategy for the Peninsula.  
  • We must remember this situation isn’t just local – it is happening up and down the coast. At Coles Bay there is illegal boat moorage now, what a shame.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s