HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-11 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdf1,
2.
3.
4.
4.1
District of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
January 11, 2010
9:00 a.m.
Blaney Room, 1st Floor, Municipal Hall
The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and
other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at
this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to
Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more
information or clarification.
REMINDERS
January 11 2010
Closed Council following Workshop
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 P.M.
January 12, 2010
Council Meeting 7:00 p.m.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
MINUTES - December 14, 2009
PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
Police Records Information Management Environment (PRIME)
Staff report dated December 15, 2009 recommending that the Mayor be
authorized to send a letter to the Solicitor General expressing concern about lack
of local government representation on the PRIME -BC board.
4.2 Discussion of Metro Vancouver Draft Regional Growth Strategy
Memorandum from the Director of Planning dated January 7, 2010.
Also see letter from Metro Vancouver dated November 25, 2009 as attached to
the December 7, 2009 Council Workshop agenda.
Council Workshop
January 11, 2010
Page 2 of 4
5. CORRESPONDENCE
The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is
seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include:
a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be
taken.
b) Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter.
c) Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion.
d) Other.
Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent.
5.1 Catalyst Paper Corporation - Relief for BC Municipalities hosting BC Industry
Letter dated December 4, 2009 from Richard Garneau, President and CEO,
Catalyst Paper Corporation encouraging municipalities to seek provincial support
for interim relief and a long -term solution on municipal taxation.
Recommendation: a) receive for information with no further action taken
5.2 Union of British Columbia Municipalities - Management Framework for Off Road
Vehicles
Letter dated December 9, 2009 from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities
Secretariat requesting feedback on the proposed new management framework
dealing with off road vehicles.
Recommendation: d) letter to be sent to UBCM supporting regulation of off road
vehicles
5.3 Metro Vancouver - Request for Resolution in Council
Letter dated December 11, 2009 from Lois E. Jackson, Chair, Metro Vancouver
Board, requesting endorsement by resolution of a Metro Vancouver submission to
the Canadian Radio -Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
pertaining to community control of a community channel.
Recommendation: d) pass resolution shown as Attachment 2 and return to Metro
Vancouver
Council Workshop
January 11, 2010
Page 3 of 4
5.4 South Fraser Family Court & Youth Justice Committee - Youth Substance Abuse
and Refusal of Treatment
Letter dated December 21, 2009 from Barbara Westlake, Vice -chair South Fraser
Family Court & Youth Justice Committee, Sub -Committee Chair Youth Recovery
requesting support of a letter writing campaign requesting that the BC
Government re -open discussions regarding treatment options for youth struggling
with substance abuse and refusing treatment.
Recommendation: d) refer to the Social Planning Advisory Committee for
comment
5.5 Agricultural Land Commission - Albion Flats
Letter dated January 7, 2010 from Erik Karlsen, Chair, Provincial Agricultural Land
Commission advising that the Commission will make senior staff available to meet
with Council and District staff to discuss current land use policy direction and
explore opportunities for collaboration.
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by:
Date: 0
Council Workshop
January 11, 2010
Page 4 of 4
Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one
or more of the following:
(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as
an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality;
(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or
honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity;
(c) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(d) the security of properky of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that
disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
(f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the
conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;
(h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality,
other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
(i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor -client privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
Q) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privac Act;
(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at
their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the
interests of the municipality if they were held in public;
(1) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and
progress reports for the purposes of. preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
(m) a matter that, under another enactment is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting;
(n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of
subsection (2)
(o) the consideration of whether the authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings)
should be exercised in relation to a council meeting.
(p) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations, where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
MAPLE RIDGE
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
SUBJECT:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: December 15, 2009
and Members of Council FILE NO:
Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop
Police Records Information Management Environment (PRIME)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On December 7, 2009, Municipal Council received a presentation from PRIME -BC, the organization
responsible for administering the new police information system. Prior to the introduction of PRIME,
RCMP detachments used the PIRS information system and municipalities were charged $228 per
Regular RCMP member. When PRIME was first introduced to the municipalities in 2004, it was
represented as a Provincial initiative that would not cost the municipalities anything. When it was
implemented a few years later, municipalities were notified that they would be charged $500 per
Regular member and that the PIRS charge would be dropped. Earlier this year, we were advised that
the PRIME levy will increase to $1,000 per Regular member in 2010.
PRIME is governed by a Board of Directors with six members:
Director of Police Services
Commanding Officer of "E" Division
Capital Regional District Police Chiefs representative
Chief Constable, Vancouver Police
Mainland Municipal Chiefs representative
President of E-Comm
There is no representation on the board from the municipal governments.
On September 22, 2009, the Solicitor General wrote to the municipalities advising them of the
change in the PRIME levy. A number of municipalities have replied to the letter expressing their
concerns about the increased fee and the lack of municipal representation in the governance
structure of PRIME -BC. We suggest that the attached letter be sent to the Solicitor General, in reply
to his letter.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That the Mayor be authorized to send the letter attached to the staff report dated December 15,
2009 to the Solicitor General.
Page 1 of 3 4 A
DISCUSSION:
Prior to the introduction of PRIME, RCMP detachments used the PIRS information system and
municipalities were charged $228 per Regular RCMP member. When PRIME was first introduced to
the municipalities in 2004, it was represented as a Provincial initiative that would not cost the
municipalities anything. When it was implemented a few years later, municipalities were notified
that they would be charged $500 per Regular member and that the PIRS charge would be dropped.
Earlier this year, we were advised that the PRIME levy will increase to $1,000 per Regular member in
2010.
PRIME requires a significant amount of information to be entered into the system as the system is
only as good as the data going into it. Police officers spend a significant amount of their time
entering this data. As well, support staff is required to manage the data. Over the years, we have
significantly changed 2 municipal positions and added three more to deal with the workload resulting
from PRIME. These changes have cost us nearly $200,000 annually. In addition, we pay for
transcription services to support PRIME at a cost of about $42,000 per year. These amounts are
above and beyond the PRIME levy.
PRIME is governed by six directors, most of whom have police backgrounds. There is no local
government representation on the board, though municipalities are required to pay a large portion of
the bill.
The composition of the board needs to be changed to include more balanced representation. This
can be achieved by adding at least two municipal representatives: An elected official and a senior
municipal officer. This recommendation is not a reflection on the individuals currently on the board.
Rather, it is based on the need to have representation that is more reflective of those responsible for
paying the costs.
Prepared by: Paul Gill
GM: Corps to & Financial Services
f
Concurrence: J.L (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
1
Page 2 of 3
Draft Letter to the Solicitor General Re: PRIME - BC
Date
Honourable Kash Heed
Solicitor General
PO Box 9053, Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, BC V8W 9E2
Dear Mr. Heed
Maple Ridge Municipal Council has received your letter dated September 22, 2009 and has also
received a detailed presentation from PRIME -BC. We are pleased to hear about the operational
successes of the system.
My purpose for writing today is to express our concern about the lack of local government
representation on the PRIME -BC board. Local governments are responsible for paying a large
portion of the costs related to PRIME yet have no say in it. This needs to change.
We recommend that the Board of Directors be expanded by adding at least two municipal
representatives, one of whom would be an elected official and the other a senior municipal officer.
This is not a reflection on the individuals currently on the board. Rather, it is based on the need to
have representation that is more reflective of those responsible for paying the costs. This
representation will facilitate communication between the stakeholders and will enhance the overall
effectiveness of the system.
Thank you for your time and we look forward to your response.
Yours truly
Mayor Ernie Daykin
C.C. UBCM
Page 3 of 3
MAPLE RIDGE
Brirlsh Columbia
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: JANE PICKERING, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
SUBJECT: REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY
DATE: JANUARY 7, 2010
Interoffice
Memorandum
Please find attached a letter from Metro Vancouver regarding a written response to the issues raised
by Council about the proposed Regional Growth Strategy. While Council has reviewed the regional
response to the land use requests at workshop on December 7, 2009, the letter also provides a
synopsis of the comments and discussions held with Johnny Carline, CEO Metro Vancouver when he
and members of his staff attended workshop on October 19, 2009.
Council may wish to consider two other matters which were discussed earlier this year. At the Council
meeting of September 22, 2009, Council passed the following resolution:
That properties at 20383, 20515, 20625, 20695 and 20785 Powell Avenue be referred to
the next round of Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy discussions.
The report that Council reviewed prior to that resolution is attached for information.
At the Dec. 15th, 2009 Council meeting Council forwarded a Fraser Sewer Area (FSA) extension
application to Metro Vancouver. As part of the discussion on the FSA extension, it was noted that
Metro Vancouver had verbally acknowledged that areas designated Urban in the Regional Growth
Plan would be eligible for inclusion in the Fraser Sewer Area and that this acknowledgement should
be requested in writing. Council may wish to request written confirmation that areas identified in the
Regional Growth Plan as Urban will be eligible for inclusion in the Fraser Sewer Area.
Jane Pickering
Director of Planning
Attachments:
Appendix A - letter from Metro Vancouver
Appendix B - staff report dated September 10, 2009
4.2
�.pPe.nol ix �}
Matra.v2.ncouver
....
.............................
.............................................................................:..........._....--_.
4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org
Policy and Planning Department
Tel. 604 432-6375 Fax 604 436 6970
December 8, 2009 File No: CR-11-01-RGS-01
Jane Pickering, Director of Planning
District of Maple Ridge= -
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, BC V3X 6A9
Re: November 2009 Draft Regional Growth Strategy = -
Dear Ms. P' Bring:
As you are aware, Metro Vancouver has released its latest draft of the Regional Growth Strategy
(RGS) for comment early in November 2009. This draft reflects the considerable amount time and
effort that municipal staffs and councils have dedicated to this important regional initiative. We
have produced below some specific responses to the comments we received from your
municipality during the last round of consultation.
Implementation - Regulatory Approach and Level of Authority
Council expressed concern with the number of proposed requirements in Regional Context
Statements, and with the regulatory nature of the draft Strategy and resulting loss of local
autonomy. The November 2009 draft of the Regional Growth Strategy has significantly refined and
clarified the implementation and amendment processes and responds to these concerns by
considerably reducing the level of regional involvement for a number of policy areas.
Frequent Transit Development Corridors
Council noted that proposed Frequent Transit Development Corridors required clarification. The
revised draft clarifies that the locations of Frequent Transit Development Corridors are to be
determined by municipalities, in consultation with Transt-ink and Metro Vancouver, through
Regional Context Statements. This ensures that municipalities have the ability to determine
suitable locations and the scale of development in the context of the community.
Rural Designation
Council voiced support for the Rural designation as long as municipalities are able to determine the
densities appropriate in their municipalities. The November 2009 draft of the Regional Growth
Strategy removed reference to minimum densities, instead noting that densities requiring regional
sewerage service will not be supported.
Affordable Housing Estimates
Council expressed concern about the affordable housing estimates in the previous draft RGS, and
noted that municipalities have limited tools to address housing affordability, and that housing is
primarily the responsibility of senior levels of government. The revised RGS responds to these
concerns by asking municipalities to respond to the housing needs within their communities
through the tools appropriate to them. The revised RGS also clearly articulates the role for senior
levels of government..
November 2009 Draft Regional Growth Strategy
Jane Pickering, Director of Planning
Paqe 2 of 4
Agricultural Designation and Industrial Land Requirements
Council requested that the required vote of the Metro Vancouver Board for change of designation
of land removed from the ALR be a simple majority. They also requested that following a
comprehensive industrial and commercial land use strategy review including potential land use
requirements, should a change in land use designation be required, that Metro Vancouver agree to
support the necessary change. In the draft Strategy, the need for additional industrial land is
addressed through policy 6.2.7 which allows Metro Vancouver to accept Regional Context
Statements for the conversion of rural or agricultural lands to industrial if the conditions outlined are
met. Additionally the `Special Study Area" designation, which also only requires the regional
context statement approval process, has been applied to the Albion Flats area, which extends the
uses to be considered beyond industrial uses.
November 2009 Draft Regional Growth Strategy
Jane Pickering, Director of Planning
Page 3 of 4
Requested Map Changes
Council requested a number of map changes and these are outlined below.
Address or
Number
Maple
Metro Vancouver's response
description of area
on
Ridge
Maple
requested
Ridge
designation
map
Area south of Silver
1
Urban
Urban
Valle
Area southeast of
2
Rural
Rural
Silver Valle
Smith Avenue Area
3
Rural
Rural
Area outside of
4
Agricultural
Agricultural
Smith Avenue
Lands south of 128
5
Urban
Urban
and west of 232
24554102 nd Ave.
6
Rural
Rural
Jackson Farm
District parcel east
7
Rural
Rural
of 24554 102"d Ave.
24426 102nd Ave
8
Urban
Urban
Albion Flats
9
Urban
This land is identified as a "Special Study Area"
subject to policy 6.2.8
20178 Chatwin
10
Urban
Urban
20208 Mclvor Ave.
11
Urban
The land is in the ALR, so is shown as
Agricultural in the RGS. However, policy 6.2.7
enables Metro Vancouver to accept a Regional
Context Statement that designates the parcel as
Industrial if excluded from the ALR and
contiguous with the Urban area.
256 St. Industrial
12
Rural
Portions Industrial and portions Rural -consistent
Area
Designation
with OCP. Policy 6.2.9 in the latest draft of the
with
RGS applies to lands designated Industrial
Industrial
outside the Urban Containment Boundary and
overlay
requires a RGS amendment for any other Urban
use.
Thornhill
13
Urban
This area continues to be shown as Urban in the
draft Regional Growth Strategy. As there is no
regional "Urban Reserve" land use designation,
this Urban designation does not undermine
requirements laid out in Maple Ridge's Regional
Context Statement, designating the area "Urban
Reserve" with criteria that must be met prior to
permitting urban development.
November 2009 Draft Regional Growth Strategy
Jane Pickering, Director of Planning
Pape 4 of 4
A letter was sent to your Mayor and Council with copies of the draft RGS and a request for
comments by January 29, 2010. If your Council would like us to make a presentation on the latest
draft we would be pleased to do this. I hope this letter has clarified the issues raised by your
municipality and if you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 604-436-
6850 or Christina.demarco@metrovancouver.org
Yours truly,
Christina DeMarco,
Regional Development Division Manager
CD/JS/eg
LIim'�'1'1:�•�:l
Affendir B
MAPLE RIDGE
Deep Routs
Greater Heights
TO:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: September 10, 2009
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Workshop
SUBJECT: 20383, 20515, 20625, 20695 and 20785 Powell Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On June 17, 2009 Council received a petition from the residents at 20383, 20515, 20625, 20695
and 20785 Powell Avenue. The petition requests that Council consider exclusion of these properties
from the Agricultural Land Reserve and an adjustment to the Urban Area Boundary, suggesting that
the Regional Growth Strategy Review provides a window of opportunity to consider the future land
use of this area.
During its consideration of the Regional Growth Strategy, Council requested that a historical report
be prepared providing some background on the subject properties. The following memorandum
provides an overview of these properties, including a summary of previous applications and
Agricultural Land Commission resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report entitled 20383, 20515, 20625, 20695 and 20785 Powell Avenue, dated September
10, 2009 be received as information.
DISCUSSION:
The owners of 20383, 20515, 20625, 20695 and 20785 Powell Avenue have submitted a petition
for Council to consider removal from the Agricultural Land Reserve and adjustment to the Urban Area
Boundary. The petition is attached and provides the following information to support the request:
• The Powell Avenue neighbourhood has emerged into a predominantly urban residential
single family neighbourhood.
• The parcels in the ALR are small holding* lots with no individual potential for productive
farming capability.
• The agrologist report shows the land infertile and an implementation of a Farm Bylaw to
restrict intensive/intrusive agriculture on Powell Ave would unquestionably negate the use of
the parcels for any productive farming.
• Urban development of the properties will place no additional burden on the municipal
infrastructure. The parcels have full urban services along entire south boundary (Powell
Avenue). Major storm and sanitary sewer mains exist within statutory right of ways running
north south.
-1-
w Urban development of the south side of Powell can be interpreted as an in -fill development
to the existing urban neighbourhood.
Modifications of the ALR Boundary from a planning standpoint and agricultural capacity
perspective are a logical change worthy of council, staff and Metro Vancouver's support."
CONTEXT:
The petition relates to 5 properties situated on the north side of Powell Avenue. Those properties
are identified in cross -hatching on the following map, and are labeled as Parcels A, B, C, D and E.
The map identifies the location of the Urban Area Boundary (dotted line) and lands in the Agricultural
Land Reserve (shaded). Specific details regarding Official Community Plan designations, Zoning,
parcel size, and servicing follow.
Parcel A - 20383 Powell Avenue:
OCP:
Agricultural
Zoning:
RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Size:
1.54 ha (3.8 ac)
Servicing:
Storm:
yes
Water:
yes
Sanitary:
no
Other.
100% floodplain
ALR Application: ALR/005/98 - refused by the ALC
-2-
Parcel B -
20515 Powell Avenue:
OCP:
Agricultural
Zoning:
RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Size:
1.17 ha (2.9 ac)
Servicing:
Storm:
no
Water:
yes
Sanitary:
no
ALR Applications: ALR/014/81 - refused by the ALC
ALR/047/99 - refused by ALC
Parcel C - 20625 Powell Avenue:
OCP- Agricultural
Zoning: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Size: 0.89 ha (2.2 ac)
Servicing:
Storm: no
Water: yes
Sanitary: no
ALR Applications: ALR/011/91 - not authorized to proceed to ALC
ALR/047/99 - refused by ALC
Parcel D - 20695 Powell Avenue:
OCP.
Agricultural
Zoning:
RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Size:
1.12 ha (2.8 ac)
Servicing:
Storm:
no
Water:
yes
Sanitary:
no
ALR Application: ALR/047/99 - refused by ALC
Parcel E - 20785 Powell Avenue:
OCP:.
Agricultural
Zoning:
A-2 Upland Agricultural
Size:
5.54 ha (13.7 ac)
Servicing:
Storm:
yes
Water:
yes
Sanitary:
yes
Other.
22% in the floodplain
ALR Application: ALR/047/99 - refused by ALC
AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE APPLICATIONS:
All five properties have previously applied for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The
following is a summary of those applications, and the rationale for the Commission's decisions, by
District File Number:
-3-
• ALR/14/81
An application for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve to permit urban development, was
submitted for 20515 Powell Avenue (Parcel B). The Agricultural Land Commission refused the
application. The Commission advised "It is the Commission's experience that applications of this
nature, if allowed tend to precipitate similar requests from adjacent property owners and in time,
this development would become detrimental to the entire agricultural community."
• ALR/11/91
An application to exclude 20625 Powell Avenue from the Agricultural Land Reserve (Parcel C) was
considered by Council in 1991. The applicants intent was to subsequently subdivide the property
into single family lots. The Council resolution was that the application not be authorized to proceed
to the Agricultural Land Commission.
• ALR/5/98
This application was to exclude property at 20383 Powell Ave (Parcel A) from the Agricultural Land
Reserve (20383 & 20453 Powell Ave also formed part of this application but were. not part of the
recent petition). The application was refused by the Commission in March 1998, noting:
.. this area satisfies a community need by providing a range of property sizes to the small
scale farmer who does not need an extensive acreage but wants to maintain a small
acreage for hobby farm purposes. The Commission sees the existing parcel sizes as
accommodating these types of agricultural needs while at the same time not impacting on
the large acreage residential lots to the north and west of the properties. In the
Commission's opinion the best buffer between the high density residential development to
the south already exists in the form of Brooks Avenue and Powell Road and it is unwilling to
encourage that same level of development north of the road."
• ALR/47/99
In April 1999, application was made to exclude 20515, 20625, 20695 and 20795 Powell Avenue
from the ALR (Parcels B, C, D & Q. The applicant noted that the site was adjacent to urban
residential development, and stated that developing the subject properties would create an
opportunity to provide a buffer adjacent to the ALR.
In January 2001, the applicants had requested that the Commission hold the file in abeyance
pending a more detailed agrologist report. At the applicants request, the file was re -activated in
2005, and on April 22, 2005, the Commission advised the applicants that the application for
exclusion was refused stating:
"The Commission feels that the subject properties, within the ALR and at their present size
present a good buffer between urban land use to the south and the agriculturally developed
lands to the north and east. Allowing exclusion would only shift the interface between these
two land uses and the eventual development of these lands would likely increase the
negative impact on existing agricultural operations.
The Commission understood that the present owners purchased their properties after 1972
and knew (or should have known) that the land was in the ALR and there were land use
restrictions on these lands."
-4-
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN REVIEW
Following the 2005 Official Community Plan Public Hearing, staff was directed to prepare an Issues
Report highlighting the issues raised during the Hearing. An Issues Report (January 20, 2006) was
prepared and contained a section that specifically discussed properties at the West End of Abernethy
(20232 Powell Avenue, 20202 Powell Avenue, and 20505 Brooks Avenue). It was noted that there
are 23 properties in the area situated south of, or transected by the Golden Ears Bridge Alignment,
that are designated Agricultural in the Official Community Plan. That report acknowledged that the
area will likely be impacted by the bridge alignment. At that time the Agricultural Land Commission
staff indicated that there was no support for exclusion of these lands from the Agricultural Land
Reserve.
In 2006, Council was presented with two options pertaining to this area: (i) Status Quo - Leave
Outside the Urban Area Boundary and Designated Agricultural in the OCP; or (ii) Apply for a Block
Exclusion from the ALR and removal from the Green Zone. Council selected Option (i) and the lands
remained outside the Urban Area Boundary and designated Agricultural in the adopted 2006 Official
Community Plan.
CONCLUSIONS:
Further to the petition pertaining to the request for removal of 5 properties from the Agricultural
Land Reserve and inclusion within the Urban Area Boundary (20383, 20515, 20625, 20695 and
20785 Powell Avenue) this report has been prepared to provide Council with a historical overview of
Agricultural Land Reserve applications.
Prepared by. Christine er, MPI. MCIP
Manager ❑ un' Planning
A-%
e Pic
9
Approved 71M:
Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng.
GPublic Works & Development Services
Concurrence: J.L ( m) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
CC/cc
Attachment - June 17, 2009 Petition Statement
-5-
JUN 17 2009
June 17, 2009
MAPLE RIbGE
To Mayor, Council, staff and Johnny Carline CAO of Metro Vancouver
Enclosed please find a Petition Statement of residents along Powell Avenue for your
consideration. We agree with the comments of Mr Carline and Ald. Dueck at the Metro
Vancouver 2040 informational meeting last night that there is a small window of
optimum opportunity to have the Regional Growth Strategy Map revised before final
adoption to reflect the true nature of this local area.
We trust you will find the enclosed to be in order. If you have questions please do not
hesitate to contact the writer.
Yours truly
Tom and Pat Dinsley
20625 Powell Ave
[604] 465-7761
To Mayor, council, staff and Johnny Carline CAO of Metro Vancouver
Regarding the urban boundary of Maple Ridge British Columbia
Petition Statement
• The Powell Avenue neighborhood has emerged into a predominantly urban
residential single family neighborhood.
• The parcels in the ALR are small holding lots with no individual potential for
productive farming capability.
• The agrologist report shows the land infertile and an implementation of a farm
Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive agriculture on Powell Ave would
unquestionably negate the use of the parcels for any productive farming.
• Urban development of the properties will place no additional burden on the
municipal infrastructure. The parcels have full urban services along entire south
boundary (Powell Avenue). Major storm and sanitary sewer mains exist within
statutory right of ways running north south.
■ Urban development of the south side of Powell can be interpreted as an in -fill
development to the existing urban neighborhood.
• Modifications of the ALR Boundary from a planning standpoint and agricultural
capacity perspective are a logical change worthy of council, staff and Metro
Vancouver's support.
Petition Signatures
R,* m-id ?Mzc. B atti
20785 Powell Ave
Mr. and Mrs. S�Prteboom
20695 Po el Ave
Mr. and Mrs. Dinsley
20625 Powell Ave
WianqMn. Flatt
F
2 5 o_Ave
Mr.and Mrs. Striefel
20383 Powell Ave
December 4"', 2009
DEC(WC 0 b 2909
MAYUR
WV nta lyst
Mac cao
��'=er
Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Dear Mayor Daykin and Members of Council:
Catalyst Paper Corp oraticr)
2nd Floor, 3600 Lysander Lade
Richmond, British Co:urnN
Canadz V7E 1C3
Tel: 604 247 4400
Far,: 604 247 05 12
On October 29`h and December I", I wrote to Premier Campbell requesting his leadership in securing
interim relief for BC municipalities hosting BC industry, and a long-term solution that ensures BC
municipal taxation contributes to the viability of provincial industry and to the economic
competitiveness of our province.
I wrote that for a variety of reasons, often as simple as temporary cash flow or liquidity constraints,
companies have had to resort to non-payment of taxes, or to the courts, or both, in order to face this
issue and survive. I told the Premier that such circumstances and such developments cannot be good
for anyone who wants the best for British Columbia, and that I can attest to the fact that the crisis has
prompted groups to reach out to one another in search of a solution and leadership.
As well, I told him of the positive efforts Catalyst Paper is taking to encourage broad -based support
for the effort to secure interim relief and a long-term solution for the crisis in municipal taxation.
This involves reaching out to the Business Council of BC, the Union of BC Municipalities, Canadian
Taxpayers Federation (BC), the BC Chamber of Commerce, the BC division of the Canadian
Manufacturers & Exporters, unions, local chambers of commerce, municipalities, MLAs, and others.
My letters to Premier Campbell were prompted by the October 16`h, 2009 Reasons for Judgment by
the Honourable Justice Voith in the matter of Catalyst Paper Corporation v. North Cowichan
(District) in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Justice Voith said:
Furthermore, property tax rates, as a cost of production, are markedly higher in
British Columbia than elsewhere in Western Canada or in Ontario. Class 4 municipal
tax rates in British Columbia are also markedly higher than in other jurisdictions ... .
These are matters properly addressed by different levels of government and not by
the courts.
Justice Voith and others have pointed the way to the potential source of a solution that would help
retain industrial jobs and ensure the long-term viability of BC industry and communities. Indeed, as
Vaughn Palmer said on the Bill Good show on CKNW on October 23`d:
I think the first thing is the judge here said, `Look, this is an issue for the political
arena; it's not something the court should intervene on.' And I actually think the
5.1
Page 2
judge is right there. But here's the dilemma: You've got municipalities in British
Columbia, particularly North Cowichan, where forest companies are being taxed at
20 times the rate of local residents, and the mills are saying, `If you're going to tax us
like that, we can't keep our doors open.' The industry has declined so much that
there aren't enough jobs in the community for the municipality to really address the
issue. The municipality says, `We can't hit our local ratepayers with the taxes we'd
have to hit them with in order to balance the equation.' I think what we have to do
collectively in British Columbia is ask ourselves, `Do we still want forest companies
and do we still want mills?' Because we're just charging them too much taxes
locally.
These views remind us that this is not a time for finger pointing; rather, it is a time to work positively
and collaboratively towards a solution. Accordingly, I am writing to encourage you to seek the
Premier's leadership in support of interim relief and a long-term solution on municipal taxation.
If you support this approach to seek the Premier's leadership and participation in directing efforts
towards interim relief and a balanced long-term solution to this issue, I would ask you to:
• Use your leadership position in your community to encourage your local chamber of commerce
and your MLA to work positively and cooperatively to support a municipal tax system that works
better for individual taxpayers, job creation, industries and business, and community and
provincial economic growth; and,
• report your progress to the Premier.
I want to thank you in advance for any action you can take to enlist the Premier's leadership in
securing interim relief and a long-term solution on the municipal taxation issue. I would welcome
being copied on any correspondence you send on this matter.
Sincerely,
Richard Garneau, President and CEO
Catalyst Paper Corporation
WV UNof
SlRri'lsll
COLUMMA
{V LNICIPALIYIB
J�
Suite 60
MIZ1 Shellbridge Way
Richmond
British Columbia
Canada \10< 211V9
604.270.8226
Fax 604.270,9116
ubcmrvbcm.ca
FROM: UBCM Secretariat
DATE: December 9, 2009
RE: PROVINCE ANNOUNCES NEW MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
OFF ROAD VEHICLES (ORVs)
On November 10, 2009 the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts,
the Honourable Kevin Krueger announced that the Province was
implementing, over a two-year period, a new management framework
for dealing with ORVs. The new management framework will address
rider safety, environmental protection, vehicle registration with better
identification, and the ability to cross public roads in a more
convenient manner. Regulations will be brought into place to address
a number of issues.
Minister Krueger specifically noted UBCM in the news release as one
of a number of associations and organizations that have called for
regulation in this area. In fact, UBCM members have been requesting
that the Province implement some form of licencing and registration of
ATV / ORVs since 1993. Subsequent resolutions were endorsed again
in 1996, 1999, 2002 and 2005.
Under the proposed new framework, all ORV riders using Crown land
will require one-time registration with a licence plate for their
machines, in addition to wearing helmets and using lights at night.
Age -appropriate safety measures and adult supervision will be
required for young riders.
All ORVs will require registration and licensing at time of sale and re-
sale. New standards for mufflers will minimize the noise impact on
wildlife and spark arrestors will reduce the risk of forest fires.
Additional measures to connect communities and trail networks will
mean licensed ORV riders will be able to cross public roads more
conveniently with an annual vehicle licence and basic insurance.
Minister Krueger sent a letter to the UBCM President on November
10`' with specific details of the announcement. Within the letter the
Minister indicated: "We will continue to work with UBCM as we develop
ORV regulations and policy." At their recent November 27`" Executive
meeting, the Executive indicated its support for the announcement and
has sent a letter to the Minister conveying our thanks for addressing
this long-standing UBCM resolution request.
5.2
-2-
The President has also confirmed that UBCM would be interested in working with
the Minister to implement the new management framework.
At this point in time, UBCM would welcome any feedback or comments from the
membership on the proposed new framework for dealing with ORVs. If you have
comments please send them along to: Marie Crawford at: mcrawford@ubcm.ca.
For further details on the announcement (news release and related backgrounder)
please go to:
www2.news.gov.bc.ca / news_releases_2009-2013 / 2009TCA0012-000602.htm
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
910/40/ORV reg.
In, 19919MB
metro va ncouver
........... . ................. ......... .......... ....
4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org
DEC 11 2009
Ms. Ceri Mario
Manager of Legislative Services
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Dear Ms. Mario:
Tel. 604 432-6215
0 E C r 5 200R
.! 1 Y0A
Office-v''f the Chair
F�o(604 451-6614
File: PE-03-01-TSR
OtherC
Action:_L� �-
Re: Request for resolution in council for Metro Vancouver Canadian Radio -Television
and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) submission
On November 27, 2009, the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors endorsed a Metro Vancouver
submission (Attachment 1) to the Canadian Radio -Television and Telecommunications
Commission's (CRTC) policy review and consultation of the community channel. Metro Vancouver
is asking municipalities for their endorsement by resolution of this submission. Council resolutions
would be included with Metro Vancouver's submission.
The submission to the CRTC must be in by February 1, 2010, so we are asking you to please
forward your resolution to Metro Vancouver no later than January 28, 2010.
The consultation will consider if the community channel is operating as laid out in the policy
framework of 2002 and if not, what changes are necessary.
The heart of the issue is who should operate the community channel and how should it be funded.
Should the community channel be operated by citizens and citizen groups as mandated under
current CRTC policy or by cable operators? The CRTC policy expects cable operators to provide
access to citizens and offer training to create community programming. Currently, the cable levy
money in Metro Vancouver amounts to about five million dollars annually. This money is used by
Shaw who has re -branded the community channel for their own purposes and is cutting the
community out of the process of producing community programs.
The Board of Directors of Metro Vancouver encourages municipalities to support the community
control of the community channel by:
a) returning to Metro Vancouver a Resolution -in -Council endorsing Metro Vancouver's
submission; and
b) faxing a letter directly from your municipality supporting the community control of the
community channel to the CRTC at fax 819-994-0218 or by using the CRTC website.
(Refer to backgrounder for instructions)
A draft resolution and letter to the CRTC are attached.
2296901 5.3
Request for resolution in council for Metro Vancouver Canadian Radio -Television and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC) submission
Chair Lois E. Jackson to Metro Vancouver Member Municipality Clerks
Page 2 of 2
Please return municipal resolutions supporting the submission to Marianne Pengelly by email
(marianne.oengelly@metrovancouver.org) or fax (604-436-6399). If you have any questions or
require additional information, Ms. Pengelly can be reached at 604-451-6027.
Lois E. Jackson
Chair, Metro Vancouver Board
LEJ/hs/mp
Attachments:
1. Metro Vancouver submission to the CRTC.(2294971)
2. Draft Resolution (2294126)
3. Draft letter to the CRTC (2296359)
4. Backgrounder (2294984)
S. Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-661 (2296360)
2296901
Attachment 1
Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-661
REVIEW OF COMMUNITY TELEVISION POLICY FRAMEWORK
SUBMISSION
ON BEHALF OF METRO VANCOUVER
January 299 2010
[.. SUMMARY
1. Metro Vancouver files this submission in response to Public Hearing Notice 2009-661,
Review of community television policy framework (the "Public Hearing Notice").
2. In 2007, Metro Vancouver made a submission to the Canadian Radio -Television and
telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ("the Commission") outlining why the
community channel needs to remain part of basic service. Its removal would have had a
detrimental impact on the way Metro Vancouver communicates with its citizens and
would limit political discourse.
3. In 2010, Metro Vancouver maintains the position that the community channel as part of
the basic tier plays a key role for municipal and regional government to communicate
with residents. Metro submits that there are no other options to a channel easily found
on the TV (not buried in the plethora of channels) and that the space allocated for the
community channel is a cornerstone for the local political discourse.
4. Metro Vancouver affirms the principles creating the community channel:
- The community channel is not just a cornerstone of the Canadian broadcasting
system; the community channel adds to the fabric of a democratic society.
- The principles laid out in the Broadcast Act and subsequent policies which envision a
community channel that involves the community in the community channel
production with citizen participation supported by training programs, and community
advisory boards that encourages a balance of different views and reflects the cross-
cultural expression of the community, and provides opportunities for feedback from
viewers, remain as the foundation of the community channel.'
2002 community Television framework
Metro Vancouver Submission to CRTC Review Of Community Television Policy Framework,
February 2010 2294971
Actions
5. Metro Vancouver recommends that to help meet the objectives of the community
channel, the Commission consider the following actions to strengthen the community
channel:
a) Conduct community dialogues to determine barriers and re -envision the community
channel to meet community goals;
b) Strengthen the community channel grassroots network, through promotion and
advocacy other than relying on the Broadcast Distribution Undertakings (BDUs);
c) Create community advisory boards to oversee that community channel with
members selected from a wide range of community interests to establish guidelines,
measurable deliverables and a feedback and review process;
d) Continue and increase coverage of local government council and public meetings on
the community channel;
e) In the Lower Mainland, re -brand the channel as a Community Channel and solicit
citizen participation;
f) Consider establishing community media centres, as proposed by Canadian
Association of Community TV Users and Stations (CACTUS), which might assist
citizens regain access to cover community events and train residents. The closure of
the production studios around the region has reduced the opportunities for residents
of the municipalities to develop media skills and work with other members of the
community to tell their stories.
6. Metro Vancouver requests the opportunity to send a representative to the public hearing
to address the importance of the community channel to local government.
H. INTRODUCTION
7. Metro Vancouver is a political body and corporate entity operating under provincial
legislation as a 'regional district' and 'greater boards' that delivers regional services,
planning and political leadership on behalf of 24 local authorities. Metro Vancouver has
a population of 2.3 million and comprises of 22 municipalities, one electoral area, and
one treaty First Nation.
Metro Vancouver Submission to CRTC Review Of Community Television Policy Framework,
February 2010 2294971
8, Local and regional government rely on the community channel to express the goals and
aspirations its citizens. The community channel is a vital conduit to inform and educate
residents about the matters affecting the region and to engage citizens in solutions to
create and maintain a sustainable society.
119E ISSUES
9. In response to the questions posed by in the CRTC's review of the community channel
policy framework, Metro Vancouver's submission addresses the following two issues:
- whether or not the current form of the community channel remains as a
foundation of democratic discourse and avenue for citizen expression and
participation in line with the principles laid out in the Broadcasting Act and
subsequent CRTC policies;
-- whether or not, in an evolving communications environment with new media, the
community channel as operated by cable licensees continues to fulfill the
mandate laid out in the policy framework.
IV. FACTS AND ARGUMENTS
10. Facts
11. The following facts are provided to assist the Commission in understanding the
importance of the community channel to local and regional governments.
12. In the 197O's when cable operators provided community studios — a dozen of them
across the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, citizens had the opportunity to learn the
skills for producing programming, the opportunity to create stories about their community
from many perspectives, and a place and common purpose for building community.
13. In 1998 the GVRD began using television programming as a way to interact with the
community. There was a lack of in-depth television programming that dealt with the
issues citizens and decision makers of the Lower Mainland were grappling with. Rogers'
Metro Vancouver Submission to CRTC Review Of Community Television Policy Framework,
February 2010 2294971
cable provided equipment and volunteers for Greater. Vancouver and People and
Policies Town Hall.
14. Community stations closed in both 2002 and 2004, as the community channel cable
provider switched from Rogers' to Shaw Cablesystems G.P. ("Shaw"). As a result,
volunteers who had previously provided programming for the community channel were
reduced in number and the staff of the cable operator took over producing the main
programming. The community studios were closed and all community channel
operations were moved to the Shaw headquarters.
15. In 2004, the GVRD launched its own show entitled The Liveable Region (which later
became The Sustainable Region in 2005). The Sustainable Region has won many
awards, competing against other government programming (PEG) in the United States.2
While the show's title suggests a regional focus, the show includes stories from each of
the Lower Mainland's 22 municipalities as well as a unified vision of the region. The
Sustainable Region is a way Metro Vancouver can reflect the larger vision and the
interconnectedness of the municipalities to the residents.
16. Metro Vancouver also broadcasts shows based on community forums, and sustainability
dialogues. Metro Vancouver's interest in producing these shows is to ensure that
special meetings where the community discuss regional issues are broadcast and in a
regular time slot. Citizens have provided positive feedback and, through the use of the
community channel, enlarged the discussion and provided a way for yet more citizens to
become involved in the consultation process. These productions are local and regional
governments' commitment to the governance of the region.
17. Metro Vancouver fully supports the overall objectives of the community TV framework:
- to ensure the creation and exhibition of more locally -produced, locally -reflective
community programming, and
- to foster a greater diversity of voices and alternative choices by facilitating the
entrance of new participants at the local level.3
2 The community channel in the United States covers public, educational and government programming.
3 CRTC 2002 community television framework
Metro Vancouver Submission to CRTC Review Of Community Television Policy Framework,
February 2010 2294971
Arguments
Examples from Metro Vancouver that illustrate ways an independent producer is
marginalized.
18. The disappearing community channel. The community channel as a vehicle for
citizen access and self-expression in the Lower Mainland has gradually disappeared.
Just as the community stations disappeared in 2004, the community channel identity
disappeared. What has appeared in its place is "Shaw TV".
"We are Local TV" proclaims a Shaw newspaper ad., part of its ongoing branding
campaign.4 This branding creates the impression of a "Shaw" channel and that it is Shaw
that represents "your" community. Nothing on the Shaw website indicates anything about
this being the community channel. Currently, the cable levy money in Greater Vancouver
amounts to about five million dollars annually. This money is used by Shaw who has re -
branded the community channel for their own purposes and is cutting the community out
of the process of producing community programs. The cable operator has effectively made
the channel its own.
19. Lack of consultation. Metro Vancouver was notified December 2008, that the time slot
for The Sustainable Region was changing on February 2, 2009. There was no
consultation before the decision and no discussion after. Metro Vancouver was
informed it was because other independent producers needed the time so it was
surprising to see the time slot we had negotiated for and held for three years. preempted
by one of Shaw's programs.'
20. BDU keeps the best for themselves. Metro was given a list of ten time slots that The
Sustainable Region would air in — eight of the ten were in the middle of the night and the
two "prime time" spots were both on the same day. The cable operator has the power
and discretion to program what best suits their needs, keeping the most desirable time
for themselves and least desirable time for the community producers. There is no
avenue to address this issue.6
21. Are volunteer training and requests to cover community events adequately
addressed? The Sustainable Region has been approached by people asking to
° Vancouver Sun, November 14, 2009
5 Email correspondence with Shaw
6 Email correspondence with Shaw
Metro Vancouver Submission to CRTC Review Of Community Television Policy Framework,
February 2010 2294971
volunteer. Metro Vancouver has received repeated requests from community groups to
cover their events. These enquiries are referred back to Shaw. Since The Sustainable
Region is only a monthly half-hour show, with two weekly day -time time slots it raises
concerns as to whether the cable broadcaster is reaching out to the community enough.'
22. Who will fight for the commons? The airwaves designated for the community- "a
commons"- have undergone the fate of other commons- usurped by powerful private
interests. A community advisory board might have been an advocate but instituting a
board has met with resistance from Shaw for years.
23. BDU's may create well -produced local programming, creating the impression, of a
community channel. But the community they present is "screened" through the lens of
the private company. More importantly, the community is cut out of the process of
working together to create community programming from the grassroots level.
24. Is it realistic to expect that the cable operator who controls the means of producing
programming and distributing it, as laid out by the CRTC in the 2002 community TV
framework, to-
... give the community the widest opportunity for self-expression by actively
encouraging groups and individuals to present program ideas, produce their own
programs with or without the help of the licensee's staff, and submit videotapes
and films produced by them for broadcast by the licensee."
There is an inherent imbalance of power between the BDU and community groups and no
way to redress it in the current framework.
25. Metro. Vancouver echoes the concerns raised community groups and reported by David
Keeble in his study for the CRTC commissioned study: The Impact of New Technology
on Community Television, 2008
... Several community groups noted that the community channel originated
as a tool not simply to reflect community, but, through the process of
creation, to develop stronger. community ties, self-awareness and cohesion.
This objective supports the objective of alternative choices and new
' Email volunteer and community requests
Metro Vancouver Submission to CRTC Review Of Community Television Policy Framework,
February 2010 2294971
participants, and also corresponds closely with the wording of the Act, in
the sense that national identity may be built on local identities.
26. The community coming together to produce material for the community channel is as
important as the product. In sustainability parlance, which requires consideration of
economic, environmental and social factors, the community channel creates a social
space for community and capacity building. 8
27. The community channel plays a critical role in promoting sustainability
throughout the region. The vision of Metro Vancouver is to create a sustainable region
now and in the future. This vision cannot be realized if the residents of the region are
not provided with information about local communities and ideas and innovations for
creating a better future and if they are not engaged in the community and in political
dialogue. The community channel is a critical component for making Metro Vancouver's
visions a reality.
28. Metro Vancouver's research demonstrates the dominance of television as a means for
the public to obtain information. For example, 95% of residents get their information
through television. Thus, the. community channel plays a pivotal role in helping local
governments communicate with their residents.
29. The study conducted for the CRTC by David Keeble confirms this view.
... the community channel is likely to achieve better audiences within the more
limited offering of cable than it could in the infinite offering of the Internet.
Therefore, Internet distribution is not, seen as a replacement for BDU distribution.
a In the 2002 community TV framework, the Commission noted that access by citizens to the community channel
has always been a cornerstone of the Commission's policy. To underscore this principle, the Commission quoted
Public Notice 1991-59, in which it stated: "The factor that most distinguishes the content of community
programming from conventional television services is the ability of community ro rammin to urn the passive
viewer of television into an active ngrticinant. From this participation flows programming of a nature that is as
varied as the imagination and skills of the participants."
Metro Vancouver Submission to CRTC Review Of Community Television Policy Framework,
February 2010 2294971
... The Internet is not seen as a replacement for the community channel.... does not
attract an audience or allow the programming to attract a community's focus in the same
way that television does. It is seen as a useful complement.'
W. CONCLUSIONS
30. The community channel plays two vital roles: maintaining public discourse at the
local level, and capacity building in the community. It serves as a focus for citizens
to become engaged in developing the skills to tell their stories in a 21st century mode. It
is crucial for the community channel to carry local, community -based programming that
is not driven by the rationale of high ratings, selling products and generating revenue.
The community channel must act as an outlet for the stories and expressions that would
otherwise not find a home on television.
31. The community channel is an important tool used to foster democratic discourse.
As society becomes more complex, government has to work harder to engage citizens in
solving challenges and decision -making. Metro Vancouver views the opportunity to
review the purpose of the community channel as a chance to find ways to bring citizens
back into the discussions about how we govern ourselves. A key aspect of re -
involvement is the development of citizen media skills. This is important as journalists
become increasingly scarce as the traditional news sources such as mass newspapers
and traditional television struggle to reinvent themselves.
32. Communities must develop local solutions. Metro Vancouver believes that the role
of the community channel in the community dialogue is now more important than ever.
Residents of the Metro Vancouver region, like Canadians across the country, are now
being challenged like never before to contribute to the sustainable development of the
planet. The slogan `Think Globally, Act Locally" resonates in this regard. Metro
Vancouver submits that the community channel can play an important role in this
growing discourse by educating and informing residents about sustainability and by
endeavouring to change the behaviour of Metro Vancouver residents.
9 The Impact of New Technology on Community Television, David Keeble, 2008
Metro Vancouver Submission to CRTC Review Of Community Television Policy Framework,
February 2010 2294971
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
Actions
Metro Vancouver recommends that to help meet the objectives of the community channel, the
Commission consider the following actions to strengthen the community channel:
a) Conduct community dialogues to determine barriers and re -envision the community
channel to meet community goals;
b) Strengthen the community channel grassroots network, through promotion and
advocacy other than relying on the BDUs;
c) Create community advisory boards to oversee that community channel with members
selected from a wide range of community interests to establish guidelines, measurable
deliverables and a feedback and review process;
d) Continue and increase coverage of local government council and public meetings on the
community channel;
e) In the Lower Mainland, remove the Shaw TV brand from the community channel and the
re -branding of the channel as a Community Channel and solicit citizen participation;
f) Consider establishing community media centres, as proposed by Canadian Association
of Community TV Users and Stations (CACTUS) which might assist citizens regain
access to cover community events and train residents. The closure of the production
studios around the region has reduced the opportunities for residents of the
municipalities to develop media skills and work with other members of the community to
tell their stories.
VI. FURTHER COMMUNICATION
Please direct all communications and inquiries regarding this submission to:
Marianne Pengelly
Executive Producer, The Sustainable Region TV
Metro Vancouver
4330 Kingsway,
Vancouver, B.C. V51-1 4138
T: (604) 451-6027
F: (604).432-6399
Email: Marianne.Pengelly@metrovancouver.org
Metro Vancouver Submission to CRTC Review Of Community Television Policy Framework,
February 2010 2294971
VII. APPENDICES
Footnotes
5. Correspondence with Shaw — no consultation on changing our
time slot, pre-empted by Shaw Program "The Express"
From: Karen Kilba
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:39 AM
To: Marianne Pengelly
Cc: Carlson, Dana; Ava Lee -Chin
Subject: (Metro Vancouver) The Sustainable Region >>> Shaw TV schedule adjustment - effective
Monday, February 2, 2009
TO: (Metro Vancouver) The Sustainable Region
Attn: Marianne Pengelly
Copy: Dana Carlson
Marianne ... this is to provide advance notification of the new Shaw TV schedule which will be effective
the week beginning Monday, February 2, 2009.
The most recent Shaw TV schedule was implemented in October of 2006. Since that time we have
welcomed additional access partners to our regular lineup and we have heard from a number of you
regarding the challenges you face with schedule adjustments related to live special event programming
on Shaw TV.
In response, we have reviewed our current programming schedule with the intent to provide a schedule
which will alleviate the need for prime time pre-emptions as much as possible, and provide a variety of
airing times within the overall schedule for all of our access partners. We also want to ensure adequate
time for you to review production and promotional needs in advance of the implementation of the new
schedule.
We have outlined the weekly (Metro Vancouver) The Sustainable Region timeslots below with the
assumption that you would wish to retain a Wednesday primetime timeslot as the original airing, but
this is adjustable as you prefer.
"Note of the 10 time slots: 8 are in the middle of the night, 1 daytime and one evening
(Metro Vancouver) The Sustainable Region schedule effective beginning the week of Monday,
February 2, 2009
original airing
Wednesdays @ 10:30-11 pm (30min)
rebroadcasts
Thursdays @ 4-4:30am (30min)
Fridays @ 12:30-1am (30min) —after midnight
Saturdays @ 1-1:30am (30min)
Saturdays @ 6-6:30am (30min)
Mondays @ 2-2:30am (30min)
Tuesdays @ 1-1:30am (30min)
Wednesdays @ 12-12:30am (30min) —Tuesday midnight
Wednesdays @ 3-3:30am (30min)
Wednesdays @ 2:30-3pm (30min)
delivery deadline on or before 12noon Monday prior to original airing
Metro Vancouver Submission to CRTC Review Of Community Television Policy Framework,
February 2010 2294971
If you wish specific show titles and/or brief program description included with the various TV listings and
promotional services, please confirm details on or before 12noon on Monday, January 5, 2009.
Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns ... K.
Karen Kilba, Shaw TV, Shaw Communications Inc.
Shaw Tower, 900 — 1067 West Cordova Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6C 3T5 CANADA
email: karen.kilba@sirb.ca ph: 604.629.3110 FAX: 604.629.4231 www.shawtv.com
ACCOUNTABLE BALANCE CUSTOMER FOCUSED INTEGRITY LOYALTY POSITIVE, CAN DO ATTITUDE TEAM
PLAYER
6. From: Karen Kilba [mailto:karen.kilba@sjrb.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 1:11 PM
To: Marianne Pengelly
Cc: Carlson, Dana; Ava Lee -Chin
Subject: reconfirmation ... (Metro Vancouver) The Sustainable Region >>> Shaw TV schedule
adjustment - effective Monday, February 2, 2009
TO: (Metro Vancouver) The Sustainable Region
Attn: Marianne Pengelly
Copy: Dana Carlson
Marianne ... further to our earlier notification regarding the new schedule, we have heard from a number
of access partners, and have completed an additional review.
Our intent with the February 2 schedule remains to provide a schedule which will alleviate the need for
prime time pre-emptions as much as possible for our access partners, and to provide a variety of airing
times within the overall schedule.
To ensure adequate time for production and promotional needs in advance of the implementation of the
new schedule effective the week beginning Monday, February 2, 2009, we are reconfirming the details of
the airtimes as provided in our correspondence below.
We look forward to continuing to partner with you in 2009, and wish you a wonderful holiday season ...
K.
P.S. please note that the Wednesday primetime- timeslot for The Sustainable Region is 10:30-11 pm;
please also note that The Sustainable Region retains a daytime timeslot of Wednesdays @ 2:30-3pm
To Karen Kilba
From: Marianne Pengelly
January 6, 2009
Karen:
I am disappointed to hear that we have been moved to the 10:30 timeslot, which is certainly less
desirable than the top of the hour. We have built our audience around this timeslot over the past couple
of years and all our promotional materials. So it is an expensive change for us. Could we meet to
discuss?
Marianne Pengelly, Executive Producer
The Sustainable Region TV
Metro Vancouver Submission to CRTC Review Of Community Television Policy Framework,
February 2010 2294971
A sample of Requests to Metro Vancouver to volunteer or to tape community
events
7e To: <sustanibleregion@metrovancouvereorg>
Subjects Volunteer
Hello, 2 saw your show on shaw tv and I was wondering if there happen to be
any volunteer opprutunitiesa Thanks for your time, Camden
7. From: Sunny McKechnie [mailto:sunny.mckechnie@karyo-edelman.com]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:59 AM
To: SustainableRegion
Subject: Release: Vancouver residents Speak Up! about Granville Island's future - early results are in
It would be great if you could let your viewers know that the Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation is asking
Greater Vancouver residents to once again speak up and help set the priorities for Granville Island's future.
The second of three open houses will take place from noon until 5 p.m. on Saturday, September 29, 2007 at the
Granville Island Picnic Pavilion (behind the Kid's Market). It's an opportunity for everyone to learn more about what
the future holds for the Island and add their voice to the mix.
Early feedback results clearly show where Vancouver's priorities are. Highlights of the Speak Up! feedback results
so far:
Close to three in four people want Granville Island to take a leadership role in sustainability, even if the return on
investment takes time.
Four in five people are in favour of a streetcar service linking Granville Island with downtown and SkytTrain
connections at Main Street and the new Canada Line SkyTrain station.
Many people want to see changes in traffic patterns on the Island that will reduce energy use and emissions.
Two in three people want to see a shuttle bus that links the Public Market to transit stops near the Island.
Parking is still a controversial issue, with a majority (42 per cent) wanting the current amount of parking to stay the
same, but a sizeable number (31 per cent) who feel there should be less parking and 14 per cent of respondents who
want more.
Details on the third open house, as well as a series of workshops, can be found online at www.speak-up.ca.
Feedback can also be submitted using the online feedback form on the website.
Please see the release below and let me know if you would like to schedule an interview with Granville Island Project
Manager Norm Connolly.
Cheers,
Sunny McKechnie
Karyo Edelman
2nd FI. 1035 Cambie Street
Vancouver, BC V66 51-7
604 623 3007
Metro Vancouver Submission to CRTC Review Of Community Television Policy Framework,
February 2010 2294971
-----Original Message -----
From: Mayor,Austen [PYR] [ma ilto:Austen. Mayor@ec.gc.ca]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:19 AM
To: sarah.howarth@metrovancouver.org
Cc: Delores Rose; David McCall
Subject: National Science and Technology Week - Lecture Series in Vancouver
Hello Sarah,
As discussed on the phone, I am coordinating a Lecture Series, featuring various professors,
experts and scientists from a handful of Government of Canada Departments. I am
wondering if my Lecture Series fits with the Metro Vancouver Sustainable Region
programming mandate, so I will leave it to you and your colleagues to figure out if there is
a fit.
I have done some outreach to Shaw Communications (that I believe is your program
partner) to see if they can film tomorrow's event (David and Delores CC'ed here). Some
topics include Climate Change, Environment Canada's new weather website for the 2010
Olympics, Fuel Cell technology, and earthquakes in BC. A more detailed outline is below.
Thanks Sarah, and let me know what the Sustainable Regions Program decisions are.
Warm regards,
Austen Mayor
A/Communications Advisor
Regional Intranet Content Coordinator
Environment Canada, Pacific & Yukon Region
201-401 Bu rra rd Street
Vancouver, BC ( V6C 3S5
Office: 604-664-9055
Mobile: 604-209-6564
Fax: 604-713-9517
From: Karen Kilba [mailto: Karen. Kilba@sjrb.ca]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 12:12 PM
To: Mayor,Austen [PYR]
Cc: Marianne Pengelly
Subject: query re: (Metro Vancouver) The Sustainable Region
TO:
Austen Mayor
A/Communications Advisor
Regional Intranet Content Coordinator
Environment Canada, Pacific & Yukon Region
201-401 Burrard Street
Vancouver, BC I V6C 3S5
Office: 604-664-9055
Mobile: 604-209-6564
Fax: 604-713-9517
Metro Vancouver Submission to CRTC Review Of Community Television Policy Framework,
February 2010 2294971
Austen ... thank you for your interest in Shaw TV. Delores passed your copied note to us for
follow up. Just wanted to clarify that the show The Sustainable Region is produced by the
folks @ Metro Vancouver for airing on Shaw TV, i.e. we provide airtime for the show but we
are not involved in the production. We are copying Marianne Pengelly on this note as she is
the producer of The Sustainable Region. Hope this helps and let us know if we can be of
further assistance ... K.
Karen Kilba, Shaw TV, Shaw Communications Inc.
Shaw Tower, 900 — 1067 West Cordova Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6C 3T5 CANADA
email: karen.kilba@sirb.ca ph: 604.629.3110 FAX: 604.629.4231 www.shawtv.com
ACCOUNTABLE BALANCE CUSTOMER FOCUSED INTEGRITY LOYALTY POSITIVE, CAN DO ATTITUDE TEAM PLAYER
Aplease consider the environment before printing this e-mail
Good afternoon Karen,
I sent the message to the Sustainable Region program in case they see a "content fit" (i.e.
education aspect of National Science and Technology Week, along with the Fuel Cell speaker
from National Research Council).
I sent out a couple of messages to Shaw Communications in the hopes that one of your film
crews will be available to film the 4 hour Lecture Series tomorrow.
Please let me know if a Shaw filmcrew will be available tomorrow.
Thanks again Karen!
Este-n mxx ar-
A/Communications Advisor
Regional Intranet Content Coordinator
Environment Canada, Pacific & Yukon Region
201-401 Burrard Street
Vancouver, BC I V6C 3S5
Office: 604-664-9055
Fax: 604-713-9517
Metro Vancouver Submission to CRTC Review Of Community Television Policy Framework,
February 2010 2294971
SCHEDULE -A
Metro Vancouver Board of Directors, Municipalities and Electoral Areas
The number of directors appointed to the Board depends on the population of the Municipality,
Electoral Area, or First Nation. As well, directors are allowed one vote for every 20,000 people
in their Municipality, Electoral Area, or First Nation, up to a total of five votes. The votes
allocated to each director are noted below for each of the three boards.
Municipality
Director
Municipality
Director
Abbotsford *
Mayor George Peary
Pitt Meadows
Mayor Don MacLean
Abbotsford *
Councillor Moe Gill
Port Coquitlam
Mayor Greg Moore
Anmore
Mayor Hal Weinberg
Port Moody
Mayor Joe Trasolini
Belcarra
Mayor Ralph Drew
Richmond
Mayor Malcolm Brodie
Bowen Island
Councillor Peter Frinton
Richmond
Councillor Harold Steves
Burnaby
Mayor Derek Corrigan
Surrey
Councillor Linda Hepner
Burnaby
Councillor Colleen Jordan
Surrey
Councillor Marvin Hunt
Burnaby
Councillor Sav Dhaliwal
Surrey
Councillor Linda Hepner
Coquitlam
Mayor Richard Stewart
Surrey
Mayor Dianne Watts
Coquitlam
Councillor Mae Reid
Surrey
Councillor Judy
Villeneuve
Delta
Mayor Lois Jackson
Tsawwassen
Chief Kim Baird
Electoral Area "A"
Director Maria Harris
Vancouver
Mayor Gregor Robertson
Langley City
Councillor Gayle Martin
Vancouver
Councillor George Chow
Langley Township
Mayor Rick Green
Vancouver
Councillor Heather Deal
Lions Bay
Mayor Brenda Broughton
Vancouver
Councillor Raymond
Louie
Maple Ridge
Councillor Judy Dueck
Vancouver
Councillor Andrea Reimer
New Westminster
Mayor Wayne Wright
Vancouver
Councillor Tim Stevenson
North Vancouver City
Mayor Darrell Mussatto
West Vancouver
Mayor Pamela Goldsmith -
Jones
North Vancouver
Mayor Richard Walton
White Rock
Mayor Catherine
District
Ferguson
Metro Vancouver Submission
to CRTC Review Of Community
Television Policy Framework,
February 2010
2294971
'ttaehment 2
DRAFT RESOLUTION
Be it resolved that:
municipal council endorses the submission by Metro Vancouver to
the CRTC on the community channel hearing.
Metro Vancouver recommends the following to the Canadian Radio -Television
Telecommunications Commission:
THAT WHEREAS, the community channel is of vital importance to local government for
communicating with residents;
AND WHEREAS, the community channel fosters public discourse and helps builds a civil
society;
AND WHEREAS, engaging citizens is a part of forming a sustainable community;
AND WHEREAS, the community channel is not just a cornerstone of in the Canadian
broadcasting system; the community channel adds to the fabric of a democratic society;
and
AND WHEREAS, the principles. laid -out in the Broadcast Act and subsequent policies
which envision a community channel that involves the community in the community
channel production with citizen:participation supported by training programs, and
community advisory boards that encourages a balance of different views and reflects the
cross-cultural expression of the community, and provides opportunities for feedback from
viewers, should. continue to stand as the foundation of the community channel;
THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of British Columbia
endorse Metro Vancouver's submission to the Canadian Radio -Television and
Telecommunications Commission's (CRTC's) public hearing regarding the community channel.
Dated: , 2009.
2294126
Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein, Chairman
Canadian Radio -television and
Telecommunications Commission
1 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, QC K1A ON2
January 29, 2010
Dear Mr. von Finckenstein:
...
Re: Broadcasting Notice of Consultation, CRToC 2009-661, Review of community
television policy framework
Please find attached
the Consultation 2009-661.
[insert name of municipality] submission to
If the municipality wishes to appear at the`hearing include the following in both the submission
and letter
......... .
Please note the request in the attached document;
....
[insert name of municipality] .:requests the opportunity to appear before the commission via
..... .
video conference;;; to. address the importance of the community channel for local governance."
Yours truly,
Attachment:
Background information on the history and role of
the community channel and the cable industry
The Canadian Broadcasting Act defines three tiers in the broadcasting system:
® public (CBC and provincial channels)
® private (specialty channels like Discovery and over -the -air channels like CTV)
® community (available on local basic cable tier)
The CRTC policy framework for community -based media" (2002), described its
objectives:
to ensure the creation and exhibition of more locally -produced, locally -reflective
community programming.
® to foster a greater diversity of voices and alternative choices by facilitating the
entrance of new participants at the local level.
The community channel is mandated as the platform that the public can use to express
itself, learn about television production, and acquire media literacy skills.
The community channel broadcasts to groups not served by the mainstream (such as
ethnic minorities, sexual or political minorities.)
Government required cable operators to spend 10% of gross revenues on a local
platform for community expression and as compensation for the use of public rights of
way to lay cable. The 10% of gross revenues has been reduced to 2% and carrying
community channels has become optional.
Until about 1997, Canadians could go to their local cable operator, take free workshops,
borrow equipment, and produce their own TV shows.
Cable companies had a monopoly when they started out and now they experience
competition from satellite providers and telephone companies.
To maintain a competitive advantage, cable operators closed community offices, use
their own staff to produce community programming and developed formats that fill up
most of a local channel's schedule reducing airtime available for community groups.
If cable operators operate a community channel they get to kept the revenues that would
otherwise have to go to the Canadian Television fund. In the Lower Mainland that
amounts to about $5 million dollars annually.
One might argue that times have changed and perhaps with the internet we don't need
the community channel. However:
- the majority of citizens still get their news from TV;
- the community channel provides one point focus on the community;
- citizens facing time constraints and will choose "need -to -know" local information
over "nice -to -know" regional or national, or world information;
- local content is disappearing as traditional TV and other broadcasters experience
challenges and make their news more regional in nature;
- High-speed internet not as widespread a cable; and the Internet offers a
fragmented view point
How to Participate in the CRTC Hearings:
The public notice of consultation for the community sector review is posted at:
htt�://www.crtc.qc.ca/en,q/archive/2009/2009-661.htm
The Commission asks 32 questions. You do not have to reply to any specific question.
The terminology can be confusing if you are intervening for the first time.
You can remit your comments:
® Using the CRTC web site. Scroll to the bottom of 2009-661. Click: Broadcasting
interventions/comments form.
You can either type your comments into a form or click "Send", or you can upload
attachments.
® By mail to CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario K1A ON2.
® By fax at 819-994-0218.
In all three cases, you must identify yourself, identify the hearing (2009-661), and say
whether you want to appear in person. You can appear at any CRTC office in
Vancouver by videoconference, on April 26, 2010.
It is worth while appearing. The six Commissioners who will rule on these issues often
do not read all the written comments. It's an opportunity to share your experiences of
the value of community TV with them directly.
`Y.1:L1'i*21!
UNTIV, MCI
Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CR°TC
111
Ottawa, 22 October 2009
Notice of hearing
26 April 2010
National Capital Region
Review of community television policy framework
Deadline for submission of interventions/comments: 1 February 2010
Broadcasting interventions comments form
The Commission hereby initiates a public proceeding to review its policies for community
television.
As part of this proceeding, the Commission will hold a hearing commencing on 26 April
2010 at 9:00 a.m. at the Conference Centre, Phase Ilf, .140 Promenade du
Portage, Gatineau, Quebec.
In this document, the Commission summarizes its regulatory frameworks for community
television and sets out various questions for parties to address in their comments. The
questions have been numbered and the Commission requests that parties identify the
questions to which they are responding in their submissions. While the Commission has
identified a number of issues and a broad scope for this review, parties may raise other
issues and concerns.
The notice also sets out the procedures for filing comments. The Commission encourages
interested parties to monitor the public examination file and the Commission's website for
additional information that they may find useful when preparing their comments.
Although the hearing will be held in the National Capital Region, parties may participate
from the Commission's regional offices via videoconferencing. Parties interested in doing
so are asked to indicate the regional office where they wish to appear at the time they
file their comments. A list of the Commission's regional offices is included in this notice.
Background
1. In 2001, the Commission conducted a major review of its community -based
media policies. The objectives of that review were detailed in Public Notice 2001-
19, The Commission was seeking to revise its policies in conjunction with the
development of both a new licensing framework for low -power community -based
television undertakings in urban areas and smaller communities and an integrated
policy approach to community -oriented programming undertakings.
2. Based on comments received during that review, the Commission formulated a
proposed community -based policy framework, which it issued for comment in
Public Notice 2001-129. _
3. The end -result of that process was the integrated policy framework for
community -based media set out in Broadcasting Public Notice 2002-61 (the 2002.
community TV framework). This framework included a statement replacing
Broadcasting Public Notice 1991-59.
4. Section 3(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act (the Act) establishes "community"
alongside "public" and "private" as one of the three elements of the Canadian
broadcasting system. Section 3(1)(e) states that "each element of the Canadian
broadcasting system shall contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation and
presentation of Canadian programming." Section 3(1)(i)(iii) states that the
2296360
programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should include
community programs.
5. The Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (the BDU Regulations) define
community programming as programming that is produced
(a) by the licensee in the licensed area or by members of the community served in the
licensed area;
(b) by the licensee in another licensed area or by the members of the community served
in that other licensed area and that is relevant to the community referred to in paragraph
(a);
(c) by another licensee in a licensed area or by the members of the community served in
that licensed area and that is relevant to the community referred to in paragraph (a); or
(d) by a person licensed to operate a network for the purpose of producing community
programming for distribution by the licensee on a community channel.
6. In light of the Act's objectives, the Commission announced the following overall
objectives for its 2002 community TV framework:
to ensure the creation and exhibition of more locally -produced, locally -reflective
community programming; and
to foster a greater diversity of voices and alternative choices by facilitating the
entrance of new participants at the local level.
7. In order to meet these objectives, the 2002 community TV framework introduced
quantified requirements for community channels operated by broadcasting
distribution undertakings (BDUs) and established two new classes of licences for
independently -operated community -based television services.
8. BDU-operated community channels are thus required to devote not less than 60%
of the programming aired during each broadcast week to the broadcast of local
community television programming, defined as programming that is reflective of
the community and that is produced by the licensee in the licensed area or by
members of the community from the licensed area. Programs produced in another
licensed area within the same municipality are also considered local community
television programming.
9. BDU-operated community channels are also required to devote at least 30 to 50%
of the programming aired during each broadcast week to the broadcast of access
programs, defined as programs produced by members of the community served
by the undertaking, either assisted or unassisted by the licensee.
10. Moreover, where there are one or more local not -for -profit community television
corporations (TV corporations) in a given licensed area, up to 20% of the access
programming aired during each broadcast week by BDU-operated community
channels must be made available for access programs from these TV
corporations. Where more than one TV corporation is in operation in a licensed
area, each corporation must be guaranteed a minimum of four hours of access
programs per broadcast week.
11. According to the Commission's Communications Monitoring Report 2009, BDUs
reported community channel programming expenditures in 2008 totalling
$116 million. These expenditures were directed to 139 community channels
2296360
authorized to broadcast in Canada. Of these, 91 were English -language and 48
were French -language channels.
12. As mentioned above, the 2002 community TV framework also sought to
encourage the provision of other forms of community programming in addition to
the BDU-operated community channel model through the establishment of new
classes of licence.
13. In situations where the BDU does not choose to provide a community channel or
does not operate its community channel in accordance with the provisions of
Commission policy, the 2002 community TV framework provided for a new class
of licence to operate a community programming undertaking. In such a case, a
BDU licensee must direct the entire amount of its contribution to Canadian
expression earmarked for a community channel to this independent community
programming undertaking and must also distribute it as part of the basic service.
A community programming undertaking is subject to the same programming
requirements as are BDU-operated community channels. Licensees of community
programming undertakings must be not -for -profit organizations, the structure of
which provides for membership; management, operation and programming
primarily by members of the community. One community programming
undertaking has been licensed since the 2002 community TV framework came
into effect.
14. In the framework, the Commission also created a new class of licence to operate
community -based television programming undertakings and established a
regulatory framework for their licensing. This regulatory framework includes two
subcategories: community -based low -power television undertakings and
community -based digital undertakings. These undertakings may be operated on a
not -for -profit or for -profit basis and must be distributed by BDUs on a digital
basis. The objective is to provide a high level of locally produced and locally
reflective programming that complements the programming provided by
conventional television and the BDU-operated community channel. Such services
should enrich the variety of local and community -based television programming
available to the public, as well as provide opportunities for new voices to
participate in the Canadian broadcasting system. Since the 2002 community TV
framework came into effect, three community -based low -power television
undertakings have been licensed.
15. In Broadcasting Public Notice 2008-4 (the Diversity of Voices Policy), the
Commission stated its intention to review its policies with respect to community -
based media. The Commission added that the objective of this review would be to
ensure that the Commission's regulatory policy supports the development of a
healthy community broadcasting sector.
16. In the Diversity of Voices Policy, the Commission made several observations
regarding the state of community -based television services. It noted that
although campus and community radio, in both official languages, is reasonably
widespread, community -based television operations do not yet occupy a
significant place in the system. Cable community channels remain an important
component of the system but, increasingly, they have a regional rather than a
local focus.
17. The Commission also observed that despite the declining cost of television
production equipment and the cost-effectiveness of new technologies for the
distribution of community programming, stable funding to allow for the production
of quality community programming remains a significant issue. These
2296360
observations led the Commission to announce its intention to review the 2002
community TV framework.
18. Accordingly, based on these above -noted observations, the Commission is now
undertaking a review of the following issues:
I. Objectives of the 2002 community TV framework
II. Access programming
III. Funding of community programming
IV. New technologies
V. Other matters
I. Objectives of the 2002 community TV framework
19. Given that the Commission generally reviews its policies within a five-year cycle,
the Commission seeks comments on general questions relating to the objectives
of the 2002 community TV framework, as well as questions specifically relating to
the different models of community television, i.e. the BDU-operated community
channels and the independently -operated community -based television services.
With respect to these different models, one of the intentions of the 2002
community TV framework was to introduce specific mechanisms, such as
quantified requirements and new classes of licence, in order to achieve the
framework's general objectives. In light of changes to the media environment
since 2002 as well as other factors, the Commission has set out below questions
concerning the achievement of the framework's objectives via these mechanisms.
The Commission considers that it is also appropriate at this time to reconsider
whether authorizing direct -to -home (DTH) satellite distribution undertakings to
operate community channels would contribute to the achievement of its objectives
for community television.
(a) General objectives
20. As noted in paragraph 6 above, ensuring the creation and exhibition of more local
community programming and fostering a greater diversity of voices and
alternative choices at the local level are objectives of the 2002 community TV
framework. The Commission seeks comment regarding the achievement of these
objectives given changes to the media environment since 2002.
Q. 1 Are the objectives of the existing policy framework being
met?
Q. 2 If the objectives are not being met, what needs to be changed
to help meet them?
Q. 3 Given significant changes to the media environment over the
last seven years, are there reasons to revise the objectives?
Q. 4 Is it necessary to make a clearer distinction between
community programming and the local programming provided by
conventional television broadcasters? What are the principal
distinctions?
2296360
(b) BDU-operated community channels
21. The 2002 community TV framework states that the role of the community channel
should be primarily of a public service nature, facilitating self-expression through
free and open access by members of the community.
22. According to the framework, the community channel should:
a engender a high level of citizen participation and community involvement in
community programming;
® actively promote citizen access to the community channel and provide and
promote the availability of related training programs;
provide feedback mechanisms, such as advisory boards, to encourage viewer
response to the range and types of programs aired;
seek out innovative ideas and alternative views;
provide a reasonable, balanced opportunity for the expression of differing
views on matters of public concern;
reflect the official languages, ethnic and Aboriginal composition of the
community;
provide coverage of local events; and
publicize the program schedule.
Q. 5 Are these roles and objectives still appropriate? Why or why not?
Q. 6 Are there reasons to revise the roles and objectives? If so, how?
(c) Independently -operated community -based television services
23. As noted in paragraphs 6 and 14 above, facilitating the entrance of new
participants at the local level and providing opportunities for new voices to
participate in the Canadian broadcasting system are objectives of the 2002
community TV framework. Since 2002, only four new community -based television
services have been licensed.
Q. 7 What are the reasons for this relatively modest take-up? Have conditions
changed since 2002 so that the need for local expression is being met through
other means?
Q. 8 Are changes to the policy necessary? If so, what changes? If not, why?
(d) Direct -to -home satellite services
24. In the 2002 community TV framework, the Commission denied DTH undertakings
the authorization to operate a community channel, stating that it did not consider
the concept of DTH community channels to be in keeping with its proposed
objectives to ensure more locally-* produced and locally -reflective community
programming. In Broadcasting Public Notice 2008-100, the Commission indicated
that it would reconsider the question of whether DTH undertakings should be
authorized to operate a community channel as part of its review of the 2002
community TV framework.
2296360
Q. 9 Have circumstances or other factors arisen that would warrant a change in
the Commission's existing position?
Q. 10 If the Commission were to authorize DTH undertakings to operate
community channels, what provisions would ensure that the objectives of the
community programming policy are being achieved?
Q. 11 Keeping in mind DTH capacity issues, are there alternative models to
delivering community programming (i.e., an omnibus or "community of
communities" channel) that the Commission should consider?
II. Access programming
25. In the 2002 community TV framework, the Commission noted that access by
citizens to the community channel has always been a cornerstone of the
Commission's policy. To underscore this principle, the Commission quoted Public
Notice 1991-59, in which it stated: "The factor that most distinguishes the content
of community programming from conventional television services is the ability of
community programming to turn the passive viewer of television into an active
participant. From this participation flows programming of a nature that is as
varied as the imagination and skills of the participants." As such, in its 2002
community TV framework, the Commission indicated the following:
The Commission expects licensees to give the community the widest opportunity for self-
expression by actively encouraging groups and individuals to present program ideas,
produce their own programs with or without the help of the licensee's staff, and submit
videotapes and films produced by them for broadcast by the licensee.
The Commission considers that providing and encouraging citizen access
remains one of the most important roles of the community channel.
Further, the Commission is of the view that most large cable systems will
have no difficulty in finding acceptable access programming. However, as
noted by several interveners,. the Commission recognizes that in smaller
markets the demand for access may not be high and that, even in those
markets where demand is high, citizens requesting access may not have
the ability to be active participants in program production. The
Commission believes that it is the responsibility of the cable operator to
ensure that the views of all groups are represented.
26. The BDU-operated community channels have quantified requirements, as well as
other obligations, to facilitate citizen access and to provide access programming.
Q. 12 Are these requirements and obligations being met?
Q. 13 Are they still appropriate? Why or why not?
Q. 14 Are there reasons to revise the existing requirements and obligations? if
so, how?
III. Funding of community programming
27. The Commission considers it appropriate to review the funding of all community
programming as part of this proceeding.
28. As set out in the BDU Regulations, BDU licensees are required to contribute 5% of
their gross annual revenues derived from broadcasting activities to the creation
and presentation of Canadian programming. BDUs may use up to 2% of the 5%
2296360
of their contribution to Canadian programming to fund the operation of a
community channel. Funding for a community channel may also come from
sponsorship revenue. BDU licensees, as well as the community programming
undertakings, are prohibited from broadcasting commercial advertising. However,
community -based television programming undertakings are self -funded through
local advertising, limited to a maximum of 12 minutes per hour.
(a) Advertising
29. In the CRTC-commissioned Review of the regulatory framework for broadcasting
services in Canada, dated 31 August 2007, the authors Laurence J.E. Dunbar and
Christian Leblanc raise questions regarding the Commission's restrictions on
advertising for both the BDU-operated and independently -operated community
television channels. They make the following assertions:
We question the assumptions that underlie the existing restrictions on
advertising on the cable -operated community channel. Advertising does
not necessarily imply any particular value system or approach to
programming and is not necessarily inconsistent with community access
programming - no matter how radical or experimental. Community -based
newspapers, for example, and many "radical" magazines - of all
persuasions and viewpoints - provide regular community news,
commentary and opportunities for expression, and are still supported to
varying degrees by advertising dollars. They manage to survive, and
sometimes prosper, while providing valuable community service and
reflecting diverse voices.
The restriction on the sale of regional and national advertising on
independently operated community channels is also questionable. In the
commercial radio and television sectors, the Commission limits the sale of
local advertising only to those stations that provide local programming.
There is no reverse prohibition on the sale of national advertising. Why
should there be such a restriction on community programming? Removal
of these restrictions would be consistent with our general theme of trying
to maximize revenue for the Canadian broadcasting system.
30. The authors recommend "that the Commission remove the advertising restrictions
and limits on community broadcasting on television" and "that the Commission
monitor the development of cable community channels and third party
community -based television services to determine how its new rules are working
and whether removal of restrictions on regional and national advertising for
independent stations stimulates more applications for community -based services."
Q. 15 Have circumstances or other factors arisen that would warrant a change
in the Commission's existing policy?
Q. 16 Should the Commission adopt the above recommendations? If so, by what
means or with what safeguards? If not, why not?
Q. 17 If the Commission were to allow BDU-operated community channels to air
commercial advertising, should all or a portion of the revenues be directed to
the provision of community programming or towards other initiatives such as
the Canada Media Fund?
(b) Local Programming Improvement Fund
2296360
31. In Broadcasting Public Notice 2008-100, the Commission set out details relating
to the Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF). Broadcasting Regulatory
Policy 2009-406 subsequently outlined the model for the allocation of LPIF
funding, appropriate contribution levels by BDUs to the LPIF, eligibility criteria for
LPIF funding, expenses eligible for LPIF funding and the administration of the
LPIF. The Commission determined that for the 2009-2010 broadcast year the
appropriate contribution level by BDUs to the fund is 1.5% of their gross
revenues.
32. In Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2009-411, the Commission initiated a
public hearing to further review its policies related to conventional television,
including the appropriate LPIF contribution by licensed BDUs and the eligibility
criteria for LPIF funding. In Broadcasting Public Notice 2008-100, the Commission
had also stated that it would consider whether community television broadcasters
should have access to the LPIF in the context of its review of the community -
based media policy framework.
Q. 18 Should the LPIF also be used to fund the production of
community programming on the independently -operated
community -based television services? Why or why not?
(c) BDU contributions
33. As noted in paragraph 28, BDU licensees have the option of contributing 2% of
their contribution to Canadian programming to community channels, including the
community programming undertakings, for local expression. No requirement
exists to allocate any of this money specifically to the production of access
programming or to the community -based television programming undertakings.
Q. 19 Do BDU contribution levels remain appropriate for the operation of a
community channel? Why or why not?
Q. 20 Should a proportion of the BDU contributions be directed to
(a) the production of access programming? If so, what would be the most
effective means of doing this? If not, are there other funding means that may be
more appropriate? and/or
(b) the production of local programming through the LPIF? Why or why not?
Q. 21 Should the community -based television programming undertakings have
access to BDU contributions for local expression, as is currently the case for
community channels and community programming undertakings?
IV. New technologies.
34. As part of this policy review, the Commission is interested in exploring the future
of community television in the digital age, including the delivery of community
programming on new platforms, such as video -on -demand (VOD) and new media,
and in high definition. In the Commission's view, changes to the media
environment since the 2002 community TV framework necessitate a rethinking of
how community programming is made available to Canadians.
(a) VOD
35. The Commission has approved applications by BDUs to provide an outlet for local
expression on their VOD services. These include Saskatchewan
2296360
Telecommunications (Broadcasting Decision 2006-490), MTS Allstream Inc.
(Broadcasting Decision 2007-86) and Telus Communications Inc. (Broadcasting
Decision 2008-135). It is generally accepted that part of local expression must
include community programming.
Q. 22 Is there an increasing role or a special role in the future for community
programming available on demand? Is there a role for VOD-only community
programming?
Q. 23 Are there benefits to a VOD presence for community television? Are there
consequences to having or not having such a presence? What are the challenges
to establishing a community programming presence on this distribution
platform?
(b) New media
36. On 4 June 2009, the Commission issued its policy regarding Canadian
broadcasting in new media in Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2009-329. The
Commission rendered its decision and maintained its new media exemption order.
In so doing, as detailed in Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2009-330, the
Commission proposed reporting requirements and undue preference provisions,
as well as an amended definition of a new media broadcasting undertaking. The
Commission also fully endorsed the development of a national digital strategy.
37. Following the submission of written comments in the new media proceeding but
prior to the public hearing, the Commission published Broadcasting Notice of
Public Hearing 2008-11-1, in which it concluded that issues regarding the special
role of community broadcasters in the new media environment would be better
addressed in the context of a comprehensive proceeding devoted to community
media. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment regarding the role and
participation of community television broadcasters in the new media environment.
Q. 24 What challenges do community television broadcasters face with respect
to their participation in new media broadcasting?
Q. 25 Are there benefits to a new media presence for community television? Are
there consequences to having or not having such a presence?
Q. 26 If community channels do not have a new media presence, can Internet
users obtain the same content from other sources on the web? Does the
existence of the Internet as an avenue for community expression affect the
need for community access to traditional television production?
Q. 27 Is there a special role for community broadcastiing in the new media
environment? Is there a role for Internet -only community broadcasting?
(c) Official -language minority communities
38. In its Report to the Governor in Council on English- and French -language
broadcasting services in English and French linguistic minority communities in
Canada (the OLMC Report), dated 30 March 2009, the Commission stated that in
order to fully understand the role that community television services can or must
play in official -language minority communities (OLMCs) to reflect the realities,
needs and concerns of those communities in programming provided by these
television services and in the Canadian broadcasting system, it would examine the
issue aspart of its community television policy review.
39. In the OLMC Report, the Commission also made the following observation: "The
Commission regrets that, although all parties are calling for broadband Internet
2296360
access, community broadcasters are not more open to the broadcasting
opportunities offered by new media. The Commission believes that to bring
together all Canadians from their local communities, it is important that
broadcasting content that represents them be available via new media. It is
therefore essential that broadcasters, including community radio and television
broadcasters, adopt new media technology to broadcast their content."
Q. 28 What are the reasons for the lack of openness (e.g., demographic,
generational, economic) regarding opportunities for community broadcasting in
new media?
Q. 29 What is the role of community television in the OLMCs and what should
that role be?
Q. 30 What role can community programming play in reflecting the realities,
needs and concerns of OLMCs?
Q. 31 How can the Commission encourage and ensure the availability of
community programming to and by OLMCs?
(d) High -definition content
40. The Commission notes that Rogers Communications Inc. and Videotron Ltd. are
moving to provide Canadians with high definition content on their community
channels.
Q. 32 What steps have BDUs taken to date to produce high definition community
programming? Are these steps sufficient? If not, what measures can be taken to
further encourage the production of high definition community programming?
V. Other matters
41. The Commission recognizes that the current policies for community television
have not been revised in a number of years. While the Commission has identified
a number of issues and a broad scope for this review, parties may raise other
issues and concerns. The Commission, however, reminds parties that their
comments should be limited to matters falling within the Commission's jurisdiction
and powers under the Act. Further, parties should discuss such matters in the
context of the various cultural, economic, social and technological policy
objectives set out in the Act.
VI. Public participation
42. The Commission invites written comments that address the issues and questions
set out above. The deadline for filing written comments is 1 February 2010.
43. Following the oral public hearing, those who filed comments may have an
opportunity to file brief final written comments within ten (10) days of the
completion of the hearing.-
44. The Commission cannot be held responsible for postal delays and will not notify a
party whose submission is received after the above -noted deadlines. The
submission will not be considered by the Commission and will not be part of the
public file.
45. Parties wishing to appear at the public hearing, either in person or by video
conference from one of the Commission's regional offices, must state their
request on the first page of their written submissions. Parties requesting
2296360
appearance must provide clear reasons, on the first page of their submissions, as
to why the written submission is not sufficient and why an appearance is
necessary. The Commission will subsequently inform parties whether their request
to appear has been granted. While submissions will not otherwise be
acknowledged, they will be considered by the Commission and will form part of
the public record of the proceeding, provided the procedures set out herein have
been followed.
Procedures for filing comments
46. Interested parties can file their comments to the Secretary General of the
Commission:
by using the
Broadcastinu interventions/comments form
OR
by mail to
CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario K1A ON2
OR
by fax at
819-994-0218
47. Submissions longer than five pages should include a summary.
48. Where the intervention is filed by electronic means, the line ***End of
document*** should be entered following the last paragraph of the document, as
an indication that the document has not been damaged during electronic
transmission.
49. Each paragraph of the document should be numbered.
important notice
50. Note that all information that parties provide as part of this public process, except
information granted confidentiality, whether sent by postal mail, facsimile, e-mail
or through the Commission's website at www.crtc.gc.ca, becomes part of a
publicly accessible file and will be posted on the Commission's website. This
information includes personal information, such as full names, e-mail addresses,
postal/street addresses, telephone and facsimile numbers, and any other personal
information parties provide.
51. The personal information that parties provide will be used and may be disclosed
for the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled by the
Commission, or for a use consistent with that purpose.
52. Documents received electronically or otherwise will be put on the Commission's
website in their entirety exactly as received, including any personal information
contained therein, in the official language and format in which they are received.
Documents not received electronically will be available in PDF format.
53. Please note that the information that parties provide to the Commission. as part of
this public process is entered into an unsearchable database dedicated to this
specific public process. This database is accessible only from the web page of this
particular public process. As a result, a general search of our website with the
2296360
help of either our own search engine or a third -party search engine will not
provide access to the information that was provided as part of this public process.
54. The Commission encourages interested parties to monitor the public examination
file and the Commission's website for additional information that they may find
useful when preparing their comments.
Examination of documents
55. A list of all comments will also be available on the Commission's website. An
electronic version of all interventions/comments submitted will be accessible from
this list. To access the list, select "Lists of interventions/comments" under "Public
Proceedings" from the Commission's website.
56. Documents are also available during normal office hours at the local address
provided in this notice and at the Commission offices and documentation centres
directly involved with these applications, or, upon request, within two working
days, at any other Commission offices and documentation centres.
Location of Commission offices
Toll -free telephone: 1-877-249-2782
Toll -free TDD: 1-877-909-2782
Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere
Central Building
1 Promenade du Portage, Room 206
Gatineau, Quebec
38X 4B1
Tel.: 819-997-2429
Fax: 819-994-0218
Regional offices
Metropolitan Place
99 Wyse Road
Suite 1410
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
B3A 4S5
Tel.: 902-426-7997
Fax: 902-426-2721
205 Viger Avenue West
Suite 504
Montreal, Quebec
H2Z 1G2
Tel.: 514-283-6607
55 St. Clair Avenue East
Suite 624
Toronto, Ontario
M4T 1M2
Tel.: 416-952-9096
Kensington Building
275 Portage Avenue
Suite 1810
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3B 2B3
2296360
Tel.: 204-983-6306
TDD:204-983-8274
Fax: 204-983-6317
2220 - 12th Avenue,
Room 620
Regina, Saskatchewan
S4P OM8
Tel.: 306-780-3422
10405 Jasper Avenue
Suite 520
Edmonton, Alberta
T5J 3N4
Tel.: 780-495-3224
530-580 Hornby Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
V6C 3B6
Tel.; 604-666-2111
TDD; 604-666-0778
Fax: 604-666-8322
Secretary General
Belated documents
® Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-411, 6 July 2009
® Policy determinations resulting from the 27 April 2009 public hearing, Broadcasting
Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-406, 6 July 2009
Call for comments on proposed amendments to the Exemption order for new media
broadcasting undertakings, Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-330, 4
June 2009
Review of broadcasting in new media, Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-
329, 4 June 2009
Report to the Governor in Council on English- and French -language broadcasting
services in English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada,
30 March 2009
The role of community broadcasters, Broadcasting Notice of Public Hearing 2008-11-
1, 22 January 2009
Regulatory frameworks for broadcasting distribution undertakings and discretionary
programming services - Regulatory policy, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2008-
100, 30 October 2008
Diversity of voices - Regulatory policy, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2008-4,
15 January 2008
® Licence amendments related to the provision of an outlet for local expression by
video -on -demand, Broadcasting- Decision CRTC 2008-135, 30 June 2008
® Licence amendments related to the funding and provision of an outlet for local
expression, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2007-86, 16 March 2007
2296360
Licence amendments related to the funding and provision of an outlet for local
expression, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2006-490, 8 September 2006
Policy framework for community -based media, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2002-
61, 10 October 2002
Proposed policy framework for community -based media, Public Notice CRTC 2001-
129, 21 December 2001
® Review of community channel policy and low -power radio broadcasting policy, Public
Notice CRTC 2001-19, 5 February 2001
New regulatory framework for broadcasting distribution undertakings, Public Notice
CRTC 1997-25, 11 March 1997
Community channel policy, Public Notice CRTC 1991-59, 5 June 1991
This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined
in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca.
Date Modified: 2009-10-22
2296360
M&C -CAG `AGM
. DEC 2.� 2�0�
December 21, 2009 Caller L'
MAYOR
Maple Ridge Family Court Committee Asti o :.L� " -��—
Mayor Ernie Daykin and members of Council
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, BC
V2X 6A9
Dear Maple Ridge Family Court Committee, Mayor Daykin and members of Council;
If you have a child struggling with substance abuse and refusing treatment in Maple Ridge, or anywhere else
in BC, there is nothing you can do to help get your child into care, even though, 40% of BC's teen overdose
deaths in the past 11 years have been in the BC Coroners Fraser Region, Currently, Maple Ridge parents
cannot place their child, who is struggling with substance abuse and refusing treatment, into a detox/treatment
program.
The British Columbia government has previously considered developing legislation (Secure Care Act) to
protect our youth struggling with substance abuse who refuse treatment. However, at the time (2000), the Act
was not proclaimed, because it was believed that the Act was too broad, the maximum period of time in care
was too long (100 days), and the effectiveness of involuntary intervention had not been demonstrated.
In light of the new practice -based research, we would like the BC government to re -open their discussions
regarding treatment options for youth, struggling with substance abuse and refusing treatment.
On behalf of the South Fraser Family Court and Youth justice Committee, i am asking for your support and
participation in our letter writing campaign. During the last year, we have carried out research exploring
options for families whose children are struggling with substance abuse and who are refusing to access
treatment programs in British Columbia. Currently, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba are the only
provinces that have developed, implemented, and evaluated legislation for detox/treatment programs for
families with youth struggling with substance abuse who refuse treatment. Legislation was developed in
response to an identified gap in addiction services for youth, who have serious alcohol and other drug
problems, and refuse treatment. The intent is to provide another avenue of support when all other options for
intervention and voluntary treatment have failed.
The attached Research Summary reviews our research. This research includes information on similar
legislation in the above provinces, challenges faced, and a summary of the evaluations of the work these
provinces have done.
5A
Servin,z: The Cities of Lanzlev, Surrev, and White Rock, The Corporation of Delta and The Township of LanRlev
SFFC & YJC c/o The Corporation of White Rock 15322 Buena Vista Avenue White Rock British Columbia V4B 1Y6
South Fraser Family Court & Youth Justice Committee
Maple Ridge Family Court Committee
December 21, 2009
Page 2
We are requesting that Maple Ridge supports our letter writing campaign by sending letters to:
1. MLA Marc Dalton;
2. Honourable Michael de Jong, Attorney General; and
3. Honourable Gordon Campbell, Premier;
• To support our letter writing campaign's impact, we ask that copies of these letters be sent
to our committee.
Furthermore, in your letter to MLA Marc Dalton:
• please request that he sends a similar letter of support to Honourable Michael de Jong, Attorney
General; and to Honourable Gordon Campbell, Premier and
• that he sends copies of these letters to the South Fraser Family Court Committee.
As many parents in British Columbia face the desperate challenge of helping their children who are struggling
with severe substance abuse and refusing to access treatment, we ask you to recommend that the BC
government re -opens their discussions regarding treatment options for youth, struggling with substance
abuse and refusing voluntary detox/treatment programs.
We are aware that many letters of support may be needed to encourage our BC Government to implement
another avenue of support when all other options for intervention and voluntary treatment have failed;
therefore, it is our goal to collect letters of support from: municipal councils, MLAs, and other Family Court &
Youth Justice Committees throughout BC. Once we have collected these letters, we will forward them as a
"Support Package" to the British Columbia government.
If you have any questions or comments regarding our initiative, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
�67l_1�
Barbara Westlake,
Vice -chair South Fraser Family Court & Youth Justice Committee
Sub -Committee Chair Youth Recovery
youthrecoveryC eastlink.ca
Enclosure
South Fraser Family Court & Youth Justice Committee
Serving: The Cities of Langley, Surrey, and White Rock, the Corporation of Delta, and the Township of Langley
SFFC&YIC do City of white Rock, 15322 Buena Vista Auerme, White Rock, British Columbia, V4B IY6
Srxmmary of Research:
Y-0-UTH, SUBSTANCE ABUSE PRQVIMCIAL LEGISLATION
Definitions:
➢ Detoxification and Stabilization: Removing the substance from the body and stabilizing the person's
health. During this time, the symptoms of withdrawal are treated. Detoxification and stabilization is the
primary step in any drug treatment program.
➢ Treatment: Teaching, supporting, and aiding the individual in achieving and maintaining long-term
recovery. Treatment programs may include, life -skills training, support groups, individual, or family
counselling sessions.
➢ Youth: Within the context, of involuntary detoxification/treatment services, a youth is aged 12 -17 years.
BC Youth and Substance Use
According to the Adolescent 2008 BC Health Survey conducted by the McCreary Centre Society:
• Of those surveyed, 25% of BC 18 year olds reported passing out as a result of their substance use and 31%
were unable to remember things they had done or said
• The rate of BC students (grade seven - twelve) ever using alcohol, marijuana, mushrooms, cocaine, and
amphetamines (including crystal meth) has decreased in the past 10 years. Alcohol still remains the most
commonly used substance among youth of all ages
• The rate of BC students (grades seven - twelve) using prescription medication without a doctor's consent
has increased as well as the rate for the use of hallucinogens (such as ecstasy) and steroids
• 17% of those BC students (grades seven - twelve) that reported drinking the weekend prior to taking the
survey fell within the two highest -risk categories (5 -10 drinks and more than 10 drinks)
According to the Adolescent 2003 Health Survey conducted by the McCreary Centre Society:
• Of BC students (grades seven - twelve) surveyed who used alcohol, 44% binge drank within the previous
month (this rate has remained consistent since 1998)
0 Marijuana use among BC students (grades seven - twelve) increases as they get older:
o 20% of youth 14 years old and younger have tried marijuana
o 45% of 15 and 16 year olds have tried marijuana
o 56% of 17 years old and older have tried marijuana
The percentage of BC students (grades seven - twelve) who had tried illegal drugs increases as they get
older:
0 14% of youth 14 years old and younger have tried illegal drugs
0 25% of 15 and 16 years old have tried illegal drugs
0 33% of 17 years old and older have tried illegal drugs
• 23% of BC students (grades seven - twelve) have used illegal drugs, not including marijuana:
o The three most commonly used substances are:
Youth, Substance Abuse & Legislation, December 2009 YouthRecoveryoeastlink.ca
Page 1
South Fraser Family Court & Youth Justice Committee
Serving: The Cities of Langley, Surrey, and White Rock, the Corporation of Delta, and the Township of Langley
WC&YfC do City of White Rock, 7632-7 Buena Vista Avenue, White Rock, British Columbia, V49 IY6
OwdowummmWa
Mushrooms (13%)
Prescription medication without a doctor's consent (9%)
Cocaine (5%)
2006 Vancouver Youth Drug Survey by Vancouver Coastal Health:
• 25% of those surveyed who tried heroin use it every day
• 20% of respondents who used crystal meth use it daily and 12% use it once a week or more
• Of youth aged 16 -18 years who use heroin,100% reported having difficulty stopping or reducing their
drug use
• 66% of respondents aged 16 -18 years who used crack cocaine reported having difficulty stopping or
reducing their drug use
• 75% of respondents aged 16 -18 years old who used crystal meth reported having difficulty stopping or
reducing their drug use
According to a report from the Office of the Chief Coroner of BC:
• Between Jan 1997 — Sept 2008, there were 90 overdose deaths of teenagers, aged 13 -19 years
0 55/90 of theses deaths were a result of illicit drug use
0 6/90 of these deaths were a result of alcohol consumption
Key Copwonents of Provincial Leegslati.on Regarding_InvoluntM Youth Detox Services
Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan have developed and implemented legislation that provides families and
child care providers with options for accessing services on behalf of a youth who is unwilling or unable to engage
in voluntary service for severe substance abuse. Legislation was developed in response to an identified gap in
services for youth, who have serious alcohol and other drug problems, and refuse treatment. The intent is to
provide another avenue of support when all other options for intervention and voluntary treatment have failed.
Alberta: The Protection of Children Abusing Drugs Act (PChAD-2006 amended 2009) states that a parent/guardian of
a child under 18 years may apply for an order of apprehension and an order of confinement for the child.
However, prior to petitioning the court for a confinement order, the parents must attend an information
counselling session. If the court believes the youth meets the criteria for involuntary detoxification (criteria listed
below), an order is issued and the youth is transported to a detoxification safe house. During the youth's stay in
the protective safe house information is gathered during the assessment process to create a treatment
plan/recommendation for the youth to consider pursuing when he/she is discharged.
In 2009, amendments were made to the Act to include:
• increasing the maximum length of confinement period from 5 days to 15 days for the purpose of
expanding support services
• enhancing the involvement of parents/caregivers
• addressing pressure on police transportation services
• strengthening the review process
Since the legislation was enacted, Alberta has noted 49% of youth who were sent to an involuntary detox
program accessed voluntary drug treatment programs following discharge.
Saskatchewan: Under the Youth Drug Detoxification and Stabilization Act (2006), a parent, youth care professional,
or person with whom the youth has a close personal relationship can petition the court for involuntary detox by
demonstrating that the youth is suffering from a severe drug addiction. When the court is satisfied that the youth
Youth, Substance Abuse & Legislation, December 2009 YouthRecovery@eastlink.ca
Page 2
South Fraser Family Court & Youth Justice Committee
Serving: The Cities of Langley, Surrey, and White Rock, the Corporation of Delta, and the Township of Langley
SFFC&YJC clo City of White Rock,15322 Buena Vista Avenue, White Rock, British Columbia, VO 1Y6
meets the criteria for involuntary treatment (criteria listed below), the court will then issue a warrant to
apprehend the youth and transport him/her to a physician for an assessment. If the physician believes the youth
meets the criteria for involuntary detox, the doctor can order involuntary detox and stabilization in either the
youth's home community (Community order — maximum of 30 days) or in a locked facility (Involuntary
Detoxification order — maximum of 5 to 15 days). Within 24 hours, a second doctor must access the youth. Both
doctors must agree or the order is terminated. Since the legislation was enacted, Saskatchewan has noted that 71%
of the youth sent to involuntary detox voluntarily accessed drug treatment following their discharge.
Manitoba: Under the Youth Drug Stabilization (Support for Parents) Act (2006), families in Manitoba can access
short-term stabilization for their children under the age of 18 years. A parent seeking an apprehension order
must demonstrate to the court that the youth is struggling with a severe drug addiction (criteria listed below).
The court will then authorize the police to apprehend and transport the youth to a stabilization facility for an
assessment by two addictions specialists, who will assess the youth and then decide whether to issue a
stabilization order. The youth can be upheld for up to 7 days. Since the enactment of the legislation, Manitoba
found that 83% of youth detained under the Youth Drug Stabilization Act have accessed voluntary drug/alcohol
treatment following their discharge.
Criteria for Involuntary Detoxification
According to the above -mentioned provincial legislation, when an individual requests a court order of
involuntary youth detoxification, the petitioner must demonstrate that the youth is struggling with a severe drug
addiction and is:
• At risk of serious harm (to themselves or others).
• Needs confinement to ensure safety (of themselves or others)
• Needs confinement to assist with detoxification and stabilization
• Needs an assessment by an addictions specialist (AB), two physician (SK) or two addictions specialists
(MB)to determine whether or not the youth should be placed in a detoxification program
• Is refusing to access voluntary treatment
If at any time, it is deemed (as determined by a physician and/or addictions specialist) that the youth is able to
make sound decisions regarding their own treatment and no longer meets the abovementioned criteria the court
order may be terminated.
Rights of the Youth
According to the three provincial legislations, when a youth is brought into an involuntary detoxification
program, they are informed of their rights as follows:
• The youth has the right to contact a lawyer
• Why the youth is being confined
• How long he/she will be confined
• Their right to ask the court for a review of their confinement order
Furthermore, the youth has the right to appeal the confinement and apprehension order at any time. Each youth
can ask for a review of their case and the review will be granted. The court can make an order confirming,
changing, or ceasing the original order. However, the court cannot lengthen the period of confinement set by the
original order. NOTE: In Alberta, the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission may appeal the court order
on behalf of the child.
Youth, Substance Abuse & Legislation, December 2009 YouthRecovery@eastlink.ca
Page 3
South Fraser Family Court & Youth Justice Committee
Serving: ;.rhe Cities of Langley, Surrey, and White Bock, the Corporation of Delta, and the Toumship of Langley
WC&YJC do City of White Rock, 15322 Buena Vista Avenue, White Rock, British Columbia, VO 1Yo
British Columbia: The British Columbia government has previously considered developing legislation (Secure
Care Act) to protect our youth struggling with substance abuse who refuse treatment. However, at the time
(2000), they did not proclaim the Act, because it was believed that the Act was too broad, the maximum period of
time in care was too long (100 days), and the effectiveness of involuntary intervention had not been confirmed.
lnvoluntary Youth Detoxification irt_Canada
The investigation is ongoing....
According to Susan McLean, MSW, RSW Provincial PChAD Coordinator of Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Commission, "In Canada, mandatory youth detoxification legislation is still in its infancy, but preliminary
outcomes suggest the programs are working as they were intended: youth are detoxed and stabilized, while
parents are given another avenue of support when all other options have failed. Additionally, youth and parents
are satisfied with the services they receive and a proportion of youth are pursuing voluntary treatment upon
discharge..."
*Mandatory Youth Detoxification Evaluation; A Comparison across Jurisdictions,
h ttpyllzmow.fssuesofaigbs Lance. calsif ecolf ecf iwrporumen ts12007'1.2010S%2ODocumen tslSusanMcLxan.pdf
Let's keep the discussion open....
As a committee, we recognize that involuntary youth detox is a controversial issue. We also recognize that
research into best practice options for youth suffering from severe substance addictions and refusing treatment is
ongoing. However, in light of the new practice -based research, we are asking for your support in persuading the
BC government to re -open the discussion regar, ling treatment options for BC families, whose child is struggling
with substance abuse and is unwilling to access treatment.
Youth, Substance Abuse & Legislation, December 2009 YouthRecovery@eastlink.ca
Page 4
07 Jan 2010 10:25AM HP LASERJET FAX
P.2
ALC-
i
January 7, 2010
Cori Mario
Manager, Legislative Services
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Dear Ms. Mario:
Re: Albion Flats, Your File No:
Our File No: 0-28551
RECEIV1sD IN
CLERK'S DEFT. Agricultural Land Commission
2010 133 - 4940 Canada Way
JAN Q Bumaby, Brtlsh COlumbla V6G 4Ke
Tel: a04 660.7000
Fax: e04 680-7033
www.elc,gov,bc.ca
Referenoe Is made to your letter of Oovember 16, 2009, advising that Council Is in the process
of considering Its approach to advan ing an area plan review for the Albion Flats area of Maple
Ridge, The Agricultural Land Com ssivn (ALC) understands that Council Is requesting a
meeting with representatives of the LC to ascertaln whether it is prepared to consider
exclusions in Area A, Albion Flats.
The Commission appreciates the
nest by Council, and wishes to advise that It would not be
appropriate for the South Coast Pan
I of the Commission to discuss the matter of whether land
within the ALR may be considered f
exclusion in advance of an application being determined
under the Agricultural Lend Commm
n Act, or in advance of a land use planning exercise. The
Commission understands that since
he early 1990s there has been periodic revlew, discussion
and correspondence with the District
about Albion Flats in the context of ALR applications and
District led planning studies resulting
In the establishment of land use policy direction being
provided by the Commission. Future
iscusslons in a planning process context could lead to the
development of some further policy
rection on the part of the Commission that may be of
assistance to Council and In this rage
rd, we suggest that Council may wish to consider moving
forward with its area plan which would
provide an opportunity for involvement of Commission
staff and a process to determine whether
the Commission believes the plan Is consistent with
the purpose and Intent of the Agrlcul!
al Land Commission Act.
If Council believes it would be of assi tance to discuss how the Commission's staff could
participate in the process of develop! g an area plan for Albion, it is prepared to make Its senlor
staff available to most with Council a d District staff to discuss the current land use policy
direction and explore the opportunitle for collaboration, We look forward to hearing from you at
your convenience. Please contact Brl n Underhill, Executive Director who would be pleased to
assist In making the arrangements as appropriate.
Yours truly,
PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAN COMMISSION
Per:
Erik Karlsen, Chair
5.5