GVRD Board Meeting Agenda Package

NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT - BOARD OF DIRECTORS

9:00 AM Friday, March 30, 2012 2nd Floor Boardroom (3), 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia

A G E N D A

Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.

1 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 March 30, 2012 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Board adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for March 30, 2012 as circulated.

2 ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 March 2, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held March 02, 2012 as circulated.

3 DELEGATIONS

4 INVITED PRESENTATIONS

5 CONSENT AGENDA

5.1 Homelessness Partnering Strategy Projects a) That the Board endorse the list of service projects recommended by the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness (RSCH) to receive Homelessness Partnering Strategy Funds for the period April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014, and; b) That the Board authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to: i) Approve funds for the recommended projects; ii) Enter into and execute Contribution Agreements with agencies responsible for the delivery of those service projects; and iii) Execute any other Agreements or documents required to carry out the obligations of the GVRD under the Community Entity Agreement.

GVRD - 1 5.2 Endorsing the HousingNow Charter That the Board: Endorse the HousingNow Initiative and that Metro Vancouver participate on the steering committee for this Initiative.

5.3 A Metro Vancouver Position Paper on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) Process and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) That the Board: 1. endorse the report, dated February 29, 2012, and attachment titled “A Metro Vancouver Position Paper on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) Process and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA)”; 2. direct staff to write a letter to the provincial and federal government ministers communicating Metro Vancouver’s position paper on Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) and request an in-person meeting with ministers and staff and Metro Vancouver Directors and staff, to further engage in discussions on ATR and FNCIDA; and 3. direct staff to arrange meetings with Squamish Nation to engage in a discussion on the proposed FNCIDA developments within the Metro Vancouver region.

5.4 A Profile of First Nations, Tribal Councils, Treaty Groups and Alliances with Interests within Metro Vancouver That the Board receive the report, dated February 29, 2012, and attachment titled “A Profile of First Nations, Tribal Councils, Treaty Groups and Alliances with Interests within Metro Vancouver”, for information.

5.5 Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 - Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy That the Board adopt the “Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 – Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy” as attached to the report dated February 28, 2012, titled „Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 - Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy”.

5.6 Request from the City of Coquitlam for a Regional Growth Strategy Amendment That the Board: a) Introduce and give first and second reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1160, 2012; and b) Direct Metro Vancouver staff to send the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1160, 2012 to all affected local governments for consideration of acceptance.

5.7 Request from the Village of Anmore for a Regional Growth Strategy Amendment That the Board: a) initiate the process for a Type 2 amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy in accordance with section 857.1(2) of the Local Government Act to re-designate the School District 43 middle school building site in the Village of Anmore from Rural to General Urban and adjust the Urban Containment Boundary to include the site, and; b) direct staff to send notification of this amendment to all affected local governments.

GVRD - 2 5.8 Metro Vancouver Sponsorship of the Planning Institute of British Columbia 2012 Annual Conference and the NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Association 2012 Awards That the Board approve the following expenditures: a) $3,000 to provide sponsorship for the Planning Institute of British Columbia 2012 Annual Planning Conference; and b) $3,000 to provide sponsorship for NAIOP - Commercial Real Estate Development Association/Business in Vancouver 2012 Commercial Real Estate Awards of Excellence.

5.9 Proposed Bylaw Standards for Anaerobic Digestion in the Agricultural Land Reserve That the Board: a) request the Ministry of Agriculture revise the bylaw standard to include Metro Vancouver regulatory processes for air and solid waste management as described in the report dated February 23, 2012, titled, “Proposed Bylaw Standards for Anaerobic Digestion in the Agricultural Land Reserve”. b) request the Ministry of Agriculture to consult with local governments affected by the bylaw revisions c) refer the report dated February 23, 2012, titled “Proposed Bylaw Standards for Anaerobic Digestion in the Agricultural Land Reserve” to the Zero Waste Committee.

5.10 Metro Vancouver Attendance at Canada Housing and Renewal Association Annual Congress That the Board authorize the Chair to appoint a delegate to attend the Canada Housing and Renewal Association Annual Congress in St. John’s Newfoundland May 1-4, 2012 for an estimated cost of $4,500.

5.11 Attendance at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) 75th Annual Conference and Trade Show That the Board authorize the Chair to attend the FCM’s 75th Annual Conference and Trade Show in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, June 1-4, 2012.

5.12 Appointment to Strategic Priority Funding Management Committee That the Board recommend to UBCM that the Chief Administrative Officer, or designate, be appointed as a member of the Strategic Priorities Fund Management Committee to serve as one of three local government representatives, pursuant to the Strategic Priorities Fund Agreement for Greater Vancouver.

5.13 Continuing the Dialogue on UBC Governance Issues That the Board: a) request staff to inform the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development that in advance of determining if and how views from the community should be canvassed, Metro Vancouver will convene a meeting of stakeholders to share an understanding of governance issues, establish a communication protocol, identify the views of all stakeholders and develop governance options; b) refer the report dated March 13, 2012, titled “Continuing the Dialogue on UBC Governance Issues” to an open meeting of the Electoral Area Committee for information; c) direct the Board Chair to write a letter to the University Neighbourhoods

GVRD - 3 Association advising them of the relative jurisdictions of the parties (Metro Vancouver, UBC and related parties).

5.14 Electoral Area Director Position Compensation That the Board direct staff to bring forward an amendment to the remuneration bylaw that sets the salary of the electoral area director position at 14.5% of the board chair’s salary.

5.15 Attendance at the 2012 Lower Mainland Local Government Association Annual General Meeting and Conference That the Board approve the attendance of Director Raymond Louie at the 2012 Lower Mainland Local Government Association conference and associated meetings being held May 8 to 11, 2012 in Whistler, BC at the estimated costs outlined in the report dated 02/15/2012 titled Attendance at the 2012 Lower Mainland Local Government Association Annual General Meeting and Conference.

5.16 Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee’s (LMTAC) Discussion Paper, “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves” That the Board: a) write Minister Ida Chong, Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, regarding the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee’s discussion paper titled “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves”, indicating this as an important issue for local governments in Metro Vancouver and that further, Metro Vancouver feels this matter needs to be addressed as a priority item in the near term; and b) invite the Minister, or her designate, to present to the Aboriginal Relations Committee on the matter.

5.17 Amendments to the Metro Vancouver 2012 Appointments to the Municipal Finance Authority That the Board amend its previously decided resolutions of January 13, 2012 and March 2, 2012 regarding the 2012 appointments to the Municipal Finance Authority as follows: a) appoint “Mae Reid” as representative in place of “Richard Stewart”; b) appoint “Helen Fathers” as alternate representative in place of “Wayne Baldwin”; c) appoint “Linda Hepner” as alternate representative for Gayle Martin in place of “Jack Froese”.

6 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

7 REPORTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CONSENT AGENDA

7.1 Mosquito Control Service Bylaw That the Board: a) give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Mosquito Control Service Bylaw No. 1164, 2012”. b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Regional District Mosquito Control Service Bylaw No. 1164, 2012”.

8 MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

GVRD - 4 9 OTHER BUSINESS

10 ADJOURNMENT

11 March 30, 2012 Regular Meeting Adjournment. That the Board conclude its regular meeting of March 30, 2012.

GVRD - 5 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held at 9:05 AM on Friday, March 02, 2012 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

Members Present: Chair, Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Vice Chair, Director Raymond Louie, Vancouver Director Heather Anderson, Anmore Director Kim Baird, Tsawwassen Director Bruce Banman, Abbotsford Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Brenda Broughton, Lions Bay Alternate Director Pietro Calendino, Burnaby, for Director Sav Dhaliwal Director Mike Clay, Port Moody Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby (arrived at 9:05 a.m.) Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Director Heather Deal, Vancouver Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Director Helen Fathers, White Rock Director Jack Froese, Langley Township Director Moe Gill, Abbotsford* Alternate Director Tom Gill, Surrey, for Judy Villeneuve Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey Director Lois Jackson, Delta Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director Mae Reid, Coquitlam Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Director Gregor Robertson, Vancouver Director Michael Smith, West Vancouver Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver (arrived at 9:15 a.m.) Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Andrew Stone, Bowen Island Director Deb Walters, Pitt Meadows Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Director Dianne Watts, Surrey Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster

Members Absent: Director Geoff Meggs, Vancouver

 For Parks purposes. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, March 2, 2012 Page 1 of 14

GVRD - 6 Staff Present: Delia Laglagaron, Interim Commissioner/Interim Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Administrative Officer’s Department Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Corporate Secretary’s Department Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary/Manager, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information Department

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1. March 2, 2012 Regular Meeting Agenda

The Board was requested to suspend its procedural rules for hearing delegations.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board, at its March 2, 2012 meeting, temporarily suspend the Procedure Bylaw rule regarding Board Delegations (section 13.7) to hear a delegation Dale Badh. CARRIED Director Steves voted in the negative.

9:05 a.m. Director Corrigan arrived at the meeting.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for March 2, 2012 by adding the following items: i. 5.3a) Correspondence from Transportation Investment Corporation Re: Port Mann Bridge Proposal; ii. 5.13 Summary of Metro Vancouver Board 2012 Strategic Session; iii. 5.14 Strategic Community Investment Funds 2012-2014 Program; iv. 5.16 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and Post-Dialogue Forum: Energy Resiliency – Meeting the Challenge; v. 5.17 Metro Vancouver Representative to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities’ (UBCM) First Nations Relations Committee; vi. 9.1 Howe Sound Update; and b) adopt the agenda as amended. CARRIED

ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1. January 13, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes

Director Clay requested that his vote in opposition on item G1 be reflected in the minutes.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, March 2, 2012 Page 2 of 14

GVRD - 7 It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) correct the minutes for its regular meeting held January 13, 2012 by noting Director Clay as having voted in the negative in section G1 Greater Vancouver Regional District Labour Relations Conversion and Amendment Bylaw No. 1156, 2011; and b) adopt the minutes as corrected. CARRIED

January 26, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes 2.2.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held January 26, 2012 as circulated. CARRIED

DELEGATIONS

3. DELEGATIONS

3.1 Dale Badh, property owner, and Nav Sekhon, BC Farm and Ranch Realty, spoke against the Board recommendation requesting the Ministry of Agriculture to require municipalities to adopt a bylaw regulating the size of residential uses in the Agricultural Land Reserve. The delegates expressed concerns about:  the negative impact of the bylaw on the farming community. The proposed size restriction to a maximum size of 5,000 m2 (for properties 8 hectares or more) cannot accommodate needs of extended families needed for viable farming operations  affected parties not being consulted or aware of the issue being considered at the March 2, 2012 Board meeting  only 190 of 800 respondents to the survey being from the Lower Mainland

9:15 a.m. Director Stevenson arrived at the meeting.

The delegates suggested that the issue is better dealt with by each individual municipality. They requested that the proposed recommendation be defeated and an open dialogue be established with affected stakeholders.

INVITED PRESENTATIONS

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

No items presented.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, March 2, 2012 Page 3 of 14

GVRD - 8 CONSENT AGENDA

5. CONSENT AGENDA At the request of Directors, the following items were removed from the Consent Agenda for consideration under Section 6 Items Removed from Consent Agenda: 5.1. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee’s (LMTAC) Discussion Paper, “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves” 5.3. Port Mann Bridge Proposal 5.6. Provincial Guidelines for Residential Uses in the Agricultural Land Reserve 5.15. Attendance at the Recycling Council of British Columbia's (RCBC) Zero Waste Conference, Whistler, May 23-25, 2012

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the recommendations contained in the following items presented in the March 2, 2012 GVRD Board Consent Agenda: 5.2. LMTAC’s Request for Elected and Staff Participation in 2012 5.4. Guideline for the Preparation of Regional Context Statements 5.5. Province of BC Community Recreation Program Grant Applications Authorization 5.7. Province Strengthens Agricultural Land Commission 5.8. Board of Variance Membership Appointments 5.9. Attendance at the 2012 Special Park Districts Forum 5.10. Additional Appointment to the 2012 Municipal Finance Authority 5.11. UBC Liquor Licence Application - Extension of hours at the Gallery Lounge 5.12. Attendance at the 2012 Western Transportation Advisory Council (WESTAC) Semi- Annual Meetings 5.13. Summary of Metro Vancouver Board 2012 Strategic Session 5.14. Strategic Community Investment Funds 2012-2014 Program 5.16. Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and Post-Dialogue Forum: Energy Resiliency – Meeting the Challenge 5.17. Metro Vancouver Representative to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities’ (UBCM) First Nations Relations Committee CARRIED

The items and recommendations referred to above are as follows:

5.1. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee’s (LMTAC) Discussion Paper, “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves”

The item was removed from the Consent Agenda for consideration under section 6.

5.2. LMTAC’s Request for Elected and Staff Participation in 2012

Report dated February 14, 2012 from the Aboriginal Relations Committee, together with report dated January 26, 2012 from Marino Piombini, Supervisor, Aboriginal Relations Program, Corporate Relations Department, responding to the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee’s (LMTAC) request for elected and staff participation in 2012.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, March 2, 2012 Page 4 of 14

GVRD - 9 Recommendation: That the Board, as per the report, dated January 26, 2012, titled “LMTAC’s Request for Elected and Staff Participation in 2012”: a) notify the LMTAC Chair that Metro Vancouver will not be appointing elected and staff representatives to LMTAC in 2012; b) as an affected local government involving both active treaty tables in the region, Metro Vancouver advise LMTAC that it does not recognize LMTAC’s process for the appointment of treaty table representatives and seek an appointment process consistent with the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between the Province and Union of BC Municipalities; c) devise a process for the appointment of treaty table representatives; and d) receive Attachment 2, “Transitioning from LMTAC to Metro Vancouver’s Aboriginal Relations Program”, for information. Adopted on Consent

5.3. Port Mann Bridge Proposal

The item was removed from the Consent Agenda for consideration under section 6.

5.4. Guideline for the Preparation of Regional Context Statements Report dated January 17, 2012, from Lee-Ann Garnett, Senior Regional Planner, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department, seeking Board adoption of “Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #1 – Regional Context Statements”.

Recommendation: That the Board adopt the document titled “Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #1 – Regional Context Statements” attached to the report dated January 17, 2012, titled „Guideline for the Preparation of Regional Context Statements”. Adopted on Consent

5.5. Province of BC Community Recreation Program Grant Applications Authorization

Report dated February 20, 2012, from Adam Vasilevich, Landscape Architect, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department, seeking Board authorization to submit three grant applications to the BC Community Recreation Program for priority regional park recreation projects.

Recommendation That the Board authorize staff to submit three grant applications requesting up to $400,000 each to the BC Community Recreation Program for priority recreation projects in regional parks. Adopted on Consent

5.6. Provincial Guidelines for Residential Uses in the Agricultural Land Reserve

The item was removed from the Consent Agenda for consideration under section 6.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, March 2, 2012 Page 5 of 14

GVRD - 10

5.7. Province Strengthens Agricultural Land Commission

Report dated January 24, 2012, from Theresa Duynstee, Regional Planner, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department, describing new provincial legislation and funding for the Agricultural Land Commission.

Recommendation That the Board: a) express its appreciation to the Minister of Agriculture for providing additional funding, tools and changes in legislation to strengthen the Agricultural Land Commission’s ability to fulfill its mandate; and b) convey to the Minister the Metro Vancouver Board’s determination to protect Agricultural Land and enforce the Urban Containment Boundary set by the Regional Growth Strategy. Adopted on Consent

5.8. Board of Variance Membership Appointments

Report dated January 20, 2012, from Tom Pearce, Regional Planner, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department, seeking the appointment of Board of Variance members based on recommendations received from the Director of the Electoral Area.

Recommendation That the Board appoint the following persons as members of the Electoral Area A Board of Variance for a three year term: - Brian Collins - Jennifer Sandy - Michael Linton. Adopted on Consent

5.9. Attendance at the 2012 Special Park Districts Forum

Report dated January 17, 2012 from Stephen Suddes, Public Programs and Community Development Division Manager, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department, seeking Board approval for two Environment and Parks Committee members to attend the Special Park Districts Forum hosted by Three Rivers Park Authority, in Minnesota on June 18-21, 2012.

Recommendation That the Board approve the attendance and payment of expenses for two Environment and Parks Committee members, as identified by the Environment and Parks Committee Chair, to attend the 2012 Special Park Districts Forum, June 18 to June 21, 2012 in Minnesota, at a cost not to exceed $6,000 per attendee. Adopted on Consent

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, March 2, 2012 Page 6 of 14

GVRD - 11

5.10. Additional Appointment to the 2012 Municipal Finance Authority

Report dated February 15, 2012 from Director Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board, seeking appointment of an additional Metro Vancouver representative to the Municipal Finance Authority.

Recommendation That the Board appoint the following additional members as Metro Vancouver representative and alternate representative to the Municipal Finance Authority for 2012 with the assigned number of votes being 4.

Representative Alternate Representative Votes Gayle Martin, Langley City Jack Froese, Langley Township 4 Adopted on Consent

5.11. UBC Liquor Licence Application - Extension of Hours at the Gallery Lounge

Report dated January 11, 2012, from Jason Smith, Regional Planner, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department, commenting on a Liquor Licence Application received from the UBC Alma Mater Society.

Recommendation That the Board support the application by the UBC Alma Mater Society to change the opening hours of operation at the Gallery Lounge to 9:00 a.m., two hours earlier than the current opening time of 11:00 a.m., with the condition that no liquor be served prior to 11:00 a.m. Adopted on Consent

5.12. Attendance at the 2012 Western Transportation Advisory Council (WESTAC) Semi-Annual Meetings

Report dated February 15, 2012, from Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary/ Manager, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information Department, seeking Board authorization for Chair Moore or Vice Chair Louie to attend the Western Transportation Advisory Council (WESTAC) Semi-Annual Meetings in 2012.

Recommendation That the Board authorize the attendance and payment of expenses of either Director Moore or Director Louie at WESTAC’s 2012 semi-annual meetings being held April 3 and 4, 2012 in Edmonton Alberta, and tentatively November 20 and 21, 2012 in Vancouver British Columbia at the estimated costs outlined in the report dated February 15, 2012 titled Attendance at the 2012 Western Transportation Advisory Council (WESTAC) Semi-Annual Meetings. Adopted on Consent

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, March 2, 2012 Page 7 of 14

GVRD - 12

5.13. Summary of Metro Vancouver Board 2012 Strategic Session

Report dated February 21, 2012 from the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee, together with report dated February 16, 2012 from Delia Laglagaron, Interim Commissioner/Interim Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Administrative Officer’s Department, presenting the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee with a summary of the 2012 strategic session and proposed strategic priorities from the Metro Vancouver Board workshop held January 26 and 27, 2012.

Recommendation That the Board: 1. Request the Chair appoint a taskforce to work with staff on the development of strategies to:  Establish a recognized brand to increase understanding of Metro Vancouver services and policies among the public;  More effectively communicate with member municipalities; and  Better engage other levels of government and their agencies in support of regional priorities. 2. Direct staff to report on Provincial programs that address the region’s economic strategy. Adopted on Consent

5.14. Strategic Community Investment Funds 2012-2014 Program

Report dated February 27, 2012 from Jim Rusnak, Deputy CAO/Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Administration Department, seeking Board approval for Metro Vancouver to participate in the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development’s Strategic Community Investment Fund 2012-2014 Program.

Recommendation That the Board authorize staff to enter in an agreement with the Ministry of Community , Sport and Cultural Development as participation in the Strategic Community Investment Fund 2012 – 2014 Program. Adopted on Consent

5.15. Attendance at the Recycling Council of British Columbia's (RCBC) Zero Waste Conference, Whistler, May 23-25, 2012

The item was removed from the Consent Agenda for consideration under section 6.

5.16. Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and Post-Dialogue Forum: Energy Resiliency – Meeting the Challenge

Report dated January 30, 2012 from Simon Cumming, External Outreach and Intergovernmental Relations Division Manager, Joanne Gauci, Policy Advisor, and Denise Philippe, Policy Advisor, Corporate Relations Department, updating the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee on the four Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and one Post-Dialogue Forum held throughout the region in October and November 2011, on the topic of Energy Resiliency – Meeting the Challenge. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, March 2, 2012 Page 8 of 14

GVRD - 13

Recommendation That the Board: a) forward the January 30, 2012 report titled “Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and Post- Dialogue Forum: Energy Resiliency – Meeting the Challenge” to member municipalities and other related agencies for their information and comment; and b) refer the January 30, 2012 report titled “Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and Post- Dialogue Forum: Energy Resiliency – Meeting the Challenge” to the Regional Administrative Advisory Committee requesting a report back assessing the municipal and collaborative actions outlined in the section titled “Areas for Action and Collaboration”. Adopted on Consent

5.17. Metro Vancouver Representative to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities’ (UBCM) First Nations Relations Committee

Report dated February 15, 2012 from the Aboriginal Relations Committee, seeking appointment of a Metro Vancouver representative to UBCM’s First Nations Relations Committee.

Recommendation That the Board appoint Director Ralph Drew, as the Metro Vancouver representative to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities’ (UBCM) First Nations Relations Committee. Adopted on Consent

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

6.1. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee’s (LMTAC) Discussion Paper, “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves” (consent agenda item 5.1).

Report dated February 14, 2012 from the Aboriginal Relations Committee, together with correspondence dated January 11, 2012 from Minister Ida Chong, Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, addressed to Mayor Greg Moore, Chair of Metro Vancouver Board, regarding LMTAC Discussion Paper titled “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) write the Honourable Minister Ida Chong, Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, regarding the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee’s discussion paper titled “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves”, indicating this as an important issue for local governments in Metro Vancouver and that further, Metro Vancouver feels this matter needs to be addressed as a priority item in the near term; and b) invite the Minister, or her designate, to present to the Aboriginal Relations Committee on the matter.

Deferral to the next meeting was proposed to provide board members with an opportunity to review the discussion paper.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, March 2, 2012 Page 9 of 14

GVRD - 14

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board defer the report dated February 14, 2012 titled „Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee’s (LMTAC) Discussion Paper, “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves” to the next regular Board meeting and direct staff to circulate the discussion paper to Board members. CARRIED Directors Brodie, Clay, Drew, Clay, Fathers, Harris, Steves, and Walters voted in the negative.

6.2. Port Mann Bridge Proposal (consent agenda item 5.3)

Report dated February 14, 2012 from the Environment and Parks Committee, together with report dated January 19, 2012 from Wendy DaDalt, Parks East Area Division Manager, and Heather McNell, Senior Regional Planner, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department, seeking Board support in principle of inclusion of the former Port Mann Bridge as part of the Experience the Fraser Concept Plan.

It was suggested that, in light of the new information received from the Transportation Investment Corporation, the report be referred back to the Environment and Parks Committee for its consideration.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board refer the report dated February 15, 2012, titled „Port Mann Bridge Proposal“ to the Environment and Parks Committee for further consideration. CARRIED

6.3. Provincial Guidelines for Residential Uses in the Agricultural Land Reserve (consent agenda item 5.6)

Report dated January 10, 2012, from Eric Aderneck, Regional Planner, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department, informing about the November 14, 2011 announcement by the Province adopting “Regulating the Siting and Size of Residential Uses in the ALR” as a Bylaw Standard to guide local government bylaws in farming areas.

Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board request the Ministry of Agriculture to require municipalities to adopt by November 2013, bylaws regulating the siting and size of residential uses in the Agricultural Land Reserve consistent with the Minister’s Bylaw Standard.

Discussion ensued on limiting the size of the residential uses in the Agricultural Land Reserve on the municipal versus the regional or provincial level.

Amendment to the Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That that Board amend the Main Motion by deleting the phrase “and size“.

Amendment to the Amendment to the Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board amend the amendment by replacing the phrase “and size“ with the phrase “and residential footprint“ CARRIED Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, March 2, 2012 Page 10 of 14

GVRD - 15 Directors Brodie, Calendino, Fathers, Martin, Mussatto, Steves, and Walters voted in the negative.

Question on the Main Motion as Amended Question was called on the Main Motion as amended and it was CARRIED Directors Brodie, Calendino, Froese, Martin and Walters voted in the negative.

The Main Motion as amended now reads as follows: That the Board request the Ministry of Agriculture to require municipalities to adopt by November 2013, bylaws regulating the siting and residential footprint of residential uses in the Agricultural Land Reserve consistent with the Minister’s Bylaw Standard.

6.4. Attendance at the Recycling Council of British Columbia's (RCBC) Zero Waste Conference, Whistler, May 23-25, 2012 (consent agenda item 5.15)

Report dated February 3, 2012 from Heather Schoemaker, Manager, Corporate Relations Department, seeking Board authorization for the Metro Vancouver Chair and a Director to attend the Recycling Council of British Columbia’s (RCBC) Zero Waste Conference taking place in Whistler May 23-25, 2012.

The Board Chair was authorized to appoint a Metro Vancouver Director, who will attend the RCBC Zero Waste Conference in Whistler.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board authorize the Chair and a Metro Vancouver Director appointed by the Chair to attend the RCBC Zero Waste Conference May 23-25, 2012 in Whistler. CARRIED Directors Corrigan, Daykin and Stevenson absent at the vote.

REPORTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CONSENT AGENDA

7. REPORTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CONSENT AGENDA

7.1. Greater Vancouver Regional District Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 1158, 2012

Report dated January 31, 2012 from Ray Robb, Regulation and Enforcement Division Manager, and Jeff Gogol, Environmental Regulatory Planner, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department, seeking amendments to the “Greater Vancouver Regional District Ticket Information Utilization Bylaw No. 1050, 2006” including offences and fines for the Greater Vancouver Regional District Non-Road Diesel Engine Emission Regulation Bylaw No. 1161, 2012.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board introduce and give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 1158, 2012.” CARRIED Directors Corrigan, Daykin and Stevenson absent at the vote.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, March 2, 2012 Page 11 of 14

GVRD - 16

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Regional District Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 1158, 2012”. CARRIED Directors Corrigan, Daykin and Stevenson absent at the vote.

7.2. Greater Vancouver Regional District Non-Road Diesel Engine Emission Regulation Bylaw No. 1161, 2012

Report dated January 31, 2012 from Ray Robb, Regulation and Enforcement Division Manager, and Kevin Stock, Senior Policy Analyst, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department, repealing the Greater Vancouver Regional District Non-Road Diesel Engine Emission Regulation Bylaw No. 1137, 2011 and replacing with the Greater Vancouver Regional District Non-Road Diesel Engine Emission Regulation Bylaw No. 1161, 2012.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board introduce and give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Non-Road Diesel Engine Emission Regulation Bylaw No. 1161, 2012”. CARRIED Directors Corrigan, Daykin and Stevenson absent at the vote.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Regional District Non-Road Diesel Engine Emission Regulation Bylaw No. 1161, 2012”. CARRIED Directors Corrigan, Daykin and Stevenson absent at the vote.

7.3. Spring MFA Borrowing for City of Pitt Meadows – GVRD Security Issuing Bylaw 1162, 2012

Report dated January 19, 2012, from Phil Trotzuk, Financial Planning and Operations Manager, Finance and Administration Department, seeking approval of the the City of Pitt Meadows borrowing request for the construction of the South Bonson Community Centre in the amount of $3,379,596.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) pursuant to Sections 182(1)(b) and 182(2)(a) of the Community Charter, give consent to the request for financing from the City of Pitt Meadows in the amount of $3,379,596; and b) introduce and give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw No. 1162, 2012” being a bylaw to authorize the entering into of an Agreement respecting financing between the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia. CARRIED Directors Corrigan, Daykin and Stevenson absent at the vote.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, March 2, 2012 Page 12 of 14

GVRD - 17

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw No. 1162, 2012”; and b) forward “Greater Vancouver Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw No. 1162, 2012 to the Inspector of Municipalities for Certificate of Approval. CARRIED Directors Corrigan, Daykin and Stevenson absent at the vote.

MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

8. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN No items presented.

OTHER BUSINESS

9. OTHER BUSINESS

9.1 Howe Sound Update

Director Broughton expressed concerns about the environmental impact of the proposed Burnco Aggregate Mine on Howe Sound and Sea-to-Sky highway corridor. BURNCO Rock Products Ltd.' s Burnco Aggregate Mine is a proposed sand and gravel mine with an estimated production capacity of 1 to 1.6 million tonnes per annum on the northwest shore of Howe Sound, British Columbia.

RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

10. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

10.1. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board close its regular meeting scheduled for March 2, 2012 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (i) and (g) and 90 (2) (b) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a board meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district; (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; and “90 (2) A part of a meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.” CARRIED

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, March 2, 2012 Page 13 of 14

GVRD - 18 ADJOURNMENT

11. ADJOURNMENT

11.1. March 2, 2012 Regular Meeting Adjournment.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board conclude its regular meeting of March 2, 2012. CARRIED (Time: 10:32 a.m.)

CERTIFIED CORRECT

Paulette A. Vetleson, Corporate Secretary Greg Moore, Chair

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, March 2, 2012 Page 14 of 14

GVRD - 19 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

GVRD Board of Directors: March 30, 2012

To: GVRD Board of Directors

From: Housing Committee

Date: February 27, 2012

Subject: Homelessness Partnering Strategy Projects

Recommendation: a) That the Board endorse the list of service projects recommended by the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness (RSCH) to receive Homelessness Partnering Strategy Funds for the period April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014, and; b) That the Board authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to: i) Approve funds for the recommended projects; ii) Enter into and execute Contribution Agreements with agencies responsible for the delivery of those service projects; and iii) Execute any other Agreements or documents required to carry out the obligations of the GVRD under the Community Entity Agreement.

At its February 24, 2012 meeting, the Housing Committee considered the attached report titled “Homelessness Partnering Strategy Projects”, dated February 16, 2012. The Committee subsequently requested that the report be forwarded to the Board for its consideration. The Committee also requested that staff differentiate between the continuing and new projects. The report was modified accordingly.

ATTACHMENTS

Homelessness Partnering Strategy Projects - Report Homelessness Partnering Strategy Projects - Attachment 1 Homelessness Partnering Strategy Projects - Attachment 2

Page 1 of 1

GVRD - 20 5.3 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Housing Committee Meeting Date: February 24, 2012

To: Housing Committee

From: Kingsley Okyere, Manager, Homelessness Secretariat

Date: February 16, 2012

Subject: Homelessness Partnering Strategy Projects

Recommendation: a) That the Housing Committee endorse the list of service projects recommended by the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness (RSCH) to receive Homelessness Partnering Strategy Funds for the period April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014, and;

b) That the Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to: i) Approve funds for the recommended projects; ii) Enter into and execute Contribution Agreements with agencies responsible for the delivery of those service projects; and iii) Execute any other Agreements or documents required to carry out the obligations of the GVRD under the Community Entity Agreement.

1. PURPOSE

To present service projects that the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness has recommended to receive Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS) funds for the next two years, and authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to enter into Contribution Agreements with service providers who will deliver the recommended services.

2. CONTEXT

2.1 The Homelessness Partnering Strategy Program The Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS) is a federally funded program created in 2007 to support the work of communities across Canada seeking to address homelessness. National funding for the Program is approximately $135 million per year, of which the Metro Vancouver region receives approximately $8.2 million. Metro Vancouver’s share of funds represents 80% of all funds available to seven designated communities in British Columbia. Aboriginal and rural/remote communities across the province also receive another $3.1 million.

2.2 Community Entity Agreement In April 2011, Metro Vancouver reached a funding agreement with the federal government for the transfer of HPS management responsibilities in Metro Vancouver from Service Canada to Metro Vancouver for the period beginning on April 1, 2011 and ending on March 31, 2014. The Agreement may be extended beyond March 31, 2014 by mutual consent, and may also be terminated by either party on three months notice.

GVRD - 21

2.3 Metro Vancouver’s Role under Funding Agreement Metro Vancouver’s key role under the funding agreement is to receive and administer HPS funds on behalf of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC). In this role, Metro Vancouver is expected to assist the community to develop funding priorities, post a call for proposals for projects to address homelessness based on the priorities identified by the community, assist the community to review projects for funding, approve the recommended projects, and disburse funds to implement them. In addition, Metro Vancouver is required to administer the projects and report results to HRSDC.

2.4 Progress on Metro Vancouver’s Responsibilities Under the Funding Agreement a) Partnership with Vancity Community Foundation In September 2011, the Vancity Community Foundation (VCF) agreed to partner with Metro Vancouver to administer the HPS program in the Metro Vancouver region. Specifically, VCF agreed to serve as the project administrator for funded projects, ensuring that projects follow the intended scope, and that service providers will be reimbursed for actual expenses based on monthly or quarterly claims. In turn, Metro Vancouver will submit monthly claims to Service Canada for the expenses incurred in the delivery of the program. Metro Vancouver maintains a minimum of two months of HPS funds in cash reserve in order to prevent GVRD funds from being used for HPS purposes. b) Community Plan and Funding Priorities During the spring and summer of 2011, Metro Vancouver assisted the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness (RSCH), acting as the Community Advisory Board, to undertake a community planning process that identified eight funding priorities and an investment plan for the region. The community plan was submitted to Service Canada on August 11, 2011 and approved by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada on November 7, 2011. c) Call for Proposals On November 21, 2011, a call for proposals was issued to invite applications to deliver service projects that prevent and reduce homelessness in Metro Vancouver. Approximately $11 million was earmarked for the provision of such services under the call for proposals.

A call for proposals for capital projects valued at approximately $6.5 million was delayed until the spring of 2012 to allow discussions with the province and other regional funders on how best to align HPS investments with other homelessness infrastructure projects in the region. d) Review of Service Project Proposals Following the close of the proposal call on December 21, 2011, Metro Vancouver and Vancity Community Foundation staff assisted representatives of the RSCH, regional funders and other program stakeholders from across Metro Vancouver to review and select eligible and sustainable service projects for funding. The project selection process concluded on January 25, 2012 and the RSCH confirmed the project selections at its meeting on February 9, 2012. In all, the RSCH recommended 43 service projects to be operated by 39 service providers.

As required by the HPS program, Metro Vancouver and Vancity Community Foundation staff reviewed the recommended projects to ensure that the project sponsors are bona fide societies or entities operating in the region, and have experience in delivering the services for which they have been selected.

GVRD - 22

Of the 43 projects recommended by the RSCH, 42 have satisfied Metro Vancouver’s internal review requirements. Attachment 1 summarizes the projects approved under each community plan priority and the total funds allocated. Attachment 2 provides a list of the approved projects and highlights projects that are being continued and those that are new. e) Final Project Approvals Metro Vancouver must enter into an agreement with each service provider recommended to receive funding and complete this by March 31, 2012. This timeline will avoid interruptions to services that are currently in operation which depend on HPS funds.

During negotiations with Service Canada, it was agreed that Metro Vancouver should continue the current practice of leaving final project approvals under the signing authority of Metro Vancouver’s Chief Administrative Officer. Maintaining the current program signing authority protocol would be consistent with the practice in other HPS jurisdictions.

2.5 Metro Vancouver’s Homelessness Secretariat

All costs of Metro Vancouver’s Homelessness Secretariat are covered by the HPS Funding Agreement, and it is expected that Metro Vancouver’s total administrative cost for 2011/12 will be within HPS guidelines.

2.6 2012 Strategic Planning Process

For the longer term, under the funding agreement with the federal government, Metro Vancouver and the RSCH agree on the need to review the overall strategic framework in which the region addresses homelessness. It is proposed that the leadership of the RSCH meet with the Housing Committee to discuss the development of a long-term strategic plan to end homelessness in the region with special emphasis on preventing homelessness, especially for youth and young adults.

3. ALTERNATIVES

None offered.

4. CONCLUSION

Federal HPS funds support many homeless services in Metro Vancouver. Metro Vancouver signed an agreement with the federal government in 2011 (the “HPS Funding Agreement”) that provides a rigorous process for selecting and approving service and “brick and mortar” projects that provide homeless people with critical shelter and support services. This system, including final sign off by the Metro Vancouver Chief Administrative Officer, is consistent with the practice in other HPS jurisdictions.

ATTACHMENTS

1 Distribution of Funds by Community Plan Priority 2. Detailed List of Approved Projects

GVRD - 23 Attachment 1

Distribution of Funds by Community Plan Priority

Community Plan Priority # of Total Funds Projects Allocated Community and partnership development 3 $275,967 Emergency shelter services 5 $2,362,528 Mental health and addiction treatment services 3 $449,584 New/enhanced support services for underserved populations 11 $2,123,127 Outreach services 11 $2,766,889 Prevention services 5 $1,495,766 Transitional and supportive housing services 4 $1,383,175 Totals 42 $10,857,036

GVRD - 24 Attachment 2

Detailed List of Approved Projects Community Project Name Project Description Approved # of Priority Funding Projects Community and Metro Vancouver Serves 9 Metro Vancouver sub-regions with partnership Extreme Weather continued Extreme Weather Response development Response coordination, while coordinating development and initial implementation of Extreme Heat Response Plans in 2-3 of these sub-regions Regional Steering Provide regional leadership in community Committee on development and strategic planning on Homelessness homelessness across Metro Vancouver *Surrey Coordinate and collaborate effective homeless Collaborative shelter case management services for clients

Emergency Shelter in Surrey Case Management Priority Total $275,967 3 Emergency Anchor of Hope Provides 40 cold wet weather shelter mats and shelter services Cold Wet Weather services for men and women Shelter Cold Wet Weather Provides 15 bed Cold Wet Weather Mat Mat Program program including advocacy, meals and a drop in from Nov 1 - March 31 Iron Horse Youth Provides 30-day Youth Safe House services Safe House including housing support, life skills, and case management/referrals Supportive Housing Provides 4 emergency beds, 8 transitional for Homeless North housing beds, supports to youth transitioning Shore Youth to sustainable housing *Tri-Cities Bridge Provide up to 30 emergency shelter mats per Shelter night for the homeless from October to March over the next 2 years Priority Total $2,362,528 5 Mental health and Tenant Support and Supports homeless people with mental illness addiction Outreach Worker to find and keep housing treatment services Together We Can Provides residential treatment and supportive Enhanced housing for adult homeless men Homeless Intake and Housing Program *Young Wolves Provides a 5-bed 4-month residential Lodge substance addiction recovery program for Aboriginal young women Priority Total $449,584 3 New/enhanced *Aboriginal Family Works with families to obtain safe, secure support services Housing Support housing and build foundations to maximize for underserved their success populations *Anderson Healing Provides residential services to Aboriginal Shelter for women who are homeless or at-risk of being Aboriginal homeless Aboriginal Homeless women (Anderson Lodge) Community Re- Provides housing discharge planning and integration Tenancy support for women and men leaving prison Support Project

GVRD - 25 Detailed List of Approved Projects Community Project Name Project Description Approved # of Priority Funding Projects *Community Voice Provides social service providers and their Mail clients a vital tool (a local phone number with personal greeting and voice mail) to connect the dots between social services and the successful outcomes Find and Keep Assists homeless and at-risk women to keep housing or transition from shelter to longer term housing Francophone Provides intervention services to help partnership strategy homeless and at-risk Francophones in

against Vancouver homelessness *Homeless Provides daily nutrition to urban Aboriginal Proactive children, youth and elders

Prevention - Community Kitchen *Imouto Housing for Provide safe housing, nutrition, and overnight Young Women - support to young women aged 16-24 who are Overnight Youth homeless in the Downtown Eastside of

Support & Vancouver who are at risk of or experiencing Evaluation violence and abuse, exploitation, or who face additional barriers to housing Maida Duncan Provides 24/7 women drop-in centre (only 1 Women's Drop-in outside DTES) where they can be assisted to Centre transition to emergency shelter and rental housing *Post-Majority Provides housing, outreach and training for Services: Link & former foster youth and homeless new moms Thresholds with addiction issues *Seniors at Housing Provides age appropriate housing outreach Risk Outreach support and improve linkages between service Program provider agencies in order to increase community capacity to reach and support vulnerable seniors Priority Total $2,123,127 11 Outreach *Aboriginal Mother Provides Outreach Services to families who services Centre Outreach are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless AHSS Community Continues existing outreach services to Outreach Program homeless/at risk individuals and community capacity building *Beat the Streets Provides outreach support and services to Youth youth struggling with homelessness and Homelessness create partnership hub for outreach service

Initiative providers in the Langley's to provide immediate services to the homeless community *Community Seniors Provides outreach services to older adults Outreach Services who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness with the ultimate goal of securing appropriate, affordable, and safe housing in their community of choice Concurrent Assists people with concurrent disorders to Disorders Outreach break the cycle of homelessness and Team instability by assisting them with long-term

housing stability, basic needs such as access to healthcare and maintaining a broad network of community supports Homeless Outreach Connects the homeless with essential services

Program and linkages to permanent housing

GVRD - 26 Detailed List of Approved Projects Community Project Name Project Description Approved # of Priority Funding Projects Hospitality Project Provides outreach services in the north west to persons who are homeless and persons who are most at risk of homelessness with

resources and support to move beyond homelessness and to secure housing through preventive intervention Journey Home Provides housing supports, and holistic Community resettlement assistance for newly arrived Association refugees and to assist refugees currently living in the Metro Vancouver area with their ongoing housing and housing support needs *Langley Outreach Provides a drop-in centre and outreach Enhancement services at one location in Langley for adults Project who are homeless or at risk of homelessness Mobile Van Provides mobile outreach services to Outreach Program individuals in a community with no homelessness resources or housing (shelter or transition) and link them to health and other government resources W.I.N.G.S. Housing Provides a mobile outreach program for Outreach Program homeless women and children fleeing violence. Services include emergency assistance, referrals to existing programs and services, and placement into stable housing

Priority Total $2,766,889 11 Prevention Broadway Youth Provides services and supports to at-risk of services Resource Centre- homelessness and homeless youth aged 13-

Resource Room 24 Worker From Prison to Supports ex-prisoners at risk of homelessness Community-- secure safe, affordable housing

Preventing Homelessness Homelessness Helps people with all disabilities to access Prevention via income supports and housing Income Stability for People with Disabilities *Housing Loss Prevents at-risk individuals and families from Prevention Project becoming homeless through advocacy for

eviction/access income supports, utility arrears, outreach to re-house YWCA Clean Slate Clean Slate clears single parents' debts which are barriers to securing long-term affordable housing Priority Total $1,495,766 5 Transitional and Cwenengitel Provides safe, central, suitable housing for supportive Aboriginal Society homeless Aboriginal men suffering from housing services substance abuse Ending Transitions homeless refugee claimants into Displacement: stable housing Housing and Home for Refugee Claimants Rights of Passage Provides assistance support and referrals to Program homeless youth through case plan management, counseling services for mental health/drug addiction to assist youth in journey to independence

GVRD - 27 Detailed List of Approved Projects Community Project Name Project Description Approved # of Priority Funding Projects Whole Life Housing Provides community-based housing with Initiative for Persons medical, mental health, addiction and at Risk to independent living supports to people who are Homelessness at risk to homelessness in four privately- owned SROs in Vancouver Priority Total $1,383,175 4 Grand Total $10,857,056 42 Projects marked with an asterisk (*) are new projects for the 2012/13 fiscal year.

GVRD - 28 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Housing Committee Meeting Date: February 24, 2012

To: Housing Committee

From: Janet Kreda, Senior Housing Planner, Regional Housing

Date: February 16, 2012

Subject: Endorsing the ‘HousingNow’ Charter

Recommendation: That the Board: Endorse the HousingNow Initiative and that Metro Vancouver participate on the steering committee for this Initiative.

1. PURPOSE

To inform the Board of the HousingNow Initiative and request Board endorsement of the HousingNow Initiative Charter.

2. CONTEXT

Housing affordability is one of the top issues in the region. The need for affordable rental and ownership housing is increasing as many families and young professionals are being priced out of the market. Some workers in the region such as teachers, members of the police force, tradespeople and nurses have trouble finding affordable housing in the city in which they work. One of the goals of Metro Vancouver’s Regional Affordable Housing Strategy is to increase the supply and diversity of modest cost housing across all points of the housing continuum. Metro Vancouver has taken an active role in ensuring that this goal was incorporated into the Regional Growth Strategy and supports municipalities in developing Housing Action Plans.

Last fall Metro Vancouver and many other private, non-profit and government stakeholders attended the “HousingNow: Local Solutions Through Local Collaboration” conference sponsored by Simon Fraser University. The conference focused on identifying barriers and opportunities to create housing for households with incomes between $35,000 and $85,000 and concluded with a commitment to develop a plan of action. In Metro Vancouver, with the current housing market conditions, many of households in this income range are required to sacrifice the adequacy (condition), suitability (size) and affordability (proportion of income spent on shelter) of their housing.

Key stakeholders from the conference have drafted a charter for the HousingNow Initiative. (See Attachment 1) The stakeholders are: Simon Fraser University, Wesgroup, Urban Development Institute, ParkLane Homes, McClanaghan & Associates, Terra Housing, BC Non-Profit Housing Association and SPARC BC. The mission of the HousingNow Initiative is to “work collectively through community partnerships, in order to encourage new creative and innovative solutions for affordable housing in Metro Vancouver.”

GVRD - 29

The HousingNow Initiative has asked Metro Vancouver to endorse the Charter and to sit on the steering committee for the Design Build Competition. The goal of the HousingNow Initiative is to create a Design Build Competition based on two “attainable” market housing demonstration projects within Metro Vancouver. The projects must provide suitable and affordable housing for households with incomes between $35,000 and $85,000.

The HousingNow Design Build Competition is a community project proposed as a creative “call-to-action” on housing affordability in Metro Vancouver. The Competition is designed to create excitement among developers, financiers, public policy makers, politicians and citizens and to identify priority actions that will enable similar projects to be built in Metro Vancouver. Through the HousingNow Design Build Competition, the HousingNow Initiative aims to:

 Produce new creative and innovative affordable housing;  Foster partnerships between various players;  Demonstrate local capacity and innovation; and  Educate all key players and the public about the possibilities for building more affordable housing projects

By endorsing and participating in the HousingNow Initiative, and in particular being on the steering committee, Metro Vancouver can further its goal of increasing the supply and diversity of housing in the region.

3. ALTERNATIVES a) Recommend that the Board endorse the HousingNow Initiative and that Metro Vancouver participate on the steering committee for this Initiative. b) Decline the invitation to endorse and participate in the HousingNow Initiative.

Alternative (a) is recommended.

4. CONCLUSION

Housing affordability is a top issue in the region, and practical solutions are needed. The HousingNow Initiative proposes to oversee a Design Build Competition for housing affordable to households earning between $35,000 and $80,000. Metro Vancouver’s endorsement of the HousingNow Initiative Charter and membership on the steering committee is in keeping with the goals of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy and is expected to help further these goals.

ATTACHMENTS

1. HousingNow Initiative Coalition Charter 2. HousingNow Initiative Draft Terms of Reference

GVRD - 30 5.4 Attachment 1

HousingNow Initiative COALITION CHARTER

WE THE UNDERSIGNED want to take a timely and proactive approach to producing new market affordable housing solutions in Metro Vancouver. The need for both market and non-market affordable housing is increasing at an accelerated rate, with many families and young professionals being priced out of the housing market. The HousingNow Initiative, a coalition of community partners and thought leaders, has come together to combine expertise and increase the number of affordable housing projects to be built within the region.

MISSION

The HousingNow Initiative intends to work collectively through community partnerships, in order to encourage new creative and innovative solutions for affordable housing in Metro Vancouver.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

. An adequate supply of affordable housing affects location desirability and business investment.

. Affordable housing is necessary to build stability within communities - places where people can live, work and play in the communities in which they contribute vital services.

. By building on the creativity and skills of the public, politicians, developers and key decision- makers, the result will be a broadened knowledge base surrounding the process of developing this category of housing and showcasing that there are many solutions towards reducing housing costs in Metro Vancouver.

OBJECTIVES

The HousingNow Initiative aims to:

 Produce new creative and innovative affordable housing;  Reduce housing costs and regulatory burdens;  Foster partnerships between various industry leaders;  Demonstrate local capacity and innovation; and  Educate all key players and the public about the possibilities for building more affordable housing projects

GOALS

The HousingNow Initiative will create a design build competition that will act as a “call-to-action” on housing affordability based on “attainable” market housing demonstration projects within Metro Vancouver for households with incomes between $35,000 and $85,000. The competition will be designed to generate excitement among developers, financiers, public policy makers, politicians and citizens about replicating affordable housing models and to identify priority actions that will enable similar projects to be built within the region.

GVRD - 31 HousingNow Initiative COALITION CHARTER

DATED THIS the ______day of ______, 2012.

The founding members of the HousingNow Initiative Coalition:

Simon Fraser University Peter Ladner, Fellow

Wesgroup Peeter Wesik, Chairman

Urban Development Institute Maureen Enser, Executive Director

ParkLane Homes Norm Shearing, VP Development

McClanaghan & Associates Dale McClanaghan, Lead Consultant

Terra Housing Jim O’Dea, Principal

BC Non-Profit Housing Association Margaret Eberle, Acting Research Director

SPARC BC Lorraine Copas, Executive Director

GVRD - 32 Endorsement of the HousingNow Initiative COALITION CHARTER

WE THE UNDERSIGNED endorse the mission, guiding principles and objectives of the HousingNow Initiative Coalition and resolve to further these principles and objectives.

Name: ______Position: ______Organization: ______Signature: ______Date: ______

GVRD - 33 5.4 Attachment 2

DRAFT HOUSINGNOW INITIATIVE TERMS OF REFERENCE

INTRODUCTION:

As follow-up to the HousingNow: Local Solutions Through Local Collaboration Conference, the intent of the HousingNow Initiative is to create a HousingNow Design Build Competition based on two “attainable” market housing demonstration projects within Metro Vancouver. The projects must provide suitable and affordable housing for households with incomes between $35,000 and $85,000. In Metro Vancouver, with the current housing market conditions, many of these households are required to sacrifice the adequacy (condition), suitability (size) and affordability (proportion of income spent on shelter) of their housing.

The HousingNow Initiative, acting as a coalition of industry expertise under the direction of Simon Fraser University Centre for Dialogue, takes a timely and proactive approach by promoting community collaboration and partnerships; supporting local capacity and innovation; as well as establishing an education component for both key players and the public about the process and possibilities of affordable projects, in order to produce new market affordable housing solutions in Metro Vancouver.

The need for market affordable housing in the region is increasing at an accelerated rate, with many families and young professionals being priced out of the housing market. Many core sector workers such as teachers, members of the police force, tradespeople and nurses cannot afford to live in the city in which they work. The HousingNow Initiative aims to demonstrate ways in which to increase affordability, build stability within communities and create financial equity for people to live, work and play in the communities in which they contribute vital services.

GOALS:

As a community project, the HousingNow Design Build Competition is proposed as a creative “call-to-action” on housing affordability in Metro Vancouver. The Competition is designed to create excitement among developers, financiers, public policy makers, politicians and citizens about replicating these affordable housing models as much as possible, and to identify priority actions that will enable similar projects to be built in Metro Vancouver. Through the HousingNow Design Build Competition, the HousingNow Initiative aims to:

GVRD - 34 PROPOSAL:

To create the HousingNow Design Build Competition within two Metro Vancouver municipalities that will result in new creative and innovative affordable housing projects being built.

The projects could be built on publicly-owned (municipal) land, with the land being available at pre-determined prices and terms. Guidelines for the Competition will be set by the HousingNow Task Group and the municipalities. The municipalities, working with the HousingNow Task Group, will determine the winners and approve the projects that best deliver rental and/or affordable home ownership (can include rental and commercial) for households within the $35,000- $80,000 income bracket.

Teams of architects, developers, financiers, non-profit organizations and housing agencies will submit proposals. Ideally, each team will include a market developer and a non-profit partner.

The judging is to include an educational component for the public, politicians, developers and key decision-makers, as presentations to the municipalities will be made public.

Participants will be asked to explain how their proposal(s) demonstrates:

 Mix of tenure (i.e. ownership, rental, possible commercial);  Who will live there (i.e. eligibility requirements, income, age, needs, etc.); and  How prices compare to what is already available in the marketplace

In addition, participants could also be required to describe:

 How density is leveraged;  Equity partners (i.e. collaborators and their roles);  Cost to build units ($psf);  Cost to buy/rent units ($psf, monthly cost);  Municipal role;  Financing arrangements;  Incentives/relaxations/donations involved (i.e. how much and from where);  Description of the biggest barriers to carrying out the project;  Key factors to making project successful;  Marketing strategy;  Feasibility study;  Plans;  Regulatory amendments to achieve design/build goals;  Lifetime housing costs; and  Operating affordability

GVRD - 35 PHASES/WORKPLAN:

See “Draft Workplan for Jan 23 Mtg” document.

PROPOSED GROUPS INVOLVED:

Steering Committee

 Peeter Wesik (Chairman, Wesgroup)  Norm Shearing (VP Development, ParkLane Homes)  Peter Ladner (Fellow, SFU Centre for Dialogue)  Dale McClanaghan (Lead Consultant, McClanaghan & Associates)  Jim O’Dea (Principal, Terra Housing)  Jill Atkey (Research Director, BCNPHA)  Lorraine Copas (Executive Director, SPARC BC)  Armin Amrolia (Acting Vice President, BC Housing)  Andy Broderick (VP Community Investment, Vancity)  Margaret Eberle (Principal, Eberle Planning and Research)  Alyson Shave (Development Assistant. ParkLane Homes)  Maureen Enser (Executive Director, UDI Pacific Region)  Curranne Labercane (Policy Analyst, UDI Pacific Region)  Patrick Santoro (Public Policy Analyst, UDI Pacific Region)  Additional members to be announced – potential options: o Municipal representatives o Sponsorship representatives

Community Partners

 Community partners will be integral in carrying out the education component of the Competition. Suggested partners include UBC (School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture/ School of Community and Regional Planning); SFU City Program; BCIT (Architectural Science Program/Architectural and Building Engineering Technology); AIBC and the PIBC.

Sponsors

 Securing sponsorship will be essential to carrying out the Competition.

Judges

 There is a need to establish a transparent and impartial system of judging entries.

S:\Public\HousingNow Initiative/HousingNow Initiative Terms of Reference January 26 2012.doc

GVRD - 36 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

GVRD Board of Directors Meeting Date: March 30, 2012

To: Board of Directors

From: Aboriginal Relations Committee

Date: March 20, 2012

Subject: A Metro Vancouver Position Paper on the Federal Additions-to- Reserve (ATR) Process and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA)

Recommendation: That the Board: 1. endorse the report, dated February 29, 2012, and attachment titled “A Metro Vancouver Position Paper on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) Process and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA)”; 2. direct staff to write a letter to the provincial and federal government ministers communicating Metro Vancouver’s position paper on Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) and request an in- person meeting with ministers and staff and Metro Vancouver Directors and staff, to further engage in discussions on ATR and FNCIDA; and 3. direct staff to arrange meetings with Squamish Nation to engage in a discussion on the proposed FNCIDA developments within the Metro Vancouver region.

At its March 8, 2012 meeting, the Aboriginal Relations Committee considered the attached report titled “A Metro Vancouver Position Paper on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) Process and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA)”, dated, February 29, 2012. The Committee subsequently amended the recommendation as presented above in underline style.

ATTACHMENTS

A Metro Vancouver Position Paper on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) Process and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) - Report A Metro Vancouver Position Paper on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) Process and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) - Attachment

Page 1 of 1

GVRD - 37 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Aboriginal Relations Committee: March 8, 2012

To: Aboriginal Relations Committee

From: Marino Piombini, Supervisor, Aboriginal Relations Corporate Relations

Date: 2/29/2012

Subject: A Metro Vancouver Position Paper on the Federal Additions-to- Reserve (ATR) Process and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA)

Recommendations: That the Board:

1. endorse the report, dated February 22, 2012, and attachment titled “A Metro Vancouver Position Paper on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) Process and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA)”;

2. direct staff to arrange meetings with the Provincial and Federal governments to further engage in discussions on ATR and FNCIDA; and

3. direct staff to arrange meetings with Squamish Nation to engage in a discussion on the proposed FNCIDA developments within the Metro Vancouver region.

1. PURPOSE

To provide a Metro Vancouver position paper on Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) in response to a request from the Aboriginal Relations Committee, at its meeting on February 3, 2012, that these issues be given priority status as the Federal and Provincial governments and Squamish Nation are collaboratively working towards finalizing agreements, regulations and legislation to enable FNCIDA-related developments on Indian Reserves in the Metro Vancouver region.

2. CONTEXT

The Federal government has been evaluating its ATR policy and process for revision and, in 2010, invited local governments to provide their perspectives on this issue. Metro Vancouver, along with several municipalities and Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC), provided their respective comments.

ATR applications are designed to allow First Nations to add land to their reserves mainly to accommodate community growth and meet social and commercial needs. Metro Vancouver and other local governments have previously commented that, while land acquired under the ATR process is not intended to be used for market development, there is no mechanism in place to monitor the use of the ATR lands once the application has been approved. Therefore, it is possible that lands acquired under ATR could be used for commercial and industrial development under FNCIDA.

Page 1 of 4

GVRD - 38

A revised ATR policy and process has yet to be released by the Federal government.

In addition, the Federal government, with significant input from the Squamish Nation, passed FNCIDA legislation in 2005 and the accompanying First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act (FNCLTA) in 2010. These two pieces of legislation serve to implement on-Reserve commercial real estate property rights, including a land title system similar to the Provincial regime elsewhere, and clarification of title and property rights to aid investor/developer confidence for on-Reserve projects, thus making the property’s value equal to non-Reserve lands.

Squamish Nation has a significant presence within Metro Vancouver and is proposing FNCIDA-related commercial and residential developments on its four Indian Reserves in this region.

The Federal and Provincial governments are currently finalizing regulations and legislation, along with a tripartite agreement with the Squamish Nation, in order to allow for significant FNCIDA-related developments on Squamish Nation Indian Reserves in the Metro Vancouver region.

While FNCIDA does not contemplate a role for local government as a regulator, certain utility services (e.g. sewerage) require approval from local government authorities such as the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board. Utility services are contemplated to be negotiated between the First Nation and local governments.

The attached position paper, prepared at the direction of the Board (April 8, 2011) and received by the Intergovernmental Committee (July 20, 2011) but deferred until such time as Metro Vancouver and the Province had the opportunity to further discuss regional utility interests, identifies key local government issues for both ATR and FNCIDA, including:

ATR 1) Communications: status of regional district consultation remains uncertain 2) Servicing: Metro Vancouver has no obligation to provide services to entities other than its member governments 3) Land Use Planning: potential for incompatible land uses 4) Budgetary Stability: no requirement for compensation to local governments 5) Local Government Approval Lacking: no local government veto provided 6) Jurisdictional Arrangements and Public Notification 7) Sufficient Time to Undertake Public Processes 8) Jurisdictional Uncertainty 9) Timely Resolution of Third Party Interests

FNCIDA 1) Evaluating Requests for Extensions of the Sewerage Area Boundaries 2) Compatibility with the Regional Growth Strategy 3) Development Cost Charges (DCCs) 4) Application of Bylaws and Regulations

The paper proposes the following recommendations to senior governments:

1) Local governments, including regional districts, need to be engaged by senior governments in a meaningful and formal way on ATR and FNCIDA proposals

GVRD - 39

2) A process needs to be established in order for First Nations and local governments to review and provide comments on their respective plans 3) Local governments cannot be obligated to provide utility services 4) The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act needs to be amended to allow for the collection of municipal and regional Development Cost Charges 5) Application of local government bylaws and regulations, and their enforcement, for any corresponding services provided

Further, the paper identifies a process for ongoing, constructive dialogue and debate on these matters with senior governments, including:

1) Regional MP/MLA/Metro Vancouver caucus meetings 2) Regular briefing sessions at the Ministerial and Deputy Ministerial levels 3) Presentations and discussions at regular Metro Vancouver Committee and/or Board meetings 4) Participation on technical committees; and/or 5) Multi-party forums/processes

Metro Vancouver local governments may also wish to express their respective positions on any specific interests they may have on ATR and FNCIDA.

3. ALTERNATIVES

The Aboriginal Relations Committee may wish to recommend that the Board: a) rely on its earlier comments to LMTAC as its contribution to the current dialogue on ATR and FNCIDA and take no further action; or b) direct staff to revise the attached position paper as a basis for its further consideration; or c) endorse this report and attached position paper and direct staff to arrange meetings with representatives from both senior governments and Squamish Nation to engage in discussions on ATR and FNCIDA as well as the proposed FNCIDA developments within the Metro Vancouver region.

Alternative c) is recommended. Given the issues identified in the attached position paper, it is important for the Board to invite representatives from both senior governments to engage in discussions on ATR and FNCIDA as well as invite representatives from the Squamish Nation to engage in a discussion on the proposed FNCIDA developments within the Metro Vancouver region.

4. CONCLUSION

In response to the Board’s recommendation, staff has prepared the attached position paper as a basis for further discussion with senior governments on ATR and FNCIDA.

The position paper identifies key issues with respect to ATR and FNCIDA, proposes recommendations to senior governments that reflect regional and local interests, and identifies a process for ongoing, constructive dialogue and debate on these matters with senior governments.

GVRD - 40

It is recommended that the Board, upon endorsing this report, invite representatives from both senior governments to engage in discussions on ATR and FNCIDA as well as invite representatives from the Squamish Nation to engage in a discussion on the proposed FNCIDA developments within the Metro Vancouver region.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1: A Metro Vancouver Position Paper on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) Process and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA)

GVRD - 41 5.2 Attachment

A METRO VANCOUVER POSITION PAPER ON THE FEDERAL ADDITIONS-TO-RESERVE (ATR) PROCESS AND THE FIRST NATIONS COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT (FNCIDA)

1. PREAMBLE: About Metro Vancouver As a region, Metro Vancouver is one of Canada‟s three largest urban areas, having a population of over 2.3 million people: over one-half of British Columbia‟s total population.

As an organization, Metro Vancouver is both a non-partisan political body and corporate entity operating under provincial legislation as a „regional district‟ (i.e. Greater Vancouver Regional District, or GVRD) and „greater boards‟ (Greater Vancouver Water District, or GVWD; and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, or GVS&DD) on behalf of its 22 member municipalities, one electoral area (unincorporated) and one treaty First Nation (Tsawwassen).

Metro Vancouver‟s three primary roles are: service delivery; planning; and political leadership.

 Service Delivery: Metro Vancouver‟s core services, which are provided principally to municipalities, are the provision of drinking water, sewerage and drainage, and solid waste management. Regional parks and affordable housing are significant services provided directly to the public.

 Planning: Metro Vancouver‟s three main areas of planning and regulatory responsibility relate to: regional growth (land use through municipalities); waste management (solid and liquid waste) and air quality management (a delegated Provincial function).

 Political Leadership: Metro Vancouver serves as the main political forum for discussion of significant community issues at the regional level and the focus is to build effective relationships with other orders of government and agencies to secure political and financial support for Metro Vancouver‟s corporate priorities and capital programs necessary to the future well-being and sustainability of the region. In this regard, Metro Vancouver acts as a facilitator, convenor, partner, advocate and a significant instrument for providing information and education to the community.

2. PURPOSE: The Need for this Position Paper The purpose of this position paper is to provide Metro Vancouver‟s perspective on the federal Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) process and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA).

Metro Vancouver‟s position paper is not intended to replace the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee‟s (LMTAC) earlier discussion papers on ATR and FNCIDA, but rather to parallel those earlier documents.

3. BACKGROUND: Metro Vancouver’s Perspective and Involvement in Aboriginal Relations Metro Vancouver and its member governments fully support efforts to achieve reconciliation with First Nation communities in BC. To that end, Metro Vancouver has an Aboriginal Relations Committee which provides advice to the Board on:  Aboriginal relations;  Corporate programs and projects that intersect with First Nations‟ interests;

0000000 GVRD - 42 P a g e | 2

 Pan municipal issues (local issues) as they arise; and  Treaty negotiations.

Within the Aboriginal Relations Program, regional district staff works cooperatively and effectively towards building better relationships with First Nation communities in this region as well as with those outside Metro Vancouver that have interests within this region. For example, the Metro Vancouver Board appoints liaisons to First Nation communities whose interests intersect with the established priorities within Metro Vancouver‟s Action Plan. This approach has proven to be effective for engaging in constructive dialogue between the regional district and area First Nations (e.g. Metro Vancouver-Kwikwetlem First Nation Joint Liaison Committee).

In addition, Metro Vancouver fully supports the efforts of First Nations to encourage socio- economic and other development opportunities on their lands through treaty and non-treaty agreements, such as New Relationship agreements between the Province and First Nations. Moreover, Metro Vancouver recognizes the potential for market development on First Nations‟ lands to be mutually beneficial for Aboriginal communities and their neighbouring local governments.

Building good relationships with First Nations, an objective shared by all communities within Metro Vancouver, should be pursued: however, that process has to be robust enough for Metro Vancouver and its member communities to be able to comment on whether senior government policy and legislation are in the best interests of local government and its constituents.

Local government, including regional districts, are creatures of the Province and subject to the Local Government Act, which is provincial legislation. Metro Vancouver is a federation of “member governments” within the region; by definition, the member governments are subject to regional district bylaws and pay regional district taxes. Non-treaty First Nations (i.e. „Indian Bands”) are subject to the Indian Act which is Federal legislation, and Indian Reserves are Federal jurisdiction; therefore, Indian Bands and Indian Reserves are not legally part of Metro Vancouver.

Both ATR and FNCIDA apply to Indian Reserves. There are 22 Indian Reserves in this region, including four within Metro Vancouver‟s unincorporated Electoral Area „A‟. With local governments expected to enter into agreements with First Nations in order to provide utility services to FNCIDA-related developments, it is important for Metro Vancouver to advance its position on ATR and FNCIDA to both senior governments.

4. CONTEXT A. Indian Reserves Indian Reserves are defined as: “an area of land that is held in trust by the federal Crown for the use and benefit of an Indian Band under the authority of the Constitution Act, 1867.” First Nations do not have title to their Reserve lands: title remains with the federal government under the terms established by Section 18 of the Indian Act. As such, the federal government has the authority to add land to existing Indian Reserves or create new Indian Reserves. The ATR process was developed by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). It sets out the criteria and issues that must be addressed before land can be set apart as Indian Reserve. This presents a challenge for First Nations: although First Nations manage their lands, the Minister responsible for AANDC retains the power to veto land use decisions made by the Indian Band. Another consequence of Indian Reserves being under federal jurisdiction is that they are not subject to local government bylaws, nor to provincial land use legislation.

GVRD - 43 P a g e | 3

B. Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) An ATR is a parcel of land that is added to the existing land base of a First Nation. The legal title is set apart for the use and benefit of the Indian Band having made the application. Land can be added to Indian Reserves in either rural or urban settings. The ATR process can be compared to the Municipal Boundary Expansion (MBE) process. However, the MBE process is covered under legislation, whereas the ATR is only a policy, which creates uncertainty.

There are many reasons why a First Nation community may wish to add land to an existing Indian Reserve or create a new one, such as community growth and economic development. The federal government‟s ATR policy requires that proposals fit into one of the following three categories:

Legal Obligation Community Additions New Reserves / Other Additions to existing Indian Additions to existing Indian The creation of new Indian Reserves or creation of new Reserves because of: Reserves due to: Indian Reserves by way of: ● community growth ● social or commercial ● treaty or claim (e.g. housing, schools) needs settlement ● geographic ● provincial land agreement enhancements offerings or unsold ● court order (e.g. rights-of-way) surrendered land ● legal reversion ● return of unsold ● land for First Nations surrendered land currently without land

Granting Reserve status to land exempts the land from municipal taxation, which may result in a significant loss of property tax revenue for municipalities. The ATR policy requires that a First Nation negotiate directly with the municipality to determine reasonable adjustments to tax loss.

ATR applications are addressed on a case-by-case basis. The First Nation must approach the AANDC regional office to discuss the ATR process and to develop an action plan. Given that Indian Reserve land falls under federal jurisdiction, AANDC remains involved throughout the process.

Although municipalities lack any formal, statutory right to negotiate the granting of Indian Reserve status to land, First Nations are directed, by policy, to negotiate in good faith with local governments. First Nations are required to develop a communication strategy with municipal and provincial governments, particularly if the ATR proposal is in an urban area. Under the current ATR policy, municipal and provincial governments are given three months to provide input to the First Nation on issues such as municipal tax loss compensation, municipal service provision, and bylaw compatibility. First Nations are also required to consult with third-parties having an interest in the land being proposed for Reserve status.

An ATR proposal is first granted “approval in principle” by the Deputy Minister of AANDC who determines if the ATR meets the criteria and has addressed the concerns of the municipal and provincial governments. The proposal is then put forth for a review by AANDC. Final approval rests with the federal Cabinet. Administration and control of the land proposed to be added to Reserve must be transferred to AANDC, which will then register the lands in the Indian Lands Registry.

C. First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) The First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, S.C. 2005, c. 53 (FNCIDA) is federal legislation that came into force on April 1, 2006.

GVRD - 44 P a g e | 4

FNCIDA resulted from a First Nation-led initiative and it was developed in cooperation with five partnering First Nations, including the Squamish Nation. The purpose of the FNCIDA is to address the regulatory gap that exists on Indian Act reserves and thereby allow complex commercial and industrial projects to proceed on reserve lands. Off-reserve commercial and industrial activities are usually governed by comprehensive provincial statutes and regulations. Because the federal government has exclusive authority to make laws respecting “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians” under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, provincial regulatory regimes that relate to land use do not apply to reserve lands. This creates what is commonly referred to as a “regulatory gap” on Indian Act reserve lands, which means the absence of adequate laws to govern an activity such as land use regulation, monitoring and enforcement systems.

FNCIDA allows the federal Governor in Council (i.e. federal Cabinet) to make regulations governing commercial and industrial development projects on Indian Act reserve lands. Among other things, such regulations may confer any legislative, administrative, judicial or other power on any person or body that the governor in Council considers necessary to effectively regulate the undertakings and such regulations may incorporate provincial laws by reference, with any adaptations that the Governor in Council considers necessary.

Federal regulations are only made under FNCIDA at the request of participating First Nations. The regulations are project-specific, developed in cooperation with the First Nation and the relevant province, and are limited in application to the particular lands described in the project. Regulations may not be made unless the Minister of AANDC receives a Band Council resolution from the First Nation requesting that the Minister of AANDC recommend to the Governor in Council “the making of those regulations.” As well, if the regulations specify a provincial official by whom, or body by which, a power may be exercised or a duty must be performed, then an agreement must be concluded between the Minister of AANDC, the province and the council of the First Nation for the administration and enforcement of the regulations by that official or body.

While FNCIDA targets regulatory gaps, it fails to address concerns about underlying security of title or Reserve projects. The First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act (FNCLTA), which received Royal Assent on June 30, 2010 and came into force on March 1, 2011, amends FNCIDA to provide for a land title system for on-Reserve developments that is identical to those off- Reserve lands. This Act provides First Nations with the ability to register market developments in a system that mirrors the provincial land titles registry, providing greater certainty for investors and buyers. From a buyer perspective, an interest on a participating First Nation‟s Reserve is registered and assured in the same manner as it would in a neighbouring municipality.

5. ISSUES A. Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) There are a number of local government issues relating to ATR that need to be addressed.

1) Communications The ATR policy recognizes municipal and provincial governments, but not regional districts; therefore, the status of regional district consultation within the ATR process remains uncertain.

2) Servicing The expectation is that the First Nation and local governments will reach agreement on servicing. However, it is important to keep in mind that Metro Vancouver has no obligation to

GVRD - 45 P a g e | 5 provide utility services to any entities other than those specified in its legislation (i.e. member governments).

3) Land Use Planning Local government land use bylaws, zoning and related enforcement would no longer be applicable once the land is added to Reserve lands. As a result, there could be the potential for incompatible land uses and land use conflicts.

4) Budgetary Stability Clearly, federal policy recognizes that there could be a negative fiscal impact on local government from ATR and provides for two methods of mitigation of that impact: tax loss compensation and servicing agreements. Federal policy does not lay out specific formulas for compensation or a requirement for servicing agreements; the parties are to decide for themselves on the most appropriate approach in each circumstance. Nor does federal policy require the First Nation to pay compensation in all circumstances; the municipality may not seek compensation or the tax loss may not be considered significant.

Member governments within Metro Vancouver have a fiduciary responsibility to their tax payers to ensure that the full costs of all local services are recovered, including the cost of regional services such that the regional tax payers do not end up subsidizing development projects that are not contemplated in the Regional Growth Strategy. Regional servicing issues, including the collection and remittance of all requisite Metro Vancouver property taxes, clearly need to be addressed under ATR and FNCIDA.

5) Local Government Approval Lacking Moreover, the federal government may allow the addition to proceed even though the First Nation and municipality fail to agree on tax loss compensation. Where compensation is paid, it is intended as a one-time obligation, not a commitment to assist the municipality for an unlimited period of time. The federal government also retains the discretion to approve the addition where it considers the First Nation has made reasonable efforts to respond to the issues identified by the municipality. It does not give the municipality a veto over land transfers.

6) Jurisdictional Arrangements and Public Notification Business owners or individuals that lease/rent homes or businesses on occupied fee simple lands which are added to Reserve would be faced with a new jurisdiction and may not have the same representation as they had with local government.

7) Sufficient Time to Undertake Public Processes The regional district and municipalities require sufficient time to consider a proposal for additions to Reserve that takes into consideration the various processes required for Board and Council reports and public consultation. For example, the time required for municipal councils to revise an Official Community Plan or approve a boundary extension may range from six months to one year. The more contentious the issue, the more time is required for public consultation.

GVRD - 46 P a g e | 6

8) Jurisdictional Uncertainty Shared/overlapping claim areas as well as lands held jointly by more than one First Nation and the inconsistent manner in which additions may be carried out could lead to overall jurisdictional uncertainties for neighbouring local governments.

9) Timely Resolution of Third Party Interests (water rights, rights-of-way, access for private landowners and infrastructure/utilities, etc.) How a third party right is to be specifically dealt with is not clear. Problems of access may arise if lands are already held by third party interests.

B. First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) There are numerous pieces of legislation which overlap ATR, FNCIDA and FNCLTA. The legislative landscape is complex and includes numerous acts such as the First Nations Land Management Act, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, and the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act. The one constant is that there is no explicit reference to local governments in the legislation, nor is there any specific requirement for consultation with local governments.

The FNCIDA Regulation and the corresponding FNCLTA legislation require a tripartite agreement between the federal government, the provincial government and the First Nation - there is no mention of local governments. The only policy tool currently available for local governments to affect FNCIDA projects is in the negotiation of service agreements. If First Nations and other entities, not within the service area (e.g. sewerage), require municipal utility services, they need to apply through a neighbouring municipality that is a member of that service area (i.e. GVS&DD). Even for member municipalities, Metro Vancouver has certain approval rights for new sewerage connections.

1) Evaluating Requests for Extensions of the Sewerage Area Boundaries Sewerage Area boundaries are an important “shape” of urban development patterns in the region. Inclusion in the Sewerage Area allows urban development to be served by the regional sewer system. It is GVS&DD procedure regarding extensions to Sewerage Area boundaries to accept requests from member governments only (usually by Council resolution). First Nations and other entities outside the sewerage area boundaries need to apply through a neighbouring municipality which is a member of the GVS&DD.

The following criteria are used by Metro Vancouver to evaluate applications requesting sewerage area expansions:

Evaluation Criteria Purpose 1. Financial To determine the financial impact that can result from the extension of sewer service or as a consequence of development, such as the cost of new facilities or upgrades to existing infrastructure 2. Technical and To assess capacity of existing infrastructure to meet current and Operational future demand, suitability of the proposed connection point, or source control issues for industrial discharges 3. Land Use To confirm compliance to existing municipal community plans and Compliance Regional Growth Strategy 4. Service Levels To ensure that the extension of sewer service does not degrade

GVRD - 47 P a g e | 7

service levels for existing serviced areas 5. Local and To evaluate the potential encouragement for further development Community Interests and the impact of adjacent municipalities or communities 6. Regional Interests To consider the regional interest of extending sewer service to residents because of social benefits, such as public health, that result from a clean environment. Other considerations may include: Rights-of-Way; taxation; and future expansion of regional facilities

If the review of these criteria reveals no impediment to approval, a recommendation for approval is submitted to the Board. If impediments to approval are identified, a recommendation for refusal is submitted to the Board.

2) Compatibility with the Regional Growth Strategy FNCIDA will heighten the need to explore land use coordination and related issues because a designated FNCIDA project will likely bring increased activity on Indian Reserves largely for the purposes of economic development. FNCIDA projects may or may not be compatible with the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). This could be a challenging issue because, while First Nations were involved in the RGS engagement process, First Nations‟ lands are not subject to the RGS. The Local Government Act requires that all works and services provided by the regional district be consistent with its RGS (Section 865(1)). Metro Vancouver, therefore, may be legally precluded from providing services to lands that are not currently serviced because, pursuant to the Local Government Act, the GVRD must conform to the RGS. All bylaws adopted by the GVRD Board, and all services undertaken by the GVRD, must be consistent with the RGS. These issues remain very challenging: information on utility servicing needs for communities is required and considered for determining the proper capacity for those services (i.e. 10-year capital planning process). These issues and challenges need to be considered, addressed and resolved prior to FNCIDA approvals.

3) Development Cost Charges (DCCs) Metro Vancouver applies Development Cost Charges (DCCs) to users that are part of emerging Lower Mainland developments to pay for new sanitary sewer works such as additional trunk lines, pumping stations, and wastewater treatment plant expansion. This practice should not be any different for potential FNCIDA projects.

The issue is: how does a municipality or regional district collect DCCs when a development takes place outside its jurisdictional boundaries, such as federal lands, where local governments do not have the ability to approve a subdivision or authorize building permits?

4) Application of Bylaws and Regulations When member municipalities require utility services (e.g. sewerage), the GVS&DD Board is responsible for reviewing, assessing and approving any new utility service hook-ups. Once servicing is provided, the corresponding bylaws (e.g. air quality and liquid waste source control under both the Air Quality Management Plan and Liquid Waste Management Plan, respectively) also apply; in this case, Metro Vancouver undertakes permitting, regulation and enforcement, for air quality and liquid waste source control. Regional district staff works with the operator on the site, not the landowner.

In addition, the Sewer Use Bylaw regulates the types of substances that can be discharged into sewers or sewerage facilities. The sewerage facilities in question are owned and operated by

GVRD - 48 P a g e | 8 the GVS&DD pursuant to its enabling legislation. The discharge of prohibited substances into these sewerage facilities could cause problems with the operation of the facilities themselves and may have potentially harmful environmental impacts. Under the Constitution Act, 1867, the Province has jurisdiction over municipal institutions (Section 92(8)) and, as such, has the power to enact legislation such as the GVS&DD Act and the Local Government Act. It also has the power to enact legislation authorizing municipal regulation of local activity that affects the environment, such as waste disposal (Section 30, Environmental Management Act).

6. RECOMMENDATIONS Metro Vancouver proposes the following recommendations to senior governments and First Nations regarding ATR and FNCIDA:

1) Local governments, including regional districts, need to be engaged by senior governments in a meaningful and formal way on ATR and FNCIDA proposals Local governments (municipal and regional districts) would like to work cooperatively with provincial, federal and First Nation governments with respect to ATR and FNCIDA. However, municipal governments as third parties are merely asked to provide written comments. This approach does not satisfy whether, as third parties, local government issues and interests are understood so that decisions made by AANDC are reflective of “meaningful” input from local governments, which includes the following components:  Provision of adequate notice in order for committees and regional district boards or municipal councils to comment on the proposals  Timely disclosure of accurate and relevant information  Good faith efforts on behalf of the federal and provincial governments to receive and consider Metro Vancouver and member municipal comments on ATR and FNCIDA  Where possible, implementation of Metro Vancouver and member municipalities‟ views and perspectives into ATR and FNCIDA applications and decisions.

ATR and FNCIDA do not currently provide opportunities to engage in “meaningful” discussions with senior governments. This is particularly troubling as the regional district provides the necessary utility infrastructure and is a “wholesaler” of services to its member governments.

AANDC should consider adding a new mechanism to the ATR policy that would improve stakeholder (including regional district) coordination during the ATR application process.

2) A process needs to be established in order for First Nations and local governments to review and provide comments on their respective plans A mechanism for sharing, reviewing and coordinating long-term plans between First Nations and local governments is clearly lacking with both ATR and FNCIDA. The process should include multi-party forums to further observe, inform and discuss the respective and possible competing interests (e.g. land use designations). Therefore, discussions between a First Nation, local governments, and Metro Vancouver (as well as Translink) need to take place early in the ATR and FNCIDA approval processes in order to determine if, in the case of FNCIDA, the project land use is consistent and can be coordinated with the RGS in terms of requirements for population growth, such as housing, utility services, transportation, and other community and planning-related matters.

3) Local Governments cannot be obligated to provide utility services While local governments do not have an identified role to play with respect to FNCIDA, the expectation is that municipal services will be negotiated and provided to First Nations. Metro

GVRD - 49 P a g e | 9

Vancouver‟s position is clear: if any act, regulation, policy or other senior government decision or action purports to give First Nations or any other entity the right to regional and/or utility services provided by Metro Vancouver, without the same provisions applying as they currently apply to its member governments, then Metro Vancouver will vigorously challenge those decisions or actions. Furthermore, Metro Vancouver and its member governments will not approve any new or expanded local services for Indian Reserve lands that are under ATR or FNCIDA consideration until the federal and provincial governments address the legislative obstacles identified in this position paper.

4) The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act needs to be amended to allow for the collection of municipal and regional Development Cost Charges (DCCs) There are a number of servicing agreements currently being negotiated between local governments and First Nations within Metro Vancouver. In order to obtain municipal water and sewerage services for developments on Federal lands, a First Nation or developer in the case of a FNCIDA project, will need to negotiate a servicing agreement with the member municipality. In the case of sewerage, before the member municipality connects any sewer or drain that is part of a development that is not subject to its building and planning jurisdiction, the GVS&DD must be advised as per Section 29 of the GVS&DD Act and that that member, as well as the GVS&DD and service recipient should enter into a service agreement before the connection is made. It is through such a service agreement that the member municipality (and GVS&DD) could collect the equivalent of DCCs and ensure that the rest of the municipality is not subsidizing the development on Federal lands.

A recommended solution is to amend the GVS&DD Act. The GVS&DD Act authorizes the GVS&DD to “by bylaw, impose development cost charges on every person who obtains from a member municipality (a) approval of a subdivision, or (b) building permit authorizing the construction, alteration or extension of a building or structure.”

The member governments of Metro Vancouver have a fiduciary responsibility to their tax payers to ensure that the full costs of all local government services are recovered, including the cost of regional services such that the regional tax payers do not end up subsidizing development projects that are not contemplated in the RGS. Regional servicing issues, including the collection and remittance of all requisite Metro Vancouver property taxes, clearly need to be addressed under ATR and FNCIDA.

5) Application of local government bylaws and regulations, and their enforcement, for any corresponding services provided There needs to be an effective approach developed to deal with the approval, delivery and enforcement of local services on Reserve by municipal governments and regional districts.

Proposed regulations need to provide the GVRD and GVS&DD with sufficient authority to enforce relevant regulatory bylaws on Indian Reserve lands. This includes consideration of the regional district‟s regulatory powers under the GVS&DD Act, Local Government Act, Environmental Management Act, GVWD Act and Community Charter.

For example, the GVS&DD‟s Sewer Use Bylaw should also apply to Indian Reserve lands if prohibited substances are discharged into a sewer that is connected to a sewerage facility operated by the GVS&DD.

GVRD - 50 P a g e | 10

7. CONCLUSION: The Way Forward There is ample evidence to suggest that local government interests are not being recognized or taken seriously by the senior governments on ATR and FNCIDA. The ATR process provides municipal governments (not regional districts) with an opportunity for comments, but those comments may or may not be considered by AANDC. Further, under FNCIDA, there is no role contemplated for local governments; only that this piece of legislation serves to create the expectation that First Nations will enter into agreements for utility services with local governments. ATR and FNCIDA do not provide opportunities to engage in “meaningful” discussion with senior governments and this is a priority concern for Metro Vancouver and its member governments.

Metro Vancouver, therefore, commits to a process of dialogue on ATR and FNCIDA. As a first step, the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors will attempt to engage with both senior governments on the issues, concerns and obstacles as well as the proposed recommendations identified in this position paper.

Following these preliminary discussions, it is Metro Vancouver‟s intention to develop ongoing, constructive discussion and debate on these matters, which can be accomplished through better informational exchange networks at:  regional MP/MLA/Metro Vancouver caucus meetings;  regular briefing sessions at the Ministerial and Deputy Ministerial levels;  presentations and discussions at regular Metro Vancouver Committee and/or Board meetings;  participation on technical committees; and/or  multi-party forums/processes.

The impacts of ATR and FNCIDA go beyond the immediate locale of any proposal to involve the whole of the Metro Vancouver region. In addition to the comments provided by Metro Vancouver to LMTAC, and recognizing the precedent being set for future ATR applications and FNCIDA projects, the Metro Vancouver Board has identified the need for this position paper to address the region‟s issues and concerns on ATR and FNCIDA. This position paper can be a tool or mechanism to further engage in dialogue on these matters with both the federal and provincial governments as they consider future ATR and FNCIDA proposals. Metro Vancouver applauds any and all efforts on the part of senior governments to assist the regional district and its member governments in this regard, and remains confident that these issues can be addressed through open communication, and sincere, cooperative and constructive debate.

GVRD - 51 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

GVRD Board of Directors Meeting Date: March 30, 2012

To: Board of Directors

From: Aboriginal Relations Committee

Date: March 30, 2012

Subject: A Profile of First Nations, Tribal Councils, Treaty Groups and Alliances with Interests within Metro Vancouver

Recommendation: That the Board receive the report, dated February 29, 2012, and attachment titled “A Profile of First Nations, Tribal Councils, Treaty Groups and Alliances with Interests within Metro Vancouver”, for information.

At its March 8, 2012 meeting, the Aboriginal Relations Committee received the attached report titled “A Profile of First Nations, Tribal Councils, Treaty Groups and Alliances with Interests within Metro Vancouver”, dated, February 29, 2012. The Committee subsequently requested the report be forwarded to the Board for information.

ATTACHMENTS

A Profile of First Nations, Tribal Councils, Treaty Groups and Alliances with Interests within Metro Vancouver - Report A Profile of First Nations, Tribal Councils, Treaty Groups and Alliances with Aboriginal Interests within Metro Vancouver. Updated February 2012 - Attachment

Page 1 of 1

GVRD - 52 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Aboriginal Relations Committee Meeting Date: March 8, 2012

To: Aboriginal Relations Committee

From: Marino Piombini, Supervisor, Aboriginal Relations Corporate Relations Department

Date: 2/29/2012

Subject: A Profile of First Nations, Tribal Councils, Treaty Groups and Alliances with Interests within Metro Vancouver

Recommendation:

That the Aboriginal Relations Committee receive the report, dated February 20, 2012, and attachment titled “A Profile of First Nations, Tribal Councils, Treaty Groups and Alliances with Interests within Metro Vancouver”, for information.

1. PURPOSE

To provide the Aboriginal Relations Committee with a profile of First Nations in the region as well as Tribal Councils, Treaty Groups and Alliances outside the region with interests within Metro Vancouver.

2. CONTEXT

At its meeting on February 3, 2012, the Aboriginal Relations Committee requested staff to provide a profile of First Nations in the region.

Attached is a draft profile of First Nations, Tribal Councils, Treaty Groups and Alliances that have traditional territories and interests within Metro Vancouver.

A brief overview presentation of this information will also be provided at the March 8, 2012 Committee meeting.

3. ALTERNATIVES

None; this report and attached draft profile are presented for information purposes only.

4. CONCLUSION

In response to a request of staff by the Aboriginal Relations Committee at its meeting on February 3, 2012, the attached profile is intended to provide background information on First Nations in the region as well as information on Tribal Councils, Treaty Groups and Alliances outside the region but whose traditional territories and interests include the Metro Vancouver region.

ATTACHMENTS

Page 1 of 2

GVRD - 53

A Profile of First Nations, Tribal Councils, Treaty Groups and Alliances with Aboriginal Interests within Metro Vancouver. Updated February 2012.

GVRD - 54

DRAFT

A Profile of First Nations, Tribal Councils, Treaty Groups and Associations with Interests within Metro Vancouver and Member Municipalities

Updated February 2012

GVRD - 55 P a g e | 2

Table of Contents

Located Within Metro Vancouver

Hwlitsum First Nation ...... 3

Katzie First Nation...... 5

Kwantlen First Nation ...... 7

Kwikwetlem First Nation ...... 9

Matsqui First Nation ...... 11

Musqueam Indian Band ...... 13

Qayqayt First Nation ...... 15

Semiahmoo First Nation ...... 17

Squamish Nation...... 19

Tsawwassen First Nation...... 21

Tsleil-Waututh Nation...... 23

Located Outside Metro Vancouver but with interests in the Region

Hul‘qumi‘num Treaty Group ...... 25

Sencot‘en Alliance ...... 26

Sto:lo Nation...... 27

Sto:lo Tribal Council ...... 28

Te‘Mexw Treaty Association ...... 29

Tseycum First Nation ...... 30

5930407

GVRD - 56 P a g e | 3

Hwlitsum First Nation

Hwlitsum First Nation claims that its unofficial membership of 300 people includes a Registered Indian Population of 185 members. Its traditional territory encompasses a large portion of the Metro Vancouver region, the Gulf Islands, and a portion of Vancouver Island.

The Hwlitsum First Nation Statement of Intent to negotiate a treaty was accepted by the BC Treaty Commission in May 2008 after almost 10 years of attempts. Hwlitsum‘s acceptance to the treaty process was supported by favourable court decisions and the support of neighbouring Coast Salish First Nations. Hwlitsum shares its traditional territory with Penelakut and Tsawwassen. While the governments of Canada and BC have yet to make a commitment to negotiate with Hwlitsum, all parties are working together to move negotiations forward.

The history of the Hwlitsum people dates back to the early 1800s when they were known as the Lamalchi, located on Kuper Island in the southern Gulf Islands in the Strait of Georgia/Salish Sea. Their summer village, Hwlitsum, is located at Canoe Pass, along the Fraser River, near Ladner in Delta.

According to the First Nation, the disruption to the Hwlitsum peoples‘ way of life began in the early 1860s when European settlers moved onto the Hwlitsum‘s winter village, Lamalchi, while they were away for the summer.

By 1864, disease had severely reduced the number of Lamalchi people. By 1871, commercially-owned fish canneries began operating at the Hwlitsum summer village. In 1876, the Indian Reserve Commission refused to allocate the Lamalchi any reserve land at either their winter or summer villages.

In the early 1890s, a year-round home was built in Hwlitsum and the Lamalchi continued to fish and harvest at the winter village in the fall; between 1890 and 1930, members of the First Nation also spent portions of winters on various reserves in the Lower Mainland region.

In 1930, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs removed the Indian status of the Lamalchi people; however, the members continued to socialize and fish at Hwlitsum and other traditional areas.

Over the next 60 years, the Hwlitsum people slowly expanded, continuing to reside primarily in its traditional territory. In 1996, the Canoe Pass Indian Band, a society to represent and govern the Hwlitsum people, was formed. They subsequently adopted the name Hwlitsum First Nation to reflect their heritage. Raymond ―Rocky‖ Wilson was elected chief.

In 2000, Hwlitsum applied under the Indian Act to have Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada create a new band at the site of their original Hwlitsum summer village. Hwlitsum has negotiated with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to participate in the Fraser River salmon fisheries for food, social and ceremonial purposes.

Sources:  BC Treaty Commission (BCTC)  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Low er Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee  Statistics Canada

5930407

GVRD - 57 P a g e | 4

Hwlitsum First Nation

HWLITSUM INDIAN RESERVES POPULATION FIRST NATION (I.R.)

Band No. N/A None. Registered Indian Population (BC Treaty Commission and Hwlitsum First Also Known As: Nation) Wilson Family Living on Indian Reserves: N/A Living off Indian Reserves: 185 Band Office Address: Total Registered Population: 185 2928 Riv er Rd W., Delta, BC, V4K 3N2 Non-Aboriginals Living on Reserves 0 Tel: 604.940.0593 or 604.940.3857 (2006 Census – Statistics Canada) E-Mail: hwlitsum@y ahoo.ca Total Population (est.) (Registered Indians and Non-Aboriginals) Living on Reserves 0

ECONOMIC FACILITIES AVAILABLE AFFILIATIONS ACTIVITIES ON RESERVES

N/A N/A N/A

GOVERNANCE HISTORY TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Membership Authority: N/A Linguistic Group: N/A Status of Negotiations: Stage 2 of 6

Election System: N/A Ethnic Group: N/A Hwlitsum First Nation is not currently inv olv ed in treaty negotiations. The Council Quorum: N/A Pronunciation: Wlit-Sum Hwlitsum First Nation Statement of Intent to negotiate a treaty was accepted by the BC First Nation Officials: Notes: Treaty Commission on May 23, 2008. Chief Ray mond ―Rocky ‖ Wilson The name ―Hwlitsum‖ translates into While the gov ernments of Canada and BC ―Wilson.‖ hav e y et to make a commitment to Term Appointment Dates: negotiate with Hwlitsum, all parties are Term Expiry Dates: N/A working together to mov e negotiations f orward.

Metro Vancouver jurisdictions within the First Nation’s Statement of Intent area:  Coquitlam  Langley City  Langley Township  Maple Ridge  Metro Vancouv er Electoral Area A  New Westminster  Pitt Meadows  Port Coquitlam  Richmond

5930407

GVRD - 58 P a g e | 5

Katzie First Nation

According to Katzie First Nation, as expressed through oral accounts, back in the beginning of time, the Xexa:ls (or Transfomers – three brothers and one sister) traveled through the land, up and down the river, transforming the legendary beings into rocks and animals and the river‘s first salmon and sturgeon, creating the world as it exists today. People from up and down the Pitt and Alouette Valleys were drawn by the eulochon and sockeye salmon and also by the wild potatoes that grew in abundance – all provided by the Transformers.

One of the Transformers was Swaneset, who put multi-coloured moss where there were marshes, thus creating the foundation for a new village. In fact, the name ―Katzie‖, or q‘eyts’i, describes the action of a person‘s foot pressing down on moss.

Today, Katzie‘s five (5) Indian Reserves are located within four (4) different Metro Vancouver jurisdictions: Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Langley, and two (2) Indian Reserves within Metro Vancouver‘s Electoral Area ‗A‘.

The Katzie First Nation has the largest reserve in the region (Pitt Lake I.R. No. 4, 2.18 sq.km.) as well as some of the smallest reserves (Katzie I.R. No. 2, Barnston Island I.R. No. 3, and Graveyard I.R. No. 5). Graveyard I.R. No. 5 is the cemetery for the Katzie First Nation. Pitt Lake I.R. No. 4 had 40 cabins on leased lots at the south end of Pitt Lake. The 25-year lease agreements expired at the end of 2003. In 2000, Kazie Band Council voted not to renew the leases on the 40 lots. The leases called for the cabin owners to return the land to the way they found it – pristine wilderness.

The main residential reserve, Katzie I.R. No. 1, has a density of approximately 570.6 persons per square kilometre, which is well above the average for all Indian Reserves in the region (432.4 persons per square kilometre).

The total Registered Indian population in January 2012 was 505. However, 39% of the Katzie Registered Indian population lives off reserve. In addition, the Katzie reserves have some of the fewest non-Aboriginal residents of all the Indian Reserves located in Metro Vancouver.

Sources:  BC Treaty Commission (BCTC)  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Katzie First Nation w eb site  Statistics Canada

5930407

GVRD - 59 P a g e | 6

Katzie First Nation

KATZIE INDIAN RESERVES POPULATION FIRST NATION (I.R.)

Band No. 563 Hectares Registered Indian Population Katzie I.R. No. 1 44.1 (as of January 2012 – AANDC) Band Office Address: Katzie I.R. No. 2 23.1 Living on Indian Reserves: 307 10946 Katzie Road Barnston Island I.R. No. 3 54.6 Living off Indian Reserves: 198 Pitt Meadows, BC, V3Y 2G6 Pitt Lake I.R. No. 4 218.5 Total Registered Population: 505 Grav ey ard I.R. No. 5 0.4 Tel: 604.465.8961 Total: 340.7 Non-Aboriginals Living on Reserves 72 Fax: 604.465.5949 Notes: (2006 Census – Statistics Canada) The First Nation‘s main reserv e is located E-Mail: katzie.treaty @shawcable.com west of Port Hammond, near Maple Ridge, Total Population (est.) (Registered Indians and Non-Aboriginals) and has a total of f iv e (5) reserv es within Living on Reserves 379 Web Site: www.katzie.ca f our (4) dif f erent local gov ernment jurisdictions, including two (2) within Metro Vancouv er‘s Electoral Area ‗A‘.

ECONOMIC FACILITIES AVAILABLE AFFILIATIONS ACTIVITIES ON RESERVES

Commercial f ishing and recreation leases. Band of f ice; shed; two longhouses. Unaf f iliated.

GOVERNANCE HISTORY TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

 Term Appointment Date: April 1, 2010 New Westminster  Term Expiry Date: March 31, 2012 Pitt Meadows  Port Coquitlam  Richmond  Squamish-Lillooet Regional District  Surrey  White Rock

5930407

GVRD - 60 P a g e | 7

Kwantlen First Nation

The Kwantlen (or Qw‘ontl‘en) First Nation first had villages at the Brunette River mouth and just east of the present-day Patullo Bridge, on the Fraser‘s south bank – now tiny reserves surrounded by gravel pits and log booms.

In 1838, to gain control of the new fur trade and salmon industry, the Kwantlen moved their headquarters four kilometres downstream to be close to Fort Langley.

Today, the Kwantlen First Nation ranks second behind the Squamish Nation in terms of area size and most number of reserves: six (6) Indian Reserves as well as another, Peckquaylis I.R., which is shared with Matsqui First Nation. Three (3) of the seven (7) reserves are located within the Metro Vancouver region. The other reserves are located within the Fraser Valley Regional District.

Langley I.R. No. 5 and Whonnock I.R. No. 1 are both located in Maple Ridge. Both reserves did not register any population figures. As well, across the bridge from Fort Langley Historic Park, the Kwantlen live on McMillan Island. These are the direct descendants of the people who established the first commercial fisheries in British Columbia.

Thus, despite the number and area size of reserves, the Kwantlen First Nation has a relatively small population. The total on-reserve population, in January 2012, was 105. The total Kwantlen Registered Indian population is 225. The majority of First Nation members (57%) live off-reserve.

According to the 2006 Census, Kwantlen also experienced a net loss in population between 2001 and 2006. Combined, each of the three reserves within Metro Vancouver registered a loss of 1 person during the same five-year period.

Kwantlen First Nation is affiliated with the Sto:lo Tribal Council which, along with the Sto:lo Nation‘s Statement of Intent, has a claim area that includes the entire Metro Vancouver region.

Sources:  BC Treaty Commission (BCTC)  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Sto:lo Tribal Council w eb site  Statistics Canada

5930407

GVRD - 61 P a g e | 8

Kwantlen First Nation

KWANTLEN INDIAN RESERVES POPULATION FIRST NATION (I.R.)

Band No. 564 Hectares Registered Indian Population Whonnock I.R. No. 1 34.4 (as of January 2012 – AANDC) Formerly Known As: Fort Langley Band Langley I.R. No. 2 58.3 Living on Indian Reserves: 96 Langley I.R. No. 3 46.0 Living off Indian Reserves: 129 Band Office Address: Langley I.R. No. 4 96.0 Total Registered Population: 225 23690 Gabriel Lane, PO Box 108 Langley I.R. No. 5 140.6 Fort Langley , BC, V1M 2R4 McMillan Island I.R. No. 6 181.0 Non-Aboriginals Total: 556.3 Living on Reserves 8 Tel: 604.888.2488 (2006 Census – Statistics Canada) Notes: Fax: 604.888.2442 Kwantlen First Nation is located on the Total Population (est.) (Registered Indians and Non-Aboriginals) Fraser Riv er at Fort Langley . The main Living on Reserves 105 Web: www.stolotribalcouncil.ca residential community is on McMillan Island I.R. No. 6.

Kwantlen also shares the Peckquay lis Reserv e (10.3 ha) with Matsqui First Nation.

ECONOMIC FACILITIES AVAILABLE AFFILIATIONS ACTIVITIES ON RESERVES

Fishing and f arming. Church; band of f ice; change room; Sto:lo Tribal Council concession stand; band workshop #2855 Chowat Road, PO Box 440 Rev enue is also deriv ed f rom a number of Agassiz, BC, V0M 1A0 land leases. Tel: 604.796.0627 Toll Free: 1.877.919-6500 Fax: 604.796.0643 E-Mail: inf [email protected]

GOVERNANCE HISTORY TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Membership Authority: Linguistic Group: Salishan Status of Sto:lo Negotiations: Stage 4 Section 10 Indian Act by Band of 6 Ethnic Group: Halq‘emey lem Election System: Custom Electoral Kwantlen First Nation is not currently Sy stem Pronunciation: Kwant-len inv olv ed in treaty negotiations.

Council Quorum: 2 of 3 Notes: Metro Vancouver jurisdictions The f ormer name of this First Nation (Fort within the First Nation’s Statement of First Nation Officials: Langley Band) comes f rom Thomas Intent area: Chief Marily n Gabriel Langley , Hudson Bay Company director  The combined Sto:lo Tribal Council Councillor Tumia Knott f rom 1800-1830. and Sto:lo Nation Statement of Intent Councillor Leslie Antone area includes the entire Metro The modern name, ―Kwantlen‖, translates Vancouv er region. Term Appointment Date: Nov . 30, 1993 into ―tireless runners.‖ Term Expiry Date: N/A

5930407

GVRD - 62 P a g e | 9

Kwikwetlem First Nation

Kwikwetlem First Nation was originally part of the Chilliwack Tribe and is considered ―a river people.‖ In 1861, Governor James Douglas set aside two pieces of land for the band on the Coquitlam River.

Today, two (2) Indian Reserves are nestled against the Coquitlam River. Coquitlam I.R. No. 1, at the mouth of Coquitlam River (where it drains into the Fraser River), is in Coquitlam and Coquitlam I.R. No. 2 is located in Port Coquitlam (further up Coquitlam River).

In fact, the cities of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam take their name from the Kwikwetlem First Nation.

In January 2012, the Kwikwetlem First Nation had a Registered Indian population of 75, with 39 of those people living on the two (2) reserves. According to the First Nation, future development is planned for Coquitlam I.R. No. 2 to encourage more members to move back home.

The Kwikwetlem First Nation did submit Statement of Intent area information in the late 1990s but, given the relatively small size of the band, was advised by the British Columbia Treaty Commission to join another First Nation in treaty negotiations. As a result, the Kwikwetlem First Nation is not currently involved in treaty negotiations.

Sources:  BC Treaty Commission (BCTC)  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Kw ikwetlem First Nation w eb site  Statistics Canada

5930407

GVRD - 63 P a g e | 10

Kwikwetlem First Nation

KWIKWETLEM INDIAN RESERVES POPULATION FIRST NATION (I.R.)

Band No. 560 Hectares Registered Indian Population Coquitlam I.R. No. 1 2.6 (as of January 2012 – AANDC) Formerly Known As: Kway hquitlum Coquitlam I.R. No. 2 81.9 Living on Indian Reserves: 39 (or Coquitlam) Total: 84.5 Living off Indian Reserves: 36 Total Registered Population: 75 Band Office Address: 2-65 Colony Farm Road Non-Aboriginals Coquitlam, BC, V3C 5X9 Living on Reserves 0 (2006 Census – Statistics Canada) Tel: 604.540.0680 Total Population (est.) (Registered Indians and Non-Aboriginals) Fax: 604.525.0772 Living on Reserves 39

E-Mail: [email protected]

Web: www.kwikwetlem.com

ECONOMIC FACILITIES AVAILABLE AFFILIATIONS ACTIVITIES ON RESERVES

The band has had a proposal f or some Band of f ice; school; storage shed. Unaf f iliated residential dev elopment; bike rentals/tours; sale of f ireworks (seasonal).

GOVERNANCE HISTORY TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Membership Authority: Linguistic Group: Salishan Not inv olv ed in treaty negotiations. Section 11 by Indian Act Pronunciation: Kwee-kwet-lum Election System: Custom Electoral Sy stem Ethnic Group: Halq‘emey lem

Council Quorum: 0 Notes: Formerly part of the Chilliwack Tribe, the First Nation Officials: Kwikwetlem was f ormally established on Chief Ron Giesbrecht May 15, 1979. Councillor Fred Hulbert Sr. Councillor Ed Hall The name ―Kwikwetlem‖ comes f rom the Halkomelem word meaning ―red f ish up the Term Appointment Date: May 2, 2009 riv er.‖ Term Expiry Date: April 30, 2012

5930407

GVRD - 64 P a g e | 11

Matsqui First Nation

Matsqui First Nation is affiliated with the Sto:lo Nation, an alliance of 11 First Nation communities in the Fraser Valley.

Matsqui First Nation has a total of four (4) reserves as well as another shared with Kwantlen First Nation, but only one (1) is located within Metro Vancouver: Matsqui I.R. No. 4 in the Township of Langley, where a majority of the First Nation members live.

In January 2012, Matsqui First Nation had a total Registered Indian population of 251, with 54% of the members living off-reserve.

Matsqui Main I.R. No. 2 employs the majority of on-reserve members. Most work at a cedar mill located on the Fraser River and at the band office.

Along with offering employment, the Matsqui First Nation also offers the chance for on-reserve schooling, with a Community Learning Center located at the Main Office, aimed at allowing members the opportunity to complete high school.

Matsqui First Nation adopted a Custom Election Code in April 1998. The Matsqui First Nation is referred to as the Matsqui First Nations Governing Body. The Governing Body consists of nine people; one Chief, two Councillors, and 6 Family Representatives. The Chief and Councillors can be subject to an election once every four years; the decision for an election is made by the membership at a General Band Meeting in April of the last year of the term. The membership may decide to have an election for one position or all of the positions, including Chief and Councillor(s).

Family Representatives are selected by their individual families by way of a Signed Family Resolution. Family Representatives are subject to change anytime their families deem changes are necessary. According to the Matsqui First Nation, unlike with other First Nations in Metro Vancouver, the nine members that make up the Governing Body are all equals and decisions are reached by consensus. The Chief and Councillors are recognized as signatories for any Matsqui First Nation document.

Sources:  BC Treaty Commission (BCTC)  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Matsqui First Nation w eb page  Statistics Canada  Sto:lo Nation w eb site

5930407

GVRD - 65 P a g e | 12

Matsqui First Nation

MATSQUI INDIAN RESERVES POPULATION FIRST NATION (I.R.)

Band No. 565 Hectares Registered Indian Population Sahhacum I.R. No. 1 19.1 (as of January 2012 – AANDC) Band Office Address: Matsqui Main I.R. No. 2 129.7 Living on Indian Reserves: 116 31989 Harris Road PO Box 10 Three Islands I.R. No. 3 246.3 Living off Indian Reserves: 135 Matsqui, BC, V4X 3R2 Matsqui I.R. No. 4 24.3 Total Registered Population: 251 Total: 419.4 Tel: 604.826.6145 Non-Aboriginals Notes: Living on Reserves 286 Fax: 604.826.7009 The main community is on Matsqui Main (2006 Census – Statistics Canada) I.R. No. 2 E-Mail: [email protected] Total Population (est.) (Registered Indians and Non-Aboriginals) Matsqui also shares the Peckquay lis Living on Reserves 402 Reserv e (10.3 ha) with Kwantlen First Nation. ECONOMIC FACILITIES AVAILABLE AFFILIATIONS ACTIVITIES ON RESERVES

The band has sev eral agricultural Cedar mill located the Fraser Riv er; band Sto:lo Nation ―buckshee‖ leases (i.e. unregistered leases of f ice; mobile home park; Community Building #7 – 7201 Vedder Road or agreements f or the use of land) as well Learning Centre (school aimed at allowing Chilliwack, BC, V2R 4G5 as f ormal leases and permits. members the opportunity to complete high Tel: 604.858.3366 school). Fax: 604.824.5129 There is also housing on I.R. 4, including a mobile home park. Mobile home park leases generate rev enue f or the band.

The First Nation is also pursuing the construction of a gas station and community centre at I.R. 2.

GOVERNANCE HISTORY TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Membership Authority: Linguistic Group: Salishan Status of Sto:lo Negotiations: Stage 4 Section 10 Indian Act by Band of 6 Ethnic Group: Halq‘emey lem Election System: Custom Electoral Matsqui First Nation is not currently Sy stem Pronunciation: Mat-skwee inv olv ed in treaty negotiations.

Council Quorum: 2 of 3 Notes: Metro Vancouver jurisdictions The name ―Matsqui‖, in Halkomelem, within the First Nation’s Statement of First Nation Officials: means ―easy portage‖ or ―easy trav eling‖, Intent area: Chief Alice McKay apparently ref erring to the ease with which  The combined Sto:lo Tribal Council Councillor Louis Julian people could ascend creeks f rom the Fraser and Sto:lo Nation Statement of Intent Councillor Brenda Morgan and drag their canoes ov er the height of area includes the entire Metro land to the old Sumas Lake. Vancouv er region. Term Appointment Date: July 1, 2010 Term Expiry Date: June 30, 2013 The reserv e land was allotted June 20, 1879.

5930407

GVRD - 66 P a g e | 13

Musqueam Indian Band

Musqueam‘s central village is located in the marshy lowlands overlooking the north arm of the Fraser River (in the south-west corner of the City of Vancouver) and the species of grass that once thrived on the foreshore may be the root of the Indian band‘s ancient name, X’muzk’i’um.

X’muzk’i’um has been home and headquarters since the Colonial period, when it was marked out as the reserve. Today, airliners land and take off within view of the Musqueam community; behind it, traffic moves steadily along Marine Drive. The estates of Point Grey and the sprawling campus of the University of British Columbia include valuable land which the Musqueam have leased for two golf courses and housing.

The Musqueam Indian Band has three reserves which experienced a slight decrease in population between 2001 and 2006 (-5.0%). It remains the second largest First Nation, in terms of Registered Indian population, in the region with 1,287 people (January 2012).

Musqueam also has a very high non-Aboriginal population compared to other First Nations in the region, with 771 people (2006 Census data) living on Musqueam I.R. No. 2.

According to the Musqueam Indian Band, its Council‘s objectives include involvement with museums in the Metro Vancouver area. This work has been mainly with the Museum of Anthropology over the last 25 years but there has been work done with the Vancouver Museum. The Musqueam Indian Band‘s involvement has been primarily focused on ensuring that Musqueam‘s cultural history is portrayed in a clear and accurate manner and from a Musqueam perspective. This process has brought success to Musqueam in bringing cultural information back to the community and in providing a benefit to museums.

The Musqueam Indian Band has also been working in partnership with other organizations such as the David Suzuki Foundation and Vancouver Airport Authority in recognizing Musqueam‘s traditional territory and educating the public that these projects are conducted on Musqueam‘s traditional territory. Musqueam is also working collaboratively on incorporating its traditional artwork into these projects as well as promoting employment for Musqueam people.

Musqueam is currently in Stage 4 of six in the treaty negotiations process: the Agreement-in- Principle stage but has not negotiated since 2005.

Musqueam is also a signatory First Nation to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management and has developed its own Land Code. Musqueam is also currently pursuing Aboriginal Self-Governance through bilateral negotiations with the Federal government.

Sources:  BC Treaty Commission (BCTC)  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Musqueam First Nation w eb site  Statistics Canada

5930407

GVRD - 67 P a g e | 14

Musqueam Indian Band

MUSQUEAM INDIAN RESERVES POPULATION INDIAN BAND (I.R.)

Band No. 550 Hectares Registered Indian Population Musqueam I.R. No. 2 190.4 (as of January 2012 – AANDC) Band Office Address: Musqueam I.R. No. 4 57.3 Living on Indian Reserves: 755 6735 Salish Driv e Sea Island I.R. No. 3 6.5 Living off Indian Reserves: 532 Vancouv er, BC, V6N 4C4 Total: 254.2 Total Registered Population: 1,287

Tel: 604.263.3261 Notes: Non-Aboriginals The main community is located in Living on Reserves 771 Fax: 604.263.4212 Musqueam I.R. No. 2 in the Point Grey area (2006 Census – Statistics Canada) of Vancouv er. Web Site: www.musqueam.bc.ca Total Population (est.) (Registered Indians and Non-Aboriginals)

Living on Reserves 1,526

ECONOMIC FACILITIES AVAILABLE AFFILIATIONS ACTIVITIES ON RESERVES

Band-owned Celtic Shipy ards employ s Community hall; recreation hall; band of f ice; Unaf f iliated 35-40 band members and is the economic longhouse; kindergarten school; church; f ocal point of the community . elders‘ f acilities.

The Musqueam Indian Band also owns the Fraser Arms Hotel through a holding company .

In addition, the Musqueam Indian Band leases lands to non-Aboriginal leaseholders liv ing on Musqueam I.R. No. 2.

Purchased the lease of the Eaglequest Golf Course (now known as Musqueam Golf and Learning Academy ).

GOVERNANCE HISTORY TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Membership Authority: Linguistic Group: Salishan Status of Negotiations: Stage 4 of 6 Section 10 Indian Act by Band Ethnic Group: Halq‘emey lem Musqueam Indian Band is not currently Election System: Act Electoral Sy stem inv olv ed in treaty negotiations. Pronunciation: Mus-kwee-um Council Quorum: 6 of 11 Metro Vancouver jurisdictions Notes: within the First Nation’s Statement of First Nation Officials: The name ―Musqueam‖ (Muxqui or ―grass‖) Intent area: Chief Ernest Campbell in Halkomelem means ―place alway s to get  Anmore Councillor Nolan Charles [the root of ] iris-like plant‖, which, according  Belcarra Councillor Ally son Fraser to the First Nation, f lourishes beside the  Burnaby Councillor Howard Grant Fraser Riv er.  Coquitlam Councillor Wade Grant  Delta Councillor Wendy Grant-John  Electoral Area A Councillor Tammy Harkey  New Westminster Councillor My rtle McKay  North Vancouv er City Councillor Jordan Point  North Vancouv er District Councillor Way ne Sparrow  Councillor Nora Stogan Port Moody  Richmond Term Appointment Date: January 4, 2011  Surrey Term Expiry Date: January 3, 2013  Vancouv er  West Vancouv er

5930407

GVRD - 68 P a g e | 15

Qayqayt First Nation

More than 170 years ago, the banks of the Fraser River near what is now Whalley and New Westminster were home to the powerful Kwantlen Indian tribe. The Kwantlens had two main villages: Skaiametl (pronounced ―Sky-Moth-el‖) now the Fraserview subdivision and Qayqayt (pronounced ―Kee-Kite‖) near what is now Brownsville.

In 1827, when Europeans built Fort Langley, the Kwantlens moved to the fort to work in the fur trade.

By 1860, when Col. Moody chose the site for New Westminster, there had not been a permanent Aboriginal camp there for about 30 years.

In 1879, the Federal government allocated three (3) reserves to the New Westminster Indian Band:  South Westminster Reserve – on the south banks of the Fraser River, now Brownsville (104 acres, or 42 hectares);  City of New Westminster – three small reserves on the north arm of the Fraser River (22 acres, or 8.9 hectares); and  Poplar Island – traditional burial grounds (27 acres, or 10.9 hectares).

The band had over 400 members between 1879 and 1900, when a smallpox epidemic hit.

In 1916, the reserves were ―cut off‖ as part of the governments‘ reallocation of Indian Reserves and families were assimilated into other local reserves, such as the Musqueam.

The Poplar Island Reserve was sold to the City of New Westminster in 1945 and later returned to the Federal Crown. The others are no longer recorded as reserves either.

The last two members of the band apparently died in 1975 and 1992. However, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada was never officially notified. Therefore, the First Nation continued to exist on paper only until Chief Rhonda Larrabee, who applied for Indian status under Bill C-31, was recognized as an official member in 1994.

In 1996, Qayqayt members were granted a permit to fish on the Fraser River in their traditional territory for food, social and ceremonial purposes. The following year, members hosted a traditional pow-wow at the Armouries (New Westminster).

Today, known as the Qayqayt First Nation, it has the distinction of being one of the smallest First Nations in Canada (with only 11 Registered Indians) and does not have a land base. In fact, Qayqayt‘s official contact address is listed as being in the City of Vancouver.

Sources:  Chief Rhonda Larrabee  City of New Westminster  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Low er Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee  Statistics Canada  Various media sources

5930407

GVRD - 69 P a g e | 16

Qayqayt First Nation

QAYQAYT INDIAN RESERVES POPULATION FIRST NATION (I.R.)

Band No. 566 None. Registered Indian Population (as of January 2012 – AANDC) Also Known As: Living on Indian Reserves: 0 New Westminster Indian Band Living off Indian Reserves: 11 Total Registered Population: 11 Band Office Address: Suite 105 – 3680 Rae Av enue Non-Aboriginals Vancouv er, BC, V5R 2P5 Living on Reserves 0 (2006 Census – Statistics Canada) Tel: 604.451.0531 Total Population (Registered Indians and Non-Aboriginals) Fax: 604.451.9231 Living on Reserves 0

ECONOMIC FACILITIES AVAILABLE AFFILIATIONS ACTIVITIES ON RESERVES

N/A N/A Unaf f iliated

GOVERNANCE HISTORY TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Membership Authority: Linguistic Group: Salishan Not inv olv ed in treaty negotiations. Section 11 by Indian Act Ethnic Group: Halq‘emey lem The main goal of Qay qay t members is to Election System: Custom Electoral recov er a land base f or their f amilies and Sy stem Pronunciation: Kee-Kite the f uture of the First Nation.

Council Quorum: 1 of 4 Notes: The name ―Qay qay t‖ is thought to mean First Nation Officials: ―muskrat.‖ Chief Rhonda Larrabee Councillor Robert Bandura Councillor Rodney Bandura Councillor Ronald Lee

Term Appointment Dates:

April 29, 1994 f or Chief Rhonda Larrabee

May 9, 1994 f or Councillors Rodney Bandura and Ronald Lee

May 4, 1995 f or Councillor Robert Bandura

Term Expiry Dates: N/A

5930407

GVRD - 70 P a g e | 17

Semiahmoo First Nation

The Semiahmoo, located in South Surrey, are more closely related to the Lummi and Samish peoples across the international border, and to the Lekwammen and T‘Sou-ke across the Strait of Georgia/Salish Sea, than they are to the Halq‘emeylem-speaking residents of the Sto:lo.

The people of the Strait are united by their Salish language and by their tradition of using an elaborate reef-net system to catch sockeye salmon as they entered Juan de Fuca Strait and the Strait of Georgia from the south, on their migration to spawning grounds in the Fraser.

The Semiahmoo First Nation only has one (1) reserve and is one of the smallest First Nations in the region, with a Registered Indian population of 85 members (January 2012). As well, Semiahmoo has an equal number of non-Aboriginals and band members living on its reserve. Semiahmoo also experienced a loss in reserve population (-34.5%), between 2001 and 2006, when the figure dropped from 136 people to 109.

The Semiahmoo First Nation is affiliated with the Sencoten Alliance of First Nations, a political and cultural organization, but is not involved in treaty negotiations.

Sources:  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Semiahmoo First Nation w eb pages  Statistics Canada

5930407

GVRD - 71 P a g e | 18

Semiahmoo First Nation

SEMIAHMOO INDIAN RESERVES POPULATION FIRST NATION (I.R.)

Band No. 569 Hectares Registered Indian Population Semiahmoo I.R. 129.1 (as of January 2012 – AANDC) Band Office Address: Total: 129.1 Living on Indian Reserves: 56 16049 Beach Road Living off Indian Reserves: 29 Surrey , BC, V3S 9R6 Notes: Total Registered Population: 85 The reserv e is located southeast of White Tel: 604.536.3101 Rock, near the Canada-U.S. Border. Non-Aboriginals Living on Reserves 54 Fax: 604.536.6116 (2006 Census – Statistics Canada)

E-Mail: mail@semiahmoof irstnation.org Total Population (est.) (Registered Indians and Non-Aboriginals)

Living on Reserves 110 Web: www.semiahmoof irstnation.org

ECONOMIC FACILITIES AVAILABLE AFFILIATIONS ACTIVITIES ON RESERVES

Bay side Campsite. Band of f ice; church. Unaf f iliated but is a member of the Sencot‘en Alliance, a political and cultural Most of the land is under Certif icate of organization, which includes three (3) other Possession and being leased out by the First Nations f rom Vancouv er Island: locatees. Tsawout, Tsartlip, and Pauquachin.

Sencot‘en Alliance PO Box 121 (7725 Tatay ut Road) Saanichton, BC, V8M 2C3 Tel: 250.652.9101 Fax: 250.652.9114

GOVERNANCE HISTORY TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Membership Authority: Linguistic Group: Salishan Not inv olv ed in treaty negotiations. Section 11 Indian Act by Band Ethnic Group: Halq‘emey lem Election System: Act Electoral Sy stem Pronunciation: Sem-ee-a-moo Council Quorum: 2 of 3 Notes: First Nation Officials: The band is named af ter the Semiamu Chief Willard Cook Indians. The name is said to mean ―half Councillor Kev in Cook moon.‖ Councillor Joanne Charles

Term Appointment Date: Dec. 28, 2010 Term Expiry Date: Dec. 27, 2012

5930407

GVRD - 72 P a g e | 19

Squamish Nation

After contact with European settlers, 16 Squamish-speaking tribes decided to amalgamate to form one unit called the Squamish Nation. The amalgamation, which was signed on July 23, 1923, was established ―to guarantee equality to all Squamish and to ensure good government.‖

The Squamish people lived in villages on both sides of the Squamish River and its creeks, in the Howe Sound area, and the Burrard Inlet and Indian Arm.

According to the First Nation, the Squamish people used to travel each year to the Burrard Inlet area to fish and gather clams at such places as Jericho Beach, False Creek, English Bay, and Port Moody. These places were used by the same groups of people year after year and gradually, some of them developed into year-round homes. There have been Squamish settlements in Stanley Park, near the Granville Street Bridge, and in other areas of Burrard Inlet.

In May 2003, the BC Court of Appeal decreed 4.4 hectares of land in the Kitsilano area of Vancouver (behind the Molson Brewery site and under the Burrard Street Bridge) as reserve land. For centuries, the land was the site of the Squamish Nation village, until it was expropriated between 1886 and 1902 for the Canadian Pacific Railway line.

Around the Capilano River was ―whu-MUL-chits-tun‖, now called Capilano I.R. No. 5. ―Slah- AHN‖ was in North Vancouver and is now known as Mission I.R. No. 1. It is west of Lonsdale and stretches north from the waterfront. It is called Mission Reserve because in the 1860s a Catholic mission was founded there.

Today, the Squamish Nation is, by far, the largest First Nation, resident in Metro Vancouver, in terms of the number of reserves (24), combined area of reserves (2,120 hectares), Registered Indian population (3,893 people), and total member population on its reserves (2,401 people) according to the Federal department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (February 2011).

Members of the Squamish Nation continue to live primarily at the North Vancouver reserves – Mission, Capilano and Seymour – and at four of nine reserves in the Squamish Valley to the north. The Tsleil-Waututh people, who live on Burrard Inlet immediately east of the Squamish Nation, share close cultural, family and historic ties with the Squamish Nation.

The Squamish Nation is currently in Stage 3 of the treaty process, but has not been actively pursuing a negotiated settlement since 2000.

The Squamish Nation is also a signatory First Nation to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management.

Sources:  BC Treaty Commission (BCTC)  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Squamish Nation w eb site  Statistics Canada

5930407

GVRD - 73 P a g e | 20

Squamish Nation

SQUAMISH INDIAN RESERVES POPULATION NATION (I.R.)

Band No. 555 Hectares Registered Indian Population Kitsilano I.R. No. 6 4.4 (as of January 2012 – AANDC) Band Office Address: Mission I.R. No. 1 59.6 Living on Indian Reserves: 2,401 PO Box 86131 Sey mour Creek I.R. No. 2 45.5 Living off Indian Reserves: 1,492 North Vancouv er, BC, V7L 4J5 Capilano I.R. No. 5 155.6 Total Registered Population: 3,893 Skowishin I.R. No. 7 29.6 Tel: 604.980.4553 Chuckchuck I.R. No. 8 0.1 Non-Aboriginals Poy am I.R. No. 9 0.3 Living on Reserves 1,691 Fax: 604.980.4523 or 604.980.9601 Skowishin Grav ey ard I.R. No. 10 0.4 (2006 Census – Statistics Canada) Cheakamus I.R. No. 11 1,639.4 Web Site: www.squamish.net Yookwitz I.R. No. 12 9.3 Total Population (est.) (Registered Indians and Non-Aboriginals) Poquiosin & Skamain I.R. No. 13 45.2 Living on Reserves 4,092 Waikwakum I.R. No. 14 15.0 Aikwucks I.R. No. 15 11.1 Seaichem I.R. No. 16 27.5 Kowtain I.R. No. 17 20.8 Yekwaupsum I.R. No. 18 2.0 Yekwaupsum I.R. No. 19 1.0 Stawamus I.R. No. 24 22.1 Kaikalahun I.R. No. 25 11.5 Chekwelp I.R. No. 26 11.3 Chekwelp I.R. No. 26A 0.2 Schaltuuch I.R. No. 27 0.2 Def ence Island I.R. No. 28 1.7 Kwum Kwum 6.2 Total: 2,120

ECONOMIC FACILITIES AVAILABLE AFFILIATIONS ACTIVITIES ON RESERVES

The Squamish Nation‘s main source of Community hall; library ; cultural centre; arts Unaf f iliated. rev enue is deriv ed f rom leases and and craf ts centre; group home; church; Squamish owned businesses, such as the seniors‘ home; elders‘ centre; band of f ice; marina, Driv ing range, and Gas Bar. Of the kindergarten school; y outh recreation Nation‘s 70 leases the Park Roy al Shopping centre; longhouse. Centre, International Plaza, Lions Gate Waste Water Treatment Plant, and the Capilano Trailer Park are included.

GOVERNANCE HISTORY TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Membership Authority: Linguistic Group: Salishan Status of Negotiations: Stage 3 of 6 Section 10 Indian Act by Band Ethnic Group: Halq‘emey lem Squamish Nation is not currently inv olv ed in Election System: Custom Electoral treaty negotiations. Sy stem Pronunciation: Squa-mish Metro Vancouver jurisdictions Council Quorum: 8 of 16 Notes: within the First Nation’s Statement of The 16 tribes which were signatories to the Intent area: First Nation Officials: 1923 amalgamation included:  Anmore Chief Bill Williams  Belcarra Chief Richard Williams Ustlawn I.R. No. 1 (Mission)  Bowen Island Chief Gibby Jacob Ch‘ch‘Elxwikw I.R. No. 1 (Sey mour)  Burnaby Chief Ian Campbell Homulchsen I.R. No. 5 (Capilano)  Coquitlam Councillor Ann Whonnock Senakw I.R. No. 6 (Kitsilano)  Electoral Area A Councillor Christopher Lewis Skowishin I.R. No. 7  Lions Bay Councillor By ron Joseph Poy am I.R. No. 9  North Vancouv er City Councillor Dennis Joseph Cheakamus I.R. No. 11  North Vancouv er District Councillor Joshua Joseph Yookwitz I.R. No. 12  Councillor Alroy Baker Poquiosin I.R. No. 13 Port Moody  Councillor Krisandra Jacobs Waiwakum I.R. No. 14 (Brackendale) Squamish Councillor Julie Baker Seaichem I.R. No. 16  Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Councillor Dale Harry Kowtain I.R. No. 17  Sunshine Coast Regional District Councillor Carla George Stawamus I.R. No. 24  Vancouv er Councillor Richard Baker Chekwelp I.R. No. 26  West Vancouv er Councillor Pamela Baker Sxaaltxw I.R. No. 27 (Shelter Island)  Whistler Councillor Deborah Baker K‘ik‘elxen I.R. No. 28 (Port Mellon)

Term Appointment Date: Dec. 7, 2009 Term Expiry Date: December 6, 2013

5930407

GVRD - 74 P a g e | 21

Tsawwassen First Nation

According to native legend, the square-bottomed peninsula upon which the Tsawwassen people live was once an island fastened to the mainland by a cedar rope. The Transformers, Xexa:ls, anchored it to the sea bottom, and it grew to join the mainland. Tsawwassen, meaning ―land facing the sea‖, emerged as the centre of fishing and clamming stations stretching from Lulu Island in the Fraser River to Point Roberts. The people here were known for their waterproof mats and cloaks, made from bulrushes that grew in abundance.

In 1959, a 2-kilometre causeway was built, linking their peninsula, and the reserve, with the BC Ferries Terminal. One of the first two BC Ferries was named Tsawwassen after the First Nation.

The Tsawwassen First Nation is located in Delta, BC – situated on Canada‘s west coast between Vancouver and the United States border at Point Roberts, Washington.

On April 3, 2009, Tsawwassen First Nation ratified the first urban treaty in British Columbia, thereby reconciling the First Nation‘s aboriginal rights and title and fulfilling its right to self- government.

The treaty provides Tsawwassen with municipal-like jurisdiction over a land base of 724 hectares.

On Treaty Effective Date in 2009, Tsawwassen also became a full member of Metro Vancouver (both the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Greater Vancouver Water District).

Tsawwassen First Nation is governed by an elected Chief and Legislative Assembly. A smaller branch of the Assembly, or Executive Council, oversees the daily affairs of the Nation. Tsawwassen‘s self-governing authority provides the First Nation with the responsibility to manage its lands and resources, its social services, and many other areas of jurisdiction. The First Nation manages land development similar to a municipal government, and has put in place regulatory processes for zoning, subdivision, building permits, development permits, and off-site levies to manage growth.

The treaty also permits the First Nation to establish its own rules for membership. According to Tsawwassen First Nation, its membership totals 328 people, while the Federal department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada‘s record of registered Indian Population was 307 in January 2012.

Sources:  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Low er Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee  Tsawwassen First Nation w eb site  Statistics Canada

5930407

GVRD - 75 P a g e | 22

Tsawwassen First Nation

TSAWWASSEN LANDS POPULATION FIRST NATION

Administration Office Address: Hectares Registered Indian Population 1926 Tsawwassen Driv e Tsawwassen Lands 724.0 (as of January 2012 – AANDC) Tsawwassen, BC, V4M 4G2 Total: 724.0 Living on Tawwassen Lands: 174 Living off Tsawwassen Lands: 133 Tel: 604.943.2112 Notes: Total Registered Population: 307 Tsawwassen Lands are located on the Toll Free: 1.888.943.2112 coast ov erlooking the Strait of Georgia, Non-Aboriginals near the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. Living on Tsawwassen Reserve 474 Fax: 604.943.9226 in 2006 (2006 Census – Statistics Canada) E-Mail: inf o@tsawwassenf irstnation.com Total Population (est.) (Registered Indians and Non-Aboriginals) Web Site: www.tsawwassenf irstnation.com Living on Tsawwassen Lands 648 ECONOMIC FACILITIES AVAILABLE AFFILIATIONS ACTIVITIES

Tsawwassen Recreation Park and Elders‘ centre; y outh centre; longhouse; Naut‘sa mawt Tribal Council condominium dev elopment (Tsatsu recreation centre; early childhood 130 North Tsawwassen Driv e Shores), gas station, proposed housing and dev elopment centre; TFN Administration Delta, BC, V4M 4G2 commercial, industrial dev elopment, of f ices Tel: 604.943.6712 employ ment and recreational opportunities Toll Free: 1.888.382.7711 planned, including a Neighbourhood Plan Fax: 604.943.5367 f or part of its land near the Tsawwassen E-Mail: [email protected] Ferry Terminal Web: www.nautsamawt.org

Notes: On Nov ember 13, 2001, the Alliance Tribal Council f ormally changed its name to the Naut‘sa mawt (pronounced NAUGHT-sa MOTT) Tribal Council. ―Naut‘sa mawt‖ in the Coast Salish language means ―working together.‖ The Tribal Council is made up of representativ es f rom the f ollowing 8 First Nations: Chemainus, Halalt, Homalco, Klahoose, Sliammon, Snuney muxw, Tsawwassen, and Tsleil-Waututh. Naut‘sa mawt Tribal Council‘s role in prov iding serv ices is to support the sustainability of communities and the enhancement of the quality of lif e in terms of economic dev elopment, community planning, technical serv ices, f inancial management, and gov ernance. GOVERNANCE HISTORY TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Membership Authority: Linguistic Group: Salishan Treaty Ef f ective Date: April 3, 2009 Treaty First Nation Ethnic Group: Halq‘emey lem Metro Vancouver jurisdictions Council Quorum: 3 of 5 within the First Nation’s traditional Pronunciation: Tsa-wah-sen territory: First Nation Officials:  Burnaby Chief Kimberley Baird Notes:  Coquitlam Councillor Marv in Joe Tsawwassen is a Halkomelem word which  Delta Councillor Bry ce Williams means ―f acing the sea.‖  Langley City Councillor Laura Cassidy  Langley Township Councillor Andrea Jacobs  Maple Ridge

 Metro Vancouv er Electoral Area ‗A‘ Term Appointment Date: September 18,  New Westminster 2009  Pitt Meadows

 Port Coquitlam  Richmond  Surrey  White Rock

5930407

GVRD - 76 P a g e | 23

Tsleil-Waututh Nation

The ―people of the inlet‖ live near, but not quite on, Indian Arm looking out towards oil refineries on the southern reaches of their traditional territory across Burrard Inlet. According to the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, its range formerly spanned the entire inlet, reaching north up Indian Arm, and south to Burnaby Lake and Deer Lake.

Tsleil-Waututh currently has three (3) reserves. The main residential reserve – Burrard Inlet I.R. No. 3 – is located approximately 3 kilometres east of the Second Narrows Bridge, via Dollarton Highway, in North Vancouver.

Between 2001 and 2006, the Burrard Inlet I.R. No. 3 experienced a large population increase (16.8%) resulting in an absolute growth of 202 people, which represented 25.5% of the region‘s overall increase (791 people) in reserve population. The primary reason for this large increase is the number of housing units developed by the First Nation and leased to non- Aboriginals since 1996.

Approximately 57% of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation‘s Registered Indian population (287 out of 502) lives on the band‘s reserve in North Vancouver (January 2012).

At the same time, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation‘s land base of 110.7 hectares is the second smallest of the First Nations located within Metro Vancouver. The First Nation with the smallest land base in the region is the Kwikwetlem First Nation (84.5 hectares).

The Tsleil-Waututh Nation, currently in Stage 4 of six in the BC treaty negotiation process, is also a signatory First Nation to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management.

Sources:  BC Treaty Commission (BCTC)  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Low er Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee  Tsleil-Waututh Nation w eb site  Statistics Canada

5930407

GVRD - 77 P a g e | 24

Tsleil-Waututh Nation

TSLEIL-WAUTUTH INDIAN RESERVES POPULATION NATION (I.R.)

Band No. 549 Hectares Registered Indian Population Burrard Inlet I.R. No. 3 108.2 (as of January 2012 – AANDC) Also Known As: Burrard Nation Inlailawatash I.R. No. 4 0.5 Living on Indian Reserves: 287 Inlailawatash I.R. No. 4A 2.0 Living off Indian Reserves: 215 Band Office Address: Total: 110.7 Total Registered Population: 502 3075 Takay a Driv e North Vancouv er, BC, V7H 2V6 Notes: Non-Aboriginals The main community is located on Burrard Living on Reserves 1,107 Tel: 604.929.3454 Inlet I.R. No. 3, in North Vancouv er. (2006 Census – Statistics Canada)

Fax: 604.929.4714 Total Population (est.) (Registered Indians and Non-Aboriginals)

Living on Reserves 1,394 Web Site: www.burrardband.com

ECONOMIC FACILITIES AVAILABLE AFFILIATIONS ACTIVITIES ON RESERVES

Land has signif icant economic dev elopment Band of f ice; recreation centre; church; Naut‘sa mawt Tribal Council potential. Driv ing range and townhouses. school bus. 1145 Totem Road Nanaimo, BC, V9R 1H1 Tel: 250-753-0190 Fax: 250-740-0053 Web: www.nautsamawt.org

Membership Authority: Linguistic Group: Salishan Status of Negotiations: Stage 4 of 6 Section 10 Indian Act by Band Ethnic Group: Halq‘emey lem Metro Vancouver jurisdictions Election System: Act Electoral Sy stem within the First Nation’s Statement of Pronunciation: Tslay -wa-tooth Intent area: Council Quorum: 3 of 5  Anmore Notes:  Belcarra First Nation Officials: The Burrard Inlet was named by Captain  Burnaby Chief Justin George Vancouv er in June 1792, af ter his f riend Sir  Coquitlam Councillor Carleen Thomas Henry Burrard. To the nativ e people it was  Electoral Area A apparently named ―Tsleiliwaututh, the Councillor Maureen Thomas  Fraser Valley Regional District Councillor Lianna Martin Salishan name of an early nativ e v illage at  New Westminster Councillor Jennif er Thomas the mouth of the Sey mour Riv er.  North Vancouv er City Tsleiliwaututh is a Halkomelem word  North Vancouv er District Term Appointment Date: April 1, 2011 meaning ―people of the inlet.‖  Port Coquitlam  Term Expiry Date: March 31, 2013 Tsleil-Waututh leader, Dan George, in the Port Moody 1950s was an Academy Award nominee f or  Squamish-Lillooet Regional District his perf ormance in the mov ie Little Big Man.  Vancouv er He also wrote two popular books, My Heart  West Vancouv er Soars and My Spirit Soars.

5930407

GVRD - 78 P a g e | 25

Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group (Member First Nations of the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group are located outside the Metro Vancouver region but have interests within the region)

The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group was founded in 1993 to jointly negotiate a comprehensive treaty with British Columbia and Canada in the BC Treaty Process.

The Treaty Group represents over 6,200 members in six (6) First Nations:  Chemainus First Nation  Cowichan Tribes  Halalt First Nation  Lake Cowichan First Nation  Lyackson First Nation  Penelakut Tribe

The Hul‘qumi‘num Treaty Group‘s core traditional territory includes the watershed boundary of the Cowichan Lake and Cowichan River. Hul‘qumi‘num also has a marine/fishing traditional territory that extends from Vancouver Island to the Fraser River, from the Strait of Georgia/Salish Sea up to Sawmill Creek, north of Yale (Fraser Valley).

Hul'qumi'num is the shared language that connects these First Nations, as does their common traditional territory, culture, and history.

According to Hul‘qumi‘num:

―We have a vision of regaining control over our own destinies, allowing for strong, healthy communities for generations to come. Achieving this vision of reconciliation and a just resolution of our aboriginal title and rights within our territory will benefit the Hul'qumi'num people and indeed all Canadians. We stand firmly united in our conviction to negotiate a fair and honourable treaty — one that will enable our Hul'qumi'num communities to restore our historical prosperity and to ensure that our distinctive culture will flourish into the future.‖

Contact Mr. Robert Morales, Chief Negotiator Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group RR#1- 12611-B Trans Canada Highway Ladysmith, BC, V9G 1M5 Tel: 250-245-4660 Toll free: 1.888.9TREATY (1.888.987.3289) Fax: 250.245.4668 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.hulquminum.bc.ca

Sources:  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Hul‘qumi‘num Treaty Group w eb site  Statistics Canada

5930407

GVRD - 79 P a g e | 26

Sencot’en Alliance (Member First Nations of the Sencot’en Alliance are located on Vancouver Island and within the Metro Vancouver region)

The Sencot‘en Alliance is a grouping of four (4) First Nations from the Saanich Peninsula and White Rock in Metro Vancouver:  Pauquachin First Nation  Tsartlip First Nation  Tsawout First Nation  Semiahmoo First Nation

―Sencot‘en‖ (the language spoken by the Saanich First Nations people) is equivalent to ―Saanich‖ in ethnographic terms.

The Alliance claims Greater Victoria, the southern half of the Gulf Islands, the San Juan Islands, Point Roberts and the adjacent Lower Mainland area up to the Coquitlam River, and the whole of the area south of the Fraser River through to Seattle.

Contact Mr. Eric Pelkey, Coordinator Sencot‘en Alliance PO Box 121 (7725 Tatayut Road) Saanichton, BC, V8M 2C3 Tel: 250.652.9101 Fax: 250.652.9114 E-Mail: [email protected]

Sources:  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Sencot‘en Alliance w eb page  Statistics Canada

5930407

GVRD - 80 P a g e | 27

Sto:lo Nation (Member First Nations of the Sto:lo Nation are located in the Fraser Valley but have interests within the Metro Vancouver region)

While Sto:lo Nation share some cultural similarities with other Aboriginal people, especially other Northwest Coast groups, they are a unique people with specific cultural traditions and political interests unlike anyone else‘s. For example, they take their name Sto:lo from the word they gave the river. They are ―river people.‖ It is from the river and surrounding land that their cultural traditions are derived.

The Sto:lo Nation, as it exists today, evolved from several organizations that emerged in response to the Trudeau government's 1969 Liberal Indian Policy, usually referred to as the White Paper.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) Indian Agencies became known as District Councils in the 1960's. The East Fraser District Council (EFDC) was a grouping of twenty four Sto:lo bands between Fort Langley and Yale. District Councils were intended to facilitate the administration of DIA benefits and services but had the unanticipated effect of creating cohesion amongst the members who began to focus on rights and title and the ―land question.‖

By 1994, Sto:lo Nation and the Sto:lo Tribal Council agreed to form a single organization under the leadership of Chief Steven Point, the 28th (and current) Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia.

By 2004, the unified Sto:lo Nation, which had been providing services and programs to 19 member bands, had to deal with the withdrawal of 8 bands that chose to join the newly reconstituted Sto:lo Tribal Council.

Today, the 11 First Nations that make up the Sto:lo Nation include:  Aitchelitz Band ● Skowkale First Nation  Leq‘a:mel First Nation ● Squiala First Nation  Matsqui First Nation ● Sumas First Nation  Popkum First Nation ● Tzeachten First Nation  Shxwha:y Village ● Yakweakwioose Band  Skawahlook First Nation

Contact Chief Joe Hall, President Sto:lo Nation Bldg. 7-7201 Vedder Road Chilliwack, BC, V2R 4G5 Phone: 604.858.3366 Fax: 604.824.5326 E-Mail: [email protected] Web: www.stolonation.bc.ca

Sources:  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Sto:lo Nation w eb site  Statistics Canada

5930407

GVRD - 81 P a g e | 28

Sto:lo Tribal Council (Member First Nations of the Sto:lo Tribal Council are primarily located in the Fraser Valley but have interests within the Metro Vancouver region)

According to the Sto:lo Tribal Council, there have long been concerns about the lack of proper governance, financial accountability and inefficient delivery of services by the Sto:lo Nation Society. Such concerns led to conflict and deadlock within the Sto:lo Nation.

After much discussion, eight (8) First Nations determined it was time to move forward with a different model. The Sto:lo Tribal Council, incorporated on July 21, 2004, including the following First Nations with reserves in the Fraser Valley:  Chawathil First Nation  Cheam First Nation  Kwantlen First Nation  Kwaw‘Kwaw‘Apilt First Nation  Scowlitz First Nation  Seabird Island Indian Band  Shxw‘ow‘hamel First Nation  Soowahlie Indian Band

The Council‘s mandate, like that of the Sto:lo Nation Society, is to provide representation and governance for its member First Nations in such areas as education, social development, community development, child and family services, employment, economic development, health advisory services, fisheries, Aboriginal rights and title, treaty negotiations and the Halq‘emeylem language.

To fulfill its mandate, the Council has adopted a governance structure whereby all registered members of participating First Nations who are 18 years of age or older may become voting members of the Council, and all voting members are eligible to be directors. A directorship is reserved for an elder and a youth representative. Youth aged 7 to 17 years of age may participate as non-voting members. The membership meets up to four times per year to provide input and direction and to receive reports on ongoing activity of the Council.

Contact Grand Chief Doug Kelly (President) Sto:lo Tribal Council 2885 Chowat Road PO Box 440 Agassiz, BC, V0M 1A0 Phone: 604.796.0627 Toll Free: 1.877.919.6500 Fax: 604.796.0643 Email: [email protected] Web: www.stolotribalcouncil.ca

Sources:  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Sto:lo Tribal Council w eb site  Statistics Canada

5930407

GVRD - 82 P a g e | 29

Te’Mexw Treaty Association (Member First Nations of the Te’Mexw Treaty Association are located on Vancouver Island but also have interests within the Metro Vancouver region)

Five (5) First Nations on Vancouver Island joined together to form the Te'mexw Treaty Association:  Beecher Bay (Scia‘new) First Nation  Malahat First Nation  Nanoose (Snaw-naw-as) First Nation  Songhees (Lekwungen) Nation  T‘Sou-ke (Sooke) Nation

With a common objective of supporting each other, they have combined forces to work together in the British Columbia Treaty Process, and are currently in Stage 4 of the six-stage process, negotiating the Agreement-In-Principle.

The Te‘Mexw traditional territory includes Douglas Island, a Metro Vancouver park reserve, located at the confluence of the Pitt River and Fraser River.

The Te‘Mexw-member First Nations all share common history, culture and experiences with the Federal and Provincial governments. Each of these member First Nations is a descendant of the original signatories of the Douglas Treaties in the mid-nineteenth century.

James Douglas signed fourteen treaties on Vancouver Island during this period. These Douglas treaties encompass approximately 927 square kilometres of land around Victoria, Saanich, Sooke, Nanaimo and Port Hardy. Te‘Mexw claims that these treaties were never honoured or recognized by the Federal and Provincial governments. According to the Te‘Mexw: ―Our objective is to negotiate a treaty that is acceptable to each of our individual Nations that will sustain us well into the future for our children and great grandchildren and the many generations to come.‖

Contact Tom Bob, Chairperson Te‘Mexw Treaty Association 13-D Cooper Road Victoria, BC V9A 4K2 Tel: 250.360.2202 Fax: 250.360.2206 E-Mail: [email protected] Web: www.temexw.org

Sources:  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Te‘Mexw Treaty Association web site  Statistics Canada

5930407

GVRD - 83 P a g e | 30

Tseycum First Nation (This unaffiliated First Nation is located on Vancouver Island but has interests within the Metro Vancouver region)

Tseycum First Nation, with its five (5) Indian Reserves totaling 192.2 ha, is located in Sidney, near Victoria, on Vancouver Island.

Tseycum First Nation has 170 members (February 2011), with an overwhelming majority (112 or 66%) living on reserves.

In the Sencot‘en language ―Tseycum‖ is spelled Wsikem and means ―land of clay.‖

In the 1850s, Tseycum was a signatory First Nation to the Douglas Treaties.

Tseycum has claimed a fishing post along the Fraser River in the Lower Mainland (exact location unknown).

Tseycum is self-governed and offers assistance to its members by way of health, youth, elder, community, employment and financial support.

Current First Nation projects include: stream/shore keeping; wildlife/habitat restoration; Coast Guard; elders program; Head Start program; afterschool program; summer employment program; and Tseycum Canoe Tours (interpretive).

Contact Chief Tanya Jones Tseycum First Nation 1210 Totem Lane North Saanich, BC V8L 5S4 Tel: 250.656.0858 Chief Tel: 250.656.0858 (ext 227) Toll Free: 1.877.656.0858 Fax: 250.656.0868 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] Web: www.tseycum.ca

Sources:  Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  Tseycum First Nation w eb site  Tseycum First Nation  Statistics Canada

5930407

GVRD - 84 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

GVRD Board of Directors: March 30, 2012

To: GVRD Board of Directors

From: Jason Smith, Regional Planner, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department

Date: March 22, 2012

Subject: Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 - Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy

Recommendation: That the Board adopt the “Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 – Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy” as attached to the report dated February 28, 2012, titled „Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 - Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy”.

At its March 9, 2012 meeting, the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee considered the attached report titled “Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 - Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy”, dated February 28, 2012.

In order to prevent Type 3 amendments being used in some circumstances to achieve what is intended to be Type 2 amendments (as more stringent amendment procedures apply to Type 2 amendments), the Committee subsequently requested to consider minor changes to Section 4 of the Attachment 1 titled “Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy“.

The changes are as follows:  On page 6, in Section 4 of the document, in the first paragraph, by after the phrase, “To change the same site from Agriculture to Industrial is also a Type 3 amendment”, inserting the phrase “in circumstances where the site is contiguous with, or within, the Urban Containment Boundary and not within the Agricultural Land Reserve (section 6.3.4.(f)”; and  On page 6, in Section 4 of the document, in the last sentence of the first paragraph, after the phrase “Conservation and Recreation” adding the phrase “or Agriculture”.

These changes are reflected in Attachment 1 of the Board report.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 - Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Guidelines Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 - Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy - ReportAttachment 2 - Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw No. 1148, 2011

Page 1 of 1

GVRD - 85

Regional Growth Strategy IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINE #2 Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy

Metro Vancouver 2040 Shaping Our Future

Adopted by the Metro Vancouver Board on ______, 2012

GVRD - 86 Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy Introduction The Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw was adopted in July 2011. It sets out the regional planning goals of creating a compact urban area, supporting a sustainable economy, protecting the environment, developing complete communities and supporting sustainable transportation choices.

There will be circumstances where it will be necessary to amend the Regional Growth Strategy. The legislation, the Regional Growth Strategy and the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw No. 1148, 2011 (see Attachment 2) specify the required amendment procedures. This guideline is intended to provide a more detailed explanation of the amendment procedures. The guideline should be read in conjunction with the Regional Growth Strategy and the Procedures Bylaw, and do not supersede the amendment procedures set out in those documents. 1. Initiating Amendments It is the Metro Vancouver Board that initiates amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS Section 6.4.1) by resolution. Municipalities can, by resolution, request the Metro Vancouver Board to consider amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy.

Individuals and organizations that desire to change the regional land use designation for a specific site should approach the municipality where the property is located. The municipality will assess whether or not it wishes to submit a formal request for an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy to the Metro Vancouver Board. For all other forms of amendments, individuals or organizations may approach the Metro Vancouver Board or their municipality to request an amendment. 2. Amendment Process The process for amending the Regional Growth Strategy is described below and summarized in Figure 1. Amendments initiated by Metro Vancouver, and not requested by a municipality, will follow the same process outlined in Figure 1 except for the first step (the need for a municipal Council resolution).

Municipalities are encouraged to have preliminary discussions with Metro Vancouver staff prior to submitting a municipal request to amend the Regional Growth Strategy. If the proposed amendments have regional transportation impacts then TransLink should also be consulted.

2.1 Regional Planning Advisory Committee Review The Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC) comprises planning directors or their alternate from all of Metro Vancouver’s member municipalities, Tsawwassen First Nation and TransLink. The Procedures Bylaw sets out provisions for RPAC to comment on all proposed amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy. The Procedures Bylaw directs Metro Vancouver to prepare a draft report on the requested amendment and refer it to RPAC for comment within four weeks of receiving the requested amendment. The draft report presented to RPAC will contain the materials provided by the municipality requesting the amendment (if any), as well as Metro Vancouver staff analysis and recommendations to the Board. A draft amendment bylaw will also be provided to RPAC.

RPAC will, within four weeks, provide comments on the proposed amendment in the form of a resolution. Metro Vancouver staff will consider RPAC’s comments when preparing the report for the Metro Vancouver Board prior to first reading of a Regional Growth Strategy amendment bylaw. RPAC’s resolution will also be given to the Metro Vancouver Board.

Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 2

GVRD - 87

Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy

Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 3

GVRD - 88

Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy 2.2 Board Process The Metro Vancouver staff report, the municipal report, and RPAC’s resolution will be submitted to the Metro Vancouver Board committee responsible for the Regional Growth Strategy. The committee will make a recommendation to the Metro Vancouver Board.

The Metro Vancouver Board will decide whether to initiate the amendment, give first reading to the amendment bylaw and provide notification of the amendment. If the Board decides to initiate the amendment and give first reading to the Regional Growth Strategy amendment bylaw, the next steps depend on the type of amendment that is under consideration:

 For Type 1 amendments, the Regional Growth Strategy Section 6.4.3 and the Local Government Act require unanimous acceptance of the proposed bylaw, by resolution, from all affected local governments before a Type 1 amendment bylaw can proceed. No public hearing is required. A simple majority vote of the Metro Vancouver Board is required in order for a Type 1 amendment bylaw to proceed.

 For Type 2 amendments, the Regional Growth Strategy section 6.4.4 requires Metro Vancouver to hold a public hearing. An affirmative two-thirds weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board is required in order for a Type 2 amendment bylaw to proceed.

 For Type 3 amendments, no Metro Vancouver public hearing is required. A simple majority vote of the Metro Vancouver Board is required in order for a Type 3 amendment bylaw to proceed.

2.3 Notification If the Metro Vancouver Board resolves to proceed with the amendment process it will notify all affected local governments of the proposed amendment in accordance with section 6.4.2 of the Regional Growth Strategy. A minimum of 30 days notice is required. Notification will be sent to affected local governments upon initiation of the amendment process.

When the proposed amendment is to change the regional designation of a site from Industrial or Mixed Employment to General Urban, the Metro Vancouver Board also notify Port Metro Vancouver, the Vancouver International Airport Authority, the Ministry of Transportation and/or the Agricultural Land Commission as required by section 6.4.2 (d) of the Regional Growth Strategy.

In addition, the Metro Vancouver Board will notify the public of all Regional Growth Strategy amendments. Table 1 outlines how notice will be provided to the public, depending on the type of amendment.

Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 4

GVRD - 89

Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy Table 1: Public Notice of Regional Growth Strategy Amendments

Metro Regional Community Mailed Vancouver Newspaper Newspaper* notice** Website Type 1

Amendments   Type 2 Amendments     Type 3

Amendments   

* Notice will be published in a community newspaper only when a proposed amendment involves a change to a regional land use designation. The notice will be published in the community newspaper where the subject site is located.

**In accordance with Section 892 of the Local Government Act, Metro Vancouver will notify residents and property owners by mail and will follow local municipal notification procedures.

Comments on the proposed amendment will be provided to the Metro Vancouver Board prior to its consideration of whether or not to adopt the amendment bylaw.

For all Type 1 amendments, notification will also be sent to the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, in accordance with section 867 of the Local Government Act. 3. Regional Context Statements and Companion Regional Growth Strategy Amendments A municipality may request an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy at the time it submits a Regional Context Statement to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance. The amendment(s) may be necessary to ensure general consistency between the Regional Growth Strategy and the proposed Regional Context Statement.

As outlined in section 6.2.4, Metro Vancouver will endeavour to accommodate the two processes concurrently. In addition, Metro Vancouver will endeavour to process the necessary Regional Growth Strategy amendments within the 120 day period for accepting Regional Context Statements.

If a proposed Regional Context Statement is not accepted, then the municipality may choose to revise the proposed Regional Context Statement and re-submit it to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance, or proceed with dispute resolution as prescribed in the Local Government Act. Figure 2 provides a summary of how Metro Vancouver will endeavour to run the processes for Regional Growth Strategy amendments and Regional Context Statement acceptance concurrently.

Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 5

GVRD - 90

Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy

4. Avoiding “Two-Step” Minor Amendments There is a possibility that a series of Type 3 amendments could be used to achieve what is intended to be a Type 2 amendment in order to avoid the more stringent amendment procedures for Type 2 amendments. For example, to change the regional land use designation of a site from Conservation and Recreation to Agriculture is a Type 3 amendment in circumstances where the site is contiguous with, or within, the Urban Containment Boundary and not within the Agricultural Land Reserve (section 6.3.4 (f)). To change the same site from Agriculture to Industrial is also a Type 3 amendment. However, a change of regional land use designation from Conservation and Recreation or Agriculture to Industrial is a Type 2 amendment, with more stringent amendment procedures.

Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 6

GVRD - 91

Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy The Type 3 minor amendments outlined in section 6.3.4 are not intended to be used sequentially to avoid a Type 2 amendment. In order to avoid this happening inadvertently, Metro Vancouver staff will always include the history of the regional land use designations for the subject property as part of the staff report.

Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 7

GVRD - 92

metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: March 9, 2012

To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee

From: Jason Smith, Regional Planner Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department

Date: February 28, 2012

Subject: Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 - Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy

Recommendation:

That the Board adopt the “Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 – Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy” as attached to this report.

1. PURPOSE

To request Metro Vancouver Board adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 – Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy.

2. CONTEXT

The Regional Growth Strategy includes a direction for Metro Vancouver staff to prepare a series of guidelines to support the implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy. The Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 – Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy (the “guidelines”) (Attachment 1) were drafted in response to that direction.

The overall intent of the guideline is to provide clarity on the process for amending the Regional Growth Strategy. Some of the key issues addressed are how amendments can be initiated, the steps involved in the amendment process and how the Regional Growth Strategy will be amended concurrently with a Regional Context Statement.

The draft Guideline is to be read in conjunction with the Regional Growth Strategy and the Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw (Attachment 2). The main sections of the guideline are:

 Initiating Amendments;  Amendment Process;  Regional Context Statements and Concurrent Regional Growth Strategy Amendments;  Avoiding “Two-Step” Amendments.

Draft versions of the guideline were reviewed by the Regional Planning Advisory Committee at their December 2011 and February 2012 meetings.

Page 1 of 2

GVRD - 93

3. ALTERNATIVES

That the Board may: a) Adopt “Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 – Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy” [Recommended]; or b) Propose amendments to “Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 – Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy”; or c) Provide other direction to staff.

4. CONCLUSION

The intent of the guideline is to provide clarity on the process for amending the Regional Growth Strategy. The guideline has been informed by recent experiences with amending the Regional Growth Strategy and input from the Regional Planning Advisory Committee.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 - Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy.

Attachment 2 Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw No. 1148, 2011.

GVRD - 94

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT

REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY PROCEDURES BYLAW NO. 1148, 2011

Purpose

The purpose of this bylaw is to establish procedures, supplementary to those set out in the Regional Growth Strategy and the Local Government Act, for the administration and implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy.

Definitions

1. In this bylaw:

“Affected Local Government” has the meaning given to that term in section 848 of the Local Government Act;

“Board” means the Metro Vancouver (Greater Vancouver Regional District) board of directors;

“Council of Councils” means a meeting of all the elected representatives of the Member Municipalities and the Board director who represents Electoral Area A;

“Member Municipality” means any a municipality that is subject to the Regional Growth Strategy and includes the Tsawwassen First Nation;

“Regional Growth Strategy” or “Strategy” means the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw Number 1136, 2010;

“Regional Growth Strategy Annual Report” means the report released by the Board annually in compliance with section 869(1) of the Local Government Act;

“Regional Planning Committee” means the standing committee of Metro Vancouver (GVRD) established to consider and advise the Board on Strategic Planning function matters;

“Technical Advisory Committee” or “TAC” means the committee made up of planning directors or their alternates from all Affected Local Governments.

Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw Number 1148, 2011 Page 1 of 4

GVRD - 95 Processing requested amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy

1. Any Member Municipality may request an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy. Such requests shall be submitted to Metro Vancouver accompanied by a resolution of the Member Municipal Council endorsing the requested amendment and a report explaining the purpose of and rationale for the requested amendment.

2. Whenever Metro Vancouver receives a request for an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy from a Member Municipal Council, Metro Vancouver staff shall, within four weeks, prepare a draft report on the requested amendment and refer their draft report and the proponent municipality report referred to in section 1 to the Technical Advisory Committee.

3. The Technical Advisory Committee shall, within four weeks of receiving the draft Metro Vancouver staff report, prepare a TAC comment on the draft. Metro Vancouver staff and the proponent municipal staff may explain their reports and respond to questions but shall not participate in determining or preparing the TAC comment.

4. Metro Vancouver staff shall consider the TAC comment, amend their draft report as they deem fit, and submit their final report, together with the proponent municipal report referred to in section 1 and the TAC comment to the first convenient subsequent meeting of the Regional Planning Committee.

5. The Regional Planning Committee shall consider the requested amendment and provide the proponent Member Municipality, the Metro Vancouver staff and TAC the opportunity to make a presentation on their reports and positions.

6. The Regional Planning Committee shall make recommendations to the Board on the appropriate disposition of the requested amendment and the Board may, at its discretion, provide opportunity for delegations to the Board on the Committee recommendations.

Reporting on performance measures

7. The Regional Growth Strategy Annual Report shall include a report on those measures set out in Section G of the Regional Growth Strategy.

8. Additionally the Regional Growth Strategy Annual Report shall include a report on the following measures:

a. Metro Vancouver staff time, expressed in the number of full-time equivalent staff budgeted to administer the Regional Growth Strategy;

b. The total cost of implementing, managing, monitoring and amending the Strategy for the calendar year, including the cost Metro Vancouver and municipal staff, costs related to referral of requested amendments to the Technical Advisory Committee, external consultants, external legal advisors and all other resources;

Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw Number 1148, 2011 Page 2 of 4

GVRD - 96

c. The number of requested amendments and approved amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy by type;

d. A comparison of items a), b) and c) year over year and pre- and post- adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy: and

e. A record of the timelines to process amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy, including staff, Technical Advisory Committee and Board review.

9. If requested by an Affected Local Government, Metro Vancouver will make a presentation on the Regional Growth Strategy Annual Report to that Affected Local Government’s Council or board, answer any questions that may arise and report back to the Board on information received during the presentation.

Review of the Regional Growth Strategy

10. Prior to the Board considering, pursuant to section 869(2) of the Act, whether to review the Regional Growth Strategy for possible amendment, the Board will convene the following:

a. Technical Advisory Committee Workshop – the Technical Advisory Committee may make a recommendation as to whether a general review of the Strategy is necessary or, if no general review should be undertaken, what if any specific issues should be reviewed.

b. Public Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee – the Regional Planning Committee will hold a public meeting or series of public meetings to provide the opportunity for input on the need for review of the Regional Growth Strategy from all persons, organizations and authorities who wish to participate. Metro Vancouver will make best efforts to notify all parties involved in developing the Regional Growth Strategy, as well as other interested parties as outlined in section 855(2) of the Local Government Act and the public at large, of the date and location of this meeting and the opportunity to address the Committee. Metro Vancouver will maintain a record of the meeting and present a summary report to the Board.

c. Council of Councils Workshop – Metro Vancouver staff will make a presentation to a Council of Council Workshop on the performance of the Regional Growth Strategy. Metro Vancouver will maintain a record of the Regional Growth Strategy discussion and present a summary report to the Board.

11. These workshops are in addition to any other opportunity for input that the Board may provide pursuant to section 869(3) of the Local Government Act.

Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw Number 1148, 2011 Page 3 of 4

GVRD - 97 GVRD - 98 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: March 9, 20122 :

To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee

From: Jason Smith, Regional Planner Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department

Date: February 20, 2012

Subject: Request from the City of Coquitlam for a Regional Growth Strategy Amendment

Recommendation:

That the Board:

a) Introduce and give first and second reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1160, 2012; and b) Direct Metro Vancouver staff to send the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1160, 2012 to all affected local governments for consideration of acceptance.

1. PURPOSE

To introduce a Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw that would remove reference to “Conservation and Recreation lands utilized for commercial extensive recreation facilities” from the minor amendment process. The removal of this clause would mean that this land use would follow a similar amendment process to other areas designated in the Regional Growth Strategy as Conservation and Recreation. This request was made by the City of Coquitlam during the Regional Growth Strategy acceptance process.

2. CONTEXT

The City of Coquitlam requested that the phrase “Conservation and Recreation lands utilized only for commercial extensive recreation facilities” included in section 6.3.4 (b) of the Regional Growth Strategy be deleted. This request was made by resolution of the City of Coquitlam Council in March, 2011(Attachment 1).

Section 6.3.4 is part of the Regional Growth Strategy minor amendment process. Any changes to minor amendment process are considered to be Type 1 amendments. Type 1 amendments require unanimous acceptance of all affected local governments.

The Metro Vancouver Board responded to the City of Coquitlam’s request by initiating a Type 1 amendment process at their September 23, 2011 Board meeting. The Board chose to delay introduction of the Bylaw because the Type 1 process requires a 60 day period for acceptance by affected local governments, which would have extended beyond the term of the previous Board. Initiating the Bylaw in 2012 avoided having the bylaw amendment considered by two different Boards.

GVRD - 99

The Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) sets out that any changes to the Conservation and Recreation area requires a two-thirds vote of the Board and a regional public hearing. However, the RGS section 6.3.4(b) includes a provision to allow Conservation and Recreation lands to be re-designated by a simple majority vote if those lands are used for commercial extensive recreation facilities, and are situated within the Urban Containment Boundary.

This section is currently written as follows, with the portion that is proposed to be removed in italics:

“6.3.4 The following Type 3 minor amendments require an affirmative 50%+1 weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board and do not require a regional public hearing: b) for sites within the Urban Containment Boundary, amendments from Industrial, Mixed Employment, Conservation and Recreation lands utilized only for commercial extensive recreation facilities, or General Urban land use designations to any other such regional land use designations”.

The City of Coquitlam had initially requested the clause to allow increased flexibility to change land use designations for those particular uses, such as golf courses. However, the City has subsequently determined that this clause is not necessary, and requested that the clause be removed. Metro Vancouver staff support the proposed amendment.

Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC) Comments RPAC (formerly known as the Technical Advisory Committee or TAC) supports the Metro Vancouver staff recommendation to amend the Regional Growth Strategy as proposed by Coquitlam.

Process and Timeline for Type 1 Amendment The Metro Vancouver Board initiated this amendment at its September 23, 2011 meeting. Notice of this proposed amendment was sent to all affected local governments in January 2012, as required by section 6.4.2 of the Regional Growth Strategy. Notice is also required to all members of the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (composed largely of members of RPAC and provincial ministries). No comments have been received to date. Any comments received in response to this notice will be provided to the Metro Vancouver Board at the time first and second reading is considered.

If the Board gives initial readings to the amendment Bylaw, then it must be sent to all affected local governments for acceptance. Unanimous acceptance from all affected local governments is required in order to proceed. Affected local governments will have 60 days to consider their acceptance once the request has been received. A public hearing is not required for Type 1 amendments. If unanimous acceptance is achieved, the Bylaw will be brought back to the Board for final readings and adoption.

3. ALTERNATIVES

The following options are provided for consideration:

That the Board:

a) Introduce and give first and second reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1160, 2012; and

GVRD - 100

b) Direct Metro Vancouver staff to send the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1160, 2012 to all affected local governments for consideration of acceptance] Or

That the Board decline to advance a request to amend the Regional Growth Strategy.

4. CONCLUSION

Metro Vancouver staff support the proposed amendment requested by the City of Coquitlam as it will provide a higher degree of protection for designated Conservation and Recreation lands throughout the region.

ATTACHMENTS

1 - Request from the City of Coquitlam for Type 1 Regional Growth Strategy Amendment.

2 - Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1160, 2012.

GVRD - 101 ATTACHMENT

GVRD - 102 GVRD - 103 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 1160, 2012

A Bylaw to Amend Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw Number 1136, 2010.

WHEREAS the Board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District adopted the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw Number 1136, 2010 on the 29th day of July, 2011;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District in open meeting assembled ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. The “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw Number 1136, 2010” is hereby amended by deleting the following from Section 6.3.4 (b):

“, Conservation and Recreation lands utilized only for commercial extensive recreation facilities”,

2. The official citation for this bylaw is “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1160, 2012.” This bylaw may be cited as “Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1160, 2012.”

Read a First time this day of , 2012.

Read a Second time this day of , 2012.

Read a Third time this day of , 2012.

Reconsidered, Passed and Finally Adopted this day of , 2012

______Paulette A. Vetleson Greg Moore Corporate Secretary Chair

GVRD - 104 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: March 9, 2012:

To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee

From: Christina DeMarco, Division Manager Regional Development Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department

Date: February 25, 2012

Subject: Request from the Village of Anmore for a Regional Growth Strategy Amendment

Recommendation:

That the Board:

a) initiate the process for a Type 2 amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy in accordance with section 857.1(2) of the Local Government Act to re-designate the School District 43 middle school building site in the Village of Anmore from Rural to General Urban and adjust the Urban Containment Boundary to include the site, and; b) direct staff to send notification of this amendment to all affected local governments.

1. PURPOSE

To initiate a Regional Growth Strategy amendment to accommodate the School District 43 middle school building site in the Village of Anmore.

2. CONTEXT

Metro Vancouver has received a formal request from the Village of Anmore Council to amend the Regional Growth Strategy (see Attachment 1). The Village of Anmore requests that Metro Vancouver make the necessary amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy to permit the construction of a school and enable the extension of regional sewer services to the proposed School District 43 middle school building site. The School District 43 middle school is located on the boundary between Anmore and Port Moody, adjacent to the existing Heritage Woods High School (Attachment 2).

On February 28, 2012, the Village of Anmore adopted the following resolution:

“THAT THE VILLAGE OF ANMORE REQUESTS THAT METRO VANCOUVER MAKE THE NECESSARY AMENDMENTS TO THE REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY TO ENABLE THE EXTENSION OF THE REGIONAL SEWER SYSTEM FOR THE PROPOSED MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE. THE BUILDING SITE IS LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE SENIOR SECONDARY SITE AND SOUTH OF THE GAS RIGHT-OF-WAY PASSING THROUGH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.”

GVRD - 105

The entire Village of Anmore was designated as Urban in the Livable Region Strategic Plan. During development of the new Regional Growth Strategy, Anmore was asked to consider a Rural designation given the fact that the existing development was rural and urban development was not considered appropriate given the location, infrastructure and site conditions in Anmore. Anmore agreed to a Rural designation in the new Regional Growth Strategy, provided that the school construction would be permitted and serviced by regional sewer and provided that a Special Study area be shown for the southwest corner of Anmore (unrelated to the school site).

The Village of Anmore submitted a request on October 18, 2010 to Metro Vancouver for the extension of regional sewer services to the proposed school site. The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District adopted the following resolution at their November 26, 2010 meeting:

That the Board support the Village of Anmore’s request to expand the Fraser Sewage Area to accept sewage from the proposed School District 43 middle school site for the building footprint only subject to:

i. The Village of Anmore becoming a member of the GVS&DD pursuant to section 66 of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act;

ii. The Village of Anmore, the City of Port Moody and the GVS&DD negotiating and concluding an agreement to address the construction and connection of the Village of Anmore’s school service sewer to the GVS&DD system via the City of Port Moody’s sewers; and

iii. The Village of Anmore demonstrating that, in accordance with the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan, the regional sewer system should be extended to accommodate the school due to environmental or public health reasons that warrants sewer extension beyond the urban containment boundary.

Had the Village of Anmore fulfilled these three conditions before enactment of the Strategy in July, 2011 an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy would not have been needed. In hindsight, given the understanding with the Village of Anmore, the school site should have been identified as General Urban and situated within the Urban Containment Boundary. Unfortunately, this was not done because it was assumed that construction would have commenced and all three conditions stated above would have been fulfilled before enactment of the new Regional Growth Strategy.

This report only addresses the third condition; Anmore is responsible for ensuring that condition one and two are completed.

Rural Land Use Designation The Regional Growth Strategy describes the intent of the Rural land use designation “as areas intended to protect the existing character of rural communities, landscapes and environmental qualities. Land uses include low density residential, small scale commercial, industrial and institutional uses and agricultural uses that do not require the provision of urban services such as sewer or transit”.

The proposed middle school cannot be viewed as a small scale institutional land use and is considered inconsistent with the Rural designation. Accordingly, a Regional Growth Strategy amendment is necessary.

GVRD - 106

Regional Growth Strategy and Regional Sewer Services The Regional Growth Strategy is clear in its intent that regional sewer services are not to be extended outside of the Urban Containment Boundary or into non-urban regional land use designations, except for very specific circumstances.

The site is currently designated Rural in the Regional Growth Strategy and lies outside the Urban Containment Boundary. Regional Growth Strategy policy 1.3.1 applies:

1.3.1 Direct the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District not to extend regional sewer services into Rural areas, except for building footprints in cases where infrastructure is needed to address a public health issue, protect the region’s natural assets, or to service agriculture or agri-industry.

The policy does allow the extension of regional sewer services to building footprints that existed prior to the adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy in cases where it is needed to address a public health issue or to protect the region’s natural assets. Neither of these circumstances apply to the Anmore school site; therefore, an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy is needed.

During the development of the Regional Growth Strategy, several sites were identified as areas outside of the Urban Containment Boundary, with non-urban regional land use designations, that would be eligible to receive regional sewer services. The school site was not identified as it was assumed construction would have already been underway. These areas are explained in section 6.9 and identified on Map 12 of the Regional Growth Strategy. Section 6.12.4 of the Regional Growth Strategy states that “Sewerage Areas depicted on Map 12 are not to be expanded nor are new areas to be created”.

Proposed Regional Growth Strategy Amendment In order to accommodate the school site and allow regional sewer services to be extended, the school site needs to be included within Urban Containment Boundary and the site designated as General Urban. The attached map (Attachment 3) shows the portion of the school site that is proposed to be included inside the Urban Containment Boundary and re- designated as General Urban. The northern boundary of the site is defined by a gas line right-of- way and the southern boundary is the municipal boundary adjacent to Port Moody.

An amendment to the Urban Containment Boundary requires a Type 2 amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS Section 6.3.3 (a)). A mending a Rural land use designation to General Urban also requires a Type 2 amendment (RGS Section 6.3.3 (c)). Type 2 amendments require a regional public hearing (RGS Section 6.3.3) and an affirmative two- third weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board.

While the school location and steep slope conditions are not ideal, the selection and purchase of this site was the result of a lengthy search by School District 43. It is immediately adjacent to the existing high school and access would be provided both through Port Moody and the Village of Anmore. The new school would share the existing play fields of the high school. The school catchment includes residential areas immediately to the east and south of the site.

The City of Port Moody is in support of a school at this location and is presently working out a number of conditions with the Village of Anmore including fire services and the terms of

GVRD - 107

agreement for the connection of sewer services. As a condition of allowing School District 43 the ability to connect to Port Moody’s sanitary and storm sewers, the City of Port Moody will require that a restrictive covenant be registered against the school district property restricting future connections to these Port Moody systems. The covenant will specify that the Village of Anmore will not cause, permit or allow any other user or person to discharge sanitary sewage or storm water to the school lands or allow sanitary sewage or storm water generated from any other adjacent or nearby lands to be discharged to the school lands so as to then discharge to the City’s utility system.

Notification and Referral Notification of the amendment must be sent to all affected local governments in accordance with section 6.4.2 of the Regional Growth Strategy. If first and second reading is granted by the Board, notification will include surrounding residents and other affected parties.

The Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw requires that the Regional Planning Advisory Committee (municipal Planning Directors) comment on any proposed amendment and that these comments be included in the initial report to the Metro Vancouver Board.

Proposed Timeline February 24, 2012 Regional Planning Advisory Committee meeting to comment on the proposed amendment. March 9, 2012 Report to Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee to initiate the amendment process. March 30, 2012 Report to Metro Vancouver Board to initiate the amendment process. April 2, 2012 Notice sent to all affected local governments requesting comments. May 4, 2012 Report and Amendment Bylaw to Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee. May 25, 2012 Metro Vancouver Board considers initial readings to Bylaw and sets the Public Hearing date. A date after June 5, 2012 Public hearing is held. (earliest possible date for public hearing) June 30, 2012 Metro Vancouver considers final readings and adopts the amendment Bylaw. GVS&DD approves sewerage area extension

Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC) Comments

The Regional Planning Advisory Committee reviewed this amendment request at their meeting of February 24, 2012 and passed a resolution in support for the amendment. They further requested that the terms of the restricted covenant specifying the school lands only be serviced be included in the amendment request report.

GVS&DD Process

If the Metro Vancouver Board approves this regional growth strategy amendment, and if conditions are met as outlined above, then the final step would be approval from the GVS&DD to approve a sewerage area extension. Anmore is required to become a member of GVS&DD prior to a decision by GVS&DD to extend the sewer area.

GVRD - 108

3. ALTERNATIVES

That the Board:

b) direct staff to send notification of this amendment to all affected local governments. Or

That the Board decline to initiate the Regional Growth Strategy Amendment process for the middle school site in Anmore.

4. CONCLUSION

The Village of Anmore and School District 43 have had longstanding plans to build a middle school at the southern boundary of Anmore, adjacent to the urban area of Port Moody. The school would serve both Anmore and Port Moody students. The GVS&DD Board has previously indicated support for providing sewer services to the school provided that certain conditions were met. Anmore was unable to meet the conditions prior to the enactment of the Regional Growth Strategy. Consequently, amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy are now necessary. Staff support the request for Anmore to proceed with the school as planned and request the Metro Vancouver Board to consider the necessary amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy.

ATTACHMENTS

1 – Village of Anmore Council Resolution.

2 – Aerial Map of Proposed School Site.

3 – Map of Proposed Regional Growth Strategy Amendments.

GVRD - 109 GVRD - 110 - GVRD > C, -

111 m z

Regional Growth Strategy Land Use Designation Amendment ATTACHMENT 3: Map of Proposed Regional Growth Strategy Amendment

GVRD - 112 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: March 9, 2012

To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee

From: Eric Aderneck, Regional Planner Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department

Date: February 25, 2012

Subject: Metro Vancouver Sponsorship of the Planning Institute of British Columbia 2012 Annual Conference and the NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Association 2012 Awards

Recommendation:

That the Board approve the following expenditures: a) $3,000 to provide sponsorship for the Planning Institute of British Columbia 2012 Annual Planning Conference; and b) $3,000 to provide sponsorship for NAIOP - Commercial Real Estate Development Association/Business in Vancouver 2012 Commercial Real Estate Awards of Excellence.

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for the Board to consider funding two sponsorship events: a) the Planning Institute of British Columbia (PIBC) 2012 Annual Planning Conference to be held in May/June 2012 b) the NAIOP- Commercial Real Estate Development Association /Business In Vancouver (BIV) 2012 Commercial Real Estate Awards of Excellence to be held in May 2012.

2. CONTEXT

Sponsorship of major planning and development events by Metro Vancouver provides a number of benefits to Metro Vancouver, including increasing the profile of Metro Vancouver, building relationships with important industry contacts, and linking Metro Vancouver goals and policies with discussions on planning and development throughout the region.

PIBC Annual Conference The Planning Institute of British Columbia is the professional association of planners in British Columbia and Yukon. PIBC has been dedicated to the advancement of the planning profession for more than 50 years, and is affiliated with the national Canadian Institute of Planners.

The May 29 – June 1, 2012 PIBC conference in Harrison Hot Springs is the annual planning conference. The theme this is exploring planning in periods of rapid change and will include a focus on building stronger relationships between professions, bridging the gap between

GVRD - 113

planning theory and practice, and engaging discussions with planners and the development community. It will be attended by approximately 400 delegates.

The funding opportunity recommended is for a PIBC Mount Cheam Level sponsorship at a cost of $3,000. This level of sponsorship provides for social and networking welcome reception, breakfast sponsorship, lunch sponsorship, name and logo on event materials, and two discounted registrations for staff to the event. Other event sponsorship levels available range from $500 to $7,500.

Promoting Metro Vancouver and the Regional Growth Strategy is an important part of building support for the RGS. Many of the planners – working for municipalities, agencies, consultants, and developers – attending the PIBC conference will be involved in implementing the RGS. Metro Vancouver planning staff will attend the conference and lead a panel session on regional growth strategy aspirations and results and participate in a panel on agricultural planning issues.

NAIOP / BIV Commercial Real Estate Awards of Excellence NAIOP is an organization representing commercial and industrial land owners and developers. NAIOP provides communication, networking and business opportunities for real estate related professionals within the local commercial market. The association also provides a forum for continuing education and the promotion of effective public policy at all levels of government.

To host the event, NAIOP Vancouver is partnering with Business in Vancouver, a weekly newspaper serving Metro Vancouver since 1989. Targeted at business decision-makers, BIV is the leading source of regional and provincial business news.

On May 30, 2012, NAIOP Vancouver will be holding the ‘NAIOP & BIV 2012 Commercial Real Estate Awards of Excellence’. The Awards recognize quality and performance, innovation and creativity, teamwork and collaboration, as well as community and environmental awareness. This event will be widely promoted and well attended by development industry participants.

Metro Vancouver has in the past sponsored development industry events, most recently the 2010 Urban Development Institute (UDI) Awards for Excellence in Urban Development for $5,000.

The funding opportunity recommended is for a NAIOP Bronze Level sponsorship at a cost of $3,000. This level of sponsorship provides for event branding including logo recognition on material, two tickets to the event, booth / banner presence at the event, and post event publicity. Other event sponsorship levels available are $6,950 and $9,950.

Protecting and encouraging the efficient use of industrial lands is a key component of the Regional Growth Strategy. As part of the ongoing study of industrial land supply, demand, and intensification in the region, Metro Vancouver staff has benefited from working with NAIOP representatives who have shared valuable insight about industrial and office users needs. Sponsoring the NAIOP event would further advance industry relationships, increase the profile of Metro Vancouver relative to industrial land issues, and support good quality industrial development.

GVRD - 114

Funding / Costs The cost of sponsorship would be $3,000 for each of the two events (total $6,000) and would be drawn from existing budgets for 2012.

3. ALTERNATIVES

That the Board: a) Approve the expenditure of $6,000 to fund the: [Recommended] i) Planning Institute of British Columbia 2012 Annual Planning Conference; and ii) NAIOP-Commercial Real Estate Development Association/Business in Vancouver 2012 Commercial Real Estate Awards of Excellence. or b) Approve the expenditure for another amount to fund another level of sponsorship for either event; or c) Decline sponsorship opportunities.

4. CONCLUSION

The PIBC 2012 Annual Planning Conference and the NAIOP/BIV 2012 Commercial Real Estate Awards of Excellence events both offer opportunities for Metro Vancouver to develop further relationships with the planning and development communities and support innovative forms of planning and development that support regional growth management goals.

GVRD - 115 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

GVRD Board of Directors Meeting Date: March 30, 2012

To: Board of Directors

From: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee

Date: March 20, 2012

Subject: Proposed Bylaw Standards for Anaerobic Digestion in the Agricultural Land Reserve

Recommendation: That the Board: a) request the Ministry of Agriculture revise the bylaw standard to include Metro Vancouver regulatory processes for air and solid waste management as described in the report dated February 23, 2012, titled, “Proposed Bylaw Standards for Anaerobic Digestion in the Agricultural Land Reserve”. b) request the Ministry of Agriculture to consult with local governments affected by the bylaw revisions c) refer the report dated February 23, 2012, titled “Proposed Bylaw Standards for Anaerobic Digestion in the Agricultural Land Reserve” to the Zero Waste Committee.

At its March 9, 2012 meeting, the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee considered the attached report titled “Proposed Bylaw Standards for Anaerobic Digestion in the Agricultural Land Reserve”, dated February 23, 2012. The Committee subsequently amended the recommendation as presented above in underline style.

ATTACHMENTS

Proposed Bylaw Standards for Anaerobic Digestion in the Agricultural Land Reserve - Report

Page 1 of 1

GVRD - 116 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: March 9, 2012

To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee

From: Theresa Duynstee, Regional Planner, Regional Development Ray Robb, Division Manager, Regulation and Enforcement Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department

Date: February 23, 2012

Subject: Proposed Bylaw Standards for Anaerobic Digestion in the Agricultural Land Reserve

Recommendation:

That the Board request the Ministry of Agriculture revise the bylaw standard to include Metro Vancouver regulatory processes for air and solid waste management as described in the report dated February 23, 2012, titled, “Proposed Bylaw Standards for Anaerobic Digestion in the Agricultural Land Reserve”.

1. PURPOSE

This report provides a regional perspective on the benefits and concerns of regulating anaerobic digestion in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR).

2. CONTEXT

Last December, the BC Ministry of Agriculture circulated a discussion paper and bylaw standards on Regulating Anaerobic Digestion in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) that includes criteria for developing local government bylaws. The Ministry is receiving comments until March 15, 2012. Once the bylaw standards are approved, anaerobic digestion facilities that meet the criteria will be considered a permitted use in the ALR.

The Minister of Agriculture establishes bylaw standards to guide local government bylaw development rather than use provincial regulations. Municipalities may at their discretion prepare, or not prepare, bylaws that consider the proposed standards, except for Delta and the Township of Langley which are regulated under Division 8 of the Local Government Act and are expected to amend their bylaws in order to achieve consistency.

Anaerobic digestion is the process of converting organic waste into biogas energy. Composed of methane and carbon dioxide, biogas is typically used in boilers or converted to electricity to produce heat and power. Biogas can also be refined into biomethane or renewable natural gas and injected into the existing natural gas distribution system for sale. Unlike natural gas, biomethane is a renewable carbon-neutral fuel. When biomethane replaces a fossil fuel based energy source such as natural gas, there is a reduction in the greenhouse gases (GHGs) produced.

GVRD - 117

On-farm anaerobic digestion systems use a combination of manure and organics from other farms or non-agricultural sources (i.e., food waste). The non-agricultural wastes that yield the highest amount of biogas per tonne of waste are feedstock such as fats, oils, grease and food processing waste from bakeries.

Regional Benefits There are several benefits to regulating anaerobic digestion in the ALR. The increasing demand for these facilities is fuelled by evolving climate change policies and the desire for renewable energy which can displace fossil fuels and thereby support regional GHG reduction targets. Anaerobic digesters also enable livestock operations to integrate new technologies into their business as well as generate income through tipping fees and the sale of natural gas or electricity.

Anaerobic digestion is a desirable technology for managing organic wastes because it not only produces renewable energy, but can also utilize wet, nutrient rich or putrid organic waste materials that are not easily managed by existing composting operations. On-farm anaerobic digestion facilities can help achieve regional goals in Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan that targets organics for recycling and energy recovery. Today, food waste alone comprises 21% of the waste disposed. Up to 500,000 tonnes per year of new waste-to-energy capacity is needed to convert waste material to energy and heat after recycling options are maximized.

Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan recommends that the Ministry of Agriculture implement projects that reduce methane emissions from agricultural activities. Methane recovery from livestock waste for use as biogas is a good example of how this could be achieved.

Anaerobic digestion technology can also improve the potential for nutrient recovery from animal manures. This is particularly valuable for dairy operations with limited options for manure management. Anaerobic digestion on farms could facilitate the adoption of nutrient extraction technology and reduce the nutrient loading from the land application of manure. Similar technology is being explored at the Annacis Island wastewater treatment plant where research is being conducted on extracting phosphorus from sewage sludge.

Regional Concerns The key challenge in regulating anaerobic digestion in the ALR is the risk of bringing non- agricultural feedstock onto agricultural land. Concern has been raised about the contamination of farmland from foreign objects or impurities (i.e., heavy metals) in the digestate. The risks are not well known and there may be a perception that agricultural land is being used as a dumping ground for municipal waste. In addition, there is concern about the potential for increased truck traffic on rural roads, noxious odours from the treatment and storage of feedstock and digestate as well as the possibility of increasing nutrient loading on agricultural land.

Some environmental issues will need to be addressed through the regulatory agencies. Metro Vancouver has air quality regulatory powers and the authority to manage municipal wastes and recyclable materials generated within the region through authority delegated in the Environmental Management Act. The air quality management bylaw requires all air emissions from businesses to be authorized by a GVRD permit or GVRD regulation. In addition, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) has passed a bylaw that requires facilities managing municipal solid waste to obtain a GVS&DD solid waste management licence. As previously directed by the Minister of Environment, the

GVRD - 118

GVS&DD bylaw prevents the issuance of a solid waste management licence in circumstances where a municipality objects to an operation.

Metro Vancouver is also currently working towards an organic matter management air emissions regulation which may include conditional authorization for anaerobic digester emissions on or off farms. A discussion paper is anticipated to be released in the first part of 2012. In the event that the GVRD regulation does not authorize the discharge of air contaminants from anaerobic digestion, a GVRD air quality permit would be required.

Proposed Criteria The discussion paper contains criteria that have been developed to reflect analysis undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture and Agricultural Land Commission staff as well as current approaches being used to regulate anaerobic digestion. The proposed criteria puts limitations on the capacity of the facility to process non-farm waste to ensure the benefits of the system accrue to agriculture, rather than becoming an industrial scale waste disposal system. It is important that these facilities meet the needs of the agricultural industry and therefore can only be located on sites classified as “farm‟ under the BC Assessment Act on a minimum parcel size of 4 hectares. In addition, at least 25% of the total feedstock (by volume) to be digested has to originate from the farm unit on which the digester is located.

To reduce the risk of these facilities being used for non-farm purposes the volume of non- agricultural feedstock will be limited to 25% or 50% of the total feedstock (depending on the demand for nutrients in the local farm area). In addition, there is a requirement for an anaerobic digestion and digestate specific nutrient management plan to be prepared by a qualified professional. This will help minimize the risk of excessive nutrients applied to farm land, however, there is currently no process in place to monitor and enforce these plans.

One of the controversial aspects of the criteria is what is considered acceptable feedstock. Suggestions have been made that biosolids and septic tank sludge be disallowed as a feedstock for on-farm anaerobic digestion. It is currently considered an acceptable feedstock to be consistent with Ministry of Environment guidelines.

Potential odours are being addressed by limiting the amount of non-agricultural feedstock that may be stored on site to 200 m3. In all cases, the anaerobic digestion facility must operate and keep records in accordance with local government regulations and an Operational Certificate or a Waste Discharge Authorization issued by BC the Ministry of Environment.

3. ALTERNATIVES

That the Board: a) request the Ministry of Agriculture revise the bylaw standard to include Metro Vancouver regulatory processes for air and solid waste management; or b) receive the report for information.

GVRD - 119

4. CONCLUSION

There are significant benefits to agriculture and the region for regulating anaerobic digestion in the ALR including new renewable energy sources, new income for livestock producers, new opportunities for nutrient management and new waste-to-energy facilities. Addressing the concerns will require regulatory safeguards and nutrient management plans that are monitored and enforced to minimize potential negative impacts on air, land and water quality.

It is important for the Ministry of Agriculture to better inform the farming community in their outreach materials about Metro Vancouver’s regulatory role in air emissions and non-farm waste management of anaerobic digestion facilities on agricultural land.

GVRD - 120 Item 5.1 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting: March 21, 2012

To: Intergovernmental and Administration Committee

From: Don Littleford, Manager, Regional Housing

Date: February 29, 2012

Subject: Metro Vancouver Attendance at Canada Housing and Renewal Association Annual Congress

Recommendation:

That the Board authorize the Chair to appoint a delegate to attend the Canada Housing and Renewal Association Annual Congress in St. John’s Newfoundland May 1-4, 2012 for an estimated cost of $4,500.

1. PURPOSE

To obtain Metro Vancouver Board approval for a delegate to attend the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association Annual Congress in St. John’s, Newfoundland from May 1-4, 2012.

2. CONTEXT

The Canadian Housing and Renewal Association Annual Congress will bring together affordable housing policy experts and practitioners from across the country to discuss affordable housing as an essential investment. Some of the congress highlights include a one day pre-congress workshop “Finding the Money, Renewing the Mission,” on what social finance is all about, and a condensed one-day workshop session on the fundamentals of housing policy and governance.

The congress theme will cover topics such as getting the private sector and financial institutions into affordable housing, making centralized social housing waiting lists work in your community, affordable homeownership, engaging non-traditional stakeholders in homelessness and International Housing Issues and Solutions.

This meeting presents an opportunity to continue to network on behalf of the Coalition, as well as gaining insight into emerging issues and best practices from across the country.

The estimated cost to travel to the CHRA Congress in Newfoundland is as follows:

Airfare: $ 1,100 Accommodation: $ 540 ($180/night (plus taxes) x 3 nights) Per Diem: $ 354.40 ($88.60 x 4 days) Meeting Rate: $ 2,576 ($644 per day - 4 days): Total Estimated Cost: $ 4,570.40

Page 1 of 2 GVRD - 121 Metro Vancouver Attendance at Canada Housing and Renewal Association Annual Congress Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting: March 21, 2012 Page 2 of 2

3. ALTERNATIVES

None presented.

4. CONCLUSION

The congress offers an opportunity to learn about affordable housing initiatives from across the country, about the success and challenges of implementing affordable housing policies, and to meet and discuss these issues with peers from across the country.

ATTACHMENTS

CHRA Congress Schedule

GVRD - 122 CHRA Schedule Page 1 of I

The 44th %ationaI Congresson E1ousng&Honielessness StiohWs 2012 .. ... Frsnçtna

Pre-Congress & Housing Course (May 1) Home Rsqislt:r ltdW

8:00am 9:00am — Breakfast Register dick here to ragister sow ESninrtjtng fOrccrigrSss 2012 9:00am - 4:00pm - Pre-Congress Professionals it Conrlro’;s Pro-Congress 9:00am - 4:00pm * Housing Course 2012 Thie Sponsor F slag th Money, 7:00pm - 9:00pm Delegates Meet &Greet Pawing tt’reMission Social Finance, Social Enterprise and ASordatite 7:00pm - 9:00pm Emerging Professionals Social Night Hosalrtç FIJ ‘i’. rew1tidtand h-.. -: Schedule Labrador Congress Day 1 (May 2) Pr Congress May 1) ‘ollcy Congress (May2’4( ;overnnce Congress Day 2 (May 3) Idick BcornCa rrpsrstot! Tourism Congress Day 3 (May 4) Activities flUe Sponsor 55158 the most l your time irs St.Johtt’ot sponsor Foes SCHL tie GOSPS 0 aaend 4 VARDI Sponsors tiPping to make it happen Become a sponsor! f3ecome spucuoti a Tradeshow sponsor Title Sponsor highlightyomirproduct. reivtce &orgarazabon at Jut annual tradeahow ‘usc Genworth Pmranniat St JHN’S Contact Us Questions? Become a sponsor! Giveus a call, drop us a tducoma a sponeori line Title Sponsor

BC Housing

http://chra-achru.calen/index.php/congress/schedule/GVRD - 123 3/1/2012 CHRA Schedule Page 1of 2

Th 44li ‘JatonaI - ongrss on I f Housing & Homelessness tJohn 2012 l__•11 1 Françaie :riiquezic

Pre-Congress & Housing Course (May 1) Home Register now

-‘9JiRA ALIIRU Register Congress Day 1 (May 2) J’ck hem, 0 OI’5 r.0W Emerging “5 a, ,50re0s ZOi2 Professionals 9:00am 10:30am Opening Ceremonies & Keynote Speaker at Congress Pre-Congress 10:30am - 11:00am — Health Break 2012 Title Sponsor flmirt irs Mor’ey #DMtt4*5t F05ewrnçy9 M,noioir tie 11:00am 12:30pm — FULL SESSION: The Challenge of the 30054 4rr4rtice, 3a:ral Boom: Responding to Housing Needs to our Fastest Growing Er’ proc and Atfrrrriabte Economtes Hrr’rorng l’Tewlotaldtand sOuSing Schedule 11:00am - 11:45am — HALF SESSION A: Building the Case by Ldbrador Pe-Co moo ,My I) policy i Building Bridges: How a Strategic Analysis and New Partnerships Conrjrttss May t-4 Led to Supportive Housing Investments in Halifax ;.v.rnan ask here} a Tourism 11:00am - 11:45am — HALF SESSION A: Living in Clover: The Activities Title Sponsor Story of Clover Place maky the rnosi f your 0cm,in Si Jar-nv sponsor

11:00am - 11:45am — HALF SESSION A: Making Centralized Social Housing Wait Lists Work in Your Community Fees SCHL ire CoSts 0 attend p4 YARDI 11:45am - 12:30pm— HALF SESSION B: Unusual Suspects: Engaging Non-Traditional Stakeholders In Homelessriess Sponsors hcipmg to make lapper, tecome a

E000mea spcorsor sponsor 11:45am - 12:30pm — HALF SESSION B: Housing for Parolees: Tradeshow Title Sponsor Innovative Financing and Combatting NIMBY titrr5tOr your product. 00v,c5 & orçpnrarlborr at outSiriuS ?rrdesirow 11:45am - 12:30pm — HALF SESSION B: Transitional Housing Genworth for Immigrants and Refugees in Manitoba flnareaai STL JHNS Contact Us Ouestrcrns’ t3050me a spiesort 12:30pm - 2:00pm — Regional Roundtable Lunch & Snacks-to-go Coy us a caO, drop us e decoms a 0500500 lie

2:00pm - 3:30pm — Resolutions Workshop Title Sponsor

2:00pm - 3:30pm — On-Site Workshop: Transforming Social Housing to Supportive Housing

2:00pm - 4:30pm — MOBILE TOUR: The Many Faces of Social l3CHousing Housing in Newfoundland & Labrador

2:00pm - 4:30pm — MOBILE TOUR: Supporting Youth & Building tScomo a oporroor! the Green Economy with Choices for Youth

2:00pm - 4:30pm — MOBILE TOUR: Along the Continuum: Emergency, Second Stage and Supportive Housing in St John’s

2:00pm - 4:30pm — MOBILE TOUR: The Evolution of Affordable Housing in St John’s: A Walking Tour

2:00pm - 4:30pm — MOBILE TOUR: Stella Burry Community Services: Supports. Housing and Social Enterprise

2:00pm - 4:30pm — MOBILE TOUR: Housing for persons with HIV/AIDS, and Tommy Sexton Centre and Pleasantvtlle Affordable Housing & Social Enterprise

5:30pm - 7:30pm — Presidenrs Reception

7:30pm - 10:30pm — CHRA Dinner Rally in the Alley

http://chra-achru.ca/enlindex.php/congress/schedule/GVRD - 124 3/1/2012 Cl

http://chra-achru.calenlindex.php/congress/schedule/

£ I

[

Title Title liv fiooanne Gecome

Title Title ewndtind R000mu

IRA

S4S

1L’

OMlcêSCHI.

(

Sponsor Sponsor Sponsor Sponsor easpov000 a a asponso

1-lousing - Opmsori sponsor

Schedule

Congress

Congress Congress Pre-Congress

Communities 9:00am Affordable Agreements: Housing 3:00pm Collaborative 10:15am 10:15am Affordable Social Issues 10:00am 4:00pm Provincial 10:15am 5:30pm Challenges 11:45am 10:15am Homelessness Prosperity, 1:45pm 1:45pm 1:45pm 1:45pm

Housing

and ------5:00pm -

Providers - - - -

3:00pm 3:00pm 3:00pm 4:00pm 3:00pm 10:00am 8:30pm

Poverty

Homeownership

Housing 11:45am 11:45am 10:15am 11:45am 11:45am 1:45pm

Solutions

From

Day Day

Day

Understanding -- Housing

— The

Response

Affordable

sponsored

Through

All

— 44th — — — —

Reduction 2

I 3 —

A Talking With Sealing A CHRA Closing — — — —

Housing Sides

(May

Keynote (May

(May CMHC

Critical Health Closing The Rising Expiong

Beyond

Jatiorii

Community

Common

Housing -

St. Investment

Annual

Initiatives

2) 3) the

Ceremonies the

Awards

Tide

Strategies Break

Alberta’s Genworth

PIece

Presentation

Johns

the

Ottawa: our

Social

Cracks:

Challenge, Course

Crunch to Door

Congrcc

Borders: t.Jortns

General GVRD

Purpose;

Collaboration

Lift Luncheon

Can

Housing

That the

Strategic

Financial

All

Providing

and

Year

Puzzle: Help (May

Youth

Reception

Boats: Meeting

Consolidating Keeps

International 2022

Successes

The

on -

the

Operating 125

Plan Build

Advocacy

Homelessness

Canada

1) Future

Making

Housing Supports

Unprecedented Giving;

Members

End

and

Housing

for

the

How

for

within

Ask

Canadian eena

Housing Give Prv-Coniret

iighhqhf Pre-Congress oves our hew C0flQi.0 us tot

Tradeshow annual Contact 0 tents S us a Iunoe. riake

Sponsors ootureuu is orgar4lattor

Activities cat.

Tourism most uiet ii

Renewal iriWeshow

Home drop May 1

product 2012 (isy napper, of Soosi 20t2 your oOw

Us 2-41 as it at a 5

Association

sponsor sponsor tOecoma

4 F

Français

ov•rnncq

Professionals

otIcy Register

Genworth

Emerging

YARDI

Congress a s

(click Page 2011 yreorsori sponsor!

3/1/2012 P

r(luik:i

now

here] ‘iOf

I http://chra-achru.ca/enlindex.php/congress/schedule/ CI4RA Oeccmie (iecome Title Title ilcc,mC Title Title tTewjbidIand Income

sr 13C Click Lthrador CHRA SponSor Cl-IRA Sponsor Sponsor Sponsor a a a a JtHNS Housing - iso, spontioni npontior 10 )onsorr

Schedule wniionlte teltim Ad)rtW to Congress Congress Congress Pro-Congress 8:30am 8:30am for 8:30am enterprise 8:30am 830am Housing &3Oam Housing Senitces: Building Emergency. persons ------the in in 11:00am 11:00am 11:00am 11:00am 11:00am— Supports. 11:00am— developments St Newfoundland with Green Second Day Day Day Housing The John’s: HI & 44th V/AIDS 2 3 1 — Economy Housing Stage MOBILE Housing MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE MOBiLE (May MOBILE (May (May A Walking %ltioria in & & & and St Labrador 4) 2) 3) new Homelessness and with Johnrs TOUR: TOUR: TOUR: TOUR: TOUR: TOUR: Supportive Tour Course SocIal affordable Choices GVRD Stiohns Congress The Creative Along The Stella Supporting Enterprise for Evolution Many (May Housing 2012 housing Burry the - an Youth 126 Solutions: Continuum: Faces Youth 1) Community in of Copyright & St Affordable social otSocial & Johns Housing :0 Canadian ‘telping Eicierprrse iInk ervice Housing Give Ren11rlrq highiughi Pra-Courgiess Pre-Congress Siixiai cake out Congress here Frnitnç us tire to annual Contact Tradeshow or & lIne the a make F,nance. Sponsors Schedule orgarn:auion cmnqresv COStS and call, Activities 0 A your Register Tourism olosi in isgItiter Questions? he enewat the imdeshow AilorInittie SiJolnns! (May drop Home it IC th5son Hooting produci. 2012 Fees (May happen MooCy ui attend Scicral 2012 your Us us 2-4) now tine I) at a Association tiscorne sponsor ttecome sponsor

d governance Francai, Profosstonals Rugisktr at Genworth ‘.11’ Frnurqtrig

YARDI Congress a a

Rrunuei Page 2011 sponsor oponsort I,,’’’ 3/1/2012 tulle: 1)0W I

of icr

1 Item 5.2 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting: March 21, 2012

To: Intergovernmental and Administration Committee

From: Heather Schoemaker, Manager, Corporate Relations Jerry Colman, Policy Coordinator, Corporate Relations

Date: March 8, 2012

Subject: Attendance at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) 75th Annual Conference and Trade Show

Recommendation:

That the Board authorize the Chair to attend the FCM’s 75th Annual Conference and Trade Show in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, June 1-4, 2012.

1. PURPOSE

To seek Board authorization for the Metro Vancouver Chair to attend the FCM’s 75th Annual Conference and Trade Show in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, June 1-4, 2012.

2. CONTEXT

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) will hold their Annual Conference and Trade Show in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, June 1-4, 2012. It marks the 75th annual conference and is the largest annual gathering of senior municipal officials from across Canada. The theme of the conference is Strong Cities, Strong Communities, Strong Canada. Conference delegates will have the opportunity to engage in workshops, study tours and standing committee discussions on topics ranging from Going Green: the Economics of Municipal Sustainability, Beat Sprawl, Save Money: Strategies for all communities to manage growth, Building More Rental Housing: The Solution to Canada’s Housing Crunch and a special forum on the Future of Canada’s Cities and Communities. The Conference will also include an important discussion on the next generation of federal infrastructure programs: Building Canada’s Long-term Infrastructure Plan.

A key objective for Metro Vancouver will be the opportunity to discuss, in collaboration with FCM, the development of the National Zero Waste Marketing Council, a key action identified in the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan. Specific discussions are anticipated to take place in the form of a special forum to be hosted by Metro Vancouver and FCM.

The vision for Metro Vancouver’s National Zero Waste Marketing Council is to develop cooperative relationships with other local governments across Canada in order to reduce waste management costs and increase the effectiveness of both communications and advocacy efforts.

An important element will be encouraging local governments to share materials and develop common messaging in order to strengthen public engagement campaigns.

Page 1 of 2 GVRD - 127 Attendance at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) 75th Annual Conference and Trade Show Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting: March 21, 2012 Page 2 of 2

These initial dialogues will contribute to a joint Metro Vancouver/FCM roundtable to be hosted in Metro Vancouver in the fall of this year. The roundtable will bring together key stakeholders to assess interest and define the terms of reference for the council, including scope, mandate, expectations and resources.

The national council will also focus on coordinating information and messaging for advocacy with senior governments on the need to encourage the design of products and packaging with cradle-to-cradle principles.

Estimated costs to attend the conference are as follows: Accommodation $ 860 (5x $172) Per Diem $ 437.75 (5x $87.55) Registration Fee $ 700 Airfare $ 700 Total $ 2,697.75

3. ALTERNATIVES

None presented.

4. CONCLUSION

FCM will host its annual conference in Saskatoon June 1-4, 2012. Framed around the theme of Strong Cities, Strong Communities, Strong Canada, the conference will feature workshops, study tours and standing committee discussions on the economics of Municipal Sustainability, including strategies for communities to manage growth, Affordable Housing, and the next generation of federal infrastructure programs – Building Canada’s Long-term Infrastructure Plan. Metro Vancouver will host a special forum, in collaboration with FCM, to initiate a dialogue on the development of the National Zero Waste Marketing Council, a key action identified in the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan.

GVRD - 128 Item 5.4 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting: March 21, 2012

To: Intergovernmental and Administration Committee

From: Delia Laglagaron, Interim Commissioner/ Chief Administrative Officer

Date: March 9, 2012

Subject: Appointment to Strategic Priority Funding Management Committee

Recommendation:

That the Board recommend to UBCM that the Chief Administrative Officer, or designate, be appointed as a member of the Strategic Priorities Fund Management Committee to serve as one of three local government representatives, pursuant to the Strategic Priorities Fund Agreement for Greater Vancouver.

1. PURPOSE

This report is to seek the Board’s recommendation to UBCM to appoint a representative to the Strategic Priority Fund (SPF) Management Committee.

2. CONTEXT

In January 2006, the GVRD (Metro Vancouver), GVTA (TransLink) and Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) entered into a Strategic Priorities Fund Agreement for Greater Vancouver under the Agreement on the ‘Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues for Cities and Communities’. The agreement was amended and signed by all three authorities in February 2011.

As part of that Agreement, UBCM established a Strategic Priorities Fund Management Committee to administer and manage the implementation of the agreement. The appointment of local government representatives to serve on the Management Committee is the prerogative of UBCM, but they have indicated a desire to have a recommendation from Metro Vancouver. Prior to his retirement on February 14, 2012, Johnny Carline, former Commissioner/CAO, served on this committee.

The next meeting of this committee is expected within the next couple of months, with consideration of funding for TransLink projects for 2012 a principal agenda item.

3. CONCLUSION:

The Board, in signing the amended Strategic Priorities Fund Agreement, should consider continuing representation on the SPF Management Committee. It is recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer, or designate, be put forward to UBCM for consideration of appointment.

Page 1 of 1 GVRD - 129 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

GVRD Board of Directors: March 30, 2012

To: GVRD Board of Directors

From: Intergovernmental and Administration Committee

Date: March 21, 2012

Subject: Continuing the Dialogue on UBC Governance Issues

Recommendation:

That the Board: a) request staff to inform the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development that in advance of determining if and how views from the community should be canvassed, Metro Vancouver will convene a meeting of stakeholders to share an understanding of governance issues, establish a communication protocol, identify the views of all stakeholders and develop governance options; b) refer the report dated March 13, 2012, titled “Continuing the Dialogue on UBC Governance Issues” to an open meeting of the Electoral Area Committee for information; c) direct the Board Chair to write a letter to the University Neighbourhoods Association advising them of the relative jurisdictions of the parties (Metro Vancouver, UBC and related parties).

At its March 21, 2012 closed meeting, the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee considered the attached report titled “Continuing the Dialogue on UBC Governance Issues, dated March 14, 2012. The Committee subsequently amended the recommendation as presented above in underline style and directed staff to forward the report to an open Board meeting.. Staff was also requested to release the letter referred to in section c) of the recommendation to the public.

In addition, minor edits for clarification purposes have been made to Attachment 2.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Continuing the Dialogue on UBC Governance Issues 2. Appendix - Background Information of Metro Vancouver's role in governance of they Point Grey University Community 3. Correspondence dated Nov 15, 2011 from Minister Ida Chong 4. Correspondence dated March 2, 2012 from UNA Chair and former Chairs

Page 1 of 1

GVRD - 130 Item 14.2 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

CLOSED MEETING

Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting: March 21, 2012

To: Intergovernmental and Administration Committee

From: Delia Laglagaron, Interim Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer

Date: March 14, 2012

Subject: Continuing the Dialogue on UBC Governance Issues

Recommendation:

That the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee: a) request staff to inform the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development that in advance of determining if and how views from the community should be canvassed, Metro Vancouver will convene a meeting of stakeholders to share an understanding of governance issues, establish a communication protocol, identify the views of all stakeholders and develop governance options; and b) refer the report dated March 13, 2012, titled “Continuing the Dialogue on UBC Governance Issues” to a closed meeting of the Electoral Area Committee for information.

1. PURPOSE

To determine effective means of advancing the dialogue on the governance of the University of British Columbia (UBC) community.

This matter is being presented at a closed meeting pursuant to the Community Charter Section 90 (2) (b) as follows: (2) A part of a meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party;

2. CONTEXT

At its meeting of February 22, 2012, the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee considered a letter from Minister Chong outlining her intention to take no action at this time to pursue governance changes at UBC (Attachment 2). Staff was asked to respond to the Minister requesting her to begin discussions with stakeholders to develop a workable, accountable governance model. The Minister has clearly stated in the past that the current governance situation is an interim solution and that all stakeholders would be consulted in formulating a long term solution.

Page 1 of 3 GVRD - 131 Continuing the Dialogue on UBC Governance Issues Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting: March 21, 2012 Page 2 of 3

At its February meeting, the Intergovernmental and Administrative Committee also requested staff: report back to the Committee with recommendations regarding researching the UBC community’s feelings regarding UBC governance and related land use planning, including how this may effectively be carried out.

This resolution was reported in the press as Metro Vancouver’s intention to initiate a wide- ranging citizen survey. The University Neighbourhoods Association (UNA) took great exception to this initiative and immediately wrote a letter to the Minister, Chair Moore, and the newspapers (Attachment 3). Their main point is that Metro Vancouver’s help is not welcome in determining what governance model is suitable for the university community.

With many new committee members and a complicated history and governance system, background information for the Committee is contained in the Appendix (Attachment 1).

Next Steps

Metro Vancouver remains the local government authority for UBC, through our responsibilities for governing Electoral Area A. In this capacity Metro Vancouver continues to provide a number of services to UBC. The only directly elected political representation under the Local Government Act is the Electoral Area Board Director. Accordingly, Metro Vancouver continues to be interested in hearing the views of all stakeholders on the issue of governance.

There are also important regional planning and transportation issues facing the region in the near future, such as ensuring that public transit priorities for the region are consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. Even with the best intentions and good will shown by all parties, finding a reasonable way to settle the highly sensitive governance issue will take a great deal of time and effort. Improving the current governance situation will certainly pay dividends when the time comes to work together on pressing regional issues.

It is suggested that Metro Vancouver take the initiative to convene a meeting of stakeholders to share our understanding of governance issues, establish a communication protocol as a first priority, identify the views of UBC community stakeholders and develop governance options.

3. ALTERNATIVES

a) Request staff to inform the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development that in advance of determining if and how views from the community should be canvassed, Metro Vancouver will convene a meeting of stakeholders to share an understanding of governance issues, establish a communication protocol, identify the views of all stakeholders and develop governance options.

b) Take no further action at this time

GVRD - 132 Continuing the Dialogue on UBC Governance Issues Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting: March 21, 2012 Page 3 of 3

4. CONCLUSION

The Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development has stated for almost two years that the existing governance system was to be an interim solution only. UBC’s satisfaction with the current system has meant that there is no incentive for the Ministry to begin a dialogue on alternate governance models. It is suggested that Metro Vancouver convene a meeting of stakeholders to share understanding of governance issues, establish a communication protocol as a first priority, identify the views of UBC community stakeholders and develop governance options.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Appendix 1 - Background Information of Metro Vancouver's role in governance of the Point Grey University Community 2. Correspondence dated Nov 15, 2011 from Minister Ida Chong 3. Correspondence dated March 2, 2012 from UNA Chair and former Chairs

GVRD - 133

Appendix

Background information Metro Vancouver’s role in Governance of the Point Grey University Community

At the end of the Burrard peninsula, separated from the City of Vancouver by Pacific Spirit Regional Park, are two separate communities that are part of the unincorporated parts of the region known as Electoral Area A. One community is the University Endowment Lands, which is a predominantly residential community governed by the Province through the University Endowment Lands Act. The other community is the UBC Point Grey Campus which is primarily a university campus but now contains a significant market residential community. According to the 2011 census, there are nearly 3200 people living in the University Endowment Lands and just over 9500 people living on the UBC Point Grey Campus. The Local Government Act outlines the local government responsibilities of regional districts with respect to governing unincorporated areas within a region’s boundaries.

Metro Vancouver Adopts OCP for UBC in 1997

During the 1990s, UBC began to envision the development of a market residential community at the Point Grey campus using the real estate proceeds to endow the university. Metro Vancouver, who at the time was the local government authority responsible for land use planning, adopted an Official Community Plan for UBC in 1997. Metro Vancouver, in developing the 1997 Official Community Plan for UBC, established a vision for a relatively small, self- contained community. The vision had been for a community of about 10,000 people (in addition to the student population) living at UBC to help provide a university endowment and to provide housing opportunities for faculty and staff.

Through a memorandum of understanding with Metro Vancouver, UBC was largely responsible for the implementation of the OCP. Zoning was not put in place because Metro Vancouver was attempting to strike the balance of ensuring that the planned community was compatible with City of Vancouver and regional interests and at the same time wrestled with UBC wanting to maintain as much control as possible over land development. For many years, this balance more or less was achieved. UBC acted as the landowner, developer, and approver for the campus lands with Metro Vancouver providing some oversight through the OCP as well as a body for residents and others to turn to for assistance in disputes. A joint committee made up of Metro Vancouver Directors and Board of Governor appointees oversaw the implementation of the OCP.

UBC land development implementation included preparation of Neighbourhood Plans, and the administration of development controls and the review/approval process, issuance of building occupancy and inspection. Metro Vancouver was involved in the review/approval process for non-institutional development (primarily market housing) predominantly at the Neighborhood Plan review level and OCP amendment level.

Controversial Development Proposals

From about 2005 on, there were several specific development proposals that arose, such as Marine Towers (impacting Wreck Beach), UBC farm development proposals, and developments along the edge of Pacific Spirit Regional Park as well as concern about storm water runoff. It was clear that the Official Community Plan was not providing enough certainty and many

Page 1 of 3 GVRD - 134 delegations appeared before the Metro Vancouver Board. This led to the decision by the Metro Vancouver Board of initiating the preparation of a zoning bylaw for UBC lands in the fall of 2009. A zoning bylaw would ensure more clarity in the development process and offer a more impartial development approval process.

Province enacts legislation to remove land use control from Metro Vancouver

UBC strongly opposed any consideration of Metro Vancouver enacting zoning bylaws. In the spring of 2010, at the request of UBC, the provincial government immediately introduced legislation that removed the land use planning responsibility from Metro Vancouver. The province gave the UBC Board of Governors local planning responsibility and gave itself approval powers for the UBC Land Use Plan Regional Context Statement. This arrangement was clearly described by the province as an interim solution until a longer term governance structure was put in place. The legislation (Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3) - Part 10) was adopted in June 2010. The OCP was repealed and renamed the UBC Land Use Plan in the legislation.

UBC promptly initiated a series of amendments to the Land Use Plan that would result in increases in the non-student population living at UBC, going from 10,700 contemplated in the previous OCP to a projected population of approximately 22,000 by 2020 including student populations. Background documents also showed that there was capacity for about 40,000 residents (including students) by 2040.

These Land Use Plan changes also required changes to the existing Regional Context Statement. With the province now responsible for land use planning, the Minister was required to accept the Regional Context Statement and UBC was required to include comments from Metro Vancouver’s Chief Planning Officer. The UBC Board of Governors submitted the Land Use Plan and Regional Context Statement to the Minister in January 2011. The Metro Vancouver Board endorsed the Chief Planning Officer’s comments at their February 25, 2011 meeting. The Minister approved the Land Use Plan and Regional Context Statement on March 1, 2011.

A letter was sent from the Metro Vancouver CAO to the Minister asking that the changes to the Regional Context Statement be made in response to the comments from Metro Vancouver. A response from the Deputy Minister was received explaining how the Minister decided to accept the UBC Land Use Plan and asking Metro Vancouver for suggestions on how to improve the Regional Context Statement process.

This led to a letter being sent in September 2011 from the Metro Vancouver Board Chair to the Minister asking for changes to the Regional Context Statement process and to be updated on the timeline and specific steps that the province would be following to address local governance at UBC. The response to this letter was received by the Intergovernmental and Administrative Committee at its February 2012 meeting.

UBC acts as the landowner, developer, and approver for the campus lands, with very little involvement from the province. This situation has and will continue to place UBC in a real or perceived conflict of interest on some land use issues. In recent months a number of development issues has created tension between UBC and student interests and UBC and community interests.

Page 2 of 3 GVRD - 135 Provision of Local Services The table below shows the complicated division of local services and functions.

Table 1: Provision of Local Services at UBC Service Provider Water GVWD through the UEL Sewer GVS&DD through the UEL. Though UBC is not a member of the GVS&DD it is billed directly for sewer services. Changes were made to the GVS&DD Act to accommodate UBC in 1997. Waste Collection and Strata councils of individual residential developments. Recycling Local Policing RCMP and funded through property taxes Fire Services City of Vancouver and funded through a special levy. Liquor Licence Approval Province, with comments from Metro Vancouver as the local government authority Emergency Planning and Metro Vancouver oversees emergency planning with many Response implementation actions undertaken by UBC/UNA Land Use Planning The Province, though all land use planning processes and approvals are administered and run by UBC. The Province is only required to approve changes to the Land Use Plan (the former OCP). Building Permits UBC Noise Bylaw UBC. The UBC Board of Governors recently appointed the University Neighbourhoods Association Board of Directors as the advisory board for this bylaw. The University Neighbourhoods Association will administer the bylaw.

Parking Bylaw UBC. The UBC Board of Governors has recently appointed the University Neighbourhoods Association Board of Directors as the advisory board for this bylaw. The University Neighbourhoods Association will administer the bylaw.

Drainage Metro Vancouver in part through responsibility for the spiral drain Recreation and Community University Neighbourhoods Association and use of City of Vancouver Services facilities through agreements Municipal Elections Metro Vancouver

University Neighbourhoods Association

The University Neighbourhoods Association (UNA) is a society created to promote a “university town” and to provide some municipal-like services for residents. The UNA was originally contemplated in an appendix to the Metro Vancouver UBC OCP and it provided considerable detail on the purpose, structure and activities of the UNA. Much of this detail was translated into the constitution of the UNA when it was created in 2002.

What was lost between what was contained in the original OCP appendix and what was included in the UNA constitution was the clear intent that there be a possibility for the UNA to become part of a municipal or similar type of local governing body.

The UNA has been successful in providing some municipal-like services and representing its members. The UNA does not represent all residents of UBC, only its members. It receives almost all of its funding through property tax funds

Page 3 of 3 GVRD - 136 Attachment 2

GVRD - 137 GVRD - 138 Attachment 3

GVRD - 139 6003584 GVRD - 140 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Finance Committee Meeting Date: March 22, 2012

To: Finance Committee

From: Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary/Manager, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information Katherine Milnes, Compensation Supervisor, Labour Relations Department

Date: 2/15/2012

Subject: Electoral Area Director Position Compensation

Recommendation: That the Board direct staff to bring forward an amendment to the remuneration bylaw that sets the salary of the electoral area director position at 14.5% of the board chair’s salary.

1. PURPOSE To provide the results of a review conducted of the compensation of the electoral area director position

2. CONTEXT At its April 23, 2010 meeting the Board directed staff to conduct a review of compensation, duties and responsibilities of the electoral area director position, taking into consideration meeting payments and the geographic size of the electoral area, and to bring back a recommendation to the Finance Committee.

Since that time the electoral area local government responsibilities changed with the UBC planning function being assumed by the Province. Time has permitted the electoral area director to re-assess the nature and time spent on local government activities and to share observations with staff for the review.

The current remuneration policy, bylaw 1057, was established in 2007. It based remuneration on a percentage of the chair’s salary, which until then, remuneration had been set at a monthly rate. Bylaw 1057 established rates as follows:  the chair’s salary was set at 75% of the median of the Metro Vancouver mayors’ salaries;  the vice chair’s salary was set at 50% of the chair’s;  the meeting rate was set at .5% of the chair’s; and  the electoral area directors salary was set at 10% of the chair’s.

The Electoral Area Director’s remuneration has four components as shown in Table 1 (attached). Three payments are for meeting attendance which is not under review. The fourth is the annual stipend which is the focus of this review and report.

Page 1 of 7 EMM 26/2012

GVRD - 141

History of Increases Using a derivative of information previously provided to the board, the relative size of the increase in the salary of the chair and that of the electoral area director was compared since 1977, as shown in Table 2 (attached).

In years of lower increases the percentage change in the electoral area director salary was the same as the chair’s but the increase was substantially less in years of large jumps in the chair’s salary (1982, 2003 and 2007). This has led to the electoral area director salary becoming a lower and lower percentage of the chair’s.

It is interesting to note that in 2003, when an independent review of board and committee remuneration was done, the electoral area director stipend was unchanged, with a note that a full compensation review of the position should be carried out if it is viewed that the nature/scope of the electoral area director’s function significantly changed. Then in 2007, the adoption of bylaw 1057 resulted in a 24% increase in meeting payment for all directors by establishing the rate at .5% of the Chair’s salary. This was the same percentage increase awarded to the chair’s salary between 2006 and 2007. Establishing the remuneration of the electoral area director at 10% of the Chair’s delivered only a 19% increase.

Municipal Councils Base compensation for elected officials typically involves a comparison to related positions. The information previously given to the board provided a comprehensive look at the compensation practices for base salaries of mayors and councillors within Metro Vancouver. This information provided little guidance other than establishing that using a fixed percentage of a “market median” for the board’s chair is a sound methodology.

Other Electoral Areas Subsequently a review of the salary and rationale for the establishing salary paid to electoral area directors in select regional districts was undertaken; the information is provided in Table 3 (attached). There is a wide variety of payment methodologies. Rationale for establishing salaries includes factors such as volume of work, population served, traveling time, distance, mileage, and geographic size. The median salary paid to electoral area directors in other regional districts is $17,475 (2011 numbers); this is 26.4% of the Metro Vancouver chair’s salary.

Director’s Observations Observation shared by the electoral area director is that the geographic size of the electoral area should not form the basis of remuneration and bears no relationship to the amount of time required of the director. However, time spent on electoral area responsibilities, while varying significantly from week to week, is an estimated average of 10 hours per week. At the current annual stipend of $6,608, this translates to $12.66 per hour.

Summary The current policy ties the remuneration of the vice chair, the committee chairs, the electoral area director, and the meeting rate to the chair’s salary. The selection of a 10% ratio for the electoral area director was established in 2007. The 1999 increases did not include the electoral area director. There are discrepancies between 1) the annual increase received by the electoral area director compared to other board members between 1999 and today, and 2) level of average base salary provided to other B.C. regional district electoral area directors.

GVRD - 142

3. ALTERNATIVES a) Base salary of the electoral area director on the median of other regional district electoral area directors salaries In this option the electoral area director’s salary is based on the median of other regional district electoral area directors’ salaries, and then applied as a percentage of the chair’s salary.

As noted in Table 3, the median salary of electoral area directors in select regional districts is $17,475. If this median salary was to be used as the basis for establishing the electoral area director salary, and it was tied to the chair’s salary, the result would be an annual salary equivalent to 26.4% of the chair’s salary. As there is not a consistent methodology for establishing salary of other regional district electoral area directors, the median may not be a rigorous measure. b) Maintain the status quo Currently the electoral area director’s salary is set at 10% of the chair’s. This option does not address the missed review of the electoral area director in 2003 or that the electoral area director did not get the same increases as the other groups. c) Increase the ratio in the current formula for the electoral area director to 10.4% to match the increases made in the chair’s salary from 2007 Had the electoral area director’s salary started in at least 2007 by providing the same percentage increase as the chair’s, the result would have been a ratio of 10.34% of the chair or $6,689 per annum by 2011. d) Increase the ratio in the current formula for the electoral area director to 14.5% to match the increases made in the chair’s salary from 2003 Had the electoral area director received the same percentage increase as the chair’s from 2003 to 2007, the result would have been a ratio of 14.5% of the chair or $9,576 per annum by 2011, thus providing equitable increases. This is the recommended option.

4. CONCLUSION A review of the electoral area director compensation concludes an increase in the electoral area director stipend is warranted.

GVRD - 143

Table 1

Components of Electoral Area Director’s Remuneration

Year Payment for Payment for Payment for Annual Total Salary Attendance Attendance Attendance Stipend $ $ at Board at Other at Electoral Meetings $ Committee Area Meetings $ Committee Meetings $ 2006 5,086 4,877 2,757 4,844 17,564 2007 5,208 2,728 2,976 4,960 15,872 2008 6,573 1,011 2,528 5,056 15,168 2009 6,638 6,954 3,161 6,322 23,075 2010 5,474 7,728 1,610 6,440 21,252 2011 5,940 5,610 1,320 6,608 19,478 2012* 5,940 3,960** 1,650 6,608 18,158 Total 40,859 32,868 16,002 40,838 130,567 Average 5,837 4,695 2,286 5,834 18,562 *Estimated **Committee Chair monthly payment

GVRD - 144

Table 2

Comparison of the relative size of the increase in the chair’s and electoral area director salaries since 1977 when the first occurrence of a stipend was set for the electoral area directors

Electoral Board Area Chair % Director % Year Bylaw Salary $ Increase Salary $ Increase % of Chair 1977 273 13,780 2,400 17.4 1979 324 14,745 7 2,568 7 17.4 1980 382 15,851 8 2,760 7 17.4 1982 438 20,100 27 3,036 10 15.1 1986 536 21,444 7 3,240 7 15.1 1989 625 24,000 12 3,432 6 14.3 1990 633 25,200 5 3,600 5 14.3 1990 664 26,520 5 3,996 11 15.1 1992 704 27,576 4 3,996 0 14.5 1997 861 28,788 4 4,164 4 14.5 1999 912 28,800 0 4,164 0 14.5 2003 995 40,006 39 4,164 0 10.4 2007 1057 49,596 24 4,960 19 10.0 2009 1057 63,220 27 6,322 27 10.0 2010 1057 64,400 2 6,440 2 10.0 2011 1057 66,082 3 6,608 3 10.0

GVRD - 145

Table 3

Electoral area director remuneration of regional districts with populations greater than 80,000 (as of 2011)

Regional Annual Remuneration Per Rationale District Remuneration Meeting Including Expense Capital $39,886 Based on volume of work, traveling time to and from the islands, the long distances to Jordan River and Port Renfrew. Central $14,000 (plus $65 up to 4 hours; Considers work of electoral area Okanagan supplement) $130 over 4 hours directors in meeting with constituents or attending resident association meetings etc. The supplement is calculated on the basis of 25% of the basic remuneration for the first 5000 constituents. When the number of constituents exceeds 5000, the supplement is calculated on the basis of 5% of the basic remuneration for each thousand constituents or major portion thereon. Cowichwan $26,517 $119 for alternate An average was calculated from Valley directors previous per-meeting amounts (received by EA directors for their efforts on behalf of the constituents) to make a consistent monthly/annual amount; at the same time, an informal wage analysis was carried out based on other local regional governments. Percentage increases from then on matched what unions receive. Fraser-Fort $17,475 $100 for meetings Recognizes costs associated George held other than the with local service matters and day of regular electoral area specific work board meeting $200 for alternate directors at regular meetings and $100 for special meetings Fraser Valley $11,510 $173 for alternate An additional allowance is (Plus $5,113 if directors provided for administrative duties serving as Chair under the Local Government Act

GVRD - 146

Regional Annual Remuneration Per Rationale District Remuneration Meeting Including Expense to Electoral Area Part 21-Building Regulations, Services and other requirements as Committee) electoral area directors. Nanaimo $16,500 (includes $70 up to 4 hours; An additional allowance is additional $110 over 4 hours provided in recognition of allowance of $110 for meetings Electoral Area Directors $5,890) exceeding half a additional responsibilities and out day or 4 hours in of pocket expenses. length North $12,780 (includes $137 Electoral Area Directors receive Okanagan additional an additional allowance for travel allowance of and other costs incurred in their $4,884) Electoral Area. This is in addition to reimbursement for mileage expenses incurred in connection with attending meetings or engaging in business of the Regional District. Okanagan – $19,716 $213 Information not available. Similkameen $852 for alternate $71 for committee electoral area meetings held on director same day as board meeting $158 for committee meetings held on non board meeting day Thompson $20,645 average Considers travel time and Nicola geographic size of the electoral area. Total $179,029 Average $19,892 Median $17,475

GVRD - 147 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Finance Committee: March 22, 2012 GVRD Board of Directors: March 30, 2012

To: Finance Committee

From: Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary/Manager, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information Department

Date: 2/15/2012

Subject: Attendance at the 2012 Lower Mainland Local Government Association Annual General Meeting and Conference

Recommendation: That the Board approve the attendance of Director Raymond Louie at the 2012 Lower Mainland Local Government Association conference and associated meetings being held May 8 to 11, 2012 in Whistler, BC at the estimated costs outlined in the report dated 02/15/2012 titled Attendance at the 2012 Lower Mainland Local Government Association Annual General Meeting and Conference.

1. PURPOSE To seek board authorization for Director Raymond Louie to attend the 2012 Lower Mainland Local Government Association (LMLGA) annual general meeting, the conference, and the executive meeting being held May 8 to 11, 2012 in Whistler, BC.

2. CONTEXT Director Louie was appointed by the board on January 13, 2012 as the board’s representative to the LMLGA for 2012. The Association’s annual general meeting and conference is being held this year in Whistler, BC from May 8 to 11, 2012. Executive members are required to attend an executive meeting on May 8; the LMLGA will pay for the extra hotel accommodation costs incurred by attendance at that meeting. The estimated cost to attend is as follows:

Accommodation (May 9 and 10) $ 330 Mileage 130 Per diem (4 days at $87.55/day) 350 Registration 225 Meeting rate for attendance (4 days) N/A1 0 $1,035

The Remuneration Bylaw provides for the board to authorize the attendance of a member at a conference and for payment for expenses incurred in attending the conference.

1 Meeting rate does not apply as the Chair and Vice-Chair are paid a salary.

GVRD - 148

3. ALTERNATIVES The board may approve or not approve the board appointee’s participation in the 2012 Lower Mainland Local Government Association annual general meeting and conference as outlined in this report.

4. CONCLUSION The board appointed a member to the Lower Mainland Local Government Management Association. The member represents Metro Vancouver in serving on the Association’s executive; participation at the annual general meeting and conference is appropriate.

GVRD - 149 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

GVRD Board of Directors Meeting Date: March 30, 2012

To: GVRD Board of Directors

From: Heather Schoemaker, Manager, Corporate Relations Department

Date: March 22, 2012

Subject: Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee’s (LMTAC) Discussion Paper, “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves”

Recommendation: That the Board: a) write Minister Ida Chong, Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, regarding the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee’s discussion paper titled “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves”, indicating this as an important issue for local governments in Metro Vancouver and that further, Metro Vancouver feels this matter needs to be addressed as a priority item in the near term; and b) invite the Minister, or her designate, to present to the Aboriginal Relations Committee on the matter.

At its March 2, 2012 meeting, the GVRD Board considered the attached report dated February 14, 2012, titled Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee’s (LMTAC) Discussion Paper, “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves” (Attachment 1 and 2) and deferred it to the next meeting in order to provide Board members with an opportunity to review the discussion paper, which was previously endorsed at the October 28, 2011 Board meeting and is provided as reference within the report dated October 18, 2011 (Attachment 3).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee’s (LMTAC) Discussion Paper, “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves” - Report LMTAC Draft Discussion Paper 2. Correspondence from Minister Ida Chong 3. LMTAC's Draft Discussion Paper on Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves - October 18 2011 Report and Discussion Paper

Page 1 of 1

GVRD - 150 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

GVRD Board of Directors: March 3, 2012

To: Board of Directors

From: Aboriginal Relations Committee

Date: February 14, 2012

Subject: Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee’s (LMTAC) Discussion Paper, “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves”

Recommendation: That the Board: a) write Minster Ida Chong, Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, regarding the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee’s discussion paper titled “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves”, indicating this as an important issue for local governments in Metro Vancouver and that further, Metro Vancouver feels this matter needs to be addressed as a priority item in the near term; and b) invite the Minister, or her designate, to present to the Aboriginal Relations Committee on the matter.

At its February 3, 2012 meeting, the Aboriginal Relations Committee considered the attached correspondence dated January 11, 2012 from Minister Ida Chong, Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, responding to the Metro Vancouver Board regarding the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee’s (LMTAC) Discussion Paper titled “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves”.

The Committee discussed the need for the Province to address the matter as a priority issue and subsequently passed the recommendation as presented above.

ATTACHMENTS

LMTAC Draft Discussion Paper - Correspondence from Minister Ida Chong

GVRD - 151 6.3

GVRD - 152 To: At That Subject: a) Date: Attachment: Intergovernmental From: b) Committee style. Referenda report Government Report 4330

metrovancouver its endorse convey Voting Reserves”, Canada, Chair, the October Kingsway, titled dated Board: Lower in Board and October LMTAC’s Intergovernmental by its subsequently “LMTAC’s the to Local Elections October comments Residents 18, Burnaby, in the Referenda report Mainland support of 2011 Committee Government Minister 18, Directors Draft BC, 3, Draft dated and 2011 meeting, 2011, Living Canada to amended of Treaty Referenda by Discussion of the Discussion LMTAC’s October Committee Community, Recommendation: Residents titled on V5H Minister Elections the Advisory Indian 4GB the “LMTAC’s Intergovernmental 3, GVRD draft by recommendation Paper Paper RD of 2011, 6044326200 Reserves”, Residents and Living Aboriginal Sport Committee discussion - 293 - on Referenda titled 153 on Draft and on “Voting “Voting GVRD “LMTAC’s Living Indian Discussion www.metrovancouver.org dated Cultural Affairs paper; (LMTAC). Committee as in by on Board in October Local presented Reserves” and Residents and Development, Local Indian Draft Paper Northern Meeting: Government considered Discussion 3, Government Reserves” above 2011. on Living “Voting Development October and in The

Section on Elections the underline Paper to Indian in Elections attached the 28, Local on 2011 and

42 This page teft blank intentionally.

RD - 294 GVRD - 154 ATTACHMENT

metrovancouver 1) vancouver Sver Urin:q€ DctUct V:rjuver HouUnq — 4330 Kingway, Burnaby, BC,Canada VSH4G8 6044326200 www.metrovancouverorg Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: October 18, 2011

To: Intergovernmental Committee

From: Marino Piombini, Senior Planner, Corporate Relations Department

Date: October 3, 2011

Subject: LMTAC’s Draft Discussion Paper on “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves”

Recommendations:

That the Board:

a) endorse this report, dated October 3, 2011, titled “LMTAC’sDraft Discussion Paper on Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves”, in support of LMTAC’s draft discussion paper; and

b) convey its comments to the Minister, Community, Sport and Cultural Development, and to the Chair, Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC).

1. PURPOSE

This report responds to a request from the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) to provide comments in support of its draft discussion paper, Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves (attached).

2. CONTEXT

LMTAC’s Discussion Paper and Request At its meeting on July 13, 2011, the LMTAC Executive Committee considered a draft Discussion Paper prepared by its staff, titled Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves. The LMTAC Executive Committee had, in May 2011, requested its staff develop a discussion paper, with an emphasis on the issue of Indian Reserves, as federal lands, being counted as part of local government jurisdictions as it relates to voting.

This issue arose from a staff review of the BC Voters’ Guide, which states that residents living on Indian Reserves are able to participate in local government elections (as both voters and potential candidates) and referenda when the Reserve is geographically located within the boundaries of the local government (i.e. municipality or regional district). Further, the ability of residents living on Indian Reserves to participate in local government elections and referenda is of concern because they are not subject to local government regulations and do not pay local government taxes (i.e. “representation without taxation”).

RD - 295 GVRD - 155 The LMTAC draft discussion paper is intended to explain how the historical, geographic, and jurisdictional circumstances have led to the current situation and recommends that Indian Reserves be excluded from local government boundaries, which is consistent with provincial policy to specifically exclude Indian Reserves from municipal boundary expansions.

In a letter conveying its draft discussion paper to the BC Minister, Community, Sport and Cultural Development, LMTAC points out that one of the criteria set out by the Ministry for municipal boundary expansions is that “.. Indian Reserves willnot be within municipal boundaries.’ Further, LMTAC’s letter states that there “...be redress for existing jurisdictional circumstances within BC” considering the .“emergence of new federal legislation such as the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) and the First Nations Certainty of Land TitleAct.” According to LMTAC, large-scale residential market developments on Indian Reserves under FNCIDA are expected to result in a significant increase in the non-Aboriginal populations living on Indian Reserves, which will exacerbate the issue of representation without taxation’.”

The LMTAC Board endorsed its paper at its meeting on September 21, 2011. LMTAC now seeks comments from its member jurisdictions by October 5, 2011 and also encourages local governments to communicate their comments and endorsement of the draft discussion paper directly to the Minister.

Relevance of this Issue for Metro Vancouver There are 22 Indian Reserves within the Metro Vancouver region; 16 of them are inhabited. There are also Treaty Settlement Lands (i.e. Tsawwassen First Nation) in this region.

Within Metro Vancouver’s unincorporated Electoral Area ‘A’,there are four Indian Reserves (listed below along with the corresponding First Nation):

Indian Reserves within First Nation Area Size Metro Vancouver Electoral Area ‘A’ (Hectares) Barnston Island Indian Reserve No. 3 Katzie First Nation 54.6 Pitt Lake Indian Reserve No. 4 Katzie First Nation 218.5 Inlailawatash Indian Reserve No. 4 Tsleil-Waututh Nation 0.5 Inlailawatash Indian Reserve No. 4A Tsleil-Waututh Nation 2.0

Of these four Indian Reserves, only Barnston Island No. 3 is populated (49 inhabitants recorded in the 2006 Census according to Statistics Canada). In fact, Barnston Island’s 2006 population was 96, while the total population of Metro Vancouver’s Electoral Area ‘A’was 11,050. Further, the entire Barnston Island is approximately 587 hectares in size, with the Katzie Reserve occupying approximately 55 hectares. With the exception of the Indian Reserve, the entire island is located within the Agricultural Land Reserve. Therefore, while the voting issue presents itself as a more immediate one for electoral areas in other regional districts, such as the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District (SLRD) highlighted in LMTAC’s draft document, this issue does not directly impact Metro Vancouver’s interests at the present time in terms of Indian Reserve population or development potential.

LMTAC has raised the issue of voting in response to recent FNCIDAIFNCLTA proposals by the Squamish Nation, which intends to pursue commercial, residential and industrial

RD - 296 GVRD - 156 development opportunities for some of its Indian Reserve lands located within the Metro Vancouver region, and hence the influx of non-Aboriginal and non-member leaseholders living on Indian Reserves, However, there are differences in what Squamish Nation is trying to accomplish on its Indian Reserves in relation to the pursuits of other First Nations, such as Katzie and Tsleil-Waututh.

Squamish Nation, although in Stage 3 (Framework Agreement) of the BC Treaty Process, is not actively pursuing treaty negotiations but is, instead, pursuing its opportunities outside of the treaty process. Tsleil-Waututh and Katzie are not currently pursuing FNCIDAJFNCLTA but could do so in the future. Instead, Tsleil-Waututh and Katzie are both currently pursuing treaty settlements with BC and Canada and are both in Stage 4 (Agreement-in-Principle). If these two First Nations achieve resolution of their respective land claims through treaty, the issue of voting in local government elections and referenda by residents on Indian Reserves will no longer be relevant as development opportunities offered through FNCIDA/FNCLTA applies only to Indian Act First Nations; not treaty First Nations. Therefore, the issue of future voting on Katzie or Tsleil-Waututh treaty settlement lands willtake place within their respective jurisdictions according to the treaty agreement and First Nation membership protocols, similar to Tsawwassen First Nation. Based on this reasoning, the issues presented in LMTAC’s discussion paper do not have an immediate impact on Metro Vancouver’s corporate interests.

This is not to say that the voting issue identified by LMTAC is not or should not be an immediate concern for Metro Vancouver member local governments. The issue can be a rather challenging one, particularly if FNCIDA/FNCLTA or other mechanisms promoting development opportunities are pursued, resulting in a corresponding increase in non- Aboriginal populations living on Indian Reserve lands, as identified in the LMTAC paper. Therefore, LMTAC should pursue this issue not only with the BC Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, but also with the Federal government: the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

Based on some preliminary research, there appears to be an inconsistent approach across Canada with respect to voting in local government elections by residents living on Indian Reserves. Whereas in BC, eligible electors living on Indian Reserves can vote in local government elections, in Manitoba, persons residing within a First Nation’s Indian Reserve are not residents of any municipality and, therefore, are not qualified to vote in a municipal election. Indian Reserves are excluded from municipal boundaries, as set out in Manitoba’s Municipal Status and Boundaries Regulation (567/88 1R). Within Ontario, the inconsistency is highlighted further by the patchwork of jurisdictions, with some municipal boundaries including Indian Reserves, while more modern incorporated tier 2 townships, clearly exclude Indian Reserves. This inconsistent approach across Canada has led to confusion at the time of local2 government elections, with provincial government websites posting responses to questions regarding the voting eligibility of persons residing on Indian Reserves. LMTAC may, therefore, wish to draw upon these pertinent examples of these inconsistencies, and

1 However, ifan individualresides on a First Nations’ Reserve, but owns property in a municipality,he or she is entitled to vote as a non-resident property owner. 2 Response received from staff withthe Ministryof MunicipalAffairsand Housing, Government of Ontario. August 15, 2011.

RD - 297 GVRD - 157 then communicate the results to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

3. ALTERNATIVES

The Intergovernmental Committee may wish to recommend that the Board: a) Endorse this report and attached LMTAC draft discussion paper, and direct staff to communicate its comments to the Minister, Community, Sport and Cultural Development, and to the Chair, Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee; or b) Direct staff to undertake further development of this report for Board consideration at a future date; or c) Receive this report and attached LMTAC draft discussion paper and take no further action.

Alternative a) is recommended for the reasons outlined in this report.

4. CONCLUSION

This report conveys LMTAC’s draft discussion paper, Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves, and responds to a request from LMTACfrom member jurisdictions to provide comments in support of its paper.

Given that this issue is related to other issues raised by LMTAC in the recent past, such as FNCIDAIFNCLTA, it is recommended that the Board endorse this report and attached LMTAC draft discussion paper, and direct staff to communicate the Board’s comments to the Minister, Community, Sport and Cultural Development, and to the LMTAC Chair.

ATTACHMENT LMTAC Discussion Paper, dated July 15, 2011, titled Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves (5493315)

RD - 298 GVRD - 158 Referenda LOWER TREATY MAINLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Voting

(This 4th

Lower floor.

on E-mail:

draft

the

by 4330

For

in lmtac.lmtacgvrd.bc.ca

issues

Mainland

discussion Kingsway,

Discussion

Local

Residents

and Burnaby,

does

paper

Purposes

Government

Treaty

July B.C.,

not GVRD

RD Canada, Web:

intended

15,

present

Living -

Only www.lmtac,bc.ca

299 -

Advisory

2011 V5K 159 — 4G8

final,

Without

stimulate Tel:

defined

Elections (604)451-6179

Committee

Indian

Prejudice

further

positions) Fax:

debate

Reserves (604)436-6860

and

AttaThm€ri VOTING IN LOCAL COVERNMENT ELECTIONS AND REFERENDA flY RESIDENTS LIVING ON INDIAN RESERVKS (July 12, 2011) Fr I)kcusion rurposes Only — Withoul Ire1udice

iI1LE OF (ONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 2

2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 3

3 GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT 3 4 JURISDICTIONAL CONTEXT 4 5 VOTING AND REPRESENTATION ON INDIANRESERVES 6 6 IMPLICATIONS 7 7 CONCLUSION 8 8 RECOMMENDATIONS 8

RD - 300 GVRD - 160 V() rt; i’ IO( .U (. [RMi’ I ii l.( iio’s i) lUIiiU:%l) in iu:siIw% is ii 2 I ( i )‘ I 1)1\ ‘ I{iSiR IS (.Julv 12, 201 ) lor l)isL’u%%J4InPurpov )nk iihoui Preiudice

1 INTRODUCTION

In April () II- lie / HO Cl ‘/LlIll/H’ll(/ 10 dO ic/i iiii C cnnniillc’C (I I \( ) released iii iipi.ltcd CCcl/ ( \ Cisioll ol its I wkuroiiiitlei hued I ) into imi cnn! I iii \aiuni (HO c’illlflcIiL oloi/c’iln I?l!Ii/% of R ‘/crcc ii/i/nni /or \ rca f,n/or i/c ,lc/ i/O. In I’ir.i \tthcni .Iiiri.vdniircio lie hackgrounder c\aliimed Ihe represelit.ition nuhis pro ided to non—Ahoiwmals. and iioniiiemhcr Ahonginals. li muon Indian Reseies and Ica1l S’n/enu,,i /andv (1 SI s). While the locus oF the original discussion paper was on the “taxation without representation (II non—Ahoi-iginals li ing in First >.ation jurisdictions, the purpose oF this paper is to examine the issue oF

“representation without taxation ‘ ot both Ahoriginals and non—Aborimals with respect to their ability to participate in local goseninient elections and reFerenda. This paper explains how the historical, geographic. and jurisdictional circumstances have led to the current situation here tederal lands are located ithin local oernmenl homidaries’ and residents living on Indian Reser\ es are able to ‘ ole in municipal and regional (hsIncI elections and reFerenda.

While current pros mcial policy mdicates that Indian Reser Cs v ill not he counted as pail oF Iliture municipal houndai ies, ‘ ia expansions or ne’ incoi-porations. the current silual ion ‘xhere sonic Indian Reser\ es in British Columbia (B( ) are already counted as part oF local go\ enuneni boundaries have i inplicalions with regard to local go ci nmenl elections and reFerenda.

.-\ccording to the BC I1t’rv Guide, residents oF Indian Reserves, both Aboriginal and non— Aboriginal, are entitled to ‘ ote in the elections ol municipalities and regional districts in cases where the Indian Reserve is located within municipal or regional district boundaries: The ability ol these residents to participate in municipal elections and reiei enda is a concern to local governments as they are not subject to local government regulation and do not pay local ‘o. ernment taxes resulting in “representation without 4taxation.” I urthermore. legislation such as the I-li-si .Vaiion. ( o,nmco 1(1/ and /nduiria/ Dc’o’/opinent IL!

FNCI DA ) and 17r! \aiion.v ( er!ainiv of Land tide ici ([N( 1:FA ) v hich are designed to attract commercial, industrial and residential dcx elopment on Indian Reserx es, will exacerbate the issue o [“representation without taxation’’, as large—scale market residential developments on Indian Reserves are expected to result in a signiflcant increase of the non—Aboriginalpopulations living on Indian Reserve lands. As the numbers ol’ non-Aboriginals living on Indian Reserves continues to grow, the populations will soon make-up a significant portion of eligible voters in local government elections and referenda, without paying local government taxes. The BC I oterv Guide indicates that residents of Indian Reserves can vote in municipal elections and referenda when the reserve is located within municipal boundaries. The historical, geographic, and jurisdictional contexts discussed in this paper provide an explanation for how federal lands, in this case Indian Reserves, are located within municipal boundaries.

Whilethehistoricalandgeographiccontextdiscussionswilltouchonthe physicallocationof IndianReserves,the focusof thispaperandtheconcernsof localgovernmentsarerelatedto the jurisdictionaloverlapof federallands (Indian Reserves) being contained within local government boundaries The concerns are QI related to the physical location of Indian Reserves within or next to municipalities. 2 http:Hwww.municipalelections . comivoters guide.htm Non-Aboriginals living on Indian Reserves pay property taxes to the Indian Band, but these taxes are not remitted to the local government. It should be noted that the provincial government vacated this tax room to participating Indian Bands under the Indian Self-GovernmentEnabling Act of 1990. Indian Bands exercising property taxation powers have exempted Aboriginal members from such taxes.

RD - 301 GVRD - 161 VOTING IN LOCAl. GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS ANI) REFERENDA BY RESIDENTS LIVING ON INDIAN RESER’ES (.JuIy12, 2011) For Discussion Purposes Only * Without Prejudice

2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Many Indian Reserves were established in BC before municipalities existed in the province. and befire modern municipal boundaries were developed. For instance, the (‘liv u/New West,ninstt’r, the oldest city in Western Canada, was not incorporated until I S60 the City of Vancouyc’r was not incorporated until I XX6; and regional districts were not created in BC until I965.

Indian Reserves in BC were created in the late I X50s and 1860s9h, by the colonial government. after BC was proclaimed an official British colony on November 1 858.’ The terms qunion established when BC joined Canada, in 187 I, divided the authority between the two levels of government: The federal government held responsibility for First Nations and the trusteeship and management of lands reserved for First Nations. In 1876, the Indian Reserve commission was established to determine Indian Reserves in 5BC. The commission was authorized to create reserves to be used for the benefit of First Nations. Dominion crown lands were to be used to add land to reserves while any land removed became provincial land. The decisions of the Commission were made without consent from First Nations. Both the federal and provincial governments have played a role in shaping the current layout of Indian Reserves. For example, through use of the Doinmion Indian A//iirs’ Settlement Act of 1919 and the British Columbia Indian Landc Settlement Act of 1920. the provincial and federal governments expropriated more than 35,000 acres from reserves in BC.

Therefore, the historical actions of the federal and provincial governments, including the removal of reserve land and altering of reserve boundaries, contributed to the current situation where Indian Reserves are contained within local government boundaries.

3 GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

Many First Nations in BC were situated in areas that were attractive to settlers. As such, cities were developed close to Indian Reserves and, over time, the cities expanded next to or around the reserves, At that time the various orders of government were not as concerned with the jurisdictional overlap that resulted from such practices. Similarly, as colonial settlement began, some First Nations in BC also migrated to areas adjacent to the new immigrant settlements; for example, the establishment of permanent (year-round) settlements by the Squamish Nation on the north shore of Burrard Inlet, and the relocation by the Kwanilen First Nation from the vicinity of New Westminster to the vicinity of Fort Langley.

Furthermore, as development near reserves expanded, the Indian Reserve Commission began to expropriate large portions of land in order to help foster such development. As Aboriginal rights and title in BC have never been addressed, the expropriation of Indian Reserves has resulted in various forms of compensation to affected First Nations. In certain cases, parts of the expropriated land have been returned to First Nations as reserve land. For example, in 2002 and

Local Government Knowledge Partnership. University of Victoria, 40 Years: A Regional District Retrospective, 2009. Union of BC Indian Chiefs, Background on Indian Reserves in British Columbia, http://ubcie.bc.ccResources/ourhomesare/teachersiflIes Bakround%2Oon%2Olndian%2OReserves°’o2Oin o2OBritish%2OColumbiapdf Aboriginal Affairs and NorthernDevelopment Canada, http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ceai/mr/is/abr-eng.asp Dennis F. K. Madill for Research Branch, Corporate Policy, Department of Indian andNorthern Affairs, 1981, http://www.ainc-inac.gc.caUhts/tgu/pubs/C-B/treC-B-eng.asp Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC). RD - 302 GVRD - 162 vmirc; IN LOC.L (;ovEkNll Ni lI.EC’liONS ANI) REFIRlNI), BY RESIIWNTS LIVINC 4 ON INl)I.-N Rl’SERVFS (JuI 12, 201 I) Ior l)iscussion Purposes Oiilv Without Prejudice

2003, the Squamish Nation won several court and appeal cases resulting in the return of former reserve land in Kitsilano that had been exPropriated by the Commission in 1886 and 1902 and given to the canadian Pacific Railway (CPR). °

The impacts of the historical and geographic context on how Indian Reserves came to be contained within local government boundaries have been well documented. While the context behind the modern physical location of Indian Reserves is important to the discussion, local government concerns do not stern from the physical location of Indian Reserves, but rather the j1ctipItl1oct1on P irticul irlv thc quLstaon ol ho Indian RLsLrvcs is kdLral lands th it are under federal jurisdiction, can be counted as part of local government boundaries with regard to municipal and regional district elections despite being completely outside of local government jurisdiction in all other matters, deems closer exanunatioii. The concerns around this jurisdictional “overlap” are discussed in the Ibllowing section.

4 JURISDICTIONAL CONTEXT

In 1988, there were 45 scenarios of Indian Reserves being located within the boundaries of municipalities within 12BC. In situations where non-Aboriginals leased parcels of land on Indian Reserves, BC local governments and other taxation authorities had the ability to tax such residents in the same manner as off-reserve properties. In 1988, Section 83 of the Indian Act was amended to provide Indian Bands the ability to collect property taxes from populations living on Indian Reserves. The amendment to the Indian Act did not remove the power of provincial governments and municipalities to tax non-members living on indian Reserves.

In 1990, the BC provincial government passed the Indian Self Government Enabling Act. The Act removed the ability of local governments and other provincial taxing authorities to implement taxes on Indian Reserves in cases where the First Nation had undertaken taxation powers. This was done to achieve harmonization with the 1988 Indian Act amendment and to avoid a situation of double taxation. As a result, this “clarified that municipalities do not have jurisdiction over First Nations reserves, whether or not the reserve is by legal description geographically located within municipal 13boundaries.” As a consequence, this led to many municipalities entering into agreements with First Nations to provide services to reserve lands, in exchange for direct payment, without careful consideration of the legal implications; that is, the federal legislative barriers to servicing agreements with First Nations, especially as they relate to financial and environmental joint and several liabilities, and regulatory bylaw enforcement on Indian Reserves.

As noted above, Indian Reserves (as federal lands) are part of local government jurisdictions. However, when it comes to voting in municipal elections and referenda, Indian Reserves that are located within municipal boundaries are counted as part of the electoral area. Both the federal and provincial governments appear to recognize the “gap” that now exists with respect to having federal land located within municipal boundaries.

SquamishNation.http:!/www.sguamish.neumediacentreandarchives/newsarticles.htm The historic and geographic discussions around the physical location of modern Indian Reserves have been provided tbr context only. 2 Robert L. Bish and Eric G. Clemens. Local Government in British Columbia (Fourth Edition). Union of British Columbia Municipalities. 2008, page 28. 13 Bish and Clemens, 2009, page 28. RD - 303 GVRD - 163 OTINC IN IA)UAL, COVERNMENT ELEC11ONS ANI) REFERENI)A 13YRESIDENTS LIVIN(; (iN INI)IAN RESERVES (July 12, 2011) For Discussion Purposes (Thh W(hout Prejudice

The provincial government recognizes that there are multiple implications with respect to having Indian Reserves contained within defined local iovenmient boundaries: in fact, as a matter of provincial policy, municipalities incorporated since I99() speci tically exclude Indian Reserves from municipal boundaries. For example, one of the criteria setout by the Miinstry o/ €ommuniry, Sport and Cultural Development fir municipal boundary expansions states that Indian Resercs will not be within mut ipaiboundanes The recent Incorporation of the District of West Kelowna in 2007 is an example of this principle put into practice. The boundaries for the new municipality excluded the established reserves of the Westhank First Nation, notwithstanding that the new municipality surrounds the reserve lands.

In the case of the federal government, the Pat’ment ui—Lieuof Taxes (PILT) program provides comparable linancing to local governments, in exchange ftr services, due to the fact that federal land is exempt from taxation. In the case of third—partyleaseholders on ftderal land. PILT is not eligible unless the lease is for less than one year. Ilowever, the third party leaseholders are required to pay property taxes directly to the taxing authority. With regard to Indian Reserves, no programs such as PILT are available. Rather, local governments and First Nations may enter into service agreements under which First Nations pay agreed upon fees to the local government in exchange for services provided.

It also should be noted that when the Tcawwassen First Nation finalized its treaty, the Treaty Settlement Land (TSL) was removed from the municipal boundaries of the neighbouring (olporatton of Delta. Tsawwassen TSL did remain within the regional district boundaries of Metro [ancoui’er only because the Tsawwassen Final Agreement contained specific provisions fbr the Tcawwassen First Nation to become a member of the regional district on the effective date. In contrast, the YaleFirst iVation Final Agreement removed Yale TSL from regional district boundaries unless the YaleFirst Nation decides to become a member of the regional district at a future date.

The containment of Indian Reserves within local government boundaries has broader implications for municipal and regional district elections and referenda. The existing jurisdictional overlap creates a situation where both Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals residing on Indian Reserves can participate in local government elections and referenda even though the Indian Reserves are outside regulation and taxation authority of the local government.

Historically, the situation did not appear to be of large concern for local governments as the number of non-Aboriginals living on reserves was relatively small. However, these populations have significantly increased in recent years, and will continue to grow as First Nations pursue on-reserve economic development projects, including market residential housing. In fact, the population of non-Aboriginals living on Indian Reserves in BC has more than doubled between 1986 and 2006. from 11,000 to 26,000.’ In 2006, for instance, there were 22 Indian Reserves within Metro Vancouver boundaries that collectively accounted for more than 7,000 non- Aboriginal and Aboriginal 16residents. Within the Metro Vancouver area, the following jurisdictions have two or more Indian Reserves within their boundaries: the City of Vancouver, the District of North Vancouver, the Township of Langley, the City of Maple Ridge, and GVRD Electoral Area A.

14 Local Government Department. Ministrt’ of C’ornrnunitv,Sport. and Cultural Development, Municipal Boundary Extensions, http://www.cscd.gov.bc.callgd/boundaries/municipalextensions.htm BC Stats Statistics Canada, 2006 Community Profiles. RD - 304 GVRD - 164 VOTING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS AND REFERENDABY RESIDENTS LIVING oN INDIANRESERVES,Ju1y 12, 2011) For Discussion Purposes Only — WithoutPrejudice

The Squami hLi/looet Regional District (SLRD) has a total population of approximately 35,225 ol which approximately 3,000 (over 8%) are residents living on Indian Rescrves; whereas, the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) has a total population of 727,759 with 85() (3°) ‘ residents on Indian Reserves. However, it should be noted that almost 3() (close to 9S%) of these residents live on Sechelt land, which forms the Secheit Indian Goicrn,nent District, and is a full member of the SCRI) regional district.

The implications that the growth of non—Aboriginalpopulations on Indian Reserves has for local government elections and referenda are discussed in the next section.

5 VOTING AND REPRESENTATION ON INDIAN RESERVES

Non-Aboriginals living on Indian Reserves pay property taxes to the Indian Band, in cases where the Indian Band exercises its authority to collect property taxes under either the Section 83 amendment to the Indian Act, or the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act (FNFSMA). These property taxes are not remitted to the neighbouring local government or other taxing authority, such as TransLink,’ or the Province in the case of school taxes. Instead, local governments must recover9relevant costs and fees through service agreements with neighbouring First Nations.

1-lowever. if the Indian Reserve is located within the boundaries of a municipality, or regional district, both non-Aboriginal residents and Aboriginal members are allowed to vote in municipal elections and referenda. The BC Voter’s Guide states the following in its Frequent/v Asked Questions section:

If the reserve is within a municipality and von are otherwise eligible to vote, von can tote in the municipal election. I/the reserve is not within a municipality but within a regional district and you are otherwise eligible to vote, on can vote/or the electoral area director in the election lie/cl by the regional district. This applies to non—aboriginal leaseho/ders as well.

This means that non-Aboriginals living on-Reserve can participate in local government elections and referenda even though they do not pay local government taxes. As these populations grow, residents living on Indian Reserves could make-up a significant proportion of eligible voters and be the recipient of services provided by the neighbouring municipality and paid for by tax-payers living off-reserve.

Different rules on voting eligibility apply on TSL where neither Aboriginal members nor non Aboriginals can vote in municipal elections, as TSL are removed from municipal boundaries. In the case of the Tsawwassen First Nation, for instance, the TSL remained within regional district boundaries because the Tsawwassen treaty contained provisions for the Tcawwassen First Nation to become a member of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), known as Metro Vancouver, on the treaty effective date. In the Yale First Nation Final Agreement, Treaty Settlement Lands were removed from the regional district boundaries, subject to the Yale First Nation becoming a member of the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD).

Squarnish-Lillooet Regional District and 2006 Census 2006 Census In the Metro Vancouver regional district, hospital taxes have been replaced with TransLink taxes, 20 http://www.municipalelections.comlvoters guide.htrn RD - 305 GVRD - 165 VOTINGIN LOCAl. GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS ANI) REFERENDA BY RESIDENTS LIVING 7 ON INDIAN RESERVES(July 12,2011)For l)iscussionPurposesOnly Without Preludice

This means that residents living on Yale TSL are not able to participate in regional district elections, while residents on Tsawwassen TSL participate as any other regional district member. Ilowever, if the Yale First Nation joins the regional district, such as the case ot the Tcawwassen Firvt Nation, relevant taxes collected from holh Ahoriginals and non—Aboriginals would be remitted to the retuonal district, as with any other member municipality. Therefure, joining a regional district by a First Nation would address the issue of “representation without taxation” within the context of regional districts. ’2 6 IMPLICATIONS

The containment of Indian Reserves within local government boundaries has significant implications for municipal and regional districts in the Lower Mainland; especially, as they relate to the ability of on-Reserve Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal residents to participate, as voters and potential candidates, in local government elections and referenda.

The most pertinent example is that of Electoral Area 13,within the Squainish-Lillooet Regional t)istrict (SLRD), where 66% of the population (1,144 of a total 1,719) live on Indian 22Reserves. This means that residents on Indian Reserves in SLRD Electoral Area 13 hold a majority vote in the election of their regional director, even though they do not pay regional district taxes.

Another example worth examining is the District of West Vancouver, which currently has a population of 42,1 2 I of which 3,140 (7.5%) presently live on the Squamish Nation ‘s Capilano 3Indian Reserve No. 5, which is contained within the municipality’s boundaries. If the Squarnish Nation pursues the development of residential market housing on its reserve lands as proposed, the proportion of residents living on-Reserve and eligible to vote in District of West Lancouver municipal elections and referenda could increase up to 30% within 25 24years. A situation could result in other jurisdictions where the population of an Indian Reserve, including both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginals, can account for a plurality, or potentially a majority, of future eligible voters. In such a case, the residents on an Indian Reserve would have a controlling vote on a number of critical issues affecting taxpayers residing in the municipality without paying taxes to the latter. This situation is more likely as First Nations pursue large-scale on-Reserve market residential developments, resulting in an even larger non-Aboriginal population living on-Reserve.

In some regional districts, the unincorporated Electoral Areas may have Indian Reserves with sufficient on-Reserve populations to influence the results of elections for the Electoral Area Directors for the respective areas. As a consequence, some Electoral Area Directors sitting on a regional district board and voting on budgets, community services and regulatory bylaws could be, in fact, elected by voters who do not pay taxes to the regional district and are not subject to regional district bylaws.

In the case of Aboriginal members, there is normally a 12 year transition period before property taxes are to be collected. 22 Squamish-LillooetRegionalDistrictand2006Census. 23 2006 Census. 24 The 30% figure is based upon the current West Vancouver population. Metro taneouver ‘sDrafI Regional Growth Strategy (January2011) projects the population of West Vancouver to increase by approximately 11,000 by 2031. Such an increase could either partially off-set the potential growth of residents onreserve,or account for a portion of the residents movingto the reserve. RD - 306 GVRD - 166 VOTINGIN LOCALGOVERNMENT ELECTIONS AND REFERENDA IIY RESIDE1TS IJVIG 8 ON INDIANRESERVES (July 12,2011)For I)iscussionPurposesOnly Without Prejudice

Furthermore. regional disiricts use Weighted Votes to decide money matters, including the adoption of the annual and live—yearlinancial plans. In this case, each [lectoral Area Director receives a weighted vote based on the population in their electoral area. Therefire, in certain cases, an electoral area with an Indian Reserve could receive a higher weighted vote than other Electoral Area Directors based upon a larger segment of the electoral area population, both Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals, living on-Reserve that do not pay regional district taxes.

7 CONCLUSION

The circumstance of having Indian Reserves, which are federal lands under federal jurisdiction. counted as part of local government boundaries with regard to local government elections and reiCrenda, has created a situation of “representation without taxation” which is Contrary to the democratic principles that describe local governance in British Columbia: While treaties provide a solution to the issue, not all First Nations are likely to pursue treaties.

As a consequence, as First Nations pursue large-scale on-Reserve market residential developments, leading to increasing non-Aboriginal populations living on-Reserve, the implications for affected local governments and taxpayers will he exacerbated. As such, this issue will necessitate further consideration and examination of potential solutions.

8 RECOMMENDA TIONS

1. Regarding Indian Reserves located within municipal boundaries, it is recommended that the Province amend municipal boundaries to exclude Indian Reserves in recognition of the absence of municipal regulatory authority over Indian Reserve lands and land use, and absence of municipal taxing authority over Indian Reserve lands and improvements.

2. Regarding Indian Reserves located within regional district boundaries, it is recommended that the Province officially exclude Indian Reserves from regional district boundaries until the First Nation joins and participates in the regional district on the same basis as their neighbouring local governments.

These recommendations are consistent with provincial policy to specifically exclude Indian Reserves from municipal boundary expansions. The purpose of these recommendations is to achieve consistency with such policy by redressing the existing jurisdictional anomalies (jurisdictional overlaps”) within BC.

RobertL. Bish and Eric G. Clemens. Local Goverl?InentinBritish Columbia (Fourth Edition), Union of British Columbia Municipalities, 2008. RD - 307 GVRD - 167 - This Page LeftBLANKintentionally-

RD-308 GVRD - 168 metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

GVRD Board of Directors: March 30, 2012

To: Metro Vancouver Board of Directors

From: Paulette Vetleson, Manager/Corporate Secretary, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information Department

Date: March 23, 2012

Subject: Amendments to the Metro Vancouver 2012 Appointments to the Municipal Finance Authority

Recommendation: That the Board amend its previously decided resolutions of January 13, 2012 and March 2, 2012 regarding the 2012 appointments to the Municipal Finance Authority as follows: a) appoint “Mae Reid” as representative in place of “Richard Stewart”; b) appoint “Helen Fathers” as alternate representative in place of “Wayne Baldwin”; c) appoint “Linda Hepner” as alternate representative for Gayle Martin in place of “Jack Froese”.

1. PURPOSE To amend Metro Vancouver appointments to the 2012 Municipal Finance Authority (MFA).

2. CONTEXT At its January 13, 2012 meeting, and at its March 2, 2012 meeting, the Board considered the 2012 appointments to the Municipal Finance Authority.

Subsequent to those meetings, it was learned that amendments to the appointments are required for the following reasons:  to correct the minutes that reflected an incorrect appointment;  to comply with an MFA requirement that Metro Vancouver appointees as representatives and alternate representatives to the MFA are Metro Vancouver directors; and  to change the appointment of an alternate currently representing two directors, to an alternate representing one director, consequently avoiding membership conflict and increasing the potential for full membership at meetings.

The 2012 Municipal Finance Authority appointments, with the recommended amendments are shown in underlined style. The Board Chair has suggested the changes to the alternate representatives.

Representative Alternate Representative Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Harold Steves, Richmond Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Mae Reid, Coquitlam Helen Fathers, White Rock Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Jack Froese, Langley Township Mike Clay, Port Moody Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Raymond Louie, Vancouver Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Michael Smith, West Vancouver Marvin Hunt, Surrey Judy Villeneuve, Surrey Wayne Wright, New Westminster Lois Jackson, Delta Gayle Martin, Langley City Linda Hepner, Surrey

Page 1 of 2

GVRD - 169

3. ALTERNATIVES None presented.

4. CONCLUSION Amendments to the 2012 Municipal Finance Authority appointments will address various requirements.

GVRD - 170 Item 5.3

Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting Date: March 21, 2012

To: Intergovernmental and Administration Committee

From: Bonnie Blue, Acting Division Manager, Planning, Resource Management and Development, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks

Date: February 15, 2012

Subject: Mosquito Control Service Bylaw

Recommendation:

That the Board: a) give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Mosquito Control Service Bylaw No. 1164, 2012”. b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Regional District Mosquito Control Service Bylaw No. 1164, 2012”.

1. PURPOSE

To seek adoption of a Mosquito Control Service Bylaw which has been updated to accommodate a request by the City of Coquitlam to join the service, and to which minor administrative changes have been made that do not affect the intent of the bylaw.

2. CONTEXT

Metro Vancouver administers a contract on behalf of interested municipalities to manage nuisance mosquitoes. Costs for administering the joint contract are entirely recovered from the participating areas. Coquitlam City Council recently submitted a request to join the „participating areas‟ for the upcoming 3-year contract.

This bylaw adds the City of Coquitlam to the list of participating municipalities. It also resolves minor housekeeping issues with Bylaw 848, to make it consistent with current bylaw standards. The currently participating areas (City of Surrey, Township of Langley, District of Maple Ridge, and City of Pitt Meadows) are listed in Bylaw 848-1996, and have remained the same since the bylaw was created in 1996.

3. ALTERNATIVES

Option 1: Adopt a new Mosquito Control Service Bylaw to add Coquitlam as a participating area.

Page 1 of 2 GVRD - 171 Mosquito Control Service Bylaw Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting: March 21, 2012 Page 2 of 2

Option 2: Choose not to repeal the current Mosquito Control Service Bylaw and not adopt a replacement bylaw. This action will not affect the existing participating areas in their current 3-year contract. The City of Coquitlam will be required to seek alternative arrangements for mosquito control.

4. CONCLUSION

The Mosquito Control Service Bylaw is required in order to add the City to the participating areas and to resolve minor housekeeping items with the previous bylaw. Staff recommend Option 1.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Greater Vancouver Regional District Mosquito Control Service Bylaw No. 1164, 2012.

2. Greater Vancouver Regional District By-law No. 848-1996 Mosquito Control Service.

3. February 23, 2012 Request letter from City of Coquitlam to join mosquito control service.

GVRD - 172 Attachment 1

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT

MOSQUITO CONTROL SERVICE

BYLAW NO.1164, 2012

WHEREAS:

A. The Greater Vancouver Regional District (the "District") may, by by-law, pursuant to Section 837 of the Local Government Act, enter into an agreement with a municipality to provide to the municipality a service that is a work or service within the powers of the municipality;

B. Section 837 of the Local Government Act provides that an agreement to provide such a work or service must provide that the entire cost of providing the service under the agreement is a debt owed to the regional district by the municipality;

C. The District has agreed to provide the service of preventing and abating the nuisance caused by mosquitoes (the "Mosquito Control Services") to certain of its member municipalities from time to time (collectively, the "Participating Areas");

NOW THEREFORE:

The Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

1. Citation The official citation of this bylaw is “Greater Vancouver Regional District Mosquito Control Service Bylaw No. 1164, 2012”. This bylaw may be cited as “Mosquito Control Service Bylaw”.

2. Mosquito Control Services The District may, subject to reaching agreements with at least two of its member municipalities, operate, or enter into agreements with other parties for the operation of Mosquito Control Services for any year or any portion of any year, including:

(a) aerial spraying and local ground applications of botanical and synthetic insecticides in the Participating Areas;

(b) research, mapping, and surveillance of mosquitoes in the Participating Areas;

(d) establishing administrative procedures with the Participating Areas and any contractor providing the Mosquito Control Services, for receiving, recording

Greater Vancouver Regional District Mosquito Control Service Bylaw No. 1164, 2012

Page 1 of 2 GVRD - 173 Attachment 1

and transmitting requests for mosquito spraying during the mosquito control season; and

(e) such other services relating to the above items as may from time to time be necessary or desirable.

3. Participating Areas City of Coquitlam, District of Maple Ridge, City of Pitt Meadows, Township of Langley, City of Surrey.

4. Costs The Participating Areas must pay the entire cost incurred by the District to provide the Mosquito Control Services in each year that Mosquito Control Services are provided. Such costs will be apportioned by the District among the Participating Areas, according to the usage of the Mosquito Control Services by each Participating Area.

5. Municipal Agreements The District shall not carry on any Mosquito Control Services under this By-law in any year unless each Participating Area has entered into an agreement satisfactory to the District to pay for the usage of the Mosquito Control Services by the Participating Area. Each such agreement shall provide that if the Participating Area fails to make required payment for the Mosquito Control Services, the amount of the non-payment will be considered to be a debt owed by the Participating Area to the District and the District will be under no obligation to provide any further Mosquito Control Services to the Participating Area.

6. Repeal of By-law No. 848 Greater Vancouver Regional District By-law No. 848-1996 Mosquito Control Service is hereby repealed.

READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME this _____ day of ______, 2012.

RECONSIDERED, PASSED AND FINALLY ADOPTED this _____ day of ______, 2012.

______Paulette A. Vetleson Greg Moore Secretary Chair

Greater Vancouver Regional District Mosquito Control Service Bylaw No. 1164, 2012

Page 2 of 2 GVRD - 174 Attachment # 2

GVRD - 175 GVRD - 176 GVRD - 177 ATTACHMENT 3

GVRD - 178 ATTACHMENT 3

GVRD - 179