H.01 Mayor and Council External Correspondence Summary January 27, 2014

FROM TOPIC DEPT. A.T. #

772 D. Garbutt Canada Post CLERK’S 119991

773 K. S. Carter, Files Closed from October 1 to December CLERK’S 120127 Ombudsperson, Province 31, 2013 of BC

774 E. Poje Towers Along Border HR&CP 119755

775 L. & T. Laferte Stop the Radio Towers HR&CP 120011

776 M. Waldhaus Proposed Radio Towers HR&CP 120048

777 G.J. Edwards KRPI Issue: Crossborder Coalition’s HR&CP 120092 “Informal Objection” to BBC-KRPI’s Licence Renewal Application Filed with FCC Washington January 2

778 K. Washbrook, Director, Independent Experts on Coal Export EIA HR&CP 120091 Voters Taking Action on Climate Change

779 Mayor M.D. Brodie, City Environmental Impact Assessment for the HR&CP 120108 of Richmond Proposed Direct Transfer Coal Facility at CC: CA&E Fraser Surrey Docks

780 R. Swanston More Truck Jams at Deltaport Way HR&CP 120093 CC: ENG

781 J. Rolls Delta’s Recycling Program ENG 120042

782 S. Garg, Burger King Request for Signage ENG 120043 Restaurant

783 J. Cleghorn, BC Ferry BC Ferry Coalition Launch ENG 119996 Coalition

784 D. Paterson Red Dot Campaign ENG 119998

785 J. Zellweger, President, Parking Signs on Elliott Street ENG 120105 Ladner Business Association

786 Hon. L Raitt, Minister of Proposed Replacement of the George ENG 120109 Transport Massey Tunnel

787 D. Porter Tolls and Translink Funding ENG, FIN 120126

F:\CorpRec Corr-Other\Agenda - Regular\2014\2014-01-27\Correspondence Summary.doc H.01 Mayor and Council External Correspondence Summary January 27, 2014

FROM TOPIC DEPT. A.T. #

788 A. Dale, Executive Provincial and Local Governments CA&E 120110 Director, Ecosystems Working Together to Protect Biodiversity Branch, Ministry of Environment

789 U. Easterbrook Kittson Residence CP&D 119990

790 S. & D. Russell Proposed Rezoning and Development CP&D 120104 Variance Permit Application at 3443 River Road W.

791 B. Ovitsland Health Canada’s MMPR CP&D 120106

792 J. A. Gordon, Municipal Provincial Core Review and the CP&D 120107 Clerk, District of North Agricultural Land Commission Vancouver

793 C. Mason, Gillnetter Heritage Restoration PR&C 120089 Commissioner/Chief CC: CP&D Administrative Officer, Metro Vancouver

F:\CorpRec Corr-Other\Agenda - Regular\2014\2014-01-27\Correspondence Summary.doc 772 Mayor Council

From: Mayor Lois Jackson Sent: Tuesday, December 31 , 2013 8:53 AM genda To: Mayor & Council FILE # O\~ \ O -02 Subject: FW: Canada Post

From: Darren Garbutt Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 12:02 PM To: Mayor Lois Jackson Subject: Canada Post

Your Worship,

I am Writing you today to voice my concerns on the impending Canada Post plan to stop door to door delivery.

This morning I parked my vehicle in the Safeway parking lot in Tsawwassen. As I proceeded to the store I notice one of our senior citizens struggling to walk up a simple incline to access the sidewalk outside the store. As I helped her secure her footing, she mentioned how horrible this weather is and is so dangerous for her and her friends. I must note, the sidewalk and slope had been clear and maintained, yet due to the cold weather and on going snow, it was a little slippery. This fine lady mentioned "What are we gonna do when we ha ve to retrieve our mail in this stuff?".

I finished my shopping and left the store. Again, in the same spot another senior was struggling and was being helped by a kind lady.

This Canada Post plan is flat out wrong. The majority of hospital visits for people over the age of 65 is because of a fall. We don not need this number to increase.

I ask and plead that the City of Delta considers to follow in the footsteps of St. Johns Newfoundland and not co-operate with Canada Post on this horrific plan ... . http://www.vocm.com/mobile/newsarticl e.a sp ?mn=2&id=41801 fi/o /1 krrJ efer t " Doe ~ Ylo-r It/1/<- fr, a "he (e- Thank you for your time In accordance with Council's resolution of January 6, 2014, Mayor Jackson has written to Canada Post inviting a government liaison to Darren Garbutt appear before a future Regular Meeting of Council to discuss issues Tsawwassen, BC surrounding the cancellation of home delivery and community letter t}lC:O lA)A,~lo..CQ.- ke.., boxes. The writer has been so advised. ~q\Cl "6'1"3 . This message is provided in confidence and should not be forwarded to any external third party without authorization . If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments.

1 773 General Inquiries: (250) 387-5855 947 Fort Street Toll-Free: 1-800-567-3247 6.. PO Box 9039 Sin Prov Govl mbudsperson Fax: (250) 387-0198 Victo ria Be V8W gAS B .C:s Independ ent Voice For Fairness www.bcombudsperson.ca

genda He r Worshi p Lois E. J ackson , FILE # Mayor TYPE: Re ':j " 10-(' e".oI "'- Corporation of Delta t1 4500 Clarence Taylor Cres. DEPT: -Ll re.:l:.yJl,jc .....:~::.-_ _ DELTA BC V4K 3E2 A.1 . #: --,-_____ Comments' J V'cl\, v.. ~ ;)..71 \ tf r<- ~ \ALA ,-' !VI t e 1lY\] Files Closed from October 1 to December 31,2013 Corporation of Delta

1 . Requests for Information or Assistance 0

1 >-'"" 2_ Complaints with No Investigation .j>. a_ Assistance and/or referral 1 c- D b_ Refused (discretion) Z, • More than one year between even t and complaint 0 ..... (J1 • Insufficient personal interest 0 .....z • Available remedy 0 >-'" N • Frivolous/vexatious/trivial matter 0 U-:I • Can consider without further investigation 0 -.J • No benefit to complainant or person aggrieved 0 • Complaint a bandoned 0 • Complaint withdrawn 0 c_ Statute barred (FIPPA, Police Act, etc_) 0 d_ Not a matter of administration 0 e_ Pre-empted by existing statutory right of appeal, 0 objection or review

3 . Complaints Investigated 1 a. Not a matter of administration o b. Pre-empted by existing statutory right of appeal, o objection or review c. Investigation ceased (discretion) - No findings • More than one year between event and complaint o • Insufficient personal interest o • Available remedy o • Frivolous/vexatious/trivial matter o • Can consider without further investigation o • No benefit to complainant or person aggrieved o • Com plaint abandoned o • Complaint withdrawn • Com plain t settled MAYO ~'S OFFICE JAN 1 5 2014 This is provided for Council's information. RECEIVED Page 2

d. Investigation completed - Findings - Substantiated • Remedied in whole 0 • Remedied in part 0 • Not remedied 0 • Recommendations made - remedy to be implemented over 0 time e. Investigation completed - Findings - Not substantiated 1

4. Ombudsperson Initiated Investigations o a. Investigation ceased (discretion) - No findings o b. Investigation completed - Findings - Substantiated • Remedied in whole o • Remedied in part o • Not remedied o • Recommendations made - remedy to be implemented over o time c. Investigation completed - Findings - Not substantiated o

Kim S. Carter Ombudsperson Province of British Columbia 08/01/2014 774 Mayor Council

From: Mayor Lois Jackson Sent: Wednesday, January 08,20143:25 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: FW: Towers along border genda tf:. v" A FILE # 01'10- 35

From: Poje Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 2:33 PM To: Mayor Lois Jackson ,� '.. .::I Subject: Towers along border

Dear Mayor Jackson,

I am writing to express my opposition to the installation of five 150-foot radio transmission towers in Point Roberts, two blocks south of the border stations, based on the potential interference from the 50,000 watts transmitted 24 hours-a-day, and the potential health risks according to scientific reports. I live along the border, work from home and have a hard enough time with cell coverage and static on the landlines without having these five towers burdening us forever more.

If you could please add your voice to the objections being made to Whatcom County in the hopes they do not sign off on the proposal, that might help the residents in their efforts.

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely, TYPE: &tJ:!&Lttf Elaine Poje fb.tf\tA� DEPT; �f� 5120 Wallace Ave Delta A.T.#:_. /!77s.s­ BC Mayor Jackson has written to Whatcom County Planning Comments: -J�nvcv'vt ).1 fi Division regarding the proposed towers and the community t{ concerns that are being raised. The proposal has to go A� vI �r (r1ee'fl YJ through a public hearing and the date of this hearing has yet to be set by the Whatcom County Hearing Examiner. Staff has contacted the letter writer accordingly.

. ' , t· ., This message is provided in confidence and should not be forwarded to any external third party without authorization. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email , : and delete this message along with any attachments.

1

'1 775

Mayor Jackson has written to Whatcom County Planning Division regarding the proposed towers and the community concerns that are being raised. The proposal has to go through a public hearing and the date of this hearing has yet to be set by the Whatcom County Hearing Examiner. Staff will advise Council once the date is known and will respond to the letter writers accordingly. 776 genda Karen Waterberg A FILE #

From: Mayor Lois Jackson Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11 :58 AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: FW: Proposed Radio Towers

..... From: Mayor & Council Sent: Monday, December 30,20133:13 PM TY PE R~.,,(,laV' A-g£ll jp.. To: Mayor Lois Jackson Subject: FW: Proposed Radio Towers D EPT: \l: R, \- c,f A. . # \'6 00 It({; Comments: ..ra.(l .... ~(1{ J. l ),t.f ______~ ~~~L~r~e(~0 From: Melanie Waldhaus Sent: December-27-13 3:59 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Proposed Radio Towers

Dear Mayor Lois Jackson,

As there has been very little information regarding the current status regarding KRPI's effort in trying to relocate and erect five 150 foot steel AM radio towers from Ferndale, WA to Point Roberts, WA, I am hoping you can provide the community of Tsawwassen with some answers via an article in the Delta Optimist.

Tsawwassen is a beautiful community with over 21,000 residents, and this number will only grow once the South lands and Tsawwassen Shores are developed. The proposed radio towers location defies all logical reasoning, and they should never have been approved in the first place had KRPI not omitted Tsawwassen in their application. Not only will these towers cause electronic interference, but more importantly, adverse health effects. Tsawwassen is full of young families trying to raise their children in a safe, friendly and healthy environment. No one, including myself, wishes to raise their children in a community where they are being exposed to high radio frequency levels 24 hours a day.

Mayor Lois Jackson, I can honestly say that I am losing sleep over this issue, and sincerely hope you can help put a stop to such an outrageous and illogical proposal.

Below is the link to an online petition with over 813 signatures, with more to come. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/11 9/798/0 13/tel'-obama -and-the-fcc-to-stop-the-bbcs-pi rate-rad io/

Residents of Tsawwassen are counting on you!

Thank you very much, Mayor Jackson has written to Whatcom County Planning Division regarding the proposed towers and the community concerns that are being raised. The proposal has to go through a public hearing and the date of this hearing has yet to be set by the Whatcom County Hearing Examiner. Staff will advise Council once the date is known and will respond to the letter Melanie Waldhaus writer accordingly.

1 5548 1st Avenue Tsawwassen, Be

This message is provided in confidence and should not be forwarded to any external third party without authorization. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any allachments.

2 Tell the FCC to reject the Pirate "Border Blaster" in Washington State

author: Deak McLudite target: The FCC, Washington State, Whatcom County signatures: 816

816

1,000 we've got 816 signatures, help us get to 1,000

The FCC was once a public watchdog with a mandate to insure the public broadcasters operate in the public interest, but they have lost sight of their mandate and are now the lapdog of corporate media interests, ignoring public health, safety, and the environment.

Tbe FCC has approved construction of a huge 50,000 watt "Pirate Border Blaster" radio transmitter on the Canadian border. The target audience is the South-Asian ethnic community, in Canada, and there is no intention to comply with Canadian regulations. This is deliberate interference in the affairs of another country, and the FCC should not have allowed it.

For people living near the transmitter, in Ferndale WA, it has been a disaster. The powerful radio signal interferes with telephones, TVs, computers and many other electronic devices of local residents. The transmitter will be placed a thousand feet from the Canadian border.

For the residents at the new location, Point Roberts, WA, the problems will be magnified since the FCC granted a request to increase the signal strength at night to the maximum.

Tell the FCC to revoke the license of KRPI, a station that hurts Americans and targets ethnic groups in other countries. Tell the FCC "No!" to " Border Blaster" pirate radio stations! you have the power to create change.

Start sharing and watch your impact grow 777

Mayor _Council

From: Greg J. -Edwards Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 9:13 PM To: Mayor & Council Cc: George Harvie; Arthur Reber; Ronback, Jim Subject: KRPI issue: Crossborder Coalition's "Informal Objection " to 88C-KAPI 's licence renewal app li cation filed with FCC Washington DC January 2 Attachments: Informal Objection to the li cense renewal of KAPl.pdf

Mayor & Council January 11 2014 Municipality of Delta 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta, BC Canada V4K3E2 Re: KRPI issue: Crossborder Coalition's "Informal Objection" to BBC-KRPI's licence renewal application filed with FCC Washington DC on January 2 2014

Mayor & Council:

Attached is the the Crossborder Coalition's "Informal Objection" to BBC Broadcasting Inc.'s application to renew its licence to operate AM radio station KRPI out of Femdale, WA.

Arthur Reber filed it with the Federal Communications Commission in Washington DC January 2 2014 on behalf of Tsawwassen & Point Roberts residents, namely: Nancy Beaton, Tsawwassen; Renee Coe, Point Roberts; Steve Graham, Tsawwassen; Arthur Reber, Point Roberts; Mark Robbins, Point Roberts; Jim Ronback, Tsawwassen; Suzanne Rosser, Point Roberts; Steve Wolff, Point Roberts.

This edifying "Informal Objection" cites inconsistencies, conflicting claims, and misleading statements found in applications and other documents that have been submitted to Canadian and American offices involved in the KRPI-BBC-Sher-E-Punjab Radio Broadcasting plan to erect a 50-000-watt AM radio transmitter near our border.

Yours truly,

Greg J. Edwards 5078 Walker Avenue Delta, B.C. V4MIA7

This letter is provided for information. Mayor Jackson has written to Whatcom County Planning Division regarding the proposed towers and the community concerns that are being raised. The proposal has to go through a public hearing and the date of this hearing has yet to be set by the Whatcom County Hearing Examiner. Staff will advise Council once the date is known and will respond the letter writer accordingly.

1 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554

In the Matter of ) ) Station Call Sign: KRPI Application of BBC Broadcasting, Inc. ) Fi le No. BR-20130927AJA For Renewal of Broadcast Station ) Station Facility ID: 21416 License ) License Expiration: February 1, 2014

INFORMAL OBJECTION OF THE CROSS-BORDER COALITION

Arthur S. Reber, Ph.D. 2226 Sunrise Drive Point Roberts, W A 98281

Representing the Cross-Border Coalition

January 2, 2014

1 This document is an Informal Objection to the application by BBC Broadcasting, lnc. for a renewal of a license to operate AM radio station KRPI currently broadcasting at 1550 kHz out of Ferndale, W A.

Call Sign: KRPI Facility 10: 21416 Renewal application file number: BR - 20130927AJA

It is being filed by: Arthur S. Reber, Ph.D. 2226 Sunrise Drive Point Roberts, W A 98281

on behalf of an international coalition of residents in the communities of Point Roberts, W A and Tsawwassen, BC, Canada, the Party of Interest.

Nancy Beaton, Tsawwassen Renee Coe, Point Roberts Steve Graham, Tsawwassen Arthur Reber, Point Roberts Mark Robbins, Point Roberts Jim Ronback, Tsawwassen Suzatme Rosser, Point Roberts Steve Wolff, Point Roberts

Introduction

1. BBC Broadcasting, Inc. (hereafter BBC) has filed for a renewal of their license to operate station KRPI-AM in Ferndale, WA. BBC has also been authorized by the FCC to move their broadcasting towers from their current location in Ferndale to Point Roberts, W A. The location of the 5-tower array planned for Point Roberts is roughly 950 feet from the border with Canada. The community of Tsawwassen (which is part of the Corporation of Delta, British Columbia with its population of23,000 -- estimate based on projections from the 21,300 per the 2006 Canadian census) sits directly on the border with Point Roberts as depicted in Figures 1 and 2. As is documented below, most of the residents, businesses, schools, parks, churches and community centers in both Point Roberts and Tsawwassen lie within the 1 VIm contour where blanketing interference is most likely to be experienced (Figure 1). The planned towers will be immediately adjacent to the center of population in Tsawwassen (Figure 2). Because of this geopolitical alignment there is a distinct international element in this Objection. Members of the coalition filing it live within the specified blanketing interference contour and fall within the standard definition of a "party of interest."

2 2. The Objection is long and complex. It touches on a host of issues that draw into sharp focus questions about the veracity of the applications filed by BBC, their consultants and legal counsel, the candor with which statements by these parties were made and the character of the individuals and companies involved. It draws upon four sets of documents all filed under oath: a. This current application by BBC for a license renewal which can be found at:

https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi­ bin/\vs.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdhsmenu.hts'?context=25&appn= 10157 6309&formid= 303&fac num=21416 b. The previously filed (and approved) minor change request by BBC to relocate the broadcast towers to Point Roberts which can be found at:

https:/Ilicensing.fcc.gov/cgi­ binlws.exe/prodlcdbs/forms/prodlcdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn= 10 1484673&formid= 301&fac num=21416 c. The application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) filed with Whatcom County Planning and Development Services (PDS) to erect the array which can be found at:

htt;p:I/www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/plan/currentlkmi-radio.jsp d. An application filed with the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) by a Canadian company (Sher-E-Punjab Radio Broadcasting, Inc.) for a broadcast license to operate up to three stations in British Columbia, Canada which can be found at:

https://services.crtc. gc.calpub/Doc WebBroker/OpenDocument.aspx? AppNo=20 1308891

3. Normally the FCC does not deal with foreign licenses nor with local permitting issues nor does it typically revisit decisions made. However, it is only by comparing the materials in these several submissions that the true nature of BBC becomes clear and the reasons for our Objection can be understood.

4. BBC is a "shell" company registered in the state of Washington. Station KRPI is managed and operated by Sher-E-Punjab out of its studios in Richmond, BC, Canada. Sher-E-Punjab leases the towers from BBC. Corporate decision-making lies with the family that owns Sher-E-Punjab, one of whom is a minor stockholder in BBC and a major stockholder in BBC Holdings, the company that owns the land on which the present tower array sits. The following narrative provides details to support these allegations -- along with materials that identify the inconsistencies, omissions, misrepresentations and incoherencies in the several applications.

5. There are four key elements here. The first involves the complex relationships between two companies, the one in the United States (BBC Broadcasting, Inc.) that has applied for a renewal

3 ofa license to broadcast at 1550 kHz and the one in Canada (Sher-E-Punjab Radio Broadcasting, Inc.) that actually uses these facilities. The second is based on a failure by BBC to acknowledge the existence of a community of some 23,000 residents, virtually all of whom live and/or work within the critical 1 VIm blanketing interference contour of an AM station broadcasting at 50 kW both day and night. The third focuses on an application from Sher-E-Punjab to the CRTC for a license to broadcast in British Columbia. The fourth presents examples of inconsistencies and incoherencies in the several applications submitted.

The links between BBC Broadcasting and Sher-E-Punjab Radio

6. BBC, for the purpose of gaining a license to operate AM station KRPI, registered as an American company, incorporated in Washington State.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/coros/search detai1.aspx?ubi=602180047

However, except for this detail the company is, for all intents and purposes, a Canadian company. In fact, in a Federal suit involving several members of the extended family that owns and operates these various companies (Dhillon v. BBC Holdings, Inc. -- hereafter Dhillon) Judge Benjamin Settle noted:

"For FCC purposes, it was necessary that BBC Broadcasting have a U.S. resident as majority shareholder, and Mr. [Bhag S.] Khela is a Washington resident. He agreed to be a majority shareholder ofBBC Broadcasting for this purpose .... "

Phrased this way, it seems clear that Mr. Khela allowed his name to be used so that others, who normally would be ineligible for an FCC license, could operate as though they had one. The full transcript of Dhillon, in which many details of the complex interlocking relationships between these several companies and the members of the extended Badh family are laid out, can be found here:

http://law.justia.com/cases/federalldistrict­ courts/washington/wawdce/2:2007cv00168/141251/79/

7. FCC guidelines list a variety of functions for a license-holder from having a significant role in programming and content, to making personnel decisions, handling the station's fmances and maintaining a presence in policy decisions. We have uncovered no evidence that Mr. Khela has, or ever has had, any role to play in these corporate decisions.

8. The land the towers sit on is owned by the same group of individuals through BBC Holdings, also registered in Washington State. Note that the majority stockholders ofBBC Holdings are Canadians as there is no legal need for an American license-holder. Details are here:

http://www.sos. wa.gov/corps/search detai1.aspx?ubi=602180043

4 The company, in essence, has two instantiations, one in the United States where it is BBC Broadcasting, Inc. and one in Canada where it is Sher-E-Punjab, Inc. From the company's publically provided documents it is clear that the latter is the controlling entity. As is documented below, the intricate links between these corporations is almost certainly in violation of FCC code with regard to standards of "Alien Ownership and Control" ofa broadcast license.

9. BBC's applications to the FCC, those made in the past and the current one for a renewal, fail to acknowledge these relationships. They also neglect to mention that the company's target audience is in Canada and their stated mission as broadcasters has little or nothing to do with their community of license in Ferndale or with their intended one in Point Roberts. This violates at least the spirit of the FCC code which maintains that public utilities such as radio stations have an obligation to provide general benefits to their host communities.

10. These issues are serious and raise many questions about the candor with which these applications were made, the honesty and truthfulness of the documents BBC and their consultants and counsel have prepared and submitted and bring under scrutiny the character of the applicants.

11. Details on these matters follow. All information comes from documents submitted by BBC to the FCC, Whatcom County PDS, the application Sher-E-Punjab filed with CRTC, Internet pages, court transcripts, company websites and company records.

lla. The facilities ofK.RPI in Ferndale are leased, full-time, to Sher-E-Punjab Radio Broadcasting. BBC Broadcasting does no broadcasting. This fact is documented in both Dhillon and in Sher-E-Punjab's application to the CRTC. Sher-E-Punjab's studios and offices are in Richmond, BC, Canada. Their office staff, all their reporters and journalists are Canadians. Their contact phone numbers are in the 604 area code that serves Metro Vancouver and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Their target audience is the South Asian popUlation which, they note in their promotional materials, is the " ... fast growing Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Punjabi-speaking South Asian population ...." in British Columbia. KRPI's broadcasts are overwhelmingly in Punjabi which is spoken by only a tiny population in Northwestern Washington State.

11 b. As is described in Dhillon, BBC's income comes solely from the leasing of the towers to Sher-E-Punjab. Revenues from advertising are retained by Sher-E-Punjab in Canada. In materials Sher-E-Punjab submitted to the CRTC they estimate the market's value at $10 million a year with Sher-E-Punjab (via KRPI) being one of the top earners. In addition, so far as can be determined, taxes on these profits are paid in Canada. Such an arrangement is almost certainly in violation of FCC regulations and might even be in violation of the US tax code and Department of Commerce rules and regulations.

llc. The station's primary English language web site (hup://sherepwljabradio.caienglishl) bills itself as "British Columbia's #1 South Asian" voice. This site focuses on Canadian issues, news, weather, events, advertising, promotions, community affairs, services and offers. A secondary web site

5 (http://w-ww.kroiradio.COlnl) omits the reference to "British Columbia" and is a single page with no supporting documentation. In their limited US materials they refer to themselves as "BBC Broadcasting, Inc." in the others they are "Sher-E-Punjab Radio, Inc." Clicking on the listen-live urI on the KRPI site takes you to a web stream where Sher-E-Punjab's logo appears on the screen.

11 d. The main web site (with the .ca extension) has a "Community Contact" page with over thirty references to organizations that provide support and services. All are to Canadian agencies or have an 800 area code. None are to specifically US organizations. The "community" page on the other, American, web site occasionally contains references to local events but is often blank. There are no links or even mention of organizations in Ferndale or Point Roberts.

11 e. On the main web site they have, as do many public utilities, a subscription program where one can sign on to receive updates, news and emails. The terms are spelled out and include the following clauses remarkable for what is supposed to be an American company holding a license issued by the United States FCC:

"Local Laws: By choosing to access the Site from any location other than Canada, you accept full responsibility for compliance with all local laws that are applicable. SHER-E PUNJAB RADIO makes no representation that materials on the Site are appropriate or available for use in locations outside Canada, and accessing them from territories where their contents are illegal is prohibited. "

and

"Choice of Law: This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of British Columbia, and the Federal laws of Canada applicable therein, without regard to its conflict of laws rules. You expressly agree that any claim or action arising out of or relating to these Terms of Service or your use of the Site shall be filed only in the courts of the Province of British Columbia or the Federal Court of Canada, if applicable, and you further agree and submit to the exercise of personal jurisdiction of such courts for the purpose of litigating any such claim or action."

11 f. Their American web page contains no information, no links, no "terms of agreement." Their "News" link offers a daily headline but contains a direct link to the UK-based BBC News which clearly misrepresents the company's associations and raises questions ofa possible trademark violation.

12. The situation is, putting it mildly, unusual. But most troubling is that none of this information was contained in the application to relocate the towers to Point Roberts nor is it discernible anywhere in the current request for a license renewal.

6 13. In the past the FCC has revoked the licenses of stations that misrepresented themselves in terms of the community they claimed to be serving. In 1998, the FCC pulled the license of a station in Bay City, TX on the grounds that" ... the station, operating from the new site, would not serve its licensed community ...." The federal judge who ruled in this case (under appeal) found that the license holder" ... engaged in a pattern of outright falsehoods, evasiveness and deception. "

The neglected community of Tsawwassen, BC (estimated population 23,000)

14. This section deals with the failure ofBBC to take into account Tsawwassen, BC in its application to relocate their broadcast towers to Point Roberts. That application has already been approved by the FCC. There are reasons for arguing that this decision should be reconsidered but that is beyond the scope of this Objection. This material is included here because the systematic, motivated omissions and misrepresentations that were in it speak to the fitness of BBC to hold an FCC license -- no matter their host community. An appeal has been filed with Industry Canada (lC) to petition the FCC to reconsider the original decision. The reasons for this action are outlined in the following paragraphs.

15. Tsawwassen shares the peninsula that is bisected by the 49th parallel with Point Roberts. Point Roberts, as an exclave without direct access to the rest of Washington State, is sparsely populated. Tsawwassen is a "bedroom suburb" of Vancouver with a growing population. Neither the community nor its densely clustered population were ever mentioned in the original application BBC submitted to the FCC to relocate its tower array. It is, therefore, likely that the FCC was unaware that the blanketing interference that 50,000 watt AM signals produce will impact some 20,000 (or possibly more) residents in Canada who live and work within the projected interference contours. It is likely that IC was also unaware of this potential problem. And it is likely that neither agency felt an obligation to take into account the guidelines of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).

16. It is clear that BBC is aware of Tsawwassen. As noted, KRPI's studios and offices are in Richmond, BC just to the north. Their officers would have had to drive through Tsawwassen to get to their property in Point Roberts. Tsawwassen is a major, rapidly growing suburb of Vancouver. For someone living in Richmond to be ignorant of Tsawwassen is like someone in Washington, DC not knowing about Arlington, VA.

17. Below are several examples of glaring omissions in the documents. The citations refer to material in the application BBC made to the FCC to relocate the tower array to Point Roberts -­ Facility ID 21416; File No. BP - 20090226AAF.

18. Exhibit 13 ("KRPI Transmitter Site Maps & Photos"): The map that BBC included (on Page 3 of the application) presented the truncated 1 V1m contour lines that outline the region most likely to experience blanketing interference for both day- and nighttime broadcasting. On this map the area above the border, which encompasses the majority of the total contour, is blank, as though no one lived there. In Figures 1 and 2 below, the full maps are presented. In Figure 1 the streets of Tsawwassen are shown; in Figure 2, which is from Google Earth, the

7 population density patterns are easily seen. It isn't easy to present a map of the Point RobertslTsawwassen peninsula with no evidence of Tsawwassen. It has to be carefully redacted.

19. Exhibit 14 ["Supplemental Filing - Exhibit C (Engineering Report: Site Selection Report»): This report was prepared by Hatfield & Dawson (H & D), the Seattle-based engineering consulting firm retained by BBC to find a new location for the tower array. As with the preceding document, the map on Page 10 has the entire area above the 49th parallel as a dull brown, roadless, empty region. The one on Page 14 acknowledges the existence of the town of Ladner, marked as 7.2 miles away across a seemingly barren terrain. These two maps certainly appear to be part of a deliberate effort to make a reader unfamiliar with the region assume that there were no significant developments or population centers between the border and Ladner.

20. Exhibit 20 ("KRPI Engineering Statement"): This exhibit, also prepared by H & D, contains a number of misrepresentations and serious omissions:

20a. It gives the populations within the nighttime and daytime blanketing interference contours as 304 and 111 persons, respectively. These figures are, of course, estimates of the number of residents in Point Roberts who live and work within this area; Reporting with such precision in cases like these is odd at best when the populations are guesses and the 1 Vim contours are affected by factors like geology and elevation. There are reasons for suspecting that these figures are both serious underestimations as the population distributions seen in Figures 1 and 2 show. However, independent of this issue, BBC's statement is a gross misrepresentation of the number of people who actually fall within the two contours.

20b. Similarly, the population within the contour likely to experience blanketing interference is stated to be "of lower population density (than Ferndale)." Again, this is true if only Point Roberts is under consideration and almost criminally false when the residents ofTsawwassen are counted. Given these lapses in estimated population within the anticipated blanketing interference contours, the company's request for a waiver of ~73.24(g) (which the FCC granted) was clearly inappropriate.

20c. These circumstances produce a problem that is, literally, of international proportions. There are treaties in place that require cooperation and clearance when telecommunications cross borders, specifically the 1984 Ottawa Agreement and the ITU. There are also guidelines that establish maximums for electro-magnetic RF blanketing interference that have been set by both the FCC and IC. IC's radio site selection population rule C-I0.3.1(c) and the FFC codes contained in ~73.24, ~73.37 and ~73.1650 (all revised in 2012) outline international guidelines and set maximum population densities within affected areas.

20d. The lTV, which both the US and Canada are signatory to, states in Article 0.4 (3): "All stations, whatever their purpose, must be established and operated in such a manner as not to cause harmful interference to the radio services or communications of other Members or of recognized operating agencies, or of other duly authorized operating

8 agencies which carry on a radio service, and which operate in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations (No. 197 of the Constitution)."

21. When the full interference contours are examined without being truncated by the border they are seen to encompass a population with patterns of relatively high density that violate the site selection population regulations of the FCC and IC as well as the spirit of the ITU. To understand how this came about consider the FCC's ~73.24 (g) which specifies that an applicant must show that "the population within the 1 V1m contour does not exceed 1.0 percent of the population within the 25 m V1m contour .... provided, however, that where the number of persons within the 1 VIm is 300 or less the provisions of this paragraph are not applicable."

22. That "however" stipulates that the minimum population within the 25 m V1m contour must be more than 30,100, of which 1% allows a population of 301 or more to be within the blanketing interference contour of 1 V1m. The application BBC filed with the FCC set the nighttime and daytime populations within the 1 VIm blanketing interference contours at 304 and 111 respectively - within Point Roberts only (though, as noted, these numbers are examples of false specificity). Since the daytime number is less than 300, BBC can claim that rule 73.24(g) is not applicable during the daytime. The nighttime population of 304 means that the population within the nighttime 25 m V1m contour must exceed 30,400. While the presented contour in the Radio­ Locator map was truncated and has an "open," and hence ambiguous, segment to the south, it is highly unlikely that the population within it reaches the threshold as there are no cities within it other than Friday Harbor with a population of some 2,200.

23. To circumvent this problem, BBC asked for (and obtained) a waiver on the grounds that the 304 persons within the 1 V1m is barely above the cut-off of 300 persons. Of course, 304 is the number living within it in Point Roberts and, by focusing only on Point Roberts and providing a number with specious accuracy, BBC could make it appear it was concerned about a problem that didn't exist while deflecting attention away from one that did.

24. Unless someone at the FCC who was reviewing this application knew that many thousands of homes, schools, churches and businesses were directly to the north of the planned tower array there would be no reason not to grant it. It's also worth noting the language ofIC's clause C- 10.3.1 which expresses similar considerations. It states that " ... the population within the day or night 1 VIm contour should be less than 0.02% of the population within the 5 mV/m contour."

25. All broadcasting signals that penetrate the border between Canada and the United States are subject to the 1984 Ottawa Agreement. The FCC and IC have had dealings with KRPI in the past over the question of whether their signal would compromise the operations of an AM station in Nanaimo, BC. The objections of IC in that case were subsequently dropped on the grounds that this station had shifted to FM and no longer broadcasted at 1570 kHz.

26. In the application to relocate, IC has indicated that they have no objections, presumably citing this previous agreement. However, the ITU identifies other features and calls on each nation to take into account blanketing interference and potentially harmful levels of radiation. In addition, both countries have independently developed guidelines that govern these matters.

9 These are calculated on the basis of signal power, signal contours (daytime and nighttime) and the population-density distributions within them. There is no clause in FCC regulations that we have discovered that requires that residents of a foreign country be taken into account when calculating population density statistics but there are also none that state that the resident population of a friendly neighbor should be deliberately excluded from consideration of the damaging impact of blanketing interference.

27. When the complete population density parameters within the I V/m contour relative to the full population within either the 5 mV/m (Canada) or 25 mV/m (US) contours are taken into account, the signal that KRPI would transmit from Point Roberts will exceed the maximum allowed by the FCC and IC by a factor of between 8 and 48 depending on which country's standards are used and the precise population estimates. Using the most conservative parameters, the international standards of both the United States and Canada are violated by substantial and unacceptable margins.

28. It seems clear that the omission ofTsawwassen with its 23,000 residents, most of whom live within a mile and a half of the planned towers, was deliberate and designed to avoid scrutiny from both the FCC and IC. Sometimes omissions are neutral. Sometimes they are simple mistakes. Sometimes they are motivated. As we have documented, every single omission in BBC's applications leaves out information that, ifknown, would have compromised the viability oftheir applications to the FCC.

29. Finally, here, there is one additional omission that needs mentioning, the failure to take into consideration the fifth busiest border crossing between the US and Canada that sits a mere 950 feet from the proposed tower array. There is no acknowledgement of the existence of these bi­ national facilities in any document submitted to the FCC. Nowhere is the possibility of blanketing interference to the communications of the Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol and the Canada Border Services Agency considered. We have alerted Homeland Security to possible disruptions of computers, DSL lines, radios, cordless phones and other electronic equipment at the stations. BBC's failure to take these critical international operations into account is another example of the lack of responsibility in the filing of their applications to the FCC.

Sher-E-Punjab Radio and the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)

30. This part of the Objection is based on material in an application Sher-E-Punjab Radio recently filed with CRTC for a license to operate up to three radio stations in British Columbia. While normally Canadian broadcasting license issues are not within the purview of the FCC, this application contains a great deal of information about the company that currently operates KRPI -- information that is important in determining its eligibility to hold an FCC license. Many of the questions raised above about the true ownership of BBC and the real operators of KRPI find answers in the CRTC application.

10 31. In their application to move their towers to Point Roberts, BBC stated that one goal would be to add to the cultural diversity of the host community and improve its economic base. These sentiments were repeated in their application to Whatcom County PDS for a CUP to build the towers. In the CRTC application the company makes it plain that this is not true; they have no interest whatsoever in the United States, in Point Roberts or in Ferndale,.their current community of license. The full set of materials submitted to CRTC can be found here:

https:l/services.crtc. gc.ca/pub/DocWebBroker/OpenDocument.aspx? AppNo=20 1308891

32. In one of the "Supplementary Briefs" supplied it is stated:

"For some years, Sher-E-Punjab has leased the transmitter ofKRPI-AM in Blaine, (sic) Washington from which it transmits programming, primarily in Punjabi, to serve the Lower Mainland ofBritish Columbia .... We have provided a number of research pieces and other data to demonstrate the importance of the station to the community it serves." (emphases added)

"We propose to repatriate this station to Canada and to meet all the requirements of Canadian broadcasting .... "

This notion of "repatriation" is mentioned several times in the application. It almost becomes a theme -- and makes clear that they never were or ever thought of themselves as an American company. The FCC license was a vehicle seized on opportunistically to allow them to operate a highly profitable station targeted at a Canadian population.

33. Elsewhere in the same document it is made abundantly clear that Sher-E-Punjab has a controlling interest in KRPI and sees it as a company serving Canadian interests. They note that, if their license is renewed and the CUP is approved, they plan to continue to use this outlet, not to serve a Whatcom County population, but one in British Columbia.

"The broadcaster that owns KRPI-AM, the US station that leases time to Sher-E­ Punj ab, has been approved by the FCC for an increase in power and change in transmitter site which will provide a better signal ... in the Lower Mainland." (emphasis added)

34. Despite the mix-up on the location of the towers (which was corrected in another Supplement) it is clear that the company has never had any cultural, financial or social interest in its present or anticipated host communities in the United States. A public utility licensed in the United States is obligated to provide a significant proportion of its services to the country and to the community that hosts it. KPRI has not been in compliance with this principle in the past and there is no hint that they will shift their focus if the renewal is granted.

35. BBC has demonstrated a lack of familiarity and concern for its intended new host community of Point Roberts. In March 2012, BBC published public notifications of its intent to relocate radio station KRPI from Ferndale, W A to Point Roberts, W A. The classified ads aimed at

11 reaching residents of Femdale were published in that town's local weekly newspaper. The four ads targeting residents of Point Roberts were published in the Bellingham Herald, which is not sold or delivered in Point Roberts. Point Roberts is served by several newspapers, including its own monthly All Point Bulletin, which puts out a weekly electronic issue and several weekly and daily Canadian newspapers. BBC demonstrated ignorance at best and bad faith at worst in failing to duly notify the residents of Point Roberts of its plans to construct its new tower array there. Residents of Point Roberts only became aware of the intended relocation of the towers well over a year later when, following Whatcom County regulations, residents within 1000 feet of the project were sent formal notices.

36. The CUP application to Whatcom County's PDS was filed by BBC as an American company with one majority owner (Bhag S. Khela, an American citizen who holds 80% of the stock) and one minority shareholder (Gurdial Badh, a Canadian citizen who holds the remainder -- though there is a measure of ambiguity here as earlier documents list Gurdial Badh's two brothers, Suki and Jasbir Badh, as holding minority shares). However, no matter how the stocks are distributed among members of the Badh family in Canada, it is clear from court records in Dhillon and materials submitted to the CRTC that BBC is a "shell" company and that corporate decision­ making is to be found elsewhere, specifically with Sher-E-Punjab Radio, Inc. which is wholly owned and controlled by the extended Badh family.

37. This relationship is complex and substantiating it requires a careful reading of the CRTC application and Dhillon. In another of the documents submitted to CRTC, Sher-E-Punjab states that:

"Sher-E-Punjab is not a shareholder in KRPI-AM in Ferndale .... The only contractual agreement we have with the BBC Broadcasting, the corporation that holds the licence, is our lease agreement. And in fact this is a handshake arrangement. "

38. While the implication is that Sher-E-Punjab is independent ofBBC and is a mere leasee of the facility, in fact the Canadian-based group has control over both BBC Broadcasting and BBC Holdings. In a cover letter submitted with the application, Gurdial Badh (who is COO of Sher-E­ Punjab and holds, as best as can be detennined, 20% of the stock in BBC Broadcasting and 80% in BBC Holdings) states that if they succeed in obtaining the Canadian license(s) they will "stop broadcasting Sher-E-Punjab on 1550." Note, not "stop broadcasting KRPI" but "stop broadcasting Sher-E-Punjab."

39. This is more than simply suspending a lease. In another of the many documents attached to the CRTC application Sher-E-Punjab also state that they will either sell or find another leasee. The fact that this statement contradicts the earlier one concerning their intentions to continue to use KRPI from the Point Roberts location is almost beside the point. Mr. Badh also states in the application to the CRTC that they can control this process and guarantee that no other South Asian oriented broadcaster will be allowed. As COO of Sher-E-Punjab Mr. Badh has extensive radio communications and business experience and, as the materials in the CRTC application show, speaks for the company.

12 40. It is unsettling that a Canadian company that is "not a shareholder" in KRPI (though Gurdial Badh clearly is) can determine its long-term fate and that Mr. Badh, a minor shareholder, can dictate corporate policy. What it demonstrates is that the business dealings of KRPI and BBC are not being made by the licensee (Mr. Khela) but by the officers ofSher-E-Punjab. The name of the majority owner of record of BBC appears on no other company documents that we could find other than as the signer of applications to the FCC. Mr. Khela is, as Judge Settle noted in Dhillon, a place holder, an individual who has lent his name to a position without the normal responsibilities of that position.

41. We could find no evidence that BBC notified the FCC that the CRTC application was filed. FCC guidelines require that license holders give notice whenever there is an actual or potential change in the operations of a licensed station and, in virtue of the overlap between Sher-E­ Punjab and BBC, such notice should have been provided. As with so many other elements in this project, this neglect appears motivated -- to do so would have rendered the crafted opaqueness of the links between these companies transparent and invited unwanted scrutiny.

42. Were all these transactions and operations wholly within the US these complex corporate relationships would likely not be a problem. The difficulty here is the international aspect which the FCC does not condone. It is also why, until the full documentation required by the CRTC application was made public, these international links were difficult to substantiate and, like the population of Tsawwassen, carefully skirted in all materials submitted to the FCC.

43. This pattern of presenting half-truths and revealing just enough information to appear responsible while concealing critical but damning facts that would raise flags of suspicion is deeply problematical. Such repeated duplicity raises questions about the responsibility and candor that are part of the FCC conditions for holding a license for a public radio station.

44. It would appear that the existing corporate arrangement is in violation of Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act which states that no broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en route, or aeronautical fixed radio station license shall be granted to or held by " ... any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by any other corporation of which more than one-fourth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens, their representatives, or by a foreign government or representative thereof, or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country, if the Commission finds that the public interest will be served by the refusal or revocation of such license."

Inconsistencies in the applications submitted to FCC, PDS and CRTC

45. There are a number of additional inconsistencies in the several applications under review that don't fit into the above narrative. Two of them are significant and indicative of this now common pattern of misdirection. They stand as additional evidence of the obfuscating manner in which BBC has presented materials to various governmental bodies.

13 46. BBC submitted two conflicting construction site plans for the tower array in Point Roberts, one to the FCC and another to the Whatcom County PDS. The one submitted to the FCC is based on the requirements dictated in the FCC Construction Permit. The one submitted to PDS is based on Whatcom County Code that calls for a tree-buffer along the streets that border the lot where the array will be constructed.

47. Hatfield & Dawson developed the plan that was submitted to the FCC. It is reproduced below as Figure 3. It shows that the site, while nominally 10 acres, has an odd shape and, because of extensive wetlands to the southwest and comer-cuts to the northwest and southeast, there are really only 6 or 7 acres available for construction. It is not a good site for a large array of five towers. The H & D drawing makes accommodations by siting the towers toward the northeast allowing for little or no room to retain any trees along the north and eastern sides of the site. The circles and radiating lines that depict the safety zones and buried grounding cable system fan out to 48.8 meters (160 feet) around each tower and actually penetrate two streets. The tower alignments on the H & D drawing are consistent with the FCC permit.

48. However, the site plan submitted to Whatcom County, which is reproduced as Figure 4 below, makes significant changes. This site drawing shows a generous area for trees along the north and eastern sides of the site. To achieve this, the tower array has been rotated 25 degrees clockwise, shifted several hundred feet to the west and the 160 foot radius for the cables that make up the grounding system and the safety region is reduced to what is described as a "140 foot maximum clearing radius" around each tower. Both conditions are presented as satisfying Whatcom County Code but, obviously, are not consistent with the FCC permit.

49. The siting plans contain another, perhaps fatal, problem not acknowledged in the application. An examination of Figure 4 shows that, even if the FCC were to ultimately approve the use of this design, it appears that the cable system could not be installed as indicated in the plan. Because of the reorientation and westward "drift" of the array, the drawing of the cable arrangement for the northwestern and southeastern towers is incomplete -- and for a good reason. Both would continue under land owned by other parties, private homes in the northwest and several thriving businesses in the southeast. This engineering and architectural incoherence isntt seen on the FCC site plan because the tower array has a totally different orientation -- one which Whatcom Countyts PDS would almost certainly not approve. It is likely impossible to construct this five tower array on this lot.

50. BBC and its consultants are, as noted repeatedly, sensitive to issues that might invite scrutiny or trigger alarms that alert governmental bodies to potential or real problems. The two contradictory siting plans show clearly that they are responsive to Whatcom County Code and aware of various clauses that apply to the county as a whole and Point Roberts as a special district. If, in order to conform to Whatcom County guidelines, they have to do violence to a siting plan already approved by the FCC, they will do so.

51. BBC is similarly concerned about local codes with regard to sightlines and visibility of the tower array. The proposed towers will be 148 feet high and would seem to be highly visible from many vantage points -- which an independent survey we have conducted confirmed. In their

14 CUP application BBC included the heights of the tree tops along the two main roads at the site with the implication that they are far higher than the towers. BBC listed the average "tree top" as 261.1 feet with individual trees marked as between 228 and 285 feet. These tree top elevation figures can be seen Figure 4.

52. These implausible heights (the trees are mostly young firs, alders and cottonwoods with diameters between 10 and 35 inches) became clear with a closer examination. The independent surveyor found them to actually be between 70 ana 118 feet high. The "tree top" heights submitted by BBC turned out to be "elevations" which translates into "height above sea level." Knowing that the towers will be 148 feet high, it is not difficult to imagine the reasons behind this flagrant misrepresentation. One wonders what their estimates of "tree tops" would be in Denver, CO.

Summary and Conclusions

53. BBC has engaged in a systematic program of omission and misrepresentation in their applications to both the FCC and Whatcom County's PDS. This repeated duplicity raises questions concerning the issues of character, responsibility and candor that are part of the FCC conditions for holding a license for a public radio station. We submit that these are reasonable grounds to deny BBC's license renewal.

54. The FCC does not allow a station to be licensed to a US citizen while the programming, content and editorial control are held in foreign hands and intended for a foreign target population while, a jortiori, that foreign corporation holds executive control over decisions made by the ostensible US-held firm and retains the revenues generated in virtue of the use of that license. The arrangement between BBC and Sher-E-Punjab that we have documented is not permissible under Section 31 O(b)( 4) and BBC's license should not be renewed.

55. The mission ofSher-E-Punjab, KRPI and BBC Broadcasting is now and always has been to serve the South Asian community of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada. It is not and never was to serve the population around Ferndale. It will not be to serve Point Roberts should it become the community of license. This failure to provide benefit to the host community of the station is in violation of FCC standards and is additional grounds for denying renewal of BBC's license.

56. This Informal Objection is filed because, in our view, it would be inappropriate for the United States Federal Communications Commission to renew the KRPI-AM license currently held by BBC Broadcasting, Inc. To do so would be to continue to engage in what all parties know to be a charade.

Arthur S. Reber, Ph.D.

15 Figure 1. RF Blanketing Interference contours of I Volt! meter extended into Canada.

Address 1563 McKenzie Way v( --+-- Google Point Roberts. WA 98281. USA 1. WI. Co"'- \ 0 uJ S

._--'"---"­ 1-

16 Figure 2. Densely populated Tsawwassen north of Point Roberts. Arrow is proposed tower location.

17 I·...... -.. -.-----

i ,I I i

KPIPJ SITe OWO.dwg

KRPIV'M) 1550 kHz: """"

45

Figure 3. Site plan submitted by SSC to the FCC

18 .~..R!'!M"" .. AlII ...... ~!"~"'------

...... I I I • •• ..IImoItD· I SF C" <:!"flV...... I ...... -..fIIllIIt"ICI ...... u .... '-,---.- IPII.~'" I I / I I I I I

______. If ~~~~~~~~~~~~------~--~--~--~

;;;-!~·-·I· .... 1C~1 .~ Mc:;~~~

Figure 4. Site plan submitted by BBC to Whatcom County PDS.

19 778

Mayor _Council

From: Mayor Lois Jackson .-• Sent: Friday, January 10, 20141 :42 PM ~ To: Mayor & Council c.... Subject: FW: Independent experts on Coal Export EIA :0 Attachments: Expert comments on Coal Export EIA .pdf TY PE: ¥.5 1.1 1ar- ~WIZ. : D Epr. ~Vn· Ce r.; 0 A. I. #: \ Q) 0 41 ~ From: Kevin Washbrook Comments: cIan Paton; Bruce McDonald; Jeannie Kanakos; Scott Hamilton; Sylvia Bishop Subject: Independent experts on Coal Export EIA

Good afternoon Mayor and Council

I wanted to share a short summary of comments from independent health and air quality experts on the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Fraser Surrey Docks coal export proposal.

These expert comments were solicited by the groups working together on the RealPortHearings.org campaign to faci litate a response to the Port Authority's invitation for comment on the coal export ElA. The expert comments, along with others (on climate change, migratory birds, fisheries, aquatic and habitat impacts), can be found here.

Brief quotes from the following experts are included in the attached three page document: • Professor Michael Brauer, School of public Health, UBC -- on the ElA's flawed assumptions about safe levels of exposure to carcinogens (particulate matter, diesel exhaust); on its failure to assess health impacts of noise exposure • Professor Dan Jaffe, University of Washington -- on the ElA's flaws in air quality modeling • Professor Melissa Ahem, Washington State University -- on its failure to properly model coal dust exposure, and a summary of coal dust health impacts • Chris Carls ten MD, Chair, Occupational and Environmental Lung Disease, UBC -- on the EIA's unjustified assumptions about acceptable levels of community risk • Robert Rattle, Consultant -- on its failure to adequately assess health impacts of noise exposure • Tim Takaro, MD, Faculty of Health Sciences, SFU -- on the EIA's failure to assess health impacts from exposure to coal dust control agents.

Professor Brauer provides the most succinct summary critique when he says that he found "significant deficiencies, incorrect assumptions and superficial analysis in several aspects of the ErA." The onus is now on the Port Authority to show it will address these shortcomings and fu lfil its mandate to act in the public interest. The Port's coal export EIA does not provide a sound basis for a decision on this project.

Regards Kevin Wash brook

PS -- Shortly before Christmas the Port Authority quietly posted up comments it had received on the coal export EIA. When we cross-checked these with comments sent to the Port through ReaIPortHearings.org, we were astounded -- approximately 3500 comments from the general public in opposition to the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal, and only six in favour.

Staff has reviewed this information and it has been provided1 to Fraser Surrey Docks and Port Metro Vancouver. This will also be shared with the Interagency Review Committee when it is established. Mr. Washbrook has been advised this information has been received and reviewed. Director, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change http://vtacc.org

@ClimateVoters

On Facebook: Voters Taking Action on Climate Change

This message is provided in confidence and should not be forwarded to any external third party without authorization. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments.

2 ---.# VTACC L'IDEPENDENT HEALTH AND AIR Q UALITY EXPERTS COMMENT: VOTERS FRASER SURREY DOCKS COAL EXPORT ll11NG AmON ON CLIMATE ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT ASSESSMENT CHANGE J ANUA RY 9 2013

This document summarizes comments from independent health and air quality experts submitted to the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority on the Fraser Surrey Docks Coal Ex port Enviro nmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The full comments, along with those of other independent experts, are posted on RealPortHearings.org

AIR Q UALITY MODELING

D AN J AFFE, PROFESSOR, D EPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON NICOLE WIDGER, PH.D. CA<'iDIDATE, DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, U WASfIINGTON Professor Jaffe and Nicole Widger provide a critique of the air quality modeling in the EIA. Specificall y, they address shortcomings in the scope of the EIA, flaws in the modeling of air quality impacts along ra il and barge routes, lack of adequate long term monitoring of potential impacts, the failure to model short term (i.e. one hour) particulate matter concentrations, and flawed assumptions on the transport, di spersion and interaction of pollutants. " In summary, we find that the current EIA is not scoped in a way that air quality, health, environmental, and other impacts can be accurately assessed. In addition, we find that there are technical issues with the air quality modeling that has been conducted for this EIA."

COAL D UST: MODELING, H EALTH RISKS

MELISSA A HERN, PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, W ASHI NGTON STATE UN IVERS lTV Professor Ahern relates the Jaffe and Widger critique of air quality modeling directly to concerns about particulate matter exposure from coal train traffic. "As there is no known threshold below which particulate air pollution has no health effects, modelling exposures to people living along coal train routes must consider not only variations in train speed, but also variations in exposure time periods." Her comments also provide a useful summary of recent li terature on the potential impacts of coal dust on human health. Professor Ahern concludes by expressing her support for a comprehensive Health Impact Assessment of the coal export proposa l. AsSUMPTIONS ABOUT SAFE LEVELS OF EXPOSURE TO CARCINOGENS

MICHAEL BRAUER, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF POPULATION AND PUBLIC BEALm, UBC Professor Brauer participated in the formulation of air quality guidelines for particulate matter and diesel exhaust with the World Health Organization (WHO). He points out that the Coal Export EIA relies on the flawed assumption that there are safe levels of exposure to these carcinogens below which no impacts will occur. Professor Brauer also notes that the EIA failed to adequately address noise pollution associated with the project, even though noise exposure can lead to serious health impacts. "The superficial assessment of [noise] in the EIA does not adequately acknowledge the serious health impacts related to community noise exposure. Noise is recognized as contributing to increased cardiovascular mortality, typically associated through heart attacks. Indeed, our own studies in the BC Lower Mainland have demonstrated associations between typical levels of community noise with deaths from heart disease and with low birthweight pregnancies. These impacts are as severe and exposures as widespread as those related to air pollution yet unlike the treatment for air pollution the EIA contained no modeling of noise exposures and no noise measurements were provided." Professor Brauer goes on to critique the EIA for presenting "judgements without support ... which do not support state of the art assessment of human health risk," and concludes by saying " ... I find significant deficiencies, incorrect assumptions and superficial analysis in several aspects of the EIA and respectfully request that Port Metro Vancouver consider these comments when deciding on the future of the proposed coal facility. Further, I urge Port Metro Vancouver to pursue the initiation of a collaborative Health Impact Assessment as previously recommended by our Health Authorities."

ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF COMMUNITY RISK

CHRIS CARLSTEN MD MPH, CHAIR, OCCUPATIONAL & ENVIRONMENTAL LUNG DISEASE, UBC Dr Carlsten echoes and reinforces many of Professor Brauer's critiques of the EIA and is particularly critical of the EIA for its unsupported assumptions about acceptable levels of community risk.

" ... it would seem a very 'high bar' indeed to justify any additional output of particulate matter into the airshed. Specifically, on what basis can the EIA conclude, on page 143, that the levels predicted (putting aside for the moment the potential for errors in modeling) "if achieved, are considered protective of health effects in the general public, including for sensitive sub-populations"?

... it is difficult to defend the position that there will be no adverse health effects resultant from the Project. Rather, it is a question of how much health effect (not quantified by the EIA because instead it seems to suggest no adverse effects) and to what extent the community is willing to accept such adverse effects resultant from the project. Specifically, page 145 suggests that the Project ''will not result in unacceptable health risks" but what in fact is acceptable (to this community)? FAILURE TO ASSESS NOISE IMPACTS

ROBERT RATILE, CONSULTANT Mr Rattle is a private consultant who has worked on numerous health impact assessments. His comments build upon Professor Brauer's concerns about noise exposure and provide a detailed critique of the ElA's failure to adequately address noise impacts associated with the project. He points out shortcomings in the ElA's scope of noise assessment, its failure to collect baseline noise data, and its unsophisticated analysis of noise impacts. He is quoted at length below because noise impacts are given so little attention in the ElA and have not been addressed in detail by the Health Authorities or Metro Vancouver in their comments. "While construction is an important source of noise generation, it is short term. The long term potential doubling of coal trains through Semiahamoo, White Rock and South Surrey, and the introduction of up to two more trains per day through North Delta and along the Surrey waterfront and the associated on-site activity will likely prove to be a significant source of additional noise, noise patterns, noise disturbance, and acoustic vibrations likely to generate significant adverse health and environmental impacts. Additional assessment of the related acoustic environments is required." ''Noise impacts can be a very significant adverse health impact. The additional noises and vibrations associated with the proposed project will likely compound existing noise patterns and generate additional cumulative health impacts. Further assessment of the acoustic environment should be included in a comprehensive Health Impact Assessment." "The proposed mitigation plan has omitted many essential components of a detailed noise assessment. It is therefore very likely to prove inadequate to manage the environmental and human health impacts as well as the resulting costs (such as social, financial, economic, and cultural) from noises generated by the proposed project."

POTENTIAL RIsKS FROM COAL DUST CONTROL AGENTS

TIM TAKARO MD MPH, PROFESSOR, FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, SFU Dr Takaro reiterates critiques of the EIA put forward by other medical experts, and he also points out the EIA's failure to assess potential health impacts from the use of "body and topping agents" on rail cars and barges to control coal dust. "I have reviewed the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for these compounds and they include toxic polyvinyl chloride polymers that have been implicated in asthma and allergy. As noted in the documents, exposure to these topping agents require medical treatment if the exposures are high. Some of the constituents are proprietary which is very concerning, but even what they do disclose in the MSDSs show compounds that irritate human skin, eyes and airways and in some cases cause allergic sensitization, i.e. exposures at even low levels can cause adverse health effects. We are assured that they will be heavily used and reapplied enroute to reduce dust loss during transport. However, their health impact is not addressed. What are the proprietary ingredients? A potent toxicant has effects well below the 2% by volume requirement the manufacturers are compelled to use when reporting for the MSDSs that are presented in the appendix of the ElA. What are the health impacts of these undisclosed ingredients?" 779 genda - A. FILE # 00 CfCfYol0 City of Malcolm D. Brodie Richmond Mayor 6911 No.3 Road, Richmond, Be V6Y 2(1 Telephone: 604·276-4123 Fax No: 604-276-4332 www.richmond.ca

Janua,y 6, 20 14

Mayor Lois E. Jackson The Corporati on of Delta 45 00 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta, BC V4K 3E2 ,

Dear Ma~.,l~lJ

Thank you for your letter of December 19, 201 3, in whi ch you write about your Coun c il 's end orsed recommendations on th e Environmental Impact Assessment for the pro posed Direc t Transfer Coal Facility at Fraser Surrey Docks.

Ri chmond City Council, at a Special Coun cilmcetin g he ld on Tuesday, December 17''', considered th e above matter and adopted th e foll owin g resolution in part:

Tllal Ille Cily oj Ricllmolld is opposed 10 COllI shipmellls Jrom file Fraser River Estuary other thall th e exi~· (i"g Roberts Balik coal porI; Tllal PorI Melro Val/col/ver he reqllesled 10 cOl/ducl a H eallll impacl Assessmellt (flld Metro Vallcouver hold fI public hearing ill re/alioll to fill applicatiol/ Jor WI Air Qualify Permil; allfl

A copy of your letter has been forward ed to Peter Ru ssell, our Senior Ma nager of Sustain ability and Distri ct Energy, for his revi ew. Should you wish to contact him directly, he can be reached at 604-276-4 130.

I appreciate the time you have taken to write and share your informati on on thi s important topic.

~~~~Ltl Y~'~L~r~ __ This response is provided for information. Staff has /~:~ contacted Mr. Russell to discuss this issue further. Mayor MAYOR'S OFF ICE pc: Robert Gonzalez, General Manager, Engineeri ng Peter Russe ll , Senior Manager, Suslai nabi lity & Di strict Energy JAN 13 2014 RE CEIVED

4073 11 6 _ ~ mOnd ,. :i Fl"Om IIw u./jier of

THE CORPORATION OF DELTA The ~ I .y , ,,, Lois E. •Jackson

December 19, 2013

Mayor Malcolm Brodie and Council City of Richmond 6911 No, 3 Road Richmond, BC V6Y 2C1

Dear Mayor Brodie and Council,

Re: Fraser Surrey Docks Proposed Direct Transfer Coal Facility

At the December 16, 2013 Regular Meeting, De~a Council unanimously endorsed the recommendations in the enclosed report on the Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Direct Transfer Coal Facility at Fraser Surrey Docks, As per the recommendations of the report, I am providing a copy for your information,

It is evident from the concems and comments received from members of the public and govemment agencies related to this proposed project, that additional wor!< is required to address issues and answer outstanding questions; especially as they relate to potential public health impacts associated with the proposal. For these reasons, The Corporation of Delta is initiating and coordinating the establishment of an independent interagency review committee, The role of this committee would include providing recommendations on the responsibility, scope and terms of reference for further studies required to address issues raised by agencies and the public,

As you can appreciate, this is an important matter for our community and I thank you for taking the time to consider this materiai. Please contact my office at 604-946-3210 or email [email protected] if you have any questions.

Y rs truly,

:1 . Jackson

... 12

4S00 Clorence Tayl or Cre.sce.nt, Delta, Briti. 1I COlll ll,bi'". Ca nod" V4K :1102 Tel, 604 946-32 10 Fax; 604,)46·6055 E- mIlIL mayor1i.l'cleltll co ii

December 19, 2013 Page 2 ;1

Attachment

cc: The Honourable Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, ac, PC, Member of Parliament for Delta-Rlchmond East Jinny Sims, Member of Parliament for Newton-North Delta Scott Hamilton, Member of the Legislative Assembly, Delta-North Vicki Huntington, Member of the Legislative Assembly. Delta-South Port Metro Vancouver Board of Directors Robin Silvester. President & Chief Executive Officer, Port Metro Vancouver Jeff Scott. President & Chief Executive Officer, Fraser Surrey Docks vf)elta Council George V. HalVie, Chief Administrative Officer

;l :!

:.

;:

.: . . ,

:! 780

Mayor ~ Council genda is " iEE # From: rickswan Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 7:35 PM To: board @translink.bc .ca ; Desjardin, Darrell; Minister.Transportation @gov.bc.ca; Mayor & Council; mayorandcouncillors @richmond .ca; Scott Hamilton; Vicki.Huntington.mla@ leg .bc.ca; Thomas .Chhun @gov.bc .ca Ce: Ian Paton; Elizabeth May; Fin .Donnelly@pa rl .gc.ca; roger emsley; SouthDeltaLeader; Sylvia Bishop; tmurphy @ delta~ optimist.com Subject: 01 /10/14. More Truck Jams at Delta Port Way Attachments: IMGP4838_1.JPG; IMGP4832_2.JPG; IMGP4833_3.JPG; IMGP4834_4.JPG; IMGP4837_5.JPG; IMGP4836_6.JPG

Jan. 10, 2014,

To Mayor and Council ,....• Corporation of Delta c-"'" TY P E: K' ~ 1.\ \ C( (' A;, e'Ylitl ::0 Mr. Todd Stone ~ Ministry Of Transport DEPT. Jdt- ~ CC b'~ ,.... w Province of B.C. A. T. #. (aD cf2t 3 ~ Comments: ~ all I.( M''I, ;L 7 (I ~ o Ms, Kerry-Lynne Findlay M,P, u:;) 1<.0 u lar A1 ( ~ti Yj ,.... South Delta w

Once again Metro Ports Vancouver has created a huge back log of Semi Trailers along the Deltaport Way Highway , While passing the area at 12:17 it was noted that a estimated 18 Semi Trailers had started to stack up on the side of the highway. By the time I parked my car and walked back to the Overpass on 41 B. There was 32 Semi's parked on the side of the road partially in the traveled roadway, With some of the attached photographs an attempt was made to show that in short order Semi Trailers , large trucks, dual dumptrucks and other vehicles traveling West Bound on Delta Port Ways Highway, Were forced to SHARE the oncoming lane of traffic East Bound. Again the posted spoeed here is 80 Kms. Hour In just a short time a 5 ton truck bound for the green houses ,a loaded gravel truck with a pup trailer and a wide flat deck semi were sharing the center line and oncoming lane, And the line of parked newly arrived semi trailers had now extended beyond the 46A street agricultural overpass, I could count 36 Semi Trailers . But more were beyond sight with more arriving every minute! Many were running with EMPTY TRAILERS Yet more traffic chaos! Attached is a note forwarded to many of you where this same situation occurred in the Evening in dark and raining conditions . The Port has no control over the Weather , These dangerous conditions could occur during Fog and poor light conditions worsening the hazards to road users I've heard that equal chaos is occurring in the Fraser Canyon Rail Networks. With the first Normal or slightly above average Grain Crop working it's way to the Harbour in Vancouver. The rail network is so clogged it has jeopardizing are poultry industry which is not receiving enough feed grains! Is it not time that we reconsider the Shipment of Hundreds of individual containers by single tractors spewing Pollution , Tractors that are not required to pas any sort of proper Emission control testing , That are aging wrecks not subjected to rigorous safety requirements. Hence they break down and get involved in numerous accidents Choking Traffic in are region on a daily basis! And creating Health care costs! http://www,npr,org/2012/01 /1 8/145338359/cleaner -ai r -in-I-a-ports-com es-at -a-cost -to-truckers We are blessed in this region with numerous waterways, Rather then make the mistake that many other Port cities have made clogging there real estate with highways attempting to stay ahead of Truck Traffic Congestion. Why can we not make use of Tugs and Barges to carry 100's of containers with One Tug sand fill and construction fill about are reg ion also. Reducing the horrible costs of Road Damage by these huge heavy loads . http://marinelin k.com /news/article/container-on-barge-service-launched/323712.aspx

If the true costs including the delays to other commuters caused by truck congestion and lack of regulation and control over this industry were calculated into the long term planning of the road networks and the destruction of quality Agricultural and real estate lands. Barge services could be profitable in the Long Term! The Port Of Prince Rupert is also a logical alternative with better rail connections to the Eastern Seaboard States

Richard Swanston # 309 5545 15 B Delta B.C V4M 2H2 Staff will follow-up with Port Metro Vancouver to find out what caused the traffic back-up and will Dec, 28th 2013 respond back to Mr. Swanston accordingly.

1 To Mayor and Council Corporation of Delta Mr. Todd Stone Ministry Of Transport Province of B.C. Ms. Kerry-Lynne Findlay M.P. South Delta Dear Madams and Sir's; On Friday Evening well after sunset. While driving Westbound down 27 A Street Delta B.C. A line of Semi Trailers could be seen stopped on the West bound stretch Delta POit Way. After pulling over with the aid of binoculars 25 Semi Trailers were stopped along Delta Port way East of 41 B . [see poor photo attached 1 So off to the Container Port Causeway to see what could be possibly going on to prompt so many idling semi trailers ! There a long line of slowly moving semi trailers were seen. A count revealed 57 Semi's backed up the length of the causeway! Of those 21 were empty container trailers. Proceeding East bound down the Delta Port it was shocking to see even more semi trailers parked West of 41 B partially on the Highway shoulder but extended into the Traveled West bound section of highway! East of the 41 B Over pass it was worse! An over all total of 110 + Idling Semi Trailers waiting to creep forward to inch into the Port! [ + I cannot count the estimated 27 to 32 Trucks lined up accessing the 5 gate line up to enter the Port 1 These Semi's East of 41 B had No Space to fully pull over . It was dark and no doubt the drivers were justifiably to concerned of having there unit's slip into the muddy shoulder or possibly flip on the shoulders incline. As such after being pulled to the side by the ONE or Two Ports Security persons that were attempting to control the chaotic over flow. They did not leave the traveled portion of the Highway fully. I would like to point out the following details. This is a Provincial Highway with Posted Speeds of 80 Km . The lighting to poor to no existing. It's a straight level piece of Highway that persons regularly travel at well over the Posted Speed! It is used as access for Non Port Trucking activity. Trucks shipping and delivering products and employees of the large industrial green houses off 41 B regularly use this route. As do trucks accessing the Fish Plants on River Road. Employees and contactors accessing work at the various Port Facilities including Customs and other Officers Have to use this route as do residence of the Tsawwassen First Nations ands local residents. Contactors are presently starting work on several large builds associated with the Port near by . It is also posted with No Stopping signs! So that at 17:41 in the pitch black while I was proceeding East bound down this Provincial Highway on the Right side of the road. First a large car was seen to be coming Head On on my side of the roadway! This person as had many others had pulled up to the continuous line of over Thirty Semi trailers partially parked or slowly idling on the Traveled Portion of the Two Land Highway. And they decided as most anyone would do to play Russian Roulette. And speed down the wrong side of the highway to get to work! I was forced to pull over onto the highway shoulder that was wide enough to accommodate my small car following me on my tail was a full size semi trailer. A full size 10 Ton Truck k followed though and I was forced to put a tires into the road shoulders Mud to let him pass. Then squeeze by the Semi Trailer behind me! Toward the End of the line of Parked semi trailers. There was NO TRAFFIC CONTROL NO FLAG PERSONS OR WARNING SIGNS OR LIGHTS. What there was, was a Semi trailer that appeared to be the type that picks up produce from the Green Houses In the MIDDLE of the roadway waiting to take HIS chance at running the gauntlet of over THIRTY semi trailers in the Dark! Previously I've posted to many of you notices over the last 5 YEARS at least about these long lines of idling trucks blocking the highway and spewing pollutants needlessly into the Fraser Valley Air Shed! I have contacted the Ports people on NUMEROUS occasions. About the safety problems related to there lack of even concern for the safety of are community members caused by their on going negligence. Metro Ports Vancouver is WELL aware of this on going situation that usually occurs during the Day Light Hours! I've pointedly told them that this MAY WELL occur during periods of Heavy Rain and or Fog which would Greatly accelerated the dangers of cars meeting Head On . Or for that matter one of the ill trained and errant drivers pulling one of those Derelict aging trucks out onto the roadway and into a passing car traveling at Highway Speeds!

2 LUCK and Only Luck has prevented a Major accident such as occurred on Highway 1 Just before Christmas where a car at night struck a Poorly light and signed construction vehicle. That other drivers had Warned the local police was on the dark highway posing a hazard well prior to the Fatality occurring ! Friday night was proof that the Port is NOT willing to provide the necessary warning and Traffic Control ! That in spite of all their Public Relations BS they are more then willing to compromise the safety of are citizens to Push More Trucks through their opperation ! Please lets remember they have VERY DANGEROUS PRODUCTS out on that Port. In the event of an incident Emergency First Responders MUST be able to Quickly respond! I have documented several occurences in the past few Years were Port Access has been BLOCKED by lines of Semi Trailers ! Lets look at the excuses over the Years The South Fraser Perimeter Highway will do away with all these issues. Guess what opened last week! After construction of the THIRD container Berth at Delta Port. Truck traffic patterns will be change that will alleviate this situation Was that not fmished several Years ago 1111 It only happens occasionally we have staff on hand to control traffic flows 1 What happened Friday Jack We have a Computer controlled Truck Management system that can Track Semi volumes and adjust truck traffic 1111 We have made road improvements to the shoulder of the Delta Port Highway and established pull out points to stop restriction of access 111 We have a fantastic Reservation System that will track trucks and position them at the Gates to aviod congestion and excess idling pollution !! We require the driver to shut down there engines when stopped 1 How does this happen when they are on line inching to the gate line ups And there is a constant flow of trucks that are following them that have to keep moving to stop restriction of the over pass and the intersections We have a New system that reduced the need for excess truck trips To Cut down the empty truck traffic to ensure efficiency in loads 110 Trucks on Friday 21 of them were empty We have a NEW truck inspection policy that keeps badly maintained tractors out of the Port. This is a GOOD one how many PORTS staff are involved in this little PR project 111 Just how do you check and enforce this one 11 Where are the numbers 1 How much staff time is budgeted to moniter Truck Safety and quality 111 And how come so many old WRECKS are breaking down every work day along are highways! Blocking the main arteries of the Lower Mainland EVERY rush hour Yet another WRECK breaks down on the main bridges and knight street corridor. Every Rush hour one if not more main highway routes are blocked by yet another Derlict truck MORE PR BS WE are meeting with Port stake holder communities to resolve this issue We have ensured local politicians that we have resolved this problem IF indeed it exists Are trucks meet all the emission standards there is little concern over the exhaust and emissions generated that are new reservation policy will reduce truck transits The PORT has alternatives to alleviate truck traffic without the expansion of Holding areas, Parking lots, highways and bridges. Many countries faced with the stifling container truck traffic chaos have moved to Short Sea Shipping. They have come to the conclusion that they cannot BUILD there way out of the Container Truck Chaos http://marinelink.comlnews/artic1e/container-on-barge-service-launched.l323 712.aspx As I have pointed out in several letters the Port operates on less then 85 % efficiency . Almost every Sunday the Berths are used at less then 30 % capacity and NO TRUCKS OPERATE at all ! If there is a ship in dock over the weekend / holidays when traffic volumes are at the least they might often not be working cargoes 1 Most evening just after Rush Hour after the greatest use of are roadways have shut down the Ports trucking operations stop on most evenings. Only to restart Right at the Height of the Morning Grid Lock 111 Rather then encourage the LOWEST COMMON DETONATOR IN CHEAP RACE TO THE BOTTOM TRUCKS Are direct competing the Ports of Long Beach and Los Ageless has mandated a Clean Truck Policy. Out of respect for their citizens Health and well being to cut health care costs in THEIR COMMUNITY they have a Clean truck policy ! How many of the Trucks in the Lower Mainland are REJECTS from this policy sent North where there are Little to NO emission testes Few safety compliance checks and a Third World Mentality

3 that has politicians working for Industry,short term gain and profits of foreign owned transportation companies AND WORKING AGAINST THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF IT'S CITIZENS http://www.npr.org/2012/01/18/145338359/c1eaner-air-in-I-a-ports-comes-at-a-cost-to-truckers We can move containers more efficiently by rail and Barges if you count the TRUE costs of the trucking industry that are subsidized by the tax payer. If the trucking industry had to pay for delays and rerouting their derelict truck cause every day to thousands of commuters. Which on a weekly basis have to travel alternate routes to avoid yet another Jam caused by a negligent truck. The roadway damage done by heavy vehicles the congestion and excess road building caused by the inefficient use of rush hours by slow moving heavy trucks . Most of all the Health care costs from emisions . The Port Of Prince Rupert Is the logical choice for Container Port expansion No Fraser Canyon or Lower Mainland High Land costs and traffic and rail congestion. No Fraser Valley Air shed Pollution Problems . And a clean slate for a PROPER Transportation and support system rather then trying to Revamp the Lower Mainland to fit the Port and it's requirements at the cost of Lives and the health of are citizens and the environment of the Fraser Delta Yours Richard Swanston # 309 5545 15 B Delta B.C. V 4M 2H2

4

781 This letter refers to Delta's curbside recycling program. The resident's recycling was not collected as their Blue Box was oversized and the recyclable material was not separated. Delta limits the size of the Blue Box to 55 L to allow for safe and effective collection. Residents are required to sort material into separate containers to ensure it can be emptied into the appropriate compartments in the recycling truck. The resident also identified an issue with accessibility to a drop-off depot. Delta residents can utilize the residential drop-off depot at the City of Vancouver Landfill for oversized or excess curbside recycling; there is no charge to drop off this material. Information is available on Delta's website about where to take excess cardboard: http://delta.ca/ assets/Environment/PDF/Delta_Recycling_Locations_0213.pdf. Staff will respond to the resident. 782

The South Fraser Perimeter Road is a provincial highway. Staff have responded to the business owner and encouraged him to contact the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to discuss the opportunity to place signage along the new highway. 783

On November 18, 2013, the Province announced service reductions to BC Ferries. The recently formed BC Ferry Coalition seeks to represent all stakeholders in ferry communities to lobby the Provincial Government to exercise “fiscal fairness” with respect to the operation of the ferry system. They are seeking support from local government representatives by requesting a motion be passed to support their efforts. Staff will respond to the writer.

784

The Red Dot Campaign was a local initiative to reduce the amount junk mail received from Canada Post; the campaign's website is no longer active. Information is available on Canada Post's website for customers that wish to stop receiving Unaddressed Admail (i.e. junk mail): http:// www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/personal/support/helpcentre/receiving/ choice_opt_in.jsf. Staff has responded to the resident.

785

" Ladner Business Association POBox 15 genda , Delta Be FILE # ()Sa...... DO--f-~ 0 V4K 3N6 -- --

January 8, 2014

Mayor Lois Jackson and Council Members , Corporation of Delta 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta, BC V4K 3E2

Re: Parking signs on Elliot St., Ladner

It has been brought to our attention that while the rest of the village was marked with 3 hour parking Signs, the area in front of the Bottle Depot on Elliot St., Ladner, has been marked with 20 minute parking. While we understand that 20 minute parking is sufficient for the Bottle Depot, the posts in front of its neighbouring buSinesses, West Coast Seeds and Parsley, Sage & Thyme, have also been marked as 20 minute parking. We are writing to you in request that the signs in front of West Coast Seeds as well as Parsley, Sage & Thyme are changed to the 3 hour parking that the rest of the village has received.

We appreciate everything you have done for our parking issues.in the village and hope that you are able to understand and grant our request.

Respectfully, ~> '~~~v8::.'2_ ~~JLSL~~ J~Re~~ ~ President, Ladner Business Association

Historically, the time limited parking on Elliot Street between River Road and Westminster Avenue was 30 minutes. As part of the recent overall parking regulation changes in Ladner Village, a minor revision from 30 minutes to 20 minutes was implemented to promote more frequent parking turnover. At the request of the Ladner Business Association, along with further discussion with the affected shop proprietors, staff will reinstate the longer 30 minute duration. A response has been provided to the requestor. 786

Minister of Transport Ministre des Transports

Ottawa, Canada K 1A ON5 genda ,.... JAN 0 6 2014 A FILE # aS2iXtaO jtaIYJ! ::: :5 ':0 U1 ru Her Worship Lois E. Jackson Mayor of the Corporation of Delta 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta BC V4K 3E2

Dear Madam Mayor:

Thank you for your correspondence of October 8, 2013, regarding the proposed replacement of the George Massey Tunnel in Delta, British Columbia.

I would first like to note that it was a pleasure to meet you on October 7 and become better acquainted with transportation issues and projects in Delta.

The Government of Canada recognizes the vital role that transportation infrastructure plays in the well-being of Canada's urban centres. The federal government is committed to working with local and provincial/territorial governments to provide the best possible transportation systems. Under the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative, the Government of Canada has established strong partnerships with the Province of British Columbia, TransLink, local municipal governments, Port Metro Vancouver and industry partners. For example, Canada has contributed funding to the following infrastructure projects in Delta:

• $365 million for the new South Fraser Perimeter Road; • $75 million for the Roberts Bank Rail Corridor Program, including close to $6 million for the 80'h Street overpass in Delta; and • $1.6 million for Huston Road and River Road improvements.

I should note that the Province of British Columbia is responsible for the planning and delivery of the George Massey Tunnel replacement. I would encourage you to share your support for the replacement project with the Honourable Todd Stone, British Columbia' s Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

This letter is a response to Delta's correspondence on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement project. Staff will be providing regular updates to Council on the progression of this project.

MAYOR'S OFFICE JAN 10 2014 03-01 lOA (97-08) Canada RECE IV ED -2-

Given that In frastructure Canada is responsible fo r infrastructure funding, I have taken the li berty of forwarding a copy of your correspondence to the Honourabl e Denis Lebel, Minister of In frastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada fo r the Regions of Quebec, for hi s consideration.

The federal government will continue to partner with the Province of British Columbia and municipalities, including the Corporation of Delta, to enhance the transportation network.

Again, thank you fo r writing.

Sincerely,

The Honourabl e Li sa Raitt, P.e., M. P. Minister of Transport c.c. The Honourable Denis Lebel, P.C., M.P. Minister of In frastructure, Communities and Illlergovernmental Affai rs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec From the office of THE -CORPORATION OF DELTA The Mayor, Lois E. Jackson

ayor'~ .. ' , : FILE # ~-9bI("?KI October 8, 2013 M ; The Honourable Lisa Raitt Minister of Transport House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A OA6

Dear Minister,

Re: Proposed Replacement of the George Massey Tunnel

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your continued support of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project. Premier Clark's announcement on plans to move ahead with construction of a bridge in the existing Highway 99 corridor has been met with much anticipation. The replacement of the George Massey Tunnel with a new bridge crossing will help meet the growing needs of our communities, businesses and stakeholders who rely on this important crossing.

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter I recently provided to the Chair of the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors. The letter was in response to a Metro Vancouver staff report regarding the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel, which is also enclosed.

Thank you for your assistance with this important issue and we look fOlward to your continued collaboration on the replacement of the tunnel.

:.1

Enclosure

cc: Delta Council George V. Harvie, Chief Administrative Officer INFORMATION TO COUNCIL

DATE Cti- lD/cS 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent, Della, British Columbia, Canada V4K 3E2 Tel, 604946-3210 Fax, 604 946-6055 E-mail, mayQr@d~ltjl . ca From Ihl! o.Dic:e o/' THE CORPORATION OF DELTA The Mayor) Lois E. Jackson

October 8, 2013 ·1 Mayor Greg Moore, Chair Metro Vancouver Board of Directors ' 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8

Dear Chair Moore,

Re: Additional Information on the Proposed Replacement of the George Massey Tunnel

Further to M.etro Vancouver's staff report titled ·Comments on the Proposed Bridge to ReplaCe the George Massey Tunnel", the Corporation of Delta has been working on this important issue for several years. The following is clarification of some ofthe noted issues, as well as additional information related to the replacement of the tunnel. ·1-I Potential for Induction of Vehicle Traffic and Emissions

The staff report notes that the proposed bridge to replace the tunnel could potentially induce additional vehicle traffic and emissions. In reality, the need to upgrade the tunnel exists today. The current crossing, opened in 1959, is over capacity during the morning and afternoon rush hours and midday demand has grown to near capacity. Traffic queue lengths in the morning rush hour can extend as much as 1.5 to 5 kilometres long.

The forecast peak-hour demand is significantly higher than what the tun nel is able to accommodate. The model forecasts suggest that by 2031 the excess unmet demand is around 1,500 vehicles per hour, which is 23% over capacity. A conservative estimate of

... 2

4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent, Delta. British Columbia, Canada V4K 3E2 Tel: 604 946-3210 Fax, 604 946-6055 E-mail, mavor@delta ca October 8,2013 Pag~2

" the cost of congestion on the tunnel is between $74 million and $173 million per year by 2041 a~unting for current and potential demand. '

Highway 89 Corridor and Wide, Transportation Network The staff report notes that the work completed by the' Province Is missing the r~lationship between the Highway 99 corridor and the wider transportation network. The public consultation process con~ucted by the Province clearly outlined the importance of this corridor, in terms of the regional and provincial context. Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy was highlighted by the Province ,as providing conte~ for determining the most appropriate solution for replacement of the existing tunnel.

Further, the Province noted that it will continue dialogue with municipalities, TransLink and Metro Vancouver as additional technical work including more detailed traffic, structural and corridor analysis, additional origin-destlnation studies, ,geotechnical drilling. marine clearance studies and environmental work is completed.

Regional People Movement(Translt, Pedestrians and Cyclists) :.. J 'j It, is important to note that one of the Prov(nce's main goals of the tunnel replacement is I to support objeCtives for regional people movemem. ,This includes increasing transit ridership. protecting, the Highway 99 Corridor,forfuture rapid transit and pr~viding , cycling and~ pedestrian access. Currently, there are ten TransUnk bus routes operating , along the Highway ,99 C9rridor. generating up to 40 buses per hour during peak periods. The replacement of the tunnel with a bridge will also provide for direct access across the' Fraser River for pedestrians and cyclists without having to rely on',a bicycle shuttle through the tunnel.

Congestion Reduction -Improved Safety and Reliability

The staff report Is missing important information on existing safety and reliability concerns. The Ministry qf Transportation and Infrastructure's Highway 99 assessment ... 3 October 8. 2013 Page 3

Identified the tunnel as significantly exceeding the regional and provincial average rate of collisions. This is due in part to high vehicle volumes. rush hour co,-,nter-flow conditions and narrow lanes. and shoulders. High accident rates and severe congestion significanUy Impact the reliability of this corridor. j

In comparison to a number of other river crossings in the Pacific Northwest and Alberta. . th~ George Massey Tunnel' has one.of the highest vehicle volumes per lane at nearly 22.000 daDy vehicles per lane. This lane volume is higher than the Arthur Laing Bridge, Queensborough Bridge, Oak Street Bridge, Pattullo Bridge, and Alex Fraser Bridge (Bridging the Infrastructure Gap. Get Moving Be. 2006). In summary. the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel with a new bridge crOSSing will assist In meeting the growing needs of the communities, businesses and stakeholders who rely on this Important crossing.

Enclosure 00: Caror Mason. Chief Administrative Office, Metro Vancouver Delta Council George V. Harvie. Chief Administrative Officer 5.3 ~ metrovancouver ~ SfiRVltaS AND 501.VTION' FOR A UVA81.E R~GION

To: Transportatio"n Committee

From: Ray Kant Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department

Date: October 2,2013 Meeting Date: October 9, 2013

Subject: Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel

RECOMMENDATION That the Board: a) advise the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure' that the project scope, design, and performance of the proposed bridge to replace the George Massey Tunnel should take 'into , ' careful consideration of the effects on the Implementation of the Regional Growth Str'ategy, Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse',Gas Management Plan, and Regional Transportation Strategy, and that measures be included to support, and not detract from, regional objectives.

b) request the Translink Board provide Metro Vancouver with technical. analysis and commentary on the potential transportation and emissions implications of expanding transporta.tion capacity on the George Massey Tunnel corridor and 'effects with proximate Fraser River watercrossings, including tolling and non-tolling scenarios, and 'the degree of consistency and support the, proposed bridge, would have on the Regional Growth Strategy, Integrated Air Quality and :1 Gre~nhouse Gas Management Plan, the Regional Transportation Strategy, and Regional Goods' ;". Movement, Strategy.

:j PURPOSE I On September 20, 2013, the Premier of Britrsh Columbia announced a preferred alternative for the :1 replacement of the ~eorge Massey Tunnel. A new bridge ,will replace the tunnel on. approximately the same alignment. This report provides comments based on published inform~tion fro'm the Provlnce~ and the consultation that was undertaken over the past year.

BACKGROUND In fall 2012, the Province undertook Phase 1 consul~ation on the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel to solIcit feedback from stakeholders on Issues around the current tunnel. In spring 2013, the Province undertook Phase 2 consultation to s~licit feedback on five scenarios for replacing the tunnel. Metro Vancouver staff participated in stakeholder seSSions and attended public meetings in both phases. Two staff letters were sent to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (see Attachments ~ and 2). -j There was a general understanding that the' process to select ,a preferred alternative would take place after the provincial election, and after additional analysiS have' been completed and the results shared with stakeholders. The announcement by the Premier on September 20, 2013 was unexpected in light of the absence of technical information p'rovided during consultation about the performance and other attributes of the al~ernatives.

DISCUSSION 7883817 TRANSPORTATION·99 Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel Tril nsportation Committee Meeting Da te: October 9,2013 Pagc 2of 7

Current Facility The George Massey Tunnel is an important regional facility being one of five Fraser River crossings " in the region. According to the Province, the George Massey Tunnel carried over 80,000 vehicles each day in 2011.

; .... : ~I .. . . .,:; .'''''''' '.'. '-" \~. . '" \'\

.. ~..r, ': lI.~~, t. ' ~ /.H lr.." . , .,)~r '\\ _,.0;;,' .

(.'1\. ' 1.' 1

,...... \" ." j .:! ' i~f~ q<·:~',·

Source: Phase 1 Consultation Dis cuss ion Guido. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructuro

., The existing capacity of the tunnel is close to or over capacity for most of the day, lea ding to long queues and travel times. The lack of capacity was identified by the Province as a key iss ue as both sides of the river is expected to experience growth in population, jobs, and travel. The Province also ,I identified other issues with the tunnel such as not meeting modern seismic standards, aging 'i, operating systems, narrow lanes, the general lack of redundancy when traffic Incidents occur, and no capacity for cyclists.

According to the PrOVince, the modal share of vehicles traversing the tunnel in 2011 was: • Single-occupant vehicl es: 77% • Multiple-occupant vehicles: 10% • Heavy commercial trucks: 9% .; • Li ght commercial trucks: 3% • Buses: 1% (accounts for 26% of person throughput)

TRANSPORTATION - 100 .__ ..•. _--,

, ~ : Comments on the Proposed Brfdge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 3 of7

Proposed Bridge Concept . ,Only limited information has been provided by the Province about the proposed bridge. An :~ animated flyover prepared by the Province depicts a faciltty with 5 lanes in each direction (4 general purpose lanes, plus one high-occupancy vehicle .lane) and protected cycling/pedestrl~n lanes in each direction. In comparison, the current tunnel provides 3 la(les of travel in the peak direction (comprising' a counterflow la'ne). The bridge concept represents an increase in vehicle travel capacIty over the existing tunnel. Construction on the new bridge would start in 2017.

Table 1. Capacity of ProxImate Fraser River Crossings

lanes per George Proposed 'Alex Fraser' Queens- Pattullo Port Mann .' ~olden Direction Massey Bridge Bridge borough Bridge' Bridge Ears 'Tunnel Concept Bridge Bridge Gefleral 3 in peak 4 3 2 2 4 3 Purpose drrection; (reduced to (3 in service) lin off-peak 1 at night} direction ,High., 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Occupancy Vehicles Total 3 in peak 5 3 2 2 5 3 direction; (reduced to (4 In service) 1 in off-peak 1 at night) ~·I direction ~,! .' The geographic scope of the project remains unclear. In earlier consultation 'materials, the scope

'; was stated to include consideration of '''all interchanges within the Highway 99 corridor fror:n . Bridgeport Road in Richmond to the Canada/US border in Surrey, as. well as connections to other provincial highways, and regional and local routes". From inspection of the animated flyover and a schematic provided by the Province, the. portion of the bridge on Oeas Island appears to be located on land owned by the Province. ThIs land divides the east !3nd west portions of .Deas Island Regional Park. The Province has owned this land since before the Park was established In the ,early 1980's. It is likely that the Province will 'release a more complete description of the project in the near future, and staffs analysis will be updated as appropriate.

ConSIderations for a Regional Dialogue The George Massey Tunnel was identified by the Pr9vince as a longer-term, gateway priority. With the Gateway Program nearing completion, the Province has elevated the watercrossing to be the next roadway expansion priority in the region. And much like the Gateway Program, the proposed bridge will engender debate and discussion about the way transportation projects are prioritized and the impacts of expanding road capacity on land use, air quality, transportation, and economic objectives . .' ~ A new bridge with expanded capacity provides opportunities to incorporate new measures that· cannot be accommodated in the existing tunnel. These measures could include (subject to the release of detail project Information by the Province): • direct access for pedestrians and cyclists; • a structure that meets moder!1 seismic standards; • lane widths that meet current guidelines;

TRANSPORTATION -101 Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 . Page 4 of7

• better lane:allocation. for trucks and high-occupancy vehicles; • better lane a.llocation for longer-distance through trips and shorter-distance trips; and • a better match between capacity a~d current and future travel demands by commercial trucks, buses, and general purpose traffic.

Staff sees no objections to these measures. From a transportation performance and economic perspective, ensuring traffic runs safely and efficiently benefits commuters In passenger vehicles and buses, transit service providers, and truck~ carrying goods to market. From an environmental perspective, reducing extensive periods of idling vehicles is beneficial for air quality, fuel consumptlon~ and greenhouse gas emissIons. These 1nterests are aligned wIth the Regional Growth Strategy:

RGS Action 1.2.9{c); That TransLink and the province, as appropriate, work with municipalities to support the safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and service ,: vehicles, tOt/rom, and within Urban Centres and FrequentTransit D.evelopment Areas (e.g., by enhancing the design and operation 0/ the road network), where appropriate.

RGS Action 2.1.5: That TransLink, the federal government and the province and their agencies dev~lop and operate transportation infras~ructu~e to support economic activity in Urban Centres, Frequent TransIt Development Areas, Industrial, Mixed Employment areas and ports and airports.

The major objections are the misSing perspective on the relationship between this corridor and the wider.transportation network, and the absence of appropriate capacity.and transportation demand management measures required. to carefully align this facility with broader regional land use, environmental, and transportation objectives. There are some potential near-term and long-term consequences.

1. Potential for Induced VehIcle Travel and Emissions In the Near-Term A new facility having expanded vehicle capacity could induce more vehicle trips .. IndUcing more .j vehicle trips runs counter to established regional objectives. TransLink's newly adopted j Regional Transportation Strategy Framework establishes two regional targets: • To make half of all trips by walking, cycling, and transit; and • To reduce the distances people drive by·one~third.

Metro Vancouver has establi.shed ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets .and air quality objectives.

An expanded facility·might: • unleash pent up travel demand (travelers .who may be adverse to sitting in traffic may decide to take more trips In the future as. a result of the improved travel times and , safety), \. • shift tra~elers from transit or carpooling to single-occupant vehicles, or • change travel patterns (travelers· who were used to taking an alternate route, such as the .~ Alex Fraser Bridge, may SWitch over to the new facility via the South Fraser PerImeter i . , Road).' . :.,

TRANSPORTATION - 102 Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 PageSof7 "

An expanded facility without additional complementary measures to discourage' single­ '! occupant vehicles and to encourage carpooling, transit, 'and cycling would indeed be deficient ,i and 'short-sighted.1 Unfettered access could easily result in a congested facility. Further; an expanded facility may simply move the "bottleneck" further downstream or upstream.

The Regional Growth Strategy antfcipated that the current spate of road expansion projects would not be the last one. DurIng consultation, Metro Vancouver advised the Ministry of the following actions in the Regional Growth Strategy: '

:1 RGS Action 5.2.6: That TronsLink and the province, as appropriate, In collaboration with municipalities seek to minimize impacts from within-and-through passenger, goods, and service vehicle movement on' the. environment and public health affecting the region ,and areas within the Lower Fraser Valley Alrshed.

RGS Action 5.2.7: That the TransLink and the Province, as appropriate, evaluate the following elements when contemplating future expansion 0/ private vehicle capacity on major roads, highways, and bridges: oj Transportation demand management strategies as alternatives to, or as Integral with, such capacity expansion; b) Impacts on the ach;evement of the Regional Growth Strategy and the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, including potential cumulative impacts.

:: 2. Potential for Unanticipated Land Use Changes in the Long-Term Reduc1ng travel time expands the catchment area for a given travel time budget. Improvements 'I to accessibility are capitalized in land markets. The improved access to lands, be it residential, .! commercial, industrial, or agricultural, could have a distributional effect on shifting growth'from one area to another. This is an uncertainty that the Regional Growth Strategy never explicitly considered in the population and employment forecasts. It is unclear ,what basic demographic assumptians the Ministry has been using to Justify the propo,sed capacity on the bridge. It Is also unclear what assumptions have been made about plans by Po~ Metro Vancouver to expand container throughput capacity at Roberts Bank, and td better utilize available marine terminal capacity at Fraser Surrey Docks.

3. Unclear Impacts on the Development of the Regional Transportation Strategy and RegIonal Goods Movement Strategy The uncertainty around the new brrdge puts into dou-bt the validity of the technical work being j 'I undertaken by TransLink for the Regional Transportation Strategy, the Regional Goods -) Movement Strategy, and the Pattullo Bridge Strategic Review Study. The development of the Implementation Plan is crucial- priorities for new medium·term transportation investments will be deliberated and established. The uncertainty around the capacity of the new bridge and

,", interactions with other components of the regional transportation system must be understood ) .~ (i.e., whether the new bridge will be tolled). The effect, on truck movement is unclear. .

1 In recent years. the J:'rovlnce has implemented translt-supportive measures along Highway 99, such as the expansion of the South Surray Pam and Ride, highway shoulder bus lanes, and queue Jumpers.

TRANSPORTATION ·103 Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 6 of7

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Board: a) advise the MInis~er of Transportation and Infrastructure that the project scope, design, and performance of the proposed bridge to replace the George Massey Tunnel should take into careful consfderatron of the effects on the implementatron of the Regional Growth Strategy, Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, and Regional Transportation Strategy, and that measures be Included to support, and not detract from, regional

!.: objectiv~s. I : " b) request the TransLink Board provide Metro Vancouver with technIcal analysis and . commentary on the potential transportation and emissions Impl1cations of expanding transportation capacity on the George Massey Tunnel corridor and effects with proximate Fraser River watercrosslngs, including. tolling and non~tolling scenarios, and the -degree-of consistency and support the proposed bridge would have on the Regional Growth Strategy, Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, the Regional Transportation Strategy, and -Regional Goods Movement Strategy.

2. That the Board receive for information the report titled, "Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel", dated September 25, 2013. '

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Information about the project scope, design, performance, cost, procurement method, and tolling po !icy has yet to be released by the Province. The availability of provincial funding for other transportation priorities in the region may be affected by this decision. There may be potential impacts imposed by the bridge on Deas Island Regional Park and proximate ecologically sensitive areas - these impacts may have financial bearing on Metro Vancouver, and will be further analyzed and deliberate~ by the Environment and Parks Committee.

If the Board approves Alternative 1, then staff will continue to work with the Province to ensure that the land-use and air quaUty/GHG implicatIons of the new bridge be considered and Integrated into the project scope, design, and performance.

If the Board chooses Alternative 2, then no further action will be taken at this tIme. Given the lack of information about the proposed bridge, it may be prudent for the Board to simply monitor and respond once the project definition r~port, or equivalent document, is released by the Province. At that point, staff would be able to clarify some or all issues identified In this report, and a more fulsome discussion could take place.

SUMMARY I CONCLUSION On September 20, 2013, the Premier of British Columbia announced a preferred alternative for the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel. A new bridge will replace the tunnel on approximately the same alignment. This report provides comments based on published Information from the Province, and the c~:msultation that was undertaken over the past year. Providing for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods is one of many regional objectives. ,Staff recommends Alternative 1 to ensure that the project takes into careful consideratIon of the effects on the Implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy, Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas

TRANSPORTATION - 104 Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 . Page 7 of7

Management. Plan, and Regional Transportation Strategy, and that measures are included to support, and not detract, from these regional objectives.

Further, the regional transportation authority has an Important role to play in this process. In the newly adopted Regional Transportation Strategy Framework, TransLink commits to "work with the Province to ensure a replacement to 'the Massey Tunnel is integrated with the regional network in a way that iscQnsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and the RegIonal Transportation Strategy." Therefore, staff recommends Alternative 1 requesting that Translink advise Metro Vancouver on the potential transportation implications of this bridge. This information will be useful to advance the regional d,ialogue, not only on the merit of the bridge itself, but also implications for investment priorities In the Regional Transportation Strategy.

Iss!Jes related to potential impacts that a .new bridge may impose on Oeas Island Regional Park and ecologically sensitive areas, and the a'ppropriate mitigation and compensation, will be addressed by the Environment and Parks Committee.

Attachments: , i. Province of Brittsh Columbia News Release, "B.C. moves forward with brIdge to replace Massey Tu nnel", dated Se ptember 20, 2013. (Orbit doc II 7884824) 2. ' Letter to Geoff Freer~ Executive Project DIrector, dated April 3, 2013, "Metro Vancouver Staff Comments on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, Phase 2" (Orbltdoc1l7882676) 3. Letter to Geoff Freer, ExecutIve Project Director, dated December 19, 2012, "Metro Vancouver' Staff Comments on the George Ma~sey Tunnel ~eplacement Proj,ect" (Orbit doc # 7885026)

,! ,!

TRANSPORTATION ·105 787 Mayor _Council

From: Doug Porter Sent: Tuesday. January 14. 201 4 4:41 PM To : Mayor & Council Subject: Tolls and Tran stink Fund ing genda A FILE# oSaoD -a5 Mayor Lois Jackson and Council Delta Municipal Hall 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta, BC V4K 3E2

Tue 14 Jan 2014

Everyone accepts that bridges, roads, and transit cost money but no one seems willing to discuss a potential, untapped source of revenue that would not cost tax payers or road users an extra dime. That is the $30 Billion dollars that the federal government pays annually in interest to private banks to service government debt and a similar amount paid by provincial and civic governments combined.

In 1974 the government shifted its major borrowing form the publicly owned Bank of Canada at very low interest to private banks at high interest. With a mere stroke of a pen the government could reverse this decision and start borrowing again from the Bank of Canada, instantly making $30 Billion tax payer dollars available for much needed spending on infrastructure and programs (e . g. health care, education).

Interest paid to the Bank of Canada accrues to the government so in effect the government borrows virtually for free. $60 Billion would go a long way to alleviating the financial hardship being imposed by government cutbacks on the vast majority of working people.

http ://www .fin . gc.ca/ afr-rfa/2012 / report-rapport-eng. asp

Doug Porter 3782 Thurston Street Burnaby

One of the functions of the Bank of Canada is to manage the inflation rate through the national money supply. Allowing governments to borrow at other than the market rate would increase inflationary pressures in the economy. The management of monetary policy is a responsibility of the Bank of Canada and is not within the municipality's jurisdiction. The letter writer will so be advised.

1 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 1 of26

.... 1 Government Gouvernement 1...... of Canada du Canada Qmad~

Department of Finance Canada

Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2011-2012

Archived information

Archived information is provided for reference, research or record keeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Note to Readers

The financial results in this report are based on the audited consolidated financial statements of the Government of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012, the condensed form of which is included in this report. For the 14th consecutive year, the Government has received an unmodified audit opinion from the Auditor General of Canada on the consolidated financial statements. The complete consolidated financial statements will be set out in the Public Accounts of Canada 2012 when tabled in Parliament.

The Fiscal Reference Tables have been updated to incorporate the results for 2011-12, the reclassification of certain prior years' figures in the Federal Government Public Accounts tables to conform to the current year's presentation, as well as historical revisions to the National Economic and Financial Accounts published by Statistics Canada. Report Highlights

• The Government posted a budgetary deficit of $26.2 billion for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012, down from a budgetary deficit of $33.4 billion in 2010-11 and down by more than half from the $55.6- billion budgetary deficit recorded in 2009-10. • Revenues increased by $8.1 billion, or 3.4 per cent, from 2010-11, primarily reflecting higher economic activity. Program expenses increased by $0.8 billion, or 0.3 per cent. Public debt charges were up $0.2 billion. • The federal debt (the difference between total liabilities and total assets) stood at $582.2 billion at March 31, 2012. The federal debt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) ratio was 33.8 per cent, down from 33.9 per cent a year earlier. • As reported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Canada's total government net debt-to-GDP ratiO, which includes the net debt of the federal, provincial/territorial and local governments, as well as the net assets held in the Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan, stood at 33.3 per cent in 2011. This is the lowest level among Group of Seven (G-7) countries, which the OECD expects will record an average net debt of 80.4 per cent of GOP for that same year.

http://www.fin.gc.calafr-rfal2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 2 of26

• For the 14th consecutive year, the Government has received an unmodified audit opinion from the Auditor General of Canada on the consolidated financial statements. Table 1 Financial Highlights $ billions

._------._-_... Economic HighlightsW

Canada's real economic output (real GOP) expanded by 2.4 per cent in 2011. As a result, real GOP is now well above its pre-recession levels-the best performance in the G-7. Canadian economic growth during 2011 was largely driven by sustained strength in demand from Canadian households and businesses. This more than offset weakness in the external sector.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/20 12/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 3 of26

The economic recovery has underpinned a strong rebound in Canada's labour market. By August 2012, the economy had created about 770,000 jobs relative to its trough in July 2009-more than offsetting the jobs lost in Canada during the global economic downturn and the strongest job growth among G-7 countries over the recovery.

This good performance reflects Canada's sound economic, fiscal and financial sector fundamentals, along with the significant and timely support provided under the stimulus phase of Canada's Economic Action Plan.

Despite this positive performance, the global economic environment remains fragile and uncertain. The global recovery began to slow toward the end of 2011 and decelerated more notably early in 2012. The key factor underlying the slowdown has been the ongoing euro area sovereign debt and banking crisis. The euro area has seen virtually no growth over the last year, and several of its key economies fell back into recession in late 2011. In addition, the U.S. recovery continues to be sluggish as the country faces ongoing headwinds from deleveraging related to the housing crisis.

Although Canada's economy has performed better than most other advanced economies, it has not been immune to the impact of these external developments. Real GDP growth eased from 2.4 per cent for 2011 as a whole to 1.8 per cent in the first half of 2012. The impact of the slowing global economy is also reflected in the evolution of expectations for nominal GDP, which is the broadest single measure of the tax base. At the time of Budget 2011, private sector economists expected nominal GDP to expand by 5.0 per cent in 2012. However, in response to weakening global economic prospects and declining commodity prices at the end of 2011 and in early 2012, private sector economists lowered their expectations for nominal GDP growth to 4.6 per cent in Budget 2012, and further reduced their outlook to 4.0 per cent at the time of the June 2012 survey.

The average of private sector economic forecasts has been used as the basis for fiscal planning since 1994 and introduces an element of independence into the Government's fiscal forecast. This practice has been supported by international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund.

Table 2 Private Sector Forecasts of Nominal GDP Growth per cent r~~rZ:2~~=;;:;~~t~~=·===~~=-_=--.-=~=-··-r=---== 20:'~! ___ ~--:o~ !March 2012 survey/Budget 2012 I 5.8 4.6l r- ..· ..... · .... ·· .... ·· .. ·· .. ·...... -.... ,...... -...... -...... , ...... ·································i .... ···· .. ·.. ·...... ··· .. ···· ...... ······· .. ··•· .. · .. ··--.. r-·1 ..... ·_····.. ···· .. ········· .. ,.·,··· .. ·...... -.. -...... iJune 2012 survey !L 5.9, 4.0

,,~~.... ~~~~ __~ • ...... ~J-~~~_ ...... -.r_~~rTlC>...... -.:.~~JP-F.... ~~"':Z._ ...... ,..~~~· ...... ,.~u.,;;~~~ __•• -V',;:r" -..'~=",... ~.*1.~~!.-...~.-.v~'t'".M'ft-tr.~...". .... ~~.~~--=-=l:?O:IJ(.",.--.

Looking ahead, there continue to be significant downside risks to the Canadian outlook, with the key risk being the ongoing crisis in Europe. Moreover, there remains significant uncertainty regarding the direction of U.S. fiscal policy in early 2013, based on current tax and spending legislation, and the possible negative impact it could have on the U.S. economy. While Canada's economic performance over the last year has been encouraging, any setbacks in the global economic recovery can be expected to have an impact on Canada.

The Stimulus Phase of Canada's Economic Action Plan

In Budget 2009, the Government introduced Canada's Economic Action Plan (EAP) in response to the deepest global recession since the 1930s. The stimulus phase of the EAP was designed to support economic growth and job creation, and its implementation has been effective at protecting jobs and families while positioning Canada to succeed in a highly competitive global economy. The stimulus phase of the EAP has: http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 4 of26

• Reduced the tax burden for Canadians permanently; • Helped the unemployed through enhanced EI benefits and training programs; • Made significant investments in infrastructure, including the acceleration of the $33-billion Building Canada Fund, and supported the housing sector through the Home Renovation Tax Credit; • Advanced Canada's knowledge economy by improving infrastructure at colleges and universities and supporting research and technology; • Supported industries and communities most affected by the global downturn; • Improved access to and the affordability of financing for Canadian households and businesses.

These measures have been implemented across a large number of departments, agencies and Crown corporations, often in partnership with other levels of government. .

Because the stimulus in the EAP was designed to provide temporary support to the economy, the vast majority of initiatives announced in Budget 2009 ended as planned on March 31, 2011. In order to provide additional flexibility to the Government's partners, the completion deadline for four provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure programs was extended to October 31, 2011. As a result of this decision, the economic benefits and job creation impact of stimulus projects were continued for an additional construction season. Actions taken under the four cost-shared infrastructure programs during the last year of the EAP totalled approximately $1.1 billion. All the amounts recorded in 2011-12 correspond to expenditure measures.

Temporary stimulus has now been wound down, and the Government is moving forward with the next phase of the EAP. To learn more about the results that were achieved, Canadians can consult the eight reports on the stimulus phase of the EAP on the EAP website.

Canada's Economic Action Plan-Results Achieved in 2011-12 accrual basis-$ billions

I -~-_~_ft._~__ -I'--2011-1~

I. __ I',. . ... Impact ~ ~API lR~ducing .the t~x burden f~r Canadia~~ ______.______~~~~~;~i~~~~O~::~~~~~~1~~~~yandcreating~~~~jObS:···--·-~·~E· ...... ····6:~ 1=~P~=ln~:~st~:.~ndCommunitleS· ... ~~=~~ ..=~=-~.~ .. ~._-"-_. __ ~... !~:~.::..- J [!CI~! !~.~ra!.~.uJ!p.~ ...._...... _...... _ ...... _ ...... _.~t.... _ .. _~~I iNotes: Total does not add due to rounding. The $1.1 billion in EAP measures reported above for 2011-12 I lare recorded on an accrual basis. The eight reports to Canadians on the EAP focused on its cash values I l~ec~~~e this is the best measure to assess its stimulus impact on the economy. _=.. ____ ~.1

The Budgetary Balance

The Government posted a budgetary deficit of $26.2 billion in 2011-12, down from the $33.4-billion deficit recorded in 2010-11.

Revenues were up $8.1 billion, or 3.4 per cent, from the prior year. Over half of this increase was attributable to growth in personal income tax revenues, which grew by $5.8 billion, reflecting gains in personal income from a growing economy. The remaining growth in revenues was largely attributable to increases in corporate income tax revenues and EI premium revenues, which increased by $1.7 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 5 of26

Expenses were up $1.0 billion, or 0.4 per cent, from the prior year. Program expenses increased by $0.8 billion, as increases in major transfers to persons and major transfers to other levels of government were largely offset by a decrease in direct program expenses. Public debt charges increased by $0.2 billion, or 0.5 per cent, from the prior year, largely reflecting a higher stock of interest-bearing debt.

To enhance the comparability of financial results over time and across jurisdictions, the budgetary balance and its components are often presented as a percentage of GOP. The following chart shows the budgetary balance as a percentage of GOP since 1983-84. In 2011-12, the deficit was 1.5 per cent of GOP, down from 2.1 per cent a year earlier, and down more than half since 2009-10.

~'Budgetary ------Balance per cent of GOP 2 -~~~~~~ ! -2

-3

-4 .$

-6 -7

-8 t--··-~--·--··· ..---··-·-~·- .. -----····-····,·--·····--...... -..... ,.. - .. -~--.....-.----.- .. -.... -.-..... -.-...-- ...... -- ... -.--...... - .. --....•

-9 ...... "'~'.'-"."-"'-""'--""""""'-'.'-' 1983- 1987- 1991- 1995- 1999- 2003- 2001- 2011- j 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 -s~~~~~~:- ;~~Ii~ ~~~~~~~; ~anada ~n~St~ti~t;~~ -~~n;da'- -_...... --_. - . ----_. _.. ------_. ---_. --I

Federal Debt

The federal debt (accumulated deficit) is the difference between the Government's total liabilities and its total assets. At the end of 2011-12, the federal debt stood at $582.2 billion.

The federal debt increased by $31.8 billion in 2011-12, largely reflecting the $26.2-billion budgetary deficit and a $2.3-billion other comprehensive loss. The $2.3-billion other comprehensive loss was due mainly to actuarial losses on pensions and other employee future benefits recorded by enterprise Crown corporations and other government business enterprises as well as unrealized losses on the revaluation of the Government's holdings of General Motors common shares. The federal debt increased by an additional $3.3 billion in 2011-12 due to one-time adjustments related to enterprise Crown corporations' and other government business enterprises' transition from Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The most significant impact of the transition to IFRS related to a change in enterprise Crown corporations' and other government business enterprises' accounting poliCies for pensions and other employee future benefits.

Table 3 Federal Debt (Accumulated Deficit) $ millions

http://www.fin.gc.calafr-rfal20 12/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 6 of26 H%~ -;~:~

The following chart shows the federal debt since 1990-91. The federal debt stood at 33.8 per cent of GOP in 2011-12, down from 33.9 per cent in 2010-11 and less than half of its post-World War II peak of 68.4 per cent at March 31, 1996.

krederal .Debt (Accumulated Deficit) billions of donat, per cent of GO? 600 100 II§) 18ft scale - right scale l

o o 1990- 1993- 1996- 1999.... 2002- 2005- 2008- 2011- 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2Q06 2009 2012 t- I sou_rces: Public Accounts of Canada and Statistics Canada.

Measures of Government Debt

The consolidated financial statements of the Government of Canada are presented on an accrual basis of accounting. On this basis, there are several generally accepted definitions of government debt.

Net debt represents the total liabilities of the Government less its financial assets. Financial assets include cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, foreign exchange accounts, and loans, investments and advances.

The accumulated deficit is equal to total liabilities less total assets-both financial and non-financial. Non­ financial assets include tangible capital assets, such as land and buildings, inventories and prepaid expenses. The annual change in the accumulated deficit is equal to the budgetary balance plus other comprehensive income or loss.

Other comprehensive income or loss represents certain unrealized gains or losses on financial instruments and certain actuarial gains and losses related to pensions and other employee future benefits reported by enterprise Crown corporations and other government business enterprises. In accordance with accounting standards issued by the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, other comprehensive income or loss is not included in the Government's annual budgetary balance, but is instead recorded in the Government's Consolidated Statement of Accumulated Deficit and Consolidated Statement of Change in Net Debt.

http://www.fin.gc.caJafr-rfaJ2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 70f26

The federal debt, referred to in the budget documents and the Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada, is the accumulated deficit. It is the federal government's main measure of debt. The following table shows net debt and the federal debt at March 31, 2012.

Net Debt and the Federal Debt at March 31, 2012

c----.. =_._. ___ .... __ .....m ___._._-. .. ~ ...... ~ ~.. r--·---($-bm~~,..,.··".".,...,.... - .. -(~~'

..-.-. --.-._------._._---_._. ~.- .. -.,...... -.-.•.. --.-.... .

INet debt : 650.11 37.8 I __ .. ___ .. __ ·__ .___ .... H ...... _.__ • ____•• __ .....____ •• __ --.1-.-...... ---.-...--- ... 1------.- iLess: Non-financial assets i 68.01 3.9 1~~;~;~~~:~~~(:~~~~~~I~t~dd~~lt)-················ ...... -- .. ···-·,,·t=·-=-~8~~~:=·::=-·~:.... ~~~~~1 • ...... ~ .. ~~~~ON"".40:~~~~~,.-«~.·.-~.'I'!'JW"~~~l!':X~••;::m(:~;:~: ... ;~~~ __'"__~'"": .... t_~1~.:.4.¥.)~M~io-X~~~¥~.oI_~~~:r~$J ..... ,,+...... """"""'~_ ..... ~+I'''"''''''''~rt~..... "_"""""""'~,,_,..,, .... """. __...... ~ Net Debt

The net debt is the difference between the Government's total liabilities and its financial assets. Under this measure of debt, liabilities are reduced only by financial assets as non-financial assets cannot normally be converted to cash to payoff the debt without disrupting government operations. At the end of 2011-12, the Government's net debt stood at $650.1 billion, up $33.2 billion from 2010-11.

The net debt ratio-net debt expressed as a percentage of GOP-measures debt relative to the ability of the country's taxpayers to finance it. The following chart shows the net debt ratio since 1990-91. The ratio stood at 37.8 per cent in 2011-12, down 0.2 percentage pOints from a year earlier, and over 36 percentage pOints below its peak of 73.9 per cent in the mid-1990s. ------.-.--.. ---.. ------.. ------.--... ------.. -.------.. ------l ~~~~ I ~ I

1990- 1993- 1996- 1999- 2002- 20()5.. 2008- 2011- Net Debt 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 I'~~~~~~:' ~~~Ii~~CCO~~~ of ;"na~a ~nd Sta~ist;cs ~a~~~~ •. " ...... ···································1 L_ ... _...... ______.___ .___ .. __ .__ ...... ____ .______... ___ .. __ .______.______.__ .. ___ ..... ____ ..... __ ...... ______._.. ______. __ .. _.. J International Comparisons of Government Debt

http://www.fm.gc.ca/afr-rfa/20 12/report-rapport-eng.asp 1/15/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-20 12 Page 8 of26

International comparisons of net debt are made on a total government, National Accounts basis, which for Canada includes the net debt of the federal, provincial/territorial and local governments, as well as the net assets held in the Canada Pen sion Plan and Quebec Pension Plan. Further details on the ca lculation of Canada's net debt, along with a reconciliation of federal net debt on a National Accounts basis and a Public Accounts basis, are provided in the annex.

Canada's total government net debt-to-GDP ratio stood at 33.3 per cent in 2011, as shown in the following chart. Th is is by far the lowest level among G-7 countries, which the DECD estimates will record an average net debt of 80.4 per cent of GDP for that same year.

'G-7 Total Government Net Debt, 2011 per cent of GOP 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

o C;:l:nad3 G6rmany Un!t&ct Unll6d Klngdom Statss

1 Weighted by GDP on a purchasing power parity basis. Source: OECO Economic Outlook, No. 91 (May 2012) .

Financial Source/Requirement

The financial source/requirement measures the difference between cash coming in to the Government and cash going out. It differs from the budgetary balance, which measures revenues and expenses as they are earned or incurred rather than when the associated cash is received or paid.

There was a financial requirement of $32.4 billion in 2011-12, compared to a financial requirement of $46.2 billion in 2010-11. Th e decrease in the financial requirement reflects the improvement in the budgetary balance as well as a decrease in the financial requirement from transactions affecting the Government's accounts payable and accounts receivable. These decreases were offset in part by an increase in the financial requirement from foreign exchange activities.

Revenues

Revenues totalled $245.2 billion in 2011-12, up $8.1 bi llion, or 3.4 per cent, from 2010-11 (Table 4). The increase over the prior year was due primarily to growth in tax revenues from an expanding economy.

The following chart illustrates the composition of revenues for 2011-12. The largest source of federal revenues is personal income tax revenues, which accounted for 48.6 per cent of total revenues in 2011-12. The second largest source was corporate income tax revenues at 12.9 per cent. Goods and Services Tax

http://www.fin.gc.calafr-rfal20 12/report -rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 20 11-2012 Page 9 of26

(GST) revenues were 11.6 per cent of revenues while other taxes and duties were 6.0 per cent. Other revenues contributed 11.1 per cent of revenues in 2011-12, EI premium revenues contributed 7.6 per cent, and non-resident income tax revenues made up t he remaining 2.2 per cent of revenues.

r Composition of Revenues for 2011-12

I Nan-resident income IAII 22"

Source: Public Accounts of Canada.

Personal income tax revenues increased by $5.8 billion, or 5.1 per cent, in 2011-12, reflecting gains in personal income.

Despite reductions in the corporate income tax rate, corporate income tax revenues increased by $1.7 billion, or 5.8 per cent, in 2011-12, reflecting continued growth in corporate profits.

Non-resident income tax revenues were up $0 .2 billion, or 3.2 per cent, in 2011-12, largely due to prior- yea r reassessments.

Other taxes and duties increased by $0.2 billion, or 0.5 per cent, from the prior yea r, driven by a $0.3- billion, or 9.7-per-cent, increase in customs import duties. GST revenues were relatively stable as higher consumption was offset by timing issues related to input tax credits claimed relative to gross GST assessed. Energy taxes decreased by $14 million, and other excise taxes and duties decreased by $0.1 billion.

EI premium revenues increased by $1.1 billion, or 6.0 per cent, from the previous year, reflecting growth in insurable earnings and premium rates of $1.78 and $1.83 per $100 of insurable earnings for 2011 and 2012, respectively.

Other revenues decreased by $0.9 billion, or 3.0 per cent, in 2011-12. This decline was largely attributable to a $0.9-billion decrease in revenues from Crown co rporations. Profits of enterprise Crown corporations decreased by $1.6 billion in 2011-12, reflecting an increase in expenses associated with provisions for credit losses and claims in 2011-12 and a net loss at Canada Post Corporation in 2011-12 com pared to a net profit in 2010-11. This decrease also reflects one-time factors which raised 2010-11 revenues and did not recur in 2011-12, the most significant of which is gains realized in 2010-11 on the Government's sale of common sha res in General Motors as part of the automaker's initial public offering in November 2010. This $1.6-billion decrease was partially offset by a $0.7-billion increase in revenues of consolidated Crown corporations, largely reflecting an increase in commercial trading operations of the Canadian Commercial Corporation.

http://www.tin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/20 12/report -rapport -eng.asp 1115 /2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fi~cal Year 2011-2012 Page 10 of26

The revenue ratio-revenues as a percentage of GDP-compares the total of all federal revenues to the size of the economy. This ratio is influenced by changes in statutory tax rates and by economic developments. The following chart illustrates the revenue ratio since 1990-91. The ratio stood at 14.2 per cent in 2011-12, down 0.3 percentage pOints from 2010-11, reflecting the impact of previously announced tax reduction measures and the decrease in other revenues. The ratio has been declining gradually since 2001-02, and is down significantly from an average of 18 per cent over the period 1996-97 to 2000-01. This decline is due primarily to tax reduction measures. Since 2008-09, the revenue ratio has been at its lowest level in more than 50 years.

II!lVonUQ as a. per cent of GOP 20 ------

,..-- ,- '8 --- r- c- ,- r---- __ r- 16 r=-- --

-- __ r- - - -

12 1990- 1993- 1996- 1999- 2002- 2005- 2006- 1011- Revenue Ratio 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Sources: Public Accounts of Canada and Statistics Canada.

Table 4 I Revenues

I T 2010-111 2011-12 Net change ------,-- I I ~- ($ millions) . ~ millions) - l _ ($ miliiOns)l· (%) Tax revenues 1 I -- c------;- Income tax ------Personal -, 113,457 119,26} 5,81. 5.1 Corporate 29,969 1,733 5.8 I 1 31,70 ~ , Non-resident 5,1371 --5,300 161 3.2 ------~ - Total 148,563 156,271 7,708' 5.2 i, ~ T I Other taxes and duties -~ Goods and Services Tax 28,379L 28,370' -9' 0.0 - Energy taxes _ 5, 3421 5,32J--- -14 -0.3j _Customs import duties 3,520 3,86 342 Other excise taxes a nd duties 5,662 5,546 -116' -2.0 L "1 Total 42,9031 20]! 0 .5,

T T,,+=-I +::::IOV' rouon"o,"" 1 Q14/i ..1 1 QQ . 't77; 7 _Q11 41 1

http://www.fin.gc.calafr-rfal2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1/ 15/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 20 11-2012 Page II of26

Employment Insurance premium revenues 17,5011 18,556 1,05 ~ Other revenues 6'1 Crown corporations 12,937 12,024 -9J -7.1

Other programs 13,3781 __ 13,57 ~ 199 1.5 -+ - Net foreign exchange 1,8091 1,669 - 14~ -7.7

28,12 ~ 27, 2701 -85 ~ -3 .0 b~ffi ______~-__-~_- __ _ ii I ,Total revenues I 237,09 ~ 245,2031 S,llr- ~te: Numbers may not add due to rounding. ~ Expenses

Expenses consist of program expenses and public debt cha rges. In 2011-12, expenses amounted to $271.4 billion, up $1.0 billion, or 0.4 per cent, from 2010-11.

The chart below shows the composition of expenses for 2011-12. Major transfers to persons (elderly, EI and chi ldren's benefits) and major transfers to other levels of government (the Canada Health Transfer, the Canada Social Transfer, fiscal arrangements, transfers to provinces on behalf of Canada's cities and communities, other transfers and the Quebec Abatement) were the two largest components of expenses in 2011-12, representing 25.2 per cent and 20.9 per cent of expenses, respectively.

The remaining elements of program expenses (other transfer payments, Crown corporation expenses, and operat ing expenses of departments and agencies, including National Defence) make up the Government's direct program expenses. Operating costs of government departments and agencies, excluding National Defence, made up 18.3 per cent of total expenses in 2011-12. Operating costs include items such as salaries and benefits, amortization of facilities and equipment, and supplies. Operating expenses of National Defence accounted for 8.4 per cent of expenses. Other transfer payments, which include transfers made by various federal departments and agencies to individuals, businesses and other organizations and groups, made up 12.7 per cent of total expenses in 2011-12, and Crown corporation expenses accounted for 3.0 per cent of expenses.

Public debt charges amounted to 11.5 per cent of expenses in 2011-12. This is down from a peak of nearly 30 per ce nt in the mid-1990s, when public debt charges were the largest component of spending.

IComposition of Expenses for 2011-12

MaJor lransf9I'$ to other leVels of go ~' emment 20.9"

CIO>V/Tl corporations 3.tl% /' Opec£lthg expenses Nalional Defence "\ of departMflnts- and :lQ6I"ICi 6S 8.4% (Wlclu din9 National Defence) 18.3%

http://www.fin.gc.calafr-rfal20 12/report -rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 12 of 26

----::-::-.~-..... -.... -.--.... ~

Program expenses amounted to $240.4 billion in 2011-12, up $0.8 billion, or 0.3 per cent, from 2010-11 (Table 5).

Within program expenses, major transfers to persons increased by $0.3 billion, or 0.4 per cent, in 2011-12.

• Elderly benefits consist of Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement and Allowance payments. Total benefits were up $2.4 billion, or 6.8 per cent, in 2011-12, reflecting the introduction of the Guaranteed Income Supplement top-up benefit in July 2011, as well as growth in the elderly population and changes in consumer prices, to which benefits are fully indexed. • EI benefits consist of regular benefits, special benefits (sickness, maternity, parental, adoption and fishing) and work-sharing agreements. Total benefits decreased by $2.2 billion, or 11.1 per cent, in 2011-12, due mainly to a decrease in regular benefits, reflecting a lower unemployment rate. • Children's benefits, which include the Canada Child Tax Benefit and the Universal Child Care Benefit, increased by $0.1 billion, or 0.6 per cent.

Major transfers to other levels of government include the Canada Health Transfer (CHT), the Canada Social Transfer (CST), fiscal arrangements (Equalization, transfers to the territories, as well as a number of smaller transfer programs), transfers to provinces on behalf of Canada's cities and communities, other transfers and the Quebec Abatement. These transfers increased by $4.0 billion, or 7.6 per cent, compared to 2010-11.

• The CHT and CST-block-funded transfers-support health care, post-secondary education, social assistance and social services, including early childhood development. These programs provide support in the form of cash and tax transfers to the provinces and territories. Transfers in support of health and other social programs increased by $1.5 billion in 2011-12. • Total entitlements under fiscal arrangements increased by $1.6 billion in 2011-12, reflecting legislated growth in Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing payments, higher transfer protection payments to provinces, and payments under the 2005 Offshore Arrangements. • Transfers to provinces on behalf of Canada's cities and communities increased by $0.5 billion in 2011- 12. • Other transfers increased by $0.6 billion, reflecting $2.2 billion in federal assistance to Quebec for sales tax harmonization, offset in part by the recording of $1.6 billion receivable from British Columbia for the repayment of Harmonized Sales Tax transitional assistance. • The Quebec Abatement is a recovery from the Province of Quebec for an additional tax point transfer (16.5 points) above and beyond the CHT and CST tax point transfers. The $0.2-billion increase in this recovery was due to an increase in the value of personal income tax pOints in 2011-12 compared to 2010 -11.

Direct program expenses decreased from $118.7 billion in 2010-11 to $115.2 billion in 2011-12, or 2.9 per cent.

• Other transfer payments decreased by $5.5 billion, or 13.6 per cent, over the prior year. This decrease reflects declines across a number of departments, including a decline in infrastructure transfers, consistent with the wind-down of the stimulus phase of Canada's Economic Action Plan, the revaluation of the Government's liability to Ontario for the province's one third participation in the value of the Government's common shares in General Motors, and the wind-down in 2010-11 of Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments to Newfoundland and Labrador under the terms of the 1985 Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord. • Other direct program expenses increased from $78.7 billion in 2010-11 to $80.7 billion in 2011-12, up $2.0 billion, or 2.5 per cent.

http://www.fm.gc.calafr-rfal2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 20 11-20 12 Page 13 of26

o Expenses related to Crown corporations increased by $0.6 billion, or 8 .1 pe r cen t, compared to 2010 -11, largely reflecting an increase in expenses of t he Canadian Com mercial Corporation under its co mmercial t rading operations. These expenses are fully offset by revenues generated from t hese operations recorded as part of other revenues.

o National Defence expenses increased by $1.5 billion, or 7.1 per cen t.

o All other departmental and agency expenses decreased by $0.2 billion, or 0.3 per cent, reflecting a decrease in expenses associated wit h t he Government's contingent liabil ities, as we ll as a decrease in expenses associated with other em pl oyee future benefit s, refl ecting one-tim e costs recorded in 2010-11 . These decreases we re largely offset by the recording of a liability for expected workforce adjustment costs associated with departmental spending reductions announced in t he Ma rch 29, 2012 budget, and an increase in bad debt expenses associated with tax receivables .

Public debt cha rges increased by $0.2 bi llion, or 0 .5 per ce nt, to $31.0 bill ion in 2011-12, refl ecting a higher stock of interest-bea ri ng debt, offse t in part by a decrease in t he average effective interest rate on t he stock of interest -beari ng debt.

The fo llowing chart illustrates the interest ratio (public debt cha rges as a percentage of revenues) since 1990 -91. This ratio has been decreasing in recent yea rs, falling from 37.6 per cent in 1990- 9 1 to 12.7 per ce nt in 2011- 12. This means that, in 2011-12, t he Government spent less t han 13 cents of every revenue doll ar on interest on t he public debt. The lower t he ratiO, t he more flex ibi lity the Government has to address the key priorit ies of Ca nadians.

public40 ------debt charges as a per oenl ot revenues ,......

~ -- '-'- ,...... 1""'" 30 --

r- :-- --

,...... ~ 20 - r- r- ,......

10 If] 1 JI'IDO 1990- 1993- 1996- 1999- 2002- 2005- 2009- 2011 - ~ nte rest Ratio 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

I Sou rce : Public Accounts of Canada. 1 Table 5 IE xpenses 2010-111 2011-12 Net change] -----====~ I I ($ mili ions)1 ($ mili ions)1 ($ millions) (%) Major transfers to persons i Elderly benefits ---- 2,416 6.8 ~ Em ployment Insurance benefits 19,850 17,647, - -2,203' -11.1 --; Children 's benefits 12,656 12,726 70 0.61 "" M"" I I r Tnt:::ll hR .1"'1 hR .41 R )R~ n 41

http://www.fin.gc.calafr-rfal20 12/report -rapport -eng.asp 11 15/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 14 of26

I t~------I ~ ...... - .. ----...... -.. --...... -.-- ...... ----.----- ... ~ .. --... -.---.."" .-... -.--..... -.-...... -.... -...... ·· .. ······-····t.-.. ··· .. -... - ... ------.. -.- .... - ...... ------.. - ...... J..... --....--- ...... -...- .. '1".... _ ...... - .....-.-- lMajor transfers to other levels of government ! J i--· ..-- .. --.. - ..- ...... ----~ .. ----.... --..--- .. --.. --...... ---- ...... -..... -.--.. -.. -----... -----.. -:------.----.. -- 1·-.... - .... ----.. I Support for health and other social programs I 37 ,210 38,68~ 1,4781 4.0 r-- -- ! j- i Fiscal arrangements I 17,577 19,188 1,611! 9.2 l-§i~;i-g~~:=~=~==~n=t,e~=-~~-- .....•.. ··:-~ ••• ~.. ·.• :.·.[-=~=~~=l ~==~~ =~==~.=;~~.~2~.~ I Quebec Abatement I' -3,751 -3,929 -17~ 4.7 1------·- .. ------·-·---·-_·-·-·----··---- .. -· .. ---·------·- .. ·.. -· ..··------t·------.. ·- .. ------.---.-.. --.---- .. - .. -.~ .. -... --.....

I Total------.. ----~----·· 52,787156,79~ 4,~071 _~7.6

1-'-"--""" I I~I~~~=~~---~------~-~t-=-~-=---=-~-~-~-·------l-=-..--- .. ·------i-··----~I I Other transfer payments I 39,967 34,513 -5,4541 -13.6 rc::~i~:::~:~i~n: expenses __ .=_~ 7,5841 8,i9~---·--6*-~·-~ I ~ii~i~:~·~;;~~~~~ and ag~~~i~~--.··...... -·+·-!~~~··--~H~l--·~~~~-=~~~l t---·.. ··-··----- .. ---·--... --...... -.--...... -.-... -...... ---...... -...... - ...... ------.. "---"-'1".-" .. _...... _ ... _-_.- .-.-.-..-- .. ------,----- .-.-... --... -- ... ,... -... ---... -.--.-.... , I Total otherd~ct~gra~expens~s ~~=. 1 78,703r 80,67~ 1,96~ 2~ t~~~~~L~I~~~~~i~~~~~~~~s~~------...:-.==-J::-J!~~~~=.=T~~!~~~~:=-~~~·.~= •• ·~~~~ i~.-- ... ------.--...... ------.... --.------+ . ITotal program expenses ! 239,592 240,397 8051 0.3 f- . -----,,·--·.. ---·----....,------· ... ·-r 30871 31,026 155! 5 1~~~.I_i.~.9.~.~~ .. ~~~E~.~.~ .. "...... 1...... _...... _._ ...! ... __ .... __ ...... ____ .... ___ ... _... _.... _._"." ...... "." ...., ...... "...... J 0. i r ~t;;I;;;~~;~~-- ...... --. __ .--.-- ... --.=== .... ·-···-·--T---m:46ili7i;~-·--960[:····-O:-··

lNote: Numbers_~ay not add due to rounding. ~~,~.~ .. ~~ __ .. ~~~_._~._. The Budgetary Balance and Financial Source/Requirement

The budgetary balance is the most comprehensive measure of the federal government's fiscal results. It is presented on an accrual basis of accounting, recording government expenses when th~y are incurred, regardless of when the cash payment is made, and recording tax revenues when earned, regardless of when the cash is received.

In contrast, the financial source/requirement measures the difference between cash coming in to the Government and cash going out. It differs from the budgetary balance in that it includes cash transactions in loans, investments and advances, public sector pension accounts, other specified purpose accounts, foreign exchange activities, and changes in other financial assets, liabilities and non-financial assets. These activities are included as part of non-budgetary transactions.

Non-budgetary transactions also include adjustments for the effects of non-cash items included in the budgetary balance and for any accruals of past or future cash receipts or payments. Examples of non-cash items include amortization of tangible capital assets, pension expenses not funded in the period, and the recognition of previously deferred revenue.

Non-budgetary transactions resulted in a net requirement for funds amounting to $6.2 billion in 2011-12, compared to a net requirement for funds of $12.8 billion in 2010-11.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/20 12/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 15 of26

With a budgetary deficit of $26.2 billion and a net requirement from non-budgetary transactions of $6.2 billion, there was a financial requirement of $32.4 billion in 2011-12, compared to a financial requirement of $46.2 billion in 2010-11 (Table 6).

The Government financed this financial requirement of $32.4 billion and increased its cash balances by $2.8 billion by increasing unmatured debt by $35.2 billion. The increase in unmatured debt was achieved largely through the issuance of marketable bonds.

Cash balances at the end of March 2012 stood at $17.1 billion, up $2.8 billion from their level at the end of March 2011. Under the Government's new prudential liquidity plan, as set out in the Debt Management Strategy for 2011-12, the Government's liquidity position will increase by about $35 billion by the end of 2013-14. Government deposits held with financial instit~tions and the Bank of Canada will increase by about $25 billion and liquid foreign exchange reserves will increase by US$10 billion. When the prudential liquidity plan is fully implemented, the Government's overall liquidity levels will cover at least one month of the net projected cash requirements, including interest payments and debt refinancing needs. Included in the $17.1- billion balance of cash at March 31, 2012 is $4 billion which has been designated as a deposit held with respect to prudential liquidity management.

Table 6 Budgetary Balance, Financial Source/Requirement and Net Financing Activities $ billions

r------.-.------"~~-~-.------'M'----ml· --2010-111 2011-12 ._;.. ___-.....' ____ .. _ ...... __.__ ~_""'_._ ...~ ...... ____...... _' ... .._ __... "" .. r ..... '~ ..-.r' .. ~ •. r~~'.~v~_., ...... v.y .... ,...... _...-,,..-."'~,_~_ ..... ____ ""'"" .... _~ .."_-.~ ..__ ... --.-...... -,,,,.,.,..... __,,_...-.-"""-"""'.~ WWoH.~ ... _',..,....w~"'.,...... ;.1 ___ ~eficit for the yei!.~._.. _ .. _""._ ... _... _... __ ,..... _._.« ______• ______.~ ___ .~~._.j.__ -33.1 -26. INon-budgetary transactions l ! ~~;~~~~~==-~-==~~~=~====!t-=-=-}~ l_~ther liabilities ___ ~ .. _.. =~~:=~-.-=~~~'~~~~~=~===~~~=--."~_~ .,~~~~:~=~=--l -~=~=~~~ ~ __ } tT~tai- ...... -...... • ~..:j ...7.~-· 5:?!

t-··-·-·---····-·--··---·-·~------.. -·------· ...... -----··----··.. ·--···------·-----.. ··--t--··-·--.. ----,--'-"---'--:1 ! Non-financial assets ; -3.2j -1.41 t, - ·_ .._·_-·------·-·------.. i---· .. ----~ J~?ans, investments and advances .. ______.. ______._ .. _1: ____ ~}-.-_--0.01 ! Other transactions ! ! I ... ·-·!-··.. -...... 1 .. - ! Accounts payable, receivable, accruals and allowances : -11.3 -2.0, l~=~~~:~~:~Il::~~~lt~e:_ .. _.. .._ ..... =~~~_~~_~~~~~==:~~-~=~E=·:~-=~:~:~~.=:=~~5I I Total -12.9, -10. d ! ______~_~ ____~_~_~_~~ ______~~_:~, __ .- ____T _____~ __~ ____• ___ .. _.____ • :j l _. '. __ . j .. _.1 . i Tot~i·~on-budgetary transactions ...... _.. ··· .. ··· .... ··-.. -.. ··r-·----·-·-~12.~·-··.. -··-·-· --=-6~'~ r·--· .. ·...... ··--··---·· ..... -.- .. -.__ .-... -.- .. -----.... ---- ... -... - ...... -._ ..... :-...... --...... --- .-.. -; ...... _- .. -.... ·--.. ·---~1 IFi~·~~-cl~1 requirement - ----~----.- ---... -----.. -.-----.-... ··-r· .... -- -46·21 -_. -32.4} . ------.---.---.------.-..... - ...... -.-... ..--.... -.------t------I !Net change in financing activities : j 1 t--·------... ------""''''''''''-''''-'''''------..,...------··.. --·--T--··-··---~ i Marketable bonds (Canadian currency) : 48.11 32.~11 i .... _~_,..___ _..... ·~ ____. ______.... __... ,., ...... ,'.",..., __ "'~"'_·'""H· ..... ______+.... - ... ." .. ~ ..,,------; ------; Treasury bills ! -12. ~ O. [~~:!~~~L~ __ ...... --::~~~:==:-=~~-=.<~l::~:~-:~~J http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 16 of26

! f ' "'T~t~I"~ ...... ~ ...... ~-.~-.--...... - .. --...... -...... _-_ ...... _... _...... _... -...·· ..-·--.-- .. -.·-·.-·.-.· .. ··1-.·.--·'··"·'ii·cr·· '~""-'."'-js.-' Jr· .. --·----·-·----·------.-...... --.. ---..... ·-...... ------.----.. ----.. -b-I ___::1 ______

I ------i ' IChange in cash balances I -14.1: 2. ;Cash at end of year I 14.3: 17.1 l.--'- ... ~--.---~.-." .. --"" .. -.-.---" ... -.-.-", .... -.. -.. -...... --- ...... -...... - ...... -.... "- ...... --...... "" .. -- .. -.. -...... -.. _... -.... _.... ---...... --.. -.. ------...... __ ._.L ...... ---- iNote: Numbers may not add due to roundinjJ_. __.. _._. __...... ___~ ______rt •• ____ • ____... __ .--1 Federal Debt Liabilities

The Government's liabilities consist of interest-bearing debt and accounts payable and accrued liabilities. Interest-bearing debt includes unmatured debt, liabilities for pensions and other employee future benefits, and other liabilities. At March 31, 2012, interest-bearing debt amounted to $842.7 billion, up $40.9 billion from a year earlier (Table 7). Within interest-bearing debt, unmatured debt increased by $35.2 billion while liabilities for pensions and other employee future benefits increased by $5.1 billion. Other liabilities, which include deposit and trust accounts and other specified purpose accounts, increased by $0.6 billion. The increase in unmatured debt, mainly marketable bonds, primarily reflects financing requirements associated with the budgetary deficit.

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities amounted to $125.0 billion at March 31, 2012, up $5.9 billion from the close of 2010-11. The increase is largely attributable to a $2.3-billion increase in taxes payable and $3.5-billion increase in other accounts payable and accrued liabilities. The $3.5-billion increase in other accounts payable and accrued liabilities reflects a number of factors including the recording of a liability for expected workforce adjustment costs, a $2.7-billion increase in liabilities under provincial, territorial and Aboriginal tax agreements, and the accrual of $2.2 billion in federal assistance to Quebec for sales tax harmonization. These increases were offset in part by reductions in accounts payable and accrued liabilities during the year due to the payment of $1.9 billion in final installments to British Columbia and Ontario for Harmonized Sales Tax transitional assistance accrued in 2009-10 and to the amortization of deferred spectrum licence fees received in 2008-09. These fees are being recognized as part of other revenues on a straight-line basis over the 10-year term of the licences.

Assets

The Government's assets consist of financial assets (cash and other accounts receivable, including tax receivables; foreign exchange accounts; and loans, investments and advances) and non-financial assets (tangible capital assets, inventories and prepaid expenses).

Financial assets totalled $317.6 billion at March 31, 2012, up $13.6 billion from March 31, 2011.

Cash and other accounts receivable increased by $3.4 billion.

Tax receivables increased by $7.4 billion, reflecting growth in tax revenues and a full year of Harmonized Sales Tax in British Columbia and Ontario.

Foreign exchange accounts increased by $8.5 billion over the prior year, due mainly to an increase in the Government's international reserves held in the Exchange Fund Account, consistent with the Government's new prudential liquidity plan.

The Government's investment in enterprise Crown corporations and other government business enterprises decreased by $5.0 billion in 2011-12, as the increase in the value of the Government's investment due to net profits recorded by these corporations and enterprises during the year was more than offset by other comprehensive losses recorded by Crown corporations and by one-time adjustments arising from their http://www.fin.gc.caJafr-rfaJ2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 17 of26

transition to IFRS accounting standards. The Government's investment was further reduced as a result of dividends paid by Crown corporations during the year and a share repurchase by the Business Development Bank of Canada.

Loans and advances to enterprise Crown corporations decreased by $2.0 billion in 2011-12, due mainly to a decrease in loans to Crown corporations under the consolidated borrowing framework.

Other loans, investments and advances decreased by $0.6 billion, from $22.9 billion to $22.3 billion, reflecting the repayment during the year of loans issued to Chrysler, as well as an increase in the Government's allowance against the value of its loans, investments and advances to reflect reductions from the recorded value of these assets to their approximate net realizable value. These decreases were offset in part by the recording of a receivable from British Columbia for the repayment of Harmonized Sales Tax transitional assistance and increases in the Government's loans and advances to international organizations.

The Government's net debt (total liabilities less financial assets) stood at $650.1 billion at March 31, 2012, up $33.2 billion from March 31, 2011.

Non-financial assets amounted to $68.0 billion at March 31, 2012, up $1.4 billion from March 31, 2011.

Federal Debt (Accumulated DefiCit)

With total liabilities of $967.7 billion, financial assets of $317.6 billion and non-financial assets of $68.0 billion, the federal debt (accumulated deficit) stood at $582.2 billion at March 31, 2012, up $31.8 billion from March 31, 2011. The federal debt stood at 33.8 per cent of GDP at March 31, 2012, down from 33.9 per cent the previous year.

Table 7 Outstanding Debt at Year-End $ billions

http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 18 of26

i "-"-.-,,~-- .. ----.,-.,-,------,,,--,-.---.--.-.. ,,,.,~-.. ~·-·~·-"·"-·""-·---·----·----·--"--·-r---·-···--··-·-I--.-.-...... - .. -~--.-.- 'Federal debt (accumulated deficit) ! 550.31 582. INote:~- Numbers may not .add due to rou_n_di_n.::,g_. ______. ---..------Comparison of Actual Budgetary Outcomes to Projected Results

This section compares the actual outcome for the major components of the budgetary balance for 2011-12 to the Government's most recent projections for 2011-12 set out in the March 2012 budget. The Government estimated a deficit of $24.9 billion for 2011-12 in the March 2012 budget. The final audited budgetary deficit for 2011-12 was $26.2 billion.

Revenues were $2.8 billion lower than expected, largely reflecting lower-than-expected tax revenues, which were affected by the slowing of economic growth at the end of the fiscal year. Program expenses were $1. 5 billion lower than forecast, reflecting lower-than-expected year-end accrual adjustments.

Table 8 Comparison of Actual Outcomes to March 2012 Budget $ billions

http://www.fin.gc.caJafr-rfaJ2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 19 of26

...... -3.9: 1 -3.91 ...... __ .... _.... 0.0

Independent Auditor's Report

To the Minister of Finance

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements, which comprise the condensed consolidated statement of financial position as at 31 March 2012, the condensed consolidated statement of operations and accumulated deficit, condensed consolidated statement of change in net debt and condensed consolidated statement of cash flow for the year then ended, and related notes, are derived from the audited consolidated financial statements of the Government of Canada for the year ended 31 March 2012. I expressed an unmodified audit opinion on those consolidated financial statements in my report dated 30 August 2012.

The condensed consolidated financial statements do not contain all the disclosures required by Canadian public sector accounting standards. Reading the condensed consolidated financial statements, therefore, is not a substitute for reading the audited consolidated financial statements of the Government of Canada.

The Government's Responsibility for the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

The Government is responsible for the preparation of the condensed consolidated financial statements on the basis described in Note 1.

Auditor's Responsibility

My responsibility is to express an opinion on the condensed consolidated financial statements based on my procedures, which were conducted in accordance with Canadian Auditing Standard (CAS) 810, "Engagements to Report on Summary Financial Statements".

Opinion

In my opinion, the condensed consolidated financial statements derived from the audited consolidated financial statements of the Government of Canada for the year ended 31 March 2012 are a fair summary of those consolidated financial statements, on the basis described in Note 1.

Michael Ferguson, FCA Auditor General of Canada 30 August 2012 Ottawa, Canada Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of the Government of Canada http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1/15/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 20 of26

The fundamental purpose of these condensed consolidated financial statements is to provide an overview of the financial affairs and resources for which the Government is responsible under authority granted by Parliament. Responsibility for the integrity and objectivity of these statements rests with the Government.

Table 9 Government of Canada Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations and Accumulated Deficit for the Year Ended March 31, 2012 $ millions

2012 2012 2011 r- Budget1 Actual Actual I···· ...... _...... j ...... - ...... -...... ~Revenues . ~ ...... - ...... -...-- •. --...... - .. - ....-- ...... -.. - ...... - ...... -...... - ...... __ .-,_...... - ...... _-- ~ ..-- ... --:-...... --....-- ...... -..-- .... I Income tax revenues I 157,845 156,271 148,563 ...... -.------.. -.. -...... ----.-.-.. - ...... ~ .. ---..... --...... ---.. -...... - .... ----.---.----.. --1 .. --..... ------~ ----..... ------... - ----.... --..... ------Other taxes and duties I 44,848 43,106 42,903: -" .- .-.. -. --_.. : Employment insurance premiums 18,851 18,556 -----17,501' Other revenues 27,555 27,270 28,124 ...... _ ...... ".----.-." ...... _...... - ...... _._--_ ...... - -"'----- .. -...... --..- --_...... _... _...... _...... _...... __...... _ ... _. __...... __.... - .... _ ...... _--_...... _--_ .... __ ...... ---.. -...... --- ..... -...... ---_...... -...... -y------ttotal revenues _. 249,099 245,203 237,091

iExpenses I I

http://www.fm.gc.calafr-rfal2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1/15/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 21 of26

!Certain comparative figures have been reclassified to conform to the current year's presentation. n-he accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements. 1 11 Derived from the June 2011 Budget Plan (Budget 2011). Budget 2011 amounts have been restated to $ lreflect the reclassification of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation - Minister's Account from a 'consolidated Crown corporation to an enterprise Crown corporation in 2011-2012. This restatement has Iresulted in a $2,217 million decrease in budgeted Crown corporation expenses and a $2,217 million increase iin budgeted expenses for other transfer payments, with no overall impact on the 2011-2012 annual deficit. I E.~~Jjusted to the actual clO~1!!2~~.~~n~ o.f~~~!.pr~ous ye~r .. _u~.~A"._~,,",.="~__ . __ ,,~,... __~. _____. .

Table 10 Government of Canada Condensed Consolidated Statement of Financial Position as at March 31, 2012 $ millions ~i'iti~~--:====-----~"=--==---==-'====~=-r='=~::=~ 1 Accounts payable and acc~~·~d~li~b~litie;-·~-~--~~=~~~~.~__ .. ___r ____ .. 125,0~~l ___.~_119,060 I In~~:::~~::r~~b:ebt ----·.. ·-,------··-·---,·----·-..-·------·-1 ---- 626,352~ 591,155 i . ------._.-... -~ --..... ----.------. . -··f········ __ ····" ,--, .,_., ... - .. .._.--- -_ .. -.'--' ~-~~~~~-.~-~~-~~.~~~-!~_~~Te.~~~.~~~ ...... _...... _._~._...... _ .+...... _... 20~!.. ~~~._._._ .. _ 204,3.~!j I Other liabilities I 6,933[ 6,315 --.-.--.. ~.=~.. -.~~=~~.. -.-.-... ---.--...... ~==:~==.=_~=·~~===·.~~·~.·=_·~=~~.~·=~==·~=~t=~~_.···-'--...... ------.. -.----.--.. -.... 711 I Total interest-bearing debt _,,_~u .. ___ ,_.,,_~__ ~__ 842, 1 801,811 1········· .. ·.. ·.. ---··.. ······ .. ·.. ·-· .. ··· .. ·-.... ······· " ...... ,...... ---...... -...... -~-.... - ...... _...... _" ...... ,. ,··· .. ···· .. ·.. ·t····· .. ·.. ······ .. ·· .. ·· .. -·-··-···-·~i - ..... -.-.", ...... --...-- ,Total liabilities I 967,7141 920,871 ~ ...... _ .•• - .. _--.•.-.-_ ...... , ...... , .•.• _ .•.... _.. _._..... _ ...... _ .•...... , ...... _._.1...... _--'-_...... _ ...... _ ...... _ ...... _ IFinancial assets iii I-i:;~gann:x:~~:;:a::~~~~-~~~·==~~===-==--::-·-I·=·-~::::1-· -~:;~~ I.. . . -...... '.' ...... j ...... · .. · .. ·· .. ····· .. l··· .. _· ...... -...... ·.... 1 1 Loans, investments and advances ; 152,9201 158,5491 r=------~~- .. --..-----.-- ___ ,_,_."._ .. ____ .. _,_ .. _.. ___ ... _,. __ ~_ .. ~~~~~,_~ ...... -··-~ .. ····· .. ·~==~l lTotal financial assets 317,579! 303,96 1 ~ .. ".. ------~,,-.-,--.. ---, ---.--..J.1-.-----J 1 !. ; !Net debt 650,135\ t,··· ".~ ..... ,...... -.. ~ .... ~ ..... -. ,.. ~- ... ---.-.-.--.. --.. _.... - ,~.,...... -..... ~ .... -..... -...... '···~-··-·-·-··~r··- __ a .' ••• -, ••••••••• - •••_. __... _.-_., •• t~.. ~~:!!~~!'-~!~~. as~~~~...... _...... -_...... i ...... _.. _..L~., ...... ,-...... ----.-.. I Tangible capital assets ··· .. --· .. 1 59,0471 57,668 [o-th-;r .___ . ~=:~~~~~~~=~==~=~~~.:~~=_=~~=_.=~~~~=~==~ .. :~ .·~=~~iI~L-·~~~ IT~t.:./;;~;;-::fi;;anc;al assets . ... .--,------. !...... _.,,_ ..._ •• ____._._. __ .• _ ... ___ ...... _...... _ ...... "._._ ...... _ ._ .. ~._._·~.~:~~.l... ·.: ...... __~~~~~I~_ ... __ ._._._~~!_~~~ I f J !Accumula"t;ddefi~i-t ~~-.----.... ------.....-- .. -.--.. -.-...... -.--.-... ----.;-- 582,1761 J ~~_acco~-p-;~yi~g~~i~~-.~.,~-_!~-~~_~:;_·in_· t~Q~~_-i_·p_~!i~~i ..t~;;~tat~~_~~~~~~-_ ...._·-=~--~,~-.~'~- __-.~ .. ~~~.~__=- SSO!!.]

http://www.fin.gc.calafr-rfal20 12/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Govermnent of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 22 of26

Table 11 Government of Canada Condensed Consolidated Statement of Change in Net Debt for the Year Ended March 31, 2012 $ millions

--·--- - 20121 20121 20111 _' Budget1! Actual! Actual r!Net debt at beginning of year I 616 90821 616,90a! 582,47 L...... __ ...... _...... -.---...... - "'- --...... -t--··· ...... '---- '--'1·" .. "3,i3~ '-'.'" .. - .... . i!~~.~~~~on a~just!"en!. (Note ~~.--.-..-- ...... -...... ----.... -.. -.-.-.;---.--.. --...... r .... ---.-. r ••• _ ..... _... __ IChange in net debt during the year ! i i' r·· .. -··-······~-~···--··---~·--·--·--~··--·-··--·-··-· .... --.... --.... -- .. - .... -.-.. -.------.- .•-- .. --.~.-.--.. ----.. - ''''--1' --.------I Annual deficit ! ~2,259 26'~~~ 33,372 Ij------_._- Acquisition of tangible capital assets._-----_. __. ! 8,130 6,97 8,061

Ili~~~~Cz~~io==~-=bl~==i~~las~~~____ .. -.::~::- -~~~~j_ -.--~~ij~ ..:.~.. ~4~~~~

r ._.- I .=1 ~t Increase in net debt due to operations ! 35,1991 27~59&l 36'57~ IOther comprehensive loss or income (-~ ______I I 2,29~ -2,14

I·· ...... _...... -...... --...... -...... -. ---...... ~ ...... ! ... - ...... -.. ~ .... - .... -._...... _ .. . lNet increase in net debt I 35,1991 29,89o! 34,4361 t::~-·-···-·------.. -·-··-··· ..···-····· .. -·--.... ·.... --...... -.. ----.--.. ---;---...... --.--.--.-1---=L----~--"--1 !Net debt at end of year. ----~ =-__ _--I 652,107[ 650,13~ 616,9081 fhe accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements. I 11 Derived from Budget 2011. I ~djUsted to the actual closing amount. of the previous year. _.______,

Table 12 Government of Canada Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flow for the Year Ended March 31, 2012 $ millions

~~ bY_()~lIrat~ng_a~i~~!~_ -_.-."""'""'. - . __ 2~it __ =~ r~~~f~~;~~i~~~~==~~-••. ·~=~- .•.. ~=.~~-=~=:=~~=:~~~=~ .••.. _==-!=~=~~~~~1~=~=-=~~:~~ 1~~~h~II'!~~~~ii~~~~~~~~Ct~,;!~I~=~ .•.•.•. _==_.____ .. --.--j-~~;;;~l.~~t~ j~.~.~.~_ pr~.!~~.!~._~~._!.!!vesti~~ .. ~~~.!_~ti~~_.. _. _. _ ... _.. ____ . _.. "'_" __ '. __ .. .~. ___ .. _... 3~!~ .1•. __._ ~~?~ i f ,-----... -.-.. -.---.. --- .---.-.. --~-.---'"--...... _--... ·'··"··_·---·--T------.. ~otal cash used before financing activities. .. L__ -31,~41---=-46,40 i~ash ~.~~!~'!~~_.~!!!~~ .... ~~!'_~.~~ivities .... \~~,-~6~ 32,280 I i l·~··-··-·---·-·--·.. ----·-----···-·-·-·-----·--·-·-.. ····· .. ·····--·-······--·--·-···--····-----+-·------.. --ftl .. ·----.-... - JNet increase or decrease (-) in cash. ! 2,82"1 -14,127 tc~-;h-;~d ca~h equi~alents at beginning of yea~·----·--·---··~---·--:·~~32r· 28,45 I

http://www.fin.gc.caJafr-rfal2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 23 of26

Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of the Government of Canada

1. Applied Criteria in the Preparation of the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

The criteria applied by the Government in the preparation of these condensed consolidated financial statements are as follows:

i. These condensed consolidated financial statements are extracted from the audited consolidated financial statements included in Section 2 of Volume I of the Public Accounts of Canada 2012, which are expected to be tabled in Parliament later this year.

ii. The condensed consolidated financial statements are in agreement with the related information in the audited consolidated financial statements and contain the information necessary to avoid distorting or obscuring matters disclosed in the related complete consolidated financial statements, including the notes thereto.

iii. As these condensed consolidated financial statements are, by their nature, summarized, they do not include all disclosures required by Canadian public sector accounting standards.

iv. Readers interested in the disclosure of more detailed data should refer to the audited consolidated financial statements in the Public Accounts of Canada.

2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

The reporting entity of the Government of Canada includes all of the government organizations which comprise the legal entity of the Government as well as other government organizations, including Crown corporations, which are separate legal entities but are controlled by the Government. The financial activities of all of these entities, except for enterprise Crown corporations and other government business enterprises, are consolidated in these financial statements on a line-by-line and uniform basis of accounting after eliminating significant inter-governmental balances and transactions. Enterprise Crown corporations and other government business enterprises, which are not dependent on the Government for financing their activities, are recorded under the modified equity method. The Canada Pension Plan, which includes the assets of the Plan under the administration of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, is excluded from the reporting entity because changes to the Plan require the agreement of two thirds of participating provinces and it is therefore not controlled by the Government.

The Government accounts for transactions on an accrual basis, using the Government's accounting poliCies that are described in Note 1 to its audited consolidated financial statements, which are based on Canadian public sector accounting standards. The use of these stated accounting poliCies does not result in any significant differences from Canadian public sector accounting standards.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 24 of26

Financial assets recorded on the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Financial Position can provide resources to discharge liabilities or finance future operations and are recorded at the lower of cost or net realizable value. Non-financial assets cannot normally be converted into cash to finance future operations without disrupting government operations; they are recorded at cost less accumulated amortization. Liabilities are recorded at the estimated amount ultimately payable, adjusted for the passage of time, as required. Obligations for pensions and other future benefits are determined on an actuarial basis. Allowances for valuation are established for loans, investments and advances, as well as for loan guarantees and other obligations.

Some amounts in these condensed consolidated financial statements are based on estimates and assumptions made by the Government. These are based on facts and circumstances available at the time the estimates and assumptions are made, historical loss experience and general economic conditions. By their nature, such estimates are subject to measurement uncertainty. The effect of changes to such estimates and assumptions in future periods could be significant to the financial statements. Some of the more significant estimates used in these financial statements affect the accrual of tax revenues and obligations for pensions and other future benefits.

3. Transition Adjustment

For fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2011, enterprise Crown corporations and other government business enterprises transitioned from Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The most significant impact of the transition to IFRS was in the area of pensions and other employee future benefits, more speCifically, the recognition of actuarial gains and losses. As a result of this transition, certain opening balances of these condensed consolidated financial statements were affected. The opening balance of the investment in enterprise Crown corporations and other government business enterprises decreased by $3,337 million. The opening balances of net debt and accumulated deficit both increased by $3,337 million and the opening balance of accumulated other comprehensive income increased by $459 million.

4. Contractual Obligations

Contractual obligations that will materially affect the level of future expenditures include transfer payment agreements, acquisitions of property and eqUipment and goods and services, operating leases and funding of international organizations. At March 31, 2012, contractual obligations amount to $68,247 million ($75,924 million in 2011), of which $24,009 million pertains to fiscal year 2013.

5. Contingent Liabilities

Contingent liabilities arise in the normal course of operations and their ultimate disposition is unknown. The Government's contingent liabilities include guarantees provided by the Government, callable share capital in international organizations, environmental liabilities, claims and pending and threatened litigation, and insurance programs of agent enterprise Crown corporations.

i. Guarantees provided by the Government include guarantees on the borrowings of enterprise Crown corporations and other government business enterprises, loan guarantees, insurance programs managed by the Government, and other explicit guarantees. At March 31, 2012, these guarantees amount to $250,434 million ($236,509 million in 2011) for which an allowance of $506 million ($592 million in 2011) has been recorded. Of the total amount guaranteed, $242,328 million ($227,642 million in 2011) relates to guarantees on the borrowings of agent enterprise Crown corporations for which no allowance (nil in 2011) has been recorded.

http://www.fin.gc.calafr-rfaJ2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 25 of26

ii. The Government has callable share capital in certain international organizations that could require payments to those agencies. At March 31, 2012, callable share capital amounts to $25,051 million ($25,479 million in 2011).

iii. Environmental liabilities are accrued to record the estimated costs related to the remediation of contaminated sites and future asset restoration where the Government is obligated or likely obligated to incur such costs. At March 31, 2012, the Government has recorded environmental liabilities of $8,362 million ($7,745 million in 2011).

The Government has estimated additional clean-up costs for remediation of contaminated sites for which it may be potentially liable of $1,057 million ($1,044 million in 2011). In addition, the Government has estimated further clearance costs related to unexploded explosive ordnance affected sites ranging from $180 million to $524 million. These future costs are not accrued as the Government's obligation to incur these costs is not determinable.

iv. There are thousands of claims and pending and threatened litigation cases outstanding against the Government. While the total amount claimed in these actions is significant, their outcomes are not determinable. The Government has recorded an allowance for claims and litigation where it is likely that there will be a future payment and a reasonable estimate of the loss can be made~ Claims and litigation for which the outcome is not determinable and a reasonable estimate can be made amount to approximately $4,769 million ($4,211 million in 2011). Certain large and significant claims relate to comprehensive land claims, assessed taxes under objection or appeal, and public sector pensions litigation.

v. At March 31, 2012, insurance in force relating to self-sustaining insurance programs operated by three agent enterprise Crown corporations amounts to $1,589,869 million ($1,473,068 million in 2011). The Government expects that all three corporations will cover the cost of both current claims and possible future claims.

Annex OECD Measure of Total Government Net Debt

International comparisons of net debt are made on a total government, National Accounts baSiS, which for Canada includes the net debt of the federal, provincial/territorial and local governments, as well as the net assets held in the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Quebec Pension Plan (QPP).

The following table provides a breakdown of Canada's net debt for 2010, the most recent year for which final estimates have been published by the OECD.

OECD Measure of Total Government Net Debt on a National Accounts BaSiS, 2010 [~~~~~~I :~~:--"'''''--"-~''''''---=-='--'-----'-'---'---=F~($-b~i~:f~~~!-i~ t~dd: Net debt ~fprovincial;t:~~;it~;;i~~-;'-d"I~~-~-gov;;nm~nt~---.. --·-·-·····-··.. -.. ···r·-· .. ·.. ·--256~1 --_.. _- 15.~ I .----.. --~ ..-.-.- .. - ...... -..-.------.... ··-· .. ~-.." .. "~·~·· .. t·"··"--··· ...... _-.... ---~-----::-:J LNet assets of the CPP/QPP 1 -175.0 -10.8j L- .. ~=-=·=.-.. -.-.--...... -.--.------.-.... ~ ..~.~ ...... -. -' .. -~.~-'-"'~~.'=".'~'~~.'~.~~'-' .. ;.... -.-"~~ .... ·· ...... ····· .. ···1·· .. ·.. ·.... · .... ·.... · ... ··_ .. ··· ....~ ...... ITotal government net debt j 494.6 30. i· .. -· .... --··-..... ··· .. ---·····-·.. ·.. ·... ··.. ·· ...... ·~···- ... ·...... _- ...... -- ...... _...... ,Source: Statistics Canada. l !.,....,;.·T...... _____ A)...... _ ... ,~ ___." ...... ,...... ~~.....-.">·\. •·""·....--...... __ ·; .... w,t; ...... -....,.r.."".,.<...... _·~,~...... ,.- ..... h ... ~.', .. v.·:"'. ..,."'"'.·A_-....._· ...... -....c .• -.r •••'''',~ ...... ,...... __ ~_'*_ ...... _...... ''' ... -...... _~

The primary difference between National Accounts federal net debt as published by th~ OECD and federal net debt on a Public Accounts basis relates to the Government's liabilities for federal public sector pensions and other employee and veteran future benefits. In order to enhance comparability, these liabilities are excluded http://www.fm.gc.calafr-rfal2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Goverrunent of Canada: Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Page 26 of 26

from the measurement of Canada's net debt for international comparison purposes as the vast majority of advanced economies do not record such liabilities. The following table presents a reconciliation between the two measures of federal net debt.

Reconciliation of Federal Net Debt on a National Accounts and a Public Accounts Basis

I---~- =r-- ($ billion;r-~of"GDP) ,_ .. _-_. ----- i~.:.~~~.~~~~~~~.i~ ..~~~~~.~~~ .. ~.~~.i~L...... _ ...... ~ .. ~.~.·~L...... _ .. _~...... _~_~.~~ rL~~}!~~~~:~:~:~_.~._i~!~:O~~~~;r~~~~~=~_.~~ ••. -=-:~~~~=->=~~t._~~t__ -~=-_--_···--i~ i!otal federal net debt (Nation~l. Accounts-~s)------j 413.51 ----- 25.5 r !Sources: Statistics Canada and Public Accounts of Canada 2011. 4 I rOther includes timing differences (National Accounts data are as of December 31), differences in the I ,universe covered by each accounting system, and differences in accounting treatments of various I!!~ctions such as capital gains and asset valuations. __ __...... 1

ill This section incorporates data available up to and including September 7, 2012. However, fiscal results in the following section cover the period from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012.

Date modified: 2012-10-05

http://www.fin.gc.calafr-rfal2012/report-rapport-eng.asp 1115/2014 788

genda A FILE # OboOD -0 0 BRITISH COLUMBIA

Reference: 200094 TYPE: e~\, \.. ~OV 03QA'\d II'­ ,...... January 9, 2014 DEPT_ cA .yt:::: i-L)

A. T # .-LQ..Q...l. ..\....1 0,;;.-_ Dear Mayors, Regional District Chairs and Directors: Comments: j G\j\1A ~1 ~ r l \Lf I\.e~ ",, [o-.. .-- .me eHnJ RE: Provincial and local governments working together to protect biodiversity.

I am writing to provide you with an overview and update on the work of the Species and Ecosystems at Risk (SEAR) Local Government Working Group. As you may know, this group was initiated in 2009 by the BC Ministry of Environment to work with local governments to enhance habitat protection for species and ecosystems at risk on private lands and local government lands in BC. The Ministry of Environment recognises the importance of a shared stewardship approach and the key role that local governments play in the protection of biodiversity, particularly on private lands.

An important accomplishment of the group has been the joint publication, in 20 I I, of the Di scussion Paper Working Together to Protect Species at Risk: Strategies Recolllmended bl' Local Governlllent to IlIlprove Conservation 011 Municipal. Regional alld Private Lands in British Colulllbia. The Discussion Paper contains 45 recommendations from local governments for the provincial government, Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) and local governments. These recommendations were formally endorsed by the UBCM in March 2012 (see attached newsletter).

Although the Discussion Paper was a major milestone for the group, they ha ve continued to make progress and the Ministry of Environment continues to support their work (see attached letter of support). To date, there are over 140 participants, including 24 regional districts and over 60 municipalities. The group has become a forum for communication on SEAR, providing opportunities for sharing lessons learned and encouraging networking on SEAR issues within and between regions in Be. In the words of one of the participants, Wayne Stetski, Mayor of Cranbrook, "It's a great group dealing with an important issue".

This year, following one of the recommendations within the Discussion Paper, the Ministry of Environment sponsored a UBCM Community Excellence Award in the Leadership and Innovation category to highlight the great work that communities have undertaken to protect biodiversity in their regions. The award, announced at the September 2013 UBCM Convention, was presented to the District of To fino for their contribution toward stewardship of an important mudtlats ecosystem. Congratulations to Mayor Josie Osborne and all the partners who were involved with this ini tiative.

Ministry of Environment Ecosystems Branch Mailing Add ress: Telephone: 250387-9731 PO Box 9338 Stn Prov Govt r:lcsimile: 250387-9750 Victoria BC VBW 9r-.n Staff attended the Local Government Working Group Symposium that was held in November and have been participating on the Species At Risk Local Government Working Group. Staff will provide a report with further details at an upcoming meeting. -2-

In October of this year, the Ministry of Environment and the South Coast Conservation Program, with a grant from the Real Estate Foundation of BC, hosted the third annual SEAR Local Government Working Group Symposium in Richmond. The symposium was a great success with about 65 participants attending to discuss SEAR-related incentives and other tools to enhance habitat protection on private and local government lands. Day two included regional discussions on SEAR and a field trip to Terra Nova in Richmond.

The work of the SEAR Local Government Working group provides an excellent example of how we can work together to accomplish mutually beneficial objectives. In conclusion, I would like to encourage the continued participation of both staff and elected representatives from your jurisdiction if you are already involved, and invite you to consider joining us if your jurisdiction is not already participating.

For more information on the SEAR Local Government Working Group please visit the website http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/searl gwg/ or contact Lynn Campbell, Species at Risk Biologist, Ministry of Environment, at [email protected].

S,incerely,

Alec Dale ---- Executive Director

Attachments: 1. UBCM formal endorsement of the Discussion Paper recommendations by local governments 2. Letter of support for the SEAR LGWG from Ministry of Environment· ;i .'--0------

Species at Risk: Local Government Discussion Paper

:In FebruaI'J" UBCM reviewed the Species at Risk Local Government Working Group discussion paper, Working Together to Protect Species af Risk. This paper was designed to raise awareness, align ; resources for shared priorities, outline options for

1 local government engagementl and identify tools for species at risl~ protection. The paper identifies some key concerns around local governments and

species at risk protectionl and offers a series of , recommendations to the Province under five key ", strategies: : i. Increase local government awareness of species at risk.

• Fadlitate use of effective tools and techniques. I • I j • Identify and collaborate on shared i responsibil ities. • Conduct ecosystem mapping and encourage data sharing. • • Engage landowners in species at risk habitat : I protection.

Continued on page 10 10 UBCM NEWS MARCH 2012

ENVIRONMENT POLICY IN BRIEF

Continued from page 9

Within these strategies, there are also several recommendations that highlight what UBCM could , do to help facilitate species at risk protection. I The Executive endorsed the recommendations ' in the paper, and will be convey to the Province I . the need for provindal leadership in both enacting , strong species at risk protection legislation and providing the necessary resources for addressing species at risk protection; and the need for I provincial monitoring of the cost incurred by local governments in implementing any of the strategies . contained with the species at risk discussion paper, should local governments choose to implement said strategies. The discussion pa.per is available online at ; http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld1 documentsl SAR%20Paper%20January%202011 %20FINAL. pdf or you can find it on the Ministry of Environment I website under Ecosystems Branch, Stewardship Infonn~tion "'Read the discussion paper" link. To date, 13 regional districts and 351' municipalities have been contacted and 60 local government staff and elected officials have joined ; the working group. For more information please I contact Lynn Campbell (250) 387-9676, Lynn. : [email protected] or Jennifer l-Ieron (604) 222-1 6759, [email protected] II ; I ...,',: .... :~ • '" r 1 BRITISH COLUMBIA

Reference: 177121

September 4, 2012

To: The Species and Ecosystems at Risk Local Government Working Group Members and Associates

I would like to acknowledge the Local Government Working Group for your efforts in developing the Discussion Paper; Working Together to Protect Species and Eco,lystems at Risk: Strategies Recommended by Local Government to Improve Conservation on Municipal. Regional and Private Lands in British Columbia (BC).

My thanks on behalf of the Province to each of the Working Group members including the SUppOlt of elected officials, and the communities that you represent, for your ongoing dedication to this unique pal1nership between the Province, UBeM and local governments,

The Discussion Paper is an important piece of work to help the Province develop policy that is consistent with the needs of British Columbia's local governments, To this end, the paper was included as a submission as part of the background supporting materials for the Provincial Species at Risk Task Force, The recommendations from the paper will also be considered by the Province in the future planning for species at risk in Be.

I also appreciate the on-going input and engagement of local govemments through the provincial Species at Risk Working Group to clarify an approach for species and ecosystems at risk protection in the context of local government and private land,

Sin erely,

Alec Dalc A \Executive Director

Ministr), of Environment Ofrlce of Ihe Executive Director Mailing Addrc:>:,: Telephon e: 250387-9731 J ':co:')':'I't:m~ ProteC Ii on PO Box 9338 Fac5imile: 250387-9750 and S ll ~ [:\;nabili ry Branch Stn Pro" Govt Web:,i!c: www.gov.bc.ca/cnv EnvironmcOI:l1 Su:'t:linabili ry Vic[mia He V8W 9Ml amI Strategic Polic\' Divi~i()n Mayor _Council

From: Robyn Anderson Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:33 AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: FW: Overview and Update on the Work of the Species and Ecosystems at Risk Local Government Working Group Attachments: Mayors_ROs_SEAR.pdf; Attach1_UBCM_newslettecMar2012.pdf; Attach 2_MoE_LettecAug2012.pdf

Robyn Anderson Acting Municipal Clerk The Corporation of Delta Phone: 604-952-3125

From: Mayor Lois Jackson Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 20149:19 AM To: Robyn Anderson; Dona Packer; Tanya Bader; Mike Brotherston; Jeff Day Subject: FW: Overview and Update on the Work of the Species and Ecosystems at Risk Local Government Working Group

Greetings: Would you b.e so kind as to ensure that this information is included in the Informational Correspondence items in the next council agenda, please? Thank you so much,

Lois E • .Jackson Mayor

From: , IIAlec R ENV:EXII Date: Monday, January 13, 2014 1 :53 PM Subject: Overview and Update on the Work of the Species and Ecosystems at Risk Local Government Working Group

Happy New Year to all.

For your information, I have attached an overview and update on the work of the Species and Ecosystems at Risk (SEAR) Local Government Working Group.

For more information on the SEAR Local Government Working Group, please visit the website http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/searl gwg/ or contact Lynn Campbell, Species at Risk Biologist, Ministry of Environment, at [email protected].

Alec Dale Executive Director Ecosystems Branch Ministry of Environment Mailing: PO Box 9338 Stn. Provo Govt. Victoria Be V8W 9M1 Courier: 4th Floor, 2975 Jutland Rd. Tel: 250-387-9731 Fax: 250-387 -9750 Email: [email protected]

1 This message is provided in confidence and should not be forwarded to any external third party without authorization. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments.

2 789

Council approved temporary heritage protection for this home after the property owner applied for demolition permit in 2011. The owner agreed to not proceed in order to allow others the time to consider options to relocate and restore this home. While there have been a number of interested persons who have explored many relocation options, a suitable alternative has not yet been found. The temporary protection has expired. Staff have responded to the writer. genda 1 3~ (Y3 FILE # UI ODb () Mayor _Council A

From: Dana Russell 790 Sent: Monday. January 13. 201410:54 AM To: Mayor & Council TYP E. A]~ Cc: 'vicki .huntington.mla @leg.bc.ca'; [email protected] Legv.lu.< Subject: FW: Re. File LU006803 DEPT cPID Attachments: LT Delia Planning Dec 9 13.pdf A T # \~ O l ofj-_ Mayor & Council - c omments : ~ J-7/tl-{ ~ ~(..da , !Y/ e.e ~ The attached letter was se nt through the Planning Department however we w ish to ensure that the entirety of our concerns are brought to your attention and not merely a summary.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Dana C. Russell

Dana C. Russell TSH Assoc;ate I Twining~ Short & Haako nson ~ Barristers TWINING. SHORT & HAAKONSON D 604.638.9209 1F 604.682.61311 [email protected] IIARRISTERS 500 . 11 22 Mainland Street. Vancouver. British Columbia. Canada V6B 5L1

C-0NfIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This email me ssage and any attachments thereto are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and con tains information that is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from discl osure. Any distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the message unread without ma ki ng any copies. Thank yo u.

From: Dana Russell Sent: Monday, Decem ber 09, 2013 7:59 AM To: 'com-pln-dev@delta .ca' Subject: Re. File LU006803

Please see attached correspondence. Kindly direct to Susan Elbe. Plea se confirm receipt by return email. This letter refers to a rezoning application at 3443 River Road West which is currently Sincerely, being reviewed by staff. The letter writer's correspondence has been acknowledged and she has been advised of the process for this application. A summary of comments from Dana C. Ru sse ll the neighbourhood as well as comments from Community Planning & Development, has been forwarded to the applicant for consideration. Dana C. Russell TSH Associate I Twining~ Short & Haakonson~ Barristers TWINING. SHORT & HAAKONSON D 604.638.9209 1F 604.682.61 31 1drusseli @lshlaw.ca S,IRRISTERS 500 . 1122 Mainland Street, Vancouver. British Columbia. Canada V6B 5L 1

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

Thi s email message and any attachments thereto are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and contains information that is co nfidential and may be privileged and exempt from disclo sure. Any distribution, copying or

1 disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please notify the se nder immediately by return email and delete the message unread without making any copies. Thank you.

2 Scott & Dana Russell 26-3459 River Road West Delta, B.C. V4K 4Y9

December 9, 2013

Community Planning & Development Department The Corporation of Delta 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta, B.C. V4K 3E2

Attention: Susan Elbe

Dear Ms. Elbe:

Re.: Proposed Rezoning and Development Variance Permit Application at 3443 River Road West, Delta, B.C. (the "Property") File: LU006803

As an immediately adjacent neighbour to the subject Property we write to voice our opposition to the proposed redevelopment of a floating home community, the scope and scale of which is so large that there is the potential for significant negative impact on our own home and our Strata.

Parking

We would reject a variance from the required number of parking spaces at least to the degree that the applicants propose. Car shares may work in an urban environment but the reality is that at this location there are not very many people to participate in a car share program. We do not believe this is a realistic proposal. We would want to know that one of the car share companies is prepared to put two vehicles at this location before believing that such a program could exist and the applicant be given the credit for car share spaces. There is no public transit and it is too far to walk to shops and services and therefore most homeowners, if there is more than one member of the household, have two vehicles.

The calculation for .5 spaces for the boats in the marina does not take into account the fact that vehicles owned by those living aboard the boats on a regular basis, either seasonally or year-round, will also be on the Property on a more permanent basis. There does not appear to be any consideration on site for parking of boat trailers. We are concerned that the inevitable overflow of vehicles andlor trailers will end up on the road. It is not clear that the road has sufficient shoulder capacity to permit parking and safe travel, particularly for large farm vehicles that frequently use the road in the same season as the most active of marina boat use. We further note there is no consideration for guest parking. Configuration of the Docks and the location of the Floathomes

The applicants propose to build new docks and install float homes immediately adjacent to our lot line, our docks and our breakwater. It is our recent understanding that Port Metro Vancouver has no setback requirements between the two water lots. This is a big mistake. The proposed dock configuration will preclude clear access for equipment essential to proper maintenance of our water lot and the applicant's water lot. Given the inevitable build up of silt at the foreshore, it is critical that we are able to get dredging and silt remediation equipment to all parts of our water lot including the waterway at our foreshore. The same will hold true for the applicant's water lot

There is a significant amount of debris that flows down the River, particularly during the spring freshette. Debris will collect and become trapped between docks built immediately adjacent to one another if there is not a sufficient distance and flow of water between the structures. Besides being unsightly, debris that collects has the potential to get caught under the docks causing damage.

It appears the proposed new dock is designed to begin substantially further from the foreshore than our dock system and we query whether this is to avoid the applicants having to clear the substantial amount of silt they have allowed to build up at the foreshore. That silt build-up has and 'Will continue to spill over onto our water lot. It also slows the flow of water along our foreshore causing further build up at our location. The safety of our foreshore docks is always tenuous and we have to constantly monitor and clear silt build up to prevent grounding and damage. As above, if we cannot access this area be~use it is blocked by the applicant's docks, we will suffer significant and costly damage.

The proposed new dock system appears to project roughly 40' further into the River. We highly doubt the applicants will be permitted by Port Metro Vancouver (or the Province or First Nations) to extend their water lot so far out into the River but if they do then this projection will again impede the free flow of debris down the River, particularly during the spring freshette. That debris will collect within our water lot. Debris, and deadheads in particular, have the propensity to lodge themselves under the floathomes and docks. When the tide falls the floathomes or docks get caught up on the deadheads and tip. or crack. Damage to the essential systems in our docks, such as water, electrical and sewage systems can also occur when deadheads become trapped under the docks.

The applicants propose to install six floathomes broadside to the River. Given the mass of the homes the flow of the River will be slowed causing an increase in silt deposits at our upstream property, including in areas that do not currently pose a problem for us. We already have great difficulty controlling silt build up under our homes and docks and spend thousands to tens of thousands of dollars on an annual basis to protect our homes. Sewage Handling

There is a long history of raw sewage disposal directly into the River at the Property. Raw sewage is routinely deposited into the River from the upland area and from the live­ aboard boats currently in the marina. We do not know what the sewage handling system is for the floathome currently on the Property but we believe it may too deposit raw sewage and untreated effluent into the River, much like the floathomes across the River. The applicants propose individual sewage handling at each floathome. Although individual plants may be permissible in certain circumstances, we believe they will be significantly more difficult to monitor than a single system for the whole site. As above, the applicant has already shown a marked disregard for the condition of the River environment and we query their commitment to monitor and maintain six separate systems in the future. The proposal also does not address sewage handling options for the boats, which simply cannot be allowed to continue to deposit raw sewage into the River. If the applicants are going to allow live-aboard arrangements as they presently do, even if only during the summer months, then the boats in the marina ought to have the ability to connect to a sewage handling system.

Rental Units

The applicants are proposing to utilize the floathomes as rental units. The reality is that people who occupy rental units are less likely to take as much care for their environment and neighbors than those who have a fmancial investment and own the homes they live in.

Loss of Views

The proposed location of the six floathomes, given the lack of setback, the floor area and especially the building height will completely eradicate the views presently enjoyed by a number of homeowners in our Strata. Our development was designed to incorporate view corridors to the maximum number of houses possible. Having all the proposed floathomes grouped in one area of the marina with little space between them and sited broadside to our Village will place 120' - 130' feet of wall blocking views to the end of the River. .

We are in support of the continued use of the Property as a marina provided that the applicants remedy the sewage disposal violations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Scott C. Russell Dana C. Russell 791 Mayor _Council From: Mayor Lois Jackson genda Sent: Saturday, January t " 2014 7:36 AM To: Mayor & Council A FILE # Subject: Fwd: Health Canada's MMPR

TYPE: Rlj Vl.lOlr 4-6 tvlAit

Sent from my iPad DEPT. C.ft-9_ A. T. #: Begin forwarded message: ~\q~O~\~::.Op.l--­ comments .J o.. l\ ('(N' ~ 'do 7 { I ~ "- From: Brian Ovitsland iZej \( \if rfi ee.ti 0j Date: January 10, 2014 at 10:03:04 PM PST To: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "rcampbell @delta.ca" , "[email protected]" , "jkanakos@ delta.ca" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" Subject: Health Canada's MMPR

Hi council members, could you please find time in your busy schedule to watch this video.(l0 min.) To educate yourselves on the importance of your decision regarding medical marijuana. Cannabis isn't just for stoners, it has legitimate health benefits, and would be a travesty for the city of Delta to deny the sick and dying the right to a safe, tested,highly regulated medicine. I understand your concern about these facilities in agriculture areas, but commercial/industrial zoning would be appropriate for this type of industry. Please consider this indusu'y as a benefit to this community, bringing well paid jobs and tax revenue to your coffers.

http://www.realfarmacy.com/the-video-thats-making-millions-change-their-mindsl

Yours truly Brian Ovitsland Lf015~ S S 13 ~TQ[,b7 :bG-<..-Tft- Be:... V'-tJC- 3 C a---

This message is provided in confidence and should not be forwarded to any external third party without authorization. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments.

At their January 6, 2014 Regular Meeting, Council directed staff to bring forward amendments to the Delta Zoning Bylaw that would prohibit the production of medical marihuana in Delta. Staff will report back to Council at a later date, including a summary of comments from the public. Staff have responded to Mr. Ovitsland.

1 792 genda 355 W est Queens Road FILE #003 /'0 - 0/ JamesA. Gordon CMC North Van couve r Be Municipal Clerk VlN 4N5 JJI Phone: 604 990 22 07 ~~ Fax: 604 984 9637 www .dnv .org NORTH VA NCO U VER gordonj@dnv .org OI STR ICT

January 7, 2014 File 13.6440.01

TYPE: ~~ I( \ ar- ft~jv; I ' ~ Mayor and Council ..1:>0 - DEPT: Corporation of Delta Cf+-iJ r...., ::0 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent A. T #: \ 0,0 \ 0'1- :z:, Delta BC V4K 3E2 Comments : S ~./\WtH-J 'J.. 7/1 l{ .... w f(~ \.( let, (t1 u;f.'t1j 3i' o Re: Provincial Core Review and the Agricultural Land Commission ,.....

Please be advised that at its January 6, 2014 Regular Meeting, the Council for the District of North Vancouver considered the December 13, 2013 report of the Manager, Sustainable Community Development. Council subsequently passed the following resolution:

THA T Council 1) Request that the Minister Responsible for the Core Review and the Minister of Agriculture: a) ensure the Provincial Core Review process serve to protect and enhance the Agricultural Land Reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission in support of objectives regarding the region's supply of agricultural land and agricultural viability; b) ensure meaningful consultation opportunities with municipalities and the Regional District in Metro Vancouver, the Union of BC Municipalities and stakeholders; and

2) Convey its recommendations on the Provincial Core Review to all members of the Legislative Assembly, the Metro Vancouver Board, the Port Metro Vancouver Board, municipalities in Metro Vancouver and the UBCM.

A copy of the relevant report is attached for your information and consideration.

Sincerely, This correspondence is received for information. Staff will ~ a . )Lo(. '"'­ monitor the Provincial Core Review process and update Council with respect to any matters affecting the Provincial Agricultural Gordon C~:~~_~~~Municipal Clerk Land Commission.

JAG/ca

cc: Susan Haid - Manager, Sustainable Community Development

Document:2247376 - . .. ~ -f-:o , • -'-..

AGENDA INFORMATION J'DS FrJ~ ~egUlar Meeting Date: 7AN' b· 201'( $ttJlI~ ~ tI/fl&> o Workshop (open to public) Date: Dept. "------Manager

The District of North Vancouver REPORT TO COUNCIL

December 13, 2013 File: 13.6440.01

AUTHOR: Susan Haid - Manager, Sustainable Community Development

SUBJECT: Provincial Core Review and the Agricultural Land Commission

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Council:

1) Request that the Minister Responsible for the Core Review and the Minister of Agriculture: a) ensure the Provincial Core Review process serve to protect and enhance the Agricultural Land Reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission in support of objectives regarding the region's supply of agricultural land and agricultural viability; b) ensure meaningful consultation opportunities with municipalities and the Regional District in Metro Vancouver, the Union of BC Municipalities and stakeholders; and

2) Convey its recommendations on the Provincial Core Review to all Members of the Legislative Assembly, the Metro Vancouver Board, the Port Metro Vancouver Board, municipalities in Metro Vancouver and the UBCM.

REASON FOR REPORT: To provide input to the Province of BC's Core Review process with regard to the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) in response to recent correspondence on this matter (Attachment 1).

SUMMARY: This report outlines recent concerns pertaining to the Provincial Core Review with regard to the ALC and the ALR. It recommends the Province ensure the process supports the ongoing protection and enhancement of the ALe and the ALR, and that a meaningful consultation process with municipalities, regional districts and other stakeholders occur.

Document: 2237527 · - SUBJECT: Provincial Core Review and the Agricultural Land Commission December 13, 2013 Page 2

BACKGROUND: District Council received correspondence from the BC Food Systems Network and from the City of Pitt Meadows regarding the Provincial Core Review and the ALR and the ALC (Attachment 1). At its November 11, 2013 meeting, the Metro Vancouver Board approved recommendations of the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee regarding the Provincial Core Review and the Agricultural Land Commission. The City of Richmond Council passed a similar motion at its November 12, 2013 meeting. These reports and correspondence are contained in Attachment 1.

The Provincial Core Review was announced on July 31, 2013 to ensure effective use of government resources with clear objectives to reduce costs and promote efficiencies. The review involves a four phased approach to be completed by December, 2014. Currently, the process is in Phase 1 - Mandate Review (October - December 2013) where Ministers are requested to highlight the scope of proposed changes to programs and services. Although Ministries are expected to undertake targeted consultations with stakeholders, there is no information available about who might be consulted or how and when this might occur.

EXISTING POLICY: Protection of the ALR and the role of the ALC in protecting and enhancing ALR lands are supported in Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy which District Council endorsed in 2011. The District's OCP supports the RGS goals and includes policies to encourage sustainable, local food systems (Section 6.3, policies 12, 13, 14).

ANALYSIS: Lands within the Province's ALR provide important food lands and habitat and contribute significantly to the economic viability of the region. The ALR also plays a critical role in growth management through urban containment. The ALC's mandate is to protect and enhance the ALR and the viability of agriculture. Regional food security is dependent on the protection of the ALR and the viability of agriculture. The District supports the protection of the ALR and agricultural lands in the region through acceptance and implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy.

Staff have reviewed information contained in Attachment 1 as well as information on the Province's web site regarding the Core Review with respect to the ALC and ALR. Key concerns are the lack of an identified conSUltation process with municipalities, regional districts and stakeholders and possible interests of repurposing unproductive ALR lands for alternative uses such as resource-based economic development.

Timing/Approval Process: The Provincial Core Review was initiated in July, 2013, is currently in Phase 1 and anticipated to be completed by December, 2014. Input regarding the consultation process for the Core Review of the ALC and ALR is therefore timely.

Document: 2237527 ......

SUBJECT: Provincial Core Review and the Agricultural Land Commission December 13, 2013 Page 3

Concurrence: A number of municipalities in the Region and the Metro Board have made similar recommendations to the Province regarding its Core Review in relation to the ALC and theALR.

Financial Impacts: There are no financial impacts to the District at this time. However, loss of ALR and regional food lands could impact the economic health of the region.

Liability/Risk: Staff are not aware of liability or risks to the District with regard to the recommendations contained in this report.

Social Policy Implications: The ALR provides critical food lands to the Metro Vancouver Region which helps support healthy communities, the regional economy and the job base. The ALR serves as an effective growth management tool to contain urban development, thereby contributing to regional livability.

Environmental Impact: Protection of the ALR is important to the region's environmental health. Regionally produced food helps reduce potential 'food miles' and associated greenhouse gas emissions from importing foods. Agricultural lands also provide important ecological functions such as water infiltration and habitat for wildlife.

Public Input: The consultation process for the Provincial Core Review with regard to the ALR and ALC has not been defined at this time. ConSUltation with municipalities, citizens, regional districts and stakeholders is needed.

Conclusion: This report outlines recent concerns pertaining to the Provincial Core Review with regard to the ALC and the ALR. It recommends the Province ensure the process and the outcomes support the" ongoing protection and enhances the ALC and the ALR and that a meaningful consultation process with municipalities, regional districts and other stakeholders takes place.

Options:

Council may:

1. request that the Minister Responsible for the Core Review and the Minister of Agriculture:

a) ensure the Provincial Core Review process serve to protect and enhance the Agricultural Land Reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission in support of

Document: 2237527 SUBJECT: Provincial Core Review and the Agricultural Land Commission December 13, 2013 Page 4

objectives regarding the region's supply of agricultural land and agricultural viability;

b) ensure meaningful consultation opportunities with municipalities and the Regional District in Metro Vancouver, the Union of BC Municipalities and stakeholders; and

c) convey its recommendations on the Provincial Core Review to all Members of the Legislative Assembly, the Metro Vancouver Board, the Port Metro Vancouver Board, municipalities in Metro Vancouver and the UBCM.

Alternatively, Council may: 2. Receive this report for information and take no further action.

Respectfully submitted,

Susan Haid MCIP, CSLA, RPP Manager, Sustainable Community Development

REVIEWED WITH: ~ustainable Community Dev. [J Clerk's Office External Agencies: [J Development Services [J Communications [J Library Board [J Utilities [J Finance [J NS Health [J Engineering Operations o Fire Services o RCMP o Parks & Environment [J ITS [J Recreation Com. [J Economic Development [J Solicitor o Museum & Arch. o Human resources [J GIS o Other:

Document: 2237527 ATTACHMENT I More responsibilities for local government with no Be Food Systems Network consultation or support?

The Core Review promises changes to the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC)

The Fraser Institute says dismantle it. The Have you been consulted about the changes Premier seems to think it isn't working for BC. requested of the Minister of Agriculture and The Minister of Agriculture has been directed to proposed by the Core Review? examine it closely and "propose any changes necessary," and the Minister Responsible for the What happens to the ALR and the ALC directly Core Review has announced that changes to affects you and your constituents. The ALR is a the ALR and ALC are a top priority for the major provincial zone, tied to your government's current provincial government. I interpretation of agricultural zoning and its related bylaws and land use plans. Any Change is coming for the ALR and the ALC. changes to the ALC's authorities and powers imply changes for local governments' authorities This represents a major shift in policy at the and powers, affecting your ability to plan for your Ministry of Agriculture and in the provincial region. Not just what the Province intends to do, government more generally. The 2013-14 but how it intends to do it - and who it expects to Ministry of Agriculture Service Plan identifies fund the changes - are central questions for work under way at the ALC to make the your Council and Regional District. Commission more effective and to better define ALR boundaries. According to a recent report The ALR is important for British Columbia. from the ALC Chair, this work, which was endorsed by the Province and supported by a 3- The ALR is intended to preserve agricultural year budget increase, is progressing well." land, encourage farming and assist local governments and First Nations in planning for Nonetheless, in August, the Minister agriculture in their regions. The principle on Responsible for Core Review, Honourable Bill which the ALR rests is that a productive, secure Bennett, expressed generalized frustration with agricultural land base is vital to BC's ability to the ALR on behalf of landowners who want to maintain agriculture as a viable industry and to develop lands for non-agricultural purposes. He secure our food supply. The ALR provides a also identified adjustments to the ALR as an means for protecting that capability and ensuring early Core Review target. The Core Review's BC's agricultural businesses and farm families terms of reference, published on 24 September, are supported over the long term. indicated that public input could be provided to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and If the ALR did not already exist, now would be Government Services in its September-October the time to invent it. Economic, environmental hearings around BC. Unfortunately, the invitation and social instability and pressures on the was published after the hearings had started. province's farmland are many times greate~rnow than they were when the ALR was created. I I Providing for input to the Core Review without proper notice and prior to tabling any proposals from the process does not serve British .~~'m~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~ Columbians well. The Committee accepted fi"Qt~~)P99,Kt~g~dili~.~he c~lIapse of Cly~l_i,~~!'?i:l~:,~, comments until 16 October. No further ~a:j':Don'tbund on your agnculturalland.,[)o,,'t opportunities for local government or public input :llatkfdn youragriculturalland.' Don't build 'on. "', to the Core Review have been identified. fi'-oii~ 'agricultural'land. if '",' For further information: www.fooddemocracy.org Brent Mansfield, Co-Chair, ph: 604.837.7667 1 email: [email protected] Linda Geggie, Policy Working Group Chair, ph: 250.896.70041 email: [email protected] ' ...

Be has 40 years of ALR study and What other local governments are saying: experience to discuss. City of Vancouver, 22 October resolution There are strong arguments for the benefits of the ALA. Economic studies suggest that the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: • Council reaffirms its support for the preservation of ALR has been successful in containing urban farmland in the Province's Agricultural Land sprawl and mitigating rising farmland values, Reserve helping to ensure that land remains available • Council work with Metro Vancouver and other and affordable for BC's farm families and municipalities to advocate for the Province of British farming businesses. Research has also shown Columbia to identify further opportunities to that agriculture contributes strongly to regional enhance the viability of farming in the Province. economies, and that converting agricultural • Council advocate that, if another review of the ALR and ALC is deemed important by the provincial lands to other uses often costs more in services lv government, a substantially longer period for input than it produces in municipal tax revenues. be afforded to the public.

According to SmartGrowth BC, "the ALR has The full text of the resolution is at been successful in mitigating [the] constant http://former.vancouver.calctyclerk/cclerkl20l31 threat of incremental urban encroachment onto 0221documents/motionb l.pdf agricultural land by maintaining decision making at the provincial rather than the local level ... this Sunshine Coast Regional District, 10 October is in direct contrast to virtually all other minutes jurisdictions in North America where decisions on agricultural land use have been made at the INFORM THE BC GOVERNMENT THAT: local level and thus have been much more • The SCRD wishes to be a part of the targeted susceptible to development pressure.nv consultation during the Mandate Review process • The protection of farmland is a fundamental After forty years' shared experience of farmland element of a sustainable future in British Columbia and a reduction of the effectiveness of the ALR is protection in BC, local governments deserve to not an effective means of saving money for the be given the opportunity to discuss any provincial government proposed changes to the ALR with the Province • The foundation of any economy is the ability to and the ALC. There can be productive produce food examination of long-standing issues, such as • Speculation in agricultural land for future non-farm use and farm succession, without development is driving up the cost of agricultural land, threatening farming businesses in B.C. and compromising the integrity of the provincial B.C.'s food sovereignty. Preservation of farmland system and the ALC's current reform efforts. by removal of speculation and reinforcing the ALC and preservation of the ALR for food production is Act TODAY to make your concerns known. an important contribution to the B.C. economy

1. Contact your MLA, the Premier, and The full text of the resolution is at Ministers Bill Bennett and Pat Pimm to ask http://www.scrd.calfiles/File/Administration/Minut for an opportunity to discuss changes to the es/2013/2013-0CT -1 0%20BRD%20Minutes.pdf ALR and ALC beyond those already approved by government as outlined in the ALC Chair's report. Copy the rest of Cabinet I Core Review terms of reference: and the UBCM on your letters or emails. hUo:lIwww?news.goy.bc.calnews releases 2013- 2017/2013MEM0014-00146S.htm b ALC Chair's report: hUos:llwww.google ca/#g­ 2. Discuss this matter with your Council or agricultural+land+commission Regional District and pass a resolution III BCFSN submission to Finance and Government Services expressing your views. As for item 1 above, Committee: htto:llfooddemocracy.org/what-we-do/protecting­ copy the UBCM, the Premier and the the-agricu!tyre-Iand-reservel IV Cost of community services studies, American Farmland Ministers on your resolution. Trust www.farmland.org Y SmartGrowth BC, Position on the ALA: http://www.smartgrowth.bc ca/PortalslOlOowoloadslSGBCAL Rposition.PDF

For further information: www.fooddemocracy.org Brent Mansfield, Co-Chair, ph: 604.837.76671 email: [email protected] Linda Geggie, Policy Working Group Chair, ph: 250.896.70041 email: [email protected] ~ metrovancouver _ SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee

From: Theresa Duynstee, Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department

Date: October 18, 2013 Meeting Date: November 8, 2013

Subject: Provincial Core Review and the Agricultural Land Commission

RECOMMENDATION That the Board request that the Minister Responsible for Core Review and the Minister of Agriculture: a) ensure the Provincial Core Review process protects and enhances the Agricultural Land Reserve and Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) in support of mutual objectives to protect the region's supply of agricultural land and promote agricultural viability; b) reconfirm the Provincial 2013 budget commitment to provide the ALC an additional $4 million over three years to support the ALC in providing better oversight over the Agricultural Land Reserve including working with local governments to encourage farming; and c) ensure adequate consultation opportunities for the Metro Vancouver Board and all local governments in the region.

PURPOSE This report describes the importance of engaging in the Provincial Core Review as it pertains to the ability of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) to oversee farming and nonfarm use activities within the Agricultural Land Reserve.

BACKGROUND The ALC is a critical partner for implementing Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) "Metro Vancouver 2040 Shaping our Future", adopted by the Board on July 29, 2011. The RGS explicitly states the importance of protecting the supply of agricultural land and promoting agricultural viability in collaboration with the Province and the ALC. The policy to maintain the Urban Containment Boundary not only helps to concentrate growth in urban areas, but also provides predictability and efficient use of financial investments in utility, road and transit infrastructure. In addition, lands designated for agriculture are essential for agriculture economic development, food security, as well as the future well-being of residents.

The Provincial Core Review was announced on July 31, 2013 to ensure the best possible use of government resources with clear objectives to reduce costs and eliminate overlap. The work will be accomplished through four phases to ensure completion of the process by December 2014 (Bennett seeks a bold approach on core review September 24. 2013.html. Currently, the process is in Phase I Mandate Review (October - December 2013), where the Ministers are asked to highlight the scope of proposed changes to programs and services. Although Ministries are expected to undertake targeted consultations with stakeholders, there is no information available about who will be consulted and how or when this might occur.

Greater Vancouver Regional District - 251 ".

Provincial Core Review and the Agricultural Land Commission Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: November 8, 2013 Page 2 of 3

DISCUSSION The success of the RGS is dependent on a well functioning ALC that meets its responsibilities to preserve agriculture land and encourage farming in collaboration with other communities of interest. A comprehensive review of the ALC titled "Moving Forward: A Strategic Vision of the ALC for Future Generations" was completed by Chair Richard Bullock on November 26, 2010 in response to a request from the Minister of Agriculture. The Bullock report addressed the concerns raised by the BC Auditor General (Audit of the Agricultural Land Commission September 2010), which identified the challenges in administrating the Agricultural Land Reserve in the face of continued pressure to convert ALR land to non-farm use and the lack of budget and staff resources provided to the ALC.

In response to Chair Bullock's report, the Province announced in November 2011 additional funding and tools to enable the ALC to fulfill their mandate. On March 21st, 2012, the Metro Vancouver Board sent a letter to the Minister of Agriculture expressing appreciation for providing the additional funding and also conveyed the Board's determination to protect agricultural land and enforce the Urban Containment Boundary set by the Regional Growth Strategy.

On June 10, 2013 the Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable Pat Pimm, received a mandate from the Premier with the government's priorities, among which was to ensure the ALC is delivering the improvements promised, ensure the Agricultural Land Reserve is working for British Columbians and propose any changes necessary. The mandate further dictates that the changes must balance the desire to protect valuable farmland while allowing for responsible economic development opportunities, as well as encourage the stability of farm families and the farming industry in BC.

The question as to whether the ALC is at risk to losing its ability to protect farmland emerged when the Minister in Charge of the Core Review process stated that they were specifically going to look at the Agricultural Land Reserve and the ALC. This seemed inconsistent with previous provincial direction to improve operations of the ALC, whose 2011 budget ($2.9 million) is less than 0.01 percent of the total provincial budget.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Board request that the Minister Responsible for Core Review and the Minister of Agriculture: a) ensure the Provincial Core Review process protects and enhances the Agricultural Land Reserve and Agricultural Land Commission (ALe) in support of mutual objectives to protect the region's supply of agricultural land and promote agricultural viability; b) reconfirm the Provincial 2013 budget commitment to provide the ALC an additional $4 million over three years to support the ALC in providing better oversight over the Agricultural Land Reserve including working with local governments to encourage farming; and c) ensure adequate consultation opportunities for the Metro Vancouver Board and all local governments in the region. 2. That the Board receive for information the report dated October 18, 2013, titled "Provincial Core Review and the Agricultural Land Commission".

Greater Vancouver Regional District - 252 Provincial Core Review and the Agricultural Land Commission Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: November 8, 2013 Page 30f3

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications to this report.

SUMMARY I CONCLUSION Three years ago both the ALC Chair and the BC Auditor General completed a substantial amount of work that reviewed ALC operations and their ability to protect the Agricultural Land Reserve. In response, the BC Government committed to an additional $4 million in funding and legislative changes to help the ALC become a stronger organization and transition to a more self-supporting model.

A well functioning ALC is an essential component to achieving Metro Vancouver's regional land use strategy to protect the supply of agricultural land and promote agricultural viability. The recent announcements associated with the Provincial Core Review have created uncertainty about the future ability of the ALC to fulfill its mandate. Rather than wait until after proposals to cut costs and programs are announced, staff recommend informing the Ministers responsible for Core Review and Agriculture about Metro Vancouver's stance regarding the importance of the Agricultural Land Reserve and the critical role the ALC plays in the implementation of the Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy. Staff recommends Alternative 1.

7956639

Greater Vancouver Regional District - 253 OffiCE OF THE MAYOR

November 20, 2013

The Honourable Bill Bennett Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Response for Core Review PO BOX 9069 STN PROV GOVT Victoria, BC VSW 9E2

Dear Minister Bennett:

Re: Provincial Core Review: Protecting and Enhancing the Agricultural Land Commission and Reserve

This is to advise that at its Regular council meeting held on Tuesday, Novem ber 19, 2013, Pi tt Meadows City Council adopted the following niso(ution:

1. That Pitt Meadows City Council reiterate to the Premier, Minister of Agricul1ure, and Minister responsible for the Core Review that during the Review, the Provincial Government should:

(a) protect, enhance, adequately fund, and enforce the Agricultural Land Reserve, the independent Agricul1ure Land Commission, and its policies; and (b) enable consultation opportunities for City Council, the Pitt Meadows Agriculture Advisory Committee (AAC) and public; and

2. That copies of the letter be sent to all Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), the Metro Vancouver Board and local governments, and the Port Metro Vancouver Board . .

If you require further information, please feel free to co ntact Terry Fryer, Acting Operations & Development Services Director at 604-465-242S.

Sincerely,

cc: Members of the Legislative Assembly Metro Vancouver Board Metro Vancouver Local Gove rnm ents Port Metro Vancouver Board

IZom I-hmb Rnarl, PIli Mcl'l ci ows, Brir i.sh Columbiil V)Y 285 Phooe,604·465 ·545Q Fax, 604·465·2'104 in15645vl \\'ww.pi trmeadows.bc.ca of City Report to Council Richmond Planning and Development Department

To: Richmond City Council Date: November 8. 2013 From: File: Joe Erceg General Manager. Planning and Development Re: Provincial Core Review: Protecting and Enhancing the Agricultural Land Commission and Reserve

Staff Recommendation 1. That the City of Richmond Council reiterate to the Premier, Minister of Agriculture and Minister responsible for the Core Review, that during the Review, the Provincial Government should: (a) protect, enhance, adequately fund, and enforce the Agricultural Land Reserve, Agricultural Land Commission, and its policies; and (b) enable consultation opportunities for City Council, the Richmond Agriculture Advisory Committee (AAC) and public; and 2. That copies of the letter be sent to all Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), the Metro Vancouver Board and local governments, and the Port Metro Vancouver Board. J

J~e,:j't,~~ Erceg, General anager, Planning and Deve pment

AU. 3 REPORT CONCURRENCE

4034239 CNCL -278 November 8, 2013 -2-

Staff Report

Origin

The purpose of this report is to respond to a series of recent articles which are attached regarding possible changes to the Agricultural Land Commission and Agricultural Land Reserve (Attachments!, 2, 3). The report is provided so Council can comment further on this matter.

Council's 2011 - 2014 Term Goals This report addresses the following Council Term Goals: - 6. Intergovernmental Relations - 7. Managing Growth and Development.

Findings of Fact

Council's Monday. October 7, 2013 Resolution: On Monday, October 7,2013, at a Special Council meeting, Council passed the following resolution regarding the Provincial Core Review as it affects Agricultural Land Commission and Reserve:

(1) That as the Provincial Government is conducting a Core Review ofits programs and services including the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) and Reserve (ALR), and as opportunities for Council and public consultation during the Review are unclear. Council write the Premier and Minister ofAgriculture requesting that the Core Review: (a) protect, enhance, adequately fund, and enforce the Agricultural Land Reserve, Agricultural Land Commission, and its policies; and (b) enable consultation opportunitiesfor City Council, the Richmond Agriculture Advisory Committee (AAC) and pUblic; and (2) That copies ofthe letter be sent to all Members ofthe Legislative Assembly (MLAs), the Metro Vancouver Board and local governments, the Port Metro Vancouver Board, and the Core Review Panel.

At the time of writing this report, the City has not received a response from the Provincial Government regarding this resolution.

Analysis

Since Council passed the above resolution in October 2013 and advised the Province of its support for the ALC and ALR, the status of this matter has become less clear. There is considerable speculation regarding potential changes to the ALC and ALR which would erode the protection of farming in British Columbia. In view of this uncertainty, staff recommend that Council reiterate its position to the Premier, Minister of Agriculture and Minister responsible for the Core Review to protect the ALe and ALR.

Financial Implications

None

4034239 CNCL -279 '. '

November 8, 2013 - 3 -

Conclusion

To ensure that the City's ALC and ALR interests are protected during the upcoming provincial Core Review, staff recommend that Council reiterate to the Premier, Minister of Agriculture and Minister responsible for the Core Review, that the Provincial Government: (1) protect, enhance, adequately fund, and enforce the Agricultural Land Reserve, Agricultural Land Commission, and its policies; and (2) enable consultation opportunities for City Council, the Richmond Agriculture Advisory Committee (AAC) and pUblic. As well, copies of the letter be sent to all Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), the Metro Vancouver Board and local governments, and the Port Metro Vancouver Board. ~~ger, Policy Planning (604-276-4139)

TC:kt

November 7. 2013, The Globe and Mail Article titled: 'Sacrosanct' Agricultural Land Commission Attachment 1 eyed for breakup" which includes: "B.C. government documents summarize proposal to dismantle Agricultural Land Commlssion". November 7. 2013, Vancouver Sun article titled: "B.C. looks to overhaul Agricultural Land Attachment 2 Reserve" November 8.2013, The Province article titled: "B.C. gov't denies it wants to change land Attachment 3 reserve"

4034239 CNCL -280 ATTACHMENT 1

'Sacrosanct' Agricultural Land Commission eyed for breakup

MARK HUME VANCOUVER - The Globe and Mail Published Thursday, No". 072013,8:00 AM EST Last updated Thursday, No". 072013,6:58 PM EST

British Columbia's "sacrosanct" Agricultural Land Commission will be effectively dismantled and the B.C. Oil and Gas Conunission will assume new responsibilities for land use decisions if a proposal prepared for cabinet is adopted, according to confidential government documents [http.'! /www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-government-documents­ summarize-proposal-to-dismantle-agricultural-land-commission/article15322690/J.

I nformation obtained by The Globe and Mail shows that B.C. Agriculture Minister Pat Pimm is preparing to ask cabinet to endorse a plan to "modernize" the ALC, an independent Crown agency, which has overseen and protected about four million hectares of farmland for 4 0 years. Under the plan, the ALC - long a thorn in the side of developers who want to free up farmland - would move \vithin the Ministry of Agriculture, apparently ending its autonomy from government.

More Related to this Story

• B.C. Liberals looking to appease private interests with land reforms, Dix says

• B.C. land dispute underlines Delta farmland's uncertain future

• Delta council feeling the heat in Tsawwassen hearings

The move reflects the rapid ascendancy of the oil and gas industry in B. C., which has beco me a prime focus of government.

"The Agricultural Land Co mmission legislative mandate is too narrow to allow decisions that align with the priority for econontic development," is the message Mr. Pimm will deliver, according to a document labelled Cabinet Decision Sununary Sheet.

The document provides a point-by-point description of the steps Mr. Pimm wants to take. It calls on cabinet to allow him to "develop the necessary policy, regulatory and legislative amendments" he needs to implement dramatic change.

Energy Minister Bill Bennett - who earlier this year identified the ALC as a target when he promised the government's core rev iew would "look ~N'~E. sil'2'~nct things, like ,,' the Agricultural Land Reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission" - returned a call made to Mr. Pimm's office.

"It's a cabinet process and you apparently have a cabinet document. I'm not permitted '00 to talk about cabinet processe~ and the things that are being discussed," said Mr. Bennett, who is in charge of the core review.

"Nothing that the core review process could potentially do would reduce the protection for farmland in British Columbia," he said: "Bottom line. There is nothing that we would contemplate that" would reduce or undermine the central principle of the Agricultural Land Reserve, which is the protection of farmland and the sustainability of farming." .

According to a second unmarked document, Mr. Pimm·will propose splitting the ALR into two zones,

where different rules would apply 0 The ALR currently protects an agricultural land across the province, but Mr. Pimm would like to ~ee the land in the Okanagan and Fraser valleys and Vancouver Island in one zone, with land in the Interior, Kootenays and everything north of the Oka~agan in a second zone.

The move appears designed to allow the government to ease the way for resource development in the northeast~ where oil and gas development has increasingly been in conflict with farmers and ranchers.

Mr. Pimm spent 25 years working in the oil and gas industry before be~ elected to the provincial legislature. His appointment by Premier Christy Clark as Agriculture Minister was seen as an early sign the Liberal government didn't want the ALC to hinder energy resource development.

Earlier this year, the ALC signed a "delegation agreement" with the Be OGC, giving the agency limited authority to authorize non-farm use of agricultural land. Under Mr. Pimm's proposal, the Be aGC would become the primary authority on deciding whether agricultural land, outside the Okanagan and . southwest region, could be withdrawn for industrial use.

Mr. Pimm is also proposing to give local governments more control, calling for "community. growth applications [to be] decided by local governments." .

The ALC was established in 1974 as concerns grew in B.C. about the 6,000 hectares a year of prime agricultural land then being lost to development. Now about 500 hectares are removed annually.

CNCL -282 l,TIIE ~, GLOBE AND MAIL f. .. ~,...... -'-p.~ '" ••,.. • ~, -

B.c. government documents summarize proposal to dismantle Agricultural Land Commission

MARK HUME Vancouver - The Globe and Mai l Published Thursday, Nov. 072013,6:48 PM EST Last updated Thursday, Nov. 072013, 6:56 PM EST

This is apal'tial transcript cj a document on government letterhead, portions cj w hich were blacked out, that ca /Ties the signature linejor B.C. Agriculture Minister Pat Pimm.lt identjies the Agricultural Land Reserve as the issue to be addressed through proposed policy changes.

Read the original story here. [htlp://www.theg lobeandmail. com/news/british- co / u mbia/sacro sa nct-agl'icu/tural-/and-commissio n-eyed-jo r-breakup/ar tic Ie1530 6864/]

Cabine t Decision Summary Sheet

Issue: Agricultural Land Reserve

The Agricultural Land Commission legislative mandate is too narrow to allow decisions that align with the priority for economic development.

Request:

Modernize the ALC to ensure that government's priorities for economic development are reflected in ALC decisions, and t o improve service levels for applicants.

Proposed Minute:

• Develop the necessary policy, regulatory and legislative amendments to: • Modernize ALC decision making to refl ect government priorities. • Create two ALR areas with different rules. • Change the ALC's legislative mandate, in one or both Al.R areas • Remove some decisions from the ALC. • Communi ty growth applications decided by local governments. • Modernize Al.C operations by moving the ALC into the Ministry.

- Honorable Pat Pimm

A second document was not on governm e 1(!;/liCthe~g contained additional ir.jonnalion and :J ,"

sources say it appears to be an accurate sum~ary cj the government's proposals.

Cabinet is days away from considering the Core Review's proposal on the AgricUltural Land Reserve and Agricultural Land Commission.

The proposed changes, if approved, will:

1) Dismantle the Agricultural Land Commission - staff and their functions will move into the Ministry of Agriculture. There will be regional panels but decisions will be able to be appealed to a third party and overturned.

2) Change the mandate of the ALC - the ALC will be required to give equal weight to economic development as well as agriculture.

3) Create two classes of ALR - one area will be status quo - this will be the Okanagan and Fraser Valley-Vancouver Island. The other area will cover the Interior, Kootenays and everything north of the Okanagan, where the rules will be "anything goes."

4) Chang~ what local governments can and can't do around land use decisions.

5) Make oil and gas decisions the priority land use decisions and the Oil and Gas Commission the primary authority.

More Related to this Story

• 'Sacrosanct' Agricultural Land Commission eyed for breakup

• B.C. Liberals looking to agpease private interests with land reforms. nix says

CNCL -284 /1/' ATTACHMENT 2

B.C. looks to overhaul Agricultural Land Reserve Plans could di~mantle one of B.C.’s most-popular government initiatives BY RANDY SHORE, VANCOUVER SUN NOVEMBER 7, 20134:16 PM

Bill Bennett, cabinet minister in cha rge of Victoria's core re view of government programs , says the provincial government is hoping to free up land in northern and eastern B.C. that is o.Jffenlly locked in the Agricultural Land Reserve to encourage econom ic development Photograph by: NICK PROCAYLO: PNG

The provincial government is hoping to free up land in northern and eastern B.C. that is cu rrently locked in the Ag ricultural Land Reserve to encourage economic development, according to Energy Minister Bill Bennett, the minister responsible for B.C.'s core service review.

Bennett wants to ensure that marg inal ag ricultura l land within the Agricultural Land Reserve in the Kootenays, Cariboo and the northeast is used for the broader benefit of local economies.

"That's what people in those areas tell us th ey want," he said . .

Bennett suggested the Agricullural Land Commission, the independent Crown agency charged with protecting 4.7 million hectares of land in the ALR for farming, has been too rig id in its pursuit of that mandate, something that could change as part of th e governrnent's service review.

CNCL - 285 http://www.vancouversun.comlstory yrinLhtml?id=9139931 &sponsor= 2013-11-07 •

B.C. looks to overhaul Agricultural Land Reserve Page 2 of3

IIWhen the res~rve was created several decades ago, there was much I~nd put in that wasn't good for agriculture," said Bennett. "We were promised a review of the boundaries after five years, and that never happened."

The province's best agricultural land is concentrated in Richmond, South Vanc~uver Island, the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan, said Bennett.

IIWhen you get outside those areas into places like the Koot~mays, the Cariboo and the northeast, you'll find a fair bit of land that really isn't good for agriculture," he said.

About one-third of the ALR land in the Kootenays -:' approximately 140,00 hectares - is Class 5, 6 or 7, the lowest-quality soils for agriculture, according to government data.

Critics worry the B.C. Liberals intend to weaken the commission's mandate in order to facilitate economic expansion and real estate development, the very forces the ALR was created to defend against.

The commission considers 600 to 1,000 applications a year for exclusion from the land reserve.

"That's our farming and food security gone, right there," said Brent Mansfield, co-chair of the B.C. Foods Systems Network. IIlf you change its farmland protection mandate and take away its provincial focus and its independence, you make the Agricultural Land Commission powe~ess and ineffective."

In a letter to Bennett and Agriculture Minister Pat Pimm, Mansfield and co-chair Abra Byrne 'worry that the government is sacrificing B.C.'s future food security for short-term economic gain.

"As B.C. considers the current opportunities in the energy sector, resource development must be balanced with the long-term food production capacity of the province so crucial to our food security," they wrote.

But farmers have been lobbying for change to the legislation that governs the land commission, arguing that it is too restrictive and stifles business growth - activities such as on-farm processing and agri­ tourism - in what is an increasingly diverse food Industry, according to Rhonda priediger, chairwoman of the B.C. Agriculture Council.

"There is definitely land throughout B.C. that is in the wrong classification, some of which can be used for non-soiled-based agriculture such as greenhouses and poultry operations," she said. "We should be . looking at the best economic use of land."

Driedig~r is unconcerned about a rumoured government agenda to hand control of agricultural land to the oil and gas industry.

The Oil and Gas Commission already has authority to exclude ALR land for oil and gas extraction and pipeline construction under a decade-old agreement with the land commission.

CNCL -286 http://www.vancouversun.com!story .J)rint.html?id=9139931&sponsor= 2013-11-07 B.C. looks to overhaul Agricultural Land Reserve Page 3 of3

''That's old news," she said.

Bennett spent much of his day Thursday responding to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail that appeared to suggest the government is considering an expanded responsibility for land use decisions for the Oil and Gas Commission. The Globe story also suggest~d the government wants the land commission under the control of the ministry of agriculture.

Bennett dismissed the documents as "talking points" and "bold ideas" meant to elicit discussion.

"We have no plans to bring the (land commission) into the government or let public servants or elected people to make decisions about the Agricultural Land Reserve," said Bennett. "We are not going to dismantle the (land commission) and regional panels that' we ourselves created. That I can tell you for certain."

The provincial government two years ago restored funding to the land commission in response to a 2010 report by the auditor general that said the commission was struggling to fulfil its mandate. A m~ratorium on repeat applications to exclude land from the reserve was also implemented at that time to ease development pressure on farmland.

NDP agriculture critic Nicholas Simons said B,ennett appears to be pursuing a personal agenda in his criticism of the land commission, stemming from irritation over specific decisions by the body.

"He just seems unhappy that decisions have been made that promote farm uses, and he seems to think there are better ways to use that land," said Simons.

The core service review is meant to examine ways to deliver government services in a more cost­ effective way. The review is expected to continue until the end of 2014.

[email protected]

Blog: vancouversun.com/greenman

Pod cast: vancouversu npodcasts.com

~ Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

CNCL -287 http://www.vancouversun.com/story-print.html ?id=913 9931 &sponsor= 2013-11-07 A4 " NEWS I THEPROVINCE.COM FRIDAY, NOVEMBER B. 2013 B.C.gov't denies it wants to change land reserve A leaked cabinet document that propos­ Instead, it would come under the control Bill Bennett, also the minister of energy 1910s by the NDP government of the day. es significant changes to B.C:s Agricultural of the Agriculture Ministry. whUe handing and mines, sald the newspaper story was Harold Steves, a Richmond councillor Land Reserve prompted swift denials Thurs­ "primary authority" to authorize Industrial based on an ·older document" that has been who as an NDP member of the legisillture day from the provincial government. activity on agrlculturalland to the B.C. 011 and rejected. in the 19705 was considered one of the land The Globe and Mail published a story based Gas Commission, the newspaper reponed. -We certainly have no plans to bring the reserve's co-founders, said he'sconvincedthe on cabinet documents that reponedly out­ The documents were prepared as pan of a commission inside government or tam­ Liberal government Is searching for ways to line a proposal from Agriculture Minister Pat so-called ·core review" of government oper­ per with the independence of the commis· weaken the reserve and the commission that Pimm to "modernize- the Agricultural Land ations, launched earlier this year In a bid to slon, and we have no plans to undermine protects it. Commission, the Crown agency that manag­ trim the provincial budget the central principle of the reserve, which Steves warned any attempt to tamper with es the land reserve. The cablnetm1nlster In charge of that review Is the protection of good quality farmland,­ the land reserve would be fraught with polit­ Among other things, the proposal would see responded Thursday by ruling out many of Bennett said. ical danger. ·Ifthey caned an election on this the commission cease to be an independent the most controversial aspects of the leaked But his comments did little to assure sup­ issue, they wouldn't get a seat,- hesald. agency. proposal. porters of the land reserve. created in the mld- - rha Canadian I'ress

CNCL -288 793 genda . . A FILE # OdCbD: LJ Q ...... metro vancouver ...... , . "'1111...... ~ ......

~ 4330 Kingsway, Bu rnaby, Be. Canada VS H 4GB 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org Office of the Commissioner/ Chief Administrative Officer Tel. 604-432-6210 Fax 604-451 -6614

File: PA-03-01-DEA-00

Mayor Lois E. Jackson and Council Corporation of Delta 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta, BC V4K 3E2

Dear Mayor Jackson and Council:

Re: Gillnetter Heritage Restoration

Thank yo u for your October 11, 2013 letter seeking Metro Vancouver assistance in providing suita ble space for local residents to store two Gillnetters. Staff have undertaken a preliminary review of this request and, ba se d on current information that we have on this project, we are not aware of suitable space within Metro Vancouver to accommodate the project.

Should the owners of the two Gillnetters wish to pursue this project on Metro Vancouver lands, they are requested to sen d a written proposal to the attention of the Metro Vancouver Environment and Parks Committee and include details of the project for further consideration. Further questions regard ing this matter may be directed to Mitch Sokalski, Director of Regional Parks at 604.432.6355.

Yours truly

Carol Mason Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer

CM/MS/mlt

cc: George Harvie, CAO, Corporation of Delta Mitch Sokalski, Director, Metro Vancouve r Regional Parks

Mr. Massey has been advised to provide a written proposal to the Metro Vancouver Environment and Parks Committee outlining his request.

8225579 "rom (he (~tficl! u./ THE CORPORATION OF DELTA The Mi1yor, Lois [ Ji:lcksol1

October 11, 2013

Carol Mason, Chief Administrative Officer Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8

Dear Ms. Mason,

Re: Gillnetter Heritage Restoration

Delta's fishing heritage is of great significance to our community and the preservation of this heritage for future generations is an important piece of our enduring social fabric. We are asking for your assistance in helping to preserve a small piece of our fishing heritage by providing suitable space for committed local residents to restore two gillnetters.

Restoring these gillnetters is a worthwhile undertaking that will promote our modern community while preserving its historic past. We hope you will consider working with us to facilitate this community-driven heritage project.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter. We look forward to your response.

Yours truly, ~/JA ~ fI Lois E. Jackson Mayor

cc: Delta Council George V. Harvie, Chief Administrative Officer Ken Kuntz, Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture

4500 Clarence Tilylr" Crescent, Deltil, British Columbia. Canada V4 f< 3E2 Tel: 604 940':52 10 F,IX, 6n4 946 (,055 E-Illdil, mayor" delta ca