The updated thread with all correspondence with Chris Freeman, Industry Canada and Daniel Brassard. Shows an accurate timeline and the incompetence of Industry Canada to date.
Attn: Robert Régimbald
Daniel Brassard
Alexandre Pelletier
Francois Belanger
In regards to Mister Brassard and Mister Régimbald’s emails, dated October 9th, 2013 and October 17th, 2013 respectively, please find our response as follows:
Mister Brassard wrote:
“A CPC (public consultation) as per the required CPC-2-0-03 was held from the 21st to the 21st June 2013 in Sutton-Jonction.”
Mister Régimbald wrote:
“On file, we have a copy of the notification file dated May 21st, 2013 that was sent to concerned residents by Bell Mobility…”
First off, no one disputes the date on the cover letter. It is clearly dated May 21, 2013. As well, the date of response clearly states June 22, 2013. These are documented facts.
The issue is what constitutes thirty days, as is specified in Section 4.2-2 of Industry Canada’s directive CPC-2-0-03:
“It is the proponent's responsibility to ensure that the notification provides at least 30 days for written public comment.”
As Mr. Régimbald states above, the file dated was sent May 21. Is this correct? We have no way of knowing when it was sent. Do you? Have you documentation of the date the package was sent? According to CPC-2-0-03 guidelines proponents “must keep a record of all associated communications.”
You certainly do not have documentation of when it was received by the local public. Why was the notification sent parcel post? Why was it not sent registered mail as we did with our response?
For the sake of this argument, we will take Mr. Brassard’s word that notification was sent May 21. This would mean the earliest the package would have been delivered to our communal post boxes would have been May 23 or 24.
Assuming us irregular rural residents check our mail daily – again, why was notification not sent by registered mail – the thirty days for written public comment would have been June 22 or 23. In other words, we would have had to mail our response by one of these dates.
June 22 was not the deadline date for Bell Mobility to receive our response but the date we were to send our response – you cannot have it both ways, one set of rules for your correspondence and another for ours.
These are time sensitive documents and must be respected as such.
We, the one hundred plus citizens of Sutton Junction sent our response June 20th, by registered mail. The package was signed for as received on June 25th, 2013 as can be verified by on-line tracking the attached receipts.
Therefore, it is clear Mr. Brassard and Bell Mobility are not in compliance with Industry Canada’s guidelines.
Secondly, if for some aberrant reason you wish to dispute the first argument, Bell Mobility still received our response on time:
June 22, 2013 – the date stated in Bell Mobility’s cover letter for public response was a Saturday. Sunday was the 23rd and June 24 was a provincial holiday. This would mean the deadline would actually of been June 25th. Which, as we have documented is the date Bell Mobility received our response.
Thirdly, on October 3rd, 2013 a unanimous resolution by the Sutton town council was made to halt the construction of the cell tower at 1111 chemin de la Vallee. The resolution was drafted on the 8th of October. Are you aware of this?
(Please read attached resolution)
If you are aware of this Mr. Régimbald, on what grounds do you claim in your email: “We will be able to assess compliance to the procedures outlined in the CPC-2-0-03.”
Does Industry Canada really wish to challenge a municipal resolution?
Furthermore, our numbers are growing each day, and we have now partnered with citizens’ groups in Potton and Bolton, Quebec. As well we have partnered with Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST). Additionally, the press is becoming more numerous and more aware of our cause.
In closing, as to your additional query, Mr. Brassard: “Can you also tell me the names (residents of Sutton-Junction), who did not receive the CPC documents that were sent by mail?”
Why do you not know this? This is your responsibility as outlined in CPC-2-0-03. And why would you send me notification at 101, chemin Lakeside, Knowlton? I have not lived there for over ten years.
Until you, Mr. Régimbald and Mr. Brassard are able to address these inconsistencies, we have no faith in Industry Canada or Bell Mobility serving any of our community’s needs, telecommunication or otherwise.
Sincerely,
Chris Freeman,
Sutton Junction Citizens Group
P.S. I will be out of the country for several weeks. During my absence please correspond with Gilles Globensky: gillesglobensky@videotron.ca, Olivier Burnham: ollham@hotmail.com andPierre Ménard, OMA, town manager: p.menard@sutton.ca
“Everything you have always wanted is just outside your comfort zone."
Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.”
Rumi
Subject: RE: cell tower, Sutton Junction, Qc
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:21:56 -0400
From:
Robert.Regimbald@ic.gc.ca
To:
storyland3@hotmail.com
CC:
Robert.Regimbald@ic.gc.ca;
daniel.brassard@bell.ca
Dear Sir,
Thank you for finally responding, Robert.
I'm glad to hear you spoke with one of Bell Mobility's representatives.
It appears they are being as forthright with you as they have been with us.
I assure you Bell Mobility did not hold any public consultation as is outlined in the CPC-2-0-03. In fact Bell Mobility mislead a local newspaper and announced they were not going to build in Sutton Junction at all.
According to your protocol:
Responding to the Public
Proponents are to address all reasonable and relevant concerns, make all reasonable efforts to resolve them in a mutually acceptable manner and must keep a record of all associated communications. If the local public or land-use authority raises a question, comment or concern relating to the antenna system as a result of the public notification process, then the proponent is required to:
- respond to the party in writing within 14 days acknowledging receipt of the question, comment or concern and keep a record of the communication;
- address in writing all reasonable and relevant concerns within 60 days of receipt or explain why the question, comment or concern is not, in the view of the proponent, reasonable or relevant; and
- in the written communication referred to in the preceding point, clearly indicate that the party has 21 days from the date of the correspondence to reply to the proponent's response. The proponent must provide a copy of all public reply comments to the local Industry Canada office.
Responding to reasonable and relevant concerns may include contacting a party by telephone, engaging in a community meeting or having an informal, personal discussion. Between steps 1 and 2 above, the proponent is expected to engage the public in a manner it deems most appropriate. Therefore, the letter at step 2 above may be a record of how the proponent and the other party addressed the concern at hand.
None of the above was done. Our community was only met with silence. The fact that Bell Mobility did not respond in writing (2.) within 60 days to any resident's concerns, makes there proposal null and void.
Bell Mobility clearly did not follow your guidelines and it seems they are being dishonest with you to cover their tracks.
There are over 100 local citizens who are furious with this situation. We have begun protesting the site and momentum grows. The press is now involved as well as several lawyers who assure us that Bell Mobility did not follow Industry Canada guidelines.
Please consult further with Bell Mobility's representative. We expect the truth to be uncovered.
Sincerely,
Chris Freeman,
Sutton Junction Citizens Representative
“Everything you have always wanted is just outside your comfort zone."
Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.”
Rumi
Subject: RE: cell tower, Sutton Junction, Qc
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 09:12:19 -0400
From:
Robert.Regimbald@ic.gc.ca
To:
storyland3@hotmail.com
CC:
Robert.Regimbald@ic.gc.ca
From: Christopher Freeman [mailto:storyland3@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 5:30 PM
To: Spectrum Publications - Publications du Spectre
Subject: cell tower, Sutton Junction, Qc
Good Afternoon,
I am writing on behalf of the residents of Sutton Junction, Qc.
We opposed the proposal by Bell Mobility to build a 60 metre cell tower in our backyard. After the fact, Bell Mobility did not hold any public consultations - despite our concerns.
Furthermore, after we made them aware of our concerns, Bell Mobility deceived the residents by publicizing that they were not going to build said tower and that they were selecting an alternative location in another region.
They began work on the tower on Monday in Sutton Junction!
We are familiar with the guidelines by Industry Canada regarding Antenna Systems (CPC-2-0-03). Bell Mobility has not honoured this agreement.
Are you aware of this? Why have you given them a licence for this project?
Our community is outraged by this deception.
We request a moratorium on the the project until our concerns are addressed.
Please take this under advisement and proceed asap.
We will send a detailed report including timeline, petition and copy of the misleading article by Bell Mobility once you have provided a contact name we can submit this to.
Until then, we will consider legal advisement as well as notify the media.
Thank you for your support,
Citizens Group Sutton Junction
“Everything you have always wanted is just outside your comfort zone."
Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.”
Rumi
From: Christopher Freeman [mailto:storyland3@hotmail.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, September 24, 2013 5:30 PM
To: Spectrum Publications -
Publications du Spectre
Subject: cell tower, Sutton Junction, Qc
Good Afternoon,
I am writing on behalf of
the residents of Sutton Junction, Qc.
In brief:
We opposed the proposal
by Bell Mobility to build a 60 metre cell tower in our backyard. After the
fact, Bell Mobility did not hold any public consultations - despite our
concerns.
Furthermore, after we
made them aware of our concerns, Bell Mobility deceived the residents by
publicizing that they were not going to build said tower and that they were
selecting an alternative location in another region.
They began work on the
tower on Monday in Sutton Junction!
We are familiar with the
guidelines by Industry Canada regarding Antenna Systems (CPC-2-0-03). Bell
Mobility has not honoured this agreement.
Are you aware of this? Why
have you given them a license for this project?
Our community is outraged
by this deception.
We request a moratorium
on the the project until our concerns are addressed.
Please take this under
advisement and proceed asap.
We will send a detailed
report including timeline, petition and copy of the misleading article by Bell
Mobility once you have provided a contact name we can submit this to.
Until then, we will
consider legal advisement as well as notify the media.
Thank you for your
support,
Christopher Freeman,
Citizens Group Sutton Junction
spectrum_pubs@ic.gc.c a (spectrum_pubs@ic.gc.ca)
Add to contacts 25/09/2013
To: spectre.region.quebec@ic.gc.ca
Cc: storyland3@hotmail.com
Good morning,
Please see below Mr.
Freeman’s enquiry – for your reply.
Thank you,
Spectrum
Publications
Publications du Spectre
From: Christopher Freeman [mailto:storyland3@hotmail.com]
Sent:
Friday, September 27, 2013 5:14 PM
To: Spectrum Publications -
Publications du Spectre
Subject: RE: cell tower, Sutton Junction, Qc
We are waiting on your
response. Just because you do not share your name does not mean you are not
implicated in this unlawful act.
Please respond, asap.
spectrum_pubs@ic.gc.c a (spectrum_pubs@ic.gc.ca)
Add to contacts 30/09/2013
To: storyland3@hotmail.com
Cc: spectre.region.quebec@ic.gc.ca
Mr. Freeman,
Your enquiry was forwarded
to the Quebec regional district office on September 25th for a reply.
Regards,
Spectrum Publications
Publications du Spectre
Subject: RE: cell tower,
Sutton Junction, Qc
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 09:12:19 -0400
From:
Robert.Regimbald@ic.gc.ca
To: storyland3@hotmail.com
CC:
Robert.Regimbald@ic.gc.ca
Dear Sir,
We thank you for your
correspondence in wich you raise concerns on a Bell Mobility project in
Sutton. Prior to forwarding your e-mail to Bell Mobility for their
response on the public consultation issue, as it is their responsability
to respond to your concerns, I have spoken to one of their
representatives this morning and he mentionned that the public
consultation for that site has been performed according to the procedure
outlined in the CPC-2-0-03 and that Bell responded in a satisfactory manner to
concerns raised during the consultation period which ended on May 21st
2013.
As for the issuance of a
radio licence relative to this site and the requested moratorium, I would
like to inform you that Bell Mobility holds a spectrum licence issued by
Industry Canada which allows the deployment of antenna systems in various
locations within their authorized territory, provided that
they fully comply with the procedures outlined in the CPC-2-0-03.
Thus, sites selected by Bell that are in compliance with
the CPC-2-0-03 are pre-authorized as per their spectrum licence and
do not require further approval by the department.
Best regards,
Robert Régimbald
Agent Gestion du Spectre | Spectrum
Management Officer
Direction Générale des Opérations de la Gestion du Spectre |
Spectrum Management Operations Branch
Industrie Canada | Industry Canada
975, boulevard St-Joseph Pièce 222, Gatineau QC J8Z 1W8 | 975
St-Joseph Blvd Room 222, Gatineau QC J8Z 1W8
Robert.Regimbald@ic.gc.ca
Téléphone | Telephone 819-953-1324
Télécopieur | Facsimile 819-953-8164
Téléimprimeur | Teletypewriter
1-866-694-8389
Gouvernement
du Canada | Government of Canada
De : Christopher
Freeman [mailto:storyland3@hotmail.com]
Envoyé : le 1 octobre 2013
17:23
À : Regimbald, Robert: DGSO-DGOGS
Objet : RE:
cell tower, Sutton Junction, Qc
Thank you for finally
responding, Robert.
I'm glad to hear you spoke
with one of Bell Mobility's representatives.
It appears they are being
as forthright with you as they have been with us.
I assure you Bell Mobility
did not hold any public consultation as is outlined in the
CPC-2-0-03. In fact Bell Mobility mislead a local newspaper and announced they
were not going to build in Sutton Junction at all.
According to your protocol:
Responding to the Public
Proponents are to address
all reasonable and relevant concerns, make all reasonable efforts to resolve
them in a mutually acceptable manner and must keep a record of all associated
communications. If the local public or land-use authority raises a question,
comment or concern relating to the antenna system as a result of the public
notification process, then the proponent is required to:
1.
respond to the party in writing within 14 days acknowledging
receipt of the question, comment or concern and keep a record of the
communication;
2.
address in writing all reasonable and relevant concerns
within 60 days of receipt or explain why the question, comment
or concern is not, in the view of the proponent, reasonable or relevant; and
3.
in the written communication referred to in the
preceding point, clearly indicate that the party has 21 days from
the date of the correspondence to reply to the proponent's response. The
proponent must provide a copy of all public reply comments to the local
Industry Canada office.
Responding to reasonable
and relevant concerns may include contacting a party by telephone, engaging in
a community meeting or having an informal, personal discussion. Between steps 1
and 2 above, the proponent is expected to engage the public in a manner it
deems most appropriate. Therefore, the letter at step 2 above may be a record
of how the proponent and the other party addressed the concern at hand.
None of the above was done.
Our community was only met with silence. The fact that Bell Mobility did not
respond in writing (2.) within 60 days to any resident's concerns, makes their
proposal null and void.
Bell Mobility clearly did
not follow your guidelines and it seems they are being dishonest with you to
cover their tracks.
There are over 100 local
citizens who are furious with this situation. We have begun protesting the site
and momentum grows. The press is now involved as well as several lawyers who
assure us that Bell Mobility did not follow Industry Canada guidelines.
Please consult further with
Bell Mobility's representative. We expect the truth to be uncovered.
Sincerely,
Chris Freeman,
Sutton Junction Citizens
Representative
“Everything you have always
wanted is just outside your comfort zone."
Your task is not to seek
for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you
have built against it.” Rumi
From:
daniel.brassard@bell.ca
To: Robert.Regimbald@ic.gc.ca; storyland3@hotmail.com;
spectre.region.quebec@ic.gc.ca; alexandre.pelletier@bell.ca;
francois.belanger@bell.ca
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:23:46 -0400
Subject: RE:
cell tower, Sutton Junction, Qc
Dear Mr Freeman,
In regards to your memos
sent to IC, please find our responses:
·
A CPC (public consultation) as per the required CPC-2-0-03 was held from
the 21st to the 21st June 2013 in Sutton-Jonction.
·
We did not receive any questions or demands from the
community during thie CPC.
·
Your petition was received the following week after the
cut-off date.
·
Please note that all landowners and tenants within 3
times height of tower(60M) received a complete information package. For
exemple, you, Mr Freeman, received this documentation at the following 2
adresses: 1047, chemin Vallée (Roberta Lawrence) and 101, chemin Lakeside,
Knowlton.
·
I can re-send this package to you if required.
It was written in your
local newspaper that Bell would put up one tower instead of two in the Mansville
area, which is the Sutton-Junction project. This was mistakenly written and
should of been:...in the Mansonville area.... Our media group
called the journalist on this issue and the corrected information was exchanged
by all parties to everyone’s satisfaction. You can call said journalist
and he will confirm this for you.
The phrase you included in
your memo as a conclusion: Your task is
not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within
yourself that you have built against it.” Is very interesting and necessitates a moment of truth for all.
If I may add, your answers
to the following questions would be appreciated:
1.
What do you seek in the finality of this
telecommunication tower?
2.
What are your suggestions for a win-win solution?
3.
Part of the community desires to have a good internet
and cellular service in the area on a continued basis. How can you, as a
citizen of this community who is not interested in such a service, find a
solution that will be beneficial for all?
I await your responses and
wish you a pleasant day.
Daniel Brassard
Conseiller Services Immobilier et
Relations Municipales
De : Christopher Freeman [mailto:storyland3@hotmail.com]
Envoyé :
October 9, 2013 5:13 PM
À : Brassard, Daniel (6055312)
Cc :
ollham@hotmail.com; gillesglobensky@videotron.ca
Objet : RE: cell
tower, Sutton Junction, Qc
Mr Brassard,
Thank you for your
correspondence.
I will be meeting with several
dozen citizens this evening in Sutton Junction. During which, I will present
your email for discussion.
I will share with you the
outcome before the end of the week.
And yes, I agree - a win
win solution for all stakeholders is most desirable.
Sincerely,
Chris Freeman,
Sutton Junction Citizens
Group
“Everything you have always
wanted is just outside your comfort zone."
Your task is not to seek
for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you
have built against it.” Rumi
From: daniel.brassard@bell.ca
To: storyland3@hotmail.com;
francois.belanger@bell.ca; Robert.Regimbald@ic.gc.ca
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:40:44
-0400
Subject: RE: cell tower, Sutton
Junction, Qc
Mr Freeman,
I hope you are doing
well. How did the meeting go? Do you have answers to my previous
questions?
Can you also tell me the
names (residents of Sutton-Junction), who did not receive the CPC documents
that were sent by mail?
Thank you for your
continued cooperation.
Daniel Brassard
Conseiller Services Immobilier et
Relations Municipales
daniel.brassard@bell.ca
514.778.6536
11/10/2013
To: daniel.brassard@bell.ca
The meeting went very well, thank
you - many topics discussed. The committee will be meeting over the weekend to
address the specifics of your questions and will respond at the beginning of
next week.
Enjoy the long weekend.
Robert.Reg imbald@ic.g c.ca (Robert.Regimbald@ic.gc.ca)
Add to
contacts
17/10/2013
To:
storyland3@hotmail.com
Cc:
Robert.Regimbald@ic.gc.ca, daniel.brassard@bell.ca
Dear Sir,
On file, we have a copy of the notification file dated
May 21st 2013 that was sent to concerned residents by Bell Mobility and a
copy of the public notice that appeared in a local newspaper for the site
located at 1111 chemin de la Vallee in Sutton.
At this time Bell is investigating the assumption that
some residents did not receive the notification file. Once this matter is
clarified, we will be able to assess compliance to
the procedures outlined in the CPC-2-0-03.
Best regards,
Robert Régimbald
Agent Gestion du Spectre | Spectrum
Management Officer
Direction
Générale des Opérations de la Gestion du Spectre | Spectrum Management
Operations Branch
Industrie
Canada | Industry Canada
975, boulevard St-Joseph Pièce 222, Gatineau QC J8Z 1W8 |
975 St-Joseph Blvd Room 222, Gatineau QC J8Z 1W8
Robert.Regimbald@ic.gc.ca
Téléphone | Telephone
819-953-1324
Télécopieur
| Facsimile 819-953-8164
Téléimprimeur | Teletypewriter 1-866-694-8389
Gouvernement du Canada |
Government of Canada
Christopher Freeman 19/10/2013 Photos
To:
Robert.Regimbald@ic.gc.ca
Cc:
daniel.brassard@bell.ca, alexandre.pelletier@bell.ca,
francois.belanger@bell.ca,
Outlook Active View
3 attachments (total 1139.1 KB)
View
slide show (3)
Download
all as zip
Attn:
Robert
Régimbald
Daniel
Brassard
Alexandre
Pelletier
Francois
Belanger
In
regards to Mister Brassard and Mister Régimbald’s emails, dated October 9th, 2013 and October 17th, 2013 respectively, please find
our response as follows:
Mister
Brassard wrote:
“A
CPC (public consultation) as per the required CPC-2-0-03 was held from the
21st to the 21st June 2013 in Sutton-Jonction.”
Mister
Régimbald wrote:
“On
file, we have a copy of the notification file dated May 21st, 2013 that was sent to
concerned residents by Bell Mobility…”
First
off, no one disputes the date on the cover letter. It is clearly dated May 21,
2013. As well, the date of response clearly states June 22, 2013. These are
documented facts.
The
issue is what constitutes thirty days, as is specified in Section 4.2-2 of
Industry Canada’s directive CPC-2-0-03:
“It
is the proponent's responsibility to ensure that the notification provides at
least 30 days for written public comment.”
As
Mr. Régimbald states above, the file dated was sent May 21. Is this correct? We
have no way of knowing when it was sent. Do you? Have you documentation of the
date the package was sent? According to CPC-2-0-03 guidelines proponents “must
keep a record of all associated communications.”
You
certainly do not have documentation of when it was received by the local
public. Why was the notification sent parcel post? Why was it not sent
registered mail as we did with our response?
For
the sake of this argument, we will take Mr. Brassard’s word that notification
was sent May 21. This would mean the earliest the package would have been
delivered to our communal post boxes would have been May 23 or 24.
Assuming
us irregular rural residents check our mail daily – again, why was notification
not sent by registered mail – the thirty days for written public comment would
have been June 22 or 23. In other words, we would have had to mail our response
by one of these dates.
June
22 was not the deadline date for Bell Mobility to receive our response but the
date we were to send our response – you cannot have it both ways, one set of
rules for your correspondence and another for ours.
These
are time sensitive documents and must be respected as such.
We,
the one hundred plus citizens of Sutton Junction sent our response June 20th, by registered mail. The
package was signed for as received on June 25th, 2013 as can be verified by
on-line tracking the attached receipts.
Therefore,
it is clear Mr. Brassard and Bell Mobility are not in compliance with Industry
Canada’s guidelines.
Secondly,
if for some aberrant reason you wish to dispute the first argument, Bell
Mobility still received our response on time:
June
22, 2013 – the date stated in Bell Mobility’s cover letter for public response
was a Saturday. Sunday was the 23rd and June 24 was a provincial holiday. This would mean the
deadline would actually of been June 25th. Which, as we have documented is the date Bell Mobility
received our response.
Thirdly,
on October 3rd, 2013 a unanimous resolution by the Sutton town council was made
to halt the construction of the cell tower at 1111 chemin de la Vallee. The
resolution was drafted on the 8th of October. Are you aware of this?
(Please
read attached resolution)
If
you are aware of this Mr. Régimbald, on what grounds do you claim in your
email: “We will be able to assess compliance to the procedures
outlined in the CPC-2-0-03.”
Does
Industry Canada really wish to challenge a municipal resolution?
Furthermore,
our numbers are growing each day, and we have now partnered with citizens’
groups in Potton and Bolton, Quebec. As well we have partnered with Canadians
for Safe Technology (C4ST). Additionally, the press is becoming more numerous
and more aware of our cause.
In
closing, as to your additional query, Mr. Brassard: “Can you also tell me the
names (residents of Sutton-Junction), who did not receive the CPC documents that
were sent by mail?”
Why
do you not know this? This is your responsibility as outlined in CPC-2-0-03.
And why would you send me notification at 101, chemin Lakeside, Knowlton? I
have not lived there for over ten years.
Until
you, Mr. Régimbald and Mr. Brassard are able to address these inconsistencies,
we have no faith in Industry Canada or Bell Mobility serving any of our
community’s needs, telecommunication or otherwise.
Sincerely,
Chris
Freeman,
Sutton
Junction Citizens Group
