Conférence, Mardi 25 Mars, à Sutton

March 1, 2014

Le 10 février, 2014

Monsieur Daniel Brassard,                                                                                                                      

Conseiller Services Immobilier et Relations Municipales.                                                                                   

200 Boul.Bouchard, 5CS                                                                                                                                         

Dorval. Qc. H9S 5X5

Sutton Jonction le 10 février 2014.

En réponse à votre lettre, nous citoyens de la communauté de Sutton-jonction ne pouvons accepter votre proposition, afin de préserver nos qualités de vies.

Les documents que vous nous avez fournis ne nous ont pas convaincus et en cas de doute pour la santé de nos enfants, sommes obligés de refuser. Les scientifiques s’accordent à  classer les antennes du genre : « 2A » , étant cancérigènes. D’ailleurs le code de sécurité 6 est actuellement contesté à Ottawa.

Au lieu de vous évertuer à vouloir spolier notre environnement, pourquoi  ne feriez-vous pas volte-face et trouver d’autres solutions plus adéquates pour préserver notre région. Cela existe déjà aux États-Unis, où des compagnies comme la vôtre ouvrent et partagent les réseaux existants comme la fibre optique en implantant des relais moins invasifs et plus durables. Celle-ci passe devant notre porte et par ailleurs nous sommes déjà pleinement couverts.

Cela vous mettra dans une position de leader où l’on pourrait vous admirer pour votre attention envers diverses communautés, au lieu de cette attitude corporatiste d’une personne à la morale psychopathe.

Les vents changent, voir l’annexe, il va vous falloir dès à présent montrer patte blanche, on est maîtres chez-nous.

Nous sommes aussi prêts à nous battre pour épargner la ville des argents que vous lui réclameriez en cas de non construction de la tour par vos représentations dolosives.

Il est temps d’admettre que votre projet  «F1416 Mansville » était une erreur en d’en faire amendement honorable, vous avez sûrement des assurances pour ce genre de cas.

S’il vous faut absolument une tour dans notre secteur, la Ville de Sutton vous indiquera les possibilités et dorénavant ne pourra être sur terrain privé.

Pour fin de non-recevoir.

Olivier Burnham.

Annexe :

Bonjour!

Voici l’annonce qu’a faite James Moore à midi sur les tours de télécommunication et les communautés.

Ça devrait vous intéresser.

La version anglaise suit.

CATHERINE LUSSON
Adjointe de circonscription | Constituency Assistant

Bureau du député Pierre Jacob | MP Pierre Jacob’s Office

Nouveau Parti démocratique | New Democratic Party

______________________________________________________

(TEL): 819-868-1305 | (FAX) 819-868-5609

Sans frais : 1-866-683-5538

npd.ca | ndp.ca

Le gouvernement Harper modifie les règles sur l'emplacement des pylônes de téléphonie cellulaire

Les nouvelles règles permettront aux Canadiens d'avoir un mot à dire au sujet des pylônes dans leur collectivité

Le 5 février 2014 — Ottawa — Industrie Canada

Au cours des 20 dernières années, les services sans fil sont devenus une nécessité de tous les jours pour les consommateurs canadiens. Leur utilisation a entraîné une augmentation du nombre de pylônes de téléphonie cellulaire dans nos collectivités. La détermination de l'emplacement de ces pylônes devient de plus en plus problématique, compte tenu de la croissance soutenue de la demande pour les services sans fil.

Les Canadiens devraient avoir un mot à dire sur la manière dont les emplacements de nouveaux pylônes sont choisis dans leur collectivité. Des améliorations à la politique d'Industrie Canada sur l'emplacement des pylônes d'antennes mettront les résidents et les administrations municipales à l'avant-scène du processus de sélection des emplacements des pylônes.

À la suite des changements à la politique, les entreprises devront :

• consulter la collectivité au sujet de toute nouvelle installation de pylône commercial, peu importe sa hauteur;
• construire tout pylône dans les trois ans suivant la consultation;
• faire en sorte que les résidents soient bien informés des consultations à venir.

Les améliorations à la politique favoriseront également la communication entre le gouvernement fédéral et le public à l'égard des procédures menant au choix de l'emplacement des pylônes d'antennes. De nouvelles ressources seront mises en ligne, tandis que de nouvelles procédures de déclaration faciliteront le suivi des enjeux et la communication avec les citoyens.

Ces mesures font fond sur les politiques actuelles du gouvernement Harper en matière de partage des pylônes d'antennes. Les entreprises doivent étudier la possibilité de partager l'infrastructure déjà en place, dans la mesure du possible, afin de réduire le nombre de pylônes devant être construits dans les collectivités.

Les consommateurs canadiens veulent que les décisions de leur gouvernement donnent lieu à plus de choix, à des prix plus bas et à de meilleurs services dans le secteur du sans-fil.Au cours des semaines à venir, le gouvernement du Canada continuera à collaborer avec l'industrie du sans-fil pour répondre plus adéquatement aux préoccupations des citoyens à l'échelle locale.

Consultez la fiche d'information pour en savoir plus à ce sujet.

Les faits en bref

• En vertu de la politique actuelle sur l'emplacement des pylônes de téléphonie cellulaire, les entreprises sont seulement tenues de consulter la collectivité lorsqu'elles prévoient construire un pylône d'une hauteur de plus de 15 mètres.
• Avant de construire un pylône, une entreprise doit examiner les autres options, dont celle de partager l'utilisation d'un pylône se trouvant déjà dans la zone en question.
• Afin d'assurer la sécurité de la population, tous les pylônes d'antennes, peu importe leur hauteur, leur emplacement ou leur puissance, doivent être conformes aux exigences techniques d'Industrie Canada et aux normes de Santé Canada.

Citation

« Le choix de l'emplacement des nouveaux pylônes de téléphonie cellulaire est une question souvent controversée dans les collectivités canadiennes. Il est essentiel que les résidents se trouvent au cœur du processus de sélection de l'emplacement des nouveaux pylônes, et l'industrie du sans-fil doit tenir compte du point de vue des citoyens. Ces nouvelles règles donneront aux collectivités une meilleure occasion de se prononcer sur l'emplacement des nouveaux pylônes. »

— Le ministre de l'Industrie, James Moore

Produits connexes

• Fiche d'information : Modifications à la politique canadienne sur l'emplacement des pylônes d'antennes
• Discours : Modifications à la politique d'Industrie Canada sur l'emplacement des pylônes d'antennes

Lien connexe

• Industrie Canada : Bâtis d'antennes

Suivez-nous sur Twitter : @industriecanada

Renseignements :

Jake Enwright
Attaché de presse
Cabinet du ministre de l'Industrie
613-995-9001

Relations avec les médias
Industrie Canada
613-943-2502
relations-medias@ic.gc.ca

Febuary 8. 2014

For information about the towers in Frelighsburgh: Les tours à Frelighsburgh :
http://frelighsburg-preservation.com

Les tours à Potton : For information about the towers in Potton
http://www.thecelltowers.org

Jan 31, 2014

Link to PDF file  for the  RAPPORT D'ANALYSE DE CONFORMITE DES NIVEAUX DE RAYONNEMENTS RF SELON LES NORMES DU CODE DE SECURITE 6 MANSVILLE F1416 

DECEMBRE 2013 

 Preparé pour Bell Mobilité 

Jan. 28. 2014

From: daniel.brassard@bell.ca
To: dandeneault@gmail.com; p.menard@sutton.ca; r.girard@sutton.ca; winstonbresse@sympatico.ca; khill@nuera-ind.com; ollham@hotmail.com;storyland3@hotmail.com; robert.regimbald@ic.gc.ca; francois.belanger@bell.ca; alexandre.pelletier@bell.ca; michel.lavoie@bell.ca
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:28:37 -0500
Subject: TR: P-2013149 - F1416 Mansville - étude Code 6

Le 15 janvier 2014

Bonjour à tous,

Par la présente, je vous fait parvenir ce rapport préparé par une source indépendante concernant la radiation des antennes qui seront installées éventuellement dans la tour à Sutton Jonction dans l’emplacement de la sablière Municipale.  Ce rapport à été préparé en vue de répondre à la préoccupation des résidents du secteur et sur  le commentaire qu’a émis Mr Burnham le 14 novembre 2013 : « Pour nous la santé des citoyens est prioritaire à la santé des portefeuilles des actionnaires de Bell…. »

L’étude démontre l’effet de rayonnement des antennes à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur (toitures) des résidences localisées dans le secteur de la nouvelle tour. Cette étude couvre une superficie de 200m à 360® du centre de la tour ce qui inclus la plupart des résidences du village.

Je vous laisse la liberté de lire la conclusion et selon le processus de Industrie Canada, vous avez 21 jours pour offrir vos commentaires ou questionnement sur ce rapport qui répond à l’ultime préoccupation des citoyens.

Par la présente, je vous prie de croire en nos salutations les meilleures.

Daniel Brassard

Conseiller Services Immobilier et Relations Municipales

200 Boul.Bouchard, 5CS

Dorval. Qc. H9S 5X5

daniel.brassard@bell.ca

( 514.778.6536

November 14, 2013

Monsieur Daniel Brassard,                                                                                                                      

Conseiller Services Immobilier et Relations Municipales.                                                                                   

200 Boul.Bouchard, 5CS                                                                                                                                         

Dorval. Qc. H9S 5X5

Nous accusons réception de votre lettre du 29 octobre 2013

Les citoyens de Sutton Junction directement  affectés par la décision de Bell d’implanter une tour de télécommunication à proximité de nos demeures et autres membres de notre communauté opposés à votre projet, notamment les signataires de la pétition déposée chez-vous le 19 juin 2013, n’ont, à ce stade, aucun commentaire à y apporter et ce, pour les raisons suivantes :

1.     Le « permis » d’Industrie Canada pour la construction d’une tour à Sutton Junction a été obtenu sous de fausses représentations, notamment les fausses affirmations de Bell à l’effet que le processus prévu dans la directive CPC-2-0-03 avait été suivi;

2.     De là, vous avez induit la Ville de Sutton en erreur en leur représentant faussement que vous aviez les autorisations nécessaires pour aller de l’avant;

3.     Vous avez tenté d’induire en erreur le Conseil municipal de la Ville de Sutton ainsi que tous les citoyens présents à l’assemblée du Conseil tenue le 3 octobre en affirmant que les citoyens concernés n’avaient pas respecté les délais de réponse, poussant même la bêtise jusqu’à affirmer que Bell avait expédié par la poste des lettres postdatées (portant la date du 21 mai 2013) une semaine avant cette date pour s’assurer qu’elles seraient livrées à temps (sic)!

4.     Personne ne nous a convaincu à date de la nécessité d’une tour dans le secteur;

5.     Qui plus est, personne ne nous a convaincu de l’absence de danger pour la santé des citoyens suite à l’érection d’une tour;

6.     Pour nous, la santé des citoyens est prioritaire à la santé des portefeuilles des actionnaires de Bell.

Tant et aussi longtemps que le processus ne sera pas refait conformément à la Loi nous n’aurons rien à ajouter mais nous entendons utiliser tous les moyens à notre disposition pour contrer l’érection de la tour.

Nous sommes toutefois avisés que la Ville de Sutton, suite à la résolution du Conseil du 3 octobre, a confié à monsieur Réal Girard, directeur de l’urbanisme de la Ville, le soin de discuter avec vous d’un possible autre emplacement pour la tour et nous suivons de près, avec la pleine collaboration des autorités municipales, ces discussions et aviserons en temps et lieu mais, en toutes circonstances, le processus prévu dans la Loi devra être suivi.

Copies à :

Mr. Louis Dandenault (Maire de Sutton).

Mr. Pierre Ménard (Directeur général de la Ville de Sutton).

Mr. Réal Girard (Directeur de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement du territoire de la Ville de Sutton).

Mr. Robert Regimbald d’industrie Canada.

Mr. Alexandre Pelletier de Bell Canada.

Mr. François Bélanger de Bell Canada.

Mr Pierre Jacob, député Fédéral de Brôme Missisquoi.

Pour faire valoir ce que de droit.

Olivier Burnham.

November 11, 2013

Hi guys, tomorow eve at the town hall 7 pm.
O

October 20, 2013

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 9^th, 2013 and October 17^th, 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 21^st to the 21^st June 2013 in Sutton-Jonction.”

Mister Régimbald wrote:

“On file, we have a copy of the notification file dated May 21^st, 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 20^th, by registered mail. The package was signed for as received on June 25^th, 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 23^rd and June 24 was a provincial holiday. This would mean the deadline would actually of been June 25^th. 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 8^th 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,

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 

---

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 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

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  

---

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 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,

Christopher Freeman,

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 25^th 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 21^st to the 21^st 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

daniel.brassard@bell.ca

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, 

Christopher Freeman
Edit profile details


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 9^th, 2013 and October 17^th, 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 21^st, 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 20^th, by registered mail. The package was signed for as received on June 25^th, 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 23^rd and June 24 was a provincial holiday. This would mean the deadline would actually of been June 25^th. 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 8^th 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 and Pierre Ménard, OMA, town manager: p.menard@sutton.ca