Ottawa’s “red tape reduction” agenda may have island implications, according to trustees, as a Dec. 10 meeting with representatives from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) suggests closer collaboration between the federal agency tasked with communications tower approval and the Islands Trust.
The meeting was something of a surprise, according to Lasqueti Island trustee Tim Peterson, who said both he and Mayne Island trustee David Maude were able to participate despite ISED’s firm schedule. Peterson and Maude both serve on the Islands Trust’s Executive Committee (EC), and told fellow vice-chairs Friday, Dec. 19 that the gathering shed light on ways Local Trust Committees (LTCs) might better deal with cell tower applications — and suggested they could have more influence on that process, with a little work.
“I think it was a good meeting,” said Peterson, who also chairs Salt Spring Island’s LTC. “I appreciated their reaching out to us, which I think is unusual.”
Peterson said ISED staff present had included a coastal region director and a spectrum manager. Over the course of discussions, he said, it became clear that each island’s elected officials should take a bigger role in the “preconsultation” part of the process for approving new towers — which right now is conducted with Islands Trust staff. There was an opportunity there to lay out the “ground rules” of each LTC’s siting protocols, if they have them, he said, and for the proponents to ask questions.
ISED representatives also strongly suggested those protocols would benefit from refinement, according to Peterson, because while local trustees may want a “robust” public process, a tower proponent can appeal directly to ISED if they believe local protocols are unreasonable.
That would likely trigger a reversion to ISED’s default process, which trustees agreed was far less rigorous than islanders generally prefer.
To help avoid those conflicts, Peterson said ISED analysts offered to go through current protocols and “give some pointers” on language they thought was potentially problematic. Maude said they in fact offered several times during the meeting to do so.
“I thought it was quite generous,” said Maude. “They said that if we would send them a fresh copy of the policy, they would be willing to go through it line by line and make suggestions, because they did identify during the meeting several points where our policies directly conflicted with theirs.”
Maude said his impression was that the meeting itself was prompted by ISED concerns over such conflicts causing issues during recent tower applications on Salt Spring and Hornby islands.
In a written report to the EC, Peterson and Maude noted ISED indicated the protocols needed better-defined “finish lines” showing how a proponent might know the consultation process had been completed — such as a specific number of rounds of public feedback.
They also said it was clarified that LTCs’ protocols needed sharper focus on the specific issues over which they and ISED had purview. ISED, for example, must defer to Health Canada on health concerns, and LTCs are limited to the consultation process — and issuing a letter indicating concurrence or non-concurrence.
Notably, according to the report, unless there was strong evidence to dispute the process, a non-concurrence from an LTC “essentially means the process is finished.”
“Once concurrence is given, however, the role of the land use authority is complete,” read the trustees’ report. “Reversal of concurrence is a non-starter, and is regarded as outside the process.”
In 2022, Salt Spring Island trustees attempted over several months to reverse their initial concurrence with plans for a 40-metre tower — eventually constructed by Rogers on Channel Ridge — over concerns the project was in conflict with that neighbourhood’s preferences and the Salt Spring LTC’s new tower siting protocol.
“I know we got caught out last term because we hadn’t adopted the protocol,” said Salt Spring trustee Laura Patrick, who had voted to rescind that concurrence and currently chairs both the EC and the Islands Trust Council. “Towers are a very . . . different process. I’ve been involved in four of them on different islands, and not one has been the same.”
Peterson said ISED officials said there were likely to be some changes to their procedures in the new year, and planned to make some consultation on those changes available to local governments; Islands Trust staff said they thought their internal legislative review process would “catch” any proposed changes and bring them back to trustees.
“We know that in our communities, towers are of high interest,” said Peterson. “We want to give our communities the best opportunity to have the best consultation that we can.”