Municipalities work together on federal set-back policies
To the Editor,
Re: Council reviews development set-back policy, Feb. 2.
I really appreciate the coverage the News Bulletin is giving to the riparian set-back situation in Nanaimo.
As a member of the Advisory Committee on Environmental Sustainability, I have been concerned about this issue for some time, as have others on the committee.
However, I wanted to correct an impression in the article about the City of Nanaimo’s resolution – adopted by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities in September 2012 – related to “federal cutbacks to fisheries officers.”
That particular resolution, also adopted, was put forward by the City of Kelowna. Nanaimo’s resolution “resolved that UBCM call upon the Government of Canada to develop revised Fisheries Act policies and regulations in collaboration with all stakeholders, specifically including local governments through UBCM and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to ensure changes address municipal concerns while strengthening environmental protection for our watercourses”.
ACES chairwoman Coun. Diane Brennan, explained to the committee that selected UBCM Section B resolutions are considered as a block – Kelowna’s (B34) and Nanaimo’s (B80) resolutions being part of this block – and voted on and adopted as a package.
Hence the real possibility of confusion at the end of the day as to who proposed what.
I noted that the attribution of Kelowna’s UBCM resolution to Nanaimo was reported in the September 28, 2012 edition of your newspaper:
“The Fisheries Act resolution revolved around concerns over federal cutbacks to fisheries officers that could affect water courses and riparian areas in municipal areas. The resolution calls for Bill C-38 to reconsider those cutbacks.”
Seeing it in print a second time has prompted me to write to correct this.