Independent consultant criticizes Industry Canada over tower site selection policies

A retired University of Victoria professor has rapped Industry Canada’s knuckles for not proactively promoting public consultations on antenna tower site selection procedures and regulations. The criticism stems from the construction of two controversial broadcast transmission towers on Triangle Mountain, near the City of Colwood in British Columbia. In recent months, there appears to have been a rise in the number of complaints residents have leveled at the wireless carriers over lack of consultation concerning tower site selection (RoW, Sept. 3/02 and Oct. 28/02). Last October, Industry Canada announced that it would conduct a review of its National Antenna Tower Policy, details of which have yet to be released (RoW Update, Nov. 4/02). As part of that review, the department contracted Rodney Dobell, a retired public policy professor, to study the Triangle Mountain case. The professor’s comprehensive report, Report of the Triangle Mountain Antenna Towers Review, highlights not only the failings of the department’s current policies regarding the approval of new and replacement towers, but also offers some recommendations the government should consider as it proceeds with its tower consultation. In a nutshell, the issue stems from residents’ concerns relating to the construction in 2000 of a tower by Rogers Broadcasting Ltd. and another by broadcaster Seacoast Communications Group in the City of Colwood. Rogers Wireless Inc. subsequently applied that same year to add base station equipment to the Rogers Broadcasting tower, for which it has yet to receive approval. The equipment was added to the tower, but has not been turned on. As Dobell points out in his report, there seems to be a misunderstanding on the residents’ part about the role of Industry Canada. They believe that the department should have been the defender of the citizen and played a greater role in informing the residents about the towers. But according to department policy its role is to ensure that the antenna equipment operates within certain technical parameters and, in certain cases, to conduct alternative site analysis. Contrary to what residents believe, wireless companies or broadcasters are required to keep residents informed on issues surrounding tower site selection, construction and public consultations, not Industry Canada. According to government policy, they are to deal directly with residents’ concerns through the local land use authority. Under this regulatory environment, as Dobell notes in his report, there is a substantial level of confusion for communities. "In summary, therefore, perhaps the best overall conclusion would be that the actions of Industry Canada officials in this case were not inconsistent with an overall policy of delegated or distributed responsibilities, but that the policy itself delegated too much. A more proactive approach to the positive duties assigned to Industry Canada could reasonably be expected." Residents of the City of Colwood came to expect greater federal government participation in these matters, and that the introduction of a replacement tower and new tower would have triggered public consultation, Dobell points out. "They are surely justified in their expectation that the Government of Canada will play a proactive role directly in assessing not just the technical acceptability, but also the socio-economic impacts of applications for proposed installations." In concluding his analysis on the failures of the current system, Dobell highlights the fact that both Rogers Broadcasting and Seacoast didn’t act illegally and the department didn’t stray from accepted policy practices. "Rather they stem from a classic case of evolving public expectations and a changing civic environment coming up against a complex mesh of delegated responsibilities in an organization culture lagging behind the world in which it works." Dobell concludes that many of the problems that arose in this particular case, such as the assurance of public consultation and the balancing of radiocommunications needs against those of the community, will have to be addressed in a more comprehensive tower review.

Independent consultant criticizes Industry Canada over tower site selection policies

News | 02/18/2003 5:00 am EST

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us