RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING Open Meeting Agenda Date:
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Time:
10:30 am
Location:
RDCK Board Room, 202 Lakeside Dr., Nelson, BC
Members:
Director Andrew Shadrack Director Garry Jackman Director John Kettle Director Larry Binks Director Ramona Faust Director Ron Mickel Director Hans Cunningham Director Walter Popoff Director Gordon Zaitsoff Director Paul Peterson Director Andy Davidoff
In Attendance:
Sangita Sudan Joe Chirico Uli Wolf Angela Lund Brian Carruthers
Directors will have the opportunity to participate in the meeting electronically. Proceedings are open to the public. Pages 1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA RECOMMENDATION: The agenda for the February 12, 2014 meeting be adopted as circulated.
3.
DELEGATIONS
1
No Delegates 4.
PLANNING & BUILDING 4.1
BUILDING BYLAW CONTRAVENTION - NORTHWEST NU-TECH DISTRIBUTORS INC. No. 209376995
9 - 12
File #: 3135-20-C-786-6208-000 South End of Reclamation Road, West Creston, BC (Northwest Nu-Tech Distributors Inc.) Area C i) The Committee Report dated January 15, 2014 from Darryl Plotnikoff, Building/Plumbing Official, re: Building Bylaw Contravention for property legally described as Block 79 (See Plan B48), District Lot 9557, Kootenay District (Nu-Tech), has been received. RECOMMENDATION: The Secretary of the Regional District of Central Kootenay be directed to file a Notice at the Land Title Office in Kamloops, British Columbia, stating that a resolution has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter by the Regional District Board relating to land at South End of Reclamation Road, West Creston, Electoral Area C, currently owned by Norwest Nu-Tech Distributors Inc., Inc. No. 209376995, legally described as Block 79 (See Plan B48), District Lot 9557, Kootenay District, and that further information respecting the resolution may be inspected at the office of the Regional District of Central Kootenay on normal working days during regular office hours. 4.2
BUILDING BYLAW CONTRAVENTION - ETELAMAKI File #: 3135-20-E-707-2205-150 BP21182 7659 Ross Road, Harrop, BC (Anja Etelamaki) Area E i) The Committee Report dated January 7, 2014 from Sam Ellison, Building/Plumbing Official, re: Building Bylaw Contravention for property legally described as Lot 1, District Lot 309, Kootenay District, Plan
2
13 - 17
NEP89541 (Etelamaki), has been received. ii) The Filing of Section 57 Notice form received on January 17, 2014 from Anja Etelamaki re: No Objection to Filing a Notice on Title, has been received. RECOMMENDATION: The Secretary of the Regional District of Central Kootenay be directed to file a Notice at the Land Title Office in Kamloops, British Columbia, stating that a resolution has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter by the Regional District Board relating to land at 7659 Ross Road, Electoral Area E, currently owned by Anja Etelamaki, legally described as Lot 1, District Lot 309, Kootenay District, Plan NEP89541, and that further information respecting the resolution may be inspected at the office ofthe Regional District of Central Kootenay on normal working days during regular office hours. 4.3
BUILDING BYLAW CONTRAVENTION - GO2 BUILDERS INC. No. BC0728127 File #: 3135-20-F-707-3567-002 BP21080 2757 Highway 3A, North Shore, BC (GO2 Builders Inc.) Area F i) The Committee Report dated January 8, 2014 from Sam Ellison, Building/Plumbing Official, re: Building Bylaw Contravention for property legally described as Parcel A (Reference Plan 92578I) of Block 42, District Lot 787, Kootenay District, Plan 1329 (GO2 Builders Inc.), has been received. ii) The Filing of Section 57 Notice form received on January 21, 2014 from GO2 Builders Inc. No. BC728127 re: No Objection to Filing a Notice on Title, has been received. RECOMMENDATION: The Secretary of the Regional District of Central Kootenay be directed to file a Notice at t he Land Title Office in Kamloops, British Columbia,
3
18 - 29
stating that a resolution has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter by the Regional District Board relating to land at 2757 Highway 3A, Electoral Area F, currently owned by G02 Builders Inc., Inc. No. BC0728127, legally described as Parcel A (Reference Plan 92578I) of Block 42, District Lot 787, Kootenay District, Plan 1329, and that further information respecting the resolution may be inspected at the office of the Regional District of Central Kootenay on normal working days during regular office hours. 4.4
BUILDING BYLAW CONTRAVENTION - ELLINGSON
30 - 34
File #: 3135-20-G-707-5847-000 BP 3413 & 3839 5275 Riding Club Road, Ymir, BC (Jessica Ellingson) Area G i) The Committee Report dated January 8, 2014 from Lee Voykin, Building/Plumbing Official, re: Building Bylaw Contravention for property legally described as Sublot 23, District Lot 1239, Kootenay District, Plan X56 (Ellingson), has been received. RECOMMENDATION: The Secretary of the Regional District of Central Kootenay be directed to file a Notice at the Land Title Office in Kamloops, British Columbia, stating that a resolution has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter by the Regional District Board relating to land at 5275 Riding Club Road, Electoral Area G, currently owned by Jessica Ellingson, legally described as Sublot 23, District Lot 1239, Kootenay District, Plan X56, and that further information respecting the resolution may be inspected at the office of the Regional District of Central Kootenay on normal working days during regular office hours. 4.5
BUILDING BYLAW CONTRAVENTION - CUST/HARRIS File #: 3135-20-H-707-22214-034 BP4517 4035 Little Slocan South Road, Passmore, BC (Paul Cust/Theresa Harris) Area H
4
35 - 39
i) The Committee Report dated January 8, 2014 from Sam Ellison, Building/Plumbing Official, re: Building Bylaw Contravention for property legally described as Lot 1, District Lot 12299, Kootenay District, Plan NEP83493 (Cust/Harris), has been received. RECOMMENDATION: The Secretary of t he Regional District of Central Kootenay be directed to file a Notice at the Land Title Office in Kamloops, British Columbia, stating that a resolution has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter by the Regional District Board relating to land at 4035 Little Slocan South Road, Electoral Area H , currently owned by Paul Cust and Theresa Harris, legally described as Lot 1, District Lot 12299, Kootenay District, Plan NEP83493, and that further information respecting the resolution may be inspected at the office of the Regional District of Central Kootenay on normal working days during regular office hours. 4.6
BUILDING BYLAW CONTRAVENTION - DYCK File #: 3135-20-H-707-20316-080 BP21098 7021 Cemetery Road, Winlaw, BC (Kathleen Dyck) Area H i) The Committee Report dated January 8, 2014 from Sam Ellison, Building/Plumbing Official, re: Building Bylaw Contravention for property legally described as Lot 4, District Lot 383, Kootenay District, Plan 2887 except part included in Plan 5610 (Dyck), has been received. RECOMMENDATION: The Secretary of the Regional District of Central Kootenay be directed to file a Notice at the Land Title Office in Kamloops, British Columbia, stating that a resolution has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter by the Regional District Board relating to land at 7021 Perrys Cemetery Road, Electoral Area H, currently owned by Kathleen Dyck, legally described as Lot 4, District Lot 383, Kootenay District, Plan 2887 Except part included in Plan 5610, and that further
5
40 - 43
information respecting the resolution may be inspected at the office of the Regional District of Central Kootenay on normal working days during regular office hours. 4.7
BUILDING BYLAW CONTRAVENTION - LIZUCK/LE SCIELLER
44 - 48
File #: 3135-20-H-707-20316-080 BP2109821866-021 3970 Indian Point Road, Passmore, BC (Nancy Ann Lizuck/Yann Le Scieller) Area H i) The Committee Report dated November 7, 2013 from Sam Ellison, Building/Plumbing Official, re: Building Bylaw Contravention for property legally described as Lot A, District Lot 6897, Kootenay District, Plan EPP13675 (Lizuck/Le Scieller), has been received. RECOMMENDATION: The Secretary of the Regional District of Central Kootenay be directed to file a Notice at the Land Title Office in Kamloops, British Columbia, stating that a resolution has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter by the Regional District Board relating to land at 3970 Indian Point Road, Passmore, Electoral Area H, currently owned by Nancy Ann Lizuck and Yann Le Scieller, legally described as Lot A, District Lot 6897, Kootenay District, Plan EPP13675, and that further information respecting the resolution may be inspected at the office of the Regional District of Central Kootenay on normal working days during regular office hours. 4.8
BUILDING BYLAW CONTRAVENTION - LEPAGE File #: 3135-20-I-709-1612-020 BP2924; 3030; 3352 2241 Jenisa Road, Tarrys, BC (Genevieve Lepage) Area I i) The Committee Report dated January 9, 2014 from Lee Voykin, Building/Plumbing Official, re: Building Bylaw Contravention for property legally described as Lot A, District Lot 302A, Kootenay District, Plan
6
49 - 52
NEP21790 (Lepage), has been received. RECOMMENDATION: The Secretary of the Regional District of Central Kootenay be directed to file a Notice at the Land Title Office in Kamloops, British Columbia, stating that a resolution has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter by the Regional District Board relating to land at 2241 Jenisa Road, Electoral Area I, currently owned by Genevieve Lepage, legally described as Lot A, District Lot 302A, Kootenay District, Plan NEP21790, and that further information respecting the resolution may be inspected at the office of the Regional District of Central Kootenay on normal working days during regular office hours. 4.9
MARIHUANA PRODUCTION FACILITIES File #: 4800-20-MMG Marihuana Production Facilities i) The Committee Report dated January 30, 2014 from Megan Squires, Planner, re: Marihuana Productions Facilities, has been received. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the RDCK establish a definition for 'Marihuana Production Facility' in Zoning Bylaws 2315, 2316, 2317, and 1675, as well as RLUB 1335. That the Agriculture zones be amended to include regulations for parcel size, setbacks, site coverage, building size and scale, and accessory uses; and that parking and loading regulations be added to the applicable sections of each zoning bylaw. 2. That a Development Permit Area for MPFs be established in accordance with Local Government Act section 919.1 (c) and (f), and section 920 to specifically regulate the unique aspects of MPFs including landscaping, form and character (including lighting), and siting.
5.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
No Items
7
53 - 61
6.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
No Items 7.
RURAL ADMINISTRATION 7.1
BC AMBULANCE SERVICES - RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN File # 7889-01 BC Ambulance Services - Resource Allocation Plan i) The Committee Report dated February 5, 2014 from Terry Swan, Regional Fire Chief, re: RDCK Fire Service - BC Ambulance Service Resource Allocation Plan, has been received. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board request that BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS) not implement the Resource Allocation Plan changes affecting fire department first responders; AND FURTHER that the RDCK enter into partnership agreements with BCEHS specifying the call types for which first response service will be permitted.
8.
ADJOURNMENT RECOMMENDATION: The meeting be adjourned at ______
8
62 - 65
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
DATE OF REPORT:
January 30, 2014
DATE & TYPE OF MEETING:
February 12, 2014 Rural Affairs Committee
AUTHOR: SUBJECT: FILE:
The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the status of federal regulations for medical marihuana, and to recommend amendments to Zoning Bylaws 1675, Area 'G' 1335 (RLUB), as well as the Comprehensive Land Use Bylaws 2315, 2316, 2317 for Areas A, B, and C to establish Medical Marihuana Production as a permitted use in Agriculture land use zones; and to recommend adoption of specific land use regulations in these zones to help mitigate potential adverse impacts to adjacent property owners and the community in relation to marihuana production.
In 2011 Health Canada introduced proposed changes to federal policy for the production of medical marihuana. The Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) were published in June 2013 and are now in force. For a period of time, until April 2014 they will be in force along with the Marihuana 5 Medical Access Program (MMAP). The MMAP will then end on March 31 t, 2014 at which time only the MMPR will be in force. Under the new regulations Health Canada is no longer issuing {{personal use production licenses" or {{designated person production licenses". Instead, producers are licenced to possess, sell, provide, ship, deliver, transport, destroy, produce, export and/or import marihuana for medical purposes at centralized commercial indoor production facilities. These facilities can vary in size and scale, and they are required under the new regulations to incorporate a range of security measures including visual monitoring and recording, intrusion detection systems, access restrictions. According to Health Canada, as of December 2012 there were 13,362 individuals in BC who were authorized to possess dried marihuana. This is up from 4,928 individuals 12 months earlier in January 2013. If the upward trend continues, local governments can expect a high degree of interest in commercial marihuana production throughout the province. The Status of Marihuana Production Facilities At present, there are 5 licensed production facilities in Canada- 2 in Saskatchewan, and 3 in Ontario. Planning staff are aware of 2 production facilities in the RDCK, both of which are licensed to operate under the existing MMAP. At the time of writing, it is unknown whether these facilities will pursue licensing under the new MMPR. Since January 2013 the Planning Department has issued 15 letters of concurrence, and responded to numerous telephone inquires from individuals interested in pursuing licencing under the new regulations.
53
Facilities
3
Regional District:
"In general, most commercial and industrially designated properties are already in use for such purposes and were developed prior to land use regulations stipulating appropriate parcel sizes. Commercial and industria/lands are primarily oriented along highway corridors and/or in close proximity to municipal and/or residential development. If the ROCK was to consider allowing MMGO's on commercial and industrial zoned properties, consideration of location and parcel size with reference to adjacent property uses and the ability to accommodate required setbacks, security measures and waste product disposal may warrant consideration of Development Permit guidelines to mitigate potential conflict with adjacent : property uses.'' Next Steps Staff continue to investigate the policy and land use implications of MPFs on Agriculture lands. Since last March they have sought further clarification from Health Canada on the new MMPR and have continued to correspond with other jurisdictions and government agencies on how they are proceeding to regulate MPFs. Staff have also spoken with a marihuana producer in BC who is currently applying for licensing through Health Canada. Respecting the issues and potential impacts discussed in the March 21st report, staff have investigated whether to proceed with regulations, and how best to go about it. An analysis of each of the issues and/or impacts is provided below. • • • • • • •
Parcel size; Site coverage; Setbacks; Parking and loading; Size and scale of the production facility; Accessory uses; Environmental impacts; and Landscaping and buffering.
Parcel Size
Health Canada has confirmed that there is no size requirement for production facilities under the MMPR, but that all facilities, regardless of their size, must fulfill the requirements of the regulations, • including all security measures. Furthermore, the level of security required increases in proportion to the amount of marihuana produced and stored on a site. : Under the ROCK's current land use regulations the minimum parcel sizes in Agriculture zones for properties within the ALR range from 2 to 60 hectares. For agricultural properties that are not in the ALR, the parcels are all 2 hectares. The standard requirement for site coverage is 35%. Table 1 outlines the parcel sizes and site coverage requirements for properties in the Agriculture zones, as specified in the applicable zoning bylaws. It also projects the maximum building footprint and the setback potential, if a building were constructed to the maximum 35% site coverage. Table 1- Potential Setbacks Given Current Requirements for Minimum Parcel Size and Site Coverage W:\Departments\Piandept\PROJECTS- 5050\4800-20-MMG Medical Marihuana Grow Operations\Reports\2014-0212-MPF_RAC_Report.docx
54
Facilities
5
from all property lines would achieve objectives for land use compatibility, as well as environmental protection and enhancement of natural features such as watercourses and ravine banks.
Several jurisdictions, including the District of Maple Ridge and the City of Ottawa regulate the location of MPFs in proximity to adjacent land use zones such as residential and institutional zones where the potential for conflict between the different types of use exists. In the ROCK, land use in industrial zones must be set back 25 m from adjacent residential and agricultural properties. Similarly, small scale food production facilities must be set back a minimum of 30m from adjacent businesses or residences. Staff believe that adopting 30m setback requirements from all property lines will adequately mitigate the impacts of MPFs on adjacent properties, including properties that are zoned for different types of use.
i
A marihuana producer in Maple Ridge who is currently applying for licensing under the MMPR expects that his facility will operate 7 days a week, and that he will be have between 25 and 30 employees working on site, the majority of whom will work between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. In accordance with the MMPR, marihuana is shipped from the site via Canada Post. Production facilities do not have a retail component, and clients do not visit facilities for any reason. Consistent with the regulations for uses in an industrial zone (Bylaw 1675, sections 612 and 613), Staff recommend that parking for MPFs be calculated as follows: • •
1.5 parking spaces per 100m 2 of Gross Floor Area. 2 lloading space per 1200m of Gross Floor Area and 1 additional space per each additional 2 2000m of Gross Floor Area.
Size and Scale
Health Canada has confirmed that there is no size requirement for production facilities, but that the size of a production facility is determined, in part by the amount of marihuana that the producer grows (and stores). The more marihuana grown on site, the larger the building size. By regulating parcel size (~3 haL site coverage (35%), and setbacks from property lines {30m), the ROCK should have the tools it needs to effectively manage the size of a production facility. The ROCK regulates building height in a number of residential, commercial, and industrial zones, and ¡ therefore may wish to regulate building height for MPFs as a way to ensure that buildings are constructed at a scale that is consistent with the character and form of rural agricultural properties. Staff recommend a maximum building height of 12 m (rv40 ft) for principle buildings, and 6 m (rv20 ft) for accessory buildings.
W:\Departments\Piandept\PROJECTS- 5050\4800-20-MMG Medical Marihuana Grow Operations\Reports\2014-0212-MPF_RAC_Report.docx
55
Facilities
As per the MMPR, visual monitoring is restricted to the site perimeter. It should not include any monitoring of surrounding properties or public areas. Production facilities have exterior lighting. The facility in Maple Ridge has exterior lighting that is on . during the day, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m., 7-days a week. At the advice of a security . consultant, the facility is not lit during the night. In a rural area where development is limited and there is little or no exterior lighting on buildings, a marihuana facility with exterior lighting could contribute to light pollution. Staff recommend that lighting for facilities (buildings and structures), as well as areas accessory to the facility such as parking and loading areas be regulated as a way to minimize the visual impact of MPFs on surrounding properties. Regulations may include restrictions on the number and location of lighting fixtures, as well as the fixture style to ensure that light is downcast from the building to the ground. 2.
Air Quality (Odour)
Marihuana Production Facilities may result in some odours and air quality issues. The following federal and provincial regulations address the issue of odours that may result from the production and disposal of cannabis (through incineration and com posting).
3.
•
Division 1, section 20 (1) of the MMPR specifies that cannabis must be destroyed using methods that conform to all federal, provincial, and municipal environmental legislation, and one that does not result in any person being exposed to cannabis smoke. More about incineration.
•
Division 3, section 50 of the MMPR specifies that areas where Cannabis is present must be equipped with a system that filters air to prevent the escape of odours and, if present, pollen.
•
As per the Code of Agricultural Practice for Waste Management, under the Agricultural Waste Control Regulation (1992}, wasted cannabis is an agricultural waste product that may be com posted on a property. Under part 6, section 19 of the Code, odours from agricultural operations are not prohibited, provided that all operations and activities are carried out in accordance with the Code. The assumption being that odours are an inherent part of agriculture, and cannot /should not be eliminated.
Waste Disposal
Division 4, section 53 (1) of the MMPR states that '''the microbial and chemical contaminants of dried marihuana must be within generally accepted tolerance limits for herbal medicines for human consumption, as established in any publication referred to in Schedule B to the 'Food and Drugs Act'." i
The regulations pertaining to pest control as outlined in section 54 (1) of the MMPR confirm that pest control products may be used to treat medical marihuana. From the regulations it can be inferred that a relatively small amount of hazardous chemicals may also be used in MPFs, although Health Canada has confirmed that due to the 'medical' nature of the marihuana being produced, use of chemicals would be limited. In accordance with the ROCK Resource Recovery Bylaw 2174, items such as biomedical waste, hazardous
W:\Departments\Piandept\PROJECTS- 5050\4800-20-MMG Medical Marihuana Grow Operations\Reports\2014-0212-MPF_RAC_Report.docx
56
Marihuana Production Facilities
2014
.... r1
Issue
...In ~
Parcel Size
~3 hectares (7.4 acres)
Setbacks
30 metres from all property lines
Site Coverage
Maximum 35%
Distance from Adjacent Uses or Zones
30 metres (included in the setback)
Parking and Loading
1.5 parking spaces per 100m of Gross Floor Area.
I
2
2
lloading space per 1200m of Gross Floor Area and 1 additional space per each 2 additional 2000m of Gross Floor Area.
Building Size and Scale
12 metres (principle building) 6 metres (accessory buildings)
Storage
Indoor or calculated as part of total site coverage
Accessory Uses
Maximum gross floor area of 100m2
Environmental Impacts
Visual and Sound- defer to the MMPR for visual monitoring and sound. Regulate exterior lighting through a Development Permit Area. Waste Disposal- provincial regulations for management of hazardous waste; ROCK Resource Recovery Bylaw 2174. Air Qua lit~
defer to the MMPR and provincial regulations.
Flood and Hazard- Floodplain Management Bylaw 2080; BC Building Code and ROCK Building Bylaw 2200. Landscaping & Lighting
Development permit area
l I
A MPF is classified as a 'farm use', and is taxed as such in accordance with BC Assessment. As a farm use, M PFs will qualify for a series of tax exemptions, which will result in less tax revenue for the ROCK.
If the Board concurs with staff recommendations, amendments will be proposed for Zoning Bylaws 2315, 2316, 2317, and 1675, as well as RLUB 1335 to include a definition of MPFs. The Agriculture zones will be amended to include regulations for parcel size, setbacks, site coverage, building size and scale, and accessory buildings and uses. Parking and loading regulations will also be added to the applicable sections of each zoning bylaw. A Development Permit Area for MPFs will be drafted and referenced in each of the agriculture zones. W:\Departments\Piandept\PROJECTS- 5050\4800-20-MMG Medical Marihuana Grow Operations\Reports\2014-0212-MPF_RAC_Report.docx
57
11
landscaping, and form and character (including lighting)would be addressed through the zoning regulations in each of the individual Agriculture zones. In considering this option, committee members should know that developing regulations for MPFs in the individual zones will remove the opportunity for staff to require a higher standard of development for individual MPFs (regulations are not tied to a development permit), which in turn could increase the likelihood of issues and ensuing conflicts with adjacent neighbours and the community.
1.
That the ROCK establish a definition for 'Marihuana Production Facility' in Zoning Bylaws 2315, 2316, 2317, and 1675, as well as RLUB 1335. That the Agriculture zones be amended to include regulations for parcel size, setbacks, site coverage, building size and scale, and accessory uses; and that parking and loading regulations be added to the applicable sections of each zoning bylaw. That a Development Permit Area for MPFs be established in accordance with Local Government Act section 919.1 (c) and (f), and section 920 to specifically regulate the unique aspects of MPFs including landscaping, form and character (including lighting), and siting.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature: Name:
Me&<m Squires, Planner
Planning Manager General Manager of Development Services Chief Administration Officer ATTACHMENTS: Attachment AAttachment B Attachment C -
AlC Information Bulletins= Medical Marihuana Production in the Agricultural land Reserve (October 2013, updated January 2014) Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (SOR/2013-119) Excerpts Agricultural Waste Control Regulation, Code of Agricultural Practice for Waste Management Excerpts
W:\Departments\Piandept\PROJECTS- 5050\4800-20-MMG Medical Marihuana Grow Operations\Reports\2014-0212-MPF_RAC_Report.docx
58
SOR/2013-119-January 14, 2014
applicable, the alternate responsible person in charge is physically present at the producer's site.
responsable ou, le cas echeant, la personne responsable suppleante, ne soit physiquement presente a son installation.
Safekeeping during transpmiation
18. A licensed producer must, when transporting imported marihuana between the port of entry into Canada and the producer's site, or when shipping, delivering or transporting any marihuana, including to a port of exit from Canada, take any steps that are necessary to ensure its safekeeping during transpmiation.
18. Lorsque le producteur autorise transpmie de la marihuana importee entre le point d'entree au Canada et son installation ou lorsqu'il expedie, livre ou transporte de la marihuana, notamment jusqu' au point de smiie du Canada, il prend les mesures necessaires pour en assurer la securite durant le transpmi.
Securite durant le transport
Report ofloss or theft
19. If a licensed producer experiences a theft of cannabis or an unusual waste or disappearance of cannabis that cannot be explained on the basis of normally accepted business activities, the licensed producer must
19. En cas de pe1ie ou de disparition inhabituelles de chanvre indien ne pouvant s'expliquer dans le cadre de pratiques normales et acceptables d'operation ou en cas de vol de chanvre indien, le producteur autorise satisfait aux exigences suivantes :
Rapport de petie ou devol
(a) repmi the occurrence to a member of a police force within 24 hours after becoming aware of it; and
a) il en fait rappmi a un membre d'un corps policier dans les vingt-quatre heures suivant la decouverte du fait;
(b) provide a written report to the Minister within 10 days after becoming aware of the occurrence.
b) il presente un rapport ecrit au ministre dans les dix jours suivant la decouverte du fait.
20. ( 1) A licensed producer may destroy cannabis only if they do so
20. ( 1) Le producteur autorise ne peut detruire le chanvre indien que si les conditions ci-apres sont remplies :
Destruction
(a} in accordance with a method that
a) il suit une methode qui,
(i) conforms with all federal, provincial and municipal environmental legislation applicable to the location at which it is to be destroyed, and
a la fois :
(i) est conforme a Ia legislation federale, provinciale et municipale sur la protection de 1' environnement applicable au lieu de la destruction,
(ii) does not result in any person being exposed to cannabis smoke; and
(ii) fait en sorte qu'aucune personne ne soit exposee a la fumee du chanvre indien;
(b) in the presence of at least two persons who are qualified to witness the destruction, one of whom must be a person referred to in paragraph (2)(a).
b) ille fait en presence d' au moins deux persmmes qui sont habilitees a servir de temoins de la destruction, l'une d' entre elles etant visee a l'alinea (2)a).
12
59
Destruction
SOR/2013-119-January 14, 2014
Intrusion detection system
44. The perimeter of the licensed producer's site must be secured by an intrusion detection system .that operates at all times and that allows for the detection of any attempted or actual unauthorized access to or movement in the site or tampering with the system.
44. Le perimetre de !'installation du producteur autorise doit etre securise au moyen d'un systeme de detection des intrusions qui est fonctionnel en tout temps et permet la detection de tout acces non autorise a 1' installation ou mouvement non autorise a 1' interieur de celle-ci ou toute alteration du systeme, ou toute tentative a ces egards.
Systeme de detection des intmsions
Monitoring by personnel
45. ( 1) The system must be monitored at all times by personnel who must determine the appropriate steps to be taken in response to the detection of any occurrence referred to in section 43 or 44.
45. ( 1) Le systeme do it etre surveille en tout temps par du personnel qui doit determiner les mesures qui s' imposent en cas de detection d'un evenement vise aux articles 43 ou 44.
Snrveillance par le personnel
Record of detected matters
(2) If any such occurrence is detected, the personnel must make a record of
(2) Le cas echeant, le personnel doit consigner les renseignements suivants :
Constat des evenements detectes
(a) the date and time of the occurrence;
a) la date et l'heure auxquelles l'evenement a ete detecte;
and (b) the measures taken in response to it
and the date and time when they were taken.
b) la description des mesures prises en reponse ace dernier, ainsi que la date et 1'heure auxquelles elles 1' ont ete.
Areas Within a Site where Cannabis is Present
Zones de l 'installation oil du chanvre indien est present
Restdcted access
46. (1) Access to areas within a site where cannabis is present (referred to in sections 46 to 50 as "those areas") must be restricted to persons whose presence in those areas is required by their work responsibilities.
46. (1) L'acces aux zones de !'installation oil du chanvre indien est present (appelees ÂŤ zones Âť aux articles 46 a 50) doit etre limite aux seules personnes dont les fonctions y requierent la presence.
Responsible person in charge present
(2) The responsible person in charge or, if applicable, the altetnate responsible person in charge must be physically present while other persons are in those areas.
(2) La personne responsable ou, le cas echeant, la personne responsable suppleante, doit etre presente physiquement dans les zones lorsque d'autres personnes s 'y trouvent.
Presence de la persom1e responsable
(3) A record must be made of the identi-
(3) II est tenu un registre de l'identite des personnes entrant dans les zones ou en smiant.
Registre
Record
ty of every person entering or exiting those
areas.
34
60
Acces restreint
SOR/2013-119-January 14,2014
DIVISION
4
SECTION
4
GooD PRoDUCTION PRAcTICEs
BONNES PRATIQUES DE PRODUCTION
Prohibitionsale or provision
52. (1) A licensed producer must not sell or provide dried marihuana under subsection 12(4) unless the requirements of this Division have been met.
52. ( 1) Le producteur autm路ise ne peut vendre ou fournir de Ia marihuana sechee en ve1iu du paragraphe 12(4) que si les exigences prevues a la presente section sont respectees.
Interdictionvente ou fourniture
Prohibitionexport
(2) A licensed producer must not export dried marihuana unless the requirements of this Division have been met.
(2) II ne peut exporter de la marihuana sechee que si les exigences prevues a la presente section sont respectees.
Interdictionexportation
Microbial and chemical contaminants
53. (1) The microbial and chemical contaminants of dried marihuana must be within generally accepted tolerance limits for herbal. medicines for human consumption, as established in any publication referred to in Schedule B to the Food and Drugs Act.
53. (1) La contamination microbienne et chimique de la marihuana sechee se situe dans les limites de tolerance generalement reconnues pour les plantes medicinales destinees a la consommation humaine, lesquelles sont etablies dans toute publication mentionnee a l'mmexe B de Ia Loi sur les aliments et drogues.
Contamination microbienne et chimique
Analytical testing
(2) Analytical testing for those contaminfints and for the percentages of delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol and cmmabidiol referred to in these Regulations must be conducted using validated methods.
(2) Des tests analytiques concernant cette contamination ainsi que les pourcentages de delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol et de cannabidiol vises par le present reglement sont effectues suivant des methodes validees.
Tests analytiques
Pest control product
54. (1) Marihuana must not be treated - before, during or after the drying process - with a pest control product that has not been registered under the Pest Control Products Act for use on marihuana for medical purposes.
54. (1) Que ce soit avant, pendant ou apres le processus de sechage, la marihuana ne peut etre traitee au moyen d'un produit antiparasitaire que si celui-ci a ete homologue en veliu de la Loi sur les produits antiparasitaires pour utilisation avec la marihuana a des fins medicales.
Produit antiparasitaire
Residue
(2) Dried marihuana must not contain any residue of a pest control product in excess of any maximum residue limit specified for the product under section 9 of the Pest Control Products Act.
(2) La marihuana sechee ne peut contenir de residus d'un produit antiparasitaire au-dela de toute limite maximale de residu fixee pour ce produit en ve1iu de l'miicle 9 de la Loi sur les produits antiparasitaires.
Residus
Premises
55. (1) Dried marihuana must be produced, packaged, labelled and stored in premises that are designed, constructed and
55. ( 1) La marihuana sechee est produite, emballee, etiquetee et stockee dans des locaux qui sont conc;us, construits et
Locate{
36
61
62
63
64
65