Richmond's Questions Answered: One Man's Opinion

By Ben Meisner

Yesterday I received the following letter from Minister of Employment & Income Assistance Claude Richmond (a copy is posted)

Mr. Ben Meisner

Dear Ben;

An article that you posted on the internet has just come to my attention.  It concerns Carrier Lumber and the cancellation of their forest licences in the Chilcotin.

You have the dates wrong Ben.  I did some research just to make absolutely sure that I was correct.  These dates are taken from the actual court documents.

On July 20th, 1992, the regional manager sent a letter to Carrier Lumber telling them that their licence would be suspended on August 11th, 1992.  The licence was cancelled on March 31st, 1993.  This was all done by the NDP Government of Mike Harcourt.  I am not positive, but I think the Minister of Forests was Dan Miller.

You should also know that in about 1990, several of the Chiefs in the area approached me to see if we could get them more involved in the economics of the licences.  Specifically, they pointed out that the logging trucks were going through their villages and they didn’t think it was right that they were not benefiting from this activity.  They did not want to blockade the roads, but didn’t rule it out either.  There was no mention of  the Mountain Pine Beetle during any of our discussions.

I had a meeting with Bill Cordyban and asked him to employ as many of the First Nations people as he could.  He agreed and the arrangement was working very well until the NDP Government cancelled Carrier’s licences in 1993.

Carrier Lumber took the Government to court and won.  As you pointed out, it cost the taxpayers of BC millions of dollars.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

Yours truly,

Claude Richmond
MLA Kamloops
Minister of Employment & Income Assistance

He followed this up with a phone call to me to say he knew me well, and I would post the correct version of the events. Well it may take a bit of reading, but I ask you to see for yourself just how the events in the cancellation of Carrier’s License came about.

I am very pleased to see that Mr. Richmond has checked the facts of the matter as closely as he did in the first instance.

The information you are  about to read comes from the "Reasons for Judgement". Now did you Mr. Richmond or anyone in your department have anything to do with the cancellation of Carrier’s Forest License?  That question can either be left with the public to decide, or the Judge in the matter who saw fit to find Mr. Richmond that you or your department did play a major role in the cancellation of Carrier’s license and awarded them what is reported to be about $100 million dollars of taxpayers money.

You might argue that you as Forest Minister had nothing to do with the plan to dump Carrier’s license.  The facts show that the move to cancel their license came before the NDP took power, or, are you suggesting that the judge in question got it wrong ?  If that is the case, perhaps you could explain why there never was an appeal launched into his decision ? 
 

Portions of Reason for Judgement from trial...

Carrier Vs Province of BC

DOCKET NO. 30093

Before Mr. Justice Glen Parrett .

June 8th 1990
Kamloops office of then Forest Minister Claude Richmond.  The Forest Minister together with Mike Carlson met with various First Nations people including the Ulkatcho.  Carrier was not notified of nor asked to attend the meeting.

[278]     The information available with respect to this meeting though far from complete paints an interesting picture.  In an interview published in the Williams Lake Tribune two days
later Chief Jimmy Stillas is quoted as saying that the Minister "almost committed himself" that some kind of forest tenure will be issued to the Ulkatcho and Kluskus bands within the next 90 days.  The newspaper article goes on to quote Chief Stillas as saying that:
We were assured by Richmond that Beef Trail Creek has not been committed yet.  We want forestry to hold off issuing any permits for it for at least 90 days, until Richmond has time to get back to us.

[279]     One of the Minister’s letters with respect to this meeting is dated June 8, 1990, and says, in part:
I was very encouraged by the positive, cooperative approach exhibited at our recent meeting in Kamloops with members of the CUK Tribal Council.  At that meeting, native concerns were discussed in an open and honest manner.  I feel the meeting was very productive, and I am confident that if we continue to work together, that we will be able to come to a
mutually agreeable resolution of your Band’s concerns.

At our meeting in my Kamloops office, I indicated that I would be prepared to commence negotiations on forestry issues within 90 days.  I intend to meet this commitment to you, and will advise you soon when I have prepared an agenda and am able to schedule this meeting.  As you have been an important contact for myself and my staff, I felt that you should be advised that we are still working hard to develop solutions to the complex problems we face together.

In the interim period, I will forward a series of options being developed by my staff which will hopefully provide a positive basis for negotiations.  I look forward to your input on this document as your comments will be very important in moving towards a final solution.
                                     (emphasis added)

[280]     Once again, it should be noted that the context in which the Minister of Forests has committed himself to negotiations is in the face of Carrier’s forest licence and their approved development plan for the Beef Trail Creek operating area.

[281]     Two sets of minutes from this meeting were placed in evidence during the course of this trial, interestingly enough, both originate with the native groups attending the meeting.  There are some differences between the two sets of minutes but they confirm at least areas of discussion.  The minutes attribute to the Forest Minister an announcement that either the cabinet had already approved or would shortly be asked to approve his plan to sit down with First Nations groups to negotiate forest licences.

[282]     They go on to record remarks attributed to Mike Carlson that Carrier’s licence had four years left to run and 3,500,000 cubic metres left to harvest.  He is attributed as
ending his comments by pointing out that the Band holds the whip hand, not Carrier.

[299]     The final sentence of the passage quoted from the letter to Carrier to the effect that he will be unable to approve Carrier’s Development Plan unless it recognized and
considered the Ulkatcho’s "identified" concerns is remarkable in light of Reeves full and admitted knowledge that those concerns were completely inconsistent with the Carrier plan and their operations.  The explanation lies in the fact that it is part of a carefully calculated scheme to divert attention and lay the blame for the failure of this licence on Carrier.

[300]     In this same time frame the Forest Minister received Chief Stillas’ letter of July 20, 1990, expressing their preference for a Forest Licence.  The Minister’s note to his
staff directed that they get moving on it immediately.  Those notes are dated August 2, 1990 and August 3, 1990.

[302]     On October 9, 1990, Paul Klotz, Carrier’s Woodlands Manager, wrote to Ron Reeves in response to his letter of July 30, 1990.  The letter was copied to Mike Carlson.  The text of this response is worth setting out in full:

Dear Sirs:

 RE:  LICENCE A20022/ULKATCHO BAND

We have your letter of July 30th, 1990.  We do not understand the fourth paragraph on the first page, wherein you advise that you will be "unable to approve the Development Plan for the Beef Trail Creek Operating Area" unless we take into consideration the various native concerns you have set out.

The Development Plan has been approved by your Ministry, and we specifically refer you to your letter to us of May 12, 1989.  Pursuant to that letter, Carrier has an absolute contractual right and, in fact, a statutory obligation to log, pursuant to that Plan, in the Beef Trail.

Although Carrier has gone and will continue to go to great lengths to address aboriginal concerns, this gesture of good will should not be construed by Carrier as a waiver of its rights.  We are simply attempting, as good corporate citizens, to address in a constructive manner, the concerns of the Ulkatcho

[303]     The language of this letter could not be more plain.  It frankly and clearly sets out Carrier’s position, openly alleges breach of contract and gives an estimate of Carrier’s
damages if they are not permitted to harvest the more merchantable timber in the Beef Trail at fifteen to twenty million dollars.  It shows a level of candour that stands in stark contrast to the communications of the defendant.

[304]     The letter was sent to the District Manager and copied to the Regional Manager yet no written response was ever made, and there is no evidence or documents that suggest that the existence of that document was even made known to anyone up the chain of command.  Given the way in which the Beef Trail and the Ulkatcho issues were being dealt with in Victoria at high levels I consider that possibility extremely remote.

[305]     Given the overall evidence in this case I find it much more likely that the documents have been suppressed.

---------------------

Now the rest of the story:

A General Election was held on October 1991 . In that Election the NDP came to power and carried on with the recommendations by the previous Government to cancel Carrier’s License .

To suggest that previous administrations did not know we had a beetle problem or that they had no involvement, leaves one to wonder why they did not step up to the plate to defend themselves at the Trial. 

In politics, rather than take three strikes, it is more fashionable to blame the next government, especially if they don’t have the same stripes.

I’m Meisner  and that is one man’s opinion.

Email | Print | Facebook | Twitter | Digg | Del.icio.us