Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 276
[1047] I find that the political and social benefits gained by the Defendant were significant and
point towards reasonable reliance on the facts of this case.
[1048] In addition to the political and social benefits, it must be remembered that the Government
would gain a direct or indirect financial benefit from the mill. The 60/40 Rule required that there be
local processing in order to harvest timber. A mill, such as the one discussed at the July 1997
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
meeting, would have dramatically increased the local processing capacity.
[1049] An increase in processing capacity would have increased permissible harvesting. The
evidence shows that a stumpage royalty was paid on all harvested timber. The development of this
mill had the potential to significantly increase the royalties received by the Defendant by increasing
the volume of timber that could be harvested.
[1050] The RIAS to SOR/95-387 estimated that regulatory changes that increased stumpage fees
would generate an average of $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 per year in revenue for the Government.
This regulatory change was one in the series of responses to the “Green Rush”.
[1051] A later RIAS to SOR/95-580, which implemented the 60/40 Rule, noted that delays in
harvesting permits would result in the Crown losing $3.7 million in stumpage. This statement in the
RIAS was made before there was a mill that could process the remainder of the AAC in that year.
Given the two references in different RIAS, I draw the conclusion that these stumpage fees were a
consideration for the Defendant.