Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ... Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Page: 56 [220] In early 1995, in response to the high demand for access to timber, the Department imposed a moratorium on the issuance of CTPs. In addition to the moratorium, the Department responded to the “Green Rush” with a series of regulatory changes. [221] This moratorium did not affect the ability of KFR to harvest under the existing THA. 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) [222] The Minister in 1996 was again indicating a willingness on behalf of the Department to receive business proposals for THAs. [223] The first regulatory response was implemented by SOR/95-387, which amended the Yukon Timber Regulations. This amendment imposed a two-tier stumpage system. Stumpage is the royalty fee that government receives for allowing timber to be harvested. The royalty levied was $5.00/m 3 of harvested timber, if that timber was processed within the Yukon Territory. For raw logs exported without processing in the Yukon Territory, the royalty was $10.00/m 3 of harvested timber. Further amendments followed shortly after. [224] At one point, in an effort to be “fair” given the number of applicants, the successful applicants for permits were determined by lottery. Department officials put all names into a “bingo drum” and randomly selected the names of the successful applicants.
Page: 57 [225] In protest over the moratorium, the loss of revenue from logging, the stumpage fees and the manner in which Department officials proposed to determine eligibility for CTPs, loggers occupied the Watson Lake office of DIAND, on November 14, 1996. In a continuation of this protest, loggers occupied the Regional Office in Whitehorse on November 16 th . [226] An open letter was sent from the YTG, Government House Leader, to Minister Irwin 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) alleging that the Department had mismanaged the Yukon forest. It was noted that loggers were facing financial ruin. This letter alleged that the mismanagement included failure to listen to the consultation on stumpage and tenure and a failure to meet the established timelines. The YTG asserted that DIAND was doing everything it could to take jobs away from Yukon. [227] In SOR/95-580, the Department continued its response to the increased number of permits. It introduced the regulatory change known as the 60/40 Rule. Additionally, the eligibility criteria were no longer simply based on age or corporate status. The Department implemented the following regulatory changes: 4. (1) The Minister may issue permits for the cutting and removal from territorial lands of timber in an estimated volume not exceeding 15 000 m 3 per permit. (2) To ensure that sustainable forestry practices are maintained, permits, other than permits issued under subsection 7(1), shall be issued in priority to applicants who have (a) demonstrated knowledge of environmental protection and conservation measures related to local timber harvesting conditions; (b) experience in the forest industry; (c) the demonstrated capacity to harvest the amount of timber applied for.
- Page 5 and 6: Page: 5 [16] On August 25, 2004, th
- Page 7 and 8: Page: 7 the appellant to serve and
- Page 9 and 10: Page: 9 [30] Both parties have subm
- Page 11 and 12: Page: 11 these documents for the tr
- Page 13 and 14: Page: 13 [42] Mr. Sewell provided g
- Page 15 and 16: Page: 15 [52] Mr. Leonard Bourgh wa
- Page 17 and 18: Page: 17 [62] Mr. Gurney operated a
- Page 19 and 20: Page: 19 [72] Mr. Brian Kerr was th
- Page 21 and 22: Page: 21 [81] In brief, as Woodland
- Page 23 and 24: Page: 23 with the LPL group; he rem
- Page 25 and 26: Page: 25 [97] Mr. Spencer also test
- Page 27 and 28: Page: 27 Keith Spencer on a regular
- Page 29 and 30: Page: 29 addressed meetings with DI
- Page 31 and 32: Page: 31 publications and a summary
- Page 33 and 34: Page: 33 [129] Mr. Irwin testified
- Page 35 and 36: Page: 35 Assessment Act, S.C. 1992,
- Page 37 and 38: Page: 37 [147] In his position as t
- Page 39 and 40: Page: 39 [156] Mr. Fillmore also ga
- Page 41 and 42: Page: 41 Department early in his te
- Page 43 and 44: Page: 43 Report for Forest Manageme
- Page 45 and 46: Page: 45 with no particular respons
- Page 47 and 48: Page: 47 [192] Mr. Sewell testified
- Page 49 and 50: Page: 49 4. The powers, duties and
- Page 51 and 52: Page: 51 [205] In the introduction,
- Page 53 and 54: Page: 53 activity occurs. The total
- Page 55: Page: 55 any person or class of per
- Page 59 and 60: Page: 59 described the LPL project
- Page 61 and 62: Page: 61 [238] The RIAS also explai
- Page 63 and 64: Page: 63 [246] For the sake of clar
- Page 65 and 66: Page: 65 [254] This was the context
- Page 67 and 68: Page: 67 [263] By 1996, according t
- Page 69 and 70: Page: 69 [270] Following the April
- Page 71 and 72: Page: 71 require 200,000 m 3 of tim
- Page 73 and 74: Page: 73 June 4, 1996. In his lette
- Page 75 and 76: Page: 75 [294] Mr. Ivanksi testifie
- Page 77 and 78: Page: 77 [303] This proposed invest
- Page 79 and 80: Page: 79 C. 1997 [311] In late 1996
- Page 81 and 82: Page: 81 Watson Lake area. I unders
- Page 83 and 84: Page: 83 [326] This report, prepare
- Page 85 and 86: Page: 85 [332] As previously noted,
- Page 87 and 88: Page: 87 D. 1998 [341] The first jo
- Page 89 and 90: Page: 89 [349] Mr. Henry explained,
- Page 91 and 92: Page: 91 It seems the goal of havin
- Page 93 and 94: Page: 93 [365] The Plaintiffs were
- Page 95 and 96: Page: 95 remained on the site for s
- Page 97 and 98: Page: 97 evidence, which is consist
- Page 99 and 100: Page: 99 [389] A meeting was held o
- Page 101 and 102: Page: 101 [396] These documents wer
- Page 103 and 104: Page: 103 location under a future C
- Page 105 and 106: Page: 105 [414] A briefing note, da
Page: 56<br />
[220] In early 1995, in response to the high demand for access to timber, the Department imposed<br />
a moratorium on the issuance of CTPs. In addition to the moratorium, the Department responded to<br />
the “Green Rush” with a series of regulatory changes.<br />
[221] This moratorium did not affect the ability of KFR to harvest under the existing THA.<br />
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)<br />
[222] The Minister in 1996 was again indicating a willingness on behalf of the Department to<br />
receive business proposals for THAs.<br />
[223] The first regulatory response was implemented by SOR/95-387, which amended the Yukon<br />
Timber Regulations. This amendment imposed a two-tier stumpage system. Stumpage is the royalty<br />
fee that government receives for allowing timber to be harvested. The royalty levied was $5.00/m 3<br />
of harvested timber, if that timber was processed within the Yukon Territory. For raw logs exported<br />
without processing in the Yukon Territory, the royalty was $10.00/m 3 of harvested timber. Further<br />
amendments followed shortly after.<br />
[224] At one point, in an effort to be “fair” given the number of applicants, the successful<br />
applicants for permits were determined by lottery. Department officials put all names into a “bingo<br />
drum” and randomly selected the names of the successful applicants.
Change language