Results Based Pilot Project

February 26 2001

Public Advisory Group Meeting Notes

Meeting. #2

Fort St. John Cultural Center

 

 

Meeting facilitated by Gail Wallin of Management plus Communications Ltd.

Participant’s representatives present were:

David Menzies, Warren Jukes – Canadian Forest Products Ltd.

Douglas Russell – Louisiana Pacific Canada Ltd.

Roger St. Jean – Ministry of Forests Small Business Forest Enterprise Program

John Dymond – Slocan Forest Products Ltd.

 

Public Attendees:

 

Introductions of each person present were made around the table, and as new attendees arrived. 

 

Gail Wallin:

·         Reviewed the process of the PAG to date with reference tot he two previous meetings, in January of 2001 and in June of 2000. This is the second organizational meeting of the Public Advisory Group (PAG)

·         Outlined the purpose of this particular meeting

1.       Review of the draft meeting notes from January’s meeting

2.       The structure of the PAG will be discussed

3.       The terms of reference will be discussed

 

Doug Russell:

·         Provided an outline of the role of the Pilot and the PAG

1.       PAG is to review the Pilot proposal, comments, and responses to comments, and to incorporate change and report back to government.

2.       The Pilot is about forestry practices and regulatory planning requirements; it does not concern itself with mills or facilities.

3.       The Pilot is based on FPC 10.1

 

Group accepted draft meeting agenda for this evening

Reviewed draft meeting notes from January’s meeting – accepted by group

Reviewed status of ACTION items from last meeting:

Action Item #1

·         Doug Russell explained the content and requirements elaborated in Section 10.1 of the FPC, who the participants and others involved in the process are, the process to date, the current status, and the Joint Steering Committee’s approval of the draft Pilot.

·         Doug again stated that the Pilot is based on the Forest Practices Code, and revolves around how we carry out forestry activities on the ground.

 

Action Item #2

·         Representative selection – this item will be covered later in this meeting

 

Action Item #3

·         Terms of Reference- this item will be covered later in this meeting

Gail Wallin

·         Started the discussion of interest areas – handed out the draft PAG membership list suggested at last meeting, and asked the group their preference for membership structure (single member plus alternate etc.)

·         Rosemary Baird and Oliver Mott were not at last meeting but now express interest in being representatives for Environment Conservation.

·         Oliver asked what weight the PAG would have in the form of the Pilot, and in CSA.

·         Doug (LPC) referred Oliver to requirements in Section 10.1 of the Code, and again outlined the group’s part in providing comment and feedback to the provincial government.

·         Warren (Canfor) responded in terms of CSA public involvement and that the group will provide input and comment regarding the Sustainable Forest Management Plan.

Frank Schlichting

·         asked what will become of this Pilot and its process if there is a change in provincial government, which is likely to occur shortly. Have the partners considered this Pilot may not be approved before June, and a new government?

·         Doug Russell responded that the group has considered this and trusts that the new government will respect and endorse the intent of the present government.

 

Gail Wallin brought focus back to PAG structure; does the group want one, two or one plus alternate?

Gary Rehmeier

·         The forest workers and forest contractors people decided to pool the two groups and go with a revolving spokesman for the three people in this interest.

Neil Meigher

·         Labour interest group prefers one spokesman and one alternate.

Bud Phillips

·         The Rod and Gun Club represents a broad spectrum of outdoor recreation.

·         Gail Wallin again expressed the importance of not representing the closed or limited interest of a club or association. For example, a trapping representative must represent the issues of ALL trap line areas, and not just promote issues that are pertinent to his trapline alone.)

·         Bud Phillips said that it is ‘pie in the sky’ to expect nonpartisan interest representation, and that there should be more than one representative per interest. Suggested that the group should go through the list of interests again and see if there should be additional interest groups established.

 

Interests:

Commercial Recreation -Ray Jackson (not present)

Environment Conservation - Wayne Sawchuk, who will not agree to any particular PAG structure until he has had opportunity to speak to the others in his interest. (Rose Baird, Oliver Mott, and Bruce Harrison). Bruce, Wayne and Rose think that one member plus an alternate will work, but Oliver left right after supper and was unavailable for his input.

Forest Workers/Forest Contractors – will group together, and prefer a revolving spokesman for the group.

Labour – Ron Wagner stated that there may be need to create new categories, recognising that we should keep numbers low. Recommends establishing and finalizing the categories, so that new ones are not being added through schism or rifts within the ranks.

Oil and Gas – Mike Waberski – one member that represents the interest is all that is required.

Non Commercial Recreation – Bud Phillips wants two spokesmen, as does Roy Lube, as they feel that there are just too many factions within this interest, and one person cannot equitably represent all sides.

Range/ Agriculture – Frank Schlichting believes that at least one person should be representing this interest and he would be happy to serve that role. Egbert Weitzel (not present) has, in a phone conversation with a participant representative, expressed concern that a person should be there to represent range. Egbert has said that he I willing to take that role.

Rural Communities – Karen Goodings is not sure why she should be involved. The logistics of representing such a diverse group makes this role difficult. She accepts that a structure with one member with an alternate is best, but that she may not be the right person for the job.

Trapping – Terry Howatt stated that one seat is adequate, but that an alternate should also be in place.

Urban – Bruce Kindrat and Orland Wilkerson  (neither present) have, in a telephone conversation with a participant representative, expressed keen interest in being part of this process.

 

Summary of discussion regarding structure:

1.       Forest Workers and Contractors unite

2.       Create an extra interest if conflict exists within an existing interest (this could be temporary) For example, split noncommercial recreation into two: hunting and fishing, non-hunting and non-fishing.

3.       Opportunity for input by other members of the public (i.e. special interest, allow for temporary participation, presentation)

 

Summary of discussion regarding membership:

1.       One spokesman (which provides continuity) who serves as the primary representative.

·         May have one alternate.

·         Alternates must be kept updated by the representative

2.       Rotate duty as spokesman amongst a group of 4 to 5 people.

·         Spokesman will keep others in the group informed

·         The main spokesman is accountable and responsible for the group

·         Allow time for caucusing with other non-participating members during the meeting; only one member actively participates at each meeting.

 

ACTION TO CONSIDER

The question was raised as to whether there should be allowance for woodlot owners to be represented. After discussion, it was suggested that Agriculture/Range would also represent this interest, as the agriculture community privately owns most woodlots.

 

GENERAL:

·         Neil Meagher recommended that the Muskwa Kechika have representation at this table. Discussion followed that because the MK is an Act in itself, it is axiomatic that we must follow it, thus representation in the PAG is redundant. Wayne Sawchuk disagrees. Discussion ended with a decision that LUCO MK group would be invited.

·         ACTION:  Pilot participants will extend an invitation to the MK

·         Observers at the PAG meetings will be permitted, by previous arrangement, to make a presentation at the end of each meeting.

·         The Advisory group will be permitted to participate on an ongoing basis.

·         Dave Lawson (MOF) stated that the Scientific and Technical Group will be an entity distinct from the regular Advisory Group, and will be called upon to address specific issues or topics.

 

TERMS of REFERENCE

·         Started with Section G of the handed-out draft terms of reference (TOR). Gail Wallin stepped the group through the draft TOR, suggested that it will require amendment to reflect the modification to group structure discussed this evening.

·         Sec. page 3, why the PAG has been invited to participate.

·         Discussion regarding C(1)b, that facilitator will recognize each speaker prior to their speaking, and a speaker’s list will be implemented. No changes are recommended to the TOR in sec. C other than this.

·         Timelines on Page 5 were reviewed and accepted by the group.

·         Section E Communications – group would like opportunity to review the previous meeting’s notes before each new meeting. Also, Gail Wallin will word a clause regarding responsibility for releasing information to the media.

·         Gail Wallin will redraft the TOR for the next meeting. Will send it out by email to each person for review beforehand.

 

GENERAL

·         Doug Russell (LP) gave brief presentation of the material handed out (Sec 10.1 of the FPC, the draft regulation, and the detailed proposal).

·         Doug provided a ‘Readers Digest’ version of the intent and objectives of the draft Pilot Regulation.

 

AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING

1.       Meeting Summary

2.       Terms of Reference

3.       Background Information

·         Draft regulation

·         Introduction to the pilot proposal

4.       Meeting Dates

·         Best days  (Rosemary and Oliver cannot make Mondays, Bud and others cannot make Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursdays, no one wants Fridays or Saturdays)

·         Best times1800 to 2100 hr.

 

Next Meeting March 28, 2001 1800hr. Site undetermined at this time.