SUMMARY:

Vancouver Island Mineral Exploration Group (VIX)

April 25, 2008 Emergency Meeting on Bill 30

"Bill 30 should be withdrawn immediately"

This meeting was very well attended and included a number of government representatives, including Mr. Ron Bronstein, Executive Regional Director, Mining and Minerals Division, EMPR.

After opening remarks by Mr. Jacques Houle, VIX president, Mr. Berkshire presented his analysis of Bill 30 – describing some of its potential impacts on both the public and the mineral exploration community. After Mr. Berkshire introduced himself, he explained that he been alerted that new legislation was expected weeks prior to Bill 30 being introduced when assigned to investigate the circumstances of a member’s complaint. A VIX member received a demand that he sign and comply with a "road use agreement" sent to him by International Forest Products (a private Forest Sector Company). This agreement covered use of a BC Forest Service Road located on Crown Land on which International Forest Products holds a BC Forest Service ‘‘road permit". The "road use agreement" contains terms which are financially prohibitive to small enterprise and "free miners" alike. As this demand appears illegal under current statutes, further inquiry suggested this document had been instigated by a Ministry of Forests official as a template for similar agreements anticipated under a new legislative regime. That expected legislation has now been revealed to be Bill 30, the Resource Road Act.

Sections 38 and 39 of the new Act recognize these private "road use agreements" as well as empower the "designated maintainer" (the new name for a "road permit" holder) to recover up to 100% of their capital costs (See Section 39). In a word, Bill 30 renders mineral exploration financially prohibitive.

The official joint Ministry of Forests and Range and Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources press release (dated April 16, 2008) states: Bill 30 will "enable primary road authorization holders to recover their capital investment in roads as well as reasonable road maintenance costs from secondary industrial users". The speaker pointed out that recent comments from government officials appear to conflict with the above statements and are at best extremely confusing.

pg1

After this introduction, Mr. Berkshire continued by highlighting the fact that the clauses repealed in Bill 30 do not include Section 10 of the Mining Right of Way Act (as had been reported), but repeal other critical statute protections. And Section 10 of the Mines Right of Way Act is effectively repealed by: repealing the definition of "road" (contained within the Mines Right of Way Act) and substituting the following: "road" does not include a resource road within the meaning of the Resource Road Act.

The summary contained at the end of Bill 30 reads: This Bill requires that permits be held for all industrial uses, and prescribed commercial uses, of roads in British Columbia other than highways. It establishes a Resource Road Authority and allows that authority and its delegates to issue, amend and transfer road authorizations. The Bill provides for particular users of resource roads to be tasked with the maintenance and deactivation of those roads, while at the same time allowing the government to remediate and close roads where necessary. It provides that resource roads are only to be constructed, modified, maintained or deactivated under appropriate road authorizations and establishes the ability to set the standards by which that construction, modification, maintenance and deactivation is to be performed. It provides for the manner in which resource roads are to be used, and contemplates that additional directions can be given for roads that have a high level of traffic. It also provides for the authority to enforce the provisions of road authorizations, this Act and the regulations, and establishes an enforcement regime that provides for both reviews and appeals of authority determinations.

Mr. Berkshire’s talk focused in part on the fact that there was no consultation with either the mineral exploration sector nor the general public prior to the introduction of Bill 30. He argued therefore that the government had no mandate to introduce such a radical change in public policy without having consulted and included those most strongly affected by these changes. He further stressed, that the mineral exploration community was not likely to accept the notion that cosmetic changes to ‘regulations’ would constitute effective consultation. Liberties and rights previously entrenched in law are being eliminated at the stroke of a pen. Mr. Berkshire stated that in his opinion, "Bill 30 should be withdrawn immediately" and that "open public consultation should follow".

At this point, Mr. Ron Bronstein, protested that the Oil and Gas Industry and the Forest Industry had been consulted and indicated that that Mr. Fred Herman, the former Chief Mines Inspector, had consulted the Association for Mineral Exploration (AME) and possibly the Association of Professional Engineers. He further claimed that changes to the proposed bill had progressed slowly and as a consequence the process lacked continuity. However, Mr. Dave McLelland (Vancouver Island’s longstanding representative on the AME Board of Directors) made it clear that he had not been made aware that such a bill was ever under consideration.

pg2

During the course of the meeting, it was pointed out (by a former member of the Ministry of Mines Energy and Petroleum Resources), that AME’s ability to criticize government is compromised by the fact that AME receives very large financial grants from the Provincial Government and is hardly a disinterested third party. Others pointed out that AME, as recently reorganized, is seen by many members of other regional exploration groups as a de facto defender and promoter of government policy. It was also pointed out that the AME administration has no background in the mineral industry.

Mr. Berkshire drew attention to Section 16 (4), pointing out that if Bill 30 becomes law, government, by virtue of a simple regulatory change, can deny Mineral and Coal titles holders access to the property by withholding the issuance of "resource road permits". Such action could be taken at any time if government decides to deem mineral exploration contrary to the provincial interest. This provision is clearly stated in Section 16(4) which reads: "If the authority determines that the issuance of a resource road permit would compromise government objectives as specified by the regulations, the authority must refuse the application for the resource road permit."

Without a statute right of access (as previously provided for under Sections 11.1 of the Mineral Tenure Act) mineral title holders are at constant risk of being subjected to de facto expropriation without compensation. Berkshire presented a timely example of this actually happening - a copy of the Provincial Government’s April 25 press release decreeing illegal, by force of regulation, Uranium and Thorium Exploration and Development.

Mr. Berkshire also pointed out that other Sections of Bill 30 insure that our back country road infrastructure could face systematic deactivation. See sections 40(1) (a), including sections 35(1) (a) (b) (d) (i)or(iv) as well as sections 46(1) and (2).

It was pointed out by Dave McLelland that as Executive Regional Director, Mining and Minerals Division, Mr. Bronstein appears to be conflict of interest in his defense of Bill 30. Many members have expressed the opinion that there is no one left either in the Victoria-based Head Office or in the Southwest Regional Office of MEMPR who acts as an advocate for Mining and Mineral Exploration. Of note: Mr. Bronstein, is a environmental forester by training and experience, and was in charge of Forest Renewal BC’s road deactivation on Vancouver Island prior to joining the EMPR in 2006

Appeals from Rulings of the Resource Road Authority:

pg3

Section 83 establishes the principle of an appointed internal review Tribunal "after a merit based process". However, Section 161 negates this pretence of impartiality by declaring that: Despite section 83 (2), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, when appointing the first appeal tribunal, appoint to the appeal tribunal, without a merit-based process, any person who, at the time of the appointment, is (a) a member of the Environmental Appeal Board continued under the Environmental Management Act, or (b) a member of the Forest Appeals Commission continued under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. In other words, this will not be a new Tribunal, but a consolidation of existing processes which do not include mineral sector representation.

Mr. Berkshire’s presentation was followed by Mr. Dave McLelland, who offered a number of supporting and clarifying observations

After they finished, Mr. Ron Bronstein came forward and took the floor. Mr. Bronstein did not agree that Resource Road Authority, its officers or employees would form a ‘quasi judicial body’ operating outside of and independent of the Public Service Act. Mr. Berkshire pointed out that this may have been intended in the original White Paper (also see Legislative Steering Committee mandate) but that this was not reflected in Bill 30. At this point, Mr. Bronstein seemed flustered that relevant sections of Bill 30 were being projected on the screen behind him which appeared to be in apparent contradiction to what he was saying. To this Mr. McLelland challenged "you are saying one thing but that we can read for ourselves what is written". Mr. Bronstein declined any further comment on this issue and admitted he was "not that familiar with the legislation".

Of note: Section 2 of the electronic version of Bill 30 now states: (2) The Resource Road Authority consists of a chair, one or more vice-chairs and other persons the Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint". However, the intent of an independent quasi judicial authority is indicated in Section 2 (2) which states: "(2) The Public Service Act and the Public Service Labor Relations Act do not apply to the Resource Road Authority or to its officers or employees" and Section (3) : " Appointments of the members of the Resource Road Authority under subsection (2) may be for a term of up to 3 years and may be renewed for one or more additional terms." Section 6 confirms the quasi judicial nature of the Authority: 6 (1) The Resource Road Authority may, in writing, do one or more of the following: (a) delegate a power or duty of the authority under this Act, including a quasi-judicial power or duty…

pg4

Mr. Bronstein went on to state that the other subsections of Section 16 protected a "free miner’s" rights in the same way as Section 11.1 under the Mineral Tenure Act had. When challenged by the actual text projected behind him, Mr. Bronstein was unable to support this statement and when asked to comment on Section 16(4) subsequently refused the opportunity to elaborate. Mr. Bronstein then gave up the floor to Mr. Houle.

Mr. Houle then asked for questions and comments from the floor. After discussions these were followed by motions from the floor. The first motion put forward - seconded and approved by a show of hands was to the effect that VIX post a newspaper ad concerning Bill 30.

Further discussion followed regarding individual action that might be taken, including letter writing to the newspapers, politicians and other interested parties.

The next motion was for the creation of an action committee to co-ordinate with other Mineral Exploration and Wilderness User Groups. The motion passed unanimously and volunteers were asked to put their names forward. A collection for direct action was then taken up – and over $500 dollars raised.

Dan Berkshire

Chair of the VIX Bill 30 Direct Action Committee.

pg5