News

Forest Minister's Brother High in Firm Granted Tree Farm Deal

WFP's Stan Coleman: 'no involvement' with brother Rich's move to help his company.

By Andrew MacLeod, 14 Jan 2008, TheTyee.ca

Rich Coleman

BC Forest Minister Rich Coleman.

Forest and Range Minister Rich Coleman has said repeatedly that releasing 28,000 hectares of Western Forest Products Inc.'s private land from management under British Columbia's Tree Farm Licence system was done to help a company that was suffering financially.

While Coleman's decision has received much scrutiny in the media and Auditor General John Doyle is investigating, here's one detail that has so far been largely overlooked: Coleman's older brother Stan is Western Forest Product's manager of strategic planning.

Reached by phone and asked what his relationship is to Rich, Stan Coleman says, "He's my brother." The Coleman's have three other brothers and a sister, he adds, before ending the call saying he had to return to chairing a meeting.

Reached later, Stan Coleman says he is the second eldest sibling and Rich was third. Both were born in Nelson before the family moved to Penticton. "We were a very happy family. Great brother," he says. The other siblings include a teacher, an environmental engineer and a political science professor. "We're a very diversified family in a sense. I'm proud of all my brothers and sister, what they've accomplished in their lives, what they're doing."

Stan Coleman lives in Nanaimo and works out of WFP's Campbell River office. Asked how close he is with Rich, he says, "We see each other on and off."

'No involvement': WFP's Coleman

Stan Coleman joined WFP in May 2006, when the company acquired the short-lived Cascadia Forest Products Inc. Cascadia was created in 2005 when Weyerhaeuser sold its B.C. assets to Brascan, which later became Brookfield Asset Management Inc. Brookfield also now owns a majority interest in WFP.

The minister's brother worked for Weyerhaeuser in 2004 when the company benefited from another release of private land from management under TFLs. In that case, then forest minister Mike de Jong released the land against the recommendation of ministry staff.

Asked what his involvement in the releases was, Stan Coleman says, "No involvement. I have no involvement in either of them."

With the WFP one in particular, he says, "That was well under way before they acquired Cascadia." Asked what people's perceptions of the relationship might be, he says, "I can't gear with what people may make up, but I've had no involvement." Besides, he says, such conflicts are more an issue for the government, which has procedures to deal with them, than they are for businesses.

Minister Rich Coleman announced the WFP release in January 2007, about eight months after his brother joined the company. The final decision was based on a briefing note dated Dec. 20, 2006, but the discussion dates back to at least 2005.

Even if Stan Coleman says he was not involved, says NDP forestry critic Bob Simpson, he was aware the BC Liberal government was considering releasing the lands and he was advising the West Island Woodlands Community Advisory Group about the issue. According to minutes from WIWAG's Feb. 12, 2004 meeting in Port Alberni, Coleman told the group, "Weyerhaeuser is actively working with government to remove private lands as they provide a company with return on investment."

Rich Coleman did not return calls placed with both his ministry media contacts and his constituency office.

NDP's Simpson cites perceived conflict

The NDP's Simpson says at the very least there is the perception of a conflict of interest. He raised the issue of the Coleman brothers' relationship in the legislature in 2006 and met with then conflict of interest commissioner H.A.D. Oliver about it, he says, but didn't get anywhere.

He also wrote Premier Gordon Campbell a letter, encouraging him to remove Rich Coleman from decisions related to areas his brother works on. "The easiest way for him to deal with it is to appoint a minister of state for coastal forest policy," he says. That would leave Coleman free to govern forestry in the rest of the province, he says, without the appearance of a conflict. "It distances him from direct decisions."

An official in commissioner Paul Fraser's office who searched documents back to 1996, however, says there's never been a formal complaint about Rich Coleman and no record of either Fraser or his predecessor H.A.D. Oliver addressing anything to do with Coleman. "There's nothing written as far as I know." Coleman or others may have asked the commissioner about the potential conflict on the phone or in the annual meeting that each MLA has with him, she adds, but there would be no record of that.

Minister's briefing note

Rich Coleman based his decision to release WFP's lands on a briefing note prepared by senior timber forester Kelly Finck and presented by the director of the resource tenures and engineering branch, Jim Langridge. The Tyee obtained that briefing note through a freedom of information request.

The note sets out two options. The first was to consent to removing WFP's land from the TFLs, mainly on Vancouver Island. The option, "Allows WFP more flexibility regarding land use and business decisions regarding their private land, including the ability to sell land to generate revenue."

The move would give the government $2.5 million worth of roads on the private lands for no more than the estimated $350,000 cost to survey them, the note says. It also predicted a "Moderate likelihood of public opposition from communities, environmental and First Nations groups, especially regarding the increased potential for log exports."

The minister would have to look closely at whether First Nations were well enough accommodated by the decision, it says.

The second option was to refuse to release the lands. If Coleman refused, it says, "WFP would not be able to sell private land to generate revenue." Nor would the company be able to "fully implement plans for restructuring their operations on the coast."

Refusing the release would also mean no changes to ungulate winter ranges, old growth management areas and restrictions on raw log exports. With the refusal, it says, "Communities and First Nations groups are not impacted."

Coleman followed the course his staff advised and picked the first option, giving the company a break and risking public opposition.

Questions remain

There are still many questions surrounding Coleman's decision, says Eric Swanson, a campaigner with the Dogwood Initiative. "The big question is what was the reasoning," he says. "He's got the interests of corporations and not the public in mind. Until he comes out and proves otherwise, that's what everyone's got to assume."

Says Swanson, "There's no benefit to workers in B.C. or jobs in B.C. or the long-term viability of operations on Vancouver Island."

Swanson points out WFP is 70 per cent owned by Brookfield, a company that owns large amounts of property in New York City and elsewhere. "They're primarily a real estate company," he says. "[Coleman] must have known. It's publicly available information."

Several months after the release, WFP announced a deal to sell some of the land released from the TFLs to a real estate developer. The deal will close in March if conditions can be cleared. The sale includes prime lands on the west coast of Vancouver Island between Sooke and Port Renfrew, including recreation areas used by campers and surfers.

At the request of the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria, Auditor General John Doyle is investigating the decision. A report was initially expected this month, but the ELC's legal director, Calvin Sandborn, says he's been told it won't be out until March or April. He says, "I know the office has been very busy interviewing people."

Related Tyee stories:

 [Tyee]

21  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • alive

    4 years ago

    Planning for the future?

    EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS -- TYEE MODERATOR

  • Van Isle

    4 years ago

    Just more pigs at the

    EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS. TYEE MODERATOR. ... This article ties in nicely with todays article by Rafe

  • Tieleman

    4 years ago

    Sorry - Stan Coleman is a good guy

    While I can understand Andrew MacLeod's story has to raise the question of a potential conflict of interest, I want to personally say from my work in the past with Stan Coleman at an unrelated non-profit that he is a very decent guy and does not deserve to be pilloried by posters.

    I think all of us - myself included at times - have to be careful about drawing too long a bow when reaching conclusions about the integrity of people based on their relations with other family members who may be in positions of authority.

    - Bill Tieleman

  • Andrea from Bec...

    4 years ago

    What we need is one of those

    What we need is one of those friendship maps you can add to your profile on Facebook!

    Andrea
    http://www.consultantjournal.com

  • alive

    4 years ago

    censored

    I see that on second thought the editors censored my remarks.
    That makes me wonder why they posted this story in the first place?
    The obvious conclusion from the story would be to draw parralels to history where ministers were seen as favouring relatives.
    The official line is that there must not seem to be any favoritism, and the story certainly points that way.
    While I respect Tielman, I also realize he is working hard to be seen as somewhat independant. Maybe he has seen a good side of said minister, then again please allow me to wonder.

  • G West

    4 years ago

    alive - with respect

    Bill Tieleman didn't write or say "anything" about RICH Coleman (the MLA); he offered an opinion (based upon his personal experience) of his brother STAN.

    Most of us have a relative or two we'd just as soon it wasn't public knowledge that we are related to...

    I think Bill was just expressing a corollary to that truism...

  • rousseau

    4 years ago

    another earth-shattering

    another earth-shattering story from the tyee. this will surely create a major scandal.

  • realisticman

    4 years ago

    alive

    Quote:
    The obvious conclusion from the story would be to draw parralels (sic) to history where ministers were seen as favouring relatives.

    Just goes to show, alive, that the old dictums still apply, 'don't believe everything you read in the newspapers (or any other media)' and, 'don't jump to conclusions'. All that glitters is not necessarily gold and all that stinks is not ....

  • zalm

    4 years ago

    Unequal treatment under the law

    I'm still trying to figure out why a forest company gets to turn its tree farm licence - a property it holds the rights to remove the peoples' resources from in exchange for royalties - into fee-simple land. I've always wanted to get a small parcel of my own fee-simple land way out on Langara Island. I'll even pay good money. But can I? Not a chance - I can negotiate a lease for a fixed period, if I have a business, but just to live? No chance.

    Yet a company that's supposedly in trouble for no other reason than other forest companies the world over are eating its lunch in terms of value-added product, gets a major gift. I would have expected that perhaps real honest-to-goodness people ought to get the best advantages out of belonging to society, with corporations and their special tax and liability provisions taking the unprofitable scrapings and using their artificial but legal advantages to make them profitable. But not in our world. Here, the corporations get to skim the cream and the people, if they get anything at all, get to try to make a living off the dregs.

    Most people call this charity. Some here might call it nepotism.

    I call it fraud. Legal, perhaps, but fraud nonetheless. Government needs a serious shaking up, and before Fiat Lux gets into this, Chicago School economic thinking is only a small Johnny-come-lately part of the problem.

  • Dale Perkins

    4 years ago

    The Coleman brothers EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS

    There is nothing surprising in the revelations Andrew MacLeod uncovers in his story EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS. TYEE MODERATOR What I found disturbing was how Bill Tieleman rushed in to defend Rich Coleman as a decent fellow, who should not be pillored "by posters". If Andrew MacLeod's article represents pilloring by posters then something is seriously wrong with Tieleman's sense of propriety and what constitutes good investigative journalism.

  • RickW

    4 years ago

    Bill Tieleman

    It is common practice when companies run contests, to exclude as a matter of course, employees and their relatives, in order to eliminate the possibly of a "fix".

    Why would this not be the case in government? It would save a whole lot of speculation of the type seen in this article.

    Or could it possibly be that many people would not bother to run for public office, were a ruyle of this sort apply to government?

  • G West

    4 years ago

    Once again

    Bill Tieleman didn't write a single word about Rich COLEMAN.

    This is what he said:

    While I can understand Andrew MacLeod's story has to raise the question of a potential conflict of interest, I want to personally say from my work in the past with Stan Coleman at an unrelated non-profit that he is a very decent guy and does not deserve to be pilloried by posters.

    I think all of us - myself included at times - have to be careful about drawing too long a bow when reaching conclusions about the integrity of people based on their relations with other family members who may be in positions of authority.

    - Bill Tieleman

    As for pillorying, I think you'll note that several of the messages which I suspect Bill was referring to have been redacted.

  • SharingIsGood

    4 years ago

    nice guy or not, Bill Tieleman,

    at the very least, Rich Coleman needed to recuse himself from being Forest Minister, if his brother's employer was in the process of asking for a favour that is leaps and bounds above any practice that had been offered in the past. Even if he is a nice guy, he's an oaf for letting this happen under his watch.

    I've watched several small businesses fold in the town near my home because favours were granted to a big business (WalMart) that moved in and took their clients. The small businesses were not granted the favours that WalMart got. Now we have empty storefronts all over town.

  • Tieleman

    4 years ago

    Stan NOT Rich Coleman - don't ruin my rep

    Thanks to G West for coming to my defence in my absence and pointing out twice that I was referring to STAN Coleman as a good guy, not his brother cabinet minister RICH Coleman.

    I have and will continue to be highly critical of RICH Coleman as I see fit but blaming his brother STAN - who is not the CEO of the company - for government decisions that may affect his employer is unfair.

    - Bill Tieleman

  • SharingIsGood

    4 years ago

    I stand corrected, Mr. Tieleman.

    Stan's loyalty must be to his employer, unless his employer is immoral or unethical. Even then, you would hope he would help his employer change. Rich's loyalty should lie with the electorate - something I can't recall seeing with this current government.

    Your reputation is always safe with me; I admire the work you do; I was confused.

  • alive

    4 years ago

    Sorry

    Ok Bill I stand corrected too.
    I did not pay enough attention to the first name either.
    I am still critical of the problems created when relatives seem to gain from ministers position, and feel a safeguard need to be introduced.

  • G West

    4 years ago

    more grist

    http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=8482d83c-d5ee-4b62-a0a4-44f10512f8f2

    Although I'm inclined to accept the explanation that STAN Coleman's employment didn't constitute a conflict of interest relative to the behavior of the minister in respect of the transaction in question, I'm far from sanguine about the behavior of the minster and Campbell's government relative to obligations to the people of this province and the use and preservation of public resources.

    I think the people of the Sooke area of Lower Vancouver Island have much the same concerns....

    Andrew MacLeod wrote a column for Monday Magazine about the situation last October:

    http://www.mondaymag.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=117&cat=23&id=1094676&more=0

    Nothing done by the minister since has really addressed the fundamental problem with the behavior of his ministry on this file.

    If it were the only example of this kind of thing in the province, that would be unfortunate; the fact that similar sell-outs are occurring all over British Columbia is more than unfortunate, it is a crisis.

    The CONFLICT OF INTEREST that Tyee readers should be concerned about most is not simply a 'family' compact...it is something far more fundamental.

  • Bailey

    4 years ago

    Free simple?

    I need help with this one. Do I have this right?

    This is land that was owned by the crown as a tree farm licence in a logging community, was converted to private property of a logging company on the condition that they keep growing trees on it, so that these licences could be traded among companies without reference to the communities that used to control them.

    Now this same land is to be made into real estate and no more trees grown there at all?

    I can't conceive of the government mind that would permit such a thing. Why would they do it? Their obligation and clear duty in managing these lands was and must still be to assure the future of logging in BC.

    Not to prevent it, so some company can make huge profits.

    These stories just make me surer that all government officials and all political parties must be made to disclose all, and I do mean all, of their finances, holdings and property from the time of their entry into politics until twenty years after they're dead, since these guys are surely slippery enough to need watching until they have returned to dust.

    Sorry for the pun.

  • G West

    4 years ago

    You've got it exactly right Bailey

    Moreover, it's not just happening in the lower part of Vancouver Island.

    We are being taken to the cleaners by a gang of stooges for the real estate industry - among other things.

    They have no concern whatever about the future of this province as a sustainable ecosystem.

    There will be an election in a little over a year's time - work needs to be done.

    I’ll be in touch.

  • zalm

    4 years ago

    Bailey

    Agreed, except for one word - "owned". I don't think they have title to the TFL. But in order to sell the licence for real estate, they have to get title to it. How they get that is beyond me.

  • RickW

    4 years ago

    Voter Attention Span

    Quote:
    There will be an election in a little over a year's time -

    (MUCH)

    Quote:
    work needs to be done.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.