The Yukon Conservation Society remains confident the new Liberal government will deliver on its promise of maximum protection for the Peel River watershed.

It might not be a straight road getting there, but the society’s executive director expects that’s where they’ll end up.

Christina Macdonald said Thursday afternoon that as they watched the live stream of the new government unveiling its final legal arguments in the Peel land use case Thursday morning, there was some uneasiness initially.

That anxiety was put to rest somewhat after they had a chat over the phone with Thomas Berger, the renowned aboriginal rights lawyer who is representing the society and the First Nations in the Supreme Court of Canada challenge, she said.

Macdonald said whatever the ultimate ruling from the high court, she would expect the new Liberal government will honour the solid commitment it made during the fall election campaign for maximum wilderness protection.

Protecting the Peel, she emphasized, was the centrepiece of the Liberals’ 2016 election campaign.

“I think what is important to keep in mind is that the current Yukon government inherited this court case from the previous government, and the Supreme Court of Canada requires that a case that is brought before them be argued,” she said.

Macdonald said even Berger described the case as unusual.

Justice Minister Tracy-Anne McPhee and Premier Sandy Silver held a press conference Thursday morning to explain the government’s final legal arguments which were filed at the same time with the Supreme Court of Canada.

The hearing is scheduled for March 22, and the government had until today to file its final arguments, after an extension was granted, given the change in government.

Official Opposition MLAs Brad Cathers and Scott Kent, both former Yukon Party cabinet ministers, said yesterday morning following the press conference the arguments essentially reflect the position taken by their Yukon Party government.

It’s another recent example of the Liberals saying one thing and doing another, Kent and Cathers said.

The land use plan recommended by the Peel planning commission in 2011 called for wilderness protection over 80 per cent of the Peel River watershed, which accounts for 14 per cent of the Yukon’s total area.

The commission also recommended that very little access by road and rail be permitted.

The Yukon Party government rejected the commission’s recommendation, and eventually adopted its own plan in early 2014.

Wilderness protection was reduced to just under 30 per cent, with surface access permitted throughout the region.

The ink wasn’t even dry on the government’s land use plan when Mayo’s First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun, the Tr’ondek Hwech’in of Dawson City, the conservation society and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society launched a legal challenge, and won.

Both the Yukon Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal found the territorial government had not honoured its obligation to participate openly and fully in the Peel planning process.

As a result, Justice Ron Veale of the Yukon Supreme Court ordered the Yukon government to largely accept the planning commission’s final recommendation, including the provisions for vast wilderness protection and restricted surface access. The government appealed.

The Court of the Appeal agreed with Veale’s finding that the government had failed to live up to its obligation to participate honourably in the planning process.

But it overturned Veale’s order forcing the government to accept the planning commission’s final recommendation.

Instead, it ordered the parties back to the planning process, to the point where the commission delivered its initial draft recommendation.

It was at that point the Yukon government derailed the process when it failed to provide a detailed response to the draft, the Court of Appeal found.

From the Court of Appeal, the First Nations and environmental groups received what was a split decision in their minds.

The superior court agreed the government did not participate honourably in the planning process. But it disagreed with the order to return to the planning process, and subsequently asked the Supreme Court of Canada to hear an appeal.

The coalition is arguing Veale’s order should stand. The government’s conduct during the first planning exercise is not worthy of a second chance to do it all over again, the First Nations contend.

The Justice minister explained during Thursday’s press conference the government does support the Court of Appeal’s direction to return to the planning process.

If the government is successful, it would mean re-instituting the planning commission, McPhee acknowledged.

At this point, she said, without having the direction from the Supreme Court of Canada, it’s not possible to say what a new planning exercise might produce.

It may be, she said, that the land use plan recommended by the Peel planning commission won’t even be available to the parties after the Supreme Court delivers its decision.

The government’s legal arguments say that the government’s breach of its obligations occurred well before the planning commission produced its final recommendation.

Upholding Veale’s order that the government be forced to adopt the final recommendation would be forcing the government to adopt a land use plan that arose from a failed planning process, says the legal arguments.

McPhee said it’s just not going to be as simple as throwing out the Yukon Party’s land use plan and substituting it with the planning commission’s final recommendation.

It’s not possible right now to say whether the next land use plan would contain the 80 per cent wilderness protection and restricted access, because officials don’t know what direction they will be given by the Supreme Court of Canada, said the Justice minister.

McPhee said the Liberal government is still in full support of the principles underlying the recommended land use plan – wilderness protection, restricted access, et al.

The government’s 27-page factum submitted Thurday to the high court says the same thing: that the government accepts the principles outlined in the commission’s final recommendation.

Silver said his government remains committed to the land use plan recommended by the commission.

“We have said from the beginning that we do want to implement the original plan,” he said.

“If it comes down to a path where that could happen, we would not say no to that.”