Illegal road prompts changes in the law
Slick lawyering in a trial last fall over the construction of an illegal road between Carmacks and Pelly Crossing has resulted in proposed amendments to Yukon legislation.
Slick lawyering in a trial last fall over the construction of an illegal road between Carmacks and Pelly Crossing has resulted in proposed amendments to Yukon legislation.
Amendments to the Territorial Lands Act and the Yukon Forest Act were tabled in the legislature Monday when the house convened for the first day of the fall sitting.
Nicolai Goeppel and H. Coyne and Sons pleaded guilty last November to three charges each for building a 17-kilometre road without authorization.
They were fined $400 on each count, for a total fine of $1,200 plus a court surcharge.
Lawyers for the accused told the court the Yukon government was wrong in seeking a maximum $5,000 fine for each count, even though it had been using the $5,000 figure for years.
A correct reading of the legislation showed the maximum fine was $500, not $5,000, they argued. Territorial court Judge Peter Chisholm agreed.
Goeppel and Coyne and Sons each pleaded not guilty to charges of harvesting forest products without authority, which carried a maximum fine of $150,000.
Their lawyers argued their clients pushed over trees with a bulldozer and plowed their way through the bush, but didn’t harvest any trees.
Harvest, argued senior Vancouver lawyer Richard Fowler, means to take something; to harvest something for use later. Picking carrots from the garden for dinner is harvesting the carrots, Fowler argued.
In this case, argued Fowler, Goeppel and Coyne and Sons did not harvest any wood for use later. They plowed over a bunch of trees to build the road, but they didn’t take anything for use later; they didn’t harvest anything, he said.
The judge found the pair not guilty of harvesting wood without authority.
The proposed amendment to the Forest Resources Act changes the definition of harvesting to include the cutting or removal of forest products.
The amendment to the Territorial Lands Act sets $5,000 as the maximum penalty for an offence.
Another amendment provides the Yukon government with the ability to seek reimbursement of costs incurred for any remediation or reclamation work following the unauthorized use of territorial lands.
The government has completed the environmental screening of the proposal to reclaim the road. It formally cleared the project to go forward last June.
The intent of the reclamation work is to replace the vegetative matt that was bulldozed aside, repair five stream crossings and stabilize permafrost that was exposed.
Mike Draper of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources said this morning work could begin this fall and pick up again next spring after the ground thaws.
The past summer was spent talking to contractors and assessing how to best proceed, he explained.
The government, he said, has spent approximately $82,000 so far on planning, site assessment work and placing a gate at the beginning of the road. An estimate of the total cost of the project has not been finalized.
Draper said department officials have had discussions about seeking reimbursement for the cost of reclaiming the road.
“We have not finished those yet,” he said. “But there has been some discussion with Goeppel, and my understanding is he has been co-operative in those.”
Comments (12)
Up 11 Down 1
Ilove Parks on Oct 9, 2018 at 12:08 pm
I use vehicles and have no problem with responsible mining but this was so disrespectful to existing practices and consultation with first nations.
Up 14 Down 4
woodcutter on Oct 9, 2018 at 10:01 am
@BB
I've been saying for years that the mining sector is getting preferential treatment in comparison to those in the forestry sector. From almost nothing in royalties for placer miners, to a convoluted system of calculating royalties owned under the quartz mining act, which is a profit based system, the Yukon tax payers are getting it royally. Forestry royalties are volume based and the government doesn't care what it cost to get the product to market. The mining sector get buckets of money to "stimulate" and oodles of subsidies disguised as things from training, exploration and million dollar road upgrades. Us in the forestry sector are required to pay for our roads thru our royalty payments on the harvest.
Now we also see that the "darling" of the Yukon, is not held to the same legal standards as those in the forestry sector. But then we don't get the same corporate welfare perks either.
Up 8 Down 1
Groucho d'North on Oct 8, 2018 at 2:54 pm
I like a bumper sticker that made the rounds a few years back: " Government is not protecting the wilderness for you, they protecting it from you"
Up 43 Down 4
BB on Oct 4, 2018 at 5:58 pm
Oh I see. If you cut down four trees and burn them for firewood, that's 'harvesting' and you are subject to a possible $5000 fine. But if you destroy trees and pile them in a heap and leave them behind, that's mining exploration work gone awry and you are subject to a $500 fine.
I hope the government sees fit to go to the max in the other direction in trying to collect the full amount for the remediation, as Goeppel and Coyne did in trying to get away with paying the least amount possible in fines. Playing with the law can go both ways, and I can't see why they should not be on the hook for the full remediation cost anyway.
Up 12 Down 36
Max Mack on Oct 4, 2018 at 2:18 pm
Silver's government has completely misconstrued the situation. The government's reaction is typical of authoritarian regimes that are more intent on control and punishment.
Miners and other resource extractors are increasingly being denied reasonable access to resources. Environmental screening processes have been taken over by eco-zealots, resource manager and policy jobs in government are increasingly being assumed by folks who are either environmental activists or by folks who have no understanding of the industry,
Further, First Nations have become joined at the hip with incredibly well-funded environmental NGOs (some with considerable US backing) and have effective veto power over resource development.
The concentration of an elitist, urbanized, southern-born, southern-educated, anti-industry population in Whitehorse is not helping this situation.
Playing by the "rules", as vague and subject to the whims of individual government agents as that is, often means that resource developers are faced with unreasonable and excessive demands or effective banning of development activity. This problem is particularly acute for small players, who do not have the cash to buy off "opponents".
I question whether YTG is sincere about resource development. After all, there is little motivation to encourage resource development with well in excess of 1 billion in federal government transfers.
Up 9 Down 43
Jimbo on Oct 4, 2018 at 1:27 pm
It’s the Yukon we need more roads anyways. We don’t have access to anything and have plenty of space to do so. No harm done.
Up 35 Down 10
woodcutter on Oct 4, 2018 at 9:45 am
Miners stewards of the land? har har har, isn't that rich. Let's see an industry that uses terminology such as "exploitation" to describe their harvesting technique is trying to portray themselves as Stewards of the land. I suppose if you're an industry Shill, who's paycheck is coming from government funding, and tax payers pockets, you will say almost anything, even if it's red lined on the baloney meter. But hey, the spokes person is also a local politician, so the spin doctoring comes natural and with out the requirements for self medication.
Its good to see the laws be adjusted to ensure that there is a deterrent to others acting in an unscrupulous manner. the legal consequences are minor and do nothing to ensure behavior is above board. The restorative cost of unauthorized actions perhaps will scare off those who feel they have an entitlement to the resources and choose to act in a reckless and criminal matter. Perhaps the fear of losing all that one has worked for, will give people like this pause to reconsider the cost benefit of their actions.
85k spent so far on the restoration process is small potatoes, wait until the work starts and the heavy equipment moves in. It's cheaper and faster to tear down a house then to build one, however It more expensive to restore the lands and mitigate the effects of erosion, then it is to drop the dozer blade and push a road in willy nilly like.
Thanks for sticking your head in the lions mouth, it's an object lesson that has created the changes needed.
Up 27 Down 9
Ilove Parks on Oct 3, 2018 at 11:49 pm
In wildness is the preservation of the world.
It's expensive to reclaim a bulldozed road.
Up 15 Down 8
D on Oct 3, 2018 at 10:06 pm
$82,000 they spent on what? We should be more concerned about the waste of tax payers money. What a waste. Yukon government find ways to spend money on useless s**t once again.
Up 40 Down 7
Guncache on Oct 3, 2018 at 8:48 pm
$82 grand spent and not a shovel full of dirt moved yet. When the liberal gov't gets involved the price sky rockets. Just block the entrance, nature will take over at no charge.
Up 31 Down 8
ProScience Greenie on Oct 3, 2018 at 3:25 pm
Good heavens, a quick and easy job but they've spent $82K so far just on planning and the consultants and contractors haven't even started milking the gravy train yet. Final cost will no doubt be 10x or more than the real cost but hey, that's the Yukon way.
Up 69 Down 25
Politico on Oct 3, 2018 at 3:10 pm
Just shows the dishonesty of the miners, the builders and the lawyers involved. People always complain when a murderer gets off on a technicality but pretty quiet when a slick miner does the same thing. What do you say Sampson, are miners really the stewards of the land!