Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

The Peel River Watershed

Peel dispute headed to nation’s top court

The Supreme Court of Canada announced this morning it will hear the appeal in the dispute over the hotly contentious land use plan for the expansive Peel River Watershed.

By Chuck Tobin on June 9, 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada announced this morning it will hear the appeal in the dispute over the hotly contentious land use plan for the expansive Peel River Watershed.

The high court does not provide any reasons when ruling whether it will hear appeals. It only hears about 10 per cent of the requests that come in.

According to statistics from the last 10 years published by the Supreme Court, from the date leave to appeal is granted – today – to the actual hearing in Ottawa takes between seven and nine months. Most recently, it was closer to seven months.

From the day of the hearing to a decision is anywhere from four to eight months, according to the statistics.

Using the averages, Yukoners can expect a final decision on the Peel land use plan anywhere from 11 to 17 months.

The request to have the Supreme Court of Canada hear an appeal in the Peel case was filed by the First Nation of Na-cho Nyak Dun of Mayo, Dawson’s Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, Old Crow’s Vuntut Gwitchun First Nation, the Yukon Conservation Society and Yukon Chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

At the heart of the legal dispute is the remedy that should be applied when a party to a modern treaty breaches the requirements set out in that treaty.

The Yukon Supreme Court and subsequently the Yukon Court of Appeal agreed with Yukon First Nations and environmental organizations that the Yukon government did not fulfill its obligations during the land use planning exercise for the Peel.

But the two courts disagreed on what the remedy should be, which is in part what the Supreme Court of Canada is being asked to sort out.

Provisions for regional land use planning are set out in the Yukon’s aboriginal land claim agreements. The agreements are enshrined in the Constitution of Canada.

The multi-year planning initiative for the 68,042 square kilometres making up the Peel River watershed began in 2004 with the appointment of the six-member planning commission.

The work of the commission culminated when it released its final recommendation in 2011 calling for wilderness protection over 80 per cent of the remote wilderness area, with little or no surface access into the watershed.

First Nations, which had initially sought 100 per cent wilderness protection, applauded the commission’s recommendation, as did many Yukoners and others around the world who saw the Peel as one of the last pristine areas on the planet.

The Yukon government, on the other hand, disagreed, as did industry.

Removing such a large area from future economic development opportunities, particularly mineral exploration and mining, would shackle the territory’s economic potential and send an unsettling message to future investors, the government maintained.

At the end of the day, the government used a clause in the land claim agreements that allows the owner of the land in question to “approve, reject or modify” the planning commission’s recommendation.

As the owner of 97 per cent of the watershed, the government rejected most of the planning commission’s recommendation and instead brought forward its own plan, which it officially adopted in January 2014.

Days later, the First Nations and the environmental organizations filed a lawsuit.

In his decision, Justice Ron Veale of the Yukon Supreme Court found that the Yukon government did not fulfill its obligations in the land use planning process set out in the land claim agreements

Its participation did not live up to the honour expected from territorial and provincial governments when dealing with First Nations, Veale ruled.

He found the government never really put all its cards on the table, that it never clearly articulated exactly what its position was, but rather relied on generalities then pulled the ace out of its sleeve at the end: the ability to “approve, reject or modify” the recommendation from the planning commission.

Veale threw out the government’s land use plan and ordered the government to largely adopt the planning commission’s recommendation, including the recommendation for 80 per cent wilderness protection and restricted surface access.

The government appealed.

The Yukon Court of Appeal agreed with Veale’s finding that the Yukon government did not live up the honour expected from governments when dealing with First Nations.

But it overturned the order forcing the government to adopt the commission’s recommendation.

Instead, the Court of Appeal ordered the parties back to the table.

Forcing the government to accept the commission’s recommendation and maximum wilderness protection for the Peel would not be in the spirit of reconciliation the land claim agreements were meant to achieve, the Court of Appeal ruled.

The Court of Appeal indicated if the government played by the rules the second time around, if it fulfilled its obligation to participate honourably, it could then invoke the provision that allows it to “approve, reject or modify” the commission’s recommendation.

The First Nations and environmental organizations filed a request to have the Supreme Court of Canada hear an appeal.

Having breached its treaty obligations in the first place, the government should not be rewarded with the opportunity to do it all over again, they argued.

See related story.

Comments (4)

Up 6 Down 2

Ken on Jun 13, 2016 at 4:08 pm

This administration has failed so horribly on this file, wasting so much money trying to obtain an unreasonable goal for people that don't want their development ideas in the first place. This issue alone is enough to warrant turning over of power in Territorial politics.
Let's get the vote out for the Territorial Election.

Up 10 Down 18

jc on Jun 10, 2016 at 10:02 pm

I say we mine out the Peel then turn it into a park. There's money there, let's get it then let the Environmentalists and FN have it. I like parks as much as anyone, but the national bills and debt have to be paid. Now, does this make me a environphobic or parkaphobic?

Up 17 Down 2

Sheep Hunter YT on Jun 10, 2016 at 6:20 pm

Pro Science Guy
You make an interesting point. I am assuming you refer to tourism type users when you speak to the "other" exploitive users?
In the region, there are two main outfitters: Widrig and Bonnet Plume and the two couldn't be more different. Widrig outfitters is a very, very low impact, responsible user. Bonnet Plume exemplifies the type of outfitter we should have. In many ways, mining would be better regulated in the area than outfitting is. Bonnet Plume is owned and operated by an Albertan who is getting 'er dun in pure Alberta fashion; jet boats, ATV trails everywhere etc. They are flying in side by sides and regular quads and putting trails everywhere. But outfitting is the sacred cow for some reason, and in this area as well as Jim Shockeys area, this unregulated use will continue until they are spoiled. You would be appalled and amazed to see the impact Bonnet Plume has had. So yeah, maybe it should be turned into a park.

Up 25 Down 8

ProScience Greenie on Jun 9, 2016 at 7:25 pm

Again it has to be asked - if the Peel watershed is so special, which I believe it is, why not create a large national park?
A park is the only way to truly protect the ecosystem of the watershed from all forms of human exploitation.

This battle has nothing to do with wilderness protection. It is all about what group of players gets to exploit the region.
Shame on all that are not pushing for a park.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.