Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

Liberal MLA Sandy Silver

Premier's Peel stance insults First Nations: MLA

Liberal MLA Sandy Silver is lambasting Premier Darrell Pasloski for his new stance on the Peel River watershed.

By Chuck Tobin on February 20, 2012

Liberal MLA Sandy Silver is lambasting Premier Darrell Pasloski for his new stance on the Peel River watershed.

The decision to reject the recommendation for maximum wilderness protection in favour of industrial development is an insult to First Nations, morally reprehensible and fiscally irresponsible, Silver said in a press release this morning.

The Klondike MLA goes on to accuse the government of wrongfully using the public purse to float what amounts to a Yukon Party propaganda campaign to promote the government position on the Peel.

"Yukon Party governments have wasted millions of taxpayers' dollars, by facilitating a process that they never had any intention of following,” said the Liberal critic for Energy, Mines and Resources.

"We're now in a situation where no one knows what will happen next, except for a few key Yukon Party people who are making decisions behind closed doors.

"This creates an environment of uncertainty that could erode confidence in future land use planning processes and which will inevitably be bad for all forms of business in the territory.”

Pasloski is declining comment on his announcement last week and the eight new conditions that will guide land use management in the Peel watershed from now on.

Nor has he responded to the harsh criticism coming out of several corners since his proclamation, including the four First Nations whose traditional territories make up the Peel watershed.

Chief Simon Mervyn of the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun said Friday the First Nations feel they've been stabbed in the back by Pasloski.

A legal opinion delivered to the premier Friday concludes the direction the premier has taken runs opposite to the spirit and intent of the aboriginal land claim settlements, Mervyn said.

Several have accused the Yukon Party of purposely suppressing its position on the Peel so that it wouldn't have to defend it during last fall's territorial election campaign.

Dave Loeks, whose been with the Peel Watershed Planning Commission since the beginning in 2004, said the Yukon Party government could have saved a lot of time and money had it announced its intent seven years ago.

After several years of research and public discussion, the commission recommended 80 per cent of the watershed be set for protection with no road access at any time of year.

Former Yukon Party premier Dennis Fentie asked the commission early last year to revisit its recommendation shortly after it was released, suggesting it did not provide enough allowance for industrial development.

The commission returned last July with what was essentially the same recommendation.

Pasloski announced last Tuesday his government will allow development and "reasonable” access throughout the watershed, subject to the standard guidelines provided for in the environmental review process.

The government, the premier said, would not consider expropriating any of the 8,000-plus mineral claims registered inside the planning area.

Specific areas deemed to be of wilderness significance will be set aside, he announced.

Pasloski said the eight conditions unveiled last week will be used this spring during the final round of public consultation to modify the existing plan recommended by the commission.

Under the land claim process, the Yukon government has the final say on land use planning over 98 per cent of the watershed's 68,042 square kilometres, because 98 per cent is territorial Crown land.

The land claim settlements provide for eight regional land use planning exercises.

The planning process for northern Yukon was largely without contention, and was concluded in 2009.

The third planning initiative is currently underway for the Dawson City region.

Approximately $1.65 million has so far been spent on the Peel plan.

See letter.

Comments (8)

Up 0 Down 0

Billy Polson on Feb 25, 2012 at 1:48 am

Groucho, exploration companies make grids of roads and trenches on the land, miners tear it up entirely and leave their historic mess, as you see when you enter Dawson City, if you head up the Nansen Road,etc.

Once the miners are done with the land it is no longer useable by the other economic sectors like tourism and outfitting. Hard to sell a second hunt on what appears to be a checkerboard landscape with a big, stained waterfilled hole in the middle of it.

The Yukon Party under Fentie and now Pasloski were never to be trusted and this latest pillar crap smells exactly like the stuff we have become accustomed to when dealing with them.

Silver is 100% correct "This creates an environment of uncertainty that could erode confidence in future land use planning processes and which will inevitably be bad for all forms of business in the territory.”

Up 0 Down 0

Groucho d'North on Feb 23, 2012 at 11:24 am

What stands out for me in all the reaction to the government's position on the Peel, is that the criticisms are coming from other economic sectors who want to have some exclusivity in exploiting the Peel region.

The Tourism folks want to access and exploit the land for their commercial benefit, *NOTE: not all are Yukon operators.

The First Nations want it left alone just because, and I'm okay with that, at least they don't have an ulterior profit purpose in their position.

The Outfitters want to exploit the animal resources and scenery for their income. Yet somehow the mining sector is the demon all others are focused upon. It hardly sounds like they are thinking about protection in the grand scheme of things, but rather: "Protect my interests in the Peel at the expense of all others.”

I think the government's approach is the correct one where balance and principles of sharing the various resources and cooperation in the Peel region is the real issue - Otherwise close it down for all economic sectors and nobody gets to exploit it for profit.

Every activity leaves footprints of various kinds.

Up 0 Down 0

Disappointed. on Feb 23, 2012 at 10:35 am

I was born in the Yukon and have lived here all my life. The unique part of the Yukon is that it is untouched, untainted. I take great pride and comfort in that. Pasloski's government has acted dishonestly and has not spoken for the people of the Yukon.

Up 0 Down 0

ghengiskhan on Feb 23, 2012 at 6:51 am

Moving forward into the Whiteman's void

Up 0 Down 0

Denise on Feb 22, 2012 at 10:05 am

If some of the members of the Yukon Party don't feel this is a right decision for the Yukon, feel free to walk across the floor a join another Party! And make this the right decision!

Up 0 Down 0

Marianna Berko on Feb 21, 2012 at 1:06 pm

It should be designated as World Heritage Site, and no one should be able to touch it. The Yukon is not for sale, wake up Canada, we need to change our voting system and elect responsible people, not liars.

Up 0 Down 0

Patrick on Feb 20, 2012 at 10:39 am

Under Oath, Pasloski government members should be asked if they made any promises to the mining industry to keep the Peel watershed open to mining development.

The Pasloski government's new stance on the Peel River watershed appears at face value to be influenced by something. What is it Mr. Pasloski?

Was it campaign donations to the Yukon Party by the mining industry?

Up 0 Down 0

June Jackson on Feb 20, 2012 at 9:15 am

I feel the Peel has been sold out.. follow the money..

Should have been declared a Federal Park and protected forever against greed.

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.