Photo by Whitehorse Star
Pictured above: DAVE LOEKS
Photo by Whitehorse Star
Pictured above: DAVE LOEKS
The government is choosing to ignore the final Peel plan and take matters into its own hands, say conservation groups, the NDP and even the former chair of the planning commission.
The government is choosing to ignore the final Peel plan and take matters into its own hands, say conservation groups, the NDP and even the former chair of the planning commission.
"I assumed all parties were providing us with what we needed to know,” David Loeks, who chaired the Peel Watershed Planning Commission since it was created in 2004 said today.
"This information was was never tabled to the commission.”
Loeks was referring to the set of eight principles for planning the Peel watershed the government released to the media and the four affected First Nations Tuesday.
Although the government claims the principles take a balanced approach, many are saying the new document is the first step toward opening the watershed to industrial development.
The Yukon Party government has been silent on whether it supports the final Peel plan, evading questions during the fall election and claiming it can't take a stance until the whole planning process is complete.
Loeks is baffled the government chose to create these principles — which he thinks are closer to "objectives” — after the commission's work has been completed.
He and the rest of the commission's staff worked with a set of six guiding principles throughout the planning process, which included sustainable development, conservation and the precautionary principle.
"What they're saying is we don't really need a planning process, we're going to do it on our own around a table with government people,” said Loeks.
The former chair said he thinks the government would throw out the commission's final recommendations if it wasn't legally bound to the process through the aboriginal land claim settlements
"They allowed us to get all the way through that without saying they fundamentally disagreed with the way we were doing things,” he continued.
When Loeks revealed the final blueprint last July — which again took a conservation approach and recommended that 80 per cent of the watershed be protected — he spoke of frustrations while working with the government.
The government said it wanted more balance but was not specific as to where and why, Loeks said at the time. He believes the commission "more or less got it right” in the 2010 recommendation.
Elaine Schiman, a spokesperson for cabinet, stressed today that the government in no way is rejecting the final Peel plan, as media reports have recently suggested.
"We are modifying it,” she said.
Energy, Mines and Resources Minister Brad Cathers, told the Star Monday these principles will help Yukoners find common ground. He said they are meant to guide the plan's modification and the upcoming rounds of public consultation.
The Liberals are applauding the government for getting the ball rolling, but are concerned about the origins of the new principles.
"My question is, where did they come from?” Darius Elias, interim Liberal leader, said this morning.
"What the Yukon Party government's written reasons are to modify the plan, and to what extent, better be good,” he continued. "If they're not, I predict a swift and remarkable public outcry.”
Elias is particularly concerned about two principles that focus on managing intensity of use instead of prohibiting it.
"Those are in a totally different direction from what the commission recommended,” he said.
He believes the Peel planning process is far from being over and Cathers' goal of having it wrapped up is "pretty ambitious”.
The NDP is taking a more aggressive approach to the government's latest announcement.
Party leader Liz Hanson called it a "frontal assault” on the territory and one that threatens the fundamental faith Yukoners have in their government.
She said when the Peel planning process began, both First Nations and the Yukon government committed to sustainable development as a main principle.
"Not once does the government speak of sustainability (in its new principles),” Hanson continued.
"To say after almost eight years ‘You know we don't like it, we want to tell you what the rules are', — that's just the old bully-boy approach.”
Hanson said it's clear the government has no intention of fulfilling its obligations under the land claim agreements.
The Yukon Conservation Society (YCS) and Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Yukon chapter were singing the same tune at a press conference yesterday.
"Now we know why the Yukon Party has never clearly expressed its vision for the Peel, either to the public or the Peel commission. It doesn't have a vision. It wants business as usual, and it thinks it can do what it wants to in the Peel, anyway,” said Mike Dehn, executive director of CPAWS.
Karen Baltgailis, YCS's executive director, said that if the government didn't like the commission's principles, it had plenty of time to object.
"Let's be frank. What the government wants to do is gut seven years of hard work, collaboration and compromise to open the Peel to industrial development,” she said.
Chiefs from the four affected First Nations were told of the principles in a meeting with the government Tuesday. The First Nations have not yet commented on the government's announcement.
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.
Comments (8)
Up 0 Down 0
Patrick on Feb 17, 2012 at 8:38 am
Based on comments to a CBC story about this issue, significant contributions to the Yukon Party within the over $ 250 category were made by mining companies.
Political contributions over $ 250 to the Yukon Party by mining companies for 2008, 2009 and 2010 were 79.96%, 84.98%,
and 55.34%, respectively, of the total contributions received.
Mining company contributions to other political parties for the same years were minimal.
I have a concern that there may be favouratism with respect to protecting the interests of this industry.
If conservation groups and the First Nations who advocate 80% to 100% protection of the Peel watershed had donated `00 to $10,750 annually to the Yukon Party, as the mining industry did, would the Peel Watershed commission recommendations been adopted?
Up 1 Down 0
Northerntut on Feb 17, 2012 at 7:14 am
Whether YTG rejects, or amends the recommended plan they must provide written reasons to the planning council, in addition, they must consult any affected Yukon First Nations. As one person who was there when this chapter of the UFA was under development I feel compelled to say that YTG either forgotten, or is ignoring the fundamental principles for the Yukon land Use Planning process to begin with, which was to ensure that Yukon First nations and their peoples values, beliefs and land use were finally integrated into the Yukon land management system. Let us remember, that YTG is a signatory to a constitutionally protected Treaty, which cannot be brushed away as a mere consultation, then do what they want. They are legally bound to fulfill the spirit and intent of the Treaty, including and not limited to Chapter 11 of the UFA. Treat lightly YTG as you may well have placed the straw that breaks the camels back for breaching the UFA.
Up 0 Down 0
Mark Peschke on Feb 16, 2012 at 3:03 pm
In answer to Denise G - they left out an important principle: Sustainable Development. They plan to sneak, or ram, in as much industrial development as they can get away with.
Up 0 Down 0
Nile on Feb 16, 2012 at 12:38 pm
What! A balanced approach? Who could have come up with such a crazy idea! To all those who drive around with the "protect the Peel, let's vote on it" stickers, the Yukon voted and you lost!
Up 1 Down 0
north of 60 on Feb 16, 2012 at 10:40 am
A message for the Yukon NDP and the Yukon Liberals:
You let your precious egos and petty differences stand in the way of a united front to oppose the Yukon party. The Peel will pay the price for your foolish arrogance. If you want the privilege of governing the Yukon in the future, then you need to act like responsible adults and get your act together.
Up 1 Down 0
north of 60 on Feb 16, 2012 at 10:25 am
The government's position is a slap in the face of the environmental review process. It clearly indicates that the government totally ignores the recommendations of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission. It seems obvious that the government is answering to someone else, not the will of Yukoners. This cowardly act of refusing to comment until after the election will not be forgotten. Hopefully the opposition parties can set aside their differences and provide a united front to defeat this environmentally irresponsible government as soon as possible.
Up 0 Down 0
Patrick on Feb 16, 2012 at 9:04 am
I think its time for the media to do some research and disclose the names and dollar value of all people and businesses which have made contributions to the Yukon Party.
The same should be done for all Yukon political parties for transparency and fairness.
My concern is that the Yukon Party were not clear on what the Peel protection policy was during the election.
Personally, I would like to know if they were hiding something because of promises to campaign contributors.
Up 0 Down 0
Denise G on Feb 16, 2012 at 9:02 am
The "new" Government of Yukon principles are:
1.Special Protection for Key Areas
2.Manage Intensity of Use
3.Respect the First Nation Final Agreements
4.Respect the Importance of all Sectors of the Economy
5.Respect Private Interests
6.Active Management
7.Future Looking
8.Practical and Affordable
Aren't these the same principles that were used in the discussions by the Peel Watershed commission and in the public forums? Haven't we all commented on all of this already? Haven't we clearly told the government that we want the Peel protected? Why do they have to go through it all over again? What do they intend to sneak in?