Kate White: The government likes to toot its own horn when it comes to the current Peel consultation process. This isn’t justified. They say the current consultation is meant to bring people together and be non-confrontational, yet on Monday the minister of environment implied in this House that people who oppose his government’s plans are radicals.
They can’t have it both ways. Either they support meaningful public consultation that allows people to express their honest opinions, even if they oppose the government’s narrow agenda, or they don’t.
Why is this government trying to silence critics of its proposals to open up the Peel to massive development by calling them radicals and holding public consultation that doesn’t allow for discussion?
Currie Dixon: I have to correct the member opposite in her assertions around the consultation process that’s underway currently. Of course we’re eager to hear from all Yukoners about their opinions and input - from a variety of Yukoners across the territory. We’re hosting a number of public meetings in affected communities, and we have a very interactive website, which we’ve unveiled recently to solicit input from Yukoners across the territory.
As I’ve said a number of times, we’re very interested in soliciting constructive, thoughtful input from Yukoners, and we hope that Yukoners provide that to us through the number of forums and discussion venues that are available.
Kate White: When you go on to the current consultation website and enter information, there is no way to see it publicly. That does not lead to a trustful relationship with citizens.
In the government’s public relations materials the Blackstone and Ogilvie rivers have mysteriously disappeared. Colours that meant protection on the original maps mean development on the new maps. The final recommended plan from the Peel Watershed Planning Commission is buried. Few people believe the government is truly interested in their opinions.
How does the minister intend to repair the public trust that has been broken by the government’s phony approach to consultation on the Peel?
Brad Cathers: What we see again from the NDP is a degree of rhetoric on these issues that could certainly lead to public misunderstanding of what the facts are. The member knows very well that, during the 2011 election campaign, the Yukon Party was clear about the fact that we did not think the commission’s document was the best plan for the area.
We committed to seeking modifications to be what we believe is more fair and balanced. We have and will continue to follow all our obligations under the process, including the commission’s plan in the documents included with the potential modifications that we have proposed.
We’ve made it clear that we’re seeking thoughtful and constructive input on this approach, and what the members consistently fail to reflect in their comments is the fact that our middle-of-the-road approach is aimed at being fair to both mining and tourism, and it provides that by limiting the maximum footprint of activity in restricted-use wilderness areas and by protecting river corridors from staking or any surface dispositions of a permanent nature. This would protect 99.8 percent of each and every land management unit designated as a restricted-use wilderness area; it would protect the river corridors and, in addition, protected areas would provide even greater protection to those existing values and interests.
Kate White: The minister’s opinions on the NDP are well known, and they’re wrong; they’re wrong; they’re wrong. The fact is that the government participated in the Peel planning process for almost seven years, then at the 11th hour the government decided it didn’t like the rules or the plan that resulted.
Now, instead of consulting on the final recommended plan, the government is promoting its narrow vision for development over all other values. Before Yukoners visit the government’s PR website, they should consider visiting www.protectpeel.ca for the straight goods, then with some good information they could visit the government website or attend the public event and try to make their voices heard.
Would the minister agree that an informed discussion is a good discussion - that opinions of First Nations and conservationists are relevant to the Peel issue and encourage people to visit www.protectpeel.ca as well as the government site?
Brad Cathers: Mr. Speaker, the member for the NDP stood up and said that the government’s plan promotes development over all other values. That statement is absolutely incorrect. The member has had ample opportunity to become aware of the fact that what we have proposed is an approach that would manage the actual environmental impacts and effects of all users in an equitable manner while providing greater protection for the existing users of the area, especially including wilderness tourism and big game outfitters.
We know that the NDP have a very negative view of the mining industry. They don’t like to acknowledge the fact that a lot of Yukoners have made their living out of exploration, including within the Peel area.
Mineral exploration spending in the Peel region averaged $6 million per year from 2000 to 2008 and, in contrast, according to the Peel commission, wilderness tourism’s total value over a six-year period was $3.67 million. So again, in fact, more Yukoners have been engaged in mineral exploration in that area and derived their income from that area than did wilderness tourism.
But we believe that everyone’s livelihood matters, whether they be in mining exploration, wilderness tourism, big-game outfitting or other elements of the economy, and this government will stand firmly committed to being fair to everyone, regardless of their livelihood.
No comments:
Post a Comment