Dodge, deny, deflect, dismiss: YG on Peel

Yukon politicians had a few final words on the Peel land use plan controversy as they wrapped up the spring sitting this week. NDP leader Liz Hanson grilled the government on its rejection of the Peel commission's plan. Here's the verbatim transcript of what was said:

NDP Leader Liz Hanson:  Members of the public are familiar with the Lonely Planet’s message to tourists about the Yukon: See the majestic wilderness of the Yukon now before it’s altered by industrial activity and climate change. This week the premier announced a September mission to Europe to drum up more interest in the Yukon as a tourism destination. MLAs were then treated to his ministers waxing eloquent about showcasing Yukon’s untouched wilderness to potential European travellers and investors. To the European traveller, untouched wilderness - the number-one value in our tourism marketing efforts - is epitomized by the Peel region.

Now that the premier and his cabinet seem to have rediscovered the value of tourism to the economy, especially in light of faltering commodity prices, how is the Yukon Party government going to explain its rejection of the Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan to the European market?

Premier Darrell Pasloski: As we have said throughout this term in office and in fact throughout the election, as well, we believe that the Yukon territory can do both. We can have a strong and growing tourism industry, and we can also have a strong and growing exploration and mining industry. We believe that this Yukon territory has the vast beauty and mineral potential when done through proper channels, through environmental assessment, through permitting programs and through regulations and inspections - we can in fact enjoy the spectacular beauty. That is why all of us live in this territory. We do enjoy the vast beauty in which we live. We are privileged to live here and we also feel very strongly that there is an opportunity both to build a strong economic base and create good, well-paying jobs for Yukoners.

Liz Hanson: During this sitting the Energy, Mines and Resources minister’s spin to justify the Yukon Party’s dismissal of the Peel plan was, “We were elected to represent Yukoners. We were elected by Yukoners. We were not elected to represent the people of Düsseldorf, Pasadena or Toronto.” His words were contradicted by an analysis of the public comments, which found that the vast majority of Yukoners want to see the Peel protected.

Yesterday we heard many words from Yukon Party ministers about the importance of German-speaking Europe for tourism. We know the importance of cultivating relationships for the success of encouraging visitors to come to the Yukon, and we know from tourism surveys that the number-one value for visitors is Yukon’s magnificent wilderness landscapes. So how does the premier intend to do damage control of his minister’s dismissal of the views of the good people of Düsseldorf, the very people we encourage to come and see Yukon’s untouched wilderness?

Environment Minister Currie Dixon: With the land use planning in the Peel region, one of the goals we have is to protect the Peel River watershed, and that is exactly what we plan to do. What we disagree with the NDP on, though, is how best to do that.

We have suggested and fully agree that there are areas in the Peel watershed region that deserve the highest level of protection available, and we are absolutely prepared to undertake to implement that kind of protection. What we disagree with the NDP about, though, is that we have to have an all-or-nothing approach to these things. We believe that it is possible to manage the footprint of activity in certain areas and ultimately protect some of the key areas, as well.

What we will do is continue with the land use planning process as set out under the Umbrella Final Agreement and come up with a land use plan that we believe works for all Yukoners.

Liz Hanson: Actions speak louder than words.

All parties in this legislative assembly recognize the 40^th anniversary of the Umbrella Final Agreement and the breakthrough of colonization to relationships built on equality. All parties were told by First Nation leaders that the relationship is built on deeds, not words, and that they still look forward to the relationship being based on the handshake of equals.

First Nation governments told the Yukon Party government that although they wanted 100 % protection for the Peel, they believed the compromises contained in the final recommended plan are fair and balanced. The government’s response has been to ignore Chapter 11 obligations, dismiss the multi-year consultation process, and dismiss the views of First Nation governments and the voices of thousands of Yukoners who support the final recommended plan.

How can the premier justify the Yukon Party’s rejection of the Peel plan while saying he respects First Nation governments and the intent of the final agreements?

Currie Dixon: In this instance, the member opposite is absolutely wrong. We have absolutely followed the Umbrella Final Agreement.  We remain absolutely committed to the Umbrella Final Agreement and the implementation of all of our obligations under the various land claims in this territory. We do it every day when we plan special management areas, habitat protection areas and other aspects of the Umbrella Final Agreement and the specific First Nation land claim agreements.

For her to suggest that we are somehow breaching our obligation is simply inaccurate, and I absolutely disagree with her. 

What we will do is to continue to follow the Umbrella Final Agreement. We will continue to consult with our First Nations planning partners as we are required to do by that agreement, and when we conclude that process we’ll ultimately end up with a land use plan that we feel represents the best way forward for the Yukon and for all Yukoners. That’s of course our priority. We’ve said that before and we’ll say it again. So for the member opposite to assert that we somehow aren’t living up to our obligations, she’s absolutely wrong. We’re following the Umbrella Final Agreement to a T and intend to continue to do so throughout the land use planning process.