The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION

Lawyer for First Nation in Northwest Territories attacks Yukon's watershed plan

  • Print

WHITEHORSE - The recommended land-use plan that would protect most of the Peel River watershed from development should be legally binding, says a lawyer for a First Nation that has intervener status in a lawsuit against the Yukon government.

Jeff Langlois told Yukon Supreme Court that the plan to shield 80 per cent of the resource-rich region fulfils the aims of meaningful dialogue and reconciliation inherent in that territory's land-claim agreements.

Langlois, who represents the Gwich'in Tribal Council, suggested the Yukon government discarded the proposal of an independent commission that called for the bulk of the watershed to be preserved.

Two First Nations and a pair of environmental groups from the Yukon are suing the government over its adopted plan.

The council, which is based in the Northwest Territories and has been granted intervener status in the case, represents First Nations communities that have traditional territory in the northeast portion of the Peel watershed.

In January, the Yukon government adopted a plan to protect only 29 per cent of the watershed area, opening most of the Peel's mountains and plateaus to resource extraction and industrial roads.

Langlois said a comprehensive agreement for land claims in the Yukon does not say the government can do what it pleases with the commission's recommendations.

"This requirement for dialogue seems pointless if the Yukon government retains total discretion," he said.

"In general, reconciliation is fostered by a long-term, positive relationship between First Nations and the Crown."

The Na-Cho Nyak Dun and Tr'ondek Hwech'in First Nations, the Yukon chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Yukon Conservation Society want the court to strike down that plan and replace it with one recommended by the commission.

Langlois said the government had a duty to consult First Nations over land use, even if that provision isn't specifically spelled out in the land-claim agreement or modern aboriginal treaty.

John Hunter, lawyer for the Yukon government, said adoption of a drastically different plan for the Peel would not erode the territory's relationship with First Nations.

"We certainly agree that reconciliation is the long-term goal and the short-term goal of these processes," he said outside court.

"At the end of the day, somebody has to be responsible for making a decision. And our understanding of the way the treaty works is that on non-settlement land that's the government, and on settlement land that's the First Nations."

Settlement lands — owned and managed by individual Yukon First Nations according to modern-day treaties — constitute less than three per cent of the Peel's rugged sprawl, believed to contain abundant mineral wealth, including iron ore and uranium.

The other 97 per cent — non-settlement land — belongs to the state.

Hunter said the plan adopted by the government would not discourage First Nations from entering into future land-claim agreements, which lie out the provisions for land-use planning.

"Why would First Nations give up common law rights to have this kind of treaty? Well, they would because they are going to have settlement lands over which they have the last word, and yet they're still going to be involved in the decision-making process on non-settlement lands, even though they don't have the last word on non-settlement lands.

"Seems to be a pretty good arrangement all around," he said.

Thomas Berger, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the government was limited to modifications it proposed during the seven-year planning process and could not go "on a frolic" in carrying out widely different provisions for the region.

"You've come too late to the party," he said about the changes. (Whitehorse Star)

Fact Check

Fact Check

Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories?
Please use the form below and let us know.

* Required
  • Please post the headline of the story or the title of the video with the error.

  • Please post exactly what was wrong with the story.

  • Please indicate your source for the correct information.

  • Yes


  • This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.

  • Cancel

Having problems with the form?

Contact Us Directly
  • Print

You can comment on most stories on You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

You can comment on most stories on You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.


Make text: Larger | Smaller


Public finally sees inside the Museum for Human Rights

View more like this

Photo Store Gallery

  • Marc Gallant / Winnipeg Free Press.  Local/Standup- Morning Fog. Horse prances in field by McPhillips Road, north of Winnipeg. 060605.
  • Young goslings are growing up quickly near Cresent Lake in Portage La Prairie, Manitoba- See Bryksa 30 Day goose project- Day 11- May 15, 2012   (JOE BRYKSA / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS)

View More Gallery Photos


Should the Canadian Museum for Human Rights use the word 'genocide' in exhibits on Indian residential schools?

View Results

View Related Story

Ads by Google