The Yukon government accepts the Peel land use planning process should go back to the drawing board, in keeping with the decision by the Yukon Court of Appeal.

Justice Minister Tracy-Anne McPhee held a press conference this morning to coincide with the government’s final arguments in the Peel case being filed with the Supreme Court of Canada.

McPhee acknowledged if the government is successful and the high court orders a return to the planning process, there are no guarantees the next land use plan would provide for 80 per cent wilderness protection and very little surface access by road or rail.

Going back to the land use planning process means going back to planning, she insisted.

McPhee said there’s been a lot of water under the bridge in the eight years since the Peel planning commission recommended extensive wilderness protection and very restricted surface access.

Even if the government wins, it would not simply be a case of resurrecting and implementing the Peel commission’s final recommendation, she said.

If the Court of Appeal decision is upheld as the government argues it should be, said McPhee, there would need to be a new planning commission struck.

How a new planning commission might unfold is a discussion for another day, she suggested.

But both McPhee and Premier Sandy Silver told reporters this morning they still stand by their commitment to support the land use plan recommended by the Peel planning commission.

“We anticipate that the Supreme Court of Canada will provide direction to the parties as to how to complete the Peel land use plan and we will respect and follow the court’s decision,” the Justice minister said.

The Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to hear the case March 22.

Yukoners have been tensely divided over the land use plan for the Peel watershed since the first public meeting at the beginning of 2009.

The four affected First Nations and many in the general public argue that such a pristine wilderness needs vast protection.

Others believe a land use plan should reflect the wilderness value while providing for a balance of mining and other economic development opportunities.

The Yukon’s aboriginal land claim agreements set out provisions for regional land use planning exercise for the entire Yukon.

The Peel planning exercise was the second, following the land use plan developed for northern Yukon.

The third land use exercise for the Dawson City region was well underway when it was put on hold pending a resolution to legal challenge over the Peel plan.

The former Yukon Party government ultimately rejected the vast wilderness protection and restricted access recommended plan by the Peel planning commission. It developed its own plan instead.

A legal challenge was launched in the Yukon Supreme Court by Mayo’s First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun, the Tr’ondek Hwech’in of Dawson City, the Yukon Conservation Society and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

Yukon Supreme Court Justice Ron Veale agreed with the First Nations and environmental organizations that the Yukon government breached its constitutional obligation to be forthright and honourable with its participation in the planning process.

Instead, the government was wishy-washy with what it wanted to see in the land use process, the First Nations argued.

They said the government sandbagged the process at the end of the day by invoking the clause in the final agreements that allows the owner of the land in question to accept, reject, or modify recommendations from the planning commissions.

The government, they argued, was never forthright in the planning process.

Veale agreed. As a remedy, he ordered the Yukon government to largely adopt the land use plan recommended by the commission, including the 80 per cent wilderness protection and restricted surface access.

While the Court of Appeal agreed the Yukon government did not live up to the honour intended in the land claim settlements, it overturned Veale’s remedy.

Instead, it ordered the parties back to the table where the government first breached its obligations to participate honourably.

The land claim agreements, modern day treaties, are meant to be a vehicle to reconciliation, the Court of Appeal observed.

It ruled it would not advance the spirit of reconciliation to force the Yukon government to accept the recommended land use plan because of its errant ways. Instead, it ordered the parties back to the table.

The Court of Appeal also ruled that where there is a valid and full planning process, the owner of the land does have the right to exercise the provision in their land claim agreements that allows it to accept, reject or modify recommendations from planning commissions.

The government’s final legal arguments filed today agree the parties should go back to the planning process.

They also agree where there is a ligitimate planning process, the owner of the land should have a final say.

The territorial government controls 92.3 per cent of the Peel watershed and the First Nation own 2.7 per cent.

The 68,000 square miles that make up the Peel account for 14 per of the Yukon’s land mass.