Regrets:

Secretariat:

Facilitator:

The Agenda was approved as written.

• Kathy Watson moved the minutes of the October 30 & 31, 1998 meeting be approved as written. Seconded by Dave Austin. MOTION PASSED.
• Andy Williams moved that the minutes of November 19, 1998 meeting be approved as written. Seconded by Dave Austin. MOTION PASSED

After an initial review of Chapter 12 of the UFA, the day was spent going through the proposed DA legislation and process in more detail. It was agreed by all present that:

• The timeline provided by the three parties for review was not adequate and did not allow Yukoners to be fully informed nor gain an understanding of the proposed process, implications and consequences of DAP;
• The present document should be considered as a good first draft with further consultation, discussion, changes and education still needing to be done. While it is in everyone's best interest to complete this process, it is even more important to develop a process that will work;
• The legislation should provide greater clarity to stakeholders not confusion;
• The legislation should provide greater certainty to all affected parties;
• The legislation and new process should simplify the existing process and not create greater duplication;
• The processes defined need to reflect the principles in the UFA;
• The legislation should reflect that it is for development assessment not only environmental assessment. The language used must reflect the balanced nature of development;
• Capacity issues, both financial and human, should be considered in establishing the process;
• The YCEE should continue to be involved in working towards a more acceptable DAP.

In the discussion on specific areas, consensus was reached recommending:

• Definitions be changed to reflect the UFA more appropriately and acknowledge the positive aspects of economic development for example:
  • 'sustainable development' be defined as in the UFA
  • 'socio-economic' include the positive affects of the economy
  • 'project' be considered "in" unless on the exemption list. This would mean the exemption clause needs clarification as well as greater clarity for criteria for screening and review process.
  • 'plan' needs clarification on what is a plan and how is it treated (the Council noted it needed to return to this issue for further review).
• Purpose of the Act should clearly reflect the intent of Chapter 12 as well as the acknowledgement that the legislation is for a development assessment. The process should look at net benefits -- be proactive and positive in assessment -- not just the adverse effects.
• Authority (s.9) needs to be clarified to reflect intent.
• Project Declaration (s. 11) needs greater clarification and certainty as to what is to be assessed and what is not. Transparency of the reasons is critical.
• Institutional Issues - Designated office will be the most critical part of the process. Context is important before determining operations. Yet consistency with rules is important, notwithstanding differences. It will be very important in implementation to have stakeholder agreement/input into rules of operation.
• Assessment Process (s.38) needs to have more clearly defined criteria with positive language as well.
• Class Assessment (s.42) needs the purposes for doing them clarified as well as what the implications and subsequent use will be.
• Reviews need to specify what the criteria is for bringing to a review; provide due diligence for time of review, as well as clarity to rules and procedures associated with each category of project. Transparency and certainty are critical.

There was not time to cover a variety of other issues such as timeliness, decision documents, access to information, public involvement, enforcement, etc.

It was agreed to have another meeting to:

• review what was agreed to today
• go through the areas yet to be covered
• reach final consensus on all matters
• agree to a communication plan for distribution of report

Council agreed the final report would:

• flag key issues
• provide comments with respect to key issues
• propose concrete actions to be considered
• provide recommendations

The next meeting will be held in Whitehorse on February 5 and 6, 1999.

Meeting adjourned at 4:45 P.M.

______________________________________

Jennifer Mauro, Chair