Thank you.
First the assembly would like to address these guiding themes that were set up by the committee for this study on the renewal of Canada's forest industry. However, we note with concern that the limits on the presentations hamper our ability to fully address the specific themes that this committee has proposed. Further, we insist that any government policy or legislation arising from the work of the committee regarding forestry must comply with the legal duties of the crown to consult with and accommodate first nations. In addition, the crown must comply with the legal burden of justification required of it due to the fact that the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet/Wolastoqiyik people have a number of court-affirmed rights.
On the first guiding theme of sector and market diversification, the committee states that it is particularly interested in learning about the renewal of the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement. The assembly's view is that the softwood lumber agreement was developed without input from first nations and is an example of the crown's failure to consult aboriginal peoples and accommodate their rights and interests. If it is to be renewed, first nations must be directly involved in that process from the earliest stages.
The forest industry across Canada is often provided by the crown with a wide range of subsidies that are contrary to international law and that are unconstitutional. Some of these subsidies include rights subsidies. In many jurisdictions, aboriginal and treaty rights are unlawfully impacted by forest legislation, policy, and practice. This is most recently evident in the release of the 2014 Alward government’s New Brunswick forest strategy and the subsequent signing of the MOUs with forest companies. These actions have taken place without consultation and accommodation, and have not been justified as required by law. Further, we note that federal legislation and policy in relation to forests and the forest industry is also flawed.
Another subsidy is environmental subsidies. Despite improvements in some provinces, it remains true that in many jurisdictions forestry practices harm fauna and flora, habitat, biodiversity, and human health.
The final subsidy that I'll talk about is the financial subsidies. The assembly is concerned that the above-noted forest management MOUs and any resulting agreements might be construed as providing financial benefits to the industry, which could be contrary to the purpose of the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement.
On the theme of regional economic development, the committee says that it wishes to hear from aboriginal organizations regarding the impact of forest products on the peoples and economies of Atlantic Canada. The assembly is very interested in full participation in a sustainable forest industry.
I will set out our view of sustainability, but first I want to briefly deal with the current problems of access to the forest industry for first nations. Also, please keep in mind that six of the 10 poorest postal codes in Canada are first nations communities in New Brunswick. The historic exclusion of first nations from a viable forest economy has abetted that poverty. Recent attempts to address such exclusion have had negligible positive results, and dramatic change is absolutely necessary.
There are a number of reasons for the historic and continuing exclusion of first nations from meaningful participation in the forest industry and the manufacturing of forest products. Sadly these reasons include systemic and even direct racism, which essentially bars inclusion for many first nations members. There are cultural values conflicts and misunderstandings that inhibit inclusion. More than a century of federal and provincial policies promoting the assimilation of aboriginal peoples is another fundamental reason for lack of participation in the industry.
These problems are exacerbated in the Atlantic region, and in particular in New Brunswick where aboriginal peoples do not have the same access to forest tenure and to training and programs that exist in other parts of Canada, such as British Columbia.
For many decades, the industry itself has received all manner of government subsidies of various kinds that have made it fully reliant on Canadian citizens who are not only asked to pay for government handouts to industry for the development of plants, infrastructure, and other things, and for the many operational costs associated with the manufacture of forest products, but also to pick up the costs tied to market fluctuations, mill closures, and environmental damage.
At the same time, government programs, including federal programs that could assist aboriginal peoples to participate in the industry, either do not exist—for instance, the terminated first nations forestry program—or are underfunded, not coordinated, and difficult to access.
In 2013 the assembly produced a literature review. We'll provide a copy of this review to the committee. A key finding of this study was the need to expand the view of the forest industry and forest-related education beyond timber extraction and related activities. The cultural values of first nations are often not in sync with these endeavours. Instead, educational support and training should be moved toward industries such as non-timber forest products.
The first nations harvesting agreements in New Brunswick, established in 2002, which assign approximately 5% of the annual allowable cut to first nations, are not leading to meaningful inclusion in the forest industry, nor are they allowing for forestry practices that first nations believe are environmentally sustainable. This lack of inclusion comes with many negative consequences, including poor economic growth for first nations, and indeed, for the provincial and federal economies. Poverty is an unnecessary and exorbitant cost for everyone.
On the final guiding theme of strategic innovation, the committee states that it is particularly interested in initiatives that correspond to a number of sub-themes, including those that contribute to the development of Canada’s bio-economy, maintain the future health and sustainability of Canada’s forests, and optimize the value of forest resources.
A brief outline of our view of sustainable forest development is that we believe that all natural resource development must be sustainable. Natural resources are an integral part of the traditional lands and waters of the Mi’kmaq and Maliseet/Wolastoqiyik peoples of New Brunswick. Those resources belong to Mother Earth. We may use them, but we are also their custodians. Natural resources are not simply here for the taking. Rather, they must be managed carefully so as to provide benefits today while guaranteeing the rights and needs of generations to come. This requires truly sustainable development.
There are four pillars to this sustainable development: environmental sustainability, social sustainability, cultural sustainability, and economic sustainability. Each pillar supports the others. They must be kept in balance. The Mi’kmaq and Maliseet peoples are committed to the cultural, social, and spiritual importance of lands, waters, and natural resources. We lay out the 10 specific goals in our 2010 “Statement on Policy For the Wabanaki Forest”. We believe that these goals will improve the forest industry. We will provide that document to the committee as well.
But we would also like to offer solutions. The solutions include our proposal to establish partnerships to develop and implement education curricula and training programs for first nations members regarding all aspects of the forest and our relationship with the Wabanaki forest. This includes academic, technical, and professional education of all types. Such education and training initiatives should be in accord with the Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqiyik values and provide meaningful career opportunities at all levels of forest management and development for our peoples. Education and training should be reflective of our culture and our rights. This goal is also in the earliest of stages of dialogue that we hope will lead to significant change.
In conclusion, the assembly thanks the committee for this opportunity to appear and make a presentation. We ask you to consider that the forest is the Creator’s environmental manager. It provides habitat for numerous species. It is a home for animate and inanimate beings. It cleans and protects the air and the waters for all of us.
The assembly and the Mi’kmaq and Maliseet peoples do not oppose development in the forestry resources; however, that development must be truly sustainable and in accordance with our treaty relationship and our rights. Consequently, we must be fully involved in that development and in the drafting and implementation of legislation and policy related to it.
We are very interested in establishing new and more environmentally sound ways of developing forest resources. This applies to both the timber and the non-timber resources of the forest. We are very interested in working collaboratively with other aboriginal peoples, the general public, the crown, and the stakeholders, including the forest industry. We look forward to substantive positive change and ensuring that we leave a healthy and productive forest for future generations.
Thank you.