FIRST NATION FORESTRY PROGRAM

 CONFERENCE ABORIGINAL FORESTRY 2001

ADDRESS BY NATIONAL CHIEF MATTHEW COON COME

23 January 2001

Good evening.

This is the second day of a conference on capacity building, partnerships,
business development and opportunities for aboriginal youth. Yesterday and
today, you no doubt heard about a number of different initiatives which
promise to being the benefits of training, economic development, and job
creation to First Nations Peoples through participation in the forest
industry.
I have to tell you before I go any further, that before I became National
Chief, I had been doing battle with the forestry industry in Quebec for a
number of years. You might even say that I have a "conflict of interest"
speaking here today, because I am the plaintiff in a number of cases
involving corporations that are present here.
This also means, however, that I have done a lot of thinking about
forestry. I have been involved in forestry negotiations. And where I live,
in Mistissini, our people get their food from the forest. This is an
important subject for me.
One of the themes of this conference is "capacity building". "Capacity
building" is a very popular expression this year. I heard it used during
the Burnt Church dispute, after the Marshall Decision, and I have heard it
frequently since then. I think we ought to ask just what is meant by
"capacity building"?
Capacity building refers to the need for First Nations People and First
Nations organizations to gain the competence and ability to do various
things. In Burnt Church it was a term used by the government to say that
the Burnt Church people were not ready to fish for lobster, not ready to
manage the fishery in a responsible way, or to engage in business and
economic development.
Capacity building has become a polite and politically correct way for
governments and others say to the First Nations: 'You are not ready to do
this yet. But if you wait; if you are patient; if you get more training; if
you make the arrangements we suggest; if you just do this our way, sooner
or later you will have the capacity to do what we do. And when you
accomplish this; when you have qualified for our programmes, when you have
slowly managed to gain the qualifications we require, then we will consider
some kind of partnership with you.'
"Partnership" is another one of these popular slogans. Partnership, when
the term is used properly, implies a coming together of equals-people or
organizations that contribute equally to an enterprise or cause, and who
therefore expect to receive equal benefits. I guess we have to ask
ourselves if the partnerships being offered to First Nations People are
real partnerships in this sense?
I raise these questions because I am concerned that our First Nations
People are not being properly informed about their rights, and because I
question the fairness and justness of some of the proposals that are being
called "opportunities for aboriginal youth".
I want to be clear: I do not want to discourage anyone or any First Nation
that wants to explore business development opportunities in forestry, or
hydro-electricity, mining, or anything else. But I do want our people to go
into these fields with their eyes open, and with a full understanding of
the rights that are theirs, the sovereignty that is ours, and a land that
we have never forsaken.
Let me return to the concept of "capacity building". This idea has an
unfortunate and nasty history. It is the language of the colonial masters
who held many nations under their control, and who exploited the natural
resources of their subject peoples, and gave little in return.
The idea was used by the UK, by France, by Germany, by Holland-by many
countries that were reluctant to give up their colonial "possessions". The
argument they used was this: 'These people are not yet ready to handle
their own affairs. They still need us to civilize and teach them about
business, management, government, and technology. We have been trying to do
this for the benefit of these disadvantaged people, but they are difficult
to teach. They do not understand the value of money. They are poor
managers. They do not understand the idea of accountability. They are dirty
and wasteful. They do not appreciate the order and discipline we have given
them.'
This may sound familiar, but I am not talking about the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or the Alliance Party, I am
referring to the history of colonialism in Africa and South America.
This was the excuse-that the people lacked capacity. These "enlightened"
countries told the world that they were offering to help the local people
gain capacity. But in the meanwhile they were hauling out gold and
diamonds, lumber and ivory, coal and petroleum. The local people saw little
or nothing of these benefits from their own resources. They were said to be
learning how to manage their affairs and achieve eventual self-government.
It was capacity building. As I said, the idea does not have a good
reputation.
I am all for education and training. I seriously encourage all First
Nations people to get all of the education they can; and I will tell you
why.
Of course you need to learn how to do things. You need to have skills and
technical ability. You need to have a good education-to read, to do
mathematics, to know science and technology so that our people are not at a
disadvantage. I want all of this, but I want more. I also want our people
to know and understand their rights. I want you to know what is yours. I
want our people to demand what is properly ours, so that our First Nations
do not lose any more of their lands or anymore of their rights.
And if the governments really believe in capacity building, then I have a
challenge for them. Why do they continue to underfund and skimp on our
reserve schools? Why do they make it so difficult for our First Nations
students to obtain a proper post-secondary education? Why do they talk
capacity building while they cut funding for education, training, and human
resource development?
You see my position on this is simple. I want the real thing for our
people. If government promises capacity building, then I want real
education and training. But I do not want a government to come and tell our
First Nations that we are not ready to participate in economic development,
or not ready to exploit our own natural resources, or that we do not know
how to responsibly manage our own affairs. Because those things are not
true. Those are the myths, the lies, the misrepresentations. They are the
excuses for keeping things as they are.
We have to ask ourselves: after all of these years of trust and care from a
considerate and responsible federal government, how is it that our people
are still unemployed, still poor, still underprivileged? How is it that all
of those wonderful, enlightened programmes from past years have
accomplished so little to advance our communities and our wealth in Canada?
Ask yourself: Is this the first time you have been at this kind of meeting
and heard about these opportunities for partnership and capacity building
that will put jobs and economic development in First Nations communities?
My approach is this: I want to know what is wrong. I want to know why we
are still talking about capacity building and economic development. Where
are the real partnerships? I do not mean joint ventures where an Indian
band is invited to take a small interest, or to contribute financing to a
project. I do not mean the offer of a few jobs. I do not mean being invited
to cut a few trees where someone else owns the cutting rights. That is not
partnership.
Partnership will only be possible when our rights as First Nations are
fully respected. Then we will have something to bring into the partnership.
Let me explain.
We are First Nations Peoples. This is our land. This is where we have
always lived.
Governments like to say that those are not the kind of words that will lead
to economic development. They like to say that talking about rights scares
investors away. I do not think so. Governments may be afraid of our rights,
but investors will go where ever business opportunities exist.
This is our land. We are the peoples of this land. What are First Nations?
Is it just a slogan without meaning, or does it mean what it says? We were
here first. We are nations.
International law recognizes the First Nations peoples in Canada as peoples
who have the right of self-determination. The right of self-determination
consists of both political rights and economic rights. So do not let anyone
tell you that rights have nothing to do with economic development. Rights
are a vital part of economic development. Let me give you a quick overview
of the connection between forestry and our international human rights as
First Nations or indigenous peoples.
The forest industry and other resource industries in territories used and
occupied by indigenous peoples must take into consideration the constraints
imposed by international human rights law.
Human rights bodies have approved legal instruments which set standards
with specific application to the rights of indigenous peoples (e.g., ILO
Conventions 107 and 169) and are presently engaged in drafting additional
standards. Furthermore, the United Nations bodies that make sure that
countries respect their treaty obligations have recognized that existing
instruments of general application may be invoked for the protection of the
rights of indigenous peoples (see e.g., CCPR/C/79/add. 105 of 7 April 1999).
In fact, our rights to benefit from the natural resources on our lands have
been explicitly recognized by the UN Human Rights Committee, which has
informed Canada that it must assure that First Nations benefit from their
own resources.
The treaty compliance bodies have invoked common Article 1 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as it applies to
indigenous peoples. This article requires respect for the right of
self-determination, and states (par. 2):
"All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural
wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of
international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual
benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its
own means of subsistence." (italics added)
There are two distinct human rights issues addressed in the above citation:
First, is the economic provision that a people may freely benefit from the
wealth of natural resources which derive from their own territory.
Obligations created through international agreements may not be invoked to
impose conditions upon the exercise of the right of a people to benefit
from the natural wealth of their land. Thus the NAFTA agreement, for
example, may not be invoked to prejudice the right of First Nations to
benefit from the natural resources in their territories.
Second, there is the stringent and absolute prohibition against any act
which serves to deprive a people of their own means of subsistence. This is
of crucial importance to peoples, who through hunting, fishing, and
gathering gain their subsistence.
Clearly, where environmental practices are permitted which deprive a people
of their traditional means subsistence, this international law protection
is being denied. In the case of clear-cut forestry operations where
wildlife populations that are an essential part of First Nations Peoples
traditional diet, are disrupted and displaced, there is a clear violation
of the International Covenants, and the government that permits such
operations stands in contravention of its international obligations.
Now that we understand the international rights implications we are in a
better position to consider First Nations participation in the forest
industry.
There are two fundamental issues for First Nations: Ownership of the forest
resources and protection of the environment and our way of life. These two
themes are very closely related, because our ownership of the natural
resources also gives First Nations control over their use.
When First Nations control the way the forests are used, we also have the
means to protect the forest environment that is used by our people, who
hunt, fish, and trap as a way of life. I am going to explain this with my
own experience in Eeyou Istchee, the Cree Territory in Quebec.
When we signed our treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement,
forestry activity in Eeyou Istchee was limited to small chain saw
operations. In 1975 trees above the 49th parallel were not considered
economically viable for wide scale production. The Cree leaders at the time
were aware that forestry development would increase in the future, but were
unaware of the potential scale of this development. Even so, the leaders
sincerely believed that the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement would
protect our land and rights. Forestry activity was to be compatible with
our way of life.
Today, 25 years later, we know this compatibility is impossible under the
existing forestry regime. Shortly after we signed the James Bay Northern
Quebec Agreement, Quebec began reorganizing its forestry operations. Years
of over-harvesting and unsound management of the forests immediately south
of our traditional lands led Quebec's own foresters to warn of coming mill
supply interruptions if practices did not change or new stocks were not
developed.
Instead of changing cutting practices to conserve the remaining southern
forests, Quebec's response was to expand by moving mechanized operations
onto our lands. Under the reorganization, mills were encouraged to expand
through the adoption of lengthy supply management agreements. Companies
like Domtar, Donohue, and Barrette Chapais began buying out small local
mills and replacing them with large regional mills. These large-scale mills
put an end to local chain saw operations.
The expansion of the industry into our territory occurred at a rapid pace.
The level of investment in wood production for the Abitibi-Temiscamingue
region rose from 13.1% of the industry's total in 1983 to 57.7% in 1988.
That is an increase of 44.6% in just five years. These new mills were
technically more efficient than their predecessors and did not require
tall, thick trees to make a profit. So the smaller, northerly trees in
Eeyou Istchee became economically attractive, and the depletion of our
forests began in earnest.
Since most of this investment was directed to mills just south of Eeyou
Istchee, they were not subject to the environmental regime we had as a
treaty right under the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement. Under our
treaty changes in land use affecting areas 65 square kilometers or more,
and any major access roads longer than 25 kilometers are subject to
environmental assessment.
To avoid logging under these provisions and environmental assessment,
companies build roads in 25 kilometer increments. Once these roads are
completed another 25 kilometers are added. Over time the road networks
expand, and secondary roads become major access roads. When roads are
evaluated the emphasis is placed on engineering details rather than the
impacts of opening up the territory. It is in this manner that companies
avoid assessment and accountability for their activities.
This conscious effort to avoid environmental accountability is encouraged
by Quebec through its forestry standards. What kind of message does this
give the companies when they consider their actions in terms of
environmental accountability?
Over the last twenty years the exploitation has steadily increased. The
amount of our land allocated to logging companies has doubled to 52,000
square kilometers. Our land now accounts for about 15% of Quebec's forest
products industry. Forestry companies in our territory clear-cut in excess
of 300 square kilometers per year. In some years more than 400 square
kilometers have been cut. Since 1975 over 5000 square kilometers of Eeyou
Istchee forest has been cleared
Despite this rapid expansion, very few Crees are employed by the
non-aboriginal companies operating in our territory. The few opportunities
that do exist for Crees have been created by ourselves. Two Cree-run
forestry companies have been operating on a small sustainable scale for
over 10 years.
This project brings up an important point. Under the present forestry
legislation in Quebec, timber supply agreements are only available to
companies who have mills. This legislative impediment has effectively
prevented Crees from having a larger role in the development of this
resource. Local First Nations cannot afford the millions of dollars of
investment required to build a mill; and without a secure timber supply
agreement it is difficult to get outside financing.
And so our First Nations communities have only two alternatives. They
either can have micro operations, or they can seek investment capital
through, what we are calling in this conference "partnerships" with
forestry companies. The partnership alternative is not wholly desirable
because Cree companies are then pressured to uphold the unsustainable
forestry practices of the companies they join.
And so if non-Native companies do not hire Crees, and legislation hampers
us from developing our own sustainable opportunities, what do we get in
return for the destruction of our traditional lands? Mile upon mile of
clear-cut forests, damaged habitat, polluted water, garbage, hundred of
miles of roads, theft, vandalism, and threats from sport hunters who use
the logging roads. And most important, families displaced from their
traplines, unable to live off the land.
The hunting territories of Eeyou Istchee are organized around a system of
traplines. These traplines are managed by a tallyman who determines where
and when other families can hunt, fish and trap. This is how trappers have
successfully organized their subsistence harvest to ensure that it remains
sustainable. But this does not work anymore when traplines repeatedly have
more than 70% of their land deforested.
With the forest gone, families are forced off the traplines that they have
depended upon for generations. They are then left with two choices: they
must either crowd onto another trapline, or permanently give up their
subsistence way of life. Since they know that traplines can only support a
few families, this means the end of a way of life.
This has already occurred on many traplines in Eeyou Istchee. In the Cree
community of Waswanipi 100% of their traplines are situated on Cree land
given to companies for logging. In Ouje-Bougoumou this figure is also 100%,
in Waskaganish it is 23%, in Mistissini 10% and in Nemaska-a community
situated at the northern fringe of the boreal forest, where trees are tiny,
33% of their traplines are going to be cut.
This is all legal under the existing forestry regime. When questioned about
the depletion of traplines, Quebec forestry representatives and the
companies respond by telling us these cutting rates fall within the goals
of sustainable yield.
But sustainable yield and sustainable development are not the same.
Sustainable yield is designed to ensure that the needs of the industry are
met. Sustainable development ensures that the needs of all who depend on
the forest are met. Try to tell a trapper who has seen 70% of the forest on
his trapline destroyed through road construction and clear-cutting that
this is sustainable.
Yesterday, near my community of Mistissini, there was a ceremony. The Cree
youth had raised funds to establish a local hemodialysis centre. You might
wonder how this has anything to do with forestry. Let me explain.
In 1975, when the Crees signed their treaty, there were only 3 Crees who
had been diagnosed with diabetes. We were still living our traditional life
on the land, eating our own food. Today, there are over 800 of our people
diagnosed with diabetes. In Eeyou Istchee diabetes has become an epidemic.
In its later stages it destroys eyesight, kidneys, and limbs. That is why
we needed a dialysis centre.
As hydro projects and forestry operations on our traplines have destroyed
our traditional sources of food, and have forced us to eat foods that our
bodies cannot tolerate, the sickness has increased. The doctors have
explained to our people that we have to return to our own foods. But how
are we going to do this?
Let me return now to the issue of ownership and control. The failure of
governments to recognize and respect our ownership of the forests, forces
us into an unfortunate relationship. It destroys our way of life, it
destroys the forests themselves, and it destroys the environment.
But I think you can see by now that it is also a relationship that prevents
real economic development.
First Nations People understand the forest. We invented the whole idea of
sustainability. Without sustainability we would never have survived on the
land. My father always took pride in the fact that he could look out over
his trapline and see exactly what his father had seen. He could use the
land and be sustained by the land without changing it.
Our economy on the land was the most stable and reliable economy in the
world because we took only what the land could support.
Forestry in Canada has consisted of "mining out" the forest. Keeping an
industry alive by taking as much as possible, as fast as possible. In the
meanwhile, the First Nations have not had a fair share of what is, after
all, our wealth, our capital, our equity. This is the land that we have
saved for later generations. Now others come to our land to take-no, to
plunder-what we have preserved and protected.
Why should our people seek partnerships with companies that have somehow
obtained the cutting rights, the ownership and possession of resources that
belong to the First Nations under international law? How did these
companies come to own the resources that belong to us? Why do we have to go
to them to share in what is rightfully ours?
These are the questions we have to ask. And when we do go-when we seek to
have some benefit from what is being done by others on our own lands-we are
forced to join in the destruction of our own way of life and the health of
our people. We have to do it their way.
But we know where this goes. The forest is cut; it is exhausted; used up.
Then they move on and leave us sitting there.
I think we can do better than that, and so did the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP). The RCAP Report made recommendations on this
very subject that have never been implemented.
The UN Human Rights Committee has asked Canada to implement these
recommendations. The RCAP Report recommended that the ownership and benefit
of the natural resources support the First Nations that live on the land.
It recommended that the First Nations land base be increased so that it is
capable of creating sustainable economies for our people.
This is what I would call real "capacity building"-building a land and
resource base that will create sustainable economies for First Nations.
It must be accepted, in the words of the RCAP, that
"Federal, provincial and territorial governments, through negotiation,
[must] provide Aboriginal nations with lands that are sufficient in size
and quality to foster Aboriginal economic self-reliance and cultural and
political autonomy."
It must also be, again in the words of the Commissioners
"ensure[d] that Aboriginal nations... have exclusive or preferential access
to certain renewable and non-renewable resources, ... and granted share of
revenues flowing from resource development..."
And finally, in the words of the Royal Commission:
"If what Aboriginal peoples thought they had won had been delivered-a
reasonable share of lands and resources for their exclusive use, protection
for their traditional economic activities, resource revenues from shared
lands, and support for their participation in the new economy being shaped
by the settlers-the position of Aboriginal peoples in Canada today would be
very different. They would be major land owners. Most Aboriginal nations
would likely be economically self-reliant. Some would be prosperous."
When we as First Nations enter into partnerships with industry, our
investment, our equity, our capital should be the resources we own-the
water, the forests, the minerals on our lands. We should not be asked to
seek financing to support economic development projects on our lands. We
have already provided the financing-Canada is built upon our territory, our
land.
We bring our expertise, our resources, and our knowledge and love for the
land. That is why there are still resources left to exploit. We certainly
do not come in "empty handed". A relationship based on true partnership
will recognize that First Nations own the resources and know best how to
use them so that we will still have them in the future.
The governments and the companies that are making the rules today
disappoint me. All you have to do is look around to see that they have not
done well, either for themselves or for the First Nations. If things
continue on this path, there will be little left for anyone.
Yes, we are interested in economic development. Yes, we want employment. Of
course we do not want to be poor. Why should we be limited, as the Supreme
Court of Canada has decided, to a "moderate livelihood"? Why should we not
benefit from the wealth of this land? These are reasonable questions.
I approve of any effort that any First Nation makes to improve its
situation-to find work, to build the community, to help our people find
what they need.
I know that our First Nations are desperate to escape the poverty and ill
health. I know that our people are willing to work, to try anything. I do
not condemn any deal you can make.
But I want our people to see where this should go. I want our people to
know what is rightfully theirs. I want our people to strive to obtain
justice, and to be treated fairly in this wealthy society. And I know that
you can only do this if you see the future.
Just a few years ago we would never have believed that the United Nations
would recognize the right of our people to self-determination. Only a
little while ago that would have been a dream. But now it has happened.
These things are not extreme. They are based on existing law-the
Constitution of Canada, our treaties, the international human rights
conventions that Canada has signed and ratified.
These things make sense. They are logical. They are the conclusions reached
by the RCAP, by economists, by environmentalists, by jurists, and by many
in government and our institutions of higher learning.
We are not asking for the impossible. We are asking for what is right, and
just, and fair, and reasonable. Thank You. Meegwetch

Voltar ao índice