Letter: A change to the Forest Act a good first step

A letter to Premier Bob McLeod, GNWT Sept. 13, 2013.
In a few weeks, the NWT Supreme Court will hear the case of Mr. Barrett Lenoir, a member of Liidii Kue First Nation, who was charged under the Forest Management Act, section 40 (c) after being stopped while in possession of wood cut on Crown land.

Mr. Lenoir’s defence rests on the principle that treaty ‘Indians’ do not require anyone’s permission to carry out traditional wood harvesting. On the face of it, this seems a perfectly valid argument. Treaties 8 and 11 were peace and friendship agreements and envisioned that Aboriginal peoples would be able to maintain their traditional way of life. This is reflected in the hunting and trapping rights that they enjoy in the Northwest Territories.

Clearly, the cutting and gathering of wood is as much an essential part of traditional life as hunting animals. Wood was the main fuel for heat and cooking and a primary resource for the construction of cabins and temporary shelters. It was as essential to existence as meat and fur. Certainly, Aboriginal people made use of wood in their traditional lives and subsistence economies long before the arrival of Europeans.

I am reminded by this case of Mahatma Ghandi’s famous Salt March to the Sea in 1930. In those days, the British enforced a monopoly on the sale of salt through legislation. Indians were prohibited from gathering or producing salt, despite its essential nature in a hot climate. Salt literally was a matter of life and death – much as firewood is in northern winters. The salt tax was particularly onerous on the poorest people of India. Ghandi led a campaign of civil disobedience that encouraged ordinary Indians to recover salt from sea water. Though the immediate impacts of this protest were small, it is now recognized as a pivotal event in the eventual independence of India from Britain.

The argument that a permit to cut wood can be acquired for free is not relevant to the basic principle expressed by both Mr. Lenoir and Mahatma Ghandi – the colonial state should not impose restrictions, however light, on the right of the original inhabitants of a land to acquire the basic means of survival.
Regardless of the outcome of the forthcoming trial – which I hope will uphold Mr. Lenoir’s argument – this matter is an important one for the future of relationships between the territorial government and Aboriginal peoples in the north. With the full transfer of management of land and resources to the GNWT under devolution, there is an expectation of a renewed relationship between the territorial government and Aboriginal governments. This relationship should be based on the recognition of basic treaty rights and a process of consultation and collaboration.

An amendment to the Forest Management Act to recognize treaty rights would be a good first step in this new relationship.

Sincerely,
Nick Sibbeston,
Senator