Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2025/Policies and practices of natural resources management in New Brunswick, Canada: First Nations’ engagement and resistance
Summary of Case Study
This case study provides a tiny sample and a basic understanding of how the Government of New Brunswick (GNB)’s Western epistemological provincial natural resource management affects Waponahkiyik (Wabanaki people). It challenges GNB’s legal rationale for continuing to prioritize industrial and governmental interests over Aboriginal and Treaty Rights obligations. The case study reviews the exclusion of Indigenous decision-makers in policy development, the associated implications, and provincial management mistakes. GNB’s forest management has resulted in degraded forests and waterways, and the misuse of conservation status. The case study includes discussion with Indigenous professionals and examines the opposing Indigenous and Western perspectives. Although GNB’s natural resource management has historically harmed First Nations, advances in international frameworks that embrace Indigenous knowledges and include Indigenous decision-makers may inspire change in Waponahkik (New Brunswick). Inclusion of First Nations in decision-making may be the catalyst to create a path toward reconciliation and improved environmental conditions for all New Brunswickers to enjoy.
Keywords
Waponahkiyik, Wabanaki, Wolastoqiyik, Maliseet, Mi’kmaq, Micmac, Passamaquoddy, New Brunswick First Nations, Peace and Friendship Treaties, Reconciliation, Crown Land and Forest Act, CLFA, NB Forest Strategy, Marshall Decision, First Nations Harvest Agreement, FNHA, Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, Treaty Rights, Moderate livelihood, Wabanaki Forest, Acadian Forest
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
This introductory information is an incomplete history of Waponahkik, or New Brunswick, natural resource management. It is meant to provide a basic understanding of how the Government of New Brunswick (GNB)’s Western epistemological provincial natural resource management impacts Waponahkiyik (Wabanaki people). It challenges GNB’s legal arguments used to justify the decision-making capacity it has assumed, as well as the natural resource management methods it employs.
Natural resource management is a critical issue for Waponahkiyik because we are a part of the land, and it impacts us so greatly. As forced assimilation continues in our schools and provincial policies, our language dies, our traditional food sources are poisoned, and our access to traditional lands is taken. As a result, we continue to feel the compounding impacts of our murdered ancestors and our inability to live our traditional way of life. Since we cannot summarize the genocide that has occurred or the cultural genocide that continues, no justice will be done here. In fact, the introductory information diminishes the experiences of Waponahkiyik, who have suffered the honor of the Crown.
.png)
In Canada, Waponahkiyik’s home territory includes all of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and parts of Quebec. The Waponahkiyik of Waponahkik (New Brunswick), include Wolastoqiyik, Mi’kmaq, and Passamaquoddy Nations. Although I am both Mi'kmaq and Wolastokew, I spent most of my time growing up in Wolastoqey territory. The Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet) are the People of the Wolastoq (named by colonists, the St. John River). Our creation stories, shared through oral tradition, begin in the forest, where we were created from the ash clan (Fraxinus species). Since the time of creation, we have loved and cared for our home. In Waponahkik (New Brunswick), our land, forests, and waterways have nurtured our ancestors and all our relations, such as the four-leggeds, the winged ones, the ones that swim, the spirits of the plants, trees, and our grandfather rocks. Our cultural practices, spirituality, wellness, and our very identities are thoroughly intertwined with our homeland. Our loving stewardship allowed Waponahkik to flourish.
Prior to the arrival of settlers, Waponahkik (New Brunswick) was a land of abundance, full of biodiversity, and dominated by old-growth forests. Our forests were primarily composed of white pine trees, which were over 30 m tall and had an average trunk diameter of 1.5 m, significantly larger than most trees in Waponahkik (New Brunswick) today (Provincial Archives of New Brunswick, n.d.). What’s worse is that only 1% of our diverse, fire-resistant, native Wabanaki Forest (also referred to as Acadian Forest) remains in disconnected patches throughout the province. The Wabanaki Forest has been classified by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) as one of the most endangered forest types in Canada (Floyd, 2022). Although our homeland has been exploited and changed, our connection to the land cannot be broken and will not be forgotten. Industrial practices that affect our home also affect us.
1.2 Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Protections (non-exhaustive)
The Waponahkiyik have inherent rights bestowed upon us by our Creator, which were the basis for our self-government prior to settler arrival, but we also have Treaty Rights enshrined in the Peace and Friendship Treaties and Canadian law. According to the Government of Canada, the Peace and Friendship Treaties are a series of treaties signed in the 1700s that ensured the Waponahkiyik maintained their rights to traditional lands and resources “for themselves, their heirs, and the heirs of their heirs, forever” (Government of Canada, 2010, n.p.). The Peace and Friendship Treaties have since been confirmed by Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. Our ancestors did not cede or surrender our traditional lands, and they ensured our traditional way of life and worldviews would continue to be passed on when they agreed to sign the Peace and Friendship Treaties.
For the British, the Peace and Friendship Treaties were a strategic alliance that guaranteed Waponahkiyik rights, as they competed with the French for control of what is now known as Canada (Government of Canada, 2015). For First Nations, the treaties represented a sacred agreement that protected Waponahkiyik, our culture, our territory, and our ability to move, harvest, hunt, and fish freely throughout our territory. The Peace and Friendship Treaties would also allow First Nations and settlers to live side by side in peace, harmony, and friendship.
While the Peace and Friendship Treaties protect Waponahkiyik rights in our home territory, Canada Bill C-15 requires the federal government to “ensure the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)," and they are applicable throughout Canada (Government of Canada, 2021, n.p.). UNDRIP is an international declaration that protects Indigenous Peoples and their rights. UNDRIP contains 46 Articles that aim to protect and revitalize Indigenous Peoples ways of life and lands. However, for this case study, we will focus on Indigenous rights to traditional territory access, and to benefit from, and to protect our land and resources (Article 26).
In Western terms, Waponahkiyik have legally protected rights to lands and resources in Waponahkik (New Brunswick), and therefore, we are and have been rightsholders, not stakeholders. However, for hundreds of years, federal and provincial policies aimed at irradicating Indigenous Peoples included genocide, pillaging, and plundering. All of which have benefited colonizers and settlers but have caused immeasurable harm to First Nations. Since Canada and New Brunswick were established, both the provincial and federal governments enacted detrimental natural resource policies in our traditional territory. Today, our forests are perpetually juvenile; our rivers are polluted and dammed; and culturally important lands have been converted, all of which compromise our ability to teach our children traditional practices.
1.3 Lack of Treaty Right Enforcement
Although the Peace and Friendship Treaties were signed in the 1700s, the Indian Act was established in 1876 and used as one of many tools to gain access to Indigenous territory. Since the settlers did not understand Indigenous stewardship, nor did they see the value of intact forests, it was assumed that First Nations were wasting their uncultivated land. As a result, the Indian Act was amended to allow uncultivated Indigenous land to be leased by non-Indigenous people for cultivation, and the Indian Act allowed expropriation of Indigenous land for public works (Joseph, 2018). This opened the door for land grabs and resource free-for-alls in Canada.
While Waponahkiyik maintained their Peace and Friendship Treaty Rights since the 1700s, the Indian Act made it illegal for First Nations to hire lawyers, to raise money for lawyers, and for anyone to help First Nations hire lawyers. This prevented legal recourse for First Nations whose rights were violated and repeated protests went unheard and unanswered. Only in 1951 were First Nations allowed to hire legal representation (Joseph, 2018). By this time, however, the federal and provincial governments were comfortable with the exclusion of First Nations in natural resource management. New Brunswick’s Crown Lands and Forests Act (CLFA) declares the Minister responsible for resource management of Crown lands, including, among other things, the harvesting of timber on Crown lands, and the right to sell, lease, and issue Crown land licenses for extraction of forest products (Crown Lands and Forests Act: GNB, n.d.). The CLFA does not acknowledge GNB’s legal obligation to First Nations and Aboriginal and Treaty Rights are not mentioned, even though Crown lands are the primary vehicle for exercising them. Over the years, provincial management developed solely by GNB has proven to be detrimental to the environment, First Nation people, First Nation culture, and First Nation rights.
This report will review GNB’s provincial natural resource management and examine its impacts on Waponahkiyik.
As I am Wolastokew and Mi’kmaq, and I have experienced and witnessed the impacts of colonization and GNB's natural resource management on First Nations communities, I am biased. However, as federal and provincial authorities, industrial actors, and the descendants of land grant recipients in Waponahkik (New Brunswick) continue to benefit from our traditional territory and the system that supresses Indigenous people, they, and the system, are biased too.
2. Provincial Forestry
2.1 Crown Land and Forest Act and Tenure
According to the Department of Natural Resources and Energy Development, forestry is the largest industry in Waponahkik (New Brunswick) today. New Brunswick’s “Our History” webpage does not discuss Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, nor does it acknowledge the Indigenous forestry and stewardship practices that created the abundant pre-colonial forests whose resources built Waponahkik (New Brunswick). However, the site acknowledges that the forests were once considered an unlimited resource and were subject to wasteful cutting practices for too long. By the 1970s, it was predicted that Waponahkik (New Brunswick) would experience a softwood shortage, and in response, the province developed the CLFA. The Natural Resources and Energy Development webpage (n.d.a) claims that “New Brunswick’s forest management standards rank with the best in North America.”
The province dictates forest management on Waponahkik (New Brunswick) Crown land. New Brunswick’s forest management framework does not include Indigenous decision-makers, and the absence of the Indigenous voice in forest management has contributed to the adverse conversion of our traditional territory. As with the rest of Canada, Waponahkik (New Brunswick) tenure systems “were generally designed to meet the needs of large-scale industry and have proved ill-adapted to the needs of First Nations” (Wyatt et al., 2015, p.637). Instead of respectful co-management, the provincial government designs a set of actions deemed likely to result in the province’s desired values, and this becomes the provincial forest strategy (Erdle, 1998). The forest strategy is the guideline that industrial forestry operators (licensees) use to plan their annual operations for the 5 years it remains valid.
2.2 Progression Toward Sustainability
Since the inception of the CLFA, Western science has begun to understand the importance of intact forests, the variety of habitat needs, and the ecosystem services that forests provide for us, such as water sanitation, air purification, flood mitigation, and more. However, this was not the case for the early forest strategies. In an assessment of the GNB’s provincial forest management progress toward sustainable forest management, the author describes the five-year cycles in which each forest strategy is implemented and the changes that occurred in the early forest strategies. Each strategy period is used to identify and address shortcomings of the previous forest strategy (Erdle, 1998).
The assessment found that the forest strategy that guided operations during the 1982 to 1987 period was managed solely for even-flow softwood supply. The strategy was considered sustainable at the time. It was later found that the province’s prescription mapping was flawed, and what was deemed sustainable was not. The 1987 to 1992 strategy was again managed primarily for softwood, but mapping was improved, and it was again considered sustainable. It was later determined that the strategy was detrimental to the habitat associated with older forest stands. The 1992 to 1997 strategy was developed for softwood and habitat types; it was again considered sustainable, but later it was found to contribute to a reduction in biological diversity (Erdle, 1998). As the strategies continue, using the Western knowledge strategies of the day, we see a system of trial and error, each with detrimental consequences.
In Erdle’s assessment of provincial forest strategies, he notes the importance of seeking out and incorporating representative social input because forest values shape what the forest is managed for (1998). If a province values timber income generation, we can expect to see what the province has demonstrated: widespread forest degradation that primarily benefits large industrial actors with the means to exploit the forest. However, a forest strategy that incorporates social input can support healthy forests that benefit communities and small forest operators. A good provincial forest strategy should include the values of stakeholders, but, legally, the values of rightsholders as well. The most recent provincial forest strategy includes ambiguous language about commitments to First Nations only, which is problematic because it provides flexibility for GNB and industrial actors to sidestep meaningful commitments. When rightsholders values are ignored, and rightsholders are excluded from decision-making, you jeopardize rightsholders’ ability to exercise their legally protected rights. When decision-makers dismiss concerns of rightsholders, they compromise the integrity of the Crown, lose credibility, and extend “the colonial legacy from Canada’s past to its present” (Robinson, 2018, p. 148).
2.3 Intensive Forest Management
Although the CLFA was created in 1982, intensive forestry has been around for quite some time. As of 2007, industry operators manage an extensive 2.8 x 106 ha of Waponahkik (New Brunswick) Crown land (Kennedy et al., 2007). A review of intensive forest management practices in northern Waponahkik (New Brunswick) from 1945 to 2002 revealed significant forest conversions, including a shift to a younger average stand age, a shift in species composition, and reduced habitat functionality. The authors were most surprised to find "how pervasive the changes were" (Etheridge et al., 2006, p. 522). The study also found that the 1945 mature balsam-spruce stands had been converted to young spruce plantations, retaining only 6% of the mature softwood in 2002. In 2007, Waponahkik (New Brunswick) forests were predominantly comprised of immature stands: 56% were 0-50 years, and 33% were classified as immature-mature stands of 55-100 years (Kennedy et al., 2007). This is notable because 55-100 years is still relatively young for most tree species (but is in accordance with GNB definitions), and because decreases in mixed wood and old forests required by certain species can have detrimental ecological implications, making those species particularly vulnerable (Etheridge et al., 2006). These forest conversions impact Aboriginal and Treaty Rights directly by removing items we need and indirectly by removing precious habitat and degrading ecosystem services that not only First Nations need, but all people depend on.
2.4 Economic Impact
As industrial forestry operators manage vast areas of forest in Waponahkik (New Brunswick), a 2007 report indicates that industrial forestry "directly employs 17,300 people and generates a balance of trade of over $ 2.1 billion" (Kennedy et al., 2007, p. 2625). However, in 2017, the Conservation Council of New Brunswick found:
"New Brunswick generates fewer jobs in relation to the wood it harvests than Maine, Nova Scotia, New Hampshire, Vermont, Quebec, Ontario, and New York. New Brunswick generates 1.38 direct jobs per 1000 m3 harvested compared to 3.91 jobs in Ontario" (Bourque, 2017, p. 32).
The figures indicate that for the 5 million m3 of wood harvested each year in Waponahkik (New Brunswick), we get 1300 fewer jobs than in Nova Scotia (Bourque, 2017). Additionally, Parenteau noted a decline of the forestry sector beginning in 2004 with the closure of 25 sawmills. However, it was the small operators who were impacted most as the province financially buffered industrial forestry impacts (2013).
Parenteau indicates that the province began providing provincial aid for industrial forestry in the 70s. Since then, the subsidies enjoyed by industry have created "an extraordinary sense of entitlement to the public forest and financial resources of the province" (Parenteau, 2013, p. 107). The aid provided to industry includes "guaranteed loans, research funding, infrastructure support, financial assistance for meeting environmental standards, tax breaks, reduction in Crown land fees, subsidized energy costs, and grants to produce alternative sources of energy" (Parenteau, 2013, p. 106). However, a lack of industry operator transparency in disclosing their costs and expenses persists, hindering a complete economic analysis (Kennedy et al., 2007).
The current industrial forestry structure, which creates so few jobs, is dependent on provincial aid and benefits industrial forestry executives. The structure is harmful to small forest operators and First Nations because it requires excessive subsidies and increasingly higher timber allocations for industry, leaving degraded forests behind.
2.5 Neqotkuk Forestry
In contrast to industrial forestry operations, I spoke to a representative from Neqotkuk First Nation and compared the values of Neqotkuk's operations to those of industrial forestry. Neqotkuk's operations were found to have a community-centered model. Neqotkuk is the largest Wolastoqey community in the province. Despite being rightsholders with legal rights to land and resources in traditional territory, Neqotkuk receives a proportion of the provincial Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) which is dependent on the community population under their First Nations Harvest Agreements (FNHA). In Waponahkik (New Brunswick), 5.3% of the AAC is designated for FNHAs. The FNHAs are industrial operations, with prescriptions/operations and harvest volumes dictated by the provincial strategy. Deviations from the strategy are subject to fines. The FNHAs are a result of R v Paul, a provincial court decision that found that Thomas Peter Paul (and all Waponahkiyik) had the right to harvest and sell timber. However, this decision was subsequently overturned because the late Honourable John W. Turnbull relied on his own treaty research in making his decision (Hadeel, 2020).
GNB's operation requirements for FNHAs exceed the community's capacity to harvest, and we are prohibited from managing/harvesting AAC as we would like. Therefore, the AAC allotment through the FNHA is contracted out to industrial operators. However, the community also has a designated allocation to operate within community capacity.
Fred Bear is the Director of Forestry and Mill Manager for Neqotkuk First Nation. He has served in this role since 2017, but he has worked in forestry as an Indigenous logger since 1997. Fred has vast experience in the forestry sector and has advanced forestry ambitions for Neqotkuk First Nation. When Fred began his role, he was the only forestry employee. He said it had been "hard to get a fair kick at the can." Initially, GNB designated authorized purchasers for Neqotkuk's products, thereby removing the competitive advantage that other forestry operators enjoy. Although this issue has since been resolved through resistance, it is indicative of the 1881 Indian Act amendment that restricted Indigenous farmers from selling their high-quality crops in the market because they were outcompeting the settlers' crops (Joseph, 2018). These types of federal and provincial disadvantages placed on First Nation communities have continued through to the present day.
Today, Neqotkuk forestry has a full-time crew of 4 and 20-25 seasonal employees. Fred's forestry team provides firewood for the community, lumber for Neqotkuk homes, and excess revenue supports various community initiatives. Fred is particularly proud of his team's contribution to alleviating Neqotkuk's housing crisis, "our lumber is in those houses, it is nice to say that." The operations Fred runs support the community's needs.
When asked about community maple aspirations, Fred said the community has been trying to establish a maple operation since 2018, when Neqotkuk was allotted a timber-harvest block with a significant maple stand. The site had long-term income-generating commercial viability and potential to preserve traditional maple sap harvesting practices. However, Neqotkuk never received GNB's approval to pursue these aspirations, and recent provincial maple strategy discussions have only complicated the maple stand/block in question.
Fred was also asked about what changes he would like to see in provincial forest management, and he said he believes First Nations should have a seat at the decision-making table. He noted that industrial forestry has more say in how our forests are managed, and industry receives more benefits in our traditional territory. Although Fred is happy with the progress his team has made without GNB subsidies, he says GNB can do better. If First Nations had a seat at the decision-making table, we could see a road to improved forest conditions that would benefit wildlife, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and all New Brunswickers.
3. Oceans and Waterways
In Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is "responsible for safeguarding our waters and managing Canada's fisheries and oceans resources (DFO, 2025). However, there are several provincial policies and regulations impacting wetlands and waterways that industries, conservation groups, and citizens must adhere to (for more information, click here). No Indigenous decision-makers have been included in national or provincial policy development. Since fishing and significant harvesting of riparian and coastal foods and medicines have been, and continue to be, central to many Waponahkiyik, the policies and regulations have many impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty rights.
In an interview with Lyle Vicaire, a Mi'kmaw Ecologist and avid hunter and fisherman from Elsipogtog First Nation, we discussed policies and practices that affected his Aboriginal and Treaty rights and his work as a Ecologist with an affinity for wetlands. As the founder of Maqamigew Anqotumeg Inc., Lyle has years of experience working across all three maritime provinces, making him proficient in provincial and federal wetland policies and regulations.
In general, Lyle believes many of the wetland protection policies are good. However, he notes there is very little enforcement of these policies or inadequate consequences for violations. Sometimes, though, the policies impact his work. For example, Lyle is passionate about restoring culturally important salt marshes. However, he encounters obstacles due to the wetland regulation compensation policy, which aims to offset the loss of wetland function by rehabilitating former wetlands or converting salt marshes into freshwater impoundments (Canadian Wildlife Service, 2024). These freshwater impoundments are now protected, but "they are a physical representation of colonization." Although they are functionally productive, they align with Western epistemology and compete for space with culturally important saltwater marshes. In this case, traditional management dictates restoration and protection, but Western policy prevents his traditional management aspiration, and therefore, violates his right to protect traditional land.
Additionally, "salt marshes have very high carbon sequestration, 100 ha of salt marsh/mud flat sequesters much more carbon than 100 ha of forest, and benefits are seen faster in coastal habitats." Lyle would like to see more supportive provincial, national, or international instruments to support coastal carbon sequestration as we face the climate crisis.
Lyle also has concerns about DFO's striped bass (Morone saxatilis) reintroduction program, that "worked too good." DFO released striped bass into the St. Lawrence River, and now, striped bass are outcompeting other species, such as Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and all salmonoids, which have been under pressure throughout their natural habitat. Atlantic salmon is a culturally important species for Waponahkiyik, and they are becoming increasingly difficult for our communities to access.
4. Conservation
According to the New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and Energy Development (n.d.b), there are several categories of protected areas in Waponahkik (New Brunswick). However, Class 1 Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) are not open to the public or First Nations. PNAs require permits from the Minister of Natural Resources for educational and scientific purposes. As with other GNB natural resource management policies, there are no Indigenous decision-makers involved in policy development. The field ecology data used to develop the Western conservation policy are shaped by what the researchers chose to measure and by their worldviews (Baker et al., 2019). This is how GNB conservation policies imposed in Waponahkik (New Brunswick) were established, and they have restricted Aboriginal and treaty rights.
In addition to restricting Waponahkiyik's access to resources, GNB has historically used conservation status as a bank account for industrial forestry. When industrial forestry inevitably requires yet another subsidy, the province will lift conservation status to increase industrial forestry timber harvesting allocations, as it did in 2009 and in 2014 (Parenteau, 2013; CBC News, 2014). This practice of temporarily conserving land and subsequently lifting conservation status restricts First Nations' access, compromises GNB's credibility, and creates uncertainty for people who depend on the forests of Waponahkik (New Brunswick).
As the world continues to lose biodiversity at unprecedented rates, a serious commitment and alternative methods to halt biodiversity loss are required. According to scientists at the Natural History Museum, international conservation initiatives prioritizing Western science have not been successful (2024). However, the WWF acknowledges "Indigenous-led conservation is the most effective and equitable way to safeguard habitat, reverse wildlife loss and reduce climate change" (n.d.). Further, WWF cited studies on Indigenous-led conservation that consistently show higher biodiversity levels and motivated many partner projects with First Nations. As Indigenous-led conservation gains international recognition for its effectiveness, the recent Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Conference of the Parties (COP) 16 has advanced a motion to establish a CBD Indigenous subsidiary body that includes Indigenous and local communities in international decision-making. The decision also acknowledges Indigenous and local community knowledge for contributions and key roles in biological diversity conservation (CBD, 2024). Currently, GNB is not aligned with international conservation advances and frameworks. Instead, current policies infringe on Aboriginal and treaty rights. However, working with First Nations could improve GNB conservation efforts and relations between First Nations and GNB.
5. Natural Resource Management Impacts on First Nations
Throughout our examination of current natural resource management in Waponahkik (New Brunswick) territory we see management that is inconsistent with Indigenous worldviews. Further, we find repeated cases of infringement on legally protected rights. Waponahkik (New Brunswick) is subject to the Peace and Friendship Treaties and Bill C-15. However, there is no Indigenous decision-making power in natural resource management. This is problematic because GNB does not understand the needs and values of First Nations. Therefore, they cannot manage natural resources in a way that honors their legal commitments. As a result, First Nations are consistently forced to engage and resist as predictable outcomes continue to negatively impact First Nations in Waponahkik (New Brunswick).
First Nations people have historically faced barriers when attempting to exercise their rights. They have been harassed, stalked, and criminalized. As a result of such incidents, a Mi'kmaw fisherman, Donald Marshall, appealed charges laid against him for exercising his Peace and Friendship Treaty rights. Marshall's case was heard in the 1999 Supreme Court of Canada, R v. Marshall, where "the high court's verdict upheld Marshall's treaty right to fish year-round, including outside commercial seasons, and to earn a 'moderate livelihood'" (Conn, 2020, no page). Although the court determined that the Peace and Friendship Treaties legally afforded Waponahkiyik the right to fish for a "moderate livelihood" year-round, the term "moderate livelihood" is not legally defined. Since the term remains ambiguous, it will inevitably contribute to continued undue hardships for First Nations.
Every Indigenous community and every Indigenous family have experienced colonial harms to include natural resource management impacts on rights. We have witnessed a system that criminalizes our youth and robs them of their culture, their innocence, and their potential. "First Nations spokespeople, commercial fishers, and legal experts agree that Fisheries and Oceans Canada's decades-long refusal to uphold Indigenous peoples' right to fish for a moderate livelihood has led to altercations in one fishery after another" (Donovan, 2023, n.p.). Although legal priority of Treaty Rights to fish supersedes commercial fishing agreements, licensees have remained the beneficiaries in Canada. After more than 25 years, Fisheries and Oceans Canada continues to fail to develop regulations with First Nations to define "moderate livelihood" and to meaningfully include First Nations in commercial fisheries. More recently, in 2023, the elver industry was valued at $50 million. First, Nations wanted to participate, but a failure to define "moderate livelihood,” and the privilege enjoyed by commercial fisheries has led to violence toward First Nations and harassment of Indigenous Peoples who attempt to exercise their Treaty Rights.
To better understand the impacts on First Nations people, I spoke with the Resource Development Consultation Coordinator for Neqotkuk First Nation, Jamie Gorman. Jamie has worked in natural resources since 1996, including fishery, forestry, and archeology files, as well as all community consultations. Jamie has advocated against harmful extractive processes in Wolastoqey traditional territory and has worked to advance Aboriginal and treaty rights. He has witnessed unfettered access to resources for industrial actors, leading to severe depletion and degradation of Wolastoqey territory.
Since Indigenous people have been forced to participate in the modern economy, and degraded forests and lack of access prevents traditional lifestyle, First Nations must adapt and develop a method of commercial participation that is in alignment with our beliefs. Therefore, Jamie was asked about the original AAC allocation and if he witnessed any community impacts because logging was not a traditional practice. He recalled that some Indigenous loggers were select-cutting, figuring out how, as Indigenous loggers, they could earn a living that reflected their beliefs. The loggers opposed destructive, harmful forestry practices, and they would not engage in clearcutting. However, GNB demanded revenues that could only be met with clearcuts and later fined Neqotkuk First Nation for failing to clearcut in the management area. This led to community infighting, with cultural views and a community’s dire need for jobs at the center of the discourse. Today, the epistemic barriers persist, as GNB still dictates management plans developed with Western values and no Indigenous voices.
When asked about Aboriginal and treaty rights and community access needs, Jamie believes there are too many barriers and too much degradation to exercise Aboriginal and treaty rights meaningfully. He notes that GNB has not developed a domestic use policy, nor has DFO defined "moderate livelihood." he said our members are unable to access land to harvest food and medicines, which threatens traditional knowledge and cultural practices. Like Fred, Jamie believes having a seat at the decision-making table and participating in natural resource management could ensure that our culture is preserved and that our youth can carry on our traditional practices. Jamie would like to see a collective, social forestry enterprise where forests are managed for multiple uses more reflective of our symbiotic relationship with the forest. He would like to see reduced timber exports by the province, and GNB fulfilling its legal obligation to First Nations. However, after all he has witnessed in Waponahkik (New Brunswick), he is disheartened, he believes we should operate with an expectation that GNB will not fulfill their legal obligations to First Nations. Jamie states, "rights protections don't matter, they (GNB) are going to keep doing what they do." Jamie has seen violation after violation of Aboriginal and Treaty rights, with no recourse. Although Indigenous people can now legally obtain lawyers, we cannot afford to hire them for all the violations we continue to experience. Jamie’s hopes for natural resource access and conservation are with small woodlot owners, non-governmental organizations, and First Nation community initiatives.
6. Conclusion
For this case study, we reviewed provincial natural resource management in Waponahkik (New Brunswick) and explored a tiny sample of the impacts of natural resource management on Waponahkiyik. To understand the depth of impacts on First Nations, we first learned about Waponahkik (New Brunswick) tenure, and Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Since the Peace and Friendship Treaties protect Waponahkiyik's rights to lands and resources in our traditional territory and were confirmed by the Canadian Constitution, we learned that First Nations were rightsholders and that the federal and provincial governments have legal obligations to honor our rights. We also learned that Canada's Bill C-15 requires the federal government, among other things, to honor UNDRIP Article 26, Indigenous rights to benefit from, protect, and access our traditional territory. For natural resource management to be compliant with these rights, there must be a level of Indigenous decision-making included in policy development because GNB cannot manage for things they don’t know or understand. Otherwise, values inconsistent with our beliefs and needs will continue to be prioritized. Failure by the provincial and federal governments to ensure this occurs results in increasingly devastating impacts on First Nations. When the government fails to protect Indigenous rights and forces First Nations to engage and resist, the impacts on First Nations increase in severity.
As the Waponahkiyik of Waponahkik (New Brunswick) continue to experience rights violations and negative impacts of natural resource management in Waponahkik (New Brunswick), we continue to have access barriers in seeking recourse. However, we are resilient; we have endured these hardships for hundreds of years, but around the world, people are beginning to see that honoring Aboriginal and treaty rights isn’t only the right thing to do, but it can benefit our environment and society. Although there is much work to be done, as the late Honourable Murray Sinclair stated, "We know that making things better will not happen overnight. It will take generations. That's how the damage was created and that's how the damage will be fixed. But if we agree on the objective of reconciliation and agree to work together, the work we do today will immeasurably strengthen the social fabric of Canada tomorrow" (2024, p.4).
| Theme: Natural resource management impacts on First Nations | |
| Country: Canada | |
| Province/Prefecture: New Brunswick | |
This conservation resource was created by Monica Sarkies. It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0. | |
References
Baker, K., Eichhorn, M. P., & Griffiths, M. (2019). Decolonizing field ecology. Biotropica, 51(3), 288–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12663
Bill C-15: An Act respecting the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. (2021). Government of Canada. https://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/bm-mb/other-autre/c15/c15.html
Canadian Wildlife Service. (2024). The federal policy on wetland conservation: implementation guide for federal land managers. Environment and Climate Change Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/wildlife-habitat/federal-policy-on-wetland-conservation-implementation-guide-for-federal-land-managers.html
Conn, H. (2020). Marshall Case. In The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/marshall-case
Constitution Act, 1982. (2021). Recognition of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights. Statutes.ca. https://www.statutes.ca/constitution-act-1982/35
Convention on Biological Diversity. (2024). Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its sixteenth meeting (COP-16). https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/?m=cop-16
Davis, J. (2024). Almost 80% of nature critical for human wellbeing is outside of protected
areas. Natural History Museum. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2024/october/80-of-nature-critical-for-human-wellbeing-outside-of-protected-areas.html
Department of Oceans and Fisheries Canada. (2025). Fisheries and Oceans Canada. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/index-eng.html
Donovan, M. (2023). Atlantic Canada grapples with another violent fishing season. The Narwhal. https://thenarwhal.ca/indigenous-fishing-atlantic-canada/
Erdle, T. (1998). Progress toward sustainable forest management: Insight from the New Brunswick experience. The Forestry Chronicle, 74(3), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc74378-3
Etheridge, D. A., MacLean, D. A., Wagner, R. G., & Wilson, J. S. (2006). Effects of intensive forest management on stand and landscape characteristics in northern New Brunswick, Canada (1945–2027). Landscape Ecology, 21(4), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-2378-9
Floyd, A., (2022). New Brunswick’s forgotten forests, global treasures that need our help. NB Media Co-op. https://nbmediacoop.org/2022/05/26/new-brunswicks-forgotten-forests-global-treasures-that-need-our-help/
Glynn, T., Bourque, Z. (2017). New Brunswick forest report card: A stakeholder survey of opinions and recommendations on crown forest management in New Brunswick. Conservation Council of New Brunswick. https://www.conservationcouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/NB-Forest-Report-Card-Aug-24-2017.pdf
Government accused of muzzling scientists on forest issue. (2014). CBC News. Accessed December 4, 2025, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/government-accused-of-muzzling-scientists-on-forest-issue-1.2581316
Government of New Brunswick. (n.d.). Chapter 38.1 Crown Lands and Forests Act. Fredericton, NB, Canada: Government of New Brunswick. https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/laws/stat/snb-1980-c-c-38.1/latest/snb-1980-c-c-38.1.html
Hadeel, I. (2020). Late judge was 'ahead of his time' on Indigenous right issues, professor says. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/john-turnbull-saint-john-court-of-queens-bench-indigenous-logging-rights-1.5577470
Indigenous-led conservation. (n.d.). WWF. Accessed December 5, 2025, https://wwf.ca/about-us/indigenous-led-conservation/
Joseph, B. (2018). 21 Things you may not know about the Indian Act: Helping Canadians make reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples a reality (1st ed). Indigenous Corporate Training.
Kennedy, M. I. L., Lantz, V. A., & MacLean, D. A. (2007). Forest and economic impacts of alternative management strategies on Crown land in New Brunswick. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 37(12), 2624–2636. https://doi.org/10.1139/X07-095
New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and Energy Development. (n.d.a). Our history. https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/erd/forestry-conservation/content/OurHistory.html
New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and Energy Development. (n.d.b). Protected natural areas. https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/erd/forestry-conservation/content/ProtectedNaturalAreas.html
Parenteau, B. (2013). Looking backward, looking ahead: History and future of the New Brunswick forest industries. Acadiensis, 42(2), 92–113. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24329554
Peace and friendship treaties. (2015). Government of Canada. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100028589/1539608999656#a3
Provincial Archives of New Brunswick. (n.d.). New Brunswick’s forests of old. Government of New Brunswick. https://archives2.gnb.ca/Exhibits/ArchivalPortfolio/TextViewer.aspx?culture=en-CA&myFile=Forest
Robinson, C. (2018). Discourse and disempowerment: Examining Indigenous consultation policy in Nova Scotia. Master’s thesis, Dalhousie University. Accessed at: https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10222/73983/Robinson-Callee-MA-POLI-May-2018.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Sinclair, M., Sinclair, S., & Sinclair, N. (2024). Who we are: Four questions for a life and a nation. McClelland & Stewart
Treaty or articles of peace and friendship renewed 1952. (2010). Government of Canada. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100028593/1539609242434
Wyatt, S., Kessels, M., & van Laerhoven, F. (2015). Indigenous Peoples’ Expectations for Forestry in New Brunswick: Are Rights Enough? Society & Natural Resources, 28(6), 625–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.970735