{"id":8255,"date":"2025-11-20T16:38:27","date_gmt":"2025-11-20T15:38:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/apnql.com\/forestry-reform-the-approach-and-proposals-of-the-minister-of-natural-resources-and-forestry-are-unacceptable-2\/"},"modified":"2025-11-20T16:38:27","modified_gmt":"2025-11-20T15:38:27","slug":"forestry-reform-the-approach-and-proposals-of-the-minister-of-natural-resources-and-forestry-are-unacceptable-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/apnql.com\/en\/forestry-reform-the-approach-and-proposals-of-the-minister-of-natural-resources-and-forestry-are-unacceptable-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Forestry reform: the approach and proposals of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry are unacceptable"},"content":{"rendered":"

Wendake, December 10, 2024<\/strong> – The Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador (AFNQL) must once again denounce the disrespectful attitude of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) toward First Nations in its approach to \u201cmodernizing\u201d Quebec’s forestry regime.<\/p>\n

The meeting between the MRNF and First Nations on November 29 was completely disconcerting and constitutes an affront to First Nations and their rights. The eagerness with which the MRNF presented its priorities and directions\u2014despite their importance and direct impact on First Nations rights and ways of life\u2014is unacceptable. Furthermore, the department asked First Nations to comment on this information but did not offer any concrete answers to the questions that were asked. These conditions certainly cannot be considered rigorous, respectful, and good-faith collaboration. From the outset, the terms and conditions of the process adopted by the department have in no way allowed First Nations to freely, preliminarily, and knowledgeably express their concerns and issues. <\/p>\n

The MRNF’s general approach to this reform seems to be based on meeting the needs of the forestry industry, whereas the content presented by the MRNF last Friday shows no real willingness to incorporate the visions and aspirations of First Nations, does not meet their needs, and even runs counter to what they have repeatedly recommended in the past.<\/p>\n

Several proposals put forward by the MRNF are cause for concern. For example, the MRNF’s desire to return much of the responsibility for forest planning to the industry would represent a step backward. Entrusting responsibility for forest management and planning to industrial operators who derive immediate benefit from it constitutes a clear conflict of interest. Unlike governments, the industry is not required to take into account the rights and interests of First Nations. <\/p>\n

\u201cThis lack of consideration and genuine integration of our issues and concerns in this process is regrettable. The MRNF cannot shirk its responsibility to respect First Nations rights,\u201d laments Ghislain Picard, Regional Chief of the AFNQL.<\/p>\n

The Superior Court of Quebec recently handed down judgments that clearly highlight the Quebec government’s blatant lack of prior consultation; one with the First Nations of Essipit and Pekuakamiulnuatsh in the context of developing a national strategy for the protection of woodland and mountain caribou (court order stipulating that a separate, prior consultation process be put in place) and the other with the Lac Barri\u00e8re First Nation (Mitchikanibikok Inik) in the context of claims allowing mining exploration on its territory. It is time for the government to take note of these rulings and change its ways. <\/p>\n

Faced with this situation, if the minister does not make significant changes to the forestry regime, First Nations will mobilize and take the necessary steps to defend their rights and demand the respect they deserve.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador (AFNQL) must once again denounce the disrespectful attitude of the Department of Natural Resources and Forestry (MRNF) toward First Nations in its approach to \u201cmodernizing\u201d Quebec’s forestry regime.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":7505,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[61],"tags":[86],"class_list":["post-8255","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-environment-and-territory","tag-press-release"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/apnql.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8255","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/apnql.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/apnql.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apnql.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apnql.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8255"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/apnql.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8255\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apnql.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7505"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/apnql.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8255"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apnql.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8255"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apnql.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8255"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}