n n... .L I:

..§.....

 

 

.. 2 )rr

. I ‘ , .
ﬁfﬂutux u.“
. .

c . .
. saw 1
kn? .

a y .
/(.JIL..I... z.
gm...”

8..
5...;

 

 

 

“”va

t a.
a!»
fruiunﬁ...
é, $.11 ,
, v. v 2:- it:
3.27:2;

‘
n!

1 .l. (02‘? .7
..thuai4:.\&f,..n :. ,
a it u...

5.. .1.
\zgt»... uq) x,

5%. rmﬁz?

2.... .. _ . as; ﬁﬁiaﬁé

 

IHIIIHIIllilllllllllllllllllllll|Illllll

31293 01812 7187

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

A STUDY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE JAMES BAY AND NORTHERN
QUEBEC AGREEMENT ON OUTFITTING IN NOUVEAU—QUEBEC

presented by

Denis Auger

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Doctoral degreein Park, Recreation and
Tourism Resources

Major professor

Date _Ma.1_lJ_._1.99_9__

MSU i: an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1!” WWW.“

A STUDY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE JAMES BAY AND NORTHERN

QUEBEC AGREEMENT ON OUTFITTING IN NOUVEAU-QUEBEC

By

Denis Auger

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

1 999

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE JAMES BAY AND NORTHERN
QUEBEC AGREEMENT ON OUTFITTING IN NOUVEAU-QUEBEC
By

Denis Auger

This study examines the development and implementation of policies in the James Bay

and Northern Québec Agreement (JBNQA) and its affect on the tourism, recreational
hunting/ﬁshing and commercial outﬁtting industry of Nouveau-Québec. Its objectives
are as follows: 1) describe the tourism, recreational hunting/ﬁshing and outﬁtting
industry; 2) describe and explain the development and implementation of the JBNQA;
and 3) explain how the JBNQA has inﬂuenced Nouveau-Québec tourism, recreational
hunting/ﬁshing and the outﬁtting industry from the perspective of native and non-native
outﬁtters, the Quebec government and a policy analysis framework. Data used include a
historical review of the JBQNA, selected secondary data, primary data from a survey of
Nouveau—Québec outﬁtters concerning outﬁtting, wildlife population estimates, sport and
subsistence harvest, and interviews with Quebec government managers of Nouveau-
Quebec.

The results show that goals and objectives of the JBNQA were met, but not for all
stakeholders. They were met partially for the government; they were met partially for the
native outﬁtters; but they were not met with regard to the non-native outﬁtters.

In the future, such agreements need to address and reﬂect the positions of
stakeholders, have more clear, deﬁned, measurable goals and include built-in monitoring

to evaluate performance.

l\\'

A, (hirlo

Rtsourccs r

ipreitssor. l

 

Heluek I prt

tithe Tm cl

 

iPmibssor. C
Spec
its support a
document at
l \\'O
and Fauna c

:mimmtion

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my appreciation for the helpful suggestions and cooperation of
Dr. Charles Nelson, Associate Professor, Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism
Resources who directed this study. Special thanks also go to Dr. Daniel Stynes
(professor, Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources) and Dr. Donald
Holecek (professor, Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources and director
of the Travel, Tourism, Recreation and Resource Center) and Dr. Michael Chubb
(Professor, Department of Geography), all of whom served on my committee.

Special thanks are due my family, speciﬁcally, my Father, Dr. Jacques Auger for
his support and expertise and my wife, Tammy, for her support while I completed this
document and my doctor of philosophy degree.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Ministry of Environment
and Fauna of the Province of Quebec for the access to their resources and for the

information provided to me by their experts.

iii

LBTOFTl
LBTOiFl

CHAPTER
WUI

Sta
Prc
RC:
Sin

CHAPTET
Sm

CHAPTER
RC5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 ........................................................... 1
Introduction ...................................................... 1
Hydroelectric Power Complex ............................ 2
Nouveau-Québec: A Brief Portrait .............................. 2
Location ............................................. 2
The Creation of Nouveau-Québec ............................... 3
Biophysical Framework and Resources ........................... 6
Economic Activities .......................................... 6
Labour Market .............................................. 8
Population of Nouveau-Québec ................................. 9
Demographics ........................................ 9
Native Culture ....................................... 10
Crees .................................. 10
Naskapis ................................ 12
Inuits .................................. 13
Importance of Hunting and Fishing as Part of the
Native Culture ................................. 15
Stakeholders ..................................................... 1 6
Problem Statement ................................................ 17
Research Questions ............................................... 17
Signiﬁcance of the Study ........................................... 18
CHAPTER 2 .......................................................... 20
Situation and Literature Review ..................................... 20
Outﬁtting in Canada, Quebec and Nouveau-Québec .......... 20
Policy Analysis ...................................... 26
Approaches to Policy Analysis .......................... 28
Models of Policy Analysis .............................. 31
Evaluation as Part of Analysis ........................... 33
CHAPTER 3 .......................................................... 36
Research Methods ................................................ 36
Jones Model ............................................... 36
Problem to Government ................................ 36
Actions in Government ................................ 37
Governmental Program ................................ 37
Program Evaluation ................................... 37
Methods for Collecting Data .................................. 38

iv

CHAPTE
B.

(HAW ;
Hi

CHAPTE

CHAPTER 4 .......................................................... 41

Background And Negotiations of The JBNQA .......................... 41
Problem to Government ................................ 41
Actions in Government ................................ 44
Governmental Program ................................ 51
CHAPTER 5 .......................................................... 54
Highlights of the JBNQA ........................................... 54
Lands .................................................... 56
Hunting, Fishing and Trapping ................................ 58
Wildlife Resource Harvesting Rights ..................... 59
Outﬁtter Establishment Procedures ....................... 59
Guaranteed Harvesting Levels for the Natives .............. 64
CHAPTER 6 .......................................................... 66
Results ......................................................... 66
Client Trends .............................................. 67
Trends in Caribou License Sales ......................... 67
Sporting Caribou Harvest .............................. 69
Number of Outﬁtter Clients ............................. 69
Number of Outﬁtter Clients by Zone ...................... 70
Growth of Caribou Herd ..................................... 72
Guaranteed Harvesting Levels for Native Communities ............. 73
Outﬁtter Trends ............................................ 75
Number of Outﬁtters .................................. 75
Number of Outﬁtters by Zone ........................... 76
Number of Outﬁtters by Category of Land ................. 77
Revenue of Nouveau-Québec Outﬁtters ......................... 77
Mobile Camp Operations ..................................... 78
Outﬁtting in Zone 23 .................................. 78
Number of Outﬁtters in Zone 23 ................... 78
Clients in Zone 23 .............................. 81
Operation of Mobile Camps in Zone 23 ............. 81
Caribou and Fish Harvesting From
Mobile Camps in Zone 23 ........................ 82
Perceptions of Outﬁtters Towards the JBNQA and Its
Impacts on Their Operations .................................. 83
Response Rate of Survey ............................... 83
Non-response ........................................ 83
Results of the Survey .................................. 84
Socioeconomic Characteristics of Outﬁtters in
Nouveau-Québec ............................... 84
Categories of Land .............................. 85
Hunting and Fishing Activities Offered .............. 86
Accessibility to Category II ....................... 87

 

CHTPTER 7

DlSCu

Seven of Ten Rule .............................. 88

Coordinating Committee ......................... 89

Native and Non-native Perception of Factors Inﬂuencing

Outﬁtting in Nouveau-Québec ........................... 92
Category II Land ............................... 92
Category III Land ............................... 93
Coordinating Committee ......................... 93
Mobile Camps ................................. 93
Competition From Other Outﬁtters ................. 94
Fish Species and Harvest Limits ................... 94
Size of the Caribou Herd and Caribou Harvest Limits . . 94
Marketing to Residents and Non-residents ........... 97
License Fees ................................... 98
Transportation ................................. 98
Government Regulations ......................... 98
Taxes ........................................ 98
Means of Factors Inﬂuencing Outﬁtting in
Nouveau-Québec ............................... 98

Native and Non-native Perception of Factors Inﬂuencing
the Start or Purchase of an Outﬁt in Nouveau-Québec . 100

Climate Created by the JBNQA ......................... 102
Perceptions of the Québec Government Towards the

JBNQA and Its Impacts on Nouveau-Québec .................... 104
Impact of the JBNQA on the Outﬁtting Industry ........... 105
Impact of JBNQA on Natives .................... 105
Impact of JBNQA on Non-natives ................. 105

Impact of JBNQA on the Development and Growth
of Tourism and Outﬁtting in Nouveau-Québec ....... 105
Factors Inﬂuencing Outﬁtting in Nouveau-Québec .......... 106
CHAPTER 7 ......................................................... 107
Discussion and Recommendations .................................. 107
Origin of the JBNQA ....................................... 107
Composition of the Agreement ............................... 107
Goals and Objectives of the JBNQA ........................... 107
Evaluation of the Outputs and Outcomes ....................... 109
Outputs and Outcomes ................................ 109
Have the Objectives Been Met? ......................... 110
Future of Outﬁtting in Nouveau-Québec ........................ 113
Recommendations ......................................... 115
Tools Needed for Future Assessment .................... 115
Goals and Objectives Needed for Future Analysis .......... 116
Limits of Acceptable Change ........................... 117

vi

.I' 1
MM.
.51,”le l

' “\
ppm -

.prcridu 4
tppcndn 5
\ppcndxx 6
Appendix "
Ippcndii 8

it???“ i;\ i) '

 

.lUl

Rctsrcnccs

Better Understanding and Communication between

stakeholders ........................................ 1 19

Conclusion ............................................... 120

Appendix 1 - Land Regime .............................................. 123
Appendix 2 - Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime ......................... 142
Appendix 3 - Native Questionnaire ........................................ 173
Appendix 4 - Non-Native Questionnaire ..................................... 179
Appendix 5 - French Native Questionnaire .................................... 186
Appendix 6 - French Non-Native Questionnaire ................................ 193
Appendix 7 - Questions Used During the Interviews With the Experts ................ 200
Appendix 8 - English Letter .............................................. 202
Appendix 9 - French Letter .............................................. 204
References ........................................................... 206

vii

15le -
Title 5 -
Table 0 -

n'-

I' ,1
15.11;

T‘ ‘ F)
145165-

TAMIL

.‘AUIL

T‘. ,
.- a
“mix, I” -

Table 11 -
little 1: .
libie 13
Title 14 .
little 15 -

Table 16 .

 

Table 1 -
Table 2 -
Table 3 -
Table 4 -

Table 5 -

Table 6 -

Table 7 -

Table 8 -

Table 9 -

Table 10 -
Table 11 -
Table 12 -
Table 13 -
Table 14 -
Table 15 -
Table 16 -
Table 17 -
Table 18 -
Table 19 -
Table 20 -
Table 21 -
Table 22 -
Table 23 -
Table 24 -
Table 25 -
Table 26 -

Table 27 -

LIST OF TABLES

La Grande Hydroelectric Complex .............................. 3
Chronology of Events Leading to the JBNQA .................... 42
Caribou Sport Hunting Licenses and Animals Harvested (1973-1996) . 68
Number of Outﬁtter Clients in Nouveau-Québec

(1971, 1988, 1990, 1996) ..................................... 70
Use of Outﬁtters in Nouveau-Que’bec by Zone (1988 and 1996) ...... 72
Estimated Number of Caribou in Nouveau-Québec (1976-1996) ...... 73

Guaranteed Harvest Levels for Native Communities (annual harvest) . . 74
Number of Outﬁtters in Nouveau—Québec (1971; 1988; 1991; 1996

and 1997) ................................................. 76
Number of Outﬁtters in Nouveau-Québec by Zone (1989; 1991;

and 1997) ................................................. 76
Number of Outﬁtters in Nouveau-Que’bec by Category

of Land (1989 and 1994) ..................................... 77
Total Revenue of Outﬁtters in Nouveau-Québec .................. 78
Evolution of the Number of Outﬁtters in Zone 23 (1987 and 1992) . . . . 79
Number of Clients by Type of Camp in Zone 23 (1988-1992) ........ 80
Mobile Camps Operated in Zone 23 (1988-1992) .................. 81
Number of Caribou Harvested by Sector in Zone 23 (1988-1992) ..... 82
Comparison of the Number of Caribous Harvested in

Mobile and Permanent Camps in Zone 23 (1988-1992) ............. 83
Socioeconomic Characteristics of Outﬁtters in Nouveau-Québec ..... 85

Categories of Land on Which Nouveau-Québec Outﬁtters Operate . . . 86
Hunting and Fishing Activities Offered by Nouveau-Québec

Outﬁtters ................................................. 87
Outﬁtter Perceived Inﬂuence of the 7 of 10 Rule on the

Establishment of Outﬁts in Nouveau-Québec ..................... 88
Native Outﬁtter Ratings of the Inﬂuence of Selected Factors on Their
Outﬁtting Businesses in Nouveau-Québec, ....................... 95
Non-native Outﬁtter Ratings of the Inﬂuence of Selected Factors

on Their Outﬁtting Businesses in Nouveau-Québec ................ 96
Ratings of Selected Factors Inﬂuencing the Outﬁtting Businesses in
Nouveau—Québec ........................................... 97
Outﬁtter Mean Rating of Selected Factors Having an Inﬂuence on the
Outﬁtting Businesses in Nouveau-Québec ....................... 99
Selected Factors Inﬂuencing Outﬁtting Businesses in

Nouveau—Québec .......................................... 101
Rating of the Inﬂuence of Selected Factors on the Start or Purchase

of an Outﬁt in Nouveau-Québec .............................. 103

Mean Rating of Factors Inﬂuencing the Start or Purchase of Outﬁtters
in Nouveau-Québec by Native and Non-native Outﬁtters. .......... 104

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Québec Administrative Regions .................................... 5
Figure 2 - Categories of Land ............................................. 57
Figure 3 - Zones of Native Priority Use ...................................... 65
Figure 4 - Hunting and Fishing Zones in Nouveau-Québec ...................... 71

ix

Ill:
83:. and .\\
Mam. 11

551231an m
\r

 

The l

.. .I1 a ‘ I. ‘

«respiration

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

This study examines the development and implementation of policies in the James
Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement
(NEQA). It also assesses their effect on tourism, and on recreational hunting, ﬁshing and
outﬁtting in Nouveau-Québec.

The JBNQA, signed on November 11, 1975, established the rights and obligations
of the Quebec government and the Cree and Inuit regarding the administrative
organization of the territory and the management of its resources. A similar agreement,
the NEQA, signed on January 31, 1978 recognized comparable rights and obligations for
the Québec Naskapis. However, this document refers mostly to the JBNQA, since the
NEQA was based on the JBNQA.

The governments of Canada and Quebec signed these agreements to facilitate the
construction and implementation of a hydro-electric power complex on the river La
Grande. The project included ﬂooding lands traditionally used by native people. In
return, the native people were to be compensated for the losses of both traditional lands
and lifestyles. These agreements were patterned after the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA) passed by the US Congress in 1971, which opened the way
for the trans-Alaska pipeline and Prudhoe Bay hydro-carbon development

(Frideres,1981).

v ' ~'-
I “'AJW"
New w‘“
w,“
“1.
I\

‘-“ii 3'." ii.
Um?“ 5 “

MEI“ dllS. 1
7113251“ 1115 11'.

Till prui ide-

 

New

[563

Figure l)
leniseuming
Be and Hud:
Labrador hon

roads and

UV'l'I‘ﬁ-"flllniiles

\omt
in: or (17‘? 'n f

:jn'ﬂv.
r; 1 *Hmali‘i‘

it

Hydroelectric power complex

The La Grande Hydroelectric Complex is located on the La Grande River,
Quebec’s third longest river and the main tributary for the James Bay. Its natural drainage
basin is approximately 62,000 kmz.

Hydro-Quebec, a crown corporation that produces almost all of Quebec’s
electricity, divided the project into two phases (Table 1). The ﬁrst phase, built between
1973 and 1985 at a cost of $13.7 billion, has a capacity to generate more than 10,000
megawatts. The second phase, built between 1985 and 1992, added another 5,400
megawatts at an estimated cost of $7.5 billion. By the year 2000, the La Grande Complex
will provide 40% of Hydro-Quebec’s generating capacity (Williams, 1993).

Nouveau-Québec: A Brief Portrait
L_Oc_at_i_0_n

Nouveau-Québec is one of 19 tourist regions of the province of Quebec in Canada
(see Figure 1). It is situated at the northern limits of the regions of Abitibi-
Témiscamingue, Saguenay-Lac St-Jean, and the North Shore. It extends as far as James
Bay and Hudson Bay to the west, Hudson Strait and Ungava Bay to the North, and the
Labrador border to the east. This region of Québec is very difﬁcult to access, as there are
few roads and these are seasonal. The primary way to get to most outﬁtters or
communities is by plane.

Nouveau—Québec is the largest of Québec’s 19 tourist regions, over 1,150,000
kmz, or 67% of the province’s land area. The state of Michigan (150,259 kmz) is

approximately 1/8 the size of Nouveau-Québec.

lnizl Plies:

lute} P

has: I'

1

UL?“ PEJ\C I

.\‘-l‘,ll

.1 I": 1" u.
"Q‘ 1 l1;."_

 

Table 1

La Grande Hydroelectric Complex

 

 

 

 

Project Phase Station Capacity(MW) Reservoir Area Land Flooded
(kmz) (kmz)
Phase 1
LG 2 5328
LG 3 2304
LG 4 2650
Total Phase I 10282 8888 6437
LG Za 1998
LG 1 1368
Brisay 446
Laforge 1 840
Laforge 2 305
Eastman 1 480
Total Phase II 5437 1295 684
Total Phase I and II 15719 9683 7121

 

Source: Williams, 1993

The creation of Nouveau-Ouébec
Historically, both federal and provincial politics have inﬂuenced the development
ofNouveau—Québec (Muller-Wille, 1983). It was under Federal jurisdiction between
1870 and 1912 as the District of Ungava. During this period, the expansion of Quebec’s
territory northward was a topic of great interest. The Province wanted to expand north
because its economy was growing and it needed additional timber lands, hard rock
minerals and hydroelectric power potential. Québec also considered Nouveau-Québec a

territory that could be colonized and used for agriculture (Mﬁller-Wille, 1983).

rerun W l
@310?an
\ourflu'l)‘
it‘lfmmem

. '_l .
:Iri'rlllcldl Si

 

 

 

Inc l
MEWWHF
lire: lit-ill“:
estrus 1w
.1” ..

.113 llllllll CUU

”(MC
V
wUl'L’ClU‘l lU'
mMmNdu
unreh erruld .
rranenphunt

Finuil
brill": l"

“Andi-F \\ ll

1‘33".)

‘lll : r i

\l. n ’v.
null-1 183'

In 1886, the Province of Quebec requested that the Governor-General initiate
proceedings formally outlining Quebec’s northern and northwestern borders. The primary
reason for the request was to prevent conﬂicts between provincial and federal
development projects in northern Canada (Miiller-Wille, 1983).

In 1892 and 1893, the ﬁrst surveys were completed to establish the extent of
Nouveau-Québec’s resources. However, it wasn’t until, in 1896, that the Canadian
government fully evaluated the results and determined that Nouveau-Que’bec had very
few economically valuable resources. They further assessed that neither the federal nor
provincial governments could signiﬁcantly beneﬁt from this region.

The Province of Quebec did not agree with these results. It asserted that there
were reserves of good soil, timber and minerals in the region. Furthermore, there were
large freshwater lakes which could contribute to Quebec’s commercial ﬁsheries.
Religious leaders backed these ﬁndings. They believed that the rich agricultural soil of
the north could support northern colonization and consequently spread Catholicism.

However, the debate in the House of Commons did not center on the resources in
Nouveau-Québec; the question of proportional representation was in the forefront. Other
provinces did not want to see Quebec increase its numbers in the House of Commons,
which could happen if the District of Ungava were populated with large numbers of
Francophone colonists (Mﬁller—Wille, 1983).

Finally, in 1912, the transfer of the District of Ungava was enacted. The eastern
boundary with Labrador was to be clariﬁed through negotiation between the federal
government and Newfoundland, a British colony. However, to this day the established

boundary is still not accepted by the Province of Quebec (Mi‘rller-Wille, 1983).

 

14

Figure 1

Quebec Tourist Regions

 

1 Iles-dc-la—Madeleine

4 Greater Quebec Area

7 Mauricio-Bois-Francs
10 Lanaudiére

13 Outaouais

I6 Manicouagan

19 Laval

2 Gaspésie

5 Charlevoix

8 Estrie

11 Laurentians

l4 Abitibi-Témiscamingue
l7 Duplessis

3 Bas-Saint-Laurent

6 Chaudiercs-Appalaches

9 Montérégie

12 Montreal

15 Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jcan

18 Nouveau-Québec (Far North)

adrenzstru'
“'1‘." 1101‘. T
x, .. 3

0111501111 .

\nureau—Q

X0;
{endpoint
aregion 01‘:
trees and a p
unusual \\ r 1c

its remlor}

 

Trudi
nine people
usiguil‘reant :‘
income Ihrou
hurt and Nas
ﬁlm“ nrk 01

l“ in

Today, Nouveau-Que’bec is an integral part of Quebec as one of its 17
administrative regions. However, the political instability caused by the possibility of
separation by Québec from Canada presages difﬁculties for the future. In a referendum
of its own on the question of separation in 1995, 95% of the voting the population of
Nouveau—Québec preferred to remain part of Canada.

Biophysical framework and resources

Nouveau-Québec is a unique region both from a biophysical and socioeconomic
standpoint. The region is vast and remote, with a harsh, cold climate (MLCP, 1990). It is
a region of tundra and taiga(natura1 ecosystems found in the arctic characterized by few
trees and a predominance of grasses, sedges, herbs, and dwarf shrubs)and home to
unusual wildlife. Some species, such as caribou and musk-ox, are practically limited to
this territory within the Province of Quebec.

Economic mvities

Traditional wildlife harvesting activities play an important role in the life of the
native people (MLCP, 1990 and Indian and Northern Affairs, 1995). These activities are
a signiﬁcant source of direct income through the sale of furs and outﬁtting and of indirect
income through the subsistence value of ﬁsh and game. Financial support given to Cree,
Inuit and Naskapi hunters, ﬁshermen and trappers through negotiated programs within the
framework of the JBNQA and other agreements assure these communities a measure of

economic security (MLCP, 1990 and Indian and Northern Affairs, 1995).

In general, forest resources are not commercially exploitable except between the

49‘h and 51St parallels. However, this part of the territory has relatively large wood

t
resent“ ll‘

.1 ‘; i I;
Millm N
,.

ts
\OUwJU'l‘
‘ , ' , r
dcwsll) ‘1‘ ‘
sue-e 1hc “
pt trnelfﬁl‘

illlf P. 1"“
ITRHFP‘anll"
t} rtt‘lll.

H) dr
:Wl'l markl
pug-5a are r
indi'tn and N

The r
recent years 1
eusiness estal

tr. the case 01‘

 

nut order 1 .\l

lnuris
l‘l'l' ‘ '
1.11.1111 Such
1,136,»)

L ’
LL- ll 13 0

WAT, "-
, with for

reserves that are only slightly developed. The current harvest of wood and wood ﬁber

supplies seven sawmills, and one pulp-and-paper mill (MLCP, 1990).

As for the mining sector, studies done early in the 1900's have shown that the
Nouveau-Québec sub-soil contains vast reserves of various minerals. However, few
deposits are or have been exploited by major industries. In addition, mining has suffered
since the closing of the Schefferville iron ore mine due to prohibitive costs and because
of problems related to the depletion of mineral reserves the Chibougamau-Chapais region

(MLCP, 1990). Furthermore, smelting is done in Nouveau-Québec, requiring

transportation in a region without a functioning land-based industrial transportation
system.

Hydroelectricity is a major regional resource, with production strictly geared to
export markets to the south. The direct and secondary economic beneﬁts to Nouveau-

Québec are modest, while they are substantial for the rest of Québec (MLCP, 1990 and

Indian and Northern Affairs, 1995).
The retail industry has witnessed the most rapid growth of any economic sector in

recent years (MLCP, 1990). However, despite the presence of more than 100 small
business establishments in Nouveau-Québec, a large portion of the purchases, particularly
in the case of the Inuit and the Naskapis. are made outside the region either directly or by

mail order (MLCP, 1990).

Tourism is slightly developed in Northern Que'bec. However, as stated by the
Makivik Society (1994), tourism is very important to the future development of Nouveau-
Québec. It is one of the only sectors that offers the Nouveau-Québec population a

possibility for sustainable economic development.

1
\our CdU-l.

Rural be.

lit.
tishzng thrt
bStnesses ‘
itzting anti
turned by It

caribou. Th

 

15 allt‘m ed p
rnierutinu d;-

110‘ e

. ‘ ~11 10 f0.

"Tourisme Quebec", Quebec’s ministry responsible for tourism, believes that
Nouveau-Québec has a great potential for tourism development with its special heritage,
natural beauty and diversiﬁed fauna and ﬂora (Makivik Society,1994).

The main tourism product offered in Nouveau-Québec is recreational hunting and
ﬁshing through outﬁtting (Makivik Society,1994 and MLCP, 1993). Outﬁtters are
businesses that, for a fee, offer services which allow tourists to take part in recreational
hunting and ﬁshing. Nouveau-Québec outﬁtters operate on crown land @ublic land
owned by the province of Quebec). However, the primary activity is the pursuit of
caribou. The Nouveau-Québec caribou herd is the biggest in the world, and each hunter
is allowed to harvest two caribou. To increase the chances of hunters to harvest these
migrating animals, outﬁtters use mobile camps. Accordingly, these temporary camps are
moved to follow caribou migration.

Labour market

The region supports approximately 14,000 jobs, which for Native communities
translates as a higher level of unemployment than the Quebec average, particularly among
the Crees, Naskapis and the Montagnais (MLCP, 1990). Furthermore, unemployment is
much higher among the 15-24 year-old age group which is an increasingly large part of
the active work force (Lefebvre, 1996; MLCP, 1990).

Education is lacking. Thus there is an imbalance between the number of jobs at
the regional and administrative levels and the human resources with adequate formal
education (MLCP. 1990 and Indian and Northern Affairs, 1995). A large segment of the
Native population of Nouveau-Québec, 15 years of age and over, does not hold a high

school diploma (Lefebvre, 1996 and Indian and Northern Affairs, 1995).

A.
teriting 17'
in or i“ t. .u“)

snipin} er\
gripper-tux .
it“? i. 111-.

The puhiie .

in X
triage and t
tiertged Si
ind the lnui

 

The \asltupit

\l-l
Birth

\'.,, .
“~‘“‘€au~0u

.3171 limp lnii
\trrthm Al".

“'l‘; .‘I, .
. Mutton is

Across the region employment varies. The proportion of the active population
deriving income mainly from wildlife harvesting is about 12% among the Inuit and close
to 60% among the Crees (MLCP, 1990 and Indian and Northern Affairs, 1995). Principal
employers are regional and local associations (which belong to the para-public sector) and
cooperatives and native businesses (Lefebvre, 1996 and Indian and Northern Affairs,
1995). There is little entrepreneurship, which may be due to a high proportion of jobs in
the public and para-public sectors undermining this business segment. Indeed, the wages
paid in other sectors would have difﬁculty competing with those offered by governments

and organizations (Lefebvre, 1996 and Indian and Northern Affairs, 1995).

In Nouveau—Québec, the average gross income among the native people, 15 years
of age and over, is lower than the Quebec average (while Québec residents as a whole
averaged $14,300 in 1986. Estimated average incomes for natives were as follows: Crees
and the Inuit, $9,600; the Naskapis;, $5,700 and the Montagnais, $6,500 (MLCP, 1990).
The source of income for the Inuit and the Crees was largely due to employment; among
the Naskapis and the Montagnais, primarily due to government transfers (MLCP, 1990).

Population of Nouveau-Ouébec
Demoggaphics

Both native and non-native people inhabit this region. The total population of
Nouveau-Québec is around 30,000 people. Which includes a good portion of seasonal or
part time inhabitants. However, as stated by the Canadian Ministry of Indian and
Northern Affairs, natives comprise 95% of the permanent population. The native
population is made up of four nations: the Cree, the Inuit, the Montagnais, and the

Naskapi. Of these, the Québec government has signed agreements with three nations, the

t‘ree. inn:

'th1 luuz‘.

1
t 110- ' ‘_l
Jaunt‘ll.‘ ..
tReusscu.

Research ct

 

usual in i

.\'at
the Inuits' c
tree line. set
oinaiires. 1
culture of nu

Cuitt
these dii‘i‘ere
iiahun‘c 5; i
'31 lit urine
at others. fu.

Cree, Inuit, and Naskapi nations. With regard to population, there were 10,448 Crees,
7.760 Inuits, and 498 Naskapis for a total of 18,706 in 1997 (Indian and Northern Affairs,
1995 and Lehman and Doiq, 1998).

Native culture

The Inuits and the Northern Indians (Crees and Naskapis) have distinct cultural
traditions within the arctic and subarctic environments in which they evolved (Malaurie
& Rousseau, 1964). However, any study of Nouveau-Québec natives is difﬁcult.
Research concerning these people is ﬁ'agmentary, limited to a few speciﬁc groups and
unequal in its scope concerning the different groups.

Natural resources were important inﬂuences among native peoples. For example,
the Inuits’ culture was greatly shaped by its link to the sea. In the portion south of the
tree line, several animals (caribou, beaver and musk ox) are important in shaping the lives
of natives. In the northern tundra, caribou surpassed all other animals as shaping the
culture of natives.

Cultures evolved separately, although there has been some interaction between
these different groups since they all lived within the Quebec-Labrador peninsula. As
Malaurie & Rousseau (1964) have stated, these contacts had positive and negative effects
on the native communities. For instance, contacts have been ﬁ'iendly at times and hostile
at others. Furthermore, the different cultures have been mixed to a certain extent by
various interactions.

Crees

 

For over 6,000 years, Crees have lived in the sub-arctic portion of Nouveau-

Québec (Lehman and Doiq, 1998). They lived a nomadic lifestyle as small bands of

10

hunter-ga-

ictrei And

2 _ J
.ne .lll‘ritF

nineharit. v
tietelopeti '.
\1'1‘.

11.32".an u:‘

j I
0"“)

tree it;
ml in and

trade the (‘r

 

 

 

 

 

Sil’lt‘c more 3
The i
l3ig‘tage. ar
aficirs lichr
Like

”it 1993}

;‘1
IL,

med ill lll‘
hetr. tili- b“
tiuh-s. 51W ’
armpieted 1‘

”ll ind her

hunter-gatherers whose survival depended upon travel and mobility. The Cree were
feared and respected as a powerful tribe, living in an immense area east of the Hudson
and James Bays (Lehman and Doiq, 1998). The environment in which they lived
enabled the Cree to use both conical and dome-shaped wigwams covered with birchbark,
pinebark, or caribou skins (Lehman and Doiq, 1998). For ritualistic reasons, the Cree
developed the Sweat Lodge. (Lehman and Doiq, 1998).

When the Europeans arrived, the adaptable Cree became middlemen for fur trade,
(Lehman and Doiq, 1998). This relationship with the French and the British threatened
the Cree were threatened with cultural change. Traditional tools and Skills were given up,
and fur and skin were replaced with wool and garments. On the other hand, the fur trade
made the Cree one of the most wealthy and powerful tribes. But, this was short lived as
since more and more tribes developed alliances with the Europeans.

The Cree still have a strong sense of cultural identity. Schools teach the Cree
language, and the Cree themselves have taken greater control of their own administrative
affairs (Lehman and Doiq, 1998).

Like most sub-Arctic tribes, the Cree do not practice agriculture (Lehman and
Doiq, 1998). Historically, they were hunters and ﬁshermen who trapped in winter,
hunted in the spring and fall, and ﬁshed in the summer. Moose, caribou, musk oxen,
bear, elk, beaver, rabbit, and other game were taken with tools such as bows and arrows,
clubs, spears, and snares of various kinds (Lehman and Doiq, 1998). Their diet was
completed with waterfowl, ﬁsh, berries, and roots. The Cree regarded ﬁsh as inferior

food and beneath the dignity of a hunter, although it was eaten when hunting was poor.

11

 

vfl.l.'"'- I I I

 

Tuthernu
tuﬁi‘eu d:..
\‘r
Etnlnitsse '
21'1qu LIT.
reads reuel‘.

tr, l '-
mllll lhc “ll

 

Due
Niplf of tit
peep-l6. Still3
the lnuit het

The l

 

rm 1qu l.
milieu herd:
frequently “2

Truth
tretie ilehm
hit-'1 and WM

limptrun‘ lo

A Silt

l'h-r ‘
.115 l‘

.111th iii

ir'ana
&

i it'xlt‘ll dill

Furthermore, when food was critically low, lichens were gathered and boiled, and even
caribou dung was eaten (Lehman and Doiq, 1998).

Naskapis

Naskapis, or Innu people, inhabit most of Canada’s Labrador Peninsula, a
landmass divided between the eastern provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland. They call
this vast area Nitassinan, or “Our Land”(Lehman and Doiq, 1998). Even today, few
roads reach this northern territory, caribou travel in great herds and many natives still live
from the land in their traditional lifestyles.

Due to cultural similarities, anthropologists have linked the Innu with the Cree
people of the western part of the peninsula. However, the Innu consider themselves one
people, separate from the Cree. Furthermore, the Innu are also sometimes conﬁrsed with
the Inuit because of their proximity with them (Lehman and Doiq, 1998).

The Innu people have lived in Nitassinan for the past 2,000 years (Lehman and
Doiq, 1998). Nomadic hunters, they had to move seasonally, guided by the migrations of
caribou herds. Their social structure was ﬂexible, and extended family groups mixed
frequently with others (Lehman and Doiq, 1998).

Traditional Innu dwellings were well-suited for the nomadic lifestyle of the sub-
arctic (Lehman and Doiq, 1998). Northern Innu covered their lodges with hides because
bark and wood were not available. Hunters staying in hunting camps had to build
temporary lodges made of animal bones (Lehman and Doiq, 1998).

A short growing season and poor soil made the Labrador Peninsula mostly
unsuitable for native agriculture (Lehman and Doiq, 1998). To survive, the Innu

depended almost entirely upon hunting, trapping and ﬁshing, and, after European contact,

12

 
    
  

fur :ndtl‘e
Illicit DOW
mm) fill \

ills \tt‘h“:

in the arctic

 

litrertheit l

The
This MS a l
:het prefer
lipid. 19%

The
arctic. For

instead. far

 

d'C'J

ture th
shared freel

hanest mil.

purl

.rctectl. BUT

dealings with

.1“; 3 I ~
uretlt‘»

elt' rel

fur trading. Plants and vegetation were only a minor part of northern Innu diet (Lehman
and Doiq, 1998). Being Nomadic people, mobility was a key to survival. For this reason,
many efﬁcient styles of canoes, snowshoes, sleds and toboggans were developed to help
the Naskapis travel in Nitassinan.

IﬂliLS

The Inuit have made remarkable adaptations which have allowed them to survive
in the arctic, one of the most inhospitable environments on the planet. Here, the sun never
rises between October and February and the temperature can plunge to minus-80 degrees
Fahrenheit (Lehman and Doiq, 1998).

The Inuit are sometimes referred to as Eskimo, which means “eaters of raw meat.”
This was a name given to them by the Algonquian tribes living to the south. However,
they prefer being called Inuit, which means “people” in their own language (Lehman and
Doiq, 1998).

The Inuit spent most of their time hunting and protecting their families from the
arctic. For this reason, they developed virtually no social or political organization.
Instead, family was the most important social unit. The Arctic forced the Inuit to develop
a culture that was based on cooperation. In essence, for survival reasons, everything was
shared freely among the members of the community. For example, hunters shared their
harvest with others and their homes, when abandoned, were made available for others if
needed. But it was the cooperative nature of the Inuit that created problems in their
dealings with Europeans. It was difﬁcult for them to organize themselves politically to

effectively relate with governments and traders (Lehman and Doiq, 1998).

13

(it?

more otter“. .

7 Jr") .1
tlut.

.1

C
h)
u ..

ted hi the
center. 1‘.“-
Rdtiitlll OT 1

Sine

 

hunting and
Liln\i,\ic‘tll it
tn its ntigru
retgrned 1101
peace-inc
Tues. murn‘
Ileiq. 111113

.-\nu
methods: nt‘
eaten must i

in» .
ill: 'llc’ lilil“
\

The

Contrary to popular belief, not all Inuit lived in igloos, although where snow was
plentiful, they were a common type of dwelling for some bands. However, igloos were
more often used as temporary shelter in winter. Like many aspects of Inuit culture, igloos
were a highly efﬁcient adaptation to the Arctic. A karmat was another type of lodging
used by the Inuits. It was made out of stones or logs and covered with sod. In the
summer, many bands used tents made out of driftwood or whalebones covered with
sealskin or caribou hides as they followed game (Lehman and Doiq, 1998).

Since the arctic region offered few edible plants, the Inuit lived almost entirely by
hunting and ﬁshing. For some bands, sea mammals, especially seals, provided the most
consistent food source. Others lived principally by hunting caribou and following the herd
on its migration. However, most Inuits hunted caribou in the summer, when the herd
returned north. Inuit bands also complete their diet by hunting a wide range of other
species--including polar bear, musk oxen, mountain sheep, wolves, wolverines, foxes,
hares, marmots, squirrels, and birds--depending on their geographic region (Lehman and
[)oiq. 1998).

Another element of the Inuit’s diet was ﬁsh, which they caught using a variety of
methods: nets, spears, specially built enclosures, or hooks and lines. The types of ﬁsh
eaten most by the Inuit were salmon, trout, and smelt. Inuits ate most meat raw, except
for the tougher parts which were cooked (Lehman and Doiq, 1998).

The Inuit made efﬁcient use of the animals they hunted, so that nothing was ever
wasted. They made tools out of bones and teeth, melted down fat into oil that was burned

for light, heat, and cooking, and turned skins into clothing or coverings for boats and

14

hnedﬁ»

. \rt 1.";
lllil‘ll--u-'

 

crunch.
ehngnpi
unpahon
nihefiee

nddhunu

ACCt

 

rhuredbt

inegOtent

tuensour

terenislu
utdnnnnz

TCiDTS. Fu-

thtndnned.

tents. Since there were few trees in the Arctic, the Inuit had to rely on stones, driftwood,

bones and antlers to make tools (Lehman and Doiq, 1998).

Importance of Hunting and Fishing as Part of the Native Culture

 

An examination of Cree culture illustrates the value of an adequate land and
resource base. For Crees, hunting and ﬁshing are integral parts of their culture. An early
ethnographer of the eastern subarctic, Frank G. Speck, called Indian hunting a religious
occupation. Feit (1986) goes even further, stating that hunting is not just a central activity
of the Cree, nor is it simply a science or a formal ritual; hunting is part of their lifestyle
and if hunting is absent, life is not complete.

According to Feit (1986), the autonomy of the Cree communities has been clearly
enhanced by the strengthening of the hunting economy. Further, the greater control of the
Cree government over resources and services through initiation of political, legal, and
administrative action has strengthened Cree culture as a whole.

This increase in autonomy and authority related to hunting is offset by the large-
scale resource exploitation projects which are continuing on Cree lands. Intensive timber
harvest is having a massive impact. The lack of regulation of this major resource harvest
is becoming a signiﬁcant threat to the revitalized native hunting, ﬁshing and outﬁtting
sectors. Further, ﬁiture phases of hydroelectric development have been delayed but not

abandoned.

15

 

 

 

 

it

t ‘ V, t
It), CTTCLTH

3‘3"“‘3mmt
v.12} i] f ill

1331101. in

Stakeholders
There were several stakeholders involved in the drafting of the J BNQA. They
included:
- the native peoples (primarily the Cree, Inuit and Naskapi
communities),
- the Québec government,
- Société d’Energie de la Baie James [Crown (provincial)
corporation mandated, with the development of LG].
There were also other stakeholders that were affected by the JBNQA, that were

not directly involved in the drafting of the act. They include:

mining industries,
- environmental organizations,
- forestry industries,
- non-native outﬁtters,
- Government of Canada,
- sport hunting public.

The two principle parties involved were the native peoples and the Québec
government. The natives wanted self-government and preservation of their culture and
way of life. They viewed the LG project and other hydroelectric development as
destroying their land base, wildlife habitat and weakening their culture. The Québec
government wanted to develop hydro power in Nouveau-Québec because of its great
economic value. With the development of the LG project, the province could become a

major North American producer of hydro-electricity. This would mean billions of dollars

l6

inth IT“

F4
”'J

:3
(—‘~‘

uﬂndid

‘1. .. , vl
1.1.16“ ill‘

Th.~

 

recreation;
:s stud\ }
iiurrsm. rec
.‘l 1' ~

r‘i'iltleb 18-1

pelacres and

 

recreational ':

for the province in domestic and cross-border electricity sales and new and expanded
industrial development. Ideally, the agreement should have enabled both parties to
achieve their goals.
Problem Statement
This research focuses on the impact of the JBNQA and NEQA on the tourism,
recreational hunting/ﬁshing and commercial outﬁtting industry of Nouveau-Québec.
This study has two main objectives. The ﬁrst is to describe the Nouveau-Québec
tourism, recreational hunting/ ﬁshing, and outﬁtting industry and the JBNQA and NEQA
policies regulating such activity. The second is to assess the implementation of these
policies and explain how they have inﬂuenced current Nouveau-Québec tourism,
recreational hunting/ﬁshing and outﬁtting industry according to key stakeholders and the
analyst.
Research Questions
A. How did the JBNQA come to be?
a. What are the problems addressed by the JBNQA?
b. Which and how many stakeholders think these are
important problems?
c. How did these stakeholders become organized and how

well were they organized?

d. What were the proposed solutions?
e. Who developed the solutions?
f. How were the solutions developed?
g. Who supports these solutions?

17

 

P'E‘il ‘
.\ ‘lnc

(1’

.tcnrtmic i

h. How much money was provided?

i. How is the JBNQA administered?

B. What is the effect of the JBNQA on recreational hunting, ﬁshing
and outﬁtting?

a. How and what effects did the JBNQA have on the native
and non-native sectors of the outﬁtting industry?

b. How and what effects did the JBNQA have on the native
and non-native sectors of the hunting and ﬁshing industry?

c. Is the inﬂuence of the JBNQA on the recreational
hunting/ﬁshing and outﬁtting industry acceptable to non-
native outﬁtters?

d. Is the inﬂuence of the JBNQA on the recreational
hunting/ﬁshing and outﬁtting industry acceptable to
native outﬁtters?

e. Is the inﬂuence of the JBNQA on the recreational
hunting/ﬁshing and outﬁtting industry acceptable to
the Québec government?

f. Were the hoped for beneﬁts of the JBNQA realized with
regards to recreational hunting/ﬁshing and outﬁtting?

Signiﬁcance of the StudY
Recreational hunting/ ﬁshing and outﬁtting are important particularly for the
PrOVince of Quebec because they generate tourism and provides opportunities for

economic development. This is especially true for Nouveau-Québec, where there are few

18

tliliCT \ ill“

,.

1101 CTllll'. .

l
91th 1 ill".
resources
hunting. 1':
hunting uri
pnenttes .1

Se

l

pond in
mi} se the

Purposes. A

I!

pfiilil‘m (m

 

 

 

other viable alternatives for economic development (MLCP, 1988; MLCP 1993; Quebec
Government, 1997; Canadian Wildlife Service,199l). Accordingly, Québec’s tourism
plan (1992-93) places emphasis on providing and promoting activities related to natural
resources. This includes activities that are closely linked to nature and wilderness such as
hunting, ﬁshing, snowmobiling, Skiing, and high adventure (e.g. kayaking, hiking). Sport
hunting and ﬁshing and the outﬁtting industry that supports these activities are top
priorities of this plan.

Sessoms (1989) suggests that policy analysis and evaluation have often been
ignored in the ﬁeld of parks and recreation. He feels that it is important to understand,
analyse and evaluate such policies to make sure that they are accomplishing their
purposes. Auger, Laforte & Rondeau (1997) support this, and calling such analysis
"performance evaluation."

Performance evaluation is directly borrowed from the private sector. It relies on
measurable performance goals and accurate measures of performance. In response to
budgetary constraints and to economic, social and political pressures, many national and
regional governments have become more and more oriented toward achieving objectives
and measuring performance. This research focuses on evaluating the effect of the JBNQA

on recreational hunting, ﬁshing and outﬁtting.

l9

A r1919". .v i
Ut.....n
-—-~-
1.
- .3 if.“
lii’lh r) ~ s ,v
lliit~1L3kM

’to
1.1,

C" lTCTL It
The muiorr
75:6 doctrine

and cuttittn

 

 

 

‘lll'ili‘tl are i

ii}

CHAPTER 2

Situation and Literature Review
Outﬁtting in Canada, Quebec and Nouveau-Ouébec
A search through the literature revealed that Quebec recreational hunting/ ﬁshing
and outﬁtting is poorly documented. Tourism, recreation and wildlife journals disclosed
little research activity related to Quebec recreational hunting/ ﬁshing and outﬁtting. In
fact, there were very few studies related to the outﬁtting industry in the U. S. or Canada.
The majority of data available appears to be from government studies. However, from
the documentation that is available, it is clear that Québec recreational hunting/ ﬁshing
and outﬁtting is an important industry.
Typically, Québec outﬁtters offer package deals. The two types of packages
offered are the American and European plan. These plans include the following:
American plan: Lodging and meals
European plan: Only lodging
However, for Nouveau-Québec outﬁtters the following is included:
American plan:
— Round trip air transportation from Montreal or
Quebec
— Insulated and heated lodging (permanent or mobile)
— 3 hot meals a day
— Showers, freezer, and ice

— Boats and unlimited gas

20

European plan:

Topographical maps and radio equipment
Pick-up truck or snowmobile
No weight limit for return trip (2 caribou and ﬁsh

per person)

Round trip air transportation from Montreal or
Québec

Insulated and heated lodging (Permanent or mobile)
Cook, if desired

Showers, freezer, and ice

Boats and unlimited gas

Topographical maps and radio equipment

Pick-up truck or snowmobile

No weight limit for return trip (2 caribou and ﬁsh

per person)

According to MLCP (1991), Québec outﬁtters offer a product that is almost
exclusively oriented towards hunting/ﬁshing. The experiences that are most offered for
ﬁshing are northern pike, brook trout, walleye, Atlantic salmon, ouananiche and arctic
char. For hunting the most frequent opportunities are for black bear, moose, waterfowl
and caribou. In Nouveau-Québec the focus is primarily on caribou, with some ﬁshing.

In Canada, Bartlett (1989) reports that there were about 2,400 outﬁtters and about
2,000 or 80% offered hunting services. Total revenue generated in 1989 was estimated to

be $400 million. Outﬁtters averaged revenue of $97,000 in 1984.

21

int ol‘
me

Olliflii.

mun

 

Thu.

“ages

indude
mmmn
oithesc
cubmt
mman

muha

nudicsi
Outliec
CdUCdUO
Canadiur

Hmemra

lHNOHhc

mmnacu

 

 

As participation in this outdoor recreation industry increases, governments are
involved increasingly in the management and legislation of such activities. The Quebec
Ministry of Hunting, Fishing and Leisure (MLCP, 1988) states that there were 545
outﬁtters in the province of Québec in 1986. The outﬁtters generated 46 million dollars
in revenues, of which $39 million went to operating costs with $6 million left for proﬁts.
Their activities created 2,166 direct jobs and generated $11.5 million in salaries and
wages. The secondary impacts of those outﬁtters were estimated to be $56 million which
included the creation of an additional 1,300 indirect jobs and generated an additional $8
million in salaries and wages. In 1986, 269,917 clients used an outﬁtter in Quebec, and,
of these, 12% used the outﬁtter for hunting. Residents comprised 3/4 of the outﬁtter
customers, and 1/4 were non-residents. This amounted to 178,879 person/days of hunting
with an outﬁtter. Nearly all of those who used outﬁtters for hunting were male (98%),
they had a mean age of 30 years and an average salary of about $34,000.

Martin, P., Parent, A., Poiré, G., & Thifault, G. (1988) use elements from several
studies including MLCP (1988). They state that in 1987, there were 552 outﬁtters in
Quebec and those who used outﬁtters (ﬁshing and hunting) had a higher level of
education (30% have a university education). They were also very likely French
Canadian (92%), their annual income was 30% higher than the Quebec average, and had
a mean age of 41.2 years.

Another study by the MLCP (1990) indicates that in 1988 there were 46 outﬁtters
in Northern Quebec. About 10,000 people hired the Nouveau-Québec outﬁtters. The

main activity was hunting for caribou and moose. About $12 million of revenue were

22

. ,o‘.
Efnel’dl‘
¥

operatit‘f'r

Beuuche
"ntdiur:
{rte Arne"
unit one.
lzcensin;

them out

in

descnhed t

 

pretince.
Canada use

pret‘inees '

generated by the outﬁtters of Nouveau Quebec for an average of about $330,000 per
operation.

Another study of Canadian provinces and selected American states by
Beauchésne (1990), which was only partially completed, indicates that 8 of the 11
Canadian provinces or territories (excluding Quebec) require outﬁtters to be licensed. Of
ﬁve American states (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Ohio) surveyed,
only one, Maine licensed hunting outﬁtters. Overall, the study examined deﬁnitions and
licensing of guides and outﬁtters in these states or provinces, and the criteria used to
obtain outﬁtting licenses. The study was done by conducting interviews with government
employees from each provincial, territorial or state government.

In 1990, a study by Tourism Canada (Tourisme Canada, 1990) established that
there were 3,200 outﬁtters in Canada that offered hunting/ﬁshing activities. This study
described the product offered throughout Canada and the number of outﬁtters per
province. It also examined the importance of the outﬁtter industry in Canada. Tourism
Canada used secondary data that was readily available from the different territories and
provinces. The study deﬁnes an "outﬁtter as an establishment whose primary purpose is
to attract a clientele who wants to practice recreational hunting/ ﬁshing; it must be an
afﬁxed or permanent establishment and must have operated for at least one year". This
study also discusses Native American participation in hunting/ﬁshing outﬁtting.

Given the traditional link that the Native Americans have to hunting/ﬁshing
activities, the general consensus had been that they were greatly involved in the outﬁtting
industry. However, according to this report, Native Americans in Canada own and

operate less than 1 percent of the total outﬁtters in the whole country. The study also

23

neutral?

\tI‘AC l-

pit“ lllCL'

A t

vr ( ’1')T\"
‘A r

u. ‘ L‘“"“

us hired '
In use .111 .

Ar
\ntneuu-l
rchers hur‘.

.cbptllldClll

 

tuture hunt
33.111111 ‘7

'm‘

cheep, Sf
The
recreationu
admit] 1
: JPproxr;
111:
Mi
wktlllil‘i

V

rs. »
ll ed ,
‘wlils;

mentions that there does not seem to be a difference between the services offered by
Native American’s and other outﬁtters.

A study by the MLCP (1991) states that in 1989 there were 600 outﬁtters in the
province of Quebec. About 250,000 people used outﬁtters, logging 850,000 activity days
in Quebec. Outﬁtters hosted 175,000 ﬁsherman and 25,000 hunters from Quebec, while
they received 40,000 ﬁsherman and 10,000 hunters from out-of-province. While outﬁtters
are hired mostly by residents, visiting hunters and anglers are proportionally more likely
to use an outﬁtter than residents.

An MLCP (1993) study on perceptions and attitudes of hunters and ﬁshermen in
Nouveau-Quebec states that 48% of the respondents who hunted used an outﬁtter. The
others hunted on Crown land, private clubs, and parks. Seventy-one percent of the
respondents paid more than $2,000 for their trip to Nouveau-Quebec. Residents paid a
little less than non-residents. When asked how much they would be willing to pay on a
future hunting trip to Nouveau-Quebec, 39% were willing to pay between $2,001 and
$3,000, 27% were willing to pay between $3,001 and $5,000, and 5% were willing to pay
between $5,001 and $10,000.

The Canadian Wildlife Service (1991) estimates that consumer spending on
recreational activities related to wildlife has increased 33% in real dollars between 1981
and 1991. During the same period, the number of participants in such activities increased
by approximately 13%.

Within the province as a whole, Nouveau-Quebec represents an important portion
of the outﬁtter industry. According to MLCP (1989-1990), outﬁtting in Nouveau-Quebec

represents approximately 28% of the provincial outﬁtting revenues. Furthermore, based

24

r‘T -ll'
Oil

M

.__3
(Tu
(

f

outfitter c
1

rah-end .
rations. ’1

location

 

lecerdirg
ruthenreti
on an ugr;
TCISUFIS in:
nrgrtiion L
ctnhttu her

if man} iii.

 

Hon

m1ill-Eli: famr
i

on the same studies, Nouveau-Quebec outﬁtting only represents approximately 4% of the
outﬁtter clients in the province. Consequently, clients of Nouveau-Quebec outﬁts are

hi gh-end customers, spending considerably more money per capita than those in other
regions. This level of spending is inﬂuenced by Nouveau-Quebec’s isolated geographical
location and focus on caribou, a migratory big game species.

The use of mobile camps by Nouveau-Quebec has enhanced caribou harvest.
According to Bazin, L., Leclerc, M., Parent, M., & Vandal, D. (1993), the MLCP
authorized use of temporary shelters for caribou hunting on an experimental basis based
on an agreement with the native parties in the spring of 1983. There were two primary
reasons for the decision. The ﬁrst reason was the faster travel and changes in the
migration corridors exhibited by the caribou (mostly due to the increasing size of the
caribou herd and the availability of food). The second reason was to reduce the existence
of many illegal outﬁtting operations. Because of the size of Nouveau-Quebec, it is very
difﬁcult to prevent people from offering outﬁtting services without licenses. These illegal
outﬁts can take several forms, but the most common is called "Ghost Plane," where
clients are ﬂown in and taken out in the same day. This approach is used for hunting and
ﬁshing, however it is particularly difﬁcult to prevent for ﬁshing.

However, it was not until 1985, that temporary shelters came into limited, legal
use. Finally in 1987 the Quebec government, with the consent of natives, approved

mobile camps for broad use in the principal caribou hunting regions of Nouveau-Quebec.

25

«van. 5""

 

 

COTSISTL‘TT

it it" (E.

 

lil’C '13 Cl
MM l.

ti.l\ Uck
process it

(‘e

 

 

 

with air

hid:

Min litiiic

Policy Anplvsis

A policy can be deﬁned as: "a ‘standing decision’ characterized by behavioural
consistency and repetitiveness on the part of both those who make it and those who abide
by it" (Eulau and Prewitt, 1973). Furthermore, a policy analysis (Williams, 1971) is "a
means of synthesizing information including research results to produce a format for
policy decisions and of determining future needs for policy-relevant information". This
process will help policy analysts and planners improve the quality of their decisions.

Cochran, et a1. (1982) have two approaches to policy study: policy analysis and

policy advocacy.

- Policy analysis is principally concerned with the description and
investigation of how and why particular policies are proposed, adopted,
and implemented. It focuses on explanation rather that prescription, on
searching scientiﬁcally for the causes and consequences of policy, and on
the development of general explanatory propositions.

- Policy advocacy is primarily devoted to examining policies, along with the
alternative policy proposals made in the issue areas, with a view toward
discovery and recommendation of the best course of action. Policy
advocacy draws particularly upon ethical principles and ideological
perspectives.

Many authors argue for the importance of policy analysis. Auger, et al. (1997)

assert policy research (analysis and evaluation) is important for government as it should
be interested in the performance of its policies. Mangun (1992) suggests natural resource

decision makers need to acquire public policy analysis and management skills beyond

26

llitll iCSt'

inzpertu: ‘

 

AC1
thhaneo
till lmpler

Sufi: imple

 

ethics;

.
“Rho
i.‘“

“Til the

1m

in enlior

their resource specializations to address the human dimension of policy issues. This is

important for the following reasons:

1. generates political support necessary to further
programs;
2. serves changing and diverse populations most effectively in an

ethical manner;

3. provides better information for allocation of scarce
resources;
4. minimizes conﬂict.

According to Decker (1992), wildlife managers must consider and evaluate
simultaneously the cultural, economic, political, and ecological components of any policy
they implement in management of the environment. Evaluation measures the results of
such implementation in meeting stated objectives and provides intelligence for ﬁne
tuning or redirecting the process. In addition, evaluation is essential if goals and
objectives are to be revised, new problems identiﬁed, and alternate actions implemented
that better address the current situation. In other words, evaluation is the integral
feedback link that allows management to be an adaptive, responsive process.

Stokey & Zeckhauser (1978) lay out the basic purpose for public policy. They
identify the circumstances in which the government should play a role in allocating the
resources of society, and review brieﬂy the alternative forms that government
intervention might take. Their assertions follow:

1. The purpose of public decisions is to promote the welfare of

society;

27

 

 

 

.lon

 

l-J

Pile:

AC uldt‘lV C

1

.’:.£‘,_
“"‘chd T

fr...
{'1 3‘“!
‘” metl

2. The welfare levels of the individual members of society are the
building blocks for the overall welfare of society;

3. Anything that affects individual welfare therefore affects the
welfare of society. Something that has no effect on individual
welfare levels has no impact on the welfare of society as a whole;

4. With rare exceptions, one Should accept individuals’ own
judgements as the appropriate indicators of their own welfare;

5. An unambiguous procedure is needed for aggregating the welfare
of different individuals so that one can compare the welfare of
society if one policy is followed versus another.

Approaches to Policy Analysis
Jones (1984) has divided policy evaluation models into two broad categories:
1. The traditional, ongoing, less systematic methods of appraisal:
- the budgeting process,

- the auditing process,

presidential commissions,

outside evaluations.

2. The newer, more systematic and scientiﬁc methods associated with
evaluation research.
Peters (1982) has established two disparate types of evaluation. Although they
use widely different measures, both are central in understanding why some policies are
preferred. The ﬁrst approach is economic and quantitative. Although there are a number

of such methods, cost-beneﬁt analysis is most commonly used. Using this approach, a

28

project ‘.

. a

101 llllii 7‘

 

project that produces the greatest net beneﬁt for the society is chosen over other options

for funding. The second approach to policy analysis is ethical. Ethical analysis spreads

the net of human values much more broadly and seeks to apply other forms of valuation

to the outcomes of the policy process.

Ripley (1985) provides sarcastic deﬁnitions for several types of evaluation

studies. Many evaluation efforts, he suggests, can be thought of as one of the following:

1.

The "anecdote pure": what passes for evaluation that emanates
from the government primarily tells stories that are intended to
make the program look good;

The "statistic virtuous": evaluation done in terms of data
availability and data manipulation. These are studies that may be
long and loaded with statistics;

The "multiple efforts inconclusive": these are also called meta-
analysis. This is when there are multiple studies and each
individual study has deﬁnite, concrete ﬁndings. The ﬁndings of the
individual studies may contradict. However, cumulatively, the
bottom line is unknown for one or more reasons;

The "scholar argumentative": some evaluators appear to be setting
out to structure studies that make speciﬁc political arguments;

The "intuition dominant": probably the most common mode of
evaluation uses policy actors and relies on intuition and/or political

ideology.

29

Sfiiitlllé,

 

Ac

 

inc DOlICV

According to Stokey & Zeckhauser (1978), policy analysis consists of three major
sections:

1. "Comerstones" establishes a framework for thinking about
policy problems and making choices.

2. "Nuts and Bolts" focuses on the use of models to represent real-
world phenomena, and the more general use of analytic methods to
aid the entire decision-making process.

3. "Ends and Means" is broader in scope and less technical. It
provides a background against which policy analysis can be
viewed, and considers critical ethical questions: who should make
what policy choices?; on what basis?

According to Patton & Sawicki (1986), policy analysis can occur before or after
the policy has been implemented. These can be divided as follows:

1. After-the-fact analysis
- retrospective: refers to the description and interpretation

of past policies;
- evaluative: refers to program evaluation.

2. Before-the-fact analysis
- predictive: refers to the projection of future states resulting

from adopting particular alternatives;
- prescriptive: refers to analysis that recommends actions

because they bring about a particular result.

30

 

 

 

 

, _
.lﬂdllSiS f

 

.l0t

Models of Policy Analysis

According to Quade (1982) there are ﬁve important elements in the policy

analysis process:
1 .

2.

Problem formulation,

Searching for alternatives,

Forecasting the future environment,
Modelling the impacts of alternatives,
Evaluating, comparing, and ranking the

alternatives.

Jones (1984), cites eleven key points to be used in a policy analysis model.

1.

2.

10.

11.

Perception and Deﬁnition,
Aggregation,
Organization,
Representation,

Agenda Setting,
Formulation,
Legitimization,
Budgeting,
Implementation,
Evaluation,

Adj ustment/Termination.

31

According to Stokey & Zeckhauser (1978), many policy analysts have

experimented with a variety of ways to structure complex problems. They suggest the

following ﬁve-part framework:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Establishing the context,
Laying out the alternatives,
Predicting the consequences,
Valuing the outcomes,

Making a choice.

Suchman (1967) refers to the speciﬁc use of the scientiﬁc method, basic to any

scientiﬁc research effort, for the purpose of making an evaluation. He cites the following

six steps for evaluative research:

1.

2.

Identify the goals to be evaluated;

Analyse the problems with which the activity must cope;

Describe and standardize the activity;

Measure the degree of change in the problem situation that takes
place;

Determine whether the observed change is due to the activity or to
some other cause;

Indication of the durability of the effects.

32

 

 

Ct, ‘. ‘
neuter

Impleinen

Patton & Sawicki (1986) incorporate ideas from a number of overlapping

descriptions of policy analysis with their own experiences in the following six-step

process:

5.

6.

Deﬁne the problem;
Determine evaluation criteria;
Identify alternative policies;
Evaluate alternative policies;
Select the preferred policy;

Implement the preferred policy.

Evaluation as Part of Analysis

Ripley (1985) describes formative evaluation of social policy. This approach is

suited to relatively new policies and is both an evaluation of impact and an evaluation of

implementation.

1.

To describe emerging reality in terms of patterns wherever
possible;

To explain the patterns in terms of both inﬂuences on and causes
for the problem;

To evaluate aspects of the implementation processes and the early
phases of program impact in terms of how well the program is
achieving a variety of goals;

To identify broad policy questions and management questions that
are important and that will recur, and to offer recommendations

based on ﬁndings on those recurring questions.

33

pnncipt‘.

\ - 1 1
LOTTJLq km

 

 

titetipts
coils u: 2

process v»

 

Ti

ill‘ts nip

According to Cochran, et al.(1982) the process of evaluating policy focuses
principally upon the impact of policy, because it is largely from performance and
consequences of policy that we assess its success or failure. Put another way, evaluation
attempts to assess the outcomes of policies in order to compare them with the intended
goals of the policies. It asks whether the goals have been met or have not been met. The

process of evaluating policy involves:

0 Both normative and empirical dimensions,
0 Intended and unintended consequences,

0 Direct policy impact from indirect impact,
0 Direct and indirect costs,

0 Short-term and long-term effects,

0 Symbolic and tangible impacts.

The United States General Accounting Ofﬁce (GAO, 1995) identiﬁes different
types of performance measures used in the United States:
Input: Resources used to carry out a program over a given period;
Output: Amount of work accomplished or services provided over a
given period;
Efﬁciency: Cost of labour or materials per unit of output or service;
Outcome: Extent to which program goals have been achieved or
customer requirements have been satisﬁed.
The Australian Department of Finance and Administration (1998) has its own

deﬁnition of performance outputs and outcomes. Here, outputs are deﬁned as the goods

34

SCI) '

 

and services delivered that help to achieve outcomes. On the whole they can be easily
measured in quantitative terms.
Outcomes are classiﬁed into different levels:

0 High level outcomes deﬁne the long-term results for
customers or for the community of public service activities
and determine how they are linked to government
objectives (they are often called impacts);

0 Intermediate or lower level outcomes give speciﬁc results
in relation to the objectives and clarify whether they have
been achieved or not. This level is about effectiveness. It
hints at an outcome without necessarily measuring the

whole ﬁnal impact.

35

citrate:
encntutzc

eietplicz‘

their stren
qualitatitt

nuclei is n

 

lo

questions ,

CHAPTER 3

Research Methods

According to Majehrzak (1984), policy research should include the following
characteristics: a) multidimensional in focus; b) uses an empirico-inductive research
orientation; c) incorporates the future as well as the past; d) responds to study users; and
e) explicitly incorporates values.

The previous chapter discusses various approaches to policy analysis. All have
their strengths and limitations. However, for the purpose of this study, which involves
qualitative and quantitative measures and is based on speciﬁc research questions, one
model is most appropriate.

Jones (1984), offers a framework which enables this study to answer all the
research questions presented in Chapter 1. He cites 11 key points subdivided into 4
categories to be used in a policy analysis that will best answer the objectives and
questions presented by this study.

Jones Model
Problem to Government
1) Perception and Deﬁnition : Perception is the sense by a stakeholder group
or groups that the current situation could be improved. Deﬁnition is the
clariﬁcation of this discontent.
2) Aggregation : This implies a degree of organization with those of similar

discontent and exploring ways to have concerns systematically addressed.

36

6)

 

Si

(liar-n 4.

3)

4)

5)

Organization : This determines the degree of cohesion within the
stakeholders. Speciﬁcally, it involves performance expectations, internal
division of labour and formalized values.

Representation : This determines how the stakeholders access decision
makers. It is the link between stakeholders and their problems with the
government.

Agenda Setting : This sets the priorities of an issue.

Actions in Government

6)

7)

8)

Formulation : Development of a plan or a proposal to act on a problem or
meet a need.

Legitimization : Legal process by which government programs and
decisions are authorized.

Budgeting : The money that is provided to implement and operate a

program.

Government Progrgam

9)

Implementation: Carrying out the program includes who will administer

the program or decision and how it will be maintained and supported.

Proggam Evaluation

10)

11)

Evaluation : Determine whether the program accomplished stated and
unstated objectives.

Adjustment/Termination : Adjustment is when public problems undergo
change to better meet objectives or objectives are changed. Termination is

when a program or decision is discontinued.

37

sun e} e

\eut ect ..

Kuntins.
of The .l B
(intentn‘

l ,

l‘ :1

greemer:
issue} e‘.
notes of.»
include ll‘
Recherch.
0i hitting
ind socioL.
Th.
iliillt’ieS 01‘
ST‘Clion‘ all
Ace
and GAO (
MSlc’iltlish

i’utrtgor

 

Methods for Collecting Dela

In this policy analysis, a historical review, secondary data, primary data from a
survey of Nouveau-Quebec outﬁtters, and an interview with government managers of
Nouveau-Quebec are used to provide the information for analysis.

The historical review and secondary data (Fitch, 1993; Yin, 1994; Stewart &
Kamins, 1993) are used to examine the evolution, history, negotiations and background
of the JBNQA. This provides information for the "Problem to Government," "Actions in
Government," and "Government to Problems" sections of this dissertation.

This study synthesizes the situating information and actions leading to the
agreements. It includes hearings and proceedings of the legislature, court documents,
agency documents, consultations with the public, Inuit, Cree and Naskapi nations, and
notes of commissions. The information was obtained from a variety of sources which
include the Federal Canadian Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, les
Recherches Amérindiennes au Quebec (Native Research in Quebec), Royal Commission
on Aboriginal People, Sociéte’ Makivik, and studies conducted by native anthropologists
and sociologists such as F eit and La Rusic.

The "Program to Evaluation" portion examines the hunting, ﬁshing and trapping
policies of the JBNQA, speciﬁcally the impact of the agreement on outﬁtting. In this
section, an after-the-fact approach (Patton & Sawicki, 1986) is used.

According to the Australian Department of Finance and Administration (1998)
and GAO (1995), relevant standardized evaluation criteria (outputs and outcomes) must
be established to evaluate policies. In this case, these criteria were established from the

wording of the JBNQA and relevant historical documents.

38

v

MmﬂCTT
”minds .

tt‘uﬂi’ll‘ ‘

Some dam

 

Dipmnir.

tsl Cull”
Question”;
111 axiSllTTE
regionS ext
the Dellam
(lgéhCC Ml
committee-

tucsiiuttndl

 

Trentltsllc'

The
\rtut'eaU-Q
solicit are
1‘ ,. . ‘
.t.t.d S DOT
:ehnrunt' 26
r},

.illid. and ﬁl

:1“

Libiltrs ‘lkh

To be able to conduct the evaluation, secondary data and primary data from the
outﬁtters themselves and government managers of the JBNQA were needed. Three
methods were be used to obtain these data. First, the secondary data were obtained from
a variety of reports maintained in the Québec Ministry of Environment and Fauna library.
Some data were obtained directly from the Ministry of Environment and F auna’s
Department of Northern Affairs and Development.

Second, a survey of Nouveau-Quebec outﬁtters was conducted by the author to
ask current outﬁtters to assess the impact of JBNQA on the outﬁtting industry. A mail
questionnaire was developed to meet this objective. The questionnaire was modiﬁed from
an existing instrument used by the Quebec government for a 1996 study of outﬁtters in all
regions except Nouveau-Quebec. It was developed by the author through the auspices of
the Department of Leisure Studies at the University of Ottawa. It was reviewed by the
Quebec Ministry of Environment, as well as the author’s major professor and guidance
committee. The questionnaire was modiﬁed according to the reviewers’ comments. This
questionnaire was then translated into French because some of the respondents were
French-speaking and some English-speaking (See Appendixes 3, 4, 5 and 6).

The questionnaire and appropriate cover letter were sent by mail to all licensed
Nouveau-Quebec outﬁtters. The list of outﬁtter addresses and telephone numbers is
publicly available and was obtained from the Québec Ministry of Environment and
F auna’s Department of Northern Affairs and Development. The ﬁrst mailing was done
February 26 ,1998. A second mailing was done three weeks later to non-respondent. A
third, and ﬁnal mailing was completed three weeks aﬁer the second mailing to all

outﬁtters who had not yet returned the questionnaire. Before the second and third

39

1
ML‘

 

 

nailing

QLCShtﬁi

and the .
l

COHUUCK.

and Dex .

 

 

 

questionn

mailings, telephone calls were made to non-respondents. Some agreed to ﬁll out the
questionnaire over the phone but the majority wanted a new copy of the questionnaire.
Finally, policy makers directly involved in the management of Nouveau-Quebec
and the implementation application of JBNQA were interviewed. These interviews were
conducted at the Ministry of Environment and Fauna’s Department of Northern Affairs
and Development at 150 René Lévesque in Québec City. The interviews were with
Marcel Nadeau (Assistant-directeur—M.E.F.- Nouveau-Quebec Regional Branch) and
Claude Dépatie (Former directeur-M.E.F.- Nouveau-Quebec Regional Branch). Both
have been involved with Nouveau-Quebec for between 20 and 30 years. M. Dépatie was
actually involved with the JBNQA from the beginning in 1975. The interviews were
conducted by the author and were of an informal nature. The focus was on broad
questions that allowed these experts the opportunity to talk about their experience with
the J BNQA. The questions were based on the same questions included in the outﬁtter

questionnaire. (See appendix 7).

4O

prottsier
shsisteti

ﬁn

lJLgL‘ildiil

Tl
mounce

reaction \\

 

announcer
pmlt‘t‘l. cg
”355 0f hail

iMEETS in

CHAPTER 4

Background and Negotiation of the JBNQA

The JBNQA is the ﬁrst modern aboriginal rights agreement in Canada. It contains
provisions for the recognition of native rights and the maintenance and development of a
subsistence economy. The following is a brief overview of the background and
negotiations surrounding the JBNQA (Table 2)

Problem to Government

The decision to build the James Bay Le Grande hydro-electric project (LG) was
announced by the Premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, in 1971. The initial native
reaction was one of shock as they had not been informed nor consulted before the
announcement (Diamond, 1977). They were also astounded at the proportions of the
project, especially the ﬂooding of 9,000 km2 of native lands (Williams, 1993). They
assessed that this would have a tremendous negative impact on wildlife species due to a
loss of habitat, the disappearance of certain species from speciﬁc areas and behavioural
changes in certain species. Consequently, their hunting, ﬁshing, culture, and economy
would be harmed (SEBJ, 1988). The Crees further believed that the development of this
hydro-electric project would impair the existence of some or all of the Cree settlements
(La Rusic, 1979).

In 1971, the Crees were grouped into eight distinct communities (Vincent &
Bowers, 1987), without a central government. Their only unifying association was a

coalition of all Québec aboriginal bands, whose tribal and band leaders met sporadically

41

Wu‘
1

‘h~
(\gr‘“

\ em

in...
”Mk
Trent "v

r’ ., _
'11.:ng

3:913:31“

lF..,',

‘Il‘ I(

Table 2

Chronology of Events Leading to The JBNQA

 

Date

Event

 

April 1971

May 1971

December 1971

January 1972

May 1972

August 1972
October 1972
October 1972

December 1972 to May 1973

November 1973

November 1973

November 1973

February 1974 to November
1975

November 1975

Premier Bourassa announces James Bay Hydroelectric project.

Cree attorneys inform the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
that the project jeopardizes native rights.

The Quebec Government created the Société d’énergie de la Baie James
(SEBJ) to develop the hydroelectric project.

The Quebec Minister of Natural Resources rejects a compensation
proposal put forward by the Cree Lawyers.

Indians and Inuits ﬁle proceedings for an injunction.
Work starts on LG2
Crees and Inuits have an unsatisfactory meeting with Premier Bourassa

The Québec Association of Indians (IQA) applied to the Québec
Superior Court for an injunction to stop construction work of the James
Bay Hydroelectric Project.

For a period of 71 days, Judge Albert Malouf listen to the case.

Judge Malouf grants the injunction and orders a halt to work on the
project.

Premier Bourassa submits a proposal to the Cree and Inuit
representatives

An appeals court suspends the Malouf Judgement

Negotiations are undertaken; IQA also undertake consultation with
communities regarding offers and negotiations

The JBNQA is signed.

 

Source: Williams, 1993; Vincent and Bowers, 1987; Feit, 1981; and LaRusic, 1979.

every year. However, when the Cree were confronted with this new threat, the nature of

this association did not meet their needs (Vincent & Bowers, 1987).

The Cree’s ﬁrst response to the LG announcement was the establishment of

friendship linkages among the eight Cree bands potentially affected by the hydro project

(Feit, 1980). This was the beginning of a long process that developed an effective, uniﬁed

42

1‘ ' «1"
:‘Ollllku
11116.06?

n
911113111.

1h1351t...

 

19‘211

They aim.
the proj:

negotrhh

 

ilﬂilfCepr,

I
modified

'Dldmont

political organization and leadership. The Cree agreed to ask the Canadian government to
intervene on their behalf to protect Cree lands (Diamond, 1977). However, the federal
govemment’s policy was not to intervene directly on behalf of the native peoples, since
this situation was developing on crown land, which is under provincial jurisdiction (Bird,
1972). The Canadian government instead provided interest-free loans to pay for native
legal fees, court costs, and negotiations.

In 1972, the Cree started to conduct research about potential LG project impacts.
They also opened negotiations with the governments of Canada and Québec concerning
the project (Salisbury, 1986). Quebec’s original position was that the project was not
negotiable because the natives had no special rights (Salisbury, 1986). This position was
unacceptable to the Cree (F eit, 1980), and they were determined that the project be
modiﬁed in a way that would limit negative impacts or provide acceptable trade-offs
(Diamond, 1977).

During 1972, the Cree were joined by the Inuit in their struggle (Feit, 1980).
They ﬁled suit against the government of Quebec and the Société d’Energie de la Baie
James to stop the construction of the project (F eit, 1980). They hoped that by taking this
action, real pressure would be put on the Québec government to start discussing serious
modiﬁcations to the project which would allow the natives of Nouveau-Quebec to
maintain the hunters’ way of life (Vincent & Bowers, 1987).

To add credibility to these actions, the Cree and Inuit hired researchers to
document their reliance on fauna and on natural resources (Makivik Corporation, 1985) .
These scientists were also asked to consider the likely consequences of this project on

the natives and their lifestyles (Salisbury, et al. 1972). Using the results from these

43

ﬂCObCl

:helr pt»

the legal
the} 1111i
ertlngus
territorial
indigent);
has felt 11

prmincia‘

 

liltf 11$. 0

Th
P7011131 1‘ \f
llﬁgcngu
Instead Of

1111 that

311113115 or

studies, the Cree and Inuit continued negotiations with Québec (F eit, 1980). Even with
these new data, Quebec continued to refuse to make changes to the project (Salisbury,
1986).

Actions in Government

The native peoples managed to set up a meeting with Premier Bourassa in
October 1972 (Diamond, 1977). However, they were not given the opportunity to present
their position and the meeting was cut short. Following this and several other
unsatisfactory episodes with provincial leaders, the Cree and Inuit decided to accelerate
the legal process (Vincent & Bowers,1987). The Cree and Inuit lawyers believed that
they had strong legal basis for the action since the natives’ rights had never been
extinguished by treaty (La Rusic, 1979). Further, a 1971 Royal Commission on the
ten'itorial integrity of the boundaries of Québec had reported on the potential rights of the
indigenous peoples. However, they did not believe they could stop the project entirely. It
was felt that the size and the political dimensions of the project were so substantial that
provincial and energy company lawyers could portray the native peoples as standing in
the way of Québec’s autonomy and economic progress (Vincent & Bowers,1987).

The Cree and Inuit were hoping for a temporary court injunction against the
project (Makivik Corporation, 1985). This was based on their contention fact that the
indigenous peoples would suffer irreversible harm while awaiting their day in court.
Instead of a temporary injunction, Mr. Justice Malouf of the Québec Superior Court,
ruled that the actual court hearings would begin in a matter of weeks instead of in several

months or years (Vincent & Bowers, 1987).

44

As mentioned by Penn (1975), part of the court’s verdict would hang on the

question of equity: which stakeholder would suffer the most damages if the project were

to continue or be halted? Hence, in some respects the court review acted as an impact

assessment evaluation. It would differentiate between the value of native ways of life

versus the economic and social needs of the Province of Québec.

The government of Quebec argued that (Feit, 1980):

1.

The indigenous peoples had no unique rights and were
people just like other Canadians. They no longer had a
distinctive way of life; consequently, the province was in
no way obligated to provide them with "special" treatment.
Reserve lands had already been set aside for the natives.
They had alternative hunting locations such as other Crown

(provincial)lands.

Native people argued that (Feit, 1980):

1.

Non-natives were trespassers as they owned the land by
treaty. Therefore, all development not approved by native
government could be excluded.

The Cree and Inuit had speciﬁc rights based on their
occupancy of the land for over 10,000 years, much longer
than the European-descended Québec government.

Their hunting and land use activities were important and

constituted the principal element of their way of life.

45

4. Their diet was dependent on wildlife, and their participation
in the market economy was dependent on the sale of furs.

5. They had a unique concept of the land, and that any
interference with the land would compromise their
existence as a people.

Justice Malouf released his decision in late 1973. His ruling granted an injunction,
and work on LG was stopped immediately (Vincent & Bowers,1987). Moreover, the
judge ruled that the Cree and Inuit had rights over the territory. Consequently, the
Province of Québec was not allowed to develop without ﬁrst making an accord with the
Cree and the Inuit (Malouf, 1973). This judgement was appealed immediately by the
Quebec government to the Québec Court of Appeals. Within a week of the Malouf
ruling, the injunction was suspended (Vincent & Bowers, 1987).

The Malouf judgment made it impossible for Québec to ignore the Cree and Inuit
case (La Rusic, 1979). Because of everything involved in a project of this magnitude, the
Québec government could not afford another work stoppage and it could certainly not
risk another negative court ruling (La Rusic, 1979). Consequently, within one week of
the original Malouf ruling, which was against the province, Quebec announced that it was
willing to negotiate, and submitted a proposal to the natives (Vincent & Bowers,1987).
As presented by Premier Bourassa (Bourassa 1974), the proposal addressed two issues:

- The offer of a renewed relationship between the indigenous
peoples and the government through the natives active

involvement in the development of the region;

46

COl'lllllUt‘
mun C115
Till?) d1)

Cillllillllt‘

to 16111?“
1.“. negoti;
031L111 acti
l'lCanad;

Arc

‘Tllfned ne

 

- Modiﬁcations to the project. These were changes warranted
by continuing engineering and cost optimization studies,
with some reduction on impacts to areas critical to the Cree.

This proposal was the starting point for the negotiations of the JBNQA. Now the

Cree and Inuit were faced with a dilemma (Feit, 1980). On the one hand, should they
continue opposing the project and continue their actions through the courts? Pursuing the
court cases had several advantages and risks. They could win, but they could also lose.
They also did not have complete control of the situation. On the other hand, they could
continue with the negotiations. This had a distinct advantage in that it allowed the
indigenous people to have more control of their destiny. To this end, Cree and Inuit chose
to renew negotiations (F eit, 1980; Diamond, 1977). However, because of past experience
in negotiations with provincial ofﬁcials, the Cree and Inuit decided not to abandon their
court actions, but to keep them as a potential back-up. They petitioned the Supreme Court
of Canada for leave to proceed with the permanent injunction (La Rusic, 1979).

According to Diamond (1977), the ﬁrst action of the Cree and Inuit when they re-
opened negotiations was to reject Premier Bourassa's two-theme proposal for the

following reasons (Feit, 1980):

It contained inadequate land provisions;

- It did not provide adequate recognition of native hunting,
ﬁshing and trapping rights and environmental protection;

- Proposed modiﬁcations to the project and proposals for

remedial and compensatory measures were inadequate;

47

l‘lhlll:

The

 

 

”(‘SOllal

- The proposal failed to provide for sufﬁcient local and
regional autonomy and self-determination.
The Cree countered with their own counter-proposal, which they entitled, "Our
Land, Our Demand." With this document, they seized the initiative to specify the extent
and themes of the negotiations (Diamond, 1977).
The re~opened negotiations were organized basically as a two-stage process (Feit,
1980):
1. Reach an agreement in principle;
2. Proceed to a ﬁnal, detailed agreement.
The negotiations were organized around ﬁve parties (Vincent and Bowers,1987):

the Cree,

the Inuit,

the Government of Québec,

the Government of Canada,
- Société d’Energie de la Baie James (Hydro-Quebec).
The government of Quebec and Quebec crown-corporations had six ﬁrm
negotiating objectives (Feit, 1980):
1. Maintain and extend jurisdiction and authority over the northern regions of
the province;
2. Open the territory for controlled development;
3. The settlement must create no more than a politically acceptable level of
opposition among Canadians of European ancestry;

4. Any outstanding aboriginal rights claims must be extinguished;

48

pawn?

ri\‘\ 1.1 L
V

5. The economic viability of the hydroelectric project must not be

compromised and the economic costs of concessions be minimized;

6. There be no royalties provisions, although a lump sum compensation in

place of royalties was acceptable.

The Government of Canada was not an active participant during most of the

negotiations. It only intervened at the end to impose three conditions (Feit, 1980):

1.

That the ﬁnal jurisdiction of the federal government over Indian
affairs be maintained, although it was preferable if continued
federal jurisdiction was coupled with a turning over of
administrative responsibilities (including some sharing of ﬁnancial
responsibilities) to subordinate levels of government or to the
indigenous peoples themselves;

Federal jurisdiction within Que’bec would not be reduced;

No precedents should be set in the northern Québec negotiations
that would compromise the federal government in the settlement of

land claims elsewhere in Canada.

The Cree and Inuit position included the following elements (Feit, 1980):

1.

Any agreement must permit the continuation of hunting and
subsistence economies and regulate future development;
Projects be modiﬁed and remedial measures taken to reduce the

impacts of the hydroelectric project;

49

 

‘ .

ethlhct.
111121111 lira
411121111511
free and

"iSilUTCC‘S

3. Sufﬁcient land be set aside for the Cree and Inuit to protect their
communities and some of their most important wildlife harvesting
sites and activities;

4. Control over basic administrative services, programs and new
regional structures be turned over to the Cree and Inuit with
extensive local autonomy well beyond that normally given
municipal governments but with funding from provincial or federal
governments;

5. A balance be struck between the rights and beneﬁts connected with
the land and the rights and beneﬁts provided to native peoples who
no longer depended directly on the land but who needed new
economic opportunities; and,

6. There be sufﬁcient monetary compensation so funds could be
invested and protected for future generations while providing
adequate monies for the costs of implementing the other
objectives.

These positions demonstrate that there were points of agreement and areas of
conﬂict. The key areas of conﬂict were: control of development activity; project
modiﬁcation; transfers of land from Quebec to Cree and Inuit control; transfer of regional
administrative powers and control over basic resources (such as wildlife) from Québec to
Cree and Inuit institutions; royalties; and an adequate protection of hunting rights,

resources, and opportunities (Feit, 1980).

50

r115 11'

.L-vl 1
\..'-..1l‘.

parties 1

sections

 

The ﬁnal negotiated agreement provided satisfactory solutions for some of the key
areas of conﬂict, but not for all of them. At that point the Cree and Inuit had to decide
whether the package as a whole was enough to ensure and build their ﬁitures (La Rusic,
1979).

Governmental Program

In areas in which there was agreement, the broad outlines of the positions of all
parties were spelled out in an "Agreement in Principle." This document had four main
sections (Feit, 1980):

- General principles for hunting, ﬁshing, and trapping
policies;

- Modiﬁcations to the hydroelectric project and the
associated compensatory and remedial measures;

- Size and principles for land allocations; and

- Compensation to be paid.

One provision of the Agreement in Principle was that a ﬁnal agreement would be
signed within a year (La Rusic, 1979). The purposes of the negotiations for the ﬁnal
agreement were to clarify and specify the agreement in principle and to provide a legally
explicit and binding framework (Vincent & Bowers, 1987).

To accomplish this work, committees were created. They included committees on
(Feit, 1980):

- Project modiﬁcations,
- Hunting, ﬁshing, and trapping,

- Environmental protection,

51

 

 

 

4966mm

 

thirty bills
i115 Signer

P111111 11):

 

- Land selection,

- Local and regional government,
- Economic development,

- Income security for hunters,

- Legal entities,

- Taxation and compensation,

- Education,

- Health,

- Police and justice, and

Eligibility (who would qualify for inclusion in the agreement).

Each of these committees outlined and drafted a section of the ﬁnal agreement.
The sections were then presented to the negotiating committee for ﬁnal approval. The
agreement had force of law when it was ﬁnally passed by Québec legislature. Close to
thirty bills were necessary to implement all the provisions of the agreement. Only after
this agreement was legislated did the Cree and Inuit ﬁnally drop their court case (La
Rusic, 1979).

The ﬁnal agreement was signed in November 1975. The terms of the JBNQA
were implemented without delay . The agreement contains several innovative measures
and conditions which need to be evaluated. These include (Feit, 1980):

- A guaranteed income security program for people who live by
hunting, ﬁshing and trapping as a way of life;
- Establishment of a series of permanent, preferential, exclusive and

mandatory consultative bodies of government and Cree and Inuit

52

experts to supervise and implement speciﬁc hunting, ﬁshing,
trapping, and environmental provisions of the agreement;
Legally binding principles and operational rules to govern the
exercise of governmental authority over wildlife and the
environment and recognition of the Cree system of land use and
control;

A guaranteed allocation of wildlife to the indigenous peoples;
Cree and Inuit administration and control of social services and
local governments and structures; and

New legislation replacing the federal Indian Act with a Cree

designed Cree Act.

53

Blh dne
I
lanes 11

.lhhual :

 

 

1111111 ()1
the llldll.
MEGA]
Xaslhpi
111111;
1311 top

[lapping

iig‘cem

.lgreen
1.1.1111.
{hcse a

I4711101

(11-

CHAPTER 5

Highlights of the JBNQA

The information presented in this section comes from several sources: The James
Bay and Northern Québec Agreement and Complimentary Agreements (1997), The
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Québec Agreement -
Annual report (1993-94—95), and MLCP (1990).

The JBNQA, signed on November 11, 1975, has set out the rights and obligations
of the Québec government and those of the Crees and Inuits regarding the territory and
the management of its resources. A second agreement, Northeastern Québec Agreement
(NEQA), was signed on January 31, 1978 and recognizes rights and obligations for the
Naskapis that are comparable to those found in the J BNQA. The "Act respecting hunting
and ﬁshing rights in the James Bay and Nouveau-Quebec territories" gave the force of
law to most of the provisions of both agreements in matters of hunting, ﬁshing and
trapping. The land rules and the hunting, ﬁshing and trapping rules described in the
agreements also effect the development of outﬁtter establishments.

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec
Agreement (N EQA) have opened the way for a new kind of relationship between the
Quebec government and the native peoples of Nouveau-Quebec. Under the terms of
these agreements, the native peoples in the region have exchanged their claims, rights and
territorial interests for other rights and beneﬁts as speciﬁed in the agreements.

The compensation received by the native communities included a payment of

$225 million under the JBNQA and $9 million under the NEQA. They are also entitled

54

:11. a 11:1:
comhh ..
03 heat;

L‘Oflfli‘t'h

 

to a range of services and programs to which the federal and provincial governments
contribute annually. Additional lump sum payments have also been provided as a result
of treaty implementation agreements and speciﬁc agreements, most of which are
connected with a complementary agreement to the JBNQA.

The Cree have received:

- $50 million under the Chisasibi Agreement (1978);

- $25.5 million under the Sakami Lake Agreement (1979);

- $112 million under the La Grande Agreement (1986);

- $18 million under the Mercury Agreement (1986);

- $50 million (for the Chisasibi and Wemindji communities) under the

Opimiscow-La Grande Agreement (1992).

The Inuit have received:

- $48 million under the Kuujjuak Agreement (1988);

- $22.8 million under the JBNQA Implementation Agreement (1990).

The Naskapi have received:

- $1.7 million under the NEQA Implementation Agreement (1990).

The 1975 ﬁnal agreement also gives native peoples rights and control over certain
elements of their communities and lifestyles such as land, environmental and social
protection, economic development, education, hunting, ﬁshing and trapping, and local
and regional administrations. This paper focuses on lands and hunting, ﬁshing and

trapping rights as they relate to outﬁtting.

55

~11. ‘
dkltttil

Smihi1

”B"lh

'V
1.1 91-"
C“ \ M'-

rider.

?90ple

Lands

The JBNQA establishes three categories of land for the territories included in the
agreements (See Figure 2 and appendix 1). It also speciﬁes the total areas of land and the
rights in each category. Category I lands cover a rather limited area (13,023 kmz). They
are the lands in and around the communities where the native people normally reside.
This includes the village limits of 8 Cree, 14 Inuit, and 1 Naskapi village. These are
lands allocated to the local native people for their exclusive use.

Category I lands are set aside exclusively for the native communities that are
actual signatories to the two agreements. Cree and Naskapi Category I lands are ﬁirther
subdivided into categories IA and IB: "A" for lands under the jurisdiction of Canada, and
"B" for those under the Province of Quebec. Lands under federal jurisdiction are
governed by native institutions as deﬁned in the Cree-Naskapi (of Québec) Act. Lands
under Quebec’s jurisdiction are governed by corporations composed exclusively of native
people.

Category 11 includes 155,696km2 that directly surrounds certain villages and
traditional hunting and ﬁshing lands (Category I lands). They also provide an exclusive
territory for hunting/ﬁshing activities for the local population. This means that the natives
are the only ones with hunting, ﬁshing and trapping rights, but there are no special right

of occupancy as there are in Category I lands.

56

Figure

A

t 1191'-
Lus-‘

___.~—

 

 

Figure 2

Categories of Land

 

 

 

 

 

0 Category I
D Category II

The rest Category H1

57

16.1611 1

 

hrre ch

    

HO“ C\ K:

 

NH“ 13111

l\ tor?
2'13ij

Category II lands also come under provincial jurisdiction, but the native people
participate in the management of hunting, ﬁshing, trapping and the development of game
reserves. They also have exclusive hunting, ﬁshing and trapping rights on these lands.

Category III covers the rest of the territory in Nouveau-Quebec (approximately 1
million kmz). In this vast area the native people participate in the administration and they
enjoy a pre-emptive right over the development of the territory until the year 2015. They
have exclusive rights to harvest of fur-bearing animals and some non-game ﬁsh species.
However, hunting/ﬁshing can also be practiced by non-natives and natives from across
Nouveau-Quebec. The entire population of Québec has access to and the use of these
lands in accordance with the ordinary laws and regulations of Quebec concerning public
lands and wildlife.

The JBNQA and the NEQA identify approximately 14,000 square kilometers of
territory as Category I lands, about 1% of Quebec’s total area, 150,000 square kilometers
as Category II lands, about 8% of Quebec’s total area and one million square kilometers
as Category III lands, about 58% of Quebec’s total area.

Hunting, Fishing and Trapping

The JBNQA deﬁnes all of the rights, privileges and obligations of the native and
non-native peoples with regards to hunting, ﬁshing, and trapping activities in the
territory. It is based on the conservation principle, namely the search for the optimal
productivity of all living resources in perpetuity, the protection of eco-systems to
safeguard threatened species and the perpetuation of the traditional resource harvest and
use activities of the native people. Secondarily and subserviently, the satisfaction of non-

native sport anglers and hunters is taken into account.

58

 

Mic-ill;

 

material‘
rresrrlr.
ihro C011

txelrrsn

C0171mm

Direct effects of the JBNQA on outﬁtters are: the recognized harvesting right of
the native people, guaranteed harvesting levels for native subsistence, economic gain and
clients, that hunting/ﬁshing for non-native peoples is subservient to native rights, speciﬁc
rules for outﬁtter establishment. This paper focusses on policies in these areas and their
effect on tourism, recreational hunting/ ﬁshing and outﬁtting in Nouveau-Quebec (See
Appendix 2 for the speciﬁc rules).

Wildlife Resource Harvesting Rights

The agreements and the act recognize that natives can hunt, ﬁsh, and trap all
wildlife species, anywhere on the territory, at any time of the year, using all necessary
materials with the exception of materials that are deemed dangerous to public safety. As
a result, every native person may exercise his/her harvest right, without having to take
into consideration the activities of outﬁtter establishments. This right also includes
exclusive trapping rights. Furthermore, natives have the exclusive right to operate
commercial hunting and ﬁshing on Category I and II lands, as well as for the species that
are reserved for them on Category III lands.

Outﬁtter Establishment Procedures

All Quebec outﬁtters must follow certain procedures (Ministere de
l‘Environnement et de la Faune, 1998). However, Nouveau-Quebec has additional,
speciﬁc regulations. Generally, the rules for outﬁtting establishments are considered the
main means of controlling hunting and ﬁshing activities by non-natives in Nouveau-
Quebec. Furthermore, the Act stipulates that Quebec must make an effort to require non-
native hunters and ﬁshermen to use outﬁtter establishments or be accompanied by native

guides. These are discussed in the following sections.

59

11111111

quesrre‘

the 111A

 

All Québec outﬁtters must get a outﬁtter operating license from the Ministry of

Environment and Fauna. To get this license the prospective outﬁtter must complete a

questionnaire provided by the Ministry of Environment and Fauna. On this questionnaire

the following information must be provided (Ministere de l’Environnement et de la

Faune,]998)

Name and address;

Owner or renter; if renter name and address of owner;

Name and address of outﬁt;

Payment for the cost of license, (cost is set by the ministry and
varies from year to year);

Assurances that outﬁts’ infrastructures and superstructures are in

accordance with the norms set by the ministry.

The application then goes through a series of steps (Ministere de l’Environnement

et de la Faune, 1998):

Complete the questionnaire;

Validation of the application by the members of the committee
responsible for reviewing outﬁtter applications;

Ministry of Environment and Fauna approves the holding of public
hearings on the application;

Input from stakeholders is provided at public hearings;

Committee responsible for reviewing outﬁtter applications
modiﬁes the application based on input from stakeholders and

ﬁnalize the application;

60

13:11 j

— Ministry of Environment and Fauna approves the ﬁnale version of
the application.

There are no speciﬁc guidelines available for the previous steps (Ministére de
l’Environnement et de la F aune, 1998). Furthermore, after successfully going through all
of these steps, an outﬁtter’s license will have the following information (Ministere de
l'Environnement et de la Faune, 1998):

Name and address of the license holder, the business address for

the outﬁtter;
— License number and the dates of emission and expiration;
— Territory of exploitation;
- Number of lodging unites and the lodging capacity;
—— For Nouveau-Quebec, the activities permitted by the outﬁtter.
The license is valid for one year, generally, from April 1 to March 31 of the
following year. The license is renewable if the outﬁtter completes these steps:
— Submit a renewal form to the Ministry of Environment and Fauna;
— Payment for the cost of the renewing the license;
— Has completed the appropriate reports required by the Ministry of
Environment and Fauna within the proper delays.
In Nouveau-Quebec outﬁtters must complete an additional step. Their application

must also go through a Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Coordinating Committee.

The committee was created under section 24.4 (appendix 2) of the James Bay and
Northern Québec Agreement. It is an organization composed of Native and government

representatives. Its main role is to study, administer and, in certain cases. supervise and

61

xnmr
rh1ﬂhtf
than
Emhc’

COHSCIK

Th6 p101

1111:1111-1-
lmdbg
C£Cuor

Starllhe

 

O

regulate the hunting, ﬁshing and trapping regime, and, in particular, the outﬁtter
establishment regime. The committee recognizes that one of its functions is to establish
in the territory a network of outﬁtter establishments meeting the needs of non-Native
persons. To this end, the applications for the issue, renewal or transfer of licences, leases
or other authorizations related to outﬁtter establishments are submitted to the committee

for examination and recommendation before a decision is made by the Ministry of
Environment and Fauna. The committee’s examination takes into consideration the

conservation principle as well as the rights and guarantees granted to the native people by
the provisions of the hunting, ﬁshing and trapping regime.

On Category I and II lands, natives have exclusive rights to set up and operate
outﬁtter establishments. If a non-native outﬁtter was operating a business on Category 11
land before the JBNQA, or if a non-native person wants to start an outﬁtting business on
Category II land, he or she must negotiate directly with the native peoples to maintain or
start the outﬁtting business.

Moreover, natives are also allowed to establish outﬁts throughout the rest of the
territory (Category 111). However, they must respect zones of native priority use (See map
3). Crees, Inuits and Naskapis have zones that are prioritized for them based on their
traditional hunting and ﬁshing territories. Any non-natives wishing to operate an outﬁtter
establishment on these lands must obtain the consent of the native administration in
charge (See section 24.9 of the agreement in Appendix 2).

On Category III lands, the rules give natives people a right of ﬁrst choice when
setting up or transferring outﬁtter establishments until November 10, 2015 as follows

(Appendix 2; section 24.9.3):

62

Within their respective areas of interest for the Hunting, Fishing and

Trapping Regime, the Native people shall have a right of ﬁrst refusal to operate as

outﬁtters in Category III for a period of forty (40) years from the execution of the

Agreement.

This right means that a non-native who wishes to set up an outﬁt establishment on
Category III land must present the project to the Ministry of Environment and Fauna. The
project is then submitted by the Ministry to the Coordinating committee who then brings
the project to the native community in question (See Figure 3). The latter may then
exercise its preemptive right on the contemplated site. However, native people may only
exercise this right on a maximum of seven out of ten applications (Appendix 2; section
24.9.6):

Notwithstanding paragraph 24.9.3 the Native people shall not exercise the right of

ﬁrst refusal referred to in the said paragraph with respect to at least three (3) non-

Native applications out of every ten (10) applications respecting outﬁtting

operations in Category III. The Coordinating Committee shall oversee the

implementation of the terms of this paragraph and shall inform the parties from
time to time as to the requirements for such implementation.

The Québec government developed administrative rules that helped in the
application of the 7 of 10 rule. The procedure, as developed based on the MLCP’s
interpretation, went as follows: for every 10 applications for an outﬁtter license in
Nouveau-Quebec by non-natives, 7 were presented for review to the native parties in
question. The 3 others were given licenses without submitting to the natives, since natives

could only use the right of ﬁrst refusal on 7 of 10 applications. However, the natives did

63

1101 U11.

@1111.

11.111 .\1
11111;
1131811111!
the 111111; 1

COman".

 

not understand the ruling in the same way, they believe that all non-native Nouveau-
Québec outﬁtter applications must be submitted to the natives.

The dispute over the interpretation was heard in front of the Honorable Judge
André Savoie and his ruling, based on the wording of the JBNQA, declared that the
procedures developed by the Ministry of Hunting, Fishing and Leisure (MLCP) illegal.
The result of this confusion and trial was a moratorium on the establishment of new
outﬁts between 1975 and 1987. During this time, little if no outﬁtter development was
done by either natives and non-natives.
Guaranteed Harvesting Levels for the Natives

This provision of the Act respecting hunting and ﬁshing rights in the James Bay
and Nouveau-Quebec Territories guarantees the native peoples minimal harvest levels of
wildlife sufﬁcient subsistence, when the animal populations permit. These levels were
determined through negotiation and are based on analysis of previous harvests made by
the native people (James Bay and Northern Québec Native Harvesting Research

Committee, 1982).

64

Figure 3

Zones of Native Priorig Use

 

 

NASKAPIS

 

 

65

 

11111::
the res
rishirrg
hhmg?

h101i

 

 

CHAPTER 6

Results

This section covers part of the "Program to Government" section of the Jones

model excluding evaluation. That section is presented in Chapter 7. This chapter presents

the results of this study, beginning with trends in outﬁtting and recreational hunting and

ﬁshing in Nouveau—Quebec using secondary data. It also explores the relationship

through primary data of outﬁtters with the JBNQA. Trends examined include the

following:

Client trends (trends in caribou license sales sporting
caribou harvest; number of outﬁtter clients; number of
outﬁtter clients by zone);

Caribou numbers;

Guaranteed harvesting levels for native communities;
Outﬁtter trends (number of outﬁtters; number of
outﬁtters by zone; number of outﬁtters by category of
land);

Revenue of Nouveau Quebec-outﬁtters;

Mobile camp operations (number of outﬁtters operating in
Zone 23; number of mobile camps operating in Zone 23;
number of clients using mobile camps; caribou and ﬁsh

harvesting from mobile and permanent camps).

66

Client Trends

Outﬁtting was not ofﬁcially recognized in Nouveau-Quebec until 1957, when the
ﬁrst tourist was noted in the James Bay region (Paré, 1972). However, it was not until
1965 that tourists started coming to Nouveau-Quebec in any numbers. Information is
sketchy, but according to Paré (1972), 16 tourists were identiﬁed by the Ministry of
Indian Affairs in 1965. In 1966, there were 96, in 1968 there were 196, in 1969 there
were 498, and in 1970 there were 610.
Trends in Caribou License Sales

The number of resident and non-resident caribou hunting licenses in Québec
increased steadily from 1975 to 1996 (Table 3). Since 1975 (JBNQA, the proportion of
non-resident caribou hunters has increased in relation to resident hunters. Furthermore,
there has been a more rapid growth of the total number of caribou hunters between 1987
(8,100 licenses sold) and 1996 (15,753 licenses sold). This growth can partially be
explained by the opening of a winter hunting season in which makes hunting caribou
more accessible, since the region where the winter hunt takes place is accessible by car.

Between the years of 1974 and 1975 (Table 3), there was a decrease in the number
of caribou license sales; from 6,012 licenses sold in 1974 to 2,560 licenses sold in 1975.
The decrease was most noticeable for non-residents, where license sales went from 3,288
licenses in 1974 to 358 licenses sold in 1975. The decrease was not as great
proportionally for the residents, going from 2,702 licenses sold in 1974 to 2,202 licenses
sold in 1975. This is noteworthy because it occurred the same year that JBNQA was put
into place. Furthermore, the non-resident license sales drop was due mostly to the

implementation of a new way to sell licenses to these hunters. Previously the non-resident

67

Table 3

Caribou Sport Hunting Licenses and Animals Harvested (1973-1996)

 

 

Years # of Resident # of Non-resident Total # of # of Caribou
1973 1775 3224 4999 1231
1974 2724 3288 6012 1768
1975a 2202 358 2560 1437
1976 2525 330 2885 1735
1977 2359 343 2702 1663
1978 2512 467 2979 1946
1979 2794 698 3492 2463
1980 3890 665 4555 2939
1981 4805 827 5632 3440
1982 3700 839 4539 2939
1983b 2905 858 3763 4086
1984 3488 1256 4744 4161
1985 3338 1764 5102 6310
1986 3923 2708 6631 8898
1987 4414 3686 8100 8789
1988 3647 3780 7427 9038
1989 4043 4436 8479 9090
1990 5150 4904 10054 12710
1991 5118 4145 9263 11546
1992 5115 4258 9373 11591
1993 5078 4686 9764 12941
1994 5509 4835 10344 12791
1995 6900 5590 12490 14746
1996 9436 6317 15753 16541

 

Source: M.E.F. - Lamontagne et Gignac -1997
a Non-resident license sold for caribou hunting only.
b Starting in 1983, hunters are permitted to harvest two caribou.

68

 

 

ill 115-Q1
11.111111

hunters

 

 

would buy a license that could be used for all big game. However, starting in 1975, non-
residents were sold licenses that were speciﬁc to the game that they were hunting.
Consequently, the counts made before 1975 were all for big game licences, after 1975
they were of caribou only licences.
Sporting Caribou Harvest

Quebec caribou hunters have been permitted to take two animals per season since
1983. Even though the number of caribou harvested per caribou hunting license sold has
increased since 1983, there has been no noticeable effect on the caribou herd (Table 3). In
fact, the 1996 sporting caribou harvest is the highest ever recorded with 16,541 caribou
taken. There were 7,953 caribou harvested during the winter hunt and 8,588 caribou taken
during the traditional autumn hunt. The winter hunt takes place in Zones 22 and 23, while
the autumn hunt takes place almost exclusively in Zone 23.
Number of Outﬁtter Clients

The number of outﬁtter clients has increased since 1971 (Table 4), 2,046 in 1971
to 15,991 in 1996. This represents an increase of about 100 clients per outﬁtter per year.
Hunting caribou is the most important outﬁtter activity; in 1996 there were 10,764

hunters as compared to 5,227 ﬁshermen.

69

 

 

 

5.11111}; 1

11113113.

 

 

Table 4

Number of Outﬁtter Clients in Nouveau-Quebec U97L1988g1990, 1996).

 

 

Year Hunting Clients * Fishing Clients Total Clients
1971a n/a n/a 2,046
1988b 5,811 4,164 9,975
1990b 6,291 3,824 10,115
1996b 10,764 5,227 15,991

 

a m : Pare (1972).
b S_op_rp§ : M.E.F. - Nouveau-Quebec Regional Branch.
* Also do some ﬁshing when not hunting.
Number of Outﬁtter Clients by Zone
The act concerning conservation and development of wildlife provides certain
regulations which affect ﬁshing and hunting activities. Under this act, Québec has been
divided into 25 zones to which hunting and ﬁshing regulations apply. Nouveau-Quebec
includes four of these zones (see Figure 4), each with its own speciﬁc regulations. In this
study, three zones are considered: Zones 17, 22 and 23. Zone 24 is generally not included
because it is limited to residents only.
The region with the most hunters is Zone 23 (Table 5), which is where most of the

caribou hunting takes place. For ﬁshing the most heavily used Zone is 17, with increase

from 2,068 clients to 3,360 clients between 1988 and 1996.

70

 

Figure 4

Hunting and Fishing Zones in Nouveau-Quebec

 

 

 

 

 

71

t 1
11‘
A10

.2 _

.IIL

 

Table 5

Use of Outﬁtters in Nouveau-Quebec bLZone (1988 and 1996).

 

 

Years Zone 17 Zone 22 Zone 23 Total
1989
Hunting Clients 30 160 5,621 5,81 1
Fishing Clients 2,068 816 1,280 4,164
Total 2,098 976 6,901 9,975
1996
Hunting Clients 0 2,982 7,782 10,764
Fishing Clients 3,360 572 1,295 5,227
Total 3,360 3,554 9,075 15,991

 

Source: M.E.F. - Nouveau-Quebec Regional Branch.

Growth of Caribou Herd

The number of caribou has more than tripled since 1976 (Table 5). The current

herd is the largest in the world, with the carrying capacity of Nouveau-Quebec now in

question (Lamontagne and Gignac, 1997). Despite increasing the bag limit from one to

two caribou per hunter in 1983, the herd continues to grow.

72

 

   
  
   
   
 
 
   

11111CS
1.1111 ':
11131111]
11111111 "
11.111I "1
11111 “1
guargl‘.

51191"

 

 

Table 6

Estimated Number of Caribou in Nouveau-Quebec (1976-1996).

 

 

Years Number of Caribou
1976-77 263,100
1980-81 390,100
1982-83 360,450
1984-85 586,600
1995-96 800,000

 

Source: M.E.F. - Nouveau-Quebec Regional Branch

@ranteed Harvesting Levels for Native Communities

One of the enabling acts, entitled "Respecting Hunting and Fishing Rights in
James Bay and Nouveau-Quebec Territories" guarantees the natives of Nouveau-Quebec
fauna harvesting levels for subsistence purposes when animal populations permit. The
guaranteed harvest levels for Inuit were set in 1985, while the Cree levels were set in
1990. With regard to the harvest of caribou, the Cree are guaranteed 830 caribou, the
Inuit are guaranteed 4,547 caribou, and the Naskapi are guaranteed 600 caribous for a
total of 5,977 caribou harvested by the natives. With the present size of the herd, this

guaranteed harvest is judged to have little or no impact on outﬁtters and the rate of

success of their clients.

73

Table 7

Guaranteed Harvest Levels for Native Communities (annual harvest).

 

 

Species Cree Inuit Naskapi

Hunting

Moose 1,030 - -

Black Bear 214 - -

Caribou 830 4,547 600

Polar Bear 4 58 -
Fishing

Northern Pike 25,252 - -

Walleye 26,545 - -

Brook Charr 38,379 17,342 -

Anadromous Red - 97,645 -
Charr

Freshwater Red 641 1,988 -
Charr

Lake Charr 19,226 22,479 -

Salmon - 7,930 -

 

Source: MLCP 1993.

Actual harvest levels may vary from guaranteed harvest levels (Lamontagne &

Gignac,1997). In 1996, the Crees harvested 327 caribou, the Inuits harvested 8,056

caribou and the Naskapis harvested 1,000 caribou for a total of 9,383 caribou. This was

solely for food purposes. The Inuits harvested an additional 1,336 caribous for

commercial purposes. The 9,3 83 caribous are added to the 16,541 caribous taken during

sport hunting for a total of 26,924 caribous taken in 1996.

1111111.

11.11?"

This 1

 

‘ 9
111111 1

 

The number of caribou harvested for sport (Table 3), the number of caribou
guaranteed for subsistence (Table 7) and actual number of caribou taken for subsistence
(Lamontagne & Gignac,1997) have little impact on the size of the caribou herd (Table 4).
This is true in spite of the fact that the species with guaranteed harvest limits (Table 7)
only the caribou are heavily targeted by outﬁtting clients in Nouveau-Quebec.

Outﬁtter Trends

 

Before 1971, little is known of the number of outﬁtters Operating in Nouveau-
Québec. However, it is generally accepted that this industry was small and had very little
impact on the province’s economy.

Number of Outﬁtters

The total number of native and non-native outﬁtters increased between 1971 and
1997. Furthermore, the proportion of native outﬁtters increased more the non-natives
(Table 8). In 1971, there were 30 outﬁtter enterprises in Nouveau-Quebec; 3 were
operated by natives and 27 were operated by non-natives. Of the 84 outﬁtters operating in
1997, 40 were native and 43 were non-native.

The 7 of 10 rule caused a 10 year moratorium on the establishment of new
outﬁtters between 1977 and 1987. Consequently, since the moratorium was lifted, some
375 requests were made for the establishment of new outﬁtters. Of these applications
only 30 agreements for setting up new outﬁtter establishments were issued by the MLCP.
When examining these numbers, the 7 of 10 rule is being applied more as a "9 of 10"

rule.

75

 

J J14

 

 

 

 

Table 8

Number of Outﬁtters in Nouveau-Quebec (1971; 1988; 1991; 1996 and 1997).

 

 

Year Native Non-Native Total
1971 a 3 27 30
1988 b 16 39 55
1991 b 25 36 61
1996 b 35 39 74
1997 b 41 43 84

 

a Source : Pare (1972).
b Source : M.E.F. - Nouveau-Quebec Regional Branch,
Number of Outﬁtters by Zone
Outﬁtter growth has been greatest in Zones 22 and 23 (Table 9). Conversely, the

number of outﬁtters in Zone 17 has declined.

Table 9

Number of Outﬁttera in Nouveau-Quebec bv Zone (1989; 1991; 199@ and 1997).

 

 

Year Zone 17 Zone 22 Zone 23 Total
1989 9 9 28 46
1991 8 9 44 61
1996 6 12 56 74
1997 7 20 57 84

 

Source: M.E.F. - Nouveau- Quebec Regional Branch.

76

 

 

 

 

h.

«,1.

Table 10

Number of Outﬁtters in Nouvgeru-Ouébec bv Category of Land ﬂ989 and 1994).

 

 

Year Category II Category III Category II Total

1989

Native 5 8 16

Non-native 0 30 30

Total 5 38 46
1994

Native 9 9 22

Non-native 0 33 33

Total 9 42 55

 

Source: M.E.F. - Nouveau-Quebec Regional Branch.
* These outﬁtters have camps on Category II and III lands.

Number of Outﬁtters bv Category of Land
Natives have outﬁtters established on Category II and III land, while non-natives

are only established in Category 111 land (Table 10). There are presently no outﬁtters on

Category I land.

Revenue of Nouveau-Quebec Outﬁtters

The revenue of Nouveau-Quebec outﬁtters (Table 11) has increased since 1971.

Between 1971 and 1996, revenue went from $5,741,566 to $21,000,000 in 1996 dollars.

However, there has been a decrease of revenues per outﬁtter between 1989 and 1996

(from $333,686 in 1989 to $283,784 in 1996).

77

Table 1 1

Total Revenue of Outﬁtters in Nouveau-Quebec.

 

 

Year Revenue Revenue Average Revenue
(actual dollars) (1996 dollars) per Outﬁtter
(1996 dollars)
1971 a 1,350,000 5,741,566* 191,386
1989 b 12,900,000 15,349,550* 333,686
1996 b 21,000,000 21,000,000 283,784

 

a Source: Pare (1972).
b Source: M.E.F. - Nouveau-Quebec Regional Branch and Revenu Québec.
*Statistics Canada.

Mobile Camp Operations
Outﬁtting in Zone 23
Number of outﬁtters in Zone 23
Mobile camps are the most successful way to hunt caribou. Caribou are migratory
animals and are inﬂuenced by environmental factors. Mobile camps allow hunters to

maintain contact with the herd throughout the migratory period.

78

Table 12

Evolution of the Number of Outﬁtters in Zone 23 (1987 to 1992).

 

Years Schefferville Sector Kuujjuaq Sector Total for Zone 23

 

Number of Outﬁtters Number of Outﬁtters Number of Outﬁtters

 

Total Caribou* Total Caribou* Total Caribou*

 

1987 17 12 7 7 24 19
1988 20 15 7 7 28 22
1989 28 22 9 8 37 30
1990 29 25 15 13 44 38
1991 29 25 17 16 46 41
1992 29 25 17 16 46 41

 

Source: Bazin, L.; Leclerc, M.; Parent, M. and Vandal, D. (1993).
* These outﬁtters primarily offer caribou hunting; however the hunters also do some
ﬁshing when not hunting caribou.

The total number of outﬁtting concerns in Zone 23 rose by more than 91% from
1988 to 1992, while the number of outﬁtting businesses offering caribou hunting more
than doubled over the same period (Table 12). The data for each area show that, each has
added new establishments: Schefferville, 12 new establishments have been created since
1988, a 71% increase, while Kuujjuaq has added 10 or a 143% increase. Looking only at
outﬁtters offering hunting, the number increased by 100% in Schefferville and 143% in

Kuujjuaq.

79

111111.

19111

19111

§

Table 13

Number of Clients by Type of Camp in Zone 23 (1988-1992).

 

 

Years Type of Camp Schefferville Kuujjuaq Total
Sector Sector
1988
Mobile Camp 4,519 303 4,822
Permanent Camp 612 469 1,081
Total 5,131 772 5,903
1989
Mobile Camp 4,031 998 5,029
Permanent Camp 799 311 1,110
Total 4,830 1,309 6,139
1990
Mobile Camp 4,175 1,319 5,494
Permanent Camp 872 207 1,079
Total 5,047 1,526 6,573
1991
Mobile Camp 3,081 1,434 4,515
Permanent Camp 729 336 1,065
Total 3,810 1,770 5,580
1992
Mobile Camp 3,419 1,287 4,706
Permanent Camp 700 361 1,061
Total 4,1 19 1,648 5,767

 

Source: Bazin, L.; Leclerc, M.; Parent, M.

 

and Vandal, D. (1993).

80

111 1‘1"

111111.

11111111“

1111111

Table

1hr

Years

1938

1181

111113111101].

1111 b." in

 

 

Clients in Zone 23

The Schefferville outﬁtters managed to maintain a fairly stable hunting clientele
in both mobile and permanent camps between 1988 and 1990 (Table 13). The numbers
of clients for mobile camps in the Kuujjuaq area quadrupled over the same period.

Operation of mobile camps in Zone 23

In the Schefferville area, the proportion of authorized camps actually being
operated was quite stable between 1988 and 1992, at about 75% of the maximum
authorized level (Table 13). In the Kuujjuaq area, however, the proportion of camps in

operation increased over the years, going from 58% in 1988 to 76% in 1992.

Table 14

Mobile Camps Operated in Zone 23 (1988-1992).

Years Schefferville Sector Kuujjuaq Sector Total

 

Allowed Operating % Allowed Operating % Allowed Operating %

1988 128 98 77 12 7 58 140 105 75
1989 137 110 80 21 14 67 158 124 78
1990 144 1 14 79 34 22 65 178 136 76
1991 128 89 70 41 32 78 169 121 72
1992 120 97 81 41 31 76 161 128 80

 

Source: Bazin, L.; Leclerc, M.; Parent, M. and Vandal, D. (1993).

Several factors inﬂuenced the annual occupancy rates, but the most important was
the movements of the caribou, which determined the pattern of use of the mobile camps.
While some sites were occupied every week of operation because of their strategic
location, others were occupied only during peak client periods or when the caribou passed

nearby in their migration.

81

Caribou and ﬁsh harvesting from mobile camps in Zone 23

Table 15 shows the average annual harvest of caribou was about 10,000 head
between 1988 and 1992. However, harvest levels shifted with the harvest in Schefferville
dropping from 8529 to 6569 and rising in Kuujjuaq from 1237 to 3060. These harvest
numbers differ slightly from those presented in Table 1. In the ﬁrst instance the numbers
are those given to the government by the outﬁtters; and in the second instance the

numbers come from harvest tags.

Table 15

Number of Caribou Harvested by Sector in Zone 23 (1988-1992).

 

 

Years Schefferville Sector Kuujjuaq Sector Total
1988 8,529 1,237 9,766
1989 7,431 2,239 9,670
1990 8,919 2,676 1 1,595
1991 6,779 3,342 10,121
1992 6,569 3,060 9,629

 

Source: Bazin, L.; Leclerc, M.; Parent, M. and Vandal, D. (1993).

The harvesting advantage of mobile camps is clearly shown in Table 16.

82

Table 16
Conpiarison of the Number of Caribous Harvested in Mobile and Permanent Camps in

Zone 23 (1988-1992).

 

 

Years Permanent Camps Mobile Camps Total
1988 1,472 8,294 9,766
1989 1,781 7,889 9,670
1990 1,699 9,896 1 1,595
1991 1,835 8,286 10,121
1992 1,697 7,932 9,629

 

Source: Bazin, L.; Leclerc, M.; Parent, M. and Vandal, D. (1993).

Perceptions of Outﬁtters towards the JBNQA and its Irppaci on their Operation
Response rate for the survg/

As presented in Chapter 3 (Research Methods), this section of the paper is based
on primary data obtained through a survey of Nouveau-Quebec outﬁtters, who asked to
assess of the impact of the JBNQA on outﬁtting. A census was conducted of all 83
licenced outﬁts. However, 62 owners or cooperatives operate these 83 outﬁts due to
multiple ownerships. Of these 62 owners, 44 responded to the survey. Of these, 36
completed the questionnaire, and 8 responded that they did not want to complete it.
Non-response

Based on the information available from MLCP (1990) and conversations with
non-respondents, there does not seem to be a difference between respondents and non-
respondents. In addition, based on the segmentation of types of outﬁtters presented in

MLCP (1990), the segments of outﬁtters that completed the questionnaire are similar.

83

Non-respondents have several reasons for not responding. Some outﬁtters
mentioned that they did not have time to complete the survey. Others were not conﬁdent
that the proprietary information conveyed in the survey would remain conﬁdential, even
though conﬁdentiality was assured them. One outﬁtter said, “Written documents stay.”
For him this meant that when there was a written document or record it may surface at
any time, even several years down the road. Another reason mentioned is mistrust among
the different parties: natives, non-natives, and government. Outﬁtters were worried about
who had sponsored the study. Some outﬁtters explained that they did not want some of
the information traced back to them by one of the other groups. On several occasions, the
author was asked who has ordered this study? or who is paying for this study? Even,
though it was made clear that the study was done in the context of a doctoral dissertation
and that it was under the auspices of the University of Ottawa, several still refused to
complete the survey.

Results of the survey

Socioeconomic characteristics of outﬁtters in Nouveau-Quebec.

The business characteristics of outﬁtters in Nouveau-Quebec vary greatly (Table
17). Reported annual revenue per outﬁtter ranges from $29,000 to $2.8 million. Disparity
also can be seen in the number of employees (1-57) and the number of clients (12-1,000).

The years of operation (Table 17) show that the outﬁtter that has operated for the
least amount of time has only been in operation for 2 years. These are the last new
outﬁtters before the Ministry put a moratorium on additional Nouveau-Quebec outﬁtters

in 1996. On the other hand, one outﬁtter has been in operation for 42 years. This outﬁtter

84

 

 

 

7\‘\ ('1
1.11.81

.\'rrr:r
(11111

11111. l
[1111].”
111115111:
“Paar.

111‘ 11111

started operating when tourism was ﬁrst recognized by the Ministry of Environment and

Fauna in 1957.

Table 17

Socioeconomic Characteristics of Outﬁtters in Nouveau-Quebec.

 

 

Variables Number That Mean Std. Minimum Maximum

Responded to this Deviation

Variable

Years of 36 17 12 2 42
Operation
Years Owned 36 12 ll 2 42
Number of 27 13 16 l 57
Employees
Revenue (dollars) 23 424,783 634,591 29,000 2,800,000
Proﬁt (dollars) l4 1 1,755 24,798 -40,000 54,000
Number of Clients 28 170 242 12 1,000
Average Length 28 6 1 3 8
of Stay (days)
Number of 21 236 350 0 1,500

Caribou Harvested

 

Categories of land

When asked where they operate, 85% of the non-natives operated on Category 111

land, 10% were not sure, and 5% operated on Category 11 land (Table 18). However, the

non-native outﬁtter on Category 11 land speciﬁed that his business was being conducted

through a joint venture. On the native side, it is a little more complex. Of the native

outﬁtters 19% operate on Category I and 11 land; 6% operate on Category 11 land; 50%

operate on Category II and III land; 19% operate on Category I, II, and III land; and 6%

do not know where they are operating.

85

Table 18

Categories of Land on Which Nouveau-Quebec Outﬁtters Operate.

(N ative N=l 6. Non-Native N=20. Total N=36l

 

 

 

Category of Land Native %a Non- %a Combined %a
Native
1 0 0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0
II 1 6.3 l 5.0 2 5.6
III 0 0.0 17 85.0 17 47.2
I and II 3 18.8 0 0.0 3 8.3
II and III 8 50.0 0 0.0 8 22.2
I, II and HI 3 18.8 0 0.0 3 8.3
Do not know 1 6.3 2 10.0 3 8.3
TOTAL 16 100.2 20 100.0 36 99.9

a Percentages may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding

Hunting and ﬁshing activitiea offered

Caribou hunting is the most common hunting activity offered by the Nouveau-
Québec outﬁtters, with moose hunting the second most common (Table 19). Almost all
ﬁshing is for brook trout and lake trout. It is important to note that while some outﬁtters
emphasize caribou hunting as their main activity, hunters will also ﬁsh when not hunting.
The link between ﬁshing and hunting is important, and the distinction between hunting

and ﬁshing market segments is not always clear. As stated by MLCP (1993), a majority

of the clients that go to Nouveau-Quebec both hunt and ﬁsh.

86

Table 19

Hunting and Fishing Activities Offered bv Nouveau-Quebec Outﬁtters.

 

 

Variable Offered % Not %
Offered

Hunting
Caribou 24 66.7 12 33.3
Black Bear 1 2.8 35 97.2
Moose 21 58.3 15 41.7
Waterfowl 6 16.7 30 83.3
Ptarmigan 3 8.3 33 91.7

Fishing
Brook Trout 34 94.4 2 5.6
Lake Trout 34 94.4 2 5.6
Arctic Charr 18 50.0 18 50.0
Ouananiche 6 16.7 30 83.3
Salmon 9 25.0 27 75.0
Walleye 3 8.3 33 91.7
Northern Pike 8 22.2 28 77.8

 

Accessibility to Cateﬁmry 11

Access to Category 11 Land by natives and non-natives is perceived differently by
these groups. For instance, 69% of natives say that having free access to Category II land,
while non-native outﬁtters are excluded, helped establish their outﬁt. The majority of
non-natives (60%) said that their exclusion from Category 11 Land did not affect the

development of their outﬁtting business. Some of the comments given by non-natives

include: "présentement, 1e territoire qui nous est autorisé est sufﬁsant a nos operations

87

(presently, the territory available to us is sufﬁcient for our operations)" and "category 11
territory is 350 miles north of us." On the other hand, a native commented, "because

competition must stay away from us," which indicates that restricted access gives them an
advantage.

Seven of Ten Rule

As presented in Table 20, 56% of natives believe that the 7 of 10 rule helped them
start or purchase their Nouveau-Quebec outﬁtting business. A surprising element is that
13% of natives and 35% of non-natives were unaware of the 7 of 10 rule. Such
statements as, “Don’t know of this rule”!, “What are the 7 of 10 rules?” or “Quel est ce
reglement? (What is this rule?),” indicate a lack of understanding of the JBNQA. Non-
natives were most likely to attribute little inﬂuence to the 7 of 10 rule or to indicate a lack

of knowledge of its effect.

Table 20
Outﬁtter Perceived Inﬂuence of the 7 of 10 Rule on the ELablishrnent of Outﬁts in

Nouveau-Quebec.

 

Variable Hampered Not Affected Helped Do Not Total #

 

% % % Know
%
Native 6.3 25.0 56.3 12.5 100.0% 16
Non-native 15 .0 40.0 10.0 35.0 100.0% 20
Total 11.1 33.3 30.6 25.0 100.0% 36

 

Percentages may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding

88

Coordinating committee

A majority of non-natives indicated that the coordinating committee had a
negative impact or hindered the start or purchase of their outﬁtting business. Several
remarks were made critical of the committee: “the delay is unacceptance”; “long délai”; a
cause de longs délais avant d’avoir une réponse (long delay); “occasionne des délais
beaucoup trop longs (long delay); “long de'lai avant l’autorisation (time frame too long
before authorization)”; cause de de'lai prolonger a 2 ans pour obtenir les permis requis (2-
year delay)”; “dﬁ au processus qui retarde l’acquisition et parfois la non-acquisition aprés
une longue période d’attente et le fait de ne pas savoir a quoi sentenir (because of time
delay and lack of information we do not know where we stand)”; “perte de temps,
bureaucratic, et coﬁts e'leve's avec les avocats (waste of time, bureaucracy, and high
lawyer costs); “les indiens siegeant sur ce comité mettent constamment des batons dans
les roues de nos pourvoiries (natives that sit on the committee hinder the development of
our outﬁts)”; and “the coordinating committee had a moratorium on sale transfers since
1975. We had to wait until 1985 to get transfer approval-in the meantime, we lost having
fall caribou permits because we were south of 55 °”.

These results demonstrate a lack of understanding of the JBNQA. The
coordinating committee is the body that uses the 7 of 10 rule. Yet 40% of non-natives
(Table 20) say that the 7 of 10 rule has no effect and 10% say that it helped. However,
65% of non-native outﬁtters mention that the coordinating committee hindered them. So,
there is a in misunderstanding with what the coordinating committee is doing and what it

is trying to enforce.

89

Non-natives made these comments about the agreement:

- “Les effets les plus néfastes ont été de m’enlever 1e droit d’opérer
sur certains territoires de categories III ou seuls les indiens
pouvaient avoir le permis de pourvoirie - on appele cela 1e droit du
ler choix??” (Negative effect);

- “Comité (lourd) pour l’acceptation de la demande” (Heavy
bureaucracy - Negative effect);

- “Néfaste. Les autochtones se sont approprie's les meilleurs
territoires ou ont pratiqués leur droit de premier refus” (Negative -
Natives have the best territories or used the 7 of 10 rule);

- “For the lO-year delay in transfer, We were not able to hunt fall
caribou season as the law was changed to north of the 55 ° which
we were below that and could not obtain a camp north of the 55 ° —
we lost 80% of our revenue since that time and it has had a
negative impact since on our business” (negative effect);

- “La convention, selon 1e principe du droit de premier choix,
empéche notre entreprise d’étalir d’autres camps, soit sur les
territoires d’exploitation déja existants, soit sur d’autres territoires
voisins; alors que la ville’giature a commence a s’e'tablir, meme a
l’intérieur de nos territoires d’exploitation autorisés et décrits au
permis, rendant ainsi possible la pourvoirie ille’gale”

(Establishment of new camps limited - negative);

90

- “It has a major impact on our eco-tourism business as we cannot
access our river system at the end of our expedition for outpost
camp north of 58° in category 111 lands as there is a limit in place at
present by James & Northern Quebec Agreement” (negative);

- “A ralenti le développement” (slowed development);

- “Le droit du ler choix est le plus néfaste pour le pourvoyeur blanc
et le plus «bonbon» pour l’indien” (natives having ﬁrst choice has
a negative effect );

- “Retard du de’veloppement de l’industrie” (slowed development);

- “Ca a empécher le développement touristique” (slowed
development).

Overall, non-natives see the JBNQA as a nuisance that hampers the development
of outﬁtting and tourism in Nouveau-Quebec.
Natives have mixed reactions to the agreement:

- “aucun commentaire ne'gatif” (no negative comments);

- “not familiar with agreement”;

- “To this day, I don’t know what the agreement was about. If
possible, put me in contact with somebody who can give me info
on this agreement”;

- “positif” (positive);

- “positif” (positive);

- “it has given the native people some say on how outﬁtting was

developed in Nouveau-Quebec”;

91

- “les Naskapis sont les signataires de la convention du nord est
québécois (1978) qui a fait suite :1 celle signée par les Cris et les
Inuit. Les conventions devaient faciliter l’entrées des autochtones
dans le monde da la pourvoirie, mais des mésententes majeures
avec le Québec ont conduit a des actions en justice qui ont bloqué
1e development” (Negative for Naskapis).

Generally speaking, the natives seem positive about the JBNQA and its
relationship with outﬁtting. However, one element that is mentioned by the natives and
the government managers was that the Naskapis were disadvantaged by the agreement.
They were not included at ﬁrst; they got a second agreement in 1978; and they were
located mostly in zone 23 which is where most caribou hunting takes place.

The following sections are based on the information presented in Tables 21, 22
and 23. These tables are presented together because they deal with the impact, from
different perspectives, certain variables have on the operation of outﬁtting in Nouveau-
Québec. Table 21 presents the results from a native perspective, Table 22 from a non-
native perspective and Table 23 combines both natives and non-natives and looks at the
situation from an outﬁtting industry point of view.

Native and non-native percgition of factors inﬂuencing outﬁtting in Nouveau-Quebec

Categog II Land

On one hand, natives liked the regulations regarding Category 11 land, while the
non-natives did not (Table 21 and 22). Speciﬁcally, 69% of natives identiﬁed that

exclusive access to Category 11 land was positive or very positive for their outﬁtting

92

business, while non-natives believe (46%) that restricted access to Category II land is
negative or very negative.

Categog III Land

The rules regulating Category 111 land are viewed positively by natives (69%
positive or very positive). Non-natives take a more negative viewpoint (44% negative or
very negative).

Coordinating committee

In general, non-natives believe that the coordinating committee has a negative or
very negative impact on start-up or expansion of non-native outﬁtter businesses (Table 21
and 22). Seventy percent felt the committee hindered the start of their business, and
68.4% made negative comments about having to go through the coordinating committee
for expansion of their business.

While the coordinating committee is viewed negatively by non-natives, natives
generally see it as neutral or slightly positive for the start-up or expansion of their
businesses. Between 42% and 50% of natives felt that the coordinating committee is
neutral for the start-up or expansion of their businesses.

Mobile camps

Both native and non-native outﬁtters feel that the use of mobile camps is positive
or very positive for their businesses (Table 21, 22 and 23). However, the use of mobile

camps by others is less likely to be as positive.

93

Competition from other outﬁtters
Natives are neutral or positive regarding the competition from other outﬁtters,

while non-natives are more likely to see this competition in a negative light (Table 21 and

22)

Fish species and harvest limits

Factors such as ﬁsh species present and ﬁsh harvesting limits were identiﬁed as
positive or very positive for both natives and non-natives (Table 21, 22 and 23). This is
particularly true for natives; 100% of the natives argued that the ﬁsh species present is a
factor that has a positive or very positive impact on the operation of their business. Fish
harvesting limits also were considered a positive or very positive factor by natives (68%).
The combined outﬁtters (80%) assess that the ﬁsh species present have a positive
inﬂuence on their outﬁtting businesses.

Size of the caribou herd, Caribou harvesting limits

The size of the caribou herd is considered a very positive factor for natives and
non-natives (Table 21, 22 and 23). This factor is positive or very positive for 75% of the
combined outﬁtters.

The caribou harvest limit is also identiﬁed as being very positive to positive for

natives and non-natives (Table 21 , 22 and 23). Eighty-three of natives identiﬁed the level

of the caribou harvest limits as a positive or very positive inﬂuence on the operation of
their outﬁtting business. Most non-natives (69%) also identiﬁed caribou harvest limits

as positive or very positive for the operation of their outﬁt.

94

Table 21

Native Outﬁtter Ratings of the Inﬂuence of Selected Factors on Their Outﬁtting

Businesses in Nouveau-Ouébec.1a)

 

 

Variable Very Positive Neutral Negative Very #
Positive Negative

Exclusive access to Category 11 land 12.5 56.3 12.5 6.3 12.5 16

Priority access to Category 111 land 18.8 50.0 18.8 6.3 6.3 16

Going through the Coordinating 0.0 35.7 42.9 14.3 7.1 14

(‘ommittee for the start of the business

(1 ioing through the Coordinating 7.1 28.6 50.0 7.1 7.1 14

Committee for expansion

Your use of mobile camps 28.6 21.4 28.6 0.0 21.4 14

The use of mobile camps by other 0.0 26.7 46.7 6.7 20.0 15

outﬁtters

The competition from other New Quebec 77 30.8 46.2 15.4 0.0 13

Outﬁtters

Size of the caribou herd 30.8 53.9 0.0 15.4 0.0 13

(‘aribou harvest limits 41.7 41.7 0.0 16.7 0.0 12

Fish species present 81.3 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 16

Fish harvesting limits 12.5 56.3 31.3 0.0 0.0 16

Resident license fees 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 0.0 16

Non-resident license fees 0.0 18.8 43.8 31.3 6.3 16

Marketing ofoutﬁtting by provincial 8.3 16.7 75.0 0.0 0.0 13

govemment to residents

Marketing of outﬁtting by provincial 40.0 20.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 15

govemment to non-residents

Available transportation means to the 0.0 50.0 37.5 12.5 0.0 16

outﬁtters for clients

Regulations imposed by the "Ministere 6.7 20.0 46.7 13.3 13.3 15

de l'environnement et de la faune"

Provincial and Federal goods and 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 16

services tax

 

(a) Rows may not tota1100.0% due to rounding.

95

Table 22

Non-native Outﬁtter Ratings of the Inﬂuence of Selected Factors on Their Outﬁtting

Businesses in Nouveau-Quebec (a).

 

 

Variable Very Positive Neutral Negative Very #
Positive Negative

Restricted access to Category 11 land 7.7 0.0 46.2 30.8 15.4 13

Restricted access to Category 111 land 16.7 16.7 22.2 33.3 11.1 18

(ioing through the Coordinating 10.0 0.0 20.0 45.0 25.0 20

(‘ommittee for the start of the business

(ioing through the Coordinating 10.5 5.3 15.8 36.8 31.6 19

(‘ommittee for expansion

Your use of mobile camps 37.5 25.0 25.0 6.3 6.3 16

The use of mobile camps by other 13.3 20.0 46.7 6.7 13.3 15

outﬁtters

The competition from other New Quebec 16.7 5.6 44.4 l 1.1 22.2 18

()utﬁtters

Size of the caribou herd 26.7 40.0 26.7 6.7 0.0 15

(‘arrbou harvest limits 37.5 31.3 18.8 6.3 6.3 16

Fish species present 27.3 36.8 36.8 0.0 0.0 19

Fish harvesting limits 15.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 10.0 20

Resident license fees 21.1 21.1 36.8 15.8 5.3 19

Non-resident license fees 5.3 15.8 36.8 26.3 15.8 19

Marketing of outﬁtting by provincial 5.6 22.2 44.4 16.7 l 1.1 18

government to residents

Marketing of outﬁtting by provincial 5.6 50.0 22.2 11.1 1 1.1 18

government to non-residents

Available transportation means to the 13.3 20.0 40.0 26.7 0.0 15

outﬁtters for clients

Regulations imposed by the "Ministere 15.8 26.3 26.3 10.5 21 .l 19

de l‘environnement et de la faune"

Provincial and Federal goods and 0.0 5.3 36.8 26.3 31.6 19

services tax

 

(a) Rows may not totallO0.0% due to rounding.

96

Table 23

Ratings of Selected Factors Inﬂuencing the Outﬁtting Businesses in Nouveau-

 

 

uébec

Variable Very Positive Neutral Negative Very #
Positive Negative

("ioing through the Coordinating 5.9 14.7 29.4 32.4 17.6 34
('ommittee for the start of the business
(ioing through the Coordinating 9.1 15.2 30.3 24.2 21.2 33
(,‘ommittee for expansion
Your use of mobile camps 33.3 23.3 26.7 3.3 13.3 30
The use of mobile camps by other 6.7 23.3 46.7 6.7 16.7 30
outﬁtters
The competition from other New Quebec 12.9 16.1 45.2 12.9 12.9 31
()ulﬁttcrs
Size of the caribou herd 28.6 46.4 14.3 10.7 0.0 28
(.‘aribou harvest limits 39.3 35.7 10.7 10.7 3.6 28
Fish species present 51.4 28.6 20.0 0.0 0.0 35
Fish harvesting limits 13.9 41.7 30.6 8.3 5.6 36
Resident license fees 11.4 22.9 48.6 14.3 2.9 35
Non-resident license fees 2.9 17.1 40.0 28.6 1 1.4 35
Marketing ofoutﬁtting by provincial 6.7 20.0 56.7 10.0 6.7 30
govemment to residents
Marketing of outﬁtting by provincial 21.2 36.4 30.3 6.1 6.1 33
government to non-residents
Available transportation means to the 6.5 35.5 38.7 19.4 0.0 31
outﬁtters for clients
Regulations imposed by the "Ministere l 1.8 23.5 35.3 1 1.8 17.6 34
de l’environnement et de la faune"
Provincial and Federal goods and 0.0 2.9 31.4 25.7 40.0 35
services tax
Other 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 2

 

(a) Rows may not tota1100.0% due to rounding.

Marketing to residents and non-residents

The combined outﬁtters are more positive about the Québec government’s

marketing to non-residents than to residents (Table 23).

97

License fees

Generally (Table 23), natives and non-natives see resident license fees as a
positive factor. However, both view non-resident license fees as being a negative factor
because of the high cost.

Transportation

Surprisingly, considering the difﬁculty of access in Nouveau-Quebec, the

transportation factor is not regarded as being negative for either natives or non-natives
(Tables 21, 22 and 23)

WW

With respect to the impact on outﬁtter operations, natives and non-natives a
neutral view of government regulations, other than those imposed by the JBNQA

laces

A factor that was identiﬁed as negative or very negative on businesses by both
natives and non-natives is the provincial and federal goods and services tax (Tables 21,

22 and 23). This is the case for 75% of native outﬁtters and 58% of non-natives outﬁtters.

Means of factors having an impact on the operation of an outﬁtter

 

Rating scales were presented to subjects as both an ordinal and/or an interval
scale. When considering the interval scale means, the factor that received the most
positive average rating by natives and non-natives was the ﬁsh species present, while the
most negative average rating was federal and provincial taxes (Table 24). Natives
generally see the exclusive access to Category II land, priority access to Category 111 land
and going through the coordinating committee as being positive. On the other hand, non-

natives tend to see the restricted access to Category II and III lands, and going through the

98

coordinating committee as being negative. Both groups seem to think that the size of the
caribou herd and the caribou harvesting limits are positive.

Table 24

Outfitter Mean Rating of Selected Factors Having an Inﬂuence On The Outﬁtting

Businesses in Nouveau-Quebec.

 

 

Variable Total Native Mean Non-Native Mean
Mean Rating Rating
Rating (N=16) (N=20)
(N=36)

1-‘ish species present 4.3 4.8 3.9

('aribou :1 harvest limits 4.0 4.1 3.9

Size of the caribou herd 3.9 4.0 3.9

Your use of mobile camps 3.6 3.3 3.8

Marketing of outﬁtting by provincial government to 3.6 4.0 3.3

non-residen ts

1-‘ish harvesting limits 3.5 3.8 3.2
Resident license fees 3.3 3.1 3.4
Priority/Restricted access to Category 111 land 3.3 3.7 2.9
Available transportation means to the outﬁtters for 3.3 3.4 3.2
clients

Marketing of outﬁtting by provincial government to 3.1 3.3 2.9
residents

lixclusive/Restricted access to Category 11 land 3.1 3.5 2.5
Regulations imposed by the "Ministere de 3.0 2.9 3.0
l‘emrironnement et de la faune"

The use of mobile camps by other outﬁtters 3.0 2.8 3.1
The competition from other New Quebec Outﬁtters 3.0 3.3 2.8
Non-Resident license fees 2.7 2.7 2.7
(ioing through the Coordinating (‘ommittee for 2.7 3.2 2.7
expansion

(‘ioing through the Coordinating Committee for the 2.6 3.1 2.2

start of the business

Provincial and Federal goods and services tax 1.9 1.7 2.1

 

Rating Scale: 1:Very Negative; 2:Negative; 3:Neutral; 4:Positive; 5:Very Positive

99

The use of mobile camps is the variable listed as having the most impact on the
operation of the outﬁtting business by the most outﬁtters (Table 25). This factor was
identiﬁed 10 times by natives and non-natives, being equally divided between the two
groups. Access to Category II lands was named as having the most inﬂuence by seven
outﬁtters, 4 times by natives, and 3 times by non-natives. Going through the coordinating
committee for the start of your business was also identiﬁed 4 times as the most important.
This was identiﬁed 4 times by non-natives and as seen in the previous Table 22, while
non-natives see this as a negative inﬂuence on the start of their business.

Native and non-native perceptions of factors inﬂuencing the start-up or purchase

M outﬁt in Nouveau-Quebec

Table 26 shows how the natives and non-natives rated factors inﬂuencing the
start-up or purchase of their outﬁtting business in Nouveau-Quebec. This was of
particular interest because the ratings across variables by natives and non-natives are very
similar.

Available territory was rated at 77.8% by both groups as being important or very
important to the reasons for the start or purchase of their business (Table 27). Proﬁt
potential and knowledge of hunting and ﬁshing were also rated very highly as being
important to very important by both natives and non-natives at 91.6% for both factors.
The desire to work outdoors is a variable that was selected by 83.3% as being important
to very important by both parties. The desire to own a business was rated by 88.9% of
both parties as being an important or very important reason for the start or purchase of

their business.

100

One variable of interest was the variable to continue in the family business. In

general. this factor appears to be very unimportant to unimportant. This is interesting for

Table 25

Selected thors with Inﬂuence on Outﬁtting Businesses in Nouveau-Quebec

 

Variable Number of Outﬁtters that chose the variable
as having the most impact on their business

 

 

Native Non-Native Total
Your use of mobile camps 5 5 10
Exclusive/Restricted access to Category 11 land 4 3 7
Provincial and Federal goods and services tax 3 1 4
Going through the Coordinating Committee for the 0 4 4
start of the business
Priority/Restricted access to Category III land 1 2 3
Size of the caribou herd 2 1 3
Regulations imposed by the "Ministere de 0 2 2
l‘environnement et de la faune"
Going through the Coordinating Committee for 0 1 1
expansion
Fish harvesting limits 0 l 1
Marketing of outﬁtting by provincial government to l 0 1
non-residents
Caribou harvest limits 0 0 0
Fish species present 0 0 0
Resident license fees 0 0 0
Non-Resident license fees 0 O 0
Marketing of outﬁtting by provincial government to 0 O 0
residents
Available transportation means to the outﬁtters for O 0 0
clients
The competition from other New Québec Outﬁtters 0 0 0
The use of mobile camps by other outﬁtters 0 O 0

 

101

it seems to indicate that natives do not associate this as being an important factor in the

start of their business, even though their ancestors have been hunting and ﬁshing as a way
of life for several thousand years. Apparently hunting and ﬁshing as a business operation
is different from hunting and ﬁshing for subsistence.

Table 27 shows the mean interval ratings of factors inﬂuencing the start of an
outﬁtting business. Generally speaking, natives and non-natives rated all of the factors
similarly.

Climate created by the JBNQA

First, there is the mistrust that exists among the natives, non-natives and the
government. This was identiﬁed clearly by both native and non-native outﬁtters who did
not want to complete the questionnaire or those who had to be convinced to complete the
questionnaire. In these instances, the outﬁtters wanted to know who was conducting the
study and who had ordered the study, and they wanted their information to remain
conﬁdential.

The Quebec govemment’s adversarial relationship with Native peoples, that led to
the 1971 lawsuit, is still apparent in the mistrust of native outﬁtters. It is also visible
among non-native outﬁtters, who believe they were left behind in the JBNQA
negotiations and settlement.

To develop unity for the tourism industry in Nouveau-Quebec, this mistrust
among the main stakeholders must be reduced in order for development to continue and
be much more cohesive. As it stands, natives and non-natives are not far apart in their
personal goals for their businesses. Outﬁts were started for similar reasons, and several

factors affecting the operation of the businesses were perceived similarly.

102

Table 26

Rating of the Inﬂuence of Selected Factors on the Start or Purchase of an Outﬁt in
Nouveau-Ouébec.

(Native N=l6. Non-pative N=20, Combined N=36)

 

 

Variable Type Very Important Important Neither Unimportant Very
Unimportant
Knowledge ot‘hunting and Native 75.0 18.8 6.3 0.0 0.0
ﬁshing
Non-Native 65.0 25.0 5.0 0.0 5.0
Combined 69.7 22.2 5.6 0.0 2.8
Available territory Native 43.8 25.0 18.8 0.0 12.5
Non-Native 65.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 0.0
Combined 55.6 22.2 13.9 2.8 5.6
Desire to work outdoors Native 50.0 37.5 12.5 0.0 0.0
Non-Native 50.0 30.0 20.0 0.0 0.0
Combined 50.0 33.3 16.7 0.0 0.0
Proﬁt potential Native 56.3 31.3 12.5 0.0 0.0
Non-Native 40.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 5.0
Combined 47.2 44.4 5.6 0.0 2.8
Desire to own a business Native 31.3 50.0 18.8 0.0 0.0
Non-Native 60.0 35.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
Combined 47.2 41.7 1 1.1 0.0 0.0
Desire to work in the Native 31.3 31.3 37.5 0.0 0.0
hospitality industry
Non-Native 45.0 30.0 25.0 0.0 45.0
Combined 38.9 30.6 30.6 0.0 0.0
An occupation at which Native 18.8 62.5 12.5 0.0 6.3
one can make a living in
"Nouveau-Québec" Non-Native 30.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 0.0
Combined 25.0 44.4 27.8 0.0 2.8
Continue in the family Native 12.5 12.5 25.0 6.3 43.8
busmess
Non-Native 20.0 15.0 30.0 0.0 35.0
Combined 16.7 13.9 27.8 2.8 38.9
Other Native 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Non-Native 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Combined 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 

a Rows may not total to 100.0% due to rounding.

Table 27

Mean Rating of Factors lnﬂuencing the Start or Purchase of Outﬁtters in Nouveau-Quebec by Native
and Non-native Outﬁtters. (Native N=l6, Non-Native N=20, Total N=36) (a).

 

 

Variable Native Non-Native Combined
Knowledge of hunting and ﬁshing 4.7 4.5 4.6
Desire to own a business 4.1 4.5 4.4
Desire to work outdoors 4.4 4.3 4.3
Proﬁt potential 4.4 4.2 4.3
Available territory 3.9 4.4 4.2
Desire to work in the hospitality 3.9 4.2 4.1
industry

An occupation at which one can make a 3.9 3.9 3.9

living in Nouveau-Quebec

Continue in the family business 2.4 2.8 2.7

 

(a) Rating Scale: 1:Very Unimportant; 2:Unimportant; 3:Neither; 4:1mportant; 5:Very Important.

In addition, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on the exact purpose of
the agreement and how it functions. For example, when applying the 7 of 10 rule, the
actions of the coordinating committee are not clearly understood by all, particularly
because, in effect, it has been 9 of 10 not 7 of 10. Applying the rule in this fashion
heightens tensions and creates a level of mistrust between the members in the region.
There should be better information transmitted by the Quebec government to the natives
and non-natives. This would probably improve the situation dramatically.

Percgptions of the Ouébec Government towards the JBNQA and its
Impacts on Nouveau-Ouébec

The results in this section come from an interview with Nouveau-Quebec
managers responsible for the development of the region. These managers work in the
Ministry of Environment and Fauna-Nouveau-Québec Regional Branch. The following

information summarizes of the interview with the managers.

104

Impact of the JBNQA on the outﬁtting industg

Irrgaact of JBNQA on natives

The JBNQA agreement has had a positive impact on the development of native
outﬁtters because they have certain rights on the establishment and development of
outﬁts not available to non-natives.

ma of JBNQA on non-natives

Non-native outﬁtter development has been hindered because they are not allowed
to operate an outﬁtter business on Category I and 11 land. They also are restricted in their
access to Category 111 Land. Furthermore, non-natives are limited in the development of
the outﬁtting business through guaranteed native subsistence harvest, environmental
regulation and native evaluation through the coordinating committee.

Impact of the JBNg 2A on the development or gigowth of tourism and outﬁtting in

Nouveau-Ouébec

The managers of Nouveau-Quebec say that the overall development of tourism
and outﬁtting in this area has been slowed by the JBNQA. This situation is unhealthy for
the development of Nouveau-Ouébec and speciﬁcally for the development of tourism in
the Nouveau-Quebec region. The main reason for the slow growth can be linked to the
lO-year moratorium that prevented the distribution of new outﬁtter permits by the Quebec
government. This moratorium was directly linked with the legal challenges to the
implementation of the JBNQA in regards to outﬁtting permits. The governmental
managers also believe that the system for outﬁtter permits ﬁnally implemented including
the coordinating committee, the 7 of 10 rule and implementation as a 9 of 10 rule have

slowed the development of the Nouveau-Quebec outﬁtting industry.

105

The Ministry of Environment and Fauna has now, after nearly 10 years of
allowing almost 60 new outﬁtters in Nouveau-Quebec, imposed a new moratorium
designed to allow the outﬁtter industry to stabilize and solidify itself. It is believed that
this is a negative situation because the size of the caribou herd could probably

accommodate many more outﬁtters.

Factors inﬂuencing outﬁtting in Nouveau-Quebec

 

Several factors have inﬂuenced the development of this industry in Nouveau-
Que’bec. First, between 1975 and 1987, virtually no new outﬁtters were attributed to
Nouveau—Quebec; which hampered development signiﬁcantly. This lack of development
was the direct result of interpreting the 7 of 10 rule of the JBNQA.

However, in 1987, negotiations derived from the JBNQA led to an agreement that
allowed potential outﬁtters to receive permits and outﬁtters to use mobile camps. The
use of mobile camps is very positive for Nouveau-Quebec because it allows outﬁtters to
have several camps throughout their territory and results in the ability to have more
clients. It also enables them to offer a better product. Because outﬁtters are able to
follow the migratory path of caribou, their clients have a better chance to achieve their
harvest limit of two caribou. The product also has the potential to be better because the
hunter can be selective and pick the biggest bulls.

Although there have been positive aspects of the JBNQA, generally speaking, the
agreement has made it more difﬁcult to manage and to develop Nouveau-Ouébec. Hydro
electric projects in the works were altered, and now any new hydro-electric projects have

to be negotiated. Furthermore, the JBNQA has made the outﬁtting industry in Nouveau-

106

Quebec extremely complex. On one hand, the natives have their own territories and

categories of land; on the other, non-natives are limited by zones and categories of land.
When the 7 of 10 rule and the coordinating committee came into play, a very confusing
situation became much so. With these factors in mind, it is easy to understand why it is
difﬁcult for the Québec government to develop an acceptable plan for Nouveau-Ouébec.

With the reopening of Nouveau-Ouébec for outﬁtting in 1987, new types of
outﬁtters started businesses in Nouveau-Quebec. These mobile camps put less importance
on comfort and more emphasis on an affordable price and having better access to the
resource. Although hunting became more affordable, to older outﬁtters with permanent
lodges, these new businesses were considered unfair competition, because mobile camps
used cheap facilities. The result was prices were lower than those offered by older

outﬁtters with developed lodges and higher costs.

107

CHAPTER 7

Discussion and Recommendations

Origin of JBNQA

The Quebec government was an unwilling participant in the negotiations that led
to the J BNQA. Initially, they did not recognize the natives’ rights to the North, but after
Judge Malout’s judgment, the government was forced to negotiate a settlement with the
natives of Nouveau-Quebec. Participants in these negotiations included certain
stakeholders that were linked directly to the hydro-electric project. However, they
excluded other stakeholders who were directly affected by the settlement. For example,
aspiring non-native outﬁtters were faced with restrictions imposed on them by the
agreement.

Composition of the Agreement

The JBNQA was not written with land, wildlife or tourism management in mind.
Its purpose was to solve a legal and political problem between natives and the Québec
government. The result is a document that is complicated and very difﬁcult to
understand: its technical and legal vocabulary is extensive and its structure complex.

Goals and obiectives of the JBNQA

There are no clear and precise goals and objectives of the JBNQA, but there are
general objectives that the act was supposed to meet. On the government side, the main
purpose of the agreement was to allow the construction of a hydro-electric complex on
the La Grande (LG) River. On the other side of the negotiations, the natives wanted to be

compensated for land, culture and heritage losses they believed would be incurred with

108

the construction of this hydro-electric complex. To accomplish this objective, several
elements such as education, security, land, and rights, had to be negotiated between the
government and the natives.

While the two sides hammered out an agreement, several stakeholders without
direct representation awaited results of the negotiations. In this situation, the government
tried to take into consideration the interests of non-native outﬁtters, mining companies
and lumber companies. In the case of non-native outﬁtters, the Québec government
included certain elements that would ensure the development of non-native outﬁtting.

With respect to the land and hunting and ﬁshing regimes of the JBNQA, the
Quebec Government was interested in developing the hunting and ﬁshing industry
because it is the driving force of tourism in the region and the future of tourism was
viewed as having great potential. On the native side, there was interest in insuring a
presence in an industry compatible with their nomadic lifestyle which focused on the
hunting and ﬁshing—a lifestyle they have had for several thousand years. To do this the

natives were assured the following:

1) priority and exclusive rights to operate outﬁts on certain categories of
land;

2) ﬁrst choice on the right to develop an outﬁtting business;

3) input on development occurring in Nouveau-Quebec; and

4) guaranteed harvest for subsistence based on ancestral rights. Furthermore,

the non-natives, for whom the government negotiated, are guaranteed

some outﬁts with the seven of ten rule.

109

Evaluation of the outputs and outcomes

Outputs and outcomes

To evaluate the objectives of the J BNQA the following outputs and outcomes
(Australian Department of Finance and Administration, 1998) needed to be identiﬁed.

For this paper the outputs (the goods and services delivered over a given period)
were very difﬁcult to assessed since the government and other lack longitudinal,
comparable data on the outﬁtting business. The outputs are presented in the following
trends:

— Client trends (trends in caribou license sales sporting
caribou harvest; number of outﬁtter clients; number
of outﬁtter clients by zone).

- Caribou numbers.

- Guaranteed harvesting levels for native communities.

- Outﬁtter trends (number of outﬁtters; number of
outﬁtters by zone; number of outﬁtters by
category of land).

- Revenue of Nouveau-Québec-outﬁtters.

- Mobile Camp Operations ( number of outﬁtters operating
in zone 23; number of mobile camps operating in
zone 23; number of clients using mobile camps;
Caribou and ﬁsh harvest from mobile and

permanent camps).

110

Outcomes (extent to which program goals have been achieved) are classiﬁed at
different levels. For this paper, the high level outcome is not possible to evaluate in the
present situation since it requires long-term results for customers or for the community of
public service activities and how they are linked to government objectives. These are
often called the "impacts of a policy". High level outcomes need longitudinal results and
in the present situation this type of data is almost impossible to obtain.

However, intermediate or lower level outcomes can be used because they give
speciﬁc results in relation to the objectives, clarifying whether they have been achieved
or not. This level is about effectiveness. It hints at an outcome without necessarily
measuring the whole ﬁnal impact. In this study, this was achieved by surveying outﬁtters
and interviewing managers. The intermediate or lower level outcomes were measured by
identifying the following:

- The satisfaction of outﬁtters and managers with JBNQA;

- The factors which have an impact on the operation, start or purchase of an

outﬁtter.

In a given time, a high level outcome can be achieved, but the measure of the
outputs and the surveys of outﬁtters and managers must be repeated several times and at
regular intervals to verify the impacts of the JBNQA on the industry.

Have the objectives of the JBNQA been met?

Before attempting to determine whether or not the objectives have been met, it is
important to point out that the JBNQA has no clear measurable, timed objectives. They
are broader goals more than quantiﬁable objectives. Consequently, this study must

establish the success or failure of achieving goals with the precision that these goals will

11]

allow. Had the objectives been more precise, the success of the JBNQA could be
measured more accurately.

The govemment’s two main goals, as it is stated, have been met: tourism and
outﬁtting industries in Nouveau-Quebec have grown since the agreement was reached in
1975 and the hydro electric projects are built and operating. All outﬁtter trends show
some growth, client numbers, caribou harvested, number of outﬁtters, and revenues.
Although at ﬁrst glance the growth may not appear to be substantial, based on the
interview with the managers, the grth has been as substantial as possible based on key
factors. There was a lO-year moratorium caused by differing interpretations of the 7 of 10
rule. Further, non-native outﬁtter development has been hampered by the presence of the
coordinating committee since 9 of 10 applications instead of 7 of 10 have been rejected.
Overall, although there has been a growth, its potential has been stunted.

Other factors linked directly the agreement also come into play. For instance, the
growth in Nouveau-Quebec outﬁtting may be due to other factors such as mobile camps
and the size of the caribou herd. In fact, based on the survey, the factor that seems to be
the most important for the development of outﬁtting in Nouveau-Quebec is the ability to
use mobile camps, which allows outﬁtters to follow the caribou migration and to offer
their product at a lower price, thus making it available to a wider range of consumers.

The agreements with regard to outﬁtting facilitated by the JBNQA, seems to have
worked for the natives. They are now a major player in the outﬁtting industry in
Nouveau-Quebec. In 1971, natives represented only 10% of the industry. Now they
represent almost 50% of the industry, an increase that can partially explained, in part, by

the provisions of the JBNQA. The results regarding where outﬁtters operate are a good

112

indicator that the JBNQA did what it was supposed to do, since natives operate on all
three categories of land, while non-natives operate almost exclusively on Category 111
Land. Furthermore, natives seem to be satisﬁed with the provisions of the agreement.

Although the JBNQA is an integral part of the native situation in the outﬁtter
industry, it is not the only factor that has inﬂuenced native outﬁtting. The size of the
caribou herd, the use of mobile camps and the ﬁsh species present are other factors that
have inﬂuenced the observed grth of native outﬁtters.

The non-native objective to guarantee a certain level of development was not
reached. In fact, in the last 25 years, growth has been much slower than that for the native
outﬁtters. Although some growth has accrued, it has not reached expected levels when
taking into account the growth in the caribou herd and the numbers of native outﬁtters.
According to non-native outﬁtters, the cause of the slow growth is the JBNQA. In
particular, land restrictions, the coordinating committee and the 7of 10 rule have been the
largest roadblocks hindering growth. Of the three factors, the implementation of the 7 of
10 rule by the coordinating committee has been most responsible for slowing grth of
non-native outﬁtting. If it had been applied as intended, as a 7 of 10 instead of the 9 of
10 rule, the development of non-native outﬁtters would have been greater.

Generally speaking, non-native outﬁtters are dissatisﬁed with the provisions of
the JBNQA. They feel that they were not a part of the negotiations, that it has slowed
down the growth of their industry, and has created more bureaucracy, making business
more complex and expensive. However, it is important to note that there seems to be a

lack of clear understanding of the JBNQA by outﬁtters, natives and non-natives.

113

However, it is clear that one of the few numerically measurable goals, the 7 of 10 rule,
has not been met. Instead 9 of 10 non-native applications have been rejected.
Future of outﬁttin in Nouveau- uébec

Tourism is one of the world’s major industries, and its development is of concern

for many governmental bodies (McIntosh, Goldner, & Ritchie, 1995; Gee, Makens &
Choy, 1997; and Wahab & Piegrim, 1997). The future of tourism in the province of
Quebec, especially in Nouveau-Quebec, is linked closely to the development of outﬁtting
(Ministere du Tourisme, 1992). Overall, there has been growth in the tourism industry in
Nouveau-Quebec, but, as the size of the caribou herd and the number of outﬁtting
applications indicate, it has not developed as rapidly as many had hoped.

Presently, tourism in Nouveau-Quebec is built primarily on recreational hunting
and ﬁshing facilitated through outﬁtting, is a result of a lack of access and the traditional
activities of in Nouveau-Quebec. Furthermore, the industry is based primarily on caribou
hunting. At the present time, the herd is growing, and the resource is readily available for
the outﬁtters.

However, what would happen to the tourism industry in Nouveau-Quebec if the
caribou herd were to crash? There is good probability that the industry would also crash
with the caribou population, since tourism is now dependent on caribou hunting. With
this in mind, there is a deﬁnite need for diversiﬁcation in activities offered to Nouveau-
Québec visitors.

Fishing is the other main activity offered in Nouveau-Quebec and could be part of
the diversiﬁcation solution. However, by only offering hunting and ﬁshing, the tourism

industry in Nouveau-Quebec is very vulnerable. It is also very limiting, for the long term,

114

in its development because hunting and ﬁshing only attracts a limited clientele (MLCP,
1993). To this end, it is important that Nouveau-Quebec promote other tourism activities
or attractions that can be developed: high adventure activities, native culture and eco-
tourism. It is essential that these alternatives be examined and developed for the health
and future of tourism in Nouveau-Quebec.

One management framework that may assist in the development of the tourism
industry and safeguard the resources and culture on which it depends is the “limits of

acceptable change” (LAC). To be able to establish such a framework, four basic

components must be addressed (Stankey, et al.,1985):

1. Identifying acceptable, achievable and measurable social and

resource standards;

2. Documenting gaps between desired and existing circumstances;
3. Identifying management actions to close the gaps;
4. Monitoring and evaluating management effectiveness.

By establishing the limits of acceptable change and implementing such a
management framework, it is possible to develop and implement standards for resource
management outﬁtting in Nouveau-Quebec. Such standards may focus on social or
ecological conditions. The important elements of the standards is that they respond to
perceptions and to ecological determinations of environmental quality.

With the LAC framework, decisions are not made but are built by the process.
However, LAC requires a good deal of risk taking and examples of implementation are
less frequent than "Visitor Impact Management" (VIM) or "Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum (ROS)" frameworks. Nonetheless, wilderness areas within the U. S. National

115

Wilderness Preservation System, such as the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area in Montana,
used the framework effectively to develop a management plan to deal with widely diverse
recreational pressures (Starkey, McCool and Stokes, 1990). Furthermore, the LAC
Framework is being employed to developing a management strategy for back country
areas of Yoho National Park in Canada (Krys and Anderson, 1992).

LAC offers stakeholders much of the control over the planning of natural resource
tourism. But to succeed, there must be complete trust between all parties because this
type of management requires that power be shared among all stakeholders involved in the
process.

Consequently, for LAC to work in Nouveau-Quebec, the relationship which exists
between the stakeholders must change. Presently, the mistrust among the stakeholders
causes the development of the industry to be slow and arduous. If the climate does not
change, the mistrust may grow and cause a further breakdown in the relationship between
the parties (F alikowski, 1996), which could cause the industry to limp along instead of
growing as it should. For the stakeholder relationship to change, there needs to be better
and open communication among all the parties. This improved communication includes

a better understanding of the JBNQA and that the parties involved better understand each

other. They also have to agree that they are not enemies and that they want similar
outcomes with regards to product development.
Recommendations
Tools Needed for Future Assessment
This study used a policy analysis framework developed by Jones (1984). This is a

useful model because it provides an insight on several policy aspects, including the

116

following: history, stakeholders, application, and evaluation of the policy. All of these
elements are essential in analyzing a policy, and most of the elements are well explained
and presented by Jones. Subsequently, most of the policy analysis can be done with what
Jones had developed in 1984. However, the model has a major weakness with regard to
evaluation, in that Jones does not clear insight as to how an evaluation is conducted. For
the purpose of this study, other models were combined with the Jones model to ﬁll this
void. First an after-the-fact approach (Patton & Sawicki, 1986) was needed because this
policy is already being applied. Next, evaluation measures (Australian Department of
Finance and Administration, 1998) were developed to determine whether or not policy
objectives had been met. Once the weaknesses of the Jones model were overcome, it was
then employed.

The adjusted Jones model allows researchers to measure a very difﬁcult aspect of
policy evaluation: the outcomes (Thomas, 1998; OCDE, 1997). In other words, the
policy accomplish its stated and unstated objectives? This question is very difﬁcult to
address, and most choose not to address it because of the lack of methodology (OCDE,
1997; Auger, 1997). This adjusted Jones model allows a speciﬁc way to measure outputs.
Goals and Obiectives Needed for Future An_alvsis

To perform valid evaluation, measurable objectives must be present.
Unfortunately, the JBNQA does not present such speciﬁcally quantiﬁable objectives.
However, it does support certain directional outcomes. Armed with these facts, the
stakeholders, led by the government, need to sit down and establish clear and measurable
outﬁtting goals and objectives that can be veriﬁed on a regular basis to see how the policy

is impacting the industry.

117

To develop these clear and measurable objectives, there is a need for information
that will help determine which objectives should be established. Some of the information
that is needed to develop these outﬁtting goals and objectives is presented below.

There is a need for on-going, regular monitoring of key elements of outﬁtting
including client numbers, caribou numbers, outﬁtter numbers, revenues, and proﬁts.
There is also a need to repeat certain aspects of the surveys and interviews used in this
study to establish a longitudinal data base. This would facilitate measuring high,
intermediate and lower level outcomes. Repetition of this study, at regular intervals, will
allow establishment of impacts trends of the JBNQA on the outﬁtting industry. The
outputs and outcomes need to gathered by the Québec Government in the same manner
that the US. government gathers information on anglers and hunters in the National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation or in the Canadian
counterpart, The Importance of Wildlife for Canadians.

Limits of Acceptable Chapgp

The LAC framework could be very useful when applied to the development of
hunting and ﬁshing outﬁtting in Nouveau-Quebec since it provides the opportunity to set
broad-based direction. Within those directions, it sets speciﬁc, measurable goals or
objectives using key measures such as caribou populations, number of outﬁtter clients or
number of outﬁtters.

To be able to develop a planning procedure the stakeholders involved in Nouveau-
Québec must band together and become pro-active. Then, they must devise a set of
objectives that can be measured. The LAC framework is a tool that can help achieve

these goals.

118

The LAC framework consists of a series of interrelated steps leading to the
development of a set of measurable objectives. It also identiﬁes the management actions
necessary to maintain or achieve certain conditions. Consequently, the following
procedures and studies need to be done to be able to apply the LAC framework:

— Review of Nouveau-Quebec legislative and policy direction, previous
research and area data base. From this process a summary of the existing
situation should be produced.

— Review existing Nouveau-Quebec objectives and goals for consistency
with legislative mandate and policy direction. For outﬁtting in Nouveau-
Québec the visitor experience and resource management objectives need
particular scrutiny. For this process a clear statement of Nouveau-Quebec
outﬁtting goals and objectives will be produced.

— Identify measurable social and ecological variables and list indicators and
units of measurement).

— Restate the Nouveau-Quebec outﬁtting management objectives in terms of
desired conditions for the selected impact indicators. In other words,
develop quantitative statements of desired conditions.

— Field assessment or comparison of standards and existing conditions. This
will identify consistency or the lack of it with the selected standards.

— For discrepancies, examine the use patterns and other potential factors
affecting occurrence and severity of unacceptable impacts in Nouveau-
Québec. This means a description of casual factors for management

attention.

119

— Identify and examine all direct or indirect management strategies dealing
with probable causes of visitor or ecological impacts.

— Develop a monitoring system to ensure that the gap is closing between
actual conditions and the deﬁned standards and to assure that indicators
stay within the standards established by the stakeholders in Nouveau-
Quebec.

All of this information is essential if stakeholders hope to develop clear objectives
on the level of acceptable and desired growth of Nouveau-Quebec outﬁtting, number of
clients, number of outﬁts, native and non-native outﬁtters satisfaction with JBNQA,
impact on the caribou herd, and client satisfaction. In other words, to be able to write
clear and precise objectives related to these topics, the proper information is needed.

Not only is this information essential for the development of objectives, its is also
essential to perform the evaluations. If these data are collected on a longitudinal basis, as
described earlier, it becomes possible to assess the impacts (high level outcomes) that the
agreement has on the tourism or outﬁtting industry.

Better Understanding and Communication Between Stakeholders

Generally, outﬁtters are not familiar with details of the JBNQA. To avoid
misunderstanding and mistrust, the managers of Nouveau-Quebec (Quebec Government)
need to make sure that the licensed outﬁtters of this area clearly understand the
implications of the JBNQA. They can start by providing better information about the
J BNQA and communicate it in terms that are readily understandable for all outﬁtters.
Some documents do exist, like the Development Plan for Outﬁtter Establishment in

Nouveau-Quebec - Section I and II of 1991. However, this does not seem adequate, since

120

outﬁtters still seem unaware about the implications of the JBNQA. To clear up this
confusion, the government may need to develop an information campaign for the
Nouveau-Quebec outﬁtters, with information sessions and literature available during the
renewal of outﬁtter licences. Brochures or pamphlets also could be developed and
distributed with appropriate information about the outﬁtting implications of the JBNQA.

Because of the way the JBNQA was negotiated, quickly, under judicial pressure
and as compensation for the LG dams, many affected groups were excluded from the
negotiations. For the development of any future agreement that would be instituted in
Nouveau-Quebec or any other region, all stakeholders affected by the agreement must be
included in negotiations.

In the case of the JBNQA, the stakeholders that have been generally ignored are
the people that have applied for a Nouveau-Quebec outﬁtting license but have been
tumed down. To help with the negotiations of future agreements, it would be important to
better understand this population. This information is essential for the development of
any future regulations related to outﬁtting in Nouveau-Quebec, since they have a stake in
outﬁtting and a clear perspective of disenfranchisement from past practices.

Conclusion

As mentioned by Sessoms (1989), policy analyses are not often performed in the

fields of tourism and recreation. This study, by evaluating JBNQA, ﬁlls a void because

very few policies have been evaluated or analyzed in these ﬁelds, especially as they relate

to tourism and native peoples. Furthermore, this study provides a combination of tools for

completing aﬁer—the-fact policy analysis.

121

With regards to the situation of tourism or outﬁtting in Nouveau-Quebec, the
J BNQA is one of a number of factors that has had an inﬂuence on outﬁtting in Nouveau-
Québec. Other factors such as the use of mobile camps and the size of the caribou herd
also have had an inﬂuence on the industry.

For a successful tourism future, Nouveau-Quebec must take into consideration
diversiﬁcation of their tourism industry and make sincere efforts to promote harmony
among different stakeholders. For example, new hydro-electric projects on the horizon,
such as the Labrador (Churchill) project will require negotiations with native populations.
Consequently, the Québec Government and Hydro-Quebec need to be pro-active and
prepare for these negotiations beforehand. To do this, they should complete the
following:

— Make a situation assessment;

— Identify and scope key interests;

— Make a commitment to long-term tourism development and
resource health through implementation of LAC.

With regards to the outﬁtting stakeholders, the ones mentioned in this study,
native outﬁtters, non-native outﬁtters and Ministry of Environment and Fauna, are the
main players in the Nouveau-Quebec tourism industry. However, other stakeholders
should also be considered, including people responsible for the transportation of clients,
people responsible for the management of the resource, hunters and ﬁshermen (clients),
peOple offering tourism activities that are not hunting or ﬁshing, and potential outﬁtters

Which were turned down during the application process.

122

Outﬁtting and tourism are relatively minor concerns in the JBNQA. However,
tourism is becoming more important, and if the proper development should take place in
the northern part of the province, it should be considered as an important part of any new
agreement in Nouveau-Ouébec. Tourism can mean sustainable development, and the use
of the LAC framework will assure that it is really sustainable.

Tourism has a stake in the economic well-being of Nouveau-Ouébec. It is
compatible with resource conservation that supports subsistence lifestyles. The special
resources that are found in this region. opportunities for hunting and ﬁshing, other
outdoor recreation possibilities, scenery and native cultures, make it one Quebec’s
greatest tourism assets. If the province decides to make this unique resource one of its
major tourism destinations, it should be ready. As a starting point, future agreements
concerning natural resource management of native rights need to consider the importance

of tourism development as well as the well-being of the stakeholders.

123

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 1

Information in this appendix is taken from James Bay grid Northern Ouébec Aggeement
and Complementary Aggeements (1997).

LAND REGIME

5.1

5.1.1

5.1.3

Category I Lands - James Bay Crees

Deﬁnition

Category I lands which are tracts of land having an area of approximately
2,158 square miles and which comprise Categories IA, IB and special 1B, as
hereinafter deﬁned shall be set aside for the James Bay Crees as deﬁned in the
Agreement and for the Inuit of Fort George.
Category IA Lands

Category IA lands are lands set aside for the exclusive use and beneﬁt of
the respective James Bay Cree bands, including the Great Whale River Band,
under the administration, management and control of Canada, subject to the terms
and conditions of the Agreement.

Subject to the provisions of the Agreement and notwithstanding the

surrender provisions of the Indian Act, it is recognized by Canada, Quebec

and the James Bay Crees that the lands presently set aside for the Native

people of the Waswanipi, Mistassini and Eastrnain Bands under the

Québec Lands and Forests Act (S.R.Q. 1964, c. 92 as amended) shall no

longer be reserves within the meaning of the said Act as of the coming

into force of the Agreement.

Category IA lands will comprise an area of approximately 1,274 square

miles as shown on the attached maps and as described in Section 4 of the

Agreement and shall include the areas of all the present Cree villages,

except Waswanipi and Nemaska, and including part of the Great Whale

River settlement. Such lands shall be Canada shall accept such transfer.

Quebec shall retain bare ownership of the land and, subject to the

provisions herein, ownership of the mineral and subsurface rights over

such lands.
Category IB Lands

Category IB lands of an area of approximately 884 square miles for the
James Bay Crees as shown on the attached maps and as described in Section 4,
including seventeen and four tenths (17.4) square miles for the Inuit of Fort
George, which shall be excluded from the James Bay Municipality, will be
granted by the provisions of the special legislation to provincial
corporations composed solely of the James Bay Crees, except the seventeen
and four tenths (17.4) square miles for the Inuit of Fort George, which is dealt
with elsewhere in the Agreement.

The ownership of such lands, under provincial jurisdiction, will vest in
such Cree corporations outright, provided that the lands can only be sold or ceded

125

5.1.5

to Québec and this shall constitute a prohibition to sell or cede other than to

Quebec.

Such Cree corporations shall consist of the members of the respective Cree
communities entitled to beneﬁt under the Agreement and may be private

landholding corporations or at the option of the Crees, the public corporations of

a municipal character which will have jurisdiction over Category IB lands.

Unless otherwise speciﬁcally provided herein, these lands cannot by taken
away by Québec and in those circumstances described in this Section where the
right of expropriate by Ouébec is exercised, the land must be replaced or
compensation paid at the option of the Crees except if otherwise provided herein.
Special Category IB Lands

Within certain Category IB lands there shall be special Category IB lands.
Each parcel thereof, having areas ranging between twenty (20) to twenty-ﬁve (25)
square miles, and shown on the attached map, described in the territorial
descriptions here to attached, and located near the localities of Rupert House,
Eastmain, Fort George and Great Whale River, shall be situated on the northern
banks of the Rupert, Eastmain and Fort George Rivers, and on the southern bank
of Great Whale River.

It is also agreed that the lands are subject to the regime for Category IB
lands subject to the following provisions:

a) The right of Quebec, its agents and mandataries to establish, in addition to
the public servitudes in favour of public bodies, agencies and corporations,
in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5.1.7, servitudes for public
purposes;

b) in the case of the additional servitudes for public purposes, only
developments which do not involved more than a permanent staff of ten
(10) persons per development shall be allowed;

c) the right for Quebec to give the necessary authorizations for the duration
of such activities;
(I) notwithstanding anything herein contained, any other developments by

Quebec, its agents and mandataries may be permitted with the consent of
the Cree community concerned;

e) Quebec, its agents and mandataries shall, at all times, have access to
Special Category [B lands as if they Category II lands and for the purposes
mentioned above.

Existing Third Party and Governmental Interests
Lands ceded to third parties, by letters patent or owned by third parties

prior to the execution of the Agreement, shall be Category III lands. However,

the said lands and persons thereon shall be subject to the by-laws of the Cree local
authority as if such lands formed part of Category I lands. Such persons shall
have a right to all services of a municipal nature which are offered by the Cree
local authority to the residents of the surrounding or adjacent Category I lands on
the same terms and conditions, the whole subject to the rights of such persons and
the exercise of the same.

126

The lands over which rights have been ceded by Québec to third parties
prior to the Agreement in the form of leases, occupation permits or other
authorizations shall be Category I lands. The holders of such rights may continue
to exercise them, subject solely to all provincial laws and regulations as if the
lands over which the said rights are granted were Category III lands until the
termination of the period ﬁxed for the exercise of such rights, unless such rights
are renewed by Québec.

Lands within the areas of Category I lands, as shown on the attached maps
but which are presently the object of mining claims, development licenses,
exploration permits, mining concessions and mining leases and other similar
rights, as presently deﬁned in the Quebec Mining Act (SO. 1965, c. 34 as
amended) shall be Category III lands. However, Quebec undertakes upon the
expiry of these rights, or any renewal thereof, to transfer the administration,
management and control of the lands subject thereto to Canada for the use and
beneﬁt of the Crees or the ownership to the Cree corporation depending on
whether the said lands are within the areas of Category IA or 1B lands. If any part
of such lands are taken for development under the Québec Mining Act, Québec
will replace the land taken, in accordance with the procedure set out for the
replacement of Category H lands.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, lands within Category I which are
presently the object of exploration permits issued to La Société de développement
de la Baie James will be Category I lands with the right to explore and develop as
if such lands were Category III lands for the purpose of exercising the rights
granted by the permits but subject to paragraph 5.1.6 c) below. However,
provincial laws and regulations shall apply with respect to such permits and the
exercise of all rights pursuant thereto.

Québec undertakes to provide Canadian and the Grand Council of the
Crees (of Quebec), within ninety (90) days of the execution of the Agreement,
with a list of the mining claims, development licenses, mining concessions,
mining leases, exploration permits, referred to above, within Category I lands
along with the names of the holders thereof, the dates the rights were granted, the
nature of the rights and the date of their expiry.

The areas of land covered by such existing mining claims, development
licenses, exploration permits, including the above mentioned portion of those of
La Société de développement de la Baie James, mining concessions and mining
leases surrounded by Category I lands have been included in the calculation
establishing the total area of 2,158 square miles of Cree Category I lands.

Existing regional and provincial roads and main arteries within Category I
lands shall be Category III lands and shall be clearly described at the time of the
transfer of such lands. However, there shall be Category II lands for a distance of
ﬁve hundred (500) feet on each side of said roads. Other existing roads within the

Cree communities, as well as branch roads, within Category I lands and
leading to the Cree communities, shall be Category I lands, but the general public
shall be granted access over such roads.

127

5.1.6

1))

Moreover, no persons other than the Native people can establish or operate
commercial facilities subject to the provisions of sub-paragraph 5.1.6 o) hereof on
either side of those roads or arteries referred to in the previous paragraph, except
with the express consent of the Cree community concerned.

The areas covered by existing landing strips, airport installations,
hydroplane bases and maritime structures within Category III lands. However,
the areas of such lands have been included in calculating the total area of
Category I lands.

When such landing strips, airport installations or other areas mentioned
above are no longer required, as determined by Quebec, the ownership or the
administration, management and control, as the case may be, shall be transferred
by Québec in the manner provided herein above, subject to the approval of any
owner thereof, and subject to third party interests respecting mineral substances
already conceded.

The seashore, beds and shores of the lakes and rivers identiﬁed in the
territorial descriptions in Section 4 of the Agreement shall be excluded from
Category I lands with respect to the shoreline of such lakes and rivers and lands
on both sides of such rivers and around the lakes for a distance of two hundred
(200) feet shall be Category II lands. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 5.1.6
c), in such Category II lands, no person other than the sole consent of the Cree
community concerned, however, such two hundred (200) foot restriction does not
apply for a distance of one (1) mile in both directions from the centre of the Cree
community concerned along the shoreline.

In front of Category I and Category II lands, the intertidal zone will be
Category II lands. In front of Category III lands, the intertidal zone will remain
Category III lands.

Future Occupation by Québec and Third Parties
Québec and its representatives

Lots within Category I lands shall be allocated by the Cree community or
corporation for community services supplied by Quebec, its agents or
mandataries, such as roads, schools, hospitals, police stations and
telecommunications. Such allocation shall be by way of leases, servitudes or
similar contract and for nominal compensation (i.e. $1.00).

Third Parties

The Cree community, in any case in which it allows third parties to
occupy Category I lands for projects of regional or provincial interest, shall ﬁrst
consult with Québec and in the case of Category IA lands, Canada as well.
Mining Explorations and Operations under Existing Rights

Where lands which are the object of existing mining claims, development
licenses, exploration permits, mining concessions, mining leases and other similar
titles pertaining to merals as deﬁned in the Québec Mining Act are surrounded by
or adjacent to Category I lands, the owners of these rights or titles for the purpose
of exercising the said rights shall have the right to use Category I lands, but only
to the extent necessary in order to carry out their exploration or mining operations
as provided for in division XXII of the Quebec Mining Act. Nonetheless, the

128

5.1.7
A)

appropriation of the lands required for such purposes shall be done by temporary
servitude only, but shall not be subject to the expropriation provisions of the
Indian Act or of the Agreement. The indemnity to be paid to the Cree Local
Authority by Québec for the use (other than for exploration) of such Category I
lands will be equivalent replacement land. In the case of exploration, the
compensation to be paid to the Cree Local Authority by Québec for the use of
such Category I lands shall be the equivalent to what is being paid to Quebec for
the use of surface rights on Crown lands in similar cases.

In the event that areas of land contemplated in the immediately proceeding
paragraph are developed as provided herein above, the Cree community
concerned shall have the right to the replacement of an equivalent area of land in
the same manner as set forth in the procedure for the replacement of Category I
lands in the case of development.

In regard to lands which will be the object of mining claims, development
licenses, exploration permits, mining concessions, mining leases and similar titles
in the ﬁrture, except the lands presently covered by any such titles which shall be
governed by the special provisions herein above set forth, the exercise of any
rights in or over Category I lands shall be subject to the general regime set forth
below.

Public Servitudes Established by Quebec
General

Category I lands are subject to public servitudes established by Quebec, its
agents or mandataries in the cases set forth in sub-paragraphs a), b) and c) of this
paragraph, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned herein and subject to
compensation in an equivalent amount of land or in money at the option of the
Cree community concerned unless for services of direct beneﬁt to category I lands
or to such community.

Consequently, all public bodies, agencies and corporation authorized by
law will be allowed to expropriate for the purpose of establishing the following
public servitudes in the cases and subject to the conditions mentioned below.

a) infrastructures: such as regionally roads and arteries, bridges, airports,
maritime structures and protection and irrigation facilities;

b) local services: water systems, sewers, puriﬁcation plants, treatment plants,
ﬁre protection and other services generally provided by local or municipal
governments;

c) public utilities: electricity, gas, oil, telecommunications and telephones;

(1) however, in the case of gas or oil pipelines or transmission lines, the

servitudes shall be subject to the following:

i) they shall be situated the farthest way possible from the centre of
the village, in so far as reasonable, taking into account all
circumstances, and in all cases at a distance of at least ﬁve (5)
miles from the centre of the village;

ii) necessary land taken for such purposes shall be replaced in all
cases;

129

B)

C)

iii) all reasonable efforts shall be made to attempt to locate such
transmission lines or pipelines in Category III or Category II lands,
for equal cost;

iv) they shall be subject to the Environmental Regime, applicable to
Category II lands, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 22 of
the Agreement;

e) other servitudes of a similar nature established by law.

In the case of public servitudes, indemnity in lands or money, at the option

of the Cress, must be effected, except in the case of public servitudes

involving services which directly beneﬁt Category I lands or the Cree
community concerned.

Direct beneﬁt would be determined with respect to the potential use by

and/or future advantages to Category I lands and the community itself.

Where it is not otherwise possible for Quebec to achieve the above without

a full use and taking of the land, Quebec shall have the right to expropriate

in full ownership for the purposes of the present paragraph and paragraph

5.1.4, subject to the other provisions of this Section.

Direct Beneﬁt

Servitudes considered as being of direct beneﬁt to Category I lands or the
Cree community concerned would include servitudes involving public services
expressly requested by the Cree community, essential services for the Cree
communities provided such services are used by the Cree residents of the
community and services designed to enhance the quality of life of the Cree
inhabitants of the community.

Such servitudes would include but not necessarily be limited to such
things as local services generally provided by municipal or local governments
and by public utilities, local roads, bridges and community airports.

In all other cases not covered by the Agreement, burden of proof in
establishing the direct beneﬁt to the Category I lands of the community shall lie
upon Quebec.

In all cases, the Cree community shall have the right and opportunity to
contest, in accordance with the procedure hereinafter set forth, whether a
particular public servitude involves services of direct beneﬁt to Category I lands
or to the community.

Compensation in Land or in Money

In the case of a servitude recognized not to be of direct beneﬁt to Category
I lands or to the Cree community, there shall be compensation in an equal amount
of land or, at the Option of the Crees, in an amount of money and/or land.
However, such compensation shall be by replacement of land only when such
servitudes effectively withdraw portions of Category I lands from the use or
enjoyment of the Cree community concemed.

If the Cree community chooses compensation in the form of land, the Cree
community shall indicate its selection preference to Quebec as soon as the
decision to proceed with the proposed public servitude is taken.

130

D)

E)

If necessary, Quebec shall then propose to the Cree community taking into
consideration the Cree community’s preference, an area with similar
characteristics, insofar as is possible, to Category I lands and contiguous to the
location of the Category I lands subject to the servitude. Such area proposed as
replacement shall be double the size of the land to be replaced. The community
shall be then entitled to choose from this area apiece of land equal in size to that
land effectively taken away for the purposes of the public servitude.

This procedure will precede the taking of land for a servitude or any
construction related to the servitude. However, a time limit of one hundred and
twenty (120) days shall be allowed for this procedure, provided that the taking of
the land for the servitude or any construction related to the servitude may proceed
after sixty (60) days.

If there is no agreement on the choice of the replacement land within the
period of one hundred and twenty (120) days and provided there is no contestation
of the right to acquire the servitude, the compensation would then have to take the
form of money.

If there is no agreement between the Cree community and Québec
respecting the determination of what is direct beneﬁt to a community or if the
community, instead of compensation in the form of land, chooses compensation in
the form of money and the parties are unable to agree as to what is adequate
compensation, the decision whether to be of direct beneﬁt and the amount of
compensation shall be ﬁxed by the Expropriation Tribunal of Quebec, unless the
parties agree to submit the matter to binding arbitration.

Impact Assessment

All proposed servitudes mentioned in sub-paragraphs 5.1.7 Aa) and 5.1.7
Ad) shall be subject to the Environmental and Social Protection Regime
applicable to Category II lands and the procedures for such regime, which are
contemplated by the Agreement. More particularly, and if appropriate, the
proposed servitude will be subject to a prior environmental and social impact
assessment report and a delay of at least sixty (60) days will be allowed for
comments by and discussions with the community on the proposed work.

Other

Any land effectively withdrawn from Category I lands for the purpose of
establishing a servitude which has been compensated for in the form of land or
money will be classiﬁed as Category III lands.

If the holder of the servitude no longer requires such servitude, the
community shall have the option to have land formerly subject to such servitude
reclassiﬁed as Category I lands provided that the land which was allocated to the
community as compensation, if such was the case, reverts to Québec to be
reclassiﬁed as Category II or Category HI lands depending on its status before the
said land was used for compensation.

Unless the Crees are compensated in money in respect to expropriations
by Québec and subject to the provisions of paragraph 5.1.8, the total are of
Category I lands shall never be less than 2, 158 square miles without the consent
of the Crees or exceed 2,158 square miles without the consent of Québec.

131

In respect to the above servitudes, and also subject to the consent of the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council, all public bodies, agencies and companies which
now have or will have such powers deﬁned in present or future laws of Québec
will be able to establish such servitudes.

Expropriation by Canada

Notwithstanding the Expropriation Act of Canada, no Category IA lands
may be expropriated by Her Maj est in Right of Canada without the prior consent
of the Governor in Council Subject to the foregoing, nothing in the Agreement
shall be interpreted in any way as limiting the power of Canada to expropriate for
public purposes.

Public Utilities

Present and ﬁiture public utilities will continue to remain the responsibility
of competent authorities acting in accordance with Provincial and Federal statutes
and regulations and applicable local by-laws.

Natural Resources
Minerals and Other Underground Rights

In Category I lands, Quebec remains the owner of the mineral and sub-
surface rights with the exception of rights already granted by Quebec, as of the
execution of the Agreement.

However, no minerals or other sub-surface rights can be obtained,
extracted, mined or exercised from or with respect to all Category I lands without
the consent of the particular community with rights over such lands and only upon
payment of compensation agreed upon, for the use of rights over such lands.

The carrying out of work resulting from mineral rights granted prior to the
execution of the Agreement on lands surrounded by or adjacent to Category I
lands shall be as dealt with in sub-paragraph 5.1.6 c) above as on other Category
III lands. For the purposes contemplated by Division XXII of the Quebec Mining
Act, the holders of such rights requiring the use of adjacent Category I lands may
use the adjacent or surrounding Category I lands to the extent necessary to
exercise their rights, subject to the provisions of sub-paragraph 5.1.6 c) above.
Such works may include mining operations subject to the provisions mentioned in
that paragraph.

Any future exploration or exploitation of minerals within Category I lands,
other than the exploration or exploitation under rights existing prior to the
Agreement including the right to explore and mine extension of mineralization
around the lands subject to such existing rights and subject to the provisions
referred to in sub-paragraph 5.1.6 c) of this Section, shall only be permitted with
the Consent of the Cree community holding the rights to the lands affected.
Moreover, speciﬁc authorization from Quebec according to conditions speciﬁed
in Quebec mining laws and regulations, shall be required before any mining rights
may be acquired.

b) Substances Ceded to the Native People

Deposits of steatite (soapstone) or other similar material used for

traditional arts and crafts will belong to the Native population.

132

5.1.11

5.1.12

c) Gravel and Other Similar Materials

Permits must be obtained by the Cree community from the Québec
Department of Natural Resources for the use of gravel and other similar material
generally used for earthworks for personal and community use. However, the
Quebec Department of Natural Resources may not withhold such permits
provided all the regulations are observed and the duties provided for under any
applicable Provincial legislation shall not be collected.

The taking or use of such gravel shall also be subject to the Environmental
and Social Protection Regime provided for under the Agreement in respect to
Category I lands.

(1) Forests

The Crees will have the right to use the forest for personal and community
needs within Category I lands.

The respective Cree communities will likewise have the exclusive right to
the commercial exploitation of forest resources within Category I lands by
themselves or by third parties acting with their consent. However, in such case,
the Cree community will have to obtain cutting rights or permits from the Québec
Department of Lands and Forests, but the Department shall not withhold its
consent to such permit, provided that such commercial cutting is in keeping with
the development and marketing plan of such commercial exploitation, the
community will not be obliged to pay stumpage dues to Québec but operations
must respect Quebec standards.

Subject to such permit and the requirements herein above stated such
resources shall be governed by the laws applicable to Category I lands. The
general regime for forest protection, including the cost entailed will be applicable.
Residence

Non-Native people presently residing in Category I lands shall have the
right to remain until the expiration of their rights of occupancy or residency on
such lands, and shall be subject to the general by-laws and regulations of the local
government. Subject to the foregoing, non-Native people will not be allowed to
reside in Category I lands except in accordance with the by-laws and regulations
established by the local government. However, such by-laws and regulations
must permit non-Native people to reside in the area for purposes allowed by the
local government, for purposes of administrative or public service duties or
scientiﬁc research, provided such activities do not entail an inﬂux of substantial
numbers of people likely to alter in an appreciable way the demographic makeup
of the community.

In particular, non-Crees married to Crees, and their immediate families in
the ﬁrst degree, shall have the right to reside in Category I lands.

Access

The general public will have access to all roads, arteries, airports, bridges,
public sea-plane bases, wharves, harbours, rivers and principal lakes and public
buildings and lands used for public purposes.

The following persons shall also be permitted access to Category I lands:

- persons authorized to reside on Category I lands;

133

5.1.13

5.2
5.2.1

- persons authorized to exercise a public function or engaged in
technical surveys, the construction or operation of a public work or
public utility;

- owners of mineral rights and persons engaged in the exercise
thereof;

- as well as such other persons as may be authorized by the Cree
Local Authority.

Subject to the foregoing, only members of the Cree band or community
shall have access to Category I lands and the Cree Local Authority shall have by-
law power to regulate access provided that any such by-law shall not negate or
unreasonably restrict the right of access.

Restrictions on Transfer

No Category I lands may be sold or otherwise ceded except to the Crown
in Right of Quebec. However, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, the
Cree Local Authority may grant to any person, including non-Natives, servitudes,
other rights of use and occupation and leases respecting such lands, provided that
whee lands are leased or real rights granted to non-Natives fr a period exceeding
ﬁve (5) years, including any renewal thereof, the leasehold interest or real rights
granted shall be, as of the date of the lease or grant, subject to all Provincial laws
and regulations as if the lands over which the said leasehold interest or real rights
are granted were Category IB lands.

Notwithstanding the immediately preceding paragraph, no water-courses
or lakes or rights therein in Category IB lands may be granted by the Cree Local
Authority to persons other than members of the Cree community for whom
Category IB lands have been allocated.

In the event that a band of Crees occupying part of Category IA lands
becomes extinct, Canada shall revest in Québec all the rights and interests
transferred to it under the Agreement in Category IA lands occupied by the band
prior to its becoming extinct.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, should a Cree band join another Cree band
or should all the members of one (1) Cree band join another Cree band, the
Category IA lands of the band or members joining another band shall be vested in
that other band, provided that Crees are living on the land of the band with which
the amalgamation is proposed.

Category II Lands
Deﬁnition

Category II lands will comprise 25 130 square miles south of the 55th
parallel of latitude where the James Bay Cress shall have the exclusive right of
hunting, ﬁshing and trapping and will also have the rights established under
Section 24 of the Agreement. Of this 25 130 square miles, the Inuit of Fort
George shall have the right to 231 square miles as Category II lands, as provided
in Section 4 and in paragraph 7.2.1 of Section 7. Other uses of Category II lands
for purposes other than hunting, ﬁshing and trapping shall be subject to the
provisions set forth below.

Provincial jurisdiction shall continue over Category II lands.

134

5.2.2

5.2.3

Third Party Interests

The lands already ceded to third parties in ownership prior to the execution
of the Agreement shall be excluded from Category II lands.

Moreover, lands within the area of the said Category II lands which are
subject to rights already ceded to third parties prior to the execution of the
Agreement by way of lease or occupation permits or lands which are the object of
mining claims, development licenses, exploration permits, mining concessions
and mining leases shall be Category III lands. At such time as the said rights
revert to the Crown such lands shall be Category II lands.

Lands within said Category II lands which are presently the object of
exploration permits issued to La Société de développement de la Baie James shall
fall into Category II lands with the right to explore, develop and mine as if such
lands were Category III lands, in respect to the exercise of the rights under
permits, subject to the provisions of paragraph 5.2.3.

Moreover, existing roads, landing strips, airport installations, sea-plane
bases and maritime structures shall be Category III lands, and as such, shall be
excluded from the administrative regime applicable to Category II lands. The
large bodies of water surrounded fully or partially by Category II lands but
excluded from Category II lands are identiﬁed in the said territorial descriptions.
Development

Category II lands may be appropriated by Québec for development
purposes, provided such lands are replaced or, if the Native people wish, and an
agreement can be reached thereon, they are compensated.

Unless such activities are directly related to pre-development, the rights or

the exercise thereof of non-Native people, in respect to their lawﬁil
activities, shall be controlled by Québec through appropriate legislation or
regulations and reasonable enforcement machinery if they interfere or could
reasonably be expected to interfere with the rights granted to Native people under
the Section of the Agreement relating to hunting, ﬁshing and trapping (Section
24).

For the purposes of the Agreement in respect to Category II lands:
development shall be deﬁned as any act or deed which precludes hunting, ﬁshing
and trapping activities by Native people, except for pre-development; and pre-
development shall be deﬁned as any act or deed of an exploratory nature exercised
during a limited time in view of researching information to decide if development
will take place or not.

In the case of development, should the Cree community choose
replacement of land, the community shall indicate its preference to Ouébec as
soon as the decision to proceed with the development is taken and communicated.

If there is no agreement in respect to the choice of land, Quebec shall then
propose to the Cree community taking into consideration the Cree community’s
preference, an area with the similar characteristics, insofar as is possible, as
Category II lands and contiguous to the location of the Category II lands subject
to the replacement. Such area proposed as replacement shall be double the size of
the land to be replaced. The Cree community shall then choose from this area a

135

5.2.4

5.2.5

piece of land contiguous to the Category II lands and equal in size to that land
effectively taken away for the purpose of such development as ﬁrll compensation
for the land taken away. Compensation may also by made by money payments
mutually agreed upon.

This procedure will precede the taking of land for development or any
construction related thereto. However, a time limit of one hundred and twenty
(120) days shall be allowed for this procedure, provided that the taking of the land
for the development or any construction related to such development may proceed
alter sixty (60) days.

Such development shall be subject to the Environmental Regime set forth
in Section 22 of the Agreement.

Public Servitudes

Notwithstanding the above deﬁnition of development, all public servitudes

may be established on Category II lands without payment of indemnity.

Natural Resources

a) Mineral exploration and technical surveys do not constitute development
as deﬁned herein and may be carried out without replacement of lands and
without replacement of lands and without payment of indemnity, but
subject to the provisions of the Environmental and Social Protection

Regime of the Agreement. Moreover, such mineral exploration and

technical surveys must be carried out so as to avoid unreasonable conﬂict

with harvesting activities.
b) Use of Soapstone

The right to use soapstone for traditional arts and crafts purposes may be

acquired by the Native people through their respective local governments

by way of a permit from the Québec Department of Natural Resources.

Such permit may not be unreasonably withheld. This special permit will

be provided for under the Mining Act and will give the rights to use this

mineral substance only for the use of traditional arts and crafts purposes.

The lands in question will have to be marked in the ﬁeld by the Native

people by using a method analogous to the one used for claim staking.

The area will have to be restricted to the outcrops easily accessible to the

Native people. Furthermore, the right to the soapstone will always be

subordinated to the rights to other mineral substances, in such a way that it

will not prevent possible mining developments on that land.
c) Forests

Forest operations are compatible with hunting, ﬁshing and trapping

activities.

Commercial cutting programs in Category II lands will be deﬁned

according to management plans elaborated by the Québec Department of

Lands and Forests, which shall take into consideration the hunting, ﬁshing

and trapping activities.

Operations must respect Québec standards and the general regime for

forest protection will be applicable.

136

5.2.6 Access

Subject to the rights of the Native people, under the Hunting, Fishing and
Trapping Section (24) of the Agreement, persons exercising a right compatible
with such rights of the Native People as well as persons exercising some duty
imposed by law shall have access to Category II lands and may remain thereon, an
direct constructions thereon, subject to the general restrictions of law and the
provisions imposed by this Section of the Agreement and subject to the following
additional restrictions:

a) Tourism and Recreation

Non-Native people will not be allowed to hunt, ﬁsh or trap in Category II
lands, except with the consent of the Native people, and subject to the rights of the
non-Natives set forth in the Hunting and Fishing regime (Section 24).

b) Exploration, Pre-development Activities, Scientiﬁc Studies and
Administrative Purposes

Persons wishing to carry out such works shall be required to obtain an
authorization for same from Quebec. Such a request for authorization shall have
to include the following information: objective, nature, importance of the work to
be effected, duration and a description of the installations involved.

In case such authorization is granted, the Native people shall be advised of
the information so given to Quebec, as soon as is reasonably possible.

However, works which do not involve substantial operations in the ﬁeld,
such as geoscientiﬁc works and mining exploration of the type provided for by the
Québec Mining Act will not be subject to the presentation of the information nor
the obtaining of the authorization mentioned above.

Nonetheless, such works shall be carried out in such a manner as to avoid
unreasonable conﬂict with the rights of the Native people under the Hunting,

Fishing and Trapping Regime.
5.2.7 Special Provisions Concerning the Mistassini Area Outﬁtting Camps

5.3
5.3.1

5.4
5.4.1

Notwithstanding paragraph 24.9.2, Québec shall be allowed to operate the
Louis Jolliet and Vieux Poste Camps as well as the outposts of these two camps
for a period of ten (10) years; during this period, Quebec shall take all reasonable
means to train Cree persons in all aspects of the outﬁtting business so that the
Crees, may, if they wish, take over completely the operation of these camps at the
end of this ten (10) year period.
Category III Lands
General access to Category III lands will be in accordance with Provincial
legislation and regulations concerning public lands.
The regime for the use of soapstone in Category III lands shall be that applicable,
mutatis mutandis, to Category II lands.
Wood Rights for Native People on Category II or III
Québec shall guarantee a supply of wood necessary for the operation of the
present Paint Hills sawmill or an equivalent wood supply subject to the approval
of the Minister of Lands and Forests of a location other than the Paint Hills area
for such wood supply. No stumpage dues shall be payable for such wood supply.

137

5.4.2

5.4.3

5.4.4

5.5
5.5.1

5.5.2

5.5.3

In addition, Québec will consider proposals submitted by the Native people which
would have the effect of creating employment for Native people and other
residents of the Territory and are in accordance with the planning of the Québec
Department of Lands and Forests.

The Crees shall pay stumpage dues for commercial utilization of such wood rights
on Category II or III lands.

Speciﬁc arrangements for the operation contemplated shall be discussed and
agreed upon with the Quebec Department of Lands and Forests. However, the
Crees shall be liable for the payment of costs incurred under the general regime
for forest protection.

Development

Notwithstanding anything else contained in the Agreement Quebec, La Société
d’énergie de la Baie James, Hydro-Quebec and La Société de développement de la
Baie James and their nominees and such other persons acting lawfully shall have
the right subject to all applicable laws and regulations to develop the land and
resources in Category III lands and also, for the purpose of development, Quebec
has the right to take Category II lands subject to the replacement or compensation
as speciﬁed in this Section and such Category II lands shall then become Category
III lands.

More particularly, the rights and guarantees given to the Native people by
and in accordance with the Section on Hunting, Fishing and Trapping shall be
subject to the right to develop Category III and Category II lands on the part of
Québec, Hydro-Ouébec, La Société d’énergie de la Baie James and La Société de
développement de la Baie James and their nominees and such other persons may
be lawfully authorized. However, the developers shall be submitted to the
Environmental Regime which takes into account the Hunting, Fishing and
Trapping Regime.

Subject to laws and regulations of general application except as hereinafter
provided in paragraph 5.5.3, Québec, La Société d’énergie de la Baie James,
Hydro-Quebec and all public bodies, agencies and corporations authorized by law
may modify or regulate the ﬂow of rivers of Categories 11 and III lands or have
downstream effect on the part of such rivers included within Category I lands,
subject to the following provisions:

a) The ﬂow regime shall not be modiﬁed in such a way as to increase the
water level above the highest previously recorded water level of the river.
b) For the purposes of establishing or rights in connection therewith are

affected by the change of water level, Québec, La Société d’énergie de la
Baie James, Hydro-Quebec or the public bodies, agencies or corporations
shall be liable for damages to such facilities, installations or rights in
connection therewith.
The special provisions of Section B of this Agreement shall take
precedence over the provisions of the present article.
Quebec, La Société d’énergie de la Baie James, Hydro-Quebec and the said public
bodies, agencies and corporations shall not be required to expropriate lands

138

5.6

6.1
6.1.1

needed for the purposes contemplated in paragraph 5.5.2 nor to obtain any
consent otherwise required for the utilization of such lands for the above
purposes.

Legislation

The provisions of this Section can only be amended with the consent of
Canada and the interested Native party, in matters of federal jurisdiction, and with
the consent of Quebec and the interested Native party, in matters of provincial
jurisdiction.

Legislation enacted to give effect to the provisions of this Section may be
amended from time to time by the National Assemble of Québec in matters of
provincial jurisdiction, and by Parliament in matters of federal jurisdiction.
Category I Lands
Allocation

The lands granted in ownership by Ouébec to the Inuit of Québec and to
the Inuit of Port Burwell for Inuit community purposes shall be allocated to the
Inuit communities for selection in approximately equal amounts, save and except
for Port Burwell and Fort George, taking into account any other lands received by
the communities other than from Ouébec.

The total area granted herein shall be 3,250 sq. mi. including 120 sq. mi.
for the Crees of Great Whale River and the area for each community may be
adjusted slightly with the consent of Quebec and the Northern Québec Inuit
Association prior to ﬁnal selection as provided herein.

The allocations to the communities of Akulivik (Cape Smith), Aupaluk
(Hopes Advance Bay), Inukjuak (Port Harrison), Kangirsualudjuak (George
River), Kangirsuk (Payne Bay), Kuudjuak (Fort Chimo), Tasiujaq (Leaf Bay),
Koartak, Killinek (Port Burwell), Kangirsujuak (Wakeham Bay), Salluit (Sugluk),
and Great Whale River shall be as shown on the maps attached as Schedule 1 to
this Section and forming an integral part of this Section.

The allocation to the Inuit of Fort George shall be those lands south of the
55th parallel granted to the Inuit of Quebec pursuant to Sub Section 7.1.1

For a period not exceeding one (1) year from the date of execution of the
Agreement, the authorized representatives of the said communities may apply to
Quebec for revision of the boundaries of the allocations of such communities
which may be modiﬁed by mutual agreement of such representatives and Quebec,
if it does not substantially alter the character and effect of the original selection.

The Inuit communities which on the date of execution of the Agreement
have not made their selections, shall select the lands allocated to them pursuant to
this paragraph from within the areas indicated on the maps attached as Schedule 1
to this Section. Such areas shall be withdrawn from claim staking and no
exploration permits shall be issued with respect to such lands for a period of one
(1) year from the execution of the Agreement or until the completion of
selection, whichever is the sooner.

The selection made by the said communities shall be subject to mutual
approval of the respective communities and Quebec. In the case of selection of
the lands to be allocated to the Inuit Community of Fort George, the selection

139

6.2
6.2.1

6.2.2

shall be subject to the mutual consent of the Inuit of Fort George, the Cree Band
of Fort George and Quebec.

If selections are not received by Quebec within two (2) years from the date
of execution of the Agreement, Ouébec shall designate the allocated Category I
lands from the areas withdrawn for selection.

Survey of Category I Lands

The boundaries of all Category I lands selected by the Inuit of Québec
shall be surveyed no later than ﬁve (5) years following the coming into force of
the Agreement. Such surveys shall follow the map identiﬁcations referred to in
Schedule 1 of this Section.

The said surveys shall be done by meander where the boundaries of
Category I selections are coincident with identiﬁable natural features such as
rivers and lakes and shall be done by straight line with no less than one (1) mile
between angle points if possible where no identiﬁable natural features are
coincident with the map descriptions of such lands.

Monumentation along the said surveys shall be done in accordance with
normal survey practice.

Each shall be done within the attainable accuracy using the usual technical
procedures for such works.

Surveys shall be submitted to the Inuit Community Corporation concerned

for its comments prior to submission for homologation. At the request of
the Inuit Community Corporation concerned, the survey crews shall include a
nominee of the said corporation to act as an observer, at its expense.

Québec and/or Canada undertakes to pay all costs of survey and
monumentation.

Category II Lands
Allocation

Each Inuit community shall be allocated an area of Category II lands that
is the aggregate of one thousand (1,000) square miles and three and one half (31/2)
square miles for each member of the community at the date of the execution of the
Agreement. The remainder of the allocation to the Inuit of Québec and to the
Inuit of Port Burwell shall be apportioned in accordance with an agreement to be
made between the land selection committees of each community.

The said method of allocation shall apply to the selection of Category II
lands of Great Whale River by the Inuit and the Cree. The basic allocation of
1,000 square miles shall consist of 600 square miles for the Inuit and 400 square
miles to the Cree, subject to the provisions of paragraph 8.3 of Annex 1 of Section
4. There shall be representation of the Cree and Inuit of Great Whale River in the
decisions of the land selection committees concerning the allocation of the
abovementioned remainder of Category II lands. The Category II lands of the
Inuit of Fort George are dealt with in Section 4 and in paragraph 7.2.1 of Section
7.

Criteria for Selection

Category 11 land selections shall take into account the wildlife productivity

of the land, the usability of such lands for harvesting, and existing developments

140

6.3
6.3.1

6.4

as well as other lands necessary as a habitat for the protection of wildlife, and all
existing rights granted at the time of the Agreement, and known development
projects.

Each unit of land selected shall comprise an are of not less than ﬁfty (50)
square miles.

No more than three (3) discontiguous units of land, not including intertidal

zone selections, per community shall be selected unless agreed to
otherwise by Quebec. Each unit of land shall be compact and each portion of
such land shall have a ratio of average width to length of four (4) to one (1),
unless agreed to otherwise by Québec.

Such lands shall be selected within two (2) years of the date of execution
of the Agreement, and the selection shall be subject to mutual approval of the
respective communities and Quebec failing which Quebec shall have the right to
designate such Category II lands after consultation with the interested Native
party

In front of Category I and II lands, the intertidal zone may be selected as
Category II lands.

The aggregate of Category I and Category II selections shall not exceed
ﬁfty-ﬁve percent (55%) of the coastline of the Territory north of the 55th parallel,
distributed as evenly as possible along the coast.

Other Rights
Timber Rights

The Inuit Community Corporations of Kuudjuak (Fort Chimo) and
Kangirsualujuak (George River) shall have exclusive timber rights on those tracts
of land identiﬁed in Schedule 2 attached to this Section. Such rights shall be for
personal and community use and shall be exercised in accordance with
management plans to be agreed upon with the Department of Land and Forests.
However, such timber rights shall be subject to the right to develop the lands over
which the timber rights are granted herein.

Where, in accordance with the said plans, additional forestry operations
are permitted, the said Inuit Community Corporations shall be permitted to supply
timber to other Inuit Community Corporations.

Great Whale River

Should a majority of the Inuit of Great Whale River decide to move to
Richmond Gulf within a period of ﬁve (5) years from the date of the coming into
force of the Agreement, Ouébec agrees that Quebec and/orits agencies or
mandataries shall assist the Inuit of Great Whale, such assistance to include the
provision of funds, in carrying out the move to Richmond Gulf, on terms and
conditions to be negotiated.

Should the Inuit of Great Whale decide to move to Richmond Gulf as
aforesaid, Canada agrees to assist the Inuit of Great Whale River in carrying out
the move to Richmond Guld and establishing an Inuit Community in such
location, within the scope of federal programs from time to time in effect and, in
particular, programs in effect for the Inuit of Canada.

141

6.5

6.6

Schedules

The following Schedules form an integral part of this Section, including
the notes on the maps forming part thereof.
Schedule 1 - Category I land map identiﬁcations (scale 1:250 000)
Schedule 2 - Exclusive timber rights
Schedule 3 - List of water bodies subject to 200 foot restriction
Schedule 4 - List of water bodies excluded from Category II land selections.
The provisions of this Section can only be amended with the consent of Quebec
and the interested Native party.

Legislation enacted to give effect to the provisions of this Section may be
amended from time to time by the National Assemble of Quebec.

142

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 2

Information in this appendix is taken from J arnes Bav and Northern Ouébec Agreement
and Complementarx Agreements (1997).

HUNTING, FISHING AND TRAPPING REGIME

24.1 Deﬁnitions
For the purposes of this Section the following words and terms shall be
deﬁned as follows:

24.1.1 Automatic weapon means any ﬁrearm that is capable of ﬁring bullets in
rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger.

24.1.2 Bag limit means the maximum number established by regulation of
individuals of a species or a group of species that a hunter may take
legally.

24.1.3 Band means an organized body of Crees declared by the Agreement, by
law or by Order-in-Council to be a band.

24.1.4 Category means the classiﬁcation of areas in the Territory as set forth in
paragraph 24.3.32.

24.1.5 Conservation means the pursuit of the optimum natural productivity of all

living resources and the protection of the ecological systems of the
Territory so as to protect endangered species and to ensure primarily the
continuance of the traditional pursuits of the Native people for sport
hunting and ﬁshing.

24.1.6 Community use means the use by the Native people of all products of
harvesting consistent with present practice between Native communities or
members of a Native community or communities, including the gift,
exchange and sale of such products subject to the restrictions set forth in
this Section.

24.1.7 Coordinating Committee means the body constituted in accordance with
and pursuant to this Section.

24.1.8 Cree tallyman means a Cree person recognized by a Cree community as
responsible for the supervision of harvesting activity on a Cree trap line.

24.1.9 Cree trap line meqans an area where harvesting activities are by tradition
carried on under the supervision of a Cree tallyman.

24.1.10 Ecological reserve means a tenitory set aside by law or by regulation to

preserve such territory in its natural state, to reserve such territory for
scientiﬁc research and, if need be, for education or, to safeguard animal
and plant species threatened with disappearance or extinction.

24.1.1 1 Family means the extended family comprising persons related or allied by
blood, or by legal or customary marriage or adoption.

24.1.12 Fauna means all mammals, ﬁsh and bird.

24.1.13 Harvesting means hunting, ﬁshing and trapping by the Native people for

the purpose of capture or killing of any species of wild fauna, except
species from time to time completely protected to ensure the continued

144

24.1.14

24.1.15

24.1.16

24.1.17

24.1.18

24.1.19

24.1.20

24.1.21

24.1.22

24.1.23

24.1.24

existence of that species or a population thereof, for personal and
community purposes or for commercial purposes related to the fur trade
and commercial ﬁsheries.

Kill means the number of individuals of a given species or population
thereof, killed during a given period or permitted to be killed during a
given time period.

Native party means, in the case of the Crees, the Grand Council of the
Crees (of Quebec) or its successor until the coming into force of the
legislation establishing the Cree Regional Authority and thereafter the
Cree Regional Authority or its successor. In the case of the Inuit, the
Northern Quebec Inuit Association or its successor until the coming into
force of the legislation establishing La Société Inuit de développement-
The Inuit Development Corporation and, thereafter, the said corporation or
its successor.

a) Native person is a person eligible under section 3 of the
Agreement.
b) Native people means only those persons eligible pursuant to

Section 3 of the Agreement.
Non-Natives means all persons not eligible in accordance with Section 3
of the Agreement.
Outﬁtter means a person who carries on an operation which provides the
public with lodging and the opportunity to sport hunt and sport ﬁsh or
rents equipment or small craft or provides other services for sport hunting
and sport ﬁshing purposes within the area speciﬁed in the permit, license
or other authorization given to such person for such purposes.
Outﬁtting operation means the establishment and its dependent buildings,
including outposts and all equipment and accessories related thereto, and
all sport hunting and sport ﬁshing gear, equipment and small craft used by
an outﬁtter in connection with such operation.
Personal use means the use by the Native people for personal purposes of
all products of harvesting including the gift, exchange and sale of all such
products within the family.
Possession limit means the maximum quantity of individuals of a species
or a group of species that a person is entitled to have in his possession
during a speciﬁed period of time within a speciﬁed area.
Registered trap line means a territory leased and registered for the
purposed of trapping of ﬁrr-bearing animals in the area speciﬁed in
Schedule 1 of this Section.
Reserve means an area set aside by law or by regulation for conservation
or other purposes speciﬁed in the law or regulation establishing such a
reserve.
Responsible Minister means the Provincial or Federal Minister charged
with responsibility with respect to a subject matter falling within the
jurisdiction of the government of which he is a member.

145

24.1.25

24.1.26

24.1.27

24.1.28
24.1.29
24.1.30

24.2

24.2.1

24.3

24.3.1

24.3.2

24.3.3

24.3.4

24.3.5

24.3.6

Settlement means a permanent collectivity of habitations, buildings and
facilities continuously inhabited and used, including the immediately
contiguous land reasonably required to use and enjoy such habitations,
buildings and facilities.

Sport ﬁshing means ﬁshing by non-Natives by the use only of rod and line
(angling) and only for reasons of sport.

Sport hunting means hunting by non-Natives by the use only of ﬁrearms
or bow and arrow and only for the speciﬁc purpose of killing game for
reasons of sport.

Territory means the area deﬁned in paragraph 24. 12.1 of this Section.
Wildlife means all populations of wild fauna in the Territory.

Wildlife sanctuary means an area of land with a particular kind of
environment set aside by law or by regulation for the temporary or
permanent protection of certain species of animals.

Conservation

The Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime established by and in accordance with

this Section shall be subject to the principle of conservation.

Harvesting

Every Native person shall have the right of hunt, ﬁsh and trap, including the right

to capture or kill individuals of any species of wild fauna, in accordance with the

provisions of this Section (hereinafter referred to as the right to harvest).

Every Native person shall have the right to harvest any species of wild fauna

except species requiring complete protection from time to time within the

Territory to ensure the continued existence of such species or a population

thereof.

The Native people shall enjoy the sole and exclusive exercise of the right to

harvest in accordance with the provisions of this Section.

The exercise of the right to harvest shall be subject to the principle of

conservation, the acquired rights contemplated by paragraph 24.3.21 and such

other express provisions as are speciﬁed elsewhere in the Agreement.

The right to harvest shall extend and may be exercised over all the Territory,

subject to the limitations stipulated at Sub-Section 24.12, where this activity is

physically possible and does not conﬂict with other physical activity or public
safety. Acts by parties to the Agreement or third parties to limit access to an area
within the Territory for reasons other than those speciﬁcally enumerated in this

Section of the Agreement shall no ipso facto exclude that area from the right to

harvest.

a) The words conﬂict with other physical activity shall mean actual physical
conﬂicts or physical interference but shall not include conﬂicts or
interference of any other nature which may be perceived, anticipated or
declared by any means whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, the creation or existence of parks, reserves, wilderness areas,
ecological reserves and the grant or existence of concessions or rights with
respect to forestry or mining shall not in themselves be considered

146

conﬂicting physical activities and the Native people shall continue to have
the right to harvest in such areas.

b) The creation or existence of wildlife sanctuaries shall operate to exclude
all or part of such sanctuaries from the right to harvest but only with
respect to those species for whose protection such sanctuaries are created
and for such periods of time and/or season when such protection is
required.

24.3.7 a) The right to harvest shall not be exercised in lands situated within existing
or future non-Native settlements within the Territory.

b) The annexation of land by a municipality or any other public body shall
not in itself exclude such areas ﬁ'om the harvesting rights of Native people
as long as such lands remain vacant.

24.3.8 a) In areas speciﬁed in existing leases or permits as being reserved for the
exclusive use of an outﬁtter and in areas presently covered by ﬁsh and game
leases, the right to harvest, except for the right to trap, shall not be exercised
during the operating season of such outﬁtters, lessees and permit holders.

b) Subject to Sub-Section 24.9 of this Section, the rights of present outﬁtters

and present holders of ﬁsh and game leases shall be respected for the duration of

the current term of their present leases or permits. At the expiration of the current
terms of such leases or permits, the terms shall be reviewed by the Coordinating

Committee to minimize conﬂicts with harvesting activity. This provision shall be

without prejudice to any agreement between an outﬁtter, lessee or permit holder

and the interested Native party.

24.3.9 Restrictions on the right to harvest for reasons of public safety shall apply
primarily to the discharge of ﬁrearms, to the setting of large traps or nets in
certain areas, and to other dangerous activities having due regard for others
lawfully in the vicinity. Any such restrictions shall not in themselves preclude
other harvesting activities.

24.3.10 Subject to conservation rules established pursuant to this Section, any restrictions
in the Migratory Birds Convention Act and its regulations, the undertaking of
Canada respecting the Migratory Birds Convention referred to in Sub-Section
24.14 and any other exceptions speciﬁed in this Section, the Native people shall
have the right to harvest at all times of the year.

24.3.1 1 a) Subject to the principle of conservation, the right to harvest refers to
harvesting activity pursued within the Territory, for personal and
community use, commercial trapping and commercial ﬁshing.

b) In the case of migratory birds, personal use shall be limited to the gift or
exchange of all products of harvesting within the extended family, subject
to the undertakings of Canada contained in Sub-Section 24.14.

c) Community use shall include the gift, exchange and sale of all products of
harvesting consistent with present practice between Native communities
and/or members of the Native community or communities. For greater
clarity, community use shall not exclude the gift, exchange and sale of all
products of harvesting between Native communities and members of the
Native community or communities not presently conducting such activity.

147

24.3.12

24.3.13

24.3.14

24.3.15

24.3.16

24.3.17

24.3.18

For Native people living in non-Native settlements such as
Schefferville, Matagami, Chibougamau, etc., community use shall be
restricted to the gift, exchange and sale of all products of harvesting
consistent with present practice between such Native people and shall not
include gift, exchange and sale with Native communities. In the case of
migratory birds, community use shall be limited to the gift or exchange of
meat and cider-down consistent with present practice between Native
communities and/or members of the Native community or communities,
subject to the undertakings of Canada contained in Sub-Section 24.14.
Community use shall not include the exchange or sale of ﬁsh and meat to
non-Natives except in the case of commercial ﬁsheries.

The right to harvest shall include the right to possess and use all
equipment reasonably needed to exercise that right with the exception of
the following: explosives, poisons, ﬁrearms connected to traps and remote
controls, automatic weapons, tracer bullets, non-expanding ball
ammunition, air-gun, and other similar equipment, as may from time to
time be prohibited by regulations passed upon recommendation by the
Coordinating Committee, the whole subject to applicable laws and
regulations of general application concerning weapon control, where such
control is directed to public security and not to harvesting activity.
Nevertheless, Quebec regulations obliging persons under the age of
sixteen (16) to be accompanied by an adult when hunting or ﬁshing shall
not apply to Native pe0ple above the age or reason.

The right to harvest shall include the right to travel and establish such
camps as are necessary to exercise that right, in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the Agreement.

The right to harvest shall include the use of present and traditional
methods of harvesting except where such methods affect public safety.
The right to harvest shall include the right to possess and transport within
the Territory the products of harvesting activity.

The Native people shall have the right to trade in and conduct commerce
in all the by-products of their lawful harvesting activities.

Subject to the restrictions and controls with respect to non-Native hunting
and ﬁshing, provided for in this Section, the right to harvest shall not be
construed to prevent or limit access to the Territory by non-Natives in
accordance with the provisions found elsewhere in the Agreement.

The exercise of the right to harvest shall not be subject to the obtaining of
permits, licenses, or other authorization, save where expressly stipulated
otherwise in this Section. Where, by exception, for the purposes of
management, leases, permits, licenses or other authorizations are required
by the responsible Minister or required on the recommendation of the
Coordinating Committee, the Native people shall have to right to receive
such leases, permits, licenses or other authorizations at a nominal fee
through their respective local governments.

148

24.3.19

24.3.20

24.3.21

24.3.22

24.3.23

24.3.24

24.3.25

24.3.26

Subject to the provisions of this Section, the Native people shall have the
exclusive right to trap in the Territory, as part of their right to harvest. This
right to trap shall include the right to trap for all commercial purposes.
Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph in cases where Native people
have not exercised their exclusive right to trap within a part of the
Territory for an extended period, and where trapping activity in such part
of the Territory is necessary for the proper management of a species,
Quebec may, only upon the advice of the Coordinating Committee and
after giving reasonable notice to the interested Native party through the
Coordinating Committee, permit non-Natives to exercise the necessary
trapping activity in such part of the Territory, when the interested Native
party fails to do so. Such permission shall be subject to an agreement
between the interested Native party and Quebec; failing such agreement
the responsible Minister may, only upon recommendation of the
Coordinating Committee, permit non-Natives to exercise such activity,
and in such case the Minister shall establish the terms and conditions upon
which such activities shall be exercised provided such activity shall not be
permitted for a period exceeding four (4) years. At the expiration of said
period, the interested Native party shall have the right to resume the
exercise of its exclusive right to trap on that portion of the Territory,
failing which the foregoing procedure shall apply.

The exclusive right to trap shall not apply to the area of the registered trap
lines in the southern portion of the Territory indicated on the map attached
hereto as Schedule 1 of this Section.

This exclusive right to trap shall be without prejudice to the trapping
rights, if any, exercised by the native people not party to the Agreement on
the beaver reserves presently allocated to them.

The exclusive right to trap shall not exclude the possibility of snaring of
bare by non-Natives in and around non-Native settlements within that part
of the Territory below the 50th parallel of latitude.

Québec and Canada shall take all reasonable measures, within the scope of
current programs or those programs which may from time to time be
established, including economic measures, to assist the Cree and Inuit
parties in establishing trappers' associations, as well as a Native controlled
and run trapping industry including functions necessary to the operation of
such an industry, such as marketing promotion, registration, collection,
transportation, grading, dressing, dyeing, manufacturing, etc..

The present system of Cree trap lines and the disposition of the beaver
reserves presently allocated to the Crees shall continue unless otherwise
agreed to by the interested Cree community or communities.

Within Categories I and II, the Native people shall have the exclusive right
to establish and operate commercial ﬁsheries. Within Category III the
Native people shall have the exclusive right to establish and operate
commercial ﬁsheries related to the species of ﬁsh enumerated in the list of

149

24.3.27

24.3.28

24.3.29

24.3.30

exclusive species referred to in paragraph 24.7.1 and attached as Schedule

2 to this Section.

All applications for commercial ﬁsheries permits within Categories 1, II or

III shall be submitted to the Coordinating Committee and shall be assessed

by the Coordinating Committee upon the basis of the possible or probable

impact of such proposed ﬁsheries operations upon harvesting and
recreational ﬁshing. The Coordinating Committee shall make
recommendations to the responsible Minister with respect to such
applications on the basis of its assessment. In the case of the Crees, no
commercial ﬁsheries shall be permitted within Category I or 11 without the
consent of the interested local Native government. In the case of the Inuit,
no commercial ﬁshing shall be permitted within Category I without the
consent of the interested Inuit community corporation or within Category

H without the consent of the interested Inuit community corporation (8)

and the interested Native party.

The Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime applicable in the Territory

shall be established by an din accordance with the provisions of this

Section.

Quebec shall forthwith take all necessary measures to obtain modiﬁcation

to any provisions of the Wildlife Conservation Act (L.Q. 1969, c. 58 as

amended) or any other Provincial Act And to modify regulations
thereunder which conﬂict with or are incompatible with the provisions of
this Section. The Coordinating Committee shall advise and be consulted in
this process.

A minimum of control or regulations shall be applied to the Native people,

which shall mean inter alia that:

a) When the Coordinating Committee or the responsible Federal or
Provincial government decides that control of harvesting activities
is necessary, the Coordinating Committee or the responsible
Federal or Provincial Government shall ﬁrst formulate guidelines
and/or advisory programs with respect to the control of such
activity. Such guidelines or advisory programs shall be encouraged
and promoted by the local and/or regional governments, under
reserve of the right of the responsible Federal or Provincial
Government to impose such controls in the event that such
guidelines and/or advisory programs do not prove to be effective.

b) When the Coordinating Committee or the responsible Federal or
Provincial Government decides that regulations are necessary the
responsible Federal or Provincial Govermnent shall make
regulations with a minimum of impact on the Native people and
harvesting activities by taking into account the impact on such
factors as local native food production, the role of tallymen and the
organization and boundaries of Cree trap lines, accessibility of
different sectors of the Native populations to harvestable resources,

150

24.3.31

24.3.32

24.4
24.4.1

24.4.2

24.4.3

efﬁciency of harvesting, cost of harvesting and Native cash
incomes.
c) In general, the control of activities contemplated by this Section
shall be less restrictive for Native people than for non-Natives.
Neither the responsible government nor the Coordinating Committee shall
change or affect the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime in such a way
as to infringe upon the rights of the Native people established by this
Section. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this provision
shall apply to the responsible Provincial and Federal Ministers, the
provincial and federal departments involved and the individuals, bodies or
agencies administering the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime.
For the purposes of this Section only, land in the Territory shall be
classiﬁed as follows:
Category 1:
subject to the provisions of this Section an area under the complete
and exclusive control of the Native people and for the exclusive use of
Native people.
Category 11:
an area where the Native people shall have the exclusive right to
hunt and ﬁsh, which right shall include the right to permit non-Native
hunting and ﬁshing, subject to conditions concerning replacement or
compensation in Sections 5 and 7 of the Agreement.
Category III:
an area for the joint use of Native people and non-Natives, subject
to the rights, conditions and restrictions established by the Agreement.
The principle of conservation shall apply in Categories 1, II and III lands.
Coordinating Committee
A Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Coordinating Committee (hereinafter
referred to as the Coordinating Committee), an expert body made up of Native
and government members, is established to review, manage, and in certain cases,
supervise and regulate the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime established by
and in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
The Coordinating Committee shall have twelve (12) members. The Cree
Native party, the Inuit Native party, Québec and Canada shall each appoint three
(3) members. Such members shall be appointed and replaced from time to time at
the discretion of the respective appointing party. The appointing parties may upon
unanimous consent increase or decrease the membership of the Coordinating
Committee.
In addition to the members of the Coordinating Committee contemplated
by paragraph 24.4.2, the Société de développement de la Baie James shall
appoint one (1) person as an observer-member of such Committee. Such
observer-member shall have all the rights and obligations of the other
members of the Coordinating Committee except:
a) Such observer-member shall not be entitled to vote on any matter;

151

24.4.4

24.4.5

b)

Such observer-member shall have the right to discuss, and to make
representations with respect to, all matters pertaining to that
portion of the Territory south of the 55th parallel of latitude and
with respect to all matters of general interest pertaining to the
entire Territory.

Such observer-member shall be entitled to receive a proxy
executed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 24.4.10 of
this Section and in such an event shall be entitled to vote in the
place and stead of the member from whom the proxy has been
received.

The members of the Coordinating Committee shall each have one (1) vote
except as hereinafter provided otherwise:

a)

b)

d)

When matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction are being dealt
with by the Coordinating Committee, the members appointed by
the Provincial Government shall each have two (2) votes, and the
members appointed by the Federal Government shall not vote.
When matters of exclusive federal jurisdiction are being dealt with
by the Coordinating Committee, the members appointed by the
Federal Government shall each have two (2) votes and the
members appointed by the Provincial Government shall not vote.
When matters of joint or mixed federal and provincial jurisdiction
are being dealt with by the Coordinating Committee, the members
appointed by the provincial Government and the members
appointed by the Federal Government shall each have one (1) vote.
When matters relating to the area of primary interest of the Crees
are being dealt with by the Coordinating Committee, the members
appointed by the Cree Native Party shall each have two (2) votes,
and the members appointed by the Inuit Native party shall not vote.
When matters relating to the area of primary interest of the Inuit
are being dealt with by the Coordinating Committee, the members
appointed by the Inuit Native party shall each have two (2) votes,
and the members appointed by the Cree Native party shall not vote.
When matters of common interest to the Crees and Inuit are being
dealt with by the Coordinating Committee, the members appointed
by the Cree Native party and the members appointed by the Inuit
Native party shall each have one (1) vote.

The respective parties shall appoint a Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the
Coordinating Committee ﬁ'om among their appointees in the following
manner:

a)

In the ﬁrst year of the operation of the Coordinating Committee,
the Chairman shall be appointed by the Cree Native party and the
Vice-Chairman shall be appointed by the interested Inuit Native

parry.

152

24.4.6
24.4.7

24.4.8

24.4.9

24.4.10

24.4.1 1
24.4. 1 2

24.4.13

b) In the second year of the operation of the Coordinating Committee,
the Chairman shall be appointed by Québec and the Vice-
Chairman shall be appointed by Canada.

e) In the third year of the operation of the Coordinating Committee,
the Chairman shall be appointed by the interested Inuit Native
party and the Vice-Chairman shall be appointed by the Cree Native
party.

(I) In the fourth year of the operation of the Coordinating Committee,
the Chairman shall be appointed by Canada and the Vice-Chairman
shall be appointed by Quebec.

e) In subsequent years the appointment of the Chairman and Vice-
Chairman of the Coordinating Committee shall take place in the
sequence set forth in sub-paragraphs a), b), c) and d) of this
paragraph.

f) In the absence of the Chairman at any meeting, an alternate
Chairman shall be selected by and from among the members
appointed by the party that appointed the Chairman.

g) The Vice-Chairman shall act as Chairman only when the Chairman
does not have the right to vote pursuant to paragraph 24.4.4.

The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall hold ofﬁce for one (1) year.

The Coordinating Committee may, from time to time, select from among

its members such other ofﬁcers as may be required to enable the

Committee to fulﬁll its role and functions.

A quorum shall be four (4) members physically present provided that at

least one (1) member appointed by each party is physically present.

The quorum mentioned in the preceding paragraph 24.4.8 may, from time

to time, be changed with the unanimous consent of all members of the
Coordinating Committee.

A member of the Coordinating Committee shall upon his appointment
execute a written proxy in the form provided by the Coordinating
Committee in favour of the other members, including their replacements,
appointed by the party that appointed the member executing the proxy. For
a particular meeting a member may execute a proxy in favour of a
designated person and, in such case, such proxy shall prevail. The holder
of such proxy shall have the right to vote and otherwise act in place of the
absent member from whom the proxy has been obtained, in addition to the
voting and other rights that the member holding the proxy is entitled to
exercise in his own right.

All decisions shall be decided by a majority of the votes cast.

The Chairman shall have, in the case of a tie vote, a second and deciding
vote.

The Coordinating Committee shall have a principal ofﬁce within the
Province of Quebec, and may establish other ofﬁces ,within the said
Province.

153

24.4.14

24.4.15

24.4.16
24.4.17
24.4.18

24.4.19
24.4.20

24.4.21

24.4.22

24.4.23

24-4.24

24.4.25

The Coordinating Committee may establish rules and adopt by-laws
regulating its own internal operations, including notice and place of
meetings and other matters relating to the administration of the
Coordinating Committee. Whenever practical, meetings will be held in the
Territory.

The Chairman of the Coordinating Committee shall convoke a meeting of
the Coordinating Committee within twenty (20) days of receipt from any
four (4) members of the Coordinating Committee of a written request
indicating the purpose of such meeting.

The Coordinating Committee shall meet at lest four (4) times annually.
The Chairman shall preside over meetings of the Coordinating Committee.
A secretariat shall be established for the Coordinating Committee
consisting of not more than three (3) full-time employees. After the ﬁrst
year of operation, the Coordinating Committee may by unanimous
agreement alter the size of the secretariat. The secretariat shall be
responsible to and under the direction and control of the Coordinating
Committee. Quebec shall maintain and ﬁrnd the secretariat. The secretariat
shall receive and distribute data when appropriate, report the results of
meetings and decisions of the Coordinating Committee shall from time to
time determine, pursuant to this Section.

An ofﬁcial record of discussions and decisions of the Coordinating
Committee shall be kept by the secretariat.

Agenda for meetings shall be prepared in advance and distributed to
members by the secretariat.

Members of the Coordinating Committee or the Coordinating Committee
itself may call upon other persons for expert advice or assistance. The
remuneration and expenses of any such person shall be paid out of the
budget of the Coordinating Committee only if the services of such person
have been requested by the Coordinating Committee.

Each party shall pay the remuneration and expenses of the members it
appoints and the experts it requests.

The Coordinating Committee shall be a consultative body to responsible
governments, save where expressly stipulated in paragraph 24.4.30 and as
such shall be the preferential and exclusive forum for Native people and
governments jointly to formulate regulations and supervise the
administration and management of the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping
Regime.

The parties to the Agreement shall ﬁrrnish the Coordinating Committee
with all information in their possession relevant to the functions of the
Coordinating Committee.

The Coordinating Committee shall have the right to initiate, discuss,
review and propose all measures relating to the Hunting, Fishing and
Trapping Regime in the Territory. The Coordinating Committee may
propose regulations or other measures relating to the regulation,

154

24.4.26

24.4.27

supervision and management of the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping
Regime.

All regulations relating to the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime
proposed by responsible governments shall be submitted to the
Coordinating Committee for advice before enactment. Proposals with
respect to the establishment of parks, ecological reserves, wildlife
sanctuaries and similar classiﬁcations of land shall be submitted to the
Coordinating Committee except when such proposals deal with land
situated within settlements.

The Coordinating Committee may submit recommendations to the
responsible Provincial or Federal Minister, who shall have discretion to act
upon such recommendations in accordance with paragraphs 24.4.36 and
24.4.37 concerning the following:

a) Guidelines and other measures related to Native harvesting.

b) Regulations relating to the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping
Regime.

c) Proposed regulations, decisions or actions resulting from
previous recommendations of the Coordinating Committee.

d) Conservation, including management procedures for
conservation purposes.

e) The number of non-Natives permitted to hunt and ﬁsh in
the Territory and the places and times at which they may
hunt and ﬁsh.

f) Levels of allocation of Native and non-Native kills over

and above guaranteed levels of harvesting established
pursuant to this Section.

g) Regulations respecting community use.
h) Regulations respecting the fur trade.
i) Positions to be adopted in international and

intergovernmental negotiations relating to wildlife
management, involving the Territory.

j) Species of wild fauna requiring complete protection from
time to time.

k) Planning an policy relating to outﬁtting and regulations
concerning outﬁtting operations.

1) Research projects related to wildlife resources.

m) Enforcement of the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime.

n) The establishment, and insofar as it affects the Hunting,

Fishing and Trapping Regime, the operation of parks,
ecological reserves, wildlife sanctuaries and other land
similarly classiﬁed.

0) Regulations which prohibit the possession and use of
equipment for the purpose of exercising the right to harvest.
p) Regulations respecting commercial ﬁsheries operations.

155

24.4.28

24.4.29

24.4.30

24.4.31

24-3.32

The Coordinating Committee shall:

a) Review applications for new commercial ﬁsheries permits.

b) Review applications for outﬁtters’ permits or leases or
renewals thereof.

0) Supervise procedures respecting the Native people’s right
of ﬁrst refusal for outﬁtting facilities.

(I) Supervise procedures for the relocation of non-Native

outﬁtters located in Categories I and 11 if required.

6) Review at the expiration of the stipulated thirty (30) year
period the Native people’s right of ﬁrst refusal for outﬁtting
in Category 111 based on past experience and circumstances
including actual and future needs of the Native people and
non-Natives.

The Coordinating Committee may:

a) Receive, maintain and distribute information necessary for
the proper management of the Hunting, Fishing and
Trapping Regime, including game inventories, non-Native
kills and harvesting.

b) Recommend to local government conservation measures
for Category 1.
c) Participate in conformity with the provisions of Sections 22

and 23 of the Agreement, in the assessment of impacts of
future development upon the land, wildlife resources and
harvesting, and the economic implications of such
development on Native and non-Native activity related to
wildlife resources.

d) To the extent possible, receive and review information
relating to research, studies, surveys and the data obtained
therefrom, relating to the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping
Regime.

e) Make representations concerning weapon control where
such control is directed to public security.

The Coordinating Committee may establish the upper limit of kill for
moose and caribou for Native people and non-Natives and, with respect to
black bear in the buffer area, make decisions relating to the non-native
hunting, the harvesting and the management of populations thereof.
Subject to the principle of conservation, decisions of the Coordinating
Committee pursuant to this paragraph shall bind the responsible Minister
or government, who shall make such regulations as are necessary to give
effect there to and shall bind local and regional governments.

The Coordinating Committee shall supervise the research to establish
present levels of harvesting.

The responsible Minister may change the list of species reserved
exclusively to the Native people, (Schedule 2 to this Section), only upon
the unanimous recommendation of the Coordinating Committee provided

156

24.4.33

24.4.34

24.4.35

24.4.36

24.4.37

24.4.38

that all members of the Coordinating Committee appointed by the Native
parties and entitled to vote, voted personally and not by proxy upon such
recommendation.
The Coordinating Committee shall operate in accordance with the
provisions of this Section.
All proposed regulations, measures and decisions of the Coordinating
Committee shall be communicated to the responsible government for
attention, information and appropriate action.
Proposed regulations, measures or decisions shall, except where expressly
stipulated otherwise, be subject to the approval of the responsible Québec
Minister and, if required, adoption by the Lieutenant-Govemor in Council
with respect to matters falling under Provincial jurisdiction, or by the
responsible Federal Minister and, if required, adoption by the Governor in
Council with respect to matters falling under Federal jurisdiction. With
respect to matters designated in paragraphs 24.4.30 3), 24.5.3 and 24.5.4,
the Coordinating Committee may make recommendations to the
responsible local or regional government.
Before submitting a new regulation or other decision for enactment or
taking new action and before modifying or refusing to submit for
enactment draft regulations or other decisions from the Coordinating
Committee, the responsible Provincial or Federal Minister shall consult
with the Coordinating Committee and shall endeavour to respect the views
and positions of the Coordinating Committee on any matter respecting the
Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime, the whole subject to the
provisions of paragraph 24.4.37 and Sub-Section 24.12.
In all cases where the responsible Minister modiﬁes or decides not to act
upon the recommendations of the Coordinating Committee or decides to
take new actions, he shall, before acting, consult with the Coordinating
Committee when his decisions relate to Native and non-Native activities
and the wildlife resources in the Territory except in the case of certain
minor measures relating exclusively to non-Native activity and not
affecting Native interests, and in particular such measures relating to
zones, seasonal dates and bag limits.
The Coordinating Committee in its operations shall recognize and give
due consideration to the following:

a) The exclusive trapping rights of the Native people in

accordance with paragraphs 24.3.19 to 24.3.23 inclusive.
b) The exclusive right of the Native people to the species
speciﬁed in paragraph 24.7.1.

c) The right to harvest in accordance with Sub-Section 24.3.

d) The principle of conservation as deﬁned in paragraph
24.1.5.

e) The principle that a minimum of control or regulations

shall be applied to the Native people in accordance with
paragraph 24.3.30.

157

24.5
24.5.1

24.5.2

24.5.3

0 The importance of the exchange of information between the
parties.

g) The importance of establishing an outﬁtting network in the
Territory adequate to accommodate the needs of non-
Natives permitted to hunt and ﬁsh.

h) The importance of controls over the number of non-Natives
permitted to hunt and ﬁsh in the Territory and over the
places and time where and when they may hunt and ﬁsh.

i) The priority of Native harvesting as deﬁned in paragraphs
24.6.1 to 24.6.5 inclusive.

j) The difference in application of the Hunting, Fishing and
Trapping Regime in Categories 1, II and 111.

k) The restrictions on non-Native hunting and ﬁshing as
speciﬁed in paragraphs 24.8.1 to 24.8.11 inclusive.
1) The economic implications of its decisions and actions

upon the activity of the Native people and non-Natives
related to the wildlife resources.

Powers of Native Authorities and Governments

In Categories I and II, matters relating primarily to the protection of the
wildlife resources rather than harvesting activity and hunting and ﬁshing
by non-Natives shall be solely the jurisdiction of the responsible
Provincial or Federal Government. Such matters of sole jurisdiction shall
include, inter alia, the establishment of general quotas for the Territory, the
representation of the interests of the Territory at international and
intergovernmental negotiations relating to wildlife management, the
regulation and management of wildlife insofar as this concerns the health
of wildlife populations, the determination and protection of species
requiring complete protection as referred to in paragraph 24.3.2 and the
regulation and conducting of research projects related to wildlife
resources.

In Categories I and II, the responsible Provincial and Federal Governments
shall exercise their powers with respect to matters referred to in paragraph
24.5.1 in the same manner as those powers are exercised with respect to
Category III, namely they shall exercise those powers only upon the
advice of or after consulting with the Coordinating Committee as the
preferential and exclusive spokesman empowered to formulate procedures,
recommendations, positions and views respecting these matters.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraphs 24.5.1 and
24.5.2, with respect to the matters referred to therein, in the case of the
Crees, the Cree local government and/or regional authorities, and in the
case of the Inuit, the local and/or regional government shall have the
power to pass by-laws affecting Categories I and II for Native people and
for non-Natives permitted to hunt and ﬁsh thereon that are more restrictive
than those regulations passed by the responsible Provincial or Federal
Government.

158

 

24.5.4

Subject to the power of the responsible Provincial or Federal Government
to make regulations respecting the conservation of wildlife resources, in
Categories I and II the Cree local governments and, in the case of the Inuit,
the regional government, within their respective areas of primary and
common interest, may make regulations, which regulations in the case of
their area of common interest in Category 11 shall be made jointly, with
respect to all matters speciﬁcally refening primarily to harvesting activity
and to hunting and ﬁshing by non—Natives and not primarily referring to
the management of the wildlife resource itself including:
a) The allocation of the general quotas established pursuant to this
Section among individual Natives and non-Natives permitted to

hunt and ﬁsh.
b) Personal and community use.
c) The control of facilities for sport hunting and sport ﬁshing.
(1) Commercial ﬁshing facilities.
e) Research concerning Native harvesting.
0 Seasons for harvesting and non-Native hunting and ﬁshing and bag

and possession limits, provided regulations made with respect to
such matters shall be more restrictive than those regulations passed
by the responsible Provincial or Federal Government.

g) Harvesting methods subject to paragraph 24.3. 12.

h) Permits and licenses for the purpose of sub-paragraph 25.4.4 a).
In the case of the Inuit, the regional government shall make
regulations solely upon the recommendation of a Committee
composed only of Inuit. Such recommendations shall be binding
on the regional government.

24.5.5. All by-laws or regulations proposed pursuant to paragraphs 24.5.3 and 24.5.4

24.6
24.6.1

24.6.2

shall be submitted prior to adoption to the Coordinating Committee for its advice.
All such by-laws or regulations shall come into effect on the date that a certiﬁed
copy thereof is submitted to the responsible Provincial or Federal Minister who
shall have the right within ninety (90) days from such receipt to disallow such by-
laws or regulations.

Priority of Native Harvesting

The responsible governments and the Coordinating Committee shall apply
the principle of priority of Native harvesting, as set forth in this Sub-
Section.

The principle of priority of Native harvesting shall mean that in

conformity with the principle of conservation and where game populations

permit, the Native people shall be guaranteed levels of harvesting equal to
present levels of harvesting of all species in the Territory.

a) Such guaranteed levels shall be established by negotiations
between the Native parties and the responsible Provincial or
Federal Government through the Coordinating Committee (and the
normal voting procedures shall not apply in such case) and shall be
based principally upon the results of the Research to Establish

159

Present Levels of Native Harvesting projects presently under way
and to be continued during the four (4) years following the
execution of the Agreement. The said parties shall establish such
guaranteed levels within ﬁve (5) years of the execution of the
Agreement.

b) Upon the execution of the Agreement, the said parties referred to in
the above sub-paragraph shall forthwith establish by negotiations
interim guaranteed levels of Native harvesting based principally
upon the available results of the said research projects. Such
interim guaranteed levels shall be reviewed periodically and may
be agreement be revised.

c) The said interim guaranteed levels shall be without prejudice to the
rights and obligations of the said parties in the establishment of the
guaranteed levels of harvesting.

d) The establishment of the guaranteed levels referred to in sub-
paragraphs a) and b) hereof shall be subject to the approval of the
interested Native parties and the interested government parties.

24.6.3 In applying the principle of priority of Native harvesting, the responsible
governments and the Coordinating Committee shall, in any given year, in
allocating quotas for harvesting and non-Native hunting and ﬁshing or in applying
other game management techniques, assure that:

a) If game populations permit levels of harvesting equal to the
guaranteed levels established pursuant to paragraph 24.6.2, the
Native people shall have the right of harvest up to the said
guaranteed levels.

b) In allocating wildlife resources for harvesting or non-Native
hunting and ﬁshing over and above the said guaranteed levels, the
harvesting needs of the Native people and the needs of non-Natives
for recreational hunting and ﬁshing shall be taken into account.

c) Subject to sub-paragraphs a) and b) there shall always be some
allocations of species for non-Native sport hunting and sport
ﬁshing.

(I) If game populations do not permit levels of harvesting equal to the
guaranteed levels established pursuant to paragraph 24.6.2, the
Native people shall be allocated the entire kill an may allocate a
portion of this kill to non-Natives through recognized outﬁtting
facilities.

6) The principle of priority of Native harvesting shall also be applied
with respect to such species as may not reasonably be managed by
means of quotas.

24.6.4 Subject to the principle of conservation and where populations of these
species permit, the principle of priority of Native harvesting as provided for in
this Sub-Section shall apply to marine mammals.

24.6.5 Subject to the principle of conservation and where populations of these
species permit, the principle of priority of Native harvesting shall be applied to

160

migratory birds in a manner similar or equivalent to the procedures hereinafter set

forth.

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

g)

h)

i)

In conformity with the procedure provided in paragraph 24.6.2, the
present levels of harvesting of migratory birds shall be established.
The present level of harvesting shall be combined with the present
level of non-Native hunting of such birds in the Territory to
establish the total present kill for the Territory.

Based upon the total kill ﬁgures for each migratory bird population
and the total kill in the Territory for each migratory bird
population, there shall be a determination of the percentage of the
total kill from each population now being taken in the Territory.
This percentage ﬁgure shall constitute a guarantee so that in any
given year the Territory would be guaranteed at least the same
percentage of the total kill from each population as is presently
hunted and harvested.

Within the Territory itself, the principle of priority for Native
harvesting shall apply to the allocation of quotas or use of other
management techniques in such a way as to ensure that the Native
people are guaranteed a harvest based on present levels of
harvesting of migratory birds.

In any given year when populations permit a kill for the Territory
higher than the guaranteed allocation equal to present levels of
harvesting, the Native people shall be allowed a harvest equal to
the guarantee based on present levels of harvesting, and the
remainder of the permissible kill for the Territory shall be divided
in such a way as to ensure primarily the continuance of the
traditional pursuits of the Native people and secondarily so that
non-Native people may satisfy their needs for recreational hunting.
In any given year when the populations permit a kill for the
Territory lower than the guaranteed allocation for the Native
people equal to present levels of harvesting, the entire kill for the
Territory shall be allocated to the Native people, who shall have
the right in turn to allocate a portion of this kill to non-Native
hunting through recognized outﬁtting facilities.

This guarantee shall not operate to endanger migratory bird
populations.

This guarantee in itself shall not operate to prohibit or reduce
hunting of migratory birds elsewhere in the ﬂyway or in Canada.

24.7 Species Reserved for Native People

In all areas where the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime applies as
set forth in Sub-Section 24.12 certain species of mammals, ﬁsh and birds
shall be reserved for the exclusive use of the Native people. Such
exclusive use shall include the right to conduct commercial ﬁsheries
related to the various species of ﬁsh so reserved. The species contemplated
by this Sub-Section are listed in Schedule 2 of this Section.

24.7.1

161

24.8
24.8.1

24.8.2

24.8.3

24.8.4

24.8.5

24.8.6

Non-Native Hunting and Fishing

Non-Natives shall have the right of hunt and ﬁsh in Category HI subject to
the provisions of this Section and other applicable laws and regulations,
but such hunting and ﬁshing shall be restricted to sport hunting and sport
ﬁshing except for commercial ﬁshing in Category III.

The Native people within their respective areas of primary interest shall
have the exclusive right to hunt and ﬁsh within Categories I and II and,
under reserve of the right speciﬁed in paragraph 24.8.4 of this Sub-
Section, non-Natives shall not have the right to hunt and ﬁsh therein save
with the express authorization of and upon the terms and conditions
established by the responsible Cree local government or, in the case of the
Inuit, the interested Inuit community corporation(s) and/or the interested
Native party with respect to Category II, as the case may be. The exclusive
rights provided for in this paragraph shall be strictly respected and
enforced by the responsible governments in the Territory.

In the case of the Crees, the responsible Cree local govemment or

regional authority and, in the case of the Inuit, the responsible Inuit
community corporation or interested Native party may, in their respective
areas of primary interest, permit persons of Cree or Inuit ancestry who are
not eligible under the Agreement but who traditionally hunt, ﬁsh and trap
in the Territory to exercise the right to harvest solely for personal purposes
in Category I and II lands. Persons permitted to exercise the right to
harvest pursuant to this paragraph shall in no event be counted for
purposes of allocating quotas to the Native people.

Non-Natives authorized to hunt and ﬁsh pursuant to paragraph 24.8.2 shall
be subject to all applicable provincial and federal laws and regulations and
all applicable local and regional government by-laws and regulations.
Non-Natives who meet the residency requirements established for the
purposes hereof by the local governments of Native communities shall be
permitted to sport hunt and sport ﬁsh within Categories 1 and II of the
Native community in which they are resident. Such non-Natives shall be
subject to all applicable provincial and federal laws and regulations and all
applicable local and regional government by-laws and regulations.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 24.8.4, in the case of
unusual or large inﬂuxes of non-Natives into a Native community for
whatever reason, the local government thereof may determine whether and
upon what terms and conditions such non-Natives will be permitted to
sport hunt and sport ﬁsh.

A control shall be exercised by the responsible governments and the
Coordinating Committee over the number of non-Natives permitted to
hunt and ﬁsh in Category III and over the places therein and times where
they may hunt and ﬁsh with a view to giving effect to the principle of
conservation and the rights and guarantees in favour of the Native people
established by and in accordance with this Section.

162

24.8.7

24.8.8

24.8.9

24.8.10

24.8.11

The use of outﬁtting facilities shall be considered as a principal means of
controlling non-Native hunting and ﬁshing activity in that portion of the
Territory above the 50th parallel of latitude.

Over and above other available means of controlling the numbers of non-
Natives permitted to hunt and ﬁsh in the Territory and the places and times
where and when they may hunt and ﬁsh and subject to paragraph 24.8.9,
Quebec shall endeavour, to the extent that outﬁtting facilities are available,
to require non-Native hunters and ﬁshermen to use such facilities. Such
requirements shall provide, to the extent deemed feasible, that non-Native
hunters and ﬁshermen be accompanied by Native guides.

In the event that Quebec established requirements pursuant to paragraph
24.8. with respect to that portion of the Territory above the 50th parallel of
latitude, such requirements shall be imposed upon non-Natives in the
following order:

a) non-residents of the Province of Quebec,

b) if further deemed necessary, non-residents of the said portion of
the Territory,

c) if further deemed necessary, non-Native residents of the said
portion of the Territory.

The Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime shall apply in full to all
residents of that portion of the Territory above the 50th parallel of latitude.
The Coordinating Committee shall take this into account when
formulating and recommending measures applicable to non-Native
residents of the said portion of the Territory. Such measures may include
the creation of special ﬁshing zones and big game zones within the said
portion of the Territory with a view to minimizing conﬂicts between
Native harvesting activity and non-Native hunting and ﬁshing.

When the Coordinating Committee determines that the presence of
temporary labour forces or a given temporary labour force involved in
construction and related work in the Territory may affect the regime
including the principle of conservation and the rights and guarantees in
favour of the Native people established by and in accordance with this
Section, Québec shall make regulations concerning the controls and rules
to apply to the sport hunting and sport ﬁshing activity of such temporary
labour forces. The Coordinating Committee shall be involved in the
establishment and review of such controls and rules and supervise the
procedures concerning the implementation and enforcement thereof. Such
controls and rules shall include inter alia the designation of speciﬁc
locations in the Territory or speciﬁc facilities which shall be used by such
labour forces for the purpose of sport hunting and sport ﬁshing. The
Coordinating Committee shall be entitled to receive all information
necessary for the proper exercise of its functions pursuant to this
paragraph and established by such regulations.

163

24.9 Outﬁtting Regime

The Native people shall have the exclusive right to establish and operate
outﬁtting facilities within Categories 1 and II. Non-Natives may be
permitted to establish and operate such facilities within Categories 1 and II
with the express consent of the responsible Cree local government or the
responsible Inuit authority, which, wherever used in this Sub-Section, in
respect of Category I shall be the interested Inuit community
corporation(s) and the interested Native party.

Non-Natives, including governments, presently operating as outﬁtters in
Categories I or 11 may continue to operate at the discretion of the Native
people, subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth:

24.9.1

24.9.2

3)

b)

d)

The interested Cree local government and the interested Inuit
authority shall have the right to require such outﬁtters to cease
operations in Categories I or 11 within two (2) years of a receipt of
a written notice to this effect given by the said government of
authority. Such notice shall not be given during an operating
season.

Within two (2) years of the execution of the Agreement the

interested Cree local government and the interested Inuit authority

shall decide which of such outﬁtters shall be required to cease their
operations in Categories I or II and which of such outﬁtters shall
be permitted to continue their operations in Categories I or II and,
in the latter case, upon what terms and conditions.

Such outﬁtters permitted to continue their operations in Categories

1 or II, as determined pursuant to sub-paragraph b) of this

paragraph, shall have the right to continue to operate on the terms

and conditions established for a period of not less than ﬁve (5)

years nor more than nine (9) years from the date that such outﬁtters

are notiﬁed of such a decision, and upon the termination of the said
period such outﬁtters shall cease their operations in Categories I or

II unless the interested Cree local government or the interested

Inuit authority agrees to permit them to continue such operations

for a further period.

The Coordinating Committee shall supervise the procedures for the

relocation of such outﬁtters required to cease their operations in

Categories I or II.

The Native people shall have the right to decide whether or not

they wish to operate in place of an outﬁtter required to cease his

operation in Categories I or II in accordance with the following:

i) If the Native people decide to operate in place of such an
outﬁtter they shall not be required to operate outﬁtting
services of the same nature or scale but shall be permitted
to enlarge, diminish or modify such services as they deem
appropriate.

164

24.9.3

24.9.4

ii) If the Native people wish to use all or part of the facilities
of such an outﬁtter they shall purchase such outﬁtting
assets belonging to him as they may wish. In the event that
all such assets are not purchased by the Native people, such
outﬁtter may remove his remaining assets and shall be
compensated forthwith by Quebec, and not by the Native
people, in accordance with the rights, if any, contained in
the permits, leases or agreements in virtue of which such
outﬁtter operated. All such assets not purchased by the
Native people and not removed by the outﬁtter within a
period of two (2) years shall thereafter be considered
abandoned by such outﬁtter to Québec.

iii) In the vent that the Native people decide to require
government owned or operated outﬁtting facilities to cease
operations, such facilities shall be transferred gratuitously
by the government to the interested Cree band or interested
Inuit authority, provided no transfers may be made by the
government to individuals.

0 Notwithstanding the right of ﬁrst reﬁrsal of the Native people for
outﬁtting facilities set forth in paragraph 24.9.3, outﬁtters required
to cease operations in Categories I or II pursuant to paragraph
24.9.2 and who wish to relocate in Category 111, shall have the
preferential right to select sites and facilities subject to the
approval of the Coordinating Committee. Such preferential rights
shall not be accorded to a government owning or operating an
outﬁtting facility.

g) Outﬁtters required to cease operations in Categories I or 11 after
having been allowed to operate by the Native people pursuant to
paragraph 24.9.2 shall be compensated by Québec to the extent of
their rights, if any, contained in the permits, leases or agreements
in virtue of which they operated but such compensation shall be
limited to the value of the outﬁtting facilities in existence at the
time of the execution of the Agreement.

Within their respective areas of interest for the Hunting, Fishing and

Trapping Regime, the Native people shall have a right of ﬁrst refusal to

operate as outﬁtters in Category HI for a period of thirty (30) years from

the execution of the Agreement.

Upon the expiry of the thirty (30) year period stipulated in paragraph

24.9.3, Québec and the Native parties shall negotiate on the basis of past

experience and actual and future need, whether the Native people shall be

granted a renewal of the said right of ﬁrst refusal. The Coordinating

Committee shall be consulted and may make recommendations to the

responsible Minister with respect thereto.

a) Notwithstanding the provisions in the Agreement respecting
outﬁtting in Category III lands, the James Bay Crees shall have the

165

24.9.5

24.9.6

24.9.7

exclusive right of outﬁtting as well as the exclusive right to own
outﬁtting facilities and operate as outﬁtters for the hunting of
migratory birds at Cape Jones in an area bounded to the North by
the parallel of latitude 54 43’, to the East by the meridian 79 30’, to
the South by the parallel of latitude 54 34’, and to the West by the
coast of James Bay and Hudson’s Bay.
The outﬁtters operating in Category III at the time of the execution of the
Agreement shall have the right to continue their operations subject to the
regime for outﬁtters established by this Sub-Section. Nevertheless, the
rights of such outﬁtters may be revoked or terminated by the responsible
Minister as a result of a breach by such outﬁtters of their obligations or
responsibilities under the said regime or under applicable laws or
regulations or for any other reason which the said Minister upon the
recommendation of the Coordinating Committee may decide renders such
outﬁtters unsuitable to continue to operate.
Notwithstanding paragraph 24.9.3 the Native people shall not exercise the
right of ﬁrst refusal referred to in the said paragraph with respect to at least
three (3) non-Native applications out of every ten (10) applications F
respecting outﬁtting operations in Category III. The Coordinating
Committee shall oversee the implementation of the terms of this paragraph
and shall inform the parties from time to time as to the requirements for
such implementation.
The procedure for the issuance of permits, leases and other authorizations
for outﬁtting operations and the exercise of the right of ﬁrst refusal of the
Native people to operate as outﬁtters in Category III shall be as follows:
a) All applications for permits, leases or other authorizations
respecting outﬁtting operations, including renewals thereof, and
the applications referred to in sub-paragraph j) shall be submitted
to the responsible Provincial Minister who shall forthwith forward
a'copy thereof to the Coordinating Committee.
b) The Coordinating Committee shall review all such applications
taking into consideration the circumstances existing at the time,
projected plans for outﬁtting operations and in the case of
applications for transfers the bonaﬁde nature of the terms and
conditions of such transfer and on the basis of the said review shall
recommend to the responsible Provincial Minister the acceptance
or refusal of such application.
c) Save for reasons of conservation, the responsible Provincial
Minister shall not unreasonably refuse the recommendation of the
Coordinating Committee when approved by the Cree local
government concerned or the responsible Inuit authority with
respect to an application for an outﬁtting operation in Categories I
or 11.
d) When the responsible Provincial Minister agrees with the
recommendation of the Coordinating Committee to accept an

 

166

g)

h)

k)

1)

application he shall so inform the Coordinating Committee which
shall forthwith transmit written notice of such application
including all relevant information to the Cree Native party or, in
the case of the Inuit, the Inuit Native party. No such notice shall
be given when such application is for a renewal of a permit, lease
or other authorization.

The interested Native party referred to in sub-paragraph (1) shall
within four (4) months from receipt of the notice speciﬁed in the
said sub-paragraph reply in writing to the Coordinating Committee
indicating whether or not it or the person or persons designated by
it intend to operate the outﬁtting operation referred to in said
application.

If the interested Native party referred to in sub—paragraph d) fails to
reply to the Coordinating Committee within the delay stipulated in
sub-paragraph e) or indicates that it does not intend to operate the
outﬁtting operation referred to in the said application the right of
ﬁrst refusal of the Native people shall lapse with respect to the said
application. The Coordinating Committee shall forthwith inform
the responsible Minister who may issue the permit, lease or other
authorization requested by the said application.

If within the delay stipulated in sub-paragraph e) the interested
Native party indicates that it or the person or persons designated by
it intend to operate the outﬁtting operation referred to in the said
application, the Coordinating Committee shall forthwith so inform
the responsible Minister who shall issue a permit, lease or other
authorization to the interested Native party or to the person or
persons designated by it unless for just cause stipulated in
applicable laws or regulations.

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Sub-Section, no
permit, lease or other authorization respecting outﬁtting operations
in Categories 1 or 11 shall be issued or granted without the consent
of the interested Cree local government or the interested Inuit
authority.

The party receiving a permit, lease or other authorization to
establish such an outﬁtting operation shall proceed diligently,
failing which the Coordinating Committee may recommend
appropriate action to the responsible Minister.

In the event of a proposed transfer of an outﬁtting operation and
facilities related thereto, the proposed transferor shall submit an
application to the responsible Provincial Minister. Such
application shall contain all relevant information relating to the
terms and conditions of the proposed transfer.

The Coordinating Committee may on its own initiative recommend
sites for the establishment of speciﬁc outﬁtting operations.

167

l) The responsible Provincial Minister may establish such
administrative procedures as may be necessary to give full effect to
the provisions of this paragraph.

24.9 Enforcement of Regime

24.9.1 A predominant number of the persons charged with enforcing the Hunting,
Fishing and Trapping Regime established by and in accordance with this
Section shall be Native people.

24.9.2 To give effect to and provide adequate enforcement of the Hunting,
Fishing and Trapping Regime established by and in accordance with this
Section, Quebec a Canada shall provide for the training of a sufﬁcient
number of Native people as conservation ofﬁcers. To give effect to the
foregoing Québec and Canada shall modify, when necessary, the criteria
required for acceptance as a trainee and establish and fund special
facilities, courses and training programs.

24.9.3 Native people duly qualiﬁed as conservation ofﬁcers shall be empowered
by Québec or Canada, as the case may be, to act as Provincial
conservation ofﬁcers, game officers under the Migratory Birds Convention
Act, ﬁsheries ofﬁcers under the Fisheries Act and such other similar
enforcement ofﬁcers which may from time to time be provided for under
applicable laws.

24.9.4 Cree tallymen, in the area of Cree primary interest, and special police
constables referred to in Section 19 may be appointed auxiliary
conservation ofﬁcers pursuant to section 6 of the Wildlife Conservation
Act (L.Q. 1969, c.58 as amended).

24.10 Environmental Protection

24. 10.1 The rights and guarantees of the Native people established by and in
accordance with this Section shall be guaranteed, protected and given
effect to with respect to environmental and social protection by and in
accordance with Section 22 and Section 23.

24.11 Deﬁnitions of Territory

24.1 1.1 In this Section the word Territory comprises the entire are of land
contemplated by the 1912 Québec Boundary Extension Act and the 1898
Act respecting the Northwestern, Northern and Northeastern Boundaries
of the Province of Québec except for the areas speciﬁed and in accordance
with the conditions set forth in this Sub-Section.

24.1 1.2 For the purpose of this Section, the Territory shall be divided into three (3)
areas:

a) The southern area shall be that portion of the Territory between the
southern boundary of the Territory and a line commencing at the
Ontario border, following the ﬁrst set of township lines south of
the 50th parallel of latitude being the southern boundary lines of
the townships of Massicotte, LaPeltrie, Lanoullier, Gaudet,
Fenelon, Subercase, Grasset and La Pérousse east to the Bell River
system around the southern shore of Lake Matagami then southeast
following the western bank of the Bell river (but following the

168

24.1 1.3

b)

c)

northeast bank of Ile Canica) to the ﬁrst set of township lines north
of the 49th parallel of latitude being the northern boundaries of the
townships of Quevillon, Vemeuil, Wilson, Ralleau, Efﬁat,
Carpiquet, Urban, Belmon, L'Espenay, Bressani, Chambalon,
Beaucours, F euquieres to the eastern boundary of the Territory.
The buffer area shall be that portion of the Territory between the
line described in sub-paragraph a) of this paragraph 24.122 and the
50th parallel of latitude.

The northern area shall be that portion of the Territory lying to the
north of the 50th parallel of latitude.

The Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime shall apply in the three areas
described in paragraph 24.122 as follows:

a)

b)

In the southern area, laws and regulations of general application
relating to hunting, ﬁshing and trapping shall apply and the
Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime established by and in
accordance with this Section shall not apply, save in the following
cases:

i) The Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime established by
and in accordance with this Section shall apply in
Categories I and II situated in this area.

ii) The exclusive trapping rights of the Native people referred
to in paragraph 24.3.19 shall apply in this area on the Cree
trap lines.

iii) Only Cree tallymen, their families and Native people
authorized by them shall have the right to harvest on Cree
trap lines located in this area.

In the buffer area the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime

established by and in accordance with this Section shall apply save

that:

i) Any requirement established pursuant to this Section
respecting the use of outﬁtting facilities all not apply to
non-Native residents of Quebec.

ii) All or part of this area may be zoned for moose hunting for
the purposes of managing this resource, minimizing
conﬂict between harvesting by the Native people and sport
hunting by non-Natives and protecting the rights of the
Native people and non-Natives established by and in
accordance with this Section.

iii) In this area, non-Natives shall be permitted to sport ﬁsh all
species of ﬁsh, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph
24.7.1.

iv) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 24.4.30 non-Natives
shall be permitted in this area to sport hung black bear
notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 24.7.1.

169

24.12
24.121

24.122

24.123

24.124

2412.5

2412.6

v) As provided in paragraph 24.3.23, in this area the exclusive
right of the Native people to trap shall not exclude the
snaring of hare by non-Natives in and around non-Native
settlements.

c) In the northern area, the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime
established by and in accordance with this Section shall apply.

Areas of Primary Interest

For the purposes of this Section, the respective areas of primary interest

and the area of common interest in the Territory of the James Bay Crees

and the Inuit of Quebec shall be set forth in this Sub-Section.

The Cree area of primary interest shall be:

a) that portion of the Territory south of the 55th parallel of latitude
with the exception of the Category I and II lands allocated to the

Inuit of Fort George, and

b) the area of the Mistassini trap lines located north of the 55th
parallel of latitude as shown on a map annexed hereto as Schedule

1, and

c) the Category I lands north of the 55th parallel of latitude allocated
to the James Bay Crees of Great Whale River.
The Inuit area of primary interest shall be:

a) that portion of the Territory lying to the north of the 55th parallel
of latitude with the exception of those areas north of the 55th
parallel of latitude referred to in paragraphs 24.132 and 24134;

b) the Category I lands allocated to the Inuit of Fort George.

The area of common interest for the James Bay Crees and the Inuit of

Quebec shall be the Category II lands south of the 55th parallel of latitude

allocated to the Inuit of Fort George, the Category II lands north of the

55th parallel of latitude allocated to the James Bay Crees of Great Whale

River and the area of the trap lines allocated to the James Bay Crees of

Great Whale River located north of the 55th parallel of latitude as shown

on a map annexed hereto as Schedule 1.

The Inuit of Québec and the James Bay Crees shall have the rights

provided for in this Section throughout their respective areas of primary

interest and the area of common interest.

Within the Inuit of Quebec area of primary interest, the James Bay Crees

shall have the following rights:

a) The Crees of Great Whale River shall have the right to harvest in
the area north of the 55th parallel of latitude presently used by the
James Bay Crees of Great Whale River as determined by mutual
agreement between the Native parties;

b) the James Bay Crees of Fort George shall have the right to harvest
in the area north of the 55th parallel presently used by the James

Bay Crees of Fort George as determined by mutual agreement

between the Native parties.

170

24.127

24.128

24.129
24.13
24.13.]

2413.2

2413.3

Within the James Bay Cree area of primary interest, the Inuit of Québec
shall have the following rights:
a) the Inuit of Great Whale River shall have the right to harvest in the
area south of the 55th parallel of latitude presently used by the
Inuit of Great Whale River as determined by mutual agreement
between the Native parties;
b) the Inuit of Fort George shall have the right to harvest in the area
south of the 55th parallel of latitude presently used by the Inuit of
Fort George as determined by mutual agreement between the
Native parties.
For the purposes of the voting procedure of the Coordinating Committee
established by sub-paragraph 24.4.4 f), matters shall be deemed of
common interest to the James Bay Crees and the Inuit of Québec when
they involve:
a) tenitorial areas of common interest as set forth in the foregoing
paragraphs;
b) discussion or consideration by the Coordinating Committee of a
matter relating to a speciﬁc area within the area of primary interest
of one of the Native parties but which, at the same time, involves a
wildlife resource harvested by both the James Bay Crees and the
Inuit of Québec or a matter related to such wildlife resource and
any decision or recommendation by the Coordinating Committee
in connection therewith which would affect the rights conferred by
this Section in favour of the other Native party.
c) matters of general interest pertaining to the entire Territory.
The Native parties may from time to time by mutual agreement modify the
provisions of this Sub-Section.

Migratory Birds and Marine Mammals

The Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime established by and in
accordance with this Section shall apply to migratory birds and marine
mammals.

Within its responsibility for the management of migratory bird
populations, Canada shall forthwith upon the execution of the Agreement
endeavour to obtain a modiﬁcation or amendment to the Migratory Birds
Convention and/or to the application of the said Convention in and to the
Territory or to the Native people in the Territory to eliminate to the extent
possible all conﬂicts with the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime
established by and in accordance with this Section and in particular,
subject to the principle of conservation, to eliminate to the extent possible
any conﬂict with the right of the Native people to harvest at all times of
the year all species of wild fauna except species requiring complete
protection from time to time within the Territory to ensure the continued
existence of such species or a population thereof.

Subject to paragraphs 2414.1 and 24. 14.2 Canada shall forthwith upon the
execution of the Agreement take all reasonable measures to modify or

171

2413.4

2413.5

2413.6

2413.7

amend any particular provisions of the Migratory Birds Convention Act
(R.S.C. 1970, c. M-12) or the Regulations pursuant thereto which conﬂict
or are incompatible with the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime
established by and in accordance with this Section.

Nothing in paragraph 24.142 and 24.143 shall be construed as
constituting an amendment or an undertaking by Canada to amend the
Migratory Birds Convention Act or regulations thereunder in such a way
that Canada violates its obligations under the Migratory Birds Convention.
Subject to paragraph 24. 14.1, Canada shall forthwith upon the execution
of the Agreement take all reasonable measures within the limit of its
jurisdiction with respect to ﬁsheries and marine mammals, to modify or
amend the particular provisions of the Fisheries Act (R.S.C. 1970, c. F -14)
and the regulations pursuant thereto, the Whaling Convention Act (R.S.C.
1970, c. W-8) and the regulations pursuant thereto and any other
legislation and regulations which conﬂict or are incompatible with the
Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime established by and in accordance
with this Section, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall require
Canada to amend any legislation in such a way that Canada would breach
any international treaty obligations.

Nothing in the Agreement and in particular in this Section of the
Agreement shall be construed to them of article 2 of the Migratory Birds
Convention or the Migratory Birds Convention Act (R.S.C. 1970, c.
M-12) or any other legislation in so far as such legislation incorporates or
refers to the said article 2.

Nothing in the Agreement and in particular this Section of the Agreement
shall be construed as constituting recognition by Canada that article 2 of
the Migratory Birds Convention Act (R.S.C. 1970, c. M-12) or any other
legislation insofar as such legislation incorporates or refers to the said
article 2 does not apply to the Native people, it being the position of
Canada, that on the contrary, the said Convention and the said Act do
apply to the Native people. Subject to the provisions of the Agreement the
James Bay Crees and the Inuit of Quebec, may avail themselves of any
right or resources, if any, in respect to migratory birds which they may
have after the coming into force of the Agreement.

24.14 Amendment Clause

24.14.1

Except as otherwise provided for in this Section, the provisions of this
Section may be amended with the consent of Québec and the interested
Native party in matters of provincial jurisdiction and with the consent of
Legislation giving effect to such amendment, if required, shall be enacted
only by the National Assembly on matters of provincial jurisdiction and
only by Parliament on matters of federal jurisdiction.

172

24.15
2415.1

24.152
on
2415.3

2415.4

Transitional Measures

In addition to the transitional measures provided for in Section 2 of the
Agreement the parties to the Coordinating Committee referred to in
paragraphs 24.4.2 and 24.4.3 shall within two (2) months of the execution
of the Agreement appoint their respective members to the Coordinating
Committee. Quebec shall convoke the ﬁrst meeting of the Coordinating
Committee within three (3) months of the execution of the Agreement.
During the transitional period the Coordinating Committee shall operate
an informal basis.

The Coordinating Committee shall give priority attention to the
continuation and funding requirements of the Research to Establish
Present Levels of Native Harvesting projects and shall supervise the said
studies.

The Société de développement de la Baie James shall continue to serve of
the parties involved in the research, subject to appropriate arrangements
that may be made from time to time.

173

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 3

Native Questionnaire
Questionnaire #

Outﬁtter Questionnaire

 

 

 

 

 

Outﬁtter:

Respondent:

Telephone: ( )

Fax: ( )

I. How many years has the outﬁtting business which you now own been operating?
years

2. How many years have you operated the business? years

3. Please check each category of land your business operates on?

a. Category I
b. Category II
0. Category 111

Please circle the appropriate qualiﬁer and give an explanation if you feel this is necessary

4. Your capability to operate an outﬁtter anywhere in Northern Quebec has the
growth of your outﬁtter business.

 

 

 

 

a. Hampered b. Not affected c. Helped d. Do not know
Why?
5. When you decided to start/purchase your outﬁtting business, did the existence of the 7 of
10 rule the start of your outﬁtter business.
a. Facilitate b. Did not affect c. Hinder d. Do not know
Why?

 

 

 

 

175

 

6. This question is subdivided into two parts.

 

Part One

Part Two

 

Please rate the inﬂuence of
the following factors on your
outﬁtting business by
circling the appropriate
number using the scale.
1.Very negative; 2. negative;
3. Neutral; 4. Positive; 5.
Very positive; 9. Does not

apply

Using the factors that you
identiﬁed as very positive or
5 and very negative or 1 in
the ﬁrst part, please ONLY
rank the current inﬂuence of
m factors, one against the
other, on your outﬁtting
business from the strongest
inﬂuence to the weakest
inﬂuence.(l: being the
strongest inﬂuence; 2: being
the second strongest and so
on).

 

 

 

 

 

Factors Rating Scale Ranking
Exclusive access to Category 1 2 3 4 5 9

11 land

Priority access to Category 1 2 3 4 5—---9

III land

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Going through the l 2 3 4 5----9
Coordinating Committee for

the start of the business

Going through the 1 2 3 4 5----9
Coordinating Committee for

expansion

Your use of mobile camps 1 2 3 4 5—---9
The use of mobile camps by l 2 3 4 5----9
other outﬁtters

The competition from other 1 2 3 4 5----9
New Que'bec Outﬁtters

Size of the caribou herd 1 2 3 4 5----9
Caribou harvest limits 1 2 3 4 5----9
Fish species present 1 2 3 4 5----9
Fish harvesting limits 1 2 3 4 5----9
Resident license fees 1 2 3 4 5—---9
Non-Resident license fees 1 2 3 4 5—---9

 

 

 

 

176

 

 

Loo
J>

Marketing of outﬁtting by l-----2 5----9
provincial government to

residents

 

Marketing of outﬁtting by 1 2— 3
provincial government to
non-residents

.lk

5----9

 

J>

Available transportation 1 2 3
means to the outﬁtters for
clients

5—---9

 

.15

Regulations imposed by the 1— 2 3 5----9
"Ministere de
l’environnement et de la

faune"

 

I...)
.1}.

Provincial and Federal goods 1 2 5—---9

and services tax

 

 

Other: 1 2 3

.1}.

5----9

 

 

 

 

 

Please rate the inﬂuence of the following factors on you starting or buying your
outﬁtting business using the following scale.

1. Very Unimportant; 2. Unimportant; 3. Neither; 4. Important; 5. Very Important

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Available territory

< l 2 3 4
b. Proﬁt potential

< 1 2 3 4
0. Knowledge of hunting and ﬁshing

< 1 2 3 4
d. Desire to work outdoors

< l 2 3 4
e. Desire to work in the hospitality industry

< 1 2 3 4
f. An occupation at which one can make a living in "Nouveau-Quebec"

< l 2 3 4
g. Desire to own a business

< 1 2 3 4
h. Continue in the family business

< 1 2 3 4
1 Other

< ----- 1 2 3 4

 

177

9.

10.

ll.

15.

How many employees does your outﬁt employ in 1997? # empl.

 

 

 

What was your gross revenue in 1997? $
What were your proﬁts, after taxes and other expenses, for 1997? $
How many clients came to your outﬁtters’ in 1997? # clients
What was the average length of stay for your clients in 1997? # days
How many caribou were harvested at your outﬁtters’ in 1997? # caribou
What other wildlife species, other than caribou, were harvested? Please check all that P
apply. "
a. moose
b black bear
c waterfowl
d brook trout
e lake trout w
f arctic charr
g salmon
h. other:
a. What effect do you think the James and Northern Québec Agreement had on

YOUR outﬁtting business since 1975 (the year it was agreed upon)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b What effect do you think the James and Northern Quebec Agreement has had on

outﬁtting AS A WHOLE since 1975?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

178

c. If there was one thing about the agreement that you could change, what would it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

be?
d. If there is one thing about the agreement you would keep the same, what would
it be?
16 Are you interested in receiving a summary of the results of this study?
Yes
No
THANK YOU!!

Please return the questionnaire in the pre-paid envelope enclosed. If the envelope and
cover letter are lost, our mailing address is:

Denis Auger, Assistant Professor
Department of Leisure Studies
University of Ottawa

PO Box 450, Stn A

Ottawa, ON

KIN 6N5

If you have any questions, please contact:

Denis Auger, University of Ottawa (613) 562-5855
If you have any further comments, please put them below and/or on the back.

179

APPENDIX 4

APPENDIX 4
Non-Native Questionnaire
Questionnaire #

Outﬁtter Questionnaire

 

 

 

 

 

Outﬁtter:

Respondent:

Telephone: ( )

Fax: ( )

1 How many years has the outﬁtting business which you now own been operating?
years

2 How many years have you operated the business? years

3 Please check each category of land your business operates on?

a. Category I
b. Category II
0. Category 111

Please circle the appropriate qualiﬁer and give an explanation if you feel this is necessary.

 

 

 

4 The limited access to category 11 tenitory has the grth of your outﬁtter
business.
a. Hampered b. Not affected c. Helped d. Do not know
Why?
5 When you decided to start or purchase your outﬁtting business, did submitting your
application to the Coordinating Committee and interested native parties the

start of your outﬁtter business.
a. Facilitate b. Did not affect c. Hinder (1. Do not know

Why?

 

 

 

181

When you decided to start/purchase your outﬁtting business, did the existence of the 7 of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 rule the start of your outﬁtter business
a. Facilitate b. Did not affect c. Hinder (1. Do not know
Why?
7. This question is subdivided into two parts.
Part One Part Two
Please rate the inﬂuence of Using the factors that you
the following factors on your identiﬁed as very positive or
outﬁtting business by 5 and very negative or 1 in
circling the appropriate the ﬁrst part, ONLY rank the
number using the scale. current inﬂuence of these
1.Very negative; 2. negative; factors, one against the other,
3. Neutral; 4. Positive; 5. on your outﬁtting business
Very positive; 9. Does not from the strongest inﬂuence
apply to the weakest inﬂuence.(l:
being the strongest inﬂuence;
2: being the second strongest
and so on).
Factors Rating Scale Ranking
Restricted access to Category 1 2 3 4 5----9

II land

 

 

Restricted access to Category
111 land

 

 

Going through the
Coordinating Committee for
the start of the business

 

 

Going through the
Coordinating Committee for
expansion

 

 

Your use of mobile camps

5----9

 

 

The use of mobile camps by
other outﬁtters

 

 

The competition from other

 

 

 

 

 

New Que'bec Outﬁtters
Size of the caribou herd l 2 3 4 5----9
Caribou harvest limits 1 2 3 4 5----9

 

 

 

 

182

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fish species present 1 2 3 4 5---—9
Fish harvesting limits 1 2 3 4 5—---9
Resident license fees 1 2 3 4 5 9
Non-Resident license fees 1 2 3 4 5 9
Marketing of outﬁtting by 1 2 3 4 5 9
provincial government to

residents

Marketing of outﬁtting by 1 2 3 4 5----9
provincial government to

non-residents

Available transportation 1 2 3 4 5----9
means to the outﬁtters for

clients

Regulations imposed by the l 2 3 4 5-—--9
"Ministere de

l’environnement et de la

faune"

Provincial and Federal goods 1 2 3 4 5--—-9
and services tax

Other: 1 2 3 4 5----9

 

 

 

Please rate the inﬂuence of the following factors on you starting or buying your
outﬁtting business using the following scale.

1. Very Unimportant; 2. Unimportant; 3. Neither; 4. Important; 5. Very Important

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Available territory

< 1 2 3 4
b. Proﬁt potential

< ----- 1 2 3 4
c. Knowledge of hunting and ﬁshing

< ----- 1 2 3 4
d. Desire to work outdoors

< ----- 1 2 3 4
e. Desire to work in the hospitality industry

< ----- 1 2 3 4
f. An occupation at which one can make a living in "Nouveau-Quebec"

< ----- 1 2 3 4
g. Desire to own a business

< ----- l 2 3 4

 

183

10.

ll.
12.

l3.

14.

15.

16

h. Continue in the family business

 

 

 

 

< l 2 3 4 5 ----- >
i. Other:

< 1 2 3 4 5 ----- >
How many employees does your outﬁt employ in 1997? # empl.
What was your gross revenue in 1997? $
What were your proﬁts, after taxes and other expenses, for 1997? 8
How many clients came to your outﬁtters’ in 1997? # clients
What was the average length of stay for your clients in 1997? # days
How many caribous were harvested at your outﬁtters’ in 1997? # caribou

What other wildlife species, other than caribou, were harvested? Please check all that
apply.

 

. moose
black bear
waterfowl
brook trout
lake trout
arctic charr
salmon

. other:

D‘OQWOQOo‘a:

 

a. What effect do you think the James and Northern Quebec Agreement had on

YOUR outﬁtting business since 1975 (the year it was agreed upon)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

184

b. What effect do you think the James and Northern Quebec Agreement has had on
outﬁtting AS A WHOLE since 1975?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c. If there was one thing about the agreement that you could change, what would it
be?
d If there is one thing about the agreement you would keep the same, what would
it be?
17 Are you interested in receiving a summary of the results of this study?
Yes
No

185

THANK YOU!!

Please return the questionnaire in the pre—paid envelope enclosed. If the envelope and
cover letter are lost, my mailing address is:

Denis Auger, Assistant Professor
Department of Leisure Studies
University of Ottawa

PO Box 450, Stn A

Ottawa, ON

K1N 6N5

If you have any questions, please contact:

Denis Auger, University of Ottawa (613) 562-5855
If you have any further comments, please put them below and/or on the back.

186

 

 

APPENDIX 5

 

APPENDIX 5
French Native Questionnaire

# de Questionnaire

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questionnaire
Pourvoyeur:
Répondant:
Téléphone: ( )
Fax: ( )
F
1. 11 y a combien d’années que, la pourvoirie dont vous étes maintenant 1e proprie'taire, est
en operation? années
2. 11 y a combien de temps que vous dirigez cette pourvoirie? années H
3. S.V.P. identiﬁer chaque catégorie de terre sur laquelle votre pourvoirie opére?

a. catégorie I
b catégorie II
c catégorie III

S.V.P. encercler le qualitatif approprié et donner une explication si vous en sentez le besoin.

4. L’acces limité au territoire de catégorie II a un effet sur le développement de
votre pourvoirie.

 

 

 

a. négatif b. neutre c. positif d. ne sait pas
Pourquoi?

5. Lorsque vous avez pris la décision d’opérer ou d’acheter votre pourvoirie, est-ce que le
fait de soumettre 1e proj et au eomité de coordination et aux groupes autochtones
intéresse's a eu un effet sur la mise en operation de votre pourvoirie?

a. négatif b. neutre c. positif d. ne sait pas
Pourquoi?

 

 

 

188

 

6. Cette question se devise en deux parties.

 

Premiere partie

Deuxieme partie

 

Identiﬁer le niveau
d’inﬂuence des facteurs
suivants sur l’opération de
votre pourvoirie en
encerclant le numéro
approprié en utilisant
l’e'chelle

l.Tres négatif; 2. Négatif; 3.
Neutre; 4. Positif; 5. Tres
positif; 9. Ne s’applique pas

En vous servant des facteurs
que vous avez identiﬁe’s
comme trés positifs ou 5 et
trés négatif ou 1 dans la
premiere partie, ordonner, les
uns par rapport aux autres,
ces demiers en fonction de
l’inﬂuence qu’ils ont sur
votre pourvoirie du plus fort
vers le plus faible (1: est le
plus fort; 2: est le deuxieme
en importance et ainsi de
suite).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Echelle Ordonné
Acces illimité aux territoires l 2 3 4 5----9
de catégorie II
Acces prioritaire aux 1 2 3 4 5—---9
territoires de catégorie III
La soumission du projet au 1 2 3 4 5----9
eomité de coordination avant
de pouvoir opérer votre
pourvoirie
La soumission du projet au 1 2 3 4 5—---9
eomité de coordination pour
le développement de la
pourvoirie
Utilisation de camps mobiles 1 2 3 4 5----9
Utilisation de camps mobiles 1 2 3 4 5----9
par vos compétiteurs
La competition des autres l 2 3 4 5----9
pourvoyeurs du Nouveau-
Quebec
La taille du troupeau de 1 2 3 4 5----9
Caribous
La limite de caribous l-----2 3 4 5----9
prélevés par chasseur
Especes de poissons sportifs l— 2 3 4 5—-—-9

 

 

 

 

189

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

La limite de poissons a l 2 3 4 5----9
pre'lever

Cofrt des permis pour l 2 3 4 5—---9
residents

Coﬁt des permis pour non- 1 2 3 4 5—---9
re'sidents

Marketing des pourvoiries 1 2 3 4 5----9
par le gouvernement

provincial aupres des

residents

Marketing des pourvoiries l 2 3 4 5----9
par le gouvemement

provincial aupres des non-

residents

Disponibilité des moyens de l 2 3 4 5----9
transport pour les clients

Reglement imposé par le 1 2 3 4 5—---9
Ministere de l’environnement

et de la faune

Taxe Provinciale et Fe'dérale 1 2 3 4 5----9
Autre: l 2 3 4 5----9

 

 

 

 

 

S.V.P. identiﬁer le niveau d’inﬂuence des facteurs suivants sur l’achat ou la mise en
operation de votre pourvoirie en encerclant le numéro approprié.

l. Sans aucune importance; 2. Sans importance; 3. Neutre; 4. Important; 5. Tres Important

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Disponibilité du territoire

< 1 2 3 4 5
b. Possibilité de faire des proﬁts

< l 2 3 4 5
c. Connaissance du monde de la chasse et de la péche

< 1 2 3 4 5
d. Désire de travailler en plein-air

< 1 2 3 4 5

e. De'sire de travailler dans l’industrie des services

< 1 2 3 4 5
f. Une facon de gagner sa vie au Nouveau-Quebec

< 1 2 3 4 5
g. Désire d’étre propriétaire de votre propre entreprise

< 1 2 3 4 5
h. Continuer dans l’entreprise familiale

< 1 2 3 4 5

 

190

 

 

14.

15

i Autre:

 

 

< 1 2 3 4 5 >
Combien d’employés travaillaient pour votre pourvoirie en 1997 ? # empl.
Quels étaient vos revenus nets en 1997? $
Quels étaient vos proﬁts, apres taxes et dépenses, en 1997? $
Combien de clients sont venus a votre pourvoirie en 1997? # clients

En moyenne, durant combien de jours est-ce que vos clients sont-ils restés a votre
pourvoirie en 1997? # jours

Combien de caribous ont e'tés re'colte's a votre pourvoirie en 1997? caribous

A part 1e caribou, quelles autres espeees sont récoltées a votre pourvoirie? S.V.P.
identiﬁer toutes les especes qui s’appliquent.

. orignal
ours
sauvagine
omble de fontaine (truite moucheté)
truite grise
omble Chevalier
saumon
. autre:

B‘OQWOCLOC‘N

 

a. Selon vous, quels ont été les effets de la Convention de la Baie-James et du

Nouveau-Quebec sur votre pourvoirie depuis 1975 (l’anne'e de l’adoption de la
convention)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

191

Pa

 

b. Selon vous, quels ont été les effets de la Convention de la Baie-James et du
Nouveau-Ouébec sur les pourvoiries depuis 1975?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c. Si vous aviez la possibilité de modiﬁer une chose a la Convention, que Fir
changeriez vous?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

d. S’il y a une chose de la Convention que vous ne changeriez pas, quelle serait-
elle?
l6 Etes-vous intéressé a recevoir un résumé des résultats de cette étude?
Oui
Non

192

Merci!!!

S.V.P. retourner Ie questionnaire dans l’enveloppe. Si I’enveloppe et la lettre sont égarées,
mon adresse est:

Denis Auger, Professeur Adjoint
Département des Sciences du Loisir
Université d’Ottawa

CF. 450, Succ A

Ottawa, ON

K1N 6N5

Si vous avez des questions, n’hésitez pas a me contacter:

Denis Auger, Université d’Ottawa (613) 562-5855
Si vous avez d’autres commentaires, S.V.P. utiliser l’espace ci-dessous et le verso.

193

 

APPENDIX 6

 

APPENDIX 6
French Non-Native Questionnaire

# de Questionnaire

 

 

 

Questionnaire
Pourvoyeur:
Répondant:
Téléphone: ( )
Fax: ( )

 

 

1. 11 y a combien d’années que, la pourvoirie dont vous étes maintenant 1e proprie'taire, est

en operation? années
2 11 y a combien de temps que vous dirigez cette pourvoirie? années
3. S.V.P. identiﬁer chaque catégorie de terre sur laquelle votre pourvoirie opere.

a. catégorie I
b catégorie II
c catégorie III

S.V.P. encercler le qualitatif' approprié et donner une explication si vous en sentez Ie besoin.

4 L’acces limité au territoire de catégorie II a un effet sur le développement de
votre pourvoirie.

 

 

 

a. négatif b. neutre c. positif d. ne sait pas
Pourquoi?

5 Lorsque vous avez pris la décision de partir ou d’acheter votre pourvoirie, est-ce que le
fait de soumettre 1e projet au eomité de coordination et aux groupes autochtones
intéressés a eu un effet sur la mise en operation de votre pourvoirie?

a. négatif b. neutre c. positif d. ne sait pas
Pourquoi?

 

 

 

195

 

Lorsque vous avez pris la décision de partir ou d’acheter votre pourvoirie, est-ce que

l’existence du réglement 7 de 10 a

 

la mise en operation de votre

 

 

 

 

pourvoirie?
a. Facilité b. N’a pas eu d’effet c. Fait obstacle au d. ne sait pas
Pourquoi?
7. Cette question se devise en deux parties.

 

Premiere partie

Deuxieme partie

 

Identiﬁer le niveau
d’inﬂuence des facteurs
suivants sur l’ope'ration de
votre pourvoirie en
encerclant le numéro
approprié en utilisant
l’échelle

1.Tres négatif; 2. Ne'gatif; 3.
Neutre; 4. Positif; S. Trés
positif; 9. Ne s’applique pas

En vous servant des facteurs
que vous avez identiﬁes
comme tres positifs ou 5 et
trés négatif ou 1 dans la
premiere partie, ordonner, les
uns par rapport aux autres,
ces demiers en fonction de
l’inﬂuence qu’ils ont sur
votre pourvoirie du plus fort
vers le plus faible (1: est le
plus fort; 2: est le deuxiéme
en importance et ainsi de
suite).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Echelle Ordonné
Accés limité aux territoires l 2 3 4 5----9
de catégorie II
Acces limité aux territoires l 2 3 4 5----9
de catégorie 111
La soumission du projet au 1 2 3 4 5----9
eomité de coordination avant
de pouvoir opérer votre
pourvoirie
La soumission du projet au 1 2 3 4 5—---9
eomité de coordination pour
le développement de la
pourvoirie
Utilisation de camps mobiles l 2— 3 4 5----9
Utilisation de camps mobiles l 2 3 4 5----9

par vos compétiteurs

 

 

 

196

 

 

 

La competition des autres
pourvoyeurs du Nouveau-
Quebec

JS

5—---9

 

La taille du troupeau de
Caribous

J>

5-—-—9

 

La limite de caribous
préleve’s par chasseur

J>

5----9

 

Especes de poissons sportifs

J>

5----9

 

La limite de poissons a
pre'lever

J>

5----9

 

Cout des permis pour
residents

.1}.

5----9

 

Cout des permis pour non-
residents

J>

5-—--9

 

Marketing des pourvoiries
par le gouvemement
provincial aupres des
residents

5----9

 

Marketing des pourvoiries
par le gouvemement
provincial auprés des non-
residents

J>

5----9

 

Disponibilité des moyens de
transport pour les clients

4:-

5----9

 

Reglement impose' par le

Ministere de l’environnement

et de la faune

4.}.

5----9

 

Taxe Provinciale et Fe'de'rale

J>

5----9

 

 

Autre:

 

 

4>

5----9

 

 

 

S.V.P. identiﬁer le niveau d’inﬂuence des facteurs suivants sur l’achat ou la mise en
opération de votre pourvoirie en encerclant le numéro approprié.

l. Sans aucune importance; 2. Sans importance; 3. Neutre; 4. Important; 5. Tres Important

 

 

a. Disponibilité du territoire

< 1 2 3 4
b. Possibilité de faire des proﬁts

< 1 2 3 4
c. Connaissance du monde de la chasse et de la péche

< 1 2 3 4

 

197

._ *IWJ'

 

l3.

I4.

15.

16

d. De'sire de travailler en plein-air

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

< l 2 3 4 5 ..... >
e. Désire de travailler dans l’industrie des services

< l 2 3 4 5 >
f. Une faeon de gagner sa vie au Nouveau-Quebec

< l 2 3 4 5 ..... >
g. Désire d’étre proprie'taire de votre propre entreprise

< l 2 3 4 5 ----- >
h. Continuer dans l’entreprise familiale

< 1 2 3 4 5 >
i. Autre:

< 1 2 3 4 5 >
Combien d’employés travaillaient pour votre pourvoirie en 1997 ? # empl.
Quels étaient vos revenus nets en 1997? $
Quels étaient vos proﬁts, apres taxes et dépenses, en 1997? S
C ombien de clients sont venus a votre pourvoirie en 1997? # clients

En moyenne, durant combien de jours est-ce que vos clients sont-ils restés a votre
pourvoirie en 1997? # jours

Combien de caribous ont e'tés récoltés a votre pourvoirie en 1997? caribous

A part le caribou, quelles autres especes sont récoltées a votre pourvoirie? S.V.P.
identiﬁer toutes les espéces qui s’appliquent.

. orignal
ours
sauvagine
omble de fontaine (truite moucheté)
truite grise
omble chevalier
saumon
. autre:

5‘00 "10 Gun c‘m

 

a. Selon vous, quels ont été les effets de la Convention de la Baie-James et du
Nouveau-Ouébec sur votre pourvoirie depuis 1975 (l’année de l’adoption de la
convention)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

198

b. Selon vous, quels ont été les effets de la Convention de la Baie—James et du

Nouveau-Quebec sur les pourvoiries depuis 1975?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c. Si vous aviez la possibilité de modiﬁer une chose a la Convention, que

changeriez vous?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

d. S’il y a une chose de la Convention que vous ne changeriez pas, quelle serait-

elle?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Etes-vous intéresse’ a recevoir un résumé des résultats de cette e'tude?

Oui

Non

199

 

 

Merci!!!

S.V.P. retourner Ie questionnaire dans l’enveloppe. Si l’enveloppe et la lettre sont égarées,
mon adresse est:

Denis Auger, Professeur Adjoint
Département des Sciences du Loisir
Université d’Ottawa

CF. 450, Succ A

Ottawa, ON

KIN 6N5

Si vous avez des questions, n’hésitez pas a me contacter:

Denis Auger, Université d’Ottawa (613) 562-5855
Si vous avez d’autres commentaires, S.V.P. utiliser l’espace ci-dessous et le verso.

200

 

 

 

APPENDIX 7

 

APPENDIX 7

Questions used during the interview with the experts (M. Parent and M. Dépatie) from the
Ministry of Environment and Fauna’s Department of Northern Affairs and Development.

1 What impact has the J BNQA had on native outﬁtting in Nouveau-Quebec?

2 What impact has the JBNQA had on non-native outﬁtting in Nouveau-Quebec?

3 How has the JBNQA impacted the development of outﬁtting in Nouveau-Quebec?

4 What factors besides the JBNQA have had an impact on outﬁtting in Nouveau-
Quebec?

202

 

 

APPENDIX 8

 

 

“Date”

“Organization”
“Address”
“Address”

Dear “Name Manager”:

The Department of Leisure Studies at the University of Ottawa is conducting a study of '

the impact of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and other factors on
outﬁtting. As you know, outﬁtting and guiding have important economic, recreational F
and wildlife management implications for the province of Quebec. i

Since the agreement was executed, no comprehensive study has been conducted that .-.
describes this impact. This study is designed to ﬁll that void of knowledge. To do this
we need your help. You are the person who best understands the Act’s impact on your 9
business.

 

You will ﬁnd enclosed a short questionnaire (about 5 minutes to complete). Please
answer the questions at your earliest convenience and return it in the postage paid
envelope enclosed. If you are interested in the results of this study, please answer yes on
the appropriate question in the questionnaire and a summary of the results will be sent to
you. Your name will not be connected with any published results of this study and any
information you provide will be treated with the strictest conﬁdentiality. While your
participation is voluntary, it will be of great value to assess the impact of the Act and in
guiding similar negotiations and agreements in the future.

Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me at (613)
562-5855.

Sincerely,

Denis Auger,
Assistant Professor
University of Ottawa

204

APPENDIX 9

 

 

“Date”

“Organization”
“Address”
“Address”

M. ou Mme “Name Manager”,

Le Département des Sciences du Loisir de l’Université d’Ottawa dirige une étude sur
l’impact de la Convention (16 la Baie James et du Nouveau-Quebec et de certains autres
facteurs sur l’opération des pourvoiries. Comme vous le savez, les pourvoiries ont des
implications importantes sur la gestion faunique ainsi que sur les valeurs économiques et
récréatives pour la province de Québec.

Depuis l’approbation de la Convention, il n’a pas eu d’étude comprehensive sur cet
impact. Cette étude a pour but de combler ce vide dans les connaissances. Pour faire ceci
nous avons besoin de votre aide, puisque vous étes la personne la mieux placée pour
expliquer l’impact de la convention sur votre pourvoirie.

Vous trouverez ci-joint un petit questionnaire (il ne devrais pas prendre plus de 5 minutes
a remplir). S’il-vous-plait remplir ce questionnaire et le retourner dans l’enveloppe
pre'affrenchit foumie avec le questionnaire. Si vous étes intéressé aux résultats de l’étude,
s’il-vous-plait répondre “oui” a la question appropriée dans le questionnaire et un résume’
de l’étude vous sera acheminé. Toutes inforrnations que vous nous donnerez seront
traitées avec la plus grande conﬁdentialité. Bien que votre participation 51 cette etude ce
fasse volontairement, elle sera tres utile pour évaluer l’impact de la convention et elle
aidera a guider des négociations et des conventions dans le futur.

Merci, a l’avance, de votre bonne cooperation. Si vous avez besoin de plus
d’informations, n’hésitez pas a me contacter au (613) 562-5855.

Veuillez accepter mes sentiments les plus sinceres,

Denis Auger,
Professeur adjoint
U niversité d’Ottawa

206

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

REFERENCES

Australian Department of Finance and Administration. (1998). International
Experience on the Identiﬁcation and Monitoriﬂz of Outputs and Outcomes. Australian
governmental presses: Author.

Audet, R. (1979). Histoire du Caribou du Quebec-Labrador et Evolution des
Populations. Recherches Amérindiennes au Ouébec. gag).

Auger, J ., Laforte, D., & Rondeau, J.-C. (1997). La Mesure de la Performance
dans le Secteur Public. Coup D’Oeil, 3 (1).

Bazin, L., Leclerc, M..; Parent, M., & Vandal, D. (1993). Bilan d’opération des .I
camps mobiles de 1988 a 1992. Québec: Ministere du loisir, de la chasse et de la peche.

Beauchésne, P. (1990). Recherche d'informgtion sur l'administration des
pourvoiries dans les autres provinces et territoires canadiens am cing étatsgaméricagrp . 4
de meme que les exigences relatives aux guidesde chasse et de péche dgns ce§_ '
administrations. Quebec City: Canada. Government Printing Ofﬁce.

 

Bird, M. J. (1972). An Amlvsis of F ederaﬂrterest Affected by the Proposed
James Bay Hvdro Develcﬁment. Ottawa: Environment Canada.

Bissonnette, A., & Bouchard, S. (1984). Rpp’ ercussions sociales et économigues
du détoumement de la Canimu sur lesgctivités de chgsse et de péche deg
population de Kuujuaq: Point de vue des utilis_ateurs. Montreal: Société d’Energie de la
Baie James.

Bouchard, G., Grégoire, M. C., Leblanc, M., & Ratté, S. (1990). Etude aupres des
pourvoyeurs Québecois qui ont participé a des salgons de chasse et de pgéch_e§ l'extérieur
du Ouébec entre le premier avril 1988 et le 31 mgrs 1989. Quebec City: Canada
Government Printing Ofﬁce.

 

 

Boulet, E., &Gagnon, J. (1979). Poste-de-la-Baleine After the James Bay and
Northern Quebec Aggeement. Environment Canada: James Bay and Northern Quebec
Ofﬁce.

Bourassa, R. (1974). Robert Bourassa Announces Proposals Made by Ouébec to
the Indian and Inuit People of the James Bay Area

Canadian Wildlife Service. (1991). L’importance de la Faune pour les Canadiens:
Rapport Sommaire de L’Enguéte Nationgle de 1991. Environment Canada.

Cochran, C. E., Carr, T. R., Mayer, L.C., & Cayer, N. J. (1982). American Public
Policy: An Introduction. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

208

Cordell, H. K., Bergstrom, J. C., Hartrnann, L. A., & English, D. B. K. (1990). An_
Ana1vsis of the Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Situgtion in the United StJates: 1989 -
2040. Forest Service: United States Department of Agriculture.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Desigp: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Dearden, P., & Mitchell, B. (1997). Environmental Change and Challenge: A
Canadian Perspective. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Decker, D., Brown, T. L., Connelly, N. A., Enck, J. W., Pomerantz, G., Purdy, K.
G., & Siemer, W. F. (1992). Toward a Comprehensive Paradigm of Wildlife
Management: Integrating the Human and Biological Dimensions. In William R.
Mangun, American Fish and Wildlife Policy: The Human Dimension (pp.33-56).
Carbondale and Edwardsville: Illinois. Southern Illinois Press.

Denton, D. (1979). L’Exploitation Historique Récente du Caribou et les Schemes
d’Etablissement dans la Région de Caniapiscau. Recherches amérindiennes au Québec,9
(1-2),105-115.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to
Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Diamond, B. (1977). Highlights of the Negotiations Leading to the James Bay
and Northern Ouébec Agreement. Val d’Or: Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec.

Eulau, H. & Prewitt, K. (1973). Labvrinth_s of Democrggy. Indianapolis: Bobbs-
Merrill.

Falikowski, A. (1996). Mastering Human Relations. Scarborough: Prentice Hall.

Feit, H. A. (1971). Exploitation des ressources naturelles en expansion dans la
région de la Baie James. Recherches agréﬁndiemes au Ouébec. 1 (4-5), pp.22-26.

Feit, H. A. (1980). The James Bay and Northern Ouébec harvesting research

project: The basis for establishing guaranteed levels of harvesting by the native people of
Northern Ouébec. A report submitted to the Cree Regional Authority

and Environment Canada, James Bay and Northern Quebec Ofﬁce.

 

 

Feit, H. A. (1980). Negotiating Recognition of Aboriginal Rights: History,
Strategies and Reactions to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Canadian
Jormnal of Anthropology 1 (2), pp. 159-172.

209

 

 

 

F eit, H. A. (1986). Hunting and the Quest for Power: The James Bay Cree and
White Men in the Twentieth Century. In R. B. Morrison and C. R. Wilson (Eds), Native
Peoples: The Cangdian Experience. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

 

Fitch, E. J. (1993). Professionalism and Politics in Radioactive Waste
Management: An Analysis of the Midwest Interstate and Midwest Central Interstate
Low-level Radioactive Waste Compacts. East Lansing: Michigan. Doctoral Dissertation,
Michigan State University.

F rideres, J. S. (1981). Native Settlements and Native Rights: A Comparison of the
Alaska Native Settlement, the James Baie Indian/Inuit Settlement, and the Western
Canadian Inuit Settlement. Canadian Journal of Ngtive Studies. 1(1): 59-88.

Gee, C. Y., Makens, J. C., & Choy, D. J. L. (1997). The Travel Industrv.
NewYork:Van Norstrand Reinhold.

Gilbert, L. (1982). La Convention de la Baie James et du Nord québécois, sept ans
apres (The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, Seven Years Later). North/Nord,
Autumn, 7-13.

Glaser, B. G., &Strauss, A. L.(1967). The Discoveg of Grounded Theogy -
Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Henderson, K. A. (1991). Dimensions of Choice: A Qualitative Approach to
Recreation Parksgand Leisure Research. State College: Venture.

 

James Bay and Northern Québec Native Harvesting Research Committee. (1976).
Report on the Harvests of the James Bay Cree (2 Vols.). Montreal: Native Harvesting
Research Committee.

James Bay and Northern Québec Native Harvesting Research Committee. (1976).
Report on Harvest by the Inuit of Northern Quebec. Montreal: Native Harvesting

Research Committee.

James Bay and Northern Québec Native Harvesting Research Committee. (1982).
The Wealth of the Land: Wildlife Harvestg by the J ameﬂgy Cree 1972-73 to 1978-79.
Quebec: James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Harvesting Research Committee.

Jones, C. O. (1984). An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy. Monteray:
California. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Krys, S. & Anderson, J. (1992). Yoho Ngtiongl Paglg Demonstgrtion Project.
Presented at second US/Canada Workshop on Visitor Management in Parks, Forests and
Protected Areas. University of Wisconsin, Madison.

210

La Rusic, I. E. (1979). Negotiating a Way of Life: Initial Cree experience with the
Administrative Structure Arising from the James Bay Aggeement. Ottawa: Department of
Indian and Northern Affairs.

Lamontagne, G., & Gignac, L. (1997). Gros Gibier au Ouébec en 1996. Quebec
City, Canada: Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Lebel, D. (1997). Statistﬂres et evolution des ventes et des tarifs des permis de
chasse. de péche et de piégeage (1983-1996). Gouvemement du Quebec.

Lefebvre, D. (1996). Jobs in the Nunavik in 1995. Kativik regional Government.

Lehman, J. & Doiq, M.W. (1998). The Gale encyclopedia of native American
tribes. Vol. 3. Gale: Detroit.

Lejeune, R. (1972). Utilisation des ressource§ biologigues de Nouveau-Quebec.
Quebec: Department of Natural Resources, publ. No. 005.

Lincoln, Y. S., &Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inguigy. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Makivik Corporation. (1985). The L arnes Bay and Northern Ouébec Agmement:
Ten Years of Disagreement. Montreal.

Majehrzak, A. (1984). Methods for Policy Research. California: Sage.
Malaurie, J., & Rousseau, J. (1964). Le Nouveau-Ouébec. Paris: Mouton.

Mallory, C. P. (1980). Caribou in the James Biand Northern Ouébec Territory
Montreal: Cree Regional Authority, Makivik Corporation, Naskapi Band Council of
Schefferville.

Malouf, A. H.(1973). La’Bale James indienne: Texts intd al du 'u ement du
judge Albert Makuf. Montréal: Editions du Jour.

Mangun, W. (1992). American Fish and Wildlife Policy: The Human
Dimension. Carbondale and Edwardsville, Illinois: Southern Illinois Press.

Martin, P., Parent, A., Poiré, G., & Thifault, G. (1988). Les pourvoiries du
Quebec Téoros, 1(2), 38-40.

 

Mcntosh, R. W., Goeldner, C. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1995). Tourism: Principles,
Practices. Philosophies. New York: Wiley.

Ministere de l’Environment et de la Faune. (1998). Le développement d’une
pourvoirie. Québec City, Canada: Government Printing Ofﬁce.

211

 

Ministere du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Péche, MLCP(1988). L'activité

économique reliée a l'exploitation et a la fréguentation des pourvoiries du Quebec.
Quebec City, Canada: Government Printing Ofﬁce.

 

Ministere du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Péche, MLCP (1990). Development for
outﬁtter establishments in Nouveau Ouébec. Quebec City, Canada: Government Printing
Ofﬁce.

Ministere du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Péche, MLCP. (1991). Le plan de
consolidation et de développement de la pourvoirie. Québec City, Canada: Government
Printing Ofﬁce.

Ministere du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Péche, MLCP. (1993). Les hibitudes_d_e
pratique de la chasse et de la péche par les amateurs de ces deux loisirs. leuggerceptionaa
l'égard des pourvoiries du Ouébec et leur satisfaction 51 l'égard des ces demieres et des
services offerts. Quebec City, Canada: Govermnent Printing Ofﬁce.

 

Ministere du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Péche, MLCP and Oceans and Fishing ,1
Canada. (1988). La Peche Récréative au Ouébec en 1985.(Recreational Fishing in Québec J
in 1985).

Ministere du Tourisme. (1984). Le Tourisme au Ouébec. (Québec tourism),
Québec City: Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Ministere du Tourisme. (1992). Plan de marketing. (Marketing Plan), Québec
City: Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (1992). The James Bay and

Northern Ouébec Aggeement and the Northeastern Quebec Aggeement - 1992 Annual
Report . Ministry of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

 

 

Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. (1995). The James Bay

and Northern Ouébec Aggeement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement - 1995 Annual
Report . Ministry of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. (1995). The James Bay
and Northern Québec Aggeement and the Northeaatem Ouébec Agreement - 1994 Anan
Report . Ministry of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. (1995). The James Igy
and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Ouébec Agreement - 1993 Annual
Report . Ministry of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. (1995). Ouébec India_r_r
C ommunitv Guide. Ministry of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

 

212

Mﬁller-Wille, L. (1983). Conﬂict in Development in Nouveau-Quebec. Montreal:
McGill University - Centre for Northern Studies and Research. Research paper No. 37.

Neault, C. (1988). Proﬁl de produits chasse et péche. Ottawa, Canada:
Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Nebel, B. J., & Wright, R. T. (1996). The Way the World Works: Environmental
Science . Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

OCDE. (1998). En quéte de résultats: Pratiques de gestion des performances.
Paris: Presses de l’OCDE.

Paré, C. (1972). Le Tourisme au Nouveau-Quebec. Conseil Regional de
Développement - Saguenay-Lac-StJean.

Patton, C. V., & Sawicki, D. S. (1986). Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and
Flaming. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury
Park: Sage.

Penn, A. F. (1975). Development of James Bay: The Role of Environmental
Impact Assessment in Determining the Legal Right to an Interlocutory Injunction.
Journal of the Fisheries. 2 (l),136-160.

Peters, B. G. (1982). American Public Policy: Process and Performance. New
York: Franklin Watts.

Quade, E. S.(1982). An_alysis for Public Decision; New York: Elsevier Scientiﬁc,
Second Edition.

Québec Government. (1992). The J ames Bayand Northern Ouébec Agreement
and the Northeastern Ouébec Agreement - 1991-92 Annual Report . Evaluating
Committee.

Quebec Government. (1997). James Bay and Northern Québec Aggeement and

Complementary Agreements. Québec, Quebec: Les Publications du Quebec.

Recherches Améridiennes au Quebec. (1971). La Baie James des Améridiennes.
Theme issue of Recherches améridiennes au Ouébec. 1 (4-5).

Reviewing Committee (1984). Biennial Raport of Activities April 1982-April
1984. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (Chapter 22) and Environmental

Quality Act (Chapter 11). December 1984.

213

 

Reviewing Committee. (1986). Biennial Report of Activities April 1984-April
1986. The James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement (Chapter 22) and Environmental
Quality Act (Chapter 11). December 1986.

Reviewing Committee. (1988). Biennial Report of Activities April 1986-April
1988. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (Chapter 22) and Environmental

Quality Act (Chapter 11). December 1988.

Rieger, F. H. (1981). Cree Culturzi Values and the Structure of Their F ormal
organisation. Montreal: McGill University-Programme in the Anthropology of
Development.

Ripley, R. B. (1985). Policy AnJalvsis in Political Science. Chicago: Nelson-Hall
Publishers.

Rossi, P. H., & Williams, W. (1972). Evaluating Social Proggams. New York:
Seminar Press.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal People. (1996). People to People, Nation to
Nation. Canada Communication Group.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal People. (1996). Volume 1 - The Past, The
Future. Canada Communication Group.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal People. (1996). Volume 2 - A Relationship to
Redeﬁne. Canada Communication Group.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal People. (1996). Volume 4 - Perspectives and
Realities Canada Communication Group.

Ryan, C. (1991). Recreational tourism: A Social Science Perspective. New York:
Routledge.

Salisbury, R.F., F illon, Rawji, F., & D. Stewart. (1972). Development and James
Bay: Social Implication_s of the Proposals for the Hydroelectric Scheme. Montreal:
McGill University.

Salisbury, R. F. (1986). A Homeland for the Cree. Regional Development in
James Bay 1971-1981. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Sessoms, D. (1989). Issues and Problems in Recreation and Parks Profession. In
RPA, Life and Leisure in the let Centupy. Symposium.

214

 

Société d’Energie de la Baie James. (1973). Description du Tenitoire de la Baie
James. In Etudes de Validation, Rapport d’Environnement. Service Environnement, 10—
26.

Société de Développement de la Baie James. ( l979)._ﬂalissement d’un Résgru de
Pourvoiries dans les Limites du Territoire de la Baie James (Establishment of an Outﬁtter
Network within the James Bay Territory). Environnement et Aménagement du Tenitoire.

Société de Développement de la Baie James (SEBJ). (1979). Etablissement de
Ouatre Réseaux de Pourvoiries dans les Limites du Territoire de La Baie James.
Environnement et Aménagement du Territoire.

Société d’Energie de la Baie James. (1988). The La Grande Riviere Hydroelectric
Complex. Environnement et Aménagement du Territoire.

Société Makivik. (1994). Le Tourisme au NunaLik, Conseil Regional de
Développement Kativik. August 1994.

Société Québecoise de Development de la Main D’Oeuvre. (1996). Industrie de la
Pourvoirie. (Outﬁtters Industry). Québec Government: Québec City.

Stankey, G.H: McCool, S.F. & Stokes, G.L. (1990). Managing for Appropriate
Wilderness Conditions: The Carrying Capacity. In Wilderness Management, 2"d ed., eds
J .C. Hendee, G.H. Stankey, and RC. Lucas. Golden: Fulcrum Press. 215-39.

Stankey, G. H., Cole, D. N., Lucas, R. C., Petersen, M. E., & Frissell, S. S.
(1985). The Limits of Acceptable Cha_nge System for Wilderness Flaming. US General
Technical Report INT-176.

Stewart, D. W., & Kamins, M. A. (1993). Secondary Research: Information
Sources and Methods. California: Sage.

Stokey, E., & Zeckhauser, R. (1978). A Primer for Policy Analysis. New York:
W. W. Norton & Company.

Suchman, E. (1967). Evaluative Research. New York: Russell Sage.
Tanner, A. (1972). The Use of Subsistence Resources in the Kaniapiskau—

Nichequon Region. In R.F. Salibury et al.. Not by bread alone, pp. 99-112. Montreal:
James Bay Task Force, Indians of Québec Association.

 

Tanner, A. (1973). The Signiﬁcance of Hunting Territories Today. In B. Cox
(Ed.),Cultural ecology: Readings on the Canadian Indians and Eskimos. Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart.

215

 

 

Thomas, P. (1998). The Politics of Performance Measurement. Management. _8_

Tourisme Canada. (1990). Pourvoiries de chasse et péche au Can_ada: Expose de
position.Ottawa, Canada: Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Trude], F., & Huot, J. (1979). Dossier Caribou, Ecologie et Exploitation du
Caribou au Quebec-Labrador. Recherches Amérindiennes au Ouébec. gag).

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and United
States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (1993). 1991 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, DC: US.
Government Printing Ofﬁce,

United States General Accounting Ofﬁce. (1995). Managing for Results. Report
to Congressional Requesters.

Vincent, 8., & Bowers, G. (1987). James Bay and Northern Quebec: Ten Years

After. Recherches Amérindiennes au Quebec.

 

Wahab, S., & Pigram, J.J. (1997). Tourism. Development and Growth. New York:
Routledge.

Wellar, B., & Smith, R. (1992). A Progress Report on Public Policy Objectives
Achieved Through IS/GIS/LIS/u. In Barry Wellar and Daniel Parr, Urban & Regional

lnfonnation Systems Asso_ciation 1992 Annual Conference Proceedinga, pp. 117-144.
Vol. V.

Wertman, P. (1983). Planning and Development after the James Bay Agreement.
Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 3 (2), 277-288.

William, S. (1993). Hydro-Ouébec and the Great WQale Prcgect: Hydroelectric
Development in Northern Quebec. Washington: Investor Responsibility Research Center.

Williams, W.(1971). Social Policy Research and Analysis: The Experience in the
Federal SocialAgencies. New York: American Elsevier.

Wilkinson, P. F. (1979). Relationship between the knowledge required for the

Implementation of the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Rule Established by the James Bay

and Northern Québec Aggeement and the Information at Present Available-Naskapi
Perspective. Quebec: Environment Canada, James Bay and Northern Quebec Ofﬁce.

 

 

Yin, R.Y. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. California: Sage.

216