Province of Quebec Loses Court Case On James Bay Agreement Implementation

The following article appeared in the Montreal Gazette on Wednesday September 9, 1981, written by Leon Levinson.

A superior Court judge has backed three groups of native people in a dispute with Quebec over a section of the James Bay Agreement.

The native groups claimed that Quebec had been illegally depriving them of their right to a first refusal in choice of sites for outfitting facilities in Northern Quebec.

The suit was brought before the court by the Naskapi Indians of Schefferville, the Grand Council of the Crée (Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association and Makivik Corporation in connection with their hunting and fishing activities in vast areas which are also open to non-natives.

Justice Andre Savoie ruled regulations adopted in June last year by Fish and Games Minister Lucien Lessard are illegal. It was the first court pronouncement on an interpretation of the 1975 James Bay Agreement which defined native rights in the north and permitted construction of the James Bay hydro project.

The judge ruled that neither the minister nor the Joint Committee for Hunting, Fishing and Trapping can limit in any way the right of first choice of the natives.

He held further that until Nov 10,2005 the right of first choice applies to every application to set up outfitting facilities in the lands which are subject to the fishing, hunting and trapping terms of the James Bay agreement.

Under the agreement, three of every 10 applications for outfitting facilities must be granted to non-natives. The natives claimed they had the right to choose their seven sites before the government chose three for non-natives.

But the government had decided that it would first choose the three sites for non-natives with the natives getting the remaining seven.

Justice Savoie said the minister gave himself the right to grant three permits without having to send the three applications to the Joint Committee.

Under this procedure, he observed, the natives have no say because the committee is not informed of the three applications which the minister accepted and for which a permit had already been issued.

The judgement was rendered with costs against the Quebec government and Lessard.