Institutional History

There are two significant histories related to the regional integration of PAs and regional actors within the Mauricie region. First, the lead up to and creation of the LMNP and the Saint-Maurice and Mastigouche Wildlife Reserve are the most significant in terms of regional

influence between PAs and regional actors. Second, the 2009 provincial target of having 8% of the territory designated as protected has had important impacts on current participatory and collaborative processes regarding the 2015 provincial PA target.

The National Park and Wildlife Reserves

As previously presented in section 4.1.1, much of the provincial territory was managed by private clubs, of which a significant portion were located within the Mauricie region from the late 1880s to the late 1970s. Access to the vast majority of the land and water-base within the Mauricie region was restricted to club members. In many instances, small villages such as Saint-Alexis-des-Monts and Mandeville were entirely encircled by these clubs. In fact, some

participants reported that growing up, it was illegal for them to go play in the neighbouring woods for fear of getting fined by a club warden. There was very little public land (non-leased) for citizens to go fish or hunt. This meant that resources such as fish and game were quickly depleted on the crown lands outside the reserve. Beginning in the early 1960s and taking prominence in the early 1970s, residents from the Mauricie region, fed up with the imposed

162

restrictive access to their land, began an occupy movement whereby they would block access roads to clubs, would occupy club cottages and would fish and hunt on the club‟s territories (Roy, 2007). Under such pressures, the government revoked or did not renew club leases.

In order to create a system whereby all members of the public could access territories for fishing and hunting, the provincial government began creating public wildlife reserves. The Saint-Maurice Wildlife Reserve was created in 1963 while the Mastigouche Wildlife Reserve was created in 1971. The LMNP was created in 1970. The creation of this national park and two wildlife reserves received little opposition from regional actors, rather, it was very well

received⁷⁵ as they now had access to well managed lakes for fishing and hunting grounds⁷⁶. For example, the creation of LMNP resulted in the abolition of 16 clubs. Control over the remainder of the territory was given to ENGOs (ZECs) who manage the land and waters for hunting and fishing purposes. In 1978, the government abolished all private club leases on crown land of which 250 clubs were in the Mauricie region. The land base of these clubs was in some instances added to the existing wildlife reserves while the rest was given to ZECs and outfitters.

Although access and use of the majority of the territory continues to be controlled by various management authorities, and in some cases in a similar fashion as was done with the private clubs, this is seen positively by participants as it insures that the resources are well managed and accessible to the general public. One ZEC participant noted:

The ZEC was created in 1976 after the abolition of private clubs in order to allow

provincial residents to have access to hunting and fishing on provincial crown land. In the Wessonneau ZEC, on its land area, there used to be 65 private fishing clubs, and now, it is all accessible to members of the public. (ZEC Staff)⁷⁷

75 Both wildlife reserves were first classified as parks. Their designation as a wildlife reserve came in 1979 after the creation of the Québec Parks Act. The creation of the LMNP garnered little controversy when compared to the creation of Forillon National Park. For a different perspective, see (Chretien, 1986)

76 Although hunting is not permitted in the national park, no participants identified this as problematic as there is ample space to do these activities within the region.

77 La ZEC a été créé en 1976 après l‟abolition des clubs privées pour remettre sa au Québécois ou donner la possibilité aux Québécois d‟aller chasser et pêche dans leur territoire. Dans la ZEC Wessonneau, sur le même territoire, il y avait 65 clubs privé de chasse de pêche, et maintenant, c‟est tout accessible au public. (ZEC Staff)

163 The 2009 Target

The 2009 target to have 8% of the province designated as protected had a large impact on various forestry industries, FNs and ENGOs within the Mauricie region due to an increase in PA numbers⁷⁸. As presented in chapter 4 (section 4.1.4), the government was rushed to meet its target by 2009. Although consultative processes occurred between the MDDEFP, the CRE and various regional actors, many participants felt that this was not properly done. Many felt that it was not a true consultative process, but rather an information sharing process whereby the government would inform regional actors of its plans. All decisions regarding PA locations and size were completed in house by the MDDEFP and MNR. The forestry industry suffered potential economic losses due to this exercise as large forest tracts were converted to PAs that excluded resource extraction. The autocratic nature of this exercise reduced the trust of some local actors in government and resulted in strong lobbying by the forestry sector against the creation of new PAs.

Due to the less than adequate public participation processes of the 2009 planning exercise, the provincial government gave more power to regional actors in decision-making by placing responsibility in the analysis and decision-making process with the CRE. The CRE functions as a form of regional government and is best situated to communicate with regional actors.

The CRE, like me, I will get involved because we are responsible and we are involved in all aspects related to regional development and here in Mauricie, I know the region very well, so this fits with the mandate of the CRE. (CRE Participant)⁷⁹

This delegation of power from central government to regional actors, and the ability of individuals and regional organizations to propose PAs have been well received by all participants

78 Although the creation of large PAs in the northern region of the province greatly contributed to meeting the 2009 target of 8%, each administrative region increased the number of PAs on their jurisdiction.

79 La CRE, comme moi, je vais m‟impliquer parce que nous on est responsable pi on est implique dans tous les aspects du développement régional et ici en Mauricie c‟est moi qui connait très bien le milieu, alors ca entre vraiment dans le mandat de la CRE. (CRE Participant)

164

as they now have the capability to make decisions regarding large-scale planning exercises that will influence land usages for future generations.

If someone wants to establish a conservation area in a specific area, it is really the MDDEFP who will receive the proposition and will analyze this proposition, but the region will need to support it. (CRE Participant)⁸⁰

Although the majority of participants in this case indicated that this is a long and often tedious process, they were also of the opinion that the PAs will be much better accepted because all relevant actors will have had the ability to actively contribute to the decision-making process.

Most actors have accepted the PAs created for the 2009 target, in part because they feel there is nothing they can do otherwise. However, certain actors question the effectiveness of this process as discussions and final decisions are heavily influenced by the resource sector and the MNR.