nunavik, arctic quebec: where cooperatives supplement entrepreneurship

42 Global Business and Economics Review, Vol. 12, Nos. 1/2, 2010

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Nunavik, Arctic Quebec: where cooperatives supplement entrepreneurship

Leo Paul Dana GSCM Montpellier, and University of Canterbury, Dept. of Management, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Prior to contact with Europeans, Ungava Inuit1 who inhabited the Quebec-Labrador Peninsula was self-sufficient, with a subsistence economy and inter-cultural trade. They lived in small bands, each consisting of a few families, and they fished, gathered, hunted, and migrated as required. Traditionally, food was shared. Europeans introduced foreign languages, religions, and values along with a capitalist economy. Today, Anglican2 is the dominant religion in Northern Quebec, formerly known as Ungava and now known as Nunavik; yet, the Inuit have retained their language, a strong sense of identity, and community values. In this context, cooperatives have dominated the business realm since their introduction in the late 1950s. Non-Inuit – called Qallunaaq3 and meaning ‘big high brows’ – are a minority here.

Keywords: cooperatives; collective entrepreneurship; Hunter Support Program; business; Arctic; Quebec; Nunavik; Inuit; Nunavimmiut; self-employment.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Dana, L.P. (2010) ‘Nunavik, Arctic Quebec: where cooperatives supplement entrepreneurship’, Global Business and Economics Review, Vol. 12, Nos. 1/2, pp.42–71.

Biographical notes: Leo Paul Dana is at GSCM Montpellier, on Study Leave from UC. He was formerly a Visiting Professor of Entrepreneurship at INSEAD and Deputy Director of the International Business MBA Programme at Nanyang, in Singapore.

1 Introduction

Murphy and Steward (1956, p.353) suggested, “When the people of an unstratified native society barter wild products found in extensive distribution and obtained through individual effort, the structure of the native culture will be destroyed, and the final culmination will be a culture type characterised by individual families having delimited rights to marketable resources.” Has the introduction of a cash economy changed the collective essence of society in Nunavik? In a study of economic behaviour among Inuit in Nunavik, Chabot (1998, p.139) suggested, “That economic actions cannot only be interpreted through formal rationality… Market is one of the distinctive institutions of

Nunavik, Arctic Quebec: where cooperatives supplement entrepreneurship 43

modernity but it does not encompass the entire social life. Economic actions are determined by the structures of social relations as well as by material conditions.” Duhaime et al. (1999) studied the economic structure of Nunavik, suggesting that government was the dominant player here. Langlois (2000) suggested there has been a lack of research about business in this region.

The objective of this article is to add to the literature about Nunavik, where the population is younger and growing faster than elsewhere in Quebec (Duhaime, 2008). Turner (1894) noted that Ungava Inuit were making decisions collectively in the 19th century. Despite many changes, this article will show that collective decision-making is still important here. Today, self-employment, in Nunavik, often takes the form of subsistence (assisted by a hunter support program as shall be discussed below), while cooperatives form the backbone of the economy. As noted by Dana and Dana (2007, p.89),

“A cooperative is an autonomous association of persons who join forces to meet their common needs by means of a jointly owned enterprise. A cooperative may thus be described as a vehicle for collective entrepreneurship in which individual skills are integrated into a group, and that group’s collective ability to innovate becomes greater than the sum of its parts. Collective entrepreneurship can offer a cooperative the opportunity to tap into individual talents and to harness the energy of the community.”

Cooperatives in Nunavik include the Nunavik Financial Services Cooperative as well as several that belong to La Fédération des Coopératives du Nouveau Québec. Winther and Duhaime (2002) suggested that supporting structures contributed to the success of cooperatives in Nunavik. As discussed by Zeuli and Cropp (2004), cooperatives provide local employment and tend to have a long-term commitment to remain in a community, providing leadership and development.

The people of Nunavik – mostly Inuit – have long had community values, helping one another and sharing food as discussed by Damas (1972), Hunt (2000), Rogers (1964), and Wenzel (2005). This article will show that food sharing remains a central value, and the importance of the collectivity/community is reflected in cooperatives that are vehicles of collective entrepreneurs. Also central to the Nunavik economy is the Makivik4 Corporation (successor to the Northern Quebec Inuit Association), which promotes the preservation of Inuit culture in Nunavik communities and which will be discussed below.

2 Nunavik, Quebec, Canada

The Canadian province of Quebec is widely known for its urban centres, such as Montreal (the Paris of North America), and Quebec City (the only walled city on the continent). Also, much has been written about its industrial towns, such as Shawinigan (e.g., Dales, 1957) and mining towns such as Schefferville (e.g., Humphrys, 1961, 1966; Müller-Wille, 1983). Entrepreneurs, including Joseph-Armand Bombardier (who invented the snowmobile) are well represented in the literature (Pacey, 1983).

Perhaps less is known about Nunavik, the Arctic region of Quebec, north of the 55th parallel covering 500,164 square kilometres (Jacobs, 2005) of the Canadian Shield. Prior to confederation this was Rupert’s Land; in 1867, this land was transferred to Canada, and until 1912 it was a part of the District of Ungava, in the Northwest Territories. That

44 L.P. Dana

year, the Ungava region and all territories north of the 52nd parallel were transferred to the Province of Quebec. After the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975 (see Jacobs, 2005), the Ungava region or Inuit homeland was called Kativik (see Figure 1). In 1988, it was renamed Nunavik.

Figure 1 Kativik coat of arms (see online version for colours)

Source: Photograph by Leo Paul Dana

The region covers the northern-most part of the province, bordered by Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait, Ungava Bay and Labrador. As stated by Turner (1894, p.173), “Here the conifers are stunted and straggling… A line… to the eastern shore of Hudson Bay forms the northern limit of trees for the northwest portion of the region. The people (Eskimo only) who dwell north of this line are dependent upon stunted willows and alders, growing in the deeper ravines…” Today, there are 14 Inuit villages in Nunavik: Akulivik, Aupaluk, Inukjuak, Ivujivik, Kangiqsualujjuaq, Kangiqsujuaq, Kangirsuk, Kuujjuaq (the administrative centre), Kuujjuarapik, Puvirnituq, Quaqtaq, Salluit, Tasiujaq, and Umiujaq. Of these, only Kangiqsualujjuaq, Kuujjuaq, and Kuujjuarapik have trees (see Figure 2), while are others are in the tundra, above the tree line. None have underground water canalisation and so all depend on tanker trucks (see Figure 3) to deliver water and empty septic tanks. Each house (see Figure 4) has a holding tank (see Figure 5). Ivujivik and Kuujjuaq (see Figure 6) were the first to have paved streets (as opposed to gravel). As is the case in Nunavut, stop signs in Nunavik are bilingual (see Figure 7); street signs are also bilingual (see Figure 8). There are no roads between the communities of Nunavik; in summer and autumn there is maritime service, but port facilities are limited.


Figure 2 Tree line in Nunavik (see online version for colours)


Figure 3 Utility truck (see online version for colours)


46 L.P. Dana

Figure 4 Typical house in Kuujjuaq (see online version for colours)


Figure 5 To tank (see online version for colours)



Figure 6 Paved streets in Kuujjuaq (see online version for colours)


Figure 7 Bilingual stop sign Kuujjuaq (see online version for colours)


48 L.P. Dana

Figure 8 Bilingual street signs (see online version for colours)


Traditionally, communal/collective caribou hunts were important for survival here. D’Anglure and Vézinet (1977) explained how Inuit here cooperated:

1 driving caribou toward hiding bow-men

2 spearing caribou from a qajaq at crossing points.

The sub-Arctic boreal forest and taiga of Nunavik welcomes Canada geese (in Inuktituk: nirliq), caribou (tuktu), eider ducks (mitiq), musk ox (umimmaq), and ptarmigan (aqiggig), while its waters are home to Arctic char (iqaluppik), Atlantic salmon (sama); bearded seals (ujjuk), beluga whales (qilalugaq), brook trout (aanak), lake trout (isiuralittaak), ringed seals (natsiq), and walrus (aiviq).

Some people in Nunavik continue to practice subsistence activities, including fishing and hunting (Dorais, 1997). Kuujjuamiut Inc. administers the Kuujjuaq Fish Fund, which compensates Inuit of Kuujjuaq when overall yearly harvest from the Caniapiscau-Koksoak5 River system are less than in the years preceding the Caniapiscau diversion, taking into account equal fishing effort. While much has changed, the community/collectivity remains an important concept here.

3 Historical overview

Turner (1894. p.261) wrote of the story of creation according to Ungava Inuit: “A man was created from nothing. It was summer and he journeyed until he found a woman in another land. The two became man and wife, and from them sprang all the people dwelling there.”


Traditionally, the Inuit hunted seals as well as caribou. The French, in contrast fished seals in nets stretched in the water (Langlois, 2000). Prior to 1733, sealing took place here only in the spring (Langlois, 2000), with limited results, given that seals travel alone that time of year. Thereafter, the activity took place semi-annually, and the autumn results proved more profitable, given that seals are gregarious then, and easier to capture in large numbers. Binney (1929, p.21) wrote, “Instead of importing seal nets… ready-made, the twine is imported and the natives are provided with work in manufacturing nets.”

Low (1896) noted that the French maintained trading establishments in the area until 1733, followed by the Northwest Company. In 1811, German-speaking Moravian (Protestant) missionaries were the first Europeans to meet the Inuit who lived by the Koksoak River (See Figure 9). The objective of these Moravians was to convert people to Christianity. Packard (1887) praised the efforts of these missionaries.

Figure 9 The Koksoak River (see online version for colours)


In 1821, the Northwest Company was absorbed by the Hudson’s Bay Company (Low, 1896). Speck (1931, p.572) wrote, “The first inland trading posts of the Hudson’s Bay Company were established about 1824.” According to Rogers (1964) and Speck (1931), Fort Chimo (now Kuujjuaq) was established in 1827. Turner (1887, pp.118–119) wrote,

“Fort Chimo was established as a trading station by the Hudson’s Bay Company about the year 1828 and continued until 1841 when it was abandoned, and re-established in 1866… About a dozen log structures covered with boards, in most instances white-washed, are arranged upon no definite plan… The population is exclusively the servants of the Company, several of whom have taken native (Innuit) wives… The station is supported by the yield of furs from the district.”

50 L.P. Dana

McLean (1849) described the region during the 1830s and 1840s. In academic literature, Packard (1887) was among the first to mention Fort Chimo, the chief trading station of the Ungava district; he noted it was 28 miles from the sea, at Ungava Bay. Powell (1894, p.42) wrote, “Fort Chimo is 27 miles… from Ungava Bay.” Turner (1894, p.167) wrote, “The post is on the right bank of the Koksoak river, about 27 miles from its mouth.” The Hudson’s Bay Company trading post at this former site of Fort Chimo, on the east shore of the Koksoak River, brought Montagnais and Naskapi as well as Inuit wishing to trade. This location was about three miles downstream from where Kuujjuaq stands today. Turner (1894, p.275) wrote, “In the spring the Indians of both sexes come to the post of Fort Chimo to trade.”

In 1899, an Anglican mission opened at Fort Chimo and in 1902 an Anglican Church was built (see Figure 10). Anglican soon became the dominant religion in northern Quebec, replacing traditional Inuit religion and the belief that a dreaded sea-goddess controlled the weather and supply of seals (Jenness, 1932).

Inuit in the region began trading furs with Euro-Americans around 1910 (Kishigami, 2000). Describing the region in 1928, Binney wrote (1929, p.4),

“The shores of Ungava Bay have hardly been explored (let alone surveyed); into the head of the bay, 130 miles south of Hudson Strait, flows the Koksoak River, which drains the central plateau of Labrador. Twenty miles up the Koksoak River Fort Chimo is situated, a remote post established by the Hudson’s Bay Company… as a centre for trade with the Nascopie Indians who range the interior of Labrador, and with the Eskimo of Ungava Bay.”

Binny (1929, p.13) explained, “The hunting grounds of the shrill-voiced Nascopie Indians lie in the interior of the Labrador-Quebec Peninsula; they pay an annual trade visit to Fort Chimo at the southern end of Ungava Bay.” He elaborated,

“It is very difficult for the white man to gain an insight into the character of the Indian. As a trader he is shrewd and as a trapper he is far more expert than the Eskimo. Except in those regions where the white trapper has penetrated and has played havoc with the stock of fur-bearing animals, the Indian carefully conserves his fur, realising that his livelihood is at stake if the beaver or musk-rat colonies are over-trapped… As those posts where the Indians and Eskimo both trade it is noticeable how little they intermingle…”

Binney (1929, p.18) also noted the need to bring in food to Ungava Bay, “in Ungava Bay… it is necessary to provide a fair quantity of food, as by excessive slaughter in the past the Eskimo have diminished the stock of caribou…” He further explained, “The increase of population on the Labrador is a little more pronounced than elsewhere. This, I think, is due to the earlier conditions of life resultant from the natives living in shacks (p.23).” As well, Binney (1929, p.18) commented on seal hunting,

“In Ungava Bay comparatively few seals are taken. Again, the excessive use of the rifle must be blamed… Another drawback of the use of a rifle is that when seals are shot in the water they frequently sink before they can be gaffed, and are therefore lost. We reckon that one seal in every three shot in the water is lost: therefore, the native is encouraged to net seals.”


Hare (1952, p.417) wrote, “The Fenimore group proposes to develop Fort Chimo as a deep-sea port, and to export… ore via Hudson Strait to Atlantic coast ports of the USA.” However, this was not done. During the mid-1950s, the above-mentioned Anglican Church – that had been built in 1902 – was taken across the Koksoak River to the new site of Fort Chimo. This would serve the community until the mid-1980s when the new St. Stephan’s Church was built (see Figure 11).

Figure 10 Old Anglican Church built in 1902 at Fort Chimo (see online version for colours)


52 L.P. Dana

Figure 11 St. Stephan’s Church, Kuujjuaq (see online version for colours)


The Inuit cooperative movement (see Dana, 1996), formally begun in 1959 with the sale of two fish to Stanley Annanack in Kangiqsualujjuaq – then called George River – when 20 Inuit hunters each paid $1 to launch a cooperative. Soon, other cooperatives were created across the region and in 1967 five cooperatives created a federation – La Fédération des Coopératives du Nouveau Québec. Lepage (2009, p.84) noted that the Fédération’s goal is to work “collectively for the common good (atautsikut, meaning ‘together’), without excluding anyone.” Today, affiliates include:

1 the Akulivik Coop Association, in Akulivik

2 the Aupaluk Coop Association, in Aupaluk

3 the Fort Chimo Coop Association, in Kuujjuaq

4 the George River Coop Association, in Kangiqsualujjuaq

5 the Great Whale Coop Association, in Kuujjuaraapik

6 the Inukjuak Coop Association, in Inukjuak (formerly Port Harrison)

7 the Ivujivik Coop Association, in Ivujivik

8 Payne Bay Coop Association, in Kangirsuk

9 the Puvirnituq Coop Association, in Puvirnituq

10 Quaqtaq Coop Association, in Quaqtaq

11 the Salluit Coop Association, in Salluit

12 Umiujaq Coop Association, in Umiujaq

13 the Wakeham Bay Coop Association, in Kangiqsujuaq.


Together, these cooperatives provide more jobs in Nunavik than any other non-government employer. Lepage (2009, p.84) explained,

“The principal objective of the cooperatives is to bring the community together and to act in the common interest… Cooperatives constitute the largest private employer in the region. The management experience and knowledge accumulated over the years by the all-Aboriginal personnel are of benefit to the entire community. The Nunavik cooperative movement’s annual sales rose from $1.1 million in 1969 to over $75 million in 1999. These results clearly illustrate that a cooperative approach based on collective effort in order to ensure the development of all individuals in a community is an economically viable and socially equitable solution for the development of Nunavik.”

4 The people

Nunavik is the traditional homeland of the Ungava Inuit and the Naskapi, First Nation of the Algonquian language family, not be confused with the Algonquin people of the Ottawa Valley. Unlike other Inuit groups further north, those in the Ungava Peninsula had easy access to wood from the boreal forest. Ungava Inuit traditionally hunted beluga whales and seals where the Koksoak River flowed into Ungava Bay; Dorais (2005, p.1139) suggested that Inuit did not spend winters here, “perhaps because of the presence of Naskapi Indians.” The Naskapi are closely related to the Montagnais (Mailhot, 1986), also an Algonquian nation (Langlois, 2000). Jenness (1932) explained that the Naskapi were caribou hunters with a hide technology, while the Montagnais were moose hunters with a birch-bark technology. Tanner (1944) elaborated that the Naskapi lived in the tundra, while the Montagnais inhabited the forest.

Figure 12 Pitakallak School, Kuujjuaq (see online version for colours)


54 L.P. Dana

Figure 13 Three languages in Nunavik (see online version for colours)


Bernard (2005) reported that 87% of elders in Nunavik spoke only Inuktitut. The Inuit make up the majority of the population throughout Nunavik, and Inuktitut is the dominant language heard throughout the region. Inuktitut is the language used in the elementary schools (see Figure 12) and in the high schools. English and French are taught as of Grade 3 (Duhaime, 2008). Vick-Westgate (2002) discusses education here. Many of the youth who are now completing their high school education are already tri-lingual (see Figure 13).

4.1 The Inuit

Turner (1894) noted different accents among communities of Ungava Inuit. He wrote, “Innuit dwelling on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay… journey to Fort Chimo for the purpose of bartering furs and other valuables. Those who come to Fort Chimo are usually the same each year. In language, they differ from the Koksoak Innuit [Turner, (1894), p.179].” While Powell (1894, p.42) used the term ‘Koksoagmyut’, Turner (1894, p.179) also referred to Ungava Inuit of the area near the Koksoak River as ‘Koksoak Innuit’. Rousseau (1955) used the spelling Koksoakmiut. The meaning in Inuktitut is “people of the big river.”

Hughes (1965, p.13) wrote, “The only area where the tendency to permanence of settlement might have been seen in precontact times was Labrador, and this deserves special mention in the context of discussing Canadian Eskimos because of its somewhat anomalous past and present situation. The Labrador Eskimos in ancient times were semi-nomadic, having both a coastal walrus, seal, and whale hunting culture and an inland caribou hunting season…”


Langlois (2000, p.14) noted that prior to the ‘Petit âge glaciaire’ ice age that occurred between 1450 and 1830, the Inuit tended to live further north, but between 1550 and 1600 began residing seasonally in homes dug into the ground in the Quebec-Labrador Peninsula, as the climate here became colder. This corresponded to the arrival of European fishermen and whalers with whom Inuit traded. Langlois (2000) suggested that some Inuit probably served as commercial middlemen, trading also with a larger community of more traditional Inuit, who lived from caribou and whales. The mercantile Inuit could thus replace caribou hunting and whaling, by sealing with the use of harpoons, making the seal the principal source of subsistence; clear seal oil was used for cooking, for light and as a lubricant, while the fur, leather and meat each had its utility. The tanning of pelts was women’s responsibility.

Turner (1887, p.100) studied the Itivimyut, the Tahagmyut and the Sukhinimyut, three communities of Inuit in the Ungava district. About the Itivimyut, he wrote,

“They are excessively superstitious; although, the Itivimynt has heard the teachings of the missionary for many years, yet when at home he is anything but the apparently devout believer that he pretends to be at the trading-post. Nearly every winter, a party of them journeys to Fort Chimo, to barter their small catch of foxes, and the bags of feathers obtained from the ptarmigan that they have subsisted upon… In their social relations, they differ somewhat from their neighbours, owing partly to their not associating with other Innuit. A man may have as many wives as he is able to support, four being the greatest number ascertained.”

He continued “Tahagmyut have had less to do with the white traders than their neighbours. They retain many of their ancient customs, long discarded and forgotten by their eastern relatives… The situation of this people precludes them from frequent contact with Fort George… or with Fort Chimo to the east. A party annually comes to the latter place in May [Turner, (1887), pp.102–103].” About the Sukhinimyut, Turner (1887, p.104) wrote, “As these Innuit have been more or less directly in contact with white men, owing to the proximity of the trading station – Fort Chimo being situated in their midst – they are modified in a certain measure by their presence.” Turner (1887, p.106) observed, “The recognised authorities among all the Innuit are the older or wealthier men. Their desires and opinions are usually respected.” He elaborated, “the wealthier alone are able to possess an umiak, the means of procuring seals to furnish their skins… The possession of a kayak is the first great desire of a youth; the second is for an umiak, the third for a team of dogs and sled, the fourth for a skin-tent. A gun and wife are easily obtained… [Turner, (1887), p.107]” He also noted the local story: “The blood-thirsty mosquito resulted from the carelessness of a wife, who did not pay proper attention to her husband’s garments, and, as a punishment, these pests annoy her to remind her of her duty towards her husband [Turner, (1887), p.108].”

Turner (1894, p.204) described Koksoagmyut who worked as whalers, for the post at Fort Chimo: “The natives spear the whales in the pound, drag them ashore. Skin them, and help take the oil and skins to the post, some eight miles farther up the river.” He also discussed self-employed Koksoagmyut hunters: “The traps are visited and the furs are sold to the company in exchange for flour, tea, sugar, molasses, biscuit, clothing, and ammunition [Turner, (1894), p.204].”

Turner (1894, p.205) also noted the collective mindset of the Koksoak Inuit,

56 L.P. Dana

“In all undertakings for themselves they deliberate long, with much hesitation and apparent reluctance, before they decide upon the line of action. They consult each other and weigh the advantages of this over that locality for game, and speculate on whether they will be afflicted with illness of themselves or family. When the resolution is finally made to journey to a certain place, only the most serious obstacles can thwart their purpose.”

Speck (1931, p.557) wrote, “Many authorities agree more or less with the feeling that deep down in Eskimo history an inland economy was dominant and that the Eskimo west of Hudson bay (sic) have retained this culture phase more than the others. There has, however, been little reason to turn the same kind of thought to the reason east of Hudson bay.” He elaborated, “The northern Labrador Eskimo penetrate the inland steppes when hunting caribou… [Speck, (1931), p.571],” and noted the presence of Koksoak Inuit near Fort Chimo. Rogers (1964, p.218) explained, “The recent Eskimo of the Quebec-Labrador Peninsula have been strictly coastal with the possible exception of one group. Although, the Eskimo are oriented to a coastal existence, they do travel inland to hunt caribou, but as a rule, not over 30 miles from the coast.”

The Inuit of the region remained non-sedentary until the 1950s, when government-created communities with houses and access to medical, religious, trading and welfare services became an attractive alternative to the traditional lifestyle that included the threat of disease and starvation (Paine, 1977). Kishigami (2000, p.176) noted, “By the late 1960s, virtually all Nunavik Inuit were established in sedentary government villages.” Increasingly, the Inuit became involved in wage employment and the transfer economy. Nevertheless, traditional subsistence and food-sharing survived. Bernard (2005) noted that 70% of elders in Nunavik were fishing or hunting in 2004. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, (mentioned above) provided the means for a hunter support program that shall be discussed below.

4.2 First Nations

Powell (1894, p.42) wrote, “The Indians of the Ungava district, other than Innuit, are generally known as Nascopie, or Nascapee, a term of reproach imposed by the Montagnais, who, with them, form part of the great Algonquian linguistic family. The people call themselves Nenenot, a word of their language meaning true or ideal man.” In the same volume, Turner (1894) used the spelling Naskopie.

Speck (1931, p.559) elaborated, “The earliest occurrence of the name Naskapi under the form Cuneskapi comes from Father Laure (1731) … This term has grown from an epithet meaning ‘uncivilised people’ or those who have no religion, as applied to the hunters of the interior.” Speck (1935) described the Naskapi as savage hunters of the Labrador Peninsula. Rogers (1964, p.214) explained: “In the very recent past the Montagnais-Naskapi inhabited all of the interior of the Labrador Peninsula with the exception of the Ungava Peninsula and the Torngat Mountains.” Rogers (1964, p.219) elaborated, “In the early 1800s they may have first come to the coast in the neighbourhood of Fort Chimo in the Ungava Bay area.”

Humphrys (1966, p.39) used a different spelling, writing about “Nascaupi from Fort Chimo.” Dyke (1970, p.43) explained, “The Indians inhabiting the Labrador-Ungava peninsula have been referred to both as ‘Montagnais’ and ‘Nascaupi,’ and as Montagnais-Naskapi.” Dyke (1970, p.47) added that Nascaupi, distinct from the


neighbouring Montagnais, “refer to themselves as ‘Fort Chimo Indians’ or simply as ‘Chimo Indians’.” Mailhot (1983) addressed the challenge of correct nomenclature. Discussing the word Naskapi, Mailhot (1986, p.407) wrote, “Today, the term applies solely to those Indians in the Québec-Labrador Peninsula who are direct descendants of the former caribou hunters of the tundra.” Mailhot (1986) noted that some literature about the Quebec-Labrador Peninsula incorrectly use the terms Montagnais, Naskapi and Montagnais-Naskapi interchangeably. Nowadays, Montagnais refer to themselves as the Innu.

Speck (1931) reported that in 1924, there were 213 Montagnais-Naskapi in Fort Chimo. In 1956, Naskapi from Fort Chimo were relocated to the emerging mining town of Schefferville, forming the Naskapi Band of Schefferville. In 1978, the Naskapi nation in the Schefferville region signed the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, amending the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, of 1975. In 1984, the federal government proclaimed the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, recognising local Indian government powers to replace the Indian Act.

4.3 Inter-cultural contact, similarities, interaction and acculturation

West (1824) was among the earliest to note that Inuit met annually with First Nations to barter. In a study that attempted to examine the “interaction between the Eskimo and the Montagnais-Naskapi, inhabitants of the Quebec-Labrador Peninsula [Rogers, (1964), p.211],” Rogers (1964, p.219) wrote, “Fort Chimo seems to have been the focal point… McLean speaks of the Eskimo and Indians being in contact at Fort Chimo, but the suggestion can be made that it was the presence of a trading post that brought the two peoples together within this general area.”

Several authors noted inter-cultural trade. Turner (1894, p.209) wrote, “Eskimo of Fort Chimo purchase Indian moccasins,” and that the former also bought snowshoes from the latter. As well, Turner (1894, p.217) noted that “Eskimo of Fort Chimo acquired smoked caribou skins” from Montagnais-Naskapi. Turner (1894, p.234) also wrote of the ‘tobacco pouch’, the ‘caribou spear’ (p.250) and the ‘crooked knife’ (p.318) acquired by Fort Chimo Inuit from First Nations. Rogers (1964, p.234) listed “Eskimo Items Acquired by the Montagnais-Naskapi,” including knee-length boots, the parka, seal nets, the harpoon to kill whales, the semi-lunar knife, a sculpting tool ‘used for scraping caribou hides’ (p.235), ‘Eskimo dogs’ (p.236), the fan-shaped hitch for dogs and the sled.

Although the Inuit and First Nations were members of different linguistic groupings, the Labrador Inuit and First Nations shared common beliefs. The Mistassini Band (Rogers, 1964), and Inuit (Hawkes, 1916) agreed that food belonged to all. Rogers (1964, p.222) wrote, “a man has a right to take whatever he needs to feed himself and his dependents wherever he can find it. And the sharing of food among northern hunters is already an established fact.”

While there are many differences between First Nations and Inuit, some similarities have been observed: Turner (1894, p. 250) wrote, that the Inuit “hunter takes his deer spear, which is exactly like the one used by the Indians.” Turner (1894) also observed that Koksoagmyut and the Ungava Band (Montagnais-Naskapi) both wore clothing made from caribou hide. Delabaree (1902) observed canvas tents among Inuit of the Labrador coast, and Rogers (1964) noted the same among the Mistassini Band

58 L.P. Dana

(Montagnais-Naskapi). Hawkes (1916) noted that the Inuit at Fort Chimo dried meat, as later observed by Rogers (1964) among the Mistassini Band (Montagnais-Naskapi).

Cabot (1920) and Rogers (1964) reported that First Nations used dogs in hunting in Labrador. Turner (1894, pp.241–242) wrote about Ungava Inuit,

“The number of dogs used to draw a sled varies according to the distance to be travelled, the character of the country, the condition of the animals, and the weight of the load to be drawn. From one to 20 dogs may be used. The common team for general purposes is seven or nine animals… It is not often that one may find a sled shod with bone, as is the custom with the Eskimo farther north, and especially further west.”

Turner (1894) noted that Inuit in Fort Chimo did not allow their dogs to eat caribou meat, and Speck (1935) observed the same among the Mistassini Band. Dogs often ate walrus meat, and Binney (1929, p.19) explained, “When walrus meat is fed to dogs, the inch-thick hide is left on the hid so that there is plenty to chew.”

Although Inuit and First Nations in this region acquired knowledge and material objects from one another, each kept their respective identity and language. In a theoretical context, the contribution of Redfield et al. (1936) can be considered. They discussed results of acculturation, distinguishing between different scenarios:

A Acceptance: where the process of acculturation eventuates in the taking over of the greater portion of another culture and the loss of most of the older cultural heritage; with acquiescence on the part of the members of the accepting group, and, as a result, assimilation by them not only to the behavioural patterns but to the inner values of the culture with which they have come into contact.

B Adaptation: when both original and foreign traits are combined so as to produce a smoothly functioning cultural whole which is actually an historic mosaic (1936, p.152).

In the Labrador-Quebec Peninsula, Inuit and First Nations integrated ideas and products from one another, without losing heritage or replacing identity or language.

5 Kuujjuaq – a modern Inuit urban settlement

Fort Chimo was still a trading post (with only company employees and their families residing here) on the right (eastern) bank of the Koksoak River, when – during WWII – the United States Air Force (USAF) built Crystal 1, a base with a wide runway (see Figure 14), on the left (western) bank of the river, in boreal forested tundra with patches of black spruce and larch. In 1948, a Catholic mission was built. The base closed a few years after the war, and was gifted to Canada. A nursing station, school and weather station were soon established on the left bank. In 1958, and the Hudson’s Bay Company post of Fort Chimo was moved across the river to the left bank. Thus, Fort Chimo essentially shifted to its new location. A cooperative was created, at the new location, in 1961. In 1980, the new Fort Chimo was officially renamed Kuujjuaq, meaning “great river.”


Figure 14 Wide runway at YVP Airport (see online version for colours)


Figure 15 Ungava Tulattavik health centre (see online version for colours)


60 L.P. Dana

Figure 16 Kuujjuaq post office (see online version for colours)


Since the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, in 1975, Kuujjuaq has served as the administrative centre of the regional government as well as the airline hub of Nunavik. In 1982, the 25-bed Ungava Tulattavik Health Center (see Figure 15) was completed in Kuujjuaq, also home to the Nunavik Regional Board of Health and Social Services. There is a large post office in Kuujjuaq (see Figure 16).

In 2009, manufacturers in Kuujjuaq include: Innivik Arts and Craft; Miqulilitalik Tannery (see Figure 17); Qimuk Music Incorporated; Snowball Records Inc; and Umiak Builders Inc., owned by the Nayumivik Landholding Corporation (see Figure 18). The Nayumivik Landholding Corporation – which is an ethnic corporation much like the Makivik Corporation, but specifically representing community members – also owns other subsidiaries, Auberge Kuujjuaq Inn Inc. and Kuujjuaq Caribou Camp Inc. (Each community has its own landholding corporation, with its Inuit population as its beneficiary.)

Retailers in Kuujjuaq include: the Fort Chimo Coop Association; Halutik Enterprises Inc (operator of Shell stations); Inuksiutiit Arctic Foods Inc; Les Propane Kuujjuaq Inc; Newviq’vi Inc; the Northern store (see Figure 19); Northern Business Venture Reg’d (jewellery); Nunavik Creations (clothing); Tikiq Inc; Tivi Galleries; and Tullik Store (hardware).


Figure 17 Miqulilitalik tannery (see online version for colours)


Figure 18 Nayumivik Landholding Corporation (see online version for colours)


62 L.P. Dana

Figure 19 Northern store (see online version for colours)


In the transportation sector, important players are: Air Inuit, First Air (see Figure 20), and Johnny May’s Air Charters Ltd, Nunavik Rotors Inc. (helicopters) and Okpik Taxi (replacing Star Taxi). Air Inuit and First Air are both owned by the Makivik Corporation. First Air has grown considerably in recent years, with its acquisitions of NWT Air and Ptarmigan Airways; First Air transports freight (see Figure 21) as well as passengers (see Figure 22). Air Inuit expanded with the acquisition of Atai Air Charters Inc. Also in the tourism sector are Bob May & Sons, Polar Adventure (Kuujjuaq) Inc., Pyramid Hunting Camp, Qimutsik Eco-Tours Inc., Silak Adventures, and Wolf Lake Camp. The Fort Chimo Hotel (see Figure 23) is the hotel operation of the Fort Chimo Cooperative Association.

Other players in Kuujjuaq’s tertiary sector include: Arqsaniit Productions Inc. (audio-visual productions); Atugak Leasing Reg’d. (building rentals); Les Entreprises BJAT Inc. (consulting); Les Transports Gordon du Kuujjuaq Inc. (truck rental); Nunatech Inc. (engineering); Nunavik Communications Inc. (television); Nunavik Enterprises Inc. (leasing of buildings); Nunavik Investment Corporation (an Aboriginal owned and controlled business lending organisation – see Figure 24); Nunavik Lab (engineering); Nunavik Marine Supply and Service; Pat’s Parts Inc. (automotive repairs); Pratte, Bélanger Chartered Accountants Inc; Société Kuujjuamiut Inc. (administrator of compensation payments from Hydro Quebec); Sapuluutaq Inc. (security); Taqramiut Telecommunications Inc. (telecommunications); and Tivi Inc. (movers and consulting).

In the recent past, several firms in Kuujjuaq went out of business. These include: Atjiapiq Photo Inc; Chester Fried Chicken; J.D.’s Pizzeria Reg’d; Jimmy Johannes Translations Reg’d; and Tik’s Pool Hall.


Figure 20 First Air Boeing 727-200 (see online version for colours)


Figure 21 Freight being unloaded (see online version for colours)


64 L.P. Dana

Figure 22 Passenger cabin of Boeing 727-200 (see online version for colours)


Figure 23 The Fort Chimo Hotel is the Kuujjuaq Coop Hotel (see online version for colours)



Figure 24 Nunavik Investment Corporation (see online version for colours)


6 The Makivik Corporation

Kuujjuaq is home to the head office of the Makivik Corporation, the regional development corporation, representative of all Inuit who are registered as beneficiaries. Makivik was instituted in 1978 – when the James Bay and Northern Quebec Convention was signed – and serves as the regional development corporation with the mandate to protect the rights, interests and financial compensation provided by the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and the offshore Nunavik Inuit Land Claim Agreement that came into effect in 2008.

Makivik is the representative of all Inuit beneficiaries to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, investing the compensation money for lost rights under the agreement. It promotes the welfare, advancement and education of the Inuit such as to foster, promote, protect and assist in preserving the Inuit way of life, values and

66 L.P. Dana

traditions, and to develop and improve Inuit communities and to improve their means of actions, as well as to promote economic development.

Article 22 of the Agreement between Nunavik Inuit and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada Concerning Nunavik Inuit Land Claims states: “Nunavik Inuit shall maintain Makivik and ensure it operates with accountability to, and democratic control by, Nunavik Inuit [Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Northern Development, (2006), p.165].”

Elsewhere, development corporations have experienced difficulties employing educated Indigenous people with entrepreneurial and managerial skills. Dana (1986) emphasised the difference between entrepreneurial and managerial skills; the latter is required for day-to-day business operations, while the former contributes to the innovativeness and competitiveness of a firm. Makivik has been successful at providing training and employment to Inuit people.

Over the years, Makivik successfully became involved in construction, fisheries, fuel companies and leasing companies. Since its objective is not solely profit-oriented, but also to have a positive impact on Inuit people, social performance is also considered important, and here again Makivik is successful. One subsidiary may be considered entrepreneurial in the Barthian sense. Barth (1963, 1967) described the entrepreneur as an agent of social change, and Seaku Fisheries Inc. (subsidiary of Makivik) caused social change when it increased the number of Inuit fishermen. In 1990, Makivik made a significant step in Inuit ownership of northern transportation, when it purchased an existing small airline, Air Stol, the parent company of Bradley Air, which operated the Arctic carrier First Air, from a head office in Carp, Ontario, near the nation’s capital (Dana, 1996).

Among Makivik’s subsidiaries is Nunavik Furs, which tans pelts from various species, including black bears, musk oxen, polar bears, raccoons, and seals. Lynx and otters are brought in from local trap-lines, and other pelts from as far as Qikiqtarjuaq, Nunavut. At Nunavik Furs, in Kuujjuaq, stiff dry pelts are rehydrated and a machine removes fat and membranes from the skin. Pelts are then beaten, dried, tumbled (with sawdust), stretched and oiled resulting in a soft and lustrous fur.

Makivik has several subsidiaries, including Air Inuit, First Air, Halutik Fuel, Nunavik Creations, Nunavik Furs and Seaku Fisheries Inc., mentioned above, and also Cruise North Expeditions Inc. and Nunavik Arctic Foods (1998) Ltd. Makivik partially owns Natsiq Investments and Unaaq Fisheries Inc. Makivik provides employment to about 1,500 people. Yet, Makivik differs from private corporations or entrepreneurs elsewhere. Those in charge of Makivik and its subsidiaries are determined to stay true to traditional Inuit values.

7 The Hunter Support Program

As noted by Kishigami (2000), until 1983, there was a symbiotic relationship between subsistence activities and the fur trading economy. Inuit hunters would sell seal pelts for cash (to cooperatives or to the Hudson’s Bay Company) and share the meat. Income from fur sales facilitated traditional subsistence, by enabling Inuit to harness new resources, such as snowmobiles.6 In 1983, the European Community banned imports of seal products.


Meanwhile, to protect hunters from a decline in income, the Nunavik Hunter Support Program (see Figure 25) was established in 1983. In addition to traditional sharing of food, the Nunavik Hunter Support Program created a larger umbrella for mutual help. The project’s aim is “to favour, encourage and perpetuate the hunting, fishing and trapping activities of the Inuit as a way of life, and to guarantee the Inuit communities a supply of produce from such activities [Kishigami, (2000), p.180].” Kishigami (2000, p.180) explained, “each village council can obtain a community hunting boat, a communal cold storage house or buy meat and fish from local hunters with the program’s funds and provides these to villager without charge.” Figure 26 shows a community freezer.

Kishigami (2000, p.185) elaborated, “One of the reasons that the hunter support program was established by the Nunavik Inuit was to provide cash income to full-time hunters in middle and old age…” Kishigami (2000, p.186) also observed, “hunters share game firstly with kinsmen… food sharing was most frequently practiced among households within the extended family and then among physically neighbouring households in the community. Several hunters also gave food to elders, sick persons, and widows.” Duhaime et al. (2002, p.91) found that “main mechanisms for the distribution of country foods, such as sharing practices and a community freezer, play a significant role” in raising the proportion of country foods in the diet, but do not compensate the absence of a male head of a household. In his study of 14 Inuit villages across Nunavik, Bernard (2005, p.2) found that “93% of elders received food through the Inuit Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Support Program.”

Figure 25 Hunter Support Program in Kuujjuaq (see online version for colours)


68 L.P. Dana

Figure 26 Community freezer (see online version for colours)


8 Conclusions

Nunavik was traditionally home to Inuit and First Nations. Each acquired knowledge and material objects from the other. Each kept their respective identity and language. The mid-20th century brought permanent settlements and vast change, as Inuit in northern Quebec were encouraged to settle in communities, in order to be close to medical services and schools. Cooperatives were established and these became vehicles for economic development.

Today, cooperatives are the largest non-government employers of Nunavimmiut, as Inuit from Nunavik now call themselves. Compatible with traditional Inuit values, cooperatives have succeeded in raising living standard in many communities.

Acknowledgements

The author expresses gratitude to the many people who helped make this article possible, by providing information and verification of facts; these include: Debra Gill, Diocese of the Arctic, Yellowknife, NWT; Kitty Gordon, Communications Agent, Makivik Corporation; and Sue Thompson, Central Library, University of Canterbury. The author also expresses gratitude to several referees who reviewed this paper providing very helpful feedback, including Minnie Grey, Lead Negotiator for Nunavik Regional Government negotiations; and Ludger Müller-Wille of the Department of Geography at McGill University.


References Barth, F. (Ed.) (1963) The Role of the Entrepreneur in Social Change in Northern Norway,

Norwegian Universities’ Press, Bergen. Barth, F. (1967) ‘On the study of social change’, American Anthropologist, December, Vol. 69,

No. 6, pp.661–669. Bernard, N. (2005) Socio-economic Profile of Elders in Nunavik, Canada Research Chair on

Comparative Aboriginal Condition, Quebec City. Binney, G. (1929) ‘Hudson Bay in 1928’, The Geographical Journal, July, Vol. 74, No. 1, pp.1–25. Cabot, W.B. (1920) Labrador, Small, Maynard & Co., Boston. Chabot, M. (1998) ‘Economic behaviours of contemporary Inuit households in Nunavik (Canada):

toward a market society? Some theoretical considerations’, in Duhaime, G., Rasmussen, R.O. and Comptois, R. (Eds.): Sustainable Development in the North: Local Initiatives vs Megaprojects, Groupe d’Etudes Inuit et Circumpolaires de l’Université Laval, Quebec City.

D’Anglure, S.B. and Vézinet, M. (1977) ‘Chasses collectives au caribou dans le Québec Arctique’, Etudes/Inuit/Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.97–110.

Dales, J.H. (1957) Hydroelectricity and Industrial Development: Quebec, 1898–1940, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Damas, D. (1972) ‘Central Eskimo systems and food sharing’, Ethnology, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.220–240.

Dana, L-P. (1986) ‘Towards a skills model for entrepreneurship’, in Pynn, G.A. (Ed.): Proceedings of the First Canadian Conference on Entrepreneurial Studies, pp.77–85, P.J. Gardiner Institute for Small Business Studies, Memorial University, St. John’s Newfoundland; Reprinted (1987), Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Summer, Vol. 1, pp.27–31; Reprinted (1988), in Kao, R.W.Y. (Ed.): Readings in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development, pp.164–168, Ryerson, Toronto, Ontario.

Dana, L-P. (1996) ‘Indigenous organizations for development in the Canadian North: native development corporations’, in Blunt, P. and Michael, D.W. (Eds.): Indigenous Organizations and Development, pp.214–219, Intermediate Publications, London.

Dana, L-P. and Dana, T.E. (2007) ‘Collective entrepreneurship in a Mennonite community in Paraguay’, Latin American Business Review, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.82–96.

Delabaree, E.B. (1902) ‘Report on the Brown-Harvard Expedition to Nachvak, Labrador in the year 1900’, Geographical Society of Philadelphia, April, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.65–212.

Dorais, L-J. (1997) Quaqtaq: Modernity and Identity in an Inuit Community, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Dorais, L-J. (2005) ‘Kuujjuaq’, in Nutall, M. (Ed.): Encyclopedia of the Arctic, Vol. 2, p.1139, Routledge, New York.

Duhaime, G. (2008) Socio-Economic Profile of Nunavik, Canada Research Chair on Comparative Aboriginal Condition, Quebec City.

Duhaime, G., Chabot, M. and Gaudreault, M. (2002) ‘Food consumption patterns and socioeconomic factors among the Inuit of Nunavik’, Ecology of Food and Nutrition, Vol. 41, pp.91–118.

Duhaime, G., Fréchette, P. and Robichaud, V. (1999) The Economic Structure of the Nunavik Region (Canada): Change and Stability, Groupe d’Etudes Inuit et Circumpolaires de l’Université Laval, Quebec City.

Dyke, A.P. (1970) ‘Montagnais-Naskapi or Montagnais and Nascaupi? An examination of some tribal differences’, Ethnohistory, Winter-Spring, Vol. 17, Nos. 1–2, pp.43–48.

Hare, F.K. (1952) ‘The Labrador frontier’, Geographical Review, July, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp.405–424. Hawkes, E.W. (1916) ‘The Labrador Eskimo’, Geological Survey, Vol. 91, pp.71–73. Hughes, C.C. (1965) ‘Under four flags: recent culture change among the Eskimos’, Current

Anthropology, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.3–69.

70 L.P. Dana

Humphrys, G. (1961) ‘Mining activity in Labrador-Ungava’, Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers), Vol. 29, pp.187–199.

Humphrys, G. (1966) Schefferville, Quebec: A New Pioneering Town, McGill Sub-Arctic Research Papers, Vol. 20, pp.32–44.

Hunt, R.C. (2000) ‘Forager food sharing economy: transfers and exchanges’, in Wenzel, G.W., Hovelsrud-Broda, G. and Kishigami, N. (Eds.): The Social Economy of Sharing: Resource Allocation and Modern Hunter-Gatherers, pp.7–26, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka.

Jacobs, P. (2005) ‘James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement’, in Nutall, M. (Ed.): Encyclopedia of the Arctic, Vol. 2, pp.1037–1038, Routledge, New York.

Jenness, D. (1932) The Indians of Canada, Bulletin 65, Anthropological series No. 15, National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.

Kishigami, N. (2000) ‘Contemporary Inuit food sharing and Hunter support program of Nunavik, Canada’, in Wenzel, G.W., Hovelsrud-Broda, G. and Kishigami, N. (Eds.): The Social Economy of Sharing: Resource Allocation and Modern Hunter-Gatherers, pp.171–192, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka.

Langlois, J. (2000) Les Pécheries de Loup-marin en Nouvelle France, Université du Québec á Chicoutimi, Chicoutimi.

Laugrand, F. and Oosten, J. (2002) ‘Inuit and Qallunaaq perspectives: interacting points of view’, Etudes/Inuit/Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.13–15.

Lepage, P. (2009) Aboriginal Peoples: Fact and Fiction, Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, Quebec City.

Low, A.P. (1896) Report on Explorations in the Labrador Peninsula along the East Main, Koksoak, Hamilton, Manicuagan and Portions of Other Rivers in 1892–93–94–95, S.E. Dawson, Ottawa.

McLean, J. (1849) Notes of a Twenty-five Years’ Service in the Hudson’s Bay Territory, Richard Bentley, London.

Mailhot, J. (1983) ‘A Moins d’être son Esquimau, on Est toujours le Naskapi de Quelq’un’, Recherches Amérindiennes au Québec, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.85–100.

Mailhot, J. (1986) ‘Beyond everyone’s horizon stand the Naskapi’, Ethnohistory, Fall, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.384–418.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Northern Development (2006) Agreement between Nunavik Inuit and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada Concerning Nunavik Inuit Land Claims, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Ottawa.

Müller-Wille, L. (Ed.) (1983) Conflict in Development in Nouveau-Québec, McGill Sub-Arctic Research Papers, No. 37, Centre for Northern Studies and Research, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec.

Murphy, R.F. and Steward, J.H. (1956) ‘Tappers and trappers: parallel process in acculturation’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 4, pp.335–355.

Pacey, A. (1983) The Culture of Technology, MIT Press, Boston. Packard, A.S. (1887) ‘Notes on the physical geography of Labrador’, Journal of the American

Geographical Society of New York, Vol. 19, pp.403–422. Paine, R. (1977) ‘The path to welfare colonialism’, in Paine, R. (Ed.): The White Arctic:

Anthropological Essays on Tutelage and Ethnicity, pp.7–28, Institute of Social and Economic Research, St. John’s, Newfoundland.

Pelto, P.J. (1973) The Snowmobile Revolution: Technology and Social Change in the Arctic, Cummings, Menlo Park, California.

Pelto, P.J. and Müller-Wille, L. (1972) ‘Snowmobiles: technological revolution in the Arctic’, in Bernard, H.R. and Pelto, P. (Eds.): Technology and Social Change, pp.166–199, Macmillan, New York.

Powell, J.W. (Ed.) (1894) Eleventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Smithsonian Institution 1889–’90, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.


Redfield, R., Linton, R. and Herskovits, M.J. (1936) ‘Memorandum for the study of acculturation’, American Anthropologist, January–March, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.149–152.

Remie, C.H.W. and Oosten, J. (2002) ‘The birth of a Catholic Inuit Community: the transition to Christianity in Pelly Bay, Nunavut, 1935–1950’, Etudes/Inuit/Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.109–141.

Rogers, E.S. (1964) ‘The Eskimo and Indian in the Quebec-Labrador Peninsula’, in Malaurie, J. (Ed.): Le Nouveau-Quebec: Contribution a L’étude de L’occupation Humaine, pp.211–249, Mouton, Paris.

Rousseau, J. (1955) ‘L'origine et l'évolution du mot esquimau’, Les Cahiers des Dix, Vol. 20, pp.179–198.

Speck, F.G. (1931) ‘Montagnais-Naskapi bands and early Eskimo distribution in the Labrador Peninsula’, American Anthropologist, October–December, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.557–600.

Speck, F.G. (1935) Naskapi, the Savage Hunters of the Labrador Peninsula, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Tanner, V. (1944) ‘Outlines of the geography, life and customs of new found land Labrador’, Acta Geographica, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.1–907, Helsinki.

Turner, L.M. (1887) ‘On the Indians and Eskimos of the Ungava district, Labrador’, Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Section 2, pp.99–119, Royal Society of Canada.

Turner, L.M. (1894) ‘Ethnology of the Ungava district, Hudson Bay territory’, in Powell, J.W. (Ed.): 11th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Smithsonian Institution 1889–’90, pp.159–350, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Vick-Westgate, A. (2002) Nunavik: Inuit-controlled Education in Arctic Quebec, University of Calgary Press, Calgary.

Wenzel, G. (2005) ‘Sharing’, in Nuttall, M. (Ed.): Encyclopedia of the Arctic, pp.1891–1894, Routledge, New York.

West, J. (1824) The Substance of a Journal During a Residence at the Red River Colony, British North America, L.B. Seeley & Son, London.

Winther, G. and Duhaime, G. (2002) ‘Cooperative societies in Greenland and Nunavik: a lesson on the importance of supporting structures’, Journal of Rural Cooperation, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.25–41.

Woodbury, A.C. (1984) ‘Eskimo and Aleut languages’, in Damas, D. (Ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5, pp.49–63, The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Zeuli, K.A. and Cropp, R. (2004) Cooperatives: Principles and Practices in the 21st Century, University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, Madison.

Notes 1 Inuit is the cultural designation used across Canada for speakers of the Inuit-Inupiaq (Eastern

Eskimo) branch of the Esk-Aleut language (Woodbury, 1984). 2 For a description of a Catholic Inuit community (Kugaaruk, Nunavut), see Remie and Oosten

(2002). 3 See Laugrand and Oosten (2002). 4 Makivik literally means ‘to rise’ in Inuktitut. 5 Turner (1894) noted that the Koksoak River was also called the ‘South River’ (p.167), and

locally known as the ‘Big river’ (p.184). 6 For a discussion about the introduction of the snowmobile as a replacement for traditional

transport, see Pelto and Müller-Wille (1972); and Pelto (1973).

nunavik, arctic quebec: where cooperatives supplement entrepreneurship

Documents