|
June 14, 2002
GN-NTI dogfight moves to
the courthouse
Court to hear motion
to quash NNI grandfathering extension this fall
JIM
BELL
Outraged Nunavut Tunngavik
officials may have to cool their heels for a while before they see a court decision
on their fight against the Nunavut governments one-year extension of "Nunavut
business" status to certain types of firms.
NTI gave notice May 3 that
its lawyers will ask the Nunavut Court of Justice to quash the Nunavut cabinet
decision, issued April 5 after no apparent consultation with NTI, its partner
in developing the Nunavummi Nangminiqaqtunik Ikajuuti, or "NNI," contracting
policy.
Dugald Brown, an Ottawa
lawyer representing NTI, said the organization believes the Nunavut cabinet
has violated the land claims agreement.
"One of the main arguments
is that the land claims agreement has quite an express requirement, that before
any amendment is made to the policy, that there be careful consultation with
NTI and that wasnt done," Brown said.
But NTI may not get a chance
to make those arguments in court.
Last week, the GN filed
its own motion, which seeks to have NTIs motion dismissed on the grounds
that NTI lawyers didnt follow proper legal procedures when launching their
legal action.
Doug Garson, a lawyer in
the GNs justice department, said NTI didnt provide proper notice
to the 35 companies affected by the cabinet decision, and didnt state
the exact claim.
Lawyers for both sides
will go to back to court July 19 in Iqaluit to deal with the GNs dismissal
motion.
The "Nunavut business"
label entitles firms to a 14-per-cent competitive advantage when bidding on
Nunavut government tenders. ("Inuit-owned" companies may claim an
extra three per cent, while "local" companies may also claim an extra
three-per-cent advantage.)
Its similar to the
"northern business" designation used under the Northwest Territories
old business incentive policy, or "BIP."
But on April 1, 2000, when
the GN replaced the BIP with the NNI to comply with Article 24 of the Nunavut
land claims agreement, about three dozen companies lost that status.
Those companies didnt
meet some or all parts of the NNI policys definition of "Nunavut
business," such as having a resident manager in Nunavut or majority ownership
by Nunavut residents.
The affected group of firms,
which includes Inuit-owned firms such as Norterra, and non-Inuit firms such
as Tower Arctic, were given a two-year grace period, ending March 31, 2002,
to ease their way into compliance with the new rules.
That provision became known
as "the grandfathering clause."
But on April 5, after intense
lobbying from some of them, the GN extended the grandfathering period by one
year.
NTI officials denounced
the move, calling it a violation of the Nunavut land claims agreement, which
requires government to consult NTI on matters affecting Inuit rights.
"That is completely
unacceptable. Beneficiaries look to NTI to defend the land claims agreement
against violations like this, and we intend to do so. The cabinets disregard
for the land claims agreement is very surprising," NTI president Cathy
Towtongie said in a press release fired off on April 9.
The three-page "originating
notice" document filed in court doesnt state what arguments NTIs
lawyers will use in court to prove that the GNs one-year NNI extension
violates the land claims agreement.
But on May 9, just days
after NTI lawyers filed it, Paul Kaludjak, NTIs vice president of finance,
made a lengthy behind-closed-doors presentation to the legislative assemblys
Ajauqtiit committee.
In a copy of that talk
obtained by Nunatsiaq News, Kaludjak provided some hints about why NTI believes
the GNs one-year extension of the NNI grandfathering provision violates
the land claims agreement.
"Not only has the
GN jeopardized the principal means for implementing Article 24 it has done so
without consulting NTI as it is required to do under Article 24.3.7."
He said the GN announcement
on April 4 came as "a complete surprise" to NTI officials.
A review of the NNI policy,
done jointly by GN and NTI officials, contains no recommendations on extending
Nunavut business status for another year.
"At no time did the
GN representatives on the review panel indicate that an extension was being
considered," Kaludjak told MLAs.
|