NTI asserts Inuit right to choose hunting method

SEAN McKIBBON

IQALUIT— Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. has asked the Nunavut Court of Justice to reverse a Nunavut government decision to refuse one man’s application to use a spear and dogs to hunt a polar bear.

The case could have important consequences for the Nunavut government and its ability to regulate hunting methods.

The controversy first erupted in 1998, when Noah Kadlak of Coral Harbour initially applied to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board for permission to kill a polar bear using a spear and dogs so that a film crew could record a traditional Inuit polar bear hunt.

Kadlak needed permission because the Nunavut Wildlife Act only allows polar bears to be hunted with rifles, bows and crossbows.

The NWMB decided to let Kadlak do the traditional hunt a long as he abided by certain conditions, but last fall, Nunavut’s sustainable development minister, Peter Kilabuk, vetoed the NWMB decision.

“What we’re saying is he [Kilabuk] exceeded the bounds of his discretion,” said Dugald Brown, the lawyer representing NTI.

But the Nunavut government maintains that it is well within Kilabuk’s authority to veto the hunt.

“The minister had the authority to disallow that decision in order to maintain public health and public safety,” said Doug Garson of the Nunavut justice department.

While the Nunavut land claim agreement gives sole authority to the NWMB to establish, modify or remove “non-quota limitations” on harvesting, it also says the minister can restrict harvesting to provide for public health or safety.

It also gives the minister the power to disallow NWMB decisions.

When the original application was made in 1998, the NWMB decided to allow the hunt, but Stephen Kakfwi, then the NWT’s minister of renewable resources, disallowed the decision, citing public safety concerns.

Kakfwi said the hunt not only posed risks to Kadlak, but also had the potential to draw publicity that could potentially attract observers, and that those observers might also be in danger during the hunt.

The NWMB responded by reaffirming it’s decision to allow the traditional hunt, saying that many activities that are dangerous go unregulated and that the time and location of the hunt would not be publicized.

But in a letter dated Nov. 25, 1998, Kakfwi wrote that he wanted to defer consideration of the hunt to the Nunavut government that was soon to come into existence.

On Sept. 8, 1999 the NWMB sent a letter to Kilabuk restating their decision to allow Kadlak to engage in a traditional polar bear hunt. On Oct. 25, Kilabuk sent a letter to the board echoing Kakfwi’s decision.

“The proposed hunt of Mr. Kadlak and any future hunts of this type pose an unacceptable risk to public safety,” Kilabuk wrote.

In pursuing the review, NTI has an additional hurdle to jump before it gets to argue its case. The Judicature Act says that applications for judicial review of a ministerial decision must happen within 30 days of the decision.

Filed March 30, NTI’s application comes 157 days after Kilabuk’s decision.

The Nunavut government has agreed to not make an issue of the period between Dec. 22 and Jan. 19, 2000, during which time it had suggested the dispute go to arbitration, but that still leaves the application for a review outside of the 30-day limit.

Brown said that he and NTI will have to persuade the court that an extension of the limit is warranted and that the case should be heard.