Okalik ponders: Will Nunavut join lawsuit against gun bill?

MICHAELA RODRIGUE
Nunatsiaq News

IQALUIT — Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik says he will consider joining the lawsuit to quash Canada’s new gun control legislation.

Okalik recently told the legislature he will sit down with government lawyers this week to determine the merits of entering the legal dispute.

Alberta has launched a Supreme Court challenge against the Firearms Act.

The legislation, which came into effect on Dec. 1, 1998, requires certain firearms be registered and says gun owners must obtain a licence. The legislation also has strict firearms storage requirements.

Alberta argues the law infringes on its provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights. The federal government argues the legislation falls under the federal powers of criminal law and peace, order and good government.

Alberta lost its initial challenge to the legislation before the Alberta Court of Appeal. But Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon have intervened in the most recent action.

The Supreme Court of Canada is expected to hear the case this fall. Now Nunavut must decide whether it wants to join the fray as an intervenor.

But Okalik said he must first find out what role Nunavut can play in the case before he goes forward with a lawsuit.

Iqaluit Centre MLA Hunter Tootoo pushed the issue in the House last week when he asked if Nunavut would decide to join the challenge.

Tootoo said he doesn’t know if the government should enter the challenge, but he does want the government to consider it.

“We should take a serious look at whether we want to get into it or not, or whether we should,” Tootoo said.

“I pointed out some of the concerns that Nunavut Tunngavik has with that legislation. The government had indicated that they do want to work with different organizations,” Tootoo said.

During the debates for the job of premier, Paul Okalik publicly stated his support of the gun control challenge.

He now says the decision will depend upon what legal advice he gets.

“I said that we would look at it and if we stood a good chance of succeeding, we would discuss it in cabinet,” Okalik said.

“Right now we’re getting the legal situation checked out and see where we stand. I have to wait for the legal opinion to come. We’ll have to discuss it in cabinet and decide from there,” Okalik said.

Okalik said he personally believes a strong case can be made against the legislation, but he said Nunavut needs legal advice before it will act.

Okalik explained, because of its territorial status, Nunavut may not be able to make the same argument on jurisdiction as Alberta. And he said he wants to make sure Nunavut will have an opportunity to make its own arguments.

But the lawyer representing Alberta in the case said Nunavut’s territorial status shouldn’t keep it from joining the challenge.

“We already have the two other territories. I wouldn’t distinguish between the territorial versus provincial claim,” said Tom Ross.

Ross said the Northwest Territories and the Yukon also argue the new law infringes on their jurisdictional powers. He said an aboriginal group from Saskatchewan has also entered the challenge and argues the legislation infringes on their rights.

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. has issued a policy paper on the issue. In the paper they say the law stifles the Inuit’s right to harvest wildlife. And they say Inuit will find the legislation burdensome and difficult to comply with.

Information from the Canadian Firearms Centre said regulations can be adapted to meet the needs of aboriginal people.

For example, people who hunt for food will not have to pay licence or registration fees for long guns. Storage, handling and transportation regulations can also be changed.

But Okalik says the legislation has already affected local communities.

Justice Minister Jack Anawak has publicly stated that joining the challenge might cost too much. He estimates the legal action could cost about $400,000.

If Nunavut were to join the challenge, Ross said it would likely have to cover its own costs. He said the Supreme Court could issue a cost reward. But Ross called such a scenario “unlikely.”

Okalik said cost will be discussed if and when the issue goes to cabinet. A legal action would also require approval from the Financial Management Board.