The next question: Who pays?

At long last, the Nunavut government has acknowledged what snowmobile owners throughout Baffin and Kivalliq have known to be true for months: gasoline supplies throughout the two regions are below the Canadian standard, and they’ve wreaked havoc upon snowmobile, ATV and boat engines in at least 20 Nunavut communities.

Now for the next question: Who pays?

Regional wildlife boards, local hunters and trappers organizations, along with many individual hunters, trappers and snowmobile owners, seem to assume it’s the government of Nunavut who must compensate them for their losses.

Those losses include not only the direct cost of fixing ravaged engines. They also include the loss of income from fur sales and the replacement cost of country food that has not been harvested.

People in most communities have faithfully kept the receipts and invoices produced by the expensive engine repairs and part replacements they’ve been forced to pay for all winter.

MLAs are pestering government ministers with questions about when a compensation program will start. Inuit association leaders are going on the radio to urge the government to start handing out the money now.

This is natural. The Nunavut government, after all, is the sole wholesaler for bulk fuel in every community in Nunavut outside of Iqaluit. Those who bought the Nunavut government’s gasoline last winter have a right to be compensated. They spent good money on an inferior product that damaged their machines and sometimes exposed them to danger on the land. Their anger has a valid basis.

But those who think that the Nunavut government will cut compensation cheques any time soon had better think again — because the question of who’s at fault is still a long, long way from being answered.

Indeed, the government of Nunavut may not be legally liable at all. Was it the company contracted to purchase and ship the gasoline to Nunavut, the Inuit-owned Northern Transportation Company Ltd.? Was it an unscrupulous petroleum products vendor in either southern Canada or the United States who sold the substandard gasoline to NTCL? Was NTCL’s gasoline tested at a reputable laboratory before it was shipped? Did NTCL buy a cut-rate batch of gasoline simply to lower its costs and increase its profit margin?

Meanwhile, new revelations are emerging this week that may shed more light on the entire issue. The French-language television network TVA is reporting this week that vehicle owners throughout southern Quebec, and possibly other parts of Canada, are suffering engine problems involving the same gummy substance that has been fouling up snowmobile engines in Nunavut all winter. These irate motorists all say they bought their gasoline from Shell stations. Is this linked to Nunavut’s situation?

It appears as if Nunavut government officials are asking the same questions — as they should. Frustrating though it may be for Nunavut snowmobile owners, it would be irresponsible for the government to spend public money on compensation payments before it finds out who, exactly, screwed up.

Premier Paul Okalik and other Nunavut government officials have not committed themselves to a compensation program. In the legislative assembly, Okalik has been dealing with MLAs’ questions on the issue with opaque answers like, “We are examining our legal options.”

That’s a sign, likely, that Nunavut government lawyers and other officials are poring over their contract with NTCL to determine whether the company fulfilled its contractual obligations. If they find any evidence to support the idea that NTCL should pay, it’s likely that they’ll try to use it.

Okalik, however, appears to be seeking an amicable, co-operative solution to the issue. As a lawyer, he is well aware that if the question ends up in court, it could be years before anyone sees a compensation cheque.

It would also be useful for him to remind Nunavut land claim beneficiaries that it’s their own company that supplied them with substandard gasoline. NTCL, of course, is owned by Norterra, the same 50-50 Inuit-Inuvialuit partnership that operates the Canadian North airline. Indirectly, but in a very real sense, NTCL sold that shoddy product to its own shareholders.

And don’t forget that the Nunavut government performed a big favour to NTCL recently. It extended by one year the period during which companies like NTCL will be deemed “Inuit-owned” under the Nunavummi Nangminiqaqtunik Ikajuuti, or NNI, policy. Under that policy, NTCL would not be considered “Inuit,” because Nunavut Inuit own 50, not 51 per cent of the company.

It’s not clear why the Nunavut government caved in on that issue.

But this much is obvious. NTCL’s current fuel-supply contract expires this fall. When it responds to the Nunavut government’s request for proposals seeking a shipper and a supplier of fuel to Nunavut, the company will enjoy a competitive advantage that they would not otherwise have.

So it’s not surprising to hear Premier Okalik suggest that NTCL ought to shoulder the cost of the bad gas fiasco. At the end of the day, “Inuit ownership” ought to at least mean something.

JB