KANGIQTUGAAPIK/CLYDE RIVER
Nader Hasan believes in Clyde River and its fight against seismic testing. As the lawyer holding the slingshot in a David versus Goliath legal battle against the National Energy Board's decision to allow the practice in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait as early as this summer, Hasan hurled his shots April 20 in Toronto at the Federal Court of Appeal.

Clyde River Mayor Jerry Natanine speaks to the media April 20 in Toronto, where he, the hamlet and local Hunters and Trappers Organization took its case against seismic testing to the Federal Court of Appeal. - photo courtesy of Jessica Wilson/Greenpeace

"The people of Clyde River, the people of Qikiqtani, have never been anti-development or anti-oil," Hasan said in the days after the hearing. "But the stakes are high for them because the proposed exploration is taking place in their backyard, their kitchen, their supermarket. They have to be confident that whatever these companies do is not going to harm their food sources and their food security. They need to be part of the process."

Clyde River Mayor Jerry Natanine said he felt the case is in good hands.

"We're optimistic," Natanine said. "(Hasan) says they're solid arguments and I believe him."

Hasan made his case on behalf of Natanine, the hamlet and the local hunters' and trappers' organization. Arguing against the NEB decision appeal were a lawyer for TGS, one for PGS-MKI, and two for the federal Department of Justice. The National Energy Board, which did not have respondent status and could only make limited arguments, sent two lawyers to state its case.

"We got a very fair hearing," Hasan said. "The judges were prepared. They asked intelligent and incisive questions, and we made all the points we wanted to make. It's now in the court's very capable hands, and we look forward to the decision."

The proponents' lawyers hoped the court would quash the appeal because, in their eyes, Natanine, the hamlet and the HTO do not have the constitutional right to represent the interests of Baffin Island Inuit.

"It's a technical legal argument," Hasan said. "I think that argument is totally misplaced. Constitutional rights belong to the people, not just a few select groups, and in particular the hunters' and trappers' organization of Clyde River is empowered under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement to represent Inuit rights and interests, so they are a particularly well-suited entity to raise the arguments we're raising."

He said the testing companies also did not properly consult with the communities.

"The Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal have said time and time again that it is ultimately the Crown and not industry proponents who are responsible for meaningful consultation with the affected Inuit or aboriginal groups," he said. "We saw industry proponents going into these communities in Nunavut and not being able to answer questions and not following up with Inuit leaders and community members in a meaningful way."

Company lawyers suggested the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) or Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated should have brought the case forward instead. One implied that the QIA did not support Clyde River's appeal.

Following the hearing, QIA issued a statement clearly stating its support of the Clyde River effort.

"QIA wishes to emphatically confirm that it whole-heartedly supports the application made by the hamlet and HTO," the statement read, noting the proponent, NEB, and the Government of Canada had done "inadequate consultation with Inuit" under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

The appeal should not be confused with opposition to development, Natanine said.

"We've been fighting not just to keep our life unchanged, but expressing our desires to be part of such a thing if it ever happens, to be partners and to work with the companies that want to do seismic testing," he said. "We want to do things right. If it's going to happen, we want it done right and protective measures taken and Inuit to benefit directly from such projects."

Hasan could not predict when a decision would be issued, but said the court is aware that the seismic testing is set to start when the ice breaks this summer.

"This won't be the end of it, win or lose," he said. "If we win, the other side can seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, or start over with the NEB. If the proponents had done things the right way and the NEB had done things the right way from the start, they wouldn't necessarily gotten an adversarial relationship."

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.