“We are pleased that the agreement has been reached and are committed to working with NTI to promote initiatives to further support Inuit training in the GN Public Service, as outlined in section 23 of the NLCA,” said Taptuna. The transaction agreement also requires that the original dispute resolution clause in section 38 of section 38 of the NLCA be replaced by a new dispute resolution procedure. The new procedure will allow one party to go to arbitration without the consent of the other party, as was the case before. While Canada did not allow any liability for the judicial process, the transaction agreement is, from a practical point of view, an acknowledgement that federal implementation efforts have been less than was necessary to stop the intent of the NCA. But the transaction agreement is much more than a “Pay and Walk away” agreement. The transaction agreement is a common route for the successful implementation of Sections 23 and 24 and allows Canada, as such, to initiate a major reallocation to the NLCA and the Nunavut region. The Government of Canada has expressed its readiness to conduct, in close coordination with the ITC and the Government of Nunavut, a new comprehensive analysis of Nunavut`s Inuit workforce (NILFA), funded by sources outside the settlements. Appropriate analysis will provide valuable information on how best to employ the Government of Nunavut, which is representative of the Inuit population through the development of effective employment and pre-employment training. Third, the conciliation agreement, although in many respects refers to the second point, contains some of the critical measures, guidelines and measures that the parties wish to take into account, including in land agreements or association agreements that have articles on employment, training and contract work.
On May 4, 2015, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), the Organization Representing Inuit under the Nunavut Claim Agreement, and the federal government agreed on NTI`s $1 billion complaint. This blog post summarizes the key elements of the subdivision, which is likely to have a significant impact on Nunavut and beyond. First, the regime stresses that the implementation of land agreements requires sufficient financial resources to be implemented – which applies to most, if not all, the same way. If the financial cost of implementing the agreements is not adequately provided, there may be long differences of opinion. Valcourt, however, said the transaction agreement was a “significant step forward” in the relationship between the federal government and the Inuit of Nunavut. The transaction agreement was a good result for the Inuit of Nunavut. Not only did it contain a large amount of compensation, avoiding the costs and delays of litigation, but it also provided a framework for the effective implementation of the LNCA and reinforced the federal government`s commitment to comply with the agreement. On 5 March 2015, shortly before the trial, which was scheduled for 15 to 20 weeks from 9 March 2015, an interim agreement was reached and signed by officials representing the parties concerned.