Some Inuit voters confused by QIA election rules

Inuit beneficiaries in Iqaluit watch NTI and QIA election results come in on screens set up inside the Igluvut building Dec. 8. (PHOTO BY JIM BELL)

For Nancy Karetak-Lindell, the chief electoral officer for the Qikiqtani Inuit Association elections held Dec. 8, the voting event “went well overall” — but the day after, she was still fielding questions about the eligibility of voters and certain candidates.

The unofficial vote result Dec. 8 produced a 31 per cent turnout and in the Qikiqtani region, two razor-thin results that triggered mandatory recounts.

In the race for Iqaluit community director, where incumbent Simon Nattaq, with 396 votes, finished only six votes ahead of the only other candidate, Madeleine Redfern.

That recount, held Dec. 9, is now done. Nattaq is now declared the winner by only one vote, after the recount produced a result of 396 to 395.

In the contest for president, Mikidjuk Akavak led in the unofficial vote count by a margin of only three over Pauloosie (PJ) Akeeagok: 758 votes to 755.

That recount must wait until election workers in the communities seal up their ballot boxes and ship them via air freight to Iqaluit, a process that could take days, depending on weather and airline schedules.

“Every box will have to be here,” Karetak-Lindell said.

After they arrive, Karetak-Lindell and her staff will do the recount, ballot by ballot.

Any candidate, or any person designated by a candidate as an agent may attend that recount, Karetak-Lindell said.

And they will pay special attention to rejected ballots to ensure they were rejected correctly on election night, and to accepted ballots that should have been rejected.

“We have to make a determination on each rejected ballot,” she said.

In the meantime, Karetak-Lindell was still fielding questions Dec. 9 on the eligibility of candidates and the eligibility of voters.

The voter eligibility rule arose among the large Inuit community in Ottawa, where some beneficiaries appeared to be confused by rules governing who is allowed to vote and in which election.

QIA and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. set up two polling stations in Ottawa: one at the Tungasuvvingat Inuit office on Laurier Ave. West and the other at the Baffin Larga patient home on Richmond Rd.

Any Inuk, no matter where they live in Canada, may vote in an NTI executive election, as long as they are 16 years of age and a Nunavut land claims beneficiary.

That’s why beneficiary voters were able to find ballots for the NTI vice presidential vote at each of those locations, Karetak-Lindell said.

But for the QIA election, it’s a different story.

To be eligible to vote in a QIA election, a person must be a “member of QIA.”

And that is defined, under Section 3 and Section 4 of QIA’s election regulations, as someone who has lived within the “electoral community” for at least 12 consecutive months prior to election day.

The place of residence is defined as “the place of the home or dwelling of the person to which, when the person is absent, the person intends to return,” Section 4 of the organization’s election regulations states.

In effect, that means only beneficiaries who normally reside in a Qikiqtani region community may vote in a QIA election, whether it’s for an executive position or community director.

That would exclude any beneficiary who is now a normal resident of Ottawa or some other place outside the Qikiqtani region.

That’s why, Karetak-Lindell said, there were no QIA ballots at the TI centre in Ottawa — because that polling place was intended for beneficiaries who are allowed to vote in the NTI election, but for residency reasons, cannot vote in the QIA election.

But there’s an exception for Qikiqtani beneficiaries who temporarily reside outside the region to attend schools or to receive health care.

That’s why the Baffin Larga patient home had a ballot box to accommodate patients who are QIA beneficiaries.

The Baffin Larga polling station provided ballots for the QIA presidential election — but not for any community director election. That’s because community director ballots are sent only to the respective community, Karetak-Lindell said.

“We can only send community director ballots to the community polling stations,” she said.

That means medical patients in Ottawa on election day could have voted for community directors only by proxy or mail-in ballot — but not by casting a ballot at Baffin Larga.

Another source of confusion surrounded which version of QIA’s election regulations were in force.

A new set of regulations, approved earlier this year by QIA’s board, were not legally registered until November — after the election period had started.

But Karetak-Lindell said QIA’s lawyer advised them that the organization’s 2014 election regulations, and not an older set of rules approved in 1997, were in legal force for the Dec. 8 election.

Yet another controversy relates to the eligibility of QIA employees to stand as candidates.

Section 3.2(2) of QIA’s election regulations state that “a full time permanent employee of Qikiqtani Inuit Association or its controlled organizations in receipt of a salary” is not eligible to stand as a QIA candidate.

For that reason, candidate Mikidjuk Akavak last month challenged the candidacy of Pauloosie (PJ) Akeeagok, who is, or was, an employee of QIA.

But QIA’s lawyer, Mike Osland, replied to Akavak this past November in an email, saying it’s QIA’s longstanding policy to “loosely interpret” that regulation in light of the organization’s human resource policies.

QIA’s HR manual states that QIA employees may run for office if they take an unpaid leave of absence prior to announcing their candidacy.

This, however, creates a possible conflict between a narrow interpretation of the election regulation and QIA’s human resource policy.

So to avoid any violation of employment rights, QIA allows its workers to take an unpaid leave if they run for any elected office, whether it’s for a territorial, municipal or Inuit association position, including QIA.

In an interview with Nunatsiaq News, Akavak said he is still not certain if QIA’s latest election regulations were in legal force during the recent election.

We left a message for Akeeagok, but he was not immediately available for comment before this story went to press.

QIA Election Regulations