ITK election process should be reviewed, candidate says

It doesn’t sound as if we “other six” candidates will receive any votes at the ITK “election” next week, so I write this “campaign” letter somewhat bemusedly, if not quite despondently.

It would be tempting to resort to jovial punditry if there wasn’t a serious side to events of late concerning the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami president’s job competition. Here I repeat what others have said, and that is that Jose Kusugak, the incumbent, is a good friend of mine and I believe he has done an excellent job at the ITK helm the last three years. May he serve the next three as well. (There goes my attempt at seriousness.)

Anyway, as a publicly announced candidate I must comment on what sadly appears to be a bit of a charade of an election, probably at the cost of receiving any votes.

Perhaps it truly isn’t a manipulative effort on the ITK board of directors’ part, but it certainly appears so. In fact, honesty and credibility might have been better served had the board simply announced they would run an election, but that it would be moot and academic, as the sitting president would simply carry on afterward.

Mr. Kusugak’s comments in your Oct. 3 edition (“Kusugak: It’s an offer I can’t refuse”) are seemingly tantamount to a “deal” behind the scenes. However, I know Mr. Kusugak, and he would not resort to pursuing his old job without being above-board and having been strongly persuaded.

Again though, credibility might have been served better had Mr. Kusugak been persuaded to take the public route, such as it is (20 signatures, 200 bucks, etc.), rather than having a sitting claimant area representative on the board of directors “nominate” him as a candidate.

As an aside, I am baffled by the reference in the story by Mr. Kusugak to “federal cabinet ministers” as a persuasive argument for reneging on a public announcement to not run again, and what the statement was supposed to imply.

Anyway, this leaves us “other six” candidates in somewhat of a dilemma. Why get serious? Why spend money to attend the AGM in Puvirnituq as candidates? Why raise issues other than the “election?”

Uh, should we just ask for our money back since the election appears to have been decided already? Why indeed, get serious?

Perhaps the only real issue at this point is evaluating the election process for ITK, and whether or not it should be restructured to give credibility back to the position of the president.

No doubt a more representative cross-section of Inuit voters from across the land, including those outside of claims areas (i.e. there are many in the south), would give an elected president more persuasive credibility in dealing with powers that be who need to be lobbied, influenced, educated and otherwise tweaked on decisions affecting Inuit. I do think a general election would be too costly to be realistic, but some form of community representation would not.

Certainly there are many other issues that candidates would have wanted to raise if there was a forum to do so, and I sincerely hope at least one other candidate than the incumbent makes it to the AGM in Puvirnituq.

Among the usual issues, including housing, health, wildlife and environmental management, real economic development agreements – and I don’t belittle these and other issues – emphasis must be given to the fact that ITK is also needed in Ottawa as a real and sometimes needed alternative to federal representation in the House of Commons and Senate.

I do not mean that ITK should necessarily take a confrontational and adversarial stance on issues of the day, but sometimes it may need to take a realistic and strong position when a sitting parliamentarian’s hands are tied by partisanship or other circumstances.

After all, there is a reason why ITK sits in Ottawa along with other national groups such as Pauktuutit, the Assembly of First Nations and many other aboriginal groups. On national issues, Ottawa is where the action is.

Well, I’m not sure I need to say “good luck” to my friend Jose, but I do say it emphatically to the other candidates, and, what the heck, to myself as well for Oct. 23, whether we are there or not.

Peter Ittinuar
Brantford, Ont.