QIKIQTANI/BAFFIN
Madeleine Redfern lost the Dec. 8 Qikiqtani Inuit Association community director position for Iqaluit by one vote to Simon Nattaq, but she says the results were incomplete after Iqaluit Inuit living in Ottawa said they were refused the chance to vote for either candidate.
CBC reporter Jordan Konek films the QIA election results on Dec. 8. Two candidates – presidential candidate Mikidjuk Akavak and Iqaluit community director hopeful Madeleine Redfern – who lost in recounts are disputing the election process. - NNSL file photo |
"They were told they were not allowed to vote, and that only people in the communities could cast their vote for the community director, which actually goes against the information that was provided to me afterward that they could vote by proxy," Redfern said. "They were actually denied the right to vote."
The defence, it seems, is that it would have been too hard to manage voting by Inuit from different communities. However, Redfern notes that the voter's list is broken down by community, and each voter had to prove upon voting that they are affiliated with a Qikiqtani community.
Redfern and presidential contender Mikidjuk Akavak, who led that vote until a recount was called due to the tight vote spread between him and eventual winner PJ Akeeagok, are taking the QIA to court to dispute the election results.
Redfern says the only solution is a new election for the position. After the two sides met in court March 9, Redfern said the QIA is creating expensive barriers to resolve the dispute.
"The QIA lawyers applied to the court to not to have to share or disclose evidence, as required under the Nunavut rules of court, on any documents that touch on this matter," she said. "Their justification was that it would be too voluminous and it would be too costly because they have seven banker's boxes."
She says Akavak's case requires a review of ballots from all communities, but she is only asking for the evidence related to the vote in Ottawa, where Baffin Island Inuit temporarily in the city for education or medical reasons were able to vote for QIA president.
"Of the 114 Inuit who voted for QIA president, it would be good to ascertain how many of those eligible persons were from Iqaluit," she said. "The legal strategy that QIA is currently undertaking is very expensive, a lot more than the cost it would be of just producing the documents that touch on the matter as it relates to the Ottawa vote. It's a contradiction."
She also wants to know what the deputy returning officers and poll clerks, students from Nunavut Sivuniksivut, were told about not providing ballots for the community director votes at the Ottawa polling station.
Redfern notes she is footing the bill for the judicial review, despite the fact that the QIA has a $7-million annual budget and recently received a windfall of $20 million from Baffinland, leaving it with an $18 million surplus. To save the QIA money, Redfern is not calling for a by-election for the Iqaluit director position if she prevails, but would like to see Nattaq serve until the QIA's December 2015 election for other community directors.
"Really, the reason I'm pursuing this judicial review application is the fact that the eligible Inuit in Ottawa were treated differently," she said, adding this is not the first time this has happened. "They were able to vote for the QIA president. There was no information provided to candidates or to the Inuit in Ottawa that they would not be provided ballots. Nothing on the QIA website, nothing in election regulations, nothing in the community posters."
QIA spokesperson Maude Bertrand said the Inuit organization would not comment while the matter was in front of the courts. Akavak did not respond to requests for comment.
