OPINION
Monday, March 23, 2015 13
Arctic Discontents
A brief history of the Inuit relocation experiment
rachel mcpherson-duncan ›
contributor
“We have to overcome distrust and hostility, make
things compatible, and become agreeable. For
this to happen, from the Inuit perspective, many
things need to be considered.”
amagoalik, jon. 2012
T
he arctic is changing. The thawing of permafrost and icecaps induced by climate
change has shaken Inuit livelihood and led to
an international push for resource exploration and development. Canada’s claim to Arctic sovereignty, however, may not be as secure as Mr. Harper
would like to think. Arctic sovereignty has yet to be
officially declared and remains largely dependent
on the effective occupation and the cooperation of
the Inuit communities to self-identify as Canadians
under rule of the Canadian government. Conversely,
Arctic historian Shelagh Grant explains that Inuit
communities generally consider themselves as part
of the environment and distinct from Canadian society. This tension currently frames resource development in the Arctic and is the result of a legacy of
colonial abuses and failed reconciliation efforts by the
Canadian government.
A poignant event that framed the distrust of
the Inuit people with the Canadian Government
was the 1950s Inuit relocation experiment from
Northern Quebec’s Ungava peninsula to Ellesmere
and Cornwallis Islands in the Arctic Archipelago.
Specifically, in 1953 and 1955 the Canadian government relocated eleven Inuit families from the Port
Harris region and four families from Pond Inlet to
new communities at Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay.
Some Arctic historians claim that this relocation to
the high Arctic was a forethought of the Canadian
government to secure sovereignty to the Arctic via
effective occupation of the Inuit during the Cold
War. It also served as an attempt to disseminate and
remove Inuit culture from modern society.
The relocation program occurred during a time
when Inuit were still referred to as Eskimo, and the
paternalistic Canadian Government perceived the
project as a “humanitarian success.” During the first
Eskimo Affairs conference in 1952 that would finalize
the relocation program, the Government rationalized
that they were acting for the good of the Inuit, despite
not inviting any Inuit representatives:
experiment, though most survived through fierce
adaptation. Among the survivors was Jon Amagoalik,
a renowned Inuit responsible for leading the push for
the self-governing Nunavut Land Claim Agreement.
Despite extensive oral histories, the Canadian
government failed to accurately reflect Inuit colonial experiences in official government records of
Canadian history. This denial of Inuit historical perspectives is perhaps best exemplified by the controversial reports that we published by the government
on the Inuit High Arctic Exiles, popularly referred to
as the “Hickling Report” of 1990. Published by the
Hickling Corporation, the “Assessment of the factual
basis of certain allegations made before the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs concerning the
relocation of Inukjuak Inuit families in the 1950s”
concluded the following:
Our study reveals that the main reason for the
decision by the Government to encourage some
Inuit families to relocate to the High Arctic at that
time was a concern to improve the living conditions of Inuit, particularly in the Hudson Bay
region. Relocation from those depressed areas was
seen, by both government officials and the Inuit
themselves, as a way of breaking out of a growing
pattern of welfare dependency, and as a means of
providing the Inuit with new and better economic
opportunities through improved hunting, trapping and wage employment.
Government commissioned studies would continue
to proliferate the theory that the relocation was a
humanitarian project aimed to help the Inuit that
was highly successful, and deny that they were forcibly relocated. Fortunately, the descendants of the
relocated families pushed for further reevaluation
and were unrelenting in their request for an official government apology (which they were repeated
denied). This pressure on Canadian officials led to significant fiscal compensation throughout the 80s and
90s, as well as the passing of Nunavut Land Claim
Agreement Act and the Nunavut Act by the Canadian
Parliament which began in 1993 and was completed
in 1999. Interestingly, this pressure did not result in
an apology until 2010 when Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development, Jon Duncan, released a
statement entitled “Apology for the Inuit High Arctic
Relocation.”
The relocation program is just one example of the
hardship that unjustly burdened the livelihood and
strength of Inuit communities. It is important to
note that the Inuit also survived through attempted
genocides, cultural oppression, psychological and
sexual abuse, and a general lack of recognition of
basic human rights. Captured by Inuit vocal histories,
these early interactions are pivotal to framing the
contemporary Crown and Inuit relationship. u
Selected Resources:
Cape Farewell. (February 2nd, 2014). In Dialogue
with Susan Aglukark, Inuit singer/songwriter/historian (Ed.), Carbon 14, day of dialogue: Climate is
culture
Côté, F and Dufresne, R. (2008, October 24). The
arctic: Canada’s legal claims. Ottawa, Canada:
Parliament of Canada. (PRB 08-05E)
Grant, S. (2011). In Wilson J. (Ed.), Polar imperative: A
history of arctic sovereignty in north america (1st ed.).
Vancouver, Canada: Douglas & McIntyre.
Marcus, Alan R. (1995). Relocating Eden: The Image
and Politics of Inuit Exile in the Canadian Arctic.
Hanover: University Press of New England. pp. 70–71.
The only reason why Eskimos were not invited
to HYY][