Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty: A People-First Perspective

Table of Contents Introduction Sovereignty or Security? The Threat Landscape The Way Forward Near-term Investments in Local Priorities Long-term Investments in National Defence End Notes About the Author Canadian Global Affairs Institute Introduction In the 1950s, the Canadian government forcibly relocated 16 Inuit families through its High Arctic relocation program. The stated purpose of the relocation was to move Inuit from “overpopulated, depressed areas” where they were dependent on government relief payments to new communities where they could partake in a “native way of life” through subsistence hunting.1 However, the relocation of Inuit from Inukjuak, Quebec and Pond Inlet, Nunavut to the much less hospitable environs of Grise Fiord and Resolute in the High Arctic did little to improve their living conditions, and several relocatees reported nearly starving to death. Many who were affected by the plan have argued that the relocations were calculated to bolster Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic amid concerns about growing U.S. defence capabilities in the region and the tendency of Greenlanders to hunt in the Canadian Arctic Islands Game Preserve. In 2010, then-Indian and Northern Affairs minister John Duncan issued a formal apology for the false promises the government made during the High Arctic relocation program.2 This case illustrates what can happen when concerns about sovereignty override concerns about people. These days, policy-makers frequently invoke threats to Canada’s Arctic sovereignty to marshal public support for increased defence spending and industrial development in the region. For instance, then-National Defence minister Anita Anand said, “We have to make sure that we continue to do what is necessary to protect our Arctic, to maintain our Arctic sovereignty,” in response to the shooting down of a Chinese spy balloon over the Yukon in February 2023.3 Similarly, Sean Boyd, executive chair of the board of Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd., wrote in the Globe and Mail in June that a homegrown mining industry in the North would “solidify Canada’s claim to sovereignty through an increased business presence.”4 As one journalist quipped last year, “nothing focuses public attention quite like an existential threat.”5 Largely as a result of such rhetoric, there is a widespread perception that Canada faces an existential threat as foreign powers, chiefly Russia and China, vie to erode Canada’s Arctic sovereignty. However, the reality is that these threats are neither imminent nor inevitable. In a recent report from the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, Canada’s Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre said there is “no real threat today to [Canada’s] territorial sovereignty; nor do I see one in the near future.”6 Similarly, Kevin Hamilton, Global Affairs Canada’s director general of international security policy, described Canada’s Arctic sovereignty as “well-established” and emphasized that “every day, through a wide range of activities, governments, indigenous peoples and local communities all exercise Canada’s enduring sovereignty over our Arctic lands and waters.” All of this is not to say that Canada should not invest resources in Arctic defence and development. However, such investments must take account of the current threat landscape and the needs of Arctic peoples. Moreover, Canada must avoid repeating past mistakes by ensuring that local people are given substantial decision-making authority, which encompasses and transcends the right to consultation