page_title: High Arctic relocation
section_title: Re-evaluation
hierarchical_section_title: High Arctic relocation / Re-evaluation
caption_attribution_description: View over Resolute Bay to the Inuit Settlement „Village“
context_page_description: The High Arctic relocation took place during the Cold War in the 1950s, when 92 Inuit were moved by the Government of Canada to the High Arctic.
  The relocation has been a source of controversy: on one hand being described as a humanitarian gesture to save the lives of starving indigenous people and enable them to continue a subsistence lifestyle; and on the other hand, said to be a forced migration instigated by the federal government to assert its sovereignty in the Far North by the use of "human flagpoles", in light of both the Cold War and the disputed territorial claims to the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Both sides acknowledge that the relocated Inuit were not given sufficient support to prevent extreme privation during their first years after the move. The story was the subject of a book called The Long Exile, published by Melanie McGrath in 2006.
context_section_description: During the 1980s, the relocated Inuit and their descendants initiated a claim against the Canadian Government, arguing that "there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the central, if not the sole, reasons, for the relocation of Inuit to the High Arctic was the desire by Canada to assert its sovereignty over the Arctic Islands and surrounding area", and in 1987 sought $10 million in compensation from the federal government.
  Following public and media pressure, the federal government created a program to assist the Inuit to return to the south, and in 1989, 40 Inuit returned to their former communities, leading to a break up of families on generational lines, as younger community members often chose to remain in the High Arctic. Those that remained are described as being fiercely committed to their home.
  In 1990, the House of Commons of Canada standing committee on Aboriginal affairs asked the government to apologize to the Inuit who had been moved to the high Arctic in 1953, to provide compensation to them, and to formally recognize the residents of Resolute and Grise Fiord for their service to Canada's sovereignty.  In response, the government commissioned the "Hickling Report", which absolved them of wrongdoing, arguing that the Inuit had volunteered to be moved, and that they had been relocated due to the harsh social and economic conditions in Inukjuak. The report, written by a long-time government official, was strongly criticized by academics and the media.
  In contrast, a Canadian Human Rights Commission report submitted in December 1991 argued that there was clear evidence that there were government concerns about Arctic sovereignty at the time of the relocations and an understanding that the settlements would contribute to Canadian sovereignty.  The report concluded that the Government of Canada had broken its promise to return the relocatees to Inukjuak after two years if they wished. A further report, written by Trent University professor Magnus Gunther, examined the various claims of academics disputing what had occurred during the relocations.  It concluded that the government had acted with humane intentions, and as a result Tom Siddon, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, stated that it would be "inappropriate for the government to apologize" or provide compensation.
  In July 1994, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples held hearings to investigate the relocation program.  The Inuit evidence overwhelmingly highlighted that they had been forcibly relocated, while government officials argued that they had moved voluntarily. The official who had been in charge of the relocation tried to suggest that witnesses had changed their stories in order to claim compensation, and that the move had been a success.  The Commission found that the government of Canada had determined to "rehabilitate" the Inuit of Port Harrison, weaning them from dependency and "moral decline" by moving them to better lands with abundant game for hunting, and that inadequate preparations were made for them.  The commission recommended an apology and compensation for the survivors, as well as acknowledgment of the role the relocatees played in establishing a Canadian presence in the High Arctic. In their report, the commission noted that "There is therefore no doubt that the presence of Inuit settlements in the High Arctic, once established, did contribute to the maintenance of Canadian sovereignty." Simultaneously, the report found that colonizing the High Arctic, while before and after the relocation was important to Canadian national sovereignty, "[...] but that, in the period when the decision was taken, sovereignty was not in the minds of decision makers."  Thus, in the eyes of the government, the maintenance of Canadian sovereignty through the High Arctic Relocation was a convenient by-product of what the report considers economic and social concerns. In the end, however, the report concluded that, "Even if sovereignty is assumed not to be a factor, this relocation was an inappropriate solution to the government's
caption: View over Resolute Bay of the modern Inuit community of Resolute (1997)
exif: {"Image Make": "Nikon", "Image Model": "Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 5000 ED", "Image Orientation": "Horizontal (normal)", "Image XResolution": "4000", "Image YResolution": "4000", "Image ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Image Software": "Nikon Capture Editor 4.4.0 W", "Image DateTime": "2006:03:01 12:20:05", "Image YCbCrPositioning": "Centered", "Image ExifOffset": "236", "Thumbnail Compression": "JPEG (old-style)", "Thumbnail XResolution": "4000", "Thumbnail YResolution": "4000", "Thumbnail ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormat": "840", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormatLength": "3420", "EXIF ExifVersion": "0220", "EXIF ComponentsConfiguration": "YCbCr", "EXIF FlashPixVersion": "0100", "EXIF ColorSpace": "sRGB", "EXIF ExifImageWidth": "5160", "EXIF ExifImageLength": "3348"}