Inuit Relocations to the High Arctic, 1953–1960

436 Pages·2016·43.41 MB·English

by  Whitney Lackenbauer

Documents on Canadian Arctic Sovereignty and Security No. 8

“Errors Exposed”

Inuit Relocations to the
High Arctic, 1953–1960

Shelagh D. Grant
Documents on Canadian Arctic Sovereignty and Security (DCASS)
ISSN 2368-4569

Series Editors:
P. Whitney Lackenbauer
Adam Lajeunesse

Managing Editor: Ryan Dean

Errors Exposed: Inuit Relocations to the High Arctic, 1953-1960
Shelagh D. Grant
DCASS Number #8, 2016

Cover Images: Tim Rast, courtesy of Elfshot Gallery (front top, back); Elizabeth Allakariallak Roberts (front
bottom)
Cover design: P. Whitney Lackenbauer
Layout and photo selection: P. Whitney Lackenbauer
Transcription assistance: Corah Hodgson

Centre for Military, Security and Centre on Foreign Policy and Federalism
Strategic Studies St. Jerome’s University
University of Calgary 290 Westmount Road N.
2500 University Dr. N.W. Waterloo, ON N2L 3G3
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 Tel: [phone] ext. 28233
Tel: [phone] www.sju.ca/cfpf
www.cmss.ucalgary.ca

Arctic Institute of North America
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW, ES-1040
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
Tel: [phone]
http://arctic.ucalgary.ca/

Copyright © the author, 2016
Permission policies are outlined on our website
http://cmss.ucalgary.ca/research/arctic-document-series
Errors Exposed:
Inuit Relocations to the High
Arctic, 1953-1960

Shelagh D. Grant
Group of Inuit children, Resolute Bay,
N.W.T., [(Qausuittuq), Nunavut], September
1959.
Group of Inuit children, Resolute Bay, N.W.T., [(Qausuittuq),
Nunavut], September 1959. K. M. Parks / National Film Board
of Canada / Library and Archives Canada / PA-178998
Contents
Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................ i

A CASE OF COMPOUNDED ERROR: THE INUIT RESETTLEMENT PROJECT, 1953, AND
THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE, 1990 ............................................................................................... 1
Background to the Government Decision 1
The Sovereignty Issue 4
The Great High Arctic Resettlement Experiment 12
The Experiment in Retrospect 29

INUIT RELOCATIONS TO THE HIGH ARCTIC 1953-60: “ERRORS EXPOSED” ..................... 31
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 31
2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 36
3. THE ISSUES ............................................................................................................................. 40
A. ORIGINS AND OBJECTIVES OF INUIT RELOCATION POLICIES
Origins of the Inuit Relocation Policy 42
Inuit Employment during the Second World War 45
‘Canadianization’ Policy and Inuit Employment 46
Inuit Relocation and Canadianization 47
References to Sovereignty Concerns 56

B. CONCEPT AND DESIGN OF THE PROJECTS
Lack of an Official Inuit Policy 1950-1953 64
Attitudes versus Authority 68
Criticisms of the Resolute Bay Relocation 70
Problems at Grise Fiord 74
Rehabilitation Measures 75
Basic Flaws in the Concept and Design 78

C. ACTIONS AND RESPONSE BY THE GOVERNMENT
Funding Priorities 79
Continuing Problems with Process 80
Wages and Fur Credits 80
Inuit Accommodation 81
Response to a Supply Crisis 82
Measles Epidemic 82
Excess Profits and the Eskimo Loan Fund 84
Summary 85

D. FAILURE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT
Missing Records 85
Significance of Motives 86
Basic Rights of Canadian Citizens 87
Reluctance to Accept Criticism 87
“Attitudes of the Times” and “Budget Restraints” 88
Change in Attitude 1958 – 1970 89
The Current Controversy 89

4. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................... 89
Analysis of the Latest Government Position 89
General Assessment 90

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................... 91

POSTSCRIPT ............................................................................................................................................ 95

THE DOCUMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 97

Appendix A: Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: The High Arctic Relocation (excerpts) ............... 412

Appendix B: Official Apology by the Government of Canada (2010) ........................................................ 420

Further Reading on the High Arctic Relocations ................................................................................... 422

About the Editor ...................................................................................................................................... 425
Foreword who reportedly had never stepped foot in the
Canadian Arctic, let alone the High Arctic. As
Shelagh D. Grant might be expected, the consultant’s report rejected
the findings of the standing committee, claiming
that there had been no wrong doing by the
department and that sovereignty was never a
In 1990, I was approached by the Hon. David
“primary” motive for the relocation.1 If there had
Crombie and Ron Doering who were visiting
ever been any doubt whether I would write the
Trent University, and asked if I would be
paper for CARC, this was a challenge I could not
interested in writing a paper for the Canadian
ignore.
Arctic Resources Committee (CARC) about the
relocation of Inuit families to the High Arctic in After months of archival research in Ottawa, as
1953-1958. Having published a book in 1988 on well as review of secondary sources, maps and
the subject of northern sovereignty issues arising photographs, I submitted my paper to CARC,
during and following World War Two, I was titled “A Case of Compounded Error: The Inuit
intrigued and tentatively agreed pending a review Resettlement Project 1953, and the Government
of available information and accessibility of Response, 1990.”2 Although the paper was much
pertinent archival documents. longer than anticipated, CARC agreed to publish
it, along with photographs and 140 endnotes. My
The High Arctic Relocation projects in 1953-1956
conclusions clearly explained that while the
first attracted public attention in 1982, when John
selection of Inuit from northern Quebec was
Amagoalik, Chair of the Inuit Tapirsat of Canada,
motivated by economic concerns, the primary
requested financial assistance from the Department
rationale for selection of the 1953 resettlement
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
sites was based entirely on concerns for Arctic
(DIAND) to cover costs of new homes and
sovereignty.
transportation for 16 families wishing to return to
their former home in northern Quebec. Further A special launch of the CARC publication took
studies were requested, but aside from a small place in Ottawa, and much to my astonishment, a
contribution toward transportation costs, the portion of my interview appeared on the CBC
government refused to offer an apology, claiming National News. All of a sudden, I had become the
there was no wrongdoing by the department. new “Bête Noire” for DIAND, who found it less
politically sensitive to hurl criticism at a female
Then in 1990, the subject gained widespread
historian than at the Inuit.
publicity in newspapers and on television, after the
Hon. Tom Siddon, Minister of Indian Affairs and The issue did not quietly disappear as DIAND had
Northern Development (DIAND) rejected the hoped, and instead prompted yet another study,
recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, that had called
1 Magnus Gunther, “Assessment of the factual basis of
for a formal apology, recognition of the Inuit
certain allegations made before the Standing Committee
contribution in protecting Canada’s Arctic
on Aboriginal Affairs concerning the relocation of
sovereignty, and further compensation for the
Inukjuak Inuit in the 1950s” for the Hickling
relocated families.
Corporation under contact with DIAND, 19
November 1990. (personal copy)
In response, Siddon commissioned another study,
2 Shelagh D. Grant, “A Case of Compounded Error:
this time with the Hickling Corporation, a private
The Inuit Resettlement Project, 1953, and the
consulting firm. The report was prepared within
Government Response, 1990.” In Northern Perspectives,
the required 150 days to respond to the standing
Vol. 19, No.1, Spring 1991, Canadian Arctic Resources
committee, written by a political science professor
Committee. Pp. 3-29.
i
this time by the Canadian Human Rights under 42 separate points, which highlighted the
Commission who submitted their report in wrongdoing by the government in terms of
December 1992, that largely the supported the executing a plan that caused unnecessary hardship
standing committee’s findings and for the relocated families and their refusal to
recommendations. honour the promise of return home.3
The subject also became a matter of special interest
My revised submission to the RCAP was self-
for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
published in two, coil-bound volumes. The first
(RCAP) which conducted hearings on the subject
provided a narrative of events and my conclusions
in April and June 1993 to allow the Inuit, RCMP
based on my research. The second volume
officers, government officials and researchers like
included a chronology of events with references,
myself to tell their story. As background for the 20
and copies of key archival documents. These two
minutes I was allowed to speak at the June
volumes, revised in August 1993, were at one time
hearings, I prepared a written submission, with a
available as part of the Royal Commission’s papers,
detailed chronology and copies of archival
with a copy deposited in the reference section of
documents referenced in the text. This was revised
Trent University’s library (but since removed).
and resubmitted in August 1993 to erase typos and
grammatical errors.
In this abridged version of my submission, I have
For reasons I prefer not to disclose, I decided not deleted the original “Summary” to avoid repetition
to pursue further publication of my research and and have added a few paragraphs to the
writing. Instead, with their agreement, I worked “Conclusion.” Because of its importance, reference
behind the scenes with the research team employed to the RCAP’s special report on the relocations will
by the Royal Commission, supplying more sources appear here as a postscript, along with the
and copies of archival documents at their request. resolution of the dispute that achieved closure with
Preferring to remain anonymous, I advised that an official apology by the government. As well, a
there was no need to credit my assistance or trust fund was set up to cover costs of
written submission. transportation and construction of new homes for
those wishing to return permanently to Inukjuak,
The strategy of letting the evidence speak for itself
and for visits to family remaining in the High
was successful. In essence, I had removed
Arctic.
myself—DIAND’s “Bête Noire” —from the scene
to let the RCAP and others have a free hand at
When a student recently reported that he was
finding the proof. As a result, the RCAP’s research
unable to find my submission and collection of
team had no problem finding evidence to support
documents among the RCAP’s papers, I accepted
Inuit claims that sovereignty played a major part in
Whitney Lackenbauer’s offer to publish an
the relocations and that the participants had been
abridged version for the Documents on Canadian
promised a return home if desired. Hence, the
Arctic Sovereignty and Security series. In addition
former mantra—that they could find no
evidence—was no longer credible.

The Royal Commission’s special report on the 3René Dussault and George Erasmus, The High Arctic
High Arctic Relocation in 1994 was clearly a Relocation: A Report on the 1953-55 Relocation, Royal
vindication of the Inuit testimonies and those who Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Toronto: Canadian
had supported their cause. In a “Summary of the Government Publishing, 1994.“Summary of the
Commission’s Conclusions,” co-authors René Commission’s Conclusions,” pp, 135-46.
http://www.iqqaumavara.com/en/conclusion/?
Dussault and George Erasmus addressed the issues
ii
to the new “Foreword” and a “Postscript,” the Passage of time heals most wounds. With
original “Summary” was deleted, and additional subsequent government actions, compensation and
editing removed repetition and poor grammar. official apologies, it is hoped that the relocated
Since I had no research, editorial, or secretarial Inuit can now look back with pride for their
assistance, any errors are mine and mine alone. contribution in protecting Canadian sovereignty
and furthering development of the High Arctic.
Please note that I did not change the references
which were accurate at the time. As a result, you Shelagh D. Grant, 1 October 2016
will find temporary accession numbers for files that

were just released when I conducted my research.
You will also note that the adjective form of Arctic
appears in lower case, which was acceptable in the

1990s.

After further discussion, we decided that this e-
book publication should begin with a shortened
version of my CARC paper “A Case of
Compounded Error” as it provided a more detailed
account of the hardships encountered during the
early years and a clearer history of the Arctic
sovereignty issues. The end portion of this article
was deleted since the reports by the Hickling
Corporation were fully covered in the submission.
Otherwise, we have undertaken only minor editing
to remove the errata noted at time of publication.
References also remain in the format used at the
time.
On re-reading the text and the documents, I
realize that I would write a much different paper
now that the government has resolved the
outstanding issues to the satisfaction of the
relocated Inuit. For present day scholars, the most
important items are the documents—some are still
missing, but they are sufficient to provide
inspiration and the basis for further research.
Dozens of others are found in the footnotes. The
documents alone offer critical insight into Monument in Grise Fiord sculpted by Looty
relationships between Ottawa-based administrators Pijamini “in memory of Inuit landed here in
and those in the field, and into how accuracy 1953 & 1955, and those who came after.” The
becomes lost or distorted in written reports and accompany plaque notes: “They came to these
memos. Please note that these were my working desolate shores to pursue the Government’s
documents, with added annotations by me. Times promise of a more prosperous life. They endured
have changed and scholars will wish to revisit the and overcame great hardship, and dedicated their
event from a 21st century perspective. I look lives to Canada’s sovereignty in these lands and
forward to some interesting reading. waters.” Photo by Tim Rast, courtesy of Elfshot.
iii
Inuit woman and three
children in winter clothes,
Resolute Bay, NWT,
March 1956. Gar Lunney
/ National Film Board of
Canada. Photothèque /
Library and Archives
Canada / Item K-3963
iv