Inuit urge Canada to learn from Greenland’s social model for Arctic communities

NUUK, Greenland – As Ottawa considers increased military investment in the Far North, Inuit leaders are advocating for a shift in approach, urging Canada to learn from Greenland’s social model. They contend that the Nordic system, adapted to local needs, has demonstrably improved health, housing and education services compared to those available in Canada’s Arctic territories.

Lukasi Whiteley-Tukkiapik, head of Saqijuq, an Inuit wellness organization in Kujjuaq, Quebec, articulated the disparity during a recent trip to Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, to attend the opening of Canada’s new consulate. “There is a lot that we can learn from them,” he stated, noting that services in his community are inferior even to those found in Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut.

Whiteley-Tukkiapik described Nuuk as “generations ahead” in providing Inuit-led social services within well-maintained infrastructure. Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark, offers universal healthcare and unemployment insurance, alongside free dental care for children and subsidized daycare and education, generally without tuition fees. This contrasts sharply with the challenges faced in Canada’s Arctic, where access to such services is often limited.

The scale of the difference is striking. Nuuk boasts a modern hospital with four times the capacity of Iqaluit’s, despite having a population only 2.5 times larger. Greenland is making significant strides in renewable energy, generating 87 per cent of its power from hydroelectricity in 2022, a substantial increase from 59 per cent in 2000. Nunavut, conversely, remains almost entirely reliant on fossil fuels like diesel.

Housing conditions also highlight the gap. A 2021 census revealed that 53.1 per cent of Nunavut’s population lives in overcrowded housing, with a third residing in homes in disrepair. Nuuk, in contrast, features brightly coloured houses, cultural centres, and libraries, facilitated by the more stable bedrock underlying the city compared to the permafrost prevalent in Iqaluit.

While Greenland is not without its social challenges – including issues with suicide and tuberculosis, problems shared by Inuit communities in Canada – Whiteley-Tukkiapik believes the territory prioritizes improving living standards more effectively. “They have the same social issues (but) there’s more of an importance and it’s more on the front burner for them,” he explained. “Their health network, the social programs, the way that they tackle suicide prevention as well — they have a lot of good programs in place and they are working on them.”

Steven Arnfjord, a professor at the University of Greenland and head of its Centre for Arctic Welfare, attributes the success of Greenland’s social model to Inuit leadership having control over the allocation of social services funding received from Copenhagen. “We educate our own social workers so they understand the culture, the language, everything, when they engage with clients. It’s not a social worker from Toronto or Ottawa or anywhere else that flies up or comes up and has to readjust,” Arnfjord said. “This is not a territory. This is a nation.”

Greenland’s healthcare system prioritizes providing services locally, minimizing the need for residents to travel to Denmark for medical attention. When travel to Copenhagen is necessary, culturally appropriate accommodations run by Inuit organizations are available, mirroring similar services offered in Canadian cities like Ottawa and Winnipeg.

Arnfjord highlighted a historical example of effective public health intervention in Greenland: a specialized ship deployed along the coastline in the mid-1950s to the early 1970s to provide tuberculosis screenings and treatment. This proactive approach contrasts with past practices in Canada’s Far North, where individuals suspected of having tuberculosis were often sent to southern hospitals, sometimes in inadequate conditions, and tragically, many did not return home.

However, Arnfjord acknowledges that Greenland’s social system is not without its shortcomings. He believes it is less responsive to demographic shifts compared to systems in mainland Denmark or Sweden, where social welfare programs are regularly adjusted to address evolving needs. He also points out that the system tends to focus on the individual rather than the extended Inuit family, a crucial element of Inuit culture.

He illustrated this point with an example from a parent-teacher conference, which was structured around the individual student’s responsibility for learning, a concept that clashes with the Inuit emphasis on collective family support for education. “It’s not the group or the collective or the family we’re talking about. The entity becomes the single individual, and that is hurtful for an Indigenous community,” he said. “Because it’s an installed version of welfare, it has this colonial history about it.”

Natan Obed, president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, representing Inuit from 51 communities across the Canadian Arctic, emphasized the disparity in healthcare access. He noted that cancer care and childbirth almost invariably require flights to southern hospitals for Inuit in Canada. While comprehensive data is lacking, Obed asserts that Greenland has a significantly higher ratio of doctors per capita and a broader range of medical services.

“We look to Greenland and see more indicators of equity — especially social equity — and the hallmarks of sustainable communities in a way that we have yet to materialize completely here in Canada,” Obed stated.

Andrea Charron, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba, suggests that improving infrastructure in Arctic communities is essential if Ottawa intends to expand its military presence. She cautions, however, that Inuit communities are wary of unfulfilled promises from the federal government. A military buildup, she argues, will only benefit local populations if it respects Inuit sovereignty and provides sustained, dedicated funding.

Charron also warned against “Arctic distraction disorder,” a pattern of fleeting federal enthusiasm for the North followed by a loss of focus. “We need sustained attention and funding to this infrastructure, because what we tend to have is what I call Arctic distraction disorder,” she said. “You have to be very clear about what the money can and cannot provide.”

Improved infrastructure, Charron added, would also bolster Canada’s security in the North, safeguarding against potential territorial or political incursions from other nations. “Growing, healthy communities are a bulwark against foreign interference,” she said. “If you are lacking access to healthy food and you don’t have internet and you don’t have clean drinking water, then it’s much easier for nefarious actors to say, ‘Well, we’ll provide this for you.’ But it often comes with strings attached.”

Arnfjord recalled a growing appreciation among Greenlanders for their social safety net following proposals from former U.S. President Donald Trump to purchase the territory and offer residents direct financial payments. “The level of trust and investment in a good welfare system, the benefits from that sort of thing — that’s something that you can’t supplement with a lump sum of money,” he said.

He referenced a visit to Alaska in 2022, where he observed widespread homelessness and a lack of adequate support for Indigenous populations. “That’s not something that will be tolerated in Greenland.”