Canada’s Arctic Future: Lessons from Greenland’s Social Model
As Canada strengthens its focus on Arctic security, a growing chorus of Inuit leaders are advocating for a shift in approach – one that prioritizes social development and infrastructure investment modeled after Greenland’s successes. The contrast between the two Arctic regions is becoming increasingly stark, prompting calls for Ottawa to learn from its Nordic neighbor.
A Stark Contrast in Infrastructure and Services
Recent trips to Greenland by Inuit delegations have revealed a significant gap in infrastructure and social services compared to Canada’s North. While Canada considers increased military spending to bolster its presence in the Arctic, Inuit leaders argue that investment in health, housing and education is paramount. Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, boasts modern schools and a hospital four times the capacity of Iqaluit’s, despite having a population only 2.5 times larger.
“They’re way ahead of us,” says Paul Irngaut, president of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI). “We’re the last people that the government thinks about until now because of the political climate.”
The Greenlandic Social Model: A Holistic Approach
Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark, has implemented a Nordic social model adapted to its unique needs. This includes universal healthcare, unemployment insurance, free dental care for children, and subsidized daycare and education. This stands in contrast to the challenges faced in Canada’s Arctic, where 53.1% of Nunavut’s population lives in overcrowded housing, and a third reside in homes in disrepair.
Lukasi Whiteley-Tukkiapik, who leads Saqijuq, an Inuit wellness organization, notes that services in communities like Kujjuaq are inferior to those available in Iqaluit, and Nuuk is “generations ahead” in providing Inuit-led social services in well-maintained buildings.
Energy Independence and Sustainable Development
Greenland is also making strides in energy independence, generating 87% of its energy from hydroelectricity in 2022, a significant increase from 59% in 2000. Nunavut, however, remains almost entirely reliant on fossil fuels like diesel. This difference highlights a commitment to sustainable development in Greenland that could offer valuable lessons for Canada.
Cultural Sensitivity and Local Control
A key element of Greenland’s success lies in the ability of Inuit leaders to determine how funds allocated for social services are used. Steven Arnfjord, a professor at the University of Greenland, emphasizes the importance of training local social workers who understand the culture, language, and specific needs of the community. This contrasts with approaches that rely on external experts unfamiliar with the local context.
Arnfjord points to a historical example of successful tuberculosis treatment in Greenland, where a specialized ship traveled along the coast providing screenings and treatment, ensuring patients received culturally appropriate care and support during their recovery. This contrasts with past practices in Canada’s North, where individuals were often sent south for treatment and faced challenges reintegrating into their communities.
The Necessitate for Integrated Infrastructure
Andrea Charron, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba, argues that improving infrastructure in Arctic communities is crucial not only for social well-being but also for supporting any potential expansion of Canada’s military presence. Adequate housing and services are essential for the functioning of military bases and airfields.
Addressing Social Issues with a Community-Focused Approach
While Greenland also faces social challenges like suicide and tuberculosis, leaders are prioritizing efforts to improve living conditions and address the root causes of these issues. The Greenlandic model emphasizes a holistic approach, recognizing the interconnectedness of social, economic, and cultural factors.
FAQ
Q: What is the main difference between Canada’s and Greenland’s approach to Arctic development?
A: Greenland prioritizes social development and culturally appropriate services, while Canada is currently focusing more on military infrastructure.
Q: Why is Inuit leadership significant in this context?
A: Inuit leaders understand the unique needs of their communities and are best positioned to determine how resources should be allocated to maximize impact.
Q: What role does energy play in the success of Greenland’s social model?
A: Greenland’s investment in hydroelectricity provides a sustainable and affordable energy source, freeing up resources for other social programs.
Q: Is Greenland’s social model perfect?
A: No, We see not. Experts note that the system needs to be more responsive to demographic changes and address issues like addiction and homelessness with a greater focus on family support.
Did you know? Greenland’s population is roughly the same as that of Prince Edward Island, but its landmass is significantly larger.
Pro Tip: Investing in Inuit-led initiatives is crucial for ensuring the long-term success of any Arctic development strategy.
What are your thoughts on the future of Canada’s Arctic? Share your comments below and join the conversation!
