Give Inuit greater role in Arctic security or risk ‘malicious’ foreign investment: Obed
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami president addresses Arctic investment at Senate committee appearance
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami president Natan Obed says more federal spending on Inuit-led projects could deter foreign economic interference in the Arctic region. (File photo by Jeff Pelletier)
Natan Obed had a warning for the federal government this week about foreign states possibly making “malicious” investments in the Arctic.
The government must “provide opportunities for Inuit to build our own self-determination and the essential infrastructure in our homeland,” the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami president told the Senate committee on national security, defence and veterans affairs on Monday.
Otherwise, he said, “I could imagine that you are setting the scenarios for foreign investment which may or may not be friendly.”
Currently, majority Inuit-owned Nasittuq Corp. operates the 47 North Warning System sites across the Arctic. And in October, Qikiqtaaluk Corp. — the business arm of Qikiqtani Inuit Association — partnered with an Ottawa-based venture capital and military contracting firm to create Sapujjijiit Inc., which they said is the first Inuit defence corporation.
But there needs to be more Inuit-led projects that support sovereignty and security goals, Obed said. Even the proposed Inuit Nunangat University would be able to contribute to defence or militarization through research.
“Canada is woefully behind in its [defence] spending,” Obed told the senators.
The federal budget, which narrowly passed in the House of Commons on Monday, contains spending to address what it described as “years of inadequate equipment” for the Canadian Armed Forces.
In the 2025-26 fiscal year that ends in March, Canada is projected to spend $62 billion on national defence, and an additional $81.8 billion in defence spending over five years.
Historically, the federal government “tended to make big promises for Arctic security during times of crisis, but when the crisis passed the promises seemed to evaporate,” said Nova Scotia Sen. Stan Kutcher during the committee meeting.
Obed responded, saying that this time the security crisis Canada faces is not the same.
“The difference in this crisis is that other countries are putting their money into security, defence, economic development and sovereignty structures within their part of the Arctic,” he said.
Canada’s Arctic investments “pale” compared to what the country’s traditional adversaries have been spending, he said.
China — which refers to itself as “near-Arctic state” — and Russia both ramped up their Arctic investments in recent years.
Since 2003, it’s estimated China spent more than $90 billion above the Arctic Circle, largely in energy and mineral sectors, according to U.S. House of Representatives committee on foreign affairs estimates in 2022.
Also, both countries have carried out more research expeditions in the Arctic through Russia’s claims over the North Pole area. Only through partnership with Inuit can Canada deter foreign interference in the region, Obed said.
“Canada would not be an Arctic state without Inuit,” Obed said. “Inuit legitimize Canada’s claims to the Arctic and are the foremost experts on the Arctic.”
My Overall Take
Natan Obed is absolutely correct.
Canada cannot claim to be an Arctic state without Inuit — politically, geographically, or morally.
This story reinforces a truth Inuit have been saying for decades:
Investing in Inuit self-determination is not optional — it’s essential to Canada’s national security.
And the longer the federal government delays major Arctic investment, the more vulnerable the North becomes to strategic influence from other countries.
100% Morning Coffee buddy!! Why you guys so mad and dislike? His got a point!
Ummm, what? If every Inuk vanished tomorrow, Canada would remain an arctic state.
What is it about the particular myopia that makes people think that Inuit are the only northern people, or that Nunavut is the key to northern security?
Asking for family in the Yukon and friends in the NWT. You know, those arctic places that are the centre of gravity of the entire north.
WHAT you ask?
You’re mixing up geography with sovereignty here.
Canada being physically “north” isn’t what gives it Arctic legitimacy — dozens of countries sit above certain latitudes. What sets Canada apart is its internationally recognized land claim agreements and Indigenous occupancy across the Arctic coastline, and the vast majority of those rights belong to Inuit regions. That’s exactly why global Arctic policy discussions revolve around Inuit Nunangat.
So yes, Yukon and the NWT matter — no one disputes that. But when it comes to the legal, political, and strategic foundations of Canada’s Arctic sovereignty, Inuit are not a footnote. They’re central. That’s the part people tend to overlook.
Absolutely buddy, you tell them!!!!
Morning Coffee!!
I think you are right, sovereignty is the part people overlook.
If Russia and the US question Canada’s claim to the arctic, why would they recognize Nunavut’s sovereignty? The Nunavut Agree will not slow any competing country at all IMO.
I’m not actually convinced many Inuit leadership figures could pass a basic security clearance.
Participation means you gotta have the managerial and professional jobs—-not handouts and looking on from the sidelines. That requires an education system oriented toward STEM disciplines, Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Why does Baffinland’s labour force have only 15 percent Inuit employees?
Then the question becomes whether those wielding the STEM are inclined to serve foreign remphans
You’re right Colin. Why does Baffinland have a 15% Inuit employment rate. It’s because the labour pool is small and you can’t put people in positions without proper training. It’s unsafe. Especially at a mine site where there’s risk of injury everywhere.
I agree with President Obed. Canada has to work in good faith with Inuit. The honour of the Crown is surely at stake. As I have commented before, Canada’s footprint in the Arctic IS the Inuit footprint. Any partnership has to have Inuit front and centre.
This is so wrong as to be laughable. Inuit are merely about 30% of the arctic population.
They are one stakeholder in artic security, and a necessary one to be sure, but very far from the only one.
The southern taxpayer is far more important in arctic security than any person who actually lives in the arctic. They are the ones who will be footing the bill and making the decisions.
Truth be told, there are around 25,000 Inuit adults living in Inuit Nunangat. Of that, the vast majority live of the hand that feeds them, including many who having government or NGO jobs. Natan is one of the latter. A few live, very successfully, off the land. Very few of those Inuit adults are engineers, scientists, economists, psychologists, journeyed tradespeopke or other professionals. Some are. By far, the vast majority of professionals in Inuit Nanangat are non-Inuit. In addition the vast majority of technical, financial and moral support for Inuit Nunangat comes from non-Inuit. This is the tip of the iceberg. The second part is that nearly all of Inuit who sit at the apex of influence in Inuit Nunangat are token, most-often appointed for populist or nepotistic reasons. Not for merit or clean motive. The third part is the main part….
Great effort and expense is spent to buttress the propaganda of the us vs them in affairs international. Little publicized is the offer by Mikhail Gorbachev and Russian leaders to have them join NATO back when. We under the US leadership would have no of it. It is being ignored willfully or out of a lack of knowledge of our history at ITK. The smart thing to do would be to open communications once again with all northern peoples E and W, And stop buying into the forever wars policy which brings us to the year 2025 – the most conflict widespread time (60+ ongoing) since 1949.
Fundamentally, Canada has a natural resource economy. This can be seen when our dollar goes up and down in value based on the demand for crude oil.
Our core strength and prosperity (not all, to be sure) is tied to our ability to harness our natural resources for sale. In the case of things like fossil fuels, rare-earth metals and nuclear fuel, this extends to us supporting our allies with an alternative means of meeting their technology and energy needs without becoming beholden to hostile foreign powers.
It therefore stands to reason the primary means by which we can contribute to Canadian national security is to responsibly and ethically develop and deploy our natural resources.
It is not to develop a network of military bases to deter a horde of foreign soldiers attacking us Atanarjuat style from the ice north of us, which will never happen.
We haven’t been on that page of the book. The most popular thing for Inuit and Inuit Organizations to develop in recent years have been various kinds of conservation areas and initiatives, which if they were all accepted, would tie up over half of the land and marine base of our territory, including complicating the use of these same areas by our own military.
Inuit perhaps genuinely do not want to see anything new happening where we are and where we like to go. Or, Inuit have been convinced to simply go along with the narrative of other people. When Inuit are asked directly by pollsters, over 80% of us are actually in favor of things like mining. So it is probable something else is happening.
Groups like the Pew Charitable Trust and WWF have been active in Nunavut, and have played a large role in pushing the conservation agenda. These groups are funded in large part by foreign individuals, contributed non-financial assets, government grants, corporations and foundations.
It would not be at all surprising if these groups are supported by some entities who would have a strong strategic, financial or political interest in ensuring that Nunavut’s resources remain in the ground. We have no idea; no-one seems even to be looking at this.
So I am sorry Mr. Obed, but I think you might be misdirected. There is some likelihood that Inuit and indeed, our very own “Sunny Days and Ways” government have already involved ourselves in malicious foreign investments, and there is nothing our military could have done to prevent it.
Pretty funny how we need to raise awareness about “malicious foreign investment” when the Kitikmeot orgs are pushing for the GBRP- a project that would mostly serve China-backed mining companies. Hard to warn about outside actors when the push is to roll out the red carpet for them.