Court Cases: The Relocation Of The Inuits

The intent of action does not matter anymore if the action itself has impacted greatly on others. It is vital to realize is that when it comes to people’s lives and rights, the impact of one’s action can be profound and wide-reaching and that’s far more important than the question of the intent. Similarly, when it comes to judge the righteousness of a historical decision, the impact should overweight the intention. In the summer of 1953, the Canadian government relocated seven Inuit families from Northern Québec to the High Arctic. The relocatees have asserted for many years that they were treated unjustly. After many studies and reports, the government had acknowledged some failings in the relocation scheme. Views remained sharply divided
The relocation of the Inuit families violated their human rights as the relocation was imposed on the Inuit against their own wishes and that the Inuit suffered great hardship in the High Arctic. However, the government claimed the relocation was conducted to improve the living quality of the Inuit. Even with seemingly good intentions, the relocation of the Inuits was a violation of human rights and it undermined Canada’s self-identification as a human right respecting nation.

To begin with, the lack of efficient information and effective communication led to the violation of the Inuit’s freedom of choices and movements when the Canadian government made the decision to relocate the Inuit. The relocatees considered that the relocation was imposed on them against their own wishes. Markoosie Patsau, an Inuk who was relocated to the High Arctic, suggested that the government did not get the full consent from the Inuit family. According to Patsau, “the Government carried out this move, even though we did not consent to being sent away… We were also not aware of all Canadians’ freedom to live where they so chose. We did not know of our right to refuse to be moved to the High Arctic… Since we were
The intentions were good. Indeed, the economic situation back in the Hudson Bay where the Inuit were originally from was in bad condition as “furs plummeted in 1948/9 to only half of their earlier value, the situation of the natives became desperate. Trapping now brought in virtually no return and even the most energetic hunter could rarely avoid depending on relief.”(Diamond Jenness, Eskimo Administration, Vol. 2 Canada (Chapter 9), 1966) However, after the relocation, the relocatees were “ restricted to killing one caribou a year” (Unidentified testimony,House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, 1990); otherwise the hunter would be “fined $5000.00 or be arrested.” The policy in the High Arctic did not seem to favour hunters who were suffering from a financial setback back in Hudson Bay. In the contrast, the policy at the high arctic seemed to make it even more difficult for the Inuit to thrive on an economic level. Furthermore, it was also suggested that the true intention behind the relocation was not pure as it seemed. Some argued that Canada’s desire to claim the sovereignty in the north may motivate the relocation more than the concern about the conditions of the northern Quebec Inuit. The relocation took place at a time when the government was concerned about the Canadian sovereignty arising from the presence of the United States in the