Canada News
The true north strong and green?
Canadians would also benefit from welcoming Greenland as a new territory. (Pexels photo)
Sign up for A Stronger Canada for The Trump Era for our latest policy recommendations on Canada’s next steps.
Going back to his first term, President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed an interest in acquiring Greenland, as have other American officials since the 1800s. But as with many ideas from south of the border, if the U.S. is considering it, why can’t we? Canada has already gained a small bit of Danish Arctic territory on Hans Island, so why shouldn’t we invite Greenland to exchange its red-and-white flag for one with like colours but featuring the Maple Leaf?
This is not a new idea. In 1917, Britain attempted to purchase Greenland for Canada as part of global territorial adjustments after the First World War. The issue resurfaced in 1940, when Canada and Britain weighed whether to pre-emptively invade Greenland to prevent it from falling to Germany in the Second World War. Today a different argument is being made.
Greenlanders like Canada
A 2021 survey of Greenlanders found that 85 per cent of respondents wanted a closer relationship with Canada. While Ottawa has much to be ashamed of for its past treatment of Arctic Peoples, Canada’s 21st-century approach to the Inuit-Crown relationship would have much to offer Greenlanders, almost 90 per cent of whom are of Inuit heritage.
There is already a precedent for a North Atlantic union. In 1949, residents of another remote outpost — also colonized by the Vikings and later administered by a distant European power — grew weary of transatlantic isolation. They voted to join Canada and, after a period of transition, Newfoundland became our country’s 10th province.
We share many objectives and obstacles
Greenlanders would have much to gain from becoming Canada’s fourth territory. Our closeness geographically means Greenland’s affairs are already inextricably linked to ours — from transportation and maritime security to fishing and climate change. Moreover, Ottawa has extensive experience in administering vast Arctic territories. In terms of population and area, Greenland (57,000 people over 2.2 million square kilometres), resembles Nunavut (roughly 41,000 people over 2.1 million square kilometres).
Ottawa to a large degree supports the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut through transfer payments that total almost $5.4 billion in 2024-25. Extrapolating from Canada’s financing formula, Greenland would have received roughly $1.6 billion — almost double the 4.3 billion kroner (roughly C$860 million) it received from Copenhagen in 2024. As part of this spending, Greenlanders would continue to receive public health care.
Greenland and Canada also share ancient cultural ties. As a new territory, Greenland’s Inuit would become part of the Inuit Nunangat, which stretches from northern Yukon to Labrador. For millennia, the Inuit travelled freely throughout the Arctic. Bringing Greenland into Canada would once again link most of the region into a single border-free area.
Becoming a Canadian territory could also be financially rewarding. While Greenland’s GDP per capita in U.S. dollars slightly exceeded Canada’s in 2023, a union would be likely to generate many economic benefits. Bringing Greenland under our regulations and laws, while introducing the loonie as currency, would attract greater investment by Canadian firms. Canada and Britain already tie as the top holders of mining licences in Greenland. And while Arctic mining can exact heavy environmental costs, Canada has a long-standing history of environmental impact assessments.
Beyond the mining sector, Greenland would be likely to solidify its tourism industry by attracting many more visitors. Greenlanders, meanwhile, could obtain the right to study, live and do business anywhere in Canada — a country far closer than distant Europe and with an existing population of Inuit speakers. Greenlandic companies could still trade freely with Denmark under the Canada-European trade agreement.
An economic union rather than a full integration would give Greenland many of these same benefits, but Canada’s vastly larger population would make that an exceptionally unequal partnership. Greenland would arguably have more influence as a part of Canada.
Finally, Greenland would reap major security benefits. It would fall under Norad, which as a joint military command provides a deeper layer of defence integration than NATO. Protected by both the U.S. and Canadian militaries, Greenland would receive a two-for-one defence deal. A 2022 commentary by the global policy think tank RAND Corporation recommended bringing Greenland into Norad, albeit as a sovereign part of Denmark.
RAND has also noted that, as a thinly populated, remote and resource-rich territory, Greenland could face significant risk of interference from hostile countries. Canada’s own struggles with this issue might undercut Ottawa’s attractiveness as a potential protector of Greenland’s sovereignty. But one would hope that Canada emerges from the public inquiry into foreign interference better equipped to identify and address such threats to ourselves and others.
Canada would benefit too
Canadians would also benefit from welcoming Greenland as a new territory. Greater investments by Canadian firms in Greenland’s resource sector would generate tax revenue and further develop Canada’s critical minerals sector. Additionally, our three territories would gain from Greenland’s knowledge and experience in handling Arctic affairs.
Furthermore, a policy update from the Canadian Forces last year stressed the security needs of the Canadian Arctic. Adding Greenland as a new territory would extend Norad coverage further around the polar ice cap, making it easier to monitor increasingly important sea routes. And with control of both sides of the Davis Strait, Ottawa would have a more robust defence against Washington’s claim that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway.
It’s up to them
However strong the case for joining Canada, it is up to the people of Greenland to determine their future. In an election March 11, a party that supports a careful and slow approach to full independence received the most votes. In the near term it is safe to assume that Greenland will remain part of Denmark, despite any economic and defence benefits that could be enjoyed as part of Canada — along with a dramatic increase in the supply of maple syrup, ketchup chips and double-doubles.
Whatever Greenlanders might decide in the future, mercantile and security concerns should not be the only drivers behind Ottawa’s approach to the question. Canadians pride themselves on their stewardship of the North — even delivering mail to its most famous bearded resident. Bringing Greenland into the Canadian family, while offering peace, order and good government, would be a noble way to further that aim.
This article first appeared on Policy Options and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
