If Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami president Natan Obed were a provincial premier, you might think he was toying with something akin to separatism after he mused publicly about Inuit forging new partnerships.

Obed’s speech at an Arctic security conference on June 19 should be cause for alarm.

“If a partnership with Canada is not on the table, if we are not going to be respected partners, then should we not be looking for other partners as well to uphold our interests?” Obed said during ITK’s Nilliajut – Asserting Inuit Rights in Arctic Security conference in Ottawa.

Looking for other partners? That sounds like ITK — the national voice for Inuit in Canada — is suggesting Inuit might leave Canada if Ottawa doesn’t uphold their interests the way they want them to be upheld.

It’s the kind of rhetoric we expect from Quebec separatists, and that is increasingly popular in Alberta.

What other partners was Obed talking about? The United States? Denmark? China? Russia? He didn’t name the other partners he had in mind. And he didn’t take questions from reporters.

ITK’s one-day conference, he said, was held to “reorient the conversation” about casting Inuit as “central actors” in Canada’s approach to Arctic security.

The past few years have seen a new focus on Arctic security and defence — the result of Russia’s war on Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump’s talk about Canada’s and Greenland’s sovereignty, worldwide demand for minerals and the opening of the Arctic to shipping.

“Canada is our preferred partner,” Obed said.

But then he compared the Inuit relationship with Canada to the Canada-U.S. relationship. Until two years ago, Canadians never imagined “forging paths” outside of that traditional partnership. But times change.

“This isn’t a threat,” Obed said.

Evaluating who Inuit partners should be is the same kind of “practical consideration” the Prime Minister’s Office also makes on Canadians’ behalf. When a partnership isn’t working, you might need to forge new ones.

But whenever someone assures you what they’re saying isn’t a threat, it’s because they know their comments are likely to be perceived as a threat.

Obed’s talk comes amid national unity tension from Alberta separatism. And Quebec separatism — relatively quiet lately — is always simmering in the background.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has used similar rhetoric to promote her province’s interests.

“I support Alberta remaining in Canada,” Smith said in a May 21 televised address.

“But I truly believe our country is so much stronger and more prosperous when we respect the rights of provinces and empower them to govern themselves with minimal federal interference.”

Many Albertans want to leave Canada because they feel their province’s partnership with Canada is — to borrow Obed’s phrase — not on the table.

They say the federal government, and Canadians generally, don’t respect Alberta’s perspective on resource development, provincial rights and energy policies.

Sound familiar?

Obed’s suggestion that Inuit might look for other partners was an unexpected twist and a bit of a head-scratcher.

He’s right that Inuit leaders need to educate Canadians about the Arctic. Canadians don’t understand Inuit history or their rights. And it’s fair to argue that Inuit should be more deeply integrated in Canadian decision-making about Arctic security.

But seeking to reorient the conversation while hinting about looking for other partners is a bizarre, dangerous strategy that is unlikely to be very productive.