NUNAVUT
Education Minister Paul Quassa says it's vital Bill 37 to amend the Education Act and the Inuit Language Protection Act pass in some form.

Education Minister Paul Quassa, seen here launching the Inuit language literacy application Uqausiit Pinnguarutiit to kindergarten and daycare students March 8, says it's vital that Bill 37, intended to amend the Education Act and the Inuit Language Protection Act, pass in some form so the government does not get sued. - NNSL file photo

"If the dates for Inuktitut and English or French bilingual education stay as is in the Education Act, the Government of Nunavut risks being sued, by Nunavut Tunngavik for example," Quassa said.

But the Standing Committee on Legislation saw things differently when it halted the progress of the bill May 5.

"When the house reconvenes for its spring sitting, the standing committee will formally recommend that Bill 37 ... not proceed further in the legislative process," announced chairperson Tom Sammurtok, citing "the overwhelming lack of consensus in support of the bill in such areas as language of instruction, the role of district education authorities and increased employment of Inuit teachers."

If the bill is allowed to fall off the order paper, as the committee recommends, the work of reviewing and revising the Education Act would be up to the next government, which will be elected in the fall.

Quassa, as the bill's sponsor, does have the option to move that Bill 37 go to the Committee of the Whole. Due to the legislative assembly's rules, he must wait 120 days, meaning his only opportunity to do so is at the final sitting in the fall, and all members would vote on that motion.

Or Quassa could, at the spring sitting, which starts May 30, present a motion to waive the 120-day period.

Quassa faces the prospect that during the spring sitting a member could introduce a motion that Bill 37 be withdrawn from the order paper.

Outside government, the debate continues.

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) president Aluki Kotierk called the standing committee's decision good news, but said the focus now needs to be on the Inuit Employment Plan for teachers.

"One that's robust enough, that's resourced," she said.

Kotierk cites a lack of budgeted resources and a lack of dedicated staff as proof the GN isn't serious in moving forward with bilingual education.

"There's frustration on our side that things are so slow," she said.

Quassa says anyone who knows governments knows they are slow. And he rejects the idea that the dream of bilingual education will die on his watch.

"Inuktitut is a big issue and certainly is mine because I'm the one who negotiated this Nunavut land claims to ensure that we retain our culture and language. And as the minister of education, that has always been my priority," he said.

Nunavut News/North received a two-page letter from Shirley Tagalik, the former manager of the Early Childhood and School Services division -later renamed Curriculum and School Services - starting in 1999. Tagalik was the only Nunavut educator with a Masters in Education, specifically in curriculum and instruction, she said.

"When I left the department (in 2009), the dismantling of our division was already well underway."

Jobs were moved from Arviat - where curriculum work was being done - to Iqaluit, explained Tagalik.

"But since there were not Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ)-qualified people there, (the director) shifted the job roles and began to dismantle IQ as well. Over the ensuing eight years this has just been scaled up as QQ (Qallunaat Qaujimajatuqangit) staff do what they know and try to discredit what they don't understand - IQ.

"Those of us who worked to develop a made-in-Nunavut curriculum have been marginalized and discredited."

Tagalik says there was a great deal of work that had been completed by 2009. Foundation documents and curricula never saw the light of day.

"I think that we were very close ... We would have had one of the most exciting senior high offerings anywhere in Canada. We were pretty far along with junior high, but we needed to have more modules available in Inuktitut."

Ian Martin authored Inuit Language Loss in Nunavut: Analysis and Forecast, released in early March, and the 2000 Aajiiqatigiingniq report to the Government of Nunavut on language of instruction in Nunavut schools, a study that contributed to the Nunavut Education Department's first bilingual education strategy.

Martin is familiar with the work of Tagalik's team, and stated in an e-mail to Nunavut News/North that the GN did not connect that work to the Pangnirtung office's work of assessment and evaluation.

"This lack of coordination was a major problem, since curriculum, assessment, and teacher training (NTEP) are the three legs of the educational stool, and to work properly, the three legs need to be coordinated," he said.

"Instead, the department chose to import curriculum written in English and to rely on a majority of monolingual English-speaking teachers from the south, with predictably negative results."

Nunavut News/North requested an interview with deputy minister of education Kathy Okpik, who has been in her position for 11 years, even as ministers have changed. The department instead offered assistant deputy minister John MacDonald, who has been in his position since October 2014. Additionally, MacDonald was regional director with the department in Pangnirtung between 2011 and 2013.

"When you think about the 2008 (Education) Act, that piece of legislation would have very quickly overtaken previous strategies, documents or vision documents in terms of priority, in terms of allocation of resources," said MacDonald.

"In 2009, as legislation came into force, frankly the department would have been - and was, I can certainly tell you that - it had to shift gears and focus on, first of all, the implementation schedule that was associated with the Act."

MacDonald says the department would have been busy developing new regulations, training, support and communications.

"It's often lost, in terms of the general discourse, how much of an effort and what the magnitude of that type of project is. There are no other jurisdictions that have, from scratch, created an Education Act, certainly not in the last 50 to 60 years."

MacDonald also said that this government's focus is the early years and literacy.

Tagalik is angry.

"What a travesty is being brought onto Inuit by the few gatekeepers who believe that the system they know must be superior when in fact it has had years to prove its worth and continues to fail our children on every front," she said.

Qajaaq Ellsworth left his position as Quassa's executive assistant largely over Bill 37, which he considers problematic for reasons he shared with Nunavut News/North over the course of two hours.

"As soon as I learned the proposal was going to be delaying the coming into force of ILPA (Inuit Language Protection Act) by at least 10 years, I had serious concerns about that," said Ellsworth.

"Also being aware that ever since any type of consultation's been done with Inuit over the last 50 years - you can open up any report - one of the top recommendations is always for education in our language," he said.

"It seems to me the government is more interested in protecting their own butts than they are bringing forward positive change."

He points to Quassa seeking and receiving delegation of authority for Sections 8 and 9 of the Inuit Language Protection Act, for which the Minister of Culture and Heritage is normally responsible. As they relate to education, Minister George Kuksuk signed them over to Quassa.

"There are provisions in the Inuit Language Protection Act for the education system. But the Inuit Language Protection Act is a stand-alone piece of legislation that deals specifically with the protection of Inuit languages," said Ellsworth, adding dates were part of the Inuit Language Protection Act, not the Education Act.

"The fact that we have the guaranteed legal right to education in our own language is pretty substantial," said Ellsworth, adding that should not be walked back.

MacDonald said the two Acts needed to be working together.

"We can't have conflicts in sections and timelines or implementation schedules. So we said, 'In proposing amendments to the Education Act, let's also propose amendments to the Inuit Language Protection Act,'" he said. "The intent was only to avoid a conflict. I would respectfully disagree with somebody thinking that we're trying to create a loophole."

As for Kotierk, she questions how it is a Grade 9 student in Nunavut who speaks Inuktitut walks into a Nunavut classroom and is forbidden from speaking Inuktitut because the teacher is not an Inuktut speaker.

"How different is that from residential school ... in our own homeland? How different is that?" she asked.

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.