NUNAVUT
There was a discouraging bombshell for Nunavut's language commissioner within the 24 pages of a recently completed report on education in the territory.

Sandra Inutiq, Nunavut Language Commissioner, is concerned by report. -

When the chairperson of the Special Committee to Review the Education Act, Iqaluit-Tasiluk MLA George Hickes, tabled the report in the legislative assembly Nov. 5, it was done with little fanfare on the final day of regular business.

However, the report contains controversial suggestions which threaten Inuit culture and language.

"Where do you start," asked Nunavut Language Commissioner Sandra Inutiq. "It's very vague. They say things without saying them. You have to read between the lines to put the pieces together and make your own conclusions."

Inutiq objects specifically to a suggestion that a single language of instruction model is proposed and the single language seems to be English.

In fact, as Inutiq told Nunavut News/North, Inuktut-language education is a right in Nunavut.

The report acknowledges this by quoting the Inuit Language Protection Act. However, on the next page the report states, "the special committee stresses that the implementation of such cross-legislative requirements must also accommodate the overall objectives of the Education Act itself."

"Again, it's ambiguous," said Inutiq.

"The only conclusion I can take from that is that right now parents have a right to have their child instructed in Inuktut. If you piece together the statements made in this report, including there are not enough bilingual educators, they want a one-language model.

"So what you draw from that is that they want English as the one-language model. You would need to get rid of the right (to an Inuktut education) to achieve that goal.

"Taking away rights is serious."

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.'s (NTI) vice president James Eetoolook statement in a news release is pointed.

NTI would support the recommendation if the single model is the Qulliq model.

"The majority of Nunavut's population is Inuit, therefore the language of instruction should be in the majority's spoken language. In this case, the first language of instruction must and should be Inuktut."

Back when land claims implementation talks between NTI and the federal government failed, Thomas Berger was appointed as conciliator.

In his 2006 report, Berger stated: "Only 25 per cent of Inuit children graduate from high school, and by no means all of these graduates go on to post-secondary education. The types of jobs where the need for increased Inuit participation is most acute - such as the executive, management and professional categories - have inescapable educational requirements."

He recommended a bilingual education system as the only way to increase graduation rates.

"An English-only education system is not workable and will not serve the objective of article 23. English-only schools have been tried in Cambridge Bay and Kugluktuk and the failure rates are no better there.

"The only solution, supported by studies and experience from around the world, is a system in which all students learn in their native language and English from kindergarten to Grade 12."

Berger also stated that because Inuktut is the language of 85 per cent of the population, Inuktut should be "the language of the governmental workplace in Nunavut and the language of the delivery of government services. But it is not. The principal language of government in Nunavut is English. So the people of the new territory speak a language which is an impediment to obtaining employment in their own public service."

In the 2010 Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) Annual Report on the State of Inuit Culture and Society, Paul Quassa, current education minister, former NTI president and Nunavut Land Claims Agreement signatory, is quoted as saying in 2003, "That's the whole reason why the land claims took place, because we were losing our language. I think that's part of the whole land claims process. Once you have the languages the culture is strong."

Echoing a section of the Education Act Review report, Hickes told the legislative assembly Nov. 5, "the special committee wishes to emphasize that the delivery of an education system is too important to be driven primarily by political idealism. The committee is of the view that the objectives of an education system must be practical, realistic, and attainable."

"The thing is, when you have assimilation, it's a lot of work to start reversing that because the system is set up, it's in motion, it's big machinery - you have to be fully committed to reverse that motion. And that hasn't happened."

And, as Inutiq notes, the report suggests there is a choice to be made between Inuit culture and language and academics.

"The suggestion that it is a choice between language, culture and history or an academic one is a continuation of a colonialist idea that Inuit culture and language is inferior, and cannot be academic. Language, culture and academics should not be viewed as mutually exclusive," she said.

"It's a troubling ultimatum. And the English stream is only graduating 25 per cent of the children."

Inutiq says when she and her staff, investigation research officer Karliin Aariak, first read the report Aariak's young son was in the office with them.

"Karliin and I got emotional. It's the children of Nunavut, and you're continuing to suggest that their identity and their sense of worth should be put aside. Their self-esteem and strong sense of identity are very much connected to the state of Nunavut right now.

"It is assimilation. This is continuing to damage the sense of identity for the kids."

The report and its 23 recommendations will be considered by the legislative assembly.

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