1 Standing Committee on Legislation Hearings on Bill 25, an Act To

Standing Committee on Legislation ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ Hearings on Bill 25, An Act to Amend the ᑲᑎᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒍ Education Act and the Inuit Language ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ Protection Act ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ Iqaluit, Nunavut ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ November 27, 2019 ᓄᕕᐱᕆ 27, 2019

Members Present: ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ ᐅᐸᒃᑐᑦ: Tony Akoak ᑑᓂ ᐋᖁᐊᖅ Pat Angnakak ᐹᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ Joelie Kaernerk ᔪᐃᓕ ᖃᐃᕐᓂᖅ Mila Kamingoak ᒦᓚ ᖃᒥᓐᖑᐊᖅ Pauloosie Keyootak ᐸᐅᓗᓯ ᕿᔪᒃᑖᖅ Adam Lightstone ᐋᑕᒻ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ John Main, Chair ᐋᕐᓗᒃ ᒪᐃᓐ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ Margaret Nakashuk ᓯᒥᐅᓐ ᒥᑭᓐᖑᐊᖅ David Qamaniq ᒫᒡᒍᓚ ᓇᑲᓱᒃ Emiliano Qirngnuq ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ Paul Quassa ᐃᒥᓕᐊᓄ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ Allan Rumbolt ᐹᓪ ᖁᐊᓴ Cathy Towtongie, Co-Chair ᐋᓚᓐ ᕋᒻᐴᑦ ᖄᑕᓂ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᐅᖃᑕᐅᔪᖅ

Staff Members: ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ: Michael Chandler ᒪᐃᑯᓪ ᓵᓐᑐᓗ Stephen Innuksuk ᓯᑏᕙᓐ ᐃᓄᒃᓱᒃ Siobhan Moss ᓯᕚᓐ ᒫᔅ

Interpreters: ᑐᓵᔩᑦ: Lisa Ipeelee ᓖᓴ ᐊᐃᐱᓕ Andrew Dialla ᐋᓐᑐᓘ ᑎᐊᓚ Attima Hadlari ᐊᑏᒪ ᕼᐊᑦᓚᕆ Allan Maghagak ᐋᓚᓐ ᒪᒃᕼᐊᒐᒃ Philip Paneak ᐱᓕᑉ ᐸᓂᐊᖅ Blandina Tulugarjuk ᐸᓚᓐᑏᓇ ᑐᓗᒑᕐᔪᒃ

Witnesses: Karliin Aariak, Acting Languages Commissioner Jane Bates, Representative for Children and ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ: Youth ᑳᓖᓐ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᓚᐅᐱᑦᑐᖅ Katie Didham, Senior Systemic ᔭᐃᓐ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ, ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᓪᓗ Investigator/Researcher, Office of the ᑲᐃᑎ ᑎᑕᒻ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑎ/ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᖅᑎ, ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᐅᑉ Representative for Children and Youth ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖓ Okalik Eegeesiak, Board Member, Iqaluit ᐅᑲᓕᖅ ᐃᔨᑦᓯᐊᖅ, ᑲᑎᒪᔨ, ᐃᖃᓗᓐᓂ District Education Authority ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ

Lenise Hayes, Legal Expert, Indigenous ᓕᓃᔅ ᕼᐊᐃᔅ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔨᑕᖅ, Issues and Language ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᖅ David Joanasie, Minister of Education ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ Francine Lantin, Director, Office of the ᑐᐊᔅᑎᓐ ᓛᓐᑎᓐ, ᑐᑭᒧᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨ, ᐅᖃᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ Languages Commissioner ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖓ Lynn Matte, Director of Child and Youth ᓕᓐ ᒫᑦ, ᑐᑭᒧᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᐃᓪᓗ Advocacy Services, Office of the ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ, Representative for Children and Youth ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᐅᑉ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖓ Doug Workman, Chair, Iqaluit District ᑕᒡ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ, ᐃᖃᓗᓐᓂ Education Authority ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ

>>Committee commenced at 9:01 >>ᑲᑎᒪᓯᒋᐊᖅᑐᑦ 9:01ᒧᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ

Chairman (Mr. Main)(interpretation): Good ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᒪᐃᓐ): ᐅᑉᓛᑦᓯᐊᖅ. morning. As the Standing Committee on ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ, Legislation, our hearing will now proceed on ᑲᑎᒪᓐᓂᕆᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᑲᔪᕼᐃᓂᐊᓕᕐᒥ’ᒪᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 Bill 25. This is our third day. We are probably ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᓂᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᑕ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᑉᓗᕆᓕᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ tired of discussing Bill 25 as Members. We ᐱᖓᔪᒋᓕᒑ. ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 will be meeting again tomorrow. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᓐᖑᑐᐃᔾᔪᖅᑐᕐᔫᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᔪᑎᒍᑦ. ᐊᖃᒍ ᕼᐅᓕ ᑕᐃᒪ ᑲᑎᒪᓂᐊᕐᒥᒐᑦᑕ. Yesterday when we had the Iqaluit District ᐃᑉᐸᒃᓴᖅ ᑲᑎᒫᓃᒋᐊᖅᕼᐅᑕᓗ ᐅᑯᐊ ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂ Education Authority in front of us, we got into ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᑕᒪᐅᓐᖓ the questions and there were still questions ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕆᐊᖅᑐᖅᕼᐃᒪᑎ’ᖢᒋᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᕐᓂᖃᓕᓚᐅᕋᑦᑕ from Members. ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᕼᐊᓕᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᕼᐅᓕ.

I’m sorry, I forgot something. Can you say the opening prayer, please, Mr. Qirngnuq. Thank ᐄᑯᓗᒃ ᐳᐃᒍᕋᒪ ᑐᒃᕼᐃᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᒥᔅᑐ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ you. ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᕼᐅᐊᖅᐱᑎᒍ? ᒪ’ᓇ.

>>Prayer >>ᑐᒃᓯᐊᖅᑐᑦ

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Qirngnuq. I’m sorry I forgot the first item. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒥᔅᑐ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ, ᒪ’ᓇ. ᐊᒻᒪ ᐄᑯᓗᒃ ᐳᐃᒍᓚᐅᕋᒪ ᐅᓇ ᕼᐃᕗᓪᓕᖅᐸᐅᑏᓐᓇᕼᐆᕋᓗᐊᕋᑉᑎᒍ. We got into the questions yesterday. We will continue with that as there are still Members ᑕᐃᒪ ᐊᐱᖅᕼᐅᓂᐊᖃᓕᓚᐅᖅᑎ’ᖢᑕ ᐃᑉᐸᒃᕼᐊᖅ with questions. Welcome, Minister and your ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑲᔪᕼᐃᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ. ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᕼᐊᓖᑦ officials. First will be Mr. Lightstone. ᑕᒪᔾᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᕼᐅᓕ. ᒥᓂᔅᑐ ᑐᓐᖓᕼᐅᒋᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᔨᑎᓪᓗ. ᕼᐃᕗᓪᓕᖅᐸᐅᓂᐊᖅᖢᓂ ᒥᔅᑐ Mr. Lightstone: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ. Good morning. I would like to thank the Iqaluit District Education Authority for ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. making their submission to the Assembly as ᐅᑉᓛᒃᑯᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᕈᒪᕙᒃᑲ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᐊᓛᑦ well as presenting before us here today. ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᖕᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕆᐊᖅᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᐅᔪᖅ. What I found really interesting during their ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᓯ ᒪᑐᐃᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᑐᓴᕈᒥᓇᓚᐅᕐᒪᑦ ᐅᕙᓐᓄᑦ

opening comments was the brief history of ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᖃᖓᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓᓂᒃ education in Nunavut dating back to the 1980s ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑲᐅᑎᖃᓚᐅᕋᕕᑦ 1980-ᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᖢᒍ. up until our current date. My first question is ᐅᓇ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐹᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᕋ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ, for the Minister and I would like to ask for his ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᔪᒪᔭᕋ thoughts on the progression of education in ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᑖᕙᓐᖓᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕆᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ Nunavut since the 1980s, as well as the ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ 1980-ᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓃᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ mentioned digression of authority at the ᐊᖅᓵᖅᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᑦ. ᖃᓄᕐᓕᑭᐊᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ community level. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᕙᐅᒃ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Minister Joanasie, good morning. Minister ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᓂᔅᑐ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ, ᐅᑉᓛᑦᓯᐊᖅ. Joanasie. ᒥᓂᔅᑐ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ.

Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everyone. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᓪᓛᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓘᓐᓇᓯ. I was just as intrigued as the Member about hearing the different perspectives from the ᐄ, ᐅᓂᒃᑲᐅᓯᕆᓚᐅᖅᑕᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᖅ IDEA on education history, the background ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᓚᐅᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑲᐅᓯᕆᖅᑲᐅᒐᒥᐅᒃ information. It has been a long road to reach ᑐᓴᕈᒥᓇᕆᖅᑲᐅᔭᕋ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᑲᓐᖓᓂᒃ this point in time and I think everybody has ᐊᕗᖔᓘᔭᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓯᒪᒐᑦᑕ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᖦᖢᒍ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ their own educational histories, background, ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑕ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᖢᓂᓗ and experiences that they can contribute. We ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓂ. ᐱᐅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᓇᓱᒃᑕᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ know things have changed and we know ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᐊᐅᓚᐅᓯᖓ things we do want to try to improve upon the ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓂᒃ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒧᑦ past. This is something that we are here to ᑎᑭᖦᖢᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᓕᕆᓕᖅᐳᒍᑦ. debate on Bill 25.

Of course there are some bad cases of educational experiences that we’re not really ᓲᖃᐃᒻᒪ ᐱᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᖕᒥᒐᑦᑕ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ talking about in this context, such as the ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓯᒪᓐᖏᑕᕗᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ, ᐃᒃᑯᐊ residential schools, but that’s kind of the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑖᕙᓐᖓᓂᑦ backdrop that we want to reverse our cultural ᐱᒋᐊᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᓂᕗᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᐳᓪᓗ and linguistic policies around education. This ᓴᓐᖏᒃᑎᓴᓇᓱᒃᑕᕗᑦ ᐊᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓪᓗᒍ is something that we will continue to try to ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑏᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑎᒍᓪᓗ. address. I can keep going on and on, but I ᑕᐅᕗᖓᓕᒫᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᖃᐃ ᑕᕝᕗᖓ think I’ll just leave it at that for now. Thank ᐃᓱᓕᓚᐅᑲᓪᓗᖓ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ. Lightstone.

Mr. Lightstone: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on that question, over the last 30 years our communities have appeared ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ to lose their level of autonomy and authority ᐅᐃᒍᒋᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᒍ. ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑦ 30 ᐊᓂᒍᕋᓱᖕᓂᖓᓂ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᕐᓂᖅ

over their schools over several different ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖅᑕᐅᖕᒪᑦ. ᐅᓪᓗᒥᐅᓕᖅᑐᖅ phases. Today there have been many DEAs ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᑦ and other organizations that have expressed ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᒥᒃ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᖃᕐᒪᑕ. their concerns that Bill 25 would further ᐊᖅᓵᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᖕᒪᑦ reduce the authority of our DEAs. I would ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑎᒥᓐᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ. ᖃᓄᕐᓕᑭᐊᖅ like to ask the Minister if he would be able to ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᕙᐅᒃ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, respond to that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Again, I mean we are ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᓱᓕ ᑕᒫᓃᒃᑲᑦᑕ here to hear from the Iqaluit DEA and the ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᖏᑕ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ Minister is in the House regularly, and we do ᑐᓴᕆᐊᖅᑐᖅᑐᑕ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᒫᓃᖏᓐᓇᐸᑦᑐᓂ have the entirety of Thursday morning to pose ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᖕᒥ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᑎᓴᒻᒥᕐᒥ ᑖᓐᓇ questions to the Minister. Mr. Lightstone, do ᑲᑎᒪᖃᑎᒋᓂᐊᕐᒥᔭᕗᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ you want to rephrase your question? Go ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᖃᕐᕕᒋᓗᒍᓗ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦ ahead, Mr. Lightstone. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᓚᐅᕈᒃ.

Mr. Lightstone: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will redirect my question to the Iqaluit DEA. ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ As I just mentioned, it appears that over the ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒐ ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯ last 30 years our communities have lost a ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓴᖑᑎᑉᐸᕋ. ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑦ 30 ᐊᓂᒍᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᕐᒥᒃ substantial amount of authority and autonomy ᐊᖅᓵᖅᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓯᒪᖕᒪᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ over our schools. To date we’re hearing ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 further concerns that Bill 25 will further ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᔭᐅᖕᒪᑦ diminish the responsibilities and authority at ᐊᖅᓵᖅᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᑦ the community level. I would like to ask the ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ Iqaluit DEA about their specific concerns in ᐊᐱᕆᔪᒪᔭᒃᑲ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᔭᐅᖕᒪᖔᑦ? this regard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ (interpretation ends) Thank you for being ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕆᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᕕᐅᒃ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. specific with your question. Mr. Workman.

Mr. Workman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Member for the question. I’m going ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ, to delve into a very sensitive topic. It’s ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᕐᓄᑦ. certainly something that is present and it is ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᐃᑉᐱᓇᖅᑐᒻᒪᕆᒻᒥᒃ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ prevalent throughout different levels of ᑕᕝᕙᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᒻᒪᕆᐅᓕᖅᑐᓂ government, but certainly what we notice and ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᓇᓗᓇᓐᖏᓚᖅ what we see in government and the ᐅᔾᔨᕆᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᑕᑯᓯᒪᔭᕗᓪᓗ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. Government of Nunavut.

Over the last, I think, 10 to 15 years, and you ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑲᐃ 10-15 ᐅᑭᐅᖑᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ, can make an argument on when it actually ᐊᐃᕙᐅᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᑐᔅᓴᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ occurred, but it happened during the life of the ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ Government of Nunavut, where the ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐱᓐᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓕᕐᓂᖓᓂ.

bureaucrats have a lot of power. Not many ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓕᕆᔨᐅᔪᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᓕᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᒫᓐᓇ Inuit are in those positions. It’s about power ᑕᐃᒪ ᐅᓄᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓇᓂ and control, and that’s what we’re looking at ᐃᓂᒋᔭᖏᓐᓃᓕᖅᑐᑎᒃ. ᓴᓐᖏᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ in Bill 25. It’s about centralizing decision- ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ. ᑕᒪᑐᒪᓐᖓᑦ making and ensuring the bureaucrats, who are ᑕᒡᕙ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᐳᒍᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥᒃ 25-ᒥᒃ. ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᒪᑦ not accountable… . Everyone in this room is ᐊᑕᐅᑦᓯᒧᑐᐊᑯᓗᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕆᑎᑦᓯᓇᓱᓐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ accountable. We were elected to our ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓕᕆᔨᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖃᖅᑐᑑᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ, positions. We are accountable. ᑭᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᑭᐅᒋᐊᑐᔾᔭᖏᑦᑐᑦ. ᐅᕙᓃᑦᑐᓗᒃᑖᓪᓕ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᖕᒥ ᑭᐅᒋᐊᖃᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕᓕ. Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Workman. It’s a ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑕ ᑭᑐᒧᑦ ᑭᐅᒋᐊᖃᓲᖑᒐᑦᑕ. small note, but in this House we’re not allowed to point the finger. It applies to ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᒪᒥᐊᓇᖅ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. Committee Members as well. You can use ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᖕᒥᒃ ᑭᓇᒥᒃ your hands, if you want to point like this. ᑎᒃᑯᐊᖅᓯᔭᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑎᒃᑯᐊᖅᓯᔭᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᒻᒥᔪᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᖕᓂᒃ. >>Laughter ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑎᒃᑯᐊᖅᓯᔪᒪᒍᕕᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑎᒃᑯᐊᖓᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ. It’s a small intricacy of the legislature that Members have had to learn and yes, >>ᐃᓪᓚᖅᑐᑦ absolutely. Please continue and as much as possible, if you can be specific, specifically ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᐅᓯᖃᕋᑦᑕ ᐃᓕᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᐃᓘᓐᓇᑕ respond to Mr. Lightstone’s questioning in ᑎᒃᑯᐊᖅᓯᔭᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᒍᑦ. ᐊᑏᓗ, terms of specific responsibilities that Bill 25, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕈᕕᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᒥᔅᑕ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ as proposed, would take away from district ᑭᐅᒍᕕᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔭᕆᐊᖃᓪᓗᐊᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ education authorities. Mr. Workman. ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25−ᒦᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᒥᑭᒡᓕᑎᕆᔪᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ Mr. Workman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. think I was mentioning that in Bill 25 there are many authorities that we are being ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. stripped of, taken away from, for example, ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᒐᒪ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᐅᓄᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓃᑦ language of instruction, like our participation ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᖅᓵᖅᑕᐅᒐᑦᑕ ᐅᓄᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ in inclusive education, like the calendars. I ᓇᓕᐊᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ. can go on. There is Bill 37, which still has ᒪᑯᐊᓗ ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑏᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓄᑦ many of its content in Bill 25. They’re taking ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 37 ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᐅᓄᖅᑐᓂᒃ away our authorities to actually run our ᐃᓗᓕᕆᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ 25−ᒧᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ schools. ᓴᓐᖏᓂᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᖅᓵᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ.

Like I mentioned, we are all accountable to our constituents. Bureaucrats within the ᐅᕙᒎᔪᒍᑦ ᓵᑕᒃᓴᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᒍᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ. department are not accountable, but they seek ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ ᓵᑕᒃᓴᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ power and control of us and how things are ᓴᓐᖏᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᕋᓱᐃᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ run, without concrete strategies in place other ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᐊᖅᑐᓂᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓄᖓ than for us to trust them to do the right thing. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᔭᐅᓇᓱᖕᒪᑕ. Well, we’ve had 20 years of the Government ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᐱᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖁᒐᓗᐊᕋᑦᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓂᒃ of Nunavut and its work and we have not seen ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᑯᓚᐅᓐᖏᓚᒍᑦ ᓱᓕ very much in the way of real production, real ᐊᑐᓪᓚᕆᒃᑐᓂᒃ

creation, and real work emanating from this ᐊᑑᑎᖃᓪᓚᕆᒃᑐᓂᓪᓗ department. We ask that that be considered. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓃᖔᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᖕᒪᑦ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᐅᖁᔭᕋ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I’m interested in this ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐅᓇ ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑏᑦ whole calendar issue because it keeps coming ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᖏᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ. ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂᓗ up. The Iqaluit DEA, you did mention it ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᒪᑐᐃᖅᓯᔾᔪᑎᒥᖕᓂᒃ specifically in your submission and you said ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓚᐅᕐᒪᒍ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ that DEAs should have absolute control over ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᓕᕆᔨᐅᓪᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᖃᓄᖅ the development of their school calendars. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᐲᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᖓᓱᑦ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ Minister, you have proposed a compromise ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᖠᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ where each region would have a choice of ᓇᓕᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂ three calendars. Coming from the Iqaluit ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᖏᑦ DEA’s perspective, why can’t the DEAs have ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᓕᕆᔨᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᓚᑦ absolute control over their calendar? I’m ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ? ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᓯᔪᒪᔭᕋ interested in understanding the logic behind ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓅᖓᔪᖅ the shift away from that. Minister Joanasie. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᓴᐱᖅᑕᐅᖕᒪᑦ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ. Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, what we’re proposing is to, to ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, some level, standardizing the school calendar ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᔪᒪᔪᒍᑦ across the territory. If we look outside the ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᔾᔫᒥᔪᒪᒐᑦᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑏᑦ jurisdiction, almost every other jurisdiction ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᓕᒫᒥ. ᒐᕙᒪᖃᕐᕕᖕᓂ has probably one day where school starts. ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᓪᓗᕐᒥᒃ We’re not proposing that whatsoever. What ᓇᓖᕌᒐᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓲᖑᖕᒪᑕ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ we’re proposing is having three options per ᑕᑯᔪᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᒍᑦ. ᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᔪᒍᓪᓕ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ region and that would allow the DEAs to still ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑏᑦ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᓂ ᐱᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ control those, whichever option that they so ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ choose from. ᓇᓕᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᓂᕈᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᓂᔾᔪᒃ.

This is also in relation to planning around teacher orientation and professional ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᖕᒥᔪᖅ ᒪᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ development in the school calendar, as well as ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑏᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ exams for high school students at the end of ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐊᓗᖕᒥ the school year. We know that sometimes ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐃᓕᓯᒪᓕᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ some schools are out way in advance of when ᐅᓪᓗᓕᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᒋᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᕐᒧᑦ the exams are supposed to be taking place. ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ There’s much time loss in between when ᑕᒪᑯᐊᕈᓘᔭᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᖃᓯᐅᑎᓇᓱᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᕗᑦ school is out and when the actual exam takes ᐃᓕᓴᖅᑏᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐊᓗᖕᒥ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᑎᑦ place. We want to further keep those in mind ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ and allow students to retain as much ᐃᓱᒪᒋᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗᑎᒃᑯᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. information right up until exams take place. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ. Lightstone.

Mr. Lightstone: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. I’ve got three more topics to discuss: ᐱᖓᓱᒃᑲᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᖃᖅᑐᖓ. ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ, regulations, school space needs determination, ᐃᓕᓴᕐᕕᑦ, ᐃᓂᒃᓴᕆᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᓪᓗ, ᑭᓐᖑᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ, as well as inclusive education. ᐱᓇᓱᒍᒪᓃᓪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᐸᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓃᑦ.

My next topic will be on the regulations. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓂᐊᓕᕐᒥᔭᕋ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓅᓕᖓᓪᓗᓂ. ᐃᑉᐸᒃᓴᖅ Yesterday the Iqaluit DEA made their ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ comments about the issues surrounding ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ regulation development and how, since the ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ passing of the 2008 Education Act, there are ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓᓂᒃ 2008ᒥ. ᓱᓕᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᑦ still some outstanding regulations to be ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑕ ᑭᖑᕙᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ. produced.

Before I pose my questions to the Minister, I ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᓚᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᓐᓂᒃ ᓱᓕ ᐊᐱᕆᔪᒪᓪᓗᖓ was just wondering if the Iqaluit DEA would ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᖏᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᒐᑉᑎᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ just restate their concerns over regulation ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. development. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ, Workman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᐊᓄᑦ.

ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᑕᐃᑉᑯᐊᖃᐃ ᐊᒡᓚᒡᕕᓕᕆᔨᓄᑦ Mr. Workman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ᕿᓚᒥᐅᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓵᓕᖁᔭᖏᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ. thank the Member for the question. When it comes to regulations, a lot of the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᕐᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ administrative ones were dealt quite quickly. ᑲᑎᒪᖃᑎᖃᑦᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅᐸᓚᐅᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᖃᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᓂᒃ 2009−ᒥᓂᑦ ᐅᐱᕐᖔᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᖦᖢᒍ 2013-ᒥ. With the Department of Education we had a ᑭᓯᐊᓂᑦᑕᐅᖅ, ᕿᒥᕐᕈᕙᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑕ ᑭᓱᓪᓚᑦᑖᓂᒃ group of stakeholders that would meet on a ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᒃ, ᐃᓛᒃ, ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᓐᓂᒃ regular basis from 2009 through the spring of ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓇᓱᕆᓯᒪᔭᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓛᓪᓗᐊᑕᖃᐃ ᐊᓯᐊᒍᑦ 2013, but there were some specific policies ᑐᑭᓕᐅᕆᓇᒐᔭᕈᑦᑎᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᖕᒪᖔᑦ that I looked at as being significant and that ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᑐᑭᖓ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᓇᔭᕈᑦᑎᒍᑦ was rewording of what it meant to be a 2000-ᒥ ᒪᓕᒐᓐᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᒥ ᖃᓄᖅ teacher. They changed the definition to the ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᓂᖅ ᑐᑭᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᓯᕗᓂᐊᓂᓕ 2000−08 2000 Act what a teacher meant. Before, in the ᐊᑯᓐᓂᖓᓂ ᓱᓕ ᑎᑭᓐᖏᑎᓪᓗᒍ 2000-08 period of time with the Education ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᓂᐅᑉ Act, the definition of a teacher was someone ᑐᑭᖓ ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᕙᒃᑐᒥᒃ who taught in the school, I’m paraphrasing, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ. ᐊᓯᐊᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᕆᐊᑦᓯᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᒃᑯ. and who had qualifications to be such. What ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ they did was they expanded that term and ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕈᓂ. ᑐᑭᖓᓕ what I was nervous about was who were they ᐅᐃᒍᔭᐅᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ. ᒪᑐᒥᖓᓕ looking at expanding what a teacher could be ᖁᒃᓴᓱᕈᑎᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᒪ ᑭᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ because certification was a question mark that ᑐᑭᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᔪᓐᓇᕆᐊᖓᓂᒃ they were going to look at through the ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᔪᖅ? ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ

regulation process. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᐅᓂᖓᓂᒃ.

ᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᒃᑯ. ᖃᐅᔨᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᒪ My concern was this: it was an incident that I ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑲᑕᒃᐸᒃᑎᓪᓗᖓ discovered in my travels as president of the ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖑᓚᐅᑲᒃᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᑦ Nunavut Employees Union. I went to Rankin ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᕐᒦᑦᑎᓪᓗᖓ Inlet and I found that the custodians were ᖃᐅᔨᓕᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᒪ ᐃᓕᓴᕐᕕᖕᓂ ᓴᓗᒻᒪᖅᓴᐃᔨᑦ teaching in the classroom and they were not ᐃᓕᓴᐃᖃᑕᐅᕙᖕᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᒡᓗᕈᓯᕐᓂᒃ. being compensated as such. I thought it was a ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᖃᓯᐅᑎᔭᒥᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᕙᒐᑎᒃ. bit unusual that that would actually occur. In ᑕᒪᓐᓇᓗ ᐋᓪᓚᐅᕆᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᒃᑯ fact I went to other schools in the Kivalliq and ᑕᒪᐃᑦᑐᖃᓪᓚᑦᑖᕈᓐᓇᕆᐊᖓᓂᒃ. ᐊᒡᓛᑦ, I found the same thing, that there were NEU ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓅᑲᑕᒃᑲᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓴᕐᕕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥ staff who were not program staff, good people ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓕᕆᓪᓗᖓ. with incredible knowledge, but they weren’t ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᕙᒃᖢᑎᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ being compensated for being teachers. I posed ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᖃᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ that question with the Assistant Deputy ᐱᓕᕆᑎᑕᐅᕙᒃᖢᑎᒃ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ Minister of the time and asked him, “What is ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᑕᒥᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᒐᑎᒃ your intention with certification? Does that ᐃᓕᓴᐃᖃᑕᐅᕙᖕᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ mean you are going to certify anyone in the ᐊᐱᖅᓲᑎᒋᓕᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᕙᕋ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᑐᒡᓕᐊᑕ school system that could be deemed a ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᖓᓐᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᑦᓱᒪᓂᐅᓕᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᐱᕆᓪᓗᒍ, teacher?” He gave me a nod, which scared the ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᐊᖅᐱᓯ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ? ᑕᐃᒪᓖ heck out of me. ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒦᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᑖᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᖕᓂᐊᓕᖅᐸᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕐᕕᖕᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᓕᕐᓗᑎᒃ? I look forward to the education staff ᐅᕙᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᕋᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᖢᓂ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ regulations and it hasn’t changed. That’s the ᐊᒃᓱᑦ ᖁᒃᓴᓪᓚᒍᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᕋ. one that I was looking at, how they were ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᖕᓂᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᐳᖓ ᐃᓕᓴᕐᕕᖕᓂ going to fashion it, and in the meantime we ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᒃ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, have, as you know and as we have discussed ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᓯᒪᖏᒻᒪᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓗᐊᑕᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᒃᑯ throughout these hearings, is that we now ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᔾᔫᒃ? ᑕᒪᑐᒪᓂᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒐᕕᑦ have a shortage of Inuit and Inuktut-speaking ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᕋᑦᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᑕᒡᕙᓂ ᓈᓚᖕᓂᐅᔪᓂ. teachers. Who are and who aren’t? I mean ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᐊᒥᒐᖅᓯᓕᖅᐳᒍᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ they’re all questions that I wanted to address. ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᑕᒡᕙ ᑭᒃᑰᕙᑦ ᑭᒃᑰᓐᖏᓚᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔪᒪᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲ.

Two years ago, as a member of the Coalition ᑕᒡᕙ ᐅᑭᐅᑦ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᐊᓂᒍᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᐳᑦ of the Nunavut DEAs executive, I attended a ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᖃᑕᐅᓕᖅᖢᖓ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ meeting with the executive director, Nikki ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᐊᓛᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᒃᑯᑦ Eegeesiak, at the time and we shared our ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑲᑎᒪᖃᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᕗᖓ concerns because they were looking at ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑎᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᖓᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᔨᑦᓯᐊᒥᒃ. eliminating some of the positions that were ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑕᓗ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ. currently operated. They didn’t get into much ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᓐᓄᒃ ᐲᔭᐃᓇᓱᒐᔭᕆᐊᒥᒃ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓂᒃ more than that; some of the specialist ᐃᓂᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐃᑯᖓᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᑐᒥᒃ positions and as teaching, but that was it. ᐱᓪᓗᐊᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᑕ. ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᐊᔪᖏᓐᓂᖃᐅᖅᑐᐃᑦ They didn’t talk about the school community ᐃᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖏᖦᖢᑕ ᐃᓕᓴᕐᕕᑦ counsellor position, if they needed to be ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓂᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ certified. They didn’t talk about student ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᑖᕆᐊᖃᕈᑎᒃ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕋᑦᑕᓗ support assistants. We weren’t sure where ᐃᓕᓴᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᐅᕙᒃᑐᓂᒃ. ᑕᒡᕙ they were going with it, but nevertheless, we ᓱᖅᑯᐃᖅᓯᒻᒪᕆᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᓐᖏᓚᒍᑦ ᓇᒧᓐᖓᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᒍᑎᒋᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ,

shared our concerns and we haven’t heard ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᕙᕗᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᔭᕗᑦ anything back since. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓂᓪᓗ ᑐᓴᕐᕕᒋᓐᖐᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒍ.

There is about, I believe, six or seven ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 6, 7-ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ different regulations that have yet to be ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓯᒪᓐᖏᓚᑦ ᓱᓕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ 2008-ᒥᓂᑦ addressed. That’s from the 2008 Act and ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᔪᖅ. ᑕᑯᓪᓗᒍ, ᐅᑭᐅᑦ 11-ᖑᓕᖅᑐᑦ 12 we’re looking at…this is 11 years, going on ᐅᑭᐅᖑᓂᐅᔭᓕᖅᑐᑎᒃ. ᐅᕙᓐᓄᓪᓕ 12 years. To me there isn’t a focus, so those ᑕᐅᑐᓪᓗᐊᑕᖅᑕᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᖑᕗᑦ ᑕᒡᕙ are my concerns. Thank you. ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᔭᒃᑲ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Minister Joanasie, with ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒥᓂᔅᑐ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ, regard to the development of regulations ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ, following the fundamental rewrite of the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ Education Act back in 2008. Minister ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᒻᒪᕆᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ 2008-ᒥ. Joanasie. ᒥᓂᔅᑐ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ.

Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have full intentions of ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, spending some time and effort on regulations. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒐᓱᓪᓚᕆᒍᒪᔪᒍᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕋᓛᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ It has kind of been at a standstill since the ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᓗᒋᑦ. ᓄᖅᑲᖓᖕᒪᑕ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ Education Act review had started many years ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᒋᐊᓕᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍ ᖃᑦᑎᐅᓕᖅᑐᒃᑭᐊᖅ. ago. The intent is that the regulations would ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒐᓱᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ be based a large part on the contents of Bill ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᒪᓕᒡᓗᑎᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 25. That’s as far as we can share at this ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑕᕝᕙᑐᐊᖅ moment. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᒍᓐᓇᑕᒃᑲ ᒫᓐᓇ.

We have full intentions of engaging our stakeholders and consulting with them once ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᖃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᐃᑦ we start the process of reviewing regulations. ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᓛᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ We have four specific ones, educator ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᓕᕈᑦᑎᒍ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᓐᓂᒃ certification, planning and reporting, ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔩᑦ homeschooling, and student records ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑕᐅᓂᕐᒥᒃ regulations, that we need to deal with once ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᐃᑦ. ᒫᓐᓇ this legislative process has taken place. Thank ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓕᕐᒥᒻᒪᑕ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ. Lightstone.

Mr. Lightstone: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. My next question is for the Minister. With ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᓕᕐᒪᔭᕋ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 regard to Bill 25, a lot of the clauses do make ᐱᓪᓗᒍ. ᐊᒥᓱᑲᓪᓛᓗᐃᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᐅᔪᐃᑦ references to regulations. It appears that the ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᖅᔫᔮᕐᖓᑦ DEAs are allowed to maintain a certain ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ amount of authority as long as they abide by ᐱᓯᒪᒍᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᑦᑕᖅᑯᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓱᖃᖅᑐᓂ ᒪᓕᑦᑕᑐᐊᖅᑲᑕ

the regulations that are set out by the ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐊᖑᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ department, for example, the school ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᐅᑉ calendars. The DEAs will be able to select ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᖏᑦ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ from three calendars, but that will be decided ᓂᕈᐊᕈᓐᓇᓂᐊᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᓇᓖᕌᕋᔅᓴᐅᔪᓂᒃ upon in the regulations imposed by the ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑭᓱᓂᒃ ᐅᓪᓗᖃᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒍ Minister. I would like to ask the Minister if ᐋᖅᑭᑦᑕᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᑎ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐊᐱᕆᒍᒪᔭᕋ there will be any sort of involvement by ᐱᖃᑕᐅᕕᖃᓛᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᖃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᐃᑦ stakeholders in the development of these ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, regulations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Minister Joanasie. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ.

Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I just stated that we would ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, engage stakeholders once this legislative ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐄ, ᐅᖃᕋᑖᖅᑐᖓ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᑎᑦᑎᓛᕋᑦᑎᒍ process has completed, and then we need to ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ deal with the regulations. That’s the intention. ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᖃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ. ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓂᖓ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐱᔭᕇᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᓛᕋᑦᑎᒍ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) (interpretation ends) I believe one of our ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᖃᑎᕗᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᒻᒪᑦ colleagues uses the term “ilulikulungit” when ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑦ ᐃᓗᓕᑯᓘᓚᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ referring to the regulations. Mr. Lightstone. ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ.

Mr. Lightstone: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll move on to my next topic and that’s in the ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. DEA’s submission there was a section on ᑭᖑᓪᓕᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᓅᖔᓕᕐᒥᓚᖓ school space needs determination in which the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑕ ᑐᓂᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ DEA notes a concern with clause 79 of Bill ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᐅᑉ ᐃᓂᔅᓴᖏᒡᒎᖅ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ 25, which proposes to amend section 81 of the ᐋᖅᑭᑦᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᖓᑕ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ Education Act with respect to the allocation of ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᖃᕐᖓᑕ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓᓂᒃ 79- classroom space. My question to the Iqaluit ᖑᔪᒥᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᒥ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᒐᓱᓐᓂᐅᓴᔪᒥᒃ DEA is: in your view, what specific changes ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 81-ᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ to the proposed amendment would ensure that ᐃᓂᔅᓴᑖᕈᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᕕᔅᓴᓂᒃ. protections are in place for students of district ᐃᖃᓗᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ education authorities which may be affected ᑕᑯᓐᓈᖅᑕᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᒐᓱᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ by the implementation of this section of the ᐊᓯᔾᔨᑕᐅᑉᐸᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ Act? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᓴᐅᒐᔭᕐᖓᑕᐃᓛᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᒐᔭᖅᑲᑦ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Workman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ.

Mr. Workman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Member for the question. This ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ exercise was given to us about I think it was ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃᑕᐅᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᐊᐱᕆᒻᒪᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᖃᐃᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ

two years ago, where what the department ᐊᕐᕌᒎ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᐊᓂᒍᓕᖅᐸᓪᓚᐃᔫᒃ officials did is they took a grid and they just ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. applied it to our school blueprint plan and ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑐᕈᑎᓂᑦ ᖃᐃᑦᑎᑕᖅᑯᐃᑦ they didn’t take into consideration the ᐃᓕᔭᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᑕᖅᑯᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᑦᑕ equipment or the actual usability of the school ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᑎᓂᐊᕐᖓᑦ. space. ᐃᓱᒪᖃᕆᐊᓐᖏᑎᐊᖅᑐᑎ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᕋᔅᓴᐅᒐᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᖅ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᐅᑉ For example, at Inuksuk High School they ᐃᓂᔅᓴᖁᑎᖓ. have shop. They have extensive shop programs where there’s a lot of equipment in ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᒃᓱᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐊᓗᒻᒥ the room. What they did was they took their ᓴᓇᕕᖃᕐᖓᑕ ᓴᓇᕕᕈᓘᔭᓕᐊᓘᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ overlay and they put it on the map and they ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑦᑎᕕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᓂ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᖃᐅᕈᓘᔭᖅᑐᑎ did not discount the fact that we had capital ᐃᓪᓗᕈᓯᕐᒥ ᐃᒪᐃᔪᔪᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᖃᓕᕇᓕᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ equipment like power saws, jigsaws, and ᐋᖅᑭᑎᖅᑕᐅᑕᖅᑯᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᓐᖑᐊᖑᔮᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ lathes that were in the room. They still ᐃᓂᒋᒐᔭᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓱᒪᖃᓐᖏᑎᐊᖅᑐᑎ ᒪᑯᐊ counted it as a space within the school that an ᐊᑭᑐᔪᒥᓃᑦ ᑭᓪᓘᑏᑦ ᓂᑭᓪᓚᐅᒨᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ X number of students could actually be in. ᕿᔪᓕᕆᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᐊᑭᑐᔪᒥᓃᑦ ᐃᓗᓕᖃᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ The little office that is in the shop was ᐃᓂᔅᓴᐅᖑᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓐᓂᕐᖓᑦ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᕋᓗᓐᓂ. counted as a possible teaching space for three ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᕋᓛᕈᓗᖃᕆᓪᓗᓂᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᓴᓇᕕᖓᓂ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ students. It was very small. I think you went ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑦᑎᕕᔅᓴᐅᑎᑕᐅᓐᖑᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᒥᑭᔪᐊᓗᒃ to Inuksuk High School and probably noticed ᐱᕕᑭᑦᑐᐊᓗᒃ. ᐃᓄᒃᓱᒃ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒨᕈᔅᓯ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᕋᓛᕈᓗᐊ ᓴᓇᕕᖓᑕ ᑕᑯᒍᓐᓇᖅᑕᓯ. ᖃᓄᖅ one of the shop offices, Mr. Lightstone, and ᐅᖃᕋᓱᒻᒪᖔᕐᒪ ᑕᑯᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᖁᓕᑦᑕᐅᔭᒃᑯᕕᒻᒥ you will know what I mean. It’s not much ᐊᖏᓂᖅᓵᔾᔪᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒻᒪᑦ. ᑕᐃᓐᓇᓕ ᑕᐃᒪ ᓂᕆᕕᖓ bigger than a closet. We found that obviously ᐃᓕᓴᕕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒥᔪᖅᑕᐅᖅ. the cafeteria is a space where we use as open study, but we also use it for other things as well.

They were suggesting that at Inuksuk High School we are only using approximately 70 ᐃᓄᒃᓱᒻᒥ 70 ᐳᓴᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓂᖓᓂᒃ percent of the capacity. It has changed in the ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᓯᒪᔫᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓐᓂ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᓂᒃ last few years because we have higher ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᖃᓕᕐᖓᑕ ᐊᓯᕈᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᕕᖓ numbers of students in classes. In fact the ᕿᒥᕐᕈᕕᐅᒍᓐᓃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑦᑎᕕᐅᖔᓕᕐᒥᔪᖅ 40- library is not a library anymore per se, it’s a ᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᓇᔪᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᕚᓐᔪᐊᐃ real classroom, and we have 40 students. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᓱᓕᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ Much of what Mr. Fanjoy had mentioned ᐃᓄᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᑦᑎᓐᓂ. about class sizes is true in our schools. They ᐃᓱᒪᖃᕆᐊᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑎᐊᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐃᓂᔅᓴᐃᑦ ᑭᓱᒧᑦ didn’t take into consideration what the actual ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕇᖅᐸᒻᒪᖔᑕ. ᓈᓴᐅᓯᕆᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᒃ spaces were used. They just used a very ᐋᖅᑭᑦᑎᕆᓯᒪᔫᔮᕐᖓᑕ ᐊᒻᒪ ᖃᑦᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂᒃ mathematical, very structured way of looking ᐃᓄᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ at things and identifying how many students ᐃᓂᔅᓴᓪᓚᕆᐅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᖅᑕᓕᐊᓘᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ are currently in the room and how much space ᐊᑭᑐᔪᒥᓂᕐᓂᒃ. was available when it wasn’t really available because of capital equipment that was in it.

Another example is the gymnasium. Well, ᐱᓐᖑᐊᕕᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐆᒃᑑᑎᔅᓴᐅᒻᒥᔪᖅ.

even though the gymnasium is a large room, it ᐱᓐᖑᐊᕐᕕᒃ ᐱᕕᑐᔪᐊᓘᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ isn’t made for a classroom of many students. ᓴᓇᔭᐅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑦᑎᕕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ It’s there for a program purpose just like the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒐᓛᓗᓐᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᑲᓃᒻᒪᓪᓕ ᐱᓐᖑᐊᓂᕐᒥᒃ shops are and you have to take those kinds of ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑦᑎᕕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᓴᓇᕖᑦ situations into consideration, and they ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔭᕗᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᓇᑎᒃ appeared not to be. Thank you. ᓴᓇᔭᐅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. Lightstone, please ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒥᔅᑐ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ, continue and keep in mind that we have ᑲᔪᓯᒋᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᕕᑭᒃᑲᑦᑕ. limited time left. You’re done? Okay. ᐱᔭᕇᖅᑮᑦ? (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐᕿᓐᖑᖅ. (interpretation) Thank you. Mr. Qirngnuq.

Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome the ᕿᓐᖑᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᑐᓐᖓᓱᓪᓕ Iqaluit District Education Authority. When ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨᖏᑕ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ. you were being questioned yesterday, you ᐃᑉᐸᒃᓴᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒐᒥ ᐅᕙᓂᓗ responded by saying, and it’s also written here ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᔭᓐᓂ. ᑖᕙᓂ in your opening comments, that in the past, ᖄᒥᐅᖓᓕᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᒥ 1985 ᐱᒋᐊᖅᖢᒍ ᑕᐃᒻᓇ beginning in 1985, you seem to have ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᔅᓵ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᐸᓕᒃᑲᓂ. knowledge of the education system since that ᑐᑭᕼᐃᔪᒪᓪᓗᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᑕᖃᕋᓗᐊᕐᒥᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨᒥᓐᓂᒃ ᐸᕐᕕᓵᕆᔪᓄᑦ time. I would like to get clarification, as it ᐃᖢᐃᕼᐊᕆᔪᓄ’ᓗ. ᑖᕙᓐᖓᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᖢᒍ ᐅᑉᓗᒥᒧᑦ includes a reference to early childhood ᑎᑭᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᕐᓕᑭᐊᖅ ᑕᐃᒻᓇ ᐃᑦᑑᓕᖅᐸ? educators possibly harassing their students or ᑐᑭᕼᐃᔪᒪᓪᓗᖓ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᕙᕋ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. causing problems. From that time up to today, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. how old is this program now? I wish to understand this issue, which is why I am querying the Minister, Madam Chairperson. Thank you.

Chairperson (Ms. Towtongie) ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ (interpretation): Thank you, Member ᕿᓐᖑᖅ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. Qirngnuq. Mr. Workman.

Mr. Workman: Thank you, Madam ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐅᖃᖅᑏ...ᒪᒥᐊᓇᖅ, Speaker…sorry, Madam Chairperson. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

>>Laughter >>ᐃᓪᓚᖅᑐᑦ

We have always had, as far as I can recall, in the school system, and I taught in Pond Inlet ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᒍᓐᓇᑕᓐᓂᓪᓕ ᐱᑕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ in 1978… . I remember, though, you’re right. ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒻᒥ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᒪ 1978-ᒥ It was during the Baffin Divisional Board ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔪᖓ. ᐄ, ᓱᓕᔪᑎᑦ. ᑕᒫᓂ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓗᒻᒥ days that we were encouraged in the school ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑕᖃᖃᑦᑕᑎᓪᓗᒍ system to have spaces for early childhood ᑲᔪᖏᖅᓴᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᒍᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥᐅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑕ education. I know there was a vibrant ᓴᖅᑮᖁᔭᐅᓪᓗᑕ ᐃᓂᔅᓴᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᕆᐊᕐᖓᕐᕕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᐊᖅᑐᓄᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇᓗ

program at the college in those days. I don’t ᓯᓚᑦᑐᖅᓴᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᐊᓘᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ know if that program is still going, but there ᓱᓕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᕙᒻᒪᖔᖅ ᓱᓕ seemed to be a real sense of support for ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑐᖓ. ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂᓕ daycares, even daycares within the school. I ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᑕᓪᓚᕆᐊᓗᔮᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᐸᐃᕆᕖᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ know when I was in Cape Dorset, the daycare ᐃᓕᓴᕕᐅᓪᓗ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐸᐃᕆᕖᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᖓ started in a room in the school. Thank you, ᑭᓐᖓᕐᒥᐅᑕᐅᓪᓗᖓ ᐸᐃᕆᕕᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ Madam Chairperson. ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Workman. (interpretation) Member Qirngnuq. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ. Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I would like to ask the ᕿᓐᖑᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᑖᓐᓇᑦᑕᐅᖅ Minister about that. Are children today more ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐊᐱᕆᔪᒪᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ difficult these days in the beginning of the ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᖏᑕᐃᖅᑐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᐸᑦ school year than they used to be in the past? I ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂᒥᐅᖓᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖃᑦᑕᓕᓵᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ would like to ask the Minister if he knows ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ? ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒥᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᑉᐸᑦ about that. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. ᑐᑭᓯᕕᒋᔪᒪᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᐱᕆᕙᕋ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Member Qirngnuq. We will get back to the ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ. Minister.

Hon. David Joanasie (interpretation): Thank ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, you, Madam Chairperson. I can only say that ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᐃᑉᐸᑦᓴᖅ ᑐᓴᓚᐅᖅᑕᕗᑦ we believe what the coalition president said in ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᒃᑯᖏᑕ her presentation because we rely on them to ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖓ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓱᓕᔪᖅᓴᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒍᑦ. oversee the education system and we believe ᐅᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ in our employees. Thank you, Madam ᐱᓕᕆᔨᓪᓗᐊᑕᕆᖃᑦᑕᕋᑦᑎᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᓕᔪᖅᓴᖅᓱᑕ Chairperson. ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔨᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Joanasie. Mr. Qirngnuq, I’m going ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ. ᕿᓐᖑᖅ back to you. ᐅᑎᕐᕕᒋᕙᒋᑦ.

Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): Thank you, ᕿᓐᖑᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᐆᒧᖓᑦᑕᐅᖅ Madam Chairperson. I would like to ask a ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᖏᑦᑕ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ question to the Iqaluit District Education ᐊᐱᕆᔪᒪᓪᓗᖓ. ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑖᓂ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ Authority. In the last paragraph on page 3 of ᑭᖑᓪᓖᑦᑐᐹᒻᒪᕆᒻᒥ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᑉᐱᕌᓂ ᐱᖓᓱᒋᔭᐅᔪᒥ. their submission, the very last sentence, it ᑭᖑᓪᓖᑦᑐᐹᒻᒪᕆᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ states that (interpretation ends) Bill 25 ᐃᓪᓗᐊᖅᕼᐊᒐᐅᓂᖓ ᑖᑉᓱᒪ Bill 25 ᑕᕝᕙᓂ (interpretation) should “be allowed to die on ᖄᖏᖅᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂᖓ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ the order paper.” However, yesterday the ᐃᓪᓗᐊᖅᕼᐃᖅᑲᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᑕ ᒥᒃᓵ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ. Iqaluit District Education Authority’s words ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᐃᑉᐸᔅᓴᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ were that it would be better if we just keep the ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔮ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᑐᖃᖅ old Act. Did I understand what was said ᕿᒪᓐᖏᒃᑯᑦᑎᒍ ᐃᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑰᕆᓪᓗᓂᐅᒃ ᑕᕝᕘᓇ ᑐᑭᕼᐃᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓᓗᑭᐊᖅ

correctly? Can the DEA explain that further? ᑐᑭᕼᐃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖓᓗᑭᐊᖅ, Madam Chairperson, that’s my question. ᑭᓪᓕᒋᒃᓯᒋᐊᖅᐹᓪᓕᕈᓐᓇᖅᐸᒍ? ᑐᕼᐊᕈᒪᓪᓗᖓ Thank you. ᐃᒃᕼᐃᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ ᐊᐱᕆᕗᖓ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ. Member Qirngnuq. Let’s go back to Mr. ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐᒧᑦ. Workman. ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ ᐊᒻᒪ Mr. Workman: Thank you, Madam ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᐊᐱᕆᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᑲᕋ. Chairperson. I thank the Member for the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ question. The Education Act that made Royal ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ 2008-ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ Assent in 2008 has not fully been enacted. It’s ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᒌᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ, not finished. We talked about regulations. The ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖅᑲᐅᒻᒥᒐᑦᑎᒍ regulations aren’t complete, but the full Act ᐱᔭᕇᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᒫᖅ has never been fully implemented. ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ.

For example, in the previous Act, in the Act ᐆᑦᑑᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᔪᔪᒥᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ 2000-ᓕᓴᕐᒥᒃ. of 2000 to 2008, the Minister had the 2000 2008-ᒧᑦ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐱᔭᔅᓴᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ responsibility of developing and ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᑦᑐᓂᑦ implementing standards of education. When ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᔅᓴᓂᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ the Act was being looked at for modification, ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᖓᑦ they removed the words “standards of ᐲᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ education” and they put the words “high ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ, ᖃᓄᖅ ᖁᑦᑎᒋᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ. quality of education.” At that time I spoke to ᐱᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᑐᐃᓐᓇᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, the Minister of the day, Minister Picco, and ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖓ asked him, “Are you eliminating standards of ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᒧᑦ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐲᑯᒧᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᓪᓗᒍ education within the education system in ᐲᔭᐃᕖᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᒋᐊᓕᓐᓂᒃ Nunavut?” His reply was, and I recall, “No, ᐊᔾᔨᒌᑎᑦᑎᔪᑎᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ? ᑭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ no, quality means more than just standards. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᒐᒃᑯ, ᐋᒡᒐᒎᖅ. ᐱᐅᔪᖅ ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑐᖅ We’re going to ensure it all.” ᐊᔾᔨᒌᑐᐃᓐᓇᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᒻᒪᑦ.

Well, since 2008 there doesn’t appear to be an ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓ 2008-ᒥᓂᑦ implementation or a development of standards ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᔫᖄᓐᖏᑎᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ of education throughout our school system, ᖁᑦᑎᒋᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᑦᑎᓐᓂ and that’s a major piece. Yesterday Mr. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᖏᔪᐊᓘᓱᒋᔭᕋᓕ. ᐃᑉᐸᔅᓴᖅ ᑕᐃᒪ ᒥᔅᑕ ᕋᒻᐴᑦ Rumbolt asked questions of Mr. Fanjoy ᐊᐱᕆᓚᐅᕐᖓᑦ, ᐊᐱᖅᓱᓚᐅᕐᖓᑦ ᒥᔅᑕ ᕚᓐᔪᐃᒥᑦ regarding student progression. Well, we don’t ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐃᒫᒃ have standards of education grade by grade. ᑕᕝᕙ ᑎᑭᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓕᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ We don’t. Students are socially passed. They ᐱᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᖕᓂᖏᑎᒎᖓᔪᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ stay with their peer group. The teachers are ᐊᕐᕌᒍᖃᑎᒥᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᑎᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ left from year to year to provide programs for ᖁᑦᑎᖕᓂᒃᑲᓂᕐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᓪᓗ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ catch-up. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕋᔅᓴᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᒐᓱᐊᓲᑦ ᐊᓐᖑᑎᑎᑦᑎᒐᓱᐊᕐᓂᐊᕋᒥ, ᐊᓐᖑᑎᑎᑦᑎᒐᓱᐊᕈᑎᔅᓴᓂᒃ. Oftentimes we have students who reach grade 10 and are met with real standards from ᐊᒥᓱᐊᖅᑎᐊᓗᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᖕᓂᖓ 10-ᒧᑦ Alberta and they can’t be met. That’s why we ᑎᑭᐅᑎᕙᑦᑐᐃᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᑯᒐᐃᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᓪᓚᕆᐊᓗᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᐅᓪᕘᑕᒦᙶᖅᑐᓂᒃ

have lots of dropouts in grade 10. Grades 10 ᐱᒍᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᐃᑦ. ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᖁᑦᑎᖕᓂᖓ 10-ᒥᑦ and 11 are a place where I see so much ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑐᒐᓛᓘᖃᑦᑕᖅᑯᐃᑦ, ᖁᑦᑎᖕᓂᖓ 10 ᐊᒻᒪ 11 frustration of students being caught. Yes, we ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᓴᐱᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓪᓚᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑕ do have some successes, but we could have ᐃᓚᖏᓂᓛᒃ ᐱᔭᕇᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ. ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᐃᑦ had more successes of our Inuit students ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᖁᑎᕗᑦ through that period of time. We do not have ᐱᔭᕇᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᕋᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ. ᐃᒫᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ standards within our school system. Thank ᑎᑭᑕᐅᒐᓱᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓕᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑎᕆᓯᒪᓐᖏᓇᑦᑕ. you, Madam Chairperson. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Workman. (interpretation) Let’s proceed. Member David ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. Qamaniq. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑕ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ, ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ. Mr. Qamaniq (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I will speak in English. ᖃᒪᓂᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᕐᓗᖓ (interpretation ends) On page 2 of your (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒪᑉᐱᖅᑐᒐᖓᓂᒃ 2 ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᖁᒐᔭᖅᑕᓯᓐᓂᒃ submission you addressed the proposed ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᒃᑲᐃᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ changes to Bill 25 which expand and clarify ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᒍᓯᒋᒐᔭᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ the role and responsibility of the Coalition of ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ. Nunavut District Education Authorities. Can ᓱᖅᑯᐃᕐᓇᖅᑎᑦᑎᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᐲᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ you provide further clarification on why you ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓕᕆᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᖅᑎᑦᑎᓚᖓᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᐅᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, feel this initiative will put more administrative ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. pressure on the district education authorities?

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ. Member Qamaniq. Let’s go back to Doug ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ ᑕᒡ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. Workman. ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ Mr. Workman: Thank you, Madam ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᒻᒥᒐᒪ ᑕᒪᑐᒪ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ Chairperson. I thank the Member for the ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᖏᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ question. The Coalition of Nunavut DEAs has ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᖃᕐᒪᑎᒃ, ᑎᒥᖃᐅᖅᓱᑎᒃ two staff members right now and we have a ᑲᑎᒪᔨᓂᒃ, ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᖃᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ board, which I am a member of, and Mr. ᐃᑉᐸᔅᓴᖅ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᓚᐅᕐᒥᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓃᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ Ameralik who was here yesterday had been a ᐃᑉᐸᔅᓴᖅ. ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔭᐃᓯᒪᔪᒍᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᓱᓇᒥᒃ past member of the board. We have lots of ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᑯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᒐᔭᖅᑕᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ energy, we have a vision of what we would ᑕᑯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᕗᒍᑦ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᒍᑎᔅᓴᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ like to see happen, and we would like to see ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖁᓪᓗᑕ. more resources given to the coalition so that we can do our work. ᒫᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᓯᕈᖅᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᔪᒻᒥᔫᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖓᓂᒃ The current proposal and I know that Bill 25 ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᒐᓱᐊᔪᔪᒥᒃ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓂᕆᐅᒍᒪᔪᒍᑦ changed from the initial legislative proposal, ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔩᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ but it still remains where the expectation for ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᐃᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᐃᑎᑦᑎᔨᐅᓗᑎᒃ the Coalition of Nunavut DEAs is to do the ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᓄᓇᓕᐅᔪᐃᑦ training of the DEAs with four positions. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᐊᓛᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᓯᑕᒪᓂᒃ ᑎᒍᓯᑉᐸᑕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᓂᒃ.

We’ve had many meetings with the ᐅᖃᓪᓚᓐᓂᕐᒦᖏᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᒍᑦ Department of Education. We have explained ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐊᕋᑕ, ᐊᒥᓱᐊᖅᑎ to them numerous times that, to do the job ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᕗᑦ ᓯᕗᒧᐊᒃᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᐸᑕ. effectively, as effective as the way it was in ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓂᖃᐃ 1980-ᖏᓐᓂ, 1990-ᖏᓐᓂ the ‘80s and ‘90s, we need many more than ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓗᒍ ᓯᑕᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᓂᐅᔪᓂᒃ four positions. To do the job effectively, we ᐱᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒋᐊᓕᒃ, ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓂᐅᔪᔪᒥᒃ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ need the support of the school principal. We ᐃᑲᔪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒫᓐᓇ no longer have the support of the adult ᐅᐱᓐᓇᕋᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ ᐲᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓕᕐᖓᑕ educator. That position has moved onward, ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᐃᔨᐅᖃᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ, but we’re going to need a lot of community ᐳᓚᕋᒃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᐃᓕᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᐅᔪᐃᑦ visits and there needs to be a lot more than ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓂᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ. four.

We suggested that if we had ten positions, it ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᒎᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᖁᓕᓂᒃ ᐃᓐᓄᒍᓐᓇᕈᑦᑕ, would get the work done because certainly ᐱᔭᒃᓴᕗᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑐᒥᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓂᖃᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒪᑦ, we’re going to need to look at training our ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖅᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᐃᒍᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᑕᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ DEA members in policy and governance. It’s ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ not easy to read or try to develop policy. You ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔪᓯᕆᔭᖏᑕ ᒥᔅᓵᓅᖓᔪᒥᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ really need someone special. That’s a ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒫᓐᓇ specialized field and we need training at the ᐊᔾᔨᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔨᒋᔭᐅᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪ local level for us to be able to talk coherently ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᐅᔪᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᐱᖃᖃᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ to the department when those situations arise. ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ For example, regulations where the Minister ᑭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒦᒋᐊᖃᓕᕌᖓᑕ. ᓲᕐᓗ suggested, “We will engage in stakeholders,” ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔭᐃᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑎᒥᐅᖃᑎᒌᑦ, well, we want to be able to come as ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᖃᑎᒌᑦ. ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᑦᑎᐊᕈᒪᒐᑦᑕ stakeholders, representatives of our ᓄᓇᓕᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑐᒥᒃ ᑭᐅᓂᖃᕈᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᑕ. communities, and be able to work intelligibly ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᒍᑦᑕ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ and coherently with the knowledge and skills ᒪᓕᒐᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᒫᓐᓇᓕ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ about policy and regulation development. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓂᖃᓲᖑᒐᑦᑕ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ Right now we rely on contractors, but we ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖃᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, need all of our members to be well educated ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. and well developed in that area. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Chairperson: Thank you, Doug Workman. Before I go back to Member Qamaniq, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᑕᒡ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ (interpretation) I would like to hear from the ᖃᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᑎᒃᑲᓂᕐᓂᐊᖅᑳᕐᓗᖓ ᑐᓴᕐᕕᒋᔪᒪᒐᒃᑯ Minister. (interpretation ends) Bill 25 ᒥᓂᔅᑕ, ᑖᓐᓇ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 (interpretation) is changing the number of (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐊᓯᕈᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔨᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ staff positions from four to six. I want to ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᓯᑕᒪᓄᑦ 6-ᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᓪᓗᑎᒃ, ᑖᓐᓇ know where that number comes from and how ᓇᑭᙶᕐᒪᖔᖅ ᓇᐃᓴᐅᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ (interpretation ends) Bill 25 (interpretation) is ᐊᓯᕈᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 changing the roles. Minister, I would like to (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐱᓕᕆᔨᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ hear from you on this. ᑐᓴᕐᕕᒋᔪᒪᒐᒃᑭᑦ.

Hon. David Joanasie (interpretation): Thank ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, you, Madam Chairperson. Yes, we wanted to ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ add four positions and the main purpose is the ᐃᓚᒋᐊᕈᒪᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᓯᑕᒪᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᓗᐊᕐᓗᓂ requirement to train members of local district ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ education authorities so that they will have ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ better knowledge of their roles and ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ responsibilities. We think that they would be ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ responsible for that. As the government we ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ. provide the DEA coalition $665,000 annually, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐱᓕᕆᒐᔭᕐᒪᑕ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ but as a stand-alone society, they would be ᑕᒪᓐᓇ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑕ able to seek third party funding, not only from ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑎᒋᔭᖏᑦ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓂᑦ us. I want that clearly understood. We want it ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ ᑐᓂᖃᑦᑕᕋᑦᑎᒍ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ known that they can seek funding from the $665,000−ᓂᒃ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᑎᒥᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ federal government or other entities. Thank society−ᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃᑕᐅᖅ you, Madam Chairperson. ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓂᑑᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖁᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᓱᒍ ᐃᒻᒪᖄ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒃ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ, Minister Joanasie. I will go back to David ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᐅᖁᔭᕗᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Qamaniq. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ. ᐅᑎᕐᓗᖓ Mr. Qamaniq (interpretation): Thank you, ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ.

Madam Chairperson. Perhaps you can allow ᖃᒪᓂᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᒪᕐᕈᒃᑲᓐᓃᖕᓂᒃ me to ask two more questions. Please let me ᐊᐱᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᑎᒃᑯᕕᖓ, ᐊᐱᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᓪᓗᖓ know if this was asked already. I will speak in ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑕᐅᓯᒪᒃᐸᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓂᐊᕋᕕᐅᒃ. English. (interpretation ends) Section 107 of ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᕐᓗᖓ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐊᑖᓃᑦᑐᖅ 107 the Education Act currently provides that the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖓᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ district education authority has the power to ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᒍᓐᓇᕐᒥᒻᒪᑕᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ recommend the appointment or reappointment ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ of the principal or vice-principal of a school ᑐᖏᓕᖏᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐱᕕᖃᕐᖓᑕ. under its jurisdiction. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᑕᐅᓯᒪᒻᒥᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᐅᒐᓗᐊᕐᒪᑕ It has been suggested that as an employee of ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᑯᑦ ᐊᑖᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ the Department of Education, the contracts for ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᖁᑎᒋᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒐᕙᒪᓄᑦ principals and vice-principals should be ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᖔᕐᓗᓂ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇᓕ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᕕᐅᒃ administered by the government. What is your ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᓇᓕᐊᒃ ᑭᒡᒍᖅᑐᐃᒋᐊᖃᖅᐸ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ position on which entity should be responsible ᑎᒃᑯᐊᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ for the appointment, reappointment, or ᑎᒃᑯᐊᖅᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᓕᖅᑭᓗᑎᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ dismissal of a principal or vice-principal? ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓄᑦ, ᑐᖏᓕᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ? Thank you, Madam Chairperson. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Member Qamaniq. Let’s go back to Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ. Workman. ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐᒧᑦ.

Mr. Workman: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I thank the Member for the ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐊᐱᕆᒐᕕᑦ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

question. We think it should remain as is. We ᐃᓱᒪᖃᖅᐳᒍᓪᓕ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᓱᕐᕋᖏᓪᓗᒍ, work with the school principals on a day-to- ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕋᑦᑕ ᖃᐅᑕᒫᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ day basis. That doesn’t mean everyday I’m at ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᖃᐅᑕᒫᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒦᑦᑐᒍᑦ the schools, but as Chair and I know some of ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ the other DEAs do visit the schools on a ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐊᖅᑕᕐᓗᑎᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ regular basis, whether it’s once a week or ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐳᓛᕆᐊᓲᖑᒻᒥᒻᒪᑕᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔨᒋᔭᐅᔪᐃᑦ whatever. We count on the principals to be ᓱᓕᔫᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑦ ᑭᐅᕕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᑎᓐᓂᒃ honest with us on programming and we ᐱᒃᑯᒋᔭᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑮᓐᓂᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐱᒃᑯᒋᓗᑎᒍᓪᓗ. expect that respect, obviously, both ways. We ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᓂᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᒍᓐᓇᓂᕐᒥᒃ work with them on a closely knit basis. When ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᓂᕐᒦᒍᒪᔪᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ it has come time to actually do the extension ᐅᖓᕝᕙᕆᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᑎᒥᐅᓪᓗᑕ of their terms, I have always sought out ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᓲᖑᒻᒥᔪᒍᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᓲᖑᔪᒍᑦ advice from Qikiqtani School Operations. ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᖏᓐᓂᒃ.

Now, back in 2016 there was a ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂ 2016 ᑐᓴᒃᑲᐃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂ communication protocol developed by the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ, ᐋᒡᒐᒎᖅ Department of Education. I was advised that I ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑎᒍᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ could not ask for that advice, comments from ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᒐᒥ ᑖᓐᓇ the superintendent of schools or from the ᑭᐅᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᓚᐅᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᔅᓴᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓇᓂᓗ executive director. I had to go through the ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᖓᖅᑳᖓᑦᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ department to ask for permission to speak ᑐᑭᒧᐊᒃᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᒥᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐅᕙᖓᖔᖅ with them in that regard. I felt offended that I ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᖔᕐᓗᒋᑦ would have to ask permission for anything ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. when it is in regard to the supervision of our ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᐊᐱᕆᒋᐊᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᔅᓴᖏᒃᑯᑎ schools and our school administrators. I ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂᑦ argued with the ADM that there was no such ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ issue or content in this Act that would suggest ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑲᐅᑏᑦ. ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ otherwise. ᑐᖏᓕᖓ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᐅᔪᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔪᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖅᑕᖃᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ.

Through time we have done our own ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᐃᖃᓗᓐᓂ evaluation and assessment of our school ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓂᑰᔪᒍᑦ principals. There have been principals in ᐅᖓᕝᕙᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᑰᓐᖏᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᑦ Iqaluit that have not been extended for their ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔩᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖏᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ term. They got positions in other ᓲᕐᓗ ᓈᒻᒪᖏᒃᑳᖓ, ᓈᒻᒪᒃᐸᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ communities. They had good traits, but for us ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓂᑰᔪᒍᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ it wasn’t a good match. Frankly that’s the key. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐊᕋᑎᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓂᑦ The DEAs meet with their principals on a ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᐃᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒋᑦᓱᒋ regular basis and they do work with them. I ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖏᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑦ know the principals, like I suggested in my ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᕐᓂᖃᕌᖓᑕ ᓲᕐᓗ opening remarks, are often at odds with what ᑐᑭᒧᐊᒃᑖᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᓲᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑎᒍᑦ direction they get from the department versus ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑎᐊᖅᑕᖓᓂᐅᖅᑰᔨᔪᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ the DEAs, but in most cases, if there is ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔪᐃᓯᒪᓲᖑᒻᒥᔪᒍᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᒪᑐᐃᖔᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ honesty, openness, and willingness on the ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ parties, they can stay as long as they can. We ᐊᑯᓂᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ have principals in Iqaluit that have been there ᐃᓐᓄᒃᓯᒪᐃᓐᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᐃᑦ, ᐃᖃᓗᓐᓂ ᑕᒫᓂ ᐊᑯᓂ for quite some time. It works. It’s in the Act. ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᐃᑦ, ᐃᓛᒃ ᐅᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖅ

Of course there is an opportunity for the ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐃᓚᐅᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ department or the Minister to get involved. If ᐃᓂᒋᔭᖓ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᓐᓂᖅᑲᑕ the recommendation from the DEA is to ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖁᔨᓐᓂᖅᐸᑦ terminate or not extend the term, they can be ᐅᖓᕝᕙᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᓐᖏᓪᓗᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖓᒍᑦ involved, but that is something that they ᐃᓚᐅᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᕝᕘᓇ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ would have to take up. In our case we have ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔩᓐᓇᐅᔭᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ made the recommendations and it has always ᓱᓕᔪᕆᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᒡᒐ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ been honoured. I think that is the way it ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᓂ should be. If you’re doing a good job as a ᐱᑦᑎᐊᕈᓂ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᑦᑎᐊᕈᓂ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᔪᓂᑦ school principal and you’re being, again, open ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᒡᒐ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᑎᑕᐅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᐃᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ and honest and working and trying to ᑐᓴᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᒍᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔩᑦ incorporate the IQ principles in the school and ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐊᓛᖃᑎᒋᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ having a good program, you can stay as long ᓱᕐᕋᒃᑕᐅᖁᔭᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᖓᓂᑦ ᑐᓴᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᒍᑦ. as you want. That’s what I have heard from all of our DEA members through the coalition in time. I think it should remain the same.

We’re accountable. Like I mentioned earlier, all of us DEA members are accountable to our ᐅᕙᒍᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᒐᑦᑕ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔪᒍᑦ constituents. The Department of Education ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ bureaucrats are not accountable to anyone. ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕕᒋᔭᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᑭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕋᑦᑕ, ᑭᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖃᕆᐊᖃᕋᑦᑕ. ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑭᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑕᖏᑦ, That’s my comment. Thank you and thank ᐅᖃᐅᓯᔅᓴᒃᑲ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ ᐊᐳᕆᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᑦ. ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ, you for the question. Thank you, Madam ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairperson.

Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Workman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. (interpretation) I’ll go back to Mr. Qamaniq. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐅᑎᕐᓗᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᒧᑦ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ. Mr. Qamaniq (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. My final question is ᖃᒪᓂᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ short and brief. I’ll speak in English. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒐ ᓇᐃᑦᑐᖅ, ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᕐᓗᖓ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) (interpretation ends) Do you have any specific ᐅᖃᐅᓯᔅᓴᖃᖅᐲᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᖁᒐᔭᖅᑕᕐᓂᒃ ᒫᓐᓇ suggestions for specific amendments to the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᐅᔪᐃᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ current Education Act that you could provide ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᓴᒃᑲᐃᒍᒪᕕᑦ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ to the Committee for our consideration? ᐃᓱᒪᔅᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Thank you, Madam Chairperson. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ. Member Qamaniq. I’ll go back to Mr. ᐅᑎᕐᓗᖓ ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐᒧᑦ. Workman.

Mr. Workman: I think for us, like what we said in our opening remarks, we really see the ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᖅᑲᐅᒐᑦᑕ Coalition of Nunavut DEAs’ submission as ᐱᒋᐊᓐᖓᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᓂᓪᓕᐅᑎᒋᖃᐅᔭᒃᑲᓐᓂᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ being the amending of section 13 of the Act. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᓂᖅᐸᑕ ᐃᓗᓕᑯᓘᔭᖓ 13.1 ᑖᓐᓇ 13.1 is a real valuable possibility that could ᐊᑑᑎᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᐱᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑰᖅᑐᖅ

amend the Act so that Inuktitut is given the ᑖᓐᓇ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ respect. You hear words all the time, ᐱᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓂᑦ ᐱᒃᑯᒋᔭᐅᓂᕐᒦᓪᓗᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓰᑦ, “respect,” but it is real respect for the ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᒃᑯᒋᔭᕐᓂᕐᒦᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ. ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ language in the school system. Yes, it gives ᓴᓐᖓᔅᓯᒋᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ DEAs authorities and it retains them, but ᐃᓗᐊᒍ ᖃᓄᒃ ᓯᐊᒻᒪᒃᑎᑕᐅᓪᓚᕆᓪᓗᓂ. more than anything else, Inuktitut becomes on ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᐊᓛᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔩᑦ par with what the francophones already have. ᑎᒥᖁᑎᒋᔭᖏᑦ ᓂᐱᖃᓪᓚᕆᒻᒪᑕ ᓄᓇᓕᖏᓐᓄᑦ They have many more resources than what the ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓲᕐᓗ ᓇᓕᒧᒌᓕᕐᓗᓂ ᒪᑯᐊ DEAs have to invoke their responsibilities ᐅᐃᕖᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᔾᔫᒥᓗᓂ, and authorities. For me, that’s the one ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ amendment. ᓲᕐᓗ ᓴᖅᑮᓪᓚᕆᒐᔭᖅᑐᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓐᓂᕈᓂ.

I think the rest of the Education Act can remain the same because of the theme I have ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖓ been talking about. Education authority ᒫᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᓱᕐᕋᑕᐅᓐᖏᓪᓗᓂ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ members across Nunavut are accountable to ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᔪᐃᑦ their constituents and the Department of ᓄᓇᕘᓕᒫᒥᑦ ᑭᐅᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ Education bureaucrats are not, but at least ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖃᕐᒪᑕ, ᐃᓛᒃ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ with 13.1, Inuktut gets the respect and ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑖᓐᓇ 13.1 ᑖᓐᓇ appreciation that it so richly deserves. Thank ᐃᓗᓕᑯᓘᔭᖓ 13 (1) ᐱᒃᑯᒋᔭᐅᑉᐸᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ you, Madam Chairperson. ᓈᒻᒪᒐᔭᖅᑐᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑕ Workman. Let’s proceed. Member Quassa. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᖁᐊᓴ.

Mr. Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, ᖁᐊᓴ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒋᑦᑎ. Madam Chairperson. Welcome. I’ll speak in ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᑲᓪᓚᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕋᒪ ᖃᑦᑏᓇᕐᓂᒃ English. I don’t have a lot of questions. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑐᓴᖅᑲᐅᔭᕋᓗᐊᕗᑦ Though I did hear a bit, I would like to ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᒃᑲᓐᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᒃᑲ reiterate a couple of the questions that I heard. ᑐᓴᖅᑲᐅᔭᕋᓗᐊᕗᑦ.

(interpretation ends) At the bottom of page 2 (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐊᓪᓕᖅᐹᖓᓂ ᒪᑉᐱᖅᑐᒐᖓᓂᒃ 2, of your submission, I know you have noted ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒐᕕᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᐅᔪᐃᑦ that “DEAs should have absolute control over ᑎᒥᖁᑎᒋᔭᖏᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᐅᓚᒃᑎᓪᓚᕆᒋᐊᓖᑦ the development of their schools’ calendars.” ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᓕᒫᖅ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕆᔭᖓᓂᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᖏᑦ Earlier today we were talking and you ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ mentioned you need a standardized system ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᐅᖅᑲᐅᒥᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᑎᑕᐅᔫᒥᔭᕆᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ and I know the Minister has being using the ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᔫᒥᔪᒥᑦ term “standardizing” a lot of the things that ᓇᓕᒧᒌᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᑎᑭᐅᑎᒐᔅᓴᓂᓪᓗ we use in our schools. ᐊᔾᔨᒌᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑲᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᑎᒍᑦ. Bill 25 proposes to establish three different school calendars for each of the three regions ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᖅ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᒍᒪᔪᖅ 25 ᐱᖓᓱᓂᑦ across Nunavut, and I know you mentioned a ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓗᓂ ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᓂᑦ ᓴᖅᑮᒍᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᑖᒃᓱᒪ bit about that, and it further proposes that the ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᐅᑉ ᐊᑖᒍ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ DEAs select one of the three calendars for ᓂᕈᐊᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑲᕆᒐᔭᖅᑕᖓᓂᒃ

their region by such a date. Just a little while ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᓪᓗᖅ ᖃᖓᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᓕᓚᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᖓᓂ ago the Minister did mention about that. Is ᓂᕈᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᓪᓗ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥᒃ your view that this approach does not provide ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂᓗ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓲᕐᓗ enough flexibility for each DEA to determine ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓐᖏᓗᐊᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᓂ appropriate school calendars for the schools in ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓐᓂᒃ its district? (interpretation) Thank you, ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᖃᕈᒪᒐᔭᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᒡᓕᖃᕐᓗᓂᓗ Madam Chairperson. ᑖᓐᓇᒎᖅ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᖏᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Member Quassa. Let’s go back to Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᖁᐊᓴ. Workman. ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐᒧᑦ.

Mr. Workman: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I thank the Member for the question. What do I mean by absolute ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ control? A couple of years we had already set ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᕐᓃᕕᑦ. ᖃᓄᖅ ᑐᑭᖃᖅᐸ our school calendar in place and unbeknownst ᐊᐅᓚᒃᑎᑦᑎᐊᒻᒪᕆᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᕐᕌᒍ ᒪᕐᕉᓚᐅᖅᑑᓐᓂᒃ to us, around Christmastime, I think it was ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᓕᕆᓪᓗᓂᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ Christmastime of 2017, our principals got a ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒧᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᕝᕕᕈᔪᒃ letter from the then Assistant Deputy Minister 2017 ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒃᕕᒻᒥᐅᖂᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ imposing dates that would change our school ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖏᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᐅᓯᐊᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᑐᖏᓕᐊᑕ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᕋᖕᓂ ᐅᓪᓗᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᕙᒌᖅᑐᓂᒃ year. We weren’t sought out what we thought ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑕᖓᓂᒃ ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᑖᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. as DEA members. We always set the dates. ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᒻᒪᖔᑦᑎᒍ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ We already set the dates in the previous year. ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᓪᓗᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᕕᐅᓚᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᓂᒃ It goes through the Minister. We understand ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᕙᒌᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕌᓂᕆᓚᐅᖅᑕᖓᓂᒃ. that the Minister can alter the school year; it’s ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒃᑰᓚᐅᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ in the Act, but not a bureaucrat. ᐊᓯᔾᔩᒍᓐᓇᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒦᖅᐸᒌᕐᒪᑦ, ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑐᒧᑦ. I thought it disrespectful that we would have to learn from the school principals in the ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᓐᖏᓗᐊᖅᐸᓗᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ January and we had about two weeks to make ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓂᒃ those modifications. The department had a ᑐᓴᕆᐊᖃᓚᐅᕋᑦᑕ ᒪᕐᕉ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᓰᓐᓂ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ couple of reasons for doing so, but we weren’t ᐊᓯᔾᔩᔪᖃᕋᐃᑉᐸᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ consulted, we were not told, we weren’t given ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᑭᓱᓂᑦ ᑐᓴᕆᐊᕐᕕᐅᓚᐅᓐᖏᓐᓇᑦᑕ, a phone call, and we weren’t given an email. ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔭᐅᓚᐅᕐᓇᑕᓗ, ᐅᖄᓚᕕᐅᓚᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᒍᑦ We had to find out from a school principal ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᐅᓚᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᕆᐊᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ that this is what’s expected of us. I was not ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖓᓂᒃ ᑖᓐᓇᒎᖅ happy with that because we had already ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᑖᓐᓇ shared through community consultations ᖁᕕᐊᒋᓚᐅᓐᖏᓐᓇᒃᑯ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ourselves about what the school year would ᖃᐅᔨᒪᕙᒌᓚᐅᕋᑦᑕ ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒐᔭᕐᒪᖔᖅ. be. That’s what I mean about absolute control. ᑕᐃᒪ ᑐᑭᒋᕚ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᐅᓚᒃᑎᓪᓚᑕ.

I understand that the Minister was cc’d on the letter. He was not. If he was cc’d on an email, ᑐᑭᓯᔭᕋᓗᐊᕋ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐊᔾᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᐸᑦ I would have presumed that he was the one ᑐᑭᓯᒐᔭᓚᐅᖅᑕᕋ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ who was directing the situation. It didn’t ᐊᐅᓚᒃᑎᓱᒋᓚᐅᕋᓗᐊᕋᒃᑯ

happen. I felt disenfranchised. I felt ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓚᐅᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᑦᓰᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᖅᑰᔨᓚᐅᕋᒪ disrespected. I felt that members were ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᖅᑰᔨᓚᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᓕᕗᓪᓗ disrespected and our community was ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᑰᔨᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᓗ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ disrespected. I found out the same thing ᐊᔾᔨᑐᐃᓐᓇᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᔭᐅᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ. ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕗᑦ happened in other regions in the territory. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᕋᓗᐊᖏᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ After a great deal of consultation with our ᓈᒻᒪᒋᓚᐅᓐᖏᓐᓇᒃᑯ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᐅᓚᐅᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ. board, we agreed with them, but I felt incensed. This was not acceptable.

As far as the school calendars are concerned, ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ this has never been a real issue from the ᐃᓱᒫᓗᒋᔭᐅᓗᐊᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ DEAs. None of the DEAs have issues with ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ. school calendars. They have their own school ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ calendars. They have been doing it for as long ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᖃᐅᕐᒪᑕ, ᑕᐃᒪ as I have been up north. There has never been ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᓕᒫᓂ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ an issue raised at the DEA level. It’s the ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᖅᑐᖅᑕᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ department and the bureaucrats coming up ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᑖᓐᓇᓕ with an idea and something I cannot accept. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᖏᓪᓗ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ Thank you, Madam Chairperson. ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᖏᕈᓐᓇᖏᓐᓇᒃᑯ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Workman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. (interpretation) Let’s go back to Member (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᒧᑦ ᖁᐊᓴ. Quassa.

Mr. Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, ᖁᐊᓴ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) Madam Chairperson. (interpretation ends) ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᑦ ᐅᐊᑦᑎᐊᖅ 2001−ᒧ 2000- You mentioned earlier that between 2001 and ᕆᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓄᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥ 2008, I believe that was an old NWT Act or ᒪᓕᒐᑐᖃᐅᖅᑰᓚᐅᕐᒪᑦ, ᓄᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥ ᑎᒍᓯᒪᓚᐅᕋᑦᑎ. adopted from the NWT, and you mentioned ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒐᕕᓪᓗ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᑦᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ about the standard of education, that you ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᓂᕋᖅᑐᒍ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᑦᑐᒥᒃ believed in a standardized education system. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᑉᐱᕈᓱᓐᓂᕋᓚᐅᕋᕕᑦ.

Just on my previous question, I believe the ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᕋᑖᖅᑕᒪ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕ Minister is trying to standardize the system on ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᖅᑰᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᓂᑦ school calendars. I don’t know if you ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᑦ, answered the question that I had. Do you feel ᑭᐅᖃᐅᒐᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᖅᐱᐅᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒐ that this approach does not provide enough ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ. ᐃᑉᐱᒋᕕᐅᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕈᓂ flexibility for each DEA? Does it not do that ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᑲᕕᐅᒃ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ with this proposed amendment? ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓱᕐᓇᓐᖏᓗᐊᕆᒐᕕᐅᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ (interpretation) Thank you, Madam ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᓐᖏᒻᒫᑦ? ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ Chairperson. (interpretation ends) I think I’m ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᔪᒧᑦ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, repeating myself. (interpretation) Thank you, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Madam Chairperson.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Member Quassa. Let’s go back to Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᖁᐊᓴ. ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ, ᒥᔅᑐ

Workman. ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐᒧᑦ.

Mr. Workman: Thank you, Madam ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairperson. I thank the Member for the ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᐊᐱᕆᒻᒪᑦ. ᐊᔾᔨᒌᑦᑐᒥᒃ question. When I talk about standards of ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ education, I’m not talking about calendars. ᐳᖅᑐᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᖕᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐅᖃᖅᑐᖓ, I’m talking about grades; programs in our ᖁᑦᑎᖕᓂ 5−ᒦᑦᑐ ᐃᒡᓗᓕᖕᒥ, ᖁᑦᑎᖕᓂ 5 ᐃᖃᓗᓐᓂ schools. I’m talking about that a grade 5 ᐊᔾᔨᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᒋᓪᓗᓂᐅᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖃᓗᑦᑑᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥ student in Igloolik is at the same grade 5 level ᑕᒪᑐᒥᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑐᖓ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᐅᔪᒥᒃ in Iqaluit or in Cambridge Bay. That’s what ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ. I’m talking about. That’s the high quality of education.

When it comes to other aspects of the Act, ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ I’m not talking about standardizing because it ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ, has not been mentioned at the grassroots; it’s ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ not mentioned at the DEAs. If the DEAs had ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ. concerns about standardizing calendars like ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑲᑎᒪᔨ ᓲᕐᓗ the department thinks, then we would know ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕋᑦᑎᒍ about it through the coalition. The issues that ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ. they have raised are their issues, their ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᓪᓕ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᒻᒪᒋᓪᓕ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ concerns, not at the DEA level, but again I ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᒥᐊᓇᖅ ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᒍ. ᑖᓐᓇ repeat and I apologize for repeating, the ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖓᓂᒃ standards that I spoke about is within the ᖁᑦᑎᖕᓂᖏᑕ ᐳᖅᑐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, school program, the grade levels. Thank you, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Mr. Quassa.

Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Workman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. (interpretation) Let’s go back to Member (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᒧᑦ, ᖁᐊᓴ. Quassa.

Mr. Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. (interpretation ends) At ᖁᐊᓴ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑕᐃᒪ the bottom of page 2 of your submission you ᒪᑉᐱᒐᖅ 2 ᐊᑖᓂ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᓯ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒐᕕᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ note that legislation change would not be ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕆᐊᖃᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ required to make a meaningful change in the ᐊᓯᔾᔩᓇᓱᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᕈᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᑦᓯᑲᓪᓚᓐᓂᒃ classroom, and you provide a number of ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᓯᒪᒐᕕᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ, ᑖᔅᓱᒪ ᐱᔭᕇᑎᐅᓲᖅ. suggestions to achieve this. Can you elaborate ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᐱᐅᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᖓᓱᑦ more fully on each of the three suggestions ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓯᒪᔭᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᒋᕕᐅᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ and why you feel their implementation would ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᐅᓄᖅᓯᕚᓪᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᒐᔭᕐᒪᖔᖅ increase the number of educators in the ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓂᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᕈᓯᕐᒥᑦ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. classroom? (interpretation) Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Member Quassa. Let’s go back to Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᖁᐊᓴ. ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ, ᒥᔅᑐ

Workman. ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐᒧᑦ.

Mr. Workman: Madam Chairperson, may I ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ask a question of clarification of Mr. Quassa? ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᐸᕋ ᒥᔅᑕ ᖁᐊᓴ. ᒪᑉᐱᒐᖅ Is it the bottom of page 2 where it says, 2 ᐊᑖᓂᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᓪᓚᑦᑖᖅᑕᕐᓄᑦ? “Several specific areas of concern…”? Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I thank the Member for the question. I think one of the ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ challenges we have, and I think people have ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖓᓄᑦ. ᐃᓱᒪᒋᒐᒃᑯ ᑕᐃᒪ been talking quite a bit about it, is about the ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᕈᑎᒋᖂᕋᑦᑎᒍ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᒻᒪᕆᖅᑰᕐᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ loss of language, the loss of Inuktut, and ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᓯᐅᔨᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᓯᐅᔨᔭᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ trying to reenergize it in our school system. ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᓄᒃᑭᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᓱᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ. When preparing the submission, I spoke to ᑖᓐᓇᓕ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ our DEAs about the way it was. That’s why ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᖓ. ᑕᐃᒪ we went through the historical process. I ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓚᐅᖅᐳᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᐸᒌᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᓚᐅᕋᒃᑭᑦ, recalled to everybody and I’m sorry I’m going ᒪᒥᐊᓇᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔪᕐᓂᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ down memory lane, but I think it’s a valuable ᐱᐅᔪᒻᒪᕆᐅᖅᑰᕐᒪᑦ, ᐊᖅᑯᑎᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᖅᑰᕐᒪᑦ. path to go for a moment or so.

When I went to Pond Inlet as a young qallunaaq teacher in 1978, we had eight ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᓕᐊᖅᑐᖓ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑑᓪᓗᖓ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᖑᓪᓗᖓ qallunaat teachers on staff. We had more Inuit ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᓪᓗᖓ 1979, 8-ᓂᒃ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓂᑦ on staff than the qallunaat staff. We had a ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᓄᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ position called a classroom assistant where ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓂᑦ. ᐃᓪᓗᕈᓯᕐᒥᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒥᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑦ they were Inuit who were very proficient in ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᓂᑦ ᐊᔪᓐᖏᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ their language of Inuktitut and from K to 6 we ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒥᑭᓛᓂᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᖕᓂᖓ 6 ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ had at least one, we had one classroom ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᖃᐃᓐᓇᐅᔭᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓗᕈᓯᓕᒫᑦ. assistant in the classroom at all times. I was ᖁᑦᑎᖕᓂᒋᒃ 4 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 5 ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᖓ teaching grades 4 and 5. I had a classroom ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ assistant in my class. She was skilled. She had ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒋᓂᖅᓴᕆᓚᐅᕋᒃᑯ, classroom management skills. I learned more ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒋᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᕆᓪᓗᖓ. from her than she learned from me.

Through the ‘80s we had those positions and they were positions that went on to become Inuit teachers, the classroom assistant 1980-ᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖃᓚᐅᕋᑦᑕ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ position. Like I said in my opening remarks, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦ ᐃᓅᓪᓗᑎᑦ those positions left in the ‘90s to save money, ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᕈᓪᓚᑦᑖᕐᓂᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓗ ᒪᑐᐃᕈᑎᓂ I guess. That was the Department of ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᒐᒪ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦ 1990-ᖏᓐᓂ Education, but what a great loss that we had. ᐲᔭᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᖏᑕ For us, in the last few years when I was the ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᓯᐅᔨᔪᒻᒪᕆᐅᓚᐅᕋᑦᑕ ᑕᐃᑰᓇ. NEU president, I used to travel to the schools ᐊᕐᕌᒎᕋᑖᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓄᑦ and I noticed the great difference that took ᓇᕈᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᒪ ᐊᔾᔨᔪᓐᓃᒻᒪᕆᓚᐅᕐᒪᒍ 1990- place in the ‘90s from where it was in the ‘70s ᖏᓐᓂ, 1970-ᖏᓐᓂ, 80-ᓂᓪᓗ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ and ‘80s. There were [fewer and fewer] Inuit ᖃᔅᓰᓇᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ

on staff in all the schools, except for a couple ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ, ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᖃᐃ ᐋᒃᑲᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ of schools, and it made a difference in the ᐊᐅᓚᓂᖓᓂᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ dynamic of the lessons taught and the ᐊᐅᓚᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃ. environment that was in the school.

That’s what I think, if there was a real investment from the Government of Nunavut ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᑦᓯᐊᖅᐸᑕ Department of Education or the Government ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔩᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ. of Nunavut as such to keep the language, you ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᖓᖅ ᐸᐸᐃᓐᓇᕈᒪᒍᕕᐅᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᒥᑦ have to spend money. You need to be able to ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖃᕋᕕᑦ. ᐅᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᐊᓗᒃ do that. Invest it. It needs to have taken place ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖃᖅᑎᓴᑕᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᑲᒃᑯ. a long time ago and that’s what I’m looking at ᐃᓱᒪᓇᕋᓗᐊᖅᐳᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ when I see more, hopefully, Inuit in the ᐃᓪᓗᕈᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᐃᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ classroom working and supporting student ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. achievement. Thank you, Madam ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖓᓄᑦ. Chairperson. I thank the Member for the question.

Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Workman. In the interest of time, try to shorten your ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᒥᔅᑕ ᕗᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪ answers and be specific. We like memory ᓇᐃᓈᕐᔫᒥᒋᐊᖅᐸᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᑎᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᑕᐅᔪᒪᔪᒍᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᒥᑦ lane, but we’re dealing with Bill 25. Going ᐱᓕᕆᒐᑦᑕ. ᑲᔪᓯᒋᐊᕐᓗᑕ, (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) on, (interpretation) Member Aarluk Main. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᐋᕐᓗᒃ ᒪᐃᓐ.

Mr. Main (interpretation): Thank you,

Madam Chairperson. (interpretation ends) On ᒪᐃᓐ: ᒪ’ᓇ, ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒪᑉᐱᒐᖅ 2 page 2 of your submission under bullet 4, you ᑖᓐᓇ ᑎᓴᒪᖓᓐᓂ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᓂᓯᓗᓂ mention specifically, “Downloading of ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ Department of Education Responsibilities to ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ the Coalition of DEAs.” It goes on to say ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᐸᐃᑉᐹᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ “downloading” and it says, “This ᑐᓂᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᓄᑦ, downloading of responsibilities is ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᔾᔮᖏᒻᒪᒡᒎᖅ. irresponsible, puts more administrative pressure on DEAs, and will not improve student outcomes or experiences in the classroom.”

I wonder if you can explain to me the difference between downloading responsibilities and giving more power at the local level because, on the one hand, we keep ᐃᓱᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᓂᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ on hearing that local control, local control, ᑲᒪᒋᔭᒃᓴᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅᑖᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᒃ, and here it appears to be an example where ᑐᓴᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᕋᑦᑕ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ. the Department of Education is giving away a ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᑭᓚᐅᑑᖅᑰᔨᒻᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ responsibility and they’re giving resources to ᑐᓂᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᑲᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᐅᑎᒃᓴᓂᓪᓗ deal with that responsibility, but the ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒡᓗ ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᒃᓴᒧᑦ.

Department of Education is still wrong in ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᑦ ᑕᒻᒪᕐᓂᕋᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᑎᒍᑦ doing this based on your submission because ᑐᓂᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐅᓂᕋᖅᓱᒍ. it’s “downloading.”

Specifically, how do you determine what is “downloading” and what is giving away ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᑐᓂᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓂᐊᕈᕕᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓂᑦ power or putting power at the local level? ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᑐᓂᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ. (interpretation) Thank you, Madam (ᑐᓴᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᒪ’ᓇ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairperson.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ. ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ, ᑕᒡ Member. Let’s go back to Doug Workman. ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐᒧᑦ.

Mr. Workman: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I thank the Member for the ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. question. I will try to be brief, maybe. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖓᓄᑦ. ᓇᐃᓈᕋᓱᓐᓂᐊᖅᐸᕋ ᐃᒻᒪᖃ. When we use those words, it’s to have an impact. Since 2000 there has been less ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᐅᖃᐅᓰᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᕌᖓᑎᒃ attention given to DEAs at the local level. ᐃᑉᐱᓐᓇᕆᐊᖅᓱᒋᑦ 2000-ᒥᓂᑦ. ᒥᒃᖠᕙᓪᓕᐊᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ, Training is essential in many different aspects. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᖅ. ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᐃᓂᖅ Right now I think there are four DEA ᐱᑕᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᑎᒍᑦ. development officer positions across the three ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᑎᓴᒪᐅᓯᒪᖅᑰᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ regions. In fact the second position out of ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ Qikiqtani School Operations in Pond Inlet is ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ rarely filled. We don’t get the advice and the ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᖕᒥ ᐃᓐᓄᒃᑕᐅᒐᔪᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ constant contact that you really need to have ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᖃᑦᑕᖏᓐᓇᑦᑕ. ᐃᒪᓐᓇ for DEAs. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑏᓐᓇᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᓗᐊᕋᑦᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ. DEA members have been going through a high turnover every term. People get ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᖃᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᓐᓇᐅᔭᕐᒪᑕ ᓂᕈᐊᕐᓂᑕᒫᑦ, frustrated, they move on, and then we’re ᐊᑲᐅᒃᓴᕈᓃᕌᖓᒥ ᐊᓯᐊᓅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ retraining people, but the only focus that the ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᐃᓐᓇᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ department has is on financial training. It ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑐᐊᖅ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᐅᒻᒥᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ doesn’t talk about governance. It doesn’t talk ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖏᒻᒪᑦ, ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ about policy development. It doesn’t talk ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ about the other aspects within the Act that are ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᓂᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᐃᑦ as important as financials. A lot of the DEAs ᐊᓯᖏᑎᒍᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ don’t do their own finances. They contract ᐅᓄᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᑳᓐᑐᕌᑦᑎᒍᑦ that work out, yet that’s the only training that ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᐃᓂᑑᖅᑰᔨᖕᒪᑦ appears to be given by the department. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ.

Downloading a failure of the department to have continuous support for DEAs, we see ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑐᓂᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᑕᒻᒪᕐᓂᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ. that as “downloading” because we understand ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᖅᑕᐅᖏᓐᓂᕐᒥᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ that there’s a lot more work involved than just ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᒻᒪᕆᒥᒃ

simply doing financials. There’s a lot of work ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᖏᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔭᒃᓴᖅᑕᖃᒻᒪᕆᒻᒪᑦ, to be done and we will need staff to do so. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᖃᕋᑖᖅᑕᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ Downloading or giving away something that’s ᑐᓂᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᒻᒪᖅᑕᐅᒻᒪᑦ failed within the Department of Education and ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑐᓂᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᓂᕐᒥᑦ with very little resources, that’s why we used ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᐳᑦ. ᐊᐃᕙᔪᓐᓇᕋᓗᐊᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ the word “downloading.” You can make an ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑎᓴᒪᓄᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᓄᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ argument that well, they are sharing, but I will ᐊᑲᐅᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᐃᔪᓐᓇᔾᔮᖏᓇᑦᑕ ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᑦ, tell you that with four positions, we’re not ᑖᓐᓇ ᒥᑭᑦᑐᑯᓘᖕᒪᑦ. ᑕᐃᒫᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ going to be able effective jobs of training on ᑐᓂᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᖅᐸᕋ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒥᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. an ongoing basis. It’s minimal and that’s why ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ. I used the word “downloading.” Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I thank the Member.

Chairperson: Thank you Mr. Workman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. (interpretation) Let’s go back to Member (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᐋᕐᓗᒃ Aarluk Main. ᒪᐃᓐ.

Mr. Main (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. (interpretation ends) Just ᒪᐃᓐ: ᒪ’ᓇ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) a very specific follow-up on that, it was ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒋᐊᒃᑲᓂᕐᓗᒍ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᐅᖅᑲᐅᔪᖅ mentioned earlier and the witness just ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᔭᐅᖅᑲᐅᓪᓗᓂ. ᑖᔅᓱᒪᓗ ᖃᐃᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔫᑉ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᖢᓂᐅᒃ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᓄᑦ mentioned that there are not enough positions ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᐅᓄᖏᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ. being allocated for this training responsibility. ᐅᓄᖅᓯᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓚᐳᑦ ᐅᑯᑎᒎᓇᖅ, ᖁᓕᓄᖅᑲᐃ, ᑖᓐᓇ If the number of positions allocated through ᑕᐃᔭᐅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ, 9−ᓂᑦ 12−ᓄᑦ ᑎᑭᓪᓗᒍ the bill were increased, let’s say to 10, I ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖅᑖᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ. ᐃᓛᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᒃᓴᐃᑦ believe which was mentioned before… . The ᐃᓂᖏᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᖅ, ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᖅᓯᒪᓗᓂ, coalition mentioned they need 9 to 12 staff. If ᓈᒻᒪᒋᔭᐅᓗᓂᓗ ᐃᖃᓗᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ it was significantly increased through this bill, ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᒪ’ᓇ, would the proposed arrangements be ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. acceptable from the Iqaluit DEA’s point of view? (interpretation) Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᐋᕐᓗᒃ ᒪᐃᓐ. Member Aarluk Main. Let’s go back to Doug ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ, ᑕᒡ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. Workman.

Mr. Workman: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I thank the Member for the ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ suggestion. I know from our discussions at the ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᖢᒍ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ coalition executive level that that is feasible. I ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᒃᓴᓕᐅᕐᒪᑦ. ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔩᑦ know that providing what’s mentioned in the ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᖃᑎᒋᒡᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ current Bill 25, if we were to get 9 to 12… . I ᐊᔪᕐᓇᔾᔮᖅᑰᖏᒻᒪᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25−ᒥ chose 10 because that was the number I kept ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒡᓗᓂ 9−ᓂᑦ 12−ᓄᑦ, 10 ᐅᓇ using, but yes, if it was 10 positions, it is ᓂᕈᐊᖅᖠᖅᑲᐅᔭᕋ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᒃᑯ. ᖁᓕᐅᖅᐸᑕ workable. That would be workable if that was ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᕋᔭᖏᑦᑐᖅ.

to change because we would able to offer the ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓐᓂᖅᐸᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᕋᑦᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ. support necessary at the grassroots level for ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑐᕐᔪᐊᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ the DEAs. We’ve had a big turnover this time ᓂᕈᐊᕐᓂᖅᑕᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᒡᓗᖑ, in the election process, so we’re going to need ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᒃᓴᓕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᒍᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ much more training. If the Minister is true to ᓴᓇᔭᐅᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ, ᐄ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦ ᓄᑖᑦ his word when it comes to engagement for ᐊᑐᓪᓚᕆᒐᔭᖅᑐᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. stakeholders, when it comes to the development of regulations, we’re going to need that. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Workman. Let’s go back to Member Aarluk ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ Main. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᒧᑦ ᐋᕐᓗᒃ ᒪᐃᓐ.

Mr. Main (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. (interpretation ends) I ᒪᐃᓐ: ᒪ’ᓇ, ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒪᕐᕈᐃᓐᓈᓐᓂᒃ just have two more questions; I’m almost ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᖃᓕᕋᒪ. done here.

The DEA’s submission mentions the coalition of DEAs and Mr. Workman mentioned the ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦᑕ ᑎᑎᕋᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᑦ, ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᓂᓕᕆᖕᒪᑕ. ᒥᔅᑕ coalition of DEAs. I believe he is involved ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᖃᑕᐅᔪᒃᓴᐅᒐᒥᐅᓇ with the coalition of DEAs. Nunavut ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ Tunngavik Incorporated is also involved in ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᐃᑲᓃᖃᑕᐅᒡᓗᑎᒃ. ᐅᑯᐊ the coalition of DEAs. If you look at the ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᑯᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25−ᓕᕆᔪᑦ, submissions that we received regard to this ᐃᒻᒪᖄ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᕆᒍᒪ. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᐲᑦ, bill, I guess my question is: can you explain ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᐲᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 the overlap and/or any coordination efforts ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᒋᔭᐅᓚᐅᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ with regard to Bill 25 between specifically the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔩᑦ Iqaluit DEA, the coalition of DEAs, and any ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᒡᓗ ᐃᒃᓯᕚᖃᑕᐅᔪᑦ. other parties? I am just interested in ᑐᑭᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ understanding whether there was a ᐊᑭᕋᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓ ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᒋᔭᐅᓚᐅᕐᒪᖔᑦ coordinated campaign with regard to Bill 25 ᓯᕗᕐᖓᓂ? ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓂᑦ ᖃᓅᓚᐅᖅᐸ? or is this just an organic agreement that came (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᒪ’ᓇ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. about on this bill. (interpretation) Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Member Aarluk Main. Let’s go back to Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᐋᕐᓗᒃ ᒪᐃᓐ. Workman. ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ.

Mr. Workman: Thank you, Madam ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ Chairperson. I thank the Member for the ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᖢᒍ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᒪᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ question. On the Coalition of Nunavut DEAs ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᖏᑦ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ executive, we have board members from the ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓃᓐᖔᖅᑐᓂᒃ different regions in the territory. I am vice- ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᖃᑕᐅᔪᑦ. ᑐᖏᓕᕆᔭᐅᖦᖤᖅᐳᖓ,

chairperson and the chairperson is Jedidah ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ ᔩᑎᑕ ᒥᖅᑯᓵᖑᖦᖤᖅᐳᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ Merkosak. We have a secretary treasurer, ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑎ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᔨᖃᖦᖤᖅᐳᒍᑦ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᕐᒥᐅᑕᒥᒃ Anne Akeeagok from Grise Fiord. On the ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᓪᓗᑕ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ board we do have NTI and we also have the ᐃᒃᓯᕚᖃᑕᐅᔪᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑎᑎᒥᒍᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᑎᓖᑦ Nunavut Disabilities. They have a ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᖃᖅᖢᓂ ᒥᔅᑕ ᐸᐸᑦᓯ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᐃᕖᑦ representative, Mr. Papatsie. We also have the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᖏᑦ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᐃᒃᓯᕚᖃᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ. CSFN. They have a representative on the board.

We have been doing quite a bit of discussion all the way through community consultations, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓪᓚᕆᓚᐅᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓄᓪᓗ whether it was with Bill 37 and most recently ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᓐᓂᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 37 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ from 2018 until yesterday. We are always in ᒫᓐᓇᕈᓘᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ 2018−ᒥ ᐃᒃᐸᒃᓴᒧᖅᑲᐃ ᑎᑭᖦᖢᒍ. communication. We want to bring forward ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓕᒫᖅ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᖅᒍᑦ. ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᕗᑦ, our thoughts and our ideas. The DEA in ᐃᓱᒻᒥᐅᑎᒃᓴᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᕈᓘᔭᖃᑦᑕᕋᑦᑎᒃᑯᑦ. Iqaluit, we have our own ideas and they were ᓄᓇᓕᒃ ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ shared at our DEA level. We shared it with ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᓱᒻᒥᐅᑎᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ. the coalition and obviously NTI, and they ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓪᓗᑎᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ shared their submissions with us as well, but ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᓐᓄᓪᓗ. ᐄ, for us, we all have appeared to be in ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑎᒃᓴᓂᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᖃᐃᑦᑎᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒥᔪᒍᑦ. agreement and we arrived at the same place ᐃᓘᓐᓇᑕ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᐅᕈᓘᔭᓚᐅᖅᑎᒡᓗᒍ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ. after much discussion.

If you want to use “organic,” I would agree with that. Is it a coordinated approach? I don’t ᐄ, ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᒡᓗᒋᑦ. really think that, but you could make an ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᒃᑰᓚᕆᓚᐅᖏᑦᑐᒎᒐᓗᐊᖅ. ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ argument for it because I am on the executive ᓯᕗᒃᑲᑦᑕᖅᑎᐅᖃᑕᐅᒐᒪ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ of the coalition. Nevertheless, I am only one ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᖏᓐᓂ. ᓂᐱᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒐᒪ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐅᓪᓗᖓ. voice, one vote, and I encourage the ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒃᑎᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐸᐃᓚᐅᖅᖢᖓ discussion from the board. I was pleasantly ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒃᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᕐᓂᒃ surprised that what I was thinking was being ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᖓ. ᖁᕕᐊᓱᓚᐅᖅᑐᖓ stated in those meetings. I try not to overstate ᓱᓇᐅᕝᕙ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖄᓪᓚᓐᓂᕋᑦᑕ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑯᐊ my position. I try to be quiet about that and ᐸᐃᑉᐹᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. listen, and I was pleasantly surprised that we were all thinking similarly. I would agree with you on the organic production of the documents that you see before you. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Workman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ. (interpretation) Let’s go back to Member (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᒧᑦ ᐋᕐᓗᒃ Aarluk Main. ᒪᐃᓐ.

Mr. Main (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. (interpretation ends) My ᒪᐃᓐ ᒪ’ᓇ, ᐃᒃᕼᐃᕙᐅᑖᖅ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐅᓇ final question is about accountability and the ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖑᓪᓗᒍ ‘ᓵᑕᑦᓴᐅᓂᖅ’.

Iqaluit DEA, the chair mentioned several ᐃᖃᓗᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ times, I believe, that bureaucrats are not ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖓᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐊᕐᓇᓂ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ; ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ accountable. Accountability is very important ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑲᐅᑏᑦ ᓵᑕᒃᓴᐅᖏᒻᒪᑕ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ for all parties. I’ll use Kugluktuk as an ᐱᕐᔪᐊᕌᓘᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᖁᕐᓗᖅᑐᖅ ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, example where the community felt the DEA ᖁᕐᓗᒃᑐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᓵᑕᒃᓴᐅᖏᓐᓂᕋᐃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ was not accountable to the community and the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ. DEA made a very unpopular decision in that ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᑭᕋᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᒥᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪ particular example. Ways to ensure ᓵᑕᒃᓴᐅᓂᖅ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑲᐅᑕᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᐸᑕ, accountability, whether it is bureaucrats or ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᐸᑕ. DEAs, I believe, are important.

The question is for the Minister. When it comes to a blanket statement like “Bureaucrats are not accountable,” what’s the ᐅᓇ ᑕᐃᒪ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᓕᖅᐸᕋ, ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ Minister’s response to that? Is that indeed the ᐃᓘᓐᓇᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᒥᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ situation with the Department of Education ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑲᐅᑎᑦ ᓵᑕᒃᓴᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᓐᓂᕈᑦᑕ bureaucrats? Are they running wild within the ᒥᓂᔅᑕᓕ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᕙᐅᒃ? ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᖕᒫᑦ? territory? I want to better understand the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᐃᓐᓇᕿᔪᐊᓘᕚᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ accountability framework within the ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑲᐅᑎᕈᔪᐃᑦ? ᑐᑭᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᔪᖓ department, specifically in terms of how the ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᖕᒪᖔᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ, department’s bureaucrats deal with district ᐱᓗᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑲᐅᑏᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᒋᔾᔪᓯᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᑦ. education authorities. That’s my final ᒪ’ᓇ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. question. (interpretation) Thank you, Madam

Chairperson.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐋᕐᓗᒃ ᒪᐃᓐ Member Aarluk Main. I’ll go back to Minister ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᑎᕐᓗᖓ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕ Joanasie. ᔪᐊᓇᓯᒧᑦ.

Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Chairman. I thank the Member for his ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᖢᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ question. I’ve got to say that whether you’re ᐊᐱᕆᖕᒪᑦ. ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᑰᒐᓗᐊᕈᑯᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ elected or not, you’re accountable for the job ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕆᔭᕐᓄᑦ ᓵᑕᒃᓴᐅᕗᑎᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ that you do. I think that is the basic way that ᐋᖅᑭᒍᓐᓇᖅᑕᕋ. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ you could put it. The Government of Nunavut ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒍᑦ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐃᓪᓗ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ has us as elected officials, we have the ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑲᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᐅᓄᓐᖓᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒍ cabinet, and then the chain of command, the ᓵᑕᒃᓴᐅᓂᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ organizational chart allows for the ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᐅᔪᓕᒫᓄᑦ. ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑲᐅᑏᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ accountability to be shared with the public ᑐᖏᓕᕋ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᖓᓗ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᓕᒫᑦ service. This is where the bureaucrats in this ᐃᓘᓐᓇᖏᑦ, ᑎᒥᑦᑕ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᖅ case, my deputy, my assistant deputy, and all ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᑕᕝᕕᖃᐅᑎᑕᐅᒻᒪᑕ. ᑕᐃᒪ ᓵᑕᒃᓴᐅᓂᖅ staff on the organizational chart, report up the ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᖅᐳᖅ. chain, so this is where accountability comes.

In addition to that, I’m here as the Minister ᐊᒻᒪ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᓪᓗᖓ ᑕᕝᕙᓃᑦᑐᖓ representing the department and I provide ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᓪᓗᖓ.

annual reports on what our department is ᐊᕐᕌᒎᑕᒫᖅᓯᐅᑏᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒍᑦ doing on our initiatives in our schools. On top ᐱᓕᕆᕝᕕᑦᑕ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖏᓪᓗᒋᑦ. of that, I think we try to show as best we can ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒐᓗᐊᕐᒥᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓵᑕᒃᓴᐅᓂᖅ our accountability and the structures that are ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᓪᓚᕆᒐᓱᑦᑕᕗᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. in place to allow for that. Thank you, Madam ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕ. ᐅᓇ Chairperson. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᐅᓪᓗᖓ ᑭᐅᔭᐅᖁᔭᕋᓗᐊᕋ. ᐃᓱᒫᓗᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᓕᕆᔨᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᓕᖅᓱᑎᒃ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᖓᓂᒃ Minister. As the Chair, I would like a ᐃᒫᓐᓈᖅᑐᐃᓕᖅᓱᑎᒃ.ᖃᐅᔨᖅᑲᐅᒐᑦᑕ. response to this ongoing concern. The ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᕕᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ, bureaucrats make the decisions and they ᒥᓂᔅᑐᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖅᑖᖃᑕᐅᓐᖏᑎᓪᓗᒍ, direct elected officials. We found out that the ᐱᓕᕆᔨᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒥᒃ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖅᑖᖅᓱᑎᒃ ᐅᑉᓗᖁᑎᖓᒎᖅ Minister was not cc’d on a letter that came ᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓐᓂᐊᓕᖅᑐᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ from a bureaucrat within the Department of ᐱᓕᕆᔨᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ Education which stated how the school ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖅᐸᑦ? ᑖᓐᓇ ᓵᑕᒃᓴᐅᓂᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᒃᑯᓪᓕ calendar will be set. Do the bureaucrats run ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᑐᑦᑕᕐᕕᐅᓪᓗᐊᑕᖅᑐᖅ ᑭᓇᐅᕙ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒥᒃ, the elected officials? Who is ultimately ᒥᓂᔅᑕ. accountable? Thank you. Minister. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ: ᐄ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑰᑦᓱᑕ, Hon. David Joanasie (interpretation): Thank ᓲᕐᓗ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᓕᒫᑦᓯᐊᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᖁᑎᒃᑲ you, Madam Chairperson. I won’t be able to ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ ᐊᑕᐅᑦᓯᒃᑯᐊᓗᒃ find out what every employee of the ᑐᑭᓯᒍᓐᓇᔾᔮᓐᖏᑕᒃᑲ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᑯᖓᓄᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ Department of Education has done. Therefore ᑐᖏᓕᕋ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᖏᓕᒃᑲᓐᓂᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ my Deputy Minister, Assistant Deputy ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑐᑭᒧᐊᒃᑎᑦᓯᔩᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ Minister, and other staff such as directors or ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᔨᐅᖃᑕᐅᔪᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᕕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ managers receive reports from their ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᖁᑎᒥᓄᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑎᓪᓗᒍᑦᑕᐅᖅ employees. With that being the case, I can ᐅᕙᖓ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐱᔭᑦᓴᒃᑲᓐᓂᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑐᓂᓯᒍᓐᓇᕆᓪᓗᖓ, delegate staff with certain responsibilities and ᑎᓕᐅᕆᓗᖓ ᐆᒪᖓᑦ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓐᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ duties, whether or not it’s through ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᒥᒃ, “ᐅᓇ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᒍᓐᓇᖅᑕᐃᑦ correspondence. If the district education ᑎᓕᕙᒋᑦ” ᑎᑎᖅᑲᒃᑯᕕᒃᑰᕋᓗᐊᖅᐸᑎᒃ authorities or other entities receive ᑎᑎᖅᑲᐅᖏᑦᑐᒃᑰᒐᓗᐊᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓲᕐᓗ correspondence from my department, we all ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᐅᓐᓂᖅᐸᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ need to understand that it comes from the ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᑦ ᐅᕙᓐᓂᒃ. government and even if the letter is not cc’d ᐱᓕᕆᕝᕕᑦᑎᓐᓃᙶᖅᐸᑦ to me, it would have the same authority as if it ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᔪᐃᓐᓇᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ came from me. I have made that directive and ᑕᕝᕙᖔᕐᒪᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᕙᖓᑦᑕᐅᖅ our plan as the government is to try to achieve ᐅᕙᓐᓅᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ, ᐅᕙᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ, our goals. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᕙᓐᓃᖔᖅᑐᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑦ. ᑎᓕᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᒋᔭᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᑦᓱᑕ Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, ᑐᕌᒐᕆᖁᔭᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᑎᑭᐅᑎᒐᓱᐊᖃᑦᑕᕋᑦᑕ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᑯᖓᓄᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Minister. I have no more names of my list. Mr. Workman, I would like to ask if you have ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕ. ᐊᑎᖁᑎᖃᕈᓐᓃᕋᒪ. very brief closing comments. Thank you. ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᒡ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ, ᓇᐃᓈᕐᓗᒍ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᒪᒍᕕᑦ ᑐᓴᕐᕕᒋᔪᒪᔭᒋᑦ ᐃᓂᕐᓂᐊᓕᕋᑦᑕ. Mr. Workman: Thank you, Madam ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

Chairperson. I would like to defer the closing ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ

remarks to my abled colleague, Okalik ᒪᑐᓯᓂᖅ ᐅᕙᓃᖃᑎᒋᔭᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᑲᓕᖅ ᐃᔨᑦᓯᐊᕐᒧᑦ Eegeesiak. ᑐᓐᓂᖅᑯᑎᒋᔪᒪᔭᕋ.

Chairperson (interpretation): Please go ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᐅᑲᓕᖅ ᐃᔨᑦᓯᐊᖅ. ahead, Okalik Eegeesiak.

Ms. Eegeesiak (interpretation): Thank you, ᐃᔨᑦᓯᐊᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, Members, Madam Chairperson, and Mr. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᕈᒪᓪᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᒡ ᐅᐊᒃᒪᓐ Minister. I would really like to thank Doug ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᕆᔭᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᖃᓗᓐᓂ Workman as the Chair of the Iqaluit District ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᖏᑦ, ᒪᓕᑦᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ, Education Authority because his knowledge ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ and experience in the education system are ᒥᑦᓵᓄᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕋᑦᑕ. valuable.

We are discussing legislation. We oppose the ᒪᓕᒐᑦᓴᐅᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖅ ᐱᐅᒋᓐᖏᓇᑦᑎᒍᑦ bill because, as you know, it’s taking away ᑕᕝᕙᖔᖅᑐᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᓯ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ our powers at the community level. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖏᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑎᒍᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᖓᑕ ᓄᓇᑦᑎᓂ. (interpretation ends) In our closing remarks we remind you that our graduation rates have remained well below Canadian standards. Just (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒪᑐᔾᔪᑎᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓐᓂᓕᒃ 12−ᒥᒃ to use a couple of statistics as examples, from ᐅᓄᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ. ᑭᒡᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑕᕕᓃᑦ 1999 to 2003, the graduation rate was always ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒋᑦ 1999−ᒥᓂᑦ 2003−ᒧᑦ less than 35 percent. Fast-forward to today, ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ 35−ᐳᓴᑦ ᑐᖔᓃᖏᓐᓇᓲᑦ. from 2013 to the current, the graduation rate ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᔪᖅ 2013−ᒥᓂᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒧᑦ has remained below 45 percent. During the 45−ᐳᓴᑦᑎᒦᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂᓗ. ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᑦ last 20 years that this Department of ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔭᒃᓴᖅᑖᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ, ᓱᓖᓛᒃ Education has had its mandate, the graduation ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᐅᓄᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓐᖏᓚᑦ. rates have not improved.

Bill 25 is based on Bill 37. Both bills are ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖃᖅᐳᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 37−ᒥᑦ, proposed by the Department of Education to ᑖᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ increase their stronghold. We ask you to ᓴᓐᖏᒃᑎᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓪᓗᒍ. ᑕᐃᒪ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔪᒪᔭᕗᑦ question if this is what your constituents voted ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔪᒪᒐᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑎᑎᑦ? you for. Here I would like to recognize our ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔪᒪᓪᓗᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᕗᑦ ᐋᑕᒻ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ MLA, Adam Lightstone, who I know and I ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᖓ ᑲᑎᒪᓂᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᐸᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ. have heard that he comes to district education ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓕᒫᖅ ᑲᑎᒪᓂᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᐸᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖅ. authority meetings quite regularly, if not ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᖃᖅᖢᓂᓗ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᒃᑰᖅᖢᑕᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ every meeting. That’s the collaboration and ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖃᑎᒋᔪᒪᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᕗᑦ. communication we want with MLAs.

You have heard many more submissions calling for the rejection of Bill 25. NTI, the ᐅᓄᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓯ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 coalition, Gjoa Haven, and Iqaluit have all ᑲᑕᒃᑎᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᖅᓱᖅᑑᖅ, ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ, ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ, asked for that. The Coalition of Nunavut ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔩᑦ ᐃᓘᓐᓇᖏᑦ ᐆᒥᖓ ᓵᓚᐅᖁᔨᔪᑦ DEAs recommended to you that a new part be

added to the Education Act rather than ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᓐᖏᖔᕐᓗᓂ. tweaking Bill 25. We recommend inserting ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᓚᓯᖁᔨᓪᓗᑕ 13.1-ᒥᒃ Part 13.1 from the Coalition of Nunavut ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᓂᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᒃᑐᒍᑦ DEAs’ submission. We believe that inserting ᑖᓐᓇ 13.1 ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔭᐅᒃᐸᑦ ᑲᑎᑎᑦᑎᒐᔭᕐᒪᑦ Part 13.1 will unify our education system and ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ will result in increasing focus on student ᓵᓐᖓᒋᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕋᔭᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ achievement, increasing collaboration, and ᐱᔭᕇᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᕐᒥᒃ making sure that communities are heard as ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᑕᐅᒐᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ they deserve to be. In short, we want the ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔾᔪᑕᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓇᐃᓈᕐᓗᒍ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ coalition to have the same authority as the ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖁᔭᕗᑦ CSFN. ᐅᐃᕖᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ.

(ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) (interpretation) I used to work for the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒻᒪᕆᒃᑯᓄᑦᑕᐅᖅ Department of Education. While you’re ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᒐᒪ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ talking about education, it is great to hear that ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᓯ we all have similar concerns. Yesterday there ᖁᕕᐊᓇᖅᑐᒋᐊᓪᓚᒃ ᑐᓵᓪᓗᖓ ᑕᐃᒫᑦᓴᐃᓐᓇᒐᓚᒃ were some questions and the Minister’s reply ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓐᓂᕗᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᙶᕐᖓᑦ. ᐃᑉᐸᔅᓴᖅ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ was that Inuit language and culture are in the ᐅᖃᓚᐅᕐᖓᑦ Preamble−ᖓᓃᑦᑐᕉᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ preamble. It’s good if it’s in the preamble, but ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᑦ. ᐄ, Preamble−ᒦᑉᐸᑦ it has to be used as the foundation. Using your ᐱᐅᔪᖅ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓰᑦ language, Madam Chairperson, Inuktut and ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, ᐃᕐᕋᕕᖏᓐᓃᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᐃᑦ our culture have to be in the contents. They ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕗᑦ have to be in the “entrails” of the legislation. ᐃᕐᕋᕕᓐᓃᒋᐊᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᑦ.

ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒻᒪᕆᒃᑰᖃᑦᑕᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ When there were divisional boards of ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐃᑦ education, communities used to be involved ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ and students’ parents wanted to be kept ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ informed. It’s not really like that these days. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᓯᐊᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓪᓚᑦᑖᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ We need to give the communities more ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᔪᕈᖅᑎᑲᓐᓂᕈᑦᑎᒍᑦ authority for education. ᓴᓐᖏᔪᕈᖅᑎᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒍ. (interpretation ends) I would like to highlight again when the Minister said that we can’t (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐃᑉᐸᔅᓴᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᔪᖓ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ please everybody. None of us can please ᐅᖃᓚᐅᕐᖓᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᓕᒫᕌᓗᐃᑦ everybody, but if we scrap this bill, a lot of ᖁᕕᐊᓱᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᔮᓐᖏᓇᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᐅᓇ ᐃᒋᒃᑯᑦᑎᒍ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᐃᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᐃᑦ. people will be very happy. ᓇᓂᓯᓚᐅᖅᑕ ᖃᓄᖅ Let’s find a way of empowering and re- ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᑖᖅᑎᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦᑎᒍ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ empowering the communities so that we have ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᑦᑎᐊᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᓂᐊᕐᖓᑕ more successful students and we have a better ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗ ᐱᔭᕇᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᓂᐊᕐᖓᑕ. graduation rate. We expect our children and ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᕗᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᖁᑎᕗᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᕐᓗᑎᒃ grandchildren to be ambitious. Let us walk the ᑲᔪᓯᒍᒪᓂᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᓚᐅᕐᓚᕗᑦ talk. Let’s have a better collaboration and ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᑐᐃᓐᓇᖏᓪᓗᒍ. better communication so that all the ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖃᓚᐅᖅᑕ communities are more successful. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑕᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᓕᒫᑦ (interpretation) I’ll end there. ᑲᔪᓯᑦᑎᐊᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᕐᖓᑕ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᑕᕝᕗᖓ.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ Iqaluit District Education Authority. Thank ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᑕᒡ ᕗᒃᒪᓐ ᐊᒻᒪ you, Doug Workman. Thank you, Okalik ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐅᑲᓕᖅ ᐃᔨᑦᓯᐊᖅ. Eegeesiak. >>ᐸᑦᑕᑐᖅᑐᑦ >>Applause ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒋᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕋᒃᑭᑦ ᐅᑲᓖᖅ. I was able to work with you for a bit, Okalik.

We will take a short break for 10 minutes. I’ll give the Chair back as I’m just the Co-Chair. ᒫᓐᓇ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᓚᐅᐱᓪᓚᖕᓂᐊᕋᑦᑕ 10 ᒥᓂᑦᔅ. (interpretation ends) Ten-minute break. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᑎᖅᑎᓐᓂᐊᖅᐸᕋ ᑐᖓᓕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᒪ.

>>Committee recessed at 10:24 and resumed >>ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ 10:24ᒥ at 10:41 ᑲᔪᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᑐᑎᒃ 10:41ᒥ

Chairman (Mr. Main)(interpretation): The ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᒪᐃᓐ): ᑕᐃᒪ ᐅᑎᖅᕼᐃᒪᓕᕐᒥᔪᑦ Standing Committee on Legislation is now ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐊᓛᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᕼᐋᓄᑦ. back as we’re dealing with Bill 25. Acting ᐅᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᖅ 25 ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᑎᓪᓗᑎᒍᑦ ᐅᓇ Languages Commissioner of Nunavut, Ms. ᐅᖃᐅᕼᐃᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ, Aariak, welcome, as well as your officials. ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᓚᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ, ᒥᔅ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ ᑐᓐᖓᕼᐅᒋᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᔨᑎᓪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ I’m sure you have comments to make, so you ᐅᖃᐅᕼᐃᒃᕼᐊᖃᕋᕕᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ. can now begin, Ms. Aariak. ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑑᓪᓗᐊᓕᖅᐳᑎᑦ, ᒥᔅ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you for ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᒐᒪ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. giving me this opportunity, Mr. Chairman. I ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᖅᑲᐃᓇᔭᖅᑏᒃ ᑕᒫᓃᖃᑎᒌᔮᒃᑲᒃ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᕐᒥ will first introduce the officials who are here ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᒃ, ᐅᓇ ᓚᓃᔅ ᕼᐃᔅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᕗᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ with me. This person is Lenise Hayes, our ᕚᓐᓰᓐ ᓚᓐᑎᓐ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᒧᐊᒃᑎᑦᑎᔨ ᐊᒡᓚᒡᕕᑦᑎᓐᓂ Legal Counsel, and Francine Lantin, our ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᒧᑦ. Director of the Office of the Languages Commissioner.

I would first like to thank you and say “good ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᑳᕈᒪᕗᖓ, ᐅᓪᓛᒃᑰᖅᖢᓯᓗ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᔪᓯ morning” to you, the Members of the ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓄᑦ, ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒃᑎᑕᐅᒐᒪᓗ Standing Committee on Legislation. I also ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. thank you for your warm welcome. ᖁᕕᐊᓱᓪᓚᕆᒃᑐᖓ ᐃᓕᔅᓯ ᓵᖓᓃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕋᒪ It is my pleasure to appear before you to ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕆᐊᖅᑐᕐᓗᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ present the Office of the Languages ᐊᒡᓚᒡᕕᖓᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐊᖑᔪᖅ Commissioner’s submission on Bill 25, An ᐋᖅᑮᓇᓱᒍᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ Act to Amend the Education Act and the Inuit ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ Language Protection Act. ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ.

In our September 12, 2019 submission on Bill ᓯᑎᐱᕆ 12, 2019-ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑐᓐᓂᕆᔭᑦᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 to the Standing Committee on Legislation, 25 ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᒋᔭᐅᔪᓄᑦ, we have focused primarily on the ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖑᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᓵᓐᖓᔾᔪᑎᖃᓗᐊᓐᖑᐊᖅᑕᖅᓯᓐᓇᖅᑐᒍᑦ

constitutional law and indigenous rights ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᑐᑦᑕᕐᕕᒋᔭᖓᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᑉ ᓵᓐᖓᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᖢᑕ, arguments. Through Bill 25, the Government ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ of Nunavut proposes to significantly delay ᐊᐃᕙᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᖅ 25 even further the implementation of Inuit ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᐊᓗᖕᒥᒃ language instruction. The government invokes ᑭᖑᕙᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᖕᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ the “lack of Inuktut-speaking teachers” as one ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ of the reasons for imposing the delay, ᐱᑕᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂᖏᒃᑕ ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᓂᕋᖅᖢᒍ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᑕ although a number of years have already ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᕈᑖᓄᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᑐᖃᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ passed since section 8 of the Inuit Language ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒐᓴᑦ ᐊᓂᒍᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᑕᖓᑦ 8 Protection Act came into force. ᐃᓕᔭᐅᓚᐅᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ.

In its 2013 review of the Education Act, the ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂ 2013 ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᕆᔮᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ report from the Auditor General of Canada ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᑕᒻᒪᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅᓯᐅᖅᑎᐅᑉ recognized that the Education Act was ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖓ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ enacted to address the increased use of ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐊᕆᔭᐅᓂᑯ English in homes and the corresponding ᓵᓐᖓᔭᖃᕋᓱᒃᖢᑎᒃ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ decline of Inuit language fluency. The Auditor ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᓕᕐᓂᖓ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ General’s report also highlighted inadequate ᒪᓕᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓪᓗ ᑲᑕᖕᓂᕆᔮ ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐊᔪᑦ implementation and management of the Act, ᐅᖃᕆᒃᑐᓪᓗ. ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᑕᒻᒪᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅᓯᐅᖅᑎᐅᑉ failure to meet the Education Act’s bilingual ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᖓ ᐅᑯᓂᖓ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᓚᐅᕐᒥᔪᑦ, education goals or to properly monitor and “ᑎᑭᐅᒪᓐᖏᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᖃᕐᓂᕐᓗ measure its implementation. ᒪᓕᒐᐅᑉ ᐊᑐᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᓇᓪᓕᖅᓯᓇᓱᒋᐊᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖁᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓗᐊᒍᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᑉ ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓄᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓰᕐᓄᑦ Section 35 of the Constitution recognizes and ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔾᔪᑎᓄᑦ ᑎᑭᓐᓇᓱᒃᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ affirms the existing aboriginal and treaty ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑐᒥᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᓵᖃᕈᑎᖏᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕆᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᖏᓪᓗ rights of the indigenous peoples of Canada. ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ.” The Supreme Court of Canada recognizes that ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ 35 ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖓᑕ the content of these rights must be directed at ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᕗᖅ ᓱᓕᓂᕋᐃᓪᓗᓂᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ fulfilling the purposes of Section 35. The ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᑦ. ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ court stated that to be an indigenous right, an ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᕐᔪᐊᖏᑕ ᖁᑦᑎᓛᖅ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᕗᖅ activity must be part of a practice, custom, or ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓗᓕᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ tradition that is integral to the distinctive ᑐᕌᒐᖃᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓗᓪᓕᖅᓱᐃᓇᓱᖕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ culture of the indigenous group claiming the ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᐊᑕ 35 ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᖏᓐᓄᑦ. right. Inuit language is clearly an element of ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒡᔪᐊᖑᔪᑦ ᓴᖅᑮᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐆᒥᖓ practices, customs, and traditions integral to ᓇᓗᓇᐃᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ, “ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ distinctive Inuit culture. ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒋᔭᐅᒍᓂ, ᐊᐅᓚᓂᕆᔮ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᖃᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᕆᔮᑕ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓲᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᕆᔭᐅᔫᑉ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ (interpretation ends) The preamble to the ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑐᖄᓗᖓ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓪᓚᕆᒃᑐᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ Official Languages Act, or OLA, contains ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔫᖃᑎᒌᑦ ᐱᖃᕐᓂᕋᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᐅᔪᒥᒃ.” ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ similar wording but adds that the Inuit have ᓇᓗᓇᓐᖏᑦᑎᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓗᓕᕆᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ an inherent right to the use of the Inuit ᐱᖅᑯᓯᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑐᖃᕐᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓪᓚᕆᒃᑐᖅ language in full equality with the other ᐃᓅᓂᕋᖅᑑᑉ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᕆᔭᖓᓄᑦ. official languages of Nunavut, English and (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᐱᒋᐊᓐᖓᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ French. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑐᐃᕈᑎᖓᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ, ᐃᓗᓕᖃᕐᖓᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ The United Nations has declared 2019 as the ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖃᕐᖓᑕ ᑕᒫᓂ ᐃᓅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ

International Year of Indigenous Languages ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ. that “aims to raise awareness of the ᑕᕝᕙᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ consequences of the endangerment of ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑑᖅᑐᐃᑦ. Indigenous languages across the world…to establish a link between language, ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖓ 2019 ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ development, peace, and reconciliation.” ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᕆᔭᐅᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ. ᑕᐃᒫᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑦᑎᒐᓱᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᓕᕐᖓᑕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ The Government of Canada enacted the ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ, ᐋᖅᑮᒐᓱᐊᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ Indigenous Languages Act on June 21 this ᐅᖃᐅᓰᑦ, ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓃᑦ. year, showing its intention to support the reclamation, revitalization, and strengthening ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᖓ ᓴᖅᑮᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ of indigenous languages in Canada, in which ᐅᖃᐅᓰᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖓᓂᒃ ᔫᓂ 21-ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ it explicitly recognized that “the rights of ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᑕᑯᔅᓴᐅᑎᑦᑎᓪᓗᑎᒃ Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed ᐅᑎᕆᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᐊᕐᖓᑕ ᐆᒻᒪᑎᑦᑎᕚᓪᓕᓂᐊᕐᖓᑕ by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 ᓴᓐᖏᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᖓᑕᒎᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ include rights related to Indigenous ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑕᕝᕙᓂ languages.” ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓪᓚᕆᔅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᓪᓗᓂ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐃᓄᖏᑦ This is also in keeping with the United ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ, ᓇᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃᑯᑦ 35-ᒥᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖑᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ 1982-ᒥᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᒥᓂᕐᒥᒃ, Nations Declaration on the Rights of ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ Indigenous People (UNDRIP), which ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ. explicitly sets out rights and corresponding obligations relating indigenous languages, ᑖᓐᓇᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᒪᓕᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ including the right of indigenous peoples to ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᕐᔪᐊᖏᑕ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ transmit their languages to future generations. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓂᕆᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ The Government of Nunavut has itself ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ affirmed this right in its submission to the ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ. ᑕᖅᑲᐅᖓᓗ ᓯᕗᓂᕆᓛᖅᑕᑎᓐᓄᑦ United Nations Office of the High ᐃᓕᓴᔭᐅᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ Commissioner of Human Rights in a study on ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ. the role of languages and culture in the ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓ ᑕᐃᑯᖓ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓄᑦ promotion and protection of the rights and ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒥᓂᒃ, ᑭᒃᑯᓕᒫᑦ identity of indigenous people. In addition, the ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓰᑦ, ᐱᖅᑯᓰᓪᓗ Government of Nunavut acknowledged that ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ the Inuit language constitutes the banner ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ. ᖄᖓᒍᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅ ᓄᓇᕘ ᒐᕙᒪᖓ under which the indigenous people of ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ Nunavut exercise their rights under Article 5 ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑎᓪᓚᕆᐅᕗᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ and Article 13 of UNDRIP. The proposed ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕈᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 5 amendments delaying the implementation of ᐊᒻᒪ ᓇᓴᑎᐅᓕᒃ 13 ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᒥ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᓂᒃ Inuit language instruction would appear to be ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᒐᓱᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ contrary to this position. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᓖᑦ ᐅᑎᕆᐊᕐᓂᐅᖔᖅᑑᔮᕐᖓᑕ, ᐃᓪᓗᐊᓄᖔᖓᔫᔮᕐᖓᑕ. These statements serve to acknowledge and ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᐸᒌᖅᑐᓂᒃ reinforce the already existing Inuit language ᓴᓐᖏᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᕋᓱᒋᐊᖃᕐᖓᑕᒎᖅ ᒐᕙᒪᒋᔭᖏᑦ rights and corresponding obligations on the ᓄᓇᕗᑦ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖅᐹᖅ Government of Nunavut. More importantly,

they signal the intention of the Government of ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓ Nunavut to safeguard and nurture these ᓴᐳᔾᔨᒐᓱᐊᕈᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒧᑦ linguistic rights. Section 8 of the Inuit ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 8, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ Language Protection Act therefore merely ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ classifies the right to receive Inuit language ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ instruction and the obligations that already ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ exist. ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᕇᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ.

In addition, UNDRIP also sets out the rights ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ and obligations in the area of education. Read ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒋᔭᐅᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᖅ as a whole, these UNDRIP provisions ground ᐱᓪᓗᒍ. ᐅᖃᓕᒫᖅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ the argument that language is the clearest ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᕗᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ expression of culture, that the right to use, ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑎᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᓂᖅᐹᖑᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕐᒥᒃ, transmit and develop indigenous languages is ᐱᖅᑯᓯᕐᒥᒃ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑲᑕ an inherent indigenous right, and that ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ ᐃᓅᓂᑰᒻᒪᑕ governments have an obligation to ensure the ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒋᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ. ᑕᐃᒫᓪᓗ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ survival, sustainability and enhancement of ᐆᒪᑎᑦᑎᒐᓱᒋᐊᖃᖅᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓰᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᓪᓗ indigenous languages. ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ.

Similar assertions can be found in Article 4 of ᑕᐃᒫᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᐃᑦ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒻᒥᒃ 4-ᒥᒃ the Convention on the Rights of the Child ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᒐᕙᒪᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᒐᓱᒋᐊᓖᑦ where it provides that States parties must ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ “undertake measures to implement” the ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᕕᒋᔭᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑖᕗᖓᓕᒫᖅ linguistic and cultural rights of children “to ᐱᓂᖅᐹᖑᑎᒐᓱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᖏᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓈᕐᓗᒋᑦ. the maximum extent of their available resources.” ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᑕᒫᓂ ᐃᓅᓯᒪᒐᕕᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ. In short, the Inuit of Nunavut enjoy an ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 35-ᒥᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ inherent indigenous right to use the Inuit ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ language, protected under section 35 of the ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕆᔭᖓᓂᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ Constitution, including the right to Inuit ᑐᕚᖃᓗᐊᓐᖏᑐᕐᓗ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒻᒥᒃ 8-ᒥᒃ language instruction, which does not depend ᓴᐳᔾᔨᒍᑎᐅᔪᒥᒃ. on section 8 of the ILPA. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑏᑦ These linguistic rights cannot simply be ᐲᖅᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓄᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ, revoked, restricted, or postponed by a ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕋᑎᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐊᖑᔪᓄᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ legislative amendment. Therefore the ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᖅ 25-ᒥᑦ provisions of Bill 25 that aim to delay the full ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᖅᓯᓂᐅᓴᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ and comprehensive implementation of Inuit ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑕᐅᓂᖅ, ᐊᑭᕋᖅᑐᖔᑑᔮᖅᑐᖅ language instruction go against the very ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ, foundations of the inherent indigenous ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ. language rights of Inuit. The delayed, phased ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ implementation of Inuit language instruction ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑕᐅᓃᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᒐᓱᑦᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᖅ 25-ᑯᑦ. proposed by Bill 25 will conceivably deny ᑕᐃᒪ ᑭᖑᓕᕇᕌᓘᖃᑦᑕᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᒃ generations of Inuit the exercise of their ᐊᖅᓵᓯᓂᐊᖅᑯᖅ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒧᑦ language rights. ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᐅᓗᑎᒃ.

The recent Statistics Canada report by Jean- ᒫᓐᓇᕈᓘᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᑦ François Lepage and Stéphanie Langlois, with ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᕆᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᔮᓐ ᕗᐊᓐᓵ ᓚᐹᑦᑯᑦ ᓯᑕᕙᓂ the collaboration of Martin Turcotte, released ᒫᖑᐊᒃᑯᑦ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒫᓪᑎᓐ ᑑᑳᕐᒥᒃ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎᒃ in July 2019 highlighted the significant ᓴᖅᑭᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᔪᓚᐃ 2019-ᒥᑦ. ᓴᖅᑮᓚᐅᕐᖓᑕ decline in the use of the Inuit language in ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ homes and elsewhere in society. In fact the ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᐊᑲᓪᓚᓕᕐᓂᕆᔭᖓᓂᒃ. ᐊᓪᓛᑦ role of schooling is evident as fewer children ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᖅ identify Inuktut as their mother tongue after ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᔭᖅᑐᖅᑐᐃᑦ grade 3, which is particularly alarming given ᓇᓗᓇᐃᓯᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐃᑦ the finding that the Inuit language is used less ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᖓᐅᑎᖃᕋᒥ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᒍᕋᐃ 3-ᒦᑦᑐᑎᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪ and less as the primary language at home. ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓗᓂ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ.

(interpretation) In Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔪᑎᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᑑᓴᑦ ᕘᑦᕉ Scotia (Minister of Education), the Supreme ᓄᕕᔅᓯᑰᓴᓗ, ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔨᔾᔪᐊᖏᑦ Court of Canada upheld an order that required ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑦᑏᓐᓇᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ provincial authorities to use their best efforts ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᔪᕕᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᑦ ᐊᒡᒍᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ to provide school facilities and programs for ᑖᒃᑯᐊᖏᓛᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒡᒍᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓅᕕᔅᓯᑰᓴᒥ the linguistic minority by specific dates. ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑕ (interpretation ends) As the court explained, ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᓕᒫᖓᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ delays in the implementation of language ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑦ rights must not be tolerated because it can ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓗᐊᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔨᒃᑯᑦ create a situation in which there are no ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ minority language speakers left to invoke ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑏᑦ such rights. The situation in Nunavut is ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᐃᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ similar to the “urgent context” that the ᓴᖅᑮᒍᓐᓇᕐᖓᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᐃᑦ Supreme Court of Canada described in ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒥᓂᒃ Doucet-Boudreau. By delaying further the ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᐃᓕᒐᔭᕐᖓᑕ. ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᑖᓐᓇ implementation of Inuit language instruction, ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᖃᐸᓗᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ the Government of Nunavut will find itself in ᑐᐊᕕᕐᓇᕐᓂᕆᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᖓᓂᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᑦ a position where there are even fewer Inuktut- ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔨᕐᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᑑᓲᑦ ᕘᕐᑑ speaking teachers. ᐃᖅᑲᑐᖅᑕᐅᑎᑦᑎᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᑭᖓᕙᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ In previous submissions we raised certain ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖓ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓛᖅᑯᑦ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑑᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᐃᑦ administrative law principles which we feel ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ. continue to support our concerns around the law-making process. Of particular concern, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓯᒪᒻᒥᒐᑦᑎᒍ the Department of Education has concentrated ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᒪᑯᐊ exclusively on those provisions of the Inuit ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒨᖓᔪᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ, Language Protection Act that deal with Inuit ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ language education rights. (interpretation) ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᔭᕗᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ However, the ILPA’s preamble speaks to Inuit ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖔᖓᔪᓂᒃ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐆᐸᖅ language instruction and the goal of nurturing ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᖓᐅᑎᖓ ᒪᑉᐱᕈᑖ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ the Inuit culture, which finds its roots and ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᒍᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᑐᕌᒐᖓ survival in language. The manner in which ᐱᕈᐃᓇᓱᐊᕈᑖᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᕆᔮᑕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ this revision was conducted therefore risks ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖃᓪᓚᕆᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔪᓯᖃᖅᑐᓂᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᓐᓇᐅᒪᓂᐊᕈᑦᑎᒍ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᖅ leading to inconsistencies and conflicts within ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓂᖓ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ

the Inuit Language Protection Act itself. ᓴᐳᒻᒥᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ Further, this Act must be read in conjunction ᐊᑲᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ with the Official Languages Act to understand ᐊᔾᔨᒌᒍᓐᓃᑎᑦᑎᓗᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒦᑦᑑᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ. the overarching purpose of these laws and ᐃᓚᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᒍ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ensure that any revisions ensure those ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᔪᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓛᒃᑯᑦ. ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᕐᒥᒻᒪᑦ purposes can be achieved. ᐊᑕᐅᑦᑎᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᓱᑎᒃ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓰᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ. ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ Under the Inuit Language Protection Act, the ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᑭᖃᑦᑎᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ Languages Commissioner is responsible for ᐊᑕᐅᑦᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ. safeguarding the rights, status and privileges ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ of the Inuit language. In order to carry out this ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ daunting task, the Languages Commissioner ᑲᒪᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᑦ, ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᖃᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ is authorized to take any necessary actions ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓪᓗ and measures that are authorized by the Act. ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᒍ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᑖᓐᓇ These actions and measures include receiving ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᐊᓘᒐᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᐊᓗᒃ concerns, conducting investigations, and ᑲᒥᓯᓇᒧᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᓯᓂᖓᓄᑦ. recommending measures. ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖃᖅᑎᑕᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᓗ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑎᔅᓴᓂᓪᓗ Likewise, the Minister of Languages has the ᐊᔪᖅᑎᑕᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᑯᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ important functions under the Inuit Language ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒪ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ Protection Act. Most notably, the Minister ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ must develop programs and policies aimed at ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᑮᔭᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ. promoting the use and development of the ᑕᐃᒫᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ Inuit language, Inuit language vitality, ᐊᑑᑎᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᔭᔅᓴᖃᕆᕗᖅ, proficiency and learning, and overall ensuring ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ that there is widespread integration of the ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥ. ᐅᓇ ᓲᕐᓗ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ Inuit language in all aspects of Nunavut ᓴᖅᑮᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᐅᑎᑕᐅᔪᔅᓴᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓂᓪᓗ society. (interpretation ends) The Minister’s ᑐᕌᒐᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᔫᒥᓴᐃᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᑕ functions under the ILPA overlap with those ᓴᖅᑭᔮᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓇᓲᑎᖏᑕᓗ ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ functions set out in the Official Languages ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑕ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑕ. Act. ᐃᓕᓴᐃᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᕙᒻᒧᖓᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐅᐃᒍᔭᐅᓯᒪᓂᖃᕐᓗᓂᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔮ ᓄᓇᕘᑉ Also under the ILPA, a common overarching ᐃᓗᐊᓂ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᕘᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᖓ ᑖᓐᓇ theme grounds the respective roles of the ᐃᐅᓪᐸ ᓲᕐᓗ ᖃᓕᕇᒻᒪᑎᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ Minister of Languages and the Languages ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᓐᓂᒃ.

Commissioner, and that’s to safeguard and ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑖᓂ ᐃᐅᓪᐸ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ promote the Inuit language in order to ensure ᑖᓐᓇ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ its vitality, sustainability, transmission, and ᓴᐳᒻᒥᑎᑦᓯᔭᕆᐊᖃᓕᕐᓂᖅ use. These purposes cannot simply be ᓴᖅᑭᐅᒪᑎᑦᑎᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ retracted by the revision of the Act as ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᓐᖓᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕆᔭᖓ ᐊᒻᒪ proposed by the Department of Education. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖓ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᕆᔭᖓ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑐᕋᒐᕆᔭᐅᔪᔅᓴᐃᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑭᑦᑐᒥᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ Section 43 of the ILPA requires that a review ᐲᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᒐᓱᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ of the Act be carried out in conjunction with a ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᔪᒪᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ review of the Official Languages Act. In fact ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ. the OLA governs the review of the ILPA. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓗᓕᑯᓘᔭᖓ 43 ᐃᐅᓪᐸ

Along with any review of the ILPA, it is ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᕆᐊᖃᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᑖᓐᓇ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᕆᐊᖃᕋᑦᑕ necessary to review the status of the Inuit ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᓕᐅᖅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ. Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ.

Even though Members of the Legislative ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓲᕐᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐃᒻᒪᖄ Assembly might enjoy the power to propose ᓴᓐᖏᓂᕆᔭᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᕈᓐᓇᓲᖑᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ bills aimed at amending legislation, when ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕆᒍᒪᑎᓪᓗᒋᓪᓕ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᑦᑕᐅᖅ dealing with quasi-constitutional statutes like ᐅᔾᔨᖅᓱᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ the ILPA, this power should be exercised with ᐅᔾᔨᖅᓱᖅᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᔪᔅᓴᐃᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᖅ 25 great caution and in a comprehensive manner. ᐃᓗᓕᑯᓘᔭᖓᓂᑦ 8, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓲᕐᓗ ᖃᓕᕇᖅᑰᔨᒻᒪᑕ The proposed amendments of Bill 25 to ᑐᕌᒐᕆᒍᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᓐᓂᒃ section 8 are at cross purposes to the goals of ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᕆᔭᖓᓂᒃ ᑐᕌᖓᖅᑰᔨᓇᓂ the ILPA in that they are not aimed at ᓴᓐᖓᑦᑎᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᒋᐊᓕᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ. enhancing the use and viability of the Inuit ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑭᐳᖓᓃᖅᑰᔨᒻᒪᑦ language. It is also arguably contrary to the ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ duties on the Minister of Languages and the ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᖓ Languages Commissioner when dealing with ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᕆᔭᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓐᓂᓪᓗ the declining use of the Inuit language in ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. homes, at work, and in the community. ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᐅᑉ 8 ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐃᐅᓪᐸ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᖃᕐᒪᑦ Section 8 describes the language rights of the ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᓕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐱᒃᑯᒋᔭᖏᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᐅᑉ Inuit of Nunavut and certain obligations on ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ the Government of Nunavut with respect to ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᑮᖏᒻᒪᑦ, education programs, but it does not create ᐲᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓗᓕᑯᓘᔭᖓᓂᒃ 8 ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᖅ those rights. By proposing to suspend the 25, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᐃᒪᓇᖅᑑᔮᖅᑐᒥᒃ application of section 8, Bill 25 may give the ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᑉᐸᓯᒃᑎᑦᑎᓗᓂ government false comfort that it still has time ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑐᐊᕕᕐᓇᕆᔭᖓ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑎᑭᐅᑎᒐᔅᓴᐃᑦ ᔪᓚᐃ and reduce the sense of urgency that until 19, 2019 ᐃᓱᓕᒃᕕᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ recently the impending July 19, 2019 deadline ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ for implementing comprehensive Inuit ᑲᔪᓯᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. language instruction instilled. ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓰᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ Finally, language rights are inherent ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓂᐊᓗᒃ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖅᑕᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ indigenous rights and any change to these ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒋᒻᒪᒋᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕈᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᐸᑕ rights should be preceded by significant ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑭᒃᑯᓕᒫᑦ ᑐᓵᕕᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ public consultation focused simply on the ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᒦᑦᑕᕆᐊᓕᒃ issue of Inuit language education rather than ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᒥᒃ. the broader Education Act amendments. ᑖᒪᔅ ᐴᕐᔪ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ Thomas Berger, the conciliator, noted that the ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ failure to have Inuktut as the language of ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓐᓂᓕᒃ 12-ᒥᑦ education through grade 12 had damaging ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᓈᒻᒪᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ effects on the students, which amounted to an ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓲᕐᓗ “institutional rejection” of their culture and ᐅᑎᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔫᔮᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᓱᑎᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓂᑦ reinforced the “colonial message of ᖃᓪᓗᓈᖑᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, inferiority.” The only remedy, in his opinion, ᐅᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᑎᑐᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᐅᒋᐊᓕᒃ, ᐃᓱᒪᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᒪᒃᑮᓐᓂᒃ ᓲᕐᓗ

was the implementation of “a bilingual ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑭᒃᓱᕐᓗᑎᒃ [education] system that works.” ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᑲᐅᒋᓪᓗᓂᐅᒃ.

(interpretation) For me, this means having a (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐅᕙᓐᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑐᖅ clear monitoring and implementation plan and ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ the ability to measure outcomes. We agree the ᓇᒦᓕᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᖃᓄᕐᓗ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ foundation of language starts at home, but in ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᒧᓐᖓᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ order for the Inuit language to thrive, it must ᑐᕌᒐᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅ. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ, ᐄ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ be supported by the government, especially ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖃᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ through an education system that empowers ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᐳᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ Inuit language growth. Let’s not forget that ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ the students of today are tomorrow’s teachers, ᓴᓐᖏᒃᑎᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᐳᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᓗᑕᓗ public servants, and professionals. Without a ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂ strong Inuit language foundation provided ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᒃᓴᕗᑦ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᒃᓴᕗᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᑦᑎᓐᓂ. through the schools, they will not be able to ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᕝᕙ ᒫᓐᓇ function and work in the Inuit language. ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖃᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᐳᒍᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂᒃ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᓪᓗᓂ. Inuit language is inseparable and an inherent part of the Inuit identity, of the practices, ᐃᓅᓂᕗᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᓕᒃ ᑭᓇᐅᓂᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ, customs and traditions that are integral to ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ, ᐱᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓄᓪᓗ. distinctive Inuit culture.

ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᓚᐅᑲᒃᐳᖓ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᒐᒪ. Thank you for the opportunity to appear in ᒪᑐᐃᖓᓕᕆᕗᖓ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᖃᕈᔅᓯ. front of you today. I am now open for questions. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ, ᑲᒥᓯᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ commissioner. Ms. Towtongie. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᐸᕋ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᕆᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓇᐃᓴᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ 23 Ms. Towtongie (interpretation): Thank you, ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊᒎᖅ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒥᒃ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖅᑐᑦ Mr. Chairman. I thank the Languages ᓄᑕᕋᕐᒥᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ Commissioner. Section 23 of the Canadian ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᒪᑕ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ, Constitution states that parents have the right ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ, ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ to have their children receive school ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᓪᓗ ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᓪᓗ. ᑖᓐᓇᓕ instruction, for example, in French, English, ᒫᓐᓇ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᕗᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ. or Inuktitut, particularly in English and ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊᒎᖅ ᐅᐃᕖᓂᒃ French. The Education Act that we’re ᐊᒥᓱᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᖕᒪᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. reviewing right now states that the Minister… ᐊᒥᓱᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᕐᒪᑕ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ . It is stated that the French are a minority, but ᓴᐳᑎᔭᐅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᒪᑕ. ᓇᐃᓴᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ 74 ᑖᔅᓱᒪᓂ their language rights are well protected. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐊᕆᔭᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ 25.

Clause 74 of Bill 25 proposes that the ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᓇᐃᓴᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ 74 ᑐᒃᓯᕋᕐᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇᒎᖅ Minister “may allow an individual who is not ᒥᓂᔅᑕᕗᑦ ᐊᔪᓐᖏᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ the child of a rights holder…to register with a ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᒥᒃ. ᑖᓐᓇ school and be taught in a school or classroom ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓱᓂ under the jurisdiction of the Commission ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᓱᓂ ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑲᒥᓯᓐ

scolaire francophone” du Nunavut. If the ᓯᑰᓕᐅ ᕗᕌᓐᑯᕘᓐ. ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓅᑉ ᓄᑕᕋᖓ rights holder agrees, the Minister may allow ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᐊᖏᖅᐸᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᖅ, an Inuk child to receive French instruction. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐊᔪᓐᖏᑎᑦᑎᔪᖅ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ This has been amended. Do you support this ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓕᕐᓗᑎᒃ, ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ amendment? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᓴᐳᑎᓯᒪᕕᓯᐅᒃ? ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐱᓯᐅᒃ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Commissioner. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you. I ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕈᓐᓇᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ can’t answer that question because we mainly ᐱᕕᖃᓐᖏᓐᓇᑦᑕ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᓕᕆᓪᓗᐊᑕᕆᒐᑦᑎᒍ deal with language rights and we have to be ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᑦᑐᓂᒃ fair to all languages, either in the Inuit ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕆᐊᖃᖅᖢᑕ ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ, language, English, or French. Thank you, Mr. ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ, ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᓪᓗ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ. Towtongie. ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ: ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕆᓕᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᕋ. Ms. Towtongie (interpretation): This will be ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ my last question. Thank you, Languages ᓇᐃᓴᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᒥᒃ 2-ᒥᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔭᕐᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒐᕕᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 Commissioner. On page 2 of your submission ᐊᔪᓐᖏᑎᑦᑎᖕᒪᒡᒎᖅ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ you note that “…Bill 25 provides for the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑕᐅᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ possibility to have Inuit language instruction ᐅᐃᕖ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖓᓂᒃ. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕈᓐᓇᖅᐱᓪᓖ ᑖᓐᓇ in schools under the Commission scolaire ᓇᐃᓴᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ 75 ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 francophone.” Can you confirm that you are ᑐᓂᓯᖕᒪᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ in support of clause 75 of Bill 25 as set out in ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓚᖓ 8, ᑕᕝᕙᓂ proposed revisions to section 8 of the ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ Education Act? If I say it in English, ᑲᔪᓯᒋᐊᖁᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᐃᓴᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᒥᒃ (interpretation ends) can you confirm that you ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᖅᑲᐃ ᐅᖃᕈᒪ are in support of clause 75 of the bill which ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑲᐅᖏᓐᓇᕕᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ gives the Commission scolaire francophone ᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓕᖓᔪᖅ: (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐅᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᐲᑦ du Nunavut to give effect to Inuit language ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᐃᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖓ 75-ᒥᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥᒃ requirements as set out in proposed revisions ᑖᒃᑯᐊᒎᖅ ᐅᐃᕖᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ to section 8 of the Education Act? ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖓ 8-ᒥᑦ That is my last question. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ? (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒐ. Commissioner. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ. Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that question can be posed ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᐅᑕᖅᑭᐊᓪᓚᒋᓇᐃᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. to the Minister because he can clarify. I think ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑰᖅᑐᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᑖᓐᓇ that’s under his responsibility, if I understand ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᖕᒪᒍ, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ the question properly. Thank you, Mr. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᖓᖅᑰᕐᒪᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᒍᒃᑯ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖓ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ,

Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I believe that Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑖᓐᓇ ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ Towtongie is trying to understand your ᐃᒪᐃᓕᓇᓱᖅᑰᕐᒪᑦ, ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᖅᑰᖅᑐᖅ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᔅᓯ office’s position with regard to a specific ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᓪᓗᒍ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᐅᑉ clause of the bill. She is referring to clause 75, ᐃᓗᐊᓃᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖓ 75-ᒥᒃ which to put it in laymen’s terms as I ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑐᖅ. ᑐᑭᓯᓇᕐᔫᒥᑎᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ understand it and I could be mistaken, it ᑕᒻᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕋᓗᐊᖅᑐᖓ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓂᒃ would require Inuit language instruction ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓇᓱᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᐃᕖᑦ within the francophone school system in ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓄᑦ Nunavut. When it comes to rights and ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓄᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᓕ language rights, and if you’re not in a position ᐅᖃᕈᓐᓇᖏᒃᑯᕕᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᓯ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᒻᒪᖔᖅ to confirm whether your office is in support or ᐋᒡᒐᓘᓐᓃᑦ? ᑖᓐᓇ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ. ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ you’re not in support, that is also an answer ᐊᐱᕆᕋᑖᖅᑐᖅ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᑭᐅᔭᐅᓪᓚᑦᑖᕈᒪᓪᓗᓂ that could be given, but Ms. Towtongie was ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᒧᑦ. ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ. asking for a specific response on that clause. Ms. Towtongie.

Ms. Towtongie (interpretation): I’ll clarify it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill 25 gives the ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᒫᓐᓇ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓇᐃᓴᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ 25 ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᑎᑦᑎᖕᒪᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ Minister the authority, at the Minister’s ᐱᖁᔨᒃᐸᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᕐᓗᓂ. discretion and after careful research, if they ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᑉ ᓄᑕᕋᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖁᔭᐅᒃᐸᑦ want an Inuk child in the French school, they ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᐅᐃᕖᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖓᓂ can receive instruction in French or Inuktitut. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ That was not the case before. That’s in clause ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓯᒪᓚᐅᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ 75-ᒥ 75 of Bill 25. Are you pleased with it? Are ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᖅ 25 ᖁᕕᐊᒋᕕᐅᒃ? ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐱᓯᐅᒃ? you in support of it? What’s your position on ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᕕᓯᐅᒃ? ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᖃᐃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕆᐊᕈᒃᑯ, it? Maybe if I clarify it that way, Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) In order to be fair with ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᒧᑦ the Commissioner, Ms. Towtongie, you have ᓈᒻᒪᓈᕋᕕᑦ ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ 74 ᐊᒻᒪ 75 ᑲᑎᒃᑲᕕᒋᒃ combined clause 74 and clause 75 of the bill, ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥᒃ, ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᒃᑲ. ᑖᓐᓇ so maybe we will just put it to you, ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖓᓂᒃ 74 ᐊᒻᒪ 75 ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᐃᕖᑦ commissioner, in terms of a more general ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᓯ question. With regard to clause 74 and clause ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᖅᐸᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓄᒃ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓄᑦ? 75, which pertain to the francophone school ᑲᒥᓯᓇ. governance in Nunavut, does your office have a position on those two specific clauses? Commissioner.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇᐃᓛᒃ Chairman. Clause 75 of Bill 25 indicates that ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᑕᖓ (clause) 75 ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᒦᑦᑐᒥᒃ the Inuit language can be taught in the French ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ

school and the French school can make their ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖓᓐᓂ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕈᓐᓇᖅᖢᑎᓪᓗ own decisions. They can decide what courses ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ ᖃᓄᖅ they want to teach in the Inuit language. It’s ᓈᒻᒪᒋᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓗ always good when the Inuit language is going ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕈᓐᓇᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᑭᓱᓂᒃ to be taught anywhere. Thank you, Mr. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓐᓂᒃ, Chairman. ᖃᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᖅᑐᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Let’s ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. proceed. Mr. Qamaniq. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᔪᕼᐃᓗᑕ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ.

Mr. Qamaniq (interpretation): Thank you, ᖃᒪᓂᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒥᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᒪᒥᐊᓇᖅ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ Mr. Chairman. I’m sorry. I’m aware that you ᓲᖃᐃᒻᒪ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒐᓗᐊᖅᑐᖓ ᑎᒃᑯᐊᖅᑕᐅᕋᑖᖅᖢᑎᓪᓗ were recently appointed to your position. Was ᑕᕝᕗᖓ ᐃᓂᒋᔭᕐᓄᑦ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ your office involved with the drafting of Bill ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᑦ 25? That’s my first question and I’ll have ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᒋᔭᕐᓂ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᓚᐅᖏᒻᒪᑖ, another one. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ? ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒐ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ ᐊᐱᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᓂᐊᕆᓪᓗᖓ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Commissioner. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᐅᖃᕋᑖᕋᒪ, Chairman. As I stated earlier, the Inuit ᓯᕗᓪᓕᕐᒥ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓐᓄᑦ Language Protection Act is closely linked to ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ our mandate. When the bill was being ᐊᒃᑐᐊᖓᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᖕᒪᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ considered, we were involved in the ᑕᑯᓇᒃᑕᐅᓂᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖃᑎᒋᔭᐅᓪᓗᐊᓚᐅᕋᓗᐊᕋᑦᑕ consultations on amendments to the ᐊᔩᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑖᔅᓱᒪᐅᑉ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᑉ legislation. I appreciate that Nunavut ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᖅᐸᑕ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑭᓇᒃᑯᓂᒃᑯᐊ Tunngavik, (interpretation ends) the Coalition ᐅᕙᓃᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ, ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ of Nunavut DEAs, (interpretation) and the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓄᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ. teachers association were all given the ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᐃᓐᓇᐅᖕᒪᑕ, ᐅᕙᒍᓪᓗ opportunity to present their submissions, ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᑕ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᑐᖓ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ including our office, but we were not involved ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᓚᐅᓐᖏᓐᓇᑦᑕ. in the process. This has been our only ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓᑕᐅᖅ ᖃᐃᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᑐᐊᖅ opportunity. ᐱᕕᒋᓪᓗᒍ.

Staff members from our office were not ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᕗᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᑦᑎᓐᓂ involved in the drafting of the bill. I can point ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᖃᑕᐅᓚᐅᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥᒃ. out that I think it was in 2015 when they ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕈᓐᓇᒻᒪᕆᒃᖢᖓ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ began the review of the Education Act. The 2015−ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ Committee was asked, since the Education ᕿᒥᕐᕈᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ Act affects language provisions, if they ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ. ᐅᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ considered the Inuit Language Protection Act. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᖓᓂᖃᕐᒪᑦ, ᑖᓐᓇᓕ It seems to have been an afterthought with ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ that other Act. Our office was not involved in ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓚᐅᖅᐱᓯᐅᒃ? ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ that conversation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᖅᑰᓕᕐᓂᕐᒪᑦ. ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐋᔩᖃᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎᑐᑦ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᓚᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒡᓚᒡᕕᕗᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ,

ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ. Qamaniq.

Mr. Qamaniq (interpretation): Thank you, ᖃᒪᓂᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒥᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᑖᓐᓇ Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a question ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔪᒪᔭᕋ, ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᔅᓯᓐᓂ ᒪᒃᐱᖅᑐᒐᖅ 3 on page 3 of your submission. You noted the ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐅᔾᔨᕆᓚᐅᕐᓂᕋᖅᖢᒍ proposed schedule for the phasing in and ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓ implementation of Inuit language provisions ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ under clause 43 of Bill 25. Can you clarify ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᖢᒍ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 42 whether you feel that the schedule proposes ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᐃᓗᐊᓂ. ᑐᑭᓯᑎᑦᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᐲᑦ an achievable timeline with respect to the ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔭᕇᕐᕕᒃᓴᖏᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᓈᑦᑎᐊᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᖏᑦ application of Inuit language provisions ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ within Nunavut’s education system? Thank ᑐᕌᖓᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᔾᔪᓯᖏᓐᓂ? you, Mr. Chairman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒥᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Commissioner. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ Chairman. I also thank you for the question. ᐊᐱᕆᒐᕕᑦ. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᐲᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ Can you clarify your question? Are you ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ, ᐊᐱᕆᕖᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᓴᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ, ᖃᖓ asking if we agree with the delay of the ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. implementation? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ. Qamaniq.

Mr. Qamaniq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe if I speak English. ᖃᒪᓂᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒥᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. (interpretation ends) On page 3 of your ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᕈᒪᖃᐃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒪᑉᐱᒐᖅ 3 ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ submission you noted the proposed schedule ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᔅᓯᓐᓂ, ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒐᕕᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ for the phasing in and implementation of Inuit ᖃᖓᒃᑰᕐᓂᐊᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᑕ language provisions under clause 43 of Bill ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑕ. ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖓ 43−ᒥ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 25. Can you clarify whether you feel that the ᐃᓗᐊᓂ. ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒋᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᐱᐅᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ schedule proposes an achievable timeline with ᖃᖓᒃᑰᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᓈᒻᒪᓈᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑦ respect to the application of Inuit language ᐱᔭᕇᕈᑎᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ provisions within Nunavut’s education ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ system? (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ? (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) Chairman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Commissioner. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): I apologize. Can you hear me now? Thank you. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᒪᒥᐊᓇᖅ. ᑐᓴᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᐹ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

We do not agree with the proposed delay of ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᖁᔭᐅᓪᓗᓂ the Inuit language instruction. Inuit language ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔾᔪᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ rights are identified in Nunavut and across ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᒋᓐᖏᑕᕗᑦ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ Canada and it reaches outside of Canada, and ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ, the rights cannot be taken away. We do not ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ, ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᓯᓚᑖᓄᑦ ᑎᑭᑎᒻᒪᕆᒃᖢᓂ agree with the delay. Thank you, Mr. ᖃᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎ ᐲᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓇᓂ. Chairman. ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑕᕋᓗᐊᕗᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I’ll just add to Mr. Qamaniq’s question. His question was ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐃᓚᒋᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᒍ whether the schedule proposes an achievable ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᒪᓂᐅᑉ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖓᓄᑦ. ᐊᐱᕆᕋᑖᖅᑐᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ timeline. If your office doesn’t support the ᖃᖓᒃᑰᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑰᔨᕙ? ᑖᓐᓇ proposed timeline, does your office have ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᔅᓯ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᖃᖏᑉᐸᑦ, suggestions for alternatives? The 2019 ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᖃᕐᕕᒋᕕᓯᐅᒃ ᐊᓯᐊᒎᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ? 2019 ᑖᓐᓇ deadline has already passed. I’m assuming ᐃᓱᓕᕝᕕᒋᓂᐊᓚᐅᖅᑕᖓ ᖄᖏᖅᓯᒪᓕᕇᕐᒪᑦ. that the deadline cannot be set in the past. It ᐃᓱᒪᕗᖓᓕ, ᐃᓱᓕᕝᕕᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒦᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑦ has to be at some point in the future between ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓃᒦᑦᑐᓐᓇᖏᒻᒪᑦ 2039−ᒥ. ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᔅᓯᖃᐃ now and 2039. Does your office have specific ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᖃᕐᕕᖃᖅᐸ ᐱᔭᕇᕐᕕᒋᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑰᔨᔭᖓᓂᒃ suggestions as for alternative, achievable ᑲᖓᒃᑰᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ? ᑲᒥᓯᓇ. timelines? Commissioner.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᒍᑦ Chairman. We all know that the Department ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒡᓚᒡᕕᖓ of Education wanted to delay the timeline due ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕᒎᖅ to the lack of teachers. However, we are not ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᖃᓐᖏᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ aware of what is available for curriculum ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖏᖦᖢᑕᓗ ᑭᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ materials in the schools. (interpretation ends) ᐃᓕᓴᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂᒃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) We don’t have a clear idea of what the ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓪᓚᑦᑖᖏᓐᓇᑦᑕ ᐃᓐᓇᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑭᓱᓂᒃ resources are that they have on hand. ᐱᑕᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ (interpretation) I believe I answered your ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖅᐸᒌᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᑭᐅᖅᑰᖅᐸᕋ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, commissioner. We have tried to understand it ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ ᑲᒥᓯᓇ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇᑦᑕᐅᖅ ourselves in the Legislative Assembly as we ᑐᑭᕼᐃᕚᓪᓕᕈᑎᒋᓂᓗᒃᑕᑉᕼᐃᒪᒐᑉᑎᒍ ᐅᕙᒍᑦᑕᐅᖅ need to be fully informed, and the Minister ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᑉᓗᑕ ᑐᑭᕼᐃᐊᑦᓯᐊᕆᐊᖃᕋᑉᑕ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕᓗ has informed us what the reasons are and ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᕼᐃᒪᑉᓗᓂ ᕼᐅᓇᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᕼᐃᖅᖢᓂ what has to be done. ᕼᐅᓇᓪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᒋᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑖ.

(interpretation ends) If it’s okay, Mr. Qamaniq, I’m just going to go to the Minister. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᒪᓃᖅ ᓱᖁᑕᐅᖏᑉᐸᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ (interpretation) Minister, looking at the ᑐᓂᓂᐊᕋᒃᑯ. ᐱᑎᑕᐅᑎᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᖢᒋᑦ ᐅᓇ implementation schedule, they keep referring ᐅᖃᐅᕼᐃᐅᖏᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ 2039, 2039. ᕼᐅᓇᓂᒃ ᑕᕝᕙ to 2039. What does it entail and how did you ᐃᓗᓕᖃᕋᒥ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐋᖅᑭᕼᐅᓚᐅᖅᐱᕼᐃᐅᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖏᑦ set the implementation deadlines for language ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᕌᒐᓐᖑᐊᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖓᑕ ᒥᒃᕼᐋᓅᖓᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᕼᐃᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ

of instruction? What were the reasons? ᕼᐅᓇᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᕼᐃᖃᖅᖢᕼᐃ? ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ. Minister Joanasie. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ: ᐃ, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Hon. David Joanasie (interpretation): Thank ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑕᒪᑐᒧᖓᓕ you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Just ᐱᔭᒃᓴᖅᑕᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᐅᑎᒃᓴᓄᑦ in terms of the amount of work that will be ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᔭᐅᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ required to make these resources available ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓂᒃ and the training of Inuktut-speaking teachers ᐊᑯᓂᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ is going to take time and many other ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᖃᕆᖃᕐᓂᐊᒻᒪᕆᖕᒪᑦ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᓗ, resources, financial and otherwise. Taking ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ those into account, we have scheduled out a ᖃᖓᒃᑰᖅᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓ, ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ plan where language arts in Inuktitut as well ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᓪᓗ as English is mapped out by different years ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᓪᓗ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓂᒃ and different grade levels, and each strand of ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐳᖅᑐᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᖕᓂᓕᒃ the curriculum that has been developed to date ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ in Nunavut continually has to be made ᐊᑐᓂ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᒧᑦ available in Inuktitut. This encompasses ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ, ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ curriculum development, assessment tools, ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓗᓕᖃᕐᒪᑦ resources, as well as training for using those ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᓴᓇᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ, materials. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᐅᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᐃᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒋᑦ.

In our experience it takes two to three years to ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᔭᖏᓪᓗ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᖕᓂᒃ ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ develop one specific piece of curriculum and ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ one to two years for assessment tools, so five ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒥᒃ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᒪᕐᕉᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ to ten years to develop resources as well as ᐊᕐᕌᒎᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᑦ ᖁᓕᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᐅᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ, terminology for one year of training, and this ᑕᐃᒎᓯᓕᐅᕐᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐊᕐᕌᒍ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ is per subject area. We have tried to map it out ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᐃᓂᐅᒐᔭᕐᒪᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᕝᕙ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ as best we can, the resources that would be ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᕋᓱᒃᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᐊᔪᓐᖏᓐᓂᓕᒫᖅᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ required and the efforts that need to be made, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᐅᑏᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕆᐊᖃᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ in the submission that we provided on ᐱᓕᕆᔨᖑᓂᕋᕆᐊᖃᕋᔭᖅᑕᖓ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᓇᒡᒐᔾᔭᐅᒥ Monday to the Standing Committee. Thank ᑐᓂᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓄᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) (interpretation ends) And just to confirm that ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒍᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᖢᖓ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓴᓂᓐᓃᒻᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ document that you are referring to, I have it ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᐃᑦ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓇᓕᐊᒃ here in front of me, Inuktut Language Arts ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ, ᑕᖅᑳᓂ Language of Instruction Implementation. I ᓯᓚᑎᑦᑎᐊᑯᓗᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ have seen copies out in the foyer. Just to ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᖅᑲᐅᓐᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓕᕐᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒍ. confirm, that’s a public document available to ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ. any stakeholder that would like to look at it. Minister Joanasie.

Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Chairman. Yes, when we provided it to the ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐄ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓄᑦ Committee, we understand that it became a ᑐᓐᓂᖅᑯᑕᐅᖕᒪᑕ

public document. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᑕᖅᑲᐅᓐᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑎᑐᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Qamaniq. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ.

Mr. Qamaniq (interpretation): Thank you, ᖃᒪᓂᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪ Mr. Chairman. I would now like to ask about ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔪᒪᓕᕐᒥᔭᕋ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔭᕕᓂᔅᓯᓐᓂ, ᑐᖏᓕᐊ the second paragraph on page 10 of your ᒪᒃᐱᖅᑐᕋᖅ 10−ᒦᑦᑐᖅ. ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᖢᓂ, submission. It states that “It might also make ᐱᔭᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔭᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑰᖅᑐᑦ it more difficult for an Auditor General to ᑕᒪᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅᓯᐅᖅᑎᐅᑉ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓇᓱᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ describe specific ways in which the ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔭᒃᓴᖅᑖᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ Government of Nunavut is falling short of its ᑐᖓᐅᑦᑎᓯᒪᖕᒪᖔᑕ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇᓗ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ obligations.” Can you explain what they have ᖃᓄᖅ ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑎᒻᒪᖔᖅᐱᐅᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕈᓐᓇᖅᐱᐅᒃ? overlooked and what it means to you? Thank ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Commissioner Aariak. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Is it on page 10? I don’t quite ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᒃᐱᖅᑐᒐᖓ 10−ᒦᑦᑑᑉ, ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᑦᑎᐊᖏᓐᓇᒃᑯ understand your question, so if you can ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᓚᐅᑲᒍᓐᓇᕈᕕᐅᒃ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. rephrase it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ. Qamaniq.

Mr. Qamaniq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll go back to English again. ᖃᒪᓂᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᕐᒥᓗᖓ. (interpretation ends) In the second paragraph (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᒡᓕᐊ ᒪᒃᐱᖅᑐᒐᖅ 10−ᒦᑦᑐᖅ on page 10 of your submission you state ᑐᓐᓂᖅᑯᑎᒋᖅᑲᐅᔭᕐᓂ. ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᑲᐅᔪᑎᑦ, further, “It might also make it more difficult ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑰᖅᑐᖅ for an Auditor General to describe specific ᑕᒪᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅᓯᐅᖅᑎ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓇᓱᒡᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ways in which the Government of Nunavut is ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᖓᐅᑦᑎᓂᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐱᔭᒃᓴᖅᑖᕆᓯᒪᔭᒥᖕᓂᒃ. falling short in its obligations.” Can you ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᐲᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᐃᒪ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ elaborate further on what you mean by this ᐅᖃᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᑐᑭᖃᕐᒪᖔᖓ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. statement? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ (interpretation ends) Thank you for the ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒃᑲᖕᓂ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ. clarification. Commissioner Aariak.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᑖᓐᓇᐃᓛᒃ Chairman. It’s on subsection 8(2). If there’s a ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᖕᒪᑦ 8 2−ᒦᑦᑐᖅ, need to change what is in subsection 8(2), the ᐃᓚᖓ 8 2. ᑖᓐᓇ ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ Inuit are still going to have rights which can’t ᐃᓚᖓ 8 2−ᒦᑦᑐᒥᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᕈᒪᒐᓗᐊᖅᐸᑕ ᓱᓕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ. ᑖᓐᓇ

be taken away. They already have Inuit ᐲᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᖅ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ language rights which are recognized. If there ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᐸᒌᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᑖᓐᓇ is a change in that specific subsection that I ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓᑐᐊᑯᓗᒃ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᐸᑦ, ᑖᓐᓇ referred to, I would suggest reviewing the ᒪᓕᒐᓕᒫᕌᓗᒃ ᑕᑯᓇᒃᑕᐅᖔᓪᓗᐊᖅᖢᓂ whole Act and not just subsection 8(2). The ᑖᓐᓇᑐᐊᑯᓘᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓚᖓ 8 2. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᒥ rights of Inuit in Nunavut cannot be removed. ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖓᑦ ᐲᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᖅ. I hope I understood you correctly. Thank you, ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑦᑎᐊᕈᒃᑭᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ. Qamaniq.

Mr. Qamaniq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can ask more questions, but I ᖃᒪᓂᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. would like to give my colleagues an ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᕐᑲᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕋᓗᐊᖅᖢᖓ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ opportunity to ask their questions. Can I ask ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᖃᑎᒃᑲ ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑦᑐᒪᖕᒥᒐᒃᑭᑦ questions? Yes. Because you are not going to ᐊᐱᖅᓱᓕᖅᐸᑕ. ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖔ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, understand me in Inuktitut, I will just talk in ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑑᕋᓗᐊᕐᒥᒍᒪ English to speed things up. This will be the ᑐᑭᓯᑦᑎᐊᖏᖦᖤᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑑᑦᑎᐊᒻᒪᕆᒃᑯᒪ last one for the time being. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓱᒃᑲᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᓂᕆᔭᕗᑦ, ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐸᐅᓚᐅᑲᒡᓗᓂᖃᐃ.

(interpretation ends) It has been suggested (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅᑕᖃᕐᒪᑦ, that early childhood education should be ᐸᐃᕆᕕᒃᑕᖃᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᓕᒫᒥ. ᐃᕝᕕᑦ provided universally across all Nunavut ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᑦ ᓇᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 9 communities. In your view and with respect to ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦᑕ the requirements under section 9 of the Inuit ᓴᐳᒻᒥᐅᓯᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ. ᐃᓱᒪᖃᖅᐲᑦ Language Protection Act, do you feel that a ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐅᒃᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᒃᐸᑕ universal early childhood education program ᐱᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᐹ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ would be better achieved within the revised ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᒃᐸᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ Education Act or with a revised Child Care ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᒃᐸᒃ ᐸᐃᕆᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ? Act? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒥᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ. Commissioner.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᖃᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ Chairman. I will always be happy anytime our ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᐸᑦ language can be taught, but the Office of the ᐱᐅᒌᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᕋ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ Languages Commissioner has a requirement ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ ᐊᒡᓚᒡᕕᐊ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᑦ to deal with language issues and that’s exactly ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᑕᐅᑐᒐᖃᖅᖢᑕ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ what we did when we reviewed the bill. ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓚᐅᕋᑦᑕ.

If I can respond further, Mr. Chairman, to a ᐊᒻᒪ ᑭᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕈᒪ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ, question that was brought up earlier by the ᐃᓚᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᕋᑖᕋᒃᑯ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᐊᖅ Member in regard to delaying deadlines, I ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᖅᑲᐅᔭᖓᓂᒃ. ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᑑᑉ believe it was your first question and I just ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᕋᑖᕋᕕᐅᒃ. ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᖅᑰᖅᑲᐅᔪᕐᖏᓐᓇ.

remembered something. If our language is not ᐃᖅᑲᓚᐅᑲᒃᑲᒪ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᑕ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ being taught in school right now, those ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᖏᑉᐸᑕ ᒫᓐᓇ, ᑕᐃᒪᓕ students are the teachers of tomorrow and can ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᒃᓴᕘᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓃᑦᑐᑦ be taught their language without delaying the ᒫᓐᓇ ᒫᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᖕᓂᒃ schedule, and it should be immediate while ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᓪᓗᐊᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ we can still speak in Inuktitut and it should be ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᓗᒍ. ᒫᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ available in our schools and to properly teach ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂ students how to speak Inuktitut. Thank you, ᓴᖅᑭᔮᑦᑎᐊᓪᓗᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᖢᑎᒡᓗ Mr. Chairman. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Qamaniq. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ.

Mr. Qamaniq (interpretation): This is probably my last question. We went into the ᖃᒪᓂ: ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐸᐅᓪᓗᒍᖃᐃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒧᑦ school system focused and we were taught ᐃᓯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑕ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᐸᓗᒃ only in English. Inuktitut instruction was ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᒃᖢᑕ, ᐃᖃᕐᕋᐅᑉ ᐊᕝᕙᖓᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ about half an hour or 45 minutes and we 45−ᒥᓂᒥᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᓪᓗ, ᐃᓅᔨᖓᔪᑎᑐᓪᓗ learned Inuktitut orthography. I can read and ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᐸᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑕ. ᑕᒪᒃᑮᖅ write in both languages. If we read Inuktitut at ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᕈᓐᓇᖅᑖᒃᑲᒃ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕈᓐᓇᖅᖢᒋᓪᓗ. the home, it would better preserve the ᐊᖏᕐᕋᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᕈᑦᑕ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕗᑦ ᐊᓯᐅᖏᑉᐹᓪᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᒥᖕᒪᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ Inuktitut language and not only be taught in ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᑑᖏᑦᑐᒥ. the school.

Now, this subject matter you are speaking to in looking at our future, have you held ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᓯ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᖢᓯ discussions about students who may attend ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖃᑦᑕᖅᐱᓰ? ᓯᓚᑦᑐᖅᓴᕐᕕᒡᔪᐊᒦᓕᖅᐸᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ universities, that students who have been ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓰᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᑯᐃᑦ taught using Inuktitut as the language of ᐱᔭᕇᖅᓵᓕᔪᓐᓇᕋᓱᒋᓪᓗᓯᐅᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ instruction would be able to graduate? I am ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᔅᓯ? ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥᒃ ᐊᐱᕆᓗᖓ. asking if that is what you are referencing ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. when you speak about the language of instruction. That is my last question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ. Commissioner.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᐅᖃᕋᑖᕋᒪ, ᐄ, Chairman. As I said earlier, we do agree that ᐊᖏᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᐳᑦ our language must have a solid foundation at ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖃᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᑦᑎᓐᓂ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ the home, but as in walking, it has to balance ᐱᓱᒃᑐᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᒡᓗᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂᓗ and work closely with the home and the ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᐳᑦ school in order to strengthen our language. If ᓴᓐᖏᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕇᖅᑐᖃᖅᐸᑦ students are proficient in both Inuktitut and ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ English or Inuinnaqtun upon graduation, they ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑎᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ

will be stronger because they can speak more ᓴᓐᖏᔫᒃᑲᓐᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐅᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ than one language. They are fully capable of ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ. ᓯᓚᑦᑐᖅᓴᕐᕕᖕᒨᕈᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ. attending post-secondary institutions. There ᐊᒥᓱᒻᒪᕇᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᖕᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᑦ are many people who know their mother ᓯᓚᑦᑐᖅᓴᕐᕕᖕᒨᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ tongue that can go to college to get further ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖅᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᑕᒪᔾᔭᓕ education because their strength comes from ᓴᓐᖏᓂᒃᑲᓐᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᐱᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ being bilingual. I hope I responded to your ᐊᑕᐅᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᒪᑕ. question or maybe you need clarification. ᑭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᒃᑭᑦ, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑎᑦᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᒍᔅᓯᓘᓐᓃᑦ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ.

ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᔪᕼᐃᓗᑕ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᐃᕐᓂᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Continuing on. Mr. Kaernerk. ᖃᐃᕐᓂᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒋᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇ.

Mr. Kaernerk (interpretation): Thank you, ᐆᒥᖓᓕᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓗᖓ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖅ Mr. Chairman. Welcome, commissioner. ᓴᖅᑭᓚᐅᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓄᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᖅᖢᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ I would like to begin with your submission to ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᕗᓪᓗ the Standing Committee. In reading it, it ᐊᐃᕙᔾᔪᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑰᔨᓕᖅᖢᓂ. ᑕᕝᕘᓇ focuses more on the Act and it seems to be ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᖅᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᐱᖓ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᐃᒪ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ conflicting with Inuit customs. Can you ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᖢᒍ, ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᑕᐃᒪ ᓄᓇᕘᒧᑦ explain how this bill we are reviewing can be ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑑᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕋᓱᒋᕕᐅᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ beneficial for Nunavut? That’s my first ᕿᒥᕐᕈᑎᓪᓗᑎᒍ? ᑖᓐᓇ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥᒃ question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᐊᓪᓚᒡᓚᒍ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ Commissioner. ᐊᐱᕆᒐᕕᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᖃᐃᕐᓂᖅ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ ᑐᓂᓯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᓴᖅᑭᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25, Chairman. I also thank you for the question, ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᓗᐊᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᓲᕐᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ Member Kaernerk. Before Bill 25 was ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᔫᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓪᓗᑎᒃ. introduced, they focused mostly on the ᑖᓐᓇᐅᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 amendments and at that stage of Bill 25 it ᐊᑲᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᖅᑰᔨᑐᐃᓐᓇᓕᓚᐅᕐᒪᑦ. seemed that subsection 8(2) and section 8 of ᐊᑲᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᖏᖦᖢᓂ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ the Inuit Language Protection Act should not ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᕐᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ be amended because Inuit have the right ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᑎᓪᓗᒍ already. Even if the Act is changed, Inuit 8(2), 8-ᒥᓗ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᓪᓗᐊᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᒪᑦ already have a language right that is ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᐸᒌᕐᒪᑕ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ nationally recognized. Indigenous languages ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ in Canada are important and section 35 of the ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᐸᒌᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ (interpretation ends) Constitution ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ. ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᖕᒥᔪᑦ (interpretation) identifies that indigenous ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔫᒡᒎᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᖅ peoples have a right and it is recognized even ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ 35 constitution ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ outside of Nunavut. That right cannot be ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓛᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᑦ. breached. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope I ᑖᓐᓇᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᓂᖓ responded to the question. ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᑎᒋᔪᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᑉ ᓯᓚᑖᓂ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᓯᖁᒥᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ ᑭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᒪ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᐃᕐᓂᖅ. Kaernerk. ᖃᐃᕐᓂᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇᑦᑕᐅᖅ Mr. Kaernerk (interpretation): Thank you, ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᒃᐱᕆᕙᕋ. ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕗᑦ Mr. Chairman. I also believe that. Our culture ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔾᔮᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ will never be changed even if the government ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᑲᓗᐊᕈᓂ ᐊᔪᖅᑐᖅ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ tries to change it. The reason is that our ᑎᑎᖅᑲᑎᒍᓪᓕ ᐊᑐᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᓯᕗᓕᖅᐳᑦ. ancestors didn’t use written documentation. ᒪᓕᒐᖃᓚᐅᕐᒥᖕᒪᑕ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, They had traditional laws on survival and ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒌᖕᓂᕐᒥᒃ. working together. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓵᖅᖢᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥᒃ 8(2) If you don’t want subsection 8(2) amended ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᑦ ᑕᕝᕗᖓ and the bill was changed to reflect that, would ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᖁᓐᖏᑯᔅᓯᐅᒃ ᐃᒪᓐᓇᓕᖃᐃ ᑖᓐᓇ you support it as the Office of the Languages ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓇᔭᖅᐸᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ? Commissioner? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᕈᓐᓇᖅᑰᖅᐱᓯᐅᒃ? ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᒃᐹᑦ Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᕈᓐᓇᖅᐱᓯᐅᒃ ᐊᒡᓚᒡᕕᒃᓯᓐᓂ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Commissioner. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ. Chairman. In order to understand correctly ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᑐᑭᓯᑦᑎᐊᕈᒪᒧᑦ and respond accordingly, are you asking if we ᑭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᒪᓪᓗᒍᓗ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒦᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ will support the passage of Bill 25 if ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑕ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᒃᐸᑦ subsection 8(2) of the Inuit Language 8(2) ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᓕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ Protection Act is amended? Thank you, Mr. ᑖᔅᓱᒪᓐᖓᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥᒃ 25-ᒥᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᕕ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᐃᕐᓂᖅ Kaernerk, please clarify. Mr. Kaernerk. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᔫᓪᓗᐊᕐᓂᕈᕕᑦ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᐃᕐᓂᖅ.

Mr. Kaernerk (interpretation): Yes, that was ᖃᐃᕐᓂᖅ: ᐄ, ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᐊᐱᕆᕋᑖᖅᐳᖓ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, my question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ. Commissioner. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᖏᑦᑎᐊᕋᓗᐊᕋᑦᑕ ᑖᓐᓇ Chairman. We don’t want the Inuit Language ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᓱᒋᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕋᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓗ Protection Act changed or touched. The roles ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᓱᒋᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕋᑦᑎᒍ. and responsibilities of the Languages ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ Commissioner are outlined in the Inuit ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓪᓗ Language Protection Act. If there is going to ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᐅᓪᐸ (ILPA), ᐃᓄᐃᑦ be an amendment to that Act, the Languages ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑦᑕ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥ. ᑖᓐᓇ Commissioner should be involved. We don’t ᐃᓗᓕᖏᓐᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᔪᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ think the (interpretation ends) ILPA ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᓪᓗᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ (interpretation) should be amended or ᐊᓯᔾᔩᔪᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ ᑖᔅᓱᒪᓂ. ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕆᐊᖃᕋᓱᒋᖏᑦᑎᐊᕋᓗᐊᕋᑦᑎᒍᓪᓕ

touched, but if it’s going to be reviewed, we ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᓱᒋᓐᖏᖦᖢᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᐅᓪᐸ. would like the Office of the Languages ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᓈᖅᐸᑦ, Commissioner to be included in the process. ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ The Official Languages Act does identify that ᐊᒡᓚᒡᕕᐊ, ᑖᓐᓇᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ if there is going to be a review of these two ᒪᓕᒐᖅ Official Languages Act, ᑕᐃᑲᓂᓗ Acts, they should be reviewed at the same ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥᖕᒪᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ time. Further, the activities of the Inuit ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᑦᑎᒃᑯᑦ Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit are also looked ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓪᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ at. Those two Acts should be reviewed ᑕᐃᒎᓯᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓕᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ together. We don’t want to change just one ᑕᑯᓇᒃᑕᐅᓪᓗᐊᕐᒥᔪᖅ. ᑕᕝᕙᖔᕐᓕ ᐱᖁᔮᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ clause. If there is going to be a review of any ᐊᑕᐅᑦᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓪᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ. language legislation, our office should be ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᑯᓗᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᖁᔨᖏᓐᓇᑦᑕ. involved and just focus on languages. Thank ᐃᓗᐃᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔮᖏᒻᒪᑕ. ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ you, Mr. Chairman. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐃᓚᐅᓪᓗᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᓗᐃᑦᑐᒥᒡᓗ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖑᐊᒐᖃᕐᓗᑕ Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒋᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᒍᓗ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᒍᓗ ᑖᓐᓇ (interpretation ends) I am just trying to get ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. clarity here. The changes proposed under Bill 25 to the Inuit Language Protection Act are ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. not major. It’s not an overhaul of the Inuit ᑐᑭᓯᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᒐᓱᑦᑐᐃᑦ Language Protection Act; neither is this bill ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᖅ 25-ᒥᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᒍᑎᐅᔪᒥᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥ, ᐊᖏᔪᐊᓘᓐᖏᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ an overhaul of the Education Act. Specifically ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐃᓐᓈᓘᒐᓱᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ with clause 123 of Bill 25, which makes ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᒫᕌᓗᒻᒥᒃ changes to the Inuit Language Protection Act, ᐊᓯᔾᔩᒐᓱᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 123 ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᕐᒥ what specific part of that clause does your ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖅ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 123, ᐊᓯᔾᔩᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ office object to? Is it those three words that ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ. ᓇᓪᓕᐊᒃ ᑖᔅᓱᒪ are being added, “and bilingual education,” ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᐅᑉ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓯ ᓈᒻᒪᒋᓐᖏᓚᐅᒃ? ᐱᖓᓱᑦ the three words that are being added, or is it ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᓰᑦ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᑎᔭᐅᓂᐅᓴᔫᑦ, ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ the part of the clause where it changes the ᐅᖃᐅᓰᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ schedule for phased-in implementation? ᐃᓚᔭᐅᓂᐅᓴᒻᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ, Commissioner. ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓚᖓ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᐅᔫᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᔪᖅ ᖃᖓᒃᑰᖅᑕᕐᓂᐅᒋᐊᓕᓐᓂᒃ Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ. Chairman. I just stated that (interpretation ends) if the legislation is going to be changed, ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᐅᖃᕋᑖᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖓ why not look at it in the lens of language? (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᒐᓱᒻᒪᑦ Take a look at the legislation as a whole and ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓕᑭᐊᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔫᒥᓗᓂ ᑕᑯᓐᓈᖅᑕᐅᓕ, not just meddle with a small part of the ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓗᓂ ᐃᓗᐃᑦᑑᓗᒍ legislation, of the Act, the Inuit Language ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᑯᓗᒋᓐᖏᑕᖓ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᒐᓱᓪᓗᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᑉ, Protection Act. If there are going to be ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᒍᑎᐅᔪᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ. changes anyway, why not do the whole ᐊᓯᔾᔩᔪᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑲᓂᓛᒃ, ᓱᒻᒪᓪᓕ review of the Act itself, specifically focusing ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐃᓐᓇᐅᓐᖏᓚᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᒫᖅ? ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒧᑦ on language? (interpretation) I hope that ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) answers the question or if I understood the ᑐᑭᓯᒍᒪᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ, ᐃᒃᕼᐃᕙᐅᑦ... Chair… . >>ᐃᓪᓚᖅᑐᑦ >>Laughter

Thank you, commissioner. Mr. Kaernerk, I’m ᒪ’ᓇ, ᑲᒥᓯᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᐃᕐᓂᖅ, ᐄᑯᓗᒃ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ ᐅᓇ sorry. I would like to direct this to the ᑐᕌᖅᑎᑦᓗᐊᕋᓗᐊᕋᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᑭᕼᐃᕚᓪᓕᕈᑎᒋᕼᐅᐊᖅᑐᒍ. Minister to get more information. Minister, ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᐊᓂᓵᖅᑕᖓ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ the commissioner just said that this bill is ᑐᕼᐋᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᒐᔮᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ trying to change a little part of the Act. Why ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ, ᐃᓛᒃ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᕼᐊᖅᕼᐃᒪᒻᒪᑦ. ᕼᐆᑭᐊᖅ??? have you introduced a bill like that? ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᒥᒃ ᓴᖅᑮᕼᐃᒪᕕᓯ? (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) (interpretation ends) If you can respond to the ᑭᐅᒍᓐᓇᕈᕕᐅᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᕋᑖᖅᑕᖓ. commissioner’s remarks, Minister Joanasie. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ.

Hon. David Joanasie (interpretation): Thank ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, you, Mr. Chairman. The two Acts, the ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᑯᐊ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᐱᖁᔮᒃ Education Act and the Inuit Language ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᒻᒪᑎᒃ Protection Act, are connected together. Under ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑕ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᒍᑎᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ section 8 of the Inuit Language Protection ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ 8 ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ Act, when it comes to education, we would ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᓂ. ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᔭᕗᑦ like it to be clearer that we are working on ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᕈᓐᓇᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕋᑦᑕ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓂᒃ. ᐄ, ᑕᕝᕙᓂ bilingual education. We want the Inuit ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᖁᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᕗᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ language to remain in the school, as well as ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ. ᑖᓐᓇ English or French. It’s written that way to ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᕆᐊᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᒃᑮᓐᓂᒃ make it clearly outlined in both Acts, Mr. ᐱᖁᔮᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᒐᓱᑦᑐᖅ. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, Chairman. Thank you. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᐃᕐᓂᖅ. Kaernerk. ᖃᐃᕐᓂᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐆᒥᖓᑦᑕᐅᖅ Mr. Kaernerk (interpretation): Thank you, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᖃᑎᖕᒪ ᑐᓄᓂᕐᒧᑦ, Mr. Chairman. Like my colleague from ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥᑦᑕᐅᖅ Tununiq, we had to speak in English in school ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᕐᒥᒐᑦᑕ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᕌᖓᑦᑕ and spoke our language when we got home. I ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᖢᑕ. ᐅᒃᐱᕆᖕᒥᔭᕋ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ believe my colleague when he said that yes, ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ we speak English in school and at home I ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒎᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ used to be told by my mother, “Don’t speak ᐊᖏᕐᕋᑦᑎᓐᓂᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᓂᖅᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙᓚᐅᕋᒪ so much English. You’re home now.” I ᐊᓈᓇᓐᓄᑦ, “ᐊᑏᓕ ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᓗᐊᓐᖏᓵᕆᑦ believe in advising your children like that. It ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ.” ᑕᒪᓐᓇ is our culture, it’s our language and we’re ᐃᓂᖅᑎᖅᑎᒋᒋᐊᖓᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐅᒃᐱᕆᖕᒥᒐᒃᑯ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ proud of it. ᐅᓇ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕆᓪᓗᑎᒍ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓪᓗᑎᒍ ᐅᐱᒋᒐᑦᑎᒍ.

I would like to ask in English. (interpretation ends) What specific actions do you feel ᐆᒥᖓᓕ ᑕᐃᒪ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᒋᐊᓐᖑᐊᑕᕐᓚᖓ should be taken into consideration when ᐃᒪᓐᓇᖃᐃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑭᓱᓪᓚᑦᑖᑦ ᓱᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓱᒋᕕᒋᑦ determining the timelines for the phasing in ᐃᓱᒪᔅᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᖃᖅᑐᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᖓᒃᑰᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ

and application of Inuit language provisions ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ of the legislation? (interpretation) Thank you, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ. Commissioner.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᐅᓇ, Chairman. Let me shut this off. Please wait. ᖃᒥᐊᓪᓚᒡᓚᒍᐊᐃᑦ. ᐅᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᐊᐃ.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We don’t support ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ the delaying of the implementation. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᖏᑦᑎᐊᕋᓗᐊᕋᑦᑕ.

I completely understand that in our home, our ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖑᐊᒐᖃᕐᓗᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖓ language has to be our foundation. Children ᐊᖏᕐᕋᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᓲᖃᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᐳᑦ attend school from 8:30 and we finish work ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᑦᑎᒍ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ around 5:00, and then there’s other work that ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓃᓲᖑᖕᒪᑕ 8:00-ᒦᙶᖅ 5:00- needs to be done at night. For example, my ᒧᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕇᖦᖤᖅᐳᒍᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓪᓗ son plays hockey and is involved in other ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐅᓐᓄᒃᑯᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ activities. We spend a very short amount of ᐃᕐᓂᕋ ᕼᐋᑭᓲᖑᖕᒪᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᓂᒡᓗ time at home with him. Because of that and ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᕙᒃᖢᓂ. ᓇᐃᑦᑐᑯᓗᖕᒥᒃ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖅᓯᒪᖃᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᓕᕋᑦᑎᒍ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᑎᓪᓗᒍ, while they’re in school, they should be able to ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒦᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃᑕᐅᖅ be taught their language. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᐊᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᑕ.

If we don’t consider our language very ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑦᑎᖏᒃᑯᑦᑕ important or if we don’t learn it, then who ᐃᓕᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᖏᒃᑯᑦᑕᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑭᓇᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ will we be having as teachers? I hope I ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᖃᓕᓛᕋᑦᑕ? ᑭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᒃᑯ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, answered the question correctly. Thank you, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Are ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑕᐃᒫᖅᐲᑦ? ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ. you done? Thank you. Ms. Towtongie. ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, Ms. Towtongie (interpretation): Thank you, ᐃᓕᑕᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᖕᒪ. ᓇᐃᑦᑐᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᖕᒥᒃ, ᐅᓇ Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me again. I ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᓴᐅᑎᒋᒐᒃᑯ have a very short question. I would like to use ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᓇᒥ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ this as an example, where our education ᐊᔾᔨᖃᐸᓗᒍᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂ system is similar to other jurisdictions in ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᒥ. ᑕᐃᒪ ᑯᐸᐃᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᖃᑦᑕᖅᐳᑦ Canada. In Quebec they have education and ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᐃᕖᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓐᓄᑦ French language legislation, and Canada has ᒪᓕᒐᖃᑦᑕᖅᐳᖅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑲᓇᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᖃᖅᑐᖅ federal legislation for French-speaking ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖃᖅᑐᖅ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊᒎᖅ ᐅᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ people. If the French-speaking people are a ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒃᐸᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑐᖅ majority, then Canada can release funds so ᑲᓇᑕ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᕐᒥᒃ ᓴᒃᑯᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ that the French people can learn in French. If ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ the English-speaking people are a majority, ᖃᑉᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᐸᑕ English Canada can release funds under federal ᐊᒥᓱᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒃᐸᑕ ᑲᓇᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᑉ ᐊᑖᓂ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᕐᒥᒃ ᓴᒃᑯᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ

legislation so that they can be taught in their ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖁᓪᓗᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᑎᒍᑦ. language. It is not that way for indigenous ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ. ᐄ, languages. Although it has been recognized ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᕐᕋᕕᖏᑎᒍᑦ now, the Canadian government doesn’t ᑮᓇᐅᔭᕐᒥᒃ ᓴᒃᑯᐃᖃᑦᑕᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ provide funding for that. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ.

My question is: when the Office of the ᐅᓇᓕ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒐ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ Languages Commissioner reviewed the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 education system and Bill 25, did you ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᓕᕋᒥᒃ, ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᓚᐅᖅᐱᓰ ᑯᐸᐃᒃᒥ ᖃᓄᖅ compare it with the way they deal with ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᕕᖅᑐᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᖔᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ? language and education in Quebec? That’s my ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔪᒪᔭᕋ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖑᔪᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, final question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Commissioner. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can say from my own knowledge ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᐅᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ that French language rights are considered ᐅᕙᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᒃᑯᑦ, ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒥᖕᓂᒃ very important, and they were able to make ᐱᓪᓚᕆᐅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓪᓚᕆᐊᓘᖕᒪᑕ ᓴᓐᖏᔪᓂᒡᓗ strong arguments to enact laws to that effect. ᒪᑭᒪᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᓚᐅᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᓐᖑᖅᑎᑦᑎᒻᒪᕆᒃᖢᑎᒃ. ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᐅᒪᒻᒪᕆᒃᑐᖅ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ It is still reaching us today where we see a ᐅᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖅᖢᑎᒃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐅᐃᕖᒃᑯᑦ people take real pride of their language rights. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖓᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᖅᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᖅ (interpretation ends) The French language ᐅᐃᕖᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓂᒃ. ᐅᐱᒍᓱᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ legislation had a lot to do with the ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒥᓂᒃ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ. strengthening of the French language. It took people to be proud of their language rights. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᖃᕈᒪᔪᖓ ᓴᖅᑭᓚᐅᖅᑕᓐᓂᒃ ᒪᑐᐃᖅᓯᒍᑎᓐᓂ I just want to get to an example that I put out ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖅᑲᐅᔭᓐᓂᒃ. Doucet-Brodreau in my opening statements earlier. In Doucet- ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒃᑰᑎᑦᑎᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓅᕙ ᓯᑰᓴᒥ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ Boudreau vs. Nova Scotia, it was through the ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔨᕐᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᒃᑯᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ Supreme Court of Canada that a group of ᐊᑖᑕᒃᑯᒋᔭᐅᔪᐃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒻᒨᖅᑎᑦᑎᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ parents took to court the Province of Nova ᓅᕙ ᓯᑰᓴᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᓂ. ᕿᑐᕐᖓᒥᓂᒃ Scotia because they wanted their children to ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᒪᔪᒻᒪᑕᐃᓛᒃ ᕿᑐᕐᖓᖏᑦ ensure that they go to school in the language ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ of their choice. In this particular case it ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᓯᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ. ᑕᕝᕙᓂᓕ ᐅᐃᕖᒥ happens to be in French. As the court ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᒥᓂᓖᑦ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᑦᑕᐅᑎᑦᑎᔪᐃᑦ. explained, delays in the implementation of ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑐᐃᔪᒥᓃᑦ language rights must not be tolerated, and this ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑲᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑏᑦ is by the Supreme Court, because it can create ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᐃᑦ. a situation in which there are no minority ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔨᒻᒪᕆᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ language speakers left to invoke such rights. ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᓲᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᕈᓐᓃᑕᖅᐱᐊᕐᖓᑦ. ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑕᕝᕙ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑏᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑯᑦ. (interpretation) People who speak in French began by being proud of their language and it (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐅᐃᕖᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ was added into the education system, from my ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒥᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᐱᒍᓱᒃᖢᑎᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᖓᖂᖅᖢᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓯᐊᒻᒪᕐᓂᑯᑦ,

understanding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᒃᑯᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Towtongie. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ.

Ms. Towtongie (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The French- and English- ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇᓕ speaking people have more language rights ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖕᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᑉᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ recognized in federal legislation in Canada. ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖕᓂᖅ ᐊᒥᓱᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᓄᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓄᑦ That’s the way it is. Indigenous languages and ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖓᓂ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑕ the Inuit language are not recognized in that ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᑦᑐᖅ. ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑦ way. The Inuktitut-speaking population is the ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᑎᒋᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ. ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᐅᖕᒪᑕ majority. As the spokesperson, are you saying ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ that the Inuit language should be recognized ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᑦᑕ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᐅᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ as a minority right so that it can be protected ᐅᖃᖅᑏᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ properly? What are your views on that matter? ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᓕᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᓄᑦ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. minority rights ᑐᕌᓕᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᓴᐳᑎᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᕕᐅᒃ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Commissioner. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Chairman. Isn’t it already recognized in the ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᕙᒌᓐᖏᒻᒫᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ Constitution- Canadian Constitution? I believe indigenous ᒦᒻᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ? languages are already recognized. We already ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᕙᒌᕋᓱᒋᒐᒃᑯᓕ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ have rights to our language. Thank you, Mr. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ. Towtongie.

Ms. Towtongie (interpretation): It is recognized, but in the regulations, when Canada is designating official languages, they don’t consider indigenous languages. Anywhere in Canada, if French people are a ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ: ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᕙᒌᖅᑐᖅ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ majority, then they can be provided funds ᐃᕐᕋᕕᖏᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕ ᐊᒡᒍᐃᓕᕌᖓᒥ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓄᑦ under the federal legislation, and if they are an ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᒡᒍᐃᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ. English-speaking minority, they can be ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓇᒥᒥᐊᖅ ᐅᐃᕖᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒃᐸᑕ provided funding under (interpretation ends) ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᐊᑖᓂ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᕐᒥᒃ ᓴᓂᕐᕙᐃᕝᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ minority rights. (interpretation) It’s just these ᐊᒻᒪ ᖃᑉᓗᓈᖑᒃᐸᑕ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᕐᒥᒃ two languages that have been recognized that ᓴᓂᕐᕙᐃᕝᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᓱᑎᒃ Minority Rights. way. The Inuit and indigenous languages have ᑖᒃᑯᐊᑐᐊᒃ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔫᒃ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ not been recognized that way. If we would ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ. like recognition that way from minority rights ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᖁᒍᑦᑎᒍ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑖᖃᑦᑕᓕᕐᓗᓂ and receive funding from the Canadian ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ

government like the French and the English ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ ᖃᑉᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᓕ are able to, then we have to recognize this in ᒪᓕᒐᑎᒍ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᕗᑦ legislation, even though we are the majority. ᐊᒥᓱᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᓄᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕗᑦ. What are you saying? Are you saying you would like to change the Inuit language in ᖃᓄᖅ ᐅᖃᖅᐱᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ Nunavut to treat it like a minority right? I minority rights−ᒧᑦ ᑐᕌᓕᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᒥᓱᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᓄᑦ would like that to be explained better because ᑐᕌᕆᓪᓗᒍ? ᑖᓐᓇ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᖁᔭᕋ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ minority means fewer people who can speak minority ᐊᒥᓱᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓰᑦ that language is now able to be invoked by the ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖓ ᒫᓐᓇ ᑐᕌᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᐃᕖᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ French people and the English people, but it ᖃᑉᓗᓈᓄᑦ. ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ can’t be invoked by the Inuit when it comes to ᑮᓇᐅᔭᐃᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. funding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ. Commissioner.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) As I ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) mentioned earlier, that Doucet-Boudreau case ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᒐᒪ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐅᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈ Doucet- Boudreau vs. Nova Scotia, the Supreme Court of ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᑎᑦᑎᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᓅᕙ ᓯᑰᓴ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒻᒪᕆᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓰᓚᐅᖅᑐᐃᑦ Canada upheld an order that required ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ provincial authorities, the provincial ᐱᓕᕆᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᑦᑎᐊᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎᒃ government to use their best efforts to provide ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑕᐅᒋᐊᓕᓐᓂ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ school facilities and programs for the ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᓲᑦ. ᐃᓄᑑᕚ? linguistic minority. Is that Inuktut or French? ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑑᕚ? (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ, (interpretation) Mr. Chairman, our legal ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓚᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᑦᑕ, ᓕᐊᓂ. advisor will add to that. Thank you, Mr. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᕼᐊᐃᔅ. Hayes.

Ms. Hayes: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Madam Member. We have ᕼᐊᐃᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ drawn a number of parallels from case law ᑖᓐᓇ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᓪᓗ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ across Canada on language education rights. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᒪᑯᓄᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ These parallels help us to understand the ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑕ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᓲᖑᓂᖓᓂᒃ underlying principles grounding education ᑐᑭᓯᐊᒐᓱᐊᓲᖑᔪᒍᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ rights. ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ.

The first thing to understand is that while the charter protects minority language education ᑐᑭᓯᐊᒋᐊᖃᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᕐᔪᐊᖓ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ rights with respect to the official languages of ᓴᐳᒻᒥᑎᑦᑎᓲᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ Canada, the charter also recognizes ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕈᓂ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᑎᑦᑎᔫᒐᓗᐊᖅ indigenous languages in the sense that there is ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐋᖅᑭᓲᔾᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓲᕐᓗ

an aboriginal right to your language. This ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓖᑦ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᔪᐃᑦ right is protected under section 35. In ᐊᑖᓃᑦᑐᖅ 35 ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᑎᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᐅᑉ addition, with the Nunavut Land Claims ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. ᓲᕐᓗ ᓱᓕᔪᒥᒃ Agreement, you have a treaty right and that ᑲᑦᑐᖓᐃᓕᒃᑲᓂᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ was further reaffirmed in the preamble to the ᐊᑖᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ. ILPA. With this being said, first of all, we can ᑖᒃᑯᑎᒎᓇᖅᑕᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ see that there is an overarching and very ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᕐᓂ. ᑖᓐᓇ strong protection of your culture and ᑕᕝᕙ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑕᐃᓲᖑᒐᑦᑕ ᐱᐅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ linguistic rights because language is the ᐊᓚᒃᑲᐃᕌᖓᑦᑕ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ. utmost expression of culture. It is the way you maintain your culture.

To attach this to funding then, that’s where we go to the case law and how the courts have ᑮᓇᐅᔭᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑐᒃᓯᕌᕈᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᐸ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ? applied minority language education rights ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑐᓄᑦ across Canada, and also frequently we look at ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ? ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓲᕐᓗ ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᑯᐸᐃᒃᒥ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ how Quebec deals with language rights when ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓕᕆᒑᖓᑕᓕ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᓲᖑᕙᑦ? assisting the office in a number of questions ᑖᒃᑯᐊᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᓲᖑᒥᒻᒪᑕ ᖃᓄᕐᓕ that they have to deal with because there is no ᓯᐊᒻᒪᑦᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑕᖓᓂᓪᓕ ᐊᒻᒪ similar legislation. It is very difficult to find ᐱᑕᖃᑦᑎᐊᖏᒻᒪᑕᓕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑯᐸᐃᒃᒥ. laws that uphold and protect your linguistic rights in the way that Nunavut does, and

Quebec is one of those jurisdictions.

When we look at the case law, the principles ᓇᒻᒥᓂᕐᓕ ᑕᒫᓂ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒦᑦᑐᐃᑦ that we pull from it are that delaying because ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᓂ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᕝᕙ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ you say you don’t have the resources or there ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒃᑯᑎᒍ isn’t sufficient demand, the courts don’t ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᑰᔪᐃᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᖅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇᓕ accept that very often up to a certain point. ᑕᕝᕙ ᑮᓇᔭᐅᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒃᑯᑎᒍᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ Then you have to put your money where your ᑭᓪᓕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓲᖑᒥᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓂ mouth is and find a way to show everyone ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᓚᒃᑲᐃᓗᐊᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖏᒻᒥᔪᐃᑦ. that you’re going to make those efforts to ᓲᕐᓗ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᓕᒫᖅ ᑎᑭᐅᑎᑦᑎᒐᓱᐊᕐᓂᐊᕈᑦᑕ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ achieve your obligation. In this case, ᒪᓕᒐᑎᒍ ᐊᔪᓐᖏᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓲᕐᓗ providing Inuit language education is set out ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᒍᑎ in a quasi-constitutional Act, which is the ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᑎᒍᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖓᑕ ILPA. Simply delaying is not the answer as ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑎᒍ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᔪᐃᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ we saw in Doucet. The underlying principle in ᑭᖑᕙᖅᓯᓯᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓈᒻᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ. Doucet is when you say you don’t have the ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ resources, you have to make efforts to make ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐊᕕᒃᑰᖅᑕᐅᒃᑲᐃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓅᕙ available those resources, whether it’s in ᓯᑰᓴᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ terms of teachers, whether it’s in terms of ᐊᔭᐅᕆᒋᐊᓖᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᒫᓐᓇᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᑦ curricula. You have to find ways to make your ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᓱᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ resources work in order that you achieve and ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᓂᓯᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᓯ ᐃᕝᕕ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖁᑎᒋᔭᔅᓯ that you satisfy your obligation. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓈᒻᒪᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓂᖃᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑐᓯ. It’s not clear what that general obligation is ᓱᖅᑯᐃᓇᖅᓯᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ

because prior to attempts to change section 8, ᓯᕗᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᓯᕈᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓇᓱᑦᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ it was a positive right, which is how rights are ᐃᓗᓕᑯᓘᔭᖏᑦ 8. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐱᐅᔫᔪᒻᒪᑦ normally expressed, was every parent has the ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᒪᑦ. ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑕᕝᕙ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᒪᑕ right to have their child receive Inuit language ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᓂ instruction. It didn’t say three hours a day, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᖁᑎᒋᒍᒪᒻᒪᖔᒍ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᖁᑎᒋᔭᖓ four hours a week; it just says Inuit language ᕿᑐᕐᖓᖓ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᖁᒍᓂᐅᒃ. instruction. How that was delivered was then ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ up to the Minister of Education. I would say ᐱᕕᖃᕐᒥᔪᐃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒃᑯᑎᒍᑦ that the court is clear when there’s a right, and ᓱᖅᑯᐃᓇᖅᓯᑎᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓲᕐᓗ in this case it’s a right that attaches to a ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ constitutionally protected right as an ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᕐᔪᐊᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ aboriginal right language, then you must make ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᓕᒫᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ efforts to make available resources to satisfy ᑕᐃᔭᐅᓯᒪᓂᕆᔭᖓᑕ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᕝᕕᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ those rights when they are invoked. Thank ᐊᑐᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᖃᕐᕕᐅᔪᐃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓯᕗᒧᐊᑦᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᓖᑦ you very much, Mr. Chairman. ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) And thank you for ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ ᑕᒪᔅᓱᒥᖓ elaborating that. I think a lot of what the ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᕕᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑕᒡᒐ ᓲᕐᓗ discussion has been around is Committee ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖑᔪᓄᑦ Members and witnesses are trying to ᑐᑭᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᓱᓇᓕᕆᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᒫᓐᓇ understand what the Department of Education ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᔅᓯᓐᓄᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᐃᑦ 19-ᓄᑦ. is doing. This recent document that they ᖃᓄᖅ ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ provided us projects over the next 19 years ᖃᑦᑎᑐᕈᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ that the total estimated cost of curriculum ᒪᑯᓂᖓ ᐋᖅᑭᓲᔾᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ $232 implementation, language of instruction, is ᒥᓕᐊᓐᑐᕐᓗᐊᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᐃᑦ ᐊᒡᒋᖅᑐᓂᒃ approximately $232 million over the next 19 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ $12.2 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ years. That works out to about $12.2 million ᐃᓚᓕᐅᑎᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᔅᓵᖏᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪ per year and that doesn’t include teachers’ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᒍᑦᑎᒍ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᔅᓵᖏᑦ salaries. If we include teachers’ salaries, I’m ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒻᒪᕆᒐᔭᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ assuming it would be substantially higher. ᐃᓚᓕᐅᑎᒍᑦᑎᒍ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑯᒍᑦ We’re talking in the hundreds of millions of ᒥᓕᐊᖏᓐᓃᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᐅᖓᑖᓂᕐᔪᐊᕌᓗᒃ. dollars.

This is an important discussion and I’m going ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖃᖅᑯ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᕗᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ to propose that we continue it after our lunch ᑲᔪᓯᓂᐊᕋᑦᑕ ᐅᓪᓗᕈᕐᒥᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. break, Ms. Towtongie, if that’s alright for ᖃᓄᐃᔅᓴᖏᒃᑯᕕᑦ, ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ? (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) you. (interpretation) We will take a break and ᑕᐃᒪ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᓚᐅᑲᖕᓂᐊᕋᑉᑕ 1:30 we will come back at 1:30 and we will ᐅᑎᕆᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᕼᐅᑕ ᑲᔪᕼᐃᓂᐊᖅᕼᐅᑎᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ continue our questioning to the commissioner. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᖅᑕᐅᓂᕆᔭᖓ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ. ᓂᕆᑦᓯᐊᓂᐊᖅᐳᕼᐃ. Have a good lunch and we will see you later. ᐅᕙᑦᓯᐊᕈᑦᑕᐅᖅ. ᒪ’ᓇ. Thank you.

>>Committee recessed at 12:04 and resumed >>ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ 12:04ᒥ at 13:41 ᑲᔪᓯᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ 13:41ᒥ

Chairman (interpretation): Good day, my ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᖃᑎᒃᑳ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐱᓕᕆᔨᑎᓪᓗ, colleagues. Minister and your officials, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐱᓕᕆᔨᑎᓪᓗ ᑕᕝᕙᐅᒋᒃᑮ. Languages Commissioner and your officials, ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ welcome. The hearing of the Standing ᑲᑎᒪᓐᓂᕆᔭᖓᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᖅ 25 ᒥᒃᕼᐊᓄᑦ Committee on Legislation on Bill 25 will ᑲᔪᕼᐃᑎᒃᖢᒍ. resume.

Ms. Towtongie, I know you still have questions, but before you begin, ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ, ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᖃᖅᑐᑎᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᕼᐅᓕ (interpretation ends) just a question to the ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᖓ ᑭᕼᐃᐊᓂ ᐊᐱᕆᒋᐊᖅᑳᑎᓐᓇᑎᑦ. legal counsel for the Languages (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᔅᓴᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᒧᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒪᐅ Commissioner. Can you please clarify your ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᔨᐅᑉ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨ, ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᒫᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ status, whether you’re licensed to practise in ᓲᕐᓗ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᐲᑦ ᓚᐃᓴᓐᓯᖃᖅᐲᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ Nunavut or whether you have a special ᑕᒫᓂᑎᑲᐃᓐᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᓐᓇᕐᓃᑦ? ᒥᔅ ᕼᐊᐃᔅ. appearance certificate? Ms. Hayes.

Ms. Hayes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not licensed to practise in Nunavut. I am here ᕼᐊᐃᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ as an expert in indigenous law issues and ᓚᐃᓴᓐᓯᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔨᒋᔭᐅᔪᖓ language, and I am a lawyer. I am licensed as ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖁᑎᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ a lawyer. I practise generally in Quebec. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᐅᔪᖓᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᑯᐸᐃᒃᒥ. ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ (interpretation ends) Thank you for the ᓱᖅᑯᐃᓇᖅᓯᑎᑦᑎᑲᐃᓐᓇᕋᕕᑦ ᑕᒪᔅᓱᒥᖓ clarification and that we can have that on the ᖃᐅᔨᒍᒪᖅᑲᐅᒐᑦᑕ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᑲᔪᕼᐃᓗᑕ. record. (interpretation) Moving on. Ms. ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ. Towtongie.

Ms. Towtongie (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to clarify an example ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪ about Inuit women who are experts in sewing ᒥᖅᓱᖅᑎᐅᒻᒪᑕ, ᐅᓇ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᕆᐊᕐᓗᒍ, ᒥᖅᓱᖅᑎᐅᖕᒪᑕ and Inuit men who are experts in hunting. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᖏᑦ ᐆᒃᑑᑎᖃᓲᖑᖕᒪᑕ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᕆᔭᔅᓯᓐᓄᑦ Let’s say they’re going to make a piece of ᐊᒻᒪ ᒪᖃᐃᑦᑑᓂᖅᓴᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᖑᑎᓂᒃ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᒐᑦᑕ. ivory into a harpoon head, they turn it around ᐊᖑᑏᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑑᒑᓕᐅᓕᕐᓂᐊᕌᖓᒥᒃ ᓴᒃᑯᒥᒃ and they already have a notion of what they’re ᐃᕕᖅᑎᓱᓂᔾᔪᒃ ᐃᓱᐊᕆᔭᕐᒥᓐᓄᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ. going to carve. Similarly, when pieces of ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᒪᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ legislation are being put together, they use ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕌᖓᒥ ᐆᒃᑑᑎᖃᓲᖑᖕᒪᑕ. models.

Looking at Canada, Quebec has education ᑲᓇᑕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᓱᒍ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑯᐸᐃᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᖃᖅᑐᖅ legislation and it protects English language ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᑎᐊᖅᓱᓂ ᖃᑉᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ rights and they are able to speak in English, ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒥᓱᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᖕᒪᑕ ᑯᐸᐃᒃᒥ and the French language rights are protected. ᖃᑉᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᐃᕖᑦ It’s also the case in Nunavut. The majority of ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᓱᓂ. ᐃᖃᖅᓴᐅᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ the population in Nunavut can speak Inuktitut, ᓄᓇᕗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᑦᑐᖅ. ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᐃᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ

even though it’s declining today. ᐅᑉᓗᒥ ᔭᒐᐃᓕᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓗᑕ.

However, I have a question here. The ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᕋᒪ ᑕᒡᕙᓂ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᐃᕖᒥ francophones in Nunavut have education ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᒪᑕ rights within legislation and it is recognized ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ. that they have (interpretation ends) minority ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᒡᒎᖅ language (interpretation) rights according to ᐊᒥᓱᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᕐᒧ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊ section 23 of the Canadian charter. My ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒍ 23, minority language. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ question is this: have Quebec’s laws on ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᕋ ᐅᓇᐅᔪᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇᖃᐃ ᑯᐸᐃᒃᒧᑦ education and language protection been ᒪᓕᒐᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ reviewed by the Office of the Languages ᓴᐳᓐᓂᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕙ Commissioner and, if so, what considerations ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᒃᐸᑦ were made to designate Inuktitut as a ᑖᒃᑯᐊᖃᐃ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᓲᑦ (interpretation ends) minority language? I ᐊᒥᓱᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᑎᑐᑦ Minority Language ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ think that it’s a good model for Nunavut. It’s ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᖃᖅᓴᐅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕙ? ᑖᓐᓇ already happening in Quebec. Thank you, Mr. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᓇᓱᒋᒐᒃᑯ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒧᑦ ᑯᐸᐃᒃ Chairman. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓕᖔᓂᒻᒪᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐃᓕᖓᓪᓗᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Commissioner. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ Chairman. In Nunavut we have language ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕋᑦᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ rights and they are outlined in the Inuit ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᑕ Language Protection Act. To say it in English, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᑯᑦ. (interpretation ends) Inuit Language ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᕈᒃᑯ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐃᓄᐃᑦ Protection Act, (interpretation) we are ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ protected under that and we shouldn’t touch (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᑕᒡᕙᓃᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ that because our language is already protected ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᒪᑦ under that Act, even though you are reviewing ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒐᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᓯ. the education system.

With respect to federal recognition of French ᑖᓐᓇ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᓂᖅ ᐅᐃᕖᑐᑦ language rights, Inuit outside the territory ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᓯᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᓯᓚᑖᓂ would not be able to use that. I want our ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᔾᔮᖅᑰᖏᒻᒪᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ lawyer, Lenise, to explain further. Thank you, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᒐᓗᐊᖅᐸᕋ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ, Mr. Chairman. ᓕᐊᓂ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Hayes. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᕼᐊᐃᔅ.

Ms. Hayes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Member, for the question. The idea of the protection of the French language as a ᕼᐊᐃᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ minority language or the English language as ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᒐᕕᐅᒃ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᐃᕖᑦ a minority language is found in the ᐃᓄᒋᐊᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖏᑎᒍᑦ

Constitution of Canada. The indigenous ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᑎᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ languages are not protected in the same way. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᑎᒋ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᐃᑦ However, they are recognized as aboriginal ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᑖᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓗᓕᖓᑕ 35 ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖓᑕ rights under section 35 because they attach to ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒪ a distinctive element of an indigenous group ᐊᑖᓃᑦᑐᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂ. or society.

Inuit who would go down to Ottawa, for example, would not necessarily benefit from ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓄᒃ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓕᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐋᑐᕚᒧᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓲᕐᓗ the protections that are offered to the French ᐊᑑᑎᖃᕋᔭᖅᑰᔨᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ language or the English language depending ᐅᐃᕖᓪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ on where you’re living in the same way. Does ᐊᔾᔨᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᖅᑰᔨᒐᔭᓐᖏᒻᒪᐅᒃ ᓲᕐᓗ that make sense? It would not be considered a ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᖏᓐᓅᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ minority language for the purposes of ᑐᑭᓯᓇᕐᓂᖅᐸᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. constitutional protection or charter protection. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Towtongie. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ.

Ms. Towtongie: My final question, Mr. ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᕋ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ. Chairman. Going back to the executive ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕆᔭᓯ ᒪᑯᐊ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᖃᕈᓐᓇᕈᑦᑕ summary of the Languages Commissioner, ᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᓯᕈᐃᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ you’re telling us, “Generally speaking, the ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓂ legislature enjoys broad powers to make law ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᖃᓄ ᓴᖅᑭᑎᕆᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᑎᓐᓂ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ or change it.” I would like you to elaborate on ᐅᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ this specifically by proposing that. Are you ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ? ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᖃᖅᐲᑦ proposing that Inuit language speakers be ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕆᕚᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ granted the same rights? Are you suggesting ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᑎᑐᑦ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᓕᒫᖅ that Inuit language speakers also be ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓗᒍ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓗᐃᒃᑲᐅᓗᒍ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ considered a language minority in Nunavut? I ᖃᓄᕐᓕᑭᐊᕐᖓᐃ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᐱᐅᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᑎᒍᑦ? ᖃᓄᖅ want an elaboration on how you see that ᐊᓯᕈᐃᒋᐊᖃᖅᐱᑖ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᓐᖑᕈᓐᓇᖅᐹ legislated. Will we have the broad powers to ᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓂ ᑭᐅᔭᐅᒍᒪᒐᒪ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᖅ make law or change it? I want to see the ᑲᒥᓯᓇᒋᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᖓᓂ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒻᒪᖔᖅ? response from the Office of the Languages ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Commissioner to the proposed amendments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ. Commissioner.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ Chairman. The Inuit Language Protection Act ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑕ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ is being looked at and reviewed because it is ᑕᑯᓇᑦᑕᐅᓇᓱᒻᒪᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓪᓗᓂ connected to the Education Act. The right is ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᖓᖕᒪᑦ. identified and it can’t be removed. If the ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇᓗ ᐲᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓇᓂ.

language legislation is going to be reviewed, I ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᒻᒥᒃᑯᑦ want the Act looked at by itself from a ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᑕᑯᓇᒃᑕᐅᖁᔭᕋ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ language lens, not an education lens. It’s not ᑕᐅᑐᒐᖃᕐᓗᑕ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓅᖏᑦᑐᖅ just an amendment to a section or subsection ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒨᖏᑦᑐᖅ. within the ILPA. We’re not asking for ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓛᒃᑰᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᓇᑐᐊᑯᓘᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ amendments. ᐃᐅᓪᐸᒥ ᐃᓚᐅᕌᕐᔪᒃᑐᑯᓗᒃ ᑖᓐᓇᑐᐊᑯᓗᒃ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᓗᒍ. ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖁᔨᓐᖏᑦᑐᒍᑦ. If the Inuit Language Protection Act is going to be reviewed with a focus on language, there ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ must be an opportunity for deliberation. It’s ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐃᓗᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑐᐊᖅ written in the Act that when it is going to be ᑕᐅᑐᒐᖃᕐᓗᑕ ᐋᔩᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᕆᐊᓕᒃ. reviewed, the Official Languages Act also has ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᖕᒥᖕᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓂᐊᓕᖅᐸᑦ to be reviewed. Those two Acts have to be ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ reviewed together because they are connected. ᑕᑯᓇᒃᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑐᑦ Oﬃcial The Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit Languages Act. ᑖᒃᑯᐊᒎᖅ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓕᖅᐸᑕ would be included. ᐊᑕᐅᑦᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓪᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᖓᖕᒪᑎᒃ. ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓕᕐᒥᒃᐸᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ The duties of the Languages Commissioner ᑕᐃᒎᓯᓕᐅᖅᑎᒃᑯᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓕᕐᒪᖔᑦ are written in the Act. When the Act is going ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓪᓗᐊᕐᒥᔪᖅ. to be amended, the Languages Commissioner must be involved and consulted. There are no ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥ amendments required for the Inuit Language ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ Protection Act. It was enacted to protect the ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᓪᓗᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐋᔩᖃᑎᖃᕆᐊᓕᒃ Inuit language. ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ. ᑖᓐᓇ

ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᑐᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ I hope I responded to the question, Mr. ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ Inuit Language Protection Chairman. Thank you. Act. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᔪᒪᓂᑰᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐊᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Yes, you answered the question. (interpretation ᑭᐅᕙᕋᖃᐃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ends) Minister, I wonder if you can just confirm for the Committee that the changes ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᐊᐱᕆᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᖏᕐᒪᑦ ᑭᐅᔭᖅ. that you’re proposing to the Inuit Languages ᐄ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐅᖃᕈᓐᓇᕈᕕᖅᑲᐃ Protection Act aren’t intended to be a ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕈᒪᑦᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ statutory review of the entire Act. It’s my ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦᑕ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒧ. ᑖᓐᓇ understanding there is a statutory requirement ᒪᓕᒐᓕᒫᒥ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔪᖓ ᑕᐃᒪ for the protection Act to be reviewed and that ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ at the same time the Official Languages Act ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑕᐅᑦᑎᒃᑯᑦ would be reviewed, which is what the ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ Commissioner was referring to. That process ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᕋᑖᖅᑕᖓ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᖅ 25-ᒧᑦ is not what has happened leading into Bill 25. ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᔪᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᕋ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ It’s my understanding that the bits that you’re ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕋᓱᑦᑕᑎ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑐᐊᖅ trying to change are only the ones tied to ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖏᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᐱᐅᒃ? ᒥᓂᔅᑕ education. Can you confirm that? Minister ᔪᐊᓇᓯ. Joanasie.

Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Chairman. Yes, we are only proposing to ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥ ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ change one piece of the Inuit Language ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᑐᐊᖓ ᐄ Protection Act as it pertains to the Education ᓱᓕᔪᑎᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓ Act. You are correct in that the statutory ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ requirement to review the Inuit Language ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ Protection Act and the Official Languages Act ᐱᓕᕆᕝᕕᖓᓂ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ is something that the culture and heritage ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕗᑦ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. department would take charge of. This is ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. something that we need to work towards, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) And I guess we could ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑕᐃᒪ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ always ask questions to the Minister of ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓇ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐅᕙᓃᓐᓂᖅᐸᑦ. Languages or the Minister of Culture and ᐊᐃᑦᑖᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᑕᕝᕙᓃᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ. Heritage if he was here today. Too bad he’s not.

>>Laughter >>ᐃᓪᓚᖅᑐᑦ

(ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᑲᔪᕼᐃᓗᑕ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖁᐊᓴ. (interpretation) Let us proceed. Mr. Quassa.

Mr. Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᖁᐊᓴ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑐᓐᖓᓱᑦᑎᐊᕆᔅᓯ. Chairman. Welcome. I will be speaking ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᑲᑕᓚᐅᐱᓪᓚᖕᓂᐊᕐᒥᒐᒪ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. English, Mr. Chairman.

(interpretation ends) In your November 27, (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᓄᕖᕝᕙ 27, 2019 ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔭᔅᓯᓐᓂ 2019 letter or submission, it’s very clear ᓇᓗᓇᓐᖏᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗᐊᑕᖅ that… . I don’t know how many pages; I think ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒻᒪᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᐊᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᒥ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ most of the pages are specifically talking ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ about the language issue. It focuses primarily ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᖅᓯᒻᒪᕆᒍᒪᒻᒪᑕ on the constitutional law and indigenous ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᑎ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦᑕ rights. You do imply that the Government of ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᖓ. Canada proposes to significantly delay the implementation of Inuit language of instruction.

In your opinion, do you feel that the ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᕐᓂᓕ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᓕᕆᕝᕕ ᓱᕋᐃᓱᕆᕕᓯᐅᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ department is breaking the Inuit Language ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦᑕ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᔾᔪᒥ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥ? ᑖᓐᓇ Protection Act? That’s my first question. ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒐ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Commissioner Aariak. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you. I will ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᑭᐅᓚᐅᑲᒡᓗᒍᓗ, respond to the question first. What’s being ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᑕᑯᓇᒃᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᑐᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᑐᕐᓘᓐᓃᑦ reviewed or proposed for change in the Inuit ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑕ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᑉ Language Protection Act is section 8(2). That ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᖅ 8(2). ᐄ, ᑖᓐᓇᑐᐊᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᖕᒪᑦ. is the only one they propose to change. It ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᑐᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᒪᑦ, ᑖᓐᓇ doesn’t necessarily need to be changed. Even ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᕌᕐᔪᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᓱᓕ if there is a little change, the preamble in the ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᓐᖓᕐᖓᐅᑎᖓᓂᒃ Education Act already states we cannot pick ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑎᑦ Preamble−ᒥᑦ. ᐃᒪᓐᓇ and choose legislation by saying this part is ᐊᕕᒃᑐᐃᔪᓐᓇᓐᖏᓐᓇᑦᑎᒍ ᐅᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ, ᐄ, ᐅᓇ good or take it out and change it. ᐱᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᐱᐅᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᐲᓚᐅᑲᒡᓕ, ᐊᓯᔾᔨᓚᐅᑲᓪᓕ.

If we’re going to change an Act on language ᐊᓯᔾᔩᓂᐊᕈᑦᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ rights, the Act has to be reviewed as a whole. ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᒃᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᒡᓗᒍ Section 8(2) pertains to education, but the Act ᑭᓯᐊᓂ. ᑖᓐᓇ 8(2) ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ was enacted. Legislation always has a ᐊᒃᑐᐊᖓᒐᓗᐊᖅᖢᓂ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᓂᑯ preamble as to why it is necessary. In the ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ preamble of the Inuit Language Protection ᐱᒋᐊᓐᖓᕐᖓᐅᑎᖃᓲᖑᖕᒪᑕ. ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ Act it states that education pertains to our ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᑕᐃᑲᓂ language. Even if you change section 8(2), Preamble−ᒥᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦᑕ you have to review the whole piece of ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ legislation. That is a brief explanation. Thank ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᖓᖕᒪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᓐᓇ 8(2) ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕋᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᒫᕌᓗᒃ you, Mr. Chairman. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᑯᓇᓪᓗᒍ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓗᒍ

ᑭᓯᐊᓂᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. ᓇᐃᓈᕐᓗᒍ, ᐄ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. (interpretation ends) Can you explain what you just said in the context of Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᕋᑖᖅᑕᕕᑦ Towtongie’s question, which was referring to ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕈᕕᐅᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᒥᔅ page 10 of your submission? It says, ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏᐅᑉ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᖅᑲᐅᔭᖓ ᒪᑉᐱᒐᖅ 10 ᑖᒃᑯᐊ “Generally speaking, the legislature enjoys ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᒃ broad powers to make law or change it. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᓗᒋᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ Interfering with that prerogative is difficult ᐸᕝᕕᓴᒋᐊᔅᓴᖅ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᑲᓴᒻᒪᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ and does not offer the Office of the ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕆᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᕐᔪᐊᒻᒪᕆᒻᒧᑦ ᐅᓇ Languages Commissioner a strong response to ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᐱᐅᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᒋᕋᑖᖅᑕᐃᑦ the proposed amendments.” Can you please ᐱᓪᓗᒍ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᐱᖓᔪᖓᑦ ᒪᑉᐱᒐᖅ 10 explain that in the context of your response ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ ᐱᖓᔪᖓᓐᓂ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ. just now? I’m referring to the third paragraph on page 10 of your written submission to the Committee. Commissioner Aariak.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Chairman. I’ll read it first. ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕌᓪᓚᒡᓚᒍᐊᐃᑦ.

Can you hear me now? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll read it in English. ᑐᓴᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᐸ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᑖᓐᓇ (interpretation ends) “Generally speaking, the ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᕐᓂᐊᕋᒃᑯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) legislature enjoys broad powers to make law ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓗᐊᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᒪᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ

or change it. Interfering with that prerogative ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᓗᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᒪᐅᖓ ᐸᕝᕕᓴᒋᐊᔅᓴᖅ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ is difficult and does not offer the Office of the ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ ᐱᕕᖃᓐᖏᓗᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇ Languages Commissioner a strong response to ᓴᓐᖏᔪᒥᑦ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᒪᑦ. the proposed amendments.”

(interpretation) When it is laid out in (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ legislation, the Office of the Languages ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ, Commissioner needs to be included in these ᐋᔩᖃᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᕋᑦᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ debates. As per my earlier statement regarding ᐊᒡᓚᒡᕕᖓ. ᐅᐊᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᒐᒪ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ the previous Special Committee to Review the ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᓚᐅᑲᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ Education Act, there are minutes written ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅᑕᖃᕐᒪᑦ specific to April 1, 2015. When the Education ᑲᑎᒪᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᕕᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᐃᐳᕉᓪ 1, 2015-ᒥ. Act was reviewed, since our language is tied ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ to that requirement, have Members taken into ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᖓᖕᒪᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ consideration the Inuit Language Protection ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᕚ Act when the Committee was reviewing the ᐃᓱᒪᔅᓴᖅᓯᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᓯ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ Education Act? The answer was no. The Inuit ᒪᓕᒐᖓᓄᑦ? ᐋᒡᒐᒎᖅ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ Language Protection Act was added on as an ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᑭᖑᒧᑦ afterthought. If an Act is going to be reviewed ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓕᖅᑐᓂ ᐃᓚᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᑯ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ and we’re dealing with languages, we have to ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑖᒃᑯᐊᓕᒫᕌᓗᐃᓛᒃ review our rights. ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᓗᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᓗᐊᕋᑦᑕ.

I hope I responded to your question. Thank ᑭᐅᒍᒃᑭᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. you, Mr. Chairman.

ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᑯᓱᒐᖅ ᐃᒡᓗᒧᑦ Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᑐᓐᖓᕼᐅᒋᑦ ᒫᓃᖏᓐᓇᕼᐆᖑᒐᓗᐊᕋᕕᑦ ᒫᓂ Minister Kusugak, welcome to the House. ᑕᓕᖅᐱᒥᖅᑎᖔᖅ ᕼᐅᒥᖅ ᑕᒫᓂ ᑕᑯᕋᕐᓂᕋᓗᐊᑯᓂ. You’re usually on my right. You look good over there. >>ᐃᓪᓚᖅᑐᑦ

>>Laughter ᐊᔾᔭᐅᑯᓂ, ᑕᑯᕋᕐᓂᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᔾᔭᐅᑯᓂ. ᓇᓗᓇᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᓗ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᒐᕕᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕼᐅᒃᑐ ᑕᕝᕗᖓ. I know, as Minister, he is welcome to this House. ᑲᔪᕼᐃᓗᑕ ᐄᑯᓗᒃ ᒥᔅᑕ ᖁᐊᓴ ᐊᐱᖅᕼᐅᕈᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᓗᐊᕋᕕᑦ. ᑲᔪᕼᐃᒋᑦ ᒥᔅᑕ ᖁᐊᓴ. Let us proceed. I’m sorry, Mr. Quassa, you wanted to ask another question. Go ahead, ᖁᐊᓴ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐃᓛᒃ Mr. Quassa. ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᑎᓪᓗᖓᐃᓛᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓴᖅᑭᓯᒪᔭᓯ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔭᓯ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ Mr. Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᑐᕌᖓᓂᖅᓴᓪᓚᕆᐅᖕᒪᑦ, ᑐᕌᖓᓂᖅᓴᐅᖅᑰᔨᒻᒪᑦ. Chairman. As I said earlier, your submission ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᓯᓕᒫᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ 25 seems to be more focused on languages. Bill ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ, ᐊᓯᓕᒫᖏᓪᓗ 25 does not only deal with languages. You ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᓯᐅᒃ have probably reviewed the whole thing. ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᓯᒪᔭᒃᓴᕆᕙᓯᐅᒃᑕᐅᖅ. ᖃᓄᕐᓕᑭᐊᖅ What is your position on the way Bill 25 is ᐃᓱᒪᒋᕕᓯᐅᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᓂᖓ ᒫᓐᓇᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᖦᖢᒍ written? Are you okay with the rest of the ᑖᓐᓇ Bill 25-ᖑᓇᓱᒃᑐᖅ? ᐊᓯᓕᒫᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑐᒋᑦ, ᖃᓄᐃᒋᓐᖏᑕᓰ?

bill? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ. Commissioner Aariak. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᐃᓚᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᒍ,

ᐋᔩᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᓐᓂᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ Ms. Aariak (interpretation): To add onto that, ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᓐᓂᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ as we were not involved in the discussion, we ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᓗᐊᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᓐᓇᑦᑎᒍ, didn’t really give it a thought. ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᓐᓇᑦᑕ.

It states in the Act that the Languages ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᓂᓛᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ Commissioner should be dealing with, ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ protecting and promoting Inuit language ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕆᐊᓕᒃ, ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ rights. If Inuit language rights are broken or ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦᑕ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᓯᖁᒥᑕᐅᒃᐸᑕ, misused, concerns can be brought to me. That ᐊᑐᕐᓂᕐᓗᒃᑕᐅᒃᐸᑕ ᐅᕙᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ being the case, we looked to see if the Inuit ᖃᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓚᐅᖅᑕᕗᑦ Language Protection Act is affected, and our ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑦᑕ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ concern is the proposed amendment to section ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᖕᒪᑦ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᕝᕙ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᔭᕗᑦ. 8(2) of the ILPA. Inuit rights cannot be ᐊᓯᔾᔩᓇᓱᖕᓂᖅ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ 8(2) 8 ᐃᐅᓪᐸᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ diminished or extinguished. We already have ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᒥᑭᓪᓕᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᒻᒪᑕ, rights and even if they change the dates, we ᐊᖅᓵᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᓐᓇᑦᑕ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᐸᒌᕋᑦᑕ. will always have our rights. Section 8(2) ᐅᓪᓗᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᒐᓗᐊᕈᑎᒃ doesn’t necessarily need to be changed. Thank ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ, you, Mr. Chairman. I hope I responded to ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᑐᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ 8(2). ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᑭᐅᒍᒃᑭᑦ.

ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖁᐊᓴ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Quassa. ᖁᐊᓴ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᑭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕋᕕᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓖᓛᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ bill 25 ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ Mr. Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᕗᖓ ᐅᖓᓯᒃᑐᒧᑦ Chairman. I also thank you for responding ᐋᖅᑭᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᒋᐊᖃᓛᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ adequately. With (interpretation ends) Bill 25, ᑕᐃᑯᖓ 2039-ᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᖦᖢᒍ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᒍ (interpretation) when it comes to language, ᑕᐅᕗᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ. there are dates set until 2039. There are ᑕᐃᒪᓕᑭᐊᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᕕᓯᐅᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ, ᑕᐃᒫᒃ different phases leading up to that date with ᓱᕋᐃᓯᒪᐸᓗᒃᐹ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᔪᒥᒃ respect to language. What is your position on ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᕐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓕᖓᓂᐊᕈᓂ, that? Is it breaking the Act that you are talking ᐅᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅ ᐅᓇ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᐊᓕᖅᑐᖅ about? There are certain milestones that have Grade ᐆᒪᖓ ᑎᑭᑉᐸᑦ, ᐄ, ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓛᖅᑐᖅ to be achieved with regard to grade levels. ᐊᕙᓂᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ. ᖃᓄᑭᐊᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ What is your position? Is it breaching the ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᕙ? ᐃᓛᒃ ᓱᕋᐃᖅᑰᔨᒋᕙᓕ ᑖᓐᓇ Inuit Inuit Language Protection Act if it’s going to Language Protection Act−ᒥ phase in the implementation deadlines up ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓕᖓᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᐃᓯᒪᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ until 2039? That seems to be the case. That is ᑕᐅᕗᖓ ᐃᑲᓂ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ 2039-ᒥ ᓈᓛᖅᑐᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ, why I’m asking if the Act is being breached. I ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓕᖓᓐᖑᐊᖅᑰᔨᖕᒪᑦ. ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ would like to hear from the Languages ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᓗᐊᖅᐸᕋ Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᓱᕋᐃᓯᒪᕙᓪᓕᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᐳᕐᓗᑭᐊᖅ ᖃᓄᑭᐊᖅ? ᖃᓄᑭᐊᖅ ᑐᓴᕈᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᐳᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᒥᒃ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᖁᐊᓵ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑉᓛᖅ Quassa. We talked about that this morning, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒋᕋᔮᓚᐅᕋᑦᑎᒍ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᖓᓄᑦ, but to his question, commissioner. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ.

ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᐃᑦ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᑭᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᐊᕋᒃᑯ. ᐅᓪᓛᖅ Chairman. I also thank you for your question. ᒪᑐᐃᖓᕈᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖅᑲᐅᒐᒪ I’ll respond again. I made my opening ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᑰᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ remarks this morning. The status of Inuit ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓕᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᔭᒐᐃᔭᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ, language has been studied. It is being lost. I ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᑲᐅᒐᑦᑕ ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂᓂᒃ talked about some of the historical facts when ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᒥᒃᖠᕚᓪᓕᖅᑐᑦ it started being studied. The number of Inuit ᐅᖅᑲᕆᒃᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓐ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᓪᓗ. language speakers has decreased in Nunavut, both in Inuinnaqtun and Inuktitut. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᕋ ᑖᒪᔅ ᐴᔾᔪ... ᐋᒡᒐᓕᐊᓰᑦ ᑖᓐᓇᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ, ᒪᒥᐊᓇᖅ.

I can use Thomas Berger as an example. No, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᒃᒥ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᑰᖕᒪᑦ not that one. My apologies. ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓐ ᐊᑦᑕᕐᓇᖅᑐᒦᓕᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ. ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᕐᓇᖅᑐᕐᒨᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᒧᑦ It was identified in a study that Inuinnaqtun is ᑐᕌᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑐᖅ. ᐅᓇ ᐃᑉᐸᒃᓴᖅ in a dangerous position. Inuktitut is heading ᑎᑎᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᑉᐸᒃᓴᕐᓗ towards being endangered too. This was not ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᑐᖃᐅᓕᖅᑐᒍᑦ written yesterday and it was not identified ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᖅ. yesterday. We have known for a long time ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ that our language is being used less and less. ᐅᖓᕙᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂ While the language is being used less and ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓ. ᑭᓱᒥᒃ ᐅᑕᖅᑭᓂᐊᕋᑦᑕ? less, they’re delaying the use of the language ᐅᖃᕈᓇᕐᔪᓕᖅᐸᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ in schools. What are we waiting for? Are we ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕋᓱᒍᑕᐅᓂᐊᓕᐊᑕᐃᓐᓇᓛᖅᐱᑕ? going to start only after we lose our language? ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂᒃ

ᑕᒫᓃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂ, ᑐᓴᕐᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᓚᐅᕋᒪ When the elders had a meeting on Inuit ᐃᓄᑐᖃᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ ᖁᔭᓕᑦᑎᐊᖅᖢᖓᓗ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ Qaujimajatuqangit in Iqaluit recently, I was ᑐᓴᕐᕕᖃᕆᐊᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒋᖃᑦᑕᕋᒃᑭᑦ ᓲᖃᐃᒻᒪ. able to hear from the elders and I appreciate ᐅᖃᖅᑐᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᒥᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ that because I learned from them. An elder ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᖕᓂᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᑕᖅᑭᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ said that it seems like the date is being ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᕐᓂᒃ ᑐᖁᔨᐊᖃᕋᓱᒃᖢᑎᒃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑖᓐᓇ delayed as they wait for the elders to pass ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᑕᖅᑭᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ away. (interpretation ends) The delay in the ᐱᑕᖃᕈᓐᓃᑦᓯᐊᓪᓗᓂ. date is just waiting for the elders to pass. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐅᐊᑦᑎᐊᖅᑕᐅᖅ ᐅᖃᕋᑖᕋᒪ (interpretation) As I just stated, students in the ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒦᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ schools right now should be learning their ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ. ᐄ, ᓱᓕ language. Yes, I agree that we have to make ᐊᖏᖃᑎᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᑦᑎᓐᓂ our language important at home. Our rights ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ also need to be protected in the schools. They ᑐᓐᖓᕕᐅᒐᑦᑕ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂ have rights. We clearly know that we are ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑏᑦ, ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᒪᑕ. losing our language and we realize it. The fact ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᒍᓐᓃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᑕ that we’re trying to wait, are we trying to lose ᓴᒃᑯᐃᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᕋᑦᑎᒍ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑦᑎᐊᓕᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕆᓪᓗᑎᒍᓪᓗ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑕᖅᑭᓇᓱᖕᓂᖅ the language by waiting? If students today ᐊᓯᐅᔨᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᖔᓕᖅᐱᑖ? ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ

have a strong foundation in their language, ᒫᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᑕ they would make good teachers. The students ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᒃᓴᕗᓄᑯᐊ are our future teachers. Thank you, Mr. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Ms. Aariak, can you ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒥᔅ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ, maybe clarify that statement you just made? ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᐱᐅᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖃᑖᖅᑕᐃᑦ, That was very strong wording that you used in ᓴᓐᖏᔪᐊᓘᖃᑕᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓅᒍᓐᓃᖅᓴᓕᓐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. terms of waiting for people to pass away. Can ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕈᓐᓇᖅᐱᐅᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ you clarify that those are not your words; that ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓐᖏᓐᓇᕕᒋᑦ, ᐅᖃᖅᑕᐅᔪᒥᓂᖔᕈᓈ you’re quoting somebody that you had been in ᑲᑎᒪᖃᑎᒋᔭᒥᓂᕐᓄᑦ? ᒥᔅ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ. a meeting with? Ms. Aariak.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you want me to say it in ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᖔᖅ English? ᐅᖃᕐᓚᒎ?

I was at a meeting where we were learning about Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and what I said ᑲᑎᒪᔪᓃᓚᐅᕋᒪ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᑦᑕ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ did not come from me. I heard it from an elder ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓪᓗᑕ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᕋᑖᖅᑕᕋ ᐅᕙᓐᓃᖔᖃᑖᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᑐᓴᓚᐅᖅᑕᕋ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ who made that comment and this individual ᐅᖃᓪᓚᑦᑖᖅᑐᒥᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗᒎᖅ ᐅᑕᖅᑭᔭᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ indicated that they’re just waiting for the ᐃᓅᔪᓐᓃᓕᐊᕆᔭᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᐃᑦ. elders to pass away. It didn’t come from me. ᑖᓐᓇᐃᓛᒃ ᐅᕙᓐᓃᓐᖔᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᒥᒃ ᑐᓴᖅᓯᒪᔭᕋ It came from an elder and I’m restating the ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᐸᕋ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. facts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you as ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᐃᕝᕕᓪᓗ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᒥᓂᔅᑐ ᐃᓕᓐᓄᑦ well. Minister, I will refer that question to ᑐᓂᓕᖅᐸᕋ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᓪᓗᑕ ᐅᓇ you. We had asked for further information by ᑐᑭᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᐊᖅᓯᒪᒐᑉᑕ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ way of correspondence and in the House. ᐃᒡᓘᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐅᓇ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ 2039−ᒧᑦ From now to 2039, what is your department ᑎᑭᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᐊᕋᑉᓯ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕆᐊᖃᕋᑦᓯᓪᓗ going to be doing or do you have a plan for ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᕕᓯᐅᒃ? ᑕᒪᓐᓇ what you’re going to be doing? Can you ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᑑᓪᓗᐊᖅᐱᐅᒃ elaborate further on that? Are we just going to ᐅᑕᖅᑭᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐅᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ be waiting for the Department of Education, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑉᓯ, ᖃᓄᖅ or what action plans do you have in place? ᐸᕐᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᕕᓯ? ᒥᓂᔅᑐ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ. Minister Joanasie. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Hon. David Joanasie (interpretation): Thank ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ you, Mr. Chairman. We would like to see ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᖁᔭᕗᑦ ᐱᕕᓕᒫᖅᓱᑕ Inuktitut at the schools. I think it was on ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᕙᓪᓕᐊᒐᓱᐊᖅᓱᑎᒍ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᕋᒪ Monday when I said that we have a shortage ᐊᖏᕐᕕᔾᔪᐊᖑᖅᑰᖅᑐᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐱᕕᐅᓱᐊᖅᑐᑎᑐᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ of Inuktitut-speaking teachers and a shortage ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ ᐊᒥᒐᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᐊᓗ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑐᑦ of teachers in general. We have to provide ᐃᓕᓴᐃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ, ᐊᒃᓱᕈᖃᑦᑕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ further support to the teachers and we also ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᕆᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᓗᐊᖅᑕᑎᓐᓂ ᑖᓐᓇᓕ

want to develop our plans from now to 2039. ᐸᕐᓇᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᒍᒪᓂᐊᖅᑕᕗᑦ 2039−ᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᓪᓗᒍ.

Further, to cite this example of thinking outside the box and perhaps in a more ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒻᒪᖄ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᑎᓐᖑᐊᕐᓗᒍᖃᐃ ᐊᓯᐊᒍᑦ traditional Inuit manner within the schools, ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓐᖑᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᕐᓂᖅ including the legislation, and if you can bear ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ with my trying to use a different method, to ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖑᐊᕈᑦᑕ ᐊᓯᖓᒍᖅᑲᐃ ᐃᒻᒪᖄ envision caribou, as we all know, and quite ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕈᒪ ᐆᒥᖓᖃᐃ ᐃᓱᒪᒍᑦᑕ ᑐᑦᑐᓂ, nutritious as they form part of our delicious ᓲᕐᓗ ᑐᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ ᓂᕿᒋᒐᑦᑎᒍ ᒪᒪᕆᓪᓗᑎᒍ traditional foods. It would be like the ᓲᕐᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐃᒫᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᑉᐸᑦ ᖃᐅᑕᒫᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᑕᒫᑦ legislation, if it is drafted in such a way where ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᓪᓛᕈᒥᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ every day, Nunavummiut would have three ᐅᓪᓗᕈᒥᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᓐᓄᕈᒻᒥᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑐᑦᑐᒥᒃ square meals a day, such as breakfast, lunch, ᐱᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᓇ ᐅᓪᓗᖅ and supper and some people would clamour ᑎᑭᓚᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᖓᓂᒃ. ᓲᕐᓗ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ for caribou meat prior to the identified day for ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᖅᑰᔨᒻᒪᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᑐᑦᑐᐃᑦ caribou. As an example, the legislation is ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᓄᖑᓕᕐᓇᕋᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ seemingly drafted in that manner. However, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᓐᓂᖅ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᐊᓘᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ we know that in reality, several caribou ᐃᓱᑦᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᑐᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ populations have crashed, resulting in hunters ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑎᑭᐅᑎᒐᓱᐊᖅᑕᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᑎᑭᐅᑎᓂᐊᖅᐱᑕ having to go far and wide to search for ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑯᐊ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓕᐊᕆᕙᓪᓕᐊᓯᒪᓂᐊᖅᑕᕗᑦ. caribou. More resourcefulness is required, as ᑐᑭᒧᐊᒍᑎᑦᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᑖᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖁᓕᓄᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓄᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᑖᒥᒃ ᓯᓚᑦᑐᖅᓴᕐᕕᒃᑯᑦ an example, to determine how we can attain ᓴᖅᑮᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᑖᕋᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ our goals as written. Further, the plans we ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᓴᖅᑮᕙᓪᓕᐊᒃᑲᓐᕈᒪᓂᐊᖅᑐᑕ. want to develop will serve as guidelines to develop more teachers in the upcoming ten years by enhancing current programs to increase the number of Inuktitut teachers and other professionals.

We want to try to reverse the trend now. We ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑭᐳᑦᑎᒍᒪᓂᐊᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ are aware that fewer people speak Inuktitut. ᑐᓴᐃᓐᓇᕋᑦᑕ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᕐᓂᖅ ᑲᑕᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ We want to see an increase in the numbers of ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᒥᓱᓐᖑᕆᐊᖁᔭᕗᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ people who speak Inuktitut. We want to work ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕈᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ with the Department of Culture and Heritage ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᓗ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ and other organizations like Taiguusiliuqtiit ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᓕᒫᓄᑦ and Inuit organizations as all Nunavummiut ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑑᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ should be on the same page, so not just ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ ᑖᓐᓇ government is working on language retention. ᑐᓐᖓᕕᓪᓗᐊᑕᕆᔭᐅᑉᐸᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᐅᖏᓐᓇᖅᐸᑦ, I agree that when Inuktitut is the foundation in ᓲᕐᓗ ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ our homes and forms the primary language, it ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕋᒃᑯ ᖃᐅᔨᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ will continue. I have noted that with our ᕿᑐᕐᖓᒃᑲ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐊᑲᕐᕆᔮᓗᓂ children where they also try to continue it at ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᑲᕐᕆᔮᓐᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ school. We have been working on this for a ᑲᔪᓯᒐᓱᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᒥᔪᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᑯᓂᐊᓗᒃ long time and we will keep working on it, Mr. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕇᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᕗᑦ, Chairman. Thank you. ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᖁᐊᓴ.

Quassa. ᖁᐊᓴ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕆᓕᕐᓗᒍᖃᐃ ᐅᓇ Mr. Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᔪᒃᓴᐅᖅᑲᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᒃᓴᐅᔫᒐᓗᐊᖅ. ᑕᕝᕙᓂ Chairman. This will probably be my last ᒪᒃᐱᕋᖓᓂ 7−ᒥ ᑕᕝᕗᖓ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᖏᓐᓇᖅᑐᒧᑦ question and I don’t know whether it has been ᓇᒃᓯᐅᑎᓚᐅᖅᑕᓯ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐃᒪᓐᓇᒃ asked or not. On page 7 of the submission you ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓂᒃ provided to the Standing Committee states in ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑦ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᓪᓗᒍ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ English that (interpretation ends) “…the right ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖅ. to the use of the Inuit language, including the ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑭᐅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖃᖏᒃᖢᓂ right to Inuit language instruction, is an ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑕ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᐅᓯᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ inherent right, and it does not depend on ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 8ᒥᒃ. section 8 of the ILPA.” (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᓇᓱᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓲᕐᓗ (interpretation) As it is worded as such and ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᖅᑰᔨᖕᒪᑦ, ᓇᐅᒃ while we are trying to produce made-in- ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑕᖃᓚᐅᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓕ Nunavut legislation, it states here that it’s an ᐊᑦᑕᑕᖅᓯᒪᔾᔪᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᕝᕙᐅᕌᓂᖕᒪᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇᓕ inherent right; it’s already there. I would like ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᕕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ further clarification on (interpretation ends) ᖄᓐᓇ ᐊᒡᒍᖅᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ 8, section 8. (interpretation) We have discussed ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ the need to have the Inuit language properly ᐸᐸᑕᐅᑦᓯᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ, ᖃᓄᖑᓇ protected. I would like to get clarification on ᑐᑭᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᐊᕐᔪᒍᒪᕙᕋ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᖅᑲᐅᓂᖓ. the wording that it does not depend on section ᓲᕐᓗ, ᐃᓚᖓ 8 ᑕᕝᕙᓂᒎᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᔪᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ 8 of the Inuit Language Protection Act ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒥ, because it is an inherent right. I’m asking for ᑕᐃᑲᓃᓐᓂᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᐸᖅᑲᐃ? ᐅᓇ ᐱᑕᖄᓂᖕᒪᑦ clarification on that, Mr. Chairman, and that’s ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᒥᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓗ ᖃᓄᑭᐊᖅ? ᑖᓐᓇ my final question. Thank you. ᑐᑭᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᒧᑦ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᕙᕋ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕆᓕᖅᖢᒍᓗ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ, ᒥᔅᑐ ᖁᐊᓴ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᖓᓄᑦ, Quassa. To the question, Commissioner ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ. Aariak. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᒃ. ᐅᓪᓛᖅ, Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐅᖃᐱᓪᓚᖅᑲᐅᒐᒪ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᑐᖓᓗ ᑭᓲᒻᒪᖔᑕ Chairman. This morning I made some ᒪᓕᒐᐅᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. comments about legislation recognized in ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᑦ other jurisdictions. For example, the federal ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑕ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᖁᔭᐅᓂᖓᓂᒃ government recognizes and protects the rights ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᒃ, ᐃᓛᒃ, ᐊᓂᓚᐅᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᕐᒦᒃᑐᓂᓗ of indigenous languages and it’s protected ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ. ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ under the Constitution. The United Nations ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᔾᔪᐊᑦ, UN, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᓚᐅᕆᓪᓗᑎᒃ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. also indicated that indigenous peoples have a ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᑦ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᓄᑦ right and that they have to be recognized ᑎᒥᐅᔪᓄᑦ, ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑐᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᓄᑦ. (interpretation ends) by state parties, indicating governments in our jurisdiction. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᐸᒌᕋᑦᑕ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥ ᑖᑦᓱᒧᖓ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ (interpretation) We already have an inherent ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ right through the Inuit Language Protection ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓ

Act. We already have an inherent right. We ᒪᓕᒐᖅ. ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᐸᒌᖅᑐᒍᑦ. ᒐᕙᒪᑎᒍᑦ are given a certain amount of rights and then ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᓗᒍ. ᐃᒪᓐᓇ more will be added from this date to that date. ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᑎᑦ ᐱᒃᑲᓐᓂᓛᖅᐸᑎᑦ ᐅᕗᓐᖓᖅᐸᑕ. Maybe it will be explained better in English. I ᑖᓐᓇᖃᐃ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ would like to refer this to our legal advisor if ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᒧᑦ she would like to supplement my response. ᑭᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᑉᐸᐅᒃ ᐃᓚᒋᐊᕈᒪᒍᓂᐅᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᖁᕙᕋ ᓕᔨ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Hayes. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᕼᐊᐃᔅ.

Ms. Hayes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think as well what we are looking at here when we ᕼᐊᐃᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᑕᕝᕙ, look at that phrase that was mentioned by the ᐃᓱᒪᔪᖓ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑰᕐᒥᕗᒍᑦ ᑕᑯᒍᑦᑎᒍ Hon. Member, that the use of the Inuit ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓵᖅᑐᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᒧᑦ language and the Inuit language instruction is ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓐᓂ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᓂᕐᒧᑦ an inherent right does not depend only on ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᒍᓐᓇᓂᕐᒧᑦ section 8 is because we find reference to that ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᐅᒻᒪᑦ. ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖃᑐᐃᓐᓇᖏᒻᒪ in the preamble of the ILPA. The ILPA is ᐊᒡᒍᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓᓐᓂ 8 ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒥᒐᑦᑕ very strong in what it says about this, that the ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓐᖓᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓐᓂᒃ use of the Inuit language is a right. This ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᓲᖑᔫᓪᓗᓂ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᑐᒪᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪ attaches then to the treaty, which then attaches ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᐅᒻᒪᑦ to section 35 of the Constitution Act. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᐅᓪᓗᓂᓗ ᐊᒡᒍᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ 35-ᒧᑦ

ᐊᑦᑐᐊᓪᓗᓂᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖓᓂ. If we look at the preamble to the ILPA, and I am just pulling it up so that we can look at it ᑕᒡᕙ ᑕᑯᓇᔭᕈᑦᑎᒍ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᐊᓐᖓᐅᑎᖏᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ very quickly…thank you. It says, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒦᑦᑐᒥ, “Considering the importance of the Inuit ᐅᖃᓕᒫᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓵᕈᓐᓇᓂᐊᕋᑦᑎᒍ. Language (a) “ᑕᐞᕙ, ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓚᕿᕗᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ (a) as a cultural inheritance…” ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓄᑦ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕐᒥᑎᒍᑦ.”

Then if we go to paragraph B, ᑕᑯᒐᔭᕈᑦᑎᒍᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓃᑦᑐᒥ B-ᒥ,

(b) “as the fundamental medium of personal and cultural expression… (c) to the development of the dynamic and (b) “ᐊᖅᑯᑎᓪᓗᐊᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᐃᒻᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑎᒍᓪᓗ strong individuals, communities and ᐅᖃᕈᓯᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ... institutions in Nunavut that are (c) ᐱᕐᔪᐊᖑᓂᖓ ᓲᖑᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᖑᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ, required to advance the [purposes of] ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᓄᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ reconciliation… ᓴᐃᒻᒪᐅᑎᓇᓱᒋᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ... (d) to support the meaningful engagement (d) “(d)” ᐃᑲᔫᑎᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ of Inuit Language speakers in all ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑐᐅᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥ ᐊᒻᒪ levels of governance and in socio- ᐃᓅᓯᑎᒍᑦ−ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕐᓂᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒥ.. economic development… (e) ᑐᓐᖓᕕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᓪᓗ ᐱᑕᖃᐃᓐᓇᓂᕐᒧᑦ.. (e) as a foundation necessary to a sustainable future…as a people of

distinct cultural and linguistic identity ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖃᑎᒌᖑᓂᑎᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᑎᒍᓪᓗ within Canada;” ᑭᓇᐅᔾᔪᓯᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ,”

Further on, the next paragraph talks about “a language of education, in a system that in both ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ ᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᒻᒥᔪᐃᑦ: ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᑕᕆᔭᖅ its design and effect strives to equip Inuit ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᓂᖓᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖓᑎᒍᓪᓗ children to enter adult life as world citizens ᑐᓐᖓᕕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᕿᑐᕐᖓᖏᓐᓄᑦ having a rich knowledge of the Inuit ᐃᓐᓇᓐᖑᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ Language and full ability to participate in the ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᐅᒍᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᓗᑎᓪᓗ day-to-day life…” ᖃᐅᑕᒫᖅᓯᐅᑎᓂ....

The preamble goes on to tie itself to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, which then ᓯᕗᓐᖓᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕆᕗᖅ ᓄᓇᕘᒥ makes it a treaty right which has ᓄᓇᑖᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᒃ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ constitutional status and does not depend ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᓄᑦ ᐅᕗᖓᓗ 8−ᒧᑦ solely on the writings of section 8. Thank you, ᐊᑕᕐᓗᓂ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, ᑭᐅᕗᖓᖃᐃ. Mr. Chairman. I hope that responds to the question.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Is that okay, Mr. Quassa, and you’re done? Okay. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑑᖅ, ᖁᐊᓵ, ᑕᐃᒫᖅᖢᑎᓪᓗ. ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑕ. ᒥᔅ ᖃᒥᓐᖑᐊᖅ Moving on. Ms. Kamingoak.

Ms. Kamingoak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᖃᒥᓐᖑᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Welcome to the commissioner and her ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒋᔅᓯ. colleagues.

With respect to Inuinnaqtun and the state it is ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ in, does the Languages Commissioner feel ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᐃᓱᒪᕙ ᑖᓐᓇ that the Education Act or Bill 25 provides ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 25 ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᐃᕚ enough support to revitalize Inuinnaqtun in ᒪᑭᑎᑦᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ our education system? Thank you, Mr. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓐᓂᒃ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᐊᓇᖅ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ. Commissioner Aariak.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ Chairman. I also thank you for your question ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕋᕕᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒃᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᖓᓗ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. and thank you for welcoming me. It has been ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᖕᒪᓂᓛᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓪᓗᑕᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓐ recognized and we know that over the years ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᖅᑲᕆᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᑭᓪᓕᕙᓪᓕᐊᖕᒪᑕ. there are fewer proficient Inuinnaqtun ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᒋᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕗᑦ speakers, and that is why we have to work ᓴᖓᑦᑎᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᒻᒪᕆᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓐ. harder to strengthen the Inuinnaqtun ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᒪᓂᓛᒃ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ language. I’ll read this in English. ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓚᐅᑲᓐᓂᐊᕋᒃᑯ (interpretation ends) “As a result, Inuinnaqtun ᑕᐃᒨᓐᖔᕐᓗᒍ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓐ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑦ

is now considered definitely endangered and ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᓕᕐᓂᕋᖅᑕᕗᑦ Inuktitut is now as classified as vulnerable.” ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓃᕈᓐᓇᖅᖢᓂᓗ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) (interpretation) This is recognized by ᑖᓐᓇ ᔫᓂᐊᓐᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ. UNESCO.

Statistics Canada conducts research, including ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑭᒡᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᑦ language issues, such as how many people ᖃᐅᔨᓴᓲᖑᖕᒪᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓚᖓ ᐃᓚᐅᓪᓗᓂ, can speak Inuktut, how many people can ᖃᔅᓯᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᖅᐸᑦ, ᖃᔅᓯᑦ speak Inuinnaqtun, if you speak your ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓐ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᖅᐸᑦ. ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ language at home, and how proficient your ᐅᖃᓪᓚᓱᖑᕕᓰ, ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᕝᕕᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓄᑦ level of speaking Inuinnaqtun or Inuktitut is. ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᒍᓪᓘᓐᓃ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᓈᓴᐅᑏᑦ Statistics Canada gathers that information. ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᓐᓃᖔᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ. Due to the fact that we are starting to lose our ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᓯᐅᔨᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᑕ language, we have to work harder if we value ᐊᒃᓱᕈᒃᑲᓐᓂᖔᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᐳᑦ our mother tongue. I hope I responded to your ᐊᓐᓂᕆᒍᑦᑎᒍ. ᑭᐅᕙᕋᖃᐃ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Kamingoak. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᖃᒥᓐᖑᐊᖅ.

Ms. Kamingoak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᖃᒥᓐᖑᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐄ, I agree; we need to work harder to revitalize ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒋᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᒋᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᕗᑦ Inuinnaqtun at a much faster pace now. Has ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ ᒪᑭᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ your office brought forward any specific ᓱᒃᑲᓂᖅᓴᒃᑯᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᓯ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᕚᑦ recommendations to the department on this ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑦ situation with respect to ensuring that ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑦ Inuinnaqtun is properly being revitalized, to ᐆᒻᒪᖅᑎᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ be delivered adequately in our schools? Thank ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᑦᑎᓐᓂ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ. Commissioner Aariak.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have reviewed the proposed ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᒃ. ᑖᓐᓇᐃᓛᒃ amendments. Well, as you were reviewing the ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓯᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ, ᐃᓛᒃ, ᕿᒥᕐᕈᑎᓪᓗᓯ proposed amendments to the Inuit Language ᐊᓯᔾᔩᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑕ Protection Act, there was agreement as to how ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ. ᐋᔩᖃᑎᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᖃᓄᖅ the changes would be made, but we were not ᐊᓯᔾᔩᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᓚᐅᖏᑦᑐᒍᑦ involved when they were drafting the bill. ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓰᓇᓱᒃᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ There were no deliberations. For example, ᐋᔩᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᑦᑎᐊᓚᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, (interpretation ends) we made a submission, (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑐᓂᓯᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᒐᑦᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᓂᒃ just like the other presenters that came before ᐊᓯᑦᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕆᐊᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑐᑦ you: Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, ᖃᐃᓯᒪᓂᑰᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᕙᖓ ᓯᕗᓂᐊᓂ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ Coalition of Nunavut DEAs, the teachers ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ, ᓄᓇᓕᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ association, Iqaluit District Education ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ, ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ, ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ

Authority, and others, the ones you had ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ. ᑕᐃᑉᑯᐊ ᖃᐃᖅᑯᓚᐅᖅᑕᓯ ᑕᕝᕗᖓ. ᑕᕝᕙ, invited. We could not have meaningful input ᐊᑑᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᓚᒍᑦ into the changes if we weren’t properly ᒪᒃᐱᒐᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓐᖏᑎᓪᓗᑕ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) involved. (interpretation) Does that make ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᐳᖓᖃᐃ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. sense? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, (interpretation ends) I mean, with all due ᐃᓱᒪᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᑲᒥᓯᓈ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ respect, commissioner, the Committee in ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕗᑦ ᑕᑯᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑦᓯᕗᒍᑦ ᐃᓕᖕᓂᒃ terms of our role, we are involving you and ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᓯᓐᓂᓗ ᑕᒪᑐᒧᖓ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᐅᔪᒧᑦ. your staff in this process. ᒫᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᑉ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒍ The legislation as it is written now is not ᐊᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᓕᕐᓗᓂ ᐱᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ, ᐊᓕᓚᔪᒥ written in stone. It’s written on paper and this ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊᖑᔪᓪᓗ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ Committee and this group has the ability to ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐃᓱᒻᒥᕈᑎᒃᓴᐅᔪᒃ suggest amendments to the bill, to suggest ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᑦᓴᓄᑦ ᑖᑦᓱᒧᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᐅᔪᒧᑦ, deletions. We can’t fundamentally rewrite the ᐲᖅᑕᐅᖁᔭᒥᖕᓂᒃ. ᐃᒫᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ bill, we can’t go beyond the scope of the bill, ᑎᑎᕋᓕᕈᓐᓇᖏᓐᓇᑦᑕ ᐅᖓᑕᐅᔾᔨᓕᕈᓐᓇᖏᓇᑦᑕ but Ms. Kamingoak’s question was regarding ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᐅᑉ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᒥᔅ ᑲᒥᓐᖑᐊᑉ specific recommendations to the bill as it is ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᖅᑲᐅᔮᓄᑦ ᑭᑐᓪᓚᑦᑖᓄᑦ written now. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᐅᑉ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ ᒫᓐᓇ ᑕᑯᓪᓗᒍ.

We understand that you weren’t involved in ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᕗᒍᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᐅᓯᒪᖏᓐᓇᕕᑦ the drafting of the legislation and neither were ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ the Regular Members in this House. I would ᐃᓚᐅᓚᐅᕋᑎᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ like to point that out for the record. We are ᐃᒡᓗᒥ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᕋ. not consulted in terms of the drafting of the ᐃᓚᐅᓯᒪᓐᖏᓚᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᔭᐅᒐᑕᓗ legislation. The right of the government is the ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒋᐊᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᐅᑉ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇᓕ right to govern, and that’s how I understand it. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒋᒻᒪᒡᔪᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᔾᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᓕ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᒐᒃᑯ. In terms of her question and specific recommendations to Bill 25 as it is written, ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᐊᓄᑦ ᑭᑐᓪᓚᑦᑖᓂᓪᓗ Commissioner Aariak. ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᒥᓂᒡᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᐱᓪᓗᒍ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓᒍᑦ, ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ. Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the Act it states that the ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᒃ. ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ commissioner’s rights and responsibilities are ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ there for languages. When it comes to ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ education, yes, if we were asked, but we have ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ rights or authorities over language. The Act ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᓐᓂᕈᑦᑕ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᖅ, outlines our office’s responsibilities. The ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ Department of Education knows its ᐱᓕᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ responsibilities. My roles and responsibilities ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ, ᐊᑏ, have been outlined as the Languages ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖕᒪᑕ ᐱᓕᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. Commissioner. That’s my area of ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᖓᓕ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕐᓂᒃ responsibility. I can say that. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᑦ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑭᒡᓕᒋᒐᒃᑯ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ.

If Lenise wants to add to my response, I ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓚᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᒃᐸᑦ ᓕᓃᔅ would like her to be given an opportunity, Mr. ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑐᒪᕙᕋ. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᒃ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. Chairman. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Hayes. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᕼᐊᐃᔅ.

Ms. Hayes: I think what I understand from the commissioner is that no specific ᕼᐊᐃᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᐃᓱᒪᕗᖓ ᑐᑭᓯᓂᕋ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒍ recommendations were ever prepared for Bill ᑲᒥᓯᓇᒥᑦ ᑭᑐᓪᓚᑦᑖᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ 25 or 37, specifically. The Office of the ᐅᐸᓗᖓᐃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒧᑦ 25-ᒧ Languages Commissioner reviews specifically ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ 37-ᒧᑦ ᐃᒫᓪᓚᑦᑖᖅ. those areas that were within the purview of ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓂᖓ the responsibilities of the commissioner, and ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᒋᐊᓕᖏᓐᓂ. that was the issues that go to the language ᑕᐃᒪ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᖑᓚᐅᖅᐳᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᓖᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ rights as opposed to how education should be ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓂᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᖑᖔᓐᖏᑐᕐᓕ ᖃᓄᖅ delivered in Nunavut. I hope that answers the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. question, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. ᑭᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑲᒋᖅᑲᐃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you (interpretation ends) Thank you for ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕆᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᕕᐅᒃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) elaborating. (interpretation) The last person I ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐸᐅᓂᐊᓕᖅᑰᖅᑐᖅ ᑐᒡᓕᕆᔭᖓᓂᓪᓗ would like to recognize for the second time is ᐃᓕᑕᕆᓕᖅᖢᒍ, ᒥᔅᑐ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ. Mr. Qamaniq.

Mr. Qamaniq (interpretation): Thank you, ᖃᒪᓂᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me again. I’ll ᐃᓕᓴᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕋᕕᖓ. ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᓚᐅᑲᒡᓗᖓ speak in English and then Inuktitut. ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖕᓂᐊᖅᑐᖓ.

(interpretation ends) In your opening statement, maybe under the fifth paragraph, it (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒪᑐᐃᖅᓯᒍᑎᔅᓯᓐᓂ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᔅᓯᓐᓂ states that and most of the comments from the ᑕᓪᓕᒪᒋᔭᖓᓂ ᑲᑎᓐᖓᐅᖅᑐᓂ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ Office of the Languages Commissioner refer ᐊᑕᖏᐸᓗᑦᑐᑎᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ to section 35 of constitutional law, I suppose, ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖓᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᒪᑕ and “recognizes and affirms the existing ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒻᒥᒃ 35−ᒥ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪ aboriginal and treaty rights of the indigenous ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᓪᓗᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓪᓗᓂ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑐᓂᒃ peoples of Canada. The Supreme Court of ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. Canada has stated that the content of these ᑖᓐᓇ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔨᕐᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ rights must be directed at fulfilling the ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑏᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ purposes of section 35. The court states that to ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒻᒥ 35−ᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. be an indigenous right, an activity must be ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔨᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᐅᓗᓂ part of a practice, custom, or tradition that is ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᐅᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᓃᓪᓗ integral to the distinctive culture of the ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᓕᕆᔪᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ indigenous group claiming the right. The Inuit ᐊᔾᔨᐅᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓖᑦ. language is clearly an element of practices, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᓪᓚᕆᐅᓪᓗᓂ customs and traditions integral to distinctive ᐊᑐᖅᑕᓪᓚᕆᐅᖃᑦᑕᓲᖅ ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᖏᑦᑐᒧᑦ

Inuit culture.” ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᒻᒪᑦ.

(ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᑕᐃᒪ ᐃᓅᓪᓗᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᐳᑦ (interpretation) As Inuit, our language is ᐊᔾᔨᒋᔪᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖕᒪᒍ ᐃᓐᓇᖅ 18−ᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓕᒃ changing. When an elder who is 80 or 70 70−ᒦᑦᑐᒧᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓕᒻᒧᑦ 19−ᒦᑦᑐᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓕᖕᒧᑦ years old and a 19-year-old person are talking ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒡᓗᑎᒃ ᑐᑭᓯᐊᔪᓐᓃᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑐᖃᕐᒥᑎᒍᑦ to each other, I can’t understand them ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒃᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᒍᑦ anymore. I can’t understand elders anymore 70−ᓂᒃ 80−ᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕗᑦ when they speak traditionally and we who are ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᒻᒥᖕᒪᒍ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ. younger, the way we speak Inuktitut is ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᓪᓗᑕ ᐅᒃᐱᕆᔭᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᐳᑦ different than the way a 70- or 80-year-old ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔾᔪᓰᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᓕᕆᔾᔪᓰᑦ ᓂᕐᔪᓯᕆᓃᑦ speaks. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᕈᓘᔭᐅᖕᒪᑕ. ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᐊᐅᓪᓚᖅᓯᒪᑯᑕᒡᓗᓂ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᐸᓪᓗᓂᓗ As Inuit, we believe our laws about ᐃᓕᑕᒃᓴᐅᖕᒪᑕ. ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᒡᒎᖅ ᓱᓕ counselling, court, hunting, and so on. Some ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᐳᑦ ᓱᕙᓕᑭᐊᖑᖕᒪᑕ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ of them need to be learned and some of them ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔾᔪᓯᖏᑦ ᓂᕐᔪᑎᓄᑦ can only be learned by going out and doing it ᒪᓕᒐᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᓂᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᕈᓘᔭᐃᑦ through observation. To try and teach them in ᐊᑐᓐᖏᓐᓇᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕋᑦᑕ. a classroom is useless. We are not using the ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖃᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ Inuit ways of counselling and laws about ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒋᐊᓱᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᓗᑎᒍᓪᓗ wildlife and court because we are following ᓄᑭᖃᖁᔭᐅᖅᑰᔨᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ federal laws. When they are not recognized by ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓚᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ the federal government, while we are trying to ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᕗᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔾᔪᓰᑦ teach them, our rights don’t really have much ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᓂᓕᕆᓃᑦ ᓂᕐᔪᓯᕆᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ. strength when it comes to counselling, court, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᑎᒃᓴᐃᑦ wildlife management, and so on. ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᕈᓐᓇᕈᒃᑯ dictionary ᐊᑕᐅᓯᑯᓗᖕᒥᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᖓ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᑎᓂᒃ Additionally, with respect to Inuit language ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᓕᕆᔾᔪᑏᑦ dictionaries, I only know of one dictionary for ᐅᖃᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒥᔫᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᑭᓱᓂᒃ the Inuit language. Although there is a group ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᑯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ. ᐊᒻᒪ that develops Inuktut terminology, I haven’t ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔨᐅᔪᑦ seen it. Also, there is not much curriculum ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᑯᒻᒥᐅᖃᓗᐊᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ coming out of the Department of Education. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ It’s only through planning by the Minister of ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᕝᕕᐅᑉ ᐊᒡᓚᒡᕕᖓᓂᒃ Education’s office that they can start being ᓴᖅᑭᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ. ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ ᐃᒻᒪᖄ produced. Perhaps when there are positions in ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ the three regions of Baffin, Kivalliq, and ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓗᖕᒥ, ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥ, ᕿᑎᕐᒥᐅᓂᓗ Kitikmeot to produce curriculum, it would ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓕᐅᖅᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᑕᖃᓕᖅᐸᑦ help protect what you’re talking about. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᑎᑦ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᕚᓪᓕᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒪᑕ..

ᑖᓐᓇ ᓴᖅᑯᒥᔪᖃᓐᖏᑎᓪᓗᒍ When there is really nothing available, it was ᑎᒍᓯᔫᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᓐᓇᓐᖏᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ said that Inuit teachers go through great ᐊᒃᓱᕈᖅᑐᐊᓘᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᖅᑐᖃᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ difficulty and they have to create their own ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓕᐅᕆᐊᖃᖅᖢᑎᒡᓗ curriculum while they are trying to teach. I ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᒃᖢᑎᒡᓗ ᐱᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ would like to know how you feel about the ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᖕᒪᖔᖅᐱᐅᒃ 2039 ᐊᕐᕌᒍ reference to 2039 and that they will only be ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᑕᐅᓛᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ planning while curriculum is being developed. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᐃᑦ

Is it okay with you if Bill 25 is passed? Thank ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᖅᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓇᓱᖕᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, you, Mr. Chairman. ᓱᖁᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦᑐᓐᓇᖅᐱᐅᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᑲᔪᓯᒐᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Commissioner Aariak. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ Chairman. I also thank you for that question. ᐊᐱᕆᒐᕕᑦ. 2008-ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ The Inuit Language Protection Act was ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᖕᒧᑦ passed by the Legislative Assembly in 2008. ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ, ᐅᓪᓗᖓ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ The date stated was July 1, 2019. This is ᔪᓚᐃ 1, 2019. ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ written in the Act and included is that starting ᐃᓚᐅᓪᓗᓂᓗ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓂᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᔪᓚᐃ 1, 2009-ᒥᑦ July 1, 2009, students from kindergarten to Kindergarten−ᒦᑦᑐᑦ ᒍᕋᐃ 3-ᒧᑦ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ grade 3 would be able to be taught in Inuktitut ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ and it would be implemented on July 1, 2019 ᐱᓐᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᐊᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᔪᓚᐃ 1, 2019-ᒥ for the older students up to grade 12. Eleven ᐊᖏᔪᒃᖠᓄᑦ ᒍᕋᐃ 12-ᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᓪᓗᒍ. ᐊᕐᕌᒍ 11 years have passed and today students are able ᐊᓂᒍᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᓱᓕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂ to be taught in their language from ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᒍᑦ kindergarten to grade 3. Maybe if I ask if Kindergarten−ᒥᑦ ᒍᕋᐃ 3-ᒧᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇᖃᐃ there had been a plan to date. I hope I ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᓚᐅᑲᒃᑯᒃᑯ, ᖃᓄᖅ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᒥᒃ answered your question. Thank you, Mr. ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓂᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᖦᖢᒍ? ᑭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕋᓗᐊᖅᐸᒋᖅᑲᐃ ᐃᕝᕕᑦ ᑐᓴᕈᒪᔭᖓᓂᒃ. Chairman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ. Qamaniq.

ᖃᒪᓂᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ Mr. Qamaniq (interpretation): Thank you, ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᖅᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ Mr. Chairman. They say that the future ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᒍᑎᓂᒃ planning and regulations will be put together ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓲᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᕐᕋᕕᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ by the Minister’s staff and 2039 is the target ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᓂᐊᕐᓂᕋᖅᖢᓂ ᐅᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ 2039 date. My question was: can you support the ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᕋᑖᖅᑕᕋ approval of Bill 25 with the expectation that ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᐱᐅᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ the regulations will be put together at a later ᐃᕐᕋᕕᒃᓴᖏᑦ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓕᖅᐸᑦ date? That was my question. I asked that the ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᖅᑕᐅᓛᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᐅᒡᓗᑎᒃ? Eskimo way. Thank you. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᕋᑖᖅᑕᕋ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᔅᑭᒨᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᕙᕋ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Commissioner Aariak ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᐋᒃᑲ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. Chairman. No. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Are you done? I would like to explain the letter we ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑕᐃᒫᖅᐲᑦ? ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒻᒪᖄ received from the Office of the Language ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓗᖓ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᐅᕼᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ Commissioner. It does not say to reject Bill ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᐊᓂ, ᐊᖏᖅᑎᖏᓪᓗᒍ Bill

25. The commissioner points out things that 25 ᐅᖃᖅᕼᐃᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ, ᐃᒻᒪᖄ ᓈᒻᒪᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ are wrong, but there is no reference to ᑎᒃᑯᐊᖅᑐᐃᔫᒐᓗᐊᖅ, ᐊᕼᐃᖏᓪᓗ ᐅᑯᐊ rejecting the bill or that it’s impossible to ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ, amend. That’s not what it says, if understand ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅ ᐊᔪᖅᑐᖅ. ᐅᓇᓕ it correctly, commissioner. ᐅᖃᖅᕼᐃᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᑐᑭᕼᐊᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕈᒪ ᑲᒥᓯᓇ.

Lastly, (interpretation ends) I have a question here. I’m going to refer to page 2 of your ᐅᓇ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᔅᓴᖃᕋᒪ submission and then I’ll refer to page 3 of ᒪᑉᐳᒐᖓᓄᑦ 2-ᖓᓅᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᖓ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ your comments, and it’s around ᒪᑉᐱᒐᖓ 3-ᖓᓂᑦ ᐃᓕᔅᓯ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᔅᓴᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ. administrative law principles, okay? In the ᐊᓪᓚᕕᒻᒥ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖏᑦ, ᑕᕝᕙᓂ introduction to your submission it says, ᐱᒋᐊᓐᖓᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ “Administrative law principles no longer offer ᑐᓂᓯᒪᔭᔅᓯᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᒻᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ a strong basis for challenging the law-making ᑐᓐᖓᕕᐅᔪᐃᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᕐᖓᑕ process.” Okay? That seems clear enough, ᐊᑭᕋᖅᑐᕈᑎᔅᓴᓂᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᓂᐅᔪᓂᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ okay, and then on page 3 of your opening ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑑᔮᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᑉᐱᖅᑐᒐᖓᓂᑦ 3 comments you bring up administrative law ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᕐᓃᕕᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒨᖓᔪᐃᑦ principles and this is the fourth paragraph. It ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᐃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓯᑕᒪᖓᓐᓂᑦ says, “In previous submissions we raised ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᒪᑦ, “ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓯᒪᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ certain administrative law principles which ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᕗᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ we feel continue to support our concerns ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᔭᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐊᕆᔭᐅᓂᐊᕌᖓᑕ.” around the law-making process.”

ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓱᖅᑯᐃᓇᖅᓯᑎᒍᓐᓇᖅᐱᐅᒃ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᖑᕚ? ᓲᕐᓗ I’m just looking for clarification in terms of ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒋᓲᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒍᑦ which is it. Do administrative law principles ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖃᖅᐹ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑖᓐᓇ offer a basis for challenging the law-making ᓴᒃᑯᒋᔭᐅᒐᔭᖅᐹ ᑖᒃᑯᑎᒎᓇ process or do they not? I’m obviously not an ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᓕᕐᓂᖅᐸ? ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᕝᕘᓇᖓᔪᖅ expert in this area; I’m just interested in it ᑐᑭᓯᒍᒪᒐᒪ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᕐᕈᐃᒃ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᐃ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ because these two documents don’t seem to ᐊᔾᔨᒌᔫᒥᔫᔮᓐᖏᒻᒪᑎ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ. match up. Commissioner Aariak.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There’s also a need to know what (interpretation ends) administrative law amma constitutional law is. Administrative law ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᐊᒃᓱᐊᓗᒡᓗ (interpretation) relates to the way government ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᒋᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᒥᖕᒪᑦ. ᑭᓲᖕᒪᑦ operates when they are enacting legislation, Administrative Law ᐊᒻᒪ Constitution Law? ᑖᓐᓇ while (interpretation ends) constitutional law ᒐᕙᒪᐅᑉ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ (interpretation) tends to deal with precedents Constitutional Law, ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᑰᔪᓂᒃ set by the court system or that deal with the ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ Canadian Constitution and the review of ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖓᓂᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖅ. legislation in light of this overarching law.

When questions are submitted to the Office of the Languages Commissioner about certain ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ areas, they used to undertake the review using ᐊᒡᓚᒡᕕᐊ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᕐᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᑕ

(interpretation ends) administrative law Administrative Law ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ (interpretation) to determine if the legislation ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ amendments affect their legislative mandate, ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᐊᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ. and advise whether or not the legislation ought not to be changed.

In looking at the proposed Bill 25 when it was reviewed by the Members, it was as if the Constitution, if you look at Canada as a whole ᑖᓐᓇ 25 ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓲᕐᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ and then up towards Nunavut, the review was ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ ᑕᑯᖔᖅᖢᓂ ᐃᓗᒻᒧᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒧᑦ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ different. In looking at this proposed ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓂᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᓛ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓱᓕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ legislation, we don’t want to see any changes ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᖁᓐᖏᑕᕗᑦ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑕ that might impact the Inuit Language ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ Protection Act as another piece of legislation ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᑯᓗᐊᒍᑦ. cannot force amendments of certain sections only.

Perhaps it will be more sensible to make that argument in English. If Lenise Hayes wants to ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᖅᑲᐃ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ supplement my response, I would ask that she ᑭᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᒃᐸᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᐊᕈᒪᒃᐸᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓚᓃᔅ ᕼᐃᔅ. be provided an opportunity to explain. Thank ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᕼᐃᔅ. Hayes.

Ms. Hayes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank ᕼᐃᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ you, Member, for the question. For the ᐊᐱᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᑦ. ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ administrative law principles, it’s conceded ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᐃᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐄ, ᐄ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕖᑦ that yes, the Legislative Assembly has all the ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖃᖅᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᒻᒥᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᒎᒪᑉᐸᑕ powers and prerogatives to enact laws, amend ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕆᒍᒪᑉᐸᑕ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᒍᒪᑉᐸᑕ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ laws, and repeal laws. No law is set in stone, ᐊᑕᐃᓐᓈᓗᒍᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᐊᓯᕈᖅᑕᐅᒑᖓᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ as you mentioned, and that is correct. In fact ᑕᕝᕙ ᐱᐅᓂᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ one of the beautiful things about laws is you ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐃᓄᖏᑕ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ can change them to respond to the needs of ᐃᓄᖁᑎᒋᔭᖏᑕ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᖁᔨᓕᕐᓂᖅᐸᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ society. ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋ.

When we look, though, from an administrative law principle, we look at things such as statutory interpretation principles. In this case when we’re purporting to suggest ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᕝᕙ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒻᒪᑕ. ᒪᓐᓇ amending a specific provision in a certain ᓲᕐᓗ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕆᔪᖃᕐᓂᖅᐸᑕ ᐃᓗᓕᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ, way, one of the concerns is that amendment, ᐃᓗᓕᖓᑕ ᐃᓚᖓᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕌᖓᑕ ᓲᕐᓗ particularly when it’s not an amendment ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᖁᔭᐃᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔫᔪᒧᑦ that’s proposed by the department or the ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ Minister or in this case the office that has the ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓐᓂᒃ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖅᑐᖅ, ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔪᖅ ᓇᓪᓕᐊ,

responsibility of that law, is the proposed ᓲᕐᓗ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᔪᔅᓴᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ amendment consistent with the underlying or ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑕᐅᑐᒐᖓ ᕿᓐᖑᑎᖓ ᐃᓗᐃᒃᑑᒋᐊᓕᒃ overarching purpose of the law? ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓᓕᒫᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖏᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒧᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ.

In this case when we look at the purposes of the Inuit Language Protection Act, it’s very ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓱᖅᑯᐃᕐᓇᖅᓯᒪᑎᒐᓱᑦᑕᕋᓗᐊᕗᑦ. clear what those purposes are. It’s set out very ᑐᑭᓯᑎᒍᑎᒋᖅᑲᐅᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᖏᑦ, ᒪᕐᕈᐃᓂᒃ clearly in the preamble. When we bring in ᐅᖃᐅᓰᓐᓂ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᕝᕙ concepts such as bilingual education, it is ᑐᕋᒐᕆᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓐᓂᑦ probably undermining that purpose in the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒪᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ sense that the Inuit Language Protection Act ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ, ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓐᓂ is there to protect the Inuit language and ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒪᑉᐸᑕ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ guarantee rights to Inuit language instruction. ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᒡᒐ ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓱᖅᐳᑦ It is not there to guarantee rights to English ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑲᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᒪᒐᔭᖅᐸᑦ. and French language instruction; it’s specifically for Inuit language.

From that perspective as administrative law, it brings in some concerns that when it comes time to interpret the law and for people to ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᕝᕙ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᖃᖓᒃᑯ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᓕᕌᖓᑕ understand what their obligations are and ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑭᓇᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔪᔅᓴᐅᒻᒪᖔᑕ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᒡᒐ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᕈᑎᒋᔭᖓ ᖃᓄᓪᓚᕆᒃ what their rights are, it will be very difficult ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᒻᒪᑦ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᓚᑐᔪᒥᑦ because on one hand we’re putting forward ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒧᑦ some very broad statements and offering a ᑐᕌᖓᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖓ. ᐅᑭᐅᖏᑦ positive right to receive Inuit language ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓕᕇᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ. instruction, but then on the other hand we’re denying it for certain age categories.

Rights are always expressed as positive and ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑕᕝᕙ broad as statements. We don’t say to ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ, ᓲᕐᓗ somebody, “You have the right to a lawyer, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᖕᒧᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᒋᐊᑐᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ 5 ᒥᓂᔅᓯᑯᓗᒻᒥᑦ, but only for five minutes.” We say, “You ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᖃᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ have the right to a lawyer.” You wear that ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᖃᖓᓕᒫᖅ. ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕈᒪᒍᕕᑦ right with you wherever you go. When you ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᖕᒥᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ interact with the state in a certain situation ᐅᖃᕐᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᖕᒥᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ and in this case if the police were to stop you, ᕿᓚᒥᑯᓘᖏᑦᑐᖅ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᕝᕙ ᐲᖅᑎᒍᒪᒍᕕᐅᒃ then you have the right to invoke your right to ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᖕᒥᑦ ᓴᒃᑯᐃᔪᒪᓐᓂᕈᕕᑦ, ᑕᕝᕙ a lawyer. ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᕝᕙᒃᑕᐅᖅ ᑖᓐᓇᐅᒻᒥᔪᖅ.

In this case it’s a broad statement. Every parent has the right to have their child receive Inuit language instruction, but then we put ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖏᑕ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖏᑦ some restrictions on it. It could be “Well, if ᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᒻᒪᑕ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᑕᕝᕙ you have blue eyes, then no, you can’t, but if ᓴᓐᖏᓂᕆᒋᐊᖃᖅᐸᐅᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ you have green eyes, you can.” In this case ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓕᕐᒥᒻᒪᑕ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓕᕇᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ they have put age categories, so up to grade 3 ᑎᑭᐅᑎᓗᒍ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓐᓂᖓ 3-ᒧᑦ,

you get to have Inuit language instruction, but ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᕆᒃᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ after that you don’t. This also creates some ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ, ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᑕᕝᕙ inconsistency about how people can exercise ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᒧᐊᒃᑎᒍᓐᓇᖅᐸᐅᒃ their right. From an administrative law ᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᒍᒪᓂᖓ, ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓐᓂᒃ perspective, we want to avoid inconsistencies ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᒪᒐᔭᕐᒪᖔᕐᓘᓐᓃᑦ. and incoherencies in laws.

Also, there are policy considerations that go ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑕᒡᒐ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᕆᔪᖃᕐᓂᕌᖓᑦᑕᐅᖅ with it. Generally speaking, when a provision ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᓲᖑᒻᒥᒻᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔪᖃᓕᕌᖓ. of an Act is going to be amended, government ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᖃᕐᓂᐊᕌᖓᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᓐᓂᒃ will often involve the different departments ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕝᕕᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊᑦᑕᐅᖅ that have an interest in that and they will ᐃᓚᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᖓᓂᑦ, involve them from the very beginning so that ᐱᒋᐊᓚᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᕈᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ they can help design an appropriate or suitable ᐃᓚᐅᔪᖃᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᒥᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ response rather than at the end when it’s all ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕋᔭᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, done. It makes sure that when we go forward, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒐᔭᕐᖓᑕᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐅᐸᓗᖓᐃᖅᓯᒪᓕᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᖓᑕ the proposed amendment remains consistent ᑭᖑᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖓᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓚᐅᕐᓂᕈᑎᒃ and coherent with the rest of the law and with ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒧᑦ the other laws like the OLA that interact with ᐊᑕᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ. ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᑎᓐᖓᔪᖃᕌᖓ the ILPA. ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔪᖃᕌᖓ.

ᑐᑭᓯᓇᕐᓂᕈᒪ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᕋᑖᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. I hope that responds to your question, Mr. ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ. Chairman. Thank you very much.

Chairman: Yes, it does. Thank you. That was ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᐄ, ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᔪᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ supposed to be my last question, but I just ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᑲᐅᔭᕋ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕆᓗᒍ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ need further clarification here in terms of ᑐᑭᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᒐᑦᑕ ᐃᒫᒃ, ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᕕᓯ what the position of the Office of the ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᒥᓯᓇᖓ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓗᓕᖓ Languages Commissioner is on clause 123 of ᑖᓐᓇ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ the bill, which proposes to add in the words ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ “and bilingual education.” It proposes to add ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᑦ. that into the Inuit Language Protection Act ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᕆᔭᖓᓄᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ and it was mentioned specifically just now. Is ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᕐᓃᕕᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓪᓗᒍ, ᑕᕝᕙᓂ the office’s position that this clause should not ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖏᑦᑐᖃᐃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓗᓕᖓ 123, be accepted, specifically on that clause 123? ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᒃᑲᓐᓂᖓ. ᒥᔅ ᕼᐃᔅ. Ms. Hayes.

Ms. Hayes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’ve had discussions about this clause with the ᕼᐃᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. office and we do feel that the inclusion of ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓗᓕᖓ “bilingual” in section 8 of the ILPA would ᐊᓪᓚᕕᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᑉᐱᒋᔭᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓲᕐᓗ actually be inconsistent with the overarching ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓗᓕᖓᓂᑦ 8, ᑖᓐᓇ purpose, which I said as before in the ᐊᔾᔨᒋᒐᔭᓐᖏᒻᒪᐅᒃ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑐᕌᒐᕆᔭᐅᔪᔅᓴᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ preamble is to protect, enhance, support and ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖅᑲᐅᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, promote the use of the Inuit language and its ᓴᓐᖓᑦᓯᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, transmission. It is not concerned with other ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᓐᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ. ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑕᕝᕙ

languages; it’s specifically for the Inuit ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖃᑎᒌᓐᖏᑕᖏᓐᓄᑦ language. Including “bilingual” in the ᐱᒻᒪᕆᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᖓᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ education provisions of the ILPA then would ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ probably not be in line with that preamble, the ᓯᐊᒻᒪᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᖓᓐᓂᕈᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ overarching object of the ILPA, but also with ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖅᑕᖓᓂᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓂᖓᓃᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦᑐᖅ other parts of the ILPA that deal specifically ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔭᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ and exclusively with the Inuit language. I ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ hope that responds to your question, Mr. ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᒐᑦᑎᒍ, ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ Chairman. ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᒐᔭᖅᑐᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) It does somewhat, and I ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐃᓚᖓᓐᓂᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ think I’ll turn it to the commissioner in terms ᑲᒥᓯᓇᒧᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᓂᐊᕋᒃᑯᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓗᓕᖓ 123 of that same question. With regard to clause ᑲᒥᓯᓇᒋᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒫᓐᓇ 123, what is your office’s position? If you ᑭᐅᕕᖃᕈᒪᓐᖏᑲᓚᐊᕈᕕᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᒐᓂᓗ, ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑐᖅ. don’t have a position on that specific clause, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓱᖅᑯᐃᕐᓇᖅᓯᑎᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᔭᕋ that is fine. I’m just looking for clarification. ᑐᑭᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᒐᒪ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ. Commissioner Aariak.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ Chairman. In the preamble of the Act it states Preamble−ᖓᓂᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᓗ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓂᕋᐃᔭᐅᖕᒪᑦ, that there are rights to the Inuit language and ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ education. If the Act is going to be amended, ᐊᔾᔨᒌᒍᓐᓃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, it will make the two Acts different. Thank ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. I have no more names on my list. (interpretation ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᕼᐊᓖᑦ ends) I am going to give you two minutes for ᐃᓛᒃ ᐊᑎᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖁᑎᖃᕈᓐᓃᕋᒪ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) 2 closing comments, and I will tell you right ᒥᓂᔅᓯᒥᒃ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃᑕᐅᖅ now that two minutes is a hard deadline and ᑕᑭᔪᐊᓗᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒃᓲᔭᖅᓱᑎᑦ ᒪᑐᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ the reason for that is that we’ve had other ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓲᔭᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᓄᖅ witnesses provide long and rambling closing ᐅᖃᐅᑎᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᕋᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᒋᑦ comments, and frankly, not a lot of substance. ᒪᑐᐃᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᔅᓴᖃᕈᕕᑦ, I’m just clarifying that for you. Closing ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᓯᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᑲᒥᓯᓇ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ. comments, Commissioner Aariak.

Ms. Aariak (interpretation): Thank you for ᐋᕆᐊᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᖃᐃᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᒐᒪ the invitation and the opportunity. It seems ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᒐᒪᓗ. ᓇᓗᓇᖅᑰᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᐳᑦ apparent that our language is something that ᐊᒃᓱᐊᓗᒃ ᐊᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᖕᒪᑦ, ᐊᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᓐᓂᖏᑉᐸᑦ we all want to protect. If we did not want to ᐅᕗᖓᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᓄᕋᔭᖅᑰᖏᑦᑐᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᐳᑦ protect it, there would not be a lot of people ᐱᓪᓚᕆᐊᓘᖕᒪᑦ, ᐊᓐᓂᕆᒐᑦᑎᒍ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ here. I can see just from this room that ᑕᒪᐅᓐᖓᕈᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᒐᒪ ᖃᐃᖁᔭᐅᓪᓗᖓᓗ. everyone feels that language is important. Thank you for this opportunity.

A lot of people would like to express their ᑕᖅᑳᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᒪᔫᒐᓗᐊᑦᑕᐅᖅᑲᐃ views, but they don’t have the opportunity to ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓐᖏᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ come. However, for those who are out there ᑕᖅᑳᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃᑕᐅᖅ ᐊᓐᓂᕈᓱᒃᑐᑦ listening, I know they also cherish their ᑲᔪᖏᖅᓴᐃᒃᑲᓐᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᕙᒃᑲ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ language dearly. We all have a right to ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕋᑦᑕ. exercise our ability to speak in our language. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᒐᒪ. Thank you for the opportunity.

I also want to thank my officials who are here today. I thank all of you who are here in the ᑖᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᕈᒪᔮᒃᑲᒃ room. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᑕᒫᓃᖃᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᕋᒃᑭᒃ, ᐃᓕᔅᓯᓕᒫᕐᓗ ᑕᒪᔅᓯ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᐳᖓ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Thank you for your ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ written submission. (interpretation) I also (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᑎᑎᖅᑲᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᖃᐃᓚᐅᖅᑕᐃᑦ thank you and your officials for being here ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒫᓃᑦᑑᓪᓗᐊᕋᕕᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔨᑎᓪᓗ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ, today. We thank you and we also say “Ma’na, ᒪ`ᓈᕼᐃᒪᔪᒍᑦ, ᑯᐊᓈᓚᒻᒫᖅᑐᑕᓗ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᔪᑎᒍᑦ. qujannamiik, koana,” as the Committee. Have ᐅᑉᓗᖃᑦᑎᐊᓂᐊᖅᐳᕼᐃ. a good day.

(interpretation ends) The Committee will now (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒫᓐᓇ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ take a short break while we get the next ᐊᓯᖔᖏᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔩᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᐃᑦ ᐅᕕᒃᑲᐃᓪᓗ witnesses in place. We will be hearing from ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᕕᒋᔭᖓᓂᑦ ᑐᓴᕐᓂᐊᕋᑦᑕ. 15 ᒥᓂᔅᓯᒥᒃ the Representative for Children and Youth ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕ. next. Fifteen-minute break. (interpretation)

Thank you.

>>Committee recessed at 14:54 and resumed >>ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ 14:54ᒥ at 15:17 ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑎᓪᓗ 15:17ᒥ

Chairman (interpretation): The Standing ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᑕᐃᒪ ᐅᑎᖅᓯᒪᓕᕐᒥᔪᑦ Committee on Legislation is now reconvened ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐊᓛᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ for the review of Bill 25. We have another ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᖅ 25 ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᑎᓪᓗᓂ. ᑕᐃᒪ invited guest. (interpretation ends) Welcome ᖃᐃᖁᔭᐅᕼᐃᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᐊᕼᐊᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᓕᕐᒥᖕᒪᑦ. to the House, Representative for Children and (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒋᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᒻᒧᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨ Youth, our new representative or relatively ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᓪᓗ ᓄᑖᖅ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨ, ᔭᐃᓐ new, Jane Bates. (interpretation) Welcome to ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᑕᕝᕗᖓ ᑐᓐᖓᕼᐅᒋᑦ the Chamber, as well as your officials. You ᐱᓕᕆᔨᑎᓪᓗ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᕼᐃᒃᕼᐊᕆᔭᑎᑦ may now proceed with your opening ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑑᓪᓗᐊᓕᒃᑲᑎᑦ, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᒻᒫᕐᓗᑎᑦ comments and introduce your officials. Ms. ᐱᓕᕆᔨᑎᑦ ᑭᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. Bates.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. My name is Jane Bates and I ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. have been the Representative for Children and ᐅᓐᓄᓴᒃᑯᑦ ᔭᐃᓐ ᐸᐃᑦᔅᖑᔪᖓ Youth since July 22, 2019. Joining me today ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᓯᐅᒪᓕᖅᑐᖓ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᓪᓗ ᔪᓚᐃ 22, 2019-ᒥᓂᑦ. ᐅᕙᓃᖃᑎᒋᔭᒃᑲ

are Lynn Matte, Director of Child and Youth ᓕᓐ ᒫᑦ ᑐᑭᒧᐊᒃᑎᑦᑎᔨ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᓪᓗ Advocacy Services, and Katie Didham, one of ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᔨᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᐃᑎ ᑎᑕᒻ ᑖᓐᓇ our office’s senior systemic ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᖅᑎ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑎ. ᖁᕕᐊᓱᑉᐳᖓ investigator/researchers. I am pleased to ᓵᒃᓯᓐᓃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕋᒪ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓗᒍ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᔪᑦ appear before you today to speak about the ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ recommendations that our office has put ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᑯᑦ. forward about revising the Education Act in Bill 25.

Educating young people is about passing on skills and knowledge from one generation to ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᓂᒃ the next. A young person’s education happens ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ ᑐᓂᓯᓂᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᑭᖑᕚᕇᓄᑦ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ in many places: in the home, in the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ, community, and in the classroom. I think ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ. ᐃᓱᒪᔪᖓ everyone here today can agree that education ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᔪᐃᓐᓇᖂᕋᑦᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦ in its many forms is essential to the ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᐃᑦ development of young people as functioning ᓄᓇᖃᑎᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᕈᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᕐᓂᐊᕋᑦᑕ citizens that grow up to support themselves, ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᓪᓗ. their family, and their community.

The Representative for Children and Youth’s ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᓪᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᖓ office is an independent office of the ᐃᒻᒥᒃᑰᖓᓪᓗᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. ᑕᐃᒪ Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. While it is ᑲᒪᒋᔭᖃᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ the responsibility of the Government of ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᓕᒫᕐᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓕᒫᓂᑦ Nunavut to provide the best services possible ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᓄᑦ, ᑲᒪᒋᔭᕆᒻᒪᒍ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᐅᑉ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ to all Nunavummiut, it is the responsibility of ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᓪᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᖓᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ the Representative for Children and Youth’s ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕋᐅᑎᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑑᔪᓄᑦ office to make sure Government of Nunavut ᐃᖢᐊᓛᖑᒍᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ, ᐅᕕᒃᑲᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪ services for young people are the best they ᖃᑕᕐᖑᑎᒌᓄᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᖅᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᓄᑦ. can be for the children, youth, and families ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᕗᑦ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᓯᕙᑉᐳᑦ ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ who rely on them. Our office provides ᒪᓕᒐᐅᔪᓂᒃ, ᐊᑐᐊᒐᐅᔪᓂᓪᓗ, ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ feedback on legislation, policies, programs, ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕋᐅᑎᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪ and services for young people, which is why I ᑕᒫᓃᓚᕿᕗᖓ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ. am appearing before you here today.

We would like to acknowledge that we ᐃᓕᑕᖅᓯᔪᒪᕗᒍᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᓪᓚᕕᖓᑕ support the Office of the Languages ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ ᑐᓂᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᒥᓐᓂᒃ Commissioner’s submission on the proposed ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᑦᓴᒧᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ amendments to the Inuit Language Protection ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑕ ᓴᐳᑎᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᑦᓴᖓᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᖓᓐᓂᒃ. Act. Regarding the Education Act, our ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐱᓪᓗᒍ, ᑐᓂᔭᕗᑦ submission has nine recommendations. Each ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᕗᑦ ᖁᓕᐅᓐᖏᓱᖓᖅᑐᓂᒃ 9-ᓂᒃ recommendation was made with the best ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᓯᒪᕗᒍᑦ. ᐊᑐᓂ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ interests of young Nunavummiut and the ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓗᐊᖅᖢᑎᒍ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᖁᑎᕗᑦ future of Nunavut as a whole in mind. Many ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ, ᓄᓇᕘᓗᑦᑖᓪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓯᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᒍᑦ. of our recommendations stemmed from the ᐅᓄᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ United Nations Convention on the Rights of ᑲᑐᑎᖃᑎᒌᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑕ

the Child, which details all of the rights of ᓱᕈᓯᑦ, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓗᑦᑖᖏᑕ ᓱᕈᓯᑦ. young people. Rights are things children and ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕆᐊᖃᓪᓗᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ youth should have like access to safe drinking ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓄᓪᓗ. ᓲᕐᓗ, ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ water and nutritious food or things they ᐃᒥᑦᑎᐊᕙᒻᒥᒃ ᓂᕿᑦᑎᐊᕙᓂᓪᓗ. ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑭᑐᓂᒃ should be able to do like go to school and ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᓐᓂᒃ ᓲᕐᓗ receive instruction in their own language so ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒨᑦᑐᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ that children, youth, and their families have ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᒍᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓱᕈᓯ, ᐃᓅᓱᒃᑐᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᖃᑕᕐᖑᑎᒌᑦ what they need to make good choices for their ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᑎᑦᓯᐊᕙᐅᔪᓂᒃ lives. ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᓄᑦ.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑲᑐᑎᖃᑎᒌᒃᑯᑦ (UN) ᑐᑭᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ of the Child is a legally binding international ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᕈᑕᐅᒻᒪᑦ agreement that Canada signed almost 20 years ᓄᓇᓕᕐᔪᐊᖑᖃᑎᒌᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕ ago. When Canada signed it, Canada ᐊᑎᓕᐅᖃᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᕙᑎᑲᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᑦ promised to make sure that every young ᐊᓂᒍᖅᑐᓂ. ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᑎᓕᐅᕐᒪᒡᔪᒃ person and their families across the country, ᐊᖏᖅᓯᒪᐅᑎᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᓇᐅᑦᓯᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ including Nunavut, would have access to all ᑕᒪᒻᒥᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᖃᑕᕐᖑᑎᖏᓪᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᓗᑦᑖᒥ, of the things mentioned in the United Nations ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᒃᖢᒍ, ᑕᒪᒃᑭᓐᓂᒃ Convention on the Rights of the Child. ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓᓕᒫᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᓗᑦᑖᓂᒃ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑲᑐᑎᖃᑎᒌᑦ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ. One of the services mentioned in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ᐃᓚᖓᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕋᐅᑎᐅᔪᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ is a child’s right to education. A young ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑕ ᓱᕈᓯᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ. person’s education is so important that it is ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑑᑉ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓂᖓᓄᑦ actually two of their rights: first, all young ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒋᓚᕿᕙᖏᑦ. ᓯᕗᓪᓕᕐᒥ, ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓕᒫᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᐱᐅᓛᒥᒃ people have the right to good quality ᐃᓕᓴᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ education and should be encouraged to go to ᑲᔪᖏᖅᓴᐃᕈᑎᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᖢᓂ school to the highest level they can; and ᐃᓕᓴᕐᕕᒻᒨᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓛᒧᑦ secondly, a young person’s education should ᐊᐃᕕᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᒥᓐᓄᑦ. ᑐᒡᓕᐊ, ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑑᑉ help them develop their talents and abilities. It ᐃᓕᓴᕐᓂᕆᔭᖓᒍᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᑎᒋᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᓂᒡᔪᒃ should also help them learn to live peacefully, ᐊᔪᖏᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓪᓗ protect the environment, and respect other ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑦᓯᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᕈᑎᒋᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔭᖓ people. ᐃᓅᔪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓴᐃᒪᓂᕐᒥ, ᐊᕙᑎᒥᓪᓗ ᓴᐳᒻᒥᔪᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᓯᒥ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ The United Nations Convention on the Rights ᐱᒃᑯᒋᔭᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ. of the Child is so important for all young ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑲᑐᑎᖃᑎᒌᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᑦ people that our first recommendation was to ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓕᒫᓄᑦ. have it included in the Education Act, and we ᒫᓐᓇᓗ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᓯᒪᕙᕗᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᔭᐅᓯᒪᖁᔨᕗᒍᑦ were pleased to see that it was added to the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖓᓂ. preamble by Bill 25. ᖁᕕᐊᓲᑎᖃᖅᓯᒪᕗᒍᓪᓗ ᑕᑯᒋᐊᒥᒃ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᑎᔭᐅᓯᒪᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕆᐊᓐᖓᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥ 25-ᒥ. Four of the recommendations made in our submission were made in support of a young ᑎᓴᒪᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᑐᓂᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓯᒪᕗᑦ person’s right to give their opinion with the ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑑᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖓᓂᒃ hope being that through discussion, ᐃᓱᒪᒥᓂᒃ ᓄᐃᑦᓯᔪᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ consensus, and collaboration, we can make ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᔭᐅᕙᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᖏᖅᓯᒪᓂᕐᒥᒍᓪᓗ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᔩᖃᑎᒋᔭᐅᕙᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᖢᐊᓛᒥ

the best decision together. ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᖅᑐᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᑲᑐᑎᓂᒃᑯᑦ.

ᐊᕙᑎᐅᓗᐊᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᑦ It has been more than 20 years since I ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒦᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓂᓐᓂᒃ. attended school. I can try to imagine, but I ᐃᓱᒪᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᑐᑦᓴᐅᕗᖓ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ don’t truly know exactly what it is like to be a ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒻᒪᕆᖏᓐᓇᒪ ᖃᓄᐃᓪᓚᑖᕐᒪᖔᑦ student today, with computers, iPhones, social ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᔭᕆᐊᒥᒃ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᐅᓕᖅᑐᖅ. media, and cyber bullying. Since I don’t ᖃᕆᑕᐅᔭᖃᐅᓕᖅᖢᓂ, ᐅᖃᓘᑎᐊᓛᓂᓪᓗ know, I think the best thing to do is to ask ᐋᔩᕈᑎᐅᕙᓕᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᕆᑕᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ someone who does, someone who has first- ᓲᖑᓵᕐᕕᐅᔪᖃᖅᐸᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍᒐᓗ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖏᓐᓂᕋ hand experience, which is why asking our ᐱᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᖢᐊᓛᖑᓇᓱᕆᕙᕋ ᐊᐱᕆᖃᑦᑕᒐᔭᕈᑦᑕ young people for their opinion is so ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᑭᓇᒥᒃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓ important. This does not mean that young ᖃᐅᔾᔨᑎᖃᓪᓚᑦᑖᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᖃᑦᑕᕈᑦᑕ people get to make the decisions; it just means ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓚᕿᕗᖅ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ that we the adults should ask for their opinion ᑐᑭᖃᓕᕈᑎᐅᒋᐊᖃᓐᖏᓚᖅ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᑦ and listen to their ideas so we can make the ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᖅᐸᒋᐊᖃᓕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. best decisions on their behalf. Overall I ᑐᑭᖃᓪᓗᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᐳᖅ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᑎᒍᑦ encourage the Committee to give ᐊᐱᕆᖃᑦᑕᑐᑦᓴᕆᕙᕗᑦ ᓈᓚᓪᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᒥᓂᒃ consideration to any input received from ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᓕᖁᓪᓗᑕ ᑭᒡᒐᑐᕐᓗᑎᒍ. ᐃᓘᓐᓈ young Nunavummiut as this legislation, the ᑕᑯᓪᓗᒍ, ᑲᔪᖏᖅᓴᐃᒍᒪᕗᖓ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᓂᒃ Education Act, will have the greatest impact ᐃᓱᒪᒋᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ on them. ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᑕᒡᕙᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᐅᔪᒥ, ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᐊᖏᓛᒥᒃ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓚᖓᒻᒪᑦ ᑖᑉᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ. With this in mind, recommendation 2 speaks to asking for input from students past and ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᕿᓄᕗᒍᑦ present in order to develop legislation, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂᑦ ᓇᕝᕚᖅᓯᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᖁᔨᕗᒍ policies, and procedures that will work best ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ for the students who use the education system. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᓕᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑐᖃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ Further, recommendation 3 suggests that ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓇᓱᔾᔪᑎᐅᔪᓂᓪᓗ ᐃᖢᐊᓛᖑᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᒃᑰᖅᐸᑦᑐᓂᒃ. students who are to be suspended or expelled should be involved in the discussion about it, ᓱᓕᓗ, ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᑦᑕ ᐱᖓᔪᐊᑦ, ᐃᓱᒻᒥᑎᑦᓯᓇᓱᑉᐳᖅ even students under 16 years of age. Not only ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑕᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᐸᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᒃ is this an opportunity for the young person to ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᒍᓃᕐᓂᐊᕈᑎᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑕᐅᔪᑦᓴᐅᒋᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. take responsibility for their actions; it gives ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑐᑦ 16 ᑐᖔᓂ them a chance to participate in the process to ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓖᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᕕᖃᕐᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓐᖏᓚᖅ understand the consequences of their actions ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᒧᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᓕᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᒥᓄᑦ. and learn from it. ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᒪᑐᒥᖓ ᑐᑭᓯᐊᓇᓱᓐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᖏᑕ ᑭᖑᓂᕆᕙᒃᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ Recommendation 4 suggests that student ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᓪᓗ. representatives elected to district education ᐊᑐᓕᒐᒃᓴᓕᐊᖑᔪᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑏᑦ authorities be given voting privileges, and we ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔩᑦ are pleased to see that this recommendation ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪ has been filled with the proposed ᖁᕕᐊᓱᑉᐳᒍᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐊᖅ amendments. ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᒥ.

Recommendation 5 encourages the ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐊᖅ 5 ᐊᔭᐅᕆᔾᔪᑕᐅᕗᖅ

development of early childhood education ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᓕᓐᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᓂᕐᒥ ᓄᓇᕘᓕᒫᒥ. programs across the territory. In communities ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ where the district education authority does not ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᓕᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅᓯᐅᑎᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ. provide early childhood programs, the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᐳᑦ. Department of Education would be ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐊᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᕗᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑉ responsible to do so. This recommendation ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᓐᓇᓂᕐᒧᑦ. further supports a child’s right to education. ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᖅ 6 ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᔾᔨᑦᑎᕗᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᒪᒃᑯᓂᖅᓴᓂᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ Recommendation 6 prioritizes the need to ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᔅᓴᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᒃ recruit young Inuit into the teaching ᐊᖑᒻᒪᑎᒐᓱᓐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᖅ23 ᐊᑖᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ profession to assist the department in reaching ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᑕᐅᓗᓂ its obligations under Article 23 of the Nunavut ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᖅᓴᐃᓂᕐᒥᒃ, Agreement, as well as support the ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ department’s ability to train, hire, and retain ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓴᕕᓐᓂ ᐃᓪᓗᕈᓯᕐᓂ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᓂ Inuit language speaking educators. Providing ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᐳᖅ classroom instruction in the Inuit language ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐃᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ would support a child’s right to practise their ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓂᓪᓗ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇᓗ own culture and language. Further delay of ᐅᖓᕙᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᖅᑐᓂᑦ recruiting Inuit-speaking teachers risks the ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᑲᑕᔾᔪᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ loss of the Inuit language. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ.

Recommendation 7 encourages the ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐊᖅ 7 ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᒍᑕᐅᕗᖅ Department of Education to define some ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᑭᑖᖅᑎᑦᑎᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᑕᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑕᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ words used within the Education Act to avoid ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᒪᓕᒐᖓᑕ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ confusion because what something means to ᓇᓗᓕᕈᑕᐅᒍᓐᓃᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓲᖃᐃᒻᒪ ᐅᓇ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒧᑦ one person might be different than what it ᐃᓄᒻᒧᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐊᔭᐅᑦᑕᖅᑯᖅ ᐊᓯᐊᓄᑦ means to another. For example, we ᐊᔾᔨᐅᓐᖏᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑦ. ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ recommended that the concept of “inclusive ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᓂᕐᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ education” be defined. For the Representative ᑐᑭᑖᕆᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᑎᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒍ. ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᒧᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ for Children and Youth’s office, “inclusive ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᓪᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᖓ, ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ education” means that schools should be ᐃᓕᓴᐃᓂᖅ ᑐᑭᖃᕆᐊᖃᖅᐳᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ welcoming of all young people and the way ᑐᓐᖓᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓕᒫᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ something is taught should be based on the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᑐᑭᓕᐊᑦᑎᐊᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᑕᐅᔫᑉ learner’s abilities. We also recommended that ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ. ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐅᓚᐅᕆᕗᒍᑦ “school supports” be defined and in doing so, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᕕᓐᓄ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᑏᑦ ᑐᑭᑖᕈᑕᐅᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓪᓗᒍ young people and their families should be ᐊᒻᒪ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒃᑯᑎᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖏᓪᓗ made aware of what school supports are ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕕᓐᓂ available and how to access them. ᐃᑲᔪᕈᑎᑕᖃᕐᒪᖔᖅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ. In recommendation 8 we encourage the Department of Education to recognize and ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐊᖅ 8−ᒥ ᐊᔭᐅᕆᕗᒍᑦ support mature minors in the Education Act. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ A mature minor is a person under the age of ᐃᔪᖅᑐᐃᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᑭᓗᐊᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥ.ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ 19 that has the maturity and understanding to ᐅᑭᐅᑭᓗᐊᖅᑑᓇᕋᖅᑕᐅᕗᑦ ᐊᕐᕉᒍᑦ 18 ᑐᖔᓄᑦ make decisions on their own behalf. From ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᓯᒪᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᐊᓂᖃᖅᑐᕐᓗ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ time to time, young people need to be able to ᐋᖅᑮᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ. ᑕᕝᕘᓇᑦᓴᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗ

consent to decisions about themselves. In Bill ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ. 36, the Mental Health Act, mature minors are ᐃᓱᒪᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥ, ᐃᓐᓇᖑᖅᒪᓇᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᐃᑦ able to consent for themselves when decisions ᐅᑭᐅᑭᓗᐊᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ about their health care need to be made ᐋᖅᑮᒍᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ without the help of a parent or guardian. ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖃᕌᖓᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ Further, all legislation for the territory should ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᑦᑎᔨᒋᔭᒥᓄᑦ. align; if the Department of Health recognizes ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᒫᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᑐᑭᓕᐊᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓖᑦ. mature minors so should the Department of ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᕐᓇᓐᖏᑦᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᑉᐸᑕ Education. ᐃᓐᓇᓐᖑᕐᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᑭᑦᑐᓂᑦ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᐃᑦ. Our final recommendation, recommendation 9, encourages the Department of Education to ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐊᕗᑦ 9 ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᒍᑕᐅᕗᖅ make sure that at least one component of the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᕿᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ orientation and mentoring program for ᖃᔅᓯᐅᓛᖑᔪᒥᒃ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ teachers be completed before they even start ᑕᕝᕙᑑᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᓂᒍᑎᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓄᑦ working, with a requirement to complete the ᐱᔭᕇᖅᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ program within the first year. This ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᓯᒋᐊᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ recommendation shortens the current timeline ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᓂᓗ ᐱᔭᕇᖅᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᖓᓂ from two years to one, ensuring that new ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᖓᓂ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇᓗ ᐊᑐᖁᔭᓕᐊᖅ ᓇᐃᓈᕆᕗᖅ teachers are as prepared and knowledgeable ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᒥ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓅᖓᔪᖅ ᐱᖓᓱᓄᑦ as they can be as quickly as possible. ᐊᑕᐅᓯᓐᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓕᕐᓗᓂ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᑖᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ ᐅᐸᓗᖓᐃᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᓪᓗ

ᕿᓚᒥᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥ. Over the past several years staff at the

Representative for Children and Youth’s ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓕᖅᑐᓂ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᐅᑉ office have had the honour of working with ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᓪᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᖓᓂᒃ hundreds of young people and their families ᕼᐊᓐᓇᓚᒐᓴᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᕗᑦ from across the territory, including working ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᕘᓕᒫᒥ, on 80 concerns related to the Department of ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ Education. It is important to our office to ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖅᑐᓂᒃ. acknowledge them and recognize the courage ᐱᕐᔪᐊᕆᕙᕗᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓗᑎᓪᓗ they have demonstrated by reaching out to us, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᑦᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ seeking support, and trusting us with their ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᐅᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ stories. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ.

Mr. Chairman, I bring these recommendations ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑐᓐᓂᕆᕙᒃᑲ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐊᑦ forward in the spirit of working together for a ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᔪᒪᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᕌᒐᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ common cause and decision-making through ᐋᖅᑮᖃᑕᐅᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ discussion and consensus. I welcome the ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ. Committee’s questions. Thank you. ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᐳᖓ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓂᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Thank you. I’ll just remind Committee Members as well as the ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. witnesses to please be conscious of the need ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᔪᒪᕙᒃᑲ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ for interpretation and our interpreters are ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᔾᔫᒥᖁᓪᓗᓯ ᑐᓵᔨᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᒃᑲᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ, excellent, but particularly when we’re ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᓗᐊᓐᖑᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᑕ

discussing wordy things like the United ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᑯᖅᑐᔪᕈᓘᔭᕐᓂᒃ ᓲᕐᓗ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ Nations and the Convention on the Rights of ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ the Child, just to be conscious of that, please. ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᔾᔫᒥᓂᐊᖅᐸᓯᐅᒃ. Thank you. (interpretation) Are there any ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦᓴᓖᑦ questions from the Members? Ms. Towtongie. ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ. ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ.

Ms. Towtongie (interpretation): Thank you, ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ Mr. Chairman. Page 3 of your submission ᓇᐅᓴᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ 3 ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔭᖓᓐᓂ defines “minor students” and “mature ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᖁᔨᖕᒪᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓪᓗᓂ ᒪᒃᑯᖕᓂᖅᓴᐃᑦ minors.” As a regular individual and my ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒪᒃᑯᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ. fellow Inuit, we have rights with our children. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᐃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓗᖓ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᖃᑎᒃᑲ Even when they’re adults or even if they are ᐃᖅᑲᖅᓴᐅᑎᖃᕋᑦᑕ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕋᑦᑕ parents, they’re always our children, but if we ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓕᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ enter something that we did not set up, they ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕇᓐᓇᓲᕆᒐᑦᑎᒍ. are called adults when they reach the age of ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᐃᑎᑳᓪᓚᒃᑳᖓᑦᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᖅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ 19. This is a real barrier to parents. ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑕᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᓕᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑖᕌᖓᑕ I’ll speak English. (interpretation ends) The 19. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᐳᕈᑎᓪᓚᑦᑖᖑᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ. prevailing authority that exists in the Inuit mind out there is that our children are ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᕐᓂᐊᕋᒪ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) dependent upon us throughout their lifetime ᐊᖏᖅᑲᐅᓂᖃᕐᓂᖅᐹᖑᔪᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᖅᑳᓂ ᕿᑐᕐᖓᕗᑦ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ regardless of age, and we clash with the ᓵᖓᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᒥᓂᒃ, ᐅᑭᐅᖏᑦ institutionalized authorities when they put an ᑭᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓗ age limit. You will often see parents saying, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑲᐅᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐳᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᐅᑭᐅᖏᓐᓂᒃ “That’s my child.” When Inuit children reach ᑭᒡᓕᓕᖅᓱᐃᒑᖓᑦᑕ.ᖃᐅᔨᖃᑦᑕᓐᖑᓱᒃᑐᓯ a certain age, according to the parents, even if ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᖅ ᐃᒪᐃᓕᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐅᓇ ᕿᑐᕐᖓᕋ. they’re married or not, we’re still involved. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖃᔅᓯᓂᒃᑭᐊᖅ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕌᖓᑕ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖏᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖓᑎᒍᑦ, Can you clarify what you mean by these ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖃᓕᕋᓗᐊᖅᐸᑕᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓱᓕ ᐱᓕᕆᕙᒃᐸᕗᑦ. concepts, minor students and mature minors, and explain why they are important within the ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒍᓐᓇᖅᐲᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑐᑭᖃᕐᒪᖔᖅᐱᑦ context of Nunavut’s education system? My ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᒍᓯᓂᒃ? ᐅᑭᐅᑭᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ final question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, ᐃᓐᓇᓐᖑᖅᓯᒪᔪᓪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐱᕐᔪᐊᖑᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ. ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ Bates. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒐ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. you to the Member for the question. In health care a mature minor is a child or youth who is younger than the age of majority, which in Nunavut is 19 years of age, who meets certain ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ criteria. For example, they’re able to ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᓐᓂ. ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ understand the medical treatment being 19−ᖑᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑕᖃᐅᖅᖢᓂ offered, understand the possible ᖃᓄᖅ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ consequences, and are fully able to give their ᑐᓴᐅᒪᑎᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᖢᑎᒡᓗ. ᐊᕐᕌᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ

fully informed and voluntary consent to health ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᖅᖢᓂ ᐃᒻᒥᓄᑦ providers. A mature minor allows a child or ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᕐᓇᓐᖏᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ youth to make health care decisions for ᐊᒻᒪᓗᐅᕙᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᑎᒍᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᑎᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᖅ. themselves and similarly, in the Education Act, they would be able to do the same.

We know that in Australia the concept of mature minors, they have incorporated mature minors into their education system. Again, ᐋᔅᑐᕇᓕᐊᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᑭᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ there may be circumstances where a parent or ᐃᓗᐊᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ. guardian may not be actively available and ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖏᓐᓇᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᖢᒍ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ that should not be a barrier to a mature minor ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᑎᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. being able to consent to engage in the education system, i.e. register, if need be.

I trust that answers the question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᑭᐅᕗᖓᖃᐃ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I believe you did answer ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑦ the question because she has no further ᑭᐅᖅᑰᖅᑕᐃᑦ, ᓲᖃᐃᒻᒪ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓃᕐᒪᑦ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ. questions. (interpretation) Thank you. Mr.

Qirngnuq.

ᕿᓐᖑᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ, ᑐᓐᖓᓱᓪᓕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): Thank you, ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ. Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the witnesses. ᐆᒥᖓ ᑐᑭᓯᑦᓯᐊᕈᒪᓪᓗᖓ ᐊᐱᕆᕗᖓ, ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Just for further clarity, in your opening ᑕᐅᕙᓂ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᖅᑕᑦ ᓵᖓᓂ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑖᓂ comments on the third page that the students ᐱᖓᔪᒋᔭᐅᔪᒥ ᒪᑉᐱᒐᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᑯᐊ be involved and to make them understand, ᐊᔪᓐᖏᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓚᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᑎᓪᓗ “…it gives them a chance to participate in the ᑕᐃᒃᓱᒧᖓ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᒥᒃ ᑐᑭᕼᐃᓐᓇᖅᕼᐃᑎᓪᓗᒍ process to understand the consequences of ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᒃᕼᐅᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ their actions and learn from it.” Can you ᐊᑐᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᒥᒃ, ᑖᓐᓇᓗ elaborate further? As parents it is up to us to ᐃᓕᑉᐹᓪᓕᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂ ᑕᕝᕙᓐᖓᑦ. ᐅᓇ hear from our children as to what they would ᐅᖃᐅᕼᐃᖅ ᑐᑭᕼᐃᒃᑲᖅᐹᓪᓕᕈᓐᓇᖅᐹᖓ, ᐅᕘᓇ like to do. I would like to understand that, ᑐᑭᕼᐃᓕᕉᕋᒃᑯ ᑐᑭᕼᐃᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓇᒪ ᐅᕙᖓ hence my question, Mr. Chairman. Thank ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᓪᓗᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦᑎᓐᓂ, you. ᑐᓴᕐᕕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑰᖃᑦᑕᕋᑦᑕ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᕼᐅᒪᒃᕼᐅᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓅᕼᐅᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᕈᒪᓂᐊᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ? Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᕼᐃᑦᑎᐊᕈᒪᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᕐᕕᒋᕙᕋ Bates. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. you to the Member for the question. With respect to recommendation 3, that is directly ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ related to children in the Education Act who ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᑐᒍ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᕐᓂᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ

have been suspended or expelled. Currently ᐊᓂᑕᐅᓐᓂᖅᐸᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ that young person doesn’t have the ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑕᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᐸᑦ, ᐊᔪᐃᓐᓈᕆᔪᓐᓇᓐᖏᑕᖓ opportunity to appeal or be involved in the ᐊᓂᑕᐅᓐᓂᕈᓂ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑕᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᕈᓂᓗ. process related to that. Our recommendation ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ is to have students have that ability so that ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑕᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᖅ they can answer for why they may be being ᐊᓂᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᕐᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑭᓱᒥᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ suspended or expelled. Also, I would say that ᐊᐱᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ there is research that shows that young who ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᖃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃ are supported to participate in decision- ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒃ making are more likely to have increased ᓇᓗᖅᑯᑎᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᓲᖑᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ confidence, self-belief, to exercise positive ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᔅᓴᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᓲᖑᔪᑦ. career choices, and have greater involvement ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. and responsibility in the future. Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Qirngnuq. ᕿᓐᖑᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓅᕼᐅᒃᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᕼᐅᒪᓕᐅᕈᒪᓂᐊᕈᒥᒃ Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): Thank you, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑖᕐᓂᐊᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ Mr. Chairman. If a young person is going to ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕉᑕᕆᓗᑎ ᑕᒫᓂ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖃᖅᑐᒥᒃ make a decision, and just using high school ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᕐᒥᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᕼᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒍ, ᑭᕼᐊᓂ students from grade 6, they might be asked ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᒐᓚᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᐊ. ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᔅᓴᐅᕗᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ what kind of career choices they would like to ᐃᓐᓇᕈᕈᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᕈᓂ ᖃᓄᖅ make in the future. If they change their mind ᐃᕼᐅᒪᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᐸ? ᕼᐅᓕᕆᔪᒪᓂᐊᖅᐸ? ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ sometime at a later grade without asking their ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᒃᕼᐅᒻᒪᑕ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᑕᐃᑯᖓ parent or guardian, would they be able to go ᐃᕼᐅᓕᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᕼᐊᓂᒃ ᐃᕼᐅᒪᖃᓕᕐᓂᖅᐸᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ahead with their plans? Mr. Chairman, I ᐃᓅᕼᐅᒃᑐᖅ ᐃᒻᒥᓃᓐᓇ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᒥᒃ would like to get a response to that. Thank ᐊᐱᕆᓐᖏᓪᓗᓂ, ᐃᕼᐅᒪᖅᕼᐅᖅᑎᑕᐅᒻᒪᕆᒃᑯᓂ, you. ᑐᑭᒧᐊᒃᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᐹ? ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᕙᕋ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖏᓐᓇᕕᓪᓗ, ᐃᒃᕼᐃᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᑭᐅᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᐸᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. Bates. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I understand the question correctly, I’m not sure I can speak to that because I’m not ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. effectively inside the education system ᑐᑭᓯᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕈᒃᑯ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᖓ, currently. In terms being able to change your ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔪᓐᓇᓐᖏᑕᕋ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ career path late in school, again, I’m unable to ᐃᓗᐊᓃᖏᓐᓇᒪ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕆᔪᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ comment on currently what the situation is ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᓯᓐᓂᖅᐸᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᖓ ᒪᒥᐊᓇᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ with respect to that. My apologies. Thank ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᓐᓇᒃᑭᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Qirngnuq, are you done? Okay. (interpretation ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ, ᑕᐃᒫᖅᑐᑎᑦ? ends) Just before I move on to the next name, ᐄᑯᓗᒃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐊᓯᐊᓄᑦ ᓅᓚᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᓐᓂ I think it’s an interesting problem that Mr. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑲᐅᓐᖏᓕᐅᕈᑦ ᒥᔅᑕ

Qirngnuq brought up. If a young person has a ᕿᓐᖑᖅ ᓂᓪᓕᐅᑎᒋᔭᖓ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ right… . We will use your recommendation ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᑦᖤᖅᐳᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐃᖃᐃ here when it comes to expulsions or ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ ᐊᓂᑎᑕᐅᔪᑦ suspensions. How does your office envision ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᑦ. ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᔅᓯᓕ this working at the school level? Let’s say for ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᓐᖑᐊᒃᒪᑕ ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᑐ example, if it is a student and they are 12 12-ᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᖃᖅᐸᑦ years old and they are about to be suspended, ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑕᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂᓗ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᑎᓗ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ and the student is involved in that process, ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔾᔪᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᑦ would the parents still be involved? Parental ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑕᐅᓇᔭᖅᐹᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑲᖏᑦ involvement is also very important and it is ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ something we are trying to see more of here in ᑕᑯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ, ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ Nunavut in the school system. If you can’t ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. answer that question, if it’s just too much speculation, then please let me know. Ms. Bates.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of concept mature minors or ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ including children in decisions is not to ᐅᑭᐅᑭᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓛᒃ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓂᒃ exclude parents; it’s to include the student. I ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑦᑎᖏᓪᓗᑕᓚᓐᖏᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ just wanted to clarify that. ᐃᓚᐅᑎᖔᕋᓱᑦᑕᕗᑦ.

When children get expelled or suspended, I am not sure the student is actively engaged ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓂᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑕᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪᓗ with the administrator who is issuing that ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᐊᖏᖅᑳᖏᑦ suspension or expulsion. It’s often the parent ᐃᓚᐅᓪᓚᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎ that is directly involved in that. I’m not saying ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑕᒪᒃᑮᒃ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᑎ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ that you should exclude the parent. I think it ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑮᒃ ᐃᓚᐅᒐᔭᖅᑑᒃ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, should be the student and the parent. I hope ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. that answered the question. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Thank you. Mr. Quassa. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖁᐊᓴ. Mr. Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome. On the same subject, ᖁᐊᓴ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒋᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ (interpretation ends) minor students and ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓵᖅᑐᖅ Minor Students and Mature mature minors, (interpretation) I am not Minors, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓪᓚᕆᖕᒪᖔᑕ exactly sure what they are called in Inuktitut. I ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᐳᖓ ᑐᓵᔩᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᔭᖓᓂᒃ am not listening to the interpreters, but I am ᑐᓵᖏᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᒃᑭᑦ ᑐᓵᔩᑦ. ᐆᒧᖓᓕ ᓵᐸᓗᖕᓂᐊᖅᑐᖓ sure they have a term for it. I would like to ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ ᐊᒃᑑᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᓪᓚᕆᖅᑰᕐᒪᑦ, make a comment again in English, Mr. ᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓕᖓᔪᒥᒃ ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒥᒐᒪ Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

(interpretation ends) As you noted on page 3 (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᑉᐱᖅᑐᒐᖅ 3-ᒥ of your submission, you are in agreement with ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᑦ ᐅᑯᓇᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑲᐅᔭᕐᓂᑦ, ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᔭᓯ

clause 71 of Bill 25, which proposes to amend ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 71 ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᖅ, section 134(5) of the Education Act to provide ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 134(5) the student representative on the DEA, or ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᑦ, district education authority, with the right to ᐃᓕᓴᖅᑎᓂᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ vote. I know that you had supported the ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᕈᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ section that states that “The Standing ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓪᓗᖓ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᓚᐅᕋᓐᓂ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ Committee has noted that this may put a ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᑎᓂᑦ student representative in a position where they ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᓕᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᓕᖅᐳᓪᓗ may be discussing and making decisions ᐱᔾᔪᑎᓕᒻᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖃᑎᒋᔮᓂᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᒪᓪᓗ regarding a classmate, which leads to ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓐᓇᖅᓯᑲᐅᑎᒋᓗᓂ ᐃᒻᒥᒨᖓᔪᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ concerns with respect to privacy.” What are ᑲᓐᖑᓇᖅᑑᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ your views on this issue? (interpretation) ᐃᓱᒪᒋᕕᐅᒃ? (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Bates. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question. My answer to that is certainly with minors there are considerations ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ to be made around privacy. I think there are ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᓐᓂ. ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑭᐅᒋᐊᕐᓗᖓ, ᐅᑭᐅᑭᑦᑐᑦ, ᐄ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕗᑦ considerations to be made for all adults with ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑲᓐᖑᓇᖅᑑᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓘᓐᓇᖏᑦ respect to privacy and you raise a good point ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᓪᓗ ᑲᓐᖑᓇᖅᑑᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ in terms of having students having voting ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᕈᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᐸᑦ privileges and those types of things. They ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓄᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ may be privy to information that should be ᑐᓴᖅᑕᐅᑉᐸᑦ, ᐃᓕᖅᓴᖅᑏᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑕᐅᑉᐸᑕ private and how do you contain that. I think, ᑐᑭᓯᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᑭᓱᒥᒃ ᓂᕆᐅᓐᓂᖃᕐᕕᐅᒻᒪᖔᖅ again, involving students in the parameters or ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᖃᑕᐅᒍᓂ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑯᓗᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᑕᖏᓪᓗ understanding what is expected of them when ᑲᓐᖑᓇᖅᑑᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ, ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ they are a part of that committee or making ᐅᑭᐅᑭᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᖅᐸᑦ decisions or hearing information in terms of, ᑲᓐᖑᓇᖅᑑᑎᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑖᓐᓇ again, I think any committee, whether there ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᕕᒋᑲᐅᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐅᑯᐊ ᑐᓴᖅᑕᑎᑦ are minors on it or not, you always have to ᑕᖅᑲᐅᓐᖓᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ. ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃᑕᐅᖅ protect privacy, making it explicitly clear that ᐱᓇᐃᓗᑕᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᓕᓲᖑᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ during those proceedings that information is ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓐᖏᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. private, but I do believe there are other challenges related to that. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Quassa. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖁᐊᓴ.

Mr. Quassa (interpretation): Thank you. To ᖁᐊᓴᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ continue on that line, we have used and seen, ᑲᔪᓯᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒍ, ᓲᕐᓗ as Committee Members, that anything that has ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖑᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑕ ᐃᓛᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓪᓗᑕᓗ a personal effect on us is to be declared a ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓗᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᓪᓗᑕ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ, (interpretation ends) conflict of interest. ᓱᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓗᐊᕈᓂ conﬂict of interest−ᖑᓂᕋᕐᓗᑕ

(interpretation) I am sure that the student ᓂᓪᓕᐊᕐᕕᒋᔪᓐᓃᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᐸᒃᑲᑦᑕ would declare conflict of interest and I ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓇᔭᖅᑐᔅᓴᐅᕙᓗᑭᐊᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ, ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ expected that response. ᓂᕆᐅᐸᓘᔭᖅᑲᐅᕗᖓ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑭᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒻᒥᒃ.

Again in English, (interpretation ends) on ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᓚᐅᕐᒥᓗᖓ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒪᑉᐱᖅᑐᒐ 4 page 4 of your submission with respect to the ᑎᑎᕋᓚᐅᖅᑕᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᓖᑦ discussion of early childhood education ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐅᖅᓴᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᑦ, ᐅᖃᓚᐅᕋᕕᑦ programs you state, “…we strongly encourage ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᔫᓈᖅᖢᒍ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ effective ECE programs be provided to all ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐅᖅᓴᕈᑎᓂᒃ children in the territory.” The concept of ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᑕᐅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᒍᒪᔪᒍᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᓕᒫᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. universal early childhood education across ᓇᒥᓕᒫᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᕆᐅᖅᓴᓂᖅ Nunavut has been raised on a number of ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐊᕐᓇᓂ ᓂᓪᓕᐅᑎᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ occasions throughout our deliberations on Bill ᐃᓱᒪᔅᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25, 25. Can you elaborate further on why you feel ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᐲᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ this is important and further, can you indicate ᐱᕐᔪᐊᖑᒻᒪᖔᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓗᑎᑦ whether you feel that a universal early ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐅᖅᓴᖅᑐᓅᖓᔪᑦ ᓇᒥᓕᒫᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ childhood education program would be better ᐱᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᖏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ achieved within the revised Education Act or ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅᑎᒎᕐᓗᑎᑦ under the revised Child Day Care Act? ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐸᐃᕆᕖᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒍ? (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐄ, ᑖᓐᓇ (interpretation ends) That’s a two-part ᒪᕐᕈᐃᓕᖓᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔮ, ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ question, so you can answer in whatever order ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. you would like. Ms. Bates.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question. In terms of the benefits ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ of early childhood education programming, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᒐᕐᓂ. there are many benefits. Access to affordable, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐅᖅᓴᕐᓂᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᕐᔪᐊᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ high-quality child care programs such as early ᐅᓄᖅᑐᐊᓗᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᔅᓴᓂᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᐅᕐᒪᑦ childhood education can boost maternal ᐊᑭᑭᔾᔫᒥᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐅᖅᓴᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᑦ participation back in the workforce, it raises ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᓈᓇᒋᔭᐅᔪᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ income, and it reduces income inequality, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕆᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎ ᐱᐅᓯᕚᓪᓕᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᒪᑯᐊ improving educational opportunities for ᐊᒃᑐᓂᖅᓴᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᓱᑎᒃ. disadvantaged children. Participation in early childhood education has shown that children get greater educational attainment.

The benefits of an early childhood education ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐅᖅᓴᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑎᑦ program was also noted by the Special ᐱᔭᕐᓂᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓈᓲᑦ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓐᓂᖅᓴᓄᑦ Committee, which we agree with, to review ᐃᓕᔭᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪᓗᑎᒃᑯᓪᓗ the Education Act in 2015, in which they had ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖑᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᕐᒥᒃ stated, “It has been well established that early ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᒃ 2015-ᒥᑦ childhood is a critical phase that can ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒡᒎᖅ determine the quality of health, well-being, ᐊᑑᑎᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐅᖅᓴᓂᕐᒧᑦ

learning, and behaviour of individuals later on ᑐᕌᖓᔪᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓄᖓ in life.” A cost-benefit analysis was done by a ᐃᓚᐅᔪᓄᑦ. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᕈᑎᖏᑦ Canadian research organization also and ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᖃᑦᑎᓕᒫᑦ reported that for every dollar invested in early ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᐃᓕᔭᐅᔪᑦ $1.00−ᐸᑦ, $3.60-ᖑᓕᕐᓗᓂ childhood education, there is a $3.60 return to ᑕᖅᑲᐅᓐᖓᕋᔭᕐᒪᑦ. the economy.

I hope that answers your question. ᑭᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᐸᕋᖃᐃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) As to the second part of ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Mr. Quassa’s question, it was whether that ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕆᕋᑖᖅᑕᖓᓕ ᒥᔅᑕ ᖁᐊᓴᐅᑉ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖓ universal program would be better delivered, ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕋᑖᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᓇᒧᓕᒫᖅ in your opinion, through the Education Act or ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑲᑕ ᐱᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᕐᒪᖔᖅ, ᑕᕝᕘᓇ Child Day Care Act. Ms. Bates. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᑎᒍᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐸᐃᕆᕖᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖓᒍᖔᖅ? ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of where the delivery of early childhood ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇᓕ programs should be, the amendment outlined ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐅᖅᓴᔪᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ in Bill 25 states that “Every five years, the ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᒥᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᒐᓱᑦᑐᑦ district education authorities can elect to ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ, ᐊᕐᕌᒍ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᒡᒎᖅ ᓈᒐᐃᑉᐸᑕ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓄ provide early childhood education programs ᑕᓪᓕᐅᒪᓂᐊᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ. for the following five years.” In terms of who ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ. ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᒋᓲᖏᓪᓕ delivers the program, I think our ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐊᕗᑦ ᑐᕋᖓᖔᖅᑐᑦ recommendation is more based in ensuring ᐱᑕᖃᖁᔨᓂᕐᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐅᖅᓴᕐᕕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ access to early childhood education by all ᓱᕈᓯᓕᒫᑦᑎᐊᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᒥ. ᑭᒃᑯᓐᓄᖔᖅ children across the territory as opposed to ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓗᐊᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑕᕗᑦ who delivers it. It’s really a matter of ensuring ᐱᑕᖃᖁᖔᖅᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. access. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖁᐊᓴ. Quassa.

Mr. Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᖁᐊᓴ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᐃᓐᓇ $0.60 Chairman. I didn’t really get where the $3.60 ᓇᑭᙶᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓗᐊᓐᖏᑕᕋᓗᐊᕋ, (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) came from. (interpretation ends) You said ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᑦ $3.60? $3.60? Okay.

(interpretation) Let me turn to something else. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐆᒧᖓ ᓵᒻᒥᓗᖓ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓛᒃ You were mentioning (interpretation ends) ᑖᒃᑯᐊ minor ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᕗᑦ minor students minor students and mature minors. and mature minors ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᓱᓕ (interpretation) My question is directed ᑐᕌᖓᐸᓘᔭᕐᒪᑦ. ᑕᕝᕙᓂ clause 92-ᒥᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ Bill towards that. Clause 92 of Bill 25 proposes to 25-ᒥ ᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᑕᑯᔪᒪᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ permit district education authorities to allow ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ individuals who are over the age of 21 to ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ register with a school within its jurisdiction. ᐅᖓᑖᓂ 21 ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓪᓚᕆᐊᓂᒃ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐊᓂᒃ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ,

Probably those students who didn’t finish ᓲᕐᓗᖃᐃ ᐃᒻᒪᖄ ᒍᕋᐃ 12-ᒥᓂᒃ their education would go back to grade 11 or ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᓐᖏᑦᑐᕕᓂᖅ ᒍᕋᐃ 12-ᒥᓂᒃ ᓇᓕᐊᑭᐊᖅ 12 or whichever grade because they would ᒍᕋᐃ 11-12-ᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐅᓇ like to try again. I think this is geared toward ᑐᕌᖓᓗᐊᖅᑰᕐᒪᑦ. that.

In your view, should students who are 21 ᑖᓐᓇᓕ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᖢᒍ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ 21-ᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ years of age or older be included in the ᐅᖓᑖᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕋᓱᒋᕕᒌᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ kindergarten to grade 12 classroom setting? ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ Kindergarten−ᒥᑦ ᒍᕋᐃ 12-ᒧᑦ Do you believe an individual who is 21 years ᑎᑭᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᔪᓂᒃ? ᐃᓚᐅᒋᐊᖃᕋᓱᒋᕕᒌᑦ of age or older should be included or allowed 21-ᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐅᖓᑖᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, to go to the schools? Thank you, Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. Bates.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The matter that you have raised is not really ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ connected to our submission regarding Bill ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᕋᑖᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᓗᐊᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ 25, but certainly I would be prepared at a later ᑐᓂᔪᔭᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ 25-ᓂᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᔅᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᓚᐅᕐᓗᒍ ᑭᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᓛᖅᑕᕋ ᑭᖑᓂᕆᓛᖅᑕᑎᓐᓂ ᒫᓐᓇ time to comment or to provide information ᐅᖃᕐᕕᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑑᔮᓐᖏᑲᓚᐅᕋᒃᑯ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, about that. I just don’t feel like I’m in a ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. position to speak to that. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᒫᓐᓇᖃᐃ ᐅᓇ (interpretation ends) Maybe I’ll take the ᑐᓂᖔᑲᐃᓐᓇᕈᒃᑯ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᔪᐃᑦ opportunity to turn this over to the Minister in ᐱᒍᓐᓇᑎᑦᑎᒐᓱᓐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓂ 21- terms of the issues around allowing ᒥᑦ ᐅᖓᑖᓄᑦ ᒥᑭᔫᑕᐅᓂᖅᐹᓂᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᓕᒃ 12-ᒧᑦ individuals over the age of 21 into the K to 12 ᐃᓕᓴᔪᓄᑦ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᑎᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ classroom setting. It is something that under 25-ᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓲᑕᐅᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ Bill 25 would be a power or an authority ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᖁᔨᒍᓐᓇᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ given to the district education authorities. ᑭᐅᒋᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᑭᐅᒃ ᒥᔅᑕ ᖁᐊᓴᐅᑉ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖓ? Minister, I wonder if you can respond to Mr. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ. Quassa’s question. Minister Joanasie.

Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Chairman. If you would give me a moment. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐅᑕᖅᑭᒐᓛᑲᐃᓐᓇᕆᖓᐃ.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The proposal ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᓴᖅᑭᕋᓱᒃᑐᕐᖏᓛᒃ under Bill 25, section 92, where it talks about ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᑯᑦ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ 92 individuals over 21 years of age, under our ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓕᓐᓂ 21 current Act we have section 32, which allows ᐅᖓᑖᓂ, ᒫᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᓇᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 32 a DEA to enroll a student if they are the age ᐱᒍᓐᓇᑎᑦᑎᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ of 21 or older already. Even if they are not ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᐃᑦ 21-ᖑᖅᓯᒪᔫᒐᓗᐊᓂᒃ. within that jurisdiction or the DEA’s ᑖᓐᓇᓕ ᐱᒍᓐᓇᑎᑦᑎᒐᔭᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑕ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᖏᓐᓃᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑲᑦ,

jurisdiction, they can be enrolled in another ᐃᓛᒃ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐊᓯᐊᓄᑦ, ᐊᓯᐊᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒧ DEA jurisdiction, if that makes sense. Thank ᓄᓇᓕᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᐊᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓯᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᖓᑦ. you, Mr. Chairman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I’m assuming it makes ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑐᔅᓴᐅᕘᖅ sense because your department put it in the ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒨᕐᓂᕋᔅᓯᐅᒃ, ᑖᓐᓇ bill, but that is just a humorous comment; ᖁᖓᑦᑎᑦᑎᒐᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᖁᐊᖅ. don’t take it too seriously. Mr. Akoak.

Mr. Akoak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐋᖁᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Welcome. ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒋᔅᓯ.

Your final recommendation on page 5 of your ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐊᕆᔭᓯ ᒪᑉᐱᒐᖓᓂ 5- submission addresses orientation and ᖓᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᖓᑦ ᐃᓕᑉᐹᓪᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᒐᓱᓐᓂᕐᒥᑦ mentoring for teachers, as provided for by ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓂᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇᓗ section 96 of the Education Act. Clause 62 of ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 96-ᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥᑦ, Bill 25 proposes to amend section 92 by ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ 62 ᒪᓕᒐᖅᖅ 25-ᒥᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᒐᓱᒻᒪᑦ including a subclause requiring that such ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒻᒥ 92-ᒥ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᓪᓗᑎᒃ orientation programs include an introduction ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ to Inuit language and instruction of Inuit ᐃᓕᑉᐹᓪᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᒐᓱᐊᕐᓃᑦ ᐃᓚᖃᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑐᐃᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ, culture and history. Are you proposing a ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖁᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ further amendment to section 96 requiring ᓯᕗᓂᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᓂᒍᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ. that teachers participate in such programs ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᕋᓱᑦᑐᕐᖑᓈ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 96, ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ during the first year that they take up their ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ duties in the Nunavut school system instead of ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᖓᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᖓᓂ during their first two years? Thank you, Mr. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕆᐊᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ? Chairman. ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓐᓂ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂ ᑕᒫᓃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍᖑᖔᖑᓐᖏᑦᑑᖅ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Bates. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ you for the question. Yes, we’re proposing ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃᑕᐅᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᒻᒧᑦ. ᐄ, ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᑐᒍᑦ. currently in the Education Act the timeline for ᒫᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥ the training is two years and our submission ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ was to shorten that to one year because during ᐊᕐᕌᒍ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᒻᒪᑕ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᕐᕌᒍ a school year you could have a teacher who ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᖓᓂᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᖁᔭᕗᑦ. ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒥ has not received that training because the ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᑕᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᖓᑦ expectation is in the Act that it’s within two ᐃᓕᑉᐹᓪᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥᑦ ᓄᓇᑦᑕ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ. ᐊᕐᕌᒎ years. Thank you. ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓄᒃ ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑕᐅᕕᖃᕐᖓᑕ ᒫᓐᓇ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Akoak. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᖁᐊᖅ.

Mr. Akoak: Thank you. My final question, ᐋᖁᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒐ.

the Office of the Child and Youth ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖓ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᓪᓗ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨ Representative plays an important advocacy ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒻᒥ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓰᓂᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ role for children and youth across Nunavut. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᕘᓕᒫᒥ. ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓯ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐅᓇ Your office’s last three annual reports indicate ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᖅᓯᐅᑎ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᑦ that between 23 percent and 27 percent of the ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᒫᓂ 23 ᐳᓴᓐ ᐊᑯᓐᓂᖓᓂ ᐊᒻᒪ individual advocacy cases handled by your 27% ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᓯ ᐊᓪᓚᕕᔅᓯᓐᓂ office involved the Department of Education. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ Your office’s 2016-17 annual report notes on ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓯᓗ page 20 that “An overwhelming majority of ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᒥᓂᖏᑦ 2016-2017−ᒧᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᖅᓯᐅᑎᑦ these concerns related to school services.” ᒪᑉᐱᒐᖓ 20-ᖓᓂᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑏᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ In your view, will the amendments proposed ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᓂᒃ. in Bill 25 overall improve the ability of the Department of Education to help children and ᐃᕝᕕ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖓᒍᓪᓕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᒐᓱᑦᑐᐃᑦ youth succeed in the classroom? Thank you, ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᒥ ᐱᐅᓯᕚᓪᓕᑎᑦᑎᒐᔭᖅᑳ Mr. Chairman. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᔭᕇᖅᑎᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒐᓱᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Bates. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. you for the question. We were pleased to see ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃᑕᐅᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᒻᒧᑦ. ᖁᕕᐊᓱᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ that several of our recommendations were ᑕᑯᒋᐊᔅᓴᖅ ᐊᒥᓱᑲᓪᓚᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐊᒥᓂᖅᐳᑦ incorporated into Bill 25, particularly the ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᒧᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ inclusion of the United Nations Convention ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔭᐅᓂᖓ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᖅ on the Rights of the Child in the preamble; the ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᕐᔪᐊᖏᑕ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ student representatives elected to district ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᖓᓂᑦ education authorities given voting privileges. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑐᐃᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᐃᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᖃᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ Many elements of our November 2018 ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ. submission to the Department of Education are not reflected in Bill 25. For this reason, we ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᕕᐱᕆ 2018-ᒥ ᑐᓂᔪᔭᑦᑕ believe that there are areas of improvement ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᒥᑦ that still exist to address those issues. Thank ᓴᖅᑭᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒥᔪᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᑉᐱᕈᓱᑉᐳᒍᑦ you. ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᕕᓴᖅᑕᖃᕐᖓᑦ ᓱᓕ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᐃᓗᐊᓂ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Just to go a bit further on ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᖁᐊᖅ, Mr. Akoak’s question there, I think it also ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᕋᑖᖅᑕᖓ ᐃᓚᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ, ᑕᕝᕙᓂ came up in your opening comments in terms ᒪᑐᐃᖅᓯᒍᑎᔅᓯᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓯᒪᕙᓪᓚᐃᒻᒥᒐᔅᓯᐅᑦᑕᐅᖅ of the amount of advocacy cases you had that ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓰᓂᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔭᓯ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒧ tied to the school system. I realize that there’s ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᖅᑐᐃᑦ. ᐃᓛᒃ ᑲᓐᖑᓇᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ privacy involved and you can’t get into too ᐃᓱᒪᒋᒋᐊᓕᕋᓗᐊᕗᑦ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᓐᓂᒃ much detail, but when you say that these cases ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᓗᐊᕈᓐᓇᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑐᓯ, ᐅᖃᕋᐃᒐᔅᓯ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ involved school services, particularly on ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕋᐃᒐᔅᓯ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᓂᒃ language, were there any trends or anything to ᐱᔾᔪᑎᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐱᓪᓗᒍ, ᓴᖑᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅᑕᕐᓃᑦ ᑕᑯᓯᒪᔪᕐᔫᔮᖅᑭᓰ ᑭᓱ ᓴᖅᑭᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅᓴᐅᔫᔮᕐᒪᖔᑕ

100

indicate that students or parents or whoever ᐊᓈᓇᒃᑯᒋᔭᐅᔪᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ was coming to your office specifically with ᐊᓪᓚᕕᒃᑎᓐᓅᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑲᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ concerns around language use in the schools? ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᒥᒃ Ms. Bates. ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ, ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ? ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ would like to turn this question to the director, ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕕᒻᒥ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖓᓐᓄᑦ ᓕᓐ ᒫᑦᒧᑦ Lynn Matte, if I may. ᑭᐅᔭᐅᖔᖁᔭᕋᓗᐊᕋ.

Chairman: You may. Ms. Matte. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᐊᑏ, ᒥᔅ ᒫᑦ.

Ms. Matte (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) When it ᒫᑦ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓕ comes to our individual advocacy cases, ᐃᓛᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ language is an area that we can provide ᑖᓐᓇᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᕈᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᕗᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ support, but it’s actually not a very prevalent ᓴᖅᑭᕋᔪᐃᑦᑐᕕᔾᔪᐊᕌᓗᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ issue that gets raised to our attention when it ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᒍᒪᔪᖃᕋᐃᒻᒪᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ comes to services. The number of advocacy ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᔪᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ cases we’ve had involving language services ᑕᑯᒐᐃᒐᑦᑕ ᑕᑯᓂᖅᐹᖑᓲᖑᔪᒍᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑏᑦ is quite low. ᑐᑭᒧᐊᒃᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓐᖏᓗᐊᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᓂᑦ.

When it comes to schools, what we see the most often is that either service providers are ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᖃᕋᓗᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ not coordinating supports for students and so ᐃᑲᔪᕈᑕᐅᒋᐊᓕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᐃᑦ, the services being delivered in the schools ᑐᓵᓐᖏᓵᖅᑐᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ don’t address specific behavioural needs that ᐸᕐᓇᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑲᑕ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ rely on another service provider’s input or ᑐᑭᒧᐊᒍᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᖏᓗᐊᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ specific learning needs that would require an ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᖅᑲᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ assessment and then a plan to be put in place, ᐃᑲᔪᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᑎᔅᓴᐃᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᓗᐊᕐᒥᓇᑎᑦ. or even just coordination within the school itself; a young person needs a student support assistant, but there are not enough resources in the school to make that happen.

While language is extremely important, it actually hasn’t come up very often in our work as a whole and as far as school goes ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᒐᓗᐊᖅ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ specifically, it’s not one of the items that are ᓴᖅᑭᓗᐊᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖓᓂᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪ ranking super high on our list as concerns ᐃᓕᓴᕖᓪᓕ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᒋᔭᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ people are raising. I have some statistics on ᐃᓱᒫᓗᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᖅ. how many times language has been a ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓕ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓰᒐᓱᑦᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ requirement when we do our advocacy work ᓴᖅᑭᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ ᐱᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᑯᐊ 2017−18- and these only go to 2017-18, but we only had ᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐱᓯᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. ᖁᓖᓐᓇᕐᓂ at that point ten Inuktitut cases where they ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᒍᒪᔪᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖃᖅᑐ 200-ᓂᒃ wanted services from us in that language out ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᐊᒻᒪ of the 200 cases we had opened, and we had

101

three French language cases. That was spread ᐱᖓᓱᑦ ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᒍᒪᓯᒪᑦᑕᖅᑯᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ across all the different departments. Most of ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᓕᒫᖏᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᖃᑦᑕᔪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ those cases were connected to family services, ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᓪᓗᑎ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ not education. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓐᖏᑐᐃᓪᓕ Chairman. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᔪᐃᑦ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. I have no more names on my list. Would you like to ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᒪ’ᓇ. ask a question? Okay. Ms. Angnakak. ᐊᑎᓕᐅᖅᕼᐃᒪᔪᖃᕈᓐᓃᕋᒪ. ᐊᑎᓕᐅᕈᐊᖅᑐᑏᑦ? ᐅᑲᐃ. ᒥᔅ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ. Ms. Angnakak (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I just have a couple of ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ questions. Yesterday when we were talking ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᔅᓴᖃᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ. ᐃᑉᐸᔅᓴᖅ ᑕᐃᒪ with the other parties that came before us, one ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓂ of the questions I raised was about violence in ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᓚᐅᕐᒥᒐᒪ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ schools with youth. I am wondering if you ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓈᕿᔭᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᓂ. would look at violent behaviour challenges. ᐃᓱᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕆᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᔅᓯᐅᒃ Do you feel they are on the rise according the ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓈᕿᔭᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑕ work that you do at the schools? Thank you, ᐃᓕᔅᓯ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖓ ᑕᑯᓐᓈᖅᑐᒍ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ Mr. Chairman. ᖃᓄᐃᑉᐸᑦ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. Bates.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. you for the question. Our office doesn’t keep ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃᑕᐅᖅ ᐊᐱᕆᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ. ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᕗᑦ specific information or statistical information ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᕙᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᑎᔅᓴᓂᑦ on that particular issue, so I can’t speak to ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᓕᒻᒥ. whether it’s on the rise or not. Thank you. ᐊᒥᓱᕈᖅᐸᓕᐊᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ. Angnakak.

Ms. Angnakak: Thank you. Well, maybe you ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. don’t keep or track it, but if I had to deal with ᑎᑎᕋᖅᐸᓐᖏᑕᕋᓗᐊᓯᖃᐃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᖃᖅᑲᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ an issue over and over, it would kind of be in ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᓕᖅᑭᑦᑖᕆᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᕈᒃᑯ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᓕᕋᔭᕋᒪᓕ my head, “Is this a violent thing? Is this a ᐅᓇ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᕐᒥ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑲ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥ language thing?” Maybe you don’t keep track ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑳ? ᐅᑯᐊ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᐸᖏᑦᑕᕋᓗᐊᓯ of it, but is this something that you have ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓕᖅᓯᒪᕕᓯᐅᒃ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᓕᖅᓯᒪᕕᐅᓯᒃ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, become aware of? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Bates. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, as Lynn Matte indicated, a lot of the cases that ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᐃᒫᒃᑲᓂᖅᑐᓖᓛᒃ ᓕᓐ ᒫᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᕋᑖᕐᖓ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ

102

have come to our attention are largely around ᐃᑲᔪᕆᐊᖃᖅᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᓂ service provision. Anecdotally, violence is not ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ one of the biggest issues that have been ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕕᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ reported to our office with respect to children ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ in the education system. Thank you. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒦᑦᑐᐃᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) It is my understanding ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑐᑭᓯᓯᒪᔭᕋᑦᑕᐅᖅ that you are responding from where your ᑭᐅᒐᕕᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕕᒻᒦᖔᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕕᒻᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᓯ office sits and it doesn’t necessarily mean that ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓪᓗᒋ. ᐱᑕᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂᕋᕐᓗᒍ it doesn’t exist within the school system. ᐅᖃᕋᔅᓴᐅᓐᖏᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ. ᐄ ᐊᙶᒐᕕᑦ That’s my understanding and I see you ᑕᑯᒐᒪ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᒥᔅ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ. nodding, so thanks for clarifying that. Ms. Angnakak.

Ms. Angnakak: Thank you. Well, one of your recommendations is that when a student ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᐃᓚᖓᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ has been expelled, you want them to be part ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐊᓯ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎ of the conversation around what has ᐊᓂᑕᐅᓯᒪᑉᐸᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᖁᒐᔅᓯᐅᒃ happened. Yesterday we heard from the DEA ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᒍᑕᐅᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᕐᓂᕐᒪᖔᖅ and the coalition that violence is on the rise in ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐃᑉᐸᓴᕐᓗ ᑐᓴᓚᐅᕐᒥᔪᒍ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᓂ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ schools, and in fact they were saying that ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓃᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᕈᖅᐸᓕᐊᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ students being violent against other students ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᕐᒥᔪᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᒡᒎᖅ or violence against the teacher. It made me ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ wonder. You had that comment and we heard ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᒥᓂᒃ. the comments yesterday. What has been your ᐃᓱᒪᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᖓ ᑐᓴᓚᐅᕋᔅᓴ ᐃᑉᐸᔅᓴᖅ involvement with this issue in the schools? ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᕕᒋᓯᒪᕕᓯᐅᒃ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ Obviously it’s becoming a bigger problem. ᐊᖏᓪᓕᕙᓪᓕᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᖓᑦ ᐊᑲᐅᓐᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᐅᓪᓗᓂ. Perhaps it’s not on your radar yet, but I’m ᑖᓐᓇᖃᐃ ᑲᒪᒋᓛᑕᔅᓯᓐᓃᓐᖏᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ? sure it will be, according to what everybody ᑲᒪᒋᓛᖅᑕᔅᓯᓐᓃᓛᖅᐸᓚᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔪᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᐃᑦ else has been saying. The other thing that was ᐊᓯᔅᓯᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐊᓯᐊᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ talked about in regard to violent behaviour in ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓚᐅᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᒻᒥ schools, yesterday it was recommended that ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓈᕿᔭᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᓕ ᐃᓕᓴᕕᓐᓂ these kinds of behavioural challenges should ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᓚᐅᕐᖓ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᐃᑦ perhaps be dealt with through Bill 25. I am ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᒋᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎ ᑕᕝᕘᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᖅ 25- wondering where you stand on that. Thank ᑯᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇᓕ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᒻᒪᖔᔅᓯᐅᒃ ᑐᓴᕈᒪᒻᒥᔪᖓ. you, Mr. Chairman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. Bates.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of dealing with violent behaviour in ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ schools, I’m not sure I have a position or my ᓂᓐᖓᓐᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐅᕙᖓ office has a position because I believe, when ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᕕᒋᔭᕋ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᓗᐊᕈᓐᓇᓐᖏᑕᒋᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ. it’s happening in the schools, the education ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖔᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ

103

system is in the best position to make ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕆᖔᖅᑐᔅᓴᐅᔪᐃᑦ. ᐃᑉᐸᔅᓴᖅ decisions around how to deal with that and ᑐᓵᓚᐅᖅᑕᔅᓯᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂ who should be dealing with that. I did hear ᓂᓐᖓᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖃᑎᒌᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ testimony yesterday about the escalating ᑖᓐᓇᖃᐃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᖔᖅ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑕᒡᒐ violence between students, towards teachers, ᐊᑲᐅᓛᖑᒐᔭᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᑭᐅᒍᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᐃᑦ and I think that, again, because it’s happening ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕆᐊᖃᕈᑎ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖔᑦ. inside the schools, they’re in the best position ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑕᒡᒐ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᑎᒋᔭᐅᑉᐸᑕ to make determinations around how to deal ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕕᒻᒦᖔᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᑕᒡᒐ ᖃᓄ with that and who should be dealing with that. ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᒋᓗᒍ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. I believe it needs to be dealt with because it’s a serious concern if it’s escalating, and it sounds like it is based on the testimony yesterday. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ. Angnakak.

Ms. Angnakak: Thank you. I just feel that because you are the voice of children and ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᓂᐱᒋᔭᐅᒐᔅᓯ youth when it comes to some circumstances, ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᒐᔅᓯ ᓱᕈᓯᓄᑦ ᐅᕕᒃᑲᓄᓪᓗ ᐃᒻᒪᖃ perhaps that is something that you need to ᐃᓱᒪᔅᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᕐᓗ. think about or your office.

My last question is, or I think my last question, in your opening comments on page

3 I think you have a very good recommendation in the second paragraph ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔪᒪᔭᕋ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ ᐅᖃᕆᐊᓐᖓᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᑦ where you say, “…asking for input from ᒪᒃᐱᖅᑐᒐᖓᓂ 3, ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᓯᒪᒐᔅᓯ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᖏᓕᐊᓂ students past and present in order to develop ᐅᖃᕋᕕᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᔪᕕᓃᑦ legislation…” which really only the ᐃᓚᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᒫᓐᓇ government can do, but you could put input ᑖᒃᑯᐊᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᖅᓯᒪᒐᓱᐊᕋᑦᑕ through processes like this one today, ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ “…policies and procedures that will work best ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ. ᑐᓴᕈᑦᑕ for the students who use the education ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓐᖏᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑕ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᐃᑦ system.” I couldn’t agree with you more. I ᑐᓴᕆᐊᓐᖏᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑕ ᐅᕕᐃᒃᑲᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒪᒃᑯᑦᑐᓂ think that the government doesn’t do enough ᐅᕕᒃᑲᕐᓂᑦ ᑐᓴᓐᖏᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑕ. ᐃᒻᒪᖃ of that when we talk about many issues to do ᐃᓱᒪᓐᓂᕋᕕᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑎᑭᐅᑎᒍᓐᓇᖅᐸᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ with the education system, but I’m wondering ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᒍᓐᓇᓂᖅᓴᕆᕙᕗᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ if you can elaborate a little bit on what your ᐃᓱᒪᔅᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᔅᓴᖃᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, thoughts are on how you think that can be ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. achieved. What kinds of options do you think the department should be considering to support that statement? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

104

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. Bates.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question. In terms of what kinds of policies and procedures I was referring to that ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ students can be involved in and how to get ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᐅᒻᒪᑦ. ᐊᑐᐊᒐᐃᓪᓗ ᑭᓲᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᖃᓄᖅ their input, from our view, all policies and ᐃᓚᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᖃᓄ procedures connected to a young person’s ᐃᓚᐅᒍᓐᓇᓂᖅᓴᒍᓐᓇᕋᔭᕆᐊᖏ ᐅᕙᒍᓪᓕ education that have a direct impact on the ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᖓᒍᑦ. ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᒫᑦ ᐅᕕᒃᑲᕐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᑉᐸᑕ young person should incorporate feedback ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖃᓚᖓᒻᒪᑕ and from past and present students. It ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᖅᑐᖃᕌᖓᑦ ᑭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ included but not limited to attendance ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᓂᑯᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᔪᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ. policies, discipline policies, crisis response ᒪᑯᓄᖓ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ protocols, operational directives, and ᐅᐸᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᒨᖓᓐᖏᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓂᕆᔭᖓᑕ education support services. ᐊᐅᓚᓂᕆᔭᖓᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓅᖓᓗᐊᓐᖏᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ.

In terms of getting input from students, it can be done through surveys. It can be done ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᖃᓄᒃ ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᐸ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ? ᐅᑯᐊᖃᐃ through student councils. There are various ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᑉᐸᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ. ways to hear youth voice, and quite frankly, ᑖᒃᑯᐊᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᓂᐱᖃᖃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᐸᑕ ᐊᑲᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᖃᓐᓂᕇᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᕋᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᑎᒎᓇ social media in some respects. There are ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖃᑦᑕᕐᒥᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᔪᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᑦᑕ many ways to engage youth in those ᐅᕕᒃᑲᕐᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓯᕗᒧᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ discussions and again, we always want to ᑐᓴᐅᒪᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂ. support youth and hear their voice because I ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. think it can lead to informed policies and procedures. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I think that was your last ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑖᓐᓇ question too. Yeah, okay. I wasn’t cutting you ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᕋᑖᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ? ᓇᑲᕋᑖᓐᖏᑕᒋᑦ off. You did have an opportunity there. Ms. ᐱᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ. ᒥᔅ ᓇᑲᓱᒃ. Nakashuk.

Ms. Nakashuk (interpretation): Thank you. ᓇᑲᓱᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒋᑦ ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ Welcome, Ms. Bates and your staff. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᓪᓗ.

(interpretation ends) In your last section on page 4 of your submission, you recommend (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒪᒃᐱᖅᑐᒐᖓᓂ ᑎᓴᒪᖓᓂ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒐᕕ that definitions of inclusive education and ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᓯᒪᒐᕕᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ student supports be added to the Education ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ Act. Can you elaborate further on why you ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑐᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎ ᑖᓐᓇ feel that Part 6 of the Education Act, which ᐃᓗᓕᑯᓘᔭᖓᓂ 6, ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᓕᒫᖅ provides for the delivery of inclusive ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖃᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ education within Nunavut’s education, does ᐃᓚᐅᔪᐃᓐᓇᐅᒍᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᖃᓄᕐᓕ not adequately define the concept? ᐃᓱᒪᒋᕕᐅᒃ?

105

(interpretation) Thank you. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. Bates.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question. Defining inclusive ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ education in the legislation is important for ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᒐᕕᐅᒃ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᖁᔭᕗᑦ clarity reasons. It is currently not defined, ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᓕᒫᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᓕᖓᓂᖓ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᕈᓘᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐ although it’s not an easy definition. As I ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖅᑕᖏ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖅᑕᖏᑎᒎ stated in my opening comments, it means ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᒋᐊᖃᓪᓚᕆᒻᒪᖔ. ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ different things to different people and I think ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑐᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ it is important to define that in the Education ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖓᑎᒎᕐᓂᐊᕌᖓᑦ. Act. A similar recommendation was made by ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᒪᔅᓱᒥᖓ the Department of Education in their ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᔪᖃᖁᔨᔪᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᕝᕙ 2014-ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ submission to the Special Committee to ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᔪᒻᒪᑕ. Review the Education Act in October 2014.

I think that also defining what school supports mean, again, allows for coordination of ᑐᑭᓯᒐᓱᐊᕈᑦᑎᒍ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑰᔨᔪᖅ services, especially when you multiple ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᕈᓂ ᑕᕝᕙ ᑐᑭᑖᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᒋᐊᓖᒃ ᑭᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᑐᖅᓴᐅᒻᒪᖔᑕ.. departments that are providing supports to the ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ same young person. Also, defining school ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᑯᐊ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᕋᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᐃᑦ supports allows for students and parents to ᐃᑲᔪᕈᑎᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒧᑦ understand what supports are available to ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᓇᒥ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᖃᖅᐸᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ. them and what is the responsibility of the ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. school system to be providing. Thank you.

Chairperson (Ms. Towtongie) ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔩᑦ (interpretation): Thank you. I’ll go back to ᓄᑕᕋᓄᑦ. ᐅᑎᕐᓗᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᓇᑲᓱᒃ. Member Nakashuk.

Ms. Nakashuk (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. (interpretation ends) My ᓇᑲᓱᒃ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) second question and final question, on page 5 ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᕋ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ, ᒪᒃᐱᖅᑐᒐᖓᓂ 5 ᑖᓐᓇ of your submission, recommendation No. 8 ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᖓᓐᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᓯᒪᔭᕐᓂᕕᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ refers to mature minors and notes that this ᐅᕕᒃᑲᓛᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᓛᖑᓂᕋᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ concept has not been introduced in the ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑎᒋᔭᐅᒻᒪᖔᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᖓᒍᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ legislation. Can you clarify what the concept ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᕕᒃᑲᐅᔪᖅ ᓱᓕ ᖃᓄᒋᐊᖓᐃ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ of mature minor refers to specifically, how a ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑎᒋᔭᐅᒻᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᒋᔭᖓ student would be designated as a mature ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᒦᖁᔭᐅᓂᖓᓂ? minor, and why you feel this concept should (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. be introduced into the legislation? (interpretation) Thank you.

106

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᓇᑲᓱᒃ. Member Nakashuk. Let’s go back to the ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ ᓄᑕᕋᓄ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᒧᑦ, ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. Representative for Children and Youth, Ms. Bates.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. A mature minor is a young person who is ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ under the age of 19. Again, there is a criterion ᐅᕕᒃᑲᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᖓ ᐃᓱᒪᑐᔪᖅ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖃᐃ 19- usually that is employed. It’s done on a case- ᖑᓐᖏᓗᐊᖅᑐᖅ. ᐃᒻᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᐅᔫᒐᓗᐊᖅ by-case basis. It’s important for mature ᐊᑐᓃᖓᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓲᕐᓗ minors to be included in the Education Act ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑎᒎᖓᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ simply because, again, it allows for a young ᐅᕕᒃᑲᖅ ᐊᖏᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕈᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᑎᒍ person to be able to consent in the absence of ᖃᓄᒃᑲᓐᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᕈᓂ ᐃᒻᒥᓂᖔᖅ a parent not being present to education ᐊᖏᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᓂ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᒥᓂᒃ services. ᐊᖏᖅᑎᑎᑦᑕᐃᓇᓐᖏᓪᓗᓂ.

Some of the criteria or guidelines that often are included in determining mature minors, the best interest of students should always be ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑎᒋᔭᖓ ᐃᒻᒥᓂᒃ considered in the decision about whether a ᐃᓱᒪᔅᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ student should be deemed a mature minor, but ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᖃᕌᖓᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᑭᐅᖓ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᑐᔫᓂᖅᓴᐅᒻᒪᖔᖅ ᓯᓚᑐᓂᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ additionally, assessing whether or not the ᐸᕐᓈᕆᔭᖓᑕ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒍ student is mature may include things like what ᖃᓄᐃᔾᔪᑎᒋᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. their age is, their maturity, and what their understanding is of the decision to be made and the consequences of that decision. Thank you.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Bates, representative. Let’s go back to ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨ. Member Nakashuk. Are you done? Okay. ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᒧ ᓇᑲᓱᒃ ᐃᓂᖅᐲᑦ? ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑕ. Let’s proceed. Adam Lightstone, Member. ᐋᑕᒻ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ.

Mr. Lightstone: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I would like to continue on the topic of mature minor. Before I begin, I would ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᒪᑯᐊ like to say welcome to the Assembly, Ms. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᒍᑦᑎᒍ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᕕᒃᑲᖅ, ᐱᒋᐊᓚᐅᓐᖏᓂᓐᓂ Bates, Ms. Matte, and Ms. Didham. I ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒋᔅᓯ ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ, ᖁᕕᐊᓱᑦᑐᖓ ᑐᓂᓯᒐᔅᓯ appreciate your submission. You put forward ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖁᑎᒋᔭᔅᓯᓐᓂ ᐊᑑᑎᓕᒻᒪᕆᓐᓂᒃ some very valid recommendations and a very ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᓯᒪᒐᔅᓯ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖅᑕᓯ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᓚᖓᔪᐃᑦ. strong opening comment.

Earlier you had mentioned the fact that the ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑲᐅᒻᒥᒐᕕᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ Government of Nunavut does recognize ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᑎᒍ ᐃᓕᑕᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᒥᒻᒪᑕ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ mature minors in separate pieces of ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖅᑕᖃᖓᓂ ᐅᕕᒃᑲᖅ ᐃᒻᒥᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ legislation. I believe it was the Health Act. ᐊᑎᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ.

107

My question is going to be for the Minister. I ᑕᓐᓇ ᐅᕙᓃᑦᑐᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᕝᕙᓐᖓᑦ ᐅᕕᒃᑲᓂᑦ would like to ask the Minister a question ᓱᕈᓯᓄᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᓂ. while I do have the child and youth rep here in case I need further input.

My question to the Minister is: why is it that “mature minor” is recognized in other ᐊᐱᕆᔪᒪᕗᖓ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ, ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᓱᒻᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ government legislation but not in this ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᓲᖑᕙ ᐊᓯᖔᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂ Education Act, which is specific to youth and ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᓱᒻᒪᑦ minors? Thank you, Madam Chairperson. ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖏᒻᒪᖔᖅ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐳᑖᖅ.

Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Member Lightstone. (interpretation ends) ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ. Hon. Minister David Joanasie, (interpretation) ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᑕᐃᕕᑦ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ ᐅᑎᕐᕕᒋᕙᒋᑦ. I go back to you.

Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Madam Chairman. (interpretation) I’m sorry. (interpretation ends) Thank you for the ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Member’s question. Under our inclusive ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᒪᒥᐊᓇᖅ. education directive or education support (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᐅᔪᕐᓗ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᒐᑦᑕ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᓖᑦ services, we do recognize and define an “adult ᐱᔨᔅᓯᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᑕᖅᓯᓲᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᐊᑐᐊᒐ student.” This is a student who has reached ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᒻᒪᖔᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎ the age of 16 for the purposes of sharing ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖓᓂ ᓲᕐᓗ. 16-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ information to support access to mental health ᐃᓕᑕᕆᓲᕆᔭᕗᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᕆᔨᓄᑦ services and a student who has reached the ᓴᖑᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᐸ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᐃᓪᓕ age of the majority, which is 19, for the ᐊᑐᐊᒐᑦᑎᓐᓂ 19-ᖑᖔᕆᐊᓖᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᓯᖔᖏᓐᓄᑦ purposes of sharing information to support all ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ other aspects of the education program. We ᑐᕌᖓᒑᖓᑕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᑖᕈᑎᒋᓲᕆᔭᕗᑦ have defined it in some sense through our ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. directive. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (Mr. Main)(interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Lightstone. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᒪᐃᓐ): ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ.

Mr. Lightstone: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on that theme, the ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Representative for Children and Youth did ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ. ᐊᐱᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᕗᖓ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔩᑦ appreciate the fact that adult students are ᓱᕐᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᕕᒃᑲᐃᓪᓗ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᑭᐅᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ recognized under the inclusive education ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ section of the Act, but still the fact that ᐊᑎᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓱᕈᓐᓇᓕᕐᓗᓂ ᓲᕐᓗ “minor students” is absent from other ᐊᑎᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᖓᓄᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ administrative sections of the Act. ᐊᓪᓚᕕᑎᒍᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑕᐅᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖅᑕᖓ. My next question is in relation to recommendation 3 that the commissioner had ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᖓᔪᐊᓐᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑲᒥᓯᓇ

108

made in stating the fact that minor students ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ don’t have a voice when it comes to ᓂᐱᖃᕈᓐᓇᓲᖑᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᖃᓄ ᐊᓪᓚᑦᑕᐅᓂᐊᕌᖓᑕ. administrative proceedings. I would like to ᐊᐱᕆᔪᒪᕗᖓ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ ᓱᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑉᐸᑦ? ask the Minister: why is that the case? Thank ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ. Minister Joanasie.

Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are, for inclusive education ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, purposes, allowing for students to participate ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂ ᐃᓘᓐᓇᑎ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖁᒍᑦᑎᒍ in the proceedings. Can you give me a ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒍᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ ᐃᓚᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ minute? ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋ. ᐅᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᐊᐃ.

My apologies. Yes, for instances when they have to develop an individual student ᒪᒥᐊᓇᖅ. ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎ assessment, student… . My brain is trying to ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᒋᔭᖓ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ... ᖃᕋᓯᕋ work. ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕋᓱᒻᒪᑦ.

>>ᐃᓪᓚᖅᑐᑦ >>Laughter

…individual student support plan, that student ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᒋᐊᖃᖅᑕᕗᑦ has the ability to participate in that ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐ development process through inclusive ᐃᓚᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᒻᒥᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᔅᓴᖏᒻᒪᖔᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ education. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᑕᕝᕙ ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐳᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ. Lightstone.

Mr. Lightstone: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to rephrase my question. I appreciate that students do have an ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. opportunity to participate in the inclusive ᐊᐱᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᖔᕈᒪᔪᖓ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒐ. ᐄ education aspect of the Education Act, but as ᐃᓚᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑲᒥᓯᓇ the commissioner had pointed out, minor ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᒥᒻᒪᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ students do not have an opportunity to voice ᑕᐃᔭᐅᔪᐃᑦ Minor Students ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ their concerns in all administrative ᐊᓪᓚᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓘᓐᓇᖓᖑᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ proceedings that affect them. As the ᐃᓚᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᒻᒥᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᓘᓐᓇᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᓪᓛᑦ commissioner had pointed out, students do not ᓂᓪᓕᕐᕕᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᓲᖑᓐᖏᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᑭᐅᔪᒪᒍᑎ. have the ability to participate or appeal in ᑭᐅᔪᒪᓕᕈᑕ ᑭᐅᒋᐊᒃᑲᓂᕐᓗᑎ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ administrative procedures or in particular to ᐊᓂᑎᑕᐅᓐᓂᕈᓂ ᑭᐅᕕᖃᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ. ᐊᐱᕆᕗᖓ ᓱᒻᒪᑦ those cases that pertain to student suspension ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᕕᖃᓐᖏᓛᑦ ᓱᒻᒪᑦ ᑭᐅᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᓐᖏᓚᑦ or expulsion. My question was: why is it that ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᐃᓚᐅᒍᓐᓇᓐᖏᓪᓚᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ minor students do not have the ability to ᓈᒻᒪᓴᓐᖏᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᑭᐅᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᓐᖏᓚᑦ participate or appeal cases where students are ᑭᐅᒋᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᓐᖏᓚᑦ

109

facing suspension or expulsion? Thank you, ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᐊᕈᑎᑦ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ (interpretation ends) The question is: why is it ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑕᐅᔪᓂ. ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ not in the current school system or why is it ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᒦᓐᖏᓚᕐᓘᓐᓃᑦ? ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ. not in Bill 25? Okay. Minister Joanasie.

Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is something that we ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, can look further into in terms of whether or ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᑯᓇᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ not there are further amendments to the bill. ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕈᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᓄ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒧᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Lightstone. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ.

Mr. Lightstone: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My next question is in relation to recommendation 5 that the commissioner had ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. made regarding early childhood education, ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᓕ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᓕᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᖓᓄᑦ 5 ᒪᑯᓄᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᕗᖔᕈᑎᖓ and the recommendation is that clause 82, ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖓ 82 ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ which states that if a DEA elects not to deliver ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᒪᓐᖏᑉᐸᑕ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ early childhood programs, the Minister may ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᐳ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓯᓚᑖᓃᖔᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑲᒥᓯᓇ do so through agreement with a third party. ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖁᒻᒪᒍ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ The commissioner had recommended ᐱᑕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᓂᕐᒥ. changing this to state that the Department of ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒐᓕ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᑎᒋᓕᕐᒪ Education must deliver early childhood ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑯᓘᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᑎᓯᒪᔪᖅ education. My question for the Minister is ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒥ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. how much of an implication that single word change would have on the department and the Act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman: Thank you. I believe the two ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᐅᖃᐅᓰ words in question are “shall” or “may,” just to ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ be specific. Minister Joanasie. ᑐᑭᓕᐅᓪᓚᑦᑖᕐᓗᒍ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ.

Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Chairman. Again, we would have to look at ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᑎᒋᒐᔭᕐᒪᖔᖅ what the implications of what this wording ᑕᑯᓇᒋᐊᖃᕋᔭᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᓯ change would entail either way. Thank you, ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᓇᓕᐊᓐᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Maybe I’ll give the ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑖᓐᓇᖃᐃ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨ representative a chance to further elaborate on ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑯᒃᑯ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᑲᓂᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ

110

your recommendation 5, which Mr. ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᖓᓄᑦ 5 ᒥᔅᑕ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ Lightstone was just asking about. You make ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᕐᕕᒋᕋᑖᖅᑕᖓ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓪᓚᑦᑖᕆᕕᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ specific reference to those different wordings ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑑᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓰᒃ. ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᑖᓐᓇ and you go on to say that this is of concern. ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑕᐅᓂᕋᖅᑐᒍ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ The fact that it says “may” instead of “shall” ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᓚᓐᖏᖔᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᒋᒐᕕᐅᒡᒎᖅ is of concern to your office. Maybe elaborate ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᓐᓂ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ why you’re concerned about this one specific ᐃᓱᒫᓗᑎᒋᒻᒪᖔᖅᐱᐅᒃ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥ word within the bill. Ms. Bates. ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The proposed amendments in Bill 25 do not ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᕝᕙᓂ appear to clarify that in cases where the DEAs ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᒥ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐ elect not to provide ECE programs, and then ᑐᑭᓕᐅᕆᖅᑰᔨᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ the Department of Education must do so. By ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᓐᖏᑉᐸᑕ changing that word, it makes it into that ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑑᓚᓯᒪᑉᐸᑦ. “shall” compels them to. Part of our ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕐᓂᖓ recommendation is access to early childhood ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᓕᒪᒃᓴᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᓂ ᓱᕈᓯᓕᒫᓄᑦ education programming for all children across ᓄᓇᕗᓕᒫᒥ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. the territory. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ. Qamaniq.

Mr. Qamaniq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᖃᒪᓂᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. (interpretation) Welcome. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒋᑦ.

(interpretation ends) With respect to inclusive (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ ᑭᒃᑯᓕᒫᓄᑦ education as provided within Part 6 of the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᑎᓗᓂ ᐃᓚᖓ Education Act and amended under subpart 4 6 ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ of Bill 25, you note that the bill does not ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓚᒃᑲᓐᓂᖓ 4 ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25−ᒥ include an amendment to propose a definition ᐅᖃᕋᕕᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᒻᒥᒻᒪᒡᒎᖅ of “student supports.” Can you describe what ᐊᓯᔾᔩᒍᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᒥᓂᖓᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ you would envision as a definition of “student ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᐱ ᖃᓄᕐᓕ supports” within the context of inclusive ᑕᑯᓐᓇᓐᖑᐊᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᖅᐱᐅᒃ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ education within Nunavut’s education ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒪ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ system? (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. ᑭᒃᑯᓕᒫᓂᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ Chairman. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖓᑕ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Bates. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question. I think a definition of ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. “student supports” would be a list of supports ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ available, such as school assessments, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ individual student supports, occupational ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᑕᐃᒪᓕ

111

therapy, a list that would define what supports ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᓇᓕᐊ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᓂᕐᒥ were available to students. I think it would ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒪᖔᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᑎᒍ clarify and it also commits in law what ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᒐᔭᖅᑐᓂ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᐃᓃᑦ supports would be offered. Thank you. ᐱᖃᑕᐅᒐᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Qamaniq. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ.

Mr. Qamaniq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the bottom of page 4 of your submission you ᖃᒪᓂᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪ seem to indicate that the newly proposed ᒪᒃᐱᒐᖅ 4-ᒥ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᓯᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᖅᑰᔨᒐᕕᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ definitions of “education program” and “local ᓄᑖᑦ ᑐᑭᓕᐊᖑᕙᑦᑐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓄᑦ community program” under clause 23 of Bill ᐱᓕᕆᐊᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᓗᓂ 25 do not clearly explain which matters fall ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖓ 23-ᒥ ᑕᕙᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᒥ. under each program. Can you clarify whether ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥ ᓇᓕᐊᓐᓃᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᓂ. it is the content of each program which you ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒋᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᐱᐅᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᓐᓂ feel needs further clarification or whether the ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᒻᒪᖔᖅᐱᒋᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ legislation needs to be amended to provide ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒋᕕᐅᒃ greater clarity with respect to which entity is ᑐᑭᓯᓇᒃᑲᓂᖅᑐᒥᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᓕᐊᑦ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᑦ responsible for the delivery of each program? ᑲᒪᒋᔭᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔭᕆᐊᓕᓐᓂᒃ? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. Bates.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ terms that are used in the Education Act and ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥ 25-ᒥ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᓗ Bill 25 include “education program,” “local ᐱᐅᓯᕚᓪᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ community program,” “local program ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ. ᐃᓚᖏᑦ enhancement,” “school improvement plan,” ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᕈᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ and “education program plan.” Some of these ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᐅᑉ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ are defined in the definition section of either ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᖔᕐᒪᑕᓕ the Education Act or Bill 25, but for others, ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᐅᑉ the relevant information is in the body of the legislation or the bill.

Without the user’s guide to Bill 25, it’s very difficult to understand how these programs ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑉᐸᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ are related. Plans relate to or differentiate ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᒻᒪᖔᑎ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᓐᓂᖏᓪᓗ from each other. Perhaps defining all the ᑐᑭᓯᓇᕋᓂ. ᑕᕝᕙᖃᐃ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᕆᓂᖓᓂ terms in the definition section would help that ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒐᔭᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᔪᕆᖅᓱᐃᔾᔪᓯᒪᔪᒥ or having an accompanying guide would be ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒧᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᕐᒪᑦ useful to the bill or the Act to assist parents. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ Basically our submission is we encourage the ᑲᔪᖏᖅᓴᖅᐸᕗᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ department to simplify the information or ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒦᓪᓗᓂ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. make it accessible in one location. Thank you.

112

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ. Qamaniq.

Mr. Qamaniq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is my last question. On page 2 of your submission you discuss your recommendation ᖃᒪᓂᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. that the Standing Committee “consider any ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒐ. ᒪᒃᐱᒐᖅ 2-ᒥ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᓯ submissions provided by young ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕋᕕᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊᒎᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᔅᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ Nunavummiut” despite the Committee ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᓂ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ directly contacting schools in every Nunavut ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕕᓕᒫᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᖃᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ community to encourage the input of students ᒪᓕᒐᒃᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐊᑕᐅᓯᑐᐊᖅ to the Bill 25 review process. Only one ᑐᓂᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒦᓐᖓᖅᑰᔨᔪᖅ ᐱᔭᐅᓗᓂ submission purporting to be from a student ᓯᕗᒧᐊᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᓗᓂ. ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᐱᐅᓛᒃᑯᑦ was received. Going forward, what activities ᐅᖃᕆᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᐱᑦ ᐊᔭᐅᕆᔾᔪᑕᐅᒐᔭᖅᐸ are the best practices do you suggest would ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ promote greater participation by students, ᒪᒃᑯᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ? children, and youth in Nunavut’s legislative ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. process? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Bates. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question. The best way to get ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. input from students, to get input from youth is ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᒻᒧᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂ you have to go to where they are. If you put ᑐᓴᕈᒪᒍᕕᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᑦᑐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᐸᒍᑎᖔᕆᐊᖃᕋᕕᑦ out a call for submission, if you put out a call ᐊᔪᕐᓇᕈᔪᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑐᓐᖓᓱᑦᑎᑦᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᕕᑦ for input, they are not usually going to ᐅᖃᐅᓯᔅᓴᖃᕈᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ. ᑕᐃᒪ ᑭᐅᔾᔮᓐᖏ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ respond. You have to go them. You can use ᐅᐸᒍᑎᑦᑎᐊᒻᒪᕆᒃᑯᕕᑦ ᖃᕋᓴᐅᔭᖅᑎᒍᓪᓘᓐᓃ social media, as I said before, using surveys, ᒪᑯᓄᖓᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᓂ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᒻᒪᕆᓪᓗᒋᑦ. and really direct conversations. A lot of the ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᐸᒍᑎᑦᑎᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑐᑎ ᑐᓴᕐᕕᒋᐊᖃᓱ input that we receive is through direct contact ᓂᕆᐅᒋᑐᐃᓐᓇᓐᖏᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᐸᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖓ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. with students, going to them as opposed to expecting them to come to you. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ. Qamaniq.

Mr. Qamaniq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the Minister: what efforts ᖃᒪᓂᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ did you take to encourage the input of ᐊᐱᕆᔪᒪᒐᒃᑯ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕋᓱᓐᓂᖅᐱᓪᓕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ students to the Bill 25 review process? Thank ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒦᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᓴᕐᕕᒋᓇᓱᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 you, Mr. Chairman. ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒍ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) There were consultations ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ

113

that went into creating Bill 25. Minister ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᐱᒋᐊᖅᐸᓕᐊᓂᖓ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ. Joanasie.

Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Chairman. We did solicit feedback from ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐳᑖᖅ. ᑐᓴᕐᕕᒋᓇᓱᓚᐅᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ student groups, namely, in Baker Lake, ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᖃᒪᓂᑦᑐᐊᖅ, ᐊᕐᕕᐊᑦ, ᖁᕐᓗᖅᑐᒥᓪᓗ. Arviat, and Kugluktuk and we did a focus ᖃᐅᔨᓇᓱᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥ group with Nunavut Sivuniksavut students. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖄᒃᑲᓐᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔪᖓ On top of that, I remember also sitting here in ᐅᕙᓂ ᐃᒃᓯᕚᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᒃᑯᑦᑐᑦ front of the Youth Parliament when they ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᖑᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ talked about education in Nunavut, not ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25- specifically per se on Bill 25 but it touched on ᒨᖓᓪᓚᑦᑖᓐᖏᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᐅᔪᖅ a lot of the discussions that we are discussing ᒫᓐᓇ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᐊᔾᔨᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ. here today and the past few days. Thank you, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐳᑖᖅ. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. I don’t have any more names on my list. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑕᐃᒪ (interpretation ends) I just wanted to ask a ᐊᑎᓕᐅᖅᕼᐃᒪᔪᖃᕈᓐᓃᖅᖢᖓᓗ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) question or two on your sixth ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᕐᓂᐊᕋᒪ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥ ᒪᕐᕉᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ recommendation in your submission, which ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᖅ 6 ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᖅᓯᓐᓂ ᒪᒃᑯᑦᑐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕆᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔪᕕᓂᖅ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ speaks specifically to “recruitment of young ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖓᓄ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᑎᒍᑦ. Inuit into the teaching profession under the ᑖᓐᓇ ᓇᐃᑦᑐᒻᒪᕆᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᕗᖔᕈᑎ Inuit Employment Plan.” It is a very short ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓯᒪᓪᓗᒋ ᒪᑐᐃᕈᑎᓐᓂ recommendation that you have here and you ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔪᓐᓇᕈᑦᑎᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᓪᓗᑎ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ do mention it in your opening comments as ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓚᐅᖅᐱᐅᓯᒃ? ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. well, but if you can just give us your thinking behind including this in your submission. Ms. Bates.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Including it in our submission is really, again, having young Inuit teachers who can instruct ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᕝᕙᓂ in language, quite frankly, to ensure that all ᑎᑎᕋᓚᐅᖅᑕᑎᓐᓂ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᒃᑯᑦᑐᑦ children have the right to practise their ᐃᓄᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᖃᕐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑎᓪᓗᒋ language and culture. In terms of any ideas in ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓱᕈᓯᓕᒫᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᓂ terms of recruitment of teachers, I would ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᕐᒥᓂᓪᓗ. ᒪᑐᒧᖓᓕ suggest that ensuring students are aware of the ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᓪᓕ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓄᑦ pathways that exist on how to become a ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕋᔭᖅᑐᖓᓕ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ teacher, showing students what the benefits of ᖃᓄᖅ ᓇᐅᒃᑰᕐᓗᑎ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓐᖑᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ becoming a teacher in Nunavut are, and again, ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓐᖑᕐᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ seeking input from students potentially at the ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᓴᕐᕕᒋᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᓴᕐᕕᒋᐊᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ college or in a teaching program; why did ᓯᓚᑦᑐᖅᓴᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓐᖑᕋᓱᓚᐅᖅᐱᓯ they go into teaching, what inspired them to ᑭᓱᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓐᖑᕈᒪᔾᔪᑎᖃᓚᐅᖅᐱᓯ? ᑖᓐᓇ do so. We feel it is a very important aspect of ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓱᕆᒐᒃᑯ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᑐᓕᕆᔾᔪᓯ maintaining our education system and

114

preserving the culture and language. Thank ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖅᐳᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᐳᓪᓗ. you. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Minister Joanasie, on ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ that recommendation No. 6 from the ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᔪᒧᑦ 6-ᒧᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᖓ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᒥ representative, it mentions that this is ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ something that’s within Bill 25, the ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ requirement for a strategy for retention and ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᓐᓂ recruitment, but it’s also in the Inuit ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖓᓃᒃᑲᔭᕐᒪᒡᒎᖅ. Employment Plan or it would be. If you could ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕈᕕᐅᒃ ᓇᐅᒃᑯᓪᓕ just clarify where this issue or need would be ᑖᓐᓇ ᐋᖅᑭᒍᑎᖃᕋᔭᖅᐸ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ addressed in your department’s view. Is it ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᖓᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᒥᓕ ᐃᓄᓐᓂ within Bill 25 and then also it would be ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖓᓂᒐᔭᖅᐹ something within the Inuit Employment Plan, ᓇᓕᐊᓐᓃᒃᑲᔭᖅᐸ? ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒋᐊᕈᕕᐅᒃ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕ or is it one or the other? If you could clarify ᔪᐊᓇᓯ. that. Minister Joanasie.

Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Chairman. I believe it would be both. I have ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᑕᒪᕐᒥᓐᓃᒃᑲᔭᖅᑰᖅᑐ. ᓇᒻᒥᓂᕐᓕ made an effort myself personally to try to ᐱᓇᓱᒃᓯᒪᔭᕋ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔭᕇᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓐᓂᓕᓐᓂ 12-ᒥ entice and encourage graduates from our high ᐱᔭᕇᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓐᖑᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖏᓐᓇᓱᖁᓗᒋᑦ schools in grade 12 to pursue the teaching ᓇᓖᕌᒐᒃᓴᐅᓗᓂ. career as an option.

In addition to that, I have written to the NTEP ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖄᒃᑲᓐᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ graduates to encourage them to apply for ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᐃᔪᓄᑦ ᓯᓚᑦᑐᖅᓴᕐᕕᒻᒥ positions in our schools. We try to employ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖅᑖᕋᓱᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖁᑎᑦᑎᓐᓂ. different ways to have a clear pathway for ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂ ᐊᑐᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᕋᑦᑕ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᐅᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥ Nunavummiut particularly to get them on ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᓄᑦ ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ. ᑕᐃᒪ their way into the classroom teaching in their ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓐᖑᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓇᓱᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᓂ language with their credentials. ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ.

We want to continue to strive for a quality education program and this is where I think ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᒌᓐᓇᕈᒪᔭᒃᑲ ᐱᐅᔪᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥ yes, we have a very young population and I ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓗᒍ. ᐄ, ᒪᒃᑯᑐᒻᒪᕆᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ think it’s to our benefit that we can target the ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒋᖅᑯᒻᒪᑦ ᑐᕌᕈᓐᓇᕋᑦᑎᒍᓕᓛᒃ youth while they’re young and plant the seed ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᖓ ᑕᐃᒪᖃᐃ at the earliest stage possible and get them on ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᑐᐊᕈᑎ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓯᑎᒋᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, their way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) My last line of questioning is just around recommendation ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎ No. 9, which is the orientation and mentoring ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᕗᖔᕈᑦ 9-ᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂ for teachers. The representative office’s ᐊᔪᕆᖅᓱᐃᔾᔨᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓂᒃ. ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᖓ

115

position is that this orientation and mentoring ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖓᓪᓕ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒥ should be offered within the first year. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᔪᕆᖅᓱᐃᔾᔭᐅᓂᕐᓗ Minister, I wonder why you have a two-year ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓐᓂᒃ timeline proposed for this orientation and ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᒪᓯᒪᕕᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒥ mentoring as opposed to one year, which the ᐊᔪᕆᖅᓱᐃᔾᔨᕙᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒥ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥ ᑖᓐᓇ representative’s office supports. Minister ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᐅᑉ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᖓᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᖅᑕᖓᓂ? Joanasie. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ.

Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify, it’s under the ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, current Act that there’s a two-year window for ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᑎᓐᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓐᓄᒃ this to occur. This is maybe another ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓄᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ something that we can look further into ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓇᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᓂᐊᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ whether there are resources to allow for that. ᐅᑯᑎᒎᓇᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Just further, just so the Committee can better understand that piece, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐃᓚᒃᑲ who delivers this orientation and mentoring ᑐᑭᓯᒃᑲᓂᕐᓂᐊᕋᑦᑕ, ᑭᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᐸ for a teacher? Being specific, if we have a ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᓂ ᒪᐅᓐᖓᖅᑐᖃᓵᖅᐸᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᑖᓵᕐᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᒻᒪᖄᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓯᓚᑖᓃᖔᖅᑐᖅ? new teacher, maybe they’re from Nunavut or ᐊᕐᕌᒎ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᕐᓂ ᑭᓇᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ maybe they’re from outside of Nunavut, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ within that first two years, who gives them the ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᐸᓪᓗ? ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ. orientation and mentoring program or support? Minister Joanasie.

Hon. David Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have an educator development ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᔪᐊᓇᓯ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, division that’s largely tasked with orienting ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ new teachers, but in addition to that, we want ᐱᔭᒃᓴᖅᑖᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᑖᓵᓂᑦ to help or want to get assistance through the ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᒥᔭᕗᑦ DEAs at the local level to allow teachers to ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ have an environment when they first step into ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ. ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ ᑎᑭᓵᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ the community, the DEAs are right there at ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᓕᓵᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ. the local level to assist with facilitating that ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ transition into the community. I think this is ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᕗᑦ. something that we can work on through more planning and having resources in place.

There was mention about the teacher induction program by the teachers association representative. That website is still up and is ᐅᖃᖅᑐᖃᖅᑲᐅᒥᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔩᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ perhaps maybe a little dated, so this is an area ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᒋᔭᐅᖃᐅᔭᖓ ᐃᑭᐊᖅᑭᕕᑦᑎᒍᑦᑕᐅᖅ that we’re trying to revamp and spend some ᐱᑕᓕᒃ. ᐃᒻᒪᖃ ᓄᑕᐅᓐᖏᑦᑑᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ effort on as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᓄᑖᓐᖑᕆᐊᖅᑎᓐᓇᓱᑦᑕᕗᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

116

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂ. ᒥᔅ (interpretation ends) Thank you for clarifying ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ ᖃᖓᑕᕆᐊᖅᑐᓕᕌᖅᑎᐊᖅᖢᑎᑦ ᑕᕝᕙ that. Ms. Towtongie, you’re just about to go ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᔅᓴᖃᕋᕖᑦ? ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ. and catch a plane, but you have time for questions. Ms. Towtongie.

Ms. Towtongie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me. I’m just very concerned as an Inuk parent. When I was talking about ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ the prevailing authority that exists in the Inuit ᐃᓕᓴᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᕕᖓ. ᐃᓅᓪᓗᖓ ᕿᑐᕐᖓᖃᖅᖢᖓᓗ mind, a lot of us view our children as being ᐃᓱᒫᓗᑎᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅᑖᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ dependent upon us throughout our lifetime. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖓᓄᑦ ᐅᓄᖅᑐᑎᒍᑦ ᕿᑐᕐᖓᕗᓂᒃᑯᐊ We don’t necessarily look at age 19 or a ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓕᒫᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂ mature minor is a person under the age of 19 ᓴᒃᑯᕙᓐᖏᓇᑦᑎᒃᑯᑦ 19-ᖑᓕᖅᑐᖑᓇ that has the maturity and understanding to ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓐᖏᓐᓇᑦᑕ 19-ᕈᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ make decisions on their behalf. ᑐᑭᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ.

When I speak about the prevailing authority of the Inuit as a parent, it’s throughout our lifetime. We see our children as being ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᓂᖅᑖᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ dependent upon us. We don’t see them as ᕿᑐᕐᖓᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐸᖅᑭᖃᑦᑕᕋᑦᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᖅᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ. economic units. When they are able to make ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᓵᖓᐃᓐᓇᐅᔭᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕐᓂᐊᕈᑎ money, they are on their own. They are ᐃᓐᓇ ᐃᓄᕈᖅᓴᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᕗ ᒪᓐᓇ dependent upon us for decisions. They are ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ dependent upon us for maturity. ᐊᐳᖅᑎᕐᒪᑕ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᓗ ᐃᓗᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ Understanding the thought process is different ᓂᓐᖓᓇᕐᒥ ᐱᑕᖃᓕᓲᖅ ᐱᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥᓪᓗ. and the institutions clash, they really do, and ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᖃᑎᒌᓐᖏᓂᖅᐳᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᖏᑦ it creates ambivalences within us, anger, and ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ. sometimes violence because of the lack of understanding of the differences of worldview.

When I see recommendation No. 8, I’m concerned where the Inuit parental authority ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 8 ᑕᑯᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᑎᒋᔭᕋᐅᓇ ᐃᓅᓪᓗᑕ exists or when the grandparents’, ᕿᑐᕐᖓᖃᖅᖢᑕ ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᒃᑯᖏᓪᓗ grandfathers’ authority exists because if we ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᒃᑯᖏᓪᓗ ᓇᐅᒃᑯᓪᓕ ᑕᐃᒪ say in Inuit the IQ is the overarching of the ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖃᕐᕕᖃᖅᐸᑦ? ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖓᑦ preamble of Bill 25, it’s based upon our ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓐᓂᖅᐹᖑᓪᓗᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᒥᓗ elders, it’s based on the traditional knowledge ᐃᓕᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖃᕋᒥ holders. If you’re recommending that in the ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐃᓗᓕᖃᐅᖅᖢᑎᒃ. Mental Health Act, mature minors are able to ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐅᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊ consent for themselves when decisions about ᐃᒻᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᑦᑐᑦ their health care need to be made without the ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᕐᓇᓐᖏᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐱᓪᓗᒍ help of a parent or guardian, that’s a clash ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᖏᓪᓗᑎ ᐸᖅᑭᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓄᓪᓗ. between the Inuit culture and the western ᑕᐃᒪ ᐊᐳᖅᐳᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓪᓗᓛᑦ society, total clash. I believe that if this ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖓ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᐳᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᐊᓗᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᖃᕆᓪᓗᖓ ᑖᓐᓇ

117

legislation is going to be specific for Nunavut, ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒧᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᓂᐊᕈᓂ there should be recognition of the prevailing ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᓯᒪᖃᓯᐅᑎᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ authority that exists in the Inuit mind. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᕋᓴᕐᒥᐅᑕᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ.

I wanted to make a comment on that. I realize we’re dealing with the Education Act, but I ᑖᓐᓇ ᓂᓪᓕᕐᕕᒋᔪᒪᖅᑲᐅᔭᕋ. ᐄ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ want to say further, when we’re dealing with ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᓕᕆᔪᒍᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ the Education Act, we’re only dealing with ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᓕᕆᒐᑦᑕ classroom education in these walls. That’s ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᒡᓘ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ why I am concerned. Education to the Inuit is ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕋᑦᑕ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᑎᒋᕙᕋ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᒃ the total universe, the total cosmology. That’s ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᖅ another type of education and it’s under local ᕿᓚᓕᒫᖅ ᐃᓚᐅᓪᓗᒍ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ enhancement programs and local education ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᐊᕈᑦᑕ ᐃᒡᓘ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ programs, but in dealing with classroom ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᑭᙴᒪᔭᖏᑦ education, we have to recognize the existence ᕿᑐᕐᖓᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑦᑐᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ of the cultural needs of the parents and the ᓂᓪᓕᐅᑎᒋᔪᒪᖅᑲᐅᔭᕋ ᐊᐅᓪᓚᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᓕᕋᒪ. elders, mainly the grandparents. I wanted to ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. make a comment on that because I’m leaving on a flight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᔅ (interpretation ends) Thank you, Ms. ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ. ᐄ, ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᑕᕝᕙ ᐱᐅᔾᔪᑎᒋᔮᓗᐊ Towtongie. I believe one of the great things ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᐊᓗᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᖃᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᑦᑕ ᓲᕐᓗ about this Committee is that we have so many ᐃᓕᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᖢᑎᒡᓗ. different viewpoints and people like you who have a lot of experience.

Ms. Bates, in terms of Ms. Towtongie’s comments or statement, when we look at your ᒥᔅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏᐅᑉ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᓇ eighth recommendation regarding Bill 25, ᐅᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐊᑎᑦ 8-ᖑᔪᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25-ᓕᕆᔪᑦ. when you were preparing your submission on ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑎᑎᕋᓕᖅᖢᓯᐅᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25−ᒧᑦ Bill 25 and this concept of mature minors, did ᓂᓪᓕᐅᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑭᐅᑭᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒻᒥᒃᓯᒪᔪᑦ. you consider issues where this concept may ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᐹᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ clash with Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit or values ᐊᐳᕐᓂᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂ within Nunavut? Was that something that was ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ? ᑕᒪᓐᓇ considered or is there a way to make these ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᓚᖅᐸ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ... two things work together? I hope that’s a clear ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᐊᐳᑦᑕᖅᑑᒃ question and if it’s not clear, just let me know. ᐃᖏᕐᕋᖃᑎᒌᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. Ms. Bates.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had a great deal of discussion about this and the idea of mature minors and how that may be perceived as clashing with Inuit societal ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐄ, values. I believe that there are many ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᕈᓘᔭᓚᐅᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑭᐅᑭᑦᑐᑦ overlapping concepts between the United ᐃᓱᒃᓯᒪᔪᑦ. ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔨᑕᖃᖅᖢᑕ.

118

Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᑭᐅᑭᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖏᑦ. and Inuit societal values. This belief is formed by a lot of the work that has been done by our office with our elder advisors and we do speak with our elder advisors about this.

Again, what I would stress about the mature minors concept is that again, in some cases minors don’t have a parent who is available for that guidance for that decision-making and ᐃᓚᖓᒍᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᑭᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᒃ it’s done on a case-by-case basis and it’s to ᐃᓐᓇᖃᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᓐᖏᑦᑐᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ. prevent the barrier, some sort of person in ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓱᖓᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᓯᐅᖅᑎᖃᓐᖏᑉᐸᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᑭᑦᑐᖅ their life, absolutely, some person who can’t ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᐊᐳᖅᑕᐅᑦ ᐲᕈᒪᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᔭᕗᑦ provide that guidance or that direction. It’s to ᐃᒻᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᑎᓕᐅᕆᐊᖅᑐᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒧᑦ. remove the barrier to, let’s say, registering yourself in school or to gain services to mental health.

I hope that answers the question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᑭᐅᕗᖓᖃᐃ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ (interpretation ends) Thank you for ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᕐᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᑐᒥᖓ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓄᑦ commenting on that. It’s something for the ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒃᓴᖅ ᑕᒪᑯᒥᖓ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂ Committee to consider as we continue our ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥᒃ. work on this bill.

Right now we have no further questions for ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᖃᖅᑐᖃᕈᓐᓃᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᓐᓂᒃ you and for reasons that I won’t go into, I will ᐅᖃᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᓗᖓ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᓂᐊᖅᐸᒋᑦ 2 ᒥᓇᒥᒃ limit you to a two-minute closing statement. ᒪᑐᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᒥᒃ. ᒥᔅ ᐸᐃᑦᔅ. Ms. Bates.

Ms. Bates: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to take the opportunity to thank the ᐸᐃᑦᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Standing Committee for providing us the ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᕈᒪᔪᖓ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓂᒃ opportunity to appear today. I want to thank ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᖑᐊᑕᖅᓯᓐᓇᕋᑦᑕ my colleagues, Lynn Matte and Katie ᓵᑦᑎᓐᓃᒍᓐᓇᖅᑲᐅᒐᑦᑕᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑯᐊ ᒫᓃᑦᑐᑦ Didham, for appearing with me. I appreciate ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᐸᔅᓯ ᑐᓐᖓᓱᑦᑎᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᑲᐅᒐᒪ. the warm welcome that everyone has provided to me.

We look forward to working with departments in the future to ensure that services provided ᓂᕆᐅᑉᐳᒍᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖃᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ to young people and their families are the best ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑏᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ that they can be. I believe that this is an ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᖑᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐆᑦᑑᑎᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᕗᖅ. example of how we can do that. I appreciate ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᖢᑎᒃ

119

the opportunity and thank you. ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓐᖑᐊᑕᖅᓯᓐᓇᕋᕕᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, (interpretation ends) Thank you for your ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᒥᒃ. ᖁᔭᓇᒦᓪᓗ ᑕᒫᓃᒃᑲᕕᑦ written submission. Thank you for being here ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᑎᓪᓗ. ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ today along with your staff. The Committee ᖁᔭᓕᑦᑎᐊᖅᐳᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖅᑲᐅᔭᕐᓂ. does appreciate your input.

(interpretation) Our hearing will adjourn for (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᑕᐃᒪ ᑲᑎᒪᓐᓂᕆᔭᕗᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ now. We will resume tomorrow morning at ᓄᖅᑲᖓᓚᐅᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐅᑉᓛᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᓂᐊᖅᑐᒎᒐᓗᐊᖅ nine o’clock. The Minister will be in the hot 9:00−ᔪᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ. ᐅᓇ ᒥᓂᔅᑐᒋᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ seat in the morning, (interpretation ends) the ᐆᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖃᕈᒫᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᑉᓛᒃᑯᑦ, hot seat (interpretation) in English, but we ᐆᓇᖅᓯᑎᖅᓯᒫᓂᒃᑐᒥᒃ, ᖃᑉᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ hot seat. will have an opportunity to ask questions ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐱᕕᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᖢᑕᓗ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦᓴᓂᒃ regarding Bill 25 in the morning. Thank you, ᓴᖅᑮᑕᖅᑑᓗᐊᕐᓂᐊᕋᑦᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 25 ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ Members. Thank you, staff. Have a good ᐅᑉᓛᒃᑯᑦ. ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ ᒪ’ᓇ, ᐱᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᒪ’ᓇ. evening. We will see you tomorrow. ᐅᓐᓄᖃᑦᓯᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᐳᓯ, ᐊᖃᒍᑦᑕᐅᖅ.

>>Committee adjourned at 16:43 >>ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑐᑦ 16:43ᒥ

120