1

Inuit Language Loss in Nunavut: Analysis, Forecast, and Recommendations
By Ian Martin, Glendon College, York University
March 7, 2017

“That’s the whole reason why the land claims took place, because we were losing our
language…I think that’s part of the whole land claims process. Once you have the language
the culture is strong.”
--Paul Quassa (2003) current Minister of Education, Nunavut.1
“Language and culture is very important to us. That is the reason that Nunavut was created.
Sometimes we forget why Nunavut was created.”
--Eva Aariak (2008) former Premier, Nunavut.2
“The statistics clearly show Inuit language use and transmission is on a continuing decline.
Most troubling is Inuit language use in the home dropped by 12% between 1996 and 2006.
--Sandra Inutiq (2016) former Nunavut Languages Commissioner.3

Introduction
Fear of loss of Inuit Language was a central factor in Inuit leaders’ decision to negotiate a
land claim with the Canadian government. As statistical trends cited below show, the
leaders were right to be concerned: since 1991, the amount of Inuktut4 spoken in Nunavut
homes has experienced a serious decline. This summary report is intended to review some
of the history and key data, and assess prospects for the Inuit language in Nunavut.

Assessment of Inuit Language Loss

In A. M. Timpson, “Reconciling Indigenous and Settler Language Interests: Language Policy Initiatives in
Nunavut,” Journal of Canadian Studies 43, no. 2 (2010): 161.
2 Jim Bell, “In Iqaluit, It’s Seven against One on Oct. 27,” Nunatsiaq News (Iqaluit, NU), October 24, 2008,
3 Sandra Inutiq, Nunavut Languages Commissioner, Address to the United Nations International Expert Group.
New York, January 2016.
4 Inuktut is the term now used to encompass both Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun; in this paper Inuktitut may be
referenced in older texts and to describe the Inuktut of the Eastern Arctic—Kivalliq and Baffin today.
1

1

 2

From 1996 to 2011, the number of Inuktut mother tongue speakers in Nunavut dropped
from 88% to 80% . Over the same period, the use of Inuktut in Inuit homes in Nunavut
dropped from 76% in 1996 to a mere 61% in 2011.5
At the same time, English spoken mostly in the home has increased from 28.5% in 1991 to
46% in 2011. This steady increase in the percentage of Nunavummiut homes in which
English is the most used – means that the percentage today is probably over 50%.
If the home language loss rate of Inuktut is 12% per decade, then, by 2051, a mere 34 years
from now, the Inuit Language will be spoken at home by only 4% of Inuit in Nunavut.
The estimate of 4% of Inuit continuing to use Inuktut by 2051 may be too generous,
however.
Due to “recursion”, a negative feedback loop tends to accompany language loss. That is, the
wheel of language loss accelerates as the number of speakers declines and the arenas of
Inuit language use inside and outside the home dwindle. For example, as the Inuit language
becomes less used in government, schools, and most types of employment, the incentive to
sustain Inuktut is eroded. The latest Official Languages Annual Report 2015-16, reports that
only 11 of 27 primary schools were able to offer adequate Inuktut instruction to Grade 3,
and only one school used Inuktut as a language of instruction at Grade 56.
Parallels can be drawn from the French community in Nunavut, who filed a lawsuit in 2015
against the territorial government for insufficient support for a French language school
environment. In an interview, Lawyer Doug Garson said that only 40 per cent of the Iqaluit
Trois-Soleils Grade 10 to Grade 12 program are offered in French: “If you, as a high school
student, want to enjoy a French-language education, you have to be in a totally French
environment, where French is spoken in the hallways.”7 By way of comparison, zero per
cent of the Nunavut high school curriculum is offered in Inuktut; the percent of Inuktut
spoken in hallways has not been measured, but there is not a single school in Nunavut
which would qualify as a “totally Inuktut environment.”

Inuit Language Decline: The United Nations Assessment
The analysis presented here corresponds, in large measure, with that of UNESCO which
regularly surveys the world’s ‘smaller’ languages and assesses their relative potential for
survival (“vitality”), to help language communities understand their situation and take
appropriate measures if they wish to maintain their language for future generations.

2011 National Household Survey "Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Focus on Inuit in Nunavut" (Released by
Statistics Canada - May 8, 2013); and 2011 Census of Population "Mother Tongue and Language Spoken Most
Often at Home" (Released by Statistics Canada - October 24, 2012).
6 Office of the Nunavut Languages Commissioner, 2015-16 Annual Report (2017), pg 182.
7 Lawsuit demands more resources for Nunavut’s only French-language school- “Why is it unreasonable to
seek and to advance our constitutional rights?” Sarah Rogers, Nunatsiaq News. February 20, 2015.
5

2

 3

UNESCO evaluates languages according to six levels of vitality:
SAFE -

the language is used by all generations, including children,
in all spheres of community life;
VULNERABLE/UNSAFE –
the language is used by some (not all) children, and older
generations, but not in all spheres of community life;
DEFINITELY ENDANGERED – the language is no longer being used at home by all children;
parents are preferring to use another language;
SEVERELY ENDANGERED – the grandparents’ generation are the youngest users;
CRITICALLY ENDANGERED – the great-grandparents’ generation are the youngest users;
EXTINCT there are no speakers left.
In 2015, UNESCO rated Inuktitut (in Baffin and Kivalliq regions) as ‘vulnerable/unsafe’,
with Inuinnaqtun (in Kitikmeot region) as ‘definitely endangered’8. This means that there
are signs of language loss, although it is true that second-language speakers of Inuktut,
uncounted in the UNESCO levels, may carry the language forward in some respects.
The limited use of Inuktut in government, the absence of the Inuit Language in schools
beyond the earliest grades, the rise in the number of Inuit for whom Inuktut is not a mother
tongue, and the trend to more Inuit homes using English, are among the signs that Inuktitut
in Baffin and Kivalliq may be on the road toward Definite Endangerment. This direction is
diametrically opposite from the direction intended by the Inuit leadership whose intention
in carrying out ‘the Nunavut project’ was to make Inuktut secure.

The Road Not Taken: Inuit Language of Government
Prior to the creation of Nunavut, Inuit organizations and the federal Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) predicted and planned for a territorial
government with public services delivered in the Inuit language. In numerous speeches and
negotiations, Inuit leaders expressed concern about the loss of Inuktut in particular due to
the southern-style education system, with its majority staff of monolingual English-

8

UNESCO Interactive Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger (www.unesco.org/languages-atlas) 2015.

3

 4

speakers. The Nunavut Land Claim Agreement (1993) identified the Inuit language as a key
factor to be considered by government in its hiring (Article 23).
In Volume 2 of my Aajiiqatigiingniq 2000 report9, called "Sources and Issues", I reviewed
Ron Mackay’s report, The Cost of Implementing Inuktitut as an Official Language in Nunavut
(1984). Mackay’s work was commissioned by DIAND in response to the Nunavut
Constitutional Forum’s 1983 Building Nunavut report which asserted that “Inuktitut must
be fully protected and enhanced by the Nunavut constitution. Perhaps there is no more
fundamental goal of a Nunavut government, nor one more essential to guarantee the
survival and unique contribution of Inuit in Canada”10.
The Cost of Implementing Inuktitut was one of two research initiatives commissioned by
DIAND to prepare for Nunavut. The second was research to prepare a transition plan to
divide the NWT, which culminated in a large report for DIAND by Coopers and Lybrand in
199211.
The Cost of Implementing Inuktitut as an Official Language in Nunavut gives detailed
estimates of the staffing and cost implications of creating a government that could function
and deliver public services across all departments in the language of the public: Inuktitut.
Mackay estimated the staffing increase required to achieve this objective to be
approximately 110 PYs across the entire government. He estimated start-up costs across all
government departments to total $21.5 million in 1984 dollars ($45.4million in 2016), and
the ongoing annual operating and maintenance costs to be $8.4 million ($17.7million in
2016 dollars).
In 1993, 199712, 199813, and 1999, NTI’s leadership informed government that Inuktitut as
the language of government had always been a key objective in creating Nunavut and thus
should be included as an incremental cost of establishing the new territory or as part of its
formula-financing. This was in keeping with the 1996 guidelines established by the
federally appointed group overseeing set-up of the new territory, the Nunavut
Implementation Commission: “In gauging levels of govt programs and services, formula
financing arrangements should take full account of any existing deficiencies in the supply of
such programs and services…based on factors outside the control of the Nunavut

Aajiiqatigiingniq, A Report on Language of Instruction Volume 2: "Sources and Issues", (2000) Ian Martin.
Published by the Nunavut Department of Education.
10 Nunavut Constitutional Forum, Building Nunavut: A working document with a proposal for an Arctic
Constitution, (Nunavut Constitutional Forum, 1983) p. 18.
11 Coopers and Lybrand Consulting Group (1991) Financial Impact of Division of the Northwest Territories Phase I Report ; and (1992) An Estimate of Costs - Creating and Operating the Government of Nunavut .
12 Natsiq Alainga-Kango, Secretary-treasurer, NTI letter to John Todd, NWT Minister of Finance, and Jack
Anawak, Interim Commissioner (Nov. 6, 1997)
13 “Any future plans for implementation of the Nunavut Government must address the crucial issue of using
Inuktitut as a working language.” Natsiq Alainga-Kango, Secretary-treasurer, NTI letter to Jack Anawak,
Interim Commissioner (Jan. 7, 1998)
9

4

 5

govt…including costs associated with the delivery of govt programs and services in the
Inuit language, as well as Canada’s official languages.”14
In 1998, the senior federal advisor in the Office of the Nunavut Interim Commissioner,
Marie-Antoinette Flumian, commissioned an estimate of the cost of Inuktitut as a language
of government, and the matter was brought forth to be included in briefing binders for the
discussions on the first formula financing for the Nunavut territory led by Finance Minister
Paul Martin. However, behind closed doors, senior officials in the Federal Finance
Department decided to remove Inuit language of government from discussions and
“address these issues at a later date”15. That “later date” never arrived.
The historical record is recounted here in part to lament the road not taken. Had Canada
supported the Inuit language with similar levels of funding as it provides to other provinces
for English and French services, perhaps the survival of Inuktut would not be in question
today. Canada might also have avoided running afoul of Section 36 of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms; which guarantees “essential public services of a reasonable
quality” to all Canadians. In 1998, citing S.36, Nunavut’s Interim Commissioner, Jack
Anawak, warned Finance Minister Paul Martin of “startling disparities”16 between Nunavut
public services and those of other provinces, in part due to the failure of financing
negotiations to address the language issue.
On the matter of education, for example, the Nunavut Constitutional Forum had demanded
“... that Inuktitut be a language of instruction in the Nunavut schools at all levels as soon as
practicable”17. As a result, The Cost of Implementing Inuktitut report focused on federal
funding for Inuit teacher training and for Inuktitut curriculum development. Had Mackay’s
report for DIAND been followed, his 13 year implementation time-line (1985-1998)
anticipated the training of an Inuit teaching cohort of 260 Inuit teachers, ready for the new
Nunavut school system in 2000, for $15 million (in 2000 dollars). Mackay also
recommended that Canada spend $10m to build an Inuit teacher training facility in
Nunavut. The Inuit curriculum development costs for the same period were estimated to be
$8 million (in 2000 dollars). Updating these figures to 2016 yields Inuit teacher training
costs of $21 million, Inuktitut curriculum development costs of $9.3 million, and a teacher
training facility costing $21 million. Adding up to approximately $50 million in current
dollars, Mackay’s was the first, and apparently, the last, detailed calculation of the federal

Recommendation #9-16 (4), Footprints 2 (NIC, 1996)
“Finance Canada Question 10: Are there other items for which the determination of funding levels should
be left open-for finalization at a later date?... GNWT: Yes. A number of items have been identified which we
know will have costs associated with them, but the size of the cost is currently not known. The requirement to
make Inuktitut a working language in Nunavut is one example.” Margaret Melhorn NWT Deputy Minister of
Finance letter to Barbara Anderson, Dept of Finance Canada (Jan. 8, 1998).
16 Interim Commissioner Jack Anawak letter to Paul Martin, Minister of Finance, Canada (April 28, 1998).
17 Nunavut Constitutional Forum, Building Nunavut: A working document with a proposal for an Arctic
Constitution, (Nunavut Constitutional Forum, 1983) p. 18.
14
15

5

 6

transfer necessary to allow the new territory to implement strong Inuktitut bilingualism
throughout its K-12 system.
By not funding the delivery of Nunavut public services in the language of the Nunavut
public, the federal government appears to have saved itself cumulatively over $300 million
(2016 dollars, over 18 years); however the costs to the Inuit language and culture may
prove to be fatal. Speaking before a Senate Committee in 2009, “Witnesses testified that …
government services are provided mainly in English and that this has the effect of making
Inuit Language speakers feel like they are strangers in their own land.”18

Meeting the Article 23 Target – Urgent Need For A Major IEP Commitment
Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement envisioned a majority Inuit public service
functioning in Inuktut, but, as an APTN investigative report recently discovered19 – Article
23 of the Land Claim Agreement is largely being ignored. This is particularly noticeable in
the Education ministry, where a disproportionate number of (monolingual-Englishspeaking) non-Inuit are occupying senior administration positions and teaching positions.
There is scant evidence of interest from the Nunavut Department of Education in a
comprehensive Inuit Employment Plan—one with timelines and targets and conforming to
the NLCA. In 2006, the Department of Education published the Qalattuq 10 Year Educator
Training Strategy 20 – a plan for which no action was ever taken. The Qalattuq Strategy
envisioned training 304 Inuit educators from 2008 to 2012, and was of sufficient scope and
urgency that it deserves revisiting and updating. 21
It is nothing short of scandalous that no detailed IEP was implemented and funded by the
Department at the time of the passage of the 2008 Education Act, since without a funded
Inuit Teacher Development Plan, the objectives set out in the Act amounted to little more
than ‘legislative dead letters’ and existed only on paper. My personal belief is that the
vested interests of non-Inuit teachers and administrators trumped the land claimmandated rights of Inuit. In the years following 2008 there have been no major efforts to
increase the numbers of Inuit teachers; meanwhile the reduction of the use of Inuktut in
the schools and the absence of Inuktut as a language of instruction has reinforced an
English-dominant education system—not a bilingual one. Furthermore, although not all
new Inuit teacher graduates are sufficiently strong in their language to teach in Inuktut, I
am not aware of any non-Inuit teachers currently qualified as Inuktut-bilingual. The only
18

Language Rights in Canada’s North: Nunavut’s New Official Languages Act, Final Report. Standing Senate
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. June 2009. Pg 19.
19 Kathleen Martens, “APTN Investigates: Article 23.” APTN, February 3, 2017; Holly Moore “Article 23: Inuit
teaching students say loss of Inuktitut in the classroom leading to vanishing Inuit culture.” APTN, January 31,
2017
20 Qalattuq 10 Year Educator Training Strategy: 2006-2016. Nunavut Department of Education. July 2006.
21 Qalattuq 10 Year Educator Training Strategy; pgs 4, 66-74.

6

 7

educators teaching in Inuktut are Inuit. So when the Department of Education recruits a
majority of its teachers, principals, and senior staff from outside Nunavut, then it is
entrenching an English language bureaucracy.
What would an IEP for education need to consider?
The starting point for an IEP would have to be a definition of the demand – the numbers of
Inuit teachers needed to reach the 85% Inuit proportion of the teaching workforce as
mandated by Article 23. According to the Department’s current Language of Instruction
(LOI) figures22, the total number of Inuktut-bilingual teachers required is 431. Subtracting
the number of Inuktut-bilingual teachers actually working in classrooms—125, all Inuit—
the result is 306. The Nunavut system, then, has a shortfall of 306 Inuktut-speaking Inuit
teachers.
Currently, the only supplier of Inuit teachers is the Nunavut Teacher Education Program.
NTEP graduates an average of 12 teachers per year; when calculated with a retention rate
of 75%23, that equals 9 Inuit teachers per year that the Dept of Education retains into
employment long term. The majority of these teachers are Inuktut-bilingual; which is a
testament to their individual and family effort, since “Nunavut students could not hope to
maintain mature, academic Inuit language proficiency when bilingual education end[s] in
grade six.” 24
Therefore, at this rate, and if NTEP were to offer intensive Inuktut upgrading, it would take
34 years (9 x 34= 306) for the program to produce the 306 additional Inuit teachers
necessary to deliver Inuktut schooling K-12. By the year 2051.
However, with the bulk of the current 125 Inuktut-speaking teachers reaching retirement
age before 2051, the actual date of reaching this target is more likely to be 2071 than 2051.
Clearly, a “business as usual” approach will not work. Government must swiftly and
properly fund and implement a robust IEP for educators. The Department could draw
inspiration from the Qalattuq Strategy, recalibrated to respond to todays’ needs. Qaluttaq
aimed to add 304 educators over 4 years, therefore there is already a prototype for adding
300 Inuit educators over a short time frame. As for money to fund such efforts, the 2015
Settlement Agreement25 between government and Inuit created a $50 million fund available
for this purpose right now. There is a good argument to be made for the majority of the $50

22

Nunavut Department of Education, Language of Instruction Presentation. July 2016

23 Ibid.

M. Lynn Aylward, “The Role of Inuit Languages in Nunavut Schooling: Nunavut Teachers Talk about
Bilingual Education” Canadian Journal of Education 33, 2 (2010): pg. 315. I have been informed that NTEP has
had to relax its Inuktut requirement in order to recruit Inuit, as incoming Inuit teacher trainees coming out of
Nunavut high schools have lower quality of Inuktut than previous generations. If this is true, it should be
studied, as it is evidence of recursion, the deteriorating cycle of language loss that I mention on pg 2.
25 Moving Forward in Nunavut: an Agreement Relating to Settlement of Litigation (May 4, 2015); Nunavut
Tunngavik Inc., Government of Canada, Government of Nunavut.
http://www.tunngavik.com/files/2015/05/FINAL-SETTLEMENT-AGREEMENT-PROOF.pdf
24

7

 8

million to be assigned to Inuit educator IEP and training as the multiplier effect would be
felt throughout the public service.
Since the current NTEP supply is far below that required, there must be urgent attention
given to different forms of supply. Without rapid increase in funding and training for
Inuktut educators in all the various credential streams26, including NTEP, Inuit will never
achieve their right to education in their Indigenous language. Without adequate use at
school, and without the school interacting with home and community and government (the
principal employer) in the Inuit official language, Inuktut will decline, and be lost. Nunavut
schools are contributing substantially to a vicious and accelerating circle of language loss.
The schools are essentially acting as engines of assimilation into English.
The Context of Inuktut Language Maintence or loss
But even robust Article 23 ‘urgent action’ to increase numbers of Inuit educators, as I have
proposed above, will not on their own be enough to counteract the fast-moving forces of
linguistic assimilation faced by Inuktut speakers in the territory.
The most recent statistical analysis done by the Nunavut Languages Commissioner’s office
was summarized by former Commissioner Sandra Inutiq in 2016:
“The statistics clearly show language use and transmission is on a continuing decline. Most
troubling is language use in the home dropped by 12% between 1996 and 2006. Our efforts
since the creation of the territory have not reversed the huge force of past assimilation
policies that continue to have hold. Nunavut needs to make a much more aggressive effort to
reverse language loss.”27
Indeed, in 201128, nearly 9,000 Inuit (about 33% of Nunavut Inuit) reported English as
their mother tongue and 14,000 (about 50% of Nunavut Inuit) said that English was the
language most often spoken in the home. This data shows that Inuktut language
maintenance is increasingly vulnerable to the pressures from English in homes in the very
territory where it is (still) the majority language.
This decline of Inuktut language use in homes, coupled with the present policy of
diminishing the presence of Inuktut in the schools – makes it all the more urgent that
citizens and policy-makers heed the Language Commissioner’s call for a much more
aggressive effort to expand the use of Inuktut in all public services in Nunavut.
The Education System

Regulations in the 2008 Education Act provide for a variety of credential streams of shorter duration to
bring educator trainees into the schools, where they can be mentored and eventually advanced (“laddered”)
into degree-equivalent responsibilities.
27 Sandra Inutiq, Nunavut Languages Commissioner, Address to the United Nations International Expert Group.
New York, January 2016.
28 2011 Census of Population "Mother Tongue and Language Spoken Most Often at Home" (Released by
Statistics Canada - October 24, 2012).
26

8

 9

The realization of the dream of Nunavut allowed many Inuit to hope that the future of
Inuktut would be secure, and that by using the new instrument of ‘a public government
education system’, the language would be transmitted to younger generations. The
Aajiiqatigiigniq study (2000) found that there was a desire for a strong bilingual education
system in the new territory, with Inuit Language spreading beyond Grade 4. Parents were
aware of the importance of English, but they wanted additive, not subtractive, bilingualism
in Nunavut schools. Parents wanted Inuktut to be the language of instruction from
kindergarten to grade 12, with opportunities along the way to acquire English as a second
language – but not at the cost of failing to fully develop their mother tongue. Parents
imagined a future in which Nunavut’s high school graduation rates would be comparable to
those in the rest of Canada, but with the added ‘bilingual and bicultural advantage’ of these
graduates being fluent in both languages in their spoken and written forms, and with both
conversational and culturally-grounded academic competency in each.
However, in practice, the Inuit language has been restricted to the lower grades from 1 to 3,
after which English is the sole medium of education. Difficult as it may be for outside
observers to believe, there has been no increase in presence of Inuktut in the schools since
before Nunavut was created. Even if there were 100% fluent Inuktut teachers, there is no
set of resources and curricula across all subjects and grades in Inuktut, and no plan to
produce one. Inuktut is taught only as a subject (not as a language of instruction),
sporadically, in some higher level courses with Inuit cultural content. For the most part,
without any form of supportive transition from Inuktut in Grade 3 to English in Grade 4, the
experience for Inuit students is described by the current Assistant Deputy Minister of
Education as “jarring.” This ‘weak form’ of ‘early-exit’ bilingualism contributes to
widespread language loss, and to massive school drop-out. 70% of students do not
graduate from high school—the worst rate in North America.
New research by UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring project reports a strong
correlation between non-mother-tongue schooling and lack of reading proficiency. In
countries where children are forced to go to schools that do not operate in their mother
tongue, almost 90% fail to pass reading proficiency tests.29 There are obvious parallels for
Nunavut: the only jurisdiction in North America where the majority of children are forced
to go to school in a language that is not their mother tongue.
Younger Inuit are being denied their birthright: an education in their mother tongue, which
is the best foundation for them to acquire advanced levels of English, as a second language.
This is both a personal and a collective tragedy. As Mr Justice Thomas Berger said in his
2006 Conciliators’ Report30, having Inuktut as a language of instruction throughout the
education system is essential for future generations of Inuit to develop the advanced
29

https://gemreportunesco. wordpress.com/2017/02/20/ multilingual-teaching-does- more-than-justimprove- learning/
30 Thomas R. Berger. Conciliator's Final Report: “The Nunavut. Project”. (April 6, 2006). The author of this
paper served as an advisor on bilingual education for the Berger report.

9

 10

knowledge of the language necessary to successfully occupy the positions in Nunavut’s
public service which were promised by Canada in the Nunavut Agreement, and to build a
confident new generation of bilingual Nunavut Inuit high school graduates ready to meet
the educational and economic challenges of the Canadian Arctic in the 21st century.
Unfortunately, despite passing three important pieces of Inuit language legislation in 2008
(an Official Languages Act, the Inuit Language Protection Act, and the Education Act), the
territorial government has made no efforts to develop adequate curriculum across all
subjects and grades, nor train Inuit teachers in sufficient numbers, to comply with the
legislation. Language investments from Ottawa for Inuit Language education are a mere
10% of the per capita federal government supports for French language schooling in
Nunavut31: an extreme asymmetry potentially contributing to feelings of discrimination32.
Nunavut is the only jurisdiction in Canada with two official language minorities. Both the
Anglophone and Francophone minorities are presumably equally eligible for special
funding for school services under Canada’s official language minority support program. The
Franco-Nunavummiut have done so, but the Nunavut Anglophone population has not
exercised this right. The result is that Nunavut’s Department of Education has ostensibly
decided to fund English-language education for the ‘undeclared’ Anglophone minority out
of a budget that ought to be earmarked for the Inuktut majority. If the Anglophone minority
were defined as an official language minority, and received appropriate dedicated funding,
it would permit the repurposing of the majority of Nunavut’s education funding to be
dedicated to Inuktut-medium schooling, where it is desperately needed.
However, with all Nunavut schools operating in English after Grade 3 or 4, and with a
teaching force composed almost exclusively of English-speaking teachers from southern
Canada, there is little incentive for Nunavut Anglophones to self-identify as a minority,
since English-speaking students are well-served throughout the territory. English has
become the default ‘majority’ language in all 42 schools in the territory, despite serving
fewer than 400 ‘minority’ Anglophone students. It’s the 9300 Inuit students who are
struggling to find their place and speak their language in what has become a southernoriented Anglo-dominant Nunavut school system.
With the government’s removal of Inuit-run Regional School Boards and the increased
marginalization of Inuit Language in schools, the Nunavut public government has allowed
previously strong home-school-community relationships to weaken. It is regrettable, but
perfectly understandable, that some Inuit parents, seeing the schools limiting Inuktut to
instruction at or close to the level of ‘baby talk’, to get the message coming from the school
that their language has limited value, and increasingly decide to convert their homes into
English-speaking homes, so as to conform to the school’s Anglo-dominant language model.
Language Rights in Canada’s North: Nunavut’s New Official Languages Act, Final Report. Standing Senate
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. June 2009. Pg 20.
32 Former Language Commissioner Sandra Inutiq noted this possibility in her January 2016 speech to the
United Nations Experts’ Meeting.
31

10

 11

Of course, in many Inuit homes, the language and culture gap between the home and the
school, coupled with the inability of a southern-oriented school system to support young
people’s emergent Inuit identities, leads to massive rates of school abandonment.
Indigenous communities which support language promotion and cultural continuity have
lower rates of teen suicide.33 —a point made by the Prime Minister in a June 2016 APTN
interview.
The objective of the Inuit leadership has been consistent over the past four or more
decades; they have called for Inuit to have similar rights as those enjoyed by English and
French speakers to raise their children in their own language, to have schools offer a full
instructional program in their own language, and to allow Inuit to work in and receive
public services from a Nunavut government that operates in the majority public language.
“We assert the right to use Inuktitut in all facets of life in Nunavut. ... We insist too that our
children have the constitutional right to be educated in Inuktitut.”
-- TFN President Paul Quassa (Signing of the Nunavut Agreement-in-Principle with Canada,
1990)

Promoting the Intellectualization of Inuktut for use “in all facets of life”
“A language is not just a body of vocabulary and a set of grammatical rules; it’s a flash of the
human spirit, the means by which the soul of a culture comes into the material world.
Every language is an old-growth forest of the mind, a watershed of thought, an ecosystem
of social and spiritual possibilities. To lose a language is like dropping a bomb on the
Louvre.” Ken Hale, eminent linguist.34
The Nunavut project required that such a view of Inuit Language be translated into a
territory-wide place-based education system which respected the prime importance of the
land as a place for learning, even in sedentarized communities. Language extinction comes
about not just due to the death of fluent mother tongue speakers, but also due to the decay
of the quality of the language and the decay of the philosophical complexity encoded in the
language’s concepts, and the lack of opportunity to transmit this quality and complexity to
the coming generations.
For Inuktut to survive in the way intended by Inuit leaders, to be used “in all facets of life”
in the new territory, there had to be a commitment to adapting the traditional language to a
broad range of traditional and modern domains, including medicine, mental health and
wellness, midwifery, technology, ecological economics, psychology, sociology, and of course
high school and college level curricula. The collective right to one’s language includes the

33

Michael J. Chandler & Christopher Lalonde, “Cultural Continuity as a Hedge Against. Suicide in Canada's
First Nations.” Transcultural Psychiatry (Vol 35, Issue 2, 1998).
34 Obituary for Ken Hale: Davis, Wade "A Dead End for Humanity". Globe and Mail/Opinion Dec 28, 2000

11

 12

collective right to one’s ontology and epistemology. In Nunavut, this includes the right of
young Inuit to knowledge that has come to be called Inuit Qaujimajatuqangiit (IQ).
There must be a serious effort undertaken to harness the knowledge and wisdom about
these domains from elders and fluent first language speakers, and serious efforts to reform
delivery of related services and social functions to incorporate these mother tongue
insights and philosophical contributions. Developing such new functional contexts for
Inuktut by drawing upon traditional knowledge and expressions, and ensuring their
intergenerational transmission is what will guarantee the relevance and flourishing of the
language – “in all facets of life.”
IQ-grounded academic language skills would allow the younger generation to fully
participate in conversations with elders and other fluent speakers and thereby acquire the
cultural and epistemological ways of thinking available through elder-mentored experience
on the land (especially) and apply these ways of thinking in the classroom. This storehouse
of conceptual resources is necessary to interpret IQ for the twenty-first century, to enrich
modern Inuit identity through traditional conceptual frameworks, so as to be able to
manage a modern territorial government, functioning primarily in Inuktut as the working
language of government.
However, 18 years after division, the higher intellectual domains of Inuit language still
remain to be developed and deployed in the Nunavut school system, and time is running
out. The lack of investment means these fields of Inuit knowledge are dying off with the
passing of the last generation of elders capable of transmitting this knowledge. Mr Justice
Thomas Berger arrived at this conclusion a decade earlier:
“The Inuit of Nunavut are faced with the erosion of Inuit language, knowledge, and
culture. Unless serious measures are taken, there will over time be a gradual extinction
of Inuktitut, or at best its retention as a curiosity, imperfectly preserved and irrelevant
to the daily life of its speakers.” (The Nunavut Project: Conciliator’s Final Report,
2006.)
A positive development, with the 2008 Inuit Language Protection Act, was the setting up of
the Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqiit (Inuit Language Authority) to provide authoritative
Inuit Language resources for all fields and branches of knowledge, and consequently Inuit
Language educators could be supported by a body concerned with ‘intellectualization’.
However, the Authority isn’t able to be responsible for intellectualization of Inuktut on its
own. There needs to be a strong research-and-development curriculum body inside the
Department of Education, and at Nunavut Arctic College, to translate IQ into prototype
instructional units in Inuktut, which would allow for Inuktut to be used as a language of
instruction throughout the K-12 and college systems. Perhaps the research work could be
modelled on the excellent Curriculum and School Services branch under the direction of
Shirley Tagalik in Arviat, which flourished in the first decade of the new century. That IQpracticing unit drew upon the wisdom of elders such as Mark Kalluak, and built upon the

12

 13

groundbreaking work of the NWT-era Inuuqatigiit Curriculum Project35 as the ethnoepistemological basis for the development of made-in-Nunavut learning materials suitable
for grades 4-10. I have every certainty that the majority of Canadian universities would, if
asked, accept a Secondary School Certificate of Graduation based on a made-in-Nunavut
Secondary School Curriculum, taught through Inuktut and English as languages of
instruction as a pre-requisite to post-secondary studies.36
In this way, ‘the Inuktut stream’ would be no less rigorous, academic, and connected to
modern fields of knowledge as ‘the English stream’. In fact, in a strong ‘additive’ bilingual
system such as the Qulliq model proposed under the 2008 Education Act, the two
languages would strengthen each other. Such a commitment to promoting the
intellectualization of Inuktut for educational purposes would require a sustained
commitment from the Department of Education to develop both curricular resources and
Inuit teachers capable of teaching this curriculum, perhaps along the lines of the successful
experience of the Inuit of Greenland or the Sami of Norway.
Recommendations
1. Canada should commit to adequately resourcing and staffing the territorial and
federal public services in Nunavut to operate in the Inuit language. The federal
bilingualism efforts of the 1970s, reinforced and applied to Indigenous languages by
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, provide a template for
this type of system-wide effort. The federal government should adjust its formula
financing for Nunavut to include clear, predictable, adequate, multi-year funding to
permit the territory to operate and deliver its public services in the official language
of the public: Inuktut. The implementing of Inuit language rights are an essential
part of Aboriginal rights under Section 35 of the Constitution and are required
under TRC Calls to Action 10, 13, 14, 15. As Canadian Senators concluded in 2009:
“In our view, in exchange for this surrender of territory, the Government of Canada
committed itself to supporting the Inuit’s rights as an Aboriginal people, including
their cultural and linguistic rights. This commitment must be expressed not only
through “fine words,” but also by providing adequate and sustained financial
resources to the citizens of Nunavut and assisting in their efforts to enhance,
promote and protect their linguistic heritage.”37

35

Inuuqatigiit: The Curriculum from the Inuit Perspective. Northwest Territories. Department of Education,
Culture and Employment. 1994
36 In 2006, when I was working in the Curriculum and School Services Branch in Arviat under Shirley Tagalik,
the office contacted the admissions officers of the seventeen Canadian universities which receive the majority
of Nunavut students with this question related to the Curricular material being developed at the time; and we
received a 100% rate of agreement. A bilingual made-in-Nunavut IQ-based curriculum was acceptable to all
the admissions officers we contacted at that time; and today, in the wake of the Truth and Reconciliation
Report, I have no doubt that the response would be equally positive.
37 Language Rights in Canada’s North: Nunavut’s New Official Languages Act, Final Report. Standing Senate
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. June 2009. Pg 20.

13

 14

2. Canada should update the Cost of Implementing Inuktitut report and use a
modernized planning schedule and cost estimates to deliver adequate equalization
payments to allow the public services of the Nunavut government to function in the
language of the public: Inuktut.
3. Canada should recognize the unique ‘dual-minority’ status of both official minority
language groups in Nunavut, and reform its Charter supports accordingly. Canada
should identify and separate funding for schooling for the Anglophone minority
population in Nunavut, as it does for the Francophone. This would allow for the bulk
of the territory’s education funding to be devoted to Inuit language schooling.

4. Canada should contribute to the financing required to support Inuktut as an official
language of the territory to a comparable extent with that which it supports the
other official languages of Canada. To do so would be in keeping with the Calls to
Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Final Report, which reminds us
that Canada spends only $14 million annually for the preservation and revitalization
of (all 90) Aboriginal languages, while the Official Languages Program for English
and French cost in the order of $350 million for the promotion of linguistic duality
and the development of official language minority communities across Canada.

5. At the Nunavut territorial level, the three acts of 2008 (the Nunavut Official
Languages Act, the Inuit Language Protection Act, and the Education Act) express
the need for Inuit language protection activities to be sufficiently funded so that
they can be carried out in the way they were intended. If they were properly funded
and implemented, they would be the best existing legislation on Indigenous
languages anywhere in North America, and arguably in the Western Hemisphere.
But the gap between legislative intentions and on-the-ground reality in Nunavut
communities is enormous. They can, however, be used as a guide to what is needed.
6. As the largest employer in Nunavut, the territorial government must urgently draft
and implement comprehensive Inuit Employment Plans, as detailed in Article 23 of
the NLCA, with timelines and targets, and adequate funding levels to achieve their
objectives. Specifically, the Department of Education should properly fund and
implement a robust IEP for educators. The Department could draw inspiration from
the prototype 2006 Qalattuq Strategy, which aimed to add 304 educators over 4

14

 15

years. The difference between 2006 and 2017 is that there is funding available for
this purpose right now, namely from the 2015 Settlement Agreement.38

7. The Nunavut Department of Education and Nunavut Arctic College, should establish
a strong research-and-development curriculum body responsible for
intellectualization of Inuktut, converting IQ into prototype instructional units, and
developing teaching resources and curricula in Inuktut, which would allow for
Inuktut to be used as a language of instruction throughout the K-12 and college
systems, and allow the development of intellectually challenging books, resources
and curricula for all subject areas and for all school grades.
Conclusion
In the words of former Nunavut Languages Commissioner Sandra Inutiq, “Nunavut needs
to make a much more aggressive effort to reverse language loss.”39 The realization of the
dream of Nunavut allowed many Inuit to hope that the future of Inuktut would be secure.
That hope is receding. Inuktut is in serious decline. Without intensive efforts by the
territorial and federal governments, Inuktut will be ‘definitely endangered’ by 2051.
It is incumbent on Canada to ensure that the Nunavut territory can offer the same level of
public services as do other provinces and territories. This requires that Canada enable the
Nunavut territory to deliver public services in the language of the public. In Nunavut, the
language of the public is Inuktut.

Author Contact: imartin@glendon.yorku.ca
Ian Martin – Associate Professor, English Department and Linguistics and Language Studies
Programme, and Master’s Programme in Public and International Affairs; Glendon College,
York University, Toronto.
Professor Martin
Professor Martin was author of the 2000 Aajiiqatigiingniq report on language of
instruction in Nunavut schools, a study that contributed to the Nunavut Education
Department's first bilingual education strategy 2004-2008. In 2006, he served as a
consultant on bilingual education on the Conciliator’s Report on the Nunavut Project,
written by Mr. Justice Thomas Berger. In addition to his research, Professor Martin has
worked extensively with educators and teachers to train local Inuit researchers on early
Moving Forward in Nunavut: an Agreement Relating to Settlement of Litigation (May 4, 2015); Nunavut
Tunngavik Inc., Government of Canada, Government of Nunavut.
http://www.tunngavik.com/files/2015/05/FINAL-SETTLEMENT-AGREEMENT-PROOF.pdf
39 Sandra Inutiq, Nunavut Languages Commissioner, Address to the United Nations International Expert Group.
New York, January 2016.
38

15

 16

childhood language assessment and curriculum. In 2011-12, he was contracted by the
Kitikmeot Inuit Association as an applied linguist to work with a team of researchers to
develop a KIA Language Revitalization Strategy. In addition to specializing Inuit education
and languages, Professor Martin also teaches "Indigenous language policy in the Americas"
at York University's Master's program in Public and International Affairs. He is co-author of
the Glendon Truth and Reconciliation Declaration on Indigenous Language Policy, a policy
paper promoting implementation of the TRC’s Calls to Action on language legislation for
Canada’s Indigenous languages.

16