I just wanted to explain what the act is trying to say. , In our region --and I will use Coral Harbour as an example, which is a community of 700 --most of the parents speak Inuktitut. Before it said this in the act, we used to go to school to learn English, without any Inuktitut instruction. Now the act is trying to say that you can teach using Inuktitut as the language of instruction from kindergarten to grade 12, if you want to. What we're doing in our communities is, from kindergarten to grade 3, we have Inuktitut

as the language of instruction with oral English taught as a subject to the students, so they can learn to speak English.

But the parents have the choice if they want to have English, Cree or French taught. It could be any official language. But the education authority in our community decided that Inuktitut will be the language of instruction because it is the first language of the children and if you're trying to explain math concepts to a child in a language he doesn't understand, he might not get very far. But, if you explain the concepts in his own language, he will get further. That's the reason behind having aboriginal languages as languages of instruction.

After the education authority decides that Inuktitut is going to be the language of instruction from kindergarten to grade 3, they teach all the subjects in Inuktitut with Inuktitut teachers. Then they teach English as a second language as a subject for those students so they can learn the language. But, it could be French, if they wanted their kids to learn French as a second language.

Now, from grade 4 to 5, there is a transition period. They try to transfer students from their Inuktitut skills to English so that when they're in grade 6 and 7, they are at the same level as grade 6 and 7 students in Yellowknite or Winnipeg, for example. Then they start teaching Inuktitut as a subject. The language of instruction changes to English or French. When teachers teach subjects, they change the language they are speaking to students in. An official language then becomes a subject. That's what the difference is.

The way this act is worded, it is trying to say that we will not lose our language. In my region, with the new model that has been implemented for the last 10 years, we are attempting to produce bilingual, bi-cultural children. We don't have many French-speaking people in our communities --we may have one person --but they still have the option to choose that as a subject. I just wanted to clarity that we aren't going to lose our language using this act. It just makes it stronger so that if we want to teach all things in Inuktitut, we can and teach French and English as subjects, or another official language of the territories. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.