Quantitative & Qualitative Public Opinion Research Services (POR) Inuit In Nunavut And Public Sector Employment

CONTENTS

• Executive Summary
  • Introduction and Background
  • Methodology
  • Main Findings
    • Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
    • Interest
    • Availability
    • Preparedness
    • Current Government Employees
    • Political Neutrality Certification
• Section 1. Introduction And Methodology
  • 1.1 Introduction and Background
    • 1.1.1 Report Structure
  • 1.2 Methodology.
    • 1.2.1 Quantitative Data Collection
    • 1.2.2 Qualitative Data Collection
    • 1.2.3 Analysis
    • 1.2.4 Limitations
• Section 2. Findings
  • 2.1 Demographic Profile of Respondents
  • 2.2 Interest
    • 2.2.1 Interest Summary
    • 2.2.2 Interest in Government Employment
    • 2.2.3 Past and Future Intentions to Apply for Government Employment
    • 2.2.4 Importance of Inuit Language and Culture in the Workplace
  • 2.3 Availability.
    • 2.3.1 Availability Summary
    • 2.3.2 Availability for Government Employment
  • 2.4 Preparedness.
    • 2.4.1 Preparedness Summary
    • 2.4.2 Skills, Degrees, Certificates, and Diplomas
    • 2.4.3 Current Training and Education Activities
    • 2.4.4 Willingness to Engage in Training or Education in the Future
  • 2.5 Current Government Employees
    • 2.5.1 Current Government Employees Summary
    • 2.5.2 Current Position or Role
    • 2.5.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Working for the Government or Hamlet
    • 2.5.4 Training and Skill Development and Use of Skills in the Workplace
    • 2.5.5 How the Government can Encourage and Support Nunavut Inuit to Obtain Positions and Advance
    • 2.5.6 Intentions to Remain In or Leave their Position in Two Years
• Section 3. Conclusions
• Appendix

Executive Summary

Introduction and Background

The following report describes the findings of the public opinion research conducted on behalf of Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) on Inuit in Nunavut and public sector employment, as well as the conclusions associated with these findings. The research included a telephone and online survey (the Nunavut Inuit Survey) with Nunavut Inuit. Focus groups were also conducted in two Nunavut communities. This public opinion research was implemented based on the objectives and activities described in Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA).

In 1993, the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories (succeeded by the Government of Nunavut) and the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area, as represented by the Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut (a predecessor to Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI)), negotiated and signed the NLCA.  The signing of NLCA was followed by the passage of the Nunavut Act (1993) that led to the official creation of the territory of Nunavut on April 1, 1999.  One of the objectives identified in the NLCA was to increase participation of Inuit covered by the NLCA (NLCA Beneficiaries) in government employment in Nunavut.  In order to help increase the employment of NLCA Beneficiaries, Article 23 of the NLCA identifies the obligation of producing a Nunavut Inuit Labour Force Analysis (NILFA) “to provide a detailed analysis of the labour force of the Nunavut Settlement Area”.  Accordingly, the purpose of the NILFA is to analyze “the availability, interest and preparedness of the Inuit in Nunavut for government employment” (NLCA, Article 23.3.1) and “to assess the existing skill level and degree of formal qualification among the Inuit labour force” (NLCA, Article 23.3.2).  In order to support the development of future NILFAs, the Government of Canada’s Department of Employment and Social Development commissioned Malatest to conduct a Public Opinion Research (POR) survey (the Nunavut Inuit Survey) and focus groups among Inuit in Nunavut to identify their availability, interest, and preparedness for public sector employment.  Accordingly, this report outlines the results from the POR survey data and focus group findings.

Methodology

Data were collected through the Nunavut Inuit Survey and community focus groups. The survey was administered online and by telephone to 500 individuals who resided in Nunavut, were NLCA beneficiaries, and were between the ages of 18 and 64 years. The target of 500 completions was achieved by the survey. The survey instrument was developed in close consultation with ESDC, NTI, and the Government of Nunavut. It was approximately 18 to 20 minutes in length.

It should be noted that the 500 respondents to the survey were composed of those who had telephones (landline or cellular) and who consented to complete the survey. Therefore, they may not be representative of the entire Nunavut population.

In the following findings, the term “statistically significant” is used to denote differences between groups which were significant at p ≤ 0.05. As statistical significance is more reliably detected in larger groups, small differences between large groups can obtain statistical significance and large differences between small groups may not reach the level of statistical significance.

The focus group moderator guide was developed with ESDC, NTI, and the Government of Nunavut. Originally, one focus group was planned for Kugluktuk, two for Rankin Inlet, and two for Iqaluit. Due to inclement weather which prevented travel to Iqaluit, the Iqaluit groups were cancelled. An additional Rankin Inlet group was held. Therefore, a total of four focus groups with 29 individuals were completed. Focus groups were approximately two hours in length. As focus group research findings are qualitative and not quantitative in nature, focus group results mentioned in this report provide an indication of participants’ views, but cannot be taken to represent the views of all Inuit in Nunavut.

Main Findings

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

In total, 500 individuals were included in the survey. The majority of survey respondents were female (63%), while the remaining one-third was male (37%). Over one-half of survey respondents reported their age as 30 to 54 years (56%), while very few respondents (3%) reported being 18 to 19 years of age (see Table A.1).

Thirty-eight (38%) of respondents were from Baffin (outside of Iqaluit), 30% were from Keewatin, 19% were from Kitikmeot, and 13% were from Iqaluit.

Approximately one-half (47%) of respondents had completed a high school diploma or equivalency, and 60% had completed additional education, training, or courses. At the time of the survey, respondents were:¹

• Employed (58%);
• Not engaged in the wage economy, though they were engaged in family responsibilities and/or community/cultural activities (39%);
• Enrolled in education at the time of the survey (21%); and
• Unemployed (2%).

Throughout the analysis, comparisons were made between respondents grouped based on their proficiency in Inuit languages (Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun) and English.² Approximately one-quarter (22%) of respondents reported being comfortable speaking, reading, and writing in both Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun and English. An additional 31% of respondents indicated they felt comfortable speaking Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun and English (though they were not comfortable reading and writing in both English and Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun).

Almost two-fifths of respondents reported they worked for the government or hamlet (38%) at the time of the survey, while the remaining 62% did not. Of the 62%, two thirds were past government employees, and one third had never worked for government.

Interest

Non-government employees (62% of the sample, 311 individuals) which includes past government employees (42% of overall sample) generally perceived government employment favourably, as 89% were interested in working for a hamlet/City of Iqaluit, the Government of Nunavut, or the Government of Canada. Government positions were interesting to respondents because they were seen as offering good pay (26%), work that had an impact on the community (15%), interesting work (14%), and good benefits (13%).

Among the 62% of respondents who were not working for the government, 52% had looked for a job in the government or hamlet. Of those who had looked for a government job, 80% followed through and applied for the job. Moreover, 57% of non-government employees planned to apply for a government or hamlet job in the next year, and this proportion increased substantially when the job was known to be accepting of Inuit culture (93% would apply).

Indeed, 69% of non-government employee survey respondents (62% of the sample, 311 individuals) felt it was very important to work with people who understand Inuit culture and society.

Current government employee respondents (38% of the sample, 189 individuals) also reported that it was very important that their workplace supported Inuit culture. The support of their co-workers (89%) and supervisors (87%) was approximately equally important to respondents. Furthermore, most government employee respondents (71%) felt that it was very important to be able to use Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun at work, if they chose.

Approximately one-third of government employee respondents were supervised by an Inuk person (37%) while 62% were not supervised by an Inuk person. Thirty-five percent were able to speak Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun all the time at work. The majority of respondents reported that there were opportunities to learn about Inuit culture in their government and hamlet workplaces (71%).

Availability

Focus group participants were asked to explain their interpretation of the concept of being available to work. They felt that availability to work included being willing to take and commit to a job, and to take additional training if needed.

Sixty-two percent of the survey sample were not government employees, the majority (79%) of them reported that they would be available to work at least some months of the year. Most of these respondents also said they could work full time (74%).

Preparedness

Almost one-half (47%) of all survey respondents reported that they had a high school diploma, or an equivalency certificate such as General Educational Development, Adult Basic Education, or Pathway to Adult Secondary School. Additionally, 60% of all survey respondents said they had completed education, training, or courses beyond high school. Respondents also reported having several skills such as:

• Teamwork (89%);
• Communication skills (73%);
• Computer and Internet skills (71%); and
• Typing and writing skills (67%).

Current government employees surveyed reported having several skills with greater frequency than non-government employees. Current government employees more frequently reported having teamwork (92% of current government employees compared to 81% of non-government employees), public speaking (84% of current government employees compared to 58% of non-government employees), and typing (80% of current government employees compared to 50% of non-government employees) skills.

Community focus group participants suggested that skills they believed to be related to government employment may be learned through Inuit cultural activities. They mentioned learning the following skills from participating in family, community, and cultural experiences:

• Attention to detail;
• Discipline and work ethic;
• Communication and listening skills;
• Several skills related to working well with others, such as tolerance, teamwork, and respect;
• Planning and decision-making;
• Leadership;
• Fine motor skills; and
• Environmental awareness.

The majority (86%) of all survey respondents were not engaged in upgrading their skills at the time of the survey. The most common reasons for not engaging in education were having family responsibilities (21%), believing that they did not need additional education (16%), lacking local options for post-secondary education (11%), or lacking time (9%).

A slight majority (57%) of survey respondents not currently government employees but interested in becoming so, reported that they would need more training to work for a government or hamlet employer, while the remaining 43% felt that they already had the right skills. Respondents were less likely to have felt that they had the right skills for government employment if they did not have a post-secondary degree, diploma, or certificate..

Focus group respondents noted that one barrier to obtaining post-secondary education was a lack of access to courses within their community. Participants cited the high costs of tuition,³ travel, and living expenses as barriers to accessing education outside of the community.

Indeed, a large majority (90%) of all survey respondents would be willing to take post-secondary education or training in their home community (and at no cost). Their willingness decreased somewhat when the training was hypothetically available elsewhere in Nunavut (75%).

Current Government Employees

The following section addresses findings reported by current government employees who responded to the survey (38% of the sample, 189 individuals).

Government employee respondents who were employed by the Government of Canada (9%), the Government of Nunavut (61%), or a hamlet/City of Iqaluit (27%) during survey administration were asked about their experiences in government workplaces and how Nunavut Inuit could be supported to obtain and advance in government positions.

Current government employee respondents most frequently performed roles in education (20%), administrative support (16%), and municipal services (11%). The advantages of government work that these respondents identified were often similar to those identified by non-government employees. For example, 26% of non-government employees surveyed who were interested in government work cited the perceived pay offered by government jobs as a point of interest. Similarly, 38% of current government employees surveyed noted the rate of pay as an advantage of government work.

Though only 11% of government employees identified access to training and learning opportunities as an advantage of government employment, three-quarters (75%) of government employees reported that they had engaged in training since starting to work for a government or hamlet employer. The majority of this training (89%) was provided by the employer. In general, respondents believed their skills were being put to good use by their government and hamlet employers. High proportions of respondents reported that their English language skills (89%), formal education qualifications (80%), and reading, writing, math, and problem-solving skills (86%) were put to good use in their current position.

Approximately two-thirds (68%) of current government employee respondents (38% of the sample, 189 individuals) would be interested in advancing to a higher government position. They reportedly knew what steps to take to advance (84%) and believed they worked in environments conducive to advancement (75% of government employees agreed that their supervisors helped employees achieve their job goals). They suggested that more training opportunities were needed to support Nunavut Inuit advancement in government and hamlet positions (41%). In terms of Nunavut Inuit who were not yet employed by the government, government employees also believed additional training (31%) and job opportunities (15%) would support them in potential applications for government positions.

Overall, the majority of government employees reported enjoying their current workplace (89%) and 61% intended to remain in their position for at least two years (24% intended to leave and 15% did not know or did not respond). Reasons cited for intending to leave were primarily related to pursuing further education (22%) and retirement (18%).

Political Neutrality Certification

This certification is to be submitted with the final report submitted to the Project Authority.

I hereby certify as Senior Officer of Quantitative & Qualitative Public Opinion Research Services (POR) Inuit in Nunavut and Public Sector Employment that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research.

Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.

Signed:

Eleanor Hamaluk, Vice President – Research, R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd.

Section 1. Introduction And Methodology

1.1 Introduction and Background

The following report describes the findings of the public opinion research conducted on behalf of Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) on Inuit in Nunavut and public sector employment, as well as the conclusions which follow from these findings. The research included a telephone and online survey (the Nunavut Inuit Survey), as well as focus groups with Inuit in Nunavut. This research was designed based on the objectives and activities described in Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA).

In 1993, the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories (succeeded by the Government of Nunavut) and the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area, as represented by the Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut (a predecessor to Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI)), negotiated and signed the NLCA.  The signing of the NLCA was followed by the passage of the Nunavut Act (1993) that led to the official creation of the territory of Nunavut on April 1, 1999.  One of the objectives identified in the NLCA is to increase participation of Inuit covered by the NLCA (NLCA Beneficiaries) in government employment in Nunavut to a representative level in all occupational groupings and grade levels.  In order to help increase the employment of NLCA Beneficiaries, Article 23 of the NLCA identifies the obligation of producing a Nunavut Inuit Labour Force Analysis (NILFA) “to provide a detailed analysis of the labour force of the Nunavut Settlement Area”.  Accordingly, the purpose of the NILFA is to analyze “the availability, interest and preparedness of the Inuit in Nunavut for government employment” (NLCA, Article 23.3.1) and “to assess the existing skill level and degree of formal qualification among the Inuit labour force” (NLCA, Article 23.3.2).  In order to support the development of future NILFAs, the Government of Canada’s Department of Employment and Social Development commissioned Malatest to conduct a Public Opinion Research (POR) survey (the Nunavut Inuit Survey) and focus groups among Inuit in Nunavut to identify their availability, interest, and preparedness for public sector employment.  Accordingly, this report outlines the results from the POR survey data and focus group findings.

It is anticipated that this report will be of interest to governments and hamlets in Nunavut, as well as ESDC, and that it will be used to support the development of future Labour Force Analyses on the availability, interest, and preparedness of Inuit for public sector work in Nunavut.

As with all research reports, it is recommended that the following report be read while mindful of the limitations of the research. These limitations are further discussed in Section 1.2.4, briefly they include:

• Reliance on telephone calls to recruit participants, thereby potentially excluding individuals without telephone access;
• Focus groups were conducted in relatively larger centres within each region of Nunavut. The focus groups therefore did not represent smaller and more remote areas of Nunavut, which were, however, included in the telephone/online survey;
• The survey sample may have over-represented women and under-represented individuals aged 20-24 years; and
• The sample size, though it reached its target, may not have been sufficient to achieve statistical significance in sub-group analyses.  

1.1.1 Report Structure

The report begins with a description of the methodology used to collect and analyze the Nunavut Inuit Survey and focus group findings. To align with Article 23 of the NLCA and the purpose of the report, findings are presented by interest in, availability for, and preparedness for employment in the public sector. These sections include responses provided by individuals who were and were not government employees at the time of data collection.

The report then presents findings on how governments could motivate Nunavut Inuit to apply for and advance in government employment, as well as findings on government working conditions. These findings were collected from respondents who were Nunavut Inuit government employees at the time of data collection.

Finally, conclusions are presented which discuss the key findings and implications of the research for increased Nunavut Inuit employment in the public sector.

1.2 Methodology

Data were collected through a survey (quantitative data) and community focus groups (qualitative data). See Appendix A for a summary of community focus group findings. Each method is described further below.

1.2.1 Quantitative Data Collection

Survey Design, Cognitive Testing, and Field Testing

A telephone/online survey instrument was developed in close consultation with ESDC, NTI, and the Government of Nunavut to measure interest in, preparedness for, and availability for employment in hamlet/municipal, territorial, and federal governments. The survey also gathered current government employees’ experiences working for the government(s), and their opinions on how Inuit people in Nunavut could be encouraged to apply for and advance in government positions. In total, the survey was 18 to 20 minutes in length. The survey was registered with the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association.

The survey instrument was originally developed in English and translated into French and Inuktitut. The translated versions were independently reviewed against the English version for consistency.

Cognitive testing discussions were conducted on the English and Inuktitut versions of the draft survey instrument in Iqaluit. An interpreter provided English-Inuktitut translations during the discussions with Inuktitut-speaking participants (see Appendix B for the cognitive testing guide and recruitment screener).

Ten individuals were recruited to the English cognitive testing discussion, and three participants attended. Similarly, ten individuals were recruited to the Inuktitut cognitive testing discussion and three participants attended. Individuals were recruited to the cognitive testing groups through random calling to Iqaluit households. During the discussions, the survey questions were read aloud and participants were asked to comment on:

• The understandability of the questions and response options;
• The comprehensiveness of response options;
• Survey questionaire coverage of issues related to government employment; and
• The appropriateness of survey wording.

Based on participants’ responses, changes were made to the draft survey instrument.

The approved survey was field tested by telephone with 22 households.⁴ Following the first field test, revisions to survey question skip patterns were made. A second field test was conducted with 10 households. Field test calls were monitored by ESDC (see Appendix C for the survey instrument). No changes were made to the survey instrument following the second field test.

Sample Development and Eligibility Criteria

Residents of Nunavut were eligible to complete the survey if they were:

• NLCA beneficiaries; and
• Between the ages of 18 and 64 years.

Individuals who were and were not employed by a hamlet/municipal, territorial, or federal government were eligible to participate, though different questions were targeted to individuals employed in the government.

The sample of Nunavut household telephone numbers was acquired from ASDE Survey Sampler, a private sample development firm. During survey administration, when a telephone number was discovered to be not in-service or to be a business, directory searching was completed to obtain a new telephone number for the household when possible. Following contact with a household, individuals were screened for the above eligibility criteria.

The sample was also augmented through snowball sampling. Individuals who participated in the survey were asked if any other members of their household would be willing and eligible to participate in the survey. These individuals were surveyed immediately, or an appointment was set to complete the survey.

In addition to telephone surveying, the survey was available online and in a pencil-and-paper version. Participation in the survey was promoted through several methods including:

• Public service radio announcements in Inuktitut, English, and French;
• Posting the link to the online survey on the Malatest website and the NTI website; and
• Distributing paper surveys at the focus groups.

Survey respondents were eligible to win an Apple iPad, or one of four $350 gift cards through a random draw.

Survey Programming and Surveyor Training

The finalized survey instrument was programmed into CallWeb, a CATI/CAWI system which operates on a Linux platform. The survey was programmed for both online and telephone administration. Skip logic and calculation functions were examined. The program was extensively tested to ensure that only the correct questions were asked of respondent groups. The online portion of the survey was also tested to ensure accessibility, compatibility, and comparability across all browsers, devices, and platforms of access. CallWeb was used to manage the sample, which included handling incoming calls, monitoring survey length, and tracking the call disposition of potential survey respondents within the sample.

Surveyors who were bilingual in Inuktitut and English were recruited to administer the telephone survey. They received comprehensive Malatest surveyor training as well as training specific to the Nunavut Inuit Survey. English and French-speaking surveyors were also trained to administer the survey to support the bilingual surveyors as needed. The training oriented staff to key issues associated with the project. During the training session, surveyors reviewed the questionnaire on paper and on the CallWeb system to become familiar with the wording and skip pattern logic. Interview staff participated in debriefing sessions during the first few days of survey administration to identify any presented issues associated with the survey or surveying process.

Full Survey Administration

Survey administration began on June 23, 2015 and ended by August 1, 2015. Survey administration was paused from July 3, 2015 to July 11, 2015 while a complaint that a different company was using a similar prize draw to obtain personal financial information from Nunavut residents was investigated. Prior to continuing with survey administration, the prize draw was changed and surveyors were given additional instruction on how to respond to questions regarding the legitimacy and confidentiality of the survey. They were also instructed to explain that Malatest does not collect personal financial information.

Survey respondents were given the choice to complete the survey in English, Inuktitut, or French. In total, 92% of respondents (458 individuals) chose to complete the survey in English while 8% (42 individuals) chose to complete the survey in Inuktitut.

In total, 500 individuals completed the survey. Table 1.1 lists the survey contact outcomes.

1.2.2 Qualitative Data Collection

From July 20 to 23, 2015, four two-hour community focus groups were held in Kugluktuk⁵ (1 group, 18 confirmed attendance and 13 attended) and Rankin Inlet⁶ (3 groups, 16 confirmed attendance and 16 attended). In total, 29 individuals participated in the focus group sessions. Two focus groups were initially planned for Iqaluit as well. However, due to inclement weather which prevented travel to Iqaluit, the Iqaluit groups were cancelled.

The focus group moderator’s guide was developed in close consultation with ESDC, the Government of Nunavut, and NTI. The semi-structured guide was designed to lead participants through a discussion of their interest in, availability for, and preparedness for government employment (see Appendix D for the finalized guide and recruitment screeners). Participants were also asked if they would consider moving and what factors would be considered in their decision to move/not move for government employment.

Participants were NLCA Beneficiaries who were not government employees at the time of the sessions. Participants were invited to participate in three ways:

1. Survey respondents who completed the survey, were not government employees, and lived in the hamlets/city where the focus groups were planned were invited to participate;
2. Households in the hamlets/city where the focus groups were planned were called randomly to invite residents to participate. Prior to being invited, residents were screened to ensure they were NLCA Beneficiaries and were not employed by the government; and
3. Participants were recruited to the groups by friends/family of other participants and contacts within the hamlets/city. These participants were screened by the moderator to ensure they were NLCA Beneficiaries who were not currently employed by the government.

Groups were conducted in English with interpretation into Inuinnaqtun (Kugluktuk) and Inuktitut (Rankin Inlet). At the beginning of each Rankin Inlet group, an ESDC representative introduced the study and explained the purpose of the data collection.

Throughout the groups, lists of factors that made it difficult to work for the government and factors that could be changed to make it easier for people to work for the government were developed. At the end of each group, participants were invited to participate in a “dotmocracy” activity. Each participant was given dot stickers for each list and invited to place them beside the most important points.

1.2.3 Analysis

Survey data were reviewed for completeness prior to data analysis. Data cleaning included a review for incomplete or missing data and internal record consistency, as well as search for duplicate records. Open-ended responses were coded using code lists approved by ESDC.

The fully cleaned and coded data set was analyzed using the following techniques:

• Summary and descriptive statistics (e.g., frequencies);
• Cross-tabs, Chi-squared tests, and column z-tests for comparison of nominal data distributions. Significance testing was undertaken for the following characteristics (see Section 2.1 for group descriptions):
  • Gender;
  • Age;
  • Region of Nunavut;
  • Language skills;
  • Family responsibilities;
  • Participation in Inuit cultural activities;
  • Engagement in education;
  • Interest in government employment;
  • Government employment history; and
  • Government employment role.

All group comparisons are provided in an annex to the report.

• Probit regressions to analyze the contributions of demographic variables to respondents’ interest in, availability for, preparedness for, and current status of government employment. Current government employees were excluded from the models examining interest in government employment, availability for government employment, and preparedness for government employment. The following variables were used in all four regression models:
  • Age (continuous variable);
  • Gender (male or female);
  • Region (Iqaluit, Baffin outside of Iqaluit, Keewatin, and Kitikmeot); and
  • Educational attainment (high school diploma or equivalent, grades 10 or 11, less than grade 10, or a post-secondary degree, diploma, or certificate).

In all quantitative analyses, a standard significance value of p ≤ 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.⁷ To ensure that group sizes were sufficient for analysis and to protect respondent confidentiality, results that represented groups of fewer than five respondents were not reported. In the following findings, the term “statistically significant” is used to denote differences between groups which were significant at p ≤ 0.05. As statistical significance is more reliably detected in larger groups, small differences between large groups can obtain statistical significance and large differences between small groups may not reach the level of statistical significance.

Qualitative focus group data were analyzed using an inductive content analysis, in which responses were reviewed to identify themes and areas of concurrence or divergence within and across groups. The active listing of responses on flip charts during the focus groups, and the dotmocracy activity, allowed participants to directly respond to and prioritize findings during the groups. As focus group research findings are qualitative, and not quantitative in nature, focus group results mentioned in this report provide an indication of participants’ views about the issues explored. In this context, their opinions cannot be generalized to the population represented in this study.

1.2.4 Limitations

The study was subject to the following limitations:

• Nunavut Inuit Survey respondents and focus group participants were primarily recruited by telephone (9 surveys were completed online). Within the Nunavut population, the margin of error was 4.3%. However, despite attempts to reach individuals without telephones (see Sample Development and Eligibility Criteria, above), the study results are not likely representative of the population without telephones. For example, previous studies have found households without telephones tended to have lower incomes and were more likely to rent, rather than own, their home.⁸,⁹
• Group discussions were held in relatively large centres within each region of Nunavut. Larger centres were chosen to increase the likelihood that a large enough group could be brought together for a discussion. Smaller and more remote areas of Nunavut were not represented in the discussions, though they were included in the Nunavut Inuit Survey.
• Due to weather delays, Iqaluit could not be included in the community focus groups.
• The season in which the research was conducted, the summer, may have affected the response rate from individuals who engage in cultural activities on the land. However, the target 500 completions were obtained and the majority of respondents indicated that they engaged in cultural activities. Therefore, the season likely did not have a substantial effect on the findings.
• Given that the survey sample likely over-represented women and under-represented individuals aged 20-24 (see Non-Response Bias below), and data were not weighted, it is not recommended that the findings in this report be generalized to all Nunavut Inuit. Data were not weighted as reliable population-level data were not available on Nunavut NLCA beneficiaries (see bullet 5 above); particularly population-level data was not available broken down by employment in the public sector and not employed in the public sector.
• While the study achieved the target number of completions, caution should be used when interpreting statistically significant and non-significant findings as the sample size may not have been sufficient to achieve significance even where a real difference exists. Sample size would be particularly limiting in sub-group analyses in which the entire sample is not included.   

Non-Response Bias

Non-response bias is calculated by comparing the survey sample to the population eligible for the survey. It is conducted to determine whether the survey results are representative of the eligible population. The ability to determine the existence of non-response bias in the survey data is limited by the demographic information available about the Nunavut population, as well as the qualifying criteria that respondents must have been NLCA beneficiaries. Comparisons were made, where possible, between the survey respondents and the general Nunavut population on three variables: age, gender, and employment status (see Table 1.2).

Age comparisons were limited by the available data. Though the survey included individuals aged 18 to 64, the closest categories available through Statistics Canada are 15 to 64 years or 20 to 64 years. Based on the available Statistics Canada data, individuals aged 20-24 were somewhat under-represented in the survey sample (Statistics Canada estimates they compose 17% of the valid age range, while they composed 10% of the survey sample).

Statistics Canada reports that 51% of Nunavut residents are male and 49% were female. Women were therefore likely over-represented in the survey sample (63%), suggesting there may have been a non-response bias for men.

However, the survey employment rate (58% including government employees, private company employees, and self-employed respondents) was comparable to the employment rate posted by the Government of Nunavut (54%) suggesting there was no non-response bias by employment.¹⁰,¹¹

The over-representation of women, the under-representation of individuals aged 20-24 years, and the absence of reliable population-level data on NLCA beneficiaries which aligns with the variables collected, suggests that survey results should not be generalized to the entire population of NLCA beneficiaries in Nunavut.

Section 2. Findings

The following sections describe the key findings of the Nunavut Inuit Survey and the community focus groups.

2.1 Demographic Profile of Respondents

Differences between groups are described below for demographic and other relevant profile questions:

• Gender;
• Age groups;
• Region;
• Language skills;
• Family responsibilities;
• Participation in Inuit cultural activities;
• Engagement in education;
• Employment;
• Government employment history; and
• Government employment role.

Gender and Age

The majority of survey respondents were female (63%), while the remaining one-third were male (37%). Over one-half of survey respondents reported their age as 30 to 54 years (56%), while very few respondents (3%) reported being 18 to 19 years of age (see Table 2.1).

Region

Nunavut is often divided in three regions: Baffin, Keewatin, and Kitikmeot. The capital city, Iqaluit, is located in the Baffin region. Given that Iqaluit is the largest city in Nunavut, residents may have different experiences in Iqaluit than the rest of the Baffin region. Iqaluit was therefore separated from the Baffin region for analysis. Similar proportions of survey respondents reported living in the Baffin region, excluding Iqaluit (38%), as in Keewatin (30%) at the time of surveying (see Table 2.2).

Language Skills

Respondents were asked about which languages they felt comfortable speaking, reading, and writing. Based on the full sample of survey respondents, they were approximately equally likely to report being comfortable speaking Inuktitut (75%) and English (74%), they were more likely to report being comfortable reading (86% were comfortable reading English, 45% were comfortable reading Inuktitut) and writing (86% were comfortable writing in English, 46% were comfortable writing in Inuktitut) in English than in Inuktitut (see Table 2.3).

Region of residence was commonly associated with language skills. Respondents who lived in the Baffin region (outside of Iqaluit), said they were more comfortable speaking Inuktitut (see Table 2.4). Respondents were also more comfortable reading and writing Inuktitut in the Baffin region outside of Iqaluit, Iqaluit, and Keewatin region than those in Kitikmeot. In contrast, respondents said they were more comfortable speaking, reading, and writing English when they lived in Kitikmeot region, Iqaluit, and Keewatin region than those in the rest of the Baffin region.¹³

Age and gender differences were also evident.¹⁴ Respondents aged 30 to 54 years were more likely to report being comfortable speaking Inuktitut than those aged 18 to 24 years. Respondents aged 55 years and older were reportedly less comfortable speaking English than those aged 18 to 24 years. No other statistically significant age differences were evident (see Table 2.5).

Female respondents were more likely to report being comfortable writing Inuktitut (52%) than male respondents (37%); though they were not statistically significantly more likely to report being comfortable writing in English (86% of female respondents and 88% of male respondents). Gender differences were not evident in respondents’ reported comfort speaking Inuktitut and English (77% of female respondents were comfortable in Inuktitut and 73% of female respondents were comfortable in English; 75% of male respondents were comfortable in Inuktitut and 77% of male respondents were comfortable in English). Statistically significant gender differences were also not evident in respondents’ reported comfort reading Inuktitut and English (50% of female respondents were comfortable in Inuktitut and 85% of female respondents were comfortable in English; 37% of male respondents were comfortable in Inuktitut and 88% of male respondents were comfortable in English).

As well, respondents who were interested in government work were more likely to report being comfortable writing English (88%) than those not interested in government work (67%). Though differences were not evident in comfort speaking and reading English. Seventy-four percent of those interested in government work were comfortable speaking and 86% were comfortable reading English. In comparison, 59% of those not interested in government work were comfortable speaking and 70% were comfortable reading English. This may reflect the perception (as expressed in the focus groups), that English is predominantly used in government work, and that government work is often office based (requiring writing skills).

Language Comparison Groups: Throughout the analysis, comparisons were made between respondents grouped based on their reported proficiency in Inuit languages (Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun) and English.¹⁵ They were then divided into groups based on whether they felt comfortable speaking, reading, and writing in English and/or Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun (see Table 2.6):

• Comprehensive bilingual respondents: Those who reported they felt comfortable speaking, reading and writing in English and Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun;
• Conversational bilingual respondents: Those who reported they felt comfortable speaking English as well as Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun, though not reading or writing in English and Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun;
• Unilingual English respondents: Those who reported they were not comfortable speaking, reading, or writing in Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun, though they reportedly were in English; and
• Unilingual Inuktitut respondents: Those who reported they were not comfortable speaking, reading, or writing in English, though they reportedly were in Inuktitut.¹⁶

As displayed in Table 2.7, comprehensive bilingual respondents were more likely to be female than were conversational bilingual respondents. Gender differences between unilingual English and unilingual Inuktitut respondents were not statistically significant.

Additionally, respondents who lived in the Baffin region, outside of Iqaluit, were statistically significantly more likely to be classified as unilingual in Inuktitut than any other language group. Kitikmeot residents were more likely to be classified as unilingual Anglophones than any other language group. No other statistically significant differences by region and language were evident. There were no statistically significant age differences between language groups.

Family Responsibilities, Participation in Inuit Cultural Activities, and Engagement in Education

As demonstrated in Table 2.8, the majority of survey respondents reported they engaged in cultural activities such as hunting, fishing, sewing, and carving (79%) and/or had family responsibilities (70%). Participating in cultural activities did not vary in a statistically significant manner by gender or age, as men (80%) and women (79%) were equally likely to report engaging in cultural activities, as were those aged 18 to 24 (77%), 25 to 29 (88%), 30 to 54 (78%), and 55 years or older (80%). Respondents in the various regions were approximately equally likely to report engaging in cultural activities (82% of those in Iqaluit, 79% of those in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 79% of those in Keewatin, and 81% of those in Kitikmeot).

The differences between the proportion of women (73%) and men (67%) who reported having family responsibilities was not statistically significant; however, more respondents with family responsibilities were aged 30 to 54 years (73%) or 25 to 29 years (79%). Fewer respondents with family responsibilities were aged 55 years or older (53%). Respondents aged 18 to 24 (70%) were not statistically significantly different from the other groups.

Respondents living in Iqaluit (55%) were also less likely to have reported having family responsibilities than those in the remainder of Baffin region (74%), the Kitikmeot region (79%), or the Keewatin region (69%).

One-fifth of respondents reported they were enrolled in education or a training program (21%). There were no statistically significant differences between age groups in terms of enrollment in education or training at the time of the survey. Statistically similar proportions of respondents were enrolled in education or training among 18 to 24 year olds (29% were enrolled), 25 to 29 year olds (32% were enrolled), 30 to 54 year olds (18% were enrolled), and respondents aged 55 years and older (15% were enrolled).

There was no statistically significant difference between the proportion of women (20%) and men (22%) who reported being enrolled in education or training at the time of the survey.

Employment

As demonstrated in Table 2.9, a high proportion of the sample reported not being employed in the wage economy (42%), they were neither government employees nor private employees, nor were they self-employed.

Those respondents who were not employed in the wage economy, however, frequently had family responsibilities (78%) and were more likely to be women (65%) than men (35%). Respondents who reported being employed by a private company or Inuit organization were equally divided between men (50%) and women (50%) and almost one quarter were engaged in education or training during survey administration (22%). Self-employed individuals were somewhat more likely to be men (54%) than women (46%), and frequently reported having family responsibilities (73%). A high proportion of respondents from all employment groups reported engaging in cultural activities (see Table 2.10).

Government Employment History and Role

Almost two-fifths of respondents reported they worked for the government or hamlet (38%) at the time of the survey. Additionally, 42% of survey respondents reported they had been government employees in the past, while 20% had never been employed by the government or hamlet. In total, 62% reported they were not employed by the government at the time of the survey (see Table 2.11).

Most of the current government employees were female (69%). Similarly, respondents were more likely to have reported being current government employees if they lived in Iqaluit (64% were government employees) than the rest of Baffin region (28% were government employees), Keewatin (40% were government employees), or Kitikmeot (35% were government employees).

Probit regression¹⁷ confirmed that respondents had a greater probability of being employed by the government or hamlet if they were female (.254) or lived in Iqaluit (.733). It also revealed that respondents were less likely to have been government or hamlet employees if they had completed less than a high school diploma (grade 10 or 11: -.421; less than grade 10: -.832), compared to those with a high school diploma or post-secondary degree, certificate, or diploma.

The majority of current government employees (38% of the sample, 189 individuals) reported that they had family responsibilities (68%) and/or engaged in cultural activities (82%).

Among current government employees, 26% reported that they had a supervisory or management role and 74% reported they had a non-supervisory role. As demonstrated below (see Table 2.12), there were no statistically significant differences in likelihood of being a supervisor by gender, age, language, or geographic groups.

2.2 Interest

2.2.1 Interest Summary

The following section describes respondents’ reported interest in government employment, and the factors that contributed to their interest. There are three levels of government in Nunavut: municipal corporations (hamlets and the City of Iqaluit); the territorial government, the Government of Nunavut and its agencies (such as Nunavut Arctic College (NAC), Nunavut Housing Corporation, and Qulliq Energy Corporation); and the federal government, the Government of Canada.

Among the 62% (311 individuals) of survey respondents who were not current government employees, 89% reported being interested in obtaining employment in at least one level of government. As demonstrated in Table 2.13, individuals over the age of 54, unilingual in Inuktitut, and engaged in family or cultural activities rather than the wage economy were statistically significantly less likely to be interested in government employment than others.

Among respondents who were not current government employees (62% of the sample, 311 individuals), 45% reported they were interested in working for the hamlet or City of Iqaluit, 58% reported they were interested in working for the Government of Nunavut, and 51% reported they were interested in working for the Government of Canada. Interest in government employment was related to the level of education achieved; focus group participants believed that not having a high school diploma reduced their likelihood of being employed in the government.

Unprompted responses from survey respondents who were not current government employees and who were interested in government work suggested government jobs were interesting due to their pay (26%), the difference they could make in the economy or community (15%), and/or the challenging and interesting work (14%) they provide. When asked what types of government jobs interested them, survey respondents most frequently reported being interested in outdoor work (68%), teaching Inuit cultural activities (60%), and/or administrative support work (51%).

Approximately one-half (52%) of respondents not currently working for the government or hamlet (62% of the sample, 311 individuals) reportedly have looked for a job in the government or hamlet in the past. Additionally, over one-half of non-government employee survey respondents (57%) said they planned to apply for a job in the government or hamlet over the next year.

Among respondents who were not government employees and did not plan to apply for a job in the government or hamlet (134 individuals), 83% said they would do so if they knew it was a workplace where Inuit culture was supported. Moreover, most non-government employee respondents believed that having co-workers who speak Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun (61%) and understand Inuit culture or society (69%) was very important.

2.2.2 Interest in Government Employment

Among respondents who were not current government employees (62% of the sample, 311 individuals), 45% reported they were interested in working for the hamlet or City of Iqaluit, 58% reported they were interested in working for the Government of Nunavut, and 51% reported they were interested in working for the Government of Canada (see Table 2.14).

As demonstrated in Table 2.15, respondents’ frequency of reporting being somewhat or very interested in government employment at each level did not statistically significantly vary by gender, age, or language proficiency. However, respondents’ interest in Government of Nunavut employment was highest among respondents living in the Kitikmeot region (70%), compared to other regions of Nunavut (46% to 59%). Similarly, respondents enrolled in education were more likely to have reported being interested in Government of Nunavut employment (81%) than those not enrolled in education (56%). Statistically significant differences were not evident by gender, age, enrolment in education, region, or language for interest in Government of Canada or hamlet or City of Iqaluit employment.

Focus group respondents suggested that a barrier to their interest in government employment was not being able to demonstrate the skills learned through experience outside of formal education and paid work, because they believed that it was difficult to provide evidence that they had these skills in a résumé or interview. Focus group respondents believed this was primarily a barrier for older individuals.

The results of a probit regression, which excluded individuals already employed in the government, confirmed that respondents had a greater probability of being interested in government work at any level if they were younger (continuous age coefficient = -.034). However, results also suggest that those who had a grade 10 or 11 education were less likely to have been interested in government employment (-.659).¹⁸ Gender and region of residence did not statistically significantly enter into the probit regression model.

As well, focus group participants were aware that not having a high school diploma reduced their likelihood of being employed in the government, as they cited not having formal educational qualifications (such as high school and post-secondary degrees) as a reason for not being interested in pursuing government employment.

Interest in Work Tasks

Focus group participants suggested that the jobs or tasks offered by government employers had an impact on their interest in seeking government work. Respondents indicated that the types of jobs available (such as trades) were one factor that increased their interest in government work, while a perception that government jobs frequently involved indoor office work decreased their interest.

Survey responses corroborate focus group results, as respondents who were interested in government work (89% of the 62% of the sample who were not government employees) were most likely to report being interested in outdoor work (68%). They also said they were interested in teaching Inuit cultural activities (60%) and/or administrative support work (51%) (see Table 2.16). There were statistically significant differences in interest in work types by gender, language groups, participation in Inuit cultural activities, family responsibilities, and engagement in education at the time of the survey.

Gender: Cross-tabulation analysis revealed substantial gender differences in the types of work that interested respondents. For example, female respondents tended to report being more interested in professions that involved supporting their community members directly through education, healthcare, social and mental health services, and court work; while male respondents reported being interested in outdoor work that involved equipment. One exception is trucked services, which support communities directly and in which men were more interested.

Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to report being interested in:

• Administrative assistance (64% of female respondents compared to 34% of male respondents);
• Healthcare (57% of female respondents compared to 32% of male respondents);
• Education (48% of female respondents compared to 28% of male respondents);
• Social or mental health services (48% of female respondents compared to 28% of male respondents);
• Finances (43% of female respondents compared to 29% of male respondents); and
• Court work (35% of female respondents compared to 16% of male respondents).

Alternatively, male respondents were more likely than female respondents to report being interested in:

• Outdoor work (84% of male respondents compared to 56% of female respondents);
• Operating heavy equipment (61% of male respondents compared to 25% of female respondents); and
• Trucked services (61% of male respondents compared to 22% of female respondents).

No statistically significant gender differences were evident in reported interest in:

• Management (38% of female respondents, 39% of male respondents);
• Research, policy, program development (48% of female respondents, 46% of male respondents);
• Law enforcement (28% of female respondents, 22% of male respondents); or
• Teaching traditional cultural activities (59% of female respondents, 63% of male respondents).

Language: Statistically significant differences in interest were also evident among language groups in:

• Research, policy, and program development (40% of those comprehensively bilingual in English and Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun, 61% of those conversationally bilingual in English and Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun, and 46% of those unilingual in Inuktitut compared to 37% of those unilingual in English); and
• Administrative assistance (58% of those comprehensively bilingual, 57% of those conversationally bilingual, and 48% of those unilingual in English, compared to 27% of those unilingual in Inuktitut).

Statistically significant differences were not evident between language groups in reported interest in:

• Management (48% of those comprehensively bilingual, 43% of those conversationally bilingual, 35% of those unilingual in English);¹⁹
• Finances (46% of those comprehensively bilingual, 36% of those conversationally bilingual, 42% of those unilingual in English, 27% of those unilingual in Inuktitut);
• Law enforcement (35% of those comprehensively bilingual, 30% of those conversationally bilingual, of those 35% unilingual in English, 15% of those unilingual in Inuktitut);
• Outdoor work (75% of those comprehensively bilingual, 73% of those conversationally bilingual, 62% of those unilingual in English, 65% of those unilingual in Inuktitut);
• Heavy equipment operations (37% of those comprehensively bilingual, 45% of those conversationally bilingual, 37% of those unilingual in English, 35% of those unilingual in Inuktitut);
• Social or mental health services (46% of those comprehensively bilingual, 39% of those conversationally bilingual, 39% of those unilingual in English, 42% of those unilingual in Inuktitut);
• Education (48% of those comprehensively bilingual, 41% of those conversationally bilingual, 33% of those unilingual in English, 50% of those unilingual in Inuktitut);
• Healthcare (52% of those comprehensively bilingual, 54% of those conversationally bilingual, 33% of those unilingual in English, 39% of those unilingual in Inuktitut);
• Trucked services (31% of those comprehensively bilingual, 45% of those conversationally bilingual, 37% of those unilingual in English, 27% of those unilingual in Inuktitut);
• Court work (35% of those comprehensively bilingual, 34% of those conversationally bilingual, 17% of those unilingual in English, 27% of those unilingual in Inuktitut); and
• Teaching traditional cultural activities (67% of those comprehensively bilingual, 72% of those conversationally bilingual, 52% of those unilingual in English, 62% of those unilingual in Inuktitut).

Engagement in Cultural Activities: Respondents who reported participating in Inuit cultural activities (such as hunting, fishing, sewing, carving, and other activities) were more likely than those who did not participate in cultural activities to have reported being interested in all areas of work. Specifically, respondents who engaged in Inuit cultural activities were more likely to report being interested in:

• Outdoor work (74% of those who engaged in cultural activities compared to 49% of those who did not engage in cultural activities);
• Teaching Inuit cultural activities (70% of those who engaged in cultural activities compared to 29% of those who did not engage in cultural activities);
• Administrative assistance (55% of those who engaged in cultural activities compared to 38% of those who did not engage in cultural activities);
• Research, policy, and program development (54% of those who engaged in cultural activities compared to 24% of those who did not engage in cultural activities);
• Healthcare (53% of those who engaged in cultural activities compared to 25% of those who did not engage in cultural activities);
• Education (46% of those who engaged in cultural activities compared to 21% of those who did not engage in cultural activities);
• Social or mental health services (46% of those who engaged in cultural activities compared to 18% of those who did not engage in cultural activities);
• Management work (43% of those who engaged in cultural activities compared to 22% of those who did not engage in cultural activities);
• Finances (41% of those who engaged in cultural activities compared to 24% of those who did not engage in cultural activities);
• Court work (30% of those who engaged in cultural activities compared to 18% of those who did not engage in cultural activities); and
• Law enforcement (29% of those who engaged in cultural activities compared to 13% of those who did not engage in cultural activities).

Given that respondents who reported engaging in cultural activities were more likely than those who did not to report interest in many types of work, the following potential intervening variables were examined:

• Physical health (based on whether they indicated they had health issues which would prevent them from working): Respondents who did not engage in cultural activities were not statistically significantly less likely to report having a health issue which prevented them from working (21%) than those who did engage in cultural activities (25%);
• Gender: Women were not statistically significantly more likely to report engaging in cultural activities (79%) than were men (80%) and
• Education: Individuals who reported engaging in cultural activities were statistically significantly more likely to report having completed additional education, such as post-secondary degrees, certificates, and diplomas (62%) than those who did not engage in cultural activities (50%).

Therefore, the relationship between engaging in cultural activities and interest in work types may be influenced by educational achievement.

Family Responsibilities: Respondents with family responsibilities were more likely than those without family responsibilities to have reported being interested in almost all areas of work. Specifically, they were more interested in:

• Outdoor work (73% of those with family responsibilities compared to 56% of those without family responsibilities);
• Teaching Inuit cultural activities (67% of those with family responsibilities compared to 47% of those without family responsibilities);
• Administrative support (57% of those with family responsibilities compared to 38% of those without family responsibilities);
• Healthcare (55% of those with family responsibilities compared to 25% of those without family responsibilities);
• Research, policy, or program development (52% of those with family responsibilities compared to 34% of those without family responsibilities);
• Education (49% of those with family responsibilities compared to 18% of those without family responsibilities);
• Heavy equipment operation (44% of those with family responsibilities compared to 29% of those without family responsibilities);
• Management work (43% of those with family responsibilities compared to 27% of those without family responsibilities);
• Finances (41% of those with family responsibilities compared to 27% of those without family responsibilities);
• Court work (32% of those with family responsibilities compared to 17% of those without family responsibilities); and
• Law enforcement (27% of those with family responsibilities compared to 20% of those without family responsibilities).

Given that respondents who reported having family responsibilities were more likely to report an interest in many types of work, the following potential intervening variables were examined:

• Physical health (based on whether they indicated they had health issues which would prevent them from working): Respondents who did not report family responsibilities were not statistically significantly more likely to report having a health issue which prevented them from working (26%) than those who did have family responsibilities (23%);
• Gender: Women were not statistically significantly more likely to report having family responsibilities (73%) than were men (67%); and
• Education: Respondents with family responsibilities were not statistically significantly more likely to report having completed additional education, such as post-secondary degrees, certificates, and diplomas (60%) than those without family responsibilities (58%).

Therefore, among the variables examined, no intervening variables were evident.

Engagement in Education: Respondents who were engaged in education or training at the time of the survey were more likely to have reported being interested in employment in the education sector (62% of those engaged in education compared to 36% of those not engaged in education) or in management positions (52% of those engaged in education compared to 36% of those not engaged in education). Statistically significant differences were not evident in reported interest in other types of work.

Respondents in different age groups and different regions of Nunavut did not statistically significantly differ in their interest in any type of work.

Reasons for Interest in Government or Hamlet Work

Focus group respondents suggested that government jobs were interesting because they thought they offered good job security and high pay.

Unprompted responses²⁰ from survey respondents who were not current government employees, and who were interested in government work, also reported being interested in government jobs due to the pay (26%) (see Table 2.17). Respondents’ comments suggested that they were more likely to be interested in government work because it could make a difference in the economy or community (15%) or provide challenging and interesting work (14%) than because it provided job security (9%).

Focus group results suggest that the perception of a preponderance of office work was a reason for not being interested in government work.

However, among survey respondents who were not current government employees, and who were interested in government work, office work was towards the middle of their list of reasons for being interested in government work. Survey respondents without family responsibilities, were twice (18%) as likely as those with family responsibilities (9%) to report that office work contributed to their interest in government employment.

Respondents’ reported reasons for being interested in government work did not vary in a statistically significant manner by gender, age, region of residence, or language group. This may be due to the small group sizes which resulted from a large number of response options.

2.2.3 Past and Future Intentions to Apply for Government Employment

Survey results suggested that it was relatively common for respondents to have sought government employment. Approximately one-half (52%) of respondents not currently working for the government or hamlet (62% of the sample, 311 individuals) reportedly have looked for a job in the government or hamlet in the past. Respondents who were interested in working in at least one level of government were more likely to report that they have looked for a job in the government or hamlet (55% had looked) than those not interested in government work (31% had looked). Respondents who reported looking for a government job did not statistically significantly differ by gender (51% of female respondents, 56% of male respondents), age (53% of those aged 18 to 24 years, 68% of those aged 25 to 29 years, 50% of those aged 30 to 54 years, 52% of those aged 55 years and older), region (42% of those in Iqaluit, 51% of those in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 57% of those in Keewatin, 57% of those in Kitikmeot), or language group (47% of comprehensive bilinguals in English and Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun, 64% of conversational bilinguals in English and Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun, 60% of those unilingual in Inuktitut, 49% of those unilingual in English).

The majority of those who looked for a job in government (52%) reported that they applied for a job or position in government (80%). The proportion of respondents who reported they had applied for a government job did not statistically significantly differ by gender (81% of female respondents, 77% of male respondents), age (72% of those aged 18 to 24 years, 87% of those aged 25 to 29 years, 81% of those aged 30 to 54 years, 71% of those aged 55 years and older), region of Nunavut (70% of those in Iqaluit, 82% of those in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 76% of those in Keewatin, 80% of those in Kitikmeot), or language group (73% of comprehensive bilinguals, 80% of conversational bilinguals, 67% of those unilingual in Inuktitut, 100% of those unilingual in English).

Among survey respondents who were non-government employees (62%, 311 individuals), 57% said they planned to apply for a job in the government or hamlet over the next year, while 43% would not. Among the respondents who did not intend to apply for a job in the government, 58% said they would do so if there was a job located in their community (38% would not, 4% did not know). Among all non-government employee survey respondents, therefore, an additional 25% reported that they would plan to apply for a government or hamlet job over the next year if it was located in their community.

Respondents who were not government employees and who lived in Iqaluit were less likely to report they plan to apply for a government or hamlet job in the future (33% of those who lived in Iqaluit, compared to 63% of respondents in the rest of Baffin region, 65% of respondents in the Keewatin region, or 65% of respondents in the Kitikmeot region). Plans to apply for government jobs in the next year did not vary in a statistically significant manner based on gender (61% of female respondents, 62% of male respondents), age (63% of those aged 18 to 24 years, 70% of those aged 25 to 29 years, 63% of those aged 30 to 54 years, 49% of those aged 55 years or older), or language group (69% of comprehensive bilinguals, 62% of conversational bilinguals, 59% of those unilingual in Inuktitut, 67% of those unilingual in English). Respondents were also not more likely to report willingness to apply for government jobs in their community by gender (59% of female respondents, 62% of male respondents), age (53% of those aged 18 to 24 years, 69% of those aged 25 to 29 years, 68% of those aged 30 to 54 years, 43% of those aged 55 years and older), region (44% of respondents in Iqaluit, 65% of respondents in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 53% of respondents in Keewatin, 71% of respondents in Kitikmeot), or language groups (75% of comprehensive bilinguals, 66% of conversational bilinguals, 47% of those unilingual in Inuktitut, 48% of those unilingual in English).

Sources of Information on Government Employment Opportunities

Based on the total sample of survey respondents, respondents reported that they sought government employment through the Internet (26%), community bulletin boards (23%), local hamlet (22%) or Government of Nunavut sources (20%) (such as the Government of Nunavut website and flyers), or in newspapers (22%). Respondents were more likely to report seeking employment opportunities on the Internet if they:

• Lived in Iqaluit (43%) and the Keewatin region (33%), compared to the rest of Baffin region residents (19%). Kitikmeot residents were not statistically significantly different from the other groups (25%);
• Were comprehensive bilinguals in English and an Inuit language (Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun) (41%), compared to conversational bilinguals in English and an Inuit language (25%) and respondents unilingual in Inuktitut (13%). Respondents unilingual in English were not statistically significantly different from the other groups (32%);
• Participated in Inuit cultural activities (31%), compared to those who did not participate in cultural activities (16%);
• Were enrolled in education at the time of the survey (36%), compared to those not enrolled in education (26%); or
• Were currently employed by the government (38%), compared to those who have worked for the government in the past (23%) or who have never worked for the government (20%).

Differences between age groups, genders, and education engagement on their reported likelihood of seeking government employment through the Internet were not statistically significant:

• Respondents aged 18 to 24 years (22%), 25 to 29 years (38%), 30 to 54 years (29%), and 55 years and older (19%) reported they would seek government employment through the Internet;
• Female (31%) and male (22%) respondents reported they would seek government employment through the Internet; and
• Respondents engaged in education or training at the time of the survey (36%) and those not engaged in education (26%) reported they would seek government employment through the Internet.

Respondents were more likely to report seeking employment opportunities through local hamlet or Government of Nunavut sources if they:

• Lived in the Keewatin region (30%), compared to those who lived in the Baffin region outside of Iqaluit (16%). Iqaluit (28%) and Kitikmeot (18%) residents were not statistically significantly different from the other groups;
• Were unilingual in Inuktitut (40%), compared to those unilingual in English (17%) and comprehensive bilinguals in English and Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun (17%). Conversational bilinguals were not statistically significantly different from the other groups (26%);
• Were not enrolled in education at the time of the survey (27%), compared to those enrolled in education (13%); or
• Were not current government employees (31% who have never worked for the government, 30% who worked for the government in the past), compared to current government employees (15%).

2.2.4 Importance of Inuit Language and Culture in the Workplace

Non-Government Employees

Among non-government employees (62% of the sample, 311 individuals), the majority believed that having co-workers who speak Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun (61%) and understand Inuit culture or society (69%) was very important (see Table 2.19). Working in an environment where Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun was spoken was reportedly more important to respondents aged 30 to 54 years (86%) or 55 years and older (92%), than those aged 18 to 24 years (66%; respondents aged 25 to 29 years were not statistically significantly different from the other groups, 81%).

The proportion of respondents who believed it was very or somewhat important to work with people who spoke Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun did not vary in a statistically significant manner by gender (86% of female respondents, 81% of male respondents), region (91% of those in Iqaluit, 83% of those in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 87% of those in Keewatin, 78% of those in Kitikmeot), or language group (91% of comprehensive bilinguals, 82% of conversational bilinguals, 94% of those unilingual in Inuktitut, 72% of those unilingual in English). Similarly, the proportion of respondents who believed it was very or somewhat important to work with people who understand Inuit culture and society did not statistically significantly differ by gender (91% of female respondents, 87% of male respondents), age (80% of those aged 18 to 24 years, 84% of those aged 25 to 29 years, 91% of those aged 30 to 54 years, 96% of those aged 55 years and older), region (91% of those in Iqaluit, 91% of those in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 84% of those in Keewatin, 92% of those in Kitikmeot), or language group (98% of comprehensive bilinguals, 88% of conversational bilinguals, 94% of those unilingual in Inuktitut, 91% of those unilingual in English).

Among respondents who reported they did not plan to apply for a job in the government or hamlet (43% of non-government employees), 83% said they would do so if they knew it was a workplace where Inuit culture was supported. Of the entire sample of non-government employee respondents (62%, 311 individuals), this represents an additional 36% who stated they would apply for a job if they knew Inuit culture was supported. The relationship between plans to apply for government positions and culturally supportive workplaces is demonstrated in Figure 2.20.

Figure 2.20: Relationship between Plans to Apply for a Government Job and Workplace Support for Inuit Culture

Though those interested in government work were more likely to have said that they would apply for a job in the next year if they knew it were a workplace that supported Inuit culture (93%), those not interested in government work (77%) were also highly likely to say they would apply to a workplace supportive of Inuit culture. Respondents with family responsibilities were also more likely to apply to work in a workplace they knew to be supportive of Inuit culture (94%) than those who did not have family responsibilities (82%).

Reported likelihood of applying for a government job if it was known to be a workplace in which Inuit culture was supported did not differ in a statistically significant manner between groups based on gender, age, region, or language (see Table 2.21).²¹

Indeed, focus group respondents suggested that positive working relationships, cultivated by working with individuals who are familiar with Nunavut and Inuit culture, was a factor which influenced their interest in government work.

Government Employees

Current government employee respondents (38% of the sample, 189 individuals) were predominantly female and between the ages of 30 to 54 years (see Table 2.22). Approximately one-third resided in Keewatin and one-fifth resided in Kitikmeot. They most frequently reported being comfortable at least speaking both English and Inuktitut (conversational bilinguals), if not also being comfortable reading and writing English and Inuktitut (comprehensive bilinguals). The majority of current government employee respondents reported having completed education or training beyond high school.

In general, it was very important to current government employee respondents that their government/hamlet workplace supported Inuit culture. The support of their co-workers (89%) and supervisors (87%) for Inuit culture in the workplace was approximately equally important (very important or somewhat important) to respondents (see Table 2.23).

Respondents who were comprehensive bilinguals in English and Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun were more likely than their unilingual English counterparts to report that co-worker support of Inuit culture in the workplace was very or somewhat important (see Table 2.24). Conversational bilingual and unilingual Inuktitut respondents were not statistically significantly different from comprehensive bilinguals.

The proportion of government employee respondents who reported it was somewhat or very important for their co-workers to support Inuit culture did not statistically significantly vary by gender, age, or region (see Table 2.24).

Similarly, the proportion of respondents who reported it was somewhat or very important for their supervisor to support Inuit culture did not statistically significantly vary by gender (84% among females, 93% among males), age (78% among those aged 18 to 24 years, 81% among those aged 25 to 29 years, 89% among those aged 30 to 54 years, 88% among those aged 55 years and older), region (95% among those living in Iqaluit, 83% among those living in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 91% among those living in Keewatin, 76% among those living in Kitikmeot), or language (94% among those who are comprehensive bilingual, 84% among those who are conversational bilingual, 77% among those who are unilingual Inuktitut, 88% among those who are unilingual English).

The relationship between the importance of supervisor or co-worker support for Inuit culture and government employees’ workplace satisfaction was also examined. Though no statistically significant relationship was apparent, this may be due to low sample sizes as the majority of respondents who indicated that supervisor support was somewhat or very important agreed (agreed and strongly agreed) that they enjoyed their current workplace (87% supervisor support, 88% co-worker support).

Supervision: Approximately one-third (37%) of government employee respondents (38% of the sample, 189 individuals) reported they were supervised by an Inuk person while 62% indicated they were not supervised by an Inuk person.²² Male respondents more commonly reported they were supervised by an Inuk person (53%) than female respondents (30%). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents who reported being supervised by an Inuk person by age (59% among those aged 18 to 24 years, 55% among those aged 25 to 29 years, 32% among those aged 30 to 54 years, 35% among those aged 55 years and older), region (24% of those living in Iqaluit, 50% of those living in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 34% of those living in Keewatin, 41% of those living in Kitikmeot), or language (31% among those who are comprehensive bilingual, 44% among those who are conversational bilingual, 50% among those who are unilingual Inuktitut, 32% among those who are unilingual English).

Gender differences in whether or not government employees reported they were supervised by an Inuk person and had opportunities to learn about Inuit culture at work may have been related to the level of government in which they were employed. Women were more likely to work for the Government of Nunavut (73% of female respondents compared to 40% of male respondents) while men were more likely to work for a hamlet or the City of Iqaluit (51% of male respondents were employed by a hamlet/Iqaluit, compared to 18% of female respondents) (see Section 2.5.2).

Opportunities to learn about Inuit culture: The majority of government employee respondents reported that there were opportunities to learn about Inuit culture in their government and hamlet workplaces (71%). Female respondents more frequently reported that there were opportunities to learn about Inuit culture at their workplace (78%) than male respondents (63%). No statistically significant differences were evident between comprehensive bilinguals in English and Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun (85%), conversational bilinguals (75%), respondents unilingual in Inuktitut (67%), and respondents unilingual in English (68%). There were also no statistically significant differences by age (78% among those aged 18 to 24 years old, 50% among those aged 25 to 29 years old, 77% among those aged 30 to 54 years old, 84% among those aged 55 years and older) or region (79% of those living in Iqaluit, 73% of those living in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 75% of those living in Keewatin, 66% of those living in Kitikmeot).

Importance of Use of Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun in Government Workplaces

Most (71%) government employee respondents (38% of the sample, 189 individuals) felt that it was very important that they be able to use Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun at work, if they so chose (see Table 2.25). A majority felt it was also very important for supervisors (52%) and co-workers (60%) to use Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun.

Being able to use Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun at work was, reportedly, particularly important (somewhat important and very important) to government employee respondents aged 30 to 54 and 55 years or older, compared to respondents aged 25 to 29 years and 18 to 24 years. Similarly, more respondents aged 18 to 24, 30 to 54, and 55 years or older, compared to those aged 25 to 29 years reported that having a supervisor who speaks Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun was important (see Table 2.26).

As well, government employee respondents who were not engaged in continuing education at the time of the survey were more likely to have reported that being able to speak Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun at work was important (92%) than those engaged in education (77%).

The proportion of respondents who reported that being able to speak Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun at work, having a supervisor who spoke Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun, and having co-workers who spoke Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun did not differ in a statistically significant manner by gender, region, or language. The reported importance of having co-workers who spoke Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun was also not significantly different by age (see Table 2.26).

Use of Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun in Government Workplaces

Though 71% of government employee respondents (38% of the sample, 189 individuals) felt it was very important to be able to use Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun at work, a smaller proportion (66%) reported they were able to use these languages all (35%) or most (31%) of the time (see Table 2.27). The ability to work in Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun all or most of the time was more commonly reported by participants who lived in the Baffin (outside of Iqaluit) (83%) and Keewatin regions (76%), than in Iqaluit (45%) or Kitikmeot (45%). It was also more common among respondents aged 30 to 54 years (72%) or 55 years and older (73%) compared to those aged 25 to 29 (36%) and 18 to 24 (56%) years. Reportedly being able to work in Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun always or most of the time did not statistically significantly differ by gender (67% of female respondents, 64% of male respondents).

As stated above, 60% of government employee respondents felt it was very important that their co-workers speak Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun, and 92% reported that their co-workers do speak an Inuit language at least some of the time. In contrast, only 40% of respondents reported that their supervisors could speak Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun (see Table 2.28).

Female respondents were more likely to have reported that their supervisor never spoke Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun (65%) than male respondents (44%). Respondents who lived in Iqaluit were more likely to have reported that their supervisor did not speak Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun (85%) than those who lived in the rest of the Baffin (47%) or Keewatin (46%) regions. Respondents in the Kitikmeot region (61%) were not statistically significantly different from the other groups. There were no statistically significant differences between language groups in the proportion who reported that their supervisors never spoke Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun (62% among those who were comprehensive bilingual, 48% among those who were conversational bilingual, 41% among those who were unilingual Inuktitut, 75% among those who were unilingual English). The lack of statistically significant differences may be due to small sample sizes.²³ There were also no statistically significant differences by gender or age. There were no statistically significant differences in respondents’ reports on the frequency with which their co-workers spoke Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun by gender, age, or region.²⁴

The divide in Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun knowledge between respondents’ co-workers and supervisors is discussed in greater depth in the conclusions (Section 3).

2.3 Availability

2.3.1 Availability Summary

The following section describes findings related to the reported availability of Nunavut Inuit for government employment. Findings address respondents’ availability throughout the year, barriers to their availability, and factors they said were related to their availability to move for employment.

Approximately one-third of non-government employee respondents (62% of the sample, 311 individuals) reported that they were too busy to be available to work for the government or hamlet (30%), while one-quarter (23%) indicated that they had health problems which would make it impossible to work in the government. Almost one-half of respondents felt they would be available to work in the government or hamlet at any time throughout the year (46%), while one-fifth would be available most months of the year (20%).

Focus group participants suggested that caring for family members, challenges communicating their skills to employers, physical and mental health issues, criminal records, a perceived preference to hire individuals from outside of Nunavut, the work schedule, and being unable to relocate were barriers to their availability for government work.

2.3.2 Availability for Government Employment

Focus group participants were asked to explain their interpretation of the concept of being available to work. They felt that availability to work included being willing to take and commit to a job, and to take additional training if needed. Having quality, affordable child or Elder care support (e.g., daycares, home care, Elder housing) was also believed to be key to being available to work.

Approximately one-third (30%) of non-government employee survey respondents (62% of the sample, 311 individuals) reported that they were too busy to be available to work for the government or hamlet, while another one-third reported that they were not too busy (32%). The remaining one-third neither agreed nor disagreed that they were too busy (32%).²⁵

The extent to which respondents reported being too busy to work for the government or hamlet was not statistically related to respondents having family responsibilities (32% of those with family responsibilities were too busy compared to 28% of those without family responsibilities), being involved in cultural activities (29% of those who participated in cultural activities were too busy compared to 35% of those not engaged in cultural activities), or being employed (30% of those who were employed were too busy compared to 32% of those who were not employed). It was also not statistically significantly related to gender (30% of female respondents, 32% of male respondents), age (35% of those aged 18 to 24 years, 30% of those aged 25 to 29 years, 27% of those aged 30 to 54 years, 36% of those aged 55 years and older), region (21% of respondents residing in Iqaluit, 32% of respondents residing in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 27% of respondents residing in Keewatin, 37% of respondents residing in Kitikmeot), or language group (30% of those who were comprehensive bilingual, 32% of those who were conversational bilingual, 41% of those who were unilingual in Inuktitut, 23% of those who were unilingual in English).

As demonstrated in Table 2.29, almost one-half of respondents who were not government employees felt they would be available to work in the government or hamlet at any time throughout the year (46%), while one-fifth would be available most months of the year (20%).²⁶

Reported availability to work at any time throughout the year did not vary in a statistically significant manner by gender (45% of females, 53% of males), age (43% among those aged 18 to 24 years, 54% among those aged 25 to 29 years, 48% among those aged 30 to 54 years, 50% among those aged 55 years or older), region (43% of those living in Iqaluit, 48% of those living in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 49% of those living in Keewatin, 50% of those living in Kitikmeot), or language group (44% among those who are comprehensive bilingual, 46% among those who are conversational bilingual, 61% among those who are unilingual Inuktitut, 49% among those who are unilingual English).

Most of the respondents who reported they would be available to work for the government or hamlet during at least some part of the year (79%), could work full time (74%), while a minority could work part time (22%), casually (19%), or on-call (13%).²⁷ The amount of time respondents reported they could work was not related to gender, age, region of residence, or language. For example, similar proportions of respondents were available to work full time regardless of gender (73% of female respondents, 76% of male respondents), age (73% of those aged 18 to 24 years, 85% of those aged 25 to 29 years, 75% of those aged 30 to 54 years, 66% of those aged 55 years and older), region (79% of respondents in Iqaluit, 73% of respondents in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 75% of respondents in Keewatin, 75% of respondents in Kitikmeot), or language group (81% of comprehensive bilinguals, 74% of conversational bilinguals, 67% of those unilingual in Inuktitut, 76% of those unilingual in English).

Barriers to Availability and Relocation Considerations

Focus group participants suggested that the following factors were barriers to their availability to work:

• Caring for their family members, including children and Elders;
• Difficulty communicating their skills through résumés due to lack of formal work experience/qualifications;
• Physical and mental health difficulties;
• Criminal records, as they believed that individuals with criminal records would not be hired for government positions;
• A perceived preference within the government to hire “outsiders” and/or that individuals from outside of Nunavut were given supports that were not available to those within Nunavut (such as permanent housing);²⁸
• The structure or schedule of work, which interfered with cultural or family activities; and
• Being unable to move out of the community in which they were currently living (i.e., Kugluktuk or Rankin Inlet).

Focus group participants noted several considerations that would influence their decision to move to gain employment including:

• Housing availability and security: Participants noted that permanent housing in their communities can be limited, and that there is often a lengthy wait to obtain permanent housing. Participants suggested that the scarcity of permanent housing and long waitlists would deter people from moving as they would then need to wait for housing in a new community, and potentially leave their permanent housing in their current community.
• Effects on their families: Participants suggested that moving for employment could have both positive effects, if it leads to a higher income, and negative effects, such as removal of a caretaker; and
• The qualities of the community to which they would be moving, such as the availability of infrastructure and shopping, whether it was a community which did not permit alcohol, size, perceived safety, and how welcoming they believed the local people would be to them.

Though physical and mental health difficulties were cited as a barrier to being available for government work by focus group participants, the majority of non-government employee survey respondents did not report having any health problems that prevented them from working in the government or hamlet (56%), though approximately one-quarter did report that they had health problems which would make it impossible to work in the government (23%). The proportion of respondents who reported having health problems which affected their availability for work was not statistically significantly related to their gender (23% of females, 25% of males), age (19% among those aged 18 to 24 years, 20% among those aged 25 to 29 years, 23% among those aged 30 to 54 years, 32% among those aged 55 years or older),²⁹ region (27% of those living in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 25% of those living in Keewatin, 21% of those living in Kitikmeot),³⁰ or language group (22% of those who were comprehensive bilingual, 25% of those who were conversational bilingual, 30% of those who were unilingual Inuktitut, 21% of those who were unilingual English).³¹

Availability of Respondents Interested in Government Employment

Respondents who were interested in government work were more likely to believe they would be available for work, and to be available for at least most of the year. Only 10% of respondents who were interested in government work reported they probably would not be available to work, compared to 23% of those not interested in government employment.

Indeed, non-government employee respondents’ availability for full-time work may be related to their interest in government positions. Approximately one-half (55%) of respondents who were not interested in government work noted that they cannot or do not wish to work in a full-time or in a permanent position as the reason for their disinterest.

As demonstrated in Figure 2.30, the majority of respondents who were interested in government work also indicated that they would be available anytime or most of the time throughout the year.

Figure 2.30: Relationship between Interest in Government Work and Availability³²

2.4 Preparedness

2.4.1 Preparedness Summary

The preparedness section describes the skills, education, and training which respondents reported they had obtained. The type of training respondents indicated being engaged in at the time of the survey, as well as their reported willingness to engage in additional training were also examined.

Approximately one-half (47%) of all survey respondents reported they had completed a high school diploma or equivalent, while the remaining 53% had not done so. A greater proportion of respondents, however, indicated that they had completed post-secondary education, training, or courses (60%). Based on respondent reports, these post-secondary qualifications were most frequently diplomas or certificates from the NAC (39%), workplace health and safety certificates (17%), or trade or apprenticeship certificates or diplomas (16%).

Based on the entire sample of survey respondents, respondents reported having several skills deemed applicable to government work, including teamwork (89%), communication skills (73%), computer and Internet skills (71%), and typing and writing skills (67%). Despite the high proportion of respondents who reported having work-related skills, a slight majority (57%) of respondents who were non-government employees (62% of the sample, 311 individuals) and interested in government employment (89% of non-government employees) felt that they would need more training to work for a government or hamlet employer.

Indeed, focus group participants in Rankin Inlet and Kugluktuk reported that there were several barriers to receiving additional skills training and education, including limited access to courses in their communities. They indicated that the high costs of tuition, travel, and living expenses were barriers to accessing education outside of their communities.

2.4.2 Skills, Degrees, Certificates, and Diplomas

High School and Equivalency Completion

Based on the full sample of survey respondents, they were almost evenly divided between those who reported they had (47%) and had not (53%) completed a high school diploma or equivalency. As demonstrated in Table 2.31, respondents were more likely to report having completed high school if they lived in Iqaluit, were unilingual Anglophones or comprehensive bilinguals, did not have family responsibilities, were engaged in education, or were current government employees.

The proportion of respondents who reported having a high school diploma did not vary in a statistically significant manner between genders or age groups.

Among those who reported they had not completed high school, most (53%) reported they had completed grade 10 or 11. Respondents who had family responsibilities were more likely to report they had finished grade 11 or 10 (60% of those with family responsibilities compared to 33% of those without family responsibilities). Eighteen percent of respondents who reported they had not completed high school, reported completing grades 7 through 9. More respondents without family responsibilities reported they had completed grades 7 through 9 (56% of those with family responsibilities compared to 29% with family responsibilities). Finally, 11% of respondents who did not complete high school had completed grade 6 or below. Unilingual Inuktitut respondents were more likely to report they had completed grade 6 or below than conversational bilingual respondents (37% of respondents unilingual in Inuktitut compared to 8% of conversational bilingual respondents).³³ No other language group differences on the grades below high school completion which were completed.³⁴

Educational Completion Beyond High School

Survey respondents were asked about education completed beyond high school including training, or courses completed which led to diplomas, degrees or certificates. For example, this education could have included college diplomas, trade certificates, upgrading certificates, and university degrees.

Though 47% of all survey respondents reported they had completed high school, a greater proportion had completed other education, training, or courses (60%). One-half (51%) of respondents who had not completed high school said they had engaged in additional education, training, or courses.

As with high school diploma completion rates, a greater proportion of current government employees reported having completed additional education (such as post-secondary degrees, diplomas, and certificates), as did respondents residing in Iqaluit and Keewatin, and bilingual respondents (comprehensive and conversational) and unilingual Anglophone respondents (see Table 2.32). Respondents older than 24 were also more likely to have completed additional education.  

There were no statistically significant differences between groups based on gender, family responsibilities, or current engagement in education.

Based on the reports of respondents who reported they had completed a diploma, degree, or certificate (60% of the sample, 300 individuals), they had frequently obtained a NAC diploma or certificate (39%), a workplace health and safety certificate (17%), or a trade or apprenticeship certificate or diploma (16%) (see Table 2.33).

Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to report they had completed a diploma or certificate through the NAC. Alternatively, male respondents were more likely than their female counterparts to report that they had obtained a trade or apprenticeship certificate or a workplace health and safety certificate. Male and female respondents were approximately equally likely to have obtained a municipal government certificate, or a university degree from a southern institution (see Table 2.34).³⁵

There were no statistically significant differences between age groups, regions, or language groups in the types of diplomas, degrees, or certificates they had obtained (see Table 2.34).

Respondents’ Skills

Based on the entire sample, a majority of survey respondents reported having several skills deemed applicable to government work, including teamwork (89%), communication (73%), computer and Internet (71%), and typing and writing (67%) skills (see Table 2.35). As shown in Table 2.35, current government employees reported having many skills with greater frequency than respondents who have never been employed in the government (e.g., teamwork, public speaking, and computer skills). Respondents who used to be government employees reported having several skills with greater frequency than respondents who never worked for the government. Often, respondents currently working for the government, and those who worked for the government in the past, reported having skills with similar frequencies, such as teamwork, computer, teaching, and field inspection/protection skills.

Statistically significant differences in reported skills were noted between gender, age, language, region, family responsibilities, participation in Inuit cultural activities, and government employment.

Gender: Female respondents reported having the following skills with greater frequency than male respondents:

• Typing and letter writing (72% of female respondents compared to 60% of male respondents);
• Data entry and file organization (58% of female respondents compared to 42% of male respondents);
• Interpreting or translating (53% of female respondents compared to 43% of male respondents); and
• Financial administration (47% of female respondents compared to 33% of male respondents).

Male respondents were more likely to have reported the following skills than female respondents:

• Operating or repairing equipment (62% of male respondents compared to 14% of female respondents);
• Carpentry or woodworking (62% of male respondents compared to 19% of female respondents);
• Field or site protection/inspection (50% of male respondents compared to 32% of female respondents); and
• Specialized driving (23% of male respondents compared to 7% of female respondents).

Male and female respondents reported the following skills with frequencies which were not statistically significantly different:

• Teamwork (91% of female respondents, 87% of male respondents);
• Computer and Internet (75% of female respondents, 67% of male respondents);
• Speaking to clients or the public (73% of female respondents, 73% of male respondents);
• Skills gained through volunteering (62% of female respondents, 69% of male respondents);
• Teaching (61% of female respondents, 54% of male respondents);
• Management (61% of female respondents, 53% of male respondents);
• Speech-making (57% of female respondents, 56% of male respondents);
• Research and analysis (49% of female respondents, 42% of male respondents); and
• Information technology (43% of female respondents, 40% of male respondents).

Age: As shown in Table 2.36 below, respondents’ reported skills frequently differed by age groups. Younger respondents tended to be more likely to report having skills related to computers (such as Internet and typing skills) while older respondents were more likely to have skills related to communication (such as public speaking and translating).

Language: Respondents who were bilingual for English and Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun reported having many work-related skills with greater frequency than unilingual respondents. For example, respondents who felt comfortable speaking, reading, and writing English and an Inuit language (comprehensive bilinguals) were more likely than respondents unilingual in English to have reported that they feel comfortable teaching (see Table 2.37).

Given that respondents who reported comprehensive bilingual skills were more likely than others to report having several skills, the following potential intervening variables were examined:

• Physical health (based on whether they indicated they had health issues which would prevent them from working): There were no statistically significant differences in reporting having a health issue which prevented them from working between comprehensive bilingual (22%), conversational bilingual (25%), unilingual Inuktitut (30%), and unilingual English (21%) respondents;
• Gender: Comprehensive bilingual respondents (71%) were statistically significantly more likely to be women than conversational bilingual respondents (53%); and
• Education: Comprehensive bilingual (67%), conversational bilingual (64%), and unilingual English (62%) respondents were statistically significantly more likely to report completing post-secondary education than unilingual Inuktitut respondents (40%).

Therefore, gender and education differences may have contributed to skill differences between the language groups.

Regional: Respondents reported having several skills with statistically significantly different frequencies across the regions (see Table 2.38). Respondents living in Iqaluit were more likely to indicate that they were comfortable speaking to the public, had computer skills, had data entry skills, or had research skills. Respondents in the Kitikmeot region more frequently reported having skills gained through volunteering and carpentry and woodworking skills.

Interested in Government Work: Respondents interested in government work were statistically significantly more likely than those not interested in government work to have had typing and writing skills (62% compared to 42%). No other statistically significant differences were evident.

Engaged in Education: Respondents engaged in education were more likely than those not engaged in education to have had the following skills:

• Computer and Internet (85% of respondents engaged in education compared to 68% of those not engaged in education);
• Public speaking (82% of respondents engaged in education compared to 71%);
• Typing and writing (82% of respondents engaged in education compared to 64% of those not engaged in education);
• Teaching (73% of respondents engaged in education compared to 54% of those not engaged in education);
• Speech making (69% of respondents engaged in education compared to 53% of those not engaged in education);
• Management (68% of respondents engaged in education compared to 55% of those not engaged in education);
• Research (68% of respondents engaged in education compared to 41% of those not engaged in education);
• Data entry (66% of respondents engaged in education compared to 48% of those not engaged in education);
• Information technology (57% of respondents engaged in education compared to 38% of those not engaged in education);
• Financial administration (57% of respondents engaged in education compared to 38% of those not engaged in education);
• Field/site inspection and protection (50% of respondents engaged in education compared to 36% of those not engaged in education); and
• Carpentry (47% of respondents engaged in education compared to 31% of those not engaged in education).

Family responsibilities: As shown in Table 2.39,respondents with family responsibilities said they had learned skills such as teamwork, computer and Internet use, and typing and writing at a statistically significantly greater frequency than those who did not have family responsibilities.

Given that respondents who reported having family responsibilities were more likely than others to report having many skills, the following potential intervening variables were examined:

• Physical health (based on whether they indicated they had health issues which would prevent them from working): Respondents who did not report family responsibilities were not statistically significantly more likely to report having a health issue which prevented them from working (26%) than those who did have family responsibilities (23%);
• Gender: Women were not statistically significantly more likely to report having family responsibilities (73%) than were men (67%); and
• Education: Respondents with family responsibilities were not statistically significantly more likely to report having completed additional education, such as post-secondary degrees, certificates, and diplomas (60%) than those without family responsibilities (58%).

Therefore, among the variables examined, no intervening variables were evident.

Inuit cultural activities: As demonstrated in Table 2.40, respondents who participated in Inuit cultural activities reported having many skills with greater frequency than those who did not participate in cultural activities, for example: teamwork, computer and Internet skills, and public speaking skills.

Given that respondents who reported engaging in cultural activities were more likely than those who did not report doing so to report having many skills, the following potential intervening variables were examined:

• Physical health (based on whether they indicated they had health issues which would prevent them from working): Respondents who did not engage in cultural activities were not statistically significantly more likely to report having a health issue which prevented them from working (21%) than those who did engage in cultural activities (25%);
• Gender: Women were not statistically significantly more likely to report engaging in cultural activities (79%) than were men (80%); and,
• Education: Individuals who reported engaging in cultural activities were statistically significantly more likely to report having completed additional education, such as post-secondary degrees, certificates, and diplomas (62%) than those who did not engage in cultural activities (50%).
• Employment: Individuals who reported engaging in cultural activities were not statistically significantly more likely to report being employed in the wage economy (59%) than those who did not engage in cultural activities (57%).

Therefore, the relationship between engaging in cultural activities and skills may be influenced by educational achievement.

Community focus group participants mentioned learning the following skills from participating in family, community, and cultural experiences:

• Attention to detail;
• Discipline and work ethic;
• Communication and listening skills;
• Several skills related to working well with others, such as tolerance, teamwork, and respect;
• Planning and decision-making;
• Leadership;
• Fine motor skills; and
• Environmental awareness.

Additional Training

A slight majority (57%) of respondents who were non-government employees (62% of the sample, 311 individuals) and interested in government employment (89% of non-government employees), reported that they would need more training to work for a government or hamlet employer, while the remaining 43% felt that they already had the right skills. Younger respondents (aged 18 to 24 years) were more likely to have felt that they need more training to be prepared for government work (93%) than those aged 30 to 54 years (51%). Respondents aged 25 to 29 years (52%) and 55 years and older (65%) were not statistically significantly different from the other groups.

The proportion of respondents who felt they needed more training did not vary statistically significantly by gender (62% of female respondents, 50% of male respondents), region (58% among those living in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 55% among those living in Keewatin, 67% among those living in Kitikmeot),³⁶ or language (57% of those who were comprehensive bilingual, 63% of those who were conversational bilingual, 64% of those who were unilingual Inuktitut, 39% of those who were unilingual English).

A probit regression was conducted on whether non-government employee respondents felt that they had the right skills for government employment or needed further training. The probit regression suggested that respondents were less likely to have felt that they had the right skills for government employment if their highest level of educational attainment was below a post-secondary degree, diploma, or certificate (such as college diplomas, university diplomas, and trade certificates). Respondents whose highest level of education was a high school diploma or equivalent (-1.67), Grades 10 or 11 (-1.88), or less than Grade 10 (-1.83), were less likely to believe they had the right skills for government employment than those with a post-secondary education.³⁷ Age, gender, and region of residence did not statistically significantly enter into the regression model.

Focus group participants believed that government and hamlet employees needed both formal qualifications and general skills. Certificates, such as heavy equipment operator, driver’s license, and administration certificates, were believed to be important; as well as high school diplomas and university degrees. General skills which they perceived to be important included computer, communication, bilingualism, reading/writing, and math skills.

2.4.3 Current Training and Education Activities

Respondents Currently Upgrading Skills

At the time of the survey, a few respondents (14%) from the entire sample reported taking courses to upgrade their skills or training. Among those who were taking such courses, most reported that these courses were primarily in their home communities (45%), followed by another community in Nunavut (21%) or outside of Nunavut (21%). An additional 20% reported taking courses online.

Taking upgrading courses was statistically significantly related to participating in Inuit cultural activities, government employment status, and government position. Respondents who participated in Inuit cultural activities were more likely to report taking courses (16%) than those who did not participate in Inuit cultural activities (8%). Approximately twice as many current government employees reported taking courses (21%) than those who used to work for the government (11%) and who never worked for the government (8%). Similarly, 33% of current government employees in supervisory positions reported taking courses, compared to 17% of those in non-supervisory positions.

The proportion of respondents who reported taking upgrading courses did not statistically significantly differ between genders (13% among females, 16% among males), age groups (12% among those aged 18 to 24 years old, 20% among those aged 25 to 29 years old, 14% among those aged 30 to 54 years old, 11% among those aged 55 years and older), regions (17% of those living in Iqaluit, 14% of those living in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 13% of those living in Keewatin, 15% of those living in Kitikmeot), or language groups (16% among those who were comprehensive bilingual, 12% among those who were conversational bilingual, 19% among those who were unilingual English).³⁸

Respondents Not Currently Upgrading Skills

The remaining 86% of all survey respondents gave several reasons for not being currently engaged in upgrading their skills. The most common reasons given were having family responsibilities (21%) or believing that they did not need additional education (16%) (see Table 2.41). Family responsibilities were more frequently cited as a barrier by female respondents (28% of female respondents reported that having family responsibilities was a barrier, compared to 15% of male respondents) and respondents who had never worked for the government (34% of respondents who never worked for the government cited family responsibilities as a barrier, compared to 15% of government employees).

The reasons that respondents gave for not engaging in upgrading did not statistically significantly differ based on gender, age, region, or language group:³⁹

• Family responsibilities (28% of females, 15% of males; 36% of those aged 18 to 24 years old, 31% of those aged 25 to 29 years old, 22% of those aged 30 to 54 years old, 13% of those aged 55 years and older; 12% of those living in Iqaluit, 26% of those living in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 25% of those living in Keewatin, 24% of those living in Kitikmeot; 17% of those who were comprehensive bilingual, 22% of those who were conversational bilingual, 36% of those who were unilingual Inuktitut, 20% of those who were unilingual English);
• No benefit perceived (18% of females, 16% of males; 24% of those living in Iqaluit, 18% of those living in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 17% of those living in Keewatin, 14% of those living in Kitikmeot; 16% of those who were comprehensive bilingual, 18% of those who were conversational bilingual, 16% of those who were unilingual Inuktitut, 24% of those who were unilingual English);
• Lack of availability in community (10% of females, 16% of males);
• Lack of time (10% of females, 10% of males; 18% of those living in Iqaluit, 10% of those living in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 7% of those living in Keewatin, 11% of those living in Kitikmeot);
• Health issues (8% of females, 7% of males);
• Courses not in session (7% of females, 7% of males);
• Lack of awareness of available courses or programs (5% of females, 7% of males); and
• Lack of interest (3% of females, 7% of males).

2.4.4 Willingness to Engage in Training or Education in the Future

Though focus group participants in Rankin Inlet and Kugluktuk acknowledged that a lack of formal education was a barrier to obtaining government and hamlet jobs, they also reported that there were several barriers to supplementing their knowledge and skills with formal qualifications. The primary barrier they reported was lack of access to courses, either because they were not offered in the community or there were too few spaces available. Participants cited the high costs of tuition, travel, and living expenses as barriers to accessing education or training outside of the community.

Similarly, a large majority (90%) of all survey respondents noted that they would be willing to take post-secondary education or training in their home community (and at no cost). Three-quarters (75%) of respondents who reported that they were willing to take training in their community said they would be interested in online training. Another three-quarters (75%) of all survey respondents reported that they were willing to take courses when they were hypothetically available elsewhere in Nunavut and at no cost (see Table 2.42).

Generally, younger respondents reported being willing to take further education, both in their home communities and elsewhere in Nunavut. Respondents aged 18 to 24 (97%), 25 to 29 (97%), and 30 to 54 (94%) years were reportedly more willing than those aged 55 years or older (76%) to take further education in their home communities. Respondents aged 18 to 24 (86%) and 25 to 29 (88%) years were also more likely to report being willing to take courses elsewhere in Nunavut than those aged 55 years and older (64%). Respondents aged 30 to 54 were not statistically significantly different from the other groups in willingness to take courses elsewhere in Nunavut (78%).

Respondents who were unilingual in English were more likely to report being willing to take post-secondary education in their home community than respondents who were unilingual in Inuktitut (97% among unilingual English respondents compared to 84% among unilingual Inuktitut respondents). Respondents who were bilingual in English and Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun were not statistically significantly different from the other groups (94% of comprehensive bilingual respondents, 93% of conversational bilingual respondents).

Similarly, respondents interested in government work were more likely than uninterested respondents to report being willing to take further education in their community (94% of those interested in government work compared to 71% of respondents not interested in government employment) or elsewhere in Nunavut (80% of those interested in government work compared to 62% of respondents not interested in government employment).

Iqaluit residents were more likely to report being willing to take online courses (87%) than Keewatin region residents (67%). Baffin residents outside of Iqaluit (77%) and Kitikmeot residents (75%) were not statistically significantly different from the other groups. This difference, however, was not evident for education available in their home community (95% of respondents in Iqaluit, 88% of respondents in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 93% of respondents in Keewatin, of respondents in 97% Kitikmeot would be interested in education in their home communities) or elsewhere in Nunavut (73% of respondents in Iqaluit, 74% of respondents in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 80% of respondents in Keewatin, 87% of respondents in Kitikmeot would be interested in education elsewhere in Nunavut). A greater proportion of current government employees reported being willing to take online courses (83%) than past government employees (69%).

Respondents’ reported willingness to take courses did not vary in a statistically significant manner by gender regardless of whether the courses were offered in their home community (92% of female respondents, 92% of male respondents), elsewhere in Nunavut (76% of female respondents, 82% of male respondents), or online (76% of female respondents, 72% of male respondents).

2.5 Current Government Employees

2.5.1 Current Government Employees Summary

The following section addresses findings reported by current government employees who responded to the survey. The questions addressed their position and role, their workplace experiences, and their opinions on how Nunavut Inuit could be motivated to pursue and advance in government employment. A total of 189 government or hamlet employees responded to the survey (38% of the sample).

The majority of government employees were employed by the Government of Nunavut (61%), followed by a hamlet or the City of Iqaluit (27%), and the Government of Canada (9%). The most common roles reported by government employees were education (20%), administrative support (16%), and municipal services (11%). Approximately one-quarter (26%) indicated they were in management or supervisory roles, while 74% were not. The advantages of government work most commonly cited by government employees were the pay (38%) and the benefits (25%); while the most commonly cited disadvantages were the lack of flexibility (10%) and lack of respect for Inuit culture and values (8%).

Government employees believed that their skills were being well-used by their employers, including their English language skills (89%), formal education qualifications (80%), and reading, writing, math, and problem-solving skills (86%).

Current government employees suggested that the government could encourage other Nunavut Inuit to apply for government and hamlet positions by providing training (31%) and supporting post-secondary education (11%). Current government employees reported that they had received training since beginning their job (75%) and that this training was frequently provided by their employer (89%).

They believed that increased training opportunities would support Nunavut Inuit to advance in government positions (41%). Indeed, approximately two-thirds of them (68%) reported they would be interested in advancing to a higher government position, and most (84%) of these respondents said they knew what steps they would need to take in order to advance.

The majority of current government employees (89%) indicated that they enjoyed their workplace. Furthermore, the majority of current government employees said they intended to remain in their position for at least two years (61%). Among the 24% who said they planned to leave their position, the most common reasons for doing so were pursuing further education (22%) and retirement (18%).

2.5.2 Current Position or Role

Most of the current government employee respondents (38% of the sample, 189 individuals) said they were employed by the Government of Nunavut (61%) (see Table 2.43). Government of Nunavut employment was more common among female respondents (73% of female respondents compared to 40% of male respondents) and within the Keewatin region (75% of respondents in Keewatin compared to 42% of Kitikmeot region respondents, 63% of Baffin respondents outside of Iqaluit, and 61% of Iqaluit respondents). Respondents who were conversational bilinguals in English and Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun were more likely to report working for the Government of Nunavut (77%) than respondents unilingual in Inuktitut (35%). Comprehensive bilingual (69%) and unilingual in English (63%) respondents were not statistically significantly different from the other language groups.

While 27% of government employee respondents were reportedly employed by a hamlet or the City of Iqaluit, this was more common among male respondents (51% of male respondents were employed by a hamlet/Iqaluit, compared to 18% of female respondents who were employed by a hamlet/Iqaluit). Statistically significant differences in employer were not evident by age group. Government employee respondents in all age groups were statistically equally likely to be employed in the hamlet or City of Iqaluit (35% of those aged 18 to 24 years, 40% of those aged 25 to 29 years, 25% of those aged 30 to 54 years, and 27% of those aged 55 years or older were employed in the hamlet or City of Iqaluit) and the Government of Nunavut (65% of those aged 18 to 24 years, 45% of those aged 25 to 29 years, 65% of those aged 30 to 54 years, and 69% of those aged 55 years and older were employed in the Government of Nunavut).⁴⁰

As displayed in Table 2.44, current government employee respondents reported a variety of roles including: teaching (20%), administrative support (16%), and municipal services (11%). Relatively few respondents reported engaging in leadership roles such as: management (6%), financial administration (6%), and policy and program development (3%).⁴¹ Indeed, the majority of current government employee respondents (74%) reported that they were not in a management or supervisory role while the remaining 26% reported being in a management or supervisory role.

2.5.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Working for the Government or Hamlet

Advantages

The benefits of government and hamlet work identified by current government employees (38% of the sample, 189 individuals) were similar to the aspects of government work that interested non-government employee respondents (see Section 2.2.2). For example, 26% of non-government employees surveyed who were interested in government work cited the perceived pay offered by government jobs as a point of interest. Similarly, 38% of current government employees noted the rate of pay as an advantage to government work. Good benefits and work that makes a difference to the community were some of the top factors cited by non-employees interested in government work (13% and 15%, respectively) and current government employees (25% and 15%, respectively) as advantages to government work.

The most commonly cited advantages of working in the government/hamlet did not statistically significantly differ by gender, region, or language (see Table 2.46).⁴²

Disadvantages

The disadvantages of government employment mentioned most frequently by current government employees (38% of the sample, 189 individuals) were lack of flexible work arrangements (10%), lack of respect for Inuit culture and values (8%), limited staff housing (4%), lack of career advancement opportunities (4%), and lack of supervisory support (4%) (see Table 2.47). Other disadvantages noted infrequently by respondents included challenges working with co-workers and supervisors, long hours and low pay, and a lack of vacation benefits.⁴³, ⁴⁴

Very few government employees reported a lack of time for cultural activities as a disadvantage of government and hamlet work without prompting. However, when asked directly, approximately one-half (52%) of government employees felt that they had less time available than they would like to engage in Inuit cultural activities because of their job. One-quarter (25%) did not feel this way and the remaining respondents were not certain (23%).

Respondents’ reports that they had less time than they would like to engage in cultural activities were not statistically significantly related to gender (56% of female respondents, 48% of male respondents), age (44% of those aged 18 to 24 years old, 43% of those aged 25 to 29 years old, 53% of those aged 30 to 54 years old, 75% of those aged 55 years and older), region (53% of those living in Iqaluit, 51% of those living in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 53% of those living in Keewatin, 63% of those living in Kitikmeot), or language (60% among those who were comprehensive bilingual, 52% among those who were conversational bilingual, 47% among those who were unilingual Inuktitut, 46% among those who were unilingual English).

2.5.4 Training and Skill Development and Use of Skills in the Workplace

As reported in Section 2.4.2 above, current government employees had higher rates of obtaining high school diplomas and additional education than non-government employees. The majority (86%) of government employees reported that they gained most of the skills they use at work through school or training that led to a certificate. This proportion did not statistically significantly vary by gender (88% of females, 83% of males), age (94% of those aged 18 to 24 years old, 91% of those aged 25 to 29 years old, 84% of those aged 30 to 54 years old, 92% of those aged 55 years and older), region (85% of those living in Iqaluit, 90% of those living in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 81% of those living in Keewatin, 94% of those living in Kitikmeot) or language (90% among those who were comprehensive bilingual, 86% among those who were conversational bilingual, 65% among those who were unilingual Inuktitut, 90% among those who were unilingual English).

As well, three-quarters of government employee respondents (75%) indicated they had engaged in training since starting to work for a government or hamlet employer. They reported that the majority of this training (89%) was provided by the employer.⁴⁵

Statistically significant differences were not evident in the proportion of respondents who reported receiving training since beginning to work in the government by gender (77% of females, 72% of males), age (59% of those aged 18 to 24 years old, 73% of those aged 25 to 29 years old, 77% of those aged 30 to 54 years old, 85% of those aged 55 years and older), region (81% of those in Iqaluit, 73% of those in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 78% of those in Keewatin, 70% of those in Kitikmeot), or language (75% of comprehensive bilinguals, 80% of conversational bilinguals, 67% of those unilingual in Inuktitut, 73% of those unilingual in English). Similarly, respondents were statistically equally likely to indicate that this training was provided by their employer based on gender (93% of females, 83% of males), age (80% of those aged 18 to 24 years old, 88% of those aged 25 to 29 years old, 91% of those aged 30 to 54 years old, 95% of those aged 55 years and older), region (88% of those in Iqaluit, 95% of those in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 93% of those in Keewatin, 77% of those in Kitikmeot), or language (92% of comprehensive bilinguals, 90% of conversational bilinguals, 92% of those unilingual in Inuktitut, 80% of those unilingual in English).

In general, government employee respondents believed their skills were being put to good use by their government and hamlet employers. High proportions of respondents reported that their English language skills (89%), formal education qualifications (80%), and reading, writing, math, and problem-solving skills (86%) were being well-used in their current position (see Table 2.48).

Approximately three-quarters (78%) of government employee respondents believed that their Inuit language skills were being put to good use in their workplace. A greater proportion of respondents indicated their Inuit language skills were put to use in Baffin outside of Iqaluit (92%) and Keewatin (91%) regions, compared to Iqaluit (61%) and Kitikmeot (52%). No other statistically significant differences were evident between gender, age, region, or language groups.

2.5.5 How the Government can Encourage and Support Nunavut Inuit to Obtain Positions and Advance

Obtaining Government Positions

When asked for suggestions to encourage Nunavut Inuit to apply for government and hamlet positions (see Table 2.49), government employees largely focused on methods to increase skills, such as providing training (31%) and supporting post-secondary education (11%). Other suggestions, however, addressed increasing the influence and visibility of Nunavut Inuit within the government, such as providing mentoring (11%) and having Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun-speaking management (6%).

Other government employee respondents suggested methods which would increase the accessibility of job opportunities, such as community advertising (9%), promoting positions among high school students (9%), and supporting individuals with the application process (2%).

There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents who indicated that training could help support Nunavut Inuit to apply for government positions by gender (43% of females, 36% of males), region (37% of those in Iqaluit, 30% of those in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 42% of those in Keewatin, 58% of those in Kitikmeot) or language (40% of comprehensive bilinguals, 37% of conversational bilinguals, 50% of those unilingual in Inuktitut, 38% of those unilingual in English).⁴⁶

Advancement in Government Positions

Approximately two-thirds (68%) of current government employee respondents (38% of the sample, 189 individuals) reported they would be interested in advancing to a higher government position, while 31% reported they were not interested.⁴⁷ Reported interest in advancement opportunities was particularly high among respondents under 30 years of age (89% of 18 to 24 year olds and 86% of 25 to 29 year olds), while less than one-half (44%) of respondents aged 55 years and older were interested in advancement. Respondents aged 30 to 54 years (68%) were not statistically significantly different from the other groups. There were no statistically significant differences between language groups in reported interest in advancement (65% of those who were comprehensive bilingual, 65% of those who were conversational bilingual, 78% of those who were unilingual Inuktitut, 73% of those who were unilingual English), nor were there statistically significant differences between genders (70% female, 66% male) or regions (57% of those residing in Iqaluit, 77% of those residing in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 66% of those residing in Keewatin, 77% of those residing in Kitikmeot).

Moreover, most (84%) respondents interested in advancement said they knew what steps they would need to take in order to advance. Reported knowledge of how to advance was highest among respondents who were conversational bilinguals in English and Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun (97%) and unilingual English respondents (93%) than among unilingual Inuktitut respondents (69%). Respondents who were comprehensive bilinguals in English and Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun (74%) were not statistically significantly different than the other groups. There were no statistically significant differences in respondents who said they had the knowledge to advance by gender (86% of females, 84% of males), age (81% of those aged 18 to 24 years old, 89% of those aged 25 to 29 years old, 87% of those aged 30 to 54 years old, 90% of those aged 55 years and older), and region (73% of those residing in Iqaluit, 90% of those residing in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 85% of those residing in Keewatin, 92% of those residing in Kitikmeot).

Current government employees believed that additional training opportunities were needed to support Nunavut Inuit to advance in government and hamlet positions (see Table 2.50). This finding may suggest that access to training opportunities is the limiting factor for employees who wish to advance and know what steps to take to advance (84%).

There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents who indicated that training could help support Nunavut Inuit to advance in government positions by gender (52% of females, 50% of males), region (55% of those residing in Iqaluit, 58% of those residing in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 49% of those residing in Keewatin, 41% of those residing in Kitikmeot) or language (53% among those who were comprehensive bilinguals, 61% among those who were conversational bilinguals, 50% among those who were unilingual in Inuktitut, 41% among those who were unilingual in English).⁴⁸

2.5.6 Intentions to Remain In or Leave their Position in Two Years

The majority of current government employees said they intended to remain in their position for at least two years (61%), though almost one-quarter (24%) said they were planning on leaving.⁴⁹ Respondents who were planning to leave most commonly gave pursuing further education (22%) or retiring (18%) as their reasons for planning to leave (see Table 2.51).⁵⁰

A greater proportion of younger government employee respondents (59% of those aged 18 to 24 years and 55% of those aged 25 to 29 years) said they intended to leave than older respondents (17% of those aged 30 to 54 years, 28% of those aged 55 years or older). The most common reason that respondents aged 18 to 29 years gave for planning to leave their positions were pursuing further education (33% of 18 to 29 year old respondents intending to leave their position).

Reported intentions to leave did not statistically significantly vary by gender (24% of females, 37% of males), region (28% of those living in Iqaluit, 24% of those living in Baffin outside of Iqaluit, 30% of those living in Keewatin, 29% of those living in Kitikmeot), or language (32% among those who were comprehensive bilinguals, 19% among those who were conversational bilinguals, 41% among those who were unilingual in English).⁵¹

The majority (89%) of government employees (38% of the sample, 189 individuals) reportedly enjoyed their current workplace and had access to the materials they needed in a language they could understand (83%) (see Table 2.52). A relatively lower proportion (60%), however, agreed that there were training opportunities in the language of their choice. Respondents who were unilingual in English (80%) were more likely to report that training was available in their language of choice than those who could speak, read, and write in English and an Inuit language (comprehensive bilinguals) (51%). Conversational bilingual (60%) and unilingual Inuktitut (56%) respondents were not statistically significantly different from the other groups. No other statistically significant differences were evident by gender, age, region, or language.

Section 3. Conclusions

Non-Government Employee Respondent Interest, Availability, and Preparedness

Based on survey responses, Nunavut Inuit who were not government employees were interested in applying for government positions (89%). Fifty seven percent of respondents who were not currently employed in the government reported they planned to apply to work in the government. Moreover, when respondents have looked for a job, they have found at least one which interests them sufficiently to lead to an application as 80% of those who had looked for a government job applied for a position.

Focus group and survey responses suggested that respondents believed that they do not have the formal education qualifications necessary for government employment (e.g., 57% of respondents believed they would need further training to work for a government or hamlet employer). Indeed, less than one-half of all survey respondents (47%) reported they had completed a high school diploma or equivalent.

Engaging in Inuit cultural activities was associated with several factors, such as additional education beyond high school, upgrading, and having work-related skills. Respondents who participated in Inuit cultural activities were twice as likely to report being engaged in upgrading at the time of surveying (16% of respondents who participated in Inuit cultural activities reported taking courses compared to 8% of those not engaged in Inuit cultural activities). Among all survey respondents, those who reported engaging in Inuit cultural activities also reported having several government work-related skills with greater frequency than those not engaged in Inuit cultural activities, such as teamwork (95%), computer and Internet skills (78%), and public speaking skills (77%).

Large increases in the proportions of non-government respondents who would apply for a government job were seen when such jobs were available in their community (an additional 25% of respondents would apply to locally-available jobs) and/or were supportive of Inuit culture (an additional 36% of respondents would apply to jobs that were supportive of Inuit culture).

Focus group responses suggested that needing to relocate for work could be a significant barrier due to housing concerns.

Inuit Language and Culture in the Workplace

Most non-government employee respondents believed that having co-workers who speak Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun (80%) and understand Inuit culture or society (86%) was somewhat or very important. Similarly, current government employees believed that having co-workers who speak Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun (84%) and support Inuit culture (89%) was somewhat or very important.

However, evidence was divided in terms of whether government employees perceived their workplaces as supporting Inuit culture and language. While the majority of current government employee survey respondents did report that there were opportunities to learn about Inuit culture in their workplaces (71%), the second most commonly mentioned disadvantage of working for the government or hamlet was lack of respect for Inuit culture and values (8%), and only approximately one-third reported they were able to use Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun at work all the time (35%). Moreover, approximately one-third of respondents reported being supervised by an Inuk person (37%). On the other hand, over three quarters of respondents agreed that their Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun language and knowledge of Inuit culture were being put to good use in their job (78% and 77% agreed, respectively).

Focus group respondents noted that hiring for supervisory and management positions appeared to favour individuals from outside of Nunavut.

A divide between current government employee respondents’ co-workers and supervisors was apparent in language proficiency. Though 92% of surveyed government employees’ co-workers spoke Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun at least some of the time, only 40% of their supervisors did so. This divide is particularly prevalent in Iqaluit, where they were statistically significantly more likely to have reported that their supervisors did not speak an Inuit language (85%).

Desire for Advancement: Most (68%) surveyed government employees reported wanting to advance and motivation did not differ in a statistically significant manner between language groups, region of residence, having family responsibilities, or engaging in Inuit cultural activities. Furthermore, most (84%) of those who wished to advance believed that they knew the steps they should take to do so and had the support of their supervisors (75% agreed supervisors help employees achieve their goals). Younger employees were most likely to report being interested in advancement (89% of 18 to 24 year olds and 86% of 25 to 29 year olds reported being interested in advancement opportunities compared to 44% of respondents aged 55 years and older).

Barrier to Advancement: Only 60% of current government employees agreed that there were training opportunities available in their language of choice, and their top suggestion to support Nunavut Inuit in advancement was providing training (41%). Further, only 11% noted training opportunities as an advantage of government employment.

Respondent Profiles

The following profiles of respondent groups combine information on how groups significantly differed from each other from multiple sections of the report.

Interest in Government Employment and Workplace Support for Inuit Culture: Among respondents who were not government employees, only 11% reportedly were not interested in government work at any level. They were quite likely to say they planned to apply if a job was available in a workplace that supported Inuit culture. A total of 77% of respondents not interested in government work reported that they would apply for a job if they knew that Inuit culture was supported in the workplace.

Respondents who were not government employees, and were not interested in government work tended to be older (76% of those over 54 years old were interested in government employment compared to over 90% of the other age groups) and be less comfortable writing in English (67% reported this skill). They were less interested in taking further education, even when it was offered in their community at no cost (71% of respondents not interested in government employment said they were interested in further education).

Respondents with Family Responsibilities: Younger respondents tended to report having family responsibilities (79% of those aged 25 to 29 years and 73% of those aged 30 to 54 years had family responsibilities). As well, residents of less highly populated areas of Nunavut were more likely to report having family responsibilities than those who lived in Iqaluit (i.e., 74% of residents in the Baffin region outside of Iqaluit and 79% of Kitikmeot region residents had family responsibilities, compared to the 55% of Iqaluit residents who had family responsibilities).

Respondents with family responsibilities tended to value work environments that were supportive of Inuit culture (94% of those who did not plan to apply for a government position reported that they would apply to a supportive environment). They also said they were interested in positions that involved outdoor work (73%), teaching Inuit cultural activities (67%), and administrative support (57%).

Forty-three percent of respondents with family responsibilities reported having a high school diploma or equivalent compared to 57% of those without family responsibilities. However, they reported having many work-related skills with greater frequency than those without family responsibilities, including teamwork (94%), computer and Internet use (77%), and typing and writing (72%).

Participation in Inuit Cultural Activities and Skills: Respondents who participated in Inuit cultural activities tended to be highly skilled and educated. They were twice as likely as those not engaged in Inuit cultural activities to report taking additional courses (16% of respondents who participated in Inuit cultural activities compared to 8% who did not participate in Inuit cultural activities). They reported having several work-related skills with greater frequency than other respondents including:

• Teamwork (95% of those who participated in Inuit cultural activities compared to 67% of those not engaged in Inuit cultural activities);
• Computer and Internet skills (78% of those who participated in Inuit cultural activities compared to 47% of those not engaged in Inuit cultural activities); and
• Public speaking skills (77% of those who participated in Inuit cultural activities compared to 58% of those not engaged in Inuit cultural activities).

Survey results suggested that individuals who participate in Inuit cultural activities would also be most interested in positions that include outdoor work (74%), teaching Inuit cultural activities (70%), administrative assistance (55%), and research, policy, and program development (54%). To attract members of this group, presence of these activities within available positions could be emphasized, and opportunities could be posted on the Internet (31% of respondents engaged in Inuit cultural activities said they sought employment opportunities on the Internet, compared to 16% of other respondents).

Respondents Enrolled in Education: Respondents who were enrolled in education during survey administration (21%) tended to have already completed some education. Unlike the sample overall, a majority of individuals in this group reported they had a high school diploma (61%). They also cited more interest in management work (52%) than other respondents (36%).

Respondents engaged in education were more likely to favour employment opportunities in the Government of Nunavut specifically (81%) than those not enrolled in education (56%). They reported seeking employment opportunities on the Internet (36%).

Non-Government Employees Profile: Sixty-two percent of survey respondents were not government employees. They were more likely to live outside of Iqaluit (a minority of the populations of the Baffin, 28%, Kitikmeot, 35%, and Keewatin, 40%, regions were employed in the government, compared to 64% of Iqaluit residents).

Only 31% of surveyed government employees were male. More male respondents reported interest in positions that offered outdoor work (84%), operating heavy equipment (61%), and truck driving (61%). They were also more likely to report having the skills that could qualify them for these roles, such as operating or repairing equipment (62%), field or site protection and inspection (50%), and specialized driving (23%).

Focus group respondents suggested that a barrier to obtaining government employment in their communities was the requirement for formal education credentials.

Based on responses from all survey respondents, high school completion was less common among residents of Baffin outside of Iqaluit (43%), Keewatin (47%), and Kitikmeot (37%) regions, compared to Iqaluit residents (70%). Similarly, respondents who had never worked for the government were less likely to report having completed additional education (47%) than current government employees (69%).

Non-government employees were more likely to have reported seeking job opportunities through local hamlet offices (31% of non-government employees sought job opportunities at hamlet offices, compared to 15% of current employees). They were less likely than current government employees to have reported seeking job opportunities on the Internet (only 20% of non-government employees sought job opportunities on the Internet, compared to 38% of current employees).

Appendix A: Focus Group Summary Report

Introduction

Community focus groups were held in recognition of the importance of sharing experiences in-person, in an open-discussion, as well as to collect in-depth qualitative information on individuals’ interest in, availability for, and preparedness for government employment. It was believed that the qualitative information obtained through these groups would be useful in interpreting, understanding, and contextualizing the survey data.

Four focus groups were held in Kugluktuk (1 group, n=13) and Rankin Inlet (3 groups, total n=16). In total, 29 individuals participated in the focus group sessions. Groups were approximately evenly divided between men (n=14) and women (n=15). One Rankin Inlet group was conducted primarily in Inuktitut. In the Kugluktuk group, participants were invited to speak in Inuinnaqtun and English. Interpretation services were provided. Respondents ranged from approximately 19 to 64 years of age.

In general, most Rankin Inlet participants were employed, while Kugluktuk participants were more evenly divided between those who were employed, unemployed and in early retirement. A number of participants were employed in the retail sector, hospitality sector, and trades.

Originally, there was an intention to hold two focus groups in Iqaluit and only two groups in Rankin Inlet. However, adverse weather and project timelines precluded travel to Iqaluit. An additional Rankin Inlet group was conducted. Therefore, the experiences of individuals residing in the Qikiqtaaluk Region of Nunavut are not represented.

The moderator led all groups through the same moderator guide, in which participants were asked about their interest in, availability for, and preparedness for government work. Throughout the groups, lists of factors that made it difficult to work for the government and factors that could be changed to make it easier for people to work for the government were developed. At the end of the groups, participants were invited to participate in a “dotmocracy” activity. Each participant was given dot stickers for each list and invited to place them beside the points they felt were most important.

Participant Selection

All participants invited to participate in the groups were NLCA Beneficiaries who were not government employees at the time of the sessions. Participants were invited to participate in three ways:

• 4. Survey respondents who were not government employees and who lived in the hamlets/city where the focus groups were planned were invited to participate;
• 5. Households in the hamlets/city where the focus groups were planned were called randomly to invite residents to participate. Prior to being invited, residents were screened to ensure they were NLCA Beneficiaries and not employed by the government; and
• 6. Participants were recruited to the groups by friends/family of other participants and contacts within the hamlets/city. These participants were screened by the moderator to ensure they were NLCA Beneficiaries who were not currently employed by the government.

Summary

Overall, participants believed that hamlets, the Government of Nunavut, and the Government of Canada offered good quality jobs in a range of positions and environments (including office environments, service positions, trade positions, and outdoor work). However, participants also believed that it was difficult for individuals in their communities to obtain government positions as they lacked the necessary formal qualifications/experience and/or they had family or community commitments which prevented them from holding full-time jobs. Participants identified several skills they learned from cultural, family, and/or community activities which could be applied to government positions such as attention to detail, work ethic, and communication/team work skills.

Although participants may consider moving to another community to work for the government, a major factor in their decision would be housing availability in the community to which they were moving. Participants who had permanent housing in their community would also be hesitant to leave it, given the long process involved in obtaining housing. Participants would also consider their family commitments before moving.

To increase their likelihood of working for the government, participants suggested that efforts be made to accommodate their other commitments, such as flexible job schedules and low-cost child/Elder care. Additionally, participants suggested that the pool of people available to work in the government would be increased if equivalencies to formal education were considered, and opportunities for obtaining degree/certificates increased. Finally, government positions would be more attractive to participants if they were confident of a positive working environment, a salary that covered their living expenses, and opportunities to advance in their positions and grow professionally.

Findings

Participants’ responses are summarized below by section of the moderator’s guide and question. Please note that as this research is qualitative in nature, the findings cannot be extrapolated to the broader population of Nunavut. They should be viewed as directional.

Introduction

1. What is the first thing that comes to mind when I say ‘government job’?

In general, participants believed government jobs to offer high pay and strong job security. However, they also believed that government jobs were difficult to obtain as they required more education or training than participants had. They also believed the hiring process was not transparent and open to being influenced by “nepotism”. Participants believed that those with the responsibility for making hiring choices favoured their friends and family over other community members. A few participants characterized government jobs as primarily requiring office work.

“You need friends in high places to get a government job.”

“I said nepotism because I have applied for a number of jobs that I was qualified for or over qualified for. I didn’t even get an interview. I’m not the only one who says it - they hire only family.”

2. What types of government or hamlet jobs do you know about or think exist, either in Iqaluit or anywhere else across Nunavut? What about in your community?

Participants identified a wide range of government and hamlet jobs before being prompted by a list of job types. These included:

• Desk work jobs, such as policy, financial, and administrative jobs;
• Jobs that would be often performed outside such as wildlife conservation and natural science professions (engineering and geology);
• Trades such as mechanics, heavy equipment operators, and electricians;
• Maintenance or custodial work;
• Teaching;
• Healthcare;
• Community/social services; and
• Correctional/law enforcement work.

Participants did not actively differentiate between levels of government; however, they did tend to focus on jobs within the hamlet (e.g., community services) or Government of Nunavut (e.g., healthcare and teaching). Jobs within the Government of Canada mentioned by participants tended to be highly visible careers (e.g., RCMP officers).

After being prompted with the list of government and hamlet jobs, participants in one group engaged in a brief more general discussion about the additional jobs this list suggested to them. They implied that they knew these jobs existed within government, though they had forgotten to mention them. They mentioned that government jobs included:

• A variety of different job types;
• Working with people through teaching and healthcare positions; and
• Skilled trades such as heavy equipment operators.

Interest

3. Are you interested in these types of jobs? Why/why not?

More than half of participants indicated they were interested in government and hamlet jobs. They generally found these jobs interesting due to the high pay and security they offered, as well as the tasks/roles they included (such as trade work).

Factors that reduced participants’ interest in government jobs included:

• A belief that government work consisted of indoor, office work;
• A perceived lack of transparency in hiring practices, including reasons for hiring decisions and for requiring certain skills/qualifications. Participants believed nepotism influenced hiring decisions. The lack of transparency led to feeling discouraged about applying for a position;
• Preference for current, non-government, job (for example, participants noted preferring their jobs in the local retail and hospitality sectors as they provided opportunities to interact with customers);
• A belief that government jobs are monotonous and uncreative; and
• Lack of necessary education, training, or familiarity with the tasks required for government work, which led participants to believe there was no point in seeking government jobs.

Less frequently mentioned reasons for not being interested in government work included participants’ perceptions that English was the predominant language of work and that they would have few Inuit co-workers. Some participants were not interested in government work because they believed that a higher income would lead to losing access to income support/subsidized housing.

4. Are government or hamlet jobs just as interesting to you as other jobs that are available in your community? Why or why not?

Participants identified several factors of other jobs (such as local retail jobs) that made them more interesting than government or hamlet work, which included:

• A more flexible structure, with time off for family and cultural activities;
• Being available in their home community;
• The hiring process not requiring a record of previous work experience or formal qualifications, rather providing on-the-job training;
• Providing a variety of tasks; and
• Opportunities to serve customers and meet new people.

“In my job I get to do different things, deal with customers and employees.”

“Government work is monotonous, its the same thing every day.”

“[They should have] more different jobs... so you’re not doing the same thing all the time.”

5. What might make these kinds of government jobs more interesting to you?

Participants explained that they may be more interested in government jobs if they believed that their lack of formal qualifications would not be an impediment to getting a job. They suggested that the hiring process focus on skills over formal qualifications. Specifically, participants suggested that they believed that they had the skills to do the job, or could learn to do the job, though it was difficult to prove this in the government hiring process as they did not have degrees or certificates to list on a résumé.

They also suggested that the government focus on offering careers over jobs. Specifically, they suggested that staff be given opportunities to learn how to perform new roles and experience a variety of tasks, and that leadership training be available to individuals in entry-level and service provision positions, thereby promoting advancement. For example, participants mentioned that on-the-job training, such as job shadowing, could present opportunities to learn new roles.

“It would be nice in a department to get training on other positions within that department, to expand your work abilities within that department.”

“Sometimes you’re granted the job but they don’t continue training you to allow you to take things further and turn it into a career process. It makes it hard to advance if there is no added training.”

Participants also stated that the salary and benefits offered should take into account the high cost of living in the North (despite the Northern Allowance). For example, some participants suggested offering permanent housing to government employees. Strong, positive work environments, supported by good working relationships, were believed to make jobs interesting. They preferred to work in environments in which their coworkers were friendly. Though they did not specifically mention that having a shared culture would improve working relationships, they recommended that hiring from within Nunavut and/or providing cross-cultural training, would improve working relationships.

“I want a workplace where everyone gets along.”

“Some departments you walk in and you can feel the tension in the room.”

Finally, they recommended that hiring decisions be made more transparent by explaining why someone was not hired. Participants explained that they had submitted applications and either had not heard back about their status, or had been rejected without an explanation. They spoke to the process being “discouraging” and not knowing why their applications were not accepted. Some participants also raised the possibility of allocating hiring decisions to human resources departments outside of the community. They believed that this may reduce the frequency with which friends and family are hired, or the appearance that friends and family of the person making the hiring decision are favoured. For example, they suggested that hiring decisions may be moved to Ottawa for Government of Canada positions.

“They should do the hiring in Ottawa, not here. Because they don’t know you, they’ll just focus on your qualifications.”

Less frequent suggestions about making government jobs more interesting included:

• Making Inuktitut the language of work;
• Providing programming and events for staff and their families;
• Encouraging creativity and staff input; and
• Improving trust in government by following campaign promises.

Availability

In the following section, participants often reported experiences they had witnessed other individuals in their communities having, as well as their personal experiences.

6. What does being available mean to you? Would you consider yourself to be “available” to work for the government or hamlet?

Participants suggested that people were available to work when they wanted work and were willing to commit to a job.⁵² People demonstrated that they were willing to commit when they came to work on time and did not unreasonably restrict their job search. They also suggested that people, including themselves and others, were available to work when they had the qualifications necessary or were willing to get training. Having quality, affordable child or Elder care support (e.g., daycares, home care, Elder housing) was also believed to be key to being able to work.

“Some people are really choosy about work. If it’s not the kind of work that they want, they’re not going to do it. I have relatives that just choose not to work because it’s not the work that they want to do.”

7. What are some of the factors that affect your availability to work in a government or hamlet job?

Participants believed that people were less available to work in a government or hamlet job because of:

• Caring for children or Elders,⁵³ given that there were few spots for child/Elder care and it was expensive;
• Difficulty communicating their skills through résumés due to lack of formal work experience/qualifications, which was also a consideration for participants in terms of their interest in government employment;
• Physical health issues;
• Mental health and addictions issues, either their own or a family member’s;
• Criminal records: participants believed that people with criminal records would not be hired for any government positions;
• A perceived preference within the government to hire “people from elsewhere” and/or that individuals from outside of Nunavut were given supports that were not available to those within Nunavut (such as housing);⁵⁴
• The structure or schedule of work, which they felt interfered with cultural or family activities. Specifically, some participants mentioned that they would not be able to work 9-5 days every week because they were needed to care for young or ill family members, or because they needed flexibility to engage in fishing or hunting when weather allowed; and
• Being unable to move out of the community due to perceived lack of housing security in other communities in Nunavut.

Women who participated in the focus groups were more likely to raise caregiving responsibilities and job schedules as reasons they or others may not be available. Men were more likely to raise mental health/addictions as a barrier to being available for work.

“Criminal records make it harder to get government jobs.”

“If I were to apply for a [government position] here, I would not be able to get government housing because I live here. They only give them to people who are coming up here casually.”

8. I would like to explore the issue of moving to another community for work.

• a) If you heard of an opening with a government or hamlet in another community in Nunavut, would you consider moving?

Participants were split on the question of whether or not they would consider moving if they heard about a government or hamlet job opening in another community in Nunavut.

• b) What would be some of the factors you would have to consider before you decided to either move or stay in your home community?

All groups discussed housing availability and security as a factor they would consider prior to deciding to move. Participants explained that, in their communities, permanent housing can be very limited. Participants described needing to apply to a housing committee or board, which then decides who receives housing and that this process can take years. Therefore, participants were hesitant to move if they already had housing. Additionally, participants who did not yet have housing were nervous about moving to a community where the available housing may be more limited.

“You wait so many years to get a house, and then if you’re offered a job somewhere else you have to give up your home. If it doesn’t work out in that other community, you come home and you’re back at square one. You have to go back on the housing list and wait.”

Participants also considered the positive and negative effects moving may have on their family. Some indicated that moving may lead to higher pay and an ability to contribute more to their family financially, while others indicated they would be depriving their family of a caretaker. As well, if participants had family or friends in another community, they felt more comfortable with moving.

Participants would consider the environment they were moving to, including the local amenities (such as stores and infrastructure), by-laws (for example, a few participants noted they would hesitate to move to a “dry” community that does not permit alcohol), size, and perceived safety. Participants indicated that the people they may be working with and the culture prevalent in the community would also contribute to their decisions. Participants were concerned that regional differences in culture and/or community acceptance of new people may make relocation difficult.

“I would be afraid of not being able to fit in [in a new community].”

Finally, participants had financial considerations, including the cost of moving and whether the job would have a Northern Allowance⁵⁵ that would match the living expenses in the new community.

9. Thinking of all the things that we have just talked about, what might make it easier for you to be available to work in a government or hamlet job in the future?

Participants suggested that work schedules be made more flexible to allow time for family care and traditional activities. For example, it was suggested that a “job-share” alternative be offered wherein two people share one position. Similarly, they indicated that people would be more available to work if there was local support for their families. For example, they suggested a local Elder care facility be developed, subsidized childcare be offered, and support/counselling for family members with addictions and mental health issues be available. Finally, participants indicated that more members of their community would be available to work if they, including Elders, were hired for doing traditional activities that benefit the community such as teaching traditional skills and/or local knowledge or providing food and goods.

A less commonly suggested program was a “three-strike” initiative for staff experiencing challenges with addictions wherein they are provided counselling support and given three chances before being let go. This program, however, was mentioned in only one community (Kugluktuk).

Preparedness

10. Many people gain job-related skills and knowledge in their families, communities, and on the land. What kinds of skills do you think Inuit learn from these activities?

Participants identified specific cultural skills which they had learned including:

• Hunting;
• Skinning hunted animals;
• Sewing;
• Living on the land;
• Cooking;
• Fishing/harpooning; and
• Caregiving.

In addition to specific cultural skills, participants identified several transferable skills people learn from family, community, and on-the-land experience. These skills included:

• Attention to detail;
• Discipline and work ethic;
• Communication and listening skills; and
• Several skills related to working well with others such as tolerance, teamwork, and respect.

Participants also noted that people gained pride and confidence from these activities which they believed would contribute to them being better able to learn new things and be effective at their jobs. Less frequently, participants suggested these activities impart skills such as planning, fine motor skills, leadership, decision-making, and environmental awareness.

11. In your opinion, how are these skills relevant for government or hamlet jobs?

Participants suggested that their experiences in their families, communities, and cultural activities developed several transferable skills which could be applied to government or hamlet jobs. Primarily, participants learned social skills such as communication, respect, and acceptance, which would contribute to positive work environments and teamwork.

Other useful skills included:

• How to direct others using teaching methods and constructive criticism;
• How to receive constructive criticism;
• Confidence;
• Planning; and
• Language skills which could be applied directly to translating and interpreting.

12. What do you think it means to be prepared for government or hamlet work? (What skills, experience, education, or training are required?)

Participants identified both formal qualifications and general skills needed to be prepared for government or hamlet work. Certificates, such as heavy equipment operator, driver’s license, and administration certificates, were believed to be important, as well as high school diplomas and university degrees.

“People need university degrees for government jobs.”

More generally, participants suggested computer skills, communication skills, bilingualism (specifically English and Inuinnaqtun in Kugluktuk, and English and Inuktitut in Rankin Inlet), reading/writing, and math were important skills for government or hamlet work. Particularly, bilingualism was believed to be essential when working with the public, some of whom may only speak or may prefer to speak Inuktitut, Inuinnaqtun, or English.

13. What are the factors that can prevent people from getting this experience?

Participants indicated that the main barrier to obtaining skills, education, and training in their communities was lack of access to courses, either because they were not offered in the community or there were too few spaces available. Accessing training outside of the community was impeded by the high costs of tuition, travel, and living expenses. Participants suggested that the variety of courses, including high school and trades courses, offered in their communities was low. Other barriers included the prevalence of English as the language of training and a lack of commitment on the part of the learner to completing training once started.

“Bring training closer to home. They are building training centres in Rankin Inlet, and they have courses that are offered only in Iqaluit. They need to be able to accept closer-to-home education... You can go to Alberta in one day but to get to Iqaluit you have to overnight in Thunder Bay. It’s cheaper to go south.”

“Part of the reason I’m not going to university is because of finances - travelling to there and the tuition costs.”

14. What type of training works best for people?

Participants were divided between those who believed that on-the-job training was the best type, and those who believed that classroom training was best. Participants felt that on-the-job training provided direct experience and allowed people to learn by doing. Other participants believed that classroom training provided formal qualifications and was the best way to teach people about policies and regulations.

15. Would you be more likely to participate in literacy upgrading/training if the training program incorporated traditional Inuit knowledge and activities?

Participants favoured including Inuit language, knowledge and activities in training/upgrading programs. However, they also noted the importance of formal qualifications and ensuring that high school students  learn skills necessary for post-secondary education. They believed that exposure to Inuit activities was most important for people who would be working with the public, such as teachers, social workers, and law enforcement officers. Participants felt Inuit knowledge could be added to training by hiring Elders as teachers, using traditional games and skills, and using Inuktitut books as teaching materials.

16. What would help Inuit be prepared for government or hamlet jobs?

For the most part, participants focused on increasing the availability of formal education and training. They suggested that opportunities for formal education be increased in their communities by developing more facilities and purchasing more equipment for existing facilities; thereby increasing the variety of courses and number of spots in the courses available locally.

Other participants suggested that some may be nervous about working for the government as they may not know what to expect or what would be expected of them. They therefore recommended work readiness/orientation training, as well as on-the-job training, to prepare people for government work.

Other less common suggestions included:

• Funding people to travel to the provinces to obtain training/education;
• Providing training in Inuktitut; and
• Hiring summer students to give youth work experience and skills.

Moving Forward

17. Factors that make it hard to work in government.

Factors most frequently chosen by participants during the dotmocracy activity were those that they most frequently saw in their community, and/or those which they believed to have the greatest impact on acquiring a government job. For example, one group noted that all levels of the government seemed to put emphasis on formal qualifications in their hiring, though many people in their community did not have access to formal education. Other options were not chosen because, according to participants, they should not be priorities and/or they affected a relatively small number of people.

The most frequently identified factors that make it difficult to work in government included (listed in order of frequency of selection in multiple groups during the dotmocracy, most frequently selected factor is first):

• Lack of education/training/experience with government work: Participants believed that, if they did not have degrees from educational institutions (high school and university degrees were discussed) or experience working for a government organizations, they would be automatically disqualified from the hiring process.
• Physical health issues: Participants mentioned that physical health issues prevented them and others from working for the government. Back pain and chronic illnesses were mentioned.
• Mental health and addictions issues: Participants believed it would be difficult for them, and others, to maintain employment with the government due to mental health and addictions challenges.
• Lack of availability of training opportunities: Participants faced two main barriers to accessing training opportunities. The distance that they needed to travel to access training, including the expenses associated with living elsewhere during training, and the lack of courses that spoke to their career goals/interests. These barriers were often combined, for example, participants mentioned that there are courses available in other communities/territories/provinces that speak to their goals, but they cannot afford to move for the training.

18. Things that can be changed to make it easier for Inuit to work in government.

The list below describes the factors most frequently chosen by participants as elements which could be changed to make it easier to work in government. Participants indicated these factors because they addressed the most significant concerns and also offered opportunities to build their communities (e.g., by providing Elder care and stability for families). Other factors were not chosen because, though they were important, they were not considered priorities.

The most frequently identified factors that could be changed to make it easier for Inuit to work in the government included (listed in order of frequency of selection in multiple groups during the dotmocracy, most frequently selected factor is first):

• The job schedule: Participants suggested that a more flexible job schedule, which allows time off for family and cultural activities, would make it easier to work for government employers.
• Childcare/Elder care: Participants indicated that more low-cost childcare and Elder care opportunities would increase their availability for government jobs.
• Working environments: Participants indicated that positive working environments, characterized by good working relationships, would make it easier to work in the government.  Participants primarily defined positive working environments as those in which they had good working relationships.
• Opportunities to develop skills and advance: Participants indicated that opportunities to develop professional skills that lead to opportunities to advance from front-line or entry-level positions into leadership positions would make government positions more attractive.
• Equivalencies to formal education: Given that participants believed community members had a relatively low rate of graduating from high school/post-secondary institutions, they believed that if employers considered skills gained through experience or other means rather than through formal education, it would be easier to gain government employment.
• Wage/salary: Participants noted that it would be easier to work for the government if a living wage was offered, which considered the high cost of living in Nunavut. Though participants were aware that a Northern Allowance is available, they indicated that they would need to determine if it was sufficient before working for the government.
• Increase local training and education options: To increase the number of community members qualified for government positions, participants suggested that the availability of local education be increased.

19. At the beginning of this session, I asked you what was the first word that came to mind when I said “government job.” Would you use a different word now, or is it the same word?

Most participants would not use a different word to describe government jobs. A few suggested the discussion had opened their eyes to the different careers available in the government.

Appendix B: Cognitive Testing Recruitment Screener and Moderator Guide

Cognitive Testing Recruitment Screener

Recruitment Script

Hello, my name is [Insert: your name] and I am calling from RA Malatest & Associates on behalf of the Government of Canada.

May I continue in Inuktitut, or would you prefer to speak English? [Transfer to English speaker if that is preferred]

We will be doing a survey across Nunavut to help governments in Nunavut better understand how to support Inuit employment in the government. By government, we mean working for the Government of Canada, the Government of Nunavut, a hamlet or the City of Iqaluit. 

Before we do this survey, we need to test and discuss it with a few members of the community to make sure it will work. The discussion session will take place in Iqaluit on June 2 and will take about 90 minutes. During the discussion, snacks, coffee, tea, and pop will be served. Once the discussion is over, you will receive a gift of $75 as a token of our appreciation for your participation.

Although we would greatly appreciate your participation, this meeting is completely voluntary. Would you be interested in participating?

If asked for more details on what “survey testing” means, explain: we are currently conducting survey testing to improve the survey questions before we expand the survey to the community. This testing session will be your opportunity to provide feedback on how well the survey applies to you and your experiences.

If asked for details on how the results of the survey will be used, explain: This research will be used to help the Government of Canada and the Government of Nunavut better understand how to increase the number of Inuit working for the government. It will help us work towards achieving the goals for Inuit employment that are part of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. All reports based on this survey will be available to the public when the research is completed.

If someone declines because they do not work for the government, explain: We are inviting both people who do and do not work for the government to come to the discussion group.

If someone declines because they do not want to work for the government, explain: We are still interesting in hearing your views on the survey questions.

IF YES, CONTINUE

IF NOT AVAILABLE SAY – Thank you very much for your time (end call).

Thank you, I have a few questions to determine if the discussion is appropriate for you:

1) Are you between the ages of 18 and 64? [If yes, continue, if no, “thank you for your time, have a nice day.”]

2) Are you a Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiary? [If yes, continue, if no, “thank you for your time, have a nice day.”]

[If respondent asks for a definition of a Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiary, provide the following: Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries are Canadian citizens, are Inuk according to Inuit customs and usages, and self-identify as an Inuk.]

3) Have you ever worked for a media organization such as newspaper, radio, or television? [If no, continue, if yes, “thank you for your time, have a nice day.”]

Are you more comfortable speaking English or Inuktitut?

IF ENGLISH: The English testing session will be held at the Frobisher Inn at 505 Astro Hill on June 2 from 4:00pm to 5:30pm. We will call you a couple of days before the testing session to remind you. Is this the best number to reach you, or would you like to provide another number or email address? Please make sure you bring a piece of identification with you and your reading glasses, if you need them.

IF Inuktitut: The Inuktitut testing session will be held at the Frobisher Inn at 505 Astro Hill on June 2 from 6:00pm to 8:00pm. We will call you a couple of days before the testing session to remind you. Is this the best number to reach you, or would you like to provide another number or email address? Please make sure you bring a piece of identification with you and your reading glasses, if you need them.

Thank you.  Have a good day.

IF NOT AVAILABLE – Schedule a callback and leave the following message:

“My name is [Insert: your name].  I am calling from RA Malatest & Associates on behalf of the Government of Canada to invite a member of your household to participate in a discussion group to test a survey about working in the government.  By government, we mean working for the Government of Canada, the Government of Nunavut, a hamlet or the City of Iqaluit. Could you please call us back at 1-866-247-6465 at a time that is convenient?  Thank you.”

Reminder Script

Hello, my name is [Insert: your name] and I am calling from R.A. Malatest & Associates on behalf of the Government of Canada.  May I please speak with <name>?

IF YES, CONTINUE

IF NOT AVAILABLE –Leave the following message:

“My name is [Insert: your name]. I am calling from R.A. Malatest & Associates on behalf of the Government of Canada to remind <name> about a survey testing session that he/she agreed to participate in.  This session will be held at the Frobisher Inn at 505 Astro Hill on June 2 [English: from 4:00pm to 5:30pm] OR [Inuktitut: from 6:00pm to 8:00pm]. During the discussion, snacks, coffee, tea, and pop will be served. Upon completion, you will receive a gift of $75 as a token of our appreciation for your participation.  We ask that all participants arrive approximately 15 minutes early to get settled in. Please make sure you bring a piece of identification with you and your reading glasses, if you need them. We hope to see <name> there.  If <name> needs more information, or directions, he/she can call me at 1-866-247-6465.  Thank you.”

Hello <name>, I am calling to remind you about the survey testing meeting that you agreed to participate in. This meeting will be held at the Frobisher Inn at 505 Astro Hill on June 2 [English: from 4:00pm to 5:30pm] OR [Inuktitut: from 6:00pm to 8:00pm]. During the discussion, snacks, coffee, tea, and pop will be served. Upon completion, you will receive a gift of $75 as a token of our appreciation for your participation.  We ask that you arrive approximately 15 minutes early to get settled in.  Please make sure you bring a piece of identification with you and your reading glasses, if you need them.

Do you have any questions?

If you have questions in the future, you can call me at 1-866-247-6465.

Thank you. Goodbye.

ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᑐᑭᓯᐊᑎᒋᒻᒪᖔᑦᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐊᕋᑦᑕ ᐆᑦᑐᕋᐅᑎᒋᖅᑳᓂᐊᕐᑕᕗᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᕐᑕᖏᑦ 

ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᕐᑕᖏᑦ

ᕼᐊᓘ, ᐊᑎᕋ [ ] ᐅᖄᓚᓪᓗᖓᓗ RA ᒫᓕᑎᐊᔅᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓃᖔᕐᑐᖓ ᑭᒡᒐᕐᑐᐃᓪᓗᖓ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᑦ.

ᑲᔪᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᑯᖔ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑐᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑑᓐᖔᖁᔭᐅᕗᖓ? [ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᓕᕐᒥᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑲᐅᒋᓂᕐᓴᕆᑉᐸᒍ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ]

ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐊᕋᑦᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᐊᕐᓗᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᒥᐅᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᓱᐊᕐᑐᑕ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᐸᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓂ. ᒐᕙᒪᐅᓂᕋᐃᕗᒍᑦ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂ, ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᐸᐅᔭᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐃᖃᓗᓐᓂ. 

ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕆᐊᓚᐅᖏᓂᑦᑎᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐆᑦᑐᕋᖅᑳᕐᓂᐊᕋᑦᑎᒍ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᑦᓯᑲᓪᓚᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᖅᑲᑎᒌᓄᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᓂᐊᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ.  ᐋᔩᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᖃᓗᓐᓂ ᔫᓂ 2ᖑᓕᖅᑲᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᒻᒪᖃ ᐃᑲᕐᕋᓕᒫᖅ ᐊᕝᕙᖓᓗ ᑲᑎᓐᖓᓗᑕ.  ᐋᔩᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᑎᓐᓂ, ᑕᒧᓗᒐᑦᓴᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᑐᒍᑦ, ᓂᐅᖅᑲᕋᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᑳᐱᒥᑦ ᑏᒥᓪᓗ ᐃᒥᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ.  ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓚᐅᕐᓗᑎᒍ, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᕈᓯᐊᒐᓛᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᑎᑦ $75ᑖᓚᓂᖕ ᐃᑲᔪᓐᖑᐊᑕᕐᓯᓐᓇᕋᕕᑦ. 

ᐱᖃᑕᐅᓃᑦ ᖁᔭᒋᓪᓚᕆᑦᑖᓗᒋᒐᑦᑎᒍ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᓂᐊᕐᐳᑎᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᓂᖕ ᐱᔪᒪᒍᕕᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᕕᑦ.  ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᒐᔭᕐᐲᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᓄᑦ ?

ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᒍᕕᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑐᑭᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ “ᐆᑦᑐᕋᖅᑳᕐᓂᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ”, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᕕᒋᓗᒋᑦ: ᒫᓐᓇ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᒥᑦ ᐆᑦᑐᕋᖅᑳᕋᓱᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᖃᑦᓰᓐᓇᐅᒐᓗᐊᓂᖕ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦᓴᓕᐅᕐᓯᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᐊᕐᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᑕᐃᒫᑦᓯᐊᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᕋᑦᑎᒍ. ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐆᑦᑐᕋᐅᑎᒋᓂᐊᕐᑕᕗᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᕚᓪᓕᕈᑎᒋᓂᐊᕋᑦᑎᒍ ᐃᓕᑦᓯᓐᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᕐᑎᒋᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔭᓄᓪᓗ.

ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᒍᕕᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᓇᓱᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓛᕐᒪᖔᑕ, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᕕᒋᓗᒋᑦ: ᖃᐅᔨᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕗᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᖓᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᓄᓇᕗᓪᓗ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᕚᓪᓕᕈᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᓐ ᐊᒥᓱᕈᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᑲᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑐᑦᓴᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑐᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᑎᒥᖓᓄᑦ. ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᖓᑕ ᑐᕌᕈᒪᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓐ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᕐᓴᐅᓕᕐᓂᐊᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥᖕ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᒍᑦ. ᐃᓘᓐᓇᑎᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᕐᓗᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᕗᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᕐᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓄᓕᒫᖅᓯᐊᖅ ᓯᓚᖅᑲᑎᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕗᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᑐᐊᖅᐸᑕ.

ᐋᒡᒑᕐᑐᖃᕐᐸᑦ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᓐᖏᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᓐᖏᓇᒥ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᕕᒋᓗᒋᑦ:  ᑐᓐᖓᓱᑦᑎᑦᓯᓂᐊᕐᑐᒍᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᓯᐊᓂᖕ ᓯᓚᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕋᓗᐊᕐᐸᑕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᓐᖏᑲᓗᐊᕐᐸᑕᓗ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑐᓐᖓᓱᑦᑎᓂᐊᕐᑕᕗᑦ ᐋᔩᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᑲᑎᓐᖓᓕᕐᐸᑕ. 

ᐋᒡᒑᕐᑐᖃᕐᐸᑦ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᓐᖏᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᒪᓐᖏᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂ, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᕕᒋᓗᒋᑦ:  ᑐᓴᕈᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᑦᑕ ᐃᓕᑦᓯᓐᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒻᒪᖔᑦᓯ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦᑕ ᒥᑦᓵᓄᑦ. 

ᐄᖑᑉᐸᑦ, ᑲᔪᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑕ

ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᖏᑉᐸᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᓕᓗᑎᑦ – ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖕ ᐱᕕᖃᕐᑎᑦᓯᓐᖑᐊᑕᕐᓯᓐᓇᕋᕕᑦ (ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᓕᑉᐳᖅ).

ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖕ, ᖃᑦᓯᑲᓪᓚᓐᓂᖕ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦᓴᖃᕋᒪ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᕗᑦ ᐊᑲᕆᒐᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᕐᐱᐅᖕ:

1) ᐊᕐᕌᒍᖃᕈᕕᑦ ᐊᑯᓐᓂᖓᓂ 18 ᐊᒻᒪ 64? [ᐄᖑᑉᐸᑦ, ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑎᑦ, ᐋᒡᒐᐅᑉᐸᑦ, “ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖕ ᐱᕕᖃᕐᑎᑦᓯᓐᖑᐊᑕᕐᓯᓐᓇᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᑦ, ᐅᓪᓗᖃᑦᓯᐊᓂᐊᖅᐳᑎᑦ.”]

2) ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᒎᑦ ᐊᑎᖃᖃᑕᐅᕖᑦ ᓄᓇᑖᕐᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ?  [ᐄᖑᑉᐸᑦ, ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑎᑦ, ᐋᒡᒐᐅᑉᐸᑦ, “ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖕ ᐱᕕᖃᕐᑎᑦᓯᓐᖑᐊᑕᕐᓯᓐᓇᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᑦ, ᐅᓪᓗᖃᑦᓯᐊᓂᐊᖅᐳᑎᑦ.”]

[ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᔪᒪᑉᐸᑦ ᑐᑭᖓᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒥᖕ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᓂ ᐊᑎᖃᖃᑕᐅᔫᑉ ᒥᑦᓵᓄᑦ, ᐃᒫᖕ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᓗᑎᑦ: ᓄᓇᕗᒥᖕ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᓂ ᐊᑎᖃᖃᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᖃᖃᑕᐅᒻᒪᑕ, ᐃᓄᒃ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒍ ᐃᓄᐃᓐ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑐᖃᖓᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓪᓗ, ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᒃ ᑐᑭᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᕕᒋᓗᒍ.]

ᐊᑲᕆᓂᕐᓴᕆᕕᐅᖕ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑐᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ?  

ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ: ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ ᐆᑦᑐᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᕗᕉᕕᓴ ᐃᓐᒦᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᐊᓗᒻᒥ ᐃᓪᓗᕈᓯᖅ 505 ᔫᓂ 2ᖑᓕᕐᐸᑦ ᓯᕿᓐᖑᔭᖅ 4:00ᒨᖅᑲᑦ 5:30ᒧᑦ. ᐅᖄᓚᕕᐅᓛᖅᑯᑎᑦ ᐅᓪᓘᖕ ᒪᕐᕉᖅᑲᐃ ᓯᕗᕐᖓᒍᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᑕᐅᓛᕋᕕᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᓂᕆᓛᕐᑕᑎᓐᓂᑦ.  ᓈᓴᐅᒧᑦ ᐅᖄᓚᕕᒋᕋᑖᖅᑕᓐᓅᑦ ᓇᓂᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᓛᕐᐱᒌᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓂᖕ ᓈᓴᐅᒻᒥᑦ ᖃᐃᑦᓱᔪᒪᕖᑦ ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᕌᕈᑎᓂᑦ? ᓇᑦᓴᕐᓂᐊᕐᐳᑎᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᓐᖑᐊᓕᒻᒥᑦ ᐃᕝᕕᓐᖑᐊᒥᓐ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑎᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᒡᒑᓂᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕈᑎᑦᓴᓐᓂᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᓯᐊᖏᒃᑯᕕᑦ.

ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑐᑦ: ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑐᑦ ᐆᑦᑐᕋᓛᕐᑐᒍᑦ ᕗᕉᕕᓴ ᐃᓐᒦᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᐊᓗᒻᒥ ᐃᓪᓗᕈᓯᖅ 505 ᔫᓂ 2ᖑᓕᕐᐸᑦ ᓯᕿᓐᖑᔭᖅ 6:00ᒨᖅᑲᑦ 8:00ᒧᑦ. ᐅᖄᓚᕕᐅᓛᖅᑯᑎᑦ ᐅᓪᓘᖕ ᒪᕐᕉᖅᑲᐃ ᓯᕗᕐᖓᒍᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᑕᐅᓛᕋᕕᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᓂᕆᓛᕐᑕᑎᓐᓂᑦ.  ᓈᓴᐅᒧᑦ ᐅᖄᓚᕕᒋᕋᑖᖅᑕᓐᓅᑦ ᓇᓂᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᓛᕐᐱᒌᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓂᖕ ᓈᓴᐅᒻᒥᑦ ᖃᐃᑦᓱᔪᒪᕖᑦ ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᕌᕈᑎᓂᑦ? ᓇᑦᓴᕐᓂᐊᕐᐳᑎᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᓐᖑᐊᓕᒻᒥᑦ ᐃᕝᕕᓐᖑᐊᒥᓐ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑎᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᒡᒑᓂᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕈᑎᑦᓴᓐᓂᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᓯᐊᖏᒃᑯᕕᑦ.

ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖕ.  ᐅᓪᓗᖃᑦᓯᐊᓂᐊᖅᐳᑎᑦ.

ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᖏᑉᐸᑦ – ᐅᖄᓚᕕᒋᒃᑲᓐᓂᓛᕋᕕᐅᑉ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᕕᒋᓗᒍ ᐅᖄᓚᐅᒻᒥᑦ ᑭᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᒫᓪᓗ ᓂᐱᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᑐᑎᑦ ᓂᐱᓕᐅᕐᕕᖓᓄᑦ:

“ᐊᑎᕋ [ ].  ᐅᖄᓚᔪᖓ RA ᒫᓚᑎᐊᔅᑦᑯᓂᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᑭᒡᒐᕐᑐᐃᓪᓗᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᓯᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᔪᖃᕈᒪᒻᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᓕᕈᑦᑕ ᐋᔩᖃᑎᒌᓪᓗᑕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓇᓱᐊᓕᕈᑦᑎᒍ.  ᒐᕙᒫᓚᒐᐃᒐᑦᑕ, ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᐸᐅᔭᒃᑯᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖃᓗᓐᓂ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖏᓐᓂ. ᐅᖄᓚᕕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᐱᑖ ᐅᕗᖓ 1-866-247-6465 ᐅᖄᓚᔪᓐᓇᕐᓯᑐᐊᕈᕕᑦ ᐊᑲᐅᒋᔭᒃᑯᑦ ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖕ.”

ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᑦᓯᒋᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᑕᖏᑦ

ᕼᐊᓘ, “ᐊᑎᕋ [ ].  ᐅᖄᓚᔪᖓ RA ᒫᓚᑎᐊᔅᑦᑯᓂᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᑭᒡᒐᕐᑐᐃᓪᓗᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᑦ.  ᐅᖃᕐᕕᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᐸᕌ <ᐊᑎᖓ ᑕᐃᓗᒍ>?

ᐄᖑᑉᐸᑦ, ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑎᑦ

ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᖏᑉᐸᑦ – ᓂᐱᓕᐅᕈᑎᖓᓄᑦ ᓂᐱᓕᐅᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᒫᖕ:

“ᐊᑎᕋ .  ᐅᖄᓚᔪᖓ RA ᒫᓚᑎᐊᔅᑦᑯᓂᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᑭᒡᒐᕐᑐᐃᓪᓗᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖄᓚᔪᖓ ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᑦᓯᒋᐊᕋᓱᐊᕐᑐᖓ <ᐊᑎᖓ> ᐊᐱᖅᓱᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᒥᑦ ᐊᖏᓚᐅᕐᖓᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕋᕐᑐᓂ ᑲᑎᓐᖓᔪᓄᑦ. ᕗᕉᕕᓴ ᐃᓐᒦᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᐊᓗᒻᒥ ᐃᓪᓗᕈᓯᖅ 505 ᔫᓂ 2ᖑᓕᕐᐸᑦ [ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑑᕐᑐᑦ: ᓯᕿᓐᖑᔭᖅ 4:00ᒨᖅᑲᑦ 5:30ᒧᑦ] ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ [6:00ᒨᖅᑲᑦ 8:00ᒧᑦ] ᐅᓄᒃᑯᑦ.

ᐅᖄᓚᕕᐅᓛᖅᑯᑎᑦ ᐅᓪᓘᖕ ᒪᕐᕉᖅᑲᐃ ᓯᕗᕐᖓᒍᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᑕᐅᓛᕋᕕᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᓂᕆᓛᕐᑕᑎᓐᓂᑦ.  ᓈᓴᐅᒧᑦ ᐅᖄᓚᕕᒋᕋᑖᖅᑕᓐᓅᑦ ᓇᓂᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᓛᕐᐱᒌᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓂᖕ ᓈᓴᐅᒻᒥᑦ ᖃᐃᑦᓱᔪᒪᕖᑦ ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᕌᕈᑎᓂᑦ? ᐋᔩᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᑎᓐᓂ, ᑕᒧᓗᒐᑦᓴᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᑐᒍᑦ, ᓂᐅᖅᑲᕋᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᑳᐱᒥᑦ ᑏᒥᓪᓗ ᐃᒥᒐᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ.  ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓚᐅᕐᓗᑎᒍ, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᕈᓯᐊᒐᓛᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᑎᑦ $75ᑖᓚᓂᖕ ᐃᑲᔪᓐᖑᐊᑕᕐᓯᓐᓇᕋᕕᑦ.  ᐊᐱᕆᓪᓗᑕ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᓕᒫᑦ ᐃᒻᒪᖃ 15 ᒥᓂᑦᒥᖕ ᓯᕗᕐᖓᒍᑦ ᖃᐃᑲᐅᑎᒋᑉᐸᑕ ᐱᒋᐊᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓂᑖᑦᓯᐊᕐᓂᐊᕋᑦᓯ. ᓇᑦᓴᕐᓂᐊᕐᐳᑎᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᓐᖑᐊᓕᒻᒥᑦ ᐃᕝᕕᓐᖑᐊᒥᓐ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑎᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᒡᒑᓂᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕈᑎᑦᓴᓐᓂᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᓯᐊᖏᒃᑯᕕᑦ.   ᓂᕆᐅᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᑯᓂᐊᕆᐊᑦᓴᖅ <ᐊᑎᖓ> ᑕᐃᑲᓂ.  <ᐊᑎᖓ> ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᕐᐸᑦ, ᐊᔪᕆᕐᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕈᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᐅᖄᓚᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᖅ ᐅᕙᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᕗᖓ 1-866-247-6465.  ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖕ.”

ᕼᐊᓘ <ᐊᑎᖓ>, ᐅᖄᓚᔪᖓ ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᑦᓯᒋᐊᕋᓱᐊᕐᑐᖓ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᒥᑦ ᐊᖏᓚᐅᕋᕕᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕋᕐᑐᑎᑦ ᑲᑎᓐᖓᔪᓄᑦ. ᕗᕉᕕᓴ ᐃᓐᒦᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᐊᓗᒻᒥ ᐃᓪᓗᕈᓯᖅ 505 ᔫᓂ 2ᖑᓕᕐᐸᑦ [ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑑᕐᑐᑦ: ᓯᕿᓐᖑᔭᖅ 4:00ᒨᖅᑲᑦ 5:30ᒧᑦ] ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ [ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ: 6:00ᒨᖅᑲᑦ 8:00ᒧᑦ] ᐅᓄᒃᑯᑦ. ᐋᔩᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᑎᓐᓂ, ᑕᒧᓗᒐᑦᓴᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᑐᒍᑦ, ᓂᐅᖅᑲᕋᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᑳᐱᒥᑦ ᑏᒥᓪᓗ ᐃᒥᒐᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ.  ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓚᐅᕐᓗᑎᒍ, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᕈᓯᐊᒐᓛᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᑎᑦ $75ᑖᓚᓂᖕ ᐃᑲᔪᓐᖑᐊᑕᕐᓯᓐᓇᕋᕕᑦ.  ᐊᐱᕆᓪᓗᑕ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᓕᒫᑦ ᐃᒻᒪᖃ 15 ᒥᓂᑦᒥᖕ ᓯᕗᕐᖓᒍᑦ ᖃᐃᑲᐅᑎᒋᑉᐸᑕ ᐱᒋᐊᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓂᑖᑦᓯᐊᕐᓂᐊᕋᑦᓯ. ᓇᑦᓴᕐᓂᐊᕐᐳᑎᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᓐᖑᐊᓕᒻᒥᑦ ᐃᕝᕕᓐᖑᐊᒥᓐ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑎᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᒡᒑᓂᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕈᑎᑦᓴᓐᓂᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᓯᐊᖏᒃᑯᕕᑦ.

ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦᓴᖃᕐᐲᑦ?

ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦᓴᖃᕈᕕᑦ ᖃᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᑎᓂ, ᐅᖄᓚᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᑦ ᐅᕙᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᕗᖓ 1-866-247-6465.

ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖕ, ᑕᕝᕙᐅᕗᑎᑦ.

Cognitive Testing Moderator’s Guide

Hello!  My name is <<name>>.

The Government of Canada has hired R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. to do a survey with Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries. This research may help governments across Nunavut better understand how to support Inuit employment in the government. By government, we mean working for the Government of Canada, the Government of Nunavut, a hamlet or the City of Iqaluit.  Government positions include – for example – program administrators, policy analysts, researchers, teachers, nurses, lawyers, correctional workers, community development officers, customer service agents and outdoor work such as emergency, wildlife or water services.

The purpose of our discussion today is to review the survey to see if it is clear and easy to understand. We appreciate your help testing the survey. What you tell us today will be used to change the survey. We will walk you through the survey and ask you to comment on the questions.

Our conversation today will take about 90 minutes.

This conversation will be recorded to make sure that we accurately hear everything you say today. These recordings will only be used to help us write our reports and they will not be shared with the government or anybody else. Any comments we use will be anonymous. That means we will not use your name in any reports. Participating in the discussion group is completely voluntary.

Are there any questions before we start?

Note: Italics indicate prompt questions and facilitators’ notes.

Introduction

To start, let’s introduce ourselves to each other. Going around the circle, please tell everyone your first name and one thing you like the best about living in Iqaluit.

I will begin by reading the introduction.

1. Is anything in the introduction not clear?

• Prompt: Is it clear who is responsible for the survey, and why they are doing the survey?

2. Are there any words that people might find confusing or difficult to understand?

• Prompt: Is the definition of government employment clear? Can you think of words that would make it easier for everyone in your community to understand?

3. If someone read you this introduction, would you be interested in doing the survey? Why/why not?

• Prompt: What would make it more appealing for you or other people you know?

Survey

4. I will now read each survey question. As we go through, please think about these three things <<write on whiteboard>>:

1. Would the questions be easy for people to understand?
2. Do the words used in the questions fit with how they are used in your community?
3. Would anyone be uncomfortable answering or be offended by the questions? (For example, did any seem impolite?)

9. Did you have any trouble answering questions because the answer you wanted to give wasn’t available, or because two answers applied to you equally? Prompt if yes: Which question(s)?

Please let me know if any of these issues come up in each question.

<<Review survey questions>>

**Note to moderator: be sure to make it clear to people that not every participant will be asked every question. For example, only current government employees will be asked the questions in the “Current Government Employees” (SE) section. Current government employees will not be asked Interest and Availability questions.

Thank you everyone for going through the survey with me/us. I have a few follow-up questions now on the survey as a whole.

5. As we went through the survey, you told me that these questions/words were hard to understand or unclear <<list>>. Are there any others that could be added to this list? How could we change them to make them understandable for everyone?

6. As we went through the survey, you told me that these questions/words would not be used in your community <<list>>. Are there any others that could be added to this list? How could we change them to make them understandable for everyone?

7. As we went through the survey, you told me that people would be uncomfortable answering these questions <<list>>. Are there any others that could be added to this list? How could we change them to make them more comfortable to answer?

8. For any of the questions, did you wonder why you were being asked to provide that information?
Prompt if yes: Which question(s)?

9. Did you have any trouble answering questions because the answer you wanted to give wasn’t available, or because two answers applied to you equally? Prompt if yes: Which question(s)?

10. Is there anything that might influence someone’s ability to work in the government that was not covered in the survey?

11. Are there any other comments you would like to make about the survey?

Thank you for speaking with us today.

ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑎᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᑎᒋᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᔪᕆᕐᓯᐅᔾᔨᒍᑏᑦ

ᐊᓲᔪᑎᓪᓕ (ᕼᐊᓘ!)  ᑭᓇᐅᒻᒪᖔᕐᒪ <<ᐊᑎᕋ ᐅᖃᕐᓗᒍ>>.

ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑖᓚᐅᕐᖓᑕ R.A. ᒫᓚᑎᐊᔅᑯᓐᓂᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᓈᓴᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓇᓱᐊᖁᓪᓗᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᑖᖃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑎᖃᖃᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓕᕐᒪᖔᑕ.   ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᐊᕐᑕᕗᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᖃᕈᓐᓇᐸᓪᓚᐃᒻᒪᑕ ᖃᓄᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᓐ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᓕᕈᑎᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᐸᐅᔭᒃᑯᓐᓂ/ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓐᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ. 

ᐅᓪᓗᒥᓕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓂᐊᕐᑕᕗᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦᓴᓕᐊᕗᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᒐᓱᐊᖅᑳᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕐᑕᐅᓕᕐᐸᑕᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᒐᔭᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ.  ᖁᔭᒋᕙᑦᑎᒋᑦ ᐆᑦᑐᕋᖃᑕᐅᓐᖑᐊᑕᕐᓯᓐᓇᕋᑦᓯ ᓈᓴᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐊᕐᑎᓪᓗᑕ.  ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᓯ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᑎᓂᐊᕋᑦᑎᒍ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᑕᐅᖁᔭᓯ ᐊᑐᖔᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᓕᕈᑦᑕ.  ᐊᑐᓂ ᐊᑐᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᑕᕗᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᑦᓯᐊᕋᓱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᓗᑕᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᓴᖃᕐᕕᒋᒻᒪᖔᑦᓯᐅᖕ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ.  ᐊᑐᓂ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦᓴᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᓯᐊᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᖃᑎᒋᓗᓯ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦᓴᖃᕐᓂᕈᑦᓯᓗ ᑐᑭᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᖃᑎᒌᖅᑳᕋᓱᐊᕐᓗᑕ ᒥᑦᓯᖏᓐᓂᖕ.  

ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᓴᕗᑦ ᐃᒻᒪᖃ ᐃᑲᕐᕋᓕᒫᕐᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ

ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᕗᑦ ᓂᐱᓕᐅᕐᓂᐊᕋᑦᑎᒍ ᑕᐃᒫᑦᓯᐊᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᒥᓂᕐᓯ ᑐᑭᓯᓐᓂᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦᑎᒍ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔾᔪᑎᒋᓂᐊᕋᑦᑎᒍ.  ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᓯ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᓴᓯᓗ ᐊᓯᑦᑎᓄᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᔾᔮᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓐᖑᓇᕐᑑᑎᑕᐅᓗᑎᖕ.  ᐃᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᓯ ᐊᑎᓯᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᖅᑕᖃᔾᔮᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᖑᕙᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᓂ.  ᐱᖃᑕᐅᓃᑦ ᐋᔩᖃᑎᒌᑦᑐᓄᑦ  ᑲᑎᓐᖓᔪᓂ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᒍᕕᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᔾᔮᖏᑦᓯᐊᕐᑐᓂᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᖕ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᕐᑖᕆᕙᑦᑕᓐᓂᖕ, ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖏᑐᕐᓯᐅᑎᑖᕆᕙᑦᑕᑎᑦ.  ᐱᖃᑕᐅᒐᓗᕈᕕᓪᓗ ᐋᔩᖃᑎᒌᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕐᑖᓚᕿᔾᔪᑎᒋᔾᔮᖏᑕᐃᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ.

ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦᓴᖃᓕᕐᖕᒪᖔᑦᓯ ᐱᒋᐊᓚᐅᓐᖏᓂᑦᑎᓂ?

ᐅᔾᔨᕆᔭᐅᒋᐊᓕᖕ: ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓴᖑᐃᖓᓂᕐᓴᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑎᒋᓂᐊᕐᑕᕗᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑦ ᑭᐅᑦᓴᐅᑎᒋᒋᐊᖃᕐᖓᑦ ᑐᑭᒧᐊᕐᑎᑦᓯᔨᖓᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂᖕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓂᑦ.

ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐅᑎᓂᖅ

ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᑐᓐᖓᓲᑎᓗᑕ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᖅᑳᕐᓗᑕ.  ᑲᐃᕙᓪᓗᑕ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᕕᖓᓂᖕ, ᐊᑎᕗᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᑳᕐᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᕐᓗ ᑐᑭᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᕗᑦ.

ᐊᓕᐊᓇᐃᒍᓱᓪᓚᕆᑉᐳᒍᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᕕᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᓪᓚᕆᒃᑲᑦᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᐊᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᐊᐱᖅᓲᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᑕᕗᑦ ᑐᑭᑖᑦᓯᐊᕐᓯᒪᒐᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᓯᒪᑦᓯᐊᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕᓗ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓄᑦ.  ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐋᖅᑭᑦᓱᐃᓲᖑᒐᑦᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᑐᖃᕐᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᓂᑦ ᑭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᔫᔮᕐᑐᑎᖕ ᑐᓴᓕᒪᓇᕋᑎᖕ ᑐᑭᓯᑦᓯᐊᖏᒧᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᓐ ᐱᔭᕇᕐᓯᒐᔪᐃᒻᒪᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᓂᐊᕆᐊᑦᓴᖅ ᓇᓗᒧᑦ ᖄᖐᓐᓇᐃᑐᐃᓐᓇᓕᕐᑐᑎᖕ. 

ᐅᖃᓕᒫᖅᑳᕐᓂᐊᕋᒃᑭᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᓂᖕ ᑭᓇᐅᒻᒪᖔᑦᑕ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᓕᕈᑦᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ.

1. ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓈᖕ ᑐᑭᓯᓐᖏᑕᖃᖅᐱᓰ ?

• ᑭᐅᑦᓴᐅᑎᒋᒋᐊᓕᖕ:  ᑐᑭᓯᓇᕋᓗᐊᕐᐹᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᑕᕗᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓇᓱᐊᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ.

2. ᐅᖃᐅᓰᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᓕᐊᖑᓯᒪᔫᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓐᖏᑕᖃᕐᕕᒋᕕᒌᑦ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᑐᐃᓐᓈᖅ ?

• ᑭᐅᑦᓴᐅᑎᒋᒋᐊᓕᖕ:  ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕋᕐᑏᑦ (ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᖏᑦ) ᑐᑭᖔ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᓯᐊᕋᓗᐊᕐᐹ ? ᐊᓯᐊᓃᖕ ᑐᑭᑖᕐᑎᑕᐅᑉᐹᑦ ᑐᖅᑐᕋᕐᑕᐅᓂᖔ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᐹ ᓄᓇᖅᑲᑎᒌᓄᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᐅᓂᕐᓴᐅᓕᕐᓗᑎᖕ ᑭᓱᓕᕆᔨᐅᒻᒪᖔᑕ ?

3. ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᒍᑎᖏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐅᑎᖏᓂ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕋᓱᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓕᕈᕕᒋᑦ ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒐᓗᐊᕈᕕᑦ, ᑲᔪᖏᕈᑎᒋᒐᔭᕐᐱᒋᓪᓖ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑕᐅᔪᒪᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᐊᕐᑐᓄᑦ ? ᑭᓱ ᑲᔪᖏᕈᑎᒋᕕᐅᖕ/ᑭᓱ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᐅᑎᒋᕕᐅᖕ ?

• ᑭᐅᑦᓴᐅᑎᒋᒋᐊᓕᖕ:  ᑭᓱᓕ ᑲᔪᖏᕈᑎᒋᓂᕐᓴᕆᒐᔭᕐᐱᐅᖕ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑕᐅᔪᒪᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᓯᑎᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᕕᑦ ᑲᔪᖏᕈᑎᒋᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᕐᑕᖏᑦ ?  

ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᖅ

4. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᐊᕐᑕᕗᑦ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕐᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓂᐊᓕᕐᒥᔭᒃᑲ.  ᓇᓪᓕᑭᑕᓕᕈᑦᑎᒍ, ᐱᖓᓲᓕᖓᔪᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᓂᐊᕐᐸᕗᑦ <<ᐊᑭᓐᓇᕐᒥ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓗᒋᑦ>>:

1. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋᒐᓗᐊᕐᐹᑦ ?
2. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ ᑐᑭᖐᑦ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᓐᓃ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᓂᐊᕋᓗᐊᕐᐹᑦ ?
3. ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᓯᐊᖅ ᐊᑲᐅᒍᓐᓃᕋᔭᕐᐹ ᓯᓪᓗᓗᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᒻᒥᓐ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᒥᒎᓐ ?  (ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐊᐱᖅᑰᑦ ᐅᑲᐅᒍᓐᓃᓇᖅᐹ).

ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᕐᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕈᒪ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐊᑲᐅᒋᓐᖏᑕᓯᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦᓴᓕᐊᕗᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᑦᑎᓂ ᖁᔭᓕᒐᔭᕐᐳᖓ.  <<ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓗᑎᒍ ᐊᐱᖅᓲᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᓕᕈᑦᑕ>>

ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᕐᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖃᑦᑕᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᐋᔩᕈᑎᒋᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᑕᖏᑦ ᐅᕙᖓ/ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᒥᑦᓯᑖᕈᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᖏᑦ.  ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒍᓪᓗ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑕᐅᒌᕐᐸᑕ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦᓴᖃᓚᒋᒐᕕᑦ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖏᓐᓃᓐᖔᕐᑐᓂᑦ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓅᖓᓂᐊᕐᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕈᓐᓇᕐᓯᓪᓗᑎᑦ.

5. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓇᓐᓂᑎᓐᓂ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᒋᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ/ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᑕᖏᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᓯᐊᖏᓐᓂᕋᕐᑐᒋᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓚᑰᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓐᖏᓚᕿᓂᖏᓐᓂᑦ <<ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓗᒋᑦ>>. ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓃᖕ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕆᐊᖃᕐᑐᒋᔭᑦᓯᓐᓂᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᔭᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔨᔪᒪᕕᓰ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓄᑦ ? 

6. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᕗᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓇᓐᓂᑎᓐᓂ, ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ/ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᑕᖏᑕ ᑐᑭᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᓐᓂ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᓐᖏᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᖓᐅᑎᒋᓐᖏᒧᓐ <<ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓗᒋᑦ>>. ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓃᖕ

ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕆᐊᖃᕐᑐᒋᔭᑦᓯᓐᓂᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᔭᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔨᔪᒪᕕᓰ? ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕋᔭᕐᐱᒋᓐ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᓯᐊᑲᓐᓂᖁᓪᓗᒋᓐ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓄᓐ ?

7. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓪᓗᑎᒍ, ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᓐ ᐃᓄᐃᓐ ᐊᑲᕐᓴᓐᖏᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᑭᐅᔭᕆᐊᑦᓴᖅ <<ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓗᒋᑦ>>.  ᐊᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᖏᓐᓃᖕ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᓕᓐᓃᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᑕᐅᖁᔨᕕᓰ ?  ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕋᔭᕐᐱᒋᓐ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᑦᓯᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᐊᑲᐅᒋᔭᒥᒍᑦ ᑭᐅᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓯᓂᐊᕐᖓᑕ ?

8. ᐊᐱᖅᓱᓕᕋᐃᒐᑦᑖ, ᐃᓱᒪᖃᑦᑕᖅᑲᐅᕖᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᓄᓇ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑐᓴᕈᒪᑦᑕᕋᓗᐊᕆᕙ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑐᓂ ? 
ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᖁᓗᒍ ᐊᖏᖅᐸᑦ: ᓇᓪᓗᐊᓄᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᒻᒧᑦ(ᑎᓄᑦ)?

9. ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᒋᖃᑦᑕᖅᐱᐅᖕ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑐᖃᓕᕋᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᔾᔮᖏᑕᐃᑦ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᑦᓴᖃᓐᖏᒧᑦ ᑭᐅᑦᓴᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᖕ ᑭᐅᑦᓴᐅᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓅᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᓇᓕᒧᒌᒥᑦ ? ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖃᕐᒪᖔᕐᐱᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᕐᓱᕐᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᒍᕕᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᓯᒪᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᕐᓱᕐᑕᐅᒐᑎᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᐃᓐᓇᕋᕕᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᓕᖕ ᑕᒪᒃᑮᓐᓂᖕ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᒐᖃᕈᕕᑦ. 

ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᖁᓗᒍ ᐊᖏᖅᐸᑦ: ᓇᓪᓗᐊᓄᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᒻᒧᑦ(ᑎᓄᑦ)?

10. ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᕕᓯᐅᖕ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕐᑏᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᖓᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᓐᖏᓚᕿᒍᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᖅᑲᐅᖏᑕᕗᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑎᒍᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᑕᑎᓂ ?

11. ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓃᖕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᓴᖃᕐᐱᓰ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖏᑕᓗ ᒥᑦᓵᓄᑦ ?

ᖁᔭᓕᕗᖓ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᓂᑦ ᑭᐅᓐᖑᐊᑕᕐᓯᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᑦ.

Appendix C: Survey Instrument

Nunavut Inuit Survey

Introduction

Hello, [INSERT INUKTITUT GREETING], my name is [ ] from R.A. Malatest & Associates and I am working with the Government of Canada with the support of  Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the Government of Nunavut, to conduct an important survey with Nunavut Inuit, who are 18 years old and older, about employment in Nunavut..  May I continue in Inuktitut, or would you prefer to speak English? [Transfer to English speaker if that is preferred]

The survey is voluntary and completely confidential and should take between 15-19 minutes. Your individual responses and name will not appear in any report. To thank you for participating, you will be entered in a draw for one of four $350 pre-paid credit cards.  Would you be willing to complete the survey? [IF INTERESTED BUT NOT A GOOD TIME: SET UP APPOINTMENT FOR CALL BACK]

As you may know, Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement says that government employment in Nunavut should reflect the population it serves. When we say government, we mean your hamlet or the City of Iqaluit, the Government of Nunavut, and the Government of Canada. The answers you provide will be very useful to help government agencies understand how to develop initiatives to increase Inuit employment, such as training programs and Inuit employment plans.

[NOTE: when respondent or interviewer mouses over “government”, the definition above should appear]

We would also like to note that the report with the results from this survey will be publicly available on the Library and Archives Canada website, six months after the end of the phone surveys.  This survey is also registered with the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association. [NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: ONLY IF ASKED WHAT IS MRIA: The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA) is a Canadian not-for-profit association representing all aspects of the market intelligence and survey research industry in Canada.]

First, to make sure you qualify for this survey:

A_01. Are you between the ages of 18 and 64 years old?

1. Yes
2. No - You need to be between the ages of 18 to 64 to complete the survey. [GO TO OT_03]

A_02. Are you a Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) beneficiary? [NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: That is, individual is an NLCA beneficiary]

1. Yes [ CONTINUE]
2. No [Go to end and thank]
3. Don’t know [to find out, you can call the NTI Enrolment Administrator: Margaret Kusugak 1-867-645-5416. Then go to end and thank].

Screener (Government Employee)

SC_04.  Which of the following apply to you?

[Hard copy and electronic copy instructions: state “Select all that apply”] 

[Phone instructions: state “Please respond with “Yes” or “No” to each of the following”]

• 1. I work for the government or hamlet
• 2. I am a paid employee in a private company or business or an Inuit organization.
• 3. I earn money through my own business
• 4. I am currently enrolled in an education or training program
• 5. I have family responsibilities, such as caring for a child, parent or elder
• 6. I engage in activities such as hunting, fishing, clam digging, trapping, sewing, carving, berry picking, and making other arts and crafts.
• 7. Other – specify:
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. No response

[If SC_04 = 1, skip to PR_01.  In other words, if the respondent is currently a government employee, then skip the ‘interest’ and ‘availability’ sections and go to the ‘preparedness’ section]

Interest

Now we would like to ask some questions about the type of work you find interesting.

IN_01. Please answer the following question using a scale of 1-5 where 1 is not at all interested, 5 is very interested, and the mid-point, 3, is neutral.  Can you tell me if working in the following areas would be something that would interest you? What about…  [READ IN SAME ORDER EVERYTIME]

a. Working for your hamlet or the City of Iqaluit

• 1. Not At All Interested
• 2. Not Very Interested
• 3. Neutral
• 4. Somewhat Interested
• 5. Very interested
• 8. Don’t know
• 9. No response

b. Working for the Government of Nunavut

• 1. Not At All Interested
• 2. Not Very Interested
• 3. Neutral
• 4. Somewhat Interested
• 5. Very interested
• 8. Don’t know
• 9. No response

c. Working for the Government of Canada

• 1. Not At All Interested
• 2. Not Very Interested
• 3. Neutral
• 4. Somewhat Interested
• 5. Very interested
• 8. Don’t know
• 9. No response

NOTE TO SURVEYER:

For ‘a’, the following mouse over should appear (or if by phone/in-person, interviewer should respond) as follows:

The Government of Nunavut Departments are: Community and Government Services, Culture and Heritage, Economic Development and Transportation, Education, Environment, Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, Family Services, Finance, Health and Justice, Nunavut Arctic College, Nunavut Housing Corporation and Qulliq Energy Corporation.

For ‘b’, the following mouse over should appear (or if by phone/in-person, interviewer should respond) as follows:

Employees of your hamlet/community or the City of Iqaluit provide essential services and support to their communities.  These areas include:  Water / Sewer / Solid Waste Management; Planning and Land Administration; Emergency Response Planning; Fire/ Protection; Search & Rescue; Recreation; Maintenance Management; Economic Development; Facilities; and Airports

For ‘c’, the following mouse over should appear (or if by phone/in-person, interviewer should respond) as follows:

The Government of Canada departments operating in Nunavut include: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Canada Border Services Agency Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, Canada Food Inspection Agency, Natural Resources Canada, Parks Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Correctional Services Canada, Public Prosecutions Service of Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada, RCMP, and Service Canada. 

IN_02. [ASK IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01c, is neutral or interested]

What type of work in the government or hamlet might interest you? RANDOMIZE ITEMS

[Hard copy and electronic copy instructions: state “Select all that apply”] 

[Phone instructions: state “Please respond with “Yes” or “No” to the following” and check if yes]

1. Management work such as a director, senior manager, superintendent, assistant deputy minister or deputy minister
2. Research, policy or program development
3. Finances
4. Administrative assistance or support
5. Law enforcement
6. Working in jobs that involve outdoor work.
7. Being a heavy equipment operator.
8. Working in social services or mental health services
9. Being a principal, a teacher, or  a teacher’s assistant
10. Health care work
11. Working in trucked services.
12. Court work
13. Teaching traditional cultural activities

IN_03. Have you ever worked in the government or hamlet, and by government I mean working for the Government of Canada, the Government of Nunavut, a hamlet or the City of Iqaluit? [READ LIST]

• 1. Yes
• 2. No
• 8. Don’t know
• 9. No response

IN_04. Have you looked for a job in the government or hamlet?

• 1. Yes – continue to IN_05
• 2. No – [Skip to IN_06 IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c, is neutral, or interested], [Skip to IN_07  IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c is  not interested]
• 8. Don’t know – [Skip to IN_06 IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c, is neutral, or interested], [Skip to IN_07  IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c is  not interested]
• 9. No response – [Skip to IN_06 IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c, is neutral, or interested], [Skip to IN_07  IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c is  not interested]

IN_05. Have you applied for a job in the government or hamlet?

• 1. Yes
• 2. No
• 8. Don’t know
• 9. No response

IN_06. [ASK IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c, is neutral, or interested]

What interests you in working for the government or hamlet?

[DO NOT READ LIST] [Select all that apply]

[SKIP TO IN_08 AFTER THIS QUESTION IS ANSWERED]

• 1. Good pay
• 2. Good benefits (like vacation travel allowance (VTA), pension, health, and dental coverage
• 3. Subsidized housing
• 4. Training or career development opportunities
• 5. Opportunity to advance/be promoted
• 6. Doing work that makes a difference to the economy, the environment, or the community
• 7. Doing challenging/interesting work
• 8. Flexible work arrangements (start/stop times, able to work full or part-time)
• 9. Predictable work schedule (e.g. only 9-5, never on-call, no shift work)
• 10. Job security
• 11. Transportation, travel, or moving allowance
• 12. Access to day care at work or close to work
• 13. Working in an office/at desk
• 14. Lack of other employment opportunities in the community
• 15. Other – specify:
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. No response

IN_07. [ASK IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c is not interested]

Why aren’t you interested in working for the government or hamlet?

[DO NOT READ LIST] [Select all that apply]

• 1. Satisfied where I am, in a non-government sector employment
• 2. Interested in work in the non-government sector
• 3. Don’t want to work in an office/at a desk
• 4. Don’t want to or cannot work full-time/permanent
• 5. Lack of interest in administrative roles (too much paperwork, reading and reporting requirements)
• 6. Lack of interest in management roles (too much travel, burdensome duties, confrontational and disciplinarian)
• 7. Lack of awareness of job advertisements or job openings/vacancies
• 8. Lack of self-confidence
• 9. Negative impression of government
• 10. Lack of access to workplace for persons with physical disabilities
• 11. Mobility – lack of employment in home community for those who do not want to relocate
• 12. Lack of family support or difficulty adjusting to change
• 13. Criminal record affects likelihood or possibility of being hired or career advancement
• 14. Conflict of interest (real or appearance of favoring assignment/selection of jobs)
• 15. Education requirements of government work too high
• 16. Technical skills requirements too high (trades, accounting, administrative, engineering, etc.)
• 17. Language skills requirements too high
• 18. Insufficient job search preparation
• 19. Insufficient child care services or child care is too expensive
• 20. Limited staff housing
• 21. Lack of housing
• 22. Increase of social housing rent or fear of losing social housing unit
• 23. Lack of career advancement opportunities
• 24. Government work doesn’t accommodate my hunting/fishing/trapping/traditional lifestyle
• 25. Discrimination
• 26. Lack of respect for Inuit culture and values
• 27. Difficulties with resume process/Do not wish to engage with resume process
• 28. Difficulties with interview process/ do not wish to engage in interview process
• 29. Other – specify:
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. No response

IN_08. Do you plan to apply for a job in the government or hamlet over the next year?

• 1. Yes
• 2. No
• 8. Don’t know
• 9. No response

IN_09. [ASK if IN_08 is not = 1] Would you apply for a job in the government or hamlet over the next year if the job was located in your community?

• 1. Yes
• 2. No
• 8. Don’t know – do not read
• 9. No response – do not read

IN_10: How important is it for you to work somewhere where people speak Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun most of the time?

• 1. Very important.
• 2. Somewhat important.
• 3. Neutral.
• 4. Not very important.
• 5. Not at all important.
• 8. Don’t know – do not read
• 9. No response – do not read

IN_13a: How important is it for you to work somewhere where people have an understanding of Inuit culture, society and economy

• 1. Very important
• 2. Somewhat important
• 3. Neutral
• 4. Not very important
• 5. Not at all important
• 8. Don’t know– do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

IN_15: [Ask if IN_08 is not = 1 (i.e.  They do not plan to apply for a government job)] Would you apply for a job in government if you knew that it was a workplace where Inuit culture was supported?

• 1. Yes
• 2. No
• 8. Don’t Know – do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

Availability

The next questions ask about the activities you take part in and your availability to work in the government or hamlet.

AV_01. Please state whether you agree or disagree with the following statements using the following scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 5 is strongly agree, and the mid-point, 3, is neutral.

[READ AND ROTATE]

AV_01a. I am busy with activities that prevent me from being available to work for the government or a hamlet.

AV_01b. I have health problems that make it impossible to work in the government or hamlet.

AV_02.  Would you be available to work in the government or hamlet…

• 1. At any time throughout the year (except holidays and vacation time)?
• 2. For most months of the year?
• 3. For only a few months of the year?
• 4. Probably would not?
• 5. Never
• 8. Don’t know– do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

AV_03.  [DO NOT ASK OF AV_02=4,5,8,9] Would you be available to work in the government or hamlet…[ACCEPT ALL]

• 1. Full time?
• 2. Part time?
• 3. On call?
• 4. On a casual basis?
• 8. Don’t know– do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

Preparedness

In this next section, we are going to talk about education and training.

PR_01a. Which languages are you comfortable speaking? [OPEN. DO NOT READ. ACCEPT ALL RESPONSES]

• 1. Inuktitut
• 2. Inuinnaqtun
• 3. English
• 4. French
• 5. Other (specify)
• 9. Don’t Know/No Response

PR_01b. Which languages are you comfortable reading? [OPEN. DO NOT READ. ACCEPT ALL RESPONSES]

• 1. Inuktitut
• 2. Inuinnaqtun
• 3. English
• 4. French
• 5. Other (specify)
• 6. None
• 9. DON’T KNOW/REFUSE

PR_01c. Which languages are you comfortable writing? [OPEN. DO NOT READ. ACCEPT ALL RESPONSES]

• 1. Inuktitut
• 2. Inuinnaqtun
• 3. English
• 4. French
• 5. Other (specify)
• 6. None
• 9. DON’T KNOW/REFUSE

PR_02.  Which of the following statements  apply to you?

[Hard copy and electronic copy instructions: state “Select all that apply”] 

[Phone instructions: state “Please respond with “Yes” or “No” to the following” and check if yes]

1. I am confident speaking to clients or the public
2. I am confident making speeches in front of groups of people
3. I work well as part of a team
4. I have managerial skills
5. I have financial administration/planning/budgeting or accounting skills
6. I have research or analytical skills
7. I have field or site inspection or site protection skills
8. I have instructing or teaching skills
9. I know computer and internet skills (Microsoft Word, Excel, internet research)
10. I have information technology skills
11. I have data entry skills or file organization skills
12. I have typing, document, and letter writing skills
13. I am able to operate or repair small or heavy equipment (interview ask: PLEASE SPECIFY)
14. I have specialized driving skills such as bus driving
15. I have carpentry or woodworking skills
16. I have interpreting or translating skills
17. I have skills I’ve gained through volunteering (e.g., search and rescue, radio, sport, fundraising, recreation and community work)
18. I have other skills (specify):

PR_03: Do you have a high school diploma or a high school equivalency certificate such as General Educational Development (GED), Adult Basic Education (ABE), or Pathway to Adult Secondary School (PASS)?

• 1. Yes [GO TO PR_05]
• 2. No
• 9. No Response

PR_04:  What was the highest grade you completed (for example, Grade 8)?

• 1. Grade 11
• 2. Grade 10
• 3. Grade 9
• 4. Grade 8
• 5. Grade 7
• 6. Grade 6 or lower
• 7. Other (specify)
• 9. No Response

PR_05:  Did you complete any other education, training or courses?

• 1. Yes
• 2. No [GO TO PR_09]
• 9. No response – do not read

PR_06: What diplomas, degrees or certificates have you completed? 

[Do not read; select all that apply]

• 1. Nunavut Sivuniksavut (NS) diploma or certificate
• 2. Nunavut Arctic College diploma or certificate
• 3. Trade or apprenticeship certificate or diploma
• 4. Municipal Government Certificate (from the Nunavut Municipal Training Organization/Nunavut Arctic College)
• 5. Workplace health and safety certificates (e.g. WHMIS, First Aid/CPR, food handling, fire safety)
• 6. University degree from a southern institution
• 7. University degree associated with Nunavut Arctic College (Nursing – Dalhousie, NTEP – McGill or University of Regina, others?)
• 8. Other – specify:
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. No response

PR_08.[Exclude those not interested in Government work: IN_01 a,b,c = not at all/not very interested] Which of the following statements best describes your current situation? [READ AND ROTATE]

1. I feel that I have the right skills to work for a government or hamlet employer.

OR

2. I feel that I would need more training to work for a government or hamlet employer.

PR_09: Are you currently taking any courses either through work or on your own to upgrade your skills and/or training?

• 1. Yes – SKIP to PR_10a
• 2. No – SKIP to PR_11
• 9. Don’t Know/Refused – SKIP TO PR _12

PR_10a:[IF PR_09 = Yes] What is the name of your program or course?

• 1.
• 99. No Response

PR_10b:  [IF PR_09 = Yes] Are you taking your course: [READ. ACCEPT ALL ANSWERS]

• 1. In your home community?
• 2. In another community in Nunavut
• 3. Outside Nunavut
• 4. Online
• 5. Other (specify)
• 9. No Response

PR_11: [Ask if PR_09 = No] And what is the main reason why you are not taking any courses right now? 

[DO NOT READ LIST.  POSSIBLE PRE-CODES BELOW. ACCEPT ONE ANSWER]

• 1. Lack of post-secondary education and/or training opportunities in my community
• 2. Lack of post-secondary education and/or training opportunities in Nunavut
• 3. The cost, including travel costs
• 4. Lack of awareness of available courses or programs (unsure of existing courses or where to find information of courses available)
• 5. Lack of time
• 6. Lack of interest in going back to school
• 7. Wouldn’t really benefit me/no need/already feel highly qualified
• 8. No real financial pay-off to doing so
• 9. Not sure what courses or program I would take
• 10. Family responsibilities
• 11. Prefer to learn in other ways than through formal education
• 12. Lack of support from the employer
• 13. Lack of self-confidence
• 14. Conflicts with other activities you engage in (for example hunting, fishing, clam digging, trapping, sewing , berry picking, or making arts or crafts,).
• 15. Volunteering
• 88. Other (specify)
• 99. Don’t Know/Refuse

PR_12.  Would you be willing to:

1. Take post-secondary education or training if it was available in your community and did not cost you money?
2. Take post-secondary education or training if it was available elsewhere in Nunavut and did not cost you money?
3. If PR_12a = 1] Take training if the course was available online?

RESPONSE CATEGORIES

• 1. Yes
• 2. No
• 8. Don’t know – do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

[THOSE WHO SAID SC_04=1, continue. Everyone else, SKIP TO DE_01]

Current Government Employees

ASK IF SC_04=1 ONLY

SE_ 01a.  Who is your employer? [READ]

• 1. Hamlet or City of Iqaluit
• 2. Government of Nunavut
• 3. Government of Canada
• 99. No Response

SE_01b. Are you currently in a management or supervisory position? Please note that “management” also includes senior management such as director, director general, assistant deputy minister and deputy minister, senior administrative officer or assistant senior administrative officer (yes/no)

• 1. Yes
• 2. No
• 9. No Response– do not read

SE_02. Which department/agency or municipal sector do you currently work in?

• 1.
• 99. No Response

SE_03. What type of work do you do? Please specify.

[OPEN. HARD CODES-DO NOT READ]

• 1. Management work such as a director, senior manager, superintendent, assistant deputy minister or deputy minister, senior administrative officer
• 2. Research, policy analysis, program development
• 3. Financial administration
• 4. Administrative support and clerical services
• 5. Law enforcement, such as RCMP, by-law officer, conservation officer
• 6. Working in jobs that involve outdoor work such as airport maintenance, field or site inspections
• 7. Working in social services or mental health services
• 8. Working with the public such as delivering services at a service centre.
• 9. Working as a principal, a teacher, a teacher’s assistant, or school administrator
• 10. Health care work such as doctor, nurse, midwife, lab/X-ray technician or being a health care assistant
• 11. Operating heavy machinery
• 12. Working in municipal services, such as administration, or in areas such electricity, water, and sewage 13. Working as a lawyer, paralegal, court worker, victims assistance, or judicial officer
• 14. Working in probation services or corrections
• 15. Working in as a college instructor or in college administration
• 16. Other (specify)
• 99. No Response

SE_04. In your opinion, what are the advantages of working in the government or hamlet?

[DO NOT READ LIST] [Select all that apply]

• 1. Only available employment opportunity in community
• 2. Good pay
• 3. Good benefits (like vacation travel allowance (VTA), pension, health and dental coverage ,)
• 4. Subsidized housing
• 5. Training/learning opportunities
• 6. Opportunities for career development/promotion
• 7. Doing work that makes a difference to the economy, the environment, or the community
• 8. Doing challenging/interesting work
• 9. Flexible work arrangements (start/stop times, able to work full or part-time)
• 10. Predictable work schedule (e.g. only 9-5, never on-call, no shift work)
• 11. Job security
• 12. Transportation, travel, or moving allowance
• 13. Access to day care at work or in the community
• 14. Working in an office/at desk
• 15. Learning or acquiring new skills on the job
• 16. Training opportunities not otherwise available in community or territory
• 17. Other – specify:
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. No response

SE_05.In your opinion, what are the disadvantages of working in government or hamlet?
[DO NOT READ LIST] [Select all that apply]

• 1. Too many vacancies, often requires coverage of the responsibilities of two positions
• 2. Competing job market makes it less attractive for me to stay in government
• 3. Don’t want to work in an office/as a desk
• 4. Don’t want to work full-time/permanent
• 5. Requires too much travel
• 6. Lack of interest in administrative roles (too much paperwork, reading and reporting requirements)
• 7. Lack of interest in management roles (stressful)
• 8. Lack of flexible work arrangements
• 9. Lack of family support or difficulty adjusting to change
• 10. Lack of formal education makes it difficult to perform duties
• 11. Technical skills requirements too high (trades, accounting, administrative, engineering, etc.)
• 12. Language skills requirements too high
• 13. Insufficient child care services or child care is too expensive
• 14. Limited staff housing
• 15. Lack of housing
• 16. Lack of career advancement opportunities
• 17. Lack of supervisory support
• 18. Government work doesn’t accommodate my hunting/fishing/trapping/traditional lifestyle
• 19. Discrimination
• 20. Lack of respect for Inuit culture and values
• 21. Difficulties with resume process/Do not wish to engage with resume process
• 22. Difficulties with interview process/ do not wish to engage in interview process
• 23. Other – specify:
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. No response

SE_06.For the following statement, please tell me whether you agree or disagree, using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means you strongly disagree, 5 means you strongly agree, and the mid-point 3 means you neither agree nor disagree.

SE_06a. Because of my job, I have less time available than I would like to do activities such as hunting, fishing, clam digging, trapping, sewing, berry picking, carving, or other arts and crafts.

• 1. Strongly disagree
• 2. Somewhat disagree
• 3. Neither agree nor disagree
• 4. Somewhat agree
• 5. Strongly agree
• 6. I do not do these activities
• 88. Don’t know– do not read
• 99. No response– do not read

SE_08. Please answer yes or no to the following statements: READ AND ROTATE

SE_08b.  Most of the skills I use at work I learned in school or through training that led to a certificate

SE_08c. I have received training since I started working for a government or hamlet employer

RESPONSE CATEGORIES

• 1. Yes
• 2. No
• 88. Don’t know– do not read
• 99. No response– do not read

SE_08d.[ASK IF YES to SE_08c]: Did your employer provide this training?

• 1. Yes
• 2. No
• 88. Don’t know– do not read
• 99. No response– do not read

SE_09a.How can government or hamlet employers motivate Nunavut Inuit to obtain government or hamlet jobs? [DO NOT READ. OPEN. ACCEPT UP TO THREE RESPONSES]

• 1. Provide training
• 2. Provide mentoring
• 3. Have Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun speaking management
• 4. Provide more job opportunities
• 5. Provide flexible work hours
• 6. Provide child or Elder care support
• 7. Promote government or hamlet jobs among high school students
• 8. Provide support for post-secondary education
• 9. Provide assistance with résumé/cv/interview process
• 10. Other (specify)
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. No response

SE_09b. How can government or hamlet employers motivate Nunavut Inuit to advance in government or hamlet jobs? [DO NOT READ. OPEN. ACCEPT UP TO THREE RESPONSES]

• 1. Provide training
• 2. Provide mentoring
• 3. Have Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun speaking management
• 4. Provide more job opportunities
• 5. Provide flexible work hours
• 6. Provide child or Elder care support
• 7. Promote government or hamlet jobs among high school students
• 8. Provide support for post-secondary education
• 9. Provide assistance with résumé/cv/interview process
• 10. Other (specify)
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. No response

SE_10: How important is it for you to be able to use Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun at work?

• 1. Very important
• 2. Somewhat important
• 3. Neutral
• 4. Not very important
• 5. Not at all important
• 8. Don’t know– do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

SE_11: At your workplace, how often are you able to do your work in Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun?

• 1. Always
• 2. Most of the time
• 3. Sometimes
• 4. Rarely
• 5. Never
• 8. Don’t know– do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

SE_12: At your workplace, how often is a translator or interpreter available when one is needed

• 1. Always
• 2. Most of the time
• 3. Sometimes
• 4. Rarely
• 5. Never
• 8. Don’t know– do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

SE_13a: How important is it for you that your supervisor supports Inuit culture in the workplace?

• 1. Very important
• 2. Somewhat important
• 3. Neutral
• 4. Not very important
• 5. Not at all important
• 8. Don’t know– do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

SE_13b: How important is it for you that your supervisor speaks Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun?

• 1. Very important
• 2. Somewhat important
• 3. Neutral
• 4. Not very important
• 5. Not at all important
• 8. Don’t know– do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

SE_14a: How important is it for you that your co-workers support Inuit culture in the workplace?

• 1. Very important
• 2. Somewhat important
• 3. Neutral
• 4. Not very important
• 5. Not at all important
• 8. Don’t know– do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

SE_14b: How important is it for you that your co-workers speak Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun?

• 1. Very important
• 2. Somewhat important
• 3. Neutral
• 4. Not very important
• 5. Not at all important
• 8. Don’t know– do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

Which statement about the Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun languages reflect your workplace? 

SE_15: At least some of my co-workers

• 1. Speak Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun all the time
• 2. Speak Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun most of the time
• 3. Speak Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun some of the times
• 4. Never speak or are unable to speak Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun
• 8. Don’t know– do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

SE_16a: My supervisor:

• 1. Speaks Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun all the time
• 2. Speaks Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun most of the time
• 3. Speaks Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun some of the time
• 4. Never speaks or is unable to speak Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun
• 8. Don’t know– do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

SE_16b: Is your direct supervisor Inuk?

• 1. Yes
• 2. No
• 8. Don’t know– do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

SE_18: Are there opportunities at your workplace to learn about Inuit culture and values?

• 1. Yes
• 2. No
• 8. Don’t Know – do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

SE_19: Would you be interested in working in a position that is higher than the one you occupy now (for example, manager, supervisor or director)?

• 1. Yes
• 2. No
• 8. Don’t Know – do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

SE_20: [If SE_19 = 1] Are you aware of what steps you would need to take to move up to a position with more responsibility?

• 1. Yes
• 2. No
• 8. Don’t Know – do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

SE_21: To what extent do you agree with the following statements about your workplace?

a) There are training opportunities available in my language of choice.

• 1. Strongly disagree
• 2. Somewhat disagree
• 3. Neither agree nor disagree
• 4. Somewhat agree
• 5. Strongly agree
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. Not Applicable

b) There are training opportunities to improve my Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun language skills.

• 1. Strongly disagree
• 2. Somewhat disagree
• 3. Neither agree nor disagree
• 4. Somewhat agree
• 5. Strongly agree
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. Not Applicable

c) Supervisors encourage employees to take advantage of new opportunities

• 1. Strongly disagree
• 2. Somewhat disagree
• 3. Neither agree nor disagree
• 4. Somewhat agree
• 5. Strongly agree
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. Not Applicable

d) Supervisors help employees achieve their job goals

• 1. Strongly disagree
• 2. Somewhat disagree
• 3. Neither agree nor disagree
• 4. Somewhat agree
• 5. Strongly agree
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. Not Applicable

e) The materials and documents I use in my job are available in a language I understand.

• 1. Strongly disagree
• 2. Somewhat disagree
• 3. Neither agree nor disagree
• 4. Somewhat agree
• 5. Strongly agree
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. Not Applicable

f) I enjoy working in my current workplace.

• 1. Strongly disagree
• 2. Somewhat disagree
• 3. Neither agree nor disagree
• 4. Somewhat agree
• 5. Strongly agree
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. Not Applicable

SE_22: To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

My workplace makes good use of my [INSERT ITEM]:

a) Knowledge of Inuit culture, society and economy

• 1. Strongly disagree
• 2. Somewhat disagree
• 3. Neither agree nor disagree
• 4. Somewhat agree
• 5. Strongly agree
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. Not applicable

b) Nunavut community awareness

• 1. Strongly disagree
• 2. Somewhat disagree
• 3. Neither agree nor disagree
• 4. Somewhat agree
• 5. Strongly agree
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. Not applicable

c) Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun language fluency

• 1. Strongly disagree
• 2. Somewhat disagree
• 3. Neither agree nor disagree
• 4. Somewhat agree
• 5. Strongly agree
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. Not applicable

d) Knowledge of Nunavut’s environment and land

• 1. Strongly disagree
• 2. Somewhat disagree
• 3. Neither agree nor disagree
• 4. Somewhat agree
• 5. Strongly agree
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. Not applicable

e) English language fluency

• 1. Strongly disagree
• 2. Somewhat disagree
• 3. Neither agree nor disagree
• 4. Somewhat agree
• 5. Strongly agree
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. Not applicable

f) Formal education qualifications* (School)

• 1. Strongly disagree
• 2. Somewhat disagree
• 3. Neither agree nor disagree
• 4. Somewhat agree
• 5. Strongly agree
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. Not applicable

g) Reading, writing, math, problem solving skills)

• 1. Strongly disagree
• 2. Somewhat disagree
• 3. Neither agree nor disagree
• 4. Somewhat agree
• 5. Strongly agree
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. Not applicable

h) French language fluency.

• 1. Strongly disagree
• 2. Somewhat disagree
• 3. Neither agree nor disagree
• 4. Somewhat agree
• 5. Strongly agree
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. Not applicable

*interviewer note: if asked what “formal education” say: “schooling”

SE_25: Do you intend to leave your job in the next two years?

• 1. Yes
• 2. No
• 8. Don’t Know – do not read
• 9. No response– do not read

SE_26: [If SE_25= 1 (yes)] Why do you intend to leave government? [OPEN. DO NOT READ. ACCEPT ALL RESPONSES]

• 1. Retiring
• 2. Contract ending
• 3. Found a job outside government or hamlet
• 4. Health reasons
• 5. Moving
• 6. No longer want to work
• 7. Found job at other government or hamlet employer
• 8. Other (specify)
• 99. No response

Demographics

Finally, we would now like to ask a few questions about you. This information is only used to assist with the analysis of the data. None of this information will be linked to you directly.

DE_01: GENDER: (CODE BY OBSERVATION. IF UNSURE, ASK:  Are you.....)

• 1. Female
• 2. Male
• 99. No answer

DE_02: In what year were you born?

RECORD YEAR (4 DIGITS):

REFUSED

DE_03: In which community do you live? [DO NOT READ – ACCEPT ONE RESPONSE ONLY]

1. Arctic Bay
2. Arviat
3. Baker Lake
4. Cambridge Bay
5. Cape Dorset
6. Chesterfield Inlet
7. Clyde River
8. Coral Harbor
9. Grise Fiord
10. Gjoa Haven
11. Hall Beach
12. Igloolik
13. Iqaluit
14. Kimmirut
15. Kugaaruk
16. Kugluktuk
17. Pangnirtung
18. Pond Inlet
19. Qikiqtarjuarq
20. Rankin Inlet
21. Repulse Bay/Naujaat
22. Resolute Bay
23. Sanikiluaq
24. Taloyoak
25. Whale Cove
26. Other (Please Specify):

DE_04: Where would you look to find information about current job opportunities?

[DO NOT READ, CODE ALL THAT APPLY]

• 1. Direct contact with possible employers
• 2. Friends or family
• 3. Newspaper ads
• 4. Community bulletin boards
• 5. Radio
• 6. Magazine
• 7. Internet [If selected, PROBE “Where?]
• 8. Facebook
• 9. Community Liaison Officers
• 10. Economic Development Officers
• 11. Employment agency
• 12. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI)
• 13. Government of Canada [If selected, PROBE “Where? Government office? Service Canada? Websites? Flyers?”]
• 14. Government of Nunavut [If selected, PROBE “Where? Websites? Flyers?”]
• 15. Local hamlet Office
• 16. School guidance/career counsellor
• 17. Recruiting firms/HR specialists
• 18. Other – specify:
• 88. Don’t know
• 99. No response

Other Research Opportunities

[If DE_03 = 13, 16, 20].  EVERYONE ELSE: SKIP TO OT_3

Before we end, I would like to let you know that this survey is only one tool we are using to collect input from Nunavut Inuit in this study. We are conducting a series of discussion groups and holding these sessions in Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet and Kugluktuk. This research may help governments and hamlets in Nunavut better understand how to support Inuit employment.

OT_01.  [If DE_03 = 13, 16, 20]

Would you be interested in attending one of these sessions? We are unable to cover the costs for any travel or accommodations, however, an incentive will be provided for attending the discussion session

1. Yes
2. No [GO TO OT_03]

OT_02. We will be contacting people to participate in the middle of [INSERT DATE](?). Can we contact you at this phone number to confirm your attendance? <<Recall phone number>> [Record the name of the individual and community]

OT_03.  We are trying to speak with as many Nunavut Inuit as possible. Are there any other people in your home who are or may also be Inuk and are between the ages of 18 and 64 years?

1. Yes
2. No  [Thank the respondent for their time and input]

OT_04.  Would it be possible for me to speak with one of those individuals now?

1. Yes [GO TO NEW FORM]
2. No

OT_05.  Would it be okay for us to call back at a different time to talk to another Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiary in your home?

1.  Yes [Collect the name(s) of the individuals and schedule a time to call back. Thank respondent and indicate that we will be calling back at another time to speak with other members of the household.]
2. No. [End Call]

On behalf of the Government of Canada, we thank you for participating in this survey. We will contact you if you are our prize winner.

[Surveyor Note:  If the respondent has any questions about the survey, they may contact Tania Callies at 819-654-1876 or Jeremy Plaunt at 819-654-1609].

ᓄᓇᕗᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᓐ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓕᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒥᖕ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᑎᖃᖃᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦᔪᓂ 12, 2015)

ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐅᑎᓂᖅ

ᕼᐊᓘ, ᐊᓲᔪᑎᓪᓕ,  ᐊᑎᕋ [ ].  ᐅᖄᓚᔪᖓ RA ᒫᓕᑎᐊᔅᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓂᖕ ᑭᒡᒐᕐᑐᐃᓪᓗᖓ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᖕ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎᖃᕐᑐᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᑎᒥᖓᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᖕ. ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᐊᕋᑦᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᒥ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᖕ, ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᖁᓕᓂᑦ ᑎᓴᒪᐅᔪᕐᖏᕋᕐᑐᓂᓪᓗ (18) ᐅᖓᑖᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᑲᑕᑦᑐᒋᑦ.  ᑲᔪᓯᖁᔭᐅᕗᖓ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑐᓐ?  ᖃᓄᐃᑉᐱᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ? [ᑭᐅᔪᒪᑉᐸᑦ ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓯᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑑᓐᖔᕈᒪᕕᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ? [ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᓕᕐᒥᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑲᐅᒋᓂᕐᓴᕆᑉᐸᒍ]

ᐊᐱᖅᓱᓂᐊᕐᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᓱᒪᕐᓱᕐᓂᒥᒍᑦ ᑭᐅᔪᒪᒍᑎᒃ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᔾᔮᕋᑎᓪᓗ ᑲᓐᖑᓇᕐᑑᑎᑕᐅᓗᑎᖕ ᐃᒻᒪᖃᓗ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᑎᒋᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ  15-19ᒥᓇᑦᔅ.  ᐃᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᓯ ᐊᑎᓯᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᖅᑕᖃᔾᔮᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᖑᕙᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᓂ.  ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᖃᕐᕕᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᓪᓗ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᑐᖃᕐᓂᑦ ᑲᑎᖅᓱᐃᕕᖓᓂ ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᑐᕝᕕᖓᒍᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᓂᑦ, ᑕᖅᑭᑦ ᐱᖓᓲᔪᕐᑐᑦ ᓈᓯᒪᓕᕐᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᖅᑲᑎᒌᓂᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᓚᐅᕐᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ.  ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕗᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᐊᕐᑕᑎᓐᓂᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᑕᐅᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ ᓂᐅᕐᕈᑎᑦᓴᓕᐅᕐᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᕙᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᕐᑏᑦ ᑎᒥᖓᓄᑦ.  [ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒋᐊᓕᒃ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑐᒧᑦ: ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒋᑦ ᑭᒃᑰᒻᒪᖔᑕ: ᓂᐅᕐᕈᑎᑦᓴᓕᐅᕐᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᕙᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᕐᑏᑦ ᑎᒥᖓ (MRIA) ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕋᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᑎᖕ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᓯᐊᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᓂᐅᕐᕈᑎᑦᓴᓕᐅᕐᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕆᐊᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᐸᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᓴᓇᕕᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ.]

ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᑦᓴᐅᒐᑦᓯ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥᖕ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᓂ ᐅᖃᕐᓯᒪᒐᓗᐊᕐᖓᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑐᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓛᖑᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᓂᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑖᕋᓱᒋᐊᖃᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓄᒋᐊᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ.   ᒐᕙᒪᐅᓂᕋᐃᕗᒍᑦ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂ, ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᐸᐅᔭᒃᑯᓐᓂ. ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᓯ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᓐᓂᐊᕐᖓᑕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑎᒥᖏᓐᓂᖕ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᕗᒥᖕᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᐅᑎᑦᓴᓕᐅᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᔪᕈᕐᓃᕐᓴᕈᑎᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᕐᓗ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑖᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᖕ.

[ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒋᐊᓕᖕ: ᑭᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑐᕐᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓇᓗᓕᐅᖅᑲᑉᐸᑦ “ᒐᕙᒪ” ᒥᑦᓵᓄᑦ, ᑕᑉᐹᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᑕᐅᖅᑲᐅᔪᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᕐᓂᐊᕐᑐᑦ]

ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖕ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᓐᖑᐊᑕᕐᓯᓐᓇᕋᕕᑦ, ᐊᒧᓯᓂᐊᕋᑦᑕ ᐊᑎᕐᒥᑦ ᓵᓚᖃᐅᓯᐊᕐᑐᑦᓴᒥᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᑎᑦ <<ᐊᒧᔭᖅ `ᓴᓚᖃᐅᓯᐊ`ᓚᖅᑐᖅ $350-ᓂᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᓕᒻᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᑦᑕ`ᔪᒥᒃ>>.  ᖃᓄᐃᑦᓴᕋᔭᓐᖏᓚᑏᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑕᐅᒍᕕᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᑕᑎᓂᑦ?  [ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᑉᐸᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᓈᓐᖏᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ: ᐋᖅᑮᖃᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᖃᖓᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖄᓚᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᕐᐱᑦ]

ᓯᕗᓪᓕᕐᒥ, ᑐᑭᓯᖃᑎᒌᖅᑳᕐᓗᑕ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᕐᐱᑦ:

A_01. ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑏᑦ ᐊᑯᓐᓂᖓᓃᑉᐸᑦ 18 ᐊᒻᒪ 64?

1. ᐄ
2. ᐋᒡᒐ - ᐊᕐᕌᒍᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᑯᓐᓂᖓᓂ 18 ᐊᒻᒪ 64 ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᑎᑦ. [ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑦᓴᐅᑎᒋᓗᑎᑦ OT_03]

A_02. ᐃᓅᕖᑦ ᐊᑎᖃᖃᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒥᖕ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᒎᑦ (ᓄᓇᕗᑖᕈᑎ)? [ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒋᐊᓕᒃ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑎᒧᑦ: ᐃᓄᐃᓐ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᖓᑕ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᓂ ᐊᑎᖃᖃᑕᐅᔪᑦ]

1. ᐄ [ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑎ]
2. ᐋᒡᒐ [ᐃᓱᐊᓅᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᕐᓗᒍᓗ]
3. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ [] [ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᕕᒃᓴᖅ ᐅ`ᖃᓚᕕᒋᓗᒍ NTI ᑯᑦ ᐊᑎᖃᖃᑕᐅᖕᒪ`ᖓᕐᐱᑦ:  `ᒪᒍᓕ ᑯᓱᒐᖅ 1-867-645-5416.  `ᖃᖏᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᓱᐊᓄᐊᕐᓗᑎ ᖁᔭᓐᓇ`ᒥᕐᓗᒍᓗ.

ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᕗᑦ (ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐅᔭᕐᑎᒥᓐ)

SC_04.  ᓇᓪᓕᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᕐᐸ?

[ᐸᐃᑉᐹᒥ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕐᑐᓄᑦ ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᓂ ᐊᔪᕆᕐᓯᐅᔾᔨᒍᑏᑦ: ᐅᖃᕐᓗᒍ “ᐃᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑑᑎᒍᓐᓇᕐᑐᓕᒫᑦ ᑭᐅᓗᒋᑦ”ᑎᑎᖅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᓕᒫᑦ”]

[ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ: ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᕕᒋᓗᒍ “ᑭᐅᒍᓐᓇᕈᕕᑦ “ᐄ” ᐅᕝᕙᓗ “ᐋᒡᒐ” ᐊᑐᓂ ᐅᑯᐊ”]

• 1. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑐᖓ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ  
• 2. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑐᖓ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᒥ ᑲᒻᐸᓂᒥᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᖁᑎᒥ
• 3. ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᕐᑐᖓ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᒻᒥᖕ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ
• 4. ᐊᑎᓕᐅᖃᑕᐅᓯᒪᓕᕐᑐᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᓛᕋᒪ, ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᖃᑕᐅᓛᕋᒪ, ᐊᔪᕈᕐᓃᕐᓴᓛᕋᒪ, ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᓂ ᓵᓐᖓᓪᓘᑎᓗᑕ 
• 5. ᐃᓚᓐᓂᖕ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᑐᖓ, ᐆᑦᑐᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᕿᑐᕐᖓᓐᓂᑦ, ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᑦᑎᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ
• 6. ᐊᓯᕙᕐᐸᑦᑐᖓ, ᐃᖃᓗᒐᓱᑦᑎᐅᔪᖓ, ᐊᒻᒨᒪᔾᔨᐊᓲᖑᔪᖓ, ᒥᑭᒋᕐᔨᕐᓯᒪᓲᖑᔪᖓ, ᐊᓐᓄᕋᔾᔨᐅᓲᖑᔪᖓ ᑲᒥᓗᖓᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᓴᓇᓐᖑᐊᓲᖑᔪᖓ ᐅᒃᑯᓯᑦᓴᒥᖕ ᐊᒥᐊᒐᐃᓂᑦ ᒥᖅᓱᒐᕐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓂᑦ ᓴᓇᐅᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ
• 7. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ − (ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ) :
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99.  ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

[SC_04 = 1 ᐊᑕᐅᓯᑑᑉᐸᑦ, ᖄᖏᕐᓗᒍ ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ PR_01.  ᐃᒪᐃᓕᒐᓱᑦᑐᖅ, ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑕᖅ ᒫᓐᓇ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᐸᑦ, ᖄᖐᓐᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᒍ ‘ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕐᕕᒋᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᑦ’ ᐊᒻᒪ ‘ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅ’ ᐃᓚᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ “ ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑦᓴᐅᑎᒋᓗᑎᑦ ‘ᐅᐸᓗᖓᐃᔭᕐᓂᖅ’ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ]

ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕐᕕᒋᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᑦ

ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕈᒪᓕᕆᕗᒍᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒥᖕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕆᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᒥᖕ ᐃᓱᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᕐᐱᑦ.

IN_01. ᐅᑯᐊ ᑭᐅᔭᐅᖁᓕᕆᕙᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᒋᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓐᖏᒻᒪᖔᑕᓗ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᕗᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓄᑦ ᓈᓴᐅᓯᓕᕐᑐᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒍ ᓯᕗᓕᕐᐹᖅ 1 ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑐᖓ, ᑕᓪᓕᒪᖓᑦ 5 ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᖓ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᕿᑎᐊᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᐱᖓᔪᐊᑦ 3ᒥ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄᑐᐃᓐᓈᖓᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᖅ.  ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᐱᓐᖔ ᐅᑯᓇᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᒪᒐᔭᕐᑕᕐᒪᖔᕐᐱᑦ? ᐃᒫᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ...ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ [ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕐᐸᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑭᖑᓕᕇᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ]

a. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᖅ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᓯᓐᓂ ᐃᖃᓗᐃᓪᓘᓐᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᐸᐅᔭᖓᓂ

• 1. ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑐᖓ
• 2. ᐱᖃᑕᐅᒍᒪ ᖃᓄᐃᒋᒐᔭᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄ−ᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ
• 4. ᐱᖃᑕᐅ− ᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᖅ
• 5. ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᓪ− ᓚᕆᑦᑐᖓ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪ−ᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

b. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ

• 1. ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑐᖓ
• 2. ᐱᖃᑕᐅᒍᒪ ᖃᓄᐃᒋᒐᔭᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄ−ᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ
• 4. ᐱᖃᑕᐅ− ᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᖅ
• 5. ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᓪ− ᓚᕆᑦᑐᖓ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪ−ᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

c. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᖅ ᒐᕙᒪᑯᓐᓂᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ

• 1. ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑐᖓ
• 2. ᐱᖃᑕᐅᒍᒪ ᖃᓄᐃᒋᒐᔭᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄ−ᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ
• 4. ᐱᖃᑕᐅ− ᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᖅ
• 5. ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᓪ− ᓚᕆᑦᑐᖓ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪ−ᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒋᐊᓕᖕ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑎᒧᑦ:

ᐃᓚᖓᓂ ‘a’, ᐊᕕᓐᖓᖑᐊᑯᓗᖕ ᓴᖅᑭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᖁᓛᓂ (ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎᒃᑰᕈᕕᑦ/ᓵᓐᖓᓪᓘᑎᓗᑎᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑐᖅ ᑭᐅᓗᓂ), ᐃᒫᖕ:

ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑕ ᐱᓕᕆᕝᕕᖏᑦ: ᓄᓇᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕐᑏᑦ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᑐᖃᓕᕆᔩᓪᓗ, ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᔪᓕᕆᔩᓪᓗ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ, ᒐᕙᒪᓕᐱᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᑐᓕᕆ`ᔨᑦ, ᐃᓚ`ᒋᓄ ᐃᓄᓕᕆ`ᔨᑦ, `ᑭᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆ`ᔨᑦ, `ᐊᓐᓂᐊᖃᕐᓇᖏᑦᑐᓕᕆ`ᔨ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᖅ,ᓄᓇᕗᒥ ᓯᓚᑦᑐᖅᓴᕐᕕᒃᑯᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᒥ ᐃᓪᓗᓕᕆᔨᕐᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᖁᓪᓕᖅ ᐃᑯᒻᒪᑏᑦ ᑯᐊᐳᕇᓴᓐ. 

ᐃᓚᖓᓂ ‘b’, ᐊᕕᓐᖓᖑᐊᑯᓗᖕ ᓴᖅᑭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᖁᓛᓂ (ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎᒃᑰᕈᕕᑦ/ᓵᓐᖓᓪᓘᑎᓗᑎᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑐᖅ ᑭᐅᓗᓂ), ᐃᒫᖕ:

ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑏᑦ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓐᓂ/ᓄᓇᓕᐸᐅᔭᒃᑯᓄᑦ ᐃᖃᓗᓐᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᓕᓪᓚᕆᐅᕙᒻᒪᑕ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕆᐊᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᓖᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᐸᒻᒪᑕ ᓄᓇᖅᑲᑎᓕᒫᒥᓂᖕ.  ᒪᑯᐊᖑᓪᓗᑎᖕ: ᐃᒥᖅᑕᕐᑏᑦ / ᑭᓈᓗᖕᒥᑦ ᒥᓪᓗᐊᕐᑏᑦ / ᑕᖏᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᕐᑏᑦ; ᐸᕐᓇᐃᔩᑦ ᓄᓇᒥᓪᓗ ᐃᓂᓪᓚᑦᓴᐃᔩᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᐅᔭᕐᑏᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᒻᒥ; ᑐᐊᕕᕐᓇᕐᑐᓕᕆᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᐅᐸᓗᖓᐃᔭᐅᑎᓂᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᔨᑦ; ᖃᑦᑎᕆᔩᑦ / ᓴᐳᔾᔨᔩᑦ: ᕿᓂᕐᑏᑦ ᐸᖅᓴᐃᔩᑦ ᐃᓅᓕᑦᓯᔩᓪᓗ; ᐱᓐᖑᐊᕐᑐᓕᕆᔩᑦ; ᓴᓇᔭᕆᐊᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᐅᒪᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔩᑦ; ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓕᕆᔩᑦ; ᐃᓪᓗᓂᖕ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᔩᑦ; ᒥᑦᑕᕐᕕᓕᕆᔩᓪᓗ ᖃᖓᑕᓲᒃᑯᕕᒻᒥ

ᐃᓚᖓᓂ ‘c’, ᐊᕕᓐᖓᖑᐊᑯᓗᖕ ᓴᖅᑭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᖁᓛᓂ (ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎᒃᑰᕈᕕᑦ/ᓵᓐᖓᓪᓘᑎᓗᑎᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑐᖅ ᑭᐅᓗᓂ), ᐃᒫᖕ:

ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᑯᖓᓂ  ᐃᖏᕋᑎᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᒪᑯᐊ:ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᑐᖃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᓯᓚᑖᓂᑦ ᑎᑭᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᑎᖏᑦ, ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓕᕆᔩᑦ  ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᓯᓚᑖᓂᑦ ᑎᑭᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᑎᖏᑦ, ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓕᕆᔩᑦ , ᑲᓇᑕᐅ ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᖏᑦ,  ᑲᓇᑕᐅ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᑯᖏᑦ, ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓂᕿᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐ`ᑎᑦ, ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᖏᑦ, ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒥᕐᖑᐃᓯᕐᕕᓕᕆᔨᖏᑦ, ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐅᖁᒪᐃᓐᓂᓂᐊᕐᕕᓕᕆᔨᖏᑦ, ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑕᐅᕕᓕᕆᔨᖏᑦ, ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᕐᑐᕋᑦᓴᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᖏᑦ, ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᓴᓇᔪᓕᕆᔨᖏᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕐᑏᑦ,

IN_02. [ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ IN_01 c, IN_01 d, IN_01 e, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ IN_01 ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ, ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᒥᓇᕐᑐᑦ

ᑭᓱᓕᕆᔨᐅᔪᒪᒐᔭᕐᐱᓪᓕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕆᔪᒥᒋᔭᓐᓂ? ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ

[ᑎᑎᖅᑲᕐᑕᖏᑦ ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᒃᑰᕐᑐᓪᓗ ᐊᔾᔨᖏᑦ ᐊᔪᕆᕐᓯᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ: ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᖁᓗᒍ “ᓂᕈᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦᐱᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᓕᒫᑦ]

[ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᕕᒋᓗᒋᑦ: ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒋᑦ “ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕈᕕᑦ “ᐄ” ᐅᕝᕙᓗ “ᐋᒡᒑ” ᐅᓇᓂ” ᐄᖑᑉᐸᑦ ᑎᑎᕐᓗᒍᓗ]

1. ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖃᕐᕖᑦ ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒋ ᑐᑭᒧᐊᕐᑎᑦᓯᔨ, ᖁᑦᑎᓯᓂᕐᓴᒥ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨ, ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᑐᖏᓕᐊᑕ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎᖓ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᑐᖏᓕᐊ
2. ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᑏᑦ, ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔩᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᐊᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᓯᔩᑦ 
3. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᖅ
4. ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓕᕆᓂᖕᒥᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎᖏᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ  
5. ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᕐᑎᑦᓯᔩᑦ
6. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᑦ ᓯᓚᒦᒋᐊᓖᑦ
7. ᐅᖁᒪᐃᑦᑑᑎᓂᑦ ᐊᖁᑏᑦ
8. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ.   
9. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖑᓂᖅ, ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᓂᖅ, ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᒧᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎᐅᓂᖅ 
10. ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᓕᕆᓂᖕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᖅ
11. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕐᕕᓂ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕆᐊᓖᑦ.   
12. ᐃᖅᑲᕐᑐᐃᕕᒻᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑦ
13. ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᖁᓯᓕᕆᓂᖅᒥᒃ.

IN_03. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕖᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᒐᕙᒪᐅᓂᕋᐃᕗᒍᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᖃᓗᐃᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᐸᐅᔭᖓᓄᑦ? [ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ]

• 1. ᐄ
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

IN_04. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᕐᓯᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕖᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ?

• 1. ᐄ
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ – ᖄᖏᕐᓗᒍ ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ [Skip to IN_06 IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c, is neutral, or interested], [Skip to IN_07 IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c is not interested]
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖏᑦᑐᖓ – ᖄᖏᕐᓗᒍ ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ [Skip to IN_06 IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c, is neutral, or interested], [Skip to IN_07 IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c is not interested]
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ – ᖄᖏᕐᓗᒍ ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ [Skip to IN_06 IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c, is neutral, or interested], [Skip to IN_07 IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c is not interested]

IN_05.  ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᒦᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕖᑦ?

• 1. ᐄ
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

IN_06. [ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ IN_01 c, IN_01 d, IN_01 e, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ IN_01 f ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ, ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᒥᓇᕐᑐᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᒥᓇᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᑦ]

ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕆᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᒥᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᒪᕕᑦ?

[ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒋᑦ] [ᑎᑎᖅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᓕᒫᑦ

[ᖄᖏᕐᓗᒍ ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ IN_08 ᑭᐅᔭᐅᑐᐊᖅᑲᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ]

• 1. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦᓴᓯᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ
• 2. ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᑦᓯᐊᐸᓐᓂᖓᓄᑦ (ᓲᕐᓗ ᕿᑲᕆᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖑᕙᑦᑐᑦ (ᐃᑲᔫᑎᑦ), ᐲᔭᐃᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᓄᖅᑲᕕᐅᓯᐊᑦᓴᓂᑦ, ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᓕᕆᓂᖕᒧᑦ, ᑭᒍᓯᕆᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᑏᑦ
• 3. ᐃᓪᓗᒧᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑎᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑏᑦ
• 4. ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᕐᕕᑦᓴᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕆᑦᓲᔭᕈᒥᓇᕐᖓᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᕕᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ
• 5. ᖁᕝᕙᐸᓪᓕᐊᕕᒋᔪᒥᓇᕐᖓᑦ/ᖁᑦᓯᓂᕐᓴᒧᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓇᕐᖓᑦ
• 6. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖃᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᑐᓂ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᖃᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ ᒪᑭᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖕᒥ, ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᓂᖕᒥ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᖅᑲᑎᒌᓂᑦ
• 7. ᐊᑦᓱᕈᕐᓇᕋᓗᐊᕐᑐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕆᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᑦ/ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕐᕕᒋᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᑦ
• 8. ᐃᓱᒪᕐᓱᓇᕐᓂᕐᓴᐅᓗᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓇᖅ (ᐱᒋᐊᕐᕕᖓ/ᓄᖅᑲᕐᕕᖓ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᐃᓐᓇᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᓪᓘᑉ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᖓᓂ)
• 9. ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᑕᓗᐊᖏᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓇᖅ (ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ 9ᒥᖕ 5ᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᑕᒫᑦ, ᐅᖄᓚᕕᐅᔪᒫᕐᓂᐊᕋᓂ, ᑭᐳᑦᑕᕐᑐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᓂ)
• 10. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖃᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕆᐊᑦᓴᖅ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᕋᓂ
• 11. ᐃᖏᕐᕋᔾᔪᑎᓄᑦ, ᐊᐅᓪᓚᕈᑎᓄᑦ ᓄᑦᑎᕐᓂᐊᕐᐸᑕᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑏᑦ
• 12. ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐸᐃᕆᕕᒻᒥᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᒥᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖃᓂᓐᓂᖓᓄᑦ
• 13. ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᒻᒥ/ᓵᓕᒻᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᓐᓇᖕᓂᖅ
• 14. ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᖕ ᓄᓇᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᖃᓐᖏᒧᓐ
• 15. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ – ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ:
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

IN_07. [ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ IN_01 c, IN_01 d, IN_01 e, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ IN_01 f ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᒪᓐᖏᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᖓ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕐᕕᒋᔪᒥᓇᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ]

ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᓐ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᒥᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᒪᒐᔭᓐᖏᓚᑎᑦ?

[ᐅᖃᓕᒫᑦᑕᐃᓕᓗᒋᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ] [ᑎᑎᖅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᓕᒫᑦ]

• 1. ᓈᒻᒪᒋᒐᒃᑯ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐃᓂᒐ, , ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓂᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᕋ
• 2. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᒪᓂᕐᓴᐅᒐᒪ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓕᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓂᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ
• 3. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᒪᓐᖏᓇᒪ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᒻᒥ/ᓵᓕᒻᒥ
• 4. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᒪᓐᖏᓐᓇᒪ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᐃᓇᕈᓇᖏᓐᓇᒪ ᐅᓪᓗᓕᒫᖅ/ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖑᐃᓐᓇᕐᑐᒥ
• 5. ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᒻᒥᐅᑕᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕐᕕᒋᔪᒥᓇᓐᖏᒪᑕ (ᐸᐃᑉᐹᓕᕆᒋᐊᑐᓗᐊᕐᖓᑦ, ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕆᐊᖃᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ)
• 6. ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖑᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᒪᓐᖏᒧᓐ (ᐊᐅᓪᓚᑲᑕᓗᕆᐊᖃᕐᖓᑕ, ᐱᔭᑦᓴᖏᑦ ᐅᖁᒪᐃᑦᑑᓪᓗᑎᒃ, ᓵᓐᖓᑦᓯᒋᐊᑐᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᒋᐊᖃᕐᑐᑎᓪᓗ)
• 7. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖃᑦᑕᓐᖏᓗᐊᒧᓐ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᕐᑎᑕᐅᓕᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ ᒪᑐᐃᖓᔪᖃᓕᕋᐃᒻᒪᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ/ᐃᓄᖃᕈᓐᓃᕐᑐᓂᓗ
• 8. ᓇᓗᖅᑯᑎᒧᑦ
• 9. ᒐᕙᒪᓂᖕ ᐊᑲᕐᓴᓐᖏᓗᐊᒧᓐ
• 10. ᑎᒥᒥᒍᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᑎᓖᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓂᖕ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᓐᖏᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ
• 11. ᓄᑦᑎᕆᐊᖃᒧᑦ – ᓄᓇᒥᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᖃᓐᖏᒧᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᓅᒍᒪᓐᖏᒧᑦ
• 12. ᐃᓚᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑐᖅᑕᐅᖏᓗᐊᒧᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᓗᐊᕐᖓᓪᓗ ᐊᓯᐊᓅᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ
• 13. ᐃᖅᑲᕐᑐᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᓗᓂ ᐱᓂᕐᓗᒃᑐᒥᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᐊᑎᓕᐅᕐᑕᐅᓯᒪᒧᑦ ᐊᐳᕈᑕᐅᕙᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕐᑖᕈᓐᓇᐃᓕᓗᓂ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓐᓂᕐᓴᒧᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᒪᒐᓗᐊᕐᑐᓂ
• 14. ᐃᒻᒥᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᒧᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᓪᓗᓐᓂᖅ (ᑕᐃᒫᓪᓚᑦᑖᖅ ᑲᖐᒋᔭᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᑐᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᒃᑯᒋᓂᕐᓴᒥᓂᖕ ᓂᕈᐊᕐᓂᕐᓴᕐᔫᔮᕐᐸᓐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ/ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᓂᖕ ᓂᕈᐊᕈᔾᔭᐅᓂᖅ)
• 15. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓯᒪᓗᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓ ᖁᑦᓯᓂᕐᐹᓂ ᐱᔭᕇᕐᓯᓯᒪᓗᓂ
• 16. ᐱᔭᕆᑐᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᕐᓯᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᖁᑦᓯᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ (ᐸᐃᑉᐹᖁᑏᑦ ᓴᓇᔨᐅᓂᖕᒧᑦ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᖕᒧᑦ, ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓕᕆᔨᐅᓂᖕᒧᑦ, ᐊᐅᓚᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ, ᐊᓯᖏᓂᓪᓗ)
• 17. ᐅᖃᒻᒥᓂᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᖁᑦᓯᓗᐊᒧᑦ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ
• 18. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᓂᖕ ᕿᓂᓕᒪᓐᖏᒧᑦ ᐅᐸᓗᖓᐃᕆᐊᓕᓐᓂᑦ
• 19. ᐸᐃᕆᕝᕕᖃᑦᓯᐊᖏᓗᐊᒧᓐ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᑭᑐᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ
• 20. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᖃᕐᑎᑕᐅᖏᒧᓐ
• 21. ᐃᓪᓗᖃᑦᓯᐊᖏᒧᓐ
• 22. ᐃᓪᓗᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓂ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᕈᑎᒐ ᐊᑭᑦᑐᓗᐊᕐᓂᐅᓴᒻᒪᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᖃᕈᓐᓃᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒐᒪ
• 23. ᐱᑕᖃᓐᖏᓗᐊᕐᖓᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓂᖕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕆᑦᓲᔭᕈᒥᓇᕐᑐᓂᑦ
• 24. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᖏᓐᓇᒪ/ᐃᖃᓪᓕᐊᕈᓐᓇᖏᓐᓇᒪ/ᒥᑭᒋᔾᔨᕈᓐᓇᖏᓐᓇᒪ/ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑲᐅᓈᕐᓯᒪᒐᓂ
• 25. ᐊᑭᕋᕐᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕋᓱᒋᒧᑦ
• 26. ᐃᓄᐃ ᐃᓕᖁᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᖁᓯᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑲᐅ`ᓇᖅᓯᒪᒐᓂ.
• 27. ᑎᑎᕋᕆᐊᑐᓗᐊᖅᒪ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕆᔭᕕᓂᒃᑲ/ᐱᔭᕆᑐᒋᓗᐊᕋᒃᑯ ᑎᑎᕋᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅ ᐃᖃᓇᐃ`ᔭᕆᓚᐅᕐᑕᒃᑲ.
• 28. ᐊᔪᖅᓇᕆᒐᒃᑯ ᐃᖃᓇᐃ`ᔭᕐᓴᒧ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅ/ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᔪᒪᖏᓐᓇᒪ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑕᐅᓗᖓ
• 29. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ − ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ :
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

IN_08.  ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᒥᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑕᐅᒐᔭᕐᑐᒋᕖᑦ ᑕᖅᑭᑦ ᖁᓕᑦ ᒪᕐᕉᓪᓗ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ (ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓕᒫᒥ)?

• 1. ᐄ
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

IN_09. [ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ IN_08 ᐋᒡᒐ= 1]ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑕᐅᒐᔭᕐᐲᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᖃᓕᕐᓂᖅᐸᑦ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᓐᓂ ᑕᖅᑭᑦ ᖁᓕᑦ ᒪᕐᕉᓪᓗ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ (ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓕᒫᖅ)?

• 1. ᐄ
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ – ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

IN_10: ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔫᑎᒋᕕᐅᖕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᖓᐅᑎᐅᔪᓂ  ᐅᖃᓪᒍᓐᓇᕐᑐᓂ  ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐ/ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ?

• 1. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᔫᑎᒐ.
• 2. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔫᑎᒐ.
• 3. ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ.
• 4. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓗᐊᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ.
• 5. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑐᖅ.
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ – ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

IN_13a: ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔫᑎᒋᕕᐅᖕ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᖕ, ᐃᓅᖅᑲᑎᒌᓂᑦ ᒪᑭᒪᔾᔪᑎᒋᓲᖏᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᓐᓇᐅᒪᓇᓱᐊᕈᑎᖏᑦ?

• 1. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᔫᑎᒐ
• 2. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔫᑎᒐ
• 3. ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ
• 4. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓗᐊᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ
• 5. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑐᖅ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

IN_15: [ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ IN_08 ᐋᒡᒐ= 1 (ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ  ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑕᐅᔾᔮᖏᑉᐸᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᒥᖕ)] ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕐᑖᕋᓱᐊᒐᔭᕐᐲᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒍᕕᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᖅ?

• 1. ᐄ
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅ

ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᓂᐊᓕᕐᒥᔭᕗᑦ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᕕᒋᕙᑦᑕᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᓐᓇᕐᓃᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ.

AV_01. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕈᓐᓇᕐᐱᒌᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᒻᒪᖔᕐᐱᒋᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑯᕕᒋᑦ ᐅᓇᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᑯᐊ ᖁᕝᕙᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ (1) ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᓪᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ, ᑕᓪᓕᒪᖓᓄᑦ (5) ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᕿᑎᐊᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᐱᖓᔪᐊᑦ (3),  ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ.

[ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑭᐳᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ]

AV_01a. ᐱᔭᑦᓴᖃᓗᐊᕋᒪ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᖕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᓐᓇᓐᖏᓚᕿᕗᖓ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ.

AV_01b. ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᑦᑕᒧᑦ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕆᐊᑦᓴᖅ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ.  

AV_02.  ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᐲᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᓐᓇᕈᕕᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ…

• 1. ᖃᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒥ (ᕿᑲᕐᓇᐅᖏᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓇᐅᖏᑐᐊᕐᐸᑦ)?
• 2. ᑕᖅᑭᑕᒫᐸᓘᖕ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒥ?
• 3. ᑕᖅᑮᑦ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒥ?
• 4. ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔾᔮᖏᑐᖓ?
• 5. ᐱᓕᕆᒍᓐᓇᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

AV_03.  [ᐊᐱᕆᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ AV_02=4,5,8,9 ] ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᐲᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᓐᓇᕈᕕᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ…[ᓈᒻᒪᒋᔭᓕᒫᑎᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ]

• 1. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ?
• 2. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᑲᐃᓐᓇᐸᓪᓗᑎᑦ?
• 3. ᐅᖄᓚᕕᐅᔪᒫᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ (ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᑲᐃᓐᓇᐸᓪᓗᑎᑦ)?
• 4. ᐃᖃᓇᐃ`ᔭᖃᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ?
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

ᐅᐸᓗᖓᐃᕐᓯᒪᓂᖅ

ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᓕᕆᓂᖕᒥᖕ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᕐᓂᖕᒥᓪᓗ.

PR_01a. ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓂ ᐅᖃᓕᒪᒋᐊᑦᓴᖅ ᐊᑲᕐᓴᓂᕐᓴᐅᕕᑦ? [ᒪᑐᐃᖓᓗᓂ. ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ. ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᓕᒫᖏᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓗᒋᑦ]

• 1. ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ
• 2. ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓐ
• 3. ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ
• 4. ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ
• 5. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ (ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ)
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

PR_01b. ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓂᖕ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕆᐊᑦᓴᖅ ᐅᑲᕐᓴᓂᕐᓴᐅᕕᑦ? [ᒪᑐᐃᖓᓗᓂ. ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ. ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᓕᒫᖏᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓗᒋᑦ]

• 1. ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ
• 2. ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓐ
• 3. ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ
• 4. ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ
• 5. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ (ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ)
• 6. ᐱᑕᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ
• 9. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ/ᑭᐅᔪᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ

PR_01c.  ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᕆᐊᑦᓴᖅ ᐅᑲᕐᓴᓂᕐᓴᐅᕕᑦ? [ᒪᑐᐃᖓᓗᓂ. ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ. ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᓕᒫᖏᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓗᒋᑦ]

• 1. ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ
• 2. ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓐ
• 3. ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ
• 4. ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ
• 5. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ (ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ)
• 6. ᐱᑕᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ
• 9. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ/ᑭᐅᔪᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ

PR_02. ᓇᓪᓕᐊ ᐅᓇᓂ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᐸᑦ?

[ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᒃᑰᖓᔪᓗ ᐊᔾᔨᖏᑦ ᐊᔪᕆᕐᓯᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ: ᐅᖃᕐᓗᒍ “ᑎᑎᖅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᓕᒫᑦ”] 

[ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᕕᒋᓗᒍ: ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓗᒍ“ᑭᐅᓂᐊᕐᐳᑎᑦ “ᐄ” ᐅᕝᕙᓗ “ᐋᒡᒐ” ᐅᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓚᐅᕐᓗᒋᑦ” ᑎᑎᕐᓗᒍᓗᒍ ᐄ]

1. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓄᖃᑎ`ᒋᖕᓂᖓ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔾᔪᑎᖏᓪᓗ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᔭᕋ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᓪᓗᒍ
2. ᐃᓄᒋᐊᒃᑐᓄ ᐅᖃᓕᒪᔪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᑐᖓ `ᓴᖓᓗᒋᑦ
3. ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᑐᖓ
4. ᐱᓕᕆᓕᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᑎᖓ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ
5. `ᑭᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᔨᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᖓ/ᐸᕐᓇᐃᔪᓐᓇᕐᑎᖓ/ᐊᑲᐅᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᓂ ᐃᓕᓴᕐᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ
6. ᑐᑎᓯᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᖓ ᐅᕙ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ `ᓇᒻᒪᒃᓯᒋᐊᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᓪ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ
7. ᓄᓇᓕᕆᔨᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᖓ ᐅᕙ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᑎᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑎᖓ ᐊᓐᓂᐅᒪᔭᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᑦ
8. ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᔪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᑐᖓ
9. ᖃᕋᓴᐅᔭᕐᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ (ᖃᕋᓴᐅᔭᐅ ᑎᑎᕋᕈᑎᒋᓐᓂ, `ᓇᓴᐅᓯᕆᔾᔪᓯᖏᓐᓂ, ᕿᓂᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ)
10. ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯ ᑐᓴᕈᑎᓂ ᐊᔪᖏᑦᑎᐊᕐᑐᖓ
11. ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᕐᒧ `ᐳᖃᐃᔪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᑐᖓ ᐅᕙ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ ᐃᓂᓕᐅᕆᔪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᑐᖓ
12. ᓇᕿᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᑐᖓ, ᐅᖃᓕ`ᒪᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᑐᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᕈᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᑐᖓ
13. ᐃᖏᕋᑎᑦᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᖓ ᐅᖁᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᖁᑎᑦ (ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ: ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒥ)
14. ᐃᖏᕋᑎᑦᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᖓ ᐃᓪᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐊᖁᔪᑎᖏᓐᓂ
15. ᐃᓕᓯᒪᔪᖓ ᓴᓇᐅᒐᕐᓂᖅ
16. ᑐᓴᔨᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᖓ
17. ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᐃᓕᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔪᖓ (ᕿᓂᕐᑎᓄ, ᓇᓚᐅᑎᒃᑯ, ᑭᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᓇᓱᖕᓂᕐᓄ)
18. ᐊᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓯᒪᔪᖓ (ᓱᓇᐅᕙᑕ:)

PR_03: ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐊᓗᖕᒥ ᐱᔭᕇᕐᓯᒪᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᐸᐃᑉᐹᖁᑎᑖᕐᓯᒪᕖᓐ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᑕᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᓇᓕᒧᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᓚᐅᕋᕕᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᕈᓯᐊᕐᓯᒪᕖᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᕝᕕᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᔭᕇᕈᑎᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ?

• 1. ᐄ [ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑦᓴᐅᑎᒋᓗᑎᑦ PR_05]
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

PR_04: ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᖁᑦᓯᓂᕐᐹᒥᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᕐᓯᓯᒪᕕᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᑕᓂᖕ?  [ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ: ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓗᒍ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖓ]

• 1. ᖁᑦᓯᓐᓂᓕᒃ (11) ᖁᓕᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᓗ
• 2. ᖁᑦᓯᓐᓂᓕᒃ (10) ᖁᓕᑦ
• 3. ᖁᑦᓯᓐᓂᓕᒃ (9) ᑎᓴᒪᐅᔪᕐᖏᕋᕐᑐᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᓗ
• 4. ᖁᑦᓯᓐᓂᓕᒃ (8) ᑎᓴᒪᐅᔪᕐᖏᕋᕐᑐᑦ
• 5. ᖁᑦᓯᓐᓂᓕᒃ (7) ᐱᖓᓲᔪᕐᑐᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᓗ
• 6. ᖁᑦᓯᓐᓂᓕᒃ (6) ᐱᖓᓲᔪᕐᑐᑦ ᑐᖔᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ
• 7. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ (ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ)
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

PR_05: ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓃ ᐱᔭᕇᕐᓯᓯᒪᕖᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ, ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᕿᓚᒻᒥᐅᓈᕐᑎᕐᑐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ?

• 1. ᐄ
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ [ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑦᓴᐅᑎᒋᓗᑎᑦ PR_09]
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ – ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

PR_06: ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᕙᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᕈᓯᐊᒥᓂᕐᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐊᓗᒻᒥ, ᓯᓚᑦᑐᖅᓴᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐸᐃᑉᐹᖁᑎᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᕐᑕᒥᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᕈᓯᐊᑦ ?

[ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ; ᑎᑎᖅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓗᒋᑦ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖏᑦ]

• 1. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᕗᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᕈᓯᐊᑦ
• 2. ᓄᓇᕗᒥ ᓯᓚᑦᑐᖅᓴᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐱᔭᕇᕈᓯᐊᑦ ᐸᐃᑉᐹᖁᑏᓪᓗ
• 3. ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕆᐅᕐᓴᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓯᒪᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓯᓐᓈᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᕈᓯᐊᑦ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᔾᔪᑏᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ
• 4. ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖏᓐᓂᖕ ᐸᐃᑉᐹᖁᑏᑦ (ᐊᖅᑯᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᖏᓂᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᕐᑐᓕᕆᔩᑦ/ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᓯᓚᑦᑐᖅᓴᕐᕕᖓᑦ)
• 5. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᒥ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐃᓕᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᕐᑐᒦᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐱᔭᕇᕈᓯᐊᒥᓃᑦ (ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒋᑦ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐋᓐᓂᕐᑕᐃᓕᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᕐᑐᒦᑦᑕᐃᓕᓂᖕᒧᓪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ, ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᖕᒧᑦ/ᐃᓅᓕᑦᓯᒋᐅᕐᓴᓂᖕᒥᓪᓗ, ᓂᕿᓕᕆᓂᖕᒥᑦ, ᐃᑯᐊᓪᓚᔾᔭᐃᕈᑎᓂᓪᓗ)
• 6. ᓯᓚᑦᑐᖅᓴᕐᕕᔪᐊᒥ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓂ ᐱᔭᕇᕐᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᑖᕐᓂᖅ
• 7. ᓯᓚᑦᑐᓴᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᑖᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᔭᕇᕈᓯᐊᓂᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᓯᓚᑦᑐᖅᓴᕐᕕᒃ (ᐋᓐᓂᐊᓯᐅᕐᑎᐅᓂᖕᒧᑦ – ᑎᐅᓪᕼᐊᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᒥ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᑦᓴᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖕᒧᑦ – ᒪᒃᒋᐅᒃᑯᑎᒍᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᕆᔭᐃᓇ ᓯᓚᑦᑐᖅᓴᕐᕕᖓᒍᑦ, ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ?)
• 8. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ − ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ :
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

PR_08.[ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓐᖏᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ: IN_01 a,b,c  = ᐋᒡᒐᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᒃ/ᐱᓇᓱᒍᒪᓪᓗᐊᖏᑦᑐᖓ] ᓇᓪᓕᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᖕ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕈᑎᒋᒐᔭᕐᐱᐅᖕ? [ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕐᓗᒍ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ] (ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒋᐊᓕᒃ: ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᐅᑉ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖓ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᖅ)

1. ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓯᒪᑦᓴᕐᓯᒪᓂᒃᑲ ᓈᒻᒪᑦᑑᔮᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᓐᓇᕐᑐᒋᕗᖓ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ. 

ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ

2. ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᕆᐊᖃᒃᑲᓂᕐᑐᒋᔪᖓ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᐊᕈᒪ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ.

PR_09: ᒫᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑲᐃᓇᕐᑐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖃᑕᐅᕖᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᒃᑰᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᔭᕇᕐᓯᒪᖏᑕᓂᖕ ᐱᔭᕇᕋᓱᐊᕐᐲᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ/ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᕐᐲᑦ?

• 1. ᐄ – ᖄᖏᕐᓗᒍ ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ PR_10a
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ – ᖄᖏᕐᓗᒍ ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ PR_11
• 9. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ/ᑭᐅᔪᒪᓐᖏᑦᑕᕋ – ᖄᖏᕐᓗᒍ ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ PR _12

PR_10a: [IF PR_09 = ᐄ] ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᐃᔭᐅᕙ ᐱᒻᒪᑦᓴᕐᑕᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᑕᐃᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ?

• 1.
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

PR_10b: [IF PR_09 = ᐄ] ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᐲᑦ: [ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᓕᒫᖏᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓗᒋᑦ]

• 1. ᐊᖏᕐᕋᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᓐᓂ?
• 2. ᐊᓯᐊᓂ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒥ
• 3. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᓯᓚᑖᓂ
• 4. ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᓂ
• 5. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ (ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ)
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

PR_11: [ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ PR_09 = ᐋᒡᒐ] ᑭᓱᒥᓪᓗ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᓪᓗᐊᑕᕐᐱᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖏᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᓐᓂᑦ? 

[ᐅᖃᓕᒫᑦᑕᐃᓕᓗᒋᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ.  ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ. ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᖕ ᑭᐅᓗᒍ]

• 1. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐊᓗᖕᒥ ᐱᔭᕇᓚᐅᕐᑐᓂ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓐᓂᕐᓴᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᑕᖃᓐᖏᒻᒪᓐ ᐊᒻᒪ/ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᐅᑎᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᑕᖃᓗᐊᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᑦᑎᓂ
• 2. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐊᓗᖕᒥ ᐱᔭᕇᓚᐅᕐᑐᓂ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓐᓂᕐᓴᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᑕᖃᓐᖏᒻᒪᓐ ᐊᒻᒪ/ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᐅᑎᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᑕᖃᓐᖏᓗᐊᕐᖓᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒥ
• 3. ᐊᑭᑐᓗᐊᕐᖓᑦ, ᖃᖓᑦᑕᐅᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ
• 4. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑎᑕᐅᓐᖏᓗᐊᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑲᐃᓐᓇᕋᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᑦᓴᓂᓪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖕᒧᑦ (ᓇᓗᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᖃᕐᓂᐊᖕᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᕙᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᕕᑦᓴᒥᓐ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕋᑦᓴᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᑕᖃᓕᕋᐃᑉᐸᑦ)
• 5. ᓯᕿᓐᖑᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᕕᑦᓴᖃᓐᖏᒧᑦ
• 6. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᓐᖏᒧᑦ
• 7. ᐅᕙᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᖃᓪᓗᐊᔾᔮᖏᒻᒪᑦ/ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᑐᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ/ᐊᔪᕈᕐᓃᕐᓴᕇᕐᓯᒪᒐᒪ
• 8. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕋᓗᐊᕈᒪ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᔾᔮᖏᓐᓇᒃᑯ
• 9. ᓇᓗᒧᑦ ᑭᓱᒥᖕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑐᑦᓴᐅᒻᒪᖔᕐᒪ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᒋᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᕐᒪ
• 10. ᐃᓚᓐᓂᖕ ᕿᑐᕐᖓᓂᓪᓗ ᐸᖅᑭᒋᐊᖃᒧᑦ
• 11. ᐊᓯᐊᒍᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᕈᒪᒐᒪ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᓐᖏᖔᕐᓗᖓ
• 12. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑐᖅᑕᐅᖏᓗᐊᒧᑦ
• 13. ᓇᓗᖅᑯᑎᒧᑦ
• 14. ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᖕ ᐱᔭᑦᓴᖃᒧᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᑦᓯᑰᕐᓂᐅᓴᔪᓂᑦ (ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᓐᓂᖅ, ᐃᖃᓗᒐᓱᓐᓂᖅ, ᒥᑭᒋᔾᔨᕐᓂᖅ, ᐊᓐᓄᕌᓕᐅᕐᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᑲᒥᓕᐅᕐᓂᖕᒧᓗ, ᓴᓇᓐᖑᐊᕐᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᒥᖅᓱᒐᕐᓂᒃ ᓴᓇᐅᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᓴᓇᒋᐊᖃᒧᑦ)
• 15. ᐊᑭᓕᕐᓱᕐᑕᐅᖏᑲᓗᐊᕐᑐᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᕆᐊᖃᕐᐸᓐᓂᕋ
• 88. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ (ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ)
• 99. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ/ᑭᐅᔪᒪᓐᖏᑦᑕᕋ

PR_12. ᐃᓚᐅᔪᒪᓇᔭᕐᐱ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓂᕐᐸᑦ:

1. ᐊ/.ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐊᓗᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᕐᕕᖕᒥᓪ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕋᔭᕐᓂᕐᐸᑦ ᓄᓇᓯᓐᓂ ᐊᑭᖃᕆᐊᖃᖏᓪᓗᓂ?
2. ᐸ/.ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐊᓗᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᕐᕕᖕᒥᓪ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕋᔭᕐᓂᕐᐸᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᑭᖃᕆᐊᖃᖏᓪᓗᓂ?
3. ᑕ/.PR_12a = 1] ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕋᔭᕐᐳᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᖅ ᐱᑕᖃᑐᐊᕐᓂᕐᐸᑦ ᖃᕋᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯ

ᑭᐅᔾᔪ`ᑎᒋᔭᐅᕙ`ᒥᔪᑦ

• 1.  ᐄ
• 2.  ᐋᒡᒐ
• 8.  ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9.  ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

[ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᖅᑲᐅᑉᐸᑦ SC_04=1, ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑎᑦ. ᐊᓯᓕᒫᖏᑦ, ᖄᖏᕐᓗᒍ ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ DE_01]

ᒫᓐᓇ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑐᑦ

ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ SC_04=1 ᑭᓯᐊᓂ

SE_ 01a. ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᐱᓐ ᒫᓐᓇ?

• 1. ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᐸᐅᔭᖓ
• 2. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓂ
• 3. ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓂ
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

SE_01b. ᒫᓐᓇ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᐲᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖑᕕᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ? ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒋᐊᓕᖕ “ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨ” ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖁᑦᓯᓂᕐᓴᒥ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᑦ, ᑐᑭᒧᐊᕐᑎᑦᓯᔩᑦ, ᑐᑭᒧᐊᕐᑎᑦᓯᔨᒻᒪᕇᑦ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᑐᖏᓕᐊᑕ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎᖓ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᑐᖏᓕᐊ, ᕼᐊᒻᒪᓚᑯ ᐃᓱᒪᑕᖓ ᐊᒻᒪ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ ᑐᖓᓕᐊ (ᐄ/ᐋᒡᒐ)

• 1. ᐄ
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_02.  ᓇᓪᓕᐊ ᐱᓕᕆᕝᕕᒃ/ᑎᒥᖓᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᒋᔭᐃᑦ? 

• 1.
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

SE_03. ᑭᓱᓕᕆᔨᐅᕕᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᓐᓂ? ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒍ.

[ᒪᑐᐃᖓᔪᖅ. ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖏᑎᒍᑦ-ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ]

• 1. ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔩᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᖁᑦᓯᓂᕐᓴᒥ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᑦ, ᑐᑭᒧᐊᕐᑎᑦᓯᔩᑦ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓂ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔩᑦ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᑐᖏᓕᐊᑕ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎᖓ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᑐᖏᓕᐊ, ᕼᐊᒻᒪᓚᑯ ᐃᓱᒪᑕᖓ ᐊᒻᒪ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ ᑐᖓᓕᐊ
• 2. ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᑏᑦ, ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔩᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᐊᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᓯᔩᑦ
• 3. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᖅ
• 4. ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᒻᒥ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑏᑦ ᓇᕿᑦᑕᖅᑏᓪᓗ
• 5. ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᕐᑎᑦᓯᔩᑦ
• 6. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᑦ ᓯᓚᒦᒋᐊᓖᑦ ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒋᑦ, ᒥᑦᑕᕐᕕᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᑎ
• 7. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ
• 8. ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᓕᕆᒋᐊᓖᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕐᑏᑦ ᑐᑦᑕᕐᕖᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕝᕕᖏᓐᓂ.
• 9. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖑᓂᖅ, ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᓂᖅ, ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᒧᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎᐅᓂᖅ
• 10. ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᓕᕆᓂᖕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ ᓗᒃᑖᑦ, ᐋᓐᓂᐊᓯᐅᕐᑏᑦ, ᐃᕐᓂᓱᒃᓰᔩᑦ, ᐊᐅᖏᕐᓯᔩᑦ/ ᑕᕐᕋᕐᑐᐃᔩᓪᓗ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᓕᕆᔨᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑏᑦ
• 11. ᐅᖁᒪᐃᑦᑑᑎᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᓂᑦ ᐊᖁᑏᑦ
• 12. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐅᐊᔭᓕᕆᓂᖕᒥ, ᐃᒥᖅᑕᕐᑏᑦ ᒥᓪᓗᐊᕐᑏᓪᓗ ᑭᓈᓗᒻᒥᑦ.
• 13. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᐅᓂᖕᒥᑦ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑏᑦ, ᐃᖅᑲᕐᑐᐃᕕᒻᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑏᑦ
• 14. ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᖃᕐᑕᕐᑕᐅᓯᕝᕕᖕᓂ
• 15. ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᐅᓗᖓ ᐅᕝᕙᓗᓪᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᖓᓂ
• 16. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ (ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ)
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

SE_04. ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᒃᑯᑦ, ᑭᓱ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᖃᕐᓂᖅᐹᖑᕙ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑐᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ?

[ᐅᖃᓕᒫᑦᑕᐃᓕᓗᒋᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ] [ᑎᑎᖅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᓕᒫᑦ]

• 1. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᑑᒻᒪᑕ ᓄᓇᑦᑎᓂ
• 2. ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᑦᓴᕐᓯᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ
• 3. ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᑦᓯᐊᐸᒻᒪᑕ (ᓲᕐᓗᐃᑦᑐᖅᓯᐅᑎᑖᕈᑎᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᐲᔭᐃᓇᕐᖓᑦ, ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᓕᕆᓂᖕᒧᑦ, ᑭᒍᓯᕆᓂᖕᒧᑦ,)
• 4. ᐃᓪᓗᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᕈᑎᓂᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᕐᐸᒻᒪᑕ
• 5. ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᕐᕕᑦᓴᖃᕐᖓᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕆᑦᓲᔭᕈᒥᓇᕐᖓᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᕕᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ
• 6. ᖁᕝᕙᐸᓪᓕᐊᕕᒋᔪᒥᓇᕐᖓᑦ/ᖁᑦᓯᓂᕐᓴᒧᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓇᕐᖓᑦ
• 7. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖃᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᑐᓂᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ ᒪᑭᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖕᒧᑦ, ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᓂᖕᒥ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᖅᑲᑎᒌᓂᑦ
• 8. ᐊᑦᓱᕈᕐᓇᕋᓗᐊᕐᑐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕆᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᑦ/ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕐᕕᒋᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᑦ
• 9. ᐃᓱᒪᕐᓱᓇᕐᓂᕐᓴᐅᓗᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓇᖅ (ᐱᒋᐊᕐᕕᖓ/ᓄᖅᑲᕐᕕᖓ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᐃᓐᓇᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᓪᓘᑉ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᖓᓂ)
• 10. ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᑕᓗᐊᖏᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓇᖅ (ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ 9ᒥᖕ 5ᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᑕᒫᑦ, ᐅᖄᓚᕕᐅᔪᒫᕐᓂᐊᕋᓂ, ᑭᐳᑦᑕᕐᑐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᓂ)
• 11. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖃᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕆᐊᑦᓴᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᕋᓂ
• 12. ᐃᖏᕐᕋᔾᔪᑎᓄᑦ, ᐊᐅᓪᓚᕈᑎᓄᑦ ᓅᓐᓂᐊᕐᐸᑕᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᕈᑎᑦᓴᑦ
• 13. ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐸᐃᕆᕕᒻᒥᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓂ ᖃᓂᑦᑐᒥᓘᓐᓃᑦ
• 14. ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᒻᒥ/ᓵᓕᒻᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᖅ
• 15. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᓐᓇᕋᒪ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᕈᓐᓇᕐᑐᖓᓗ ᓄᑖᓐᖑᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓂᖕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᓐᓂ
• 16. ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᕈᑎᑦᓴᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒐᔭᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᑦᑎᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒥᓘᓐᓃᑦ
• 17. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ − (ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ) :
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

SE_05. ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᒃᑯᑦ, ᑭᓱ ᐊᑲᐃᓪᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᓲᖑᕙ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑐᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ?

[ᐅᖃᓕᒫᑦᑕᐃᓕᓗᒋᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ] [ᑎᑎᖅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᓕᒫᑦ]

• 1. ᐃᓄᖃᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᒧᑦ, ᒪᕐᕉᓕᖓᔫᓐᓂᖕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᓐᓂᖕ ᑲᒪᒋᐊᖃᓕᕐᐸᒻᒪᑕ
• 2. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑦᓴᕐᓯᐅᕐᑐᑦ ᐊᑭᑦᑐᕋᐅᑎᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᒥᓇᓐᖏᓂᕐᓴᐅᓕᕐᓇᖓᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ
• 3. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᒪᓐᖏᓇᒪ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᒻᒥ/ᓵᒦᖏᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒻᒥ
• 4. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᐃᕈᒪᓐᖏᓐᓇᒪ ᐅᓪᓗᓕᒫᖅ/ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᖓ
• 5. ᐊᐅᓪᓚᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᓗᐊᕐᖓᑦ
• 6. ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᒻᒥ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᒪᓐᖏᒧᑦ (ᐸᐃᑉᐹᓕᕆᒋᐊᖃᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ, ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕆᐊᖃᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ, ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᕆᐊᖃᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ)
• 7. ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᔪᒪᔪᖃᓗᐊᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ (ᐊᑦᓱᕈᕐᓇᓗᐊᒧᑦ)
• 8. ᐃᑲᕐᕋᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᑐᓂ ᐃᓱᒪᕐᓱᓇᓐᖏᓗᐊᕐᖓᑦ
• 9. ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑕᐅᑦᓯᐊᖏᒧᑦ ᐃᓚᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓅᓗᐊᑳᓪᓚᓂᐅᓴᒧᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᑐᓗᐊᕐᖓᑦ
• 10. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓯᒪᑦᓯᐊᖏᒧᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕆᒋᐊᓖᑦ
• 11. ᐱᔭᕆᑐᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓯᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᖁᑦᓯᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ (ᐸᐃᑉᐹᖁᑎᑖᕐᓯᒪᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓯᓐᓈᑦ ᓴᓇᓂᖕᒧᑦ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᔨᐅᓂᖕᒧᑦ, ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓕᕆᓂᖕᒧᑦ, ᐊᐅᓚᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓄᓪᓗ, ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ).
• 12. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᔪᖏᓐᓂᐅᒋᐊᓖᑦ ᖁᑦᓯᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ
• 13. ᐸᐃᕆᕕᖃᑦᓯᐊᖏᒧᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐸᐃᕆᕖᑦ ᐊᑭᑐᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ
• 14. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᓄᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᑭᑦᓴᒧᑦ
• 15. ᐃᓪᓗᑭᑦᓴᒧᑦ
• 16. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᒥ ᖁᕝᕙᐸᓪᓕᐊᕕᖃᓗᐊᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ
• 17. ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᓯᐊᖏᒧᑦ
• 18. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑲᐃᓐᓇᑎᑦᓯᓲᖑᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᒍᒪᓗᓂ/ᐃᖃᓪᓕᐊᕈᒪᓗᓂ/ᒥᑭᒋᔾᔨᕆᐊᕐᑐᕐᓗᓂ/ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑐᖃᕐᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᕐᓱᑲᐃᓐᓇᕈᒪᒐᓗᐊᕐᑐᓂ
• 19. ᐊᑭᕋᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕋᓱᒋᒧᑦ
• 20. ᐃᓄᐃ ᐃᓕᖁᓯᖓ ᐱᖁᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᓴᕿ`ᔭᖏᓗᐊᕐᒪᑦ
• 21. ᐊᔪᕐᓇᕆᒐᒃᑯ ᑎᑎᕋᕆᐊᕐᓴᖅ ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕆᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲ/ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᔪᒪᖏᓇᒪ ᑎᑎᕋᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᓄ
• 22. ᐊᔪᕐᓇᕆᒐᒃᑯ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ/ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᔪᒪᖏᓇᒪ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᑦᖅᑕᐅᓗᖓ
• 23. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ − ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ :
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

SE_06. ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕐᓂᐊᓕᕐᒥᒐᒪ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᓂᑦ. ᐊᑐᓂ, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᒻᒪᖔᕐᐱᒋᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᖏᒪᖔᕐᐱᒋᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓄᑦ ᓈᓴᐅᓯᓕᕐᑐᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒍ ᓯᕗᓕᕐᐹᖅ (1) ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ, ᑕᓪᓕᒪᖓᑦ (5) ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᕿᑎᐊᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᐱᖓᔪᐊᑦ (3) ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄᑐᐃᓐᓈᖓᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᖅ ᐊᖏᕋᓂ ᐋᒡᒐᕋᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ.

[ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᑐᑦ SE_06a ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ SE_06d ᑎᑭᓪᓗᒍ]

SE_06a. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕋ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᖕ ᑭᓱᓕᕆᔪᓐᓇᐃᓕᒐᒪ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᓐᓂᖅ, ᐃᖃᓗᒐᓱᓐᓂᖅ, ᒥᑭᒋᔾᔨᕐᓂᖅ, ᒥᖅᓱᕐᓂᖅ, ᓄᓂᕙᒋᐊᕐᓂᖅ, ᓴᓇᓐᖑᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᓴᓇᐅᒐᑦ ᒥᖅᓱᒐᐃᓗ.

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 6. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᑲᒪᕙᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_06b. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕋ ᐊᑲᐅᓈᑐᐃᓐᓇᐸᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᕐᓱᕐᕕᖃᕐᓂᖕᓄᑦ ᕿᑐᕐᖓᓕᕆᒋᐊᖃᕋᐃᒐᒪ ᐃᓚᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖕᓄᑦ.  

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_06c. ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓯᒪᔭᐃᓐᓇᐸᓗᒃᑲ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓯᓐᓈᑦ.

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_08.  ᑭᐅᓗᒍ ᐄ ᐋᒡᒐᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᓇᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ: ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᓪᓕᑭᓪᓗᒋᑦ

SE_08a. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕋ ᓯᓚᒦᒋᐊᖃᕐᖓᑦ

SE_08b. ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲᓕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖅᐸᑦᑕᒃᑲ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ

ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᕐᑎᑦᓯᔪᖃᕐᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐸᐃᑉᐹᖁᑎᑖᕈᑎᒋᓚᕿᓪᓗᒋᑦ

SE_08c. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓯᒪᔪᖓ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᕆᐊᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᓕᔪᒐᒪ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑐᖓ

ᑭᐅᔪᑎᒋᔭᐅᕙᖕᒥᔪᑦ

• 1.  ᐄ
• 2.  ᐋᒡᒐ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_08d.[ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ ᐄᓚᑉᐸᒍ SE_09c]: ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓐᓅᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᕐᑕᐅᓂᖅᑮᑦ?

• 1. ᐄ
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_09ᐊ. ᖃᓄᖅ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕖᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕐᐸᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᖕ ᐃᖃᓇᐃ`ᔭᕈᓐᓇᕐᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᑎᖃᖃᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕐᑖᕈᓐᓇᕐᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖁᕐᕙᐸᓪᓕᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᒥᓂ? [ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ. ᒪᑐᐃᖓᔪᖅ. ᐱᖓᓱᓂᖕ ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ]

• 1. ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᐃᕙᓪᓗᑎᖕ
• 2. ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᑐᑭᓯᐊᑦᑎᐊᕐᑐᒥ
• 3. ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᕈᓐᓇᕐᑐᓂᑦ /ᐅᕙ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᑕᖃᕐᑐᒥ
• 4. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕐᓂᕐᓴᐅᓗᑎᒃ
• 5. ᐃᓱᒪᕐᓱᓇᕐᔫᒥᔪᓂᖕ ᐃᑲᕐᕋᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ
• 6. ᐸᐃᕆᕕᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᕐᓄᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎᓂᑦ
• 7. ᓴᖅᑭᔮᕐᑎᐸᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓗ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐊᓗᖕᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᑎᓄᑦ
• 8. ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑕᐅᓂᕐᓴᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓐᓂᕐᓴᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᕈᒪᔪᑦ
• 9. ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕆᓚᐅᕐᑕᒥᓂᖏ ᑎᑎᕋᕆᐊ`ᓕ ᐅᕙ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ ᐊᐱᕐᓱᕐᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᒃᑯ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ
• 10. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ (ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ)
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

SE_09 ᐸ. ᖃᓄᖅ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕖᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕐᐸᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᖕ ᖁᕙᕐ`ᐸᓪᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᑎᖃᖃᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕐᑖᕈᓐᓇᕐᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖁᕐᕙᐸᓪᓕᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᒥᓂ? [ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ. ᒪᑐᐃᖓᔪᖅ. ᐱᖓᓱᓂᖕ ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ]

• 1. ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᐃᕙᓪᓗᑎᖕ
• 2. ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᑐᑭᓯᐊᑦᑎᐊᕐᑐᒥ
• 3. ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᕈᓐᓇᕐᑐᓂᑦ /ᐅᕙ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᑕᖃᕐᑐᒥ
• 4. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕐᓂᕐᓴᐅᓗᑎᒃ
• 5. ᐃᓱᒪᕐᓱᓇᕐᔫᒥᔪᓂᖕ ᐃᑲᕐᕋᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ
• 6. ᐸᐃᕆᕕᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᕐᓄᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎᓂᑦ
• 7. ᓴᖅᑭᔮᕐᑎᐸᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓗ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐊᓗᖕᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᑎᓄᑦ
• 8. ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑕᐅᓂᕐᓴᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓐᓂᕐᓴᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᕈᒪᔪᑦ
• 9. ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᕆᓚᐅᕐᑕᒥᓂᖏ ᑎᑎᕋᕆᐊ`ᓕ ᐅᕙ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ ᐊᐱᕐᓱᕐᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᒃᑯ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ
• 10. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ (ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ)
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

SE_10: ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔫᑎᒋᕕᐅᖕ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᕐᓗᓂᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪ`ᓗᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᖃᓇᕿᔭᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅ??

• 1. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᔫᑎᒐ
• 2. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔫᑎᒐ
• 3. ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ
• 4. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓗᐊᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ
• 5. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑐᖅ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ – ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ – ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_11: ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓐᓂ, ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐅᖃᓕᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᑎᒋᕕᑦ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕆᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᓪᓗᒍ?

• 1. ᖃᖓᓕᒫᖅ
• 2. ᖃᖓᓕᒫᐸᓗᖕ
• 3. ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ
• 4. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 5. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓚᐅᖏᑦᑐ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_12: ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓐᓂ, ᑐᑭᓕᐅᕆᔨᒥᑦ ᑐᓵᔨᒥᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᖅᐸᑉᐹᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑕᒥᓄᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᔪᒪᒐᐃᒻᒪᑕ?

• 1. ᖃᖓᓕᒫᖅ
• 2. ᖃᖓᓕᒫᐸᓗᖕ
• 3. ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ
• 4. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 5. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓚᐅᖏᑦᑐ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_13a: ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔫᑎᒋᕕᐅᖕ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᑎᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᖕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓂ?

• 1. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᔫᑎᒐ
• 2. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔫᑎᒐ
• 3. ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ
• 4. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓗᐊᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ
• 5. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑐᖅ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_13b: ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔫᑎᒋᕕᐅᖕ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᑎᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᖓᐅᑎᖓᓂᖕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓂ?

• 1. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᔫᑎᒐ
• 2. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔫᑎᒐ
• 3. ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ
• 4. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓗᐊᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ
• 5. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑐᖅ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_14a: ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔫᑎᒋᕕᐅᖕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖃᑎᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᖕ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑕ  ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓂ?

• 1. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᔫᑎᒐ
• 2. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔫᑎᒐ
• 3. ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ
• 4. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓗᐊᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ
• 5. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑐᖅ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ – ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_14b: ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔫᑎᒋᕕᐅᖕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖃᑎᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᕈᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓂ?

• 1. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᔫᑎᒐ
• 2. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔫᑎᒐ
• 3. ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ
• 4. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓗᐊᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ
• 5. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑐᖅ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ – ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

ᐅᓇᓂ ᑭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᖕ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᓕᒪᑎᒋᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓐᓂ? 

SE_15: ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖃᑎᒃᑲ ᐃᓚᖏᑦ

• 1. ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᖏᓇᐅᔭᕐᑐᑦ
• 2. ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᖏᓐᓇᒐᓚᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ
• 3. ᐃᓛᓐᓂᓚᐅᓱᖓᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᕐᐸᑦᑐᑦ
• 4. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᑦ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ – ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_16a: ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᒃᑲ:

• 1. ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᖏᓇᐅᔭᕐᑐᑦ/ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ
• 2. ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᖏᓐᓇᒐᓚᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ/ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ
• 3. ᐃᓛᓐᓂᓚᐅᓱᖓᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᕐᐸᑦᑐᑦ/ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ
• 4. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᑦ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ/ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ – ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_16b: ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᑦ ᖁᓕᑦᓯᐊᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓅᕚ?

• 1. ᐄ
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_17: ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓐᓃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖔ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔭᐅᓂᕐᓴᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᐹ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖏᑕᓗ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖏᑦ, ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᖏᓐᓂᕐᓴᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᒫᓐᓇᑎᑐᑦ?  

• 1. ᐃᓚᓕᐅᑎᓂᕐᓴᐅᒋᐊᓖᑦ
• 2. ᐃᓚᓕᐅᑎᓐᖏᓂᕐᓴᕆᓗᒍ
• 3. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᓂ ᒫᓐᓇᑎᑐᑦ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_18: ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓯᓐᓃ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᑕᖃᖅᐹ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑲᓐᓂᕈᑎᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᖕ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖏᑕᓗ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖏᓐᓂᖕ?

• 1. ᐄ
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_19: ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᒪᒐᔭᕐᐲᑦ ᖁᑦᓯᓂᕐᓴᒥᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᓐᓂᖕ (ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨ, ᐊᖏᖅᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑐᑭᒧᐊᕐᑎᑦᓯᔨᓘᓐᓃᑦ)? 

• 1. ᐄ
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ – ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_20: [If SE_19 = 1] ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒐᓗᐊᕐᐲᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᖁᕐᕙᐸᓪᓕᐊᒍᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᕐᐱᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᓂ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓐᓂᕐᓴᒧᑦ?  

• 1. ᐄ
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ– ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ – ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_21: ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᕕᒋᑦ ᐅᓇᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᔭᕐᕕᕕᑦ ᒥᑦᓵᓄᑦ?

a) ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᐅᑎᑦᓴᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᕐᑕᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕋᑦᓴᑦ

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᐊᑐᖏᑦᑐᖅ

b) ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᑕᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᕆᐅᖁᓪᓗᖓ ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪᓗ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᐅᑎᑦᓴᓂᑦ.

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᐊᑐᖏᑦᑐᖅ

c) ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᑦ ᑲᔪᖏᕐᑐᐃᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᑖᓂᖕ ᐊᔪᕈᕐᓃᕐᓴᕈᑎᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ.

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᐊᑐᖏᑦᑐᖅ

d) ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑐᐃᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᓂᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕆᔪᒪᔭᖏᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᕋᓱᐊᕐᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᐊᑐᖏᑦᑐᖅ

e) ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑏᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᑕᒃᑯᑦ.

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᐊᑐᖏᑦᑐᖅ

f) ᐊᓕᐊᓇᐃᒋᔭᕋ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᒐ.

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᐊᑐᖏᑦᑐᖅ

SE_22: ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᕕᒋᑦ ᐅᓇᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᔭᕐᕕᕕᑦ ᒥᑦᓵᓄᑦ?

ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑕᐅᓪᓚᕆᑉᐸᑦᑐᖓ [ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒍ]:

a) ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᖕ, ᐃᓅᖅᑲᑎᒌᓂᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᒪᑭᒪᔾᔪᑎᓂᑦ

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦ−ᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊ−ᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋ−ᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪ−ᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐ−ᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᐊᑐᓐᖏᑐᖅ

b) ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᑦᑐᖅ

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦ−ᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊ−ᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋ−ᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪ−ᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐ−ᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᐊᑐᓐᖏᑐᖅ

c) ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑑᕈᓐᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᑐᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪ`ᓗᓐ`ᓂᑦ

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦ−ᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊ−ᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋ−ᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪ−ᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐ−ᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᐊᑐᓐᖏᑐᖅ

d) ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᐊᓂᖕ ᓄᓇᖓᓂᓪᓗ

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦ−ᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊ−ᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋ−ᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪ−ᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐ−ᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᐊᑐᓐᖏᑐᖅ

e) ᖃᓪᓗᓇᐅᔭᕈᓐᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᑐᖅ

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦ−ᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊ−ᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋ−ᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪ−ᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐ−ᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᐊᑐᓐᖏᑐᖅ

f) ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᒋᐊᓖᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᕐᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᔪᓐᖏᑕᖏᑦ* (ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ)

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦ−ᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊ−ᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋ−ᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪ−ᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐ−ᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᐊᑐᓐᖏᑐᖅ

g) ᑐᓴᒐᑦᓴᓕᕆᓂᖕᒥᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᑦᓴᕐᓯᒪᔪᖅ (ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕈᓐᓇᕐᑐᖅ, ᑎᑎᕋᕈᓐᓇᕐᑐᖅ, ᓈᓴᐅᓯᕆᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᖅ, ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᓐᓇᐃᓕᔪᓂᑦ ᐋᔩᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᑐᖅ.

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦ−ᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊ−ᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋ−ᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪ−ᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐ−ᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᐊᑐᓐᖏᑐᖅ

h) ᐅᐃ`ᕕᑎᑐᑦ

• 1. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑦ−ᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 2. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᑦᓯᐊ−ᖏᑕᕋ
• 3. ᐊᖏᕐᓇᖓ ᐋᒡᒐᕐᓇᖓᓗ
• 4. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋ−ᒐᓚᑦᑕᕋ
• 5. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᓪ−ᓚᕆᑦᑕᕋ
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐ−ᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99.ᐊᑐᓐᖏᑐᖅ

*ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑑᑉ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᓕᖓ: ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᒍᕕᑦ “ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᒋᐊᓕᒃ” ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒍ: “ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓯᒪᔪᖅ”

SE_25: ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᓐᓂ ᓄᖅᑲᕐᓂᐅᓴᕖᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᒃ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ?

• 1. ᐄ
• 2. ᐋᒡᒐ
• 8. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ – ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ
• 9. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ – ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ

SE_26: [If SE_25= 1 (ᐄ)] ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᓐ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᓄᖅᑲᕐᓂᐅᓴᕕᑦ? [ᒪᑐᐃᖓᔪᖅ. ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ. ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᓕᒫᖏᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓗᒋᑦ]

ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᑎᒍᑦ

ᑭᖑᓪᓕᕐᐹᓪᓕ, ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕈᒪᓕᕐᒥᔪᒍᑦ ᐃᕝᕕᑦ ᒥᑦᓵᓄᑦ.  ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᑕᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᖓᑕ ᑲᑎᖅᓱᐃᓕᕈᑦᑕ.  ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᖕ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᔾᔪᑕᐅᔾᔮᖏᑦᑐᑦ.

DE_01: ᓇᓪᓕᐊᖑᒻᒪᖔᑦ ᑎᒦᑦ: (ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒍ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᒃᑯᑦ. ᓇᓗᒍᕕᑦ, ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ : ᓇᓪᓕᐊᖑᕕᓐ.....)

• 1. ᐊᕐᓇᖅ
• 2. ᐊᖑᑦ
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ

DE_02: ᐊᕐᕌᒍᖓ ᐃᓅᕕᒥᓃᑦ?

ᐊᕐᕌᒍᖓ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓗᒍ (ᑎᓴᒪᑦ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖏᑦ):

ᑭᐅᔪᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ

DE_03: ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓂ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᐱᑦ? [ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ – ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᑦ]

1. ᐃᑉᐱᐊᕐᔪᒃ
2. ᐊᕐᕕᐊᑦ
3. ᖃᒪᓂᑦᑐᐊᖅ
4. ᐃᖃᓗᑦᑑᑎᐊᖅ
5. ᑭᓐᖓᐃᑦ
6. ᐃᒡᓗᓕᒑᕐᔪᒃ
7. ᑲᖏᖅᑐᒑᐱᒃ
8. ᓴᓖᑦ
9. ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ
10. ᐅᖅᓱᖅᑑᖅ
11. ᓴᓂᕋᔭᒃ
12. ᐃᒡᓗᓕᒃ
13. ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ
14. ᑭᒻᒥᕈᑦ
15. ᑯᒑᕐᔪᒃ
16. ᖁᕐᓗᖅᑐᖅ
17. ᐸᓐᓂᖅᑐᖅ
18. ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒃ
19. ᕿᑭᖅᑕᕐᔪᐊᖅ
20. ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᖅ
21. ᓇᐅᔮᑦ
22. ᖃᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ
23. ᓴᓂᑭᓗᐊᖅ
24. ᑕᓗᕐᔪᐊᖅ
25. ᑎᑭᕋᕐᔪᐊᖅ
26. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ (ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ):

DE_04:   ᓇᒥ ᕿᓂᕋᔭᕐᐱᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᓴᓂᖕ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᑕᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ?   

[ᐅᖃᓕᒫᓐᖏᓪᓗᒍ, ᓈᓴᐅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑑᑎᓖᑦ]

• 1. ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᑦᓯᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᑦᓴᐅᔪᒥᓇᕐᑐᑦ
• 2. ᐱᖃᓐᓇᕆᔭᓐᓂᖕ ᐃᓚᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ
• 3. ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᒃᑯᑦ
• 4. ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᐃᒻᒧᐊᒍᑦ ᑐᓴᕋᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᕐᕕᒃᑯᑦ
• 5. ᓈᓚᐅᑎᒃᑯᑦ
• 6. ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᒃᑯᑦ
• 7. ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᑐᕝᕕᓂ [ᓂᕈᐊᕐᑕᐅᑉᐸᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ “ᓇᒥ?]
• 8. ᐸᐃᔅᐳᒃ ᖃᕆᑕᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᓯᔮᕐᕕᒃᑯᑦ
• 9. ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ
• 10. ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓕᕆᔩᑦ
• 11. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕝᕕᖓᓂᖕ
• 12. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᑎᒥᖓᑦ (NTI)
• 13. ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂ [ᓂᕈᐊᕐᑕᐅᑉᐸᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ “ᓇᒥ? ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓐᓂ? ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕐᑎᑯᖏᓐᓂ? ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᕕᓂ ᐱᑐᕝᕕᐅᒋᐊᓕᓐᓄᑦ? ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᕋᓛᒃᑯᑦ?”]
• 14. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ [ᓂᕈᐊᕐᑕᐅᑉᐸᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ “ᓇᒥ?ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᕕᓂ ᐱᑐᕝᕕᐅᒋᐊᓕᓐᓄᑦ? ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᕋᓛᒃᑯᑦ?”]
• 15. ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖏᓐᓂ
• 16. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎᓂᑦ/ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕆᐅᕐᓴᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑎᓂᑦ
• 17. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᕿᓂᕐᑎᓂᑦ/ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑐᓕᕆᓂᖕᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔨᑕᓂᑦ
• 18. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ − ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ :
• 88. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ
• 99. ᑭᐅᓐᖏᑕᕋ

ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕈᒥᓇᕐᑐᑦ

[If DE_03 = 13, 16, 20].  ᐊᓯᓕᒫᖏᑦ: ᖄᖏᕐᓗᒍ ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ OT_3

ᐃᓱᓕᓚᐅᖏᓂᑦᑎᓂ, ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᕗᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᓂᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓚᖃᐅᕆᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᓯᐊᒍᑦ ᑲᑎᖅᓱᐃᒐᓱᐊᕋᑦᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᒥᖕ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᑎᖃᖃᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᑦᑎᓂ.  ᑲᑎᓐᖓᑎᑦᓯᕙᓪᓗᑕ ᐃᓛᒃᑰᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖃᑦᑕᓂᐊᕐᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑲᑎᓐᖓᑎᑦᓯᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑕ ᐃᖃᓗᓐᓂ, ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᖕᒥ ᖁᕐᓗᖅᑑᒥᓗ.  ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕗᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔾᔪᑎᑦᓴᓂᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᖓᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ ᕼᐋᒪᓚᒃᑯᓂᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᒥ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᓐ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᕐᑖᐸᓪᓕᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ. 

OT_01. [If DE_03 = 13, 16, 20]

ᑲᑎᓐᖓᑎᑕᐅᔪᓅᑦ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᒐᔭᕐᐲᑦ? ᐊᑭᓖᔪᓐᓇᖏᓐᓇᑦᑕ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᔾᔪᑎᑦᓴᓄᑦ ᖃᖓᑦᑕᐅᑎᓄᑦ ᑐᔪᕐᒥᔾᔪᑎᑦᓴᓄᓪᓗ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᐊᑭᓕᕐᑕᐅᒐᓛᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᓯ ᑲᑎᒪᖃᑕᐅᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᔩᖃᑎᒌᑦᑐᓄᑦ.    

1. ᐄ
2. ᐋᒡᒐ [ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑦᓴᐅᑎᒋᓗᑎᑦOT_03]

OT_02.   ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᖃᑦᑕᓂᐊᕐᑕᕗᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᐅᕙᓂ [ᐅᓪᓗᖓ](?). ᑕᕝᕗᖔ ᐅᖄᓚᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᐲᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᐊᕋᕕᑦ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᕐᐲᑦ? <<ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎᖓ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᒃᑲᓂᕐᓗ>> [ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᑎᖓ ᓄᓇᖓᓗ ᐃᓄᑦᑕᖓᑕ]

OT_03. ᐊᒥᓲᓛᖑᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᓂᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᖕ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕋᓱᐊᕋᑦᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᒥᖕ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᑎᖃᖃᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ.  ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓃᖕ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥᐅᑕᐅᖃᑎᓐᓂᖕ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᑎᖃᖃᑕᐅᓱᕆᒍᕕᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑖᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᑕ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᑐᐊᖅᐸᑕ ᐊᑯᓐᓂᖓᓂ 18 ᐊᒻᒪ 64?

1. ᐄ
2. ᐋᒡᒐ [ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᕐᓗᒍ ᑭᐅᕋᑖᕐᑐᖅ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᐱᕕᖃᕐᑎᑦᓯᒻᒪᑦ]

OT_04. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᕐᐸᕌ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑕᐅᔪᒪᔪᖃᖅᐹ ?

1. ᐄ [ᐅᕗᓐᖓᑦᓴᐅᑎᒋᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑖᑦ ᑭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕕᑦᓴᖓᓄᑦ]
2. ᐋᒡᒐ

OT_05. ᖃᓄᐃᒐᔭᓐᖏᓛᖅ ᐅᖄᓚᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᓗᐊᕈᑦᑕ ᐅᐊᑦᓯᐊᕈᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅ ᐊᓯᐊᓂᖕ ᐃᓄᒻᒧᑦ ᓄᓇᑖᖃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᑎᖃᖃᑕᐅᔪᒥᑦ?   

1.  ᐄ [ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᑎᖓ(ᖏᑦ) ᐃᓄᐃᓐ ᖃᖓᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐅᖄᓚᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᕐᐱᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖃᑎᒋᓗᒍ.  ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᕐᓗᒍ ᑭᐅᖅᑲᐅᔪᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᕕᒋᓗᒍᓗ ᐅᖄᓚᒃᑲᓐᓂᓛᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᕕᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓂᖕ ᐃᓪᓗᒥᐅᖃᑎᖓᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕈᒪᓂᕐᓄᑦ.]
2. ᐋᒡᒐ. [ᐃᓕᓗᒍ]

ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᑐᖅᑐᒋᑦ, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᐸᑦᓯ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᓐᖑᐊᑕᕐᓯᓐᓇᕋᑦᓯ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᑕᑎᓄᓐ.

[ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᑐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒋᐊᓕᒃ:  ᑭᐅᖅᑲᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑦᓴᖃᕐᐸᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᓇ ᑳᓕᔅᒧᑦ ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎᖓ 819-654-1876 ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᔨᕈᒥ ᐸᓛᓐᑦ ᐅᕗᖓt 819-654-1609].

Analyse de la population active chez les Inuit du Nunavut Sondage auprès des Inuit du Nunavut (12 juin 2015)

Introduction

Bonjour, [SALUTATIONS EN INUKTITUT], je m’appelle [ ] et je travaille pour le cabinet R.A. Malatest & Associates. Nous travaillons avec le gouvernement du Canada à l’appui de Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. et du gouvernement du Nunavut en vue de réaliser un sondage d’importance, au sujet de l’emploi au Nunavut, auprès des Inuit du Nunavut qui ont 18 ans ou plus.  Est-ce que vous souhaitez que je continue en inuktitut, ou préférez-vous répondre en anglais? [Transférer à la personne en charge de l’entrevue en anglais si c’est ce que le/la répondant(e) préfère]

Vous êtes tout à fait libre de répondre ou non au sondage, qui est entièrement confidentiel. Il vous faudra entre 15 et 19 minutes pour répondre au sondage. Vos réponses particulières et votre nom n’apparaîtront en aucun cas dans les rapports découlant de l’étude. En guise de remerciement, les noms des participants feront partie d’un tirage pour une chance de gagner  l’une de quatre carte de crédit prépayée d’une valeur de 350$ .Est-ce que vous aimeriez participer au sondage? [SI LE/LA RÉPONDANT(E) EST INTÉRESSÉ(E) MAIS QUE CE N’EST PAS UN BON MOMENT : CONVENIR DU MOMENT POUR RAPPELER]

Comme vous le savez peut-être, l’Article 23 de l’Accord sur les revendications territoriales du Nunavut précise que l’embauche au service du gouvernement du Nunavut doit refléter la population desservie. Lorsqu’il est question de gouvernement, nous voulons parler de votre hameau ou de la ville d’Iqaluit, du gouvernement du Nunavut et du gouvernement du Canada. Les réponses que vous communiquerez seront très utiles pour aider les organismes gouvernementaux à comprendre comment élaborer des initiatives en vue d’accroître l’embauche chez les Inuit, comme des programmes de formation et des plans d’embauche des Inuit.

[NOTE : lorsque le/la répondant(e) ou la personne en charge de l’entrevue déplace le curseur sur le mot « gouvernement », la définition ci-dessus doit apparaître]

Nous aimerions aussi signaler que le rapport renfermant les résultats découlant de ce sondage sera disponible sur le site Web de Bibliothèque et Archives Canada six mois après la réalisation des sondages téléphoniques. De plus, ce sondage est inscrit auprès de l’Association de la recherche et de l'intelligence marketing. [NOTE À LA PERSONNE EN CHARGE DE L’ENTREVUE : SEULEMENT SI LE/LA RÉPONDANT(E) DEMANDE CE QU’EST L’ARIM : l’Association de la recherche et de l’intelligence marketings (ARIM) est l’association canadienne sans but lucratif qui représente tous les aspects de l’industrie des études de marché et des sondages au Canada.]

Dans un premier temps, je vais vous poser quelques questions pour vérifier si vous satisfaites aux critères de participation au sondage :

A_01. Est-ce que vous avez entre 18 et 64 ans?

1. Oui
2. Non – Vous devez avoir entre 18 et 64 ans pour participer au sondage. [PASSER À OT_03]

A_02. Est-ce que vous êtes un(e) bénéficiaire en vertu de l’Accord sur les revendications territoriales du Nunavut (ARTN)? [NOTE À LA PERSONNE EN CHARGE DE L’ENTREVUE : Autrement dit, est-ce que la personne est un(e) bénéficiaire de l’ARTN]

1. Oui [CONTINUER]
2. Non [Passer à la fin et remercier]
3. Ne sais pas [pour vérifier, il est possible de communiquer avec la responsable de l’inscription, auprès de NTI : Margaret Kusugak, au 1-867-645-5416. Puis, passer à la fin du sondage et remercier].

Question de sélection (employé(e) du gouvernement)

SC_04.  Parmi les énoncés suivants, lesquels s’appliquent à votre situation?

[Directives pour les questionnaires en version papier ou électronique : indiquer « Choisir toutes les réponses pertinentes »]

[Directives pour le sondage téléphonique : dire « Veuillez répondre par oui ou non pour chacun des énoncés suivants : »]

• 1. Je travaille pour le gouvernement ou le hameau.
• 2. Je suis un(e) employé(e) rémunéré(e) pour une entreprise privée ou une entreprise ou une organisation inuite.
• 3. Je gagne de l’argent grâce à mon entreprise.
• 4. Je suis inscrit(e) à un programme d’études ou de formation.
• 5. J’ai des responsabilités familiales, comme les soins d’un enfant, d’un proche ou d’un(e) aîné(e).
• 6. Je prends part à des activités comme la chasse, la pêche, la pêche des coques (ou palourdes), le trappage, la couture, la gravure, la cueillette de baies et la fabrication d’œuvres d’art ou d’artisanat.
• 7. Autre – préciser :
• 88. Ne sais pas
• 99. Pas de réponse

[Si SC_04 = 1, passer à la PR_01.  Autrement dit, si le/la répondant(e) est actuellement un(e) employé(e) du gouvernement, sauter les sections « Intérêt » et « Disponibilité » pour faire la section « État de préparation ».]

Intérêt

Maintenant, nous aimerions vous poser quelques questions au sujet du type de travail qui vous intéresse.

IN_01. Veuillez répondre à la question suivante au moyen d’une échelle de cinq points où « 1 » signifie que vous n’avez aucun intérêt, « 5 », que vous êtes très intéressé(e) et le point milieu, « 3 », que vous êtes neutre. Est-ce que vous pouvez me dire si le travail dans les domaines suivants est susceptible de vous intéresser? Par exemple, que pensez-vous…  [TOUJOURS LIRE DANS LE MÊME ORDRE]

a. Travailler pour votre hameau ou la ville d’Iqaluit

• 1. Pas du tout intéressé(e)
• 2. Peu intéressé(e)
• 3. Neutre
• 4. Plutôt intéressé(e)
• 5. Très intéressé(e)
• 8. Ne sais pas
• 9. Pas de réponse

b. Travailler pour le gouvernement du Nunavut

• 1. Pas du tout intéressé(e)
• 2. Peu intéressé(e)
• 3. Neutre
• 4. Plutôt intéressé(e)
• 5. Très intéressé(e)
• 8. Ne sais pas
• 9. Pas de réponse

c. Travailler pour le gouvernement du Canada

• 1. Pas du tout intéressé(e)
• 2. Peu intéressé(e)
• 3. Neutre
• 4. Plutôt intéressé(e)
• 5. Très intéressé(e)
• 8. Ne sais pas
• 9. Pas de réponse

NOTE À LA PERSONNE EN CHARGE DE L’ENTREVUE :

Pour « a », l’énoncé suivant doit apparaître à l’écran (ou au téléphone/en personne, la personne en charge de l’entrevue doit dire ce qui suit, si le/la répondant(e) s’interroge) :

Voici les ministères du gouvernement du Nunavut : Services communautaires et gouvernementaux, Culture et patrimoine, Développement économique et Transports, Éducation, Environnement, Exécutif et Affaires intergouvernementales, Services à la famille, Finances, Santé et Justice, Collège de l’Arctique du Nunavut, Société d’habitation du Nunavut et Société d’énergie Qulliq.

Pour « b », l’énoncé suivant doit apparaître à l’écran (ou au téléphone/en personne, la personne en charge de l’entrevue doit dire ce qui suit, si le/la répondant(e) s’interroge) :

Les employés de votre hameau/collectivité ou encore, de la ville d’Iqaluit offrent du soutien et des services essentiels aux membres de leur communauté. Voici les domaines de services :  eau / égouts / déchets solides; planification et administration des terres; planification des interventions d’urgence; incendies / protection; recherche et sauvetage; loisirs;  gestion de l’entretien; développement économique; installations et aéroports.

Pour « c », l’énoncé suivant doit apparaître à l’écran (ou au téléphone/en personne, la personne en charge de l’entrevue doit dire ce qui suit, si le/la répondant(e) s’interroge) :

Voici les ministères du gouvernement du Canada qui ont des activités au Nunavut : Affaires autochtones et Développement du Nord Canada, Agence des services frontaliers du Canada, Agence canadienne de développement économique du Nord, Pêches et Océans Canada, Environnement Canada, Agence canadienne d’inspection des aliments, Ressources naturelles Canada, Parcs Canada, Agence de la santé publique du Canada, Services correctionnels du Canada, Service des poursuites pénales du Canada, Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux du Canada, GRC et Service Canada. 

IN_02. [POSER CETTE QUESTION SI LA RÉPONSE À IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01c est neutre ou intéressé(e)]

Quels types de travail pour le gouvernement ou le hameau seraient susceptibles de vous intéresser?  RÉPARTIR ALÉATOIREMENT LES ÉLÉMENTS

[Directives pour les questionnaires en version papier ou électronique : indiquer « Choisir toutes les réponses pertinentes »]

[Directives pour le sondage téléphonique : dire « Veuillez répondre par oui ou non pour chacun des énoncés suivants : » puis cocher les réponses affirmatives (« oui »)]

1. Travail de gestion comme directeur/directrice, cadre supérieur, surintendant(e), sous-ministre adjoint(e) ou sous-ministre
2. Recherche, politique et  développement de programme
3. Finances
4. Aide à l’administration ou soutien administratif
5. Application de la loi
6. Des tâches qui supposent du travail en plein air
7. Opérateur/opératrice de machinerie lourde
8. Un travail dans le domaine des services sociaux ou de la santé mentale
9. Directeur/directrice d’école, enseignant(e) ou aide-enseignant(e)
10. Travail en soins de santé
11. Travail dans le domaine du transport par camion
12. Travail dans un tribunal
13. Enseignement d’activités culturelles traditionnelles

IN_03. Est-ce que vous avez déjà travaillé au gouvernement ou pour le hameau? Quand je parle du gouvernement, je veux dire le gouvernement du Canada, le gouvernement du Nunavut, un hameau ou la ville d’Iqaluit? [LIRE LA LISTE]

• 1. Oui
• 2. Non
• 8. Ne sais pas
• 9. Pas de réponse

IN_04. Est-ce que vous avez déjà cherché à obtenir un emploi au gouvernement ou dans le hameau?

• 1. Oui
• 2. Non – [Skip to IN_06 IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c, is neutral, or interested], [Skip to IN_07 IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c is not interested]
• 8. Ne sais pas – [Skip to IN_06 IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c, is neutral, or interested], [Skip to IN_07 IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c is not interested]
• 9. Pas de réponse – [Skip to IN_06 IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c, is neutral, or interested], [Skip to IN_07 IF IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c is not interested]

IN_05. Est-ce que vous avez déjà présenté votre candidature pour un emploi au gouvernement ou dans le hameau?

• 1. Oui
• 2. Non
• 8. Ne sais pas
• 9. Pas de réponse

IN_06. [POSER CETTE QUESTION SI la réponse à IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c, est neutre ou intéressé(e)]

Quels aspects du travail au gouvernement ou dans le hameau vous intéressent?

[NE PAS LIRE LA LISTE] [Choisir toutes les réponses pertinentes]

[PASSER À IN_08 UNE FOIS CETTE QUESTION ACHEVÉE]

• 1. Bonne paye
• 2. Bons avantages sociaux (comme l’allocation de voyage de vacances, la pension, l’assurance pour les frais dentaires et des services de santé)
• 3. Logement subventionné
• 4. Possibilités de formation ou de perfectionnement professionnel
• 5. Possibilités d’avancement/de promotion
• 6. Un travail qui fait une différence sur le plan de l’économie, de l’environnement ou de la communauté
• 7. Un travail stimulant/intéressant
• 8. Dispositions souples (Heures de début/d’arrêt, possibilité de travailler à plein temps ou à temps partiel)
• 9. Horaire de travail prévisible (p. ex, seulement de 9 h à 17 h, jamais sur appel, pas de travail par roulement)
• 10. Sécurité d’emploi
• 11. Indemnités de transport, de déplacement, de déménagement
• 12. Accès au service de garde au travail ou près du travail
• 13. Un travail dans/à un bureau
• 14. Manque d’autres possibilités d’emploi dans la collectivité
• 15. Autre – préciser :
• 88. Ne sais pas
• 99. Pas de réponse

IN_07. [POSER CETTE QUESTION SI la réponse à IN_01 a, IN_01 b, IN_01 c est « pas du tout intéressé(e) »]

Pourquoi le travail au gouvernement ou dans un hameau ne vous intéresse pas?

[NE PAS LIRE LA LISTE] [Choisir toutes les réponses pertinentes]

• 1. Je suis satisfait(e) où je suis, dans un emploi du secteur non gouvernemental
• 2. J’ai de l’intérêt pour le travail dans le secteur non gouvernemental
• 3. Je ne veux pas travailler dans/à un bureau
• 4. Je ne veux pas/ne peux pas travailler à plein temps/dans un poste permanent
• 5. J’ai peu d’intérêt pour les postes administratifs (trop de paperasserie, de lecture, d’obligations de rendre des comptes)
• 6. J’ai peu d’intérêt pour les postes de gestion (trop de déplacements, tâches contraignantes, confrontations, discipline)
• 7. Je ne suis pas au courant des publicités d’emplois ou des possibilités d’emploi/postes à pourvoir
• 8. Manque de confiance en soi
• 9. Impression négative à l’égard du gouvernement
• 10. Problème d’accessibilité au milieu de travail pour les personnes aux prises avec une incapacité physique
• 11. Mobilité – manque de postes dans la collectivité pour les personnes qui ne veulent pas déménager
• 12. Manque de soutien de la famille ou difficulté à s’adapter au changement
• 13. Un dossier criminel qui joue sur les probabilités ou les possibilités d’embauche ou d’avancement
• 14. Conflit d’intérêt (réel ou en apparence – favoriser l’attribution, la sélection des emplois)
• 15. Les exigences du gouvernement sont trop élevées sur le plan de la scolarité
• 16. Les exigences techniques sont trop élevées (métiers, travail comptable, travail administratif, génie, etc.)
• 17. Les exigences linguistiques sont trop élevées
• 18. La préparation à la recherche d’emploi est insuffisante
• 19. Il n’y a pas suffisamment de services de garde pour les enfants ou ces services sont trop dispendieux
• 20. Possibilités limitées de logement pour le personnel
• 21. Manque de logement
• 22. Augmentation du loyer de logement social ou crainte de perdre un logement social
• 23. Manque de possibilités d’avancement professionnel
• 24. Le travail au gouvernement ne me permet pas de respecter mon style de vie dans le contexte de la chasse/la pêche/le trappage/mon mode de vie traditionnel
• 25. Discrimination
• 26. Manque de respect pour la culture et les valeurs inuites
• 27. Difficultés dans le contexte du processus de curriculum vitae/ je ne veux pas prendre part à ce processus
• 28. Difficultés dans le contexte du processus d’entrevue / je ne veux pas prendre part au processus d’entrevue
• 29. Autre – préciser :
• 88. Ne sais pas
• 99. Pas de réponse

IN_08. Est-ce que vous prévoyez présenter votre candidature pour un emploi au gouvernement ou dans le hameau au cours de la prochaine année?

• 1. Oui
• 2. Non
• 8. Ne sais pas
• 9. Pas de réponse

IN_09.  [DEMANDER SI LA RÉPONSE À LA QUESTION IN_08 n’est pas = 1] Est-ce que vous présenteriez votre candidature pour un emploi au gouvernement ou dans votre hameau au cours de la prochaine année s’il s’agissait d’un poste dans votre collectivité?