EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The difference in the funding is $1,265,400. If I am correct, that is what he is referring to.
They were on a slightly different funding arrangement, but we have agreed that we will look into that and we will try to ensure that all funds are accounted for.
Perhaps my Deputy Minister, Simon Awa, can provide more detail on that.
First of all, I would like to apologize. I am pretty hoarse today. I think it is quite obvious.
First of all, the Department of Finance figures that were provided as grants and contributions were $7,180,000.
However, when we looked into the actual accounts during the standing committee, what they had forgot to add in the Department of Finance was the Canadian government language funding that is provided to the Nunavut government.
That particular part of the funding was not added to the figures related to Culture, Language, Elders and Youth. If they had been added, then there would have been $8.4 million that the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth had allocated for grants and contributions.
The other slight difference in accounting which we found out is a lot of the grants and contributions funding that we provide to the organizations in the communities is kicked back into the program.
That was also not accounted for and not included in these figures.
I would like to reiterate that the language funding provided by the federal government was unfortunately not included in the Department of Finance’s figures. That is the reason for the discrepancy.
With respect to the $8 million grants and contributions funding which you provide to the communities by application, I believe you inform them that there will be a certain amount of funding available prior to April 1.
Once you have provided the grants and contributions funding and the communities have expended these funds, how do you determine that the funds were used properly? Do they go through an application fund? Is there a kind of a reporting process or how do reconcile these differences?
Do you have to check into some of these grants?
I would like to find out more details on that, Mr. Chairman.
The funds as expended are provided to the Legislative Assembly for review. Prior to March 31, we ask for funding requests and sometimes we allow further requests for government funding if and when required throughout the year.
When we submit these figures to the Legislative Assembly, we require accounting and a report from every organization that is provided funding.
The figures you have are for the year 2010-11. At least that’s how we look at it.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, the question I was trying to raise is, for example, if any personal body applies for funding to do a cultural or language activity.
If they obtain funding, I imagine they have to report on what they used that funding for.
What I’m trying to ask is: how does the department determine that the funds were used as intended?
If they misused these funds, would they have to return the funding to the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth?
That’s what I was trying to get at, Mr. Chairman.
All the funds that we provide through grants and contributions have to be accounted for and reported. All the accounts are reported.
At this time, we are also not just requesting a report but also pictures of the activities that they undertook as part of their funding activity reports.
Pictures are very good examples of how they delivered these cultural activities, so we ask for a report and pictures.
That allows us to showcase how these funds are being used.
If my deputy wishes to provide more details, he can.
Mr. Awa, do you wish to make a supplementary response?
Yes, the minister was very truthful in his statement.
The regional Inuit associations and other bodies, such as the elders’ committees in the communities, don’t provide a very long report and we’re not expecting them to provide a 10-page report.
What we want is a short report with pictures that allows us to understand what their activity was all about.
That’s why a photo collage that shows how the funding and the activity was undertaken is enough to satisfy our requirement because it shows us exactly what they did and how they expended the money.
Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, there are some bodies, such as the regional Inuit associations, that don’t always provide proper reports.
Due to that fact, we have a bit of difficulty when the non-reporting entity requests more funding. They run into a barrier because they hadn’t accounted for previous funding that they received. Until they provide accounting for the previous funding they received, we cannot provide them with additional funding.
That’s very understandable and I also agree with their statements, especially where it speaks to the regional Inuit associations.
However, when it comes to bodies in the communities, such as the elders’ and youth committees, I doubt that they will provide a very detailed report.
I do like the fact that you have done it that way and that it is proceeding smoothly.
Why do you request applications prior to March 31 when the funds have not been spent prior to year-end?
Are you trying to give out that funding or are you expecting that the funding will be approved and appropriated by the Legislative Assembly, that you ask for applications prior to the fiscal year-end?
My deputy will respond to that question.
It has been the practice for quite a while now where the request for funding has to be submitted prior to the fiscal year-end, which is March 31.
It’s not the expectation that our funding will be appropriated, but it allows the communities to plan their activities for the upcoming year and it allows them to plan their activities throughout the seasons.
If we look at recreation funding, they fall into a slightly different category. They end on March 31, but then in September, in the fall, when half of the fiscal year is completed, they can then resubmit an application for recreation activities.
March 31 is the end of the fiscal year, but that is something that could be changed at any time.
The only reason why it has been kept is because it became common practice.
We can look into that to see if we can fix it to your satisfaction.
The reason why I’m raising these questions is that in Igloolik, we have an annual cultural activity celebrating the return of the sun and I am very pleased that they are able to obtain funding for these activities.
However, I think the problem that we seem to encounter is that I believe the celebration of the return of the sun is around January 14 and it’s a weeklong cultural activity.
The deadline for applications is March 31.
Once they have completed the celebration of the sun in January, they have to do a report and they also have to submit an application for next year’s funding prior to year-end.
It seems like the application sits for a whole year within the department.
I’m raising this as an issue to be considered because some organizations are in a rush to submit their applications.
The Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth has two separate funding periods for recreation funding, and I imagine they have committees that review and approve or deny applications.
Is this an issue that the minister can consider to see if they could also do that for these cultural activities, Mr. Chairman?
Anyone can make an application prior to March 31.
We can take that into consideration. As my deputy minister said, we can review it and see if we can make changes.
Yes, we can do so.
I will try to make this my last comment.
I would like to ask if the Inuit Language Authority is starting to be a more independent body or if they are now independent from the government and whether their board has been created. I would like clarification on that, Mr. Chairman.
The Inuit Language Authority became independent from the government on September 18, 2011 and they have a board, but they’re still involved with the Department of CLEY.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): I did say that was my last question, but I would like more clarification on that.
Is CLEY looking at when the language authority will become truly independent from the government? I’m sure they will continue to receive government funding as they’re part of the legislation under the Inuit Language Protection Act.
When would that happen while continuing to receive government funding?
The reason I’m asking is because the government will obviously be affected by the language authority and if they’re too close, it could create a conflict of interest. Therefore, I prefer to see the language authority at arm’s length from the government.
Does your department have any plans when the language authority will be at arm’s length?
My deputy can elaborate on that.
When you wish to have one of your officials provide a response, it would be useful to identify which official you’re referring to.
As the minister stated, in accordance with the Act, the language authority had to become independent on September 18, 2011.
That did happen and as the minister said, they have formed a board.
Although they are legally independent, we have a memorandum of understanding between our department and the language authority, as well as the Department of Finance.
Due to their lack of capacity, the Department of CLEY will provide assistance for about a year while they’re trying to fill their positions.
That is what we agreed to in our MOU.
However, based on the language authority’s legal authority, they make their own decisions and operate on their own. They are not directed by the Department of CLEY nor do they report to the deputy minister. All of their reports go directly to the minister as per legislation.
With respect to paperwork and human resources issues, the Department of CLEY is providing assistance to them in that regard through the MOU.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Every time there is a response, another question pops in my head.
When we speak about the Inuit Language Authority, as a member, I already have a question to recommend to their committee. For example, there has been some consideration on whether we should turn away from the syllabic writing system in the future and start using Roman orthography.
If I were to ask that question to that independent authority because they report to the minister, where do I ask questions? To the Minister of CLEY?
If I was to ask questions to the language authority and they’re supposed to be independent, how do I ask questions in this House? Who will represent them?
Let me get that through my head, Mr. Chairman.
Although the language authority is at arm’s length, as my Deputy Minister, Simon Awa, had stated, they provide reports to the Minister of Languages.
Therefore, questions can be directed to the Minister of Languages and the language authority can report to him.
We’re on page F-4.
Total Operations and Maintenance. (interpretation ends) Mr. Elliott, do you have your hand up? Mr. Elliott.
Yes, I had my hand up.
In regard to follow-up with some of the questions that Mr. Tapardjuk had in regard to the Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit, I understand how, on September 18, it was set up as a public agency council at arm’s length from the government.
I’m just wondering: in terms of direction for that public agency council, is that provided by the minister?
Before I let the minister respond, I would like to remind you that if any member is going to be asking questions, please specify and let me know if you’re going to speak to the page that we’re reviewing.
Please indicate to me so that I won’t miss anyone.
As the Inuit Language Protection Act is being implemented, it also indicates that the Minister of Languages will be in there.
As a public agency council, the question I have, since it’s newly formed… .
We have other public agency councils that are part of the Public Agencies Council that is under the direction of the Minister of Finance.
Through the Public Agencies Council, there are letters of expectation and memorandums of understanding that are set up. Is that going to happen with the Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit as well?
Yes, that is why it’s set up. Things are progressing and it may take a whole year, where we will be working hand in hand to raise them to become an independent organization.
We are making progress and it has been set up in that manner. We will continue to try to do that, as per Mr. Elliott’s statement.
As of April 1, 2012, for the fiscal year of 2012-13, you will be receiving a letter from the Minister of Finance as the public agency council providing direction for the Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit as well as a memorandum of understanding.
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): As we had stated, Mr. Chairman, on September 18, the language authority became a public agency council and that we will be providing support to the language authority and we don’t… .
After April 1, once the letters are received, could the minister provide us with those letters of expectation to the president or chair of the Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit as well as the memorandum of understanding between the Minister of Finance and your department?
My Deputy Minister, Simon Awa, will respond to the question.
Just to clarify, the current MOU is between Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit and CLEY.
The MOU is not between IUT and the Department of Finance.
The MOU only provides corporate services and human resources support to IUT until such a time, hopefully within a year, that they are able to operate on their own.
As for the letters of expectation, the mandate of IUT is very clear under ILPA legislation.
The board will submit an annual work plan to the Minister of Languages and that work plan, if approved by the minister, becomes like a letter of expectation.
So the mandate of IUT, the board itself, as an arm’s-length entity is very clear under legislation.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the explanation.
I just need to ask another question. I think I have it clear in my head.
I understand where they get their direction from, from the actual Act, but in the different corporations that we have as part of the territory like the Nunavut Housing Corporation and Nunavut Arctic College, they’re all governed by Acts as well, the Colleges Act and whatnot.
Those Acts are followed, but they also have boards of directors that are set up. From those boards of directors, there’s a minister responsible, which sounds like the same sort of structure that we have with the Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit, at the same time, to provide guidance, not on the overall Act itself but in terms of specific year mandates and changing government mandates like we’re acting through Tamapta right now.
The Public Agencies Council, which is chaired by the Minister of Finance, has a public agency council.
My original question was once the Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit is up and running to provide that guidance and to ensure that the job is being done, which I believe the Hon. Member for Amittuq was trying to allude to, to make sure that it functions and does the job that it’s supposed to… . The Public Agencies Council, under the direction of the Minister of Finance, does provide letters of expectation on an annual basis to add to that.
I guess that’s what my original question was is to see, once it’s set up, whether it will function in the same manner as other corporate entities that the Government of Nunavut has right now.
In all fairness, it should receive the same amount of attention that all the other corporations do as well.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) Did I hear a question there?
If I didn’t, did the minister hear a question there?
The Inuit Language Authority has to present their report annually to the Minister of Languages, who then tables it in the House.
As to their activities over the past year, with ILPA, the Inuit Language Protection Act, outlining these requirements, it’s very clear what the Inuit Language Authority has to undertake and it is being followed at this time.
To me, the Inuit Language Protection Act is extremely important.
Could the minister commit to speaking with the chair of the Public Agencies Council to see how his department will work together with the public agency committee to get a better understanding of how that works?
If we’re going to make the Inuit Language Protection Act work, we want to make sure that it is set up properly within the system so that funding is guaranteed, so that direction is provided.
So if the minister could commit to speaking to the chairperson.
I could speak with the chair, but I cannot assure the member if there are going to be any changes made because we haven’t conducted any assessments yet.
I can assure the member that I will have talks with the chair.
I also thank the minister and his officials for appearing before our committee.
The question I would like to direct is the syllabics in the Ai, Ii, Uu, Aa, which has been the subject of discussions for changing back to the original.
I am not sure if I am the only one who misunderstands it because I want to bring back Ai, Ii, Uu, Aa and they want to take out one of the symbols.
What is the reasoning for debating to change it back into that particular one?
I would like to apologize first because if people have misunderstood that we’re trying to take out certain iterations of the syllabic orthography, that’s not the case. We’re still debating whether it will remain the same, whether we will revert back to the original, and that includes Roman orthography. We’re still discussing the matter.
Nothing has been taken off the table. All that is, is that all of these options are being weighed and measured.
It’s included in the mandate of the Inuit Language Authority and all they’re doing is reviewing these issues.
I didn’t quite get a response to my question and I would like a proper response.
What is the reason for this being debated and discussed?
What is the reasoning behind looking at the syllabic orthography? What is the reasoning for debating that issue?
That is what I was trying to raise in my question.
Because we’re trying to protect the Inuit language, we’re trying to look at which orthography would be better used to maintain the protection of the Inuit language.
So the Inuit Language Authority, in looking at the protection measures, particularly in trying to protect the language, is reviewing all of their options and they’re wondering how best to protect the language, whether it would be through Roman orthography or syllabic orthography.
When you look at the digital age and computers and in online chatting, a lot of people are using Roman orthography.
There is a new application now available online that teaches syllabics.
I believe that if you go into iTunes or Apple websites, there is now an application available that can be downloaded to teach you how to speak in Inuktitut and to read syllabics.
Again, we’re trying to protect all aspects of the Inuit language and that is the reason why they’re reviewing all of these ideas.
Now I understand the reasoning why they’re looking at these ideas.
If you look at the world, computers can be adapted to any language and culture. So if syllabics are going to be part of the debate, it’s very easy for a computer to convert. I am very protective of my syllabics because it defines part of my culture and who I am.
If the committee is deliberating upon these ideas and perhaps it may come into use a few years from now, but with respect to our generation, this is our way of writing.
If you’re going to be using the computer as a foundation, if we look at the Japanese, the Europeans, every country converts their language and adapts it to the computers.
So I don’t see that as a good enough reason for looking at the language because not every person in Nunavut will be able to deal with computers.
I myself don’t really work with computers because I’m not that adept at it and that’s just the same thing.
I don’t have any more questions, but I don’t think computers should be used as a reason.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Minister Arreak, would you like to comment on that?
I didn’t mean to say that computers are the reason.
What we were looking at was how best to protect the Inuit language so as to ensure that it’s not being lost, especially in certain parts of Nunavut. That’s the reasoning for trying to protect the Inuktitut way of writing in both orthographies.
I believe syllabics were created way back by a missionary when he wanted to change the oral language into something that could be read. I believe the missionary converted orthography into syllabics and Inuit took that to heart and made it their own.
Even if we start trying to not use syllabics, it’s quite obvious that those of us who grew up with it will continue to use it.
What we are thinking of is long term and our descendants may want to use a different orthography.
It is obvious that those of us who grew up with that orthography will continue to use it until we pass away.
We are on page F-4. Culture, Language, Elders and Youth.
Branch Summary. Directorate. Total Operations and Maintenance. $5,000,701.
Turn to page F-5.
On this particular branch summary under Official Languages, I think, to me and to all of us in Nunavut, the protection and promotion of the Inuktitut language is very truthful and very important.
Everything that we do in the government always reflects on the amount of funding that we receive.
Whether you’re speaking for or from territorial or local government, it is part of a much bigger picture.
That is where the core funding comes from, the federal counterpart.
Whether your first language is Inuktitut, English, or French, we all want to promote and protect the use of that language.
In the old territorial government, before Nunavut came into being, it was generally thought by the legislature, mainly aboriginal organizations, caucuses, and what have you, that it was very important to promote the French language.
Why? This may sound ironic coming from someone like me.
I always talk about the bigger picture.
Part of the big picture: you want to ensure that we have friends in high places where, in Ontario, part of the government, Senate, politicians, bureaucrats, most of those people speak French. It is always good to impress these people in high places.
I think it’s critical and crucial to put higher emphasis on supporting the French language for the sake of funding from our friends in high places.
I also recognize the French language as an official language of the country and an official language of Nunavut.
I say this with no prejudice, but we never get enough funding from the federal government.
So there is no question; I just wanted to share that knowledge with the good offices of the minister of official languages.
Although no question was asked, Minister Arreak, perhaps you wish to make a comment.
Mr. Ningark’s comment is completely on target, especially where he speaks about the limited funding and that we have a hard time operating with that limited funding.
Nevertheless, we are making preparations to request more funding and we want to have it tabled before the House.
We will be using that to start implementing the Official Languages Act, as well as the Inuit Language Protection Act. We’re trying to lay the foundation so that we can request more funding down the road.
The funding from the federal government that is specific to language is $2,250,000, which is Vote 4/5 funding, for the Inuit and French languages. How much of this funding has been expended?
What was it used for? What kinds of contributions were made? Are there any expectations that the funding for language services will be increased by the federal government?
It was also raised in a previous question and in the response, it was stated that at first, there was a missing $1 million in the figure between the Department of Finance and the Department of CLEY. This specific funding was for schools related to language classes, the preparation of the language week, and it was used for various activities throughout the year. Most of the details are outlined in here and it has been tabled, so it’s available to every member.