Aboriginal. The current Agreement incorporated community-based allocation of a portion of the funding for Aboriginal languages. This important initiative created the need for the GNWT, in partnership with the language communities, to resolve a number of administrative requirements that would affect the operations of the Agreement, including how the funding would be distributed and who would receive the funding on behalf of the language community. For the most part, the funding formula addressing these issues is seen as fair and equitable and the Aboriginal language communities appreciate having more direct control of activity development and associated expenditures. Some language communities have extended this formula to the community level. While this provides those communities with a proportionate share of the funding, communities with a small population receive a very small share of the available funding due to the formula’s per capita allocation component. Other language communities administer their funding on a proposal submission basis. This too has created some problems for communities that struggle with identifying activities and lack the capacity to prepare proposals. In consultation with the language communities, the GNWT selects the recipient of the community-based funding. In certain of the language communities, this recipient has changed over the Agreement’s term. For the most part, contribution agreement recipients act as the funding authority with language coordinators being primarily responsible for the detailed administration of the funds. In some cases it was suggested that the administration fees charged by some political organizations is disproportionate to the total level of activity finding available in that region. There are many challenges with respect to mandated accountability and reporting: ⮚ language communities and government departments continue to struggle with providing appropriate detail in a consistent format and timely fashion. Language communities and some government services continue to struggle with meeting the need for results-based reporting in part due to the absence of a clear, consistent and agreed upon format; ⮚ many stakeholders consider the reporting requirements to be unduly complex and onerous and it has been observed that the demands of financial management and reporting are not commensurate with the actual funding levels being managed. It has been suggested by a number of organizations that the reporting requirements c...
Aboriginal. At the community level, the Agreement’s impact has not been adequately or consistently measured and consequently, is not well understood. It has been suggested that in light of both the operating realities within which language initiatives and services occur and the complexity of language retention efforts, it is not possible to provide clear quantitative ‘evidence’ of impact or success. Nevertheless stakeholders firmly believe that without the Agreement, communities would not have even the basic tools to maintain and preserve their languages. That impact, they suggest, is clear. The Aboriginal communities expressed some concerns about the appropriate distribution of funding within the various objectives. The GNWT and language communities each feel that they are providing adequate service levels given demonstrated need and within the constraints of the operating environment but it is perceived that there will be greater demand for language services as language activities and use increase, and as the Agreement has more impact. There is a conundrum: as the Agreement has greater impact, linguistic awareness will be enhanced and there may be ever-greater demand and need for government support and services. Another consideration in this regard is the high mobility rates of NWT residents, particularly the migration of Aboriginal peoples from smaller communities to the larger regional centres – with Yellowknife being the fastest growing Aboriginal community. This will likely put further demands on a range of language programs and services as a result of a greater mix of minority languages in any one community. Many stakeholders believe that the Agreement has resulted in a better awareness of language health and has contributed to a clearer vision of programming, possibly as a result of the preparation of language plans as well as the attention that language issues received during the SCOL process. The findings indicate certain characteristics associated with more and less effective programs: ➢ characteristics of effective community programs include realistic and clear outcomes, community involvement, cultural relevance and sound financial management. These programs respond to a clear demand or community need, appeal to a wide range of participants, are well planned and have a dependable base of volunteers; and ➢ less effective programs are those that are not consistent, reliable or sufficiently broad in scope, potentially due to a lack of resources, focus or comm...
Aboriginal. Stakeholders offered a variety of suggestions focusing primarily on two areas: the strengthening of the governments’ obligations in the delivery of official language services and administrative and operational improvements to the Agreement. To sustain a language, there must be a willingness in government to recognize the importance of languages to a culture and community, and to the overall health and well being of the language community. The opportunity to hear and speak languages must be strengthened both for informal social and cultural activities and for formal activities within, for example, the educational system or the labour market. Realistic measures must be defined and established to gauge the Agreement’s impact on language use and its contribution to community well being. The Aboriginal language communities generally agreed that the community-based funding allocation is equitable but suggested that population figures should be updated more regularly based on valid and reliable data sources. Given that smaller more remote communities have to struggle with higher service costs and a smaller share of the funding, stakeholders also suggested that a ‘remoteness factor’ be considered either within the formula or as a supplementary adjustment. All the language communities requested representation, or as a minimum a voice in shaping the negotiation approach, during the Canada/GNWT Agreement negotiations. Caution was raised regarding any increased administration requirements and amending the ability of communities to determine their own priorities would be detrimental to the Agreement arrangements. Stakeholders offered a number of other administrative and operational improvements including: ➢ improving communication and coordination across the different language communities; ➢ placing greater emphasis on developing resource materials and establishing a central repository that would enable the communities to access and share resources; ➢ clarifying and updating the criteria for ensuring consistency in reporting, financial accountability and proposal review; ➢ establishing clear obligations and responsibilities of the Agreement and Official Languages Act for bilingual employees receiving the bilingual bonuses; ➢ improving the funding administration to minimize potential funding lapses; and ➢ better coordination of and cooperation among GNWT programs and services and community initiatives to support common goals.
Aboriginal. A person who is recognized by the Canadian Government as a Status Indian, non-status Indian, Inuit or Metis. Built in Overtime All regularly scheduled hours in excess of 160 hours in a 28 day cycle when working a compressed work schedule Compressed Work Schedule In NT, the Labor Standards Act defines the “standard hours of work” as eight (8) hours in a day and forty (40) hours in a week. Overtime is payable for time worked in excess of the standard hours of work. A compressed work schedule is one which alters the standard hours of work so that overtime is payable on a different basis. A permit must be obtained for altering the way in which overtime is paid when developing schedules different than the standard hours of work. Decision Units Decision units will be the Central Processing Facility (CPF), Field Operations and Technical Services or as otherwise determined by the Company. Dependent Spouse - a person to whom the employee is legally married. Common Law Partner - a person to whom the employee is not legally married but with whom the employee has been living in a conjugal relationship for at least one year. Dependent Children - the employee’s or employee’s spouse’s or employee's partner's natural, adopted, stepchild or xxxxxx child who is the employee’s or employee’s spouse's or employee's partner's legal xxxx, and who is not married, not employed full time and is: - under age 21 - under age 25 if a full time student - age 25 or older (or age 21 to 24 and not attending college or University), physically or mentally incapable of self support, primarily dependent on the employee for support in qualifying as the employee’s or employee’s spouse’s or employee's partner's dependent according to the Income Tax Act, as long as the child became incapable of self support before age 21 or age 25 if a fulltime student.
Aboriginal. Where an aboriginal commitment has been established on a project, the Union will cooperate in meeting the content commitments. For projects, or jobs within a project, that are less than field labour, and have aboriginal content commitments, the terms of this collective agreement will not apply to these aboriginal commitments. Article
Aboriginal. The Agreement and its goals and objectives remain relevant in the context of the many continuing challenges faced by the language communities and in spite of language not necessarily being a sustained priority for governments, communities and families. Language communities recognize and appreciate the Agreement’s design including its five-year term that provides for flexibility and funding stability. The Agreement has had a significant impact on the number and range of activities undertaken across the NWT and many of these activities and programs would not likely or almost certainly have not occurred without this funding. The Agreement also appears to be both effective in terms of furthering community and GNWT objectives and responsive to language community needs. This is attributed to the development of language plans and the ability of language communities and the GNWT to take into xxxxxx consideration valid data in order to shape activities and manage implementation. The language communities speak to the ongoing need for funding their activities. Language communities have accessed limited funding from other sources. The language communities agree that the Agreement is a good source of funding as it is geared to language activities, programs and services, particularly those that are culturally based. Some remain split on the effectiveness of the administration of the funding, primarily on how and when the funding is distributed. In all cases, language groups wish to see the Agreement continue and enhanced to meet future needs. The language communities wish to maintain the momentum created by the implementation of activities over the current and previous Agreements. Stakeholders observed that there are limited funding initiatives (i.e. XXX) complementary to the Agreement that helps to protect, restore or sustain official languages in the NWT. Greater communication amongst all language groups and clearer regulations, mandates, and training would facilitate better coordination of initiatives across the government and communities. The language communities assert that the implementation of the SCOL recommendations through Bill 31, an amendment to the NWT Official Languages Act, would provide a focus for addressing language issues. A significant challenge is the understanding of the impacts and results of the initiative on program and service delivery as well as on the health of minority languages in the NWT.
