ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᑦ

ᐊᑎᖓᑎᑎᕋᖅᑐᖅᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓPdf Textcategories_hfilter
Current Projects 2014Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre

Overview of 2014 …

ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ English ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᖅᑏᑦ Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre ᐃᖃᓗ ᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ Iqaluit, Nunavut Vol. 3 Child and Youth Health and Wellness •Child and Youth Mental Health and Wellness Intervention, Research and Community Advocacy Project (Nunavut-wide) (photovoice research, youth wellness and empowerment program, Inunnguiniq Parenting Program, health services and front-line workers) •Nutaqqavut Health Information System Sexual Health •Building a Northern-led research programme to explore HIV/AIDS and sexual health in NWT and Nunavut •Sexual Health and Relationships Among Nunavut Youth: Perspectives on knowledge and beliefs •Youth-led sexual health arts-based interventions: using drama and Inuit performance arts to share messages about sexuality Community Health •Evaluation of Young Hunters Support Program in Arviat Healthy Foods and Food Security •Exploring food security and access among users of food-sharing programs in Nunavut •Atii! Healthy Living Project: A youth-led school-based healthy living intervention for Nunavut children and families Circumpolar Health •CircumChange - exploring community perspectives on societal and environmental change •Mental Health and Suicide - Case studies of prevention programs in the Circumpolar countries •Exploring Circumpolar Health Systems Innovations, Architecture, and Pathways for Wellness Climate Change and Health •Identifying youth perspectives on climate change policy and identifying community health indicators of climate change impact Chronic Disease Prevention •Multi-sectoral approach to reducing chronic disease in Nunavut Current Projects 2014 titiqqaq@qhrc.ca www.qhrc.ca (T) 867-975-2476 PO Box 11372 987-B Qikiqtani Drive Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᖅᑏᑦ Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 2012 Community-run Research Projects – We facilitate and support the development of community-driven health research projects throughout Nunavut. We are currently helping community members to explore youth wellness; mental health; sexual health; healthy eating; food security; climate change; healthy homes and hygiene; parenting; Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and more through research. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔭᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᐊᔪᓐᖏᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ, ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥᐅᑕᓄᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᓂ, ᐊᑦᑕᓇᓐᖏᓪᓗᓂ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓈᒻᒪᑎᐊᖅᑐᒦᓪᓗᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗᒃᑕᐅᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᕚᓪᓕᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᓂᖓ ᑕᒪᒃᑮᒃ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᑐᖃᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓄᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᖃᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᐅᔪᓂᒃ, ᖃᓄᐃᖏᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᐅᕐᓂᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᖅᑭᐹᓪᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᖏᑎᐊᕐᓂᖏᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥᐅᑦ. Ethics - Exploring Inuit and community perspectives on ethics; forming a Northern Health research ethics review board; developing a tool for community members to use when evaluating health research proposals; and teaching workshops and seminars about ethical conduct in research in Nunavut. Knowledge Sharing – we look at interesting and creative ways community members, researchers, and health care workers can share health information. Please visit our web site for more information. www.qhrc.ca Training – we deliver workshops on proposal writing; health research ethics; public health education; research methods; health promotion and other topics that community members identify. Qaujigiartiit health Research Centre (AHRN-NU) Who are we? The goal of Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre is to enable health research to be conducted locally, by Nunvummiut, and with communities in a supportive, safe, culturally-sensitive and ethical environment, as well as promote the inclusion of both Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and western sciences in addressing health concerns, creating healthy environments, and improving the health of Nunavummiut. What do we do? ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔩᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ, ᓄᓇᓄᑦᒥ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᖓ ᐊᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓅᓱᒃᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᑭᒡᒐᑐᖅᑕᐅᕗᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏ Representatives from Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., a hamlet health committee, the Nunavut Research Institute and the Dept. of Health and Social Services, youth and community members are currently represented on the Qaujigiartiit Board of Directors. ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ - ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ ᐱᖓᓱᓂ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᖅ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᒻᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖓᑎᒍᑦ; ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᑦᑎᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓗᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᓕᕋᐃᑉᐸᑕ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᖏᓐᓄᑦ; ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑎᕆᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ REB ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ – ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᒍᑦ ᑎᑭᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑏᑦ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᑎᑦᑎᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔾᔪᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᒃ, ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓐᓂᒃ- ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ ᐱᖓᓱᓂ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ. ᑲᑎᒪᓃᑦ/ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓃᑦ – ᐃᓕᓐᐊᓂᕐᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ; ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ; ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ; ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓲᓂᒃ; ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᕚᓪᓕᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓄᑦ. ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ – ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᕙᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓪᓗᑕ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᓗᒃᑖᒥ. ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᒥᔪᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᑦᑎᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓅᓱᒃᑐᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᖏᑎᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ; ᐃᒻᒥᓃᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ; ᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᒥᒃ; ᓂᖀᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓯᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ; ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ; ᖃᓄᐃᖏᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᓗᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᑎᒥᒥᒃ; ᕿᑐᓐᖏᐅᕐᓂᖅ; ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᓱᓕ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. organizational
Current Projects 2010Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre

Overview of 2010 …

ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ English QAUJIGIARTIIT ARCTIC HEALTH RESEARCH NETWORK - NUNAVUT 2007-08 FINAL REPORT PREPARED BY: Gwen K. Healey, M.Sc. Executive Director PO Bo x 11 3 7 2 • t e l eph o n e : 8 6 7 9 7 5 5 9 3 3 • a h r n . nun a vut @ g m a i l . c o m • w w w. a r c ti c h e a lt h . c a Table of Contents Introduction 1 Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network - Nunavut 1 Funding 2 Board of Directors 2 Vision for 2007-08 2 Ethics 4 Basic principles in health research ethics 4 Goals of the AHRN Tri-territorial Ethics Project 5 Common Themes Across the Territories 6 Licensing 6 Principles of Respect 8 Meaningful Engagement 8 Appropriate research methods 10 Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP) of data 11 Sharing knowledge and communicating results 13 Forming a Tri-territorial Ethics Advisory Committee 13 Reviewing community, territorial and national guidelines and literature for ethical conduct of health research 13 Developing a health research ethics checklist for community proposal reviewers 14 Nunavut Ethics Workshop 15 Research, Respect and Building Capacity: Negotiating relationships and working together 16 Information about research processes 17 Recommendations for ethical review 17 CBPR Training 18 Documentation of Processes 18 Nature of Informed Consent 18 Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 i Community Consultation 18 Research Agreements 19 Knowledge Sharing 20 What is knowledge sharing? 20 Literature review 20 Methods 20 Findings 20 The Need for Clearer Terminology 21 The Importance of Frameworks 21 Knowledge Mapping as a Conceptual Model for Knowledge Sharing 21 Knowledge Sharing and Inuit Community Members 21 Knowledge Sharing and Decision-Makers 22 Knowledge Sharing and Clinicians 22 Knowledge Sharing and Researchers 22 Gaps in the Literature 22 Community visits and sharing knowledge within Qaujigiartiit 23 Community Visits 23 Knowledge Sharing in Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU 23 Presentations 23 Newsletter 24 Website – www.nunavut.arctichealth.ca 24 Teaching Resources 24 Community-driven Research Projects 25 The goals of community-driven research projects 25 Cambridge Bay youth exploring identity and suicide prevention through participatory video 25 Conclusion 26 Ethics 26 Knowledge Sharing 26 Next Year 26 References 27 Literature Consulted for this Report 29 Appendix A – AHRN Tri-territorial Ethics Advisory Committee 33 Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 ii Appendix B – Terms of Reference for AHRN Ethics Advisory Committee 34 Appendix C - Inuit and community perspectives on ethics in Nunavut 36 Appendix D – Community proposal reviewer checklist (Draft) 38 Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 iii Introduction Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network - Nunavut The Arctic Health Research Network is the first Canadian tri-territorial health research network linking north�ern regions. The network includes health research centers based in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. To work towards its mandate to improve health outcomes through research, this network is and must be a community driven, northern lead, health and wellness research network that facilitates the identi- fication of health research priorities in the three territories. The vision for the network includes participation in health research that values both traditional knowledge and western sciences and to address health concerns, create healthy environments, and improve the health of persons in the three terri�tories. It ensures best practices in health research through participation in health research activities, sharing of findings, training of health researchers, and knowl�edge translation to ensure transfer of findings to policy, practice and community programming. The goal of Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU is to enable health research to be conducted locally, by northerners, and with communities in a supportive, safe, culturally-sensitive and ethical environment, as well as promote the inclusion of both traditional knowledge and western sciences in addressing health concerns, creating healthy environments, and improving the health of Nunavummiut. The Arctic Health Research Network in each territory works with communities to develop health research priorities to share with researchers coming North, as well as works with Northern training programs to facili�tate northerner participation in the development, design and delivery of health research projects that can be run in communities by community members. Representatives from Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Nunavut Association of Municipalities, the Nunavut Re�search Institute and the Dept. of Health and Social Services, youth and community members are currently involved in the initiative and are members of the Board of Directors. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 1 Funding For the initiatives described in this report, the Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network received funding from • the Tri-Territorial Health Access Fund • the Canadian Institutes for Health Research Team Grant (University of Toronto) • the Isaksimagit Inuusirmi Katujjiqatigit Embrace Life Council We are grateful for the financial support contributed by these organizations, without which the Arctic Health Research Network would not be able to operate. Board of Directors The Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network - Nunavut is guided by a board of directors comprised of the following 6 members: • Nunavut Association of Municipalities, represented by Lynda Gunn • Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, represented by Virginia Qulaut Lloyd and Laakuluk William�son • Nunavut Dept. of Heath and Social Services, represented by Andrew Tagak Sr. • Nunavut Research Institute, represented by Carrie Spavor and Jennifer Wilman • Sarah Jancke, Youth Representative • Jodi Durdle, Community Member Representative The board of directors met 3 times in 2007-08 in Iqaluit, including an AGM in June 2007. The board of di�rectors has been very involved in the work of Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU and it is a pleasure to work together on community health and health research initiatives. Vision for 2007-08 The vision for the Nunavut network site was to build our connections with community members; provide opportunities for training in health research-related fields; create an environment of open learning and shar�ing in terms of community health and research knowledge; conduct a review of community ethical guide�lines for health research and collect community input on health research ethics protocols; examine health information communication and knowledge synthesis and translation in the North; and support community�driven research projects. The activities we undertook in order to address may of these goals included: • Delivering workshops • health research ethics (Rankin Inlet, NU, November 2007) • Proposal writing (Cambridge Bay, NU, February 2008) • Holding a community consultation with participants from across Nunavut Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 2 • Rankin Inlet, NU (November 2007) • Giving presentations to partners and at conferences • Pauktuutit Inuit Women’s Association meeting: Sexual Health is Everyone’s Responsibility (Inuvik, NT) • Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Ottawa, ON) • National Inuit Committee on Health (Iqaluit, NU) • Ajunnginiq Centre of National Aboriginal Health Organization (Ottawa, ON) • Nunavut Association of Municipalities Annual General Meeting (Iqaluit, NU) • Department of Health and Social Services (Iqaluit, NU and Cambridge Bay, NU) • Arctic Health Research Network – NWT Board Retreat (Shingle Point, NT) • Arctic Health Research Network – Yukon Health Promotion and Planning School (White�horse, YK) • Developing a quarterly newsletter • Making improvements to our website • Conducting community visits • Cambridge Bay, NU (July, 2007 and February 2008) • Rankin Inlet, NU (July 2007 and November 2008) • Holding a Public Health Education Day • Rankin Inlet, NU (November 2008) This report outlines the achievements made in these areas during the past year at Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network - Nunavut Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 3 Ethics There exists a need throughout the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut to increase capacity to address issues of health research ethics, and in each territory the needs are diverse. This desire to participate in health research underscores the need for community members to better under�stand and share their perspectives on health research ethics, and particularly CIHR’s guidelines for the ethi�cal conduct of health research in the North. It also highlights the need for the three territories to collaborate to address issues of capacity in ethical review of health research projects conducted in the North. This final report outlines the year 1 activities conducted as part of a 3-year tri-territorial grant from the Tri�Territorial Health Access Fund (THAF). It is our hope that the ideas discussed in this paper can be reviewed, discussed and individualized by com�munities, organizations and government so that we may work collaboratively to improve and support ethical review in the North. Basic principles in health research ethics The basic principles of ethical health research generally include autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice as touchstone principles for conducting ethical review of health research proposals (1). Respect for autonomy is based on one’s right to self-determination, which is generally implemented through ‘informed consent’. Participants are seen as free-thinking individuals who must be informed about the pur�pose of the research, the possible harms and benefits associated with participating, processes to protect con- fidentiality and privacy, how the data will be used, participant rights and responsibilities, and withdrawal procedures should participants ever wish to withdraw. Once potential participants fully understand the scope and purpose of the research, they are considered enabled to make an “informed” decision about whether to participate. Non maleficence (the principle of doing no harm) and beneficence (the obligation to do good) are opera�tionalized through processes of “minimizing harm” and “maximizing good” in research. Research proce�dures that knowingly harm individual participants are always unacceptable. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 4 Finally, the principle of justice means that all members of society should assume their fair share of both benefits and burdens of health research. It is unacceptable to coercively target vulnerable groups (e.g. chil�dren) or, without good reason, to ban a whole group (e.g. women) from studies that might benefit them. These principles maintain that morally acceptable ends and means should guide all research methodologies and processes. Ethical dilemmas are a continuing problem in health research. Particularly, a focus on “individual ethics” has left some communities vulnerable to risks, for example, research conducted to advance academic careers at the expense of communities; wasting resources by selecting community-inappropriate methodologies; com�munities feeling over-researched, coerced or misled; researchers stigmatizing communities by releasing sen�sitive data without prior consultation; and communities feeling further marginalized by research (1). Finally, a particularly damaging effect of traditional research is that researchers often do not give back to communi�ties. Most blatantly, findings are not shared with community members, and more commonly, researchers have done little to build capacity within communities. The Arctic Health Research Network is playing a larger role in building community capacity for meaningful engagement with researchers coming to northern communities in an effort to change the power imbalance inherent in northern health research of the past. In addition, as is described in the following section, AHRN can play a role in the development, application and promotion of ethical guidelines for best practices in northern health research. It is our hope that the work conducted for this paper will provide the foundation upon which we continue to build ethics capacity in the North. Goals of the AHRN Tri-territorial Ethics Project Arctic Health Research Network (AHRN) in each territory has a mandate to serve as a resource centre for health research activities and to seek opportunities for educational partnerships in health research with a focus on Inuit, First Nations and other northerners’ health issues. As an organization designed to assist in the creation of community driven, northern lead, health and well�ness research units, AHRN has a role to play in the development, application and promotion of ethical guidelines for best practices in northern health research. The AHRN in each Territory is managed by a Board that is independent from the Boards in the other 2 territo�ries, facilitating responsiveness to Territory-specific issues and priorities, including ethics. Communications are maintained between the three sites through regular communications between staff and an annual face to face meeting of Board Chairpersons and Executive Directors, contributing to the development of pan�Territorial outcomes such as this report. To address these mandates, literature reviews, community consultations and educational workshops are an imperative part of the process of gathering information on community needs and involving community members in issues of health research. The goals of this project were to (See Appendix A): Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 5 1. Develop a tri-territorial strategy for ethical review of health research involving Indigenous peo�ples • created a tri-territorial Advisory Committee to guide Arctic Health Research Network’s ethics-related projects 2. Conduct a survey of existing ethical guidelines and literature that are relevant to northern popu�lations. 3. Evaluate community capacity to provide input on ethical review of health research projects by • generating discussion among community members and organizations about health re�search ethics and how to work together to address our capacity needs • conducting consultations on health research ethics and Inuit/community perspectives on what it means to be ethical in research 4. To develop a draft of a Health Research Ethics Checklist for community proposal reviewers. 5. To consult communities about health research priorities in each region. Common Themes Across the Territories Licensing Yukon From a Yukon Territorial government perspective, licensing of scientific research in the Yukon is legislated through the Yukon Scientists and Explorers Act, and is administered through the Heritage Branch of the Terri�torial Government’s Department of Tourism and Culture (2). There is no specific reference to health research in this Act. The Act includes conditions applicable to all li�censes, requirements to comply with the license, handling of specimens, reference to regulations which may be developed, and the penalty for violating the provisions of the Act, which includes the possibility of a fine of $1000 or imprisonment of six months, or both fine and imprisonment. The application for this research license includes the following elements for the description of the project: • Title of project • Confirmation of consultation with Yukon First Nation(s) in whose traditional territory the re�search will be conducted. Include individual(s) contacted and date of contact. Attach any letters of approval or support to the application. • Location(s) of area(s) of study (include N.T.S. map references) • Schedule and dates of field work. • Purpose and objectives of research project • Proposed research plan and methodology • Significance of proposed project • Relation of project to previous work or other work in progress. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 6 • Expected completion date (i.e. date of final report) In all cases, applications to conduct research on specific traditional Yukon First Nation lands are reviewed and approved or not by the appropriate First Nation Government or Governments. In addition, the Whitehorse General Hospital (WGH) has an Ethics Committee for clinical research activities conducted at WGH. Their Vision is “To become the leader in healthcare ethics in the Yukon”, and their Mis�sion “recognizes and responds to issues which create ethical and moral dilemmas and promotes discussion of these through multi-disciplinary partnerships; and promotes an ethical work environment, which inte�grates ethical principles and values“ (3). The Terms of Reference, Principles, Values, and Research Protocol are available upon request. Northwest Territories and Nunavut The NWT and Nunavut share the same Scientists Act. The processes for licensing a research project are out�lined in the Scientists Act in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. In addition, in the NWT there is a hospital-based ethics committee and a college-based ethics committee specifically for the nursing program. For licensing, researchers are required to fill out a license application and submit their proposal with a 1 page summary in the appropriate local language where they will be working to the territorial research insti�tute. The intent at this point is to afford local stakeholders and community and territorial representatives with an opportunity to review and evaluate the proposed research study. After a defined period of time, feedback is collected and sent to the researcher at which point they are asked to make suggested changes to their plans or are granted a license by the Science Advisor to cabinet (typically, the Executive Director of the local research institute). In all regions of the North, power relationships between Indigenous communities and scientists are played out in various contexts, from environmental management, to land claims, to health research. Gearhard & Shirley (2007) argue that the research licensing consultation process under the Scientists Act in Nunavut has emerged as an important forum for negotiating power relationships between communities, scientists, and regulatory agencies in Nunavut (4). However, the authors highlight, communities and researchers alike are often unclear about what it entails, and in particular, about the role community agencies play in the license application review and approval process. Local reviewer feedback helps to inform the Science Advisor about community concerns and potential risks/benefits of each proposed project, but the final decision to approve or reject a license application or set the terms and conditions included in the license ultimately rests with the Science Advisor alone. The Scientists Act suggests that research license applications may only be denied when the Science Advisor determines that the research will result in negative social or environmental impacts. The failure of a project to provide some desired socioeconomic benefits is not sufficient grounds for withholding a license, accord�ing to the current interpretation of the Act. Licenses may only be withheld when the Science Advisor decides there is documented, legally defensible evidence that the proposed project would have negative effects on the well-being of people or the environment. However, the Act does not make it clear how local concerns Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 7 are to be written/worded or proven in order to satisfy the Science Advisor that a license should not be issued. The Research Institutes makes every effort to facilitate communication between researchers and communities aimed at resolving disputes and reaching a mutually acceptable compromise over proposed research. Clarifying research policies is one step to improving relations between scientists and communities. In addi�tion, steps need to be taken at both policy and project levels to train researchers, educate funding programs, mobilize institutions, and empower communities, thereby strengthening the capacity of all stakeholders in northern research (4). Principles of Respect In terms of ethical health research in the North, it is important that it: • Be based on trust, traditional values, respect, honor, honesty, • Take a holistic approach to health, where the whole person is considered in the maintenance of wellness and treatment; • Be connected to the mental, physical, spiritual, emotional and social aspects of health and well being of individuals and communities; • Consider factors such as the impacts of housing, economy, education and culture, food insecu�rity; • Take a broader inter-relationship approach to treating a person or maintain health and of the whole family, community • Be respectful that Knowledge is historically passed down by generations through stories, songs and traditional practices. Meaningful Engagement From a Yukon First Nations’ perspective, ethics and meaningful engagement in activities related to their health and well-being are inherently linked to the settlement of specific land claims: Land Claims are commonly thought to have started in 1973 with the presentation of Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in Ot�tawa by Elijah Smith and a delegation of the Yukon Chiefs. However, Yukon claims had been put forward as early as 1901 and 1902 when Chief Jim Boss of the present�day Ta'an Kwach'an and surrounding area, wrote letters to the Superintendent Gen�eral of Indian Affairs in Ottawa and to the Commissioner of the Yukon. Jim Boss clearly outlined the concerns being felt by many of his people in terms of the aliena�tion of lands and resources in their traditional areas and their need to have a say in Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 8 their own affairs and governance. So it is clear that prior to 1973 Yukon First Nations have had long outstanding claims dating back to the time when some of the early effects of the Klondike Gold Rush and development in the Yukon were first being experienced by Yukon First Nations people. - Council of Yukon First Nations (5) In recent years First Nations in Canada have been engaged in developing their own research protocols, in�cluding in the Yukon. The Yukon First Nations (YFN) Heritage Group has developed a backgrounder to help First Nations communities (both self governing and non-claim settled) develop their own unique traditional knowledge polices, particularly as they relate to traditional ecological knowledge. The major points of the traditional knowledge policy framework are to be a guiding tool to assist First Nations in developing their own policies. For this reason, traditional knowledge and intellectual property rights in relation to research in the Yukon are controlled by each First Nation Government, in their development and implementation of pro�tocols. In Nunavut, participants in community consultations held over the years have indicated very strongly that Nunavut communities continue to be ‘researched’ without appropriate consultation. They also indicated that it is in the researchers’ best interests to consult, as they will obtain more complete and accurate pictures of the phenomenon being studied. In terms of how consultation plays a role in ethics, (6) propose that there are ethical goals in mind when a community is consulted: • Enhanced Protection (of the community): Consultation may be a particularly effective way for investigators to work with community members to identify individuals or subgroups with par�ticular needs or vulnerabilities that individuals outside the community may not recognize. • Enhanced Benefits (for both): Communities should be involved in identifying research questions and planning studies in order to conduct studies that benefit the particular communities in�volved. Enhancing the benefits to ensure that research is mutually beneficial, for example – the community can advocate for additional services or training as part of engaging with the re�searchers. • Legitimacy (of the research): By working in partnership, a forum will emerge in which commu�nity advisory members may discuss their views and concerns openly with researchers. • Shared responsibility (community-researcher): Community advisory committees can be in�volved in recruitment, endorsement, dissemination and raising awareness. Sharing of responsi�bility does not constitute the shifting of blame or removal of responsibility from investigators, sponsors or institutional review boards. The degree to which responsibility can be shared is lim�ited by the degree to which investigators and sponsors are sensitive to and accommodate those concerns. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 9 Appropriate research methods Health research methods are many and varied. Epidemiological methods, statistical research, qualitative and quantitative methods, and community-based participatory research. Each methodology helps answer specific questions. Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) are two research paradigms that have come about as a way to address the ethical concerns of communities that have experienced “helicopter” research in the past. In the past, researchers frequently had exclusive control of the research process and use of the results. Participatory research attempts to break down the distinction be�tween researcher and subjects and to build collaboration between the parties (7). Participatory research usu�ally defines a research inquiry which involves: 1) some form of collaboration between the researchers and the researched; 2) a reciprocal process in which both parties educate one another; and 3) a focus on the production of local knowledge to improve interventions or professional practices. Community-based participatory research is a collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community and has the aim of combining knowledge with action and achieving social change to improve health outcomes and eliminate health disparities (Kellogg Foundation Community Health Scholars Program, 1). The process of community-based identification of issues of impor�tance for research can be time consuming and labor intensive. In the North, the distances between commu�nities and the many pressing issues facing communities pose challenges to this essential first step of CBPR. Although sensitivity to vulnerable participants is integral in CBPR, a different set of ethical issues may emerge that require consideration (Flicker), such as: • Community conflict: It is often difficult to find appropriate “community representatives” who will advocate on behalf of general community concerns. Sometimes it may be important to ob�tain consent at a community level from respected or elected leaders. This may cause conflict when community leaders and members disagree on the importance of a research issue. • Compensation: Given the time and effort expended by community members on CBPR teams, there may be an ethical imperative to ensure that adequate compensation exists for all team members. Unfortunately, little or no incentives are provided to either the individual respondent or community representatives (e.g. the host organization or health centre) to acknowledge the time contributed to a project. This further disempowers individuals and communities by sug�gesting their time, energy, and resources may be of little worth, and they should participate simply because they have been invited. • Sensitive Information: Ethical issues may arise in regards to releasing or disseminating sensitive or unflattering data. Academic partners may feel the need to publish and stay true to the “ob�jective” nature of the data. Community members may fear that unflattering data may stigmatize their communities. Consequently, they may request that researchers consider the potential re�percussions to the community if the data are released prematurely or in an insensitive manner. These issues can potentially be addressed through a community research agreement, as discussed in Section 5 of this report. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 10 While community-based research methods are promoted for research where the community is involved, re�search ethics boards do not take into consideration important aspects of this methodology when assessing proposed projects. In a review of forms and guidelines from American and Canadian research ethics boards at institutions with a public health program, Flicker, et al., (2007) found that a great proportion of the guide�lines did not include evaluation of important components of a community-based participatory research pro�ject. For example, none (n = 30) queried community involvement in defining the research problem, asked about hiring practices, or examined what community capacity building opportunities there might be throughout the research process. Only one institution asked how unflattering data might be handled, but this had more to do with adverse events in medical research than the potentially stigmatizing results of socio�behavioural research. Only 5 institutions asked about plans for disseminating the results, and of those, none asked about procedures for terminating a study or vetoing publication based on community concerns. This is very important consideration for community-based research in the territories, as the licensing process in each territory is completely dependent upon ethical review conducted at the researcher’s academic institu�tion. Finally, while community-based research methods have emerged as an important way to address ethical concerns of communities, they are not always an appropriate method. Other research methods are equally important when they are addressing community-led research questions or when communities are provided with an option to proceed with a community-based research approach or not, as articulated in the CIHR Guidelines (9). Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP) of data The principles of OCAP (Ownership, Control, Access and Possession) are important to the ethical conduct of research involving northerners and northern Indigenous peoples. These principles have been advanced through the Assembly of First Nations (8), the National Aboriginal Health Organization and others. The OCAP principles were adopted by the Council of Yukon First Nations Chiefs Leadership resolution (LDR Resolution NO782./06) passed in October 2006 which stated the following: Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 11 Andrew Qappik, Uqqurmiut Centre Panniqtuuq, Nunavut Weaving, Uqqurmiut Centre Panniqtuuq, Nunavut Andrew Qappik, Uqqurmiut Centre Panniqtuuq, Nunavut • OCAP protects communities from researchers coming in and leaving with data without sharing the information; • OCAP protects the First Nations from conclusions that are reached without consideration on all the context or input from First Nations; • OCAP enables First Nations partners and experts; • In the past, researchers have treated First Nations as only a source of data; • Research has been damaging in the past in instances where genetic material was used, sensitive information was published and confidential cultural information was shared inappropriately; • OCAP will enhance Yukon First Nations control and capacity and lead to more useful and reli�able information that will benefit Yukon First Nation communities, enable more informed deci�sions and create better results; • OCAP also enhances self-determination. It is within the context of these principles that ethical research protocols have already been developed by some First Nations governments in Yukon, and that will guide the development and implementation of these agreements now and in the future. Additionally, these protocols can include requirements for additional information and conditions. The re�searchers must: • Address issues that are common to all Indigenous peoples such as ownership, consent, control, access and protection of information and samples • Outline how the project will directly benefit the community • Have a detailed communications strategy • Identify what infrastructure will be required • Identify who will own the data and where it will be stored • Identify if there will there be capacity building/training involved • Identify if there will be economic benefits for the community • Identify if there will there be samples of species taken, what will be done with them • Follow Traditional Knowledge protocols for Indigenous peoples • Include a list of partners and agencies involved • Identify what the final product will be, and that it will be in a format useful to the community • Includes knowledge of the people in the Traditional Territory/region/land area in a respected way. Many of these conditions can be outlined in a community-researcher research agreement. For a community�based participatory research project in Kahnawahke, Macaulay, A.C., et al, (7) developed a 7-page ‘code of ethics’ document, or research agreement, that included a policy statement; principles of participatory re�search; the different between community-based and academic researchers; the obligations of researchers and the community; data ownership; the process of incorporating new investigators; and the procedure for joint dissemination of results including dissension if necessary. Inevitably, the nature of relationships and questions of ownership are complex factors that must be negotiated in each setting as need arises. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 12 Sharing knowledge and communicating results Results should be returned to the community in a format that is useful and understandable, such as through community radio, through community presentations, posters and informative pamphlets if appropriate, hold�ing open forums and presentations in the community and/or visiting and speaking in schools, etc. Sometimes researchers have published without consulting the community, resulting in negative conse�quences from publications where communities had no opportunity to correct misinformation or to challenge interpretations. Macaulay, et al. (7), included a statement in their community-researcher code of ethics that read: “No partner can veto a communication. In the case of disagreement, the partner who disagrees must be invited to communicate their own interpretation of the data as an addition to the main communication, be it oral or written. All partners agree to withhold information if the alternative interpretation cannot be added and distrib�uted at the same time, providing the disagreeing partners do not unduly delay the distribution process.“ Macaulay A., et al, (7) This type of agreement may be a way forward in dealing with such issues and encouraging the sharing of information, provided all parties agree to it. Forming a Tri-territorial Ethics Advisory Committee The projects outlined in this report were guided by a tri-territorial advisory committee that was formed by the Arctic Health Research Network. The Committee has 8 representatives: 2 from each territory and 2 national representatives who have worked in the field of health research ethics in Canada’s North. The committee discussed issues related to • health research ethics review in the North; • community-research agreements; • were invited to review the health research ethics checklist for community proposal reviewers; • shared literature, perspectives, experiences and expertise pertinent to health research ethics review in the North This committee met primarily by teleconference and email, with plans for a face-to-face meeting for the fol�lowing fiscal year. A list of the members of this committee and the Terms of Reference are provided in Appendix A and B. Reviewing community, territorial and national guidelines and literature for ethical conduct of health research Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 13 A number of guidelines, articles, and reports were gathered from communities, territorial and national or�ganizations and other sources to assess what resources are available for communities. A list of the literature consulted for this report is listed with the reference section of this document. Developing a health research ethics checklist for community proposal re�viewers The development of this tool was undertaken at the request of several community-based health research eth�ics proposal reviewers in Nunavut. The checklist is meant to be a guide in assisting community proposal re�viewers to assess the ethical content of any health research project that is proposed to take place in their community. The checklist includes important questions about: • community consultation and engagement in the research project • assessing risks and benefits to the community/individual • community research agreements • sharing knowledge gained (dissemination) at the end of the project • research methods • confidentiality • conflicts of interest • advertisements and recruitment • participant withdrawal • financial or other compensation • consent forms • scientific review • other comments The checklist can also be helpful to those engaging in research review at the territorial level. The checklist has been reviewed by stakeholders in Nunavut; the AHRN Ethics Advisory Committee; the Inuit Health Re�search and Planning Winter Institute students (CIET Canada); and others. A draft of this checklist is provided in Appendix D. Reviewing community-researcher research agreements in the territories It has become a common practice for researchers to engage a community in a research project through a community-researcher research agreement. These contracts outline the responsibilities of the community member(s) involved and the researcher for the duration of the study period. They are signed by both a com�munity member and by the researcher. A template for a research agreement is available as an appendix in the CIHR Guidelines for the Conduct of Research with Aboriginal Peoples (9), developed by the Centre for Inuit Health and the Environment (CINE) at McGill University. Some communities have developed their own agreements/contracts for researchers, or researchers have developed innovative ‘codes of ethics’ in partnership with a community (7). Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 14 This topic is discussed further, below, in the section titled “Exploring Regional Capacity in the NWT”, how�ever, it requires further exploration across the territories to investigate such issues as local power dynamics; who speaks for the community when negotiating such agreements; how research agreements can be devel�oped; and others. Gathering Inuit and community perspectives on ethics As described in an earlier section, the licensing process in Nunavut is the singular process or reviewing and providing feedback on health research projects, unless the researcher conducts consultations with the com�munity in advance. The license is reviewed by Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Research Committee of the Dept. of Health and Social Services, the municipal council of the community involved, and other stakeholders as the topic requires. One of the concerns related to this process is that very often community members or the local municipal council either do not have adequate resources to evaluate the license or the time to do so given other obligations. In addition, due to the high turnover of staff in Nunavut, there are not always enough human resources at the various government and territorial organizations to ensure timely and thor�ough review of licensing applications. Nunavut Ethics Workshop Before the release of the CIHR Guidelines for the Conduct of Health Research with Aboriginal Peoples (9), the document underwent widespread consultation across Canada. Agencies in every Canadian province and territory were consulted about the document – except for Nunavut. In order to engage in a dialogue on ethi�cal health research practices on more even footing, it was imperative that community members be invited to have their say on ethical conduct of health research in Nunavut. Evaluating capacity in Nunavut begins with discussions on what it means to be ethical from an Inuit and community perspective. For this reason, Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-Nunavut has conducted two consultations on health research ethics: 1) in Iqaluit, NU in 2006 on the CIHR Guidelines for the Conduct of Health Research with Aboriginal Peoples and 2) in Rankin Inlet, NU in 2007 to continue the dialogue on Inuit and community perspectives on health research ethics (14-16). Information from this meeting in provided in Appendix C. The perspectives shared at these meetings primarily related to community values and respecting their role in ethics evaluation. Participants felt that it was unethical for researchers to not make efforts to build trusting relationships with community members and/or to reduce the power differential between researchers and community members through training, dialogue and other means. Participants at our workshop highlighted several important themes in community-based research they felt were not only methodological considerations that they would like to see enhanced, but ethical considera�tions from the perspective of the community: • Respect for the community • Trust and building relationships • Use of appropriate research methods • Equality, equity and power • Ownership of data (including samples) Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 15 • Sharing of knowledge gained from research • Information about research processes These feelings underscore a comment made by Martha Flaherty (past President, Pauktuutit Inuit Women’s Association) at a workshop in Inuvik in 1995 held to bring researchers, organizations and community repre�sentatives together to discuss issues of health research ethics: “Real participatory research must include Inuit control over the identification of ar�eas and issues where research is needed and the design and delivery of the method�ology. Inuit would participate in the collection and analysis of data and have equal control over the dissemination of the information and research findings. In my view, anything less is not participatory and it is unfair to call it such.” - Martha Flaherty, 1995 (10) During discussions, ‘Inuit ethics’ were discussed by our participants and it is important to note that partici�pants requested more dialogue with elders in future discussions about ethics in Nunavut, which Qaujigiartiit/ AHRN-NU will make every effort to support. Research, Respect and Building Capacity: Negotiating relationships and working together Participants in the Nunavut workshops highlighted the importance of respect and partnership between re�searchers and communities in northern research. They felt that spending time to develop relationships re�lieves stress for both researchers and community and creates a pleasant environment in which to work. Participants made suggestions they felt would help facilitate a participatory process: • consulting community members, especially elders, in addition to community leaders • researching a topic of importance to the community • including community members in the conduct of the research by hiring local knowledge hold�ers or training local research assistants • providing local training opportunities when appropriate They also highlighted that communities need to be more aware of their rights to make requests of researchers and negotiate the terms of the research being conducted in their community. Participants noted that by work�ing in partnership, researchers and community members can get to know each other, share worldviews and exchange knowledge in a meaningful and respectful way. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 16 Improving participatory relationships has also been discussed quite extensively in the literature (1-7, 9-13)). Kaufert et al, (10) describe discussions at a meeting in Inuvik in 1995 where the members of the research community and members of the Canadian Indigenous community met to discuss health research ethics and communities. At this meeting, all parties agreed to focus on the importance of developing a more participa�tory process and that both sides would work together to: • define research problems and obtain funding • train and involve community members in data collection • ensure the participation of community members and organizations in the analysis and interpre�tation of research findings • develop joint control over the dissemination of results Since that time, some progress has been made, particularly with the publication of the CIHR Guidelines for the Conduct of Health Research With Aboriginal Peoples (9), which are quickly becoming the gold standard guiding document. In addition, the Nunavut Research Institute and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami have recently re�vised and published a document entitled Negotiating Research Relationships with Inuit Communities: A Guide for Researchers (17). This progress is exciting and encouraging, and we hope to foster its continuation. Information about research processes Participants in the Nunavut workshops indicated that community members need more information about the research process in Nunavut, including how projects are licensed; who in the communities and territory are consulted during the development of the research project and during licensing; and how to increase com�munity involvement in the research process from start to finish. In order to continue to build capacity for ethical review in Nunavut, communities need to be well informed of their rights, their opportunities to have input on projects proposed to take place in their communities, and key ethical considerations for the conduct of research in their communities. While there has been some dis�cussion within AHRN’s consultations of the development of a northern-based ethical review board, it has become clear that while there is tremendous ability to provide ethical review, there is a dearth of capacity (in the form of community health committees, staff and staff time, small populations, previous engagement with research projects) to support such a board from Nunavut at this time. It is hoped, however, that this will improve over time with increased opportunities to build northern capacity for ethical review, including those provided by Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network - Nunavut. Recommendations for ethical review The responsibility for ethical review in health research is usually assigned to university-based human sub�jects committees. As noted earlier, this is particularly the case in the North, as an ethical review is not con�ducted in any of the three territories – the licensing process, described earlier, is completely dependent upon university-based ethical review boards. The university-based committees usually do not have first-hand knowledge of local conditions, local needs or priorities, which can reduce the effectiveness of their review in a northern context. It has been noted in the literature (1,10) that central scientific and ethical review proc�esses have limited capacity to assess potential local relevance of the research product. It has been proposed Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 17 that the central criteria for assessing the distribution of risks and benefits should be “whose interest does the research serve” (10. A concern in relation to reliance on non-northern-based ethical review committees (REBs) was their lack of local knowledge base, which limited their capacity to judge whether the process used to obtain community consent and participation was meaningful in local terms (10). Given the information gathered from the literature, and experiences gathered from consultations within the Arctic Health Research Network in the 3 territories, recommendations for the content of ethical review in�clude: • Community-based Participatory Research Training • Documentation of Processes • Nature of Informed Consent • Community Consultation • Research Agreements There is currently no ethical review process based in the three territories, therefore these recommendations are for institutions involved in ethical review of research in the North, and to be considered when a research ethics review board is developed in the North. CBPR Training Research Ethics Boards engaged in reviewing Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR), and other community-based research proposals, should be provided with basic training in the principles of CBPR (1). Documentation of Processes Research Ethics Boards should require CBPR projects to document the process by which key decisions re�garding research design were made and how communities most affected were consulted (1). Nature of Informed Consent Research Ethics Boards should consider the nature of the community involved in the research project and whether the method of consent (language, written vs. oral, etc.) is appropriate. It has been suggested that if participants are to have access to full information, then all objectives and options, including non�participation, “had to be presented in an accessible format; including oral presentation in community fo�rums, videotapes and documentation printed in Aboriginal languages” (10). The requirements for valid con�sent agreements usually include: (a) demonstration of subject competence; (b) communication of full infor�mation on risks and benefits; (c) assurance that the subject comprehended the information; (d) guarantees that the individual is able to act independently (Freeman, 1994, cited in Flicker, 2007). Consent agreements may need to use alternative media formats including video clips, community meetings, and community ra�dio. Community Consultation Research Ethics Boards should consider the amount of time that has been spent consulting with the commu�nity, and if the partnerships formed are meaningful, i.e. described in detail in the context of the community and its leadership. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 18 Research Agreements Research Ethics Boards should mandate that CBPR projects seeking ethical review provide signed terms of reference, memoranda of understanding, and/or community research agreements. These should clearly out�line the goals of the project, principles of partnership with the community, decision-making processes, roles and responsibilities of partners, and guidelines for how partnership will handle and disseminate data. (1) Finally, Ruttan’s statement (2004) articulates the findings of the Arctic Health Research Network in that: An ethic based in mutual respect, reciprocal collaborative exchange, and an aware�ness of the personal, political and cultural consequences, particularly in light of past relationships, should guide our actions. - Ruttan, 2004 (11) The discussion of community ethics and ethical review will be on-going and continue within the work of the Arctic Health Research Network. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 19 Knowledge Sharing What is knowledge sharing? Commonly, the concept of knowledge translation has been developed to refer to the creation and implemen�tation of a strategy to translate health research results into applicable findings for those requiring the informa�tion. It has evolved conceptually as a means for bridging the “know-do” gap. In the context of Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU and the work that is conducted by this organization, Knowledge Sharing is defined as the synthesis, translation and communication of health knowledge between vari�ous knowledge holders, such as policy-and decision-makers; researchers; com�munity members; and health care providers. Knowledge is dynamic and does not flow in a line from top to bottom, but fluidly between people and groups. Literature review Methods This literature review includes: • A review of academic literature. The search was conducted by Janice Linton at the Health Sci�ences Library at the University of Manitoba. The initial scan of literature was conducted by Gwen Healey (Exec. Dir. Of Qaujigiartiit) and relevant articles were then requested and shipped to Nunavut for review by Mandie BzDell (Research Assistant at Qaujigiartiit). • A review of grey literature (reports, conference proceedings, etc.) found on Google and on Goo�gle Scholar. • Findings were read and summarized and are shared in this report. Findings Throughout the review, a number of findings relevant to knowledge sharing in Nunavut were highlighted and are presented below. These topics include: • The need for clearer terminology • The importance of frameworks • Knowledge mapping as a conceptual framework fro knowledge sharing • Knowledge sharing and Inuit community members • Knowledge sharing and policy- and decision-makers • Knowledge sharing and health care providers Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 20 • Knowledge sharing and researchers These topics are further elaborated below in bullet-point form. A more in-depth presentation of these find�ings is available in our final report. The Need for Clearer Terminology • Synonyms for knowledge translation include knowledge translation, knowledge utilization, knowledge exchange, research transfer, research utilization • It is important to have clear terms in order to evaluate effectiveness of knowledge translation The Importance of Frameworks • There is no primary knowledge translation theory – there are several different theories. • One unified theory is required in the knowledge translation field in order to develop testable and probably useful interventions. • Logan & Graham’s Ottawa Model of Research Use – was the most favoured in the literature. • All frameworks emphasize involvement of all stakeholders, and multi-directional flow of informa�tion. Knowledge Mapping as a Conceptual Model for Knowledge Sharing Knowledge mapping: • Makes tacit and explicit knowledge concrete. • May increase involvement of key stakeholders. • Can assist in clarifying the flow of information. • Can be used with all types of knowledge translation. Knowledge Sharing and Inuit Community Members • When conducting health research: • Community members involvement from deciding the research design to disseminating results is essential. • Community members have right to own research and negotiate community needs with re�searcher(s). • Community members may choose to establish an independent advisory and ethical review committee . • In the context of health programming & services, the following Inuit-specific topics were dis�cussed in the literature: • Face to face interactions are important for Inuit. • Storytelling is an integral part of Inuit health information dissemination • Elders are the preferred first line for health information in a number of communities and con�texts. • Inuit see themselves as belonging to the larger Inuit community, irregardless of geography. • There is a shortage of interpreters who can translate health information. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 21 Knowledge Sharing and Decision-Makers • For decision-makers to apply research into daily decisions requires: • A clear presentation of the evidence-based message. • A credible source of research. • Electronic, fast, staged access to information delivery of research message. • Ongoing training for decision-makers on how to use research evidence in daily work is required for effective evidence-based decision-making. • Information about evaluation of knowledge sharing activities is discussed in the literature. Knowledge Sharing and Clinicians • There exists too much research for clinicians to apply in practice. • Knowledge translation is an important tool to close the gap between health evidence and clinical practice. • Most effective strategies at getting clinicians to incorporate health research into practice are ac�tive, multiple, and based on accurate assessment of clinician needs. Knowledge Sharing and Researchers • When conducting research with community members in Inuit Regions: • Follow guidelines offered by CIHR “CIHR Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aborigi�nal Peoples” and by ITK & NRI “Negotiating Research Relationships with Inuit Communities: A Guide for Researchers” • Understand local processes of knowledge creation, dissemination, and utilization. • Use of community-based participatory research to make work responsive to the concerns of communities members. • Build research capacity within the community. • Use of an evaluator to do a variety of process evaluation through research process. • When conducting research with decision-makers • Understand that knowledge translation must be interactive • Identify and understand the barriers for lack of use of research for decision-makers • Use interactive, non-passive forms of knowledge translation • When conducting research with clinicians, it is helpful to consider: • It takes time to build trusting relationships and networks between researchers clinicians • The need to respect for clinicians priorities and interests • Recognition of clinicians’ knowledge and expertise • The need for multi-directional information exchange and an ongoing forum for sharing in�cluding developing a shared language, culture, and conceptual base • The quality of in-person contact is important Gaps in the Literature Several gaps were identified during the literature review, such as: Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 22 • The need for truly community-driven research • The need for evaluation of knowledge translation activities • More information on the use of social network technology and its influence on knowledge shar�ing • In the literature different users groups of health information are described, however, there is no information on the different literacy levels that are examined in these contexts, if any. Community visits and sharing knowledge within Qaujigiartiit Community Visits For the Knowledge Sharing project, community visits were conducted in Rankin Inlet, NU and Cambridge Bay, NU. During these community visits, knowledge sharing was discussed and presentations and workshops were made to various stakeholder groups. A workshop on proposal-writing was delivered to community members in Cambridge Bay, NU as a part of the discussions on knowledge sharing. This was done at the request of community members, and we were happy to be able to meet their needs. A community visit to discuss sharing health information in Cambridge Bay also resulted in the development of a proposal for a community-driven health research project that was initiated and is being conducted by the local youth committee to explore issues of identity and suicide prevention for youth in the community. In Rankin Inlet, a Public Health Education Day was held and a number of community members attended to learn more about community health and receive a flu shot. At this event, community members spoke openly to the attendees about the need for help addressing the issue of nutrition and food security in, not only this community, but across Nunavut. They highlighted that the extremely high cost of market foods was one of the primary influences of poor nutrition in the community. Knowledge Sharing in Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU Presentations In the interests of sharing knowledge and improving communication between various agencies working in the North, presentations about Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU and the work being conducted by the organization were delivered to: Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 23 • Pauktuutit Inuit Women’s Association meeting: Sexual Health is Everyone’s Responsibility (Inuvik, NT) • Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Ottawa, ON) • National Inuit Committee on Health (Iqaluit, NU) • Ajunnginiq Centre of National Aboriginal Health Organization (Ottawa, ON) • Nunavut Association of Municipalities Annual General Meeting (Iqaluit, NU) • Department of Health and Social Services (Iqaluit, NU and Cambridge Bay, NU) • Arctic Health Research Network – NWT Board Retreat (Shingle Point, NT) • Arctic Health Research Network – Yukon Health Promotion and Planning School (Whitehorse, YK) Newsletter In the last year, Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU began publishing a quarterly e-newsletter in English and Inuktitut to help facilitate the sharing of knowledge about Qaujigiartiit activities with community members and partners. Print copies are provided at conferences, community meetings and consultations. Website – www.nunavut.arctichealth.ca In consultations with both community and national partners, it becme apparent that several stakeholder groups were consulting the AHRN web site for information. In an effort to improve the sharing of informa�tion, Qaujigiartiit has undertaken revisions to the Arctic Health Research Network web site to facilitate the sharing of documents, community priorities for health research, information about scholarships and other important health news. Teaching Resources In addition, resources from Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU community consultations and projects were provided to educators, such as the CIET Inuit Winter Institute in Health Research Planning (Ottawa, ON February 2008) and other researchers who conduct work in Nunavut. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 24 !"#$%&'( (ARCTIC HEALTH RESEARCH NETWORK) kNK5 December 2007, Volume 1, Issue 3 kNo7usb5 scsyc6g5 wo6fyE/s5txExo8i4 mo5bs?5gi4 x7ml cspn3i3u4 vq6Oi3u ZW7u, wcl8i x7ml vq6Oi3u. Wzhi4 s9li4 vtmic6t9lQ5 scsycMs6ymJ5 wo6fyE/s/Exo8i4 mo5bs?5gi4 x7ml kNosJ5 bs5gE/q8i4 ck6 grc3m/ 6t5tMs6g5 gryQxDti4 x7ml scsycc5b6gt5 organizational
Qaujigiartiit Final Report 2007-08Gwen Healey

2007/08 report on the need throughout the Canadian territories to increase capacity to address issues of health research ethics, and in each territory the needs are …

ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ English QAUJIGIARTIIT ARCTIC HEALTH RESEARCH NETWORK - NUNAVUT 2007-08 FINAL REPORT PREPARED BY: Gwen K. Healey, M.Sc. Executive Director PO Bo x 11 3 7 2 • t e l eph o n e : 8 6 7 9 7 5 5 9 3 3 • a h r n . nun a vut @ g m a i l . c o m • w w w. a r c ti c h e a lt h . c a Table of Contents Introduction 1 Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network - Nunavut 1 Funding 2 Board of Directors 2 Vision for 2007-08 2 Ethics 4 Basic principles in health research ethics 4 Goals of the AHRN Tri-territorial Ethics Project 5 Common Themes Across the Territories 6 Licensing 6 Principles of Respect 8 Meaningful Engagement 8 Appropriate research methods 10 Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP) of data 11 Sharing knowledge and communicating results 13 Forming a Tri-territorial Ethics Advisory Committee 13 Reviewing community, territorial and national guidelines and literature for ethical conduct of health research 13 Developing a health research ethics checklist for community proposal reviewers 14 Nunavut Ethics Workshop 15 Research, Respect and Building Capacity: Negotiating relationships and working together 16 Information about research processes 17 Recommendations for ethical review 17 CBPR Training 18 Documentation of Processes 18 Nature of Informed Consent 18 Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 i Community Consultation 18 Research Agreements 19 Knowledge Sharing 20 What is knowledge sharing? 20 Literature review 20 Methods 20 Findings 20 The Need for Clearer Terminology 21 The Importance of Frameworks 21 Knowledge Mapping as a Conceptual Model for Knowledge Sharing 21 Knowledge Sharing and Inuit Community Members 21 Knowledge Sharing and Decision-Makers 22 Knowledge Sharing and Clinicians 22 Knowledge Sharing and Researchers 22 Gaps in the Literature 22 Community visits and sharing knowledge within Qaujigiartiit 23 Community Visits 23 Knowledge Sharing in Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU 23 Presentations 23 Newsletter 24 Website – www.nunavut.arctichealth.ca 24 Teaching Resources 24 Community-driven Research Projects 25 The goals of community-driven research projects 25 Cambridge Bay youth exploring identity and suicide prevention through participatory video 25 Conclusion 26 Ethics 26 Knowledge Sharing 26 Next Year 26 References 27 Literature Consulted for this Report 29 Appendix A – AHRN Tri-territorial Ethics Advisory Committee 33 Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 ii Appendix B – Terms of Reference for AHRN Ethics Advisory Committee 34 Appendix C - Inuit and community perspectives on ethics in Nunavut 36 Appendix D – Community proposal reviewer checklist (Draft) 38 Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 iii Introduction Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network - Nunavut The Arctic Health Research Network is the first Canadian tri-territorial health research network linking north�ern regions. The network includes health research centers based in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. To work towards its mandate to improve health outcomes through research, this network is and must be a community driven, northern lead, health and wellness research network that facilitates the identi- fication of health research priorities in the three territories. The vision for the network includes participation in health research that values both traditional knowledge and western sciences and to address health concerns, create healthy environments, and improve the health of persons in the three terri�tories. It ensures best practices in health research through participation in health research activities, sharing of findings, training of health researchers, and knowl�edge translation to ensure transfer of findings to policy, practice and community programming. The goal of Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU is to enable health research to be conducted locally, by northerners, and with communities in a supportive, safe, culturally-sensitive and ethical environment, as well as promote the inclusion of both traditional knowledge and western sciences in addressing health concerns, creating healthy environments, and improving the health of Nunavummiut. The Arctic Health Research Network in each territory works with communities to develop health research priorities to share with researchers coming North, as well as works with Northern training programs to facili�tate northerner participation in the development, design and delivery of health research projects that can be run in communities by community members. Representatives from Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Nunavut Association of Municipalities, the Nunavut Re�search Institute and the Dept. of Health and Social Services, youth and community members are currently involved in the initiative and are members of the Board of Directors. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 1 Funding For the initiatives described in this report, the Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network received funding from • the Tri-Territorial Health Access Fund • the Canadian Institutes for Health Research Team Grant (University of Toronto) • the Isaksimagit Inuusirmi Katujjiqatigit Embrace Life Council We are grateful for the financial support contributed by these organizations, without which the Arctic Health Research Network would not be able to operate. Board of Directors The Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network - Nunavut is guided by a board of directors comprised of the following 6 members: • Nunavut Association of Municipalities, represented by Lynda Gunn • Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, represented by Virginia Qulaut Lloyd and Laakuluk William�son • Nunavut Dept. of Heath and Social Services, represented by Andrew Tagak Sr. • Nunavut Research Institute, represented by Carrie Spavor and Jennifer Wilman • Sarah Jancke, Youth Representative • Jodi Durdle, Community Member Representative The board of directors met 3 times in 2007-08 in Iqaluit, including an AGM in June 2007. The board of di�rectors has been very involved in the work of Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU and it is a pleasure to work together on community health and health research initiatives. Vision for 2007-08 The vision for the Nunavut network site was to build our connections with community members; provide opportunities for training in health research-related fields; create an environment of open learning and shar�ing in terms of community health and research knowledge; conduct a review of community ethical guide�lines for health research and collect community input on health research ethics protocols; examine health information communication and knowledge synthesis and translation in the North; and support community�driven research projects. The activities we undertook in order to address may of these goals included: • Delivering workshops • health research ethics (Rankin Inlet, NU, November 2007) • Proposal writing (Cambridge Bay, NU, February 2008) • Holding a community consultation with participants from across Nunavut Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 2 • Rankin Inlet, NU (November 2007) • Giving presentations to partners and at conferences • Pauktuutit Inuit Women’s Association meeting: Sexual Health is Everyone’s Responsibility (Inuvik, NT) • Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Ottawa, ON) • National Inuit Committee on Health (Iqaluit, NU) • Ajunnginiq Centre of National Aboriginal Health Organization (Ottawa, ON) • Nunavut Association of Municipalities Annual General Meeting (Iqaluit, NU) • Department of Health and Social Services (Iqaluit, NU and Cambridge Bay, NU) • Arctic Health Research Network – NWT Board Retreat (Shingle Point, NT) • Arctic Health Research Network – Yukon Health Promotion and Planning School (White�horse, YK) • Developing a quarterly newsletter • Making improvements to our website • Conducting community visits • Cambridge Bay, NU (July, 2007 and February 2008) • Rankin Inlet, NU (July 2007 and November 2008) • Holding a Public Health Education Day • Rankin Inlet, NU (November 2008) This report outlines the achievements made in these areas during the past year at Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network - Nunavut Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 3 Ethics There exists a need throughout the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut to increase capacity to address issues of health research ethics, and in each territory the needs are diverse. This desire to participate in health research underscores the need for community members to better under�stand and share their perspectives on health research ethics, and particularly CIHR’s guidelines for the ethi�cal conduct of health research in the North. It also highlights the need for the three territories to collaborate to address issues of capacity in ethical review of health research projects conducted in the North. This final report outlines the year 1 activities conducted as part of a 3-year tri-territorial grant from the Tri�Territorial Health Access Fund (THAF). It is our hope that the ideas discussed in this paper can be reviewed, discussed and individualized by com�munities, organizations and government so that we may work collaboratively to improve and support ethical review in the North. Basic principles in health research ethics The basic principles of ethical health research generally include autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice as touchstone principles for conducting ethical review of health research proposals (1). Respect for autonomy is based on one’s right to self-determination, which is generally implemented through ‘informed consent’. Participants are seen as free-thinking individuals who must be informed about the pur�pose of the research, the possible harms and benefits associated with participating, processes to protect con- fidentiality and privacy, how the data will be used, participant rights and responsibilities, and withdrawal procedures should participants ever wish to withdraw. Once potential participants fully understand the scope and purpose of the research, they are considered enabled to make an “informed” decision about whether to participate. Non maleficence (the principle of doing no harm) and beneficence (the obligation to do good) are opera�tionalized through processes of “minimizing harm” and “maximizing good” in research. Research proce�dures that knowingly harm individual participants are always unacceptable. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 4 Finally, the principle of justice means that all members of society should assume their fair share of both benefits and burdens of health research. It is unacceptable to coercively target vulnerable groups (e.g. chil�dren) or, without good reason, to ban a whole group (e.g. women) from studies that might benefit them. These principles maintain that morally acceptable ends and means should guide all research methodologies and processes. Ethical dilemmas are a continuing problem in health research. Particularly, a focus on “individual ethics” has left some communities vulnerable to risks, for example, research conducted to advance academic careers at the expense of communities; wasting resources by selecting community-inappropriate methodologies; com�munities feeling over-researched, coerced or misled; researchers stigmatizing communities by releasing sen�sitive data without prior consultation; and communities feeling further marginalized by research (1). Finally, a particularly damaging effect of traditional research is that researchers often do not give back to communi�ties. Most blatantly, findings are not shared with community members, and more commonly, researchers have done little to build capacity within communities. The Arctic Health Research Network is playing a larger role in building community capacity for meaningful engagement with researchers coming to northern communities in an effort to change the power imbalance inherent in northern health research of the past. In addition, as is described in the following section, AHRN can play a role in the development, application and promotion of ethical guidelines for best practices in northern health research. It is our hope that the work conducted for this paper will provide the foundation upon which we continue to build ethics capacity in the North. Goals of the AHRN Tri-territorial Ethics Project Arctic Health Research Network (AHRN) in each territory has a mandate to serve as a resource centre for health research activities and to seek opportunities for educational partnerships in health research with a focus on Inuit, First Nations and other northerners’ health issues. As an organization designed to assist in the creation of community driven, northern lead, health and well�ness research units, AHRN has a role to play in the development, application and promotion of ethical guidelines for best practices in northern health research. The AHRN in each Territory is managed by a Board that is independent from the Boards in the other 2 territo�ries, facilitating responsiveness to Territory-specific issues and priorities, including ethics. Communications are maintained between the three sites through regular communications between staff and an annual face to face meeting of Board Chairpersons and Executive Directors, contributing to the development of pan�Territorial outcomes such as this report. To address these mandates, literature reviews, community consultations and educational workshops are an imperative part of the process of gathering information on community needs and involving community members in issues of health research. The goals of this project were to (See Appendix A): Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 5 1. Develop a tri-territorial strategy for ethical review of health research involving Indigenous peo�ples • created a tri-territorial Advisory Committee to guide Arctic Health Research Network’s ethics-related projects 2. Conduct a survey of existing ethical guidelines and literature that are relevant to northern popu�lations. 3. Evaluate community capacity to provide input on ethical review of health research projects by • generating discussion among community members and organizations about health re�search ethics and how to work together to address our capacity needs • conducting consultations on health research ethics and Inuit/community perspectives on what it means to be ethical in research 4. To develop a draft of a Health Research Ethics Checklist for community proposal reviewers. 5. To consult communities about health research priorities in each region. Common Themes Across the Territories Licensing Yukon From a Yukon Territorial government perspective, licensing of scientific research in the Yukon is legislated through the Yukon Scientists and Explorers Act, and is administered through the Heritage Branch of the Terri�torial Government’s Department of Tourism and Culture (2). There is no specific reference to health research in this Act. The Act includes conditions applicable to all li�censes, requirements to comply with the license, handling of specimens, reference to regulations which may be developed, and the penalty for violating the provisions of the Act, which includes the possibility of a fine of $1000 or imprisonment of six months, or both fine and imprisonment. The application for this research license includes the following elements for the description of the project: • Title of project • Confirmation of consultation with Yukon First Nation(s) in whose traditional territory the re�search will be conducted. Include individual(s) contacted and date of contact. Attach any letters of approval or support to the application. • Location(s) of area(s) of study (include N.T.S. map references) • Schedule and dates of field work. • Purpose and objectives of research project • Proposed research plan and methodology • Significance of proposed project • Relation of project to previous work or other work in progress. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 6 • Expected completion date (i.e. date of final report) In all cases, applications to conduct research on specific traditional Yukon First Nation lands are reviewed and approved or not by the appropriate First Nation Government or Governments. In addition, the Whitehorse General Hospital (WGH) has an Ethics Committee for clinical research activities conducted at WGH. Their Vision is “To become the leader in healthcare ethics in the Yukon”, and their Mis�sion “recognizes and responds to issues which create ethical and moral dilemmas and promotes discussion of these through multi-disciplinary partnerships; and promotes an ethical work environment, which inte�grates ethical principles and values“ (3). The Terms of Reference, Principles, Values, and Research Protocol are available upon request. Northwest Territories and Nunavut The NWT and Nunavut share the same Scientists Act. The processes for licensing a research project are out�lined in the Scientists Act in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. In addition, in the NWT there is a hospital-based ethics committee and a college-based ethics committee specifically for the nursing program. For licensing, researchers are required to fill out a license application and submit their proposal with a 1 page summary in the appropriate local language where they will be working to the territorial research insti�tute. The intent at this point is to afford local stakeholders and community and territorial representatives with an opportunity to review and evaluate the proposed research study. After a defined period of time, feedback is collected and sent to the researcher at which point they are asked to make suggested changes to their plans or are granted a license by the Science Advisor to cabinet (typically, the Executive Director of the local research institute). In all regions of the North, power relationships between Indigenous communities and scientists are played out in various contexts, from environmental management, to land claims, to health research. Gearhard & Shirley (2007) argue that the research licensing consultation process under the Scientists Act in Nunavut has emerged as an important forum for negotiating power relationships between communities, scientists, and regulatory agencies in Nunavut (4). However, the authors highlight, communities and researchers alike are often unclear about what it entails, and in particular, about the role community agencies play in the license application review and approval process. Local reviewer feedback helps to inform the Science Advisor about community concerns and potential risks/benefits of each proposed project, but the final decision to approve or reject a license application or set the terms and conditions included in the license ultimately rests with the Science Advisor alone. The Scientists Act suggests that research license applications may only be denied when the Science Advisor determines that the research will result in negative social or environmental impacts. The failure of a project to provide some desired socioeconomic benefits is not sufficient grounds for withholding a license, accord�ing to the current interpretation of the Act. Licenses may only be withheld when the Science Advisor decides there is documented, legally defensible evidence that the proposed project would have negative effects on the well-being of people or the environment. However, the Act does not make it clear how local concerns Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 7 are to be written/worded or proven in order to satisfy the Science Advisor that a license should not be issued. The Research Institutes makes every effort to facilitate communication between researchers and communities aimed at resolving disputes and reaching a mutually acceptable compromise over proposed research. Clarifying research policies is one step to improving relations between scientists and communities. In addi�tion, steps need to be taken at both policy and project levels to train researchers, educate funding programs, mobilize institutions, and empower communities, thereby strengthening the capacity of all stakeholders in northern research (4). Principles of Respect In terms of ethical health research in the North, it is important that it: • Be based on trust, traditional values, respect, honor, honesty, • Take a holistic approach to health, where the whole person is considered in the maintenance of wellness and treatment; • Be connected to the mental, physical, spiritual, emotional and social aspects of health and well being of individuals and communities; • Consider factors such as the impacts of housing, economy, education and culture, food insecu�rity; • Take a broader inter-relationship approach to treating a person or maintain health and of the whole family, community • Be respectful that Knowledge is historically passed down by generations through stories, songs and traditional practices. Meaningful Engagement From a Yukon First Nations’ perspective, ethics and meaningful engagement in activities related to their health and well-being are inherently linked to the settlement of specific land claims: Land Claims are commonly thought to have started in 1973 with the presentation of Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in Ot�tawa by Elijah Smith and a delegation of the Yukon Chiefs. However, Yukon claims had been put forward as early as 1901 and 1902 when Chief Jim Boss of the present�day Ta'an Kwach'an and surrounding area, wrote letters to the Superintendent Gen�eral of Indian Affairs in Ottawa and to the Commissioner of the Yukon. Jim Boss clearly outlined the concerns being felt by many of his people in terms of the aliena�tion of lands and resources in their traditional areas and their need to have a say in Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 8 their own affairs and governance. So it is clear that prior to 1973 Yukon First Nations have had long outstanding claims dating back to the time when some of the early effects of the Klondike Gold Rush and development in the Yukon were first being experienced by Yukon First Nations people. - Council of Yukon First Nations (5) In recent years First Nations in Canada have been engaged in developing their own research protocols, in�cluding in the Yukon. The Yukon First Nations (YFN) Heritage Group has developed a backgrounder to help First Nations communities (both self governing and non-claim settled) develop their own unique traditional knowledge polices, particularly as they relate to traditional ecological knowledge. The major points of the traditional knowledge policy framework are to be a guiding tool to assist First Nations in developing their own policies. For this reason, traditional knowledge and intellectual property rights in relation to research in the Yukon are controlled by each First Nation Government, in their development and implementation of pro�tocols. In Nunavut, participants in community consultations held over the years have indicated very strongly that Nunavut communities continue to be ‘researched’ without appropriate consultation. They also indicated that it is in the researchers’ best interests to consult, as they will obtain more complete and accurate pictures of the phenomenon being studied. In terms of how consultation plays a role in ethics, (6) propose that there are ethical goals in mind when a community is consulted: • Enhanced Protection (of the community): Consultation may be a particularly effective way for investigators to work with community members to identify individuals or subgroups with par�ticular needs or vulnerabilities that individuals outside the community may not recognize. • Enhanced Benefits (for both): Communities should be involved in identifying research questions and planning studies in order to conduct studies that benefit the particular communities in�volved. Enhancing the benefits to ensure that research is mutually beneficial, for example – the community can advocate for additional services or training as part of engaging with the re�searchers. • Legitimacy (of the research): By working in partnership, a forum will emerge in which commu�nity advisory members may discuss their views and concerns openly with researchers. • Shared responsibility (community-researcher): Community advisory committees can be in�volved in recruitment, endorsement, dissemination and raising awareness. Sharing of responsi�bility does not constitute the shifting of blame or removal of responsibility from investigators, sponsors or institutional review boards. The degree to which responsibility can be shared is lim�ited by the degree to which investigators and sponsors are sensitive to and accommodate those concerns. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 9 Appropriate research methods Health research methods are many and varied. Epidemiological methods, statistical research, qualitative and quantitative methods, and community-based participatory research. Each methodology helps answer specific questions. Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) are two research paradigms that have come about as a way to address the ethical concerns of communities that have experienced “helicopter” research in the past. In the past, researchers frequently had exclusive control of the research process and use of the results. Participatory research attempts to break down the distinction be�tween researcher and subjects and to build collaboration between the parties (7). Participatory research usu�ally defines a research inquiry which involves: 1) some form of collaboration between the researchers and the researched; 2) a reciprocal process in which both parties educate one another; and 3) a focus on the production of local knowledge to improve interventions or professional practices. Community-based participatory research is a collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community and has the aim of combining knowledge with action and achieving social change to improve health outcomes and eliminate health disparities (Kellogg Foundation Community Health Scholars Program, 1). The process of community-based identification of issues of impor�tance for research can be time consuming and labor intensive. In the North, the distances between commu�nities and the many pressing issues facing communities pose challenges to this essential first step of CBPR. Although sensitivity to vulnerable participants is integral in CBPR, a different set of ethical issues may emerge that require consideration (Flicker), such as: • Community conflict: It is often difficult to find appropriate “community representatives” who will advocate on behalf of general community concerns. Sometimes it may be important to ob�tain consent at a community level from respected or elected leaders. This may cause conflict when community leaders and members disagree on the importance of a research issue. • Compensation: Given the time and effort expended by community members on CBPR teams, there may be an ethical imperative to ensure that adequate compensation exists for all team members. Unfortunately, little or no incentives are provided to either the individual respondent or community representatives (e.g. the host organization or health centre) to acknowledge the time contributed to a project. This further disempowers individuals and communities by sug�gesting their time, energy, and resources may be of little worth, and they should participate simply because they have been invited. • Sensitive Information: Ethical issues may arise in regards to releasing or disseminating sensitive or unflattering data. Academic partners may feel the need to publish and stay true to the “ob�jective” nature of the data. Community members may fear that unflattering data may stigmatize their communities. Consequently, they may request that researchers consider the potential re�percussions to the community if the data are released prematurely or in an insensitive manner. These issues can potentially be addressed through a community research agreement, as discussed in Section 5 of this report. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 10 While community-based research methods are promoted for research where the community is involved, re�search ethics boards do not take into consideration important aspects of this methodology when assessing proposed projects. In a review of forms and guidelines from American and Canadian research ethics boards at institutions with a public health program, Flicker, et al., (2007) found that a great proportion of the guide�lines did not include evaluation of important components of a community-based participatory research pro�ject. For example, none (n = 30) queried community involvement in defining the research problem, asked about hiring practices, or examined what community capacity building opportunities there might be throughout the research process. Only one institution asked how unflattering data might be handled, but this had more to do with adverse events in medical research than the potentially stigmatizing results of socio�behavioural research. Only 5 institutions asked about plans for disseminating the results, and of those, none asked about procedures for terminating a study or vetoing publication based on community concerns. This is very important consideration for community-based research in the territories, as the licensing process in each territory is completely dependent upon ethical review conducted at the researcher’s academic institu�tion. Finally, while community-based research methods have emerged as an important way to address ethical concerns of communities, they are not always an appropriate method. Other research methods are equally important when they are addressing community-led research questions or when communities are provided with an option to proceed with a community-based research approach or not, as articulated in the CIHR Guidelines (9). Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP) of data The principles of OCAP (Ownership, Control, Access and Possession) are important to the ethical conduct of research involving northerners and northern Indigenous peoples. These principles have been advanced through the Assembly of First Nations (8), the National Aboriginal Health Organization and others. The OCAP principles were adopted by the Council of Yukon First Nations Chiefs Leadership resolution (LDR Resolution NO782./06) passed in October 2006 which stated the following: Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 11 Andrew Qappik, Uqqurmiut Centre Panniqtuuq, Nunavut Weaving, Uqqurmiut Centre Panniqtuuq, Nunavut Andrew Qappik, Uqqurmiut Centre Panniqtuuq, Nunavut • OCAP protects communities from researchers coming in and leaving with data without sharing the information; • OCAP protects the First Nations from conclusions that are reached without consideration on all the context or input from First Nations; • OCAP enables First Nations partners and experts; • In the past, researchers have treated First Nations as only a source of data; • Research has been damaging in the past in instances where genetic material was used, sensitive information was published and confidential cultural information was shared inappropriately; • OCAP will enhance Yukon First Nations control and capacity and lead to more useful and reli�able information that will benefit Yukon First Nation communities, enable more informed deci�sions and create better results; • OCAP also enhances self-determination. It is within the context of these principles that ethical research protocols have already been developed by some First Nations governments in Yukon, and that will guide the development and implementation of these agreements now and in the future. Additionally, these protocols can include requirements for additional information and conditions. The re�searchers must: • Address issues that are common to all Indigenous peoples such as ownership, consent, control, access and protection of information and samples • Outline how the project will directly benefit the community • Have a detailed communications strategy • Identify what infrastructure will be required • Identify who will own the data and where it will be stored • Identify if there will there be capacity building/training involved • Identify if there will be economic benefits for the community • Identify if there will there be samples of species taken, what will be done with them • Follow Traditional Knowledge protocols for Indigenous peoples • Include a list of partners and agencies involved • Identify what the final product will be, and that it will be in a format useful to the community • Includes knowledge of the people in the Traditional Territory/region/land area in a respected way. Many of these conditions can be outlined in a community-researcher research agreement. For a community�based participatory research project in Kahnawahke, Macaulay, A.C., et al, (7) developed a 7-page ‘code of ethics’ document, or research agreement, that included a policy statement; principles of participatory re�search; the different between community-based and academic researchers; the obligations of researchers and the community; data ownership; the process of incorporating new investigators; and the procedure for joint dissemination of results including dissension if necessary. Inevitably, the nature of relationships and questions of ownership are complex factors that must be negotiated in each setting as need arises. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 12 Sharing knowledge and communicating results Results should be returned to the community in a format that is useful and understandable, such as through community radio, through community presentations, posters and informative pamphlets if appropriate, hold�ing open forums and presentations in the community and/or visiting and speaking in schools, etc. Sometimes researchers have published without consulting the community, resulting in negative conse�quences from publications where communities had no opportunity to correct misinformation or to challenge interpretations. Macaulay, et al. (7), included a statement in their community-researcher code of ethics that read: “No partner can veto a communication. In the case of disagreement, the partner who disagrees must be invited to communicate their own interpretation of the data as an addition to the main communication, be it oral or written. All partners agree to withhold information if the alternative interpretation cannot be added and distrib�uted at the same time, providing the disagreeing partners do not unduly delay the distribution process.“ Macaulay A., et al, (7) This type of agreement may be a way forward in dealing with such issues and encouraging the sharing of information, provided all parties agree to it. Forming a Tri-territorial Ethics Advisory Committee The projects outlined in this report were guided by a tri-territorial advisory committee that was formed by the Arctic Health Research Network. The Committee has 8 representatives: 2 from each territory and 2 national representatives who have worked in the field of health research ethics in Canada’s North. The committee discussed issues related to • health research ethics review in the North; • community-research agreements; • were invited to review the health research ethics checklist for community proposal reviewers; • shared literature, perspectives, experiences and expertise pertinent to health research ethics review in the North This committee met primarily by teleconference and email, with plans for a face-to-face meeting for the fol�lowing fiscal year. A list of the members of this committee and the Terms of Reference are provided in Appendix A and B. Reviewing community, territorial and national guidelines and literature for ethical conduct of health research Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 13 A number of guidelines, articles, and reports were gathered from communities, territorial and national or�ganizations and other sources to assess what resources are available for communities. A list of the literature consulted for this report is listed with the reference section of this document. Developing a health research ethics checklist for community proposal re�viewers The development of this tool was undertaken at the request of several community-based health research eth�ics proposal reviewers in Nunavut. The checklist is meant to be a guide in assisting community proposal re�viewers to assess the ethical content of any health research project that is proposed to take place in their community. The checklist includes important questions about: • community consultation and engagement in the research project • assessing risks and benefits to the community/individual • community research agreements • sharing knowledge gained (dissemination) at the end of the project • research methods • confidentiality • conflicts of interest • advertisements and recruitment • participant withdrawal • financial or other compensation • consent forms • scientific review • other comments The checklist can also be helpful to those engaging in research review at the territorial level. The checklist has been reviewed by stakeholders in Nunavut; the AHRN Ethics Advisory Committee; the Inuit Health Re�search and Planning Winter Institute students (CIET Canada); and others. A draft of this checklist is provided in Appendix D. Reviewing community-researcher research agreements in the territories It has become a common practice for researchers to engage a community in a research project through a community-researcher research agreement. These contracts outline the responsibilities of the community member(s) involved and the researcher for the duration of the study period. They are signed by both a com�munity member and by the researcher. A template for a research agreement is available as an appendix in the CIHR Guidelines for the Conduct of Research with Aboriginal Peoples (9), developed by the Centre for Inuit Health and the Environment (CINE) at McGill University. Some communities have developed their own agreements/contracts for researchers, or researchers have developed innovative ‘codes of ethics’ in partnership with a community (7). Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 14 This topic is discussed further, below, in the section titled “Exploring Regional Capacity in the NWT”, how�ever, it requires further exploration across the territories to investigate such issues as local power dynamics; who speaks for the community when negotiating such agreements; how research agreements can be devel�oped; and others. Gathering Inuit and community perspectives on ethics As described in an earlier section, the licensing process in Nunavut is the singular process or reviewing and providing feedback on health research projects, unless the researcher conducts consultations with the com�munity in advance. The license is reviewed by Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Research Committee of the Dept. of Health and Social Services, the municipal council of the community involved, and other stakeholders as the topic requires. One of the concerns related to this process is that very often community members or the local municipal council either do not have adequate resources to evaluate the license or the time to do so given other obligations. In addition, due to the high turnover of staff in Nunavut, there are not always enough human resources at the various government and territorial organizations to ensure timely and thor�ough review of licensing applications. Nunavut Ethics Workshop Before the release of the CIHR Guidelines for the Conduct of Health Research with Aboriginal Peoples (9), the document underwent widespread consultation across Canada. Agencies in every Canadian province and territory were consulted about the document – except for Nunavut. In order to engage in a dialogue on ethi�cal health research practices on more even footing, it was imperative that community members be invited to have their say on ethical conduct of health research in Nunavut. Evaluating capacity in Nunavut begins with discussions on what it means to be ethical from an Inuit and community perspective. For this reason, Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-Nunavut has conducted two consultations on health research ethics: 1) in Iqaluit, NU in 2006 on the CIHR Guidelines for the Conduct of Health Research with Aboriginal Peoples and 2) in Rankin Inlet, NU in 2007 to continue the dialogue on Inuit and community perspectives on health research ethics (14-16). Information from this meeting in provided in Appendix C. The perspectives shared at these meetings primarily related to community values and respecting their role in ethics evaluation. Participants felt that it was unethical for researchers to not make efforts to build trusting relationships with community members and/or to reduce the power differential between researchers and community members through training, dialogue and other means. Participants at our workshop highlighted several important themes in community-based research they felt were not only methodological considerations that they would like to see enhanced, but ethical considera�tions from the perspective of the community: • Respect for the community • Trust and building relationships • Use of appropriate research methods • Equality, equity and power • Ownership of data (including samples) Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 15 • Sharing of knowledge gained from research • Information about research processes These feelings underscore a comment made by Martha Flaherty (past President, Pauktuutit Inuit Women’s Association) at a workshop in Inuvik in 1995 held to bring researchers, organizations and community repre�sentatives together to discuss issues of health research ethics: “Real participatory research must include Inuit control over the identification of ar�eas and issues where research is needed and the design and delivery of the method�ology. Inuit would participate in the collection and analysis of data and have equal control over the dissemination of the information and research findings. In my view, anything less is not participatory and it is unfair to call it such.” - Martha Flaherty, 1995 (10) During discussions, ‘Inuit ethics’ were discussed by our participants and it is important to note that partici�pants requested more dialogue with elders in future discussions about ethics in Nunavut, which Qaujigiartiit/ AHRN-NU will make every effort to support. Research, Respect and Building Capacity: Negotiating relationships and working together Participants in the Nunavut workshops highlighted the importance of respect and partnership between re�searchers and communities in northern research. They felt that spending time to develop relationships re�lieves stress for both researchers and community and creates a pleasant environment in which to work. Participants made suggestions they felt would help facilitate a participatory process: • consulting community members, especially elders, in addition to community leaders • researching a topic of importance to the community • including community members in the conduct of the research by hiring local knowledge hold�ers or training local research assistants • providing local training opportunities when appropriate They also highlighted that communities need to be more aware of their rights to make requests of researchers and negotiate the terms of the research being conducted in their community. Participants noted that by work�ing in partnership, researchers and community members can get to know each other, share worldviews and exchange knowledge in a meaningful and respectful way. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 16 Improving participatory relationships has also been discussed quite extensively in the literature (1-7, 9-13)). Kaufert et al, (10) describe discussions at a meeting in Inuvik in 1995 where the members of the research community and members of the Canadian Indigenous community met to discuss health research ethics and communities. At this meeting, all parties agreed to focus on the importance of developing a more participa�tory process and that both sides would work together to: • define research problems and obtain funding • train and involve community members in data collection • ensure the participation of community members and organizations in the analysis and interpre�tation of research findings • develop joint control over the dissemination of results Since that time, some progress has been made, particularly with the publication of the CIHR Guidelines for the Conduct of Health Research With Aboriginal Peoples (9), which are quickly becoming the gold standard guiding document. In addition, the Nunavut Research Institute and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami have recently re�vised and published a document entitled Negotiating Research Relationships with Inuit Communities: A Guide for Researchers (17). This progress is exciting and encouraging, and we hope to foster its continuation. Information about research processes Participants in the Nunavut workshops indicated that community members need more information about the research process in Nunavut, including how projects are licensed; who in the communities and territory are consulted during the development of the research project and during licensing; and how to increase com�munity involvement in the research process from start to finish. In order to continue to build capacity for ethical review in Nunavut, communities need to be well informed of their rights, their opportunities to have input on projects proposed to take place in their communities, and key ethical considerations for the conduct of research in their communities. While there has been some dis�cussion within AHRN’s consultations of the development of a northern-based ethical review board, it has become clear that while there is tremendous ability to provide ethical review, there is a dearth of capacity (in the form of community health committees, staff and staff time, small populations, previous engagement with research projects) to support such a board from Nunavut at this time. It is hoped, however, that this will improve over time with increased opportunities to build northern capacity for ethical review, including those provided by Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network - Nunavut. Recommendations for ethical review The responsibility for ethical review in health research is usually assigned to university-based human sub�jects committees. As noted earlier, this is particularly the case in the North, as an ethical review is not con�ducted in any of the three territories – the licensing process, described earlier, is completely dependent upon university-based ethical review boards. The university-based committees usually do not have first-hand knowledge of local conditions, local needs or priorities, which can reduce the effectiveness of their review in a northern context. It has been noted in the literature (1,10) that central scientific and ethical review proc�esses have limited capacity to assess potential local relevance of the research product. It has been proposed Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 17 that the central criteria for assessing the distribution of risks and benefits should be “whose interest does the research serve” (10. A concern in relation to reliance on non-northern-based ethical review committees (REBs) was their lack of local knowledge base, which limited their capacity to judge whether the process used to obtain community consent and participation was meaningful in local terms (10). Given the information gathered from the literature, and experiences gathered from consultations within the Arctic Health Research Network in the 3 territories, recommendations for the content of ethical review in�clude: • Community-based Participatory Research Training • Documentation of Processes • Nature of Informed Consent • Community Consultation • Research Agreements There is currently no ethical review process based in the three territories, therefore these recommendations are for institutions involved in ethical review of research in the North, and to be considered when a research ethics review board is developed in the North. CBPR Training Research Ethics Boards engaged in reviewing Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR), and other community-based research proposals, should be provided with basic training in the principles of CBPR (1). Documentation of Processes Research Ethics Boards should require CBPR projects to document the process by which key decisions re�garding research design were made and how communities most affected were consulted (1). Nature of Informed Consent Research Ethics Boards should consider the nature of the community involved in the research project and whether the method of consent (language, written vs. oral, etc.) is appropriate. It has been suggested that if participants are to have access to full information, then all objectives and options, including non�participation, “had to be presented in an accessible format; including oral presentation in community fo�rums, videotapes and documentation printed in Aboriginal languages” (10). The requirements for valid con�sent agreements usually include: (a) demonstration of subject competence; (b) communication of full infor�mation on risks and benefits; (c) assurance that the subject comprehended the information; (d) guarantees that the individual is able to act independently (Freeman, 1994, cited in Flicker, 2007). Consent agreements may need to use alternative media formats including video clips, community meetings, and community ra�dio. Community Consultation Research Ethics Boards should consider the amount of time that has been spent consulting with the commu�nity, and if the partnerships formed are meaningful, i.e. described in detail in the context of the community and its leadership. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 18 Research Agreements Research Ethics Boards should mandate that CBPR projects seeking ethical review provide signed terms of reference, memoranda of understanding, and/or community research agreements. These should clearly out�line the goals of the project, principles of partnership with the community, decision-making processes, roles and responsibilities of partners, and guidelines for how partnership will handle and disseminate data. (1) Finally, Ruttan’s statement (2004) articulates the findings of the Arctic Health Research Network in that: An ethic based in mutual respect, reciprocal collaborative exchange, and an aware�ness of the personal, political and cultural consequences, particularly in light of past relationships, should guide our actions. - Ruttan, 2004 (11) The discussion of community ethics and ethical review will be on-going and continue within the work of the Arctic Health Research Network. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 19 Knowledge Sharing What is knowledge sharing? Commonly, the concept of knowledge translation has been developed to refer to the creation and implemen�tation of a strategy to translate health research results into applicable findings for those requiring the informa�tion. It has evolved conceptually as a means for bridging the “know-do” gap. In the context of Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU and the work that is conducted by this organization, Knowledge Sharing is defined as the synthesis, translation and communication of health knowledge between vari�ous knowledge holders, such as policy-and decision-makers; researchers; com�munity members; and health care providers. Knowledge is dynamic and does not flow in a line from top to bottom, but fluidly between people and groups. Literature review Methods This literature review includes: • A review of academic literature. The search was conducted by Janice Linton at the Health Sci�ences Library at the University of Manitoba. The initial scan of literature was conducted by Gwen Healey (Exec. Dir. Of Qaujigiartiit) and relevant articles were then requested and shipped to Nunavut for review by Mandie BzDell (Research Assistant at Qaujigiartiit). • A review of grey literature (reports, conference proceedings, etc.) found on Google and on Goo�gle Scholar. • Findings were read and summarized and are shared in this report. Findings Throughout the review, a number of findings relevant to knowledge sharing in Nunavut were highlighted and are presented below. These topics include: • The need for clearer terminology • The importance of frameworks • Knowledge mapping as a conceptual framework fro knowledge sharing • Knowledge sharing and Inuit community members • Knowledge sharing and policy- and decision-makers • Knowledge sharing and health care providers Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 20 • Knowledge sharing and researchers These topics are further elaborated below in bullet-point form. A more in-depth presentation of these find�ings is available in our final report. The Need for Clearer Terminology • Synonyms for knowledge translation include knowledge translation, knowledge utilization, knowledge exchange, research transfer, research utilization • It is important to have clear terms in order to evaluate effectiveness of knowledge translation The Importance of Frameworks • There is no primary knowledge translation theory – there are several different theories. • One unified theory is required in the knowledge translation field in order to develop testable and probably useful interventions. • Logan & Graham’s Ottawa Model of Research Use – was the most favoured in the literature. • All frameworks emphasize involvement of all stakeholders, and multi-directional flow of informa�tion. Knowledge Mapping as a Conceptual Model for Knowledge Sharing Knowledge mapping: • Makes tacit and explicit knowledge concrete. • May increase involvement of key stakeholders. • Can assist in clarifying the flow of information. • Can be used with all types of knowledge translation. Knowledge Sharing and Inuit Community Members • When conducting health research: • Community members involvement from deciding the research design to disseminating results is essential. • Community members have right to own research and negotiate community needs with re�searcher(s). • Community members may choose to establish an independent advisory and ethical review committee . • In the context of health programming & services, the following Inuit-specific topics were dis�cussed in the literature: • Face to face interactions are important for Inuit. • Storytelling is an integral part of Inuit health information dissemination • Elders are the preferred first line for health information in a number of communities and con�texts. • Inuit see themselves as belonging to the larger Inuit community, irregardless of geography. • There is a shortage of interpreters who can translate health information. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 21 Knowledge Sharing and Decision-Makers • For decision-makers to apply research into daily decisions requires: • A clear presentation of the evidence-based message. • A credible source of research. • Electronic, fast, staged access to information delivery of research message. • Ongoing training for decision-makers on how to use research evidence in daily work is required for effective evidence-based decision-making. • Information about evaluation of knowledge sharing activities is discussed in the literature. Knowledge Sharing and Clinicians • There exists too much research for clinicians to apply in practice. • Knowledge translation is an important tool to close the gap between health evidence and clinical practice. • Most effective strategies at getting clinicians to incorporate health research into practice are ac�tive, multiple, and based on accurate assessment of clinician needs. Knowledge Sharing and Researchers • When conducting research with community members in Inuit Regions: • Follow guidelines offered by CIHR “CIHR Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aborigi�nal Peoples” and by ITK & NRI “Negotiating Research Relationships with Inuit Communities: A Guide for Researchers” • Understand local processes of knowledge creation, dissemination, and utilization. • Use of community-based participatory research to make work responsive to the concerns of communities members. • Build research capacity within the community. • Use of an evaluator to do a variety of process evaluation through research process. • When conducting research with decision-makers • Understand that knowledge translation must be interactive • Identify and understand the barriers for lack of use of research for decision-makers • Use interactive, non-passive forms of knowledge translation • When conducting research with clinicians, it is helpful to consider: • It takes time to build trusting relationships and networks between researchers clinicians • The need to respect for clinicians priorities and interests • Recognition of clinicians’ knowledge and expertise • The need for multi-directional information exchange and an ongoing forum for sharing in�cluding developing a shared language, culture, and conceptual base • The quality of in-person contact is important Gaps in the Literature Several gaps were identified during the literature review, such as: Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 22 • The need for truly community-driven research • The need for evaluation of knowledge translation activities • More information on the use of social network technology and its influence on knowledge shar�ing • In the literature different users groups of health information are described, however, there is no information on the different literacy levels that are examined in these contexts, if any. Community visits and sharing knowledge within Qaujigiartiit Community Visits For the Knowledge Sharing project, community visits were conducted in Rankin Inlet, NU and Cambridge Bay, NU. During these community visits, knowledge sharing was discussed and presentations and workshops were made to various stakeholder groups. A workshop on proposal-writing was delivered to community members in Cambridge Bay, NU as a part of the discussions on knowledge sharing. This was done at the request of community members, and we were happy to be able to meet their needs. A community visit to discuss sharing health information in Cambridge Bay also resulted in the development of a proposal for a community-driven health research project that was initiated and is being conducted by the local youth committee to explore issues of identity and suicide prevention for youth in the community. In Rankin Inlet, a Public Health Education Day was held and a number of community members attended to learn more about community health and receive a flu shot. At this event, community members spoke openly to the attendees about the need for help addressing the issue of nutrition and food security in, not only this community, but across Nunavut. They highlighted that the extremely high cost of market foods was one of the primary influences of poor nutrition in the community. Knowledge Sharing in Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU Presentations In the interests of sharing knowledge and improving communication between various agencies working in the North, presentations about Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU and the work being conducted by the organization were delivered to: Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 23 • Pauktuutit Inuit Women’s Association meeting: Sexual Health is Everyone’s Responsibility (Inuvik, NT) • Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Ottawa, ON) • National Inuit Committee on Health (Iqaluit, NU) • Ajunnginiq Centre of National Aboriginal Health Organization (Ottawa, ON) • Nunavut Association of Municipalities Annual General Meeting (Iqaluit, NU) • Department of Health and Social Services (Iqaluit, NU and Cambridge Bay, NU) • Arctic Health Research Network – NWT Board Retreat (Shingle Point, NT) • Arctic Health Research Network – Yukon Health Promotion and Planning School (Whitehorse, YK) Newsletter In the last year, Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU began publishing a quarterly e-newsletter in English and Inuktitut to help facilitate the sharing of knowledge about Qaujigiartiit activities with community members and partners. Print copies are provided at conferences, community meetings and consultations. Website – www.nunavut.arctichealth.ca In consultations with both community and national partners, it becme apparent that several stakeholder groups were consulting the AHRN web site for information. In an effort to improve the sharing of informa�tion, Qaujigiartiit has undertaken revisions to the Arctic Health Research Network web site to facilitate the sharing of documents, community priorities for health research, information about scholarships and other important health news. Teaching Resources In addition, resources from Qaujigiartiit/AHRN-NU community consultations and projects were provided to educators, such as the CIET Inuit Winter Institute in Health Research Planning (Ottawa, ON February 2008) and other researchers who conduct work in Nunavut. Qauj i g i a rti it/Ar c ti c H e a lt h Re s e a r c h N e t w o r k - N un a vut 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 24 !"#$%&'( (ARCTIC HEALTH RESEARCH NETWORK) kNK5 December 2007, Volume 1, Issue 3 kNo7usb5 scsyc6g5 wo6fyE/s5txExo8i4 mo5bs?5gi4 x7ml cspn3i3u4 vq6Oi3u ZW7u, wcl8i x7ml vq6Oi3u. Wzhi4 s9li4 vtmic6t9lQ5 scsycMs6ymJ5 wo6fyE/s/Exo8i4 mo5bs?5gi4 x7ml kNosJ5 bs5gE/q8i4 ck6 grc3m/ 6t5tMs6g5 gryQxDti4 x7ml scsycc5b6gt5 organizational
PILIRIQATIGIINNIQ ‘Working in a collaborative way for the common good’: A perspective on the space where health research methodology and Inuit epistemology come togetherGwen Healey, Andrew Tagak Sr.

This paper adds to provide Inuit perspectives on health-related research epistemologies and methodologies, with the intent that it may inform health researchers with an interest in Arctic …

ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ English 1 ISSN: ISSN 1837-0144 © International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies Volume 7, Number 1, 2014 PILIRIQATIGIINNIQ ‘Working in a collaborative way for the common good’: A perspective on the space where health research methodology and Inuit epistemology come together By Gwen Healey, M.Sc. and Andrew Tagak Sr. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre Abstract Increasing attention on the Arctic has led to an increase in research in this area. Health research in Arctic Indigenous communities is also increasing as part of this movement. A growing segment of the research community is focused on explaining and understanding Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing. Researchers have become increasingly aware that Indigenous knowledge must be perceived, collected and shared in ways that are unique to, and shaped by, the communities and individuals from which this knowledge is gathered. This paper adds to this body of literature to provide Inuit perspectives on health-related research epistemologies and methodologies, with the intent that it may inform health researchers with an interest in Arctic health. The Inuit concepts of inuuqatigiittiarniq (“being respectful of all people”), unikkaaqatigiinniq (story-telling), pittiarniq (“being kind and good”), and iqqaumaqatigiinniq (“all things coming into one”) and piliriqatigiinniq (“working together for the common good”) are woven into a responsive community health research model grounded in Inuit ways of knowing which is shared and discussed. Acknowledgements The growth development of this model and this centre over time has been a group effort. Valuable guidance, feedback and support has been provided by Shirley Tagalik, Janet Tamalik McGrath and Jamal Shirley in the development of this paper. Key words Inuit, epistemology, health research methods, relational knowledge, Indigenous knowledge. Introduction There has been a significant and increasing amount of attention on the Arctic in terms of research, press, exploration and resource development. Health research and research involving Inuit in Canada’s north has also been increasing. Community-based participatory research is a method that has been promoted, however, even though this methodology recognizes the role of community in the research, it still holds the Western scientific worldview above others. Concurrently, a growing body of literature has focused on articulating Indigenous knowledge and research epistemologies, leading the way for greater discussion of Western and Indigenous research approaches, and contributing to more meaningful research (Alfred 2005; Barnhardt & Kawagley 2005; Battiste 2002; Battiste & JY 2000; Deloria 1995; Kovach 2010; Wilson 2008). This paper adds to this body of literature by providing Inuit perspectives on health-related research epistemologies and methodologies, with the intent that it may inform health research approaches in Arctic communities. 2 ISSN: ISSN 1837-0144 © International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies Inuit are the Indigenous inhabitants of the North American Arctic, whose homeland stretches from the Bering Strait to east Greenland, a distance of over 6,000 kilometres. Inuit live in Russia, Alaska, Greenland and the Canadian Arctic and share a common cultural heritage, language and genetic ancestry. Before contact, small groups of families travelled together to different camps and hunting grounds. In the Qikiqtaaluk1 region alone, for example, Inuit lived in small, kin-based groups in over 100 locations throughout the region 2 (QIA 2012). Of the approximately 150,000 Inuit living in the Circumpolar region today, 45,000 live in Canada’s north. Canadian Inuit lands are known as Inuit Nunangat and comprise four regions: Nunavut Territory; Nunavik (Northern Quebec); Inuvialuit Settlement Region (northern NWT); and Nunatsiavut (northern Labrador). Comprising one-fifth of Canada’s land mass and 60% of the nation’s coastline, Nunavut occupies the largest geographical area of all the Inuit Nunangat. When the Nunavut Act was passed in conjunction with the settlement of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement in 1993, Nunavut became Canada’s third territory. Nunavut’s new territorial government was formally established in 1999. As the authors of this article are from Nunavut and this is the context with which we are most familiar, the majority of the references in this article are to Inuit communities in Nunavut. Ways of Knowing Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, questioning what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the extent to which a given subject can be known (Thayer-Bacon 2003, p. 18). Epistemology is also the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion, particularly with regard to methods, validity and scope. It is the starting point upon which we build our theoretical assumptions. What do we know and how do we know it? Do we know it individually or collectively? Is there more than one way to know something? Do we possess knowledge or do we engage with it? Or both? Epistemology is the space in which these questions are posed and explored. Indigenous Ways of Knowing A growing segment of the academic community is focused on explaining and understanding Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing. This group recognizes that such knowledge is perceived, collected and shared in ways that are unique to these communities. Battiste (2002) states that the recognition and intellectual activation of Indigenous knowledge today is an act of empowerment by Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples throughout the world have sustained unique worldviews and associated knowledge systems for millennia, even while going through social upheavals as a result of transformative forces beyond their control. Many of the core values, beliefs and practices associated with these worldviews have survived and are beginning to be recognized as being just as valid for today’s generations as they were for generations past. The depth of indigenous knowledge rooted in the long inhabitation of a particular place offers lessons that can benefit everyone, from educator to scientist (Barnhardt & Kawagley 2005). In Eurocentric thought, Indigenous knowledge has often been represented by the term ‘traditional’ knowledge, which suggests a body of relatively old data that has been handed down generation to generation relatively unchanged (Battiste 2002). Grenier (1998) offers a view that Indigenous knowledge embodies certain characteristics that are not mutually exclusive, such as: 1 Qikiqtaaluk, meaning ‘big island’, is the Inuktitut word for Baffin Island. 2 The Qikiqtaaluk region is the largest of Nunavut’s three regions: Qitirmiut (western Nunavut); Kivalliq (central Nunavut and Belcher Islands); and Qikiqtaaluk (Baffin Island, Ellesmere Island and neighbouring communities). 3 ISSN: ISSN 1837-0144 © International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies 1. Indigenous knowledge is accumulative and represents generations of experiences, careful observations and ‘trial and error’ experiments. 2. Indigenous knowledge is dynamic, with new knowledge continuously added and external knowledge adapted to suit local situations. 3. All members of the community, that is elders, women, men and children, have Indigenous knowledge. 4. The quantity and quality of Indigenous knowledge that an individual possesses will vary according to age, gender, socioeconomic status, daily experiences, roles and responsibilities in the home and the community, and so on. 5. Indigenous knowledge is stored in people’s memories and activities. It is expressed in stories, songs, folklore, proverbs, dances, myths, cultural values, beliefs, rituals, cultural community, laws, local language, artefacts, forms of communication and organization. 6. Indigenous knowledge is shared and communicated orally, as well as by specific example and through cultural practices, such as dance and rituals (Grenier 1998). In addition, Battiste (2002) also describes Indigenous knowledge as embodying a web of relationships within a specific ecological context; containing linguistic categories, rules and relationships unique to each knowledge system; having localized content and meaning; having established customs with respect to the acquiring and sharing of knowledge; and implying responsibilities for possessing various types of knowledge. Knowledge can be viewed as being something that people develop as they have experiences with each other and the world around them (Thayer-Bacon 2003). Ideas are shared, changed and improved upon through the development of understanding and meaning that is derived from experience. Fundamentally, this knowledge is rooted in a relational epistemology—a foundation for knowing that is based on the formulation of relationships among the members of the community of knowers (Thayer-Bacon 2003, pp. 73-98). Through these relationships, knowledge is created and shared. Relational Epistemology Chilisa (2012) states that Knowing is something that is socially constructed by people who have relationships and connections with each other, the living and the non-living and the environment. Knowers are seen as beings with connections to other beings, the spirits of the ancestors, and the world around them that inform what they know and how they can know it. (p. 116) A relational epistemology draws our attention to relational forms of knowing. This differs from the common Western practice of focusing on individual descriptions of knowing. Knowing is informed by the multiple connections of knowers with other beings and the environment, by participating in events and observing nature, such as the birds, animals, rivers and mountains (Thayer-Bacon 2003, p. 183). Wilson (2008) and Getty (2010) identify that knowledge comes from the people’s histories, stories, observations of the environment, visions and spiritual insights. Each of these relationships has implications for how research is conducted. 4 ISSN: ISSN 1837-0144 © International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies Relations with people Relationship building is an essential aspect of everyday life experience for Indigenous communities in Canada and around the world. Greetings become a way of building relationships and the rapport among participants and researchers—and readers. From the moment of the first greeting, we are inevitably placed in a relationship through mutual friends or through knowledge, with certain landmarks and events. We become part of the circles of relationships that are connected to one another and to which we are also accountable (Deloria 1995) (emphasis added). From a relational perspective, establishing trust and accountability is part of the development of a relationship with a colleague or research participant (Kovach 2009; Wilson 2008), which then feeds into the entire research method, from establishing rigour to respecting an ethical Indigenous knowledge framework to sharing and disseminating the results of a study. Relationships with the land or environment Many Indigenous peoples have a physical, emotional and spiritual connection with the land, the environment and the creatures who share this space. For example, a study of Inuit women’s perceptions of pollution found that those women identified with pollution of the land being linked to mental health and wellness in the community (Egan 1998). From the perspective of participants, changing relationships with the land carried over into changing relationships in the community and substance use, ultimately affecting the health of the community overall. The Indigenous relationship with the environment and land also has implications for the way research is conducted. The construction of knowledge has to be done in a manner that builds and sustains relationships with the land and environment, and is respectful of the environment (Barnhardt & Kawagley 2005; Chilisa 2012; Getty 2010). In this context, knowledge is embodied in a connection to the land and the environment. When interviews are used as a technique for gathering data, it is best to conduct them in a setting that is familiar to the research participant and relevant to the topic of the research (such as their home, on the land or in a comfortable community space); this enables the researcher to make connections with the environment and the space where the construction of knowledge takes place. Relationships with the spirits Spirituality may include one’s personal connection to a higher being or humanity, or the environment (Wilson 2008). Spirituality can be viewed as a connection or exercise that builds otherworldly relationships that are ceremonial in nature. Recognizing spirituality allows researchers to explore the interconnections between the sacred and practical aspects of research. Understanding comes through factual and oral history that connects to ancestral spirits (Chilisa 2012) and/or through dreams (Wilson 2008). Knowledge is also regarded as a sacred object and seeking knowledge is a spiritual quest that may begin with a ceremony (Wilson 2008). Knowing can come through prayer or dreams, as a way that people connect themselves with those around them, the living and the non-living, and the ancestral spirits. In this way, the mind, body and spirit are all involved in gathering information and understanding of the world. Inuit Ways of Knowing Much of the work involving Indigenous research perspectives originates from First Nations, Native Americans and Indigenous peoples in Australia and New Zealand. Very few Inuit are in academia and no work in published literature to date has provided an Inuit perspective, except for Janet Tamalik 5 ISSN: ISSN 1837-0144 © International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies McGrath (2011), which is the first academic work that articulates an epistemology that is unique to Inuit. McGrath’s (2011) work with the well-known and respected elder, Aupilaarjuk, focused on conveying an epistemological perspective for Inuktitut (Inuit language) knowledge renewal. Given the relational knowledge perspective of Inuit, revitalization of relationships is part of renewing and sustaining Inuit languages. The language is which knowledge is conveyed is critical to the understanding of the knowledge that is conveyed because of the shared relationships between people speaking the language. McGrath and Aupilaarjuk’s collaboration conveys a great understanding of Inuit philosophical and ideological concepts. Relational Methods for Health Research in an Inuit Context A relational paradigm begins with the relationships between people as an important aspect of a research framework and employs an inclusive approach, rather than rejection. A holistic, relational perspective is integral to Inuit ways of knowing, but how is this actualized in the research setting? In the following section, Inuktitut conceptual ideas related to health research methods and practices are shared. Inuuqatigiitiarniq Inuuqatigiittiarniq is the Inuit concept of respecting others, building positive relationships and caring for others. When each person considers their relationship to people and behave in ways that build this relationship, they build strength both in themselves and in others, and together as a community (Karetak 2013). This is foundational to Inuit ways of being. Intentions and motivations. In the health research context, part of building and fostering respectful relationships is clearly articulating one’s intentions and motivations in engaging in a study. Researchers need to be reflexive and ask themselves the questions that community members will inevitably ask them: Who are you? Where are you from? Who is your family? What are you looking at? Why do you want to know about it? What are the risks and benefits of pursuing this work? Who is it being conducted for? What will happen to the knowledge that is shared? How will we learn from each other? A commitment to an approach that is mindful of and focuses on Inuit context, knowledge, questions and perspectives is an integral part of demonstrating respect for the community at large. Community context. Whether one is from the community where one is working on a research project or not, an awareness for and understanding of the community context is part of acknowledging one’s respect for it. Engaging with people, place and community in a meaningful way will not only increase one’s own understanding of the community context, but also contributes to a richer understanding of the findings. For example, whether a community has a historical connection to a residential school or is currently experiencing a flurry of resource development, the community context and response to such events plays a role in wellness and in relational ways of knowing. 6 ISSN: ISSN 1837-0144 © International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies The formation of the question(s). Having created a descriptive picture of community contexts and understandings, as well as one’s own intentions and motivations, it is easier, now, to collectively develop the research questions on which the research will focus. Focusing a study in such a way that it will answer community health questions is part of being responsive to the needs of Inuit communities. Developing and fostering relationships. The development and fostering of relationships has been a focus of the natural science research community in Nunavut, and some published literature has focused on this (ACUNS 2003; Gearheard & Shirley 2007; ITK & NRI 2007). Sadly, research relationships are too often characterized at the outset by conflict, impatience and animosity; sometimes these barriers can be overcome to build trust, other times they simply cannot. Health research projects can build on existing relationships and/or forge new ones. Some practical considerations for health research include exploring how these relationships are initiated, maintained and supported; what the nature of the relationship might be; and whether a power imbalance exists. Practical implications include how communication is achieved, i.e. through regular meetings and in-person discussions or teleconferences, if over a distance; how direction is chosen and agreements are made collaboratively; how accountability is ensured; and how the methodological approach and sharing of knowledge is agreed upon. Engagement of community members. From a relational perspective, participants are engaged, not recruited, to participate in a project. They are engaged through the formation of relationships. A snowball engagement method, for example, focuses on the establishment of trusting relationships. Individuals volunteer to participate in the study or recommend family members, friends or colleagues who they think will be willing to participate. The project is supported by community members, who then encourage others to engage in the study through casual conversations and ‘kitchen table talks’ (Price 2007). Participants should be considered as collaborators or co-researchers when the sharing of knowledge occurs mutually, for example, in photovoice research, story-telling or narrative research, or Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ or Inuit knowledge) studies. The project is supported and promoted by community members, which strengthens the response to the project, as well as contributes to greater rigour and accountability overall. Unikkaaqatiginniq Unikkaaqatigiinniq is the Inuit concept related to story-telling, the power of story and the role of stories in Inuit ways of being. Story-telling and the sharing of experiences. Kovach (2009) states that a defining characteristic of Indigenous methods is the inclusion of stories and narratives by both the researcher and research participant. In an Indigenous context, stories are methodologically congruent with tribal knowledges (Wilson 2008). The Inuit have a very strong oral history and oral culture. The telling of stories is a millennia-old tradition for the sharing of knowledge, values, morals, skills, histories, legends and artistry. It is a critical aspect of the Inuit ways of life and of knowing (Bennet & Rowley 2004), and allows respondents to share personal experiences without breaking cultural rules related to confidentiality, gossip or humility. Indigenous scholars, Kovach (2009) 7 ISSN: ISSN 1837-0144 © International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies and Wilson (2008), have underscored the importance of ‘story’ in a research setting. In a study of determinants of health for Inuit women in Nunavut, participants drew upon examples from the community and used stories to illustrate points about important health issues, such as teenage pregnancy and custom adoption. These stories illustrated aspects of the broader health context involving the community and society relating to education and cultural identity (Healey 2006b; Healey & Meadows 2008). Understanding this approach for sharing knowledge allows for greater insight into the data and greater understanding of the meaning of the stories. Although some knowledge or practices may be disappearing, the use of stories to effectively communicate information remains part of Inuit life. It is for this reason that the recognition of the power of story is particularly important in the context of Inuit communities. In relational epistemology, stories are shared, not collected. Interviews are conversations conducted in a natural, comfortable setting. In our work, we share a tea or coffee over a conversation. Parents may (and often do) bring their children with them. Over the course of the conversation, knowledge and experiences are shared in a common space. For example, in a study exploring the perspectives of parents on discussing a particular health topic with their teenaged children, I (Healey) shared personal experiences about my own family and raising my children, discussed resources related to the health topic, such as local people who can provide support, and the resources available to parents to facilitate conversations with their teenaged children about a health topic. This was part of the conversation and relationship-building process, and enhanced both my own experience and that of participants/collaborators while enriching the dialogue on the particular health topic being discussed. The researcher’s willingness to listen, quietly and carefully, without interrupting the story-teller, is vital; listening is in itself a critical skill that many researchers need to develop and practice. Reflection on how stories are presented. Ideally, stories are presented in their entirety. The presentation of the entire story allows the reader or listener to derive the messages that are relevant to that individual. Kovach (2009) shares her experience struggling with the presentation of findings in an Indigenous research perspective. She discusses her need to present the findings in two different ways: 1. one in which she associates most closely with the Indigenous methods perspective and includes the presentation of the entire story exchanged between the researcher and the research participant; and 2. a coding and thematic bundling of ideas with which she associates a more Western style of data presentation. In the latter case, she shares her need to present the data this way to make it accessible to the academy, but feels that this contravenes with the intent of her work (and the intent of her ancestors) (Kovach 2009: 53) by extracting experiences from the contexts of their stories. Balancing the need to articulate a point in a small allotment of text space (in the case of a journal article or presentation) and the need to be respectful of the story in its entirety, is difficult to negotiate. It is our perspective that acknowledging this challenge in the presentation of findings is part of honouring the sections of the story that are omitted for the sake of time or space. 8 ISSN: ISSN 1837-0144 © International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies Reflections on our own interviewing experience. Stories can be shared and told by an individual or they can be created over the course of conversation by a group of people. A dialogue about a topic is shaped by collective story-telling. When interviewing, I (Healey) am often engaged in a dialogue with the person or people with whom I am speaking. Since I am usually making contributions to the conversation, an important step in the exploration of the dialogue is to reflect upon my own story and experiences in relation to the topic(s) discussed. Articulating how my story and experiences may have shaped or in some way contributed to the conversation, allows me to tease out the experiences that are unique to the people who shared them. Iqqaumaqatigiinniq Iqqaumaqatigiinniq is the Inuit concept of all thoughts, or all knowing, coming into one. It is often referred to as part of the holistic Indigenous worldview. Finding meaning and understanding. The goal of data analysis is to find meaning and understanding in the stories, to return to the research question and to examine the data in the context that was set at the beginning of the study. In order to accomplish this, often a multi-stage process is needed, such as those described by Creswell (Creswell 2003). Thinking about and analysing dialogue at the time of the conversation with a participant or collaborator is part of the process, therefore, some meaning-making occurs immediately in the moment of the conversation. After transcription, transcripts are read and re-read several times and reflected upon. The recordings of interviews or conversations are listened to and transcripts are re-read to ensure that transcription is verbatim and to fill in any missing words. After a period of time immersed in the words and stories, ideas may start to form or crystalize (Borkan 1999; Healey & Meadows 2008). Discussing these ideas with others, colleagues, collaborators, or participants, is a critical part of the analysis at this phase, from a relational perspective (Kovach 2009; Wilson 2008). How are these ideas coming together? What do they offer to the Inuit community? What do they offer to the community of colleagues, collaborators, partners and participants? Placing the ideas in the context of the literature, the experiences of others and the experiences of the community is part of finding meaning and understanding. Pittiarniq Pittiarniq is the Inuit concept of ‘being good’, which can mean being 'good' in a philosophical and moral sense, and also in terms of action ‘good behaviour’ (for example, in the behaviour of children). The historical context of health research in Nunavut is complex. Different communities have had varying experiences with researchers coming to the north from the south. For decades, researchers have come and gone from Nunavut to conduct their research and then leave. Some had good intentions, some were ignorant of their intentions. Some developed relationships with Inuit, others conducted experiments on Inuit (Emberley 2008; Wachowich, Awa, Katsak & Katsak 1999). That experience is not unique to Inuit, which is why significant efforts have been made in Canada and in other parts of the world to define how research is carried out with Indigenous peoples, and how to create an ethical space in this context. A number of documents have been developed to guide researchers in their work with Indigenous peoples in Canada, including the Tri-Council Policy Statement, with special reference to Aboriginal Canadians, and the previously used document from the Canadian Institutes for Health 9 ISSN: ISSN 1837-0144 © International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies Research, Ethical Guidelines for Research with Aboriginal Peoples (CIHR 2006; CIHR, NSERC & SSHRC 2010). In the Western research model, ethics are grounded in the philosophical ideas of right and wrong, good and evil. Research ethics have their root in the post-World War II, Nuremburg trials, where medical researchers were held accountable for the medical experiments that they conducted on prisoners of war. Research ethics have been reactive; created in response to those who have used their power over others to do harm primarily in the context of medical experiments conducted during World War II (WMA 1964). Five of the enduring principles of research ethics are beneficence, non-maleficence, truth/justice, dignity and autonomy. Since that time, ethical frameworks have been developed to further identify particular sub-categories of ethical behaviour from the perspective of different populations, for example, vulnerable populations, Indigenous populations, women, and children. In 2006, we began a project to explore how ‘ethics’ had been typically conveyed in Inuktitut in previous research studies. At the same time, we wanted to learn from Nunavut community members what they perceived to be ethical conduct in research. In discussions with different community members from across Nunavut, there have been three Inuktitut terms that have been highlighted. The first, shared by McGrath (2004), is Pittiaq-, which is related to ‘being good, kind or well; doing good or rightly’. McGrath (2004) argues that the term Pittiaq- refers to both technical and moral excellence. Without knowledge or experience of Inuit societal values, researchers from outside of the culture and epistemology often interpret doing/being good (ethics) based on their own worldviews and assumptions about what ‘good’ is. While well-intended, those decisions can have a range of negative impacts on their particular research participants or even on Inuit society in general (Janet Tamalik McGrath 2004). The second term, shared by another community member who declined to be named, is inuuqatigiittiarniq, which, as mentioned earlier, is related to the concept of being respectful of others. Thirdly, pittiajusuringgirniq uulijalimanik is the remaining Inuktitut term shared by Shirley Tagalik of Arviat, NU (Tagalik 2013). Inherent in this term is the belief that there is a power greater than oneself that operates in the world. It was regarded as folly to try to set oneself up above others or in dominance of the natural world or environment. Being humble and respectful of the rights of all things helped Inuit to maintain a balance in their relationships (Tagalik 2013). All of the terms refer to behaviour; that one’s actions are reflective of one’s intention to ‘do good’. In doing so, one will be respectful of other people, the land, and the relationships between and among the facets of the research. Above all, participant-collaborators must be treated with respect, appreciation and dignity. Consent. In research, consent is typically sought in writing. Newer and more responsive means of ensuring that a participant-collaborator is informed include the use of video to demonstrate procedures or sample collection, or capturing the verbal explanation of the project and consent on audio recorder. The language in which the project is explained is very important. Consent information should be presented in English, Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun depending on the language preference of the participant or collaborator. The protection of the stories. The sensitive and private nature of the experiences shared in health research studies underscores the fact that the protection of these stories is of critical importance. Considerations for protecting the story include: presenting the story in a way that honours the story-teller; articulating the intention of the story- 10 ISSN: ISSN 1837-0144 © International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies teller when they shared the story; articulating the context in which it was shared; respecting whether or not they want it shared with others and, if so, in what context; whether the story-teller wants to be identified with their story or whether they want their identity kept confidential; and reflecting on how might the story be (mis)used in the future. Accountability. From a relational perspective, accountability is part of the process of developing or building on relationships with each participant. The relationship is what holds us accountable. Kovach (2009) shares that, for Indigenous researchers, there are often three audiences with whom we engage for transferring the knowledge of our research: 1. Findings from Indigenous research must make sense to the general Indigenous community. 2. Schema for arriving at our findings must be clearly articulated to the non-indigenous academy. 3. Both the means for arriving at the findings, and the findings themselves, must resonate with other Indigenous researchers, who are in the best position to evaluate the research. Researcher responsiveness and openness (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson & Spiers 2002), methodological coherence (Eakin 2003; Morse et al 2002; Morse, Swanson & Kuzel 2001), and reflection upon intentions and relationships (Gearheard & Shirley 2007; ITK & NRI 2007; Meadows, Verdi & Crabtree 2003; Morse et al 2002) are all aspects of accountability in relational research. The Piliriqatigiinniq Model for Community Health Research. Piliriqatigiinniq is the concept for working in a collaborative way for the common good. The Qaujigiartiit3 Health Research Centre has developed a model for how research should be conducted, both within the centre and by the researchers with whom the centre engages. Qaujigiartiit developed the Piliriqatigiinniq Partnership Model for Community Health Research in the formative years of the centre (Healey 2008). This model was developed in response to the community-identified need for health research that explores topics of concern to Nunavummiut and is collected, analysed and disseminated in a holistic and collaborative way. The Piliriqatigiinniq model is a visual representation of the web of relationships that we have with each other and is built upon the principle that anyone can be involved in health research in some capacity if we are all working for the common good. Multi-disciplinary collaboration strengthens research projects, enriches data analysis with additional perspectives, and fosters a greater sharing of knowledge and implementation of findings across sectors. While there may not be a representative from every sector involved in every project, the model serves as a reminder to look beyond the scope of what is commonly defined as ‘health’ and ‘research’ to include knowledge-holders and stakeholders from other disciplines and walks of life. This model was developed to provide practical organizational and methodological guidance, however, the foundations run much deeper. 3 ‘Qaujigiartiit’ is the Inuktitut word for ‘looking for knowledge’. 11 ISSN: ISSN 1837-0144 © International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies Figure 1 The Piliriqatigiinniq Partnership Model for Community Health Research The model originated from a dialogue about health and the history of health research in Nunavut communities. It was derived from the stories and voices of people across Nunavut who attended community engagement sessions held between 2006 and 2008 (Healey 2006a, 2006c, 2007, 2008). While the model originated from a health perspective, the underlying principle is cross-cutting and interdisciplinary. The model is structured on the relational aspects of life in Nunavut communities—the relationships that are shared are the foundation from which we move forward to achieve wellness. Those relationships can be with anyone from any walk of life and with anything from any environment. The knowledge that is shared and created in this space is helpful for everyone. The motivations with which one engages in the project are the same—coming together for the common good and the betterment of health and wellness. The group is accountable to each other, to the relationships they have formed and/or will form together, and the relationships they have with others in their community. In essence, this is a model for an Inuit epistemology in action because it is arises from the relational perspective and is built on what was known, what is known, and what will come to be known in Inuit communities. Its development is predicated on the past, present and future experiences of Nunavummiut4 . 4 ‘Nunavummiut’ is the Inuktitut word for ‘People of Nunavut’. 12 ISSN: ISSN 1837-0144 © International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies From this epistemological perspective, ethics, accountability, methodology, knowledge, understanding and our relationships with each other as human beings, as well as our environments are part of the same space. This is, in our opinion, the essence of an Inuit epistemological perspective. The Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre promotes the idea that research must be used as a tool for action—that when one understands the scope and breadth of the issue, one is better-equipped to move forward and take action on it. Multi-sectoral collaboration strengthens research projects, contributes added perspective to data analysis and contributes to greater dissemination and implementation of findings across sectors. Therefore, this approach can be considered to be one that promotes active engagement, the sharing of knowledge, advocacy and action. It is particularly important in Inuit communities that research projects be collaborative and inclusive. The historical context of research in the north, including harmful and unethical research practices, have led to an environment of mistrust and displeasure with researchers in many communities (Healey 2006a, 2006c, 2007, 2008). When we lead our own research projects, we are able to focus on answering our own questions and incorporate methods that are reflective of what we know about wellness and how we know it. This view underscores the right of colonized, Indigenous peoples to construct knowledge in accordance with the self-determined definitions of what they want to know and how they want to know it. Conclusion It is our belief that health research should answer the questions of the people and that such research should be collaborative. We also recognize that not all projects can incorporate the methods outlined in this paper and variations exist depending on the approach incorporated in any given project. With this paper, it has been our intention to share epistemological considerations for northern community health researchers. This paper is a beginning of a dialogue and we look forward to engagement with the expansion of this literature in the future. References Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies (ACUNS). 2003. Ethical Principles for Conduct of Research in the North. Ottawa, ON: Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies. Alfred, T and J Corntassel. 2005. "Being Indigenous: Resurgences against Contemporary Colonialism." Government and Opposition 597-614. Barnhardt, R & AO Kawagley. 2005. "Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Alaska Native Ways of Knowing." Anthropology and Education Quarterly 36(1): 8-23. Battiste, M. 2002. Indigenous knowledge and Pedagogy in First Nations Education: A literature review with recommendations. Ottawa, Canada: Government of Canada, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (INAC). Battiste, M & JY Henderson. 2000. Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage: A Global Challenge. Saskatoon, SK: Purich Press Publishing. Bennet, J & S Rowley. eds. 2004. "Introduction." In Uqalurait: An Oral History of Nunavut. Montreal, PQ: McGill Queen's University Press. 13 ISSN: ISSN 1837-0144 © International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies Borkan, J. 1999. "Immersion/Crystallization." In Doing Qualitative Research, edited by B Crabtree & W Miller. 2nd Edn. 179-194. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chilisa, B. ed. 2012. "Postcolonial Indigenous Research Paradigms." In Indigenous Research Methodologies 98-12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). 2006. Ethical Guildelines for Health Research with Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). 2010. Tri�Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa, Canada: Government of Canada. Creswell, JW. 2003. Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (1964). Deloria, V. 1995. Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the myth of scientific fact. NewYork, NY: Scribner. Eakin, JM and E Mykhalovsky. 2003. "Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: Reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in health sciences." Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 9(2): 187-194. Egan, C. 1998. "Points of view: Inuit women's perceptions of pollution." International Journal of Circumpolar Health 57: 550-554. Emberley, J. 2008. "Skin: An Assemblage on the Wounds of Knowledge, the Scars of Truth, and the Limits of Power." ESC: English Studies in Canada 34(1): 1-9. Gearheard, S & J Shirley. 2007. "Challenges in Community-Research Relationships: Learning from natural science in Nunavut." Arctic 60(1): 62-74. Getty, GA. 2010. "The journey between Western and Indigenous research paradigms." Journal of Transcultural Nursing 21(1): 35-39. Grenier, L. 1998. Working with indigenous knowledge: A guide for researchers. Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Centre. Healey, GK. 2006a. An Exploration of Determinants of Health for Inuit Women in Nunavut. Scientific masters thesis, University of Calgary. Healey, GK. 2006b. Community-identified Health Priorities for Nunavut. Iqaluit, NU: Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network – Nunavut. Healey, GK. 2006c. Report on Health Research Ethics Workshop and Community Consultation in Iqaluit, Nunavut. Iqaluit, NU: Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network - Nunavut. Healey, GK. 2007. Report on Health Research Ethics Workshop and Community Consultation in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. Iqaluit, NU: Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network - Nunavut. Healey, GK. 2008. Piliriqatigiinniq Partnership Model for Community Health Research. Iqaluit, NU: Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre. Healey, GK & LM Meadows. 2008. "Tradition and Culture: An Important Determinant of Inuit Women’s Health." Journal of Aboriginal Health 4(1): 25-33. 14 ISSN: ISSN 1837-0144 © International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) & Nunavut Research Institute (NRI). 2007. Negotiating Research Relationships with Inuit Communities: A guide for researchers, edited by S Nickels, J Shirley & G Laidler. Ottawa, ON and Iqaluit, NU: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Nunavut Research Institute. Karetak, J. 2013. Conversations of Inuit elders in relation to the Maligait (Inuit laws). Transcripts of conversations with Inuit elders. Nunavut Dept. of Education. Curriculum Support Services. Kovach, M. 2009. Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Kovach, M. 2010. "Conversational Method in Indigenous Research." First Peoples Child and Family Review 5(1): 40-48. McGrath, JT. 2011. Isumaksaqsiurutigijakka: Conversations with Aupilaarjuk Towards a Theory of Inuktitut Knowledge Renewal. PhD dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa. McGrath, Janet Tamalik. 2004. Translating ethics across the cultural divide in Arctic research: Pittiarniq. Meadows, LM, AJ Verdi & B Crabtree. 2003. "Keeping up appearances: using qualitative research to enhance knowledge of dental practice." Journal of Dental Education 67(9): 981-990. Morse, JM, M Barrett, M Mayan, K Olson & J Spiers. 2002. "Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research." International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1(2): 13-22. Morse, JM, J Swanson & AJ Kuzel. 2001. The Nature of Qualitative Evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Price, J. 2007. Tukisivallialiqtakka Things I have now begun to understand: Inuit governance, Nunavut and hte Kitchen Consultation Model. Arts masters thesis, University of Victoria. Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA). 2012. Qikiqtani Truth Commission Final Report: Achieving Saimaqatigiingniq. Tagalik, S. Personal discussion about ethics, inuuqatigiitsiarniq and pittiajusuringgirniq uulijalimanik, July 16 2013. Thayer-Bacon, B. 2003. Relational Epistemologies. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Wachowich, N, AA Awa, RK Katsak & SP Katsak. 1999. Saqiyuq: Three Stories of the Lives of Inuit Women. Montreal, PQ: McGill-Queen's University Press. Wilson, S. 2008. Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Blackpoint, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.organizational other-iu
Inuit parent perspectives on sexual health communication with adolescent children in Nunavut: ‘‘It’s kinda hard for me to try to find the words’’Gwen Healey

The purpose of this study was to explore Inuit parent perspectives on sharing knowledge with teenage children about sexual health and …

ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ English ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE Inuit parent perspectives on sexual health communication with adolescent children in Nunavut: ‘‘It’s kinda hard for me to try to find the words’’ Gwen Healey* Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre, Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada Background. For Inuit, the family unit has always played a central role in life and in survival. Social changes in Inuit communities have resulted in significant transformations to economic, political and cultural aspects of Inuit society. Where the family unit was once the setting for dialogue on family relations and sexuality, this has largely been replaced by teachings from the medical community and/or the school system. Objective. The purpose of this study was to explore Inuit parent perspectives on sharing knowledge with teenage children about sexual health and relationships. Method. A qualitative Indigenous knowledge approach was used for this study with a focus on Inuit ways of knowing as described in the Piliriqattigiinniq Community Health Research Partnership Model. Interviews were conducted with 20 individual parents in 3 Nunavut communities in 2011. Parents were asked about whether and how they talk to their children about sexual health and relationships. An analytical approach building on the concept of Iqqaumaqatigiiniq (‘‘all knowing coming into one’’), which is similar to ‘‘immersion and crystallization,’’ was used to identify story elements, groupings or themes in the data. The stories shared by parents are honoured, keeping their words intact as often as possible in the presentation of results. Results. Parents shared stories of themselves, family members and observations of the community. Fifteen of 17 mothers in the study reported having experienced sexual abuse as children or adolescents. Parents identified the challenges that they have and continue to experience as a result of forced settlement, family displacement and the transition of Inuit society. They expressed a desire to teach their children about sexual health and relationships and identified the need for emotional support to do this in the wake of the trauma they have experienced. Parents highly valued elders and the knowledge they have about family relationships and childrearing. Conclusion. There are powerful, unresolved healing issues in Inuit communities. The traumatic experiences of the settlement and residential school era continue to have an impact on present-day family relationships. To support parentchild dialogue on sexual health and relationships, parents identified a need to repair relationships between youth and elders, and to provide culturally sensitive support to parents to heal from trauma. Keywords: Inuit; sexual health; public health; adolescents Responsible Editor: Rhonda M. Johnson, University of Alaska Anchorage, Alaska, USA. *Correspondence to: Gwen Healey, PO Box 11372, Iqaluit, Nunavut, X0A 0H0, Canada, Email: gwen.healey@qhrc.ca Received: 30 May 2014; Revised: 22 September 2014; Accepted: 22 September 2014; Published: 21 October 2014 I n 2009, Nunavut reported high rates of chlamydia and gonorrhoea, both of which are sexually trans�mitted infections, (3,772/100,000 and 1,588/100,000, respectively), compared to Canadians (259/100,000 and 33/100,000, respectively) (1). Concerns about these high rates and the high rates of teen pregnancy in Nunavut (161.3/1,000 compared to 38.2/1,000 in the rest of Canada) prompted community members in Nunavut to ask questions about how parents and their children talk about sexual health (24). The family unit was once the setting for dialogue on family relations, reproductive health and sexuality, and this has largely been replaced by teachings from the medical community and/or the school system. The purpose of this study was to explore Inuit pa�rent perspectives on sharing knowledge with adolescent children about sexual health and partner relationships. Family is the primary context in which a child grows, develops an identity, is socialized, is hurt and healed, and International Journal of Circumpolar Health 2014. # 2014 Gwen Healey. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license. 1 Citation: Int J Circumpolar Health 2014, 73: 25070 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v73.25070 (page number not for citation purpose) navigates physical and social development (5). The family is a naturally occurring unit and the context in which most behaviour-shaping experiences can occur. In recent years, increased attention has been given to the role of the family in predicting and understanding the sexual behaviour of adolescents in the literature (69). Family factors, such as communication, availability of parents, spending time together outside the home and engaging in activities together can have an impact on the extent to which behaviour problems or choices endure and become part of a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle (5,7,10). For example, adolescents who reported positive relationships and shared activities with parents were less likely to initiate sex (7). Parental communication about sex and condom use has been shown to directly relate to adole�scent sexual behaviour (8). Whitaker and Miller (8) found that peer norms were more strongly related to sexual decision making among adolescents who had not dis�cussed sex or condoms with a parent. The authors suggest that results indicate that a lack of communication may cause adolescents to turn to peers and that peers may then influence their behaviour. Parental discussions have been associated with less risky sexual behaviour among adolescents, less conformity to peer norms and a greater belief that parents provide the most useful information about sex (6,8,11). Research has shown that adolescents are more likely to use birth control when there is parental support to do so (12). In addition, research has shown that some teens want to have discussions about sex with their parents and other caregivers, more so than others, to help them understand sexuality and to guide them in their own decision making (13). Parentteen discussions about sexual health topics are important because they (a) provide information to teens, (b) they reinforce parental values and (c) they buffer teens from peer pressure (8). Parental closeness and monitoring, rather than the actual specifics of parentchild communication, may also play a role because parents who talk to their children about sex or condoms may have already established closer relation�ships with their children (8,11). For Inuit, the family unit has always played a central role in life and in survival (14). Inuit kinship extends beyond familial affiliation to other non-biological affilia�tions including adoption, friendship, marriage or partner�ship, and namesake (1518). Every person had a specific and essential role to play in making contributions towards family survival and the education of young children and adolescents (16,19,20). Before contact, small groups of Inuit families travelled together to different camps and hunting grounds, in ilagiit nunagivaktangat. 1 Each person within a kinship group was valued for his or her contribution to the group’s well-being and success. A child’s earliest learning occurred as they observed and made meaning from the actions of their parents and extended family in the camp (22,23). Children learned valuable behaviours, such as self-restraint, patience, non�aggressiveness, generosity and responsibility, by watching their family members lead by example (16,24,25). When Inuit lived in family-based nomadic camps, teaching about sexual health and relationships was part of a dialogue between children and their parents or extended family, which occurred as part of the sharing of knowledge on a variety of topics. Painngut Peterloosie (26) highlighted the importance that was placed on the openness of the relationship dialogue between romantic partners in discussing, for example, menstruation, sex or sexual satisfaction. After the settlement era in the 1950s, during which time Inuit settled into communities, were sent to residential school and/or were sent away to Canadian cities for medical treatment, parentchild extended family interaction changed significantly because many families were separated and displaced (21,27,28). Today in Nunavut, as in many other jurisdictions, parents and family are no longer the sole source for information about sexual health knowledge and behaviours, if they are a source at all (24,2933). The school system, peers, television, Internet, media, community members, tea�chers and others now play a role in the transmission of attitudes, knowledge and beliefs about sexual health behaviours (29,33,34). In a study of the perspectives of 53 Inuit women on teen pregnancy, some respondents identified less parental control over young people and greater influence on behaviour from other individuals outside of the family as a worrisome trend in larger communities compared to pre-settlement times (29). In a review of determinants of sexual health among Inuit adolescents, Steenbeek, Tyndall (32) asserted that Inuit parents and grandparents did not feel competent to instruct their own children in sexual health. Trauma experienced during and after the settlement and settle�ment era in the Eastern Arctic (35,36); the loss of accumulated Inuit wisdom, knowledge, teachings and practices regarding life cycle, reproductive health and family planning that occurred as a result (21,30,32,37,38); and the changing nature of northern communities (28,29,39) could be factors contributing to the lack of confidence reported among parents. Methods This qualitative participatory research study explored the topic of Inuit family communication about sexual health and relationships at the request of community members who participated in consultations conducted in Nunavut between 2006 and 2008 (2,40). Their request was prompted by the high rates of sexually transmitted infections and high rate of teenage pregnancy in Nunavut communities 1 Inuktitut terminology meaning, ‘‘a place used regularly or seasonally by Inuit for hunting, harvesting and/or gathering’’ (21). Gwen Healey 2 (page number not for citation purpose) Citation: Int J Circumpolar Health 2014, 73: 25070 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v73.25070 compared to the Canadian population. The research project was designed and implemented in partnership with community wellness or research centres in each of 3 Nunavut communities. The researcher is from Nunavut and familiar with community and territorial research protocols. This study followed a modified grounded theory approach (41), which retains most of the defined char�acteristics of ‘‘classic’’ grounded theory, but takes a more subjective and reflexive stance which is more aligned with Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing (4244). The research framework focused on Inuit ways of knowing, specifically following the Piliriqatigiinniq Partnership Community Health Research Model (45). The model highlights 5 Inuit concepts, which informed the research approach: Piliriqatigiinniq (the concept of working to�gether for the common good); Pittiarniq (the concept of being good or kind); Inuuqatigiinniq (the concept of being respectful of others); Unikkaaqatigiinniq (the philosophy of story-telling and/or the power and meaning of story); and Iqqaumaqatigiinniq (the concept that ideas or thoughts may come into ‘‘one’’). A paper outlining the theoretical and methodological aspects of this study in greater detail is published elsewhere (45). Participants were engaged in the study through community health and wellness centres and were offered the opportunity to be project partners if they so desired. Inuit parents who had at least 1 teenage son or daughter between the age of 13 and 19 years were invited to participate. Interviews were conducted in a comfortable setting chosen by the partici�pant, recorded with permission and transcribed verbatim. All questions were asked in English, and participants primarily responded in English. In the cases where they responded in Inuktitut, the author provided the transla�tion and verified the translation with a third party. Participants were asked open-ended questions about their experiences talking about sexual health and relationships with their children and invited to tell stories and share experiences. Data were analysed through a process of ‘‘immersion and crystallization’’ (46) which, from the perspective of the researcher, is a process that is analogous to the Inuit concept of Iqqaumaqatigiiniq, ‘‘all knowing coming into one.’’ Through a process of listening to interviews, reading and re-reading transcripts and stories, themes crystalized in the data. A rigorous, respectful and mindful process was followed for the data analysis, which included: the comparison of findings to the known literature on the topic (47); reflexivity and bracketing of researcher perspectives before and during the study (48,49); an iterative data collection and analysis process (50); discussion of findings with the local Nunavut-based advisors which included representatives from 2 community wellness centres,2 the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Nunavut, a Community Health Representative (CHR) and a public health nurse (50); reviewing the findings with participants or collaborators when and where appropriate (51); and honouring the stories, shared by parents, by keeping their words intact as often as possible in the presentation of results without breaching confidentiality (42,45). Results Twenty interviews were conducted in 3 Nunavut commu�nities. The population of the communities ranged from 1,200 to 7,000. The respondents were aged between 30 and 58. Of the Inuit parents who volunteered to be interviewed for this study, 3 were fathers and 17 were mothers; 19 of 20 did not complete high school; 11 were employed in part�time, seasonal or casual work, 3 were unemployed and 6 were employed full-time. When asked about whether they spoke to their children about ‘‘sexual health,’’ parents described sexual health at the individual level as well as in the larger community and historic context. In response to the question about where they learned about sexual health, most mothers in the study disclosed being sexually abused as a child or adolescent. They stated that their experiences of child sexual abuse made them feel inadequate to talk to their children about sexual health. Both mothers and fathers shared a desire to teach their children about sexual health and relationships, and identified a need for support to help them do this, possibly by including elders. There were 2 primary themes in the data: (a) Parentadolescent communication: ‘‘It’s kinda hard for me to find the words’’ and (b) Bringing elders and young people together to talk about sexual health. Themes and quotes are presented in English, as that is the language in which the stories were conveyed, mirroring the way in which parents shared experiences. Parentadolescent communication: ‘‘It’s kinda hard for me to find the words’’ Parents most often spoke of parentadolesent commu�nication in terms of what they perceived to be a struggle ‘‘between worlds’’ and how this struggle impacted rela�tionships with their children. Parents in this study were among the first generation of Inuit born into permanent settlements. Their parents were often born and raised on the land in nomadic Inuit camps. The children of that era are the parents of today’s youth generation. Participants spoke of the struggles families experienced adjusting to this ‘‘different world,’’ meaning the world of permanent settlements and the expectations of non-Inuit institutions, such as schools, nursing stations or the police force, in these new communities. When asked to explain the perceived divide between the parent and adolescent generations and impact on communication about sexual health, one father said, When the kids are not listening to parents today maybe [it’s] because the mother or the father is 2 The Arviat Community Wellness Centre and the 2nd declined to be named. Sexual health communication with adolescent children in Nunavut Citation: Int J Circumpolar Health 2014, 73: 25070 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v73.25070 3 (page number not for citation purpose) yelling to them. The child [becomes] too hard and it seems like they don’t want to listen to the parents anymore. Because they yell ... yeah, they yell too much. That they become hard. Hard and they will forget in their mind their childhood when they’re older. So, some parents yell too much to the kids. Some parents are quiet. Some parents are keeping it [inside]. Different world now, different families. We all have different problems. Some people are [in a] very happy family. Some people are in not very good families. Some people are [in] very scary families. Some people are really not good not welcoming people [in their] families. Like we’re all different. Father Many of the parents in this study reported experiencing trauma, poverty and/or hardship in their childhood during this period of transition. Violence, substance use and/or mental illness are part of the pattern of ill-health in today’s communities resulting from a lack of support to cope with those experiences. Parents described violence, substance use and unresolved trauma as factors that have perpetuated fractures in family relationships and in parentadolescent communication about sexual health. Parents in this study expressed a very strong desire to talk to their children about sexual health and relation�ships but questioned their confidence to teach their children. Fifteen of 17 mothers in the study disclosed experiences of sexual abuse in childhood or adolescence, and often described sexual health in terms of protecting their children from sexual abuse. Parents shared the stories to provide a context for explaining their desire to talk to their children about their negative or traumatic childhood and adolescent experiences in order to prevent their children from being similarly harmed. However, parents feared that they would be judged by their children for having engaged in the same behaviours that they are trying to prevent. I’ve been on and off with a relationship with [my children’s] father. And when we have our ups and downs when he comes and goes like takes off and then my daughter knows that she knows I’m down and then I start telling her I said when you’re a teenager, don’t ever get a boyfriend. I said don’t ever get a boyfriend from here. Like you’ve got to find the right one and that’s not abusive and like won’t cheat on you and won’t play games. So it’s kinda hard for me to tell her more like, but I don’t know how to explain it to her. So, I always try before I say anything I sit down and I think about think about how how how am I going to say it to her. So, it’s kinda hard for me to try to find the words. Yeah. And a way to say it to her. Um, the way I see it these young kids, now they’re all shacked up and ... at a young age. Like some of them are what? Thirteen fourteen? And I’ll say to myself, I could see myself when I was that young and like it’s scary to get shacked up at a really young age and it’s .... Because they’re having kids. Are they just shacking up because they want to or ... because I wonder do they know about sexuality and life [relationships]? Do they know like once you’re with the one once you’re with one girl or one boy you are just supposed to be together. Not to just do a couple of one night stands and then take off and then go to another girl .... That’s the part that really scares me cause it’s like they’re getting that STI all the time and I know how it feels cause you have to take pills for that and then once you get treated and the next thing it happens it goes back again. Same. Just like that circle of violence. It’s like that. The same rotation over and over again. And they say they won’t hurt you again. But the next thing it happens again. Parents identified a need for greater emotional support to discuss sexual health and relationships with their chil�dren. Parents indicated that they struggled with how to talk to their children about sexual health because of traumatic experiences in their own youth. They identified a need for support for themselves and for each other in order to foster wellness in their own lives and in the lives of their children. Definitely parents could be more involved [in talking to their children about sexual health and relationships] because it will not only help [us], but kids to be more aware of their surroundings. And what sexual preference they have and for them to respect themselves. And others, I think it would make a big difference if parents start talking to they could do more talking to their children and not be shy about it. Because every parent has a role and to have brighter, healthier future they should talk to their kids. Bringing elders and young people together to discuss sexual health In the context of parentadolescent communication about sexual health, some parents talked about personal relationships among their parents’ generation those who are now elders in the community. They spoke fondly of the older generation and provided stories and exam�ples about the practices in which their parents had participated that are no longer followed today, such as arranged marriage. One participant indicated that the shift from the arranged unions of her parents’ generation to the self-selected partners of her teen daughter’s generation was new for the family and something for which she was preparing. It’s changed a lot from [my parents] generation. Two parents if there was a teenager, and the teenager was a boy and a girl ... they would be set up their relationship would be arranged. Once they reached puberty or once they get older, they would be living together. Then, even at the last minute when they’re ready to be together, there would be a marriage set up Gwen Healey 4 (page number not for citation purpose) Citation: Int J Circumpolar Health 2014, 73: 25070 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v73.25070 right away, early in the morning around 7 am right out on the land. And they would get married. Just like that. Not living with parents anymore, you just have to be with him. That’s how some of them were. Our parents [generation]. That’s how they used to be. So, I just really prepare for it like as our ancestors used to do prepare and all that. Looks like our teenagers are deciding who they want to marry. Who they want to be with. I just know my parents got married one day when they were 20 years old. mother These stories were shared to illustrate the rapid change in the formation of partner relationships within 3 genera�tions in their communities. Participants talked about value they placed on the knowledge of elders about relationships and/or sexual health, and expressed a desire to see it revived and promoted among young people in the community. Parents indicated that while some adole�scents may prefer to speak to elders or grandparents instead of their own parents, other young people may not yet be willing to listen to elders at all. In the latter situation, parents identified that the relationship between youth and elders needed to be restored. The parents felt that elders and youth were important supports for each other, and sometimes can communicate in a way that parents and youth cannot: [Elders/grandparents] are not even trying [to talk to kids] anymore because ... they won’t listen. They’re already listening to the music and the television and the Internet. And they don’t want to listen to their elders. They know this. That’s why [the older generation] shut their mouths. So, I guess what we need to develop is elders and young people together. Within the building, out there *gestures out the window*. And in the schools. Everywhere. On the land. When their friends are bothering them ... or this young man or young lady wants to go out with one of my children ... they don’t tell me; they don’t tell my wife. They always tell my mother (an elder). They talk to her. They are more open to them, than us as a parent. Discussion The stories shared in this study illustrated, first, how parents related their trauma history to their understand�ing of parentadolescent communication in today’s com�munities in Nunavut. Parents described their childhood living in a ‘‘different world,’’ one in which families were separated and relationships were disrupted. They felt they did not have the confidence or ‘‘the words’’ to communicate with their children about sexual health and relationships as a result. Their stories highlight the loss of Inuit knowledge, teachings and practices regarding sexual and reproductive health that occurred as a result of the separation of families at that time (21,30,32,37,38). Second, discussions about sexual health and relation�ships in the families of the participants, if they did occur, focused on teaching children to protect themselves from sexual abuse or abusive relationships. Data from the 20072008 Inuit Health Survey indicated that 41% of adult respondents in Nunavut (52% of women respon�dents and 22% of men respondents) experienced severe sexual abuse in childhood (52). Physical, emotional and psychological consequences of child sexual abuse can per�sist throughout the life course (53). Feelings of power�lessness and betrayal, anxiety, fear, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and suicidal ideas and behaviour have also been associated with a history of childhood sexual abuse (5356). Shame, guilt, vulnerability, internal frag�mentation, invalidation and cultural shame were some of the feelings reported by Indigenous women victims of sexual abuse in the literature that were also shared by participants in this study as having an impact on their ability to engage their children in a dialogue about sexual health and relationships (57). Previous research has shown that talking about child sexual abuse can be part of a therapeutic healing process for women, which is supported by the perspectives of the women in this study (58). Third, parents highlighted the value that elders and their knowledge hold for them and in their community. They identified a desire to repair and support youth elder relationships to foster dialogue on family, sexual health and intimate or personal relationships when parents are not able to be a support or resource. The parents’ vision of the role of elders in sexual health teaching reflects the Inuit kinship and family structure that was prominent before settlement. From their perspective, repairing that structure is an important part of promot�ing sexual health among adolescents. Previous research has shown that revitalizing Indigenous family and kin�ship perspectives, where they have been disrupted, is an important part of supporting positive, holistic parenting (5962). There are powerful, unresolved traumas and healing issues in Inuit communities related to the challenges Inuit have and continue to experience as a result of colonialism and the transition of Inuit society from one way of life to another (36,6367). The traumatic experiences of the settlement and residential school era continue to have an impact on present-day family relationships and parent adolescent communication both in general and specifi�cally about sexual health. Parents in this study identified a desire to move away from cycles of trauma and to be supported in engaging their children in dialogue about sexual health and relationships with a focus on revitaliz�ing parentadolescent and elderyouth relationships. Considerations and limitations Only the perspectives of those with an interest in sharing their stories were represented in this study. The findings in this study are not representative of the entire population Sexual health communication with adolescent children in Nunavut Citation: Int J Circumpolar Health 2014, 73: 25070 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v73.25070 5 (page number not for citation purpose) on the topic of sexual health, only the subset that had a story they wanted to share in 3 of 25 Nunavut commu�nities. Given the historical and geographical differences between communities, there are a number of stories and perspectives on sexual health and relationships in Nuna�vut that could be explored in future research. In parti�cular, future research should expand on this study to explore the perspectives of Inuit adolescents on the sources of knowledge about sexual health that they value as well as how to support survivors of child sexual abuse to have meaningful conversations with their children about sexual health. Conclusion The results of this study highlight the importance Inuit parents place on engaging with children in a dialogue about sexual-health and relationships. Parents described events in the greater community and temporal context of Nunavut that they perceived to be barriers to commu�nicating with their children about sexual health. They identified elders in their communities as supports for young people. This would be a positive contribution to the revitalization of Inuit kinship structure that existed before the displacement of families during settlement. The findings provide direction to public health pro�grammes, services and practitioners to expand current strategies by including greater support for parentchild and elderyouth dialogue about sexual health and relationships in Nunavut. Healing and counselling ser�vices must be made available to families as part of this process, given the significant role child sexual abuse played in the lives of the parents in this study. Acknowledgements A heartfelt qujannamiimaarialuk to the parents who shared their stories with me for this study. We learned from each other and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to share experiences as Nunavummiut. This study was acknowledged and supported in principle by Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Geraldine Osborne. Many relationships (new and existing) were fostered across multiple communities during the various stages of this project with individuals to whom I also express gratitude: Jason Akearok, Shirley Tagalik, Sarah Curley, Marie Ingram, Madeleine Cole, Theresa Koonoo, Sharon Edmunds�Potvin, Candice Lys, Jennifer Noah, Lissie Anaviapik, Ceporah Mearns, Dionne Gesink, Gillian Einstein and Ted Myers. Conflict of interest and funding A small stipendwas provided by the Northern Scientific Training Program of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada in 2011. References 1. NDH&SS. Sexually transmitted infections in Nunavut 2006 2011. Iqaluit, NU: Nunavut Department of Health and Social Services; 2012. 2. Healey GK. Community-identified health priorities for Nunavut. Iqaluit, NU: Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network Nunavut; 2006. 3. Healey GK. Report on health research ethics workshop and community consultation in Iqaluit, Nunavut. Iqaluit, NU: Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research Network Nunavut; 2006. 4. Healey GK. An exploration of determinants of health for Inuit women in Nunavut. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary; 2006. 5. Santisteban DA, Mitrani VB. The influence of acculturation processes on the family. In: Chun KM, Organista PB, Marin G, editors. Acculturation: advances in theory, measurement and applied research. Baltimore, MD: United Book Press; 2005. p. 12135. 6. Lenciauskiene I, Zaborskis A. The effects of family structure, parentchild relationship and parental monitoring on early sexual behaviour among adolescents in nine European coun�tries. Scand J Publ Health. 2008;36:60718. 7. Pearson J, Muller C, Frisco ML. Parental involvement, family structure, and adolescent sexual decision-making. Sociol Perspect. 2006;49:6790. 8. Whitaker DJ, Miller KS. Parentadolescent discussions about sex and condoms: impact on peer influences of sexual risk behavior. J Res Adolesc Res. 2000;15:25170. 9. Meschke LL, Bartholomae S, Zentall SR. Adolescent sexuality and parentadolescent processes: promoting healthy teen choices. Fam Relat. 2000;49:14354. 10. Weiss JA. Let us talk about it: safe adolescent sexual decision making. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2007;19:4508. 11. Whitaker DJ, Miller KS, Clark LF. Reconceptualizing adoles�cent sexual behavior: beyond did they or didn’t they? Fam Plann Perspect. 2000;32:1117. 12. Laraque D, McLean DE, Brown-Peterside P, Ashton D, Diamond B. Predictors of reported condom use in central Harlem youth as conceptualized by the health belief model. J Adolesc Health. 1997;21:31827. 13. Aquilina ML, Bragadottir H. Adolescent pregnancy: teen perspectives on prevention. Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2000; 25:1927. 14. Arnakak J. Indigenous knowledge and its role in the healing of deep-rooted conflicts. Colloquium on Violence and Religion; 2006 June 3, St. Paul University, Ottawa, ON; 2006. 15. Haviland W, Prins H, McBride B, Walrath D. Cultural an�thropology: the human challenge. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning; 2010. 16. Bennet J, Rowley S. Uqalurait: an oral history of Nunavut. Montreal, QC: McGill Queen’s University Press; 2004. 17. Emdal-Navne L. Fleksibelt Moderskab: Reproduktive beslut�ninger, livsforløb og slægtskab i Grønland (Flexible mother�hood: reproductive decisions in life and kinship in Greenland). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen University; 2008. 18. Nuttall M. Arctic homeland: kinship, community, and devel�opment in northwest Greenland. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1992. 19. Briggs J, Ekho N, Ottokie U. Childrearing practices. Iqaluit, NU: Nunavut Arctic College; 2000. 20. NCI, QIA. Ilaginniq: interviews on Inuit family values from the Qikiqtani Region. Iqaluit, NU: Inhabit Media; 2011. 127 p. 21. Qikiqtani Inuit Association. Qikiqtani truth commission final report: achieving Saimaqatigiingniq. Iqaluit, NU: Qikiqtani Inuit Association; 2010. 22. Karetak J. Conversations of Inuit elders in relation to the Maligait (Inuit laws) (Transcripts of conversations with Inuit elders). Arviat, NU: Nunavut Department of Education; 2013. Gwen Healey 6 (page number not for citation purpose) Citation: Int J Circumpolar Health 2014, 73: 25070 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v73.25070 23. Allen KR, Husser EK, Stone DJ, Jordal CE. Agency and error in Young adults’ stories of sexual decision making. Fam Relat. 2008;57:51729. 24. Condon R. Inuit Youth: growth and change in the Canadian Arctic. London, UK: Rutgers University Press; 1987. 25. Healey GK, Meadows L. Tradition and culture: an important determinant of Inuit women’s health. J Aboriginal Health. 2008;4:2533. 26. Peterloosie P. Ilagiinniq: interviews on Inuit family values from the Qikiqtani Region Iqaluit. NU: Niutaq Cultural Institute and Qikiqtani Inuit Association; 2011. p. 12340. 27. INAC IaNAC. Health and healing. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada; 1996. 28. Kral MJ, Idlout L, Minore JB, Dyck RJ, Kirmayer LJ. Unikkaartuit: meanings of well-being, happiness, health, and community change among Inuit in Canada. Am J Community Psychol. 2011;48:42638. 29. Archibald L. Teenage pregnancy in Inuit communities: issues and perspectives. A report prepared for the Pauktuutit Inuit Women’s Association. Ottawa, ON: Pauktuutit Inuit Women’s Association; 2004. 30. Condon R. The rise of adolescence: social change and life stage dilemmas in the central canadian arctic. Hum Organ. 1990;49:26679. 31. Condon R. The rise of the leisure class: adolescence and recreational acculturation in the Canadian arctic. Ethos. 1995;23:4768. 32. Steenbeek A, Tyndall M, Rothenberg R, Sheps S. Determi�nants of sexually transmitted infections among Canadian Inuit adolescent populations. Publ Health Nurs. 2006;23:5314. 33. Strasburger VC. Anything goes! Teenage sex and the media. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008;30:10915. 34. Cole M. Youth sexual health in Nunavut: a needs-based survey of knowledge,attitudes and behaviour. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2003;63(Suppl 2):2703. 35. Healey GK. Inuit family understandings of sexual health and relationships in Nunavut. Can J Public Health. 2014;105:e1337. 36. Kirmayer LJ, Tait CL, Simpson C. Mental health of aboriginal peoples in Canada: transformations of identity and commu�nity. In: Kirmayer LJ, Valaskis GG, editors. Healing traditions: the mental health of aboriginal peoples in Canada. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press; 2009. p. 335. 37. Mancini Billson J, Mancini K. Inuit women: their powerful spirit in a century of change. Lanham, MD: Roweman and Littlefield; 2007. 38. Moffitt PM. Colonialization: a health determinants for pregnant Dogrib women. J Transcult Nurs. 2004;15:32330. 39. Wexler L. Inupiat youth suicide and culture loss: changing community conversations for prevention. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63:293848. 40. Healey GK. Report on health research ethics workshop and community consultation in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. Iqaluit, NU: Qaujigiartiit/Arctic Health Research NetworkNunavut; 2007. 41. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, UK: Sage; 2006. 42. Kovach M. Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, con�versations, and contexts. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press; 2009. 43. Chilisa B. Postcolonial indigenous research paradigms. In: Chilisa B, editor. Indigenous research methodologies. Thou�sand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2012. p. 98127. 44. Wilson S. Research is ceremony: indigenous research methods. Blackpoint, Nova Scotia: Fernwood; 2008. 45. Healey GK, Tagak A, Sr. Piliriqatigiinniq ‘working in a collaborative way for the common good’: a perspective on the space where health research methodology and Inuit epistemology come together. Int J Crit Indigenous Stud. 2014;7:114. 46. Borkan J. Immersion/crystallization. In: Crabtree B, Miller W, editors. Doing qualitative research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999. p. 17994. 47. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2013. 48. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320:502. 49. Meadows LM, Verdi AJ, Crabtree B. Keeping up appearances: using qualitative research to enhance knowledge of dental practice. J Dent Educ. 2003;67:98190. 50. Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K, Spiers J. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Meth. 2002;1:1322. 51. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research: rigour and qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;311:109112. 52. Galloway T, Saudny H. Nunavut community and personal wellness, Inuit Health Survey (20072008). Montreal, QC: Centre for Indigenous Nutrition and the Environment McGill University; 2012. 53. Johnson CF. Child sexual abuse. Lancet. 2004;364:46270. 54. Finkelhor D, Browne A. The traumatic impact of child sexual abuse: a conceptualization. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1985;55: 53041. 55. Segal B. Responding to victimized Alaska Native women in treatment for substance use. Subst Use Misuse. 2001;36: 84565. 56. Bohn DK. Lifetime physical and sexual abuse, substance abuse, depression, and suicide attempts among Native Amer�ican women. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2003;24:33352. 57. McEvoy M, Daniluk J. Wounds to the soul: the experiences of aboriginal women survivors of sexual abuse. Can Psychol. 1995;36:22135. 58. Phillips A, Daniluk J. Beyond ‘‘survivor’’: how childhood sexual abuse informs the identity of adult women at the end of the therapeutic process. J Counsel Dev. 2004;82:17784. 59. Yellow Horse Brave Heart M. Oyate Ptayela: rebuilding the Lakota Nation through addressing historical trauma among Lakota parents. J Hum Behav Soc Environ. 2009;2:10926. 60. Poonwassie A. Grief and trauma in Aboriginal communities in Canada. Int J Health Promot Educ. 2006;44:2933. 61. Wesley-Esquimaux CC, Smolewski M. Historic trauma and aboriginal healing. Ottawa, ON: Aboriginal Healing Founda�tion; 2004. 62. McLennan V, Khavarpour F. Culturally appropriate health promotion: its meaning and application in Aboriginal com�munities. Health Promot J Aust. 2004;15:2379. 63. ITK. Inuit approaches to suicide prevention Ottawa. CA: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami; 2013 [cited 2013 Dec 16]. Available from: https://www.itk.ca/inuit-approaches-suicide-prevention-_ftn5 64. Kirmayer LJ, Valaskis GG. Healing traditions: the mental health of aboriginal peoples in Canada. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press; 2009. 65. Kral MJ. Unikkaartuit: meanings of well-being, sadness, suicide, and change in two Inuit communities. Final Report to the National Health Research and Development Programs, Health Canada Project #6606-6231-002, 2003 [cited 2014 Oct 14]. Avail�able from: http://nb.cmha.ca/files/2012/04/Unikkaartuit.pdf 66. Pauktuutit. There is a need, so we help: services for Inuit survivors of child sexual abuse. Ottawa, ON: Pauktuutit Inuit Women’s Association; 2003. 67. Pauktuutit. Sivumuapallianiq: National Inuit Residential Schools Healing strategy; the journey forward. Ottawa, ON: Pauktuutit Inuit Women’s Association of Canada; 2007. Sexual health communication with adolescent children in Nunavut Citation: Int J Circumpolar Health 2014, 73: 25070 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v73.25070 7 (page number not for citation purpose)child-and-youth-iu family-and-parenting-iu
Qaujigiartiit Arctic Health Research Network – NunavutGwen Healey

Talks about the components of the Arctic Health Research Network, funding, the board of directors, and …

ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ English report, components of the Arctic Health Research Network, funding, the board of directors, ethics, common themesorganizational
Inunnguiniq Parenting Program for NunavummiutLily Amagoalik

Describes the Inunnguiniq program origins and basic …

ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ English Inunnguiniq Parenting Program for Nunavummiut Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre Iqaluit, NU Qaujigiartiit is an independent, non-profit community research centre in Nunavut. We are Nunavummiut working to improve health in our communities through research, evidence, and action. The Inunnguiniq Parenting Program is the result of 5 years of research and consultation with many organizations and communities. Qaujigiartiit has piloted, and evaluated this evidence-based, culturally relevant parenting program over 4 years. The materials will be available in Nunavut for free. We have developed the Inunnguiniq program in response to requests from Nunavummiut for a culturally�relevant parenting program that focuses on our unique needs. There are 6 Modules in the program that focus on: 1) Living a Good Life; 2) Relationship Building; 3) Inunnguiniq- Teaching to the Heart; 4) Pilimmaksarniq; 5) Communication; 6) Healthy Family Nutrition. Much of the information in the program comes from the Nunavut Dept. of Education’s Elders Advisory Group and we are grateful to the elders who shared their words and the Dept. of Education for allowing us to print sections of their collections. Qaujigiartiit has worked with many partners to fulfill this need, including the Nunavut Dept. of Health, Nunavut Dept. of Education, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, community wellness centres, and community organizations. What does the Inunnguiniq Program look like? The basic structure of the Inunnguiniq Parenting Program is : • Facilitator pairs offer the program together in English, Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun. • The format is a strengths-based, group discussion design. Each session begins with a central topic that is discussed through a range of activities over 2-3 hours. • The target audience is parents/care-givers/foster parents/extended family. Anyone who cares for children full- or part-time. This is NOT a program for just ‘high-risk’ parents, but ALL individuals who care for children. Group size should be approximately 8-10 people. • Inunnguiniq is not a counseling program. We encourage those who want counseling to contact their local health centre. • The program consists of 6 modules taught over 18 sessions (offered 1-3 times/week depending on facilitator comfort/availability) • Each session is to include an elder if possible. In some cases, dvds of elders speaking or telling stories are incorporated into sessions where elders are not available or are not comfortable speaking on a topic. • Each program is to incorporate land components in a minimum of 1 session, but can expand to more. The entire program can be offered on the land if people wish. • The parenting program must provide childcare at each session to support parents who wish to attend. • Each session must incorporate a food component (a snack break). The snack must be nutritious and should be country food when availability allows. Recipe ideas are included in the curriculum. For more information contact Lily Amagoalik, Family Health Research Coordinator lily.amagoalik@qhrc.ca, 867-975-2523 child-and-youth-iu family-and-parenting-iu
Parenting Program for NunavummiutGwen K. Healey

Ten communities completed pilots of the Inunnguiniq Parenting Support Program between January and April 2012 and 4 of the original communities participated in pilots of the revised 2nd edition of the Inunnguiniq Parenting Support Program in …

ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ English Inunnguiniq Parenting Program for Nunavummiut FINAL EVALUATION 2010-2015 Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 2 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 March 2015 This report was prepared by: Gwen K. Healey, PhD Candidate Executive and Scientific Director Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre Iqaluit, NU This report can be referenced in the following way: “Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre (2015). Inunnguiniq Parenting Support Program Final Evaluation Report 2010-2015. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre, Iqaluit, NU.” Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 2 3 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Table of Contents Summary of Findings 5 Areas of Success 5 Future Directions 5 The Goals of the Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 7 The Inunnguiniq Learning Model 7 The Structure of the Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 8 Evaluation Approach 9 Weekly Phone Calls 9 Evaluation Materials Booklets 9 Parent Exit Questionnaires 9 Measuring Success 10 Recruiting Parents 10 The Spectrum of Parents (low risk to high risk) 10 Single Parents 11 Fathers/Men 11 Radio 11 General Program Comments 11 Program Planning 11 Introducing the Program 11 Childcare 12 Land Component 13 Food 13 Participation Levels 13 Facilitator Perspectives 15 Group Type & Number 15 Elders 15 Healing 16 Food 16 Facilitation and Group Skills 16 Challenges 18 The need for healing 18 Communication or Language Barriers 18 Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 3 4 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Cancelled Classes 18 Timeline 19 Resource Bins 19 Technical Difficulties 19 Successful Approaches 20 Soft starts 20 Group work - Circle discussions 20 Activity-based learning 20 Recognizing and acting on opportunity 20 Partnering with professionals 20 The importance of a safe and comfortable space 20 Elders 21 Food 21 Responsive to immediate needs of the parents 21 Facilitator sharing & honesty 21 Door Prize / Incentive 21 Recognizing accomplishments of participants 21 Curriculum Specific Feedback 22 General Comments 22 Future Directions 27 Appendix A - Parent Evaluation Questionnaire Results 28 Appendix B - Nutrition Evaluation Results 30 Appendix C - Requests & Comments from Facilitators & Parents 31 Facilitator & Parent Requests 31 Facilitator Comments 31 Parent Comments 32 Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 4 5 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Summary of Findings Ten communities completed pilots of the Inunnguiniq Parenting Support Program between January and April 2012 and 4 of the original communities participated in pilots of the revised 2nd edition of the Inunnguiniq Parenting Support Program in 2013-14. Areas of Success • Overall, parents reported that they enjoyed the program, particularly learning about traditional Inuit perspectives on childrearing and healthy parenting. • Inunnguiniq pilots that regularly involved Elders and the sharing of Inuit parenting practices and traditional lifestyle had the greatest success. • Parents and facilitators found the session on healing had very strong and emotional responses, often continuing into 1-2 more sessions. • The strengths-based, group format was very successful. Facilitators reported that listening and sharing stories with others helped parents feel better about themselves and they provided support to each other. Parents reported transferring this dialogue format into their family life. • Observations highlighted that participants were most comfortable with and responsive to material when they were active and working on something with their hands. • When men participated, it was observed that they participated with more enthusiasm when activities were on the land. • The food and nutritional components of the program were very well received. Parents enjoyed cooking together and the different types of recipes to choose from. • The revised 2nd edition of the curriculum was much easier to work with and to follow. Future Directions • The Inunnguiniq facilitator training session has been revised into 2 streams: a) a 10-day 25 hour course for Early Childhood Education students at Nunavut Arctic College and b) A 5-day intensive 35 hour version that is delivered to community organizations • Continue to raise awareness about the healing component with the Government of Nunavut and offer collaboration to develop a plan for addressing this community�identified need. • Seek core, sustainable funding for program delivery and on-going evaluation of the program in the long term. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 5 6 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Introduction History of Inunnguiniq Parenting Program Qaujigiartiit is an independent, non-profit community research centre governed by a volunteer board of directors. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre enables health research to be conducted locally, by Nunavummiut, and with communities in a supportive, safe, and culturally sensitive and ethical environment, as well as promote the inclusion of both Inuit Qaujimajatugangit and western sciences in improving the health of Nunavummiut. Mental health and wellness is the number one priority of the research centre. In 2010, Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre was granted 5 years of funding for a programme of research entitled Child and Youth Mental Health and Wellness Intervention, Research and Community Advocacy in Nunavut. The purpose of this project has been to research, develop, implement, and evaluate child and youth mental health and wellness initiatives in Nunavut that focus on Northern and community-based ways of understanding and knowing about healthy children and youth. Funding for this programme of research was provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The development of an evidence-based parenting support program was one component of the Child and Youth Mental Health Intervention, Research and Community Advocacy Project in Nunavut. The driving force behind this parenting program component were the significant number of requests Qaujigiartiit received from communities to engage in a project to develop a culturally-responsive model for supporting Nunavut parents. Qaujigiartiit worked with many partners to fulfill this need, including: the Nunavut Dept. of Health, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Arviat Community Wellness Centre, the Cambridge Bay Community Wellness Centre, Tasiuqtigiit Society, the Hamlet of Gjoa Haven and other community organizations. The Inunnguiniq Parenting Program is the result of 5 years of research and consultation with many organizations and communities. Qaujigiartiit piloted, evaluated, and revised this evidence-based, culturally-responsive parenting program prior to releasing it for use in Nunavut. This report outlines the evaluation data from the pilots conducted between 2012 and 2014. The goal of Qaujigiartiit is to continue to operate as a training and evaluation centre for Inunnguiniq Parenting Program, and to continue to revise and update the program over time. Phase 1 In Phase 1 of program development, Qaujigiartiit collaborated with the Government of Nunavut’s Department of Health and Social Services (GN DHSS) for the development of the Nutrition Module of the program, as well as funding and program support for eight pilot sites (Cambridge Bay, Cape Dorset, Clyde River, Coral Harbor, Gjoa Haven, Igloolik, Kimmirut, and Rankin Inlet). Two of these communities were unsuccessful in implementing a pilot of the program (Igloolik and Kimmiruit). QHRC provided funding and support for two communities, Iqaluit and Arviat. QHRC provided program support to Iqaluit and Arviat, as well as for the two Kitikmeot communities, and conducted the data collection and evaluation for all communities. Phase 2 Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 6 7 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Based on the findings from the Phase 1, the curriculum was revised with the Nunavut Literacy Council to improve the language and flow the material to mirror concepts in adult learning theory. The revised curriculum was piloted in 4 of the original communities in 2013-14: Arviat, Cambridge Bay, Gjoa Haven, and Iqaluit. The Goals of the Inunnguiniq Parenting Program The first goal of the Inunnguiniq Parenting Program is to revitalize the wisdom and practices of inunnguiniq in our lives today. The second goal is to support healing for participants and their families. The third goal is to increase the practice of inunnguiniq in our communities, strengthening the roles of extended family and community in child-rearing. The Inunnguiniq Learning Model In the inunnguiniq learning model, Inuit see everyone in a community as interconnected. In fact, Inuit Elders say we are all both learners and teachers. They say we learn from everyone and everything we interact with. Traditionally, even young children are both learners and teachers. This is because Inuit believe children carry the souls and personalities of their namesakes. So Inuit believe children also carry on their namesakes’ knowledge. The idea of continuous learning is also stressed in inunnguiniq. Inuit Elders have outlined five stages of learning. (We introduced you to these in the Section 1 above). People may all be at different stages of learning. But Inuit believe this is a positive situation. It means there are those who can benefit from our experiences. At the same Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 7 The biggest lessons we learned were from what we observed. …Then finally I was on my own to do many things. Of course I made many mistakes because I had not learned everything yet. I discovered that I had many more things to learn and practice. I learned from my own life that I was responsible to teach [others] skills, not by scolding but practicing in order to acquire skills. I had to use myself as an example and suggest ways to teach other skills. Arsene Ivalu, CSS 2005 8 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 time, it means there are others with experiences that can help us. The role of observation is also an important part of the inunnguiniq learning model. As we mentioned in the section above, Inuit believe practice is essential for the development of proficiency. The Structure of the Inunnguiniq Parenting Program All of these traditional beliefs are reflected in this course. The program has an open structure. It can have a drop-in approach. This allows parents to join at any time and engage at any level. They then can take time away from the course and practice what they learned. Parents can return at a later date to join a different module. Other participants may continue directly from one session to the next. Participants are able to move forward at their own pace. The basic structure of the Inunnguiniq Parenting Support Program is as follows: • Facilitator pairs offer the program together in English, Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun as they desire. • The format is a strengths-based, group discussion design. Each session begins with a central theme that is explored through a range of activities and dialogue over the course of 2-3 hours. • The target audience is parents/care-givers/foster parents/extended family. Anyone who cares for children full- or part-time. This is NOT a program for ‘high-risk’ parents, but is designed for ALL individuals who care for children. Group size should be approximately 8-10, 2 facilitators and a minimum of 1 elder. • Inunnguiniq is not a counselling program. • The program consists of 6 modules taught over 19 sessions (offered 1-3 times per week depending on facilitator comfort/availability) • Each session is to include an elder if possible. In some cases, dvds of elders speaking or telling stories were incorporated into sessions where elders were not available or were not comfortable speaking on a topic. • Each program is to incorporate land components in a minimum of 1 session, but can expand to more. • The parenting program must provide childcare at each session to support parents who wish to attend. • Each session must incorporate a food component (a snack break). The snack must be nutritious and should be country food when availability allows. Recipe ideas are included in the curriculum. The resources provided to each program included: • Each pilot program received 2 copies of these documents in English and Inuktitut at the Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 8 9 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 training: • Inunnguiniq Parenting Support Program Curriculum (Modules 1-5 and a separate volume for Module 6) • Inunnguiniq Parenting Support Program Handbook (additional material for parents and facilitators which included additional stories from elders; additional activities; and an appendix of recipes from community cooking programs in Nunavut • Inunnguiniq Child Development Pamphlets from 0-18 years • Inunnguiniq Evaluation Booklet • Each pilot program received a bin of resources, such as food guides, dvds, cd, posters, pamphlets, and more to complement the activities in the curriculum. Evaluation Approach Information was gathered from each of the communities via the following: 1. Weekly telephone calls from support coordinators to facilitators. Calls lasted approximately half an hour each; notes were recorded on a computer by the project coordinator. 2. An Evaluation Materials book was given to each facilitator at the training. This included written evaluation questions for facilitators to complete after each session (questions were the same for each session); a pre and post Nutrition Module questionnaire for facilitators to ask parents; and a parent exit questionnaire to be completed by parents. 3. Teleconference: During the last week of February all facilitators were invited to join support coordinators for a conference call. Eight facilitators and two program leads called in. Seven communities were represented. Agenda included a sharing of program successes and ideas for overcoming challenges. Support coordinators listened allowing facilitators to provide peer support. Weekly Phone Calls This was the primary mode of data collection and generated the most data. Facilitators shared perspectives, successes and challenges during the phone calls than was expressed in the written documents that were collected. Evaluation Materials Booklets Booklets were submitted from seven of the eight communities. Many facilitators did not answer the questions as asked; they used the pages to record their thoughts and what they did in the session. It became evident that evaluation paperwork was a difficulty for many facilitators. Phone calls proved a more effective method of information collection. Parent Exit Questionnaires The parent exit questionnaire could be administered one-on-one by the facilitator or a parent could fill it out individually. Low literacy and writing skills were reported by some Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 9 10 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 facilitators so they gathered the exit data either in interviews, by conversation, or by observation (See Appendix A for results). Measuring Success The idea of success in this evaluation was based on the following: • Number of participants / repeat participants • Involvement of Elders • Level of facilitator engagement and enthusiasm with program • Ease of use of the curriculum materials • Participant comprehension of and responses to the content and how it is presented • Level of participant responses/interaction with other participants in the program • Participant and facilitator self-reported satisfaction with the program • Stories articulating positive parenting experiences with family during and after the program Recruiting Parents Each community implemented a recruitment strategy that was most appropriate for them. The methods for recruitment included: • Flyers/posters • Radio announcements • Word of mouth • Canadian Prenatal Nutrition Program (CPNP) contacts • Social services/Public Health referrals Many facilitators began by inviting people to register. Most programs eventually opened participation to anyone who wanted to attend. Recruitment was often ongoing throughout the program via radio and word of mouth. Messaging about program content that was distributed by the facilitators in each community varied from community to community: some noted that it was simply a parenting program and did not mention that it was about support as well. Some did not mention the cultural content while others championed this part noting it was about learning traditional Inuit ways. One facilitator noted it was not only about parenting but about better futures. Many mentioned that the teachings were from the Elders. The Spectrum of Parents (low risk to high risk) The target audience for this program was anyone who had children in their care full- or part�time. This program had been described as a cultural revival program as much as a parenting program by some facilitators. This program was developed for parents, guardians, foster parents, and/or extended family. Parents/care-givers who were interested in leadership and learning about Inuit perspectives on childrearing, healthy meals for families, communication strategies, and child development were the key audience. This messaging Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 10 11 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 was not clear in many communities during parent recruitment. There may have been a misconception that high-risk parents were the target audience in some communities. Some facilitators developed their own guidelines for recruitment by only advertising for couples, excluding extended family or single parents, which was not the intention. In addition, a significant number of social workers in the communities requested the opportunity to refer parents to the program as part of meeting Plan of Care requirements for children in protective custody. This was permitted for one of the pilot sites, however Single Parents One community was overwhelmed with phone calls from single mothers wanting to participate in the program. Many participants of the Inunnguiniq program in all communities were single mothers. Fathers/Men The few men who came to the program enjoyed it and often returned. On a number occasions the men who came spoke to their friends/relatives and invited them to the program. Sessions that included men tended to have fuller discussions delving deeper into the core content. One community planned to have a men/fathers only session where they would show the National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health (NCCAH) DVD With Dad ; they had an experienced male facilitator lined up but were unable to follow through. 1 Radio In communities who had active community radio stations, this was an effective way to share information about the program. Radio was also used to recruit childcare workers and Elders and notify the community if a class was cancelled. One community used the Inunnguiniq materials to conduct radio shows on Parenting. They offered prizes and reported this was well-received and increased program participation. General Program Comments Program Planning At the training, facilitator pairs were encouraged to meet either in Iqaluit with the Inunnguiniq Coordinators or upon return to their home communities to begin planning the implementation of their pilots. Facilitators who planned well in advance proved to have lasting programs with better attendance. Most facilitators scheduled a weekly planning time; those who followed through saw greater success. Introducing the Program Each community created their own introduction to the program. An introductory a resource provided to facilitators with their program materials 1 Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 11 “We [have a choice and] can start now!” - Inunnguiniq Parent 12 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 recruitment open house format provided a common first meeting and often involved food, games, and prizes. One community implemented a 2-day introduction to the program over a weekend focusing on the healing component of Module 1. Elders and parents were invited to come and learn about the program and were provided opportunities to share their stories. This weekend was well attended and provided a strong foundation upon which to start the program for that pilot. Most communities expressed the program had a slow start. After the first module was completed, most facilitators described a better cohesiveness and responsiveness among the group. Many parents and facilitators struggled with the concept of ‘Inunnguiniq’, as many had never heard it before. It took most parents a few sessions to begin to understand the meaning of the term and all that it carries. For many, this was a moment of profound realization, particularly for parents who had experienced trauma in childhood. Childcare It was essential that childcare be provided as part of the program and has been included in the program structure. It was recommended to facilitators that childcare be made available in all communities; some communities did not think this was necessary but discovered it helpful. When the children and parents were in the same building, this allowed for parent-child interaction as needed/wanted. A few other community groups brought parents and children together for their snack break together. One community decided to leave the parent and child rooms open to each other. Childcare workers were often difficult to find and reliability was low. Best practice was to have a number of workers on call; this was helpful when a large number of children were present and two workers were needed. Facilitators who called to remind the childcare workers had best results. Childcare workers with child-related education/certification were ideal. One community planned their session during the times that the Aboriginal Head Start program was in operation. This allowed their pre-school age children an opportunity to learn traditional teachings at the same time as the parents. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 12 Child: “mom, how come you are so calm when you come home from parenting?” Mother: “It must be working” - Reported by Inunnguiniq Facilitator “When the parents were quiet, body language spoke to us and told us that the parents were receptive” - Inunnguiniq Facilitator “Go out, eat outside, walk and talk, berry picking and chatting...let the kids play while parents talk in a natural relaxed setting“ - Inunnguiniq Facilitator recommendation “When they were busy working, they were also busy talking“ - Inunnguiniq Facilitator 13 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 It was recommended by a facilitator that childcare workers submit a criminal record check before attending to children alone. Land Component Most facilitators were keen about this aspect of the program and many started planning and talking with their group about land excursions early on. Participants became engaged during planning; some offered to contribute personal belongings and equipment (sleds, snow machines, camping/fishing gear, etc), as is natural in most communities. At one pilot, the participants included mothers and one father. It was observed that the father especially enjoyed being able to contribute to the land component of the program. He volunteered to guide, made equipment and planned for additional equipment to be available from community members on the day of the land trip. This may be one approach to attract men into the program, and has proven successful with other parenting initiatives in Nunavut . It was noted in one of the NCCAH 2 DVDs that the group was successful in involving fathers by saying they needed things done. When they identified a need for assistance it was easy to bring men into the program under the auspices of helping, but not participating. Once at the program the participants and facilitators would keep them working on projects while they listened in on the discussions at the program. Due to the weather and time constraints only a few groups were successful in leaving their communities to enjoy the land. Many improvised and had a celebration including fun, food and games at their local community hall where all family members and friends were invited to join in. Food Planning for a snack break was delivered differently in each community. It was found that country foods were a favorite but difficult to find in some communities; facilitators often asked how they could get country food from coordinators or other communities. Many families were hungry and appreciated the opportunity to eat at the parenting program and take food home afterwards. Participation Levels During the first sessions, facilitators reported that parents were hesitant to contribute. As familiarity grew among participants and with the program content, so did discussions and parent engagement. Toward the end of the program pilot more parents provided support to one another; and facilitators used words such as ‘teamwork’ and ‘eager to help’ when describing interaction. This reinforced the considerable evidence for the strengths-based group setting for parenting support programs. With time and the establishment of a sense of belonging, facilitators reported that many of the parents in most communities became more open and shared ‘what they really needed to talk about’; they ‘let go of some long ‘Fathers and Sons on the Land’ program developed and run by the Clyde River Ilisaqsivik Centre 2 Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 13 “I’m noticing that young people are wise and want to hear from us. They are very welcoming of us and want to learn from us.” - - Guest Elder at Inunnguiniq - Parenting Pilot 14 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 held hurts’. Table 1: Factors Affecting Participation Levels Factor Comment Self-esteem Facilitators identified that some of the participants appeared to lack confidence or have low self-esteem. When these individuals did share their voices were so soft they were difficult to hear. Quiet times/no response Facilitators reported that they would often ask questions and receive no response or experience periods of quiet. Elders Most communities noted that parents were keen to listen to and ask questions of the Elders. Participants were very interested in hearing and learning about how life was lived in the old ways. Communities who involved Elders had greater success with parent participation. Energizers Many communities reported using games and other energizers. This had the effect of relaxing the group and in turn facilitated discussion. Activity There was a high level of participation reported from all programs during the cooking components. Participation increased with program delivery that included experiential active learning. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 14 15 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Facilitator Perspectives Two facilitators from each of the ten identified pilot communities attended the Inunnguiniq Parenting Support Program Training in Iqaluit, November 2011. After the training, eight of the ten communities delivered the pilots. The training for the revised 2nd edition of the program was delivered in Iqaluit in 2013 to 10 facilitators, 5 of whom were from the original pilots. Despite challenges, most facilitators enjoyed delivering the Inunnguiniq Parenting Support Program and many expressed interest in providing this program again. The most common themes are reported below. Additional facilitator and parent requests and comments can be found in the appendices. Group Type & Number Many facilitators wanted to market the program to a particular demographic (open, closed, couples only, single parents, etc.), which was not the intent. However, these facilitators also were uncertain about what kind of group they wanted. Discussions over time revealed that open groups were most effective, where participants came and left the group over the course of the program in a drop-in format. It is worth noting that the most successful group had a very close core group of parents with high attendance, participant retention, and little turnover. Elders Sessions were more engaging when Elders participated and contributed. It was reported that their presence had a relaxing effect on parents and facilitators making classes more enjoyable. Parents were more engaged when Elders were teaching and sharing stories; they had many questions for the Elders and were keen to learn from them. For some communities it was difficult to find and retain Elders. Reasons included: • Elder was sick • Weekends were not good for Elders • Elder became tired – session was too long • The Elder remembered the story differently and this caused concern for facilitators3 • Elder was unsure of their role • Language barriers/Difficulty finding translators Facilitators noted it helped when they contacted the Elders prior to class as a reminder and when the Elder knew they were not expected to stay for the whole class. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 15 “We are learning a lot when we are teaching. We are learning so much from participants.” - Inunnguiniq Facilitator “When Elders speak, it makes everyone feel good.” - Inunnguiniq Facilitator 16 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Meeting Elders Elders involved with Inunnguiniq who were/are part of the Elders Advisory Group brought 4 an incredible amount of significance to the program. Each time Moses Koihok, participant in the Elders Advisory Group for many years, attended an Inunnguiniq session and shared stories, participants shed tears (this was interpreted by facilitators as tears of healing and a release of long held hurts). Moses said he was grateful to be asked to come and share his knowledge. Healing Many facilitators identified the need for healing (often both for themselves and for the parent participants) and wanted to offer a healing session but did not know how to approach this. It was recommended by the Dept. of Health and Qaujigiartiit program coordinators they invite local professionals (mental health workers, counselors, wellness/addictions workers, social workers, etc.) as guests to the program to meet parents and make connections. Facilitators noted that some Elders who attended the program may also need support to heal from trauma. Food The food components of the program were well received by facilitators and participants. Some facilitators reported it was the food component of the program that kept parents coming. Snacks, leftovers, and in some communities take home items in the form of a door prize, etc., provided additional food resources in the community that were needed. Country food was sometimes difficult to obtain but always appreciated. Activity around food preparation was reported to provide respite for the more strenuous, internalized parts of the program. Participants talked more openly during periods where they were preparing food as a group. Facilitation and Group Skills A considerable amount of time was spent on building facilitation and group skills during the Inunnguiniq Facilitator Training workshops. The group of facilitators who implemented this series of pilots possessed a range of skills and abilities. Attributes of facilitators who felt successful and those who experienced greater challenges are identified below. The Elders Advisory Group was created by the GN Department of Education to gather information about 4 traditional Inuit life. They have been convening since Nunavut became a Territory (1999). Many of the stories and teachings in the Inunnguiniq program were derived from recordings of the meetings of this group. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 16 “Eating together with family and Elders helps with family communication.” - Inunnguiniq Facilitator “When we teach our children something, like correcting them when they are bad, this melts their heart because we show them we care.” - Inunnguiniq Parent 17 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Table 1: Attributes of Facilitators Who Felt Successful Table 2: Attributes of Facilitators who Experienced Challenges Attribute Comment Age Young Elders - people who have been through the parenting process and have adult children. Elder(s) It was requested by an Elder that a male and female Elder team is most effective; an Elder buddy approach is useful as it provides internal peer support to the Elders. Men To create balance it is best if there is at least one man on the facilitation team; when men were involved with the group they were always well received. Group facilitation experience Knowledge of group dynamics and the importance of observing and responding to group needs. Counseling skills and/or experience: Successful groups tended to disclose feelings around serious issues; facilitator teams need to be ready for this and able to offer individual follow up themselves or provide appropriate referrals to community professionals. Self-confidence Ability to handle a group on their own if other facilitators are unable to attend. Teamwork Prior experience working together is an asset; facilitators who know and are comfortable with each other produced the best results. Translation Facilitator teams that include one bilingual person who is comfortable translating as needed. Cooking experience Confidence in reading and following recipes and leading a group in healthy cooking and nutrition related content. Attribute Comment Appointed to act as facilitator Facilitators who were ‘appointed’ to the program (i.e. those who did not volunteer or self-nominate) proved ineffective. Planning Facilitators who did not spend time planning their program sessions in advance, with each other and/or with guest speakers (elders), experienced more challenges. Healing Facilitators who had unresolved grief or traumatic experiences reported having a more difficult time delivering the program. It is important to note, however, that they were referred to counselling support, with whom they could discuss their feelings if they wished. All facilitators who faced this scenario were committed to delivering the program and decided to continue with it. In the end, they reported the program was helpful on their healing journey. They also noted the need for greater healing supports in their communities. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 17 18 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Challenges The need for healing Universally the need for healing was highlighted among facilitators and participants. Wanting to be responsive to parents, but not having the resources available (i.e. counsellors or trusted professionals) to refer participants to, contributed to challenges for facilitators. One facilitator recalled a session that naturally turned into a healing session where everyone became emotional and felt compelled to support the participant in need, including the facilitator (see text box next page), however, also noted that this was not the intent of the program and no one in the room was equipped with the skills to support a seriously distraught person in the event that this was needed (it wasn’t). They also noted that they had made connections to professionals in the community to whom the participants could be referred. Communication or Language Barriers Some facilitators reported that they experienced difficulties with resources that were not available in Inuinnaqtun or in a specific regional dialect of Inuktitut. These are common reports among all programs offered in Nunavut, and regional dialect differences are a common discussion point both within our organizations and in Nunavut as a whole. Some facilitators were difficult to contact and slow to respond to messages for follow-up and teleconference calls. Cancelled Classes Most programs experienced a high number of missed classes due to the following reasons: • Illness • Facilitator/medical travel/family illness • Parents with sick children • Community illness (ex. Flu going around and everyone staying in) • Weather • Storm days (at least two in each community) • Weather too cold (no taxi in community) • Death(s) in community • School closed (in-service) • Community events (winter games, trade shows, etc) • No one, or only one person came so they decided not to have class • Facilitator away • Travel commitments (i.e. work or medical) • Having to attend to family concerns (some felt it took too much time away from their family) • Two facilitators left the position to take on other full time jobs (both reported to enjoy this job but needed the extra income and could not commit to both) Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 18 19 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Timeline Facilitators reported that the amount of material in the program was too large for the time period provided. Some sessions ran longer than the planned two hours and a few facilitators were unhappy with extra time commitment. Resource Bins Due to a number of factors: lack of organization within the bins; short time frame of program; and facilitators with other full-time jobs; the resource bins were reported to be as much of a hinder as a help. Many facilitators did not know where to start, were confused by the many papers, and had difficulty finding the right books. Some reported that resources mentioned in the curriculum were not included in their bin. Technical Difficulties Some pilot programs experienced unavoidable infrastructure or technical difficulties while implementing the pilots. • Internet down • No email address • Low computer literacy for email communication (power point presentations) • Fax machine in another office • DVD & TV unavailable or difficult to access Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 19 20 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Successful Approaches The implementation of each specific pilot became unique to each community as the facilitators were responsive to the needs and resources available to them. Successful delivery was dependent on facilitator literacy level and teaching style, comfort level in leading groups, community resources, and parent needs. There was a wide spectrum of delivery methods: one community read the curriculum directly from the book and, on the other side of the spectrum, one community chose a module topic such as “Living the Good Life” and then asked an Elder to come and share on this topic. GN and QHRC support coordinators continued to recommend that facilitators follow the curriculum as much as possible while remaining sensitive to parent needs. Soft starts Some groups opened with prayer and took time to do a ‘round table’ check-in about how each was feeling and if anything was bothering them or their children. It was reported that this allowed participants to ‘get things off their chest’ after which they were more clear�minded, not as pre-occupied, and ready for new learning. One group started each session with food and slowly eased into the discussion of program content. Group work - Circle discussions Facilitators noted that participants were more comfortable staying together in a large group. Many chose not to break into smaller groups and discussed things as a whole. This was reported to benefit group unity. Activity-based learning It was noted in almost every group that activities naturally fostered communication and group dialogue. Participants felt more at ease while cooking, interacting with their children, or doing other kinds of activities. Facilitators felt this mirrored ‘traditional’ or familiar modes of learning in Inuit communities, where a knowledgable individual would share knowledge, such as the role one plays in a family, to younger members of the community while simultaneously teaching an activity, such as sewing clothing or repairing equipment. Recognizing and acting on opportunity When wellness professionals arrived from out of town, some facilitators invited them in as guest speakers. In all instances, guests were well received by participants. Partnering with professionals Participants enjoyed visits and information provided by local professionals: CHRs, Social workers, Mental Health and Wellness workers, CPNP workers, Addictions specialists and Counselors, Nutritionists, etc.. The importance of a safe and comfortable space One community group felt awkward in the meeting space they were allotted, so they partnered with the CPNP Program, which facilitators and participants were familiar with. This also helped with attendance. Another community responded to low attendance by partnering with another successful program. The benefits of collaborating with other community programs was noted as helpful not only to provide a safe a comfortable space Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 20 21 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 for participants, but also increased comfort level and made participants feel at ease in a familiar space. Elders Elders who understood the purpose of the program and who were comfortable sharing traditional stories were essential to the program. Parents were significantly more engaged during these sessions and valued the links to traditional practices and ways of knowing. Food The inclusion of food was a critical component for success for a number of reasons including: participants needed the food or the meal (possibly because they had not eaten in some time); when the opportunity arose, they took food home to their families; sharing food is a traditional Inuit custom that is about harvesting, accomplishment, and celebration - sharing food at sessions made participants comfortable and contributed to increased participant retention. Responsive to immediate needs of the parents Facilitators reported that when they were responsive to parent needs and flexible with the program material, the order of the sessions and the mood of the group on any given day, the group was more unified, which resulted in a greater sense of belonging and increased participation. Facilitator sharing & honesty A facilitator for the most successful pilot, while leading a group on her own, shared her own feelings about her difficult week telling participants that ‘[she] almost did not come, but did so because of the people in the class and that [she] knew [she] would feel better after the group’. Parents were very responsive to her honesty and the facilitator reported that they “felt like a little family” as a result. Door Prize / Incentive Many communities provided a door prize or other incentive to recruit and retain participants. Most often this prize was healthy foods/groceries which parents were always grateful for. One community chose to always have a fruit basket door prize; this was very well received and had the added benefit of introducing new fruits to the homes. Recognizing accomplishments of participants The most successful group finished the program with a formal sit down dinner open to all family members. Their Elder said a prayer and read out a thank you note in their language. This note was laminated and presented to each participant as a keepsake. Parents were also presented with certificates of appreciation. Some gave a little speech and spoke from the heart. Each participant received a bag with health promotion items to take home with their thank you notes and certificates. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 21 22 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Curriculum Specific Feedback General Comments The depth of the material as presented in this curriculum was noted to be somewhat difficult for parents. One reason that was identified was that many parents had not been exposed to this kind of traditional learning before and they were not sure how to digest and react to it. The parent exit questionnaire responses showed that each module was liked either “quite a bit” or “a lot”. Facilitators who conducted the parent evaluation as a group exercise also noted the following comments: “really liked the modules”, “good advice”, “helps a lot”, “more interested in Elders”, “healthy food”, and “kept me sober”. A number of facilitators used the sessions in the modules loosely and wove their way through the material as they felt best-addressed parent needs. Below are the highlights reported from facilitators for specific activities in the curriculum. Koihok Story This story was received with mixed feelings among different groups. Some found it too emotionally difficult. Facilitators who were uncomfortable delivering the story were facilitating without Elders. Some participants also noted it made them feel uncomfortable (it was recommended they bring in an Elder to explain). Other groups were moved by the story. In one group it was reported to be emotionally touching; this worked to bring a sense of cohesion to the group. Inuit Values cards One group, who were slow to engage with other content, responded very well to the Inuit Values. They began speaking to each other in Inuktitut language and expressed interest in learning how the values related to the pictures. In this group when parents were asked “What does it mean to have a good life?” facilitators noted responses were mostly material; however after the values cards were introduced, the direction of the discussion changed and the parents looked deeper into the relationship between values and a “good life”. Rhoda Karetak’s Fragile Egg and Hard Rock: This was a favorite all around and generated good discussions about attachments that parents could relate to. Many enjoyed the drawing activity and showing where each family was in this continuum. Naming This session has been one of the most popular sessions among parents and facilitators and often initiated in-depth discussions. Many expressed how they had never been taught the naming tradition, and now that they understood it, felt its’ significance and wanted to make it a part of their lives. Parents and facilitators in every program shared their own naming relationships and those of their children. When an Elder shared personal stories about naming, participants were engaged and moved, Elders speaking to this greatly deepened understanding. One of the most interesting observations from this session was that some Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 22 23 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 parents had forgotten about or disregarded their relations through naming, and said the exercise highlighted the web of supportive relationships among people in the community. Ages and Stages Questionnaire This tool was reported useful in communities who tried it, though time did not allow for all communities to do so. One pilot asked parents to bring their children to the program and helped parents work through the short questionnaires with their child(ren). This was fun and reported a great success.5 Inunnguiniq child development pamphlets These were well received in all communities. Parents were engaged and conversing over the text. Parents commented that the pamphlets would be useful as their children grow and develop. Rhoda’s Dream – Story of Burying the Baby Participants related well to this theme. Some communities had deep discussions about their culture dying; parents opened up to share personal difficulties with this. An Inuinnaqtun community noted the DVD was in Inuktitut and found it inaccessible. Parenting Styles This tool was useful for promoting discussion. Parents liked to talk about where they were, and where they wanted to be in this continuum. Eating Together as a Family This poster was used in some communities and generated discussion around eating practices. It proved very useful in one community where it sparked a positive conversation about how this is still a common practice and healthy way for families to spend time together. Discussion followed regarding using mealtimes as opportunities for family communication. Child’s ‘puuq/sack’ Participants found this attachment concept interesting; they could understand and relate well to this idea. Good discussions followed. Inutsiapagutit These concepts were well received, especially when shared by an Elder. Some parents remarked how well they remembered these ideas from their childhood and commented that they were not using them with their children and how they would like to do so. One community linked this into to the CBC Legend radio show recording of “The Two Sisters and the Orphan Shaman”; this was very successful in generating in-depth discussion about the importance of teaching children. Kiviuq Story 5 Parent-child interaction during or after parenting sessions was noted as a valuable practice in parenting program research. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre (2010). Parenting Support Programs in Nunavut: A Review. Iqaluit, NU: Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre p. 24. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 23 24 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Some of the younger parents had not heard of this story before and enjoyed it. In one community a facilitator re-wrote it in their own dialect and participants recognized and enjoyed hearing the story again. Another community read out the story; parents were interested and a good discussion followed. In a community without Elder support, this story was not well received. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Many had no previous exposure to this idea and were interested. Household Responsibilities Chart This activity was welcomed and enjoyed in all communities who presented it. It was evident that most homes do not share responsibilities equally and that most of the house work was carried by the mothers. Parents shared their desire to think about how they would be able to include other family members in sharing household responsibilities. Budget Planning Most facilitators and parents reported that they had never developed a budget before. This activity was appreciated by both facilitators and parents, and found useful. One group noted liking the part about identifying wants versus needs; they had not thought of this concept before. The example given was, “While a teen child might want a cell phone, is it something they absolutely need, like electricity or food.” Role-playing One community created a little book for each participant that the participants chose to call a “Plan of Care Agreement”. In this book were the Inunnguiniq principles, the household responsibilities worksheet, and the budgeting worksheet. This group understood the concept of sharing responsibilities, and liked the idea, but was uncertain of how to go about making this happen. The facilitator and guest instructor jumped into a role-play: One said, “I’m the Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 24 One instance where a woman was experiencing a particularly difficult time in her life, the group asked to just have a sharing session to support this one person (this was a close-knit group). The facilitator (who was on her own that week) knew of a visiting counsellor who was well-known and received by the community. She called to see if he was available to come and help. He was not available at that time but asked if he could see the woman in need later in the day. When the facilitator offered a gentle reminder to return to the planned program, one participant said, “We are talking about parenting: healing, residential school...it’s all parenting.” The parents were clear that they felt that this discussion was what parenting was all about, “living life and getting through hard times”. They continued to share and support the woman and finally all hugged her. It was reported that the discussion involved overcoming grief associated with suicide, residential school abuse, sexual abuse, arranged marriage, and children born to women who experienced sexual assault. The parents left the session reporting feeling much ‘better and lighter’ than when they arrived. By creating a safe and supportive space and being responsive to group needs, parents were able to begin a healing process within themselves that they associated with being a better mother/father. - Reported from successful pilot 25 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 mom and I’m good at cooking and cleaning so these will be my jobs”. The guest said “I’m the dad and I’m good at hunting and fishing so I will supply our meat” (this started the group laughing). The ‘parents’ labeled the participants as their ‘children’ and modeled by going around the circle asking each ‘child’ what they were good at (strengths), or what they liked doing. Each participant ‘child’ replied “I’m good at…” and then the pretend parents replied, “then your job will be to …”. The participants thoroughly enjoyed this activity. It brought them understanding of how they could do this in a fun way with their family, how it would identify and bring out individual strengths, and how it would help in the home by sharing responsibilities. The role-play made it fun and easy to understand. The parents were pleased with this and looked forward to working with their families on their ‘Plan of Care Agreements’ standing by the Inunnguiniq principles.6 Storyboard / Book-making At this point in the program, facilitators were aware of literacy levels; many who reached this part of the curriculum incorporated creative methods included acting stories without words (mime), modeling how to tell stories without books, and telling stories from books using only the pictures. One community had well-known story-teller Donald Uluadluaq come in and talk about his storytelling experiences. He discussed how his storytelling skills originated from hours of lying in the iglu at night listening to his parents tell stories. Participants were mesmerized. Donald’s storytelling creativity came from the oral tradition; he spoke about strengthening language and how sharing personal stories built relationships and connections with children and improved family communication. This motivated parents to share their own stories and life experience. This energy was transformed into storybooks that were shared with the group and brought home for families. The typical ‘story builders’ that looked for the elements of plot, setting, character, etc. were not used; instead, Donald and the oral tradition inspired participants. Focused Discussion: Four Family Communication Scenarios The scenarios were well-liked and created discussion; suggested delivery format was adapted. How Does Language Develop In a small group who had challenges getting discussions going, the facilitators role-played the different ways communication can be received and expressed. It was reported the group ‘had a lot of fun’ with this. Healthy Family Nutrition In general, the Nutrition sessions were very well received by both parents and facilitators. A number of facilitators noted that parents loved to cook together; it was as a convenient Role-plays have been identified as a successful tool in parenting programs. Qaujigiartiit Health Research 6 Centre (2010). Parenting Support Programs in Nunavut: A Review. Iqaluit, NU: Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre p. 25,28. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 25 “I’m telling him after the classes and he’s doing better now as a father, spouse.” - Inunnguiniq Parent 26 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 break from the content that some participants felt was more emotionally taxing; and that it was relaxing. Parents were talkative and shared stories more easily when there hands were busy with food preparation. One pilot decided to group their regular parenting class with their regular weekly community cooking class (participants were identical for both groups except that the parenting group was beginning to decline in numbers). The result was that parents became more comfortable talking about the material. Nunavut Food Guide Most communities shared this and participants were reported to be interested in learning about what was offered in the guide. The portion sizes were found interesting and helpful. What I ate yesterday This was a fun activity enjoyed by participants who tried it. Kitchen Hygiene One community, experienced at running cooking classes, added in an additional hygiene component that included hand, and fruit and vegetable washing. Other Comments One pilot used their own ideas and were successful in combining learning with fun activities while teaching about healthy foods and budgeting. They asked parents to do a meal plan and budget for 7 days. The parents enjoyed this challenge and it proved a good learning experience. The group was also challenged to create a list of what they would buy with $100, then given the actual prices. They brainstormed how to cook different meals with the grocery list provided in the curriculum. When they made a game of learning, parents enjoyed it and appreciated the healthy food prizes . 7 During a guest presentation it was noted there wasn’t a section about leftovers and not wasting food so ‘they decided to look through the fridge and cupboards and make something with what they found’. The group was very happy and excited to be doing something different ‘not following a book’. They took out all the leftovers and had a good conversation about them. Cooking without a recipe was a ‘big hit’ for this group. For Nutrition Evaluation results see Appendices. 7 Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 26 27 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Future Directions Based on the data collected for these evaluations, the following recommendations are put forward for the next phase of pilots: • The Inunnguiniq facilitator training session has been revised into 2 streams: a) a 10-day 25 hour course for Early Childhood Education students at Nunavut Arctic College and b) A 5-day intensive 35 hour version that is delivered to community organizations • Continue to raise awareness about the healing component with the Government of Nunavut and other service providers. Qaujigiartiit will continue to offer collaborative support for the development and implementation of a plan for addressing this community-identified need. • Seek core, sustainable funding for program delivery and on-going evaluation of the program in the long term. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 27 28 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Appendix A - Parent Evaluation Questionnaire Results Three things I liked most about the program are: 1. Being around groups (people helping each other, sharing) 17 2. Elders & stories of times past 14 3. Learning / Parenting 11 4. Food related – cooking, learning healthy snacks, country food 11 5. Activities 4 6. Bringing children was allowed 2 You could improve the program by: 1. Recording the Elder stories/voices 2. More teaching by Elders 3. Teaching traditional activities like animal skinning and sewing 4. Playing more games 5. Having more healing 6. Adding more time to the schedule 7. Giving gifts to people who attend the program 8. Doing it in the warmer time of the year, during the day, during the evening, everyday, during the day in the summer Some tools that helped me were: Tool Not at all Somewhat Quite a bit A lot Inunnguiniq pamphlets 1 8 13 ASQ assessment 5 4 8 The PATH 1 1 8 7 Budget Planning 4 10 9 Responsibility Sharing 3 6 15 Good Habit Building 2 7 16 Recipe ideas 1 8 15 Storytelling ideas 1 6 17 Storybook/Writing ideas 1 4 6 10 Group discussions 5 5 14 IQ Handbook 2 2 5 11 Self-assessments 1 1 5 8 Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 28 29 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 If this program offered a second phase I would attend: Yes No Each person who answered this question circled Yes. I would recommend this program to others: Yes No Each person who answered this question circled Yes. If a friend asked what this program was about I would tell them: In order of response frequency: 1. Learning from Elders / Learning traditional parenting 2. Getting together with other people 3. Eating and cooking healthy foods 4. Building self-esteem and encouragement After taking this program my children are: • Spending time listening to the stories I tell them from Elders • Really believing their namesakes and knowing that they have to help Elders when they need help • My number one priority • Touched, I don’t call him by his given name as much as I used to, he noticed [that I call him by his namesake or relation name] and he likes it. Thank you very much; • Closer and loving, caring, changing, behaving better, helping me, understanding about parenting • Healthier, happier, listening more, still teaching them • Eating healthy food I cook for them and healthy snacks • I started teaching my child to sew, make bannock, cut fish Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 29 30 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Appendix B - Nutrition Evaluation Results Few of the pre- and post- nutrition module evaluations were returned; the ones received revealed that some of the questions were not understood. Pre Nutrition Module Questionnaire 1. Most parents reported that they knew what foods were healthy. 2. Barriers to obtaining healthy food included: 1. no means of transportation for harvesting country foods 2. single mothers had more difficulties in obtaining country foods 3. lack of money 3. Most participants reported ‘yes’ that children had skipped meals due to lack of money. Post Nutrition Module Questionnaire 1. Healthy foods recorded included: 1. Fruit & Vegetables 2. yogurt (tubes), milk, cheese 3. granola bars, crackers, bannock, cereal 4. ham 5. macaroni salad 6. country food 2. Ways to help children make healthy choices included: 1. child size plate 2. hand sizes 3. frozen fruit slushies 4. putting out healthy snacks 5. buying healthy foods 6. eating country foods 7. cooking healthy foods for young children 3. Regarding the ability to afford healthy foods for the family, there were close to the same ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses. 4. Changes to help the family eat more nutritiously included: 1. make a list 2. cook from scratch/make own meals and snacks 3. stop eating at the Quickstop 4. eat more country foods. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 30 31 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 Appendix C - Requests & Comments from Facilitators & Parents Facilitator & Parent Requests Most communities requested: • More DVDs/audios of Elders - parents thoroughly enjoyed seeing and hearing Elders in video. The Elder present could listen to the story and then comment and/or share a similar story. The CBC legends CD was recommended • More games, fun, and hands on activities, sewing while at class • A way to acknowledge dedicated parents, the ones who came regularly and showed noticeable efforts in implementing program material; ideas for this were certificates and food baskets • More hands-on activities, sew while at class • Help/ideas about recruitment and retention Some communities requested: • To connect with other program facilitators to learn from each other • Prizes for games Responses from parents: “What more do you want to learn”: • How to manage children • How to teach our children • What is right/healthy for my children • Communicating • Relationship building • How to stop spoiling kids • Single parenting • How to deal with stress • First aid and CPR training Facilitator Comments • “When the Elders speak it makes everyone feel good” (multiple comments like this one) • “I learned a lot about Inuit culture. It is a very Inuit program” (multiple comments like this one) • “They can find what they are looking for in a story” • “One community reported that they were thinking about using social media (Facebook) to remind people about the program. Parents on Facebook were Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 31 32 Inunnguiniq Parenting Program 5-year Evaluation 2014 mentioning they missed parenting class when there were 3 cancellations (weather-related). We feel like a little family … With this group there’s a lot of healing and it would be good to see other parents out there go through what this group is going through [in a positive way].” • It’s not always easy for them to connect the material to their lives, responses are sometimes superficial • One day a group experienced participants who were not happy with each other. A facilitator shared a personal experience and then the ladies cried and apologized to each other. After they laughed visualizing the ladies chasing each other down the street with their walkers if they were still fighting many years from now. Parent Comments • I’m really learning about me right now • It’s important to talk with someone I trust • Parents were saying their children were learning from them • Parents reported that after a session they would go home and their children would praise them • One parent who was going through a particularly difficult time said she almost didn’t attend a few sessions but said to herself ‘I know I’ll feel better if I come’, and so attended the program and reported feeling better after attending. • They loved the program and said they would attend every day… ‘Too bad it’s going to end, we go away from here feeling so good’. • ‘She is really standing up for herself now and her culture’. - Facilitator • ‘Participants were saying that it was difficult at first to make clothing – you learned how to make beautiful things if you keep on trying … They started remembering what their Elders told them, they started to remember things about parenting that they were told when young.’ • I’ve learned that alcohol isn’t healthy and creates more anger. • Never give up on your kids. • It’s good to teach children to do things for themselves • When we forgive others we heal ourselves • Tell the truth. • Tell [children] not to do bad things • My parenting style is better now that I am attending this class • Multiple comments about how they want to learn how to be good parents • If we keep doing our traditional activities and talking in our dialect then we won’t forget our traditional ways, so our children will know who we are. Out on the tundra long ago they survived, it was great out there, they learned a lot from their parents Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 32child-and-youth-iu family-and-parenting-iu
Inunnguiniq Childrearing Advice from Inuit Elders (IU)QHRC (Nicole Diakite Uploaded doc) IU

Child development …

ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ English ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᓵᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᓅᑲᑕᒃᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐊᑕᐅᓰᓐᓈᓗᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓪᓚᖓᔭᕆᐊᖃᙱᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᓗᐊᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ. ᓂᐊᖁᖓ ᐋᖅᑭᐅᒪᔪᓐᓃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐃᓅᓵᖅᑐᖅ ᐸᓪᓗᖓᑎᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᓇᓪᓚᖓᑏᓐᓇᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓯᓂᓕᕌᖓᑦ. ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᓗ ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᕿᐊᑏᓐᓈᓗᒃᐸᙱᓪᓗᒍ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐃᓄᑑᖏᓐᓇᕋᓱᒋᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᙳᓐᓂᐊᖃᑦᑖᓗᓕᕐᓗᓂ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᕿᕕᐊᖓᓚᐅᐱᓪᓚᒡᓗᒍᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓂᑉᓕᐊᕐᕕᒋᐊᕐᔪᒃᐸᒡᓗᒍ. ᑲᒪᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕐᓃᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖃᖅᐸᖕᒪᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᖓᒍᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᐃᑦ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑑᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓯ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅᑖᓵᖅᖢᓂ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᖅᑐᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᐃᓚᒌᒃᑐᒃᑯᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖏᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᙱᑦᑐᖅ. ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖅᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᓯᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᒪᓕᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ! ᐃᒻᒧᓯᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ. ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᓂ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᖓ. ᐃᒻᒧᓯᖅᑐᖅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓯᓂᖕᓂᐊᓕᕌᖓᑕ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᑐᐸᑐᐊᕌᖓᑦ ᐊᖃᑲᐅᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᓯᒍᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᖓ ᓇᒡᓕᕆᔭᐅᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒥᐊᓂᕆᔭᐅᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᑦᑑᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᐊᓪᓚᑦᑖᖅᑐᑦ ᕿᐊᓪᓚᑦᑖᙱᑦᑐᓪᓗ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᒥ. ᐃᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᑦ. ᐳᐃᒍᖅᑕᐃᓕᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕋᕕᑦ, ᐅᕕᓂᖕᓂᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕋᕕᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᖃᐃᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕋᕕᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖃᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒃᑐᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ! ᐊᓈᓇᙳᓵᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᒻᒪᕆᒃᑐᖅ. ᐊᓈᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᐸᒃᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ, ᓴᑮᓪᓗ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᖅ, ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᑦ/ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᑦ, ᐃᓚᓐᓈᑎᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᒫᓐᓈᖅᑐᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪᓗ. ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕈᕕᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᙱᒃᑯᕕᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒡᔪᐊᕐᒥᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᐸᕐᓇᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᓗᑎᑦ ᓯᖓᐃᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᑐᐊᕈᕕᑦ ᓯᖓᐃᓂᕐᓂᒃ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᒃᑯᕕᑦ! ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᙱᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓃᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᐅᔨᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕆᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. ᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᖕᓄᑦ. ᓯᖓᐃᓂᖅ, ᐃᕐᓂᓱᒃᓰᓂᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᕕᐊᖏᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒫᒪᒃᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᒃᑐᓄᑦ 9 9 ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᓈᓇᙳᓵᖅᑐᖅ. ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᓂᖓ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ. ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓂᒃ ᑎᒥᐊᒍᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑎᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓗᒍ. 9 9 ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᒃᖡᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᑎᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᐊᖅᐳᓯ ᐊᖓᔪᒃᖡᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒍᓐᓃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᓄᑖᒥᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. 9 9 ᓄᑖᖅ ᐊᓈᓇᙳᓵᖅᑐᖅ ᓂᕿᖃᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓕᒃ iron- ᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ calcium-ᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᓂᕿᖃᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᒃᓯᐅᑎᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒨᒪᔪᓂᒃ, ᐅᕕᓗᕐᓂᒃ, ᐸᑎᕐᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᔪᖅᑐᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ. 9 9 ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᓴᓚᐅᓱᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕈᕕᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑑᑕᐅᖕᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᓄᑦ ᑕᖃᐃᖅᓯᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. 9 9 ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᓕᕐᓗᓯᒃ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᒃᐸᒡᓗᓯᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑑᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑉᓯᒃ. © 2014ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎ ᓯᖓᐃᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᑉ ᓯᖓᐃᔫᑉ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓂᖃᓲᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᓲᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᓯᖓᐃᓕᓵᕌᖓᑕ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ. ᐊᕐᓇᖅ ᓯᖓᐃᔪᖅ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂᓗ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᖃᑦᑕᕈᓂ ᓯᖓᐃᓗᓂ ᐃᕐᓂᓱᓕᕈᓂᓗ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᖅ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᒃᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓅᓯᒃᑯᑦ. ᓈᑦ ᓇᕿᒻᒥᔭᐅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᑭᑎᑦ ᓱᑲᖓᓗᐊᖁᓇᒋᑦ ᓇᕿᒻᒥᔭᐅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᐃᓅᓲᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᕈᓐᓃᑲᐅᑎᒋᑉᓗᑎᒃ! ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᓲᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᖃᑦᑕᖁᔨᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᓯᖓᐃᒋᔭᐅᑉᓗᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᓕᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕋᓱᒡᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐊᑎᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᓯᖓᐃᓂᕐᓂ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᖕᒪᑦ ᑭᓇᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐊᑏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᒃᑐᓄᑦ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖅᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᓲᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᐊᑦᑎᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᒐᑉᓯ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᑉᓯᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᔭᒋᓯᒪᔭᕐᓂᒃ. ᑐᓄᒻᒧᑦ ᑭᖑᑉᐱᐊᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐹᒋᔭᐅᔪᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓯᖓᐃᔪᒡᒎᖅ ᑐᓄᒻᒧᑦ ᑭᖑᑉᐱᐊᖅᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᓱᒐᓱᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐹᒋᔭᐅᔪᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᕐᓂᓱᓕᕐᓗᓂ ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᒃᑰᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᓯᖓᐃᔪᓄᑦ 9 9 ᓱᐴᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᐃᒥᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᖓᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ. 9 9 ᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ. Iron-ᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᑎᖑᖕᓂᒃ, ᐆᒻᒪᑎᓂᒃ, ᑲᖑᕐᓂᒃ, ᐅᕕᓗᕐᓂᒃ, ᑐᖑᔾᔪᕆᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᑐᓂᒃ, ᑕᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ soy beans-ᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ nuts-ᓂᒃ. 9 9 ᓄᖅᑲᖓᔪᓐᓇᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓃᕋᔪᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᓯᓚᑯᓗᖕᒥᒃ ᓇᐃᒪᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᑎᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᓱᓕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᕐᓂᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂᓗ ᐃᕆᐊᓛᖅᑕᐃᓕᓇᓱᒡᓗᑎᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖃᓐᓇᓗᐊᖅᑐᖅ, ᓱᑲᓐᓇᓗᐊᖅᑐᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᕐᓂᓱᓕᖅᖢᓂ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ. ᐃᕆᐊᓛᕈᕕᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᓱᖕᓃᑦ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. ᓴᓚᐅᓱᖕᓇᖅᑐᒦᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᐃᒪᓇᙱᑦᑐᒥ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᓱᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᑦᑎᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᕐᓂᓱᒃᑐᒥᒃ ᓴᓚᐅᓱᒍᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐃᕐᓂᐊᕆᓗᒍ ᐃᕐᓂᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒍ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᖅ ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᒋᐊᖃᙱᓐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐊᓂᓇᓱᒃᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓱᑲᐃᓪᓕᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᒋᐊᖃᙱᑦᑐᑦ. ᐃᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᐆᓇᙱᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᓂᒡᓕᓇᙱᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᒥᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐅᓈᕈᕕᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᐅᖏᔭᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᖅ ᐊᐅᒃᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᓱᖕᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᐃᓕᒋᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᕕᑦ. ᐅᖁᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᑎᒍᓯᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᓂᒃ ᖃᐃᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᕐᓂᖅᑳᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᐊᖅᐳᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᓵᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᑲᓪᓗᖓᓕᖅᐸᖕᒪᑕ. ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᕐᓇᑦ ᕿᐊᓴᕋᐃᓕᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᓯᖓᐃᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᕐᓂᓴᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᓪᓗ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᓕᒃ ᓯᖓᐃᕌᓂᒃᖢᓂ ᓂᑲᓪᓗᖓᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ, ᐊᓈᓇᑖᓵᖑᔪᖅ ᐃᓛᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᒡᓗᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᖃᐃᖅᓯᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᑕᖅᑭᓗᒃᑖᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑳᖓᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓪᓚᑦᑖᓕᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᓕᖅᖢᓂᓗ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᑦ. ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᖃᐃᖅᓯᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑰᑦᑎᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᒪᒥᑎᑦᑎᓂᐅᕙᖕᒥᔪᖅ, ᓴᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓂᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᑎᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᙱᔫᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᖁᑉᓗᒍ. ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎ ᐃᕕᐊᖏᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒫᒪᒃᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᕕᐊᖏᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒫᒪᒃᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᖑᔪᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᐅᔪᒧᓪᓗ! ᐊᒫᒪᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᓪᓚᑦᑖᕈᕕᑦ. ᐊᒫᒪᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᓕᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑭᒍᑎᑯᓗᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ ᓱᕈᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐃᕕᐊᖏᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᒫᒪᒃᑎᑲᐅᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐃᓅᕌᓂᑐᐊᖅᐸᑦ. ᐃᒻᒧᓕᐅᓕᑲᐅᑎᒋᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖅᐹᖑᔪᖅ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅᑖᖅᖢᓂ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᒥᓗᑲᖅᑎᒥᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᒻᒧᖃᖅᑑᔭᙱᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ. ᐃᒻᒧᓕᐅᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᑉᓯᓂᒃ ᐅᑉᓗᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖃᓕᖅᐸᒃᑐᖅ. ᐃᒻᒧᐃᔭᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᐃᒻᒧᒃ ᐃᕕᐊᖏᕐᓃᑎᒥᐊᕈᖕᓂ, ᐃᕕᐊᖐᑦ ᓯᑎᔪᐊᓘᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐆᓇᖅᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᒥᓗᑲᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓂᐊᖁᖓ ᐅᓗᐊᖏᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᒻᒧᖃᓗᐊᕈᕕᑦ, ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᑐᐹᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᒻᒧᐃᔭᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᑎᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᑐᐹᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᒫᒪᒃᑎᑦᑐᓐᓇᕈᒪᑉᓗᒍ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᖁᐃᒃᑎᑦᑐᑯᓘᒃᐸᑦ, ᓯᓂᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᖅ. ᐊᒫᒪᒃᑎᒐᔪᒡᓗᒍ, ᐊᒫᒪᒃᑏᓐᓈᓗᙱᓪᓗᒍ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᐊᒫᒪᒃᑎᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓃᑦ ᐊᒫᒪᒋᐊᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ. ᐃᕕᐊᖏᖅᑎᑦ ᐅᑎᖅᑕᕐᕕᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐊᒫᒪᒃᑳᖓᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒦᓐᓇᖅ ᐊᒫᒪᒃᑎᑉᐸᙱᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᕕᐊᖏᖅᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᓂ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᒃᑯᑦ ᒥᓗᑲᖅᑕᐅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᓇᓪᓚᖓᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒫᒪᒃᑎᑦᑎᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᓵᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᓯᓂᒐᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᓯᓂᓕᕌᖓᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ, ᑕᖃᓯᒪᓗᐊᕈᓐᓃᕋᔭᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑐᐸᒋᐊᖃᕈᕕᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᑐᐸᒃᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᓴᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᕿᓄᓕᖅᐸᑦ. ᓂᕆᒐᔪᒡᓗᑎᑦ! ᓂᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑳᙱᒃᑲᓗᐊᕌᖓᕕᑦ ᐃᒻᒧᖃᑦᑎᐊᖁᑉᓗᑎᑦ. ᐃᓄᒃᓯᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ. ᐃᒻᒧᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᑎᑦ, ᖃᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐊᓇᓛᕿᒃᐸᑦ, ᑐᓐᓄᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐊᓇᓛᕿᓗᓂ ᐅᑉᐸᑎᑯᓗᐊ ᐊᐅᐸᓗᒃᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ. ᐊᓇᔪᐃᖁᓇᒍ, ᓂᕿᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖅᓱᓕᖕᒥ.ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖃᕐᓂᖓ ᓇᓗᓇᙱᑲᐅᑎᒋᓲᖅ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᑕᒪᑐᒥᙵ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ: ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒥᒃᓯᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ • • ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᑦᑕᒃᓴᕋᐃᑉᐸᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒃᐸᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. • • ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᒪᒃᑲᐅᒍᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᒪᒃᑲᐅᒍᑎᒃ ᓴᖑᓐᓂᐊᕈᒪᒃᑲᐅᒍᑎᒃ. • • ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᕈᒪᒃᑲᐅᔪᑦ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᐃᔾᔪᐊᕈᒪᒃᑲᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ ᑮᓇᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᐃᓱᒪᖕᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᖕᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ. • • ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᕿᐊᓲᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᓱᓇᒥᒃ ᐱᔪᒪᖕᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ. • • ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᓂᑉᓕᐊᓕᕌᖓᑕ, ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᓲᑦ. ᐃᔾᔪᐊᕋᓱᓲᑦ ᑐᓵᔭᒥᓂᒃ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᓲᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᐃᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖃᓂᕐᒥᓄᐊᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ, ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓇᖅᑐᑦ! • • ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᒪᑭᓐᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᑎᒍᓯᑉᓗᑎᒃ. • • ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓲᑦ ᐊᒃᓴᓗᑭᑖᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᑐᒃᑲᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᔭᐅᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓅᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ. ᐃᓗᙳᐃᓕᖅ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᐃᓅᓗᓂ. ᒥᒃᓯᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᑐᑭᓕᒃ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᑦᑎᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᓂ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᑦᑎᐊᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᑎᑕᐅᓲᑦ, ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᖢᑎᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᑦ. ᐃᓄᒃ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐆᒻᒪᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᔾᔮᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᓕᕋᓗᐊᕌᖓᒥᒃ. ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᓕᕌᖓᒥ ᐊᔪᓕᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. 0-ᒥ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᒐᒪ ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᕋᓂᒃ ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᕋᓂᒡᓗ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐅᑎᒧᑦ ᑭᖑᕚᕆᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ. ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕈᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᖅ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᓗ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᒪᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑎᑦᑎᐊᕙᐃᑦ ᑕᐅᕗᙵᓗᒃᑖᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᐊᑑᑎᓖᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥ. ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᑐᓂᕐᕈᓯᐊᖑᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂᑐᖃᕐᒥᙶᖅᖢᓂ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑐᓂᕐᕈᑎᑦᑎᐊᕚᓗᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᑏᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ. ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᐃᔭᕌᖓᑉᑕ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᕆᓕᖅᐸᒃᑕᖓ ᑕᐅᕗᙵᓗᒃᑖᖅ - ᐱᐅᔫᒃᐸᑦ ᐱᐅᙱᑉᐸᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ~ ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᒃᑐᓄᑦ • • ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓕᐊᕈᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᒥᑭᔫᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ. ᑕᑯᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐊᓕᐊᓇᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓇᙱᒻᒪᑦ. • • ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᑲᐱᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕌᖓᑦ ᑲᐱᔭᐅᔭᖅᑐᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᑲᐱᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᑭᖑᕙᖅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᙱᓪᓗᒍ. ᑲᐱᔭᐅᕌᓂᒃᑳᖓᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ. ᐃᖢᐊᖅᓴᐅᑎᑐᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐆᓇᖅᓯᔭᕌᖓᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᑦ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ 0-ᒥ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᓲᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᓂᒃ, ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᕙᑎᒥᓂᒃ. ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓇᓱᒃᐸᒃᖢᑎᒃ ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓂᒃ. ᐊᒡᒐᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᒥᓗᑲᓲᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ. ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᖁᒃᓴᓪᓚᒃᑎᑦᑎᓲᑦ ᓅᑲᓪᓚᓗᐊᕌᖓᒥᒃ! ᓂᕆᔪᒪᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᓲᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᕆᐊᕆᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᒪᒪᖅᓴᙱᒃᑳᖓᒥᒃ. ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᕕᐊᖏᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᒻᒧᒋᔭᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᐊᓈᓇᒋᔭᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᖃᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᓂ ᖃᔪᓕᐊᖑᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᑐᒃᑐᒃᑯᑦ, ᓇᑦᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᓯᐅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᒻᒧᖃᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᐅᔫᔪᖅ ᐊᓈᓇᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᕐᒧᓪᓗ. ᑭᒍᓯᓴᓕᓲᑦ. ᐃᒃᑭᖏᑦ ᐳᕕᓕᕌᖓᑕ, ᓂᕆᔪᒪᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᓲᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᓂᕿᓂᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᕈᒪᔪᓐᓇᙱᖦᖢᑎᒃ. ᐃᕕᐊᖏᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒫᒪᒍᒪᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᔪᑦ. ᐃᓕᑕᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᓕᓲᑦ ᑎᐱᓂᒃ, ᑐᓴᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ, ᓂᐱᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓲᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐋᑕᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒃᑮ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓲᑦ ᐊᒫᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐅᐃᑕᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ. ᐃᔾᔪᐊᖃᑦᑕᓕᓲᑦ ᐃᓅᖄᑎᒥᓂᒃ. ᐊᖓᔪᒥᓂᒃ ᓇᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᓂᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᔾᔪᐊᖃᑦᑕᓕᓲᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᒡᓚᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᑦᑕᒃᑳᖓᑕ. ᐃᓕᑕᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᓕᓲᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᖕᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ, ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᒥᓂᐅᓂᖅᓴᖅ. ᐃᔨᒋᖃᑦᑕᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ, ᐊᑎᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᓕᖕᓅᖓᓂᖅᓴᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐋᓪᓚᔪᐊᕋᔪᖕᓂᖅᓴᐃᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᙱᑕᒥᓄᑦ ᑎᒍᔭᐅᒍᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᒃᓴᙱᑦᑐᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ, ᐊᓈᓇᒥᓄᑦ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓂᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᖃᑯᒍᙳᕌᖓᑦ, ᐃᓐᓄᕆᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᓲᑦ. ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᓯᑕᒪᓂᒃ ᑕᖅᑭᖃᓕᖅᖢᑎᒃ, ᐊᕙᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓕᓲᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓲᑦ ᓯᓂᓕᕈᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᙱᑖᓗᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᒡᓗᒥ. ᓯᓂᖕᓂᕆᕙᒃᑕᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᓲᑦ. ᐅᐃᒻᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᑯᒍᑎᒃ ᑐᓴᕈᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᓴᓚᐅᓱᒃᑎᓪᓗᒍ. • • ᐊᓐᓄᕌᖅᑐᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐅᖅᑰᓯᑎᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᒫᕐᓗᒍ. ᐊᑐᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓂᕈᒥᒃᑐᓂᒃ, ᓱᑲᖓᓗᐊᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᓂᒃ (ᖃᕐᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᓱᑲᖓᔪᓂᐅᙱᑦᑐᖅ). ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ: • • ᐊᓃᕋᖓᑕ, ᓇᓴᖅᓯᒪᑏᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓯᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑕᓕᓯᒪᓗᒋᑦ. • • ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖃᑎᒌᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ. • • ᐊᓄᕆᒧᑦ ᕿᕕᐊᖓᑎᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐊᓂᖅᓵᕈᓐᓇᐃᓪᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ. • • ᐃᒻᖏᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᖃᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᙳᐊᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ. • • ᐃᕿᒐᔪᒡᓗᒍ ᑲᒪᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ. ᐃᒻᖏᕐᕕᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᖃᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᖃᓂᒋᓕᕌᖓᖕᓂ. • • ᕿᕕᐊᖓᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᖃᕋᔪᒡᓗᖏᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. • • ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖏᓐᓈᓗᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ. ᐸᓪᓗᖓᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᕿᓚᒻᒥᐅᔪᒃᑯᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ. • • ᑭᐅᑲᐅᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒪᔭᕌᖓᑕ ᐃᓄᑑᔮᖃᑦᑕᔾᔮᙱᒻᒪᑕ. • • ᐊᖃᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᐊᖃᖅᑕᐅᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ ᑭᐅᓯᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᖃᖅᑕᐅᓲᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᐅᓯᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᒥᔪᑦ. ᐊᑎᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑕᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒡᓗ. • • ᑮᓇᕐᓗᙳᐊᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᔾᔪᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. • • ᐅᖓᓯᒃᓯᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᕿᐱᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐃᒡᓕᕆᙱᑕᒥᓃᒃᑳᖓᑕ. • • ᖁᐃᖏᓕᑦᑎᕌᖓᖕᓂ, ᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓕᕙᒡᓗᒍ (HᐋHᐋᖅᐲᑦ?) ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥ. • • ᐃᖃᐃᓕᓴᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᑎᒥᐊᒍᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓗᒍ. ᑕᓕᖏᑦ ᓂᐅᖏᑦ ᑕᓯᑎᕆᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᖏᑦ ᓴᙱᒃᑎᑉᐹᓪᓕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ. • • ᖁᐃᖏᓕᑦᑎᕋᔪᒃᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᕕᓂᑯᓗᖏᑦ ᐱᐅᔪᓐᓃᖁᓇᒋᑦ ᐊᒥᕐᓗᓕᖁᓇᒋᑦ. ᐅᑉᐸᑎᖏᑦ ᐃᕐᒥᒃᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᖏᓕᑐᐊᕌᖓᒃᑎᒃ. • • ᓂᕆᑎᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᙱᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓱᑲᐃᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ, ᒥᑭᔫᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᓂᕆᑎᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓕᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᐸᑦ. • • ᑎᒍᒥᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ, ᑎᒍᒥᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᐃᕕᐊᖏᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒫᒪᒃᑎᑦᑎᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᕐᒥ, ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐊᓯᖓ ᑐᐸᒃᐸᑦ. ᑐᐸᒃᑐᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔪᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᓂᐱᑭᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᐱᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᓚᐅᓱᒃᑎᓐᓇᓱᒡᓗᒍ ᑐᓄᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᓂᐅᖁᒃᑯᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᕋᐅᔭᕐᓗᒍ. 9 9 ᐅᕕᓂᖕᓂᐊᖅᑎᒐᔪᒃᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᓂᐊᖁᖏᑦ ᐃᕐᒥᒃᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᑕᒫᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᒧᓗᖏᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᕐᒥᒃᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. 9 9 ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖃᑎᒋᒐᔪᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᑕᐅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᖕᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ, ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓗᑎᒡᓗ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓗᑎᒃ.ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᓵᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᕙᒃᑐᖓ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ. ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ. ᖁᕕᐊᒋᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᖁᕕᐊᒋᔭᒃᑲ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑉᐸᒃᑕᒃᑲ ᖁᕕᐊᒌᓐᓇᖅᖢᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᒧᑦ, ᐱᙳᐊᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ. ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᓗ ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ • • ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᐸᒃᑐᖓ. ᓄᑕᕋᐅᖃᑎᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᙳᐊᖃᑎᖃᖅᐸᒃᖢᖓ. • • ᐃᒡᓚᖅᐸᒃᑐᖓ. • • ᐅᔾᔨᕆᔭᐅᔪᒪᑉᓗᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓘᔭᖅᐸᒃᑐᖓ. ᐃᓅᖄᑎᖃᕈᒪᓪᓕᖅᐸᒃᑐᖓ. ᐃᓚᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ. ᐅᖃᖅᑕᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᐸᒃᑕᒃᑲ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᑕᐃᒎᓰᑦ. • • ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑐᖓ. ᓈᒻᒪᒋᒃᑭᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑲ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᓕᕐᒥᒐᒪ. ᐋᖅᑭᒐᓱᒃᐸᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑲ. • • ᐃᓕᑕᖅᓯᕙᒃᑐᖓ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕌᖓᒪ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᑦᑖ, ᑯᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ HᐋHᐋ. ᑭᐅᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᕐᓂᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᒥᕈᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ. • • ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᕙᒃᑐᖓ ᐅᕙᒻᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᕐᓂᒃ. ᖃᐃᑦᑎᖁᔨᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᓱᓇᒥᒃ. ᑎᒃᑯᐊᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᓇᐅᖕᒪᖔᑦ ᑕᐃᓯᖁᔨᓗᑎᑦ. • • ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᐱᔪᒪᔭᒃᑲ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᒪᖅ, ᐃᑦᑖ, ᐊᒫᒪ, HᐋHᐋ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᖓᓈ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᑕᓕᒃᑲ ᓴᙱᔪᑦ! ᑎᒍᓯᕙᒃᑐᖓ ᒪᔪᖅᐸᒃᖢᖓᓗ. ᓅᑲᑕᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ. ᑎᒍᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ ᑎᒍᔾᔮᙱᓐᓇᓱᒋᔭᕐᓂᒃ. • • ᕿᒡᒋᖅᑕᖅᖢᖓ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᔭᕋ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓂᐅᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᓴᙱᒃᑎᑎᑦᑎᓲᖅ. • • ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᔾᔪᐊᖅᐸᒃᑐᖓ. ᐸᑎᑮ ᐸᑎᑮ ᕿᑎᒍᒪᒐᔪᒃᑕᕋ, ᐊᐴᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐳᑐᔭ. ᐊᓂᒋᐊᕌᖓᒪ ᐸᐃᐸᐃᖅᐸᒃᖢᖓ. • • ᑎᒥᒋᔭᕐᒪ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖏᑦ ᐃᓕᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᔭᒃᑲ. • • ᐊᓇᕐᕕᖕᒥ ᖁᐃᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᓇᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᖓ. ᐊᖑᑎᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᖁᐃᒐᔪᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᑯᓗᖕᓂᒃ. ᖁᐃᒐᔪᒃᑯᒪ, ᐊᖑᓇᓱᒃᑎᑦᑎᐊᕚᓘᔪᒫᖅᑐᖓ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᕐᒥᒃ, ᐊᒥᖅᑳᖃᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ, ᒪᒥᐊᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ, ᓇᒡᓕᖕᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᕙᖕᓂᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᔾᔪᑎᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᖅ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᐃᓚᖃᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᖅᖢᕋᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᒪᒥᐊᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᑐᙳᑎᒌᓗᒃᑖᕋᑉᑕ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᒃᑎᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᕐᓂᒃ. ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ 12-ᓄᑦ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᕿᒐᔪᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑯᓂᒐᔪᒡᓗᖏᑦ ᓇᒡᓕᖕᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᑯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᑐᖅᖢᕋᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓚᑖᖅᑐᖅᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᒃᑯᑦ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑕ ᐋᓪᓚᔪᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᐅᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᙱᑕᒥᓂᒃ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓕᖃᑦᑕᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᓕᓵᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖏᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓗᑎᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥ, ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᓕᕌᖓᕕᑦ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᓂ ᓄᑲᕆᔭᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᖓᔪᒋᔭᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᓴᙱᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐊᒥᖅᑳᖃᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓱᓇᒥᒃ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᔭᕌᖓᒥᒃ. ᐊᒥᖅᑳᖃᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐸᕐᓇᒍᑕᐅᓲᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕈᒫᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓲᑦ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐊᐅᓚᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᐃᓚᑖᖅᑐᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᙳᐊᖃᑎᖃᖅᐸᓕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᒥᓂᒃ ᑐᑎᒍᒪᓲᑦ. ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖏᑦᑕ ᑎᐱᖓᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓕᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᒥᓃᖦᖢᑎᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᐹᕐᖑᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᓲᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓱᒐᓱᓕᖅᐸᒃᖢᑎᒃ. ᑯᕕᒐᔪᒃᓯᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᑕᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᖢᑎᒃ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᐱᓱᒋᐅᖅᓵᓕᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂᐅᓂᖅᓴᖅ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᕐᒪᑕ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᑉᓗᑎᒃ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐊᒪᐅᑎᖕᓂᒃ ᑎᒍᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐊᓂᔪᒪᓗᓂ. ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᓄᓱᒃᓯᓇᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᒃᑯᐊᕐᒧᑦ. ᑭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᒃᑳᖓᑕ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖑᔪᓄᑦ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᕿᑦᑎᐊᕙᖕᓂᒃ ᐱᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ. ᓂᕿᖃᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓂᕿᑦᑎᐊᕙᖕᓂᒃ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᒧᑦ ᐱᕚᓪᓕᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᓂᕿᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᕿᒃᓴᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᑎᑦᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᓱᒃᐸᒡᓗᑎᒃ ᐆᒥᓛᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᓗᐊᓂᒃ ᐱᙳᐊᖃᙱᑉᐸᑕ ᐱᐅᓂᖅᓴᖅ ᐅᐃᒪᔮᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒡᓗ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᑕᓚᕕᓴᓂᒃ. ᐱᙳᐊᖃᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᐸᖕᒪᑕ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᑕᓚᕕᓴᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᑕᓚᕕᓴᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓕᖁᓇᒋᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᔫᒥᒍᓱᒍᑎᖃᕐᒪᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᐅᔾᔨᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᔪᒪᓇᔭᖅᑕᒃᓴᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒃᐸᑦ ᐱᔪᒪᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ. • • ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᕕᒋᓗᒍ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᒃᓯᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᓂᕿᓂᒃ. ᒪᒪᖅᓴᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᓂᒃ ᓂᕿᓂᒃ. • • ᐱᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᓗᒍ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᓗᒍ ᒪᒪᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᖁᒻᒥᐊᖃᑦᑖᑦ, ᓯᐅᕋᐅᔮᖅᑐᓖᑦ ᐃᒥᒐᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒥᒐᑦ. ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑑᔪᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᑭᒍᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. • • ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᓗᓯ, ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᔪᒪᒐᔪᖕᒪᑕ. ᐃᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖅᓴᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ. ᐅᖓᓯᒐᓱᒃᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐅᐸᒐᒃᓴᐅᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓲᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᕿᒪᒃᓯᒪᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᐅᓚᑲᑦᑖᕈᑎᒥ ᐱᙳᐊᕐᕕᖓᓂᓗ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᓂᒥᓂᒃ ᓇᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᑐᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᓱᓇᓕᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᓪᓕ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᒃᑳᖓᕕᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᕈᒫᕐᒥᖕᒪᑕ ᐊᖏᓪᓕᒍᑎᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓂᕆᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᑎᑦᑎᓲᖅ. ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐱᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐱᔫᒥᒍᓱᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᕐᓗ. ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᖁᓗᒍ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐅᖃᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᐱᙳᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖏᓐᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᒡᓗᒥᐅᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᑉ ᐃᓅᓯᖓᓂ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑦ, ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᕆᔭᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᕆᔭᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑉ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨᖅᑳᕆᔭᖏᑦ. ᑕᐅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖓᓂᒡᓗ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᕐᒧᑦ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖅᑖᕐᓗᒋᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᓗᒋᑦ “ᒪᔪᕈᒪᕙᒃᑐᖅ” ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ “ᓂᐱᒃᑭᐅᕙᒃᑐᖅ.” • • ᐱᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᑉᓰᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᙳᐊᓂᒃ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᖁᔭᓕᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᙳᐊᕐᒥᓂᒃ, ᐱᙳᐊᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ, ᒥᐊᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓯ ᓄᑖᑦ ᓂᕿᑦ ᑎᐱᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᓂᕿᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᒐᓱᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᐃᓄᒃᓯᐅᑎᓂᒃ (ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᖕᒪᑦ ᓂᕿᒋᔭᐅᕙᒃᑐᖅ) • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᑭᐅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐅᖓᑖᒍᓗᐊᕌᓗᒃ ᐱᐊᓂᕆᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᖃᕌᖓᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᒃᑯᑦ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᒥᐊᓂᕆᓗᐊᕌᓗᙱᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᓗᐊᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑲᑕᒃᑳᖓᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᒃᑰᕌᖓᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ! 9 9 ᐊᕙᑎᒋᔭᖅ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᖃᖅᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᓗᒍ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᐊᓚᔪᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ. ᖃᐅᔨᔪᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓅᑲᑕᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ. 9 9 ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᕙᓕᙱᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᓯᐅᓯᕆᙱᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓕᐊᕈᑎᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ. ᓇᐃᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᖅ #1: ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅ ᐅᖓᑖᒍᓗᐊᕌᓗᒃ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍ. ᖃᓂᑦᑑᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᕕᓂᓯ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᔾᔪᑎᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒫᖅᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᖓᖃᑎᒋᓗᒍ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᐃᐱᓕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᙱᒻᒪᑕ. 9 9 ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᖅ #2: ᐃᒻᖏᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᓗ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓴᐃᒻᒪᖅᑎᑦᑎᓲᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᓂᒃ. ᓴᓚᐅᓱᓕᓲᑦ. ᐃᒻᖏᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓯ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐊᖃᓲᑦ ᐱᓯᕐᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᒻᖏᓲᑦ. ᐃᒻᖏᕐᓗᒍ ᒪᒃᓴᐅᔭᐅ, ᓯᓂᑭᖢᓂ ᐃᒻᖏᐅᑎ, ᓯᓂᓕᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ.ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᓵᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᕐᓂᖅ (Becoming Skilled) • • ᐃᓅᓪᓗᖓ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕋ ᐅᔾᔨᕐᓇᖅᓯᓕᖅᑐᖅ. ᐅᕙᒻᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᒃᑲ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᒃᑲ. • • ᑭᓇᐅᓂᕋᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑐᖓ ᐋᒃᑳᒥᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖁᔭᐅᒐᓗᐊᕌᖓᒪ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᑕᐅᙱᓐᓇᒪ! ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐃᓱᒪᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕋᓂᒡᓗ ᐊᓯᒻᓂᒃ. • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓂᒡᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥ, ᑐᙵᕕᒋᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᕋ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᓱᓇᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᖕᒪᖔᕐᒪ. • • ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᖏᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ, ᓱᕐᓗ ᐱᙳᐊᓂᒃ ᑐᖅᑯᖅᑐᐃᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᙵ ᑲᒪᖁᓗᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓕᑐᐊᕈᒃᑎᒃ. ᖁᕕᐊᒋᓂᕋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᖓ ᐃᑲᔪᕌᖓᒪ ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᓇᖓ. • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐊᒥᖅᑳᖃᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒻᓂᒃ. ᑎᒍᓯᔭᕌᖓᒪ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᖃᑎᒪ ᐱᒋᔭᖓᓂᒃ, ᐅᑎᖅᑎᑦᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᑉᐸᙱᓪᓗᖓ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᓗᖓ ᐊᒥᖅᑳᖃᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᒻᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᖓ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᐱᔪᒪᔭᒃᑲ ᓴᓂᕐᕙᖅᓯᒪᓚᐅᐱᓪᓚᒋᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕋᑉᑭᑦ ᐊᓯᒻᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᖓ. ᐊᒥᖅᑳᖃᑎᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ, ᖁᕕᐊᒋᓂᕋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᖓ ᐱᔪᒪᖅᑲᐅᔭᕋ ᑐᓂᕐᕈᑎᒋᒍᑉᑯ ᐱᙳᐊᖃᑎᒋᔭᕋᓄᑦ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ. ᐅᖃᖅᑕᑎᑦ • • ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᖓ. ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᐸᒃᖢᖓ. ᐅᓂᑉᑳᖅᑐᐊᖅᐸᒃᖢᖓ. • • ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᑭᖃᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒃᐸᒃᑐᖓ, ᐃᓚᕙᒃᖢᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓪᓚᑦᑖᕐᓄᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕋ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᖕᒪᑦ. • • ᐊᓐᓄᕌᕐᒪ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖏᑦ ᐃᓕᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᔭᒃᑲ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔪᒪᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᒻᓂᒃ. • • ᐅᖄᓂᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᖓ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᖓ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᐃᓕᒃᑭᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ. ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖁᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᖓ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ. ᓯᓚᒥ ᐊᑐᖅᐸᒃᑕᒃᑲ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᑦ ᐊᑎᓇᓱᓕᖅᐸᒃᑕᒃᑲ ᐊᓃᕈᒪᓕᕌᖓᒪ. • • ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᓕᕌᖓᒪ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒐᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᓗᖓ ᐅᖃᕐᓇᖓ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᓇᒧᙵᐅᓇᓱᒃᖢᖓ ᐅᐸᒍᒪᔭᕋᓄᑦ. • • ᐊᕐᓇᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᑦ ᐃᓗᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᑯᒋᐊᕈᒪᒐᔪᖕᒪᑕ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᒪᑐᓕᖕᓂᒃ. ᐊᖑᑎᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᒋᐅᖅᓴᓕᓲᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ Hᐊᑭᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᓴᓇᕐᕈᑎᓕᕆᔪᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᓂᒃ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓕᕆᔪᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᖃᒧᑎᓂᒃ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᕐᓂᖅ ᑐᑭᓕᒃ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᐱᐅᔪᒃᑯᑦ. ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕈᒃᑎᒃ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᖁᕕᐊᓱᔾᔮᙱᑦᑐᑎᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᐅᔾᔮᙱᑦᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥ. ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᖅ ᐅᕙᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᓱᕙᓕᑭᐊᖑᖕᒪᑕ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᔾᔮᙱᒃᑯᑉᑕ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕋᐅᑎᒋᔾᔮᙱᒃᑯᑉᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᓯᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ. 12-ᓂᒃ 18-ᓄᑦ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᕙᖕᓂᖓ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅ ᒫᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑐᓐᓇᙱᒻᒪᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᓂ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᓂ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᓴᐱᓕᑐᐃᓐᓇᙱᓪᓗᓂ. ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐹᓪᓕᕌᖓᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᓂᕋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ, ᒥᑭᔪᒃᑯᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔫᒥᒍᓱᓕᕈᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᖓ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ, ᐱᔫᒥᒍᓱᖕᓂᖅ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᓗ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᓄᖅᑲᖓᔪᒪᔪᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᖃᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓯᒪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒡᒐᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᕐᒥᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᕆᖅᑳᕐᓇᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕿᑎᐊᓂᒃᑳᖓᒥᒃ, ᐅᒡᓚᖅᓯᒫᓂᒃᑳᖓᒥᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓇᕐᕕᓕᐊᖅᓯᒫᓂᒃᑳᖓᒥᒃ. 9 9 ᒥᐊᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᑭᒍᑎᖏᑦ. ᑭᒍᑎᖏᑦ ᑭᒍᑎᓯᐅᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐃᕐᓗᑎᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᑉᓘᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ, ᓯᑎᔪᐊᓘᙱᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᑭᒍᑎᓯᐅᑎᓄᑦ. ᐃᒥᒐᒃᓴᖅᑐᕌᖓᑕ ᐃᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓚᕙᒡᓗᒍ. ᐃᒪᓕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᒥᒐᒃᓴᑦ ᐃᕐᒧᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒫᒪᐅᑎᓅᙱᑦᑐᖅ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᓴᙳᓐᓂᐊᒃᑲᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ. ᓱᓇᓕᕆᔪᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓐᓇᕋᑎᒃ ᓱᓕ. ᓄᖅᑲᖓᔪᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᑦ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᕆᔭᐅᑉ ᓯᓚᑖᓂ. ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒍᓐᓃᖅᓴᕋᐃᑦᑐᑦ ᐆᒥᓛᕋᔪᒃᖢᑎᒡᓗ. ᓴᙳᓐᓂᐊᕈᓐᓇᓪᓚᕆᒃᑐᑦ ᓱᓇᒥᒃ ᐱᔪᒪᑉᓗᑎᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ, ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᓐᓂᕈᑦᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ. ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᕈᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ “ᐅᓇ ᐱᒐ!” ᓂᙵᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᒋᔭᖏᑦ ᑎᒍᔭᐅᔭᕌᖓᑕ. ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᒥᖅᑳᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᓂᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᓂᕿᓕᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕋᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥ. ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕆᐅᖅᓴᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐱᓇᓱᒃᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᐱᒋᓂᕋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ. ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᐃᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᒥᒃᓯᕐᓂᖅ ᓴᖅᑭᓲᖅ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᑐᖅᖢᕋᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᐃᓄᖃᑎᒋᕙᒃᑕᖏᑦ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᖓᑕ ᑲᒥᓪᓛᖅᓯᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᐃᒃᖠᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᖓᑕ ᐃᒡᒑᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᓯᖁᓗᒋᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑳᒃᑲᐅᔪᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᖑᑎᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᔪᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᑦ. ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᒪᒃᑖᖅᑐᕈᒪᒡᒍᔪᑦ, ᐃᒻᒨᔮᖅᑐᖅᑐᕈᒪᒡᒍᔪᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖅᓱᕐᓂᒃ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᑐᓂᓗᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᓗᐊᕈᑎᒃ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᓕᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓯ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. • • ᑕᓚᕕᓴᖅᑎᓚᐅᐱᓪᓚᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ. ᑕᓚᕕᓴᐃᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨᒋᔭᐅᓕᖅᑕᐃᓕᓕᑦ. • • ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᓱᑲᑕᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᑎᒍᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ. ᐱᓱᒃᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᑲᐃᔾᔫᒥᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ. • • ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᓵᓚᖃᖅᑎᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍ. • • ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᓂᕆᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓂᕿᑦᑎᐊᕙᖕᓂᒃ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓂᕆᔭᕐᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ. ᐃᓄᒃᓯᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᒐᔪᒡᓗᓯ. ᓂᐅᕕᕐᕕᖕᒥᐅᑕᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᒐᔪᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᓯ. • • ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᓐᓂᕈᑦᑕᐅᖕᒪᖔᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᓄᑕᕋᑐᐊᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐊᒥᖅᑳᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ. • • ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᔫᒥᒍᓱᒃᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑖᒥᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅ, ᓂᕿᓂᒃ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᒥᒃ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᕿᐊᓕᕌᖓᑦ ᐆᒥᓛᓕᕌᖓᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍ. ᕿᐊᓴᕋᐃᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᓴᐱᓕᑲᐅᑎᒋᕙᖕᒪᑕ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᐊᓚᐃᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ. • • ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᖅ, ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᖅ, ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᖅ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᒐᔪᒡᓗᓯ. ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᑎᒍᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᖕᒪᑦ ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓂᒃ ᑐᓴᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ. • • ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᕙᒡᓗᓯ ᐱᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᑐᕌᕐᕕᒋᔭᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᑉᓯᓐᓂᒡᓗ. ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᒥᑭᑦᑐᖅ ᑐᓱᔭᕌᖓᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᒃᖠᐅᔫᑉ ᑲᒪᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᖓᓂᒃ, ᐅᖃᐅᑎᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃᑕᐅᖅ, ᐊᖏᓪᓕᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᑎᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐱᐅᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᒃᑯᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔾᔪᑕᐅᓲᖅ ᐱᓇᓱᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅᑖᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᑎᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᑎᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ. ᑐᓂᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐱᙳᐊᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᓇᑕᐅᑎᖃᖅᐸᑦ, ᐱᙳᐊᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᖅᓵᕐᓂᐊᕋᖕᓂ. ᐱᙳᐊᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ! ᐊᓐᓄᕌᖅᑐᙳᐊᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ. ᐊᓃᙳᐊᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᓗᒃᑖᒃᑯᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᐸᒡᓗᓯ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᒥ. ᐱᙳᐊᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖃᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ. ᒪᓕᒃᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ ᐆᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖓᓂ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᕿᒻᒦᑦ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᓇᑕᖃᑎᖃᖅᐸᑦ, ᐊᐱᕆᕙᙱᓪᓗᒍ “ᑭᐊ ᐱᖕᒫᑎᑦ?” ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕈᕕᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᒋᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᓄᑦ. ᓴᐃᒻᒪᖅᓴᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ. 9 9 ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᓴᖑᑦᑎᙱᒃᑳᖓᑦ ᓴᖑᓐᓂᐊᕋᓱᓕᖅᐸᒃᑐᖅ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᓯᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᖔᖅᖢᓂ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᐅᐃᒪᓵᕆᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᑎᓐᓇᓱᒃᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓴᖑᑦᑎᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ. 9 9 ᓱᓕᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᐸᒡᓗᓯ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᑎᒋᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᖁᓇᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᖅᑐᐃᓯᒪᓂᕐᓄᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᔾᔪᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᓗᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᓂᒃ. 9 9 ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᐸᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕿᐊᒃᐸᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᒋᑦᑕᐃᓕᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᕿᐊᔪᓐᓃᖅᓯᐊᕆᓗᒋᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᑎᒋᐊᓕᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᓱᖕᒪᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᕐᒪᖔᑕ. 9 9 ᓵᓚᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᓱᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᑎᒍᓯᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᙱᑕᒥᓂᒃ. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᖅᑐᐃᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ.ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᓵᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᒐᒪ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᑎᒍᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᙱᓐᓂᒻᓂᒃ ᓯᖁᒥᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᙱᓐᓂᒻᓂᒃ ᐱᒋᙱᑕᒻᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᙵ ᖃᓄᐃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᕐᒪ ᑎᒡᓕᒍᒪ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᕐᒪ ᐊᓯᒻᓄᑦ ᑎᒡᓕᒐᔭᕈᒪ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑎᒡᓕᒡᕕᒋᔭᕋ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᒐᔭᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓕᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ. ᐅᖃᐅᓰᑦ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᐃᓚᕙᓪᓕᐊᖏᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. • • ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑐᖓ ᑕᑭᓂᖅᓴᓂᒃ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᓂᖅᓴᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ. • • ᐅᓂᑉᑳᖅᑐᐊᓂᒃ ᑐᓵᔪᒪᒃᑲᐅᔪᖓ. ᐊᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᒻᖏᐅᑎᓂᒡᓗ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᒪᕙᒃᑐᖓ. ᐊᒡᒐᒃᑯᑦ ᕿᑎᒍᑏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓘᔭᕈᑏᓪᓗ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᔭᒃᑲ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐃᔾᔪᐊᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓘᔭᖅᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᓴᓇᕐᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᑯᒪᑐᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕈᒪᕙᒃᑐᖓ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕌᖓᒪ ᖁᔭᓕᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕐᒪ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᓗᖓ. ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᙳᐊᕆᓂᐊᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᕙᒡᓗᖓ. • • ᓱᒃᑲᔪᐊᓘᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ! ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᙱᓪᓗᖓ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᓯᑯᒧᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᔭᕆᐊ ᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᖃᙱᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐱᙳᐊᕐᕕᒃᑖᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᕙᓗᓕᖅᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ. • • ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑐᖓ. ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖃᑦᑕᙵ. ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᖁᙵ! ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᑉᑕ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᒃ ᐆᒪᔪᓂᒃ, ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᒥᔪᒍᑦ. ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᑦ ᓴᓂᓕᕆᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ. ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᑦ ᒥᐊᓂᖅᓯᔨᓖᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑎᓖᑦ. ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᙱᒃᑯᑦᑕ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᙱᒃᑯᑉᑕ ᓱᓇᒥᒃ ᓇᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᑎᕐᕕᐅᖏᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ. 18-ᓂᒃ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓄᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓄᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᕙᖕᓂᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᑎᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᙱᒃᑯᕕᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑐᓐᓇᐃᓪᓕᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᙱᑉᐸᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖃᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᑎᑦ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖏᑦ, ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ. ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓱᑰᖅᐸᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᒥᓂᒃ ᒫᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᙱᒃᑳᖓᑕ ᓄᑕᕋᖏᑦ. ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᙱᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖁᔭᓈᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᓚᐅᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᔪᕆᔭᐅᕙᓚᐅᙱᑦᑐᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᒪᒥᐊᓐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᐊᓚᔪᑦ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᓲᑦ ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᖅᑕᕐᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᕐᓂᒃ. ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖕᓂᕆᕙᒃᑕᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᔾᔪᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᕆᕙᒃᑕᕐᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒃᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᓴᙳᓐᓂᐊᕋᔪᒃᑐᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᕈᓂ ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᕈᓂ, ᖁᕕᐊᓱᔾᔮᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑭᐅᔭᐅᒍᑎᒃ. ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐊᓃᕈᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓪᓚᑦᑖᓂᒃ ᐱᙳᐊᖃᕈᒪᕙᒃᖢᑎᒃ. ᐱᓕᕆᑎᓪᓚᑦᑖᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓯᓚᒥ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᖃᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᒥᐊᓂᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᕿᒻᒥᐊᕐᔪᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᖑᑎᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᑯᓗᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᑐᓵᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐅᖃᕋᓱᖕᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᑐᓂ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᒪᔭᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᐱᔫᒥᒍᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ. ᐊᖑᑎᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᖑᑕᐅᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ. ᐱᔮᖅᖠᕈᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᓂᙵᒃᓵᕆᒐᓱᒃᐸᒃᖢᑎᒡᓗ. ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᕋᓱᒃᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᔭᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᒥᓪᓗᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᓪᓛᕆᒐᓱᒃᐸᒃᑐᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖑᑎᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᒻᒥᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐆᒪᔪᓂᒃ. ᑐᓂᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᓴᓇᕐᕈᑎᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ. ᑕᑯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᓃᑎᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒥᐊᓂᕆᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᒋᑦ. ᐊᕐᓇᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᕐᓚᒃ ᕿᑐᕐᖓᐅᔭᓕᕆᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᓗᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᕋᑦ ᓂᕆᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᑳᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓂᕿᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᒃᐸᑕ. ᓂᕆᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖁᐊᕐᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᒃᓯᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᓂᕿᓂᒃ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐊᓗᒃᐸᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᕿᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᕿᓂᒃ ᒪᒪᕆᙱᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐆᒃᑑᑎᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᒃᑲᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᔪᒃᖢᑎᒃ! ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᓯ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓂᐊᖅᑕᑉᓯᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᕆᓂᐊᖅᑕᑉᓯᓐᓂᒡᓗ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᓂᕐᓗᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᓯ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᑉᓯᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᖅᐱᑦ ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖓᓂ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᓕᖦᖤᓛᕐᒪᑕ. • • ᐊᐃᕙᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᓯ ᐅᓇᑕᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᓯ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᑉ ᓴᓂᖓᓂ. • • ᒥᐊᓂᕇᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐱᓗᕿᐊᓪᓚᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᒫᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓂᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᖁᓇᒋᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᒪᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓄᑑᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᙱᑦᑐᑦ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᐱᑦᑕᐃᓕᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐆᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ, ᓂᒡᓕᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᐱᒃᑐᓂᒃ. • • ᓇᓕᒧᒋᔭᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᓯ ᑐᑭᓯᐊᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᒃᑲᓐᓂᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒫᓂᙱᒻᒪᑕ. • • ᒪᒪᖅᑐᖅᑐᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ! ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᒪᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᐱᔪᒪᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᐸᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ, ᐅᖃᐅᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ “ᓄᖑᑦᑐᑦ.” ᕿᓂᒃᑲᓐᓂᔾᔮᙱᑦᑐᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᒪᒪᖅᑐᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᐊᕈᕕᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᓄᑕᕋᐅᑉ ᕿᖓᖓ ᓯᒥᒃᓯᒪᒃᐸᑦ, ᐅᓪᓚᔪᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐱᖃᐃᓕᓴᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑉᐸᑦ ᑲᒃᑭᓕᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. ᑲᒃᑭᒐᔪᒃᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ. ᑲᒃᑭᐅᑎᒃᓴᖅ ᐃᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᒃᑕᕐᕕᖕᒧᑦ. 9 9 ᓄᑕᕋᑦ ᓂᕆᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᑳᓕᕌᖓᑕ, ᓂᕿᑦᑎᐊᕙᖕᓂᒃ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑐᓂᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᕿᓂᒃ ᑕᕆᐅᖃᓗᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓯᐅᕋᐅᔮᖅᑐᖃᓗᐊᖅᑐᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ. 9 9 ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᒪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᓗᒃᑖᒃᑯᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐊᓃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ. ᐊᓐᓄᕌᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒍ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᖕᒥᐊᑦ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐅᓂᑉᑳᖅᑐᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᑦ. ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕈᑎᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᒻᖏᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑐᓵᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ. ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᕕᒃᓴᖓᓂ ᒪᓕᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᖓᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓯᒪᓗᒍ ᑕᖃᐃᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᐱᕈᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᑉᓗᒍᓗ. ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᓯᓂᓕᕈᒪᓱᐃᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᐸᒃᓯᒪᑉᓗᑎᒃ. ᐃᓐᓇᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ. ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕈᑎᓗᒍ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓂᐱᖃᓗᐊᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒡᕕᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᓴᓚᐅᓱᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓯᓂᓕᕐᓗᑎᒡᓗ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᓴᖑᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓵᓚᒃᓴᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᓴᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ “ᐋᒃᑲ”-ᓚᔭᐅᔭᕌᖓᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᓯᒃᑯᑦ. 9 9 ᓴᒡᓗᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓄᑦ. ᓴᒡᓗᔪᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒍᑎᒃ, ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᒍᓐᓇᐃᓪᓕᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ. ᓴᒡᓗᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒥᒡᓗ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ. 9 9 ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᕿᒻᒥᓄᑦ ᖃᓂᓪᓕᑦᑕᐃᓕᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ. ᕿᒻᒥᑦᑎᐊᕙᓪᓘ•ᓃᑦ ᐱᓗᐊᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᕿᒻᒥᕐᓂᒃ ᖃᓂᑦᑑᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᓯᑯᒧᖓᐅᖃᑦᑕᖁᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᒪᕐᒧᓪᓗ. ᑐᑭᓯᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᒪᑦ ᐋᓪᓛᓗᖕᓂᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᖃᓪᓗᐱᓪᓗᕐᓂᒃ, ᖃᓪᓗᐱᓪᓗᕐᓄᑦ ᑎᒍᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕋᕐᓗᒋᑦ. 9 9 ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐅᖓᓯᒃᑐᓕᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ.ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᓵᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕋᒪ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓇᒡᓕᒍᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒡᓗ. ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕋ ᐃᓚᒃᑲᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᕐᒪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕐᒪ ᐃᓅᓯᒻᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐆᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᖃᑦᑕᖁᓇᖓ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᖃᑎᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᒥᐊᓂᖅᓯᔨᖃᕋᑉᑕ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᑐᒥᒃ ᐅᕙᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ. • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᒐᒪ ᐊᕙᑎᑉᑎᓐᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐊᕙᑎᕗᑦ ᐅᕙᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᒥᐊᓂᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᒋᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᑉᑎᒍᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓᓗ ᐊᒃᑕᑯᓂᒃ ᑕᑯᔭᕌᖓᒪ ᑎᒍᖅᓴᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᒐᒪ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ ᐱᖁᑎᓂᒃ ᓱᓇᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᓇᑭᙶᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ. • • ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᓯᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ! ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᕐᓗᖓ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᒋᓇᔭᖅᑕᒻᓂᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᙱᓪᓗᖓ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᓄᑭᒃᑲ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ. ᐱᓕᕇᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᒃᑐᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᔪᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓇᖓ. ᐃᑲᔪᙵ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖁᑉᓗᖓ ᓴᙱᔫᓗᖓ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᖓ ᓇᒧᙵᐅᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕐᓂᒃ. ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᒍᒪ ᓅᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᐅᖁᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ. • • ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᖓ. ᐊᒡᒐᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᒪᒃᑲᐅᔪᖓ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᔭᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᒃᑎᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᓴᐅᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᕐᕕᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᓴᓇᙳᐊᕐᓗᖓ. • • ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑐᖓ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖁᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᓯᓚᒥᒃ ᐅᑉᓛᑕᒫᒃᑯᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖁᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᕙᑎᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅ (Being Aware of Our Environment) ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ ᐆᒪᔪᒡᓗ ᐊᕙᑎᑉᑎᓐᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᑲᒪᒋᑦᑎᐊᙱᒃᑯᑉᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᕗᑦ, ᐅᕙᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᒥᐊᓂᖅᓯᑦᑎᐊᔾᔮᙱᑦᑐᖅ. ᓴᐃᒪᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᕗᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᒥᑭᔫᓗᓂ ᐃᖢᐊᖅᑐᖅ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᑉᑕ ᐊᕙᑎᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ, ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᒍᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎ ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᓇᑉᐸᖓᓄᓪᓗ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑑᒃ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᒃ ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂᒃ ᑎᔭᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᕐᕋᕕᖏᑦ ᓇᐅᔭᔾᔪᐊᓄᑦ ᓂᕆᔭᐅᑎᓐᓂᐊᖅᖢᒋᑦ ᑕᒪᐅᖓᒥᐊᖅ ᓄᓇᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᒋᑦ. ᓴᑭᖓ ᐊᖑᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᖅ ᑲᑎᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᖢᓂ ᐃᕐᕋᕕᖕᓂᒃ ᓴᐅᓂᐊᕋᒥᒋᑦ. “ᓱᖕᒪᑦ ᓇᐅᔭᔾᔪᐊᓄᑦ ᓂᕆᔭᐅᑎᙱᒥᐊᖅᐱᒃᑭᑦ?” ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑑᒃ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᕆᔫᒃ. “ᓇᐅᔭᔾᔪᐊᖃᕌᖓᑦ ᓴᓗᒪᙱᑦᑐᐊᓘᓕᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᒃᑏᓪᓗ ᐃᕿᐊᑦᑕᐅᔫᔭᓕᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ,” ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑭᐅᑉᓗᓂ. ᓄᓇ ᕿᒪᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕋᑉᑎᒍᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᕆᓚᐅᖅᑕᖓ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᙱᓪᓗᒍ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᓇᑎᕐᓂᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕋᑉᑕ ᑐᒃᑐᓕᕆᐊᓂᒃᑳᖓᑉᑕ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᓚᐅᕐᓂᕆᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓐᓇᕈᓐᓃᕐᓗᓂ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕐᓂᖅ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᕙᑎᑎᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐅᔪᖅ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᓄᖅᑲᖓᔪᒪᓱᐃᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᓂᕿᓂᒃ ᓴᙱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓴᐅᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᓴᙱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᒻᒧᒃᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ. 9 9 ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᑭᓕᕌᖓᑕ ᓴᓗᒻᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᑦᑐᓯᖅᑐᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ. ᐃᒻᒪᒃᓯᒪᒃᐸᑦ ᑭᓕᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ, ᑕᕆᐅᓕᖕᒧᑦ ᐃᒫᖅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᓕᒋᐊᔭᑦᑐᑦ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᔾᔪᐊᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᔾᔪᐊᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᑐᓴᖅᑕᒥᓂᒡᓗ. ᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᑐᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᓇᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᓂᕆᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓂᕿᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓚᒃᑐᐃᓂᖅ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ. ᐱᓕᕆᙳᐊᕈᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ. ᐃᔾᔪᐊᙳᐊᕈᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᙳᐊᖅᖢᑎᒃ. ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓵᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᔾᔪᐊᕈᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᔾᔪᐊᕋᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᒥᓂᒃ. ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᔾᔪᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᒥᓂᒃ, ᐊᓈᓇᒥᓂᒃ ᒥᐊᓂᖅᓯᓇᓱᒃᐸᒃᑐᑦ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐊᑖᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐸᑦᑕᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᑕᑯᒐᔪᒃᑯᑎᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᓚᕕᓴᒃᑯᑦ ᕿᑎᒍᑎᓂᒃ ᕿᑎᒃᑐᓂᒃ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕈᒪᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ. ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᙱᒐᔪᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᓲᑦ ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓵᑯᓗᖕᓂᒃ. ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᑎᑦᑎᓂᕋᐃᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᔭᐅᙱᑦᑐᒪᙱᖦᖢᑎᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᖅᑐᕈᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᖅᑐᖅᖢᑎᒃ, ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᑕᓕᖅᐱᒥᓂᒃ ᓴᐅᒥᕐᖠᕐᒥᓂᒡᓗ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᑦᑎᐊᙱᓐᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ. ᐊᓐᓄᕌᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᕈᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᖅᑐᙳᐊᕈᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ. ᐊᓐᓄᕌᓂᒃ ᐊᖅᓵᕋᓱᒃᖢᒋᑦ, ᐅᓪᓛᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓇᖅᑐᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᐊᓐᓄᕌᓂᒃ ᐊᓐᓂᕈᓱᒧᑦ. ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕋᔪᒃᑐᑦ, ᕿᓄᐃᓵᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖕᒪᑕ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖕᒪᑕ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᓂᑉᑳᖅᑐᐊᖅᐸᒃᖢᑎᒃ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓄᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕈᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᖕᓂᖃᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥᓄᑦ, ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖕᒪᑕ ᓄᑕᖅᑭᕆᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙᒃᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᓂᕆᓂᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᓇᕐᕈᒐᔪᖕᓂᖅᓴᑦ. ᓂᕆᔪᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᖠᕋᔪᖕᓂᖅᓴᑦ. ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᕿᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᔪᒪᙱᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᐊᕙᖕᒥᒃ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑎᒡᓗᒃᓯᒋᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᙱᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑑᖅᓯᒋᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᙱᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᒡᓚᖅᓯᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᖁᐊᖅᓯᐅᕝᕕᓕᕆᖃᑦᑕᖁᓇᒋᑦ ᖁᓕᕈᐊᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦᑕ ᐱᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑎᒍᓯᖃᑦᑕᖁᓇᒋᑦ. • • ᐃᓂᖅᑎᓪᓚᑦᑖᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᐃᒪᔮᕐᓇᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᓃᑦ ᐅᐃᒪᔮᕐᓇᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓂᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐅᐃᒪᔮᙱᓪᓗᓂ. ᐸᑎᒃᑯᖕᓂ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐸᑎᒃᓯᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓂᙵᐅᒪᓕᕌᖓᒥ. • • ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓯ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓯ ᑲᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑉᓯ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓯ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᑉᓯᑐᐊᖅ. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓯ ᓄᑕᖅᑭᕆᓕᕌᖓᑉᓯᒃ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᕿᑎᑦᑎᐊᔪᓴᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒡᓗ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᒪᒃᑲᐅᖕᒪᑕ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᔪᒪᔪᓐᓇᙱᖦᖢᑎᒃ. ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᙳᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᓯᓚ ᓂᒡᓕᓇᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᕿᑦᑐᕆᐊᖃᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍᓘᓐᓃᑦ. • • ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᔪᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᔫᒥᒍᓱᖕᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᖁᓇᒋᑦ. • • ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᒃᑯᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᒃᑯᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᒡᓚᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᒃᑯᒥᓃᑎᒐᔪᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᑖᑖᑦᑎᐊᒃᑯᒥᓂ. ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᕆᔭᖅ ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᕆᔭᖅ ᐅᓂᑉᑳᖅᑐᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᕆᐅᖅᓴᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ (ᐃᓄᓯᐸᒍᑎᑦ). • • ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓗᓯ ᐊᑖᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐅᖓᒋᔭᐅᖕᒪᑕ. ᐊᑖᑕᐅᔪᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ. ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓵᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᒥᓄᑦ ᓵᙵᐅᔪᒪᓲᑦ. • • ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ. ᐊᐱᕆᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᓱᓇᒥᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᐃᓅᓯᑯᓗᐊ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑯᓗᐊ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ. • • ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᖅᐱᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓ ᐃᓅᓯᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᓇᓱᒃᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᐊᓚᕙ, ᐃᑲᔪᒃᑲᐅᕙ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᕝᕙ ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᐊᕚᓘᕙ? • • ᓂᕿᑦᑎᐊᕙᖕᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ! ᐃᓄᒃᓯᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᐅᕕᕐᕕᖕᓂᙶᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓂᕿᑦᑎᐊᕙᖕᓂᒃ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᓂᕈᐊᖅᖠᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᓕᐊᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᓕᖅᑏᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᒪᖕᒪᖔᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑕᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᓂᕈᐊᖅᖠᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖏᓛᖑᔪᒥᒃ ᒥᑭᓛᖑᔪᒥᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᑦᑐᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᓇᒧᙵᐅᑎᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑖᓄᑦ ᐅᐸᒃᑕᐅᕙᓕᖅᑐᓄᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᖃᕐᕕᖕᒧᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓈᓚᒡᕕᖕᒧᑦ. ᓱᓇᕈᓘᔭᕐᓂᒃ ᓴᓇᒋᐅᖅᓴᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᐱᙳᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦᑎᐊᕙᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓯ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᕿᔪᖁᑎᑦ ᐊᓕᓚᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᒃᑰᕈᑎᙳᐊᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᒡᓗᕐᔪᐊᙳᐊᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᓗᑎᒡᓗ, ᖃᒧᑎᙳᐊᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᓂᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᖅᐱᑦ ᐱᑖᕆᔪᒪᓇᔭᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑎᐅᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᙳᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔭᕌᖓᑕ. ᓲᕐᓗ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᕿᑎᒍᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᓲᕐᓗ Simon Says-ᒥᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ Follow the Leader-ᒥᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐱᖃᐃᓕᓴᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐱᙳᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᖅᓴᕐᒥᒃ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒃᓴᓗᑭᑖᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᖅᓴᕐᒥᒃ, ᐊᔭᒃᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᑎᒍᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖅᓴᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᒡᓕᖅᑕᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓇᐅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᒡᕕᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᖓᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓗᑎᒃ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᑐᓵᙱᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᙳᖅᓴᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓯᒃ. ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᐃᕙᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᓯᒃ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᙱᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᐃᒪᔮᕈᑕᐅᓕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᓴᕈᓐᓃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᒍᓐᓇᐃᓪᓕᓗᓂ. 9 9 ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᑉᓗᓂ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᓂᖓ ᐅᐱᒋᓗᒍ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᙱᓂᖃᕐᒥᖕᒪᑕ. ᐅᔾᔨᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓴᙲᓐᓂᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᙱᒃᑳᖓᑕ. ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ.ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᓵᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᖕᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖅᑖᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ, ᐱᐅᔫᒃᐸᑦ ᐱᐅᔫᙱᑉᐸᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒃᑲᓂᒃ, ᐃᕿᐊᓱᒃᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑭᐅᓵᓕᙱᒃᑳᖓᒪ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒻᒪᕌᖓᒪ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᖓ. ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᕐᒪ ᑭᐅᓯᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᒻᓄᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᔭᕌᖓᕕᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᖓ ᓈᓚᙱᒃᑳᖓᒪ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᒻᓂᒃ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᒐᒪ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓕᖅᑐᖓ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᖓ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᒪᖕᒪᖔᕐᒪ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᕋᓂᒃ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖓ. • • ᑎᑎᕋᐅᔭᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑐᖓ. ᑎᑎᕋᐅᔭᖃᑦᑕᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᔪᒪᓗᖓ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᒃᑲᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ. • • ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑐᖓ. ᓄᑕᕋᐅᖃᑎᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᓕᖅᑐᖓ. • • ᐃᒻᖏᕐᓗᖓ ᓂᑉᓕᐊᓗᖓᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᑎᖅᑕᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ. ᒧᒥᕈᔪᒡᓗᖓᓗ ᕿᑎᒍᒪᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓪᓗᑭᑖᖅᖢᖓ, ᓈᙱᔭᖅᖢᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓃᙳᐊᖅᖢᖓ. • • ᐊᐱᖅᑯᓯᒃᓴᖃᖅᑐᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ. ᑭᐅᓯᑎᓐᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᑳᕐᓗᖓ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᖃᖓᓂᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᒐᔪᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᖓ. ᐅᓂᑉᑳᖅᑐᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᒐᔪᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᑉᓗᖓ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᒐᔪᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑕᒃᓴᕆᓪᓗᒋᑦ. • • ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᖓ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᓇᕐᕕᓕᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᑉᓗᖓ. ᓂᕈᐊᖅᖠᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᑉᓗᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᔪᒪᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐱᙳᐊᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᑉᓗᖓ. ᓴᓗᒻᒪᖅᓴᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᑉᓗᖓ. • • ᕿᒻᒥᐊᕐᔪᖕᓂᒃ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᕈᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᖓ. ᓄᑕᕋᓛᓕᕆᔪᒪᒃᑲᐅᔪᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓕᕆᔪᒪᒃᑲᐅᓪᓗᖓ. • • ᑲᒪᔨᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᖓ ᒥᒃᔪᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᑉᓗᖓ. ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᖅ ᐃᓕᕐᑯᓯᓂᕐᒥ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᐊᕆᒐᓱᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂᑐᖃᖅ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᐊᕆᒐᓱᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᕋᑉᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᖃᖅᖢᑕ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᖃᖅᖢᑕᓗ ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᓴᖅᑭᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᕕᓂᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᑕᒻᒪᖅᓯᒪᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐅᓚᐅᙱᑉᐸᑕ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᖅ ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ, ᒪᓕᒐᖃᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᕋᑉᑕ ᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᓯᓂᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᖃᐃᓕᓴᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᐊᕆᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᒪᓕᒃᑕᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᕐᒥ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᕙᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᓄᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ? ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᕙᒃᐸᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ? ᑭᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᖅᐸᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᐸᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓂᒃ? ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕐᒪᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᔪᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᕐᒪᑕ. ᐸᕐᓇᐃᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᒪᓕᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᙱᖦᖢᓂ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᖅᐸᖕᒪᑕ. ᐱᐊᓂᒍᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᑕ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ, ᐊᑐᐊᒐᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ. ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᓇᑉᐸᖓᓂᒡᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᕿᑦᑎᐊᕙᖕᓂᒃ. ᓂᕆᔪᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ. 9 9 ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑭᑖᖅᑎᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᓗᒋᑦ. ᐊᓃᙳᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᐃᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᓲᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓂᒡᓗ ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ . ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑲᒪᓇᔭᕐᒪᖔᕐᒦᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᑦᑑᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᖕᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ. ᖁᔭᓕᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐅᑕᖅᑭᙳᖃᑦᑕᓕᓲᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ, ᐃᓚᒥᓄᓪᓗ ᐅᒡᓚᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᑯᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᓂᒃ. ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᐸᒃᑐᓪᓗ ᐃᒃᐱᖕᓂᕆᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᖕᒪᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᖕᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᖕᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐅᖃᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᓲᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ. ᖁᕕᐊᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᑦᑎᐊᕌᖓᒥᒃ ᒥᑭᔫᒐᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᓱᓇᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᒃᖢᑎᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᙱᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᖢᑎᒃ. ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᕿᔪᒃᑕᕐᓂᖅ, ᑐᖅᑯᖅᑐᐃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᕐᕆᓯᕆᓂᖅ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒥᑭᔪᒥᒃ ᑭᑭᐊᖕᒥᒃ ᐸᑎᖅᑐᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᒥᓃᒍᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᓂᒥᓂᒃ ᓇᔭᖕᒥᓂᒡᓗ ᐊᖓᔪᒃᖠᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒍᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒡᓗᑎᒃ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᕙᓪᓕᐊᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖕᒪᖔᖅᐱᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐃᒡᓘᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑕᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ. ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᓂᓯᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᖕᓂᒃ. • • ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᒃᐱᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓂᒡᓗ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒡᓗᑎᒃ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᓇᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᐅᑐᖕᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᑕᑯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐆᒃᑐᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᑲᐅᓂᕐᓂᒃ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᑐᓂᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᕋᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᑲᐅᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔪᓕᕌᖓᑕ. ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᑦᑎᐊᕌᖓᑕ ᒥᑭᔫᒐᓗᐊᓂᒃ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᓂᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ, ᑕᑯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᒋᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᓪᓚᑦᑖᓂᒃ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᓪᓚᑦᑖᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᕐᒥᒃ. • • ᐅᐱᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒥᖅᑳᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕌᖓᑕ ᐃᑲᔪᑦᑎᐊᕌᖓᑕᓗ. ᐅᔾᔨᕆᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᕌᖓᑦ ᐊᒥᖅᑳᖃᑎᖃᕌᖓᓪᓗ. ᐅᐱᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᒥᑭᔫᒐᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᖓ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᑐᓂᓯᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐱᙳᐊᕐᒥᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᖃᑎᒥᓄᑦ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᒃᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᓐᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᖄᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓕᔭᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓕᔭᙱᓪᓗᓂᓗ. • • ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓯ ᐃᒃᐱᖕᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᑉᓯᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓯ ᐅᒃᑯᐃᙶᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᓯ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᑎᓪᓗᓯ ᓄᑕᕋᑉᓯᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓵᖓᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᓕᐊᖕᓂ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᓂᙵᖕᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓯᖕᓇᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᙵ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᔾᔪᐊᖅᓯᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᖕᓂᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᒥᖅᓱᖅᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᑐᓂᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᓴᓇᕐᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᓴᓇᕐᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐱᙳᐊᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᒡᕕᓪᓕ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐃᒐᖃᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ. ᐃᖑᓚᖅᑎᖃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᒐᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᐅᖅᑲᐃᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᐅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᑯᑦᑎᑎᓪᓗᒍᓗ. ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᓗᒃᑖᖓᓄᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐸᓚᐅᒑᓕᐅᖅᖢᓂ ᖃᔪᓕᐅᖅᖢᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᒥᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑮᓇᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᑎᕈᓘᔭᕐᓗᒍ ᑕᐃᓯᖁᓗᒍᓗ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᖕᒪᖔᖅᐲᑦ ᑮᓇᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᖕᒪᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᖕᓂᕐᓂᒃ. ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ! ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᓄᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᑎᕈᓘᔭᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ, ᐊᓃᑲᑕᒡᓗᓯᓗ. ᐱᙳᐊᕐᕕᓕᐊᖃᑦᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᓱᓗᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ. ᐅᓪᓚᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ, ᑐᒃᑲᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ, ᓯᑐᕋᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᐊᕐᕆᔮᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᙱᑐᐊᖅᐸᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᖃᑦᑕᖁᓇᒋᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᔾᔮᙱᒻᒪᑕ. ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᖁᓇᒋᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᒧᙵᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖁᓇᒋᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᖅᑳᕐᓇᑎᒃ. ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑭᒡᓕᖃᕐᕕᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒍᑎᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᖃᑉᓯᒧᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ (ᐃᓄᓯᐸᒍᑎᑦ) ᐃᓅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕈᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ.ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᓵᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᖕᓂᖅ • • ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕆᐅᖅᓴᒐᒪ ᐃᖅᑭᐊᑦᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᔾᔮᙱᓐᓇᒪ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᙵ ᒫᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ ᐱᓕᕆᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕌᖓᒪ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᐊᓯᒻᓂᒃ ᑎᓕᓯᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᙱᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑎᓕᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᖓ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑕᒻᒪᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᒻᓄᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᓯᖁᒥᑦᑎᒍᒪ. ᑕᐃᓱᒪᓂ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᙱᒃᑯᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᔭᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᕿᐊᓱᒃᑯᑎᒃ. ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓵᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᕐᓂᓇᓱᓕᕈᑎᒃ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᕈᒫᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᕿᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᕈᑎᒃ. ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᕙᒃᖢᑎᒃ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᒡᓗᑎᒃ ᑎᑭᑕᐅᒐᔪᙱᑦᑐᒫᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᕿᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᕈᑎᒃ. ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᕋᒥᒃ “ᓂᑉᐸᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᑦᑏᑦ ᐳᐃᖃᑦᑕᕈᒫᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᒍᑦ ᐊᒡᓗᐊᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᕿᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᕈᑎᒃ.” ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖃᑦᑕᓕᕋᒪ ᐃᓕᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐱᐊᓚᐃᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᒃᓴᐅᔪᖓ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒻᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᔭᙱᑦᑐᒃᓴᐅᑉᓗᖓ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐊᓗᙱᓪᓗᖓ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᖓ ᐅᑕᖅᑭᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖃᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᖓᓗ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖃᖃᑦᑕᕋᑉᑕ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᒐᒪ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᓯᕋᓂ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᙵ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᖓ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᒐᒪ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖅᑖᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖁᑉᓗᖓ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᒃᑲᓗ ᓈᒻᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑑᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᙵ ᐃᓅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᐅᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᓗᖓ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᓂᕆᖃᑎᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓐᓇᖅᓵᓕᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᖓ. ᑐᐸᒃᓵᓕᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᖓ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᐊᖑᑎᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᕙᒃᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔭᒃᑲ ᓄᑲᕆᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᒋᔭᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐊᓂᒋᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᔭᒋᔭᒃᑯᓪᓗ. • • ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᓴᙱᓂᕆᓂᐊᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᒐᒪ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖓ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᙵ. ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕋᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᓂ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᕐᒥ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓇᕐᒪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑎᐊᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᕋᒥᒃ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕋᖅᖢᓂ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᕐᒥᒃ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑑᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᒪᓪᓚᕆᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᒃᑲᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓚᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᑐᐊᕋᒥᒃ. 4 ᓯᑕᒪᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᕙᖕᓂᖓ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐱᙳᐊᕐᓂᕆᕙᒃᑕᖏᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᒫᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑯᖅᑐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᑦ ᑭᐅᓯᑲᐅᑎᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖁᔭᐅᔭᕌᖓᑕ. ᐱᓕᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᔭᕌᖓᑕ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅᑖᖅᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒥᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᙱᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔭᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᙱᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᐱᓕᕆᔪᕕᓂᑯᓘᔭᕌᖓᑕ, ᖁᕕᐊᒋᓂᕋᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑎᖓ ᑕᐃᙱᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᓗᒍ. ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᔭᐅᙱᒥᐊᕋᓗᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑲᐱᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᒥᒧᑦ ᑲᐱᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᖏᑦ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᓕᖅᑳᕋᑎᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐅᖅᓴᖅᑳᕋᑎᒃ. 9 9 ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᓕᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᑐᓵᑦᑎᐊᕐᒪᖔᓪᓗ. ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓯᒪᓂᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᒃᐱᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᑕᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᓯᒃᑯᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᓴᒡᓗᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᙱᓐᓂᖅ, ᑎᒡᓕᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᙱᓐᓂᖅ, ᐊᑐᖅᑲᐅᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓂᒋᖅᑲᐅᔭᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᑎᖅᑎᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦᑕ ᐱᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕌᖓᒥᒃ, ᐱᒋᔭᒥᓂᒡᓗ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᐃᓚᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ, ᓄᑲᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᖓᔪᒥᓂᒃ ᓇᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᓂᒥᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑲᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓚᑖᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᓯᑕᒪᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᙳᐊᕆᐅᖅᓴᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ. ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓵᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᐱᔫᒥᒍᓱᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᓲᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᙳᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᒡᓗᙳᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒡᓗ. ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᙳᐊᕈᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᓯᑭᑑᓕᕆᙳᐊᕈᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᓪᓗ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᐊᓃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓕᔭᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᒧᙵᐅᑲᑕᒍᒪᕙᒃᖢᑎᒃ. ᐱᙳᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ. ᖃᐅᔨᔪᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᓱᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ, ᐱᖃᑎᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᒐᒥᒎᖅ ᐅᔭᖅᑲᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᖕᒪᑕ ᒎᑎᒧᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓖᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᕋᑉᑕ ᓄᓇᒥ. ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕌᖓᑕ ᐱᓕᕆᕝᕖᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓱᓇᓕᕆᕝᕕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᑎᖕᒥᐊᓂᒃ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᖕᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒥᓪᓗᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᒪᓐᓂᒃᓯᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥᒡᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᒃᖢᑎᒃ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᐅᑎᓂᐊᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᕐᕈᑎᖃᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐊᒥᖅᑳᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓚᒥᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᓐᓈᒥᓄᓪᓗ. ᓯᑕᒪᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥᓂᒍᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥᓂᓗ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᕆᔭᐅᔪᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔪᐃᖃᑦᑕᖅᐸᑕ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᒃ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓐᓂ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕋᓱᖕᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᖃᓄᕐᓗ ᓴᙱᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒐᔪᒋᑦ. ᐃᓚᑎᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᕐᓂᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᖅᐱᑦ ᐱᕚᓪᓕᕐᓂᕆᔭᖏᑦᑎᒍᑦ. ᖃᖓᓗᒃᑖᖅ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓐᓇᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᕐᓄᑦ. ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕈᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᓂᒡᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐅᖅᓴᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᓕᕈᒫᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᐅᖕᓂᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᖅᐱᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᓕᖅᐸᑕ. • • ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐅᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓯᓚᒥᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖑᔪᒥᒡᓗ, ᐊᐅᔭᐅᔪᒥᒃ, ᐅᐱᕐᖔᖑᔪᒥᒃ ᐅᑭᐊᒃᓵᖑᔪᒥᒡᓗ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᖕᒪᖔᑦ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᖕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᒪᓐᓂᒃᑕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᕿᒪᐃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᒪᓐᓂᖕᒥᒃ ᐊᓈᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐅᑎᕐᕕᒃᓴᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᐅᓗᒃ ᑎᒍᖃᑦᑕᖁᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᖑᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᐅᖅᑲᐃᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕆᓕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᒍ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᓇᔪᖅᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᑕᑯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕝᕕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᑎᒋᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᓗᒍᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᕕᐅᕙᖕᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᑭᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓇᒍ, ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕈᑎᒃ. ᖁᕕᐊᒋᔭᖃᕈᓐᓃᕌᖓᒥᒃ ᑭᓇᒥ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖃᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑎᒡᓕᖃᑦᑕᖁᓇᒍ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑎᒡᓕᖕᓂᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᕈᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ ᑎᒡᓕᒡᕕᐅᔪᒧᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓅᖄᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᖅᑎᑦᑎᒃᐸᑕ ᐅᑎᕐᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ, ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓇᓱᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᕈᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᐱᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ “ᖃᓄᐃᓕᓇᔭᖅᐱᑦ ᑎᒡᓗᒃᑕᐅᒍᕕᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᙱᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ?” “ᖃᓄᐃᓕᓇᔭᖅᐱᑦ ᐃᓄᑑᓕᑳᓪᓚᒃᑯᕕᑦ ᓂᐅᕕᕐᕕᖕᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᕙᒻᓂᒃ ᓇᓂᓯᔪᓐᓇᐃᓪᓕᓇᔭᕈᕕᑦ?” “ᖃᓄᐃᓕᓇᔭᖅᐱᑦ ᖁᐸᓄᐊᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᐊᓛᕐᒥᒃ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᖅᑕᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᑕᑯᒍᕕᑦ?” ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᙵ ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓵᖅᑕᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᓇᔭᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐃᒡᕕᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᓇᔭᕐᒪᖔᖅᐱᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᓗᓯᒃ ᖃᓄᑦᑐᖃᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕋᔭᕈᑉᓯᒃ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᕿᐸᓱᐃᓐᓈᓗᖃᑦᑕᖁᙱᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᑭᕋᖅᑖᖁᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍᓗ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᖃᑦᑕᕈᓂ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᕆᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖕᓂᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᓂᕿᓕᐅᕈᔾᔨᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᕈᑎᖃᖅᐸᒃᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ. ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥ ᐊᖏᓂᖅᓴᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᕈᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕈᒫᖅᑕᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᕆᐅᖅᓴᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐱᙳᐊᖃᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᐃᓯᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐱᖁᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᑕᖅᓯᓇᓱᒃᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐱᖁᑎᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ ᓲᕐᓗ ᑎᖕᒥᐊᕋᓗᖕᓂᒃ, ᐱᕈᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓴᓇᕐᕈᑎᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᓯᑕᒪᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᒋᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ. ᐃᓅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᖕᒪᑕ. ᓂᕈᐊᖅᖠᖅᐸᒡᓗᓯ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᑕᓚᕕᓴᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ. 9 9 ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓯᑕᒪᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᒋᐅᖅᓴᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕋᒃᑎᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ.ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᓵᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᖕᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕋ ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᒃᑲᓗ ᓇᓗᓇᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᑦ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᐅᓗᖓ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕋᒪ ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐱᓕᒻᒪᖅᓴᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᓪᓚᑦᑖᓯᔪᖅ. • • ᓄᑲᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐊᖓᔪᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓕᖅᑐᖓ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᐸᒡᕕᓵᕆᖃᑦᑕᖁᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᓐᓂᕐᓘᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᖁᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᖓ ᓄᑲᒃᑲᓗ ᐊᖓᔪᒃᑲᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑑᑎᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕈᒫᕋᑉᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᓱᒪᓂᑐᖃᖅ, ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓵᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᓂᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᕿᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕈᒫᕐᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ. ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᔭᒥᓄᑦ ᐳᐊᓗᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕈᒫᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕋ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᖕᒪᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᙵ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᖓ ᐱᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᒻᖏᐅᑎᓂᒃ. ᐅᕙᒻᓄᑦ ᐅᓂᑉᑳᕌᖓᕕᑦ, ᓄᖅᑲᓚᐅᐱᓪᓚᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖁᓗᖓᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᕐᓂᐊᓕᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐅᓂᑉᑳᖅᑐᐊᒃᑯᑦ. • • ᐅᖃᓕᒫᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓕᖅᑐᖓ. ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᕐᒪ ᐱᖁᑎᑦ ᐃᒡᓗᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᓕᖅᑐᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᓇᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓱᓇᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓕᐊᓂᒃᑎᓪᓗᖓ. ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒎᓰᖕᓂᒃ ᑭᐳᒃᓯᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᒻᒪᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓇᓂᓯᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᕈᒪᒐᔪᒃᑲᒪ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐆᒃᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ! ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᓇᔭᖅᑕᖏᑦᑎᒍᑦ. ᐊᖓᑎᑦ ᒥᖅᓱᕈᒪᓲᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᒥᖅᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᐅᑉᓗᑎᒃ. ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᒍᒪᒃᐸᑦ ᓯᓚ ᓂᒡᓕᓈᓗᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᐅᓪᓚᖃᑕᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᒥᑭᔫᑉᓗᑕ, ᐊᒃᓱᕈᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᙱᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓚᐅᕋᑉᑕ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕗᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᔪᒪᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᖁᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒡᓗᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐊᒡᒐᒃᑲ ᐃᒃᑮᓕᖅᐸᑕ, ᐊᑖᑕᒐ ᐊᐅᓪᓛᕐᓗᓂ ᓄᖅᑲᓚᐅᐱᓪᓚᒐᔭᖅᑐᖅ ᐳᐊᓘᒃᑲ ᐅᖁᖅᓴᕆᐊᖁᓗᒍᑦ ᔭᐸᖓᑕ ᐃᓗᐊᒍᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕋᑉᑕ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᒃᐱᖕᓇᑦᑎᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕗᑦ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᕙᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒃᖢᑎᒃ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕗᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᒃᐱᕆᕙᒃᖢᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕋᓗᐊᕌᖓᑕ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓂᑉᓕᕋᓗᐊᕌᖓᑕ. 5 ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓪᓗ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓃᖅᑐᑦ. ᐅᑉᓗᒥ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑦ ᓇᓂᓯᓇᓱᒋᐊᖃᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᒃᐱᕆᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒡᓗ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕐᔫᒥᓗᑎᒃ, ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᓂ ᓱᓇᒥᒃ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓱᑐᐃᓐᓈᓗᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ~ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑎᐊᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᓚᐅᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᒋᖕᒪᖔᑕ, ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᓵᑦᑎᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᓗᒍ. 9 9 ᑲᐱᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᑲᐱᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓯᒪᖕᒪᖔᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᒥᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ ᐱᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᑉ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐸᒡᕕᓵᕆᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᑕᒻᒪᓕᖅᐸᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᑉᐸᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᑕᒻᒪᓕᖅᐸᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᑉᐸᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᑲᐅᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ. ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔪᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᑉᑎᓐᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᒃᑎᒃ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ, ᓱᓇᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᓇᑦ ᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᖁᕕᐊᓱᑦᑎᐊᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᓕᐊᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑏᑐᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ. ᑕᑯᔪᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐆᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑯᒪᕋᓗᖕᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᐃᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓗᐃᓕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᑐᓂ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᒥ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᕐᓂᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ. ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐱᙳᐊᕈᒪᒃᑲᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᙳᐊᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᕿᑎᙳᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᖅᖢᓂ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᓇᔭᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᙳᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᙳᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᕿᑎᒍᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᕙᑎᒥᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᐱᙳᐊᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᐃᑭᙳᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓚᑖᖅᑐᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᐸᑕ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒥᖕᒪᑕ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᑳᓕᕈᑎᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓱᓇᒥᒃ ᓂᕿᒥᒃ ᒪᒪᖅᓴᙱᒃᑯᑎᒃ. ᓂᕆᔪᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᓂᕿᓕᖅᑐᕐᓗᓂ ᓂᕿᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᑐᐊᖅᐸᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐅᖃᐱᓘᑎᖃᖅᐸᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ, ᐅᖃᐅᑎᓗᒍ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᖁᓗᒍ ᓈᒻᒪᒋᙱᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᒥᒃ ᓈᒻᒪᒋᙱᑕᒥᓂᒃ. ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒍᑎᒐᓱᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᒥᖅᑳᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓴᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓚᓐᓈᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᑕᑯᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐱᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᖃᑎᖏᑦᑕ ᐱᙳᐊᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᙳᐊᕐᕕᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᐱᙳᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐊᑯᓂ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕋᑉᑎᒍᑦ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᓵᖓᓂ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᑲᑕᒃᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓗᖕᓂᖃᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᔮᕆᑲᑕᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᕐᓂᒃ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᑲᔪᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒍᓐᓃᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒃᖢᓂᓗ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᙱᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒍᒃᑎᒃ, ᒫᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖁᙱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᑎᓪᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᓱᖕᒪᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕐᒪᖔᖅᐱᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᓴᙱ ᒃᑎᑉᐹᓪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᖅᐱᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕈᓐᓇᕈᑎᖏᑦ. ᐅᑭᐊ ᑕᒡᕙ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᕿᑎᖃᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᑕᒫᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᕙᒃᑕᒃᑯᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᒥᖅᓱᕈᑎᑎᑦ ᐋᓪᓕᕋᐅᔭᐅᑉ ᖄᖓᓅᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᒥᖅᓱᕈᑕᐅᙱᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓯᖃᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ ᓇᓕᐊᒃ ᐱᖁᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᑕᐃᑲᓃᖃᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᙱᒻᒪᖔᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᓯᖁᓕᕐᓗᒍ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᙱᑦᑐᒥᑦᑕᐅᖅ. ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᐃᕐᒧᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᖢᓂ ᕿᑎᒍᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᖅ ᕿᑎᒡᓗᒍ. ᐃᔨᖅᓯᓗᑎᑦ ᒥᑭᔪᒥᒃ ᐱᖁᑎᒥᒃ ᐃᕐᒧᓯᐅᑉ ᓇᓕᑐᐃᓐᓇᖓᑕ ᐃᓗᐊᓄᑦ. ᓅᑲᑕᕈᓘᔭᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᕐᒧᓰᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ ᓇᓕᐊᒃ ᐃᕐᒧᓯᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᒻᒪᖔᑦ ᐱᖁᑕᐅᔪᖅ. ᐊᒥᖅᑳᕐᓗᓯ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᓕᕐᓗᓯᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᓴᖅᐸᒡᓗᓯᒃ ᓇᓕᐊᖕᓃᒻᒪᖔᑦ. • • ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᒋᐊᑲᐅᑎᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᖁᕕᐊᒋᓂᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᒋᐊᑲᐅᑎᒋᔭᕌᖓᑕ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᒪᓪᓚᕆᒃᑳᖓᑕ. ᐆᒪᔪᙴᓗᑎᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᙴᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐱᒡᒍᓴᐅᔾᔪᐊᖃᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐆᒪᔪᖅ ᓅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑦ, ᓂᐱᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑦ, ᓂᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕿᑎᒡᓗᓯ ᐆᒪᔪᖅᑎᑐᑦ. • • ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒃᑕᑯᓂᒃ ᑎᒍᖅᓴᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᓇᒥ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᑕᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓴᖅᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓱᓇᑦ ᓄᓇᒦᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᙱᒻᒪᖔᑕ. ᓄᓇᓕᖕᒧᑦ ᐅᑎᕈᑎᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒃᑕᕐᕕᖕᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓯᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ. ᓄᓇᒥᙶᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᑦᑎᖃᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑎᑦ ᑲᑎᑦᑕᖅᐱᑦ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐊᓯᒥᓄᑦ ᐅᒡᓚᖅᑐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᒥ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᖕᓂᐊᕌᖓᑕ ᐱᑕᖅᓯᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᑭᓯᒥ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᖓᑖᒎᙱᑦᑐᖅ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᕈᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑲᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐱᕈᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐸᐅᕐᖓᕐᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᑐᖅ ᓱᕋᖁᓇᒍ. ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖏᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐱᕈᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᐃᓐᓇᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᙱᒻᒪᕆᒃᑐᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᔮᕆᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ ᐆᒪᒧᓂᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᒪᓐᓂᒃᓯᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᕕᙵᖅᓯᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᓪᓗ. ᑕᑯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᑕᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓗᐃᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᒋᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᕿᒪᒃᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ, ᕿᒻᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᕿᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᖕᒪᑕ.ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃ ᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᒋᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᕿᒪᒃᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ, ᕿᒻᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᕿᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᖕᒪᑕ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᖢᐊᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᖃᑎᓂᓗ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᕈᑎᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐅᓐᓂᕐᓗᑐᐃᓐᓇᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᕆᐊᖅᑐᖅᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᐸᑦ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑕᐅᙱᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓴᙱᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ. 9 9 ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᓈᓚᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᐃᕙᖃᑦᑕᖁᓇᒋᑦ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨᒥᓄᑦ ᓈᓚᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓇᓱᒃᑎᐅᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᐃᓐᓇᖁᓗᒋᓪᓗ.ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᓵᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓱᒪᖃᑦᑕᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᕋᒪ ᖃᓄᖅ ᕿᓅᔪᒪᖕᒪᖔᕐᒪ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔪᒪᖕᒪᖔᕐᒪ. ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᒡᓕᖕᓂᖅ — ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓇᒡᓕᖕᓂᕐᒥᒃ • • ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᒃᑎᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᖕᒥᔪᖓ ᐃᓚᒃᑲᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᑎᒋᖕᒪᖔᑉᑕ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ • • ᐅᕙᒻᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᓇᔭᕐᒪᖔᕐᒪ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᒧᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒡᓗᖓ. ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᔪᖓ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ. • • ᐅᐱᒋᔭᒃᑲ ᕿᕕᐊᖓᓪᓚᕆᒃᐸᒃᑕᒃᑲ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐊᑐᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑐᖓ ᑐᖅᖢᕋᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᒃᑲᓄᑦ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᕐᒪ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒃᑲᓄᑦ. ᐊᑎᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᙱᑦᑐᒍᑦ, ᐃᓚᓐᓇᕆᔭᒃᑯᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑐᖅᖢᕋᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᒃᖢᑕ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑦᑎᒐᑉᑕ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕋᑉᑕᓗ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᓐᓇᕆᔭᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᕐᒪᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᙵ ᑐᖅᖢᕋᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓄᑦ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᕙᒃᑐᖓ. ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᒃᓴᕋᐃᑦᑐᖓ. ᒥᐊᓂᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕐᒪ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᖁᓇᖓ ᓴᖅᑭᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ. • • ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᒃᑲ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕐᓇᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑐᑦ. ᑕᑯᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᕐᒪ ᓯᕗᓂᑉᑎᓐᓂ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᔾᔨᕆᖁᔭᕋ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᖓ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᖁᓗᖓ. • • ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᔪᖓ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐅᕙᒻᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᐅᖕᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑉᓯ. ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᒃᑲ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᒐᑉᓯᐅᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᖓ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐅᒃᐱᕆᑦᑎᐊᖅᑕᑉᓯ ᐅᕙᒻᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒃᑳᖓᑉᓯ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᓇᒡᓕᒋᒐᑉᑎᒍᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ. ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᒪᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕙᓪᐊᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᐊᕐᓗᑕ, ᑲᒪᒋᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓅᓵᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐸᐅᑏᓐᓇᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᖕᒪᖔᑉᑎᒍᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓴᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᐃᓂᖅᑎᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᑎᑭᑦᑐᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. 6 ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ, ᐃᓂᖅᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᑉᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐸᑎᒃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐸᑎᒃᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᓕᕌᖓᑉᑕ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐸᑎᒃᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᕗᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑉᓗᑎᒍᑦ ᐸᑎᒃᑕᐅᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᑕ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖏᓐᓂᕗᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕗᑦ ᐅᕙᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐸᑎᒃᓯᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᑉᐸᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓈᓚᙱᒃᑳᖓᑉᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᓕᖅᖢᑕ ᓱᖕᒪᑦ ᐸᑎᒃᑕᐅᖕᒪᖔᑉᑕ. ᐸᑎᒃᓯᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᓯ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᙱᓪᓗᒍ ᓯᕗᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᑎᙱᓪᓗᒍ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᒥᓄᑦ ᐅᒃᐱᕆᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᐃᓪᓕᓲᑦ. ᐃᕆᐊᓛᖅᐸᙱᓪᓗᓯ ᓂᙵᐅᒫᓗᒡᓗᓯ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᒥᑭᓪᓕᑎᖅᓯᒪᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᓂᖅᑎᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᓂᐱᖃᓗᐊᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᑎᓪᓚᑦᑖᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᐋᓐᓂᐊᓕᖁᓇᒋᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑲᒃᑭᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᐊᓘᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᒃᑭᒐᔪᒡᓗᑎᒃ. 9 9 ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓴᓗᒪᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᒡᒐᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᕐᒥᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ, ᖁᐃᖅᑐᕐᓂᐊᕌᖓᒥᒃ ᑕᓕᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᖁᐃᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᒍᑎᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᑯᒃᑮᔭᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒡᓗ. ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᓴᓗᒪᑎᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖅᑭᓖᑦ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᑭᙳᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᓪᓚᑦᑖᓕᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕈᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ, ᐃᓚᒥᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᙱᑦᑐᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕌᖓᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ, ᓱᕐᓗ ᐱᙳᐊᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᖄᑎᒥᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᕋᐅᖃᑎᒌᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᔮᕆᔾᔪᑎᔪᒪᒃᑲᐅᔪᑦ. ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐱᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᙱᓐᓇᓱᓕᓲᑦ. ᐅᓇᑕᕆᐊᔭᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᖁᔭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐱᒡᒍᓴᐅᔾᔪᐊᖃᑎᖃᕈᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ. ᓯᑐᕋᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᓯᑐᒡᒍᓛᖑᔪᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ, ᐅᕿᓚᓛᖑᔪᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ, ᖁᑦᑎᖕᓂᖅᐹᒃᑯᑦ ᕿᒡᒋᖅᑕᖅᑐᐅᔪᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᓵᓚᒃᓴᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒍᓐᓃᑐᐃᓐᓇᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕌᖓᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ “ᐱᙳᐊᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓵᓚᐅᒐᓗᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ” ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᖃᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᓵᓚᒃᓴᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᒃᓴᕋᐃᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᓕᖅᑐᓂᒃ, ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ, ᓂᕿᖃᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᓱᓇᖃᑦᑎᐊᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᔮᕆᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᙱᓐᓂᕐᒥᒡᓗ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖃᕋᑉᑕ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ, ᓄᑕᕋᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᒍᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᕌᖓᑕ, ᐊᑎᖏᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᔭᐅᖁᓗᒍᓗ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ. ᐃᓕᑕᕆᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔫᒥᓵᕈᑕᐅᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ ᓴᐃᒪᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓄᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐱᑕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑭᙳᑎᒋᔭᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᖅᐱᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᖏᑦᑕ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ, ᐅᒃᐱᕆᔭᖏᑦᑕᓗ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᑦ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒋᔭᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. • • ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᒍᓐᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᓐᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᙱᑦᑐᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᓴᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓂᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᖓᓄᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᒥᐊᓂᕆᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᖕᒥᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖁᙱᓪᓗᒍ. ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᕈᕕᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᒪᒥᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᐅᖃᖅᑕᐃᓕᓗᓂ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᓄᑦ ᐱᐅᓂᖅᓴᖅ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᒃᑯᑦ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑐᓂᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᒥᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᕿᒻᒥᐊᕐᔪᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᓂ ᑲᒪᑎᑕᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ, ᓂᕆᑎᑉᐸᒃᖢᒋᓪᓗ, ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᕙᒃᖢᑎᒃ ᕿᒻᒦᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐅᑭᐅᓂᒃ ᖃᐃᔪᓂᒃ. ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᙶᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᒧᑦ: “ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᖏᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᒪᐅᖅᑐᖓ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑕᐅᙱᒃᑳᖓᒪ, ᕿᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍᒎᖅ ᐅᕙᒻᓂᒃ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᙱᓐᓇᓱᖃᑕᐅᖁᔭᐅᓇᖓ. ᐊᓯᐊᓂᒃ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕋᓱᖔᕐᓗᖓᒎᖅ. ᐃᓄᒃ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖏᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᕿᒪᖃᑦᑕᕌᖓᖕᓂ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᙱᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᙱᒥᐊᖃᑦᑕᕋᖕᓂ.” “ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᙱᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᕙᑉᑎᑑᙱᒻᒪᑕ. ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᓗᒎᖅ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᖃᕋᑉᑕ, ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑕ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᑉᑕ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᕝᕕᒋᓇᔭᙱᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ.” ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᒃ ᐅᑯᐊ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒋᑦ. • • ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᓚᓐᓈᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᖔᑕ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓚᓐᓈᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᓇᔭᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᓐᓈᖏᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐅᓂᑉᑳᖅᑐᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐃᓚᒥᓄᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᓚᙳᐊᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕆᐅᖅᓴᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᑦᑕ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᖏᑦᑕ ᐊᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ. • • ᐱᙳᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᓯ ᐱᖃᐃᓕᓴᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓂᒃ. ᐋᒻᒪᑭᑕᐅᕙᒡᓗᓯ, ᐊᓴᐅᓕᒑᖅᐸᒡᓗᓯ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓵᑯᖅᐸᒡᓗᓯ. • • ᐱᙳᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᓯ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᓂᕐᒨᖓᔪᓂᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ “ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ.” ᑕᑯᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᓇᕈᓘᔭᕐᓂᒃ ᑕᑯᓵᖅᑕᖏᓪᓗ ᑕᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᓯᖁᓗᒍ ᑕᑯᖅᑲᐅᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ. • • ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐅᑉᓗᑕᒫᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᒐᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᓴᓗᒻᒪᖅᓴᐃᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕋᖅᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᓇᒡᓕᖏᔭᐅᓗᐊᒧᑦ ᑕᒻᒪᕌᖓᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᒐᔪᓕᓲᑦ. ᑕᒻᒪᖅᑎᑦᑎᒥᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᓇᒡᓕᒍᓱᖕᓇᐅᙱᒻᒪᑦ ᓱᓇᙳᕈᒫᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᓂᐅᖕᒪᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᒐᔪᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᒻᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᒌᑦ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒻᒪᕐᓗᓂ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᙱᓐᓂᖅ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖅᐹᖅ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᖕᓃᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓ. ᓄᓇᒦᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᑕᑯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᐅᔾᔨᕆᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᓕᕌᖓᑕ ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. 9 9 ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᓐᓄᕌᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᓪᓗ. 9 9 ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥᓃᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥᓂᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓃᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ.ᓱᓇ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑑᕙ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ? ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᑦ ᓇᓚᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᓗ • • ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᕙᑎᑉᑎᓐᓂᒡᓗ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕈᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕋ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᖃᑦᑕᕈᒃ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᒐᒪ ᓴᖑᑦᑎᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᕿᐊᓗᖓ ᓴᖑᑦᑎᓇᓱᒃᑯᒪ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ, ᐃᓱᒪᒋᙱᒥᐊᕐᓗᖓ. • • ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕋᒪ ᓱᓇᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᕙᒃᑕᒃᑲ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᓇᖓ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᖁᖃᑦᑕᙵ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕋ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᖃᑦᑕᕈᒃ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᙱᒃᑎᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᒐᒪ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᕐᒪ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᔭᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᖓ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᑉᓗᖓ. ᐅᖃᑦᑎᐊᙱᒃᑯᒪ, ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᖓ. ᐅᖃᑦᑎᐊᖁᓗᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᖓ. • • ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᒥᑭᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᖢᖓ. • • ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᒃᑳᖓᕕᑦ ᐅᕙᒻᓂᒃ. ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᕈᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᑐᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᕋ. • • ᑐᓵᔪᒪᕙᒃᑐᖓ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᒃᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑕᕐᕆᔭᒐᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᐅᑐᒍᒪᕙᒃᖢᖓ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᒥᐊᓂᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕐᒪ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᕙᒻᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᒃᑲ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᕈᑏᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᓯᒥ (ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᒐᔪᒃᑐᒃᑐᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᙱᑦᑐᖅ). • • ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ. • • ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᒃᑲ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᐊᑯᓂ. • • ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔭᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖓ. ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᖁᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᖓ ᓴᓇᕐᕈᑎᓂᒡᓗ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᖅ ᑕᑯᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑉᑕ ᓈᓚᙱᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᑯᓗᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑦ ᓯᒃᓯᖕᒥᒃ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᙱᑦᑐᒥᒃ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᑉᓗᓂ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᙱᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᐅᙱᖦᖢᓂ ᐆᒪᔪᓂᒃ. ᓯᒃᓯᐅᑉ ᓯᐅᑎᖓᑕ ᐃᒐᓚᐅᔭᖓ ᓯᖁᒥᓐᓇᓱᒃᖢᓂᐅᒃ ᓂᐱᖅᑯᖅᑐᓇᓱᒃᖢᓂ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ. ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᖑᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑐᓵᔪᓐᓇᐃᓪᓕᒐᒥ. ᐃᓱᒪᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᒃᐱᕆᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᐅᙱᒻᒪᖔᑕ. ᓱᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᒪᓕᙱᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᐸᑦ ᐅᒃᐱᕆᔭᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ? ᐅᒃᐱᕆᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᐃᑦ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐃᓐᓇᓲᑦ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᙱᒃᑯᕕᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᓇᓱᒡᓗᑎᑦ, ᐋᓐᓂᖔᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᖅ. ᐅᒃᐱᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᑦ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᓖᑦ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓱᓕᔪᓂᒃ ᓈᓚᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑕᓗ. 7 ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᖓ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᒃᐱᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒡᓗ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓴᓄᑦ. ᐅᑉᓗᒥ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᓱᓕ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᓈᓚᙱᒃᑯᑎᒃ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓇᓱᒋᓲᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᔪᒪᓕᓲᑦ. ᒥᐊᓂᕆᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖓᓯᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᓗᓯ ᐱᕐᕈᓗᐊᕿᖁᓇᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᖁᓇᒋᑦ. 9 9 ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᔪᒪᖃᑦᑕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓇᒧᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᓅᑲᑕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑐᖁᑏᑦ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᓯᓚ ᓇᓗᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᒃᐸᒃᑐᑦ “ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ.” ᐆᒃᑐᕈᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᔾᔮᙱᑕᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᖅᓴᐅᓇᓱᒋᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒫᓂᙱᑕᒥᓂᒃ. ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᐃᓐᓇᓲᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓂᒃ ᑐᓵᓲᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ. ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᓲᑦ. ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔪᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓚᖃᕐᒪᖔᕐᒦᒃ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓂᒃ. ᐊᑎᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ. ᓂᕆᐅᒋᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᐅᒃ ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓴᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑎᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᕐᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐊᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓂᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᑦ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᒃᑎᖁᓇᒍ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᓂᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᑭᐅᓯᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖁᔭᕌᖓᒃᑎᒃ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᓇᑎᒃ. ᐅᑕᖅᑭᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒐᔪᒃᖢᑎᒃ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔪᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐆᒥᓛᖅᖢᑎᒃ. ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᒐᔪᒃᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ. ᐅᓂᑉᑳᖅᑐᐊᓂᒃ ᐃᒻᖏᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᓲᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᓲᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕝᕕᒋᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᓂᒋᑦ. ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᐊᓘᕙᒃᑐᑦ. ᑐᓵᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᒥᒃ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᖕᓂᒃ, ᑕᐅᑐᕐᕉᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓚᑖᖅᑐᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓚᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ • • ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᔪᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ. ᐱᔪᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᒃᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᑎᕝᕕᒋᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᖕᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᖁᓗᒍ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ, ᐊᒃᑯᕈᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂ, ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒍᓐᓃᕋᓗᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᓗᒃᑖᖅᐸᒃᑲᑉᑕ ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᐊᓂᒍᑎᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᙱᑦᑐᒃᑰᕋᓗᐊᕐᓗᓂ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᔪᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐃᓪᓕᔭᕌᖓᑦ. ᑐᐊᕕᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒍᑎᓂᐊᕐᓗᒍ. • • ᓴᙱᒃᑎᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᖅᐱᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᖏᑦ. ᐃᖢᐊᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒐᓱᖕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᙳᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓯ. ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ. ᑭᐅᓯᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᓯ ᒫᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ. ᐊᐱᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᓱᒃᒪᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ. • • ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᑕᒻᒪᕋᓗᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑕᒻᒪᕋᓗᐊᕌᖓᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᒋᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᑕᒻᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᒋᑦ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᓇᓱᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᖃᓄᐃᓕᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᓕᕌᖓᑦ. ᐱᓇᓱᒃᑲᓐᓂᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᑐᖅᖢᕋᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ. ᑕᑯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᓐᓇᕆᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ. • • ᑐᓂᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᓂᕆᐅᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᖃᑯᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒫᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ ᑭᐅᓯᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖁᔭᐅᔭᕌᖓᒥ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ. ᖁᕕᐊᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. • • ᑕᑯᑎᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᔪᓂᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓅᓯᑯᓗᐊᓄᑦ ᓱᕋᒍᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᖓ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᐃᓪᓕᓗᓂᓗ. • • ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᓈᓚᒃᑎᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᓂᓚᐅᐱᓪᓚᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕆᐊᖃᕈᕕᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓄᑦ ᑐᓴᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᙱᑦᑐᒥᒃ. • • ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᓚᕕᓴᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᓂᒃ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑕᕐᕆᔭᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᑕᕐᕆᔭᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᑎᒋᔪᖅ ᑕᕐᕆᔭᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. • • ᓴᙱᒃᑎᑉᐹᓪᓕᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒥᓂᒃ. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᒃᑲᓐᓂᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓇᓗᓇᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᒐᔪᒃᑐᓂᒡᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᓪᓚᑦᑖᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᐱᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐅᑎᓂᒡᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᙳᐊᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐆᒃᑑᑎᓂᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᓕᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓯ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᕐᓚᒃᑐᓂᒃ, ᐅᖃᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᕐᓚᒃᑐᓂᒃ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒡᓗ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᒃᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᐅᔾᔨᕆᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦ ᐃᓚᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᕐᓚᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᑭᖏᓐᓂᒃ (ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ “ᑎᑦᑎᔨ” ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒥᙳᐊᖅᑎ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᒃ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖅ. ᓄᑕᕋᑯᓘᓚᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᓅᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐅᖓᓯᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖅᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᖁᓇᒍ. 9 9 ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᒋᔭᖃᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓇ ᐃᓅᓯᖓ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ. ᑕᑯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᖓ ᐅᒃᐱᕆᒐᖕᓂ.ᓱᓇ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑑᕙ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ? ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᑎᒍᓯᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ. • • ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᒃᑐᖓ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒻᓂᒃ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒃᑲᓄᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕆᔭᐅᔪᒪᔪᖓ ᓈᓚᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕋᓄᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᒃᑲᓂᒡᓗ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ • • ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖃᖁᔭᐅᖕᒪᖔᕐᒪ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒻᓄᑦ ᐅᒃᑯᐃᙶᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓚᖓ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕋᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒻᓄᑦ. ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᕋᑉᑕ ᓱᓇᒥᒃ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᖢᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᓕᖅᖢᒍ. ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑕ ᐱᓇᓱᓪᓚᕆᖕᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. • • ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ! ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᙵ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᖓ ᐃᓕᑦᑐᒪᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐊᔾᔨ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᕿᑎᒃᑐᒥᒃ ᓇᒡᔪᖕᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖅᓯᓇᓱᒃᖢᓂ ᐅᔭᕋᐅᑉ ᖄᖓᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ, ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᖅᑕᐅᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᕿᑎᖕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑉᓗᑕᒫᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᕙᒃᑐᒃᑯᑦ. • • ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕋ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒃᑕᕋ. ᐅᖃᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᒐᒪ ᐅᖃᐅᓰᓪᓗ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖓ ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᖃᖅᑐᖓ. ᐃᓕᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᔭᒃᑲ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᑦᑎᐊᕈᒪᑉᓗᖓ. • • ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᒃᑐᖓ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᒐᒪ. ᐱᓕᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᔪᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔪᒪᑉᓗᖓ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕋᓄᑦ. • • ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᒐᒃᓴᖃᖅᑐᖓ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ! ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᐱᓇᓱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓᓗ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᕐᓂᐊᕋᒪ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᖓ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᒐᖕᒪ ᓴᐱᓕᖃᑦᑕᔾᔮᙱᓐᓂᒻᓄᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᓱᖕᓂᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᙱᑦᑐᑯᓘᔾᔮᙱᑦᑐᖅ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ. 8 ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓲᖅ ᑕᐅᑐᖕᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐆᒃᑐᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐆᒃᑐᕋᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒻᒪᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑕ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥ ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᒻᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᙱᒃᑎᑉᐹᓪᓕᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᑦ, ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂ, ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ, ᐊᓕᓚᔪᕐᓂᒃ, ᑎᑎᕋᐅᑎᓂᒃ. ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅᐹᖑᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᑯᔪᓐᓇᖅᖢᓂ ᒫᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᔪᒪᓱᐃᑦᑐᑦ! ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑕᖃᐃᖅᓯᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ, ᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᖁᓇᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑎᐊᖁᑉᓗᒍ. 9 9 ᓄᑕᕋᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᒃᑲᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᓄᖅᑲᖓᒃᑲᐅᓗᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᓕᖅᓴᕋᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᓇᓂᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᓇᔭᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐊᓃᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᒃᑲᐅᓗᑎᒃ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ “ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖅ.” ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᒻᒪᕆᖕᓂᐊᓕᖅᑐᖅ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᓕᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᓪᓚᕆᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᒪᔪᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᓂ. ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᓕᒃ. ᑐᑭᓯᔪᒪᔪᖅ “ᓲᖅ.” ᑐᑭᓯᑎᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᔪᖅ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᓱᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᓱᒍᓐᓇᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᒍᒪᖃᑦᑕᓕᕐᒪᑦ. ᓯᓚᒥ ᐊᓃᕈᒪᒃᑲᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓚᓐᓈᓂᓗ. ᐊᐅᓚᓐᓇᓱᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓕᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᖦᖢᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᓇᓂ. ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅᑖᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ. ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ, ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᖏᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᖅᑎᑦᑎᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓵᑦ ᑎᒍᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᒥᖅᓱᒐᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᑕᖅᑭᕆᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᕙᓕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐃᒐᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᓴᓗᒻᒪᖅᓴᐃᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑐᖁᑏᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐱᖁᑎᒥᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᕙᑎᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓴᓗᒻᒪᖅᓴᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᓂᕐᕆᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᕐᒥᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐳᐊᕆᔭᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᐳᑕᐃᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓃᖅᑳᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᑎᕌᖓᑦ. ᑐᖅᑯᖅᑎᕆᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᓯᒥᓄᑦ ᐱᒋᔭᐅᔭᕌᖓᑕ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ. ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖁᑉᓗᒍ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕐᓂᒃ. ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔾᔪᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᙱᓪᓗᓂ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᓃᖁᓗᒍ ᓯᓚᒥᓗ ᐅᓪᓚᔪᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᖃᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᓂ ᐱᙳᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᖃᙱᑦᑐᒥ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᖃᖁᓗᒍ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ. ᑭᐅᒍᖕᓂ, ᑐᑭᓯᑎᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᒥᒃ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓚᓐᓈᖃᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᒍᓂ. • • ᑐᓂᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ. • • ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕆᓂᐊᖅᑕᖓᓄᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᒃᑑᓗᒍ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. • • ᑐᓂᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑐᓂᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᒋᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᓂᕆᐅᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᖁᕕᐊᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᕌᖓᒋᑦ. • • ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᓯᒪᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᕕᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᕐᕋᒥᒃ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᔪᓐᓇᙱᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᖃᐃᖅᓯᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓕᒃ. ᑕᖃᓯᒪᓕᕋᓗᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᙱᑦᑐᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ. • • ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᕐᓃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥᓃᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥᓂᒡᓗ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᕐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᔾᔨᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ, ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᒋᐅᖅᓴᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. • • ᕿᑎᒍᑏᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑑᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᔪᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᙳᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᓴᙱᒃᑎᑉᐹᓪᓕᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᒃᐱᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ: ᐃᓪᓗᑭᑖᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᓇᐅᓕᒑᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᖅᓴᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᔭᕌᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑎᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᒃᑯᑦ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᕿᑎᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᐱᙳᐊᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐱᒡᒍᓴᐅᔾᔪᐊᕐᓂᒃᑰᙱᑦᑐᖅ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍᓗ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦᑕᐅᖅ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᖢᐊᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖁᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᓇᔭᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᖁᓛᖓ ᐲᖅᐸᑦ, ᓯᑯᒦᓪᓗᓂ ᐅᒃᑲᕈᔾᔭᐅᒃᐸᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᒥ ᐊᓯᐅᓯᒪᒃᐸᑦ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᖅᐱᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕆᓂᐊᖅᑕᖓᑕ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᒍᑦ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᖕᒪᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓄᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨᒋᔭᐅᒋᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᒃᐱᕐᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᙱᒃᑯᖕᓂ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᓯᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. 9 9 ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᒥᔪᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᕈᐊᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕋᑉᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ.ᓱᓇ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑑᕙ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ? ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᒻᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᐱᓕᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᙱᓐᓂᒻᓄᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᕋ ᐊᔪᕐᓈᓗᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ • • ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒻᓄᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᑕᑉᑲᓂᒃ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖓ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᐅᓗᖓ. • • ᖁᑦᑎᒃᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᐊᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓯ! ᓂᕆᐅᒋᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᒻᓄᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᕐᓂᒻᓄᓪᓗ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᑎᑦ ᐅᕙᑉᑯᑦ ᑎᑭᑦᑐᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᕐᒪ ᐊᓯᖏᑦᑕᓗ ᐅᕙᒻᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑎᒋᓇᓱᒃᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᔪᒃᑯᓪᓗ. ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐊᑐᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᐅᕙᒻᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᑎᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᒥᒧᑦ. ᑕᑯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑐᖓ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᕋᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ. • • ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒻᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᕿᓂᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᖓ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒃᑯᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᖓ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐆᒻᒪᕆᒃᑐᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᔪᖓ. ᐱᓕᕇᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ! ᐱᓕᕇᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒋᔭᕋ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᖓ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. • • ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᖓ. • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒻᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒋᔭᒃᑯᑦ. ᑐᑭᖓ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᓂᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᐊᔾᔨᙳᐊᕐᒥ, ᐅᒃᐱᒡᔪᐊᖅ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᒃᑐᖅ ᓴᙱᓂᖃᕐᒪᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᑕᑯᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐅᒃᐱᒡᔪᐊᑦ ᐱᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᒃᑲᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᖕᒪᑕ. ᑎᒍᓯᕙᖕᒪᑕ ᐱᑕᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᓴᑉᑯᐃᔾᔮᙱᒻᒪᕆᒃᖢᒍ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᕋᑉᑕ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖅᖢᑕ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓇᕐᒪᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓇᕐᒪᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓄᑖᖑᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᕙᓪᓕᐊᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᕙᓪᓕᐊᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ. 9-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ 9-ᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᕙᖕᒪᑕ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅᑖᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᒐᔭᐅᔪᒥᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᕿᔪᖃᖅᑎᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐃᒐ ᓄᖑᓴᐃᑐᐃᓐᓇᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓂᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᑎᒋᔪᖅ ᐃᒪᖅ ᖃᓛᓕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᖦᖢᒋᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᑦᑎᐊᕙᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓄᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐅᒡᓚᕋᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᕆᔭᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᓕᖅᓴᕋᐃᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᕙᒃᖢᑎᒃ. ᐊᒡᒐᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᕐᒥᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ. 9 9 9-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᓴᓗᒪᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ. ᑭᒍᑎᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐃᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᑉᓘᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ. ᐅᕕᓂᖕᓂᐊᕋᔪᒡᓗᑎᒡᓗ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᖃᓲᑦ ᑭᓇᐅᖕᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ, ᐊᑎᕐᒥᓂᒡᓗ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᖕᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ. ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᒃᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᐊᓂᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕆᔭᐅᔪᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᓲᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᓯ ᐊᖑᒋᐅᖅᐸᑕ ᓱᓇᒥᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᐊᓂᑦᑎᐊᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᖃᑎᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᖅᑲᑎᓯ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑎᖏᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᒃᑲᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᐃᑦ. ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓂᒃ ᑐᓵᓲᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᙱᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᓲᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᖃᓲᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᑯᓯᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᑐᓴᖅᓯᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᖏᑦ ᑲᙳᒋᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᑎᑦ, ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓱᖕᒪᑕ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᒥᓂᒃ. 9-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᓕᔪᓂᒃ ᓱᓕᙱᑦᑐᓂᒡᓗ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᖅᑳᕋᑎᒃ. ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᔨᕋᖅᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᒋᐊᒥᐊᕋᔭᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᔪᑦ. 9-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᔪᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕋᓱᒃᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᔪᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᓱᓕ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᒥᐊᓲᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᖠᕈᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ. ᐃᑭᙳᑎᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ. ᐃᓚᒥᓃᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᓲᑦ. ᓂᕈᐊᖅᖠᕋᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᖑᑕᐅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᖠᕋᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᖑᑕᐅᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓂᕐᒥᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᒃᑲᐅᔪᑦ. ᑐᖅᑯᖅᑐᐃᑦᑎᐊᔪᔪᑦ ᐃᓂᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᑦᑎᐊᔪᔪᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᓄᑲᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᒥᓄᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᖁᓇᒋᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᕙᒡᓗᓯ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᑭᒡᓕᖃᕐᕕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓱᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓇᓃᒻᒪᖔᑦ ᑭᓇᒥᒡᓗ ᐱᖃᑎᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ. • • ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᕙᒡᓗᓯ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓂᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍᓗ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑭᐅᓯᑦᑎᐊᕌᖓᑦ. • • ᐃᓂᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ. ᓵᓚᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᓂᖅᓴᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᒪᓕᒐᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᑎᓪᓗ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᓅᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ “ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᙳᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ.” ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖑᔪᒪᕙᖕᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᑕᐅᔪᒪᕙᒃᖢᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᓪᓕᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᐊᕋᖕᓂ ᑕᒪᑐᒨᓇ ᓅᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ. • • ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᖃᑯᒍᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᖅᑳᕋᓂ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᖃᑎᖕᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᒥᖅᑳᖃᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ, ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ, ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ, ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᓐᓈᕐᒥᓂᒃ, ᓴᒡᓗᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᓂᓗ. ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕋᕌᖓᒥᒃ ᓱᓕᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐅᒃᐱᕆᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕋᕌᖓᒥ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᓂ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᒪᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓄᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓂᖓ ᐊᒃᑐᓯᓂᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᒥᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓄᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ. ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᕈᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓇᕐᒪᑦ! ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᖅᐸᒡᓗᓂ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᑐᕌᒐᕆᔭᕐᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᑦᑐᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. ᓂᕆᐅᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓ ᐃᓚᒌᒃᑎᓪᓗᓯ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᑉᓯᓐᓄᑦ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᖠᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᒥᐊᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᒪᒃᑲᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂᓗ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕝᕕᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂᒋᑦ. ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᐊᓂᒃᑳᖓᖕᓂ ᐃᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᕈᑎᒋᔭᑎᑦ. ᐱᐊᓂᒃᐸᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᑲᐅᖕᒪᖔᑦ, ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᑲᐅᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᖃᓄᕐᓗ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᖕᒪᖔᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᖁᓗᒍ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᑎᒋᔪᖅ ᐃᒪᖅ ᖃᓛᓕᑕᐃᓐᓇᖅᑲᐅᖕᒪᖔᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᕿᔪᓕᕆᑉᓗᓂ ᖃᑉᓰᕌᓗᒃᖢᒍ ᐅᒥᒪᕆᐊᖃᖅᑲᐅᖕᒪᖔᒍ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐱᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᙱᓐᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒃ. ᐃᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᒐᕕᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒋᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒡᓗ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᓯᒪᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᒪᓕᙱᒃᑳᖓᑦ ᒪᓕᖁᔭᕐᓂᒃ. 9 9 ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᐅᒪᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᕆᓯᒪᔭᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒡᓗᓂ. ᓵᓚᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᓵᓚᒋᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᓱᐊᓗᙱᒻᒥᓗᒍ. ᐅᐃᒪᔮᕋᓗᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᓪᓚᑦᑖᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᓂᕐᓄᑦ. ᐃᕆᐊᓛᕐᕕᒋᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ, ᓂᙵᐅᒫᓗᒃᑲᓗᐊᕈᕕᑦ. ᓂᙵᐅᒪᓗᐊᕈᕕᑦ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓄᑦ ᐃᒡᓗᑕᕐᒨ*ᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᑲᒪᒋᒋᐊᓕᕐᓗᒍ, ᓂᙵᐅᒪᓗᐊᕈᓐᓃᕈᕕᑦ.ᓱᓇ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑑᕙ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ? ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐃᒡᓘᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᖓ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᖓ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᕙᒃᑕᒃᑲ ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᙱᖦᖢᖓᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᖓ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᖓ ᐱᓕᕆᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕋᓄᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕋᓄᓪᓗ. ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᔭᐃᔨᑦᓯᕐᓂᖅ (ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᓗ) ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ • • ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓕᒃᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᖓ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᔭᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᙱᒃᑯᒪ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕈᖕᒪ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐹᓪᓕᕐᓗᖓᓗ. • • ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖓ. ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᒻᓂᒃ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᖓ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒻᓂᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒻᓂᒃ, ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᖄᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᖕᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᖓ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓂᐊᕋᒪ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᖁᓗᖓ. • • ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐊᑐᖅᐸᒃᑐᖓ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᐅᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ. • • ᐅᐃᒻᒪᒃᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖁᙱᓪᓗᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔪᖃᑦᑕᙵ. ᐅᖃᓪᓚᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔪᖃᑦᑕᙵ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᒻᒪᕆᒃᑐᖓ. ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔪᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓱᓇᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᔾᔪᑎᖕᒪᖔᑕ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ. • • ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑐᖓ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᑦᑎᐊᖁᓗᖓᓗ ᐊᔪᙱᓕᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ. • • ᐆᒃᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᙵ, ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᓗᒃᑖᒻᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᙵ, ᓄᖅᑲᖃᑦᑕᖁᙱᓪᓗᖓᓗ ᐱᓇᓱᖕᓂᕐᒥ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓅᓯᒻᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᑕᕆᓇᔭᕋᑉᑯ! ᑐᑭᖓ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕐᓂᖅ ᑐᑭᓕᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᒃᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᑉᓗᓂ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖅᐸᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᕐᒥᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓱᒻᒪᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᓱᓇᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᙱᓪᓗᓂ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑖᕐᓂᐅᔪᖅ. 10 ᖁᓕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᖃᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒃᓴᖃᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖁᔭᓕᔪᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᖅᐸᒃᖢᑎᒃ. “ᑕᐃᒪᑐᖅ ᐊᑯᓂ ᐃᓅᓂᐊᖅᐳᑎᑦ.” ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖁᔭᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᒻᒪᕆᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐅᑕᐅᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᓴᕆᒪᓲᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ, ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒡᓗ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᒡᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓅᖄᑎᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᖃᑦᑕᖁᓇᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᒡᓕᖃᕐᕕᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᕈᑎᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᖁᓕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᔪᒪᓱᐃᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᒃᑲᐅᔪᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᓴᓇᕐᕈᑏᑦ, ᓱᖏᐅᑎᑦ, ᐃᖏᕐᕋᔾᔪᑏᓪᓗ. ᐃᑭᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒥᒡᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ. 9 9 ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐊᖁᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ ᓯᑭᑑᓂᒃ ᓯᑕᒪᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᒥ. ᓯᑎᔪᓂᒃ ᓇᓴᖅᓯᒪᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ. ᐃᓐᓇᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᖃᑎᖃᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒡᓗ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᖁᓕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᓴᕋᐃᑦᑐᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓲᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᓪᓗ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓈᓚᒐᔪᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᑉᓗᑎᒃ. ᓄᑭᑖᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑎᖏᖅᑖᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᕙᒃᖢᑎᒃ. ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒡᓗ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᖃᐅᔨᔪᒪᒃᑲᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓇᓱᒃᑲᐅᔪᑦ. ᐊᐱᖅᓱᑲᑕᒃᑲᒻᒪᕇᑦ. ᐃᑭᙳᑎᒥᓃᒍᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖓᔪᒃᖠᐅᓂᖅᓴᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᑲᑕᒍᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ. ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒌᑦ ᑲᑎᒃᑳᖓᑕ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᔪᒪᔪᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᒃᓴᐅᔪᑦ. ᐅᓐᓄᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᐸᒃᓯᒪᒐᔪᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᑎᓐᓇᓱᒃᖢᒋᑦ ᐃᕿᐊᓱᒐᔪᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᑉᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᖁᓕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑐᖁᑏᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᖕᒪᖔᑦ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᑐᓵᒻᒪᕆᒋᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖁᔭᐅᔭᕌᖓᓪᓗ ᓈᓚᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᓲᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕌᖓᒥᒃ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᓪᓚᑦᑖᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ “ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ.” ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᒧᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑐᒪᖕᒪᑕ ᐊᖓᔪᒃᖠᕆᔭᕐᒥᑐᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᑯᓗᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᒥᑭᔪᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᒪᙱᒻᒪᑦ. ᖁᓕᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᖕᒪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᑉᓗᓂ. ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᔪᒪᖕᒪᖔᕐᒦᒃ ᐃᓅᑉᓗᑎᒃ, ᖃᓄᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔪᒪᖕᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᔪᙱᓕᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᒪᖕᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᖁᑎᖃᕈᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ. ᐱᖁᑎᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒥᐊᓂᖅᓯᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᒥᓂᒃ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ. ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓪᓚᕆᖕᒪᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᓕᒃ, ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. • • ᑎᓕᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅᑖᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᓴᓗᒻᒪᖅᓴᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓱᓇᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔭᖓ ᓂᕐᕆᓯᕆᓂᐅᒃᐸᑦ ᐅᓐᓄᒍᒥᑖᓂᒃᑳᖓᑉᓯ, ᑲᒪᒋᑲᐅᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᓂᒋᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᙱᓪᓗᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓯᒪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᒋᐊᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐊᓯᐊᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕆᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓂᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᐃᓚᓐᓈᓂᓗ. • • ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᒃᖠᒥᑐᑦ. ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᕙᒡᓗᓯ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖓᓄᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑎᐊᕌᖓᒋᑦ. • • ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓯᒪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑐᓵᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍᓗ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᓗᒍ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᑦᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕈᓂ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓂᒃ. • • ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᕐᓃᖃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥᓃᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥᓂᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᕐᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. • • ᑭᐅᓯᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑕᐅᔭᒃᑐᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᑐᒥᙵ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕌᖓᑦ. • • ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐅᔾᔨᕆᔭᒥᓂᒃ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᖕᒪᖔᑦ. • • ᖁᕕᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᓗᓯ! ᑕᑯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᕐᓗ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᕐᒪᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ • • ᓂᕆᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᓄᑕᕋᖅᐱᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᑐᑭᓯᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᕐᒪᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᕋᖕᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᒐᖕᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᖅᑑᑎᓐᓇᓱᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᔾᔨᕆᒐᖕᓂ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᒪᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐆᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓕᒃ. ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᓯᓚᒥᒃ ᐅᑉᓛᑕᒫᒃᑯᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖃᑎᖃᕌᖓᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᒃᑲᓐᓂᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ. ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ: ᖃᓄᖅ ᑎᐱᖃᖅᑲᐅᕙ? ᓱᓇ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸ? ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᒃᐱᖕᓇᖅᑲᐅᕙ? • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᖁᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᕐᓗ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ. ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ: ᓲᑭᐊᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᖅᑲᐅᕙ? ᖃᓄᖅ ᑲᐅᔨᒪᒐᕕᑦ? ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᖅᑲᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᐊᓂ? ᓲᑭᐊᖅ ᐆᒪᔪᖅ/ᐃᓄᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖅᑲᐅᕙ? ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐃᓚᒥᓃᑦᑐᒪᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᑉᒪᑦ ᐃᑭᙳᑎᒥᓃᑦᑐᒪᓗᐊᒧᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓃᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ. ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒧᑦ. 9 9 ᐃᒃᐱᒋᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᖅᐱᑦ ᐃᑭᙳᑎᒥᓃᒍᒪᓂᕆᕙᒃᑕᖏᑦ ᐃᑭᙳᑎᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᑎᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᓕᕌᖓᑕ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓚᓐᓈᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓄᒃᑰᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. 9 9 ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᑐᐃᓐᓈᓗᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᖃᑦᑕᖁᓇᒍ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖁᙱᓪᓗᒍ.ᓱᓇ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑑᕙ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ? ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᖅ • • ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ. ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒍᓐᓃᕌᖓᒪ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖅᑕᐃᓕᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᖓ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᙱᒥᐊᕐᓗᖓ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᓗᖓ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᙱᓐᓇᒪ. ᕿᓄᐃᓵᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ. • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᒻᒪᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᖓ ᑕᒻᒪᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᓂᕋ ᓇᒡᓕᖕᓂᕐᒨᖓᖕᒪᑦ. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᐱᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕆᔭᒃᑯᑦ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒻᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᖓ ᓱᓇᓄᑦ. • • ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑑᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ. • • ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᒃᑲ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᒃᑲ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᑲᐅᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᕙᒻᓂᒃ. ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᕋ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᖅ ᖃᑯᒍᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᓴᙱᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᐃᓚᖓᒍᑦ. ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᒃᑲ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ. ᒫᓐᓇ, ᐃᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᒃᑲ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᕋᓂᒃᓯᒪᙱᑕᒃᑲ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑐᑭᖓ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᖅ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᕆᔭᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᒪᒃᑲᐅᓂᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᕙᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᐱᐅᓂᖅᓴᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓂᒃ. ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᒋᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᕈᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᒃᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᑲᔪᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑦ. 11-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅᑖᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᖏᓂᖅᓴᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖓᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᓄᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖃᕐᒪᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᒃᑐᓂᒃ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅᑖᖅᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᖏᓂᖅᓴᒥᒃ ᑲᒪᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑑᔭᖅᑕᖓᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᕆᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᕈᕕᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ! • • ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᕈᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᓕᖅᑐᖓ ᐃᒡᓘᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᒻᓂᒃ. • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕚᓪᓕᖅᑐᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᒃᑲᓂᒃ, ᐃᓚᒃᑲᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᖅᐱᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᑎᖏᖅᑖᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᐸᖕᒪᑕ. ᖃᐅᔨᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓂᒃ. ᑐᑭᓯᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᙵ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ. 9 9 ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᖅᐸᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᒃᓴᕋᐃᑉᐸᑦ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓯ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 11-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᖢᓂ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᓅᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᓂᕐᒥ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᐃᕐᕆᔭᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓕᒃ. ᖃᐅᔨᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓄᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᐅᒃᑰᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐸᕐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᒍᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖁᑉᓗᒍ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖅ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᓂᒡᓗ. ᐸᕐᓇᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᕐᓗ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᓴᙱᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᕙᒃᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖏᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕋᑉᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᒃᑯᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒃᐸᑦ ᒥᑭᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᖢᓂ, ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᒫᓐᓇ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᓯᕗᒻᒧᐊᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᑐᑭᓯᓪᓚᑦᑖᓕᓲᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᒪᒥᓴᕋᓱᒃᑯᓂ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᖅ. ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᓗᒃᑖᕋᑉᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᒃᑯᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᕕᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᕕᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᓂᒃ, ᓴᐳᓐᓂᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓗ. ᒫᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑐᓐᓇᙱᒻᒪᑦ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᑉᓗᒍ ᖃᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᓯᖁᒥᓯᒪᒃᐸᑦ, ᓴᙱᒃᑎᑉᐹᓪᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᐅᔭᕐᓗᒍ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᑦᑎᐊᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᑦᑎᐊᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ, ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᐃᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᖓ ᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᕆᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍᓗ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓄᑦ ᐱᔫᒥᓵᕈᑕᐅᕙᖕᒪᑕ ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᖏᓂᖅᓴᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᑦ ᓴᙱᔫᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᑉᓯᓐᓄᑦ. ᓴᙱᔫᓗᑎᑦ ᓂᑉᓕᐊᔾᔪᔾᔨᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ. • • ᐱᓇᓱᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐊᑕᐅᓰᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓂᑉᓕᕈᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ! ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᒥᓱᐃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᒪᓕᙱᑉᐸᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᖕᓂᒃ, ᑐᑭᓯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᒪᓕᖃᑦᑕᙱᑉᐸᑦ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᓪᓚᑦᑖᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒃᑲᑉᑕ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓇᔭᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᑦ. ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ, ᓯᓚᒥᒃ, ᐃᒪᕐᒥᒃ, ᓯᑯᒥᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᕆᔭᖓᓂᒃ. ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒃᑲᑉᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᙵ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑐᓐᓇᖏᑕᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᙵ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᒥᓂᒃ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓈᓚᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᒃᑐᑦ ᓯᖁᑉᑎᓕᓲᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᙱᒃᑳᖓᑉᑕ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᕙᑉᑎᓐᓂᒡᓗ. ᐃᓱᒪᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᕆᕙᒃᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓂᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᒃᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᙱᑉᐸᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓂᒃ, ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔪᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑐᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒃᑯᓂ ᐃᓅᓯᑦᑎᐊᕆᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᐱᓕᕆᕙᒡᓗᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑎᐊᖁᔨᓂᕐᒧᑦ 9 9 ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᑕ ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓂᒃ 9 9 ᓴᐃᒪᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᒃᐸᒡᓗᑕ ᓇᓕᒧᒌᒃᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᒃᐸᒡᓗᑕ 9 9 ᐸᕐᓇᒃᐸᒡᓗᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ • • ᑐᑭᓯᑎᒋᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓂᒃ ᑐᑭᓯᓴᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᓴᒡᓗᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᑎᒡᓕᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᖅᑳᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᕋᔪᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᒃᑯᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᖕᒪᖔᖅᑎᒃ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᖃᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕋᖕᓂ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓄᑦᓯᐸᒍᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ (ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ). ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᕐᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐱᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᓗᒋᑦ ᑎᓂᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᓄᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᒃᑯᑦ. • • ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᕐᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓈᓚᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᖁᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᙱᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖁᓇᒍ ᐅᓗᕆᓇᕐᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᓗᕆᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᓯᑯ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖓ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓴᓇᕐᕈᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᖕᒪᖔᑕ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ. ᐃᒡᕕᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᓪᓗ ᕿᓄᐃᓵᕈᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓯ! ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᓯ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᒍᓗ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᖁᓕᓂᒃ 12-ᓄᑦ. ᑐᙵᕕᖃᑦᑎᐊᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. ᐸᕐᓇᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᔭᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. 9 9 ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᖅᐱᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐅᑉᓗᑕᒫᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ.ᓱᓇ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑑᕙ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ? ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕋ ᓇᓗᓇᕈᓐᓃᖅᓯᒪᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ, ᐱᕈᖅᑎᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᖁᔭᕋ ᓴᙱᓂᕆᓂᐊᖅᑕᕋ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᖓ ᓴᙲᓐᓂᕆᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ. • • ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᕙᒃᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᐸᒃᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᑲᔪᓯᓂᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᖓ ᐃᓅᓯᒃᑯᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ, ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕆᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕋᖕᒪ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕋᓂᒃ. • • ᓄᓇᓕᖕᒥ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᓇᓂᓯᖁᓗᖓ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᕐᒪ, ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᒃᑲ ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᒃᑲ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᖁᕕᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖓ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᔭᐅᔭᕌᖓᒪ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᔾᔨᕆᔭᐅᔭᕌᖓᒪ ᐱᓕᕆᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕋᓄᑦ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ ᓱᓕᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᒪᔭᖄᖓᒪ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐅᕙᒻᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᕈᔾᔨᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. • • ᐅᑉᓗᒥ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ, ᑎᑎᕋᕆᐅᖅᓴᖅᓯᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ. ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑑᕈᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᔪᖓ ᓴᙱᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᓕᖅᑕᒻᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᖓᒍᑦ. ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖓ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᙵ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᒃᑲ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔭᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᓇᐅᒃᑯᓗᒃᑖᖅ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᓗᒃᑖᖅ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ (ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅ) ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᔪᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᖅ ᐅᕙᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑕ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᓱᖏᐅᑎᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ. ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥᒃ. 12-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕐᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᓯᕕᑐᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᕚᓪᓕᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒪᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ (ᐅᐸᓗᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ). ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅ. ᖃᑯᒍᙳᕌᖓᑦ, ᖁᑦᑎᒃᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᖅ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᒃᑐᓄᑦ (ᓯᓚᑦᑐᕐᓂᖅ). ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕆᕙᒃᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᓂᒃ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᖕᓂᖅᓴᓂᒃᑕᐅᖅ. ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᒡᓗᑕ, ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓗᑕᓗ ᑕᒪᑐᒥᙵ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᐃᓱᒪᒋᕙᒃᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᑕᐃᑉᑯᐊ ᓯᕕᑐᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓲᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᓕᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑎᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ, ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑎᖏᖅᑖᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᓲᑦ. ᐱᕈᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ, ᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ. ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑐᐃᓐᓈᓗᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᒡᓗ, ᐊᓃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᖃᐃᓕᓴᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᒡᓗ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᖢᓂ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑐᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓕᖅᑐᖅ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓕᖅᑐᖅ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᖅ ᓴᙱᓂᕆᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ, ᓴᙲᓐᓂᕆᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ, ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᒥᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ. ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᒥᓂᒡᓗ. ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᑎᒍᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑐᖅ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓕᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓄᑦ. 12-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᓴᕆᒪᓱᓲᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᔪᒪᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᓇᓂ ᒥᐊᓂᕆᔭᐅᓇᓂᓗ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᒋᐅᖅᓴᔪᒪᔪᖅ ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑐᒪᔪᖅ. ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᒥᑭᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᓲᖅ ᐃᖢᐊᖏᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᓲᖅ ᐃᖢᐊᖏᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᒃᑰᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᙱᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖃᕌᖓᕕᑦ, ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᒃ. ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᔭᕆᐊᖃᕌᖓᕕᑦ ᓇᒧᙵᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᒥᖅᓱᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᓱᓕᕆᔪᒪᖕᒪᖔᕐᒥ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᓱᓇᓕᕆᔨᙳᕈᒪᔪᒫᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥ. ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᐃᕆᔭᖅᑕᐅᓴᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ! ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖅᑖᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᓗᓕᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓯᒪᙱᒃᑯᒃᑎᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒌᒃᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙱᒃᑯᖕᓂ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᐃᓂᖅᑎᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᒃᑎᒃ ᐅᖓᑖᒍᓗᐊᕌᓗᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᙱᒃᑯᒃᑎᒃ. ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᒡᓕᒍᓱᒍᓐᓇᕋᑉᑕ ᐃᕿᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᕈᑉᑕ ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᙱᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕈᑉᑕ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᑉ ᐃᓕᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᓇᒡᓕᒍᓱᓪᓚᑦᑖᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᐅᔪᖅ, ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᒌᖕᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓇᒡᓕᖕᓂᖅ ᒥᐊᓂᖅᓯᒍᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᖅ ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᖁᓇᒍ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. • • ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᐅᑐᕐᕉᕐᒪᖔᕐᓂ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂ ᑐᙵᕕᒋᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᖏᓪᓗ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓂᒃ. • • ᑕᑯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑲᑕᒃᑎᕆᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᙲᓐᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑲᒪᒋᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᒋᑦ. ᓇᒡᓕᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ. • • ᓇᓕᒧᒌᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒋᔭᕐᒥ ᐃᓚᓐᓈᕆᔭᕐᒥᓗ. ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᓐᓈᕐᒥᓃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᔭᕐᒥᓂᒡᓗ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᑐᑭᓯᓴᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᕐᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᕝᕕᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. • • ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒋᑦ, ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒋᑦ, ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒋᑦ! ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᓕᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᖕᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᙳᓱᖕᓂᐊᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᔭᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᖕᓂ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᖃᕌᖓᑦ. • • ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᑎᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᒪᓕᒃᑕᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᓂᕆᐅᒋᐊᓕᒃ ᓈᓚᙱᒃᑯᓂ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᙱᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᒃ, ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔭᖏᑦᑕ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᑐᑦ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᑯᓗᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖕᒪᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᖅᓵᕐᓂᐊᕋᖕᓂ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑐᖃᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᑎᕆᔭᖏᑦᑕ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ, ᐃᓚᖏᑦᑕ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᑭᙶᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᖔᑦ. ᐃᓚᖏᑦᑕ ᐊᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᖅᓱᖃᑎᒋᓗᒍ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕆᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᔭᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑲᐅᖏᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᖓ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ • • ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᒥ ᓄᓇᒧᙵᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒡᓗ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᐅᒃᑰᕐᕕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᐅᒃᑰᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᑲᑕᒃᐸᒡᓗᒍ. ᐊᐱᕆᓗᒍ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᑕᑯᖕᒪᖔᑦ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᓕᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᒍᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓂᐅᔪᓂᒡᓗ. ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓱᓇᑦ ᐊᐅᓪᓛᖅᐸᖕᒪᖔᑕ. • • ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᖅᐱᑦ ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. • • ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅᑖᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ. ᐅᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐃᓅᖄᑎᒋᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐆᒃᑐᕈᓐᓴᖅᑕᐃᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᒥᑭᔪᒥᒃ ᖃᒧᑎᓕᐅᖁᓗᒍ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᖁᓗᒍ ᒥᖅᓱᖁᓗᒍᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᒥᑭᔪᒥᒃ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐃᖕᓂᓕᒃ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᓇᓗᒍᒃᑎᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᖅᐱᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑐᒪᔭᖏᑦ, ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᐱᕆᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᒋᔭᕐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᖁᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᓂᒃ. 9 9 ᓇᓕᒧᒌᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒌᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓱᖅᑎᓚᐅᐱᓪᓚᖕᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᕈᓘᔭᓲᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᑳᓪᓚᖕᒪᖔᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᓈᓚᒍᒪᙱᑦᑐᐊᓘᓕᕐᓂᖅᐸᑦ, ᐃᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᒪᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᑳᓪᓚᒃᐸᑦ, ᐸᒡᕕᒍᓱᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᐸᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᐸᑦ. ᐃᖢᐊᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᑭᙳᑎᒥᓂᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᓂ ᓵᓚᑯᒻᒥᐅᑎᑕᐅᓗᓂ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᖓᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᒥᐊᓗᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑕᖓᓂᒃ.ᓱᓇ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑑᕙ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ? ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᓐᓇᐅᒪᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᒻᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᒋᔭᒻᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑦᑎᖁᓗᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒻᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᙱᒥᐊᕋᓗᐊᕐᓗᖓ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᒻᓄᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᑦᑎᐊᖁᔨᓂᒃᑯᑦ. • • ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᒋᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᒻᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᒻᓄᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ! ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔪᔪᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᔪᖓ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ ᐃᒻᖏᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᐅᓂᑉᑳᖅᑐᐊᓂᒡᓗ. • • ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᕐᒥᔪᖓ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᑕ ᐃᒻᖏᐅᑎᑦ ᐅᓂᑉᑳᖅᑐᐊᓪᓗ. ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑕᓂᒃ, ᑐᑭᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᑕᐅᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᑐᑭᓕᐊᖑᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕋᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᕙᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᖓ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ. • • ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᐊᓯᒻᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅᑖᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᖓ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᕙᒻᓄᑦ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᖓ, ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᓇᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᙱᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐱᓕᕆᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᓗᒃᑖᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᒃᑯᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐊᒡᓗᐊᓕᐅᕈᒪ ᑲᒪᒋᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕋ ᓴᙱᓂᕋᓗ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᖃᓗᐊᕋᔭᙱᑦᑐᖓ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᐊᓐᓇᐅᒫᓂᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᑉᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᑉᑕ. ᐊᓐᓇᐅᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᓂ, ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕈᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ, ᐊᓯᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᔪᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᒃᑲᔪᐊᓘᓗᑕ. ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓕᓯᒪᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ. ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑲᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᐸᖕᒪᑕ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᖏᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕈᒪᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᓱᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᖅᐸᖕᒪᑕ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᒧᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᖕᒪᑦ. ᐱᒋᐊᓲᖅ ᐃᓅᓵᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᖅᑭᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒃᖢᓂ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑑᓕᖅᖢᓂ. ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᐊᓐᓇᐅᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ. 13-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐅᑯᐊ ᓴᙱᓃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᓐᓇᐅᒪᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ: 9 9 ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅ 9 9 ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ 9 9 ᕿᓂᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ 9 9 ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ 9 9 ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᕙᑎᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᑎᖏᖅᑖᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ. ᖃᐅᔨᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᓲᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᖕᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓂᒃ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓗᐃᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᑎᓯᒪᓗᒍ. 9 9 ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ calcium-ᑐᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ. Calcium ᐃᒻᒧᖕᒦᓲᖅ, ᓰᓯᓂᒃ, yoghurt-ᓂᒃ, ᑐᒃᑐ ᖃᔪᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᕿᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᓴᐅᓂᕐᓂᒃ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕌᖓᑕ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᓅᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᐸᖕᒪᑕ ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᒃᑲᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓕᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓂᒃ. ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᖃᓕᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ. ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᖁᕕᐊᑦᑕᒃᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖅᑳᕐᓇᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᙱᒥᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᖓᒍᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᖢᓂ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᑦ. ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒃᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᒐᒥᒃ. ᐊᔪᙱᒻᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ. ᖁᕕᐊᒋᔭᖃᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᑭᒃᑰᖕᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓅᑉᓗᑎᒃ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᙱᑉᐸᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᙱᑉᐸᑕ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᙱᒃᑑᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᑭᐅᕆᓗᒍ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓱᒃᖢᑎᒡᓗ. ᓇᓂᓯᔪᓐᓇᐃᓪᓕᓯᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᓇᒦᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ. ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓴᕋᐃᓕᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐋᖓᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᒥᐊᓗᖕᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓇᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᑖᖅᑐᓕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᑐᙵᑎᖃᕋᓱᓗᐊᒧᑦ. ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᕐᓂᖅᐹᖑᔪᖅ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᒧᑦ ᓴᒻᒧᒃᑐᖅ, ᓴᒻᒧᒃᑐᖅ ᑐᑭᓕᒃ ᓴᐱᓕᕐᓂᖅ ᓱᓇᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᒪᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᒪᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑉᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᓴᐱᓕᖅᓵᖑᔭᕌᖓᑕ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑲᑕᒃᑎᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᓗᐊᕌᖓᑕ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓱᓕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᔪᓐᓃᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᐱᔪᒪᓂᕆᔭᖓ ᓯᖁᒥᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ. ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᓇᒡᓕᖕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᒧᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᕈᓐᓇᖅᖢᓂ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓗᒃᑖᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓈᒻᒪᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ. ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᙱᒃᑯᑎᒃ, ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐱᕈᕌᖓᑕ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ, ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅᑖᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕋᑉᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒋᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᑲᒪᔨᙳᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓗᐃᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᒡᓗᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᑯᒍ. • • ᖁᑦᑎᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᐅᖕᓂᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒥᓂᒃ ᒫᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᕐᓗᑐᐃᓐᓇᙱᓪᓗᓂ. ᓂᕆᐅᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᖁᑎᓂᒃ ᓴᓗᒻᒪᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑎᖅᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᑳᖓᑦ. • • ᑐᑭᓯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓱᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᖕᒪᖔᖅᐱᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐱᓗᖃᑦᑕᖅᐸᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᑎᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᑐᑭᓯᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒃᑲᕕᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᒍᒪᑉᓗᒍ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᒋᐅᖅᓴᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑎ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓄᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᑐᑦ. • • ᐅᖃᓪᓚᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᓐᓇᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ, ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑑᔭᙱᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑎᒋᔭᑎᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᐅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᒃᑲᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᙶᖅᑐᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᑲᒪᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᑦ. ᐃᓱᒻᒪᒃᓯᒪᙱᑦᑐᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᒥᓂᒃ ᑐᙵᑎᓕᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓲᑦ ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓄᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓲᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᖃᕌᖓᑦ. ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᖃᖅᐸᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᒧᙵᐅᔭᕌᖓᑕ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᓴᙲᓗᐊᕐᒪᑕ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᕈᑕᐅᓕᖅᐸᒃᑐᖅ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒌᖕᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᒧᑦ. ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᕈᑕᐅᕙᖕᒥᔪᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᙱᖦᖢᑎᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᔭᕆᐊᖃᓕᕌᖓᑕ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᑦᑐᒃᑰᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᙱᑉᐸᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐸᕐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓐᓇᑲᐅᑎᒋ ᓄᑲᖅᖠᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᕈᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑎ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ • • ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᓲᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ. ᑲᙳᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒋᐊᒃᓴᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᕐᒥᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᓇᓱᒃᐸᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᓂᖅᓴᐅᓇᔭᕐᒪᖔᕐᓂ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᐸᒡᓗᓯ, ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᖃᓄᖅ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᑦᑎᐊᕙᖃᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ. • • ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑏᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑏᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᒧᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᒐᔪᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᖅᐱᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᒋᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᓄᑦ ᑎᒍᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕈᕕᑦ ᖃᑯᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᑎᒃᑯᐊᓘᙱᑦᑐᖅ, ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ. ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᖅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᑕᒫᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᕐᒪᑕ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔾᔮᙱᑦᑐᑦ. ᐊᖑᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓂᕿᒃᓴᖃᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᕗᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᓯᓚ ᐃᒪᕐᓗ. ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑦᑎᐊᕙᙳᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᓯᒪᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓂᒃ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑏᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ. ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖓ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑎᓂᒃᑕᐅᖅ. 9 9 ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᓯ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᐃᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍᓘᓐᓃᑦ.ᓱᓇ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑑᕙ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ? ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᐅᓱᒋᙱᓐᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕋᒪ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᒋᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒻᓂᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖃᕈᒪ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᔪᓯᓂᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᓗᖓ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥ. • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐅᕙᒻᓂᒃ ᒥᑭᓪᓕᑎᕆᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᐅᓱᒋᙱᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐅᐱᒍᓱᒍᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᐊᖅᑐᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅᐸᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕿᓄᐃᓵᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓗᖓ ᐃᓅᖄᑎᒃᑲᓂᒡᓗ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᓴᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓗᖓ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᓅᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᓄᑕᕋᐅᓂᕐᒥ ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᔪᒪᓪᓚᕆᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒃᖢᖓ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. • • ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᒻᓄᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᓕᕌᖓᒪ ᑲᑎᖃᑦᑕᖁᓇᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᖃᑉᓗᓈᑎᑐᓪᓗ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓴᙲᓕᕈᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᕋᑉᑯ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓄᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑎᐊᖁᓗᖓ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᖃᑉᓗᓈᑎᑐᓪᓗ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᒥᑭᓪᓕᑎᕆᓯᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᓲᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᕙᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᐅᓇᑕ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᐅᒋᑉᓗᑕ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓕᖅᑎᑉᐸᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᓯᒪᔭᒃᑯᑦ. ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑕ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ, ᖁᕝᕙᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒧᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᕙᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓗᑕ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᕋᑉᑕ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐅᕙᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᒥᑭᓪᓕᑎᕆᓯᒪᓗᑕ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᐅᓱᒋᙱᓐᓂᐅᔪᖅ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ 14-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᕐᓇᕐᒥᒃ ᑲᒥᓕᐅᑦᑎᐊᔪᔪᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᖕᒥᒃ, ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᙱᖦᖢᑎᒃ. ᐊᔾᔨᒋᔪᒪᑦᑎᐊᓚᐅᖅᑕᕋ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕝᕕᒋᔪᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᖄᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᒡᓗᑎᒃ. ᐃᓄᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᙱᑉᐸᑦ ᐱᐅᓱᒋᔪᖅᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᙱᑦᑐᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓕᕋᔭᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖏᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᓇᐅᒃᑯᓗᒃᑖᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᖏᓐᓇᖁᓗᖓ ᐱᐅᓯᕚᓪᓕᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖏᓐᓇᖁᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᒃᑲ. • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᖓ, ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᓕᕐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒃᖢᖓ ᐅᕙᒻᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᐸᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᔪᓂᒡᓗ ᐅᕙᒻᓂᒃ. ᖃᐃᑦᑎᓇᔭᕋᕕᑦ ᐱᕕᒃᓴᕆᓂᐊᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᔨᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᐃᔨᖏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᑉᓯᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᑦ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᑳᖓᑕ. 9 9 ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᑭᒍᑎᑖᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᔪᖅ ᑐᓄᐊᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᑭᒍᓯᕆᔨᓄᙵᐅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᖃᑯᑎᒃᑯᑦ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᖅᑐᓕᕆᔪᒪᒃᑲᐅᖕᒪᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓱᕈᒪᒃᑲᐅᑉᓗᑎᒃ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓄᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᒪᒃᑲᐅᑉᓗᑎᒃ, ᐃᓐᓇᐅᔮᖅᓴᔪᒪᓲᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓚᑖᖅᑐᕈᒪᓲᑦ. ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᙳᐊᕈᒪᖕᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒡᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖃᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᓂᕿᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᓐᓇᕈᓕᖅᖢᓂ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᔭᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᖅᑳᕐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓯᒪᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᔪᒪᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᖔᕋᓱᒃᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᑲᒪᙱᖔᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖄᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕐᓇᖅᑐᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓲᑦ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᓂ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐅᑕᐅᓲᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᖅᑎᑐᑦ, ᐅᑭᐅᕐᒥᑑᙱᑦᑐᖅ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᑦᑎᐊᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᖅᐸᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᒪᒃᑲᐅᒃᐸᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᖄᑎᒥᓂᒃ, ᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᑐᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. ᐃᓄᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᙱᑉᐸᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᖅᑎᑐᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓇᔭᖅᖢᓂ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᖢᑎᒃ, ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᓕᓲᑦ, ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕐᓇᖅᓯᑦᑎᐊᓕᓲᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᒐᔪᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕈᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᐸᒃᑕᖏᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᒐᔪᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ, ᐃᑭᙳᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐱᐅᓱᒋᔮᖅᑐᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᒪᙱᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᒡᒍᓴᐅᔾᔪᐊᖅᑐᑎᑐᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕈᒪᒐᔭᙱᑦᑐᒃᓴᐅᔪᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᓴᓚᐅᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᑎᒃ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖅᑖᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᖕᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ. ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖅᑖᖅᖢᓂ. ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᐃᕙᖃᑎᖃᓕᕈᑎᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖢᐊᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᓕᕈᑎᒃ? ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ? ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓕᕈᑎᒃ. • • ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᓯᒪᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᓯ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᑉᓯᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓈᓚᙱᒃᑳᖓᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓯᒪᕙᒡᓗᓯ. ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᐅᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᑎᒋᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᒍ. ᐃᓱᒪᙱᒥᐊᕈᕕᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ, ᐊᓯᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ. ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᒃᓱᐊᓘᕆᐊᖃᙱᒥᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᙱᒻᒪᑦ ᓂᙵᐅᒪᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔪᐃᑦᑎᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᑎᓪᓚᑦᑖᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᓴᙱᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕆᔭᐅᖁᑉᓗᒍ. ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᕈᕕᑦ, ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᖅᓵᖅᓯᒪᓚᐅᐱᓪᓚᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᖅᓵᖅᓯᒪᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᒍ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᓚᐅᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᖓᓄᑦ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᙱᖔᕐᓗᓂ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᔪᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᐃᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔪᓐᓇᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᓕᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᑕᐅᑎᑦᑐᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ. ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖃᓗᐊᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕋᑉᑕ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑕ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕋᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦᑎᒍᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᕚᓪᓕᕈᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᐊᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᑎᒋᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᖓ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ • • ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᒋᖕᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᑦᑎᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ. • • ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᕙᒡᓗᑎᒃ ᐆᒃᑑᑎᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᕝᕕᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᑭᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ, ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᓯᒪᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᒪᕐᔪᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᙳᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᖔᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓕᖅᑎᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᒥᔭᐃᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᕚᓪᓕᖅᓯᒪᙱᒻᒪᖔᑕ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᒃᐸᒡᓗᓯ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᙳᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᒃᑯᑦ. • • ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᒋᐊᖅᐸᖕᒪᖔᑦ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ. ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᓂ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᐊᕆᖕᓇᕐᒪᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᖅᖢᓂ ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᓂ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓇᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓇᕐᒪᑦ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᖁᕕᐊᒋᔭᖏᑦᑕ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᖏᑦᑕ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒌᒡᓗᓯ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᒃᐸᒡᓗᓯ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖃᑎᒌᕈᓘᔭᖅᐸᒡᓗᓯ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᓐᓈᕐᒥᓃᒍᒪᒃᑲᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᖕᓃᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃᑕᐅᖅ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓂᒡᓗ. ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᒍᒫᓕᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. 9 9 ᐃᑲᔪᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐆᒃᑑᑎᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒡᓗ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔫᒥᒋᔭᖏᑦᑎᒍᑦ.ᓱᓇ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑑᕙ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ? ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓅᑉᓗᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᐊᕐᓂᕋ ᑕᒡᕙᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᖅ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖓ ᓱᓕ. ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑦᑎᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᕐᒪ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᕐᒪ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ. ᖁᕕᐊᓲᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᒃᑭᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᑦᑎᐊᕌᖓᒪ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᑦᑎᐊᕌᖓᒪ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᑉᓗᖓ ᓴᓇᔭᒃᓴᖅᑖᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᒫᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕋᓄᑦ ᐃᓅᓂᕋᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᑦᑎᐊᖁᑉᓗᖓ, ᐅᖃᑦᑎᐊᙱᒃᑳᖓᒪ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᖓᓗ, ᑎᑎᕋᕌᖓᒪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᕿᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕌᖓᒪ. • • ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᓂᐊᖅᐳᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕋᒪ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᑦ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᕆᔭᒻᓂ ᐊᔪᙲᓐᓇᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᖓ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖓ. ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑉᑭᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᑦᑑᑕᐅᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓘᔭᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᒃᑲ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑉᑭᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥ ᐊᑐᕈᒃᑭᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦᑎᒍᓪᓗ. • • ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᒃᑲᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᖁᔨᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᔾᔪᑎᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᔭᖅᐳᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᖅᐳᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᖅᐳᑦ. ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ, ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖓ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᐅᓗᖓ ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᒃᑲ ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕋ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᐃᒡᕕᓪᓗ ᓄᑕᕋᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓯ ᓄᓇᒦᖃᑦᑕᕈᑉᓯ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᕙᙱᓐᓇᑉᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᑎᒥᑉᑎᓐᓂᒡᓗ ᐃᓅᖃᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓇᓚᖃᑕᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕈᑉᑕ ᐃᒡᓗᑉᑎᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᙵᑎᖃᑐᐃᓐᓈᓗᒃᑯᑉᑕ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᕙᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᔾᔨᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᑐᑭᓕᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓇᓱᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᑦᑎᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ, ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᖃᓕᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᑐᑭᓕ ᓴᐱᓕᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᙱᓐᓂᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᖅ “ᐅᑉᓗᒥ, ᑐᓴᖃᑦᑕᓕᕋᒪ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ ᓂᕿᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ ᐱᔪᒪᔭᓂᒃ ᓈᓚᐅᑎᐊᓛᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᙱᑦᑐᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᐅᑎᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᒥᓄᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒋᔭᖏᑦᑕ ᐹᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐳᐊᕆᔭᕆᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᒪᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᒍᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᒪᓗᑎᒃ. ᓄᓕᐊᕋᓗ ᐅᕙᒍᒃ ᐃᓐᓈᓘᓕᕋᒻᓄᒃ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓄᓇᒧᙵᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒍᒃ ᓱᓕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᕿᓂᒃ ᐅᑎᕈᔾᔨᕙᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᐊᔪᕐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖅ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓴᐱᓕᔾᔮᙱᑦᑐᒍᒃ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕋᒻᓄᒃ. ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᔾᔭᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᒪᔪᑦ. ᐃᓐᓇᖓᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᐊᓘᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᒪᑭᑦᑐᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᖏᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᐅᑉᓗᑕ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᐅᑉᓗᑕ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃᑕᐅᖅ ᐱᒋᐅᖅᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᓐᓇᐅᒪᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ. ᐅᑉᓗᒥ, ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᒪᔪᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᑦ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓗᒋᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ, ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᙱᓐᓂᖅ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᓄᓕᐊᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᖅᑎᓪᓗ.“ 15-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑎᐊᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᖅᓯᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᓂ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔭᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓗᓂ, ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᓂ. ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᓐᓇᕐᓗᒍ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᖕᒪᖔᑦ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᒋᔭᕐᒥᓄᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ. ᒪᓕᒐᖃᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᖓᓂ, ᐸᕐᓇᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᓗᒍ ᓇᐅᒃᑰᕐᕕᒋᕙᖕᓂᐊᖅᑕᖏᑦᑎᒍᑦ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᙱᑉᐸᑦ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᙱᑉᐸᑦ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓂᒃ, ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᑦᑎᐊᙱᑦᑐᒃᓴᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᙱᓐᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓇᓱᖕᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᕈᑕᐅᕙᖕᒪᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᙱᒃᑯᓂ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ, ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐊᔪᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓇᓱᒍᒪᙱᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᓲᑦ ᖁᔭᓈᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ. • • ᓴᐱᓕᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑎᑦ! ᓴᐱᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᐃᓕᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ, ᓴᐱᓕᕋᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ. ᐱᓇᓱᒍᓐᓃᕈᕕᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐊᒃᓱᕈᖅᑎᑦᑎᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᐃᓪᓕᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂ. ᐅᖃᐅᑎᑦᑎᐊᖏᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᓱᓕ ᓇᓂᓯᒋᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓇᒡᓕᒍᓱᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕋᕐᓗᓂ ᐅᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ. ᐅᑭᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᓯᑕᒪᐅᓕᖓᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓄᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓇᔭᖅᑐᖅ. ᐸᕐᓇᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓗᑎᒡᓗ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥᓄᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖃᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒧᑦ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᒋᙱᑦᑐᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥᒃ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᐅᒪᑎᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᓐᓇᐅᒪᔪᓐᓇᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᐅᒪᑎᑦᑎᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒃᖢᑎᒃ. ᐃᓅᕌᓂᒍᓐᓇᕋᔭᓚᐅᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᙱᒃᑯᑎᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓗᒍ ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᓂᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᓯᕗᒻᒧᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᒐᓱᒃᐸᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓇᓱᒃᐸᑦ, ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᐸᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᐅᒪᑎᑦᑏᓐᓇᖅᐸᑦ. ᐃᓅᓯᖓ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑉᐸᑦ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓱᒃᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᕌᕐᕕᒃᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥ ᐅᐃᒪᔮᓕᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒃ. ᐆᒃᑐᖃᑦᑕᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᓵᓚᖃᕈᓐᓇᕋᓱᒋᓗᓂ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓂᒃ ᓯᖁᒥᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᓕᕐᓗᓂ. ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᖃᑦᑕᓕᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒃ, ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᖃᑦᑕᓕᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᔨᖅᓯᒪᓇᓱᒡᓗᓂᒋᑦ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓱᖕᓂᕆᔭᖏᑦ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖃᓕᕈᓂ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᓱᐊᓗᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᓖᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓲᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᓗᓂ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ • • ᐅᑉᓗᒥᐅᓕᖅᑐᖅ, ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓱᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᓕᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᕐᓕᒐᓗᐊᖅᐸᒃᖢᑎᒃ. ᑕᐅᑐᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᖓᑕ ᐱᐅᓂᖓᓂᒃ. ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᔪᒪᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᔪᒪᖃᑦᑕᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᖏᑦᑕ ᑕᒻᒪᕐᓂᑯᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓇᒡᓕᒍᓱᖕᓂᐅᓇᓱᒋᔭᖓ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓱᓕᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᒡᓕᒍᓱᖕᓂᐅᙱᑦᑐᖅ. ᐃᕿᐊᓱᖕᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᙱᓐᓂᐅᔪᖅ. ᓄᑕᕋᖏᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᔾᔮᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ. ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ, ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᐃᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ. • • ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖅᐹᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔭᖓ ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ. ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᐊᓗᒃ. ᑕᖃᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕿᓄᐃᓵᕆᐊᖃᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅ. ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᔭᕌᖓᑉᑕ ᓄᑕᕋᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ, ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᑦᑎᐊᕙᖕᒧᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᔪᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᓰᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᐃᓅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓴᙱᔫᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓐᓇᐅᒪᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐅᕙᒃᑐᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᓴᙱᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᑦᑎᐊᓲᖅ. ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐱᐅᙱᑦᑐᐊᓘᔭᕆᐊᖃᙱᑦᑐᖅ. ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᕈᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᒪᓕᑦᑎᐊᓕᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᑐᕌᕐᓗᑎᒃ, ᐃᓄᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᓕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᔾᔪᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᑕᒻᒪᕈᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. • • ᓄᑕᕋᖅ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᑦᑎᐊᙱᑉᐸᑦ, ᐅᐃᒪᔮᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ. ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑲᒫᓂᒍᓐᓇᔾᔮᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓃᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᓕᕐᓗᑎᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᕙᒡᓗᓯ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᒡᓕᖕᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᑎᑦᑎᔪᖅ ᖁᑦᑎᒃᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ, ᐃᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᑎᒪᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ. 9 9 ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᐳᓯ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᒃᑯᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑐᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᓄᑕᕋᕆᔭᐃᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑑᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍᓘᓐᓃᑦ.ᓱᓇ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑑᕙ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ? ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᖅ • • ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᐱᔪᖕᓇᖅᓯᔭᒥᖕᓂᒃ ᓱᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᒥᕐ ᐊᔪᕈᖕᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒥᖕᓂ. • • ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᔪᖕᓇᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅ ᑕᑯᒃᓴᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ • • ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᔪᖕᓇᕋᓱᒋᓗᐊᓐᖏᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᑕᖅᑭᔪᖕᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓚᒥᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᒥᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔪᖕᓇᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᖕᒪᑕ. • • ᐋᕿᐅᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᐅᔫᕗᖅ ᐊᓯᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓯᖕᓄᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕆᕗᑎᑦ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕈᕕᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᓂᕋᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕐᓂᑦ ᐱᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᕗᖅ ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᖑᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕋᕕᑦ. • • ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂᑉᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᖏᑦᑕᕋᓗᐊᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᑉᐹᓪᓕᕐᓇᖅᐳᖅ ᐱᓂᒻᒪᒃᓴᐅᑕᐅᑉᓗᓂᓗ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᑕᐃᒪ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕐᒪᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᓂᓗᒃᑕᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᓴᓇᓂᓗᕋᓗᒡᓗᓂ ᐃᖕᒥᒎᓕᕋᒥ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᒥᓂᑦ ᐊᐃᒃᖡᓐᓇᒥᐊᕐᓂᐊᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᖁᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᖃᕐᓂᓗᒋᐊᓕᒃ. • • ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᔪᖕᓇᖅᓯᓂᐅᑉ ᒪᑭᑕᔪᖕᓇᖅᓯᓂᐅᑉ ᐃᓚᒋᖕᒪᒍ. ᐅᑉᓗᒥᐅᓕᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔭᕌᖓᑕ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᓗᐊᖅᐳᖅ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᓪᓚᕆᖕᒪᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ. ᑐᑭᖓ ᐃᓕᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᖕᓂᖅ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ ᐃᓕᑦᓯᒻᒪᕆᖕᓂᖅ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᒥᐊᓂᕆᔭᐅᓐᖏᓪᓗᓂ ᐱᔪᖕᓇᖅᓯᓂᐅᕗᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᔪᖕᓇᖅᓯᓗᓂ ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑎᐅᓗᓂ ᑕᓯᐅᖅᓯᔪᖕᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᓯᒪᓂᕐᒥᒍᑦ. ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᐅᑉ ᑐᑭᖓ ᖃᒧᑎᒃ ᐃᑉᔪᖅᓯᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᓂᒃ ᓱᒃᑲᐅᒡᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓇᔭᖅᐳᖅ ᐅᕿᑦᑑᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᐊᒃᑑᓗᑎᒃ ᕿᒻᒥᓪᓗ ᕿᒻᒧᕆᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᒧᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᒪᔪᖅ ᒪᓕᒋᐊᖃᕆᕗᖅ ᐃᑉᔪᖅᓯᔾᔪᓯᖅ ᐊᑐᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥᓗᒍ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᐅᓇᔭᕐᒪᑦ. ᐃᑉᔪᖅ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑑᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐊᑐᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᒍᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑉᔪᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᖃᖅᑕᐃᓕᓗᒍ ᐊᒡᒐᖕᒧᓪᓗ ᐃᑉᔪᖅᓯᔪᖕᓇᕐᓗᓂ ᓯᓚᒥ ᓂᒡᓚᓱᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᒪᖓᓗ ᓈᒻᒪᒋᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ. ᓱᓕ ᐃᑉᔪᖅᓯᐊᓂᒃᑲᓗᐊᕋᒥ ᖃᐃᖅᓴᕐᓗᒍ ᒪᓂᒃᓯᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᐱᐊᒃᑑᓂᐊᖅᐳᒃ ᖃᒧᑎᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᓕᕋᓗᐊᕋᒥᒃ ᖃᒧᑎᒃ ᓱᓕ ᒥᐊᓂᕆᓗᒋᒃ ᐅᑉᔪᐊᖅᑎᐊᓚᐃᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᐳᒃ ᐅᔭᖅᑲᑎᒎᖅᑕᐃᓕᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᕿᓐᓂᕐᕕᒋᓐᖏᓗᒋᒃ ᖃᒧᑎᒃ ᐃᑉᔪᖅ ᐊᐅᒐᓚᐃᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔭᕆᑐᔫᔭᕋᓗᐊᖅᐳᖅ ᐃᓕᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᒃᑐᑉ ᐊᔪᓐᖏᒻᒪᒍ ᐊᑐᓕᓂᕆᒐᒥᐅᒃ. 16 ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕋᒥ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᓄᓕᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕐᒪᑦ ᐱᖃᑎᑖᕐᓗᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ ᓇᔭᓐᖑᐊᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᑎᑦᓯᔨᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖓᔪᖄᖑᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᐅᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑭᐅᓕᖅᑕᐃᓕᓂᖅ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓯᒪᓗᒋᑦ. 9 9 ᐱᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓯᒪᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᐅᐱᒍᓱᖕᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒍ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᐃᓛᓐᓂ ᕿᑲᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᓯᓂᒍᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓴᐱᓕᖅᓴᑕᐃᓐᓇᐅᕗᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥᓂᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐱᔭᒃᓴᖃᓕᕋᓗᐊᕈᓂ ᓄᖃᖓᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᐱᒋᔭᐅᔪᒪᔪᐃᓐᓇᐅᒐᓗᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᓯᔪᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᒧᑦ ᓵᒋᐊᒥᒃ. ᐊᔪᕐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᖃᓂᑐᕋᐅᓗᐊᓐᖏᒃᑳᖓᑕ ᐊᒥᓲᒐᓗᐊᖅᖢᑎᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕋᒥ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓇᓱᒋᓕᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᕗᖅ ᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᖃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑉᓗᓂ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐊᖏᒡᓕᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᕗᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕋᒥᒃ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᒥᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᒐᒃᓴᒥᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᓗᐊᓂᖅᐳᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᒥᓯᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕈᒪᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓪᓃ ᑕᕐᕆᔭᐅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᒥᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᖃᖅᓯᔪᒪᑉᓗᑎᒃ. ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂᓕ ᐃᓅᓱᒃᑐᐊᕐᔪᐃᑦ, ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓵᕐᔪᐃᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᐳᑦ. ᐅᑉᓗᒥᐅᓕᖅᑐᕐᓕ ᐃᓅᓱᒃᑐᑦ, ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᓇᒡᓛᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓱᓗᐊᓕᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᒥᐊᓂᕆᔭᕆᐊᒥᒃ. ᓲᖃᐃᒻᒪ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᕝᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓕᕋᒥᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑉᓗᑎᒡᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓱᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᓗᓕᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᓇᐅᒃᑰᕆᐊᒥᒃ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕋᒥ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᐃᓛᓐᓂ ᐊᖓᔪᖄᒥᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᖅᓴᐅᓇᓱᒋᓕᖅᐳᖅ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑲᒥᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᐱᒍᓱᖕᓂᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᓂᒃ ᐊᖓᔪᖃᖏᑕ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᖏᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ. ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᔪᖕᓇᕋᓱᒋᔪᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᕗᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖅ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᖅᑐᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᐅᑎᑦᑕᔪᖕᒪᑦ ᐱᓂᓗᒡᓗᓂ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᐅᓕᖅᑕᔪᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓄᑑᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᑎᑭᐅᑎᕙᒃᑲᑉᑕ ᐃᓛᓐᓂ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᑉᓗᒍ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᖃᓂᑐᕋᐅᑎᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᕗᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᕿᒃᓱᐃᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᖃᖓᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᖁᑉᓗᒍ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑉ ᐃᓅᓯᖓ ᓈᒻᒪᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᐳᖅ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᒃᑭᑕ ᐸᕐᓇᒍᑎᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒍ ᐃᑲᔪᓪᓗᕆᒡᓗᒍᓗ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓗᒍ. • • ᐅᑉᓗᒥᐅᓕᖅᑐᖅ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔮᓕᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᖕᒥᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᓇᔭᓇᖅᑐᒦᑎᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᓐᖏᓗᐊᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᑯᐊ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᓗᐊᓐᖏᓐᓇᒥᒋᑦ ᓱᓇᐅᒋᓗᐊᓐᖏᑦᑐᑐᑦ ᐱᒐᒥᒋᑦ ᓱᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪ ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᓕᖅᐳᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᓯᑭᑑᕋᓗᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᑯᒪᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᒥ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕆᐊᒥᒃ. • • ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖃᕆᒃᑑᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᕆᔭᕐᒥᖕᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᖕᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖏᑕ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓂᒃ ᑲᒪᓱᒃᐸᒡᓗᑎᒃ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᓴᐱᕋᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᑎᓕᐅᕐᓗᒍ. ᐃᓅᓱᒃᑐᐊᕐᔪᐃᑦ, ᐃᓅᓱᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᖁᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓴᓐᖏᔫᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᑯᓂ ᓯᓚᒥ ᓂᒡᓚᓱᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᐸᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᐅᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᓂ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᐸᑕ ᐃᓐᓇᕈᕐᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᕗᑦ. • • ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᑐᐹᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᑉᓛᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔭᖅᑐᕆᐊᓪᓚᒃᓯᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓯᑭᑑᕋᓗᐃᑦ ᓱᓇᑦ ᓴᓇᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖅᑭᒃᓱᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᑕ. ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᓕᕆᓱᖅᓴᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᐅᐃᖃᓕᕈᑎᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᖕᓇᕈᒫᕐᒪᑕ, ᑕᐃᑉᑯᐊ ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐱᓕᓐᓇᓪᓚᒃᓯᓐᓇᓚᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᒥᐊᓂᕆᔪᖕᓇᖅᓯᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. • • ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᖃᑎᖃᓕᐊᓂᒃᐳᑦ ᐊᖑᒻᒥᒃ ᐊᕐᓇᒥᒃ. ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᕙᒌᕆᐊᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᖅᑐᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᓂᒍᐃᔪᖕᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᓗᑎᒃ. ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔪᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᕈᑎᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᓐᖏᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ • • ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᔾᔪᑎᒋᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᕐᒥᒍᑦ ᐱᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᑎᒍᓯᔪᖕᓇᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ. • • ᐅᓂᑉᑳᕐᕕᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᓯᒥᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓗᓂ ᐱᕚᓪᓕᕈᑕᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᑎᒐᔪᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᑦᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᓐᓇᒃᓴᕈᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᖏᓂᒃ. ᐅᑉᓗᒥᐅᓕᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᓕᕐᒪᑕ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓂᒃ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐳᐃᒍᖅᑕᐃᓕᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᓚᓪᓚᕆᖕᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᐅᓛᖑᖕᒪᑦ • • ᓇᒡᓕᖕᓂᒃᑰᕋᒥ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖃᓗᐊᖅᐳᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᖕᓇᕐᓂᖏᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᒪᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᑕᐅᓐᓂᑯᓂᒃ. ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᒪᐅᓯᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᑲᒻᒥᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐳᐊᓗᓕᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐊᓐᓄᕌᓕᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᓱᓕ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᐳᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᓂᒡᓕᓇᖅᑐᐊᓘᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᓐᓇᐅᒪᔭᕆᐊᒥᒃ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᒍᓯᕐᓂᒡᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓗᑕ ᓄᓇ ᐅᐱᒋᓗᒍ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᐃᓛᓐᓂ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᐳᖅ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᐅᑭᐅᕆᐊᒃᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐊᖓᔪᖄᑦ ᒪᓕᖁᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖃᑕᐅᖕᒪᑕ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖅ ᐊᖓᔪᖄᒥᓂᓯᐅᓐᖏᓐᓇᕈᖕᓃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐅᓇ ᐅᔾᔨᕆᓗᒍ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᖕᓂ ᓇᔫᑏᓐᓇᓐᖏᓕᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᐅᑉ ᐃᓕᖁᓯᖏᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᐳᖅ ᓲᖃᐃᒻᒪ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᒪᑦ. ᐃᓄᓐᖑᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᐅᖏᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ. ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖕᒪᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓴᒃᓯᒪᓗᒍ ᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᑐᓪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᕙᓪᓕᐊᓗᒍ ᐅᐱᒋᓗᒍ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᓂᒋᑐᕋᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐅᐱᒋᑐᕋᐅᑎᓗᑎᒃ.ᓱᓇ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑑᕙ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ? ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓅᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅ ᓯᕗᒻᒧᑦ • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᑲᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᙵ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᙱᓐᓂᒻᓄᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕈᓐᓇᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᙵ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑲᔪᓯᒍᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᕋ ᐃᓅᓯᕋᓂ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᒻᓄᑦ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᒻᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᕋᓗᐊᕈᒪ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᙵ ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᕙᒻᓄᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖢᐊᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᓇᓂᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕋᓄᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᒥᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᙱᒃᑯᒪ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᑐᑭᓯᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᐊᕐᓗᖓ, ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᕋᓗᐊᕈᒪ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ “ᐃᓗᐃᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ” ᑕᐅᑐᒐᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᖓ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕌᖓᒪ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᐸᒃᑲᒪ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒋᔭᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖓ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᖓ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕋᒪ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕋᒪ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᙵ ᐃᓅᖄᑎᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᐊᕋᒪ. • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᒃᑲ ᐊᑐᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᕋᑉᑭᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᒃᑯᑦ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᙵ ᓱᖏᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓᓗ. ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᒃᑲ ᐊᑐᕌᖓᑉᑭᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᕆᔭᒃᑲᓗ ᓄᑖᖑᔪᒃᑯᑦ, ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᖓ ᐱᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒻᓄᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᓴᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᒻᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᑐᓂᕋᓂᒃ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᔪᖓ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕌᖓᒪ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓ “ᓯᕗᒻᒧᐊᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅ” ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖅ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᕋᓗᐊᕐᓗᓂ. ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥ, ᖃᓄᐃᒃᓴᙱᑦᑐᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓇᓃᓐᓂᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓇᒧᙵᐅᔪᒪᖕᒪᖔᑉᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᓗᑕ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᐃᑯᙵᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑉᑕ. ᓯᕗᒻᒧᐊᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅ ᐅᑕᖅᑭᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᖅ 17-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᖃᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᑦ ᑕᐸᓵᕆᔭᐅᕙᖕᒪᑕ ᑲᑕᒃᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙᒃᖢᑎᒡᓗ, ᓯᕗᒻᒧᐊᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᓇᓱᒋᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓴᐱᓕᖃᑦᑕᙱᓪᓗᑕ. ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐅᓂᑉᑳᖅᑐᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑐᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᕆᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᑦ ᐅᑕᖅᑭᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᒡᓗ. ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐸᕐᓇᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ. ᓇᓂᓯᓇᓱᒡᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᖅᐱᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᕐᓂᒃ. ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᒃᓴᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓯᕗᒻᒧᐊᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᒪᓪᓗᓂ. ᐃᓱᒪᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᒋᔭᕐᓂ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ,ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒃᓴᒥᓂᒃ ᕿᓂᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᖅᑎᒥᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕈᒪᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᒪᐅᙵᒥᐊᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᔾᔮᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᓇᓂᓯᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᑐᒨᓇ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᓇᓂᒃ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᕋᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᐃᑲᔪᕆᐊᑲᐅᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓄᓪᓗ. 17-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᖢᑎᒃ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᓕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ. ᐸᕐᓇᐃᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᐊᓕᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ. ᐸᕐᓇᐃᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ. ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᖃᓕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕆᓗᑎᒡᓗ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᐃᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑎᑦᑎᒍᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᓂᒋᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒡᓗ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᒥᓄᑦ ᓅᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᖃᓄᐃᒃᓴᙱᑦᑎᐊᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᓅᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᖢᑎᒡᓗ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓯᒪᔭᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᑦᑎᐊᓲᑦ. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᙱᑦᑐᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᙱᓪᓗᑎᒡᓗ. ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᓯᒪᙱᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᙱᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ. ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒃᓴᒥᓂᒃ ᓇᓂᓯᓇᔭᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᓗᑎᒡᓗ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᑭᙳᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᒋᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ. ᐅᑉᓗᒥ, ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓲᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓰᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᒥᓄᑦ. ᐃᓕᑦᑐᓐᓇᓚᐅᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᓐᓇᐃᓯᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓇᔭᖅᑕᒥᓂᒡᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓇᔭᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᒥᓂᒃ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᓂᑉᓕᐊᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓇᓱᒡᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓇᔭᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑏᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥᓂᒃ. ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᓪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐊᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒋᑦ. • • ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓅᓯᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑑᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓄᑑᓗᓂ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. • • ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᕌᒐᕆᔭᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑏᑦ ᐃᓕᑕᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᓴᙱᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᑦᑕᕆᐊᓕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑏᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᖃᙱᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ, ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑑᖃᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᐅᓪᓚᕐᓂᐊᕌᖓᑕ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ. • • ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᒃᓴᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᙱᓐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᖃᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒐᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᕋᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᖃᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓯᒪᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᒋᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅᐳᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐱᐅᓯᕚᓪᓕᕈᑕᐅᕙᖕᒪᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᒍᓐᓃᕈᑕᐅᕙᖕᒪᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ. • • ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ! ᐃᓛᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᒐᓗᐊᖅᖢᑎᒃ. ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᔪᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᒡᓕᖕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ. • • ᑲᒪᒋᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᑎᑦ. ᐅᑉᓗᒥ ᐅᕙᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᐃᓪᓕᒐᑉᑕ ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑉᐸᓚᐅᙱᖦᖢᑕ. ᓂᕆᐅᒃᐸᓕᕋᑉᑕ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᓯᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᑲᒪᒋᐊᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᖃᓕᕐᓂᖅᐸᑦ ᐱᐊᓂᒍᑎᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᑕ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᒪᒥᓴᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᕈᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᒃᑯᑦ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑎᓯ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑎᕗᑦ ᑲᒪᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐸᕐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᒡᕙ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᒍᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᖕᓂᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᕙᑉᑎᓐᓂᒡᓗ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑎᓯ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᙳᕈᒫᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. • • ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᖅᑭᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᕐᒪᑕ ᕿᓚᒥᓗᐊᑯᓗᒃ, ᐅᐃᖃᕐᓇᑎᒃ ᓄᓕᐊᖃᕐᓇᑎᒃ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᓇᑎᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᖅ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᑲᐅᑎᒋᑉᓗᑎᒃ ᓱᑲᔪᐊᓗᒃᑯᑦ. ᐊᐃᐸᖃᕋᑎᒃ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᙳᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᓐᓇᐃᓕᓲᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓇᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᙳᓵᖅᖢᓂ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᖃᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᖅᑖᕈᑎᒃ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓯᒪᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓂᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓄᑦᑕᐅᖅ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒋᔭᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᒧᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᓂᖃᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐱᖃᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. • • ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᑦ. ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓄᑑᓗᑎᒃ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᑲᒪᖃᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᖕᒪᑕᑦᑕᐅᖅ. ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᖑᑎᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᒋᔭᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᓄᑕᕋᖓᓂᒡᓗ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑎᑎᑦ ᐃᖢᐊᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᓚᐅᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖅᐹᖑᖃᑕᐅᓯᒪᐃᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ. ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᙱᒻᒪᑕ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓕᐊᓂᒃᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᐃᑖᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᑎᑎᑕᐅᓂᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᓂᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᓗᒃᑖᕐᒧᑦ. ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂᑐᖃᖅ, ᑲᑎᑎᑕᐅᔪᖃᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᓕᕌᖓᑕ. ᐊᖑᑎᑦ ᐃᒡᓗᕕᒐᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᓯᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᒪᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒥᓂᒃ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑎᑎᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᑦ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᓄᓕᐊᖃᖅᖢᓂ ᐅᐃᖃᖅᖢᓂ ᓄᑕᕋᖃᖅᖢᓂ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ.ᓱᓇ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑑᕙ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ? ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᔾᔪᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕋ ᓴᙱᒃᑎᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑐᖅ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᕋᓂ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒋᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᖅᑲᑎᒋᔭᒃᑯᓪᓗ. ᐃᓄᙳᐃᓂᖅ ᓄᑕᖅᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ • • ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᓇᒦᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕋ ᑐᑭᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑕᕋ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒌᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᒡᓗ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᖓ ᐅᕙᑉᑯᑦ. ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ • • ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᕐᓂᒡᓗ. • • ᓇᓂᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ “ᓂᐱᒐᓂᒃ.” ᐅᖃᖃᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᖓ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᒃᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᑭᓇᐅᓂᕋ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑕᕋ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᕆᕙᒃᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᔪᙱᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᖕᒪᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᓂ, ᐱᒋᔭᕐᒥᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒃᖢᓂ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᓇᕈᑕᐅᕙᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖅ ᓱᓇᒥᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᑎᑦᑎᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᓕᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᖕᒪᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒋᕙᖕᓂᐊᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᖓ ᐃᓕᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕝᕕᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᒃᑲᓂᒃ. • • ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖓ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᒃᑲ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑉᑭᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒃᑲᓂᒃ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᙵ ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᖓ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒃᑲ ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᑐᑭᖓ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᕐᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᓱᓇᓗᒃᑖᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᒥ. ᐊᒃᑐᐊᔾᔪᑎᓗᒃᑖᕋᑉᑕ. ᐃᓄᑑᙱᑦᑐᒍᑦ. ᑐᙵᑎᒌᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑐᙵᑎᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᓐᓇᐅᒪᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᑕ. ᐃᓅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓗᑕ, ᐃᓅᖃᑎᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒌᖕᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑕ. ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓ 18-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᔾᔪᑎᓂᖅ ᑐᑭᓕᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᖃᕆᐊᖃᕌᖓᑦ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᕈᑏᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑑᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑕᓗ. ᐅᓂᑉᑳᖅᑐᐊᑦ ᑕᒪᑐᒥᙵ ᐅᕙᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᓲᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᑦ, ᐅᓂᑉᑳᖅᑐᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓪᓗ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᓗᒃᑖᒃᑯᑦ. ᑐᓴᖅᓯᒪᔪᖓ ᐅᓂᑉᑳᖅᑐᐊᕐᒥ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒌᒎᖅ ᐊᐅᓪᓛᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᓇᖃᙱᖦᖢᑎᒃ. ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᑕᙳᑎᒌᖕᓄᑦ ᐃᒃᑭᑎᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᔭᒃᓴᒥᒡᓗ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᑉᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᖏᔫᙱᑦᑐᒥᒃ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᔪᕕᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᖕᓄᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓇᒡᓕᖕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᓗᒃᑖᑦ ᓇᒡᓕᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ. ᓇᒡᓕᒋᔭᐅᔭᕌᖓᑉᑕ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕌᖓᑉᑕ, ᖁᕕᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᖅᐸᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᐸᒃᖢᑕ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᖅᖢᑕ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᒃᑐᒍᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ 9 9 ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᓂᖅ ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑐᓐᓇᙱᒻᒪᑦ. ᓄᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᒥᑭᔫᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑎᐊᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ. ᐊᖏᓪᓕᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᑯᓗᖏᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᒃᑕᖅᐳᑦ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᓲᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᒃᑕᖅᐳᑦ. © 2014ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖃᓕᓲᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᖃᓕᓲᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᑐᑦ. ᐱᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ. ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑎᐊᓲᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᖢᑎᒃ. ᐃᓗᐃᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᑉᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᒥᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᒥ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓕᖅᐸᒃᖢᑎᒃ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓯᕗᒻᒧᐊᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᓕᓲᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖏᓪᓗ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᐃᑦ. 18-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᑲᒪᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓇᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᖁᑎᒥᓂᒃ, ᐊᓐᓄᕌᒥᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᓪᓗ 18-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᓐᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᖃᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᖅᓯᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒃ. ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᓱᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᓕᕌᖓᑕ. ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᖅᑲᑎᒌᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑐᓴᕋᓱᒍᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᔨᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ, ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᒃᑯᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᔪᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖁᔨᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ, ᐊᑐᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᔨᒥᓂᒃ ᓈᓚᖕᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᕐᒦᒃ ᓈᓚᔾᔮᙱᒻᒪᖔᕐᒥᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖏᑦᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖁᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᙶᖅᑐᓂᒡᓗ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ • • ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᐱᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᓪᓗ! ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᐱᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑎᒍᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. • • ᖃᓂᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑎᕕᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖓᓄᑦ ᖃᓂᓪᓕᒋᐊᖅᓯᒪᕙᒡᓗᑎᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᖔᑦ ᐅᖓᓯᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. • • ᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᑐᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓕᑕᕆᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑎᕕᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓕᖅᖢᓂ. ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᒃᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖃᑕᐅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍᓗ ᐅᖃᖃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᖃᑎᒋᓕᖅᑕᒥᑐᑦ. • • ᓂᕆᐅᒋᓗᒍ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑏᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᓕᕌᖓᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᐊᓂᒍᑎᑎᓐᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒥᒃ ᓇᓂᓯᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᕆᐊᕌᖓᖕᓂ, ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐅᑎᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐅᑎᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᓂ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᓂᐅᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᐊᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ. • • ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᑐᑭᓯᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᙱᑉᐸᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᑐᑭᓯᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑏᑦ ᓇᑭᖅᓴᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐊᖁᓪᓗᓂ, ᐱᖁᑎᓂ ᓱᕈᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᒋᑦ. ᐊᓐᓄᕌᓕᐅᕐᓗᓂ ᐆᒃᑐᖅᐸᑦ ᑭᑉᔭᐃᑦᑎᐊᙱᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᓐᓄᕌᓕᐊᖏᑦ ᓈᒻᒫᓂᔾᔮᙱᑦᑐᑦ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᐸᑦ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᖅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑏᑦ ᑲᑕᒃᑎᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᒋᔾᔮᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. • • ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᕙᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᒑᖓᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕆᐊᖃᑦᑕᖁᓗᒍᑦᑕᐅᖅ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᑐᙵᑎᖃᑐᐃᓐᓈᓗᖃᑦᑕᖁᓇᒋᑦ ᐃᕿᐊᒋᔭᐅᓕᖦᖤᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᓕᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᕆᐊᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᑉᓗᓂ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᐃᓄᒃ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᒃᐸᑦ ᐃᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᒃᐸᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ, ᐃᑲᔪᕆᐊᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᒥᑭᔪᒥᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᑉ ᐃᓅᓯᖓ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒍ. • • ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᖅᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ. ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑏᑦ ᐃᓂᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐃᒡᓗᒥᐅᖃᑎᒋᒐᓗᐊᕈᖕᓂ. ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᕙᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐃᓚᓂ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. ᓂᕿᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᒡᓘᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓴᓗᒻᒪᖅᓴᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖑᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᖕᓄᑦ • • ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᓕᒃ, ᓄᑕᕋᐃᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᕐᒪᑦ. ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑐᑯᓘᓕᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᖕᒥᓂᒡᓗ ᐱᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᖅᓯᑉᓗᓂ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓕᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᓱᓕ. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓂ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᒋᐊᓖᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᖕᒪᖔᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓈᖅᑐᖅᑎᒋᕙᒡᓗᓂᒋᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐅᐱᒋᔭᐅᕙᒡᓗᓂᓗ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᑦᑎᐊᕌᖓᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᔪᕐᓗ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥ. ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᑉᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦᑎᐊᕙᖕᓂᒡᓗ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᖁᑉᓗᒍ. • • ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑏᑦ ᐊᔪᙱᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖅ ᓱᓕ. ᖃᐅᔨᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓄᑑᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᓴᓇᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᑲᑎᑎᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᙳᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᐃᓐᓇᕈᒃ ᐃᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᖃᓕᕌᖓᑦ. ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᓄᑦ 9 9 ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑦᑎᐊᖑᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒫᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᐸᒡᓗᒍ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖁᑏᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᙳᕈᒫᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. 9 9 ᐅᑉᓗᒥ, ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᑲᑎᒃᑳᖓᑕ ᐊᕕᓴᕋᐃᓕᖅᑐᑦ. ᐃᓐᓇᑐᖃᐃᑦ ᑕᒪᑐᒥᙵ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᖃᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ. ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᑦᑎᐊᕋᔭᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥᒡᓗ ᓇᓕᒧᒌᒃᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ. 9 9 ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪᓂ, ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᑦ ᑲᑎᒃᑳᖓᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᑦ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᐅᕙᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᐸᕐᓇᒃᓯᒪᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑕᕋᓛᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᓴᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᓱᒃᓰᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᑑᒐᓗᐊᕈᑎᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᔪᓐᓇᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᓯᒪᓕᕋᓗᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ.family-and-parenting-iu
Family Violence in Nunavut: A Scoping Review (IU version)Nicole Diakite

To provide an overview of policies, legislation, and regulations related to the protection and support of families who are affected by family violence. (IU …

ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦEnglish 2017 ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᓐᓂᖏ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ: ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓚᐅᕐᓚᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓂᖅ 2015−ᒥ, ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 86,000 ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017), ᐊᒥᓱᐊᓗᐃᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒍᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᐅᑎᑦᑎᒍᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅᑕᖃᕐᒪᖔᖅ, ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᔪᓄᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᒧᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᓱᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᒫᒃ: ᑭᓲᕙ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᒪ ᐃᒪᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᓪᓗ, ᓲᖑᓵᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᖓᓐᓂ, ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑕᖅᑯᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ. ᑭᓱᓪᓚᕆᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᑦᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐ ᓇᒥᓕᒫᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᒥ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᓄ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅᑲᑦ, ᐃᓅᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᕕᓂᖃᑎᒌᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑲᑕ, ᑭᓇᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑲᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᒥᔪ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᑐᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑎᑦᑎᓕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᐅᔾᔨᓂᖅᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓕᕋᓵᕆᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᓯᓚᐃᕐᕆᔭᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓂᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ. ᐱᖓᓲᔪᖅᑑᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᑕᐅᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐊᓂᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒃ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ, ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ, ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᓪᓗ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ (ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ, 2014). ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔾᔪᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᑉᐱᓐᓂᐊᓂᖓᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᓂᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᖅ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 323,600−ᖑᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). 25% ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 70% ᐋᓐᓂᒥᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 12017 ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐅᖁᒪᐃᓐᓂᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (2016) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 760 000−ᖑᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑲᐅᓐᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ, ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᓪᓗ, ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᓪᓗ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐊᔪᕈᑎᓖᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐸᓕᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᕝᕙ ᕆᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 2015−ᒥ ᑕᐃᑲᓐᖓᑦ 2014−ᒥᓂᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᒪᑯᐊᓂᖓ ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ (+15%), ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᒐᓱᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ (+22%) ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ (+3%) (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ 1.9−ᒥᓕᐊᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐅᑎᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖓᓂ (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). 2015−ᒥ ᐸᓖᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐅᔪᓂᑦ 58%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔭᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖁᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᕈᖅᐹᓪᓕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ 12%−ᒥᑦ 2015−ᒥ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓚᐅᖅᑐᒥᓪᓕ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᓱᓕ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). 2014−ᒥ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᓴᐅᑎᒥᓃᑦ (GSS) ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᓐᓄ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᑭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᐃᑦ ᑐᑭᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒫᓂ 50%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 20%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᖁᓖᕌᖅᑎᔅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓄᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓄᑦ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕐᕋᒍᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᓕ, 2014−ᒥ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᑭᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᔅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 56%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓗᑎᑦ (ᕈᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᕕᓂᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑕᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᐊᓯᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓄᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖁᔨᖔᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓐᖑᐃᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ, ᔭᒐᐃᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓚᓐᓂ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᓐᓇᐃᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐊᐅᓪᓛᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎ ᒪᑯᓂᖓ ᐊᔪᖅᓴᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓄᐊᒋᐊᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᓂᑦ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓗᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙ ᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᓂᕿᔅᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓇᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2016) ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓐᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᓂ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᖃᓂᒌᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ, ᒪᑭᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖏᑕ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᓂᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥᓗ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐱᖓᓱᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑲᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 163−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ 1000-ᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᓪᓕ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑕᖏᑦ 74-−ᓂᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ 1000−ᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 22017 ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᑦᑎᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ 1,000 ᐃᓄᒋᐊᓐᓂᖏᑦ 200 150 100 50 0 Indigenous Population Non-Indigenous Population ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016) ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ − ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᑲᓴᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016) ᐅᖃᖅᑐᓂᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᑲᒻᒪᒍᓐᓇᕐᖓᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ (ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ, ᐃᓱᒪᓕᕆᓂᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅᑐᕐᓂᖅ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016), ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐱᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ 18%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᖓᓕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 9%−ᖑᓗᑎᑦ. ᑕᒫᓂᐸᓗᖃᐃ 51% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᐊᓘᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓵᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᒋᐅᓄᑦ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦᔭ ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑑᑉ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ 2014 ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᐅᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᖅ (42%) ᐃᖃᓗᐃᓪᓗ (39%) (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓕᒫᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓕᒫᓂᑦ (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖑᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (2016), ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖑᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ. 18% ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 8% ᐊᖑᑎᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓃᓐᓂᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ 14%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 5%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᖑᑎᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓃᑦᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ: ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒥᐅᕐ ᓯᓐᕼᐊᒥᑦ (2013), ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᖑᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᓗᐃᓪᓗᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᔅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕕᔾᔪᐊᒥ ᐃᓕᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐃᓗ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓄᑦ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). ᔫᑳᒥ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᓴᒪᐃᖅᓱᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᕗᖅ ᑕᐅᕙ ᓂ ᓄᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥ 9−ᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ 13−ᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓂᕋᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ 41%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕕᓕᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). 2014−ᒥ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕈᔪᒃᑯ ᐱᔭᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑎᑦ 14%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᓪᓗ 5%−ᖑᓪᑎᑦ. ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᓪᓕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓐᓇᑎᑦ, Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 32017 ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓘᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 50%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑕᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ 28% (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᐅᑏᓐᓇᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᒪᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖃᖅᑐᓂ 60% ᓯᖁᒥᑦᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᓯᐳᕌᔅ (Sprauge), 2016). ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ 41% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ (Stop Family ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᔪᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᒥᓂᑦ Violence, 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᔪᒥᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓚᒥᓐᓂᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑐᕌᒐᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᑕᐃᒪᓕ, ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᖔᕈᓐᓇᕆᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᖅᑐᑦ (ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᔨ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ 80%−ᒥᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᕐᓗ − ᓄᖅᑲᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ, 2012), (ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᕋᔪᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓲᑦ (Snapshot of Family Violence in Canada) – ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᒐᐃᒻᒪᑕ. Infographic, 2015). “[ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ] ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 80%-ᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ”” ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᕈᓐᓃᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᒋᐊᖃᕈᓐᓃᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᕈᓐᓃᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᒍᒪᒍᓐᓃᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᕆᕙ ᑦᑐᒦᒍᒪᓐᓇᑎᑦ. ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓘᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐅᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑎᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᓂᕆᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐊᓂᖅᑎᕆᔾᔪᑎᒋᑦ ᐱᐅᒍᓐᓃᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐃᑦᑐᕐᓗᐃᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᖃᓂᒪᖃᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᒋᐊᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖅᓯᒪᖔᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᐃᐊᓕᐊᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐹᑉ (Elliot & Bopp), 2007). ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓄᑦ ᓲᖑᓵᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᖓ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᒥ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᒥᓪᓗ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓲᖅ. ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ, ᐊᐃᐸᕇᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᖓ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑑᒃ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᒻᒪᑕ, 26% ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑰᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 70% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᓪᓗ. ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 79% ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ, ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ, ᑎᓴᒪᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖑᓐᓂᑦ (ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ (Stop Family Violence), 2017). ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᐸᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᑎᒍᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᓐᓂᐊᓂᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᑲᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᒋᐊᖏᑕ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓪᓚᕆᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᑦᑐᑎᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑦ ᐱᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓃᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᐱᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐱᔭᕐᓂᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓈᓚᒍᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᓇᓪᓕᒍᓱᓕᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᓐᖏᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ (ᐸᓚ ᑭᕼᐅᓗ (Bala & Kehoe), 2017). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᑦᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᕐᓂᕋᓗᐊᕈᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕙ ᑉᐳᑦ. ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 42017 ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 65−ᓂᑦ ᐅᖓᑖᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅ, ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᖑᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ, 53% ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 60% ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (Snapshot of Family Violence in Canada) – Infographic, 2015). ᑕᐃᒪᓕᓗ, 2015−ᒥ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ 61% ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 33% ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓐᓄᑦ (ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ (Stop Family Violence), 2017). ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᑐᕋᖓᒻᒪᑕ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ. ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ (United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒨᖓᔪᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᓄᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᒪᑭᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᓄᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ. ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ, ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᖁᔭᕐᓂᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᓕᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᒪᔨᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓕᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᐅᓯᓐᓈᖅᑐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᖅᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒌᖁᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑦᑐᕐᓂᓗᑦᑕᐅᓲᖑᒻᒪᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 7(2) ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑎᓂᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᒻᒪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓇᓂ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᓂᓗ, ᓱᕈᓰᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᓂ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᐃᓐᓇᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ, ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016 ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ 7 ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖁᓕᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 0−ᒥᑦ 14−ᒧᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᒃᑯᒥᓂᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑎᒍᐊᖅᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓂ 40% ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᐅᕆᔪᒥ 28.5% ᐊᐅᐴᑕᒥᓗ 27.1% (ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ, 2017). ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᐹᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖏᐅᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒥᐅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ (ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ, 2017). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓃᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᐹᖑᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᓲᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᑯᓂᒧᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᓂᓪᓕᒍᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓄᑦ. ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓄᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᔭᐅᖁᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᓪᓚᕆᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᓪᓚᕆᖏᓐᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑎᒍᐊᖅᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᖃᑦᑕᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᑦᑎᔨᔅᓴᖅᑕᖃᕐᓇᓂᓗ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓕᖅᑐᓂ ᒪᑯᑎᒎᓇ ᐊᔪᖅᓴᓪᓚᕆᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ, ᐃᑉᐱᒋᔭᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥᓂᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓅᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑕᖃᕐᖓᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᒋᐊᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᑦᒥ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᓪᓗ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 52017 ᐳᓴᑦᑎᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᑐᐊᒥ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᓕᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ ᐅᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᓕᔭᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Territories Ontario Alberta ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2017 ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ 33% ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 15 ᐅᖓᑖᓄᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑎᑭᒥᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ 61% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅ, ᐅᖓᑖᓄᑦ 93%, ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ 9 ᖁᓕᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐅᑎᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᓄᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᓃᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋ ᐊᑐᕋᔪᓲᑦ ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᑕᖏᓐᓂ, ᐱᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᑕᐅᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 31%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ 22%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ, ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ – ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᓇᖅᑲ? (2012) ᐱᖓᓱᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓂᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, 89%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᓪᓛᒃ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᑦ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᑦᑐᓂ ᐱᕈᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᕈᔪᓐᓃᒐᔪᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓲᑦ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᐊᓘᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᑉᐱᒋᓂᖏᑎᒍᑦ, ᑎᒥᒃᑯᓪᓗ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᓪᓗᓂ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓᓂᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓴᖏᓪᓗᓂ ᓈᒻᒪᖏᑦᑐᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᖁᔭᓐᓂᖅ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᑕᐅ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕋᒪᕐᒥᔪᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᑦᑎᒍ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᒍᓐᓇᕐᖓᑕ: (ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ, 2012 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). • • • • • • • • • • ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐅᒡᒍᐊᖅᓯᒪᓕᕐᓗᓂ ᑲᓐᖑᓱᓕᕐᓗᓂᓗ ᓯᓐᓇᑦᑑᒪᑲᒻᒪᔾᔪᑎᒌᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᑑᕐᔫᔮᖏᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᕿᔅᓵᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓄᓐᓃᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᓐᖏᓐᓂᕐᓗ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒦᑦᑑᔮᕈᒪᒍᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᖁᔭᒍᓐᓇᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅᑐᔅᓴᕋᐃᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᒥᐊᓗᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᓃᕋᓱᐊᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᕋᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᔅᓴᕋᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᐱᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ, ᕿᔅᓵᓐᓂᖅ, ᐅᐃᒻᒪᔮᔅᓴᕋᐃᓐᓂᖅ, ᐱᕋᔭᓂᖅ, ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce (2016), ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᓐᓂ, ᐊᑯᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᓯᓐᓇᑦᑑᒪᑲᒻᒪᒍᔾᔭᐅᕙ ᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕋᑎᓪᓗ (ᐳᐃᔅ, 2016). ᓱᓕᒃᑲᓐᓂ, ᓯᓐᕼ (Sinha, (2013) ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 62017 ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᓪᓛᒃ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔭᖏᑦ. 2011−ᒥ, 32% ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ (ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ – Infographic, 2015), ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᓐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ 15−ᓂᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᑕᐃᒪᓕ 2014−ᒥ, 40% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 29% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ 15−ᓂᑦ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᒃ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᐅᓐᖏᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᓂᖅᓴᐅᒦᒃᑲᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓗᐊᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᐅᔾᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᕗᖅ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᒪᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ, ᖃᓄᐃᓘᕐᓂᓘᕐᓂᐅᔪᑦ, ᐃᓅᖃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᓪᓗ, ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑎᐅᓕᕐᓗᑎᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᓴᓂᕋᔭᒻᒥ, ᐃᒡᓗᓕᒻᒥ, ᓴᓪᓕᓂᑦ ᑕᓗᕐᔪᐊᒥᓗ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᐹᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 0 – 14 ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖏᓐᓂ (2016 ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐃᑦ, 2017). ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ 2014−ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, 53,000 ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ 53,000 ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᑦ, 90%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᓐᓅᒻᒪᖔᖅ. ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓯᕗᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 80%−ᓂᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᑦ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, 2015 ᒥᔅᓴᐅᓴᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 92,000 ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᐸᓯᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᒐᓛᖑᔪᖅ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓚᐅᖅᑐᒥ 45%−ᒥᑦ ᐸᓯᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ (ᐋᓚᓐ (Allen), 2016). ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᓂᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᒪᑲᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ (YWCA ᐊᒡᕕᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ, 2014). ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᕿᒫᕖᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒻᒥ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦ- ᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ FAIA ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐋᖅᑭᔅᓱᐃᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖃᖓᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ, ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᖅᑐᓂ ᐊᔅᓱᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᑭᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓄᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᖁᔭᐅᓇᑎᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ. ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᕈᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᔾᔪᑕᐅᕗᖅ. ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᔾᔪᑏ ᒃᑯᓕᒫᓄᑦ, ᐊᓄᓪᓚᔅᓯᕆᐊᓖᓪᓗ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᒥᓴᖅᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓘᖅᑐᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᔪᖅ, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᔪᕐᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᓂᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᕋᔭᔅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᓂᖅ, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᖅ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓃᓪᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ. Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 72017 ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ (CFSA) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᓕᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᑎ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑉ ᑎᒥᖏᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᒋᓂᑎᒍᓪᓗ, ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓪᓗ, ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᕈᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 7(3) ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ CFSA ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 7(3p) ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖅᑲᑦ “ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑉ ᐊᖏᒧᖅᑳᖏᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᕋᓱᐊᖏᑉᐸᑕ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒐᓱᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑉᐸᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ” (CFSA, 2004). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᑦ (FAIA) ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᐊᓱᕐᓂᒧᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ ᑎᒥᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ, ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓄᑑᓂᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᓂᑎᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ, ᐃᓕᕋᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖑᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᓱᕋᐃᔭᐃᖃᑦᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒐᕙ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᓅᕖᑉᐱᕆᒥ 2006−ᒥ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦᑎᕕᒋᔪᒪᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᔾᔪᑎᒋᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᖁᓇᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ (FAIA) ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑦᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᑦᓯᐊᕐᓂᖅ, ᐱᖁᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ (FAIA, 2006) ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᐊᓱᕐᓂᒧᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ (FAIA) ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦᑎᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᐊᕕᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ (EPO) ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᓗᓂ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᔪᓂᑦ ᐸᕝᕕᓴᑦᑐᓂ ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᑐᐊᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᐅᔪ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐱᓯᔭᐅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᓐᖏᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᕿᓚᒥᑲᐃᓐᓇᕈᓗᒃ. ᓄᓇᓕᓂᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒧᑦ (CIO) ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᔪᖃᕐᓂᖅᑲᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᔅᓯᕋᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅᑲᑕ ᑕᐃᒪᑦᑐᒥᑦ. ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎ ᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᔅᓯᕋᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᑐᖔᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᓂ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑎᓕᔭᐅᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔨᒧᑦ. ᕿᒫᕖᑦ 2008−ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 50,000 ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ 53−ᒥᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖓᓯᑦᑑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑐᐊ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᖓᑦ. ᓄᓇᖓᑦ ᐃᓪᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᕕᐊᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ, ᓄᓇᕕᒃ, ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕗᓪᓗ. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 70%−ᒥᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᑦᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 39% ᓱᕈᓯᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 15 ᐊᑖᓂ (ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖅ (The Arctic): ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖏᑦ, 2008). ᐊᐳᕈᑎᓕᖅᐹᓘᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᕿᒫᕕᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ, ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᑕᒫᓂ ᖃᑦᑏᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᒥᑦ 30%−ᒥᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᕿᒫᕕᓖᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎ, 2011). ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᖃᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ, ᐊᑦᑕᓇᓐᖏᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᖃᕐᓗᑕ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᕿᔅᓵᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᕿᓚᒥᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᒍᓐᓃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐱᑕᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓᓂ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒍ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑕ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 82017 ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᐱᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐅᑎᖅᑕᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᑭᖑᕚᕇᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᑲᒻᒪᔅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᔫᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐃᓚᒌᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᐸᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐋᖅᑮᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒨᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑎᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᒥᓴᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗᒃᑲᓐᓂ, ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓕᐅᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᔪᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ: • • • ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᑦᑐᓂ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᔅᓴᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᓂᓗ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓗᐃᑦ; ᐱᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ; ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᒪᒥᓴᕐᕕᓐᓂᑦ. ᑲᒪᒋᓂᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ, ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2016) ᐊᑐᓕᔨᒥᔪᑦ ᐃᓕᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᓂ ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᑦᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕐᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕕᑦᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ, ᑲᒪᒋᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓪᓗᑭᔅᓴᓂᓪᓗ, ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᓂ ᒪᒥᓴᕐᕕᒥᓐᓗ, ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᕐᕕᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ. ᐃᓚᒌᓂᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᖅᑯᐃᕕᓐᓂ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᓂ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᑎᒍᔭᕐᓂᓪᓗᑎᓗ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᓐᓂᖅᑲᑕ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᓴᕈᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ, ᐊᓂᓵᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑲᑕ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ (ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᖅᓯᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ – ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓇᖅᑐᑦ, 2012). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑦ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᓪᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᒪᒥᓴᐅᑎᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᓄᓪᓗ. ᑭᖑᕚᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᔪᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᐅᓕᕐᓗᓂ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2005) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᒥᓴᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓕᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᓇᑲᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᖅᑭᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᕋᓱᐊᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᖅ, ᐱᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᕈᑎᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᑲᓐᖑᑦᑎᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑲᒻᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᖏᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᖔᑕᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᕗᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᒥᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ, 2005). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑦ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᓪᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᒪᒥᓴᐅᑎᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᓄᓪᓗ. ᑭᖑᕚᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᔪᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᐅᓕᕐᓗᓂ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2005) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᒥᓴᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓕᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᓇᑲᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᖅᑭᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᕋᓱᐊᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᖅ, ᐱᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᕈᑎᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᑲᓐᖑᑦᑎᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑲᒻᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᖏᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᖔᑕᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᕗᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᒥᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ, 2005). Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 92017 ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕐᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 2016 ᓈᓴᖅᑕᒥᓃᑦ. (2017). ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖏ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓅᖓᔪᑦ. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᐋᓚᓐ, M. (2016). ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑲᖏᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2015. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, , 1-55. ᐸᓚ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᕼᐅ (Bala, N., & Kehoe, K.) (2017). ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ: ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ, 1-86 ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce, J.) (2016). ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2014. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, , 1-44. ᐳᔨᔅᑲ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᓐᕗᐃ (Burczycka, M., & Conroy, S.) (2017). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ: ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᑦ, 2015. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, 2-77. ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. (2017). ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. 1-9. CFSA. (2014). ᑲᑎᖅᓱᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓇᒌᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᖏᑦᑕ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. ᐃᐊᓕᐊᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐸᑉ (Elliott, S., & Bopp, J.) (2007). ᓂᐱᖃᒐᓛᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ. ᖁᓪᓖᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ, 1-116. FAIA. (2006). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu, G.) (2017). ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᓄᓪᓗ ᓂᖓᖅᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ, 1-160. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᓐᖑᐊᑎᒍᑦ (Infographic): ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ: 2014 Infographic. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ (Infoseries.) (2008). ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖅ: ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖏᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᔾᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑏᓪᓗ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ, 1-7. ᓯᓐᕼᐅ (Sinha, M.) (2013). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ: ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, 2-120. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2005). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ: ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ, ᓄᓗᐊᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖅ: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ, 1-18. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ.. (2011). ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ, ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᑦ, 1-5. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2016). ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓂᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓄᑦ ᒪᒥᓴᕐᓂᒧᓪᓗ, 1-8. ᐳᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault, S., & Simpson, L.) (2016). ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ, 2014. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, 1-45. ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2016). ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016 – ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑯᐃᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ISSN: 1924-7087 ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ. (2012). ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓂ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ– ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᑯᐃᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ISBN 978-1-100-54297-3 ᐸᓕᓯᒃᑯᑦ. (2012). ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐃᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ – ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᓇᖅᑲᑦ? ᑯᐃᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ISBN 978-1-100-54296-6 ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᐊᕐᓂᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2015). ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 102017 22. ᓯᐳᕋᒍ ᓯᓘᐳᔨᓐ, ᒪᑲᐃ, ᓯᑳᑦ, ᐋᓯᓈᑦ (Sprague, S., Slobogean, G. P., Spurr, H., McKay, P., Scott, T., Arseneau, E.,) . . . Swaminathan, A. (2016). ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᓄ ᐃᑲᔫᑏᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ. PLoS One, 11(12). 23. ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ (Stop Family Violence.) (2014). ᑭᓲᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ? ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. 24. ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ (Stop Family Violence.) (2017). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ: ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑲᐅᓐᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᐅᕙ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ? ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ 25. YWCA ᐊᒡᕕᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ. (2014). ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑏᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 112017 ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᓐᓂᖏ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ: ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓚᐅᕐᓚᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓂᖅ 2015−ᒥ, ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 86,000 ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017), ᐊᒥᓱᐊᓗᐃᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒍᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᐅᑎᑦᑎᒍᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅᑕᖃᕐᒪᖔᖅ, ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᔪᓄᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᒧᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᓱᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᒫᒃ: ᑭᓲᕙ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᒪ ᐃᒪᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᓪᓗ, ᓲᖑᓵᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᖓᓐᓂ, ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑕᖅᑯᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ. ᑭᓱᓪᓚᕆᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᑦᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐ ᓇᒥᓕᒫᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᒥ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᓄ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅᑲᑦ, ᐃᓅᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᕕᓂᖃᑎᒌᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑲᑕ, ᑭᓇᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑲᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᒥᔪ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᑐᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑎᑦᑎᓕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᐅᔾᔨᓂᖅᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓕᕋᓵᕆᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᓯᓚᐃᕐᕆᔭᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓂᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ. ᐱᖓᓲᔪᖅᑑᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᑕᐅᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐊᓂᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒃ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ, ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ, ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᓪᓗ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ (ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ, 2014). ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔾᔪᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᑉᐱᓐᓂᐊᓂᖓᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᓂᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᖅ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 323,600−ᖑᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). 25% ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 70% ᐋᓐᓂᒥᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 12017 ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐅᖁᒪᐃᓐᓂᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (2016) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 760 000−ᖑᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑲᐅᓐᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ, ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᓪᓗ, ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᓪᓗ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐊᔪᕈᑎᓖᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐸᓕᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᕝᕙ ᕆᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 2015−ᒥ ᑕᐃᑲᓐᖓᑦ 2014−ᒥᓂᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᒪᑯᐊᓂᖓ ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ (+15%), ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᒐᓱᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ (+22%) ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ (+3%) (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ 1.9−ᒥᓕᐊᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐅᑎᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖓᓂ (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). 2015−ᒥ ᐸᓖᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐅᔪᓂᑦ 58%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔭᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖁᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᕈᖅᐹᓪᓕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ 12%−ᒥᑦ 2015−ᒥ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓚᐅᖅᑐᒥᓪᓕ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᓱᓕ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). 2014−ᒥ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᓴᐅᑎᒥᓃᑦ (GSS) ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᓐᓄ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᑭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᐃᑦ ᑐᑭᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒫᓂ 50%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 20%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᖁᓖᕌᖅᑎᔅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓄᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓄᑦ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕐᕋᒍᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᓕ, 2014−ᒥ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᑭᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᔅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 56%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓗᑎᑦ (ᕈᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᕕᓂᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑕᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᐊᓯᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓄᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖁᔨᖔᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓐᖑᐃᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ, ᔭᒐᐃᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓚᓐᓂ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᓐᓇᐃᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐊᐅᓪᓛᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎ ᒪᑯᓂᖓ ᐊᔪᖅᓴᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓄᐊᒋᐊᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᓂᑦ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓗᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙ ᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᓂᕿᔅᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓇᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2016) ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓐᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᓂ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᖃᓂᒌᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ, ᒪᑭᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖏᑕ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᓂᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥᓗ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐱᖓᓱᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑲᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 163−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ 1000-ᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᓪᓕ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑕᖏᑦ 74-−ᓂᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ 1000−ᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 22017 ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᑦᑎᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ 1,000 ᐃᓄᒋᐊᓐᓂᖏᑦ 200 150 100 50 0 Indigenous Population Non-Indigenous Population ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016) ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ − ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᑲᓴᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016) ᐅᖃᖅᑐᓂᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᑲᒻᒪᒍᓐᓇᕐᖓᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ (ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ, ᐃᓱᒪᓕᕆᓂᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅᑐᕐᓂᖅ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016), ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐱᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ 18%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᖓᓕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 9%−ᖑᓗᑎᑦ. ᑕᒫᓂᐸᓗᖃᐃ 51% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᐊᓘᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓵᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᒋᐅᓄᑦ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦᔭ ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑑᑉ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ 2014 ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᐅᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᖅ (42%) ᐃᖃᓗᐃᓪᓗ (39%) (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓕᒫᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓕᒫᓂᑦ (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖑᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (2016), ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖑᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ. 18% ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 8% ᐊᖑᑎᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓃᓐᓂᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ 14%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 5%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᖑᑎᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓃᑦᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ: ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒥᐅᕐ ᓯᓐᕼᐊᒥᑦ (2013), ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᖑᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᓗᐃᓪᓗᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᔅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕕᔾᔪᐊᒥ ᐃᓕᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐃᓗ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓄᑦ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). ᔫᑳᒥ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᓴᒪᐃᖅᓱᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᕗᖅ ᑕᐅᕙ ᓂ ᓄᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥ 9−ᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ 13−ᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓂᕋᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ 41%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕕᓕᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). 2014−ᒥ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕈᔪᒃᑯ ᐱᔭᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑎᑦ 14%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᓪᓗ 5%−ᖑᓪᑎᑦ. ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᓪᓕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓐᓇᑎᑦ, Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 32017 ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓘᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 50%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑕᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ 28% (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᐅᑏᓐᓇᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᒪᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖃᖅᑐᓂ 60% ᓯᖁᒥᑦᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᓯᐳᕌᔅ (Sprauge), 2016). ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ 41% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ (Stop Family ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᔪᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᒥᓂᑦ Violence, 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᔪᒥᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓚᒥᓐᓂᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑐᕌᒐᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᑕᐃᒪᓕ, ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᖔᕈᓐᓇᕆᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᖅᑐᑦ (ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᔨ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ 80%−ᒥᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᕐᓗ − ᓄᖅᑲᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ, 2012), (ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᕋᔪᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓲᑦ (Snapshot of Family Violence in Canada) – ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᒐᐃᒻᒪᑕ. Infographic, 2015). “[ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ] ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 80%-ᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ”” ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᕈᓐᓃᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᒋᐊᖃᕈᓐᓃᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᕈᓐᓃᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᒍᒪᒍᓐᓃᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᕆᕙ ᑦᑐᒦᒍᒪᓐᓇᑎᑦ. ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓘᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐅᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑎᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᓂᕆᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐊᓂᖅᑎᕆᔾᔪᑎᒋᑦ ᐱᐅᒍᓐᓃᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐃᑦᑐᕐᓗᐃᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᖃᓂᒪᖃᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᒋᐊᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖅᓯᒪᖔᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᐃᐊᓕᐊᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐹᑉ (Elliot & Bopp), 2007). ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓄᑦ ᓲᖑᓵᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᖓ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᒥ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᒥᓪᓗ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓲᖅ. ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ, ᐊᐃᐸᕇᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᖓ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑑᒃ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᒻᒪᑕ, 26% ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑰᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 70% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᓪᓗ. ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 79% ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ, ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ, ᑎᓴᒪᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖑᓐᓂᑦ (ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ (Stop Family Violence), 2017). ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᐸᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᑎᒍᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᓐᓂᐊᓂᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᑲᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᒋᐊᖏᑕ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓪᓚᕆᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᑦᑐᑎᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑦ ᐱᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓃᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᐱᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐱᔭᕐᓂᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓈᓚᒍᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᓇᓪᓕᒍᓱᓕᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᓐᖏᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ (ᐸᓚ ᑭᕼᐅᓗ (Bala & Kehoe), 2017). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᑦᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᕐᓂᕋᓗᐊᕈᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕙ ᑉᐳᑦ. ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 42017 ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 65−ᓂᑦ ᐅᖓᑖᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅ, ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᖑᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ, 53% ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 60% ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (Snapshot of Family Violence in Canada) – Infographic, 2015). ᑕᐃᒪᓕᓗ, 2015−ᒥ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ 61% ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 33% ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓐᓄᑦ (ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ (Stop Family Violence), 2017). ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᑐᕋᖓᒻᒪᑕ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ. ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ (United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒨᖓᔪᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᓄᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᒪᑭᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᓄᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ. ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ, ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᖁᔭᕐᓂᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᓕᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᒪᔨᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓕᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᐅᓯᓐᓈᖅᑐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᖅᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒌᖁᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑦᑐᕐᓂᓗᑦᑕᐅᓲᖑᒻᒪᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 7(2) ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑎᓂᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᒻᒪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓇᓂ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᓂᓗ, ᓱᕈᓰᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᓂ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᐃᓐᓇᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ, ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016 ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ 7 ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖁᓕᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 0−ᒥᑦ 14−ᒧᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᒃᑯᒥᓂᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑎᒍᐊᖅᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓂ 40% ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᐅᕆᔪᒥ 28.5% ᐊᐅᐴᑕᒥᓗ 27.1% (ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ, 2017). ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᐹᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖏᐅᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒥᐅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ (ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ, 2017). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓃᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᐹᖑᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᓲᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᑯᓂᒧᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᓂᓪᓕᒍᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓄᑦ. ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓄᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᔭᐅᖁᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᓪᓚᕆᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᓪᓚᕆᖏᓐᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑎᒍᐊᖅᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᖃᑦᑕᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᑦᑎᔨᔅᓴᖅᑕᖃᕐᓇᓂᓗ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓕᖅᑐᓂ ᒪᑯᑎᒎᓇ ᐊᔪᖅᓴᓪᓚᕆᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ, ᐃᑉᐱᒋᔭᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥᓂᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓅᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑕᖃᕐᖓᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᒋᐊᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᑦᒥ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᓪᓗ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 52017 ᐳᓴᑦᑎᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᑐᐊᒥ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᓕᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ ᐅᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᓕᔭᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Territories Ontario Alberta ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2017 ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ 33% ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 15 ᐅᖓᑖᓄᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑎᑭᒥᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ 61% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅ, ᐅᖓᑖᓄᑦ 93%, ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ 9 ᖁᓕᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐅᑎᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᓄᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᓃᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋ ᐊᑐᕋᔪᓲᑦ ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᑕᖏᓐᓂ, ᐱᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᑕᐅᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 31%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ 22%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ, ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ – ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᓇᖅᑲ? (2012) ᐱᖓᓱᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓂᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, 89%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᓪᓛᒃ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᑦ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᑦᑐᓂ ᐱᕈᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᕈᔪᓐᓃᒐᔪᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓲᑦ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᐊᓘᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᑉᐱᒋᓂᖏᑎᒍᑦ, ᑎᒥᒃᑯᓪᓗ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᓪᓗᓂ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓᓂᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓴᖏᓪᓗᓂ ᓈᒻᒪᖏᑦᑐᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᖁᔭᓐᓂᖅ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᑕᐅ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕋᒪᕐᒥᔪᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᑦᑎᒍ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᒍᓐᓇᕐᖓᑕ: (ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ, 2012 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). • • • • • • • • • • ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐅᒡᒍᐊᖅᓯᒪᓕᕐᓗᓂ ᑲᓐᖑᓱᓕᕐᓗᓂᓗ ᓯᓐᓇᑦᑑᒪᑲᒻᒪᔾᔪᑎᒌᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᑑᕐᔫᔮᖏᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᕿᔅᓵᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓄᓐᓃᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᓐᖏᓐᓂᕐᓗ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒦᑦᑑᔮᕈᒪᒍᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᖁᔭᒍᓐᓇᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅᑐᔅᓴᕋᐃᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᒥᐊᓗᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᓃᕋᓱᐊᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᕋᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᔅᓴᕋᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᐱᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ, ᕿᔅᓵᓐᓂᖅ, ᐅᐃᒻᒪᔮᔅᓴᕋᐃᓐᓂᖅ, ᐱᕋᔭᓂᖅ, ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce (2016), ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᓐᓂ, ᐊᑯᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᓯᓐᓇᑦᑑᒪᑲᒻᒪᒍᔾᔭᐅᕙ ᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕋᑎᓪᓗ (ᐳᐃᔅ, 2016). ᓱᓕᒃᑲᓐᓂ, ᓯᓐᕼ (Sinha, (2013) ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 62017 ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᓪᓛᒃ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔭᖏᑦ. 2011−ᒥ, 32% ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ (ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ – Infographic, 2015), ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᓐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ 15−ᓂᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᑕᐃᒪᓕ 2014−ᒥ, 40% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 29% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ 15−ᓂᑦ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᒃ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᐅᓐᖏᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᓂᖅᓴᐅᒦᒃᑲᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓗᐊᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᐅᔾᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᕗᖅ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᒪᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ, ᖃᓄᐃᓘᕐᓂᓘᕐᓂᐅᔪᑦ, ᐃᓅᖃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᓪᓗ, ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑎᐅᓕᕐᓗᑎᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᓴᓂᕋᔭᒻᒥ, ᐃᒡᓗᓕᒻᒥ, ᓴᓪᓕᓂᑦ ᑕᓗᕐᔪᐊᒥᓗ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᐹᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 0 – 14 ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖏᓐᓂ (2016 ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐃᑦ, 2017). ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ 2014−ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, 53,000 ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ 53,000 ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᑦ, 90%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᓐᓅᒻᒪᖔᖅ. ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓯᕗᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 80%−ᓂᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᑦ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, 2015 ᒥᔅᓴᐅᓴᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 92,000 ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᐸᓯᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᒐᓛᖑᔪᖅ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓚᐅᖅᑐᒥ 45%−ᒥᑦ ᐸᓯᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ (ᐋᓚᓐ (Allen), 2016). ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᓂᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᒪᑲᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ (YWCA ᐊᒡᕕᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ, 2014). ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᕿᒫᕖᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒻᒥ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦ- ᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ FAIA ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐋᖅᑭᔅᓱᐃᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖃᖓᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ, ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᖅᑐᓂ ᐊᔅᓱᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᑭᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓄᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᖁᔭᐅᓇᑎᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ. ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᕈᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᔾᔪᑕᐅᕗᖅ. ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᔾᔪᑏ ᒃᑯᓕᒫᓄᑦ, ᐊᓄᓪᓚᔅᓯᕆᐊᓖᓪᓗ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᒥᓴᖅᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓘᖅᑐᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᔪᖅ, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᔪᕐᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᓂᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᕋᔭᔅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᓂᖅ, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᖅ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓃᓪᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ. Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 72017 ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ (CFSA) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᓕᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᑎ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑉ ᑎᒥᖏᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᒋᓂᑎᒍᓪᓗ, ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓪᓗ, ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᕈᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 7(3) ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ CFSA ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 7(3p) ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖅᑲᑦ “ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑉ ᐊᖏᒧᖅᑳᖏᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᕋᓱᐊᖏᑉᐸᑕ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒐᓱᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑉᐸᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ” (CFSA, 2004). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᑦ (FAIA) ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᐊᓱᕐᓂᒧᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ ᑎᒥᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ, ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓄᑑᓂᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᓂᑎᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ, ᐃᓕᕋᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖑᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᓱᕋᐃᔭᐃᖃᑦᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒐᕙ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᓅᕖᑉᐱᕆᒥ 2006−ᒥ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦᑎᕕᒋᔪᒪᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᔾᔪᑎᒋᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᖁᓇᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ (FAIA) ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑦᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᑦᓯᐊᕐᓂᖅ, ᐱᖁᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ (FAIA, 2006) ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᐊᓱᕐᓂᒧᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ (FAIA) ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦᑎᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᐊᕕᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ (EPO) ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᓗᓂ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᔪᓂᑦ ᐸᕝᕕᓴᑦᑐᓂ ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᑐᐊᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᐅᔪ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐱᓯᔭᐅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᓐᖏᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᕿᓚᒥᑲᐃᓐᓇᕈᓗᒃ. ᓄᓇᓕᓂᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒧᑦ (CIO) ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᔪᖃᕐᓂᖅᑲᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᔅᓯᕋᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅᑲᑕ ᑕᐃᒪᑦᑐᒥᑦ. ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎ ᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᔅᓯᕋᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᑐᖔᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᓂ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑎᓕᔭᐅᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔨᒧᑦ. ᕿᒫᕖᑦ 2008−ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 50,000 ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ 53−ᒥᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖓᓯᑦᑑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑐᐊ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᖓᑦ. ᓄᓇᖓᑦ ᐃᓪᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᕕᐊᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ, ᓄᓇᕕᒃ, ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕗᓪᓗ. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 70%−ᒥᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᑦᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 39% ᓱᕈᓯᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 15 ᐊᑖᓂ (ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖅ (The Arctic): ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖏᑦ, 2008). ᐊᐳᕈᑎᓕᖅᐹᓘᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᕿᒫᕕᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ, ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᑕᒫᓂ ᖃᑦᑏᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᒥᑦ 30%−ᒥᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᕿᒫᕕᓖᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎ, 2011). ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᖃᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ, ᐊᑦᑕᓇᓐᖏᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᖃᕐᓗᑕ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᕿᔅᓵᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᕿᓚᒥᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᒍᓐᓃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐱᑕᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓᓂ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒍ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑕ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 82017 ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᐱᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐅᑎᖅᑕᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᑭᖑᕚᕇᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᑲᒻᒪᔅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᔫᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐃᓚᒌᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᐸᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐋᖅᑮᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒨᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑎᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᒥᓴᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗᒃᑲᓐᓂ, ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓕᐅᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᔪᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ: • • • ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᑦᑐᓂ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᔅᓴᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᓂᓗ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓗᐃᑦ; ᐱᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ; ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᒪᒥᓴᕐᕕᓐᓂᑦ. ᑲᒪᒋᓂᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ, ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2016) ᐊᑐᓕᔨᒥᔪᑦ ᐃᓕᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᓂ ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᑦᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕐᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕕᑦᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ, ᑲᒪᒋᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓪᓗᑭᔅᓴᓂᓪᓗ, ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᓂ ᒪᒥᓴᕐᕕᒥᓐᓗ, ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᕐᕕᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ. ᐃᓚᒌᓂᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᖅᑯᐃᕕᓐᓂ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᓂ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᑎᒍᔭᕐᓂᓪᓗᑎᓗ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᓐᓂᖅᑲᑕ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᓴᕈᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ, ᐊᓂᓵᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑲᑕ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ (ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᖅᓯᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ – ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓇᖅᑐᑦ, 2012). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑦ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᓪᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᒪᒥᓴᐅᑎᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᓄᓪᓗ. ᑭᖑᕚᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᔪᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᐅᓕᕐᓗᓂ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2005) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᒥᓴᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓕᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᓇᑲᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᖅᑭᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᕋᓱᐊᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᖅ, ᐱᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᕈᑎᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᑲᓐᖑᑦᑎᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑲᒻᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᖏᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᖔᑕᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᕗᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᒥᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ, 2005). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑦ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᓪᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᒪᒥᓴᐅᑎᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᓄᓪᓗ. ᑭᖑᕚᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᔪᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᐅᓕᕐᓗᓂ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2005) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᒥᓴᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓕᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᓇᑲᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᖅᑭᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᕋᓱᐊᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᖅ, ᐱᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᕈᑎᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᑲᓐᖑᑦᑎᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑲᒻᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᖏᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᖔᑕᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᕗᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᒥᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ, 2005). Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 92017 ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕐᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 2016 ᓈᓴᖅᑕᒥᓃᑦ. (2017). ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖏ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓅᖓᔪᑦ. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᐋᓚᓐ, M. (2016). ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑲᖏᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2015. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, , 1-55. ᐸᓚ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᕼᐅ (Bala, N., & Kehoe, K.) (2017). ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ: ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ, 1-86 ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce, J.) (2016). ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2014. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, , 1-44. ᐳᔨᔅᑲ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᓐᕗᐃ (Burczycka, M., & Conroy, S.) (2017). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ: ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᑦ, 2015. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, 2-77. ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. (2017). ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. 1-9. CFSA. (2014). ᑲᑎᖅᓱᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓇᒌᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᖏᑦᑕ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. ᐃᐊᓕᐊᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐸᑉ (Elliott, S., & Bopp, J.) (2007). ᓂᐱᖃᒐᓛᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ. ᖁᓪᓖᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ, 1-116. FAIA. (2006). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu, G.) (2017). ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᓄᓪᓗ ᓂᖓᖅᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ, 1-160. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᓐᖑᐊᑎᒍᑦ (Infographic): ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ: 2014 Infographic. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ (Infoseries.) (2008). ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖅ: ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖏᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᔾᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑏᓪᓗ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ, 1-7. ᓯᓐᕼᐅ (Sinha, M.) (2013). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ: ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, 2-120. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2005). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ: ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ, ᓄᓗᐊᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖅ: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ, 1-18. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ.. (2011). ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ, ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᑦ, 1-5. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2016). ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓂᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓄᑦ ᒪᒥᓴᕐᓂᒧᓪᓗ, 1-8. ᐳᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault, S., & Simpson, L.) (2016). ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ, 2014. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, 1-45. ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2016). ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016 – ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑯᐃᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ISSN: 1924-7087 ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ. (2012). ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓂ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ– ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᑯᐃᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ISBN 978-1-100-54297-3 ᐸᓕᓯᒃᑯᑦ. (2012). ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐃᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ – ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᓇᖅᑲᑦ? ᑯᐃᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ISBN 978-1-100-54296-6 ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᐊᕐᓂᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2015). ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 102017 22. ᓯᐳᕋᒍ ᓯᓘᐳᔨᓐ, ᒪᑲᐃ, ᓯᑳᑦ, ᐋᓯᓈᑦ (Sprague, S., Slobogean, G. P., Spurr, H., McKay, P., Scott, T., Arseneau, E.,) . . . Swaminathan, A. (2016). ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᓄ ᐃᑲᔫᑏᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ. PLoS One, 11(12). 23. ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ (Stop Family Violence.) (2014). ᑭᓲᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ? ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. 24. ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ (Stop Family Violence.) (2017). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ: ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑲᐅᓐᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᐅᕙ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ? ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ 25. YWCA ᐊᒡᕕᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ. (2014). ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑏᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 112017 ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᓐᓂᖏ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ: ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓚᐅᕐᓚᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓂᖅ 2015−ᒥ, ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 86,000 ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017), ᐊᒥᓱᐊᓗᐃᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒍᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᐅᑎᑦᑎᒍᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅᑕᖃᕐᒪᖔᖅ, ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᔪᓄᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᒧᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᓱᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᒫᒃ: ᑭᓲᕙ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᒪ ᐃᒪᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᓪᓗ, ᓲᖑᓵᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᖓᓐᓂ, ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑕᖅᑯᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ. ᑭᓱᓪᓚᕆᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᑦᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐ ᓇᒥᓕᒫᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᒥ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᓄ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅᑲᑦ, ᐃᓅᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᕕᓂᖃᑎᒌᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑲᑕ, ᑭᓇᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑲᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᒥᔪ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᑐᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑎᑦᑎᓕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᐅᔾᔨᓂᖅᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓕᕋᓵᕆᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᓯᓚᐃᕐᕆᔭᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓂᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ. ᐱᖓᓲᔪᖅᑑᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᑕᐅᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐊᓂᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒃ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ, ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ, ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᓪᓗ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ (ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ, 2014). ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔾᔪᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᑉᐱᓐᓂᐊᓂᖓᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᓂᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᖅ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 323,600−ᖑᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). 25% ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 70% ᐋᓐᓂᒥᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 12017 ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐅᖁᒪᐃᓐᓂᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (2016) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 760 000−ᖑᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑲᐅᓐᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ, ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᓪᓗ, ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᓪᓗ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐊᔪᕈᑎᓖᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐸᓕᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᕝᕙ ᕆᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 2015−ᒥ ᑕᐃᑲᓐᖓᑦ 2014−ᒥᓂᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᒪᑯᐊᓂᖓ ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ (+15%), ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᒐᓱᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ (+22%) ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ (+3%) (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ 1.9−ᒥᓕᐊᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐅᑎᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖓᓂ (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). 2015−ᒥ ᐸᓖᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐅᔪᓂᑦ 58%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔭᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖁᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᕈᖅᐹᓪᓕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ 12%−ᒥᑦ 2015−ᒥ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓚᐅᖅᑐᒥᓪᓕ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᓱᓕ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). 2014−ᒥ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᓴᐅᑎᒥᓃᑦ (GSS) ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᓐᓄ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᑭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᐃᑦ ᑐᑭᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒫᓂ 50%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 20%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᖁᓖᕌᖅᑎᔅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓄᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓄᑦ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕐᕋᒍᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᓕ, 2014−ᒥ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᑭᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᔅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 56%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓗᑎᑦ (ᕈᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᕕᓂᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑕᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᐊᓯᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓄᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖁᔨᖔᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓐᖑᐃᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ, ᔭᒐᐃᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓚᓐᓂ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᓐᓇᐃᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐊᐅᓪᓛᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎ ᒪᑯᓂᖓ ᐊᔪᖅᓴᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓄᐊᒋᐊᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᓂᑦ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓗᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙ ᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᓂᕿᔅᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓇᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2016) ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓐᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᓂ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᖃᓂᒌᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ, ᒪᑭᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖏᑕ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᓂᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥᓗ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐱᖓᓱᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑲᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 163−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ 1000-ᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᓪᓕ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑕᖏᑦ 74-−ᓂᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ 1000−ᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 22017 ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᑦᑎᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ 1,000 ᐃᓄᒋᐊᓐᓂᖏᑦ 200 150 100 50 0 Indigenous Population Non-Indigenous Population ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016) ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ − ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᑲᓴᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016) ᐅᖃᖅᑐᓂᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᑲᒻᒪᒍᓐᓇᕐᖓᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ (ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ, ᐃᓱᒪᓕᕆᓂᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅᑐᕐᓂᖅ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016), ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐱᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ 18%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᖓᓕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 9%−ᖑᓗᑎᑦ. ᑕᒫᓂᐸᓗᖃᐃ 51% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᐊᓘᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓵᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᒋᐅᓄᑦ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦᔭ ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑑᑉ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ 2014 ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᐅᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᖅ (42%) ᐃᖃᓗᐃᓪᓗ (39%) (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓕᒫᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓕᒫᓂᑦ (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖑᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (2016), ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖑᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ. 18% ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 8% ᐊᖑᑎᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓃᓐᓂᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ 14%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 5%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᖑᑎᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓃᑦᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ: ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒥᐅᕐ ᓯᓐᕼᐊᒥᑦ (2013), ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᖑᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᓗᐃᓪᓗᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᔅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕕᔾᔪᐊᒥ ᐃᓕᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐃᓗ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓄᑦ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). ᔫᑳᒥ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᓴᒪᐃᖅᓱᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᕗᖅ ᑕᐅᕙ ᓂ ᓄᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥ 9−ᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ 13−ᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓂᕋᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ 41%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕕᓕᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). 2014−ᒥ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕈᔪᒃᑯ ᐱᔭᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑎᑦ 14%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᓪᓗ 5%−ᖑᓪᑎᑦ. ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᓪᓕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓐᓇᑎᑦ, Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 32017 ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓘᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 50%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑕᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ 28% (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᐅᑏᓐᓇᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᒪᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖃᖅᑐᓂ 60% ᓯᖁᒥᑦᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᓯᐳᕌᔅ (Sprauge), 2016). ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ 41% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ (Stop Family ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᔪᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᒥᓂᑦ Violence, 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᔪᒥᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓚᒥᓐᓂᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑐᕌᒐᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᑕᐃᒪᓕ, ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᖔᕈᓐᓇᕆᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᖅᑐᑦ (ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᔨ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ 80%−ᒥᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᕐᓗ − ᓄᖅᑲᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ, 2012), (ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᕋᔪᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓲᑦ (Snapshot of Family Violence in Canada) – ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᒐᐃᒻᒪᑕ. Infographic, 2015). “[ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ] ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 80%-ᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ”” ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᕈᓐᓃᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᒋᐊᖃᕈᓐᓃᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᕈᓐᓃᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᒍᒪᒍᓐᓃᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᕆᕙ ᑦᑐᒦᒍᒪᓐᓇᑎᑦ. ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓘᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐅᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑎᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᓂᕆᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐊᓂᖅᑎᕆᔾᔪᑎᒋᑦ ᐱᐅᒍᓐᓃᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐃᑦᑐᕐᓗᐃᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᖃᓂᒪᖃᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᒋᐊᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖅᓯᒪᖔᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᐃᐊᓕᐊᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐹᑉ (Elliot & Bopp), 2007). ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓄᑦ ᓲᖑᓵᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᖓ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᒥ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᒥᓪᓗ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓲᖅ. ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ, ᐊᐃᐸᕇᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᖓ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑑᒃ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᒻᒪᑕ, 26% ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑰᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 70% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᓪᓗ. ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 79% ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ, ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ, ᑎᓴᒪᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖑᓐᓂᑦ (ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ (Stop Family Violence), 2017). ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᐸᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᑎᒍᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᓐᓂᐊᓂᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᑲᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᒋᐊᖏᑕ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓪᓚᕆᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᑦᑐᑎᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑦ ᐱᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓃᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᐱᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐱᔭᕐᓂᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓈᓚᒍᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᓇᓪᓕᒍᓱᓕᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᓐᖏᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ (ᐸᓚ ᑭᕼᐅᓗ (Bala & Kehoe), 2017). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᑦᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᕐᓂᕋᓗᐊᕈᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕙ ᑉᐳᑦ. ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 42017 ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 65−ᓂᑦ ᐅᖓᑖᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅ, ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᖑᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ, 53% ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 60% ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (Snapshot of Family Violence in Canada) – Infographic, 2015). ᑕᐃᒪᓕᓗ, 2015−ᒥ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ 61% ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 33% ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓐᓄᑦ (ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ (Stop Family Violence), 2017). ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᑐᕋᖓᒻᒪᑕ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ. ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ (United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒨᖓᔪᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᓄᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᒪᑭᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᓄᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ. ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ, ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᖁᔭᕐᓂᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᓕᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᒪᔨᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓕᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᐅᓯᓐᓈᖅᑐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᖅᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒌᖁᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑦᑐᕐᓂᓗᑦᑕᐅᓲᖑᒻᒪᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 7(2) ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑎᓂᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᒻᒪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓇᓂ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᓂᓗ, ᓱᕈᓰᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᓂ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᐃᓐᓇᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ, ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016 ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ 7 ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖁᓕᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 0−ᒥᑦ 14−ᒧᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᒃᑯᒥᓂᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑎᒍᐊᖅᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓂ 40% ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᐅᕆᔪᒥ 28.5% ᐊᐅᐴᑕᒥᓗ 27.1% (ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ, 2017). ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᐹᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖏᐅᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒥᐅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ (ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ, 2017). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓃᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᐹᖑᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᓲᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᑯᓂᒧᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᓂᓪᓕᒍᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓄᑦ. ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓄᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᔭᐅᖁᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᓪᓚᕆᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᓪᓚᕆᖏᓐᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑎᒍᐊᖅᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᖃᑦᑕᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᑦᑎᔨᔅᓴᖅᑕᖃᕐᓇᓂᓗ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓕᖅᑐᓂ ᒪᑯᑎᒎᓇ ᐊᔪᖅᓴᓪᓚᕆᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ, ᐃᑉᐱᒋᔭᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥᓂᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓅᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑕᖃᕐᖓᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᒋᐊᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᑦᒥ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᓪᓗ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 52017 ᐳᓴᑦᑎᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᑐᐊᒥ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᓕᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ ᐅᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᓕᔭᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Territories Ontario Alberta ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2017 ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ 33% ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 15 ᐅᖓᑖᓄᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑎᑭᒥᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ 61% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅ, ᐅᖓᑖᓄᑦ 93%, ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ 9 ᖁᓕᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐅᑎᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᓄᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᓃᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋ ᐊᑐᕋᔪᓲᑦ ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᑕᖏᓐᓂ, ᐱᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᑕᐅᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 31%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ 22%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ, ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ – ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᓇᖅᑲ? (2012) ᐱᖓᓱᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓂᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, 89%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᓪᓛᒃ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᑦ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᑦᑐᓂ ᐱᕈᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᕈᔪᓐᓃᒐᔪᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓲᑦ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᐊᓘᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᑉᐱᒋᓂᖏᑎᒍᑦ, ᑎᒥᒃᑯᓪᓗ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᓪᓗᓂ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓᓂᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓴᖏᓪᓗᓂ ᓈᒻᒪᖏᑦᑐᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᖁᔭᓐᓂᖅ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᑕᐅ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕋᒪᕐᒥᔪᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᑦᑎᒍ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᒍᓐᓇᕐᖓᑕ: (ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ, 2012 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). • • • • • • • • • • ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐅᒡᒍᐊᖅᓯᒪᓕᕐᓗᓂ ᑲᓐᖑᓱᓕᕐᓗᓂᓗ ᓯᓐᓇᑦᑑᒪᑲᒻᒪᔾᔪᑎᒌᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᑑᕐᔫᔮᖏᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᕿᔅᓵᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓄᓐᓃᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᓐᖏᓐᓂᕐᓗ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒦᑦᑑᔮᕈᒪᒍᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᖁᔭᒍᓐᓇᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅᑐᔅᓴᕋᐃᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᒥᐊᓗᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᓃᕋᓱᐊᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᕋᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᔅᓴᕋᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᐱᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ, ᕿᔅᓵᓐᓂᖅ, ᐅᐃᒻᒪᔮᔅᓴᕋᐃᓐᓂᖅ, ᐱᕋᔭᓂᖅ, ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce (2016), ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᓐᓂ, ᐊᑯᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᓯᓐᓇᑦᑑᒪᑲᒻᒪᒍᔾᔭᐅᕙ ᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕋᑎᓪᓗ (ᐳᐃᔅ, 2016). ᓱᓕᒃᑲᓐᓂ, ᓯᓐᕼ (Sinha, (2013) ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 62017 ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᓪᓛᒃ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔭᖏᑦ. 2011−ᒥ, 32% ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ (ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ – Infographic, 2015), ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᓐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ 15−ᓂᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᑕᐃᒪᓕ 2014−ᒥ, 40% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 29% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ 15−ᓂᑦ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᒃ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᐅᓐᖏᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᓂᖅᓴᐅᒦᒃᑲᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓗᐊᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᐅᔾᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᕗᖅ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᒪᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ, ᖃᓄᐃᓘᕐᓂᓘᕐᓂᐅᔪᑦ, ᐃᓅᖃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᓪᓗ, ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑎᐅᓕᕐᓗᑎᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᓴᓂᕋᔭᒻᒥ, ᐃᒡᓗᓕᒻᒥ, ᓴᓪᓕᓂᑦ ᑕᓗᕐᔪᐊᒥᓗ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᐹᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 0 – 14 ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖏᓐᓂ (2016 ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐃᑦ, 2017). ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ 2014−ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, 53,000 ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ 53,000 ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᑦ, 90%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᓐᓅᒻᒪᖔᖅ. ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓯᕗᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 80%−ᓂᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᑦ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, 2015 ᒥᔅᓴᐅᓴᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 92,000 ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᐸᓯᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᒐᓛᖑᔪᖅ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓚᐅᖅᑐᒥ 45%−ᒥᑦ ᐸᓯᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ (ᐋᓚᓐ (Allen), 2016). ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᓂᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᒪᑲᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ (YWCA ᐊᒡᕕᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ, 2014). ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᕿᒫᕖᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒻᒥ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦ- ᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ FAIA ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐋᖅᑭᔅᓱᐃᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖃᖓᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ, ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᖅᑐᓂ ᐊᔅᓱᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᑭᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓄᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᖁᔭᐅᓇᑎᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ. ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᕈᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᔾᔪᑕᐅᕗᖅ. ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᔾᔪᑏ ᒃᑯᓕᒫᓄᑦ, ᐊᓄᓪᓚᔅᓯᕆᐊᓖᓪᓗ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᒥᓴᖅᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓘᖅᑐᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᔪᖅ, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᔪᕐᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᓂᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᕋᔭᔅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᓂᖅ, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᖅ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓃᓪᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ. Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 72017 ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ (CFSA) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᓕᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᑎ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑉ ᑎᒥᖏᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᒋᓂᑎᒍᓪᓗ, ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓪᓗ, ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᕈᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 7(3) ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ CFSA ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 7(3p) ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖅᑲᑦ “ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑉ ᐊᖏᒧᖅᑳᖏᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᕋᓱᐊᖏᑉᐸᑕ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒐᓱᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑉᐸᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ” (CFSA, 2004). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᑦ (FAIA) ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᐊᓱᕐᓂᒧᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ ᑎᒥᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ, ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓄᑑᓂᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᓂᑎᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ, ᐃᓕᕋᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖑᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᓱᕋᐃᔭᐃᖃᑦᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒐᕙ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᓅᕖᑉᐱᕆᒥ 2006−ᒥ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦᑎᕕᒋᔪᒪᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᔾᔪᑎᒋᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᖁᓇᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ (FAIA) ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑦᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᑦᓯᐊᕐᓂᖅ, ᐱᖁᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ (FAIA, 2006) ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᐊᓱᕐᓂᒧᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ (FAIA) ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦᑎᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᐊᕕᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ (EPO) ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᓗᓂ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᔪᓂᑦ ᐸᕝᕕᓴᑦᑐᓂ ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᑐᐊᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᐅᔪ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐱᓯᔭᐅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᓐᖏᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᕿᓚᒥᑲᐃᓐᓇᕈᓗᒃ. ᓄᓇᓕᓂᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒧᑦ (CIO) ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᔪᖃᕐᓂᖅᑲᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᔅᓯᕋᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅᑲᑕ ᑕᐃᒪᑦᑐᒥᑦ. ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎ ᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᔅᓯᕋᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᑐᖔᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᓂ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑎᓕᔭᐅᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔨᒧᑦ. ᕿᒫᕖᑦ 2008−ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 50,000 ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ 53−ᒥᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖓᓯᑦᑑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑐᐊ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᖓᑦ. ᓄᓇᖓᑦ ᐃᓪᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᕕᐊᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ, ᓄᓇᕕᒃ, ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕗᓪᓗ. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 70%−ᒥᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᑦᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 39% ᓱᕈᓯᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 15 ᐊᑖᓂ (ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖅ (The Arctic): ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖏᑦ, 2008). ᐊᐳᕈᑎᓕᖅᐹᓘᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᕿᒫᕕᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ, ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᑕᒫᓂ ᖃᑦᑏᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᒥᑦ 30%−ᒥᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᕿᒫᕕᓖᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎ, 2011). ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᖃᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ, ᐊᑦᑕᓇᓐᖏᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᖃᕐᓗᑕ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᕿᔅᓵᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᕿᓚᒥᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᒍᓐᓃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐱᑕᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓᓂ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒍ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑕ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 82017 ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᐱᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐅᑎᖅᑕᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᑭᖑᕚᕇᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᑲᒻᒪᔅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᔫᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐃᓚᒌᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᐸᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐋᖅᑮᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒨᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑎᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᒥᓴᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗᒃᑲᓐᓂ, ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓕᐅᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᔪᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ: • • • ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᑦᑐᓂ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᔅᓴᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᓂᓗ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓗᐃᑦ; ᐱᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ; ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᒪᒥᓴᕐᕕᓐᓂᑦ. ᑲᒪᒋᓂᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ, ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2016) ᐊᑐᓕᔨᒥᔪᑦ ᐃᓕᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᓂ ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᑦᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕐᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕕᑦᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ, ᑲᒪᒋᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓪᓗᑭᔅᓴᓂᓪᓗ, ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᓂ ᒪᒥᓴᕐᕕᒥᓐᓗ, ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᕐᕕᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ. ᐃᓚᒌᓂᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᖅᑯᐃᕕᓐᓂ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᓂ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᑎᒍᔭᕐᓂᓪᓗᑎᓗ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᓐᓂᖅᑲᑕ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᓴᕈᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ, ᐊᓂᓵᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑲᑕ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ (ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᖅᓯᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ – ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓇᖅᑐᑦ, 2012). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑦ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᓪᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᒪᒥᓴᐅᑎᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᓄᓪᓗ. ᑭᖑᕚᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᔪᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᐅᓕᕐᓗᓂ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2005) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᒥᓴᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓕᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᓇᑲᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᖅᑭᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᕋᓱᐊᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᖅ, ᐱᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᕈᑎᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᑲᓐᖑᑦᑎᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑲᒻᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᖏᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᖔᑕᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᕗᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᒥᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ, 2005). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑦ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᓪᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᒪᒥᓴᐅᑎᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᓄᓪᓗ. ᑭᖑᕚᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᔪᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᐅᓕᕐᓗᓂ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2005) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᒥᓴᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓕᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᓇᑲᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᖅᑭᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᕋᓱᐊᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᖅ, ᐱᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᕈᑎᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᑲᓐᖑᑦᑎᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑲᒻᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᖏᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᖔᑕᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᕗᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᒥᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ, 2005). Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 92017 ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕐᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 2016 ᓈᓴᖅᑕᒥᓃᑦ. (2017). ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖏ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓅᖓᔪᑦ. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᐋᓚᓐ, M. (2016). ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑲᖏᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2015. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, , 1-55. ᐸᓚ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᕼᐅ (Bala, N., & Kehoe, K.) (2017). ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ: ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ, 1-86 ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce, J.) (2016). ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2014. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, , 1-44. ᐳᔨᔅᑲ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᓐᕗᐃ (Burczycka, M., & Conroy, S.) (2017). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ: ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᑦ, 2015. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, 2-77. ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. (2017). ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. 1-9. CFSA. (2014). ᑲᑎᖅᓱᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓇᒌᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᖏᑦᑕ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. ᐃᐊᓕᐊᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐸᑉ (Elliott, S., & Bopp, J.) (2007). ᓂᐱᖃᒐᓛᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ. ᖁᓪᓖᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ, 1-116. FAIA. (2006). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu, G.) (2017). ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᓄᓪᓗ ᓂᖓᖅᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ, 1-160. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᓐᖑᐊᑎᒍᑦ (Infographic): ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ: 2014 Infographic. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ (Infoseries.) (2008). ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖅ: ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖏᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᔾᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑏᓪᓗ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ, 1-7. ᓯᓐᕼᐅ (Sinha, M.) (2013). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ: ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, 2-120. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2005). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ: ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ, ᓄᓗᐊᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖅ: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ, 1-18. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ.. (2011). ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ, ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᑦ, 1-5. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2016). ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓂᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓄᑦ ᒪᒥᓴᕐᓂᒧᓪᓗ, 1-8. ᐳᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault, S., & Simpson, L.) (2016). ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ, 2014. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, 1-45. ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2016). ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016 – ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑯᐃᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ISSN: 1924-7087 ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ. (2012). ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓂ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ– ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᑯᐃᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ISBN 978-1-100-54297-3 ᐸᓕᓯᒃᑯᑦ. (2012). ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐃᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ – ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᓇᖅᑲᑦ? ᑯᐃᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ISBN 978-1-100-54296-6 ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᐊᕐᓂᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2015). ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 102017 22. ᓯᐳᕋᒍ ᓯᓘᐳᔨᓐ, ᒪᑲᐃ, ᓯᑳᑦ, ᐋᓯᓈᑦ (Sprague, S., Slobogean, G. P., Spurr, H., McKay, P., Scott, T., Arseneau, E.,) . . . Swaminathan, A. (2016). ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᓄ ᐃᑲᔫᑏᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ. PLoS One, 11(12). 23. ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ (Stop Family Violence.) (2014). ᑭᓲᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ? ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. 24. ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ (Stop Family Violence.) (2017). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ: ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑲᐅᓐᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᐅᕙ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ? ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ 25. YWCA ᐊᒡᕕᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ. (2014). ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑏᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 112017 ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᓐᓂᖏ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ: ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓚᐅᕐᓚᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓂᖅ 2015−ᒥ, ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 86,000 ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017), ᐊᒥᓱᐊᓗᐃᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒍᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᐅᑎᑦᑎᒍᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅᑕᖃᕐᒪᖔᖅ, ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᔪᓄᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᒧᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᓱᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᒫᒃ: ᑭᓲᕙ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᒪ ᐃᒪᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᓪᓗ, ᓲᖑᓵᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᖓᓐᓂ, ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑕᖅᑯᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ. ᑭᓱᓪᓚᕆᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᑦᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐ ᓇᒥᓕᒫᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᒥ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᓄ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅᑲᑦ, ᐃᓅᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᕕᓂᖃᑎᒌᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑲᑕ, ᑭᓇᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑲᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᒥᔪ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᑐᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑎᑦᑎᓕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᐅᔾᔨᓂᖅᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓕᕋᓵᕆᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᓯᓚᐃᕐᕆᔭᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓂᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ. ᐱᖓᓲᔪᖅᑑᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᑕᐅᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐊᓂᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒃ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ, ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ, ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᓪᓗ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ (ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ, 2014). ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔾᔪᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᑉᐱᓐᓂᐊᓂᖓᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᓂᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᖅ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 323,600−ᖑᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). 25% ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 70% ᐋᓐᓂᒥᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 12017 ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐅᖁᒪᐃᓐᓂᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (2016) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 760 000−ᖑᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑲᐅᓐᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ, ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᓪᓗ, ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᓪᓗ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐊᔪᕈᑎᓖᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐸᓕᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᕝᕙ ᕆᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 2015−ᒥ ᑕᐃᑲᓐᖓᑦ 2014−ᒥᓂᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᒪᑯᐊᓂᖓ ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ (+15%), ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᒐᓱᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ (+22%) ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ (+3%) (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ 1.9−ᒥᓕᐊᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐅᑎᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖓᓂ (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). 2015−ᒥ ᐸᓖᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐅᔪᓂᑦ 58%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔭᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖁᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᕈᖅᐹᓪᓕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ 12%−ᒥᑦ 2015−ᒥ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓚᐅᖅᑐᒥᓪᓕ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᓱᓕ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). 2014−ᒥ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᓴᐅᑎᒥᓃᑦ (GSS) ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᓐᓄ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᑭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᐃᑦ ᑐᑭᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒫᓂ 50%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 20%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᖁᓖᕌᖅᑎᔅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓄᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓄᑦ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕐᕋᒍᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᓕ, 2014−ᒥ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᑭᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᔅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 56%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓗᑎᑦ (ᕈᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᕕᓂᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑕᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᐊᓯᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓄᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖁᔨᖔᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓐᖑᐃᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ, ᔭᒐᐃᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓚᓐᓂ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᓐᓇᐃᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐊᐅᓪᓛᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎ ᒪᑯᓂᖓ ᐊᔪᖅᓴᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓄᐊᒋᐊᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᓂᑦ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓗᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙ ᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᓂᕿᔅᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓇᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2016) ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓐᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᓂ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᖃᓂᒌᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ, ᒪᑭᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖏᑕ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᓂᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥᓗ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐱᖓᓱᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑲᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 163−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ 1000-ᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᓪᓕ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑕᖏᑦ 74-−ᓂᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ 1000−ᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 22017 ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᑦᑎᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ 1,000 ᐃᓄᒋᐊᓐᓂᖏᑦ 200 150 100 50 0 Indigenous Population Non-Indigenous Population ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016) ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ − ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᑲᓴᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016) ᐅᖃᖅᑐᓂᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᑲᒻᒪᒍᓐᓇᕐᖓᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ (ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ, ᐃᓱᒪᓕᕆᓂᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅᑐᕐᓂᖅ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016), ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐱᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ 18%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᖓᓕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 9%−ᖑᓗᑎᑦ. ᑕᒫᓂᐸᓗᖃᐃ 51% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᐊᓘᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓵᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᒋᐅᓄᑦ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦᔭ ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑑᑉ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ 2014 ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᐅᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᖅ (42%) ᐃᖃᓗᐃᓪᓗ (39%) (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓕᒫᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓕᒫᓂᑦ (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖑᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (2016), ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖑᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ. 18% ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 8% ᐊᖑᑎᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓃᓐᓂᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ 14%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 5%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᖑᑎᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓃᑦᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ: ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒥᐅᕐ ᓯᓐᕼᐊᒥᑦ (2013), ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᖑᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᓗᐃᓪᓗᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᔅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕕᔾᔪᐊᒥ ᐃᓕᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐃᓗ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓄᑦ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). ᔫᑳᒥ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᓴᒪᐃᖅᓱᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᕗᖅ ᑕᐅᕙ ᓂ ᓄᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥ 9−ᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ 13−ᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓂᕋᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ 41%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕕᓕᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). 2014−ᒥ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕈᔪᒃᑯ ᐱᔭᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑎᑦ 14%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᓪᓗ 5%−ᖑᓪᑎᑦ. ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᓪᓕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓐᓇᑎᑦ, Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 32017 ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓘᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 50%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑕᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ 28% (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᐅᑏᓐᓇᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᒪᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖃᖅᑐᓂ 60% ᓯᖁᒥᑦᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᓯᐳᕌᔅ (Sprauge), 2016). ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ 41% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ (Stop Family ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᔪᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᒥᓂᑦ Violence, 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᔪᒥᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓚᒥᓐᓂᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑐᕌᒐᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᑕᐃᒪᓕ, ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᖔᕈᓐᓇᕆᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᖅᑐᑦ (ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᔨ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ 80%−ᒥᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᕐᓗ − ᓄᖅᑲᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ, 2012), (ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᕋᔪᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓲᑦ (Snapshot of Family Violence in Canada) – ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᒐᐃᒻᒪᑕ. Infographic, 2015). “[ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ] ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 80%-ᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ”” ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᕈᓐᓃᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᒋᐊᖃᕈᓐᓃᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᕈᓐᓃᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᒍᒪᒍᓐᓃᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᕆᕙ ᑦᑐᒦᒍᒪᓐᓇᑎᑦ. ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓘᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐅᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑎᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᓂᕆᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐊᓂᖅᑎᕆᔾᔪᑎᒋᑦ ᐱᐅᒍᓐᓃᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐃᑦᑐᕐᓗᐃᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᖃᓂᒪᖃᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᒋᐊᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖅᓯᒪᖔᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᐃᐊᓕᐊᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐹᑉ (Elliot & Bopp), 2007). ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓄᑦ ᓲᖑᓵᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᖓ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᒥ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᒥᓪᓗ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓲᖅ. ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ, ᐊᐃᐸᕇᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᖓ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑑᒃ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᒻᒪᑕ, 26% ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑰᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 70% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᓪᓗ. ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 79% ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ, ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ, ᑎᓴᒪᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖑᓐᓂᑦ (ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ (Stop Family Violence), 2017). ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᐸᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᑎᒍᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᓐᓂᐊᓂᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᑲᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᒋᐊᖏᑕ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓪᓚᕆᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᑦᑐᑎᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑦ ᐱᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓃᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᐱᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐱᔭᕐᓂᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓈᓚᒍᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᓇᓪᓕᒍᓱᓕᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᓐᖏᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ (ᐸᓚ ᑭᕼᐅᓗ (Bala & Kehoe), 2017). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᑦᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᕐᓂᕋᓗᐊᕈᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕙ ᑉᐳᑦ. ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 42017 ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 65−ᓂᑦ ᐅᖓᑖᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅ, ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᖑᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ, 53% ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 60% ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (Snapshot of Family Violence in Canada) – Infographic, 2015). ᑕᐃᒪᓕᓗ, 2015−ᒥ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ 61% ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 33% ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓐᓄᑦ (ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ (Stop Family Violence), 2017). ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᑐᕋᖓᒻᒪᑕ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ. ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ (United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒨᖓᔪᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᓄᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᒪᑭᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᓄᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ. ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ, ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᖁᔭᕐᓂᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᓕᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᒪᔨᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓕᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᐅᓯᓐᓈᖅᑐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᖅᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒌᖁᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑦᑐᕐᓂᓗᑦᑕᐅᓲᖑᒻᒪᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 7(2) ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑎᓂᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᒻᒪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓇᓂ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᓂᓗ, ᓱᕈᓰᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᓂ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᐃᓐᓇᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ, ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016 ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ 7 ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖁᓕᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 0−ᒥᑦ 14−ᒧᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᒃᑯᒥᓂᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑎᒍᐊᖅᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓂ 40% ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᐅᕆᔪᒥ 28.5% ᐊᐅᐴᑕᒥᓗ 27.1% (ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ, 2017). ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᐹᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖏᐅᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒥᐅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ (ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ, 2017). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓃᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᐹᖑᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᓲᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᑯᓂᒧᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᓂᓪᓕᒍᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓄᑦ. ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓄᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᔭᐅᖁᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᓪᓚᕆᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᓪᓚᕆᖏᓐᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑎᒍᐊᖅᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᖃᑦᑕᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᑦᑎᔨᔅᓴᖅᑕᖃᕐᓇᓂᓗ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓕᖅᑐᓂ ᒪᑯᑎᒎᓇ ᐊᔪᖅᓴᓪᓚᕆᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ, ᐃᑉᐱᒋᔭᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥᓂᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓅᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑕᖃᕐᖓᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᒋᐊᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᑦᒥ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᓪᓗ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 52017 ᐳᓴᑦᑎᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᑐᐊᒥ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᓕᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ ᐅᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᓕᔭᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Territories Ontario Alberta ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2017 ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ 33% ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 15 ᐅᖓᑖᓄᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑎᑭᒥᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ 61% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅ, ᐅᖓᑖᓄᑦ 93%, ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ 9 ᖁᓕᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐅᑎᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᓄᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᓃᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋ ᐊᑐᕋᔪᓲᑦ ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᑕᖏᓐᓂ, ᐱᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᑕᐅᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 31%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ 22%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ, ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ – ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᓇᖅᑲ? (2012) ᐱᖓᓱᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓂᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, 89%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᓪᓛᒃ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᑦ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᑦᑐᓂ ᐱᕈᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᕈᔪᓐᓃᒐᔪᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓲᑦ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᐊᓘᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᑉᐱᒋᓂᖏᑎᒍᑦ, ᑎᒥᒃᑯᓪᓗ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᓪᓗᓂ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓᓂᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓴᖏᓪᓗᓂ ᓈᒻᒪᖏᑦᑐᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᖁᔭᓐᓂᖅ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᑕᐅ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕋᒪᕐᒥᔪᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᑦᑎᒍ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᒍᓐᓇᕐᖓᑕ: (ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ, 2012 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). • • • • • • • • • • ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐅᒡᒍᐊᖅᓯᒪᓕᕐᓗᓂ ᑲᓐᖑᓱᓕᕐᓗᓂᓗ ᓯᓐᓇᑦᑑᒪᑲᒻᒪᔾᔪᑎᒌᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᑑᕐᔫᔮᖏᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᕿᔅᓵᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓄᓐᓃᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᓐᖏᓐᓂᕐᓗ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒦᑦᑑᔮᕈᒪᒍᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᖁᔭᒍᓐᓇᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅᑐᔅᓴᕋᐃᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᒥᐊᓗᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᓃᕋᓱᐊᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᕋᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᔅᓴᕋᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᐱᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ, ᕿᔅᓵᓐᓂᖅ, ᐅᐃᒻᒪᔮᔅᓴᕋᐃᓐᓂᖅ, ᐱᕋᔭᓂᖅ, ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce (2016), ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᓐᓂ, ᐊᑯᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᓯᓐᓇᑦᑑᒪᑲᒻᒪᒍᔾᔭᐅᕙ ᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕋᑎᓪᓗ (ᐳᐃᔅ, 2016). ᓱᓕᒃᑲᓐᓂ, ᓯᓐᕼ (Sinha, (2013) ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 62017 ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᓪᓛᒃ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔭᖏᑦ. 2011−ᒥ, 32% ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ (ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ – Infographic, 2015), ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᓐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ 15−ᓂᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᑕᐃᒪᓕ 2014−ᒥ, 40% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 29% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ 15−ᓂᑦ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᒃ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᐅᓐᖏᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᓂᖅᓴᐅᒦᒃᑲᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓗᐊᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᐅᔾᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᕗᖅ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᒪᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ, ᖃᓄᐃᓘᕐᓂᓘᕐᓂᐅᔪᑦ, ᐃᓅᖃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᓪᓗ, ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑎᐅᓕᕐᓗᑎᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᓴᓂᕋᔭᒻᒥ, ᐃᒡᓗᓕᒻᒥ, ᓴᓪᓕᓂᑦ ᑕᓗᕐᔪᐊᒥᓗ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᐹᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 0 – 14 ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖏᓐᓂ (2016 ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐃᑦ, 2017). ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ 2014−ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, 53,000 ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ 53,000 ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᑦ, 90%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᓐᓅᒻᒪᖔᖅ. ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓯᕗᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 80%−ᓂᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᑦ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, 2015 ᒥᔅᓴᐅᓴᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 92,000 ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᐸᓯᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᒐᓛᖑᔪᖅ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓚᐅᖅᑐᒥ 45%−ᒥᑦ ᐸᓯᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ (ᐋᓚᓐ (Allen), 2016). ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᓂᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᒪᑲᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ (YWCA ᐊᒡᕕᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ, 2014). ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᕿᒫᕖᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒻᒥ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦ- ᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ FAIA ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐋᖅᑭᔅᓱᐃᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖃᖓᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ, ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᖅᑐᓂ ᐊᔅᓱᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᑭᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓄᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᖁᔭᐅᓇᑎᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ. ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᕈᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᔾᔪᑕᐅᕗᖅ. ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᔾᔪᑏ ᒃᑯᓕᒫᓄᑦ, ᐊᓄᓪᓚᔅᓯᕆᐊᓖᓪᓗ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᒥᓴᖅᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓘᖅᑐᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᔪᖅ, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᔪᕐᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᓂᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᕋᔭᔅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᓂᖅ, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᖅ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓃᓪᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ. Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 72017 ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ (CFSA) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᓕᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᑎ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑉ ᑎᒥᖏᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᒋᓂᑎᒍᓪᓗ, ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓪᓗ, ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᕈᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 7(3) ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ CFSA ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 7(3p) ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖅᑲᑦ “ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑉ ᐊᖏᒧᖅᑳᖏᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᕋᓱᐊᖏᑉᐸᑕ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒐᓱᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑉᐸᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ” (CFSA, 2004). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᑦ (FAIA) ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᐊᓱᕐᓂᒧᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ ᑎᒥᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ, ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓄᑑᓂᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᓂᑎᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ, ᐃᓕᕋᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖑᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᓱᕋᐃᔭᐃᖃᑦᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒐᕙ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᓅᕖᑉᐱᕆᒥ 2006−ᒥ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦᑎᕕᒋᔪᒪᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᔾᔪᑎᒋᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᖁᓇᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ (FAIA) ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑦᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᑦᓯᐊᕐᓂᖅ, ᐱᖁᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ (FAIA, 2006) ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᐊᓱᕐᓂᒧᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ (FAIA) ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦᑎᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᐊᕕᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ (EPO) ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᓗᓂ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᔪᓂᑦ ᐸᕝᕕᓴᑦᑐᓂ ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᑐᐊᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᐅᔪ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐱᓯᔭᐅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᓐᖏᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᕿᓚᒥᑲᐃᓐᓇᕈᓗᒃ. ᓄᓇᓕᓂᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒧᑦ (CIO) ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᔪᖃᕐᓂᖅᑲᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᔅᓯᕋᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅᑲᑕ ᑕᐃᒪᑦᑐᒥᑦ. ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎ ᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᔅᓯᕋᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᑐᖔᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᓂ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑎᓕᔭᐅᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔨᒧᑦ. ᕿᒫᕖᑦ 2008−ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 50,000 ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ 53−ᒥᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖓᓯᑦᑑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑐᐊ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᖓᑦ. ᓄᓇᖓᑦ ᐃᓪᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᕕᐊᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ, ᓄᓇᕕᒃ, ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕗᓪᓗ. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 70%−ᒥᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᑦᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 39% ᓱᕈᓯᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 15 ᐊᑖᓂ (ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖅ (The Arctic): ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖏᑦ, 2008). ᐊᐳᕈᑎᓕᖅᐹᓘᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᕿᒫᕕᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ, ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᑕᒫᓂ ᖃᑦᑏᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᒥᑦ 30%−ᒥᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᕿᒫᕕᓖᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎ, 2011). ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᖃᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ, ᐊᑦᑕᓇᓐᖏᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᖃᕐᓗᑕ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᕿᔅᓵᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᕿᓚᒥᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᒍᓐᓃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐱᑕᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓᓂ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒍ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑕ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 82017 ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᐱᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐅᑎᖅᑕᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᑭᖑᕚᕇᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᑲᒻᒪᔅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᔫᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐃᓚᒌᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᐸᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐋᖅᑮᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒨᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑎᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᒥᓴᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗᒃᑲᓐᓂ, ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓕᐅᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᔪᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ: • • • ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᑦᑐᓂ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᔅᓴᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᓂᓗ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓗᐃᑦ; ᐱᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ; ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᒪᒥᓴᕐᕕᓐᓂᑦ. ᑲᒪᒋᓂᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ, ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2016) ᐊᑐᓕᔨᒥᔪᑦ ᐃᓕᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᓂ ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᑦᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕐᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕕᑦᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ, ᑲᒪᒋᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓪᓗᑭᔅᓴᓂᓪᓗ, ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᓂ ᒪᒥᓴᕐᕕᒥᓐᓗ, ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᕐᕕᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ. ᐃᓚᒌᓂᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᖅᑯᐃᕕᓐᓂ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᓂ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᑎᒍᔭᕐᓂᓪᓗᑎᓗ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᓐᓂᖅᑲᑕ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᓴᕈᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ, ᐊᓂᓵᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑲᑕ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ (ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᖅᓯᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ – ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓇᖅᑐᑦ, 2012). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑦ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᓪᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᒪᒥᓴᐅᑎᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᓄᓪᓗ. ᑭᖑᕚᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᔪᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᐅᓕᕐᓗᓂ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2005) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᒥᓴᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓕᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᓇᑲᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᖅᑭᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᕋᓱᐊᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᖅ, ᐱᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᕈᑎᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᑲᓐᖑᑦᑎᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑲᒻᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᖏᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᖔᑕᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᕗᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᒥᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ, 2005). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑦ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᓪᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᒪᒥᓴᐅᑎᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᓄᓪᓗ. ᑭᖑᕚᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᔪᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᐅᓕᕐᓗᓂ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2005) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᒥᓴᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓕᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᓇᑲᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᖅᑭᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᕋᓱᐊᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᖅ, ᐱᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᕈᑎᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᑲᓐᖑᑦᑎᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑲᒻᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᖏᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᖔᑕᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᕗᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᒥᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ, 2005). Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 92017 ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕐᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 2016 ᓈᓴᖅᑕᒥᓃᑦ. (2017). ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖏ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓅᖓᔪᑦ. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᐋᓚᓐ, M. (2016). ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑲᖏᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2015. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, , 1-55. ᐸᓚ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᕼᐅ (Bala, N., & Kehoe, K.) (2017). ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ: ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ, 1-86 ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce, J.) (2016). ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2014. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, , 1-44. ᐳᔨᔅᑲ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᓐᕗᐃ (Burczycka, M., & Conroy, S.) (2017). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ: ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᑦ, 2015. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, 2-77. ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. (2017). ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. 1-9. CFSA. (2014). ᑲᑎᖅᓱᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓇᒌᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᖏᑦᑕ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. ᐃᐊᓕᐊᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐸᑉ (Elliott, S., & Bopp, J.) (2007). ᓂᐱᖃᒐᓛᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ. ᖁᓪᓖᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ, 1-116. FAIA. (2006). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu, G.) (2017). ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᓄᓪᓗ ᓂᖓᖅᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ, 1-160. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᓐᖑᐊᑎᒍᑦ (Infographic): ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ: 2014 Infographic. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ (Infoseries.) (2008). ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖅ: ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖏᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᔾᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑏᓪᓗ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ, 1-7. ᓯᓐᕼᐅ (Sinha, M.) (2013). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ: ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, 2-120. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2005). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ: ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ, ᓄᓗᐊᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖅ: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ, 1-18. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ.. (2011). ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ, ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᑦ, 1-5. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2016). ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓂᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓄᑦ ᒪᒥᓴᕐᓂᒧᓪᓗ, 1-8. ᐳᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault, S., & Simpson, L.) (2016). ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ, 2014. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, 1-45. ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2016). ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016 – ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑯᐃᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ISSN: 1924-7087 ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ. (2012). ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓂ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ– ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᑯᐃᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ISBN 978-1-100-54297-3 ᐸᓕᓯᒃᑯᑦ. (2012). ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐃᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ – ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᓇᖅᑲᑦ? ᑯᐃᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ISBN 978-1-100-54296-6 ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᐊᕐᓂᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2015). ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 102017 22. ᓯᐳᕋᒍ ᓯᓘᐳᔨᓐ, ᒪᑲᐃ, ᓯᑳᑦ, ᐋᓯᓈᑦ (Sprague, S., Slobogean, G. P., Spurr, H., McKay, P., Scott, T., Arseneau, E.,) . . . Swaminathan, A. (2016). ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᓄ ᐃᑲᔫᑏᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ. PLoS One, 11(12). 23. ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ (Stop Family Violence.) (2014). ᑭᓲᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ? ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. 24. ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ (Stop Family Violence.) (2017). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ: ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑲᐅᓐᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᐅᕙ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ? ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ 25. YWCA ᐊᒡᕕᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ. (2014). ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑏᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 112017 ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᓐᓂᖏ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ: ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓚᐅᕐᓚᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓂᖅ 2015−ᒥ, ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 86,000 ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017), ᐊᒥᓱᐊᓗᐃᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒍᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᐅᑎᑦᑎᒍᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅᑕᖃᕐᒪᖔᖅ, ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᔪᓄᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᒧᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᓱᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᒫᒃ: ᑭᓲᕙ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᒪ ᐃᒪᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᓪᓗ, ᓲᖑᓵᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᖓᓐᓂ, ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑕᖅᑯᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ. ᑭᓱᓪᓚᕆᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᑦᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐ ᓇᒥᓕᒫᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᒥ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᓄ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅᑲᑦ, ᐃᓅᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᕕᓂᖃᑎᒌᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑲᑕ, ᑭᓇᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑲᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᒥᔪ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᑐᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑎᑦᑎᓕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᐅᔾᔨᓂᖅᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓕᕋᓵᕆᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᓯᓚᐃᕐᕆᔭᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓂᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ. ᐱᖓᓲᔪᖅᑑᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᑕᐅᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐊᓂᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒃ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ, ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ, ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᓪᓗ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ (ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ, 2014). ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔾᔪᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᑉᐱᓐᓂᐊᓂᖓᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᓂᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᖅ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 323,600−ᖑᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). 25% ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 70% ᐋᓐᓂᒥᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 12017 ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐅᖁᒪᐃᓐᓂᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (2016) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 760 000−ᖑᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑲᐅᓐᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ, ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᓪᓗ, ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᓪᓗ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐊᔪᕈᑎᓖᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐸᓕᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᕝᕙ ᕆᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 2015−ᒥ ᑕᐃᑲᓐᖓᑦ 2014−ᒥᓂᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᒪᑯᐊᓂᖓ ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ (+15%), ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᒐᓱᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ (+22%) ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ (+3%) (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ 1.9−ᒥᓕᐊᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐅᑎᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖓᓂ (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). 2015−ᒥ ᐸᓖᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐅᔪᓂᑦ 58%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔭᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖁᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᕈᖅᐹᓪᓕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ 12%−ᒥᑦ 2015−ᒥ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓚᐅᖅᑐᒥᓪᓕ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᓱᓕ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). 2014−ᒥ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᓴᐅᑎᒥᓃᑦ (GSS) ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᓐᓄ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᑭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᐃᑦ ᑐᑭᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒫᓂ 50%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 20%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᖁᓖᕌᖅᑎᔅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓄᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓄᑦ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕐᕋᒍᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᓕ, 2014−ᒥ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᑭᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᔅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 56%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓗᑎᑦ (ᕈᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᕕᓂᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑕᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᐊᓯᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓄᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖁᔨᖔᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓐᖑᐃᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ, ᔭᒐᐃᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓚᓐᓂ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᓐᓇᐃᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐊᐅᓪᓛᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎ ᒪᑯᓂᖓ ᐊᔪᖅᓴᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓄᐊᒋᐊᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᓂᑦ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓗᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙ ᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᓂᕿᔅᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓇᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2016) ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓐᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᓂ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᖃᓂᒌᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ, ᒪᑭᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖏᑕ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᓂᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥᓗ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐱᖓᓱᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑲᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 163−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ 1000-ᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᓪᓕ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑕᖏᑦ 74-−ᓂᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ 1000−ᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 22017 ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᑦᑎᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ 1,000 ᐃᓄᒋᐊᓐᓂᖏᑦ 200 150 100 50 0 Indigenous Population Non-Indigenous Population ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016) ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ − ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᑲᓴᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016) ᐅᖃᖅᑐᓂᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᑲᒻᒪᒍᓐᓇᕐᖓᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ (ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ, ᐃᓱᒪᓕᕆᓂᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅᑐᕐᓂᖅ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016), ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐱᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ 18%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᖓᓕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 9%−ᖑᓗᑎᑦ. ᑕᒫᓂᐸᓗᖃᐃ 51% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᐊᓘᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓵᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᒋᐅᓄᑦ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦᔭ ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑑᑉ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ 2014 ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᐅᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᖅ (42%) ᐃᖃᓗᐃᓪᓗ (39%) (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓕᒫᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓕᒫᓂᑦ (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖑᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (2016), ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖑᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ. 18% ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 8% ᐊᖑᑎᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓃᓐᓂᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ 14%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 5%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᖑᑎᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓃᑦᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ: ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒥᐅᕐ ᓯᓐᕼᐊᒥᑦ (2013), ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᖑᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᓗᐃᓪᓗᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᔅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕕᔾᔪᐊᒥ ᐃᓕᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐃᓗ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓄᑦ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). ᔫᑳᒥ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᓴᒪᐃᖅᓱᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᕗᖅ ᑕᐅᕙ ᓂ ᓄᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥ 9−ᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ 13−ᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓂᕋᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ 41%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕕᓕᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). 2014−ᒥ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕈᔪᒃᑯ ᐱᔭᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑎᑦ 14%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᓪᓗ 5%−ᖑᓪᑎᑦ. ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᓪᓕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓐᓇᑎᑦ, Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 32017 ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓘᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 50%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑕᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ 28% (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᐅᑏᓐᓇᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᒪᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖃᖅᑐᓂ 60% ᓯᖁᒥᑦᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᓯᐳᕌᔅ (Sprauge), 2016). ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ 41% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ (Stop Family ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᔪᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᒥᓂᑦ Violence, 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᔪᒥᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓚᒥᓐᓂᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑐᕌᒐᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᑕᐃᒪᓕ, ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᖔᕈᓐᓇᕆᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᖅᑐᑦ (ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᔨ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ 80%−ᒥᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᕐᓗ − ᓄᖅᑲᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ, 2012), (ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᕋᔪᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓲᑦ (Snapshot of Family Violence in Canada) – ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᒐᐃᒻᒪᑕ. Infographic, 2015). “[ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ] ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 80%-ᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ”” ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᕈᓐᓃᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᒋᐊᖃᕈᓐᓃᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᕈᓐᓃᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᒍᒪᒍᓐᓃᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᕆᕙ ᑦᑐᒦᒍᒪᓐᓇᑎᑦ. ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓘᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐅᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑎᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᓂᕆᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐊᓂᖅᑎᕆᔾᔪᑎᒋᑦ ᐱᐅᒍᓐᓃᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐃᑦᑐᕐᓗᐃᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᖃᓂᒪᖃᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᒋᐊᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖅᓯᒪᖔᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᐃᐊᓕᐊᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐹᑉ (Elliot & Bopp), 2007). ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓄᑦ ᓲᖑᓵᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᖓ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᒥ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᒥᓪᓗ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓲᖅ. ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ, ᐊᐃᐸᕇᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᖓ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑑᒃ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᒻᒪᑕ, 26% ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑰᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 70% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᓪᓗ. ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 79% ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ, ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ, ᑎᓴᒪᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖑᓐᓂᑦ (ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ (Stop Family Violence), 2017). ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᐸᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᑎᒍᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᓐᓂᐊᓂᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᑲᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᒋᐊᖏᑕ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓪᓚᕆᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᑦᑐᑎᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑦ ᐱᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓃᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᐱᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐱᔭᕐᓂᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓈᓚᒍᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᓇᓪᓕᒍᓱᓕᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᓐᖏᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ (ᐸᓚ ᑭᕼᐅᓗ (Bala & Kehoe), 2017). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᑦᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᕐᓂᕋᓗᐊᕈᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕙ ᑉᐳᑦ. ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 42017 ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 65−ᓂᑦ ᐅᖓᑖᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅ, ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᖑᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ, 53% ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 60% ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (Snapshot of Family Violence in Canada) – Infographic, 2015). ᑕᐃᒪᓕᓗ, 2015−ᒥ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ 61% ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 33% ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓐᓄᑦ (ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ (Stop Family Violence), 2017). ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᑐᕋᖓᒻᒪᑕ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ. ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ (United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒨᖓᔪᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᓄᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᒪᑭᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᓄᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ. ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ, ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᖁᔭᕐᓂᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᓕᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᒪᔨᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓕᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᐅᓯᓐᓈᖅᑐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᖅᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒌᖁᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑦᑐᕐᓂᓗᑦᑕᐅᓲᖑᒻᒪᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 7(2) ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑎᓂᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᒻᒪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓇᓂ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᓂᕆᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᓂᓗ, ᓱᕈᓰᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᓂ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᐃᓐᓇᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ, ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016 ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ 7 ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖁᓕᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 0−ᒥᑦ 14−ᒧᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᒃᑯᒥᓂᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑎᒍᐊᖅᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓂ 40% ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᐅᕆᔪᒥ 28.5% ᐊᐅᐴᑕᒥᓗ 27.1% (ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ, 2017). ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᐹᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖏᐅᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒥᐅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ (ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ, 2017). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓃᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᐹᖑᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᓲᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᑯᓂᒧᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᓂᓪᓕᒍᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓄᑦ. ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓄᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᔭᐅᖁᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᓈᓇᓪᓚᕆᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᓪᓚᕆᖏᓐᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑎᒍᐊᖅᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᖃᑦᑕᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᑦᑎᔨᔅᓴᖅᑕᖃᕐᓇᓂᓗ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓕᖅᑐᓂ ᒪᑯᑎᒎᓇ ᐊᔪᖅᓴᓪᓚᕆᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ, ᐃᑉᐱᒋᔭᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥᓂᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓅᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑕᖃᕐᖓᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᒋᐊᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᑦᒥ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᓪᓗ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 52017 ᐳᓴᑦᑎᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᑐᐊᒥ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᓕᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ ᐅᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᓕᔭᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Territories Ontario Alberta ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2017 ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ 33% ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 15 ᐅᖓᑖᓄᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑎᑭᒥᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ 61% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅ, ᐅᖓᑖᓄᑦ 93%, ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ 9 ᖁᓕᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐅᑎᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᓄᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᓃᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋ ᐊᑐᕋᔪᓲᑦ ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᑕᖏᓐᓂ, ᐱᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᑕᐅᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 31%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ 22%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ, ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ – ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᓇᖅᑲ? (2012) ᐱᖓᓱᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓂᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ, 89%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᓪᓛᒃ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖏᑦ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᑦᑐᓂ ᐱᕈᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᕈᔪᓐᓃᒐᔪᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓲᑦ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᐊᓘᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᑉᐱᒋᓂᖏᑎᒍᑦ, ᑎᒥᒃᑯᓪᓗ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᓪᓗᓂ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓᓂᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓴᖏᓪᓗᓂ ᓈᒻᒪᖏᑦᑐᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᖁᔭᓐᓂᖅ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᑕᐅ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᕋᒪᕐᒥᔪᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᑦᑎᒍ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᒍᓐᓇᕐᖓᑕ: (ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ, 2012 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). • • • • • • • • • • ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐅᒡᒍᐊᖅᓯᒪᓕᕐᓗᓂ ᑲᓐᖑᓱᓕᕐᓗᓂᓗ ᓯᓐᓇᑦᑑᒪᑲᒻᒪᔾᔪᑎᒌᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᑑᕐᔫᔮᖏᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᕿᔅᓵᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓄᓐᓃᖃᑦᑕᕈᒪᓐᖏᓐᓂᕐᓗ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒦᑦᑑᔮᕈᒪᒍᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᖁᔭᒍᓐᓇᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅᑐᔅᓴᕋᐃᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᒥᐊᓗᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᓃᕋᓱᐊᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᕋᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᔅᓴᕋᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᐱᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ, ᕿᔅᓵᓐᓂᖅ, ᐅᐃᒻᒪᔮᔅᓴᕋᐃᓐᓂᖅ, ᐱᕋᔭᓂᖅ, ᐃᓅᖃᑎᖃᕈᒪᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce (2016), ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᓐᓂ, ᐊᑯᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᓯᓐᓇᑦᑑᒪᑲᒻᒪᒍᔾᔭᐅᕙ ᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕋᑎᓪᓗ (ᐳᐃᔅ, 2016). ᓱᓕᒃᑲᓐᓂ, ᓯᓐᕼ (Sinha, (2013) ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 62017 ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᓪᓛᒃ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔭᖏᑦ. 2011−ᒥ, 32% ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ (ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ – Infographic, 2015), ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᓐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ 15−ᓂᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᑕᐃᒪᓕ 2014−ᒥ, 40% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 29% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ 15−ᓂᑦ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᒃ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᐅᓐᖏᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᓂᖅᓴᐅᒦᒃᑲᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓗᐊᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᐅᔾᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᕗᖅ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᒪᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ, ᖃᓄᐃᓘᕐᓂᓘᕐᓂᐅᔪᑦ, ᐃᓅᖃᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᓪᓗ, ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑎᐅᓕᕐᓗᑎᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᓴᓂᕋᔭᒻᒥ, ᐃᒡᓗᓕᒻᒥ, ᓴᓪᓕᓂᑦ ᑕᓗᕐᔪᐊᒥᓗ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᐹᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 0 – 14 ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖏᓐᓂ (2016 ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐃᑦ, 2017). ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ 2014−ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, 53,000 ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ 53,000 ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᑦ, 90%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᓐᓅᒻᒪᖔᖅ. ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓯᕗᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 80%−ᓂᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᑦ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, 2015 ᒥᔅᓴᐅᓴᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 92,000 ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᐸᓯᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᒐᓛᖑᔪᖅ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓚᐅᖅᑐᒥ 45%−ᒥᑦ ᐸᓯᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ (ᐋᓚᓐ (Allen), 2016). ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᓂᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᒪᑲᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ (YWCA ᐊᒡᕕᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ, 2014). ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᕿᒫᕖᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒻᒥ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦ- ᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ FAIA ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐋᖅᑭᔅᓱᐃᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᖃᖓᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ, ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᒃᑰᖅᑐᓂ ᐊᔅᓱᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᑭᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓄᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᖁᔭᐅᓇᑎᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ. ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᕈᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᔾᔪᑕᐅᕗᖅ. ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᔾᔪᑏ ᒃᑯᓕᒫᓄᑦ, ᐊᓄᓪᓚᔅᓯᕆᐊᓖᓪᓗ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᒥᓴᖅᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓘᖅᑐᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᔪᖅ, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᔪᕐᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᓂᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᕋᔭᔅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᓂᖅ, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᖅ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓃᓪᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ. Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 72017 ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ (CFSA) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᓕᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᑎ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑉ ᑎᒥᖏᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᒋᓂᑎᒍᓪᓗ, ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓪᓗ, ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᕈᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 7(3) ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ CFSA ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 7(3p) ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖅᑲᑦ “ᓱᕈᓯᖅ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑲᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑉ ᐊᖏᒧᖅᑳᖏᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᕋᓱᐊᖏᑉᐸᑕ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒐᓱᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑉᐸᑕ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ” (CFSA, 2004). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᑦ (FAIA) ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᐊᓱᕐᓂᒧᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ ᑎᒥᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᑯᑦ, ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓄᑑᓂᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᓂᑎᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ, ᐃᓕᕋᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖑᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᓱᕋᐃᔭᐃᖃᑦᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒐᕙ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᓅᕖᑉᐱᕆᒥ 2006−ᒥ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦᑎᕕᒋᔪᒪᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᔾᔪᑎᒋᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᖁᓇᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ (FAIA) ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑦᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᑦᓯᐊᕐᓂᖅ, ᐱᖁᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ (FAIA, 2006) ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᐊᓱᕐᓂᒧᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ (FAIA) ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦᑎᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᐊᕕᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ (EPO) ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᓗᓂ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᔪᓂᑦ ᐸᕝᕕᓴᑦᑐᓂ ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᑐᐊᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᐅᔪ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓵᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐱᓯᔭᐅᑕᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᓐᖏᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᕿᓚᒥᑲᐃᓐᓇᕈᓗᒃ. ᓄᓇᓕᓂᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒧᑦ (CIO) ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᔪᖃᕐᓂᖅᑲᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑐᔅᓯᕋᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅᑲᑕ ᑕᐃᒪᑦᑐᒥᑦ. ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎ ᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᔅᓯᕋᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᑐᖔᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᓂ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑎᓕᔭᐅᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔨᒧᑦ. ᕿᒫᕖᑦ 2008−ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 50,000 ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ 53−ᒥᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖓᓯᑦᑑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑐᐊ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᖓᑦ. ᓄᓇᖓᑦ ᐃᓪᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᕕᐊᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ, ᓄᓇᕕᒃ, ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕗᓪᓗ. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 70%−ᒥᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᓰᑦᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 39% ᓱᕈᓯᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ 15 ᐊᑖᓂ (ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖅ (The Arctic): ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖏᑦ, 2008). ᐊᐳᕈᑎᓕᖅᐹᓘᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᕿᒫᕕᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ, ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᑕᒫᓂ ᖃᑦᑏᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᒥᑦ 30%−ᒥᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᕿᒫᕕᓖᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎ, 2011). ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᖃᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ, ᐊᑦᑕᓇᓐᖏᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᖃᕐᓗᑕ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᕿᔅᓵᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᕿᓚᒥᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᒍᓐᓃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐱᑕᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓᓂ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒍ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑕ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 82017 ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᐱᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐅᑎᖅᑕᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᑭᖑᕚᕇᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᑲᒻᒪᔅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᔫᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐃᓚᒌᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᐸᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐋᖅᑮᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒨᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ. ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑎᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᒥᓴᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗᒃᑲᓐᓂ, ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓕᐅᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᔪᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ: • • • ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᑦᑐᓂ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᔅᓴᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᓂᓗ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓗᐃᑦ; ᐱᖅᑯᓯᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ; ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᒪᒥᓴᕐᕕᓐᓂᑦ. ᑲᒪᒋᓂᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ, ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2016) ᐊᑐᓕᔨᒥᔪᑦ ᐃᓕᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᓂ ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᑦᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕐᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕕᑦᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ, ᑲᒪᒋᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓪᓗᑭᔅᓴᓂᓪᓗ, ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᔨᓂ ᒪᒥᓴᕐᕕᒥᓐᓗ, ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᕐᕕᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ. ᐃᓚᒌᓂᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᓐᖏᑦᑐᒥᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᖅᑯᐃᕕᓐᓂ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᓂ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᑎᒍᔭᕐᓂᓪᓗᑎᓗ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᒪᓐᓂᖅᑲᑕ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᓴᕈᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓄᑦ, ᐊᓂᓵᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑲᑕ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᒥ (ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᖅᓯᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ – ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓇᖅᑐᑦ, 2012). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑦ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᓪᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᒪᒥᓴᐅᑎᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᓄᓪᓗ. ᑭᖑᕚᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᔪᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᐅᓕᕐᓗᓂ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2005) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᒥᓴᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓕᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᓇᑲᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᖅᑭᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᕋᓱᐊᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᖅ, ᐱᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᕈᑎᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᑲᓐᖑᑦᑎᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑲᒻᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᖏᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᖔᑕᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᕗᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᒥᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ, 2005). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑦ ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᓪᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᒪᒥᓴᐅᑎᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᓄᓪᓗ. ᑭᖑᕚᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᔪᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᐅᓕᕐᓗᓂ. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2005) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒪᒥᓴᓕᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓕᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᓇᑲᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᖅᑭᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᐃᑲᔪᕋᓱᐊᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᖅ, ᐱᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᕈᑎᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᑲᓐᖑᑦᑎᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑲᒻᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᖏᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᖔᑕᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂ. ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᕗᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᒥᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ, 2005). Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 92017 ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕐᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 2016 ᓈᓴᖅᑕᒥᓃᑦ. (2017). ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖏ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓅᖓᔪᑦ. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᐋᓚᓐ, M. (2016). ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑲᖏᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2015. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, , 1-55. ᐸᓚ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᕼᐅ (Bala, N., & Kehoe, K.) (2017). ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ: ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ, 1-86 ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce, J.) (2016). ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2014. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, , 1-44. ᐳᔨᔅᑲ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᓐᕗᐃ (Burczycka, M., & Conroy, S.) (2017). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ: ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᑦ, 2015. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, 2-77. ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. (2017). ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᑕ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. 1-9. CFSA. (2014). ᑲᑎᖅᓱᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓇᒌᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᖏᑦᑕ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. ᐃᐊᓕᐊᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐸᑉ (Elliott, S., & Bopp, J.) (2007). ᓂᐱᖃᒐᓛᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ. ᖁᓪᓖᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ, 1-116. FAIA. (2006). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu, G.) (2017). ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ ᓄᑲᑉᐱᐊᓄᓪᓗ ᓂᖓᖅᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ, 1-160. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᓐᖑᐊᑎᒍᑦ (Infographic): ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ: 2014 Infographic. ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ (Infoseries.) (2008). ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖅ: ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖏᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᔾᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑏᓪᓗ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ, 1-7. ᓯᓐᕼᐅ (Sinha, M.) (2013). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ: ᓈᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, 2-120. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2005). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ: ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ, ᓄᓗᐊᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖅ: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ, 1-18. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ.. (2011). ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ, ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᑦ, 1-5. ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2016). ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓂᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓄᑦ ᒪᒥᓴᕐᓂᒧᓪᓗ, 1-8. ᐳᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault, S., & Simpson, L.) (2016). ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ, 2014. Juristat: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, 1-45. ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2016). ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016 – ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑯᐃᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ISSN: 1924-7087 ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ. (2012). ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓂ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ– ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᑯᐃᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ISBN 978-1-100-54297-3 ᐸᓕᓯᒃᑯᑦ. (2012). ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐃᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ – ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᓇᖅᑲᑦ? ᑯᐃᑉ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ISBN 978-1-100-54296-6 ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᐊᕐᓂᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. (2015). ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 102017 22. ᓯᐳᕋᒍ ᓯᓘᐳᔨᓐ, ᒪᑲᐃ, ᓯᑳᑦ, ᐋᓯᓈᑦ (Sprague, S., Slobogean, G. P., Spurr, H., McKay, P., Scott, T., Arseneau, E.,) . . . Swaminathan, A. (2016). ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᓄ ᐃᑲᔫᑏᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ. PLoS One, 11(12). 23. ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ (Stop Family Violence.) (2014). ᑭᓲᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ? ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ. 24. ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ (Stop Family Violence.) (2017). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ: ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑲᐅᓐᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᐅᕙ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ? ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ 25. YWCA ᐊᒡᕕᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ. (2014). ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑏᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 112017 ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᓐᓂᖏ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ: ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓚᐅᕐᓚᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓂᖅ 2015−ᒥ, ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 86,000 ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017), ᐊᒥᓱᐊᓗᐃᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒍᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᐅᑎᑦᑎᒍᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅᑕᖃᕐᒪᖔᖅ, ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᔪᓄᑦ ᐸᖅᑭᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᒧᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᓱᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᒫᒃ: ᑭᓲᕙ ᐃᓚᒋᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᒪ ᐃᒪᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᓪᓗ, ᓲᖑᓵᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᒫᖓᓐᓂ, ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑕᖅᑯᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ. ᑭᓱᓪᓚᕆᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᑦᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐ ᓇᒥᓕᒫᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᒥ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᓄ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅᑲᑦ, ᐃᓅᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᕕᓂᖃᑎᒌᓐᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑲᑕ, ᑭᓇᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑲᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᒥᔪ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᑐᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑎᑦᑎᓕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᓂᓐᖓᐅᔾᔨᓂᖅᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓕᕋᓵᕆᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᓯᓚᐃᕐᕆᔭᐅᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓂᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ. ᐱᖓᓲᔪᖅᑑᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᑕᐅᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ, ᐊᓂᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒃ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ, ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ, ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᓪᓗ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᓴᓐᖏᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ (ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᓕᒃ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᖅ, 2014). ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔾᔪᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐃᑉᐱᓐᓂᐊᓂᖓᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᓂᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᖅ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ 323,600−ᖑᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). 25% ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 70% ᐋᓐᓂᒥᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 12017 ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐅᖁᒪᐃᓐᓂᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (2016) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 760 000−ᖑᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑲᐅᓐᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ, ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓱᕈᓰᓪᓗ, ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᓪᓗ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐊᔪᕈᑎᓖᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᐸᓕᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᑦᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᕝᕙ ᕆᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ 2015−ᒥ ᑕᐃᑲᓐᖓᑦ 2014−ᒥᓂᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᒪᑯᐊᓂᖓ ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᓂᑦᑎᒍᑦ (+15%), ᐃᓄᐊᖅᓯᒐᓱᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ (+22%) ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ (+3%) (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ 1.9−ᒥᓕᐊᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐅᑎᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖓᓂ (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). 2015−ᒥ ᐸᓖᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐅᔪᓂᑦ 58%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔭᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᖁᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᕈᖅᐹᓪᓕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ 12%−ᒥᑦ 2015−ᒥ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓚᐅᖅᑐᒥᓪᓕ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᓱᓕ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (ᐋᓚᓐ, 2016). 2014−ᒥ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᓴᐅᑎᒥᓃᑦ (GSS) ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᓐᓄ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᑭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᐃᑦ ᑐᑭᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒫᓂ 50%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 20%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᖁᓖᕌᖅᑎᔅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ ᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓄᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓄᑦ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓱᕐᕋᒍᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᓕ, 2014−ᒥ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᑭᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᔅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ. ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 56%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓗᑎᑦ (ᕈᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᕕᓂᖃᑎᒋᓐᖏᑕᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᐊᓯᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓄᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖁᔨᖔᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓐᖑᐃᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ, ᔭᒐᐃᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓚᓐᓂ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᓐᓇᐃᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐃᓚᒌᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐊᐅᓪᓛᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎ ᒪᑯᓂᖓ ᐊᔪᖅᓴᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓄᐊᒋᐊᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᓂᑦ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓗᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙ ᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ, ᓂᕿᔅᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓇᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ (2016) ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓐᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᓂ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᖃᓂᒌᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ, ᒪᑭᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᓂᕐᒥᑦ. ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖏᑕ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᓂᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥᓗ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐱᖓᓱᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ (ᐸᐅᑦᑑᑎᒃᑯᑦ, 2011). ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑲᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 163−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ 1000-ᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᓪᓕ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑕᖏᑦ 74-−ᓂᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ 1000−ᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 22017 ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᑦᑎᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ 1,000 ᐃᓄᒋᐊᓐᓂᖏᑦ 200 150 100 50 0 Indigenous Population Non-Indigenous Population ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016) ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ − ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᑲᓴᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016) ᐅᖃᖅᑐᓂᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᑲᒻᒪᒍᓐᓇᕐᖓᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ (ᓱᕈᓯᕐᓂᑦ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ, ᐃᓱᒪᓕᕆᓂᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅᑐᕐᓂᖅ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce) (2016), ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐱᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ 18%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᖓᓕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 9%−ᖑᓗᑎᑦ. ᑕᒫᓂᐸᓗᖃᐃ 51% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᔅᓱᐊᓘᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓵᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᒋᐅᓄᑦ, ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦᔭ ᐱᕋᔭᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑑᑉ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂ 2014 ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᓴᐅᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ 2014−ᒥ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᖠᓂᖅ (42%) ᐃᖃᓗᐃᓪᓗ (39%) (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓕᒫᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓕᒫᓂᑦ (ᐱᕌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᒻᓴᓐ (Perreault & Simpson), 2016). ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖑᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (2016), ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖑᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ. 18% ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 8% ᐊᖑᑎᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓃᓐᓂᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ 14%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 5%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᖑᑎᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓃᑦᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ (ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, 2016). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ: ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒥᐅᕐ ᓯᓐᕼᐊᒥᑦ (2013), ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖅᐹᖑᖑᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᓗᐃᓪᓗᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᔅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕕᔾᔪᐊᒥ ᐃᓕᓂᐊᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐃᓗ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓄᑦ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). ᔫᑳᒥ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᓴᒪᐃᖅᓱᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᕗᖅ ᑕᐅᕙ ᓂ ᓄᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥ 9−ᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ 13−ᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓂᕋᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ 41%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕕᓕᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᓯᓐᕼᐊ (Sinha), 2013). 2014−ᒥ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑎᒥᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᓄᔪᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕈᔪᒃᑯ ᐱᔭᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑎᑦ 14%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖑᑏᓪᓗ 5%−ᖑᓪᑎᑦ. ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᓪᓕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᓐᓇᑎᑦ, Family Violence in Nunavut – Scoping Review – Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre 32017 ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓘᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓂᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ 50%−ᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑕᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ 28% (ᐳᐃᔅ (Boyce), 2016). ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᐅᑏᓐᓇᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᒪᒌᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᔪᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓂᖃᖅᑐᓂ 60% ᓯᖁᒥᑦᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᓯᐳᕌᔅ (Sprauge), 2016). ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ 41% ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕈᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ (Stop Family ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᔪᑦ ᐊᑖᑕᒥᓂᑦ Violence, 2017). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᔪᒥᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓚᒥᓐᓂᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑐᕌᒐᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᑕᐃᒪᓕ, ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᖔᕈᓐᓇᕆᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᖅᑐᑦ (ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᔨ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ 80%−ᒥᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᕐᓗ − ᓄᖅᑲᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ, 2012), (ᑕᑯᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᖑᑏᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᕋᔪᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓲᑦ (Snapshot of Family Violence in Canada) – ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᒐᐃᒻᒪᑕ. Infographic, 2015). “[ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᒥᓃᑦ] ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ 80%-ᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ”” ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᕈᓐᓃᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᒋᐊᖃᕈᓐᓃᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ (ᒐᓛᑑ (Gladu), 2017). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᕈᓐᓃᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓃᒍᒪᒍᓐᓃᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᕆᕙ ᑦᑐᒦᒍᒪᓐᓇᑎᑦ. ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓘᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐅᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑎᒥᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᓂᕆᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᕐᓗᑎᑦ, ᐊᓂᖅᑎᕆᔾᔪᑎᒋᑦ ᐱᐅᒍᓐᓃᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐃᑦᑐᕐᓗᐃᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᖃᓂᒪᖃᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᒋᐊᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖅᓯᒪᖔᓕᖅᑐᑎᑦ (ᐃᐊᓕᐊᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐹᑉ (Elliot & Bopp), 2007). ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓄᑦ ᓲᖑᓵᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᖓ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᒥ ᐋᓐᓂᑎᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᒥᓪᓗ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓂ ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᕆᓲᖅ. ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂ, ᐊᐃᐸᕇᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᖓ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙ ᑦᑑᒃ, ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓᓗ ᐃᓚᒌᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᒻᒪᑕ, 26% ᐱᕋᔭᓐᓂᒃᑰᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 70% ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᓂᕕᐊᖅᓯᐊᓪᓗ. ᑕᒫᓂᖃᐃ 79% ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕐᒥᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓄᑦ, ᐸᓖᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖏᓐᓂ ᓂᖓᖅᓯᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᓂᑦ, ᑎᓴᒪᕌᖅᑎᓐᖑᐊᖅᑐᒍ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖑᓐᓂᑦ (ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒌᓐᓂᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᓂᑦ (Stop Family Violence), 2017). ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᐃᓅᓱᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᖓᖅᐸᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙ ᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓂᓪᓚᕆᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᑎᒍᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᓐᓂᐊᓂᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᑲᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᒋᐊᖏᑕ. ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᕇᑦ ᓂᖓᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓪᓚᕆᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᕇᑦᑐᑎᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᖏᑦ ᐱᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓃᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐋᖏᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᐱᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ, ᐱᔭᕐᓂᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓈᓚᒍᓐᓇᖏᑦ