Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make one small comment. I do not believe that minor capital would fit in the spirit of this motion. As I understand it, the mover of the motion is motivated by the recommendations in the Strength at Two Levels report which talks about avoiding duplication of services, which I think is worthwhile. I would respectfully suggest that the kind of minor capital projects that have just been deleted by this committee, which provides moneys to keep buildings operating in minor ways until the bigger-picture decisions are made, will put an undue hardship on the existing facilities which, I would remind the honourable Members, are being well used in all parts of the Northwest Territories.
I have no problem with the general direction from this motion, but I think when you take minor capital out and include minor capital projects in the meaning of the capital projects, this motion refers to being deferred until such time as a bigger picture of strategy has been approved. If so, you are being unnecessarily restrictive and hard on the college program. I just want to note that I think the knife has cut too deeply with that particular stroke. I realize it has been dealt with, already, in the committee. I am shocked and disappointed, but I want to say -- generally I accept the principle of this motion -- that the zeal should not go so far as to strap these existing facilities which are full of northern native students right now. I just want to register that minor, humble voice of protest in speaking to this motion. Thank you.