Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my concern or general comment is very much similar to Mr. Zoe's, especially on page three. I fail to understand the clear direction in that document, New Directions. It says, 'However, this has meant that we had to reduce expenditures in other areas to a greater degree. Unfortunately, that is the choice we face in sustaining our most important social programs and continuing to offer our rapidly growing numbers of youth the best possible education. We must be prepared to invest in our young people and meet our obligations to our elders." This sounds great, but how do you say that and take away 12 of the Keewatin teacher education program at the same time? I cannot understand how those two are supposed to fit together as logic. The action and the document New Direction conflict.

A paragraph after that also talks about more independent or real economic development. In other words, something independent from the government. Now, I want to believe the document has a general interest to develop more economic development that can be self-sustaining; yet we are not seeing this in the small communities. I understand "Communities such as Fort Simpson and Rankin Inlet are stranded in a never-never land by being too small to be big, but too big to be small." I understand that, but still this particular program does not reflect the small communities. Mr. Chairman, I will need some clarification of those particular paragraphs, using examples of what they mean with those statements. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.