Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of all, may I thank the committee for taking the trouble to visit Iqaluit and seek the views of my constituents this summer on this bill and other bills. I know the chairman was ill and was unable to come along, but I think that Members of the committee who did attend those hearings felt that they got a good turnout and good advice from constituents who presented the presentations to the committee on this bill and other bills.

I would like to reiterate what I said when the committee was in Iqaluit, that I firmly support the principle of the bill of dividing Arctic College. I think it's critical to prepare for Nunavut, and I think it's timely that it should be done at this time. I believe, as well, that there's no question that the constituents who came to the committee hearings also gave that firm endorsement of the principle of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I know that there is a lot of concern about the changes made to the Science Institute through this bill. I would just like to make a few quick points on that. Some Members have reminded me that when the issue of amalgamating the Science Institute or integrating it with Arctic College came up while this House was in session last year, along with Mr. Lewis, I asked some questions of the Minister about this move. I would like to clarify now, Mr. Chairman, that I felt at the time that the process of consultation with the Science Institute was not handled as sensitively as it might have been. Perhaps whenever one proposes changes there is going to be a sense of anxiety, if not betrayal, on the part of some of those persons who are feeling threatened by such a process, but the thrust of my questions and interventions at the time was more directed at the process rather than at the principle of integrating the Science Institute with Arctic College.

I would like to remind Members of this committee, Mr. Chairman, that although it's fine to talk about the lofty goals of the Science Institute acting as a body to refer questions from the Legislature on science and research and development issues, if we examine the history of the Science Institute, we find that this provision and this capability in the legislation has indeed been very rarely used. So those who are concerned about losing that particular ability and accountability between the Legislature and the Science Institute should openly acknowledge that it hasn't been used very much, and, when it has been used, I am not sure that it was used particularly effectively. I am not sure how valuable the advice that we got from the Science Institute was on the uranium exploration issue, as one of the members of the Science Institute of that day was a very prominent Canadian pro-uranium, pro-nuclear activist who need not be named today. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that those who object to that principle should really ask themselves whether it's ever been actually seriously utilized in this Legislature.

Now, I am not saying the Science Institute hasn't done many good things in many areas, and they have been discussed in this House and reported on by various Ministers responsible, but that particular function of receiving scientific enquiries from the Legislature has simply not been well utilized, Mr. Chairman, and we should admit today that if that is what we are concerned about losing, we will not lose something that's been used very often.

Now, having said that, I think it may still be useful, if Members of this Legislature can ask questions about scientific issues and about research and development issues to people who have the expertise to provide answers, and I am hoping that as we discuss this bill we may find a way to retain that capacity in case future Legislatures might want to use it more than past legislatures have. I understand there may be some amendments, either from the Minister or from Members of this House, and I am hoping that issue can be addressed, Mr. Chairman. So, I think we should move on with this.

The reality, Mr. Chairman, is that because the government stated its intention to divide Arctic College, because that stated intention was approved by the Legislature and by the Reshaping Northern Government committee and because the government then went ahead and undertook planning to prepare for the implementation of two colleges, including the creation of headquarters offices in Fort Smith and Iqaluit for those two new colleges, what we are really doing now is finishing what has begun. So the legislation will legitimize a lot of administrative changes that have already been put in place.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think it's critical that we do pass this bill, that we wish the employees of the Science Institute every success and that they continue their good work, albeit in a new relationship with a new department. But I am confident that the good works that have been initiated, including the IRAP program, the support for science fairs and the monitoring of scientific research, can continue at the same calibre that has been undertaken already, because we still have many of those

same capable people still in place. So I have no hesitation, Mr. Chairman, in endorsing and indeed welcoming this bill.