Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have not been participating in SCOL as an alternate Member, or in any other form. I have just been watching very carefully where this would go. I was the Minister at the time when the initiative for dividing Arctic College and the amalgamation of the Science Institute occurred.

I find the committee's report on the bill repealing the Science Institute Act weak. I read in more in the vein of "what if" all the way through. The committee is concerned that the college's priority of education and training could be overshadowed by the Science Institute. It doesn't have to. And any other argument they have made in there doesn't mean what they are concerned about will happen.

How I read the committee report is that there is not enough production by the Science Institute under this forum. If there is good management established for both the Arctic College and the Science Institute, then the committee's concerns about the Science Institute's being overshadowed will not occur. I would have appreciated a stronger feeling on the issue, and that a more tangible argument would have been put forth.

It is well-written, but I find the reasoning and the arguments weak, Mr. Chairman. Along that line, there seems to be more nit-picking than solid arguments for why this bill should not be supported in its present form. I find it weak. Qujannamiik.