Well, I guess we all have to make some choices. In part of our Arctic College strategy, we are considering how we are delivering programs in Arctic College. The other thing is, some of the additional initiatives that we've undertaken will increase the total number of dollars that are going to be available for training. I would really be careful about how one reads the comments that have been made. I've not taken the view that Arctic College programming is unimportant. But, at the same time, we also have to look at

the potential resources that are available and try to access them. If it means the government cost-sharing those programs, I have to go back to Cabinet for the additional resources.

We just can't have resources out there that were initially cost-shared with the federal government when we don't have a cost-sharing arrangement. I would rather have the Cabinet approve additional resource on clear agreements rather than just having the resources out there. I accept the concern of the committee but, at the same time, what are we going to base the expenditure on? The initial expenditures and the commitments made by the Assembly were a result of an agreement and the federal government withdrew their share of that arrangement. If you're talking about the extra surplus, the fact is the college still has a $3 million surplus.