The principle is that the government is going to get its way on this issue, which is the principle of this bill I'm going to question. The politics behind this is one of our own committees of this Assembly recommended that we have two colleges, in recognition of the fact that over the next five or six years there's going to have to be an awful lot of training done, and maybe the needs of the east and the west are going to be somewhat different, and there should be two sets of administration to guide them in the appropriate directions.

However, as a policy issue, the government also decided to do something else, which has nothing to do with this college system at all. It was do with a decision to decentralize the Science Institute. Our committees had never looked at that. It was never an issue of debate. But, now we're being put in a very awkward position of having to support a bill which supports the idea of dividing the college and at the same time repeals another bill which created the Science Institute in the first place, which was designed to serve another purpose.

That was, to provide overall advice to our Legislature, especially in an age of increasing political decisions, to have something with a degree of objectivity. I went there many times, as a legislator, to find out stuff and what is going on, so I didn't just read the political newspapers, but found out what scientists were saying about different things.

I agree with Mr. Patterson that we have probably not made as much use of the Science Institute as we could have over the years, but there have been landmark cases where controversies have been very well recognized and appreciated by Members who really wanted to know the truth. The concern that I have with the principle of this bill is that we're putting ourselves in the very difficult spot of having to agree with one part of it, which has to do with dividing the system into two colleges -- which we all seem to be onside about and we all agree with -- while I am put in the difficult position of having to oppose something that matters so much, especially to the people of Nunavut.

The price I pay is that we lose the independent, scientific objectivity of an institute that ten years ago was considered to be absolutely essential as our political system evolved and developed and we needed to have at least some place where we could get information that was unsullied by political interference. That will now be lost.

All we will have is an advisory council. They've already met, just a couple of weeks ago, and already, the feeling is, what's the point? The science bit is going to be part of another department and it is going to be directly under a Minister who's responsible for the education system and the focus has completely changed. It is not the same as it was before.

I wanted to have this on the record today, Madam Speaker, as an issue of principle, because the principle has been lost. The principle is no longer creating two colleges. The principle has been confused somewhat because now, an added objective is to get rid of something, to back up a policy decision this government made and didn't know how to go through with. They worked on different scenarios and now they've found a clever way of doing it, which is to attach it to another bill, to make it very difficult for someone like me to vote against it. However, I shall be voting against it, now that people know why. Thank you.

---Applause