Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The last point first, with regard to the regional industrial strategy. Just so that it's clear, it's certainly not our intention to duplicate studies. I think one of the problems is that there's no need for us to be going after the same information twice. I can advise the honourable Member that it's certainly not our intention to compete for information nor is it our intention to spend more money on the same information. I believe that we were doing a joint project under the industrial adjustment strategy and we were dealing primarily with sectoral information. If there's any specific problems then we need to be advised of the concerns, specifically the concern that the region might have because, as I said, it's not our intention to duplicate the information.
On the matter of the renewable resources, I not aware of any reports that are being done. If it's a North Slave issue, we'll ensure that we're not competing for information or spending money for duplicate information. We'll, through our department and certainly through our deputy minister, intervene and ensure that there's not competition for the same information.
On the matter of the relocation, we've had discussions with the director. The important element of moving the offices has to be that we have to recognize the financial situation that we're in and ensure that it's cost-effective if there are any moves to be made. There are certainly no additional resources that are going to be available. There will be more resources available for programming, but certainly not necessarily for administration. We'll work with the board to see if that is a cost-effective move on their part and we'll try to be of assistance to them but it will not be, as I said, with the view of costing the department and the board more money.
The other point I wanted to make on the TEP program, I think all the regions are concerned, particularly in the west. In the McGill situation in the Nunavut area, with the Nunavut students, we don't have a problem in this particular situation. Our problem seems to be with the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, and we have to rethink our relationship and the way in which we do our business with the university so that it ensures that the program that we're offering is consistent. In other words, that our criteria for students is higher than for students in Saskatchewan. The fact is, at least last year, the requirements for our students were supposedly higher. In other words, it was not the original arrangement that was reached with the University of Saskatchewan. In that sense we were not happy with that. We have similar concerns. We'll maintain our continuing relationship with the University of Saskatchewan as long as there is recognition for the program that we're offering which is supposedly similar and consistent, and that we ensure that we protect the credits that our students should be receiving as part of that particular program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.