Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn to the environmental technology programs. I made a statement the other day about this. I would really like to ask the Minister, I know this was a college board initiative, but what on earth is going on here with this articulation of programs.

I am getting a clear impression from people I talk to, who care about the environmental technology program that has been established in Nunatta Campus, that they are really feeling that this report and the initiative of the Arctic College is to confine the environmental technology program; to force them to develop courses in common with the renewable resource technology program, which is a different program, serving a different constituency in a different region. And they are feeling quite hamstrung, because what they want to do is respond to the Nunavut land claim, the wildlife management and land management training challenges that are emerging from the implementation of that claim.

Here this study is going on which is saying they are going to now have one common name, they will have 18 out of 22 courses that are going to be in common. What on earth is the motivation for this? Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister, shouldn't we be allowing each program to flourish and evolve; one towards the Arctic marine, one toward forestry and in the Delta -- I don't know much about that program but it would seem to me that would be another different constituency that would have different needs, maybe a blend of both, I don't know. But I cannot understand why this is happening and I wonder if the Minister shares my concerns and agrees that the purpose of creating two colleges was to allow programs to evolve to meet the needs of different regions. Why does this study seem to point us in the direction towards cloning our programs. Thank you.