The $100,000 that we have that the Member is speaking about is under the literacy strategy. So for students who want to go on and get non-post-secondary programs, that's the fund that we have available. As our Minister said, we have inclusive programs for adults and career services. All of those students can access those services.

In addition to that, we are working on a disability framework strategy with the Department of Health and Social Services. Under that there is one building block called employment options, so we are working on programs there as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Allen. General comments. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. I just want to mention another thing in this area, and that is the fact that those students with a disability should have as much statutory protection as the students without a disability. Literacy programs like the one being mentioned that is administered by the Council for Disabled Persons are good and fine, but they don't have the kind of weight and permanence and the message that other students get. So we have a system, it seems to me, where those in the mainstream who finish high school and they get to post-secondary education, whether it's a diploma or a degree in some university or college, they apply for SFA and they get it and they're benefited and they do fine. We have lots of products of that sitting around this table. But those students who have various degrees of disabilities who need help in the interim in order for them to get to the post-secondary education, the conventional universities and colleges, or when they need help to get a job, they don't have the kind of statutory protection that exists under student financial assistance, for example.

I know of a case where a student who was admitted to such a program applied under student financial assistance. At first he was denied, but by way of appeal to the Student Financial Assistance Appeal Board, the appeals board stated that those with disabilities should also get funding from student financial assistance. I believe it really was incumbent on the government to follow up on the board decision. But the communication that I've been getting from the Minister is that that is somehow an anomaly, and the department would not respect that decision. So I'm wondering why the Minister would not give the weight of protection by law, statutory protection for those with a disability so that they don't have to be going to different programs and begging to the Council for Disabled Persons. That they be treated equally so that when they finish high school, they don't have to fight tooth and nail to get assistance to get into the next stage of their life, which is available to everybody else, which is to go to post-secondary education and get a job.

So I have to ask the Minister why is it that the department is choosing not to respect the decisions of the Student Financial Assistance Appeals Board and are going against that ruling? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We can answer that question. It's quite simply this: under Canada's student loan system, it has to be an accredited post-secondary Canadian designated program that the students need to be going into. If a disabled student goes into post-secondary, then they are funded under SFA. In addition to SFA -- the regular basic grant and supplementary or remissible loan or repayable loan -- they get this study grant. But because some of these other programs are not designated programs under Canada student loan, such as the one that the Member is talking about in terms of the student in Alberta; Alberta does not recognize that program for student financial assistance as well. So we are following the same sorts of regulations as student financial assistance as offered across Canada, and with the Canada student loan system.

Thank you, Ms. Allen. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect, I don't think that I'm prepared to accept that answer because I don't think that the decisions that the government makes and the Minister wants to make have to be based on what other provinces, such as Alberta or the Government of Canada, makes in this regard. I believe that the government and the department has what it needs. It has the direction from the board, and the appeal board stated that based on the evidence that the educational institution that this student and other students have gone to in Alberta or elsewhere is a post-secondary school. The board made this decision on the basis of the regulations that we had in place. The regulation very clearly states that the intention of whoever wrote the law and whoever wrote the regulations way back when, it was their intention to create an affirmative action program, or create a provision in the regulations to allow the students with disabilities to get funding. It's very clear in the regulations, and the appeal board respected that decision.

You know, Mr. Chairman, we hear all the time in this House from various Ministers overseeing various boards, always saying we don't want to intervene with the decisions of boards. We respect our boards, we have to defer to them, we have to follow their discussions. So when the board makes a decision that goes contrary to what might be a common understanding of the department, we get busy preparing documentation saying why. We know what the board said, but we don't agree with it or it doesn't follow the guidelines from other jurisdictions in another province or Canada. I appreciate the answer, that's the standard answer. But why can we not do something different? Why can we not respect the decision of the board and do the right thing and change the policy accordingly? Thank you. May I ask the Minister to answer that?

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, a couple of areas to be referenced here. One is that the student financial assistance program for Canada provides us with $1 million a year of funding that does have conditions on it relating to our student financial assistance program. So that's important. Secondly, to maintain the integrity of the student financial assistance program, we did develop an alternate area of support and that was through the Council for Persons with Disabilities.

Additionally, Mr. Chair, we have been working with the federal government on employee assistance for the persons with disabilities program, and that's not concluded yet. That provides another avenue for us to provide possible funding, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to know then if it's the case, and I accept that perhaps it's the case that the Government of Canada that is funding a portion of the student financial assistance might have some requirements that are not in line with the decision of a board in the Territories. I'd like to ask the Minister what he has done to challenge that, and say that we have different policies here and we have a regulation that clearly states that we respect the right of the students with disabilities to have equal opportunities. So shouldn't that be the job of the Minister to say no, actually, we can't follow that, and that we are going to make public policy decisions to provide for those students with disabilities on an equal footing as everyone else who gets into post-secondary education? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I mentioned, we have developed an alternate program of assistance for individuals, and we feel that is the way to go. We can certainly approach the federal government on the basis of recognition, however, as usual, we don't want to pin our total hopes on that. I think it's a case of ensuring that in the interim we do work on alternatives. As I say, we've been working on employability assistance for persons with disabilities with the federal government on this -- HRDC -- and that may offer us funding that would support our financial base, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're thankful for the information the Minister has provided on the technical assessments on the various departments. We're having a hard time, I think -- and this is at first blush here, we're just taking a very quick look at the conclusions of the two reports. Both reports indicate that these Green and Brown houses are about 445 square metres, and they've come up with replacement costs at $1.7 million for refurbishment and they're looking at doing $1.3 million. In here they also estimate present-day construction costs in Smith at $1,320 per square metre. If you take that $1,320 and multiply it by 445 square metres -- the size of the building -- you come up with $587,000 to replace the whole thing, not the $1.762 million. I'm wondering if the Minister can just walk us through this. Obviously we're missing something here.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll ask Mr. Devitt to address that.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Mr. Devitt.

Thank you, Mr. Devitt. Mr. Bell.

Thank you. Well, just as a rough guide, if you use $130 a square foot, which seems reasonable for construction costs -- it may be slightly higher in Yellowknife now, but that's probably a good ballpark -- you don't come up with anywhere near the $1.7 million. If we are talking about refurbishing something at $1.3 million and trying to eke some extra life out of it as compared to replacing it for slightly more -- I think this is the point Mr. Lafferty made yesterday -- why are we even talking about refurbishment when replacement is so close, based on these numbers? I think we do need to have some discussion with Public Works, because these estimates are right in the information we've been provided and you have to more than double the construction cost of $130 a square foot. Even if you make it $260, Mr. Chairman, you still don't get $1.7 million. So we have no way to understand what this means or what the information provided says. Unless we're missing something very obvious here, this seems strange. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we'll have to get some more information for the Member on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Mr. Bell.