Thank you. I'd just like to follow up on some questions from Ms. Green here that she proposed to the Minister. The Minister talks about the college being autonomous. Can you give me the definition of what "autonomous" means? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. The Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. "Autonomous," I'm not going to look it up in a dictionary. Maybe my staff. If you really want that, I can get it to you. The reality is that we provide Aurora College $32 million in a contribution agreement. When we did the review, the review stated out very clearly that they felt that Education, Culture and Employment was too entrenched in the college, and it said they need to be arm's length. They need to have their own autonomy to find what they want, grow up.

The government response came back and said that we will be; Education, Culture and Employment will take it over until we can give them the skills so that they can be autonomous, be on their own, arm's length with our support. My humble definition of "autonomous" it's what they need to be. It's not where they are now, although I just met with the new associate deputy minister today, very short. We're meeting again tomorrow. It was the first thing I talked about, was: use us, use the GNWT for a couple of years, as short as you need to, all the supports you need, but the goal is to be on your own. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Next, I have Mr. Thompson.

My understanding, they're not autonomous right now. They're part of the department. We've hired somebody. How does the budget work? How does their budget work? Do they just come to you with a number and say, "We want $32 million," and you guys go out and give a contribution agreement? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. The Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Historically, we've given them $32 million. I don't know when the last increase was. I imagine they'd negotiate certain times. What their commitment is right now is they have $32 million to use as they deem fit. As they do the implementation plan, if there is more money necessary, then, they'll bring it forward to us. Again, Dr. Weegar was already talking about not being so reliant on government, looking at other ways of getting funds such as research, et cetera. Until that implementation plan is done, until the doctor has some time to figure out which way is up, it will stay as it is. Then, the commitment is, when he does that implementation plan and needs more money, we'll be looking at resourcing that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We went to them and told them to make cuts, so we, as government and the Department of Education, told them to make a cut. They've proposed these two things to cut. Now, you're telling me that the money is still there. We've seen the college. They did a review of the social work program, and they said, this is what we need to do to fix it. So why didn't we just say, "Okay, fix it and still implement it?"

It's funny because we're sitting here saying they're autonomous. They're not really autonomous, because we've got to give them two years now. We've told them that we have to make a cut, and then they cut two programs, and then they evaluated one. They went out and evaluated the social work program, and they come out and you're going, "No, that's not good enough." We've got to re-evaluate it. To me, that's not being autonomous. It's saying, if you don't listen to big dad or mom, this is what's going to happen. I struggle with what we're saying. Why don't we just say that this is what we're doing? We're going to fix it the way we like it, and that's the end of it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely right. When we were looking at funding, I wasn't the Minister then. I am guessing that it was told that you need to find some savings, and Aurora College came and said, "These are the programs that we are getting rid of because they are not cost-effective." It was not ECE. It was Aurora College that originally said that they are not cost-effective.

In the meantime, they are doing a review. I am not sure who did that review. I am not sure if it was the administration that approved that review, because, at the time that it came out, the person who was in charge of that ship had resigned. That review came out without the president actually putting a stamp of approval on it.

I am a social worker by degree, and I see the need for it. My commitment in this House is: I don't want to see a program where students are set up to fail, where students are taking third- and fourth-year courses in their first year. You can never make the honour roll, unless you are really, really super intelligent to get that done. I want to see a college or post-secondary that actually has the first and second years' general studies, like any other post-secondary in the country, where students can get all of that, and then they can actually expand and take earliers. We left the money in there because the political will of all of us was to actually provide the supports. We know that we want to do better. We know that it needs to grow. We have left the money there, that they can use as they deem fit, and then, as they develop their implementation plan, if they need money, and when they need money, at that point, we will be looking at it.

However, I don't feel that it is appropriate for me to go in and say, "This is what you are going to do with your $32 million." I think that that is a step back. I do not think that that is progressive at all. I think that we need to work towards supporting them, so that they can have our support and not feel intimidated and, within the next few years, can actually be autonomous and actually define their own. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you. I appreciate the Minister's passion from that, but when I talked to the board, the former board that is no longer out there, it wasn't the college. It was the department that told them, "You have to cut, and here's where you have to cut."

You have your opinion, and we have another opinion from other people. My concern is: how do we know that this system is going to work this time? The old system didn't work, and we have a college that has $32 million and has no real plan. Did we just give them a contribution agreement because it is what we gave them in the past? What are we doing to make sure that this time it is going to work? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My hope is that the reason it is going to work is because they are going to look from the foundation up. They are going to have a solid game plan. One of the next things that we are doing currently, along with the visioning exercise, is implementing two boards, not just a board with representatives from regions, as our old board was, which was nice. We need a board that has the skills, hopefully regional. One is around governance, how Aurora College is governed. The other board that we are looking at is an advisory board around programs, an advisory board that talks about best practices around the country, and that board will not only be defined within the territories; that is looking at people throughout the country to provide that support.

How will I know that it is going to be different? This time, we are going to have two boards, one directly specializing in best practices of programming for university, colleges, polytechs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the Minister's passion and drive, and I am hoping that she is right, but we hear about government costs and that. Now we are going to add a second board? Is this not going to cost more money to the system, or are we able to do that with the $32 million that we have right now? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. At this point, like I said, we don't know what the costs are. That is part of the process. We know that we are committed to doing this. This was agreed in the government report.

If Members think that they know the best for how we should be doing this, I am willing to take their feedback, and I will provide that to the associate deputy minister, who does have the credentials to actually move this forward, but I don't think that it is appropriate for us on this floor to be actually defining how the polytechnic university moves forward. We have hired a person to do that, and we looking at an expert team to actually provide those services. Although, if people feel they have the expertise, I am more than willing. If they want to write me a letter, I will provide that to the associate deputy minister. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Mr. Thompson, your time has expired. Education, Culture and Employment, labour development and advanced education, operations expenditures summary, activity total, $53,135,000. Does committee agree?

Thank you, committee. At the back of this section, there are a number of information items, which we have largely discussed already, so we will just move back to the departmental total on page 29. Education, Culture and Employment, total department, $332,121,000. Does committee agree?

Thank you, committee. Does committee agree that this concludes our consideration of Education, Culture and Employment?