Thank you, Mr. Chair. The way it was before, like in my riding, I will just speak to my riding, it was working well. I believe it was six cords or over 3,000 litres of fuel, and it seemed to work perfectly. Since this change, there have been a number of concerns coming up. For my riding, I think we would prefer what it used to be rather than what it is now. Will the Minister look at changing it back to what it was for especially the North, where we have the highest cost of living? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My commitment is to look at them and to actually get feedback from as many people. I have concerns, as well. I mean I often worry about giving people cash and then, you know, Christmas comes, and: do I put home heating or do I buy Christmas presents? That is my opinion, and so it would be totally inappropriate to do this based off of my opinion. When we do the evaluation, we will be looking for input from all regions, probably Aboriginal governments and staff and a number of people, to try to find out what is the best solution. The ideal, again, income support is a supplementary program. It is not meant to cover all the needs of all people. Within that, we need to make sure that we are providing it in the best way possible, so we will be reviewing it all, and I have heard the Member. He said, "I like it better with putting it back to the litres," so I have heard you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Blake.

Thank you. I know the Minister has said they will review it, but will they make the changes is what we are getting at. It is good to review, but, if you are not going to make the changes, then there is no sense of reviewing it. If the Minister is willing to make changes, then that is good with me. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I come from a non-profit world, and I am not known for -- I mean, I do it. I do the action plans and frameworks and stuff, but I am big on getting action, so when I say I am reviewing stuff, it is because I think we need changes, and so my commitment is to actually doing the changes necessary so that people get the best support possible. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Education, Culture and Employment, income security, operations expenditure summary, total activity, $51,843,000. Does committee agree?

Thank you, committee. Please turn to activity 5, labour development and advanced education, beginning on page 49. This is our final activity. Comments or questions? Ms. Green.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we touched on this point before, but I feel a need to go over it on this page. I understood the Minister to say that some of the money that was paying for the new ADM came from the Aurora College fund, and we also know that there were cuts to programs at Aurora College for the Social Work Program and the Teachers' Education Program, and yet the budget doesn't reflect those decreases in spending. Can the Minister explain why that is the case? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The programs for the Social Work Program and the teachers, those were put on hold. We are reviewing them. We have not taken the money away from those programs. Aurora College still has the funding for those. We have not lowered the funding. They are still getting $32 million a year, so that money is still in place, and, of course, they can use that as needed. The other part was that we had a person that was in a position, and we bumped them up to acting, so we actually have additional staffing monies for that, as well. We are not worried. We do feel that we have the money to provide for the salary.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. My deputy minister reinforced that, as we do the implementation plan, as we need money, then we will be coming back with that, so, at this point, we do not see the additional need for monies for that position. If I am wrong, I am willing to make a business case and to approach Cabinet, but, at this point, we are not seeing it. When the implementation plan is done, at that point, through that process, we will see the need for additional funds provided to the polytechnic university. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Ms. Green.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This isn't making total sense to me. Let's take the Social Work Program. It is my understanding that there is no staff left at the Social Work Program, so I am unclear why those salaries would be budgeted into the next fiscal year. It looks like the effect of this is to create a slush fund that will be sort of unplugged to actual need in the next fiscal year and, in fact, for the foreseeable future, because we don't know when or if the Social Work Program is coming back. Can the Minister provide a rationale for continuing to allocate money to salaries, when there is no one to fill the positions and there is no advertising to fill those positions, because there is no program? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The decision was made not to take the funding away, because we know that we are moving into a polytechnic university, and my commitment on the floor was that those two programs would be the first ones to be reviewed once we do the evaluation. Those positions are still here in the mains. The people in those positions are not there. They have been transferred, or they have gotten other jobs, but the positions still remain, and that money is actually not being spent until the polytechnic action plan is decided upon. We haven't taken the money away. The people have left, but the money is still there for those positions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Ms. Green.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I get that the money is still here. I just am questioning, as a budgeting practice, budgeting for a program that doesn't exist. There is X amount of money for these instructors that is not being taken up. The effect of that is there is this money dedicated to a program that no longer exists. I don't understand why the Minister is retaining this money. The whole point of this exercise was for Aurora College to save money. The staff are all gone; there is the possibility of saving the money, and yet, the money is still here for a program that, at this point, doesn't have a start date. I just can't follow the logic of it. If she could speak to me about that, please? Thank you.

Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Originally, the direction was, if we were leaving those positions, to take the money away. It was a decision that was not favourable, and so we stopped that, and we said, "No, Aurora College will still get the same amount of funding." They have a lot of work to do, Mr. Chair. They need to develop an implementation plan. They need to do an evaluation. They need to look at the programs. That money will still be needed.

When we give funding to all of the schools, we give funding based on enrolment or based on teachers needed or other factors considered, but we don't prescribe what any of the education authorities is actually going to do, down to what your janitor buys or what you implement. That is why we have education bodies to actually do that work. We provide $32 million to Aurora College, and that money is still there for Aurora College to move into the polytechnic university. They can use that as they deem necessary. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Ms. Green.

I am starting to get a little clearer here now. The money is not for the Social Work Program; it is for the development and implementation of the polytechnic university. Do I have that right now? Thank you.

Minister.