Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that Cabinet has been working under the wrong assumption. They seem to feel that amalgamation has been approved and that all we want to do is comment on their work plan. Nothing could be further from the truth. Government went ahead with dismantling Personnel and amalgamating Renewable Resources, Economic Development and Tourism and Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, in to one department without it ever having been discussed in this House and formally approved by all the members.

Cabinet knows that was a problem that we had discussed and that we were trying to do away with. Ordinary members have in no way approved amalgamation and are not looking for a work plan that we can give advice and comment on before Cabinet proceeds with amalgamation. What we are looking for are strong reasons and rationale why this amalgamation should occur. That is the type of discussion paper that we are looking for and that is the reason why we are here today, having had to table this very broad and varied document that is very, very insufficient.

In the Premier's comments yesterday, on page 107 of the transcript he indicated that "Cabinet has approved a work plan for amalgamation of these departments. I have sent that work plan to the government operations committee. Government operations will I am sure have a lot of good suggestions and advice on the amalgamation of those three departments." That is not the plan Mr. Chairman.

This House should approve that amalgamation. We do not want to just give advice and suggestions on the forgone conclusion that amalgamation will occur. Also, it seems as though lay-off notices are being sent. In the response, written response to Mr. Henry, the Minister of Finance indicated that some employees may receive notice of lay-off prior to the approval of the budget. Because the provisions of the collective agreement entitle the employees to a 90-day lay-off notice. These notices will have to be sent out over the next several months to ensure that all aspects of the budget can be implemented on April 1, 1997.

Mr. Chairman, it is not up to the Finance Minister or the Premier or anybody on Cabinet to be sending out lay-off notices prior to the approval of that budget. If the budget has not been approved, they have no business sending out these termination notices. Do those termination notices say that you may be laid off? If it says that, then I do not think that complies with the 90-day lay-off period that is required in any event.

I think that it is unacceptable for this government to be sending out lay-off notices in the hopes that something is going to be approved. Are we as this Legislature being treated as a rubber stamp? Does the government feel that we are here just to rubber stamp their decision and that we have no minds? I certainly hope not. I take strong exception to that. As I said before, I expect and I know the other members expect strong rationale and reasons why this amalgamation should occur. We do not want to be expected to comment on a work plan, when we may not even approve of the amalgamation in the first place. Thank you.

Thank you. I believe there are no more questions. I will ask the minister, do you want to respond? We have decided we all make general comments and come up with the response later. I have Mr. O'Brien, Barnabas and Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. O'Brien.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have somewhat of a general consensus by the ordinary members as to the concerns regarding the possible amalgamation. Some of the questions I have are in relationship to the fact that we really do not know what is going to happen to the employees as far as lay-offs. In my case for example in Arviat where there is a regional housing office located, we do not know what is going to happen to that particular office. There was the possibility of three PY's being transferred from Rankin Inlet sub-office to Arviat. That has been on hold. So, that is another issue that has not been dealt with yet.

I have great concern. It is difficult to deal with this when you really do not have the facts on the matter. The other issue is that this government has been saying over the last week or two that we support the Footprints 2 document in-so-far-as that they have no intention of interfering in any way with the structure of the government and how they want to set themselves up. Well, this for example flies in the face of what Footprints 2 is stating and what they wish to see. So I think there a number of things that we have to get more information on before we can debate this any further in an effective manner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. We are discussing the decision paper on the amalgamation of infrastructure department. Mr. Barnabas.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief comment on this matter. As a government we agree to transfer some responsibility to the communities. If we amalgamate these three departments, I believe the funding for taking responsibility for the communities will be less than if we amalgamate these departments. I also have a concern on the employee cuts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Barnabas. The honourable member for Hay River, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you. On this list I have Mr. Steen and Mr. Henry. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Steen.

Thank you, before I recognize Mr. Henry, the honourable member for Yellowknife South, I would like to recognize, in the public gallery, the better half of Minister Manitok Thompson, Mr. Tom Thompson.

-- Applause

Thank you. Welcome, Tom. We have Mr. Henry, the honourable member for Yellowknife South. You have the floor now, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am really hoping, and I sincerely mean this, that we have created much ado about nothing here. In the point of view that I would have liked at the very start to ask the Premier what this was, I think it is fair to say that there are some inconsistencies in the document that was presented. From my perspective I see what was presented and tabled in this House as a discussion paper. I take a look at the work plan and it talks about release of the discussion paper in November, then it talks about prepare and release discussion paper two in February. So, from my perspective I would like to think there has not been any decision made by this government to amalgamate this department.

And before we go any further, can I ask the Premier, and I know he was holding his remarks to the end, but we seem to be debating something that we have decided from information that has been presented, so could I ask the Premier, yes or no, has it been decided by the government to amalgamate these three departments? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. I would like to ask the members of this committee if it is okay for Mr, Henry now to ask Mr, Premier for his response. We had initially decided that we would wait until everyone has spoken, but in this case do we agree?

Agreed.

Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Mr. Henry. The paper that was tabled in the Legislative Assembly by the chairman of Government Operations is a discussion paper on the proposed amalgamation of Public Works and Services, Transportation and the NWT Housing Corporation. Cabinet has passed this paper to go out to discuss with all stakeholder groups, with Government Operations, with MLAs so that they can take all that information in and then, possibly, make a decision on amalgamation. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that we missed a step and that is what I said yesterday.

The ordinary members addressed it through their chairman. In any discussion paper on amalgamation members are expecting strong reasons and explanations why it is necessary. The paper tabled is very broad and does not provide significant rationale for making this major change. It is not the sessional discussion paper members are expecting exactly. It is not that. Because it is not that, it is a discussion paper, we missed a step. Before you can even make a decision to amalgamate these departments of government you have to have a discussion. We have to do the work so that we can present something to discuss.

Now, just to alleviate, Mr. Chairman, a few of the members concerns. When we go on a process, all 24 of us, of developing a budget for the next fiscal year, there are rules that we have to follow. Part of the rules are the negotiations between the union and the government of the Northwest Territories. So anything you are proposing as a 97/98 budget, which, I may say the amalgamation is not part of the 97/98 budget. It is not part of it, okay. So, if you are going to downsize, or if you have to lay people off as part of your fiscal restraint program that you are proposing in your 97/98 budget, you have to, by law, give off lay-off notices to those employees, That is what was negotiated. Mr. Erasmus, I hope you are listening because that is what it is.

Those notices should have gone out January 1st, no sooner than that, they should go out for January 1st, separate process altogether. What we are looking forward to is to having open discussion with members of the Legislative Assembly so that we can discuss this paper, and it is all in here, the time frames and then we can make a decision as a Legislative Assembly and move on, whether we do it or not. But it does not go ahead until it is approved. Nobody loses their job until it is approved.

The plan itself was not ready for tabling in this Legislative Assembly, that is why I choose, as a government, not to table. This is a discussion paper, that is what it is. So, I hope that clarifies some misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. Mr. Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, could I suggest in the future if there are misunderstandings like that, like what has been happening for the last hour or so, that someone from the cabinet make a point of order, we are good at doing these points or order and points or privilege, and say, look, I think you have the wrong idea, you are going off on a tangent here, so we can stop the discussion much earlier on.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I sort of twigged reasonably early on that this was not a final document by any stretch of the imagination. One thing, there are 9 pages in the document, one of them is referring to who can be contacted for discussion or that of the amalgamation, so really we are looking at 8 pages. It is really a timetable and when I compare that to something like the input support reform, I would suggest there is a need for a larger document. Also the fact there were no briefings that took place. We spent much time discussing the mortgage investment corporation, we had two briefings, we had people come in and tell us about the benefits, the negatives, the impacts, the cost. So, Mr. Chairman, I think I will end there, now we can, hopefully, have some discussion about sending this to committee and reworking the document, bringing it back to this House so that we can all agree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. I believe anything under this roof is subject to review. I have the honourable member for Hay River, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, I would like to remind all the honourable members to respect a person when a person is speaking please.

Hear, hear!

-- Applause

Thank you. Mr Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The members of this Legislative Assembly are elected people, they are not a special interest group. Let me make it very clear, if we did not send the document out to the stakeholders groups there would be one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight maybe, members raise issues - you did not go and consult with the public - so we do both unilaterally. Thank you.