Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question. Mr. Chairman, the Premier indicated that the process is to have discussion prior to the amalgamation and to have input from stakeholders and the rest of that. Where was the discussion and the input from the stakeholders when they amalgamated what is now RWED? There was none. There was no discussion in this House. I do not understand how he came up with this process. I guess that is a comment.

Thank you. I have Mr. Roland and then Mr. Ootes. Mr. Roland.

Thank you. Mr. Ootes wanted to speak but the indication from here is he is going to pass for now. Mr. Premier did you want to respond to Mr. Roland? Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The discussion paper on amalgamation is going to go to Government Operations, Mr. Arlooktoo will be handling that issue. I have already said it does not go ahead until we have the agreement of the majority of the members of this Legislative Assembly. Through the committee process, we have full discussions. Nobody loses their jobs until those discussions take place. We have to go through that process. We all agreed on that process. We are fully committed to that process but we have to do the work in order for the discussion to happen. We have done that. So, now we can have the discussion. Then once the discussion is complete, if the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly say, yes, that sounds like a good idea to do that, they fully understand the issue, then we move ahead. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Ootes, do you want to speak now?

Thank you. Mr. Todd or Mr. Arlooktoo.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could make a couple of comments on some of the things that have been raised. But first to answer Mr. Ootes' question, and as the Premier said, there have been no lay-offs in the civil service because of amalgamation. Any job reductions that are going on now are a result of other reduction initiatives such as user pay/user say, that were approved by the House last year. That would be my response to that. If you would allow me, Mr. Chairman, to make a couple of general comments in response to what was said earlier.

I think what is happening is that members are mixing up different initiatives such as user pay/user say initiative that departments are doing to implement deficit reduction targets with amalgamation. What we are doing now, as the Premier said, is planning for amalgamation and issuing this discussion paper so discussion can take place in order that we may consult with our constituents, with other stakeholders, et cetera and then a decision will be made. But I would say that we do not have a lot of time. We do need to make a decision within the next couple of months. I would hope members will look at the discussion paper seriously and give comments back.

Myself, as the minister that has been assigned the task of looking at a possible amalgamation, and Mr. Joe Handley who has also been assigned to head up a team to see if this is a workable idea or not, have done some consultations directly with our staff in the last few weeks. Generally, I would say that most of the staff that we talked to believe that amalgamation is a good idea, that amalgamation is only a common sense thing to do in this day and age. There are dissenters of course, some loud ones but in general they seem to understand that we need to do something to reduce the size of government.

One of the things that I must point out to people is the fact that with division in only two years and some odd months, it will be impossible for the two new smaller governments to support three separate bureaucracies that run relatively small departments, separate housing departments, separate public works department and separate transportation departments. Because of the small populations and because we will lose some economies of scale after division, it will be impossible to justify that. It is my own view that we either do it now or we do it later. If I could point out also, as we talked to staff just with the government itself, the major concerns that have been brought up by staff are the same that MLAs have voiced. The biggest one is job loss, whether or not they will lose their jobs, whether or not they will have to relocate or regional offices will change and the fact that they really want to have some input into any changes that may come about.

The other thing that staff have told us is, if amalgamation is to occur and if their job will be effected, changed or eliminated, they want to know right away. They want to know as soon as possible. I think that after discussion of the paper, it is our responsibility to do that. I would like to reassure MLAs again, as the Premier has stated, that no lay-offs will be issued until we know that this thing is going ahead and until we have a very good idea on what will be affected. Mr. Miltenberger did say that he would likely not support amalgamation until he sees a structure in place first, but I would point out again that I think what we have to do is to figure exactly what it is we want the department to do. We would like a department that provides housing, that deals with roads, that deals with infrastructure. Then identify the critical issues such as job losses, how does it effect community empowerment, division, et cetera.

Once those things are answered then we deal with the structure. I know the issue of how personnel will be affected is very sensitive and I can appreciate that. I think it is no secret that the regional centres and headquarters will be the ones that are most affected. People ask how many jobs will be lost, that is a question which cannot be answered right now because we are not far enough into the process. Clearly, we would need one deputy minister instead of three, assistant deputy ministers would probably go from the five or six we have right now to maybe two. You have corresponding less duplication in areas of financing, human resources, et cetera.

I cannot hear myself talking right, so I will stop there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. We have Mr. Ootes, Mrs. Groenewegen and Mr. Picco. Mr. Ootes.

According to the rules, we have to deal with the motion. There is a motion to extend the sitting hour. At this point, I will recognize Mr. Ootes' motion to extend the sitting hour. To the motion. Question is being raised. All those in favour of the motion, please signify. Opposed? The motion is carried. The sitting hours are extended to conclude this particular item. Point of order Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will assume, my point of order is, I am not sure I will have to review Hansard, but I believe the member for Yellowknife Centre may have inadvertently made comment and made reference to confidential documents that relate to the 1997/98 budget, with respect to job loss.

Thank you. The chair does not have the clear indication of what was said in the Hansard so will review the point of order and make a ruling from there. Thank you. We have Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you. I believe Mr. Premier wants to respond to the honourable member for Hay River. Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me state again that amalgamation is not going to go ahead until the majority of the members support amalgamation through the process we have. Nobody loses their jobs until that is approved by the majority. According to the discussion paper that is out there right now or proposal, there is a time frame in it through this work plan. If this work plan stays intact and everything goes then it would not be until April the 1st that you would have to give any lay-off notices to do with this amalgamation because you can see it there that it takes April, May, June, July to even put it into process. You have all the other time up front between now and then to do the consultation, get every body's input into it then make the decision, set up the senior management team and then move ahead. It takes time. We are not going to do this over night. It has nothing to do with amalgamation. Thank you.

Thank you. On the list I have Mr. Picco. The honourable member for Iqaluit, Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is anyone trying to be adversarial here. We are just trying to get to the point where is amalgamation going to occur. So on and so forth. My question would be, have any lay-offs taken place that would be affected by the amalgamation process to occur on April 1st, 1999? That is a fair question.

Thank you. Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There have been no lay-off notices, no lay-offs to do with anything about amalgamation.

Thank you, Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, so there have been no lay-offs to do with the amalgamation to date. There have been no lay-off notices to date. Have there been any lay-offs in the past six months with plans that were under way for amalgamation?

Thank you. Order. Mr. Picco, could you repeat that question please?