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.