Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we covered a number of concerns I had in my member's statement today with respect to the process that this amalgamation seems like it is following, the program that we are following. This concern about process as the government knows is not an isolated situation. I have heard these same concerns voiced over several other initiatives this government has put forward.

I will say as an ordinary member I do not feel I am given ample opportunity to discuss and consider the options before us. Yet the thing still goes ahead. Even when something does get referred to a committee, many times we make what we think are very strong comments and good input only to see the next step of the initiative. I am sure most of the people in cabinet have sat on the ordinary members side, as you can understand this is very frustrating to us as ordinary members.

I understand how the system works. I understand how the committee system works. It is good in a sense. The stuff comes from the government. We have a chance to look at it in committee but we are bound in that committee by confidentiality and we do not always get to see what is going on in other people's committees. So we focus on the departments that are before us. But all too often I feel we turn around and see progress on stuff and maybe summaries of committees is only advisement to Cabinet and the government, and maybe they do not have to take what we say seriously, but if at that level of the process we cannot get our point across, well then the only other forum available to us is to bring our concerns out here in the public on the floor of the House. That is why I am pleased there was a strong commitment by the government to bring the amalgamation document for full debate.

I do not know when that debate was anticipated to take place. The time lines are a little bit curious to me on when they were suggesting that it was going to happen. Considering that there is reference in several documents to the fact that it was going to all be implemented by April 1, 1997. So, I am not exactly sure of what the government had in mind in terms of our opportunity to debate that in the House.

There has been feed back from committees. I mean it is not for public consumption but I have summaries of committees where they are looking forward to detailed plans. When we say detailed plans, we are talking about rationalization. The government is a business. And I don't think the ordinary members are dull, but if no one can make a presentation to us that is concise enough that we can understand, that outlines details on what are the upsides, downsides, costs, savings, the structures that have been put in place, what is the rationalization for this. I mean draw us a picture, draw us a big picture, draw us a small picture at community level, exactly how it will work. How the department sees it actually coming out to work in real life. That is the kind of stuff that we need.

If we do not have that, we do not want to be swept along in an initiative that we are not sure of. It is a moving thing and we have to have a significant role to play in that, otherwise we are going to be very frustrated and you are going to be listening to a lot of complaining and maybe more serious things than that.

I have concerns even on basic issues like how do you mix a corporate entity like the NWT Housing Corporation with departments? What are the structural differences in those two entities that might affect them in being put together into one department? Are we going to amalgamate them and then find out that the Housing Corporation just operates as an independent arm of a larger department or what is involved?

So, we have, I think, legitimate questions and we do not want them to be breezed over and we do not want things happening that will cause difficulty in reversing decisions or backtracking or putting this government into embarrassing situations in having to, or even costing money, going down a course then to turn back or to stop is going to cost this government money. We do not have money to waste.

Those are some of my concerns, and the argument for amalgamation may be there. It may get the support of the members of this House. It may get the support of the committees. It is just like so many other things, we do not feel we have had the opportunity to say yea or nay. And until we say yes, I do not think anything should happen or anything take place that would commit us in any way. So that is the extent of my general comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.