Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Ootes.

Mr. Chairman, my final comment and question is with respect to Partners in a New Beginning. I appreciated Mr. Antoine's comments on it and I think he emphasized there is a need to continue to work on developing a constitution. I think we are all aware that the main proposal in Partners in a New Beginning has extreme difficulties being accepted by certain numbers of people. By the same token, there were two other proposals in that document that can perhaps be fleshed out further and discussed further. I do have a question for Mr. Antoine. Could he just briefly indicate what the schedule may be of the Working Group with respect to public input and public consultation?

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Antoine. Questions or comments on the four items on the agenda. Does the committee agree that deliberations on item Minister's Statement 5-13(4) Division Planning, Minister's Statement 6-13(4): Western Constitutional Development, Tabled Document 4-13(4): Partners in a New Beginning, and Tabled Document 5-13(4): Footprints 2 Second Comprehensive Report of the NIC are concluded.

Very well. We have only one item left on my agenda. Mr. Ootes.

I recommend that we proceed with the item left on the agenda, Mr. Chairman.

Does the committee agree we proceed with Tabled Document 13-13(4): Discussion Paper on Amalgamation?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over the past six months, the government has raised the possibility of amalgamating the NWT Housing Corporation and the Departments of Public Works and Service, and Transportation. Ordinary members have serious concerns about this possible amalgamation. In our previous session, we passed a motion in the House to ensure there was full consultation and support of the members for the amalgamation before it proceeds.

Ordinary members of this House met this morning to discuss the paper tabled yesterday. We have a number of concerns. Other members will probably discuss these items in full detail. However, I wanted to give a general overview of some of the issues. The government's paper mentions taking into consideration changes necessary for 1999. However, the proposed structure is not consistent with the structure being proposed for Nunavut in Footprints 2.

In 1989, the government felt there was sufficient justification to divide the department of Public Works and Highways into two departments, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transportation. Less than 10 years later we are putting them back together again. The motion passed in this Assembly directed that the amalgamation not proceed until a paper on the amalgamation is tabled, and approved, in the Assembly. However, in the covering letter from the Premier, the final paragraph indicates that the Premier announced the decision to amalgamate. It also says that the plans must be completed by April 1st, 1997. This is certainly not a letter indicating that there is any room to discuss whether the amalgamation should occur.

Ordinary members are only being offered an opportunity to comment on the mandate. In any discussion paper on the amalgamation members are expecting strong reasons and explanations for why it is necessary. The paper tabled is very broad and does not provide sufficient rationale for making this major change. It is not the sessional discussion paper members are expecting. Members are aware that employees are being told that there is a possibility that departments will amalgamate and, some members understand, that this has been communicated to employees in written form.

To introduce the air of uncertainty for our employees who have already been through the difficulties of budget reductions, is unacceptable. The Premier has assured this House that no decision will be final until the amalgamation is approved by the Assembly, however, members are well aware, through their constituents, that there is preparatory work going on.

While, in theory, things can be stopped at any point, we are, unfortunately well aware, that it is difficult, or impossible, to stop the wheels of government process once they are in motion. These are some of the key points ordinary members raised this morning related to the proposed amalgamation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. I have Mr. Krutko, Mr. Picco and Mr. Enuaraq in that order.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In response to the amalgamation of the departments, I just want to make it clear that, my view, as the member representing the Mackenzie Delta, is that we have been here for a year, this amalgamation was discussed in regards to the overviews that we did last year. It is also on the document that we accepted in this House that we will be looking at the possibility of that amalgamation. We will have an opportunity to discuss it.

In the case of the Mackenzie Delta, the community that I represent, there is a real question of doubt in their minds about how government operates. You have infrastructure, which consists of Public Works who have their own garage, a maintenance office, vehicles and, take care of a few buildings. Then you have the Housing Authority, which takes care of the housing units, and they have a garage, a maintenance shop, equipment, and also you have the hamlet council who has a garage, and equipment and, also, they take care of their responsibilities in the community in regards to buildings and structures.

Somehow, there has to be a real need of coordinating these efforts so that you do not have people who are trained and deal with specific areas in regards to maintenance of buildings, operating equipment and taking care of the day-to-day operations of the water treatment plant in regards to the hamlet, the recreation facilities and, also, the maintenance of the roads. Then you have another department, the Housing Corporation, whose sole responsibility is to maintain housing units on behalf of the Housing Corporation.

So, we have to somehow take a look at it in the context of who are these departments there to serve and what the cost is of maintaining and operating these different departments. Yes, I agree, that it has to be looked at but it has got to be done in such a manner that we do take into account the individuals in the community that do work for these different departments that are going to be amalgamated and how those individuals could be reallocated in consideration of saving those jobs that are in the communities that are few compared to the other centres in the regional centres versus the head office, usually in Yellowknife and other locations.

Also, this was a measure we were looking at in terms of saving money, especially in these days of financial restraint and the deficit, we do have to find a new way of doing government better. I think we have to allow this process to happen but it has to be done in a coordinated fashion with input from the regular members through committee structures and, also, through the community empowerment. Allowing them to take over responsibilities such as the housing authorities, through public works, through the hamlet offices, though the bank offices and look at the possibility of allowing those communities to do things that could be more productive and also a reasonable way of operating small communities where you are talking 500 or 600 people, where you are talking sharing the resources that are there.

Instead of splitting up the departments where they are responsible for a small portion of infrastructure in the community and another group is responsible for another portion of that community. We have to look at amalgamating these groups so it serves the people of that community best. That is my view, that we have to look at it in that context and not look at it in the context of how many people are going to be in the head office or how much it is going to cost. I think we have to look at the cost factor, and also, the economic viability of how this is going to happen. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Picco. You directed a question to Mr. Morin.

Thank you, Mr. Enuaraq. I have Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few general comments I would like to make mainly to outline the concerns that I have on amalgamation. They are based on a years experience now as an MLA, a little over a year, and all the change and restructuring we have gone through as a government. I would like, before I could support an amalgamation, I want a very clear idea of what the structure is going to look like, not only at the general headquarters level, but at the regional and area level, I want a very clear idea of the location of offices, what the cuts are going to be.

I would be strongly recommending that we clearly indicate in whatever plan we are putting forward, that we recognize and try to build upon some of, what I think are the mistakes we have made in dealing with employees and communicating what is happening. When I think of RWED right now there are employees still sitting there since August with their fate undecided getting pay cheques, but with no clear job to do. I think we have to show that we have learned from that. We have been telling people that we have been learning as we go, so I hope that whatever plan is there that it will clearly lay that out. Communication is going to be critical and I recommend that be clearly outlined as well.

So, I realize that what we were given is a general overview, so as the details flesh out those are some of the key concerns that I have and I will be waiting with great interest and I will be scrutinizing very carefully. I want to make it very clear that I want to encourage the government to make sure that they honour the commitment that there will be no work done on amalgamation until we have discussed it in this Assembly and that they have approval of the Assembly. Thank you.