Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The objective was to create a more efficient and effective government and the initial comments were that this would not necessarily lead to a lot of cost savings for the government. I have found this proposal very difficult to evaluate because the information provided was very limited. The Minister has pointed out that because it was at a proposal stage, not in a detail stage I have a lot of questions with regard to how these particular departments fit together. Like Transportation and Housing, do they fit together? Do Housing and DPW necessarily fit together?
in the works but this is impacting upon a lot of people already that are employed by the government but also in communities so that is one program that is very, very big and had tremendous impact.
The time is of concern as well. There has been a tremendous amount of time spent by departmental officials, no doubt, on this issue and if we are going to reorganize a lot more time will be spent on this. With division looming in front, we spoke about that earlier today, we do not have that privilege of time on our hands. We have to spend time on division issues rather than the reorganization of government.
Our deficit management plan has been very, very vigorous and it has meant many government department changes. The necessary reductions are now in place to achieve a balanced budget. I have been led to believe that this amalgamation is not necessary in order to meet the deficit plan. I have to go back to the advantages and disadvantages. In the financial savings, the Minister indicates there is $3 to $5 million annually. However, I do not have the details for that. I do not think the other day, when we met on this there was clear substantiation on this. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty with this, it is hard to get these figures. This is my point. It all consumes a lot of time and a lot of concerns. Are the figures accurate? Presumably we can say yes they are. But it does not relate to the deficit plan.
For larger communities, it means a loss because we are going to have a tremendous number of lay-offs because of this amalgamation and in my community, particularly, every time we do this, each of our communities is affected, but mine is too. I am concerned about that. I am not that anxious to continue to lay off a lot of government employees because in my community the problem of division will mean the transfer of a lot of people to Iqaluit or to the east to the various communities there. So, we will continue to be hit here.
For the government's side and sake, there is already a tremendous burden upon this public service with the many programs that we have set in motion since we have come into office. There are a multitude of programs and this is another that the staff will be burdened by, if we proceed. The government really does not need additional programs.
The amalgamation is a good idea to be revisited after division because each government can then design its own particular program. In the case of Nunavut, I understand that there was some concern in the NIC report, Footprints 2, that they wish to consider MACA to be amalgamated with some of these programs. I think that is an opportunity for that particular government to address it. And for the western government to address amalgamation after 1999.
I cannot provide and give support to this proposal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.