Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for looking into the amalgamation of the three departments, what I would like to do is, first, very quickly, go over several main points of why we are trying to amalgamate the departments. The reasons behind the rationale, et cetera. And, then give Members a chance to comment if they wish on what I have to say. My plan is not to debate the issue at length but what I would like to hear from Members is, perhaps, a little more clearly some of the reasons for the recommendation, so I can go back to Cabinet with a clear recommendation for Cabinet to make a decision on.
Mr. Chairman, the question has often been asked, why do we want to amalgamate the departments of Public Works and Services, Transportation, and the Housing Corporation. We said in the beginning, this is not a new idea, it is an idea that has been toyed around with for quite a number of years. The last two Assemblies felt that it is something that was worth looking into but never took any action. So, what I will do is I will go through six points that I have notes on. They are very short, and take it from there.
The first point is, that the amalgamation fulfils the Legislative Assembly's goal to produce a more efficient and effective government structure. It reduces costs from a reduction in senior managers. It reduces the management levels. It reduces duplication in common functions in three departments. The examples that I gave during the committee hearings were that the three departments have essentially the same type of financial policy planning, administrative and human resource services in each department. Those could be amalgamated and stream-lined.
The third point that I made during the committee hearing is, that amalgamation is a step in preparation for division. Each of the two smaller governments in the east and the west would inherit a less expensive government structure. As I said in the plans, in the committee hearings, if amalgamation goes through, our plan is to establish eastern and western headquarters units in order to ease the transition of the new governments. By doing this it would be possible to increase local expertise in program management in both sides of the Territories.
Another point I made, that it would be easier to adjust the amalgamated department to the final Nunavut and western government structures than it would be if government has to start from the present system. Which is to say that because we will have two smaller governments, it would be easier for them to deal with smaller, more efficient government structures than at the beginning of their new terms, having to amalgamate.
The fourth point I made is about cost savings. What the Finance Minister told the Committee is true, this is not a cost cutting exercise, but savings would result from an amalgamated department. We have estimated the savings to be $3 to $5 million annually after the initial year of adjustments. It is understood that during the first year of amalgamation, there are costs from lay-offs, costs if there are office changes, et cetera. The conservative estimate of cost savings if this was to go through was $3 million annually and up to $5 million. As we have been hearing in the past few days, this money is badly needed for support of critical programs that may have to be cut.
Therefore one thing we have to ask ourselves is, what is more important to our government? Programs and services that provide direct benefit to northerners, like hospitals, teachers, social workers, et cetera, or more government administration and bureaucracy. That is something we have to weigh.
The fifth point I made was, that amalgamation supports our community empowerment initiative. Presently, communities, when they deal with infrastructure, have to deal with three separate departments, the three that we are proposing to amalgamate. With an amalgamated department, the communities would have to negotiate with only one department, and you can take it from there the further ease and expense.
The final point that I tried to stress during the two meetings that we had was that this amalgamation represents good government. I told MLAs, that it is our job as government to fix what can be fixed today. We should not simply pass the difficult parts of the job on to the next government. The question that I asked is, as I said before, what is a government there to do? I said government is there to deliver services and programs. It is there to make sure the hospitals run if you are sick, you get treated, for your kids to go to school. If you do not have an income for income support to help you get through until the next time. That is what a government does. The extra jobs and the economic spin-offs from what a government does are just that spin-offs. They are very important, mind you, for the communities that they are in. As I said many times with the decentralized, at least, is that, we have recognized that and that is something that we cannot just throw away. It is, to me, a secondary issue. I said I would keep it brief. I do not want to get into a big debate of the different points, but as I said, as the Minister responsible for this proposal, I am the one that has to go back to Cabinet with a clear recommendation for Cabinet to consider, and perhaps a little further discussion and suggestions would certainly help. Thank you.