Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to start by saying that this merger of departments was definitely not about reducing costs or losing jobs. That is not my goal at all. It was just, like I said, one commitment was with devolution devolve and evolve.

The bigger thing for me was just my experiences in the last session and seeing the difficulties with smaller departments competing against bigger departments. So at this time, we're not looking at -- we're not expecting that this will be a cost saving endeavour. This is about making sure that the program's more effective and more efficient and better for the users in the end.

Who do we use? When devolution occurred, I'll bring it back there, the Department of Lands was created, and organizational structure of the Department of ENR changed. Some functions in particular related to water came to ENR and others went to ENR to lands. And those were some of the confusions we were having.

Since now, I mean now it's become clear that this close intersection of the work being done, and so we're looking at changing it -- sorry, I was reading the wrong answers.

So the decision was made on concerns that have been brought forward by clients and the experience of those working in and within the departments themselves. And again, my own interests and the promise with devolution to devolve and evolve.

Merging the departments is consistent in how the functions are organized in the majority of other Canadian jurisdictions. There's many examples to turn to existing within the GNWT and across the country on how to organize to support gathering information for and maintaining effective stewardship and regulatory functions where climate change fix within the new department will be a focus of this work as we go forward.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is not a cost saving endeavour. This is about efficiency. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.