Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the structure of the GNWT, including the establishment policies for departments, rests with the Premier's office, as did the after-action report that was commissioned by TSI. We've been talking about the recommendation to create an emergency -- a dedicated emergency services agency. It could also be done by way of department. We've had conversation about this. But before rejecting that recommendation, did anyone involved with this on the government side of this report do the analysis of how we could cost-effectively create a new agency from our existing structure? Thank you.
Member, who are you pressing that question to? Sorry?
Thank you, Member from Range Lake. Mr. Premier.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So the question is did we -- the question as I understand it is did the government do a cost analysis of creating a new emergency management department. And so earlier the Minister of MACA stated that the decision was made based on the capabilities that are currently in house. And so, you know, that's the information that I heard earlier today, and I believe that the Minister has committed to going back to the department, looking at the cost of doing something like this. So I think that that question has been answered today already and that further conversations will happen based on those commitments. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked whether or not different options than just a full agency were done is because we've done this before. We have the Department of Infrastructure that's Transportation and Public Works. We have the Department of Finance that's Finance and HR. We've amalgamated departments to find cost savings. So what if we take justice and public safety? I don't want to ask a hypothetical. But were alternative options explored in how we could amalgamate existing resources to provide a dedicated department or agency, whatever you want to call it, but to meet that recommendation? That's the question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I am not a big fan of amalgamating and separating departments. I've seen it happen during my time in Cabinet, and it takes a lot of energy, it takes a lot of resources, and it takes years for things to begin working smoothly. We have a system right now where there's a dedicated team of people who work on emergency management. There's training for government employees who can become part of that team when it is necessary. And so the decision was made, as I understand it, based on those factors. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Final supplementary. Member from Range Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, I mean, I'm going to respectfully disagree with the Premier. I mean, the findings were that the existing system proved ineffective during a large-scale disaster and that the system's not agile enough to deal with these things. And we have to take it on face value that the actions taken from then to now have actually resulted in all these improvements and we don't need anything else. Northerners want to see some movement on this. So will the Premier reverse this decision, accept the recommendation, and explore creative ways to bring a centralized response agency or department, whatever you have it -- I'm not going to be prescriptive. But will he reverse this decision? Do the right thing, accept the recommendation, and show Northerners that we could trust this government is prepared to deal with emergencies? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There were 35 recommendations in that report. 35. If you look at 34 of them, they say "agree". There is one where the department looked at internally the capacity and made the determination that this is what is appropriate for our northern context. I mean, we could farm out all decisions to contractors and to third parties and academics and experts from other places, but at some point, we have to govern and make decisions based on the learned experiences that we have as a government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
