The Member might be on the right track, but I think it is sort of premature because we have not gone into the implementation. But I think what this paragraph really is stating, and I do not want to defend the project team's analysis, but often in other parts of the country when you try to streamline or put together, the system says you cannot do that because you need all those people. And it is found that in areas where they have done the streamlining before, and consolidated, it works well and sometimes it works better. Because probably people are more driven by a more direct process than by what they have to do.
Say, for example, if two people are handling similar things, maybe one person can handle that job and then the client would not have to go to two people. I guess it is really just the way that we have taken over responsibilities. We have not rationalized that. There generally would be a fear created because a whole lot of different people have different functions that are similar but who would not see that maybe there would be streamlining and maybe one person could do a really super job rather than working half time or whatever.
I think it is just an opinion that is being placed in this report, an analysis, looking at how other people have viewed streamlining in other constituencies. But in the end it was not really found that it was not necessarily true. Maybe one could really do a super job; pay the person more and make the job more oriented to a different function. So I think this is just an opinion from experience from these people.