Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We, I guess, can say that we're probably not on the top end when you look at the industry itself and the changes in programming that are happening. Although, we've made the switch to PeopleSoft and that version, it's quite a large program and it is quite able to handle the government information we need. We have, as well, highlighted in my opening comments work that we are beginning to do with our financial information system. That's the next big piece of work that we'll have to do and invest in as a government to ensure that we can continue to meet the requirements that are placed on us. So in areas we are lacking when it comes to our software and our hardware, but we are picking up and have made some changes and will continue to do so to ensure that we can deliver what's required of us. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. I think this is an important area in that we do live in a computer age and we need to have adequate technology and computer systems to do our work. I have just been noticing that I'm not sure if the government is keeping up to date with the upgrading of programs and such. I can tell you that I have, I think, a more smooth, better and faster-running system in my home and I don't think I have a state-of-the-art system there either. It's just got me worrying that the government has for too many years now not been investing money that's necessary to keep with the program. I'm not even sure if the computer network program that we have in the government now can keep up with just a middle-of-the-road line of products, not just the most advanced kind.

I don't want to see a situation where, a year or two or three years down the road, we find ourselves having to spend a lot of money to upgrade the system if we are neglecting to do it now or we have neglected to do it for the last three or four years. So I still didn't get a specific answer from the Minister. Does the Minister know whether we have spent adequate money or made the investments necessary to keep up the system and whether or not there's a mandate given to the TS Centre? Now that they have been consolidated, they can look at the government-wide technology and information system to see what needs there are. Not so that everybody has the fanciest system in the world, but just so that we don't find ourselves in a situation that we may try to save a few bucks and end up having a lot higher costs inadvertently. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with what the Member stated around the area of our technology and the enhancements and changes that have come as a result of that. At one time, when computers first came out, there was much discussion about how they would make our lives much easier. We haven't found that to be the case. There are continuing changes and programs and platforms that we must adapt to and make necessary changes. As a government, we're working and trying to stay updated on those things. For example, government-wide, we spend approximately $5 million a year in the area of programs and equipment. One of the other areas that we've worked on to try to help with getting data back and forth from communities, regions to headquarters, is through the DCN, or the digital

communications network, and we're just going through the revision of the contract and hope to have that finalized soon. One of the other programs we have around computers is desktop hardware is evergreen, and every four years new systems are brought into place.

So there's some of what we're doing and, as we go through this next phase with the TSC and systems communications, hopefully we'll be able to coordinate our work better and find some efficiencies. As well, maybe we can improve on what we're able to do and provide a service for those people within the government and improve how we communicate with the communities and regions. We accept that some of our problems recently have been around the hardware end, and that area falls within the responsibility of Public Works and Services where TSC happens to be merging. We will have some information available for Members when we go through that department. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. General comments, Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll keep my comments to one area and it relates to the transition that we're undertaking for our government-wide human resources to consolidate this function within FMBS. I think there are quite a number of similarities to the service centre concept that Ms. Lee was talking about with technology that I think has had a reasonably good role. Like Ms. Lee, I must share some complications with my own computer skills, but the service that I've been getting from the TSC has been really good.

What I wanted to look at here was the creation of this consolidation. It is a fairly significant move. It is one that is, over time, going to affect each government department. A number of staff are going to be involved in this, but I'm looking forward, Madam Chair, to government-wide service and implementation of our human resource policies.

As an MLA, on occasion I do hear about situations that constituents find themselves in. Very often what it relates to, Madam Chair, is inconsistencies from one department to another or perhaps one area of policy interpretation to another. My understanding is that it goes back to moves that were made several years ago by this government to disseminate HR functions. So our policies were then distributed to various departments and deputy ministers and ministries and boards, but over the course of time, Madam Chair, as policies are interpreted differently by different people in different situations, we have really encountered sort of more and more inconsistency and frustration on the part of some employees and some potential employees.

So with that, I wanted to indicate that I'm anticipating or expecting that we will see improvement in our overall HR practices here and, like I said, I'd ask the Minister if he could give committee a status report and an outline in general terms, Madam Chair, of the next steps involved in human resources consolidation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with the Member; it is a significant move that we are undertaking as a government to go back to somewhat of a way of doing business that was done prior, where we have human resource service centres. It is very different though from what was known previously as the Department of Personnel. The human resource service centres are a way of pooling our staff and bringing them together so that, one, we can be more coordinated in how we deliver the program, ensuring that all departments are following and have the same understanding of the rules that we work with. I believe that will also help individuals when they come into the government and are looking for employment or transfers within the government.

A significant amount of work has been done to date and there still remains to be a fair bit done, but I think we've been moving along in a very good way and a healthy fashion. Of course, when you do make some changes as significant as this, it does cause some concern and anxiety out in the system. We do have a lot of people who are involved in the delivery of human resources throughout departments and boards and agencies. We've been working with them and our regions to ensure that this is as smooth as possible.

The first stages, as we worked through, were to develop a vision of what the human resource service centres would be doing and getting that message out, the goals that would flow out of that vision, and then the functions and activities of that service centre, how that work would be done and what should be pulled into the service centres and what would remain with departments and boards and how they would do that. Once we had that, then develop the processes that would be required in the working arrangements between boards and the service centres, as well as from the regional service centre to headquarters, develop the standards that are going to be in place from that. Then start cataloguing and developing what we're going to need in the area of resources for the work that's going to be required of the new service centres that are created. That's both on the financial side as well as the human resource side.

Then what we're into right now is in the area of organization and design, how it's going to start fitting together, identifying the job description of the staff that will be working within service centres and ensuring that job descriptions are updated and meet the operational requirements of that. As we're getting into that, we begin looking at staffing and how that would fit into it with the new organizational design, as well as the job descriptions that have changed. So we're right into that area now of the job description/staffing side of it and see how the people we have involved right now will fit into the new service centre organization and how their job descriptions may be changed, matching individuals into jobs that are there. From there, there will be some changes to some of the job description side that people used to be involved with within departments and making sure that we can fit them in where necessary. We'll work with them in that area to ensure that they do have the qualifications to fit in. We're into that stage. We're into a pretty heavy schedule, but I believe again through this work that's been happening it's been quite a successful transition at this point and I continue to work with that. Again, as I've committed, we'll continue to work with committee and keep committee updated as we go forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Roland has reflected for this committee, Madam Chair, what we have heard in previous briefings. This is a major initiative and it is one that I look forward to a successful roll-out and a good implementation. It really will affect the calibre and the satisfaction and performance of our workforce. I place a really high significance and value on the work that's being undertaken.

Now, I wanted to see if the Minister could give us some idea if we're going to see more or less a status quo, roughly the same number of people continuing to be involved, or will there be some downsizing or attrition? As well, will there be much in the way of dislocation? Will we be able to preserve or reserve or perhaps enhance the role of people based in the regions and communities outside of headquarters? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe this exercise we're doing is about making sure that we're doing the job right. That's the first stage we were involved in, in a sense, is getting the mechanics right. Making sure that the organization, the design job descriptions are fitting and able to work well. Then as we go through that and develop that, the second phase of that would be the policy end, how things need to work together and get that end together. That's definitely where we're going to be needing the input of Members, to ensure that we're on the right footing as we go forward.

I believe that as we go through this, it is critical we get this right and ensure that the right authority is in the right place to make the decisions necessary to get on things, to make sure that we're operating efficiently. So there will be some changes in the way things work right now. A fair bit of the decision-making process in the existing system still comes to headquarters.

What we're looking to do with this, once we're up and functional and have our policies in place, is that decision making can happen at the regions. The department will still have the final decision to make. The process will work where we've done the right job and somebody plugs in looking for employment, go through that phase and ensure that the mechanics of it works right and that all departments are using the same criteria as we go forward.

Ultimately it's going to remain with managers to manage in the regions. As well as the service centres, we're looking at enhancing their ability to get the job done. So there will be some changes. We have to be realistic here; there will be some dislocation about things that happen. There may be some growth in areas. This initially is not a cost-cutting exercise. It's one to make sure we get the job done right, set up the mechanics, get it done right and then at that point we can look at ourselves to see if we've accomplished what we've set out to do. If there are going to be any changes in growth, that will happen in the regions, not in headquarters. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next on the list I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know the Minister has heard me in the House question the Sirius Diamonds loan guarantee at length last week and again this week. I'm not done with that issue either, Madam Chair, and I will be bringing that issue back before the House again before too long.

I had some questions on this and the first one I'd like to ask is, when the supplementary appropriation came before the House last year it was for $231,000, if I remember correctly. I'm wondering where FMBS got the other $2.7 million to cover off the $3 million loss that they had originally made known to this Assembly. Where did that other $2.7 million come from, Madam Chair? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the funding that we required to cover the rest of the loss that was identified was found from other program areas within FMBS where we had lapses. We would have turned that money back over to the consolidated revenue fund, but, realizing this loss was there, we then applied that money to the loss instead of turning it back over to the general revenue fund. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just found that to be a really interesting way of reporting that loss, that $231,000 as opposed to $3 million, so that it wasn't really portrayed the way that I believe it probably should have been portrayed. I'd hate to think that any other program or service suffered as a result of your department having to try to find this money from within. The next question I have, Mr. Chairman, is the recommendation that's before us in terms of the date. I'm wondering how optimistic the Minister is that a purchaser will be found for the Sirius plant so we can mitigate the losses that we're incurring on a daily basis there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of all, for the record, let's state that the accounting that took place of the loss as required by the Financial Administration Act was done so according to the Financial Administration Act, and through that supplementary document showed the loss as we have to account for it. So it was public, it was transparent. Just a portion of that was paid from within an appropriation amount we had within FMBS.

The other area; what we're going to conclude here is the waivers to ensure that the receiver can go out now and make contact with other interested parties with the Sirius plant operations, and we're hoping that we'll be done very shortly as the initial contact again trying to find out if there are interested parties. We're aware they are there, it's just a matter of seeing what they can bring to the table. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find that comment, Mr. Roland, very interesting, as well. Last week when we had the Minister...Well, I'm not quite sure if I can mention that. From what I understand, Mr. Chairman, the

waivers were to be in place last week and if the Minister's here before us today saying these waivers aren't in place, another week has gone by, thousands more dollars have been lost and I'd like to ask the Minister where the waivers are and when we are going to get on with this. Thank you.