Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, again, this amount is for the old contract that was in place. It has no impact on the new contract. This is for 2006-2007 costs. The new contract in place is a southern contractor tied to, as well, northern partners. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you. The Minister's being very helpful on this. Maybe I'll ask one last question. Can I get some details to be sent to me -- that is, we probably don't need them today -- as to who was awarded the contract and some evaluation of why a southern contractor got it as opposed to a northern contractor? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, that contract doesn't take place until April 1st. This money allocated here is for the existing one in place. I'm aware that the Minister of Human Resources will provide that information. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I've got a number of questions in this area. I'll start with this one. Can the Minister of Finance explain to me why from 2005-2006 the estimates were at $19.6 million and today they're at $31.6 million? That's an unprecedented increase in this area of our operation. I'd like the Minister to offer up some type of explanation on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before I go to responding to the Member's question, I must for the record state, as he stated in the House in a fairly serious allegation as I would put it, that I misled the House by saying we've provided misleading information on some of the numbers, and that's not appropriate. The fact is, in this case, the numbers -- again he's quoted $19 million over to $31 million -- and that's not an accurate reflection of what happened or the type of growth. The actual Human Resources budget, when you take in the initial costs from FMBS, because this money was carved out of FMBS' shop as well as each and every department that had human resources staff. So when you take all of that together, it was more in the $30 million range and we can provide that breakdown. It didn't start out at $19 million on April 1st, 2006, and then grow to $31 million April 1st, 2007. That's not an accurate reflection. But we will provide the actual breakdown of how that number is put together. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't want the Minister to think I'm saying that they're misleading us,

but I'd like an explanation, Madam Chair, on how it is that one day the Minister of Human Resources can come before this House and extol the virtues or accolades or get accolades on a reduction in staffing when this transition money that you're talking about here has a component in it for salaries and benefits to employees. So what is it? Are you reducing numbers or are you not reducing numbers? Is this going to be an ongoing issue inside the Department of Human Resources? Are they going to have to keep hiring all these employees to do the work there that obviously needs to get done? You can't have the Minister coming in here one day and telling us things are one way and then the next day we get a supp telling us things are different. So what is it? I think that's the question that I have, Madam Chair. What is it?

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, what the Minister presented to you yesterday under the Department of Human Resources was the 2007-2008 budget. As you see throughout this document, a supplementary document, whenever a department runs into problems and does not have the available funding within its appropriation made by this House, it has to come back to this House for further appropriation. So the existing money is for operating under the 2006-2007 year, not for the 2007-2008 year. So what he presented to you for the 2007-2008 year shows a reduction in staff. The breakdown of the costs as provided earlier for Human Resources falls into a couple of areas and the big area is the transition cost. I've given a breakdown of that number and a number of things have occurred throughout the year to cause Human Resources to make a number of shifts and hire some extra staff or, as well, deal with the benefits of staff that were in place at the time this was going forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's just, it seems to me that things there are fairly bizarre. Because last summer, between FMBS and the Department of Human Resources, they could go back inside their own operation and find over $500,000 to get a study done by the Hackett Group out of the United States, out of Florida. How can they do this? This is a question I have for the Minister. Is any of this transition money related in any way to the Hackett Group? The work that the Hackett Group did, is this transition cost in any way related to that, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The cost projections here provided are the funding requested from the Department of Human Resources that went through into this document breaks down into three areas. As I laid it out, the transition costs and within those transition costs there's a breakdown of salaries and wages. The second piece of that is a one-time transition cost. As provided from the information, there are a number of areas that fell into that one. Establishing some of the offices is a one-time cost there in the regions, as well as severance costs associated with some of the human resources amalgamation processes that went on. There's some computer hardware and software costs of $252,000, and that could be related to that work because there were recommendations made by that review that told the Department of Human Resources how it could better utilize parts of the program. That required further software licences that were not being used or parts of the program that were not being used. I'm told new licence support fees were in the area of $69,000 and the expansion support fees were $33,000. So some of those could be related to recommendations made out of that review. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just wondering, with the review going on and the ability of the department to just all of a sudden find $500,000, did they borrow from one aspect of their organization to pay to get the work done by the Hackett Group and now are any of these dollars going back to replace the money that they borrowed from themselves? Does the Minister know that? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, departments do have flexibility of moving around, as the Member has stated, funds from different allocations to areas that they see some unforeseen costs or feel that they need to make those investments. I don't have the detail if in fact that caused the shortage. In fact, I'm thinking the $500,000 was for the Hackett review, but I'm not sure if that actually came forward through a supplementary process as well. It may have been a previous year's cycle. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. They found that money within, to my recollection, and between FMBS and Human Resources they found that $500,000 and what I'm having trouble trying to piece together here is how they could find $500,000 last summer and now all of a sudden they need another $2.1 million, Madam Chair. That does not make any sense to me how this has transpired. Madam Chair, I'll let the Minister respond, but at that time I'll have a motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.