Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the difficulties is that we still are in, as the Member noted, a long-term process of analyzing what is driving the deficits. In some cases it’s clear, there are physicians programs, medical travel, some unfunded payroll benefits, pension buybacks and some unique staffing pressures of staffing a 24/7

operation are driving these deficits. One of the problems we have, though, is to go forward to the Financial Management Board for base funding adjustments. We need to have a very well-analyzed and compelling business case, again, because authorities have capacity challenges because they use different financial systems. In some cases we have not been able to do 100 percent accurate analysis of where the deficit is, due to underfunding as opposed to some other pressure.

So by way of example, last year one authority that was projecting a deficit ended up with a surplus after our staff were able to go in and provide some assistance to their finance shop. This is why the Minister emphasizes the need to move to a back office where we have a set of staff that can do the financial analysis and projections for all authorities. Every year as we are able to come forward to FMB with a very compelling case for certain areas where we have clearly demonstrated there is a structural deficit, we have been successful in getting forced growth. So we are slowly addressing those items. Then, ultimately, we are working with the authorities and Department of Finance, as we talked about the other day, trying to move towards more of a predictable funding allocation model that would be tied to performance agreements. Once we have real clarity, then we can take the final steps to ensure that the authorities and the budgets are right sized or that they do have budgets that will allow them to operate without going into a deficit. It is a long and difficult process. Thank you.