Thanks, Mr. Chair. I am not sure if that is a promotion or a demotion. I know there are some people who would like to demote me here.

---Laughter

More seriously, what systems do we have in place to evaluate outcomes here? I am not talking about convenience for people who work for the government. I am talking about client service. How is the effectiveness of this move, massive move, of resources into Finance going to be evaluated? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Deputy Minister Stewart.

Thank you, Deputy Minister Stewart. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Can I get a commitment, then, out of the Minister? Because I don't think I have actually seen this evaluation framework or accountability framework or whatever the department wants to call it. Can I get a commitment out of the Minister to share that with the appropriate standing committee? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister McLeod.

It's not like we're trying to make work, or anything like that.

---Laughter

No, I know, I know. Everybody heard me because the mic was on. I was just saying that this whole exercise we are going through is not a make-work project. It is just that we are trying to improve services across the Northwest Territories to the public and to our GNWT employees. So going back to the Member's question, I will commit to sharing the information with the appropriate committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I guess some of the questions I have are, I remain to be convinced that this is actually going to improve services, but can the Minister commit to providing even an interim report before the end of this Assembly to the standing committee on how this is working out? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister McLeod.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Like I said before, this is hoping to improve services. I mean, we can't predetermine the outcome and condemn it to failure before it has even gotten off the ground, but what I can commit to do to the Member, the Members -- not the Member, the Members -- is provide them an update when we come to our May/June session, because I think we will have a pretty good indication then of how the move is going and an early indication of some of the improvements that are bound to happen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. I will allow one more, if there is any. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, with my five seconds. I guess I am just a bit surprised, more than a bit surprised, that there is no accountability framework, no evaluation framework for this now. We are talking about moving 69 people around GNWT into the Department of Finance without an accountability framework, a way of measuring the success of this, so I am more than worried about this. I will wait and see what the Minister is able to provide to standing committee in terms of the evaluation framework and then in the interim report, but I guess I have heard concerns from constituents as well about this. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. I didn't see a question or hear a question in there. Mr. Simpson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am just looking for some clarity on this new division here. My understanding is, right now, there are people within the department, employees, who develop computer programs and implement technological solutions to serve that department, and what is happening is that all of those positions from the departments are moving into Finance into this central division. Is that correct? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Minister McLeod.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. That is correct.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Simpson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am also concerned about this. Over the years, we have seen the centralization of some government services, and the results, from what I have heard, haven't been the greatest.

If you talk to anyone in the government who has ever tried to hire someone, they are not particularly thrilled with the way HR works, and from what I understand, there was a time when hiring was done sort of within the departments. Not entirely, but much more so. The departments seem happier with that, and it was generally quicker. The Department of Infrastructure has taken back control over procurement of all items over $50,000 and, from what I understand, departments now have difficulty procuring items. You know, we can't spend half the money that we allocate for procurement. Financial shared services has also been recently created, and it has been taken out of the departments and the people who directly use those into a central, you know, area in Finance, and now the people in the departments don't have a relationship with the Finance person anymore. Now it is just they contact Finance, and that person might not be very familiar with what goes on in their department, and I know that has caused issues in some departments.

Now, we are doing the same thing with these tech positions. So there are people right now who develop and design programs for use by departments, and they are working there on the front lines with the people who use those programs, and that creates a good feedback loop. If there are issues, they can talk directly to those people.

Now, there is going to be this gap between them and there is going to be the group of tech people and there is going to be the group of people on the front line, and they are not going to be dedicated to one project, and so they are not going to have that relationship. I foresee issues, and I don't know why this was done so soon after financial shared services and without an evaluation of how things are going in human resources and without an evaluation of how the departments like the new procurement services. Because, from everything I can tell, no one is really happy with it.

Even, you know, contractors. Before, if they had a contract with a department to procure something, they knew the people in that department. They could contact them. If there were problems with payments, they knew who to contact. Now, you contact Finance. It is some nameless person behind a desk somewhere in Yellowknife, and they have no idea what is going on with that person's project.

So I see a lot of problems with these sort of centralizations that have already happened, and yet we are going ahead with a new one. So the question is about what sort of measurements we are going to use to measure the success of this is almost moot because these measurements should have been done over the years on these other departments, and I don't think they have been.

I understand why there might be some need to reorganize. You know, you want to have people working together who are doing similar things, but I don't know if a massive organization all at once is the way to go about it. I remember one deputy minister said to me in the business plans, and it wasn't related to this, it was about something else, but no matter how you organize government, it is about communication. I see that now we are just organizing it, but we are not putting any thought toward communication. I have grave concerns about this, and I think this is ill-informed, and, you know, I don't know if I can support the budget on this alone, seeing what we have seen in the past with the other sorts of amalgamations. I just wanted to let the department. I don't really have a question. It was just a comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Minister McLeod, to the comment.