Thank you very much.
I'm a substitute member, so I don't have the whole context. Rather, I will focus my energies on two parts, the problem that arose at the outset and the changes that we should now see concretely on the ground.
The problem seems clear to me: the project is put forward, we ask how much it will cost, we're told that we only have 55% of the money, so we reduce functionality and pilot projects.
I have worked in a technology system like this in Nova Scotia before in a context of change. I have several years of experience. I know that if the project that I have in mind or that is proposed will not be presented the way it was designed, it's a problem. To build a house, the foundation must be firm. I am amazed that it was determined that it was acceptable for the project not to proceed as planned and to remove pieces of it when it is a major change that affects all of Canada. This is a problem.
From my 30 years of experience in administration, it seems impossible to me that three people under the deputy minister's responsibility could make such a decision. That's impossible. These people need to talk to the deputy minister. If I were minister of the department in question today, I would also like the deputy minister to tell me about the problem and possible solutions. It is almost incredible that this could happen. If a major project is designed and employees do not notify the manager that there is a problem, it is highly problematic.
That's the first part of my comment. You can clarify that, if you want.
You also mentioned that change takes place at three levels: practice, culture, and transformation. Can you give me an example of the measures you have implemented to date for each of these aspects, so as to give us hope that it will work better?