May 1, 2018
GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Derek Bennett, MHA for Lewisporte - Twillingate,
substitutes for Carol Anne Haley, MHA for Burin - Grand Bank.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Derrick Bragg, MHA for Fogo Island - Cape Freels,
substitutes for John Finn, MHA for Stephenville - Port au Port.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Paul Davis, MHA for Topsail - Paradise,
substitutes for Barry Petten, MHA for Conception Bay South.
The
Committee met at 6 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.
CHAIR (Edmunds):
Good evening, everyone.
We will
get started here. Welcome, everyone, as we discuss the estimates of Executive
Council.
First
of all, I'd point out that there have been some substitutions. MHA Derrick Bragg
is substituting for MHA John Finn; MHA Derek Bennett is substituting for Carol
Anne Haley; and MHA Paul Davis is substituting for MHA Barry Petten.
When it
comes to our first section – I'll go through the sections of order – MHA Tracey
Perry will be taking the lead on questions on Women's Policy Office.
So I'll
take this time to ask the Government Services Committee to introduce themselves.
MR. DAVIS:
Paul Davis, MHA for Topsail - Paradise.
MS. DRODGE:
Megan Drodge, Researcher with the Official Opposition caucus.
MS. PERRY:
Tracey Perry, MHA, Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Keith Hutchings, MHA, Ferryland.
MS. MICHAEL:
Lorraine Michael, MHA, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MR. MORGAN:
Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP caucus.
MS. PARSLEY:
Betty Parsley, MHA, Harbour Main.
MR. KING:
Neil King, MHA, Bonavista.
MR. BENNETT:
Derek Bennett, MHA
Lewisporte - Twillingate.
MR. BRAGG:
Derrick Bragg, MHA, Fogo
Island - Cape Freels.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
Before
I get to the Minister responsible for the Women's Policy Office, I would like to
point out the order of which we will go through the content of the Executive
Council. We will start off with the Women's Policy Office; Human Resources
Secretariat; OCIO; Office of the Executive Council; Intergovernmental Affairs;
Indigenous Affairs; and Labrador Affairs.
At this
time, I open it up to the minister to introduce her department heads and staff,
and then go into the 15 minute overview after I call the section.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
happy –
CHAIR:
Hold on.
CLERK (Barnes):
2.7.01 and 2.7.02.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.7.01 and 2.7.02
carry?
Minister.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Okay. Before I have a few
minutes at the beginning, I'll just start by asking my officials to introduce
themselves.
MS. BALLARD:
My name is Donna Ballard,
I'm the Deputy Minister responsible for the Women's Policy Office.
MS. TRICKETT:
Wanda Trickett, Departmental
Controller.
MR. MARTIN:
Dave Martin, Manager of
Finance, Budgeting and General Operations.
MS. ENGLISH:
Dana English, EA to Minister
Dempster.
MR. WHITE:
Keith White, EA to Minister
Coady.
MS. HOLLETT:
Nancy Hollett, Media
Relations Manager with Women's Policy Office.
MS. DEMPSTER:
As all of you here would
know, Minister Coady is the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women and
Women's Policy Office. She's out of the province right now, on route back, so
she asked me to cover for her tonight, and it is a pleasure for me to be here
and participate in the Estimates of Women's Policy Office.
I'm
going to start with taking a couple of minutes to give you a little overview of
some of the things that have been happening over the past 12 months in the
Women's Policy Office.
Through
the application of a gender-based analysis on all policies, programs, services,
legislations and budgets, the Women's Policy Office work diligently to advance
the social, economic, cultural and legal status of all women in our province.
This past year, our government has engaged in many activities integral to
advancing the rights and equality of women and girls.
Minister Coady was honoured to represent the province at the recent United
Nations Commission on the Status of Women in New York, reconfirming the
provincial government's investment and commitment to gender equality and the
health, rights and well-being of women and girls in our province.
One
such initiative of the Women's Policy Office that helps us move closer to the
realization of this commitment is the ongoing, very valuable work around the
Violence Prevention Initiative. Finding long-term solutions to the problem of
violence against those most at risk in our society is essential to growth and
progress of our province.
The
eradication of violence cannot be achieved in isolation; rather, our government
acknowledges that in order to achieve long-term, systemic solutions a collective
and collaborative government-community response is required. I am very pleased
to report that substantial work has occurred in the area of violence prevention
over this past year, and I'll briefly take you through a few of the initiatives.
We have
successfully implemented 96 per cent of the 2015 Violence Prevention Initiative
Action Plan: Working Together for Violence-Free Communities. This living
document allows our government to be responsive to the violence prevention needs
of our communities as they arise. This year, we look forward to not only
completing this plan but further exploring how we can collectively and
collaboratively build upon the progress that we have seen to date.
We have
successfully expanded the definition of violence in the
Family Violence Protection Act to
include psychological, emotional and financial harm. This enhanced legislation
now aligns with how violence and abuse is defined by the Violence Prevention
Initiative, the Adult Protection Act
and the Children and Youth Care and
Protection Act.
We
have, through the examination of current policies, programs, services and
legislation, assisted partner departments in the implementation of gender-based
initiatives to address mental health and addictions, housing and homelessness,
and poverty. This coming year, we will also focus gender-based policy and
legislative attention towards updating the
Schools Act, 1997, the Safe and
Caring Schools Policy, the Residential
Tendencies Act and the Municipalities
Act.
We have
successfully established two committees to address violence against women and
girls. To complement the Department of Justice and Public Safety's
community-based committee addressing Violence Against Women and Girls, Minister
Coady chairs a committee of ministers – of which I sit on that committee –
representing multiple departments to simultaneously address this serious issue.
In
addition to violence prevention work, the Women's Policy Office has many ongoing
initiatives to enhance woman's economic and social security; for example:
requiring gender equity and diversity plans and women's employment plans for
large-scale resource development projects; supporting Indigenous women to find
culturally appropriate responses to violence against women, mental health,
homelessness and reconnecting elders and youth in their communities; and
developing an equity profile for public service policy and program development
specialists on the status of women in Newfoundland and Labrador to assist in the
development of gender-inclusive policies, programs, services and legislation.
Despite
the many advances we have collectively made over the past year, many barriers
still exist to women's equal participation in both private and public spheres.
The harsh reality is that women remain underrepresented in leadership roles in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Research on leadership confirms that men greatly
outnumber women in all types of leadership roles, including managerial positions
in the labour force, in politics and on all types of boards.
While
women represent 49 per cent of the labour force in our province, they only hold
38 per cent of management positions. This means that while women enter the
workforce, there are many barriers that prevent them from entering leadership
roles at the same rate as men. Our government remains committed to addressing
these barriers in order to allow the province to avail of valuable insights,
talents, expertise and experience.
Through
Budget 2018, I am happy to inform
that the Women's Policy Office has earmarked $50,000 for the undertaking of two
significant initiatives aimed at increasing the number of women in our province
in leadership roles, including: the development of a government community
commitment designed to not only address cultural, social and economic barriers
to gender diversity in leadership, but to also empower women and girls to assume
leadership roles; the hosting of a women's conference on the status of women in
Newfoundland and Labrador to facilitate knowledge sharing and mentorship
opportunities with women leaders in the community, academia, business and
politics.
Our
government continues to recognize the importance of investing in community
organizations that work hard to create a safe and equitable province for our
residents. Last fiscal year, women's equality-seeking organizations, including
eight Women's Centres across the province, the Transition House Association of
Newfoundland and Labrador and the Multicultural Women's Organization of
Newfoundland and Labrador received increases in their core operational funding.
In addition, the Women's Policy Office provided for the first time core
operational funding to the Safe Harbour Outreach program.
I am
pleased to inform the Members here tonight that
Budget 2018 not only supports the
continued funding of these women's organizations, 10 Regional Coordinating
Committees Against Violence across the province, the Provincial Advisory Council
on the Status of Women and the Intimate Partner Violence prevention units with
the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but
also allows for the provision of increases to core operational funding for the
Newfoundland Aboriginal Women's Network and the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual
Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre.
As part
of The Way Forward our government
made a commitment to multi-year funding for the community groups to provide
better services to the people of our province. Providing this degree of
financial stability through multi-year funding provides a greater certainty for
funding, which allows these organizations to focus more of their efforts on the
delivery of services and programs and make longer term decisions around
staffing.
As was
announced last week by the Premier and myself, we are now proceeding with phase
1 with an initial group of 22 community groups representing a broad cross
section of society. I am pleased also to note that eight of our Women's Centres
located in Labrador City, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Port aux Basques,
Stephenville, Corner Brook, Grand Falls-Windsor, Gander and St. John's, as well
as the Newfoundland Aboriginal Women's Network, have been selected to
participate in phase 1 of this multi-year funding. Through balancing priorities
and implementing gender-based policies, programs, services, legislation and
budgets, our government demonstrates its commitment to the social, economic,
cultural and legal advancement of all women within our province.
And I
thank you for listening to me for those few minutes.
CHAIR:
Ms. Perry.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank
you, Minister. I'm going to start with section 2.7.01.01, Salaries. And under
the budget and revised budget for 2017-2018, there's a variance of $120,700
which wasn't spent from – only $779,000 was spent from the budgeted amount of
$900,000. Can you explain that variance?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Sure. That reflects savings
from the '17-'18 budget as a result of vacancies throughout the year, and I
guess some of that is the deputy minister that was in the Women's Policy Office
have moved up into CSSD.
MS. PERRY:
(Inaudible) for this year,
2018-2019, the budget's even further reduced to $675,400. Can you tell me if any
positions are being removed from this office?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Well, there used to be – my
deputy minister who is here on my right was full-time in that office and she's
now moved up into CSSD effective maybe September, so that's where those savings
came from.
MS. PERRY:
That accounts for all of the
difference between the $900,000 which you would've had for 2017-18 –?
MS. DEMPSTER:
No, that would be the
biggest chunk of it, but there was also some salary reduction measures as a
result of the zero-based budgeting process.
MS. PERRY:
And can you explain what
these salary reduction measures were?
MS. BALLARD:
Yes, there was one position,
a financial administrative officer, which the individual was on extended sick
leave and she retired, so that particular position has been eliminated. Those
duties relate to invoicing and some of the financial management which is now
undertaken by our controller's office. Also, we re-profiled $25,000 of money
from that salary into Purchased Services to assist with the funding that we're
required to do our leadership strategies and conference for this year.
MS. PERRY:
Okay, so in terms of
position changes and our staffing changes, can you give us the total change
within the department, would it be just the elimination of the deputy minister
yourself and the financial admin officer – are there any other positions which
have been eliminated?
MS. BALLARD:
No, that's correct. The
deputy minister's position, as Minister Dempster indicated, it's not eliminated,
it's just I carry that position as well as my current position.
MS. PERRY:
You fill both roles?
MS. BALLARD:
Yes.
MS. PERRY:
Okay, thank you.
In
terms of Professional Services, what type of professional services does Women's
Policy Office use, and who do you avail of these services from?
MS. BALLARD:
Our entire Professional Services budget is for the RCMP Intimate Partner
Violence prevention unit.
MS. PERRY:
Okay, and the funds would then be paid to the RCMP?
MS. BALLARD:
That's correct.
MS. DEMPSTER:
One hundred per cent, yes.
MS. PERRY:
Okay.
How
were savings of $119,900 achieved last year?
MS. DEMPSTER:
That was primarily due to reduced requirements for the Intimate Partner Violence
protection program, which 100 per cent of it goes to the RCMP, but there was
less use this year.
MS. PERRY:
And why would there have been reduced requirements?
MS. BALLARD:
There was a vacancy for a period of time with the corporal and constable who are
assigned specifically to that unit.
MS. PERRY:
Okay, thank you.
Again,
under Purchased Services, in budget 2017 the budget was reduced, and then this
year it's being increased by $60,600. So what is being planned for this year
that requires an increase in the budget?
MS. DEMPSTER:
As Donna referenced up higher, down in Purchased Services that's where we have
moved to $22,300 mainly due to increased conference cost and a leadership
conference that the minister have already spoken to a number of times publically
is happening this fall, so money has been moved there to cover that.
MS. PERRY:
Okay.
I'd
like to go back just to one question in terms of the funds, Purchased Services,
to the RCMP. How long was the intimate partner position vacant last year – for
how long?
MS. BALLARD:
I will have to get that information (inaudible). As you know, the contract with
the RCMP is handled by the Department of Justice, as all contracts are with the
RCMP. We are JV'd from that department, so I'll have to check on that specific
question.
MS. PERRY:
Okay, thank you.
Under
Grants and Subsidies, can we get a list of every organization that received
funding, and how much for each?
MS. BALLARD:
Yes, no problem.
MS. DEMPSTER:
If there are no privacy
issues (inaudible).
MS. BALLARD:
No, not at all.
MS. PERRY:
Okay.
Is the
list pretty much the same year over year?
MS. BALLARD:
Yes, we have core funding for our 10 Regional Coordinating Committees Against
Violence, our eight Women's Centres, the Transition House Association of
Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault Crisis
and Prevention Centre. There may be one I'm missing but I'll think of it in a
second. Those are our core funders, but we also have $230,000 which we expend
for Indigenous violence prevention grants which are project-based.
MS. PERRY:
Okay.
There's
a planned increase this year for Grants and Subsidies. Can you explain who that
is for?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'm sorry; can you repeat
the question again?
MS. PERRY:
For Grants and Subsidies,
last year the budgeted amount was $2.890 million, this year it's $2.965 million,
so –
MS. DEMPSTER:
That reflects an increase
due to additional grant expense with the amount originally budgeted under
Transportation and Communication. Some of that is, I guess, travel – I am
looking to Donna – when a lot of times the staff is going back and forth to
Labrador.
MS. BALLARD:
Specifically, the increase
of $30,000 right there from what we budgeted to what we expended was we have –
we fund an Indigenous women's conference every year, and we've done so for many
years, and we usually put that in a line item as Transportation and then we deal
specifically with individuals and invoicing and so forth. This year, we
partnered with the St. John's Native Friendship Centre, who were in partnership
with Status of Women Canada, to do a more fulsome conference and project, which
is going to take three years.
What we
did this year is instead of handling the invoicing of the travel ourselves, we
provided a grant directly to the St. John's Native Friendship Centre, so we just
had to move that money from Transportation into Grants so that we could expend
it in that way.
MS. PERRY:
Okay, thank you.
That
explains the variance from the budgeted amount to the revised amount for
2017-2018, but looking to the 2018-2019 estimates you're forecasting to spend an
extra $75,000. What is that for?
MS. BALLARD:
So now we've permanently
moved $25,000, for that reason I just explained to you. In addition, there is an
increased funding of $25,000 for the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault
and Crisis Prevention Centre, and an extra $25,000 for the Newfoundland
Aboriginal Women's Network which has increased funding for next year.
MS. PERRY:
Okay thank you.
I just
have some general questions now. Budget
2017 contained $250,000 to establish a Sexual Assault Response Pilot
Program. This would provide an independent legal advisor to victims so that
victims can understand the court progress. Can the minister comment on the
progress of this pilot program?
MS. BALLARD:
Sorry, can you repeat the
question? Are you referring to the money that's expended by Justice?
MS. PERRY:
Yes.
MS. BALLARD:
That particular program, the
legal services program?
MS. PERRY:
Yes.
MS. BALLARD:
I'm familiar with it. It's a
project that the Minister of Justice has announced and it's to provide legal
advice to victims of sexual assault. I know that program is being run in
partnership with the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault and Crisis
Prevention Centre and PLIAN.
MS. PERRY:
Okay.
Can you
give an update on the Violence Prevention Initiative, or VPI?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I can run through some of
the significant progress that's been made around the Violence Prevention
Initiative committee. Some of this I've already talked about in my opening.
Changes were made to the Family Violence
Protection Act, as Bill 1 of the sitting of the House of Assembly. The
Minister of Service NL has committed that the Advisory Council on Occupational
Health and Safety will be tasked with reviewing and making recommendations on
harassment and violence provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety
regulations. Also, the Residential
Tenancies Act is currently under review right now. The Department of AESL is
also reviewing the suggested changes to the
Labour Standards Act.
The
minister, who I'm filling in for tonight, has convened a committee of ministers
from the following departments: Justice and Public Safety, Advanced Education,
Skills and Labour, Service NL, Education and Early Childhood Development, Health
and Community Services, and myself as Minister for Children, Seniors and Social
Development. Really we, collectively, as a group have been tasked with
addressing issues of violence in our province and overseeing collective actions
to address issues of violence in our province. Issues discussed at the January
11 meeting are included in the work plan of this committee.
MS. PERRY:
Okay, thank you, Minister.
Last
year in Estimates, the minister talked about pay-equity legislation and she
indicated that they didn't have a timeline for bringing in the legislation and
that a departmental committee had been created, a jurisdictional scan was done
and some background work was ongoing.
Can you
provide an update?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Okay.
I think
any time new policy or legislation in the area of pay equity, we'll all
acknowledge, is a significant undertaking. It's a really complex process, and
factors that require substantial research, analysis, consultations. What I can
say is an interdepartmental committee consisting of representatives from WPO,
AESL, HRS and JPS has been established to explore the feasibility of pay equity
in NL. The first committee meeting took place on the 25th of April, at which
time the development of a work plan for ministerial review commenced.
MS. PERRY:
Okay, thank you, Minister.
So that
first meeting was April 25, as in last week, April 25?
Can you
give an update on the requirement to have women's equity plans on government
infrastructure projects – and this was part of
The Way Forward. And if you could let
us know specifically which projects did have plans in place for last year.
MS. DEMPSTER:
There are the Gender Equity
and Diversity Plans and the Women's Employment Plans, both of which are designed
to strategically improve the participation of women and other diverse groups in
employment and business contracts in resource development projects.
I'll
mention under the Gender Equity and Diversity I can mention three here: AGS
Fluorspar, St. Lawrence; FOXTROT mine, which is right in the heart of my
district in St. Lewis; and Tacora mine in Wabush. These are under development,
those that I've mentioned, and not finalized. Women's Employment Plans are under
development, upcoming and not all finalized. Some of those that we're working
with would include Anaconda Ming Mine; long-term care facility, Corner Brook;
the long-term care facility in Central; new Waterford hospital; and Crémaillère
Harbour port development.
MS. PERRY:
Can you tell me if the White
Rose Extension Project in Argentia has one – West White Rose?
MS. BALLARD:
I'll have to check on that. My understanding is there a special project order
for that project, and that includes a diversity plan, but I will check on that
and get back to you. I'm pretty sure it's under a special project order.
MS. PERRY:
Okay.
Are
these plans publicly available?
MS. BALLARD:
All of these are under
development.
MS. PERRY:
All of them are under
development, so none of them are actually –?
MS. BALLARD:
Anything that's finalized
is.
MS. PERRY:
Okay.
Can you
give an update on the Indigenous Women in Mining project?
MS. BALLARD:
Which project? Sorry.
MS. PERRY:
Indigenous Women in Mining.
MS. BALLARD:
There is a committee that
has been established and right now I'm looking for someone within my office to
sit on that committee because the person who sat on it just retired today. But
the work is ongoing.
MS. PERRY:
Okay, thank you.
Mr.
Chair, my time is up, but I was –
CHAIR:
Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Do you give her leave?
MS. PERRY:
Yeah, that's what I wanted
(inaudible).
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, I would like to jump in actually.
MS. PERRY:
Okay (inaudible).
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
I don't
have any questions on the line items because I think all of the questions that
would have asked you've answered, so thank you.
Minister, can we except to get the binder and will the binder have a lot of the
information, for example, the lists of the names of the groups that do get
grants, will those lists be in the binder?
MS. DEMPSTER:
If that's not in the binder we can get that for you, the list of groups, the
amount of funding they all received.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
And if
we could also have a staffing list for the Women's Policy Office as well for
this year, what the current staffing is, that would be great.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mm-hmm.
MS. MICHAEL:
I just want to check now because I took notes while you were talking.
Minister, you opened up talking about the gender-based analysis that's done of
programs and policies and budget, et cetera. Could we get an understanding of
what the tool is that is used for that or the methodology that is used for doing
that gender-based analysis of policy and programs?
MS. BALLARD:
The Status of Women Canada gender-based analysis tool that's online, we've taken
that and we have some lists and checklists that we use ourselves. That's
basically the same tool.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, so you use that tool
and you adjust it?
MS. BALLARD:
That's correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
May I
ask another question about that? Is this an ongoing process that's continually
happening? Policies are changing all the time, every year there's a budget, so
how does WPO interact with the departments in doing this kind of thing?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I can say yes, that is
happening. Also, on that note, I don't think I mentioned yet this evening that
WPO has developed new gender-based analysis materials, which are currently being
reviewed by communications and, once completed, those materials are going to be
sent for branding and final design – new materials to work with as we apply the
GBA across policies and programs and departments.
MS. MICHAEL:
And I assume that when that
happens we would be able to get copies of that material?
MS. BALLARD:
Yes, the intention is to post it online.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
I don't
think I have any more questions. Just with regard to 2.7.02, the Provincial
Advisory Council, they get their grant, I know. Can we get information from WPO
with regard to their staffing component right now and that kind of thing?
MS. BALLARD:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
Was
there also a breakdown of their budget in that information? Or we would have to
go straight to them for that?
MS. BALLARD:
They have their annual reports online, which would have a breakdown.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right, okay.
I think
that's it and, Tracey, I can send it back to you.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you very much,
Lorraine, and I just have a few quick questions and I'm done, as well, with WPO.
Last
year in Estimates, the minister indicated that the Women's Policy Office was
working with the community sector to bring gender-specific board governance
training to women. Can you provide an update on that?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I will defer to my deputy
again.
MS. BALLARD:
Yes, that work is ongoing and just on that, as the minister indicated, we're
also working on multi-year grants and the Community Sector Council is quite
involved in that. It's a component of strengthening our relationship with our
community organizations, so yes, governance is a part of that and we're
continuing to work on that.
MS. PERRY:
Have any training sessions
actually been delivered?
MS. BALLARD:
I will have to check on that
for you.
MS. PERRY:
Okay, thank you.
Are you
hosting any women's economic roundtables this year; and, if so, how many and
where?
MS. DEMPSTER:
To date, there have been
three held. Partnered with the Office to Advance Women Apprentices, and the
three held to date were in St. John's, Corner Brook and Burin (inaudible).
MS. BALLARD:
Stephenville and Happy
Valley-Goose Bay.
MS. DEMPSTER:
And Stephenville and
Happy-Valley Goose Bay also planned to be carried out this year.
MS. PERRY:
Okay.
Last
year in Estimates, the minister indicted that she was working with community
groups to share space so that they could share rental and other costs, and
actually I think that was a piece of work that was started when I was working
there with the WPO back in 2015. In particular, some of the organizations in
here that deal with women's issues, violence prevention, and had very limited
budgets, and they saw an opportunity to maximize their budgets if they could
have some shared rental space.
How has
that initiative been progressing, and have you accomplished the shared rental?
MS. BALLARD:
Yes, we worked closely with a group of organizations to flesh out that
initiative because when they came in, it was thin. We've actually just gotten
the final product on our desks in the last couple of weeks, so we'll be
reviewing it.
MS. PERRY:
So that would be like the Crisis hotline, Wendolyn Schlamp's group, all those
right?
MS. BALLARD:
It's the YWCA, the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault Crisis and
Prevention Centre, and Thrive.
MS. PERRY:
Okay.
Where
are they going to be co-located to?
MS. BALLARD:
We are just reviewing the proposal right now.
MS. PERRY:
Okay. Thank you so much. That concludes my questions for Women's Policy Office.
Thank
you, Minister, and everyone.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay, recall the section.
CLERK:
2.7.01 and 2.7.02.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.7.01 to 2.7.02 carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
Thank
you.
On
motion, subheads 2.7.01 through 2.7.02 carried.
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'd like to thank the Finance Minister for allowing us to go first.
Thank
you very much.
Recess
CHAIR:
We'll reconvene and move on to the second section of Executive Council and we'll
go to the Human Resource Secretariat, and I'll start off with the minister and
introductions of his department heads and staff. After I call the section, we'll
go into your 15-minute overview.
CLERK:
We have 3.1.01 through
3.1.12 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 3.1.01 to 3.1.12, inclusive, carry?
Minister.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you very much, I'd
like to ask my staff to introduce themselves before we carry on, starting with
Mr. Joyce.
MR. JOYCE:
George Joyce, Assistant
Deputy Minister for the Labour Branch, HRS.
MS. TRICKETT:
Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller.
MS. FOLLETT:
Tina Follett, Operations and HR Service Delivery, ADM.
MS. HUSSEY:
Cindy Hussey, Assistant Deputy Clerk.
MR. MARTIN:
Dave Martin, Manager of Finance, Budgeting and General Operations.
MS. FOOTE:
Carla Foote, Associate Secretary to Cabinet Communications, Communications
Branch.
MR. OSBORNE:
All right, thank you.
Just a
couple of notes: The Human Resource Secretariat provides leadership and support
to all core government departments in human resource policy, planning,
information management and HR program and service delivery. The secretariat is
also responsible for human resource issues addressed by the Treasury Board
committee of Cabinet.
As I'm
sure you can imagine, the workforce as large as government, the HRS has numerous
lines of business including Classification and Organizational Design Division;
Employment and Labour Relations Division; Policy, Planning and Analytics
Division; Centre for Learning and Development; Payroll and Benefits; Strategic
Staffing; Executive Client and Consulting Services; the HRS Service Centre and
Corporate Service Delivery; and Employee Safety and Wellness.
Aside
from the daily business of HR management in the public service, the HRS has been
key in the signing of the 15 NAPE collective agreements a few weeks ago, two
ongoing negotiations with other unions and the current efforts by our payroll
team and the HRS service centre to undertake the severance payout. The HRS team
is working hard to keep our workforce running efficiently. Ongoing work
continues, as well as the implementation of self-service functionality in
PeopleSoft, through which numerous efficiencies have been achieved.
I'd
like to thank the staff in the department for their dedication and their work
for the public service employees of our province, and I welcome questions.
CHAIR:
Mr. Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I want to start with a couple of line items first, if I could. Human
Resource Secretariat 3.1.01, Executive Support, if we come down to the first
line, Salaries, we have a salary change there from the estimate of 2017-2018 and
the actual expenditure from $642,300 to $909,900 and then it's been restructured
for this estimate. I wonder if I can get an explanation on the increase and the
reason for it.
MS. TRICKETT:
That is the result of, primarily, pay out of severance for two employees. That
would be the change from the '17-'18 revised and the '17-'18 original budget –
and I'm sorry, did you also ask about the change in the '18-'19 budget, as well?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, please.
MS. TRICKETT:
So the $30,000 that is added there, when we did zero-based this year, we
recognized the requirements for '18-'19, and we moved money in from across the
department.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
So the
$267,000 difference in the estimated to the actual was for two positions related
to severance?
MS. TRICKETT:
Correct.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, what were those two positions?
MS. TRICKETT:
They would've been related to – the deputy minister resigned, I guess, during
this fiscal year and, as well, we had an administrative support position.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
Were
both of those positions refilled?
MS. FOLLETT:
The deputy minister position is currently vacant, and the administrative
assistant position was not re-staffed, no.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, so the administrative position, was that position removed or is the
position still there but not filled?
MS. FOLLETT:
It was removed.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
What
about the deputy minister position; is the intent to fill that?
MS. FOLLETT:
As we understand it, yes, the intent is to have it re-staffed.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you very much.
If I
could go to 3.1.02, as well referring some line items here. For the Salaries in
that particular division, we saw an increase from the estimate to the revised
actual for 2017-2018 was a small amount, but just give me some comment on what
that was for?
MS. TRICKETT:
So the increase from '17-'18 revised from the original budget is related to some
severance and related benefits for two employees. Again, through the zero-based
process, we reduced the budget in '18-'19 to reflect the needs for next year –
or this year. I forget now that we're in the new fiscal.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
So that would've been for one employee?
MS. TRICKETT:
The severance was for two employees.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
Those
two and the two we mentioned earlier – obviously the deputy minister position
will be filled. The administrative support one and these two, Minister, are they
tied to an attrition plan, or are your efforts to reduce, or was it just normal
process in regard to people leaving or …?
MR. OSBORNE:
I'll ask Tina to answer
that. I'm not sure if one of those involved attrition, Tina?
MS. FOLLETT:
No, currently those
positions are being re-staffed. They're in the process of competition.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Those two?
MS. FOLLETT:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
Minister, I'll ask you upfront in the Human Resource Secretariat in regard to
attrition. Is there attrition planned for the Human Resource Secretariat or are
there targets that you're expecting to meet?
MR. OSBORNE:
There are targets outlined
in this year's budget, as there are for all departments. Based on previous two
years, we've had an overall reduction of 1,160 positions. In the budget we had
announced 795, I think, positions.
What
make up the remainder of the 1,160 are contractual positions that we've actually
eliminated that were contractual throughout the years. There are also some
within the Legislature, which we can't take credit for. The total reduction in
positions over the last two years – or the total elimination of positions is
1,160.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, 1,160 would be
including contractual. What did you say the actual number of positions was
again, seven –?
MR. OSBORNE:
Positions, not counting
contractual – I mean, contractual still count but we didn't want debate on
whether they did or didn't – but 797.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
797.
MR. OSBORNE:
797.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay. Would they be temps,
as well as permanent, that 797?
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, 797 and the rest then
would be various contractual positions. Thank you.
If I
could come down to Purchased Services, under heading 3.1.02, there was a budget
allocation last year of $122,300. There wasn't full expenditure there; it was
$106,800. For this year, it's been reduced again for $87,200. Is that just
zero-based budgeting and doing an assessment of what the overall output was
under Purchased Services?
MS. TRICKETT:
The revised budget there reflects – at the time of print for the Estimates, we
had thought the collective agreements would have been signed at that time, so
that extra increase reflects an anticipated expenditure for printing of those
collective agreements.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, from the estimate to
what the actual was?
MS. TRICKETT:
That would have been the difference between the revised '17-'18 and the budget
for '17-'18.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
Under
the heading – just a general question – 3.1.02, Employment and Labour Relations,
it references provision of collective bargaining services and collective
agreement management and administration. There are Professional Services that
are listed there. Could you give me an idea of what those professional services
would be and would they be involved with consultants from outside, like EY or
legal consultants. What exactly would that be?
MR. JOYCE:
Professional services would be primarily paying arbitration fees. Once the
collective bargaining cycle is over, then there's a big concentration on trying
to deal with all the arbitration systems in the system.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, so the $143,000,
Professional Services, would pretty well deal with arbitration?
MR. JOYCE:
That's correct.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
So there would be no other
consultants involved with that number there, would there?
MR. JOYCE:
No. For that particular area, Professional Services is used for arbitration
fees.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
If I
could, could I ask – I know we talked last year about job evaluation, the JES,
and there were about 350 outstanding at that particular time, in regard to
appeals. I wonder if we can get a general update on that – I know we spoke
briefly, I think, in our last session on that, Minister.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yeah, we added an additional
resource to try and deal with that. Do you have an update, George, on – I know
they are making greater progress with the additional resource, but I …
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
First of all, I'll just give you the context since last year. Since last year,
HRS has been in negotiations with four of the public sector union – the
Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, CUPE, NAPE and Allied Health
Professionals – on a new mechanism: an appeal system for the JES.
Throughout the year, we signed a document of a mechanism that all parties agreed
that would be used as the appeal process and, also, during that time that appeal
process was appended to the collective agreements. We have money allocated in
this budget to hire an adjudicator for a year to hear all the backlog of appeals
that are outstanding. That's the JES appeal process.
We also
have money, now, to hire an extra individual to assist with the backlog of the
JES classifications that we intend to put a lot more weight on this year. And,
as well, we are partnering with Eastern Health because the vast majority of our
classifications are driven by health care authorities, so we're going to partner
with them, second someone and bring them on board to help us deal with them.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, so just in a general
sense in regard to what would be outstanding – I think last year we were told it
was about 350 – would you have an approximate number, what would be …?
MR. JOYCE:
Now, I have a list here – I
know there were a number of questions. I know Ms. Michael asked for an update
for last year and this year, I don't know what the process and that is now in
terms of distributing the numbers.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, so those are the
numbers of what's outstanding?
MR. JOYCE:
Pardon?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Those are the number of what
is outstanding?
MR. JOYCE:
There are a number of all
kinds of stats related to the last couple of years, what's outstanding, what's
completed for appeals and everything. So is it all right for me to bring this
over?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Sure.
MR. JOYCE:
I just have (inaudible).
MR. HUTCHINGS:
What page is it?
Just in
terms of the JES, the Job Evaluation System, thinking back, this was a joint
project in terms of classification evaluation. Are there new JES appeals coming
forward? But I thought the time for that had elapsed? Is that correct?
MR. JOYCE:
No, there are JES appeals
coming through all the time. It's an ongoing process and, as we speak, there are
still appeals being made.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
So
there was no cut-off from the original classification evaluation that was done?
MR. JOYCE:
No.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
Minister, I think in Finance we spoke greatly as well about the severance payout
for NAPE members. Can you just give an update again about how that's going and
the progress being made in regard to that collective agreement and the decision
that was made in regard to severance?
MR. OSBORNE:
The last stats that I looked
at, there was about 90 per cent of individuals who were requesting first-quarter
payout. About 75 per cent, the last time I checked, were looking for full cash,
and the remainder were somewhere between full-cash payout and some RRSPs to full
RRSP contribution.
We're
anticipating, based on the demand and the volume, not everybody is going to get
it first quarter. So anybody who doesn't get a first-quarter payout, which will
be by the end of June, can choose another quarter this year; or we're giving
them the option, if they so choose, anybody who wants their money in this fiscal
year will get it, but if somebody, for some reason, one of the other three
quarters doesn't suit them, we'll allow them to pick another quarter next year
if they wish.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
Minister, all the applicants have come forward and said they want their
severance in the first quarter. Was it just first in, in terms of who gets paid
in the first quarter? Is that something like that, how it would work?
MR. OSBORNE:
That's correct.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
So from
your perspective today, do you think, based on the number you have, you'll be
able to meet those requests within the current fiscal year – is that fair to
say?
MR. OSBORNE:
Absolutely. Anybody who wants their money this fiscal year will get it.
During
the negotiation process with NAPE, that was understood by both parties upfront
that if the volume exceeded the physical ability of the workforce to process –
because they're manually processed. They need to manually calculate. So if the
volume of requests outnumbered the physical ability to process, they would roll
over into another quarter.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
I'm
just unsure if we covered it. So has additional staff been hired to help with
that process?
MR. OSBORNE:
Tina?
MS. FOLLETT:
We haven't hired additional staff; rather, we have leveraged staff from within
our existing complement to realign with the amount of work that has occurred as
a result of the severance payouts.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
Minister, I know that particular negotiation with NAPE has concluded and that
provision of severance is working through the system. You're in other collective
agreements or discussions. If these were to conclude, is there a capacity for
that same offer; and if the current agreements reflected what was done with
NAPE, is the capacity to have those recipients receive severance in current
fiscal year?
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, to the degree we are able to process, but the other bargaining units, NAPE,
the vast majority of core government – maybe all of core government are NAPE
employees. So –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It is probably 70 or 80 per cent, or something in that range, is it?
MS. OSBORNE:
Yeah. So if we're looking at CUPE, for example, the same demand is not on the
processing here with core government. I can't speak for the agencies as to their
ability, but the money is available. It depends on the date of signing of other
agreements. If they're signed relatively soon, then I anticipate, yes, they'll
be paid in this fiscal year. The money is put aside for it, depending on when
the contracts are concluded and the volume requesting.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I'm going to move into line items again. Section 3.1.03, Policy,
Planning and Analytics, and it's the Salaries line that I'm interested in. Last
year, the budget was $922,900 and the revision upward was $1,318,900 and then
the estimate for this year is $1,001,200 – if we could have an explanation of
all of that variance, please.
MS. TRICKETT:
The difference the '17-'18 revised and the '17-'18 original budget
would relate to severance and related benefits for three employees. The slight
increase in Salaries from budget to budget is simply looking at the requirements
of the staff for that area for '18-'19.
MS. MICHAEL:
And did you say two or three?
MS. TRICKETT:
Three.
MS. MICHAEL:
Three.
Minister, well, we already have the binders, so I'm
assuming that there will be details on this in the binder?
MR. OSBORNE:
There is, yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Will that include the staff complement at that time?
MR. OSBORNE:
The staff complement in the department, you mean?
MS. MICHAEL:
No, for doing this particular work – the Policy, Planning and Analytics?
MS. TRICKETT:
If you're speaking just in general, I guess, the staffing complement, in the
binder that you were presented, under tab 3, there is the salary details
document that is published online with the budget documents, so information on
that, at a snapshot in time, whenever that document was produced. But if you're
looking for more specific than that, we can certainly provide that.
MS. MICHAEL:
Please. Thank you.
I think that's all I have for that section. 3.1.04,
Classification and Organizational Design – can I come back up actually to the
severance for the three positions? That was severance for people who have left
these positions. Are the positions still there?
MS. FOLLETT:
No, Ms. Michael, those positions are no longer within the structure.
MS. MICHAEL: So
you had three people gone from this division. How have you managed with workload
with three people gone?
MS. FOLLETT:
Last year, the HRS went through reorganization and resourcing from other areas
within the organization, specifically the prior strategic human resource units.
There were staff that were reallocated from the
disbandment of those units
and some of those staff were aligned within PPA.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
Now
I'll come down to 3.1.04. Again here it's the salary line and probably similar
answers, but I still would like the details. So the budget was $818,200, and the
revision upward was $1,019,000, and this year it's $1,008,400.
MS. TRICKETT:
Yes, the difference in the '17-'18 revised, '17-'18 original budget is related
to some severance and related benefits for two employees. Also during that year,
there was some requirement for succession planning, a critical position that was
going to be leaving the organization, so there were additional requirements
there. Some of those costs were offset from natural vacancies within the
department.
In
terms of the increase for the budget next year, that is related to the two new
positions that were provided for this budget year. Mr. Joyce spoke to one of
those already, and I'll let him speak to the second there now.
MR. JOYCE:
In terms of the adjudicator, money that's allotted for that, would you like an
explanation of that?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, please.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
As I
indicated a little earlier, Ms. Michael, HRS work with four of the major public
sector unions to put in place a new mechanism to deal with appeals under the JES
process. We signed an agreement with those four unions. It got delayed a little
because at the same time we were in collective bargaining and we wanted to
attach that mechanism to the agreements we have with NAPE – we will with the
other unions as well. Also, in tandem with that, is hiring an adjudicator for a
year that will make final and binding decisions that are not subject to the
grievance arbitration.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, and that's the one
position there. Thank you very much.
Going
back to the two employees for whom severance was paid out, was it just employees
getting severance or the positions gone as well?
MS. FOLLETT:
The positions have been abolished as well.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. I don't have any other
questions for that one.
3.1.05,
which is the Centre For Learning and Development, once again we'll start with
the salary line. We can all read the salary line, so I'm not going to read it.
Just explain, once again, the difference between the budget and the revision
upward and then this year's figure.
MS. TRICKETT:
Certainly.
The
difference in the revised and the original budget for '17-'18 results in
severance and related benefits for five employees, as well as some training
requirements that initially at budget time last year we thought we may have to
contract out through Professional Services that were actually able to be
addressed in-house with existing staff.
MS. MICHAEL:
So five employees gone, is
that five positions gone?
MS. FOLLETT:
Yes, Ms. Michael, those five positions are also eliminated.
MS. MICHAEL:
And how are you coping with
that?
MR. JOYCE:
What we're doing is we're moving toward more of virtual-based programming and
training for the different areas, using a lot more technology to engage that.
The
whole function for the Centre for Learning and Development in the last two
years, there's been a major reorganization there. The priority now is on safety
compliance training and any regulatory and legislative requirement training
that's required by government, by statute and by regulation.
That's
the focus of that centre right now, as a result of the reorganization. That's
what our focus has been.
MS. MICHAEL:
With regard to some of the
things that are mentioned in the description for the centre, I'm assuming they
still are happening, though they are not a focus? For example, French language
training is in there, leadership and management development is there, employee
onboarding and mandatory learning required by legislation – well, you mentioned
that one, I think.
Is
there anything there that is no longer happening?
MR. JOYCE:
No, it's just more of a focus on the priority, as I indicated, about the
compliance base and the regulatory and still delivering the same services that's
previously been delivered.
MS. MICHAEL:
And the French language
training is being delivered?
MR. JOYCE:
That's correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
I just
want to check – under Transportation and Communications, last year the revision
was a fair size for that budget line; it was $46,500. Could we have an
explanation of that revision upward, please?
MS. TRICKETT:
Certainly.
I think
to clarify a little, I will have to branch out a bit. The next activity, the
3.1.06, Organizational Development Initiative, is very closely held with the
Centre for Learning and Development. In fact, the staff for the Centre for
Learning facilitates the training that is delivered under the Organizational
Development Initiative, and throughout '17-'18 there were charges and costs that
– as you can imagine, when you're delivering – if you have a staff member who is
budgeted under the Centre for Learning and they have to travel to deliver a
particular course, at times there is confusion as to whether that would be a
Centre for Learning and Development charge or whether that should actually be
part of the training cost under the Organizational Development Initiative.
So that
is the reason for that. Upon looking at the charges and the costs, it was
determined that they are more applicable to the Centre for Learning. They were
simply just allocated to this activity instead of the Organizational Development
Initiative.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, and then the cost for
this year, which is appreciably less but more than last year's budget – the
estimate is $10,200. That is real sizing there, is it, for that line?
MS. TRICKETT:
It's very similar to the last explanation. At time of budget, there was
discussions ongoing as to how best to allocate such charges and whether to
charge them to facilitation-type costs and thus to the Centre for Learning, or
whether they are actually training development costs and that would then be
under the Organizational Development Initiative. At time of print for budget
that hasn't been fully determined so you may see next year very similar charges,
but that is something that we will be working on for cleaning up the budget for
'18-'19.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
I think
my time is up, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Mr. Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I just want to go back and ask in regard to the severance. There is an
issue that I became aware of in regard to the payment out of severance. The
normal practice, obviously, would be if someone at the end of their career had a
retirement that would be planned and at that time they had made some life
decisions in regard to that. With the payout now, there may be some implications
in regard to someone that's caring for someone at home, someone that's had a
child and there's going to be maternal or paternal benefits that are taken
through the Employment Insurance benefits program, and with severance being paid
out there could be somewhat of an implication in regard to your ability to draw
down on those federal benefits.
Has
there been any discussion or thought about that and how this process could
disentitle somebody to that benefit on a federal level?
MR. OSBORNE:
We've added an additional
option for individuals to try and address that. At the time of negotiations,
that wasn't thought about or talked about by either side, but before the
agreements were signed, we added a fifth option where people could defer their
severance to any point in the future. If somebody wanted, they could wait until
they retired, or if they wanted, they could pick it at any point between now and
they time they retired. Therefore, an individual wouldn't be penalized by taking
it early, depending on certain circumstances.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, so before it was signed, you said there was a fifth option added to
recognize particulars like these.
MR. OSBORNE:
Exactly.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Which would allow someone to – could anybody do that, or would you have to
demonstrate a need of why they wanted to do it?
MR. OSBORNE:
No. Anybody could choose to
– we've had 98 per cent want it in the first quarter, of those who've applied;
but anybody who, for whatever reason, personal choice, whether it's just a nest
egg for retirement or whether there are fiscal considerations or income
considerations, tax considerations, can defer to any point up to retirement.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
The
other item I had, Minister, is in pay of severance – and my colleague has
brought one forward. It's a hardship case dealing with – I'm not getting into
details. It could do with a death, it could do with a divorce and things going
through court and there may be somewhat of a requirement, because of a hardship
case, to have it dealt with and dealt with in a very quick order. Is there a
method or process to ask for that and to have it considered?
MR. OSBORNE:
Anybody who's applied, the first set of payouts will be the end of June this
year. My guess is anybody who wanted it in the first quarter would've applied.
Unfortunately, if we got into trying to analyze the validity of each particular
case based on the volume of telephone calls we are getting and based on the
requests for first quarter, it would absolutely be impossible to guarantee
everybody payout for this year. The resources would be tied up in determining
whether a request was valid or not. It's just impossible to take requests on a
need basis like that.
We did
have one individual who, for medical reasons, could be near the end of life –
double-lung transplant type of situation. So if it's an extreme situation like
that –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It is.
MR. OSBORNE:
– we would consider it, but if it's life circumstances, divorce or something
like that, we can't possibly get into examining each and every situation.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yeah, I certainly appreciate
that. I guess my attempt at an example was similar to yours, and I don't know if
I expressed it properly, but it would be an issue of the extreme that there
would be timelines and dates involved which could be detrimental to an
individual if they went beyond.
So I
agree with you, it wouldn't be something just to request because of a reason,
but would be a request because of an unusual circumstance that needed to be
addressed immediately.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, if you've got a special
case, I mean bring it to me and we'll certainly do what we can.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
Minister, the agreement signed with NAPE, there was some discussion in regard to
the no-layoff clause and what exactly that meant in a rollover to the end of the
collective agreement and the negotiation of a new agreement. As well, from some
others in regard to what that actually meant, in all elements of a collective
agreement. There was reference to a side agreement that was part of the NAPE
that I guess addressed some of the concerns.
Was
that side letter public, or would it be made public or could it be made public?
MR. OSBORNE:
The language of that letter
has been made public; CUPE has published it in full-page ads, so –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, that's CUPE or NAPE?
MR. OSBORNE:
No, CUPE had published it in
full-page ads. Sidebar agreements are common, as I'm sure you're aware in most
public sector negotiations, there's usually a sidebar agreement to certain
clauses. That's quite common and has been for a considerable period of time. The
language that was proposed and the language that CUPE wanted to sign, both sets
of language have been publicly advertised.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I know the collective
agreement is online – I think it's an unsigned copy. Have you made that side
letter public or was it another union that made it public?
MR. OSBORNE:
CUPE did. It was advertised
full page. It's out there.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yeah, but you haven't made
it public or you haven't put it on the site with the collective agreement.
MR. OSBORNE:
No, it's a sidebar letter,
so generally they're not – I mean agreements signed in 2014, what went online
didn't include sidebars, which is normal practice, but it's out there.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
If I
could look at section 3.1.05, Centre for Learning and Development, when we go
down to Professional Services – we see that line item there; there were dollars
budgeted. I'm just wondering why there was no expenditure in regard to that line
item that we approved here for Estimates in the prior fiscal year.
MS. TRICKETT:
As I had mentioned
previously in some of my responses, there was some thought that there would be a
requirement for external resources to deliver some training, and it was
determined that was able to be done in-house with existing resources. There was
no allocation for that and we have eliminated that for next year as well; we
realized we can do that in-house.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
And that training would be
related to …?
MS. TRICKETT:
It would just be to deliver
various types of training that this division is responsible for.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, so the training will
still be delivered, but delivered in a different manner by different people.
MS. TRICKETT:
Correct.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
You
referenced earlier, to Ms. Michael's question, five employees – that some of the
change in Salaries reflect the severance paid out to five employees. Were those
management positions or were they unionized positions?
MS. FOLLETT:
They were management
positions.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
If I
could confirm that those positions were removed, correct?
MS. FOLLETT:
Correct.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Positions, not the people.
Okay, thank you.
Could
you just explain to me in regard to 3.1.05, when we come down to the two Revenue
lines – the Revenue - Federal and the Revenue - Provincial – in regard to those
two lines, what they are and what they represent?
MS. TRICKETT:
When the French languages services training was delivered to entities such as
the regional health authorities, the cost of that training is recovered. We do
our best estimate as to how much we feel will be utilized, so for '17-'18 the
revised number reflects a lower amount than we had initially anticipated being
recovered, and our '18-'19 budget is more reflective of what we anticipate to
see this year.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
I'll
move on to 3.1.06.
CHAIR (King):
Thank you, Mr. Hutching.
We're
running close on your time, so I'm going to pass things over to Ms. Michael, if
you don't mind.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Sure.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
going to do what Keith was going to do. Moving in to 3.1.06, again, the first
question has to do with the Salaries line because $340,000 was put aside in the
budget last year and wasn't spent and now it's back in, so an explanation,
please.
MS. TRICKETT:
This is an allocation that
is an annual allocation, I guess, for salary requirements, for any development
opportunities across government. So if there is no uptake of that during the
fiscal year or no requirements for that, there will be no expenditure and that
is the case for '17-'18.
MS. MICHAEL:
So you mean that any
department, for example, could make application to this money for some new
development they're doing in the department?
MS. TRICKETT:
Correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
That has to do with salary?
MS. TRICKETT:
Yes, this would just allow
for the salaries of that particular development.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Okay, thank you very
much.
Coming
down then, it's not a big amount – where am I? 3.1.06; my eyes – we've been all
day in this room and the light gets to me.
Under
Supplies, there was nothing budgeted, $49,800 was spent and this year there is
an estimate of $7,300. What was the expenditure last year, and why do we still
have money in there this year?
MS. TRICKETT:
So I think the easiest way
to answer your question to that, if you notice the total for the Operating
Accounts in that activity, you'll notice that for '17-'18, the budget was
$1,047,100 and the total amount spent – or projected to be spent, I should say,
was $1,150,500. Effectively, in '17-'18, the entire operational budget was
allocated under Purchased Services and through the fiscal year, as expenses were
incurred in various line items, those expenses were allocated to the particular
line item, as identified.
For
'18-'19, we took extra efforts to try to allocate that same budget, the
$1,047,100 across the line objects where we anticipate the spending to occur.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MS. TRICKETT:
And I will note that it does
look as though we overspent in the Operating Account for '17-'18; however, at
the time of print, there were some additional training costs that, I guess, are
facilitated by other departments and the costs are expensed back to this
activity. Once they were assessed, it was past the print of budget, and they
weren't actually deemed to be acceptable charges for reimbursement. So we
actually came in under around $30,000, under what the original operational
budget was.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
What
would the purchased services be in this area?
MS. TRICKETT:
The Purchased Services vote
would allow for such things as meeting room spaces to deliver training. It would
be for printing costs associated with materials, publications, that type of
stuff.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, that's a big line, but
I guess there's a lot of training that is going on.
In the
description of this program – I'll call it program; it is more than that – what
would be examples of specialized training, for example?
MR. JOYCE:
Specialized training, for
example, we could have first aid training, we could have fall protection
training and we could have training for all employees on ATIPP. There's a
multitude of training programs required and put off; it must be 100.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Would they be – what
will I say – done by Human Resource Secretariat and then departments informed,
or could entire departments request special training?
MR. JOYCE:
Sometimes, for example,
Department of Transportation and Works, if there's a new regulation put in place
they would sit with the Centre for Learning and Development and they would
tailor a training program for that particular requirement, whether it's a flag
person on the road. It depends what comes up at the time, what's required by
regulation. But they would work directly with departments, yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much. I
think I've covered all my questions there.
3.1.07,
Employee Safety and Wellness: I will ask, under Salaries, why last year there
was a large revision downwards but you're basically back up to same budget,
almost, this year.
MS. TRICKETT:
The savings in '17-'18 are
related to vacancies that were in the division throughout the year. The slight
revision down for '18-'19 is simply looking at the staff complement for '18-'19
and adjusting the Salaries accordingly.
MS. MICHAEL:
And that vacancy has been
filled, has it? Or you're holding the position? One or the other.
MR. JOYCE:
No, the vacancy has not been
filled. We went through about three directors for various reasons. We are also
in the process of trying to develop exactly what the exact need is. This is a
relatively new area, a new division, Safety and Wellness, and we're working with
the director there now in terms of exactly what our focus is going to be.
MS. MICHAEL:
How many staff are in this
division, Mr. Joyce?
MR. JOYCE:
Sixteen, I think, and a
vacancy or two vacancies.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
I'm
just reading through the description again; it's been a couple of days since I
read it. Is there good uptake on this?
MR. JOYCE:
It's really good uptake. In that particular division we have integrated
disability managers, we have three occupational health and safety consultants
and we have a wellness coordinator.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MR. JOYCE:
And three of those areas now, particularly when we're trying to look at
developing a new health and safety system for government, it's very busy.
MS. MICHAEL:
Is it under this division
that ergonomic assessments are done or is that something –?
MR. JOYCE:
That's correct, yeah. That's done in that particular area.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right, thank you very much.
Let's
see if I have any more questions for there – Purchased Services. Oh well, that's
not big, no.
What
would be the purchased services though, it's been reduced by $10,000, basically,
between last year's budget and this year's estimate?
MS. TRICKETT:
That budget would allow for basic office printing, printing charges. It also
would allow for any ergonomic assessments that were conducted as well.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
3.1.09,
again in the Salaries there was a slight drop in the revision from last year's
budget – well, it was a drop of $82,300 I think, and then this year the estimate
is $100,000 lower than last year's budget line. Could we have an explanation
there?
MS. FOLLETT:
The $82,300 reflects savings
from the 2017-18 budget as a result of vacancies throughout the year and the
$100,000 reflects a decrease from the 2017-18 budget reduced requirements as per
the zero-based budgeting submission.
MS. MICHAEL:
Have the vacancies not been
filled?
MS. FOLLETT:
For a period of time, yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Has
there been a loss of positions then?
MS. FOLLETT:
No, we haven't had a loss. We just had some challenges in recruiting the
positions.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, because it is a
$100,000 difference in budget, so do you have some lower-paid positions now than
you had last year?
MS. FOLLETT:
Yes, that would be correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
One
more question under here. The Revenue - Provincial line, last year the budget
said $250,000, and then the revision was $20,000, and this year it's $50,000.
Number one, what does that line refer to and why was it $250,000 and revised
down to $20,000? That's a big one.
MS. FOLLETT:
The $230,000 reflects a reduction in revenue from 2017-18 budget primarily due
to anticipated revenue for administrative costs not being recovered from our
group insurance plan. The $200,000 reflects a decrease from the 2017-18 budget
related to the elimination of recovery of administrative costs associated with
our group insurance plan.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, those figures aren't
in the page I'm looking at.
CHAIR (Edmunds):
Okay.
Mr.
Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Are you comfortable with Ms.
Michael carrying on, or would you –?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, if she wants to finish
her question.
Lorraine, do you want to finish that?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, I'm questioning the
fact that I'm looking at the Estimates page and I don't see – well, I see
$200,000 and $230,000 written in by Ivan by hand. That's why I'm asking where
did that come from because it's not printed here.
My
question had to do with the printed line, which was Revenue - Provincial,
$50,000 was the estimate for this year, $20,000 was the revision downwards last
year and $250,000 was written in – and he's written in by hand underneath
$200,000, $230,000, which you've said. So where's that figure coming from? It's
not printed on the Estimates page.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, because the $250,000 less $20,000 is $230,000.
MS. MICHAEL:
Pardon?
MR. OSBORNE:
The $250,000 less $20,000 is
$230,000.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, I get it. Thank you very
much, Tom, for figuring that one out. Okay.
I'm
still not clear, then, you're going to have to explain it to me again, because I
was being confused by these figures. You're going to have to explain to me again
what that is; I'm sorry.
MS. TRICKETT:
So this activity deals with our group insurance plan and there are some charges
that are applicable to be cost recovered, very similar to pensions. So for
'17-'18 there was some anticipation that we would be able to recover a
significant portion of those administrative costs, and through the fiscal year
that was determined that was not going to occur. So that results in the $230,000
savings – or reduction in revenue, I should say.
We
recognize that we're not going to receive that for '18-'19, so we've adjusted
the budget for that accordingly.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, now I'm
perfectly clear.
Thanks,
Keith.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Mr.
Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
want to go back and ask a question in regard to 3.1.06, Organizational
Development Initiative. Ms. Michael asked about the Purchased Services and what
that would involve there. I think it was related to various training programs
and various initiatives, I guess, for folks within government in terms of
getting the applicable training that's required.
That
Purchased Services amount, is that done by outside service providers in
providing that training?
MS. TRICKETT:
It would allow for costs to
purchase training modules as well. So if we had to deliver a particular type of
training, you have to purchase that from a resource, from a company, from
whomever. Sometimes it's the cost of actually procuring that actual training
module, and then those modules can be delivered by in-house staff.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yeah, so each time you go,
you wouldn't have to purchase the modules, right?
MS. TRICKETT:
Depending on the type of
training, whether that is something that is greater than one – it's not updated
annually type thing –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, right.
MS. TRICKETT:
But maybe George can speak
more specifically to that.
MR. JOYCE:
The training modules will
vary depending on the regulation that's brought in, depending on the updates to
it, depending on many different reasons. It's purchased from the private sector.
If we can find it in-house, we'll use it but –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I guess my question just
very simply is that I recognize there's training modules and you would purchase
those and deliver them in-house by somebody in-house. In a prior life, I was
involved with OH&S and I delivered training services, but if I was a private
vendor outside, could I come in here and make an offering to provide services,
and is that done and are outside folks hired to provide services to your staff?
MR. JOYCE:
I answered your question;
I'm not sure to what extent – now, I can get that information.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yeah, because it's a big
number; it's almost a million dollars. So you can buy a lot of training modules
for that amount, and some of those, like I said, don't need to be reciprocated
every time you want to do the training.
MR. JOYCE:
That's correct, yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
So I'm just wondering what's
involved with –
MR. JOYCE:
I can provide a breakdown,
the total of all the different sources, where the modules come from as soon as
possible, if that is okay.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yeah, sure. Thank you.
If we
could go to 3.1.07, Employee Safety and Wellness, you mentioned 16 positions, so
these 16 positions here would be supportive of workplace injuries, health and
safety programs, all of those initiatives?
MR. JOYCE:
Three areas, one being
integrated disability management; our staff in that area work directly with
government departments when people are off work due to disability, off sick.
There's a comprehensive program that they have developed working with government
departments and individuals to try to get them to return to work, working with
workers' compensation, working directly with the department.
The
second component would be the Occupational Health and Safety consultants, and
they work directly with government departments on the Occupational Health and
Safety system; the requirements under OHS regulations, under workers'
compensation regulations; and also in the process of developing a new safety
management system throughout the whole government, which is in the initial
stages. And the third person is a wellness coordinator.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, great, thanks.
For
last year what was the cost for workplace injuries? Do you have a roundabout
figure within government?
MR. JOYCE:
I don't have that figure,
but I'll get it for you.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Sure, okay.
MR. JOYCE:
Are you talking about, just
for clarification, workplace injuries under workers' comp –?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, work-related injuries
and what will be paid in for coverage for workers' comp.
Again,
could I get some background, too, on sick time costs?
MR. JOYCE:
I'll do that.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you.
Moving
to 3.1.09, Service Centre and Corporate Services Delivery, this would
administer, if I'm correct, the group insurance plan that is offered to
government employees. We switched a number of years ago, I think, from
Desjardins to Great West Life. I'm sorry, I didn't understand prior when Ms.
Michael asked a question in regard to some fees that we thought were going to be
collected, weren't collected. Could I hear again exactly what that was?
MS. FOLLETT:
Yes, there was a point where
we were attempting to recover some administrative costs through the fund with
the group insurance plan. We brought it to the group insurance committee, which
is an advisory committee that assists us with planning around the plan, and the
proposal was not accepted. Therefore, we had to offset because of those costs.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Was that a new proposal to
adjust the current plan or what …?
MS. FOLLETT:
It wasn't a proposal to
adjust the plan, per se; it was a proposal to utilize funding in reserve in the
plan to offset administrative costs of the division.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
3.1.10,
Payroll and Benefits. In the Salaries line there, originally in the estimates
last year what was demonstrated and what's reflected here in this book, there's
a small change in that. Could you just tell me what that change is related to?
MS. TRICKETT:
There were two positions that were restated from the Department of Finance into
this activity. There were two pension payroll positions that were initially in
the Department of Finance.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
And were just transferred
out?
MS. TRICKETT:
Correct.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, perfect.
Thank
you.
Again,
with that line, from the original estimate last year to what's here in your
book, there was a slight increase and then this year the estimate is up again.
Could you just explain that to me, please?
MS. TRICKETT:
The difference between '17-'18 revised and original is reflective of severance
and related benefits for three employees. This particular activity had
previously been underfunded from a budget perspective. So the requirements were
reflected there in the revised line, and we've adjusted the budget to reflect
that for '18-'19.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
Could
you, if possible, explain when we get down in that same section, Revenue -
Provincial, what that would be? The numbers have changed from the estimate to
the actuals to the estimate this year.
MS. FOLLETT:
The figures associated with the revenue, again, are tied to the fact that we
have personnel in the Payroll Division that actually administer pension payroll
services. So that revenue is attributed to the fact that those costs are charged
back to that fund.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Oh, to each fund that it
supports.
MS. FOLLETT:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The staff.
Okay,
thank you.
Your
projections for this year has gone up to $234,200. What's that based on?
MS. FOLLETT:
It's due to the expectation of being able to recover more this year.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Is that to any new role you have or it's just an increase in activity?
MS. FOLLETT:
No, it's more an increase in the activity.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
Moving
to 3.1.11, Strategic Staffing. The Purchased Services line, the restated Budget
is $38,400. Last year, in Budget 2017
it was $380,000. I wonder if you can give an explanation in regard to the change
and the restatement.
MS. TRICKETT:
That would reflect the restatement of the lease costs being transferred to the
Department of Transportation and Works.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Was that the initiative
across government where all the space is now brought under TW? You've seen it in
all lines and all estimates, right?
MS. TRICKETT:
Correct.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
In the
same section, 3.1.11, under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, you had an
unexpected expenditure, I think. Because there was nothing budgeted, but $600 is
the revised figure.
MS. FOLLETT:
Yes, that was attributable to necessary furniture replacement.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
Then
coming down to 3.1.12, Opening Doors. Is there a list of where the different
employees under Opening Doors are located? How many departments have – how many
employees, for example, under Opening Doors?
MS. FOLLETT:
Yes, Ms. Michael, we do have a listing.
MS. MICHAEL:
Could we have that if it's
not in the binder?
MS. FOLLETT:
Yes, certainly.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
Just to
say, Minister, as usual, whenever either one of us asks for something, we both
get it, right? Yes. Thank you very much.
I don't
have any other questions under Opening Doors. It looks like it's pretty stable
in terms of the money. Last year it was down by almost $300,000. Is there an
explanation for that?
MS. FOLLETT:
The variance due to Salaries reflects savings from the '17-'18 budget as result
of a number of vacancies we had.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MS. FOLLETT:
And those vacancies were
attributable to time required for staffing, and we had a number of individuals
who were off on extended periods of leave, sick leave.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Obviously, you expect
things to be brought right up to where it was before?
MS. FOLLETT:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you so much.
Under
Grants and Subsidies, could you just explain that line to me? I don't mean in
terms of money but in terms of what exactly that means. Where the grants and
subsidies – where do they go?
MS. FOLLETT:
For Grants and Subsidies, we have a number of programs associated with that, Ms.
Michael. One is the Canada Job Fund, and that's available for non-EI eligible
individuals. We have an allocation of about $120,000 there.
Then
there's the Labour Market Development Agreement allocation, for which the
criteria is that you have to be EI eligible and not employed. We also have about
$120,000 that's allocated from AESL, actually, as well.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, very good.
I think
that's all the questions I have. That brings us up – for me, up to the end of
the Human Resource Secretariat.
CHAIR:
Okay, thanks you.
Mr.
Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, I just have a couple of
questions to clue up.
You
mentioned Grants and Subsidies and the difference of about $52,000 that wasn't
spent. Would that have been positions for applicants that wasn't availed of, or
–?
MS. FOLLETT:
No, that discrepancy there is associated to a lag in between the cessation of
one period of employment and the commencement of another.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay. How many would've
availed of the program in the last year?
MS. FOLLETT:
Under each of those programs
we've had about three placements, I do believe.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Three placements per
program?
MS. FOLLETT:
Yes, correct.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
What would the total number
of those who participated be?
MS. FOLLETT:
Well, then there would be
between six to seven individuals who were placed.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
Okay, I
think that's good for me.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
Recall
the section.
CLERK:
3.1.01 through 3.1.12, inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 3.1.01 through 3.1.12
inclusive carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.1.12 carried.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
While
we switch out for the next subheading under –
MS. MICHAEL:
I'd like to speak –
CHAIR:
Okay.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
I just
want to thank the minister and the staff in particular for the good rapport and
the good answers we've gotten here tonight.
Thank
you.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
And I concur with that.
Thank you, Minister, and staff.
Thanks
very much.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Okay.
We will
take a short break while we switch out department heads and give the Broadcast
booth a break.
Recess
CHAIR (King):
Good evening, folks.
We are
going to continue with our Estimates now. We're going to do Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
CLERK:
4.1.01 through 4.1.05 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.1.01 to 4.1.05 pass?
MR. OSBORNE:
Aye.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Minister, over to you.
MR. OSBORNE:
It was worth a try.
I'd
like to start by asking my staff to introduce themselves, starting with Ellen.
MS. MACDONALD:
Ellen MacDonald, Chief Information Officer.
MS. TRICKETT:
Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller.
MR. HARDING:
Craig Harding, Executive Director of Corporate Services and Projects.
MR. GELLATELY:
Bruce Gellately, Director of Corporate Services.
MS. MOORE:
Julie Moore, Executive Director, Application and Information Management
Services.
MR. MOULAND:
Randy Mouland, Executive Director, Operations and Security.
MS. FOOTE:
Carla Foote, Associate Secretary to Cabinet Communications, Communications
Branch.
MS. ELLIOTT:
Susan Elliott, Executive Assistant to Minister Osborne.
MS. HUSSEY:
Cindy Hussey, Assistant Deputy Clerk, Cabinet Secretariat.
MR. MARTIN:
Dave Martin, Manager of Finance, Budgeting and General Operations.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
I will
ask the Members of the Committee – I can read out the intro or, based on time,
if you want to dive right into questions, we can do that too.
Carry
on.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
Minister, just a clarification, if you would not mind, when new projects are
done – so if a new software system is developed, just remind me if that's part
of Current or Capital, because you have Corporate Services and Projects,
Current, and Corporate Services and Projects, Capital. Can you just remind me
which one is which?
MS. MACDONALD:
We use both of those areas for projects. Depending on the phase of a life cycle
of a project, some of it is Current dollars and some of it is Capital dollars.
So we track the project through its life so it uses both of those.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That helps. I'm still not sure –
MS. MACDONALD:
Sorry.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So, first of all maybe, we'll start at 4.1.01. There's a restatement there of
$207,500 under Purchased Services. Can you explain that one to me? The $163,500
budgeted last year is a restatement from $207,500, the year before.
OFFICIAL:
I'm sorry, could you repeat?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, I'm sorry.
Purchased Services, under 4.1.01, you have $163,500; that's a restatement from
last year of $207,500.
MS. MACDONALD:
This is all related to our ISM project – and you'll hear me say that many times
– the ISM project is an integrated service management project that we
implemented for EECD and CSSD in this past fiscal.
As that
project moved forward, we had to move funds around from different areas to pay
for our different activities as they came up and so we had savings in this area
primarily related to that project.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Your
Salaries from $5.6 million last year, revised $5,604,000 to $4.8 million: Is
there a particular reason that explains the change?
MS. MACDONALD:
The change – the revised
budget reflects some savings, again, due to some vacant and unfilled positions,
primarily related to the project work that we do. The increase – well, the
decrease this year reflects changes, some permanent attrition management and
some annualization of prior year decisions.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay, thank you.
Can you
give me an idea of what significant programs are underway and I don't know if
they're Current or Capital – so if there's new software development or a
remodelling or significant upgrading of current projects?
MS. MACDONALD:
I guess the biggest thing we'll be doing this year is our Digital by Design
project work we launched last week; it's part of
The Way Forward. We will be spending
– our estimate is between a mix of Capital and Current – around $2 million this
year to implement a bunch of those services.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
What do
you expect to see out of that this year with that $2 million?
MS. MACDONALD:
This year we're going to see – we've got six. We're going to do some work on a
unique digital ID for government. We're going to upgrade the website. We're
going to take an existing application that may require interaction with multiple
departments and make it a smart application so that it steps the citizen through
a process whereby it asks them all the necessary questions and they don't have
to go find out what departments they have to speak to. And we're going to create
a dashboard for citizens. We're going start the buildup of that dashboard for
citizens so they will see the kind of services they avail from government.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
Are you
familiar with LaMPSS? Last year the minister indicated that it was pushed back
off the front of the priority list. Is there an update on that?
MS. MACDONALD:
There is a new upgrade going
forward with LaMPSS where we will be implementing additional reporting
capabilities essentially that the feds require and it'll be funded through the
federal funding.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
I want
to have a chat about email just for a minute, and again I don't know if it comes
under Current or Capital. We had this discussion over the last few months. Can
you tell me how emails in government email addresses are maintained, or how
individual emails are retained, would be the right word?
MR. MOULAND:
All email is retained
forever as long as the user retains it. So it's really in the user's control in
terms of how long the retention period is on email. The only retention beyond
what a user would make a decision around is our data backup.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What does that mean?
MR. MOULAND:
We maintain data backups for
disaster-recovery purposes. So as an example if we had a catastrophic failure at
Higgins Line, or if somebody discovered that oh my God, a week ago I deleted a
whole series of email that I didn't want to delete, we're able to go back –
email is a little bit different, but typically our backup period is 30 days. We
retain 30, really, copies of email, going back the last 30 days of every
person's mailbox in government.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'll use myself as an
example; I am just trying to clear some of the thousands of emails I have on my
phone there tonight and I deleted an email, what happens to it then?
MR. MOULAND:
If you do it on your phone,
nothing happens, because it's not managed through your phone, it's managed
through the Outlook client. If you delete it through Outlook, through your
desktop or laptop, it's retained in the email system in a manner for about 15
days, but then there are an additional 15 days on tape. It's not exactly how it
works, but for this purpose I think it's sufficient to say it's in the email
system for 15 days and then there's another additional 15 days on tape.
MR. P. DAVIS:
If we request copies of emails that – if I delete emails today and somebody
decides they want to find those emails and they make a request through access to
information to obtain those emails, how would they do that?
OFFICIAL:
In terms of –
MR. MOULAND:
Well, they'd make a request for electronic records to the OCIO, and if we held
the records, if they exist –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah.
MR. MOULAND:
If they weren't deleted –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah.
MR. MOULAND:
– we'd supply the record, depending on – it requires a certain level of
authority, depending on who the request is being made of –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. MOULAND:
– and who they expect us to give access to, but we have a prescribed process for
making that information available.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The reason I ask, we had asked for some emails that were deleted recently,
within a couple days of them being deleted. We kind of went around all over the
place – I know Ellen was involved with some of the discussions on it – trying to
obtain those emails, and we weren't successful. We were told they couldn't be
obtained. I was just wondering how all that works and how you go about accessing
it?
If I
delete an email today and my colleague, Mr. Hutchings, decides next week he
wants to file an access to information request for it.
MR. MOULAND:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What would happen then?
MR. MOULAND:
If you delete an email on the same day it's deleted, and then go through a
secondary process to further delete it from the email system before we get a
backup, it is gone. But you would have to be fairly crafty, I think, to –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah.
MR. MOULAND:
– sort of circumvent the normal process. The normal process is if you delete an
email, it stays in your mailbox for seven days.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right.
MR. MOULAND:
It stays in the email system for another seven days, and there is also – it's on
tape.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right.
MR. MOULAND:
But you're correct, if somebody sent you something 10 o'clock in the morning,
you deleted it at 11, went in and did a secondary process – without getting into
it in this audience – but did a secondary process –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah.
MR. MOULAND:
– to delete it again further –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah.
MR. MOULAND:
– yes, it's gone. It came in and went the same day.
Outside
of that, no. If you received an email this morning –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah.
MR. MOULAND:
– and you asked me for a copy tomorrow morning, assuming you – even if you just
deleted it and just went on about your day, it does exist for 30 days. If I can
get a copy that night, I guess, is the cleanest answer.
MS. MACDONALD:
Just to further respond to that; the process Randy is speaking to is a process
related to recovery of an individual specific email. I know I deleted X number
of emails and I want them back.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right.
MS. MACDONALD:
The challenge with our ATIPP request going to a backup model is that the system
isn't architected for backup. We can't restore – we can't do a global search and
– well, we can do a global search to get every instance of everybody's record
but it would take us huge amounts of storage because we have to dump back the
entire mailbox system, and we would be spending, we would estimate, a couple of
hundred thousand dollars to do 30 day searches for emails to see if they've been
deleted in order just to restore those to the servers so we could have a look.
That's
why we don't – for ATIPP purposes, we don't really go to our backups. Other
jurisdictions don't either because it's too cumbersome, it's too onerous. It
takes up too much horsepower.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'd have to check the
documents, but my – and I know I'm out of time, Randy, if you don't mind, just
to finish up here. But my recollection was, and I don't have it in front of me,
but when we were – when it was indicated to us the records weren't or –
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
No, I think it was
non-responsible, I thought, but maybe they weren't.
MS. MACDONALD:
No, it was – our discussion at the time was we truly – the whole concept of
trying to mass search all the records for some missing files is extremely
onerous. It's not built as a recovery system like that. If we know Ellen
MacDonald has deleted something, we can go and pinpoint Ellen MacDonald and get
her out, but we can't do these mass searches.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah. We refer to the triple
delete case in British Columbia, and I know there were some concerns about that.
I don't know, Minister, if you're familiar with it or not, but it was you delete
your email, then you delete the deleted email and then you delete it from the
server. It's the triple delete.
While
there's requirement around access to information to maintain records, and we had
filed within the retention period but, still, by the time we had bounced around
from OCIO to departments and back, we weren't able to obtain those records.
Sorry,
I thought someone else wanted to …
MS. MOORE:
When you put in that request it has to be for OCIO's records. If it's related to
records of other departments it would be transitioned under the ATIPPA framework
to those departments. We are, sort of, the custodians of the information but we
actually can't get in and look at those records. They're not really ours to go
in and search like an ATIPPA would.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Who would actually go in and
look at them, or look for them?
MS. MOORE:
It would be whichever
departments were in – I think there were departments included in those requests,
and that request.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So if I can –
CHAIR:
I'm going to go to Ms. Michael, unless she consents, and if you have any more
questions we'll come back.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sure.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, because I am going to
ask more line information under 4.1.01, because I have noticed both there, and
especially in 4.1.04, there seems to be a lot of changes there.
Just to
4.1.01, under Transportation and Communications, the budget line was $622,600
and revised downward – I won't bother, we all have the numbers in front of us –
revised downward. Then, for this year, there's a big drop of $377,000,
approximately, from last year's budget. So just an explanation of that, please.
MS. MACDONALD:
The savings in this year were primarily related again to that ISM project.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MS. MACDONALD:
So we didn't need to spend all the funds, so we didn't spend them. Then the next
year's budget reflects some annualization of part-year decisions, some
additional allocation and moving capital to current. Essentially, it enables us
to do the work we need to do for this year's projects versus last years.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Thank
you very much.
Then
coming down to Professional Services, here it was approximately $2.1 million
budgeted. It looks like some savings because it was down to $1.9 million, but
this year up to $3 million approximately.
MS. MACDONALD:
The savings, again, were related to ISM.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MS. MACDONALD:
The increase this year
reflects additional funding that we received to do Digital by Design.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Thank
you very much.
Under
Property, Furnishings and Equipment, it looks like you had an unexpected
expenditure this year because the budget was $31,400 but you expended $223,000
more.
MS. MACDONALD:
Yes. Again, that's related to the ISM project. We did not expect we were going
to have to – we had to spend a lot of money on scanners for all the social
workers across the province that we hadn't allocated originally. So we had
savings in other areas to enable us to spend the money in that specific area.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Thank
you very much.
4.1.02,
it's not a big item, but under Salaries this year it's down, right?
OFFICIAL:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, down by $76,200, I
think. Why is that?
MS. MACDONALD:
It's a reflection of a reduction for year four of the attrition program, and
it's an efficiency reduction decision to provide project support more
efficiently.
MS. MICHAEL:
Since you've mentioned the
attrition program; in your area, how many jobs have gone because of attrition?
MS. MACDONALD:
Four positions.
MS. MICHAEL:
Four positions. And are
there any more planned?
MS. MACDONALD:
We actually, during this month, are going to be doing a more detailed attrition
plan to see where, if there are opportunities for further attrition.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. So this was one place
right here?
MS. MACDONALD:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, so just one position I
take it?
MS. MACDONALD:
Yeah.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
Coming
down to Professional Services, here the budget line last year was $1.7 million,
approximately, $1,717,000 and it was revised upwards slightly to $1,725,000 and
now this year it's up by $390,200 over last year's budget. Is that ISM again?
MS. MACDONALD:
No, this is a combination of
several things. Some of it is zero-based budgeting changes, but the largest
implication there's $400,000 in this line item that's offset on the Revenue line
item for work we are expected to have to take on to support P10, the pension
organization.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, very good.
That's
a permanent thing, is it, that you will be doing that?
MS. MACDONALD:
We are going to have to do
some work for them this year because it's more of a transition year. I doubt if
it would be as big next year, but there'll always probably be some revenue and
associated cost and whatnot.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Okay, thank you.
And
then, under Purchased Services, it's just a drop; I guess this is reflecting
what you expect to be the real expense this year, is it? It's down $24,000 from
last year's budget.
MS. MACDONALD:
Yeah, it's a zero-based
budgeting change, essentially.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yeah, right. Okay, thank you
very much.
Under
4.1.03, here my question has to do with the Supplies line. It's not a big
variance; it was $7,284,000, approximately, and revised upward by $71,800. What
was the greater expense about?
MS. MACDONALD:
The Supplies item?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MS. MACDONALD:
So supplies for OCIO is
payment for software licensing, primarily.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MS. MACDONALD:
The vendors will regularly
get increases in that, so that's reflected in that line.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right, very good. I
remember that answer from the past, actually.
Under
Property Furnishings and Equipment, the budget was $861,700 and the increase in
the revision was up to $1,066,500 – that's about $203,000 I think. What was
unexpected? It looks like you had an unexpected expenditure.
MS. MACDONALD:
So this line item is
upgrades to regular and critical hardware elements that's very hard to forecast.
So we ended up having to spend some additional money to upgrade some equipment
to support government-wide IT needs.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
And you
had no problem finding that money?
MS. MACDONALD:
It was offset by some
savings in the other areas; that's the way we do it.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
With
4.1.04, there are a lot of changes here so I think I'm going to ask you to do an
overall explanation of this section – would that be helpful to you?
MS. MACDONALD:
It would; I'm going to say
ISM. This area, again, is the Capital related to projects. I know in the ISM
project we didn't require all the Capital that was necessary. We know we have
Capital coming for some upcoming projects this year, and that's where you'll see
movement across all of these, but ISM is the biggest impact across all of these
areas.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. That answers all of
the questions I would have had in that section, I think.
4.1.05,
Operations and Security: Operating Accounts, there was a budget line of $238,000
and then nothing under revised and this year – under Supplies, I mean –
$223,000. You expected to be paying for supplies of some kind – I guess it must
have been hardware and software. So you had no expenditures under this last
year?
MS. MACDONALD:
Essentially we needed to
spend more money on some critical hardware so we, essentially, used all the
funding that was available in the Capital area to purchase the hardware.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, and then this year you
have your $223,000 and …
MS. MACDONALD:
Again, it's funding that
enables us to deal with hardware or software requirements as they come up. So
this year we may end up needing more software than we need hardware.
MS. MICHAEL:
It's hard for you to be
zero-based.
MS. MACDONALD:
Very difficult.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yeah.
Under
Property, Furnishings and Equipment, again, obviously you had an expenditure
that you didn't expect there because the revision is over $200,000 more than the
budget line.
MS. MACDONALD:
Correct. Again, that's the
critical hardware upgrade that we were required to do.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
I'll
pass it back, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR (Edmunds):
Mr. Davis.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Do you want me to ask the
question?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much.
Oh
yeah, go ahead, yes. Sorry.
CHAIR:
Mr. Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you Mr. Chair.
Just a
couple of general questions: What's the total staff complement of the OCIO now?
MS. MACDONALD:
293 people.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
Could
you give me a breakout of the roughly $90 million in Estimates that would be to
cover consultants? What costs of that would be related to consultants?
MS. MACDONALD:
Fifty-five million dollars.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Fifty-five million dollars
of the $90 million?
MS. MACDONALD:
It's a $55 million budget.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Oh, I'm sorry. I think I
looked at the wrong page. I'm sorry; I looked at the total number at the end,
Executive Council.
MS. MACDONALD:
Yeah, that's Executive Council.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, sorry. Sorry about
that, Minister, I didn't mean to shock you there.
What
percentage of that would be consultants?
MS. MACDONALD:
I don't know if I've ever
done that. I would say 10 per cent. Ten per cent is –
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MS. MACDONALD:
On Professional Services?
Well, that's in Professional Services only.
When we
do project work, we'll bring in consultants because we can bring them in and
then send them away, and that's where we spend a lot of our Professional
Services. That budget is $8 million or $9 million, I think, in the
Capital/Current view. Depending on what the project is, like ISM was a large
multi-year project that had a large amount of funding, but our regular budget is
around $8 million.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Eight million dollars for –?
MS. MACDONALD:
For our consultants that come in.
We have
our project consultants and we also have certain areas where we're unable to
hire some of the skills that we need, that we use them for – it might say staff
augmentation. We are unable to hire security consultants because we can't find
them in the marketplace, so we use Professional Services for that as well.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Has there been an effort to
reduce the amount of consultants that use –?
MS. MACDONALD:
We've significantly reduced the amount of consultants over the past three years.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
What type of numbers are we
talking about over the past three years in regard to reducing the amount of
consultants?
MS. MACDONALD:
Well, at one point our Professional Services budget was, I think, around $18
million and it's down to $8 million, $9 million or $10 million. I don't know the
exact number.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
That's
it for me. Paul.
CHAIR:
Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Edmunds.
I just
want to go back to emails again, if I may. I just want to understand, so when
they're deleted you're telling me there's a significant – once they're deleted
then they're in that never-never land of the system, wherever they go, it's a
fairly extensive project in order to recover them or to find them?
MS. MACDONALD:
Correct.
Once
they're in the backup system and when we have to recover that backup system,
it's huge storage because – as Randy noted – there's records in there that
people have had for 20-plus years and nobody deletes them. And so there's huge
amounts of information we have to bring back and we don't have the storage
capacity to do it, to do full searches. All the guilty people, put their hands
up.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So has it ever been done?
MS. MACDONALD:
To my knowledge, we've never used our backup system to do full searches for
deleted items.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Not even for an inquiry?
MS. MACDONALD:
We do it in the live system. We can search within the live system for deleted
emails, but we can't go to our detailed backups.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Once an email has been gone
or deleted or removed from someone's desktop for three months or four months or
five months, and if there is a need to find them afterwards, so for an inquiry
for example –
MS. MACDONALD:
We can't get that. After 30 days and our backups have gone, rolled off, we
cannot get it.
MR. MOULAND:
Maybe I should or shouldn't weigh in, but respecting that emails should not be
used as any type of record-keeping system or any type of official record of a
government decision or government information – obviously, emails play a role
and I realize we all maintain vast amounts of information in email, but anything
that would be considered a formal government record should be transitioned to a
formal government record management system, like TRIM or HPRM or some other data
as a long-term archive.
Email
should not be considered as an archive. So email is retained for
disaster-recovery purposes only. Again, if the user doesn't delete the email – I
would suggest that if somebody deletes an email and it's a government record,
their problem is that they're deleting government records, not that I'm not
keeping a copy of it for 10 years. It becomes sort of a (inaudible) –
MR. P. DAVIS:
But I've got notices to
clean out up my email, because I'm over –
MR. MOULAND:
Yeah, we are trying to manage people down inside of an existing mailbox.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right.
MS. MACDONALD:
If I could, just to clarify, that is emails only. Our file system, we have
backups for a long time.
MR. P. DAVIS:
But you can't access them.
MS. MACDONALD:
You can, but they're not emails.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I don't understand.
MS. MACDONALD:
So you can search for files, but we can't search in our email backups because
it's not architected to be a search engine, per se.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Uh-huh.
OFFICIAL:
Shared drive files, so on
your directory, your shared drive directory, your M drive, your P drive.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You can search all of those,
but you can't search for an email? Okay.
MR. MOULAND:
If I could add, it would be
no different than if somebody took a paper file out of their office. If there
are paper files and correspondence and somebody takes those copies and extracts
them from government, which I would suggest is takes them out of the file
drawer, out of the vault or out wherever they're stored, and removes them from
government premises, they're taking government records out of government's
control, it's no different than if we are mass deleting emails. You would never
be able to architect the system big enough to keep every email for everybody
forever. It would just become unwieldly.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right, I get that.
Okay,
thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
So
we'll recall the section.
CLERK:
4.1.01 to 4.1.05 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.1.01 through 4.1.05
inclusive carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 4.1.01 through 4.1.05 carried.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you very much.
We'll
move on to –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Ms. Michael.
CHAIR:
Oh, sorry, Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
I just
want to thank the minister's staff for being here tonight. It's not early and
you've had a full day like we have, so thank you. Thank you for your clear
answers, even when I was muddled.
CHAIR:
We are now going to go into
the Estimates for the Office of the Executive Council.
I ask
the minister if he could –
CLERK:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Call the section?
CLERK:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Okay.
CLERK:
Okay, we have 1.1.01 through 2.4.01 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 through 2.4.01 inclusive carry?
Can I
ask the minister if he could introduce his staff and make opening comments?
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think
I'll start with Anne Marie, directly to my left.
MS. HANN:
Ann Marie Hann, Clerk of the
Executive Council and Secretary to Cabinet.
MS. TRICKETT:
Wanda Trickett, Departmental
Controller.
MS. HUSSEY:
Cindy Hussey, Assistant
Deputy Clerk.
MS. NORMAN:
Katie Norman, Assistant
Deputy Minister, Public Engagement.
MS. DAY:
Elizabeth Day, Deputy Clerk
and Associate Secretary to Cabinet with Cabinet Secretariat.
MR. MARTIN:
Dave Martin, Manager of
Finance, Budgeting and General Operations.
MS. FOOTE:
Carla Foote, Associate
Secretary to Cabinet Communications, Communications Branch.
MS. ELLIOTT:
Susan Elliott, EA to
Minister Osborne.
MR. OSBORNE:
I guess we'll forego the
formalities and get right to the questions.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Mr.
Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair
1.1.01,
a line item question, just related to Salaries, just an explanation there in
regards to – we can see what was budgeted, the actuals and the actual estimates
for this fiscal year; some information with regard to the revision and the
increased cost.
MS. TRICKETT:
The reduction for '17-'18
revised – or I'm sorry, the overrun for the '17-'18 revised relates to severance
and related benefits for three employees, which was slightly offset by some
vacancies throughout the year. And the reduction for '18-'19 relates to
prior-year decisions which are coming round for this budget cycle.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
So the three employees, were
they replaced?
MS. HUSSEY:
There was some restructuring
that took place, so not all three positions were replaced.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay. Those three employees,
were they terminated or was it retirement, or what exactly?
MS. HUSSEY:
There was one retirement and
two terminations.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay. What were the two
positions that were terminated? Do you know what those positions were?
MS. HUSSEY:
The Manager of Operations
for Government House – right? – and the Director of Protocol.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Those two positions would
have been filled after the fact, again, right? Correct? The Manager of
Operations and the Director of Protocol?
MS. HUSSEY:
One of the things that
happened through this past year was there was restructuring to bring the
Protocol Office in as part of Government House functions; and, as a result of
that, there was a Manager for Protocol and Building Operations created.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Created within Government
House?
MS. HUSSEY:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay. Then the Director of
Protocol was brought under Executive Council, or –?
MS. HUSSEY:
No, the Director of Protocol
position was eliminated.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay. Here in Confederation
Building, we'll say?
MS. HUSSEY:
Yes, but the Protocol Office
now reports in through Government House.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Government House, yes.
MS. HUSSEY:
Part of their function, yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, yes.
Mr.
Chair, are we going to flow right in to – that was – Government House is very
short.
CHAIR:
Yes, we'll carry right on
through.
CLERK:
(Inaudible) call all over the place.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
I'll
move to 2.1.01, Premier's Office. I just have a question in regard to Executive
Support, and Economic and Social Policy Analysis have moved in to this
subheading. I guess that's due to some restructuring. I think the budget was
restated from $2,083,200, does not match with what was budgeted in 2017
documents of $1,423,300.
MS. TRICKETT:
I'm sorry, are you referring to 2.2.01?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
2.1.01 – the wrong one. I'm
sorry, 2.2.01, yes. Sorry about that.
MS. TRICKETT:
Yes, the Economic and Social
Policy activity was previously a separate activity and has been restated in
underneath this activity.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
If we
go to the Salaries line, we can see that the Salaries were an extra $765,500, I
do believe, for the revision for 2017-2018. Could we get some details on that,
please?
MS. TRICKETT:
This allocation allowed for salaries associated with the Muskrat Falls Oversight
Committee and some other major projects. Funding for these types of initiatives
were actually budgeted out under the Department of Finance and transferred into
this allocation as needs required.
There
was some ability to absorb some of those costs within house, so that was a
slight offset there. As well, there was some severance and related benefits that
added up to be that $765,500 change.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
You said Muskrat Falls oversight; in prior years, where would the Muskrat Falls
oversight dollars be? You said it was in Finance?
MS. TRICKETT:
Yes. Similar to previous
years, the expenditure was housed in this activity but the funding for these
special type projects are housed under the financial assistance pot in the
Department of Finance and they're transferred in as required.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
But there is a base amount for this line in Executive Support there, right?
MS. TRICKETT:
No. There is no permanent
salary allocation within the salary complement.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay. There is no salary component for this specifically, these items you
mentioned: Muskrat Falls oversight, other projects and if there's severance and
those types of things. They would've been drawn down from a finance line when
needed?
MS. TRICKETT:
Correct.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
You
said Muskrat Falls oversight and other projects; when you said other projects,
did you mean severance or actually other projects? I'm just wondering, is there
anything else outside of Muskrat Falls oversight.
MS. HUSSEY:
There was some salary
dollars associated with a fisheries project.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
And what would that project have been?
MS. HUSSEY:
I'll have to get you the
information. I can't remember the exact name.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay. Maybe if we could request, if we just got a list of what that additional
$765,500 was, if we could?
If I
could reference in 2.2.01, Professional Services, in that one we saw an increase
of $269,800 for the revision. If we could just get some understanding of what
that number is?
MS. TRICKETT:
That is similar to the salary explanation, with the exception that this would
relate to any professional services work that was conducted for the Muskrat
Falls oversight. The funding, again, would have been budgeted under the
Department of Finance and transferred in here as required.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
What fund would it be from
the Department of Finance? Would it be contingency fund, or –?
MS. TRICKETT:
The account is called the financial assistance. The actual activity number
escapes me at the moment. I can't recall the actual subhead, but it's the
financial assistance under Department of Finance.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
I'm
sorry, could you just explain again what the increase was? I'm sorry, I was
writing down when you said it.
MS. TRICKETT:
It's the professional services that would have been required related to Muskrat
Falls oversight.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
MS. TRICKETT:
The funds are budgeted under subhead 2.1.02, Financial Assistance under the
Department of Finance, and those funds are transferred into this subhead as
required.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay. Who would that money
have been paid for? Would it have been consultants, or exactly who would it have
been paid to?
MS. HANN:
Consultants.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay. What consultants? Do
we know who the consultants were?
MS. HANN:
It was for the EY report.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
That
original report, I think the estimates of that was around $600,000, $650,000 and
I think further work was done. The last count, I think, was maybe over a million
dollars. I'm not sure what the last figure was.
Minister, has that work been completed, or is there still money being paid to EY
in regard to work related to the Muskrat Falls oversight? And, if so, what's the
figure today that's been paid out to EY for that?
MS. HANN:
We have budgeted this year, for the Muskrat Falls Oversight Committee, $50,000
for professional services. The demand for that work is incumbent on the
committee defining what it needs in terms of research or work to be done. The
money that was spent last year was a follow-up to the first report that was done
in 2016, which is basically looking at implementation of the actual EY report
from the original report.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay. I just wonder if I can
get the number to date of what's been spent on that report.
MS. HANN:
I can't tell you, but we'll get that information for you.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Looking
at 2.2.02, Planning and Coordination – I'll make sure that I'm not repeating
myself here now. No, that's where we've just been, right? Yeah. I'm really
getting tired here.
2.2.02;
yes, well we just asked about Professional Services, right?
OFFICIAL:
That's Professional Services for 2.2.01.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right. Okay, sorry.
2.2.02,
I would like to look at Professional Services there because the budget was
$5,000 but the expenditure was $110,000. So if we could have an explanation.
MS. HANN:
This $105,000 differential
was for a consultant contract that was done to begin to develop a work plan for
our shared services project.
MS. MICHAEL:
Could you describe what that
is for me, please?
MS. HANN:
One of
The Way Forward initiatives calls for
shared services, which is basically combining the administration on back office
functions – such as IT, Finance, Payroll, et cetera – combining them or
consolidating them within government. We had used a consultant to help us begin
to develop a work plan as to how to go about that actual project.
MS. MICHAEL:
There was nobody within
government who had not had that experience, that knowledge?
MS. HANN:
It was our expectation to
accelerate that project at the end of the year. At the end of the day, we
decided that further work was required internally. So it has now been
temporarily put on hold.
MS. MICHAEL:
Would that extra $105,000
have been found within the budget that you had, or did extra money have to come
in?
MS. HANN:
This, again, has been
explained earlier. This was a special project, again, budgeted within the
Department of Finance and money transferred in to cover our actual costs.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
MS. HANN:
Thank you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Going up to Salaries in the
same subhead, the budget was $180,200 but the revision is actually $446,100 more
than what was budgeted. So if you could explain that, please.
MS. HANN:
The Planning and
Coordination, several of the positions are involved, again, in project work.
Again, this is money that is transferred in from the Department of Finance
allocation into this particular branch.
MS. MICHAEL:
Was that work related to the
other work that you just referred to or was this for something else?
MS. HANN:
These are other smaller initiatives that would be undertaken and supported
across government.
MS. MICHAEL:
Would the people who are
hired here be temporary or they be contracts, or would they be people who are
normally in the system?
MS. HANN:
These would all be temporary
contractual positions, yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
Then
this year we're back to the same figure as last year's budget.
MS. HANN:
That's correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Thank you.
I don't
think I have any more questions in that one.
2.2.03,
under Purchased Services, it's not a big deal, but what would be purchased
services there? The budget was $14,300 and only $4,100 was expended.
MS. HUSSEY:
This is the budget in
support of the Public Service Award of Excellence. The cost associated would be
for things like the awards that we purchase for employees, the rentals of
equipment and other associated costs for the delivery of the ceremony.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Is the new figure – is
that zero-based budgeting, the $13,900?
MS. HUSSEY:
Yes, and we're optimistic
that we can certainly delivery the same program at perhaps an even lower cost
next year.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
2.3.01,
last year the budget for Salaries – I'm looking at the Salaries line, this is
the Communications Branch. The Salaries line was $1,492,200 and there was
revision downward to $1,324,100, and now this year there's a major jump downward
of the cost – another $125,100, I think, downward. Could we have an explanation
of the Salaries line?
MS. FOOTE:
That's reflective of last
year. The $168,000 in savings was from long-term vacancies that we had last
year, and this year we've had an elimination of positions through the original
GRI and we've also had some contractual positions that have ended.
MS. MICHAEL:
Can I ask what the staff component is now under the Communications Branch?
MS. FOOTE:
Yes. We have in the Communications Branch, including the Marketing and Brand
Management, we have 14 permanent staff, three temporary and one contractual.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
Coming
down to Professional Services; again, $443,400 was budgeted and big savings in
expenditure because it was only $217,200 expended under the revision. Then this
year back up again, but still less than last year's budget, $70,000 less. Once
again, an explanation, please.
MS. FOOTE:
That's in reflection of the consolidation of the Marketing and Brand Management
Services across government as part of The
Way Forward action. In March of last year, we consolidated the Marketing and
Brand Management Services; and, as a result, we have fewer outside contracts.
Everything is happening internally now.
MS. MICHAEL:
But it looks like this year you still are up from where the revision was last
year.
MS. FOOTE:
Yes, there were several projects that were delayed because the actual transition
took a little bit longer than we anticipated last year.
MS. MICHAEL:
You still have to use the same consultants to finish that work, is that it?
MS. FOOTE:
There is one part of that, yes. When there is one project specifically, that
will be used for it, yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
Purchased Services, once again a major drop from the budget line to the
revision, a drop of $281,900. Could we have that explanation first?
MS. FOOTE:
The Purchased Services last year; we had a few things that we didn't anticipate
that we managed to push off in the following year. So we used most of that last
year for minor things like subscriptions, assessments, (inaudible) media
subscriptions, that sort of thing. However, this year we are anticipating with
The Way Forward, as well as the
possibility of the Cannabis Public Education Program, that we will need
additional funds for that.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
I'll
stop there rather than going into the next one, if you want to –
CHAIR:
Okay.
Mr.
Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Just a couple of comments, Minister, that's been relayed to us by officials in
regard to transferred in from Finance into Executive Council over the past year.
I wonder, could we get a list of the amounts that were transferred in from
Finance for the fiscal year and what those amounts were?
MR. OSBORNE:
We'll get that.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you.
Go to
2.3.01. There was just reference made to positions, I think, within that
division: 14 permanent, three temporary and one contractual. Could I ask what
that contractual position is and what, exactly, it's for?
MS. FOOTE:
The contractual position is
a PR specialist position; it is for social media monitoring, as well as media
monitoring in general and distribution of news releases.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Would that be someone who is
working in the office on contract, or someone who you have contracted from an
agency?
MS. FOOTE:
That is someone permanently
in the office; the contract is due to end March of 2019.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
If I
could go to 2.3.02. Could you just give me some idea – there's a small number,
but Revenue – Provincial; it's $15,100 – exactly what that is?
MS. TRICKETT:
That would relate to any
grant funding that had been distributed out in a prior fiscal year for which the
requirements of whatever agreement were not fully met and needed to be returned
back to government. So when it's returned in a separate fiscal year, it has to
be reported as revenue.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
What kind of grant funding
would that be? What would be an example of that?
MS. TRICKETT:
That would be the grant
funding to the youth organizations and all of the typical grant funding. As a
clarity point, the grants for what was formerly the Office of Public Engagement
have been restated out of this activity and they're showing now under the next
activity, 2.3.03; but the revenue for the return of grant funding comes back in
under this account because that's where it had flowed out to initially.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I think it was last budget
year the Office of Public Engagement was brought in to Executive Council, right?
MS. TRICKETT:
Correct
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
2.3.03,
Policy and Planning, if we could just go to the Salaries line there. There was
some increase in what was estimated and what was the actual for the last fiscal
year and in this fiscal year that amount has gone up. If you could give me some
explanation in regard to that.
MS. TRICKETT:
Through the fiscal year '17-'18, there was a measure to ensure that all
budgetary funds were appropriated based on the organizational chart of these two
activities, of the former Office of Public Engagement.
You
will notice in the previous activity there were some savings and what it was is
we're just actually moving the budget to where the positions rest.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
MS. TRICKETT:
You're welcome.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The 2.3.03, Policy and
Planning, it speaks to engagement and communication functions, those types of
things.
Is
there anything here, or in these other headings that we've covered so far or
that are here that relates to any kind of polling or public engagement of that
kind that's done through this office?
MS. HANN:
If I could just confirm, not general polling but potentially there could be
reasons to poll from a programming perspective. I'll just check with my
colleagues.
MS. FOOTE:
Under the Communications Branch, under our Supplies, we do have a subscription
for the Atlantic Quarterly, through
Corporate Research Associates. So we do get a subscription through them every
quarter.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, subscription, but is
there any polling on items of the day, strategic initiatives,
The Way Forward, the accumulation of
data based on public opinion or preference – is there any of that done out of
the office and is there funding here to do it?
CHAIR:
Ms. Foote.
MS. FOOTE:
Yes, there has been some limited polling for
The Way Forward through that budget.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
Where
would that money been allocated through?
MS. FOOTE:
That would be allocated
through the Communications and Public Engagement Branch, through Supplies.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
How
much would that have been? Do you know offhand?
MS. FOOTE:
I can get that number for
you. I don't know specifically.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Sure.
Would
there be monies budgeted for the upcoming fiscal year for the same thing?
MS. FOOTE:
Yes, there would be.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Would you know what that
amount would be? That would be in your Communications division too, I guess?
MS. FOOTE:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
That
would be under Professional Services?
MS. FOOTE:
Purchased Services,
actually.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Purchased Services, okay.
So this
year there was only $90,000 of a $372,000 budget used, and this year it's been
stated of $302,300, right?
MS. FOOTE:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
The
results of any of those polling on The
Way Forward, your Way Forward, or government's Way Forward initiative, is
that public? Can that be released to public? Can we see it?
OFFICIAL:
Yeah, we can do that for
you.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
We can get a copy? Okay,
thank you very much.
Could I
also ask while we're talking about the communications side, the initiative on
the legalization of cannabis, is there – I don't know if you mentioned earlier
and I'm not sure if I heard a reference to it in regard to education or
initiatives to deal with that from a marketing communications aspect. Is there
anything here that's tied to that, looking at the legalization of marijuana?
MS. HANN:
There will be budgeted
allocations in a number of departments for that activity, so there would be some
here, yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
Is
anything allocated in this particular office? Line departments, I guess you
refer other departments, right?
MS. HANN:
Yes, there would be some
here as well.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
Do we
know what that number is at this stage or …?
MS. FOOTE:
We anticipated a media (inaudible) public education campaign at about $60,000,
and that would be either a radio campaign, television or online, depending on
what we're able to do with other departments as well.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
Go to
2.4.01, Financial Administration. The Salaries listed here, could you just give
me some idea of what these positions are and what function they would have,
maybe just give me some kind of understanding?
MS. TRICKETT:
This division, actually, is
where I'm housed. So it's the staff complement associated with providing all
financial and general operations associated for the Department of Finance, the
entire Exec Council, the Public Service Commission and the Consolidated Fund
Services.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
How many employees would be
in this division?
MS. TRICKETT:
There are 10.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I
could go back to 2.3.03 – and I got distracted there for a moment and had to get
something clarified, so I'm not sure if this question was asked. Under 2.3.03,
the Grants and Subsidies, what is that referring to?
So it's
various organizations. In the binder will there be a list of those
organizations? If not, can we get a list of all the organizations under the
Grants and Subsidies?
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you very much.
And I
think that's the only thing left to ask under that. Keith asked the rest. And I
don't have anything under Financial. That brings us to the end.
CHAIR:
Okay, recall the section.
CLERK:
1.1.01 through 2.4.01 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 through 2.4.01 inclusive carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 2.4.01 carried.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you very much.
We will
carry on with Estimates for Intergovernmental Affairs and, again, I ask the
minister to introduce his new change of staff, and we'll open up for an
overview, and if not, we will pass on to questions.
First,
we call the section.
CLERK:
2.5.01 and 2.5.02.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.5.01 and 2.5.02 carry?
MR. OSBORNE:
I think there is only a change of two people. So, Patricia, go ahead.
MS. HEARN:
Patricia Hearn, Deputy Minister, Intergovernmental Affairs.
MS. TRICKETT:
Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller.
MS. HUSSEY:
Cindy Hussey, Assistant Deputy Clerk.
MR. MARTIN:
Dave Martin, Manager of Finance, Budgeting and General Operations.
MS. FOOTE:
Carla Foote, Associate Secretary to Cabinet and Communications, Communications.
MS. ELLIOTT:
Susan Elliott, EA to Minister Osborne.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I see
$152,000 increase from budget to revised, and then I see a decrease of $147,000
from last year's budget to this year's budget. I'm just trying to create a
little more efficiency here by trying to read some of your notes that you've
provided to us, which we appreciate and thank you for, but you mention that
there was a severance and related benefits for one employee. So is that just one
employee that left government? Was it a termination or a resignation or a
retirement?
MS. HEARN:
That means termination, yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What position was that?
MS. HEARN:
That was the assistant deputy minister.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Was that position replaced?
MS. HEARN:
No.
MR. P. DAVIS:
There's no assistant deputy minister now?
MS. HEARN:
The notes go on to reflect the fact that the position was moved to Indigenous
Affairs.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay, would that still be in the same place for Salaries, though?
MS. HEARN:
I'm sorry; I'm having real difficulty hearing.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sorry.
MS. HEARN:
Would you mind repeating it?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
So you
say it's moved to Indigenous Affairs, but is that the same salary line then?
MS. HEARN:
I don't know. I can't speak to that. I just know that's the amount that came out
of my budget.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I guess that probably under
2.5.03 – that would be right.
The
increase is the severance and the decrease is the ADM being eliminated?
MS. HEARN:
That's right.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Let me
pop over to 2.5.03, if I may.
CHAIR:
2.5.03 would go in to
Indigenous Affairs.
MS. HEARN:
2.5.03, that's a different
group that's coming up after me, I think.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, is it? You're just –
MS. HEARN:
I'm just Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR. P. DAVIS:
– 2.5.01 and are you 2.5.02,
as well?
CHAIR:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right, okay.
In
Intergovernmental Affairs, I know that Children, Seniors and Social Development
are doing involving communities and children. Is there a change or part of a
relationship between Intergovernmental Affairs and our Indigenous governments
that overlaps with the work being done by CSSD?
MS. HEARN:
I don't think that would be
something that I could speak to. Maybe my colleague in Indigenous Affairs can.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's what she said.
MS. HEARN:
Okay. I will say that part
of our legislative responsibility is to be party to federal-provincial
agreements, and in any year there are between 50 and 70 of those interprovincial
agreements. But I don't think that's specifically related to the question that
you've posed.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Indigenous groups for our
province. All right. I'm fine, thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
Under
2.5.01, the Purchased Services, that line hasn't changed right through from last
year's budget through to this year's estimate. What exactly is that?
MS. HEARN:
That's an amalgam of our
expense related to various interprovincial fora that we participate in. To be
precise, it reflects our contribution to the Council of Atlantic Premiers'
Secretariat, the Council of the Federation, the East Coast – eastern provinces
premiers, so different formulas are used based on – for instance, the Council of
Atlantic Premiers, are a percent of the population that contributes to that
secretariat. So that's what that purchased service refers to.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
And it
would only be premiers; it wouldn't include ministerial meetings?
MS. HEARN:
No, what that does, it's the
contribution that Newfoundland pays, Nova Scotia pays to the secretariat office
that supports the Atlantic premiers' work.
MS. MICHAEL:
The Atlantic activities;
right, got it. Thank you very much.
Under
2.5.02, is that a similar line under Professional Services as well?
MS. HEARN:
2.5.02, Purchased –
MS. MICHAEL:
No, Professional Services,
$119,000.
MS. HEARN:
That amount is the amount that actually was transferred to us. It was a similar
amount that was previously with TCII that helps support any specialized services
that we require to support our trade negotiations, in fact. So that's what that
refers to.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Okay, thank you very
much.
It's a
small amount of money, but what would the Grants and Subsidies line there be,
about $5,900?
MS. HEARN:
Right. That was previously referred to as the Agreement on Internal Trade
secretariat. I think it's the Canada Free Trade Agreement secretariat. So once
again, all the provinces and territories are partner to that; that would reflect
our contribution to that secretariat.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Recall
the section?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Excuse me?
CHAIR:
Sorry, Mr. Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you.
I
wonder if I can just ask, 2.5.02, Intergovernmental Affairs. Minister, could you
give an update – we're talking about this government's trade policy and any
update on the Trans-Pacific Partnership that Canada's engaged with, and any
involvement Newfoundland and Labrador has with that at this time.
MS. HEARN:
With the new Comprehensive –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Trans-Pacific Partnership,
that's the TPP.
MS. HEARN:
I know it has a new name now; it's the Progressive and something, CPTPP.
I
actually couldn't give you, today, a technical update but we'd be, obviously,
very pleased to do that.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
So where does the salary
lines and funding for that or for officials to meet and discuss that with their
provincial and federal counterparts – is that included in this line here?
MS. HEARN:
I'm sorry, the salary line?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Well, anything to deal with
that initiative, any kind of funding or resources.
MS. HEARN:
Right. So all of this, the 2.5.02, that reflects what was previously the
Intergovernmental Affairs group and the addition of the trade policy group that
came from TCII the previous year. All of this reflects the Salaries and the
Transportation, the Professional Services and all of that. I mean, I can walk
down through that if that would be helpful –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
No, I'm just looking for
some feedback on – constitutional and trade policy is part of this
Intergovernmental Affairs division. I was just looking for some idea where we
are as a province with TPP or from an Intergovernmental Affairs position.
As
well, I had a question in regard to – the Premier has indicated recently that
the renegotiation of the Atlantic Accord and equalization has started. Again, an
update on that and where we're going from that perspective. I assume there would
be staffing requirements and resources required to start that process too.
MS. HEARN:
So in terms of the numbers
that are reflected here, they reflect the mandate of Intergovernmental Affairs
which, of course, we provide advice and support to the government with respect
to all of our relationships with other governments across a whole array of
areas.
So the
addition of the trade file from TCII last year, I think, was very synergistic in
the sense that we were able to leverage some of the capacity that we had within
Intergovernmental Affairs, and allowed us the flexibility to be able to move
people to where they needed to be in response to where are they needed in terms
of the trade negotiations.
We did
add, as you are probably aware, an executive at the trade level because of the
NAFTA negotiations and the intensity in which that came on this year. So there
are a whole host of trade negotiations in different stages of development.
NAFTA, we know from the media where that is, and obviously we can provide more
technical information; the TPP that you referenced is in progress; Mercosur,
China; there's a whole list of them that are in various stages of development,
and the staff are engaged in all of those.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
We can
recall the section.
CLERK:
2.5.01 and 2.5.02.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.5.01 and 2.05.02
carry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, 2.5.01 through 2.5.02 carried.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
We have
two more sections left, Indigenous Affairs and Labrador Affairs, so I ask the
minister to introduce staff after we call the section.
CLERK:
2.5.03.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.5.03 carry?
Minister.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
I don't
know if there is a need for everybody to introduce themselves again, but we have
Aubrey here; we'll get Aubrey, and there are only two additional people? Yes.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Edmunds.
You've
been here since 6 o'clock waiting; we don't have any questions for you. No, I'm
only kidding; I wouldn't do that to you. We certainly do.
I just
want to start with the salary line item first, and we just had a discussion,
just a few moments ago, on an ADM position that was terminated under
Intergovernmental Affairs. I'm told there was a new ADM – is a new ADM position
then in your branch, in Indigenous Affairs?
MR. GOVER:
Yes, Sir, the funds for that ADM position in Intergovernmental Affairs, which
was a vacant but funded position, were transferred into Indigenous Affairs to
fund the creation of ADM for Indigenous Affairs, who is Ms. Judy White, who is
sitting behind me.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
Just
give me a second to catch up because I was on the wrong page. So you have an
increase in your budget from $889,000 to last year revised, and then a higher
estimate this year. Is that the only change that causes that increase?
MR. GOVER:
Well, the increase for
'17-'18 is the result of the creation of the ADM position. Also, there was
severance paid to one former senior analyst, and we had $10,000 in savings due
to slight vacancies through the year. That explains the increase to the '17-'18
projected revised, and, Sir, with respect to the estimates for the upcoming
fiscal – this fiscal, '18-'19 – that is, basically, entirely the result of the
creation of the ADM position.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What's the role of that ADM?
MR. GOVER:
What is the role of that
ADM?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah.
MR. GOVER:
The role of that ADM is basically the same role as any other assistant deputy
minister in the government: to support me, to support the minister, to support
all the ministers of the government, to support all the departments of the
government.
Ms.
White brings a unique expertise to the secretariat, in the sense that, to my
knowledge, this is the first time that there has ever been an Indigenous ADM in
the secretariat since it was created. She was born in Flat Bay; her father is
Calvin White, a renowned elder of the Mi'kmaq who recently received a honourary
doctorate from Memorial University. She's a member of Qalipu; she's also a
self-government negotiator for Miawpukek First Nation of Conne River; and, most
recently, the chief executive officer of the Assembly of First Nations and
recently conferred Queen's Counsel.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sounds like a great
addition.
MR. GOVER:
It is indeed, Sir.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Congratulations, Ms. White,
and congratulations to your department as well.
Minister, you heard me ask a question earlier in regard to relationships with
the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development, who are doing work
with Labrador children. I was interested to know what role you or your branch
would play with CSSD, or would they be strictly independent in their operation,
or I thought there would be some type of overlap with the relationships in
Labrador.
MR. GOVER:
Yes, Sir. I would be happy to answer that question in the sense one of our core
lines of business, or one of core missions, is to provide Indigenous
perspectives on program, services and delivery by all other departments of the
provincial government. So we interact with Children, Seniors and Social
Development on quite a frequent basis – and its predecessor departments – to
better provide for service delivery of services to children in particular that
reflect unique needs, both culturally, linguistically, geographically and
otherwise of the Indigenous people of the province.
As
you're aware, the government has announced its intention to have an inquiry into
Innu children and care. As was recently announced, the Child and Youth Advocate
is looking at Inuit children in care. We work quite closely with CSSD and all
other departments to try to bring a service delivery from a provincial
perspective that meets those unique needs.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I know they're very complex
and challenging sometimes, and I appreciate that. I appreciate your answer and
information.
I'm
just going to go to my colleague to see if he had any other questions on this
area. I'd be glad to pass it over to Ms. Michael. I just may have one or two
questions after but if you want to go to Ms. Michael (inaudible).
CHAIR:
Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, I just have one
question. Thank you for being here tonight and welcome, Judy. We know each
other; it's nice to see you here.
With
regard to the Grants and Subsidies, is there a list of the different groups who
are getting money in the binder or, if not, could we have a list?
MR. GOVER:
Certainly, you can have a list, ma'am. I thank you for your question but,
basically, the Grants and Subsidies are stable at $399,800. All that money is
basically set aside for various boards that are established, or to be
established under the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.
Basically, to the best of my recollection, $383,000 of that sum is set aside for
the Torngat Joint Fisheries Board and the Torngat Wildlife and Plants
Co-Management Board. Those two boards basically have a public service, the
Torngat Secretariat. So those funds fund those boards and the Torngat
Secretariat.
I would
note that all these boards are funded one-third by the province, so this is the
one-third provincial share, one-third by the federal government and one-third by
the Nunatsiavut Government; $6,500 is for a land-use planning appeal board. That
board has yet to be established and I believe the residual amount – which, if my
math is correct – is somewhere in the order of $10,800. That would be for the
dispute resolution board under the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
That's
all the information I need.
MR. GOVER:
Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Edmunds.
Just to
wrap up, I just want to take a moment to thank you for waiting tonight so we
could have a few minutes with you; but I also just want to make a brief comment,
if I may, about the significance and the importance of work that you and your
branch do.
I have
a high amount of respect for the work that you do. I appreciate and have had
some experience in understanding the challenges that exist with families and
children, elder care, transportation; I know just the weather and geography in
itself and communications are all challenges that directly impact the important
work that you do in our province.
So I
just wanted to reflect on that and thank you for what you do and for you as
well, Ms. White, again congratulations to you and thanks for coming in tonight.
MR. GOVER:
Well, thank you, Sir. We always appreciate those expressions and I know when you
were in another role, you had a great interest in those matters and we spent
some time in Labrador together.
MR. P. DAVIS:
We did, yeah.
MR. GOVER:
You have a great understanding of these matters, so I appreciate your
commendations.
Thank
you.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay, I shall recall the
section.
CLERK:
2.5.03.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.5.03 carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 2.5.03 carried.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Okay,
we'll now go into the Estimates for Labrador Affairs, the last one for tonight.
I ask the minister to make any necessary introductions and we'll carry on.
CLERK:
We'll call the –
MR. OSBORNE:
Well, thank you –
CHAIR:
Sorry. First, we'll call the
section.
CLERK:
2.6.01 and 2.6.02.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.6.01 to 2.6.02
carry?
MR. OSBORNE:
We only have one
introduction so …
MR. BOWLES:
Thank you, Minister.
My name
is Ron Bowles, Deputy Minister, Labrador Affairs Secretariat.
CHAIR:
Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm just checking my notes.
We can go across the table. I just wanted to have a couple more (inaudible) I'm
just trying to – go to Ms. Michael.
CHAIR:
Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, well I don't have a
lot of questions. Thank you for being here; it's been a long wait for you
tonight; appreciate your being here.
Let's
go the Salaries under 2.6.01, under the Executive Support. There is a slight
increase of just over $44,000 from last year's budget to this year's estimate.
Could we have an explanation?
MR. BOWLES:
Yes, thank you, Ms. Michael.
The
reason for the $44,200 increase is with the restructuring of the Labrador
Affairs Secretariat on September 5, 2017, the assistant deputy minister position
was elevated to a deputy minister position so there is a wage differential there
that had to be covered. With the restructuring there is a communications
director position that's now in place and also that covers the step increases
for all staff as they go forward.
I
should point out that all of these changes, all these were absorbed within the
existing budget so there was no monies that were taken from elsewhere. We just
transferred from Labrador Affairs to Executive, but within our existing budget.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
And how
many staff are in the secretariat now?
MR. BOWLES:
We have 11 staff. We have 10 permanent staff and we have one temporary person
which is a park ranger, and the park ranger comes on seasonal as a trail
inspector which does the Labrador Trail Grooming Subsidy. We have a deputy
minister; we have an executive director in Lab West; we have a director in
Labrador in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay office; a communications director; we
have four senior policy analysts; we have a secretary to the deputy minister and
executive; we have a clerk typist III; and that would be our full staff
complement of the 11.
MS. MICHAEL:
And how many in all are in Labrador?
MR. BOWLES:
All are in Labrador.
MS. MICHAEL:
All are in Labrador. Okay, even the policy analysts?
MR. BOWLES:
All the policy analysts – very proud of our team. They're all there and in my
opinion doing great work. They're a good crew.
MS. MICHAEL:
Good. Good to hear. Thank you.
Then
coming down to 2.6.02, Labrador Affairs, here there's a drop in the salary line
from last year's budget to this year's estimate, a drop of $47,100.
MR. BOWLES:
Yeah, so that would explain – thank you for the question. That's the rationale
for that Labrador Affairs restructuring with that ADM to DM, the communications
director and the step increases.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Yeah, makes sense.
And if
we could come down to the Grants and Subsidies here, if we could have an
explanation of what the grants and subsidies are, and an explanation for the big
drop – a drop of $262,000 from last year's budget to this year's estimate.
MR. BOWLES:
Absolutely. Thanks again for the question.
So
under our Grants and Subsidies last year we, through the budget process,
purchased a one-time trail groomer, and we had budgeted $330,000 for that
groomer in the community of Makkovik and it was a welcomed asset to the program.
However, we were fortunate enough to go through the tendering process and work
with the community and get a lower budget price, so we were able to save some
money there.
That
reflection of that, down at $262,000, will be that one-time grant for the trail
groomer. And the other thing is with our Grants and Subsidies there was also a
one-time increase in this budget of $68,000 and we will be improving the trails
from Hopedale to Nain, and marking the trails. Currently, we just go to Rigolet,
Makkovik, Postville and Hopedale; and now we're going to go from Hopedale to
Nain with marking the sea ice conditions.
MS. MICHAEL:
I think the Chair of this
Committee is very happy about that.
MR. BOWLES:
Yes, I think so; you're
quite correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. And we did hear him
speak about that, actually, in the House as well.
Those
are all the questions I have.
CHAIR:
Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Just a couple of questions
and it might be the party or comes under your area but also separate from – do
you have any involvement with some of the issues, for example, recruitment of
doctors and an effort to recruit more doctors in Labrador? Would that come under
your office or would you be involved in that?
MR. BOWLES:
No, I wouldn't be
specifically involved with the recruitment of doctors. No, not specifically.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
MR. BOWLES:
I would suspect that would
be directly under Labrador-Grenfell Regional Health and Department of Health and
Community Services, but certainly not something Labrador Affairs would directly
be involved in.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
And
same with the Nain X-ray machine, that type of thing, would all come under
Health?
MR. BOWLES:
Absolutely, yeah.
MR. P. DAVIS:
All right, what about the
Labrador northern food subsidy?
MR. BOWLES:
No, we at one time used to
have the Air Foodlift Subsidy, which was essentially a supplement to Nutrition
North Canada, and we do not operate that program anymore. We have a Labrador
Aboriginal Nutrition Assistance Program.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay. Perfect, thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Chair, could I ask one
question?
CHAIR:
Yes, Mr. Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
You mentioned the executive
director staff in Lab West. I am just wondering in regard to some of the
discussions going on in the mining sector, the Labrador Trough and discussions
with Quebec, would that individual be involved with those discussions as well?
MR. BOWLES:
At a certain level, the
executive director, Ms. Janice Barnes, that's over in Labrador West. The
high-level discussions would be with the deputy minister who was here earlier,
Patricia Hearn, Indigenous and Intergovernmental Affairs. So she would be the
lead person on that with the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources. But our staff
person, executive director, is involved with a working group on that committee.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Certainly linked in, no
doubt.
MR. BOWLES:
They're linked in, yeah.
She's certainly a valued asset over there and part of that process.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
MR. BOWLES:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay, recall the section.
CLERK:
2.6.01 through 2.6.02.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.6.01 through 2.6.02 carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 2.6.01 through 2.6.02 carried.
CLERK:
The total.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, Executive Council, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
of Executive Council carried without amendment?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of Executive Council carried without amendment.
CHAIR:
Thank you very much everyone
for coming out. If I could have a motion to adopt the minutes from our previous
meeting.
Moved
by Mr. King.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR:
The next meeting is at the
call of the Chair.
Motion
to adjourn.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
So moved.
CHAIR:
So moved.
On
motion, the Committee adjourned sine die.