June 19, 2019
GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE
Pursuant to Standing Order 68,
Helen Conway Ottenheimer,
MHA for Harbour Main,
substitutes for Barry Petten, MHA for Conception Bay South.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Siobhan Coady, MHA for St. John's West,
substitutes for Elvis Loveless, MHA for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, for part of
the meeting.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Ches Crosbie, MHA for Windsor Lake, substitutes
for Loyola O'Driscoll, MHA for Ferryland.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Brian Warr, MHA for Baie Verte - Green Bay,
substitutes for Derrick Bragg, MHA for Fogo Island - Cape Freels.
The
Committee met at 12 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.
CHAIR (Bennett):
We need to nominate a Vice-Chair for the Committee.
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Can we get the microphone on for Mr. Parsons in the back on the Opposition side?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't care what I want to say either, but I nominate Mr. Wakeham.
CHAIR:
Do we have a seconder to that?
MR. WARR:
Seconded.
CHAIR:
Second by Mr. Warr.
Okay,
all those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
I assume you accept, Mr. Wakeham.
Thank
you.
We're
going to, first of all, ask Members of the Committee and their staff to
introduce themselves. Broadcast, can we start down to the far end?
MR. MORGAN:
Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP caucus.
MR. LANE:
Paul Lane, MHA, Mount Pearl - Southlands. Not a Member of the Committee, but
certainly with the leave of the Committee, I may want to ask a couple of
questions.
MS. DRODGE:
Megan Drodge, Researcher with the Official Opposition caucus.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Tony Wakeham, MHA, Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Andrew Parsons, MHA, Burgeo - La Poile.
MS. STOODLEY:
Sarah Stoodley, MHA, Mount Scio.
MR. WARR:
Brian Warr, MHA, Baie Verte - Green Bay.
CHAIR:
Now I'll ask Minister Osborne and his staff, please.
MR. OSBORNE:
Tom Osborne, Minister of Finance, President of Treasury Board.
I'll
ask our officials here, as well, to introduce themselves.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Dave Heffernan, Deputy Minister and Chief Information Officer for Office of the
CIO.
MR. HARDING:
Craig Harding, Executive Director of Corporate Services and Projects for OCIO.
MR. MOULAND:
Randy Mouland, Executive Director of Operations and Security, OCIO.
MR. GELLATELY:
Bruce Gellately, Director of Corporate Services, OCIO.
MS. KENDALL:
Cathy Kendall, Director of Application and Information Management Services for
the OCIO.
MS. WILKINS:
Susan Wilkins, Digital Government Lead with the OCIO.
MS. TRICKETT:
Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller.
MR. BUDGELL:
Marc Budgell, Director of Communications, OCIO.
MS. ELLIOTT:
Susan Elliott, Executive Assistant to Mr. Osborne.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
With
the approval of the Committee, we'll give Mr. Lane an opportunity to ask
questions after both parties have finished.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Okay,
Mr. Lane.
We're
going to start off with item 4.1.01 to 4.1.05 inclusive.
We'll
start off with you, Mr. Wakeham.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Thank you.
I have
general questions first. The first one is: Can you give us an overview of which
projects you've worked on in the last 12 months and the status and budget of
each?
MR. HARDING:
That list is a comprehensive
list, between 30 and 40 projects. I don't have that list here directly, but I
certainly can provide it with the list of the projects and statuses of each.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay, so you will provide it to us.
MR. HARDING:
We'll provide it, yes.
MR. WAKEHAM:
I'd appreciate that, thanks.
Can you
give an update on the Digital By Design project?
MR. HARDING:
I think I'd defer that to
Susan Wilkins as digital lead.
MS. WILKINS:
We are in the year two of a
five-year Digital By Design plan. We just released our first phase in March and
that was called MyGovNL. All the details of the release are on The Way Forward
website. If you'd like more, I can elaborate, but all the details are there on
the website.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
And can
you give an update on LaMPSS?
MR. HARDING:
Right now it's more of a
maintenance project as opposed to a full-fledged implementation project, it's a
modification to some existing application and some functionality, but I can
provide a further detailed status if you prefer.
MR. WAKEHAM:
I'd appreciate that, thank you.
Can
you, please, give an update on the condition of critical hardware that
government has? Does it require upgrades? Is it in good condition?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
I would say that it's
ongoing. We always have a critical need for investing in our infrastructure and
so, at any one point in time, we always have requirements for upgrading our
hardware and we have a regular basis where we go about doing that.
MR. WAKEHAM:
There was talk a number of years ago where we had talked about potentially
moving to cloud technology. Has that moved anywhere in terms of where we might
go in the future? Has anything been done with that?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
We are always looking at
cloud services. I would say that we are not going holistically into cloud; we
are tepidly reviewing where we might go and use cloud. Eventually, vendors are
going to force us to use cloud-based services so we have to be looking at it.
We look
at the type of information that systems contain and we use that as a basis for
whether we even consider cloud. So we sort of followed the federal government's
guidelines around data classification and how you classify your data and if it's
sensitive and that sort of thing, and then we have guidelines around whether you
would use that type of information in the cloud.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Right. I think the
discussion at the time was around the shared service model which we would use
for all of government, not just in the health system, but rather a much larger
approach to a government service centre type of thing. Thank you.
How
does government decide when to have an outside agency build a solution or a
project, versus doing it in-house in OCIO? What kind of criteria do you use?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
I'd say it depends. The majority of our project is cyclical, so we can't really
staff up to meet that demand, so we have a high amount, I guess – or the
majority of our projects are handled by outside. So we bring in contractors as
we need, depending on the demand from the departments around the types of
projects.
So it
depends. If we have enough resources internally we'll do some of those, but if
they're larger projects we'll typically bring in outside help to help us.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Thank you.
What
does OCIO do with the old laptops, BlackBerries and computers that are upgraded?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
I believe they're recycled and I believe some of them go to computers for
schools, but I'd ask my executive director, Randy Mouland, to speak to the
specifics.
MR. MOULAND:
We leverage the provincial electronic waste program, wherever practical, to
reuse equipment. Sometimes there's trade-in value that may go back to a vendor,
depending on the nature and the information that's stored on it. And for the
most part, cellphones and BlackBerries are a departmental responsibility, so
each department would be managing those. Although we do arrange for secure
shredding of devices that might be sensitive – an MHA had a device that might
contain sensitive information, we typically arrange for shredding.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
Has
there been any discussion with Service NL and Justice about introducing new
motor registration software so that licence plates can be registered to a
driver, i.e., follow the driver instead of the car?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes, I think we're in ongoing discussions with both Justice and Service
Newfoundland and Labrador about that. No final decisions have been made on what
that would entail from our perspective. From OCIO's perspective, those systems
are fairly stable as they are, but we understand that they're eventually going
to need to be replaced. They are our older legacy systems, so we're working on
ways to figure out how we do that.
MR. WAKEHAM:
So you wouldn't have an estimate of what this would cost and a timeline to
implement it at this point?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
I think there were some early estimates a number of years ago, but they would
have to be revalidated again. We don't have an estimate today on what that would
cost.
MR. WAKEHAM:
It is something though
you're continuing to look forward to?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes, we did have some work, I believe, identified for this year to do some of
that analysis.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Has there been any progress
made on the consolidation of data centres with the ABCs? I know it was a hot
topic in Health a number of years ago.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
I believe there's work happening at the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for
Health Information around consolidating some of the health technology into
NLCHI. We're involved in some of the discussions around potential for shared
services and IT aspects of that down the road, but nothing concrete about
bringing that into –
MR. WAKEHAM:
Yes, if I remember, I recall
I think there was some talk about actually having OCIO as having a data centre
as part of that backup plan?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes, that's correct.
The
OCIO has a data centre for government. We have capacity in that data centre to
be able to provide additional services and so we would be looking at that from
that perspective.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay and that was my next
question. Can you tell us about government's backup of the data centres?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
I'd have to ask Mr. Mouland to answer the specifics on backup procedures.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
MR. MOULAND:
Yeah, we have multiple layers of backup; we have multiple locations in which
data is backed up. There are some backups that happen predominantly inside the
data centre itself, but then we have a separate off-site location in the
Confederation Building complex where there's data stored and then there's a
third location approximately 10 kilometres away where we have an enterprise tape
system where a third copy is stored on tape.
MR. WAKEHAM:
My next question is: What
are your plans to address some of the aging systems, like the MCP system for
example?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
As part of our typical project approach and working with departments through our
client services, we're always looking at the applications that we have across
government and where they are in their life cycles, so which ones are getting
older, which ones are not meeting the functionality. We would be looking at all
of our systems with that same lens as how are they doing meeting the
functionality of the program area, how are they doing in terms of the type of
technology it is and whether we can support it, are we having continuing issues
and that sort of thing.
MCP is
another one of those legacy mainframe systems that's actually fairly stable
compared to the other systems you may have in government. So even though they're
older, they're very stable. I think the challenge you have then is: Are they
meeting the need down the road? It's the same process we go through with every
department, is assessing their needs and then figuring out how do we budget for
it, set up the priorities and that sort of thing.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Right.
Have
there been any situations where backup had to be restored in the last 12 months?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
I'd defer that to Mr. Mouland.
MR. MOULAND:
Yes.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Can you provide a little
more?
MR. MOULAND:
We would restore data. I mean, sometimes a user will have issues with a file. We
do individual file restores. Sometimes we may have system issues and have to go
back to a previous restore from the night before or even the night before that.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Right.
MR. MOULAND:
There are any number of instances. Data restores, I would suggest, are almost a
daily occurrence, but not necessarily of a concern.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Right, I was more –
MR. MOULAND:
We do plenty of restores all the time for a bunch of different reasons.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Right, I was more interested
in if there were any major issues that you might have had in the last 12 months.
MR. MOULAND:
No, nothing that causes concern.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
I'll
move into 4.1.01, Corporate Services and Projects. In the Salaries section,
fiscal '18-'19 Salaries went over budget by $329,000, yet in '19-'20 the budget
is being decreased. Can the minister explain the variances?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
The variance in 2018-'19 is a result of unexpected retirements. We had a
$329,000 deficit there as a result of unexpected retirements and then some
salary continuance costs for staff that left the OCIO.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay, so more to do with
severance and paid leave payouts and those types of things.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Exactly.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Then for 2019-'20, part of our zero-based budget identified that we needed
$100,000 less than we anticipated and there was an attrition reduction of
$110,600.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay, thank you.
On the
supply side, in '18-'19 Supplies went over budget by $209,000. In '19'-20 there
was an increase in the Supplies budget to $709,000. Can you explain the need
that is driving this budget?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
I think it's important to provide some context here around Supplies for OCIO
versus Supplies for the other departments and agencies that you've reviewed.
Supplies for us is mainly made up on software purchases. It's not pens, pencils,
office paper, that sort of thing; it's always about the purchase of software.
In the
Corporate Services and Projects area, it's either software for the operations of
Corporate Services of OCIO or software related to projects that are ongoing. Due
to the nature of projects and where they are and delays in projects and that
sort of thing, sometimes that budget area will fluctuate; sometimes projects are
delayed, sometimes projects advance sooner. Sometimes when you go to RFP for
software related to projects, you end up having to buy more software than you
might have thought or the licensing cost may be higher. That's typically the
reason for the fluctuation and the variances in supplies.
MR. WAKEHAM:
If I look at this particular one –
CHAIR:
Your time is expired, Mr.
Wakeham.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay, sorry about that.
CHAIR:
Ms. Coffin.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you very much.
CHAIR:
We'll get back to you.
MS. COFFIN:
Let's start off with a quick question – perhaps I should say thank you for
taking the time. We've had a little bit of a switchover of people here this time
now, haven't we? Thank you for the time that you're taking here today and the
time you put into preparing all of this. This is greatly appreciated. We
appreciate your knowledge and dedication.
Let's
go with Application and Information Management Services, so 4.1.02. Actually,
this is probably going to be a more overarching question. Can you tell me how
your attrition targets – if they've been achieved and how they've been achieved
in here? I do see changes to salary and it looks like we have a little bit of
stuff moving around here. Perhaps you can talk to me about Salaries and how
that's working with the attrition plan, please?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
For Salaries in '18-'19 we had a deficit there due to unplanned severance for
employees who retired, as well as some salary continuance costs and benefits for
staff who left. That's typically not budgeted.
Then,
in terms of our attrition targets, you'll see in 2019-'20 the Salaries reflect
an attrition reduction of $118,300. I defer to my Corporate Services director,
Mr. Gellately, to confirm this, but I'm pretty certain that we've achieved our
attrition targets.
MS. COFFIN:
That's good to hear. Congratulations on that.
As we
move down to Professional Services, I noticed that more was budgeted in '18-'19
than was actually spent and then we have a smaller amount spent in Professional
Services. Can you explain that variation, please?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes. In 2018-2019 the Professional Services associated with our application
branch; there was one-time funding identified of $400,000 for transition of the
pension corporation, but we didn't end up needing to use that. As a result, the
amount spent was actually lower by – I think it was a net of $370,000. That
project ended up being done in our Corporate Services and Projects Branch
instead and so we were able to do it from within.
MS. COFFIN:
What were you doing with the pension corporation? Are you moving the
administration of that into Provident10?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay, interesting. The payroll rests with Human Resource Secretariat, right?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes.
MS. COFFIN:
So you're just managing the ins and outs of it all and doing that background
computer.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
We're managing the
transition, yes.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay, thank you.
I'm
just getting my head around all of the pieces, right?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Sure.
MS. COFFIN:
OCIO is not something that
I've had a huge amount of experience with.
Let's
talk about revenues. You had a big projected revenue in '18-'19 but that did not
manifest. It looks to be that in '19-'20 about the same amount as the revised in
'18-'19 is there. Is that some sort of guaranteed stream of income and you were
expecting something substantial coming in, in '18-'19?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
That's directly attributable
to the pension transition. As a result of the original estimate of needing
$400,000 in costs to transition pensions, there was an offsetting revenue target
as well to offset that. But because we didn't need to incur –
MS. COFFIN:
Money.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
– the costs, we didn't need
to incur the revenue to offset that.
MS. COFFIN:
Do you know if Provident10
is self-financing in that the systems and the support staff. Are they being
funded directly out of Provident10? This may not be a question for you; it may
be perhaps for the minister directly.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
I think that's a question
for Provident10.
MS. COFFIN:
All right, thank you. I'm
just curious along the way.
Property, Furnishings and Equipment; did someone get some really nice digs in
4.1.03?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
No. Property, Furnishings
and Equipment for us is one of those other areas that's a little bit different
for OCIO. Typically under P, F and E you would find hardware, so IT hardware for
network equipment, for storage, for just running our wide-area network across
government. That's where you would see those typical costs show up.
In this
particular case there was some critical computer equipment that had to be
replaced that we never budgeted for initially. So that's why you would see that
little bump in '18-'19.
MS. COFFIN:
Do you guys all have
standing desks?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
No.
MS. COFFIN:
That's too bad. Those are
healthier. Sitting is the new smoking, right?
Okay,
let's see. What else do I have here?
Revenue, again, under Operations and Security, dropped off a little bit. What is
the revenue for Operations and Security? Do you charge for anything in
particular there?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
There was a drop-off here
because in the past we used to host the mainframe system and storage that Bell
Canada was supporting for us. It was actually housed in our data centre. They've
since moved that to Dorval, Quebec, and so there was a small revenue that we
would get from that.
We no
longer get that because they're maintaining it themselves in Dorval. Then we get
some revenue from agencies like the Municipal Assessment Agency, Legal Aid and
the RNC for some of our security tokens they're called, that allowed them to
connect into our systems.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay, great.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
So there was a reduced need for that.
MS. COFFIN:
It's too bad we lost that stream of revenue. That's unfortunate. Interprovincial
trade, right, and all. I see Salaries jumped in Corporate Services and Projects.
Now, that's Salaries in Capital. How does that correlate? It's almost doubled
there?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
As part of our zero-based we identified that for the Digital Government program,
the salaries that were associated with that had to be capitalized. Basically,
it's offset from our Professional Services budget and we needed an increase in
the salaries for the Digital Government program.
MS. COFFIN:
Right. Okay, excellent. Let's see here, Professional Services kind of captures
that as well. I noticed that's an exceptionally large number that's dropped off
by almost $800,000 from the '18-'19 Estimates to this year's Estimate. You're
expecting to use that a little or were those Salaries that we found in the line
above offsetting some of the Professional Services there?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes, that's correct. The Salaries above are offsets from there and there was
removal of a one-time funding of $100,000 for Digital Government that was no
longer necessary.
MS. COFFIN:
Very good.
Speaking of the Digital Government, what do I see here? Can we have an update on
the Digital by Design project? Apparently, there was $2 million committed for
six projects in 2018. How are they making out?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
I believe we answered that question when we first got started here.
MS. COFFIN:
I was late coming in, can you just very quickly …?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Digital by Design is proceeding. Several initiatives were identified earlier
this year. There was a public announcement around the rollout MyGovNL, which was
sort of the portal where citizens can now come and start – if you log into your
bank you can access a number of services. That's the goal and intent of MyGovNL.
That
was just rolled out in March. That now includes two of the services that were
identified for this year: vehicle and licence renewal registrations. If you log
into that portal, that's where you can do those now. The other services, once we
get final decisions on those services, they'll roll out and be included as a
part of that as well.
MS. COFFIN:
Lovely. I've actually gotten emails on that already. Way to go, it is working.
Something that is a little closer to my heart is the Community Accounts. Do you
manage that website? I know that's populated by the Economic and Statistics
Branch and the folks over in the Newfoundland Stats Agency, but do you manage
that?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
If it's part of the websites that we set up and maintained, we would just
maintain the infrastructure behind them. The departments would maintain the
content on those websites.
MS. COFFIN:
I understand they do the
content and they do a fabulous job of the content, but it's a bit of a clunky
interface; the drop-down menus are a little bit difficult. I know there's a
tremendous amount of data stored in there, but sometimes it tends to be a bit
sluggish and it's not quite user-friendly. I'm just wondering if you have any
involvement with that, if there's, potentially, a nicer way to use it? No?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
No, I don't think we have.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay, I'm just trying. Data
is a good thing, right?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
It may be a good project for digital to look at user design and user experience.
MS. COFFIN:
All right, thank you.
Go back
to the pension very quickly. That work has been completed? We did speak about
the movement to Provident10, so that is done, yes?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
We're actively involved in the transition process right now, so it is not yet
complete.
MS. COFFIN:
Soon, she says, with a big
question mark at the end?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
I don't have an answer. I'd have to defer it to my ED of Corporate Services and
Projects, Craig Harding.
MS. COFFIN:
All right, I can certainly
fill in with them. I don't know what I can fit in, in five seconds, so thanks.
CHAIR:
Mr. Wakeham, any further
questions?
MR. WAKEHAM:
Yes, a couple of more
questions.
I
wanted to go back for a second to an opportunity, and I wonder if OCIO was still
involved with it. Back in '16-'17 there was a lot of movement afoot about trying
to consolidate and streamline the information systems in this province. We have
a very small population. Yes, we have a large geography but, at the end of the
day, every single regional health authority had its own operating system for
back of office, Memorial University has it and government has its own payroll
system, for example.
There
was a lot of discussion around, at that time, about how we would try to
consolidate all of these back-of-office functions and information systems, so
essentially have one for the entire province. OCIO were a critical part of that
discussion. I'm wondering: Are those discussions still ongoing?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes, they are. It's an ongoing process that we go through. As part of our annual
planning and our regular planning process, we'd look at the number of
applications we have, we would try and identify if there's duplication or
opportunities across government to consolidate applications. It's an ongoing
process that we go through.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Yes, I know the minister has
referenced it on a couple of occasions, the opportunities in the back-of-office
functions in this province of combining everyone who is on some kind of
government payroll or pay cheque or purchasing, there is an awful lot of
opportunity there to certainly be more efficient and how we do it.
Thank
you for that.
Back to
4.1.01, briefly. Again, I was talking about the Supplies and you were talking
about the projects. I was wondering which projects are driving the $709,000
cost.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
As my executive director
mentioned when he spoke earlier, there are typically anywhere from 30 to 40
active projects underway at any one point in time. I don't have the list here
with me that I can tell you exactly what's identified for '19-'20.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Can we get the list?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
As part of the commitment
made earlier, the list will be provided.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay. Thank you so much.
Under
Professional Services, again, in the same heading, 4.1.01. In '18-'19, there was
savings of $ 612,000. In '19-'20, we decreased the budget by $889,000. I was
wondering if you can explain.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
In '18-'19, there was less
money needed just due to the nature of projects. There were a number of large
projects that didn't get off the ground as quickly as initially anticipated.
That's sort of the project world, if you will, there are always reasons for
delays, whether it's in getting departments ready, whether it's in getting
procurements on the street, delays in procurement, delays in the implementation,
so there are always reasons for those projects to be delayed. So, the result
there was a number of projects were delayed and didn't get as far long as
initially anticipated in '18-'19.
As for
'19-'20, there was a $1.4 million one-time funding that was no longer there, so
there was a drop in funding of $1.4 million for the Digital Government program
there. There was $638,000 as part of our zero-based review we didn't think we
are going to need, just based on the projects that were going to happen this
year.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay. Thank you.
In
'18-'19, Purchased Services went over budget by $246,000. Again, can you explain
why that happened?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
That was a result of an
increase – again, Purchased Services here is related to a computer service that
we purchased from Bell Canada for our mainframe service and there was an
increase in cost to that service, which are typically born in our Operations and
Security Branch; however, the increase wasn't able to be all absorbed there and
so there was an ability here in our Purchased Services to absorb some of that
cost here to the software service that we purchased from Bell for our mainframe
support.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, again, this line item went over
budget by $159,000. I was wondering how you determined the budget for '19-'20 of
$221,000?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Again, PFE here, Property, Furnishings and Equipment is typically for hardware
related to projects that we do. So, again, it'll fluctuate, depending on the
projects, where they are in our timing if we need to purchase the equipment in
the current fiscal year. If a project is too late then you can't purchase it in
that year. So this is typically a result of the nature of the projects and where
they are in their time.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay, thank you.
4.1.03,
in the Salaries section, in '18-'19, there was a salary savings of $353,000. I
wonder can you explain that variance.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes, again, we had some planned vacancies there because we knew we had some
pressures in other areas of the OCIO, and there was actually some offsetting
increased costs there as well from retirements and severance. So, at the net was
a $353,000 lower cost.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
Under
the Supplies section, a significant expenditure. Can you outline what type of
supplies that would be?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes, again, this is the real big one that stands out when you look at Supplies,
but, again, it's not pencils and papers; it's software.
OCIO is
a shared service for all governments so this is not OCIO's software per se, this
is software that OCIO operates on behalf of all departments. It will include
things like our Microsoft Office desktop software that we support on 10,000
computers. It'll include things like the support software agreements for
Microsoft servers and for Microsoft Exchange and the email system that we run.
So,
it's the large corporate software subscriptions and licensing that we incur for
all departments and some very specific ones for certain departments as well.
There are over 150 different types of software that make up that number.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Is there any advantages of scale when it comes to purchasing this software from
large companies like that? For example, I'm thinking you were purchasing on
behalf of all government departments. What about the ABCs, for example, who
probably purchased this very same software, I'm not sure if there's actually any
economies of scale to be had.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes, there are economies to be had and that's one of the things that we will be
looking at as part of shared services. We think over time that's where you can
find some of the economies, through the consolidation of those agreements. It
takes time, but you can.
MR. WAKEHAM:
I'm glad to see that's continuing to move forward.
Let's
move down to 4.1.04. Again, the Salaries, there's a significant increase in that
particular category from $490,000 to $1,000,000.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes, and I believe I
mentioned that one earlier. This is a result of – we knew that the Digital
Government program needed additional salaries. Instead of hiring external
contractors, we used internal staff, and so we have to capitalize those
salaries. So that's where you see the increase there. We needed less in
Professional Services but more in internal staff.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay. Thank you.
On the
Supplies area there, there was only $260,000 spent out of $1.3 million. Again,
can you explain that variance?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes, again, it gets to the
nature of the variability of projects. So, typically, Supplies here is for
software that you need on projects, and due to the large number of projects that
were either late getting started or didn't need what we originally estimated for
software, we've seen a reduction there, but we've seen an offsetting increase in
the amount of hardware that we needed for some of the projects. So, you'll sort
of see lower Supplies but increased PFE as a result.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
Lastly,
under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, in '18-'19, this line item went over
by $1.2 million, and for '19-'20, there is a planned increase. Can you explain
the variance there?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes, in '18-'19, there were
a couple of critical pieces of hardware that we needed to purchase, and that's
why you see the bump there, that was part of our server upgrade program. There
were two critical pieces of server hardware that run a lot of our applications
that we had to upgrade. So, that's why it was a significant there.
Then,
in '19-'20, as part of the projects that we have underway as part of our
zero-based budgeting, we're looking at the projects that are coming. We
identified and anticipated increasing in the amount of hardware with an
offsetting lower amount on the software.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Was that an unexpected
purchase, as it hadn't been budgeted in the budget? It's something that came up
that you had to …
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay. Thank you.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Ms. Coffin, you got any
further questions?
MS. COFFIN:
No, I'm good. Thank you.
CHAIR:
Mr. Lane?
MR. LANE:
Yeah.
CHAIR:
I'll give you a few minutes.
MR. LANE:
Thank you.
Pretty
much everything in the line by line has been covered, but I had a couple of
questions, so …
On the
digital-by-design initiative, is that just applying to core government or would
that apply to ABCs? I'm thinking Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and those
areas, as well.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
I believe the intent is core
government, right now, but that's not to say that it can't extend further later.
MR. LANE:
Okay, so not at the moment.
How
long will it take to roll out digital design in core government so we can get to
the ABCs, or is there a reason why the ABCs can't be doing the same thing now
with their people that you're already doing?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
There's no reason why they couldn't be doing that today. I suspect some of them
are already doing that themselves in what they do, just not collectively across
the ABCs. I would say digital had a five-year road map, but it will be an
ongoing thing forever. Changing a government to be more digital is not a
once-and-done thing, so our plan right now involves a five-year road map, but we
suspect that it will become day-to-day business as we move forward.
MR. LANE:
Okay, thank you.
I guess
that ties into what my colleague, Mr. Wakeham, has said. I absolutely support
the idea of bringing everything together. I can't see why there wouldn't be one
sort of gigantic data centre, IT centre if you will, for the whole province, as
opposed to having everybody doing their own thing. From what I think you
answered in response to Mr. Wakeham, there is a plan at some point in time
getting to that. Is that correct?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
Yes, that's correct. That's a part of shared services and leveraging the
existing assets that we have, especially our big data centre that we have across
the way here.
MR. LANE:
Okay, that's good.
By the
same token, without physically moving people and so on, again, the question
about the software is there any reason why that couldn't be done now? If there's
certain software that you're using and there's software that the health care
authorities are using and the agencies, boards and commissions, why couldn't,
I'm going to say the IT guys, for lack of a better term, all get together, have
a conference call, and say: Yes, b'ys, this year instead of a thousand copies of
this, we're going to order 2,000 copies and just do it and be done. It may not
be that simple but you know what I'm saying.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
I wish it were that simple. It sounds that simple on the surface; the challenge
is when you're dealing with vendors like Microsoft and Oracle and all those
larger vendors. They look at the entity they're dealing with. They would look at
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor commission or Newfoundland and Labrador Centre
for Health Information and say: You are a completely separate entity and you
cannot use the licences that OCIO owns. While it sounds easy enough, you have to
get to a place where you have a common entity that you can purchase for.
MR. LANE:
Okay.
My
final question – and I believe my colleague, Ms. Coffin, sort of alluded to it
when she talked about the sit-stand desks and so on – obviously, the people in
OCIO spend a lot of time, I would imagine, in front of a computer screen. I'm
just wondering what your stats are when it comes to workers' compensation claims
with neck, shoulder, carpal tunnel and those types of injuries, and if you have,
I guess, through occupational health and safety, a good ergonomics plan in
place?
MR. HEFFERNAN:
I would say to the latter part of that question, yes, we have a good focus on
occupational health and safety in the organization. We encourage people to get
up and move around, we have lots of activities all the time to do that. Not
everybody has stand-up desks; as much as we would love to, it's pretty expensive
to have stand-up desks. Since my time here I think I've seen one occupational
health and safety incident that was not related to that, it was more related to
the slip and fall type things.
MR. LANE:
Okay.
All
right, that's good to know. I highly recommend checking out Genoa Design. They
have it all down pat. I was down there for their grand opening. The sit-stand
desk, the lighting, even the colours on the wall and everything, I mean it's
just they have it down pat.
CHAIR:
I think Mr. Wakeham has one
more question.
MR. LANE:
That's it. We're done.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Yes, I have.
You
mention a lot of your budget seems to be based on project work, when it will
start or when it will finish and any delays and the variable nature of those
projects. I'm wondering if you could give us an overview of two or three of the
biggest ongoing projects that you have, what the status is and where they're to
or what I might expect.
MR. HEFFERNAN:
I'd say one of the bigger ones is our Digital Government program; that's a
pretty significant project and lots of potential benefit and efficiencies that
can be gained from that. I would have to defer to my executive director of
Corporate Services and Projects to speak to specifics on some of the other
larger projects that are underway right now.
MR. HARDING:
Some of them are direct project related and some are program related; for
example, we have an AMANDA program, which basically is a permits and licensing
solution that we're rolling out across multiple departments. There's a program
to do that for electrical permits and mobile inspections, those types of things.
It's a fairly significant project that's rolling out throughout. It's a
couple-of-year project.
Also
one for the Department of Education for PowerSchool, getting their new system –
it is a cloud solution –up and running and getting ready for September of this
year. They're probably two of our biggest projects that are on schedule right
now.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay, thank you.
CHAIR:
Any further questions on
4.1.01 to 4.1.05?
There
are none.
Shall
4.1.01 to 4.1.05 inclusive carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 4.1.01 through 4.1.05 carried.
CHAIR:
Okay, that concludes it. I
thank the staff and Minister Osborne.
Now,
we'll do a quick switchover again and we'll get into Human Resource Secretariat.
Recess
CHAIR:
I will ask Minister Osborne
to introduce his staff, please.
MR. OSBORNE:
Okay.
Hi, Tom
Osborne, Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
I'll
ask our staff to introduce themselves.
MR. SIMMONS:
Robert Simmons, Deputy Minister.
MS. TRICKETT:
Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller.
MS. FOLLETT:
Tina Follett, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources operations and
governance.
MS. LANE:
Elizabeth Lane, Assistant Deputy Minister, HR Client Support and Consulting
Services.
MR. BUDGELL:
Marc Budgell, Director of Communications, HRS.
MS. ELLIOTT:
Susan Elliott, Executive Assistant to Minister Osborne.
CHAIR:
Okay, we're going to deal with items 3.1.01 to 3.1.12 inclusive.
I just
ask Committee Members, when they're asking questions, if you're dealing with a
particular clause item, just identify which line item you're dealing with.
Ms.
Coffin, why don't you start off?
MS. COFFIN:
Sure, please. Let's start with some line-by-line stuff.
Executive Support, Professional Services was almost $50,000. What was that for?
MR. SIMMONS:
It was cost associated with a recruitment activity for the deputy minister
position.
MS. COFFIN:
I'm sorry?
MR. SIMMONS:
Cost associated with an external recruitment firm; recruitment for the deputy
minister position.
MS. COFFIN:
Is this normal that you use external hiring firms when we have a Human Resource
Secretariat, an Independent Appointments Commission and the Public Service
Commission?
MR. SIMMONS:
I wouldn't say it's abnormal, but it doesn't happen frequently.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay, $50,000 is an awful lot of money for a recruitment firm.
Professional Services, Collective Bargaining, so 3.1.02, I notice that there was
an underspend of about $50,000 from budget to revised, and that number bumped
back up again. You under spent for some particular reason, what was that?
MR. SIMMONS:
If you look at the Professional Services and the Purchased Services –
MS. COFFIN:
Yes.
MR. SIMMONS:
– arbitration costs come down during a round of negotiations, typically, and
printing costs go up for collective agreement renewals, so those are just
offset. We have a –
MS. COFFIN:
Okay, but budget revised – okay, because collective bargaining concluded halfway
through the year, which is why you didn't need the $143,000, but then printing
came in at what it should be, and then there's no printing, so you just used the
amount that you needed there.
MR. SIMMONS:
Correct.
MS. COFFIN:
Are we expecting more collective bargaining in '19-'20?
MR. SIMMONS:
'19-'20, yes. The cycle would actually start in again.
MS. COFFIN:
Who's up for negotiations now in this fiscal?
MR. SIMMONS:
For '19-'20?
MS. COFFIN:
Yes.
MR. SIMMONS:
RNC – well, there are still, I think, six collective agreements outstanding for
–
MS. COFFIN:
Still outstanding. How long have they been outstanding?
MR. SIMMONS:
They vary, but they would be in that same cycle of the large group of 35 where
the majority have recently been concluded.
MS. COFFIN:
Can we have a list of the outstanding collective bargaining that – I know that
Memorial has a number that they were waiting for, the NAPE and CUPE here in
government, and that then trickled down and then there were a number of other
issues at the university, why some of those had gotten delayed, but I was under
the impression that a great many others had been resolved.
Do you
have a list of what is outstanding and for how long?
MR. SIMMONS:
We can, yeah.
MS. COFFIN:
Yeah, that would be
wonderful. Thank you very much.
So, by
the time we get through some of those, are we anticipating the return to
bargaining with our main bargaining group, NAPE, as well as CUPE, over the next
fiscal?
When
does their term finish?
MR. SIMMONS:
A large majority of the
NAPE, CUPE agreements would expire March 31, 2020.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay, so we're going to move
into that by April 2020?
MR. SIMMONS:
Yeah, there's a –
MS. COFFIN:
So we'll see that show up in
the next fiscal.
Are you
anticipating finishing up the outstanding ones over this fiscal?
MR. SIMMONS:
Yes.
MS. COFFIN:
That's nice to hear.
Let's
see, Purchased Services are good. Classification and Organizational Design, I
notice that there was an underspend from budget to revised and a drop down.
What
does that capture?
MR. SIMMONS:
Sorry, where was that one
again?
MS. COFFIN:
3.1.04, Salaries?
MR. SIMMONS:
For the revised, there was a
period of time where there were some vacancies. If you carry this story across,
we've actually transferred some funds to the Public Service Commission to fund
the adjudicator position that's responsible for the JES appeals. So there was a
bit of just movement of money to fund that.
MS. COFFIN:
JES?
MR. SIMMONS:
Job Evaluation System.
MS. COFFIN:
Right, sorry, yeah. I'm just
getting back to government and I need a refresher on my acronyms, right?
Thank
you.
I'm
sorry, can our Chair give me the numbers again? Where are we concluding?
CHAIR:
We're doing all of 3.1.
MS. COFFIN:
All of 3.1?
CHAIR:
Yes.
MS. COFFIN:
Fun times. Okay, here we go.
Let's
continue with Classification and Organizational Design. In 2018, you noted plans
to clear the backlog of job evaluation appeals.
How has
that been going? Has the backlog been cleared?
MR. SIMMONS:
I'm sorry, where –
MS. COFFIN:
That's just a general
question under Classification and Organizational Design.
In the
last year's Estimates, it was noted that there was plans to clear the backlog of
evaluation appeals. Have they been cleared?
MR. SIMMONS:
Not cleared entirely, but we
have put additional resources and staff on that throughout this year, and we do
have a plan to continue that in an even more earnest way now in the current
year.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay, that's great.
How
many are still outstanding?
MR. SIMMONS:
I'd have to confirm the
exact number, but in JES it would be in that 2,500 range.
MS. COFFIN:
How many staff are required
to do that?
MR. SIMMONS:
Depends on how fast we can
get through them I guess.
MS. COFFIN:
What's the normal time from
when an appeal goes in to it actually being resolved, on average? I know these
things vary based on the complexity of it all and the uniqueness of the
situation.
MR. SIMMONS:
The time can vary. I think the issue right now, it's a bit of an abnormal period
where there was an initial large influx with the implementation of the system.
So, it's really trying to get through that backlog, and that was what created
the issue over the last couple of years.
MS. COFFIN:
Yeah.
MR. SIMMONS:
That's why things are kind
of building up behind. So, the plan is to kind of remove those roadblocks now
and get them cleared out.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay. Lovely.
Do you
have plans to develop a new appeal mechanism? If yes, what's the status of that?
MR. SIMMONS:
So, for the Job Evaluation
System, JES, the appeal mechanism is in place. There's an adjudicator hired.
That's that transfer of funds over to the Public Service Commission.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay.
MR. SIMMONS:
So, that's up and running.
For Hay, the management classification –
MS. COFFIN:
Yes.
MR. SIMMONS:
– that's always been up and running. That's also actually run through a
partnership with the Public Service Commission.
MS. COFFIN:
Right.
Can you
tell me what caused that big backlog? What happened for 2,500 people to just –
was there an initiative overall where everyone said, hey, there's an evaluation
process or an appeal process that's happening. Was there an event that triggered
a mass submission of appeals?
MR. SIMMONS:
It's going back a ways. If
you're looking at anything specific, I can probably get some more info, but my
understanding is that it's in that implementation phase. So, when it first went
in there would be a number of folks who, on that new rating, would've wanted
those ratings reviewed.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay.
MR. SIMMONS:
So, it's that initial blitz
of a large number of people with all new ratings.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay. Interesting. I was
just kind of wondering if there was a triggering event for that, because this
was a tremendous amount of work. It's obviously been a burden on your division,
so I was just wondering if there was something that was the catalyst for causing
all of this because if there was, maybe we could avoid that in the future,
right?
MR. SIMMONS:
Well, it would be the
implementation of the new and improved system.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay.
MR. SIMMONS:
So, it's really just the
growing (inaudible) –
MS. COFFIN:
So, it just made it a little
easier, so everyone said now that we can, let's go do that. That's a classic
example of making work for oneself, hey? Which is good. No, it's good that the
appeals mechanism is in place, I'm not questioning that at all. I was just
wondering, how did we get to here and how can we potentially address it, but it
sounds like it's well in hand at this point.
The
Centre for Learning and Development, 3.1.05, Salaries there were overspent in
2018 but then underspent in '19-'20. What was the anomaly there? Was that
severance that was included, or is the attrition model being captured here
somehow, or is it some combination of both of those things?
MR. SIMMONS:
It's both. For '18-'19, it
would be the severance for two employees, and then in '19-'20, it's actually a
reduction of two temporary positions.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay.
How are
your attrition plans going? Did you meet your targets?
MR. SIMMONS:
For the official attrition plan, yes, we have.
MS. COFFIN:
Oh, good. Well done then.
Supplies started off at almost $8,000, it went to $45,000 and then it dropped
back down again. What kind of Supplies do we get for $45,000?
MR. SIMMONS:
I may need to double-check, but I believe that was actually for training. It was
the purchase of some expensive equipment for first-aid training, the –
MS. COFFIN:
The AEDs?
MR. SIMMONS:
Not the AEDs but the –
MS. COFFIN:
NARCAN? I mean, what kind of
an office do you have if that's going on but …
MR. SIMMONS:
The ACTARs for the –
MS. COFFIN:
Yeah, the chest compression
things. Oh, handy. Great. I might want one of those at my hockey dressing room
as well, right? We always check in, like, who's gotten older, we all have.
Federal
revenue – we did not get the anticipated $60,000, but we have it budgeted again
for this year. Is that the same amount that just wasn't received and is getting
rolled over into the next year, or is this some consistent amount that the feds
chose not to pay?
MR. SIMMONS:
It's for services offered and there was just no uptake in the '18-'19 year. It's
for French services training that we offer to the federal government.
MS. COFFIN:
Oh, okay.
CHAIR:
Ms. Coffin, your time has
expired.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
We'll get back to you.
Mr.
Wakeham.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Staying with the attrition
plan for a second, I noticed in the salary detail some of your salaries by
department, comparing 2018-'19 and the list, there seems to be only two less
employees and the actual salary cost has gone up. I'm just wondering how you
reconcile that with your attrition plan.
These
are the summary of salaries by department as of, I think, April 1, 2018, and I'm
looking at a similar summary of salaries by department for April 1, 2019.
They're showing 7,178 as the total number of employees for 2019 and 2018 is
showing 7,180 as the total number of employees by department. I'm just trying to
figure out what this means. The total salary numbers are there, too.
MR. SIMMONS:
Sure. I'm not following exactly where you have that, but for the salary details
themselves, that number would be a bit dynamic. That's a snapshot or a point in
time.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Right.
MR. SIMMONS:
April 1 is where they get that snapshot and it's actual salaries on payroll at
the moment. So you could have any number of variables that come in on that day.
You could've had a certain number of vacancies, a few more vacancies in one year
than the other when the snapshot was taken. You also still had people moving up
their scales and people moving in and out of roles and they may get paid at
different rates. All that across a large department could impact those numbers.
For our
attrition plan, we were looking at savings of $114,000 over the two-year window.
So we've actually reduced two positions for that plan: A position in the
staffing division and a position in our Employee Safety and Wellness Division.
MR. WAKEHAM:
I was thinking of it more in terms of the total government attrition plan –
MR. SIMMONS:
Oh, total government.
MR. WAKEHAM:
– not just your HRS department.
MR. SIMMONS:
Okay
MR. WAKEHAM:
These snapshots are both taken at a same point in time: One is in April of 2018
and one is in April of 2019. They talk about how these are active employees.
MR. SIMMONS:
Yeah.
MR. WAKEHAM:
It lists every single department and the total number of positions. I'm trying
to understand if there's only a difference of two. All of those variances you
talked about, yes, are part of that, but at the same time comparing the snapshot
you took at April 1 one year, compared to the snapshot you took in April 2019,
only shows a reduction of two.
That's
overall. I'm just trying to understand. Have the numbers gone down or are they
held steady?
MR. SIMMONS:
They have gone down. The same logic would apply in terms of dynamic numbers.
It's probably one of the most difficult things to try to get a clear picture of
in terms of counting heads or counting people in an organization. It's always a
moving target. I could give you a number this morning and I guarantee it'll be
different this afternoon across such a large organization. But, yeah, the
numbers – we actually had a target of $2 million in attrition savings for last
fiscal and that was achieved and there were positions associated with that
savings.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Is there a percentage each year, a number of positions that you're targeting to
go down by?
MR. SIMMONS:
No. It's primarily fiscally based so it gives folks the flexibility, because
certain positions are valued higher than others. Within the departments you can
kind of scan your needs and figure out where you can achieve those savings.
MR. WAKEHAM:
If we were to look at this for previous years, we would see perhaps a lower
number of employees as of April 1. Do these change from year to year? You would
expect it to change. If there were a significant number of people having left,
one would expect that on April 1 you would still have a difference in the
number.
MR. SIMMONS:
You would expect it. Like I said, that method of tracking it is a little tricky
because of the dynamic nature of the workforce. If you're looking at a
difference of a hundred, we have currently 224 active recruitment files, so
depending on the timing of when they're filled and how that interplays with
April 1, the number could be off.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Yeah. Can you provide the
fiscal target for all departments for last year and this year?
MR. SIMMONS:
Yes.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Thank you. I appreciate
that.
In my
next question, there was $854,500 transferred from Education and Early Childhood
Development to Executive Council in 2019-'20. Why was that transferred?
MR. SIMMONS:
Sorry, that was the Employee Safety and Wellness? Is that…?
MR. WAKEHAM:
In Appendix II, page A-2 of this year's Estimates book, it lists an increase of
$201 million in the Consolidated Fund Services as a “provision for severance,
accrued leave and redundancy awards that may result from retirements or
restructuring within Government.” Can you give us a breakdown of this figure?
How much is for severance, how much is for redundancy? Are you planning to
restructure government?
MR. SIMMONS:
The first one was there for ESW, for the Employee Safety and Wellness, that you
want the $25,000. Was that your first question, sorry?
MR. WAKEHAM:
No, I'm just wondering. There's $201 million in the Consolidated Fund Services
as a provision, it says, “for severance, accrued leave and redundancy awards
that may result from retirements or restructuring within Government.”
I'm
asking if you could provide me with a breakdown of this figure. It's Appendix
II, page A-2 in the Estimates book.
MR. SIMMONS:
I don't have that with me here.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Can we get that breakdown?
MR. SIMMONS:
I'm not actually understanding the question but I'm sure we'll take it and have
a look.
MR. WAKEHAM:
You've got $201 million allocated for a “provision for severance, accrued leave,
and redundancy awards that may result” – and I'm quoting here – “from
retirements or restructuring within Government.
I'm
asking for a breakdown of that particular figure. It's a budgeted figure and I'm
asking for a breakdown of it.
That
will be provided to us? Thank you.
In the
3.1.01, Salaries, again, they were under budget in '18-'19, but are showing an
increase back up in '19-'20.
Just
wondering what that was about?
MR. SIMMONS:
In Executive Support?
MR. WAKEHAM:
Yeah.
MR. SIMMONS:
There were two vacancies in
the executive organization there through '18-'19. The deputy minister position
was vacant for about nine months and one of the ADM positions was vacant for a
period of time as well. There was also, I think, a shorter vacancy for another
position in the division as well. So the $640,000 now is just really rightsizing
that based on the current incumbents.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Just the filling of the
vacant positions?
MR. SIMMONS:
Correct.
MR. WAKEHAM:
In relation to my honorable
colleague in terms of the current unions, can you give us an overview of which
unions have the no-layoff clause in their contacts? What does that mean for
government's ability to use attrition or budget management, et cetera? How many
of your current unions have the no-layoff clause?
MR. SIMMONS:
Not sure of the exact
number, I think most have something along those lines.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Can you provide that to us?
MR. SIMMONS:
Sure.
MR. OSBORNE:
Any of the agreements that
have been ratified would have that clause, but also as part of the agreements,
business as usual can continue. So, we've had layoffs, for example, at the
Collage of the North Atlantic since that agreement was ratified because it was
business as usual. It doesn't affect our ability, through business as usual, to
lay off. What the clause essentially guarantees is that we won't have a mass
layoff of 500 people. Business as usual can continue, it has no effect on
attrition measures.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Thank you for clarifying
that.
CHAIR:
Okay, Ms. Coffin?
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you.
Let's
go to Centre for Learning and Development. Has there been an evaluation of the
current trend towards private trading venders and online modules?
MR. SIMMONS:
Has there been a review – sorry?
MS. COFFIN:
An evaluation of that?
MR. SIMMONS:
Nothing official, no, but we are constantly evaluating the programs and material
that we roll out.
MS. COFFIN:
Can you give me a sense of
the types of programs that were offered in house versus the things that are
outside and what's coming from private organizations? What are we contract out
versus what we can have inside, and sense of what some of those trading modules
are?
MR. SIMMONS:
If it's helpful, we can provide you with a list of what's offered from –
MS. COFFIN:
Yes.
MR. SIMMONS:
Sure.
MS. COFFIN:
That would be excellent.
Can you
also tell me what the Organizational Development Initiative is? The description
there is pretty generic.
MR. SIMMONS:
Sure. The Organizational
Development Initiative, that's 3.1.06?
MS. COFFIN:
Yes.
MR. SIMMONS:
It's money set aside to assist in the development of employees to fill,
typically, roles that are either hard to fill or may have a long lead time for
filling, and then also just to develop the applicant pool across government in
key areas. So, it's really to enable somebody to come out of their current role
and get that training or exposure without having to leave a hole behind them, if
you will, that needs to be filled.
MS. COFFIN:
Right. So, it's more of a
continuity of employment?
MR. SIMMONS:
Correct.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay. That seems to have a
lot of staff support to do that.
Nothing
was spent in Transportation and Communications, Supplies or Purchased Services?
MR. SIMMONS:
Sorry, and just – that's not
for staff support, that's the actual amount that's used for the program, the
Salaries, because it's actually used for salaries of the people who participate
in –
MS. COFFIN:
Okay. It's not clear because
everything is called salaries, right?
MR. SIMMONS:
Correct.
MS. COFFIN:
So, one would assume that
it's the support for the program
Okay,
so, it was budgeted at $340,000, but you only had just a, I guess, very small
number of individuals that were using the program, if the total salary
expenditures were $89,000?
MR. SIMMONS:
Yes, that was mainly a
pick-up in the latter part of the year. The program was a little dormant in the
first part. There was a lot of changes ongoing, some within HRS and then across
organization.
MS. COFFIN:
Right.
MR. SIMMONS:
But we did pick it up and
plan to use it in the current fiscal.
MS. COFFIN:
Excellent. Thank you.
Let's
go with a more general question here. This is, perhaps, something that I found
interesting earlier.
Can you
tell me the relationship between the Public Service Commission and the Human
Resources Secretariat?
I know
a long, long time ago, the Public Service Commission was the conduit for hiring
in government. You wanted to get a job in government, you went through that, and
the Independent Appointments Commission had the appointment to agencies, boards
and commissions. It seems now that the role of the Public Service Commission is
morphed into the Human Resources Secretariat.
Is
there a relationship between those? Is there a division of: you do that and we
do that? Can you explain that relationship to me?
MR. SIMMONS:
Sure.
They
are separate entities. The Public Service Commission still exists and it has a
piece of legislation that governs its activities. The main role that they would
have with us would be oversight on our staffing activities. They would set out
the policies or the processes by which we select folks through a meritorious
process, if you like. They would hear any appeals, so if somebody had a
complaint or would like to appeal a recruitment activity, they would appeal it
through the Public Service Commission, and they would come in and investigate
our staffing division activities.
We also
partner with them on those classification activities that we do, so the Job
Evaluation System appeal process and the Hay appeal process.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay, that's interesting.
Do you
know why the move or why there was this shift in, I guess, the way that this was
done? Do you have that history?
MR. SIMMONS:
I don't have the history.
Tina,
if you would like …
MS. FOLLETT:
I can speak to that, Ms. Coffin.
Back in
around 2013, there was a government decision made to consolidate a number of HR
functions, particularly the transactional functions, so staffing was integrated
into what was created, at that time, the Human Resource Secretariat. The
oversight and governance pieces of staffing remained then with the Public
Service Commission.
MS. COFFIN:
Right. Okay, so it was just a matter of –
MS. FOLLETT:
That organization.
MS. COFFIN:
– they thought reorganization was going to be better.
MS. FOLLETT:
Yes.
MS. COFFIN:
I have enough of a history
of government to have seen, let's try and move this here and then here.
Were
you here through that whole process?
MS. FOLLETT:
Yes, I was.
MS. COFFIN:
You were. How do you feel, and, I guess – am I allowed to ask you a subjective
question? Have there been any glitches, how about that? Have there been any
glitches associated with that, or do you find that relationship is working well?
MS. FOLLETT:
Are you speaking specifically to the staffing component or the full integration
of –?
MS. COFFIN:
I guess the organization of that. Has this resulted in improvements in how
workflow happens and how the hiring process goes and then, of course, the
separation of the appeals process? I'm all about separating the actual functions
from the monitoring because you need an independent oversight committee. That's
how that works. Just getting kind of your perspective from an internal point of
view.
MS. FOLLETT:
Sure.
Yes,
overall, in general, there's been an improvement from that reorganization
because, to your point, with the segregation of function, it allowed the
Commission to focus solely, or for the most part, on the governance piece and
turn their activities to setting the standards for how we recruit and ensuring
that merit was being applied across the entire public service. And then allowed,
through delegated authority, other bodies, such as the Human Resource
Secretariat, to put their efforts in behind the transactional or the staffing
activity. So we found overall that, yes, it has provided improvement in those
areas.
MS. COFFIN:
Lovely. That's good to hear. It's reassuring.
Can I
have a sense of the number of grievances that are currently outstanding and the
number of arbitrations that are ongoing or impending? I know my last
organization, I think our grievances hit about 110 over the course of a year and
we had the highest for our organization across Canada. I'm just curious how
that's working here.
MR. SIMMONS:
The total number of grievances outstanding currently across government would be
about 800.
MS. COFFIN:
Wow.
MR. SIMMONS:
The number of ongoing arbitrations, I don't know. That number fluctuates a bit.
MS. COFFIN:
Of course.
MR. SIMMONS:
I couldn't give you an estimate there.
MS. COFFIN:
Yeah, I just know how onerous that process is. It's legally heavy and there are
a lot of complications. Of course, there are a lot of implications for staff
because when there's an arbitration, a lot of staff get involved in that. I'm
just kind of curious as to how that's sorting out.
Here's
another question that I've never really been able to get a good sense of: How
many people work in government?
MR. SIMMONS:
In the core government it's about 7,600.
MS. COFFIN:
Right and core government we're just talking about, no agencies, no committees
and no corporations. School boards are not counted and health authorities are
not counted in that, we're just talking about direct government, right?
MR. SIMMONS:
Correct, core government.
MS. COFFIN:
Core government.
Do we
have a sense of the nature of those and perhaps a sense of how that's changed
over time? What I'm thinking about is the number of full-time versus the number
of part-time individuals. I know it's very difficult to capture those because
casual is a different thing and then your students are a different thing. That's
why I understand how hard it is when I ask the question, how many people work in
government, no one can really answer that perfectly.
I'm
looking for a sense of that but also a sense of executive positions, management
positions, kind of that in-between position where we have directors and we have
managers, but we also have a whole range of individuals that are non-bargaining
but are non-management as well. I know for a long time there was an abundance of
policy and program analysts, so a sense of how many people are in that position
and also in the unionized and non-unionized position; the HS scales versus the
Hay scales and all of that, just getting a sense of those. How has that
composition of employment in government changed over time?
MR. SIMMONS:
I'm not sure. That's quite a
broad question.
MS. COFFIN:
It is, yeah.
MR. SIMMONS:
I don't know that I could
give you a story with 100 per cent confidence in terms of all those
sub-segments.
MS. COFFIN:
Sure.
MR. SIMMONS:
I could give you a snapshot,
for example, of what's in the system today.
MS. COFFIN:
Right.
How
about – and maybe this could be your homework for later, a teacher – perhaps, a
breakdown. How detailed a breakdown are you able to provide?
Are you
able to do that breakdown of unionized employees versus temporary staff versus
contractual versus people in that middle ground of you're not unionized, but
you're not really management, although you funnel in the management scale;
directors and executive support.
Can you
break that down over time, so maybe over the course of a five- or six- or
10-year period? Can you give me some sense of how those numbers have changed
over time?
MR. SIMMONS:
I'm not sure how easily
that's obtained, but I do –
MS. COFFIN:
Oh, I don't imagine it's
very easy.
MR. SIMMONS:
If I can maybe take that
away and (inaudible).
MS. COFFIN:
Yeah, so your homework will
be due, say – no, I'm kidding.
CHAIR:
Okay, your time is expired.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you.
MR. WAKEHAM:
I want to go back to 3.1.05
and ask: What is the priority for the Centre for Learning and Development for
the next 12 months?
MR. SIMMONS:
I don't know that there's
anything new or a new program or anything they're rolling out in the next 12
months. Their priority is really to maintain the programs that are in place.
There's
a suite of basic programs that are required – so whether that be regulatory
training, some of the mandated training that we have across the organization –
and then they effectively respond to the needs of each of the departments
throughout the year. Their priority would be making sure that the mandatory
stuff is complete and then to achieve the programs and needs of the departments.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Thank you.
In the
past year there has been mandatory online training introduced for public service
workers. Has all this training been completed? What process is in place to
ensure that new hires complete their training?
MR. SIMMONS:
I don't have the statistics
on completion here with me. They do have a tracking system both for existing and
as new hires come on. There's a process to pick up most mandatory training
through the orientation process.
MR. WAKEHAM:
You can provide that to us?
MR. SIMMONS:
Sure.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Thank you.
MR. SIMMONS:
Just to be clear, what training program was it you wanted?
MR. WAKEHAM:
It's the one related to the mandatory online training, respectful workplace,
those programs.
MR. SIMMONS:
Do you know the number? Tina knows the number.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
MS. FOLLETT:
I can speak with respect to the harassment training. That particular mandatory
training was completed last year with pretty much a hundred per cent completion.
Again, that's a moving target because our staff turnover requires that those
that are new, obviously, take that training as they come in, but with that
particular module it was 99 per cent.
With
respect to the conflict interest, we're at about probably 60, 65 per cent, and
so we'll be sending a reminder to have that completed in the future months as
well. The in-person training that we conducted on harassment for executive was
attended at a hundred per cent as well.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Thank you so much.
MS. FOLLETT:
You're welcome.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Under 3.1.07, last year the ADM mentioned that government was exploring a new
health and safety system for government. Can you please provide some information
or an update on that particular program?
MR. SIMMONS:
Sure.
There
is a safety management system. That's a program that's based on a number of
elements. That's being rolled out across departments. In addition, we've taken a
bit of a prioritized approach outside of that program to really go in and focus
on key areas to drive our safety performance.
The
management system program is being rolled out across departments. I don't have
the exact percentage of who has them, but it certainly has improved
significantly since last year.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Can you tell what the cost was last year for workplace injuries within core
government?
MR. SIMMONS:
Don't have that stat here in front of me. That would be a pretty dynamic number,
as well. It's really …
MR. WAKEHAM:
Is it possible to get a number or a cost?
MR. SIMMONS:
I think I could commit to having a look to see what we could pull out of the
system, yeah.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Okay. I appreciate that.
3.1.11,
under the Strategic Staffing section, yesterday when we did Finance Estimates
there was a significant savings in Salaries associated with regular salaries –
we kind of had a little joke about it, because they kind of said they were kind
of waiting on HRS to fill positions. So I was just asking: Can you give an
overview of how long their recruitment processes take? After need to hire is
identified, how long does it take to fill the positions?
MR. SIMMONS:
I think some of the
vacancies that you would have heard of through the other departments – I heard
some of that, I think, yesterday, as well – some of that's by choice. So,
through trying to reduce the overall cost and trying to achieve some of our
attrition targets, we may defer hiring in certain areas.
If you
were looking to hire a given role, it really depends on the role. Certain roles
we can hire very quickly. I think the outside would probably be around that
6-month mark, if it was a more complicated process. The average would be less
than that, but that's kind of the range on recruitment.
I would
say, as well, we've put some new efforts or processes in place, internal to that
division, to try to make that process a little more efficient. We did have, by
way of example, about 500 or so outstanding recruitment files last year. As we
sit today, we have about 224, which would be a normal number of vacancies, I
would suggest, for the size of the organization in terms of the turnover that we
would have on a month-over-month basis. So, we've kind of caught up to that
process.
Like I
say, some of them would actually be kept vacant deliberately for short periods
of time to help with the overall budget savings.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Right. They indicated that
they needed to get all of their positions filled. They have budgeted for them
again this year, so they're putting a little plug in to get them all filled.
Is
there a wait-list or individuals enrolled in the Opening Doors Program who do
not have placements?
MR. SIMMONS:
The way the program would
work is there would be an inventory of individuals who are looking for
placements, and then there's also the assessment that takes place to find the
roles within government. So, there is a matching process that has to take place.
It's not so much a: I'm waiting for a given role. It's really about trying to
match the individuals with the needs of the organization.
There
are about 82 positions that we have available in that program and, currently,
all but 10, I believe, are actively filled today.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Thank you.
No more
questions, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Ms. Coffin, do you have any
further questions?
MS. COFFIN:
Yes, please.
Let's
go back and chat about Opening Doors. That was my next question, so excellent
segue. Thank you very much.
You say
there are 82 positions that exist in government to accommodate individuals that
have disabilities. Is that …?
MR. SIMMONS:
The program has 82 positions
funded, so it's not so much to necessarily accommodate folks with disability,
because we would accommodate anybody with disability, but this program is meant
to encourage or assist folks to enter the workforce, so it's a specific program
for persons with disabilities.
MS. COFFIN:
So it's designed for individuals who had just finished some sort of training or
who have a marginal attachment to the workforce, to get them in and kind of give
them that work experience. Is that correct?
MR. SIMMONS:
I don't think it would be
that restrictive, I think it's something that's pretty open.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay.
Within
this program, if you have an individual that comes in with a disability, then
accommodations are put in place; there's money to accommodate the individual.
So, say you are hearing impaired or you have a visual impairment or you might
need, I don't know, a particular work station set up, that's included in this
program?
MR. SIMMONS:
Those sort of things we
would do, even outside of this program. If you're looking at this program, for
current fiscal, it's $3.7 million total. Those are salary dollars for
individuals, that's how we pay a portion of their salary in those roles.
MS. COFFIN:
All right.
MR. SIMMONS:
It's offset by some funding we get down below from the federal government the
(inaudible) program.
MS. COFFIN:
Yes.
MR. SIMMONS:
Separate from that, there would be $100,000, which is really a cost-share
program we use to help within core government. That actually also extends out to
the ABCs to help provide subsidies to encourage folks to bring in individuals
with disabilities into the workplace.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay, that's the subsidies. Okay.
MR. SIMMONS:
So that's what that money in
this budget is for. For somebody who may need specific accommodation, that would
happen anyway, there's not a specific budget in this section for that.
MS. COFFIN:
Yeah, if an individual came in under Strategic Staffing and they had particular
limitation, then you would accommodate that, normally. Okay.
I say
this because on the campaign trail I meet a number of individuals who were
hearing impaired and a couple of wonderful young women who had been looking for
jobs but had not been able to find the right in in that. So if I sent them over
to Opening Doors, there might be a possibility that that would be that
transition into the labour force that they needed.
Would
that be a reasonable use of that?
MR. SIMMONS:
So if you have anyone who's
interested in the program, absolutely, contact the Opening Doors Program,
there's a fantastic individual over there who can help them out.
MS. COFFIN:
Right, lovely. I'll pass that along. I think I had the name of the program wrong
when I suggested that.
Grants
and Subsidies were down by almost $30,000 – $25,000 there. What was that about?
MR. SIMMONS:
So that's the grant program
that we would provide to departments and, in some cases, ABCs. I believe that
was just related to the timing of a – so an arrangement that we had in place but
the timing was a bit off towards the end, so it's really just an accounting
issue.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay, that's nice to know.
Staying
with Opening Doors, it's kind of an interesting thing here, what percentage of
participants transition out to permanent positions in government or even
elsewhere because I assume that this doesn't mean that they're just going into
this program to move into another government program but this is providing them
with that, I guess, gateway into full time or a larger labour market attachment.
So
getting at the success of this program now, has that transition happened and
what's the success rate?
MR. SIMMONS:
My sense is it's successful.
I don't actually have that stat.
MS. COFFIN:
That would be a handy thing
to have, right. It would be nice to see if it's not at a very high rate then
perhaps what would be that impediment, right? Just to make this program more
successful this would be another perspective that we could have a look at.
Corporate Services, I see a big spike in Salaries there and then they drop off
again. Is that your attrition model, the severance first and revised and then
attrition in the second one?
MR. SIMMONS:
Under –?
CHAIR:
What number are you on?
MS. COFFIN:
4.1.01.
CHAIR:
Sorry?
MS. COFFIN:
Did I get excited and go on?
CHAIR:
Yes, you're gone too far.
MS. COFFIN:
I did, I went on. Okay, my
bad. Very sorry about that.
I think
that might be all my questions in this section. Sorry about that.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Coffin.
Mr.
Wakeham?
MR. WAKEHAM:
I have no more questions,
Mr. Chair. I just wanted to thank the officials for coming twice.
CHAIR:
You have a couple of quick
questions, Mr. Lane?
MR. LANE:
Yes, I do.
My
first question relates to the 10-week emergency hire process that occurs. I've
had people raise concerns with me in the past over that, that a lot of people
feel it's abused in the sense that it's a foot in the door for people by getting
hired through departments without having to go through Public Service
Commission, without having to go through proper processes, hiring processes and
so on.
I
understand that emergencies can happen from time to time, but I guess the
question is: Is that process monitored to ensure that it is not being misused,
if I can put it that way, and to ensure that we don't see situations where you
hire someone for 10 weeks and extend them for another 10, another 10 and another
10 and that type of thing happening?
What
kind of monitoring is taking place to ensure that wherever possible – except for
the case of emergencies, which is why it's supposed to be called emergency hires
– to make sure it goes through the Public Service Commission?
MR. SIMMONS:
There are a couple of checkpoints. For bargaining unit positions it's actually
contained in most of our collective agreements, so certainly the ones within
core government. There's a 13-week window where folks can come in without
competition when there's a short-term need or an emergency as you say. For
management positions, it can go upwards of six months and that's in accordance
with the Public Service Commission policies.
The
collective agreement has the rules in there for a bargaining unit. The Public
Service Commission also oversees our hiring activities and they are the ones who
do the check and balance there. Then, just generally ourselves, there's value in
actually going through that recruitment process, so it's not something we would
try to avoid. We would be pushing and looking for those competitions to occur as
well.
MR. LANE:
Yeah, okay.
Again,
it is something that I've had some constituents in the past – and very recently
actually – come to me. They felt there were opportunities that were – and I
guess sometimes you get a situation where somebody comes in through the 10-week
program, then they apply because then they can apply for other jobs. They go in
and all of a sudden there's someone who's been working there for a number of
years, seeing that person surpass them that, in their mind, got in through the
back door, so to speak, and I guess that's where some of that comes from.
It was
an overall sense of why doesn't everybody go through the Public Service
Commission is really the theme of it. It's supposed to be for emergency
situations but there seems to be a lot of those emergency situations occurring
throughout government. That's been an ongoing thing I believe.
MR. OSBORNE:
If I could.
MR. LANE:
Yeah.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yeah, I don't think it's as common as you think. Tina, you may be able to
elaborate on that. The vast majority of those are either a director up to the
manager, up to the ADM level but, anyway, go ahead, Tina.
MS. FOLLETT:
As you mentioned, Mr. Lane, the 13-week placements are normally for emergency or
operational needs within the organization. As Robert has alluded to, we within
HRS, monitor the activities associated with those temporary arrangements. The
Commission also has a function wherein they monitor what's happening. At one
point they actually would reach out to respective employers by flagging
positions that were in excess of 13 weeks and asking for our plans associated
with that.
They do
conduct a fair amount of diligence around that. I appreciate the concern,
obviously, that someone may have expressed to you, but we normally are pretty
diligent in ensuring that if we have individuals that are in there in temporary
arrangements, that we're then going on to conduct a broader competition.
Normally we'll have people that come in for less than 13 weeks because it's
really short work, a short period of time; it's a piece of work that has to be
done fairly quickly. Oftentimes, it might be a situation where a position needs
to be staffed and it's going to take a period of time to staff the position.
Someone might be required to go into that role because of operational need, but
we proceed on with the competitive process.
We
normally require our hiring departments that if they're in that situation – and
it's a short-term, temporary arrangement, we have to go to competition – that
they make the requests for both those staffing needs at the same time, so that
while the position is filled temporarily, we can proceed on with the competitive
process as well, so that we're not exceeding those 13-week timelines.
MR. LANE:
Let's say if you have an emergency-hire situation. How does a member of the
general public know so that they can put in a résumé? Do you know what I'm
saying?
MS. FOLLETT:
Yeah.
MR. LANE:
Because in theory, if not, a department says, oh, we have a position open here
for 10 weeks now and they can call up whoever and say: Give me a résumé. I
suppose they have to be qualified. I don't even know what screening – I mean, I
would imagine they would, but I don't know what kind of screening, what
competition or what, in theory, happens in that.
I'm
just wondering: How does that process work and how, if there was a 10-week
position or a 13-week or a half dozen 13-week for a short-term project comes up,
how does a member of the general public have the opportunity to apply for that
13-week opportunity?
MS. FOLLETT:
Right.
MR. LANE:
How do they even know about it?
MS. FOLLETT:
First of all, we have inventories within our staffing division whereby if
short-term, temporary work arises we'll normally go back and seek candidates
through that process. I can assure you –
MR. LANE:
Through what process, sorry?
MS. FOLLETT:
Through the inventories that we have in the staffing division. We have
inventories –
MR. LANE:
Oh, résumés that people had already –
MS. FOLLETT:
Right.
MR. LANE:
– handed in.
MS. FOLLETT:
Yes.
MR. LANE:
Okay.
MS. FOLLETT:
Yeah, exactly.
So,
we'll seek assistance through those inventories.
MR. LANE:
Okay.
MS. FOLLETT:
But I can assure you that with any position that HRS is involved in, in the
placement of an individual, qualifications are in the fore. You have to be
qualified in order to enter into any position within the public service. Our HR
staff are normally assisting hiring departments in that regard as well.
MR. LANE:
All right, thank you.
On
temporary positions – and this is another issue I hear all the time. Somebody's
on a temporary position for two, three, four years. Really, everybody knows it's
a permanent position because the person has been doing the job forever and yet
they are still temporary. What is the rationale?
Why is
it that once you get to a point where you know it's going to be an ongoing
position, why do you leave them temporary for numerous years? If I could get you
to explain that?
MR. SIMMONS:
There are a couple of
factors at play.
One of
the more predominant ones is a bit of a daisy chain that occurs when somebody
moves. There are numerous examples; we have a lot, unfortunately. I think out of
our just under 200 staff within HRS, I think close on 80 are actually in some
temporary capacity right now. They're often permanent employees but they're
moving around in those temporary roles and it creates that system where folks
own that permanent role but they're moving into different opportunities.
We are
looking at ways to make that a little more efficient or in different ways, but
it is where folks have that ability to maintain rights to previous roles when
they take on temporary roles.
MR. LANE:
All right.
The
last question I have relates to Opening Doors. I have sent a couple of people in
the past to the program, and the expectation I had or thought was that it would
be around obtaining employment within the provincial government. Basically, the
least experience I was told of was more of we'll do some résumé writing and some
coaching on how to get a job occurred through that office, but it wasn't about
getting that person a job in the provincial government.
I'm
trying to understand. If you said there were 62 positions – I thought you said –
and there are10 not filled, how does one go about applying for one of those 10
jobs under Opening Doors? Are they permanent jobs actually working within
government? Is that for people with a physical disability or what about someone
with an intellectual disability?
MR. SIMMONS:
In reverse order, it's for
any disability.
MR. LANE:
Yeah.
MR. SIMMONS:
The positions are there. As
I mentioned earlier, it's a bit of a matchmaking exercise.
MR. LANE:
Yeah.
MR. SIMMONS:
It's not about just coming
in and then trying to fit an individual into an existing role. There has to be
that match in terms of the skills and abilities required to do what's required
from the department, and then finding that individual who can fill the role.
In
terms of what the division or what the office or the program offers, it does
look to match up those individuals and roles. It does look to try to use that
grant money to leverage that within departments and ABCs. In addition, like you
mentioned, that additional service is there to help people find employment
elsewhere. It's a place where folks can go to get help with résumé writing or
interview prep or whatever that can be done to help, if not within our program,
in other areas of society essentially.
MR. LANE:
Okay, thank you.
CHAIR:
Your time has expired.
MR. LANE:
Could I get a list of
(inaudible)?
CHAIR:
Is the Committee okay to give him extra time.
MR. LANE:
(Inaudible) request for some information. Can I get a list? Are we able to get a
list of the 62 positions in government, what they are and the 10 that are not
filled?
MR. SIMMONS:
Sure, it's 82 positions.
MR. LANE:
Or 82 and the 10 that are not filled.
MR. SIMMONS:
I think so. Yeah, that should be –
MR. LANE:
Okay, thank you.
I
appreciate that.
CHAIR:
Hearing no other questions,
shall 3.1.01 to 3.1.12 inclusive carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.1.12 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall the totals for the
Executive Council carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, Executive Council, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
for Executive Council carried without amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of Executive Council carried without amendment.
CHAIR:
Before we adjourn there are
a couple of little items.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Chair, if I could?
CHAIR:
Sure.
MR. OSBORNE:
Just on your request, I just
want to ensure – if somebody has a disability and we identify the position, we
may be identifying somebody with a disability.
MR. LANE:
How about the 10 (inaudible)
–
MR. OSBORNE:
Yeah. I think that would probably be–
MR. LANE:
– that doesn't have anyone attached –
MR. OSBORNE:
Yeah.
MR. LANE:
– so that I know what's available, basically, is all I want to know.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yeah. Fair enough.
CHAIR:
I just want to thank Minister Osborne and hisֹ staff.
We have
a couple of quick items. We did appoint a Vice-Chair; however, the person we
appointed is not on the Committee so we have to appoint a new Vice-Chair.
Can we
call for …?
MR. WAKEHAM:
I nominate David Brazil.
CHAIR:
David Brazil has been nominated.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Okay,
David will be the Vice-Chair.
The
next item, a call for a motion to accept the minutes of the Government Services
Committee for June 17 and June 18 as circulated.
MS. STOODLEY:
So moved.
CHAIR:
So moved by Sarah.
A
seconder?
MR. WARR:
Seconded.
CHAIR:
Brian Warr.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR:
If there's no other business
I'll call for a motion to adjourn.
Sarah
Stoodley.
We
adjourn.
On
motion, the Committee adjourned.