Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Dale Kirby, MHA for St. John's North, substitutes for Lorraine Michael, MHA for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

The Committee met at 9:00 a.m. in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR (Brazil): I would like to welcome everybody as we review the Estimates of the Department of Advanced Education and Skills.

I would first like to start by asking the Committee if they would introduce themselves, then I will ask the minister to have her staff introduce themselves and then we will start the process.

Members of the Committee.

MS PERRY: Tracey Perry, MHA, Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MR. CROSS: Eli Cross, MHA, Bonavista North, and my good friend Keith Russell from Lake Melville.

CHAIR: (Inaudible) you can introduce your support staff that you have with you, please.

MR. A. PARSONS: Dana English, Researcher, and Andrew Parsons, MHA Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. KIRBY: I am Dale Kirby. I am a Member of the House of Assembly for the District of St. John's North, and this is Daniel Smith; he is a Researcher.

CHAIR: Thank you Committee members.

Minister.

MS BURKE: Joan Burke, Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

CHAIR: Okay. Can you have your staff introduced, please?

MS FIELD: Marilyn Field, Deputy Minister Acting.

MR. LEWIS: David Lewis, ADM for Corporate Services.

MR. CURTIS: Ken Curtis, Manager of Finance.

MR. TOMPKINS: John Tompkins, Director of Communications.

MS ENNIS-WILLIAMS: Candice Ennis-Williams, Director of Institutional Services.

MS TOOPE: Pam Toope, Director of Labour Market Development Division.

MS WHEATON: Roxie Wheaton, Assistant Deputy Minister for Regional Operations.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister and staff of Advanced Education and Skills.

The process, just to clarify for everybody what we will do, we will go back and forth. I will give the minister an intro of up to fifteen minutes to talk about the process of the department and where it would move particularly around the Estimates. Then we can start back, go right to Mr. Parsons to start the process of asking questions.

I do ask that you do due diligence of sticking to the intent of the Estimates Committee review, the particular line areas and the dollar figures related to them. Then any related processes around the programs that are being offered so that we can get as close as possible to completing in the prescribed time. If we need additional time we will reconvene if necessary.

Now minister, to you.

MS BURKE: I have no opening comments; we can start right in.

CHAIR: Okay, even better.

I do ask the Committee to direct all questions to the minister. Then if the minister needs one of her staff to assist in an answer, I do ask that particular individual to identify themselves because it is being recorded under Hansard.

Mr. Parsons, right to you.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

Firstly, I would like to thank the minister and staff for all taking the time to be with us this morning. Bear with me; it is my first Estimates session so I am going to try my best to not ask redundant questions.

I am going to start right away under Executive and Support Services, 1.1.01 Minister's Office. We look at 01 Salaries, last year $79,300 was spent that was not budgeted. What did this cover?

MS BURKE: That was a retirement payout, and at the retirement payout we also had the person who was coming in behind at that point hired.

MR. A. PARSONS: As it stands, Minister, how many employees are currently within your department?

MS BURKE: What is the total number?

OFFICIAL: Approximately 850 employees.

MS BURKE: Eight hundred and fifty.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am going to put my earphone in my ear.

CHAIR: Yes, the echo here sometimes it is hard – I do encourage members, if you need to, put your headsets on.

MR. A. PARSONS: Of those employees, how many are permanent, temporary, and/or contractual?

MS BURKE: I do not have that information on me this morning.

MR. A. PARSONS: Are you able to undertake to provide that information?

MS BURKE: Yes, we can get that.

MR. A. PARSONS: The next part of my question follows up to that. Do you have the information there for how many full-time employees or part-time?

MS BURKE: Out of the 850, that would be full-time employees.

MR. A. PARSONS: Are there additional part-time employees who are not included in that figure?

MS BURKE: That is departmental employees. Then there are obviously MUN employees, college employees, but I do not count them. I just thought you meant departmental employees, and I would not have the information on MUN and the college. They could have people delivering a course versus full-time employment.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

We know there were four to five temporary positions referred to in the Budget that were going to be made redundant. How many of these are within your department?

MS BURKE: In that Budget exercise, none of those would have been identified from my department.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am going to move forward to 1.2.01 Executive Support. We have heard of the business transformation project. Under this heading, is that where that project is located?

MS BURKE: Under 4.1.03.

MR. A. PARSONS: This project, this is the section that it is located under?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: To undertake this project, was there an amount of funding put forward to pay for this or cover it off? How much is this project going to cost?

MS BURKE: It would be covered off within this budget here under section 05.

MR. A. PARSONS: I will come back to that after. I am going to try to stick to the order I was in so I do not lose everything here.

Back to Executive Support 1.2.01, under Purchased Services line 06. Can you give me an example of what kind of purchased services or what the purchased services were for this department under this heading?

MS BURKE: Purchased Services, that would be general services like room rentals for meetings, printing. General services like that.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

We all know that Mr. Noseworthy was hired this year under the department. There is a contract that was executed for Mr. Noseworthy. Is he under Executive Support?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. A. PARSONS: No? What section would his contract be under?

MS BURKE: Yes, that would be 4.1.03.

MR. A. PARSONS: That is back to 4.1.03?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

I do have some questions on that section. I think what I will do is I will skip ahead to 4.1.03. What is the total budget for the business transformation project?

MS BURKE: I think it was around $140,000.

MR. A. PARSONS: That is basically his contract?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Is there a timeline attached to this? Is he expected to provide a report within a certain period of time?

MS BURKE: It will not be a report, but there are a number of projects he will work on over a twelve-month period.

MR. A. PARSONS: Will any of these reports be provided for review once they are done? Is the purpose of this to look at this new department and streamline it?

MS BURKE: The new department is new in a sense, but it is reconstituted in another sense because it is sections from two former departments.

Basically, both departments that were put together are of components – both had a social-policy perspective. The new department has an economic policy. It is trying to work with the policies, the new mandate, and the strategic plan to ensure we are not just two separate entities doing our own thing as we did, but how we come together to address the needs of the labour market in the Province.

MR. A. PARSONS: In the contract it says: The consultant shall provide employees who are competent in their field of specialization.

Are these employees outside government or are they within government?

MS BURKE: Within the department.

MR. A. PARSONS: Their pay is already budgeted in under Salaries, I presume.

MS BURKE: This is working with the existing department heads.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Is his mandate just to cover section 4.1.03, the Labour Market Agreement aspect, or is it the entire department?

MS BURKE: It is not necessarily as segregated because all components of the department should work for the same reason. Whether we work with clients and individuals to attach them to the labour market because funding is under the LMDA or because it is within the department is somewhat irrelevant because we want to get the business processes set up so we work to help people attach to the labour market.

Some of the staff and some of the programs he may be providing assistance on may fall under the LMDA or not, but he would still work to help us understand that when we work with a client we have to make sure we have the best business processes set up and within the department the most efficient process, as well.

MR. A. PARSONS: While I am here I will cover off the rest of this section. I have some other questions.

Can you explain to me: Why is 4.1.03 separated from 4.1.02? One is Labour Market Development Agreement and one is Labour Market Agreement. I am just trying to figure that part out.

MS BURKE: The 4.1.02 is the Labour Market Development Agreement, and that is services and programs for EI eligible, and the 4.1.03 is the Labour Market Agreement for the clients who are not EI eligible.

MR. A. PARSONS: I noticed last year under the Salaries heading $570,000 less was spent than was budgeted. This is under 4.1.03, Labour Market Agreement, under Salaries, section 01, we budgeted $3.759 million, but we spent $3.189 million. So why was less than the budgeted amount spent? Were there positions not needed?

MS BURKE: No, it was delays in staffing.

MR. A. PARSONS: Now, I noticed that there is still a smaller amount budgeted for this year. Are there positions that are not being filled or –

MS BURKE: No, based on our positions, and based on the staffing that the budget should cover, that is not with any cutbacks or new staff; that is status quo for us.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Under section 05, Professional Services, can you give me an example of the professional services that the department utilized last year?

MS BURKE: Under Professional Services, that would be evaluations that we would do under the LMA. It would also look at some literacy supports and services. There would be some auditing, client outcome tracking, there would be some money spent there under our CEYS youth-related programming, the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism. We would also do the Workplace Skills Enhancement Program through IBRD as well, under that area.

MR. A. PARSONS: Last year just under 30 per cent, under what was budgeted, was spent. Were there services that you anticipated that you did not have to pay for?

MS BURKE: Yes, the LMA evaluation was not included last year and it will be this year.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay, thank you.

Under Purchased Services, line 06, there was $600,000 budgeted, but we only spent $200,000. What made up the significant decrease in what was actually spent? What was not purchased that you anticipated having to purchase?

MS BURKE: The launch of the Strategic Literacy Plan. It was budgeted for and it was not launch.

MR. A. PARSONS: Now, I notice the budget this year is higher than what was spent last year but still a fair bit lower than budgeted last year. Would that Literacy Plan be launched this year?

MS BURKE: It will.

MR. A. PARSONS: Even if that is launched, we still have over $200,000 less than what was budgeted last year. What else was budgeted for last year that you do not anticipate having to spend this year?

MS BURKE: It is the Literacy Plan. The reduction is part of our 3 per cent exercise. The delay in launching the Literacy Plan for later in this year gives us the savings.

MR. A. PARSONS: Just a question on the Literacy Plan again. Where it is getting launched this year, because of the delay will that affect the effectiveness in the plan in any way, or the reduction in funds?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. A. PARSONS: Being new at this, can you explain to me line 09, Allowances and Assistance. It is the same section, 4.1.03. You will see that last year it was $2.183 million budgeted, we spent $1.328 million, and this year we are back up to $2.129 million. What is the purpose of this part? What does that cover specifically?

MS BURKE: That would cover expenses under job skills, under the Apprenticeship Wage Subsidy. The Literacy Plan would have some funding there, supports for apprenticeship, the LMD, transition supports. That would come under that.

MR. A. PARSONS: What did we not have to pay for last year that was budgeted for?

MS BURKE: There were portions out of all I just said that we would not have spent a full amount in last year. The money is there.

MR. A. PARSONS: If I might ask: Why wasn't it spent or done last year? Was there any reason? Was it just delayed?

MS BURKE: Not necessarily was it planned and delayed, but that is ongoing funding throughout the year and it is drawn down on. If the need is there, it is there, and sometimes the need varies. We would not count on saying it will not be there year over year so it stays in the budget.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

In the same section 4.1.03, under Grants and Subsidies, 10, what does Grants and Subsidies for this section cover?

MS BURKE: Grants and Subsidies, that would be supports to community agencies or employers who apply for the different programs that we would have under the LMA.

MR. A. PARSONS: Half of their budget was not spent last year. What happened here?

MS BURKE: Eight hundred thousand dollars would have been specifically for the Strategic Literacy Plan that did not go ahead last year.

MR. A. PARSONS: Eight hundred thousand dollars, but we budgeted $7.9 million and we spent $3.5 million.

MS BURKE: There would be some, as well, for the Apprenticeship Wage Subsidy that would have been not drawn down, carried over because their work term is probably not as clean as the fiscal year. There might be like Wage Subsidy Programs that are ongoing. It would be money targeted in one budget but not drawn down because of the start date of the program. So it is not necessarily finished at March 31.

MR. A. PARSONS: You take out the $800,000, what you just explained there with the apprenticeship, would that cover off the rest or is there anything else that was not –

MS BURKE: That would be the significant, the rest would be drawn down of something like $35,000 on one program, and there is the reserve and the unallocated which is $1.6 million. So that would not be for any specific program.

MR. A. PARSONS: The same section, we look at Revenue – Federal. I am presuming this is part of the devolution is you receive money from the federal government. It looked like we were budgeted to receive $9.2 million but actually got $10.8 million in revenue from the federal government. Why was there an increase? Was it planned? I guess it was not planned. What happened there for us to get extra money?

MR. LEWIS: The increase in the revenues last year was because there was a delay in collection of federal revenues in the previous year. Some 2010-2011 revenues were actually receded in 2011-2012.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Going to the next part there, what we had budgeted for this year $7.4 million, which is really $3 million less than what we collected last year. Is that going to result in decreased services?

MS BURKE: The actual decrease is $1.794 million and that is the federal funding. That should not decrease the services.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons, are you completed with that section? Only because of due diligence, I want to move on to Mr. Kirby. We will switch back and forth equal time.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am good for now.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Before we move to Mr. Kirby, I just want to note for the minutes that we have started with budget line 1.1.01, to have it recorded.

Mr. Kirby.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you.

Just for my own curiosity, at the outset it was mentioned by the minister that there are 850 staff falling under the bailiwick of this department.

How many of those staff would have been as a result of the federal-provincial devolution under the LMDA several years ago? How many of those folks, ballpark figure, would have previously been federal government employees?

MS TOOPE: Right now, there are about 120 positions that would have been associated with the federal delivery system.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you.

You just spoke about the fact that the Strategic Adult Literacy Plan was not launched this year. It was not launched last year; it will be launched this year. Do we know anything about the timing of that, or this is one of these ministerial secrets, as it were? Let the cat out of the bag.

MS BURKE: No, there is no date at this point.

MR. KIRBY: There is no estimated time of arrival for that.

Reading through the brief that was written by Literacy Newfoundland and Labrador that they submitted under the consultations, that were held for the Strategic Adult Literacy Plan, they point out that the last time there was any research conducted, at least that they were aware of, was the International Adult Literacy Skills Survey which was conducted in 2003.

Has the department made any expenditure on getting more updated data to ascertain what the level of adult illiteracy is in Newfoundland and Labrador right now, or are we still working with the 2003 figure?

MS BURKE: When we released our strategy, one of the things we needed to ensure was that we have an effective way to evaluate. Based on the results from 2003 and the methodology, it was felt that probably was not the best way to evaluate the Province. That is why we wanted to make sure that we have a more appropriate way in this new strategy.

MR. KIRBY: So you have new numbers now?

MS BURKE: We will be evaluating. We are going to implement the strategy and there will be a process to evaluate.

MR. KIRBY: Do we know what the level of adult illiteracy is right now in the Province?

MS BURKE: We can go back and pull out the IALSS or whatever, but it would not be a test or an evaluation of our particular strategies.

MR. KIRBY: So, really the figure we are still working with is the 2003 figure, then?

MS BURKE: Well, we have not implemented our own evaluation yet.

MR. KIRBY: There is no new data beyond that?

MS BURKE: We are going to evaluate our strategy.

MR. KIRBY: You are going to look into it?

MS BURKE: When we launch our strategy and we rollout the funding attached to our strategy, we are going to evaluate how we are doing.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

So you will not say at that time the level of adult illiteracy in Newfoundland and Labrador is X per cent as per the 2003 (inaudible)?

MS BURKE: Whatever information is available from whatever source, we can use it. It is not our numbers, so we can use it or anyone can use it.

MR. KIRBY: Yes. I am trying to establish whether or not that is the most recent data that is available or if the department has done any research recently on what the level of illiteracy is in the Province.

MS BURKE: We have not done our own research, but if there is research available we can use it.

MR. KIRBY: Okay. Good, good.

It was also mentioned when you were talking about the Labour Market Agreement under one of those Allowances and Assistance. That is the where wage subsidy is?

MS BURKE: What line are we at?

MR. KIRBY: Line 4.1.03.09. Is that where the wage subsidy is? Do they fall under there, the wage subsidy program?

MS BURKE: No. You are referring, I think, to 4.1.02.

MR. KIRBY: Is that where the Apprenticeship Wage Subsidy is to employers?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. KIRBY: Do we know how many employers participated in that program in the most recent year, last year?

MS BURKE: Yes, we do have that number.

MS TOOPE: For the Apprenticeship Wage Subsidy program it is about 293.

MR. KIRBY: Two hundred and ninety-three employers participated.

MS TOOPE: In the Apprenticeship Wage Subsidy.

On the LMDA wage subsidy it is about 960.

MR. KIRBY: Okay. Just to clarify, what is the difference between those two numbers?

MS BURKE: One is the Apprenticeship Wage Subsidy that we advance from provincial funds.

MR. KIRBY: That is the 200 figure?

MS BURKE: Well, we had 344 apprentices.

Under the Labour Market Development Agreement, 4.1.02 that we are discussing here, under the Grants and Subsidies there is a wage subsidy program tied to the LMDA that is not the Apprenticeship Wage Subsidy program.

MR. KIRBY: So there are two different programs. What were the numbers again?

MS BURKE: There were about 960 under the LMDA employers in the Province. Under our Wage Subsidy Program, which would not fall under these numbers, we were able to place 344 apprentices last year. There are other apprentices placed from other programs, but that is just purely that line.

MR. KIRBY: So 344 apprentices now, how many employers would we be talking about? Because, I guess, it is possible that there would be more than one apprentice, perhaps, placed with IOC.

MS BURKE: It is less than that. I think it is 297, probably.

MR. KIRBY: How many employers would we, or apprentices – the employer applies for the wage subsidy under the Apprenticeship Wage Subsidy Program, or is the other way around, is it the apprentice who applies?

MS BURKE: It would depend.

MR. KIRBY: It could be either?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. KIRBY: What sort of number of applications do we see on an annual basis for last year? How many employers and/or apprentices? How many applications would we have seen for that? Would it have been higher than the 344 or the 297?

MS BURKE: We did not meet the full demand and that was why we expanded and had more money put in this year's budget. We think that with the numbers going through the skilled trades, the numbers coming out and doing apprenticeship, and the labour market, that we increased the money thinking that we could find more.

MR. KIRBY: What would the target number of subsidies have been previously then, 500?

MS BURKE: As we introduced it, we were only seeing if there is a demand. The target for this year is to have at least 500.

MR. KIRBY: Five hundred for this year.

MS BURKE: At least.

MR. KIRBY: Is that the same target we had last year?

MS BURKE: We did not have a target last year because we brought in the funding last year to start the program, to make it happen. Depending on the uptake and the need would determine if we were going to expand it. If we had to put the money in and could only get 200, we would not have introduced it this year.

MR. KIRBY: Just sort of continuing on the subject of apprentices because it is a significant area of expenditure here. There are sixty apprentice trades right now that have plans of training and fifty of those are Red Seal. Is that correct?

MS BURKE: I guess so. I do not know the exact number.

MR. KIRBY: How many of those trades are compulsory or are they all voluntary?

MS BURKE: I think electrical may be compulsory but the rest are voluntary.

MR. KIRBY: There is only one compulsory trade out of the sixty?

MS BURKE: There might be more than one but, by far, 90 per cent more of ours are not compulsory.

MR. KIRBY: One of the areas that was talked about and has been talked about by you, Minister, is the issue of completion. I know there is a federal grant for completion, but it is really one of those vex questions when it comes to apprenticeship.

What is our completion rate now here in Newfoundland and Labrador? What is the percentage of apprentices who initially register and end up getting their journey persons certificate in the end? Do we know what the completion rate is right now?

MS BURKE: We do not have the data on that. We do have that information within the department; we do not have it here with us today.

MR. KIRBY: Sorry?

MS BURKE: We do have that information, but we just do not have it with us here today.

MR. KIRBY: You do not have it? When might we be able to get that information?

MS BURKE: It depends – well, we will break it down. Do you want every program?

MR. KIRBY: Sure.

MS BURKE: Okay, so it will take some time.

MR. KIRBY: What is the definition that the department is using right now for apprenticeship completion then?

MS BURKE: Journey person.

MR. KIRBY: Pardon me?

MS BURKE: To become a journey person.

MR. KIRBY: Over what period of time?

MS BURKE: Well, there is no defined period of time, if they are through the apprenticeship program.

MR. KIRBY: It is not like a college diploma where, say, if you are doing a technology diploma it is a three-year diploma. If you do not do it in three years, then you could say well the definition is you compete in three years, alternatively you could say well a definition is you complete in four to five years.

MS BURKE: We would not have a definition because some people may do the pre-apprentice training but have had previous work experience. Just think some people come out of the armed forces, so then through their block training they get credit for so many hours that they have completed. Others may take a year off maybe on maternity leave. Others may not be available to go back and do the block training at a certain time. There is no real – if they are progressing through the program as a registered apprentice and getting their booked signed and coming back for their block training, they are not cut off after, say, three years or four years and say you cannot continue.

MR. KIRBY: I am not sure how you could calculate a completion rate if you did not have the definition of completion.

MS BURKE: The completion is how many become a journey person.

MR. KIRBY: Sure, and so out of what number then?

MS BURKE: We will get that based on the different trades for you.

MR. KIRBY: Okay, so the definition of completion will be provided then with the figures, so we will get a breakdown of the completion.

MS BURKE: The definition is if they complete their program, which means they become a journey person.

MR. KIRBY: I am not sure how I explain it any differently. Of the trades that we have then, we will get a breakdown of the completion rate or at least the numbers – when can that information be provided?

MS BURKE: We will go through each of the different trades and put it together. So once that is done, we will provide it. We could give you a general overall rate, but if you want to dig down and go through all the different trades, we can get the staff to start doing that.

MR. KIRBY: Are we talking a couple of weeks or tomorrow?

MS BURKE: It will not be tomorrow.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

Where does the apprenticeship – I am not going over my time here, am I?

MS BURKE: Is there anywhere in the book we are talking about here? Are we on any particular Estimates section?

MR. KIRBY: I was going to ask: Where does the Apprenticeship Incentive Grant fall under in this? Does that fall under the LMDA or the LMA? This is the grant that is provided to apprentices after their first year and after their second year.

MS BURKE: That would be under 7.1.01.10 Grants and Subsidies, but it is not as clear as that. Some of it would also come under the LMDA.

MR. KIRBY: So it is spread across the two lines, 7.1.01?

MS BURKE: Yes, but the provincial portion would be found under 7.1.01, line 10.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

As with the Apprenticeship Wage Subsidy program, I am interested to know what the uptake is in the numbers of applications the department gets for that. It would seem to me that would make it difficult to track, would it not, if it were spread over two lines in here? Is it more straightforward than that?

How many apprentices are we seeing getting awarded that grant after their second year, and how many after their first year?

MS BURKE: Yes, we can get those numbers. That number itself would not be difficult to get.

MR. KIRBY: Why would that be, because they are spread over two different lines?

MS BURKE: No. The number of apprentices who get that, it is tracked in our apprenticeship shop. That is not a difficult number to get.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

The number of apprentices who get it would not be difficult?

MS BURKE: No. The difficulty would be if you wanted the breakdown as to who came under this line and who came under another line. The apprentices themselves probably would not even realize what line of funding they came under.

MR. KIRBY: Sure, that is fine.

You can provide a breakdown then of how many apprentices received this grant after their first year and after their second year, divided between those two?

MS BURKE: Yes, we can do that.

MR. KIRBY: That is the same as the other one, where we are not sure when you will be able to provide it but you will be able to provide it.

MS BURKE: You want to know how many people are enrolled in the apprenticeship program for each of the different trades and the rate they are going through to become a journeyperson?

MR. KIRBY: Yes.

MS BURKE: Just because somebody is in the pre-apprentice and they become a journeyperson does not mean it was four years. It could have taken them six; it could have taken them three, and you want to know how many people got the grants?

MR. KIRBY: Yes.

MS BURKE: Okay.

MR. KIRBY: Just out of curiosity, is there something I can do to follow up with you? Is there some protocol I should use to follow up with you to get that information? Do I need to write to you?

MS BURKE: You could write, but that is entirely up to you. You do not have to phone but you can write me if you like.

MR. KIRBY: I will leave you a message.

MS BURKE: Yes, okay. I will give you my constituency office number and then you can leave a message there. People seem to like to do that.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

I will hand it back over to Mr. Parsons.

CHAIR: Okay.

Before we do that, before I turn to Mr. Parsons, I would like to adopt a couple of the headings there that we have moved beyond. Particularly 1.1.01, the Minister's Office, we have discussed it. Can I have a motion to accept that?

MR. RUSSELL: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by the Member for Lake Melville.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: We are adopting subhead 1.1.01. I have asked that the intent (inaudible) to the subheads to move them forward. That is the one that we started with, and that has been reviewed by both.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: Subhead 1.2.01, Executive Support, a motion to accept?

So made by the Member for Lake Melville.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Opposed?

Section 3.1.01, Income Assistance; I am going to move to that now if you want to discuss it. The other two we have had a general discussion on. I am going to move to that section now before we adopt.

I can move it to Mr. Parsons.

MR. A. PARSONS: Actually, am I allowed to go back to 1.2.02?

CHAIR: Not now that it has been adopted.

It is not adopted? Okay, you can go back to –

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Okay, you can revert to that for discussion.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

I am looking at 1.2.02 Administrative Support. I noticed we have added on to the Salaries from last year's budget to this year's budget. Are there new positions created?

MS BURKE: Not created in this budget, but there were six new positions in that area. They are now there and annualized, and then there are some general increases that would be normal over the year. So, there are six positions there, but they are not new positions that we are creating this year.

MR. A. PARSONS: What are those positions?

MR. LEWIS: Those are IM tech positions in their information management section.

MR. A. PARSONS: Is that based here in St. John's?

MR. LEWIS: Yes, it is.

MR. A. PARSONS: Just moving forward, the same section, line 03 Transportation and Communications. That is a fairly large travel budget for Administrative Support. Can you advise as to what this part covers for this specific section of the department?

MS BURKE: The biggest component of that budget is $161,000, which is for postage. Then our actual travel for staff there is about $16,000. So, it is $16,000 for travel for the staff, $160,000 would be postage or freight, and then the appeal boards accommodations or travel comes out of that as well, and that would be about $30,000.

MR. A. PARSONS: Postage is not covered under Supplies?

MS BURKE: Postage is under Transportation and Communications.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay. That is a lot of postage.

MS BURKE: That is not all.

MR. A. PARSONS: Just moving down under Professional Services, line 05. What professional services did we purchase last year?

MS BURKE: Professional Services here would be program audits. It would be the payments to the board members for appeals and whatever. It would also be money we use to set up video conferencing capacity within the department; that cost us $65,000. It also paid for workplace safety assessments that were done. There was also money there to do training in service excellence.

MR. A. PARSONS: The biggest portion of the unbudgeted increase would go towards something like video conferencing, $65,000?

MS BURKE: Yes. We had budgeted $50,000. We thought we could do it for $50,000, it cost $65,000. So we went over on that one.

MR. A. PARSONS: We have the same amount budgeted this year. Is there any fear that we are going to have those same unanticipated overages?

MS BURKE: No. We expect – now having the video conferencing network available to us – it may actually help, at some point, reduce some of the cost.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Under Purchased Services, could you provide me with a general explanation on what this covers for this specific section?

MS BURKE: Purchased Services here would include some of our service excellence training; our leasing costs; advertising; bank fees; shredding, which is quite expensive; leased accommodations, which is about $3 million; then there are copier rentals, advertising, and bank fees.

MR. A. PARSONS: When you say leased places, what are some examples? What would be some of the places that were leased? I am just trying to get a general idea.

MS BURKE: Say an office in –

MR. A. PARSONS: We are talking like the government offices.

MS BURKE: Yes, say the office in Stephenville is not in a provincial building, it is leased space in the community.

MR. A. PARSONS: What section would go towards leases, or how much?

MS BURKE: It would be $2,954,700.

MR. A. PARSONS: Has there been any thought put into a way to reduce this amount somehow? It is a big chunk of money for paying out in leases. Are there any talks of finding a way to reduce this, maybe ownership of some sort?

MS BURKE: It is always the age old – we can own buildings and then we have the deterioration, the maintenance, the upkeep, and the liabilities that go along with it, or we can lease. Anytime we lease, it is done in accordance with the Public Tender Act.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am moving forward to 1.2.03, Program Development and Planning. Perhaps starting off here – because a lot of these headings are very similar and it is easy to have confusion within this department – can you explain what this section covers?

MS BURKE: This would cover the division that looks at the policy and the planning. That would cover the policy and planning for areas such as our CEYS which is the Employment Youth Services, the Labour Market Development, the Income Support, Poverty Reduction Strategy, and the Disability Policy Office. Those areas are falling under this.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Under the Salaries line, last year we spent an extra just under $415,000 than was budgeted. Where did that go?

MS BURKE: That would have been the retirement cost for three staff who retired and then the double up in their salaries because they were replaced. That would have accounted for that part.

MR. A. PARSONS: I noticed in the Transportation and Communications line that we have essentially doubled the budget. What is planned for this upcoming year to account for that?

MS BURKE: There is a $192,100 increase: $60,000 is for the Workforce Development Secretariat, which is under our Labour Market Development Division. We also put in $30,000 that was reallocated for the Labour Market Division and that is a combination of the actual expenses in recent years and our projected operational requirements for this year. There is also $120,000 put in there, additional funding, for the Disability Policy Office. That would indicate why we increased it by the $192,100.

MR. A. PARSONS: Take something like the Workforce Secretariat, which is a new creation, when you say $60,000, is that for the whole thing or just for their transportation and communications?

MS BURKE: That would be for the transportation and communications for the Workforce Secretariat. The Workforce Secretariat, in looking at this overall page, that salary increase – when you go from the budget in line 01, we talked about why it went up last year more than what it was, but then if you look at this year it is higher than what it was last year, and the increase is reflective of the Workforce Development Secretariat, which is a $140,000 increase.

MR. A. PARSONS: How many positions is that?

MS BURKE: It is an ADM position and there will be positions there, but they will be re-profiled from within. We have people who do that work. It is just we want to set up the secretariat with that focus. It is not a lot of new jobs as much as it is a way of organizing under the secretariat.

MR. A. PARSONS: Has this person been hired?

MS BURKE: Yes, he was in the department before we did the change. He came in this role in August, not necessarily under that name but came in to do the work that needed to be done on the labour market within the department.

MR. A. PARSONS: When we look at the Workforce Secretariat, I guess they have a mandate. Would this budget for travel – will they be going throughout the Province?

MS BURKE: They may be going throughout the Province or we may be having meetings, symposiums, or conferences where we need to bring some of our stakeholders together as well. It would be either-or.

MR. A. PARSONS: I notice a $50,000 increase in Supplies for this budget year. What are you anticipating there?

MS BURKE: There is $48,000 approved for the Disability Policy Office for the Inclusion Strategy, so that basically takes in the $50,000 increase.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

For Professional Services, we see a significant jump in what was budgeted and spent last year. What is the increase going to cover?

MS BURKE: The $295,000 increase is actual additional funding, which is $120,000 for the Disability Policy Office and then there is $180,000 that has been reallocated from within the budget for the Labour Market Division and that is to reflect the actual expenditures in recent years and try to look at the operations. So that was re-profiled, but the $120,000 was for the Disability Policy Office.

MR. A. PARSONS: So when you say professional services for the Disability Policy Office, is this a consultant?

MS BURKE: Yes, and that is consulting services for their campaign.

MR. A. PARSONS: They have gone out and hired this consulting company or firm or person?

MS BURKE: They will.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Looking at the Purchased Services, there is a slight decrease and I guess when you are looking at numbers as big as this you can call $100,000 slight. What was budgeted for last year that was not spent?

MS BURKE: It is a $90,000 decrease and actually what it is, is $215,000 was moved from here – Professional Services, $95,000; Supplies, $2,100; Transportation and Communications, $117,900. Then we added in $125,000 for the Disability Policy Office related to the Inclusion Strategy. So there is some out and spread around, but some in so the actual decrease is $90,700.

MR. A. PARSONS: I guess my last subset of questions on this is just under Grants and Subsidies. How do the grants and subsidies work in relation to Program Development and Planning?

MS BURKE: What is the question again?

MR. A. PARSONS: In Grants and Subsidies, line 10, last year there was $526,000 budgeted and this year there is $1.176 million. What do grants and subsidies cover, in general?

MS BURKE: The increase there is $1,144,500. That is with the Disability Policy Office. We have launched some strategies there that they will have for vehicle retrofit or the access to community agencies to improve their infrastructure for accessibility.

MR. A. PARSONS: There has been a fair amount of increases under this section to cover the Disability Policy. What is the overall plan? This goes toward the Inclusion Strategy, does it?

MS BURKE: It is, yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: When you say community agencies, is it just offices under this department?

MS BURKE: It could be non-profit. With infrastructure that has accessibility issues, they may want to do some renovations to assist in making their community organization, their building, accessible or events accessible to people who have disabilities.

MR. A. PARSONS: This is money that groups can apply for?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Has this been put out there yet?

MS BURKE: We announced it, but we have not put out the actual program parameters. That will happen shortly.

MR. A. PARSONS: Have you calculated the amount of these subsidies that will go to groups? Is there a baseline or top amount? Is it based on what they submit to you? Do you have a number anticipated?

MS FIELD: At this point in time, it is an estimate. The vehicle retrofit is done on a sliding scale similar to what the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing uses for needs-based. The vehicle retrofits can be as simple as seat adjustments or as big as putting in a wheelchair lift. There are some estimates done on that and the Disability Policy Office has taken a look at how much we would expect this year.

There are also community access grants that will be available to communities who actually have things like community events that they need to have interpreters to come to. There is some information on that that people can apply to as well for grants. Usually we are expecting about $2,500 to $5,000 for the community access grants.

MR. A. PARSONS: This would cover things like ramps for buildings or other rails and whatnot –

MS FIELD: Those types of things can be considered, but they will probably be at a higher cost than the $5,000 access.

MR. A. PARSONS: Is this something that still might be covered.

MS FIELD: Yes. That is currently being looked at now.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons, are you almost complete with that section?

MR. A. PARSONS: I have covered that section.

CHAIR: Okay. I will go to Mr. Kirby. We are on the Administrative Support heading, are there any questions on that?

MR. KIRBY: Subhead 1.2.02?

CHAIR: Yes, 1.2.02.

MR. KIRBY: I do not have any further questions on that.

CHAIR: Okay.

Can I have a motion to accept 1.2.02 and 1.2.03?

MR. RUSSELL: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by the Member for Lake Melville.

All in favour signify by saying, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Opposed?

On motion, subheads 1.2.02 through 1.2.03 carried.

CHAIR: Now those headings are covered. Mr. Kirby, we go to 2.1.01, Client Services.

MR. KIRBY: Client Services, would this be covering the salaries and expenses for folks who are on the phone when you are calling up trying to get information from the department?

MS BURKE: I did not get what you –

MR. KIRBY: Would this include salaries and expenses and office space and so on for your staff who are answering inquires from the public over the phone, when they are calling the department?

MS BURKE: This would cover our four regions, so the twenty-eight offices we have in our regions.

MR. KIRBY: Can you explain a little bit more about what they do then?

MS BURKE: They do the Income Support Program and the employment programs.

MR. KIRBY: Okay. So when folks are looking for information about the employment program or Income Support they are calling these offices, speaking to people in those offices.

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. KIRBY: I believe last year that there was some mention of hiring new staff or ten new staff, I think, was referenced to cover peak times, because constituents have been reporting that they are having difficulty getting through sometimes. Have more staff been hired during peak times to deal with that sort of a crush of calls that –

MS BURKE: Roxie, you can answer that.

MS WHEATON: Yes, we did hire eight additional staff about four months ago.

MR. KIRBY: Do you think that is having a suitable impact then?

MS WHEATON: Yes, actually we can see because we have strategically hired them for times when we knew that we were not where we wanted to be. They were hired for peak days of the week and peak hours of the day.

MR. KIRBY: Good, good. Thanks, that is great.

Looking at this line then, 2.1.01, we go to 01, Salaries. There was an increase in expenditure under that line. Is that attributable to those eight hirings then?

MS BURKE: No, that is attributed to fourteen staff who retired.

MR. KIRBY: That is for pensions and severance.

MS BURKE: For severance.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

Then we are budgeting less for Transportation and Communications there this year than was budgeted last year?

MS BURKE: Yes, we have a $54,400 decrease.

MR. KIRBY: Is that attributable to something in particular?

MS BURKE: We think we can save that amount of money. As I said earlier, we are also hoping now with the capacity for video conferencing that we may be able to have meetings that otherwise would have incurred travel costs.

MR. KIRBY: This is using the facilities around the Province that have it, the college –

MS BURKE: This would be our own sites at this point.

MR. KIRBY: Okay, you do have that capacity?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. KIRBY: Then there is an increase in expenditure on Supplies over and above what was budgeted last year, some $57,000, but we are budgeting less for the upcoming year. Was there some reason why the supply costs were higher than projected last year?

MS BURKE: It says that the additional cost was just for the various office supplies for both the Client Services and the LMDA programming. The decrease this year is we just anticipate it will be lower. The fact is that sometimes the supplies vary from year to year depending on what you need and what you purchase. It may not be a purchase year over year or as much.

MR. KIRBY: Did not use as much toner perhaps.

MS BURKE: Probably.

MR. KIRBY: Under Professional Services there is a $25,000 reduction. What sorts of professional services are we talking about under this line?

MS BURKE: The decrease here is due to the fact that we have had workplace safety assessments and related training done – because we have a number of sites completed, we have some to continue to complete. We anticipate that because we have so many sites done, that is the decrease.

MR. KIRBY: What are some examples of purchased services that Client Services make expenditures on?

MS BURKE: The purchased services would include: shredding, printing, meeting room rentals, training and some office alterations that would have been in relation to some of the workplace safety assessments that we had done.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

I do not have any further questions under this line. I will move to the next one, Income Support, 3.1.01. There was an extra $1 million spent above what was budgeted last year. Was there a particular reason for that, 3.1.01.09?

MS BURKE: We do an estimate of the caseload, and the anticipated caseload and the cost per case per month. Our projections, to get us to the number that was in the budget, indicated that we would have a monthly caseload of 25,000. The actual caseload was a bit lower, it was 24,839.

We had budgeted thinking that the average cost per case would be $760, but the average cost was $761.82. The number is based on our estimates. I guess when you look at it, you can say it is $1 million over but when you look at the $1 million in context of the full budget and the fact that it was based on estimates, we were fairly close in estimating what our payout would be.

MR. KIRBY: The figure for the current year, is that supposed to reflect inflation, the increase in the consumer price index? The amount of $233 million, is that supposed to reflect CPI?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. KIRBY: The Newfoundland Statistics Agency is projecting a 3.4 per cent increase and that does not seem to fully account for that.

MS BURKE: It does. The base is adjusted by the 3.4 per cent, which is $5.1 million.

Where it does not necessarily add up in the numbers is when you look at the budget for the average number of cases and what we anticipate would be the cost per year or the cost per month. That formula is built in, and then the increase is put in there as well.

There is $5.1 million put in for the increase, but there is also some money taken out that was re-profiled into Health for the dental plan. Some money came out and went over there for that because they will be covering that cost which was under our budget.

Based on our projections, based on the money coming out of the dental and the 3.4 per cent increase, there was actually $5.1 million added into that to cover that cost.

MR. KIRBY: Okay. I think I follow.

There appears to be there was less revenue. That line there, 02 Revenue - Provincial, does what you just explain account for that?

MS BURKE: Yes. That is money that comes into the provincial coffers from the collections or set-off: the EI assignment of benefits; the Workers' Compensation assignment of benefits; the CPP, OAS assignment of benefits; the Support Enforcement; and CPP assignments for burials. That is money that would come back into the program.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

Sometimes you will have people who are seeking Income Support who have no fixed address. They are couch-surfing or what have you. How does the department deal with those incidences when you are trying to provide an Income Support allowance to somebody who does not have a postal address or a telephone number even?

MS BURKE: They could pick up their cheque or they could have it through Direct Deposit.

MR. KIRBY: So, are they –

MS BURKE: Or they could provide a mailing address. It may not be where they are living, but it could be a relative they could trust who would get the cheque to them or whatever.

MR. KIRBY: They could potentially pick up their cheque at any of these Client Services sites?

MS BURKE: Well, or the one that they are dealing with, yes.

MR. KIRBY: Yes.

I know this was asked previously, and I fully do not understand the department's current policy with respect to Income Support clients who went off CPP at age sixty. I am just wondering, is that policy fully enforced now that Income Support clients do not have to apply for Canada Pension?

MS BURKE: That will be on July 1.

MR. KIRBY: That will happen on July 1.

Let's say that I turn sixty – and I will not – on May 19 of this year, which is my birthday, would there be any recourse for me? Because the current policy would say that I have to go to CPP, but is there something I could do to avoid getting dinged there, to be grandfathered under the new policy?

MS FIELD: I gave the minister the employment transitions date. The CPP people can apply to wait from age sixty. Instead of getting Canada Pension at age sixty, which we require, they can now wait for that. We have actually eliminated the recipients to apply for this.

Some individuals may have already applied, and we have been in contact with the federal government to look at how we are going to approach some of that. They can opt to return the payments that they have already received. As far as we can tell from contact with the federal government, there is actually no penalty associated with after applying and then going back and saying we are not going to, we are going to take that back. Is that what your question was?

MR. KIRBY: Sort of. Just if I could probe a little bit further. If I went on CPP last year, is there a way that I could turn back time and go under the new policy for July 1 now, or after –

MS FIELD: The July 1 is not that date, sorry.

MR. KIRBY: Oh sorry.

MS FIELD: As far as I know there is no way in which you can do that, if you apply.

MR. KIRBY: You cannot go back?

MS FIELD: No, I do not think so. It is a go forward.

MR. KIRBY: I think that would make sense. It would be more difficult I think otherwise.

Under 3.1.03, Mother/Baby Nutrition Supplement, the actual program would be the Allowances and Assistance, under 09. That would be where you are spending funds on the actual program. That was down considerably. It was budgeted for $420,000 and there was $282,600. Is that because there was a fairly significant lack of uptake as was projected? Subhead 3.1.03.09, Allowances and Assistance.

MS BURKE: That is down basically because it is demand driven. The benefit is on the demand. That may vary from year to year, but it is down just because there just were not as many applications for it.

MR. KIRBY: Do you have numbers to compare, say, the previous year's uptake to that year's uptake to what you are projecting for the upcoming year?

MS BURKE: We would have the number of people who drew down on it. We did not adjust the budget because we would want to keep the budget so that if there was an increased demand, that we would cover the cost for it.

MR. KIRBY: How many individuals will we be able to help with $420,000?

MS BURKE: The threshold for people who apply for it are people who have an income of less than $24,183. Then what they would collect would be $60 a month while they were pregnant and $90 for the month that the child was born. When you add up that, it would be eleven times $60, if you apply and know you are pregnant in the first month that you are pregnant, then $90 for the twelfth month. Those numbers divided into the $420,000 if everyone maxed it out from month one to month nine, would give you the total number that could draw down on that.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS BURKE: Yes, we are not going to run out of money. If there is more demand, we would reallocate money from it. It is just that we think that would be it. If you took $60 times eight and you had $480 plus $90 is $570. So $570 divided into $420,000 would give you the number if everyone applied who had an income threshold of less than $24,183 in any given year.

MR. KIRBY: Because there are fewer individuals who applied than was budgeted for, is there a way or is the department looking at ways to encourage additional applications to this to see if there is an unmet need out there that is –

MS BURKE: We can always look at our policies and review and see that if there may be a better way to meet the needs. It could be just that there was less people in that income bracket who were pregnant last year.

MR. KIRBY: How is it marketed now? How is the information made available to people now, expectant moms?

MS WHEATON: We work very closely with physicians across the Province, prenatal clinics, anywhere really that we know that parents, expectant moms, hang out. We also do regular mail out. It is very well promoted, particularly over the past few years.

MR. KIRBY: Would women who are Income Support clients receive that in a mailing or anything like that?

MS WHEATON: Individuals in receipt of Income Support but where this program is not directly marketed to Income Support recipients, we would use other ways of getting information to individuals whose income threshold meets the target group.

MR. KIRBY: It would just seem to me that it would be a particularly useful program for women who are receiving Income Support.

MS WHEATON: Yes, our staff on the Income Support Program, once they become aware that a recipient is expecting, they would in fact notify them immediately and have our staff contact the individual.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

CHAIR: Mr. Kirby, are you good on that section?

I am going to go back to Mr. Parsons and I am going to let you go back to 2.1.01, any questions you may have on the Client Services, where you did not complete that – if you are good on that, we can move forward.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am good on that one.

CHAIR: Okay. I am going to ask for a motion to accept 2.1.01.

MR. RUSSELL: So moved.

CHAIR: So moved by the Member for Lake Melville.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Opposed?

Motion carried.

On motion, subhead 2.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: We will go right to Mr. Parsons, under Income Support.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

Just a couple of questions there: Under the Income Assistance, last year how many people in this Province received income assistance?

MS BURKE: The monthly average caseload was 24,839.

MR. A. PARSONS: Do you have any projections in the department whether you think this number will increase or decrease?

MS BURKE: A very slight decrease.

MR. A. PARSONS: We have heard about some poverty reduction monies under the Department of Advanced Education and Skills, would that be under this section, or what section would that be under?

MS BURKE: The poverty reduction initiatives would be reflected under Allowances and Assistance, so it would be under line 09.

MR. A. PARSONS: So this year, part of this increase, we are going from $228 million budgeted last year to $233 million – so this accounts for the 5 per cent increase?

MS BURKE: That takes in the 3.4 per cent increase for 5.1; it also takes out of the budget $740,000 which goes into Health for the dental program. It increases $500,000 for the people who no longer have to apply for CPP at age sixty, and it also includes $195,000, which allows us to extend the earned income supplement for some clients.

MR. A. PARSONS: Just moving on to 3.1.03 again, the Nutrition Supplement. It sounds like you budgeted $420,000, it is there if you need it, and last year we used $282,600. Do you have the numbers there for what was used the year before? Was it higher or lower?

MS BURKE: It was down $50,000 or $60,000 the year before.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Just a question on the program itself; if an expectant mother found out later about this program, are they able to backdate or apply retroactively?

MS WHEATON: No, it is from the date that we receive notification. That is my understanding. I can confirm that for you.

MR. A. PARSONS: If I am an expectant mother and I am not aware of the program for whatever reasons, and I find out about it halfway through the pregnancy, I cannot apply and you backdate me? Again, I am a low-income family. I cannot get that money?

MS WHEATON: It is more complicated, because the benefit is administered through an arrangement with the federal government. So, there is an application process there. I will confirm for you as to how far we can go back because it is based on your income level in the previous year, your taxation income. There are a couple of variables that have to be factored in, in the application process. I can confirm that for you, if you like.

MR. A. PARSONS: If that is indeed the case, is this something the department can consider? It might be a way of making sure people get this – I guess they are entitled to it. It is just a matter if they actually do it on time. Maybe this is a policy the government can consider to make sure these expectant mothers get the full benefit they are entitled to.

MS WHEATON: Yes, I would have to confirm it, in terms of some of the technicalities around the benefit.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Thank you.

I am going to move forward to –

CHAIR: If I could just interrupt. I am not going to take any of your time away, but while we are on that section I would like to have a motion to accept section 3.1.01 to 3.1.03.

MR. RUSSELL: So moved.

CHAIR: So moved by the Member for Lake Melville.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.1.03 carried.

CHAIR: We still have seventeen minutes here.

Mr. Parsons.

MR. A. PARSONS: A very good Chairperson. I just had to put that on the record.

Employment and Labour Market Development, 4.1.01; from reading the description there, this is monies provided to help Income Assistance clients try to obtain or keep employment. There are big amounts of money there for Grants and Subsidies. Who actually receives the grants and subsidies, is it people or is it groups?

MS BURKE: The grants and subsidies, there are grants to agencies and then there are wage subsidies, like through NL Works or the Linkages program. It can go to the agency but directly to the individual.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

The agency is the middleman?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Somewhere there must be a list of agencies from last year and what they received?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Would we be able to have that information?

MS BURKE: There would be 241 employers and then the Linkages grants.

MR. A. PARSONS: Is it just me or is it my headphone is not working?

CHAIR: Let me check with Hansard there, the Broadcast Centre. Okay, it is working there now.

Okay, thank you.

MR. A. PARSONS: Could you repeat that, Minister, please?

MS BURKE: Yes. There are 241 employers that received money, say under the NL Works, to hire. Do you want a list of the 241 employers?

MR. A. PARSONS: If I could.

MS BURKE: Okay.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

I noticed last year the budget put aside – there was $3.3 million of that budget that was not spent. What accounted for this?

MS BURKE: Do you want to explain that? That is the supportive living piece.

MS FIELD: There was a Supportive Living Community Partnership Program that we have transferred to the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. That took up the major decrease in that.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

A major decrease, was there anything else not – that was $3.3 million. The aspect that was transferred, how much of the $3.3 million did that cover?

MS BURKE: All but $50,000; $50,000 was transferred up to Allowances and Assistance. The rest was for less than anticipated uptake in supportive housing.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

This year's budget is down significantly from both what was budgeted and spent last year. What is the reasoning behind this?

MS BURKE: We have almost $5 million that is transferred to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing for the supportive living. That takes the bulk of that change there.

Also, through our 3 per cent exercise we reduced some of the programs based on the slippage that we were experiencing in those programs. That would be the NL Works program, the Linkages program and the business development program, which is the bulk of that part, $675,000.

We noticed last year they had not spent that money. So what we advanced them this year was $125,000 and we kept back the $675,000. They had issues with staff illnesses and they were not able to continue with that program. That program can continue but we did not need to advance that much money. There was slippage there.

MR. A. PARSONS: Things like the Employment Assistance Services, does this fall under this heading, EAS offices?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. A. PARSONS: What section does that fall under?

MS BURKE: That would fall under the next section.

MR. A. PARSONS: Line 4.1.02?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

I may as well move over to that section, if I might, specifically as it relates to EAS agencies. We know they have extensions on their contracts in March. What is budgeted for them for the remainder of the year?

MS BURKE: At this point we extended the contract for the six months, which is $8.7 million. Then as we move through this year and look at how we need to allocate the LMDA, we will be making some decisions on how we further allocate.

We looked at the first six months. We want to make sure, as we do this, that we keep our focus on how do we get people attached to the labour market? That will all come into the mix of how we allocate on a go-forward basis.

MR. A. PARSONS: So, we are talking office closures and job cuts?

MS BURKE: What we want to make sure is that the money we have under the Labour Market Agreement helps individuals attach to the labour market. When we look at all of the different areas that we have for this level of programming and we look at what successfully gets somebody attached to the labour market, that is where we need to focus, just based on the gaps that we are going to experience in the labour market. So at this point we do not – maybe everything we do and as we do it is perfect and everyone gets to do training and gets back to school and gets attached to the labour market, but we inherited this program and we want to look at it and make sure that as we allocate the funds, that it does help us with the labour market.

MR. A. PARSONS: The six-month extension, what does that bring them up to? Is it October?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: When do you anticipate making the decision or figuring out what the plan is going forward?

MS BURKE: We do not have a date set, but it is an ongoing evaluation that we are doing within the department to see what are the needs – and again, it goes back to the Workforce Secretariat. It is looking out for the future. It is being able to make sure that we understand the needs and are people able to access the training and the skills that they need. It goes beyond that too – is our apprenticeship program user-friendly to people and how can we improve it.

It is all about we are at a time in our history where our labour market has changed and because something has been done historically for so many years and factors have changed, so is the way we have always done things the most efficient way. That is what we are trying to look at.

MR. A. PARSONS: The department has had to have done some looking into this. I mean, it is something that you said you inherited it; you guys have looked at it. Do you think there is going to have to be office closures and job cuts here? Is that what you think is going to happen?

MS BURKE: There are so many different areas under the LMDA that we need to look at, and that is only one part of it. We have wage subsidies, we have JCPs, we have the Self-Employment Assistance, and we have the labour market partnerships. It is not as easy as saying one piece is not the way to go, do JCPs give us the best results? Those questions have to be answered. If someone works on a JCP, are they more likely to attach to the labour market on a permanent basis as opposed to somebody who goes back and studies in skilled trades? That kind of information we need to look at. That all falls under this.

MR. A. PARSONS: I get a lot of calls from people at the EAS offices and they are still worried now because they have a six-month extension, so they are already looking forward to October. There is the possibility that they might be found redundant or whatnot. Is that the case, in October?

MS BURKE: We are going to look at everything. It may or may not – I cannot say. I would not want to get here and say things that may or may not happen. As a new department we need to make sure that we do what we can to make people have the skills and the opportunity to attach to the labour market. Now, how that falls out at the end of this year and at the end of next year will be an ongoing piece of work. It will also depend on the labour market and the gaps and the demands that are there.

It even begs the question: Just because somebody gets funded for training, what do we do if we have people who pick areas where we know the labour market demand is not there? Do we continue to spend money and say they have every right to have that money, and then we look at the labour market shortage and say we are going to bring in temporary foreign workers because we just spent $10 million, it is just that we trained people in jobs we knew were not going to be available.

It is a complicated piece of work. It is not as easy as saying: If somebody comes in, regardless of whatever they want to do, we will fund them to do it versus how do we position the Province. It is difficult.

MR. A. PARSONS: Would part of this process be that you guys are looking at reducing costs somehow?

MS BURKE: Not reducing costs because the money is there. What will benefit the people who are looking to attach to the labour market the most? That is the question.

The LMDA money is there. There is no benefit for us to say we are not going to spend $2 million, $3 million, or $10 million out of the LMDA – no benefit whatsoever. The money is there. It is just we want to make sure as we spend it we are giving people the opportunity that there are real jobs out there that they can benefit from.

MR. A. PARSONS: Is there a thought process within the department to go to a more regionalized approach?

MS BURKE: In what way?

MR. A. PARSONS: Make people travel from one area to another to get the same services.

MS BURKE: Well, the services that primarily shake out of this would be training services. They would have to go to wherever – if you wanted to do non-destructive testing, you have to go to Port aux Basques. We can do the application process and we can approve your funding, but we cannot offer the program everywhere.

MR. A. PARSONS: No, more along the lines of: If I am in Port aux Basques and I want to go speak to somebody, whether it is at the Career Information Resource Centre or the Port aux Basques CEC, and these offices were closed, so these people would have to go to, say, Stephenville or Corner Brook to do this. That is what I am worried about.

MS BURKE: No, I would think there is a fair amount of work that is application-process driven and that may include face-to-face, or it may not. The key component, though, to this would be the fact that if you want to do Adult Basic Education, or you want to do pipefitting or whatever, some people go to the College of the North Atlantic, some people go to private colleges, and a lot of people have to travel, like if you are going to university or whatever you are doing. There is nobody under any model who should not be able to do their application conveniently without travel; but, their services, they may have to travel.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, I understand. They might have to travel to go to school. That is a reality.

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: To take part in the first aspect of this whole procedure, going and meeting with someone and talking about this, if I have to travel one hour-and-a-half to two hours over the highway that is an inconvenience. That is something to prevent them from possibly going through with it.

MS BURKE: Actually, under the worse possible scenarios, they would have to see nine staff people in different locations. The way it is set up now, you have to see at least two people at two different sites. We may have sites set up in some of the more rural communities, but that is only part of your application. You will still travel, say, to Corner Brook, if you are in Pollards Point, for services.

To go through your application process now, you see more than one person in more than one site. If there are any changes, you will never travel any more than what you would done for part two of your application process. If you are doing your training, I do not know where you are going to go. That depends on what you are interested in and where it is offered and the calendar.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Do I still have time?

CHAIR: No, I am going to ask you to conclude on anything on 4.1.02, not go to 4.1.03 and we will go back to Mr. Kirby.

MR. A. PARSONS: Can you repeat that?

CHAIR: If there is any other last question, you may have on 4.1.02 –

MR. A. PARSONS: I have lots of questions left on 4.1.02.

CHAIR: Heading 4.1.02.

MR. A. PARSONS: I can let Mr. Kirby go ahead and come back to it.

CHAIR: Yes.

Mr. Kirby, we are on the Employment and Labour Market Development.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

The minister mentioned that the workforce has changed and there are gaps in the labour market. I think everybody will remember back around January 1999, for example, doing an IT program would have seemed to be a great idea back then because of all the concerns around the Y2K business and all of that.

I remember I had many cohorts at university who, instead of doing this or that, were planning to go to one college or another to do IT. It turned out in the end of course the bottom fell out of it, the dot-com crash, et cetera. We had a real serious problem. We had a lot of people trained for positions for which there were none.

I am wondering, how is it that the Workforce Secretariat is going to be establishing what these gaps in the labour market are? How are skill shortages in Newfoundland and Labrador identified or going to be identified by the department?

MS BURKE: Pam?

MS TOOPE: We released the Labour Market Outlook in July past, which actually outlines demands for the next ten years. The Workforce Secretariat will work with employers in the coming year to make sure that is kept updated. There are demand projections available now.

MR. KIRBY: That is where the research comes from?

MS TOOPE: Yes.

MR. KIRBY: I know we are sort of talking about apprenticeship trades. There are sixty recognized trades here in Newfoundland and Labrador, but there are a number for which there is no training provided.

Is there any discussion of having additional training for trades for which either the College of the North Atlantic or other providers do not provide any training right now? If you want to do those trades it is all out of Province. Is there is going to be any move to providing additional trades training in the Province?

MS ENNIS-WILLIAMS: The department is continually in conversation with industry. The Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board as part of its mandate, oversees regular interactions with industry to find out what the need is for industry. Adjustments and opportunities for new plans of training are brought into consideration within their agenda as it is required.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

That would include new trade areas then that we do not recognize at all now. I believe Ontario has over 140 designated trades at the moment, but we have less than half of that. If our workforce is changing, then one would assume we would not only provide training for additional trades but to recognize additional trades.

MS ENNIS-WILLIAMS: Again, the Division of Apprenticeship and Trades Certification does provide trade certification for trades within the Red Seal designation. Because a plan of training is not available in the Province does not necessarily mean an individual cannot receive designation or certification for that here.

MR. KIRBY: Now, one thing I was interested in, and I do not know if it comes under here or not so I will ask it. Are programs that relate to a support co-op education training in Newfoundland and Labrador – specifically, I am thinking about the SECPAP, I believe it is called, and the ANVIL program. Where do they fall under in the expenditures here? Where are SECPAP and ANVIL?

MS BURKE: What programs specifically were you asking about?

MR. KIRBY: The Small Enterprise Co-op Placement Assistance Program and the Advancing Non-profit and Voluntary Investments in Learning program. Are they not provincially-funded programs?

One would support co-op placements for small business and the other one would be for more the community and voluntary sector. I think ANVIL is relatively new.

MS FIELD: Mr. Kirby is that the program administered by MUN?

MR. KIRBY: I think both of them are at the university, but does the college not have access to those as well? They would have significant co-op offerings as well.

MS FIELD: Yes. The co-op programs might be a little bit different than the ANVIL program. It comes in separately in separate proposals.

MR. KIRBY: Would they be under grants and aids to institutions then, or would they be funded through separate grants?

MS BURKE: Under 5.1.01, under Grants and Subsidies –

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

MS BURKE: – there would be a number of employment programs there. There would be $3.9 million for what we would consider other Student Work And Services Programs. So under that, money there would go to MUN and the college.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

Under 5.1.01.10 Grants and Subsidies, there is $3.9 million for other Student –

MS BURKE: – Work And Services Programs.

MR. KIRBY: Other Student Work And Services Programs. Would you be able to tell us then what the amounts are for those two programs? Are they separate, are they combined?

MS BURKE: We would not have that number offhand.

MR. KIRBY: You would not have it offhand. Because I am interested in whether or not it was increased or decreased relative to last year, whether we have more funding for co-op education programs this year or less.

MS BURKE: There are no changes from last year to this year.

MR. KIRBY: No change.

Would I be able to get some data then showing the number of applications, the number of businesses or organizations that participated and the number of students who participated in the most recent year?

MS BURKE: The university would administer that. We would give them the money, but they would do the administration, collect the applications, and process.

MR. KIRBY: If you hand the money to the institution, is it assumed that you are giving it to the institution for a certain number of co-op placements? If I give you $100,000 and say, well that is for fifty students, or –

MS BURKE: Well, they would produce an annual report which would outline that they did their work. If we gave them the money and they came back there were no students placed, well, they probably would not get it the next year. We give it to them on the understanding there is an agreement. Then they process and administer, and then they produce an annual report.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

If you provided the grant or the subsidy or additional funding to them, there are a certain number of students based on what their proposal is. If that number of students was exceeded there would be no additional funding. If that number of students was significantly or was somewhat less or was less, there would be no claw back, no adjustment?

MS FIELD: Most of the programs that come in under the youth services – I cannot speak specifically to the ones that you talked about – actually identify a target number that they will try to get to, and staff will actually work with the organization if they have not expended the money to look at ways in which to increase the volume.

For instance, some of the programs might have a target of 100, but because of slippage, somebody may not have finished, they actually can take in extra students. That will be something that certainly is looked at favourably. Normally, there is no money left at the end of the day.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

This $3.9 million for other student work and services programs, does any of that go to College of the North Atlantic then for their co-op program?

MS FIELD: Yes, it does go to the College of the North Atlantic for their paid placements as well.

MR. KIRBY: Are there any funds provided to the private training institutions under this? They may have co-op programs.

MS FIELD: No, there is nothing provided to the private training.

MR. KIRBY: If I wanted to know how many participants there were in programs funded through this envelope, I would have to go directly to the institutions to get that information.

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MR. KIRBY: I know this year at Memorial there was a bit of a problem with engineering co-op placements due to a number of different things. I believe there is a double cohort of engineering students this year seeking co-op placements. Then also the university has seen fit for various other labour markets or for the sake of its own foothold in the post-secondary education market they have increased the number of seats in engineering programs.

Did the department in the end provide additional funding to the university to help that problem?

MS FIELD: Last year, through some funding we had through the LMDA, there was extra funding put forward to help the engineering cohort. The budget at this point in time is similar to last year without that extra money.

MR. KIRBY: So we are not anticipating that problem to arise again next year, then?

MS FIELD: There is no indication to date.

MR. KIRBY: Good.

Are you aware of other examples, then? Other than the SECPAP and the ANVIL, are there other programs that are part of that? Can you name other programs that comprise that $3.9 million?

MS BURKE: Money goes to the Community Youth Networks and to the non-profit SWASP.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

I am going to let you go back there, Andrew – I am going to just skip over to 4.1.05, Employment Assistance Programs For Persons With Disabilities. Under 09, Allowances and Assistance, I am just wondering what programs are funded under there. I guess some of this is with the new – I will let you explain.

MS BURKE: The decrease was $728,000 and that was lower uptake on some of the initiatives and lower expenditures for clients under the training services and the supported employment.

MR. KIRBY: Do you have any concept of how many individuals that are funded under there? I guess there is a variety of different programs, are there?

MS BURKE: Pardon?

MR. KIRBY: There are a variety of different programs under that Allowances and Assistance?

MS BURKE: Do you want to assist with that?

MS FIELD: We will have to get the exact number; I do not have that with me at this point in time about the exact number of clients that were served underneath this.

MR. KIRBY: I would be interested to see that. We will follow up with you about that.

Under 10, Grants and Subsidies, I guess I am wondering if these are grants to community agencies again.

MS BURKE: The increase there would be to the community agencies and the increase is to adjust for the salary increase for the unionized employment corporations. It is a twenty-five cent an hour increase for the support workers that was implemented on July 1. That is the increase.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

Maybe this was already asked, but I do not want to miss it: Are we able to get a list of the various job creation program subsidies, where those Job Creation Partnership grants went? By electoral district, I think that was something we had talked about at some point.

MR. A. PARSONS: That is what I asked for.

MR. KIRBY: Some of us were more fortunate than others.

MS BURKE: Yes, we will give you the list of 115 approvals.

MR. KIRBY: We can get a list broken down that way? It will be interesting to see.

MS BURKE: I think it has already been requested, has it?

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. KIRBY: Oh, has it been requested?

MR. A. PARSONS: I requested it, yes.

MS BURKE: Andrew is getting it.

MR. KIRBY: He does not share with us.

MS BURKE: Write him and ask him. No, you can write us.

MR. KIRBY: I am not sure where this falls. The Poverty Reduction Strategy – we were talking about the Poverty Reduction Strategy. For the new initiatives under the Poverty Reduction Strategy, that would fall under AES?

MS BURKE: The ones that fell under AES, and we have covered them, was when we did the Income Support portion and we talked about the increase. It was a 3.4 per cent increase for the $5 million for the increase in Income Support rates. It was the $195,000 for the expansion of the Earned Income Supplement. Then there was money that was taken out that went into health to cover the dental and the $500,000 for the CPP. The initiatives under AES under poverty reduction, we covered under the Income Support.

MR. KIRBY: That is all? There is nothing further beyond that?

MS BURKE: That is our department's initiatives under poverty reduction.

MR. KIRBY: Yes.

MS BURKE: They were reflected in that part that we did on the Income Support, that page, and we outlined them. They were our poverty reduction initiatives.

MR. KIRBY: If there were any new initiatives for seniors under poverty reduction, would it come under this department?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. KIRBY: Where would that be?

MS BURKE: It would depend whether it was housing or health. On average, this department typically does not deal with seniors. Now I am not saying we do not deal with seniors, but typically when people hit sixty-five they move off the Income Support Program. Typically, under the LMDA and our employment services seniors would not necessarily be the cohort that we work with. Not that we could not provide services to seniors, our department does not have a focus on seniors.

CHAIR: Mr. Kirby, can I interrupt? I would like to go back to Mr. Parsons here.

MR. KIRBY: I am sorry.

CHAIR: He had some extra questions on the Employment and Labour Market section.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

I am back to 4.1.02, Labour Market Development Agreement. We have $540,000 less budgeted for Salaries this year than last year. What is this attributed to?

MS BURKE: There is $714,000 that is due to vacant positions or just the delays that it takes in doing the recruitment.

MR. A. PARSONS: Are there any vacant positions that are not being refilled or being eliminated?

MS BURKE: No decisions. I know we will go through an exercise and look at our core mandate, but for the purposes of this Budget we have not eliminated any positions.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Under Transportation and Communications there was a fairly big jump from what was budgeted to what was spent last year. What made this up? It went from $22,000 to $311,000.

MS BURKE: Do you want to speak to that Pam?

MS TOOPE: That would have been from salary savings that were accrued. Benefits in the Salaries would have been reallocated to provide support to the regions in delivery, staff, and travel. Any monies that we are able to save do get redirected to the regions for operational supports.

MR. A. PARSONS: Was there more travel that took place last year than was planned?

MS TOOPE: In this case there might have been training and/or services they were providing that were not planned for.

MR. A. PARSONS: Would this be part of the whole devolution process?

MS TOOPE: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Professional Services, what were the professional services that were purchased or obtained last year?

MR. LEWIS: That is the cost of access to the federal computer system that is used for the delivery of the LMDA at present.

MR. A. PARSONS: It is going to cost less this year?

MR. LEWIS: It is budgeted for less, yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Last year, what was the overage for Purchased Services made up of? I think we were about $350,000 or so over? Again, would that be extras that came from the devolution process?

MR. LEWIS: Yes. Basically under the LMDA, when we went through the devolution we were given $8.7 million a year to administer the LMDA. Usually, the costs are higher than that. So the cost of delivery in the regional services is really – we had no money for it and it is an issue of absorbing the costs.

If there are savings in other areas under the LMDA administration piece, which is the $8.7 million, it provides us with an opportunity to charge some of the costs that we are incurring anyway to deliver the LMDA to this particular area so that we get the full federal revenue.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Under Allowances and Assistance, what is covered here?

MS BURKE: Under Allowances and Assistance we cover the skills development, the job creation partnerships, and self-employment assistance.

MR. A. PARSONS: There was roughly $5 million less spent last year than budgeted. How were those savings obtained?

MR. LEWIS: What happened there: there was a shift between the Allowances and Assistance and Grants. The Grants actually went up by $5 million and Allowances and Assistance went down. It depended on the types of projects and where the money needed to be directed.

MR. A. PARSONS: What is the difference there between Allowances and Assistance, and Grants and Subsidies? Just so I know for myself.

MR. LEWIS: Allowances and Assistance is benefits and financial supports directly to the clients. Grants and Subsidies is support to community agencies and to employers. There is a shift, depending on the various projects and so on. You budget the best you can but you may end up with a higher demand from one side than the other from year to year.

MR. A. PARSONS: When you break it down, it is not actually more spent. It is roughly the same; it is just A or B.

MR. LEWIS: Right.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

I am just wondering, the budget this year mentioned $2.1 million which is made available for investment under Workplace Skills Enhancement Program. It goes into what it does. It helps address labour market conditions funded through the Labour Market Agreement. Can you give me more specifics on what the actual enhancement will be?

MS BURKE: What number?

MR. A. PARSONS: It is not actually in numbers. It is just a question that I have taken out of the budget per se. Maybe it is under a different section. I thought it was under this one.

MS FIELD: Can you just repeat your question?

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, certainly.

Under the budget for this year there was $2.1 million made available for investment under Workplace Skills Enhancement Program. It says that it was funded through the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Market Agreement and the Strategic Training and Transition Fund.

MS TOOPE: Under the Labour Market Agreement, we actually provide funding to the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development to deliver that program. It is a new program they introduced through LMA funding.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

It is the money from this department but that department will –

MS TOOPE: Administer and deliver it.

MR. A. PARSONS: That is just for this budgetary year?

MS TOOPE: No, while the LMA has been in place. It is actually under section 4.1.03 is where you would find the funding for that.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Under 4.1.03, what part?

MS TOOPE: A combination. They would have mostly grants and subsidies. Some of it might be supplies; some of it might be operational supports for the delivery.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Are there extra positions created out of this?

MS TOOPE: IBRD would have to speak to that one specifically, the details of it

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Just for my own knowledge, what is the Strategic Training and Transition Fund?

MS TOOPE: That was funding that had been in place up until this past fiscal year from the federal government, from economic stimulus funding. It was all categorized and called together in our explanations.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Now, just so I am on the same page here, this is the section where the Job Creation Projects fall? JCPs, is this something –

MS TOOPE: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: That is under 4.1.02. Is there a projected decrease percentage-wise in the number of JCPs being awarded this year?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

We have had our discussions on the JCP process, I am just wondering – again, I put it on the record that I have requested a list of the breakdown. You said there is $6 million allotted for JCPs. Is that for the entire year or is that for this round of applications?

MS BURKE: This round.

MR. A. PARSONS: This round. Will that entire $6 million be spent?

MS BURKE: I will say no, because there are probably going to be slippages or it goes to community organizations. They could encounter a problem where they are unable to process it or something happens and somebody quits near the end and it is not worth their while to continue with something. There are always things that happen where they do not necessarily spend their full amount, but it is all allocated.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

The next round – the deadline was last week I believe now – what is the pot of money set aside for that, the summer JCPs really?

MS BURKE: Around $4 million.

MR. A. PARSONS: These ones are the ones primarily associated with tourism; you have your job sites and stuff. Is there any reason for the lower amount of money for these ones?

MS BURKE: There are three times a year that we do the application process. The ones now that we just got in will be for the fall. It goes $6 million, $4 million, and $3 million around that – six-point something, four-point something. Those would be the three allocations throughout the year.

MR. A. PARSONS: This one we just got in, say, Friday, those are not for the fall per say those are for the summer, aren't they?

MS BURKE: Yes, but that would be –

MR. A. PARSONS: June until fall.

MS BURKE: They would go into the fall, yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

If you might enlighten me, what is the process that is being followed for JCPs in terms of application, to decision making, to notification?

MS BURKE: The applications go into the local office and there is a client services officer who reviews the applications and does a ranking based on their area. Then it goes to the regional manager. The regional manager then takes the regional approach. Everyone who reviews the applications has a number one, so the region has to put in their master list. Then the master list comes into a provincial list. So you have four number ones, they do the ranking from that point. The allocation is based on our regions on the EI payout. If the Western Region has 30 per cent of the EI fund, 30 per cent of the applications based on the ranking done by staff is allocated.

MR. A. PARSONS: I will use the Western Region, so the office in Port aux Basques collects all the ones from under their purview. They rank it one through whatever based on the ones they have taken. Then those are compared to, say, the ones from Stephenville and Corner Brook.

MS BURKE: The regional staff would do that regional ranking, yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Then the final decision is made in here, though. You guys make your decision based on what comes into this assessment process.

MS BURKE: The regional rankings come into the provincial staff who then rank them on a provincial basis. Then the allocation goes based on the proportion of that region that pays into the EI fund. So we go through the list and if there is 30 per cent going to go to the Western Region, well when you go through the list the 30 per cent of that list that was ranked the highest would go. That is the selection process.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

One of the things that I am hearing from some of the groups – I know there is not enough money to cover off every group; that is obvious. Some of the groups are telling me that they are not getting guidance on where they might have been unsuccessful. I have had one group that said they got a JCP for five years in a row and then all of a sudden they did not get one. They are wondering what happened, what made me for five years be successful and this year not be successful, and they are talking about they are not getting enough direction from the lower end of that process.

MS BURKE: There are two things that could happen for that to happen. One is that another group may apply and the competition may be different for the same amount of funding in the Western Region. The other thing is we are going to offer some workshops to organizations. Because some have become very good at doing applications, to the detriment of others who probably have very good projects and provide an excellent work experience, but do not have the capacity to put in the appropriate application.

We want to try to level the playing field a little bit, so it should help people who, for some reason – and sometimes boards change and staff change and the quality of the application may change with that, or some organizations may not understand the process or have the capacity. So, we do want to provide some workshops to help organizations understand the process and what a quality application is. Now, in saying that, if we bring the quality of every application up, we still have to do a selection.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes.

MS BURKE: So, if the quality increases across the board, there is still only so many dollars to be distributed. It is always going to be a selection process, unfortunately.

MR. A. PARSONS: So, would one of the reasons for not getting funded – and I am trying to paraphrase what one group was told: We cannot fund you forever. So what I am wondering is that seems to have less to do with quality of application or job, as opposed to well, we have given you money before for X number of years, we are not going to give it to you any more, just based on that fact. That is what is being communicated to some of them, which leads to some of the frustration.

The other part is that some of these people on the lower end are saying: Well, how come we did not get it? They are being told: Well, because of the budget. I guess what I am trying to do is I am trying to work to something that hopefully benefits everyone, because some of these groups, they are relying on it, they want to make the best case possible, but they are not getting the proper guidance on the lower end of what would make them more successful.

MS BURKE: Do you want speak to the matrix that we use for the ranking?

MS TOOPE: In the JCP program, the matrix we use to do the assessments take into account a wide variety of factors. The dependency or the repeaters is just one criterion that goes into it. There is a whole list, mostly based upon demographics and local, regional issues, unemployment rates, and that type of thing that goes into the matrix.

MR. A. PARSONS: Again, that comes back to the confusion of some of these groups. You have received correspondence from some of these groups. I will use the Rose Blanche Lighthouse as one specifically. They have been very successful in what they have done. They have actually tried to expand but they never got theirs. That was one of the reasons they were told: We cannot keep funding you forever; we have to fund other people.

I did not know if that was the main reason or if there were other things behind it. It is not being communicated to them, which always leads to frustration.

MS BURKE: There may be other options for employment to help some of these agencies, but not necessarily through JCP.

MR. A. PARSONS: Maybe that is something, too. Some of these groups, like you say, are more successful or better at it than others. That comes down to them being notified: Look, you are not successful here, but why not try this, which comes down to those workshops and everything else.

The second part to this JCP thing is: Is there any consultation? The ones that are being looked at now, you just got them in, the majority of them deal with the tourism industry. Is there any consultation with the Department of Tourism?

MS BURKE: The application process starts at the local level. They may, in doing their assessments, look at what is needed in the community or how things unfold. They do not have to phone the Department of Tourism to assess an application, but in doing their assessment, if there is merit to something or they are trying to understand it, they may. There could be consultation done with a town council. It would depend on the project.

MR. A. PARSONS: I have heard from some Department of Tourism officials and they said they were a bit frustrated because they would have a very good idea, just looking at a region, this one might need this and this one might need that, and they are not being consulted in the process. They would have a better grasp on it. They are in the department, but they are not being asked by, say, the first-step person who receives the application.

MS BURKE: Yes. It is a little bit across mandates because JCP is to help people attach to the labour market and provide the work experience that they need.

Tourism, I am not saying it would not be a benefit because we do have and will continue to fund lots, but it is not all about tourism. There has to be a balance. We also think that for a lot of these tourism industries, whether it is profit or not-for-profit, there are other avenues there to be able to access employment programs that might be more applicable than an entitlement to a JCP.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes. Is this something – again, this might be beyond the scope of what we are doing but I have the opportunity, I hope I can use it. Is this something maybe where we could work together? We could schedule meetings between the department - because it is a new department - and individual stakeholders in a region to discuss this issue or situation. What we do on it going forward - because you hear the same thing every year. The same thing came up last year. You have these groups that are disappointed, and a lot of them are not privy to what I am hearing right now. It would be nice to – it is more of an information –

MS BURKE: We have regional managers and regional directors and employment counsellors and hundreds of staff out there who can work with any of these agencies and help. From a communications perspective, we can work with our regions to ensure that they can open those lines of communication better.

MR. A. PARSONS: Like you say, if JCP is not the appropriate step, what could we do to maybe –?

MS BURKE: The JCP program is rooted primarily in the EI fund and people who pay into EI to be able to help them attach to the labour market. That is the true meaning of what JCP is. We have kind of spun it to: well, our tourism operations need JCP funding. Well, JCP funding comes from the EI fund.

MR. A. PARSONS: That is the problem, is that these groups – we have all gotten away from this, and if these groups do not know that then, like I say, a session where we are all put on the same page would help all of us.

MS BURKE: Right, because we do have other employment programs available, whether it is NL Works, Linkages, or SWASP. There are other things there that may be a better link than always depending on this application process for job creation.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons, I am going to go back to Mr. Kirby now. We can come back to this section for you again. You will get another opportunity before the –

MR. A. PARSONS: I am done with 4.1.03, just for your record.

CHAIR: Okay, perfect. I appreciate that.

Mr. Kirby.

MR. KIRBY: Line 4.1.06 Case Management System Development. What is the status of implementation of this system and how much longer are we going to be implementing it?

MS BURKE: Do you want to speak to that David?

MR. LEWIS: The project is temporarily on a hiatus. We are evaluating additional requirements and alternatives. There is no project team at the moment. The project team completed their work during the past winter.

At this point, there have been software and hardware acquisitions. Most of the business requirements have been documented. There has been work on trying to figure out how to integrate with FMS system in the Department of Finance and so on.

At this stage we are doing further work on our business transformation in the department and so on. Until that work is done, the project has more or less been suspended. It is expected it will start up again later on in this fiscal year.

MR. KIRBY: We are still spending $3.5 million on it.

MR. LEWIS: We have $3.5 million budgeted for this year, yes, but at the moment we are not spending anything. Today, we are spending zero. As the year proceeds and we get through the business transformation piece and address these other issues, which OCIO is engaged in at the moment, then the expectation is the project will restart later on during this fiscal year and then we will proceed on.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

Was that a recent development, the decision to press pause on that?

MS BURKE: It was going down the road of a different department. Now we have a new department, and how do we integrate our services? The new system has to be current for the new department. Until we have the business transformation of how we do business in an integrated way, we do not want to proceed with this until we have that piece done first.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

That would explain the under expenditure under Professional Services there, would it? There was $4,796,000 budgeted but there was only $1,475,000 expenditure.

MS BURKE: Right, yes.

We said okay, let's bring the department together; let's do what we need to do. Then we budget the money this year and we anticipate that as we go through the business transformation process we will continue, but we will not spend it if we are not ready. We are not going to create a new system unless we know what the expectations are from a departmental perspective.

MR. KIRBY: These professional services, they would be what else beyond IT consultant fees?

MS BURKE: They would be consultant fees for a new system.

MR. KIRBY: Okay. So we just do not have the capacity to do that internally?

MS BURKE: No, not at all.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

I am going to jump over to the next page. The first thing here, 5.1.02 Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy, there are no funds allocated because we are all done. Maybe I missed something, but was there any statement of the outcome of this strategy? What was achieved?

MS BURKE: Yes, it was a three-year strategy that has come to an end. What we did as a department was it helps inform the policies that we develop from a youth perspective. It goes into where our needs are. That would be employment programs, like the co-op programs. It would look at how we allocate funding for student employment. What our priorities would be for youth regarding, say, preparing youth for the labour market, whether it comes into our tuition freeze or it looks at the College of the North Atlantic.

We did the strategy. We certainly looked at what we need to do to attract young people to the Province and how to retain people. A lot of the work that we have now should be incorporated into our policies, specifically within this department, but certainly across government as well.

MR. KIRBY: Was there ever a document produced that said: Okay, now we know the answer, this is how we retrain and attract youth. These are best practices?

MS TOOPE: We are still compiling final year-end reports from some of our community agencies that have been involved. We anticipate a full report after we get all the data in, some time after June and over the summer, for the two-and-a-half years the strategy was implemented.

MR. KIRBY: Okay.

The Office of Youth Engagement, is that something that came out of this? Was that an outcome?

MS FIELD: What we are looking at with the Office of Youth Engagement is actually combining some of the services that were currently being offered by the CEYS Division – Career, Employment and Youth Services – with what was YRAS. That will happen over the next few months.

MR. KIRBY: Where is this represented in here? Is that under 5.1.01?

MS FIELD: Yes.

MR. KIRBY: That is where the budget for the Office of Youth Engagement is.

Going over to 6.1.01, Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism, under Grants and Subsidies are we talking about grants for language training or for the Association for New Canadians? Explain what sorts of grants and subsidies are provided.

MS BURKE: That money is specifically for projects they would do in relation to immigration in the Province. I know $48,000 went into food and craft fairs, for instance. It is project-based funding there.

MR. KIRBY: Well, thank you because there is quite good food at some of those. It is hard to get good chicken shawarma in this Province.

I am wondering, then: Is there an overall strategy when it comes to attracting skilled immigrants or for providing settlement services?

MS BURKE: Yes, and we still have the $355,000 there. We also have a number of staff who work at the Office of Immigration. We have fifteen positions at that office. We also have under this division the Provincial Nominee Program. That is where people apply and they are nominated to come into the Province for different skill sets.

What it does not cover is the Temporary Foreign Workers Program. We do not administer that program. There is a difference between immigration and the Temporary Foreign Workers Program.

MR. KIRBY: I know we talked a lot about apprenticeship already, 7.1.01 on page 8.12. We talk a lot about modernizing systems and approaches in government. There is a plan to add pre-apprentices to the system, are there plans to further modernize the department?

MS BURKE: There are. We had a forum here in St. John's in March, and on Friday we had a combination of three regional forums. We can look at the system – and I will back that up even more. We have had significant internal discussions as well with the College of the North Atlantic, through this division and the College of the North Atlantic, identifying some of the issues, but more importantly, talking to the stakeholders, not just to identify the issues but to suggest what we could do differently.

We want to make sure that as we move ahead, if there is red tape or if there are policies or processes that we have in place that may have been there for a very good reason at one point in time but are outdated or no longer meet the needs of our apprentices or the system, we want to be able to make some of those changes.

Two things that we have – well, within our Budget announcement, was more wage subsidies, but the other thing is a tracking system we want to set up to be able to track people as they move through the apprenticeship program. Right now, they register, but we do not provide any support. If they come out of school and they have a lot of difficulty finding that first job, we do not provide any significant support at that point, and we want to get more involved in a tracking system to see where we need to intervene and provide supports.

We may have people out there now: women, Aboriginals, people with disabilities; we have workplace diversity plans set up – how are they connected to that? So, if we can track people who may have barriers, we may provide the services through government. They just do not know about it. So, it is being able to provide services to people who are not moving through this process on their own comfortably.

So that was one, and the other thing is we want to also provide some funding, not just for the apprentices but we are going to look at providing a mentorship program for journey persons so that people may be able to find work in environments where there would not have been a journey person, or the journey person may be able to supervise a work site where the skills are there but there was no one to sign off the books. So we want to also implement that side of it as well.

MR. KIRBY: I am not sure how that is going to really work, though, that mentorship program. So you are talking – is that a wage subsidy program then?

MS BURKE: It would be more of a contract for the journey person than a wage subsidy.

MR. KIRBY: Then that is journey persons who are already on a work site?

MS BURKE: No. It would be places where apprentices could get the work experience they need, but there is no journey person to sign their books or to supervise their work.

Let me give an example.

MR. KIRBY: Yes.

MS BURKE: Right now, we could, based on our ratios, bring in a team to build a house: carpenters. Based on the ratios right now there is a journey person carpenter on that team, he or she can only sign off the books of two people. There may be a team of five or six building that house. Everyone gets the same experience, everyone is advancing through the same skills, and the other couple does not get their book signed.

We may be able to add a journey person to that work site who can come in and who can do some supervision or skill development with some of the people. It may be the case of where a local garage may hire somebody to do work on a car, doing mechanical work. They may have staff who have worked there forever, but they are not journeypersons. They can provide the experience, but no one can sign off the book.

The person takes the job, they are going through the skill development, but they have no way to get the credit for their hours and advance through. We may be able to help out there as well. Places where there would be no journey person but people are getting the work experience, but they cannot advance through the system.

MR. KIRBY: The ratios are in place to ensure quality of workmanship, professionalism in work and to some extent as I understand it, for safety reasons. Maybe that is ancillary I do not know, but it is certainly to ensure the quality of the craft and maintenance of the trade and various approaches to work. Couldn't this be perceived as sort of a back door to circumvent their requirements for journey person to apprentice ratios?

MS BURKE: We have had in some of our discussions at our forums there is obviously not a lot of agreement on the ratios. Anything that we implement, whatever the policies of that day are, would have to be followed.

We would not be able to say if you follow the regular program, an electrician is 1 to 1, but we are going to do 5 to 1. This is to help people who are getting the appropriate work experience to advance through their block training from one point to another, who would not have access to have their books, the supervision. We are going to do it within the policies; we will not be outside the policies.

MR. KIRBY: Whom is the department going to be consulting, then, when it comes to the plan for all of this? Is it just the apprenticeship certification board, or are stakeholders going to be consulted more broadly than that?

MS BURKE: The stakeholders would be very much a part of it. If we are doing this, say, in any employment, we cannot send somebody into your workplace or work without your permission. The apprentice would be part of it; the employer would be part of it. Then if there are any other stakeholders in relation to that work site, they would also be part of the process. No employer is going to have a journeyperson knocking on their door saying I am here to work because the government hired me. It will be done in consultation partnership.

MR. KIRBY: Sure. I am just thinking about journeypersons themselves seeing this as somehow undermining the rules and regulations that are in place, vis-à-vis the ratios. They have some stake in that as well, right?

MS BURKE: Well, not really, because the ratios are established. People may like it or not like it, but they are established by the apprenticeship board.

MR. KIRBY: Sure, but if you have a worksite that has one journeyperson carpenter and four carpenter apprentices, you can only really have one to two, and you are talking about bringing in somebody under a separate contract that is not going to be there full time. Are you saying they will indeed supervise the work of those additional two apprentices to the same extent and degree that the person who is there full time would?

MS BURKE: Well, we would work with the employer. There is going to be an agreement on this. We are not just going to – because there is no benefit to put somebody through without the appropriate level of supervision and skill development. They have to go do the block training and write a test and keep going. We cannot set them up for failure either.

There has to be a certain standard that is met or we are doing nothing only putting people through a system that they are going to go fail because they do not have the work mastered to pass that level of exam and go to the next level.

MR. KIRBY: Isn't trade qualifier really an avenue for them anyways? Those people we are talking about who do not –

MS BURKE: We do not have a lot of people who challenge the trade qualifier exams.

MR. KIRBY: Yes. Well, we will see how it all works out.

The other thing I wanted to ask was regarding research. I do not know what year it was, I did not look at it this morning, whether it was 2007 or perhaps it was prior to that, the department was under Education at the time, but wherever apprenticeship was located there was a survey carried out on apprentices themselves. I ask because I think this sort of research is really important for informing the sorts of things that you are talking about.

In particular, the one thing that sticks out to me is that women apprentices reported the primary reason for them not completing their journeyperson certification was because they were caring for a family member, whether it was a child or elderly family member. Of course, it always falls to, or quite frequently falls to women. I am just wondering: Has the department any plan to continue to do that sort of work, to follow up with individual apprentices to find out about their own situation? Because I think that is really important.

MS BURKE: Yes. The tracking system should help us be able to track what happens with apprentices. One of the numbers that led us to wanting to implement the tracking system was that somebody leaves what we call the pre-apprentice training at nineteen, then they have to understand the process and they have to find the jobs. I have no problem with that.

There are some who experience barriers. Then we have programs set up, such as our Wage Subsidy Program. Right now, they have to approach the employer and explain the program, and approach the department, apply, and try to bring it together. A lot of people who were expecting to do that are people who have barriers.

The tracking system should help us pick up some of those people and provide the supports they need to make some of these things happen for them. We should be able to do a better system on a day-to-day basis of tracking individuals.

The average age of people doing training in skills is nineteen and the average age of an apprentice is thirty-two. There is something happening between school and apprenticeship that we need to be able to track and be able to address some of those issues.

CHAIR: Mr. Kirby, I will go back to Mr. Parsons.

Mr. Parsons.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

I am going to apologize here. I do have a couple of more questions under 4.1.03.

CHAIR: Sure.

MR. A. PARSONS: That specifically relates to the consultant who was hired, Mr. Noseworthy. I have just looked through the contract and I want to clarify some information. I know the amount reported was $140,000 but going by this contract, the contract could actually be valued at $150,000, correct?

MR. LEWIS: My recollection of the contract, it is $140,000 in this current fiscal year and $10,000 in the previous fiscal year.

MR. A. PARSONS: This contract was signed on March 14. What work was done from March 14 to year-end? That is when the $10,000 was?

Either way, I am right in saying that the contract which was reported as $140,000 is actually $150,000. He is getting $150,000, possibly?

MS BURKE: I would have answered it from the perspective of this fiscal year.

MR. A. PARSONS: I would look at what was reported in the news as what he was getting.

MS BURKE: Yes, and it is actually $141,000 this year.

MR. A. PARSONS: It is $141,000?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Things like travel expenses and cost, that is to be covered under that amount as well or is that outside?

MS FIELD: There is not expected to be any travel costs. If there is it will be very minimal, and that will be covered out of other departmental funds.

MR. A. PARSONS: Potentially, this could be higher than $150,000 referenced in the contract?

MS FIELD: The $150,000 contract was for salaries.

MR. A. PARSONS: When we look at the language of the contract itself, it says: the client is only responsible for travel expenses, provided a consultant can demonstrate that such were incurred in relation to work. The intention is minimal but if it is not, he is contractually entitled to required work.

MS BURKE: There will be no out-of-Province travel. The work is based, technically, within the headquarters of the department. Now, would that mean at some point he may travel to an office to talk to staff or see something? That is possible, but up to this point no travel happened and none planned.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

MS BURKE: Yes, he may take a trip out to Grand Falls or Corner Brook at some point, but may not either. It is not a routine part of work. There will be no conferences or travel, or out of Province, or cross-jurisdictional scans. The intent is for him to do this paper exercise within headquarters.

MR. A. PARSONS: Does he work within the building or within –

MS BURKE: Yes, he is within the department.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

He works here; he is not a consultant working at home?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Also, I think we discussed this earlier. It says here, the overview, the program review and business transformation project. There is a project, and I guess the project being the simplifying and streamlining of the department. It says here he is expected to provide status updates on the minimum of a weekly basis. Can you advise as to whether you have received status updates thus far?

MS BURKE: Yes.

We want to make sure that – want to have this process as dynamic. We are anxious to get this department brought together and to serve the clients. It is actually a positive time to be in this department looking at the labour market. It was not always like this in the history of the Province, but we have projected labour market gaps.

We have significant funds available to help people get the training or the experience they need to get into the labour market. We have all kinds of programs and all kinds of staff, and we have apprenticeship. How do we bring that together so that even some of the questions you were asking – if organizations want to say if JCP is not for me, well what is it?

How do we bring it all together so we do not have one staff who represents this program and one staff who represents that, so that everyone understands the range of services? Technically, when the public come to us and look for supports, they do not really care what budget line we attach the services to. As long as they can understand the services and the application process, and that the staff, as we come together, need to also be able to work with people.

It goes back to saying: Well, why do you have to travel to get services? If someone is in Port aux Basques right now and they want information face-to-face to talk about apprentices, they have to go to Corner Brook. They will pass our office in Port aux Basques, they will pass our career centre in Stephenville, and they will probably pass the one in Corner Brook to get to the apprenticeship office. If we have career centres, why can't they provide information on apprenticeship and help you register or get your books? It is trying to bring the elements together that makes what we offer as a career and employment service for people.

MR. A. PARSONS: I have no doubt as to the purpose. The fact is it is a new department with a number of areas that have been sort of really shoved together; you have inherited some, et cetera. We all know what the optics of this looked like when it was announced, which is why I am trying to get to the basis of that.

It says here it is anticipated that this project will be a minimum of one year in duration. What are you anticipating the maximum to be?

MS BURKE: If we do not get things moving and have significant progress in a year, that will be the maximum. We set a year; we want to get things moving here. If things are developing very well and there is a need to continue, I would support it. That is why I want the weekly updates. There is no way I want to look at this six or eight months and say it was a great idea, but we do not have anything concrete here, there has been no real transformation, no changes. This is really about getting this department up and started.

MR. A. PARSONS: If after a year you like what is going on, is he reappointed? Does he have to go through a process?

MS BURKE: I want to set up timelines. This is not about an ongoing process; this is start and end dates. The business transformation, I suppose it can go on forever if we want it, but if we do not have projects that we want this looked at and the policies and the staff aware of it, it is no good to me if it goes on forever.

MR. A. PARSONS: No, again I ask because this is a position that was created and this was not tendered. I am just wondering: After a year, if it has to be done again, will it be done the same way or will he have to apply?

MS BURKE: It would really depend on that one-year mark, the progress and where we are.

MR. A. PARSONS: Is it sort of a case where you are getting all your weekly status updates, is he expected to present you something year-end and say look, this is what I have, this is what I think and then you make a decision as to, look, I think this is worthwhile to continue.

MS BURKE: There is no, work on this and let me know in a year how you made out. This is hands-on work with the department with the transformation process, with weekly meetings to see what is being done, what is being recommended and what the time frames are. It cannot float. There are certain pieces that if we do not have it in place by a certain time, we are not going to move to the next level with things. So, it is not just work that is, in a year, let me know what you have done.

MR. A. PARSONS: Based on recommendations that he provides, do you think you will make changes as you go, on the fly, or do you think you will wait and then you will sort of accumulate them and make decisions?

MS BURKE: A lot of things will happen as we move ahead. It will not be one big time when – unless it was something really significant, it should be more streamlining. A lot of it would probably not even be noticed to the public. It should just happen as the business of the department.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

I am going to move forward to 4.1.04, Labour Market Adjustment Programs. If you look at the heading there, it says "provide for joint Federal/Provincial arrangements which address major permanent layoffs and worker displacement.…" Is this where the TIOW falls in?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

So when we talk about major permanent layoffs and worker displacement, does this cover issues like when fish plants close down and we have to deal with a workforce displacement? Is this covered under this section as well?

MS BURKE: This is money that is forwarded to us from the federal government for this reason. We take what they provide us and we use that for this type of program. If we have needs in this area that are not addressed under this funding, we can address it through our other funding mechanisms. So this is basically the federal program, the federal allotment that we are given year over year that we spend for that, but it does not mean that is all we can spend, say, if there was a plant closure and we had older workers, they can still fall under our other programs.

MR. A. PARSONS: This amount that you get from the federal government, you say is on a yearly basis?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Is there a contract signed or it is something that every year it is going to happen? You know what it is like when we are dealing with the federal government, you never know sometimes there might be an end to this. Is there an anticipated end date or are there any discussions as to how much you receive or is it the same amount every year?

MS BURKE: No, it is reduced and this year it is going to be reduced again. It is an 84-16 per cent division of the program.

MR. A. PARSONS: Is this under Revenue – Federal?

MS BURKE: You can speak to that.

MS FIELD: We just received notice from the federal government that they are going to be reducing this amount. It did not make it. We did not have it at the time the Estimates book was printed. We have since received official notice that the federal government has reduced the funding available to us for the TIOW.

MR. A. PARSONS: How much is this in dollar amount?

MS FIELD: Dave, do you have that?

MR. LEWIS: The total amount of federal revenue is going to be $897,500.

MR. A. PARSONS: That is how much they are cutting?

MR. LEWIS: That is what is left.

MS BURKE: That is what they are giving us.

MR. A. PARSONS: That is what they are giving us as opposed to the budgeted amount of $2.284 million. When was this found out?

MR. LEWIS: After the federal budget which was just prior to our Budget.

MR. A. PARSONS: Basically, is the TIOW gone?

MS BURKE: Well, we will use that funding because it is 84-16 per cent. Our contribution will also go there. What it means is that for us in order to address the needs of some of the workers we would otherwise address under this, we will have to address under other headings of our department.

I have to qualify this now. I do not want to make it sound like if you are an older worker you cannot get help, because that is not it. In our Labour Market Development programs and services we offer, we would not exclude somebody because they were fifty-five or fifty-seven. This would be an add-on that we may have access to other funding that would help us provide the supports for them.

I want to be very careful that I do not give the impression older workers are excluded from our programs. This was an add-on, so this was something geared specifically toward older workers.

MR. A. PARSONS: Did they give a rationale of why they cut this?

MS FIELD: One of the major reasons they said they were cutting is that the funding for the last year came from stimulus funding and that is no longer available.

MR. A. PARSONS: Going back to TIOW, I have some notes I made here. We know this is a temporary measure or temporary program. There was a feasibility study being done I believe. Is that a provincial feasibility study, or a federal one, or a joint one?

MS FIELD: I would have to find out more information about that, Mr. Parsons.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

I guess than, further to that, I am going to ask a couple of more questions and you can maybe undertake to get me some answers. I would like to know: Where is the feasibility study? Who is responsible? Is it the Province, fed or joint? What is the current status, and what does this announcement mean in the grand scheme of the study? I am presuming that this cut this year is permanent; this funding is over.

MS BURKE: It could be something they enhance. Next year, it could be something they eliminate. I do not know. They might come back next year in their budget and say we have decided that we are going to double TIOW funding or they may come back and say: I do not know what you are going to do, Andrew.

MR. A. PARSONS: That is the thing. I do not expect you to know what the feds are going to do in terms of budget and how they are going to treat us; I understand the difficulty there.

Just going back to this very quickly, in terms of this reduction in funding, what does that mean in practical terms for this upcoming year – loss of jobs, loss of opportunities? What is it going to mean on the ground to people?

MS BURKE: What it would mean is that the funding that we would have available to offer these programs is limited. So, at one point, we may have been able to offer it to a number of areas, but what we may have to do now, it may have to be targeted to a specific areas based on what is happening in some areas with the economy and with plant closures and with the age of workers. This, at one point, may have been able to target a number of areas that this year, as a department, we may need to target it for specific areas. It will not be such a broad application.

MR. A. PARSONS: It is not going to be, I guess, topped up by the Province to cover off this year, what you had planned to do, is it?

MS BURKE: We will still provide our 16 per cent of this, but when we now work with this cohort, say, from fifty-five to sixty-four, we will still provide services; it is just that it will come under another part of our budget.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

MS BURKE: They will still have access to training or employment programs or whatever. That will all still be in place. It just will not be under this part of the budget.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am just going to move very quickly to 7.1.01, Apprenticeship and Trades Certification. I have a few questions on this subject that I hope I can squeeze in before 12:00 o'clock.

We submitted an FOI to the department on the number of journey persons registered in the Province. The number we got back was 28,420. In terms of apprentices, are all of these people eligible to take on apprentices? Do you have that information?

MS BURKE: Did you say there are 28,000 apprentices in the Province?

MR. A. PARSONS: Registered.

MS BURKE: Oh, registered.

MR. A. PARSONS: Sorry, journey persons – 28,420 journeypersons registered in the Province.

MS BURKE: I would not be able to say if they all have the capacity to take on. It would depend on their work site, where they working, if they already have apprentices, or if their employer hires apprentices.

MR. A. PARSONS: Do you have a breakdown on how many of these journey persons are in Province versus out of Province?

MS ENNIS-WILLIAMS: What I can tell you is that the registration of journey persons is not a mandatory piece in this Province. Your numbers are correct. We do have close to 28,000 journey persons registered with the Province historically. There is no possible way, though, to know how many of those are retired, moved away, or currently living in the Province.

To the minister's point, it is very unclear right now how many of those would have the capacity to take on apprentices.

MR. A. PARSONS: Which I guess is part of the whole exercise of trying to figure out this issue.

This mentorship program – will it be available to apprentices outside the Province or is it within?

OFFICIAL: Within.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Subsidies under the Apprenticeship Wage Subsidy Program, are they to subsidize employers to reduce cost or to help them compete with places like Alberta, or both?

MS BURKE: Could you ask that question again?

MR. A. PARSONS: The Apprenticeship Wage Subsidy program, which you have expanded and which gives the apprentices, their work experiences, are the subsidies going to subsidize employers to reduce their costs or is it going to help apprentices compete with places like Alberta?

MS BURKE: It is primarily to help an apprentice get a work placement that otherwise would not be available to them. The employer may say they have the journey person and the work to hire an apprentice, but they would need the wage subsidy in order to do so. We would pay the subsidy there.

Not all employers use the wage subsidy.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Right now, the hours logged by apprentices in Alberta are transferrable back here to Newfoundland. Is that going to be expanded to other provinces?

MS BURKE: We did the agreement with Alberta because of the numbers. There can be a one-off agreement with anybody from any other province to do the same process.

MR. A. PARSONS: Is that something that you guys would –

MS BURKE: That is ongoing, yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: That is ongoing. So, you are in the process of, obviously, the more we can get the better.

MS BURKE: That is not something new either. What was happening is if you go to another province you can negotiate and register, be tracked and do your block training here. Those numbers are not that great. So you can do the one-off and you can track some of it.

What was happening with Alberta, you could not because it was too many. You had to have the policy where we would extend that. If you are doing your work in Alberta, you are living here, you are going to come back here and do your block training. The agreement was broadened so that we could address that issue.

If someone was in Ontario or another province and they wanted that arrangement – that has been something that is not new. That has been there.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Chair, those are all my questions on that section. In the interest of time –

CHAIR: I appreciate that. Obviously, we are going to have to reconvene. I would like to go back –

MS BURKE: We are available until 1:30 o'clock.

CHAIR: You are available until 1:30 o'clock? Is the rest of the committee?

MR. A. PARSONS: We have to get ready for the House this afternoon. I do not think I am available right now, unfortunately.

CHAIR: Minister, what is good on the days here for reconvening? Thursday morning is available.

MS BURKE: That is not good for me.

CHAIR: It is not good for you. The following Thursday is the only other –

MS BURKE: It is not good for me.

CHAIR: Do you have a replacement who could fit in now for the next forty-five minutes or so?

MR. A. PARSONS: I have to be honest with you; it is kind of hard right now. We are a small Opposition and we need time to prepare everyday. I prefer if we could reconvene at another time. I do not know if forty-five minute is going to cover it. I know Mr. Kirby has a boatload of questions left over there.

CHAIR: We will have to leave it to the call of the Chair. We will have to look at schedules and see if it is workable within the fifteen day time frame. Then we will consult with the minister.

MS BURKE: When is the end of the fifteen day time frame?

CHAIR: The following Monday, the fourteenth.

MS BURKE: I doubt if you are going to get it back.

CHAIR: Anyway, we will review it and if it can be done, we will try to work it in. If we cannot, we will –

MS BURKE: If it is not, how do we close it off though?

CHAIR: We just come back as a committee; we do not bring back the department.

MS BURKE: Okay.

CHAIR: We vote on it. That is under the legislation, and we accept it.

MS BURKE: Okay, fair enough.

CHAIR: Okay.

If I can have the adoption of 4.1.01 to 4.1.06.

MR. KIRBY: I have some additional questions under 4.1.03. Sorry, no I do not. That is under – no, sorry. Go ahead. Ignore me.

CHAIR: A motion to accept?

MR. RUSSELL: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by the Member for Lake Melville.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 4.1.01 through 4.1.06 carried.

CHAIR: Section 5.1.01 to 5.1.02.

A motion to accept?

MR. RUSSELL: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by the Member for Lake Melville.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, subheads 5.1.01 to 5.1.02 carried.

CHAIR: Motion for heading 6.1.01.

A motion to accept?

MR. RUSSELL: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by the Member for Lake Melville.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, subhead 6.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: We have one last piece of housekeeping. I would like a motion – sorry?

MS BURKE: What sections are left (inaudible)?

CHAIR: Section 7.1.01 to 7.5.01, Minister. It is all under Advanced Studies. It is the only section remaining.

We do have a copy of the minutes from May 3. Could I have a motion to adopt the minutes of May 3, which was the budget review of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation?

MS PERRY: So moved.

CHAIR: So moved by the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: With that, we will adjourn the meeting and look at if it is –

MS PERRY: Actually, Dave, there is one little thing there. I was (inaudible).

CHAIR: Yes, that has been all fixed.

We will adjourn the meeting and look at if it is possible to reconvene. If not, we will reconvene the Committee at the end of the fifteen days to adopt.

I thank the minister and her staff. I thank the Committee (inaudible) and the Clerk's table.

We are adjourned.

On motion, Committee adjourned.