May 9,
2016
RESOURCE
COMMITTEE
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Lisa Dempster, MHA for Cartwright – L'Anse au
Clair, substitutes for Brian Warr, MHA for Baie Verte – Green Bay, for part of
the meeting.
The
Committee met at 9:10 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.
CHAIR (Warr):
I just wanted to welcome
everybody and we'll get started. We've got a couple of members who are just
running a few minutes late so they'll join us when they arrive.
We're dealing with Advanced Education and Skills this morning and I'd like to,
again, welcome everybody. We'll start off with some short introductions.
Minister Byrne, if you would start and we can –
MR. BYRNE:
Sure.
Thank you very, very much, colleagues and officials that are joining us for
this, the Estimates presentation on Advanced Education and Skills.
CHAIR:
Gerry – excuse me – just
the introductions first.
MR. BYRNE:
Sure.
Before I begin, what I should do is prudently say this is my first time ever
attending an Estimates, either participating or watching. So I'll follow along
with your flow, if that's okay.
One
of the first orders of business that I've been instructed to do, and very glad
to do so, is to introduce the senior officials who are joining me here at the
table.
Debbie, if I could get you to begin; if you could just introduce yourselves and
your positions.
MS. DUNPHY:
Debbie Dunphy, Assistant Deputy Minister of Corporate Services.
MR. HANLON:
Brendan Hanlon, Departmental Controller.
MR. GARDINER:
Bob Gardiner, Assistant Deputy Minister for Post-Secondary Education.
MS. WHEATON:
Roxie Wheaton, Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for Regional Service
Delivery and Income and Social Supports.
MR. HOGAN:
Dennis Hogan, Assistant
Deputy Minister for Workforce Development and Immigration.
MR. BRAZIL:
David Brazil, District of
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. COLLINS:
Sandy Collins, the Office
of the Opposition.
MS. MICHAEL:
Lorraine Michael, St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. WILLIAMS:
Susan Williams, Researcher, Third Party.
MR. FINN:
John Finn, MHA,
Stephenville – Port au Port.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Pam Parsons, MHA,
Harbour Grace – Port de Grave.
CHAIR:
My name is Brian Warr.
I'm the MHA for Baie Verte – Green Bay.
We'll get started. Will the Clerk please call the first subhead?
CLERK (Ms. Hammond):
1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 carry?
Minister Byrne, you have the floor for opening statements.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you.
Mr.
Chair, if I could just begin with some brief opening statements. We'll spend
most of the time obviously on questions, which is the best way to proceed. But
since there are some members that are relatively new, not only to the
Legislature but as well to the Department of Advanced Educations and Skills,
I'll just give some brief opening introductory remarks.
I
want to say thank you for this opportunity. The Department of Advanced Education
and Skills, I believe, touches the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on
so very many levels. Whether it's through skills training, student financial
assistance or various social and economic supports, the objective of this
department is to help people. It's guided by the philosophy that, to the
greatest extent possible, people should be provided with the means to enable
them to live independent and fulfilling lives.
The
Department of Advanced Education and Skills is responsible for $859 million of
the provincial budget, which is about 9.6 per cent of the entire provincial
budget this year. These expenditures include: $323 million in a grant and aid to
Memorial University of Newfoundland, $90.8 million to the College of the North
Atlantic, $230.4 million to provide benefits and supports under the Income
Support Program and just over $22 million annually to student financial
assistance. These are among other initiatives. We want to ensure that only the
best services and programs are offered to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to
help them achieve employment and independence.
This
is the third year of a reorganizational structure within the Department of
Advanced Education and Skills. Work has continued to be more responsive to the
demands of today's changing labour market.
As
part of that change, the department now consists of four branches and 16
divisions, all with the shared goal of ensuring all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians can avail of existing and emerging opportunities in today's
challenging economy.
Given the width and breadth across a department with an expansive responsibility
for social and economic development, resources are shared across divisions,
always guided by the goal of being more responsive to the development and
delivery of programs and services.
I'd
like to take a moment, if I could, to highlight some of the investments and
initiatives announced as part of Budget
2016. We are continuing to invest in a tuition freeze which is $63 million,
including $5 million more in new funding to enable a tuition freeze for students
at Memorial University of Newfoundland and the College of the North Atlantic.
We're
continuing to provide a student aid package that is the envy of the country,
with an investment of approximately $24 million for needs-based grants and
loans. We are engaging with the College of the North Atlantic in a review to
ensure the college is best meeting the needs of students, and its course
offerings are optimized and responsive to shifting labour demands.
We're
providing some $3 million in additional funding to increase the fuel supplement
for Income Support qualifying recipients to heat their homes and residences.
Funding for the fuel supplement gives an additional monthly benefit of $42 for
Income Support recipients in Labrador who receive the fuel supplement and $21 a
month for recipients in Newfoundland. Income Support recipients in Labrador who
qualify for the fuel supplement will now receive $132 each month and eligible
recipients in Newfoundland will receive $71 per month.
In
summary, finding ways to do things more efficiently has been part of the call to
action of our government. In developing this budget we undertook the Government
Renewal Initiative to consult and engage people like never before, and that is
exactly what we did.
As
Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, I was very pleased and proud to lead
a public engagement session where we dug deep on these types of discussions.
And, in fact, some of the decisions that were taken within my department came
directly from those GRIs.
With
challenge comes opportunity. A financial challenge of historic proportions has
given us pause for thought, forcing us to ask fundamental questions about the
work of government and the value of that work to the citizens we serve. As a
government, we've been required to find efficiencies whenever possible
throughout our programs and services due to the current fiscal situation. We
will continue to find ways to do things better and more efficiently while still
providing the best services to residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I'd
like to say thank you for giving me the opportunity to have these opening
remarks, Mr. Chair. I'll now take questions regarding the department's budget
estimates.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister Byrne.
Before
we start, I'd just like to remind the senior staff of the department that if
you're required by the minister to answer any of the questions, I'd appreciate
you wait until your tally light comes on, you introduce yourself and you can
answer the question.
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the minister and his staff for this opportunity. I have one question under
1.1.01, under Salaries. It was budgeted last year for $159,900, the revised was
$138,000. I do realize at the time there was blending of a minister responsible
taking two line departments, but it seems like a substantial increase to
$197,500. Can you explain under the salary base, please?
MR. BYRNE:
There are two things that
are happening here. One is that, in terms of the original budget, the
parliamentary assistant position was not filled in the 2015-2016, which amended
things in terms of the lower forecast for 2015-16.
But the
minister's salary of $55,300 and the car allowance of $8,000 was originally
budgeted within SWSD in 2015-16, and so the rightsizing of the budget and moving
of the ministerial salary requirements to the department – see, you may recall,
David, this was a department that actually had one minister for two separate
departments. So originally the minister's budget was captured within the other
departments. With this now as being a stand-alone, the minister's salary had to
be transferred over into this department. That would be a plausible explanation
of the increase.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, so this would include
salaries, the car allowances, all the added expenses relevant to –
MR. BYRNE:
That's correct.
MR. BRAZIL:
– the minister's travel.
MR. BYRNE:
Well, the travel would be –
MR. BRAZIL:
The travel is separate, yes,
but under the car allowance expense.
MR. BYRNE:
Correct, to the best of my
(inaudible).
MR. BRAZIL:
And obviously there are no
parliamentary secretaries salaries built in to any of that?
MR. BYRNE:
That's right.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, that's the only
question I have under that section, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
No questions (inaudible).
CHAIR:
No questions.
Would
the Clerk please call the next set of subheads?
CLERK:
1.2.01 to 1.2.04.
CHAIR:
1.2.01 to 1.2.04.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
again, thanks to the minister and his staff for being here this morning.
Under
1.2.01, it's not lot, but if we could have, Minister, just an explanation of the
salary line, the drop in the revision in the budget last year and then back up,
but still under last year's budget.
MR. BYRNE:
Sure.
In
2015-2016 the revised went from $127,200 from the original budget. The increase
is due to a payout of retirement benefits in some instances and some severance
benefits of the ADM –
MS. MICHAEL:
No, it was a decrease,
actually, from the budgeted to the revision – no an increase, I'm sorry.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm doing my addition
backwards. Very sorry, I apologize.
MR. BYRNE:
No problem.
MS. MICHAEL:
My researcher's notes are
perfectly correct, but I started to do my own addition and did it backwards.
MR. BYRNE:
Well, I will not fault you
because I think through the course of these Estimates you will find that I will
probably be making the exact same juxtapositions every once in a while myself.
So I'm sure we'll both have the capacity to forgive each other.
The
increases were due to some retirements and some severances that were paid out,
not only for an ADM position but as well for a deputy minister's secretary and
the offset by two partial-year vacancy of the secretary for an ADM and for media
relations. So that will explain some of the variances.
You
also may be wondering why the Estimates are down by $75,000 from the 2015-16
original budget. There was a removal of an additional pay period for one of my
assistant deputy ministers. It's a relatively small amount of money, $5,000.
There was a lining of the budget closer to actuals, which is the rightsizing of
salary budgets to Administrative Support of approximately $70,000.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
Under
the same head, if we could look at Supplies, under Operating Accounts. The
Supplies were budgeted last year for $4,000, $3,000 was spent but this year it's
going up to $6,000. What's the expected need for greater supplies in this area?
MR. BYRNE:
This was based on a
three-year historical actuals and requirements of the office. This was actually
one of the suggestions that were made to us from the Department of Finance.
In the
course of their fiscal forecast and their planning, they went back and looked at
three years of actuals, not just the year previous. They noted budgeting had
normally occurred at about $4,000 but the actual requirements of the office for
general administration for supplies was actually normally quite higher. So they
came back and somewhat insisted that we rightsize the budget, don't put in an
amount lower than what you normally spent.
There
was some giving back and forth as to what was appropriate and inappropriate.
What came out at the end of the process was that we were spending about $6,000,
very legitimately, on supplies. They somewhat insisted that you should rightsize
accordingly.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you.
Under
the same head, Purchased Services, you seem to be almost maintaining what the
revision was last year, $8,000 and $8,200 this year. What comes under Purchased
Services in your office in the Executive Support?
MR. BYRNE:
Purchased services are
everything from copier charges to printing to occasional room rentals and
general purchased services. It's a pretty broad category but a big chunk of it –
I'll ask Ms. Dunphy – is the photocopier charges and other things.
MS. DUNPHY:
That's right.
MR. BYRNE:
The assistant deputy
minister acknowledges that photocopying charges is the big one.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
Moving
on to the next head – Mr. Chair, can I just ask, I forget which heads were
covered, 1.2 –
CHAIR:
1.2.01 to 1.2.04 inclusive.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you.
Under
1.2.02, again in the Salaries if we could have an explanation because the budget
last year was $2,380,000 and the revision was $2,526,400. If we could just have
an explanation of that, please.
MR. BYRNE:
Okay, just drilling down on
the budget of 2015-16 versus the Estimates of 2016-17.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
There's a slight increase.
The salary budget here has been rightsized. There was some budget transferred
from the Minister's Office and the Executive of approximately $95,700. There was
a government-wide attrition management plan that affected these numbers as well
of $40,200.
Does
that complete your requirements?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, just getting an
explanation of what was happening there.
The
same head, Employee Benefits, last year the budget was $210,700. It was revised
down to $161,400 and this year sort of being maintained, just about, at that
rate. What caused such a differential between the budget and the revision last
year in Employee Benefits?
MR. BYRNE:
This is a really interesting
question. The decrease relates directly to lower than anticipated worker'
compensation payments to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation
Commission for injured workers. These savings were used to offset some other
costs below, but the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, the
payments for the past three years were substantially, basically, moderated a
fair bit over the number of years. So the decrease here is largely attributable
to those lower costs.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Under
Supplies, last year budgeted at $79,200, only spent $30,000. I'm assuming you're
thinking that's more the norm of what your Supplies line should be because
you're keeping it at $29,500.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, the historical spending
is around $45,000 per year, if you look back historically. But we felt this was
an area that we could really tighten our belts a little bit. So it is lower than
historical, but I think prudent nonetheless.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
The big
one I'd like to look at is the Purchased Services.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Last year the budget was
$3,219,000, the expenditure was up by $101,000 to $3.3 million and this year
$2.9 million, so almost $3 million. So we have a differential this year from
last year's budget of $263,500. Can we have an explanation of that whole line,
what the Purchased Services entails there and why there's such a differential?
MR. BYRNE:
Sure. Thank you for the
question.
Purchased Services relate to mostly, in large measure, office leases. There are
25 office leases within the portfolio. That amounts to annual expenditures of
approximately $2,845,000 per year, in addition to some of the other costs
associated with this particular line, including banking fees, file storage and
other printer/copying charges which amount to approximately $20,000. So in terms
of some of the reductions that you're seeing, that can be directly attributed to
some of the decisions of Budget 2016
and some of the office leases.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm sorry; I didn't get
quite what you said there?
MR. BYRNE:
In terms of the reductions –
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
– in some of this, of course
we've pared down many of the leases, the offices within the department.
MS. MICHAEL:
So some of it is the closure
of the offices.
MR. BYRNE:
Exactly.
MS. MICHAEL:
Could you remind us how many
offices are being closed?
MR. BYRNE:
There are eight offices in
total; seven, plus one virtual office. There was an office operating out of
temporary facilities, but there are seven offices throughout the province.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm going to ask this now,
Chair, because I realize we didn't sort of set it up at the beginning and you
may have details on that in your briefing notes.
Minister, can we expect to receive the briefing notes for Estimates at the end
of today?
MR. BYRNE:
Sure, absolutely.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
Minister, could I ask what analysis was done in making the decision about the
offices that closed. Are there written documents to that effect that would
explain that to us?
MR. BYRNE:
There are indeed. I'll just
kind of explain in broad strokes the circumstances that we're in. This is more
about actually adapting to our clients as opposed to asking our clients to adapt
to us.
Members
will know that service delivery methods are changing. We're moving more and more
to telephone. Over the last number of decades, more and more service delivery is
done through telephone; a lot more is done through Internet portal.
This is
one of the best examples I can give about how things are changing and how
rapidly they're changing. There were 636 student employment job applications –
employers submitted 636, at the time of my most recent briefing. There were 636
job applications or grant applications that were received by the department for
the student summer programs. Of those 636, 630 of them were actually done by the
Internet portal. More and more clients are actually using both telephone
services and the Internet portal to be able to meet their own expectations and
their own needs. And I think by and large it's done very satisfactorily.
Now,
will there be clients that still need face to face? Absolutely, and that's why
we'll still have face-to-face delivery. Clients are still able and encouraged to
arrange for face-to-face visits, either at regional offices or we can have an
Income Support officer come visit them through a coordinated approach, through
coordinated appointments.
What we
looked at was caseloads. What are the current caseloads and what are some of the
demands the offices are responding to. What we're finding is that more and more,
it's not government that's really imposing a change, the clients themselves are
looking more and more for home-based telephone and Internet-based access to
those programs. So we can provide you with some more information about the
client loads, what kind of client services were being offered at each office and
so on. That might be very helpful to you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
Yes, if
we could have the specifics, especially about the ones that are being closed.
MR. BYRNE:
Sure.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
Minister, if Ms. Michael still has some questions after –
MR. BYRNE:
Absolutely, no problem.
CHAIR:
– Mr. Brazil you can come
back, okay?
MR. BYRNE:
Sure.
CHAIR:
Mr. Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
What Ms. Michael had asked
leads me into, before I go to the student loan section there under 1.2.04 – and
I know we're going to get the information relevant to the rationale behind the
closing of the offices, but it does lead me to particularly the AES office
closing in my district on Bell Island. And I do realize – I was part of the
staffing over there about how technology has advanced potential for clients to
be able to access information and do it more efficiently and more timely.
But
some of the challenges you have in communities like Bell Island, for example,
are the Internet access is minimal. The closing of the library was the open
Internet access that the clientele had, who were on AES in most cases. It's
still an extremely high volume of clientele over there, particularly around –
and from what I understand the medical transportation process will be now picked
up by AES to a certain degree, which is a big uptake on Bell Island itself.
So I
see it as a major hindrance and I do ask with two staff people as part of the
office process – I see it as a minimal savings in principle. I actually see it
as, probably, less cost-effective than people would think when you go into the
long term.
Can you
give me an understanding of – and I know the rationale will be explained, but
I'm caught on the Bell Island one. I can't seem to see the rationale behind the
savings with a clerk and a mid- to low-management position, based on the
clientele.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much for the
question.
There
are three real principal drivers to this; one is that there is a cost savings,
which is important. But more important is the fact that service delivery
expectations from the client are changing, they are evolving. More and more,
even on Bell Island, clients are utilizing the Internet through their own
sources, and as well the telephone. And there will still be access to
face-to-face service delivery. In fact, there'll be a combination.
Many,
many clients from Bell Island will still avail of offices. They still do a
substantial amount of their own personal chores and activities – are still off
Bell Island itself. So that's not inconsistent, I don't think.
Part of that might be a visit to a more regional or centered AES office.
With
that said, to kind of give the rationale, I'll just read from a press release.
“… the most efficient and effective use of our resources is the consolidation of
… offices throughout the province. Improvements in transportation, communication
and other technologies have enabled a more efficient income and employment
support service delivery network. Service
delivery sites will now be located in key centres to optimize opportunities for
partnering with employers, community agencies and other levels of government.
Outreach and other strategies will ensure there is efficient and effective
service to clients in remote communities.”
As I read that, I'm struck by
how important that is to sort of make sure you move with the times, that you
still respond to the core demands and needs of clients; but, at the same time,
you try to foster those efficiencies. Now, in 2016, I think that opportunity is
larger now than ever before.
MR. BRAZIL: I
do agree in principle, just wearing my political hat for my district. You
mentioned the three key things which are our biggest hindrance. The
communications issue is a major issue on Bell Island because high-speed Internet
doesn't exist. None of the existing companies will expand. Even things like
cable, is not accessible any longer. There's no expansion potential.
From a transportation point of
view, we all know the dilemma we're in, particularly on the Bell Island, and all
of our ferry runs, but particularly Bell Island. If you look at the clientele
list, which I would suspect if we're not the highest demand on the system, we're
up there. The uniqueness of some of the needs of the clientele put us in a
different category.
I would like to have that on
record, I agree to disagree. At the end of the day, I think this is going to be
an exercise in futility. It's going to cost more to administer the AES office
needs from Bell Island, but we'll have a debate on that in the House later on.
I do have a question under
1.2.04, Grants and Subsidies. It seems to be a dramatic drop, almost $10
million. Can you outline exactly the change in philosophy and the change in
policy and the programs that are going to be delivered under that, please?
MR. BYRNE:
Sure.
This is under the Newfoundland
and Labrador Student Loans Programs.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes, Sir.
MR. BYRNE: I'll
ask my ADM, Bob Gardiner, to jump in here in a second, but basically the bulk of
this relates to savings from a cash flow savings of $9.1 million as a result of
paying off the loan portfolio to the chartered bank.
Some years ago, the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador assumed ownership or bought outright the entire
portfolio of the student loans program from
CIBC, I believe. So,
obviously, interest payments had to be made that were tied to that. That payment
to CIBC is now completed. So that resulted in the bulk of the savings.
Mr.
Gardiner, would you be able to elaborate any further on that?
MR. GARDINER:
I can a little bit.
As the
minister indicated, this is basically paying off the loan that was inherited
from CIBC many years ago. There was an aggressive payment schedule put in place,
such that – for example, in '14-'15 there was a $24 million payment;'15-'16
there was a $20 million payment. This current fiscal year there'll be a $2
million payment made in June, which will effectively pay off the loan; hence,
the reduction of $10 million.
The
reduction that's showing up in Estimates from $30 million down to $20 million is
no indication of a change in policy or anything with respect to payout of
student loans or student grants. Whether it's a grant or a loan, that dollar
amount doesn't change because it's still money out the door. The only difference
is in what comes back, if it's a loan versus a grant.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes, fair enough.
Related
to that, I noticed in the budget documents that you'll increase collections of
income and employment support overpayments. How is the process going to change
from you guys now taking responsibility for that debt load?
MR. GARDINER:
Basically, CRA had responsibility for some of the collections and we had
responsibility for other collections, depending on the year of the loan. Through
the analysis, it was determined that our collection rate was better than CRAs.
Basically, we were paying CRA approximately $300,000 to do collections; whereas,
we've determined that our collection rate was better. So we could save $300,000
there and enhance our collection rate as well.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, fair enough.
A
question around consultation you may have had around making these decisions with
any of the other proponents, like the federation of students around the student
loan process. Was there an open dialogue? Was there an engagement process?
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much for the
question.
I had
an opportunity to meet with the Canadian Federation of Students, and I actually
attended their AGM some time ago with, I believe there were about 22 student
leaders from around the province. I also had an opportunity to meet on an
individual basis with several of the student leadership to talk a little bit
about the whole notion – to get their perspective not only on grants, the
student financial assistance program, but the overall tuition environment and
other measures. Obviously, it was very clear – I'm sure you can appreciate that
– that there was an appetite and a desire to maintain a full grant system. So we
took that input, as well from the input of others who were advising us, that we
had to get our massive, massive financial circumstance under control. We tried
to take a balanced approach.
What I
can say to you about the decision – because I think, Mr. Brazil, you want to
talk a little bit about the grants and loans, if I'm reading you right.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes, exactly.
MR. BYRNE:
Tuition in Newfoundland and
Labrador at Memorial University of Newfoundland is approximately $2,550 per full
academic year, for two semesters. With a change from grants to loans for a
portion of the original grant package, the grant that will still be available to
all students in financial need will still be well over the actual cost of the
tuition. It will be $3,300 per year.
One of
the things that was said to me – you may have heard that Ontario and New
Brunswick have moved to a new system of student financial assistance, and
they've trumpeted very loudly. This was not what guided our decision, but it was
brought up on several occasions that Ontario had moved to a more robust system
of student financial assistance.
What
was noted was that, in Ontario, the total amount of grant that was available to
low-income students was equal to tuition. Not exceeded, but equal to tuition.
This was not what guided our decision but it sort of put it in perspective. As I
spoke to student leaders about their perspectives on this, it became an
interesting point of the conversation.
Now,
with that said, we've gone from $140 per academic week of studies for someone
engaged in a full-time course load; $140 per week in a grant to $100 a week in
grant and $40 in opportunity for a loan. That does not mean we are still not at
a full granting system because, as you're aware, since 2004 with the Debt
Reduction Grant, a student who attends academic studies on a full-time basis in
a program that lasts over 80 weeks in duration, can still take advantage.
Whatever loan they have, if they pass their course on a semester-by-semester
basis, that loan will still be forgiven at the conclusion of their studies. So
we still, in essence, have a full granting system in place. It's just with the
one nuance – the one change here is there'll still be a very, very generous
grant that's offered to students of $100 per week of academic study. Then we'll
also have the $40 loan, but the loan portion can still be written off at the end
of their studies if they pass their course. It's not requiring of any particular
GPA. It's just whether or not they pass.
MR. BRAZIL:
I appreciate that.
I know
my time is up. I'll come back to a couple of other questions after.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Ms.
Michael, did you have anything else on 1.2.01 to 1.2.04?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, just a couple.
Just
for clarification, the loan part will be written off if they pass their program.
Is that what you –?
MR. BYRNE:
That's correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, I just wanted that made
clear.
MR. BYRNE:
I can get into it a little
bit. I don't want to undermine the – there are a couple of little details there.
They have to pass. It has to be a course of 80 weeks of duration. They don't
have to pass every semester. It's done on a semester-by-semester calculation. So
if a student has one bad semester, under certain circumstances, it doesn't
impact the rest of the semesters.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
So
you're telling us it's not adding to the debt of the student if they pass, and
it can be written off at the end.
MR. BYRNE:
That would be correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you.
I want
to make sure I'm getting that straight.
MR. BYRNE:
Just to –
MS. MICHAEL:
That's correct; great,
wonderful. Thank you.
It's
not clear in a way in this document, which I'm sure you all recognize, because
it talks about the annualized savings because of the change; but, in actual
fact, probably that figure is not totally accurate. There may be annualized
savings when it goes out but there will be a savings for the student at the end.
MR. BYRNE:
Which particular document
are you referring to?
MS. MICHAEL:
This is a document that came
out with the budget, those of us who get all the documentation. It shows all of
the initiatives of the budget and an explanation of every initiative. It talks
about the budget for 2015-16 being the $30.3 million. This is student loans.
MR. BYRNE:
Right.
MS. MICHAEL:
Then the savings in 2016-17
being $5.3 million because of this change, the change that we're discussing, the
division into loan and grant. Then it annualizes those savings. So that doesn't
lead one to understand that the students can actually write off the loan part of
the $140.
MR. BYRNE:
I would probably accept your
conclusions but I'd have to dig a little bit deeper. Obviously, there will be
some savings.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Thank you.
That's
why I was pushing for total clarification because of that.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, got you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
I have
another question related to loans and grants. There was a decision, of course,
no longer to provide grants to students studying outside of the province in a
program available in Newfoundland and Labrador. I've actually had some phone
calls about that.
Two
questions, one is: How much money really was that? How many people were getting
grants? Number two, the rationale because there are numbers of reasons why
people may be studying outside.
The
people who have gotten in touch with me is because of the partner being outside
of the province for different reasons; short-term work, for example, or other
reasons. So the person who's studying outside was because of connection in a
relationship, that kind of thing. So there are different reasons why people may
study outside. It may look like the program is the same, but in actual fact
there may be slight differences that made the person go to where they're going.
I'd
like to know how much money was involved and what is the rationale?
MR. BYRNE:
Well, I'll dig deep into the
rationale, first, and then I'll ask my assistant deputy minister, Bob, to
respond to the actual money part.
Let me
provide some relief in that there are still some very worthwhile and
understandable exceptions to the policy. If a course of study is not available
in Newfoundland and Labrador, then that's exempt from that particular policy. So
the general thrust of the policy is to encourage students, Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, to study here at home, to be able to make sure that our university
is operating at peak capacity and efficiency. Where we're offering courses and
spending taxpayers' money to be able to do so, then I think, arguably, it makes
a lot of sense to encourage students, through the financial assistance program
if that's what they want or need to use, to study here at home.
But if
there is a program, like say, for example, physiotherapy, it's not available in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Where it's not available here, that would be an
exempt program. If a student applies for a program that is available in
Newfoundland and Labrador but is not accepted but is accepted outside the
province, then, of course, that circumstance would be reviewed.
Madam
Michael, one of the things I always note is that if there are exceptionalities,
if there are exceptional circumstances, the student financial assistance appeal
process is always available to students who are in receipt or who take issue
with an administrative decision of the program.
What
we're finding is that, by and large, in most cases, if there are reasonable,
exceptional circumstances – and I won't be able to speak to this particular
example right now.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, I realize.
MR. BYRNE:
But in those examples it
usually sides in the favour of the student.
Mr.
Gardiner, would you be able to comment on the financial component of Madam
Michael's question?
MR. GARDINER:
Sure.
The
numbers are not big. I have seen the number, I haven't got it on the top of my
head but it's less than 500 students. So it's not really a big monetary value,
less than a couple hundred thousand dollars, probably. I think it was more on
principle in terms of if the program's available here it should be studied here.
To the
minister's point, if the program is available here and a student doesn't get
into the program but gets accepted somewhere, then they are covered. So there
are exceptions to the rule.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
So for
clarification, Minister, I mean in one way it says there will be no more grants
for students studying outside the province if the program exists here. Yet,
you're telling me that, in actual fact, if somebody wanted to appeal, they could
appeal, even though it looks like that particular program is gone? I just want
to be clear on that.
MR. BYRNE:
They don't have to appeal.
If they're enrolled or accepted to a course of study which is not normally
available in Newfoundland and Labrador, then they're considered as studying in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
MS. MICHAEL:
I have that, yes.
MR. BYRNE:
It's like Twitter, it's very
difficult to capture the nuances of a huge, huge program in a very small number
of characters, but I guess that's really what Estimates are for, aren't they?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
So those are the details. A
program that's available in Newfoundland and Labrador and its acceptance is
readily available and the student has actually applied for that program and was
accepted, then the understanding was that they'd study and be eligible for
financial assistance here. If they were to choose not to even apply to a program
that existed in Newfoundland and Labrador –
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. BYRNE:
– but chose to study out of
province, then that opportunity would not be available to them.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. If they have an
argument they can at least put the argument forward.
MR. BYRNE:
If there is an argument –
and I won't prejudge the outcome of that argument –
MS. MICHAEL:
No, no, I understand that.
I have
one more question. This would be under 1.2.03, Program Development and Planning.
Under Salaries, last year there was a drop of $248,500 from the budget to the
revision. This year we're back up to $1,810,000. Can I just have an explanation
of the line straight across, please?
MR. BYRNE:
Debbie, would you be able to
pick up while I just check my notes here?
MS. DUNPHY:
Certainly, yes.
The
projected revised is down because we had a vacant administrative officer
position, a partial-year vacancy of a program policy officer, a business analyst
and another program person under our service improvement division.
It's
just basically some vacancies throughout the year which we're working on now,
trying to fill those. That's why the budget is back up to the $1.8 million. It's
down a little bit from '15-'16 because there's an adjustment for attrition
management, but we are hoping to fill those vacancies. Some of them have been
filled. We're still working on filling the rest.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
That's helpful.
Under
Grants and Subsidies, $32,000 was budgeted; $10,000 last year was the revision,
so down by $22,000. This year it is up to $21,000 which is still under last
year's budget. I'd like to know what actually is covered under Grants and
Subsidies that causes this sort of fluctuation.
MR. BYRNE:
It's my understanding that
this has been a program that's been housed within Advanced Education and Skills
for some time. It allows for grants to be offered to community organizations for
various activities, sometimes for programs and activities that fall outside of
the normal scope of existing grants, criteria.
Last
year, being an election year, it was only a partial year. I can't say exactly
why the program was so underutilized, but what we decided was that in the spirit
of fiscal restraint, regardless of whether the budget was $32,000 previous that
we'd reduce it to $21,000, reduce it by $11,000 as a measure of that restraint.
MS. MICHAEL:
Will your briefing notes
show where the grants and subsidies went?
MR. BYRNE:
We can certainly do that.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Those are all my questions,
Mr. Chair, for those sections.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Michael.
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
(Inaudible) section if I
could and maybe direct it to Bob.
Where
you'll be taking the full collections under the provincial loans process, are
you adding any extra staff to do that or are you doing it in-house with the
existing, and what's your base number that you think you'll return on your
collection amounts?
MR. GARDINER:
There won't be any additional staff hired. We will be able to do it within the
existing staffing complement.
MR. BRAZIL:
Is there a target amount
that you hope to generate from this?
MS. DUNPHY:
Just to add on to what Bob just said, we do have some vacant collection
positions – they're in our approved complement, so we are working on filling
those. So it is, like I said, not an increase in org structure, just we are
hoping to fill a couple of vacancies to assist.
In
terms of an increased amount, I know the percentage of our collections is over
what the federal collections ere – I think we were about 12 per cent better. If
I could just have a moment, I could find the amount we said we'd increase.
I'll
have to come back to you with the amount.
MR. BRAZIL:
No, that's fair enough.
That's good data to know, that we're better at collections than the federal
government.
MS. DUNPHY:
Yes.
MR. BRAZIL:
So I can understand the
rationale for taking that program over.
I think
the minister wants –
MR. BYRNE:
And we were paying a
$300,000 sort of retainer fee, if I understand correctly, to do that work. So by
eliminating that and yet still having the in-house human resources to be able to
do that job, I think, is important to note as well.
MR. BRAZIL:
No, it makes sense.
MS. DUNPHY:
Yes, annually, with the savings of the $300,000 fee, we are hoping to collect
another approximately $600,000 in revenue.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, fair enough.
Mr.
Chair, that's the last question I have on those, that section.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Chair, I have one more.
This is a general one, and I've been trying to figure out where I might be able
to ask it and the only place I can see that makes any sense is talking about
students and the costs that they have to carry, et cetera.
We've
been getting a lot of phone calls about this, Minister, and I'm hoping you'll
have the answer; if not, I'll ask the Minister of Finance tomorrow. Will
post-secondary students have to pay tax on textbooks? It's a really serious
question that's coming in to us.
MR. BYRNE:
The details of that I will
probably have to defer to the Finance Minister, with the exception that
institutions will not have to pay the increase. It's my understanding that the
institutions will not have to pay the increase on the purchase of books. So like
school boards and Memorial and CNA and others, that would not be imposed on
them. In terms of the retail sale, there will be some cost changes as a result;
but rather than to walk in someone else's water, then I will defer that to the
Finance Minister.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, I will seek
clarification tomorrow on that.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Michael.
Would
the Clerk please call the next subhead?
CLERK:
2.1.01.
CHAIR:
2.1.01.
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
I'm pretty good under that,
2.1.01, Client Services.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
Nothing that stands out too
much.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Ms.
Michael, 2.1.01.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
First
of all under Salaries the budgeted salary last year was $18,940,000-plus and it
was underspent by $512,500 – it was overspent, rather, by $512,500. This year
we're back down to $18,621,000-plus. If we could just have an explanation of
that whole salary line there, please.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you for the question.
The
2015-16 revised budget is up exactly $512,500 compared to the 2015-16 original
budget. This increase or salary overage is due to payout of retirement costs for
five different positions, as well as an additional overage of approximately
$304,000 due to the implementation of some new organizational structures. That's
the variance.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
Under
the same head of course, because we're here, under Transportation and
Communications $1,103,000-plus was budgeted last year, underspent by $253,000
approximately and then in this year the budget is much closer to what was
revised last year. Could we have an explanation of what the Transportation and
Communications line here is all about and the reason for the change?
MR. BYRNE:
Sure.
MS. MICHAEL:
When I find out what it's
all about, I might get the reason for the change quickly. It might be obvious.
MR. BYRNE:
Well, I won't be able to
speak to the previous administration, but it is something that we followed up
on. The lower than anticipated expenditures were really due out of
implementation of the government-wide discretionary funding freeze on travel. We
tried to minimize it wherever possible.
In
terms of the current budget, the government-wide comprehensive review has
basically tried to maintain those principles while, at the same time,
rightsizing the budget on historical spending for some other expenditures. So we
really tried to keep within that.
Is it
possible to get it even lower? Well, that's where travel is a key component to
the service delivery within the regions for clients.
MS. MICHAEL:
What exactly is the travel
that's covered here? It's a pretty high line. Normally, we don't see high lines
like this under Transportation and Communications, so I'm just wondering what
that travel is that's being covered here.
MR. BYRNE:
This is for client services
within the province. This isn't for –
MS. MICHAEL:
It's money that's given for
clients under the different programs?
MR. BYRNE:
No, it wouldn't be for that.
I'll
ask Roxie Wheaton to step in, in a minute. But what it is for is site visits,
for inter-office travel within the regional services, within regional offices.
My Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance points out it's also for communications
for telephone systems.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MR. BYRNE:
It's roughly $460,000 for
phone systems. Rather than leave an incomplete answer, Ms. Wheaton, would you be
able to fill in some blanks.
MS. WHEATON:
Actually, a pretty good answer, Minister.
Across
the province we have liaison social workers who go out to meet with clients. We
have career development specialists who go out. We have staff who go out to meet
with employers.
Whenever we're signing contracts for, say, job creation projects, there is both
a need to go out and meet with the proponent to sign the contract and, then, at
a later point there's a need to go and do an inspection and follow up. It's
directly related to that and then, of course, managers travelling to offices to
meet with the staff, staff meetings and those kinds of things.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's great. Thank you very
much.
And
then, under Supplies there was a large line there last year, $183,300. Only
$65,000 was spent according to the revision and we're staying at $69,000. What
would be the Supplies that are covered under that line?
MR. BYRNE:
I'll ask Ms. Wheaton to
carry forward on that.
MS. MICHAEL:
It's just office supplies?
MS. WHEATON:
Yes, just routine office supplies; paper, pens, generally things that you would
expect the staff to require to do their jobs and to also work with clients.
MS. MICHAEL:
Sure.
MS. WHEATON: As
you can imagine, across the province we have employment centres so we actually
spend a fair bit on paper as clients come in to get their résumés printed off
and things like that; that kind of stuff.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's great. Thank you.
My
final question for this section is under Purchased Services. Again, last year it
was budgeted at $253,400 and it went up by $122,100. It's more or less staying
at that this year.
What
are the Purchased Services under this head?
MR. BYRNE:
(Inaudible) first and say
that – under Purchased Services; this is funding for leasehold improvements for
the 19 offices that are around, leasehold improvements of $22,000 and Managed
Print Services, which is a big, big component of this, which is $200,000.
Now,
Managed Print Services – there was a contract that was let. I believe this is
part of that process in terms of the Xerox contract.
OFFICIAL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
There was a contract that
was let last year for Managed Print Services to, I believe, it was Xerox. That's
costing us $200,000. There are meeting room rentals and shredding services and
general purchased services at a cost of $151,800.
In
terms of the overall increase, a lot of that had to do with the new contract
with Xerox that was implemented early last year and rightsizing the budget to
meet its actual demands.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
Minister, the offices that have been named for closure, when are they closing?
MR. BYRNE:
Individually – Madam Dunphy,
if you'd be able to provide us some insight as to exactly the dates expected.
MS. DUNPHY:
Actually, I'm going to defer it to Roxie Wheaton, please.
MS. WHEATON:
They actually closed to the public at the end of April.
MS. MICHAEL:
They did.
MS. WHEATON:
Because we wanted to have
staff time to prepare for the closure. The actual movement of furnishings and
things like that will be done predominately by the end of this week.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
They're
all my questions, Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Would
the Clerk please call the next set of subheads?
CLERK:
3.1.01 to 3.1.03 inclusive.
CHAIR:
3.1.01 to 3.1.03 inclusive.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
Looking
at 3.1.01 – I just want to get my questions straight here. Under the federal
revenue, $861,000 was the budget; the revision was $682,200 and this year back
up. Could we have an explanation of the variations there in the federal funding?
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you for the question.
The
province has a funding agreement with the federal government where the province
will provide income assistance to the Innu. The province invoices the federal
government for the actual costs incurred. The increase in federal revenue from
this year over last is related to an adjustment of $94,000 from that particular
agreement due to a change in uptake.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay and this is totally to
income assistance, right?
MR. BYRNE:
Correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
For low income.
MR. BYRNE:
And we have an arrangement
with the federal government to be able to provide those services. So that's to
help administer those services on the federal government's behalf. It was
directly related to a change in uptake in the program.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
And the
province is putting in an extra $500,000 this year?
MR. BYRNE:
Oh, sorry, on the provincial
line, yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
That would be correct, yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Is that going in to make up
for the loss from the federal?
MR. BYRNE:
No, that would be from our
own initiatives.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. BYRNE:
The specifics of that one,
Madam Wheaton, would you be able to just provide some clarification on that?
MS. WHEATON:
As the minister indicated, we've been delivering on behalf of the federal
government –
MS. MICHAEL:
Could you just speak up a
little tiny bit closer maybe into the mic? Thanks.
MS. WHEATON:
Oh, sorry. As the minister indicated, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
delivers income support on behalf of the federal government, and we've been
doing that for quite a while. So it's not a scientific process in terms of being
able to predict how much we're going to spend.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MS. WHEATON:
But you might be interested in knowing that, actually, as of April 1 of this
year, we are starting to phase out our involvement. So you see a fluctuation in
revenue and some of it has to do with when the federal government reimburses us.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
That's helpful.
I
presume this would come under your department, Minister, because it has to do
with Income Assistance. If it's something that I need to bring to the Minister
of Finance, you can tell me. The cuts to medical transportation benefits,
looking at the urban setting for example, whether people can get taxis or
whether they get bus passes, et cetera, there have been cuts and I guess I'm
really interested in what the new rules are and what the rationale was for the
cuts. I mean, we're talking about people on Income Assistance that do not have a
lot of money.
I've
actually been stopped on the street by a number of my constituents asking me:
Ms. Michael, what can I do? I send them, of course, to my assistant to see what
we can do and can appeals be made. But people are not clear. People have been
refused bus passes and it's a real concern. I would like to know what the
rationale was behind this and are there rules that we can have a copy of. Can we
get some detailed information of what can happen here?
MR. BYRNE:
Indeed.
In
terms of the changes to the medical transportation assistance for Income
Support, this is just for regular scheduled visits –
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, it's not the MTAP.
MR. BYRNE:
Yeah, this is not for
ambulatory care.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. BYRNE:
In terms of some
perspective, the Income Support program has an annual budget of $231 million and
medical transportation for scheduled doctors' visits amounts right now to
approximately $8 million of the annual expenditure and that envelope will still
be maintained at approximately $7,250,000. It is about a 7.5 per cent reduction,
which is about 0.3 per cent of the total Income Support budget.
What we
did hear is that it's not driven wholly and solely by the numbers here. We
looked at other jurisdictions to find out exactly where our program measures up
in terms of other jurisdictions. Even with these changes here, I think what
you'll find with a cross-jurisdictional analysis is that we still maintain one
of the most robust and needs-appropriate medical transportation systems.
Where
there's availability of public transit, I think there's a reasonable expectation
that publicly available transit would be taken advantage of, wherever possible.
In St. John's, for example, there are approximately 400 clients that are
currently using the bus, I understand. So we would look to try to allow that to
be a little more effectively utilized, wherever possible.
There
will be a cap on expenditures. We looked at the cross-jurisdictional analysis
and a cap of $3,000 per year is intended per client. If you look at Nova Scotia,
I think the cap for Nova Scotia is about $1,800 per year. So our cap, from most
jurisdictions' points of view, would be still much higher. But there was no cap
previously. It was relatively open ended. What we found when we conducted a
review was that if there was a little bit better scheduling, if the least-cost
transportation venue was being used, we could really lower costs significantly
that way.
We'll
still, regardless, encourage people to use their own vehicle. Or many Income
Support clients do have a network; they often go about their life's chores with
the help of friends and family. We'll still offer a 30-cent per kilometre
private vehicle allowance, wherever appropriate, within the guidelines.
I'll
just point out some of the exceptions to the policy. Anyone living in Labrador
needing air services is not included in this particular policy. Clients needing
out-of-province medical treatment, that's not part and parcel of this particular
policy. And clients receiving regular treatments which are considered life
sustaining like dialysis or chemotherapy, they're exempt from many elements of
the policy.
I will
say this, just in terms of broad strokes; of the overall funding envelope of $8
million, what we found was that a very small proportion of the clients were
using a very large amount of the overall budget. And what we really needed to do
was try to dig down to get some greater efficiency as a result.
Methadone treatment is one. So what we needed to do was instead of just spending
more, what we needed to help make sure that we have better scheduling, better
capability of providing the transport, wherever possible, and come up with a
better result at the same time. We were spending an awful lot of money on a
relatively small group of clients that we thought that greater efficiencies
could help out with.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'll have a private
conversation with you about some of that, Minister.
MR. BYRNE:
Sure.
MS. MICHAEL:
Could we have the figures of
how many people this year left Income Support for work?
MR. BYRNE:
I'll ask Madam Wheaton to –
MS. WHEATON:
Are you talking specifically
for work?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes. It's interesting to see
how many people may have moved into employment who have been on Income Support.
MS. WHEATON:
That's not information that
I have. Generally, on any given month, we have 500, 600, 700 cases coming on;
500, 600, 700 cases going off; people go off for short-term employment,
part-time employment.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, I realize that.
MS. WHEATON:
But that's a number we can
certainly follow up with.
MS. MICHAEL:
If you could, I'd appreciate
that.
MS. WHEATON:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Michael.
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
Under 3.1.01, Transportation
and Communications, $400,000 budgeted and $500,000 obviously was spent to
$325,000. Keeping in mind with the closure of a number of offices in some remote
areas, would it not be considered that there may be additional costs around
transportation and communications, particularly around new types of programs or
assessing the needs in those respective communities based on the principle this
is the first major cut across the board to AES offices to get an understanding
if it's doing more damage than what it was intended to do?
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Brazil, on the travel of
Income Support officials, that would have been covered – and I'll just make sure
that Madam Wheaton doesn't contradict me on this, but it would be under Client
Services, 2.1.01.
In
terms of Transportation and Communications in this particular line, that's
mostly dealing with funding to cover mailing costs for Income Assistance
cheques. There was some overage due to some additional postage in last year's
program. The decrease in the current year is due to switching to mailing of one
stub per month for each direct deposit instead of two.
MR. BRAZIL:
You don't anticipate with
some of the major changes within this budget line that there wouldn't be more
information having to be distributed particularly to Income Support clients
realizing their situations, clarifying certain buy-ins or understandings of cuts
in programs or access to programs.
MR. BYRNE:
Nothing that could not be
incorporated within the regular consistent mailings.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, fair enough.
Under
the Allowances and Assistance, keeping in mind it's fairly in line, not a major
increase across the board, do you anticipate there would be an increase, keeping
in mind – our economists are telling us most of the social agencies who are
responsible for low-income individuals or Income Support, and particularly those
related to single parents, are anticipating a bigger uptake on Income Support
this year? Are you expecting an exodus out of the system for some reason?
MR. BYRNE:
No, but we are finding we're
actually – we still remain very focused on employability, on making sure those
on income assistance – nobody wants to be on income assistance – by really
doubling down on getting people back to work, which is really what the client
wants. I'll give credit where credit is due, there was a lot of work done on
this in the past and it was very effective, and I think it still could be
effective. There still can be improvements.
In
terms of a potential up and increase in Income Support clients due to changing
labour market conditions and overall unemployment rates and other factors, we'll
continue to monitor that and make sure if there's any change or a spike or
uptakes increase, we'll respond when the information becomes available to us. If
it, indeed, becomes available to us, if that does indeed occur.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, thank you for that.
The
eight closures, is that the end of the AES office closures, or is there a bigger
plan reassessing other locations? What's the plan for at least next year?
MR. BYRNE:
No, there's no plan to
further review. A very significant analysis was done of the current
requirements, the current resources, the current caseloads. Again, I'll just go
back to the fact that the clients themselves are changing the way they look to
and receive benefits, or supports.
As I
stated earlier, this is an evolving circumstance. I'm sure you will appreciate
more so probably than most, that you found this case yourself, your previous
government. You obviously will know that in 2004 the previous administration had
closed 20 AES offices in Stephenville Crossing, Piccadilly, Bonne Bay, Deer
Lake, Englee, Forteau, Cartwright, Davis Inlet, Botwood, Fogo, Gambo,
Wesleyville, Grand Bank, Burgeo, Harbour Breton, St. Mary's, Ferryland,
Whitbourne, Conception Bay South and Bay Roberts. In addition to those office
closures, what you did find was that there was a requirement for a reduction in
staff to be able to meet the new and evolving standard.
Bell
Island, for example; in 2004, Bell Island had six staff and your administration
decided to take it from six staff to two; Baie Verte had five staff and it went
to two; Bonavista had nine staff and it faced reductions; Twillingate had five
staff and went to three.
Really,
when I read the press release to you earlier, it was actually the 2004 press
release that announced those closures. Where it said, “… the most efficient and
effective use of our resources is the consolidation of … offices throughout the
province. Improvements in transportation, communication and other technologies
have enabled a more efficient income and employment support service delivery
network. Service delivery sites will be now be located in key centres to
optimize opportunities for partnering with employers, community agencies and
other levels of government. Outreach and other strategies will ensure there is
efficient and effective service to clients in remote communities.”
That
was the press release that was issued during Budget 2004-05 when your government
announced the closure of 20, what are now, Advanced Education and Skills
offices. That was over 10 years ago. Those service standards are still evolving,
and that's why the Internet portal is probably more relevant. Telephone
communication is now even more relevant. So,
When
your government decided to close those 20 offices, it knew that client-service
standards were evolving and that's why you took that move, I would think. For
us, there was a question of money. Times were a little bit different back in
March of 2004. They're very different today, but cost savings are cost savings
where available. The service standard had changed, had evolved and even greater
expectations, use of electronic media to be able to do so. With more and more
services going into more centralized regions, that became important. It's a
decision that I'm sure was very difficult for your administration to take back
then, the same as it is ours. It's not an easy one.
I'll
also note, in 2013 there was a decision that was taken where 72 offices for
employment assistance and self-employment assistance were closed. Your
administration, the previous administration had closed 72 offices throughout all
of Newfoundland and Labrador, just about every location in the province, and
over 226 staff members were affected at those 72 offices. That, I'm sure, was a
difficult decision as well, but when you announced that, you announced it
because of evolving service standards as well.
So if
you see the time continuum of how things are, more and more people are relying
on access to more centralized services, and more and more people are relying on
electronic media, on telephone – but still, I want to really, really emphasize
the point that if there is a client who needs face-to-face service delivery,
that will always be arranged.
MR. BRAZIL:
No, fair enough. I do agree
there are new ways of doing business, and over the last decade there have been
improvements to do that. As a result, there are necessary changes to structures
of office and number of staff you need.
I do
want to make it clear and on the record, that it wasn't my administration. I was
on that side. I was an employee of AES and was vigilantly against the impact it
would have. It was at a time when the economy was growing. What's happening here
now, we're closing offices in remote areas without any additional supports, be
it around technology, be it around transportation links, at a time when we're
also hitting these same clientele with a number of other impacts and less access
to certain services and that.
I'm
glad you did say that if there's a client who needs a face-to-face assessment of
their needs, that there will be a way found to do that.
MR. BYRNE:
Absolutely.
MR. BRAZIL:
I appreciate that, but I do
also have a question around the amount of money being saved. I take Bell Island,
for example, it's in a government building. So the costing for overhead is
minimal. The two staff, one I understand was just moving in – because that
individual was also doing work as part of a call centre for the St. John's
office.
So if I
could, down the road, in the next number of days, get a copy of the outline of
the potential savings in those eight offices, which ones were leased facilities
that you're now giving up a leased agreement – which was the bigger savings,
obviously – which are staff that are being laid off or just transferred to other
offices. If I could have that, I'd appreciate that piece of information also.
MR. BYRNE:
Sure.
In
answer to the question, another element that has to be added to this is AES has
indeed had a significant staff complement reduction. In 2013, there was a
decision taken to implement a brand new organizational structure within the
department. Originally, the number of positions within the department was 993.
At the conclusion of the organizational restructuring the position count went to
720. That was a significant reduction as a result of that 2013 reorganizational
effort.
What
has to be noted, though, is that in addition – so you're talking about the cost
savings, I just want to zero in on another element of this. The organizational
structure in 2013 went from 993 down to specific positions of 720. Not all
positions were necessarily funded. There was a decision that was taken before
the reorganizational structure came in to reduce the salary envelope of the
department by $6 million. That was without consideration of what the actual
organizational structure may ultimately look like.
So the
salary reduction was taken in 2013, reduced the salary envelope of AES by $6
million. Then a decision was taken to change the organization structure. A
reorganizational structure was put in place. Part of the problem was that an
organizational structure was approved for which there were positions that were
not fully funded.
And so
when we look at some of the salary positions, some of the changes that have been
required of AES, like even in terms of office closures, some of that has been
out of necessity to try and meet the expectations that there are still a
significant number of positions within AES that are still not funded. That's a
bit of a concern to us.
I'll
ask, Madam Dunphy, is there anything else that you'd like to add to that
particular narrative or is that pretty well –
MS. DUNPHY:
No, Minister, I think you've pretty much covered it.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay.
I'm
just going to make one last comment to know their answers then. I do agree, over
the years there's been cuts to AES for streamlining how work has been done, but
a lot of it was based on the clientele; demand was going down. I don't
anticipate that and neither do a number of people here. There's an anticipation
that the demand will go up and the need for offices and particular services and
program investments are going to be more than they have been in the last decade
or so.
I'll pass it on to Ms. Michael now, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: Thank
you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Chair.
I do not have any more questions under 1.01.
3.1.02, the National Child Benefit Reinvestment; it dropped
last year from a budget of $600,000 to a revision of $430,000
this year up to $450,000, so
just a little explanation of the variations please.
MR. BYRNE:
There has been
less-than-anticipated uptake, and this has been the case for quite some time now
in this particular program. This particular program is targeted to Income
Support clients for the receipt of benefits related to private child care where
no public child care is readily available. It's well advertised, the program is
well-known within the client body, but it's just uptake to the program has been
declining for a period of many, many years.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Will those numbers be
in your briefing notes?
MR. BYRNE:
I believe they are. I have
some right here that date from 2005. For example, in 2005 there were 762 cases
of clients that were seeking supports under this particular program and
expenditures of $514,000. By 2010 there were 589 clients, and then by 2015 there
were 345 clients with $407,000 in expenditures. So we can map that out for you,
certainly.
MS. MICHAEL:
My next question probably
would cover both here and the next subhead. With those drops I'm wondering do we
have the actual numbers of births. I mean how many children are a part of
families that receive income support? Are those numbers going down?
MR. BYRNE:
That's a very good question.
I'll ask Madam Wheaton if she might be able to drill down on that.
MS. WHEATON:
More so than any other
jurisdiction in the country the number of families with children in receipt of
income support, both two parent and single parent, has been decreasing
substantially. I think people are always surprised to hear that the actual birth
rate of income support families is actually lower than the birth rate of the
province.
I'm
just looking to see what I have in terms of single parents these days, but I can
certainly get you some of the latest information. It's quite dramatic actually.
It's a two-part story, as the minister indicated. The take-up is not there
because we actually have child care space, but there's just less children
growing up on income support.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's what I was realizing
from the numbers the minister gave. That's a surprise but then, at the same
time, I think the income support of single males, has that gone up for us? There
is one area that has gone up for us in this province. Is it single males?
MS. WHEATON:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes. That's what I thought.
Thank
you.
Under
3.1.03, which is the Mother/Baby Nutrition Supplement, under Allowances and
Assistance – and I'm assuming, that's why I said I think my question covers both
of these under Allowances and Assistance – again that has dropped significantly.
I guess the answer that I've just received is part of the answer here; we're
seeing fewer new births as well?
MR. BYRNE:
Yeah, I'll just get Madam
Wheaton to confirm.
MS. WHEATON:
Yes, less children being
born.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. I think they're all
the questions I have, Chair, in that section.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Michael.
Before
the Chair calls a five-minute recess, I'm going to ask for the Clerk to please
recall the first subhead.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yeah, I'm good on that
section, that's 3.1.3.
CHAIR:
Would the Clerk please
recall the first subhead?
CLERK:
1.1.01.
CHAIR:
1.1.01.
Shall
that carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Against?
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.
CHAIR:
Would the Clerk please
recall the next set of subheads, please.
CLERK:
1.2.01 to 3.1.03 inclusive.
CHAIR:
1.2.01 to 3.1.03 inclusive.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Against?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 1.2.01 through 3.1.03 carried.
CHAIR:
We'll break for five or ten
minutes.
Thank
you.
Recess
CHAIR (Dempster):
Good morning, everyone.
A
little bit of a change here. The previous Chair had to go out for a meeting.
He's going to owe me a favour after this.
We'll
just carry right along. I understand we're moving to 4.1.01. So I'll ask to call
the subheading and then we'll move to Mr. Brazil.
CLERK:
4.1.01 to 4.1.10 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.1.01 to 4.1.10
carry?
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
I'm just going to go right
to 4.1.04, under Grants and Subsidies. There was $20,600,000 originally
budgeted, $15.5 million was used, now we're at $19.8 million. Can you just give
me an outline on the variance there? Was it there just wasn't an uptake, was it
a change in our approach at the time? I'm just curious to see where we are now.
Will that cover exactly what we think under the Labour Market Development
Agreement?
CHAIR:
Okay, Mr. Brazil, while I
just get my sea legs here I'll just defer directly to Mr. Hogan, my assistant
deputy minister, to give a quick summary while I sort of track all of this in my
notes here.
MR. BRAZIL:
Fair enough.
MR. HOGAN:
Yes, under this category we had lower-than-anticipated demand for our wage
subsidies and the Self-Employment Assistance program under the LMDA.
MR. BRAZIL:
The LMDA. Okay.
And
that's sufficient, you would think, to cover what the demand would be in the
upcoming period?
MR. HOGAN:
Yes, I do believe that would be correct.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay. Thank you.
Under
4.1.05, Grants and Subsidies there, $2 million with the Canada-Newfoundland and
Labrador Job Fund Agreement to $4.6 million. Can you just outline what that will
cover? And the doubling, did we take over another part of the agreement? Are we
administering something different? Is it a new start of a new go-forward
multi-year agreement?
MR. BYRNE:
Okay, I've got my sea legs
here now so I'll dig in. Then, if you have any additional questions Mr. Hogan is
an expert in all of these fields, so please free to just voluntarily, at your
own discretion, direct to him.
In this
particular line item funding sees an increase of $2.62 million which is related
to the Apprenticeship Wage Subsidy. That has been simply reallocated from
Apprenticeship and Trades Certification, which is another line item in the
budget. That was just simply a recommendation from the Office of the Comptroller
General. It was in the wrong location and put in the right location.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes, I thought that, but I
wanted clarification to make sure. Okay. Perfect.
A
question under 4.1.06, similar there; the Grants and Subsidies from $240,000
last year, down from $1.3 million to $2.038 million. The increase there, are we
adding something new to it or are we collaborating or combining a couple of
different line items? The Labour Market Adjustment Programs.
MR. BYRNE:
Dennis, would you – there's
an offset by a one-time carry-over into 2016-17 of $1,016,400. That did not get
federal funding approval in time for 2015-16. I believe this was the target
initiative for older workers. You will recall that sometimes the feds are little
bit slow in the fiscal year, so that's the bulk of that funding.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay. I'm perfect there.
Under
4.1.07, Employment Assistance Programs for Persons with Disabilities; Grants and
Subsidies from $2.5 million, revised to $1.7 million and now we're down to
$1.296 million.
Is that
relevant to the uptake? Is it a budget line decrease? Were there parts of the
program that had now been completed?
MR. BYRNE:
A number of different
initiatives here that we can speak of. There was a comprehensive line-by-line
review of budgets with drop balances of about $283,000. There was a forecast
adjustment of $115,000 related to an increase in wages for support workers for
the minimum wage. There's a transfer to Allowances and Assistance of $690,000
and community group reductions of $357,600 which was to maximize federal
funding. So there was some switch of provincial funding into federal funding.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay. Fair enough.
Under
4.1.08, Youth and Student Services, again –
MR. BYRNE:
Sorry, what number?
MR. BRAZIL:
Oh, sorry, 4.1.08, Youth and
Student Services, under the heading 10, Grants and Subsidies.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes.
MR. BRAZIL:
The same question there, the
variance there. It's down substantially, a million dollars from what was used
last year and $1.4 million from what was budgeted.
MR. BYRNE:
In this particular line item
most of – I think you may or may not agree. There's a fairly unused component of
this budget, historically, because first off, the federal student wage subsidies
sometimes take a little more uptake.
In this
particular line item, there was a reduction of $1.2 million, approximately,
related to historical drop balances and reducing the number of weeks for the
Graduate Employment Program. So roughly $1.2 million was unused balances.
There
was a decrease as a result of a government-wide line-by-line review of about
$250,000. There was a decrease of $46,400 related to annualization of the
2015-16 JobsNL Wage Subsidy Program.
Dennis,
I want to make sure we're not missing anything here. Is there anything else that
should be added to this, my comments?
MR. HOGAN:
No, Minister, I think you've
covered it comprehensively.
Those
reductions are, as you outlined, due to the various line-by-line review and drop
balances, in addition to some reductions related to program areas and employers
not being able to fill positions during the period of approval for the summer
placements.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, I appreciate that.
Under
4.1.09, Skills and Labour Market Research. Professional Services, what is it
that we no longer need, or did we spend to oversee a particular program for
$550,000 down to $150,000? Did we complete something?
MR. BYRNE:
Under the line of
Professional Services, this is funding provided for consulting fees such as
economist work on labour market information improvements, labour market
information improvements and intergovernmental conference secretariat, such as
the forum of labour market ministers and Atlantic Workforce Partnerships. A lot
of it is related to those kinds of services. What we found was that in some
areas that refinements in reductions and efficiencies could be found within
those consulting fees.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay.
I would
assume some of the research is done at – it's useable for the upcoming years as
part of the research under Professional Services.
MR. BYRNE:
That's a fair conclusion.
MR. BRAZIL:
Under Purchased Services,
from $322,000 to $180,000 to $13,000. Have we completed something? Is there
something that's been done that we no longer need? In $13,400, we're not going
to get very much under Purchased Services for that.
MR. BYRNE:
Perhaps, Madam Dunphy, would
you be in a position to – because that is a lot of money.
MS. DUNPHY:
The main reason for the
reduction here is that we've moved money from this head to the Workforce
Development and Secretariat head, 4.1.01. There's been $200,000 moved over to a
different section. Then there was also $108,000 related to the discontinuation
of the JOBSinNL website. Then a very small amount related to the
government-wide, line-by-line review.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, thank you.
I have
a couple of general questions if I could, particularly when we get to the
heading here 4.1.10, Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism. They're more
generic ones.
Under
the new initiative for Syrian refugees –
MR. BYRNE:
Yes.
MR. BRAZIL:
How many have we accepted
here in this province at this point? Do we have those numbers?
MR. BYRNE:
We certainly do, because it
is – I think there's a new set of numbers that just came in.
Mr.
Hogan, would you elaborate?
MR. HOGAN:
At this point in time we have approximately 265, I believe, would be a close
approximation to the number of Syrian refugees that have landed in Newfoundland
and Labrador since last November.
MR. BRAZIL:
What was our target? Did we
set a target of 500, 300, 1,000?
MR. BYRNE:
I believe for all
government-assisted refugees, the original target was 150, but of course there
was an agreement that was made, I think last September, to increase that amount.
Dennis,
would you like to just go into the details now about our multi-year forecast?
MR. HOGAN:
Yes, and there is an allocation that happens annually from the federal
government to each province and territory.
The
minister is correct in indicating that prior to last September our annual
allocation for government-assisted refugees – not to be confused with
privately-sponsored refugees – was 150 individuals. That number was increased to
250 last September, as the minister indicated, and that's the number it is
staying at for this current year. Now, those numbers will fluctuate on the
margins, either a little bit more or a little bit less, but it's meant to be a
target. That's a decision of the federal government in terms of how many
government-assisted refugees from all countries will be allocated to this
province and the other provinces and territories.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, I appreciate that.
Do we
have the data on how many have stayed since they came here? Have we had an
outmigration of some who've connected with other family members in other parts
of the country?
MR. HOGAN:
We don't have the actual numbers, how many may have left at this point in time,
but that is something we're working with the Association for New Canadians. They
generally get informed when there is a family that has left for another
jurisdiction. At this point I'm just anecdotally aware of one or two that have
done so, but we don't have actual numbers at this point in time.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay.
Do we
have a dollar figure on what the federal government have put towards the
province for support in, particularly, the Syrian refugee program?
MR. HOGAN:
They have committed additional funds to the Association for New Canadians, and
the ANC is the settlement agreement holder on behalf of the province with the
federal government. They did have an initial allocation of, I believe, $75,000.
The provincial government has also committed an additional $40,000 to the ANC –
I believe it was $40,000 – last fall. There are other monies that are
transferring from the federal government, but they go directly to the ANC. We
don't receive any as a provincial government.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, but for support
programs: health, education, Income Support, these types of things, do they come
out of our general pot or –?
MR. HOGAN:
For the first year upon arrival, the refugees are funded by the federal
government through groups like the ANC under the Resettlement Assistance
Program. For instance, Income Support would be provided to those families,
funded by the federal government and it would be equivalent to provincial rates.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, I appreciate it.
Ms.
Michael.
I'm
good, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Given the clock, we'll move
to Ms. Michael now.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you.
I just
have to go back over some of this because there's been a lot covered. I want to
see where I had questions which may not have been answered.
I had a
question for 4.1.01, but I think that was answered by Ms. Dunphy. It had to do
with the $910,000 Grants and Subsides that hadn't been in that line before, but
that got answered. That had been moved. So that's fine. I don't need to ask any
more about that.
Let's
see; 4.1.02, I think the amounts there are self-explanatory.
Just a
general question, the JobsNL website was dropped and the explanation – well,
sort of an explanation – that was given in this line-by-line explanation of the
different initiatives, I don't have it right in front of me but my memory is
that basically it was a duplication. There were other sites that did the same
thing.
Was
there any analysis done of whether or not JobsNL did pick up people who – even
if they did go to other sites, was there information here they may not have
gotten in any of the other sites? I guess I would like to have some detail on
that statement, that it was a duplication.
MR. BYRNE:
Sure. Thank you for the
question.
JobsNL,
there were two – job employer and job seekers – interfaces used, the federal job
bank and JobsNL. In its original incarnation the JobsNL did offer a richer,
deeper pool of information that was available and arguably was a much more
refined website for the Newfoundland and Labrador experience.
What
became evidently true was that over the course of time, due to improvements to
the federal job bank site, much of what was required and offered on the JOBSinNL
site was actually brought into the federal job bank site. In fact, Madam
Michael, what happened was eventually it got to the point, in order to actually
register on the JOBSinNL site, an employer would actually first have to register
and put in all the data on the federal job bank site.
So in
July of 2015, there were substantial improvements that were made to the federal
job bank site. In the assessment that was conducted there was very, very little
that was not offered. I think the argument was effectively made there was
nothing that was offered that was not directly available on the federal job bank
site.
Given
the fact that we had a $108,000 a year hosting contract with a New Brunswick
firm, we just decided it was – since the two were almost, for all practical
purposes, directly married and linked, the move to just simply one site actually
created greater ease of use, did not leave anybody out and at the same time save
$108,000 per year.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much for that
detail.
4.1.03
under Grants and Subsidies, I don't think you asked about this David did you,
4.1.03?
MR. BRAZIL:
No.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, I didn't think so.
Could I
have an explanation? I really want to save time. I don't want any duplication.
Under
Grants and Subsidies, it was $8.4 million budgeted last year, slightly under in
terms of the revision and now this year it's down a fair bit, almost $897,000
from what was budgeted last year. Can we have an explanation of what the Grants
and Subsidies are under this section and why the drop?
MR. BYRNE:
In this particular line
item, and the program for the Grants and Subsidies under Employment Development
Programs, there were some dropped balances, but more in particular, there was an
opportunity to lever more federal funding through the LMDA. For example, there
was more federal funding that was applied to the Stella Burry of $380,000 which
we were able to extract from the LMDA, I believe.
There
were other resulting reductions which totalled almost $700,000 in being able to
reprofile some of those things. There was some annualization of the 2015 JobsNL
Wage Subsidy Program which resulted in savings of $52,000. There were some
reductions in the Linkages program based on past uptakes which resulted in some
savings as well.
So it
was a combination of just things that were not necessarily fully subscribed and,
as well, things we were able to get out of federal funding.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Again,
I assume there are some more details that are in your notes I will be able to
look at?
MR. BYRNE:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
Just
one program I'd like to ask some questions about. The Employment Transitions
which was originally for single parents. I think it used to be in four
locations. Last year, it was noted that the clientele were including older
single women. Could we have an update on that program?
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Hogan, are you in a
position to be able to – okay.
MR. HOGAN:
Yes, we actually offered Employment Transitions in three different locations.
There had been an attempt to organize the program for offering in Labrador but,
unfortunately, the uptake was not there. What we've found over the last two to
three years is that where the program is being offered, a lot of the potential
clients in those regions have already undertaken the Employment Transitions
Program, which essentially is a nine-week program to provide assistance to
individuals transitioning into the workforce.
The
primary focus initially would have been single parents but now because of the
decreasing uptake in single parents, we've expanded the reach to reach those who
may not be single parents or may be older and still wanting to transition into
the workforce.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right, okay. Thank you very
much.
4.1.04,
that's where you started, David, I think, and asked some questions there. He's
not paying attention to me. That's okay. I won't repeat his questions. We got
the questions under Grants and Subsidies, I think, from that one.
MR. BRAZIL:
I did all those.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, and 4.1.05 the same
way.
Under
4.1.05, and I suspect this is in your briefing book, I just want to confirm,
would your briefing book have a list of the employers and numbers of
participants for the various programs? That's under 4.1.05.
MR. BYRNE:
I'll just ask. In the book
it does not list the employers? We can certainly provide it though.
OFFICIAL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
Absolutely.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you very much.
If we
get that, along with the other stuff, that will be great.
I think
we asked about that one. David asked about that. 4.1.07, I think he asked about
that one as well. Sorry, to have to do it like this but it's saving time in the
long run. The Youth, we have that. 4.1.09, I think my questions there are
answered as well.
Could
we have an update on the Population Growth Strategy?
MR. BYRNE:
Absolutely.
The
Population Growth Strategy, obviously, is evolving. As a new administration,
we're looking at our own commitments, but, as well, the evolving circumstances
that we're under.
Obviously, our immigration promotion will continue to be a centrepiece of this
particular strategy. We have a relatively small immigration shop within the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it's punching above its weight
in terms of attracting newcomers to our province. Of course, we'll probably,
undoubtedly, under the circumstances that we face nationally, see a larger
number of expats coming back to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Where
we're really centring our efforts and looking at analyzing now and developing a
new Population Growth Strategy is taking the best of what was already in place,
but also expanding on it, looking at new circumstances and evolving
circumstances. Despite the fact that there would obviously be a number of
positions, there would be an increased competition or demand for various jobs in
Newfoundland and Labrador. There will still be many, many positions, many, many
jobs, many skillsets that will still not be able to be retained or made
available in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We're
going to double down and make sure that in terms of our attraction, our efforts
to seek newcomers to the province, that they meet with the skillsets that are
identified as being absent from our province so that we can grow the economy
that way.
We're
very proud of the fact of our humanitarian – Newfoundland and Labrador has
really opened up its arms in terms of our Syrian refugees. I also note, and I
think, Madam Michael, you'll be the first to attest, is that Newfoundland and
Labrador has been very open minded and very open hearted to those facing
troubles abroad. While much focus and attention is placed on the Syrian refugee
crisis, there are still many other nationalities, many other groups around the
world, that face very, very difficult, hostile circumstances.
While a
lot of attention is placed from the welcoming arms that we've placed with Syrian
refugees – a lot of attention is placed there – there are many, many groups from
other parts of the world that deserve, expect and hope for our attention. So
that's a component of this.
As we
look at how we expand our immigration efforts from an economic point of view,
one of the things that I'd look at – and I'm just examining this at this point
in time – is maybe a potential re-entry of the immigrant investor program. That
was something that offered many, many years ago, which was discontinued. There
may be an opportunity now at this point in our time for people to reconsider
that and to work with the federal government.
I'm now
working with the federal government on Canada-Newfoundland immigration program,
an actual immigration agreement, which sort of solidifies a lot of our joint
actions on immigration, which I think is extremely helpful.
Population growth is really about attracting those from afar. Those that were
here may have left temporarily and then may be seeking a way back home. So we're
really bearing down on that, based on the new circumstances we find ourselves
in.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Ms. Michael, seeing the
time, is it okay now if I move back to Mr. Brazil?
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, the thing is, if I
only had one more in this whole section, we could get it over with.
CHAIR:
Yes, that's fine.
MS MICHAEL:
Okay. I really don't think I do have anything that I need to ask; David covered
all of that. That's it for that section.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you very much.
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
I'm good on that section.
I'm ready to move to 5.1.01.
CHAIR:
Okay. So we'll call that
section then.
Shall
4.1.01 to 4.1.10 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 4.1.01 through 4.1.10 carried.
CHAIR:
I'll ask the Clerk to call
the subhead.
CLERK:
5.1.01 to 5.1.03 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.1.01 to 5.1.03
inclusive carry?
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, I've got some general
concept questions here. The minister has mentioned in the House and in some
discussions I've had with him that you're presently in the midst of doing a
review on CNA –
MR. BYRNE:
Right.
MR. BRAZIL:
– all of its campuses across
the board. If there any cuts that are going to take place in those campuses,
will they be reflective in these Estimates, or are they reflective in the
Estimates at this point?
MR. BYRNE:
No decisions have been made
whatsoever. It's a very open-minded review. I know there's been much focus on
what may happen in terms of cuts and closures, but I have to say to you, very
upfront and very sincerely, that this is just as much or more about making sure
that are campuses are operating with full efficiency and with full volume.
A lot
of changes have occurred at CNA over the last number of years. The reduction in
the budget of CNA back in 2013, of course, was a difficult one, and was
difficult to adjust to. But I think adjustments are being made, and I'm still of
the belief that – I'm very open minded to make sure the programs and services
that are offered at each and every one of the campuses we've got to make sure
that no stone is left unturned.
MR. BRAZIL:
I agree 100 per cent.
Can you
give us just a little concept of the process you're using and the time frames?
MR. BYRNE:
The process is not like a
White Paper; it won't be a panel of experts. It's more of my own working with
the CNA, working with my own department, trying to find out what programs were
offered historically, what programs might be able to be offered in the future,
whether or not it's realistic, whether there's a high probability that we may be
able to get students.
One of
the elements of this discussion that we have to include is that more and more
students do want to go to St. John's. How do make campuses as attractive as we
possibly can in their own backyards?
So
those are some of the fundamental realities. I believe we can do that. But I
won't second-guess how they want to engage in their educations as well.
MR. BRAZIL:
Oh no, I appreciate that,
and I actually applaud that approach. There has been a fair bit of research done
through the White Papers and internally in reviewing that, so there's enough
there to be able to say the next steps would be the assessment. I like the
approach of how do we make it attractive enough for people to be able to stay
with the proper programs and supports to do that.
Can we
get a breakdown of the number of employees and students who are currently
enrolled? It doesn't have to be now, but if you could share that with down the
road –
MR. BYRNE:
Yes.
MR. BRAZIL:
It's part curiosity, part to
get an understanding – and the locations of those campuses, if we could.
MR. BYRNE:
Sure, we certainly can.
MR. BRAZIL:
I appreciate that.
MR. BYRNE:
It's a little bit of a
different – because, of course, with the CNA, and you probably are very familiar
with this, some structures are half times. There are various ways that they – so
I'll just give a little bit of caveat that we'll do our very, very best, sincere
best, to try and record those numbers as best as we possibly can and communicate
them.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes, we do appreciate that.
Like I said, we do realize there are certain improved approaches that could be
used to better how we move our post-secondary, particularly around the college
process.
I'm
just curious, the present president, is her contract up in the near future?
MR. BYRNE:
I believe the appointment
was until the end of July 2016. So, of course, we do have the Independent
Appointments process and the president of the College of the North Atlantic is
one of the agencies, boards and commissions bodies that would be covered by the
process of the Independent Appointments Commission as well.
MR. BRAZIL:
So that position will go
through that full process once it's all passed and put in play?
MR. BYRNE:
It will.
MR. BRAZIL:
Fair enough.
MR. BYRNE:
Now, of course, that puts us
in a bit of a tight time frame but we'll try to make allowances around that.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes, to be able to make it
happen in that period of time from being adopted in the House; fair enough.
I just
want to go back to 5.1.01, under the Grants and Subsidies, Apprenticeship and
Trades Certification. There are major differences there from $9 million to $8.5
million to $2.14 million. Is there monies put somewhere else? Is it the end of a
program? Is it an uptake that's going be one-third or one-fifth of what it
normally would be, just some clarification, please?
MR. BYRNE:
Okay. This is one is
directly related to a specific recommendation of the Office of the Comptroller
General to budget funding in the directorship which is responsible for the
expenditures. I am just trying to track my notes real quickly, but if memory
serves me correct, it was a significant amount of money.
Debbie,
do you have those details?
MS. DUNPHY:
Sure, I do.
We
moved $4 million over to the LMDA activity, 4.1.04. As well under the Canada job
fund, 4.1.05, we moved another $2.6 million. So that accounts for the
difference, basically, of the decrease. So no, programs are not reduced.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes, and I noted earlier and
I was trying to get my head around when you were transferring. So would the
total amount still be in the $9 million range?
MS. DUNPHY:
Correct.
MR. BRAZIL:
When it's transferred out?
Okay, fair enough, that's good to know.
I have
a question under 5.1.02, Literacy and Institutional Services. The Grants and
Subsidies, there's a $400,000 decrease there on the literacy grants. Are there
less sites? Are there less contracts? Is there a change in how we're delivering
that part of the service?
MR. BYRNE:
In terms of the $400,000,
the $400,000 is related to the foreign qualifications recognition which has been
moved from the Skills and Labour Market division – has been moved to, sorry, the
Skills and Labour Market division, which is now responsible for this particular
program.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay.
MR. BYRNE:
So it's a shift in –
MR. BRAZIL:
Just money moved around.
So the
same amount of money is allocated?
MR. BYRNE:
Yeah.
MR. BRAZIL:
Fair enough.
Under
the Atlantic Veterinary College, are we keeping the same number of placements
that we had in previous. I know that's been a good uptake and it's been
beneficial to the industry here.
MR. BYRNE:
We are, indeed.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, perfect.
That's
all I have under 5.1, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Okay.
As a
procedural, I'm going to ask the Clerk to call the subhead again. I was being a
little ambitious, but in the interest of time – and it looks like we'll have to
cut this and maybe reconvene at another date at 12 o'clock. I think we should
just go subsection by subsection and stick with that.
Is it
okay if I ask Ms. Michael if she has questions on 5.1.01 to 5.1.03 and then
we'll call that?
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, under Apprenticeship
and Trades, one of the initiatives announced in the budget is a decision to stop
– I'm presuming it's just provincial – funding to the Office to Advance Women
Apprentices. What it says here is that in the budget for 2015-16, $200,000 was
earmarked for the Office to Advance Women Apprentices, and in 2016-17, that
money will no longer be put towards the office.
I guess
my question is: Is the Office to Advance Women Apprentices being maintained
because it is not clear from any of this.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, I appreciate the
question and understand why you might draw that conclusion, but it's a move to
federal funding so there's no reduction.
MS. MICHAEL:
There's no reduction?
MR. BYRNE:
No.
MS. MICHAEL:
So the province won't be
putting any money in but the federal funding will be maintained?
MR. BYRNE:
That's correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
Could we have the figure for
the federal funding, please?
MR. BYRNE:
It's the same. It's
$200,000.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, so it was $200,000
each, was it, that was going in there?
MR. BYRNE:
Yeah. Mr. Gardiner, would
you be able to reply?
MS. MICHAEL:
Because the provincial
government is saving $200,000.
MR. GARDINER:
Basically, the Office to
Advance Women Apprentices was given $200,000 in provincial funding to maintain
the office. The only difference this current fiscal year is that it won't be
provincial money, it will be federal money, but it's still $200,000. There will
be no change in the delivery.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. So it's coming from
one of the federal pockets?
MR. GARDINER:
Correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Just
needing to get clarification.
I don't
know who does this or who maintains this kind of information – is it AES – like
the number of apprentices registered, how many people are doing journeyperson
training, the gender breakdown of our apprentices, et cetera?
MR. BYRNE:
We do indeed.
I'll
ask Mr. Gardiner to – if you have those details readily?
MS. MICHAEL:
If it's in a briefing note
we can just say, fine, we'll take the information rather than going through the
time, in the interest of time.
MR. BYRNE:
It is. I know that it's
sitting right here in my binder. It's a bit of a long table so we can forward
that for sure.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, that's what we're
looking for.
Okay,
thank you very much. That'll be sufficient.
Then it
was 02 and 03, wasn't it, Chair? I think I'm okay.
5.1.03
– yes, that's fine. You can call.
CHAIR:
Okay. So we'll call that
subhead.
CLERK:
5.1.01 to 5.1.03 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.1.01 to 5.1.03
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 5.1.01 through 5.1.03 carried.
CHAIR:
So now we'll move back to
Mr. Brazil.
I'll
ask the Clerk to call the next subheads.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes, I'll try to do a couple
of quick questions here.
CLERK:
5.2.01 to 5.2.02 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.2.01 to 5.2.02
inclusive carry?
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
I've just got a quick
question here under Grants and Subsidies, Memorial University, 5.2.01,
Operations.
The $5
million – and we're hearing in the public that the university has all kinds of
upheaval about how they're going to pick that up. The students' unions are
terrified that it's going to be on the backs of them when it comes to tuition
increases.
I just
ask the minister: Was there a conversation with the university around where
efficiencies could be found within their organization to absorb the $5 million
difference?
MR. BYRNE:
Naturally, there were
conversations. There are always conversations, which is not inconsistent with
the way it's been for many, many years. I'm not going to divulge the specifics
of the university's position in terms of what they brought forward.
Memorial University is autonomous. There was no direction that was brought to
the university as to what they had to consider or not consider. We looked at the
overall funding envelope of Memorial University of Newfoundland. We certainly
had many, many conversations with the senior executive. They'll make a decision
as to their own financial administration in the coming days. I believe May 19th
is the Board of Regents meeting.
But,
yes, there were extensive conversations that were had, but it was respecting
MUN's autonomy in the process.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay. Fair enough.
I have
a couple of general questions, too, around some of these things here. I never
got a point to note it there, but if you could indulge me, the Linkages program
– the cuts to the Linkages program. I just noted that I had – because it wasn't
a direct line. There are major decreases there.
Was
that based on uptake research data or it is just a budget line reduction?
MR. BYRNE:
We're back to –
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes, it was one of the other
ones. I apologize; I missed it because it's not a line item. Linkages fits in
under Grants and Subsidies.
MR. BYRNE:
Oh yes. Okay, sure.
On the
Linkages side, I'll ask Mr. Hogan to elaborate on some details because I have to
go back a little bit.
Mr.
Hogan.
MR. HOGAN:
Yes, there was a reduction to the Linkages budget, a combination of drop
balances due to the line-by-line review. And there is a reduction in the overall
funding envelope. So there may be fewer individuals who will get served by the
program. I believe it will be approximately 19, would be the number downward
from last year.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay. Fair enough.
Just
quickly under 5.2.02 under Physical Plant and Equipment, $6.599 million to $3.8
million to $3.2 million; not a major difference in that. Was there something
different that was budgeted that didn't get used that now is no longer needed?
MR. BYRNE:
There was a $1.9 million
reference to Capital that got moved to operating. It was just placed in the
wrong spot.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay. That's good.
I'm
good on 5.2, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Okay. I want to move to Ms.
Michael for that subsection.
MS. MICHAEL:
Just a little bit more
specificity, I think.
Under
5.2.01, the Tuition Offset Grant was put up by $4 million. I'd like to know the
rationale for the determination of the $4 million.
MR. BYRNE:
That's the pattern that's
consistent, that has grown over a number of years. Originally, I think the
offset for Memorial was about $1 million.
Originally, MUN had agreed to a tuition freeze with no incremental funding. In
2005 there was a decision that was taken to sort of offset, through inflationary
costs – I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly what the original thesis was
behind it, but I assume it had to do with the fact that inflationary costs kept
rising. As it does for you and I, it also does for the university as well. So
there was an offset that was put in place. That offset itself grew over the
course of time.
When we
talk about the $4 million tuition freeze that's in this year's budget, that's
new additional funding; in actual fact, as part of the program of retaining the
tuition freeze, it is $52.4 million that is awarded to Memorial University of
Newfoundland as a tuition freeze offset, on an annual basis.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, I realize that but the
$4 million offset is slightly more than the drop in the operating grant. Knowing
that costs do go up and knowing that there's inflation in all the other
operational costs of the university as well, I sort of just question this: on
the one hand giving, on the other hand taking, it doesn't make sense to me. It
seems like the university is being put in a more difficult situation.
Yes, I
know it's $52.4 million as the offset, but they've also had millions taken away
as well. So I don't see the balance working out for the university, I guess.
MR. BYRNE:
Well, when we actually
calculated – when asked Memorial University of Newfoundland to consider some
reductions in their overall budget, we did so knowing that the entire province –
there wasn't a department, there wasn't an agency, there wasn't a board or a
commission that hadn't been asked to tighten its belt in some way, shape or form
in these fiscal times we live in.
Here's
an interesting point. What we did is when the budget's determination was made
there was an expectation of a budget reduction of 3 per cent of MUN. To help put
this a little bit in perspective, when you include the medical school along with
Memorial's other normal academic program; Memorial University of Newfoundland is
roughly – for practical sake – a half billion dollar a year enterprise. It's a
big institution. It's a very important institution, but at the same time, to
absorb a 3 per cent cut, under these particular times, may not seem unreasonable
to many. It certainly did not seem unreasonable to the government, when you
consider that in other institutions there was much more than a 3 per cent budget
cut.
But I
want to point this out, when it came to the tuition offset, to the tuition
freeze money; the 3 per cent did not apply to that. It was solely on the
operating. The 3 per cent was not applied to the $48.4 million. That was held
intact. So the tuition offset grew without any reduction whatsoever.
In
other words, yes, there were expectations of some reductions to create some
overall efficiencies. I feel pretty comfortable in saying, or pretty confident
in saying, there are still efficiencies that could be made at MUN. I think we'll
hear more about that when the Board of Regents reports fairly soon.
This
was done with full intention that a tuition freeze could still be maintained and
we did not apply any of the percentage of reduction to the tuition freeze
envelope. That was parceled out of the calculation. The reductions were simply
on the overall operating, not on the tuition offset grant.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
With
regard to 5.2.02, the Physical Plant and Equipment, there's been a drop in the
Grants and Subsidies there; yet, we have some ongoing projects, for example, the
Science Building.
How is
the Science Building being affected by this drop in the
Capital?
MR. BYRNE:
That is a capital project
which is fully funded. They university itself took out its own lending
instruments. There was some of the Hebron offset. So that project is still on
track and authorization to go to tender was, I think, issued some time ago.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Thank
you very much.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Gardiner, is there
anything else I should add to that or is that pretty well comprehensive?
MR. GARDINER:
The only thing I'd add is right now, of course, they have two tenders on the
street for CP2 and CP3. Their interim financing is being done through the
Immigrant Investor Fund which means Memorial University has those funds at a 2
per cent rate. They'll start paying that back over a period of years. The
mortgage won't come into effect until 2019-20 when the building is complete.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
That's
it, Chair.
CHAIR:
Okay, we're ready to move
from that –
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes, we can.
CHAIR:
I'll ask the Clerk to call
the subheads.
CLERK:
5.2.01 to 5.2.02 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.2.01 to 5.2.02
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 5.2.01 through 5.2.02 carried.
CHAIR:
I'll ask the Clerk to call
the next subhead.
CLERK:
5.3.01 to 5.3.02.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.3.01 to 5.3.02
carry?
Now,
I'm not sure where I go on the clock? Is that back to Mr. Brazil?
MR. BRAZIL:
I just have one quick
question there.
Under
Grants and Subsidies, under Operations, $75.9 million, $78.4 million, $2.5
million, is that to cover salary increases or was there a new program
implemented? Just looking for some clarification on the $2.5 million increase
from what was used.
MR. BYRNE:
I'm sorry, David, I've lost
my roadmap here.
MR. BRAZIL:
5.3.01, College of the North
Atlantic, Current. It was $79.7 million but the revised was $75.9 million now
it's $78.4 million. The $2.5 million was that due to salary increases, a new
program or something we missed?
MR. BYRNE:
In terms of that overall,
the Regular Operating Grant, there were already pre-established government
Attrition Management Plan targets that resulted in a decrease in the overall
funding envelope of $912,800. There was an increase in some student fees related
to parking and other things at $400,000. There was an offset of the increase of
$1.1 million for the extension of the tuition offset subsidies.
In the
balance of things, in terms of the Regular Operating Grant, that should just
about – the reduction of the grant was $1.3 million. The government Attrition
Management Plan, which was articulated back in 2013, takes in $912,800 of that
and then there were some increases in some fees and an increase in the tuition
offset.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, I'm clear on that.
Madam
Chair, I'm good on that section.
CHAIR:
Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Under 5.3.02, Grants and
Subsidies, last year it was $2,800,000 was the budget, $1,300,000 was spent.
Now, this year it's down again to $1,150,000. What is the impact on the college
– because it's more than one campus we know – of the money dropping so much?
I think
we'd all agree there are still needs for alterations for the college's
facilities, even if it's nothing else but the parking lot in front of the main
building.
MR. BYRNE:
Now, which main building
would that be?
MS. MICHAEL:
Here on Prince Philip Drive.
I'm tired of the patching.
MR. BYRNE:
Some of the decreases relate
to additional funding for – there is some work underway for new infrastructure
opportunities at CNA. We're trying to do some planning. There has not actually
been a whole lot of planning.
The
federal government has the strategic initiative fund which is directly related
to universities, colleagues and post-secondary institutions. We'd like to be
able to get more money from that. Part of that is some lab upgrades. We'd really
be encouraged if we could get some more money for various projects within the
entire CNA network.
You're
right. Despite the fact that the college has not received any significant budget
reduction this year, we do recognize there are still some overall infrastructure
needs due to deterred maintenance that needs to be dealt with. Hopefully, with
some funding partners, we might be able to rectify some of those problems.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
That's
all.
CHAIR:
We are moving right along
here now.
I'll
ask the Clerk to call the next subhead.
CLERK:
To vote on this one?
CHAIR:
We can vote on that one,
sorry.
CLERK:
5.3.01 to 5.3.02 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.3.01 to 5.3.02
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 5.3.01 through 5.3.02 carried.
CHAIR:
I'll ask the Clerk to call
the next subhead.
CLERK:
5.4.01 to 5.4.2 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.4.01 to 5.4.02
inclusive carry?
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
I just have one question
here under Scholarships, just out of curiosity, the decrease there of $45,000.
Is it just a budget line decrease or is it there wasn't an uptake on the program
itself under Scholarships, Allowances and Assistance?
MR. BYRNE:
No, there was full uptake in
the scholarships, but there was a decision that under the scope of our current
financial circumstances as to whether or not we could continue to provide
scholarships, whether or not it was the government's role.
What we
are finding though, I will say this, there are more and more sponsored
scholarships and bursaries that are coming online, not only at Memorial but
specifically at CNA. So you'll find, if you attend graduations and various
awards ceremonies, more and more of the corporate sector is actually providing
the post-secondary institutions with a greater amount, a greater volume of
unaffiliated, unencumbered sponsorship money which is for the university's
academic criteria, the selection committee to be able to select the right
candidates to be able to receive those scholarships.
Yes,
there has been full admission. There's been a bit of a retreat in terms of
government's role in this particular initiative. Our role is not seen as great
now to award scholarships; more it's in the line of financial assistance to
needy students.
MR. BRAZIL:
I appreciate that, and I do
agree that there's been much more of an uptake by the private sector. I see that
as a good thing. So I appreciate that.
Madam
Chair, that's the only question I have on that section.
MS. MICHAEL:
Just a couple of questions,
Madam Chair, please.
You
have two areas that are being eliminated; one is the elimination of the
apprenticeship scholarships and then the reduction and elimination of the
funding for the post-secondary scholarships, which are pretty historical here in
the province, these scholarships. Could we have an idea of when the total
elimination is planned for? We've had some questions about this; people
concerned about the loss of those scholarships in particular.
MR. BYRNE:
Sure, to open up with the
apprenticeship scholarships, one of the guiding realities or facts when
reviewing this particular initiative, by virtue of the fact that apprenticeships
are in the full-time workforce for a significant period of time – that's the
nature of the apprenticeship, that you're in a full-time workforce. Upon
completion of the apprenticeship or in the course of the apprenticeship, it's a
little tougher to argue the financial need is as strong, given the fact that
they're working full-time during the course of their collection of qualifying
hours to be able to meet the apprenticeship requirements. And when they're in
the process of their block studies, they also normally would be sponsored,
because of course they're EI eligible in large measure.
So from
the apprenticeship point of view, the scholarship, while it is valuable to
recognize excellence, it's whether or not at this point in time taxpayers'
dollars can be a part of that process. So there was a decision, given the fact
that those impacted by this actually have regular full-time sources of income
all the way through, that was a major component.
On the
post-secondary side, while a reduction of approximately from $123,000 to $87,000
for those scholarships in this coming year, that was a decision that was made
because those are the times we live in. And while we try to maintain a robust
student financial assistance program, if there was one element that was not
consistent with a needs-based approach it was recognizing excellence, we all
want to do that, and we can still do that, but like I said to my colleague, that
there were still opportunities through other benefactors to be able to provide
post-secondary scholarships as well.
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, I'll just point out
that at the same time that's happening, we're laying loans on people as well,
lessening grants and even if the loans can be reclaimed at the end –
MR. BYRNE:
I agree, and –
MS. MICHAEL:
I find it disturbing –
MR. BYRNE:
But if you think that
through, those –
MS. MICHAEL:
I have to let you know we
are getting reaction to this one in particular.
MR. BYRNE:
I understand, but in terms
of the momentum of your logic, which I understand, but those who are receiving
academic scholarships are probably passing their courses and are therefore
eligible for a full debt reduction grant at the end of the course of their
studies. I don't mean to overgeneralize, but if someone's receiving a
scholarship on academic excellence, that means they're probably passing their
courses. That means they're probably going to get full debt reduction.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's fine, Madam Chair.
Thank
you very much, Minister.
CHAIR:
We're good with that
section.
MR. BRAZIL:
That section, yes.
CHAIR:
Okay.
I'll
ask the Clerk to call for the vote.
CLERK:
5.4.01 to 5.4.02 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.4.01 to 5.4.02
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 5.4.01 through 5.4.02 carried.
CHAIR:
I'll ask the Clerk to call
the final subhead.
CLERK:
5.5.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.5.01 carry?
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
I just got a couple of
general, particularly, and one general one at the end of it. I do appreciate the
minister and his staff being open with us and sharing the data and the
information. I do encourage, as we talk about any information that we may have
requested, that if you could get that to us in a timely fashion, when you get a
chance, and anything that, for both oppositions here, we'd appreciate that.
I do
have one question around – and I noticed there, the integration of the persons
with disabilities training component is going to be now rolled in with the
student aid process, Bob, I realize. Can you explain a little bit how that's
going to work and if you see it as a benefit to students with disabilities,
particularly?
MR. BYRNE:
The reality we noticed that
was unmistakeable is that there were many people who were left out in the
previous – there was a waiting list. I think last year there were 70 people that
deferred their education opportunities because they were on a waiting list. That
was unfortunate.
We
sought to see two things: how can we make sure that post-secondary education for
those with permanent disabilities is available to them at the time they want to
do that, to take those studies; and the second thing, how can we maximize
federal funding. We were leaving a lot of federal money on the table. Because
our provincial program was founded somewhere where not taking the benefits of
the provincial program – because you could either do one or the other under the
original rules. If you were a participant in the post-secondary training program
for persons with disabilities, then you would not normally use the provincial
assistance.
Notwithstanding all that, there is a lot of federal money that was available out
there that was not being used. For example, for persons with permanent
disabilities there's an initial $2,000 access grant followed by an $8,000
technology equipment and services grant. Plus, in addition to that, they had
access to the normal federal student financial assistance program for full-time
students which provided a $3,000 grant.
What
we've done is by harmonizing the two we're making sure that no one is left out,
no one is left behind. There's nobody on a waiting list. Everyone has access to
the funding when they want to, as they want to pursue studies.
But in
addition to that, Mr. Brazil, what we've done is we've added a second component,
a provincial disabilities grant. So that if there's anything, any funding that's
not considered within the $10,000 in grants that are available for adaptation
within the federal system, we also have a $500,000 a year provincial granting
system on top of that. If you qualify for the initial $2,000 and $8,000 and your
training needs still exceed that amount, you can apply and will receive funding
from the additional offset provincial grant.
It's
about two things; one, making sure that no one is left behind. This new program,
the post-secondary training grant was not income tested, it was not means
tested. In other words, it was kind of first-come, first-served. It was not
necessarily targeting those with the greatest vulnerabilities or the greatest
needs.
By
harmonizing the two programs I think we're going to have a lot less – I know
we're going to have a lot less – people who are left behind. We're going to
maximize the federal funding and at the same time we're going to be able to
provide the full – my Director of Student Financial Assistance, who you know is
a great guy, he says nobody will be left behind.
MR. BRAZIL:
I was hoping that was – this
has been talked about for a number of years. I'm glad it's gone that route.
I do
have one challenge with some clients who avail – special needs disabilities in
the college system – who receive income support, for example. Under our process
today, you get a student loan and your income support; obviously you come off
the access to that. Their debt load obviously increases and it should be offset
by their living allowances, this type of thing.
The
issue becomes down the road their ability to be able to get debt reduction.
Because if there are challenges there, they're not going to be able to do a full
complement of courses, so it's going to take them a longer process, meaning
they'll owe more money and less of an ability to pay it back.
I've
got some clients who were coming in and saying they're relying on the $168 a
month, for example, income support. Now that gets cut. I try to explain at the
end of their college program, but they won't be able to finish it in the time
frame. Do we have leeway there to adjust for those who may take twice as long,
for example, because of the special needs?
MR. BYRNE:
If there are special needs,
if there are exceptionalities involved, what the definition of a full-time
student is becomes – it's measured within the consideration of the
exceptionalities. In actual fact, I had a long discussion with the Canadian
Federation of Students about this. They became more appreciative of the fact
that those exceptionalities are built into the system.
I think
it would be difficult here and now to be able to sort of walk through each and
every one of those exceptionalities. But they do exist and they are factored
into the overall calculation of what is a full-time student.
If
someone, for example, is taking two courses but that is assessed to be their
maximum number of courses that they can take based on their exceptionalities,
that's a full-time student. So we do take very, very deliberate consideration of
that. Again, we may be able to get to individual cases that there may be some
grey area and so on, but that's the general rule and that's norm.
MR. BRAZIL:
Perfect.
I'd
just like to thank yourself and your staff. Very open and very informative and
we appreciate that. We look forward to some of the information that we've
requested also.
Thank
you.
Madam
Chair, I'm good.
CHAIR:
Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Just to do the same, thank
the minister and his staff. You've been very helpful. Being able to have the
Estimates briefing books and the information we requested will be much welcomed.
Thank
you.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you.
Madam
Chair, if I could just take a couple of quick, quick moments. I want to make a
comment, if I could, about the Estimates process.
This is
one of the more, I think, open and transparent processes that I've ever
encountered. I was saying to the executive here just before we started that in a
place that I have been used to in Ottawa, Estimates are actually published
before the budget is published. So the Estimates documents don't have as much
relevance once the budget is actually tabled because, of course, they don't
reflect the changes as a result of the budget.
So
these Estimates being published simultaneous with the budget, I think, is
extremely helpful. You may be shaking your head saying why would you do anything
but. But in Ottawa, the nature of the federal government's Estimates process and
budgetary process, they actually table them a month before the budget is tabled
or more and then the budget all changes the Estimates. You don't have an
opportunity for as close and detailed a review because the Estimates don't
contain any of the budgetary information as a result of the budget changes.
The
other thing is that in Ottawa, ministers usually only provide a maximum of one
hour, if that, for Estimates review. And that includes questions from the
government party. Here, the process is obviously dominated by the Opposition,
and that's for good reasons, because it's the Opposition, with the government,
but it's the Opposition that plays a key role in holding the government to
account.
So just
a couple of quick reflections that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
and the Legislature, more importantly, the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and
Labrador, I think has a far, far more robust, more transparent and open
accountability exercise when it comes to the budget than what is available in
our nation's capital.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
I will
ask the Clerk to call the total.
CLERK:
5.5.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.5.01 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 5.5.01 carried.
CLERK:
Total.
CHAIR:
Shall the totals carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, Department of Advanced Education and Skills, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
for Advanced Education and Skills carried without amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates for the Department of Advanced Education and Skills carried
without amendment.
CHAIR:
Now, a couple more quick
things.
Minutes
were distributed on your desk from the Department of Environment and
Conservation Resource Committee meeting, April 27. One noted change: Ms. Rogers
subbed in for Ms. Michael on that day.
Can I
have a motion to adopt the minutes with that one amendment?
MR. BRAGG:
So moved.
CHAIR:
So moved by the MHA for Fogo
Island – Cape Freels, Mr. Bragg.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR:
Having said that, and I'm
quite happy – having chaired eight departments, Mr. Minister – to say that this
is the final Estimates, to my knowledge. We're done. It's a good process. I
think we finish up today.
Thank
you very much to everybody who participated in this very important process.
I will
ask for a motion to adjourn.
MR. DEAN:
So moved.
CHAIR:
So moved by the MHA for
Exploits, Mr. Dean.
Have a
good rest of the day, everyone.
On
motion, the Committee adjourned.