May 9,
2017
RESOURCE COMMITTEE
The
Committee met at approximately 9:05 a.m. in the House of Assembly.
CHAIR (Warr):
Good Morning.
Welcome, I guess to the final chapter of our Estimates Committee meetings for
Resource. Before we get underway, just some housekeeping duties and they are the
minutes of May 8. I'd certainly ask someone to move the minutes of that
particular meeting.
MR. DEAN:
So moved.
CHAIR:
So moved by MHA Dean.
Thank
you.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR:
I'd like to welcome
everybody this morning. Before we get underway, I'll ask probably Mr. Brazil on
the Committee side to introduce themselves, and then I'll turn it back over to
the minister to introduce his department as well.
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
David Brazil, MHA,
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. SHEPPARD:
James Sheppard, Research, Official Opposition.
MS. SHELLEY:
Jenna Shelley, Research Student, Official Opposition.
MS. MICHAEL:
Lorraine Michael, MHA, St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MR. MORGAN:
Ivan Morgan, Research, NDP caucus.
MR. BRAGG:
Derrick Bragg, MHA, Fogo
Island – Cape Freels.
MR. DEAN:
Jerry Dean, MHA, Exploits.
MR. FINN:
John Finn, Stephenville –
Port au Port.
CHAIR:
My name is Brian Warr, and
I'm the MHA for Baie Verte – Green Bay.
Minister Byrne, we'll turn it over to you for your opening remarks. You have 15
minutes, and you can ask your staff as well to introduce themselves.
Thank
you, Sir.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Chair, I thank you again
for leaving the best for last. I will try not to use my full 15 minutes because
I think that questions would be more valuable and more pertinent, but I do want
to say thank you to the Committee for the opportunity to appear before them on
Estimates.
Before
I begin, I would like to introduce this esteemed and august cast of characters
that have assembled with me, beginning with myself, Gerry Byrne, Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and now Labour. Since the last Estimates meeting the
Labour portfolio has been added to my portfolio, and that's been very, very
interesting and quite a task but still, at the same time, it's something I've
really enjoyed taking on as well.
With
me, Mr. Chair, colleagues, is Genevieve Dooling, my Deputy Minister of Advanced
Education, Skills and Labour. Gig, if you could take now and just walk through –
we'll ask everyone to introduce themselves, Mr. Chair, with your indulgence.
MS. DOOLING:
I'm Genevieve Dooling, the
Deputy Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HANLON:
Bren Hanlon, Departmental
Controller, Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MS. DUNPHY:
Debbie Dunphy, Assistant
Deputy Minister of Corporate Services and Policy.
MS. O'BRIEN:
Donna O'Brien, Assistant
Deputy Minister of Regional Services.
MR. MAVIN:
Walt Mavin, Director of
Employment and Training Programs.
MR. TOMPKINS:
John Tompkins, Director of
Communications.
MR. MACGOWAN:
Gord MacGowan, Minister
Byrne's Executive Assistant.
MR. FEAVER:
Rob Feaver, Director of
Student Financial Services.
MR. BRANTON:
Glenn Branton, CEO of the
Labour Relations Board.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair, for this opportunity again.
As you
can tell, we have a very esteemed group of individuals that will be able to –
any questions that I may require some additional assistance with in terms of
providing a full and complete answer I'll occasionally call on officials to be
able to do so with your indulgence.
I want
to say thank you again to the Committee. Each and every one of us I'm sure and
confident are very much aware that the Department of Advanced Education, Skills
and Labour touches the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on many levels
every day, whether that's through skills training, student financial assistance,
labour relations or various social and economic supports. The objective of this
department is to help people. We are guided by the philosophy that we should do
everything possible to meet our commitments in
The Way Forward to enable people to
live independent and fulfilling lives.
We want
to ensure that only the best of services and programs are offered to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to help them achieve employment and
independence. Given the width and breadth across the department with an
expansive responsibility for social and economic development, resources are
shared across divisions, always guided by the goal of being more responsive in
the development and delivery of programs and services.
I would
like to take a moment to highlight some notable developments over the past year.
For example, the former Labour Relations Agency was incorporated into the
department, a natural link in my opinion given the department's focus on
learning, working and supporting individuals and employers in building a strong
workforce and a more diverse economy.
I'd
like to say that the addition or the inclusion of the Labour Relations in to the
department has been a tremendous asset and they and their skills of that
particular team have advanced the department's overall acumen and capacity
tremendously, and I truly appreciate the fact of the professionalism that they
have brought to us and with us.
We
launched, Mr. Chair, The Way Forward
on immigration in Newfoundland and Labrador just recently. This is the
province's new Immigration Action Plan. It's based on engagement, partnership
and collaboration, and details the steps all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
can take to increase immigration and improve immigrant retention.
We also
announced two minimum wage increases, Mr. Chair. The first of which has already
come into effect, which will bring our minimum wage raise to $11 per hour by
October of this year. This brings us in line with other Atlantic Canadian
provinces. We also held a series of consultations throughout the province to
identify the most appropriate way for Newfoundland and Labrador to index its
minimum wage. Workers, employers, labour and business organizations, and
anti-poverty and student advocacy groups all provided their input through this
consultation process.
In
The Way Forward the provincial
government committed to modernizing the College of the North Atlantic so its
network of campuses throughout the province can be better served as economic
generators and community hubs to support entrepreneurship, innovation, research
and development. We engaged the College of the North Atlantic to conduct an
uncompromising review of its critical issues and future opportunities. CNA's
leadership did this in great detail, providing a frank and honest examination,
as well as outlining a clear plan for modernization. We will continue to work
closely with CNA to ensure that the next steps in its modernization plan are
taken and they effectively address the critical issues identified.
We also
convened the Council on Higher Education, which will identify opportunities for
increased collaboration and sharing of resources between Memorial University of
Newfoundland and the College of the North Atlantic. Areas of interest include
international recruitment and retention, administrative processes, research,
contract training, the marine and agricultural sectors as the two in particular
and opportunities to expand training in Labrador.
In
consideration of some of the specific budget highlights, the Department of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour is responsible for $870.7 million of the
provincial budget. This is about 10.5 per cent of the entire provincial budget.
Through cost-saving measures such as zero-based budgeting and adopting a new
management structure, this represents a savings over previous years of $5.3
million.
Budget 2017
investments include $316 million to Memorial University, not including its
medical school; $56.4 million of which is provided with the expectation the
Board of Regents will maintain the tuition freeze for Newfoundland and Labrador
students; $89.1 million has been granted in aid to the College of the North
Atlantic, including $11.6 million provided with the expectation that the College
maintain the tuition freeze for Newfoundland and Labrador students; $223.8
million is being allocated for Income Support; $5.6 million to student financial
assistance; and our new federal assistance first approach is guided by the
principle of maximizing all federal assistance available before provincial
assistance kicks in. This will allow an additional $2 million in federal
government student loans and assistance to be released over the previous model
which will benefit approximately 1,100 additional students.
Mr.
Chair, $14.1 million for employment preparation and maintenance programs has
been offered, including for persons with disabilities; $6.7 million for high
school and post-secondary student employment programs are on top; as well as
$2.2 million in provincial funding to the Office of Immigration and
Multiculturalism to implement the Immigration Action Plan. This is effectively
doubling our investments to support immigration. This is also in addition to
$1.5 million in federal funding for the plan. The plan will support engagement
and collaboration initiatives, including partnering with stakeholders to
increase immigration by 50 per cent and welcoming approximately 1,700 immigrants
annually by 2022.
As a
government, we have been required to find efficiencies wherever possible
throughout our programs and services due to the fiscal situation. Regardless of
the fiscal situation we are facing, it is just responsible and reasonable to do
so. 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.
Mr.
Chair, I thank you for allowing me this opportunity to make these opening
remarks and I'd be very happy to take questions concerning the department's
budget Estimates.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Byrne.
Just
before we get started, for those who are answering questions, just state your
name. If Minister Byrne passes a question on to someone else, just state your
name, wait for your tally light to come on and go ahead with your answer. Just
with –
MR. BYRNE:
If I may interject, Mr.
Chair, I know it is the norm to be able to give a binder, the information, to
members of the Committee as soon as possible. I'd like to do it right now so
that you can follow along, if that's okay.
CHAIR:
So while Minister Byrne is
doing that, we'll be calling the subheads by branch. If you don't get enough
time to ask your questions in the first 10 minutes, we'll come back.
I'll
ask the Clerk to call the first subhead, please.
CLERK (Barnes):
Okay.
1.1.01
through 1.2.03 inclusive.
CHAIR:
1.1.01 to 1.2.03 inclusive.
Mr.
Brazil, please.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
welcome the minister and the officials from AESL. No doubt, I see some familiar
faces there. I know the commitment and I know the skillset of not only the
senior officials in the department but a lot of the front-line workers. So I
have a unique, I would think, appreciation for the valued work of the
department, and particularly the benefits it has for the citizens of this
province.
While I
do, sometimes I may probe to get a little bit more information because I've sort
of been out of the loop for a few years. The fact that the minister has done,
very eloquently, due diligence in outlining exactly what the department does,
but also in providing the Estimates binder makes it a little bit easier for us
to be able to stick to asking key questions for clarification purposes as part
of the process.
So I do
ask, if it's not outlined in the binder, if we can, over the next period of
time, get an organizational chart with the staffing and particularly any – the
key thing here because I know there's been some reductions that have been taking
place in the department, particularly at senior levels in management, if we
could have then what has changed, even those who have gone out of it and who has
picked up their responsibilities. That way it would make an even flow in my
understanding and the Opposition's understanding of how the services are still
being provided. I do ask that if you could provide that over the next number of
days, please.
I'll
take it line for line, just for clarification points. Some may be minor amounts
for just clarification of what is covered; others may be relevant to a debate on
who is now offering a particular program or is that program still being offered
by the department.
I'll
just start quickly with 1.1.01, Minister's Office. Minister, just under
Salaries, I noted the revised is down somewhat; just a quick explanation as to
what the change there was.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Chair, with the Salaries
there were two events. There was a revision up from last year, but in terms for
this particular year compared to last year: zero-based adjustment requirements
for 2017 and '18 to pay three individuals, which now include the minister, the
executive assistant and the secretary. Last year, we did have severance pay and
leave entitlements for my administrative assistant, my secretary, who retired.
That's one of the reasons why the revised estimates from last year were a little
higher than what they are this year.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, thank you on that.
Could I
just ask the subheads that you called for?
CHAIR:
1.1.01 to 1.2.03.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay. I'm going to Executive
Support. Under Transportation and Communications, I noticed from the budget, in
1.2.01, of $75,400 originally, $60,400 was spent. Now, we're into $49,100. What
are the changes there? What's the anticipated drop in travel?
MR. BYRNE:
Which subheading are we at,
Mr. Brazil?
MR. BRAZIL:
1.2.01, under Transportation
and Communications.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, understood, thank you.
In
Transportation, there is less than anticipated travel for certain executive
members related to federal-provincial-territorial meetings. The decrease is
partially due to departmental zero-based review of the FPT travel requirements.
Nine FPT trips are planned for the deputy minister and one for the ADM for
2017-'18, including immigration, LMDA negotiations, post-secondary FPT meetings,
as well CAMET and several others.
While
my duties – I just point this out – as the Minister of Labour have somewhat
advanced or increased my personal travel requirements to attend federal,
provincial and territorial meetings, we've tried to, through zero-based
budgeting, reduce the amount of support that I receive during the course of
those meetings to be able to trim costs.
MR. BRAZIL:
Fair enough.
Mr.
Chair, that's all I have in that subhead.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Ms.
Michael, 1.1.01 to 1.2.03 inclusive.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Good
morning, Minister, and good morning to your officials and other staff, and thank
you for the binder. You'll understand if we don't use it completely during this
because we do have our own notes –
MR. BYRNE:
Understood.
MS. MICHAEL:
– and we will be checking
things afterwards. If at any point I do ask something that is totally, clearly
spelled out there, tell me, unless it's pertinent to going forward with my
questions.
Thank
you very much, Minister.
In
1.2.01, I know you gave us an overview with regard to positions, Minister, but
could you explain the salary line? I'm assuming this was part of some of the
restructuring.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, you can tell, there has
been a drop in the salary line. Savings result from partial year vacancy of the
ADM of Corporate Services – I'm delighted to have Deb Dunphy back – and the
deputy minister's secretary. There's been a full-year vacancy of contract
positions in Communications and, in the downscale, hired for a certain decision
on the manager of Communications for a partial year.
A
portion of the ADM's salary, while acting in a dual role – as you are aware, my
post-secondary ADM was also acting president of the College of the North
Atlantic. In that dual role, there was a split and some of the salary was
charged to CNA, approximately $45,000 of which, so I think that may explain
that.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
And
just for my own information then, because we will use this, we have downloaded
the salary report from the website that is put up by Finance, I understand. I'd
like to know, to your knowledge, and I'm sure you don't check this out on a
daily basis, but is this up to date?
MR. BYRNE:
To my knowledge, it is up to
date, but I will ask my deputy minister to certify that.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, good. I'm glad to see
it, but here all of the positions under Executive Support are permanent
positions now. Is that correct?
Right,
great. Thank you very much.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you.
MS. MICHAEL:
I don't have any more on
that section.
Under
1.2.02, could we come down to Purchased Services? There's a big change here. The
Purchased Services last year were budgeted, approximately, at $2.9 million,
revised down by approximately $205,000 and the budget for this year is $360,000
below the budget for last year.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, thank you for that
question.
Basically, in terms of Purchased Services within this particular line item,
lease savings is what's driving these particular savings.
MS. MICHAEL:
Which savings, I'm sorry?
MR. BYRNE:
Lease savings.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, okay.
MR. BYRNE:
Yeah. For example, there
were lease savings of approximately $30,000 which was a prior-year decision; the
movement of the Document Processing Unit into the Petten Building. There was
lease savings of $120,000 approximately, which was integration of smaller
offices into larger employment centres. There was a decrease of $72,500 due to
departmental zero-based review of some of the lease requirements. There were
decreases in lease costs related to Metro Place for six months of $136,800.
Which I think are very important because, of course, leases are not necessarily
front-line services, they're ways to save money without reducing the overall
service footprint.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Thank you.
Under
the Salaries in this subhead as well, there's a difference of $63,700 in the
budget line from last year to this year.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, thank you for the
question.
In that
particular item there was a zero-based increase of $64,000. I just want to make
sure that I'm reading that correctly.
Yeah,
there was a zero-based increase of $64,000 to rightsize the salary plan, offset
by attrition management of the previous government of $42,900, and management
restructuring reduction of $85,500 for the manager of financial policy and
external relations also did occur. So the consequence was the savings that you
see in that particular line item.
As
well, there was an additional savings related to just simply a partial vacancy
of a Clerk III position. That brought the revised revision down. It created a
revision of $20,000 from the 2016-'17 original budget.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you.
Under
1.2.03, again in Salaries, do we have an elimination of positions in this area
as well?
MR. BYRNE:
There is a forecasted
adjustment. I believe your question is in this year's Estimates it's down by
about $440,000 from the 2016 figure.
MS. MICHAEL:
Correct.
MR. BYRNE:
There is a forecast
adjustment as a result of the attrition management plan that was brought forward
and, of course, that was instated by the previous government. That resulted in a
savings or will result in a savings of $33,400. There was a comprehensive salary
plan to rightsize the overall spending pattern which was part of the
departmental zero-based review. That provided a $200,000 savings, and there was
also a management restructuring which was the reduction of two director
positions for a budgetary difference of $206,700.
MS. MICHAEL:
Minister, do you have the
details of those director positions and how the work of those positions has been
redistributed?
MR. BYRNE:
We do. In actual fact – I'd
ask my deputy minister to speak to that now because it may be useful. We can
actually probably supply material sooner rather than later if that's possible,
Deputy.
MS. DOOLING:
Absolutely. Thank you, Ms.
Michael, for the question.
What
had happened here, as the minister has alluded to previously, the former Labour
Relations Agency was pulled into the Department of Advanced Education and Skills
during the year. They had a strategic planning and policy shop, as did the
department proper.
As
well, there was a quality assurance division that we had. So what we did was we
took those three, because there was a director for policy in the department, a
director in the former Labour Relations Agency and a director of quality
assurance. Through the management restructuring opportunity, we collapsed those
three small divisions into one division. So we had an elimination of two
directors' positions, one being a policy director, to avoid duplication and one
being the quality assurance because that work was assumed by the remaining
director of policy, and as well by senior management for quality assurance.
That's
how the work was absorbed within the department. It was actually collapsing
three small divisions into one.
MS. MICHAEL:
What is the name of the new
division?
MS. DOOLING:
It's strategic planning,
policy and quality assurance would be the new name of the division.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
MS. DOOLING:
You're welcome.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's very helpful.
Again
under 1.2.03, under Purchased Services, obviously there's a major change here.
We're gone from $322,800 down to $10,400. What was this about?
MR. BYRNE:
That is a significant change
down by $312,400 from the 2016-'17 original budget. This is indeed a zero-based
budget review decrease due to office lease budgets being transferred to Labour
Standards Division, which is $225,000, the Labour Relations Board, $75,600, with
savings of $11,800.
So it's
really a change in ownership and controllership of those funds. The Labour
Policy and Labour Standards have been relocated to the Confederation Building
now.
MS. MICHAEL:
So that's what I was going
to ask, this must have to do with the restructuring?
MR. BYRNE:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
I think
that's all I have, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Michael.
Can I
have the Clerk recall the first set of subheads, please?
CLERK:
1.1.01 through 1.2.03
inclusive.
CHAIR:
1.1.01 through 1.2.03
inclusive.
Shall
the subheads carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.2.03 carried.
CHAIR:
Can I have the Clerk call
the next subhead, please?
CLERK:
2.1.01.
CHAIR:
2.1.01.
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
Just directly on Salaries
there, the decrease of $600,000 from what was budgeted to less than $400,000
from the revised. Is that a number of staff gone? Is there a change in the
structure? Can you just explain the loss there, please?
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you for the question.
This is
a result of management restructuring, as you anticipated. There was a management
restructuring reduction of five positions: the manager of Income and Social
Supports; there were two regional manager positions for Employment Services;
manager of Corporate Services; and a Client Services manager. The reduction of
those positions we're able to achieve savings of $440,900.
The
forecast adjustment, the attrition management plan of government as well, is
responsible for $350,000 from previous years, and comprehensive salary plan
right-sizing as part of the departmental zero-based review results in $228,000
in savings.
MR. BRAZIL:
Do you anticipate any impact
on being able to deliver the services from a decision-making point of view with
regional managers being out of the queue?
MR. BYRNE:
We don't anticipate any
change in service levels. We've been able to consider previous workloads,
changing work patterns, changing demands, and we feel very confident that there
will be no impact on services to clients.
Deputy,
are there any additional points you would like to add, or is that summarizing
it?
MS. DOOLING:
I think that's correct, Minister.
What
we've done in a number of areas, if a manager was responsible for Employment
Support and in the small areas, plus we had a manager of Income Support in the
regional, we've had the individual now take both programs to administer. This is
actually a really good opportunity, because we can see the natural links between
people coming in to apply for Income Support and rather than leave them on the
caseload, it gives us an opportunity to work with those clients to try to
prepare them for the employment piece as well to move them off the caseload.
So, in
fact, it was very strategic because you have the one manager who is looking at
both programs now to try to use the Income Support client caseload as an
opportunity to enhance their skills and to move them to employment.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes, it makes sense.
The
numbers, what are you anticipating the numbers for intake of Client Services
officers seeing here? Are we talking an increase? Is there a trend on the
decrease? The collaboration of the two, is it now you're going to get a
different type of client coming through the door?
MR. BYRNE:
In terms of our intakes,
I'll be candid and say there was an anticipation of certain increases in client
intake, which did not actually occur. It did not materialize as we were prepared
for it.
Would
Donna be able to speak to some of the – our change, our delta in client intake.
MS. O'BRIEN:
Thank you, Minister.
In
terms of our intake process related to the Income Support program, as the
minister identified, we were prepared and expecting an increase in that caseload
given some changes in the economic environment; however, that has not
materialized. We continued to see a reduction in our Income Support caseload.
In
terms of attachments to Employment Services, we're focusing our attention now in
terms of supporting Income Support clients to move towards the labour market and
preparing them for employment.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, great.
Is
there any way over the next few days I could get the numbers on what the
clientele, the numbers of clients were in 2015-16 and anticipated 2017? Just for
a comparable process, I appreciate that.
MS. O'BRIEN:
Mr. Brazil, that information
is available on our Intranet site. So I'll certainly make copies of that and
provide them to you.
MR. BRAZIL:
I appreciate that. Thank
you.
Under
Transportation and Communications, I've noticed it's up a little bit. I'm
assuming now there's going to be a different approach or more hands on by
managers or front-line staff to be able to go where clients are in some way,
shape or form, or promote the services that are being offered?
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, within the previous
fiscal year there were – discretionary travel was certainly monitored and
reduced wherever possible just to get to the baseline to this. For example, the
use of video conferencing, telephones, skype and other things were fully
utilized. It's still down. In the current fiscal year compared to budget of last
year, we are down by approximately $23,000. The decrease is due to, again,
departmental zero-based review of recent travel requirements.
The
closure of offices in 2016 and 2017 did necessitate some level of increased
transportation, which we anticipated. That was the intent, was that we would not
leave clients without the capacity to have face-to-face meetings with the ASL
case officers and staff. While we were able to achieve significant savings
through office consolidations, there would be naturally a bump in certain travel
requirements to allow staff to be able to meet expectations of clients.
MR. BRAZIL:
I appreciate that.
One
last question in that subhead there: Purchased Services. Give me a little bit
more detail on Purchased Services.
MR. BYRNE:
The estimates are down
compared to last year just in terms of the budget itself. The revised budget, we
anticipated – last year we budgeted $374,000. Those purchases did not
materialize.
But
where Purchased Services do come in, they were revised down by $54,000 in
'16-'17 with the eight office closures, and the discretionary purchases were
quite limited and the decrease due to departmental zero-based review. So we'll
continue.
There
was a conclusion that was reached that in terms of Purchased Services we would
still need $367,000. If that changes, if that is not used, of course, we'll
report it accordingly.
MR. BRAZIL:
Can you give me a little bit
more detail? What kind of purchased services are we talking here?
MR. BYRNE:
Funding is provided mostly
under Purchased Services for leasehold improvements. For example, there were
$24,000 in certain leasehold improvements; there are Managed Print Services
where our Managed Print Services accounted for $130,000. I believe that's the
Xerox, is it?
OFFICIAL:
It is and the printers and
that.
MR. BYRNE:
That's the Xerox contract
from several years ago.
Video
conferencing services at $55,000, security guard services at certain of our
locations at $32,400. We do require shredding services given the confidential
nature of a lot of our documentation. Shredding services come in at $38,300. We
do incur banking fees. Banking fees are $3,600, business insurance at $10,000
and general purchased services at $74,400.
For
example, I mentioned security guard services. There is one full-time security
guard provided through contract with a local company at one of our St. John's
employment centres. This is a pretty high-traffic area, which I think it's a
prudent and responsible decision to take to offer some security to staff, given
the circumstances that sometimes may or may not evolve at a location such as
that.
MR. BRAZIL:
So these are standard
purchased services? Any unique ones that you would expect? You just outlined,
obviously, a security guard would be unique in government processes, no doubt.
MR. BYRNE:
Yeah.
MR. BRAZIL:
Anything new that may be on
the horizon that you've budgeted for?
MR. BYRNE:
None that I'm aware of. I'll
ask my deputy minister to certify that.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, I appreciate that.
MS. DOOLING:
No new ones, per se. When you look at the budgeted amount for '16-'17, Mr.
Brazil, compared to '17-'18, you'll actually see a small decrease. That decrease
by combing every expenditure under that line item.
MR. BRAZIL:
Fair enough.
That's
the only questions I have for 2.1.01.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Brazil.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
All of my questions have
been asked.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Okay, can I ask the Clerk to
recall the subhead, please.
CLERK:
2.1.01.
CHAIR:
2.1.01.
Shall
the subhead carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 2.1.01 carried.
CHAIR:
Can I ask the Clerk to call
the next set of subheads, please.
CLERK:
3.1.01 through 3.2.07
inclusive.
CHAIR:
3.1.01 to 3.2.07.
Ms.
Michael, if you'd like to start this round, please.
Thank
you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So
we're looking at Income Assistance. Minister, if we could just have an
explanation for the small decrease in the Salaries. It looks like it could be a
position, but maybe it isn't.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, thank you for the
question.
It's
down by $59,900 from the 2016-'17 original budget. There was a zero-based
adjustment to rightsize the salary budget by $40,000. That was offset by
management restructuring which was the reduction of one position, which was
approximately $100,000.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
It's
only down by $59,900 so –
MS. DOOLING:
It's the net of the two.
MR. BYRNE:
Sorry, it's the net of the
two.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh.
MR. BYRNE:
Deputy, would you like to
explain that further?
MS. DOOLING:
Absolutely. Thank you, Ms. Michael.
Actually, what had happened was there was $40,000 more put into this line item
to rightsize the budget, then, of course, we take away $99,000 for the removal
of one management position, so when you net the two –
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MS. DOOLING:
– that's when you come up with the $59,900. I hope that clarifies it.
MS. MICHAEL:
It certainly does, yes.
Thank
you very much.
MS. DOOLING:
You're welcome.
MS. MICHAEL:
Minister, I'm interested in
the decrease in Income Assistance. I remember last year, of course, I know
there's been an ongoing decrease. Have you done an analysis because it's down
quite a bit? The budget this year would be down $7 million from last year's
budget. Have you done an analysis of why we're seeing this drop in Income
Assistance?
MR. BYRNE:
One of the major drivers of
the reduction is not a reduction in actual assistance to clients. You may recall
there was a decision taken in last year's budget to work with the Department of
Health and Community Services on medical transportation assistance for Income
Support clients. As you are aware, this is non-emergency transportation
assistance for Income Support clients who are attending to more routine medical
matters. That funding of $6.4 million was indeed transferred to the Department
of Health to better utilize.
The
Department of Health and Community Services has more capacity to be able to
understand the health needs –
MS. MICHAEL:
Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I hate
to do this, but I do have a hearing problem and the external noise that is
coming, I really can't focus on the minister. Even though I have an earpiece in,
I have to ask for order.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Michael.
I'd ask
all Members to co-operate with the request.
Thank
you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
I
appreciate it. I'm sorry to have to do that.
MR. BYRNE:
No, I appreciate that very
much and I will try to be a little louder and to project a little more clearly
as well.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
MR. BYRNE:
The Department of Health and
Community Services has capacity to be able to understand individual clients.
They are the experts in the delivery of health care. They understand not only
routine but complex health issues within the clientele.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
They are in a stronger
position to be able to work with clients to effectively manage, not only their
medical appointments but their transportation regimes to those medical
appointments.
The
work already done by the Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour
with this program has indeed resulted in some significant efficiencies with
minimum impacts on clients themselves. What will happen, as the Department of
Health and Community Services continues to work with clients, that department
anticipates that further savings could occur as well without any negative
consequences on clients.
Just to
use by way of example; if there were multiple medical appointments at a medical
facility then instead of having multiple medical trips, if they could be
integrated into a single appointment for a single travel, it would be more
beneficial to the client – obviously, less time, less travel, but also reducing
expenses as well.
MS. MICHAEL:
Minister, are you saying
that the decision – for example, there were decisions around bus passes that
those decisions weren't made by your department, they were made by Health?
MR. BYRNE:
No, there was a policy
decision that was taken – as we are aware, Income Support is to provide for the
regular and more routine, daily requirements and activities of an Income Support
client. Part of that would be their own transportation for general activities,
recreation, buying groceries and other things. What we recognize, and this has
been a feature of the program since its inception, is that when exceptionalities
occur, when travel becomes less routine and more frequent, the travel costs
cannot be assumed to be borne exclusively by the client.
For
example, if in the course of a month if there are eight trips for a medical
appointment, we recognize that at eight trips per month that the client
themselves from their regular benefits, that would start to significantly impact
on their ability to be able to provide for other services, other transportation
needs, other things that they would need to purchase.
So what
we've done is we've adopted a policy that already existed within AESL, a policy
on distance and frequency. That policy was in place before and we've actually
harmonized it throughout the entire province. That being that if a trip to a
doctor is 30 kilometres distant or more, certain provisions can be taken and as
well as eight trips per month, then the medical transportation assistance can be
provided.
If
Donna O'Brien, my assistant deputy minister, could step in at this point in time
and provide any further clarification to that program I think it might be
appreciated by the Committee.
MS. O'BRIEN:
I apologize for my voice; I
must be getting a cold this morning.
In
terms of the medical transportation, I did want to also make a point of
clarification that we did, as a department, also establish a $3,000 – from an
expense perspective. If we have clients with very high needs, travel expenses
that exceeded $3,000, we began to have conversations with those clients on how
we could find the most efficient way for them to receive their medical services,
but in a more cost-effective way.
I do
want to point out and clarify there have been no clients that have been
negatively impacted in terms of having needs above that $3,000 limit whose needs
have not been met to this point. So we're working with individual clients to
make sure they get the services they need in the most cost-efficient manner
possible.
MS. MICHAEL:
$3,000 is a high amount of
money for people on income support. I'm just making the comment.
Minister, just so I get it straight, you may have it in the briefing book –
MR. BYRNE:
No, it's not – I should
clarify, there's not a deductible. I'm trying to think of the word. It's not a
$3,000 deductible, if expenses – so from zero to $3,000 would be covered. If
there are additional costs above and beyond $3,000, we'd have to look at those
cases individually, but we try to establish a range that these costs should be
considered.
One of
the things I think would be interesting for the Committee to know is there are
8,000 individuals or 8,000 cases – and Donna, you can clarify this – that
receive medical transportation assistance in the province, approximately 500 of
which utilize just about half of the entire budget. There are clients that are
very, very extensive users of the medical transportation budget.
You can
think that through. There are approximately 8,000 clients. Caseloads or clients,
Donna?
MS. O'BRIEN:
Pardon me?
MR. BYRNE:
Caseloads or clients?
MS. O'BRIEN:
Clients.
MR. BYRNE:
Clients – 8,000 clients that
utilize medical transportation, some additional benefit, of which approximately
500 require 50 per cent of the entire budget.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you.
In the
Revenue – Federal, what is the explanation for the loss of federal funding down
to $45,000?
MR. BYRNE:
That's the Innu, I think,
isn't it, Gig?
MS. DOOLING:
It is.
MR. BYRNE:
Yeah. So the department did
indeed receive less in federal revenue, but was related to the establishment of
the Innu agreement.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, that's what I thought.
MR. BYRNE:
The Innu agreement has been,
of course, devolved.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. BYRNE:
So the projections have been
reduced by $767,000 to reflect this. In addition, the caseload is lower than
projected at budget time. The budget caseload was approximately $22,867 but the
average caseload to date was somewhat lower.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
I
thought that's what it was but I wanted to clarify.
CHAIR:
Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
CHAIR:
If I could just ask you to
hold your thoughts. The clock is – and I'll just pass it to Mr. Brazil.
MS. MICHAEL:
Sure.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just on
the note about medical transportation, I'm just curious, with the recent changes
have you had many complaints? Have you gotten – I've gotten an onslaught of them
now, and that could be unique to my district because I have a unique set up.
MR. BYRNE:
With medical transportation,
of course, there are always – you do have circumstances where clients come
forward and express that their situation needs to be reflected and we try to
deal with each and every one of those cases on a case-by-case basis.
In
terms of what has been stated as a change in policy, I'd like to point out that
in fact, there has been a long-standing policy within the department, within the
Income Support division, to consider distance when allocating access or
eligibility for the medical transportation assistance. It was not necessarily
harmonized. That policy was not harmonized throughout the entire province.
For
example, in Central Newfoundland it has been a long-standing policy that a
30-kilometre distance to a medical service is what would be required for
consideration of supplementary benefits of access to medical transportation
benefits.
So, in
essence, while there have been some concerns that now other regions are being
integrated into an existing policy, what we have done, in the interest of
fairness to create a level playing field, and the information I have, that I've
been able to see, is that it dates back to at least 2005-2007, that era,
probably earlier, that there has always been a distance parameter placed on
access to medical transportation assistance and now that has become harmonized.
So it
would be fair to say that which was required of one individual in one part of
the province really should be expected of all individuals, all recipients in all
parts of the province.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yeah, fair enough.
The
challenge I have and my clients have, or my constituents, is the uniqueness. I
understand an intake worker is going based on the data and the policy in front
of them, but if you're on Bell Island and the ferry service and somebody punches
in to Google and it says it's only 17 kilometres to your doctor's appointment,
then the policy is still not relevant. Because if you take in the additional
costs of cab fares to the ferry, the ferry itself, from Portugal Cove in, eight
trips, and I've got clients who at points until – and I give credit, we manage
to be able to look at it on a case-to-case basis and get some decisions here.
We're actually spending more on their medical transportation than their income
support as part of it.
MR. BYRNE:
Uh-huh.
MR. BRAZIL:
So, I do encourage and I do
appreciate the fact that there are unique one-offs – and one-offs might be a
thousand clients out of the 8,000 unfortunately, but there are one-offs there
that need to be considered. I still think that has to be relevant because every
situation may have unique nuances to it as part of it.
MR. BYRNE:
Well, I appreciate that.
Maybe
Donna O'Brien might be able to provide some perspective on some of the
circumstances the Income Support division has faced and how they've responded
and give a general reference to the type of clients or the number of clients
that would be involved in a review based on special circumstance.
Donna,
would you be able to jump in?
MS. O'BRIEN:
Mr. Brazil, to make sure we
do have equity and consistency across, we've established units of work that
specialize in medical transportation services because we certainly recognize
there are unique circumstances with individuals. I can assure you, on an
individual basis, we look at every single case that has a unique circumstance.
In
terms of the actual numbers, when we look at the number of appeals we've heard,
like through internal review or the appeals board, they're relatively low by
comparison to the number of individuals that are receiving those services.
I can
assure you that on an individual basis – and if there are particular situations
to which you are aware that you feel have not been getting the appropriate
response, then I would certainly accept that list. We'll work through that if we
need to.
MR. BRAZIL:
No, I appreciate it. It's the opposite. I want to compliment that there was some
confusion at the beginning because it was a new process. But since going through
the internal review process and even sometimes intervening with the medical
intake worker, from the clientele I'm dealing with – it might be different in
some other region, but I think the uniqueness of travelling via ferry, no matter
where you are, that comes in one category and they understand some of the
restrictions.
My only
question is about – and it may have been a long-standing number – the number of
eight appointments within a month. How did you arrive at that? Are there a
number of uses, the cost per travel? What would be the number?
MR. BYRNE:
This was based on previous
experience by the department in terms of what would be considered a normal
capacity or reasonable capacity for an income support client to be able to
sustain a financial expense within the regular benefits, there was a
determination that was taken by the department that the frequency of that number
would represent a responsible and reasonable approach to take.
I'm
going to ask Donna O'Brien to step in again, but before I do I just want to
point out there is – Ms. O'Brien did raise a valid point which is if there is
any client above and beyond the personal attention that's provided by case
officers, CSOs to an individual client, if any client has any concerns, who feel
as though their case was not being appropriately held, there is an appeal
mechanism, as you are aware, and that is – it's a quasi-judicial process which
allows a client to ensure that their case is properly heard by an independent
third party. I believe what Ms. O'Brien referred to is that the actual number of
appeals was quite low.
Ms.
O'Brien, would you be able to identify, just further elaborate on that, the
frequency element. We've established that the distance component was based on a
pre-existing policy. It was established that 30 kilometres was sort of a norm in
many areas of the province prior to this particular policy decision. The
frequency issue, how was that arrived at? The second thing I think the Member
would like to know is, what is the actual number within the appeals process that
was heard last year?
MS. O'BRIEN:
In terms of the frequency,
as the minister provided earlier, in the central region of the province that
policy had been, I will say, strictly enforced in several communities in the
province. In the analysis portion that led to the decision around making some
decisions relating to the medical transportation services, that was certainly a
factor. Sixty kilometres in terms of the – in terms of the frequency piece, it
was looked at what the average number of visits was made by individual citizens
and eight seemed to be the balance that helped to standardize that process
across the province.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay. I appreciate that.
I'm
going to move to 3.1.02, just a quick question before my time is up. On the
National Child Benefit Reinvestment here, Allowances and Assistance, I know last
year $450,000 was budgeted, $309,000 was used and now it's up to $380,000. Can
you tell me why there wasn't as much uptake from what was budgeted to what was
actually revised and spent?
MR. BYRNE:
I'm going to defer that to
you, but it was basically a case of just less update in the particular offering.
MS. DOOLING:
And that's absolutely correct, Minister. It was less uptake in the child care
budget throughout the year, just people applying. So there were fewer
applications that actually came in to the department. Obviously, families are
having fewer children these days, so obviously the caseload and the applications
for this benefit have been decreasing over time.
In 2016
we had 268 applications, whereas in '15 there were 345. So it's just a natural
trend of fewer children being born and to we're not having larger families. It's
as simple as that.
MR. BRAZIL:
Are there any applying that
get turned down because they don't meet the criteria or borderline? Is there an
ability for us to change the criteria so that there is another group that would
qualify for it that may be in need of it, or is this a national standard that we
follow across the board?
MR. BYRNE:
I'll ask Donna to jump in
there again, but just on that point – and I appreciate the question because it
is intriguing to me as well in terms of the uptake to the program.
I just
want to recite these numbers for you for your benefit. In 2011 there were 591
applicants with expenditures to the program of approximately $600,000; 2012,
there was a reduction of approximately 60 applications. So it went from 590 in
2011, to 2012 to 527. In 2013, the number of applications was reduced to 412.
Then by 2015 it went down to 345 applications. Now in 2016, last year we saw 268
applications being received for support from the program.
So we
went, actually, from 2011 to 591 applications down today to 268 applications in
the previous year. It is an intriguing point.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes. I'm just curious to see
if we relaxed the criteria, would that help other families.
MR. BYRNE:
Donna, would you be able to
jump in there?
MS. O'BRIEN:
The criteria and the funding are to provide private child care services for
families with children in receipt of income support who need child care services
outside of the regular. They are required to utilize regulated child care where
it is available, but where it is not available then private child care services.
So it's very specifically focused on supporting families with children on income
support who have children under the age of 12 requiring child care services.
The
fact is there are fewer and fewer families with children under the age of 12 who
can avail of that service. It's a factor of that. So it's very specifically
focused on families with children to assist to alleviate child poverty by
assisting them in making an attachment to employment.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay.
Ms.
Michael, if I could just throw one thing directly related to that.
Would
the cuts to transportation for AES clients have any impact on that? I've had a
couple of inquiries from some clients who say at one point transportation was
supplied, like to some of the after school programs or daycare programs that are
no longer supplied. And it might be relevant more to the Department of
Education.
MR. BYRNE:
In terms of the medical
support, I'm just trying to dig deeper into the question and into the
circumstances.
MR. BRAZIL:
It's more to after school
AES clients, some of them are supplied transportation for their kids to go.
I think
Donna has the answer there.
MR. BYRNE:
Okay.
MS. O'BRIEN: I'm
speaking because of where I used to work.
The transportation services for children accessing after
school programs, things of that nature, regulated after school programs, is the
responsibility of Education and Early Childhood Development under the child care
services. So that query probably is best asked of that particular department.
MR. BRAZIL: I
did ask that.
MS. O'BRIEN: I
see.
MR. BRAZIL: And
was told it was being cut to, particularly, some daycare providers as part of
the transportation connection and that they did notice, they had a couple of
complaints from certain daycare providers that their enrollments had gone down
because the clients had said: I can't afford to take a taxi, drop my kids off,
pick them up after because they don't have vehicles themselves.
It may
be something we can have a further discussion, myself and the minister, to see
if there's an alternative.
MR. BYRNE:
The question is relevant and
valid, but the evidence I present to you is actually part of what I conveyed
earlier, which is that this has been a circumstance which has been increasing.
As I say, in 2011 there were 591 individuals or cases that were approved; by
2012 it was 527; by 2013 it was 412; by 2014 it was 421, a slight increase of
nine; then in 2015 it dropped again to 345.
So the
evidence would not suggest that this is directly attributable to a recent action
or a recent policy decision; it seems to be consistent with a demographic trend.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yeah, if we can have a
personal discussion on a particular issue in my district later on, I'd
appreciate it. I appreciate Ms. Michael for giving me that time.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Brazil.
Thank
you.
Ms.
Michael, we'll turn it back to you.
3.1.01
to 3.2.07 inclusive.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will
start. I have one – it's not so much a question but a request under 3.1.01.
Could we have the breakdown – because I know the department does have it; it
could be in the briefing book and if so, tell me – of people and families under
income assistance, the number of lone-parent families, children, et cetera. I
know it's a statistic that you keep.
MR. BYRNE:
We do. We can provide you
with very, very specific information; for example, the number of cases.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
Cases, of course, are
different. It's always sometimes confused me. When we talk about cases versus
people, it's important to talk about the same language. Cases, of course, would
be a family unit that's in receipt of Income Support.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
And that would be different,
but it would be a good characterization or a good description of the program
itself. We also break it down into the number of people receiving income
support. We have information on the number of clients who are actually working
while in receipt of income support.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
We can do a pretty
broad-based description or analysis for you.
MS. MICHAEL:
That would be great. That's
what we're requesting.
Minister, does that include also age, like seniors, for example?
MR. BYRNE:
Donna, would you be able to
answer the question as to whether or not we can – yes, we can, I think. But, of
course, as you're aware, and I'll just put in this caveat, once a senior is
eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Old Age Security benefits,
then the income support system is no longer in play.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, I'm aware of that.
MR. BYRNE:
But we can indeed produce
some age demographic.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you very much.
All
right, so going to 3.1.03, the Mother/Baby Nutrition Supplement, it looks like
the uptake last year was lower than expected. The budget was $219,500, but we
are maintaining that same budget line. I guess the question is an explanation of
that. Not that I'm opposed.
MR. BYRNE:
Well, we're always hopeful.
Donna,
is there anything you'd like to add? You're quite right. While we could have
what is sometimes referred to as rightsizing the budget, there was a decision to
maintain the budget to be able to act on any possibilities or eventualities.
Donna, is there something that you might be able to add on that?
MS. O'BRIEN:
If you'll note, Ms. Michael, in 2015 there were 198 issuances of the Mother-Baby
and in 2016, 191. That was a very small variance. As a result of that, while we
can't anticipate births – we're hopeful that there will be more births in the
province and, therefore, we did our due diligence to maintain that level in the
event that those numbers increase a little bit.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you so much.
How are
low-income mothers informed? Is there a special program when they become
pregnant to know about the supplement?
MS. O'BRIEN:
Yes, we have a number of ways to get that message out. Certainly in public
health clinics, public health nurses are well aware. Physicians' offices – if
any of you have been to a physician lately, you would likely see the posters
that are there. The guide to government
services for poverty reduction, that information guide, provides information
relating to the Mother-Baby Nutrition Supplement. There's a 1-800 number that's
available through all of those media in relation to making application – and
it's not just for families who are in receipt of income support. It's for
families who are in low income, and that's a very important point of this
particular initiative.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right, yes. Thank you very
much, that's helpful.
Okay,
3.2.01, Employment Development, Employment and Training Programs. I have a
general question first. There used to be a section, skills and labour market
research, which is not now here. Is that now under the Workforce Development and
Productivity Secretariat? That's a guess on my part.
MR. BYRNE:
I'm reminded by my deputy it
is indeed; you are quite correct in your assumption.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. So that would be under
4.1.01 now.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, okay, thank you.
Coming
to the subhead in 3.2.01, there is a change in the Salaries, a drop of $394,200.
Is that related to the question I just asked?
MR. BYRNE:
I think I'm on the wrong tab
there, which –
MS. MICHAEL:
3.2.01.
MR. BYRNE:
No, I am on the wrong tab,
sorry.
In the
interest of time, Deputy, would you take over that?
MS. DOOLING:
Absolutely.
Ms.
Michael, it's not directly related to the labour market piece. We'll get to that
later and we can certainly explain that, but there has been a reduction of
salaries in the employment and training program budget itself due to a
restructuring. There were four management positions there that were eliminated
and that work was picked up by a number of other management positions that
remained in that division.
MS. MICHAEL:
Those positions that were
eliminated, did that result in actual people losing jobs?
MS. DOOLING:
In this particular case, the four individuals, they did apply under the
restructuring policy but they were not successful in obtaining another position
within the department.
MS. MICHAEL:
So they're no longer in the
system?
MS. DOOLING:
They are no longer with the department.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
MS. DOOLING:
You're welcome.
MS. MICHAEL:
Under Purchased Services,
there's been a small reduction. Was that just downsizing or the zero-based
budgeting, from $50,000 down to $40,000?
MR. BYRNE:
You're ahead of me, Ms.
Michael, so I'll just ask –
MS. MICHAEL:
There's something wrong with
your –
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, my correlation has a
little quick problem. Deputy, would you –?
MS. MICHAEL:
We're still on 3.2.01.
MS. DOOLING:
Ms. Michael, if you would repeat the question for me, I'd appreciate it,
please.
MS. MICHAEL:
Sure.
MS. DOOLING:
Thank you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Purchased Services, there's
a decrease of $10,000, from $50,000 down to $40,000.
MS. DOOLING:
Yes, absolutely.
This
was part of our zero-based budgeting exercise. We had some promotional items
there that we've reduced some of that, as well just some of the ordinary
supplies that go in as well. So we had less take up from the budget to projected
revised in '16-'17 by about $20,000, then what we decided to do was go through
all of the actual expenditures in that category –
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MS. DOOLING:
– and through the zero-based then we have identified about $10,000 that we
weren't spending. So why be out borrowing money and paying interest –
MS. MICHAEL:
Exactly.
MS. DOOLING:
– on those sorts of things. So it's just simply right-sizing the budget.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Thank
you very much.
MS. DOOLING:
You're welcome.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Moving on to 3.2.02,
Employment Development Programs; these are programs to support and assist
“Income Support clients and other unemployed and underemployed residents.” So
people who are non-EI eligible, I take it.
Could
we have a list, a breakdown of the number of participants and the numbers also
of the employers who are involved in the programs? Because I think the two main
ones are Linkages and Employment Transition, is that correct, the main two
programs in this area?
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, you're correct. In
terms of grants and subsidies for employment supports, there is Linkages. The
current budget for Linkages is $1,604,000. This is, of course, delivered by
not-for-profit agencies and community groups throughout the province.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. BYRNE:
There were 40 organizations
approved supporting 166 clients in that particular initiative. There's also the
Newfoundland and Labrador Works, the JobsNL Wage Subsidy Program, which is of
course designed to assist employers in creating employment and help people find
their employment opportunities. There was $659,000 invested in this, and there
were 139 contract agreements that were funded through the JobsNL component of
this particular program.
There
are also grants to agencies. There was funding of just about $4.1 million, a
little slightly higher than that, and funding that's provided to support the
provision of career and employment counselling and other interventions to
clients. There were 22 organizations last year that received funding, and they
have recorded to us that they assisted 4,400 individuals. There are also a
number of initiatives under the Poverty Reduction Strategy, total budget of just
about three-quarters of a million dollars. There were several initiatives under
that as well.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Minister, I'm going to
assume the initiatives and the agencies are listed in the briefing book.
MR. BYRNE:
If they're not, we can get
you full disclosure of those agencies and not-for-profit organizations.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
Under
the Grants and Subsidies there has been a drop in the amount of money by
$370,500. Could we have an explanation of that?
MR. BYRNE:
There was funding of
$170,000 that was moved to Allowances due to anticipated increase in the Adult
Basic Education support requirement. There was some funding there. There were
also forecast adjustments for minimum wage requirements, the increase in minimum
wage. There were also forecasted adjustments in the Linkages program for
$200,000.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Chair, could I just ask
one question on minimum wage?
CHAIR:
Sure.
MR. BYRNE:
Sure.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
Minister, when you were doing your opening presentation you talked about the
consultations, of course, which we are aware, on indexation of minimum wage.
Will you be producing results, or what came out of those consultations?
MR. BYRNE:
Yes. Thank you very much for
that question because we will be doing a report on what we heard. It will be a
synopsis, I think as complete a synopsis. We won't sort of boil it down and pare
it down to minimum detail; we'll actually provide a significant body of detail
as to what we heard. It's my intention to be able to publish that very soon.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Michael.
I'll
turn it back over to Mr. Brazil. When Mr. Brazil's 10 minutes have concluded,
we'll break just for five minutes for a washroom break.
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll
just ask the minister, too, if I could have a copy of that list of the agencies
funded also when you (inaudible).
MR. BYRNE:
Yes. The assumption is, Mr.
Chair, that whatever information any MHA, any Member of this Committee would ask
for, it would be shared with all.
MR. BRAZIL:
Perfect, I appreciate that.
Under
3.2.03, Labour Market Development Agreement, I want to move right down to
Professional Services. I noted that we're more than doubling those for this
year. Can you just outline exactly what professional services will be contracted
for that?
MR. BYRNE:
Sure. In terms of
Professional Services, there is an increase due to a zero-based review of the
requirements of Oracle Business Intelligence Applications, the OBIA, reporting
tool. The total budget for this is $464,400. This is a reporting tool which
allows enhanced labour market program and service reporting, as well as
information for community grant reporting for government.
This is
an interesting one. Madam Deputy, is there someone in particular that may be
able to speak further to this?
MS. DOOLING:
Mr. Brazil, what we intend
to do there is build on to the system we currently have in our LaMPSS, so that
we can generate reports out of it to make sure we are meeting all the due
diligence that's needed. There's about $460,000 that's there in the budget so we
can do that piece of work in the coming fiscal year.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay. Would that be a
one-time shot, so next year you go back to the normal $200,000 for Professional
Services?
MS. DOOLING:
I anticipate that it would
be; it's just building the reporting tool now so that we have enhanced data.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, fair enough.
Under
Purchased Services, I notice we are down $160,000, $170,000; what do you
anticipate was in previous years that wouldn't be needed now?
MR. BYRNE:
In Purchased Services, there
is a fairly significant reduction of $236,000 for the 2016-17 budget. The
decrease is due to, again, a departmental zero-based review which resulted in
$136,000. That was able to be achieved in part by the moving of staff into
government buildings. Of course, you have better supply management, capacity
there. There was also an additional funding allocated to Professional Services
to cover reporting under the LaMPSS tool, which is $100,000.
Would
you like to explain, Gig, the additional professional reporting under LaMPSS?
MS. DOOLING:
Mr. Brazil, this goes back
to basically just moving the $100,000 from Purchased Service into Professional
Services to help pay for that system enhancement that we would need. So all I'm
doing is moving money between two categories. As well, we saved $136,000 by
actually ending some of the leases we had with outside organizations for renting
space. We brought those individuals, those staff members into the Confederation
Building.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay. It makes sense.
MS. DOOLING:
Yes.
MR. BRAZIL:
I want to move to Allowances
and Assistance where there's a substantial difference here of nearly $8 million.
Just explain why you anticipate there's going to be less payout on Allowances
and Assistance.
MR. BYRNE:
In Allowances and
Assistance, it's revised up from – in terms of the total, there's an additional
federal stimulus funding that was announced for this program in 2016,
$4,500,000. That's a split between the Allowances and Grants and Subsidies, but
the decrease is due to – Estimates are down in total by $6 million, and that's
decreases due to the zero-based review. There was a shift in demand away from
Skills Development and Employment Assistance into Employment Assistance
Services.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes, I think you answered
the other one, but that's –
MR. BYRNE:
Oh, I'm sorry. We're moving
between the two – so in terms of the Grants and Subsidies, is that what you're
–?
MR. BRAZIL:
No, the Allowances and
Assistance. Grants and Subsidies you just answered, that's good.
The
Allowances and Assistance, where it's down $8 million; I'm curious why you think
there will be less of an intake, or is there a change in policy or a different
approach.
MR. BYRNE:
Perhaps Walt or Deputy,
would you like to sort of dig down on that because I want to make sure I'm clear
on that?
MS. DOOLING:
Simply, what we're doing
here, Mr. Brazil, is we're moving some of the Allowances and Assistance, because
there are different programs under Allowances and Assistance, into the Grants
and Subsidies. So there's a significant amount of money, if you looked down on
the next line in Grants and Subsidies, that's up compared to last year, from $19
million to $25 million.
As
well, if you look at '16-'17 numbers, we were very successful in negotiating an
increase in some of our LMDA funding with the federal government to the tune of
about $4.5 million. That's one time, that $4.5 million, that extra funding, one
time, but we're going back to the table now with the federal government to
negotiate those agreements again. So we anticipate, but we don't know at this
point in time, that there will be an increase as well.
This is
simply moving money around between the two categories.
MR. BYRNE:
So this is actually kind of
instructive to us all, I think.
So,
Deputy, could you just very quickly explain the differences between Allowances
and Assistance and Grants and Subsidies because there's obviously some overlap.
It might be helpful to myself and to the Committee just to get complete clarity
on that.
MS. DOOLING:
Absolutely.
This
would be in your binders as well, so I'd ask if you were going to read anything
in there, this would be something that's worthwhile because there is significant
funding coming here under these categories.
So
Allowances and Assistance, this is the funding for the Skills Development;
there's almost $53 million there. Then, of course, we're all familiar with the
Job Creation Partnerships; that's the JCPs we all talk about. So there's about
$5 million there. We have the Self-Employment Assistance that benefits our
individuals, that's about $5 million; and then some of our apprenticeships
supports. So there is significant funding under Allowances and Assistance.
If you
look at the Grants and Subsidies, this is our funding for items like our Labour
Market Partnerships. There's about $2 million there; our Employment Assistance
services, about $8.5 million under that category; some of our wage subsidies,
almost $9 million there; as well as some JCPs, self-employment and some research
and innovation, $1.9 million. As well as some of our Opening Doors Program,
there's about $100,000 there to help individuals attach to the workforce.
So
you'll see a further breakdown once you review your binders in what actually
makes up the Allowances and Assistance compared to the Grants and Subsidies.
MR. BRAZIL:
Fair enough.
Just
curious, do you have much push back from the feds when you want to move money
around, or do you have pretty well freedom when you come in, when you put your
budget lines in? I know the amount is pretty well the standard, but I would
think, from a department point of view, if you had that freedom without having
to go back and delay the process. I'm just curious, do you have that?
MS. DOOLING:
There is some flexibility
within the agreements to move money around. Obviously, in keeping with the main
agreements that the federal government has so that we are spending the money for
the intention for which it's given.
But
there is some flexibility that's very important to all provinces, not just
Newfoundland and Labrador, because the economy in BC or Alberta could be very
different from what it is in Newfoundland and Labrador. The federal government
does appreciate that and they have allowed some flexibility within the
agreements.
MR. BRAZIL:
That's good to hear because,
again, uniqueness and the one-offs every now and then and the change in the
economy may dictate how you move things in. So that's good that freedom is there
and they recognize that. Perfect.
I want
to go to 3.2.04 for my last question before we take our break. Under Grants and
Subsidies, it's down from what was revised but up from the budget line. Can you
just explain the rationale there or the findings?
That's
on line 10, Grants and Subsidies, 3.2.04.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes. Gig, just take that
away because I'm misreading what I'm …
MS. DOOLING:
Absolutely.
There
are a number of things happening between the budget in 2016 to the projected
revised. If I could explain that first and then I'll go to the Estimates for
'17-'18, if that's suitable for you, Mr. Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yeah, sure.
MS. DOOLING:
Again, we were successful in
getting some additional federal stimulus funding from the federal government in
'16-'17. That was about $736,000 so, obviously, we'd want to take that. We took
the $736,000 from the federal government.
There
was also some carry-over funding from '15-'16 in the amount of almost $600,000
that we carried as well. That was offset by some additional savings to be
carried forward in budget '17. It's a combination of things, some new money and
some carry-forward money.
Now,
when we look at the '17-'18 Estimates, they're up by just over $450,000. That,
again, is just prioritizing some of our Grants money from the Allowances and
Assistance. You have some movement there. We did that to support some classroom
enhancements at CNA as part of their modernization plan.
MR. BRAZIL:
Perfect.
Thank
you, Mr. Chairman –
MR. BYRNE:
I apologize. I'm getting
cockeyed myself here now.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yeah, time for a break.
CHAIR:
Okay, we'll just take a
break. I'd like to have everybody back by 10:40 a.m.
MR. BRAZIL:
Perfect.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Recess
CHAIR:
Thank you.
We're
back on, Ms. Michael. You go right ahead, Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
I'm
going directly to 3.2.05. This is an interesting one because this addresses
major permanent layoffs and worker displacement to lessen the impact on, and
adjustment of, older workers. Here I just would like to get an idea. The
revision for last year was $1,939,800, down slightly from the budget, but I'm
more interested in the details about where this money goes. Where there any
particular workplaces that caused layoffs, just some sense of the breakdown of
these grants and subsidies?
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much for the
question.
The
program itself is application-driven. It's responsive to needs throughout the
entire province. There were a number of applications that were assessed last
year. There's an annual intake and basically one announcement per year. The
historical pattern has been that one significant announcement is made with the
successful recipients or applicants for the particular program. Last year's
program was not made to a specific labour market circumstance, or to a layout,
per se.
There
were a number of different initiatives from the throughout the entire province.
For example, there were three separate applications from the Northern Peninsula
area, if I recall correctly, related to utilizing older workers to increase
their outfitting guiding capacity to assist in the outfitting industry. While it
was three separate applications, it was really a unique and I think a helpful
circumstance because it took the talents and skills of some older workers that
were seeking to get employment, using their traditional or their solid skills
base, which formerly, they could not get employment in, it actually integrated
them. So if you like, Ms. Michael, we could provide you with a full list of the
successful applicants as well.
MS. MICHAEL:
That would be great to have that list, thank you so much.
I note
that the federal revenue went down in the revision last year by $82,500, but
this year it's gone down to $853,800. It seems like the money is gone, or is
that –?
MR. BYRNE:
No, it's again somewhat of
an interesting circumstance. You may recall this is a federal-provincial
program.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
It's a 100 per cent funded
federal initiative – or sorry, it's a cost-shared initiative, but the bottom
line is that in 2015, you'll recall there was a federal election and a
provincial election.
MS. MICHAEL:
I do recall that.
MR. BYRNE:
Yeah. And the money did not
flow in that particular fiscal year, so two years' allocation was combined into
one year and that's why it is a little bit bumpier ride there.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right, so it's 50-50
because of the two going into one year.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, that's correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
Okay,
going on to 3.2.06, this is Employment Assistance Programs for Persons with
Disabilities. First of all, could we have a list of the recipients and employers
involved in the various programs here?
MR. BYRNE:
We can. I'll just confirm if
there are any privacy concerns which we would have to – because the assistance
for persons with disabilities, I just want to –
MS. MICHAEL:
I wouldn't want individuals,
obviously.
MS. DOOLING:
Ms. Michael, this training service program is to assistant individuals –
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MS. DOOLING: –
with their post-secondary studies, so we'd need to just be cognizant that we
weren't giving the names of the individuals, and I'm sure you appreciate that.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, but we could have the numbers?
MS. DOOLING:
The numbers themselves?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MS. DOOLING:
Certainly we can give any of the numbers out, absolutely, the numbers of the
individuals. In '16 -'17 there were 126 individuals that were supported through
the training services program. We also introduced last year – and this was
announced in last year's budget – a grant for high-need students so if their
needs weren't fully met through the Canada Student Loan Program, they could come
into the province and they could avail of the high-grants needs program.
There were 45 individuals that were supported through that
part of the program, Ms. Michael, last year, through the high-grant needs and we
estimate that in '17-'18, under the training service program, that there'd
likely be about, I would think, 90 students that would continue on with their
program because they would get multi-year funding from the province.
So our commitment last year was any individuals that were
receiving this service, as long as they continue with their program and they do
not delay their course of study, we would fund them for their full program. So
you'll see the number of individuals will go down each year because people are
graduating from the program.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
So both the Allowances and Assistance and the Grants and
Subsidies are for individuals.
MS. DOOLING:
The grants are for our
community partners. We can certainly provide you with a list of those.
MS. MICHAEL:
Please.
MS. DOOLING:
Yeah.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
I think
that's all I had under that. Under 3.2.07 a slight drop in the Allowances and
Assistance. This is the services for youth and students, a slight drop in the
Allowances and Assistance, but a big drop in the Grants and Subsidies.
Again,
could I have an explanation of the difference between the Allowances and
Assistance and the Grants and Subsidies and also the reason for the big drop in
the Grants and Subsidies?
MR. BYRNE:
Sure.
In
terms of the Allowances and Assistance, one of the big items there was the
tuition vouchers. There was a lower than anticipated demand or expectation on
the tuition voucher program. I think you're very familiar with that one.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
It's a program that provides
school-age peers to be able to tutor other peers.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
There was a lower demand
there.
On the
Grants and Subsidies, this program is for the student and youth employment and
internship programs. It was valued at $727,000. The Student Summer Employment
Programs for post-secondary students valued at $1.7 million, and the graduate
employment program at $500,000. The student employment program for high school,
level I, II and III is valued at $780,000 and as well, the Service Agreements
for Youth and employment, SAYS, is valued at $2.5 million.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Why has
the Grants and Subsidies line diminished by almost $500,000?
MR. BYRNE:
Working with our federal
partners, of course, as you're aware, the amount of federal student summer job
assistance for Newfoundland and Labrador has increased substantially. As a
result, basically meeting demands or uptake from Newfoundland and Labrador
students, we were able to achieve those savings.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you very much.
I think
that's the end of my questions, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Michael.
Mr.
Brazil, anything else?
MR. BRAZIL:
No, I'm good on that
section. We can adopt that.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Can I
ask the Clerk to recall the subheads, please?
CLERK:
3.1.01 through 3.2.07
inclusive.
CHAIR:
3.1.01 through to 3.2.07.
Shall
the subheads carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.2.07 carried.
CHAIR:
Can I ask the Clerk to call
the next set of subheads, please?
CLERK:
4.1.01 through 4.1.05 inclusive.
CHAIR:
4.1.01 through to 4.1.05
inclusive.
Mr.
Brazil, please.
MR. BRAZIL:
Under Salaries, how many
positions were lost and what particular positions would they have been?
MR. BYRNE:
Under the Salaries, which is
revised down by $250,000 compared to last year's budget, there were savings due
to vacancies of a program and policy development specialist. That was a salary
cost of $65,800. There's a policy development specialist of $78,000, and two
other positions for a combined value of $106,000. So those were vacancies.
MR. BRAZIL:
Are there any positions that
are combined with somebody else's responsibility or a different approach from a
policy analyst point of view?
MR. BYRNE:
Yes. There was management
restructuring, directors and managers.
Madam
Deputy, would you be able to dig in there with the specifics?
MS. DOOLING:
Absolutely, Minister.
This
goes back to Ms. Michael's earlier question. She had asked about the labour
market, the skills development, and she was very correct in knowing that some of
the information was combined, two divisions rolled into one.
So as a
result of some of our management restructure, there's been two positions
actually, a director from the former labour market information and analysis,
that position no longer exists. The director of Workforce Development has taken
on that piece of work, and it's a natural fit because you have the actual data
you're trying to look at for your workforce and project your needs. So that's
all your labour market information. It's a natural fit to go into the Workforce
Development Secretariat because they're developing the programs and the
initiatives to get people into the workforce.
We saw
that as a real opportunity to merge the two director's positions together. One
director's position was abolished through the management restructuring process,
as well as one vacant manager position. There were two positions actually from
the former labour market information division that were abolished. All other
positions remained and transferred into the Workforce Secretariat division.
So, Mr.
Brazil, does that clarify for you?
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes, that clarifies the
positions and responsibilities and where they are now, where the uptake is on
those responsibilities.
MS. DOOLING:
Absolutely. It's in the Workforce Development Secretariat, and a natural fit
because of the work they do.
MR. BRAZIL:
It makes sense, yes.
Under
Grants and Subsidies, there are major changes there from budgeted to revised to
present, just a little bit of explanation on exactly the changes there and what
they reflect, please.
MR. BYRNE:
From 2016-17, it was revised
down by $850,000. There is less than anticipated expenses – we're projecting
$600,000 in savings under the former Population Growth Strategy funding. The
Immigration Action Plan was finalized last quarter, as you may recall – which is
the main focus of this funding – there's less than anticipated expenses. The
foreign qualifications program allocation adjustment of $250,000 in funding will
move into the 2017-18 fiscal year.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay. Thank you.
I'm
going to move to 4.1.02, the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism. The
salary increases – and I know I went through the briefing and I appreciate the
increase there. Can you just outline exactly what positions they will be and
their responsibilities?
MR. BYRNE:
Sure. There are two
additional permanent positions for the PNP, or the Provincial Nomination
Program. Those two salaries are as reflected in the numbers. There is also some
zero-based increase due to the salary budget rightsizing of $220,000, and then
forecast adjustment, the attrition management plan of the previous
administration which results in $13,000 in downward pressures.
So the
two positions – I'd like to know, basically there was no increase in terms of
overall expenditures. There were two positions that were moved into the Office
of Immigration and Multiculturalism from another functional area of the
department. So there's net zero in terms of expenditures, but we were able to
rightsize or provide resources to areas of greater, higher needs.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay. I appreciate that.
Under
Purchased Services, I'm just curious, it's similar to what it was originally
budgeted but it didn't get spent. What would that entail? What particular
purchased services?
MR. BYRNE:
In terms of Purchased
Services, this is photocopy rentals, printing costs, advertising and promotions,
but also it's venues and booths at immigration events because of course we
contract a lot of those services. So there are some expenses there, and that's
what is reflected in those expenditures. There were some reduced costs for the
immigration fares, as I understand.
MR. BRAZIL:
Does the department have an
advertising general budget or is it built in to every division if it has a
particular program to put out there?
MR. BYRNE:
There's no general
advertising budget, there are specific initiatives which we highlight. We're
very transparent and accountable to those specific initiatives or what have the
advertising budgets.
MR. BRAZIL:
Fair enough.
I want
to move to 4.1.03, Labour Relations and Labour Standards. I'm assuming there the
salary difference is a position, or possibly two, depending on what the
classification is.
Can you
explain the changes there? Were they rolled into something else? Is it vacant
positions; is it positions that were let go?
MR. BYRNE:
Gig, would you like to
address that?
MS. DOOLING:
Thank you, Minister.
Thank
you, Mr. Brazil, for the question.
With
respect to the management restructuring here, there was one position that was
removed through the management restructuring. That was one of the officers.
We did
a review of the number of case files that the remaining officers would have and
we felt that the work could be absorbed within the unit with fewer individuals.
I believe there were five, maybe six, individuals there and we reduced it by
one.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, perfect.
I just
notice under Transportation and Communications, it's up 50 per cent. Is there a
change in how we do it? Are the regions bigger for certain people or is there a
new communications system that we're going to be using?
MR. BYRNE:
Again, this is a function of
workload adjustments. It's anticipation of certain workloads to be able to get
conciliation officers out into the field for various – as you know, we have a
number of conciliation cases right now, so it's zero-based. It's actually
rightsizing or making the budget to what it is anticipated to actually cost.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay. Fair enough. I
appreciate that.
I'm
going to move right over to 4.1.05, Workforce Development, Labour and
Immigration. Basically, everything seems to be fairly in line with the exception
of the salary base. Is there a position that's gone out of that?
MR. BYRNE:
What number are we at?
Sorry.
MR. BRAZIL:
4.1.05, Labour Relations
Board.
MR. BYRNE:
Yeah.
MR. BRAZIL:
I know it's something new
adopted to the department.
MR. BYRNE:
Since Glenn has made the
trip over and is all geared and ready to go, I'm going to ask our representative
from the Labour Relations Board.
MR. BRANTON:
I'm sorry, I didn't get the
question.
MR. BRAZIL:
Just the salary base, it
looks like there's a salary unit down. What position would that have been under
the Salaries in Labour Relations Board?
MR. BRANTON:
There are currently seven
salaried positions under the board. The salary is down as a result of the
attrition management. The coming year will be the first year that we would be
down one Labour Relations Board officer position.
MR. BRAZIL:
You don't anticipate that
will have an impact on your functionality?
MR. BRANTON:
No.
MR. BRAZIL:
Have the jurisdictions
changed?
MR. BRANTON:
No. We anticipate no service
issues with that.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay. Fair enough.
Mr.
Chair, I'm good on that section.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Brazil.
Ms.
Michael, 4.1.01 to 4.1.05 inclusive.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd
like to go back to 4.1.02, Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism. Looking
at the Grants and Subsidies, if it doesn't exist in the binder, could we have a
list of where that money goes? If you want to do an overview answer to me right
now that would be good as well.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, you certainly may get
that list.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
I
notice, Minister, there's a significant increase in that line which may relate
to the new initiatives that you're putting in place with regard to immigration.
Maybe you could speak a bit to it. It's $800,000 more.
MR. BYRNE:
Sure.
Yeah,
this is an adjustment. So there was a move – basically, it's putting the money
where it would be spent.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. BYRNE:
Formerly, that money was
housed within the Population Growth Strategy – it was moved, sorry, from the
Workforce Development for the former Population Growth Strategy and the
Immigration Action Plan. So it was basically a shift from one where it would be
spent.
MS. MICHAEL:
Relates back to what you
were talking about in 4.1.01.
MR. BYRNE:
Correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yeah, great. Thank you very
much.
Just a
couple of requests here. Could we have the numbers of newcomers who became
permanent residents in the province in 2016? Could we get that information by
program; for example, nominee, refugee, et cetera?
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, you can. That's already
available, I think, in a public format, from a public source.
MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. BYRNE:
But we can provide you with
those further details as well.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you.
Do you
have the statistics on the up-to-date retention rate?
MR. BYRNE:
We have certain information
on retention rate but, of course, mobility being mobility, it is sometimes
difficult to capture.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
I'll use an example. It's
often referred to that we have a 71 per cent retention rate for international
students attending Memorial University of Newfoundland. That's a pretty high
number and I took great interest in that.
It's a
difficult number to survey. The reason why it's a difficult number to survey is
because, of course, the rightful mobility. Once someone gets a permanent
residency for Canada, they do have certain rights and opportunities to be able
to move. When we found that number – and this has been cited, for example, by
students and others, and that's why I'm bringing this up. There was a general
survey that was done that took in literally hundreds of different questionnaires
for various individuals. On the international graduate side there was a small
number that were provided to or distributed to international graduates.
In
terms of completing the survey information, obviously it is easier to get a
completed survey from someone who has stayed in Newfoundland and Labrador than
it is to someone who has moved to British Columbia or to Ontario or to wherever.
So I asked for a consideration review of that particular data and what was
provided to me was the following information: That it was a very, very small
data set that was available for international graduates; and of those that did
reply, there may have been a skewing of the result because it was easier to
derive or collect a completed questionnaire from someone who had stayed in
Newfoundland and Labrador than someone who had moved, and that may have inflated
or elevated the number of the retention rate for international graduates.
So your
question is really important to me because that's an area that I want to do a
lot more work getting good, solid evidence of what our retention rates are for
immigration. I don't feel we're there yet, and we need to do a better job.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, I'll be interested,
obviously, in learning as you continue the work. Thank you very much.
Mr.
Chair, I don't have any more questions under these subheads. I think all the
questions I wanted to ask have been put forward by Mr. Brazil.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Michael.
Can I
ask the Clerk to recall the set of subheads, please?
CLERK:
4.1.01 through 4.1.05
inclusive.
CHAIR:
4.1.01 through 4.1.05.
Shall
the subheads carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 4.1.01 through 4.1.05 carried.
CHAIR:
Can I ask the Clerk now to
call the next set of subheads, please?
CLERK:
5.1.01 through 5.5.01
inclusive.
CHAIR:
5.1.01 through 5.5.01
inclusive.
Ms.
Michael, if you'd like to start this round, please.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, thank you very much.
Okay,
looking at 5.1.01, a slight increase in salary over last year's budget, and
revision, I note. That doesn't happen very often. Could we have an explanation,
Minister, of that salary increase?
MR. BYRNE:
Sure.
There
was a total of $200,000 worth of transactions. The overall increase is $93,000,
but what it equates to or amounts to is through zero-based adjustment, there was
a rightsizing of the salary plan of $200,000, which was offset as well by a
savings of $62,500, which was taken for positions that were exchanged between
the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism.
There
was also an attrition management plan. Within the attrition management plan,
there was $44,100 worth of savings. There was a position swap which we referred
to earlier under the Office of Immigration, one of the two positions.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MR. BYRNE:
And I just want to clarify.
If you could certify, Deputy, that was the source of one of the two Office of
Immigration and Multiculturalism positions.
MS. DOOLING:
Yeah.
Basically, Ms. Michael, what was done was we put the salaries in for all the
positions that were in this particular division. So that bumped it up in the
salary plan by about $200,000 just by rightsizing. Then we actually took one of
the positions that were vacant in this particular division and we used the
funding to create a PMP specialist in Immigration.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MS. DOOLING:
Which we just talked about.
Then, there was a reduction from the former administration for the attrition
management. When you net it all out there was a slight increase, but it was
largely due to actually putting the positions into Salaries where they should
have been in the division.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Okay. Thank you very
much. That's very clear.
Just
coming down through, there are a number of places here where there's less money
being expended. Transportation and Communications, there's a drop of $46,000
approximately from last year's budget.
MR. BYRNE:
Again, that's just simply
elimination of non-essential travel.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MR. BYRNE:
There are some less advisory
committee meetings as well that provide downward pressure.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
Let's
see, the others are pretty straightforward I think. What would the Professional
Services be in this line, Minister? It's going up slightly.
MR. BYRNE:
Professional Services, there
are some fees to membership for membership of the advisory and examination
committees under the Apprenticeship & Trades Certification. So we have fees for
these advisory and examination committees of $16,200 for Apprenticeship Program
Accreditation.
MS. MICHAEL:
right.
MR. BYRNE:
There's $25,200 in expenses
for Interprovincial Computerized Examination Management System – that's a
mouthful – those costs are anticipated to be $57,500; and for Power Engineering
Examination fees there's a cost of $3,500. So that basically sums all of that
up. It's for advisory and examination committees which are part of the
certification process.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right, thank you so much.
Coming
down to Grants and Subsidies there's a loss of $100,000 in this year's budget
from last year's budget.
MR. BYRNE:
The reduction of $100,000,
that's a decrease basically of the requirements – there's a shared apprentice
management system and that's just the costs there have gone down, so that's the
result. It's for computer software and the costs have gone down by $100,000.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
A
shared apprentice – who shares what?
MR. BYRNE:
This is part of our Atlantic
harmonization initiative –
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, the Atlantic agreement.
MR. BYRNE:
This is the computer system.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, got it.
MR. BYRNE:
We've fulfilled most of our
requirements, so we've been able to reduce by $100,000.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Okay, thank you very
much.
Just
actually some things that I'd like to receive: Could we have the stats, with
gender breakdown, of the number of apprentices in 2016-17; those doing
journeyperson, the numbers of journeypersons certificates issued?
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, you can. I'll just get
the confirmation of – can we elaborate for the Committee at this point in time
that whatever information is available will be provided to you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MR. BYRNE:
Perhaps we could just take a
moment to – could some of our group identify exactly the extent to which we pare
down the data? Gig.
MS. DOOLING:
Yes, absolutely.
Ms.
Michael, we do track some of our indicators with respect to apprenticeship,
obviously.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MS. DOOLING:
So we'll give you the number of active apprentices and the number of active
trade qualifiers – a little bit different.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MS. DOOLING:
The number of newly registered apprentices, I can give you that. The newly
registered trade qualifiers, the certification exams to administer, the number
of journeyperson certificates received and the trade qualifiers received. Then
we'll look at some of the active contracts that we have.
So what
I'll do is I'll ask the director for the apprenticeship program to pull together
some of the normal statistics that I get and we can certainly share them with
you. That's no issue whatsoever.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you so much.
With
regard to the Office to Advance Women Apprentices, should I go to them directly
to find out how many women they served over the last year or can you get that?
MS. DOOLING:
I'll ask my director if we can get that for you so you're going to get it from
one source. If we can't, then I'll ask her to connect with the Office to Advance
Women.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MS. DOOLING:
We'll try to give you a complete package so you're well informed about the
program.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
MS. DOOLING:
You're welcome.
MS. MICHAEL:
Could we have an update on
the government hiring apprentices program and the number of apprentices in 2016
in that?
MR. BYRNE:
Yes.
There's
been no change in the financial picture, I think, of that particular program.
What we do is we provide funds to certain government agencies. The Department of
Transportation, the education board, the regional health authorities, they all
receive an allocation. The funding for that is $1,700,050.
So just
to clarify, this is funding that goes out to various government departments,
boards and agencies to be able to facilitate the hiring of apprentices.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
I'm
assuming that the Grants and Subsidies line covers the Apprenticeship Wage
Subsidy, along with things like the government hiring apprentices program. Would
that be correct?
MR. BYRNE:
The Grants and Subsidies
line here actually it is for the government hiring apprenticeship program. There
are some provisions of grants and subsidies for the delivery of distance
apprenticeship programs and, as well, for funding of the information technology
system development, our responsibilities within the shared system. So that's
captured within that particular line.
MS. DOOLING:
Would you like me to add to that?
MR. BYRNE:
You certainly may. I think
the deputy is prompting me. She may have some additional information.
MS. MICHAEL:
Sure.
MR. BYRNE:
Madam Deputy.
MS. DOOLING:
Thank you.
Ms.
Michael, when we went through the Labour Market Development Agreement and I
spoke to you about looking at some of the items that made up the Grants and
Subsidies there, you'll see some of the Apprenticeship Wage Subsidy there.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MS. DOOLING:
When you go through the
binder you'll actually get to see the dollar values that are allocated from the
Labour Market Development Agreement for the wage subsidies for the
apprenticeship.
It's in
a couple of different spots. We've tried to break it out quite clearly so that
the reader would know what pieces are paid out of what heading in the estimate.
Okay?
MS. MICHAEL:
That's great. So it's in the
binder?
MS. DOOLING:
It is, yeah.
MS. MICHAEL:
Wonderful.
Thank
you very much.
Since
there are only 30 seconds left, I'll stop at this point.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Michael.
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
5.1.02, just under Grants
and Subsidies, if we could have a list later on provided to all of us.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, thank you.
This is
funding; the bulk of this funding is provided through Adult Literacy Grants and
our literacy strategy plan, the $4.3 million; but also for the Council of
Ministers of Education literacy programs, $18,000.
You're
seeking a list of the grants? I just want to verify.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yeah, I'm just curious to
see the location of where they are.
MR. BYRNE:
These are
organizational-based grants, correct, Deputy?
MS. DOOLING:
They are community based.
MR. BYRNE:
Yeah.
MR. BRAZIL:
The amounts paid out, those
types of things. Yeah.
Under
the Atlantic Veterinary College system, I'm just curious to see numbers on the
uptake. Are we full every year with the number of seats we have allocated?
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, we are. As you are
probably very familiar, we've reached an arrangement with the University of
Prince Edward Island to ensure that 12 seats, three entry seats for a four-year
program for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are available to the veterinarian
school, to the Veterinary College there.
What we
do is pay for approximately 6 per cent of the overall operating costs of the
veterinarian program. The amount of funding does sometimes fluctuate. It's a
really interesting point because performance indicators are used.
In
addition to a base grant or a base contribution to the Veterinary College, the
Veterinary College itself in UPEI operates under a performance indicator model.
They actually assess the school's performance – including the graduate
performance is assessed – through a series of indicators. The amount of
assistance that is required to be provided to them is actually based on a
performance indicator model. That does indeed cause sometimes some fluctuations,
but I think it's a really, really interesting model.
We now
provide access to post-secondary education – we have for quite some time – on a
performance indicator model system. We don't do it with any other school
however, other than the University of Prince Edward Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I'm just curious, have we
had much more of an uptake? Are we getting 20 applicants for the 12 positions or
(inaudible) positions?
MR. BYRNE:
The Veterinarian College
itself is responsible for, through the Registrar's Office, monitoring the number
of applications. I have to be honest, I have not inquired as to what the level
of interest has been. I just know that we have been fulfilling –
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
Each and every year we are
successfully filling three seats for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That does
not mean the school is limited to only three seats, it's just that we have a
guaranteed placement of three seats.
MR. BRAZIL:
Yeah, I'm just curious if
that data is available, if there are 25 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are
applying.
MR. BYRNE:
We can reach out to the
University of Prince Edward Island, the Registrar's Office, to be able to see if
we can find that information.
MR. BRAZIL:
I appreciate it.
That's
all I have on that section, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, could I just come back
to 5.1.02. Obviously, Minister, there's been discussion publicly, as you know,
with regard to the ABE program. I'm wondering, in the light of some information
that's been coming forward, are you going to be doing a review of the private
college ABE programs.
MR. BYRNE:
There's always a constant
ongoing review of programs and services that are funded by the Department of
AESL. Including, we maintain regular contact with the private training
institutions that are responsible for providing Adult Basic Education. It's
something that I think is becoming not the exception but the norm. It's an
expectation that performance be monitored and assessed.
We have
found no difficulties with the performance of the private institutions in
delivering Adult Basic Education. We value their performance, their
contribution; but to get to the quick of your question, I have said some time
ago that I would see a value in reviewing the College of the North Atlantic's
role in the provision of Adult Basic Education.
As you
are aware, the college's capacity or ability, entitlement, if you might, to
provide that service, to provide that educational experience was suspended in
2013. There was a lot of discussion about the cost for educating an individual
at the College of the North Atlantic for Adult Basic Education versus what it
could be done through private training institutions. That cost was registered or
expressed to be at that time $9,000 per student per year, I believe, was –
generally, that was the figure.
As a
result of that, I asked whether or not those numbers could be verified to me as
a new minister looking at this with fresh eyes. I asked my department and the
College of the North Atlantic to provide me with whatever evidence, whatever
financial performance information they could provide to me, to give me clarity
and confidence in the decision.
What
came back was there was no enrolment management system that was in place at that
time that could really verify the number of students in ABE at the college, nor
could it actually advance specific and confident information about costs. I can
tell you, I can tell this Committee, as a result of that it broadened my
interest. When you cannot provide specifics, when you cannot specific data on
enrolment, on financial performance, it raises with me a specific concern. So,
from that, I can tell this Committee that's where, in large measure – not
completely, but in large measure – where the review of the College of the North
Atlantic began.
If
there was not an adequate enrolment management system, or if I could not be
provided with that kind of information on a timely basis accurately and
confidently, if I could not be told information in terms of financial
performance of a particular program, then I asked: Is there a larger problem
afoot? That's as a result – in large measure, that's why I began or requested a
review of the College of the North Atlantic.
I will
make no bones about it; Newfoundland and Labrador is the only jurisdiction, that
I'm aware of, that does not allow its public college system to operate and
provide Adult Basic Education. I have reached no conclusions about this yet, but
I want to make evidence-based conclusions.
I feel
it's appropriate that there are no programs that I'm aware of that are
exclusively the domain – by any other standard, exclusively in the domain of the
College of the North Atlantic. I question as to why there is one particular
program that the College of the North Atlantic is not allowed to provide. So,
with that said, we cannot stand a program – if there were a decision to be taken
today to advance ABE within the College of the North Atlantic system, that
obviously could not be done for September enrolment regardless because, of
course, we have staffing requirements and other things.
I want
to be very clear: If there were a decision to be taken, it could not begin at
this point in time before September enrolment.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much. I
really appreciate you putting yourself as minister with regard to where you
stand on that.
It
won't be a surprise to you that I absolutely believe that we have a public
educational system and that ABE should be an essential part of our public
education system, especially with the low level of literacy that we have. We all
know that the adult literacy issue is very serious. I was totally opposed in
2013 and I look forward to seeing to where you move with this, so I'll be
following it carefully.
Having
said all that, Minister, are you also looking at the issue of the adult literacy
strategy that has been talked about?
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, this is a priority –
MS. MICHAEL:
Because, to me, the two
things are tied.
MR. BYRNE:
They're very, very much
tied. The adult literacy strategy will be an action plan that we bring forward.
It is part of my mandate letter that has been forwarded to me by the Premier. It
is a requirement; it is his expectation and the expectation of the government
that I, in this department, deliver an adult literacy strategy. We will be doing
that.
As you
can appreciate, we've stood up on a number of different initiatives in a very
short period of time: our Immigration Action Plan; we've looked at minimum wage
and we've looked at a number of different initiatives. That is not to minimize
the importance of this; in fact, consideration of the overall ABE program
obviously would be a big part of the development of a literacy action plan and
adult literacy strategy.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
]
Would
we be able to get – I presume you have this information – the numbers of
students enrolled in 2016 in ABE programs and the number of graduates in 2016?
MR. BYRNE:
We can supply all of that.
Again, this goes back to some of the original discussion, some of the original,
if I may, confusion about the Adult Basic Education program. ABE does not
operate, nor should it, like a high school program. There is not a definitive,
finite entry point on September 1. There is not a definitive, finite exit point
on June 25 of the following year.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right.
MR. BYRNE:
Students go into an ABE
program with specific intentions and objectives in mind. Some may go into an ABE
program exclusively and simply to update or upgrade their biology grades for
consideration of entry into an LPN – a nursing program or a health care program.
Some may require a full GED in consideration of their GED requirements.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. BYRNE:
Every individual goes into
it with a very unique set of expectations, objectives and program. That means
that some will be involved in ABE for just six weeks.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right.
MR. BYRNE:
Some may be involved for
three years. With that said, I want to qualify, that's why it's very, very
difficult to quantify and qualify the performance of an ABE program which, I
think, may have contributed to some of the confusion back in 2013.
MS. MICHAEL:
Could have. Thank you very
much.
Obviously, it's an individually based program and has to be. To me, the term
graduation – did people finish? Did they get to the end? Did they reach their
goals? So if it's a six-week need or it's a three-year need, did they reach
their goals? I know that's hard to quantify.
MR. BYRNE:
It is hard to qualify
because at some point in time, even though someone may be involved only
intending to go into school for six months, they may take a break but carry on.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right.
MR. BYRNE:
The whole notion that finite
in a calendar year or an academic year –
MS. MICHAEL:
Is hard.
MR. BYRNE:
– that a conclusion can be reached.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right.
MR. BYRNE:
But, still, I think it is
important to capture those statistics to be able to provide qualified evidence
about performance and performance indicators, where possible.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. I'll be interested in
whatever it is that you are able to gather.
MR. BYRNE:
We will supply fully
whatever information we have available.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
Moving
on then, to 5.2.01, I am not going to get into the questions around funding of
Memorial University. I think they don't belong in this –
MR. BYRNE:
Oh, come on.
MS. MICHAEL:
They don't belong here. No,
I'll do it where you can do that.
MR. BYRNE:
Okay.
MS. MICHAEL:
But I would like to know – I
think I do know – the federal revenue for the Physical Plant and Equipment, the
$13,201,000, is that for infrastructure? Is that going into some of the
infrastructural …?
MR. BYRNE:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Because they have the new
Science Building, for example.
MR. BYRNE:
That is indeed the cash flow
for the federal contribution to the infrastructure projects on campus.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right, okay, thank you very
much.
CHAIR:
Ms. Michael, can I just ask
you to hold your thoughts on that?
MS. MICHAEL:
Sure.
CHAIR:
And we'll turn it back over
to Mr. Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, I'm just going to
quickly again reiterate what the leader of the Third Party had noted there –
House Leader I should note – and support the minister on this. I'm glad to hear
that you're going to look at evidence based as we look at the ABE program itself
and a full or quasi-full review of the process itself. Again, I'm glad you are
understanding of the concept. The theme behind the process is people come in at
entry levels and the benefits are a continuum.
I will
just tell the one quick story. I'm invited to a graduation next week at CNA for
a student that was in one of the community-based ones for seven years who will
now graduate CNA in the chef's program. So there are success stories. But when
you run into some challenges in life, as you know this, and anybody who's an
educator would know this, particularly around ABE, single parents, issues with
their children, making those transitions, the success stories well outweigh the
process we have to use and reinventing the process and making it work.
I'm
glad to see that we'll have that further discussion around the full review and
evidence based to see what are the best hybrids to make sure people have access
to adult education and whatever levels like you mentioned, if it's two courses
they need to upgrade on to a particular course in post-secondary. That's a
positive there.
I will
go back to the university, but one of the questions I have is around
clarification on the amounts that are given for the tuition freeze. Is there a
formula? Is it based on the number of students? Is it based on an anticipated 3
or 4 per cent revenue generator in a continuum year? How is that number reached
when you subsidize the wage tuition freeze continuum at the university?
MR. BYRNE:
The tuition freeze subsidy,
which now amounts to $56.4 million, annualized this year alone, was actually
established back in 2005. The original wage tuition freeze program, if my memory
serves me correctly, was established in 2005 and it was part of the discussion
of post-secondary education White Paper. There was some reference to that, but
it was established at a base rate of $4 million and was intended to grow by $4
million annually. It is basically that blunt an instrument. It reflects –
MR. BRAZIL:
Trends.
MR. BYRNE:
– inflation and other things
and it have grown now to $56.4 million.
MR. BRAZIL:
So to continue that each
year, you'd have to add (inaudible) –
MR. BYRNE:
$4
million.
MR. BRAZIL:
Cumulative amount over a
period of time.
MR. BYRNE:
Absolutely. Last year, it
was $52.4 million.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, fair enough.
I'm
curious, because I've had a number of people ask, did somebody just pick the
number out of their hat, is it inflation cost, is it relevant. So it goes back
to the original process, which made sense at the time.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes.
MR. BRAZIL:
From an infrastructure point
of view at Memorial University – and we all know, we've seen the evidence over
there, and we're all cognizant of the fact that the university, certain
buildings are ailing and monies may not have been allocated or the amounts
allocated weren't enough to keep the structural process moving forward.
Has
there been any dialogue with the university around how allocation should be
done, if there are partnerships that can be developed? Because I'm hearing some
alarming stories about we're into almost a safety issue in some cases over
there, particularly if you walk through the tunnels and some of the other
surrounding buildings.
I'll
just ask the minister, has there been some dialogue or some plan of action?
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, there is. Obviously,
infrastructure deferment or undone maintenance, deferred maintenance is a
serious issue with the university, with Memorial University of Newfoundland, and
there have been several discussions with the university's senior administration
as to how that's best to be dealt with. That review did not begin this year,
obviously.
The
Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador conducted an examination of various
elements of the university's operations, and just a few short years ago he
concluded in his report that there were approximately $400 million worth of
deferred maintenance. This was back in – his report that I believe he submitted
in 2014, there was a conclusion that there was about $400 million in undone
maintenance at that point in time.
Now,
the university's budget, as we know, has been growing considerably over the last
number of years. The rate of growth of the university's budget has actually
outpaced core government spending. There were programs for deferred maintenance
that were in existence up until 2015 to be able to respond to some of these
circumstances, but clearly, clearly, the university needs to bring forward a
specific organized plan on how to deal with its infrastructure problems.
I will
note for this Committee that at the moment there are solutions already in play,
obviously. One, for example, is the development of the core science building.
One of the buildings that is facing some of the greatest states of disrepair
would be the current science facility, the current Science Building. Obviously,
to each and every one of us, if you're building a brand new science building to
house your science disciplines, then that is offsetting some of the concerns of
your existing science buildings.
Right
now, under construction or committed to by the university, there is $400 million
worth of new office and academic space either under construction or committed to
by the university. As I stated earlier, the Auditor General pointed out there is
approximately $400 million worth of undone maintenance at the university.
At this
point in time, the university is engaged in $400 million worth of new
construction. There is 650,000 square feet of new building space under
construction or committed to by the university at this point in time. The
university's footprint continues to grow.
While
we have 650,000 square feet of new space being built, we still have the original
space that requires the maintenance. The problem is not being solved completely
by this. There are obviously offsets. When you build a new science building, you
replace an old science building. The consideration still has to be what you do
with the old Science Building.
MR. BRAZIL:
Exactly.
MR. BYRNE:
These are the things that I
think must be dealt with. The Board of Regents, working with the senior
administration of the university, obviously have the key roles to play. It is
the university itself which decides its own priorities. This is something that I
would be keen to work with the university.
By way
of example, the College of the North Atlantic; there was a federal fund, the
Strategic Innovation Fund. Newfoundland and Labrador was granted just over $30
million of federal funding to be partnered with either provincial or university
funding to support university infrastructure.
The
College of the North Atlantic used a significant portion of their allocation
within that fund for deferred maintenance. There are programs. If the federal
government continues to offer deferred maintenance programs, we would encourage
the university to work with us, with the provincial government, to use those
funds for those purposes as well.
MR. BRAZIL:
It makes sense.
A
question under 5.3.01, relevant to the tuition offset grants for CNA. The $1.1
million, is that the standard as the $4 million is in –
MR. BYRNE:
That was the notional amount
that was established the same year as the Memorial University amount was, and so
it progressed.
MR. BRAZIL:
Are you in the process of
having a review to determine what the best allocation formula is if you continue
forward with the tuition freeze? Is it based on just giving that amount each
year? Because needs of students or needs of faculty, or less students would
dictate maybe less money, more students dictate more, or the cost of operations
have increased dramatically.
MR. BYRNE:
There's no review currently
underway. We're still applying the same formula. We do note that Newfoundland
and Labrador is blessed. The students and our community at large are blessed
with the lowest tuition rates anywhere in Canada. In fact, I would argue they
are lower than any rates in the Western world. I do respect and understand there
are some universities that offer free tuition, but it is on a limited basis.
What's
important about our institutions is the tuition rates are available universally.
You may find some jurisdictions in Europe that offer free tuition but they are
to a very, very finite group of students. We do not have those limitations on
the enrolment at Memorial University, which is an important element.
There
are, what I would call, four pillars of access to post-secondary education. The
tuition rate itself affects access. The amount of funds you provide to the
university, to the institution, does indeed affect access. The amount of funds
you provide to students through additional assistance, the Student Financial
Assistance Program, influences access, whether or not a student can actually go
to university or to college. The fourth and final thing, of course, is whether
or not programs are being offered.
If you
have a particular academic program where there's a finite enrolment, in other
words there is a very, very set small enrolment, that obviously becomes part of
an access issue. Those are the four pillars that I always examine when I
consider access for post-secondary education.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Minister, for
outlining that.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Brazil.
Do you
care to continue, Ms. Michael?
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Basically, just one more question. I think Mr. Brazil has covered a couple of
the questions that I had left.
In
5.3.02, the Physical Plant and Equipment for the College of the North Atlantic –
MR. BYRNE:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Minister, the new money
that's going in, $19,393,000, is that all earmarked for projects? Has it been
figured out based on earmarking of projects?
MR. BYRNE:
I just want to confirm the
$19 million figure.
Yes,
the specific projects that I can tell you for Capital expenses, there's just
over $17 million for the Heavy Equipment Centre of Excellence that has been
earmarked. There's $4 million for the Centre of Excellence in Energy within the
College of the North Atlantic. We also have shop modernization we were able to
use. So those two projects were the Heavy Equipment, and the centre of energy
was SIF, Strategic Innovation Fund, supported projects.
Again,
as I indicated earlier, there was a third category of the Strategic Innovation
Fund for shop modernization, for deferred maintenance of various campuses. There
were numerous campuses, and $6.2 million, almost $6.3 million really, was
allocated for those initiatives.
In
addition to that, there is still, as was inscribed under the White Paper, there
was $500,000 for shop modifications, there's $250,000 for equipment purchases.
We also included, for the College of the North Atlantic, the capacity of the
college to do infrastructure planning. We provided $350,000 so they can produce
a plan, to help them produce a plan for their future infrastructure needs and
for where they should be applying money.
The
College of the North Atlantic has done a remarkable job in my opinion. They are
not the owners of their buildings in most cases, but they're very, very acutely
aware that upkeep of those buildings is an important component of providing a
top-class education.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
Minister, under Revenue – Federal, is the money that was expected in 2016-17, is
that money that will get added on to what we estimate for this year or is that
just was expected and didn't happen?
MR. BYRNE:
It's just a cash flow.
That's a cash flow circumstance.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right, okay.
I think
that's all my questions, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Michael.
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
I'm good on that. Are we
still finishing 5.4?
CHAIR:
We're through to 5.5.01,
right through to the end.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, fair enough.
Under
Student Aid, Grants and Subsidies, 5.4.03, give me a little bit more of a
breakdown on the differences there from the $20 million to $15 million to $5.6
million for the '17-'18 allocation; 5.4.03, Student Loans Programs.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes. This is of great
interest to all of us. It's a very important and interesting story behind this.
I do have Rob Feaver, who's no stranger to most MHAs, having worked with
constituents on student loan issues. Rob Feaver is – I don't mean to blow smoke
at him, but he's probably one of the country's most knowledgeable and informed
experts on student financial assistance and he does provide advice to other
jurisdictions when asked; sometimes even when not asked.
I will
explain the differences and the changes. The federal government created some
policy changes within the federal government's student loans and grants, the
Student Financial Assistance Program with the federal government. As we are
aware, there are two separate student financial programs: one federal and one
provincial, but there is only one student. That's one single student has an
individually assessed student need.
The
federal government did a good thing; they increased the amount of grants that
were available to students under the federal system. They also changed the way
they determined need and eligibility.
Instead
of what was known as the cliff effect, whereby it was discrete quantum, you were
eligible if your own cash reserve, your own ability to pay for your education
was at a certain point to a certain point, from zero dollars to a higher dollar
value, then you fell in one category. Then if you were $1 over that amount, all
of a sudden you went into a new category. What they did is they sloped it, they
curved it and that created a more responsive mechanism to be able to assess
student financial need. But they also did another thing, which is they had a
fixed-rate contribution requirement from the student.
As we
know, student financial assistance is means tested. It implies if a student who,
basically, can fulfill all of the costs, their expenses to be able to help
themselves with an education. That would include: their own income; if they're a
dependent, their parental contributions; how much money they made over the
summer; what their cost is; what the tuition rate is; what their accommodations
costs are.
When
you factor in all of these variables, the inputs and the outputs, then of course
a determination is made as to whether or not a student – how much more is unmet
by the student? What does the student need to be able to allow them to go to a
post-secondary education institution?
The
federal government decided, above and beyond the means test, every student would
be required to contribute $3,000 to their education. That's an interesting
decision because, of course, it implies that a student who had no visible means
of support, who was not able to gain significant employment during the course of
the summer, who did not have access to parental contribution, no matter what
their circumstances were, the federal government has decided they would need to
supply $3,000 to the cost of their education. That skewed things significantly.
We have
been operating on what is known as a split model. The federal program and the
provincial program, while seamlessly working together from the point of view of
the student, there was a 60-40 split. Up until this past year, the federal
program would meet 60 per cent of a student's financial need and the provincial
program would meet 40 per cent of the student's financial need. It was not a
sequential program; it was very discreet.
Because
of the change in the federal program, the requirement of the fixed-rate
contribution, the $3,000 contribution, what was happening was that a significant
body of students would lose access to a significant amount of student financial
assistance. We, as a government, had to respond.
What we
did is we created the sequential model. Instead of the 60-40 split, we said we
would not limit the amount of student financial assistance to a given student to
60 per cent of their overall assessed need being assigned to the federal
government, we'd maximize all of the federal grants and other contributions they
can make first and then we would move to the provincial Student Financial
Assistance Program. As a result, in addition to providing more financial
assistance to students than otherwise would have been the case – substantially
more – it did also, as a secondary consequence, allowed us to accrue additional
savings to the provincial program.
If
there are specific questions, I'll take a breath and let you ask them, but I'm
going to again move to our expert to be able to put in the full details about
where were the savings, what would have happened if we had just stayed the same?
If the provincial government did not reply or respond in any way, shape or form,
what would have been the consequence to the student? Since we did, indeed, reply
with this new or changed model, the sequential model, what the consequences
would be.
Unless
there's any – you want to interject with additional …
MR. BRAZIL:
No.
MR. BYRNE:
Maybe –
MR. BRAZIL:
No, that clarification that
this is indeed the better move for the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It's the students here, and my understanding is that; but, yeah, a little bit
more clarification as to what the difference would have been from a financial
point of view and a debt load point of view.
Mr.
Feaver?
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Feaver.
MR. FEAVER:
Thank you, very much, Mr. Brazil and Ms. Michael for the questions.
It's
difficult from an operational perspective, because I'm an operational guy, to
get down in the weeds of trying to address some of the things. But the
fixed-rate contribution would have negatively affected 40 per cent of our
student population base. We used a dataset of about 6,000 prior applications, so
these were live applications that we used, and we just changed the formula and
what would happen. When we applied the fixed-rate contribution, 40 per cent of
our students would have been negatively affected, and that's defined as
receiving less student financial assistance.
We were
the highest in the country. That number was given to us by the federal
government by their own analysis. We did our own analysis and confirmed that
number was accurate. They were a little bit off; it is actually about 41 per
cent.
Then
when we looked at the 40 per cent of people who were negatively affected, over
half were from low-income families. A further 25 per cent were from
middle-income families. These are by definitions of the federal tables, which I
can provide to you, in terms of how they define – low income would be defined as
being family income below $60,000 and then middle income would rise to about
$113,000.
So we
had 75 per cent of the people who were negatively affected by a fixed-rate
contribution from those categories. To me, that was, as being a program expert
and being in the program, to see people from all income families not getting
enough money to go to post-secondary was unattainable for us, and that's how I
presented it to the minister in terms of it being the key factor of maintaining
fixed rate.
In the
proportional model, we accept and have accepted, for 20 years, whatever the
federal program changes were, we would apply that to the provincial program. Now
this has forced us to move into a dual assessment, what they call a dual
assessment. So we have to assess the $3,000 contribution on the federal portion,
and we will now, effective in 2018, we will add '17-'18 and '18-'19 as we
transition towards that. We will not be assessing that on; we will maintain a
status quo under the provincial program. So no one will get any less money under
the provincial program or the assessment won't change as well on that part.
MR. BRAZIL:
Perfect, thank you for that.
That clarifies that.
Yes,
I'm good on that. Just when we conclude, I have a couple of general questions,
quick and dirty ones.
CHAIR:
Ms. Michael, any concluding
remarks and questions?
MS. MICHAEL:
I have a couple of more
questions.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MS. MICHAEL:
I had forgotten about the
student loan page. But it seems to me, even though Mr. Feaver did give us
information then, I'm thinking, Minister, it might be really good if we were to
have a briefing on the whole student loan thing and our lead researcher – I
mean, Ivan is one of our researchers, but our lead researcher in this area
couldn't be here this morning, so I think she'd be interested as well. So
afterwards we could sit – and I'm sure the Opposition would be interested, I
don't know, but I think it would be really good for us to have a briefing.
MR. BYRNE:
I would be delighted to
offer that directly with departmental officials. And do not feel surprised that
you may feel a little bit caught off guard by some of this. This was a decision
that was actually taken a year ago by the federal government.
MS. MICHAEL:
A year ago, yes.
MR. BYRNE:
When I briefed the Canadian
Federation of Students, they did not appear to be aware of it themselves.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. BYRNE:
So it's one of these things
that kind of have been under the radar, to a certain degree.
I've
reached out to student organizations to keep them up to speed to the best of my
ability, but there are some interesting things that are going on in the student
financial assistance world nationally, which is, for example – I think this is
something we can all share and take a certain amount of pride in – there's a
movement towards or at least a capturing of the notion of free tuition in
certain jurisdictions, like in Ontario.
Well,
the notion of free tuition is based on the premise that if you combined all of
the federal grants, assistance, and the provincial grants and assistance, the
total amount available to a student in Ontario would be matched or capped at the
cost of tuition.
Governments have recommended, or suggested, they've spoken publicly that in
other jurisdictions they offer free tuition because the amount of student
financial assistance is equivalent to the cost of tuition. As we know, in
Ontario the average tuition cost in that jurisdiction is $6,700 per year for an
Ontario undergraduate student. So combining the federal and the provincial
assistance, it caps out at the actual cost of tuition.
In
Newfoundland and Labrador, if we were to apply that same model, the amount of
assistance that would be available to the student – we currently offer far
greater than the cost of the tuition. If we were to cap it at cost of tuition
and say we now offer free tuition, we would substantially – substantially –
reduce the amount of student financial assistance available to our students. In
fact, if you were to apply that model, they would not be able to capture the
full amount of federal grant because, of course, the federal grant at $3,000,
just that one element alone, is already above our tuition rate.
I say
that, and I think it's something that we can take a certain level of pride in –
I know that there will not be full agreement on that notion, but that's a
product of where we've come from. We've all valued access to post-secondary
education. In fact, when we look and we communicate to other provinces, to
students from across the country, what we can say is that for our own
university, for our own college, the cost of our tuition compared to the amount
of student financial assistance out there, we actually help students pay for
costs outside of the actual tuition costs. Other jurisdictions don't do that.
MS. MICHAEL:
One more question.
CHAIR:
Absolutely.
MS. MICHAEL:
A very minor one I think,
but I still want to ask it. 5.4.02, Scholarships, it looks like that's being
discontinued. Just curious about that, what those scholarships were.
MR. BYRNE:
There was a decision that
the scholarships were not core to the government. It's recognition of certain
academic achievements, obviously, and the recognition is always valuable and
appreciated, but there was a decision in last year's budget that under the
financial circumstances we were under is that we would stick to a more
generalized core access to support for access for post-secondary education. I
don't mind admitting I really have enjoyed and appreciated keeping the
scholarships, but I recognized and understood that under the financial
circumstances we were in, given the amount or the scope, the number of
individuals involved, that was a decision that was taken and I stand by the
decision.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Michael.
Would
you just like to have some closing remarks before I turn it over to Mr. Brazil?
MS. MICHAEL:
I would. I thank the
minister and his officials for a very good discussion this morning and for
taking as much time with us as you have taken. I really appreciated it. I do
look forward to being in touch with you with regard to a briefing on student
loans.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Michael.
Mr.
Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
I, too, want to thank the
minister for outlining and answering all of our questions and the staff for
being very informative. I do have a couple of quick ones, just for
clarification. Income Support overpayments process, is that still in play? Do we
still collect on a regular basis?
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, we do. Under the
statute, of course, if there is an overpayment, it must be recorded and we have
taken additional efforts to try to collect wherever possible.
MR. BRAZIL:
What's our average a year
that we collect: a million, two, three, less?
MR. BYRNE:
Bren, if you would – just
identify yourself for the …
MR. HANLON:
Through active collections,
about $3.5 million a year now. Through the 5 per cent we take back from active
clients, it is roughly $2 million I believe.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, perfect.
MR. HANLON:
It's pretty consistent year
to year.
MR. BRAZIL:
We still have a process
where we identify the overpayment process?
MR. HANLON:
Oh yeah, for sure. Yeah.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, perfect.
Do we
still have licensed social workers within AESL?
MR. BYRNE:
Yes.
MR. BRAZIL:
How many of those would we
have?
MR. BYRNE:
We do indeed have social
workers, a full complement. I don't believe – in actual fact, that's an area
where we have maintained our presence quite, but if I could defer to Donna
O'Brien to …
MS. O'BRIEN:
In terms of positions, I
believe – and I'd have to go back and double-check – we have 22 social worker
positions. A number of them are providing support application social work
function to parents accessing child support. We also have a number of positions
called liaison social workers that are also registered social workers who
support individual systemic issues, advocacy to other departments and within
community on behalf of individuals.
MR. BRAZIL:
Perfect. Thanks.
My last
one: Is AESL still involved with the Population Growth Strategy or does it still
exist? Is it still on the radar? Is it put on the backburner? Is it dropped?
MR. BYRNE:
A key component to
population growth, obviously, is our immigration strategy. So our focus and our
initiatives really dwell highly on immigration.
We
still have the component of attracting expats to consider, when opportunities
avail, to return to Newfoundland and Labrador. I will say with clarity and
confidence that in terms of directing our attentions and energies, we do
consider outreach to expat Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are currently
residing in other parts of the province important. But in terms of directing our
energies, attentions and focus, while it's important to continue a level of
communication, it would be fair to say that most Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians know a lot about Newfoundland and Labrador.
Where
our attentions really, really need to be, I think today and in the future, is in
attracting and retaining newcomers to our province. It's very, very important to
point out – and as someone who knows and appreciates this well, there is always
a debate about whether immigration is in the best interests of our province and
our people, whether or not it provides an unfair circumstance to those looking
for work in Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously there are unemployed people in
this province, and when you bring in people from outside of the province, it
does raise concerns and questions.
What I
think we all have a responsibility to do is to voice, and voice loudly, that
under our Provincial Nominee Program, those who would come to our province from
outside of our province, outside of our country, foreign nationals, they must
come with an identified job attached that cannot be fulfilled within the local
marketplace, within the local labour market. So it is not a question of pinching
or poaching a job from a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, they are fulfilling
jobs and skill sets that have been proven and tested to not be currently
available within the province.
From
the point of view of our health care system, as we analyze this, if it were not
for newcomers to our province our health care system, our ability to be able to
service the needs of our seniors would be very negatively impacted if it were
not for people who want to come to our province and want to settle in our
province. That's an important point.
Attraction is one element to population growth, but retention is the other.
Building a multicultural, diverse society that's accepting of newcomers – which
I am confident we do indeed have in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're probably
one of the strongest places where differences are not only accepted, but they're
embraced. We always need to encourage that.
I grow
concerned occasionally when voices come forward expressing negative views about
multiculturalism and diversity. Rather than challenging them in an adversarial
way, I think the right approach to take is to take them aside and to encourage
them and to educate them. I think that's the way each and every one of us as
parliamentarians can play a big role in advancing our immigration strategy, our
immigration outcomes and retaining people for the province. Because it is true
and it is clear, we are facing demographic challenges.
Those
of us sitting in chairs in this hallowed hall right now will need the services
of others to take care of us in time. We need people to help us in a whole bunch
of different areas, whether it be in high-skilled areas, engineering, health
care and other fields, but as well in important roles making sure that our
current population is well served by a younger generation as well.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Minister, and
thank you to all the officials.
I
appreciate that, and any information you share, don't forget to share to all of
us. We appreciate that.
Thank
you.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, indeed.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Brazil.
Can I
ask the Clerk to call the final set of subheads, please?
CLERK:
5.1.01 through 5.5.01
inclusive.
CHAIR:
5.1.01 through 5.5.01.
Shall
the subheads carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 5.1.01 through 5.5.01 carried.
CLERK:
The total.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, total heads,
carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
of the Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour carried without
amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of the Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour
carried without amendment.
CHAIR:
I'd ask for a motion for
adjournment.
Moved
by Pam Parsons.
In
saying that, Minister, did you want just a closing statement?
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
want to say thank you to all the Members of the Committee that attended today. I
appreciated the line of questioning very, very much.
I will
say this, that our House of Assembly has an Estimates process which is
refreshing. It allows for a level of discussion which I, in my previous career,
my previous representation, my role as a Member of Parliament, would be – I
would be envious if this level occurred in the nation's capital, in the House of
Commons. It does allow quite a detailed review.
In my
past experience if you could get – and this is true. This was true of previous
administrations; this is true of the current administration. If you could get 30
minutes of a minister's time you were lucky. I think this is a practice that –
the Committee process is something that is incredibly valuable, and I appreciate
the line of questioning that was involved.
I also
want to say a very special thank you to the staff, to the senior officials that
accompanied me here today. Obviously, I'm not an expert in every, every, every
detail of every transaction in the department, but I try to be. It was great to
have the assistance of a great group of professionals that serve us all.
CHAIR:
I thank you as well,
Minister, and to your staff and to our Committee. This was our last set of
Estimates in our Resource Committee, so I'd certainly like to say thank you to
the Committee and to the parties as well.
With
that we'll adjourn, and have a wonderful remainder of your day.
Thank
you.
On
motion, the Committee adjourned.