PDF Version

May 10,

GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Derrick Bragg, MHA for Fogo Island Cape Freels,

substitutes for John Finn, MHA for Stephenville Port au Port.

The

Committee met at approximately 9 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Edmunds):

Welcome everyone to the third and final session for the Government Services

Committee. Today we'll be doing OCIO and Finance.

First

of all, I'd like to call for adopting the minutes of the last meeting.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So moved.

CHAIR:

Move to adopt the minutes of

the last

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, moved.

CHAIR:

Okay.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR:

First of all, I'm going to

ask the Government Services Committee to introduce themselves and then I'll ask

the minister to introduce her staff. Then we'll go on with the line by lines on

OCIO followed by Finance. Given that this session has been delayed already once

and we only have a certain allotted time to get the Estimates done, we will

finish by 12 o'clock.

I would

just like to point out that Mr. Bragg is substituting for Mr. Finn on the

Government Services Committee.

I ask

the Government Services Committee to introduce themselves.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Keith Hutchings, MHA,

District of Ferryland.

MS. DRODGE:

Megan Drodge, researcher, Official Opposition caucus.

MS. MICHAEL:

Lorraine Michael, MHA, St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MR. MORGAN:

Ivan Morgan, researcher, NDP caucus.

MS. PARSLEY:

Betty Parsley, MHA, Harbour

Main.

MR. KING:

Neil King, MHA, historic

District of Bonavista.

MS. HALEY:

Carol Anne Haley, MHA, Burin

Grand Bank.

MR. BRAGG:

Derrick Bragg, MHA, Fogo

Island Cape Freels.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you very much.

I ask

the minister if she could introduce her staff. I'd like to point out that if

staff, other than yourself, are speaking that they clearly introduce themselves

before carrying on.

MS. C. BENNETT:

All right. I'm Cathy

Bennett, MHA for Windsor Lake and the Minister Responsible for OCIO, and I'll

turn towards the deputy.

MS. MACDONALD:

Ellen MacDonald, Chief Information Officer from the OCIO.

MS. MOORE:

Julie Moore, Executive Director, Corporate and Information Management Services,

OCIO.

MS. TRICKETT:

Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller.

MR. MOULAND:

Randy Mouland, Executive Director of Operations, OCIO.

MS. TEMPLEMAN:

Natalie Templeman, Executive Director of Solutions Delivery, OCIO.

MS. C. BENNETT:

And that's everybody for

OCIO.

CHAIR:

Okay.

What

we'll do is we'll get started here. I'll call for the subheads, and then I'll

ask for some opening remarks. Then we'll turn it over to either line by line or

probing questions.

CLERK (Ms. Murphy):

4.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 4.1.01 carry?

MS. C. BENNETT:

I just want to say good

morning to everyone, and good morning to colleagues as we review the Estimates

of the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

I just

have a few points to make before we get into the actual Estimates. I just want

to make sure that from the Chair's perspective I have time to talk for maybe

about two or three minutes.

Mr.

Chair, is that okay?

CHAIR:

(Inaudible.)

MS. C. BENNETT:

Okay. I just want to make

sure I was okay on the clock.

I have

a couple of opening comments to make. I just wanted to make sure that from my

time perspective I was okay to make them now.

CHAIR:

(Inaudible.)

MS. C. BENNETT:

Awesome.

Just

for the members of the Committee, to give you a little background on OCIO. The

OCIO supports all the information technology and the information management

functions of government, including things like government's technology

infrastructure. It includes addressing some 150,000 requests annually over 310

government offices across the province.

manages over 10,000-plus laptops and desktops, 1,500 servers and 1,600

Blackberries. It also manages providing email services and data storage, and

managing licensing and maintenance of software and hardware assets. It also is

responsible for protecting government assets and data from cyber-attacks. It

also supports 500-plus applications that are used by departments and agencies

and building and deploying new IT solutions for government departments and

agencies.

The

Estimates structure we're going to walk through this morning, OCIO, includes

four branches and each have a distinct set of responsibilities.

There's

the Corporate and Information Management Services or the CIMS. That's

responsible for policy vendor and contract management, RFP development and the

management of OCIO corporate-wide activities, management of office space,

supplies, et cetera.

Under

Solution Delivery, and that would include both current and capital monies,

they're responsible for all new project work for departments and agencies.

Under

Application Services, they would be responsible for the support and maintenance

of the existing 500-plus applications that are used by departments and agencies.

Typically, in any given year, it would handle about 2,800 requests to update

current systems.

Operations both current and, again, capital has the responsibility for

technology infrastructure, desktops, laptops, servers, wide-area networks, email

systems, backup and recovery of all government data, et cetera. Typically, it

handles in any given year over 119,000 requests.

The

budget overall, and the budget allocations for OCIO, in 2016-17 the OCIO will

see a $7.4 million or an 11 per cent budget reduction as part of the Government

Renewal Initiative and line-by-line reductions. Further to this, the OCIO has

absorbed another $4 million in pressures as part of its base budget, bringing

the total savings to just over $11 million for 2016-17.

terms of the Government Renewal Initiative, as we work through the Estimates

document you will see the OCIO's initiatives including changes to the project

delivery model, which will see savings of $411,000 for 2016-17 and over $2.9

million in annualized savings when fully implemented. You'll also see changes in

technology support models which will see savings of over $1.3 million in '16-'17

and over $1.6 million in annualized savings when fully implemented. You'll also

see the introduction of the managed service provider model, which will see

savings of $50,000 in '16-'17, and $297,500 in annualized savings when fully

implemented. And you'll see additional operating savings of $13,800. Further to

this, as part of the line-by-line review of operational line items, the OCIO

saved an additional $2,066,300.

When we

look at salaries, the OCIO in '15-'16 projected revised shows savings of just

over $1.2 million, resulting from lower requirements for projects due to timing

of activities such as the project for CYFS, as well as planned vacancies to

manage within the budget and to save related to government's spending reduction

measures. The OCIO manages salaries at the overall corporate level versus by

branch, so you will see some branches show a deficit in salaries while others

show a surplus. The OCIO manages within its overall salary budget.

A total

of $287,600 has been eliminated into 2015-16 as part of government's attrition

plan and OCIO has reduced four positions during 2015-16.

Some

specific areas that we'll focus on as we walk through the Estimates I'm sure

will be Corporate and Information Management Services. While Salaries for

2015-16 were higher than anticipated, savings were managed in other branches to

accommodate this. Salary savings were attained overall.

Salaries for '16-'17 are reduced to reflect attrition targets and a total of a

half million dollars in Professional Services allocation is normally used for

federal-provincial projects, with an offset of a $500,000 revenue item for a net

of zero. This funding was not used in '15-'16 and has not been used in a few

years. As a result, both the expenditure and the revenue were removed in the

'16-'17 budget.

There

was some spending in this account related to information, protection and

security. Spending under Purchased Services was higher than was budgeted in

'15-'16 due to a flood at the Provincial Records Centre, which caused unplanned

remediation costs. And GRI and line-by-line savings in these activities included

line-by-line reductions of $42,300.

When we

move to Solution Delivery and Solution Delivery capital, these accounts capture

the work required to implement new projects. Some of these projects involve

multi-year funding that must be allocated between current and capital accounts.

When the project starts and nears completion, funding is generally considered

current while the build phase is considered capital.

This is

a complex budgeting area and while best efforts are made to budget funding into

each spending envelope at the outset of each project, there are often

adjustments to the envelopes for the out-years and as projects progress. Budgets

become more refined depending on the progress of the project. As you will see in

activities 4.1.02 and 4.1.05 most envelopes involve transfers of funds depending

on the projects for the next year.

Child,

Youth and Family Services system implementation is the largest ongoing project

and is being implemented over multiple years. Much of the reduced expenditure in

'15-'16 is driven by timing changes for the CYFS project as well as managed

reductions and delayed implementation to manage spending.

GRI and

line-by-line savings in these activities in these two Estimate pages include GRI

savings of just over $469,000 related to changes to technology support models

and changes to the project delivery model, introduction of the managed service

provider model and line-by-line reductions of over $2 million.

As just

indicted, the Solution Delivery area as part of the GRI is undertaking changes

to its method of delivery of IT solutions. In particular, there will be a

reallocation of internal staff to this branch, reducing the number of

contractors. It is anticipated that the equivalent of up to 13 contractor

positions will be eliminated over time as this initiative is implemented. This

is reflected in the long-term reduction in Professional Services funding.

Under

the Application Services which is 4.1.03, GRI and line-by-line savings in these

activities included line-by-line reductions of $16,800.

The

last two headings would be Information Technology Operations, current and

capital, 4.1.04 and 4.1.06. This activity includes significant IT and

infrastructure purchasing that you do not normally see in other spending

envelopes in government. For instance, Transportation and Communications, this

will include spending for a multi-million dollar contract for wide area network,

or WAN, services across government. This allows connections to the Internet for

over 300 government offices.

would include Supplies, which includes spending for millions of dollars in

annual software licences, maintenance and support agreements for the use of

government-wide software products. Purchased Services will include spending for

annual hardware maintenance costs for the use of government-wide hardware

products. And under Property, Furnishings and Equipment it includes spending for

hardware and equipment purchases, for example desktop and laptop computers for

government. In the capital account, spending in this area is for large-scale

infrastructure and security. Examples would be firewalls, servers and networking

equipment.

GRI and

line-by-line savings in these activities included GRI savings of $1.37 million

related to changes to technology support models and line-by-line reductions of

$19,200.

I now

ask that officials here today who've already introduced themselves be prepared

for the questions that the Members opposite are going to ask.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

Before

I turn it over to the Government Services Committee, I'd like to point out that

we'll allocate 15 minutes beginning with Mr. Hutchings and then Ms. Michael.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Ms. Michael can go first.

CHAIR:

Okay. I'm glad you made the

decision amongst yourselves.

And

then we'll open up to any other Government Services Committee member.

With

that, we'll hand it over to Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Thank

you very much, Minister, and thank you to all of your staff for being here and

just to say, I guess, as a person who lives in this establishment for a lot of

my time, probably the one department that we interact with a lot is OCIO simply

because OCIO services us in a very special way. We don't often get the

opportunity to do this, so I want to thank, Minister, the staff very much for

the good service that we've always received as MHAs, and continue to. We really

appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Minister, that was a lot of information at one time so if I am asking a question

about something that you've already referred to, you'll forgive me for it

because what I'll be looking for now will be the details, I guess, of what you

sort of gave the overview of.

4.1.01 I think you did give an overview of this the one line that I'm

interested in is the detail with regard to the Professional Services that were

in that line at $520,000 that which are now obviously needed. Some detail on

that, please.

MS. C. BENNETT:

The change from the $520,000

that was the original budget, down to $19,500 reflects the line-by-line

reduction as we went through line items and items that the OCIO identified would

not be required as part of their planning for fiscal '16-'17.

MS. MICHAEL:

But $500,000 is a large

amount. I'm wondering is the $500,000 a basic drop up there related to the

$500,000 that was revenue, or was budgeted as revenue, from the federal

government.

MS. C. BENNETT:

That's correct. Those two

items I mentioned in the

preamble were related. We dropped both of those this

year.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

This is

what I mean. It's hard getting the information ahead of time and relating it.

Thank

you very much.

Coming

down to 4.1.02, Solution Delivery, could we have the details with regard to the

Salaries line because it's going up by $409,700. I know you did talk about

movements of staff, but if you could give us the details in the Salaries line in

this area, please.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure.

I'll

start off with the projected revised budget of '15-'16, the $3.2 million. That

reflects savings due to vacancies. There was a director position, two delivery

managers, an enterprise architect position, as well as delayed recruitment on

projects, for example, delayed recruitment on the CYFS project of $226,000.

Under the $4,333,900, the changes there relate to a net increase for

project-related salaries and carry forwards from prior years of about $313,000

specifically for the CYFS project.

It also

reflects an increase based on the GRI activities and the project delivery and

the long-term support model. The deputy may want to add some additional texture

there. That will see a scheduled internal transfer of resources over multiple

years. The salary transfers will be $89,800.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

If I

may, Minister and the Chair, we've always established at the beginning, so far,

throughout the Estimates that the briefing notes for the Estimates itself would

be made available to us afterwards. So just confirming that will happen.

Great,

thank you very much. And then we know we don't have to get every single piece of

detail down.

Thanks

Minister, under Professional Services in the same subhead; I know you've made

reference to this in your opening, but could you just give us, one again, the

details on the drop of $1.5 million from last year's budget line in Professional

Services.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure. I'll walk through the

projected revised budget for 2015-16 first, that's the $4,341,300.

MS. MICHAEL:

That was the revision,

right?

MS. C. BENNETT:

That's correct.

That

reflects savings in an effort to reduce spending under government's direction.

This line item is related to externally provided Professional Services for

project delivery. Some projects did not proceed as projected. This provided

additional savings for government. Savings included: from the CYFS, $226,000;

Advanced HR was $154,000; and AQMS was $345,000, et cetera.

The

original budget for '16-'17 that we're discussing today, the $3,778,100 reflects

a net decrease over the prior year of $987,700. That's based on the re-profiling

of funds for projects and other project delivery accounts. As I mentioned in the

opening, this occurs each year as, initially, funds are allocated to the

Professional Services account for future years when approved.

This

particular line item reflects $446,400 for the GRI project delivery and

long-term support model, which is the reduction of equivalent funding. It would

have been seen in the professional services contract resources. This represents

year one of a multi-year approach.

Also

reflected here is $50,000 for GRI for managed service provider model, which is

the reduction in contractor costs and the initial first-year estimate of that.

It also reflects $7,800 for GRI; five, part of the changes in technology support

models, which again is about reducing contractor costs for the support that we

use inside OCIO.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you.

When

you talk about the revision in 2015-16, some projects that were they put on

hold? Or was it that whatever was planned didn't happen or will be happening

this year? You mentioned some projects being put on hold.

MS. MACDONALD:

The projects here were it was a timing issue more than anything else. So

rather than start them, we just delayed them to a later start date.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you very much.

Do you

want to start, Keith?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, sure.

Minister, I just wanted to touch on a couple of items Ms. Michael spoke to. Just

to go back to 4.1.01, Professional Services; $520,000, reduced down.

Could

you just give me an example of what that would have been? My understanding is

there was funding from the feds and that's no longer there, so you've stopped

that program. Just some idea of what that would have been?

MS. MACDONALD:

This funding was an offset. So it's really an opportunity if the federal

government wanted us to do some work for them, we would need to have an ability

to collect their revenue and this is the offsetting expenditure. So it's not

that we didn't get the federal funds, it's that they've never asked us to do

some work. This was a placeholder, if you like, for that kind of work.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Oh, okay. Thank you.

MS. C. BENNETT:

So just to be clear

because I know that in the Member opposite's question, I want to make sure

there's no confusion this would not have been federal funding that wasn't

received. This would have been a placeholder for work that would potentially be

done by OCIO as part of work we could do for the federal government that we

could bill out. There was no ask for us to do that work, so I just wanted to

make sure we're clear.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. It was never utilized.

MS. C. BENNETT:

We weren't asked by the

federal government to do it. This was a placeholder that's been in place for a

number of years.

MS. MACDONALD:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. Thank you.

If we

go to 4.1.02, down to the line Transportation and Communications, there's been a

significant increase in this year's Estimate of $603,000. I'm just wondering if

I can get some information on that one.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes. Just for clarity, is

the Member speaking to the $603,000?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Okay.

That

reflects the increases for project-related costs that are carried forward from

prior years, specifically for the CYFS project. This introduces the training for

700-plus CYFS staff and their travel costs. This increase is net of a $900

line-by-line review reduction. So that money is budgeted for the training

associated with a new CYFS program that OCIO is currently working on.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Could I just get an update

on the status of the CYFS program, that project, where it's to?

MS. MACDONALD:

Certainly. The project is, I would say, in the build phase. We're working with

the vendor, who's providing us a solution, and we are modifying it for our

legislative requirements so that the folks can do their jobs in a better way,

really, and it includes conversion activities which have started, it includes

planning for training. So I'd say it's two-thirds of the way through the build.

There's

a huge effort still ongoing. We have to go through a full conversion and a full

testing and training. So it's not going to complete this fiscal. It will be next

fiscal.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. So the two-thirds

build, was that build originated from OCIO or was adopted from somewhere else,

some jurisdiction?

MS. MACDONALD:

The system that was selected

was the system that's in place in several SYFS-type units in Ontario. We are

essentially modifying it for some of the different ways that I shouldn't say

modify, we're configuring the solution for how the social work legislation works

here, and the broader scope that our CYFS has than other jurisdictions. So we're

working with a vendor.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Just my

final question with regard to that; some of this funding is related to training

for staff as the system, I guess, becomes operationalized. I think you said

you're two-thirds through but you wouldn't complete it this year. Will training

begin before the actual project is completed?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Training for the tools will

happen when the tools are available for the social workers to use, would be the

answer.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. So it could start this

year, the training. That's why the money is there.

OFFICIAL:

Yes, the training should

start this year.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. Thank you.

In that

same heading, 4.1.02 Ms. Michael again asked about Professional Services

we've seen a reduction there. I think you indicated there were issues in regard

to projects may be getting completed and they weren't. I'm not sure on that one

again. Could you just give me a review of that one, Professional Services?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure. Maybe the information

that we can share with you around the project delivery and the long-term support

model might help clarify, because a portion of the money that I referenced

earlier when I spoke to the $3,778,000 is reflective of that change.

Maybe

I'll ask the deputy if she can provide a very high-level overview of the project

delivery and long-term support model.

MS. MACDONALD:

Certainly.

Our

intent is that we're going to move some resources from other areas in OCIO into

the branch that delivers projects. We'll have to do some retraining of them and

essentially lessen our requirement on contractual resources. The equivalent of

13 contractors we should be able to eliminate.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

So this

would be the envelope that looks after consultants that do

MS. MACDONALD:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

project delivery and those

types of things.

Minister, when you mentioned there was what was the number, 13 contractors

that were coming out. That would come out of this envelope here?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

What

would be a rough average of the amount of consultants that would be used

reflective of this?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Inside OCIO?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yeah.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Well, I can report to the

committee that when I took over as minister and spoke to the deputy, some of the

consulting work that had been ongoing for almost a decade with an individual

contract being valued at almost a million dollars was still in place, and we

have since rectified that.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

What would roughly be the

amount of consultants that would be used, average, yearly, and has that changed?

MS. C. BENNETT:

The plan is we are

continuing to reduce the number of contractors inside of OCIO. That's what we

speak about when we talk about the project delivery and long-term support model

is providing the opportunity for staff inside OCIO to provide that work and

using contractors for very specialized activities that are not repetitive and

ongoing for multiple years, as was the practice under the prior administration.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

I'm

good, Mr. Chair, for that section.

CHAIR:

Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

4.1.03; Minister, if we

could again, you referred in general with regard to positions and salaries but

could we have the breakdown which leads to this year's salary estimate being

$202,800 less than last year.

MS. C. BENNETT:

The $8,476,000 reflects the

attrition target of $113,000 for '16-'17. It also reflects the project delivery

and long-term support model loss of AS salaries of $89,000 for year.

As the

deputy mentioned earlier, there's some reallocation of positions from one area

to another, and that would be that position at $89,000 for year one. This

initiative will reflect movement, as I said earlier, of internal resources to

the SD branch over multiple years.

MS. MICHAEL:

Is there a position gone

because of attrition or are the positions all moved into another area?

MS. MOORE:

Four positions will be lost during attrition.

MS. MICHAEL:

Will be lost?

MS. MOORE:

Yes. We haven't established yet which branch those will come through, but every

branch will bear a component of what that attrition is.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you very much.

other question is the Professional Services, if we could have an explanation of

the Processional Services here.

MS. C. BENNETT:

The Professional Services of

$865,000, that's a drop from last year. The drop reflects the line-by-line

reduction. The actual Professional Services would be related to applications and

mainframes there (inaudible), I think it is.

OFFICIAL:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

What is it again, I didn't

MS. C. BENNETT:

The $865,000 would be

related to the external supports that's needed for program applications. So

those would be contracts for software licences, other licences; technology

licences.

MS. MICHAEL:

Are these multiple contracts

under this line?

MS. C. BENNETT:

There are 500 applications

that government supports, and many of those applications would have their own

unique licences that would be maintained and you'd see those

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. So it's the licences,

mainly.

MS. MACDONALD:

It's a support line for these different technologies that we can't support

ourselves. We don't have the skills in-house.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. That's

understandable.

Thank

you very much.

always find this fascinating, so I'm going to ask here. Under Revenue, the

provincial revenue line, what would that source of revenue be? It's $102,700,

and last year the revision was only $70,000. Then this year it's $102,700 again.

What is that source of revenue on a provincial level? Why last year was it only

$70,000? Why do you anticipate being able to get that amount of money?

MS. C. BENNETT:

The Revenue has been

projected to be lower than anticipated given timing issues related to receiving

the funding after the end of each quarter and based on anticipated receipt,

which are based on service delivery. For example, actual hours worked rather

than a set contract. The revenue that this specifically references would be

received from areas like pensions, NMFC or Legal Aid where OCIO does work and

then would bill out that work.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT:

With permission, just for

the Member opposite, the question that you asked with regard to the attrition, I

just want to be clear that it's salaries that are coming out. The positions have

not been there are no individuals other than those that are retiring or

positions that have been vacant. So I just want to make sure to be clear.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's what I understand by

attrition that they are going to be retirees.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yeah.

MS. MICHAEL:

I wanted to know how many,

so that's four.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Or the attrition target

could have also been met by having a position that's vacant and not filling it

as well.

MS. MICHAEL:

I understand that. Thank you

very much. Thanks for the clarification.

Coming

down to 4.1.04, a few questions here, mainly under Supplies; there's a big drop

of $3.5 million. I assume you can sustain that or you wouldn't have allowed that

to happen. Could we have an explanation?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sorry, I just wanted to

catch up. Which

MS. MICHAEL:

4.1.04 the next subhead,

Information Technology Operations, the subhead of Supplies. There's a decrease

of $3.5 million from last year's budget line to this year. I guess I'm

interested in knowing is there going to be an impact because of that drop or

will that be sustained adequately?

MS. C. BENNETT:

The $6,738,400, the

difference reflects a net decrease consisting of the following: there's $3.17

million net impact of a permanent decrease for the Microsoft buyout initiative

which was $1.8 million, and the removal of one-time funding for the buyout from

prior year which was $1.3 million. There was an amount in the prior budget that

wouldn't have been carried forward on an annual basis of $1.3 million.

Additionally, there was $551,400 which is a permanent transfer in from other

accounts to provide for appropriate SW funding and $244,000 which was an

increase for the HW, SW budget pressure. The last one there, the large one is a

$1.113 million decrease related to GRI II changes to technology support models.

Those are some of the reasons why there was such a significant difference from

the prior year to this year.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you very much.

Under

Purchased Services, what would be the nature of the services that are purchased?

There's a decrease of $189,500, an explanation of the decrease.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Under Purchased Services.

MS. MICHAEL:

In the same subhead.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes.

The

Purchased Services of $4,826,100, the difference there reflects a net decrease

consisting of the following: there was a $30,000 removal of the one-time

increase for the Microsoft buyout initiative; there was a $51,500 Way Forward

savings initiative from a prior year; there was a $264,000 decrease related to

the GRI III, which were the changes, as I mentioned earlier, to the technology

support models; and then there was a $156,000 increase for budget pressures

there. That makes up the difference.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

And

obviously all of these services are, with regard to IT, things that you don't

have in-house. There's a continual use of outside services.

MS. MACDONALD:

This is our data centre contract. We have a contract with Bell for a provision

of data services for about $4 million every year and for other hardware

maintenance services.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you very much.

The

Revenue, 02, under the Operating Accounts, the revenue provincially; what is the

source of that revenue, Minister?

MS. C. BENNETT:

That reflects anticipated

additional one-time revenue related to a court case in which vendors are

providing a rebate for purchased computers. So it was a class action and as a

result, we are one of many consumers the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador is one of many consumers who made a purchase. And as a result of a

court challenge, the vendor has been directed to award money back to those

customers. As a result, this is the anticipated revenue we expect to get from

that outcome.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

And all

three lines, like last year's budget and the revision and this year, are all

related to that class case?

MS. C. BENNETT:

No.

MS. MICHAEL:

No?

MS. C. BENNETT:

The line item $462,000 under

the original budget; that was the information I just shared with you. The

$475,000 from the projected revised, that would reflect receipt of additional

revenue from the prior year that wasn't actually received until the fiscal year,

so, again, timing issues.

This

revenue offsets the support costs provided to external agencies like Legal Aid,

the Research & Development Corporation, Municipal Assessments, Newfoundland and

Labrador Centre for Health Information, Bell, their data centre, as well as

remote service access for NLCHI, MUN, the City of St. John's, Atlantic, MUNN and

AXA Insurance. That $475,000 is related to those actual revenue items from that

list I just read out.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you.

I think

it's your turn, Keith.

CHAIR:

Okay. Thank you.

We'll

go to Mr. Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, just to clarify on positions, I think you said there were four

positions will be coming out of OCIO and they would be through attrition, right?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Well, in that particular

heading, yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

What about across the board

in OCIO? Are there positions going to be lost under the full-time equivalents

that were announced in the budget, 650? Maybe you could just give me a breakdown

of full-time positions, attrition, basically any positions in the next fiscal

year.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes, as I mentioned in the

opening comments, there's a total of $287,600 that was eliminated as part of the

attrition plan. The total staff complement inside OCIO right now, Joanne?

MS. MOORE:

Julie.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Julie, sorry.

MS. MOORE:

The current number of positions is 356. The number of staff is 306. So there are

a number of vacancies.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. Yes, so there are 50

vacancies, basically.

I know

in the past there were challenges in regard to network design architects for

OCIO. Is that still a challenge? Would some of these positions be reflective of

that, that are vacant?

MS. MACDONALD:

Yes, we actually have several different kinds of hard-to-fill positions that we

tried to recruit several times for things like network architecture, for

security, for PeopleSoft support, and so we end up using some of our

Professional Services to augment that.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. MACDONALD:

Because we can't recruit them.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Sure. Thank you.

Just a

follow-up as well; there was reference in 4.1.04, I'm not sure if it was under

Supplies or Professional Services. Minister, you mentioned a Microsoft buyout

initiative. Just have a couple of details on that, what that is and what it

encompasses.

MS. MACDONALD:

Yes, we traditionally cover the licensing for Microsoft that sits on all the

government desktops and laptops, and we used to lease that. Last year, or two or

three years ago, we proposed an option to buy them outright and that would save

a whole bunch of money going forward. Last year we got extra money to buy it out

and this year our annual costs, obviously, decreased and that one-time increase

was taken away. So we own all the products now.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, okay. Thank you.

That's

good.

CHAIR:

You still have allocated

time. Would you like to carry on to the next subhead?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes. So we'll move to the

next subheading.

4.1.05,

Solution Delivery, I'm just wondering under the Salaries component there,

there's a significant reduction. Is that related to I guess what we've talked

about in regard to positions?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes, that would relate to

salary savings from unanticipated delays in projects, for example delays in the

CYFS project resulting in about $200,000 worth of savings. This account is used

for project-related salaries only.

I just

want to make sure that I clarify you asked a question earlier about the

completion for the CYFS project. It's just over the 50 per cent completion in

the current phase. So I just want to make sure that we clarify that information

for you.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, thank you.

I'm not

sure in your opening remarks, Minister, if you addressed this, but I'll ask:

4.1.05 again, we go down to Supplies and there's a significant reduction in what

was budgeted, then obviously the revised was way down, and then this year we're

down again. I'm just wondering what that's related to.

MS. C. BENNETT:

You can take that, Ellen.

MS. MACDONALD:

The projected revised is related to unanticipated delays. It's a timing issue

with some of the projects and overall savings. We saved money on our R12 project

that we didn't require further. And the Supplies went down because there was a

removal for some one-time funding. We had funding that moved forward again. This

is just for project work, so we didn't need as much as we needed for R12. So

some of that funding is reduced for R12 reporting, for cyber security and then

the add in back of some money for CYFS.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you. That's good

for me.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

The Property, Furnishings

and Equipment, there's been a big drop there, again, 4.1.05.

MS. MACDONALD:

Again, that's related to

project timing.

MS. MICHAEL:

The project timing, okay.

MS. MACDONALD:

We would need some things in earlier phases of a project, so we wouldn't need it

now.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, thank you.

And I

have no more questions for that subhead, but under 4.1.06, $560,000 was

budgeted, $80,000 was the projected revision and we're back up. Was that timing

as well?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Well, this is the IT

Operations capital. So it's responsible for supporting the general IT

infrastructure. This particular change, the $480,000 decrease, is for IT

hardware that are capital nature, some of which related to security, as the

deputy mentioned already, and government's infrastructure and key investments to

support disaster recovery for example. Most of the funding is allocated to

replace old equipment on an annual basis, and these savings were related to

delays or deferring purchases in an effort to reduce government spending. The

critical purchases that were needed were made and when we looked at the

historical needs, it was felt that the estimate needed to go back up to the

amount of $558,000.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

That's

all for me, Mr. Chair.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Just a couple of general

questions, Minister.

The

Department of Municipal Affairs, they've indicated OCIO is going to work to put

the land use atlas online that arose out of the Crown Lands review last year. Is

the money for that project in this year's budget?

MS. MACDONALD:

I'm going to pass that to Natalie.

MS. TEMPLEMAN:

The project is identified from an analysis phase. It has been identified in the

list from the department.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, so I am just wondering

about execution. So does that mean it will actually happen in this fiscal year?

MS. TEMPLEMAN:

It will depend on the availability of funding.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. But is funding in the

budget to do it, I guess that's my question?

MS. MACDONALD:

Yes, the funding's in place.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. MACDONALD:

The first step we take is for the analysis stage to see what kind of solution,

are we're going to build it from scratch, what are we going to do.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, great. Thanks very

much.

MS. C. BENNETT:

So just for clarity. We have

to analyze what's the best method of providing what they want, and then

determine which of those options are the best to purchase and how we can best

support them. Because when we buy the technology it's not just about the best

use also for the department, but it's also about the ability to be able to

support it.

there's an analysis that's done on the technology to make sure that it's the

tool that's going to provide the user with the flexibility they need, but also

allow us to provide the support service through OCIO, if that's the option or

what the cost might be of supporting that software through a vendor.

That

analysis has to be done before a decision is made. You can't scope the total

cost of what the end-dollar amount might be until you know that you've analyzed

the variety of options.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thanks very much.

CHAIR:

Any more questions or

statements?

Okay,

we'll call the subheads.

CLERK:

4.1.01 to 4.1.06 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 4.1.01 to 4.1.06

inclusive carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subheads 4.1.01 through 4.1.06 carried.

CLERK:

The total.

CHAIR:

Shall the total carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, Office of the Chief Information Officer, total heads, carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the Estimates

of the Office of the Chief Information Officer carried without amendment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, Estimates of the Office of the Chief Information Officer carried without

amendment.

CHAIR:

Okay, we're going to take a

five-minute break to give the broadcast booth a break and to allow the minister

time to switch out department heads.

Recess

CHAIR:

Okay, we're going to resume

the Government Services Committee on Estimates for the Department of Finance,

and call for the subheads.

CLERK:

1.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 carry?

We'll

go to the minister. Again, I ask that if you go to your department heads that

they identify themselves. We will go with 15 minutes to start, beginning with

Ms. Michael.

I turn

it over to the minister for comments.

MS. C. BENNETT:

I'll turn it to Donna

Brewer. Donna is the Deputy Minister for the Department of Finance, and let her

and the officials introduce them by name as they go through so we can check the

mic.

MS. BREWER:

Donna Brewer, Deputy

Minister of Finance.

MS. TRICKETT:

Wanda Trickett, Departmental

Controller.

MR. MARTIN:

Craig Martin, Assistant

Deputy Minister, Taxation and Fiscal Policy.

MS. MILLER:

Ann Marie Miller,

Comptroller General of Finance.

MR. HOLLETT:

Alton Hollett, Assistant

Deputy Minister of Economics and Statistics.

MS. CLARKE:

Lesley Clarke, Communications Manager.

MS. BOLAND:

Gail Boland, Director of

Policy, Planning, Accountability and Information Management.

MS. C. BENNETT:

I just want to welcome

colleagues again. I know there are a number of subheadings in the Finance

Estimates. Certainly, to provide members opposite the most amount of time to

answer the questions, we'd like to move on to the subheadings. I understand

there's lots of information here and we want to provide the members opposite the

time they need to answer the questions.

CHAIR:

Okay. I think we'll go

through each subhead this time and give the Government Services Committee

opportune time to ask questions. Once we're finished, we'll move on to the next

subhead.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

Could

we hear again the subheads that have been called? Was it 1.1.01 to an ending, or

just the first subhead that was called?

CHAIR:

Just 1.1.01.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank

you, Minister, and thank your staff from Finance for being here.

Under

1.1.01, I think I just have one question actually and it's under Purchased

Services. Last year the budget was $4,000, the projected revision was $700 and

this year we're down to $600.

MS. C. BENNETT:

And the question, I'm sorry?

MS. MICHAEL:

The explanation for the

large drop and the lack of need for having the higher amount of money for

Purchased Services.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure.

I can't

explain the $4,000 need from last year. I can explain the $600 budget for this

year, and that's based on analysis we did on what we think the purchased

services will be through the Minister's Office.

MS. MICHAEL:

What would be the purchased

services, Minister?

MS. C. BENNETT:

It would include items

Wanda, do you want to provide some insight there?

MS. TRICKETT:

It would include items such as printing costs, shredding services, those types

of general office-based expenditures.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you.

Under

Transportation and Communications, again, the budget was $51,300, the projected

revision at $11,700 and this year the estimate is $24,900. Again, an explanation

of those variations, please.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure.

I can't

explain the $51,000 that the former minister had budgeted on travel. I can

explain the $11,700 would have been costs associated with ministerial travel

that would have taken place though the full calendar year. Only essential travel

is travel that was undertaken past December 14.

The

budget for '16-'17 reflects what we feel is a more appropriate number for the

travel. It's also, I guess, worth noting that even though I have multiple

portfolios for example, when we did Women's Policy Office, there was a very

small amount of travel in there. We tried to consolidate any ministerial travel

for me, in particular, into that line item. So it would include

fed/prov/territorial meetings, of which there are two this year.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Thank you very much.

It was

only 1.1.01 that was called.

Do you

have any

MR. HUTCHINGS:

No, I'm good.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Okay.

CLERK:

1.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 carry?

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CLERK:

1.2.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.2.01 carry?

MS. MICHAEL:

Well, 1.2.01, I think it's

your turn, Keith. My time seems to be

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I don't have anything on

that heading. I'm fine.

MS. MICHAEL:

I do; 1.2.01 under

Professional Services, the budget last year was $7,000, the revised or projected

revision was $122,500, and then this year we're back to $6,900. I'm assuming

there was a one-off expenditure there?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes. There was $115,500

increase in the projected revised, and those were additional costs associated

with the actuaries with respect to the pension reform initiative. And those were

the actuaries on the project which would have included Morneau Shepell and

Eckler as it relates to the pension reform initiative.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

Will I

just move on, Chair, or ?

CHAIR:

Just a second now.

Shall

1.2.01 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 1.2.01 carried.

CLERK:

1.2.02.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.2.02 carry?

MS. MICHAEL:

1.2.02; I have a question,

do you?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

You can go right ahead.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Under

1.2.02, Salaries, it looks like maybe a position is gone. Minister, if we could

have an explanation, please?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Actually, the change from

the $115,000 in the original budget to $88,500 was savings resulting from fewer

than anticipated summer students being employed. And the $74,400 was a decrease

in the line-by-line review based on what the department had been spending over

the last number of years.

MS. MICHAEL:

So the $74,400, is that a

permanent position?

MS. C. BENNETT:

It would be for students.

MS. MICHAEL:

That'd be for students.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. So that was all

students there.

Okay,

thank you very much.

Coming

down to the Revenue line, the Provincial Revenue, there's an anticipation of

$150,000. What would that be based on?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Well, the projected revised

over the original budget saw an increase of $50,000. That was a recovery from

the pension fund for mail costs, which were higher due to cost increases of mail

from Canada Post. So then $150,000 under the budget is a $70,000 increase from

the original budget last year, and that's anticipated recovery from the pension

fund for mailing costs which, again, will be higher based on mail costs from

Canada Post. The pension fund has regular mailings to pension and employees, and

those mailings are paid for by Finance but are billed back to the pension fund

corporation.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

Again,

under the same subhead, Transportation and Communications, that's a large

expenditure. Could you just explain to us what that line is about.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure.

Transportation and Communications, you'd see a $5,000 difference from the

original budget last year of $390,000 down to $385,000. The savings came from

mail costs for the department which were lower as Electronic Funds Transfers or

EFTs were used, primarily, as a payment vehicle for vendors and suppliers. So

these would be the costs associated with EFTs or electronic payments, mail

payments, et cetera.

The

change then from the $389,500 was just to rightsize the budget, based on what we

anticipate we're going to need this year.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you.

I might

as well do 1.2.03.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

1.2.03,

it's a bit of a strange

CHAIR:

Excuse me.

wanted to go through subhead by subhead.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, is that okay?

Well,

Keith may have questions on 1.2.02, then.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

No, I'm good. You covered

them.

MS. MICHAEL:

I covered them all. Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Chair, if I might. I

just want to make sure we're clear that the Member opposite understands that

under Transportation and Communications it is mailing costs and electronic

costs.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, I got that.

Thank

you very much.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Okay, I just wanted to make

sure you understood that.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Call

the subhead.

CLERK:

1.2.02.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.2.02 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 1.2.02 carried.

CLERK:

1.2.03.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.2.03 carry?

MS. MICHAEL:

As I was starting to say,

this is a strange little

section here. Minister, could you explain it, please?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Well, under Government

Personnel Costs, this is the activity that provides for government-wide funding.

We're

at 1.3 ?

MS. MICHAEL:

No, it's 1.2.03.

MS. C. BENNETT:

One page too far, my

apologizes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, $15,000 was budgeted

and that wasn't spent. Then this year it's $100 under Property, Furnishings and

Equipment. It says: Appropriations provide for the purchase of tangible capital

assets. Just an explanation on that subhead.

MS. BREWER:

That's just a general vote that was in the department in case we have to do any

kind of furniture and equipment replacements. We didn't spend anything in that

vote last year. We cut it back due to restraint, but the $100 there is just to

keep the vote open.

If I

happen to have an employee who has an injury or has to have any kind of

ergonomic assessment and needs some sort of accommodation, we'll look to take

money from elsewhere within the department's operating and seek Treasury Board

approval to transfer it in.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you very much.

That's

fine for me.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.2.03 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 1.2.03 carried.

CLERK:

1.3.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.3.01 carry?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1.3.01

in Salaries, the amount budgeted there, nothing in the revised and now we're at

$11 million. Could you give some explanation on that one, please?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure.

As I

was (inaudible) earlier, albeit prematurely, this particular heading, this

activity provides for government-wide funding. It includes government's share of

employee benefits for current and retired government employees such as CPP,

employment insurance, group medical and group life, health and post-secondary

education tax and anticipated compensation or contract adjustments for contracts

that are negotiated or in the final stages of being finalized.

This is

a placeholder in Finance that allows for an amount of money to be voted on that

can then be is the place where expenses related to the employer contributions

to CPP, group insurance, group medical insurance, the health and education tax

and unemployment insurance are all captured here and the cost associated with

any anticipated monies that would need to be spent from contracts that would

have been in progress, for example, that haven't necessarily been finalized.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So the benefits component

you referenced for current employees and maybe retired employees, there was $10

million budgeted last fiscal year but in the revised there is nothing there. I'm

just trying to understand

MS. MICHAEL:

Under Salaries.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Under Salaries, yes.

MS. BREWER:

The $10 million was the

block that would have been there, as the minister indicated, for some

anticipated contracts that were going to happen during the year.

If you

checked last year's Estimates that amount would have been a lot higher. Then

what happens is when the contract is signed, we go out then and we talk to the

departments, we talk to the entities and identify whose incurring extra costs as

a result of the signing of those contracts or there could be some major

reclassifications have occurred. Then that money gets transferred from here over

to the applicable department or the applicable entity. Then, for comparative

reasons, as indicated in the

preamble to the Estimates, the original budget gets

restated.

there's actually nothing spent directly in this vote for Finance, but I could

have been the recipient, depending if it was I forget the name, it's not

general service anymore the common grid. If there were any adjustments

relating to that then that would have been falling out and transferred into the

applicable salary votes within the Department of Finance, but the majority of

money would be outside of Finance.

MS. C. BENNETT:

An example for the Members

opposite would be Transportation and Works. There was a grievance a number of

years ago, I think it was some 10 years ago, that would have resulted in a large

number of employees asking for the grievance which actually was in the favour of

the employees. The grievance dollars would need to be settled and that would be

an example of the monies that would be then transferred out to Transportation

and Works.

Another

example would be ferry captains. There was an amount of money that, based on

captains over a period of time.

that's what that block is. It allows for monies that departments, agencies,

boards and commissions may need because there maybe things that have been

grieved or have been changed that result in employees, rightly so, being needed

to be provided more remuneration.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Just so I understand. Of

that amount, that wouldn't be reflective of benefits that are paid out to

current employees. It would be for grievances, future contract negotiations,

that money then would be directed out to department to execute what was agreed

to, basically.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes, and just for clarity, I

probably jumped ahead of myself and confused things. The employee benefits, the

$71 million, would be

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, fair enough.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Right?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT:

I was speaking to the entire

number.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT:

The $11 million would be the

monies that we have kind of put in a block for any monies that would be for

contracts that would have negotiated over the last couple of years that are just

getting finalized now, or grievances or other things that would have happened,

historically, that we would need to have some money because we don't understand

yet what the full implications of those changes might be.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Sure.

Obviously, we're under some negotiations now in regard to upcoming contracts, so

this block would represent any agreements made with unions in the near future

and this would allow this money to flow out based on what your labour

negotiations would include?

MS. C. BENNETT:

No, this would not include

any monies related to upcoming collective bargaining which has yet to start.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT:

This would be for things

that have happened in the past, or were in progress last year or the year

before, that are just getting resolved now.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT:

This would not be a line

item for collective bargaining, as we are and our employees are preparing for

now. It's not related to that.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So could I ask, further on,

is there a block of money that's been identified in the budget for potential

results of labour negotiations in the future for this fiscal year?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Typically, my understanding

and certainly the deputy can add some texture is that amount of money or

expense potential that would incur from collective bargaining would not be

reflected until you actually finished the bargaining.

So at

this stage Donna, I don't know if you want to add anything.

MS. BREWER:

Yeah, that's correct. We

wouldn't put in the budget anything unless negotiations were at a certain point,

like the last set of negotiations, the template was known. Once the template was

known, the 0 per cent, 0 per cent, 2 per cent and 3 per cent, then we start

picking up the Estimates for the salary increases.

If we

knew which ones then we would budget in the department, but in a lot of cases we

wouldn't necessarily know so that's when the block would go in.

MS. C. BENNETT:

The block that's there now

would have been, for example, like I said, the Transportation and Works

grievances, the ferry captains, contracts or grievances that are already in play

or in process of being implemented or executed on.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. Just so I'm clear,

halfway through this fiscal year, if you were to conclude contract negotiations

with a particular union, if there were increases in salaries for compensation to

those members, where would that money come from to execute that new collective

agreement?

MS. C. BENNETT:

It would happen in the same

process that it's happened for decades. When the collective bargaining is

finalized then you would budget based on the information that we have. We don't

have information right now on where we will be at the end of collective

bargaining, so it would be premature for us to include in the Estimates a number

at this stage.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

Minister, if I could, I know when I go through Estimates I ask, and maybe we'll

just go through it in terms of positions in your department.

Right

here we're talking about, in terms of attrition, how many positions are coming

out? Maybe just give me an idea of what's happening in that regard.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure, maybe what we can do

is when we get to the actual department heads on those, because that wouldn't be

included in this and I'm happy to answer the question

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT:

but this particular

heading is not related to staffing

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, okay; fair enough.

MS. C. BENNETT:

in the Department of

Finance.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, that's good for me.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, just for

clarification, Minister I think I've got it right so the Employee Benefits,

I do understand that line. So for example would that also cover employees in the

caucus offices as well? Because I know in our budget we have to worry about the

salary, but the benefits are covered elsewhere, and I'm assuming that would be

covered under this line as well.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes, my understanding is

that it would include all benefits through core government.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, okay. Thank you.

And

under

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sorry to interrupt, Ms.

Michael. Any employee who's being paid, regardless of where they're being paid,

this would be where we'd pick up the CPP and the EI.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, thank you.

Under

the provincial revenue, what is the source of that revenue? I'm assuming it's

money that's coming back from some of the departments to the Department of

Finance, but just to get the specifics from you.

MS. C. BENNETT:

So these would be

government-wide recoveries for employee benefit costs, like EI, CPP, group

health and life, and HAP SET from other agencies.

MS. MICHAEL:

Oh, okay.

MS. C. BENNETT:

And these recoveries would

be a result of annual billing recoveries and secondments where salaries may have

been used in an ABC, but government needs to recover the costs associated with

that, including the benefits costs.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, thank you very much.

That's

all I have for that subhead.

CHAIR:

So does 1.3.01 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 1.3.01 carried.

CLERK:

2.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.01 carry?

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, I'll start off, I

guess, since I still have time on the clock. I don't have a lot of questions for

the first one. I really don't have any questions for 2.1.01. Keith, do you?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Just to maybe on the

Salaries piece, what was budgeted and then what was executed and the revised in

2015-2016 was down, and then it's a little higher from what was budgeted last

year.

MS. C. BENNETT:

So the $644,800 was $145,900

of savings, and that was resulting from a vacancy related to a management

position and a clerk III position. The increase under the budget for this year,

'16-'17, to $803,200 is an increase for the allowance of JES and the

annualization of JES for qualifying JES positions.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

That

just reminds me, the JES, any appeals that there has to be payouts in regard to

a successful appeal, would that be in the prior form we just talked about?

MS. C. BENNETT:

That would also be included

as one of the potential numbers there.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

Regarding 2.1.01, we come down to Professional Services. Obviously, that would

be consultants, maybe actuaries, those types of things. What would that be?

MS. BREWER:

The Professional Services, there's a combination of things. They use Buck

Consultants for a system they use within pensions. They use actuaries. They have

to get actuarial evaluations done. That will fluctuate, depending on the timing

of the evaluations. They also have to use actuaries to help with when employees

request computed value calculations and things of that nature.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

When we

come down to the Revenue Provincial, there seems to be a change there from

what was budgeted and up to this year's estimate. What would that be related to?

MS. C. BENNETT:

The projected revised of

$1,053,200, that's a $224,000 decrease. As Members of this House may be aware,

and this might be new information for some of the government Members on the

Committee, all expenditures for pension administration are 100 per cent

recoverable from the pension fund. The expenditures were reduced through

discretionary spending, hence the revenue was less.

The

$1,501,000 is an increase of $223,800. As I mentioned earlier, all expenditures

for pension administration are 100 per cent recoverable from the pension fund

and the budget for these expenditures was increased, hence the revenue was

increased.

We will

also be now charging the pension fund and they are concurring, obviously, with

this for office space of $200,000 which wasn't included as part of last year

but the pension corporation has obviously seem the value of the space that they

have currently.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

And that's up and running,

the pension corporation?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Any update on that in terms

of how things are going?

MS. C. BENNETT:

We're meeting with them

Tuesday or Wednesday of next week, so I'll provide you some information when I

get to meet with Loyola then.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.01 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.1.01 carried.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Chair, sorry, if I

might, just for the Member opposite too, it would also be worthwhile for me to

share that the manager of pensions has also met with Treasury Board to provide

an update with Treasury Board. All indications are from the pension corporation

that they are continuing to proceed with their work plan and their business

plan. The directors that are in place for the government representation, we will

be meeting with next week, and certainly they have a combined board meeting next

week where they are continuing to work through the plans for the pension

corporation.

And

we'll continue to do what we can to support them as they transition in this year

to being a stand-alone entity outside of government. I would expect that next

year in Estimates you'll see a very different reflection in the Estimates book

as it relates to that once the transition is fully implemented.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

The

Teachers' Pension Plan too, there's legislation I think that has to come to the

House.

MS. C. BENNETT:

That's correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

That will be coming, I

guess, this session to deal with that.

MS. C. BENNETT:

That's correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Oh, just for clarity, I

think the Member opposite said that the legislation would be coming into the

House this session. I'm not the House Leader, so I'm not familiar with exactly

when the legislation is, but I know that the legislation is progressing and

we've had joint discussions with the teachers' union and that's progressing as

normal.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.02 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MS. MICHAEL:

No, I have some questions. You said 02, right?

CHAIR:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

We are at 2.1.01, right?

MS. MICHAEL:

We already voted on 2.1.01,

right?

CHAIR:

Yes, starting at 2.1.02.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. So now we're on

2.1.02.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

We have to vote on 2.1.01.

MS. MICHAEL:

We voted on 2.1.01.

MS. C. BENNETT:

We did vote. I interrupted

after, I think, sorry.

MS. MICHAEL:

I was getting really

confused here.

CHAIR:

I'm just assuming that

you're working together on the time frames here.

MS. MICHAEL:

We are.

Okay,

2.1.02 has been called, right?

CHAIR:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

I do

have questions here. First of all, Minister, if you could explain a bit,

originally this head just said budgeting and now the head has been changed to

Treasury Board and Budgeting Operations. Maybe that's a reflection of what's

coming in the future.

notice that the Appropriations provide for the effective and efficient

operation of the Treasury Board Committee of Cabinet including the provision of

analysis and advice on various matters placed before the Treasury Board . Has

money for the Committee of Cabinet been here before? It hasn't been here in

terms of explained in the subheads, so is this new money being provided for the

Treasury Board Committee of Cabinet?

MS. BREWER:

It used to be two separate

activities within the Department of Finance; one was called Treasury Board

support and the other one was called budgeting. This year, the assistant deputy

minister, Denise Hanrahan, came to me. In order to better manage the workload,

particularly with the Government Renewal Initiative coming up, she recommended

to me, and we agreed and brought it forward to Treasury Board, to actually

combine the funding. It allows her to move positions from one area to another,

depending on where the peak workload is.

For

example, the current Director of Budgeting was transferred over on a temporary

assignment, so she assumed the position of Director of Treasury Board Support.

As well, one of the budget Cabinet officers moved over to Treasury Board Support

to provide more substantial analysis to the Treasury Board Committee of Cabinet,

particularly with regard to some of the Government Renewal Initiatives.

It also

allows her to move resources during the budget time, the peak time where a lot

of overtime is occurring. It allows her to better manage her resources. But

there was no decline in the number of positions. In actual fact, I think she

actually increased some resources on a temporary basis to manage through the

budget process.

MS. MICHAEL:

The Treasury Board Committee

of Cabinet, how does that operate and how much work does it actually do as a

committee?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Well I can't speak to

Treasury Boards before December 14. I can tell you that there are two functions

as Treasury Board President I've seen since January; one is the kind of weekly

meetings that we have as Treasury Board to review any requests from departments

that would be around funding changes, changes that they might have, questions

they might have about policy as it relates to how money is spent throughout the

year.

The

other project and expectation that we had at Treasury Board this year was that

they would complete a line-by-line review with every single department, as well

as agencies, boards and commissions, where we brought those entities into

Treasury Board to review their historical spending as well as the budgets that

they were proposing, and went through line by line the items.

Treasury Board will be used this year as well, in this fiscal year, to support

the work of the zero-based budgeting, which will allow for a more fulsome

visibility into the budgeting for agencies, boards and commissions, which we

believe will continue to support the efforts of making sure we are spending

money on critical services and not allowing for any waste or slippage in very

sparse public money.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

I'm

trying to get a handle on the so the Treasury Board Committee of Cabinet, I

assume, is made up of ministers?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay and they give advice to

the Treasury Board. When you say we did the line by line, was that the committee

that did that, or was that the Treasury Board that did that?

MS. C. BENNETT:

The committee is Cabinet

Members.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT:

And the Cabinet Members on

the committee sat through with every single department and a large number of

agencies, boards and commissions certainly the ones with higher revenue and

expense lines and reviewed their financial performance and reviewed financial

questions.

MS. MICHAEL:

Is that a Committee of the

Whole or is it just some of the Cabinet who are on that committee?

MS. C. BENNETT:

It's seven Members. My

understanding and maybe officials can speak to it more clearly, but this is a

standing committee of Cabinet and has been in place I would have assumed other

administrations would have had Treasury Board. There are specific legislative

requirements that Treasury Board is supposed to execute.

There's

been an orientation for the Treasury Board ministers to make sure they

understand their responsibilities and their accountability. The committee is

responsible for the day-to-day financial operations of government. It doesn't

provide policy advice in the same context as the Economic Policy Committee or

the Social Policy Committee, but it would have, during the line-by-line review,

any recommendations that we would have made would have been filtered into the

Cabinet process, budget process.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you.

Well

then, related to all of that, if we could look at the Salaries line, 2.1.02.

Under Salaries, the projected revision last year was $1,532,800. This year the

budget line is $1,412,700, so about $100,000 less. Could we have an explanation

of that, please?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure.

Just to

make sure, I want to re-emphasize what Donna said earlier, this Salaries line

would include the individuals that work in the Budgeting Division as well as the

few employees that are also there to support Treasury Board. Just so that we're

clear, this is a combination of both those responsibilities.

The

increase from the original budget of $1.419 million to the projected revised of

$1,532,800; that was an increase for additional costs as a result of a payment

to a retiring employee and incremental costs relating to the organizational

change that Donna spoke about. The budget for this year, the $1,412,700; that

came about the $6,900 worth of savings was a result of the line-by-line review

reductions. The assistant deputy minister had made some reorganization there and

was able to come up with some savings.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Does

that staff line or the Salaries line is there staff support there for the

Cabinet Committee? When you say the Treasury Board, does that include the

Cabinet Committee as well?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes, that would include the

historical support for Treasury Board. There's always been my understanding

support for Treasury Board, no different now as there always has been because

the Treasury Board will be responsible for certain functions. They would capture

requests for TBAs, Treasury Board actions, as part of the legislation under the

Financial Administration Act .

There

are certain things that departments are allowed to do and much more that they're

not allowed to do when it comes to financial decisions. Treasury Board is

supposed to make those decisions, so there is support staff there that has been

in place for many, many years to support the Treasury Board's efforts.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

And

that includes the Cabinet Committee? I'm just wondering because its two

different bodies, right, the Treasury Board and the Cabinet Committee. Are they

considered part of the Treasury Board?

MS. C. BENNETT:

No, the Treasury Board is

the Cabinet Committee. It's not two separate things.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. That's what I've been

trying to get at.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sorry, I misunderstood, Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, okay.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Treasury Board is the

Cabinet committee. There is no second committee. Treasury Board, under the

Financial Administration Act, has always been in place and that's the I don't

know if the officials want to add anything.

MS. MICHAEL:

Because the way it's written

here as the explanation under the subhead, it sounds like two different groups.

The Treasury Board committee of Cabinet gives advice on various matters placed

before the Treasury Board. It's written in a way that makes it sound like it's

two different bodies. I've been trying to get I have the clarification then.

Thank

you.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Do officials want to add

anything for clarity?

MS. BREWER:

I just wanted to add that the Treasury Board support is the group, almost like a

secretary to Treasury Board. They receive the submissions. They set the agendas.

They sit. They review. They take the minutes. They do the follow-up with

departments.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. BREWER:

I mean in reality, the Office of the Comptroller General, all of the Department

of Finance, is there to support, depending on the particular agenda item, as

well as our colleagues in the Human Resource Secretariat.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I'm good there.

CHAIR:

Okay.

CLERK:

2.1.02.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.02 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.1.02 carried.

CLERK:

2.1.03.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.03 carry?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Just a general question,

Minister, in this heading. This would be for issues of insurance claim or that

kind of thing in government that Finance this would be the administration to

oversee it.

MS. BREWER:

Yes, this is the property-type insurance. It's not the group insurance. The

group insurance still is part of the Human Resource Secretariat.

This

would be coverage for vehicle accidents, slips and falls. We would negotiate and

put in place insurance for the schools, for the ferries, various government

assets.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

If someone was to make a

claim, this is where it would be reviewed by staff, correct?

MS. BREWER:

Yes. We have an insurance adjuster and he then would work with the particular

insurance carrier.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Right. So the payout for

that, that wouldn't come out of this envelope. Where would that come from?

MS. BREWER:

Depending on the particular insurance; like if it's ferries, there's money over

within the Department of Transportation and Works.

With

all claims there's a deductible, and once you hit your deductible then you would

make a claim under the insurance from the insurance company.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. Thank you.

I'm

good.

CHAIR:

Okay.

CLERK:

2.1.03.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.03 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.1.03 carried.

CLERK:

2.1.04.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.04 carry?

MS. MICHAEL:

Minister, this is 2.1.04,

Financial Assistance, Appropriations provide for promoting business

opportunities and financial support for departments and Crown agencies for

initiatives consistent with government's objectives .

Last

year the budget line was $1,684,200, the projected revision was $256,800 and

this year we have a major jump of $3,054,000 in this line of Grants and

Subsidies. Could we have an explanation of what the plan is for that line,

please?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure.

The

increases over last year are made up of five different areas. They would include

the pension reform initiative, so dollars that would be associated to provide

legal and actuarial and other consulting services as may be required to support

pension reform, and particularly transitioning the pension investments and the

administration from a single trustee to a joint trustee corporation. Those would

be the government expenses as opposed to the pension corps expenses related to

that.

This

would also be where the dollars that would need to be transferred to Cabinet

Secretariat to cover the costs associated with the Muskrat Falls oversight

committee would be held and then transferred to Cabinet Secretariat when they

are requested. Those costs would, for the Muskrat Falls oversight, include the

costs of staff resources that the Cabinet Secretariat would require, as well as

resources relating to the enhanced oversight, as well as professional services

associated with the oversight of Muskrat Falls.

would also include the allocation of monies that we may need to use or expect to

use related to support for collective bargaining. That would include those

things that would offset the department expenditures, that the department may

incur, Human Resource Secretariat may incur. Items that would be Professional

Services: backfilling of positions that would need to be added to continue the

collective bargaining and bring it to a successful conclusion for employees and

for government. It would also include things like room rentals and logistical

costs associated with collective bargaining.

This

area would also include the money that we would anticipate for the office of the

Seniors' Advocate, the setup of the Seniors' Advocate, and that would be

transferred to the Legislature once the legislation enabling the office is

approved and the office is established. It would also include the monies

associated with the anticipated spending around the Government Renewal

Initiative, which would again be transferred to Cabinet Secretariat, and that

would be used to cover the salary costs associated with the secretariat for

Government Renewal Initiative, as well as the operational and professional

service costs of the GRI secretariat.

I think

Members opposite would have certainly the Oppositions Members, it might be new

for the government Members some historical context around other secretariats

that have been established over the years. I think former Finance Minister, Ross

Wiseman, actually chaired one years ago. Certainly, the Government Renewal

Initiative as a secretariat, the costs associated with that would need to be

budgeted for, and as Cabinet Secretariat determines how they spend that money,

that would be allocated to Cabinet Secretariat.

MS. MICHAEL:

You mentioned the collective

bargaining. Would the announcement that government made last week with regard to

hiring legal support for collective bargaining, would that cost be included in

this $4.7 million?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes, any costs associated

with collective bargaining as a whole, and that might include additional

support. As we've discussed in the House, collective bargaining which will be

undertaken shortly will be for some 23 government departments, agencies and

boards. We have some 35 collective and service agreements.

2004, the public sector had 11 dedicated resources to the provision of labour

relations and bargaining services. Again, in 2008 there were 11; and currently,

as we approach collective bargaining, there are seven negotiators for the entire

public sector. So some of those costs would be associated with collective

bargaining, but they would also be cost associated, as I said earlier, with the

Muskrat Falls oversight, the pension reform initiatives and the entire setup for

the Government Renewal Secretariat, which has been operational now since

January.

MS. MICHAEL:

And will your briefing notes

show the breakdown of how much money for each of those five areas?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Well, we don't know for sure

how much each is. This is a block of money that needs to be requested from

Cabinet Secretariat and requested from the Human Resource Secretariat, so this

amount of money is based on what we think would be kind of the total.

Certainly, as we determine what those costs will be, it will become clearer.

This amount of money is a block for those five items. And if there is another

item that is unrelated to these five that in the best interest of the people of

the province it means us taking a look at whether or not these funds should be

spent in this way, we'd obviously have to make those decisions, and those

decisions would have to go into Treasury Board and through the Treasury Board

process.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

Could

we receive the breakdown of what was spent last year in 2015-16 under this

subhead?

MS. C. BENNETT:

You're referring to the $1.6

million.

MS. MICHAEL:

Well, $1.6 million wasn't

spent; $256,800 was the revision.

MS. C. BENNETT:

My apologizes, the $256,000

I will certainly

MS. MICHAEL:

If you don't have it there

in your notes, could we receive it separate from your notes, please? Unless you

have it there, but if you don't, if we could receive it separately.

MS. C. BENNETT:

So the $256,800 would have

been for a contract that the former government had in place with Ernst & Young

under the transformative change initiative. It was an initiative that was to

analyze why Newfoundland spends so much per capita to provide an initial

indication of opportunities to realize savings across government. So that was

the monies from the former administration.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

I don't

know if Keith has any other questions on that.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, just a couple of

questions.

Minister, you mentioned the Oversight Committee and supporting the Oversight

Committee. The Minister of Natural Resources, I guess, government, has initiated

a further review by Ernst & Young for $1 million. They've done a supplementary

report and there's another expected $700,000 to complete that work. Does funding

for that come out of this or is it coming out of Natural Resources?

MS. C. BENNETT:

It would be coming all from

this block.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, so any future

whether it's $1.7 million or that increases, this would be the fund to basically

pay for that report.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes. The Cabinet Secretariat

would have the accountability for paying for the work that you referenced the

Minister of Natural Resources has spoken about. That work includes the

re-baselining of the project and there are a number of reports we anticipate

over the coming weeks. Two that I understand will be available, according to the

minister's comments, by the end of May and another one in further June. The

monies associated with the Oversight Committee certainly will help to provide

further clarity on the costs associated with the project.

It's

critical for us to understand that, particularly in light of the fact that the

province has to borrow for the equity and we need to make sure that we have

clarity on what those costs might be.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

The

other question I had is with regard to the collective bargaining and assistance

related to McInnes Cooper. You referenced, I think, there were 11 negotiators at

one point and now it's down to seven. Was there some analysis done as opposed to

increasing that capacity internally in regard to human resources as opposed to

what may be spent through the contract with McInnes Cooper? Because I think to

date, the indication was you couldn't quantify what the expenditure would be

with McInnes Cooper. Is there any analysis done on what would be more efficient

from a government perspective?

MS. C. BENNETT:

To date, as of I want to

say the 28th of March, the amount that has been spent is about $14,000.

Certainly, the sense was that having an outside support to the collective

bargaining, at this time when we have peak activity, made sense. We certainly

have a large number of contracts that we intend to bargain in good faith and

need to bargain in good faith, want to bargain in good faith, and having the

resources to be able to do that is important.

The

process that we're undertaking in providing some additional outside support is

not different. Quite frankly, it has been used by the former administration, as

you would be aware, as part of the pension reform activity.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT:

It was also something that,

when the pension reform was undertaken, both government and labour had provided

external counsel at that time. Based on the fact that there is a need to work

through this process this year, it was felt that this was a reasonable solution

for the peak period of activity that would be undertaken in the next number of

months.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.04 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.1.04 carried.

CLERK:

2.1.05.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.05 carry?

MS. MICHAEL:

This 2.1.05, Financial

Assistance, I guess two questions; the first one under Loans, Advances and

Investments, could we have some details on that, Minister, in terms of who these

loans, advances and investments are made with? Last year the budget was $9.7

million. The projected revision was $4.3 million, but we're up to $10.7 million

this year.

MS. C. BENNETT:

I'll let the deputy answer

those questions for you, Ms. Michael.

MS. BREWER:

The $10,731,400 is the

balance that is owing on, you may recall, the $110 million loan to Corner Brook

Pulp and Paper. So the balance is what we call capital advances. As they

complete the work and they submit that they've committed to doing capital work

in accordance with their sustainability plan, then we would advance them money.

We anticipated $9.7 million roughly in '15-'16 and the actual capital demands

were only the $4.3 million. So basically it's a carryover of the difference

there, plus the balance owing on that money.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

didn't get that at the very beginning because your mic wasn't on.

MS. BREWER:

Oh, sorry.

MS. MICHAEL:

Is that all this is

covering?

MS. BREWER:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

It is?

MS. BREWER:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

Then

under Grants and Subsidies this $20 million, there was nothing in this line last

year. Could we have an explanation of what's anticipated with regard to this $20

million, please?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Absolutely. In the interest

of keeping the Question Period emotion in Question Period, I won't refer to this

by the name it has been referred to by the Members of the Third Party, but I

will share the information that I did share in the House of Assembly. I

understand, in fairness to Ms. Michael, she wasn't here the day that I tabled

it.

The $20

million for Grants and Subsidies was put in there to leverage federal

infrastructure initiatives. It will be used to ensure that Newfoundland and

Labrador has the ability to access new federal funding, such as the social

infrastructure programs that were announced as part of the federal budget

'16-'17.

Program

details are now being provided by the federal government in several areas, such

as the new federal program for post-secondary infrastructure through the new

federal strategic infrastructure fund, and details of the new clean water and

waste water program.

Departments are determining the projects that will be required to assess these

funds for consideration. As those projects are approved, through the federal and

the provincial processes, the applicable cash flows, as regards to'16-'17, will

be transferred out to the applicable department.

I can

provide Ms. Michael with the notes that I tabled in the House for that amount of

money.

MS. MICHAEL:

I received those notes. I

did request those from the Clerk's table and did receive those notes.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Okay.

MS. MICHAEL:

I was hoping for more detail

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

now in Estimates.

MS. C. BENNETT:

The projects that are being

looked, each of the departments have provided some indication of the projects.

The federal government is providing clarity. When our budget completed and the

federal budget was completed, there was an expectation that we would be able to

take advantage of the federal infrastructure spending. We needed to have a block

of money put aside. The prioritization of the projects has to happen in a way

that leverages the guidelines that the federal government announced in their

infrastructure program. The social infrastructure program was one of the ones

that we had the information most recently.

Donna,

would you like to provide any additional commentary?

MS. BREWER:

The only additional commentary I would add is that there actually have been

guidelines now released by the federal government for the post-secondary

education. So both the college and Memorial are looking at those criteria now.

They'll be submitting projects once the government approves them to the

federal government.

So it's

not a fixed amount going to Newfoundland and Labrador. It's application based.

So once they make the application, then the federal government will advise

whether or not any of the projects have been successful.

MS. MICHAEL:

Under the clean water

MS. BREWER:

But it's 50-cent dollars

MS. MICHAEL:

Sorry. You go ahead.

MS. BREWER:

I'm sorry.

It's

50-cent dollars so we have to prepare either Memorial will identify a source

for us, 50 cents, or the department will come on behalf of Memorial and apply to

this fund and seek Treasury Board approval for the funding and the same with the

college. So it is really dependent on what applications actually get screened

and approved through the federal process.

MS. MICHAEL:

Minister, you mentioned

projects that had been prioritized, would we be able to have a list of the

projects that have been prioritized? I'm assuming that's under the waste water.

MS. C. BENNETT:

The projects are in the

process of being prioritized, based on what the guidelines are from the federal

government. We're waiting for clarity from some the agencies, boards and

commissions that would be considering some of their infrastructure projects as

part of this.

At this

stage, the final list of applications that will be provided, as part of this

federal infrastructure, has not been fully finalized.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

That's

all I have for that subhead.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Minister, you referenced

waste water and post-secondary as components of the new federal infrastructure.

Are they the only two components or is there more outside of that that this

money would look at supporting?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Donna, do you want to speak

to that?

MS. BREWER:

There were a number of

initiatives that the federal government announced. One has to do with public

transit. Right now, the criteria hasn't been finalized, but there's potential

that it could go towards ferry operations.

There

was money under I want to call it Arts and Culture, but I'm not sure of the

correct name Culture and Heritage. There were several blocks of money within

the federal budget that was announced, I think it was March 22, that, to me,

there wasn't clarity on (

a) necessarily the amount for Newfoundland and Labrador

or the criteria. So we felt it was prudent to put the block in. As I indicated,

right now, the one that is getting a lot clearer and application guidelines are

out and the deadlines have been set is the post-secondary one.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. BREWER:

But there are, as well, others under the Newfoundland Housing Corporation,

social housing initiatives. Again, once they get the criteria and know the

amount, they may have the ability to finance it within their own resources. If

not, they have the ability to come and apply.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, there are Aboriginal

communities too that were a component of it as well. Would that be part of it as

well?

MS. BREWER:

It could be; I just don't

recall offhand.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. I think the federal

government said it's 50-50 application based. So we're not talking here of per

capita. This is no guaranteed funding. It's based on applications and whether

it's approved.

MS. BREWER:

I know, Mr. Hutchings, the post-secondary is not guaranteed per capita

allocation. I can't say yet whether some of the others will or won't.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, fair enough.

This

money is allocated here, and obviously in other departments, Municipal Affairs,

TW, AES, there's funding in their Estimates, no doubt, for various projects that

they may pursue to leverage federal dollars which would be normal practice,

probably, within those departments anyway.

Is this

in any way restricting what they do or is this additional money that you would

look at based on the federal government and increasing the infrastructure

program?

MS. C. BENNETT:

The departments who would've

had clarity on the federal infrastructure spending would have proceeded to

include approved projects inside their spending envelope.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT:

This particular amount of

money was related to the fact that there were pieces of the federal

infrastructure program, that at the time of the budget we still didn't have 100

per cent clarity on the regulations and the rules, so the funding was put in a

block.

Maybe I

could ask the deputy to speak to the rigour around how the projects would be

approved so that there is no confusion that this would be something that a

minister, for example, would decide on their own because in order for the money

to be allocated Donna, maybe you can walk through that process.

MS. BREWER:

Sure.

There

is a deputy minister's committee of infrastructure so the individual departments

would receive the criteria. In this particular case, the one that has come

forward most recently was the post-secondary education. There were criteria that

were established by the federal government. Both Memorial and the college, with

the assistance of Advanced Education and Skills, looked at that criteria and

identified projects that they felt would fit the federal criteria.

So they

came forward to the committee, the committee met with the officials and we made

recommendations to the ministerial infrastructure committee. Once the

ministerial infrastructure committee reviewed them, they then sanctioned them

and would have brought them I guess, Minister through to Cabinet for final

consideration.

MS. C. BENNETT:

These would have been

projects that, for example, Memorial or the College of the North Atlantic would

have had as a priority in their own entity. However, due to funding they would

have been unable to proceed or to funding limitations, the timing of when those

projects might happen, would be slower.

When

the actual money is moved out of Finance, though, it does need to go out through

a Treasury Board process, as is the norm, if you're going to reallocate

something from one area to a department. So that would mean there would need to

be Treasury Board approval. Once the federal funding was in place, the

department would have to come back and ask for Treasury Board approval to move

the money out into their purview for spending.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

And, no doubt, at that

particular time you'd probably announce what the infrastructure project would be

and you're supporting it and that kind of thing.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Certainly, when the

decisions are made and you get through to that position you'd certainly be

making it very clear as to what the spending was for.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT:

To not have the money in the

budget in this form would have meant that we would have been unable to leverage

the federal infrastructure spending, and we felt it was prudent to have an

amount of money blocked, as opposed to missing the opportunity to be able to

leverage infrastructure money which has been done in the other departments

based on the information they had.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Sure.

there a timeline on this envelope of federal infrastructure?

MS. BREWER:

The post-secondary, one of the criteria was what they'd call shovel ready. So

they're trying to get the money out and the money spent over this year and next

year.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The other comment was

MS. BREWER:

You may recall the old Building Canada Fund; it was like on a ten-year horizon.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, that's right, yes.

That's why I asked.

MS. BREWER:

So that was also the impetus to actually put the money in, because ordinarily

with a federal announcement you can do your legwork, get your plans in place and

then put the money in the budget once you know the projects. But because we knew

they were expediting and wanting to get the money flowed as quickly as possible,

we opted with this block funding, as the minister had indicated.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Thank

you.

CLERK:

2.1.05.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.05 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.1.05 carried.

CLERK:

2.2.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.2.01 carry?

MS. MICHAEL:

Will I start?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

You go ahead, yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Not a lot of questions for

here, but under Professional Services, Minister, the anticipated revision last

year was $1,829,500 and this year all that's allowed in Professional Services,

the estimate is $340,000. So why the big drop in this area?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure.

The

change of $453,000 from the original budget last year to the actual projected

revised was an increase. This was as a result of an indirect tax recovery audit

which was done on HST.

The

requirements were higher than anticipated; however, they also resulted in an

anticipated HST recovery from the federal government of $11.4 million. The

additional $453,000 that was spent on the audit, the audit in its entirety

yielded additional revenue for the province of $11.4 million.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, got it. I got that.

MS. C. BENNETT:

So the decrease would be

that's not happening anymore.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's not happening. Yes,

got that.

Thank

you very much.

Under

Purchased Services, what are the services that are covered under there?

MS. BREWER:

The majority of that would be administrative fees that we pay, primarily, to

Canada Revenue Agency for administrating a lot of our taxes like the HST,

personal income tax and corporate income tax. As well, there'd be charges there

for photocopiers, shredding services, just like most other divisions within the

department.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you very much.

Under

the provincial revenue, what is the source of that revenue on the provincial

level?

MS. C. BENNETT:

The amount of $1.2 million?

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT:

That is the anticipated

revenue in '16-'17 for the indirect HST tax review. That's where we pick up the

revenue.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's where you pick it up,

okay.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes, of $1.2 million.

MS. MICHAEL:

Minister, I asked this

question in AES but I was told by the minister you're probably the one who could

answer the question more accurately for me.

Under

the new tax on books, will post-secondary students have to pay tax on their

textbooks?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Craig, do you want to take

that one?

MR. MARTIN:

Yes, post-secondary textbooks purchased by students will be taxed.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

That's

all I have for that one.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Grants and Subsidies, could

you give me an understanding what that is and what it's used for?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes, this would have been

the Member may actually remember this one. The $104,600 would have been I'm

sorry, just for clarity, is it the $23,000 or the $104,000 that you want some

details on?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, just give what $104,600

represents and we've got $23,600. Again, what would that be used for?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes, so the revised budget

for '15-'16; there was a grant of $80,000 that the former administration

approved for the department of economics under the CARE program. Also, there was

an amount of money that was required for transitional expenses related to the

province's membership in the Maritime Provinces Harness Racing Commission. So

the $23,600 now is the $6,400 decrease from the original budget is the

allocation of the provincial membership to the Maritime Provinces Harness Racing

Commission which is estimated at $23,600 this year.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

That's an annual fee, I

think, is it?

Yes,

correct.

MS. C. BENNETT:

To my understanding it's

annually, right?

MS. BREWER:

Yes, there's a budget (inaudible) that's set by the commission and then each of

the four Atlantic it's now the Atlantic Provinces Harness Racing Commission.

Each of the four Atlantic provinces would share in that budget.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. Thank you.

CLERK:

2.2.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.2.01 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.2.01 carried.

CLERK:

2.2.02.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.2.02 carry?

MS. MICHAEL:

I don't have anything for

2.2.02 personally.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

No, I'm good.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.2.02 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.2.02 carried.

CLERK:

2.2.03.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.2.03 carry?

MS. MICHAEL:

I have no questions.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

No, that's fine. I'm good.

CLERK:

2.2.03.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.2.03 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.2.03 carried.

CLERK:

2.2.04.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.2.04 carry?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, 2.2.04.

Just on

the Salaries piece, Minister, the budgeted last year, the revised was down. As

well, this year is very similar. Is that positions related or what exactly, or

not filled?

MS. C. BENNETT:

The change for projected

revised would have been savings as a result of reductions in projections

primarily attributed to vacancy savings and recruitment delays.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT:

And the changes in the

original budget would have been primarily due to the removal of salaries

associated with the Home Heating and the Parental Benefits rebate programs. This

was primarily offset by the increase in JES, annualized for qualifying JES

positions.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. So they would be the

positions in Grand Falls, I think it is, the office there?

Okay.

Professional Services there under the heading; $152,000 was budgeted, $225,000

and that's taken out now. I'm just wondering what's

MS. C. BENNETT:

So the projected revised,

the $225,100 was actually an increase related to additional legal costs

associated with a tax proceeding. As I'm sure the Members here would understand,

we can't discuss the specifics of the tax proceedings, but those would have been

legal fees associated with that.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. That's good.

Lorraine, do you have anything?

MS. MICHAEL:

I have one question. We were

told in previous Estimates over the, well, past two years, I guess, Minister,

that the specific was the Vale transfer pricing audit. And when that audit is

done can you say whether or not it's been done? There's no money allotted for

this year, I'm assuming that it's come to an end.

MS. C. BENNETT:

I can't comment on

MS. MICHAEL:

You can't comment.

MS. C. BENNETT:

I can't comment.

MS. MICHAEL:

Would that ever be made

public?

MS. C. BENNETT:

I can't comment on that now.

MS. MICHAEL:

You can't comment at all.

Okay, thank you very much.

MS. C. BENNETT:

I don't have the information

to answer the question.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Is there any way to

get information just to those? They're fairly neutral questions.

MS. C. BENNETT:

If I can provide the

information, I will.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you.

That's

all I have for that?

CLERK:

2.2.04.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.2.04 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.2.04 carried.

CHAIR:

At the request of the Deputy

Chair we're going to take a five-minute break and come back and clue up.

Recess

CHAIR:

Okay, we'll resume with the

final part of the Estimates on Finance.

CLERK:

2.2.05.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.2.05 carry?

MS. MICHAEL:

I just have one question and

it has to do with the Salaries line. The Salaries line has gone up $147,600 over

the projected revision. If I could have an explanation, Minister, please.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure.

The

savings or the lower than anticipated spending in the revised budget of '15-'16,

bringing it down to $494,000, that savings was from a manager of capital

markets, which is a borrowing position that was unfilled for '15-'16.

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MS. MICHAEL:

Do you have any other

questions that are urgent?

MS. C. BENNETT:

If I can continue, the

original budget for '16-'17 with Salaries at $743,300, that represents an

increase of $147,600. That increase is a result of adding an additional two

resources for the borrowing program that would also include resources that would

help with succession planning.

The two

positions: number one would be a new position for a manager that would provide

support for the entry into the US markets for the province. Number two would be

for a registrar, which is a new position. Again, that would be to support the

entry of the province into US markets.

MS. MICHAEL:

Maybe I could ask the

minister for an explanation of the need for a new manager for that. Is it

because of different expertise or more work?

MS. C. BENNETT:

I'll ask the assistant

deputy minister to speak to that.

MR. MARTIN:

It's a combination of both, really. It's a level of expertise, but a lot of it

is also additional workload.

Essentially, the Debt Management Division was primarily in caretaker mode for

the last seven or eight years, where the province hadn't been substantively

borrowing, and borrowing started again this past March. So this is to add

additional resources in order to support the new borrowing programs.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

That's

all I have for there.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Chair, if I could add

that specifically the entry into the US markets requires that we have different

technical advice to be able to do that. There are significant regulatory

requirements that the province must undertake as part of that effort.

The

move to include the US market as part of our borrowing plan would be for two

reasons. That would be our continued concern about our capacity to borrow, as

well as ensuring we can access the best rates we can to keep our borrowing costs

as low as we can.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I'm fine.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

CLERK:

2.2.05.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.2.05 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.2.05 carried.

CLERK:

2.3.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.3.01 carry?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Minister, if I could get

some information in regard to the 2.3.01, Salaries, what was budgeted in 2015-16

and what was executed in the revised. Then there's a further reduction this

year, I guess, comparatively in the Estimate to last year's budget; some

information on those numbers.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure.

The

$3,846,600 under projected revised is a $546,600 savings primarily from

reduction in projections attributed to vacancies and recruitment delays. Also,

there was a lower requirement for temporary assistance relating to miscellaneous

projects that would arise during the fiscal year in the Economics and Statistics

Branch.

The

budget for '16-'17 is decreased over last year's budget by $344,600. That

decrease is due to the results of the line-by-line review reduction, and this

was partially offset by an increase for JES anualization for qualifying JES

positions.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Purchased Services, could you give me an idea of what that would be under this

division, what it would represent?

MS. C. BENNETT:

I can let Wanda or Alton

speak to it, but my understanding is this would be purchases for, for example,

data from Stats Can that we would purchase, and rent as well for the Economics

and Statistics Branch.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

When we

get down to Revenue Provincial, we have a revised figure there of

$249,600. Could you explain why that was up so high compared to what was

budgeted?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure.

The increase of $214,000 was additional revenues that were

due to revenues from '14-'15 being received in '15-'16, as well as additional

project revenue recoveries in '15-'16.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Project recovery, you had

done project work for somebody and had what do you mean by that?

MS. C. BENNETT:

The Economics and Statistics Branch would occasionally do work for they might

do it for the City of St. John's, for example, or others.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Alton, do you want to add

anything else?

MR. HOLLETT:

The work that was carried over, basically, last year was work that was billed

towards the end of the year, and it was the City of St. John's, Goss Gilroy,

Newfoundland Housing, Memorial University and ACOA.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MR. HOLLETT:

We billed them and received them after the books were closed off.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

That's

good for me.

MS. MICHAEL:

I don't have (inaudible) the

same questions.

CHAIR:

Okay.

CLERK:

2.3.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.3.01 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.3.01 carried.

CLERK:

2.4.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.4.01 carry?

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, I'll start off then.

similar question with regard to the salary line here, Minister; just an

explanation, please, of the drop.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure.

The

reduction in Salaries from last year's budget to the projected revised was

$468,200. That reduction is primarily attributed to vacancy savings and

recruitment delays. The reduction from the original budget of last year to this

year's proposed budget is just over $257,000 in savings. That came from the

line-by-line review that the Office of the Comptroller went through.

MS. MICHAEL:

With regard to Salaries, the

line-by-line review, how could it go down so much without a loss of a salary

unit?

MS. C. BENNETT:

It could be positions that

weren't filled that we will no longer budget for.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay and you don't have the

details on that.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Ann Marie, do you want to

provide some details.

MS. MILLER:

Some of it would have been in our Corporate Services Division. That's the

invoice processing that we do for government. We've had some vacancies in that

area.

found some efficiencies, better ways to do business. Vendors can now send their

invoices electronically to us so it allows us to be more efficient and thus save

positions as a result. But those positions would have been vacant.

MS. MICHAEL:

Do you have the number of

vacancies?

MS. MILLER:

We can certainly provide some information.

MS. MICHAEL:

Please. Thank you.

Under

Purchased Services, the budgeted item last year went down in the revision. We're

slightly up from the revision, but it's still down $86,500 from the budget last

year.

Can I

get an explanation of that?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sure.

The

$91,200 savings from last year's budget was a result of savings attributed

through discretionary spending. The changes from last year's budget to this

year's budget, resulting in a difference of $86,500, would have come from the

line-by-line review based on what the office felt they could save and contribute

to the overall cost reductions that we were undertaking.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much. That's

all I have there.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Just a couple of questions

before I clue up, Minister.

regard to overpayments, there was an issue that came up and you dealt with in

regard to overpayments. Under the legislation I think it's a requirement to keep

the pension fund whole.

Are

there monies allocated in the budget to offset any overpayments that may have

been written off in the future? How do you propose to proceed with that?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Are you speaking

specifically about pension overpayments, just for clarity?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I'm sorry, pension

overpayments, yes.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Okay.

Yes,

there is a commitment that any pension overpayments that would not, we wouldn't

expect we've publicly said we're not expecting seniors to pay back, that

government would be accountable to making the pension plan whole. I'll ask Donna

to provide you some clarity on where that would show up.

MS. BREWER:

It wouldn't show up in the Department of Finance. Pension payments are covered

off by the Consolidated Fund Services.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. BREWER:

I'll confirm, but I believe we did that before the March 31 year-end. So it

would have been a payment made in (inaudible).

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So obviously, Minister, that

was for a block of pensioners that a particular circumstance we made a

determination on it. So in future, similar cases when pensioners, seniors would

have something occur, is that an automatic now that it would be again cancelled

and picked up by government?

MS. C. BENNETT:

My understanding, since the

pensioners were informed in December, 16 more pensioners have been identified

and the dollar amount is, I believe, $160,000. We've been communicating with

those pensioners that we would be handling those situations with the same

compassion that we handled the other seniors.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, and as your officials

said, at the end of the year you would reconcile that, I guess, in terms of what

had transpired during the fiscal year. Okay.

The

other question I had, we had discussions in the House in regard to discretionary

travel and some savings that were met leading up to the budget. There was

information that, at budget time, we would get access to that. I think your

figure was $25 million. Can we have or can you list for us now what that $25

million was in terms of discretionary savings and where it was to?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sorry, I'm not sure I

understand the question.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, so in the House of

Assembly we had asked I think you had indicated that there was $100 million

that was discretionary travel leading up to the budget that you were able to

identify. Further discussion on that indicated that was annualized, but in fact

there was $25 million at that point in time that was recognized.

discussions in the House you indicated that would be available at budget time.

I'm just wondering if we have clarity on what that $25 million discretionary

savings actually was.

MS. C. BENNETT:

The amount of money that I

referenced would have been savings from discretionary and salary savings,

Estimates review and proper cash management. The total amount was $113.2

million. We can certainly provide you, Mr. Hutchings, with a detailed

explanation of that.

But it

relates to $11.3 million that was saved as a result of salary savings, $29.9

million that was saved as a result of stopping discretionary spending; $31.8

million savings that we achieved through the Estimates review; and $40.2 million

that we were able to provide savings from proper cash management, which provided

an opportunity for savings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. I look forward to that

breakdown.

Thank

you.

MS. C. BENNETT:

You had also asked a

question earlier about attrition and we didn't get back to it.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Oh, I'm sorry, yes.

MS. C. BENNETT:

I want to make sure we leave

you with no questions unanswered.

Donna,

would you provide the information.

MS. BREWER:

Our five-year attrition number was 15 positions. For '15-'16, the target was

three positions and salary money was removed from the Department of Finance,

$196,600.

reported to Treasury Board that we've identified four positions that became

vacant that we were able to eliminate. The savings we achieved in '15-'16 was

$265,715.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

So the

first number three was attrition, the second number four is ?

MS. BREWER:

The target of three was the target we were given and we've managed to achieve,

in '15-'16, four.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, and that's through

attrition.

MS. BREWER:

The actual savings was $265,700.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, through attrition. So

four of those positions won't be filled?

MS. BREWER:

Right.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Minister, in regard to your 650 full-time equivalents, do these positions relate

to that number at all?

MS. C. BENNETT:

No.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

No.

MS. C. BENNETT:

The numbers Donna can

speak to with reference to the changes are in the home heating and the

parental.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Donna, you can speak to

those, specifically, for Finance.

MS. BREWER:

Sure.

There

were 21 positions. Eight would involve some sort of layoff action; 13 were

vacant positions at the time. Five of those are permanent positions, and one of

which was in St. John's, the rest would have been Grand Falls-Windsor. The other

16 were seasonal positions.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

For seasonal, what type of

activity would they be involved with, a seasonal position like that?

MS BREWER:

Well, primarily both the Home Heating Rebate and Parental Benefits.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. BREWER:

It's not a constant. So there's a peak and as the volume decreases then people

cease their seasonal employment.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. Thank you.

That's

good.

CHAIR:

Okay.

CLERK:

2.4.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.4.01 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.4.01 carried.

CLERK:

1.1.01 to 2.4.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 to 2.4.01

inclusive carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 2.4.01 carried.

CHAIR:

Shall the total carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, Department of Finance, total heads, carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the Estimates

of the Department of Finance carried without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, Estimates of the Department of Finance carried without amendment.

CHAIR:

I'd like to thank the minister and her staff for giving a very thorough

Estimates review, and I'd like to thank the Government Services Committee for

their participation over the last two weeks.

Before

I move to adjourn, I'd just like to say that the next meeting of the Government

Services Committee will be at the call of the Chair.

Motion

to adjourn.

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible.)

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I agree, yes.

Thank

you very much.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Motion

to adjourn.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So moved.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, the Committee adjourned sine die .