PDF Version

October 2, 2020

GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Bernard Davis, MHA for Virginia Waters -

Pleasantville, substitutes for Carol Anne Haley, MHA for Burin - Grand Bank.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Lisa Dempster, MHA for Cartwright - L'Anse au

Clair, substitutes for Christopher Mitchelmore, MHA for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux

Meadows.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Elvis Loveless, MHA for Fortune Bay - Cape La

Hune, substitutes for Pam Parsons, MHA for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Sarah Stoodley, MHA for Mount Scio, substitutes

for Perry Trimper, MHA for Lake Melville.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Tony Wakeham, MHA for Stephenville - Port au

Port, substitutes for Loyola O'Driscoll, MHA for Ferryland, for a portion of the

meeting.

The Committee met at 9:06 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CLERK (Hawley George):

Okay, good morning, everybody.

My name is Kim Hawley George. I'm the Clerk in the Committee this morning.

This is the first meeting of this Committee for this year in this Estimates

cycle, so the first order of business is to elect a Chair.

Are there any nominations from the floor?

MR. LOVELESS:

I nominate Bernard Davis.

CLERK:

Are there any further nominations from the floor?

Are there any further nominations from the floor?

Mr. Davis has been acclaimed as Chair of the Committee.

Mr. Davis, come and join me at the Table, please.

CHAIR (Davis):

I call for nominations for election of Vice-Chair, in the unlikelihood that the

Chair has to vacate this Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

Do I second that one?

CLERK:

It's usually a Member of the Opposition.

CHAIR:

It's usually a Member of the Opposition I think.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

CLERK:

You are, so she can't actually.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

CLERK:

Actually, you are too. We'll defer the nomination of Vice-Chair for this meeting

because you're both substitutes. Absolutely.

CHAIR:

Okay, we'll defer that.

This is the first time for me, so bear with me. I'm lucky I have someone as

skilled as I do at the Table with me.

I'd ask the minister to do some introductions and opening remarks.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, everyone.

It's wonderful to be here this morning with everyone. I thank you for taking the

time for this important process. I will let you know that I am COVID negative,

so that you don't have to be concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much.

I do want to start with some kind of overall remarks about the changes that

we've made. The Premier wished to restructure Treasury Board and Finance, not

unlike what you've seen in other jurisdictions. In particular, in Ottawa it's a

very familiar separation of expenditure management and administration from the

fiscal policy and revenue oversight.

This also creates and helps create a couple of strong voices for Finance and

Treasury Board administration at the Cabinet table, so operationally it

certainly works well. Of course, many of you are familiar with what happens in

other jurisdictions with that separation. Finance does continue to have the

economic and fiscal policy and the strength of that as well, and then Treasury

Board is the administration of that function and role.

We've made some major changes, I think, to the Public Service Commission. It's

strengthened and restored to its former prominence as an institution to uphold

and protect the merit-based recruitment of the public service, oversee conflict

of processes, provide independent services for the Employee Assistance Program

and Respectful Workplace Program – all very important – and other similar

functions.

The Public Service Commission Act

sets out the role of the Public Service Commission in recommending promotion and

hiring in the public service based on merit. This is very consistent with

similar organizations across Canada and certainly does rejuvenate the Public

Service Commission.

The Public Service Commission now has 83 employees. That's up from 19, so you

can see the breadth and depth of the organization. As well, there's Opening

Doors which is a part of the Office of Employment Equity for Persons with

Disabilities.

As you can tell, the Consolidated Fund Services will now be shared with

ministerial responsibility for two groups: one for setting the fiscal and

economic policy and one with carrying out the administrative functions within

the organization. I think that's all I wanted to say.

I want to thank the team at both the Public Service Commission and, of course,

in Finance for the outstanding work that they do. I can tell you as a testament

of the last – I've only been here now, I think, just a month or just a little

over a month, but the work of the departments is outstanding. I especially want

to draw attention to the Department of Finance who have just recently brought in

a budget in very tumultuous times, of course, with COVID and have worked around

the clock. I witnessed it, because any time I was here, morning, noon or night,

they were always here. I swear to God I don't think they went home.

You will see within the Estimates today there may be some variances because of

the changes and reorganization. There may be some changes going forward, as

well, as we work through this reorganization. It was only announced, of course,

in August. We will fine-tune the appropriations over the next number of months,

but I think the Department of Finance did an exceptional job of doing that in

very quick order.

In all cases, the appropriations are presented in a comparative format. If a

function is moved, the prior information was restated to ensure usability and

comparability. You'll get a sense and a flavour of what would've been last year

if things had been in a comparative format. So I think that's helpful as well.

I'll stop with my statement to allow maximum time for questions and questioning.

Perhaps, if I may suggest we start with the Public Service Commission that would

be helpful.

CHAIR:

Perfect.

If we can do some introductions of your team, it would be great.

MS. COADY:

Excellent. That would be very good.

CHAIR:

Then we'll start.

MS. COADY:

To my right, go ahead, George.

MR. JOYCE:

George Joyce, Chair and CEO, Public Service Commission, Acting.

MS. COADY:

Robert Simmons, Commissioner, go ahead.

MR. SIMMONS:

Robert Simmons with the Public Service Commission.

MS. COADY:

Mike Smyth.

CHAIR:

I think if you raise your hand your light will come on.

MR. SMYTH:

Manager of Appointments and Accountability with the Public Service Commission.

MS. COADY:

Wanda.

MS. TRICKETT:

Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller.

MS. COADY:

Of course, Keith.

MR. WHITE:

Keith White, EA to the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance.

MR. BUDGELL:

Marc Budgell, Director of Communications, Finance.

MS. COADY:

Theresa.

MS. HEFFERNAN:

Theresa Heffernan, ADM, Treasury Management and Budgeting.

MS. COADY:

Okay, Doug, if I say your name maybe they'll (inaudible).

MR. TRASK:

Doug Trask, ADM responsible for Economics, Statistics, Tax and Fiscal.

MS. COADY:

Denise.

MS. HANRAHAN:

Denise Hanrahan, Deputy Minister, Department of Finance.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

I think we'll let the Opposition Member, Mr. Wakeham, say a few words. Is that

what we start with first?

CLERK:

Some introductions.

CHAIR:

Some introductions, as well, and we'll let everyone go around from there.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad to be here this morning. I look forward to getting some answers to a

few of the questions we might have. I thank everybody for coming and for the

work you've done in putting this budget together and the work you continue to

do.

As a former public servant I know how hard you guys work, despite what people

say sometimes about – or I should say, us, as a former civil servant. I thank

you truly for that.

This morning I have with me Megan Drodge and later on, Lloyd Parrott, our MHA

for the Clarenville area, will be here and will be joining us.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Wakeham.

Ms. Coffin.

MS. COFFIN:

Excellent. I'm Alison Coffin, I'm the MHA for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi and

the Leader of the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, thank you so, so much for your hard work and dedication. I see your cars

there when I leave and I understand the economics well enough to know that you

have some of the most difficult jobs in the public service right now. Thank you

so, so much for trying to keep this all in check.

(Inaudible) introductions. Yeah, thank you.

MR. FLEMING:

I'm Scott Fleming. I'm a Researcher for the NDP caucus office.

CHAIR:

Excellent.

Now, if we can do some introductions around. If you wave your hand the system

behind us can actually see you, but the public I don't think can.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Lisa Dempster, MHA for the beautiful District of Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

MS. STOODLEY:

Sarah Stoodley, MHA for the economic powerhouse District of Mount Scio.

MR. LOVELESS:

I can't trump that.

Elvis Loveless, MHA for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Sherry Gambin-Walsh, MHA for Placentia - St. Mary's.

MS. DRODGE:

Megan Drodge, Researcher with the Official Opposition caucus.

MR. LANE:

Paul Lane, MHA, Mouth Pearl - Southlands.

CHAIR:

I guess, probably, it's a good time to deal with this. Is it okay if MHA Lane

asks questions? Does he have the ability to do that, if it's okay with both

parties?

It's a decision of the Committee, so is that okay with everybody?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

CHAIR:

Excellent, so he can. We'll move through that.

Thank you everybody for being here today and those that are joining us online

and/or listening on their devices, wherever they may be.

I'd ask the Clerk to call the first subheads.

CLERK:

For the Public Service Commission, 1.1.01 to 1.2.03 inclusive.

CHAIR:

For the Public Service Commission, 1.1.01 to 1.2.03.

Do you have any questions?

MR. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start off with just a couple of general questions. The minister has already

alluded to the increased staffing at the Public Service Commission, so maybe

just an expansion on the actual scope and the additional responsibilities that

have been assigned now to the Public Service Commission, if we could start with

that.

MS. COADY:

Yes, thank you very much.

What we've seen here is strategic staffing and the hiring of all staff for core

government departments will now move to the PSC. Training and development in the

public service Safety and Wellness Division, as well as the Opening Doors

Program will move to the PSC.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Thank you.

Last year in the Estimates we chatted about the classification management

appeals. At that time there were 161 outstanding. Mr. Joyce said it was his goal

to have them cleared up in that year. I was just wondering if I could get an

update on the outstanding appeals.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Wakeham, since last year when we were in the Estimates Committee, management

classification appeals, right now there are 83 outstanding. There are 60 files

representing 83 employees. We have them right now. After the next hearings,

which are scheduled for the end of October, we will be down to about 50. There

are, right now – the oldest is in 2018.

MR. WAKEHAM:

2018. Okay, thank you for that.

Can we get an update on the activities of the Independent Appointments

Commission for the past year?

MS. COADY:

If I may, just for an overview, because I think I'm quite pleased about the IAC

and this is, I think, important for all of us. The appointments that have been

made over the period – 691 in total – 48 per cent of them are female. I wanted

to point that out because there's been some discussion and concern of making

sure that we have balance on these boards.

I think from what you're seeing is we are tending to strike that right balance.

We'd like to see it 50-50 but 48 per cent is very, very close. Of course, we do

make sure we have some geographic representation as well as diversity. On that,

I'll turn it back over to Mr. Joyce who can give you kind of the overview of the

numbers this year.

MR. JOYCE:

If you don't mind, I'll share all the information we have with you on it.

In the past year, as Minister Coady indicated, since its inception there have

been 691 appointments with the IAC – not with the IAC, that's in total. With the

IAC there have been 273; that's representing Tier 1 appointments – Tier 1, under

the authority of the IAC. For Tier 2 appointments – that's the Public Service

Commission appointments – there have been 418, for a total of 691 appointments

since its inception, I think, about four years ago. This is the fifth year, I

think, for the IAC and the change to the Public Service Commission.

In the past year, last year, this fiscal year 2019-20, there's been 31

appointments made for Tier 1. There have been 40 appointments made for Tier 2

for a total of 71.

For Tier 1 IAC appointments since inception, 46 per cent female and for the Tier

2 appointments since its inception, 50 per cent female, for a total of 48 per

cent. That's trending in the way we wanted it to trend; it's moving in the right

direction. It's not there, but we're getting there.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Thank you.

There has been some recent public criticism of the IAC process. Some individuals

have indicated that they've been approached about a position years after they

applied for something different. Have applications for positions declined?

MR. JOYCE:

Can you just repeat that question again? You say years after?

MR. WAKEHAM:

Yes, some people were saying that they've been approached about a position years

after they applied for something different. In other words, they're getting a

call to say are you interested in a position that they basically didn't apply

for; had applied for something different or something like that. That's what we

were wondering, are applications – the number of people seeking have declined or

something?

MS. COADY:

I think it's incumbent on all of us to continue to encourage people to refresh

and renew and make sure that they are in the database. I know I spend time

making sure that, in particular, women – because I want to make sure that we

have a good number of women on boards as well – know about the IAC process and

put their name into the database and have a fulsome profile there.

Once a position is identified, then, of course, the IAC will go through the

databases and databanks and see what qualifications people have and then

approach them to see if they might be interested in a position. I think that's a

positive thing rather than a negative thing.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Under the salary section, 1.1.01, Salaries there are forecasted to increase by

$4 million in this fiscal year. I think you started to allude to that earlier,

Minister.

MS. COADY:

Yes.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Can you give us the explanation on that one again?

MS. COADY:

Absolutely.

If you look, there is a restated original budget of $3.808 million, okay, so

it's just normalized. It's $3.808 million, now going to $4,115,500, okay. The

reason for that is we've reprofiled for a third commissioner position and

there's been an allocation – and you're going see this across all Estimates so

you might as well – 27th pay period.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Payrolls, yes, I'm aware of that.

MS. COADY:

So you're going to see that now almost everywhere. You'll see an additional

stipend there.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Yeah.

MS. COADY:

But we have an additional commissioner in the budget as well.

I should note that the actuals last year were a little lower and that was due to

vacancies.

MR. WAKEHAM:

So they have been filled now?

MS. COADY:

That's a good question; I think they are in process. Some of them …

MR. JOYCE:

Yeah, different stages of recruitment, vacancies, just normal run-of-the-mill

process.

MR. WAKEHAM:

None of them have been vacant for a long time or anything?

MR. JOYCE:

No.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

No, no, no. If they're vacant for a long while we take – they're not.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

Transportation and Communications, there's an increase there from the actuals of

last year. I'm just wondering what's happening in that particular line.

MS. COADY:

I'm going to speak to this, if you don't mind, because you're going to see this

throughout Estimates, I think, over the next little while as you go through

Estimates.

If you looked at the restated budget, it would have been $102,400 and the actual

was $41,600, so the difference, of course, is COVID related, in particular. It

was less travel for the commissioners. It was less travel due to more

teleconferencing. Again, a lot COVID related. It's been restated to $88,100,

which is slightly down from last year, and that's because they are anticipating

overall normalized lower cost for communications and travel because the mobility

costs have gone down and the contract as well, and we're anticipating using more

Skype and teleconferencing.

But I will say it is not really reflective of a continuation of COVID. It's more

of a normalized number and if we don't spend it, of course, it will be either

redeployed or it will be brought back into government.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Right. This is the number for the full fiscal year –

MS. COADY:

Correct.

MR. WAKEHAM:

– so we've already spent six months. I'm just curious if you're on target for

your expenditures. Throughout the whole process here, we're going to see all of

the numbers that are reflective of a full year's expenditure –

MS. COADY:

Right.

MR. WAKEHAM:

– and we're going to be asking: Where are you after six months? Are you on

target or are you under budget or over budget? This is an unusual time;

obviously, we wouldn't (inaudible) already.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Wakeham, I can say for this fiscal year so far, the first six months, that

our Transportation and Communications is significantly down. We will not exhaust

that amount.

MR. WAKEHAM:

But will you spend it?

MR. JOYCE:

Pardon?

MR. WAKEHAM:

Will you spend it?

MR. JOYCE:

We'll have to see how it goes for the next six months, particularly, when we

added new programs and services to the Public Service Commission. But there's

been a push on for six months to keep it as essential as possible; very little,

if any, has been taking place.

MS. COADY:

I will say there is a directive, I guess, from the Department of Finance,

basically saying you're not to travel and you're not to incur those costs. So

we're hoping to have savings there that might be redeployed through Treasury

Board because of COVID for demands because of the pandemic or realized savings

then to government. Is that fair? Yeah.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

CHAIR:

We'll take some opportunity – we're going to go in 10-minute chunks, so I'll

move over to Ms. Coffin.

If I can get everyone, when they're answering their question or asking their

questions, to say their name first because we're not visual for the public. It

would be just a little bit easier for them to follow what's going on.

If I can ask Ms. Coffin to take her questions now.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you.

I do have a few and I'm going to kind of jump off from that for now.

I'm going to ask a little bit about what's happening with Professional Services.

I see that there's an awful lot of money going into that in addition to

Salaries. Can you give me a sense of what we purchased for Professional

Services?

MS. COADY:

Yes, thank you.

That's mostly EAP, Employee Assistance Program. That's obviously driven by

employee uptake. There are about 100 service providers for that. You're going to

see there was a slight increase in the number of employees receiving assistance

through EAP and we'll continue with that trend throughout 2020-21.

MS. COFFIN:

That's a great program and I've occasionally referred individuals to that. Keep

going on that please. We probably have a greater need now.

Do we have a sense of the number of vacancies on the agencies, boards and

commissions and for how long those vacancies have existed?

MS. COADY:

Is this through IAC you're referring?

MS. COFFIN:

Yes.

MS. COADY:

Okay. So the average from request to recommendation, since inception of the IAC:

for Tier 1s it's 199 days and for Tier 2s, 175 days. It takes about, I'm going

to say on average, a six-month recruitment process for the boards for IAC.

MS. COFFIN:

Six months seems like an awful long time. I've gone into the website where you

can apply for each of them and all the criteria – good job on the website,

really easy to navigate. I understand that.

My understanding is that résumés can kind of come in in a fluid manner. Is there

a problem from the time that there's a vacancy identified, to we need to go

through all the people who are potentially qualified, we need to recruit?

Normally a recruitment process will take two months or three.

MR. JOYCE:

Just to answer your question first. Currently outstanding for all agencies,

boards and commissions for Tier 1 and Tier 2: There are eight current board

opportunities for Tier 1 and there are 29 opportunities for Tier 2 for a total

of 76 right now, that between the IAC and the Public Service Commission we're

getting ready to fill.

Our time period to fill those vacancies would vary, would depend on the

complexity of – if it's Tier 1, for example, it might be a CEO for one of the

top agencies in the province. We tailor make our advertising recruitment – it

might be across the country. The average was about, I think – and I'll defer to

Mike. The time period has reduced. We're still at about Tier 1, six months. It's

being reduced every year but I think in the past year, in fairness, to bring it

down even more is that we're looking to – I find that every major recruitment

now, particularly on Tier 1, is not a cookie-cutter approach anymore.

Say it's the Auditor General, just for an example. We will go out now and we

will advertise and work with a specific department on what's the best approach.

We'll advertise for all the accountant associations in Atlantic Canada. We'll go

right across the country for their national organization, as opposed to – each

case is different.

We're trying to get it down. We're working hard, no doubt about it. Some boards

we get 200 applications. Every résumé has to be reviewed and we work with the

departments to develop a profile for thresholds and for competencies. You have

to match the competencies to 200 of those résumés; we have to try to get it down

to a manageable level. It takes time with limited staff and resources.

Then, we do our work in preparation for the IAC and give it to them. Then, they

have their own process to sit down, strike a committee, go through it and call

it through themselves. They may even conduct interviews themselves – it's up to

them – in order to get into a situation to make recommendations to government.

It's an extensive program but we're getting it down. I think, initially, we were

up over six months and we're down under six months now for Tier 1.

MS. COFFIN:

That's reassuring. Thank you.

Here's a bit of a technical question: Can you give me a sense of the criteria

that would be used to send appointments to the Independent Appointments

Commission? I know we have a set of – if you're in this particular agency you

would do that. But say, for example, there's was a task force struck or a

commission or something like that, would they automatically be sent to the

Independent Appointments Commission, or is there a set of criteria to determine

how things would be vetted through that?

MR. JOYCE:

In answer to your question, we have – say we keep using the Tier 1. Tier 1 is

the Independent Appointments Commission

Act . Under the IAC Act there's a

schedule and in that

schedule it lists –

for the IAC they have about 30 of the top agencies, boards and commissions in

the province and about 25 of the top executive positions attached to them.

If the authority rests with the IAC for a particular entity, the minister

responsible for that particular agency the CEO reports into, legally the

minister has to make the request to the IAC. That's the trigger. If it's not

under the act, they don't request it. That's the trigger. It's what's in the

Schedule to the IAC Act.

MS. COFFIN:

That's good to know. Thank you.

I have time. Excellent. Let's go on to the Centre for Learning and Development.

I noticed that – let's talk about the French language training. Can you –

MS. COADY:

Are we going to 2.1.01?

MS. COFFIN:

No, this is 1.2.01. We're still in the ones.

MS. COADY:

Yeah, are we doing –

CHAIR:

We were going right through to (inaudible).

MS. COFFIN:

Yeah, the preface of one and then the preface of –

MS. COADY:

Okay, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't –

MS. COFFIN:

I think so. Oh, there's only one section. I guess we're just doing all the

Public Service Commission right at once. Okay, good to know.

For the Centre for Learning and Development, can you tell me about the French

language training? I know that used to be housed in the West Block. Are we still

doing that in-house? Has that been privatized? Are we now bringing in

consultants? How is that working now?

MR. JOYCE:

I'll defer to my colleague, Robert Simmons, who particularly represents that

area.

MR. SIMMONS:

Trainers are in-house. There are some services provided internally, but the bulk

of that would be with Eastern Health. There's a contract there with Eastern

Health and one with the federal government. There's –

MS. COFFIN:

There's a contract. So we do contract private – okay and there are still some

in-house, yes?

MR. SIMMONS:

Yes.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, because I had heard that had somehow been moved around a little bit.

MR. SIMMONS:

We have trainers on staff.

MS. COFFIN:

I guess the Salaries and the Purchased Services are pretty close to equal there.

Can you give me a little bit of a breakdown between who is in-house and then the

Purchased Services that we're using? I assume that some of that are independent

consultants that are being used, yes?

MS. COADY:

Specifically for French?

MS. COFFIN:

No, this is just the whole Centre for Learning and Development, so I guess that

would capture a lot of the things.

MS. COADY:

Okay, sure.

MS. COFFIN:

As I read this, it says executive development so I can see that we're probably

paying Memorial University to do some of that stuff, I'm guessing, right?

MS. COADY:

We utilize expertise where required. This is important, I think, to the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador to make sure we're utilizing expertise where

required and sometimes it's across the province.

I'll ask Robert to kind of give you a breakdown because there are various

specific regulatory responsibilities that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador ensures is carried out, and then sometimes we might contract out if

it's something across the province. Robert, can you give a fulsome answer on

that one?

MR. SIMMONS:

The Salaries would be the staff of the division. There is some in-house training

that occurs. The Purchased Services, professional services would include a range

of training; a lot of it outside of the St. John's area.

If you think of the regulatory requirements: first-aid, for example, fall

protection, forklift operations, all the regulatory components that would go in

– think of many of the field operations across government departments. We would

also go out – it's easier to just find a provider in the area, bring the 10

employees to a provider in the area and pay for that service, as opposed to

sending those folks in to a central area on travel or sending our trainer out.

We just pick the most economical way to get the training completed.

MS. COFFIN:

Can I have a full list of the training that's provided through both of them?

MS. COADY:

Do you have this?

MR. SIMMONS:

I haven't seen a list that breaks it down, but I'm sure we can certainly go

check.

MS. COFFIN:

That would be great. Thank you.

How about I just – 10 seconds is not fair for anyone, is it?

CHAIR:

I think we'll move back to Mr. Wakeham. Then we'll go to Ms. Coffin and then

we'll bring in Mr. Lane, if that's okay with everybody.

Mr. Wakeham.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Under 1.1.01, again, I'm just a little curious about the revenue of $3,256 and

how it was generated. It's an actual revenue showing there for last year.

MS. COADY:

It's a repayment of a salary overpayment from an employee from a previous fiscal

year.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

I'm going to switch over to 1.2.01. Again, I think there have been some

questions asked about Salaries, and last year they went over budget. Can you

explain what happened or what might have happened there?

MS. COADY:

The majority of that was an annual leave payout that was required. There were

some vacancies throughout the year but that was also offset by, I think, a

contractual position that was required. Perhaps Robert, do you know what that

contractual position was? The lion's share of that, just to be clear, was on

that annual leave payout.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Right. I guess the Employee Benefits would be part of that as well. They went

over, I think, as well.

MS. COADY:

Yeah, course reimbursements for the fiscal year.

MR. WAKEHAM:

All good.

MS. COADY:

I think Robert wanted to kind of add a little bit of colour to that.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Oh, sure.

MR. SIMMONS:

The contractual positions, I think, was the question you were asking. This group

was within the Human Resource Secretariat, in the pervious year. In many cases,

we'd shifted positions around within that department to fill the need. We had a

need in the CLD, so we created two temporary positions there and held positions

vacant elsewhere to fund those, so they're up here, down somewhere else.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

The Revenue - Federal, there was $60,000 anticipated but we got more, which is

always good, $85,000 received. Can you please outline what happened there or

what occurred?

MS. COADY:

Yes, I can.

The revenue is from French language training. The contract amount has been

increased with the federal government for French language training. I don't know

if anyone wants to add anything to that, but it's French language training.

MR. WAKEHAM:

I'll continue on, again, with the provincial revenue, the $57,000 was

anticipated and not received. Any explanation as to what happened there?

MS. COADY:

No training occurred for Eastern Health employees. That would have been revenue

was received from Eastern Health for French language delivery program but no

training was done.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay. This year the $40,000, obviously, that's budgeted, it is anticipated that

will happen?

MS. COADY:

I'm assuming so. I don't know, Robert, if you have any update on that.

MR. SIMMONS:

It's anticipated. There are still some details to be worked out in terms of the

ability to conduct certain training and when that'll take place, but the plan is

to offer those services.

MR. WAKEHAM:

How much revenue have you collected, year to date?

MR. SIMMONS:

I'm not sure exactly. We could check that.

MS. COADY:

We'll check on that.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Yeah, just curious, because we are –

MS. COADY:

We are in the middle of a pandemic.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Yeah, and we're also in the middle of a fiscal year, so it's –

MS. COADY:

Yeah.

MR. WAKEHAM:

– easy to see that – thank you so much.

1.2.02, again, the increase in the Salaries relates, I suspect, Minister, some

to what you said earlier about the 27 pay periods?

MS. COADY:

1. –?

MR. WAKEHAM:

1.2.02.

MS. COADY:

Is this Wellness?

MR. WAKEHAM:

This is the Salaries, yeah, under Employee Safety and Wellness.

MS. COADY:

Okay. So we had savings last year mainly due to short-term vacancies that we

had. It's increased for a one-time allocation for the 27th pay period.

MR. WAKEHAM:

That's what I kind of figured.

MS. COADY:

You're going to see that almost everywhere, right.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Yeah, everywhere.

MS. COADY:

Sometimes it's a startling amount of money for that 27th – for that extra pay

period.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Yeah.

MS. COADY:

Which is fortuitous for everyone in the province.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Yeah, exactly.

Under Employee Benefits there, they did go over budget last year by $45,000. Is

there an explanation for that?

MS. COADY:

Yes, it was an increase due to WorkplaceNL requirements being higher than

anticipated during the year, and that's for all of Executive Council.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

MS. COADY:

So you can see they're normalized.

MR. WAKEHAM:

If I go to 1.2.03, the Office of Employment for Persons with Disabilities,

again, just some overview of the Salaries line. In particular, how many people

were employed in '19-'20? I know that the budget increased again for 2021, and

I'm just wondering if any additional positions will be created through that

increase.

MS. COADY:

Well, the one-time allocation is for the 27th pay period. We did have some

vacancies last year and that's why it was slightly down and the timelines to

fill those positions.

I will turn to Robert to see if – we have 86 positions, I think?

MR. SIMMONS:

Eighty-two.

MS. COADY:

Eighty-two positions allocated there, but perhaps you can give some more detail.

MR. SIMMONS:

Eighty-two positions in the Opening Doors Program. Usually there are some

vacancies, so there's always normal turnover. It did drop down a bit there

coming out of last fiscal and into this fiscal, obviously. It's currently in

around the mid-70s in terms of positions that are filled.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay. So the number, though, it's at 82 is what your goal …

MR. SIMMONS:

It's flat, yes.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay, thank you.

I have no more questions.

CHAIR:

Okay, Ms. Coffin.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you.

I'm just going to have a quick chat about the Office of Employment Equity for

Persons with Disabilities. I note that there's quite a large salary in there,

which is good and it's wonderful to see the support for individuals with

disabilities.

Does that salary include money for individuals participating in these programs

or is this just simply salaries for the administration?

MS. COADY:

No, this includes the money for the salaries for individuals, but I'll turn to

Robert.

MR. SIMMONS:

I'd have to double check to see if the program staff are actually included

there, I'm not sure that they are, but that is the individuals within the

programs salaries.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, that's what I was wondering. It's a big chunk of money and I was hoping

that the individuals – because we bring in individuals with disabilities into

the public service and support them through that. Okay, that was my

understanding; I just wanted to check on that.

Can you give me a list of the number of clients that we do have or the number of

individuals that are involved in this program?

MS. COADY:

Well, certainly, as was alluded to earlier, there are 82 positions.

MS. COFFIN:

Oh, sorry, okay. Oh, right.

MS. COADY:

There's always some turnover in that and I think there are several positions

available at this point in time, but I'll turn to Robert.

MR. SIMMONS:

You're looking for the number that's currently vacant or the number that's

currently filled?

MS. COFFIN:

Either. How many can we support?

MS. COADY:

Eighty-two.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, that is our full capacity, okay.

MR. SIMMONS:

Eighty-two is the count and there are currently mid-70s filled. That's down a

little bit because we've slowed a little bit through the last six months or so.

MS. COFFIN:

Of course.

MR. SIMMONS:

But they're all active.

MS. COFFIN:

Wonderful. That's great and they're spread all throughout the public service?

MR. SIMMONS:

Correct.

MS. COFFIN:

Nice.

Is there a range of disabilities that are being accommodated through that? I

mean, I can imagine some of them – fantastic.

Okay, I think that's about what my questions were.

In terms of Grants and Subsidies, that would be for supports for these

individuals or would this be for external agencies? The Grants and Subsidies

says $100,000 – and good job on someone spending very, very close to the

$100,000. That's some good math there.

MR. SIMMONS:

I'm going to make sure I have this correct. The Grants and Subsidies are also

for the Wage Subsidy Program. We would provide grants for folks who can offset

the salaries, if they were to hire folks through the program.

MS. COFFIN:

Right.

MR. SIMMONS:

That's available to agencies, boards and commissions throughout the public

service.

MS. COFFIN:

So is all of this considered Opening Doors?

MR. SIMMONS:

Yes.

MS. COFFIN:

Or if it was just all in under that office. I didn't know if Opening Doors was a

separate thing unto itself or not.

MS. COADY:

This is Opening Doors.

MS. COFFIN:

This is Opening Doors. Okay, very good.

Thank you very much. I think those are all my questions for this section.

CHAIR:

Mr. Lane.

MR. LANE:

First of all, thank you to my colleagues for giving me leave to ask some

questions. I'm not a Member of the Committee per se, but I do appreciate the

opportunity.

I'm not going into any line by line. I have more general questions; I'll leave

the line by line to my colleagues. The first question is around contracts and

contractual employees. You can correct me if this is the right place or not. If

there's somewhere else I have to go with this, that's fine.

We've seen situations in the recent past, I'm going to say, that have upset an

awful lot of people in this province, including yours truly, about people who

may have been named and involved in a certain project – Muskrat Falls – and a

lot of people might say should have been tossed. They're allowed to leave

gracefully with a full pension, benefits and payouts in hand, or be transferred

to another department and all this good stuff.

We keep hearing all the time the reason why there's no accountability, from the

public's point of view, is because they all have this great contract. That we

can't do anything with them, it will cost us more to get rid of them than it

would to let them stay or let them retire normally with all their benefits, and

no accountability for whatever they may have done or not done.

I'm wondering: Is it this division that would now be involved in creating these

types of contracts? If so, what is going to be done to change these contracts in

the future so that if anybody is ever hired in government again or an agency,

board or commission and they totally screw up, they're incompetent, whatever the

case might be, that they can simply be given a pink slip and out the door based

on performance, as opposed to us being held hostage and having to pay out large

sums of money?

I'm just wondering: Would that be through the Public Service Commission or

whoever makes these policies?

MS. COADY:

Just allow me to go first.

MR. LANE:

Yeah.

MS. COADY:

Thank you for the question.

This is in general not related to Estimates but I'd be happy to try answer. Then

I'll turn it over to my colleague representing the Public Service Commission,

the commissioner.

I think everyone in the province recognizes that employees – and this is an

employee-employer relationship. Employees of any organization, any business that

you belong to, any government agency – any time you're an employee there are

employee and employer rights and they're well known in law. Your contract,

either a strict contract or perceived contract, has to be upheld. You can be

dismissed with cause – and that's very hard to prove – or without cause. Without

cause there are certain contractual obligations that you carry.

We have to abide by those laws, those recommendations. That makes it

challenging, especially when we're very passionate about certain things, but as

a government, we would seek the best legal advice as to how we can move forward.

On that note, I will turn it over to the commissioner of the Public Service

Commission to give you the important response from officials.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Lane, I can only speak on behalf of the Public Service Commission. To answer

your question, the Public Service Commission, as you know, is an independent,

arm's-length agency of government. We have no authority – the PSC has no

authority – to hire, fire; we play an oversight role.

The jurisdiction that flows to the PSC comes from either the IAC Act or the

Public Service Commission Act , going

through a merit-based approach and a vetting approach, as you know. To answer

your question: We don't receive any applications. We don't get involved.

MS. COADY:

I know Robert might be able to help with this. This might be a better question

for the HSC, the Human Resource Secretariat? I'm just asking.

MS. SIMMONS:

Some of the finer details on how those processes are going to flow are still to

be worked out. The Human Resource Secretariat would have had a role to play for

certain hiring. Some of that now is with the Treasury Board Secretariat; some of

it will flow over to the Public Service Commission.

I don't know that I have a great answer to the question of detailed contracts. I

wouldn't be familiar with the – I'm not actually familiar with the circumstances

you're talking about.

MR. LANE:

Okay, I appreciate that.

I'm not even sure if this is exactly the spot to ask the question but it's

important to get the question out there. The bottom line is when you see

situations and I'm just looking at it now – let's look at it from the average

Joe's point of view. You go to work; you're working for an employer. If I went

to work tomorrow and I was always late, I screwed up my job and I did this or I

did that, the boss would fire me. I'm gone and that's it. That's the end of the

story.

People see situations that have happened and, obviously, I'm talking about the

Muskrat Falls inquiry and some of the stuff that has come out of that. People

would say mismanagement, hidden documentation and reports. We all saw the

inquiry, Justice LeBlanc's recommendations and so on. When you see those

situations, people would say people at the very top who were making these

decisions – I think a lot of people would say: They should be fired. The bottom

line is though, people are just now retiring, moving on and there's no

accountability that's happened.

When asked about it, Minister – and this is not on you; I'm not trying to make

it that way – you would say, and others would say, well, we take the legal

advice and we have to abide by contracts. The contract is written in such a way

that even if they screw up royally, it's hard to prove and we have to pay them

out and whatever.

All I'm saying is on a go-forward basis is it this group or who would decide?

How do we consult with legal to make sure in the future that if we have anybody

who is getting paid on behalf of the taxpayers of this province – whether it be

an agency, board, commission or core government – and they demonstrate that they

can't do the job and they screw up royally, that they can simply be let go with

cause at no cost to the taxpayer? Let's make the contracts ironclad in that

regard if we can, as best we can, to have people held accountable, like we would

at McDonald's, Sobeys or some construction site, anywhere else. I guess that's

my question.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much for that. I understand the passion for this particular item.

There is case law and employment law. I'm not a lawyer, so it's not on me to

even speak to this. But I am a businessperson so I can somewhat understand it

because I've had a number of employees and had to abide by the requirements of

same.

I think it's a question you could seek legal opinion on, so maybe when Justice

comes before Estimates. I can say that we have to abide by employment law. We

have to ensure that we're listening to our lawyers on this particular matter as

well.

MR. LANE:

Thank you. I appreciate the answer.

In terms of positions – and this definitely would apply to the public service,

obviously. There are a lot of people working in government that are permanent –

sorry, that are temporary, and seemingly temporary forever, 10 years go by and

they're still temporary. They are trying to make a life for themselves and

whatever, they'll probably be here for the next 20 years and they're always

temporary. They can't seem to get permanent status.

How does that work? At what point in time – how long does someone have to be

here doing a job before they get permanent status? Can you just give me some

idea as to how that works and why it is some positions someone's here and

they're immediately permanent? Some people are temporary for a year and then

they're permanent, and some people might be here for 10 years and they're still

temporary. Can you explain why that it is and how that works?

MS. COADY:

Thank you for the question.

I do believe under this administration we've been making good strides or working

towards any of the positions that have been long-term temporary, we've been

trying to either decide whether they should be permanent or do we actually need

the position? Why is it temporary?

I'll turn to my colleague and ask for his considered opinion, but I know it has

been a viewpoint of this administration to try and move those forward.

MR. LANE:

That's good to hear, yeah.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Lane, I'll try to deal with just one part of it and I hope it hits to the

heart of it.

MR. LANE:

Yeah.

MR. JOYCE:

I know Minister Coady indicated that this administration was trying to move in a

certain direction to deal with that. We have a policy at the Public Service

Commission, it's called a concurrence policy that allows deputy ministers – and

the policy states: If a request is received at the Public Service Commission,

the deputy might ask, for example, say if someone was there for five years and

come to us and say, well, what am I going to do, I want that person.

We have a policy in place; it's three criteria. One, has that person come into

the system through the Public Service Commission selection process? Yes. Did

that person work in that position for greater than two years? Yes. Is there a

demonstrated need at the request of the deputy minister to fill that position on

a permanent basis? Yes. If those three criteria are met and the request comes

from the deputy minister, we don't get in the way from the Public Service

Commission. We will go back to the deputy minister and we'll sit down with our

commissioners and say we have this request.

We'll do an investigation, make sure all those criteria are met, and then we get

back to the deputy and say we concur. That person came in through the system on

a Public Service Commission-approved process and for administrative reasons,

efficiency reasons, for all kinds of reasons, would the Public Service support

that, and we do.

I think in the past year – I've been there now over two years – we've done a lot

of work in that area on concurrence. I can get you the numbers, but we've

supported a lot of applications from deputy with those three criteria in place.

MR. LANE:

But it means the deputy, though, has to take the initiative to say they're going

to do it.

MR. JOYCE:

That's correct.

MR. LANE:

If they don't bother to do that per se –

MR. JOYCE:

If they don't bother to do it then we have little authority under the act to get

involved in temporary appointments, but what we can do, may do, have the

authority to do, if temporary appointments are an obstruction to the public

service, and what I mean an obstruction, if it interferes with hiring, the

Public Service Commission hiring and the merit approach, we can get involved. We

can.

But because of the past year and a half and past two years, the work that we've

done to work with the departments to move that through, through a PSC-approved

process, and the staffing from the HRS, that came over with us now, that's

cleaned up a lot.

I can get all the information for you.

MR. LANE:

I appreciate the answer, thank you.

CHAIR:

I'll ask Mr. Wakeham if he has any questions left for this section.

MR. WAKEHAM:

None.

CHAIR:

Ms. Coffin?

MS. COFFIN:

None.

CHAIR:

Mr. Lane?

MR. LANE:

I have one other question, very quickly.

On the idea of jobs and temporary jobs and so on, the 13-week provision, I hear

from – well you hear from people, of course, on both sides but you hear from

some people saying here's a resume, pass it in and if there's anything that

comes up in a department, I can get hired through the department. We all know

that's been going on forever, but on the flipside then you do hear from people

who are saying this is not fair, people do it, they just get their foot in the

door and the next thing you know, they're applying for a job that I would have

possibly had and I'm competing with someone who came in through the backdoor and

all this kind of stuff.

You hear about 13-week positions and then they put in for an extension and

another extension and another extension. Is there anything being done to try to

– I don't know if the word is clean up, but to try to address that matter?

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Lane, the Public Service Commission now is rejuvenated. We play an

investigative role in that area. We've now taken on the responsibility of the

staffing division.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

That was formally HRS, now it's under the Public Service Commission.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

So we now are responsible for all the staffing in the public sector and

oversight.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

The policies that we would put in place now, what I outlined to you just a

couple of minutes ago, about the thresholds, we can set polices. We've even had

situations where – not a lot, dealing with one recently – that you've asked for

a concurrence; say, hold on a second now. Yeah, they got two years, they got

this, that, but they didn't come in through a PSC-approved process, so the

answer is no.

MR. LANE:

Yeah.

MR. JOYCE:

So what I'm saying to you now is because the Staffing Division is together,

because the PSC is here together now as an oversight role, we will tighten up.

We'll have better communication with the Staffing Division to, insofar as

possible, prevent any of that from happening. I don't see it.

MR. LANE:

Okay, excellent.

Thank you.

The very last –

MS. COADY:

(Inaudible.)

MR. LANE:

Okay. I'm sorry.

MS. COADY:

Just one further point.

If you are taking someone in on a 13 week, they have to meet the qualifications

and the requirements of that position.

MR. LANE:

I understand that.

MS. COADY:

It's not like you can just put anyone in any role.

MR. LANE:

No, I understand that, Minister.

MS. COADY:

Okay.

MR. LANE:

Just for the record, I totally understand that. I'm not suggesting otherwise.

But some people would say you go in there for – it's supposed to be an emergency

hire. But, I guess, what some people might perceive is that in the past – and

I'm not referring to this administration any different from the one before and

the one before that – somebody might have something that's longer than 13 weeks,

but you say: Ah, it's only 13 weeks. Then you put in an extension and another

extension and before you know it that person is there a year or longer. Then

they apply for the job when it does come up and then they get the job over

someone who might have wanted the job, who came in through the Public Service

Commission and so on. I just wanted to put that out there.

Okay, I'm glad to see that's being monitored.

My final question and it relates kind of to the Opening Doors thing. The 82

positions, that's great. I didn't realize there would be that many people in

government. That's fantastic news to my mind. The only thing I sort of wonder or

question to some degree is, always, could we be doing more. I'm not talking

about now creating positions that don't exist and so on. But I look at Visions

Employment, as an example, which is an organization near and dear to my heart in

my community and they do fantastic work for people with intellectual

disabilities, in particular. You go up to Colemans or go up to Sobeys and there

are always people participating in that program. It's wonderful.

I wonder why that could not be happening, for example, at the NLC or something

like that, stocking shelves and so on. I never see anybody through Visions or at

any of those. So I'm wondering – core government, great – are we also including

ABCs and so on, and getting them on board? Again, they don't have to necessarily

– they could be going through Visions Employment or through Vera Perlin or

through whatever and have opportunities in ABCs as well to get more people with

intellectual disabilities employment, because they want to work, they can

contribute and they do a great job, quite frankly.

MS. COADY:

Thank you.

I will say, I think you heard a little earlier, Robert talk about there's a

grant program, there's $100,000 allocated for grants for that very purpose but

I'll let Robert give a little more of a fulsome answer.

MR. SIMMONS:

You are correct. There's grant money there available for wage subsidies across

any agency, board or commission, and that does happen. I guess I just throw out

as well that you may not see the program in action; it doesn't mean that it's

not happening right in front of you. It's a program designed to help folks break

down barriers in certain areas but that's not always a visible exercise that

you'll see walking through a particular building or operation.

MR. LANE:

Thank you.

That's all I have.

CHAIR:

No other questions?

I'll ask the Clerk to call the subheads again, please.

CLERK:

For the Public Service Commission, 1.1.01 to 1.2.03 inclusive.

CHAIR:

For the Public Service Commission, 1.1.01 to 1.2.03 inclusive.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.2.03 carried.

CLERK:

The total.

CHAIR:

Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, Public Service Commission, total heads, carried.

CHAIR:

We're looking to move on to the next one. Do we want to take a five minute break

before, if that's okay with everyone, just to change out? We'll put the next

line on the ice. Five minutes.

Recess

CHAIR:

Order, please!

I'll ask the Clerk to call the subheads for Consolidated Fund Services.

CLERK:

For Consolidated Fund Services, 1.1.01 to 3.1.02 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Consolidated Fund Services, 1.1.01 inclusive to 3.1.02.

Mr. Wakeham, please.

MR. WAKEHAM:

I'd like to start off, if I could, with some general questions if that's okay,

before we get into the Consolidated Fund. The first one, of course, is one

that's a standard one; it's about getting a copy of the minister's briefing

binder. I'm sure that's usually –

MS. COADY:

Absolutely. We'll be happy to give it to you.

MR. WAKEHAM:

In relation to COVID and the whole COVID fund, did the department get any funds

directly into the department for COVID from that particular fund? Would that

have been something that would've been transferred to the Department of Finance

for any reason?

MS. COADY:

We actually gave you a list of all – we've already tabled in the House all the

expenditures.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Yes.

MS. COADY:

Some of them would have come to the department because, of course, we are

responsible for some programs. Would they have come directly into the

department? I'm going to turn to the deputy minister to see if they came

directly in.

MS. HANRAHAN:

For an appropriations perspective, you'll see in CFS the $281 million, less $81

million federal revenue for a net $200 million as a vote. When a budget is

passed, then any spending that's been approved will then go out to that

department. Finance did have a program so Finance will get that piece; ISL had a

program, they'll get that piece. That's how the expenditures will get out.

From a cash perspective or the revenue, let's say the federal revenue, that'll

come in through our normal revenue receipting, similar to Safe Restart money or

any other fed money.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay, thanks.

In terms of service delivery in relation to COVID and its impact on the

department itself, have there been any backlogs or anything within the

department as a result of COVID?

MS. COADY:

Backlogs in a general sense or with regard to a particular COVID-related

program?

MR. WAKEHAM:

Just in terms of the general sense of trying to do what you normally do.

MS. COADY:

Well, you can appreciate, I think – I'm going to give kudos to the staff. I know

they're working extremely hard and worked extremely hard during COVID to ensure

that there was Interim Supply done. We've done three Interim Supplies this year,

which is unusual. We normally do one.

There was also the contingency fund, the $200 million that you had just referred

to, legislation concerning the same; then the administration and adjudication of

that $200 million; and the discussions with Ottawa that were ongoing. I can tell

you even today, I still have had, in the last month, several meetings with the

minister of Finance federally for help with the federal funding programs and how

they are helping with the economy and with social programming.

All that work has absolutely impacted the Department of Finance in particular,

but are they behind in any of their particular work? I would say no. We had a

budget on a timely basis. We're only the third in Canada to actually have a

budget during a COVID period, so I would say it's just because the department

has worked extremely hard.

If you're going to ask about a particular program, I can tell you where they sit

in a particular program.

MR. WAKEHAM:

No, that's good. I'm glad to hear it.

MS. COADY:

I don't know if the deputy minister wants to add to that because, of course, I'm

only one month here. Is there anything new to add to that?

MS. HANRAHAN:

No, Minister, that's fair to say.

I think government made a series of actions in March, April and May that changed

the work of the department. For example, there were decisions that matched some

federal government actions to slow down or temporarily suspend fee applications

or collection efforts or various things. Our work changed sometimes because of

responses to COVID, which allowed staff then to do other things, as well as the

implementation of new programs.

If anything, I'd say from an impact perspective, to be honest it was probably

the ability to get competitions done or the ability to do other things. It was

very priority-based and very focused on that. I'm very proud of the team for the

work that they did all summer and to still get the budget.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Thank you for that.

It brings me to my next question, actually, again. How many employees are in the

Department of Finance? How many are permanent, temporary, full-time and

part-time? Is that something that we can be provided?

MS. COADY:

Certainly. Perhaps may I suggest when we get to the Finance section, because

that'll get into the salaries and everything –?

MR. WAKEHAM:

The positions being vacant and those types of things.

CHAIR:

Yeah, we can deal with that in the next sections.

MS. COADY:

I'm sure we can provide that to you when we get to the Finance section.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Can I ask about the subheads under Financial Assistance, or do I want to wait?

CHAIR:

Just for a bit of ease for all of us, I think what we'll do is we'll attack the

Servicing of the Public Debt, 1.1.01 to 1.4.02 inclusive. If we can keep our

questions to there and then we'll vote on that portion, then it'll let us move a

little bit smoother. Is that okay?

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Not that you did anything wrong. That was me; I'm new at this game.

Mr. Wakeham, continue. I yield the floor.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Let's go quickly to 1.1.01, Temporary Borrowings. Is the line of credit still at

$200 million?

MS. COADY:

It is. It has not been used. It's just an appropriation.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay and the interest rate on the line of credit?

MS. COADY:

Just let me check.

It was very low but I don't have that off the top of my head. We can get that

for you.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Thank you.

MS. COADY:

It is not used, just so you know.

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay. It's good that you didn't have to use it.

MS. COADY:

It's never been used, really.

MR. WAKEHAM:

1.1.02 on the Treasury Bills. What's the current interest rate on the T-bill

program?

MS. COADY:

As you know, that's a rolling program. We do a weekly T-bill option. It's a very

low interest rate, less than 1 per cent actually, but it's rolling. It's a

running list, 90-day T-bills.

MR. WAKEHAM:

What is the current size and balance of the program?

MS. HANRAHAN:

Currently, the max outstanding we'd have is $1.17 billion. That's basically 13

issues as we roll through the year. The interest rate is well below 1 per cent,

much more tied to short-term money in the market.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

Again, the deficit for 2021 is expected to be $1.8 billion but the borrowing

requirement it $3 billion. Can you please explain the difference in the two

numbers?

MS. COADY:

That's rollover, but I'll ask the deputy minister to give you details.

MS. HANRAHAN:

Of the $3 billion, about $720 million is directly related to maturities of debt.

That's how we get down to a $2.3 billion net new borrowing. Of that $2.3

billion, of course, it's a combination of everything in consolidated government.

It would be everything for the cash payments we need to make to our two jointly

sponsored pension plans. That's about $323 million. It would be cash payments of

interest on the debt which is about in the $600-, $700-million range. It would

be our infrastructure programs which are about $420 million. Those investments

for Current and Capital infrastructure.

It would be a combination of those types of things, net of any revenues we would

get from our GBEs.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay, thank you.

On budget day, we were given a slide deck which indicated that the gross

borrowing was $3 billion but the net debt was $2.3 billion. Again, can you

explain the difference in the two numbers?

MS. HANRAHAN:

I just pulled out my deck.

What changed between July and now was an improvement in the deficit. The deficit

improved about $300 million. About $200 million of that was cash related; about

$100 million would have been accrual adjustment. That flowed directly into that

gross borrowing change of $3.2 billion down to $ 3 billion.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

The Bank of Canada borrowing program; has the Bank of Canada borrowing program

been used to support any of our recent bond issues?

MS. HANRAHAN:

No.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay, thank you.

This year, the government will look to borrow $3 billion, and for comparison

purposes personal income tax revenue is $1.4 billion and the total received from

provincial tax sources is about $4 billion. Regardless of COVID, the province

has a financial problem.

I'm looking for some commentary here, put the politics aside, for a second

because – should we be concerned that we are borrowing one-third of our

expenditures and how long will we be able to continue to borrow?

MS. COADY:

I will say this, Newfoundland and Labrador has had some structural financial

problems for quite some time. That is why, I think, I singled out in the Budget

Speech that we really do need to start looking at those structural financial

problems. We've been very fiscally responsible and prudent, that's why you

haven't seen expenditures escalate over the last number of years and, as you

know, Newfoundland and Labrador has held a very steady line. You've seen that

now across many, many Estimates processes where we've kind of held the line. But

there are structural challenges that have to be addressed and I'm asking

everyone for what kind of bold ideas do we need to do to address that situation.

I will say this, though, we are a member of a very sovereign country, a very

strong financial country and, therefore, that will always back the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. That's why we have been able to – we've already

borrowed $2 billion this year, and I can tell you the bond-rating agencies have

been quite complimentary to our team – I'll recognize Theresa and Denise for

their efforts on this – on how they've been able to place that $2 billion.

I think it's because markets are also looking at the fact that Newfoundland and

Labrador does have a tremendous amount of opportunity, natural resources and

strength. So I would say: Yes, we have a very serious, challenging financial

situation that has to be addressed over time and that we have to get to it.

MR. WAKEHAM:

I have no more questions.

CHAIR:

Ms. Coffin.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you.

The hardest part with this is where to start. Let's go with this one.

Investor Relations website shows that our borrowing requirements is $3.2

billion; we've borrowed $2 billion so far, so we're looking to borrow another

$1.2 billion this year?

MS. COADY:

Now –

MS. COFFIN:

No?

MS. COADY:

– I will update –

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COADY:

Yeah, it will be updated.

So just remember, that $3.2 billion was during the update of July, the financial

update of July, and now that we've had a budget, it's gone down to $3 billion.

We've already placed $2 billion, based on the legislation that's gone through

the House of Assembly and now once our newest legislation goes through the House

and you give us permission, we'll go out and borrow another $1 billion. Our team

is ready to do that.

MS. COFFIN:

So we are borrowing $3 billion this year?

MS. COADY:

$3 billion, not $3.2 billion.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, all right.

I was looking at Appendix IV, Estimated Interest and Debt Retirement. I noticed

that wasn't included and that normally is included, the borrowing for the year.

MS. COADY:

I'm sorry what appropriation was this?

MS. COFFIN:

Appendix IV in A-4.

MS. COADY:

Oh, you're in the book, okay.

MS. COFFIN:

Oh, yeah. Sorry, I moved over from Investor Relations. I have a lot of reference

material.

MS. COADY:

I don't have the book in front of me so I'll ask the deputy minister.

MS. HANRAHAN:

So you're wondering where the $2 billion is?

MS. COFFIN:

No, normally in Appendix IV you list the anticipated borrowings and I noticed

that hasn't been included this year, right?

MS. HANRAHAN:

So there is 2020-21 anticipated there. You'll see an interest expense of $13

million. The $2 billion that was borrowed would have been Series: 7B, 6W, 7G,

7I, and portion of 7H, that's where the $2 billion comes in. That anticipated

borrowing then is the billion that's left.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay.

MS. HANRAHAN:

The net redemptions on the side after the Sinking Funds is where you'll see the

maturities roll over.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay. I think you had that in the past?

MS. HANRAHAN:

Normally, we wouldn't have had any borrowing done for this fiscal year, but it's

2020 and it's October so …

MS. COFFIN:

Things are different and I totally understand it.

MS. HANRAHAN:

But you don't see it as clean. You'd have to compare year to year to see that 7B

was $675,000 last year, we reopened it, and it's $875,000 now; that series of

bonds.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay. Lovely, thank you.

I guess another question would be: Are we still going to the federal government

looking for money to help us? Because I know pre-COVID, the premier at the time,

wrote a letter to the prime minister saying we were no longer able to borrow.

Are we still looking for help borrowing?

MS. COADY:

Thank you for the question.

I will turn it over to my team, but I will say this, we've been able to place $2

billion worth of borrowing – all provinces in the country had challenges. That's

why the Bank of Canada brought in some support and they did come into the money

markets to support T-Bills. As I said, we've been able to place $2 billion, and

kudos to the team for that.

We don't anticipate any challenges for the replacement of that further $1

billion – I'm looking to my team. They don't seem to be too concerned about that

placement, but the Bank of Canada still was involved because the country, as a

whole, had concerns around borrowing money especially during that February,

March time frame, just as the global markets really did have challenges because

of COVID and because of the oil situation. It was around that time the Bank of

Canada came in and helped support the markets.

I don't know if there's anything needs to be added from there.

MS. COFFIN:

I realize that, globally, we were all in a state of concern, and then,

nationally, all provinces were similarly affected by the COVID pandemic.

However, our province had been out ahead in terms of some of the fiscal

challenges that we had been facing. So I think that our situation is not

necessarily comparable to that of other provinces.

Let's see, where else to go here now. The Guaranteed Fees, Loan Guarantees, did

we used to list all of the guarantees and all the Loan Guarantees in Estimates?

I know that they're in the audited financial statements. I have 2019 here and

Schedule E lists – oh, no, that's the debt. There was a great long list of

everything that we guaranteed. Here we go,

Schedule F. Are those normally

included in Estimates?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, they're usually just Public Accounts. All right, I'm sorry. Sometimes I

forget where I find all of the information. So we will see an updated version of

that. All right, that's nice to know.

Are the numbers comparable for this year? I'm guessing some of these guarantees

have already been in place, yes?

MS. COADY:

Yeah, there's an appropriation of 1.3.01, the Guarantee Fees. You're referring

to the appropriation 1.3.01 and there are Estimates there. So perhaps, Deputy

Minister, could you …?

MS. HANRAHAN:

So they would be relatively comparable. Public Accounts will audit them to make

sure if anything's changed, if there have been payments or changes, but there

were none issued. So you'll see there that it's just a repeat of the

appropriation for '20-'21.

MS. COFFIN:

Just a rollover. Okay, all right. Nice to –

MS. COADY:

And I will say that there have been no new guarantees issued, just so that you

understand that, okay.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, that's good to know.

I imagine some of those things would've been taken care of with some COVID

funding as well, right, because there are lots of restarts. I know that we have

an enormous amount of fisheries guarantees. So I assume some of that would come

from some of the COVID funding as well.

That I'll ask for after, I think, once we move to Finance, I'll ask for the

COVID funding along the way. I'm trying to make sure I've got everything in the

right spot.

Let's go to 1.4.01, $19 million is a really big number, as is $7 million in

actuals from 2019. Can you tell me a little bit about why we're spending $19

million on Discounts and Commissions?

MS. COADY:

Certainly, and I'll turn to my team, but that is the Estimates for the

underwriting commissions through the banking syndicate and the work that we have

to do in order to place our bonds and our debt, so it's budgeted as a net

figure.

Perhaps I can turn to the deputy minister. It is a tremendous fee, I agree.

Maybe we can hope to narrow that a little bit.

MS. HANRAHAN:

This is anything that is above or below par, if you went out onto the market to

do any borrowing. Every year you see variations. Every year, because we

generally don't know how it's going to go in the market, we budget one number.

Last year, you would have seen $8.7 million in Professional Services and then

this year you're seeing the $19 million; obviously, a significantly larger

borrowing program this year than last year. It's an estimate based on our

experience.

The actuals is where you see the real story because you see what really

happened. In this case, overall, we were able to issue our bonds in such a way

that we – I'd hate to use the term “made money” – but did them better than was

expected when they were tabled. The net there was actually a save because

interest rates dropped very quickly after COVID. So we would have forecast,

let's say, for example, 3 per cent was what we were going to pay, we had some

that came in at 2.68, so you end up saving interest because we would have

forecast that all in.

This is really that up and down and because of accounting rules, premiums get

recorded one way and discounts get another, as opposed to a net figure.

MS. COFFIN:

Right.

MS. COADY:

I want to give kudos to the team here and, I think, especially as we're talking

about Estimates, but kudos to the team. We got the lowest rate for debt, I

think, in January or February of this year and it was because –

MS. HANRAHAN:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COADY:

– for 30 years, because of the hard work. It was pre-COVID, so the hard work for

some of the team members here. We got a premium discount on that, and thank you

for that hard work.

MS. COFFIN:

In times like these, it is the right time to borrow.

MS. COADY:

Yeah, if we have to –

MS. COFFIN:

Your borrowing is less than the cost of living so – or your CPI rates have

changed so you actually make money when you borrow. I am not advocating for

borrowing more money.

MS. COADY:

No.

MS. COFFIN:

We shall not do that.

When I see Revenue - Provincial is that where you're capturing when you said you

“made money”? Is that where that's captured? Because way to go on $21 million,

right.

MS. HANRAHAN:

Yeah, and “made money” is totally the wrong term. It's less than what we thought

we were going to spend.

MS. COFFIN:

Right.

MS. HANRAHAN:

So here you're seeing the upside, so the debt we got that was below what we

thought, and the other side is the expense, which was over what we thought, so

premiums and discounts type of language.

MS. COFFIN:

Right.

MS. HANRAHAN:

That's how we have to record it as revenue because that discount that we got,

that's how it gets recorded. So what I mean is if we borrow $300 million and the

market gave me $320 million, I'm to the good $20 million, and that's where

you'll see it as revenue.

MS. COFFIN:

Ah.

MS. COADY:

It's the balance (inaudible).

MS. COFFIN:

All right.

MS. HANRAHAN:

Yeah, versus 295. I would've gotten an expense.

MS. COFFIN:

I'm an economist, not an accountant, so I –

MS. HANRAHAN:

And neither one of us are bankers.

MS. COFFIN:

I yell at it occasionally.

CHAIR:

Mr. Wakeham.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Minister, a minute ago we had a brief conversation about our revenue challenges

and our expenditure challenges. I'm wondering with Dame Moya Greene now being

secured to lead a task force, are there terms of reference available for that?

MS. COADY:

Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure my light was turned on. I don't know if they're

available at this point but I'll certainly investigate that for you.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Thank you.

MS. COADY:

They're moving through the process.

Again, I want to emphasize that Moya Greene, international reputation has been

doing a lot of good change management work around the world, including in

Canada. She's volunteering her time to put together what I'm going to say are

recommendations to government as we move forward.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Right.

MS. COADY:

We'll take that under investigation and get back to you.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Do we know if anybody else has been appointed?

MS. COADY:

Not at this point.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Not at this point.

You mentioned that she's volunteering her time, but is there a budget set aside

somewhere for the actual cost of this?

MS. COADY:

Not in Finance. I'll investigate to see if there's anything anywhere in

government.

MR. WAKEHAM:

I'm just thinking –

MS. COADY:

It might be in some other appropriation that I just don't know about at this

moment.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Living expenses, housing rentals, car rentals, I don't know; the other members

whatever. Just to see if –

MS. COADY:

I will investigate but it's not in the appropriations of Finance.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

I know I originally read that her task force was focused on economic recovery,

but the language in the Budget Speech seemed to imply that she'd be studying

government's organization and expenditures. I'm looking for a little clarity on

that.

MS. COADY:

I would think that's all part of what she would have to do as part of

reimagining government. She would look at where our fiscal situation is, give

their opinion, whoever else would be on the task force, on how we can improve

our financial picture; look at how we're expending and how we're generating

revenue; look at economic opportunities as well as how can we improve our

financial situation. I think it's all encompassing.

MR. WAKEHAM:

I know last week, the Mills's report was tabled as well and I'm just wondering

what your plans are to deal with those recommendations?

MS. COADY:

The bill's report?

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mills's.

MS. COADY:

Oh, Paul Mills, sorry.

Certainly a lot of the Paul Mills's report has been actioned under COVID and

you'll have seen a lot of his report talking about the COVID-related expenses

that have occurred and the programs that we've put in place. We'll be looking at

his other recommendations as we move forward. Certainly, we've actioned a

tremendous amount, I think, coming out of Mr. Mills's analysis of what we should

be doing under the current pandemic.

MR. WAKEHAM:

I guess my next question then or the next challenge is how do you sketch all of

these reports together? The Mills's report, the McKinsey report and now Dame

Greene's report when that comes due, in terms of sketching?

MS. COADY:

Well, certainly, they're three separate and different reports. One report, the

McKinsey report, was on economic opportunity in the province and it was

pre-COVID. A lot of the activities under the McKinsey report have already been

actioned. The Mills's report was: What should we do immediately during a

pandemic situation to secure and assist many of the businesses and opportunities

in the province? A lot of his recommendations have already been actioned. The

Dame Greene report, which is still under development, is how do we ensure and

reimagine the way government operates and maximize our opportunities, minimize

our expenses as best possible, and in looking across government and looking at

the economic opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador, what their

recommendations would be. So, with respect, I don't think it's a stacking of

reports. I think they were different reports for different requirements.

MR. WAKEHAM:

I think where the interest will be is in the recommendations and the

implementation, as you suggested.

Just going back to the terms of reference, is there a date that we can expect

it?

MS. COADY:

I'll have to get back to you on that.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

MS. COADY:

Because of course, as I indicated earlier, I would assume that would be under

development, but I'll get back to you as to when and where.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

Just back under 1.3.01, quickly. The Revenue budgeted last year was at $8.9

million, but only $8.2 million was attained. Was there a particular reason for

that? It's under 1.3.01.02.

MS. COADY:

The contributions to sinking funds increase year over year. The amount

guaranteed by the Government of Newfoundland decreases; therefore, the fee paid

to Government of Newfoundland and Labrador from Hydro decreases.

Do you want to put that in better language than that? I did ask, I did write

down, but you know – she can interpret.

MS. HANRAHAN:

As the sinking funds went in, the amount to be guaranteed went down. So of –

MR. WAKEHAM:

Could you repeat that again?

MS. HANRAHAN:

As the sinking funds went in – every year there's a sinking fund requirement –

the amount to guarantee gets lower and lower and lower, like paying your

mortgage, and so naturally the fees get lower and lower.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Right.

MS. COADY:

I think that was 50 basis points, wasn't it?

MS. HANRAHAN:

Yeah.

MS. COADY:

Roughly, it was worth about 50 basis points.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay, thank you.

Is it possible for us to get a list of which organizations were charged for

their guarantees in '18-'19 and how much was charged to each?

MS. COADY:

Is it just Hydro? Yeah, it's just Hydro.

MR. WAKEHAM:

It's just Hydro?

MS. COADY:

Yeah.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

Any new loan guarantees being considered?

MS. COADY:

No, not that I'm aware.

MR. WAKEHAM:

To quote again: Is there a list of which loan guarantees were approved and

issued last year?

MS. COADY:

Were there any? No.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

MS. HANRAHAN:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COADY:

If the deputy minister of Finance is not aware, then ...

MR. WAKEHAM:

Yeah, there's an old saying that I often used that said: If I'm surprised, you

better be surprised. Good one for the minister.

I'll move now, quickly, to 1.4.01, Discounts and Commissions. Again, I think we

already talked about the $19 million. The Debt Expenses of the $7.4-million

expenditure, can you explain that again for me?

MS. HANRAHAN:

That would have been issuances we did whereby we had to pay a little bit more to

get the money, versus the ones in the Revenue are the ones where we did a little

bit better.

MR. WAKEHAM:

So the Revenue of $21.7 million is where you did better?

MS. HANRAHAN:

If we went out to do $300 million, the ones that you're seeing as expenses were

the ones where I didn't quite get that much or the ones where I got more, you

will see it as the Revenue.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

MS. HANRAHAN:

And before the year starts, we don't really know which ones are going to be

premiums or which ones will be discounts.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Okay.

1.4.02, under General Expenses, Professional Services, again, $1.2 million was

budgeted but only $300,000 was spent. I'm just curious about what that –

MS. COADY:

I'm sorry, what appropriation?

MR. WAKEHAM:

Sorry, Minister, it's the Professional Services, 1.4.02.

MS. COADY:

General Expenses.

MR. WAKEHAM:

General Expenses, under Professional Services, the difference between the Budget

and the Actuals.

MS. COADY:

That was funding to determine whether we would register in the US or the

domestic markets to make sure that we're very competitive going forward. So we

did put an appropriation in there to determine whether or not we wanted to go on

the international or US markets, versus the domestic market, as you can

appreciate. That did not advance and was not required, so therefore it was not

spent.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Yeah, okay, and it's reduced.

Quickly again under the Employment Retirement Arrangements, under 2.1 –

CHAIR:

No, we're not in the twos yet.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Oh, sorry we're not in the twos. My humble apologies, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Do you want me to move on to Ms. Coffin, then we'll come back to you for your

next question?

MR. WAKEHAM:

Absolutely.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Ms. Coffin.

MS. COFFIN:

Where am I now?

Let's do a little take off from Mr. Wakeham's questions. I noticed you just

talked about McKinsey, Mills and Greene reports and I completely understand the

difference between them and the rationale behind them. The thing that perhaps

causes me a little bit of concern is, the first two are solely business focused;

the third is about finding efficiencies and reducing costs and making government

operate, I guess, more efficiently, more cost-effectively and things like that.

One of my concerns here is government provides public services, we provide

social services that most of which ought to be consumed equally by every

individual at no cost.

When we're talking about implementing a lot of these reports is there any

consideration to alternative outcomes or other criteria by which we evaluate how

we deliver programs? It's not necessarily we serve 15 people at a cost of blank;

it's are people getting the services they need. When we provide health care,

yeah, I got to see a doctor in a short wait time, but did people get healthier?

When we talk about diversity that's hugely important but the diversity needs to

map over into things like the Public Accounts, and here's a little jump into

what I'm going to talk a little bit about next. When we look at the Auditor

General's report, there are a set of criteria by which we evaluate the health of

the province.

Most of that is financial and that's not that social piece, but I guess before

we get to that part, the things that are going to be guiding us through the

tumultuous financial times that we are in, are those solely based on financial

considerations or are we talking more about social concerns, things like

well-being indexes, things like improved social outcomes?

Are those going to be any of the things that are going to help us, help guide us

through making decisions on the provision of public services and the management

of our finances? Will those two things be integrated at all?

MS. COADY:

I think your point is very valid and I think you've seen some of the work

through health care, through a whole-of-government approach to certain of these,

important health and wellness being one of the pillars of this government, of

course. The social determinants, of course, I see them all as integrated. What

we're talking about really is reimagining government.

When you talk about reimagining government, it is responsive to what services

are you providing, what outcomes are you getting and how do you achieve the best

results for people. I see that is completely integrated. I think government's

role is to integrate them. You take the best advice you have and as I said, I

guess, over the last number of days is we would like advice from – everybody in

the province has a role to play in ensuring that we address some of the

structural, foundational issues of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a large

geography; how do we provide better services?

I've used the example because the ministers in the room – Minister of Digital

Government and Service NL – we've had a tremendous uptake on utilizing MyGovNL:

1,600 per cent increase. I was on CBC yesterday and one gentleman said: But that

didn't work for my mom and dad. How do we ensure that service delivery works for

everyone?

It was a very valid point and I think we have to think about how do we ensure

that. I know the minister will be interested in considering that as we move

forward. How do we ensure that kind of integration? We've given some supports to

other agencies, other organizations that might be able to help that integration

because it is an alternate service delivery mechanism and a good one for people.

Those of us that are computer literate can do that with ease and it's faster,

better, better outcomes, but we do have to consider the whole of the people of

the province.

I take your point and I think it's very valid. Thank you for that.

MS. COFFIN:

I think the next step would be let's start talking about the ways in which we

would incorporate the provision of services and ensuring the well-being of

citizens.

It's wonderful that we've seen the 1,600 per cent increase in the take-up of

MyGovNL; however, we were told we had to. I can't register my car unless I

register there, right? I did find out that my MCP card was expired when I tried

to register, which meant that I could no longer register. I just tried that the

other day. It's not a foolproof program.

I think some of the other things that perhaps we ought to consider would be

things like – the cleaning services here are a good example in the provincial

government. Years ago we essentially started to contract out or privatize

cleaning services in the provincial government. What has resulted there are some

cost savings on the part of government, but a lot of individuals who are working

at minimum wage who do not get step increases or cost-of-living allowances. They

don't have a pension plan. They don't have access to a health care plan. They

have very little in way of job security. To my knowledge, they're actually being

paid in cash.

When I talk about the delivery of public services, we also need to think about,

well, if we want these people to be contributing members of society, we have to

be able to provide a salary that they can afford to live on. I have clients who

are working as cleaners who are in my district who can't afford to get a home,

who can't afford a place to live, that have to go through public housing.

Because we've privatized this service, we've put an additional strain on some of

the other services that we've provided. So it kind of distorts what our ultimate

objective is. I think that's a really important thing.

I know we're talking about the Department of Finance and I know it's like, well,

these numbers kind of all have to match, but we also have to realize what is our

ultimate objective as government. I think that's a really important thing as we

go forward in trying to find our way out of the situation that we're in. We need

to make sure that it's not going to do us more harm in the future. I think

that's a really important piece. So work with the community accounts and try and

establish indicators of well-being and I think that will maybe help us get

through where we are.

Okay, so let's flip over to the Public Accounts and the Auditor General's

report. I think one of the first times I called the Auditor General, my first

words were, hey, love your books, read them all – big fan. And me and the other

20 people in the province that read these cover to cover get kind of excited

about it. However, there's an awful lot not to be excited about. The reason

we're excited is because it's about transparency and accountability. What's

happening, though, is when we look at a budget, a budget is a year to year to

year thing. When we look at the Auditor General's reports, it kind of takes a

more comprehensive view of, if we keep making these decisions, where are we

going to be in the future.

The Auditor General uses three factors that they use to analyze the health of

our economy and our finances. Those are flexibility, sustainability and

vulnerability. So perhaps we can have a little chat for the next minute and then

we'll flip it over to the next person. Let's start with flexibility, because I

think that's perhaps most relevant when we talk about the Consolidated Fund

Services. The definition used in the Auditor General's report talks about

“whether a government can meet rising commitments by expanding its revenues or

increasing its debt ….” Given the nature of our existing finances, can you give

some comment on how we have gone about addressing flexibility?

Now, recognizing that COVID is a bit of a blip in the last 10 years, but this is

something that has been consistently addressed in the Auditor General's report

over at least the last 10 years, and our flexibility has not changed very much.

We have very little borrowing ability and we have not identified additional

revenue streams. Perhaps we can talk a little bit about how we are intending to

address that as we move into this uncharted future.

And you have 20 seconds. Off you go.

MS. COADY:

I have now 19 seconds. That was –

MS. COFFIN:

That's a mouthful –

MS. COADY:

That's a mouthful.

MS. COFFIN:

– and a half.

MS. COADY:

So I'm down to 10 seconds.

What I can say is I think what the Auditor General has always pointed out, and

even during the most – I've run out of time, so we'll come back to this. Might

be –

CHAIR:

Yeah.

MS. COADY:

Okay.

You've seen this over time, even when the Auditor General – I can remember going

back to 2007, 2008, 2009, when the price of oil was $150 a barrel and we were

having some economic well-being in the province because the price of oil was so

high, yet the Auditor General was pointing out that we were spending beyond our

means.

I think you are pointing out the Auditor General's reports are very important, I

think, to the province. The flexibility that is talked about in their reports

talks about can you either grow your economy or borrow enough. Do you have the

capacity to borrow enough in order to satisfy the demands? I think what you're

seeing with the invitation of Moya Greene to come and volunteer her time – she's

been through this with the federal government; she's been through change

management with a number of organizations – is to kind of start reimagining and

addressing some of what the Auditor General has been talking about for decades.

I'll stop there because I know we have others that need to speak.

CHAIR:

Mr. Lane, if you have any questions for the sections 1.1.01 inclusive to 1.4.02.

And then we'll vote on that section.

MR. LANE:

Thank you.

I just wanted to go to 1.4.01, again. This is for my clarification and perhaps

anyone who may be listening; although I'm not sure there's going to be a huge

number of people listening.

Just to get my head around what this number exactly means, am I to understand –

and maybe I got this wrong – this is not interest or anything that we're paying

on loans we've got. We're actually paying or estimating that we're going to pay

$19 million, but I think you said there's an offset, but a substantial amount of

money just for – we're paying that just for going through the exercise of

looking for money. Is that what's happening?

MS. HANRAHAN:

Any market activity generally generates or attracts management fees, commission

fees, legal fees, all the various fees that get encountered for us. We have to,

for disclosure purposes, disclose everything we encounter from an expense or

revenue perspective. If you were to place a private trade in the market, you

would pay a fee, so the province does the same.

This reflects all of the various fees we would encounter. Sometimes the fees or

the spread or whatever you want to call it is better or worse but that's really

what you're seeing disclosed here.

MR. LANE:

It's $19 million.

MS. HANRAHAN:

That's our estimate for this fiscal year.

MR. LANE:

You're estimating it's going to cost us $19 million.

MS. HANRAHAN:

Yes, net of all the mess, we think that's what the cost will be to issue $3

billion.

MR. LANE:

So to go through the exercise – again, I'm just trying to make it simplistic for

anyone who might be listening and an average person and simplistic for myself as

well. I understand this is going to be a very simplistic analogy but I'm going

to liken it to when I go to the – if I say I need $50 or something and I don't

have any cash and I go to the ATM machine. I get my $50 and then they charge me

$3 or $2.50 or $2 or whatever. Just for the pleasure of being able to stick my

card in that machine, the bank is going to take $2 or $3 off me because I used

the machine.

In a very simplistic analogy what we're saying is we went out and we are

borrowing $3 billion, albeit it's a huge number, I get that, and the fees,

whether they be just from the banks or the lawyers or everybody else, we're

going to pay $19 million, estimated, just for sticking my card in the machine –

again, using that analogy. I'm right in saying that, am I?

MS. HANRAHAN:

You are. We make an assumption for budget purposes.

MR. LANE:

Wow!

MS. HANRAHAN:

We assume the longest term debt we have now is 30 years, which is the most

expensive from a commission or fee perspective because you look at the period of

time. We always assume, I guess, the worst case scenario and our preference for

30-year debt with a rate of interest, that's what you'd want.

In '19-'20, our average age length of debt was 18 years. If '19 was this year,

we might have spent 14, but, yes, there's definitely – and, in some cases, you

can see here when the interest rates in the market go down, the Bank of Canada

is helping provinces and all those things come through, we actually did well. I

don't think there have been many years in the past where you would have seen the

revenue outstrip the expense from a net perspective, but, generally, yeah, that

is the cost of issuing debt. It's not the interest on the debt; it's the cost of

issuing the debt.

MR. LANE:

Do you know who's doing well? The banks and the lawyers, that's who's doing

well.

MS. COADY:

If I may, I just want to draw your attention to the Actuals for last year.

There's puts and takes in this, too, just so you know. We might come back next

year with Actuals that are much lower than this.

MR. LANE:

I understand that.

MS. COADY:

We have to do an appropriation for that amount.

MR. LANE:

I understand that this is just an estimate. It's like every estimate in this

book, you're estimating and then next year it will be – I'm not being critical

of the government or anybody else. I'm being critical of the banks, quite

frankly. I think it's highway robbery. It's unbelievable actually.

Anyway, it's just that charge on the bank card to a totally different extreme

that I don't think the average person would ever – if you were to tell the

average person on the street this, I would say that they would say what? Really?

Are you kidding me? That's just my take on it. It's good to know. Good for

chatting at the coffee shop, for sure.

Federal support, I just want to get my head around that. This may have been

asked but, again, I just want to clarify it. We would not have been able to

borrow money, or so we were told, that we did borrow already, the $2 billion,

had the Bank of Canada not stepped in. I think that's what was said or something

to that point. We would not be able to borrow money on our own, I think, is the

impression that was given.

MS. COADY:

If I may.

MR. LANE:

Yes.

MS. COADY:

At the time –

MR. LANE:

At the time.

MS. COADY:

–I think it was being pointed out that there were some difficulties in the

market and our premier, at the time, wrote a letter to the federal government

talking about that.

MR. LANE:

That's right.

MS. COADY:

But I can say, at the time, there were challenges in the market across the

spectre, that's why the Bank of Canada came in.

MR. LANE:

I understand that.

MS. COADY:

It wasn't specifically for Newfoundland and Labrador. It was more the Bank of

Canada came in to boost up the marketplace at the time.

MR. LANE:

Okay, all right. Well, then, that leads me to another question.

Had the Bank of Canada –

MS. COADY:

I just want to make sure my officials – that's fair?

Maybe Denise …

MR. LANE:

Okay.

MS. HANRAHAN:

At the time, which was early March, mid-March, our borrowing strategy has a

whole bunch of pieces to it. We have long-term debt, we have short-term debt, we

have overnight cash balances, we have revenues coming in and we have expenses

going out.

MR. LANE:

Yeah.

MS. HANRAHAN:

Of course, every year, in March, you have probably the most expenses going out

because people are getting year-end invoices going out in March and April. You

probably have the least, in some regard, revenue coming in because you're

waiting until March 31 or they're waiting until April 1 to pay. It's just the

normal year-end cutover things.

For us, as officials, from an abundance of caution, we watch our cash on a daily

basis. We would have been anticipating every day: Oh, this is going to come in,

this is going to go out. We would have been anticipating doing T-bills and we

would have had our borrowing program finished for the year, so we were waiting

for April to get a new loan bill to kind of wait for the – so you're

(inaudible).

It just was very unfortunate that by the middle of March we realized that even

the short-term market was going: We don't know what this COVID-oil world looks

like. So everybody kind of stopped spinning. As officials, we had no idea how

long or how short it would last. We always would advise that if this was to

continue for a period of time, of weeks, these are some of the other tools in

our borrowing tool box we would have to use, such as the line of credit, for

example.

It never came to that because very quickly the short-term market got more

confidence because of some of the federal government responses.

MR. LANE:

Mm-hmm.

MS. HANRAHAN:

So as long as I can do short-term money, I have access and then I can go do

long-term money, and that's kind of what happened there. They did do some

supports. They supported the banks and the market in the short term. Then they

came out with their bigger program and that helped us with any debt under 10

years and we got some better spreads on that. But they really haven't put their

hand in any of our 30-year length. Our average length last year of debt was 18

years, so we did a tremendous amount on our own. But the markets in the world

really kind of almost stopped spinning for a period of time.

MR. LANE:

I totally understand and appreciate that.

I guess, where I'm going, I'm just trying to understand because I'm trying to

get answers for the average person, right? It's fine for us to be in here and we

can have these discussions, but the average person on the street who comes to

me, constituents of mine, are asking me things and they have impressions of how

these things work and what things mean and there are mixed messages. Then,

world put on it, so you don't know.

The bottom line is this: If the federal government had not have stepped in when

they did – not for Newfoundland but for the whole country, as you say, and the

whole world is in turmoil and I get all that – would we have had the ability, as

a province, to borrow and pay our bills if they hadn't have stepped in? Question

one. Question two: When we borrow – and I think the Bank of Canada is still in,

but if they stepped out tomorrow for next year, would we still be able to borrow

on our own or do we still need their backing?

MS. COADY:

I'm going to say this: It might have cost us a little bit more money. That would

be the impact.

When the Bank of Canada came in, of course, they got more response out of the

market; the market settled down a little bit and then we were able to get

reasonable credit at reasonable cost. I think we would have been able to place

on the market – I'm seeing my deputy minister nodding her head fervently – but

it would have been more expensive and it would have been very costly.

The help of the federal government – we are a part of a nation; we are part of a

country and that is a strength of that country.

MR. LANE:

Which is great, I understand.

MS. COADY:

Obviously we want to hear from the deputy minister on this as well.

MS. HANRAHAN:

Yes, we are very, I will say, aggressive when it comes to trying to get the most

efficient and effective borrowing we can do.

When the upheaval of March happened – the minister is absolutely correct: You

can always borrow; it's a question of how much are you willing to pay. For us it

was question of when do we want to start pulling the other levers. As we talked

about, for example, we had an appropriation to go international from a borrowing

perspective. That's as much of a check on our domestic market as anything else.

If I can't get it in the domestic market at a rate that we feel is reasonable,

then I'm going to go somewhere else.

The challenge back then was how fast I could get registered, how fast I could do

a deal in Europe and those types of things. It's a conjecture question, I guess,

what would have happened if the Bank of Canada hadn't supported the banking

industry. I think the entire country would have had that issue, from that

perspective. We weren't the only ones there. However, I will say that we would

have then utilized other tools. For example, we have an approved, existing line

of credit – whether we could have increased that line of credit, how long that

instability would have happened?

We did not tap into, for example, the bank accounts in our agencies, boards and

commissions or their lines of credit. We didn't slow down bill payments. We

didn't do the normal things a normal person would do when they suddenly find out

that they couldn't get their credit card. We didn't go into our savings

accounts; we didn't do all the other things. If the spin had lasted longer – and

to be fair, it lasted days – it felt like months and hours but it was probably

literally days.

Let's be honest: We just didn't want to pay what was being told we were going to

be charged. Somewhere in Toronto there is a picture of me – I know it is – on a

bank floor somewhere with darts in it, because we weren't willing to pay in some

cases what people wanted. So we found alternative methods of funding. That's

really what you're seeing going on here.

CHAIR:

Okay, Ms. Coffin.

Your time is expired, Mr. Lane.

MS. COFFIN:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

Mr. Parrott's already said there are no questions he has left in this –

MR. PARROTT:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

Oh, you do in this section? Okay. Sorry, Mr. Parrott.

MR. PARROTT:

Just curious, year to date, 2021, how much has the province paid to issue debt?

MS. COADY:

In total?

MR. PARROTT:

Yeah.

MS. COADY:

Do you have the total figure?

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COADY:

We can get that for you. We just don't have it in front of us because we're

doing Estimates.

MR. PARROTT:

Okay, I'd like to have it. That's good.

CHAIR:

That's good?

Okay, Ms. Coffin, anything left in this section?

MS. COFFIN:

Oh, yes.

CHAIR:

Okay.

MS. COFFIN:

This is the first –

MS. COADY:

This is your Christmas Day.

MS. COFFIN:

Kind of. Budget day is pretty exciting.

I just need a little bit of clarification on your response to the last question.

Am I interpreting it correctly when you say you are going to task Dame Greene

with addressing our fiscal flexibility? I mean, this is an issue that has been

going on for 10 years. Flexibility is, again, where government can meet rising

commitments by expanding revenues or increasing debt. When I asked then, I think

you had said she would be –

MS. COADY:

I can't really quite recall what I had said. I said that part of the solutions

that I see coming forward are some of these bold ideas that the task force will

certainly advise government on. That's part of our overall looking at how do we

address the structural challenges. I can't recall my exact words a half an hour

ago, but I do see it as part of the solution for how we address some of the

challenges that we have in the province.

MS. COFFIN:

Sustainability, which is one of the other criteria by which the Auditor General

evaluates these things, is whether a government is living within its means. It's

measured on annual surpluses or deficits, surplus or deficit as a percentage of

gross domestic product, net debt, net debt per capita, and net debt as a

percentage of gross domestic product. All of these are trending in the absolute

wrong direction and have been for quite some time.

I guess the follow-up to that would be the new task force on economic recovery

would also be expected to somehow maybe craft some solutions to address

sustainability?

MS. COADY:

I don't want us to misinterpret by putting words in each other's –

MS. COFFIN:

Which is why I'm asking.

MS. COADY:

Yes, that's right.

Again, we're way off Estimates, so I will say that.

I will say that I think it's very important that government – and this is my own

opinion at this point – needs to get its structural financial house in order;

that we have to find important ways and better ways of both growing our economy

– because I think that's a very important part of it – diversifying our economy

but also addressing some of the structural challenges that we've had for a very

long time.

I think it's incumbent upon all of us to start thinking about how do we do that.

Dame Greene will certainly inform government on some of her thinking and her

task force's thinking of this. The Minister of Health, for example, will be

setting up for a 10-year health accord. That will inform that conversation.

There will be other ways and means for people to interact; to give big, bold

ideas of how we continue to reimagine government services, how we continue to

grow our economy, how we continue to ensure vibrancy in Newfoundland and

Labrador. I think it speaks to what the Auditor General has said.

MS. COFFIN:

That's going to be some interesting conversations as we move into that exercise,

I'm sure.

I think that may be all of my questions in this part. Vulnerability I think will

be more appropriately addressed when we get to Finance in itself and all of the

other things here.

Had we already spoken to Professional Services in General Expenses, 1.4.02?

Professional Services there did drop a fair bit. Was that as a result of the

dartboard exercise?

MS. COADY:

Go ahead if you have it there.

MS. HANRAHAN:

Somewhere in Toronto now is printing the picture, if they didn't have it before.

I apologize to my colleagues. They have been fantabulous to us in supporting our

borrowing as they always are, and we have really good relationships. I just

think I need to say that because I have good Catholic guilt over here right now.

Yes, that's all part of that same issue. Just being honest.

MS. COFFIN:

Good on you, because you're probably not doing a good job unless you're ticking

at least one person off, right?

MS. HANRAHAN:

Oh, well, I'm doing a fabulous job on a daily rate.

MS. COFFIN:

Way to go. Lovely.

MS. COADY:

But I will add: She does it very professionally and very well, so it doesn't

hurt as much.

MS. COFFIN:

I was not questioning that at all. In fact, I am very admiring of her

professionalism, so thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay, Mr. Lane.

MR. LANE:

I just want to pick up on where I left off, actually.

First of all, on the dartboard piece, don't worry about it. I can guarantee you,

my face is on a few dartboards; probably at a convention this weekend. When was

your convention? I'm sure it was on that one, too. Anyway, that's all good,

that's all good. I don't care.

Again, just to try to use a common-day analogy. What I think I heard you say –

I'm not putting words in your mouth, but I'm trying to use an easy-to-understand

analogy – based on the situation that we were in, the world was in, the country

was in and everything else, you're saying we could have gotten the money on our

own, but to make the analogy, we couldn't go to Scotiabank, so we would have to

go to easy loan to get it at a much higher rate.

Is that a fair analogy; just putting it in layman's terms?

MS. HANRAHAN:

I would say no.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

MS. HANRAHAN:

Because, in fairness, all of our banking syndicate would have absolutely given

it to us, based on investors in the market.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

MS. HANRAHAN:

Because really it's about the investors and what they're willing to pay as a

cost –

MR. LANE:

Okay.

MS. HANRAHAN:

– because what they're really charging for is risk.

MR. LANE:

Yeah.

MS. HANRAHAN:

So if they assess the risk higher, they want more money. Our question would have

been: How much were we willing to pay for that risk?

MR. LANE:

Yeah.

MS. HANRAHAN:

So we did have to pay more in some cases. In fairness, we've had investors that

have stuck with this province from a bond-support perspective for a long, long

time. We had no problem probably paying extra fees to them in a risky

environment because, in fairness, that's what you needed to do. We've got a lot

of people that have invested a lot of money for 30-year tranches at a time. But

if the Bank of Nova Scotia couldn't give it to us at a certain rate, we would

wait a few minutes to see if the rate got a little bit better, as they worked

with us to get it out of the market. I don't think we were ever in the world of

an easy-loan logic.

MR. LANE:

Easy loan. Okay.

MS. HANRAHAN:

Really, we're talking about how aggressive we were to get 2.68 per cent rather

than 2.75 per cent.

MR. LANE:

Yeah, okay.

Listen, I appreciate that and I'm just trying to put it into layman's terms for

people. Because I can tell you, I can say this, the perception – and we know

perception can be reality in the public, right? The perception amongst an awful

lot of people was that's where we were. If the feds didn't step in – you go out

and you go up to Tim Hortons and you ask people, a lot of people would say: If

the feds didn't step in, we would have been bankrupt, insolvent, whatever. I

know we're a part of a country and that's not going to happen, but that's the

perception that people have of that letter that the premier wrote and that's how

bad off we were. People were not going to get paid if the feds hadn't stepped

in.

What you're saying is that's not accurate and we still could have gotten money.

The feds stepped in, not just for us but for the whole country during a

turbulent time. If COVID – knock on wood – goes away and next year comes around,

the feds wouldn't need to step in and we should be fine. Is that fair to say?

MS. HANRAHAN:

I think the world has adjusted to COVID from a market perspective. We also had

oil, so there was another layer for us. None of us know what we don't know, but

we did have the benefit of a federal government and the Bank of Canada. We did

have lower interest rates. We did have a lot of things happening that were

supportive of us.

I guess, in fairness, you don't know it's to the point where you can't, until

you've used all your levers. No, we did not use all our levers.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

Thank you, I really do appreciate that.

Minister, a final question from me and we can move on. Some of these questions

it's hard to know where they really fit because they're not under a certain

category.

Just a general commentary. I, as I'm sure you and everybody else in this

province, am very concerned about our huge debt, our year-over-year deficits.

Something has to change. It keeps being said year over year, but, generally, it

hasn't changed to a great degree. Holding the line is fine but holding the line

while the debt is still there, it's still growing and we're still borrowing,

it's still an issue.

Now, on top of that, we're into a situation with COVID-19, CERB got a lot of

people through. CERB is now going to be dissipating. I know that there are some

EI enhancements and so on that, hopefully, will address a lot of people.

We've seen what's happening with our offshore oil and the projects like Husky

and all the oil workers now that are going to be out of work. A lot of those

people are just hanging on by their fingernails as it is, because while CERB for

some people was a total replacement of their wages; for some they're better off

and some they're not doing too bad. CERB for somebody who's working in a

high-paying job is really a drop in the bucket in terms of their expenses, their

mortgage and everything else and savings are done and now we're into this.

I'm just wondering with all this here, there has to be some concern about –

things are possibly going to get worse not better in the backdrop of all this

unless there's going to be something that we're not aware of, maybe something

with the federal government to step in and try to help us out. I know the

equalization conversation is over for another two or three years, but we've

heard talks of conversations with Ottawa to try to help us out.

I know there's only so much you can say, but are there still active discussions

on ways to tangibly help dig us out of the mess that we're in with the federal

government, beyond rate mitigation?

MS. COADY:

Thank you for that.

A lot of what you said is both concerning, obviously, for all of us and

concerning especially for the men and women who work in the oil and gas industry

and who are having very, very difficult times right now. The value of our oil

industry can't be overstated, nor can it be easily replaced. I keep saying that

for people to understand how important that industry is to the province and to

the people who work in the industry and all the other community support

organizations that bring value.

So, yes, there are on-going conversations with the federal government, not just

from Newfoundland and Labrador's perspective but across the country. If you

look, COVID has had a major impact on all of our provinces. Alberta, I think,

has a $22-billion deficit. Let alone our $16-billion debt, they have a

$22-billion deficit. There are a lot of challenges across the country, a lot of

challenges across the globe and Newfoundland and Labrador is not unique in that.

That's why the budget spoke to supports for small business, money for

technology, money even for the oil and gas industry in terms of trying to

encourage our exploration activity offshore, supports for aquaculture,

fisheries, forestry and many, many others; an understanding and recognition that

we need to have that kind of growth in our economy as well.

I will say that, yes, we're still talking to the federal government and working

with the federal government. They have come forward with a lot of supports, as

you're well aware, over the last six months in particular. We're talking to them

about the Fiscal Stabilization fund, we're talking to them about supports for

various sectors and some big, bold ideas on how we can manage our way through

this.

MR. LANE:

Thank you.

I hope there are some more big announcements coming. Stay tuned, eh?

Thank you, Minister.

CHAIR:

I think that's all the questions we have for this section. I'll ask the Clerk to

call the subheads for 1.1.01 to 1.4.02.

CLERK:

1.1.01 to 1.4.02 inclusive.

CHAIR:

1.1.01 to 1.4.02 inclusive.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.4.02 carried.

CLERK:

2.1.01 to 2.2.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

2.1.01 to 2.2.01 inclusive.

I'd ask Mr. Parrott if he has any questions on that section. Mr. Parrott.

MR. PARROTT:

Uniformed Services Pension Plan is one of the only ones which has not gone

through a pension reform process. Are there any plans to reform this pension

plan?

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much. That would be under Treasury Board now or – yes, that would

be under Treasury Board at this point. So I would suggest you might want to

discuss it during that process.

MR. PARROTT:

Okay.

2.1.01: Can the minister please explain where the Revenue comes from in that

line?

MS. COADY:

You're talking about related revenues, the decrease.

MR. PARROTT:

Yeah.

MS. COADY:

Perhaps I'll turn it to you, Denise, on that particular one. That's just the

employee share and it's changed over years, so perhaps you would like to just

discuss that.

MS. HANRAHAN:

If any of the people that we pay pensions for can get reimbursed from somewhere

else, this is the revenue for that. In some cases that would be charging person

off, for example, if they're reimbursed under WorkplaceNL. So if a staff person

works in the review division, which is fully paid for by WorkplaceNL, then we

would get back from them as well their portion of the benefits. This is where

you see their portion of pension. You'd see their portion of the employer cost

for EI and CPP, those premiums, under Treasury Board Support. This is us getting

back what we can so