PDF Version

October 19, 2020

RESOURCE COMMITTEE

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

Pleasantville, substitutes for Pam Parsons, MHA for Harbour Grace - Port de

Grave.

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

Clair, substitutes for Sherri Gambin-Walsh, MHA for Placentia - St. Mary's.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Alison Coffin, MHA for St. John's East - Quidi

Vidi, substitutes for Jordan Brown, MHA for Labrador West.

The Committee met at 9:07 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Mitchelmore):

Good morning, everyone.

We'll start the Estimates meeting for Immigration, Skills and Labour.

Just before we turn things over to Minister Byrne for any introductory remarks,

I'll just remind everyone, for the purposes of

Hansard , that when you speak to

identify yourself and wait for the light before you speak. If you need to, if

the light is not coming on, just wave. This is being recorded. It's not being

webcast, but the Broadcast is certainly watching the proceedings this morning.

If you're going to be moving around the Chamber you need to wear your mask as

part of our COVID policy.

With that, I would like to ask Members of the Committee and the minister to

introduce his team.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Delighted to be here, and thank you for everyone assembled. I'll begin by

allowing each and every member of the Immigration, Skills and Labour team to

self-introduce.

I am Gerry Byrne, Minister of Immigration, Skills and Labour, and a minister who

also is responsible for the reporting of WorkplaceNL. This is an autonomous

agency, of course. I'll ask for leave in a minute if Workplace Health, Safety

and Compensation Review, and elements thereof, could be heard first.

With that said, thank you very much. I'll turn it over now to start with Fiona

Langor.

CHAIR:

Can we get Fiona Langor? She's sitting in the Minister of Education's chair. If

we could get the light on. In the Minister of Education's seat, could we get the

light for introductions?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

Oh, it's not working, okay. The light is not working in that chair.

MS. LANGOR:

Good morning.

Fiona Langor, Deputy Minister.

CHAIR:

Can we get the light on for the Justice and Public Safety chair?

CLERK (Jerrett):

They're having technical issues. He's wondering if you could take a short

recess.

CHAIR:

Okay.

We're having technical issues, so we'll recess for five minutes.

Recess

CHAIR:

Thank you, everyone.

It's now 9:30. We'll convene our Estimates Committee meeting for Immigration,

Skills and Labour. My apologies for the technical issues we had earlier, but we

will go right into introductions.

Minister Byrne, you had introduced yourself.

MR. BYRNE:

Yes.

CHAIR:

Do you want to take things away to hand off to your staff?

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The motto on the coat of arms of the Department of Immigration, Skills and

Labour reads: Adversity meets with resiliency. We're experiencing that very same

motto today, consistent with our approach.

I think we should introduce members of the executive team of Immigration, Skills

and Labour, Mr. Chair. Again, I am Gerry Byrne, Minister of Immigration, Skills

and Labour and also minister who is responsible for the reporting of workplace

health and safety, WorkplaceNL.

With that said, I don't know if we should move laterally. Fiona Langor, our

deputy minister, has moved to meet the microphone challenge in the back of me;

Dana Spurrell is to my immediate left. Should we move that way?

CHAIR:

We can go to the left, yes.

MS. SPURRELL:

Dana Spurrell, Assistant Deputy Minister of Immigration, Workforce Development

and Labour.

Good morning.

MR. GEORGE:

Bradley George, I'm the minister's Executive Assistant.

CHAIR:

We'll go to Minister Loveless's desk if the light will come on.

MS. LANGOR:

Fiona Langor, Deputy Minister.

MR. MAVIN:

Good morning.

Walt Mavin, Assistant Deputy Minister of Employment, Skills and Regional

Services.

MR. CEJ:

Good morning.

Remzi Cej, Director of the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism.

MS. HOWE:

Deanne Howe, Manager of Operations with the Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Review Division.

MR. FRENCH:

Steve French, Departmental Controller.

MS. DUNPHY:

Debbie Dunphy, Assistant Deputy Minister of Corporate Services and Policy.

MS. MUNDON:

Tansy Mundon, Director of Communications.

MS. KING:

Cynthia King, Director of Income Support.

CHAIR:

Now we'll move to Mr. Dinn.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Paul Dinn, Member for Topsail - Paradise.

CHAIR:

Ms. Coffin.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you.

Alison Coffin, Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi and Leader of the New

Democratic Party.

MS. DEMPSTER:

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

MR. DAVIS:

Bernard Davis, Minister of – I was going to say advanced education, skills and

labour but that's in a previous life – Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

I'm happy to be here today.

MR. TRIMPER:

Perry Trimper, MHA for Lake Melville.

MS. HALEY:

Carol Anne Haley, MHA for Burin - Grand Bank.

MR. PARDY:

Craig Pardy, MHA, District of Bonavista. I'm here as an observer.

MR. RUSSELL:

Brad Russell, staff with the Office of the Official Opposition.

MR. FLEMING:

Scott Fleming, Researcher, Third Party caucus office.

CHAIR:

Okay, I thank everybody for convening this morning. During the recess we had

discussed that we would start with subhead 6.1.01, Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Review.

I ask the Clerk to call the subhead.

CLERK:

6.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 6.1.01 carry?

I move to Mr. Dinn for his line of questioning.

MR. P. DINN:

This should be quick; I won't keep you here long.

Starting first with Salaries, I see that there was approximately $65,000 less

spent. Can you explain the decrease in Salaries?

MS. HOWE:

Sorry (inaudible) question.

MR. DINN:

Approximately $65,000 less was spent last year. That was less than what was

budgeted in actuals.

CHAIR:

We go to Deanne Howe, if we could have her light.

When you speak, if you could say your name just for

Hansard purposes.

MS. HOWE:

That was due to a couple of vacancies we had throughout the year and a delay in

some of the recruiting processes.

MR. DINN:

Thank you.

Deanne, you're going to get a quick number of questions there and probably

similar answers.

MS. HOWE:

Sure.

MR. DINN:

Looking at Transportation and Communications, again, there was a substantial

reduction there; in fact, less than half was spent. Can you explain that as

well?

MS. HOWE:

Yes, much of our travel and communications is done near the end of the year. We

don't do a lot of travel in January and February, so March is a significant

travel month for us. We had scheduled for all four full-time review

commissioners to be on the road. Because of a combination of the significant

weather event we had in late February and then COVID, it suspended travel at

that time.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Under Professional Services, we're looking at a similar reduction of about

$61,000 compared to last year.

MS. HOWE:

In the past year, the $75,000 allows for the appointment of part-time review

commissioners. Last year, there were three, in total, full-time review

commissioners appointed. We had one part-time review commissioner and three

vacancies. The $75,000 allows for the appointment of either a full-time or

additional part-time review commissioners.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Moving right along, Purchased Services: Again, you had budgeted $45,000 last

year and the actuals were a little over $12,000. Can you explain that

discrepancy?

MS. HOWE:

We had less transcription services than we had anticipated and we also had much

less hotel rooms due to the slowdown due to COVID and the suspension of travel.

The bookings for rooms out of town, we travel a lot out of the regions in the

month of March, and that did not happen due to COVID.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Looking at Property, Furnishings and Equipment, I'm seeing approximately $2,300

less spent. Again, an explanation for that, please.

MS. HOWE:

That was due to many items being on back order when COVID occurred. There were a

lot of things on order and they didn't come in until the new fiscal year.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

You mentioned in some of your responses you talked to full-time commissioners,

you had four. How are we doing with the number of commissioners when I think the

full complement would be about approximately seven?

MS. HOWE:

The legislation allows up to seven, yes.

MR. P. DINN:

What's the breakdown right now of our –?

MS. HOWE:

Right now we have a full-time chief and three full-time review commissioners.

MR. P. DINN:

No part-time currently?

MS. HOWE:

No part-timers right now.

MR. P. DINN:

How many appeals do we have in the system currently?

MS. HOWE:

Excuse me?

MR. P. DINN:

How many appeals do we have in the system currently?

MS. HOWE:

We have 94 cases waiting to be scheduled right now. That doesn't include the

number that's waiting on a decision and that have already been heard, et cetera.

MR. P. DINN:

So 94 cases, does that equate to 94 people or is there a difference in the

number of people involved?

MS. HOWE:

Typically an applicant is either a worker or an employer.

MR. P. DINN:

Can we get a breakdown of that?

MS. HOWE:

It's usually about 80 per cent workers, anywhere from 80 to 90 per cent in any

given year, and 10 to 20 per cent employer applicants.

MR. P. DINN:

All right, thank you.

With 94 cases in the system, if a worker filed an appeal today how long would he

or she expect, before a hearing, to wait?

MS. HOWE:

Provided all parties were available and there were no issues with the case,

you're looking at about five months, five to six months. Right now we're

scheduling cases that came in in May. We do have cases that are older than that,

but any one before that has been offered a date or we've attempted to reach

them.

MR. P. DINN:

Just a question for clarification: Is that the normal waiting period, or is it

exacerbated by COVID?

MS. HOWE:

That's actually better than where we have been. Last year this time we had

almost 200 cases waiting to be heard and now we're down to 94 cases waiting to

be heard. That is a direct reflection of having full-time review commissioners.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

How many hearings would you have in a month normally?

MS. HOWE:

We typically

schedule anywhere from 18 to 24 hearings a month. We do have a

certain number of postponements every month, so we typically tend to end up with

around 18.

MR. P. DINN:

I have, I guess, one last question here for the minister, actually. It's related

to the injured workers' fund at WorkplaceNL. Can you tell me if there has been

any impact on that fund due to the downturn in the markets?

MR. BYRNE:

I'm not aware of that answer. I'll ask (inaudible). Do you have additional

intelligence you would like to offer?

MS. HOWE:

My understanding, just from the annual reporting, is that it has not been

impacted. But that would be more of a question for WorkplaceNL, and not us.

MR. P. DINN:

I think Debbie was going to add to that as well.

MS. DUNPHY:

Yes, Minister, WorkplaceNL operates on a calendar year. They did recently table

an annual report. The annual report to the end of 2019, obviously, there was no

impact. I think, like most, they're still trying to weigh out the various

impacts of COVID on the injury fund, certainly not to a degree where it would be

below the shareholder agreement amount, percentage funded. There will likely be

some impact, but I think it would be minimal and I think they have seen an

improvement since March.

MR. P. DINN:

With the annual report, I assume that's a public document?

MS. DUNPHY:

That's been tabled, yes.

MR. P. DINN:

Secondly, when does that come out? How soon after the end of the year do we see

those reports?

MS. DUNPHY:

Normally it would be tabled in June, according to the legislation; however,

there was an exemption under the temporary variance legislation to extend that

deadline to the end of September. So it has been tabled.

MR. P. DINN:

Okay, thank you.

I'm done for this section.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Dinn, for your questions.

I'll move to Ms. Coffin.

MS. COFFIN:

Lovely, thank you.

You've asked all the numbers questions, but that's okay because economics is

less about numbers and more about policy and allocation of resources.

I guess the thing that comes to top of mind here would be the independent review

of the workers health, compensation act. Can you give us an update on the

progress? I'm looking at the website; I notice that it's in two phases right

now. Have you completed both of them? Are both ongoing? Give me a sense of what

you're hearing from the review and where we are with it and what we can expect

to see in the next little while.

CHAIR:

Minister Byrne.

MR. BYRNE:

There is an ongoing statutory review of the workplace health and safety. The

review paused, briefly, amid the global pandemic. That's to say that the review

did not pause but the consultation process did pause. The consultation process

resumed. There was in-person sessions held this fall. I believe we just passed

the deadline for written submissions last week and the review committee is now,

the panel is now assembling their inputs, their consultations and will be making

recommendations accordingly.

One of the things, it is required for them to meet or to provide that input

before the year-end. However, one complicating factor is any considerations, any

recommendations that they make has to receive the input of an actuary to

determine costs, what would be the consequence. My understanding is that the

review itself is working away. It's working well, despite the global pandemic.

It's meeting its targets and hopefully we will be able to report before

year-end.

MS. COFFIN:

Are you doing two phases? I noticed that on the website it directs you, say, the

first phase – and this is from, I guessing it's 2012, I'm not sure if the

website is particularly clear about this. The first phase was supposed to be a

comprehensive examination of the act to identify areas for improvement and

modernization. Then the second phase was consulting the system, focusing on

maximum compensable assessable earnings, labour market re-entry, medical

management, the role of stakeholders, occupational disease and financial

sustainability.

Are you working on both of those, or is the focus just on one or is the focus

slightly different than what I'm seeing here on the website? This is the website

where I'm into ISL, labour, working together and drop-down menu there. It's the

link from employees and employers.

CHAIR:

Minister Byrne.

MR. BYRNE:

The hon. Member asked some history, back to 2012, so I'll –

MS. COFFIN:

I'm just wondering if the current review is doing the same thing as the former

review. If so, where are we in both of them?

MR. BYRNE:

Not knowing the previous history, I'll ask either Fiona Langor or Debbie Dunphy.

Debbie, I think you may be best equipped.

CHAIR:

Debbie Dunphy.

MS. DUNPHY:

The current review had a terms of reference that highlighted three areas that

we've asked the committee to look at. There was significant work from the 2013

review that's already been implemented. This statutory review was focusing more

on the three areas that were a part of the terms of reference. As well, if

anyone brought forward issues to the committee, certainly the committee could

take those concerns and include it in their report.

MS. COFFIN:

Where would I find those terms of reference? I've pulled up both the

Immigration, Skills and Labour website as well as the Workplace Health and

Safety website and I don't see the review in either one of them.

MS. DUNPHY:

If you look on the EngageNL website –

MS. COFFIN:

Okay.

MS. DUNPHY:

– there would be like a discussion document. The themes were there. The themes

were also included when we announced the committee. If you like, I can certainly

send you the links after.

MS. COFFIN:

That'd be lovely. Thank you.

A couple of more questions now. Can I have a breakdown of the number of people

who are receiving workers' compensation by industry, please?

MS. DUNPHY:

That will have to be something we can certainly provide to you after. I don't

have that here.

MS. COFFIN:

No problem. That would be lovely to see.

MS. DUNPHY:

The number receiving workers' compensation benefits by industry.

MS. COFFIN:

By industry.

MS. DUNPHY:

Okay.

MS. COFFIN:

As narrow as you find that, that would be just lovely. That'll give us some

sense of where we have problem industries. That would be great.

Do you also have any records of people who leave workers' compensation? I know

you would leave for a variety of reasons. Some people will come on, they're

receiving workers' compensation until they are rehabilitated, or until they age

out, or until they are re-skilled to find other jobs.

Do you have any sense of the number of people, the flow of people in and out and

why they are leaving? So whether they've been retrained or they're better and

they can go back to the regular job, or if they've just aged out and they're

moving into a retirement package. Can you do that?

MS. DUNPHY:

Again, yeah, we can certainly get that information from WorkplaceNL.

MS. COFFIN:

Super. Can that be by gender as well?

MS. DUNPHY:

I can ask.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, thank you.

A couple of other quick questions here, one of which is: Can I have a copy of

the minister's briefing booklet, please?

MS. DUNPHY:

Oh, certainly.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you very much.

MS. DUNPHY:

We have copies for both sides.

MS. COFFIN:

Lovely, thank you.

Do you have a sense of what your attrition is under workers' compensation? I

know that most government departments have been tasked with an attrition target.

MS. DUNPHY:

Yes. Top of mind, I don't have it, but I do know they have eliminated some

positions through attrition. I can certainly get that information for you.

MS. COFFIN:

Lovely. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

MS. DUNPHY:

Again, anything, Ms. Coffin, we'll provide to the full Committee.

MS. COFFIN:

Oh, absolutely. That's what public transparency and public accountability are

all about. Thank you very much.

I'm not sure if my colleague, Mr. Dinn – the other Mr. Dinn – has any questions.

No?

Okay, thank you.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Ms. Coffin.

Mr. Dinn, did you have any further questions?

MR. P. DINN:

This Mr. Dinn?

CHAIR:

Yes, Mr. Paul Dinn, under

section 6.1.01.

MR. P. DINN:

No, I'm good for now. Thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Shall 6.1.01 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Against?

Carried.

On motion, subhead 6.1.01 carried.

CHAIR:

I'll ask the Clerk to call the first subhead.

CLERK:

1.1.01 to 1.2.03 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.03 inclusive carry?

Mr. Paul Dinn.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, running down through some quick figures here. Looking at Transportation

and Communications, I note that in a previous year, back in 2018-19, there was

about $36,000 spent. We budgeted a little over $54,000 this past year but,

again, spent just above $40,000. Can you explain the money that wasn't utilized

there?

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the realities of living in a province like ours is that we have Members

and ministers that live in different regions of the province. We were blessed

with a – well, he's gone now. We were cursed with a minister from St. John's.

Bernie is gone.

The previous minister had lived in St. John's and, of course, the current

minister lives on the West Coast. Travel back and forth for departmental

business is sometimes affected by that, in either a positive or a negative way

in terms of the dollar value of travel. With that said, when Minister Davis was

the minister, obviously, his travel requirements were somewhat less.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

MR. J. DINN:

Mr. Chair, (inaudible).

MR. BYRNE:

Oh, I'll speak –

MR. J. DINN:

(Inaudible) through the speaker nor the earpiece.

MR. BYRNE:

I'll speak up too.

CHAIR:

I can ask the Clerk to see if we can get some support for the Member attending,

but if everybody could speak up a little, it would be helpful as well.

Mr. Paul Dinn.

MR. P. DINN:

Moving along there with the Minister's Office, I'm looking at less Supplies was

utilized than previously budgeted for. As well, there was a decrease, of course,

in Purchased Services. Can we get an explanation on those two items?

MR. BYRNE:

Yes, so in Supplies we're down by $924 from the fiscal year 2019-2020. There

were just lower than anticipated supply costs at that time. As well, some of the

supplies used in that particular year were held in inventory.

In terms of Purchased Services, the 2019-20 fiscal year actuals were down by

$3,083 from the 2019-2020 original budget. Copier expenses were lower in some

respects. There was also some – yes, that pretty well covers it.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Moving along to Executive Support, I'm looking at Salaries again. Last year,

there was about $150,000 more spent in Salaries as compared to what was

budgeted. Can we get an explanation there as well?

MR. BYRNE:

In Salaries for Executive Support, a couple of things here: There was an

executive position that had to be backfilled that was on extended leave. As

well, for the additional amount for 2020-21 there was additional funding added

to cover the 27th pay period.

MHA Dinn, you will probably hear this as a regular refrain during the course of

this morning's Estimates, about this 27th pay period. I'm going to ask either

Fiona or Debbie to just speak to the record as to what exactly is the 27th pay

period.

CHAIR:

Debbie Dunphy.

MS. DUNPHY:

Normally, in fiscal year, there are 26 pay periods. For 2021, the way the

calendar works, there are actually 27. There's an extra salary cost in all of

our activities for this year, only.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Moving down to Transportation and Communication, we're looking at last year

there was just short of $25,000 less spent. Can you explain that as well?

MR. BYRNE:

In Transportation and Communications, there were lower than anticipated travel

costs. Many meetings were held locally and the provincial election, which

occurred in June of that particular year, also impacted the propriety of travel

and consultations from an interdepartmental point of view. Many were either

postponed or cancelled as a result of the writ period.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Looking at Purchased Services, again, just short of $8,000 less spent there. Can

you explain that as well, please?

MR. BYRNE:

Again, this is a function of copiers and printing. Copier expenses were charged

to Administrative Support resulting in actuals including small expenditures such

as media monitoring and other things being down somewhat. As well, the copier

and printing budgets consolidated under Administrative Support functions, at

that point in time.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Looking at Operating Accounts: Operating Accounts in total, of course, was down

just shy of $33,000 spent compared to what was budgeted. In total, was COVID a

factor in that?

MR. BYRNE:

It would have been somewhat a factor. The majority of this decrease in fiscal

year 2019-2020 would have been under the Transportation and Communications

sections which we spoke about earlier. That was basically a function of, I

guess, in some respects partially a function of COVID but not a significant

impact as a result of COVID, given the fact that COVID occurred in the very end

of the fiscal year itself. This was really a function of the writ period and

other things.

MR. P. DINN:

One final question, I'm just noting with the Executive Support, with the

Salaries, there's a contractual position there of $103,843. Can you explain that

position?

MR. BYRNE:

I'm going to ask either Fiona or Debbie to …

MR. P. DINN:

Debbie is waving.

CHAIR:

Debbie Dunphy.

MS. DUNPHY:

We had a contractual position on our books, but this individual was actually

seconded to a federal agency and the salary was being 100 per cent reimbursed.

That arrangement actually concluded on the 9th of October, so that's no longer

now a filled position.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

I'm good, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Ms. Coffin.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you.

I think most of the numerical discrepancies have been addressed. I am noticing,

though, that – and this is some very rough math – even with the 27th pay period

in there, there doesn't seem to be any attrition in

section one.

Has that been embodied in the Estimates or has any attrition taken place there?

MS. DUNPHY:

In the Minister's Office or under Executive Support in '19-'20, we did not have

any attrition in those areas. We did have an admin support in the executive area

a couple of years ago. But in those two areas in particular, no, there's been no

attrition in the last year.

MS. COFFIN:

And none expected to be in this current year?

MS. DUNPHY:

What we will see this year, while not attrition, we will see a transfer of one

of the executive positions to the Department of Education under the new

structure.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay.

So that's not any attrition at all, that's across government departments, we're

MS. DUNPHY:

Correct.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, good enough.

Under 1.2.02, I note there are Grants and Subsidies: What are those for? And

bang on, $25,000 was budgeted and spent, and it is budgeted again.

MR. BYRNE:

Grants and Subsidies.

MS. COFFIN:

So it's 1.2 –

MS. DUNPHY:

Minister, if you wish, I can answer that one.

That's a grant to the Stella Burry, Stella's Circle.

MS. COFFIN:

Right.

MS. DUNPHY:

So it is $25,000 to one organization and it is every year.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, lovely.

That's grants for community agency, I guess, not agencies?

MS. DUNPHY:

Correct.

MS. COFFIN:

I'm just reading the heading there.

MS. DUNPHY:

Yeah, correct.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay.

How would someone go about applying for a grant under that?

MS. DUNPHY:

If you recall a couple of years ago, we undertook a pilot, I guess, to have

multi-year grants to organizations.

MS. COFFIN:

Yes.

MS. DUNPHY:

The way officials worked through this was certain departments took on certain

organizations. Stella's Circle happens to fall under us, so there's no program,

I don't think, associated with this in our department.

This is just one of the grants – we give a grant to Stella's Circle or Stella

Burry through some of our other program areas. This one in particular was

actually transferred from CSSD.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, thank you, and thank you for doing it. It is in St. John's East - Quidi

Vidi, so I'm delighted to hear that. But it's just funny to have a single grant

tucked in there and it –

MS. DUNPHY:

Right.

MS. COFFIN:

– doesn't seem to be attached to anything else.

Revenue - Provincial, $200,000, and we only got $17,000. What's the anticipated

revenue and why the gap?

CHAIR:

Minister Byrne.

MR. BYRNE:

So the amount of this revenue does vary from year to year. The provincial

revenue itself, if I understand it correctly, is funds that were disbursed in a

previous year or were awarded in a previous year but then not necessarily taken

in.

Debbie, would you like to highlight that?

CHAIR:

Debbie Dunphy.

MS. DUNPHY:

So in many of our programs there are grants issued to various community

organizations and employers and such throughout the year. If for some reason

they are unable to spend the fully amount sometimes, depending on the contracts,

they have to refund the money. Sometimes they can bring it forward or use it for

other purposes, but if they have to refund the money, it often happens in a

different fiscal year. If they return it to the department in a different fiscal

year, we can't re-spend it, it has to go into general revenue. That's what that

is.

So it's actually good news that the amount is low, because it means there are

less people or less organizations refunding grants or funding that we have

provided. But we do budget based on, I think, a four-year history. That is

generally what we've been receiving. So we continue to budget that amount.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, lovely, thank you. And that's a good way of capturing it; it just looks a

little funny here.

MS. DUNPHY:

It does.

MS. COFFIN:

Fair enough.

Okay, let's go on to 1.2.03, also, Grants and Subsidies here: What are those

for? That's 1.2.03, page 126, line 10.

MR. BYRNE:

So this is a program that's been around for many, many years. It's the ability

to be able to fund things which may not necessarily meet a specific criteria, as

I understand it. For example, this fund has provided assistance to the Council

of the Federation award for literacy awards, the Labrador West Employment

funds have been established or supported using this particular fund. I believe

it's been around for quite some time, but that's the function of this particular

program.

MS. COFFIN:

What's it called?

MR. BYRNE:

I don't know if it has a particular – it's miscellaneous grants, I believe.

MS. COFFIN:

How does one apply for such a thing?

MR. BYRNE:

A reference would be made by a client in the course of a project or initiative

they would like to establish. They would identify a particular need, and

departmental officers or others, if they cannot find a basis for existing

programming to be able to provide support, this could be referenced or referred

to this particular fund.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay. So it's really tucked away and it's for other things that don't really fit

into anything else. Say, for example, a stranger says: I want to do this

particular program and I need some funding. For them to access that money, they

would have to be brought into a system, have to consult with individuals, have

to be in another program and someone would say: Oh, nothing else covers this

particular expense that you need. Then they can reach into this Grants and

Subsidies and take some money out for that. Is that correct?

MR. BYRNE:

I don't know if that's always been the case in the past, as to whether or not it

was a program of always last resort, because that's really what I think you're

referencing. Sometimes it's just in terms of if there's an expediency, if

there's an immediate need that needs to be filled quickly.

Like I say, this has been a program that's not unknown to Members of the

Legislature. It's been around for quite some time. Normally, what it is, is to

be able to provide maximum flexibility, to be able to meet client needs when

they're established. In particular, if it does not appear readily apparent that

it can meet an existing program criteria or if speed is of essence or if the

amount itself is relatively small enough that the burden of paperwork, the red

tape so to speak, would impact the client negatively. That's the function of

this particular program, I believe.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay.

I wasn't implying that this was a last resort thing. It's an unnamed pot of

money that individuals are unsure how to access. I just wanted to get my head

around – there's a little pot of money here that doesn't have a label on it that

can be used for funding things that don't fit anywhere else. That's essentially

what this is?

MR. BYRNE:

I think, in a general sense, that's fair to say, yes.

MS. COFFIN:

All right. Good enough. I just wanted to get my head around what it was.

Revenue - Provincial: Is that another example of money that would have gone out

and then been not spent and come back again?

MR. BYRNE:

This particular line item is related to WorkplaceNL. There was a decrease to

invoice for services to WorkplaceNL. We have a working relationship with

WorkplaceNL to provide policy services and it did not get paid prior to before

March 31 of 2020. Again, it's the booking of that particular revenue.

Debbie Dunphy would you be able to just expand or to confirm what I just said?

MS. DUNPHY:

Minister, that's correct. We have a relationship with WorkplaceNL. For the

'19-'20 fiscal year, there was actually a refund that was sent to us from

WorkplaceNL related to an overpayment that they made to us. As you're aware, as

an employer we pay the full cost of WorkplaceNL. We don't pay the assessments,

so there was an overpayment. The $46,000 that's referenced there is actually

that refund, but normally what is in this line is the reimbursement that

WorkplaceNL pays us to help them with their policy, navigating the government

system.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, thank you.

May I have a list of the people who had received the Grants and Subsidies under

1.2.03? Can I have a list of the individuals who received those last year?

MR. BYRNE:

Absolutely.

MS. DUNPHY:

It will be included in the binder that we have for you.

MS. COFFIN:

Wonderful, thank you.

It's tricky when you don't have the binder. You can just kind of guess at some

of the questions.

Thank you very much, that's my questions for this section.

CHAIR:

Mr. Paul Dinn do you have questions on this section?

MR. P. DINN:

Yes I do, thank you.

I'll be quick. I'll cover some more of the dollar figures things. I think my

colleague here has asked a lot of the questions.

I'm looking at 1.2.02 the Salaries area, I note that in 2018-19, the Salaries

were around, just over $2 million, $2,195,900, then we budgeted for $2,134,700

and now we've dropped down in actuals in 2019 to just over $2.1 million. Can you

explain the decrease there and the increase then for the Estimates coming up?

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you.

We're dipping back into 2018, if I understand correctly?

MR. P. DINN:

Yes, Minister, I'm just trying to look at the trend there in terms of where it

was going. It's sort of been tailing off but now it's sort of going back up

again.

MR. BYRNE:

Sure. Well perhaps the best answer there may come from Debbie with the corporate

history there of 2018-19.

CHAIR:

Debbie Dunphy.

MS. DUNPHY:

Mr. Dinn, in 2019-20, we're down a little bit again. It's mostly recruitment,

you get vacancies and there's some recruitment. For '20-'21, the increase again,

most of that relates to the 27th pay period. There are approximately 40

positions in this activity, so the impact is fairly high.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

I'll continue to ask it –

MS. DUNPHY:

Absolutely.

MR. P. DINN:

– as we move along. Thank you.

I assume that also had an effect on the Employee Benefits, similarly? Or would

it? Because I see the Employee Benefits went down and are coming back up again.

MS. DUNPHY:

Minister Byrne, do you wish …?

MR. BYRNE:

No, no, you go ahead there, Debbie, you seem to …

MS. DUNPHY:

The Employee Benefits, in this instance, is not actually the employee benefits

related to payroll. This is the workers' compensation cost for the department.

There was a decrease and, as you can see, we have decreased our budget for

2020-21 as a result.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Looking at Transportation and Communications, we also saw a drop, there was

$16,000 less spent. Can I get an explanation there as well, please?

MS. DUNPHY:

Shall I carry on?

CHAIR:

Mr. Byrne.

MR. BYRNE:

I'll just pick up very quickly, but Debbie Dunphy is doing an excellent job of

the minutia of the figures.

With that said, in this particular case, there was travel for a director related

to audits that is not required in the fiscal year, and lower than anticipated

expenses related to postage were also incurred, so there was some reductions

there.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Looking at Purchased Services, we see a decrease there of about $56,000. Can I

have an explanation on that as well, please?

MR. BYRNE:

In this particular case, there was a new contract for banking fees that resulted

in significant savings, as well as there was a reduced usage of shredding

services. It's amazing how these things can add up. Those were the two most

significant causes of those reductions.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

I think my colleague next to me has already asked everything else, so I'm good.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Ms. Coffin, do you have further questions?

MS. COFFIN:

I'm good, thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

I will ask the Clerk to call this heading.

CLERK:

1.1.01 to 1.2.03 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.03 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.2.03 carried.

CHAIR:

I will ask the Clerk to call

section two.

CLERK:

2.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.01 carry?

Mr. Paul Dinn.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, looking at the Salaries under Client Services, I hate to be repetitive

but I have to ask. We saw last year there was about $1.5 million less spent

compared to what was budgeted, yet this year you budgeted a little over $1

million more. Can you explain that, please?

MR. BYRNE:

This is Client Services and there are 417 staff members associated with this

particular

section or branch. Actuals in 2019-2020 were down by roughly $1.5

million. This was largely a function of the recruitment process for filling

positions and ongoing turnover that occurs throughout the year. I understand

it's not completely abnormal for this to occur.

To anticipate your next question, which may be related to the increase in

2020-21, that is a function of the 27th pay period.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Also, just looking at the Employee Benefits, of course, we budgeted for $3,500,

yet there was $107 spent. Can you explain that as well, please?

MR. BYRNE:

Employee Benefits take in a wide range of circumstances. In this particular

case, the $3,500 that would have been associated with Employee Benefits also

included workshops and training. There were savings due to lower than

anticipated workshop fees in 2019-2020.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Last but not least, looking at Purchased Services, again, almost half the budget

was used as actuals in the last year. Can we explain that as well, and why it's

gone back up again to $315,000?

MR. BYRNE:

Yes, to answer the question of the lower expenditures in the previous fiscal

year compared to current being examined, there were lower than anticipated costs

due to we had a much higher reliance on digital communications, electronic

communications, including copier and printing costs, which were representative

of just over $40,000 of that particular cost reduction or decrease. There was

decreased use of video conferencing with the transition to a more cost-efficient

use of Skype, which amounted to $32,000 in savings. There were leasehold

improvements in 2019-2020 of $28,000, which varies from year to year, and some

other expenditures under this category. There were lower numbers of business

insurance claims in 2019-2020 for a savings of $7,000. General Purchased

Services expenditures from shredding to water to couriers, et cetera, were lower

throughout the 20 regional offices, and this saved a significant amount of money

of just over $43,000.

MR. P. DINN:

A follow-up question to that. I know during COVID we've certainly become more

reliant on Skype, or Zoom, or Facebook or whatever you call it, in terms of

technology and that. Has that been considered in the new Estimates of $315,700

going forward? Because I think we've come to a new age where we can do a lot of

business online and a lot of business through Skype. Has that been considered in

the new figures?

MR. BYRNE:

It has. You're absolutely right. One of the things you get to – as terrible as a

global pandemic is, it also causes you to reinvent and to reassess ways of doing

business, and costs related to video conferencing, I won't say are no longer

required at all, but Skype is being used at a much, much lower cost, if not no

cost, to perform a lot of these duties today.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Paul Dinn.

Ms. Coffin.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you.

Looking at Client Services: Can you give me a sense of the number of individuals

that we have and where they are working, please?

MR. BYRNE:

There are 417 staff located within this group, dedicated professionals. Some of

whom are paid not only from provincial government funds, general revenue funds

of the provincial government, but also some of whom are paid through our

federal-provincial co-operation agreements, our labour market agreements. We

have 20 offices located throughout the entire province.

With that said, I think maybe if there are any additional questions, Mr. Walt

Mavin might be able to provide some further input.

CHAIR:

Mr. Mavin.

MR. MAVIN:

Thank you, Minister.

So, as the minister indicated, over 400 staff across two regions. Our Eastern

region is Clarenville and everything east. Our Western region is everything west

of Clarenville, including Labrador. Staff allocation is pretty close to 50-50

across our two regions.

MS. COFFIN:

Great.

These Client Services, they're delivering both income support, as well as the

skills and labour side of things? This is all the staff for that? I'm just

trying to get my head around where the pockets of money are being allocated and

for what.

MR. MAVIN:

Yes, that's correct. Staff in our regional office will be responsible for

delivering all of our income support and our employment and labour market

programs.

MS. COFFIN:

Right.

If you came in and you applied for an income support program, you would go to an

individual here. But if you went to something that was like a labour market

development agreement, you would also go into that same set of clients and then

they would – the same set of, I guess, representatives and they would help move

you through that. Okay.

If you wanted to come in under the Self-Employment Assistance program, someone

from Client Services and Regional Operations would guide you through that

process?

MR. MAVIN:

Yes, that's correct.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, just getting my head around it.

Then the other Salaries that I see – and I know I'm not supposed to be asking

these questions. But the other Salaries that I see are specialized pieces for

each of these other specialized sections, yes?

MR. MAVIN:

The other Salaries, are you referring to other sections?

MS. COFFIN:

Yes, when I flip the page to 3.1.01, Income Assistance, there's a set of

Salaries there, but that's specific to the Income Assistance program. Is that

right?

MR. MAVIN:

Yes. For example, Income Support, we have a division here at provincial office

which provides oversight guidance to our regional folks.

MS. COFFIN:

Right, okay. Yes, that's the separation between working in the Confederation

Building and that administrative role.

Okay, thank you.

Trickier question now: How did attrition roll out in the Regional Operations,

Client Services? You've got a hand behind you.

CHAIR:

Debbie Dunphy.

MS. DUNPHY:

In '19-'20, we actually abolished 10 positions throughout the department. Six of

those were from retirements. Again, I don't have the specific details here, but

it would be some in Client Services but it could be in other areas as well.

Again, that's obviously the biggest portion of where our staff is. The remaining

other positions that we abolished, we had some long-term vacancies that we made

the decision to not fill and we abolished those as well.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, good.

Thank you very much. I think that's all of my questions for here.

CHAIR:

With leave from the Committee, Mr. Paul Dinn and Ms. Coffin, we can allow Mr.

James Dinn to ask questions.

MS. COFFIN:

Leave.

MR. P. DINN:

Leave.

CHAIR:

We have leave.

Mr. James Dinn.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

I think I heard that it's 400 staff, did I hear that correctly, that's split

evenly between the Western and Eastern region?

MR. BYRNE:

It's 417, I think, is currently the complement. And you're correct, they are

roughly divided equally, 50/50, between Eastern and Western.

MR. J. DINN:

Is it possible to get a breakdown of the type of positions? I think you

mentioned there in the abolished positions the number of people who deal

directly with the clients. I'm just trying to get a breakdown of management and

those who are dealing with the concerns of people who avail of the services.

MR. BYRNE:

I think, Debbie Dunphy, if you would be able to provide us with an answer as to

what kind of level of breakdown we can provide?

MS. DUNPHY:

Yes, absolutely, we can get you that breakdown. We'll include it in the response

back to the Committee.

MR. J. DINN:

And in the abolished positions, I'm just trying to get a determination as well,

in the abolishing of positions, how has that increased the workload, the wait

times, the ability of regional operations to respond to the needs of clients. I

don't know if that's something you can answer now or when you provide that

information.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Mavin, would you be able to comment on whether or not there is a trend of

improved client services or increased duration or time lag between client

services?

MR. MAVIN:

Thank you, Minister.

With attrition come challenges in certain parts of our delivery network, but our

regional folks, our regional management team look for ways to ensure that

services to clients are not impacted. For example, on the Income Support side,

that may be some of the way in which we establish our units of work to ensure

that if we have one less resource, two less resources that we're able to pick

that up by sharing the work around. The world of work today, as we all know, in

terms of our ability to do more work online and virtually allows us to share

that work across our 20 offices.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you.

I guess my concern is that as we talk about sharing the work, that means more

things get put on the plate and something has to be taken off, especially if

you're not going to burn people out. I would assume that in this jurisdiction,

anything dealing with people is challenging enough as it is. My concern would be

that in the effort to abolish positions or to find efficiencies and to share

work, we're actually increasing the workload and that it does impact eventually

the services clients receive. I can only speak to you from my experience as a

teacher, in that, seeing workload pile up, you're still asking the same people

to do more of the work.

MR. BYRNE:

Perhaps I can address that.

The experience that has been communicated to me both by executive and front-line

providers is that the opposite is actually the case. When you have discrete,

quantized handling of files within a discrete office, you will have times when

there are increased demands and lulls, troughs of demand.

Being able to share work around to various offices, some of whom are specialized

in handling certain types of requests, applications and situations, what it does

– and this is just what has been communicated to me – is that it provides a more

consistent, steady workflow. You don't experience those highs or those peak work

activities followed by troughs or lulls. Work is able to be dispensed as it

occurs and as demand, and by being able to draw upon the network, I guess the

expression that would be aptly used is that the whole is greater than the simple

sum of the parts. Telecommunications technology, work sharing through electronic

means, that's one of the benefits of it.

Just by way of an example: Say, for example, the Clarenville office, which has a

specialty function in one area – it has clients within the Clarenville area –

that there was a labour-transition issue or some circumstance which created a

lot of volume of work or activity. Rather than that one office having to take on

that large volume or wave of activity independently and exclusively, by sharing

the work around it actually provides a much more seamless, much more consistent

window for the client, and for the professional administrator it provides a more

consistent workflow for them as well.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Are you finished with your questions?

MR. J. DINN:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

I'll ask the Clerk to call the subhead.

CLERK:

2.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.01 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, subhead 2.1.01 carried.

CHAIR:

I'll ask the Clerk to call the subhead.

CLERK:

3.1.01 to 3.2.06 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 3.1.01 to 3.2.06 inclusive carry?

Mr. Paul Dinn.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Starting at 3.1.01 – and I'm going to assume the answer but I'm going to ask it

anyway – with Salaries, I see that the salaries have gone up again in 2021. Can

I get an explanation for that, please?

MR. BYRNE:

Allow me to field that difficult question. This is again a result of the 27th

pay period.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

I'm looking at Professional Services and Purchased Services. I note that,

Purchased Services, there was very little of the '19-'20 amount spent and it

seems like the difference of that was spent in Professional Services. Can you

explain these two items?

MR. BYRNE:

Within the line item of Professional Services, we have mandatory membership dues

or fees related to federal-provincial-territorial working groups and committees.

We fund into a secretariat, a national secretariat. Often these secretariats are

located within the provinces, within the FPTs themselves. We actually host two

of these this year but with that said, those fees have increased. That is the

cause of the Professional Services being increased.

On the Purchased Services, there were lower expenditures in 2019-2020 due to

expenses for the FPT membership change to Professional Services. These were

incorrectly attributed to Purchased Services when they really should have been

Professional Services.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Looking at the provincial revenue, can I get an explanation on how that's

generated and the dip in that as well?

MR. BYRNE:

Yes, there was a dip of $1.6 million. There was a dip, as you say of, a decrease

of $1.6 million. This decrease is due to income support and Employment Services

regulation changes due to child support. It was anticipated that collection from

Support Enforcement agencies would decrease by approximately $1.7 million per

year as a result of the changes.

This is a bit of a complicated thing that I think Committee Members would like

to hear more of, so with that said, I'll turn it over to Fiona; if you want to

delegate, Fiona, just to walk through these somewhat important but somewhat

complicated changes.

MS. LANGOR:

There were legislative changes that we did make in the spring relating to CPP

child benefit. As a result of that, it means a reduction in revenue for the

province and money that's actually collected through our support enforcement

agency and putting that money back into the hands of the individuals who would

normally be in receipt.

I will pass it over to Walt Mavin or Cynthia King to elaborate on that.

CHAIR:

Cynthia King.

MS. KING:

In June of 2019, we made regulatory amendments so that families would be able to

keep all of the child support that's due to the children, as well as CPP

benefits for children – surviving child and disabled contributor benefits. About

$3.6 million was attributed to child support and $300,000 to the CPP.

Every year the Support Enforcement Agency would collect amounts that were due to

the department for income support that was provided to individuals prior to them

being able to access their child support. The department would pay the amount

and when the individual was able to receive their child support, that amount was

owed to the department. Every year there are collections on that to the

department.

When we made the regulatory changes, it was estimated by the Support Enforcement

Agency that about $1.7 million per year would not come to the department in

future as a result of those collections not being made for children who are

receiving child support, so the money goes to the children.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

How many children would we be talking about?

MS. KING:

About 1,900 families were estimated at the time in receipt of income support who

would have child support or CPP benefits coming to them.

MR. P. DINN:

A question on that: Would this be considered a clawback, what's happening here?

MS. KING:

No, we discontinued the clawback.

MR. P. DINN:

Okay.

MS. KING:

We were counting child support as income and deducting it from amounts of income

support a family would be eligible for. We discontinued that practice and now

families get to keep 100 per cent of their child support and CPP benefits and

get 100 per cent of the income support that they're eligible to receive at the

same time.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Moving along, I'm looking at the National Child Benefit Reinvestment, I did go

back looking for a trend, 2018-'19 there's about $167,000 spent and looking at

'19-'20 actuals it's about $166,000 spent, yet we continue to budget for

$320,000. So what are we looking at there? What's the difference there and with

a trend of about $160,000, why the necessity to double it?

CHAIR:

Mr. Byrne.

MR. BYRNE:

So this is a commitment the government has made under the National Child Benefit

Reinvestment Strategy with the federal government. This is an initiative that

allows for private child care where subsidized child care is not an option for

recipients of income support who are employed or pursuing further education and

require private child care. This is for non-regulated child care services, as

per the National Child Benefit Reinvestment Strategy as detailed within.

Basically, this funding is available, it remains available, we'll continue to

commit as per our commitments, and we'd like to – basically, the fact that it's

not spent, and as you noted, has not been spent totally in the last several

years, is an indicator that other services seem to be able to provide that

benefit wherever required.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

General question: I know the case loads for income support or income assistance

is declining. I mean, it's decreasing mainly because people are aging out of it.

So in light of the impacts of COVID on families, do you see a potential for an

increase in case loads?

MR. BYRNE:

The case load for income support comes with a lot of preconceived notions in

many – not you, but many people have somewhat ideas or thoughts about who

represents the case load, when, in fact, it's quite often not as perceived.

You're absolutely right; we do have a significant portion of older spousal

couples that are aging out. Once you, of course, reach the age of Old Age

Security benefit or CPP, then, of course, you transition from income support to

the federal program and so on. So you're right, it's a very dynamic, very

changing caseload itself.

In terms of COVID and the uptake to the federal income replacement programs,

such as the CERB, the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, and now the Canada

response benefit – they've taken out the emergency and now it's the Canada

response benefit – I'll ask Cynthia to give a deep down into the numbers, but

they're not maybe what some might expect. They're not large.

Cynthia.

CHAIR:

Ms. King.

MS. KING:

The current Income Support caseload is just over 21,000 – 21,526. We've seen a

reduction in the caseload since March of about 1,600 cases. That's largely due

to income support recipients being able to avail of other federal recovery

benefits as well as people not coming on the caseload during that time.

The Income Support caseload is not the same 22,000 people all year long. Every

single month, year in, year out, we see about 400 cases come on and 400 cases go

off, every single month. Since the availability of federal benefits, in May we

saw a bit of a reduction, initially, and the reduction of the caseload is a

factor of both people not applying as well as people leaving. So we haven't seen

as many applications in the last several months and, as a result, the caseload

has decreased.

MR. P. DINN:

I guess, the crux of my question is, in terms of looking ahead, because as

you've noted there's been many who are availing of the programing that's there

and there will come a time when that programing won't be there. Do you expect to

see a greater uptake in income support? I know that we're crystal balling here

but, I mean, using your expertise, would you see that increasing after all of

these programs run dry?

MS. KING:

As the minister said, the caseload, there are people who leave the caseload

every month due to the availability of other benefits, in terms of aging out at

65 and CPP and so on. There is that natural churn of the caseload. There are

still jobs that people are availing of and won't need income support.

It's difficult to predict what the uptake in the future might be. We do predict

that individuals who are in receipt of income support before going off on the

federal benefits, who aren't eligible to receive EI or the new federal benefits,

may return. Those who are receiving the federal benefits, CERB, if they worked

prior to, would not come to Income Support. They would continue with the federal

benefits for the next year.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Thank you, MHA Dinn.

Before we go to MHA Coffin, we're going to take our scheduled break for 10

minutes. I'll ask the Clerk to set the clock. If anybody needs a restroom break

or an ability to make a telephone call, feel free to do so and we'll come back

at –

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Chair, I realize that's standard practice, but where we started a little bit

late, and I do know that people do have to make telephone calls and they do need

a little restroom break, but do we want to keep going? I don't want to –

CHAIR:

We can reduce the break maybe to five minutes, Minister Byrne.

MR. BYRNE:

What do you think? I don't want to – because we do have to sanitize the Chamber

before the House. There's a little bit of work so we can't go too, too long.

CHAIR:

I think the maximum time we can go is 12:45, based on the time for the House, if

we were going past 12 o'clock.

As Chair, I think I would like to take a five-minute break and give everybody

five minutes to do anything that they need to do and we'll convene at 10:45.

Thanks.

Recess

CHAIR:

Okay, we're back to reconvene the Committee.

I'll just ask, maybe, Mr. Jim Dinn if he would have some questions under

section

3.1.01 onward.

MR. J. DINN:

Yes. I'll start with 3.1.01.

I'm just curious, with regard to, again, the positions that are there under

Salaries, the breakdown of people who are management versus those who are

dealing with client services under 3.1.01. How many people are we talking about

in total and what would be the breakdown?

CHAIR:

I'll ask the Clerk to set the timer as well.

Minister Byrne.

MR. BYRNE:

These are salaries, as was explained earlier, related to policy reference and

guidance for regional services. They're not all management. Some are bargaining

position salaries.

Maybe, Debbie Dunphy or Walt Mavin, you might be able to elaborate further on

the exact number of people involved in this particular section.

CHAIR:

Walt Mavin.

MR. MAVIN:

Thank you, Minister.

Yes, this would be our Income Support Division, housed here at the provincial

office which, as the minister noted, provides oversight and guidance to the

delivery of income support throughout our regional offices. It would include the

director's position and five other positions, in total for six.

MR. J. DINN:

Six total. Okay.

Would it be possible to get an idea – I know some numbers are thrown around

there – but the total number of families that would be served, and maybe the

breakdown if you have the number of families, individuals, single people, that

kind of thing? Would there be a breakdown of that?

CHAIR:

Minister Byrne.

MR. BYRNE:

We can definitely provide that.

There are two reference points in terms of income support, income assistance.

There are cases and recipients. A family, obviously, would be considered

casework. They may have dependants within a family, so we can divide that into

the number of cases and, as well, the number of recipients. Just to understand

why the number is different, why the number of cases versus the number of

recipients: Obviously, a family with dependent children, the children would not

interact directly with the government or with client service officers. It would

be their guardian or parent or whomever. So we can definitely provide that

breakdown. We'll follow up with that shortly.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

Would it be possible to have the total number of recipients – I think it's been

just characterized as – who inappropriately, to use the minister's words,

applied for CERB while they were in receipt of income support? Would it be

possible to get an idea of just how many recipients have applied for CERB and

who were on income support and are probably facing the loss of income support as

a result of that?

MR. BYRNE:

We can provide what we know to date. Obviously there may be some that are

unknown to us, but that's a part of the process. And, yes, to use my words, it

is inappropriate if it's contrary to regulation.

MR. J. DINN:

Is it also possible to get the breakdown, then, of how many of those who applied

for it represent families as well?

MR. BYRNE:

I believe we can provide our best estimates at this point in time.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

The number that was thrown around – or not thrown around, that was put out,

sorry – is that there is a reduction in some 1,600 cases after March. If I

understand it, from talking to End Homelessness, anywhere from 1,400 to 1,600

cases. The number I heard here were 1,600 cases on income support. Is that a

result, as I understand it, of CERB, the people who applied for CERB?

MR. BYRNE:

I'm going to ask Cynthia King to answer the question as to what exactly we

positively know about those 1,600 cases.

MS. KING:

The caseload is decreased by 1,600 cases. As I said earlier, the caseload

changes month to month. People are leaving for a number of different reasons on

a regular basis to receive federal benefits, to become employed, for various

reasons. We know that the caseload decreased by 1,600 since March and that is

due to people who are leaving, as well as people who are not applying. We have

to assume that people who aren't applying have other sources of income and that

may be the federal recovery benefits. We don't know for sure why people are not

coming to the program, but we do know that the caseload is down 1,600.

MR. J. DINN:

I'm assuming then, when we talk about the reduction in the caseload, that's also

a reduction in any income support that's paid out.

MS. KING:

Mm-hmm.

MR. J. DINN:

What would that savings represent then? What's the total money that if we're

looking at 1,600, I would assume from the previous year, that's down 1,600 from

the previous year as well. This is not a yearly or annual event that occurs. I'm

trying to get an idea of what are we looking at in terms of savings here, or the

total amount of money that was not paid out as a result of that.

MS. KING:

I would have to get the exact amount for you. It's approximately $800 per case.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

For those, then, who inappropriately – air quotes – applied for CERB, what's the

process now? To follow up on the questions from the Member for Topsail -

Paradise, what will be the process for now? I would tell you that we're going to

be in it a lot more quickly than we'd like to believe. I will have phone calls;

food banks will have phone calls. This is where the pressure is going to now

come. I'm just wondering what will be the process. Take me through that process

right now, please.

MS. KING:

As individuals requiring home support – particularly those who left income

support to receive CERB – contact us, we are making every attempt to fast-track

those applications. As they call us we do a financial eligibility assessment and

it is based on income you received in previous months. From that, we determine

when you would be eligible for income support. That's a calculation that takes

into consideration the fact that you would not be expected to live on income

support rates during the months you didn't receive income support.

Once that future eligibility date is calculated, we have the ability to bridge

the gap so that individuals are able to receive funding from us between their

application approval and their eligibility date. That will ensure that the

negative consequences of not having income, such as housing instability – we can

mitigate those consequences for individuals. It'll be based on an individual

conversation with applicants, but we are very aware that there is risk for

individuals of not having income for a particular period of time. We will be

working with individuals to make sure that gap is not created and that we don't

see the negative consequences of being without income for a period of time.

MR. J. DINN:

As I understand it then, there's a 60-day waiting period without income as a

means test, more or less. Would that be correct?

MS. KING:

No. We have what we call a 60-day assessment and we look back at the last 60

days. We look at the 60 days previous to your application of what income you

received. We do a financial calculation where we take a percentage into account

because we don't expect you to live on income support-type benefits when you're

not in receipt of income support. Then, a future eligibility date is calculated.

We looked at individuals who were receiving CERB and what they would be eligible

to receive under income support. That varies depending on if you're a single

individual or a family, if you're renting, if you're board and lodging. Every

case would be different.

There would be several weeks. Nobody would have to wait 60 days, two months, for

a future eligibility date. It would just be a number of weeks. We will be

bridging the gap for those number of weeks. There will be no waiting period for

individuals who express that they have financial hardship as not having any

income at the moment, in order to pay rent, pay bills. We will bridge that gap

for them.

MR. J. DINN:

What would be the minimum and then the maximum? What are we looking at as a time

frame? I'm speaking to the point of people who call my office and the people I

serve, where there can be a significant lag.

I'd also say that a person who's relying on $40 a week for income a couple of

weeks is an eternity. I'm just trying to get an idea of when.

MS. KING:

It would be the processing time for the application. When individuals express to

us during the application process that they have no resources at the moment,

whether it's CERB or under regular circumstances, our client service officers

have an ability to issue some emergency assistance that would assist them while

they're waiting for their application to be processed.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Jim Dinn.

Mr. Paul Dinn.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Moving to 3.1.03, I'm looking at Allowances and Assistance. There is a huge

decrease there, almost half, that was not yet used. Can we get an explanation

for that under the Allowances and Assistance?

MR. BYRNE:

This is the Mother/Baby Nutrition Supplement. The program focuses on early

childhood development. It's based on the public policy known as the National

Children's Agenda.

There is a program that provides assistance, prenatal, as well as postnatal.

This is the prenatal program. It provides for nutritional supplements for

eligible clients. This has not been subscribed to the full budgeted amount for

many, many years. Every Public Health nurses is very, very well aware of this

program. We want to keep it intact; we want to be able to respond to any

increase in demand.

Our major point of contact in communications and dissemination of information

about this is through the public nursing profession. Really, basically, this is

what the expenditures are of it at this point in time.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

I go back to the national child benefit and how that was approximately half, as

well as budgeting. I can appreciate the minister's comments on trying to get the

uptake.

Would it be proper to assume that this is due to a decrease in our natural birth

rate, less children being born?

MR. BYRNE:

I wouldn't be able to make that assumption. I know that the program has not been

fully subscribed for many, many years. We maintain the budgetary figure based on

our commitments, but also we're anxious to make sure that this information is

spread far and wide so that any eligible recipient can benefit from it.

Again, the conduit of the information is the Public Health nursing profession,

in addition to billboards and other things. But all of those mothers, expectant

mothers and postpartum mothers, are made aware of this program should they be

able to take advantage of it.

MR. P. DINN:

I guess a little bit more into the weeds on this one. I'm just curious as to

what amounts are available to a mother and her baby. Is this something we would

look at in terms of increasing the benefit?

MR. BYRNE:

Under the prenatal component a benefit of $60 per month is available, as well as

a one-time benefit at the beginning, upfront, of $90 at the time of birth to

eligible pregnant mothers. We'd always be ready and available to conduct a

review as to whether or not we might be able to augment or change the program in

a meaningful way.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Looking at 3.2.01, I'm looking at Purchased Services. Purchased Services, of

course – I'm going to do my math here – about 20 per cent of the budget was

utilized last year; yet, we're allocating a similar amount of the budget to this

year.

Can you give us a little bit of information on the decrease there and why we're

gone back up?

MR. BYRNE:

I'm sorry, which tab are you …?

MR. P. DINN:

Sorry. I'm looking at 3.2.01, Purchased Services.

MR. BYRNE:

3.2.01, this is Employment and Training Programs?

MR. P. DINN:

Yes.

MR. BYRNE:

Purchased Services. What I feel to be true is that the lower than anticipated

savings on Purchased Services, Employment and Training Programs – Walter, do you

want to pick up that because I think I've lost my –?

CHAIR:

Walter Mavin.

MR. MAVIN:

Thank you, Minister.

In this particular area, we did have some costs for some online self-directed

employment assistant program, or Career Cruising, which we paid through the

Labour Market Development Agreement funding in '19-'20, and as well we did have

some funding in there for some data analysis that was lower last year than

anticipated.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

I'm just going back up to Salaries now on the Mother/Baby Nutrition Supplement.

Of course, we talked about the increase in pay periods, but I don't see any

change in the Salaries under the Mother/Baby Nutrition Supplement. Can I get an

explanation on that one?

MR. BYRNE:

(Inaudible), are we going –

MR. P. DINN:

I'm on the same page.

CHAIR:

3.1.03.

MR. BYRNE:

Oh, sorry.

MR. P. DINN:

I just moved up. Just a curiosity on the Salaries because we've alluded to the

fact that there's an additional pay period, yet I'm seeing in the Salary there

it's the same right across the board.

MR. BYRNE:

I'll defer to that one to Debbie.

CHAIR:

Debbie Dunphy.

MS. DUNPHY:

With the Mother/Baby Nutrition Supplement, we do have a staff person identified

that handles this program but they also do other work in other areas. It would

be a minimal amount, but it's likely you will see an overage next year. I would

suggest it was probably an oversight or it was just a minimal amount to put the

27th pay period in there.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

I realize it's a small amount. I was just curious, as it was the same. I think

the previous year it was around $54,600, so I understand where you're going with

it.

Moving to the next page, I'm looking at 3.2.02, the Employment Development

Programs. Can you give us an explanation on the Allowances and Assistance and

the Grants and Subsidies and what that entails?

MR. BYRNE:

Allowances and Assistance and Grants and Subsidies, so funding is provided for

Employment Development Supports, $80,000, and the Adult Basic Education

placement support of $562,000. This is 90 per cent federally funded.

MR. P. DINN:

The revenue there, the federal funding, what pocket of funding is that coming

out of?

MR. BYRNE:

This is the under the WDA. The federal revenue of $1.39 million is provided

under the Workforce Development Agreement.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Moving further on down, looking under Labour Market Development Agreement,

3.2.03. Professional Services, a huge dip last year and, of course, this current

Estimates we're looking at probably a third of what it was budgeted for in the

previous year. Can I get an explanation on that, please?

MR. BYRNE:

Sure.

Under Professional Services, this is funding that's provided to cover the cost

of system upgrades and enhancements, IT system upgrades and it's also for the

cost of the audit. There was a significant decrease in 2019-2020 and that's

because system upgrade work is being performed mainly by OCIO, as opposed to

contracted external sources.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

I see down in the final number under Total: Labour Market Development Agreement,

last year the actuals looks like an amount of just over $7 million. Would that

be considered slippage under the program?

MR. BYRNE:

Under the program itself, there is a certain percentage that can, indeed, be

unspent.

I'll ask Walter if he would pick up the cause on that.

MR. MAVIN:

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Dinn, no, that would not be considered slippage. Our surplus for '19-'20, in

total, came in at a little over $3 million based on our audit. Under the LMDA,

the way the total allocation is funded and flowed from the federal government is

that annually we get a notification from the federal government of our total

allocation. Annually, we prepare an annual plan that's submitted to the federal

government to indicate which areas across the LMDA we are going to spend our

funding. We also then follow up at the end of the year with a report to tell the

federal government how we spent the money.

Of course, as priorities change throughout the year, one of the benefits of the

LMDA is that the minister has the authority to shift money from program area to

program area. In this case, in this particular year, there were a couple of

areas where, for example, under the apprenticeship trades

section for that

training, it was in the early fourth quarter that we had projected that we were

going to spend less money there, so we actually reallocated that money back to

the main LMDA funding area, which would make up part of that $7 million. The

idea of doing that was to try to utilize the maximization of the total LMDA

budget.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Ms. Coffin.

MS. COFFIN:

I'm not sure if Mr. Dinn had been finished with his questions.

MR. P. DINN:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, all right. It's going to be a little bit disjointed, but that's fine.

I'm going to save Income Assistance for Mr. James Dinn, and how about I jump in

at 3.1.02, the National Child Benefit Reinvestment. Can I have the number of

people who have received that and the criteria for accessing it, please?

MR. BYRNE:

(Inaudible) National Child?

MS. COFFIN:

Yeah, National Child Benefit Reinvestment.

CHAIR:

Mr. Byrne.

MR. BYRNE:

You asked the number of people who had received that and what was the –?

MS. COFFIN:

Yeah, and the criteria –

MR. BYRNE:

The criteria.

MS. COFFIN:

– for being able to access it.

MR. BYRNE:

Sure. In terms of the criteria, those numbers, I'll ask Walter to …

MS. COFFIN:

I just watched this go across about four people.

MR. MAVIN:

Yes, only twice.

I'm going to ask Ms. King if she would elaborate.

CHAIR:

Cynthia King.

MS. KING:

Yes, a little fewer than a hundred per month of our families in receipt of

income support avail of the child care benefit. The child care benefit is for

unregulated child care. People who are able to access regular child care access

the Child Care Services Subsidy Program through the Department of Education.

When an individual in receipt of income support has a type of employment where

they work an occasional overnight shift, for example, and generally they need

someone to care for the children overnight, this amount is intended to offset

that cost. It isn't intended to be the same fulsome benefit that you would

receive through the Child Care Subsidy Program for regulated child care. You can

receive up to $400 per month for the first child and up to $200 per month for

the second child. It depends on how many hours of child care you need during

that month.

MS. COFFIN:

Must be hard for someone who's working nights to manage with $400. Yeah, that's

precarious for individuals.

Let's move on to the Mother/Baby Nutrition Supplement. Recently I had a

constituent who has had a baby. I followed up and had a little chat with her

about it and how are you managing, and she had been struggling a little bit. I

said: Have you accessed the Mother/Baby Nutrition Supplement? She said no. My CA

gave her a call and then did a little bit of investigation and was told that it

wasn't for postnatal. It was just prenatal. Have I gotten that wrong or have

wires been crossed anywhere along the way?

CHAIR:

Cynthia King.

MS. KING:

The prenatal portion is delivered through this department. The postnatal portion

gets tacked automatically onto your Canada child benefit. Individuals, after a

child is born, for the first year will continue to receive $60 per month, but it

will be part of the Canada child benefit.

MS. COFFIN:

The child benefit, does that – if you have a baby – forgive me; I have not had a

baby in long time so I'm not quite sure how this works. Anyone who has a child

will automatically be given the Canada child benefit and then have the top-up

automatically attached to that, no matter what their income?

MS. KING:

Yes. The $60 per month, it's individuals who are of low income, so less then

$25,457 per year is the cut-off.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay.

MS. KING:

Individuals, once they have a baby and they receive the Canada child benefit,

this $60 per month automatically becomes part of that benefit.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, so all of their T4s align with everything else and all that comes in.

I was wondering about this because I don't think that this individual will be

able to access it, but I just wanted to make sure she was going to be okay,

because she has an infant and the infant is colicky and there's another child

and you just want to wrap them up and say, thanks for having babies because our

population is declining so much, right?

Okay, so I think we probably touched on some of the criteria. Do we have a sense

of the number of people using or receiving this?

MS. KING:

Yes, the prenatal portion is about 125 families per month.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, all right.

Well, some people are having babies. Is that a household income under $26,000?

MS. KING:

That's household income, yes, $25,457.

MS. COFFIN:

Oh, my goodness, there are 125 people making less than $26,000 per year and

having babies. That makes me cry a little.

Okay, let's talk about the number of people using this and accessing it. I know

last year we talked a little bit about the fact that we weren't getting enough

money out there. I did make a suggestion that we reach out to the Status of

Women and see if they could help access that. I'm just wondering: Have there any

more concerted efforts to try and reach more people or are we reaching all of

the people who are making less than $26,000 a year and having babies? Do we have

a sense that we've reached them all?

CHAIR:

Minister Byrne.

MR. BYRNE:

Yes, I won't ask staff to get involved in questions of a political policy.

The best conduit to provide this information would be through public health

nursing professionals. As you know, all mothers will receive the services of a

public health nurse, in terms of immunizations, in terms of health care checks.

What we believe to be true is the best cause or course to be able to get this

information out to make sure that all those expecting mothers and postnatal

mothers are aware of this is through that particular profession. As well, there

are other avenues through more public communications to be able to get that

information out as well. We would welcome any source and opportunity to get the

word out far and wide. I could be wrong, but I think that through the public

health nursing profession we won't miss very many mothers or expecting mothers.

MS. COFFIN:

I certainly hope not.

I guess if this is moving out through the Canada child benefit, then it's

pointless to go out to the breastfeeding groups, because those are wonderful

support groups for mothers doing that. The Status of Women would be a spot;

maternity wards would be a spot and then the pervasive Facebook, because I know

that a lot of people reach there and oftentimes are more forthcoming on Facebook

than they might be with their public health nurse. I think that's a key thing.

Given that we're only operating at about half, we're not spending a $100,000, is

there any potential that we could raise the income threshold so that people

making $30,000 as a household income and having a baby can then afford to buy

the food that's going to make them healthy while they are having this child? Is

there any possibility that we could do something like that?

MR. BYRNE:

This particular program flows under the Early Childhood Development Agreement,

the national agreement.

I'll ask Cynthia to speak specifically to the single question of is this a

national criteria or is there capacity to be able to create an exclusive

provincial model.

CHAIR:

Cynthia King.

MS. KING:

The income threshold is a national threshold that we use for this program. Of

course, we can always undertake a review of the policy for this particular

program.

MS. COFFIN:

So this is not federally funded but we follow federal guidelines. Do you have

any latitude in that to be able to say: Well, all right, maybe if you're making

$27,000, we can still give you this? Is there any local latitude to change the

criteria that we can apply?

MS. KING:

Yes, it is provincial policy and it would be within our ability to make changes

to the program. Of course, that analysis can be undertaken.

MS. COFFIN:

Wonderful. That would be a real blessing, I'm sure, for anyone who's having a

child now. It's not easy at the best of times; perhaps we can expand this a

little bit. I just want to spend $100,000 on making sure we have healthy moms

and healthy babies. I think that would be a lovely initiative right there.

Okay, I have 51 seconds. Awesome. Let's go on to 3.2.01, Employment and Training

Programs. I note that Employment and Training Programs are highlighted in

3.2.01, 3.2.02 and 3.2.04. I know they're for different individuals and they're

designed to target different sets of circumstances and different groups. Is

there any duplication of these? You probably can't do this in the 22 seconds, so

maybe we will have to flip over to Mr. Dinn, then Mr. Dinn and then come back to

me.

I know that there are overlaps and I know that there are different target

groups; I'm just seeing that it sounds a lot like several of these things are

doing very similar activities. Would there be any efficiencies associated with

developing a lot of these programs in one spot as opposed to four different

spots? My time is up, so maybe we can save that for later.

CHAIR:

Minister Byrne.

MR. BYRNE:

Yes, thank you.

A lot of the programming flows from federal-provincial-territorial funding from

the Labour Market Development Agreements, from the transfer agreements.

Yes, there are some overlaps, and specifically so. For example, sponsorship to

education programs, to post-secondary institutions and the allowances there may

look and feel somewhat similar to the Canada Job Grant where we do provide some

assistance for other types of training. There are differences and nuances, and

the programs are meant to be directed at specific client groups; for example,

the funding for apprenticeships, block funding for apprenticeship training and

wage subsidies for apprentices as they try to achieve their requisite number of

hours to be able to move from one block to the other.

These are all important components that have been designed to meet the specifics

of the labour market and the training requirements. I would suspect that if you

were to put it all in one pot, you'd quickly come to the realization that, you

know what? It's very, very difficult to make decisions from one pot. Perhaps the

best answer is to make allowances for specific circumstances.

The recipe that you are suggesting has its merits on its surface, but I think

that you'll also find that given the nature of the funding, the requirements,

the program requirements and eligibility requirements from their source, from

the federal government – some of the funding from the EI fund can only be used

by EI-eligible individuals. Some of the funding from the Workforce Development

Agreement does not require EI eligibility. Some of the funding requirements for

apprentices – and then even within that group, a very responsible, positive move

towards women apprentices.

You're seeing pockets of money, or envelopes of money, designated for specific

purposes and intentions. I think if that weren't the case you'd probably be

asking for it, and for good reason.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister Byrne.

I go to Mr. Paul Dinn.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to start where we left off with Mr. Mavin on

section 3.2.03, Labour

Market Development Agreement. We were talking about the total amount there for

the actuals for 2019-20. I called it slippage, the little over $7 million.

Mr. Mavin was explaining what was done with that money. Am I correct in saying

that dollar figure was reallocated? Where?

CHAIR:

Walt Mavin.

MR. MAVIN:

Yes, it would've been reallocated. Again, one of the areas that I noted was the

industrial training program, where there was $2.5 million; also, from the

College of the North Atlantic, $2 million; and $4 million reprofiled from LMDA,

Allowances and Assistance. Again, it was reallocated and spent on other priority

areas. For example, it could've been spent on other components of the LMDA, such

as wage subsidies, Job Creation Partnerships, Labour Market Partnerships,

research and innovation.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

The $2 million for the College of the North Atlantic, what was that spent on?

MR. MAVIN:

Again, when we pulled that money back into the main LMDA, some of that could

have gone to JCP, some of it could have gone to wage subsidies. It comes back

into the departmental vote part of the LMDA and spent across all program areas

where there was a need.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Moving to 3.2.04, Workforce Development Agreement, I have a similar question on

Salaries, seeing the Salaries are straight across the board again. No accounting

for the 27th pay period. Can I get an explanation on that, please?

MR. BYRNE:

(Inaudible.)

MR. P. DINN:

I am too.

MR. BYRNE:

A good explanation.

CHAIR:

Debbie Dunphy, please.

MS. DUNPHY:

This is one of the areas where the staff budget – I'll get into the exciting

world of accounting in my role. What we've done here is this is an allocation of

salary dollars that we are allowed to claim or that we choose to claim as a part

of the Workforce Development Agreement.

The staff are working out in the regional offices and at the end of the day we

will do a journal entry to transfer a portion of Salaries spent in other areas

to this particular Workforce Development Agreement. It's a notion, a nominal

amount, as opposed to specific: we will say these 10 individuals at exactly

$60,000 each.

It is a journal entry that's done at the end of the year. If we do have a higher

expenditure as a result of that 27th pay period, then it will be reflected in

the actuals next year.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Looking at the Operating Accounts – and I'm looking at Transportation and

Communications – well, we spent about a tenth of what we had budgeted for. Can I

get an explanation on that as well?

MR. BYRNE:

This is a little bit of an anomaly in that staff land line costs, telephone

charges, have been charged to the divisional budget. The costs are found

elsewhere.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Looking at the Supplies, budgeted $3,500 last year. Didn't use it and we have it

back again this year. Again, what happened last year and what are we going to

use it on?

MR. BYRNE:

So, again, this was a decision that was taken within the financial accounting

structure. Office supplies are now charged to the divisional budget as opposed

to found within the Workforce Development Agreement.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Moving along to Professional Services, again, we allocated $11,800 last year; we

more than doubled that last year in the actuals, and back down to $11,800 again.

An explanation there as well, please?

MR. BYRNE:

So as you're aware, under the federal-provincial transfer agreements, we have to

provide independent audit work related to those agreements as part of the

requirement. There were some new agreement requirements that were audit

requirements found within the current agreement. These additional costs are one

time only. So we've had some additional audit requirements that were one time

only and that's why it's reflected that there was a $15,000 increase in the

audit costs in Professional Services last year. Yet, the budget item remains the

same as previous because we do not anticipate that to reoccur.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Moving along to Purchased Services, I'm not sure if that's a typo. Last year, we

had over $669,000 budgeted, utilized $8,800 and nothing again for this year. Can

you explain what's happening there, please?

MR. BYRNE:

No, it's not a typo; it's a very deliberate action that was taken. The system

upgrade work is now being completed primarily in-house by OCIO at no cost to the

department. We're using internal resources, as opposed to contracting.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

Property, Furnishings and Equipment, again, $1,500 last year, not utilized, and

we're gone back to $1,500. Delay in utilizing it, or what's the issue there?

MR. BYRNE:

As I'm informed, just no requirements in this area for 2019-20. There are some

purchased services that may be required.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

I'm looking at the revenue amounts there now. Federal revenue, again, I'm

looking at that total amount of $6.5 million. Can I get an explanation of what's

happening there, from the actuals of last year?

MR. BYRNE:

I'm not even going to bother to try to wax eloquently about this. I'm just going

to turn it right over to Walter for him to wax eloquently – or Debbie, sorry,

Debbie.

CHAIR:

Debbie Dunphy.

MS. DUNPHY:

In 2019-20, we actually received the federal revenue for '18-'19 in the 2020

year, as well as '19-'20 year. It's two years' worth of revenue there.

MR. P. DINN:

Okay, gotcha.

I'm looking at the $241 in provincial revenue. What would that be?

MS. DUNPHY:

That was a mistake.

MR. P. DINN:

I know it's a small amount.

MR. BYRNE:

It was doughnuts.

MR. P. DINN:

Is that …?

MS. DUNPHY:

Oh, it was actually a mistake. That should've been over in the Administrative

Support revenue. Again, with the shutdown in March, some of our year-end entries

– minor ones like this may not have been captured.

MR. P. DINN:

Yes. Have to count my pennies, you know?

MS. DUNPHY:

Yes, I understand.

MR. P. DINN:

Just moving along. I looked at Salaries here. You talked about a notional

amount. There's a contractual salary in this of about $108,045. Can I get an

explanation of what that position is for?

MS. DUNPHY:

A contractual salary under the Workforce Development Agreement? Or is it under

the –?

MR. P. DINN:

Well, actually, it's probably under the Workforce Development Secretariat.

MS. DUNPHY:

Yes, that is the director of FLMM, the Forum of Labour Market Ministers

Secretariat. It's a temporary two-year position for the province to host the

Secretariat.

MR. P. DINN:

Just for clarification: Is that fully funded by feds or by the province?

MS. DUNPHY:

It's cost-shared between all the provinces and the federal government, but it's

100 per cent offset, yes.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

I look at the Transportation and Communications pieces, the dollars and cents

that we've been looking at. I mentioned it earlier about COVID and how we've

become accustomed to doing more things online and that. Have we looked across

the department in terms of savings that can be gotten under communications,

under those dealings?

CHAIR:

Minister Byrne.

MR. BYRNE:

Yes, I think it's fair to say we have. Earlier in this Estimates meeting, we

talked a little bit about some of those significant savings. Upwards of tens of

thousands of dollars have been saved from video-conferencing services, the

leasing or purchase of video-conferencing services, going directly to PC-based,

laptop-based, Skype and so on. Yes, we're already feeling the benefits of those

transitions.

MR. P. DINN:

Okay, thank you.

I'll pass it on.

CHAIR:

Ms. Coffin.

MS. COFFIN:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

We will go to Mr. Jim Dinn.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

As I understand it – and I'm just going back to 3.1.01 – I think the answer was

given that there was a drop of some 1,600 in caseloads after March. If I

understand it correctly, at $800 roughly per recipient, that would have resulted

in well over $1.25 million, I guess, in savings.

I'm just wondering: Where would that be reflected here in this? I'm looking at

that drop in that money. Where would that be reflected, that savings as such? Or

would it be?

MR. BYRNE:

In this particular one, Income Assistance, 3.1.01, that would not be found in

this particular section. Generally speaking, income support would be found in a

different subhead or different line item.

Cynthia, would you be able to take the charge up?

CHAIR:

Cynthia King.

MS. KING:

Those savings, if any, or reduction in caseload, are cumulative month over

month. So even though we reached 1,600, it was a few hundred every month, month

over month, since March. They would not have been budgeted savings in the

materials that we have before us. Those would be savings that we're realizing as

the year progresses.

MR. J. DINN:

So that wouldn't be reflected anywhere here in this, that we would see this, in

the department in the line items?

MS. KING:

No.

MR. J. DINN:

Just out of curiosity, then, with the reduction in caseloads, would these have

been people who have, I think, aged out or would they have also been the people

who were terminated as well from the program, from receiving benefits?

MS. KING:

It would be a combination. As I said, it's a combination of people leaving as

well as people not coming to us. About 400 people every month leave for all

sorts of different reasons, aging out, other sources of income and things like

that. A little over 700 is our estimate of individuals who actually left the

program to receive federal recovery benefits.

MR. J. DINN:

If I may then, if they left to receive, is that something they did voluntarily

or were their income support benefits terminated is what I'm trying to get at

here.

MS. KING:

Anybody who would have availed of the federal recovery benefits would have done

so on their own and then reported to us that they had other sources of income.

MR. J. DINN:

And at that point then the income supports would have been terminated or

suspended?

MS. KING:

That's right, yeah.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

I'm just curious, then, and I'm just trying to look at the efficiencies in the

department, and there's going to be an effect on people themselves, but I note

that End Homelessness St. John's have recommended two options: to fully exempt

CERB from income support payments or to treat CERB as earned income. Either one,

basically, would've negated the need to terminate income support. Also, more

importantly, as these people who come back now are going to be looking for

support desperately, you've outlined some of the procedures in the reassessment

piece and in the use of bridge funding to make sure they don't go without.

I'm assuming that with that comes an enormous amount of paperwork, time,

clerical work and administrative duties. I can only know that just from the work

we do in our office in advocating for constituents that it's more than a day; it

sometimes takes several weeks to get the person the help that they need.

I'm just wondering if it would've been better in all around savings for the

workload, the time, if indeed the CERB had been exempt from income support, as

recommended by the federal government and End Homelessness, or treated as

income. I'm just looking at the amount of work now that's going to be in place

as these people come looking for supports. Certainly, it's going to increase

workload; it's going to make our job, even as MHAs, more difficult in trying to

get support for the people who are most in need of it.

CHAIR:

Minister Byrne.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair; thank you for the question.

Myself and six members of our executive of Immigration, Skills and Labour had an

excellent conversation with End Homelessness St. John's about two weeks ago. One

of the things that we had discussed was some of the assumptions that End

Homelessness St. John's had made within their policy documents. They were

unaware, for example, that while an income-assistance recipient transitioned to

CERB, to the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit, that they were under the

assumption that they would lose all supplementary benefits.

We were able to inform the executive director of End Homelessness St. John's

that was incorrect. As we do with so many of our clients who find work, we want

to make sure that those supports are available to them, those supplementary

supports; things such as the drug card, amongst other things. If an individual

left income support to go on the CERB, they would be able to retain their

supplementary benefits so that they would not be disadvantaged.

From the point of view of the total value of income support versus the CERB, as

Ms. King had mentioned, the average benefit under income support is $800. The

CERB and the current benefit, the Canada Recovery Benefit, which will now be

eligible up to September 2021, provides assistance of $2,000 a month.

We chatted through this process about whether or not someone was financially

disadvantaged as a result of moving to CERB and therefore not being able to

receive their former income support benefits. I think it was a very solid

conversation because End Homelessness St. John's did come to the realization

that there was actually not less money but more money. If an individual was

eligible for the CERB or the post-CERB from the federal government, their

household or themselves personally would actually receive significantly more

money. In addition to that they'd also be able to maintain their supplementary

benefits in the process.

On the question of the transition from CERB, or post-CERB, back to income

support, if that was what would be required, End Homelessness St. John's also

made an assumption that the total amount of money that would be collected by the

recipient under CERB would then be calculated and would be used for the decision

of when they could potentially be re-eligible for income support. There was an

assumption that was made by End Homelessness St. John's that we were able to

correct and they were very appreciative of the correction.

As Ms. King had said earlier, say, for example, someone was on CERB for four

months and collecting $8,000 during the course of that four-month period. End

Homelessness St. John's had made the assumption that $8,000 would then

significantly delay, to the extent of months, their eligibility to go back on

income support. The folks that we spoke to were, I believe, very reassured to

hear – as Cynthia had explained to this Committee earlier this morning – that

would not be the case. You would not delay the income support eligibility for a

period of months by calculating the full benefit of the totality of CERB and

then determining outward.

What Ms. King had explained is that we can actually turn those applications

around in days, upwards of a maximum of three weeks. But if there are individual

circumstances that after being on CERB for a period of four months the

individual still finds themselves in a position of financial vulnerability, we

can do an immediate payment to get them back in operation very, very quickly.

With that said, you talked about the processing times would have been easier

just to – with the paperwork being so onerous that it would be better just to

ignore the regulation and move forward. In many cases – not in all cases but in

many cases – we may have a pre-existing relationship with the income support

client; therefore, it's not onerous to be able to process that file.

With that said, I'll just quickly turn it over to Ms. King to see if there's

anything that I may have misspoken about or if there's a detail that should be

further clarified.

MS. KING:

No, actually, Minister, that describes it very well. Individuals who were

previously receiving income support, we would have a lot of their baseline

tombstone-type data in the system and it's a matter of updating the file. We

will make every effort to expedite the applications for people returning from

CERB and process it in a timely manner, recognizing that there is some financial

insecurity that may be experienced by some.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Mr. Paul Dinn.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm looking at

section 3.2.06, Youth and Student Services. I'm looking at line

09, Allowances and Assistance. I see there was about $80,000 not spent last year

and we're back up to the budgeted amount that we had back in 2019-2020. Can you

explain that discrepancy, please?

MR. BYRNE:

Funding in this area is for tuition vouchers; expenses not incurred until later

this fiscal year, but estimated savings of $80,000, similar to 2018-2019. In

this particular program the uptake was as described. We're always reaching out

to try to get more uptake in that particular area, but that's consistent with

last year.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

I probably know the answer to this one, but I'll ask it anyway. With relation to

the tuition vouchers and now, of course, where we had many students going

online, are we still allocating the same tuition vouchers with the same amount?

MR. BYRNE:

Short answer: Yes, the tuition stayed the same.

MR. P. DINN:

Tuition voucher is the same?

MR. BYRNE:

Yes, I believe so.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

I'm looking at federal revenue. Last year's budget: $300,000. Where did that

come from and how come it's not showing up elsewhere?

MR. BYRNE:

This is federal revenue under the Digital Skills, which ended on March 31st of

2020. It sunsetted, the federal revenue did. The revenue related to Digital

Skills for Youth Program was lower due to expenditures lower than originally

anticipated.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you.

I'm done with this section.

CHAIR:

Ms. Coffin.

MS. COFFIN:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

Mr. Jim Dinn.

MR. J. DINN:

Respectfully, Minister, I have to disagree because I was speaking to the

director of End Homelessness only last night. I do have his letter that he sent

to you with regard to that: “To be clear, EHSJ maintains that the best way to

ensure resilience for Income Support recipients in the face of changing

financial circumstances is to exempt CERB from Income Support recipients and

eligibility requirements ….”

Obviously, there is a gulf here in the understanding of that meeting.

I'm still very much concerned that the people I serve, that the people who call

my office who are very vulnerable and that in some way, shape or form this is

going to put undue hardship – it's one thing for me in my situation to go

without a cheque for a week or for a month or whatever else. It would put some

financial burden, but I would be able to survive it easily enough. Not so for

the people I serve who also dealing with mental health issues, struggling with

addiction sometimes, struggling with precarious housing and a myriad of other

issues.

It's the very people that I served with Saint Vincent de Paul and the people I

served there and the reason we got into an affordable housing project, as well.

Again, at this point in time, I don't know if it's too late, but, obviously, End

Homelessness is very clear in that the best way is to – the two options that

they provided – and they still clearly support these to exempt CERB income from

income support, or to treat it as earned income. Either way, in this case, the

two options that they outlined in their letter to you of October 14 would be

viable options.

I'm even understanding, like, an immediate payment of some sort of a bridge

funding is still – I don't know what immediate means. Immediate means, to me, I

need this, here's the money, take it. I don't know what it would take, but my

experience in anything to do with government, it takes longer than – immediate

has a very different and a vastly different meaning than what it means to me for

immediate, when I talk about immediate assistance.

Immediate assistance, when I was with Saint Vincent de Paul, I need a hamper.

We'll have one with you within a half and hour. That's immediate. Now, I don't

know what it means, but I know that people that we've helped with housing and

that, immediate is not that. It takes a while for it to happen. Usually what

happens with us is that we end up going to try and get and ask a food bank to

maybe get immediate assistance.

I think this approach lacks a certain amount of empathy. I think it needs to be

revisited. I think, in many ways, it's going to save the workload and I think

the stress level on the employees who have to deal with and have to make this

decision. It would have been much better just simply to do as End Homelessness

had suggested.

They're very much still committed to their position and that needs to be done.

It's about helping the vulnerable in this province. People who may not have any

financial skills, who don't have the ability sometimes to figure out where their

next meal is coming from and are desperate.

That's about empathy, that's about sympathy for the most vulnerable and for the

people who have no agency, except sometimes to call their MHA and look for help.

Sometimes it's the most frustrating aspect of my role as MHA in the amount of

time it takes for me to get help for them and, in some cases, I still can't.

That's the most frustrating aspect in my district, the amount of homelessness,

poverty, food insecurity, precarious housing arrangements, is untenable. And I'm

sorry, but anything that in some way, shape or form means that they now have to

reapply for an income support is untenable, unacceptable and it's placing them

in an unfair and vulnerable position even more; we're victimizing them even

more.

As far as I understand, the amount of money that was used in many cases, from

the people I've spoken to, was used to buy a new bed – they haven't had a bed –

or to buy new clothes. It's not something that they went out and – I don't know

what kind of luxuries we think people would have, but in many ways it was paying

off debts. I can tell you, in Saint Vincent de Paul, the number of people who

had owed money for rent, for power bills, who were looking at having their power

cut off, was horrendous.

I'm sorry, I do not believe, based on my conversation with the executive

director of End Homelessness, that in any way, shape or form that they were

dissuaded from their point of view and stance on this. What they're asking from

the minister, from this government is a more humane and more empathetic approach

to this, and less of a bureaucratic, administrative and clerical approach. We're

talking about people, not numbers.

Thank you.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Chair, I don't believe I heard a question, but I will respond to certain

facts that should be responded to.

I would put the professionals within Immigration, Skills and Labour up as

probably the most empathetic individuals I have ever met in my entire life.

Their relationships with their clients are deep. It's professional, but it's

often personal. I think that the notion that's been cast that people are getting

lost in a bureaucratic sea is unfounded. It's very much unfounded.

The professionals, whether they be the social workers, the client services

officers, the front-line individuals who feel a fiduciary responsibility, a duty

to support those who are most vulnerable, I believe they perform their job

incredibly well, and under difficult circumstances, no doubt. When you're

dealing with people who are vulnerable, when you're dealing with people who

deserve and need empathy, they provide it.

Mr. Chair, we do have a program that is in place to be able to provide

assistance to those who need assistance. There are some details about that that

I believe are being misconstrued, that for the benefit of us all, not only as

parliamentarians here in this House, exercising our privileges and rights in

this Committee, but also for the people outside of this House, we really need to

dig deep and to understand the consequences of decisions and the consequences of

what we do and set as policy, so I do appreciate the hon. Member's commentary.

The conversation that we had with End Homelessness St. John's, I think, was

very, very productive. It enabled the department to get further in touch with a

significant community group and an umbrella group that represents many other

groups within the province, especially within the City of St. John's, that are

dedicated to fighting, overcoming poverty and mitigating its effects in the

short term.

With that said, Mr. Chair, we really need to examine the facts as they exist.

That is that there were some assumptions; that when the six executive members,

when Fiona Langor, the deputy minister of Immigration, Skills and Labour, sat in

on this meeting, when Walt Mavin, the assistant deputy minister, sat in on this

meeting, when Cynthia King sat in on this meeting and when many other executives

from within the department sat in on this meeting, we did come to a more common,

more general understanding that certain assumptions were being made that were

not valid, in fact.

For example, what was communicated at that point in time, the primary concern of

End Homelessness St. John's was access to supplementary benefits which could,

indeed, be cut off once income support had ended or had been removed as a result

of receipt of the CERB, that supplementary benefits would no longer be at play,

no longer be available. That was proven to be an incorrect assumption. I believe

that End Homelessness St. John's really appreciated the clarification.

We also clarified the fact that while over the four-month period of CERB,

Canadian Emergency Response Benefit, provided by the federal government, some

$8,000 would be made available to the recipient. As Ms. King had mentioned, the

average income support benefit per client was $800; over that some four-month

period the income support benefit would've been approximately, on average,

$2,400. The CERB was $8,000. There was no reduction in income or reduction in

financial capacity. There was an increase.

In the spirit of empathy, as the hon. Member speaks of, we do recognize that

these are vulnerable clients; these are vulnerable people. But to say or to make

the assertion that there was less money coming in to meet their basic needs,

that would not be true. It just simply would not be true. The second point here

is that they would not lose supplementary benefits while on CERB, such as the

drug card, which is so important to so many clients. The third assumption here

is that once the CERB was over, then of course they're facing a lag time.

As we know, the federal government has now offered additional equivalent

benefits, the transition from CERB, the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, to a

post-CERB federal benefit. There are three streams: a caregiver benefit; an

employment insurance eligibility benefit; or a Canadian response benefit, which

is basically very, very similar to the CERB benefit. Those who were on CERB

before would be able to transition to the Canadian response benefit and

receiving that same amount.

With that said, Mr. Chair, the point has been made, and made clear by Ms. King

and by her professionals, that should there be a circumstance where a

vulnerability is exposed and that there is an uncertainty to the well-being of

the client looking to move from the CERB back into income support, it has been

said and it has been done that the client, their individual circumstances, will

be assessed and assessed quickly and support given in a very, very timely basis.

With that said, I will always monitor the activities of our client service

officers and the approach that's being taken and ensure that services are being

provided in a timely basis. But as Ms. King said, we do have records of former

income support clients that are able to speed that process up very, very fast.

If there are circumstances where the individual, notwithstanding the fact that

they made more money on CERB than they probably would have made on – well,

definitely made on income support – if they find themselves in a post-CERB

world, post-CERB environment, post-CERB situation that they have less money or

have increased financial needs, we can respond to that and we will respond to

that. We will respond to that with empathy.

Mr. Chair, if Ms. King would like to add anything further, if there's anything

further to add – I will not ask her to dabble in the matters of politics, but

exclusively of policy – if there's something there that I've misspoken about or

said incorrectly, either in terms of the characterization of my conversation,

which you participated in as well, with End Homelessness St. John's, if there's

anything that has been miscommunicated here, I ask you, I implore you, I give

you leave to correct for the record what that may be.

MS. KING:

No, Minister, there's nothing further (inaudible) –

CHAIR:

Cynthia King. Your light just came on.

MS. KING:

Oh, sorry.

No, Minister, there's nothing further that I could add.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

I'd like the Clerk to call the heading.

CLERK:

3.1.01 to 3.2.06.

CHAIR:

3.1.01 to 3.2.06 shall carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

MS. COFFIN:

We weren't finished with the questions.

CHAIR:

Ms. Coffin, I asked you several times if you wanted to ask questions and you had

deferred.

MS. COFFIN:

I'm sorry. It looked like Mr. Dinn was (inaudible) finish.

CHAIR:

He did not ask a question in his last 10 minutes. For the benefit of the –

MS. COFFIN:

(Inaudible) I wasn't finished with my questions. I just let you go ahead

(inaudible). So are you saying that this is done now and I can't ask anymore

questions?

CHAIR:

It has been voted on, yes.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay, I will put my questions in writing.

MR. P. DINN:

There was no vote yet.

CHAIR:

We just voted, yes.

MR. P. DINN:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COFFIN:

Are you done with your questions?

MR. P. DINN:

No, no, I hadn't voted (inaudible).

CHAIR:

Not on –

MR. BYRNE:

I'm more than happy to take more questions (inaudible).

MR. P. DINN:

I think in openness and that, let's – yeah.

CHAIR:

Sure, Ms. Coffin.

MS. COFFIN:

And I'm sorry for changing the order. I wanted to ensure that Mr. James Dinn has

the opportunity to talk about Income Assistance before we went too far into

3.2.06. So I'm really sorry for any confusion that may have resulted as a result

of that.

CHAIR:

Please ask your questions.

MS. COFFIN:

If it's okay, may I? All right, lovely.

3.1.02: We've already talked about the number that had been received. In terms

of the criteria for this, we talked about it being for low-income individuals.

Can you tell me what the threshold for individuals receiving that, and is this

also something that we can provincially adjust the threshold, like we could for

the Mother/Baby Nutrition Supplement?

MR. BYRNE:

I believe it comes with the same threshold as the Mother/Baby, $26,000 or

thereabouts.

Ms. King, would you be the right person to speak to whether or not it can,

indeed, be subject to a policy review?

MS. KING:

The child care benefit under the National Child Benefit Reinvestment fund is

intended for individuals in receipt of income support. The threshold will be

whether or not you are eligible to receive income support. It's intended to

provide a benefit that allows individuals in receipt of income support to

participate in the workforce and in training when they're not able to receive

child care that's regulated. This particular benefit is for individuals in

receipt of income support.

MS. COFFIN:

Okay. I think that's where I was trying to get my head around. Because we're

underspending this by almost half, I was just wondering is there any way we can

change the criteria to enable additional individuals to access this. Given the

nature of you have to be working overnight and you're not using regulated stuff,

I'm guessing no.

The second part of that question would then be: Can we repurpose this money for

other things, like housing? Or can it go to help people supplement with their

transportation costs, because we know our public transit is very incongruent to

the places in which people work and the times in which people go to work. If

you're working, for example, at a call centre and you get off at midnight, often

buses have stopped running, so that incongruence there.

Is there any possibility that money can be repurposed to better help support

individuals as opposed to letting half of it lapse every year?

CHAIR:

Minister Byrne.

MR. BYRNE:

Yes, within the vote itself, where they can, we do reprofile funds. On this

particular example, I'll see if we don't do that. Cynthia, I don't know if …

CHAIR:

Cynthia King.

MS. KING:

The funds under the National Child Benefit Reinvestment are intended to reduce

poverty for children. So the commitment that the province has made under that

particular fund is that it directly impacts children, which is why it's intended

for non-regulated child care.

MS. COFFIN:

Great.

Could it also apply for parents with children who have to go to work, and then

they could take it as public transit? I mean, that certainly benefits the child

as well. Is there that kind of latitude? Are there other wa