PDF Version

May 1, 2018

GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Derek Bennett, MHA for Lewisporte - Twillingate,

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

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

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Paul Davis, MHA for Topsail - Paradise,

substitutes for Barry Petten, MHA for Conception Bay South.

The

Committee met at 6 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Edmunds):

Good evening, everyone.

We will

get started here. Welcome, everyone, as we discuss the estimates of Executive

Council.

First

of all, I'd point out that there have been some substitutions. MHA Derrick Bragg

is substituting for MHA John Finn; MHA Derek Bennett is substituting for Carol

Anne Haley; and MHA Paul Davis is substituting for MHA Barry Petten.

When it

comes to our first

section – I'll go through the sections of order – MHA Tracey

Perry will be taking the lead on questions on Women's Policy Office.

So I'll

take this time to ask the Government Services Committee to introduce themselves.

MR. DAVIS:

Paul Davis, MHA for Topsail - Paradise.

MS. DRODGE:

Megan Drodge, Researcher with the Official Opposition caucus.

MS. PERRY:

Tracey Perry, MHA, Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Keith Hutchings, MHA, Ferryland.

MS. MICHAEL:

Lorraine Michael, MHA, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MR. MORGAN:

Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP caucus.

MS. PARSLEY:

Betty Parsley, MHA, Harbour Main.

MR. KING:

Neil King, MHA, Bonavista.

MR. BENNETT:

Derek Bennett, MHA

Lewisporte - Twillingate.

MR. BRAGG:

Derrick Bragg, MHA, Fogo

Island - Cape Freels.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

Before

I get to the Minister responsible for the Women's Policy Office, I would like to

point out the order of which we will go through the content of the Executive

Council. We will start off with the Women's Policy Office; Human Resources

Secretariat; OCIO; Office of the Executive Council; Intergovernmental Affairs;

Indigenous Affairs; and Labrador Affairs.

At this

time, I open it up to the minister to introduce her department heads and staff,

and then go into the 15 minute overview after I call the section.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm

happy –

CHAIR:

Hold on.

CLERK (Barnes):

2.7.01 and 2.7.02.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.7.01 and 2.7.02

carry?

Minister.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Okay. Before I have a few

minutes at the beginning, I'll just start by asking my officials to introduce

themselves.

MS. BALLARD:

My name is Donna Ballard,

I'm the Deputy Minister responsible for the Women's Policy Office.

MS. TRICKETT:

Wanda Trickett, Departmental

Controller.

MR. MARTIN:

Dave Martin, Manager of

Finance, Budgeting and General Operations.

Dempster.

MR. WHITE:

Keith White, EA to Minister

Coady.

MS. HOLLETT:

Nancy Hollett, Media

Relations Manager with Women's Policy Office.

MS. DEMPSTER:

As all of you here would

know, Minister Coady is the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women and

Women's Policy Office. She's out of the province right now, on route back, so

she asked me to cover for her tonight, and it is a pleasure for me to be here

and participate in the Estimates of Women's Policy Office.

I'm

going to start with taking a couple of minutes to give you a little overview of

some of the things that have been happening over the past 12 months in the

Women's Policy Office.

Through

the application of a gender-based analysis on all policies, programs, services,

legislations and budgets, the Women's Policy Office work diligently to advance

the social, economic, cultural and legal status of all women in our province.

This past year, our government has engaged in many activities integral to

advancing the rights and equality of women and girls.

Minister Coady was honoured to represent the province at the recent United

Nations Commission on the Status of Women in New York, reconfirming the

provincial government's investment and commitment to gender equality and the

health, rights and well-being of women and girls in our province.

One

such initiative of the Women's Policy Office that helps us move closer to the

realization of this commitment is the ongoing, very valuable work around the

Violence Prevention Initiative. Finding long-term solutions to the problem of

violence against those most at risk in our society is essential to growth and

progress of our province.

The

eradication of violence cannot be achieved in isolation; rather, our government

acknowledges that in order to achieve long-term, systemic solutions a collective

and collaborative government-community response is required. I am very pleased

to report that substantial work has occurred in the area of violence prevention

over this past year, and I'll briefly take you through a few of the initiatives.

We have

successfully implemented 96 per cent of the 2015 Violence Prevention Initiative

Action Plan: Working Together for Violence-Free Communities. This living

document allows our government to be responsive to the violence prevention needs

of our communities as they arise. This year, we look forward to not only

completing this plan but further exploring how we can collectively and

collaboratively build upon the progress that we have seen to date.

We have

successfully expanded the definition of violence in the

Family Violence Protection Act to

include psychological, emotional and financial harm. This enhanced legislation

now aligns with how violence and abuse is defined by the Violence Prevention

Initiative, the Adult Protection Act

and the Children and Youth Care and

Protection Act .

have, through the examination of current policies, programs, services and

legislation, assisted partner departments in the implementation of gender-based

initiatives to address mental health and addictions, housing and homelessness,

and poverty. This coming year, we will also focus gender-based policy and

legislative attention towards updating the

Schools Act, 1997 , the Safe and

Caring Schools Policy, the Residential

Tendencies Act and the Municipalities

Act .

We have

successfully established two committees to address violence against women and

girls. To complement the Department of Justice and Public Safety's

community-based committee addressing Violence Against Women and Girls, Minister

Coady chairs a committee of ministers – of which I sit on that committee –

representing multiple departments to simultaneously address this serious issue.

addition to violence prevention work, the Women's Policy Office has many ongoing

initiatives to enhance woman's economic and social security; for example:

requiring gender equity and diversity plans and women's employment plans for

large-scale resource development projects; supporting Indigenous women to find

culturally appropriate responses to violence against women, mental health,

homelessness and reconnecting elders and youth in their communities; and

developing an equity profile for public service policy and program development

specialists on the status of women in Newfoundland and Labrador to assist in the

development of gender-inclusive policies, programs, services and legislation.

Despite

the many advances we have collectively made over the past year, many barriers

still exist to women's equal participation in both private and public spheres.

The harsh reality is that women remain underrepresented in leadership roles in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Research on leadership confirms that men greatly

outnumber women in all types of leadership roles, including managerial positions

in the labour force, in politics and on all types of boards.

While

women represent 49 per cent of the labour force in our province, they only hold

38 per cent of management positions. This means that while women enter the

workforce, there are many barriers that prevent them from entering leadership

roles at the same rate as men. Our government remains committed to addressing

these barriers in order to allow the province to avail of valuable insights,

talents, expertise and experience.

Through

Budget 2018 , I am happy to inform

that the Women's Policy Office has earmarked $50,000 for the undertaking of two

significant initiatives aimed at increasing the number of women in our province

in leadership roles, including: the development of a government community

commitment designed to not only address cultural, social and economic barriers

to gender diversity in leadership, but to also empower women and girls to assume

leadership roles; the hosting of a women's conference on the status of women in

Newfoundland and Labrador to facilitate knowledge sharing and mentorship

opportunities with women leaders in the community, academia, business and

politics.

Our

government continues to recognize the importance of investing in community

organizations that work hard to create a safe and equitable province for our

residents. Last fiscal year, women's equality-seeking organizations, including

eight Women's Centres across the province, the Transition House Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador and the Multicultural Women's Organization of

Newfoundland and Labrador received increases in their core operational funding.

In addition, the Women's Policy Office provided for the first time core

operational funding to the Safe Harbour Outreach program.

I am

pleased to inform the Members here tonight that

Budget 2018 not only supports the

continued funding of these women's organizations, 10 Regional Coordinating

Committees Against Violence across the province, the Provincial Advisory Council

on the Status of Women and the Intimate Partner Violence prevention units with

the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but

also allows for the provision of increases to core operational funding for the

Newfoundland Aboriginal Women's Network and the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual

Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre.

As part

of The Way Forward our government

made a commitment to multi-year funding for the community groups to provide

better services to the people of our province. Providing this degree of

financial stability through multi-year funding provides a greater certainty for

funding, which allows these organizations to focus more of their efforts on the

delivery of services and programs and make longer term decisions around

staffing.

As was

announced last week by the Premier and myself, we are now proceeding with phase

1 with an initial group of 22 community groups representing a broad cross

section of society. I am pleased also to note that eight of our Women's Centres

located in Labrador City, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Port aux Basques,

Stephenville, Corner Brook, Grand Falls-Windsor, Gander and St. John's, as well

as the Newfoundland Aboriginal Women's Network, have been selected to

participate in phase 1 of this multi-year funding. Through balancing priorities

and implementing gender-based policies, programs, services, legislation and

budgets, our government demonstrates its commitment to the social, economic,

cultural and legal advancement of all women within our province.

And I

thank you for listening to me for those few minutes.

CHAIR:

Ms. Perry.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank

you, Minister. I'm going to start with

section 2.7.01.01, Salaries. And under

the budget and revised budget for 2017-2018, there's a variance of $120,700

which wasn't spent from – only $779,000 was spent from the budgeted amount of

$900,000. Can you explain that variance?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Sure. That reflects savings

from the '17-'18 budget as a result of vacancies throughout the year, and I

guess some of that is the deputy minister that was in the Women's Policy Office

have moved up into CSSD.

MS. PERRY:

(Inaudible) for this year,

2018-2019, the budget's even further reduced to $675,400. Can you tell me if any

positions are being removed from this office?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Well, there used to be – my

deputy minister who is here on my right was full-time in that office and she's

now moved up into CSSD effective maybe September, so that's where those savings

came from.

MS. PERRY:

That accounts for all of the

difference between the $900,000 which you would've had for 2017-18 –?

MS. DEMPSTER:

No, that would be the

biggest chunk of it, but there was also some salary reduction measures as a

result of the zero-based budgeting process.

MS. PERRY:

And can you explain what

these salary reduction measures were?

MS. BALLARD:

Yes, there was one position,

a financial administrative officer, which the individual was on extended sick

leave and she retired, so that particular position has been eliminated. Those

duties relate to invoicing and some of the financial management which is now

undertaken by our controller's office. Also, we re-profiled $25,000 of money

from that salary into Purchased Services to assist with the funding that we're

required to do our leadership strategies and conference for this year.

MS. PERRY:

Okay, so in terms of

position changes and our staffing changes, can you give us the total change

within the department, would it be just the elimination of the deputy minister

yourself and the financial admin officer – are there any other positions which

have been eliminated?

MS. BALLARD:

No, that's correct. The

deputy minister's position, as Minister Dempster indicated, it's not eliminated,

it's just I carry that position as well as my current position.

MS. PERRY:

You fill both roles?

MS. BALLARD:

Yes.

MS. PERRY:

Okay, thank you.

terms of Professional Services, what type of professional services does Women's

Policy Office use, and who do you avail of these services from?

MS. BALLARD:

Our entire Professional Services budget is for the RCMP Intimate Partner

Violence prevention unit.

MS. PERRY:

Okay, and the funds would then be paid to the RCMP?

MS. BALLARD:

That's correct.

MS. DEMPSTER:

One hundred per cent, yes.

MS. PERRY:

Okay.

How

were savings of $119,900 achieved last year?

MS. DEMPSTER:

That was primarily due to reduced requirements for the Intimate Partner Violence

protection program, which 100 per cent of it goes to the RCMP, but there was

less use this year.

MS. PERRY:

And why would there have been reduced requirements?

MS. BALLARD:

There was a vacancy for a period of time with the corporal and constable who are

assigned specifically to that unit.

MS. PERRY:

Okay, thank you.

Again,

under Purchased Services, in budget 2017 the budget was reduced, and then this

year it's being increased by $60,600. So what is being planned for this year

that requires an increase in the budget?

MS. DEMPSTER:

As Donna referenced up higher, down in Purchased Services that's where we have

moved to $22,300 mainly due to increased conference cost and a leadership

conference that the minister have already spoken to a number of times publically

is happening this fall, so money has been moved there to cover that.

MS. PERRY:

Okay.

I'd

like to go back just to one question in terms of the funds, Purchased Services,

to the RCMP. How long was the intimate partner position vacant last year – for

how long?

MS. BALLARD:

I will have to get that information (inaudible). As you know, the contract with

the RCMP is handled by the Department of Justice, as all contracts are with the

RCMP. We are JV'd from that department, so I'll have to check on that specific

question.

MS. PERRY:

Okay, thank you.

Under

Grants and Subsidies, can we get a list of every organization that received

funding, and how much for each?

MS. BALLARD:

Yes, no problem.

MS. DEMPSTER:

If there are no privacy

issues (inaudible).

MS. BALLARD:

No, not at all.

MS. PERRY:

Okay.

Is the

list pretty much the same year over year?

MS. BALLARD:

Yes, we have core funding for our 10 Regional Coordinating Committees Against

Violence, our eight Women's Centres, the Transition House Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault Crisis

and Prevention Centre. There may be one I'm missing but I'll think of it in a

second. Those are our core funders, but we also have $230,000 which we expend

for Indigenous violence prevention grants which are project-based.

MS. PERRY:

Okay.

There's

a planned increase this year for Grants and Subsidies. Can you explain who that

is for?

MS. DEMPSTER:

I'm sorry; can you repeat

the question again?

MS. PERRY:

For Grants and Subsidies,

last year the budgeted amount was $2.890 million, this year it's $2.965 million,

so –

MS. DEMPSTER:

That reflects an increase

due to additional grant expense with the amount originally budgeted under

Transportation and Communication. Some of that is, I guess, travel – I am

looking to Donna – when a lot of times the staff is going back and forth to

Labrador.

MS. BALLARD:

Specifically, the increase

of $30,000 right there from what we budgeted to what we expended was we have –

we fund an Indigenous women's conference every year, and we've done so for many

years, and we usually put that in a line item as Transportation and then we deal

specifically with individuals and invoicing and so forth. This year, we

partnered with the St. John's Native Friendship Centre, who were in partnership

with Status of Women Canada, to do a more fulsome conference and project, which

is going to take three years.

What we

did this year is instead of handling the invoicing of the travel ourselves, we

provided a grant directly to the St. John's Native Friendship Centre, so we just

had to move that money from Transportation into Grants so that we could expend

it in that way.

MS. PERRY:

Okay, thank you.

That

explains the variance from the budgeted amount to the revised amount for

2017-2018, but looking to the 2018-2019 estimates you're forecasting to spend an

extra $75,000. What is that for?

MS. BALLARD:

So now we've permanently

moved $25,000, for that reason I just explained to you. In addition, there is an

increased funding of $25,000 for the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault

and Crisis Prevention Centre, and an extra $25,000 for the Newfoundland

Aboriginal Women's Network which has increased funding for next year.

MS. PERRY:

Okay thank you.

I just

have some general questions now. Budget

2017 contained $250,000 to establish a Sexual Assault Response Pilot

Program. This would provide an independent legal advisor to victims so that

victims can understand the court progress. Can the minister comment on the

progress of this pilot program?

MS. BALLARD:

Sorry, can you repeat the

question? Are you referring to the money that's expended by Justice?

MS. PERRY:

Yes.

MS. BALLARD:

That particular program, the

legal services program?

MS. PERRY:

Yes.

MS. BALLARD:

I'm familiar with it. It's a

project that the Minister of Justice has announced and it's to provide legal

advice to victims of sexual assault. I know that program is being run in

partnership with the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault and Crisis

Prevention Centre and PLIAN.

MS. PERRY:

Okay.

Can you

give an update on the Violence Prevention Initiative, or VPI?

MS. DEMPSTER:

I can run through some of

the significant progress that's been made around the Violence Prevention

Initiative committee. Some of this I've already talked about in my opening.

Changes were made to the Family Violence

Protection Act , as Bill 1 of the sitting of the House of Assembly. The

Minister of Service NL has committed that the Advisory Council on Occupational

Health and Safety will be tasked with reviewing and making recommendations on

harassment and violence provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety

regulations. Also, the Residential

Tenancies Act is currently under review right now. The Department of AESL is

also reviewing the suggested changes to the

Labour Standards Act .

The

minister, who I'm filling in for tonight, has convened a committee of ministers

from the following departments: Justice and Public Safety, Advanced Education,

Skills and Labour, Service NL, Education and Early Childhood Development, Health

and Community Services, and myself as Minister for Children, Seniors and Social

Development. Really we, collectively, as a group have been tasked with

addressing issues of violence in our province and overseeing collective actions

to address issues of violence in our province. Issues discussed at the January

11 meeting are included in the work plan of this committee.

MS. PERRY:

Okay, thank you, Minister.

Last

year in Estimates, the minister talked about pay-equity legislation and she

indicated that they didn't have a timeline for bringing in the legislation and

that a departmental committee had been created, a jurisdictional scan was done

and some background work was ongoing.

Can you

provide an update?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Okay.

I think

any time new policy or legislation in the area of pay equity, we'll all

acknowledge, is a significant undertaking. It's a really complex process, and

factors that require substantial research, analysis, consultations. What I can

say is an interdepartmental committee consisting of representatives from WPO,

AESL, HRS and JPS has been established to explore the feasibility of pay equity

in NL. The first committee meeting took place on the 25th of April, at which

time the development of a work plan for ministerial review commenced.

MS. PERRY:

Okay, thank you, Minister.

So that

first meeting was April 25, as in last week, April 25?

Can you

give an update on the requirement to have women's equity plans on government

infrastructure projects – and this was part of

The Way Forward . And if you could let

us know specifically which projects did have plans in place for last year.

MS. DEMPSTER:

There are the Gender Equity

and Diversity Plans and the Women's Employment Plans, both of which are designed

to strategically improve the participation of women and other diverse groups in

employment and business contracts in resource development projects.

I'll

mention under the Gender Equity and Diversity I can mention three here: AGS

Fluorspar, St. Lawrence; FOXTROT mine, which is right in the heart of my

district in St. Lewis; and Tacora mine in Wabush. These are under development,

those that I've mentioned, and not finalized. Women's Employment Plans are under

development, upcoming and not all finalized. Some of those that we're working

with would include Anaconda Ming Mine; long-term care facility, Corner Brook;

the long-term care facility in Central; new Waterford hospital; and Crémaillère

Harbour port development.

MS. PERRY:

Can you tell me if the White

Rose Extension Project in Argentia has one – West White Rose?

MS. BALLARD:

I'll have to check on that. My understanding is there a special project order

for that project, and that includes a diversity plan, but I will check on that

and get back to you. I'm pretty sure it's under a special project order.

MS. PERRY:

Okay.

Are

these plans publicly available?

MS. BALLARD:

All of these are under

development.

MS. PERRY:

All of them are under

development, so none of them are actually –?

MS. BALLARD:

Anything that's finalized

is.

MS. PERRY:

Okay.

Can you

give an update on the Indigenous Women in Mining project?

MS. BALLARD:

Which project? Sorry.

MS. PERRY:

Indigenous Women in Mining.

MS. BALLARD:

There is a committee that

has been established and right now I'm looking for someone within my office to

sit on that committee because the person who sat on it just retired today. But

the work is ongoing.

MS. PERRY:

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Chair, my time is up, but I was –

CHAIR:

Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

Do you give her leave?

MS. PERRY:

Yeah, that's what I wanted

(inaudible).

MS. MICHAEL:

Well, I would like to jump in actually.

MS. PERRY:

Okay (inaudible).

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

I don't

have any questions on the line items because I think all of the questions that

would have asked you've answered, so thank you.

Minister, can we except to get the binder and will the binder have a lot of the

information, for example, the lists of the names of the groups that do get

grants, will those lists be in the binder?

MS. DEMPSTER:

If that's not in the binder we can get that for you, the list of groups, the

amount of funding they all received.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

And if

we could also have a staffing list for the Women's Policy Office as well for

this year, what the current staffing is, that would be great.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mm-hmm.

MS. MICHAEL:

I just want to check now because I took notes while you were talking.

Minister, you opened up talking about the gender-based analysis that's done of

programs and policies and budget, et cetera. Could we get an understanding of

what the tool is that is used for that or the methodology that is used for doing

that gender-based analysis of policy and programs?

MS. BALLARD:

The Status of Women Canada gender-based analysis tool that's online, we've taken

that and we have some lists and checklists that we use ourselves. That's

basically the same tool.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, so you use that tool

and you adjust it?

MS. BALLARD:

That's correct.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

May I

ask another question about that? Is this an ongoing process that's continually

happening? Policies are changing all the time, every year there's a budget, so

how does WPO interact with the departments in doing this kind of thing?

MS. DEMPSTER:

I can say yes, that is

happening. Also, on that note, I don't think I mentioned yet this evening that

WPO has developed new gender-based analysis materials, which are currently being

reviewed by communications and, once completed, those materials are going to be

sent for branding and final design – new materials to work with as we apply the

GBA across policies and programs and departments.

MS. MICHAEL:

And I assume that when that

happens we would be able to get copies of that material?

MS. BALLARD:

Yes, the intention is to post it online.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

I don't

think I have any more questions. Just with regard to 2.7.02, the Provincial

Advisory Council, they get their grant, I know. Can we get information from WPO

with regard to their staffing component right now and that kind of thing?

MS. BALLARD:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

Was

there also a breakdown of their budget in that information? Or we would have to

go straight to them for that?

MS. BALLARD:

They have their annual reports online, which would have a breakdown.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, okay.

I think

that's it and, Tracey, I can send it back to you.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you very much,

Lorraine, and I just have a few quick questions and I'm done, as well, with WPO.

Last

year in Estimates, the minister indicated that the Women's Policy Office was

working with the community sector to bring gender-specific board governance

training to women. Can you provide an update on that?

MS. DEMPSTER:

I will defer to my deputy

again.

MS. BALLARD:

Yes, that work is ongoing and just on that, as the minister indicated, we're

also working on multi-year grants and the Community Sector Council is quite

involved in that. It's a component of strengthening our relationship with our

community organizations, so yes, governance is a part of that and we're

continuing to work on that.

MS. PERRY:

Have any training sessions

actually been delivered?

MS. BALLARD:

I will have to check on that

for you.

MS. PERRY:

Okay, thank you.

Are you

hosting any women's economic roundtables this year; and, if so, how many and

where?

MS. DEMPSTER:

To date, there have been

three held. Partnered with the Office to Advance Women Apprentices, and the

three held to date were in St. John's, Corner Brook and Burin (inaudible).

MS. BALLARD:

Stephenville and Happy

Valley-Goose Bay.

MS. DEMPSTER:

And Stephenville and

Happy-Valley Goose Bay also planned to be carried out this year.

MS. PERRY:

Okay.

Last

year in Estimates, the minister indicted that she was working with community

groups to share space so that they could share rental and other costs, and

actually I think that was a piece of work that was started when I was working

there with the WPO back in 2015. In particular, some of the organizations in

here that deal with women's issues, violence prevention, and had very limited

budgets, and they saw an opportunity to maximize their budgets if they could

have some shared rental space.

How has

that initiative been progressing, and have you accomplished the shared rental?

MS. BALLARD:

Yes, we worked closely with a group of organizations to flesh out that

initiative because when they came in, it was thin. We've actually just gotten

the final product on our desks in the last couple of weeks, so we'll be

reviewing it.

MS. PERRY:

So that would be like the Crisis hotline, Wendolyn Schlamp's group, all those

right?

MS. BALLARD:

It's the YWCA, the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault Crisis and

Prevention Centre, and Thrive.

MS. PERRY:

Okay.

Where

are they going to be co-located to?

MS. BALLARD:

We are just reviewing the proposal right now.

MS. PERRY:

Okay. Thank you so much. That concludes my questions for Women's Policy Office.

Thank

you, Minister, and everyone.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay, recall the section.

CLERK:

2.7.01 and 2.7.02.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.7.01 to 2.7.02 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

Thank

you.

motion, subheads 2.7.01 through 2.7.02 carried.

MS. DEMPSTER:

I'd like to thank the Finance Minister for allowing us to go first.

Thank

you very much.

Recess

CHAIR:

We'll reconvene and move on to the second

section of Executive Council and we'll

go to the Human Resource Secretariat, and I'll start off with the minister and

introductions of his department heads and staff. After I call the section, we'll

go into your 15-minute overview.

CLERK:

We have 3.1.01 through

3.1.12 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 3.1.01 to 3.1.12, inclusive, carry?

Minister.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you very much, I'd

like to ask my staff to introduce themselves before we carry on, starting with

Mr. Joyce.

MR. JOYCE:

George Joyce, Assistant

Deputy Minister for the Labour Branch, HRS.

MS. TRICKETT:

Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller.

MS. FOLLETT:

Tina Follett, Operations and HR Service Delivery, ADM.

MS. HUSSEY:

Cindy Hussey, Assistant Deputy Clerk.

MR. MARTIN:

Dave Martin, Manager of Finance, Budgeting and General Operations.

MS. FOOTE:

Carla Foote, Associate Secretary to Cabinet Communications, Communications

Branch.

MR. OSBORNE:

All right, thank you.

Just a

couple of notes: The Human Resource Secretariat provides leadership and support

to all core government departments in human resource policy, planning,

information management and HR program and service delivery. The secretariat is

also responsible for human resource issues addressed by the Treasury Board

committee of Cabinet.

As I'm

sure you can imagine, the workforce as large as government, the HRS has numerous

lines of business including Classification and Organizational Design Division;

Employment and Labour Relations Division; Policy, Planning and Analytics

Division; Centre for Learning and Development; Payroll and Benefits; Strategic

Staffing; Executive Client and Consulting Services; the HRS Service Centre and

Corporate Service Delivery; and Employee Safety and Wellness.

Aside

from the daily business of HR management in the public service, the HRS has been

key in the signing of the 15 NAPE collective agreements a few weeks ago, two

ongoing negotiations with other unions and the current efforts by our payroll

team and the HRS service centre to undertake the severance payout. The HRS team

is working hard to keep our workforce running efficiently. Ongoing work

continues, as well as the implementation of self-service functionality in

PeopleSoft, through which numerous efficiencies have been achieved.

I'd

like to thank the staff in the department for their dedication and their work

for the public service employees of our province, and I welcome questions.

CHAIR:

Mr. Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I want to start with a couple of line items first, if I could. Human

Resource Secretariat 3.1.01, Executive Support, if we come down to the first

line, Salaries, we have a salary change there from the estimate of 2017-2018 and

the actual expenditure from $642,300 to $909,900 and then it's been restructured

for this estimate. I wonder if I can get an explanation on the increase and the

reason for it.

MS. TRICKETT:

That is the result of, primarily, pay out of severance for two employees. That

would be the change from the '17-'18 revised and the '17-'18 original budget –

and I'm sorry, did you also ask about the change in the '18-'19 budget, as well?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, please.

MS. TRICKETT:

So the $30,000 that is added there, when we did zero-based this year, we

recognized the requirements for '18-'19, and we moved money in from across the

department.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

So the

$267,000 difference in the estimated to the actual was for two positions related

to severance?

MS. TRICKETT:

Correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, what were those two positions?

MS. TRICKETT:

They would've been related to – the deputy minister resigned, I guess, during

this fiscal year and, as well, we had an administrative support position.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

Were

both of those positions refilled?

MS. FOLLETT:

The deputy minister position is currently vacant, and the administrative

assistant position was not re-staffed, no.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, so the administrative position, was that position removed or is the

position still there but not filled?

MS. FOLLETT:

It was removed.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

What

about the deputy minister position; is the intent to fill that?

MS. FOLLETT:

As we understand it, yes, the intent is to have it re-staffed.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you very much.

If I

could go to 3.1.02, as well referring some line items here. For the Salaries in

that particular division, we saw an increase from the estimate to the revised

actual for 2017-2018 was a small amount, but just give me some comment on what

that was for?

MS. TRICKETT:

So the increase from '17-'18 revised from the original budget is related to some

severance and related benefits for two employees. Again, through the zero-based

process, we reduced the budget in '18-'19 to reflect the needs for next year –

or this year. I forget now that we're in the new fiscal.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So that would've been for one employee?

MS. TRICKETT:

The severance was for two employees.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Those

two and the two we mentioned earlier – obviously the deputy minister position

will be filled. The administrative support one and these two, Minister, are they

tied to an attrition plan, or are your efforts to reduce, or was it just normal

process in regard to people leaving or …?

MR. OSBORNE:

I'll ask Tina to answer

that. I'm not sure if one of those involved attrition, Tina?

MS. FOLLETT:

No, currently those

positions are being re-staffed. They're in the process of competition.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Those two?

MS. FOLLETT:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

Minister, I'll ask you upfront in the Human Resource Secretariat in regard to

attrition. Is there attrition planned for the Human Resource Secretariat or are

there targets that you're expecting to meet?

MR. OSBORNE:

There are targets outlined

in this year's budget, as there are for all departments. Based on previous two

years, we've had an overall reduction of 1,160 positions. In the budget we had

announced 795, I think, positions.

What

make up the remainder of the 1,160 are contractual positions that we've actually

eliminated that were contractual throughout the years. There are also some

within the Legislature, which we can't take credit for. The total reduction in

positions over the last two years – or the total elimination of positions is

1,160.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, 1,160 would be

including contractual. What did you say the actual number of positions was

again, seven –?

MR. OSBORNE:

Positions, not counting

contractual – I mean, contractual still count but we didn't want debate on

whether they did or didn't – but 797.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

MR. OSBORNE:

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. Would they be temps,

as well as permanent, that 797?

MR. OSBORNE:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, 797 and the rest then

would be various contractual positions. Thank you.

If I

could come down to Purchased Services, under heading 3.1.02, there was a budget

allocation last year of $122,300. There wasn't full expenditure there; it was

$106,800. For this year, it's been reduced again for $87,200. Is that just

zero-based budgeting and doing an assessment of what the overall output was

under Purchased Services?

MS. TRICKETT:

The revised budget there reflects – at the time of print for the Estimates, we

had thought the collective agreements would have been signed at that time, so

that extra increase reflects an anticipated expenditure for printing of those

collective agreements.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, from the estimate to

what the actual was?

MS. TRICKETT:

That would have been the difference between the revised '17-'18 and the budget

for '17-'18.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

Under

the heading – just a general question – 3.1.02, Employment and Labour Relations,

it references provision of collective bargaining services and collective

agreement management and administration. There are Professional Services that

are listed there. Could you give me an idea of what those professional services

would be and would they be involved with consultants from outside, like EY or

legal consultants. What exactly would that be?

MR. JOYCE:

Professional services would be primarily paying arbitration fees. Once the

collective bargaining cycle is over, then there's a big concentration on trying

to deal with all the arbitration systems in the system.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, so the $143,000,

Professional Services, would pretty well deal with arbitration?

MR. JOYCE:

That's correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So there would be no other

consultants involved with that number there, would there?

MR. JOYCE:

No. For that particular area, Professional Services is used for arbitration

fees.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

If I

could, could I ask – I know we talked last year about job evaluation, the JES,

and there were about 350 outstanding at that particular time, in regard to

appeals. I wonder if we can get a general update on that – I know we spoke

briefly, I think, in our last session on that, Minister.

MR. OSBORNE:

Yeah, we added an additional

resource to try and deal with that. Do you have an update, George, on – I know

they are making greater progress with the additional resource, but I …

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

First of all, I'll just give you the context since last year. Since last year,

HRS has been in negotiations with four of the public sector union – the

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, CUPE, NAPE and Allied Health

Professionals – on a new mechanism: an appeal system for the JES.

Throughout the year, we signed a document of a mechanism that all parties agreed

that would be used as the appeal process and, also, during that time that appeal

process was appended to the collective agreements. We have money allocated in

this budget to hire an adjudicator for a year to hear all the backlog of appeals

that are outstanding. That's the JES appeal process.

We also

have money, now, to hire an extra individual to assist with the backlog of the

JES classifications that we intend to put a lot more weight on this year. And,

as well, we are partnering with Eastern Health because the vast majority of our

classifications are driven by health care authorities, so we're going to partner

with them, second someone and bring them on board to help us deal with them.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, so just in a general

sense in regard to what would be outstanding – I think last year we were told it

was about 350 – would you have an approximate number, what would be …?

MR. JOYCE:

Now, I have a list here – I

know there were a number of questions. I know Ms. Michael asked for an update

for last year and this year, I don't know what the process and that is now in

terms of distributing the numbers.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, so those are the

numbers of what's outstanding?

MR. JOYCE:

Pardon?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Those are the number of what

is outstanding?

MR. JOYCE:

There are a number of all

kinds of stats related to the last couple of years, what's outstanding, what's

completed for appeals and everything. So is it all right for me to bring this

over?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Sure.

MR. JOYCE:

I just have (inaudible).

MR. HUTCHINGS:

What page is it?

Just in

terms of the JES, the Job Evaluation System, thinking back, this was a joint

project in terms of classification evaluation. Are there new JES appeals coming

forward? But I thought the time for that had elapsed? Is that correct?

MR. JOYCE:

No, there are JES appeals

coming through all the time. It's an ongoing process and, as we speak, there are

still appeals being made.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

there was no cut-off from the original classification evaluation that was done?

MR. JOYCE:

No.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Minister, I think in Finance we spoke greatly as well about the severance payout

for NAPE members. Can you just give an update again about how that's going and

the progress being made in regard to that collective agreement and the decision

that was made in regard to severance?

MR. OSBORNE:

The last stats that I looked

at, there was about 90 per cent of individuals who were requesting first-quarter

payout. About 75 per cent, the last time I checked, were looking for full cash,

and the remainder were somewhere between full-cash payout and some RRSPs to full

RRSP contribution.

We're

anticipating, based on the demand and the volume, not everybody is going to get

it first quarter. So anybody who doesn't get a first-quarter payout, which will

be by the end of June, can choose another quarter this year; or we're giving

them the option, if they so choose, anybody who wants their money in this fiscal

year will get it, but if somebody, for some reason, one of the other three

quarters doesn't suit them, we'll allow them to pick another quarter next year

if they wish.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Minister, all the applicants have come forward and said they want their

severance in the first quarter. Was it just first in, in terms of who gets paid

in the first quarter? Is that something like that, how it would work?

MR. OSBORNE:

That's correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

So from

your perspective today, do you think, based on the number you have, you'll be

able to meet those requests within the current fiscal year – is that fair to

say?

MR. OSBORNE:

Absolutely. Anybody who wants their money this fiscal year will get it.

During

the negotiation process with NAPE, that was understood by both parties upfront

that if the volume exceeded the physical ability of the workforce to process –

because they're manually processed. They need to manually calculate. So if the

volume of requests outnumbered the physical ability to process, they would roll

over into another quarter.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

I'm

just unsure if we covered it. So has additional staff been hired to help with

that process?

MR. OSBORNE:

Tina?

MS. FOLLETT:

We haven't hired additional staff; rather, we have leveraged staff from within

our existing complement to realign with the amount of work that has occurred as

a result of the severance payouts.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

Minister, I know that particular negotiation with NAPE has concluded and that

provision of severance is working through the system. You're in other collective

agreements or discussions. If these were to conclude, is there a capacity for

that same offer; and if the current agreements reflected what was done with

NAPE, is the capacity to have those recipients receive severance in current

fiscal year?

MR. OSBORNE:

Yes, to the degree we are able to process, but the other bargaining units, NAPE,

the vast majority of core government – maybe all of core government are NAPE

employees. So –

MR. HUTCHINGS:

It is probably 70 or 80 per cent, or something in that range, is it?

MS. OSBORNE:

Yeah. So if we're looking at CUPE, for example, the same demand is not on the

processing here with core government. I can't speak for the agencies as to their

ability, but the money is available. It depends on the date of signing of other

agreements. If they're signed relatively soon, then I anticipate, yes, they'll

be paid in this fiscal year. The money is put aside for it, depending on when

the contracts are concluded and the volume requesting.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I'm going to move into line items again.

Section 3.1.03, Policy,

Planning and Analytics, and it's the Salaries line that I'm interested in. Last

year, the budget was $922,900 and the revision upward was $1,318,900 and then

the estimate for this year is $1,001,200 – if we could have an explanation of

all of that variance, please.

MS. TRICKETT:

The difference the '17-'18 revised and the '17-'18 original budget

would relate to severance and related benefits for three employees. The slight

increase in Salaries from budget to budget is simply looking at the requirements

of the staff for that area for '18-'19.

MS. MICHAEL:

And did you say two or three?

MS. TRICKETT:

Three.

MS. MICHAEL:

Three.

Minister, well, we already have the binders, so I'm

assuming that there will be details on this in the binder?

MR. OSBORNE:

There is, yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Will that include the staff complement at that time?

MR. OSBORNE:

The staff complement in the department, you mean?

MS. MICHAEL:

No, for doing this particular work – the Policy, Planning and Analytics?

MS. TRICKETT:

If you're speaking just in general, I guess, the staffing complement, in the

binder that you were presented, under tab 3, there is the salary details

document that is published online with the budget documents, so information on

that, at a snapshot in time, whenever that document was produced. But if you're

looking for more specific than that, we can certainly provide that.

MS. MICHAEL:

Please. Thank you.

I think that's all I have for that section. 3.1.04,

Classification and Organizational Design – can I come back up actually to the

severance for the three positions? That was severance for people who have left

these positions. Are the positions still there?

MS. FOLLETT:

No, Ms. Michael, those positions are no longer within the structure.

MS. MICHAEL: So

you had three people gone from this division. How have you managed with workload

with three people gone?

MS. FOLLETT:

Last year, the HRS went through reorganization and resourcing from other areas

within the organization, specifically the prior strategic human resource units.

There were staff that were reallocated from the

disbandment of those units

and some of those staff were aligned within PPA.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

Now

I'll come down to 3.1.04. Again here it's the salary line and probably similar

answers, but I still would like the details. So the budget was $818,200, and the

revision upward was $1,019,000, and this year it's $1,008,400.

MS. TRICKETT:

Yes, the difference in the '17-'18 revised, '17-'18 original budget is related

to some severance and related benefits for two employees. Also during that year,

there was some requirement for succession planning, a critical position that was

going to be leaving the organization, so there were additional requirements

there. Some of those costs were offset from natural vacancies within the

department.

terms of the increase for the budget next year, that is related to the two new

positions that were provided for this budget year. Mr. Joyce spoke to one of

those already, and I'll let him speak to the second there now.

MR. JOYCE:

In terms of the adjudicator, money that's allotted for that, would you like an

explanation of that?

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, please.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

As I

indicated a little earlier, Ms. Michael, HRS work with four of the major public

sector unions to put in place a new mechanism to deal with appeals under the JES

process. We signed an agreement with those four unions. It got delayed a little

because at the same time we were in collective bargaining and we wanted to

attach that mechanism to the agreements we have with NAPE – we will with the

other unions as well. Also, in tandem with that, is hiring an adjudicator for a

year that will make final and binding decisions that are not subject to the

grievance arbitration.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, and that's the one

position there. Thank you very much.

Going

back to the two employees for whom severance was paid out, was it just employees

getting severance or the positions gone as well?

MS. FOLLETT:

The positions have been abolished as well.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. I don't have any other

questions for that one.

3.1.05,

which is the Centre For Learning and Development, once again we'll start with

the salary line. We can all read the salary line, so I'm not going to read it.

Just explain, once again, the difference between the budget and the revision

upward and then this year's figure.

MS. TRICKETT:

Certainly.

The

difference in the revised and the original budget for '17-'18 results in

severance and related benefits for five employees, as well as some training

requirements that initially at budget time last year we thought we may have to

contract out through Professional Services that were actually able to be

addressed in-house with existing staff.

MS. MICHAEL:

So five employees gone, is

that five positions gone?

MS. FOLLETT:

Yes, Ms. Michael, those five positions are also eliminated.

MS. MICHAEL:

And how are you coping with

that?

MR. JOYCE:

What we're doing is we're moving toward more of virtual-based programming and

training for the different areas, using a lot more technology to engage that.

The

whole function for the Centre for Learning and Development in the last two

years, there's been a major reorganization there. The priority now is on safety

compliance training and any regulatory and legislative requirement training

that's required by government, by statute and by regulation.

That's

the focus of that centre right now, as a result of the reorganization. That's

what our focus has been.

MS. MICHAEL:

With regard to some of the

things that are mentioned in the description for the centre, I'm assuming they

still are happening, though they are not a focus? For example, French language

training is in there, leadership and management development is there, employee

onboarding and mandatory learning required by legislation – well, you mentioned

that one, I think.

there anything there that is no longer happening?

MR. JOYCE:

No, it's just more of a focus on the priority, as I indicated, about the

compliance base and the regulatory and still delivering the same services that's

previously been delivered.

MS. MICHAEL:

And the French language

training is being delivered?

MR. JOYCE:

That's correct.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

I just

want to check – under Transportation and Communications, last year the revision

was a fair size for that budget line; it was $46,500. Could we have an

explanation of that revision upward, please?

MS. TRICKETT:

Certainly.

I think

to clarify a little, I will have to branch out a bit. The next activity, the

3.1.06, Organizational Development Initiative, is very closely held with the

Centre for Learning and Development. In fact, the staff for the Centre for

Learning facilitates the training that is delivered under the Organizational

Development Initiative, and throughout '17-'18 there were charges and costs that

– as you can imagine, when you're delivering – if you have a staff member who is

budgeted under the Centre for Learning and they have to travel to deliver a

particular course, at times there is confusion as to whether that would be a

Centre for Learning and Development charge or whether that should actually be

part of the training cost under the Organizational Development Initiative.

So that

is the reason for that. Upon looking at the charges and the costs, it was

determined that they are more applicable to the Centre for Learning. They were

simply just allocated to this activity instead of the Organizational Development

Initiative.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, and then the cost for

this year, which is appreciably less but more than last year's budget – the

estimate is $10,200. That is real sizing there, is it, for that line?

MS. TRICKETT:

It's very similar to the last explanation. At time of budget, there was

discussions ongoing as to how best to allocate such charges and whether to

charge them to facilitation-type costs and thus to the Centre for Learning, or

whether they are actually training development costs and that would then be

under the Organizational Development Initiative. At time of print for budget

that hasn't been fully determined so you may see next year very similar charges,

but that is something that we will be working on for cleaning up the budget for

'18-'19.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

I think

my time is up, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Mr. Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I just want to go back and ask in regard to the severance. There is an

issue that I became aware of in regard to the payment out of severance. The

normal practice, obviously, would be if someone at the end of their career had a

retirement that would be planned and at that time they had made some life

decisions in regard to that. With the payout now, there may be some implications

in regard to someone that's caring for someone at home, someone that's had a

child and there's going to be maternal or paternal benefits that are taken

through the Employment Insurance benefits program, and with severance being paid

out there could be somewhat of an implication in regard to your ability to draw

down on those federal benefits.

Has

there been any discussion or thought about that and how this process could

disentitle somebody to that benefit on a federal level?

MR. OSBORNE:

We've added an additional

option for individuals to try and address that. At the time of negotiations,

that wasn't thought about or talked about by either side, but before the

agreements were signed, we added a fifth option where people could defer their

severance to any point in the future. If somebody wanted, they could wait until

they retired, or if they wanted, they could pick it at any point between now and

they time they retired. Therefore, an individual wouldn't be penalized by taking

it early, depending on certain circumstances.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, so before it was signed, you said there was a fifth option added to

recognize particulars like these.

MR. OSBORNE:

Exactly.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Which would allow someone to – could anybody do that, or would you have to

demonstrate a need of why they wanted to do it?

MR. OSBORNE:

No. Anybody could choose to

– we've had 98 per cent want it in the first quarter, of those who've applied;

but anybody who, for whatever reason, personal choice, whether it's just a nest

egg for retirement or whether there are fiscal considerations or income

considerations, tax considerations, can defer to any point up to retirement.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

The

other item I had, Minister, is in pay of severance – and my colleague has

brought one forward. It's a hardship case dealing with – I'm not getting into

details. It could do with a death, it could do with a divorce and things going

through court and there may be somewhat of a requirement, because of a hardship

case, to have it dealt with and dealt with in a very quick order. Is there a

method or process to ask for that and to have it considered?

MR. OSBORNE:

Anybody who's applied, the first set of payouts will be the end of June this

year. My guess is anybody who wanted it in the first quarter would've applied.

Unfortunately, if we got into trying to analyze the validity of each particular

case based on the volume of telephone calls we are getting and based on the

requests for first quarter, it would absolutely be impossible to guarantee

everybody payout for this year. The resources would be tied up in determining

whether a request was valid or not. It's just impossible to take requests on a

need basis like that.

We did

have one individual who, for medical reasons, could be near the end of life –

double-lung transplant type of situation. So if it's an extreme situation like

that –

MR. HUTCHINGS:

It is.

MR. OSBORNE:

– we would consider it, but if it's life circumstances, divorce or something

like that, we can't possibly get into examining each and every situation.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yeah, I certainly appreciate

that. I guess my attempt at an example was similar to yours, and I don't know if

I expressed it properly, but it would be an issue of the extreme that there

would be timelines and dates involved which could be detrimental to an

individual if they went beyond.

So I

agree with you, it wouldn't be something just to request because of a reason,

but would be a request because of an unusual circumstance that needed to be

addressed immediately.

MR. OSBORNE:

Yes, if you've got a special

case, I mean bring it to me and we'll certainly do what we can.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

Minister, the agreement signed with NAPE, there was some discussion in regard to

the no-layoff clause and what exactly that meant in a rollover to the end of the

collective agreement and the negotiation of a new agreement. As well, from some

others in regard to what that actually meant, in all elements of a collective

agreement. There was reference to a side agreement that was part of the NAPE

that I guess addressed some of the concerns.

Was

that side letter public, or would it be made public or could it be made public?

MR. OSBORNE:

The language of that letter

has been made public; CUPE has published it in full-page ads, so –

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, that's CUPE or NAPE?

MR. OSBORNE:

No, CUPE had published it in

full-page ads. Sidebar agreements are common, as I'm sure you're aware in most

public sector negotiations, there's usually a sidebar agreement to certain

clauses. That's quite common and has been for a considerable period of time. The

language that was proposed and the language that CUPE wanted to sign, both sets

of language have been publicly advertised.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I know the collective

agreement is online – I think it's an unsigned copy. Have you made that side

letter public or was it another union that made it public?

MR. OSBORNE:

CUPE did. It was advertised

full page. It's out there.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yeah, but you haven't made

it public or you haven't put it on the site with the collective agreement.

MR. OSBORNE:

No, it's a sidebar letter,

so generally they're not – I mean agreements signed in 2014, what went online

didn't include sidebars, which is normal practice, but it's out there.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

If I

could look at

section 3.1.05, Centre for Learning and Development, when we go

down to Professional Services – we see that line item there; there were dollars

budgeted. I'm just wondering why there was no expenditure in regard to that line

item that we approved here for Estimates in the prior fiscal year.

MS. TRICKETT:

As I had mentioned

previously in some of my responses, there was some thought that there would be a

requirement for external resources to deliver some training, and it was

determined that was able to be done in-house with existing resources. There was

no allocation for that and we have eliminated that for next year as well; we

realized we can do that in-house.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

And that training would be

related to …?

MS. TRICKETT:

It would just be to deliver

various types of training that this division is responsible for.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, so the training will

still be delivered, but delivered in a different manner by different people.

MS. TRICKETT:

Correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

You

referenced earlier, to Ms. Michael's question, five employees – that some of the

change in Salaries reflect the severance paid out to five employees. Were those

management positions or were they unionized positions?

MS. FOLLETT:

They were management

positions.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

If I

could confirm that those positions were removed, correct?

MS. FOLLETT:

Correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Positions, not the people.

Okay, thank you.

Could

you just explain to me in regard to 3.1.05, when we come down to the two Revenue

lines – the Revenue - Federal and the Revenue - Provincial – in regard to those

two lines, what they are and what they represent?

MS. TRICKETT:

When the French languages services training was delivered to entities such as

the regional health authorities, the cost of that training is recovered. We do

our best estimate as to how much we feel will be utilized, so for '17-'18 the

revised number reflects a lower amount than we had initially anticipated being

recovered, and our '18-'19 budget is more reflective of what we anticipate to

see this year.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

I'll

move on to 3.1.06.

CHAIR (King):

Thank you, Mr. Hutching.

We're

running close on your time, so I'm going to pass things over to Ms. Michael, if

you don't mind.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Sure.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm

going to do what Keith was going to do. Moving in to 3.1.06, again, the first

question has to do with the Salaries line because $340,000 was put aside in the

budget last year and wasn't spent and now it's back in, so an explanation,

please.

MS. TRICKETT:

This is an allocation that

is an annual allocation, I guess, for salary requirements, for any development

opportunities across government. So if there is no uptake of that during the

fiscal year or no requirements for that, there will be no expenditure and that

is the case for '17-'18.

MS. MICHAEL:

So you mean that any

department, for example, could make application to this money for some new

development they're doing in the department?

MS. TRICKETT:

Correct.

MS. MICHAEL:

That has to do with salary?

MS. TRICKETT:

Yes, this would just allow

for the salaries of that particular development.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Okay, thank you very

much.

Coming

down then, it's not a big amount – where am I? 3.1.06; my eyes – we've been all

day in this room and the light gets to me.

Under

Supplies, there was nothing budgeted, $49,800 was spent and this year there is

an estimate of $7,300. What was the expenditure last year, and why do we still

have money in there this year?

MS. TRICKETT:

So I think the easiest way

to answer your question to that, if you notice the total for the Operating

Accounts in that activity, you'll notice that for '17-'18, the budget was

$1,047,100 and the total amount spent – or projected to be spent, I should say,

was $1,150,500. Effectively, in '17-'18, the entire operational budget was

allocated under Purchased Services and through the fiscal year, as expenses were

incurred in various line items, those expenses were allocated to the particular

line item, as identified.

For

'18-'19, we took extra efforts to try to allocate that same budget, the

$1,047,100 across the line objects where we anticipate the spending to occur.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MS. TRICKETT:

And I will note that it does

look as though we overspent in the Operating Account for '17-'18; however, at

the time of print, there were some additional training costs that, I guess, are

facilitated by other departments and the costs are expensed back to this

activity. Once they were assessed, it was past the print of budget, and they

weren't actually deemed to be acceptable charges for reimbursement. So we

actually came in under around $30,000, under what the original operational

budget was.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

What

would the purchased services be in this area?

MS. TRICKETT:

The Purchased Services vote

would allow for such things as meeting room spaces to deliver training. It would

be for printing costs associated with materials, publications, that type of

stuff.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, that's a big line, but

I guess there's a lot of training that is going on.

In the

description of this program – I'll call it program; it is more than that – what

would be examples of specialized training, for example?

MR. JOYCE:

Specialized training, for

example, we could have first aid training, we could have fall protection

training and we could have training for all employees on ATIPP. There's a

multitude of training programs required and put off; it must be 100.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Would they be – what

will I say – done by Human Resource Secretariat and then departments informed,

or could entire departments request special training?

MR. JOYCE:

Sometimes, for example,

Department of Transportation and Works, if there's a new regulation put in place

they would sit with the Centre for Learning and Development and they would

tailor a training program for that particular requirement, whether it's a flag

person on the road. It depends what comes up at the time, what's required by

regulation. But they would work directly with departments, yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much. I

think I've covered all my questions there.

3.1.07,

Employee Safety and Wellness: I will ask, under Salaries, why last year there

was a large revision downwards but you're basically back up to same budget,

almost, this year.

MS. TRICKETT:

The savings in '17-'18 are

related to vacancies that were in the division throughout the year. The slight

revision down for '18-'19 is simply looking at the staff complement for '18-'19

and adjusting the Salaries accordingly.

MS. MICHAEL:

And that vacancy has been

filled, has it? Or you're holding the position? One or the other.

MR. JOYCE:

No, the vacancy has not been

filled. We went through about three directors for various reasons. We are also

in the process of trying to develop exactly what the exact need is. This is a

relatively new area, a new division, Safety and Wellness, and we're working with

the director there now in terms of exactly what our focus is going to be.

MS. MICHAEL:

How many staff are in this

division, Mr. Joyce?

MR. JOYCE:

Sixteen, I think, and a

vacancy or two vacancies.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

I'm

just reading through the description again; it's been a couple of days since I

read it. Is there good uptake on this?

MR. JOYCE:

It's really good uptake. In that particular division we have integrated

disability managers, we have three occupational health and safety consultants

and we have a wellness coordinator.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

And three of those areas now, particularly when we're trying to look at

developing a new health and safety system for government, it's very busy.

MS. MICHAEL:

Is it under this division

that ergonomic assessments are done or is that something –?

MR. JOYCE:

That's correct, yeah. That's done in that particular area.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, thank you very much.

Let's

see if I have any more questions for there – Purchased Services. Oh well, that's

not big, no.

What

would be the purchased services though, it's been reduced by $10,000, basically,

between last year's budget and this year's estimate?

MS. TRICKETT:

That budget would allow for basic office printing, printing charges. It also

would allow for any ergonomic assessments that were conducted as well.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

3.1.09,

again in the Salaries there was a slight drop in the revision from last year's

budget – well, it was a drop of $82,300 I think, and then this year the estimate

is $100,000 lower than last year's budget line. Could we have an explanation

there?

MS. FOLLETT:

The $82,300 reflects savings

from the 2017-18 budget as a result of vacancies throughout the year and the

$100,000 reflects a decrease from the 2017-18 budget reduced requirements as per

the zero-based budgeting submission.

MS. MICHAEL:

Have the vacancies not been

filled?

MS. FOLLETT:

For a period of time, yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Has

there been a loss of positions then?

MS. FOLLETT:

No, we haven't had a loss. We just had some challenges in recruiting the

positions.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, because it is a

$100,000 difference in budget, so do you have some lower-paid positions now than

you had last year?

MS. FOLLETT:

Yes, that would be correct.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

One

more question under here. The Revenue - Provincial line, last year the budget

said $250,000, and then the revision was $20,000, and this year it's $50,000.

Number one, what does that line refer to and why was it $250,000 and revised

down to $20,000? That's a big one.

MS. FOLLETT:

The $230,000 reflects a reduction in revenue from 2017-18 budget primarily due

to anticipated revenue for administrative costs not being recovered from our

group insurance plan. The $200,000 reflects a decrease from the 2017-18 budget

related to the elimination of recovery of administrative costs associated with

our group insurance plan.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, those figures aren't

in the page I'm looking at.

CHAIR (Edmunds):

Okay.

Mr.

Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

CHAIR:

Are you comfortable with Ms.

Michael carrying on, or would you –?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, if she wants to finish

her question.

Lorraine, do you want to finish that?

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, I'm questioning the

fact that I'm looking at the Estimates page and I don't see – well, I see

$200,000 and $230,000 written in by Ivan by hand. That's why I'm asking where

did that come from because it's not printed here.

question had to do with the printed line, which was Revenue - Provincial,

$50,000 was the estimate for this year, $20,000 was the revision downwards last

year and $250,000 was written in – and he's written in by hand underneath

$200,000, $230,000, which you've said. So where's that figure coming from? It's

not printed on the Estimates page.

MR. OSBORNE:

Yes, because the $250,000 less $20,000 is $230,000.

MS. MICHAEL:

Pardon?

MR. OSBORNE:

The $250,000 less $20,000 is

$230,000.

MS. MICHAEL:

Oh, I get it. Thank you very

much, Tom, for figuring that one out. Okay.

I'm

still not clear, then, you're going to have to explain it to me again, because I

was being confused by these figures. You're going to have to explain to me again

what that is; I'm sorry.

MS. TRICKETT:

So this activity deals with our group insurance plan and there are some charges

that are applicable to be cost recovered, very similar to pensions. So for

'17-'18 there was some anticipation that we would be able to recover a

significant portion of those administrative costs, and through the fiscal year

that was determined that was not going to occur. So that results in the $230,000

savings – or reduction in revenue, I should say.

recognize that we're not going to receive that for '18-'19, so we've adjusted

the budget for that accordingly.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, now I'm

perfectly clear.

Thanks,

Keith.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Mr.

Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just

want to go back and ask a question in regard to 3.1.06, Organizational

Development Initiative. Ms. Michael asked about the Purchased Services and what

that would involve there. I think it was related to various training programs

and various initiatives, I guess, for folks within government in terms of

getting the applicable training that's required.

That

Purchased Services amount, is that done by outside service providers in

providing that training?

MS. TRICKETT:

It would allow for costs to

purchase training modules as well. So if we had to deliver a particular type of

training, you have to purchase that from a resource, from a company, from

whomever. Sometimes it's the cost of actually procuring that actual training

module, and then those modules can be delivered by in-house staff.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yeah, so each time you go,

you wouldn't have to purchase the modules, right?

MS. TRICKETT:

Depending on the type of

training, whether that is something that is greater than one – it's not updated

annually type thing –

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, right.

MS. TRICKETT:

But maybe George can speak

more specifically to that.

MR. JOYCE:

The training modules will

vary depending on the regulation that's brought in, depending on the updates to

it, depending on many different reasons. It's purchased from the private sector.

If we can find it in-house, we'll use it but –

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I guess my question just

very simply is that I recognize there's training modules and you would purchase

those and deliver them in-house by somebody in-house. In a prior life, I was

involved with OH&S and I delivered training services, but if I was a private

vendor outside, could I come in here and make an offering to provide services,

and is that done and are outside folks hired to provide services to your staff?

MR. JOYCE:

I answered your question;

I'm not sure to what extent – now, I can get that information.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yeah, because it's a big

number; it's almost a million dollars. So you can buy a lot of training modules

for that amount, and some of those, like I said, don't need to be reciprocated

every time you want to do the training.

MR. JOYCE:

That's correct, yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So I'm just wondering what's

involved with –

MR. JOYCE:

I can provide a breakdown,

the total of all the different sources, where the modules come from as soon as

possible, if that is okay.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yeah, sure. Thank you.

If we

could go to 3.1.07, Employee Safety and Wellness, you mentioned 16 positions, so

these 16 positions here would be supportive of workplace injuries, health and

safety programs, all of those initiatives?

MR. JOYCE:

Three areas, one being

integrated disability management; our staff in that area work directly with

government departments when people are off work due to disability, off sick.

There's a comprehensive program that they have developed working with government

departments and individuals to try to get them to return to work, working with

workers' compensation, working directly with the department.

The

second component would be the Occupational Health and Safety consultants, and

they work directly with government departments on the Occupational Health and

Safety system; the requirements under OHS regulations, under workers'

compensation regulations; and also in the process of developing a new safety

management system throughout the whole government, which is in the initial

stages. And the third person is a wellness coordinator.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, great, thanks.

For

last year what was the cost for workplace injuries? Do you have a roundabout

figure within government?

MR. JOYCE:

I don't have that figure,

but I'll get it for you.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Sure, okay.

MR. JOYCE:

Are you talking about, just

for clarification, workplace injuries under workers' comp –?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, work-related injuries

and what will be paid in for coverage for workers' comp.

Again,

could I get some background, too, on sick time costs?

MR. JOYCE:

I'll do that.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you.

Moving

to 3.1.09, Service Centre and Corporate Services Delivery, this would

administer, if I'm correct, the group insurance plan that is offered to

government employees. We switched a number of years ago, I think, from

Desjardins to Great West Life. I'm sorry, I didn't understand prior when Ms.

Michael asked a question in regard to some fees that we thought were going to be

collected, weren't collected. Could I hear again exactly what that was?

MS. FOLLETT:

Yes, there was a point where

we were attempting to recover some administrative costs through the fund with

the group insurance plan. We brought it to the group insurance committee, which

is an advisory committee that assists us with planning around the plan, and the

proposal was not accepted. Therefore, we had to offset because of those costs.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Was that a new proposal to

adjust the current plan or what …?

MS. FOLLETT:

It wasn't a proposal to

adjust the plan, per se; it was a proposal to utilize funding in reserve in the

plan to offset administrative costs of the division.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

3.1.10,

Payroll and Benefits. In the Salaries line there, originally in the estimates

last year what was demonstrated and what's reflected here in this book, there's

a small change in that. Could you just tell me what that change is related to?

MS. TRICKETT:

There were two positions that were restated from the Department of Finance into

this activity. There were two pension payroll positions that were initially in

the Department of Finance.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

And were just transferred

out?

MS. TRICKETT:

Correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, perfect.

Thank

you.

Again,

with that line, from the original estimate last year to what's here in your

book, there was a slight increase and then this year the estimate is up again.

Could you just explain that to me, please?

MS. TRICKETT:

The difference between '17-'18 revised and original is reflective of severance

and related benefits for three employees. This particular activity had

previously been underfunded from a budget perspective. So the requirements were

reflected there in the revised line, and we've adjusted the budget to reflect

that for '18-'19.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

Could

you, if possible, explain when we get down in that same section, Revenue -

Provincial, what that would be? The numbers have changed from the estimate to

the actuals to the estimate this year.

MS. FOLLETT:

The figures associated with the revenue, again, are tied to the fact that we

have personnel in the Payroll Division that actually administer pension payroll

services. So that revenue is attributed to the fact that those costs are charged

back to that fund.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Oh, to each fund that it

supports.

MS. FOLLETT:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The staff.

Okay,

thank you.

Your

projections for this year has gone up to $234,200. What's that based on?

MS. FOLLETT:

It's due to the expectation of being able to recover more this year.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Is that to any new role you have or it's just an increase in activity?

MS. FOLLETT:

No, it's more an increase in the activity.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

Moving

to 3.1.11, Strategic Staffing. The Purchased Services line, the restated Budget

is $38,400. Last year, in Budget 2017

it was $380,000. I wonder if you can give an explanation in regard to the change

and the restatement.

MS. TRICKETT:

That would reflect the restatement of the lease costs being transferred to the

Department of Transportation and Works.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Was that the initiative

across government where all the space is now brought under TW? You've seen it in

all lines and all estimates, right?

MS. TRICKETT:

Correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

In the

same section, 3.1.11, under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, you had an

unexpected expenditure, I think. Because there was nothing budgeted, but $600 is

the revised figure.

MS. FOLLETT:

Yes, that was attributable to necessary furniture replacement.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

Then

coming down to 3.1.12, Opening Doors. Is there a list of where the different

employees under Opening Doors are located? How many departments have – how many

employees, for example, under Opening Doors?

MS. FOLLETT:

Yes, Ms. Michael, we do have a listing.

MS. MICHAEL:

Could we have that if it's

not in the binder?

MS. FOLLETT:

Yes, certainly.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

Just to

say, Minister, as usual, whenever either one of us asks for something, we both

get it, right? Yes. Thank you very much.

I don't

have any other questions under Opening Doors. It looks like it's pretty stable

in terms of the money. Last year it was down by almost $300,000. Is there an

explanation for that?

MS. FOLLETT:

The variance due to Salaries reflects savings from the '17-'18 budget as result

of a number of vacancies we had.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MS. FOLLETT:

And those vacancies were

attributable to time required for staffing, and we had a number of individuals

who were off on extended periods of leave, sick leave.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Obviously, you expect

things to be brought right up to where it was before?

MS. FOLLETT:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you so much.

Under

Grants and Subsidies, could you just explain that line to me? I don't mean in

terms of money but in terms of what exactly that means. Where the grants and

subsidies – where do they go?

MS. FOLLETT:

For Grants and Subsidies, we have a number of programs associated with that, Ms.

Michael. One is the Canada Job Fund, and that's available for non-EI eligible

individuals. We have an allocation of about $120,000 there.

Then

there's the Labour Market Development Agreement allocation, for which the

criteria is that you have to be EI eligible and not employed. We also have about

$120,000 that's allocated from AESL, actually, as well.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, very good.

I think

that's all the questions I have. That brings us up – for me, up to the end of

the Human Resource Secretariat.

CHAIR:

Okay, thanks you.

Mr.

Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, I just have a couple of

questions to clue up.

You

mentioned Grants and Subsidies and the difference of about $52,000 that wasn't

spent. Would that have been positions for applicants that wasn't availed of, or

MS. FOLLETT:

No, that discrepancy there is associated to a lag in between the cessation of

one period of employment and the commencement of another.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. How many would've

availed of the program in the last year?

MS. FOLLETT:

Under each of those programs

we've had about three placements, I do believe.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Three placements per

program?

MS. FOLLETT:

Yes, correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

What would the total number

of those who participated be?

MS. FOLLETT:

Well, then there would be

between six to seven individuals who were placed.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Okay, I

think that's good for me.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

Recall

the section.

CLERK:

3.1.01 through 3.1.12, inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 3.1.01 through 3.1.12

inclusive carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.1.12 carried.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

While

we switch out for the next subheading under –

MS. MICHAEL:

I'd like to speak –

CHAIR:

Okay.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

I just

want to thank the minister and the staff in particular for the good rapport and

the good answers we've gotten here tonight.

Thank

you.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

And I concur with that.

Thank you, Minister, and staff.

Thanks

very much.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Okay.

We will

take a short break while we switch out department heads and give the Broadcast

booth a break.

Recess

CHAIR (King):

Good evening, folks.

We are

going to continue with our Estimates now. We're going to do Office of the Chief

Information Officer.

CLERK:

4.1.01 through 4.1.05 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 4.1.01 to 4.1.05 pass?

MR. OSBORNE:

Aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Minister, over to you.

MR. OSBORNE:

It was worth a try.

I'd

like to start by asking my staff to introduce themselves, starting with Ellen.

MS. MACDONALD:

Ellen MacDonald, Chief Information Officer.

MS. TRICKETT:

Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller.

MR. HARDING:

Craig Harding, Executive Director of Corporate Services and Projects.

MR. GELLATELY:

Bruce Gellately, Director of Corporate Services.

MS. MOORE:

Julie Moore, Executive Director, Application and Information Management

Services.

MR. MOULAND:

Randy Mouland, Executive Director, Operations and Security.

MS. FOOTE:

Carla Foote, Associate Secretary to Cabinet Communications, Communications

Branch.

MS. ELLIOTT:

Susan Elliott, Executive Assistant to Minister Osborne.

MS. HUSSEY:

Cindy Hussey, Assistant Deputy Clerk, Cabinet Secretariat.

MR. MARTIN:

Dave Martin, Manager of Finance, Budgeting and General Operations.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you.

I will

ask the Members of the Committee – I can read out the intro or, based on time,

if you want to dive right into questions, we can do that too.

Carry

on.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Mr.

Davis.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you.

Minister, just a clarification, if you would not mind, when new projects are

done – so if a new software system is developed, just remind me if that's part

of Current or Capital, because you have Corporate Services and Projects,

Current, and Corporate Services and Projects, Capital. Can you just remind me

which one is which?

MS. MACDONALD:

We use both of those areas for projects. Depending on the phase of a life cycle

of a project, some of it is Current dollars and some of it is Capital dollars.

So we track the project through its life so it uses both of those.

MR. P. DAVIS:

That helps. I'm still not sure –

MS. MACDONALD:

Sorry.

MR. P. DAVIS:

So, first of all maybe, we'll start at 4.1.01. There's a restatement there of

$207,500 under Purchased Services. Can you explain that one to me? The $163,500

budgeted last year is a restatement from $207,500, the year before.

OFFICIAL:

I'm sorry, could you repeat?

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Purchased Services, under 4.1.01, you have $163,500; that's a restatement from

last year of $207,500.

MS. MACDONALD:

This is all related to our ISM project – and you'll hear me say that many times

– the ISM project is an integrated service management project that we

implemented for EECD and CSSD in this past fiscal.

As that

project moved forward, we had to move funds around from different areas to pay

for our different activities as they came up and so we had savings in this area

primarily related to that project.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Okay.

Your

Salaries from $5.6 million last year, revised $5,604,000 to $4.8 million: Is

there a particular reason that explains the change?

MS. MACDONALD:

The change – the revised

budget reflects some savings, again, due to some vacant and unfilled positions,

primarily related to the project work that we do. The increase – well, the

decrease this year reflects changes, some permanent attrition management and

some annualization of prior year decisions.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Okay, thank you.

Can you

give me an idea of what significant programs are underway and I don't know if

they're Current or Capital – so if there's new software development or a

remodelling or significant upgrading of current projects?

MS. MACDONALD:

I guess the biggest thing we'll be doing this year is our Digital by Design

project work we launched last week; it's part of

The Way Forward. We will be spending

– our estimate is between a mix of Capital and Current – around $2 million this

year to implement a bunch of those services.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Okay.

What do

you expect to see out of that this year with that $2 million?

MS. MACDONALD:

This year we're going to see – we've got six. We're going to do some work on a

unique digital ID for government. We're going to upgrade the website. We're

going to take an existing application that may require interaction with multiple

departments and make it a smart application so that it steps the citizen through

a process whereby it asks them all the necessary questions and they don't have

to go find out what departments they have to speak to. And we're going to create

a dashboard for citizens. We're going start the buildup of that dashboard for

citizens so they will see the kind of services they avail from government.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you.

Are you

familiar with LaMPSS? Last year the minister indicated that it was pushed back

off the front of the priority list. Is there an update on that?

MS. MACDONALD:

There is a new upgrade going

forward with LaMPSS where we will be implementing additional reporting

capabilities essentially that the feds require and it'll be funded through the

federal funding.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Okay.

I want

to have a chat about email just for a minute, and again I don't know if it comes

under Current or Capital. We had this discussion over the last few months. Can

you tell me how emails in government email addresses are maintained, or how

individual emails are retained, would be the right word?

MR. MOULAND:

All email is retained

forever as long as the user retains it. So it's really in the user's control in

terms of how long the retention period is on email. The only retention beyond

what a user would make a decision around is our data backup.

MR. P. DAVIS:

What does that mean?

MR. MOULAND:

We maintain data backups for

disaster-recovery purposes. So as an example if we had a catastrophic failure at

Higgins Line, or if somebody discovered that oh my God, a week ago I deleted a

whole series of email that I didn't want to delete, we're able to go back –

email is a little bit different, but typically our backup period is 30 days. We

retain 30, really, copies of email, going back the last 30 days of every

person's mailbox in government.

MR. P. DAVIS:

I'll use myself as an

example; I am just trying to clear some of the thousands of emails I have on my

phone there tonight and I deleted an email, what happens to it then?

MR. MOULAND:

If you do it on your phone,

nothing happens, because it's not managed through your phone, it's managed

through the Outlook client. If you delete it through Outlook, through your

desktop or laptop, it's retained in the email system in a manner for about 15

days, but then there are an additional 15 days on tape. It's not exactly how it

works, but for this purpose I think it's sufficient to say it's in the email

system for 15 days and then there's another additional 15 days on tape.

MR. P. DAVIS:

If we request copies of emails that – if I delete emails today and somebody

decides they want to find those emails and they make a request through access to

information to obtain those emails, how would they do that?

OFFICIAL:

In terms of –

MR. MOULAND:

Well, they'd make a request for electronic records to the OCIO, and if we held

the records, if they exist –

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yeah.

MR. MOULAND:

If they weren't deleted –

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yeah.

MR. MOULAND:

– we'd supply the record, depending on – it requires a certain level of

authority, depending on who the request is being made of –

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yes.

MR. MOULAND:

– and who they expect us to give access to, but we have a prescribed process for

making that information available.

MR. P. DAVIS:

The reason I ask, we had asked for some emails that were deleted recently,

within a couple days of them being deleted. We kind of went around all over the

place – I know Ellen was involved with some of the discussions on it – trying to

obtain those emails, and we weren't successful. We were told they couldn't be

obtained. I was just wondering how all that works and how you go about accessing

it?

If I

delete an email today and my colleague, Mr. Hutchings, decides next week he

wants to file an access to information request for it.

MR. MOULAND:

Yes.

MR. P. DAVIS:

What would happen then?

MR. MOULAND:

If you delete an email on the same day it's deleted, and then go through a

secondary process to further delete it from the email system before we get a

backup, it is gone. But you would have to be fairly crafty, I think, to –

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yeah.

MR. MOULAND:

– sort of circumvent the normal process. The normal process is if you delete an

email, it stays in your mailbox for seven days.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Right.

MR. MOULAND:

It stays in the email system for another seven days, and there is also – it's on

tape.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Right.

MR. MOULAND:

But you're correct, if somebody sent you something 10 o'clock in the morning,

you deleted it at 11, went in and did a secondary process – without getting into

it in this audience – but did a secondary process –

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yeah.

MR. MOULAND:

– to delete it again further –

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yeah.

MR. MOULAND:

– yes, it's gone. It came in and went the same day.

Outside

of that, no. If you received an email this morning –

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yeah.

MR. MOULAND:

– and you asked me for a copy tomorrow morning, assuming you – even if you just

deleted it and just went on about your day, it does exist for 30 days. If I can

get a copy that night, I guess, is the cleanest answer.

MS. MACDONALD:

Just to further respond to that; the process Randy is speaking to is a process

related to recovery of an individual specific email. I know I deleted X number

of emails and I want them back.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Right.

MS. MACDONALD:

The challenge with our ATIPP request going to a backup model is that the system

isn't architected for backup. We can't restore – we can't do a global search and

– well, we can do a global search to get every instance of everybody's record

but it would take us huge amounts of storage because we have to dump back the

entire mailbox system, and we would be spending, we would estimate, a couple of

hundred thousand dollars to do 30 day searches for emails to see if they've been

deleted in order just to restore those to the servers so we could have a look.

That's

why we don't – for ATIPP purposes, we don't really go to our backups. Other

jurisdictions don't either because it's too cumbersome, it's too onerous. It

takes up too much horsepower.

MR. P. DAVIS:

I'd have to check the

documents, but my – and I know I'm out of time, Randy, if you don't mind, just

to finish up here. But my recollection was, and I don't have it in front of me,

but when we were – when it was indicated to us the records weren't or –

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MR. P. DAVIS:

No, I think it was

non-responsible, I thought, but maybe they weren't.

MS. MACDONALD:

No, it was – our discussion at the time was we truly – the whole concept of

trying to mass search all the records for some missing files is extremely

onerous. It's not built as a recovery system like that. If we know Ellen

MacDonald has deleted something, we can go and pinpoint Ellen MacDonald and get

her out, but we can't do these mass searches.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yeah. We refer to the triple

delete case in British Columbia, and I know there were some concerns about that.

I don't know, Minister, if you're familiar with it or not, but it was you delete

your email, then you delete the deleted email and then you delete it from the

server. It's the triple delete.

While

there's requirement around access to information to maintain records, and we had

filed within the retention period but, still, by the time we had bounced around

from OCIO to departments and back, we weren't able to obtain those records.

Sorry,

I thought someone else wanted to …

MS. MOORE:

When you put in that request it has to be for OCIO's records. If it's related to

records of other departments it would be transitioned under the ATIPPA framework

to those departments. We are, sort of, the custodians of the information but we

actually can't get in and look at those records. They're not really ours to go

in and search like an ATIPPA would.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Who would actually go in and

look at them, or look for them?

MS. MOORE:

It would be whichever

departments were in – I think there were departments included in those requests,

and that request.

MR. P. DAVIS:

So if I can –

CHAIR:

I'm going to go to Ms. Michael, unless she consents, and if you have any more

questions we'll come back.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Sure.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, because I am going to

ask more line information under 4.1.01, because I have noticed both there, and

especially in 4.1.04, there seems to be a lot of changes there.

Just to

4.1.01, under Transportation and Communications, the budget line was $622,600

and revised downward – I won't bother, we all have the numbers in front of us –

revised downward. Then, for this year, there's a big drop of $377,000,

approximately, from last year's budget. So just an explanation of that, please.

MS. MACDONALD:

The savings in this year were primarily related again to that ISM project.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MS. MACDONALD:

So we didn't need to spend all the funds, so we didn't spend them. Then the next

year's budget reflects some annualization of part-year decisions, some

additional allocation and moving capital to current. Essentially, it enables us

to do the work we need to do for this year's projects versus last years.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Thank

you very much.

Then

coming down to Professional Services, here it was approximately $2.1 million

budgeted. It looks like some savings because it was down to $1.9 million, but

this year up to $3 million approximately.

MS. MACDONALD:

The savings, again, were related to ISM.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MS. MACDONALD:

The increase this year

reflects additional funding that we received to do Digital by Design.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Thank

you very much.

Under

Property, Furnishings and Equipment, it looks like you had an unexpected

expenditure this year because the budget was $31,400 but you expended $223,000

more.

MS. MACDONALD:

Yes. Again, that's related to the ISM project. We did not expect we were going

to have to – we had to spend a lot of money on scanners for all the social

workers across the province that we hadn't allocated originally. So we had

savings in other areas to enable us to spend the money in that specific area.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Thank

you very much.

4.1.02,

it's not a big item, but under Salaries this year it's down, right?

OFFICIAL:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, down by $76,200, I

think. Why is that?

MS. MACDONALD:

It's a reflection of a reduction for year four of the attrition program, and

it's an efficiency reduction decision to provide project support more

efficiently.

MS. MICHAEL:

Since you've mentioned the

attrition program; in your area, how many jobs have gone because of attrition?

MS. MACDONALD:

Four positions.

MS. MICHAEL:

Four positions. And are

there any more planned?

MS. MACDONALD:

We actually, during this month, are going to be doing a more detailed attrition

plan to see where, if there are opportunities for further attrition.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. So this was one place

right here?

MS. MACDONALD:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, so just one position I

take it?

MS. MACDONALD:

Yeah.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

Coming

down to Professional Services, here the budget line last year was $1.7 million,

approximately, $1,717,000 and it was revised upwards slightly to $1,725,000 and

now this year it's up by $390,200 over last year's budget. Is that ISM again?

MS. MACDONALD:

No, this is a combination of

several things. Some of it is zero-based budgeting changes, but the largest

implication there's $400,000 in this line item that's offset on the Revenue line

item for work we are expected to have to take on to support P10, the pension

organization.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, very good.

That's

a permanent thing, is it, that you will be doing that?

MS. MACDONALD:

We are going to have to do

some work for them this year because it's more of a transition year. I doubt if

it would be as big next year, but there'll always probably be some revenue and

associated cost and whatnot.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Okay, thank you.

And

then, under Purchased Services, it's just a drop; I guess this is reflecting

what you expect to be the real expense this year, is it? It's down $24,000 from

last year's budget.

MS. MACDONALD:

Yeah, it's a zero-based

budgeting change, essentially.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yeah, right. Okay, thank you

very much.

Under

4.1.03, here my question has to do with the Supplies line. It's not a big

variance; it was $7,284,000, approximately, and revised upward by $71,800. What

was the greater expense about?

MS. MACDONALD:

The Supplies item?

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MS. MACDONALD:

So supplies for OCIO is

payment for software licensing, primarily.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MS. MACDONALD:

The vendors will regularly

get increases in that, so that's reflected in that line.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's right, very good. I

remember that answer from the past, actually.

Under

Property Furnishings and Equipment, the budget was $861,700 and the increase in

the revision was up to $1,066,500 – that's about $203,000 I think. What was

unexpected? It looks like you had an unexpected expenditure.

MS. MACDONALD:

So this line item is

upgrades to regular and critical hardware elements that's very hard to forecast.

So we ended up having to spend some additional money to upgrade some equipment

to support government-wide IT needs.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

And you

had no problem finding that money?

MS. MACDONALD:

It was offset by some

savings in the other areas; that's the way we do it.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

With

4.1.04, there are a lot of changes here so I think I'm going to ask you to do an

overall explanation of this

section – would that be helpful to you?

MS. MACDONALD:

It would; I'm going to say

ISM. This area, again, is the Capital related to projects. I know in the ISM

project we didn't require all the Capital that was necessary. We know we have

Capital coming for some upcoming projects this year, and that's where you'll see

movement across all of these, but ISM is the biggest impact across all of these

areas.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. That answers all of

the questions I would have had in that section, I think.

4.1.05,

Operations and Security: Operating Accounts, there was a budget line of $238,000

and then nothing under revised and this year – under Supplies, I mean –

$223,000. You expected to be paying for supplies of some kind – I guess it must

have been hardware and software. So you had no expenditures under this last

year?

MS. MACDONALD:

Essentially we needed to

spend more money on some critical hardware so we, essentially, used all the

funding that was available in the Capital area to purchase the hardware.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, and then this year you

have your $223,000 and …

MS. MACDONALD:

Again, it's funding that

enables us to deal with hardware or software requirements as they come up. So

this year we may end up needing more software than we need hardware.

MS. MICHAEL:

It's hard for you to be

zero-based.

MS. MACDONALD:

Very difficult.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yeah.

Under

Property, Furnishings and Equipment, again, obviously you had an expenditure

that you didn't expect there because the revision is over $200,000 more than the

budget line.

MS. MACDONALD:

Correct. Again, that's the

critical hardware upgrade that we were required to do.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

I'll

pass it back, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR (Edmunds):

Mr. Davis.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Do you want me to ask the

question?

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much.

yeah, go ahead, yes. Sorry.

CHAIR:

Mr. Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Just a

couple of general questions: What's the total staff complement of the OCIO now?

MS. MACDONALD:

293 people.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Could

you give me a breakout of the roughly $90 million in Estimates that would be to

cover consultants? What costs of that would be related to consultants?

MS. MACDONALD:

Fifty-five million dollars.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Fifty-five million dollars

of the $90 million?

MS. MACDONALD:

It's a $55 million budget.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Oh, I'm sorry. I think I

looked at the wrong page. I'm sorry; I looked at the total number at the end,

Executive Council.

MS. MACDONALD:

Yeah, that's Executive Council.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, sorry. Sorry about

that, Minister, I didn't mean to shock you there.

What

percentage of that would be consultants?

MS. MACDONALD:

I don't know if I've ever

done that. I would say 10 per cent. Ten per cent is –

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MS. MACDONALD:

On Professional Services?

Well, that's in Professional Services only.

When we

do project work, we'll bring in consultants because we can bring them in and

then send them away, and that's where we spend a lot of our Professional

Services. That budget is $8 million or $9 million, I think, in the

Capital/Current view. Depending on what the project is, like ISM was a large

multi-year project that had a large amount of funding, but our regular budget is

around $8 million.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Eight million dollars for –?

MS. MACDONALD:

For our consultants that come in.

We have

our project consultants and we also have certain areas where we're unable to

hire some of the skills that we need, that we use them for – it might say staff

augmentation. We are unable to hire security consultants because we can't find

them in the marketplace, so we use Professional Services for that as well.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Has there been an effort to

reduce the amount of consultants that use –?

MS. MACDONALD:

We've significantly reduced the amount of consultants over the past three years.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

What type of numbers are we

talking about over the past three years in regard to reducing the amount of

consultants?

MS. MACDONALD:

Well, at one point our Professional Services budget was, I think, around $18

million and it's down to $8 million, $9 million or $10 million. I don't know the

exact number.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

That's

it for me. Paul.

CHAIR:

Mr. Davis.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Edmunds.

I just

want to go back to emails again, if I may. I just want to understand, so when

they're deleted you're telling me there's a significant – once they're deleted

then they're in that never-never land of the system, wherever they go, it's a

fairly extensive project in order to recover them or to find them?

MS. MACDONALD:

Correct.

Once

they're in the backup system and when we have to recover that backup system,

it's huge storage because – as Randy noted – there's records in there that

people have had for 20-plus years and nobody deletes them. And so there's huge

amounts of information we have to bring back and we don't have the storage

capacity to do it, to do full searches. All the guilty people, put their hands

up.

MR. P. DAVIS:

So has it ever been done?

MS. MACDONALD:

To my knowledge, we've never used our backup system to do full searches for

deleted items.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Not even for an inquiry?

MS. MACDONALD:

We do it in the live system. We can search within the live system for deleted

emails, but we can't go to our detailed backups.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Once an email has been gone

or deleted or removed from someone's desktop for three months or four months or

five months, and if there is a need to find them afterwards, so for an inquiry

for example –

MS. MACDONALD:

We can't get that. After 30 days and our backups have gone, rolled off, we

cannot get it.

MR. MOULAND:

Maybe I should or shouldn't weigh in, but respecting that emails should not be

used as any type of record-keeping system or any type of official record of a

government decision or government information – obviously, emails play a role

and I realize we all maintain vast amounts of information in email, but anything

that would be considered a formal government record should be transitioned to a

formal government record management system, like TRIM or HPRM or some other data

as a long-term archive.

Email

should not be considered as an archive. So email is retained for

disaster-recovery purposes only. Again, if the user doesn't delete the email – I

would suggest that if somebody deletes an email and it's a government record,

their problem is that they're deleting government records, not that I'm not

keeping a copy of it for 10 years. It becomes sort of a (inaudible) –

MR. P. DAVIS:

But I've got notices to

clean out up my email, because I'm over –

MR. MOULAND:

Yeah, we are trying to manage people down inside of an existing mailbox.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Right.

MS. MACDONALD:

If I could, just to clarify, that is emails only. Our file system, we have

backups for a long time.

MR. P. DAVIS:

But you can't access them.

MS. MACDONALD:

You can, but they're not emails.

MR. P. DAVIS:

I don't understand.

MS. MACDONALD:

So you can search for files, but we can't search in our email backups because

it's not architected to be a search engine, per se.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Uh-huh.

OFFICIAL:

Shared drive files, so on

your directory, your shared drive directory, your M drive, your P drive.

MR. P. DAVIS:

You can search all of those,

but you can't search for an email? Okay.

MR. MOULAND:

If I could add, it would be

no different than if somebody took a paper file out of their office. If there

are paper files and correspondence and somebody takes those copies and extracts

them from government, which I would suggest is takes them out of the file

drawer, out of the vault or out wherever they're stored, and removes them from

government premises, they're taking government records out of government's

control, it's no different than if we are mass deleting emails. You would never

be able to architect the system big enough to keep every email for everybody

forever. It would just become unwieldly.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Right, I get that.

Okay,

thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

we'll recall the section.

CLERK:

4.1.01 to 4.1.05 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 4.1.01 through 4.1.05

inclusive carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subheads 4.1.01 through 4.1.05 carried.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you very much.

We'll

move on to –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Ms. Michael.

CHAIR:

Oh, sorry, Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

I just

want to thank the minister's staff for being here tonight. It's not early and

you've had a full day like we have, so thank you. Thank you for your clear

answers, even when I was muddled.

CHAIR:

We are now going to go into

the Estimates for the Office of the Executive Council.

I ask

the minister if he could –

CLERK:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

Call the section?

CLERK:

Yes.

CHAIR:

Okay.

C LERK:

Okay, we have 1.1.01 through 2.4.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 through 2.4.01 inclusive carry?

Can I

ask the minister if he could introduce his staff and make opening comments?

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think

I'll start with Anne Marie, directly to my left.

MS. HANN:

Ann Marie Hann, Clerk of the

Executive Council and Secretary to Cabinet.

MS. TRICKETT:

Wanda Trickett, Departmental

Controller.

MS. HUSSEY:

Cindy Hussey, Assistant

Deputy Clerk.

MS. NORMAN:

Katie Norman, Assistant

Deputy Minister, Public Engagement.

MS. DAY:

Elizabeth Day, Deputy Clerk

and Associate Secretary to Cabinet with Cabinet Secretariat.

MR. MARTIN:

Dave Martin, Manager of

Finance, Budgeting and General Operations.

MS. FOOTE:

Carla Foote, Associate

Secretary to Cabinet Communications, Communications Branch.

MS. ELLIOTT:

Susan Elliott, EA to

Minister Osborne.

MR. OSBORNE:

I guess we'll forego the

formalities and get right to the questions.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Mr.

Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair

1.1.01,

a line item question, just related to Salaries, just an explanation there in

regards to – we can see what was budgeted, the actuals and the actual estimates

for this fiscal year; some information with regard to the revision and the

increased cost.

MS. TRICKETT:

The reduction for '17-'18

revised – or I'm sorry, the overrun for the '17-'18 revised relates to severance

and related benefits for three employees, which was slightly offset by some

vacancies throughout the year. And the reduction for '18-'19 relates to

prior-year decisions which are coming round for this budget cycle.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So the three employees, were

they replaced?

MS. HUSSEY:

There was some restructuring

that took place, so not all three positions were replaced.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. Those three employees,

were they terminated or was it retirement, or what exactly?

MS. HUSSEY:

There was one retirement and

two terminations.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. What were the two

positions that were terminated? Do you know what those positions were?

MS. HUSSEY:

The Manager of Operations

for Government House – right? – and the Director of Protocol.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Those two positions would

have been filled after the fact, again, right? Correct? The Manager of

Operations and the Director of Protocol?

MS. HUSSEY:

One of the things that

happened through this past year was there was restructuring to bring the

Protocol Office in as part of Government House functions; and, as a result of

that, there was a Manager for Protocol and Building Operations created.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Created within Government

House?

MS. HUSSEY:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. Then the Director of

Protocol was brought under Executive Council, or –?

MS. HUSSEY:

No, the Director of Protocol

position was eliminated.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. Here in Confederation

Building, we'll say?

MS. HUSSEY:

Yes, but the Protocol Office

now reports in through Government House.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Government House, yes.

MS. HUSSEY:

Part of their function, yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, yes.

Mr.

Chair, are we going to flow right in to – that was – Government House is very

short.

CHAIR:

Yes, we'll carry right on

through.

CLERK:

(Inaudible) call all over the place.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

I'll

move to 2.1.01, Premier's Office. I just have a question in regard to Executive

Support, and Economic and Social Policy Analysis have moved in to this

subheading. I guess that's due to some restructuring. I think the budget was

restated from $2,083,200, does not match with what was budgeted in 2017

documents of $1,423,300.

MS. TRICKETT:

I'm sorry, are you referring to 2.2.01?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

2.1.01 – the wrong one. I'm

sorry, 2.2.01, yes. Sorry about that.

MS. TRICKETT:

Yes, the Economic and Social

Policy activity was previously a separate activity and has been restated in

underneath this activity.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

If we

go to the Salaries line, we can see that the Salaries were an extra $765,500, I

do believe, for the revision for 2017-2018. Could we get some details on that,

please?

MS. TRICKETT:

This allocation allowed for salaries associated with the Muskrat Falls Oversight

Committee and some other major projects. Funding for these types of initiatives

were actually budgeted out under the Department of Finance and transferred into

this allocation as needs required.

There

was some ability to absorb some of those costs within house, so that was a

slight offset there. As well, there was some severance and related benefits that

added up to be that $765,500 change.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

You said Muskrat Falls oversight; in prior years, where would the Muskrat Falls

oversight dollars be? You said it was in Finance?

MS. TRICKETT:

Yes. Similar to previous

years, the expenditure was housed in this activity but the funding for these

special type projects are housed under the financial assistance pot in the

Department of Finance and they're transferred in as required.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

But there is a base amount for this line in Executive Support there, right?

MS. TRICKETT:

No. There is no permanent

salary allocation within the salary complement.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. There is no salary component for this specifically, these items you

mentioned: Muskrat Falls oversight, other projects and if there's severance and

those types of things. They would've been drawn down from a finance line when

needed?

MS. TRICKETT:

Correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

You

said Muskrat Falls oversight and other projects; when you said other projects,

did you mean severance or actually other projects? I'm just wondering, is there

anything else outside of Muskrat Falls oversight.

MS. HUSSEY:

There was some salary

dollars associated with a fisheries project.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

And what would that project have been?

MS. HUSSEY:

I'll have to get you the

information. I can't remember the exact name.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. Maybe if we could request, if we just got a list of what that additional

$765,500 was, if we could?

If I

could reference in 2.2.01, Professional Services, in that one we saw an increase

of $269,800 for the revision. If we could just get some understanding of what

that number is?

MS. TRICKETT:

That is similar to the salary explanation, with the exception that this would

relate to any professional services work that was conducted for the Muskrat

Falls oversight. The funding, again, would have been budgeted under the

Department of Finance and transferred in here as required.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

What fund would it be from

the Department of Finance? Would it be contingency fund, or –?

MS. TRICKETT:

The account is called the financial assistance. The actual activity number

escapes me at the moment. I can't recall the actual subhead, but it's the

financial assistance under Department of Finance.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

I'm

sorry, could you just explain again what the increase was? I'm sorry, I was

writing down when you said it.

MS. TRICKETT:

It's the professional services that would have been required related to Muskrat

Falls oversight.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. TRICKETT:

The funds are budgeted under subhead 2.1.02, Financial Assistance under the

Department of Finance, and those funds are transferred into this subhead as

required.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. Who would that money

have been paid for? Would it have been consultants, or exactly who would it have

been paid to?

MS. HANN:

Consultants.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. What consultants? Do

we know who the consultants were?

MS. HANN:

It was for the EY report.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

That

original report, I think the estimates of that was around $600,000, $650,000 and

I think further work was done. The last count, I think, was maybe over a million

dollars. I'm not sure what the last figure was.

Minister, has that work been completed, or is there still money being paid to EY

in regard to work related to the Muskrat Falls oversight? And, if so, what's the

figure today that's been paid out to EY for that?

MS. HANN:

We have budgeted this year, for the Muskrat Falls Oversight Committee, $50,000

for professional services. The demand for that work is incumbent on the

committee defining what it needs in terms of research or work to be done. The

money that was spent last year was a