AN HON. MEMBER: I nominate Keith Hutchings.

CHAIR: Keith Hutchings is nominated.

Further nominations?

Keith is Vice-Chair.

We are going to get started here now. The first order of business is to call the Public Service Commission sections 1.1.01 to 1.1.02.

I'd like to ask the Government Services Committee to introduce themselves but, first of all, I'd like to make two temporary changes, that Ms. Rogers is substituting for Ms. Michael and Ms. Perry is substituting for Mr. Kent.

With that, I'd ask that the Government Services Committee to introduce themselves.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Chair, Keith Hutchings, Member of the House of Assembly for the District of Ferryland.

MS. DRODGE: Megan Drodge, Researcher, Official Opposition caucus.

MS. PERRY: Tracey Perry, MHA, Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. HAYDEN: Veronica Hayden, Executive Assistant to Paul Davis.

MR. KING: Neil King, MHA for Bonavista.

MS. PARSLEY: Betty Parsley, MHA for Harbour Main.

MS. HALEY: Carol Anne Haley, MHA, Burin – Grand Bank.

MR. FINN: John Finn, MHA, Stephenville – Port au Port.

CHAIR: Randy Edmunds, MHA for Torngat Mountains.

What we're going to do is go with probably 15 minutes for the Opposition and switch over to 15 minutes for the Third Party. We'll turn it over to the department, the minister. First of all, I ask that she introduce all of the staff. I'll have a few more remarks after that and then we'll proceed with the questioning on Estimates.

MS. C. BENNETT: Okay. Good morning, everybody.

What I would like to do is I'll let the staff, for the benefit of the Committee, particularly the new Committee Members who may not know the staff from the Public Service Commission, I will introduce those now, and as we move through the next pieces for the morning, we'll introduce some of the other people that are here this morning.

So I'll turn it over to the deputy who's responsible for the Public Service Commission.

MR. HOLLETT: Bruce Hollett, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Public Service Commission.

MS. CHAFE: Ann Chafe, Commissioner, Public Service Commission.

MS. TULK: Jennifer Tulk, Director of Communications.

MS. TRICKETT: Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller.

MS. THOMAS: Raelene Thomas, Director of Appeals and Investigations.

MS. C. BENNETT: That would be everybody for the Public Service Commission.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much.

Now, I do ask that whoever is responding to questions or asking the questions that they please identify their names. We don't have video here and we have to give the media control room a chance to identify who the speakers are.

We propose to take, depending on how long the session is going to go for Public Service Commission, Human Resource Secretariat and Women's Policy Office – we'll go in that order – we'll probably take a five-minute break after every hour. Hopefully, we'll have everything clued up within the three-hour time allocation here.

With that, I open up the Estimates with opening remarks from the minister.

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, just before we move into that, just a quick question. We had planned, with the permission of the Committee Members, for the Public Service Commission, the Women's Policy Office and the Human Resource Secretariat – I know that's a little different than what you just read. I'm just wondering if that would be okay to follow that order, if there are any issues.

I had mentioned to Ms. Rogers before she left that we do Women's Policy second, because she asked. If that's an issue, we'll switch, but I just want to clarify that.

MR. HUTCHINGS: No, it would be more convenient if it was third, but that's fine. If you made a commitment to Ms. Michael, that's fine.

CHAIR: Okay, that's fine: the Public Service Commission, the Women's Policy Office and Human Resource Secretariat.

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure.

CHAIR: I'd just like to add one more thing: This is new for a lot of us and there could be some growing pains along the way. I know some of us have been here before in different roles, but just to throw that out there.

Minister.

MS. C. BENNETT: Just for the benefit of the Committee Members, the Public Service Commission is the arm's-length agency that supports government's efforts to be accountable and transparent in its hiring processes and decisions. The Public Service Commission has a legislated mandate for staffing policy and oversight of the staffing process to ensure fairness and open opportunity in government hiring and provide a highly qualified, non-partisan public service for government and the people of the province.

While the Human Resource Secretariat is responsible for the operational and administrative aspects of staffing, the Public Service Commission provides the oversight, monitoring and auditing of staffing processes, as well as investigations and adjudication of staffing process appeals.

In addition to its staffing governance role, the Public Service Commission administers and chairs the classification appeal process for bargaining, non-bargaining and management positions; provides administrative investigative services; administers the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee; and provide Employee Assistance and Respectful Workplace Programs for public sector employees.

It will administer the agencies', boards' and commissions' application and merit assessment process and provide support to the Independent Appointments Commission. The integrity and impartiality required to properly deliver on this mandate is enhanced by the neutral and independent nature and reputation of the Public Service Commission. In 2016-17, budget allocations for the Public Service Commission reflects reduced operational spending and an increased allocation for EAP counselling to reflect demand and cost pressures.

Mr. Chair, I turn it back to you.

CHAIR: Okay, I'd just like to point out one thing. We have government Members here who have the opportunity to ask questions if they do wish. We'll make time for that after the 15-minute allocations from this side of the floor.

Okay. Thank you, Minister, for your opening remarks.

We'll now ask if there are any questions.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, we'll start with 1.1.01, Services to Government and Agencies.

If we could go to 01, Salaries. We see in the budget of 2015-16, $1,521,000. It was revised in 2015-16, down to $1,496,100. In the Estimates for 2016-17, it's gone up to $1,566,200.

I'm wondering about the revised for 2015-2016, there was a reduction there. Were there positions that weren't filled from the original budget Estimate?

MS. C. BENNETT: So you're speaking to – Mr. Chair, just for clarity, would you like me to identify who I am every time I speak? That would be correct, is that the case?

CHAIR: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: Yes.

CHAIR: And, I might add, I'm assuming I might have missed it, but you're addressing 01?

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, Salaries.

MS. C. BENNETT: The question I believe was in relation to the $1,496,100 line from the Member opposite. Salary savings there were generated through an employee on unpaid leave, and the replacement being a lower step, and employees who are not yet at the top of the reclassification.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

Were there any positions that were vacant in the last fiscal year, outside of those you just indicated?

MR. HOLLETT: There was one position that was held vacant through the full year, but that is reflected in the original budget line.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

MR. HOLLETT: So other than that, and as the minister mentioned, we had an employee on unpaid leave. There was a short period of vacancy in that position as well before the replacement came on.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

The one position held vacant, that would be because – why was it held vacant?

MR. HOLLETT: The position was held vacant during the year. What we did at the PSC, in order to try and come up with administrative savings in our funding, was we reallocated the way we did work within the commission. We moved work around and we found better and more efficient ways to get the work done. So because of that, we were able to hold one position vacant through the full year last year.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

In this year's Estimates for 2016-17, would that include that salaried position or would that be now taken out?

MS. C. BENNETT: The $1,566,200 number related to Salaries for fiscal 2016-17 is an increase due to one-time removal of salary funded, added back $40,000 and annualized funding for JES which added $5,200.

MR. HUTCHINGS: In meeting the mandate of the commission, in what you just mentioned in regard to a vacant position, did that impact on the functions of the commission in its ability to do its job and follow through on those functions that are required?

MS. C. BENNETT: No.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Just to be clear, in that vacant position that you indicated was in the last fiscal year and wasn't filled – maybe I didn't understand it correctly. In this year's Estimate, is the salary envelope for that in this year's Estimate, and will it be filled?

MR. HOLLETT: Yes, it is. That position we held vacant last year, and we do have funding for that position for this fiscal year.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. I just want to be clear because I think you indicated you had found efficiencies for last year and didn't require that position, but this year you have it in your envelope for Estimates and it is required this year. Maybe some clarification on that.

MR. HOLLETT: That position is a Clerk IV position. What we're doing with that position this year is we intend to fill that to help support the Independent Appointments Commission process, so all the processing of all the applications that come in and maintaining the database.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

Obviously, it's a reflection of the Independent Appointments Commission and the role the Public Service Commission is going to play and what you expect the need will be, and that position will help fill some of that need. Is that fair to say?

MR. HOLLETT: Yes, that's correct. It's the additional responsibilities – while we were able to reorganize responsibilities and duties last year to move the current functions of the Public Service Commission around within the staff, what we're saying here is the additional work with the Independent Appointments Commission, that position will do the administrative work of that.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you very much.

Just a broader question in regard to salaries; what's the current employee content for the Public Service Commission? How many people do we have there?

MS. C. BENNETT: In the salary, 17 employees.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Seventeen?

MS. C. BENNETT: Seventeen employees.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT: I'm sorry. Just for clarification, you were asking how many employees are inside the Public Service Commission.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: The number is 17.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Thank you.

As we look forward to – we talked about the Independent Appointments Commission. Are there other positions or expectations you have in regard to the role that would be played, and if that role and those requirements of IAC are met with current staffing? Or would there be additional staffing that would be expected?

MR. HOLLETT: What we are doing is we're essentially reorganizing the way that people do their work. So the other responsibilities with respect to the Independent Appointments Commission will be done by people who are there today –

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

MR. HOLLETT: – and some changes in the way that they do their work. It's additional responsibilities and finding efficiencies in the way they perform their other responsibilities.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

In your current 17 employees and assessing their functions and carrying out the duties of the Public Service Commission, what capacity are you at now in terms of functioning and availability of time and to be able to do what they need to do, would you say? Obviously, you're bringing in new functions with the IAC so there must be some capacity there for them to take on new responsibilities. Today, would you suggest you're at full capacity? I'm just – what the lay of the land is I guess.

MR. HOLLETT: Essentially what we're doing, we've been looking for more efficient ways to do the work that we do today. Essentially, if you apply lean processes, et cetera to what we are doing, finding better ways to do what we have been doing, and we've done that over the last two or three years.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Thank you.

I don't mean to repeat myself. Just so I'm clear, new positions for '16-'17 related to IAC and Bill 1 would be really – there's one position that wasn't vacant last year which will flow in this year. That person's duties really will be directly reflected on the responsibilities related to IAC really. Then the other staff will pick up any other requirements. Is that fair to say?

MS. C. BENNETT: As the deputy said and the Member opposite is, I believe, understanding, the administrative support for the Independent Appointments Commission is provided through the position that the deputy referred to. Additional support and work for the Independent Appointments Commission will be handled through a re-engineering and repurposing of the positions that are already there to redeploy and provide opportunity for other employees to support the work of the Independent Appointments Commission. That's the plan.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Thank you, Minister.

CHAIR: I'd just like to remind everyone, in the absence of video recording, it's important that you state your names before you begin.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Chair, respectfully, when we did this before when ministers or the Members spoke, I think they were able to pick up who was who. Sometimes the staff identified themselves when they spoke, but that's fine. It is just cumbersome at times repeating yourself, I guess.

CHAIR: Okay.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Under heading 01, Salaries, under Employee Benefits we see from the budget of 2015-16 in the revision, it dropped down and then again it was readjusted in 2016-17. Can you just give us an indication of what the Estimate of this year reflects?

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure.

This is the minister speaking for the Public Service Commission and I asked the Chair, in light of the Member opposite's question, maybe we can confirm with the Broadcast Centre whether they actually need those of us who are speaking frequently to use our names and maybe if it's just staff –

CHAIR: You can use your names.

MS. C. BENNETT: Pardon me?

CHAIR: You can use your names.

MS. C. BENNETT: Okay.

The question was around G02 Employee Benefits. The $2,300 in the projected revised budget for 2015-2016 was a saving from professional development that was curtailed. The difference between the $6,600 and the $16,600 came from a review through the line-by-line reduction and the discussions we had in Treasury Board around the details.

It is our intention to make sure that, as part of the buildup for next year for 2017 under the zero-based budgeting, we'll be able to provide even more transparency in those expenditures when line-by-line actions have been undertaken.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

I just wanted to go back to something you mentioned in your opening remarks, Minister, in regard to the Employee Assistance Program. I think there was a comment made in regard to greater requirement for those services.

MS. C. BENNETT: That's correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS: So that would be again incorporated into current staff complement that's with the commission, or would that be resourced outside?

MS. C. BENNETT: The Employee Assistance Program and the supports that we provide employees in not just the core public sector, but a couple of other entities that are supported by the Public Service Commission, handle about 1,200 referrals on an annual basis, which is on par with a large organization.

We certainly want to be prepared for the possibility that there may be an increase in EAP as a result of the circumstances that we find ourselves in when it comes to the financial situation of the province. So under the area of Professional Services, which is G05, you'll notice that there is an increase there. The majority of this allocation is for the Employee Assistance Program.

As the Members of the Committee opposite, some of the new Members may not know, EAP's role is to provide counselling and consultation supports to employees for issues that are affecting or have the potential to affect the employees' work performance. Employees are referred on a case-by-case basis to licensed counsellors, and these private sector counsellors are then contracted by the Employee Assistance and Respectful Workplace Division.

The trend over the last few years has been an increase in the number and complexity of the issues with respect to the employees seeking assistance, and the cost of counselling services. Hence, the funding for the Employee Assistance Program has, we felt, been inadequate. An increase of $82,500 has been provided to rightsize this budget and that came after I, as the minister, had the opportunity to meet with the team inside the Employee Assistance and Respectful Workplace Division and had a briefing on the amount of work and responsibility they have had over the last number of years and how we could be more proactive in preparing to support our employees in the most effective way.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Minister.

Just on that note, I am just curious, what would the standard waiting time be, roughly, for someone who came forward and wanted assistance like that?

MS. C. BENNETT: About 10 per cent of the employees that we have now come forward for assistance and the wait times – I would ask the deputy that.

MR. HOLLETT: When somebody phones and requires EAP, they get assistance from one of our staff immediately. So it's immediate. Then what they will do is an assessment of the issue that that person is presenting with and then they will refer them out to a counsellor who is specialized and an expert in that particular area. There really is no wait.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

And those counsellors would be, I guess, positioned all over the province that you could access them? Okay, thank you.

Just on Professional Services again, outside of those folks that would do EAP services for the commission, would there be other consultants involved in that line item for anything else? 

MR. HOLLETT: No. There is a tiny provision there really for us if we did need something, but no, we've not engaged any other consultants.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you. 

Purchased Services, as we come down through, just again a quick question in regard to the reduction from what was budgeted in the last fiscal year, the revision, and that number has been reduced. Just some thoughts on, I guess, the reduction there and what that reflects.

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure.

The savings from Purchased Services in the revised budget 2015-16 compared to the original budget, spending was curtailed on things like training room rentals, professional development. There was some deferred professional design and printing of conflict of interest Employee Assistance Program and respectful workplace publicly available materials. 

The budget for 2016-17, as it relates to the budget from 2015-16, those reductions came from a line-by-line reduction. Also, I note that $82,500 was re-profiled from Professional Services to rightsize the budget. So the department, the Public Service Commission expenses were moved to where they actually are being incurred, as I mentioned earlier when we talked about the Professional Services.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you. 

Mr. Chair, my 15 minutes is up. I don't know if there are any Committee Members who wanted to ask a question, or will I continue?

CHAIR: Okay, I'll ask if there are any other government Members who wish to ask questions.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

CHAIR: Carry on.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you. 

I just wanted to ask a general question with regard to, Minister, the current wait times for appeals and investigations. I know you spoke in regard to the wait times in EAP. I'm just curious as well in the appeals investigations, where that would be?

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure.

MR. HOLLETT: Really, there are two types of appeals that we would handle – or three types of appeals that we would handle. One is a classification appeals. In classification appeals, there was a significant backlog. When the responsibility for management appeals was transferred to the Public Service Commission there was a substantial backlog, and we're working our way through that backlog. So those are not currently, they're not all that current. But with respect to general classification appeals that come in today, we try to get them all completed within three months.

If somebody appeals a staffing complaint, we normally turn that around very quickly. We respond to it immediately. It may take a month, or two months sometimes to complete the investigation, just depending on availability of the appropriate people.

With respect to the other investigations that we would do; again, we would be able to respond essentially almost immediately to those, and a normal process. So there's really no wait-list for those. The only place there's really a wait time is on classification appeals.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

Now I'm not sure, the JES classification appeal, would that be covered under the Public Service Commission or under the secretariat?

MS. C. BENNETT: No, the JES appeals occur under the Human Resource Secretariat.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Secretariat. Okay, thank you.

Just to come back to some of the initial questions we had in regard to IAC and what that's going to mean to the Public Service Commission. The merit-based element in regard to Bill 1, obviously, is significant and would reflect and mirror and want the assistance of your organization to do that. I think from what you said, you feel the capacity is there now to do that. Based on reorganization of your current talent in regard to administration, you have that ability based on some choices you've made.

If there was a greater capacity or greater requirements – Bill 1 hasn't passed the House yet, obviously. If there were greater requirements or there was agreement to do some amendments – maybe, as I said, greater requirements for the commission – would you be able to handle increased capacity, or would that require additional staffing do you think?

MS. C. BENNETT: The discussion around the current view as to how the Public Service Commission will be supporting the Independent Appointments Commission is based on the information the Public Service Commission has been provided by government. The debate and the legislation – as you so aptly mentioned – have not been voted on in the House of Assembly yet. Once that happens, the Public Service Commission will be charged with implementing and executing that work.

It is our expectation that based on the discussions we have had with officials in the Public Service Commission and based on the technology mechanisms that we're going to use for application acceptance and inquiries from those individuals who are interested in participating in the pool, that will be available for the Independent Appointments Commission to review for tier one positions and will be used by the Public Service Commission for tier two. We anticipate that, at this time, should be sufficient.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

I have to ask, on 02 Revenue – Provincial, in revised we have $100. I'm just curious what that is.

MS. C. BENNETT: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Under the amount to be voted 02, under the heading Revenue – Provincial, in the revised for 2015-2016 there is $100 there.

MS. C. BENNETT: That was a vendor credit from the prior year related to a counsellor fee.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

That's good for me, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Okay.

Any other questions on the Public Service Commission?

Shall I call the headings?

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

Carried.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

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

MS. C. BENNETT: For the new Members on the Committee, Mr. Chair, this would be the time that we are actually going to be voting on these lines. Is that correct?

MR. HUTCHINGS: You call the question, I guess.

MS. C. BENNETT: Yes, once he calls the question?

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: Okay.

MS. PERRY: Can we do that again? Can we call the question? Can you say all those in favour?

CHAIR: Okay.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Public Service Commission carried without amendment.

CHAIR: Okay. Since that one is done – even though it's a bit early in the game, we're going to take a five-minute break, then we'll resume with the Women's Policy Office.

Recess

CHAIR: I would ask, where it wasn't recorded, that the minister goes over the opening remarks and introductions again.

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure.

Good morning, everybody. The next portion of Estimates – as the Committee is aware – we'll be discussing the Women's Policy Office. This office resides in Executive Council. For the Women's Policy Office, we'll be discussing the appropriations that will be provided for policy development and research on issues that enhance the economic and social status of women and prevent violence against vulnerable populations in the province.

Appropriations will also provide for support for Aboriginal women's issues; grants to quality-seeking organizations, including Women's Centres, Regional Coordinating Committees Against Violence and Aboriginal organizations; and violence prevention and coordination and awareness activities within government and the provincial and community levels.

In addition, we will also be discussing the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women and the appropriations of funding provided for the operations of the Provincial Advisory Council, which extends independent evaluation and advice to government on issues and policies relevant to women.

I'd ask now that the officials, who joined me today, introduce themselves.

MS. BALLARD: Donna Ballard, Deputy Minister Responsible for the Women's Policy Office.

MS. TULK: Jennifer Tulk, Director of Communications.

MS. TRICKETT: Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you.

CHAIR: We will now go to 2.7.01 and open up for questions.

MS. ROGERS: Perhaps we would introduce ourselves, Randy, do you think, before the questions?

CHAIR: Okay.

We ask that the Committee, once again, introduce themselves.

OFFICIAL: We already did that.

MS. ROGERS: Well, why don't I do it? My name is Gerry Rogers and I am the MHA and work for the great people of St. John's Centre.

MS. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is line 2.7.01, on Salaries. In the revised budget for 2015-2016 there's an increased expenditure of $322,800. Can you tell us what that was for?

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. That reflects an overrun from the 2015-2016 budget due to severance costs.

MS. PERRY: Okay.

So when you look then for the 2016-2017 Estimates, we actually see a decline in the budgeted amount for the new fiscal year. Can you explain where that reduction in Salaries is taking place and what's being eliminated here?

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. That reflects a decrease from the 2015-16 budget related to a line-by-line Estimate review. The deputy can provide some additional information for you.

MS. BALLARD: Yes, there are two positions that won't be renewed for the coming year. There was a vacant communications analyst position that became vacant around December, which we're not going to renew that position, and also there is a temporary receptionist position which is also being eliminated.

MS. PERRY: Okay, thank you.

In terms of Transportation and Communications, we're seeing a decline there as well. The next line, Transportation and Communications, how were your savings achieved for the drop from $113,600 down to $98,100?

MS. C. BENNETT: Those savings you've pointed out reflect the savings from the 2015-16 budget as it relates to discretionary spending savings. I'll ask the deputy if she can provide some examples of what was saved in that line item.

MS. BALLARD: Transportation and Communications generally, in terms of the travel budget, was probably somewhat overestimated. When we look at what we're doing next year, the travel that's required, such as bringing together third-party groups such as the Aboriginal groups and so forth, we just try and be frugal about how we do that. Also we do training by doing Train the Trainer, as opposed to doing a lot of in-person training and so forth. So we were able to reduce there. As you can see, going forward next year we're going to continue with that.

MS. PERRY: Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT: The other item I think would be appropriate to point out for the Member opposite is that as the Minister responsible for Finance as well as the Women's Policy Office, we made a decision to strategically connect – where feasible and practical – travel related to responsibilities for Finance with Women's Policy Office so that we could ensure we had further savings.

MS. PERRY: Okay, thank you.

With respect to Supplies, can you tell us what items are being cut in this line item?

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. First, the revised budget 2015-2016 versus the original budget reflects items related to, as I said, discretionary spending. The actual budget down to $55,000 reflects the decreases that were achieved through a line-by-line Estimate review, and I ask the deputy to provide a couple of highlights for the Member opposite.

MS. BALLARD: Basically what we're doing there when we look at what we really need, looking at it from a zero-based go forward, we're just looking for $5,500 for basic office supplies. That's all we need in that area.

MS. PERRY: Okay, thank you. 

In Professional Services, the budget for 2015-2016 was $334,500; going forward it's $247,000. So can you explain what types of professional services are being eliminated?

MS. C. BENNETT: The professional services that are being eliminated from the original budget, again, as I've said earlier, these relate to changes in discretionary spending as well as a line-by-line Estimate review. Under the area of Professional Services, with the $247,000 that is budgeted for fiscal 2016-17, that would include monies remaining for the intimate partner Violence Prevention Initiative, which is the joint, province-wide enforcement effort between the RNC and the RCMP that the Member opposite certainly would have been aware of from last year.

In the IPV initiative, police agencies will build on existing work and enhance responsiveness to the intimate partner violence work. And there's block funding in there to be used for things like cost-shared services, launches and integrating services.

MS. PERRY: Okay.

And, still in keeping with that same line, the revised forecast for 2015-2016 was close to $100,000 less than what was allocated. Can you explain why that happened?

MS. BALLARD: Of the $247,000 the $244,000 is for the intimate partner violence prevention unit that the minister spoke of. And then, the others are just a little bit of flex for professional services. What's being decreased in that area specifically are amounts of money that were going to be used for a large marketing campaign on violence prevention, so we decided to go in a different direction with that.

MS. PERRY: Okay.

So that explains the 2015-2016 revision or the going-forward number of $247,000. Because it looks like there were monies allocated there in 2015-2016 for $334,500, only $236,000 was spent. Was there anything that didn't get done?

MS. C. BENNETT: Yes, the social media marketing campaign that the former administration wanted to spend the money on. We made the decision that, in these current times, funding for a social media campaign was not something that we thought was prudent to support.

Also, based on feedback that we able to get from early-stage consultations on the Violence Prevention Initiative that was launched in October, we were getting clear indications from community stakeholders that that may not be a place where they felt investment in social media or marketing may be best directed in these current times.

MS. PERRY: Okay.

Under Purchased Services, what did you allocate $64,900 for?

MS. BALLARD: Fifteen thousand of that, we did leave in the intimate partner violence prevention unit. If you look back from last year there was actually $100,000 for purchased services specifically for that unit, but it was, again, for a campaign and now they're going to do – as you know, the RNC are very (inaudible) at doing social media campaigns. So that's where they're going to concentrate. So $15,000 will remain in that in which they'll concentrate on some Aboriginal training in Labrador.

There is money under the Violence Prevention Initiative for some training. We have found that what we're hearing from stakeholders is that the campaigns of the past, Respect Aging, those campaigns have been robust in raising awareness. Now we have to look at action and we have to look at doing some very specific training. So what we're doing is revising some of our violence prevention training, targeting at sort of entry level, community based into the colleges and that sort of thing.

Also, we want to revise that. We want to bring that out and we also want to be able to provide – we've gone into the community to see what other training is available from other groups and we've found that it's very robust. The Canadian Red Cross has some very good training. Thrive have some very good training. So we want to bring that to our community partners to enhance the training out there. We also work, for example, with Women in Resource Development and support them in training that they give; for example, in a Spaniard's Bay situation out into municipalities, councils and that sort of thing.

MS. PERRY: Okay.

CHAIR: Okay.

With our time allocation we agreed upon, I will now go to the Third Party.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much. 

It's Gerry Rogers and also I'm accompanied by Susan Williams from our caucus as well, a researcher with our caucus.

Thank you very much for all your hard work in this area. We know that things, in some ways, have improved in the Status of Women and, in other ways, they have become more and more difficult when we look at the wage gap for women, the fact that we do not have pay-equity legislation and that things are tough. In the current fiscal situation, women may be hit harder with the fiscal situation. So even more so, your work is so crucial in helping government realize what is happening to the women of the province. So thank you very much for your great work.

I would like to go back to the Salaries in the Women's Policy Office. We see a drop of $402,000 and I don't quite understand. I know that you said – and maybe I just missed it – two positions have been removed: the vacant communications analyst position that was vacant since December and then a temporary receptionist position.

My question is what other positions – what were the other adjustments to salary? Then also part of that, will there be another receptionist?

MS. C. BENNETT: As I mentioned earlier, there's a $322,000 amount that reflects an overrun in the budget in the actual revised. The majority of it relates to one individual. There was a deputy minister in the department that retired and, as a result, costs associated with that retirement are captured here and disclosed.

MS. ROGERS: Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT: I'm sorry; you asked a second question about will the temporary receptionist be replaced. At this stage, my understanding is that is not the plan. The plan is to continue to put the work into the positions that are dealing directly one-on-one with the community organizations throughout the province. I don't know if the deputy wants to add anything else about the receptionist position.

MS. BALLARD: Yes, we're able to cover that work through the other administrative staff that remains at the office.

MS. ROGERS: Okay. Can we have a list of the staff that are in the office, the positions that are in the office now?

MS. C. BENNETT: I think you will find that we currently have inside the Women's Policy Office – did you want a list of them now because I can provide that now.

MS. ROGERS: How many staff positions are there?

MS. C. BENNETT: There are six positions – just one second, Donna?

MS. BALLARD: We have nine staff: one who is funded through the Opening Doors Program and eight staff.

MS. ROGERS: Okay. I could get a list of that after if you like rather than go through it now, if that's okay.

MS. C. BENNETT: Yes.

MS. ROGERS: Okay, that would be great. Thank you.

So we still see, though, a significant reduction in the salary line. The staff overrun that we saw, we're still down a significant amount from the budget of 2015-16 to 2016-17. That would account then for the loss of those two positions?

MS. C. BENNETT: The salary line of $931,700 in comparison to the $1,011,400 number reflects a decrease related to a line-by-line Estimate review of $79,700. And that relates to the positions that the deputy has spoken to already.

MS. ROGERS: Okay, great. Thank you.

I have a little bit of confusion about the intimate partner program that's with the police. That's under Professional Services or under Purchased Services?

MS. C. BENNETT: There's some in a variety of the line items. I can let the deputy minister speak to that.

MS. ROGERS: Okay.

Then also would you be able to just explain to me how the money for that program was allocated. Was the money transferred over to the police from Women's Policy? So what's happening now then in light of that?

MS. BALLARD: There are two line items to cover that unit. It's a joint RNC, RCMP initiative across the province. The RNC, Women's Policy Office in our salaries envelope have salary money for two constables and one analyst. That's JV'd through the Department of Justice.

The $244,000 under Professional Services, that's the money that is allocated to the RCMP portion. The RCMP portion is a different kind of funding arrangement, as it is generally with the Department of Justice and the RNC. Again, that gets JV'd through the Department of Justice to the Women's Policy Office.

MS. ROGERS: Okay. Is that for salaries or it is for program delivery?

MS. BALLARD: Under the RNC, it's only for salaries. Under the RCMP it's a ‘proportionization.' That's how we do the RCMP. It's the same as how it's done for Justice, generally, which I can't really speak in any more detail about. It's more of a lump sum and proportionality, but it's mostly salaries. They also have two constables and an analyst working on that program.

MS. C. BENNETT: Sorry, with permission, it's the minister speaking – just for the benefit of the Member opposite, what's being described for the Member is not unique to budget '16. This was the setup, the process, what was already in budget 2015-16 from last year. The decision was made to carry that forward until we continue to look to assess how that funding is delivering the services to people in the province who need it.

I just wanted to make sure that was clear. It is a '15-'16 budgeted item that's carried through to '16.

MS. ROGERS: Okay, just so I can be absolutely clear. The money comes from Justice to Women's Policy and then to the RNC and the RCMP, or the other way around?

MS. BALLARD: The money is in the Women's Policy Office envelope. It comes directly to the Women's Policy Office and then we JV it back to Justice as the invoices come through and it's paid that way.

MS. ROGERS: What does JV mean?

MS. C. BENNETT: It's a short term for what we refer to as a journal voucher, which is an accounting transfer.

MS. ROGERS: Okay. It goes from Women's Policy allocation to Justice and then to the RNC and RCMP?

MS. C. BENNETT: I'd ask the controller for the department just to provide further clarity because I believe the Member opposite is correct. I just want to make sure the controller (inaudible) answers that question.

MS. TRICKETT: As the deputy minister described, the budget is actually allocated in the Women's Policy Office. The expenses incur through the RNC or the RCMP, respectively. When those expenses incur, they will send an invoice over to the Women's Policy Office, they review those invoices and determine that the nature of invoice is acceptable and they will then take that cost back into the Women's Policy portfolio.

MS. ROGERS: I would like to see a breakdown of the expenses or the invoice from RNC and RCMP in terms of what exactly is the money used for?

MS. C. BENNETT: We would be happy to provide that to the Member.

MS. ROGERS: And can we have that from last year and this year – the anticipated contract for this year?

MS. C. BENNETT: We can provide that; I believe we can.

MS. ROGERS: Great, thank you very much.

CHAIR: Okay, I'd just like to ask if there are any questions from other government Members outside of the Government Services Committee – do you have any questions?

Okay, we'll go back to the Official Opposition.

From here on in now, the switch will be every 10 minutes.

MS. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, if we could get a copy of all this information that the MHA for St. John's Centre is requesting as well?

MS. C. BENNETT: Absolutely.

MS. PERRY: Thank you.

I'm going to pick it up again on Purchased Services. When we look to the 2015-2016 revised budget the original allocation for that was $209,200; the actual expenditure was $57,400. So I was just wondering what was cut there?

MS. C. BENNETT: Well, the difference between the Purchased Services and the original budget reflects savings related to $50,000 for the Newfoundland & Labrador Statistics Agency, which was not required, as well as discretionary spending.

So the Statistics Agency did work for the Women's Policy Office and they did not create an expense and, as a result, they absorb inside their own area the cost associated with the work they did for the Women's Policy Office. So there was $50,000 budgeted for a survey and that was completed through the Economics and Statistics Branch, and that's why that line item is reduced by $50,000.

MS. PERRY: Okay. Can we get a list of these specific discretionary items that were eliminated?

MS. BALLARD: The other item there that was eliminated was, as I mentioned before, the intimate partner violence prevention unit that we discussed, had a budget of $100,000 as well for purchased services, which they didn't use, and that's been reduced for the year coming to $15,000.

MS. PERRY: Okay. Would it be possible to get a briefing – because it seems like there are some changes there – for us on the new intimate partner violence program?

MS. C. BENNETT: There's nothing new other than an extension of what happened last year with the exception of the money that wasn't spent. But we can certainly provide more clarity for the Member opposite, if she'd like that.

MS. PERRY: Yes, I certainly would like it and like a briefing with respect to the approach you're now going to be taking and how you look to achieve results, and I guess the new vision and approach you're going to be taking with it. I think that would be informative.

MS. C. BENNETT: We would be happy to provide some information for you.

MS. PERRY: Okay. Thank you so much.

In section 10, Grants and Subsidies, can you tell us specifically how you're achieving the decrease of $50,000?

MS. C. BENNETT: The $50,000 under Grants and Subsidies from – as the Member opposite would be aware, this particular line item was originally budgeted in last year's budget at $2,541,100 and is budgeted this year at $2,491,100. We made the decision through the line-by-line Estimate review, based on the past performance and based on the current financial situation that we faced in the province, that we would remove $50,000. That reflects the decisions that were made through the line-by-line Estimate review.

MS. PERRY: Okay, can we get a written list of every grant that was awarded for 2015-2016, as well as a list for the upcoming year 2016-2017 with respect to the types of grants that are going to be available to be applied to?

MS. C. BENNETT: We can certainly provide the list of the grants that were provided as part of '15-'16 because those grants have been executed and provided to the community.

On the '16-'17 Grants and Subsidies, we can provide you the plan to date.

MS. PERRY: Yes, thank you so much.

Okay, I have another question now before I move into 2.7.02. Will be the Women's Policy Office have a role in the Independent Appointments Commission and the PSC merit-based processes?

MS. C. BENNETT: The Independent Appointments Commission will be managed and supported – managed may be the wrong word. It will be supported by the Public Service Commission which might be a more accurate reflection of their role.

It will be supported by the Women's Policy Office in the context of the recruitment and the promotion of women's participation in the application process. That's certainly something that we look forward to providing insight and feedback to the Public Service Commission. There have been conversations ongoing since the legislation was brought in, and well before that, to ensure that the Women's Policy Office has the visibility and the partnership with the Public Service Commission to be able to ensure that we have sufficient applications from women.

We know that we have to do things differently to make sure that women are participating. We look forward to doing that with the support of the Women's Policy Office.

MS. PERRY: Okay. Moving into 2.7.02, there's another cut here again of $50,000. So how will you be achieving this cut?

MS. C. BENNETT: That change in the funding for the – just for clarity, the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, I believe that is what the Member opposite is asking about.

MS. PERRY: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: That reflects a decrease that we related in a line-by-line review. The council's lease is up for renewal, I think, 50 per cent through the year. We anticipate that as we look to a real estate asset management plan across government that we will be able to provide and work with the Provincial Advisory Council to find them space that would allow them to recover savings specifically related to their rent.

MS. PERRY: Okay. So in looking at overall the Women's Policy Office, the overall budget has a cut – cost-cutting measures of $402,500. How do you think this is going to impact overall your role in services for women?

MS. C. BENNETT: Sorry just for clarity, when the Member opposite is referring to the $400,000, could she just point exactly which line item she's referring to.

MS. PERRY: Sorry, the revised budget of 2015-2016 figure and to the 2016-2017 Estimates. There's a reduction of $402,500.

MS. C. BENNETT: Are you looking at the –

MS. PERRY: The total, Women's Policy, sorry.

MS. C. BENNETT: The total? Just for clarity, that's the $4,235,500 compared to the $3,843,600? Is that what the Member is referring to?

MS. PERRY: Yes, I'm looking at the – no, I'm looking at the $4,706,300 from last year, whereas this year the budget is down to $4,261,600.

MS. C. BENNETT: Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't looking at the consolidated number. My apologies.

MS. PERRY: Yes, and that is the total of the whole office.

MS. C. BENNETT: Correct.

MS. PERRY: So I guess my question is: With $400,000 gone from your budget for the Women's Policy Office, how confident do you feel that the women's issues are going to be addressed, at least in an equivalent manner as they were in the past?

MS. C. BENNETT: Well, as we've explained during the Estimates discussion, the $400,000 that the Member refers to on the Opposite side is a combination of savings in rent inside the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women. It's a savings on severance of in excess of about $320,000.

I would suggest that savings on rent and savings on severance will not have a material effect on our ability to support the mandate of this department. I'd further suggest that based on the consultation we have already begun in the province on the Violence Prevention Initiative, that the early days and the early learnings will allow us to be even more nimble and efficient in responding to the needs of those organizations on the front line.

MS. PERRY: With respect, then, to groups such as the Aboriginal women's group, the violence against women committees, with a reduction in travel how are you going to be able to compensate for the loss of networking abilities they will have?

MS. BALLARD: If you look right now at the travel for 2016, the $98,100 which we've allotted, what we did is just looked at what we think we need for the coming year. One of the things, for example, that we spend a fair amount of money on travel is for the Aboriginal groups, for example. We bring together a conference. It's been very successful over the last years.

A little bit of change in direction on that one, for example, is that we have – the women have come forward and want committees specific to particular issues which they have identified: funding, for example, violence prevention, mental health and those sorts of things. So this year looking forward we think the best use of our money there is to bring those groups together in smaller groups so that we help provide support to them to start moving forward, and to also help them with targeting some funding for the federal government. That would be an example. Instead of having a big group get together, smaller groups get together.

Also, we're working with the learning and development entity here at government to see how much we can do in terms of training through the Internet, for example, instead of necessarily having to bring people together a lot.

We're reducing the travel, but the specific travel that we think, the targeted travel, is still going to be there.

MS. PERRY: Okay.

CHAIR: For time allocation, I'll turn it over to Ms. Rogers.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry I missed a bit of this. I was called out with an unexpected issue. So if I'm asking something that's already answered, please forgive me, but I want every bit of your brilliance.

If we go back to Women's Policy Office, the Grants and Subsidies, there's a reduction of $31,300. Can you tell me what kinds of things would be affected by that?

MS. C. BENNETT: The actual reduction from last year's budget to this year's budget, just for clarity, is $15,000. The reduction from the projected revised is the $30,000 that the Member opposite mentions.

MS. ROGERS: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: Based on the review of the grants that have been paid in the past and used in the past, the feeling was there was an opportunity for us to – there have been grants in the past that haven't typically gotten out the door, historically. We felt that budgeting money that actually wasn't intended to get out the door was probably not – in light of the current fiscal situation – the best thing to do.

It is our intention – certainly, we can provide the Member opposite the list of the grants that were paid in fiscal '15-'16 for her review as well.

MS. ROGERS: Great. Thank you very much.

I find it curious, because all the Women's Centres that are getting grants are just hanging on by a thread in terms of they haven't had a 5 per cent increase since 2011. They are starving for money. Many of them are working at wages that are below what they should be getting.

So how is it grants that are available are not getting out the door? Why do you think that might be? Because I know the need and the demand is beyond what is being allocated. For instance, the Multicultural Women's Organization gets $100,000. They're dealing with multicultural women from all over the province. They are trying to staff an office. They don't have a charitable number. How could it be that there are grants available that aren't getting out the door?

MS. C. BENNETT: I can't speak to the former administration's process on grants. What I can speak to is our intention going forward. Part of our early announcement this year on the grants, such as operating grants, but specifically operating grants, was that we needed to take a review of all of the grants that are going out to make sure the right proportion of money is getting out to organizations that are providing critical services on the front line. That would be something we will be working on through the course of this summer.

MS. ROGERS: My other question would be if in fact you feel there are grants that aren't getting out the door. We know the situation. I know, Minister, you are very familiar with the situation of the Women's Centres across the province (inaudible) the Multicultural Women's Organization with a paltry $100,000. I would think that rather than cutting the amount of grants that are available, you would at least keep status quo. So what's the rationale for cutting, if it's possible that the reason not all the grants were spent was not because of the Women's Centres, but because somehow the system's not working?

MS. C. BENNETT: Just for clarity, too, some of the issues related to getting the grants out the door is that portion is related to needs-based grants. There was a lack of applications that were coming into the department.

I recognize what the Member opposite has said with regard to the global needs around supports for initiatives that are undertaken and supported by the Women's Policy Office. Certainly, as we go forward this year we'll continue to look to have dialogues with those organizations that, on the operational side, are being challenged.

MS. ROGERS: For the $2,491,000 in Grants and Subsidies, is that where the money for operating grants for the Women's Centres, et cetera, comes out of? Does it come out of that allocation?

MS. C. BENNETT: In addition to a portion that is related to needs-based grants as well.

MS. ROGERS: Can you explain what that is, needs-based grants, in this circumstance?

MS. BALLARD: So the grants, you're correct. From that envelope with the grants there is the Provincial Advisory Council, there are the Regional Coordinating Councils, there are the Women's Centres, there's the Transition House Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre, the Newfoundland Aboriginal Women's Network and the Multicultural Association. Those envelopes are the same. They've turned over, they're all the same.

Last year – and I can only speak to last year – there was also a portion of money that was what we call needs-based. So that if someone came in and applied for something specific – oh and sorry, there is also the Aboriginal grants which are also separate; $200,000 for Aboriginal women, $30,000 for Aboriginal grants. Those have turned over as well and we're going to go out for those. All of those grants remain the same.

There was a small portion, $50,000 that was into needs-based grants. We were getting some pressure on those for things like conferences, perhaps buying tables at functions, those sorts of things. But we didn't use it last year and then, as the minister said, there was a decision to not renew that particular grant envelope.

MS. ROGERS: I know that the Women's Centres from across the province have asked for a provincial conference. I know that the Multicultural Women's Organization has asked for funding equal to the Women's Centres across the province because of the specific work that they do and, again, they get only $100,000.

Now they asked to be put on par with the other Women's Centres which would then be $29,000. I could see that money being used out of $31,000. I know that the Women's Centres have asked for what they had traditionally gotten, a 5 per cent increase. They haven't gotten that since 2011. So I would imagine that is – rather than cut, to at least use the money that was there.

The work they are doing – they are doing incredible work with the very, very limited money that they have. So I cannot see how taking that money out because it wasn't used, there's a problem. If there is such a great need and it's not being used, and then to take it out of the allocation, even for the Multicultural Women's Organization.

MS. C. BENNETT: Certainly, the Member is well known for her passion and her support of the women's organizations as I hope to be. I would suggest to the Member opposite that in the context of the $2.7 billion problem we were faced with as a result of the budget work we were doing for '16-'17, that our commitment to look at the grants that are being distributed to community organizations for operating costs, and our commitment to have those conversations and dialogue with organizations is one that I take very seriously and one that we intend to do. We've committed to multi-year funding to provide those organizations with clarity.

I'd also suggest that in the context of making sure that public money is spent in the most targeted and strategically located places, rushing without the consultation that this government needs with those entities is not something that I was prepared to do as the minister. And certainly we look forward to dialogue with those organizations over the coming months as we establish what the multi-year grants are going to be.

MS. ROGERS: Well, thank you very much, Minister. I appreciate that.

I also would like to say that I know that $31,000, in the realm of a $2.7 billion deficit, seems so minimal; yet $31,000 for an organization like the Multicultural Women's Organization means whether or not they can hire another person. That's how much that little bit of money can really affect them.

MS. C. BENNETT: As it does mean as well retaining positions in the public sector.

MS. ROGERS: So at this point I assume then the request for the Multicultural Women's Organization to be increased, to be at par with other Women's Centres around the province.

MS. C. BENNETT: I think the multicultural association, my understanding, would have had clarity on that. The women's association would have clarity on that several weeks ago, I mention to the Member. They would have known the situation and we would have communicated to them the circumstances going forward.

CHAIR: Okay. We'll go to Ms. Perry.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you.

MS. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to echo MHA Rogers's comments. Certainly, having spent some time with these groups, I can attest to the fact that they're doing phenomenal work for very low amounts and how they've survived, thus far, is actually quite astounding. They're incredible.

Organizations like that, all of them certainly, but those which Nicole Kieley works for, these are women in very stressful positions. In terms of wage parity with equivalent positions or with male counterparts, they are certainly underpaid. I think, going forward, we need to give a lot of consideration to correcting that.

They can do with $10,000 what some people can't do with half a million. So it's quite incredible the work they do and they certainly deserve accolades. In going forward, we need to keep an eye to being able to give them more, if we possibly can.

I wanted to ask about what the plans are for the family violence court moving forward in 2016-2017.

MS. C. BENNETT: The courts that the Member opposite referred to really – my understanding now – resides with Justice. During the Estimates for Justice, they could provide even more clarity on the status of those courts.

I will share anecdotally from my conversations with stakeholders on the West Coast, as an example, that the work that's being done in Stephenville is certainly being seen as being very positive.

MS. PERRY: Okay, thank you for that.

In terms of the elimination of the apprenticeship program for women, how do you anticipate being able to have a strong impact in ensuring that our women are continuing to enter non-traditional occupations?

MS. C. BENNETT: I'm sorry –

MS. PERRY: Again, it's the AES budget, so this is more of a philosophical question related to WPO. With the apprenticeship program gone from AES, what measures will WPO be undertaking to ensure that employers in this province are still recruiting women and that women's opportunities are on par with men?

MS. C. BENNETT: I'm not 100 per cent sure that this isn't the scholarship that the Member opposite is talking about versus the actual funding. I would suggest that maybe the Committee provide questions to the Department of Advanced Education and Skills when they come in. It might be best placed with them.

MS. PERRY: Okay, we'll certainly relay that one there as well.

My final question I have relates to mental health and wellness initiatives. Given the austerity of this budget, I'm anticipating we're going to see quite a spike in mental health and wellness issues. Single mothers, in particular, are going to really be struggling. Will the Women's Policy Office be taking any extra measures to deal with the fallout in mental well-being of families in this province, particularly women?

MS. C. BENNETT: I think the Women's Policy Office is clear in their mandate. It has an accountability and responsibility, from a policy perspective, to overlay the lens as it relates to women's issues across, not just the area of mental health and wellness in the province but on all areas. It is my expectation as minister, that's exactly what the Women's Policy Office will do.

To quote a famous feminist, they will lean into all discussions as it relates to providing a lens for women's issues, not just in this specific area that the Member opposite mentioned but in all areas. As minister, I will encourage them to continue to do that.

MS. PERRY: Okay, thank you, Minister.

That wraps up my questions.

CHAIR: Okay.

Ms. Rogers.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am wondering: What is the situation of statistics around the status of women in the province, in terms of updated statistics? When I go on the website for the Women's Policy Office, I see stats that reflect 2004, 2006. Oftentimes, the stats aren't reflective specifically of the province, but they're gleaned from federal Statistics Canada.

Does the Women's Policy Office have a handle on the status of women of Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of the profiles of violence, the level of poverty, the number of children in lone-parent households that are headed by women, employment rates specifically around women? Do we have anything more recent than 2006 in terms of the statistic overall that really gives us a good picture of what's happening in the lives of the women of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MS. C. BENNETT: While I haven't had a chance to read it in detail, the department does have access to a survey that was completed in 2015-16. This was a survey that was done by the Newfoundland & Labrador Statistics Agency. It was developed and implemented as part of the first-ever Violence Prevention Initiative.

The survey design was finalized by the Newfoundland & Labrador Statistics Agency in consultation with Statistics Canada, and the data collection is currently taking place. So that information is currently being updated. It actually is the survey I referenced earlier that the Economics and Statistics Division is doing, as opposed to contracting out a public opinion survey. The Statistics Agency is working on that information now.

MS. ROGERS: When can we expect the results, do you have any idea?

MS. C. BENNETT: I'll have to check with the Economics and Statistics team and provide the answer to the Member opposite once I have that information there.

MS. ROGERS: Okay, thank you very much.

I would also be interested in some of the numbers in terms of the issues that are reported in the annual report. It talks about, for instance, that you committed, by March, 2016, to collect more information about women in leadership roles. Is that kind of information available; if not, when will it be available? Was that work undertaken? I guess there are a number of issues here, like for instance around economic security. Do we have that information yet?

MS. C. BENNETT: Just for clarity, for my purposes, the deputy may already be assuming the answer, but I just want to clarify – are you speaking to the annual report the department is responsible for providing here in the House?

MS. ROGERS: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: Okay, so I'll ask the deputy to provide some insights for you.

MS. ROGERS: That was from the annual report of '14-'15.

MS. BALLARD: Right. As the minister indicated, that work is ongoing and certainly we can provide you with what we have available.

MS. ROGERS: Okay, great. Thank you very much.

In regard of the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, how often did the advisory committee meet in '15-'16?

MS. BALLARD: I'm going to say quarterly because they usually do, but I would have to check their annual report.

MS. ROGERS: Their term now, when is the next advisory committee going to be assigned?

MS. C. BENNETT: The actual individuals who are on the board?

MS. ROGERS: Yes, the advisory council.

MS. C. BENNETT: Okay.

MS. BALLARD: They've recently been renewed for three-year terms.

MS. ROGERS: Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT: The renewal took place prior to November 30.

MS. ROGERS: Okay, thank you very much.

What is the process of appointing people to that council?

MS. C. BENNETT: As our government would hope, under the Independent Appointments Commission it would be expected that the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women is – I have to double-check, are they tier one or tier two?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible.)

MS. C. BENNETT: Tier two. The Public Service Commission would be responsible under the new legislation for supporting the appointments. The current renewals on the council were completed prior to November 30. Certainly I've had the pleasure of meeting with the new directors recently as part of their quarterly meeting, and I know they have the work plan established and are working hard on the mandate of the council.

MS. ROGERS: Okay, thank you very much.

I guess we've asked for a list of the grants and subsidies that were allocated last year. Then can we have a list of applications for this year? 

MS. C. BENNETT: I can provide you a list of where we are so far, year to date. There are three separate amounts of money that represent that full line item. We can certainly provide you with where we are year to date.

MS. ROGERS: Okay.

The applications for last year, did they supersede the amount of money that was available to be allocated, aside from this $50,000 needs based?

MS. BALLARD: The applications – I described earlier who we fund, I guess they are rollovers. Sometimes they come in and ask for a little more, but generally the amount is stagnant. It's the Aboriginal grants that are specific to applications, so those were recently announced for last year. So we can provide you with the applicants there.

MS. ROGERS: Okay, thank you very much.

I don't believe I have anything else, except for the new violence prevention action plan, and that would be Violence Prevention Initiative. Do you feel that, at this point, the finances that are needed in order to operationalize this and fulfill the recommendations and commitments are in place?

MS. BALLARD: Yes. With the Violence Prevention Initiative, as you know, there are 67 particular recommendations which are very broad under the four pillars. What we've been doing over the last couple of months since I took on my position, which was just after the announcement as the minister came on, is we're going back out into community. We've had a number of consultations already in Labrador and on the West Coast. We have consultations planned for Central and St. John's.

What we're looking to do is focus on the areas where we think that we need to put in our efforts. So far, what we're looking at are things like training, which I described earlier, things like how we get into the schools, for example. So, as you may know, restorative justice is taking hold in the schools and so we're working with that particular organization which is where we want to go; social media, training, those sort of things.

I think what we're doing now is going back out into community and what we're going to be doing as a review of community grants, which the minister has described that's happening across the board, but with the community grants that we represent we're going to be going out over the next months and talking to community organizations on the ground in terms of how we can best help them with the limited funds that we have to deliver the programs that we need.

So I think there needs to be some more coordination within government in terms of departments and so forth to ensure that the right services are delivered and also coordination among the groups themselves. You may find areas, for example, where you have funding for two or three groups that may be providing the same services. Is there a way we can consolidate that? Is there a way we can bring groups together? So that's our focus.

Right now, in the budget we have left some heavy money in the travel so that we're able to complete that. We've left some money in our training so we can pull that together. That's going to be our focus over the next year. So I think we're set to do that for this year coming.

MS. ROGERS: Donna, for that work in terms of looking at is there duplication of services, is there some consolidation that can be done; there is the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Where does the advice come to Women's Policy Office from the community? How does that happen for any of those kinds of decisions?

MS. C. BENNETT: When we started in December looking at – I can't speak prior to November 30.

MS. ROGERS: Yes, I understand.

MS. C. BENNETT: In December, when we started to look at the feedback that we were being provided by community on the Violence Prevention Initiative, as it was launched in October, the consensus was that the for a number of reasons, including the fact that some of the material and data that was used to create the plan was driven from information as far back as 2012 and 2013, that it made sense for the very first organizations and people for us to talk to would be those working on the front lines.

That's why early this year we met with stakeholders in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. When I say we, myself and the deputy have met. We've met with Aboriginal leaders. We've also met with stakeholders on the West Coast with the understanding of saying here is the plan, what are the parts of it that are working and not working, and how can we rapidly adjust to reflect what the needs of people on the ground are saying.

As the minister has given some examples, what has been a consistent theme is that there needs to be a coordinated effort across departments. Some of the community organizations are finding it's hard to do the work when they have multiple departments that are not necessarily aligned.

So when I go back to my comments about the mandate of the Women's Policy Office, I would suggest that, in addition to a policy lens, there's a very strong accountability for breaking down perceived or real barriers that are disadvantaging community groups from getting the information and the access to changes they need, to do the work on the front line.

MS. ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

I have two quick questions –

CHAIR: The Chair would like to point out at this time that the Member for Fogo Island – Cape Freels, Mr. Derrick Bragg, is substituting for the Member for Bonavista, Mr. Neil King.

To come back, I understand Ms. Perry has another question.

MS. PERRY: I just wanted to ask if I could get a copy as well of the survey information that MHA Rogers has requested.

Thank you.

MS. C. BENNETT: Just for clarity, the survey is not complete yet. I just wanted to make sure everybody understands that it's ongoing. When it's complete, we'll certainly provide the feedback.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you.

Two quick questions – I was out of the room so I may have missed this. Do I understand that the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women is moving out of their current offices?

MS. C. BENNETT: We have asked them to look at ways of reducing their operating costs not related to their salaries.

MS. ROGERS: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: And we're going to support them to look to relocate, to look to achieve savings on their rent. Government has huge access to a lot of real estate and a lot of rental space, and we're going to do what we can to provide them support so they can do some savings. We want to spend money on services, not on real estate.

MS. ROGERS: Okay.

My second question is that we know how important the role of the Women's Policy Office is in gender-based analysis and applying that lens to all legislation and policy. How has that been working?

MS. C. BENNETT: I'll let the deputy go first.

MS. BALLARD: I think that in all areas of gender analysis we've been successful, but we need to continue to work on that. It's one of the priorities that I have in my office, to ensure that there's more input on the ground level in terms of educating people from the policy level up on gender-based analysis. But certainly we are very involved in the review of Cabinet papers, for example.

I've been very successful over the last four or five months, with the minister's support, to ensure we have been working very closely with departments on gender-based analysis. As the minister had indicated earlier, for example, on the Independent Appointments Commission we were in on the ground early on that one, and have had continuous discussions. We are a part of the committee that's looking at the review and the revitalization of the Harassment and Discrimination-Free Workplace Policy, for example. So we're working horizontally with departments, and also understanding that we need to target some more education at the policy level as well.

MS. ROGERS: I guess what I would like to know is: What is the policy for the gender-based analysis? Rather than Women's Policy having to chase everything and everyone down, is there a requisite, in fact when policy, legislation, and regulations are being reviewed that there is automatic communication with the Women's Policy Office.

MS. C. BENNETT: There is an expectation and a responsibility to all departments, agencies, boards and commissions, particularly as they support legislative changes, that Women's Policy must be included. And that is –

MS. ROGERS: How are you going to enforce that? Because I'm not so sure it has been.

MS. C. BENNETT: We continue to follow up on a regular basis. As the deputy has said, I think as a minister – as any minister would and should – take the responsibility very seriously and ensure that mandate is fulfilled.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much for the time and for your wonderful work. 

Thank you. 

CHAIR: Okay, any more questions?

Do you want to call the subheads?

CLERK: Subhead 2.7.01.

CHAIR: Shall 2.7.01 carry?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried. 

On motion, subhead 2.7.01 carried.

CLERK: 2.7.02.

CHAIR: 2.7.02.

Shall it carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion subhead 2.7.02 carried. 

On motion, Women's Policy Office, total heads, carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Women's Policy Office carried without amendment.

CHAIR: We're going to take a short break again. When we resume it will be Human Resource Secretariat.

Recess

CHAIR: We shall call to order the continuation of this morning's Estimates with Human Resource Secretariat. And I would ask that we go through the line by lines first and then any probing questions, in the interest of time, come afterwards. Hopefully, we can clue up before 12 p.m.

Okay, I think we're ready to start.

CLERK: Subhead 3.1.01.

CHAIR: Subhead 3.1.01.

I turn that over to the minister and, once again, I ask that she introduce the department heads and then continue.

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure.

To be expeditious, I'd ask the new Members of the House of Assembly – you can read the mandate of the department, as we go through the Estimate lines, it's (inaudible). So to speed things up, I'll just make sure that you're reading that. And I'll turn to the deputy and ask him to introduce the officials now that are sitting at the table.

MR. COOPER: Bruce Cooper, Deputy Minister, HRS.

MS. TRICKETT: Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller.

MS. FOLLETT: Tina Follett, Assistant Deputy Minister of Compensation, Benefits and Staffing, Human Resource Secretariat.

MR. MILLER: Brian Miller, ADM, Labour Relations, Human Resource Secretariat.

MS. PENNEY: Wanda Penney, Assistant Deputy Minister of Client Services, Human Resource Secretariat.

MS. TULK: Jennifer Tulk, Director of Communications.

MS. C. BENNETT: And we turn it back to the Chair to begin questions.

CHAIR: You can have the floor for opening remarks and then –

MS. C. BENNETT: I'll pass on opening remarks to provide more opportunity for the Member to ask questions.

CHAIR: Okay.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, in regard to your comment about the time, are we restricting it to 12 p.m. or when we report on Estimates in the House, will we have an opportunity – if there are further questions – to ask them in Committee?

CHAIR: We'll try and clue it up by 12 p.m., if we possibly can.

MS. C. BENNETT: With the Chair's permission, depending on the amount of questions that are left, certainly if we need to come back in Committee to have further discussions this afternoon we can certainly consider that, if that's something that the Member opposite is open to.

MR. HUTCHINGS: It's just going through with line by line and not being able to ask particular policy questions, I think it takes from the process.

MS. C. BENNETT: I'm comfortable to approach it in the manner that the Member opposite is comfortable with, but we certainly want to be expeditious in moving through.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, I agree. Thank you.

Subhead 3.1.01, Executive Support, we see there in the salary allocations that pretty well it's constant when we look at the budget last year and the Estimate for this fiscal year. So I'll just conclude there are no changes here in terms of staffing. It appears as status quo.

MS. C. BENNETT: That would be the case.

MR. HUTCHINGS: So the announcements in budget in regard to 650 FTEs, would this be an area where there would be consideration here, or how does that work?

MS. C. BENNETT: On the details around the core government agencies, boards and commissions number that was released last week? Is that –

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: Do you want to provide some context around that?

MR COOPER: Certainly.

Can I have the question restated, please?

MR. HUTCHINGS: In the budget there was reference to 650 full-time equivalents that were part of going forward in terms of some of the steps that government is going to take in taking them out of the public service. In regard to the Human Resource Secretariat and Executive Support, are some of those positions being reviewed for that 650?

MR. COOPER: Well, executive positions are, of course, the purview of the Premier's office and Cabinet Secretariat in terms of the machinery of government. In our three-year plan, we do have a plan to reduce by one executive over the three-year term through our attrition.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Through attrition?

MR. COOPER: Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

If we move down to Transportation and Communications, we see a significant drop there in regard to the prior budget and this year. I'm just looking for an explanation on that drop.

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. The change in the revised budget over the original budget reflects savings from the 2015 budget and discretionary spending reduction.

The actual change from the budget last year to the budget this year reflects the line-by-line Estimate review in addition to savings related to telephone costs that were identified through the Government Renewal Initiative.

MR. HUTCHINGS: The discretionary savings here, would that flow up into a number, Minister, that you presented in the House in regard to $25 million? Would that be something that would be part of that?

MR. COOPER: Also included in the savings number here, part of our discretion pertains to travel. When we looked back over past years, we had been reducing the amount of travel and moving more towards Web conferencing and teleconferencing as a means to carry out our business. You'll see that kind of theme emerging throughout a number of the expenditure headings.

MR. HUTCHINGS: So when we see Transportation and Communications, as you're saying, that's probably a general theme through how you're delivering services.

MR. COOPER: Right, there's a general theme that we're moving towards more teleconferencing and Web conferencing throughout HRS as a means to try to carry out our business. So the lion's share of our transportation and communications cost really comes down to phones these days. That's the biggest item.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

The Human Resource Secretariat, is that responsible for producing the Departmental Salary Report in conjunction with the budget?

MR. COOPER: Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Has there been a change made in that regard or was it always done that way?

MS. C. BENNETT: Has the –

MR. HUTCHINGS: The preparatory work for that.

MS. C. BENNETT: Historically, has the report been generated by the Human Resource Secretariat?

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: My understanding is yes. This year we intend to use the PeopleSoft software as a way to provide that information going forward. It is efficient and provides a quick, efficient use of technology that's been purchased to make sure that we have public sector employees focused on public services as opposed to generating reports. It's very transparent.

If the Member opposite has questions, we can provide that to him today.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

Just a general one, as we finish up this section here: What role does the Human Resource Secretariat play in the release of information in regard to the sunshine list in regard to government employees? What role would the secretariat play in regard to legal action that's taken in regard to information that was released under ATIPP? Would you play a role in that or …?

MR. COOPER: We are the keepers of the information on payroll and human resources. If the question is what role would we play in helping to generate a list, we would be working closely with our client departments to generate a list to make sure the information we have is accurate. So we would certainly be the hub of the wheel when it comes to the production side of that information.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

There are human resources personnel elsewhere in government. So how would that work together with the secretariat?

MS. C. BENNETT: Sorry?

MR. HUTCHINGS: There are human resources personnel in government, directors that work jointly with various departments. I'm just wondering: What is that relationship?

MR. COOPER: So HRS is currently a mixture of a shared-service approach and a centre-of-expertise model. We have Strategic Human Resource Management units, and I think this is what you're referring to.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes.

MR. COOPER: There are six on the books. We have them organized by sector or department, if a department is large enough. We have all HR services that a department may need coordinated through currently five directors and a variety of staff. We're introducing some change in this year's budget to the way that model is set up and we'll be sure to get into that when we get through the line by  line here.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. So those six outreach in other departments, there'll be some modifications or changes to those?

MR. COOPER: Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, so 3.1.02, Employee Relations. This, I'm understanding, would be the entity and resources for public sector negotiations, those types of things, obviously. Busy times coming up.

I'm looking at 01, Salaries. When we look at a significant reduction in the salaries from the budget of the previous fiscal year to what's being estimated this year, I'm just wondering if I can get an understanding of that.

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. The difference between last year's budget and this year's budget reflects a decrease consisting of a $100,000 transfer of funding for one position to the Employee Wellness Division. It includes a $58,400 transfer of funding for one position to the Policy and Planning Division. It also includes removal of funding related to the JES program, as those processes and work have been absorbed into the Human Resource Secretariat now. It also includes a $38,000 savings as it relates to attrition targets, and an additional $435,700 cost, restated of funding from the Department of Finance for nine months for the JES project office.

Bruce is going to provide some additional information for you, should you need it.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, just on the JES piece, Minister. I understand, if I remember correctly, I think there was a March deadline for those that were red circled and that we're appealing.

How many appeals have you done to date and how many are outstanding?

MS. C. BENNETT: Bruce.

MR. COOPER: We've completed 200 appeals to date, impacting 870 or so employees. We have a little over 730 JES reviews outstanding, with a number of those being red-circled employees. Those are the current statistics.

The JES system was a big change for government with over 32,000 employees affected and 70 per cent of the workforce in the core public service.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Minister, you mentioned something, I think it was just in terms of salaries there, some reallocations of some dollars. That's reflective of the needs you're going to have to meet under the JES and appeals going forward?

MS. C. BENNETT: The intention is that all the work that needs to be done to conclude the JES appeals would happen inside the – the resources inside the department. So there have been some additional changes to be able to accommodate that to happen in the best way possible.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT: Did you want to add something Bruce?

MR. COOPER: Yes, just further to the minister's point, we are moving to – because JES is now not a project, it is the way that we do classification. So we're moving to create capacity within the classification area to take over the work of JES when the project element concludes. We'll be concluding that project in the last quarter of this year.

As we go, staff in that area are excellent and they're improving their efficiency all the time. We're going to be starting work with them this week to work on process improvement to try to address the backlog and get through this as expeditiously as possible and drawing upon other resources if need be.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

So just to be clear, I think you indicated the last quarter of this year you expect to have the appeals heard or the current ones (inaudible).

MR. COOPER: Our goal is to conclude our work in this area in the last quarter. We are certainly working towards that.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

Just then, finally, obviously the appeal; if an applicant won an appeal there could be a redress of a lump-sum payment or something of that nature. Is that included in the budget allocations?

MS. C. BENNETT: The historical costs related to JES, we've seen gaps where there are places where departments have not budgeted for JES. Certainly that's one of the problems in the past that has been challenging when you go to look at the expenses and the total costs associated with JES.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

In section 3.1.02, Employee Relations again, just to get an explanation in regard to Transportation and Communications, and the reduction there from last fiscal year and the Estimate for this fiscal year coming.

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. The difference between the original budget and the budget of this year relates to removal of the funding related in this particular area specific to the JES program. In addition, savings of $6,100 related to the line-by-line review, as well as savings associated with the Government Renewal Initiative that related to telephone cost savings in this area.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. When you say telephone cost savings are you talking about a current contract that was in place and you reissued a new contract? What would that be exactly?

MR. COOPER: So the initiative here is to just go through and honestly review every one of our lines to ensure they continue to be live lines, that they're needed and to look at the options. Sometimes there are people – it's actually surprising the amount of money that can be spent on add-ons that are on the bill you don't even realize; voicemail and things like this. So we believe there's money there through just reviewing our needs.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

MS. C. BENNETT: And making sure that everything that government is paying for is actually being used by somebody.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, indeed.

Again, just that same section in regard to supplies. We've seen the original budget Estimate, what was actually spent went up and then that's been adopted this year for the budget.

MR. COOPER: The employee relations area is heavily involved in working on arbitrations and different investigation issues. What we've seen is a trend when we did our review is that supplies are up because we are producing more paper reports in relation to arbitrations and these sorts of things. That's why we've snapped the budget to our actual expenditure because this is what was actually required.

MR. HUTCHINGS: It's just reflective of your operations for the past year, basically.

MR. COOPER: Yes, it's what they need to run it.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, that's great. Thank you.

The next one is Professional Services, the $170,000 was there for last fiscal year, it wasn't achieved or wasn't required, and now this year that's adopted again. Could you just give me a comment on that, please?

MR. COOPER: This has to do again with the work of arbitrations and working on conflict resolution. What you see there was our actual requirement last year. We expect to have a similar trend for this year coming.

MS. C. BENNETT: Just for clarity, I was confused by what the Member said opposite. The budget last year was $170,000, actual costs are about $130,000 and the revised budget is $129,900. Was that the line you were asking questions about?

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: Okay.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Within that line as well, would that be consultants within that particular line item as well?

MR. COOPER: Yes, they would be charged as consultants but they would be largely – you were talking people with expertise in the area of labour relations.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Arbitrators, those –

MR. COOPER: That's correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, okay.

We'd have a standing list or a standing offer list that we draw from.

MR. COOPER: Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, okay.

That's tied to the work you do. You can't really – I guess you just go on past experience of what you've seen and you continue to –

MR. COOPER: That's right.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, okay. Thank you.

I have nothing further on that section, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Does 3.1.01 carry?

Carried.

On motion, subhead 3.1.01 carried.

CLERK: 3.1.02.

CHAIR: 3.1.02.

Carried.

On motion, subhead 3.1.02 carried.

MS. C. BENNETT: So that's carried, I assume. Did I hear that, Mr. Chair, I wasn't sure? Yes?

CHAIR: Carried.

MS. C. BENNETT: Okay.

CLERK: 3.1.03.

CHAIR: 3.1.03.

Shall it carry?

MR. HUTCHINGS: No, we haven't done that yet. I don't think we have, have we?

CHAIR: Okay.

Mr. Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Nice try.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Subhead 3.1.03, Human Resource Policy and Planning; in this section here Salaries, we've seen somewhat of an increase here in regard to last year and this year in the Estimates. Can I get an explanation with regard to the increase there?

MS. C. BENNETT: Yes, and with the Member opposite's permission, it will make more sense to discuss this area in context with some other areas that we haven't gotten to because they kind of link together.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Sure, yes. Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT: It might make it easier for the deputy and I to clearly, openly and transparently explain.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: Bruce, I'll let you dive in.

MR. COOPER: There are a few things up at operation here inside this heading. First of all, in HRS we have what's called the ODI Fund, the Organizational Development Initiatives Fund. This was a fund that traditionally lived in two places. Part of it lived under the Centre for Learning and Development and that was focused on staff training throughout government, legislative compliance training and these sorts of things. Then part of it was in the Strategic Human Resource Management units. So it's spread out to departments to support department specific training.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

MR. COOPER: What we've done this year are a couple of things. We've consolidated all of the ODI funding under the Centre for Learning and Development. That is because we are also consolidating all of the training within HRS, all responsibility for HRS training is coming into this area. So there are going to be some individuals transferring out of their SHRM divisions into responsibility under the Centre for Learning and Development.

That explains why you see a significant increase in the Salaries budget, because there's a transfer in of $900,000 related to a reorganization decision we've made. It's actually a little more than that, about $960,000 when you look at an information management position that we're also transferring in there.

What's behind this is we've seen great efficiency through the Centre for Learning and Development through the increased use of distance learning. Thus, we've seen significant travel savings in different areas because we're using more web-based approaches to learning.

We're moving training under here so that we can also try to generate some of the same savings within departments through that approach. So we believe by having a consolidated, singular approach to training it's going to be more efficient and better for the client. That's at play inside the salary growth and in some of the other lines you see here.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

Just so I understand; that transfer, is that all within the Human Resource Secretariat or it just comes from outside? Is any coming from outside or just all within?

MR. COOPER: No, it's all within HRS.

MR. HUTCHINGS: So all those training components are just being consolidated, I guess, under one heading.

MR. COOPER: Correct. Yes.

There are some resources transferring out of what comes up later under 3.1.05.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

So there's no reduction in positions as a result of that, is there? They're all pretty consolidated.

MR. COOPER: No, this is a consolidation.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

Under Transportation and Communications again, there's a reduction in regard to last year's fiscal amount and what's been estimated this year; again, if I could just get a comment on that.

MS. C. BENNETT: Yes, it would be a similar theme to what you've heard already. The difference in original budget and the revised is a result of savings by reducing travel requirements, leveraging technology, compliance with the directive that government implemented on discretionary spending in December. And the comparative number of $40,000 to $28,400 on the Transportation and Communications in fiscal '16-'17 comes from $10,800 worth of savings from a line-by-line review, and more savings, $800, coming from the telephone cost savings that we spoke about.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Thank you. 

Purchased Services, again, has increased from what was budgeted last year, and then the actual was way down from what was budgeted. This year it's up significantly again in the Estimates. Can I get some information on that?

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure.

The Purchased Services increase includes $903,600 for GRI budget reallocations from other areas related to the consolidation of training that the deputy minister just spoke about. There is a $903,000 cost and there's a $372,700 savings from the line-by-line review of the Estimates that we did. So the net amount there is $530,000 that you will see that line item increasing. It includes the consolidation, the increased spend in training that's now in this area and it includes $372,000 in savings.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

So you pulled in –

MS. C. BENNETT: Pulled in nine –

MR. HUTCHINGS: – the accompanying purchased services from the other areas and then, within that, you had a savings and a reduction.

MS. C. BENNETT: The training came in at $900,000 and the savings of $372,000 came from the line-by-line review that we did.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

MS. C. BENNETT: Bruce, did you want to add anything?

MR. COOPER: No.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Down in same section 3.1.03 if we come down to 02, Revenue – Provincial – there's federal and provincial revenue there, if someone could tell me about that.

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. This relates to funding that's received for the French services. So the revenue now appears in this particular line item because there's revenue associated with providing that service.

Bruce, is there anything else you want to add?

MR. COOPER: Yes, this is related to the consolidation of training. We're going to have the French language training led by the centre now, so there's some federal revenue that comes from that.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Is that new because it doesn't appear in prior years?

MS. C. BENNETT: It would have been new for this area.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

MR. COOPER: It used to be part of the Office of French Services we've transferred –

MR. HUTCHINGS: So it would have showed up and now it's been transferred here.

MS. C. BENNETT: Right.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

We'll move to 3.1.04. If I could, when we go to 3.1.04, just on what we just spoke of in that section 3.1.04, when you get down to revenue for federal and provincial, that number there would be added to the number above because that's the heading for French Language Services. Has the overall amount increased or has been constant?

MR. COOPER: We receive funding from the federal government and I think it is a three-year agreement.

OFFICIAL: Five.

MR. COOPER: Oh, sorry; it is a five-year agreement. So yes, it's a constant funding rate. We do have the ability to generate some revenue from the offering of French language training; and we do expect actually to see, through arrangements with the federal government and their employees, some increase in revenue this year associated with service provision, aside from the reimbursement through the grant.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. So who would avail of that service and who would pay for it? Could you explain that to me? You said you could generate the revenue; how would that work?

MR. COOPER: Some of the French language training that we offer, we have a contract with Eastern Health. As you know, they provide service to Saint Pierre et Miquelon. So they actually offer training to their staff and we get reimbursed for that training to support that contract.

And federal government employees, of course, there's a great incentive to bilingualism in working in the federal government, so some people will – some with employer support and some with their own money – might come and seek the support of the Office of French Services for French language training.

MR. HUTCHINGS: And they would pay the fee?

MR. COOPER: Well, we do charge fees, but not for our own employees.

MR. HUTCHINGS: No, okay. Thank you.

In that section, 3.1.04, French Language Services, on the Salaries line, the one last year was $589,900 and this year the Estimate is $328,800. Could you just give me some details on that one?

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. So there's $248,700 transferred funding related to the reorganization and training the deputy spoke about earlier, and then there's $12,400 related to attrition targets – savings from the attrition.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

I'll just ask, where you spoke attrition, what's the attrition target for Human Resource Secretariat for the upcoming fiscal year?

MR. COOPER: We have an annual target of five positions.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Five positions annual?

MR. COOPER: Correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

So your Estimates for this year obviously reflect those five positions?

MR. COOPER: Correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Right?

MR. COOPER: Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

Professional Services, under that heading, we've seen a reduction from what was budgeted, what was the actual for the fiscal year and next fiscal year. Maybe just give me some comment on that as well.

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. Specific to the $135,800, that's $500 in savings from the line-by-line review, and $64,500 from GRI savings resulting from the streamlining of the French language program.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. So would there be consultants in that amount to be used?

MR. COOPER: Yes, some French language training is done by individuals in the community who are hired as consultants. It's not your traditional kind of advertising consultants or anything like that, but these are teachers, people who come in and offer evening classes.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, sure. Thank you.

Purchased Services again, there's been somewhat of a significant increase from last year's budget to this year's Estimates. Just get a comment on that as well.

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. The significant change there is $50,000, and that reflects an increase of costs associated with hosting the national Francophone conference that the former administration would have committed to and we're hosting this year.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, okay.

I'm not sure if I already asked – I asked about the federal-provincial revenue there. There was some on the provincial side in the prior year, but this year there's nothing there.

MR. COOPER: This is the revenue that we transferred over. So it still exists, but it's over under the CLD.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, great. Thank you.

MS. C. BENNETT: I just wanted to make sure that what I thought happened was actually what happened before I jumped in.

MR. HUTCHINGS: It's always good to check.

So those two sections, Mr. Chair, I'm fine with those, unless anybody else has any questions.

MS. C. BENNETT: So maybe we could call for the vote on those two sections so we can –

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, sure.

MS. C. BENNETT: So 03 and 04?

CLERK: 3.1.03.

CHAIR: Shall 3.1.03 carry?

Carried.

On motion, subhead 3.1.03 carried.

CLERK: 3.1.04.

CHAIR: Shall 3.1.04 carry?

Carried.

On motion, subhead 3.1.04 carried.

CLERK: 3.1.05.

CHAIR: 3.1.05.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, 3.1.05, we'll start with the Salaries line again. We see somewhat of a reduction, somewhere in the range of $600,000 for what was budgeted last and the Estimate for this year. I wonder if we could get some explanation on that one.

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure.

Bruce, do you want to provide that?

MR. COOPER: The revision from last year to this year relates to the transfer of funding, the transfer out to the CLD of some of the trainers. We transferred the trainers out to create that new centralized training function. That's the lion's share of the reason.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. I think it was SHRM coordinators you referred to. How many of those exist? How many positions?

MR. COOPER: The directors?

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes.

MR. COOPER: We have six positions. We currently have five filled.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. There's one vacant but you've budgeted for the six positions, I guess.

MR. COOPER: Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Thank you.

In Transportation and Communications again, there's a reduction there from budgeted (inaudible) and what has been estimated for this year.

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. That difference, as we referenced before, would be primarily related to savings achieved through the line-by-line Estimates review, as well as the GRI telephone cost savings.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

Purchased Services as well, there's a significant reduction there in regard to what was budgeted in the prior year and what's been in the Estimates for this year. Can we get some comments on that, please?

MR. COOPER: This is where we transferred out training money from the SHRM to the policy head. This is the ODI funding, in large part.

MR. HUTCHINGS: So there's no reduction in the fund, it's just a transfer pretty well?

MR. COOPER: We did transfer out, but there was a slight reduction. We've had historical slippage in that area of a very significant level. So we're confident we have enough to be able to meet the needs.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

Under that same heading 02, Operating Accounts, overall we've gone from almost $1.6 million to $387,000 for current year.

MR. COOPER: Again, we're almost at $1 million associated with the ODI funding, transferring out. So that's a significant portion of the change.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

Just above that, Property, Furnishings and Equipment, that seems to have gone up from the prior year. Would that be related to some of that reorganization you're doing?

MS. C. BENNETT: That would be related to higher-than-anticipated expenditures. So year over year from the budget to the actual, that would have been related to expenditures as a result of ergonomic assessments. And the budget this year for '16-'17 would be related to a combination of the savings that were achieved, as well as expenditures under the Strategic Human Resource Management Division that would relate to expectations of a spend based on what happened last year.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

MR. COOPER: And just to add, we also, in the spirit of consolidation, took responsibility because much of our PFE money is going for ergonomic assessments. We've moved it under this heading in order to engage the Employee Safety and Wellness Division in that work. So it just makes for better use of the money if we have people of that expertise overseeing it.

MR. HUTCHINGS: So that's ergonomic assessment throughout the public service?

MR. COOPER: Throughout the public service.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Is that the core public service?

MR. COOPER: Actually, it's throughout HRS. I'm sorry, throughout HRS, our own operating.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Just HRS?

MR. COOPER: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: It's comparable to the same amount of people as would have been availing the service last year or the same lines of accountability. So there's been no shift in that.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Thank you. 

We'll move to 3.1.06, Payroll and Compensation Benefits.

CHAIR: Okay.

First, we'll call for the subheadings.

CLERK: 3.1.05.

CHAIR: Shall 3.1.05 carry?

Carried. 

On motion, subhead 3.1.05 carried.

CLERK: 3.1.06.

CHAIR: 3.1.06.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Did we do 3.1.06?

MS. C. BENNETT: We're just about to do 3.1.06.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

3.1.06, Payroll and Compensation Benefits; the Salaries here are fairly consistent from – or not a big change. So I conclude that the staffing requirements are consistent from the prior year in this division.

MS. C. BENNETT: Yes. It's about a difference of $57,000 there.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: Some of that is related to the Government Renewal Initiative re-profiling some savings of about $50,000, a little bit from JES and about $500 from the line by line. So to answer your question, before I gave all that information, I should have just said yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

Transportation and Communications on that line, that seems to have gone up. I'm just wondering if I can get a comment on that.

MR. COOPER: One of the changes we're going to make this year is the implementation of a service centre. So we need some money to buy the technology. This is related – there are a few occurrences of this where as we move to set up a service centre we need to buy the right call centre technology. We needed a bit of extra money in that line this year.

MR. HUTCHINGS: What was that centre again? Could you explain that to me?

MR. COOPER: Service centre is something that we're moving towards as we restructure. It will be a place where employees and our clients can call to ask any HR-related question at a tier-one, tier-two level, your commonly occurring and occasionally occurring questions. We already have some of this sort of approach at play in this area but we're expanding it and going to move other HR services under that umbrella.

MR. HUTCHINGS: So that would just be a realignment of your human resources to specifically meet that.

MR. COOPER: That's correct. It's a new method of delivery. We think it's going to be more efficient and more user-friendly for the clients.

MR. HUTCHINGS: So now you may call in and you may go all around a whole bunch of places, correct?

MR. COOPER: Yes. That's precisely the issue.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, good idea. Thank you.

Professional Services, that line, we've seen nothing there in prior or current usage during this fiscal year but we're seeing funds added in there for the next fiscal year. I'm wondering what that would be.

MS. C. BENNETT: Those would be the new costs that we anticipate that would be related to the service centre.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

I don't have anything further on that section.

CLERK: 3.1.06.

CHAIR: Shall 3.1.06 carry?

Carried.

On motion, subhead 3.1.06 carried.

CLERK: 3.1.07.

CHAIR: 3.1.07.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, 3.1.07, Benefits Administration.

I guess this is where the new pension corporation – this is overseen here in regard to public pension? Can I just get an update on where that's to in terms of the work of the corporation?

MS. C. BENNETT: The work of the corporation?

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: I'd have to provide some information after Estimates to make sure that it was current. The last update I had is maybe a week old, and rather than providing information that's not current – I could certainly get that for you.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, fair enough. 

Thank you. 

MS. C. BENNETT: You can always ask the corporation as well. I'm sure the Chair would be happy to provide an update on where they are as well.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, maybe I'll touch base and see what's happening.

So 3.1.07, the Salaries, we've seen a reduction there from what it was the last fiscal year and what's been estimated this year. I'm just wondering if I could get an update on the change there.

MS. C. BENNETT: Absolutely.

MR. COOPER: We had money in the budget last year to support the transition from Desjardins Financial Services to Great-West Life, that included money for some staff and there were some other costs you're going to see throughout here. Now that the transition is complete, we don't need that money anymore. We actually had three positions that we had for fiscal '15-'16 only, removing them for next year is $150,000 of what you're seeing there.

MR. HUTCHINGS: I'm just curious, how did that go overall? Because it was a big undertaking, I think, in terms of the transition.

MR. COOPER: I think the overall transition – there are always issues when you're transitioning from one to another. I think overall the transition went well. I certainly hear that employees appreciate some of the more modern features of their coverage or the client service side of Great-West Life. Naturally there are always – in any transition there are issues that need to be worked out but we've got a good line of communication with our employees and through the group insurance committee, and are proactively working on matters as they come up.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, good.

Thank you. 

If we could just go to Professional Services in regard to funding that was allocated the past fiscal year and nothing for this fiscal year. Can I get a comment on that?

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure.

It's the elimination of the budget that was required for the group insurance changeover.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Fair enough. 

MS. C. BENNETT: So there was no spending required anymore.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Purchased Services as well, would that be related? Well, there was little spent this fiscal year.

MR. COOPER: Originally, there was a plan to move the pension staff out of HRS. We were going to consolidate all client functions on Mundy Pond. With the movement to the new pensions' corporation that rent money was no longer necessary. So the move is not taking place for that group.

MR. HUTCHINGS: So the intent was to move them to Mundy Pond but –

MR. COOPER: That was an original plan. There was money carried in our budget for that, and then with the decision to go to the pensions' corporation we won't be doing that anymore, obviously.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

Again, the Revenue line; maybe give me some commentary on that and what that reflects?

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure.

Bruce.

MR. COOPER: The revenue relates to, we provide a variety of services around the pension administration, and, as well, we provide services on behalf of the group insurance process. So there's some revenue that we realize as a result of that.

MS. C. BENNETT: This would be similar to cost-recovery models for work that is being done by government on behalf of the pension corporation or on behalf of the group insurance plan.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT: The group insurance one has been standard, something that has been happening for a period of time, and the cost recovery as it relates to the pension corporation, my understanding is that was agreed to between the pension corporation and government before I got here.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, okay. Thank you.

That's it for that section, Mr. Chair.

CLERK: 3.1.07.

CHAIR: Shall 3.1.07 carry?

Carried.

On motion, subhead 3.1.07 carried.

CLERK: 3.1.08.

CHAIR: 3.1.08.

I'll just start off saying we've gone beyond our three hours now, and we have two subheadings left. If we can conclude it up quickly, we'll do it. The other two options are to reconvene or to not meet again and deem the two subheadings carried.

So if you have, and if it's fast –

MR. HUTCHINGS: I don't have a lot more questions. If you want to, maybe we can try 10 or 15 minutes and see how we get?

MS. C. BENNETT: How long do you figure?

MR. HUTCHINGS: It will be 10 or 15 minutes.

MS. C. BENNETT: I'll leave it to the Chair.

CHAIR: Ten minutes.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes. So if I don't get through, what's the plan?

CHAIR: Well, with just these two headings left, then we'll deem everything as carried.

MR. HUTCHINGS: And reconvene, or –

CHAIR: No.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Can we do it in Committee?

MS. C. BENNETT: Why don't we –

CHAIR: No, it cannot be deferred outside of this Government Services Committee.

We'll see how it goes and then we'll go for somebody (inaudible).

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

So 3.1.08, this looks at recruitment of staff in the public service and, obviously, looks at conducting a merit-based competitive process. I'm just wondering, in a general sense will this overlap with the Independent Appointments Commission and the Public Service Commission's work? Will there be anything – there'll be nothing, totally separate still, will it?

MS. C. BENNETT: No, there's no interaction with this unit.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. I'm just curious that's all, because the merit-based competitive process was mentioned.

MS. C. BENNETT: No.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

Just a general question in terms of the overall Government Renewal Initiative and some of the announcements in the budget in regard to full-time, year-round equivalents and the reduction in the public service; in a general sense, how do you foresee that rolling out over identifying positions and that process as we move forward?

MS. C. BENNETT: The information that was released on the FTEs as it relates to the ABCs – Agencies, Boards and Commissions – would obviously be a question, and that would be best left to them. Inside the core government, there are a number of the Government Renewal Initiatives that are public, that you can certainly review, that have implications on staff complements in 2016. Those individuals that have been impacted by the early activation or current activation, as some of those ideas have been communicated too.

I'll ask the deputy if he has any other comments that he wants to add.

MR. COOPER: No.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. So those that were identified within the core public service, some have been notified of what their future would be but others, that would roll out over future months?

MS. C. BENNETT: All of the decision points and all of the decisions that have been made have been communicated publicly. As of Friday, we released the list of offices that would have been impacted as a result of the total changes that are happening.

Bruce, is there anything you want to add to that? Everybody has been notified.

MR. COOPER: Yes, everyone affected by decisions that are implemented as of this month have been notified. So, there was a process of formal notice provision and also advisory. There were some employees who would have been told that there's change coming, even though formal notice may not be provided, because there are some changes that would be occurring later in the fiscal year depending upon the implementation plan. 

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes. Okay, that's the kind of point I was getting at. Some have been specifically identified in regard to the termination of their position coming to end and then based on rolling this out and other things you would do, others may be aware that there is change coming in a particular area, yet the individuals haven't been notified. Is that fair? 

MS. C. BENNETT: No, I wouldn't say that's fair. I think the formal notice, as is required to be provided in advance of making any change to an employee's status, has been provided. The full number of people impacted was shared as part of the budget communication.

Those individuals that may be impacted as a result of receiving their official termination notice later in this fiscal year would obviously have been made aware that changes are coming. Out of courtesy, we certainly let those individuals know. When we made the information public, we wanted to make sure that they understood as well what was coming. 

MR. HUTCHINGS: So, just to be clear, those ones that you just described, they would be aware that this was coming? Would they be included in the 650?

MS. C. BENNETT: Oh yes –

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. And would they have a date now that their position would be terminated?

MS. C. BENNETT: Not all. It depends on the operational decisions that individual departments are making as to when to operationalize that. Sometimes there might be a day or two lag from what was originally planned. In the interest of being transparent with employees, those employees will receive the specific details once the operational decisions are fine tuned.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you. 

The other component that was referenced was attrition so how would the attrition plan – I think you mentioned that you had identified for this a set number. Would that be consistent in regard to your plan throughout government that each department would have an identified number for your attrition plan?

MS. C. BENNETT: The attrition references that we've made, the salaries that were removed from departmental budgets in fiscal '15-'16 remain removed as part of the work that we are undertaking in the Government Renewal Initiative. The understanding is that we need to look at different workforce models. And the workforce plan has to be reflected for the work that is going to be done.

The attrition model, as it was communicated last year, didn't include understanding that not all departments, agencies, boards and commissions all have people proportionately at a retirement age as a slice of their overall salary pie. So there were huge inconsistencies in the ability for departments, agencies, boards and commissions to operationalize the attrition program as it was presented in last year's budget.

The salary amounts that related to the attrition plan of last year that carried forward in this year's budget, we retain those as needed savings as part of this year's budget. And it is our intention to look for more comprehensive workforce planning that would take into account the actual work that needs to be done, the actual attrition that is available to be optimized and used as part of workforce changes in each department, and recognizing that not everybody retires proportionately in every single department, yet that's what the dollar amounts were allocated in last year.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. So the dollars allocated for reduction last year, for the last fiscal year, we'd say were met or were kept in?

MS. C. BENNETT: They were kept in.

MR. HUTCHINGS: So for this fiscal year?

MS. C. BENNETT: The announcements that we – sorry, just to clarify.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: I think this is where the Member is going. The reductions that we made as part of budget ‘16 were on top of any salary changes that were a result of the attrition plan from last year.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. So they stayed, and then you did further –

MS. C. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

I have nothing further on that section, Mr. Chair.

CLERK: 3.1.08.

CHAIR: Shall 3.1.08 carry?

Carried.

On motion, subhead 3.1.08 carried.

CLERK: 3.1.09.

CHAIR: 3.1.09.

MR. HUTCHINGS: This is Opening Doors and it is certainly a very important program in government. I've seen it work very well and very meaningful in terms of what it offers to a particular group in our society.

I'm just wondering, Salaries, if you could give us – there's been a minor change there in terms of Salaries, and if there are any changes in the salary complement within the division.

MR. COOPER: We continue to have funding for over 80 individuals to work throughout government. We, of course, fund through this allocation all of those salaries through every department where individuals have employment. So there are no changes in the allocation of positions for Opening Doors.

We are making a slight change in our management in that area where we are eliminating a management position and merging the work of Opening Doors with the Strategic Staffing group. So that's the only change that is there. You see a bit of an increase because of the JES; we required a little bit more funding to accommodate the reclassifications that occurred through JES.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

The one position you spoke of there is a manager's position; I think in the announcement, Minister, last week in the budget it was 650. If I remember correctly, 200 of those and a certain percentage of those would be management positions. Would this position be reflective of that?

MS. C. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

Grants and Subsidies, under that heading – what would that be in terms of those grants and subsidies in particular?

MR. COOPER: We provide grants to other employers to facilitate hiring. Our budget for this year reflects our historical utilization pattern.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

That's fine with me; that's good.

CLERK: 3.1.09.

CHAIR: Shall 3.1.09 carry?

Carried.

On motion, subhead 3.1.09 carried.

CLERK: The total.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

Carried.

On motion, Human Resource Secretariat, total heads, carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Human Resource Secretariat carried without amendment.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Chair, if I could I would just take a minute to thank the minister and her staff, and those that were here earlier this morning, for their participation and providing us with the information as we move forward with the Estimates and talking about the budget here in the House of Assembly, so just to say thank you.

CHAIR: I just inform you that the next meeting of the Government Services Committee will be at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 20 in the Chambers.

Thank you all for coming. We need a motion to adjourn.

MR. HUTCHINGS: I'll do that motion.

CHAIR: Seconded?

AN HON. MEMBER: Seconded.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.