April
18, 2016
GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Derrick Bragg, MHA for Fogo Island – Cape Freels,
substitutes for Neil King, MHA for Bonavista, for a portion of the meeting.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Gerry Rogers, MHA for St. John's Centre,
substitutes for Lorraine Michael, MHA for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Tracey Perry, MHA for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune,
substitutes for Steve Kent, MHA for Mount Pearl North.
The
Committee met at 9:09 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.
CLERK (Ms. Murphy):
The first order of
business is to elect a Chair. Are there any nominations for Chair?
MR. KING:
I nominate the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
CLERK: Any further nominations?
Any further nominations?
The
Member for Torngat Mountains is acclaimed Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR (Edmunds):
Thank you, everyone.
I will
now call nominations for Vice-Chair, Government Services Committee.
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.