The Committee met at 7:00 p.m in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR (Wiseman): Order, please!

I think we are all here. I welcome you to this discussion tonight, as we do the Estimates for three - I will get to the procedural kinds of things in a moment, but we are going to do the areas that Minister Burke is responsible for, which would be the Status of Women, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and the Department of HRLE.

For the members of the Committee, you each have copies of the minutes from this morning's session. Before we proceed with tonight's session, we need to entertain a motion to accept those minutes.

So moved by Mr. French.

Is there a seconder for that? Mr. Butler?

MR. BUTLER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Won't you? I saw you nod your head, so that seemed to be in agreement.

MR. BUTLER: (Inaudible).

MS GOUDIE: I will second it.

CHAIR: Seconded by Ms Goudie.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Motion carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Before we begin, this evening is a little bit different than a couple of the others that we have had. As I said a moment ago, the way I phrased it, we are going to deal with the areas that Minister Burke is responsible for, and they are broken down into a couple of sections.

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, which is found on page 247 of the Estimates, we are going to do that particular heading first and dispense of that one firstly. Next, we will move into the Status of Women. The Status of Women is found in the Estimates section under the Executive Council, which is on pages 19 and 20 of the Estimates. When we deal with the Executive Council section, we are only going to deal with the two subheads that are applicable to the Women's Council, so we will not be dealing with any motions with respect to all of the Estimates on Executive Council. When we are through that, then we will go directly to the department, which is found on page 205. Within that, then, we will deal with the Labour Relations piece first and move to the rest.

Those are the terms of the sequencing. Because they are found in three different sections of the Estimates book, the voting procedure, we will deal with them in a different fashion than we have dealt with others.

Minister, before we start, could you assist us by maybe introducing your staff?

MS BURKE: Okay.

I am not good with left and right, but I guess to my far left, if you are playing the piano from this side of the House, is the Parliamentary Assistant, Dave Denine. Then we have Mary Marshall with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and Dave Aker with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I will continue on. In my seat we have Joe O'Neill, CEO of the Labour Relations Agency; Rebecca Roome, Deputy Minister of HRLE; Dave Roberts, Assistant Deputy Minister of HRLE; Heather MacLellan, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Women's Policy Office; Jennifer Jeans, Assistant Deputy Minister of HRLE; and Jacqueline Howard, Communications with HRLE.

CHAIR: Thank you.

For the benefit of your staff, I will ask the Committee if they would introduce themselves. If we could start with Ms Goudie, please?

MS GOUDIE: Kathy Goudie, MHA for Humber Valley.

MR. FRENCH: Terry French, MHA for Conception Bay South and Holyrood.

MR. YOUNG: Wally Young, MHA for St. Barbe, sitting in for Clyde Jackman.

MR. COLLINS: Randy Collins, MHA for Labrador West.

MR. BUTLER: Roland Butler, MHA for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BARRETT: Percy Barrett, MHA for Bellevue, celebrating today the sixteenth anniversary of sitting in the House of Assembly, April 20, 1989.

CHAIR: Congratulations, Mr. Barrett.

Minister, would you like to have a few opening comments before we start calling the heads and have some discussion?

MS BURKE: No, I would like to get started into Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

CHAIR: Okay.

I would ask the clerk if he would call the first head under the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

CLERK: Subhead, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01. carry?

Mr. Butler, in what sequence do you want to start?

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Barrett will be going ahead with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. Why I asked our colleague from Labrador West was because I know he said today he had a time frame or something.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: All right, sir.

CHAIR: For the benefit of people in Hansard, I would ask, if you would, to just identify yourself so they can turn the microphones on when you start to speak, if you would, please.

Mr. Barrett.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I have some questions for the minister in terms of the line by line in terms of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

The operating budget for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation has been decreased by $260,000. Does that mean a cut in programs, or layoffs? Why the reduction?

MS BURKE: Basically, there has been a reduction and these savings that are noted here on this line will be able to achieve these savings through some administrative efficiencies and probably some staff realignments and adjustments.

MR. BARRETT: Will there be any layoffs?

MS BURKE: There potentially could be, but at this point, depending on the attrition and the vacancies, we should be able to meet that goal of the $260,000.

MR. BARRETT: Do you mean by attrition? If someone retires, you are not going to replace them?

MS BURKE: Depending on the position, if we are able to not impact the programs. If there is a retirement and that can be assumed within the workload, that is where we will be looking for these efficiencies.

MR. BARRETT: You still haven't answered the question. Will there be any layoffs?

MS BURKE: I cannot guarantee that there will not be any layoffs, but it is not the intention to do layoffs. If we can achieve these efficiencies through attrition and through staff realignment, or through natural progression of staff, if they decide to leave for reasons probably other than retirement, if we can maintain the vacancies and get our savings that way, that would be the preferred way to do it.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

The amount is $260,000. We are all aware that staff - we know that the salaries have been frozen, but have step progressions for employees been frozen?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, step progressions have not been frozen, so the budget is decreased by $260,000. How much money is allocated in extra salaries for the step progressions?

MS BURKE: Most of the staff at Housing have been there in the long term, so the step progressions may not apply, but there is approximately $20,000 set aside for the step progressions.

MR. BARRETT: Twenty thousand dollars? That is all the step progressions with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing? All the employees are seasoned employees and they do not qualify for - how many employees would be in that category?

MS BURKE: In the category of -

MR. BARRETT: They have step progression. How many employees do not have step progressions?

MS BURKE: They would all have step progressions, unless they are at the top. If you are not at the top, you would qualify.

MR. BARRETT: I know, but how many employees qualify for step progression and how many employees do not qualify?

MS BURKE: You mean, how many are at the top versus how many are not at the top?

MR. BARRETT: Right.

MS BURKE: I don't have that number.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MS BURKE: There are approximately ten employees right now who are not at the top of their step progression at Housing.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. How many employees are there at the Corporation, including permanent, temporary, contractual, and seasonal employees?

MR. AKER: There are approximately 250 administrative staff in the Corporation. In our maintenance staff, there are approximately another 100.

MR. BARRETT: There are 250 administrative staff?

MR. AKER: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: How many did you say were in maintenance?

MR. AKER: Maintenance, about 100 employees.

MR. BARRETT: So, there are 100 employees in maintenance and there are 250 administering the 100 employees?

MR. AKER: No, the 250 administrative staff work in our offices. That is not the number that just includes management, for example.

MR. BARRETT: What would the breakdown be in management and unionized employees?

MR. AKER: Out of the 250, approximately sixty managers, and the balance would be members of CUPE or IBW.

MR. BARRETT: Have you laid off any employees in rural Newfoundland in the last fiscal year? Were there some reductions in the offices in Gander? There has not been any reductions in any offices at NLHC in the last fiscal year?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BARRETT: No reduction of any staff anywhere?

MS BURKE: Unless it was attrition, someone retired.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but did you fill the positions? If it was attrition, and you did not fill the positions, it was a layoff.

MS BURKE: No, it is not.

MR. BARRETT: Well, if you did not refill the position and left the position vacant, which is a layoff.

MS BURKE: But we did not lay anyone off.

MR. BARRETT: It is just what you mean by it. How many employees did you have the year before and how many do you have now? If you had 250 and 100, how many were in the previous year?

MR. AKER: I do not have the details in front of me, but we have dropped approximately ten staff positions over the last fiscal year. Those employees were not laid off. They were a combination of temporary contracts, which were not renewed, and some people who resigned to pursue other employment.

MR. BARRETT: The positions that were held by temporary, who is doing that work now?

CHAIR: Excuse me, if you wouldn't mind, just identify yourself before you speak in the microphone so we can - number one, your microphone can come on and we can accurately record you in Hansard and attribute your comments to the person who is making them.

Thank you.

MS MARSHALL: Those positions where people have left, either temporary positions or people who have found other employment, the work is being done by other employees. There were efficiencies achieved and those positions have been determined, by and large, that they are not really required. There may be still some that may be filled in the future but right now - we have not laid off anybody in the last year.

MR. BARRETT: But you have not filled the temporary positions which were - what did the temporary positions do within the corporation that now somebody else can do?

MS MARSHALL: We had some clerical staff who left during the year and those jobs have been absorbed by others in the organization. With different use of approaches, technology and other approaches, we have been able to achieve efficiencies in those areas.

MR. BARRETT: Where were these temporary employees? What locations were they laid off?

MS MARSHALL: I do not have that detail.

MR. BARRETT: You do not have the details?

MS MARSHALL: No.

MR. BARRETT: Were they in St. John's or were they somewhere else?

MS MARSHALL: There were some in St. John's. They may have all been St. John's, those temporaries.

WITNESS: Again, I do not have the details.

MS MARSHALL: We do not have that detail with us.

MR. BARRETT: These questions that I am not getting any answers to, can you provide me with the details and the breakdown in each office and the number of temporary employees? The number of temporary employees and the number of permanent employees in each office with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing? How many were there the previous year? How many are there this year?

MR. AKER: That information is all in our budget and is available.

MR. BARRETT: Will you provide the information to me?

MR. AKER: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: Could you tell me the present salary and the benefits of the Chairman and CEO, Mr. Simms?

MR. AKER: I do not have his exact salary. I believe the Chairman of the Corporation, the range of the salary is approximately $100,000 to approximately $130,000 per year.

MR. BARRETT: Is he getting the full salary or has there been a different negotiated contract?

MR. AKER: I have not seen his contract.

MR. BARRETT: What is your position at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing?

MR. AKER: My name is Dave Aker. I am the Assistant Comptroller with the Housing Corporation.

MR. BARRETT: You are the comptroller at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and you do not know what the salary of the Chief Executive Officer is? Does the minister know?

MS BURKE: Yes, the salary is about $120,000.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. I am just asking the questions, that is all.

What is the budget for maintenance for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing for this year?

MS BURKE: Can you repeat that question please?

MR. BARRETT: What is the budget for maintenance within Newfoundland and Labrador Housing this year?

MR. AKER: The budget for maintenance is $8 million.

MR. BARRETT: Is there any difference than last year?

MR. AKER: No, there is not.

MR. BARRETT: Has there been any reduction in the number of rental units this year?

MR. AKER: No, there has not.

MR. BARRETT: The same number of units as every other year?

MR. AKER: That is correct. We have not reduced any rentals, except in cases where some of the units have become vacant, and these are just in smaller communities. If there is no demand for the houses, we do sell some of the units. The last few years we have sold perhaps ten to fifteen on average, out of a total portfolio of about 5,800 social housing rentals.

MR. BARRETT: All these units, they were sold by public tender?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. AKER: Yes, they were.

MR. BARRETT: One other question. How many applications have you received for the Provincial Home Repair Program this year?

MS BURKE: Do you want to take that, Dave?

MR. DENINE: The number of applications is 4,581.

WITNESS: They were not necessarily received this year?

MR. DENINE: No, not necessarily received this year, but that is the total that is in the offices and waiting lists from May 5, 2005.

WITNESS: That is the number that are on the current waiting list.

MR. DENINE: Current waiting list.

MR. BARRETT: There are 4,581 people on the waiting list.

MR. DENINE: On the waiting list, yes.

MR. BARRETT: How many of these would be emergency repairs?

MR. DENINE: No, if they are emergency that is done right away.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

MR. DENINE: There is a certain protocol in which you - when you apply for your application, as Mr. Butler knows, because he has talked to me a couple of times on it. If there are emergencies and someone is at risk, that is done right away.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. So there are 4,581 on the waiting list?

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: How many do you anticipate that you will be able to do this year out of that list?

MR. DENINE: About 2,000.

MR. BARRETT: Two thousand. So, there are 2,581 who will be waiting after this year?

MR. DENINE: Yes, no different from any other year. Every time you are going back a couple of more years anyhow.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. How much funding did the corporation receive from the federal government for the Provincial Home Repair Program and what is the Province's share?

WITNESS: Three point eight, 50-50.

MR. BARRETT: Fifty, fifty.

MR. DENINE: In that, in some other provinces of Canada they do not get any. They do not have to put anything in. They do not put anything in.

MS BURKE: (Inaudible) formula we are in, in this Province, as far as the provincial contribution, we pay more in the Provincial Home Repair Program than the other provinces. We are at 50-50, the closest to us is 75-25, or no provincial contribution and 100 per cent federal. So, we actually have the worst agreement with the federal government of any other province.

MR. BARRETT: But in other provinces the repair program is not administered by the provincial government or by the Housing Corporation for the government, it is done by the municipalities.

MS BURKE: Well, there are some. But in fairness, this Province has not gotten the best deal from the federal government that other provinces have gotten and no matter how the program is administered, the provincial share in other provinces is less than what we are paying.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but are you aware of the municipal share in the other provinces because there is a great municipal share in other provinces towards the provincial -

MS BURKE: Well, I am just speaking to the provincial share.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but the point is, you have to realize that the taxation in other provinces is a bit different than in Newfoundland and Labrador. The municipalities assume responsibility for housing in a lot of the jurisdictions in other provinces.

MS BURKE: I am just reviewing the federal funding that I saw comparing Newfoundland and Labrador to other provinces at federal-provincial meetings that I attended, which did not include the formula to the municipalities. I am just talking about the formula the federal government has with the other provinces in comparison to the formula we have in this Province.

MR. BARRETT: Why the difference in terms of the share?

MS BURKE: Well, I do not know, and I did not sign on to the agreement. It was signed on, I guess, when the former Administration was in but I feel that, at that time - I do not know what the factors where, why they signed on, and I cannot speak to that but I can speak now. I feel that we have the worst deal in Canada with regards to the Provincial Home Repair Program. It would be my wish if we could get out of it and get the same deal the other provinces have.

I have had meetings with the federal minister. There are other issues with Housing with regards to our relationship with the federal government. I think that other provinces have more appropriate deals and I would like to sign on to some of those deals. I have spoken with them. I plan to follow up on it, and we will pursue it.

I just think that some of the agreements we have signed on in Housing, we have not signed on - that I have inherited, as the minister - I do not think are necessarily the same as what other provinces have and I want to make sure that this Province, in our dealings with Housing and the federal government, that we have, at least, as equal deals as what the other provinces have, if not better.

MR. BARRETT: Is the money allocated on a per capita basis or is it allocated -

MS BURKE: Well, it depends. There are a number of programs that are out there. One that comes to mind is the Affordable Housing Program. Under the Affordable Housing Program, which was signed in 1997, the federal government - in 2001, and not 1997. I will get to the 1997 deal in a second.

In 2001 we signed on to the Affordable Housing initiative. What that means is that for every dollar the federal government puts up, we also match it 50-50. In essence, we have not put any money up to Affordable Housing. We signed on to a program in 2001 that, basically, we have no money to put up to match. What the federal government has been allowing us to do, to match contributions, was to take in some $4 million that had been previously spent in Labrador. We could use that and say that was our matching funds. So, they kind of found a loophole to put us in this agreement that we should never have been into because we could not have matched the funds in the first place.

Further to that, there is more expense in Housing, under the Affordable Housing initiative, than just the money upfront to build these new places or to renovate existing buildings. That is what it applies to. As the provincial government, we continue to pay the supports to these Affordable Housing units that are built, whether we have to pay it through rent, through an HRLE client, or we have to pay it through Health and Community Services to provide the supports to allow someone to live in these housing units. I think the federal government should be able to take into account our contribution as to what we will pay to maintain that housing for the next five, ten, fifteen, twenty years. They are making us match the funds up front. We do not have the funds to match it. We only have funding because they gave us approval of stuff that had been passed beforehand. I think they need to realize that we do make a contribution to Housing and that every dollar we put into housing, whether it is in the capital cost upfront or to maintain that Housing for the next few years, then I think there should be recognition of that.

In addition to that - that is one Housing agreement that I do not necessarily agree with and I think we could do better. In 1997 we got into a deal regarding social housing. At the time we got into it, our share, what was coming to us from the federal government, was $55 million a year. From 1997 until 2038 there will be a funding formula that shows a reduction every year into the federal contribution, up until 2038 when there is no more money coming from the federal government. What we got in return, other than, I think, a $3 million signing bonus at the time, was the fact that now when the mortgages are paid off on some of the social housing units, they hand them over to us. So, they are giving us an asset. But, in reality, they are handing us over a liability. They are handing us over homes that were probably built in the 1950s. They are not in good condition; that we need to repair.

They are handing this over to us, the mortgage, and saying: Here you go, now you are responsible. I just do not think that is the best deal for this Province, and I do not see why they are handing us forty and fifty-year-old homes and calling it assets. I think they have to come to the table and give us a better deal on social housing. I will also say that not all the provinces signed onto it. Not all the provinces jumped to get these aging housing units handed over to them and a decrease over that span of forty years of $55 million. We are going to head into an era in housing in the next ten, fifteen, twenty years where we cannot sustain it. We are signing on to this deal that, frankly, I do not think makes a whole lot of sense.

MR. BARRETT: You are telling me that houses in Mount Pearl and St. John's, where the mortgage is paid off, that these are a liability?

MS BURKE: A fifty-year-old wooden house with a boiler system to heat them on Cashin Avenue is probably not an asset.

MR. BARRETT: You mean to say that a piece of land on Cashin Avenue - that house when it was built on Cashin Avenue probably cost - if you say they are as old as they are - about $17,000. A piece of land on Cashin Avenue today, if you can buy it for $17,000, Madam Minister, I would like to buy some parcels.

MS BURKE: Well, we can sell them but the families will have to move out. I mean, these are social housing units. If we want to move the families out and take the units away, I suppose we could do that and take the cash, but I think that we have an obligation to continue to provide social housing for people. I am not really in favour - I mean, if we have to do it down the road and sell them all and tell people you have to move out because we need the money for the land. But, you know, if you have homes that were built in the 1950s or - we also have homes that were built in the 1970s that are basically wrapped in plastic and do not have the proper ventilation. If these houses are damp or wet or need ventilation or moldy, I do not really consider that a big asset to hand over to us. I would rather see the federal government keep sending us the money so we can do the proper maintenance and maintain these homes. We cannot sell them.

MR. BARRETT: Madam Minister, what I am saying is that a house at that particular time on Cashin Avenue cost the government to build, probably, $15,000 to $16,000. It is an asset. You might have to build new houses to accommodate the people but it is an asset. If you are saying the federal government is passing you over something that is not an asset -

MS BURKE: Well, if we are collecting rent-geared income and we are having to maintain those homes - it is an asset if we go out and sell them, I guess, if someone wants to buy social housing units, but the people who are going to lose out there are the clients.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but what I am saying is, the way that you worded it was that they were passing you over something that was not an asset.

MS BURKE: I would rather have the money. It is a liability. I would rather have the money. The federal government gave us money to maintain social housing units.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but you are going to have to do the housing - if you are saying they are in such bad condition, there should not be people living in them anyway. If these housing units are in such bad condition, why do you have people living in them?

MS BURKE: We maintain them, but the point of the matter is, there is constant maintenance on them.

MR. BARRETT: I mean, if you repair the roof on a house, you do not do it every year.

MS BURKE: Well, if we no longer have money coming in - if we are losing $55 million from our budget, we will have less money to do maintenance on aging houses. The houses are not getting any newer, they are getting older, and we are going to have less money to do the maintenance on them.

MR. BARRETT: Anyway, I am finished.

MR. COLLINS: I just have a couple of questions, Minister. Welcome to you and all of your staff people.

First of all, I do not know when there will be any future social housing being built in the Province, but I would just like to say, and I think I said it last year, that I certainly hope that any new housing projects that may go ahead certainly would not take the route that they have been taking in the past and put in one area, lumped together, and all of the social stigma and everything else that goes with that. They should be interspersed throughout our communities so that they are regular homes, with regular people, with regular neighbours. I think it is a shame, what occurred during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Unfortunately, it is something that does not encourage people, and it makes them feel worse, and their children, about living in social housing.

What is the difference between the availability rate in the Province and the vacancy rate with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing?

MS MARSHALL: Actually, I just want to clarify your question. You want to know the difference in vacancies in different parts of the Province. Is that your question?

MR. COLLINS: Yes, like overall in the Province. I do not know if you have it like that.

MS MARSHALL: I do not have an overall number but I know that in parts of the Province, particularly in St. John's, actually all the Avalon, and around the Corner Brook area, there are waiting lists to try and get into social housing. In Labrador West and also in Perrault Place in Goose Bay we have what we refer to as chronic vacancies, which is really unusual. We did have a problem in Marystown in a similar manner, but we were able to enter into an agreement to rent some of those to people associated with Marystown's Shipyard right now. Generally, elsewhere in the Province, most of our units are filled all of the time, with the exception, as Dave Aker has already indicated, that occasionally we may have an individual house in an isolated community that had been built probably for a specific family back in the 1970s or 1980s, and there is no demand in those communities. We have sold those off as individual houses. With the exception of Goose Bay, Labrador City, and had been Marystown and may become Marystown again, we do not have vacancies.

MR. COLLINS: I know in Labrador West, one of the - and I do not have too many calls on Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, but from time to time I have received calls - one of the problems that we have run into from time to time is trying to find places that are wheelchair accessible and can accommodate persons with disabilities.

Is there a special program in place that would allow for the conversion - I know, there have been some - but is there a special program in place for conversion of houses, to make them either wheelchair accessible or accommodate persons with disabilities?

MS. MARSHALL: There is no program per se. Under the Provincial Home Repair Program, individuals who want to make their own homes accessible for a family member who requires it can actually access money under that program. Under our own maintenance program for our own houses that we own, we have actually tried to set aside some money to make some of our houses more accessible. Some of the difficulty is, the original design of our houses do not lend themselves to accessibility. Where a unit becomes vacant, it is looked at and assessed as to whether or not it makes sense to try and make it accessible. We are trying to set some money aside to have more accessible houses every year. We recognize that is a problem and if we are successful in negotiating a better deal on the Affordable Housing Program, that is an area that we would like to be able to address.

MS BURKE: I just want to add, with the Affordable Housing Initiative one of the buildings presently being put up, the apartments, does have a certain number of apartments allotted as wheelchair accessible.

MS MARSHALL: Actually, we are the only province in Canada where we had implemented the Affordable Housing Program. There is a requirement for accessibility in any of the new units.

MR. COLLINS: How much maintenance type work would be contracted to outside companies rather than using your own maintenance people?

MS MARSHALL: Actually, I am sorry, I do not have the most recent numbers on that. That also varies region by region, because of the manner in which we have staffed our individual regional offices. I know in the Avalon region in excess of 40 per cent of the work goes to contract work. Elsewhere, it varies. In more remote areas we are also more likely to do more work with contractors.

MR. COLLINS: Minister, you spoke about the housing deals that have been signed with the federal government. You mentioned one that does not expire till 2038. Are there other deals that have been assigned for shorter durations, but still lengthy contracts?

MS BURKE: The Affordable Housing Initiative, Phase I, was signed on to. Phase II we have not yet signed on to. Affordable houses, where we have to put the 50 per cent matched dollar for dollar up front, and I think we need credit for the services we provide, we haven't signed onto that yet. That is something that I am addressing. The PHRP, the Provincial Home Repair Program, was a three-year program and we are going into our last on that. The other one, which I am advocating to the federal minister to get out of or renegotiate or get a better deal, is the one that is on until 2038.

MR. COLLINS: The home repair programs: Did I hear someone say that there are about 2,000 projects a year carried out under that program? How does that compare - and you may have answered that - with going back, say, the last four to eight years?

MS MARSHALL: It hasn't changed much in the last four or five years. If you go back eight or ten years, there were more. There was more money eight years ago, individual clients would get more. The average per client has been reduced, but the $2,000 per year has been the same for about four or five years now anyway.

MR. COLLINS: Outside of the emergency repair work that needs to be done, are there provisions that would enable, say, someone who is more elderly to sort of to get work done as a priority before someone, say, who is probably not - say someone eighty years old needs some works done on their house, for example, versus -

MR. DENINE: Yes, we do that type of thing. For example, there are a lot of times in PHRP where people apply for it, their partner is coming home to be convalescent or whatever and they need some repairs done to their house. That is considered an emergency, because in order for them to get out of the hospital and into their own homes, that is taken into consideration. It is the same thing for anyone else like that.

MR MARSHALL: I would like to clarify, that if a client was eighty and had a requirement to have a repair done to their house and another client was, say, sixty and required the same kind of repair, they would be done in chronological order. If it is an accessibility issue that must be addressed, that goes to the top of the list. It is not purely on the basis of age that would put you ahead.

MS BURKE: No, but if the support is needed to stay in your own home, lots of times - I am familiar with the issue of putting rails up in the bathroom and widening door frames and things like that.

MR. COLLINS: I do not have any further questions. I do apologize that I have to go. I will only say that there were some other things I would have asked under labour relations, but I can phone Joe sometime and talk about them. Other than that, thank you very much for your time.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

CHAIR: Any other questions under this heading?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, I just have three or four questions here.

With regards to the inspectors. How many inspectors are with the housing repair program at the present time?

MS MARSHALL: Again, I do not have the detailed numbers. I was not expecting these kinds of quite detailed questions, but I would say there are probably about fifteen or so across the Province.

MR. BUTLER: How does that compare with the previous year and a half to two years? Has there been any decrease in inspectors?

MS MARSHALL: I am trying to think. I do not think there is any change in those.

MR. BUTLER: None.

Back some time ago, maybe a year or a year and a half or a couple of years ago now - I might not have the right name on this, but I think they were called mobile units. I know I had one case in Port de Grave itself.

MS MARSHALL: Granny flats.

MR. BUTLER: Pardon?

MS MARSHALL: They are referred to as granny flats.

MR. BUTLER: That is it.

I had one particular case in the community of Port de Grave and his house was to the point where it could not be repaired through the program. I have had people out from the department. They looked at it and said it is going to cost more than what is in the program, so they came up with this idea. I am wondering if they are still available or will there be any more if there are none available? This gentleman had to be moved from his home to another community out there. The gentleman is up in years, he is totally lost in the system, and he wants to get back to his own community. There is nothing there they can rent for him or anything. I am just wondering: Those units are not available any more?

MS MARSHALL: No, they are not. That was a federal program. Actually, we thought that it had really good application in this Province, because, particularly in rural Newfoundland, many people are quite willing to have an additional house on the same piece of property. Right across Canada, even in rural areas, municipalities did not like the idea of having additional houses on the same pieces of land and felt that they were losing control of municipal planning. I think that was really the thing that killed that program. I think we still have one left that we own that may be moved, but it gets to the stage too where, when you attach them to the various services, the plumbing, the electrical and all these things, and physically move them from one location to another, you can almost build another small bungalow with almost the same price tag, because the moving is becoming so expensive.

MR. BUTLER: Having said that, is it possible now - I am not going into this particular family's name here now. This husband and wife, is there anything within the system - their own home that they have there cannot be repaired. We tried to get that done and possibly not bring it up to the total standard. Is there anything in the system now? Like you said, maybe you can build a small place like that. They are not looking for a mansion, let me assure you, just a kitchen and a bedroom and a little sitting area.

MS MARSHALL: We do not have programs that build new houses, but I would suggest that you come into the corporation and talk to the staff in the region, whichever region - I guess in the Avalon region for your case. There may be something, but I really do not know. We would have to look at the circumstances.

MR. BUTLER: Sure. It was mentioned there a little while ago, from another question with regard to the number of applications on file, how many you do each year. I think someone asked about the emergency ones, and you said they are not in that list, they are not kept on the same file, because they are done as they come in. I know, for instance, in my area, not many now but some of them, come under the regular program. Maybe part of it is done through the emergency. I am wondering: Are they compiled with this? When you said they are not in that total there, I was wondering is this total larger, because the emergency one is not calculated that way?

MR. DENINE: What will happen there, Roland, is, if it comes in as an emergency the emergency work is done. Say, for example, someone wanted electrical done but also wanted some siding done on their house or windows replaced, the electrical is the emergency, they have to get it done, then that part would be done and the rest of it goes back on the waiting list.

MR. BUTLER: The other one: I had an incident recently where this couple who are in receipt of social assistance took an individual into their home who was very severely disabled. I guess they had to get a ramp and other accessibility requirements done to their house, which none of it was done for this particular couple. Since then, the gentleman has passed away and now they have emergency problems, or they are listing them as emergency with me, with their roof and so on. They are been told: No, I am sorry, we cannot help you now because you have this other loan on file - I know it is in their home, but there was nothing done that benefitted them any because it was for disability reasons. I guess in a situation like that they have to wait. There is no way around that, where this emergency funding came because of someone else and did not help them in any way with their living in the home.

MS MARSHALL: That does not sound right to me, because the corporation's policy deals with accessibility issues separately from regular household maintenance. Again, I would suggest that on that one you come forward to the Corporation and let us know the details.

MR. BUTLER: I will get more on that one and have a chat with my colleagues.

The last one I have is not a question per se, it is more or less a comment. I like to play the game fair. If there is criticism due, I will do it and if it is praise to be given, I will give praise. I have to say, with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing back maybe two, three, four or five years ago under the other Administration - I do not care what Administration is in there when something is being done - we used to get a lot of complaints from constituents and even from my own office and other MHAs who I work with, about the way staff were handling things. I have to say, recently there has been some juggling around or whatever, but the people you have dealing with us, one on one now, I think the service that - I do not always get what I want and the people who I am fighting for do not get their houses done when I think they should be done. I have to say there is excellent co-operation there from that point of view and there is a major change in attitude towards people.

OFFICIAL: I have noticed that over the last year and a half too.

MS BURKE: I would like to comment on that. I think the housing staff are doing wonderful work with the way they deal with people, they deal with clients and they deal with inquiries. The way we deal with the public in any part of this department, whether it is housing or other parts, is very important. It is a value that I have brought to this job and take very importantly. It is one, when I was with the federal government, that we never lost sight of, and prior to that in some work I did in another province. To treat people with dignity and respect is a message that has to be hammered home. Every single staff meeting, everything we do, housing is right on line with that and I think they need to be congratulated for it. The way that people deal with the public and the service that we provide, there are no excuse for poor quality. I want to thank you for your acknowledgment of the work that the Housing staff do.

MR. BUTLER: There is one particular lady who deals with our office. I mean, if we put a complaint in this morning - I do not know how she does it. Maybe I am the only one she is dealing with but I am sure she has forty-eight others. I have to say it is excellent, the response back. It is not always what we are looking for and I do not expect to get what we are looking for all the time.

MR. DENINE: Again, I just echo the comments of the minister. Thank you for the comments, because since I have been over there for the last year or so I have gotten to know how professional they are when they handle applications coming in. They do, as the minister points out, look at the individuals and try to keep that uppermost in their minds. They have done a great job. Again, I thank you for the comments.

MR. BUTLER: Those are all my comments, Sir, with regard to the Housing end of it. I do not know if Mr. Barrett has (inaudible).

CHAIR: Thank you.

Are there any other questions on the area of Housing?

I ask the Clerk if he would call the sections dealing with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

CLERK: One subhead and the total for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, of $9,650,000.

CHAIR: Shall 1.01.01 carry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry unamended?

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, total carried.

CHAIR: I shall report the heading of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation carried unamended?

Thank you.

On motion, Department of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation carried unamended.

CHAIR: Thank you very much for coming in.

I am glad we were able to accommodate your schedule.

Now we are going to the Executive Council which is found on page 205, but we are only going to deal with the section dealing with the Status of Women. I said 205, that is a mistake. I am sorry. Page 19 we will find that on.

MR. BUTLER: What was that again, Sir?

CHAIR: Page 19.

We are dealing with subheads 2.7.01 and 2.7.02 under the Executive Council section in the Estimates.

Mr. Barrett.

MR. BARRETT: Is there any opening statement by the minister?

MS BURKE: No, I am ready for questions.

MR. BARRETT: You are ready for questions, okay. I was waiting for you. Normally the minister would make some opening comments and talk about how good the Women's Policy Office is, the great staff you have, and that sort of thing. I recognize that.

MS BURKE: You cannot preach to the converted.

MR. BARRETT: I worked with your colleague there for many, many years. I know how effective she is and what a tremendous public servant she is, so you do not need to tell me.

MS BURKE: As I said before, no need to preach to the converted.

MR. BARRETT: You do not need to preach to the converted, I know how good she is. As a matter of fact she and I grew up together.

MS BURKE: She never mentioned it to me.

MR. BARRETT: In the public service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I just have a few questions on the Women's Policy Office. I notice that Professional Services has received an increase the Budget of $8,000. Why, and what services are being provided?

MS MACLELLAN: That $8,000 has to do with a supplement that we get from the Treasury Board Opening Doors Program to supplement -

CHAIR: Excuse me, Heather, I do not mean to interrupt.

MS. MACLELLAN: Oh, sorry! Heather MacLellan.

CHAIR: If you would not mind. It has become a little bit of a problem for the people who are operating the microphones. If you would not mind, I would really appreciate it if, each time you go to speak, you would identify yourself. It makes for much easier recording of the proceedings.

MS. MACLELLAN: It is a supplement we get from the Opening Doors Program to supplement a position that we have in our office.

MR. BARRETT: You have a position in your office through the Opening Doors policy. Congratulations, I really commend you for that particular position. I did not see any in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing like that.

Anyway, Grants and Subsidies has been increased by $270,000. Why the increase and what programs come from this Budget?

MS BURKE: The Grants and Subsidies that we have there shows that we have a $20,000 grant for the Provincial Transition House Association; $5,000 for the sexual assault crisis centre. There were increases in our grants and subsides this year. We were able to give each of the eight women's centres an additional $10,000, which brought them from $55,000 a year up to $65,000 a year. There was also some increased funding for Aboriginal women's issues, and with that there was $20,000 set aside in this budget for an Aboriginal women's conference. There was also $70,000 for the shelter up in Hopedale, and there was $100,000 for some specific violence prevention initiatives that were highlighted in a forum we had in March with regard to violence prevention initiatives within the Aboriginal communities.

MR. BARRETT: The next question is a very serious one. The Minister of Justice has indicated the provincial government would not support legal aid clients who need legal representation with divorce cases. This affects mostly women. What is the minister prepared to do to support these women?

I know, in my sixteen years as an MHA, there is a situation where women are sort of stranded. They cannot get any representation from legal aid. They get into situations that are very, very difficult because they do not have the right legal representation. I think that is sort of the responsibility of the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. Is there any money in the Budget, that the Status of Women has to provide any kind of service to these women?

MS BURKE: We do not have a budget where we specifically provide legal services. We do not pay for the legal representation for women. In saying that, issues with regard to women and the justice system and how women are treated in the justice system, I think any time there is a change in government policy we need to seriously look at it and see how women are treated. One of the initiatives that is presently on the go right now is to look at family violence legislation in this Province. Again that gets at some of the issues with regard to women and how they are treated by the judicial system, specifically once they are a victim of violence with regard to the family home, with regard to access to the home, with regard to where the abuser or the perpetrator is removed, what access he has back, how he removes his property. All those issues are big issues and these are issues before we even hit the court system and we have sentencing and what happens post-sentence, and certainly what happens with regards to intervening in the offender's offence cycle.

I think at any point, as far as Women's Policy, we have to make sure and monitor that departments do the gender analysis when they look at specific issues, and I think justice is one of the issues. Probably from my own background, coming into this and knowing some of the disadvantages that women can find themselves in, a lot of them are systemic and a lot of them have been created over the years and are not necessarily unique to Newfoundland and Labrador. I certainly think that any time there are changes in any type of policy that affect women and the legal system, we really need to have a good look at it and make sure the gender analysis is done.

MR. BARRETT: So, there is no money within the Budget for the Status of Women, but there seems to be a breakdown in terms - I guess one of your roles, as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, it may not be in the budget of your particular department, but have you made any representations to justice, to get money in the Department of Justice to cover some of these things.

I know that over my period as MHA, a lot of times I had to come up with or try to raise money to assist some people who couldn't afford - I mean they are in a situation and they are intimidated and frightened. Some of you have only been around for a year-and-a-half, but the kinds of calls that we get as MHAs sometimes are very, very frightening, in terms of what is happening. Then they need a lawyer and advise from a lawyer - I am not a lawyer myself - and they go to Legal Aid and there is no Legal Aid available to them, and they end up sometimes in the kind of a situation where they are not getting the rights they are entitled to, and it reaches a crisis proportion.

MS BURKE: You can speak to this as well, Heather. There are a number of factors that happen - and this links women and poverty and the justice system together as well. A lot of times, when women are in situations and they do not have the financial resources - again, that even goes back to the fact that men continue to be probably represented more than women in the workplace and make more money. Often times it is the woman who is left in the situation where she needs help to get out of it, whether it is legal help or whatever.

Civil Legal Aid is still available. There are also supports available at the women's centers, at the Transition House. This new legislation that is presently out before stakeholders and for consultation regarding family bonds legislation gets at a lot of that. Some of the issues even within the legal system, like access to the family home - if the woman continues to have custody of the children while this matter is before the courts, she is often left trying to find a place to live, having to live at Transition Houses, having to try to set up an apartment, having to try to move the children, probably with things still left in the house, where she does not have access to the furniture, is not able to move the furniture and get into her new accommodations. A lot of this is getting at that, you know, getting at the idea that the perpetrator is probably the one who has to leave the family home, and that leaves the women and the children with the right to the home and the property of that home. Those are some of the issues that we are addressing and they are being addressed through the Justice Department. Heather, I do not know if you want to add to that, about access to legal services.

MS. MACLELLAN: This is a problem in terms of getting access to funds for civil cases, not just in this Province. This was-

MR. BARRETT: Could the hon. members to my back be quiet, because I cannot hear.

MS. MACLELLAN: It is not just an issue in this Province, it is an issue in other provinces. This was, I believe, a topic at a federal-provincial-territorial minister's meeting, discussions with the federal minister on looking at trying to increase funds to the Province to put into an increased civil legal aid budget. Right now, the federal and provincial Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women are seeking a meeting with their colleagues in Justice across the country. This may be an agenda item on that table as well. We are working on our committee here with Justice on all these issues and then as well at the national table.

MR. BARRETT: The Member for Port de Grave, do you have any questions for the minister?

MR. BUTLER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I guess I have a question for the minister. Today in the House, and we all know what happened today in terms of some of the issues, you advocated for women today and rightly so, in terms of reinstating some of the services in the hospital in Stephenville. I am just wondering now - I know that a lot of the women on the Burin Peninsula are in great need of the CAT scan. Have you made the same representation to the Minister of Health or the Acting Minister of Health to lobby for the CAT scan for the Burin Peninsula?

MS BURKE: We are working with the Department of Health to make sure that when they make decisions that they do a general analysis and that the needs of women come into play. That is not just for some policies or some procedures. This gender analysis and to be able to advance the Status of Women is certainly important in all decisions from all departments including the Department of Health. A gender analysis is certainly a part of the process anytime that we look at any policies, and I advocate that not just for the Department of Health but with every single department in this government.

MR. BARRETT: Have you made representation to the Minister of Health on the CAT scan for the Burin Peninsula?

MS BURKE: Again, I will go back to the departments. They have to do a gender analysis on all their decisions.

MR. BARRETT: I want to ask the minister: I see the appointments to the various boards and agencies within the Province since you came into power, and all I am seeing is appointments from the old boys' club. I do not see very many women being appointed to the boards and agencies. As a matter of fact, there are very few women who have been appointed to any of the agencies or board since you have been elected.

MS BURKE: Well, we always advocate, and I continue to advocate, that we do need a gender balance and we do need affirmative action when we do these appointments. I can just speak to some. One was the health boards that were announced, that came into effect in April. We did achieve gender balance on each of the health boards. In addition to that, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Board was appointed with gender equity as well. Further to that, there have been appointments down at the Workplace Health and Safety Compensation Commission with the Chair being a female, and also the Chair of the Labour Relations Board was also a female.

It is an issue that I take very seriously, that I advocate to all of the departments, and I try specifically with the appointments that I am responsible for, that we can get females in some of these key positions.

MR. BARRETT: It appears that most of the boards that are being appointed, that are actually paid boards, have been very heavy in terms of the old boys' club and not very many women, like the health board. You are talking about the health board and school boards and these various boards, they are not paid boards. It seems that most of the boards that are appointed, that are not paid board positions, yes, you seem to be making great representations in getting women appointed to boards that are not being paid. Let's face it, over the years, in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, most communities would not have survived without women and the volunteer aspect in terms of women. I mean, we men have done a miserable job in terms of volunteering, and it seems, right now, that this government has the old boys' club to the high paid positions in terms of the boards.

MS BURKE: Well, again, I can speak to the Housing Board. There is a per diem attached to that and we did get gender balance on that board. I will just speak for my own department, but I do advocate this to all departments. Then we had the social assistance review board and that is predominantly female with just one male on it, with a female chair as well. I have been doing my part to advocate this and to make sure my appointments get this gender balance. It is very important, and I think that message needs to get out there. I think women should be, at last, 50 per cent on every board we have, and that is a goal we have to go for. Women have a lot to offer. You are right, they have done a lot of work in Newfoundland and Labrador and they have kept the communities together. There is a lot of wisdom in women, and I think there should be more women on every board, agency and commission, and in government, certainly at the senior level.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I agree with you. I grew up in rural Newfoundland, and as a matter of fact, the work person within the family was the women. The men went out to fish, but the women did all of the work. I commend you in that you are able to in your own department, but you do not seem to be able to get the message to your other members of Cabinet. Are you on the appointments committee of Cabinet?

MS BURKE: I am on the appointments of committee of Cabinet. I can tell you, the issue of getting women appointed to boards, agencies and commissions is not something that started in the last eighteen months. There is a systemic issue, there is a societal issue, and they are something that we are dealing with. Because there is difficulty and because there is a challenge does not mean we back down. We have to continue to advocate. We have to get women out there who want to serve on these boards, who have the expertise, who have the knowledge they can lend to these boards, and they can bring that. At no point do we throw down the gauntlet and say: Too bad! We tried. We have to keep working at this. Women have been trying to advance the status of women and the quality issues in Canada and throughout the world for years. We are not there yet. We are still working on it and we are not going to give up.

MR. BARRETT: If I have some women in my district who I think would like to serve on the boards, I could sent them to the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women and you will work on getting them appointed.

MS BURKE: Absolutely! I throw that invitation out many times when I speak to women's groups. I have approached many people and said: Look, you have some women, let me know the skills, let me know what they are interested in, and give me an inventory. I keep lots of women on file. Some may or may not be interested in different positions, but it is important when we make referrals that we have people available who we can refer for appointment and see if they are interested in any particular board; absolutely. We need that, we need women, we need that knowledge, we need that wisdom, we need their expertise, and we need their gender perspective when decisions are being made. If we can get gender balance and we can get more equities on these boards, we are going to get better decisions.

MR. BUTLER: I do not have any further questions.

CHAIR: Are there any other questions from anybody on the women's policy subheads?

I will ask the Clerk if he would call, within this category, just those two sections we are dealing with here.

CLERK: Under the Executive Council head of expenditure, the subheads 2.7.01. and 2.7.02., Women's Policy Office and the Provincial Advisory Council for the Status of Women.

CHAIR: Shall 2.7.01. and 2.7.02. under the Executive Council heading entitled Women's Policy carry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report those carried without amendment?

Carried, thank you.

On motion, subheads 2.7.01. through 2.7.02. carried without amendment.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms MacLellan.

We are going to move now to Labour Relations which is found on page 213. It is under the Human Resources, Labour and Employment heading. Maybe what we can do, Committee, for the benefit of the minister's staff, now that we are under the heading of Human Resources, Labour and Employment we will deal with the subheads under Labour Relations, 6.1.01, 6.1.02, through to 6.1.04. We will explore them with the staff and then we can maybe vote on the subheads, all inclusive. Is that okay?

MR. BARRETT: Labour Relations?

CHAIR: Yes, we will start with Labour Relations, 6.1.01.

MR. BARRETT: Any opening comments by the minister?

MS BURKE: No, let's get right to the questions.

MR. BARRETT: No opening comments to praise the person to the right of you who is one of the leaders in Labour Relations in the country and in the world?

MS BURKE: You know it all. You can do the opening comments.

MR. BARRETT: I just have a couple of questions, and I would like for Joe to go home and rest because I know he had a difficult year.

Provincial revenues have increased by $78,000 this year. What is this $78,000 in terms of provincial revenues?

MS BURKE: That is the clawback of the salary for the Director of Policy and Planning.

MR. BARRETT: Pardon?

MS BURKE: That is for a position, the Director of Policy and Planning. It comes from the Workplace, Health and Safety Compensation Commission.

MR. BARRETT: Minister, I cannot hear you. I don't know if I am going deaf or what, but I am having difficulty hearing you tonight. It is probably because I shouted that much today I am gone deaf myself, I don't know.

The provincial revenue has a budget of $78,000. What is the source of this money?

MS BURKE: That is money from the Workplace, Health and Safety Compensation Commission to fund the position of the Director of Policy and Planning.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. Now I hear you. If you speak up I can hear you, but if you do not speak up I cannot hear you.

In the Labour Relations Board, the salaries were overspent last year by $77,900. Why?

MS BURKE: That is because we brought in a full-time Chair position for the Labour Relations Board.

MR. BARRETT: I think that is one I approved, wasn't it?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BARRETT: Didn't I approve a full-time Chair for the Labour Relations Board?

MR. O'NEILL: The first full-time Chair was appointed on April 1, 2001. The second full-time Chair was appointed under Minister Burke's reign last year, the first full-time female Chair of the Labour Relations Board.

MS BURKE: I think I did that without getting your approval at the time.

MR. BARRETT: It is nice to know that you did that.

I have a question for the minister. Last year we went through a very difficult time in this Province in terms of labour relations. Do you have any figures in terms of the number of lost days of employment last year in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador because of labour difficulties?

MR. O'NEILL: I do not have the figures with me, Mr. Barrett, but we can certainly get them and supply them to you. That is no problem. I can have them for you first thing tomorrow morning. Our statistician supplies them. We can certainly have that material for you.

MS BURKE: In saying that, the Labour Relations Agency, although there were some very high profile labour disputes in the Province last year, we certainly have a settlement rate in the collective agreements of 90 per cent, without strikes or lockouts.

MR. BARRETT: My research tells me that last year we had more lost days of work in this Province because of labour difficulties than any time in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. O'NEILL: You are probably right with the possible except of 1985. One year I think we hit close to 900,000 or something. You are right, the number of days lost last year was extremely high and certainly one of the highest on record. I can certainly get you those numbers.

MR. BARRETT: Of course, the other thing is a question I would ask the Premier if he were here: When is he going to smarten up and appoint a full Department of Labour for Newfoundland and Labrador, rather then having it as a branch of another department? That is a question for the Premier.

Those are all the questions I have on Labour Relations. I know that the people in Labour Relations do a tremendous job, but I think they also need a full-time person sitting around the Cabinet Table. That is my personal bias.

MS BURKE: Sometimes, women can take on multiple roles and can represent multiple areas at the Cabinet Table, just as women have taken on multiple roles in traditional ways.

MR. BARRETT: In the history of the Liberal government, when we had a full time Department of Labour, we practically split the time between men and women in terms of ministers. As a matter of fact, I think the women outnumbered the men in the number of days that were served as a full-time Minister of Labour.

MS BURKE: I think that is progress.

MR. BARRETT: Those are all the questions I have.

MR. BUTLER: We are waiting for the big ones for the other part of the department. These are just preliminary ones.

MS BURKE: Just a warmup. Everyone is gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't we go home, get everyone (inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: We are going to have to come back.

Just a simple question before he comes in now.

MS BURKE: Hurry up. We will have a free-for-all on it.

MR. BUTLER: Workplace Health and Safety, the Compensation Board - would you ask this under this division here? That would come up under the total (inaudible).

MS BURKE: The Workplace Health and Safety Compensation Commission Board, is that what you asked about?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS BURKE: The board?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS BURKE: Well, that would not be in under our budget.

MR. BUTLER: Would that be under the Labour component, the WHSCC Board?

MS BURKE: Yes, the review division is in the line budget but we do not have a line budget -

MR. BUTLER: I just wanted to ask a question about the office down here on Forest Road, is it? Would that come under the Labour component, or come up, generally, under departmental?

MS BURKE: No, that is not in the line budget.

MR. BARRETT: You would be the minister responsible for that, right? You are responsible for Workers -

MS BURKE: Yes, but that is not in this budget, in the Estimates here?

MR. BARRETT: But as a minister you report to the House?

MS BURKE: Oh, yes.

MR. BARRETT: Right. So, any questions we have about the Workers' Compensation Commission, you answer it?

MS BURKE: Right.

MR. BUTLER: That is all I (inaudible).

MS BURKE: Okay, I did not realize. I thought you were asking were they in this budget here.

MR. BARRETT: I just want to tell you what your role is, that is all.

MS BURKE: Thank you. I am glad you were able to clarify that for me.

MR. BUTLER: I just had the one question in reference to that, and it has nothing to do with the figures, like you said here in the Budget, Minister.

I guess, what I said about Housing, I am going to renege on it knowing it comes from this end of it. It seems like I get a lot of calls from constituents who feel that they are not treated fairly when they are on the phone talking to their case managers and so on, and there are numerous times I get those complaints.

The question that I had: Is there anyone in that division who deals back and forth with the elected officials? I thought there was an individual who was placed there for that reason solely, that if I call down there I do not get directly through to the case manager, but I deal with someone who corresponds back and forth. Has that been removed or is that still there?

MS BURKE: I want to speak to that. Basically, when you need to address any particular case, whether it is with Workers' Compensation or Housing or HRLE, the staff should be able to accommodate. As minister overseeing the board - and this is not, obviously, part of the Estimates we are doing here, but it is a very important question and I want to address it. One of the things that I brought to this work and this responsibility is how we treat individuals. I said it earlier here tonight, and it is a value that I feel is the only way that we are ever going to make progress and deal with people, whether at the political level, whether it is at the case management level, whatever, it is how we treat individuals with this level of dignity and respect.

There has been a change at the Chair at the board but I expressed my concerns to the Chair of the board and the CEO in July - Joe was with me at a meeting - and we looked at - there were some serious fiscal issues facing the Workplace Health and Safety Compensation Commission. They have done some work to address those issues, to address the unfunded liability. They are on target, and probably ahead of their targets in meeting some of those unfunded liabilities. In saying that, the whole focus of Workers' Compensation cannot solely be on the fiscal realities that they are dealing with. There has to be a balance between emphasis placed on being able to meet the financial targets but also being able to treat the clients with respect, with dignity and with fairness. That was something I felt could be improved on there and it was something that I brought to their attention. It is something that I address on a consistent basis with any of the senior level officials who report to me. To be quite honest, I really feel there is no excuse in Newfoundland and Labrador from any public servants, to treat any person of the public, any client, with anything less than dignity and respect. I expect that from any workers in any branch of this department.

MR. BUTLER: As an elected official - not only myself, but any members of this House - should we be calling directly to the case managers down there or is there someone down there that we go through?

MS BURKE: We do not have an MHA consultant, case manager directorate. I would think that if there are individuals who have - because I would think that each individual probably has a specific case manager and I would think that would be - if you were going to advocate on behalf of someone or speak to their particular case or try to ask some questions - the person who would have the information.

MR. BUTLER: This is what I am heading to, because I have been advised that we should not be going directly to the case managers for each individual constituent. I know for a number of years, even when I was an executive assistant, there was an individual at the office down there who we would put all our concerns through and they would correspond back and forth with us. The problem that I have now, it seems like - and we still go to that person. I do not want to use any names here, I do not think that is fair. But we used to go through that individual and now it seems like that person who was a go-between, between the elected officials and the staff down there, now it is almost like they are staff and we are not getting - I do not think we are getting the correct co-operation.

MS BURKE: I guess my question is: Who advised not to go to the case manager? I can address that somehow. If somebody is giving out advice that is not coming from the top down or is not consistent, I can address that.

MR. BUTLER: All right. I will tell you what I will do, in all fairness to the individual, if you don't mind tomorrow - do you mind if I spoke to you about -

MS BURKE: That is fine. Like, if there are issues -

MR. BUTLER: I will give you the individual name and where I am coming from.

MS BURKE: Yes, and I cannot address them if I am not aware of them either. I have no problem addressing issues. This is how it is set up now. Maybe there will be someone down the road. If there is, we will let everyone know, but right now the case manager knows the case.

CHAIR: Minister, just to - I don't know if it enlightens you in anyway or helps Mr. Butler with his questioning or line of questioning. The situation that Mr. Butler describes has been longstanding. I have been around for five years. So three of the five years that I have been around, that has been the direction the Commission has provided to elected MHAs. It is one individual, where a person works out of the CEO's office. They handle inquiries and filter it to the case managers and feed the information back directly to the MHAs. Case managers very rarely will call -

MS BURKE: But, if they are not doing it. If you do not have that go-between you have to go to the case manager. You just cannot randomly make phone calls down there and ask for help. If that go-between position is not there and we are saying call the case managers - I mean, if the person is not doing that filtering of calls, well, we have to deal with it, and I will deal with that.

MR. BUTLER: My understanding was that this person - I think we are talking about the same individual - more or less was placed there - by whom, I do not know - a few years ago. That this would be an individual that you could contact, I guess to cut through some of the red tape and get your concerns into where they had to go in the department, rather than fifty people calling the case manager and setting him all tipsy-turvy and so on. Now that is not happening. I do not think the correspondence, and my hon. colleague, the Chair - it is not coming back the same way. It is almost like they are taking a stance, that: Look, you shouldn't be doing this. They are more or less acting as the ones who are down there who are carrying out the business and they are not the go-between that they were a few years ago. I was wondering if that had changed, or whatever.

MS BURKE: As an MHA, I often get inquiries too. I, too, would like to know who this identified go-between is. It is not somebody I am aware of, that we have been putting out there as a name or contact that I have been filtering cases through, and we have been dealing directly with case managers at a constituency level. Anyway, I will look into it.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Chair, that is the only thing that I have on this. I think Mr. Barrett covered off on his end of it there.

CHAIR: Is there anyone else who would like to raise some questions with respect to the Labour Relations subheads 6.1.01 to 6.1.04?

That being said, then I will ask the Clerk if he would call subheads under the title of Labour Relations, 6.1.01 to 6.1.04.

CLERK: Subheads under the Labour Relations Agency, 6.1.01 to and including 6.1.04, the total amount of $2,417,900.

CHAIR: Shall 6.1.01 to and including 6.1.04 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

CHAIR: Carried. Thank you.

On motion, subheads 6.1.01 through 6.1.04 carried.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. O'Neill.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Joe.

MR. BUTLER: Thinning out, thinning out.

MS BURKE: Yes, they can all go home after they are (inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Sorry, Dave, boy, you are going to be late.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with further deliberations of the department, I want to bring up a point. It just came to my attention that there are three RNC officers within the confines of the House of Assembly tonight. I just want to know, why are they here and under whose orders are they here?

CHAIR: That is a question more appropriately pointed to the Speaker. The galleries and the House is a - these hearings are not closed. They are public. I have no idea who might be in the precincts of the House. If you have identify them and know them to be, or they have identified themselves -

MR. BARRETT: They just identified themselves to me as RNC officers.

CHAIR: If they have identified themselves as being RNC, that is a question that is more appropriately addressed to the Speaker and you may want to do that tomorrow. But in terms of the impacting or having any impact in any fashion on the proceedings of this hearing or these committee meetings, I am not certain that it has any bearing or relevance or impact on the committee hearings that we are having right now. These hearings are public, so if there is someone from the general public who wanted to be here tonight, there is that potential for that. The House of Assembly or the galleries are not closed. So if your question is about who is in the precincts of the House after hours, after the normal House time is sitting, that is more of a question, I suggest, you ask the Speaker tomorrow.

MR. BARRETT: It is relevant in terms of, I just finished asking a question to the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, that there was no money within the Department of Justice to handle or look after cases who are women. Here we are now, we have the Department of Justice paying for three RNC officers in the confines of this House of Assembly. I am just wondering: Are they here for the protection of us, or who are they here to protect, because the Department of Works, Services and Transportation has security here in the building?

CHAIR: Again I appreciate the question, but I am sorry, I fail to see how it impacts the proceedings of the this Committee, nor is it a question that I am in the position to answer for you, because I do not know. It is more a question, as I have suggested, that you might want to direct to the Speaker. I do not see it, to be frank with you, having an impact on our ability to proceed with the rest of the debate and discussions around the Estimates of this department.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chair, you are the Chair of a Committee of the House of Assembly.

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: The Budget Estimates Committee is a constituted committee of the House of Assembly. We are in the people's House of Assembly right now, and right now we have three RNC officers stationed outside the door and you do not know why they are here?

CHAIR: That is what I am telling you, I do not know.

MR. BARRETT: You do not know.

CHAIR: No, I do not.

MR. BARRETT: Can we tell them to go home and save the taxpayers some money?

CHAIR: I do not have that authority.

MR. BARRETT: You do not have that authority?

CHAIR: They have a commanding officer, I assume, who assigned them here tonight. As members of that force, I suspect they get their direction clearly from the commanding officer and not from me. I suspect it is the Speaker of the House who may have engaged them.

MR. BARRETT: The security within the House of Assembly is the responsibility of the Speaker of the House, and you are the Chair of a Committee of the House of Assembly and you do not know why we have RNC officers here tonight?

CHAIR: I am a Chair, and the operative word, as you have indicated, is clearly we are, as a Committee, appointed by the House. We are all appointed by the House of Assembly and not by the Speaker. We are here as appointed by the House. As Chair, I am not representing the Speaker in his Chair. I am chairing a Standing Committee of the House of Assembly.

MR. BARRETT: This is a constituted Committee of the House of Assembly.

CHAIR: It is indeed.

MR. BARRETT: We have, in the House of Assembly tonight, within the confines of the House of Assembly, three RNC officers who are being paid for by the taxpayers of the Province and nobody can answer the question.

CHAIR: I understand your question.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, I will ask the question to the Speaker tomorrow.

CHAIR: It is the appropriate place.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

CHAIR: Now we can proceed, and we will deal with the Estimates of the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. I suggest we have already voted on four subheads that fall under the heading of Labour Relations.

Mr. Butler, I suggest what we might do to facilitate the discussion of the broader issues in the department, if we probably just open a discussion for the remaining subheads and when we are finished we will then have one vote on the remaining subheads. It might facilitate a freer flow. Is that okay with you?

MR. BUTLER: Sure, not a problem.

CHAIR: I would now ask yourself or Mr. Barrett if you want to proceed with some questions on this issue.

MR. BUTLER: Okay, Mr. Chair.

Minister, with regard to the program that was, I think, a three-month trial pilot project with regard to telemarketing - I think it was called telemarketing, is that correct?

MS BURKE: Telelink.

MR. BUTLER: Telelink, I am sorry.

That has been completed now, and I was just wondering what findings came from that to help your department with the problems that you were encountering, apparently, with the calls that were coming in through the office in particular?

MS BURKE: We did that study for twelve weeks to get some data on the number of calls coming in, the nature of the calls, and how many calls were actually repeat calls, on the understanding that repeat calls were probably a lot of unnecessary calls if the messages had been relayed or followed upon in a timely manner. We did the study. We looked at the results week after week, and as a result of that we determined how many people we needed to answer the telephones to relay the messages. Based on that information we have set up our own similar service, although we are not Telelink, we set up a similar service using our own staff and we do have our own message centre, answering centre, where when people phone in they speak to a live person and the messages are relayed to the workers or they are connected to the workers. We wanted some hard data to see what type of resources we needed to be able to effectively provide that service. I was not necessarily satisfied with the effectiveness of the messaging within the office.

MR. BUTLER: How many people would you have on now, after that was completed, to look after the -

MS BURKE: I think it is four or five people, five I think, who actually handle that administrative part of the office.

MR. BUTLER: Prior to that, there would not have been anyone receiving calls per se. Would there be anyone at the front desk, just putting through to the workers, we will say?

MS BURKE: Basically, that is how it was and then there were even times when that staff were not dedicated solely to the telephones and had to do other functions as well. Right now they are in a separate location where this is primarily the duties that they do.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, could you inform us what the cost of that was, with Telelink, that three-month pilot project approximately?

MS BURKE: It was approximately $30,000.

MR. BUTLER: When Telelink was there, those people who were answering the calls at that time, I know they were trained to handle telephone calls but were they trained or had any training leading up to that with regard to the type of situations they would have encountered, with those particular calls that would be coming into your department?

MS BURKE: Yes, they were trained with regard to that. I still want to emphasis that Telelink also handles our after-hour calls which would be, a lot of times, the same clients with the same issues who would call later in the day as opposed to earlier in the day. Telelink has been providing that service for a number of years.

MR. BUTLER: The four or five that you mentioned now, they would be taking calls just from the one office or offices all over St. John's and Mount Peal, that type of thing?

MS BURKE: Yes, they would do it for Mount Pearl and St. John's.

MR. BUTLER: I was wondering if you could give me the figure - maybe it is in the Estimates here - for the savings that came from the twenty offices that were closed, I will call it last year. Yes, it would have been last year.

MS BURKE: You can speak to that, Dave.

MR. ROBERTS: You are inquiring about the savings from the office closures?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: The bottom line is that we pretty well broke about even as a department on it. There were about twenty positions that were reduced out in our regional services, and that money was taken out of our budget last year, and for the whole twelve months in this fiscal year. We do not have the savings, as a department, from the salaries. Other than that, there were positions transferred to adjacent offices. There were some funds saved on accommodations, but that in turn increased costs of accommodations in other areas. For example, out in Gander, the offices of Gambo, Wesleyville and Fogo were closed, but several staff of those offices were transferred to Gander. We saved some money on the accommodations in those three locations that were closed, but it increased accommodation costs, say, in Gander.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

With regard to the office that moved from Bay Roberts to Carbonear, I was just wondering, would you have any figures on what the estimate will be for the toll-free number that was put in so that people - I know we are close together, but there is a different exchange number there. I was just wondering if you have a figure of what that might have been? Certainly, they haven't been there a year yet, I suppose. So it is probably -

MS BURKE: How much was the toll free?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MS BURKE: Yes, we do have toll-free numbers across the Province.

MR. BUTLER: Pardon?

MS BURKE: We do have toll-free numbers across the Province. Now, for me to be able to break down, right now, and tell you what each number -

MR. BUTLER: Okay. I was just wondering what the cost might have been for people in my area having called the toll-free number to Carbonear versus when the office was in Bay Roberts and was just a regular number for them, local number. You would not have that?

MS BURKE: No, I do not know the exact cost of each telephone number.

MR. BUTLER: I was wondering, minister, if you could inform me how many incidents over, say the past twelve months that - and I am just referring to the St. John's metro office or downtown office. I understand that from time to time there are quite a few incidents that happen there and the RNC are called in. I was just wondering how frequent that is, or does it happen very often?

MS BURKE: I do not have the exact number but, you know, my officials tell me it is very infrequent that the RNC are called. But, in saying that, with any office that deals with a number of clients, a lot of times in vulnerable populations, a lot of times people in very stressful situations, and a lot of times people probably not with the cognitive skills to be able to do the problem solving that is necessary sometimes to deal with the crisis situation that they find themselves in, that to have a person act out behaviourally is probably not necessarily uncommon in many situations; whether you work with an HRLE office, whether you work with adult probation, whether you work with the Correctional Service of Canada or you work with other agencies that deal with the general public and, oftentimes, public who find themselves in crisis situations.

I think that staff are able to deal with crisis situations but sometimes the client, themselves, for whatever reason, whether it is through cognitive distortions or their own cognitive skills that they are unable to solve the problem, as I had said, or because there could be any other issues, like an anti-social personality disorder or any type of disorder or mental illness that leads them to act out, that sometimes if the staff is unable to deal with that, the police do provide that backup service. In most social agencies, that certainly would not be the protocol of how we deal with people who are acting out, and you would certainly try to do some non-violent crisis intervention as your first means to deal with that client. But if the situation arises, you know, the safety of both the client and the workers, paramount needs to be addressed. A lot of times when you deal with a population as high as some of the social agencies that we deal with, and to be able to deal with somebody in a rational manner during a crisis situation often, unfortunately, leads to that type of intervention. Despite that level of intervention and the removal, I think a lot of times it is done at a very safe level. I think the police themselves often employ non-violent crisis intervention and very rarely does it actually lead to criminal charges.

MR. BUTLER: Why I asked that is because over the last several months I have had calls from workers, as well as clients, who would be in the waiting area and an incident happened on two or three occasions. They have called and expressed concern for their safety, the ones who were just outside where the incident happened. You feel that the situations are taken care of adequately and you do not have any concerns. I know anything can happen anywhere I suppose.

MS BURKE: Anything can happen anywhere, but I certainly feel that we have staff who are well qualified to deal with people who are able to deal with crisis situations. We probably also have staff who deal with a caseload that presents many different issues, whether it is addictions treatment, if it is mental health issues, if it deals with people who are in crisis with regards to their children or victims of violence. A lot of times a lot of these presenting problems are there and a lot of times the anger and the aggression that could be expressed or the frustration is probably not even necessarily at the worker, but it is probably a culmination of other issues that are being dealt with. Unfortunately, being a front-line worker you often are that first line of attack when somebody is in a stressful situation, but when we deal with so many people as a government department, I think our staff are well skilled to be able to deal with that. Again, in human behaviour there are no absolutes and there are some times when you need that added security or that added protection or the backup of probably an enforcement agency.

MR. BUTLER: I know, Minister, I have asked this question several times in the House of Assembly. As you know, I guess, debates get heated back and forth. Are you satisfied with the level of staffing? I am referring to that particular office but probably at others as well. The staffing there is at the level now where everything is flowing as it should be and there is adequate staff there to look after clients and so on at that particular office?

MS BURKE: As we monitor workload and how the workload is being processed, it seems the applications that are being made for income support are being processed on the same day that they are being made. As well, a lot of the other issues that are non-emergency in nature should be processed within about fourteen days, and most of the work is being processed in that fourteen day time frame. Work that is being delayed sometimes goes up to thirty days, which is outside the time frames, but certainly not outside what would be reasonable in a high caseload at certain points. As we monitor the applications and the non-emergency requests, it seems that they are being done in a timely fashion, so that their work seems to be up to date. That is, a lot of times, how we monitor the work in and the work out.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, can you confirm if there were employees - and I guess it is called employment services at - Regatta Plaza is the other office here in the city?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Is it correct that there were three employees from employment services who were transferred down to the Water Street office to become involved with income supports? If that is the case, is that still ongoing?

MS BURKE: The client service officers that we have can go into two streams of work, whether it is the Income Support side or whether it is the employment and career services side. There may be times that we have to have the flexibility, depending on the workload, that we need to be able to transfer from one caseload to another. Sometimes that happens within offices, but basically, we have to make sure that there is a flow to the work and we are able to get the work done. It does not happen all the time. It is not necessarily something that we would not do and it is sometimes what we do to deal with these issues on a temporary measure.

MR. BUTLER: Why I asked the question is because I know during questioning in the House of Assembly one day you mentioned that everything seemed to be okay down there. Then after that I heard that there were three other people put down there from employment services in another office. I was just wondering: Was it because of the backlog that was down there, that there was inadequate staff there to carry out the workload and that is why those people were put in there? I think I brought it up in the House or on a news release or something, on a press release, right after that they were transferred back again, but I understand that a little while after that two went back down again. So I was just wondering, is it because there is inadequate staff at that office to carry out - by the way, I am not complaining about the staff because they have one hell of a job to deal with, and I understand all that.

MS BURKE: No, I guess the difference is we have staff at two different sites. If they are under the one roof they would be just assigned from one workload to another, but they happen to be under two different roofs over here, at two different addresses. But it would not be uncommon in any place in the Province, if we needed to get some work done in Income Support, that we would re-profile someone's workload at any point, whether we change the workload that they are into in Income Support or Employment and Career Services. We have to use the existing resources we have to get the work done. The CSOs in Employment and Career Services or Income Support, I guess, could be transferred from one caseload or assignment to one work duty as the need arises there.

The other thing that we certainly need flexibility on - and we have been through this on the West Coast and it is happening here now on the Avalon - is over the last few months, and it will continue until we are ready to roll out the next service delivery, at times there will be staff who will have to come and do training for a couple of weeks at a time, so that there will be a block of staff who will actually come out of their workplace to make sure that they are trained in the new system. When that happens, we also need the flexibility to make sure that while they are out for the two weeks or six weeks or what it is going to take to train them that someone covers off that work. That just cannot wait until they come back to work, so we need that flexibility as well.

MR. BUTLER: I have no problem with the flexibility of moving them in or whatever, but the only thing that I was wondering - we were advised that everything was fine there and when three other staff went in, I felt with the complaints that I am getting that people are overworked and stressed out, that maybe they were put in there to assist the people who are there. I can understand that.

MS BURKE: No. We monitored the dates and the time to process applications and do the non-emergency work, and our numbers are indicating that we are managing and that we are able to get the work processed.

MR. BUTLER: I brought this up before: Are there any plans - I do not know if that is the right word, plans. I will put it straightforward. Will the staff at Carbonear office be transferred to St. John's anytime in the immediate future.

MS BURKE: Not in the immediate future, and we do have a commitment that we will be having an office in Carbonear. We will be rolling out the new service delivery models similar to what was rolled out on the West Coast. There are different services in this new model that are offered in different offices. How the model will actually be set up in the Avalon right now has not been determined. We are looking at the West Coast model. We are looking at best practices and we are looking at the practicality of how we are going to be setting up this new system.

There will be presence in Carbonear, but how this system rolls out on the Avalon, we are still in the process of going through that setup here on the Avalon.

MR. BUTLER: I do not mean to sound sarcastic when I say this: When you said, they will not be moving here in the immediate future, I am just wondering if you could give me a more defined definition of what the immediate future might be.

MS BURKE: Well, I used the term immediate future because you used the term immediate future.

MR. BUTLER: All right. I will get down to the bottom line of what I thought. I heard with those people there was a strong possibility, it was rumored first, that it would be September, and now I am hearing December of this year. Is that correct?

MS BURKE: That decision has not been made. I have to be quite honest, we have not sat down and put any dates to it like that.

MR. BUTLER: You did mention that there would be an office at Carbonear, but what I am hearing is there is a strong possibility that all Income Support would be done through the offices in St. John's and maybe employment services in Carbonear. Is that a possibility?

MS BURKE: Well, I guess, at this point in time, we do not know how the roll out is going to be, but I know, certainly in the Western region, Income Support is being done from more than one site. We have it set up between the Bay St. George and Corner Brook and the different rolls and that are set up. We are going to have a look at that model, we are going to see what is going to fit best for the Avalon, and, as we make those decisions, we will be informing staff. How that new service delivery is going to actually be set up here on the Avalon, that decision has not been finalized at this point in time.

MR. BUTLER: Why I ask that, minister, is because I know - and I understand changes had to be made. We always do not like them. I lost an office, or the people in my district lost an office, and I know full well since that time - and I am not speaking for everybody - quite a few people who are in less fortunate positions are placed in difficult positions now dealing back and forth with the office in Carbonear. I can only imagine what chaos it would be if this should happen, and I am saying if. I think I am getting some feeling back from you, the way you responded, that there is a good possibility the majority of them might be coming in here. I know you haven't said that.

I will give you an example: There was one lady, her husband passed away, I went to her house to help her complete some papers and she said: I am going to bring this to the office in Bay Roberts now. I will get a friend of mine to take me out there. I said: My darling, the office is closed. Oh no, she said, the office is not closed, but she found out it was. It cost her $35 to drop a letter - now she could have put it in the mail, I am not saying that - but it cost her $35 to take it down, to go to Carbonear, because she wanted to sit down with the worker. Carbonear is fine, $35, but I am going to tell you there are a lot of them - I mean, like clients say to me and workers say to me, it all can't be done by phone or by the mail. Lots of times they have to get them into the office to deal with situations. For people to have to travel to St. John's, if that should happen, God forbid, it is going to make it that much worse than what it is now by moving them into Carbonear. I know Carbonear is not very far from where we live in Bay Roberts.

MS BURKE: You have a valid concern and, again, I want to address that, because the system is rolling out on the West Coast. Prior to this, prior to getting to the level where we are right now, somebody would apply for Income Support and we would send out the forms - and this happened, probably back in 1998 or so, and you can correct me if any of this needs to be corrected here - and the client would have to fill out the form and send it back to the office and it would be reviewed, to see if they needed additional information.

What we have been piloting on the West Coast - and I have been up to see the workers and I have been there as they are doing the applications. We have also been conducting a survey of the clients who are being served by this service, because we need to know that what we are going to be doing here is a move in the right direction. Under this new telephone application system, when the client phones in they get to speak to a worker, so they are not phoning in and press one and press two for this and for that, they are talking to a worker. The worker is able to key their information into the new computer program that is set up as they are talking. There may be, in some instances, that the worker can relay right back to a person that they are not eligible, because there could be circumstances where someone feels they are. They can fill out those applications, they send them out to the client who attaches the necessary documentation that has been reviewed on the phone, and they sign it and send it back in. I have been talking to people who have actually used that system and they find that it has been extremely helpful. They do get to talk one on one with a person. They do get to go through the full application process.

Here is one of the comments that somebody had indicated to me, which I thought was very interesting. If you go to an office to get somebody to help you fill out the application, they ask you a question and you do not know the answer and you do not have the information or the receipts or whatever with you, you are there without it and you have to go get it or whatever, this was one of the comments from one client who I had spoken to. She said that as she was going through the application process she was asked questions and she needed to get information, she did not have it readily available in front of her. She said she was able to get the information, come back to the phone and continue on with the application. She found it very helpful.

When we are talking about this application system it has to be very user friendly and it has to serve a purpose. The purpose is basically to make this a better system where people can have access to workers, they can understand the application process, they can ask their questions, they can have them answered, and they do not have to be bogged down filling out the applications. One of the complaints I have had from the women's centres throughout the Province was the fact that the application forms were quite complicated. They often had the clients come into their office and ask for help in trying and fill them out. This whole process should address some of those issues.

Again, no matter what type of services they are applying for, whether it has something to do with a funeral or Income Support or whatever, that can all be done through the telephone with the paper work being done by the worker and just sent out to the client.

MR. BUTLER: Minister you mentioned there about the telephone system, and no doubt it is probably helpful like that. One of the biggest problems that they are having in my area now, and I can speak personally on it - by the way, what I am going to say is no reflection on any of the workers who were in the Bay Roberts office or any of the workers in the Carbonear office. I know them all personally, and they are doing the best they can under the circumstances. When the office was open in Bay Roberts, I could call out any time - I didn't always get through to them, I got a message manager or what have you, but some time that day they got back to me. Since it has been moved into Carbonear, I do not know what the change is. The people are still there, I have nothing against them, they have nothing against me. When I call down now sometimes it is probably a week or longer before I can get a response back; not all of the time. It is very seldom that you will call there - the front desk, I think there are a couple of people there and that is constantly busy. When you call through to one of the workers you get the message manager. It is not that they are not doing the work, I can guarantee you that, but the message managers are always full. It is very difficult to get through there. I do not know if it is something within the telephone system, but I am going to tell you, as soon as they get my message, once they get it, they call you back. It is not that part of it.

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BUTLER: There is something not working there. Like you said, the telephone system is good. I get people calling me saying: I cannot get through down there, Mr. Butler. Can you try to get through for me?

MS BURKE: Yes, we will followup on that, because that is an issue with regard to the quality of service delivery. The fact that calls go unanswered for a week to two weeks, that is unacceptable.

MR. BUTLER: I have had them myself over a week, and there are lots of cases. I know someone could be off sick. I do not mean that.

MS BURKE: Even if they are off sick and you leave a message on the phone, there should be a supervisor or another worker who clears that message manager, who takes the calls, who deals with the issues.

MR. BUTLER: There is someone there on call, right?

MS BURKE: You are okay, you can probably wait, but if you are in a crisis and you need information about a funeral or something, those messages cannot wait for two weeks. If they are being left on the phone system we will look into it and we will deal with it. That is a quality of service issue. Quite frankly, it is unacceptable.

MR. BUTLER: Like you said, maybe it is unacceptable, but I think it is something in the system. It is not that the individuals there are not doing their job.

MS BURKE: If the messages are sitting on the phone for two weeks, somebody should be taking them off, whether the worker, another worker, or supervisor. We will look into that. That is a serious issue.

MR. BUTLER: Yes. I know for a fact, and you can check this out, the caseload for these people, my God the numbers that I have heard, and I do not have them now and I do not want to repeat them, they are unbelievable, the number of calls, the caseload that each individual worker has to look at there. Not only that, the incoming mail, like you said, the mail system, you can use that. I heard the number of pieces of mail that go into that office down there now since they are all gone into one is unbelievable. My God, it is a week's work there for someone to sort the mail that is coming in. The number of people they have coming in off the street to try to see people, I do not think the numbers of staff - and I know, Minister, it is a financial thing. Honest to God, I always harp on the one here in St. John's. From the calls I get, I do not think the numbers of staff are there to handle it. I hope it is going to correct itself. I get a lot of calls on that. In my own area, I know personally what it takes sometimes to get through. I will call and get through to the front desk and they will say to me: Look, they are in here, they have been drove mad all morning, there are people coming in off of the street, and this is why their message managers are building up and filling up on them. Like I said, I am glad you will check into it.

MS ROOME: One of the things that has changed with the Carbonear office in just the last month is the way that documents are processed, I believe since April 11. I think that is the right date. The documents that would have in the past gone into the Carbonear office for processing are now coming into St. John's. That is a change in process that should alleviate some of the paper flow in the Carbonear office. They are coming in here to be scanned electronically, to be made part of the client's electronic file.

As for the other issues that you mentioned, we are very concerned about that, as the minister says, and we will follow up.

MR. BUTLER: Being transferred into St. John's, that is not the beginning of what I asked earlier is it?

MS ROOME: The same process that has happened in our Western region has already happened in the Water Street -

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS ROOME: All the Western documents are scanned electronically. It is moving from paper files to electronic files.

MS BURKE: And that is done here as well.

MS ROOME: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, for a better word I will call it the new pay system that is being implemented here in St. John's: Is that working properly here now or are there still bugs to be taken out of the system?

MR. ROBERTS: The new pay system has been fully implemented out in our Western region, and on February 7 it was introduced to our metro offices in St. John's. We monitor it every day, and in our view it is working very well. All of our staff received training for two weeks during the fall and winter, but like any big system there are growing pains. Sometimes, because of the growing pains and the learning curves and so on, it may take a little longer to process a transaction than you would under the old system because it is new and people are getting used to it. The information we are getting from the West Coast, where it has been, is that once the staff get used to it and the learning curve and so on, it is working very well and there are efficiencies for the department and of course clients.

MR. BUTLER: From time to time here at this office in St. John's, do you have to convert back to the old system?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. Well, the old system which is called FACTS and the new one which is CAPS, to use some acronyms, both systems are in place at the present time and will be until the new system is fully implemented in the whole Province.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, there was a program in our area called the Trinity Conception Community Employment Corporation. I think that is administered through your department, is it?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I know there were some problems that came up there back a few months ago. I do not want to go into any detail with it or anything like that, but I had concerns with the way I thought the people were running that program, not all the people who were hired on within the system. I was involved not with that particular program but way back when it started out in the beginning. I forget what it was called then. Mr. Roberts probably remembers. This was back quite a few years ago. I was involved in the program through the Lions Club as a sponsor, where we used to teach them skills and things like that, the individuals involved in the program.

My understanding with this program out there was, there was something happened, and I do not condone anything happening, whether it was with the finances or whatever, but I had major concerns with what I believe happened towards the volunteers who were on that. This program, to my understanding, was taken out from under them totally and turned over - I could be corrected here - with MRON. Now I have nothing against MRON in Carbonear. I am just wondering: Are they administering the program? Has anyone within the department met with the committee per se, on the work that they have put into this over the last, I would say, twenty years or more in the different programs? I thought it was taken out from under them. I did not think it was appropriate, but then again I do not know all the answers to it. Speaking to those people, they are all well respected citizens out there, and I can tell you some of them were really let down the way it happened. I was just wondering if someone can respond on that. I am amazed we have not hear more about it, to be honest with you.

MS JEANS: The Trinity Conception Employment Corporation was funded by HRSDC for the operating funds, and they investigated the Trinity Conception corporation, and, as a result of that investigation, suspended funding to them. Our government provides funds for the co-workers, and that is the persons with disabilities who go to work. This government provides funds for someone to go to work with them, and support. As a result of HRSDC suspending their operation with that, we did not want to have a negative impact on the clients and wanted to continue that service as best as possible, and looked for an alternative service, someone who could continue with that program, and MRON was identified. I understand a number of members of the previous board are part of a sub-committee with MRON that run that program. The HRSDC and our department signed a contract with MRON to continue providing that service.

MR. BUTLER: You are saying, the people who were with the Trinity Conception Community Development Corporation, since this incident, have gone on a sub-committee with MRON?

MS JEANS: Some of the people who were involved with the board, I believe, are on a sub-committee of MRON looking after this particular program.

MR. BUTLER: The incident that took place which caused this, has that been resolved? Was there any court action, were you people concerned, and was your financial situation involved? I know your money goes into helping the workers to go to work with the individuals. Was there any concern from the provincial end of it? What happened there or were there charges? Maybe you cannot elaborate on that.

MS JEANS: I know our internal audit division was advised, and involved at the time, as to what the final outcome has been. I am not sure what that is at the moment. The department was involved as was HRSDC.

MR. BUTLER: The only reason I raised it was those individuals - and I am glad to hear that some of them, possibly, are gone with a sub-committee of MRON. If there are eight or ten people on a committee and they have someone hired on - and it is my understanding that is where the problem was - I could not see those people being let down like they were because of someone they had hired on. They have control over it, I suppose, yes, to a certain degree, but so do banks have control over clerks, and we hear talk of $30,0000, $40,000 or $50,000 missing sometimes. That was the reason I raised it. I was really concerned about those people for the work that they put into. I was just wondering if anyone within the department had met with them or contacted them in any way, because it seemed like it was pulled out under them and turned over to somebody else.

MS JEANS: At the time, the district manager in Bay Roberts, in our office, as well as the HRSDC district manager, were in discussions with the board.

MR. DENINE: Roland, further to what you were just saying there, I was aware of that back last summer when it happened, and I have to tell you that the first concern was for the clients, the people who use the service out there. That was upper most in our minds. I have to say, the staff at HRLE and with HRSD acted very quickly. The uppermost thing in our minds - and I understand where you are coming from because of the volunteers which is very treasured, as far as I am concerned - but uppermost in our minds was the client that was availing of the service. I have to tell you, without the swift action of our department and HRSD it could have been worse. I have to say they handled it quite professionally and I think it is working okay there now. Like I say, I am glad to hear people are working on the sub-committee. That was the most important thing.

MR. BUTLER: Since making that comment, the program is still ongoing, just as strong and as vibrant as it was before?

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: With regard to the department paying rent, I know now it goes to the client rather than to the landlord.

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I wonder if I can get some explanation on how that is determined, because I will tell you, I had an incident this week where a lady went to this individual, went to a landlord, this lady who is on assistance, a single parent, who went to her landlord and he said: No, you cannot come into my apartment unless the rent is coming directly to me. I said to her: Look, that is incorrect. This is what I said to her, and I do not know if it is right or wrong. In this apartment that she is moving into, in Shearstown, all the other clients, to my understanding, in that building, their rent is being paid directly to that landlord. I am wondering: How can so many people - I mean, it is supposed to go to the individual. There are lots of times I disagree with it, because I know some people who are getting the rent are not going to do anything, and are not going to give it to the landlord anyway.

MS BURKE: I would like to comment on that. The reason why it goes to the client - and I will get specific to that in a second - the reason why it goes to a client is just going back to how we treat clients with dignity and respect. We give them their money, and they have to spend it, just as our paychecks come to us. Nobody is going to pay our mortgage for us, nobody is going to pay our car payment, we will take that responsibility. There is a dignity about us, that we take our money and we spend it as we should, just as a client has that same level of self respect and dignity to make their own payments. It makes them reliant. It helps with integration into the community. Who wants the government doing stuff for you, having to pay your rent for you, having to buy your groceries for you? That is not the way we are going. That will never help people and will never give them dignity.

Now, if there is a particular building in a particular town, as you are speaking of - and we can look into this - where the clients are not given that same level of dignity and respect - however, if there is landlord out there who will not allow them, who will not give them - frankly, I do not have a lot of tolerance for people who treat people on Income Support differently from other people. If you went down to that building and you had a job and you were a teacher, would he expect the government or the school board to send the rent directly to him? When you set up a double standard and you treat people who are, probably, the most vulnerable in our communities, differently, you put a different set of rules on them, I have very little tolerance for that. However, if there is a system set up - and I do not want to throw people out on the street either - then we can work with that. If this one single mother is being singled out and treated differently, we can do that. There are times, as well, at the request of the client -

MR. BUTLER: Oh, yes.

MS BURKE: That can happen. I mean, there are many reasons why people would prefer to have their rent there. I do not have to get into a lot of it. There could be issues of addiction again. It could be issues of mental health. It could be issues from the landlord that we are, frankly, not aware of, how they are treating people, but it is from a client request. If there is a specific problem with a single mother who needs an apartment, she is being singled out and treated differently from other people living in that apartment, we will deal with that. You know, if you bring that to our attention, we will address it.

MR. BUTLER: Maybe I am jumping the gun on this, maybe all the other people in that apartment meet the criteria you just listed. I am not saying that. Maybe they all did go to their case managers or what have you, or CSOs or what have you, and they met the criteria to have it sent to the landlord.

MS BURKE: That is possible.

MR. BUTLER: That is possible.

MS BURKE: But we can look at that.

MR. BUTLER: If it is true what she is telling me, she was more or less told: No, I am sorry. If you can get it paid directly to me, not a problem.

MS BURKE: Yes, and that is fine, we can deal with that. Just the idea, if you were employed and you went to that landlord, would he expect your employer to sent the rent directly to him? It is a double standard.

MR. BUTLER: The other thing, Minister, and I do not know if you have the figures on this or not, but what I was wondering: With regard to poverty, is there a provincial standard, dollar wise, that we look at and say, this is the poverty level in the Province or what it is nationally? I know, from reading a lot of documentation, there are a lot of factors taken into the type of house you live in or what have you. When we look at poverty - and I know where your government stands on this - say, for instance, Roland Butler, if I am making $6,000 or $7,000 a year, what is the level I have to get up to, to say that I am not living in poverty? I mean, I can live in a hut or I can live in a mansion, it is not going to help me when it comes to that. I have a better living accommodation, but I am talking about the dollar value. You hear people say, we have to raise the minimum wage to get them out of poverty and all of this.

MS BURKE: There is no poverty level that is exclusive for every single circumstance. When we look at it, a single individual would have a different poverty level than a family, a family with two adults and so many children. There would be different poverty levels. The way poverty is measured, there are a couple of standards, LICOs which is before taxes and LICOs after taxes and the Market Basket. They are probably the three national indicators that we look at. What we need to be able to do is pick one of the standards. We usually go LICOs after tax and use that measure. What we have to be careful of as we start to measure poverty and we look at it and try to see where we are making inroads, is we have to make sure that the standards and the baseline that we continue to use is the same. It is no good to do a baseline now on LICOs after tax and then in five years or ten years use the Market Basket to do it. The Market Basket certainly fluctuates based on where you live anyway, and the Market Basket surveys that could be done in a rural area may be very different from in an urban area at that.

Again, certainly it is the way to go, I think, to look at the after-tax LICOs as opposed to the pretax LICOs. When we set those standards, this is what we have to continue to measure on. What happens sometimes is they will throw a standard out there and then there is a new standard comes out, like probably the pretax LICOs, and we will compare that to the last figure we put out, which might have been the Market Basket or the after-tax LICOs. We are trying to compare apples to oranges without trying to take the two same numbers and do the comparison. So what we are trying to do in this study is really take the baseline and put some strategy to it, that we understand what we are measuring and what baseline and how we are measuring progress is all done on the same standards and the same wavelength measurement.

Now, there is a lot of research available out there that we will purchase, that the federal government certainly will not give us to do our own strategy. We will probably pay them up to $40,000 to give us the research that they have done, which I wish they would hand over to us for free so we could develop our strategy. They have some information on poverty and we will be looking for some of that information to help us. What we really need to do, if we are going to make inroads on poverty - it is no good to go throwing up one number and in three or four years another study comes out, and it could be looked at in two ways. The new number coming out - certainly, the first one could have been pretax and the second one after tax and LICOs, which would make it look like we have reduced poverty, but if we have not compared the same numbers there has been no progress in the first place. So we really have to make sure that we know what we are doing with poverty. We have a commitment. We want to reduce poverty. Poverty affects many aspects of a person's life, whether it is their health, whether it is housing. There are gender issues attached to it, there are employment issues attached to it, there is social inclusion attached to it. We have to get out all these issues.

What we have to be able to do is to see how government policies affect poverty so that one policy - we take one good initiative and we make that work, and then on the other hand it is knocking down another initiative. A good example of that would be, we could increase the minimum wage but yet have higher taxes, or cut off people's accessibility to the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit. So we have to make sure that there is synchronization and we know what it is going to cost government to get into some issues that address poverty. In saying that, it is going to be a monumental number. There are going to be a number of issues that we can get into. Then we have to start looking at the priorities and what is feasible, and what we can do and what is going to make a real dent in poverty in this Province.

Now, we have taken a pretty aggressive approach to that and we have looked at this. In this one year we have $200,000 to help us get that strategy. As we move forward in that and we do the consultation, we try to get the strategy put together and try to give some direction to government so we can have some measurable outcomes down the road. In saying that, I will note that it took Quebec six years to do their strategy. But, unless you have a comprehensive approach to how you are going to get at it, how do you know where you started and how do you know when you are at the end? How do you know what policies are affecting - one policy has a positive or negative impact on another policy, and that is one thing that I would like to do. I think bringing my social work background into this, and into this department, that if we do not have a strategy that gives us measurable targets, how do we know where we are and where we are going, and how do we know when we get there?

MR. BUTLER: Minister, I think it was in the Blue Book - and that has nothing to do with your department. Now I know that is the political side of it, but the comment was made or it was listed that hopefully in ten years we would go from a Province with the most poverty in the country to the Province with the least. Do you think that can be accomplished? You just said there, one province somewhere took six years just to get their strategy in place and we have two gone. I do not mean to be pulling punches here, but how do you feel about that? Can that be accomplished? Take the federal government, back a few years ago they said: We are going to wipe out poverty in Canada. After ten or twelve years they were worse off than when they started. Do you know what I am saying?

MS BURKE: Well, if we do not put some targets to this and we are saying ten years, that is putting a very aggressive approach into that, but we have ten years. I think this Province has great potential with regards to some of our resources, with regards to economic development. Also, when we set this strategy and we look at it and we look at the targets, it will also give us the information that we need when we go forward and we negotiate with the federal government for funding that we need for various programs and the reasons, and it will certainly help us to be able to target some of the issues that are related to poverty. I think ten years is - I would love to see us hit the goals that we have set out and we will certainly work towards it. We will not be defeatists and say: Oh, no, we can't do it. We will work towards it, but I think the only way we are going to do it is if we can get the strategy in place; that we know where we are going and we can stay the course and this can be measured over ten years. If we are not making gains, well, we have to look at that and we have to rework how we are doing things. We have to look at those policies.

One thing that I think we should be doing, and this department is certainly putting an emphasis on it - and it is something that when I came into this department I was pleased to see they are doing - it is something I would emphasis within government, is that we put money out in many different programs, many different grants for lots of different reasons, and I think that we should always be able to evaluate. There is no program out there that we cannot evaluate. We have to be able to do a cost-benefit analysis. We have to be able to set up measurable targets. We have to know the goals. We have to know the objectives. We have to, when we set up these programs, know how to measure them. At the end of the day, we have to do those evaluations. If there is a program that is not meeting its objectives, well maybe the program can be changed or maybe it is a program that just does not meet its objective and we have to move on to something that is more effective. I think evaluation and program evaluation needs to be done with every program in government. We have to make sure that what we are doing has the result that we are looking for.

MR. BUTLER: I know this is probably a hypothetical question, but when it comes to your strategy, do you foresee it taking two years, four years, or six years, like you mentioned to someone else, with the studies and reports that you may have from other areas?

MS BURKE: We asked for funding for one year to do this strategy. We do have a director in place to help us do this strategy, who will take the lead. This is a government-wide strategy, although HRLE is taking the lead on it. My goal is to have it done in a year. That was the strategy, in a year - not to reduce the poverty that we had set out in the ten year cycle.

MR. BARRETT: Minister, I have some detailed questions in terms of some of the programs. Could you tell me the cost of the telemarketing pilot project that you are participating in?

MS BURKE: Do you want to know the cost?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MS BURKE: It is $30,000, approximately.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. Where is the budget for the funding for the telemarketing? Where is that coming from?

MS BURKE: There will be no money in that for this year. That was ended in the last fiscal year and we will not be continuing it.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. Who is going to be doing that work now?

MS BURKE: The staff at HRLE. We have the data from the Telelink service that gave us the hard data, as to the number of calls that were coming in, the number of repeat calls and the nature of the calls. Based on that, we have re-profiled duties to the staff so that the staff provide that messaging answering service within the office.

MR. BARRETT: Have you hired any new staff to do this?

MS BURKE: No, we are able to do it within existing resources. I think we may have hired one additional.

WITNESS: Yes, we have.

MS BURKE: One additional person, when the analysis was done, that we would need to provide the same level of service that we felt was appropriate.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. You did the pilot project and you found out that you do not need any staff to do that job?

MS BURKE: Right. We did the project - basically, the Telelink contract was for data collection. We were getting information that people were not able to reach their workers, the telephones were not being answered, the message managers were being full. We had approximately 8,200 clients in an office and we were getting approximately 4,000 calls a week. On the average, we should not be having 50 per cent of our caseload call the office. Most cases are long-term assistance and unless there is a specific reason they need to call the office, chances are their cases proceed from month to month. What that was indicating was that there must have been a very high level of repeat callers. What that was indicating is that if you were not getting an answer you kept phoning the office. We were trying to get at how many calls were coming in, at what rate were they being answered, and the messages being delivered. We really wanted to get some hard data on those calls, and we got it. Basically, once we set up a more effective way for the calls to come in, to be administered back down to the workers, to tracking of the calls, the calls have actually diminished considerably, probably from 4,000 down to about 1,300.

MR. BARRETT: Are they calling now because they do not get an answer?

MS BURKE: Well, we track the calls a lot more effectively than we had been in the previous system. We have been making sure that messages - sometimes clients contact the office via e-mail or they phone the workers line direct. One of the issues we had was workers going on leave and, innocently, putting their calls on call forward, but there was no call forward on the phone. When you would phone the workers voice mail - when you would get to the voice mail, you would enter your own voice mail and leave a message for yourself. Noone's call was being answered because you picked up your own phone, you phoned your own mailbox and you got the message you just left for the worker. So, we were looking at some of the administrative issues down there. Basically, now we have set up a system where it is just a more efficient way that the calls are being tracked, the messages are being accessed and the clients are getting a better service. It is demonstrated, clearly, by the decrease in the number of calls going into the office.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, and you do not need any extra staff?

MS BURKE: Well, there was one extra staff.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

What was the savings that the department had during the public sector strike last year? How much money did you save because of the public sector strike?

MR. ROBERTS: It was about $1 million.

MR. BARRETT: One million dollars?

MR. ROBERTS: I have it here. Yes, roughly $1 million in salaries. That was the gross savings, but then we had expenditures. We had to pay management to maintain the offices across the Province.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. My next question was: What was the cost of overtime and expenditures for the managers during the public sector strike?

MR. ROBERTS: The figures we have for management overtime during the strike - and this was management in our department as well. Because of the size and the number of offices we had across the Province, we called on managers in other departments as well. It was about $545,000, $550,000 and there was -

MR. BARRETT: You had managers from other departments?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. We ask for volunteers when there are strikes. Hopefully, there are not too many of them. But we do not have enough management in our own department to maintain all the offices. Some of the offices, during the strike, were closed because of, you know, not being able to man them.

MS BURKE: I just want to say, we asked people to volunteer to come with us. We did not ask for volunteers. Like, they were paid.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I see.

MS BURKE: Yes. I just thought you meant that we asked for volunteers to run the office. That is not what happened.

MR. ROBERTS: They were managers in other departments of government.

MR. BURKE: Who voluntarily worked in our offices.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: What kind of background were you looking for from these people? You did not have people from Finance, I hope, working in social services offices did you, or from Treasury Board?

MR. ROBERTS: A lot of them were former employees of our department.

MR. BARRETT: Pardon?

MR. ROBERTS: A lot of them were former employees of our department who had moved to -

MR. BARRETT: Okay, but you did not have anybody from Treasury Board or Finance, I hope, did you?

MR. ROBERTS: I do not think so.

MS BURKE: Dave is originally from Treasury Board and Finance.

MR. ROBERTS: Originally.

MS BURKE: So is Rebecca.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. Did you get the service in Lewisporte during the strike?

MR. BARRETT: I can forgive him because he does not talk to clients and to people - clients of the department. I know what his role is. His role is to manage the money and do it administratively, which he has done a great job over the years. But I am talking about front-line workers within Finance and Treasury Board.

MS BURKE: You were one Dave.

MR. BARRETT: He has a role within your department but there is also the other role, a role in terms of direct contact with clients.

MS BURKE: Dave is an example of somebody who went out from our Finance Department side of business and did the direct client contact in Lewisporte during the strike.

MR. ROBERTS: And we got rave reviews by that. Am I allowed to say that?

MR. BARRETT: The other question that I have is: How many employees were laid off in the department last year and can you give me a breakdown where the layoffs took place?

MR. ROBERTS: With the office closures you are talking about?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: I think there were roughly twenty. There were eighty-eight employees affected through the twenty-office closures. Sixty-eight of them were transfers, and I think it turned out to be about twenty staff laid off.

MS BURKE: There were eighty people affected. Nine people left, either through special circumstances or retired, six had paid relocation, twenty were laid off, and the rest were transferred out of the eighty.

MR. BARRETT: So, there were thirty-five positions affected?

MS BURKE: No, there were eighty positions affected.

MR. BARRETT: What, eighty positions?

MS BURKE: Eighty.

MR. BARRETT: There was thirty-five laid off?

MS BURKE: Twenty laid off.

MR. BARRETT: Twenty laid off, but you said nine went through attrition?

MS BURKE: Well, nine people retired, so they were not laid off. They retired.

MR. BARRETT: That is what I mean, yes.

MS BURKE: Then nine people had paid relocations, so they were not laid off.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

MS BURKE: Six people moved from an area, a greater distance say than would have been required to commute from one office to the other. They had paid relocation. We had twenty people actually laid off.

MR. BARRETT: You had six people who left because of retirement?

MS BURKE: No, we had nine people retired.

MR. BARRETT: You did not replace these positions?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BARRETT: So, there was twenty-nine positions eliminated.

MS BURKE: No, twenty.

MR. BARRETT: You said twenty were laid off, but there were nine people who left because of retirement and you did not fill the positions. To me, there was twenty-nine positions eliminated.

MS. ROOME: It is complex. In some cases where people retired, it may be because they decided, well, I have an opportunity to stay with the department but it means relocation, I do not want to do that, I am choosing to retire. We might or might not have filled that position. The position itself might have been transferred and then filled in a new location or it might have been held as a vacancy. You would almost have to trace every single one to see what happened.

MR. BARRETT: How many less employees do you have this year than you had last year?

MS. ROOME: We would have about twenty fewer this year then last year.

MR. BARRETT: In the whole department?

MS. ROOME: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: Where were these positions located?

MS BURKE: It seems like there were probably seven layoffs in the St. John's area and eight outside St. John's.

MR. BARRETT: Where were the eight outside of St. John's?

MS BURKE: The eight outside of St. John's: Well, where we gave original notice and the actual layoff were probably two different figures, because they would have been able to bump. Where we had a layoff does not necessarily mean they were laid off there.

MS ROOME: For example, you could have a layoff originating in Botwood, but because of bumping the person ultimately affected could have been a temporary employee in St. Alban's.

MR. BARRETT: How many offices did you close?

MS BURKE: Twenty.

MR. BARRETT: You closed twenty offices and you laid off twenty people.

MR. ROBERTS: Twenty positions.

MR. BARRETT: You closed twenty offices and there were twenty positions eliminated.

MS ROOME: People say closures, but in fact they close, but in most cases the vast majority of the staff were transferred to other locations. You have smaller offices closing and going to larger areas. In Gander now, for example, you have people from the Gander office, Fogo, Wesleyville and Gambo, who transferred in.

MR. BARRETT: You closed the rural offices and put them in the hubs.

MS ROOME: That is your interpretation.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, the interpretation of the government. The Member for Gander said that Gander was a hub. Wesleyville and all of these are not part of the hub, so you put them into the hub.

MS BURKE: One of the offices that was closed was Conception Bay South.

MR. BARRETT: That is not part of the hub, is it? St. John's is the hub.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: No, that is what your government is saying.

MS ROOME: We consider that we have a good presence in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. BARRETT: Bay L'Argent, for example, in my district was closed.

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: What other ones on the Burin Peninsula were closed?

MS ROOME: Grand Bank.

MR. BARRETT: Grand Bank. They were put into Marystown, in the hub?

MS ROOME: Into Marystown.

MR. BARRETT: Into the hub.

What other ones on the Avalon Peninsula were closed?

MS BURKE: St. Mary's, Ferryland, Whitbourne, CBS, Bay Roberts.

MR. BARRETT: Where were those people put?

MS BURKE: It would depend. Some were transferred into Mount Pearl, some were transferred into St. John's, some were transferred into Carbonear.

MR. BARRETT: So, Mount Pearl, St. John's and Carbonear are the hubs.

MS BURKE: Placentia also has an office.

MR. BARRETT: Pardon?

MS BURKE: There is an office in Placentia as well.

MR. BARRETT: Placentia did not close?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BARRETT: Whitbourne closed?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: On the Northern Peninsula, which offices closed there?

MS BURKE: Englee closed and Bonne Bay.

MR. BARRETT: Bonne Bay. Where did these people move, into St. Anthony or Deer Lake?

MS BURKE: Well, there is Port Saunders as well.

MR. BARRETT: Port Saunders.

MS BURKE: Some from Bonne Bay transferred into Stephenville and have since transferred into Corner Brook.

MR. BARRETT: Stephenville is closed down now too, is it?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BARRETT: It is in the process of closing down, is it?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BARRETT: Why would you transfer them from Stephenville into Corner Brook?

MS BURKE: Well, they had the opportunity, with a union agreement, to have their positions transferred to Corner Brook, so we agreed to it. They requested it. It was their choice and it was a mutual agreement between the department and the union.

MR. BARRETT: If they were serving people in Stephenville, why would they be in Corner Brook?

MS BURKE: With the new service delivery model, a lot of the work is done on a more regional basis as opposed to out of Stephenville. They could do their work from Corner Brook.

MR. BARRETT: Do they have to travel out to the Port au Port Peninsula?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BARRETT: The clients down on the Port au Port Peninsula who used to go to Stephenville now go to Corner Brook?

MS BURKE: No, there were opportunities in the Corner Brook office and they were able to move their positions into the Corner Brook office.

OFFICIAL: Vacancies.

MS BURKE: Vacancies.

MR. BARRETT: So, the positions in Stephenville were not filled. They moved to Corner Brook but the positions in Stephenville were not filled.

OFFICIAL: The people.

MS BURKE: The people moved, not the positions.

MR. ROBERTS: There were vacancies in Corner Brook that these people in Stephenville were interested in.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, there were cut backs in Stephenville and they were moved to Corner Brook.

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BARRETT: I mean, you cannot have it both ways. If there were positions in Stephenville that moved to Corner Brook, there must have been a role that was being preformed in Stephenville that moved to Corner Brook.

MS ROOME: If I could just clarify. Initially, they bumped, I believe it was, to Stephenville. After that vacancies occurred in Corner Brook and the employees assumed the vacancies in Corner Brook. Their positions were in Stephenville. They left their positions in Stephenville and went into new vacant positions in Corner Brook. The distinction, I think, is between the employees versus the positions.

MS BURKE: The positions that they vacated in Stephenville were then filled.

MR. BARRETT: Were there any positions eliminated in Stephenville?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BARRETT: There were positions that were occupied in Stephenville and these people bumped into Corner Brook or went into positions in Corner Brook -

MS BURKE: No, let me start that off again.

MR. BARRETT: - so you hired new people to fill the positions in Stephenville?

MS BURKE: No. What I am saying is that when the people from Bonne Bay - just follow this now - got laid off, got their layoff notice, they exercised their right to bump. They bumped into the Stephenville office, meaning two people from Stephenville were actually the two laid off as opposed to the two from Bonne Bay, because they exercised their bumping rights. Okay?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, okay.

MS BURKE: After they were there in Stephenville, they had the opportunity to move into Corner Brook. They moved into Corner Brook, so they vacated the two positions that they had originally bumped into in Stephenville. There was no job loss there, but they bumped the two most junior people. When they left those positions to assume positions in Corner Brook, because vacancies came up and they were able to move in there and fill those vacancies, people were called back to the jobs that they were originally bumped from because of the transfer from Bonne Bay in the first place.

MR. BARRETT: There were no cutbacks in Stephenville?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BARRETT: The office in Bonne Bay was closed. The ones in rural Newfoundland were closed and you put them in Stephenville and Corner Brook and the major centres. What you did was cut out the positions in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

MS BURKE: Well, we still have offices in rural communities.

MR. BARRETT: All twenty of them, most of the positions - not necessarily positions but the offices themselves - were eliminated in rural Newfoundland and Labrador communities? Bay L'Argent is rural and Bonne Bay is rural.

MS BURKE: Yes, a lot of the offices that were closed. There were some larger offices, but the majority of the offices that were closed were the smaller offices.

MR. BARRETT: How many offices did you close in St. John's?

MS BURKE: Well, we got the ECS out of Regatta Plaza.

MR. BARRETT: You have east and west, north, south and Mount Pearl and all that sort of stuff. How many offices did you actually close in St. John's?

MS BURKE: In the City of St. John's you -

MR. BARRETT: Because the people of St. John's have computers, too, right?

MS BURKE: Well, CBS was closed.

MR. BARRETT: CBS was closed. CBS is distinct from St. John's and Mount Pearl. How many offices were closed in St. John's and Mount Pearl?

MS BURKE: Well, our metro office, the big office here in St. John's, has remained open and our Mount Pearl office has remained open.

MR. BARRETT: But you have more than one office in St. John's, haven't you?

MS BURKE: Well, at Regatta Plaza we have the regional office where they also do the new telephone answering service and there is some employment and career services out of there as well.

MR. BARRETT: But you did not close any offices in St. John's or Mount Pearl?

MS BURKE: In St. John's, we do not have offices all over the city. Our main office is metro which is on Water Street and that is open. We left that one.

MR. BARRETT: You have one down on Elizabeth Avenue, haven't you?

MS BURKE: That is Regatta Plaza. Yes, that is right.

MR. BARRETT: Isn't that an office?

MS BURKE: But that is not an Income Support office.

MR. BARRETT: That is an office.

MS BURKE: Yes, our regional manager is there and our regional staff and the new telephone answering that we did based on the data from the Telelink and some employment career services.

MR. BARRETT: Couldn't that have been done in Bay L'Argent?

MS BURKE: Pardon?

MR. BARRETT: Could that have been done in Bay L'Argent? The telephone answering service, could that have been done in Bay L'Argent?

MS BURKE: I really do not know. I cannot actually answer that.

MR. BARRETT: Could you have done that in Bay L'Argent?

MS BURKE: The telephone answering service?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MS BURKE: We could look at it, but it would mean, I guess, then every call would be a long distance call, I would think, to the office.

MR. BARRETT: You could have a 1-800 number.

MS BURKE: Yes, and we would pay for the charge then.

MR. BARRETT: Right now, for example, if somebody in Chance Cove in my district, Minister, makes a call to Clarenville, it is long distance.

MS BURKE: Yes, but the volume of calls from Chance Cove to Clarenville would certainly be less than the volume of calls from metro St. John's outside the area.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. What I am saying is, you have gotten up in the House of Assembly and talked about the modern technology today, the reason you were closing offices in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, there was no more of a drop-in centre, most of it was being done by computers and all that sort of thing. If the technology is so great, the office on Elizabeth Avenue, why couldn't you have had that one in Bay L'Argent? Are the people from St. John's calling the Elizabeth Avenue office?

MS BURKE: We are going to be moving all of the operations in St. John's under the one roof sometime in this year, I guess, when we put a tender out. The workers who are now answering the phones in Regatta Plaza are doing that based on the study we did from Telelink. We needed that work unit dedicated primarily to answer the phones, which is for the Mount Pearl and the metro office. Until we had made that switch just recently, the workers were actually located in the downtown office.

MR. BARRETT: What is the Mount Pearl office doing? You have an office in Mount Pearl. What is the office in Mount Pearl doing? That is coming to St. John's, is it? You are saying right now the office in Mount Pearl is closing and coming to St. John's.

MS BURKE: No, the Mount Pearl office right now is doing employment and career services.

MR. BARRETT: For where?

MS BURKE: For, I would say, the Mount Pearl area, the CBS area.

MR. BARRETT: That is all that is being done in Mount Pearl, just the employment services?

MS BURKE: Employment and career services.

MR. BARRETT: A client cannot go into the Mount Pearl office? If someone tomorrow morning needed, say, support payments and they do not have a telephone and they do not have a computer, where could they go to get service tomorrow morning, if you live on Frecker Drive in Mount Pearl?

MS BURKE: You could go to the Mount Pearl office. You could go to the Metro office.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I am just checking now to see if she knew where Frecker Drive is?

MS BURKE: I know where Frecker Drive is. It is up in Cowan Heights, isn't it?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, okay. I am just checking the Mayor of Mount Pearl to see if he knew, the former mayor, that is all.

MS BURKE: They could go to the Mount Pearl office. They could go to the Metro office.

MR. BARRETT: So, actually, that office is open for clients?

MS BURKE: The workers are assigned to do Employment and Career Services, but if somebody went there and needed an application for Income Support, or needed to use the phone or whatever, we could -

MR. BARRETT: Okay. If someone in Bay L'Argent today wakes up tomorrow morning and needs the services of a support worker, a social services worker, what do they do?

MS BURKE: They could phone the -

MR. BARRETT: They do not have a phone.

MS BURKE: Well, you know, in fairness - like, I know not everyone out there has a phone. Even when we closed the twenty offices, in fairness to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, we did not have an office in absolutely every town out there.

Within the district that I represent, there has never been an office in the Codroy Valley; they are quite a distance from Port aux Basques. There has never been an office in Bay St. George South; they are quite a distance from Stephenville Crossing. Down on the Port au Port Peninsula the office was located in Piccadilly. The people on the other side of the Peninsula, for years, never had the road that linked the Peninsula. People have not always had an Income Support office or an HRLE office, or whatever historically they were called, next to their house.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, for lots of services, have to depend on the telephone or have had to travel for services. In closing these twenty offices, there have been many, many people in Newfoundland and Labrador - historically, since these offices were set up - who would have always lived quite a distance from the office.

MR. BARRETT: But now they are greater distances.

MS BURKE: Yes, but the accessibility and the ability to contract the workers - and it does not matter where you live in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is like other services that are available. When people apply for Income Support -

MR. BARRETT: Okay. When you use that argument - now you are getting back to me - why didn't you put the office that is on Elizabeth Avenue in Bay L'Argent?

MS BURKE: We place the offices where there is a population base -

MR. BARRETT: We are talking about putting employment in rural Newfoundland. You could have easily put the office that is on Elizabeth Avenue in Bay L'Argent.

MS BURKE: Well, on Elizabeth Avenue, they do Employment and Career Services for the clients who live in St. John's. They would be the workers who would be more involved with an individual case management process that deals directly with the employment needs of the clients. Now, the base of clients is here in St. John's that they primarily deal with. They could be working from Bay L'Argent, but they would have to travel into St. John's to meet with their clients.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. So you have an employment services office in Mount Pearl, and you have how many in St. John's?

MS BURKE: Employment and Career Service workers?

MR. BARRETT: Yes. How many offices do you have of Employment and Career Services in Mount Pearl and St. John's?

MS BURKE: One in Mount Pearl and one in St. John's.

MR. BARRETT: One in Mount Pearl and one in St. John's. Now, why would you need one in Mount Pearl and one in St. John's?

MS BURKE: Because of the number -

MR. BARRETT: Because there is a metro bus that goes between St. John's and Mount Pearl.

MS BURKE: Well, basically, because of the numbers that you are serving.

MR. BARRETT: No, but couldn't it have been one office? In terms of efficiency, it would be better if it was in one office. You said you moved Bay L'Argent to Marystown for greater efficiency and cost savings. Why have two offices, one in Mount Pearl and one in St. John's, next door to each other? As a matter of fact, if you flip the sign, on one side it says St. John's and on the other side it says Mount Pearl.

MS BURKE: Well, basically, the number of clientele that they are serving. When you have a population base like that it would be more convenient for the clients in the metro area if they had the two offices to go to. Mount Pearl would also serve the CBS clients and the Ferryland district, and metro serves the greater metro area.

MR. DENINE: CBS and Paradise, they do not have bus services.

MR. BARRETT: Is that right? Neither does between Bay L'Argent and Marystown.

MS BURKE: We have staff who go out - with the Employment and Career Services that we have set up, and the flexibility of use and more staff to do the Employment and Career Services, one thing that is important is that the people who do Employment and Career Services do work in the rural areas, whether they connect with different agencies and different groups that can assist down there, they still do the individual planning with the client. Those are the workers who might not necessarily have a full caseload day in and day out in that area but they are the workers who still go out and continue to do the individual work to make sure that the people who are accessing our Employment and Career Services have the supports that are necessary to get them ready for the labour force.

So, although we have consolidated some of the offices, there still has to be a presence. There still has to be a worker who has to get out in the community and work with the agencies that help promote attachment to the labour market and have to work with the individual clients.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. What is the increase in the departmental budget for transportation now as compared to when you had the other offices? How much money are you spending in Transportation and Communications over and above what you spent last year? We will find out. How much service is being provided to rural Newfoundland? Have the employment officers got to go out in the communities? - which means that they have to get in a car, they have to travel. How many cars have you purchased?

MS BURKE: Well, we implemented this last year in travel.

MR. BARRETT: How many vehicles have you purchased? What is the cost increase in the Transportation and Communications within the department?

MS BURKE: We do not purchase vehicles for the employees.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. Are there any government vehicles available to anybody within the department?

MS BURKE: Not within our department.

MR. BARRETT: Are there any government vehicles available from a government pool somewhere to employees?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BARRETT: So you pay mileage to people?

MS BURKE: We pay mileage or rentals, I guess, if somebody might have a disability or something wrong -

MR. BARRETT: For these people who are out in the communities, people who are working with clients - because you say if a person in Bay L'Argent, for example, needs employment support services, the worker in Marystown can go to Bay L'Argent and meet with that particular individual and provide advice and guidance. How much has the Transportation and Communications increased?

MS BURKE: We have a budget for our travel broken down for the regions. It is a total of $471,100 and it is broken -

MR. BARRETT: For all the regions?

MS BURKE: Well, it is broken down into the regions. There is $114,000 for Labrador. There is $110,000 for Western. There is $157,100 for Central and $90,000 for the Avalon.

MR. BARRETT: For where? Avalon?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: So where is the Burin Peninsula in that?

MS BURKE: The Burin Peninsula is in Central.

MR. BARRETT: What?

MS BURKE: Central region.

MR. BARRETT: How much was for Central?

MS BURKE: One hundred and fifty-seven thousand, one hundred dollars.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. So that is how much you spent last year. How much do you have budgeted for this year?

MS BURKE: No, that is what we have budgeted for this year.

MR. BARRETT: What?

MS BURKE: That is what we have budgeted for this year.

MR. BARRETT: How much did you spend last year?

MS BURKE: The same as last year.

MR. BARRETT: When did the offices close?

MS BURKE: Well, between May, June and September.

MR. BARRETT: Of last year. Therefore, there are no services being provided to people in rural Newfoundland because they are not travelling.

MS BURKE: Yes, there is. They are travelling. Yes, that is right, they always did travel.

MR. BARRETT: Right now - before a person from Bay L'Argent, St. Bernard's and Harbour Mille and these communities would go into the Bay L'Argent office to meet with an employment officer. Now the person is in Marystown. So who pays the cost for that person to get the service? That is what I am asking. Either the worker goes to the client or the client goes to the worker.

MS ROOME: If I might add, it is a combination of both and it has always has been. Even with our smaller offices, there is a lot of travel between offices and to communities. We have people now - we do not have an office in Grand Bank but we have staff who visit Grand Bank every week. We have a job broker on the Burin Peninsula who visits communities and has gone, so far, as far as Terrenceville. We partner with the development associations, HRSDC -

MR. BARRETT: Who does English Harbour East and Grand Le Pierre?

MS ROOME: I do not know. Do you want me to find our how -

MR. BARRETT: They only go as far as Terrenceville, do they?

MS ROOME: I beg your pardon?

MR. BARRETT: They only go as far as Terrenceville? There are two other communities beyond Terrenceville, English Harbour East and Grand Le Pierre.

MS ROOME: We can check that for you.

MR. BARRETT: What?

MS ROOME: We can check that for you.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. I just wondered if they were left out, if they are not in the picture at all.

MS ROOME: No, they are not.

MS BURKE: No place in the Province is being left out. If there are people out there who are availing of our Employment and Career Services and supports that we provide - and a lot of it is, you know, an assessment but a lot of it then goes to employment programs or being able to provide the necessary supports for them to attend training or make that labour market attachment. So, although there is contact with the client, in some cases it is a not necessarily an ongoing case management process. A lot of times it is the assessment and the approval of the supports that they need.

MR. BARRETT: So, there is no employment counselling going on in rural Newfoundland right now?

MS BURKE: Oh, yes there is, but based on the case plan - like, you might not need six months to a year of employment counselling. You might need employment counselling. You might need information and then you might need the supports. You might look at, your first step will be to attend - could be ABE classes and you need funding for the supplies that you need, the transportation and child care.

So these are the types of services we also provide under Employment and Career Services. It could be re-entry into the workforce and that you may have the necessary skills, the jobs may be available and you need funding in order to, probably, purchase the equipment or get the clothes or whatever. That might be the support that you need at that time, and this is where the Employment and Career Services come into play. It is employment counselling but it is also being able to provide the necessary supports to make that attachment to the labour force. Does that clarify some of the -

MR. BARRETT: What I am saying here - I mean, right now you have closed offices in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. What we see here, right now, there were offices closed which means that the clients need to have services, but there was no increase in the Transportation and Communications budget. Therefore, there must be something lacking in terms of the program that is being provided for these people in English Harbour East, Grand Le Pierre, Terrenceville, because right now the person has to travel from Marystown to English Harbour East. I mean, if you close these offices there must be some increase in -

MS BURKE: Yes, and in fairness to your question, we do require that the Employment and Career Services, that those services are provided to the rural communities and the regions have a budget for their transportation. We have allotted that budget again, and I expect that they are still going to be able to access the services within that budget.

I know what you are saying, is that: Do they need more money? They have been doing this since we did the closures last year and the money is there for the transportation again this year. All I can say, at this point, is we feel it is an appropriate allotment of funds for them to be able to do their job. But, in saying that, it is very important that we - if we are going to help people make attachment to the labour market and we are saying we are going to provide a service, then we have to provide it. I feel strongly about that.

CHAIR: Just in the interest of time, I am just wondering here now - it is 10:00 p.m., normally we had scheduled three hours for these sessions. I am just wondering, in terms of - if there are a significant number of other issues that need to be dealt with, I was just wondering how we are going to schedule this. Any sense of timing?

MS BURKE: Let's finish. Let's do what we have to do.

MR. BUTLER: I only have four or five more questions and I do not think they are going to be lengthy ones. They are just some on the Estimates there, that is all. There is no lengthy - it is no problem with me if you want to go on.

MS BURKE: I would like to continue on if we can and do the business.

MR. BARRETT: I only have about twenty-eight more, but you can go with your four or five.

MS BURKE: In case you cover some of his twenty-eight in the meantime.

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I will probably ask one and look after them all.

Just a couple first for clarification. Did I understand it correctly, that with the Telelink program -

MR. BARRETT: You calm your nerves with coffee but I did not.

MS BURKE: That does not calm me, that just gets me hyper.

MR. BARRETT: I am going for a smoke.

MR. BUTLER: When you come back we will be gone.

MR. BARRETT: Then I won't go.

MR. BUTLER: I am only joking with you, boy.

I only have five.

MR. BARRETT: Five questions, okay. I won't be that long.

MR. BUTLER: The answers move fast.

MS BURKE: I will answer the questions out in the lobby if we are finished.

MR. BUTLER: It was mentioned there with the Telelink that there were 4,000 calls, possibly, going in and that has been dropped back to 1,300. Would there have been 2,700? Is that correct, it was 2,700?

MS BURKE: That is right, yes.

MR. BUTLER: Is that right?

MS BURKE: It was actually an exercise. Really we (inaudible) to do the data collection because you are faced with dealing with issues and the antidotal information you are looking at and saying: Is this correct or is it not? That is, basically, what I wanted to look at. If I was going to make some decisions, and we were as a department, I want to know what exactly we are talking about here. What is it that is coming in, what are the issues, and how do we address them? I really felt, in order to address those issues, I needed that hard data. I needed to know exactly what I was talking about.

MR. BUTLER: My next question, and it is just for clarification, is to Mr. Roberts. I think that is who answered earlier, when I asked what were the savings from the twenty office closures. I think you said it probably balanced itself out. Is that correct or could you just elaborate on what you did say? I did not get all of that one.

MS BURKE: What we were allotted last year accommodated for the office closures, and based on our budget last year and this year it balances out. It is approximately two hundred thousand dollars annualized savings.

MR. BUTLER: The savings were?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MS. ROOME: That would be for operating, for accommodations. Then our salary budget was reduced accordingly as well.

MS BURKE: Then IT was also apart of that.

MR. BUTLER: The twenty people you referenced earlier who came out, that was in addition to the $200,000 we will say?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: The other questions are in the Estimates Book, and the first one I have is under the heading 1.2.01, Executive Support. In 2004-2005, the budget allocated was $575,100 for Salaries, the actual was $715,100, and I think the increase this year is up another $120,700 there.

MS BURKE: What happened there last year was, with the consolidation of some of the departments for post-secondary and youth services we took on youth services, and what was formerly part of Labour and Environment came into the Labour Relations Agency. Anyway, in the whole process of the restructuring we ended up with an extra ADM position within the department. We only had salary in the Budget for three and we ended up with the new ADM position. In the meantime, the position of the additional ADM has since been retired, but retired late in the year.

OFFICIAL: After the Budget.

MS BURKE: After the Budget, yes, after we had done the budget process. It may be high based on the fact we had that late retirement, but if there is any extra funding in the salary for the Executive Support based on the retirement of that ADM, that extra money will be transferred into Client Services. That is the explanation for that.

MR. BUTLER: The other one I have here is 1.2.03, Program Development and Planning, Grants and Subsidies. There is a decrease there of $250,000. I was wondering what programs are going to be cut, or if that is what it is exactly is.

MS BURKE: Basically that applies to the $500,000 grant we had given to the Kids Eat Smart Foundation.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS BURKE: I had addressed this when you asked the question in the Houses. Basically, with the Kids Eat Smart Foundation, which continues to be a program that we support, based on their finances coming in and working with us for additional funds, they are going to be able to generate $296,000 from corporate donations. They have projected that, at the end of their financial year this year, they would have a surplus of $483,000. This program could continue this year with the $250,000 grant as opposed to the $500,000, which would be great, but it would be funds that would be sitting in the account. That is why we took the additional $250,000 and we have put it towards developing another program, not a program, we are going to have a one time initiative to try to address the areas of social inclusion with regards to poverty. That is why the grant for Kids Eat Smart was decreased from the $500,000 to $250,000.

MR. BUTLER: Under 1.2.04, Administrative Support, Information Technology has an increase of $373,000. I am just wondering if you -

MS BURKE: That applies to some of the lease payments we have on the hardware for the CAPS program, and as well there was some new funding of $373,100 to continue with the CAPS program, and as well the second release of CAPS with the Employment and Career Services attached to that is included in that.

MR. BUTLER: Just to backtrack a little bit, when you were talking about the Kids Eat Smart program: Like you said, I know they are going to have $400,000. For instance, if it came to the point, God forbid, that an emergency came up and they had to go out and use all their money, is it possible or would it be in your budget anywhere, that if they needed the other $250,000 again in this particular fiscal year, that it be available to them; say, for instance, if they do not end up with their $400,000?

MS BURKE: In saying that, I guess, we work with them to see what would be a grant that would keep that program sustainable, and that was based on the best projections for that. If they came back, I suppose, like any agency, if there was a crisis or an emergency that we had to deal with - right now, I would not be able to look at $250,000 that I would have up for grabs, so to say.

MR. BUTLER: If they have four hundred thousand and some odd dollars held in reserve - you might not have this, but I will ask the question anyway - what would they generally go through in the run of a twelve-month period from one budget to the another, that they would use to administer their program?

MS BURKE: I think it is $899,000.

MR. BUTLER: Is that right?

OFFICIAL: That is their annual total.

MR. BUTLER: Under 3.1.01, Income Support, Allowances and Assistance has decreased by $620,000. I was wondering why. I think last year it went over budget there. Am I correct in saying that?

MS BURKE: Which one are we at, 3.1.01?-

MR. BUTLER: We are at 3.1.01.09, Allowances and Assistance.

MS BURKE: Basically, the budgeted last year to the revised, there is a $1 million increase there and that was, the average cost per case was more than anticipated. That is what that came to. This year the budget is $211,230,000 and that is a $3.6 million decrease. Basically, we are funded here for a caseload of $28,100, at an approximate value of seventy-five eighty per case. In addition to that, we also have $830,000 in new initiatives added there which would be the support for the working clients, the high school initiative, and some of the SESP Program as well. Funding would be put in there. Basically, this is based on a caseload of $28,100 at seventy-five eighty, and the average caseload last year, where we came up with that number, was $28,112.

MR. BUTLER: Under the same heading, 3.1.01.02, Provincial Revenue, I think it is a $2 million increase? Where does that revenue -

MS BURKE: That revenue is generated from support enforcement from the Federal Refund Set-Off Program and from our collections.

MR. BUTLER: When I saw federal there, I thought that was all you got from the feds, but I guess it is more than that.

MS BURKE: Actually, the federal money that you see there, the $200,000, is actually money we received from the federal government in relation to Income Support within the Innu Nation. That is what that reflects there.

MR. BUTLER: Do you have a question?

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move a motion right now that the Bay L'Argent office be reopened and included as part of these Estimates.

CHAIR: You did what?

MR. BARRETT: I move a motion that the Bay L'Argent office be opened, seconded by my colleague, the Member for Port de Grave.

CHAIR: I am not certain the motion would be in order. You are talking about increasing the allocation to the department.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. We are considering the Estimates here now and it is an Estimate of the House of Assembly and the Committee. I move a motion to reopen the Bay L'Argent office.

CHAIR: I do not think the motion is in order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chair, the motion is in order.

There have been precedents, Mr. Chair, in the House, where minister's salaries in Estimates have been reduced to $1. I know monies can be made available. The staff who are already in Marystown, all they need to do is be moved to Bay L'Argent. I will take the ruling to the Speaker.

CHAIR: Any further questions of the minister?

MR. BARRETT: Yes. I want the minister to answer this question: What savings were realized within the department by closing the offices in rural Newfoundland? What is the total?

MS BURKE: I do not mind answering the question, that is no problem, but when we have to answer the same questions twice - and this is the second time I have had to answer the same questions.

MR. BARRETT: I never asked this question before.

MS BURKE: Your colleague sitting next to you asked.

MR. BARRETT: How much was saved?

MS BURKE: Last year, the budget reflected the office closures and the savings. There should be approximately $200,000 annualized in the savings of closing the offices.

MR. BARRETT: That is how much was saved by closing twenty offices, $200,000?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: You put the hardship of the workers and clients of the department for $200,000.

What was your criteria for closing these offices? How did you determine which offices were going to close?

MS BURKE: We looked at the caseload, we looked at the number of clients being served in the offices, and the population base. Basically, the trends were showing, from a demographic perspective - obviously this is well known - that within the aging population and with the out migration patterns over the years, the caseloads had reduced.

What happens with an aging population is, at a certain level the cases move, if they are dependent on government programming for support, from the Income Support program to the Canada pension or the old age pension. When we looked at the caseloads and we looked at a breakdown between the long-term assistance and the short-term assistance caseload, recognizing that the short-term assistance caseloads have a higher interaction with the workers, when we looked at it, we actually had the case where some offices were carrying a caseload of short-term assistance cases of about eighteen, and in other offices, with the way the cases were dispersed, some were carrying well over 200 cases. This is workers who were getting the same pay doing the same type of work, and it just was not an equitable distribution of work. That was one of the big issues, being able to have a more equitable distribution, along with other factors. That was one of the important factors.

MR. BARRETT: In St. John's and Mount Pearl, for example, in the offices there, the caseload has increased in both offices, has it?

MS BURKE: Well, there would be a higher caseload in the bigger centres.

MR. BARRETT: But did the caseloads increase in Mount Pearl and St. John's, or where they reduced? Could you possibly combine both of these offices because the caseload is reduced?

MS BURKE: What would have happened is, when the offices were combined you would have had more workers to distribute the cases over, so it actually should have lowered the casework of the workers.

OFFICIAL: The number of cases per worker.

MS BURKE: Yes, the number of cases per worker.

MR. BARRETT: Since the Chair ruled my motion out of order, how much would it increase the budget by returning the staff back to the Bay L'Argent office?

MS BURKE: I do not have that figure off the top of my head.

MR. BARRETT: Can you get me the figure, how much it would cost to relocate the staff to the Bay L'Argent office?

MS BURKE: We will follow-up with that. We will have a look at that.

MR. BARRETT: Can you give me a detailed breakdown on the cost? Obviously, if you put the staff in Marystown - did you rent extra space in Marystown for the staff?

MS BURKE: They are in the existing space. With the consolidation, we were able to introduce a position of job broker. That position is available now within the Burin Peninsula. We would not have had the latitude to introduce that position without the consolidation of offices, so that is certainly -

MR. BARRETT: Did you increase the actual space for rent in Marystown? For example, did it cost more to take the people out of Grand Bank and put them into Marystown?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BARRETT: Where did the extra office space come from?

MS BURKE: There was adequate space in the space we had down there.

MR. BARRETT: There was no new space at all allocated in Marystown, whatsoever?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BARRETT: Were there any new telephone lines installed? Were there any new computers installed?

MS BURKE: I would think -

MR. BARRETT: What are they doing, sitting on the parking lot in Marystown?

MS BURKE: No, but I would think the computers that they had access to would probably have been transferred with them.

MR. BARRETT: The telephones too? So those workers do not have telephones in Marystown, do they?

MS BURKE: You can speak to that, Dave.

MR. ROBERTS: The office in Marystown is the same office as we had before. We would have transferred the computers, obviously, that were in Bay L'Argent. There might have been telephone lines in Bay L'Argent that were disconnected. We might have had to create a couple of new ones in Marystown, but the net difference would have been about the same.

MR. BARRETT: So the telephone costs were the same.

You were renting space in Marystown that was not being utilized?

MR. ROBERTS: I would say it was utilized.

MR. BARRETT: So we were actually paying for space in Marystown, exorbitant space that was not needed, and all those years we were spending money that was not needed for space?

MR. ROBERTS: The space was redesigned in Marystown.

MR. BARRETT: How much did it cost to redesign the space?

MR. ROBERTS: I do not think it cost anything. We are collocated there with HRDC, HRSD.

MR. BARRETT: I know where you are in HRDC. I was there for the official opening of the building.

So, there was enough space within that building itself to accommodate all the extra staff?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. There were not a lot of extra staff from Bay L'Argent.

MR. BARRETT: There was no money spent on any renovations?

MR. ROBERTS: Not to my knowledge.

MR. BARRETT: You are not sure about that.

MR. ROBERTS: I am pretty sure there was not any money. It is the same office that we are into.

MR. BARRETT: So we had enough space to be able to accommodate all of these people?

MR. ROBERTS: I think they had to redesign a few cubicles, a few office work stations I believe they are called.

MR. BARRETT: Can you give me the actual cost of how much money it cost to renovate the building in Marystown? The extra cost for the telephone lines, and all the other extra expenses?

MR. ROBERTS: I will check on it, but I think it was nil or next to it.

MR. BARRETT: The notion that it would not have been an extra cost, you were paying the council in Bay L'Argent a very nominal fee for renting of the space. Wherever employees occupy space, there is a per square foot for the space. If they occupy an office ten by eight in Bay L'Argent, or ten by eight in Marystown, you are still paying the same thing.

MS BURKE: It is my understanding that we have not leased any additional space in Marystown.

MR. BARRETT: So there was no reason to close the Bay L'Argent office, then; you did not save any money. Twenty offices at $200,000, you saved. You laid off twenty people; you saved $200,000. There is something that does not add up here.

MS BURKE: Do you want to speak to that, Dave? There were IT savings and network costs.

MR. ROBERTS: There were some IT savings in terms of less lines, say, needed for the computer lines and so on.

In terms of salaries, you mentioned the twenty positions. The savings that resulted from those were taken out of this department's budget so I suppose, in effect, the government saved these dollars and probably reallocated them elsewhere - I have no idea - but the savings for the positions were taken out of our department. Our department did not have savings from that to reallocate or whatever.

MR. BARRETT: So the $200,000 was actually computers, telephone lines, rental space, and all of that. Salaries are not included in it.

MR. ROBERTS: No, the salaries are separate.

MR. BARRETT: So you saved more money than $200,000?

MS BURKE: There were savings in IT as well.

MR. ROBERTS: There were some IT savings.

MR. BARRETT: Technically, what you did was, you wiped out offices in twenty communities in rural Newfoundland at a saving of $200,000?

MR. ROBERTS: Not for the government. There were salary savings from the twenty positions, but that money was taken out of HRLE's budget.

MR. BARRETT: The government saved it. Somebody saved it.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: There are twenty positions. I would imagine that social workers make $40,000 or $50,000 a year. Twenty times $40,000, to me, is $800,000, plus $200,000 is $1 million the department saved.

MS BURKE: I just want to make one correction. We do not have social workers. We do have some liaison social worker positions created recently, but there were no actual social workers laid off or taken out of the system last year.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, now you are really getting to another question I have to ask. The twenty positions that you laid off, what type of positions were they?

MS BURKE: There would have been a combination. It would have been some administrative clerical type functions or CSO positions, Client Services Officer positions.

MR. BARRETT: Client Services Officer positions?

MS BURKE: CSO positions.

MR. BARRETT: Are they social workers?

MS BURKE: No, they are not social workers.

MR. BARRETT: What kind of qualifications would a person have to fill that position?

MS BURKE: They do not require a minimum of a Bachelor of Social Work. I would think our CSOs do not have BSWs. They could have a degree in Social Sciences or they could have a diploma in something like the Community Studies Program, but they would not have social work degrees.

MR. BARRETT: What kind of salary would they be paid?

MS BURKE: I think it is around $43,000 to $50,000. Is that the salary range?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

I said social workers would be paid - when I said $40,000, I wasn't off?

MS BURKE: No, but they are not social workers. That is the point I want to make.

MR. BARRETT: Well, to me, anybody who works in this field is a social worker.

MS BURKE: To me, educated as a social worker, I do not use the term as loosely as that. I guess that is why I wanted to make the correction.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

The jobs they do are very, very important.

MS BURKE: Absolutely.

MR. BARRETT: To me, some of them are angels in terms of what they do. If they are getting paid $43,000, they should be paid more.

Really, within the department itself, in the total of the department itself, last year there were twenty positions less than there were before?

MR. ROBERTS: As a result of the office closures.

MR. BARRETT: No, no. My question now is: Within the department itself, how many positions are less in the department now than there were a year ago?

MS BURKE: There are probably two or three positions more than the twenty from the regional offices from the provincial office.

MR. BARRETT: There are two or three more?

MS BURKE: The provincial office, which would not have been a result of the office closures.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

Were these positions in St. John's?

MS BURKE: In the Confederation Building.

MR. BARRETT: In the Confederation Building? There are two or three positions in the Confederation Building? Which positions were eliminated?

MS BURKE: That was in last year's budget. I really do not have that detailed information on last year's budget with me here this evening.

MR. BARRETT: In this year's budget there are two columns, which says Estimates, Revised and Budget.

MS BURKE: What column are we looking at?

MR. BARRETT: No, in a budget - we are looking at the Estimates for 2005-2006. When a minister comes to these hearings they have the revised figures, what was spent last year, and you are asking questions on what is projected for this year. I am asking you how many positions are different, being funded this year, less within the department than last year.

MS BURKE: I guess the point I am making is, the budget that you are looking at for last year has those reductions built in, so the reduction is not between last year and this year. The reduction would have been between last year and the year before.

MR. BARRETT: So, how many positions less within the whole department?

MS BURKE: From the year 2003-2004?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MS BURKE: I do not have the detail on the budget from 2003-2004 to the budget of last year. My focus tonight was on the Estimates for this year and, as you said, the focus from what the budget was last year. I did not bring the information from the year before here, from the 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 budget, but the positions that you are talking about would have been taken out of the budget coming out of 2003 into 2004 that would have been reflected in the numbers that you are looking at now for 2004-2005.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, so therefore you should know how many positions were eliminated within the department.

MS BURKE: We can get that information.

I guess the question is, if we were looking at the numbers sitting here a year ago based on the salaries from 2003-2004 to 2004-2005, and based on that salary reduction in that line, we would have been able to give that information, but that is not part of this year's budget. That is why I do not have that information with me.

MR. BARRETT: It is part of the budget, because in the budget in the House of Assembly what we have is the revised figures, which was what was spent for last year.

MS BURKE: Right. The numbers of the Estimates last year had built in the salary reductions last year, so they are not built in as further reductions this year. Actually, from last year to this year -

MR. BARRETT: Will the minister give me the number of positions that are less within the whole department now, particularly in the area of Human Resources and Employment?

MS BURKE: For how many years? For just last year?

MR. BARRETT: For the last two years.

MS BURKE: The last two years.

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MS BURKE: Do you want to know how many new positions, or just how many -

MR. BARRETT: No, how many positions are here today and how many were there a year ago.

MS BURKE: Yes, okay.

MR. BARRETT: That should not be very complicated.

Do you have some more questions? Okay, you can go.

MR. BUTLER: The more questions you hear, the more come to your mind. I will not be long, sir.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: With regard to the case load, Minister, you mentioned one of the criteria you looked at when you closed the offices was the case loads. I was wondering if you can advise me of what the case load was in Bay Roberts versus Carbonear?

MS BURKE: I do not have those stats on me tonight, but those were all the stats we had last year when we made these decisions. That is accessible. We can get that.

MR. BUTLER: The other thing - I forgot this one earlier in the evening when we were talking about the staff and problems that were in the system. I know you saw the letter - I think it was send to your department - from the social workers at the Janeway. They had concerns about how long it took to get information back and forth. I wonder, has that been taken care of, or clarified to their satisfaction I should say, with the social workers at the Janeway?

MS BURKE: That has been clarified, absolutely. These are the issues that I take very seriously. This is client service, and this is the quality of client service, and that is completely unacceptable. We dealt with that. As soon as that letter arrived on my desk it was dealt with, basically, immediately upon reading it.

These are issues that I have addressed through the department. We are certainly looking at how we can improve client service delivery. I have a committee working with me now with some staff and some what I consider advocates from the community to help look at how we connect better with the agencies within the community and look at issues of service delivery.

We responded to that immediately, and again it got up to the issue like: How come you are leaving a message for yourself on your own voice mail? I wanted to make sure, if we were going to make improvements, I wanted to know where we were going and what the real issues were, and that is why we did the data collection through Telelink as well.

MR. BUTLER: Under the heading 4.1.02., Labour Market Development Agreement Projects, under Salaries, I see there is an increase there of $1 million. Is that raise increases for someone, or new jobs being created?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Okay, I have the answer. He says that is his.

MS BURKE: He said what? What was the question?

MR. BUTLER: He said the $1 million was his.

I was just wondering, the $1 million, is that for wage increases or is it for the creation of new jobs, we will say? How does that work there?

MS BURKE: This is a notional budget, and this is revenue that we get from the federal government. This is $6 million that is part of the Labour Market Development Agreement. Last year, the decrease of the $1 million there in the salary line was attributed somewhat to the strike, and also to the delay in the start-up of some of our programs.

Although it looks like a $1 million loss there for us, what actually happened - that is federal money - that was transferred back to HRSD, that they used within the HRSD regions of the Province. So there were some delays in some of the start-ups and related to the strike, but it was not actually money that was not spent here in the Province.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under 4.1.04., Employment Assistance Programs For Persons With Disabilities, I am wondering, under that section, not with regard to the figures that are there, but is there a program within that division there where someone who may need renovations to a van to accommodate them with a lift to go from - there is nothing within the system to help anyone like that, is there?

MS BURKE: Well, I will address that somewhat.

Under the 4.1.04.09. line called Allowances and Assistance, similar to what you are talking about there, last year we served 347 clients and we spent $2,124,100 in that. That was basically to provide services, tools, supports, to help people attend post-secondary education, whether they needed transportation, wheelchairs, supports, that kind of supports - so we are getting at what you are asking but probably not specifically what you are dealing with there.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, I understand where you are coming from there; but, for instance, I have an individual out there now who is finishing high school. He is disabled to the point that he is in a wheelchair and maybe next year or the year after - his father called me to the other day, and I was wondering if there is anything there. Like he said, they have the van but there has to be work done on the van to make it accessible for him, and probably a lift and things like that. I was just wondering. I know you are saying there is transportation there to work and that, and for wheelchairs, but I am just wondering. I know this goes a little step further.

MS BURKE: Yes, and I can address that a bit.

What we are addressing here is more issues with the labour market attachment, and this fund that we have specifically would not address that issue, but that individual would probably be able to access services under this program; probably not the actual service you are talking about there, but if he is going to continue to pursue his studies for the labour market attachment and the special needs attached to the disability this would be the part of our budget or programming that would assist that individual.

MR. BUTLER: So there is nothing in the system, that you are aware of, what I just asked? Is there any coverage (inaudible)?

MS BURKE: Not within HRLE, because we are more into the labour market attachment type of work.

MR. BUTLER: When I saw transportation, I thought there might have been something.

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Fine.

That is it for me, sir.

CHAIR: Does anyone else have any further questions for the minister?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I have some more questions, Mr. Chair.

In the Minister's Office, 03. Transportation and Communications, the allocation for travel by the minister is $50,000. I noticed in Salaries there is a salary for a Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary's Transportation and Communications, is that in Executive Support or in the minister's...?

MS BURKE: That would be in the minister's budget.

MR. BARRETT: Do you have a breakdown of the cost of the Parliamentary Secretary's travel as opposed to the minister?

MS BURKE: Not here.

The travel budget, the travel expenditure, the travel part of it from that budget last year was $22,500 but I do not have it actually broken down between the minister and the minister's staff, which would be the EA and the constituency assistant.

MR. BARRETT: You are saying it is $22,000?

MS BURKE: That was the travel part of what was spent last year.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but right here the revised figure says $50,000.

MS BURKE: Well, yes, that was the transportation. Then there is communications involved in that number as well. I was just talking about the travel component.

MR. BARRETT: So, it is $22,000 for travel.

MS BURKE: Twenty-two thousand, five hundred dollars.

MR. BARRETT: Twenty-two thousand, five hundred dollars. So, what percentage of that was the minister and what percentage was the Parliamentary Secretary?

MS BURKE: I do not have that breakdown, but there would have been - like, if there was any travel, probably, by the EA, that would have been included in this line as well.

MR. BARRETT: No, not the EA, the Parliamentary Secretary.

MS BURKE: I do not have that breakdown. Out of the $22,500 from that department, I do not have the breakdown what was mine and what was the Parliamentary Secretary's.

MR. BARRETT: Can you provide those details?

MS BURKE: Oh, yes.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

So it was only $22,500, not $50,000?

MS BURKE: What was in travel.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, the communications, there was actually $28,000 spent in communications?

MS BURKE: No, in communications there was $17,780 for a total of $40,280. We were actually less than what was budgeted there.

MR. BARRETT: The revised figure here is $50,000, right?

MR. ROBERTS: The revised figures in the Estimates are figures that you have to provide to Treasury Board in, say, early to mid-February at the latest. Of course, as you know, the Budget came down March 21, so the revised figures are estimates probably a month and a half before the fiscal year is over, and therefore sometimes there is a little variation.

MR. BARRETT: So you say there was $18,000 for communications? What is the breakdown for that?

MS BURKE: It is $17,780 for communications.

MR. BARRETT: It seems to be an awful expense for communications for a minister's office.

MS BURKE: That is telephones and cellphones, I guess, and the faxes.

MR. BARRETT: How many cellphones are assigned to the minister's office?

MS BURKE: Four, I would think.

MR. BARRETT: Four cellphones? Who would have the cellphones?

MS BURKE: The constituency assistant, who is located in Stephenville, has a cellphone. The Executive Assistant has one. I have one, and the Parliamentary Secretary.

MR. BARRETT: The Parliamentary Secretary.

So, the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary is $24,000, and the cellphone - the office space for the Parliamentary Secretary, where is that located? In your office?

MS BURKE: Well, it is in Confederation Building.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but is it in the Government Members Office or is it -

MS BURKE: It is over in the department.

MR. BARRETT: So the space for the Parliamentary Secretary, and the cellphone for the Parliamentary Secretary, and travel for the Parliamentary Secretary.

MS BURKE: I do not think we pay for the space, because it is in Confederation Building.

MR. BARRETT: There is space, there is cost.

MS BURKE: Yes, he has an office here in the building, but we do not have an office leased -

MR. BARRETT: Nobody provides any space for anybody anywhere free. If the government owns the building, there is still a cost.

MS BURKE: Yes, but it is not in our budget line here.

MR. BARRETT: No, but there is still a cost.

MS BURKE: But not to this department.

MR. BARRETT: Are there any temporary positions within the minister's office?

MS BURKE: No.

MR. BARRETT: Do you have any temporary positions within the minister's office?

MS BURKE: Contractual, like constituency assistant, political support. They are not permanent positions.

MR. BARRETT: No, no.

You are entitled to an Executive Assistant, a constituency assistant. Are there any other positions within the minister's office of a contractual or a temporary nature?

MS BURKE: Not of a contractual or temporary nature.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

The assistant for the Parliamentary Secretary, is that paid out of the department or is it paid out of the House of Assembly?

MS BURKE: The department.

MR. BARRETT: The department actually pays for the Parliamentary Secretary. Does he also have a constituency assistant in addition to a secretary within the department, or is there just the one position?

MS BURKE: Just the one position.

MR. BARRETT: Just one?

MS BURKE: There is a departmental secretary at the minister's office.

MR. BARRETT: I know that. I am well aware of that, that each MHA is entitled to one Parliamentary Assistant. I just wanted to know where it was paid for, whether it was in the department or if it was in the House of Assembly.

I guess the other question is - I know I proposed a motion that you open the Bay L'Argent office but the Chairman ruled it out of order - will you, tomorrow, work on reopening the office back in Bay L'Argent?

MS BURKE: I cannot make that commitment.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

I want to congratulate the minister on closing twenty offices in rural Newfoundland. I guess you are part of the government's agenda in terms of shutting down rural Newfoundland. Twenty of these offices were in rural Newfoundland and you did not see fit to close an office in St. John's or Mount Pearl. Congratulations, Minister. You are doing a great job of shutting down rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have no more questions. We will be here all night.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, to you and your staff for such insightful answers to not so insightful questions.

We have had some of the subheads in this particular department already voted upon. We have remaining 1.1.01. up to and including 5.1.02., plus 7.1.01.

Maybe I will ask the Clerk if he would call two separate calls for the grouping?

CLERK: Subheads under the Department or the Heads of Expenditure, Human Resources Labour and Employment, subheads 1.1.01. to and including 5.1.02.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01. to 5.1.02. carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 5.1.02. carried.

CLERK: Subhead 7.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 7.1.01. carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

On motion, subhead 7.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

On motion, total carried.

CHAIR: Shall I now report the heads of the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment carried without any amendments?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

On motion, Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Again, thank you, Minister, to you and your staff.

The Committee stands adjourned.