The Committee met at 9:00 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Hutchings): Good morning, everybody.  Welcome to the Estimates Committee this morning, the Social Services Committee.  This morning we are hearing the Estimates of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. 

First off, I will ask the Committee to my right if they could introduce themselves.

MR. YOUNG: Wally Young, St. Barbe.

MR. RIDGLEY: Bob Ridgley, St. John's North.

MR. CORNECT: Tony Cornect, Port au Port.

MR. KEVIN PARSONS: Kevin Parsons, Cape St. Francis.

MR. BUTLER: Roland Butler, Port de Grave District.

MS FARRELL: Natasha Farrell, Researcher, Liberal caucus.

MS MICHAEL: Lorraine Michael, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS WILLIAMS: Susan Williams, Researcher, NDP Office.

CHAIR: Thank you. 

I am Keith Hutchings, MHA for the District of Ferryland.

What we have done in the past with these, we will rotate back and forth for about fifteen or twenty minutes from the Committee to the minister and the staff. 

Minister, you are free to make any opening statements, or we can go right to the Committee.  What I would ask is that your staff identify themselves, and I remind staff if you are participating in discussion that you identify yourself before you speak each time for the benefit of Hansard, so we can identify who is speaking.

We have to wait a minute for the Clerk to come back to call the first head. 

MR. KING: For the record, we will be starting with the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation but we also have the Labour Relations Agency, the Workers' Compensation Review Board. 

CHAIR: Yes, okay, sorry.

That is the order you are going to go in? 

MR. KING: The Department of Human Resources is one aspect of it.  I just wanted to make sure everybody was clear on that.  I think the plan is to start with Housing.  Are you guys okay with that? 

CHAIR: Okay, I will have the Clerk call the first heading. 

CLERK: 1.1.01. 

CHAIR: 1.1.01

Shall it carry? 

Minister, I will go to you and you can introduce your staff or have them introduce themselves and make any statement.

MR. KING: Sure.

We are starting with Housing.  Probably we will do introductions first, and then I will have a couple of comments. 

CHAIR: Okay, sure. 

MR. KING: Darin King, Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. 

MR. SIMMS: Len Simms, CEO, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. 

MR. LAWRENCE: Tom Lawrence, Chief Financial Officer, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. 

MS MOFFATT: Kate Moffatt, Executive Director of Program Delivery & Planning, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. 

MR. STRONG: Jim Strong, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, HRLE. 

MR. CURTIS: Ken Curtis, Departmental Comptroller with HRLE.

MS WHEATON: Roxie Wheaton, Assistant Deputy Minister Responsible for Regional Operations. 

MS COCHRANE: Rachelle Cochrane, CEO, Labour Relations Agency. 

MS GALWAY: Leslie Galway, CEO of Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. 

MR. POWER: Brad Power, Director of Communications for HRLE.

MR. ROSE: Baxter Rose, Deputy Minister for HRLE.

MR. MAHONEY: Tom Mahoney, Executive Director of Worker Services and Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. 

MR. MACKENZIE: Dan MacKenzie, Director of Policy & Planning, Labour Relations Agency. 

MS BURKE: Nellie Burke, Executive Director, Office of Immigration & Multiculturalism. 

MS TOOPE: Pam Toope, Senior Director, Labour Market Development, HRLE. 

CHAIR: Minister. 

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

They are not all with Housing. 

Thank you very much. 

I am just going to make a couple of quick comments with respect to the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and this year's budget.  I am certainly very pleased with what we have been able to achieve.  We are showing almost an $8.5 million increase once again this year in the provincial commitment to the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing budget.  There are a number of what I think are significant initiatives which we probably will get into this morning, but none the least of which is our recommitment to affordable housing program, a partnership with the federal government.  We have also committed $36 million over three years to the Provincial Home Repair Program, and one of the initiatives that we have chatted about a couple of times here in the Legislature is continued commitment of $1 million to the Provincial Homelessness Fund, and several weeks ago had the great opportunity to announce a home repair program focused specifically on persons with disabilities. 

There have been a number of really good initiatives.  We have also renewed the REEP program again this year, Residential Energy Efficiency Program.  That is one that has been very effective.  We actually have some good, concrete data that shows that clients who avail of the program actually saw savings in energy and resulted in a saving of money in their pockets.  It is about an $8.4 million provincial increase over last year's budget. 

I am certainly very pleased now, Mr. Chair, to take any questions that members opposite have.  I will do my best to answer. 

CHAIR: Okay, thank you. 

I go to our Committee. 

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you. 

First of all, Minister, I want to welcome you and your staff from the various divisions within your department.  My first question has to do with heading 1.1.01, and I think it is on page 269, Housing Operations and Assistance.  My question is with reference to right at the bottom where it says total Housing Operations and Assistance.  I know the figure is down $3.5 million there and I was just wondering if you could explain that. 

MR. KING: Yes, the decrease that you see reflected there has to do with the end of the federal stimulus money.  When the federal government introduced a stimulus package about three years ago, we also increased one-time funding, in some cases matching funding, to go with the stimulus money.  That would have brought our budget line up to $54.7 million. 

With the stimulus money removed we are showing about an $8.4 million increase over the annualized budget.  I think just for information purposes our base budget in 2008-2009 would have been about $32.2 million and this year it is going to be about $52.4 million.  The decrease is a result of one-time funding with the stimulus money from the federal government.

MR. BUTLER: You mentioned, Minister, about the Provincial Homelessness Fund.  I was just wondering how many non-profit groups have received funding in the last year, and could you give us a breakdown of the groups by region if that is possible? 

MR. KING: Yes, I do not have that specific number here.

MR. SIMMS: The answer to the first question is probably fifteen or sixteen different organizations, but we do not have the breakdown of each individual grant.  They were all publicly announced by the minister.  We can get it for you after, if you like, Roland. 

MR. BUTLER: That would be fine, yes.

MR. KING: We did two releases.  One we did recently at a church in Mount Pearl.  That is the second one, sorry; the first one we did at the Salvation Army soup kitchen in Corner Brook.  We outlined then all of the applicants who were successful, but we will provide that for you.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.  I guess this is a question we ask each and every year – the wait-list, and I know it is getting better every year.  I was just wondering, what is the status of the ongoing wait-list now for the one and two bedroom units?  I know that was an issue ongoing.

MR. KING: I will make a general comment and then maybe Len might want to add.  The wait-list is at or about 1,000 individuals give or take.  That is the overall wait-list, Mr. Butler.  One of the comments I would like to make, that I think people tend not to be aware of in the public, is that while the wait list is about 1,000 give or take, 75 per cent of those clients all get placed every year.  On this year's current wait list there would probably be not more than 200 to 250 people who were there last year.  There is a turnover of about 75 per cent.  Specifically to the one and two bedrooms, Len, I do not know if you would have that at hand.

MR. SIMMS: What we have on the wait-list is - about 90 per cent of the people who are applicants on the wait-list are people looking for one and two bedrooms.  Unfortunately, about 10 per cent or 15 per cent of our portfolio is made up of one or two bedrooms, so therein lies the challenge, and it has been for years a big, big problem.  The wait-list is down from March 2010 when it was 1,214 to today I think it is 1,036 less thirty-eight that are being ready for occupancy, so it is about 998 or something of that nature. 

The one and two bedroom issue is and continues to be a difficult issue.  That is why rent subs are so helpful, really, is because the best place to get a one and two bedroom when you do not have them in our own portfolio is through an agreement with a landlord. 

MR. BUTLER: My next question has to do with the rent supplement program.  I was just wondering, are there any increases in the program for this year?  That is the rent supplement program.  I know you just touched on it there that time. 

MR. KING: Can you repeat again?  I apologize for that.  I was -

MR. BUTLER: That is okay.  I was just wondering, are there any increases in the rent supplement program for this year over what it would have been last year?

MR. KING: It is about a million dollars over the next two years. 

I do not think we have done a public announcement yet, but that would have come out in the Budget.  It was about a million dollars each over the next two years. 

MR. BUTLER: My next question, Minister, I am just wondering, do you have a list of how much land – land, I guess, that was owned by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, or within their jurisdiction - how much land has been sold off or put on auction, and that would include rezoned land.  Is there a list of that, that could be made available? 

MR. SIMMS: First of all, there was land that was devolved to the municipalities a number of years back dealing with commercial property, I guess, in twenty-two municipalities, and there was an agreement made between the previous Administration and the municipalities at the time to devolve that land to those municipalities with the sale, when it is made, to have shared profits between the Housing Corporation and the municipalities.  That land technically is no longer owned by the Housing Corporation.  That is land that is in the hands of the municipalities. 

In addition to that we have land development; Southlands primarily is the primary properties.  Over the last, I do not know, ten or twelve years, I guess, the governments of the day and the current government has indicated they wanted Housing to get out of land development.  So that land has gone up on public tender and been sold off.  We can get you a list of those three properties, if you would like.  There are still a couple of phases up in Southlands area remaining. 

There is one other piece of land that we own - it is in our name and at least we own – a piece of land related to Marble Mountain over there.  I think the governments have asked to hold on to it for the time being in case there is some potential future development required. 

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MR. SIMMS: A lot of our land has been sold off.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

My next question, I will just start off with a general question.  The Pentecostal home in Clarke's Beach, I know there are cottages that are there.  You are grinning; you must know something.  I know there was some work done on them back maybe in 2008 or 2009.  I was just wondering, what involvement does Housing have in that area as we speak?

MR. KING: All right, you go ahead.

MR. SIMMS: The reason I was smiling is because that was a matter of some public interest at one time for another reason, you may recall.  I am not sure if you do or not, but that was why I smiled.  It became a public issue at the time because they did not recognize some tenants who wanted to live in it.  Do you recall that?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, that is not where I am going.

MR. SIMMS: Yes.  You wanted to know others, Roland, was it?

MR. BUTLER: Pardon?

MR. SIMMS: What was your question?

MR. BUTLER: I was just wondering, what involvement do you people have with the units that are there?  I think you guys put up the funding.

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: There are two sets of units there, the older lot, I think it is.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, okay.  Specifically, yes, it is like some of the others that we have around the Province.  A lot of them are federally regulated units and federally funded units directly.  Then there is another component that was passed over to the Housing Corporation back in 1997-1998 when there was a social housing agreement signed between the Province and the federal government at the time.  There are some units there that we provide subsidy to.  If they do not raise enough funding through rental rates, then we provide the subsidy to them as we do to sixty-three partners that we have around the Province that run community-based housing projects for us.  We also have a capital reserve fund that is allocated for these individual projects, which they can draw on when they need to have work done – windows, siding, doors, roofs or whatever.  So, in the case of the one you are referring to, that is what we do; we provide subsidy to them when required.

MR. BUTLER: That brings me to my main question.  I have had several complaints.  I am not going into all the details - I will meet with you privately on that, so I am not going to use names or anything like that – but, apparently when the work was done there back in 2008-2009 the contractor went in - in my understanding, and that is why I asked you – my understanding is the contractor was probably under the guidance of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.  I hope I am correct in saying that.  Anyway, the situation is, there were new dryers put into those units, and back in March the residents - and most of them are single seniors and so on - received a letter from the home there.  Maybe I should not call it - it is the Pentecostal home, anyway.  They received a letter saying not to use their dryers because apparently, when they were installed, they were not hooked up to any ventilation system and they got totally blocked off.  The letter they received told them not use them; it was a fire hazard.  The very next day they got a second letter telling them the same thing.

I only found this out yesterday, the bottom line of it, so I made a few phone calls.  I called the home and I spoke with a gentleman.  He said yes, we sent a letter to them.  But, you take the seniors that are there, seventy-five, eighty, ninety years old, and someone says: Oh, I can put a towel in there; it is not going to hurt nothing anyway. 

They were doing this, and one family went in and the dryers were so hot they were scared they were going to catch on fire.  After I made the call to the gentleman at the home on May 5, they received a letter saying: Do not use your dryers; it is a fire hazard.  Now we are going to turn off the breaker.  Then they received a cheque in the mail for $5 because they could not use their dryers.

My understanding from the gentleman at the home is that he was in touch with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing – and this goes back to March – the earliest time that the contractor can get in there to correct this is some time in June.  I mean, those people are there and they are scared.  Their families are scared, even though the breakers are off now, thank God, over the last few days.  So I had to place to call yesterday with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing – and I can understand the lady has not had time to get back to me on it yet, but I was just wondering if you were aware of that, or if it ever surfaced within Newfoundland and Labrador Housing that this was a serious issue, and that you are, yes, after the contractor to get in there as soon as possible.

MR. KING: Not to my attention. 

MR. SIMMS: We are aware of it generally.  First of all, we are not the ones who engage the contractors. 

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MR. SIMMS: The home is.  We just provide the money; they would engage the contractors.  In the meantime, we do inspections anyway with our own staff of all of our units plus community-based units.  The engineering technician at the time did send a letter out because they were told to check the dryer vents and told the people to check their dryer vents, in fact, when he did his annual inspection.  I do not think there is any other involvement on our particular part at all in that regard. 

MR. BUTLER: Really, it should be the operation or the administration at the home that should be after the contractor. 

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: That is not what they are telling us. 

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: He even gave me the name of the lady to call, who is dealing with it at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, so it is total confusion on their part as well.

MR. SIMMS: I will just summarize it for you again and we can certainly talk to the home; that is not a problem. 

MR. BUTLER: Alright. 

MR. SIMMS: To summarize it again, we have sixty-three of these community-based projects all around the Province.  They run the homes; they operate their facilities.  What we do is work with them in partnership by providing them with subsidies if they do not collect enough rent to cover the cost of their operations or if they need funding to help with some capital expenditures, but the partners run the homes.  They have their own boards and all the rest of it.  We help out whenever we are asked to help out.  

We will check on that particular thing and communicate with the chair of the board, I guess, you spoke to, did you, or the pastor or somebody?

MR. BUTLER: No, the gentleman, I think he is called the cottage co-ordinator. 

MR. SIMMS: Cottage co-ordinator. 

MR. BUTLER: I will tell you his name after. 

MR. SIMMS: Okay.

MR. BUTLER: I did not want to give it here and have it recorded.  I do not want to get anyone in trouble or anything like that. 

MR. SIMMS: Fair enough. 

MR. BUTLER: The last time that I spoke with them, they told me we have Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation under this issue; they are the ones who are trying to get the contractor in.  He told Housing that he cannot get there until sometime mid-June. 

That is okay. 

MR. KING: That is not unusual, what you are talking about, by the way, because I have had a number of those brought to me.  I had one in Garnish myself.  They are basically community-based, not-for-profit organizations who would have availed of some Housing funding at some point to build the homes but they run them themselves.  It is not unusual that you get a call from the group suggesting Housing is responsible, but there is a little bit of confusion there because, as Len said, they are responsible for operating the homes and we provide assistance and subsidies when required. 

We can have a chat after. 

MR. BUTLER: I appreciate that. 

That is it for me, Mr. Chair, on that issue. 

CHAIR: Thank you.

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.  .

I have just a few questions, because Roland has covered most of the ones that I would have asked, but a couple of more in relationship to them.

I am just wondering, Minister, if we could have an update on the corporation's work with regard to the renovation of old units and creating units, smaller units from the larger units.  There are a lot of places around where I can see that things are in a bit of a waiting period, so I just want to get an update on how quickly we are going to get all of that work done here in St. John's in particular.

MR. KING: Sure.  Do you want to speak to that?

MR. SIMMS: I think we have made significant progress in St. John's, and you have acknowledged that in the past, I think, as everybody; you just need to drive around the city.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. SIMMS:  A tremendous amount of work has been done, not only in St. John's but in the Province, thanks in part to the stimulus but also to the government increase of their capital funding three years ago or four years ago to the corporation.

I presume you are probably talking about the Froude Avenue, Cashin, Empire Avenue.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, and also Empire Avenue.

MR. SIMMS: That is a long-term project.  We have seen some good improvement there, but there is still a long way to go.  Some of the units we had to move people out of, in order to do a major overhaul, but I think we have done - on Froude Avenue, I think about a third, at least, of the buildings have been redone.  There are a couple of more budgeted for this year, I know.

Empire Avenue work continues.  There are two buildings down there now.  One is 80 per cent and one is 60 per cent complete.  Our engineering people are on top of the contractors in those cases all the time to try and make as much progress as possible.

Hoyles Avenue, there is a big building down on the end that has been a long time ongoing.  One of the difficulties we have run into in both of those areas, as with Marguerite's Place, which you are familiar with, has been with the discovery of a considerable amount of contamination; oil contamination, and that has set back a lot of the progress that we have made, or slowed down the progress, because we then have to spend additional money that we had not budgeted for.  Sometimes it is $100,000 just to repair and help fix a contamination issue.  So that is one of the reasons it is slowing down.  I do not know if that answers your question.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, it gives me a sense of where things are going, and that is what I wanted.  I should have said in the beginning, where I sort of came in mid-stream of the discussion, I would like to say up front, actually, to continue to thank NLHC for the great relationship that we have, my constituency office has, with NLHC.

I do want to note – now, Marianne is probably upstairs listening and she is going to tell me I am wrong on this one, but I do not think so - while housing is still the number one issue that we get calls about in the office, I have not heard as many calls with regard to concerns about tenants in the NLHC renting units not getting issues dealt with quickly.  Those calls seem to be down, while we are still getting the calls mostly about new people on the waiting list and people needing rental assistance.

MR. SIMMS: Actually, we did a study of that recently, an in-house study, and our maintenance calls are down by over 25 per cent.

MS MICHAEL: That fits with what I am saying.

MR. SIMMS: So obviously our workers are doing a good job, I think, in responding.

MS MICHAEL: I want to acknowledge that.

MR. SIMMS: I appreciate that.

MS MICHAEL: It is good for you to know what I am observing, and the two areas are the ones you have identified, the two areas that are still problematic.

MR. KING: I want to make a quick comment, if I might.  Thank you, first of all; I appreciate your compliments.  There certainly has been a focus on the service delivery side to try to expedite the resolution of problems, so it is nice to hear their work recognized.  Thank you.

The other piece I want to go back to, just for your own information, I do not know if I said this up front, but you asked about the ongoing work for the renovations.  This year's budget was just shy of $26 million and that is devoted to maintenance and long-term renovations.  I just want to make sure you are aware of that figure.

MS MICHAEL: Was that an increase, Minister?

MR. KING: Would have been an overall – ? No, that is what we have devoted to those two areas this year.

MR. SIMMS: It is an increase from what it was four years ago.  It went from $4 million to $12 million, the long-term.

MR. KING: Then $25.9 million is the actual figure.

MS MICHAEL: With regard to new housing units within your own stock, last year, for example, there were four units in Nain and this year there are four units in Hopedale.  What is the picture around the Province with regard to the need for new units?  With the waiting list, it would seem we have a need here as well in St. John's, but what is the overall picture?  It seems to be a slow process, Minister.  Four units at a time do not seem to be a lot.

MR. SIMMS: There are a lot of challenges associated with that particular issue.  We have been doing some research trying to identify ways of getting one-bedroom and two-bedroom units, because that is what we need.  We have run into a lot of difficulties during the research process; one being, if you call around, which we have done, to real estate agents looking for land.  First of all, it is difficult to find land, and when you do and they know it is the government or the Housing Corporation buying it, it is going to cost an arm and a leg.  That has been a bit of a challenge. 

Secondly, we have called a number of municipalities to see if they would - if funding were ever available – be interested in some kind of a partnership or whatever, land wise or servicing land, to provide more Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units.  The answer generally is uh-uh, and it is for the obvious usual reason, which is unfortunate.  So there is a challenge there. 

What we have been doing, the ones you mentioned that we have been building, we have built, and I think twenty-six or so in the last couple of years, some in Stephenville, some here in St. John's generally to replace something that had fallen apart or fallen down.  There has not been a big amount of construction of new units.  One of the things we have looked for is rent supplements, which we have been successful in getting.  We have also been doing some research in a couple of places: Corner Brook and St. John's. 

We have reconfiguration projects, one on Mundy Pond Road, in behind the Tim Hortons; there is a duplex there.  What we did is we moved the families out of the duplex, which contained eight people, into homes of their choice.  We took that duplex and we reconfigured it, literally cut it in quarters to make four single units.  If you drive by there now you will see the work is progressing favourably.  That helps with the wait-list, specifically those who are on the wait-list who are seniors in most cases, but single people, which is half the wait-list. 

We are doing bits and pieces like that.  That is a long process, too.  We did the same thing in Corner Brook except we did two each single units on top, and the bottom part we made into a completely fully accessible unit.  We are identifying housing, our own existing units in lower density areas where we may be able to do a continuation of that kind of work.  That alone cost $500 million but that is cheaper than building four brand new units. 

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. SIMMS: I think there is an interest to build some, but we have not actually gone after a big amount of funding for it yet, because there has not been enough identified.  We are building a duplex in Corner Brook out of our own capital funding for our own portfolio.  We are sort of trying to identify the best things we can do.  Through the research we bought a house.  That is another example of a thing we have tried.  We actually bought a house that had two apartments in it.  There are things like that that we can do.  It is ongoing but a long struggle, yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, long-term. 

Actually, Len's answer triggered something for me, Minister, a memory that I had during the last by-election in Corner Brook and at the housing stock in Corner Brook.  Now we would be interested in the plans for that, because it seemed to me that there was a lot of repair needed there and there are units that are closed.  I cannot remember the area; it is right up on the hill. 

MR. SIMMS: It used to be called Dunfield Park.

MS MICHAEL: That is it, yes.

MR. SIMMS: We have made fantastic progress there.  We have built or rebuilt or redeveloped or renewed, whatever you want to call it, whatever word you want to use - I have used them all to describe it - I think there are twenty-four units up there and we have redone, I think, eight of them; one-third of those buildings completely redone.  We are redoing the community centre over there and anybody from the West Coast, I think, will acknowledge - in fact, I was over there last week and had a meeting with the mayor and some of the councillors, and they acknowledged the significant work that is being done up there.  That comes out of our annual M&I Modernization Funding Project.  The last two years it was very helpful to have the stimulus funding, because we accelerated some of it and so on, so we have about a third of the buildings over there redone, and you would not recognize it.  They do not look like Housing, which is very helpful for most people, but there is still a lot to do over there.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: But, you are right, those units were built fifty years ago, or forty-five years ago, like a lot of the ones here.  For years the budget Province-wide was $4 million.  I mean, it can do about eight buildings Province-wide with that. 

MR. KING: We have tried each year to try and continue to grow the budget, as we have talked about a few minutes ago.  It is an interesting dilemma, and I think probably one thing we all agree upon is the challenge in housing.  We might disagree sometimes on the approach, but I think we all recognize there are challenges there.  We have tried to focus on a blended approach, as Len said, between building new units and providing rent supplements and affordable housing projects, and engage the public and those kinds of things, as best we can, to make sure that we are providing extra units. 

Housing also brings us a challenge similar to other areas.  I think of education and schools.  There are parts of the Province where we have units that we are not using - there is no need for them, or there is no interest in them - if you could take them, like some of our schools, and move them to the areas where you have the greatest demand; but, unfortunately we do not have that luxury. 

As Len has said, we have made significant gains and we do recognize that the challenges continue, but we are also very cognizant that we have invested a lot of money and we think we are making good strides; we just have to keep at it.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

I agree we have to keep at it, because Corner Brook is one place where you do need new units; so, the more quickly the ones that are not open right now can be done, the better it will be.  There are a number, I think; we are aware of that.

In relationship to all of that, then, Minister, I was wondering, could we have some detail?  I think the Home Repair Program is a very important program, the RRAP conversion in particular, and the rental rooming house issue too.  Could we just have some update on where things are under the Home Repair Program?

MR. KING: What kind of detail are you asking, in terms of the number of projects or just a general response?

MS MICHAEL: Well, I think both, actually, in both areas.  The general responses, especially under RRAP conversion, because that does have to do with helping have better low-income housing, and where the status is in responding.

MR. KING: I will make a couple of comments, and Len might want to add to it.  I think a general comment would be that we are very pleased with how the program has been working.  There has been good uptake and we generally are seeing very positive results that are having a good impact on people's homes and their pocketbooks in the long run.  At some point we might have more applicants than we are able to fund, but generally speaking it has been a very positive program and one we are very pleased to continue to support.

Len, I do not know if you have specific numbers on what we have there?

MR. SIMMS: Well, first of all, the good news, the really good news, is that the wait-list now for PHRP – affectionately known as RRAP but it is actually PHRP, for the record - in April 2006 it was 4,376 that were on the wait-list - never mind the current year applications that come in – and today it is down to 2,149, so we have made a lot of progress there.  Again, the Province doubled its contribution from $4 million to $8 million under that program, and that helped make a significant dent in deleting or eliminating the wait-list.  That is where we are heading, trying to eliminate the wait-list so that you are just dealing with the current applications.

The other good news about it is that the vast, vast majority of the funding for RRAP is in rural Newfoundland, mostly seniors.  It is all a component of affordable housing, because it is to help people stay in their homes, to be comfortable in their homes, and so on.

There are several components of PHRP, one of which is the one you referred to, RRAP, rental RRAP.  For a long, long time that was $500,000.  You could do forty units.  It is to provide funding to legitimate landlords, as we say, often referred to us by our community partners.  Choices for Youth and groups like that in St. John's often refer landlords to us.  They have units that are not in very good condition.  We will give them some funding to fix them up, as long as they rent them to low-income people.  In fact, now we have added an additional condition that they must at least look at our wait-list and interview some of our applicants.  This year in the Budget we had an increase of that from $500,000 to $1 million, so we are slowly improving the rental RRAP component of the program.  I think it is fair to say it is probably one of the most popular programs in the Housing Corporation's program operation, and certainly one of the most popular among MHAs, there is no doubt about that. 

MS MICHAEL: Right. 

I did note the increase in the money for the RRAP rental, and I was really glad to see that. 

MR. KING: If I could, one of the measures, I guess, from my perspective, at least, as an MHA, of the success would be that the number of applicants we receive continues to be about the same as we always had but the wait-list is down, and the length of time you have to wait is decreasing. 

One time, when I got elected first, it was probably well over three years, and now we are sort of getting below the three, perhaps towards the two-and-a-half year mark.  I think those are good indicators that the infusion of extra money through the budget is helping more people at a quicker pace than we have been doing in the past. 

MS MICHAEL: Maybe you will be able to get more money in the budget next year, Mr. Minister - 

MR. KING: I will do my best. 

MS MICHAEL: - and make it go even more quickly, because housing has – I am not going to give a sermon on housing, but we all know the implications of not having good housing, from health right on, social and health implications, and development of children, et cetera.  Like I said, I will not use this as a time to do that. 

I have just one more question, Minister.  In different parts of Canada, in other jurisdictions, when it comes to rental assistance programs, there are places where they give money directly to the tenants.  Have you looked at other places in Canada where that is how they do their rental assistance program?  Are you thinking about looking at it, if you have not? 

MR. KING: Yes, we have looked at it; that is probably the best thing to say to you.  We have not drawn the conclusion that is where we want to go at this point in time, but through Len's staff we have done research on that and we are well aware of the practices in other jurisdictions.  I think it is fair to say they vary. 

MR. SIMMS: There aren't too many that have it, actually, but we have met with some of the components of it in other jurisdictions, and so on and so forth.  It is called the allowance, personal allowance, the housing allowance.  There are some challenges with it because you do not know what the limited income would be.  It is where they give maybe $100 in some cases to any individual who wants it to help them go find an apartment, and so on and so forth. 

It is part of what we have been doing in terms of research, but we have not gone down that road yet.  We have stuck with the rent supplement program, and that probably works fairly well for us, but it is not completely ruled out; but it could cost a lot of money.  That is one of the issues in the research, exactly how many people would fall into the category.

MS MICHAEL: Which, I suppose, could be shaped by how you would do it, if you chose to do it.

MR. SIMMS: Yes.  It could be $50 per person or whatever.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.  I think they are all of my questions on the Housing. 

Thank you.

MR. BUTLER: I have just a couple.  I think back to a couple of years ago, and I was just wondering, is it still in play now - I think it used to be called portable units?

MR. SIMMS: Portable units?

MR. BUTLER: Portable units; like, for instance, you –

MR. SIMMS: I think we had granny flats before my time.

MR. BUTLER: That is probably not the exact title on it, but I know at one time – I am just wondering, is that program still available, or has that gone by the wayside?

MR. SIMMS: It used to be called granny flats.

MR. BUTLER: What was that?

MR. SIMMS: Granny flats.  That was before my time and it is not a program in place now.

MR. KING: And that is a long ways back.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, well, even before me; that will give you some idea of how old that was.

MR. BUTLER: I would not have asked it, if I thought it was back that far.

[Laughter]

MR. SIMMS: We might bring in some grandpa flats, maybe.

MR. BUTLER: It seems like it was only a few years ago there was a gentleman I was dealing with in our area, and he was saying this was a possibility.  They had two or three units somewhere else in the Province, and if they became available they could move them for him.  I guess it is an old program, but it is probably still ongoing.

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. KING: We have not talked about this, but now that you mention it, there are some units in Fortune that years ago, I think, might have been brought in, on a trailer or something like that.  Modular homes, is it, we are calling them, or I think they used to be called?

MR. SIMMS: Granny flats.

MR. KING: That might be what you are referring to.  They built the basement and they brought the homes in and dropped them.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.  Anyway, it is not there.

MR. SIMMS: We actually did a modular project up there on Empire Avenue West.  There was a new company in Newfoundland just a few years ago; I think they were constructing them out in Makinsons.  I do not think they are in business any more now, but we did a tender to put six units up there, and they were the successful tender.  That is what they were: modular homes.  Prior to the company existing here, they used to bring them in from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, but they never met the tender requirements, but in this particular case they did, and there are six units up on Empire Avenue West, very nice units. They did a good job.  Unfortunately, the company went out of business just after we paid them, but they did a good job on the housing units.

MR. BUTLER: My only other comment is with regard to the PHRP.  I think that is an excellent program.  It is good to see that funding is continuing there.  I know many people in my area use that, and in the surrounding area.

I was going to mention it at the beginning, but I said I will leave it to the end, but maybe the Housing officials will leave before all of this is over, and I say this every year, Minister, it is an excellent relationship with the staff at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.  I know there is a gentleman, Mr. Whelan, and any time I e-mail him, I can tell you, if my e-mail goes to him at 8:00 o'clock in the morning, by 8:30 I have a reply.  It might not be what I want to hear, but it is an excellent response, I have to say.  Not only him, but all the staff there, so I want to commend them for that.

MR. KING: I just want to thank both of you for that, because there are days, obviously, we will have some political barbs in here, but it is nice that you recognize the work of staff who are on the ground working very hard and doing their best.  So, thank you and Ms Michael for your comments; they are appreciated.

MR. BUTLER: I am just referring to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.  I can honestly say the same with – we might not always agree with what goes on, but Workers Compensation, the same thing; the relationship there, when you are calling on behalf of clients, I have to say, is excellent.

MR. KING: Thank you.  I appreciate it very much.

CHAIR: Ms Michael, you have another question?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, just one more question that I missed. 

It has been a couple of years now since the last affordable housing proposal.  Is anything happening – I know it is federal-provincial – and where are things around that?

MR. KING: The short answer is, we are ready to go.  Negotiations were pretty well done, but when the federal government got dissolved it got held up.  So, I guess right now we are waiting for Parliament to resume, and hopefully –

MS MICHAEL: June 2.

MR. KING: June 2.

Hopefully it will be just a routine matter that they will approve the housing project.  Ours is in the Budget and ready to roll out.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much, and thanks to the minister and the NLHC for a really good discussion here this morning.

CHAIR: Okay, that completes Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. 

I will ask the Clerk to call the heading.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: 1.1.01. 

Shall 1.1.01 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CLERK: 1.1.02.

CHAIR: 1.1.02. 

Shall 1.1.02 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subhead 1.1.02 carried.

CLERK: The total.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

On motion, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, total heads carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Estimates of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation carried without amendment.

MR. KING: Which are we doing next?

CHAIR: What is the choice of the Committee?

MR. KING: Do you have an order you are following?

CHAIR: We have them listed here.  Is there any desire on how we proceed, or any preference on how you want to proceed?

MR. KING: If you guys are okay, maybe we could do Workers and Labour Relations.  I am just thinking the department, where it is a bigger entity, might take more time, and rather than have people sitting around – are you okay with that?

CHAIR: Okay, we will proceed with that.

MR. KING: So, Workers first?

CHAIR: Yes, Labour Relations, I guess, together.

MR. KING: No.

CHAIR: Workers first?

MR. KING: We will do Workers, I guess, first?

CHAIR: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Beginning with section 7, Labour Relations - of the Budget, I mean.  We talked about beginning with section 7.1.01, and from there on.

CHAIR: That is the Labour Relations Agency.  Do you want to –

MR. KING: Labour Relations Agency?

CHAIR: Yes, page 231.

MR. KING: Just give me a minute to –

CHAIR: Yes, go ahead.

MR. KING: Just give us a few minutes to get ready.

What sections do you have, just for the record, for me?

CHAIR: We are at section 7.1.01; it is under the heading Labour Relations Agency.

MR. KING: Yes.

Okay, Mr. Chair, when you are ready.

CHAIR: You are ready to go?

MR. KING: Yes.

CHAIR: Okay, we will go to our Committee for Labour Relations Agency.

Mr. Butler?

MR. BUTLER: Okay.  Now, I did not have my questions by the division, but that is okay, we will try to get through it.

First of all, just a couple of one-liners there with regard to Labour Relations, we are into now, is it not – 7.1.01, the one-liners, under 01, Salaries.  I know it was budgeted $358,000 and it was revised at $770,000.  I was just wondering if you could explain that increase to us.

MR. KING: Yes, that is attributed to a number of staff changes, and payout of annual leave and severance and a couple of things, one-time funding.

MR. BUTLER: Under 7.1.02. Administration and Planning, 05. Professional Services; I notice there was nothing budgeted but it was revised to 300,000.

MR. KING: Number which?

MR. BUTLER: .05. Professional Services, under 7.1.02.

MR. KING: That is the Voisey's Bay inquiry.

MR. BUTLER: 7.1.04. Standing Fish Price Setting Panel; I know it is budgeted there under 01. Salaries $91,400 and it was revised to $75,600.

MR. KING: That is basically attributed to – let me rephrase it.  We budget there $91,400 for anticipation of meetings of the board, and things like that.  We had a lesser requirement there this particular year than we would have anticipated in the budget.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, when it comes to the Fish Price Setting Panel, I guess we have heard criticisms, even calls for it to be dismantled, and so on. I was just wondering how come, for instance, this year the processors did not go into the hearings?  Were they obligated, I should say, under the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Unit?  I was just wondering, could you just give me a brief explanation on that for the Fish Price Setting Panel?

MR. KING: The panel is a little bit interesting because the majority of the questions in the House go to Minister Jackman, because of the fishery, but the panel falls with us from the regulatory perspective.  The panel was established a few years ago at the request of the fishing industry, both the unions and the processors.  Our role is basically to become engaged when we are invited to become engaged.  We do not insert ourselves, we being the panel; we do not insert ourselves in the process.

So if at some point, like this year, the lobster fishermen and the buyers get to a point where they cannot agree, then they invite the panel to become involved.  The panel will establish hearing dates and invite both parties to present, which is what happened.  In this particular case one party chose not to attend, which was their right to do.  The panel came back with what they felt was a fair reasonable price.  The party that did not attend then came back and asked to have reconsideration, and then they did attend the second committee of the panel.  Then the panel readjusted the price and some of the rest of it, I guess, is history. 

Yes, the answer essentially is that we become involved when we are invited to become involved.  We hear both parties and try to come back with – the panel comes back with what they feel is a reasonable price.  It is open for both parties to make representation to the panel before they make their decision.

MR. BUTLER: I am just wondering, are there any more forthcoming amendments to the panel that might be considered, or is everything status quo?

MR. KING: We are always open to suggestions for improvement and we are always considering learning lessons from past events, but at this point in time I cannot say to you honestly that there is anything that we have on the docket that we are bringing forward, no.

MR. BUTLER: With regard to the membership, I guess the members are there for a certain period of time, who are on the panel now, or will they be up for review soon?  How does that work?

MR. KING: The members are appointed for – I will just make sure I am correct on this – a three-year period.  We seek nominations from the industry, private sector, whomever; it is a public call, really.  Government, through my department, through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, makes the appointments.  Right now the current membership we – just help me a little bit.

OFFICIAL: Two others.

MR. KING: Yes, we just reappointed two others.

OFFICIAL: Rosalind Walsh and Edwin Hussey. Yes, they continue to serve, they are regular members. 

MR. KING: The way the panel is structured, if terms expire, which they have for regular members, they continue to be a part of the panel until such a time as they are replaced or renewed.  The current panel members, their terms have expired.  I chose not to do anything with it this year, given the timelines of when it expired, and we are coming into the fishing season and so on. 

Alternate members, though, are different.  Alternate members cannot serve unless they are appointed, so we just appointed two alternate members.  They have a two-year or three-year? - they have a three-year term, so the two new members there now have a three-year term as alternates.  They only sit in the absence of one of the regular panel members. 

Just for your information, we were asked to consider that this year because there was a possibility that one, if not two, of the panel members were not sure they would be here through the entire duration of the fishing season.  It was important that we allow the panel to meet, so we appointed two alternates.

MR. BUTLER: Under 7.1.04 Standing Fish Price Setting Panel where it says Salaries, is that what the members of the panel would receive for remuneration for serving on the panel or is there something beyond that? 

MR. KING: O4?

MR. BUTLER: 7.1.04, where is says -

MR. KING: Yes, under Salaries 01.

That is per diems, yes.

MR. BUTLER: I was just wondering, can you provide us with a list of recommendations made by the panel, anything that you could provide with that, in relation to that?

MR. KING: I can follow up for you, but my recollection is that no recommendations per se come to me.  The only thing comes is a letter advising that the panel met, and they have decided on such-and-such a price. 

OFFICIAL: The decisions are on the Web site. 

MR. KING: They are public decisions, so I can provide that for you.  The only thing that comes to me is a notification that the panel met on such a date, they had a hearing, and here is the price for this particular product. 

MR. BUTLER: This is just a general question.  That particular panel - and probably you just answered it there - would they get involved in issues like we heard recently about outside buyers and so on?  Do they make any recommendations to you, as minister, or - nothing along those lines?

MR. KING: No, their mandate is purely in a case of a dispute between a price for a lobster or a crab or something like that to serve as arbitration, if you will, to hear both panels and then make a decision. 

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

We said we were doing workplace too, now, or both of them together.

MR. KING: No.  If you do not mind -

MR. BUTLER: Just labour, that is fine.

MR. KING: We will get through one group. 

MR. BUTLER: Minimum wage, would that fall under the labour component?  It would?

MR. KING: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I think I asked this question last year, and I do not think there was any feedback per se.  There was a report that came out from British Columbia back a couple or three years ago saying that, when they had increased their minimum wage to $10 per hour, there were quite a few positions that they lost overall, because I guess restaurants or whatever laid people off and so on.  I have seen some of that in my area, nothing massive, but since it went to $10 an hour I know for a fact that some of the smaller businesses laid off individuals or cut back on their hours.  I was just wondering – don't get me wrong; I am not against the $10 an hour; I think it is wonderful, and it probably should be $15, but - has there been any feedback to your department along those lines saying that it has happened very much throughout the Province?

MR. KING: I think most of the feedback - and this was initially before I was minister - most of the feedback probably came in the early stages, and you would all recollect that, when a number of businesses and entities expressed concern, but since the time of introduction there has been nothing brought to our attention through Labour Relations to indicate that there has been any significant fallout from that.

MR. BUTLER: Are there any plans for any additional increases in the minimum wage in the foreseeable future?

MR. KING: Well, we had to do a review.  Our last review was July 2010, and the legislation requires one every two years.  By July 2012 we will have to have concluded another review.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Chair, I will pass it over to Ms Michael now.  I may have some other ones here, but I have to go through the list and see where I have them mixed in through.

CHAIR: Sure. 

MR. KING: No problem; that is fine.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

MR. KING: By the way, if it gets a little confusing I can have workers stay.  I am not trying to pigeonhole you here.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you. 

No, I am quite comfortable with doing what you are doing.  It is very clear, the sections that we are dealing with.  I do have my questions organized that way, so it is not difficult for me and it seems like it is okay for Roland, so this is quite acceptable. 

I just have a couple of more questions.  I want to come back to section 7.1.02.05. Professional Services.  You gave us the explanation of the $300,000; that was for the Voisey's Bay review.  That piece of work is finished, we know, because we now have the report, but you have $200,000 in this year's budget.  Are you anticipating something or is that just contingency?

MR. KING: That is also the Voisey's Bay review. 

MS MICHAEL: Is it?

MR. KING: The initial $300,000 was not for the entire inquiry.  There are still some bills outstanding, so we have put a nominal amount there – or, not a nominal amount, but we put an amount there that we feel will cover the rest of the costs, but it is totally the Voisey's Bay.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, all of it is the Voisey's Bay. 

MR. KING: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you. 

Under subhead 06. Purchased Services, the expenditure was $42,800 over what had been budgeted.  What was that extra expense for, under Purchased Services?

MR. KING: There were seven or eight small things there, but primarily the largest expense had to do with some renovations we had to do to our office spaces, which were a result of occupational health requirements for some employees.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

MR. KING: Accessible washrooms and those kinds of things.

MS MICHAEL: Right.  Okay, thank you very much. 

Under 7.1.03 – actually, I do not have a line item there - I think that is all pretty explanatory, but a couple of questions related to that section.  Do you have any expectation, Minister, of when the labour relations review is going to be finished, or is it such an ongoing thing that there is no actual date set for that review?

MR. KING: You are referring to part of what you and I chatted about yesterday on the committee work, and some of the legislation we brought in the fall?

MS MICHAEL: The whole review, yes, that is going on.

MR. KING: Yes.  I am just going to look to Rachelle.  I do not know if we have a definitive timeline, or do we?

MS COCHRANE: Minister, it is really up to the committee, and it is a tripartite process.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS COCHRANE: So we are working our way through it.  It is a long process to go through the legislation, so there is no firm date set.  It is when they conclude their work.

MS MICHAEL: Just keep working at it.  That review –

MR. KING: Is a tripartite committee, as you know.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I realize.

MR. KING: So, it is not one that we totally control in-house.

MS MICHAEL: Right. 

The review that is happening, that is just with regard to labour relations, is it?  Is the committee going to be looking at labour standards as well?

MS COCHRANE: The committee has focused primarily now on labour relations, and that was the priority they set.  They have not had a discussion yet on labour standards.  I think if I had to speak for them, their number one priority is labour relations at the moment.

MS MICHAEL: Right. 

Of course, it is a tripartite committee, so while the department is not independent, government is on that committee, so government is part of the discussions because it is tripartite.

MR. KING: Absolutely, yes.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.  So the committee has its own life but government is part of that life; the department is part of that life.

MR. KING: Absolutely, yes.  My only reason for making the point was to say that this is not a piece of work we are doing in-house.

MS MICHAEL: No.

MR. KING: We are part of a group process.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Does the department itself have priority with regard to standards?  Do you see that as something that you would like to see the committee handle once it deals with the relations aspect?

MR. KING: Yes, personally - and I have not had this discussion with Rachelle, but personally I think it would be a natural evolution to move from where we are into the labour standards.  I do not have an issue with that; I think it is something that we need to pursue.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Just one other question: With regard to the awareness campaign in the schools, with regard to labour standards, how is that going?

MS COCHRANE: Very good.  We have had several meetings with the Canadian Federation of Students, and they have given us advice on our products, in trying to reach youth.  We are currently in discussions, and they are well advanced, with a promotional firm on how we are going to reach out using Twitter, and Facebook, and other types of social media that we are not currently familiar with.  So, they are recommending that we reach out to youth to get them instantaneous access to questions and answers, so they can do this instantly.  We are well along on that.  We are hoping to launch it some time this year; it should be in the next little while. 

MS MICHAEL: So, the modules are still being put together.

MS COCHRANE: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: I would assume, Minister, the whole issue of occupational health and safety is a major piece of that, because of the stats that we have on injuries with young workers.

MR. KING: It is, and we will probably have a chat about that shortly, but I was going to make the comment to you that the school system is one of primary focus for us in terms of the whole piece of student labour and educating them early about the workplace, and the things they need to be aware of.  The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, we will touch on it in a few moments and I will give you some more detail, but we have had a great campaign there as well; encouraging, by the way, if I can get a plug in for you and your constituents, Passport to Safety.  There is an online diploma, if you will, that students can go in and do a short course and get a certificate saying that they have completed this.  I have been advertising it to as many as I can, so I want to pass that on to you, in case you were not aware.  It is a good opportunity for students to go in and take advantage.

MS MICHAEL: I was not aware, actually.

The other piece, of course, is the rights; because young workers, as we know, can really be exploited quite seriously, and that is something that they really have to be aware of: their rights.

MR. KING: Absolutely.

MS MICHAEL: The ongoing issue, of course, and I do not think there is any real resolution of it, is people's fear to claim their rights, because of retribution and then loss of job because they have taken action.  Even though we might have all our Human Rights laws against that, it still happens because they cannot prove that is why they have been let go.  I do not know how you deal with that, in doing the education with young people.

MR. KING: I think it is about an awareness campaign more than anything.  It is an issue, like many in society, where people have to be prepared to come forward in order for us to help them; but we feel collectively, I think, that a good way to try and inform people and to get ahead of that battle is through education at the school system, when they are young and impressionable, and get them before they get into the workforce.  That has really been our primary focus.  Whether that is on sort of the labour side of the rights as a new employee in the workforce, or whether it is on the safety side talking about what it means to be in a safe workplace and what your rights are to expect to work in a safe workplace, either/or of those.  I think our focus has primarily been on making people aware of what it means and aware of what their rights are.  We do believe that if we can be successful in that kind of a campaign we hopefully will reduce, if not eliminate, the kinds of individuals that you are describing. 

MS MICHAEL: It is a good effort. 

Thank very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, just a couple of other questions with regard to employment rates.  Do we know, Minister, how many people - I know there are some, too many probably, but we would like to see them all stay here in the Province - do we have any numbers on a monthly or yearly basis of people who may be still leaving the Province to find work, or even those who are working outside, just travelling back and forth?  Are there any numbers on that, that you are aware of?

MR. KING: About 5 per cent to 7 per cent.  I look to Baxter because we just had this discussion a couple of days ago.  About 5 per cent to 7 per cent of the workforce; it fluctuates.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Minister, we know that youth unemployment is high in the Province.  Many of them are taking skilled trades, and when they are finished, hopefully, the day will come when they can all find work here, but I know in my area there are still a few who have to go outside the Province.  I am just wondering what plans are in place to try and keep all our skilled trades people here in the Province?  I know it probably cannot be done now, but with other developments that will happen.  What is your view on that, and what plans would your department have along those lines?

MR. KING: Well, my view on it is - I will just pick Ms Michael's words; I will not give you a sermon on this, but I can do that from my previous time in education - my view on it is there is a two-part process.  We need the public sector to step up with government, and I am not convinced that we are getting the kind of support we need in the private sector.  I am not convinced that people recognize the benefits to bringing young apprentices into their organization - the benefits to the apprentice and the benefits to their own employees - and that is a piece that we have been focusing on.

We also recognize that we need to provide greater opportunities for apprentices through our ability to provide financial support, and we are doing that.  As you might be aware, the Government Hiring Apprenticeship Program, we put more than $1 million extra money in that.  I think I did that, actually, just before I was transferred to this department.

The other significant piece that we just announced is the Wage Subsidy Program.  Right now, for the benefit of those who may not be aware, we did an announcement at the College of the North Atlantic over here.  We will provide now - for employers who want to hire apprentices, 90 per cent of the wage is covered by government.  So, a guy running an electrical company out in Clarke's Beach can come in, and for 10 per cent of the wages he can hire a new apprentice and provide an opportunity for the apprentice to advance and also, of course, it is cheap labour for the employer.

We think those are good programs.  We also have the graduate hiring program.  All of those are important, but the challenge, Mr. Butler, I believe, is we can continue to invest money but we have to have employers out there who are prepared to take them on.  Government has the capability to take on a large number of apprentices, but we cannot take them all on; we are not in that kind of a business.

We have to continue to focus on not only investing in the apprenticeship program but other opportunities where we can provide financial assistance to employers.  We also need employers and employer organizations to recognize the value of training our own people, and helping them through to the Red Seal process.

MR. BUTLER: I was just reminded, seeing you mentioned it, that I had another question here, over further, about the Graduate Employment Program.  I am glad you mentioned that because that is a good program.  I was just wondering, can you provide us with some figures on the number of people that might be taking part in that program throughout the Province?

MR. KING: Do you have any figures on graduate employment?

MS TOOPE: 220.

MR. BUTLER: 220.

That is it for me, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MR. KING: Now, you strayed.  You know that, right?  You strayed.

MR. BUTLER: When you mentioned it I said, well….

MR. KING: No problem.  We are good on labour relations?

CHAIR: I think we are done on labour relations. 

Is workers' compensation next, or what do you want to do?

MR. KING: What is next on your list?  Is it workers'?

CHAIR: It does not matter; the list is fluid.

MR. KING: The Review Division of Workers' Compensation falls under the Labour Relations Agency, so if you want to do that now while the staff are here we could.

Ms Michael, are you okay with that?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

CHAIR: So we are doing the Workers' Compensation Review Division?

MR. KING: That would be head 8.1.01, I think.

CHAIR: Yes, page 234.

MR. BUTLER: Did you say 8.1.01?

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: The only question I have there is under 07.  I know it is not a large amount of money, but the budget was $8,000 revised to $5,000 and up again.  That was for Property, Furnishings and Equipment.

MR. KING: The budget for $8,000 has been there for awhile.  We have been short-staffed on commissioners and on office staff this year.  We have gone through a number of changes and we have not had the need, if you will, to replace a lot of the furniture that we might have otherwise, so we had a savings of $3,000. 

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The amount there, the total Amount to be Voted on, I know it was budgeted $957,000, revised to $756,000 and this year it is up to almost $1.1 million.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Yes, under the revenue there. 

MR. KING: Okay, you are looking at Amount to be Voted, 02, $957,000 budgeted, $756,000.  The reduction obviously is attributed to a number of savings throughout the line items up through the top.  There has been some salary savings, some furniture savings, and a few other things. 

The increases are a result of a number of new positions that we are going to be putting in including – you may or may not be aware of this but last year we put a 0.5 position solicitor in the review tribunal and we are now going to increase that to a full-time legal position.  There have been a number of staff changes, allocations, and that is what has brought the budget up.  This funding by the way for your information, in case you are not aware, is 100 per cent through the workers' compensation board.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I think that is the only question.  I might have another one after but you can switch it over to Ms Michael.

CHAIR: Okay.

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Basically, that was going to be my question.  It had to do with the influx under Salaries and I have that explanation.  Again, just to say I am not going to get into policy or anything with regard to workplace health, safety and compensation, but I do have to say that recently again with regard to my constituency assistant and the work that she does for me, I think she does get good co-operation on issues that she has been bringing forward.  We do get resolution.  We are able to help people in working with the commission to get the resolution of issues for people, so I want to acknowledge that. 

Thank you.

MR. KING: Thank you very much.  I appreciate that.

MR. BUTLER: Will you mention the (inaudible) -

MR. KING: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Do you mean also under that heading the external review, like the appeal process?  No, okay.

MR. KING: Yes, this is the group.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.  I just have one question there.  I attend quite a few reviews once it reaches that level.  I was just wondering I think a couple of years ago I asked the numbers of how many appeals now – I know that list was dropping tremendously and I am just wondering what is the status of it today versus a few years ago? 

MR. KING: We have about 500 active appeals on an annual basis.  For 2010-2011, we had 331 new appeals and we had 163 appeals that were ongoing and carried forward.  I am not sure how that relates to past - can you, Rachelle?

MS COCHRANE: Yes.  There has been only a drop of three cases from 2009-2010, so it is relatively constant now. 

MR. BUTLER: I could not hear what you said, I am sorry for that.

MS COCHRANE: From 2009-2010, we have seen a decrease of three cases.  The caseload is relatively constant at the moment.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The other question, I guess, in relation to that: How is the relationship between workers' compensation, the employer and the employee?  I know a lot of those appeals that I go to there is quite a difference between what the employer believes in and what the employee, the situation they find themselves in.  I know there are different training programs through workers' compensation with the employers.  Have you seen a tremendous increase in the better relationship between the two over the last few years? 

MR. KING: I think the relationship is positive.  It is always a challenge when you are talking about an appeal process because the only reason you are there is because an individual disagrees with a decision of the workers' compensation division.  There is always arguably going to be some tension and conflict there, and I will ask Rachelle or Leslie if they would like to add to that comment.  I think the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Division has done a great job, through Leslie's efforts, to reach out to employers and employees throughout the Province and educate them on the process and what it is all about and try to be proactive.  As I said, undoubtedly, when you get to the appeal board there are challenges anyway because somebody is there because they did not like an answer they received. 

Would you like to respond, Rachelle or Leslie? 

MS COCHRANE: Leslie will speak to the commission itself.

MS GALWAY: With respect to the commission, I think we have numerous programs to assist both the employers and the labour people who are affected.  We do that through the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council.  They have a specialist that will work with the employers and they assist preparing them for the appeals process, as they do through the Federation of Labour.

In addition to that, we will do everything we can prior to it getting to appeal to make sure that we have assisted both parties with the information that they require.  It often starts in the internal appeal level before it goes outside of the commission itself.  At that time, at the very beginning phase, we try to resolve as many of the cases as possible.  In 2010, just as an example, we had a total of 1,300 appeals that would commence and 307 of those would have been resolved before they actually had to go through the internal appeals process.  We work very actively with both parties to make sure that they have as much information and assistance as we can. 

MR. BUTLER: This is probably through another department, but I will ask the question anyway.  When it comes to visiting the sites of employers and so on, do you have any officials that visit the sites from time to time or are they notified when you are coming for various programs, educational programs, or do you do inspections on an unannounced visitation? 

MR. KING: The inspection, if you want to use that word, process would be with Government Services.  They are responsible for the occupational health and safety, the legislative side of things.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. KING: The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission would be engaged in visits, predominantly if they are invited.  I will ask Leslie to add to this, if she would like to, in a couple of moments.  The focus of the division is not on the legislation and making sure you are following the rules as much as it is providing advice on how the workplace can be improved.

I will, just for example, remind you of a discussion, I think, that occurred in the Legislature here not long ago on one of government's departments, on a report that was completed on the workplace.  That was a good example where the workplace division was invited in to offer some advice and direction on how the workplace could have been improved, how safety might be improved and those kinds of things, but it was done on an invitation basis.  So that is not a regulatory or a legislative process, that is more of an opportunity that the commission would grab to try and talk face to face to an employer, government department and workers, about safety in the workplace and provide advice on the kinds of things that might be done to improve the workplace, which ultimately, hopefully, will reduce or alleviate any future claims against the commission as a result of workplace injury.  The regulatory legislative piece would be through Government Services. 

Leslie, is there anything you want to add to that? 

MS GALWAY: Yes, Minister. 

We have the prevention mandate at the commission and the enforcement is with the Occupational Health and Safety Branch of Government Services, so it is under the prevention mandate that some of the programs you were referring to would arise.  We do go in, as the minister explained, on invitation.  Sometimes we like to call in advance and encourage the invitation as well.  In that way we are hopeful that we can assist employers and workplace parties address some of their Occupational Health and Safety issues, and have more of a safety culture within the organization.

We also go in to do special prime audits as well, which is part of our assessment program, and it ties in with Occupational Health and Safety minimum standards so that we can double-check, assure, educate, make people aware of their responsibilities under the legislation.  We have a very active workshop program, and we will go over anything from working alone, violence in the workplace, new Occupational Health and Safety regulations just to get, again, the workplace parties and the employers up to speed.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

This is probably more of a comment than it is a question. One of the things that I see, having been involved now for twenty-two years, and doing quite a few appeals on behalf of constituents, I find the relationship between an employer and an employee, after an injury, after the appeal process, both internal and external, the relationship is not there, and many employees find it very difficult to even have that employer – not all of them, a few of them – to even get back on the job site.  They hardly offer them lighter work in the beginning to try to get them back into the position they were in prior to their injury.  The other thing, many of them just try to find a way to wean them away.  Once they have been injured once, they are afraid it could reoccur again. 

This is only a comment, and I know there is nothing you can do about that, there is very little anyone can do about it, but it is unfortunate when it comes to that position, when someone gets injured on the work site and they find themselves in that position.  I have seen that several times over the last few years, and that is very unfortunate.

MR. KING: I agree.

MR. BUTLER: That is it for me there.

MR. KING: You can continue with the workplace, if you like, now that we have sort of brought Leslie in, by the way.

CHAIR: Ms Michael?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, go to Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Just one – I just have to find it now.  I have been a bit distracted; I have a couple of issues I have had to deal with here.  I am just wondering about spot-checks of work sites, where that is going.  Have you increased the numbers, and what are the results of doing these spot-checks of work sites?

MR. KING: That would fall with Government Services.  As Leslie said a few minutes ago, the regulatory -

MS MICHAEL: I am sorry, I missed that.

MR. KING: That is fine.

The regulatory side, spot-checks for enforcement would fall with the Department of Government Services.  The Workplace Safety Commission is responsible for the prevention side. 

MS MICHAEL: Okay.  I am sorry I missed that; maybe it was when I was out.

MR. KING: That is fine.

MS MICHAEL: Well, that is it.

I do not know if Ms Galway did talk, then, about what is being done around prevention.  If she did I will not ask her to repeat it, but if not I would like to know what programs are happening around prevention.

MR. KING: We can talk about it for a few minutes, sure.

MS GALWAY: Programs around prevention are targeted in several ways.  For the employers that are having more incidents in the workplace we have a more defined program.  Again, it is by invitation but we will go in and do Occupational Health and Safety audits.  We will do special workshops with them.  We get our compensation services people together with prevention, so we can talk about the best way to do disability management as well. 

We also have programs that are tied into changes in Occupational Health and Safety.  We have workshops and presentations, and outreach that we do in the prevention area.  We have very targeted youth programs as well.  We have assisted with the Department of Education in introducing curriculum into the career development skill trades and workplace safety 3220 course.  We have our game show, Who Wants to Save a Life?  We have very involved youth strategies so that we can begin to look at other areas where risk to youth may be the highest youth at risk, individuals like that.  We are looking at how to develop the program further in those areas as well.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

MR. BUTLER: Seeing you mentioned Occupational Health and Safety, I guess it came up here in the House anyway, there were three Occupational Health and Safety co-ordinators that work with the Department of Government Services that were released at the end of March, I think it was.  My understanding is that one or two of them used to do some work within your department.  I was just wondering, the work that they set out to do, was that completed?  How is that carried out? 

Now, I could be wrong there but I was almost sure that it was -

MR. KING: I cannot speak for the minister but I will give you an observation.  I think the individuals you are talking about were seconded to do a project, and I think the project was not in our department.  I think one or two of them might have been employees of ours who were seconded out to another department -   

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MR. KING: - but the piece of work was actually in Government Services.  My understanding is that they were brought in for a period of time, twelve or fifteen months, they completed the project and they were going back to their original positions. 

MR. BUTLER: So, in actual fact they were not doing anything on the Occupational Health and Safety side with training of anyone within your department from where they were with Government Services?

MR. KING: Let us find out for sure rather than give you a concrete answer, but to the best of my knowledge they were not; but we will check that.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you. 

Okay, that was heading 8.1.01.  Where do you want to go from here?  Just the rest of the Estimates, what is left? 

OFFICIAL: Yes.

CHAIR: Okay, fine. 

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great.  Thank you.

MR. KING: Where are we?

CHAIR: We are just going to go to what is left, I think.

MR. KING: So, Labour and Workers…?

CHAIR: Labour and Workers were done. 

MR. KING: Okay. 

I am going to dismiss them, if they would like to leave, but if something comes up that you want to pursue after then I will get it for you, okay?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

CHAIR: Okay.  Since we are done with those, I will ask the Clerk to call the headings. 

MR. KING: Thank you.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

MR. KING: Mr. Chair, can we have just a two minute recess to just run to the washroom?

CHAIR: We are just going to call the headings and then we will do that, okay?

MR. KING: Oh, sorry, okay.

CLERK: 7.1.01 to 8.1.01 inclusive.

CHAIR: 7.1.01 to 8.1.01. 

Shall these carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 7.1.01 through 8.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, total heads carried.

CHAIR: Okay, we will just take a recess for five minutes.

Recess

CHAIR: Okay, we will continue. 

We will go to our Committee.  Who is ready? 

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you. 

From just about here on in, I am going to be going through the budget sections, beginning with 1.2.02.01, Salaries.  Could we just have an explanation of that line, Minister?  The amount for Salaries has gone up from the budget last year to the revision, and now to the estimates for this year. 

MR. KING: The increase from the budget last year was to pay out for retiring and departed employees' annual leave and severance.  The increased budgeted amount this year accounts for the negotiated wage increase for government employees. 

MS MICHAEL: Okay, so just the normal business. 

MR. KING: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: In subhead 06 in the same section, Purchased Services were up by almost $500,000 last year over the revision.  Something unexpected, I guess, must have happened there. 

MR. KING: Yes, we did a couple of things that we did not have in that particular budget, and you will find that there are savings elsewhere to make up for that, but two particular things: one was service excellence training for employees throughout the Province, particularly our front line employees; and the other, we had made some investments in some technical things, debit card machines and credit card machines for local offices, so if someone is coming into the Marystown office they can pay their bill, and things like that. 

They were kind of one-time expenses, not part of the normal budget that we would have had there.  We found savings elsewhere to compensate for that. 

MS MICHAEL: Okay.  Thank you very much. 

In section 1.2.03, I think the salary, probably the answers are the same to that.  That is pretty logical; I will not go near that one.

Subhead 03, Transportation and Works was budgeted $330,500 last year and it has gone down considerably this year.  So, what was the difference?  Maybe that is part of what you have just explained; I do not know.

MR. KING: Two things happened.  One is, we used less than we anticipated we would use in employee travel.  We tried to be a little more frugal over it.  As you probably have noticed throughout here, where there are some increases, that is one of the areas we targeted; we will manage it with a lower budget so we can spend some money elsewhere.

MS MICHAEL: That is what I thought maybe, based on your last explanation.  Thank you.

Under 06 Purchased Services, here the amount has moved up considerably.  What is causing the Purchased Services to go up?  Is it something new coming in under that?

MR. KING: Just to be clear, item 06 Purchased Services?

MS MICHAEL: That is right, yes.

MR. KING: The increase in expenditure last year was primarily with the establishment of our Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities.  The increase in the budget for this year basically is to reflect some of our actual expenditures, in particular the Labour Market Division.  We have been incurring expenditures, and you will see, if you look at the last two previous budgets, we have gone over each time.  So we have made adjustments within our base where you will see decreases and increases, but it is intended to reflect the actual expenditure.

So there is not one particular item that we are going to spend money on; it is just a case that we have been going over the last couple of years.  We are bringing it in line with what we have been spending it on anyway.  The Labour Market Division is a piece of that.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that makes sense.  Thank you. 

Let me just try to get things in order here now.  Under 10 Grants and Subsidies, that is subhead 10 in the same section 1.2.03, the grants and subsidies have gone up significantly, by over $200,000.  Could you explain what those grants and subsidies are, where that money goes, and why it has gone up so much?

MR. KING: There have been a couple of explanations for that one.  I am going to explain this in a simple way, if I can.  We removed $176,000 from that category, and it shows up elsewhere for Para-Transit, but we added $400,000 of new spending for the anticipated Provincial Strategy for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities.  If you do the math, $224,000 is a result of taking out $176,000 and adding back $400,000.  Does that make sense? 

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I can see that.  Where, in general, or maybe more specifically rather than in general - a large part of that money of the $526,000 is going towards the strategy with regard to Persons with Disabilities.  Is that what you are saying? 

MR. KING: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: A big chunk of it. 

MR. KING: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Then, where would the rest of the money under Grants and Subsidies there be going? 

MR. KING: Just bear with me, if you would, for a second. 

MS MICHAEL: Sure.  We all understand the paper shuffle that has to go on. 

MR. KING: I do not have a list here for you, but it works out that the remaining $100,000 or so is grants primarily focused on community agencies – a variety of mandates – which are looking to facilitate employment, like getting females back in the workforce, and a variety of projects like that.  I could get a list for you, but it is a small amount and it goes out in small amounts.  Some of these groups who do not get core funding, for example, we provide some one-time assistance.  It ends up in a lot of cases that the one-time assistance goes year over year, but that is what it is intended for. 

MS MICHAEL: Maybe you could, after the fact, send us a list of those grants and subsidies? 

MR. KING: I am sorry.  Just one second, now; I want to clarify something here. 

I am sorry; my apologies.  I gave you an answer to the wrong category.  I am sorry about that. 

MS MICHAEL: That is all right. 

MR. KING: The bulk of the remainder of the money there, beyond the $400,000, is a grant that we provide to St. John's, the City of St. John's, for the Para-Transit system.  I am sorry about that. 

MS MICHAEL: Great.  Thank you. 

MR. KING: My eyes went to another category there by mistake. 

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

When we get to that one you can say, yes, you will send me the list. 

MR. KING: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you. 

Under 2.1.01.04., there was a significant over expenditure last year from $178,800 to $291,700, and this year you are still over the $200,000 range.  What exactly was that big increase about?

MR. KING: The biggest piece of that expenditure – there are some odds and ends there of materials, but the biggest piece of that is we are engaged in a process of moving from paper file to electronic file all of the work that we received from the federal government through the LMDA for the devolution process.  So, we are in the process now of transferring all of that to electronic format and to initiating ourselves on electronic format.  It is just taking considerable time and considerable money to transfer the documents.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KING: That is where the bulk of that is.

MS MICHAEL: Minister, in relationship then to what you just said, you do not seem to have any big changes in salaries.  Is this a workload that people have had to add then to their regular workload?  Because it is significant in dollars, it must be significant in time as well.

MR. KING: The short answer for that is that the salaries here are for client service employees.  They are not necessarily LMDA employees who are engaged in that process.

MS MICHAEL: No, okay.

MR. KING: Even though we have budgeted here in this category for some of the electronic transfer, some of the work is being done, you will find, in another section here under labour market.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. KING: Different employees, yes. 

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. KING: The salaries here, Ms Michael, would basically be all of our staff out in the regions.

MS MICHAEL: Right, okay, and yet this piece comes in here.  Why would that piece then be in here, the piece that you have described, because it is LMDA?  Why would you have put it in here and not under labour relations?  I am just curious.

MR. KING: The short answer, again, to that is this is a one-time piece that we had not budgeted for.  Our funding, that we will get to in minute, under the LMDA, there is a predefined amount of money and we are capped on expenditures there for administration as part of the agreement with the federal government.  This is a piece of work that we decided we needed to do once we went through the devolution process.  Once we decided that, we had to find the money within our own budget.  This is a category where we felt we could find the money.  It is a one-time expenditure and this is where we are finding it.

MS MICHAEL: Well, I am going to hazard a guess now, thanks to my researcher here.  Could it be also that it is because it is the software that you are talking about is related to client records, and under this client services the delivery of all your services for individuals?  It would seem to me that –

MR. KING: Yes.  That is why we would have targeted that area, yes.

MS MICHAEL: Would target it there; it fits there because it is really individual client records that you are talking about.

MR. KING: It is.  That is correct, yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. 

Then under 06, there is a big jump there also last year.  Is that related, or is this something new?

MR. KING: That is predominantly related to, again the LMDA file and the increased activity in the regions, and we have to find money to respond to groups and individuals.  It has been an interesting year for us, to be frank with you, on that whole file. 

We inherited the LMDA through the devolution process but we did not inherit a lot of corporate memory.  There have been lots of challenges, and I am sure maybe you guys have stories on some of that.  This particular category, I guess what we saw was a lot of increased activity out in the regions, meetings and things like that, and hopefully one-time spending because we think we have sort of crossed the bridge on that now.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much. 

Under 05, you did not have anything under Professional Services last year, neither a budget nor a revision but this year you have $75,000.  Is this just a contingency thing or is there something in particular?

MR. KING: No, we have partnered with the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission to do an assessment of all of our regional office work sites for worker safety.  We are going to have audits done of all of our work sites and develop an action plan. 

We have had instances, angry clients and so on, as I am sure you can appreciate, have entered the workplace and worker safety has been jeopardized.  This is a one-time fee to go out and assess all of our workplaces and determine what we might need to do to make it safer for employees. 

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you. 

I know you did train new client service officers last year.  Is that training finished or is that an ongoing thing?

MR. KING: The service for excellence training, I assume you are referring to, that is ongoing.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.  How is that proceeding?

MR. KING: Good.

MS MICHAEL: In terms of numbers.

MR. KING: Yes, the numbers are good and we are getting through it.  We have adopted a strong client focus.  Personally, as the minister, I am not happy with some things I hear in some offices.  I am not sure people are as client centered as they ought to be.  Hopefully, through this process there will be kind of a layered approach.  We have covered right now almost 500 employees throughout the Province and I think as we get through the process people will get better. 

I do not want to sort of leave you with the view that all is bad because not all is bad but I keep saying to staff, the people you see in these offices are the most vulnerable.  They are coming because they need your help.  The minute they come in you have to welcome them, you have to be supportive and do your best to help them.  We have some instances Ms Michael where that is not happening.  That is why we are making this investment.

MS MICHAEL: Right, and I am certainly aware of instances where it is not happening because of course we do get phone calls from people who are not happy with how they get treated sometimes or the attitude that is shown. 

MR. KING: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: One of the ongoing issues I think, and it would be interesting to know where you are with this in terms of dealing with it, is the need for people to be able to get back to the same person, to be able to feel that they are being dealt with; their issues are being dealt with and getting back to the same person. 

One of the things we sometimes get, I have had reports on, is they may eventually get a letter and they get the name and the phone number of the person they are going to be dealing with and they will call but they can never get the person on the phone.  They still have to leave messages and do not get called back.  On paper, to you if you received it, it might look like they are getting personal attention but the experience is not that they are getting the personal attention it is on paper only.  It is almost like the letter of the law is being kept.  The officer and social worker or whatever knows: okay, I am the one.  I have been assigned and I have done the letter but then the client still cannot make connection with that person.  I do not know if you have heard that or not but we are getting that.

MR. KING: Yes, I have heard some complaints, no question about that.  I think hopefully at least the message we can leave with you and Mr. Butler and others around the client service training is that we recognize it is a challenge and that is why we are investing in that.  To be frank with you, it is a pet peeve of mine, and I had it when I was in Education because I used to deal with apprenticeship officers.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KING: It used to bug me to no end to hear horror stories where someone cannot get a phone call returned or someone reaches somebody who is rude and snotty to them and not treating them with respect.  It has been a big focus for me.  The service excellence training was started before I got in the department but I have had extensive discussions with the deputy about where I want it to be.  Clearly, I think you and I would share the view on that -

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. KING: - that we have to be very cognizant of the kinds of people we are dealing with.  Not always, maybe, can we help them to the best of what they would like, but no one should come away feeling like they have been disrespected or treated bad.  That is the piece, more than anything, that I want to focus on.  People, as you said, if they are dealing with a client service officer, there is no reason that they cannot get follow-up activity from that person, not be shuffled around from door to door or telephone to telephone.

MS MICHAEL: That is right.  I really agree with you; we really are in agreement.  People are the most vulnerable, these people who are going to the client service officers.  One of the areas where I do get particular complaints is when people are on disability assistance, when they are even more vulnerable, because very often the disability assistance is probably related to some kind of a mental disorder, not just physical.  So the multiplication of people's vulnerability, it just goes on and on.  So I am really glad to hear that you are focusing on it, I have to say, because it is extremely important.

I am willing to let Roland take over at this point.  I have more questions.

CHAIR: Okay.

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Minister, just a couple of questions with regard to the Poverty Reduction Strategy, I know the second four-year action plan was more or less presented to you recently, or what have you.  I am just wondering, what is a time frame when that would be released?  I am not aware of it being released; maybe I am wrong there too.  I am just wondering if you can make a few comments on that, having seen the second four-year plan versus what took place previously.

MR. KING: I do not think I can give you a definitive timeline, to be frank.  Now, maybe Baxter will correct me on that.  Our consultations have been completed, as you know, and they were very successful and we heard lots of interesting views, by the way.  Some of which were very complimentary to what we are doing, and some others were very frank that you need to do things differently, which is all a part of the exercise.

We have now developed a document summarizing what we heard from clients and constituents out there.  Our division now is in the process of processing that and putting together what will be the shape of a new four-year Poverty Reduction Strategy.  I am guessing that it is probably three or four months away, maybe.  That is a rough timeline.  There are a lot of things happening, and it takes a lot of time and we continue to go back and re-consult on issues like that when we are looking for clarification and so on.

We did engage, to facilitate the process, a couple of consultants as well – facilitators, I should say. 

I am pleased with the process, Mr. Butler; I am pleased with where it is.  Hopefully, the document that will come forward will enhance what we have been doing and be reflective again of some of the things that we have heard from the public. 

MR. BUTLER: I guess one of the biggest issues that I see is the food banks and it amazes me the numbers that we hear – if they are all correct – from time to time, the numbers of people who are using food banks here in our Province.  To be honest with you, it amazes me.  I should not say this but I am going to say it anyway: I wonder if the actual usage of the food banks is not abused sometimes to see the numbers that we have here in this Province. 

I was just wondering, in the consultations that took place in your second four-year plan, did you hear much about the food bank issue and do you think there will be any new programs or plans put in place with reference to that? 

MR. KING: The food bank is an interesting discussion, to say the least.  I agree with you around the concerns.  One of the things, I guess, or observations I would make to you is while we continue to see an increase in food bank usage, and it is a challenge and it is concerning, our rate of increase in Newfoundland and Labrador is substantially below the national rate.  It is not a Newfoundland and Labrador phenomenon that there is increased usage, it is a national thing; I think a little shy of 10 per cent increase last year, nationally. 

We have had multiple discussions, internally, trying to figure out, in spite of all of what we feel are really good things we are doing for poverty and to assist low-income families, why it is that the increase is continuing.  I guess one of the conclusions I would draw is that some people's wages continue to rise.  I think Ms Michael might have raised this at one point, I am not sure.  I am not putting words in your mouth, but I think you might have raised something like this.  Not everybody at the low-income level has seen the same degree of income rise as others, costs of food and other materials continue to rise.  It is a challenge as to how we reach out to try to bring that number down.  I am still not totally convinced that that number can be translated to mean that we are not doing anything to assist poverty.  I do not buy that argument, but I agree with you, it is an issue and a challenge and I do not have the answers.  I am not trying to beat around the bush with you, I really do not know. 

MR. BUTLER: I think a couple of years ago during Estimates it was indicated that a review of rates for Income Support used to be undertaken.  I was just wondering if that review has been completed and if you could give us a report on that.

MR. KING: I am just looking for a couple of notes that I had made here on that, actually.

There are a couple of comments I would share with you on that, Mr. Butler.  There is a review underway right now but it is not a review of rates, it is a review of the legislation.  We have been doing meetings across the Province with stakeholders but that is about the legislative piece, not the rate piece.  We have increased the rate, 2.4 per cent was budgeted this year, and that is tied to the Consumer Price Index.  At this stage that is the only rate that we have factored in is the CPI. 

MR. BUTLER: I would anticipate the numbers of individuals on Income Support have probably decreased over the last two or three years.  I think that was stated before.  I was just wondering: Is that the case now and how many applicants would be, say, the age of thirty or older?

MR. KING: The number of applicants - did you say thirty and over? 

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. KING: I actually have a very detailed breakdown here, but just to give you a snapshot: From thirty to thirty-four years of age, there were 2,692 applicants.  One of the interesting things is - I went through this the other night.  I have to look at Baxter so he can correct me if I say this the wrong way.  The number of clients from last year to this year increased and the number of cases decreased, or is it the reverse?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. KING: Yes, the number of clients on Income Support has decreased but the number of cases has increased, sorry.  It could be the case that there are fewer individuals applying or it could be the case that there are more individuals and fewer families.  Sorry, I will get that right.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.  That is okay.

I have to say I was impressed recently, just a few minutes ago, when you talked about the excellent service and so on for the clients.  It was many moons ago I worked in the department, it was called the Department of Social Services at that time, and I know what the individuals, on a daily basis, have to go through.  It is unfortunate to hear cases where some of the people think they are not being treated fairly.  There are cases like that; there is no doubt about it.  They have to deal with some individuals who are not too easy to deal with, let me assure you, but then again when they walk away at least they should think that they received a good service. 

I think the last two or three years I have brought this one up, and I have to bring it up again because I still get phone calls about it, and it has to do with phone calls.  The system that is put in place, I think the system is good, but there is a breakdown there somewhere.  Only recently I had a case in my area where a client was dealing with someone, and that was not the issue, they were getting excellent service, but a lawyer had to become involved; there was some paperwork that had to be done to settle the case. 

This gentleman called me and said: I was on the line for forty minutes.  I said: Yes, I have tried it on times, and sometimes you are there for quite a long while, and they say, I am sorry; you have to call back later, or what have you. 

I was just wondering, do you get many calls about the telephone system?  I know I do.  Not as many as what it was first when it came in, but it amazes me to know that someone could be on a line for thirty minutes.  I know they are busy.  I understand that.  I work there; I know what they go through.  With the new phone system, is there anything being done?  How many people actually handle the calls that are coming in?  I know you must get an enormous number of calls; I understand that.  I was just wondering if you could make a comment on that.  Do you get much feedback with the phone system?

MR. KING: I will make a couple of comments, and I will ask Roxie if she has some numbers that you could share, specifics.  I have gotten the same kinds of calls over the last number of years, as you have.  I am sure, as MHAs, none of our districts are unique from the others; we all get the same kinds of issues to deal with.

MR. BUTLER: That is right.

MR. KING: As a matter of fact, I did one myself one day just to try it.  I actually called and it was very frustrating – very frustrating – but there have been a number of challenges with the technology.  That has been a big piece of the problem.  We have seen some significant improvements over the last period of time, Mr. Butler, with that.  I think it is fair to say that we are not getting the same kinds of complaints now in numbers that we used to get. 

I will ask Roxie if she could give you some numbers to see if we can put a context around it a little bit.

MS WHEATON:  To give you an idea, I guess, of how far we have come, not to certainly preclude that we do not have room for improvement, but when we started making modifications we were receiving – and I am predominantly talking about the Avalon Region here, because overall in the department on an annual basis we take about half-a-million calls and we have four toll-free lines, but knowing you are predominantly talking about the Avalon - we were having about 44,000 calls a month, and we were having about 30,000 of those actually getting disconnected on us.  People would be actually in the queue and they were getting disconnected.  So we have moved substantially; we have introduced a number of technological changes. 

What we did, though, before we started making changes, we really tried to understand why clients are calling us.  What are the top five reasons you are calling?  As a result of that, we were able to make some changes so that people were easily able to get into - for example, if you were applying, you went directly to applications.  Recently we have made changes so that if you are calling regarding medical transportation you go directly to that unit.

We have gone from 44,000 calls coming in, to now we are down to about 15,000 calls.  That gives you a sense of just the reduction in repeat calls.  Earlier I said we were having about 30,000 disconnected.  As of March, our disconnections have all been eliminated.  We continue to make changes.  The other thing, as well, is we have introduced e-mail as a service option and we are getting a lot of positive feedback on that service, particularly from persons with disabilities.  So, we are not out of the woods yet.

One of the other interesting things we were able to discover is that we have 23,000 or 24,000 cases, and it varies at any given time.  About 3 per cent to 4 per cent of our clients are calling us on a regular basis.  The majority of clients do not actually call us for regular service.  What we have been doing is trying to figure out - to go back to your comment, Ms Michael - some of the challenges of people getting moved around, and trying to figure out which cases need case manage services and those who really just call and want general information about their case.

That is some of the work we have been doing and are continuing to do.  All of that is contributing to helping us reach our goal.  The next piece we are working on is, we recognize now that certain days of the week, certain hours of the day, and certain days of the month, our call volume goes through the roof, really.  So, we are adjusting some of our staffing schedules to compensate for that.

MR. BUTLER: I agree with you.  I think it has a lot to do with the weather on days.  I get the same thing.

MR. KING: Yes, you can predict it. 

Just to clarify the last point, we are hoping to have another ten staff dedicated to peak times.  We are going to adjust some of our staffing allocations now to create some less than full-time positions so that we have the flexibility to have people working at peak times.  We have a number of employees who are very interested in taking advantage of less than full-time employment.  So hopefully there will be another ten positions we will be able to dedicate to the telephone.

MR. BUTLER: I want to make a comment on this.  I hope by bringing this up the staff there do not think I am complaining about it.  It is just that calls I get coming in - because any time I want to find anything out, there is one lady there that I call; she is always on the job and gets back to me fairly quickly.  It is not an issue that I do not get information when I am looking for it, but those people on the line they say from time to time they get cut off and have to wait.

The other issue I was going to mention to you, Sir, is the on-line mail-back system.  Apparently, this allows individuals to call in about the employed income support recipients, to report their earnings on line.  I was just wondering how effective is the system and how many people use that particular system.

MR. KING: Would you have the number, Roxie?

The system itself is a good system.  I will just give you that quick comment.  I think a lot of people are availing of it and find it very convenient, but I do not have a number.

MS WHEATON: I do not have the latest number.  On average it is about 600 or 700 clients, and it varies, who are getting a supplement to their earnings.

I can tell you that, because this model has been in place, we are actually doing a bit of a review and talking to clients as to how we can improve.  We do get a lot of positive feedback, but there are obviously opportunities for improvement.

MR. BUTLER: In the Budget, Minister, there was $64,900 increased funding in the program for the mother baby nutritional program.  I was just wondering how many families currently are involved and receive this particular benefit.

MR. KING: Are you interested yourself?

MR. BUTLER: I think after the next couple of weeks, when I retire.

[Laughter]

MR. KING: We have about 400 on a monthly basis; about 400 access.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

MR. KING: It is focused on low-income, below $22,630.

MR. BUTLER: Sorry about that.  That is in Hansard, too, by the way.

The Provincial Nominee Program - and I am not complaining about the program; it is a good program - the Auditor General, I guess, from time to time brings various issues up, and I was just wondering.  I know there was a system to be put in place trying to track down the people that come to the Province.  Some of them did not show here, and they were wondering where they were.  I was just wondering, what are the numbers that actually come through the program to this Province and remain here?  I know they can move on after a certain time, but I think the Auditor General was concerned that there were some they could not even find, where they are.  I was just wondering how that system has developed over the last year or so.

MR. KING: I am hunting around just looking for my numbers.  I am going to ask Nellie if she might be able to grab that off the top of her head.  Do you have it there?

MS BURKE: I can certainly speak to the folks that we have nominated since our department took over the program in March 2007 – or actually April 1, 2007.  We actually did a retention study last fall, and of all of those who had received their permanent resident status through the federal system, 81 per cent of them were still in the Province.  I cannot speak to the ones that were nominated before the program came to our department. 

MR. KING: I just have a couple of numbers for you; it is about 300 nominees and about 600 people, with an 81 per cent to 82 per cent retention rate. 

MR. BUTLER: With regard to the immigration policy, I am just wondering, how is the Province's immigration policy proceeding?  To tie into that, I was wondering, what is the status of the new International Graduate Retention Incentive Program? 

MR. KING: Again, I will give a general comment, and ask Nellie to provide some context.  I think in a general sense we are very pleased with how the immigration strategy has been working.  I have been engaged actively in that file, actually, over the last three or four months, attending a number of events and meeting with a number of groups, and the feedback certainly is very positive. 

One of the things that none of you would be surprised at, I am sure, is that when you talk to people who have come in here through this strategy, they are just overwhelmed with the kindness and the welcome that they receive from the Province in general.  I think we all know that is the case generally speaking, and it has been a real selling feature for us when we talk about the Province, when we send people on missions and so on, that Newfoundland and Labrador has such a strong reputation as being a nice people, nice persons.  Even in what we call a large city like St. John's, most people who come here see this as a small spot to live. 

Nellie, do you want to add some more context to that, please?

MS BURKE: Sure.

With respect to our strategy, which was launched in 2007, we had eighteen goals and 163 action items, and we just recently did an audit, actually, as to how we were doing with all of those action items.  I am pleased to say that we have completed, or they are well under way - we have started 157 of them, or 96 per cent of our action items.  We are pleased with that, and the results are showing because the overall numbers are starting to increase in terms of total landings annually. 

Pre-strategy we were getting about 400 a year, and in 2010 when the final numbers come in now in June we are going to exceed 700 in that year.  To date, under the Nominee Program, since we took it over, we have nominated 1,329 people.  That is men, women and children.  They are from seventy-nine countries and they are destined, or have already settled in forty-nine communities in our Province.  Just over 50 per cent of those people are in St. John's, and almost 50 per cent are outside St. John's, so the spread is really good, in forty-nine communities.  We are doing a lot of work around welcoming communities, and I think that is adding to the fact that our retention is high.

MR. BUTLER: That is very encouraging, I have to say.  Having, over the last four or five years, travelled to quite a few of the parliamentary conferences that we have, that is a big issue that you hear from all the provinces, is the plan that they have in place.  It is good to see that we are moving in that direction.  It is almost like what we hear when we go to those other provinces, and the benefits that they derive from it. 

Apart from one-liners, I think I have one other question and that has to do with the Provincial Strategy for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities.  I was just wondering, what is the current status of that strategy?

MR. KING: We are very close to being able to launch that.  We have finished the consultations.  I met with the Provincial Advisory Council about a week-and-a-half ago or so, I think it was - that is my second meeting over the last two months - and had a chat with them.  They are taking time to go through what we heard, and to offer their advice, guidance and direction on where they want us to move with the strategy. 

Work is ongoing now with the development of the document that will form the basis of the direction that we want to take.  Also, because we were unsure about the timing of the strategy, we had no specific budget request.  We have budgeted, as I said a few moments ago, $400,000 as an initial amount to get the strategy kick-started. 

Again, it is probably similar to the poverty reduction; you are looking at maybe a three to four month window.  I talked to Joanne MacDonald not long ago, actually.  Joanne, who chairs the advisory council, reminds me that while we are moving forward with it, it is important that we take our time and get it done right.  I am certainly offering my support to that. 

We will take some guidance from the provincial committee while our own officials continue to work on it, but you are probably several months away yet.

MR. BUTLER: Very good. 

I will turn it over to Ms Michael.

CHAIR: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you. 

You will be happy to know that a lot of my questions have been asked, so I will not repeat them.  I just want to make sure there is nothing in any section that I wanted to ask that has not been.

There is one, Minister, under 3.1.01 Income Support.  I am just wondering, under the revenue subhead 02, the provincial revenue, what is the source of that revenue?  Where is that coming from, and why last year was it down by $1.1 million?

MR. KING: The primary source of the revenue there is clients owing money back to the Province; so the revenue would be repayments that we receive.  The difference in the budget can be attributed in large part to clients choosing to come in and negotiate with our office a repayment method.  So, if you take the budgeted amount, we anticipated more lump sum payments and therefore $5.4 million.  We did not get that, but it is a good news story because what it means is individuals have come in and recognized they owe X number of dollars, and they have negotiated to pay it pay it back over maybe a five- or ten-year period.  We will get the money back; it is just that it is going to take a longer time to get it.  The good news is that more people are repaying what they received in overpayment. 

MS MICHAEL: What would be the reasons for having to do the repayment?  Is it all that they were accidentally overpaid?  It seems to be a lot of money, to me, to have to be repaid. 

MR. KING: It could be a combination of accidentally overpaid, or clients misrepresenting their income and then getting caught up through other mechanisms. 

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. KING: It is not all overpayments. 

MS MICHAEL: Okay.  Thank you.

All right then.  Moving into a new section, 4.1.01 Employment Development Programs, a simple question under subhead 10, Grants and Subsidies, I see that there is an increase in this year.  Was there a particular reason for the increase of about $3 million, number one?  Number two, could we have a list of those grants and subsidies?  That might be where you misread the last time, I do not know, around grants and subsidies. 

MR. KING: The increase is the announcement we made in the Budget to increase our funding to Supportive Living in the Province.

MS MICHAEL: To?

MR. KING: Supportive living.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, Supportive Living, right. 

I do not need you to read it out now, but could we just receive a list of the grants and subsidies?

MR. KING: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Unless you have some that you would like to particularly mention. 

MR. KING: I can give you a list, but I can give you a snapshot if you want to get a flavour for them. 

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. KING: Association for New Canadians would be $114,000; Choices for Youth shelter, $279,000; Community Centre Alliance, $165,000; the Murphy Center Outreach, $115,000; Stella Burry HOPEworks, $392,000; Stella Burry New Beginnings, $709,000; we have Dunfield Park Community Center, $60,000.  I am just picking a couple to give you an idea, now. 

MS MICHAEL: Yes, thank you.

MR. KING: Under the Supportive Living Partnerships, Choices for Youth get $500,531; Marguerite's Place, $379,000; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and Homelessness Network, $159,000; Community Education Network in Stephenville, $61,000; Stella Burry Community Services outreach, $312,000, to give you some idea.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, thank you very much.  They are all good groups, all good programs.

Moving down to section 4.1.02, a number of areas here, first of all, subhead 01 Salaries, could we have an explanation of the variations there?  This is a big increase for this year.

MR. KING: Two explanations; first of all, the decrease was that we budgeted for some salary-related expenses when we inherited it from the federal government that we did not have to assume, so the savings is related to that.  The increase is similar to a couple of answers before that I gave you.  It is all about the wage increase.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

MR. KING: Government negotiated a wage increase - 4 per cent, I think.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

Under subhead 03 Transportation and Communications, it is going down quite significantly to just $22,000, having been up last year to $191,300, what is the explanation there?

MR. KING: I think similar to the one I gave you earlier.  We went over budget on this because of a lot of activity related to the newness of the program and having to be out across the Province and meeting with people.  We have made a deliberate attempt here to decrease it, and we will live within the budget so that we can reallocate that to a couple of other places you saw earlier.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, so down to $22,000.

MR. KING: What we have done, generally speaking, throughout the budget you are going to see that the bottom line change in the budget is only related to a number of initiatives that were announced in the budget, but there is a lot of movement in money.  We have re-profiled some funding, we are going to save some in transportation here and there, and we are going to increase funding for some groups and organizations in other categories.

MS MICHAEL: Right, thank you.

Under subhead 05 Professional Services, it was budgeted last year for $1.2 million and was significantly underspent, which is being reflected again this year.  So what was understood there that did not happen?

MR. KING: We budgeted last year for a new electronic case management system for the department and substantial savings were realized as a result of the project not moving to the degree we thought it would.

MS MICHAEL: So, are you not moving ahead with that program then?

MR. KING: Yes, we are.  We are moving ahead with it, but we have made some changes to what we are doing and we have found some monies elsewhere.

Baxter, I do not know if you want to elaborate a little bit on that?

MS MICHAEL: You are you only budgeting $250,000 this year, in this line anyway.

MR. KING: We are moving forward with it, yes, but the major capital purchase that we had to make has been done.  The primary function left now is the training and the implementation of the system.  That would reduce our ask for this year.

MS MICHAEL: I am still trying to get a handle then on $1.2 million down to $310,000.

MR. KING: Let me go back.  We budgeted $1.2 million for capital purchase of some software and related equipment.  It came in significantly below the budgeted amount that we needed.  This was a one-time amount to purchase the materials for the new system.  We have now brought it back to $250,000 because primarily what is going to be required now is some training of staff and things.  We have the capital purchases made.

MS MICHAEL: So you have made no changes in what you were going to purchase, it is just that it was way under what you thought?

MR. KING: Yes.  We are moving forward with the system, yes.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Subhead 06 Purchased Services is going up by over $200,000 this year.  What is going in there?  Is there something new going in under Purchased Services, I guess, is the question?

MR. KING: That one is for office leases across the Province.  The budget is now being adjusted to reflect what we have been spending.  I think if you check you will probably find over previous years we have always been over budget.  So we have adjusted now to let it reflect actually what we are spending.

MS MICHAEL: If you are with other departments, we are finding other departments have to pay more for leases.  A lot of departments have had this kind of thing happen.

Just let me check my notes here now and make sure I have all my questions.  Under subhead 09. Allowances and Assistance, the amount of money has gone down significantly.  It started at $86 million budgeted last year and only $76 million was spent.  This year we are spending $78.4 million.  Could you explain the variation there?

MR. KING: Yes, the first explanation on the decrease was when we received the program from the federal government there was a budgeting error across two departments, our department and the Department of Education.  The error was that part of the funding that we receive from the federal government built in $20 million that goes through the Department of Education to the College of the North Atlantic.  They budgeted a portion of that money and we budgeted a portion of that money.  The correction was about adjusting the budget because we did not need to spend it twice. 

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. KING: The adjustment this year to $78 million is basically intended to reflect that.  So the oversight that was made last year now should be corrected.  Our budget will be adjusted and the Department of Education's will be adjusted. 

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Subhead 10. Grants and Subsidies have gone down quite significantly from where it first started at $59.2 million.

MR. KING: One second now, I am just looking at the notes here.

MS MICHAEL: Sure.

MR. KING: Yes, sorry I was in the wrong spot again.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, no problem.

MR. KING: My apologies – welcome.  It is the same explanation.  The $20 million was spread over these two categories.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. KING: So there is a savings of just about $10 million in one, $10 million in the other. 

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KING: That is all on the same issue, the double budgeting with us and the Department of Education.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Even at that, the revision down to $50 million explains that, but then why the drop from $50 million down to $35.6 million?

OFFICIAL: Loss of the stimulus.

MR. KING: Yes, that reflects loss of the stimulus money from the federal government.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. KING: There was some stimulus funding built in there.

MS MICHAEL: That explains then the federal revenue going down to $122 million, there was economic stimulus money in there.

MR. KING: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great.  That explains all that mess then, because that one really had a lot of questions.

MR. KING: We have a big audience, Ms Michael, I am not sure if you are aware.

MS MICHAEL: I just noticed; that is right.

MR. KING: Up behind you as well.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, behind us too.

MR. KING: Welcome.

CHAIR: Welcome to the House.

MS MICHAEL: Maybe we should wave to them. 

MR. KING: Sorry to interrupt you.

MS MICHAEL: No, that is fine.  It is nice to see young faces up in the gallery.

We can go on.  I think I have asked all my questions.  Thank you very much for all those answers, that is helpful.

Section 4.1.03 – oh no, there was one more question.  Under the Labour Market Agreement, could we have a list of the grants – no, where were we?  The Labour Market Development Agreement, could we have a list of the grants and subsidies, please.  Where were we before?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Section 4.1.02.

MR. KING: Number 10.

MS MICHAEL: Number 10, if we could have a list of the grants and subsidies.

If you want to give me a flavour now that would be fine, but giving us a list after the fact would be fine also.

MR. KING: 4.1.03, correct?

MS MICHAEL: No, 4.1.02.

MR. KING: Sorry, I am ahead of you again.

MS MICHAEL: I was in 4.1.03, but I realized I did not ask for the list of grants and subsidies under 4.1.02.

MR. KING: On that particular category, there is not a list I can give you.  That is employee support, not group support. 

MS MICHAEL: Oh, okay.

MR. KING: Skills training and those kinds of things.

MS MICHAEL: All right, that is fine, just so we know where that money is going.  Thank you.

Now we can move to 4.1.03.  I think the Salaries are just the 4 per cent increase in the negotiated agreements, I will not ask that. 

Under subhead 03 Transportation and Communications, a big adjustment downward last year and then up somewhat this year but still not up to the budgeted item of last year.

MR. KING: A couple of things there.  First of all, we went from $460,000 to $256,000.  Some of that was related to delayed implementation of a number of programs that fall under the Labour Market Agreement.  The increase this year, projected increase, is reflecting what we are anticipating to be cash flow.  Some of these programs do not flow with the budget year, they flow through.  The projections would have to do with allocations out there now for certain projects, cash flow. 

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Under 05.Professional Services, the budget last year was $1.4 million and adjusted down to $528,000, and this year back up to $964,000, just an explanation of that line, please. 

MR. KING: The savings last year reflect the projects that were approved, so we had less uptake in this particular category for the budgeted amount than we anticipated, so there were savings.  The budgeted amount this year reflects what has been approved and what we anticipated receiving based on last year. 

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. KING: We have tried to match the budget, as best we can, to what reality might be. 

MS MICHAEL: Right.

The money that comes out from here provides for everything from employment and training supports to unemployed individuals, low skilled employed individuals, employers and community agencies.  The individuals who get money under this area, is this something they learn about through community agencies and through employers? 

MR. KING: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, mainly.

MR. KING: Through our career work centres, or what some people used to call social services offices, where there are a variety of services. 

MS MICHAEL: Yes, right.

MR. KING: If they are looking to get back in the workforce, they go in to get some career counselling, then we will typically put a program in place to help them out, and it can be a variety of supports. 

MS MICHAEL: Right.  Thank you.

Then, under subhead 06 Purchased Services again, it started at $490,100, adjusted downward to $235,000 and this year up to $601,000. 

MR. KING: The exact explanation as I provided for the previous one.  The savings were lower than anticipated projects being approved.  The increase reflects what we anticipate coming, plus the cash flow. 

MS MICHAEL: Okay.  Thank you. 

Under Allowances and Assistance, a lot of variation here because you start at $6.5 million, adjusted upward by $1 million and now this year down to just over $2 million.

MR. KING: Stimulus money, predominantly. 

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. KING: We had a whole pile of stimulus money from the federal government over a couple of year period and that has now ended, so that budget is adjusted to reflect that. 

MS MICHAEL: Okay, and that is reflected in the revenue line as well?

MR. KING: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, the same as the other one.  I think that is all I have there.

Heading 4.1.04, which basically has to do with the impact on – mainly dealing with older workers, I think, the money here.  I do not see any big question here, to tell you the truth.  Just under subhead 01. Salaries, what does that $44,000 reflect? 

MR. KING: That is the employee who manages this program in the department. 

MS MICHAEL: So there is just one employee who manages the program?  I thought maybe that is what it was.

Okay, I am ready to pass it on.  If Mr. Butler wants to ask some more, I can take a break. 

CHAIR: Thank you. 

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I have a couple, and they are one liners, Minister.  Under 1.1.01 Minister's Office 03, the same numbers are right straight through, $48,500; is that correct? 

MR. KING: Item 06 Purchased Services? 

MR. BUTLER: No, Transportation and Communications. 

MR. KING: Sorry, $48,500, yes.

MR. BUTLER: The figure is consistent right through, so I was just wondering, usually you see odd figures from what you have revised to what you budgeted but it came out exactly in this particular case, and the same thing budgeted for this year. 

MR. KING: No particular explanation.  It happens from time to time that we come in on budget, but there is no real explanation for that. 

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The total amount there on that same heading, 1.1.01, I know it was budgeted $310,900 and it was revised at $271,000.  I am just wondering if you could explain that for me. 

MR. KING: Yes.  The revised budget amount would be reflected in all of the amounts above, so as you just noticed, for example, or you did not notice, sorry – we had savings in Salaries predominantly due to the minister's position being vacant for a period of time when we had another minister covering off.  We had a savings in our Supplies from $4,400 down to $1,000.  Under Purchased Services, instead of $7,000 that was budgeted, we spent $1,000.  We had savings in Property, Furnishing and Equipment.  When you just do the math on all of those, that would give you the overall saving. 

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

My last one is 4.1.07 Case Management System Development.  Under 01 Salaries, budgeted was $1.5 million, revised was $800,000, and this year you are estimating almost $1.4 million.

MR. KING: We had budgeted in this category for a number of employee positions as part of this project and many did not come in until August and later, so we had a savings as a result of that. 

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under 05 Professional Services $3,509,900 to $3,065,300 and this year $4,796,900. 

MR. KING: Similar, we had a late start of the project; xwave, for example, was engaged in part of that project and a lot of their work did not start until after September, so we anticipated that we would have other expenses that we did not incur. 

MR. BUTLER: That is all I have, Mr. Chair. 

I want to thank the minister while I have a chance now, rather than later on, for your patience, and all your staff from the various divisions.

MR. KING: Thank you very much; I appreciate it.

MS MICHAEL: I have more questions.

CHAIR: Yes, go right ahead.

MS MICHAEL: Section 4.1.06 Pan Canadian Innovations Initiative, I know the program ended in October but is there an evaluation going on, of this program, how it went?  Did the counselling make a difference to youth?  Are there any plans for continuing this kind of thing?

MR. KING: Yes, we are continuing with the project and we are evaluating it.  It is covered under another budget head, 4.1.03.  It is being funded from a different source.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great.

MR. KING: We picked it up when this ended. 

MS MICHAEL: That is exactly what I wanted to know.  That is good to know.

Under 5.1.01 Youth and Student Services, just in general, could we have a list of the grants and subsidies? 

MR. KING: Item 10?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, item 10.

MR. KING: I can give you the breakdown there.  The total budget, $13,325,100, there would be $3 million to go to youth projects and contribution agreements that we have in place.  The community youth network in the Province, the CYNs, would be $2.9 million.  SWASP employment program would be $2.2 million.  Graduate Employment Program $1.7 million; other student work and services programs $1.4 million; high school student program $906,000; grants to youth organizations $659,000.  Our Jump Start partnership with Canadian Tire would be $350,000; and Allied Youth receives a grant of $30,000.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you. If we could receive that list, that would be great, just so we would have it for our records.  Thank you.

5.1.02 is next, is it?  Yes, the Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy.  I just want to check through my notes here.  Under subhead 05 Professional Services, what are the professional services that are required here, or what is paid for in that subhead?

MR. KING: They would include a number of things.  Part of the strategy that we identified, for example, would have been a communications plan.  There are a number of initiatives in there, where we use outside facilitators across the Province.  It is those kinds of services: meeting spaces; we have a provincial Youth Advisory Council, funding to support their activities and travel, and things like that.

MS MICHAEL: Right.  Okay, thank you. 

Under subhead 10 Grants and Subsidies, maybe again you could give us an idea of where that money goes.  Then we would also like to have a list of that. 

MR. KING: I will give you a snapshot of what is in the heading.  There is $3.8 million under that one.  We have a number of things we fund: Junior Achievement, we have funding in the Government Hiring Apprenticeship Program, we fund the SWASP for Memorial University, we put money towards the placement of co-op students from Memorial University, the Community Sectors Council, the SWASP program they administer for students, we put funding there. 

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. KING: We have funding through Public Service Secretariat for a Graduate Internship Program.  We fund the Young Entrepreneurs.  All of these, by the way, are pretty well initiatives identified in the youth retention strategy.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. KING: It is called grants and subsidies but it is really programs funding, yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.  Well, that is great. 

I think those are all of my questions, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the minister and all his staff for a good morning.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you. 

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I have one other question.  I asked it earlier, but it is not your fault you did not respond.  I asked three or four questions in the one.  That was under the Immigration Policy.  I asked the question: What is the status of the new International Graduate Retention Incentive Program?  Maybe you responded.  If you did, I am sorry.

MR. KING: I do not think I did, no.  Nellie?

MS BURKE: No, you are absolutely right.  I just realized that I did not answer the entire question.

MR. BUTLER: That is okay.

MS BURKE: It has been implemented and it is going very well.  Last year we paid out, I think it was twenty grants to international students that actually graduated from one of our post-secondary institutions.  They came through our nominee program.  They received permanent residency and were still in the Province a year later; we do an audit.  The cheques are in the process of going out now.  In fact, they have probably received them by now.  We are continually monitoring our database of nominees to see who is eligible, and once they are eligible we contact them and audit and make sure they are here.  It is going over very well.

The International Student Advising Office is quite pleased with it, because it helps Memorial University and the College market this destination as a great place to come and study because they want you to stay and they will even give you some money back at the end of the day in recognition of the contribution that you have made to the Province.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

That is it, Sir.

CHAIR: Thank you. 

That is it for our Committee.

I will ask the Clerk to call the headings.

CLERK: 1.1.01 to 6.1.01 inclusive.

CHAIR: 1.1.01 to 6.1.01 inclusive.

Shall they carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 6.1.01 carried.

CLERK: The total for the department.

CHAIR: Shall the total for the department carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, total heads carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of Human Resources, Labour and Employment carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment carried without amendment.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Committee members, there are minutes from the Social Services Committee, Department of Justice, May 16, 2011.  I ask for a motion to adopt.

MR. YOUNG: So moved.

CHAIR: Mr. Young.

Seconder?

Mr. Cornect. 

Thank you.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Minister, thank you and your staff for participating this morning.  Thank you again to the Committee.  This is the last sitting for the Social Services Committee, so I would like to thank the members as well for their participation.

With that, I will ask for a motion to adjourn.

MR. RIDGLEY: So moved.

CHAIR: Mr. Ridgley.

Thank you.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.