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

CHAIR (Hutchings): Good morning everybody. Welcome to the Estimates Committee for Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

First off, what I would like to do is have the Committee introduce itself. I am Keith Hutchings, the MHA for the District of Ferryland.

I will start to my far right, and maybe the members could introduce themselves.

MR. YOUNG: Wally Young, District of St. Barbe.

MR. KING: Darin King, District of Grand Bank.

MR. COLLINS: Felix Collins, District of Placentia & St. Mary's.

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

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

CHAIR: Thank you.

The general format that we used in the past for these is that the minister, in introducing the Estimates, could take fifteen minutes, as well as go through your staff and introduce your staff.

As well, I ask that witnesses who are giving information, if they could identify themselves each time for the benefit of Hansard.

At that time, after that fifteen minutes the Committee member who responds has fifteen minutes, and then we can go back and forth at ten, if that is fine with everybody.

So, minister, I will turn it over to you for any opening comments. As well, I would ask if you could, or have your staff introduce themselves.

MS SULLIVAN: Okay, thank you.

First of all, it is a pleasure to be here. It is my first time doing Estimates on this side of the room, so it may take me some time to flick through these pages, but we will flick through them all. We will answer whatever questions we can, whatever questions you have, and we will be sure that the information that you request will either be provided here this morning, or if we do not have it readily available, we certainly will get that information for you.

HRLE is a very exciting department. I had the pleasure yesterday of being at the university to do a panel discussion on women in politics, and unfortunately, Ms Michael was unable to be there. She was scheduled to be there, but for other reasons could not be there.

One of the comments that we heard – not once, but maybe three or four times over at that panel discussion even, was the role that HRLE plays, even in the sense of promoting women and keeping women in the forefront of politics. Being concerned about women and social issues, well, I like to think that that is part of what we do. I think in terms of social issues, this department has done a really good job, particularly over the last three or four to five years in ensuring that social safety nets and people in general in this Province are really well served.

I am not going to go down through all the highlights, and I am not going to take fifteen minutes to highlight everything that this department is doing. I think those initiatives are very well known, and as we flesh out the questions through this budgetary process, I think we can speak to some of those issues if we need to. So, for the sake of being a little more expeditious in terms of what we do, I have decided that that perhaps is not the best route for this morning.

This morning I am joined by people from the Labour Relations agency, as well as people from my department. So, rather than my going through and introducing them, I will ask each of them. I will start with Bruce over here from Labour Relations. I will ask them to go through and introduce themselves to you and then we will just start right in.

MR. COOPER: Good morning, Bruce Cooper, Assistant Deputy Minister, Labour Relations Agency.

MR. FOWLER: Wayne Fowler, CEO, Labour Relations Agency.

MS CAUL: Brenda Caul, Deputy Minister, HRLE.

MR. HANLON: Brendan Hanlon, Director of Finance, HRLE.

MS WHEATON: Roxie Wheaton, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS VIVIAN-BOOK: Lynn Vivian-Book, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MR MAHONEY: Tom Mahoney, Acting CEO, Workplace Health and Safety Compensation Commission.

MR. BARTLETT: Eric Bartlett, Executive Director of Corporate Services with Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.

MS TOOPE: Pamela Toope, Director of Labour Market Development, HRLE.

MR. PENNEY: Wayne Penney, ADM, HRLE.

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

MS COLLINGWOOD: Jennifer Collingwood, Director of Communications for the department.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

MS SULLIVAN: A small contingent this morning. We are a big department.

Okay, Mr. Chair -

CHAIR: We need to call the first heading first.

MS SULLIVAN: Sure.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01. carry?

MS SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) what I would like to do and what I would suggest is that we start, if it is okay with the members opposite, we start with Labour Relations this morning.

CHAIR: Is that okay with the Committee?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

CHAIR: Yes. Sure, yes.

MS SULLIVAN: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR: The Committee is up.

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I have to get the right heading here now.

MS SULLIVAN: Subhead 7.1.

MR. BUTLER: First of all, I want to welcome the minister and her staff and say to you minister, this is not my first time on this side and I am probably going to take just as long as what you are to get through some of them.

Under 7.1.01., I know it is only a small increase there under 01. Salaries, I think it is $27, 700. I was just wondering, is that an increase in salaries or is it a new position that is being hired?

MS SULLIVAN: No, that is not a new position. That is approved salary increases, as well as the twenty-seventh pay period.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under 7.1.02., Transportation and Communications; I notice, and I suppose it is a good thing under transportation and communications, I think it is around $59,900 that was not spent last year. I was wondering, what was anticipated prior to that estimate being put forward and why the reduction?

MS SULLIVAN: My understanding is that there was anticipation that there would be more in the sense of travel and meetings out and about. However, as things turned out there simply was less travel needed and required throughout the year.

MR. BUTLER: 7.1.03. Labour Relations and Labour Standards; under Salaries, again, I know last year, I think it is under spent by $65,500; this year's budget is increased by $93,800.

MS SULLIVAN: You are faster than I am this morning.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, I am sorry, that is okay.

MS SULLIVAN: You are looking at Estimates there?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, 7.1.03.

MS SULLIVAN: Again, the same thing. That is approved salary increases, as well as the twenty-seventh pay period.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. I guess where it has gone up this year by $93,800 that is just an anticipated, probably more meetings or what have you in conjunction with that?

MS SULLIVAN: For Salaries?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS SULLIVAN: The Estimates would simply reflect an approved salary increase.

MR. BUTLER: Okay, yes.

7.1.04. that is the Standing Fish Price Setting Panel. Under Salaries there, I think it is under budget from last year, $21,200. I was just wondering if you could give a brief explanation on that one.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, that had to do with some savings due to a downscale hiring. Somebody had left, somebody else was hired. It was a downscale hiring. So it is simply a differential in the pay scale.

MR. BUTLER: I guess the increase this year has to do with the increase in salaries or the percentages again.

MS SULLIVAN: And the twenty-seventh pay period, yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

7.1.05.01. Salaries last year was under budget by $49,000. I was wondering if you could give a brief explanation on that one.

MS SULLIVAN: Again, that was a short-term vacancy. That was related to simply a delay in the filling of that particular position.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under the same heading, 03. Transportation and Communications, I think you were over budget by $40,600. I was just wondering what caused this extra amount in funding.

MS SULLIVAN: That was due to higher staff travel related to the Labrador Health Board, and in that case it was an increase in the caseload in Labrador. So it was increased travel in that area.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Now, under Labour Relations, and I hope the questions that I have are tied into that, if not, that is fine.

MS SULLIVAN: Sure.

MR. BUTLER: Just general questions. Like the minimum wage, would that come under this section?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: It would, okay.

I read a report recently out of British Columbia – and do not get me wrong, I am not against the minimum wage going to $10 per hour because I believe people deserve that and probably more, if it could be afforded, but in their report they stated that once they reached the $10 per hour there was a loss of between twelve and 50,000 jobs, I guess in some of the smaller and medium-sized businesses. I was wondering, as our minimum wage increases here, is there any indication that this may be happening throughout the Province? Do we see any signs of that?

MS SULLIVAN: I have not seen any signs of that.

Wayne, I do not know if you have any response to seeing any difference in the number of jobs as a result of increases in wages?

MR. FOWLER: No, we have not had anybody come forward, Mr. Butler, in that sense with respect to bringing forward to the agency after minimum wage increases were announced and have been implemented.

When the review was done, it was always an issue with respect to how that might impact wages and employment in the Province. That is still out there, to be truthful, I guess. It does not mean that someone may not come forward at a later date, sir.

MR. BUTLER: Sure. Okay.

The issue – and I can stand to be corrected on this one. Like, the federal government, I am under the impression that they are transferring their services, what I call today Service Canada, or a lot of people still refer to them as HRDC, where we are familiar with the job creation, targeted wage and other programs. How close are we to having this transferred to the provincial government, and to what extent it will be done?

MS SULLIVAN: You are talking about the devolution of the LMDA?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS SULLIVAN: Okay. We can address that at another time, if you wish, but the quick answer is November 2 of this year.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The Career Work Centres, that would come under this heading, or?

MS SULLIVAN: No.

MR. BUTLER: No, all right.

Under the Labour Relations Board, I was informed last year that the increase in salaries was to create two positions required due to the added workload surrounding three new statutes. They were the House of Assembly, the whistleblower legislation, and the smoke-free legislation.

I was wondering, what involvement, if any, has the department had with regards to the whistleblower legislation as defined last year?

MR. FOWLER: Yes, I remember the question last year, Mr. Butler. Part of the answer was that the Public Service Secretariat had done a review of the Labour Relations Board operations and had deemed it that they needed additional staff due to what their current workload was and the addition of some new statutes that were going to be brought forward. Up to now, I will check on it for you but my thought is that, if your question is: Have there been any applications to the board on this? I do not think there have been any applications under the new ones but I can check on it and get back to you.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Mr. Chair, I am going to turn it over to my colleague here now on Labour Relations.

CHAIR: Ms Michael.

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

I ask you to excuse my voice this morning, a combination of a head cold and too many hours in the air yesterday.

I would like to come back to, I will not ask any questions that may be repetitious but under 7.1.05., with regard to the Salaries, I guess two questions. Number one, with the revised, you explained, minister, that it went down because there was somebody to be hired who was not hired. So I guess one question is, has that position been filled? Having said that, the estimate for this year's budget is approximately $68,000 more, is that just increase in Salaries, et cetera?

MS SULLIVAN: Okay. The first question, yes, the person has been hired. The second question with regard to estimates, that is an approved salary increase for 2009-2010 and, as well, the twenty-seventh pay period.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Okay, thank you.

I think in terms of line questions, what Mr. – Roland, I cannot even think of your last name.

MR. BUTLER: Roland is fine.

MS MICHAEL: Not enough sleep last night.

What Mr. Butler asked I think covers most but I have a couple of general questions.

MS SULLIVAN: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: I do know that there are expectations around review of Labour Standards. I am wondering where that process is, and is it reflected in budget anywhere for this year?

MS SULLIVAN: It is not reflected in budget. The review, of course, has been ongoing and will continue to be ongoing but there are no budgetary items in relation to that.

MS MICHAEL: Could you give me some idea of, in terms of the review, in terms of the process? Are there meetings happening, that kind of thing?

MS SULLIVAN: Wayne is much more familiar with the process, so I will allow him to answer that.

MR. FOWLER: Right now we are into the review of the collective bargaining, the Labour Relations part of it through strategic partnership, which is a partnership of business and labour and government. At some point in time when we get a bit further down the road we believe the Labour Standards will also be looked at. Part and parcel of doing a review that is a partnership role, probably will suggest that there is a bit more time taken because you are asking the partners to come forward with their suggestions. So, the collective bargaining is taking a little bit longer than expected and the standards, I suspect, would follow through after that one. There are five or six pieces of legislation on the collective bargaining. We are not really sure what the time frame would be from that respect.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. It sounds like it is a pretty slow process.

MR. FOWLER: When we try to do it – which I think is the right way to do it – from the partnership model, to get people's comments, opinions and positions upfront, the lead time definitely makes it a bit longer, but once you get past a certain point I think the end time then will be a lot shorter on what you are proposing to come forward with.

MS MICHAEL: Right, but with the two things happening, they are not happening parallel. So you are going to finish one before you start the other.

MR. FOWLER: Right now, that appears to be the plan. The collective bargaining was the first one off the mark about two years ago. Standards, of course, there have been changes in Labour Standards with respect to compassionate care, changes with respect to reservists, changes with respect to minimum wage. It is not stopping the changes with respect to what people are looking for, but if you are talking about a full review, then I think that would happen afterwards. Right now, they are not parallel.

MS MICHAEL: A related question. We not only occasionally but on a number of occasions, I have had workers call our office or I bump into them in gatherings and stuff, and I know it is no surprise to you that people who are working most often in non-unionized settings, even though they know what their rights are under Labour Standards and they have read the brochure, et cetera, they still do not feel safe with regard to coming forward. If, for example, standards are not being made, if they are working overtime without compensation – you know what all the issues are, I am sure.

MR. FOWLER: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Yet, they feel afraid to complain because they have experienced, or others have experienced, they just lose their jobs if they complain because the workplace is so small that the person in charge can figure out who made the complaint.

Is there any discussion about what the role of the agency could be with regard to trying to have standards met in non-unionized workplaces, because the standards really cover the non-unionized workplaces? I know it is a major issue.

MR. FOWLER: We have started an approach a little while ago that we are trying to remind people that employees and employers have rights and responsibilities, both of them do.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. FOWLER: We are engaging in a marketing plan from an agency perspective. We are putting a fair amount of emphasis on education and awareness from both the employee and the employer side.

We are certainly well aware, from an agency perspective, that in many cases complaints do not come forward until the person has lost a job, or in many cases the complaint will not come forward at all because they have lost a job. We recognize that in some new areas like temporary foreign workers, that area we are also dealing with those from education and awareness.

So the agency, I think the truth is, has been and will be playing even a greater role. Sixty percent of the workforce is non-union. Standards, though it is considered to be the minimum terms and conditions of employment, which is a non-union side, it covers everybody, but we are certainly attempting over the past couple of years to make people more aware.

We are working with youth. We have the education modules, eight modules now in high schools. They are not a credited course but two years ago we managed to get modules developed to bring into the classroom, because we believe anybody who comes out of Grade 12 will be an employee or an employer. So we are working to make sure that what your concern is and issue is, is certainly one of ours and that we take care of it, yes.

MS MICHAEL: A further question to that, based on what you just said and you are going to increase the marketing of information, et cetera. Is there new money in this year's budget for a campaign or is this a longer-term plan than that?

MR. FOWLER: No new money, as I understand it, from this year's budget but the agency is still - you always look to make sure you, from a Labour Standards perspective, can do that.

We are hopefully part of the marketing plan that will develop, maybe might have some requests for money down the road but right now, no, we are working with existing resources and staff, and we are working with youth agencies as well, and high schools. That is the way to go to find out. Now a plan will probably develop that might require some additional sources of funding and we will look around to see where that might be available, either through the partnerships or, if not, we will come back to government and seek some funding for it.

MS MICHAEL: Is there any process in place, I am pretty sure there is not in the way I am going to ask this question but I guess my question would even be: Are you thinking about it? Is there any kind of process in place whereby the agency can - and would it be allowed under legislation without any complaints actually ask information of employers with regard to their practices? For example, with regard to overtime, that would be one in particular because that is one of the ones that most gets a lot of abuse.

MR. FOWLER: If you are asking whether or not the agency would go into a workplace to audit without a complaint?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. FOWLER: I will check on it for you. That is probably the best answer. I would tell you that we audit in the offshore, but that is for that circumstance. Many people think that labour standards is complaint driven, but I think in years past we have been into areas with respect to auditing for compliance without having to wait for any employee to file a complaint.

I will check to see, and get back to you on it.

MS MICHAEL: Right, because that is the point of my question: Are you proactive in auditing practice? Because I believe that kind of process would keep people a bit more on their toes.

MR. FOWLER: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: So I would be interested in having more information on that from you.

I had another question; I just have to come back. I realized there was one where I wanted to ask what the – no, that is the wrong heading. One moment, I think I had one. No, it was workplace health and safety.

I guess that is everything, then, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Cornect.

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just for the public record, I am Tony Cornect, District of Port au Port, and I have been here since 9:16. Sorry for the lateness this morning.

CHAIR: Thank you very much. I missed you.

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, just one other question as a follow-up from one of the questions Ms Michael asked, and that is with regard to the modules that you mentioned – eight, I thought you said - in the high schools. I was just wondering: Can you give an update on how that is progressing? Is there much feedback from it? How is it progressing with the students?

MR. FOWLER: I would like to be able to tell you exactly how it is progressing, but I do not think I have that slam-dunk answer right now.

Mr. Butler, it is not, as I understand it, a credit course.

MR. BUTLER: No.

MR. FOWLER: It is tied into, I think the number is 3,220 - I am not sure of the number - with health and safety as well, but I can check again. I will check to see if we are getting any feedback from the schools on it, through our Labour Standards Division, because I am sure one of the things that was planned was to get the modules in and see how they are being used by the teachers, and see exactly what is coming from the schools, the teachers and the youth, and then adjust them afterwards.

I will check that one for you as well, to see if we got any feedback from it.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

MS SULLIVAN: Just to add to that, I just know anecdotally through the school system that I am not long out of, I do know that through the skilled trades, those new programs that are being offered, that many of those modules have been adapted for those particular programs, and feedback that I have had from teachers that I just happen to associate with have told me that those modules are very well received within those skilled trades areas.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

We are finished on the Labour Relations part, I guess.

MS SULLIVAN: Workplace Health and Safety?

CHAIR: Workplace Health and Safety. We will go to that next.

MR. BUTLER: I am sorry for the delay.

MS SULLIVAN: That's okay.

MR. BUTLER: Last year, I asked the minister if he had seen a copy of the internal report that was done for the board of directors in an evaluation of the Client Service Officer position, and he stated that he had not seen that report as it was not a government report.

I was just wondering - a year has passed by - has this report ever surfaced to government? I am not saying that it had to, but I was just wondering if they did receive any information on that.

MS SULLIVAN: I have read that many reports since November that I really am not 100 per cent sure that I have seen the specific report that you are referring to.

Tom, I do not know if you could add to that.

MR. MAHONEY: That report I do not believe was forwarded to government but it was a board document. So, to answer your question, I do believe that is still its current status: that it was a report given to the board of directors.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Did you say that it was forwarded to the department?

MR. MAHONEY: No.

MR. BUTLER: No.

MR. MAHONEY: I stated it was still just a board document.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

I was just wondering: How many review commissioners do we have in the Province now, and what is the breakdown? I do not know if they are done by regions. I know there are so many here, and there are others in Central and probably in Western. I was just wondering: What is the total that we have now, of review commissioners?

MS SULLIVAN: We currently have three, a chief review commissioner, and I might point out that he will be off on sick leave very soon. We have one who is working in Central and we have another who is working here in the Eastern Avalon area.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Where in your Estimates - or is it included in this here - the salary breakdown or the amount for the review commissioners and that? Does that come under just general salaries?

MS SULLIVAN: No, under professional services.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

That is where the estimate is $320,500.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

What process is followed in considering and selecting the positions as review commissioner? How is that followed through?

MS SULLIVAN: We are actually in the process now of appointing new review commissioners. We have had some resumes submitted to us. I have reviewed those resumes, and actually made a couple of recommendations, and hopefully we can move forward in the very near future with the appointment of some new commissioners.

MR. BUTLER: So it is a thing that goes out probably through the Public Service Commission or something like that, or –

MS SULLIVAN: No, no it does not go to the public service.

MR. BUTLER: How do you get the applications? That is what I was wondering.

MS SULLIVAN: Applications, by word of mouth, come to me, as in people who are interested. There is a stack of - I do not know if they would be considered applications so much as resumes that constantly come forward as people are interested. It is word of mouth, more than anything, Sir.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I know last year we discussed the percentage of cases, and I wondering what percentage of cases, in 2008, that went before the Compensation Review Division were overturned in favour of the injured workers.

I know last year there was some discussion on that, that there were quite a few overturned, and I think the minister said they were going to review that and see what other process or what was happening there. I am just wondering what percentage, or has there been any change, or is it the same numbers?

MS SULLIVAN: My understanding is that there is a drop in caseload and a drop in terms of those that are reviewed, but I will pass that back to Tom for more specific information in terms of percentages.

MR. MAHONEY: The numbers that I have before me are the 2007 numbers which show, of the 275 decisions from 2007, 129 of those decisions were where the commission was overturned.

The 2008 statistics will be released when the final report is tabled in the House with the minister.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

From time to time you get to attend those reviews on behalf of constituents, and I do not want to say this to be critical to anyone in the system, but there are times when you go there and you go before the review commissioner, and you are there to represent your constituent, and there is also someone there to represent workers compensation, I understand that, but there are times they get very defensive.

I think this is one of things that came up last year, that the minister said he was going to have a look at and see if that could be reversed, the way it is handled, because they come pretty strong on the injured worker when they are making their case on behalf of workers compensation.

To me, it is not a trial there that you are trying to send someone to prison or anything; you are just going over the documentation that is in the file. I was just wondering - because I think we discussed that to a small degree last year - has anything been done with regard to that?

I know they have to present their cases, but the approach that used to be taken was a major concern for a lot of individuals.

MS SULLIVAN: That is not a concern that I have heard, actually, and I have not had occasion to be there and witness that first-hand, but it is certainly not a scenario - and I am certainly not denying your experience there at all. It is something that I will undertake to find out as well.

Again, I will pass it back here to see if Tom is able to add any additional information to that.

MR. MAHONEY: Yes, I guess from time to time we do hear those contentions made, but one thing I am happy to report here this morning is that there is an evaluation of the external appeal and the internal review as directed in government's action plan of last year, and that evaluation is being led by the Labour Relations Agency.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

I think this also came up last year: the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses made a request to have the assessments for small and medium-sized businesses done on a monthly basis rather than the lump some. Now maybe that has been changed - I do not know - and I know the minister at that time agreed to check on it. I was just wondering: Has anything been done with that? Maybe there has. Has there by any follow-up whatsoever?

MS SULLIVAN: We actually have conducted a survey, and that was a question that was asked on that survey. When we asked small and medium-sized businesses what their preference would be, we learned that 70 per cent of them are happy with the assessment process as it now exists. So, to change the system when 70 per cent of the small and medium-sized businesses responded in the survey that they were happy with the current assessment, it was evident to us that there was no need to change.

MR. BUTLER: That is amazing when it came from their federation. You would think they would have had that survey done before they even requested it. So it is still the same now; it is on just a one-shot deal type thing and not on a monthly basis.

MS SULLIVAN: That is right. As I said, 70 per cent of the businesses indicated that was their preference.

MR. BUTLER: Okay, Mr. Chair, I will pass it over to Ms Michael.

CHAIR: Okay.

Ms Michael.

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

I will do a couple of line items first. Under Salaries, the variation between the budget and the revised figure for 2008-2009 and now the estimate for this year, could you explain that, Minister? I am presuming there was a position that was to be filled and did not get filled - it looks that way - and has it been filled?

MS SULLIVAN: Two, actually.

MS MICHAEL: Then I guess the rest of the increase would be what has been approved for salaries.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, two positions. There was a full year and then a short-term vacancy. As a result of the delay in filling both of those positions that were approved in 2008-2009 there was a $72,000 savings; $72,800, I believe.

In terms of estimates and the increase, it is the standard; it is the salary increase for 2009-2010 and the twenty-seventh pay period.

MS MICHAEL: Have those positions now been filled?

MS SULLIVAN: It is my understanding that they have been filled. Eric?

MR. BARTLETT: Yes.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, they have been.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under Professional Services, the estimate for this year is the same as the budget for last year, although only $210,000 was spent. Why was more not spent last year, and why is it still back up to $320,500?

MS SULLIVAN: The major reason for that was the $60,000 saving due to the implementation of a Web-based design system that did not get implemented as early as it should have been, and the client tracking system. Of course, the other piece of that is a drop in the caseload itself.

MS MICHAEL: You have mentioned a drop in caseload. Do you have any sense of what the drop in caseload has - I would hope it is because there is less injury going on, and better health, but has there been any analysis done with regard to the drop in caseload?

MS SULLIVAN: We certainly know that there are less injured workers. I do not know if we have any further analysis there, Wayne?

MR. FOWLER: From the Review Division, I guess, you are asking, there was a drop in caseloads by about twelve or fourteen. There have been obviously less hearings being held, but the drop in caseload, I think, is pretty close to what has been happening over the last couple of years. If I remember correctly, a few years ago we were up around 400 or 500 cases. Now I think the Review Division is dealing with about 330 cases.

I think last year when the question was talked about, I guess it goes to the fact of: if the caseloads are coming down, then obviously anybody, an injured worker, must be happier with the decisions that are being made at the Commission, obviously, because dropping from 500 to 350 is a fair chunk.

MS MICHAEL: It is. I am wondering: Has there been any analysis done on where the emphasis might be in terms of the drop. Would it be related to accidental injuries? Has there any been analysis? Would it be related to workplace disease? What was the drop in, or have you done that analysis that specifically yet?

MR. FOWLER: I do not have figures with respect to what areas might be impacted. I can certainly go back to the Review Division and ask them if they would do their own internal figures, and get back to you with respect to that question.

MS MICHAEL: I would really appreciate that. I think it would be really interesting to see where that drop is happening.

MR. FOWLER: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Because if it in regard to accidents then obviously education must be working, and if it is not happening with regard to workplace disease then that would be important information as well. Thank you.

I would like to come back to just ask a couple of more questions in the area around the appeals that Mr. Butler brought up. I find, and maybe I am wrong, I do not know what the figures would indicate across the country, but based on the information that was just given us, the figures for 2007, for example – we do not have them for 2008 – doing my quick mathematics, would indicate to me that about 46 per cent to 47 per cent of the appeals are overturned; 129 out of 275. That is almost 50 per cent. That seems pretty high to me. Maybe it is not. Maybe across the country that is a norm, but whether it is a norm across the country or not, it still seems high to me.

So my question would be, is there any analysis being done of – is there any pattern in the cases that are overturned of what the key – is there any pattern with regard to what the key issue might be? Because I will be fairly blunt, no sense beating around the bush, cases that have come to our office and that we have appealed - and my constituency assistant does the appeals for me. There have been cases I have looked at as a lay person on one level, but not a lay person on another. I mean we all have a tremendous amount of experience in dealing with these issues. I can look at a case and I will say that appeal is going to be won. I can see the reason it is going to be won. If it is that clear, then I do not understand why it got to that point.

Is there any analysis done of the appeals, and is there a pattern? Is there something that needs to be fixed so that you do not even have to get to the appeal time, because you do have a lot of stress for people when they are going through this process? That is what I find as an MHA, that the people who come to us are under tremendous stress, and then they end up winning their appeal. So you say, why did they have to go through all of this?

MS SULLIVAN: Sure, yes. That is a fair question.

In terms of the analysis and whether that has been done. It has not been to my knowledge, but I am going to turn that over to Wayne and just see if he can provide you with some additional information.

MR. FOWLER: I think last year - you are correct - it was 47 per cent, if I look at the stats from the review division. I believe this year's stats will show it is down to 36 per cent, which is a 25 per cent reduction. I think which is important to note.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. FOWLER: I know the review division does keep track of all the cases it deals with. There is, as was mentioned, a Labour Relations Agency review going now, government directed, internal-external review processes. I believe some of the questions you are asking, along with many other questions that are out there, obviously and issues, will be dealt with in that review, and we will see what comes out of that.

I can check to see, from a review division standpoint, when they do their analysis during the year, what they find out. Probably, if they have any information, I can flow it back to you in that regard as well.

MS MICHAEL: Definitely. I would assume when that review is done that would be a public document.

MR. FOWLER: My guess is, just an internal process where they do their own checks and balances with respect to what is coming forward. Obviously, when government finishes its internal-external review as part of the Workers Comp. report that came out in government's action plan, that will be released.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Okay, thank you very much. That is fine.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Go ahead.

MR. BUTLER: I have one other, I do not know if my colleague –

CHAIR: Do you have anything further?

MS MICHAEL: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: No. Okay.

MR. BUTLER: Just a general question. Has the Auditor General ever done an audit of Workers Compensation, or is he permitted to do that? I do not know, maybe not. I seemed to read that in the paper – he has?

OFFICIAL: Yes, Workers Comp.

MR. BUTLER: Yes. That is all I have, sir.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

The next heading, which one would you like to proceed to next?

MS SULLIVAN: I am fine. We can go right back to the beginning of the book if you wish.

CHAIR: Do we have some people who are going to leave at this point?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, we do.

CHAIR: Okay, maybe we will just take a minute to give them an opportunity to leave.

MS SULLIVAN: Sure.

CHAIR: We certainly thank them for their participation this morning.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Okay, Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, I think you said it is fair ranging now where we can go, because I might have questions here overlapping from income support to immigration and multicultural. That is okay, is it?

MS SULLIVAN: Sure it is. As long as I can follow you, Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: All right.

Well, I am going to go into just some general questions first anyway.

MS SULLIVAN: Okay.

MR. BUTLER: With regards to Poverty Reduction Strategy, and we know that throughout the country we are on the higher end of how other provinces look at what we have in place.

I was just wondering, has a social audit ever been done to monitor the progress being made? If it has not, are there any plans to do that in the future so we can see where we have progressed since we started this poverty reduction strategy?

MS SULLIVAN: Absolutely! We are in the process now of doing some analysis and putting together a report card, a so-called report card, which I hope to be able to release in the next month or so, I would think, here in this House.

MR. BUTLER: Good.

Last year during our Estimates there were questions asked and we were provided with some information, a chart that came back to us, and we want to thank the officials for that. One of the issues, one of the concerns we had at that time, and what was reported back to us, it says that overall the number of adult clients receiving income support has declined by 5 per cent since March 2006, and then the number of youth clients twenty-nine and under had fallen by 11 per cent. I was just wondering, are there any changes in those numbers? Are they still going in the right direction, or has it levelled off and probably stayed fairly close to what it was at that time?

MS SULLIVAN: The numbers certainly are declining, however probably not at the same rate as they were declining. I will get Lynn to give some more specifics on that now in a second, but what we are finding is that we are getting closer to what we would call our core caseload. By core caseload we are talking about people who experience considerable barriers to employment. That may include illness, or mental, physical or developmental delays and so on, drug and alcohol addictions, people who probably will be on the caseload for quite some time and may always be part of that particular caseload. So our core caseload is the area to which we find that we are getting right now. The numbers have been declining but, as I said, not at the same rate as before.

Lynn, perhaps you could give some extra detail there with regard to our caseload?

MS VIVIAN-BOOK: Minister, I think you are accurate in that; the trending is still coming down approximately 1,000 cases per year. We anticipate, though, that will become a slower trend to approximately 500 cases per year in decrease.

As the minister mentioned, the profile of the client population that we have, people are staying on income support longer, the group that we have now. About 60 per cent of the cases this year have been on the caseload for a full year, so the trend is, we are certainly seeing people staying on longer. We are also seeing about a third of those clients now have significant illness, mental health particularly, and disability issues, so the profile of our clients is changing. There are fewer and fewer families with children, and more and more single individuals that make up that caseload, and the overall caseload is aging, so you do see more use. That would be the general profile that we have right now.

MR. BUTLER: The other item, the other information that was provided was from March 2006. The percentage of adults with less than high school education was at 66.2 per cent, and by 2007 it had decreased to 65.8 per cent, and the number of youth clients, twenty-nine and under, with less than Grade 9, had fallen by almost 12 per cent. Those trends, I guess, they are –

MS VIVIAN-BOOK: They are continuing.

MR. BUTLER: They are continuing, but probably not at the same rate.

MS VIVIAN-BOOK: Not at the same rate, but continuing.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The other question I have here, where we see trends, I think you mentioned that some of the families are getting out of the system now, and hopefully they are finding work. I guess we do not know if they are finding work here or if some of those people have to move outside the Province. There would not be any stats on anything like that would there?

MS VIVIAN-BOOK: We know that we have approximately 4,000 clients that have benefited from of our job start program and other benefits and packages that have been put in place to reduce the barriers to work, whether that be the increase from 10 per cent to 20 per cent in terms of income, and the job start barrier, and our whole package of other initiatives.

At any one point in time approximately 1,800 clients are working, as well as on the caseload, because people do continue to receive some benefits. That is not something that many of the public are familiar with, that there are that many people actually working and still receiving some benefits as well.

MR. BUTLER: I do not know if there is a formula or not, but will there be any increases in benefits to clients this year? I know maybe there is a time frame; is it so many months, or every two or three years or something they get an increase?

MS SULLIVAN: A 5 per cent increase three years ago, and then indexed to the CPI after that, so 1.8 per cent, I think, in the first year after that, 1.5 per cent the year after that, so it is still indexed to the CPI.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Your department - I think you said this, Minister, right from the beginning - you are service oriented.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I know you mentioned this in the House the other day, but I am going to ask it again now: What has been done to correct the problem that clients encounter with the toll-free number? From time to time I have constituents who call, and I do not blame this on anyone who is working there or whatever; I do not know what the breakdown is, but I have had several now, and not just someone calling to apply for assistance - they can wait for that probably a few hours anyway - but I have had people who are trying to get through, and each and every month they have to get this special authorization for transportation to take a child or some family member to the hospital. They call me and say: Look, can you call somebody?

I do have a number, and I call this other lady. I do not want to use any names here, and I do not want to be calling there all the time, either, because there is a different system. They say: I have been on the phone for twenty or twenty-five minutes and just cannot get through. I used to say to them: That is impossible; you have to get through in that time.

So I tried it myself, several times. That is when I hang up and I call - and as soon as I call this other number someone will get back to them, there is no doubt about that, and it is not that they are not getting their services, but I was just wondering - and I know technology is a wonderful thing, and this system has been in place now for probably two, three or four years - what is the problem there? I know you said you are looking into it, and something will be done.

MS SULLIVAN: Absolutely, and we recognize as well that there has been an issue there. In fact, we have now put in place somebody who is looking at addressing that very issue and trying to make it better than it ever was. What was happening was a lot of those calls were getting dropped. There was potential for thirty calls in the queue. We have increased that potential now to sixty calls.

One of the interesting statistics that we did find out through doing some analysis is that 5 per cent of our caseload, actually, were about 95 per cent of those calls. What we have implemented now is a system whereby, when we recognize the name of the person who is calling we are going to transfer that person immediately out to areas where we know we can get some response.

There are some difficulties around the particular program that is in place. Roxie and her staff have been working on addressing that. It is a very big concern of ours, and something that we want to overcome as well, and we feel that we can overcome. When that particular system was first put in place, you will recall that it was greeted with all sorts of accolades; it was very, very effective at the outset. As people have gotten more comfortable calling that number now there are obviously increased calls and increased problems there.

I am going to ask Roxie to give you some more specifics as to what we are doing there to address that particular problem.

MS WHEATON: Yes, as the minister indicated, for the first couple of years we got a much favourable response from clients about the service delivery; but, as Lynn indicated, one of the observations that I guess we have seen is that, as the caseload has changed, the demands and the needs for the clients have changed and we are really needing to take a look at the service delivery model.

As the minister indicated, about 5 per cent of our cases are consuming about 95 per cent of our resources. When you think about 23,000 cases, it means that the majority of people who need to get through for very simple kinds of things - vision care, transportation - are challenged getting through because our staff are dealing with very complex cases.

We are in the process. We have a team of staff in place that are looking at ways to enhance the model so that we can deal with the people who need that intensive support, but then also introduce ways so that those who need quick responses, like transportation and vision care, can get those relatively quickly.

I will tell you that one of the other challenges that has contributed to our service delivery, and it has only happened in the past twelve to sixteen months, is related to our staff turnover. As there are lots of opportunities occurring in the public service with retirements and new initiatives, we are actually seeing a turnover in our staff. So that has, in particular here in the Avalon region, but also across the Province – so we are also working with the Public Service Commission and other resources to help us figure out ways to slow down that turnover rate and get a lot of our positions filled quicker.

So I am hoping that in the next five to six months you will see, in fact, some substantive changes in the service delivery issues that you have identified.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

You are keeping track of time that I have to move, are you?

CHAIR: Yes, yes.

MR. BUTLER: Another issue, and this does not happen all that often. I was just wondering if it is only in one particular area or throughout the Province. People now, when they call in, they have to make their application over the phone and then it is mailed back to them for their signature. Some of those people let me assure you, no disrespect to them, they do not understand – even though it is marked for them to do it, they do not include the documentation with it.

I had one case where they tell me they sent everything in and it got misplaced. Now, maybe it goes to different areas. They applied three different times, is that a common thing as well? Like, someone makes application, they send in their documentation, then: sorry, we do not have it, you have to reapply again. Only in the last couple of weeks I had one person who had to apply and make application on three different occasions. Now, maybe it is their fault. I am not saying that. I am just wondering if it serves us fairly often like that?

MS SULLIVAN: That is not something that has come to my attention, but again, I will refer it back to Roxie to see if she is aware of that scenario.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS WHEATON: The benefit of our application process that we have is that when an applicant applies over the phone, by the time you have finished that fifteen-twenty minute telephone call, for the most part, you know if you are eligible or not.

When an individual is able to send in all of the documents – and what we do find is that there is a portion of clients who, despite sending notifications with the application saying, you must send in your pay stubs, you must send in your mortgage, you must send in your rent, it is common occurrence that clients sometimes forget to send in that information and you have to go back to them and indicate to them that we really cannot complete the application process from a financial controls perspective without all of the documents. There are a small number of cases where that process takes thirty days or longer. Then there are some time limits, some time sensitivities, as you can imagine. A lot can happen within a thirty-day period.

So there is a small number that I would think that – occasionally you hear where someone says that the application process – but that is one of the pieces that are actually, as the minister indicated, the team that we have in place. We will actually be implementing standards where we will be able to report on how long it takes. We will have standards for an application process and we will be able to report on how long it takes an individual to get an application processed. So you can anticipate that even in that there will be some anomalies, but for the most part, I can tell you that our application process today is processed very timely.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I had a call from an individual, just this past week, who wanted to report someone who was in the system and they are out working, taking work away from certain trades and so on. So I got the numbers for them, where they could either call Carbonear, at the office in Carbonear, or in here, and they have not been able to speak to anyone just a message manager. Is there someone they can call? They do not want to leave a message. They are pretty strong on this and they want to chat with an individual and go over that. Is there a number or just the two numbers that I was given, you call and you just leave your message?

MS SULLIVAN: I am not totally aware of the numbers that you were given of course, but the other piece that we should point out there, is that there are a proportion of our income support clients who are working and that is legitimate.

MR. BUTLER: Not this case.

MS SULLIVAN: Okay, and in terms of whether those two numbers – what I would suggest is perhaps it might be best to speak to Roxie about that after and find out the numbers where you can call to report that.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, not a problem

MS SULLIVAN: Okay.

MR. BUTLER: The other thing, and I understand over a certain period of time people who probably received assistance through the department, whether it was help to pay for a light bill back many years ago or whatever, and then after a while they went out working. More or less, they received invoices that they had to pay this back for whatever reason. Probably it overlapped with some benefits they received and so on.

I had a call from an individual, maybe a couple of weeks ago who – and like she said, they do not think they are in the wrong here. It was eighteen years ago, and the department is after, I think it is $600 or $700 from them for something that the department was supposed to have paid for them. Like she said: How do I argue the point? She said I honestly do not think I owe it. Maybe way, way back she might have received some information on it, but she said: I can assure you, in the last ten or fifteen years I have not heard talk of it. So she did not know it was an issue, but she did receive an invoice. I understand if they owe it, they have to pay it. The Auditor General is out there watching all of this. Many incidents like that, where something goes back that far? How can that be dealt with?

MS SULLIVAN: That is the first one I have heard of that has gone back eighteen years, but again, Roxie.

MS WHEATON: Actually, I am going to let Brendan speak to it from a collections point of view.

MR. HANLON: There are some accounts that go back quite a number of years; they originated in the Department of Finance. All along the way, people should have been receiving statements, like monthly statements and invoices and whatnot. At the time the overpayment was set up, the person would have been made aware of why the overpayment was set up and had the right to appeal. So, if they did appeal, then they would have had their say or whatever and it should have been settled at that time. Just because an account is a certain number of years old we would not, not collect on it; as long as that person has been made aware of that overpayment, when it was originally set up.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

My next question has to do with - recently I think it was the food banks association reported that there are some fifty-eight food banks in the Province. I was just wondering, what percentage - I do not know if this is only done through your department. What percentage of - do you know what percentage of people would be using food banks? You would not have that?

MS SULLIVAN: No, I really do not know what percentage would use food banks.

MR. BUTLER: The Vibrant Communities program, that is through your department I think, isn't it? I am just wondering, what involvement does your department have with that program? From what I read and heard about it recently, it seems to be a good program. I was just wondering how much provincial funding, or is it a joint thing federal-provincial, or is it all provincial funding that would go into that particular program?

MS SULLIVAN: It is a program that we are happy to fund and to help them out with. In fact, I spoke there not too long ago, maybe a couple of months ago at their grand opening. The exact amount of funding though, I am not quite aware. Lynn, are you aware of the funding that we provided to Vibrant Communities?

MS VIVIAN-BOOK: It is $50,000, minister.

MR. BUTLER: Fifty thousand?

MS VIVIAN-BOOK: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I am just going to go to one heading now, 4.1.02. I am wondering minister, is this the heading that we referred to just now when I was talking about Service Canada switching over to the Province and so on?

MS SULLIVAN: This is the one, sir.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

Maybe that answers my question anyway, but I will go back to the general question. So if the funding is showing here, when will this turnover actually take place? Is it happening - I know they are still Services Canada right now but when that happens I guess it is all going to be under the umbrella of the provincial government?

MS SULLIVAN: As opposed to a co-managed agreement, yes, it will be all under the umbrella or within our labour market and that will be November 2 of this year.

MR. BUTLER: November?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Will the same programs be offered that were there before, like Job Creation and Targeted Wage Subsidy? There is no change in the programming, is it, that would have come from Services Canada?

MS SULLIVAN: What we want to do is to ensure that the programs that we offer here in this Province are tailored to our needs. There were lots of federal programs that were not necessarily tailored to meet the needs here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now that we will have jurisdiction, management jurisdiction, we will ensure that those programs are tailored to our needs. If the question is specific to will we retain all of those programs then my understanding is yes, but they will be tailored.

Wayne, am I correct in that?

MR. PENNEY: Yes, Minister.

MR. BUTLER: Why I ask that, I think from some of the comments that were made when the Minister of Finance travelled throughout the Province for the Budget consultation, and I think my hon. colleague here from the Burin Peninsula can probably remember as well, and other areas, those were some of the points that were brought forward by some municipalities. They felt in rural Newfoundland, without Service Canada, unless the program was going to carry on similar to what it is now, they felt that there would be some major problems for some areas because, I guess, through those programs a lot of work is done in the communities. I know in my particular area as well there is some wonderful programming coming out of it. That was the only reason I ask that. I guess this is why all of the major changes in our figures here, it is because of this turnover which will come in November.

MS SULLIVAN: It will be the transition of those funds; that is precisely it.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS SULLIVAN: Just to reaffirm that other point, the programs that we believe we are going to offer certainly will be these programs but they will be enhanced; they will better serve the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I will turn it over to my colleague now, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Ms Michael.

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

I would like to, before I do line-by-line questions, come back to income support and income assistance. I do not know if they are questions or observations, Minister, but I am going to go there anyway.

I appreciate the fact that two years ago the base for income assistance was increased and that we have the CPI, but at that time I said in the House that I believe the base was not increased enough and the CPI is based on something that is already not sufficient. My concern is that there needs to be ongoing review, so I guess that is the question I will ask first. Is there a plan in the department to review the income assistance, or is there an acceptance that now the CPI is in place everything is taken care of?

MS CAUL: Ms Michael, last year in our Poverty Reduction Strategy we did get funding to be able to do a review of the income support. We have to review the legislation every five years, and as part of that review we are looking at the adequacy of rates, which will be a part of that review, so that has commenced. We have people on staff now, starting that project. I think it is going to be about an eighteen month project. That is doing a cross-country scan to see what is in place in other jurisdictions, as well as, I guess, to make recommendations as to what needs to be changed within our income support system as well.

MS MICHAEL: As in other times, will that process include community consultations in the Province?

MS CAUL: I am going to defer that one to Lynn. The project is coming under Lynn, and Lynn's staff.

MS VIVIAN-BOOK: We are just working through the process right now, for the review of the adequacy of rates and benefits. We have certainly planned a jurisdictional review and a stakeholder consultation. We have not, at this point, brought forward a public consultation process for this.

MS MICHAEL: I guess I would like for you to consider having that, because when you have stakeholder reviews, for example, people like MHAs do not get an opportunity to have something to say. I think we are elected to be in touch with people about these issues, and I think we should have an opportunity always to have something to say, so there should be something in the process that allows, I think, for public consultation.

MS VIVIAN-BOOK: We are at the very early stages, so we will certainly take that….

MS MICHAEL: One of the areas – I am concerned about many areas – the base is so low. I am glad you are going to do a jurisdictional review, but we cannot possible be satisfied. I cannot, anyway, and this is not a question; this is my comment which I will probably bring to the House at some point.

Minister, you are new as a minister. I would really ask you to look at the fact that in this year's budget – and I know caseloads have gone down, and I know there was the CPI increase, but when I look at the overall budget, and the monies that we have in this Province, and the fact that we have $1.8 billion in the consolidated cash fund, and yet we do not have any increase, except for the CPI, for allowances and assistance, I think it is a major issue for our Province.

When we learned in the Finance Estimates meeting the other day – my staff were there - that we have a consolidated cash fund of $1.8 billion, then it seems to me that in doing the review, the review should be done in the context of our financial situation in this Province, and our ability to pay more to people, because I think it is absolutely unacceptable that we have people, for example, people with disabilities, getting a cheque for what is it, $378 every two weeks, or something of that nature, and expected to live on that? Yes, I know they have a drug card, I know there are other benefits, but on $378 every two weeks they cannot do it. Some do it with family help; some do not do it. They are the ones who are at food banks, they are the ones who are on street corners, and they are the ones who…. In our economic context right now it is unacceptable, so I would really hope that the review that is done takes the whole economic picture of this Province into place.

It is interesting how information like the consolidated cash fund is not just sitting there. That had to be probed to be found out. When we looked at the budget figures we said there is a lot of cash somewhere. Where is that cash? It does not just show up in the budget; you have to go looking for it. So I would really ask you to make sure of that, in looking at not only the needs of the people but also the great ability we have to give much more to people in need.

When it was pointed out earlier, in talking to Mr. Butler, that there are greater complex needs now with a lot of the people in your caseload, those complexities, in themselves, I think, increase people's needs both financially and otherwise. I just need to make that point strongly.

I know, Minister, that you are concerned, and I would call upon you, as the new minister now responsible for this area, to give real leadership to the immediate needs of our people in this Province who are living in dire poverty, because they are there. We like to think they are not, but they are. Let all of us - I am not lecturing. I have to think, myself, about how I would try to live on $378 every two weeks and a drug card, and I know the people, and you know them, who are trying to live like that and they cannot. That is my soapbox.

You did answer my question, so I do look forward to having the ability to be part of consultations as you go through your process. Thank you.

I am going to do some line-by-line now, I think. I would like to reiterate, I am glad to know that the phone system is going to be improved. I know you are working on that, but we still need it. My constituency assistant last week waited forty-five – she usually does not have to use that line because she has other lines that she can use, but she had to use the line last week. She waited forty-five minutes. Then, when she finally got an answer, that person did not have the answer. There is no transferral, then, over to somebody who does, and you have to wait for another call back to get the answer. That was just as late as last week, so we will be looking forward to the new system.

MS SULLIVAN: Absolutely, and that is something we are committed to ensuring.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

If we could come then to - I am just going to do some straightforward line by line questions.

Section 1.2.01. Executive Support, General Administration. I am interested in the fact that under Salaries, it is quite a drop from the Revised estimate for last year. It is more than the Budget but a drop from the Revised estimate. So what is happening there with regard to personnel that would have that big drop?

MS SULLIVAN: Sorry, you are looking at Executive Support there in Salaries?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, that's right, under 1.2.01.

MS SULLIVAN: And the Revised about $151,000.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS SULLIVAN: Okay. Additional assistant deputy minister for the devolution for the LMDA, would explain part of that, and also severance and paid leave for the deputy minister's secretary who retired in July - if I am looking at the correct section.

MS MICHAEL: Section 1.2.01.

MS SULLIVAN: Salaries, yes.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, the Revised for last year was $824,900 but the estimate for this year is down substantially, by $157,000 approximately less, down to $728,200.

MS SULLIVAN: Again, the Revised reflected one-time payments, as in the assistant deputy minister for the devolution process, and also the fact that we paid severance and paid leave for the deputy minister's secretary who retired. Therefore, the estimate will be reduced again when we go back to look at the 2009-2010.

MS MICHAEL: Has there been a loss of staff, I guess is what I am asking?

MS CAUL: No, there has not been a loss of staff but part of the addition for the 2008-2009 was an extra ADM position to oversee the devolution agreement, the devolution of the LMDA. While we would have loved to have that money again next year, Treasury Board just typically gave us the increase plus the twenty-seventh pay period.

MS MICHAEL: It was a one-time increase.

MS CAUL: So we still have the LMDA person - the ADM on but we will have to find it through our own resources. We were not given extra budget money to do it.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that is clear. I did not get what the minister was saying.

Thank you.

Coming over to 1.2.03., again it is Salaries. It was revised up last year and the estimate this year is even more again, by $200,000 approximately. What is happening with personnel in that line?

MS SULLIVAN: As we start to look at the LMDA and the devolution, it is a very complicated piece. So I am going to ask Wayne, who is looking after that particular process, to explain those particular numbers. It is fairly clear as he explains it; I will complicate it for you.

So, Wayne, if you would.

MR. PENNEY: You are looking at 1.2.03. on Salaries?

MS MICHAEL: That is right, Mr. Penney, yes.

MR. PENNEY: Included in that is about $700,000 to pay for staff that we have in place, to help ensure that we transition over from Service Canada, effective November 2.

MS MICHAEL: And will they be permanent positions, or just a transitional period?

MR. PENNEY: No, those people have been put in place on a temporary basis.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. PENNEY: They have been mostly seconded from jobs that they have with the Public Service, to help with the transition.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Under Regional Operations, Client Services, 2.1.01.; now this may have to do with the devolution again, I am not sure, because we have a fair increase in Salaries in the Estimates for this year; almost $2 million over the budget, and more than that over the revised figure from last year. So I presume –

MS SULLIVAN: No.

MS MICHAEL: Obviously, there is more staff here, and what is that about?

MS SULLIVAN: Okay. First of all, let's look at the Revised. There is a savings there of about $960,000. That had to do, essentially, with some career work centres that are not yet opened. I think we have six that we still need to get opened. So there would be, therefore, a delay in the hiring of the new positions, the client service managers and so on.

Again, as Roxie alluded to earlier, our staff turnover in some areas indicates, simply because of promotions and so on, that we have at any one time about a 10 per cent vacancy rate there. So that would explain the revised savings there.

In terms of the Estimates and the increase of about $1.6 million, well of course the salary increase and the twenty-seventh pay period accounts for about $1.5 million of that.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, okay.

MS SULLIVAN: Then there is an annualization of an employment transition program. The funding for that in the central region of about $43,000. Classification adjustment explains another $27,000, and about $11,000 less funding related to retroactive portion of the new Labrador benefit.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under 4.1.01. Grants and Subsidies, all these grants and subsidies are to individuals, is that correct?

MS SULLIVAN: Grants and subsidies, yes, to individual groups.

MS MICHAEL: I notice that there is an increase over last year's revised figure. Is that a greater number of clients in this category?

MS SULLIVAN: I can take you down through three or four of the factors here that have influenced that. Many of them relate to new initiatives for the Poverty Reduction Strategy, and as well, the wage increases.

Four hundred thousand approximately forecasted adjustment to offset the cost of the increase of minimum wage but there is $1.2 million in a strategy that we are really happy to see get under way, and that is for supportive housing options to address homeless in Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly those clients with complex needs that you made reference to earlier. So that is a $1.2 million commitment there.

Ninety-four thousand dollars, again under Poverty Reduction, is provided for the transitional employment support services program, and that is for victims of violence in Newfoundland and Labrador. One hundred-and-forty-two thousand, again through Poverty Reduction, and this one is for the provision of the expansion of the employment transition program which is a wonderful program for young mothers, particularly, but for singles, to transition into the workforce. So we are now moving that particular project into Labrador.

MS MICHAEL: I wonder, minister, could we have a copy of that breakdown of the grants and subsidies? Last year I did ask for that in a number of cases because it is really helpful for us to know what money is going where.

MS SULLIVAN: Sure, yes.

MS MICHAEL: There are a couple of other places with grants and subsidies that I would make the same request, to have that breakdown.

MS SULLIVAN: Absolutely, that will not be a problem.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Of course, 4.1.03. is all part of the devolution, so I will not go into that one.

I have to see what was answered when Mr. Butler was asking questions.

MS SULLIVAN: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Under 4.1.05., again, the Grants and Subsidies there. I would be interested in knowing exactly how that is spelled out. I know that the government has a strategy, or has recently announced a strategy, with regard to assisting more people with disabilities to get into the workforce, and you are setting up the Office for Persons with Disabilities. Where is all of that at this moment?

MS SULLIVAN: In the sense of setting up of the office?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, right.

MS SULLIVAN: We have just hired our – I am never sure of titles, I believe she is called Director of the Office for Persons with Disabilities, Mary Reid has just been hired. She has been with us now, I think since March 30 or thereabouts. She is in the process of getting that particular office set up, and also in hiring a policy analyst to work with her. So we are very happy. Mary comes to us very highly recommended. She has worked here in Newfoundland and Labrador; she has worked in Ontario, and so brings that perspective with her as well. So, very happy with how that is unfolding right now.

MS MICHAEL: At this point – I know the focus has not been in place for a long time. We have obviously had some progress for people with disabilities finding employment, but are things improving for people with disabilities finding employment? Do we have figures on that? I would say, statistically, it is probably so small that it is hard to find that information.

MS SULLIVAN: It is hard to find that information, but that is something we will undertake to see if we can find those statistics for you.

I do not know if there is anybody here amongst the group who would have those statistics. I do not have them readily available, but I will certainly do some research and see if we can find those statistics. As you say, they are so small that they may be difficult to find actual statistics, but we should have at least some information that would tell us the progress that is being made there.

MS MICHAEL: Right, because anecdotally the information does not sound very good to me, I have to say, so it would be good to see.

Just to point out at this point here, and I think it comes in under Income Support as well, that – and I know that the department is thinking this way, but just to make the point, that more and more I think we are getting, that the disabilities are related to mental health. So the needs are so different when it comes to that. Because even from the perspective of the diagnoses of mental health, things that three years ago we did not have names for, like post-traumatic stress disorder, and the needs of people with post-traumatic stress disorder, and the training that is needed. Now, this sort of crosses over into the labour issues, but I think there really does need to be training. I do not know what plans there are about their education – maybe it is more the word, and maybe Mr. Fowler and some of the educational work you were talking about, this is one, because making adjustments for somebody who has a visual disability or somebody who needs a foot stool, like I do, and a back rest like I do, is one thing. Making adjustments for the person who has post-traumatic stress disorder and having an educational training happen in a workplace so that you understand how somebody with PTSD can get triggered and may react inappropriately in a workplace occasionally. But if they are being dealt with and they are working with professionals et cetera, they understand when the trigger happens and they may have a momentary reaction but in a workplace there needs to be adaptation for that as well. I see some of your staff nodding, so I think this is an issue that you are looking at. It is part of the training and education and information that needs to go on generally, as well as in the workplaces.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes. The education and awareness piece is certainly large and it is certainly an area in which we intend to focus our attention, there is no question about that. Then the necessary accommodations have to be made but that has to do with understanding the workplace a little bit better I think, and it has to do with understanding how we do the training. It is not simply a matter of putting out a little piece of information on a brochure or a pamphlet.

MS MICHAEL: Exactly, that's right.

MS SULLIVAN: Those are some of the analytical pieces that we will be doing and we will see to.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Do I still have time? I can stop if Mr. –

CHAIR: Yes, maybe we will switch it. Is that okay, or do you want to keep going?

MR. BUTLER: No, that is fine.

CHAIR: Okay. Yes, go ahead.

MS MICHAEL: In 4.1.06. Pan Canadian Innovations Initiative, there is large increase in the Salaries here. Could I have an explanation of that increase, please?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, if you would go down to the amount to be voted you will see some huge differences there, the total expenditure differences. They all have to do with delayed implementation of a program called youth connect. So in terms of staffing and staff turnover, as well as timing around the development of a baseline survey, evaluation of results, all of those factors have contributed to the overall bottom line there of the amount to be voted but it has to do essentially with delays in the implementation of that particular program.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. So it was sort of – some should have happened last year, did not, will happen and be doubled up this year, and then it will balance out next year.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, and that would be the same for subsection 09. Allowances and Assistance?

MS SULLIVAN: Absolutely!

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Under 6.1.01.; again, to say that I am glad to see an increase of money in this area. I think we could have more money in this area because our needs around immigration and multiculturalism are growing so much in this Province.

Under Grants and Subsidies, again, that is an area - if I could have a breakdown of the grants and subsidies there, please. I am glad to see $100,000 going to the multicultural women's organization. That is one line I do know is under that $560,000 but it would be good to see more.

Under this area, minister, I do not think at the moment there is a lot going into it, but what do you see as the government's responsibility with regard to English as a second language with regard to translation services, et cetera? Even when you look at the - I know the numbers are small and so people can get overlooked but even when it comes to worker's rights and those kinds of things, I mean everything is in English, I know, and we do not have a lot of people speaking the other languages. What are the plans for accommodations for people with, especially needs around language?

MS SULLIVAN: In terms of Labour Standards, there have been some translations, I think in two official languages that have already taken place, and there are two more happening now. I think Pilipino and Arabic, maybe, are the two new ones that are starting to happen now.

Nellie, you can refresh my memory as the two that are already done.

MS BURKE: The two languages are Spanish and Mandarin and the two new ones, as the minister said, are Pilipino and Arabic under development right now.

MS MICHAEL: Good. Could you tell me exactly what is happening then? What is being translated?

MS BURKE: The Labour Standards.

MS MICHAEL: The Labour Standards. Okay, very good.

I think that is everything, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you, Ms Michael.

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Do anyone here want to ask a question before I -

CHAIR: Go ahead.

MR. BUTLER: Just to go back to one of the general questions, minister. I know the School Lunch Program and Kids Eat Smart Program are through your department, right? I noticed over the last couple of years there are more schools throughout our Province coming on, and it is a good program. Maybe it is not for your –

MS SULLIVAN: Actually, a fabulous program but moved to the Department of Health and Community Services now.

MR. BUTLER: All right, I will get someone else to ask that question for me.

With regards to the heading 1.2.02. under Salaries; I know last year, in 2008-2009, the Estimates for last year was $2,158,400. In this year's book it shows budgeted $2,347,600 and it was revised to $2,599,100.

I was just wondering, when the Estimates were voted on last year, can I have an explanation for that? We voted on $2.1 million, then the budget was $2.3 million, and it was revised to $2.5 million.

MS SULLIVAN: Okay, I believe there was an 8 per cent increase there, but I am going to ask Bren to speak to that.

MR. HANLON: The salary increases were not anticipated last year, but when the 8 per cent salary increase comes in, they restate all this year's budgets as if the 8 per cent had already been in place.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, okay.

MR. HANLON: Because you guys would have approved it if you had known the 8 per cent was coming, but we did not know it was coming. So that is why it happened.

MR. BUTLER: Under the same heading, 1.2.02.06. Purchased Services; I noticed there that Budget was $3.2 million and the Revised was $2.8 million. I was just wondering if you could give a brief explanation on the reduction in that number there under Purchased Services.

MS SULLIVAN: Sure. There was a delay in the opening of offices, and those offices were Bonavista, Springdale, Channel, Happy Valley and Wabush. So therefore, lower lease costs because we were delayed in getting those opened. As well, less than anticipated leasehold improvements. So, we did not have to do as much work to get into some of the other spaces.

MR. BUTLER: Under the same heading again, 02. at the bottom, where it says Revenue – Provincial government.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: The Budget says $20,000, Revised $165,000, back to $20,000. Could I have an explanation from the $20,000 up to the $165,000?

Then again, I will tie it all into the one. Down in 1.2.03., it showed last year $675,000 but there is nothing there for this year's estimate. I am just wondering if you can give an explanation.

MS SULLIVAN: Okay. In terms of the Provincial Revenue there, the revised increase of $145,000 was variance due to the receipt of old year revenue from various sources. We have some examples of that. For example, in terms of regional health, old year rent from Baie Verte, Springdale, Corner Brook, so on, about $21,000. Linkages refunds as well, of about $42,000, 43,000. Refund from the federal government for annuity on an older worker program which terminated back in 1999, $73,800. We did not expect that but we are happy to take it. Refund of airfare of about $4,600, and then other miscellaneous revenue of about $2,000.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

2.1.01., under Salaries.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: The Budget was $19.670 million and the Revised was $18.709 million. I was just wondering, what was the purpose of the decrease there under Salaries? Was that positions that did not come on-stream or?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, these relate to regional operations out there. We have about six of our career work centres that are not yet opened, that we do hope to get open in the next little bit of time. That meant, of course, fewer client service managers who needed to be hired. As well, the staff turnover, as I explained earlier. At any given time there is approximately a 10 per cent vacancy rate as a result of staff turnover.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under 2.1.01. Client Services, under the heading, 07. Property, Furnishings and Equipment; I notice the Budget was for $598,000 but it went overbudget by $200,000. I just wonder if you could give an explanation for that one, please.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes. Even though we did not get all of our career work centres open, when we did buy furniture, we bought furniture for all of those particular career work centres. There was also some furniture and IT purchases for various offices across the Province.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

4.1.03. Labour Market Agreement. The Budget amount was $800,000 there for Salaries and under Revised there is nothing listed. I am just wondering if you could explain that, please.

MS SULLIVAN: Again, because that has not been totally devolved.

Again, anything related to labour market devolution, I always pass back up to Wayne because he explains it in a much less complicated fashion than I do.

MR. PENNEY: The Labour Market Agreement is a new agreement outside the Labour Market Development Agreement that we are devolving. We started negotiating that in 2007. We had hoped to get it signed. We did not get the agreement signed until September 2008. It was a six-year agreement, and we had anticipated spending some of the money last year but because we were delayed getting the agreement signed – and most provinces were, by the way – we now have that money re-profiled over the next five years. So, we never spent any of that money last year.

MR. BUTLER: Very good. I guess the same answers for just about all the headings down through that particular section.

MR. PENNEY: Absolutely!

MR. BUTLER: Under 4.1.04. – I hope I am not; I tried to eliminate the ones my colleague asked there. Under Grants and Subsidies, this year's budget I noticed an increase of approximately $980,000. I was just wondering, what grants and subsidies would this additional money be used for?

MS SULLIVAN: I can tell you generically that there is an increase to program funding generally from the federal budget of about $830,000 and that the provincial funding required to access additional federal funding is about $150,000, but the exact grants I, again, would defer to Wayne or Pam to give the specifics on them.

MR. PENNEY: Lynn, do you want to respond to that one. Sorry, minister.

MS SULLIVAN: We understand it is application driven in any case, right.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism, that is the Provincial Nominee Program, under that heading?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I guess some of the questions I have here now is in relation to the Auditor General's report that did come down. I understand as of April, 2008 the Province had $1.3 million held in trust in related to twenty-four nominees listed through the Provincial Nominee Program. I am wondering, that trust fund, is that listed in under the figures within your budget here or would that be through say the Department of Finance, and if so, where is it in your Estimates?

MS SULLIVAN: It is not in ours. I am not sure where it is. Nellie may be able to tell us exactly where it is.

MS BURKE: The Department of Finance would have that.

MR. BUTLER: The Department of Finance, okay.

The Auditor General also stated that the electronic database was incomplete and all potential nominees' files were not recorded. I was wondering if that issue or the concern that he has, has that been resolved since that particular audit?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes. In fact, we were in the process of doing so at the time and reported that to the Auditor General at the time.

The process of transferring over the data to the new system, the last time I checked it was about 98 per cent complete and we are very confident that we have moved ahead on that.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. That probably leads me into another question. The purpose of the program is to nominate immigrants who contribute to the economy and social goals of our Province. Of the 530 – I am only using figures that he had there, now - individuals the Province nominated, I am just wondering: Would you know now how many of those have moved or stayed in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MS SULLIVAN: It is a very complicated process. First of all, it is federally orchestrated and organized. So, simply because they are nominated does not mean that they are going to be provided with visas to come here.

As well, we understand that several of those potential immigrants are considered landed at their point of entry, which may be British Columbia, or it may be Toronto and so on.

The very specifics in terms of those numbers I will turn over to Nellie so that she can walk you through exactly what that process is, and talk through the numbers piece with you as well.

MS BURKE: Yes, the minister is absolutely correct in that it is a very complicated process, and we are in the process of trying to determine exactly where the individuals – whether they ever came to Canada, whether they were issued a particular certificate; because, once we nominate, there are still other processes to go through.

We are also in the process of negotiating an information sharing agreement with the federal government, because right now we do not have an agreement that will provide all the information that we need to enable us to do the tracking. We are hopeful that within the next number of months to a year – it takes some time to negotiate an agreement with the federal government - we hope to have one in place so that we can actually do the tracking.

Our office inherited the program as of April 2007 and I can tell you, those that we have nominated we are doing the tracking required. Because we inherited a program, we are in the process now of trying to track the others.

MR. BUTLER: Just for clarification, did you say that it is possible some of them never came to Canada?

MS BURKE: That is correct. Once we nominate, there is a federal process that they have to go through. The process looks at things like medical admissibility, it looks at security, criminality, and they have to produce evidence of their legitimate source of funds that they would be bringing to Canada. So, for many reasons, the federal government could deny access.

MR. BUTLER: One other issue that was brought out, it said that one business venture received approximately $39.9 million from 150 nominees who contributed $265,000 each, and each nominee was to receive one share in a business venture which could be redeemed.

I am wondering - and after hearing some of your other answers probably the tracking is not there to find this out, even, but - do we know if those individuals redeemed their shares? Apparently it had to do with an upscale chalet or something. I am just wondering how many received a chalet, as agreed to in that contract, or I think you gave a date there of April 2007, so that would have been probably prior to that date? There is no tracking on any of this?

MS SULLIVAN: At the time the program was not held within HRLE, as you know. It was held during another period of time, and maybe even another Administration, but this had to do with investment attraction to the Province as opposed to what HRLE's mandate is.

We did not have any particulars; no particulars were provided to government at all. That had to do with a private contract between the immigrant and the particular proponent, so there was no way for government to have any information with regard to the financial transactions.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Prior to April 2007, and even since then, is there a list of names of businesses and how much money they received from this venture, and see what they are doing here in the Province, and so on, whether it is another Administration or the present Administration?

MS SULLIVAN: Again, it would be considered private transactions between the immigrant and those particular businesses. There are many businesses which have come here and have done some fabulous work - in fact, they are profiled in magazines that we put out – but to actually provide information on these private transactions is not something that government is going to do.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

As of April 2008, where the Auditor General said there was $1.3 million held in trust, any of those funds held in trust, were any of those transactions since April 2007?

MS SULLIVAN: I am not sure of the specifics in terms of dates. Nellie, I do not know if you would have those particular pieces of information with regard to dates, and the money that is held in trust?

MS BURKE: We certainly would have the dates and all of the information, but none of it happened after April 2007 when the program was transferred to our department, but we have been tracking the files. This was a result of a performance agreement that the previous department had put in place to try to ensure that the individuals would come and establish a business in Newfoundland and Labrador, and not just say they were coming and then go to another Province.

The rules are that, one year after landing we check with them to see if they are actually here on the ground, the kids registered in school, paying taxes here, running a business, and if so they get that money back. Each individual deposits $100,000, so they get it back, plus interest.

If, however, we determine through an audit that they are not here, then that money will default to the provincial government.

MR. BUTLER: I guess that is why the $1.3 million is held in trust today. That is not necessarily $1.3 million that this government or any government would be able to use, because that may have to go back to the people who were under this sponsorship.

MS SULLIVAN: That is absolutely right, and it will take a year to be able to establish that. It takes a year to see if people are going to set down roots, if they are going to stay here, and so on.

CHAIR: Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Still under the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism, subsection 03, Transportation and Communications, there is a jump there of about $100,000 in the Estimates for this year.

What is anticipated, in order to have that higher figure?

MS SULLIVAN: It is an annualization of funding, actually, that was approved in 2007-2008.

MS MICHAEL: For what?

MS SULLIVAN: I do not have the specifics here. I do not know, Bren or Nellie, if you have those specifics in terms of the Estimates for Transportation and Communications?

MS BURKE: You will recall that when the immigration strategy was approved in 2007-2008 it was over a three year period. It was $6 million over three years, and it was on a ramp-up basis.

The rationale for more travel and communications money in this fiscal year was that by this time we would be able to determine where in the world we may be needing to recruit skilled workers from, and that there may be a requirement, due to skill shortages, that we would have to conduct missions to particular places; hence, the increased travel.

We take part in overseas immigration fairs now, promoting the Province to prospective immigrants around the world, and, as you know, international travel can be somewhat costly. That is for that type of expenditure.

MS MICHAEL: Ms Burke, would it be possible to know the countries – if you do not have them all at the tip of your fingers - the countries that you are concentrating on currently?

MS BURKE: Absolutely. The list of target countries is actually published in the immigration strategy itself, but we also have, in the past while, concentrated on those countries where the rest of Canada is concentrating on, and we have been part of a Canadian mission to recruit, but we can provide that.

MS MICHAEL: If it is in the immigration strategy, we have that; and there has been no change to what is in the immigration strategy?

MS SULLIVAN: No.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

Under Youth and Student Services, subhead 5.1.01, there is obviously an overall increase here, and it must be increases in programs. I assume I have heard of some of these programs but I wonder, Minister, if you could bring us through the big increase here.

MS SULLIVAN: It had to do with the Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS SULLIVAN: We have allocated, this year, $1.18 million, off the top of my head. I should never do figures off the top of my head because they do not necessarily stay in one spot in there, but I think it is around $1.18 million, if I am not mistaken, Bren, for the Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible)

MS SULLIVAN: Okay, $3.8 million all together.

That is what I said: I don't recall figures very well. There is $3.8 million, then, for the strategy, and there will be a number of particular initiatives. We are getting ready to release that particular strategy, and we hope to be able to do that very soon, which will outline exactly – I think we have somewhere around thirty. I cannot remember the number of initiatives that we have in that particular strategy either, but we have a huge number of initiatives. What I can do is get all of those initiatives line by line for you, but we will be releasing the strategy very soon in any case.

MS MICHAEL: That was my next question: When are you releasing the strategy?

MS SULLIVAN: Very soon.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Well, I can wait until the strategy is released, knowing that it is coming soon.

MS SULLIVAN: Sure. Then we will go through line by line, each of them, because they are across government. They are horizontally across government, and we think we have a really nice package of strategies there to look at Youth Retention and Attraction.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

I think I will wait for that, because I do have questions but I need to see the strategy in order to ask the questions, I think.

MS SULLIVAN: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: I will keep those questions; they are more general policy questions.

MS SULLIVAN: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: You may hear them coming from me in another context -

MS SULLIVAN: Not a problem.

MS MICHAEL: - once we have the strategy.

That is all, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Just one other question and it goes back to subhead 4.1.02. That is the new agreement with regard to Services Canada.

I am just wondering, and probably it is a bit early to determine this: We have people provincially now in the system, plus the employees who are working through Services Canada, and I am wondering when the merger should take place. All of the people who are both provincial and with the federal government now, is there room for everybody, or are we going to see some reduction in the number of people who will be employed with regard to that service that will be provided?

MS SULLIVAN: We are not going to see any reductions whatsoever.

MR. BUTLER: Good.

That is it, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Okay.

Just a final ask to the Committee members: Any further questions?

If you could call the heads?

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01 to 8.1.01 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 to 8.1.01 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 8.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

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

CHAIR: Before I ask for a motion to adjourn, I just want to remind our Committee that we will convene tomorrow morning, April 7, here in the House to hear the Estimates of the Department of Municipal Affairs.

I would also at this time like to thank the minister and her staff for being here this morning and providing the information.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Oh, I am sorry, at 9:00 o'clock. That was just for my benefit, so I get here on time.

Yes, Sir?

MR. COLLINS: A quick question, Mr. Chair.

I notice that (inaudible) Wednesday for a session in the morning with Education, and in the evening with Health and Community Services.

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. COLLINS: Is it my understanding that the House may close on Wednesday? If that is the case, does Thursday evening pose a problem?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible) not sitting next Thursday evening.

CHAIR: No, we are not sitting on Thursday. So you are saying, because we are not sitting, it could be –

MR. COLLINS: Well, if we are sitting on Thursday, does Wednesday evening present a problem?

MS MICHAEL: I believe there is some discussion going on, Mr. Chair, with regard to Wednesday evening. There is some discussion going on with the House Leaders around Wednesday evening.

CHAIR: On that session.

MS MICHAEL: On that session.

CHAIR: Okay, so we should maybe know something later today.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

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

MR. BUTLER: So moved.

MR. COLLINS: So moved.

CHAIR: Okay, Mr. Butler and Mr. Collins.

We are adjourned.

Thank you very much.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.