PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

First Session Forty-Eighth General Assembly

Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Government Services

May 10, 2016 - Issue 4

Department of Finance Office of the Chief Information Officer

Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Assembly Honourable Tom Osborne, MHA GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Department of Finance

Chair: Randy Edmunds, MHA

Vice-Chair: Keith Hutchings, MHA

Members: John Finn, MHA Carol Anne Haley, MHA Steve Kent, MHA Neil King, MHA Lorraine Michael, MHA Betty Parsley, MHA

Clerk of the Committee: Elizabeth Murphy

Appearing:

Department of Finance Hon. Cathy Bennett, MHA, Minister Donna Brewer, Deputy Minister Gail Boland, Director, Policy and Planning Lesley Clarke, Communications Manager Alton Hollett, Assistant Deputy Minister, Economics & Statistics Craig Martin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax & Fiscal Policy Ann Marie Miller, Comptroller General Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller Jennifer Tulk, Director, Communications

Office of the Chief Information Officer Hon. Cathy Bennett, MHA, Minister Ellen MacDonald, Chief Information Officer Julie Moore, Executive Director Randy Mouland, Executive Director Natalie Templeman, Executive Director Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller Jennifer Tulk, Director, Communications

Also Present Derrick Bragg, MHA Megan Drodge, Researcher, Official Opposition Office Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP Office May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Derrick Bragg, MS. MICHAEL: Lorraine Michael, MHA, St. MHA for Fogo Island – Cape Freels, substitutes John’s East – Quidi Vidi. for John Finn, MHA for Stephenville – Port au Port. MR. MORGAN: Ivan Morgan, researcher, NDP caucus. The Committee met at approximately 9 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber. MS. PARSLEY: Betty Parsley, MHA, Harbour Main. CHAIR (Edmunds): Welcome everyone to the third and final session for the Government MR. KING: Neil King, MHA, historic District Services Committee. Today we’ll be doing of Bonavista. OCIO and Finance. MS. HALEY: Carol Anne Haley, MHA, Burin First of all, I’d like to call for adopting the – Grand Bank. minutes of the last meeting. MR. BRAGG: Derrick Bragg, MHA, Fogo MR. HUTCHINGS: So moved. Island – Cape Freels.

CHAIR: Move to adopt the minutes of the last – CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, moved. I ask the minister if she could introduce her staff. I’d like to point out that if staff, other than CHAIR: Okay. yourself, are speaking that they clearly introduce themselves before carrying on. All those in favour, ‘aye.’ MS. C. BENNETT: All right. I’m Cathy SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. Bennett, MHA for Windsor Lake and the Minister Responsible for OCIO, and I’ll turn CHAIR: Carried. towards the deputy.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated. MS. MACDONALD: Ellen MacDonald, Chief Information Officer from the OCIO. CHAIR: First of all, I’m going to ask the Government Services Committee to introduce MS. MOORE: Julie Moore, Executive Director, themselves and then I’ll ask the minister to Corporate and Information Management introduce her staff. Then we’ll go on with the Services, OCIO. line by lines on OCIO followed by Finance. Given that this session has been delayed already MS. TRICKETT: Wanda Trickett, once and we only have a certain allotted time to Departmental Controller. get the Estimates done, we will finish by 12 o’clock. MR. MOULAND: Randy Mouland, Executive Director of Operations, OCIO. I would just like to point out that Mr. Bragg is substituting for Mr. Finn on the Government MS. TEMPLEMAN: Natalie Templeman, Services Committee. Executive Director of Solutions Delivery, OCIO.

I ask the Government Services Committee to MS. C. BENNETT: And that’s everybody for introduce themselves. OCIO.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Keith Hutchings, MHA, CHAIR: Okay. District of Ferryland. What we’ll do is we’ll get started here. I’ll call MS. DRODGE: Megan Drodge, researcher, for the subheads, and then I’ll ask for some Official Opposition caucus.

94

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

opening remarks. Then we’ll turn it over to The Estimates structure we’re going to walk either line by line or probing questions. through this morning, OCIO, includes four branches and each have a distinct set of CLERK (Ms. Murphy): 4.1.01. responsibilities.

CHAIR: Shall 4.1.01 carry? There’s the Corporate and Information Management Services or the CIMS. That’s MS. C. BENNETT: I just want to say good responsible for policy vendor and contract morning to everyone, and good morning to management, RFP development and the colleagues as we review the Estimates of the management of OCIO corporate-wide activities, Office of the Chief Information Officer. management of office space, supplies, et cetera.

I just have a few points to make before we get Under Solution Delivery, and that would include into the actual Estimates. I just want to make both current and capital monies, they’re sure that from the Chair’s perspective I have responsible for all new project work for time to talk for maybe about two or three departments and agencies. minutes. Under Application Services, they would be Mr. Chair, is that okay? responsible for the support and maintenance of the existing 500-plus applications that are used CHAIR: (Inaudible.) by departments and agencies. Typically, in any given year, it would handle about 2,800 requests MS. C. BENNETT: Okay. I just want to make to update current systems. sure I was okay on the clock. Operations – both current and, again, capital – I have a couple of opening comments to make. I has the responsibility for technology just wanted to make sure that from my time infrastructure, desktops, laptops, servers, wide- perspective I was okay to make them now. area networks, email systems, backup and recovery of all government data, et cetera. CHAIR: (Inaudible.) Typically, it handles in any given year over 119,000 requests. MS. C. BENNETT: Awesome. The budget overall, and the budget allocations Just for the members of the Committee, to give for OCIO, in 2016-17 the OCIO will see a $7.4 you a little background on OCIO. The OCIO million or an 11 per cent budget reduction as supports all the information technology and the part of the Government Renewal Initiative and information management functions of line-by-line reductions. Further to this, the government, including things like government’s OCIO has absorbed another $4 million in technology infrastructure. It includes addressing pressures as part of its base budget, bringing the some 150,000 requests annually over 310 total savings to just over $11 million for 2016- government offices across the province. 17.

It manages over 10,000-plus laptops and In terms of the Government Renewal Initiative, desktops, 1,500 servers and 1,600 Blackberries. as we work through the Estimates document you It also manages providing email services and will see the OCIO’s initiatives including data storage, and managing licensing and changes to the project delivery model, which maintenance of software and hardware assets. It will see savings of $411,000 for 2016-17 and also is responsible for protecting government over $2.9 million in annualized savings when assets and data from cyber-attacks. It also fully implemented. You’ll also see changes in supports 500-plus applications that are used by technology support models which will see departments and agencies and building and savings of over $1.3 million in ’16-’17 and over deploying new IT solutions for government $1.6 million in annualized savings when fully departments and agencies. implemented. You’ll also see the introduction of the managed service provider model, which will

95

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

see savings of $50,000 in ’16-’17, and $297,500 the work required to implement new projects. in annualized savings when fully implemented. Some of these projects involve multi-year And you’ll see additional operating savings of funding that must be allocated between current $13,800. Further to this, as part of the line-by- and capital accounts. When the project starts and line review of operational line items, the OCIO nears completion, funding is generally saved an additional $2,066,300. considered current while the build phase is considered capital. When we look at salaries, the OCIO in ’15-’16 projected revised shows savings of just over This is a complex budgeting area and while best $1.2 million, resulting from lower requirements efforts are made to budget funding into each for projects due to timing of activities such as spending envelope at the outset of each project, the project for CYFS, as well as planned there are often adjustments to the envelopes for vacancies to manage within the budget and to the out-years and as projects progress. Budgets save related to government’s spending reduction become more refined depending on the progress measures. The OCIO manages salaries at the of the project. As you will see in activities overall corporate level versus by branch, so you 4.1.02 and 4.1.05 most envelopes involve will see some branches show a deficit in salaries transfers of funds depending on the projects for while others show a surplus. The OCIO manages the next year. within its overall salary budget. Child, Youth and Family Services system A total of $287,600 has been eliminated into implementation is the largest ongoing project 2015-16 as part of government’s attrition plan and is being implemented over multiple years. and OCIO has reduced four positions during Much of the reduced expenditure in ’15-’16 is 2015-16. driven by timing changes for the CYFS project as well as managed reductions and delayed Some specific areas that we’ll focus on as we implementation to manage spending. walk through the Estimates I’m sure will be Corporate and Information Management GRI and line-by-line savings in these activities Services. While Salaries for 2015-16 were in these two Estimate pages include GRI savings higher than anticipated, savings were managed of just over $469,000 related to changes to in other branches to accommodate this. Salary technology support models and changes to the savings were attained overall. project delivery model, introduction of the managed service provider model and line-by- Salaries for ’16-’17 are reduced to reflect line reductions of over $2 million. attrition targets and a total of a half million dollars in Professional Services allocation is As just indicted, the Solution Delivery area as normally used for federal-provincial projects, part of the GRI is undertaking changes to its with an offset of a $500,000 revenue item for a method of delivery of IT solutions. In particular, net of zero. This funding was not used in ’15-’16 there will be a reallocation of internal staff to and has not been used in a few years. As a result, this branch, reducing the number of contractors. both the expenditure and the revenue were It is anticipated that the equivalent of up to 13 removed in the ’16-’17 budget. contractor positions will be eliminated over time as this initiative is implemented. This is There was some spending in this account related reflected in the long-term reduction in to information, protection and security. Professional Services funding. Spending under Purchased Services was higher than was budgeted in ’15-’16 due to a flood at Under the Application Services which is 4.1.03, the Provincial Records Centre, which caused GRI and line-by-line savings in these activities unplanned remediation costs. And GRI and line- included line-by-line reductions of $16,800. by-line savings in these activities included line- by-line reductions of $42,300. The last two headings would be Information Technology Operations, current and capital, When we move to Solution Delivery and 4.1.04 and 4.1.06. This activity includes Solution Delivery capital, these accounts capture significant IT and infrastructure purchasing that

96

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

you do not normally see in other spending MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. envelopes in government. For instance, Chair. Transportation and Communications, this will include spending for a multi-million dollar Thank you very much, Minister, and thank you contract for wide area network, or WAN, to all of your staff for being here and just to say, services across government. This allows I guess, as a person who lives in this connections to the Internet for over 300 establishment for a lot of my time, probably the government offices. one department that we interact with a lot is OCIO simply because OCIO services us in a It would include Supplies, which includes very special way. We don’t often get the spending for millions of dollars in annual opportunity to do this, so I want to thank, software licences, maintenance and support Minister, the staff very much for the good agreements for the use of government-wide service that we’ve always received as MHAs, software products. Purchased Services will and continue to. We really appreciate it. Thank include spending for annual hardware you so much. maintenance costs for the use of government- wide hardware products. And under Property, Minister, that was a lot of information at one Furnishings and Equipment it includes spending time so if I am asking a question about for hardware and equipment purchases, for something that you’ve already referred to, you’ll example desktop and laptop computers for forgive me for it because what I’ll be looking for government. In the capital account, spending in now will be the details, I guess, of what you sort this area is for large-scale infrastructure and of gave the overview of. security. Examples would be firewalls, servers and networking equipment. In 4.1.01 – I think you did give an overview of this – the one line that I’m interested in is the GRI and line-by-line savings in these activities detail with regard to the Professional Services included GRI savings of $1.37 million related to that were in that line at $520,000 that which are changes to technology support models and line- now obviously needed. Some detail on that, by-line reductions of $19,200. please.

I now ask that officials here today who’ve MS. C. BENNETT: The change from the already introduced themselves be prepared for $520,000 that was the original budget, down to the questions that the Members opposite are $19,500 reflects the line-by-line reduction as we going to ask. went through line items and items that the OCIO identified would not be required as part of their Thank you, Mr. Chair. planning for fiscal ’16-’17.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. MS. MICHAEL: But $500,000 is a large amount. I’m wondering is the $500,000 a basic Before I turn it over to the Government Services drop up there related to the $500,000 that was Committee, I’d like to point out that we’ll revenue, or was budgeted as revenue, from the allocate 15 minutes beginning with Mr. federal government. Hutchings and then Ms. Michael. MS. C. BENNETT: That’s correct. Those two MR. HUTCHINGS: Ms. Michael can go first. items I mentioned in the preamble were related. We dropped both of those this year. CHAIR: Okay. I’m glad you made the decision amongst yourselves. MS. MICHAEL: Okay.

And then we’ll open up to any other This is what I mean. It’s hard getting the Government Services Committee member. information ahead of time and relating it.

With that, we’ll hand it over to Ms. Michael. Thank you very much.

97

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Coming down to 4.1.02, Solution Delivery, MS. MICHAEL: That was the revision, right? could we have the details with regard to the Salaries line because it’s going up by $409,700. MS. C. BENNETT: That’s correct. I know you did talk about movements of staff, but if you could give us the details in the That reflects savings in an effort to reduce Salaries line in this area, please. spending under government’s direction. This line item is related to externally provided MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. Professional Services for project delivery. Some projects did not proceed as projected. This I’ll start off with the projected revised budget of provided additional savings for government. ’15-’16, the $3.2 million. That reflects savings Savings included: from the CYFS, $226,000; due to vacancies. There was a director position, Advanced HR was $154,000; and AQMS was two delivery managers, an enterprise architect $345,000, et cetera. position, as well as delayed recruitment on projects, for example, delayed recruitment on The original budget for ’16-’17 that we’re the CYFS project of $226,000. Under the discussing today, the $3,778,100 reflects a net $4,333,900, the changes there relate to a net decrease over the prior year of $987,700. That’s increase for project-related salaries and carry based on the re-profiling of funds for projects forwards from prior years of about $313,000 and other project delivery accounts. As I specifically for the CYFS project. mentioned in the opening, this occurs each year as, initially, funds are allocated to the It also reflects an increase based on the GRI Professional Services account for future years activities and the project delivery and the long- when approved. term support model. The deputy may want to add some additional texture there. That will see This particular line item reflects $446,400 for a scheduled internal transfer of resources over the GRI project delivery and long-term support multiple years. The salary transfers will be model, which is the reduction of equivalent $89,800. funding. It would have been seen in the professional services contract resources. This MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much. represents year one of a multi-year approach.

If I may, Minister and the Chair, we’ve always Also reflected here is $50,000 for GRI for established at the beginning, so far, throughout managed service provider model, which is the the Estimates that the briefing notes for the reduction in contractor costs and the initial first- Estimates itself would be made available to us year estimate of that. It also reflects $7,800 for afterwards. So just confirming that will happen. GRI; five, part of the changes in technology support models, which again is about reducing Great, thank you very much. And then we know contractor costs for the support that we use we don’t have to get every single piece of detail inside OCIO. down. MS. MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you. Thanks When you talk about the revision in 2015-16, Minister, under Professional Services in the some projects that – were they put on hold? Or same subhead; I know you’ve made reference to was it that whatever was planned didn’t happen this in your opening, but could you just give us, or will be happening this year? You mentioned one again, the details on the drop of $1.5 million some projects being put on hold. from last year’s budget line in Professional Services. MS. MACDONALD: The projects here were – it was a timing issue more than anything else. So MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. I’ll walk through the rather than start them, we just delayed them to a projected revised budget for 2015-16 first, that’s later start date. the $4,341,300. MS. MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much.

98

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Do you want to start, Keith? Estimate of $603,000. I’m just wondering if I can get some information on that one. MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, sure. MS. C. BENNETT: Yes. Just for clarity, is the Minister, I just wanted to touch on a couple of Member speaking to the $603,000? items Ms. Michael spoke to. Just to go back to 4.1.01, Professional Services; $520,000, reduced MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes. down. MS. C. BENNETT: Okay. Could you just give me an example of what that would have been? My understanding is there That reflects the increases for project-related was funding from the feds and that’s no longer costs that are carried forward from prior years, there, so you’ve stopped that program. Just some specifically for the CYFS project. This idea of what that would have been? introduces the training for 700-plus CYFS staff and their travel costs. This increase is net of a MS. MACDONALD: This funding was an $900 line-by-line review reduction. So that offset. So it’s really an opportunity – if the money is budgeted for the training associated federal government wanted us to do some work with a new CYFS program that OCIO is for them, we would need to have an ability to currently working on. collect their revenue and this is the offsetting expenditure. So it’s not that we didn’t get the MR. HUTCHINGS: Could I just get an update federal funds, it’s that they’ve never asked us to on the status of the CYFS program, that project, do some work. This was a placeholder, if you where it’s to? like, for that kind of work. MS. MACDONALD: Certainly. The project is, MR. HUTCHINGS: Oh, okay. Thank you. I would say, in the build phase. We’re working with the vendor, who’s providing us a solution, MS. C. BENNETT: So just to be clear – and we are modifying it for our legislative because I know that in the Member opposite’s requirements so that the folks can do their jobs question, I want to make sure there’s no in a better way, really, and it includes confusion – this would not have been federal conversion activities which have started, it funding that wasn’t received. This would have includes planning for training. So I’d say it’s been a placeholder for work that would two-thirds of the way through the build. potentially be done by OCIO as part of work we could do for the federal government that we There’s a huge effort still ongoing. We have to could bill out. There was no ask for us to do that go through a full conversion and a full testing work, so I just wanted to make sure we’re clear. and training. So it’s not going to complete this fiscal. It will be next fiscal. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. It was never utilized. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. So the two-thirds build, was that build originated from OCIO or MS. C. BENNETT: We weren’t asked by the was adopted from somewhere else, some federal government to do it. This was a jurisdiction? placeholder that’s been in place for a number of years. MS. MACDONALD: The system that was selected was the system that’s in place in several MS. MACDONALD: Yes. SYFS-type units in Ontario. We are essentially modifying it for some of the different ways that MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Thank you. – I shouldn’t say modify, we’re configuring the solution for how the social work legislation If we go to 4.1.02, down to the line works here, and the broader scope that our Transportation and Communications, there’s CYFS has than other jurisdictions. So we’re been a significant increase in this year’s working with a vendor.

99

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. So this would be the envelope that looks after consultants that do – Just my final question with regard to that; some of this funding is related to training for staff as MS. MACDONALD: Yes. the system, I guess, becomes operationalized. I think you said you’re two-thirds through but you MR. HUTCHINGS: – project delivery and wouldn’t complete it this year. Will training those types of things. begin before the actual project is completed? Minister, when you mentioned there was – what MS. C. BENNETT: Training for the tools will was the number, 13 contractors that were happen when the tools are available for the coming out. That would come out of this social workers to use, would be the answer. envelope here?

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. So it could start this MS. C. BENNETT: Yes. year, the training. That’s why the money is there. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

OFFICIAL: Yes, the training should start this What would be a rough average of the amount of year. consultants that would be used reflective of this?

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Thank you. MS. C. BENNETT: Inside OCIO?

In that same heading, 4.1.02 – Ms. Michael MR. HUTCHINGS: Yeah. again asked about Professional Services – we’ve seen a reduction there. I think you indicated MS. C. BENNETT: Well, I can report to the there were issues in regard to projects may be committee that when I took over as minister and getting completed and they weren’t. I’m not sure spoke to the deputy, some of the consulting on that one again. Could you just give me a work that had been ongoing for almost a decade review of that one, Professional Services? with an individual contract being valued at almost a million dollars was still in place, and MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. Maybe the we have since rectified that. information that we can share with you around the project delivery and the long-term support MR. HUTCHINGS: What would roughly be model might help clarify, because a portion of the amount of consultants that would be used, the money that I referenced earlier when I spoke average, yearly, and has that changed? to the $3,778,000 is reflective of that change. MS. C. BENNETT: The plan is we are Maybe I’ll ask the deputy if she can provide a continuing to reduce the number of contractors very high-level overview of the project delivery inside of OCIO. That’s what we speak about and long-term support model. when we talk about the project delivery and long-term support model is providing the MS. MACDONALD: Certainly. opportunity for staff inside OCIO to provide that work and using contractors for very specialized Our intent is that we’re going to move some activities that are not repetitive and ongoing for resources from other areas in OCIO into the multiple years, as was the practice under the branch that delivers projects. We’ll have to do prior administration. some retraining of them and essentially lessen our requirement on contractual resources. The MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. equivalent of 13 contractors we should be able to eliminate. I’m good, Mr. Chair, for that section.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. CHAIR: Ms. Michael.

100

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

MS. MICHAEL: 4.1.03; Minister, if we could contracts for software licences, other licences; – again, you referred in general with regard to technology licences. positions and salaries but could we have the breakdown which leads to this year’s salary MS. MICHAEL: Are these multiple contracts estimate being $202,800 less than last year. under this line?

MS. C. BENNETT: The $8,476,000 reflects the MS. C. BENNETT: There are 500 applications attrition target of $113,000 for ’16-’17. It also that government supports, and many of those reflects the project delivery and long-term applications would have their own unique support model loss of AS salaries of $89,000 for licences that would be maintained and you’d see year. those –

As the deputy mentioned earlier, there’s some MS. MICHAEL: Okay. So it’s the licences, reallocation of positions from one area to mainly. another, and that would be that position at $89,000 for year one. This initiative will reflect MS. MACDONALD: It’s a support line for movement, as I said earlier, of internal resources these different technologies that we can’t to the SD branch over multiple years. support ourselves. We don’t have the skills in- house. MS. MICHAEL: Is there a position gone because of attrition or are the positions all MS. MICHAEL: Right. That’s understandable. moved into another area? Thank you very much. MS. MOORE: Four positions will be lost during attrition. I always find this fascinating, so I’m going to ask here. Under Revenue, the provincial revenue MS. MICHAEL: Will be lost? line, what would that source of revenue be? It’s $102,700, and last year the revision was only MS. MOORE: Yes. We haven’t established yet $70,000. Then this year it’s $102,700 again. which branch those will come through, but every What is that source of revenue on a provincial branch will bear a component of what that level? Why last year was it only $70,000? Why attrition is. do you anticipate being able to get that amount of money? MS. MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much. MS. C. BENNETT: The Revenue has been My other question is the Professional Services, projected to be lower than anticipated given if we could have an explanation of the timing issues related to receiving the funding Processional Services here. after the end of each quarter and based on anticipated receipt, which are based on service MS. C. BENNETT: The Professional Services delivery. For example, actual hours worked of $865,000, that’s a drop from last year. The rather than a set contract. The revenue that this drop reflects the line-by-line reduction. The specifically references would be received from actual Professional Services would be related to areas like pensions, NMFC or Legal Aid where applications and mainframes there (inaudible), I OCIO does work and then would bill out that think it is. work.

OFFICIAL: Yes. MS. MICHAEL: Okay.

MS. MICHAEL: What is it again, I didn’t – MS. C. BENNETT: With permission, just for the Member opposite, the question that you MS. C. BENNETT: The $865,000 would be asked with regard to the attrition, I just want to related to the external supports that’s needed for be clear that it’s salaries that are coming out. program applications. So those would be The positions have not been – there are no individuals other than those that are retiring or

101

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

positions that have been vacant. So I just want to such a significant difference from the prior year make sure to be clear. to this year.

MS. MICHAEL: That’s what I understand by MS. MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much. attrition that they are going to be retirees. Under Purchased Services, what would be the MS. C. BENNETT: Yeah. nature of the services that are purchased? There’s a decrease of $189,500, an explanation MS. MICHAEL: I wanted to know how many, of the decrease. so that’s four. MS. C. BENNETT: Under Purchased Services. MS. C. BENNETT: Or the attrition target could have also been met by having a position that’s MS. MICHAEL: In the same subhead. vacant and not filling it as well. MS. C. BENNETT: Yes. MS. MICHAEL: I understand that. Thank you very much. Thanks for the clarification. The Purchased Services of $4,826,100, the difference there reflects a net decrease Coming down to 4.1.04, a few questions here, consisting of the following: there was a $30,000 mainly under Supplies; there’s a big drop of $3.5 removal of the one-time increase for the million. I assume you can sustain that or you Microsoft buyout initiative; there was a $51,500 wouldn’t have allowed that to happen. Could we Way Forward savings initiative from a prior have an explanation? year; there was a $264,000 decrease related to the GRI III, which were the changes, as I MS. C. BENNETT: Sorry, I just wanted to mentioned earlier, to the technology support catch up. Which – models; and then there was a $156,000 increase for budget pressures there. That makes up the MS. MICHAEL: 4.1.04 the next subhead, difference. Information Technology Operations, the subhead of Supplies. There’s a decrease of $3.5 MS. MICHAEL: Okay. million from last year’s budget line to this year. I guess I’m interested in knowing is there going And obviously all of these services are, with to be an impact because of that drop or will that regard to IT, things that you don’t have in- be sustained adequately? house. There’s a continual use of outside services. MS. C. BENNETT: The $6,738,400, the difference reflects a net decrease consisting of MS. MACDONALD: This is our data centre the following: there’s $3.17 million net impact contract. We have a contract with Bell for a of a permanent decrease for the Microsoft provision of data services for about $4 million buyout initiative which was $1.8 million, and the every year and for other hardware maintenance removal of one-time funding for the buyout from services. prior year which was $1.3 million. There was an amount in the prior budget that wouldn’t have MS. MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much. been carried forward on an annual basis of $1.3 million. The Revenue, 02, under the Operating Accounts, the revenue provincially; what is the source of Additionally, there was $551,400 which is a that revenue, Minister? permanent transfer in from other accounts to provide for appropriate SW funding and MS. C. BENNETT: That reflects anticipated $244,000 which was an increase for the HW, additional one-time revenue related to a court SW budget pressure. The last one there, the case in which vendors are providing a rebate for large one is a $1.113 million decrease related to purchased computers. So it was a class action GRI II changes to technology support models. and as a result, we are one of many consumers – Those are some of the reasons why there was the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

102

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

is one of many consumers – who made a MR. HUTCHINGS: What about across the purchase. And as a result of a court challenge, board in OCIO? Are there positions going to be the vendor has been directed to award money lost under the full-time equivalents that were back to those customers. As a result, this is the announced in the budget, 650? Maybe you could anticipated revenue we expect to get from that just give me a breakdown of full-time positions, outcome. attrition, basically any positions in the next fiscal year. MS. MICHAEL: Okay. MS. C. BENNETT: Yes, as I mentioned in the And all three lines, like last year’s budget and opening comments, there’s a total of $287,600 the revision and this year, are all related to that that was eliminated as part of the attrition plan. class case? The total staff complement inside OCIO right now, Joanne? MS. C. BENNETT: No. MS. MOORE: Julie. MS. MICHAEL: No? MS. C. BENNETT: Julie, sorry. MS. C. BENNETT: The line item $462,000 under the original budget; that was the MS. MOORE: The current number of positions information I just shared with you. The is 356. The number of staff is 306. So there are a $475,000 from the projected revised, that would number of vacancies. reflect receipt of additional revenue from the prior year that wasn’t actually received until the MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Yes, so there are 50 fiscal year, so, again, timing issues. vacancies, basically.

This revenue offsets the support costs provided I know in the past there were challenges in to external agencies like Legal Aid, the Research regard to network design architects for OCIO. Is & Development Corporation, Municipal that still a challenge? Would some of these Assessments, Newfoundland and Labrador positions be reflective of that, that are vacant? Centre for Health Information, Bell, their data centre, as well as remote service access for MS. MACDONALD: Yes, we actually have NLCHI, MUN, the City of St. John’s, Atlantic, several different kinds of hard-to-fill positions MUNN and AXA Insurance. That $475,000 is that we tried to recruit several times for things related to those actual revenue items from that like network architecture, for security, for list I just read out. PeopleSoft support, and so we end up using some of our Professional Services to augment MS. MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you. that.

I think it’s your turn, Keith. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. MS. MACDONALD: Because we can’t recruit them. We’ll go to Mr. Hutchings. MR. HUTCHINGS: Sure. Thank you. MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a follow-up as well; there was reference in Minister, just to clarify on positions, I think you 4.1.04, I’m not sure if it was under Supplies or said there were four positions will be coming out Professional Services. Minister, you mentioned a of OCIO and they would be through attrition, Microsoft buyout initiative. Just have a couple right? of details on that, what that is and what it encompasses. MS. C. BENNETT: Well, in that particular heading, yes. MS. MACDONALD: Yes, we traditionally cover the licensing for Microsoft that sits on all

103

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

the government desktops and laptops, and we savings. We saved money on our R12 project used to lease that. Last year, or two or three that we didn’t require further. And the Supplies years ago, we proposed an option to buy them went down because there was a removal for outright and that would save a whole bunch of some one-time funding. We had funding that money going forward. Last year we got extra moved forward again. This is just for project money to buy it out and this year our annual work, so we didn’t need as much as we needed costs, obviously, decreased and that one-time for R12. So some of that funding is reduced for increase was taken away. So we own all the R12 reporting, for cyber security and then the products now. add in back of some money for CYFS.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, okay. Thank you. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you. That’s good for me. That’s good. Ms. Michael. CHAIR: You still have allocated time. Would you like to carry on to the next subhead? MS. MICHAEL: The Property, Furnishings and Equipment, there’s been a big drop there, MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes. So we’ll move to the again, 4.1.05. next subheading. MS. MACDONALD: Again, that’s related to 4.1.05, Solution Delivery, I’m just wondering project timing. under the Salaries component there, there’s a significant reduction. Is that related to I guess MS. MICHAEL: The project timing, okay. what we’ve talked about in regard to positions? MS. MACDONALD: We would need some MS. C. BENNETT: Yes, that would relate to things in earlier phases of a project, so we salary savings from unanticipated delays in wouldn’t need it now. projects, for example delays in the CYFS project resulting in about $200,000 worth of savings. MS. MICHAEL: Right, thank you. This account is used for project-related salaries only. And I have no more questions for that subhead, but under 4.1.06, $560,000 was budgeted, I just want to make sure that I clarify – you $80,000 was the projected revision and we’re asked a question earlier about the completion for back up. Was that timing as well? the CYFS project. It’s just over the 50 per cent completion in the current phase. So I just want MS. C. BENNETT: Well, this is the IT to make sure that we clarify that information for Operations capital. So it’s responsible for you. supporting the general IT infrastructure. This particular change, the $480,000 decrease, is for MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, thank you. IT hardware that are capital nature, some of which related to security, as the deputy I’m not sure in your opening remarks, Minister, mentioned already, and government’s if you addressed this, but I’ll ask: 4.1.05 again, infrastructure and key investments to support we go down to Supplies and there’s a significant disaster recovery for example. Most of the reduction in what was budgeted, then obviously funding is allocated to replace old equipment on the revised was way down, and then this year an annual basis, and these savings were related we’re down again. I’m just wondering what to delays or deferring purchases in an effort to that’s related to. reduce government spending. The critical purchases that were needed were made and MS. C. BENNETT: You can take that, Ellen. when we looked at the historical needs, it was felt that the estimate needed to go back up to the MS. MACDONALD: The projected revised is amount of $558,000. related to unanticipated delays. It’s a timing issue with some of the projects and overall MS. MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

104

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

That’s all for me, Mr. Chair. support service through OCIO, if that’s the option or what the cost might be of supporting MR. HUTCHINGS: Just a couple of general that software through a vendor. questions, Minister. That analysis has to be done before a decision is The Department of Municipal Affairs, they’ve made. You can’t scope the total cost of what the indicated OCIO is going to work to put the land end-dollar amount might be until you know that use atlas online that arose out of the Crown you’ve analyzed the variety of options. Lands review last year. Is the money for that project in this year’s budget? MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thanks very much.

MS. MACDONALD: I’m going to pass that to CHAIR: Any more questions or statements? Natalie. Okay, we’ll call the subheads. MS. TEMPLEMAN: The project is identified from an analysis phase. It has been identified in CLERK: 4.1.01 to 4.1.06 inclusive. the list from the department. CHAIR: Shall 4.1.01 to 4.1.06 inclusive carry? MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, so I am just wondering about execution. So does that mean it SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. will actually happen in this fiscal year? CHAIR: Carried. MS. TEMPLEMAN: It will depend on the availability of funding. On motion, subheads 4.1.01 through 4.1.06 carried. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. But is funding in the budget to do it, I guess that’s my question? CLERK: The total.

MS. MACDONALD: Yes, the funding’s in CHAIR: Shall the total carry? place. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. CHAIR: Carried. MS. MACDONALD: The first step we take is for the analysis stage to see what kind of On motion, Office of the Chief Information solution, are we’re going to build it from Officer, total heads, carried. scratch, what are we going to do. CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, great. Thanks very Office of the Chief Information Officer carried much. without amendment?

MS. C. BENNETT: So just for clarity. We have SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. to analyze what’s the best method of providing what they want, and then determine which of CHAIR: Carried. those options are the best to purchase and how we can best support them. Because when we buy On motion, Estimates of the Office of the Chief the technology it’s not just about the best use Information Officer carried without amendment. also for the department, but it’s also about the ability to be able to support it. CHAIR: Okay, we’re going to take a five- minute break to give the broadcast booth a break So there’s an analysis that’s done on the and to allow the minister time to switch out technology to make sure that it’s the tool that’s department heads. going to provide the user with the flexibility they need, but also allow us to provide the

105

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Recess members opposite the time they need to answer the questions. CHAIR: Okay, we’re going to resume the Government Services Committee on Estimates CHAIR: Okay. I think we’ll go through each for the Department of Finance, and call for the subhead this time and give the Government subheads. Services Committee opportune time to ask questions. Once we’re finished, we’ll move on CLERK: 1.1.01. to the next subhead.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry? MS. MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

We’ll go to the minister. Again, I ask that if you Could we hear again the subheads that have go to your department heads that they identify been called? Was it 1.1.01 to an ending, or just themselves. We will go with 15 minutes to start, the first subhead that was called? beginning with Ms. Michael. CHAIR: Just 1.1.01. I turn it over to the minister for comments. MS. MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much. MS. C. BENNETT: I’ll turn it to Donna Brewer. Donna is the Deputy Minister for the Thank you, Minister, and thank your staff from Department of Finance, and let her and the Finance for being here. officials introduce them by name as they go through so we can check the mic. Under 1.1.01, I think I just have one question actually and it’s under Purchased Services. Last MS. BREWER: Donna Brewer, Deputy year the budget was $4,000, the projected Minister of Finance. revision was $700 and this year we’re down to $600. MS. TRICKETT: Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller. MS. C. BENNETT: And the question, I’m sorry? MR. MARTIN: Craig Martin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Taxation and Fiscal Policy. MS. MICHAEL: The explanation for the large drop and the lack of need for having the higher MS. MILLER: Ann Marie Miller, Comptroller amount of money for Purchased Services. General of Finance. MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. MR. HOLLETT: Alton Hollett, Assistant Deputy Minister of Economics and Statistics. I can’t explain the $4,000 need from last year. I can explain the $600 budget for this year, and MS. CLARKE: Lesley Clarke, that’s based on analysis we did on what we think Communications Manager. the purchased services will be through the Minister’s Office. MS. BOLAND: Gail Boland, Director of Policy, Planning, Accountability and MS. MICHAEL: What would be the purchased Information Management. services, Minister?

MS. C. BENNETT: I just want to welcome MS. C. BENNETT: It would include items – colleagues again. I know there are a number of Wanda, do you want to provide some insight subheadings in the Finance Estimates. Certainly, there? to provide members opposite the most amount of time to answer the questions, we’d like to move MS. TRICKETT: It would include items such on to the subheadings. I understand there’s lots as printing costs, shredding services, those types of information here and we want to provide the of general office-based expenditures.

106

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

MS. MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you. MS. MICHAEL: Well, 1.2.01, I think it’s your turn, Keith. My time seems to be – Under Transportation and Communications, again, the budget was $51,300, the projected MR. HUTCHINGS: I don’t have anything on revision at $11,700 and this year the estimate is that heading. I’m fine. $24,900. Again, an explanation of those variations, please. MS. MICHAEL: I do; 1.2.01 under Professional Services, the budget last year was MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. $7,000, the revised or projected revision was $122,500, and then this year we’re back to I can’t explain the $51,000 that the former $6,900. I’m assuming there was a one-off minister had budgeted on travel. I can explain expenditure there? the $11,700 would have been costs associated with ministerial travel that would have taken MS. C. BENNETT: Yes. There was $115,500 place though the full calendar year. Only increase in the projected revised, and those were essential travel is travel that was undertaken past additional costs associated with the actuaries December 14. with respect to the pension reform initiative. And those were the actuaries on the project The budget for ’16-’17 reflects what we feel is a which would have included Morneau Shepell more appropriate number for the travel. It’s also, and Eckler as it relates to the pension reform I guess, worth noting that even though I have initiative. multiple portfolios – for example, when we did Women’s Policy Office, there was a very small MS. MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much. amount of travel in there. We tried to consolidate any ministerial travel for me, in Will I just move on, Chair, or –? particular, into that line item. So it would include fed/prov/territorial meetings, of which CHAIR: Just a second now. there are two this year. Shall 1.2.01 carry? MS. MICHAEL: Right. Thank you very much. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. It was only 1.1.01 that was called. CHAIR: Carried. Do you have any – On motion, subhead 1.2.01 carried. MR. HUTCHINGS: No, I’m good. CLERK: 1.2.02. MS. MICHAEL: Okay. CHAIR: Shall 1.2.02 carry? CHAIR: Okay. MS. MICHAEL: 1.2.02; I have a question, do CLERK: 1.1.01. you?

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry? MR. HUTCHINGS: You can go right ahead.

MS. MICHAEL: Yes. MS. MICHAEL: Okay.

CHAIR: Carried. Under 1.2.02, Salaries, it looks like maybe a position is gone. Minister, if we could have an On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried. explanation, please?

CLERK: 1.2.01. MS. C. BENNETT: Actually, the change from the $115,000 in the original budget to $88,500 CHAIR: Shall 1.2.01 carry? was savings resulting from fewer than

107

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

anticipated summer students being employed. costs associated with EFTs or electronic And the $74,400 was a decrease in the line-by- payments, mail payments, et cetera. line review based on what the department had been spending over the last number of years. The change then from the $389,500 was just to rightsize the budget, based on what we MS. MICHAEL: So the $74,400, is that a anticipate we’re going to need this year. permanent position? MS. MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you. MS. C. BENNETT: It would be for students. I might as well do 1.2.03. MS. MICHAEL: That’d be for students. AN HON. MEMBER: Yes. MS. C. BENNETT: Yes. MS. MICHAEL: Okay. MS. MICHAEL: Okay. So that was all students there. 1.2.03, it’s a bit of a strange –

Okay, thank you very much. CHAIR: Excuse me.

Coming down to the Revenue line, the We wanted to go through subhead by subhead. Provincial – Revenue, there’s an anticipation of $150,000. What would that be based on? MS. MICHAEL: Yes, is that okay?

MS. C. BENNETT: Well, the projected revised Well, Keith may have questions on 1.2.02, then. over the original budget saw an increase of $50,000. That was a recovery from the pension MR. HUTCHINGS: No, I’m good. You fund for mail costs, which were higher due to covered them. cost increases of mail from Canada Post. So then $150,000 under the budget is a $70,000 increase MS. MICHAEL: I covered them all. Okay. from the original budget last year, and that’s anticipated recovery from the pension fund for MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, if I might. I just mailing costs which, again, will be higher based want to make sure we’re clear that the Member on mail costs from Canada Post. The pension opposite understands that under Transportation fund has regular mailings to pension and and Communications it is mailing costs and employees, and those mailings are paid for by electronic costs. Finance but are billed back to the pension fund corporation. MS. MICHAEL: Yes, I got that.

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

Again, under the same subhead, Transportation MS. C. BENNETT: Okay, I just wanted to and Communications, that’s a large expenditure. make sure you understood that. Could you just explain to us what that line is about. MS. MICHAEL: Yes.

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. CHAIR: Okay.

Transportation and Communications, you’d see Call the subhead. a $5,000 difference from the original budget last year of $390,000 down to $385,000. The savings CLERK: 1.2.02. came from mail costs for the department which were lower as Electronic Funds Transfers or CHAIR: Shall 1.2.02 carry? EFTs were used, primarily, as a payment vehicle for vendors and suppliers. So these would be the SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

108

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

CHAIR: Carried. On motion, subhead 1.2.03 carried.

On motion, subhead 1.2.02 carried. CLERK: 1.3.01.

CLERK: 1.2.03. CHAIR: Shall 1.3.01 carry?

CHAIR: Shall 1.2.03 carry? MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MS. MICHAEL: As I was starting to say, this 1.3.01 in Salaries, the amount budgeted there, is a strange little section here. Minister, could nothing in the revised and now we’re at $11 you explain it, please? million. Could you give some explanation on that one, please? MS. C. BENNETT: Well, under Government Personnel Costs, this is the activity that provides MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. for government-wide funding. As I was (inaudible) earlier, albeit prematurely, We’re at 1.3 –? this particular heading, this activity provides for government-wide funding. It includes MS. MICHAEL: No, it’s 1.2.03. government’s share of employee benefits for current and retired government employees such MS. C. BENNETT: One page too far, my as CPP, employment insurance, group medical apologizes. and group life, health and post-secondary education tax and anticipated compensation or MS. MICHAEL: Okay, $15,000 was budgeted contract adjustments for contracts that are and that wasn’t spent. Then this year it’s $100 negotiated or in the final stages of being under Property, Furnishings and Equipment. It finalized. says: Appropriations provide for the purchase of tangible capital assets. Just an explanation on This is a placeholder in Finance that allows for that subhead. an amount of money to be voted on that can then be – is the place where expenses related to the MS. BREWER: That’s just a general vote that employer contributions to CPP, group insurance, was in the department in case we have to do any group medical insurance, the health and kind of furniture and equipment replacements. education tax and unemployment insurance are We didn’t spend anything in that vote last year. all captured here and the cost associated with We cut it back due to restraint, but the $100 any anticipated monies that would need to be there is just to keep the vote open. spent from contracts that would have been in progress, for example, that haven’t necessarily If I happen to have an employee who has an been finalized. injury or has to have any kind of ergonomic assessment and needs some sort of MR. HUTCHINGS: So the benefits component accommodation, we’ll look to take money from you referenced for current employees and maybe elsewhere within the department’s operating and retired employees, there was $10 million seek Treasury Board approval to transfer it in. budgeted last fiscal year but in the revised there is nothing there. I’m just trying to understand – MS. MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much. MS. MICHAEL: Under Salaries. That’s fine for me. MR. HUTCHINGS: Under Salaries, yes. CHAIR: Shall 1.2.03 carry? MS. BREWER: The $10 million was the block SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. that would have been there, as the minister indicated, for some anticipated contracts that CHAIR: Carried. were going to happen during the year.

109

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

If you checked last year’s Estimates that amount MS. C. BENNETT: Yes, and just for clarity, I would have been a lot higher. Then what probably jumped ahead of myself and confused happens is when the contract is signed, we go things. The employee benefits, the $71 million, out then and we talk to the departments, we talk would be – to the entities and identify whose incurring extra costs as a result of the signing of those contracts MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, fair enough. or there could be some major reclassifications have occurred. Then that money gets transferred MS. C. BENNETT: Right? from here over to the applicable department or the applicable entity. Then, for comparative MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes. reasons, as indicated in the preamble to the Estimates, the original budget gets restated. MS. C. BENNETT: I was speaking to the entire number. So there’s actually nothing spent directly in this vote for Finance, but I could have been the MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes. recipient, depending if it was – I forget the name, it’s not general service anymore – the MS. C. BENNETT: The $11 million would be common grid. If there were any adjustments the monies that we have kind of put in a block relating to that then that would have been falling for any monies that would be for contracts that out and transferred into the applicable salary would have negotiated over the last couple of votes within the Department of Finance, but the years that are just getting finalized now, or majority of money would be outside of Finance. grievances or other things that would have happened, historically, that we would need to MS. C. BENNETT: An example for the have some money because we don’t understand Members opposite would be Transportation and yet what the full implications of those changes Works. There was a grievance a number of years might be. ago, I think it was some 10 years ago, that would have resulted in a large number of employees MR. HUTCHINGS: Sure. asking for the grievance which actually was in the favour of the employees. The grievance Obviously, we’re under some negotiations now dollars would need to be settled and that would in regard to upcoming contracts, so this block be an example of the monies that would be then would represent any agreements made with transferred out to Transportation and Works. unions in the near future and this would allow this money to flow out based on what your Another example would be ferry captains. There labour negotiations would include? was an amount of money that, based on past employment terms and conditions, would have MS. C. BENNETT: No, this would not include needed to be paid out to ferry captains over a any monies related to upcoming collective period of time. bargaining which has yet to start.

So that’s what that block is. It allows for monies MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. that departments, agencies, boards and commissions may need because there maybe MS. C. BENNETT: This would be for things things that have been grieved or have been that have happened in the past, or were in changed that result in employees, rightly so, progress last year or the year before, that are just being needed to be provided more remuneration. getting resolved now.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Just so I understand. Of MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. that amount, that wouldn’t be reflective of benefits that are paid out to current employees. It MS. C. BENNETT: This would not be a line would be for grievances, future contract item for collective bargaining, as we are and our negotiations, that money then would be directed employees are preparing for now. It’s not related out to department to execute what was agreed to, to that. basically.

110

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

MR. HUTCHINGS: So could I ask, further on, Minister, if I could, I know when I go through is there a block of money that’s been identified Estimates I ask, and maybe we’ll just go through in the budget for potential results of labour it in terms of positions in your department. negotiations in the future for this fiscal year? Right here we’re talking about, in terms of MS. C. BENNETT: Typically, my attrition, how many positions are coming out? understanding – and certainly the deputy can add Maybe just give me an idea of what’s happening some texture– is that amount of money or in that regard. expense potential that would incur from collective bargaining would not be reflected MS. C. BENNETT: Sure, maybe what we can until you actually finished the bargaining. do is when we get to the actual department heads on those, because that wouldn’t be included in So at this stage – Donna, I don’t know if you this – and I’m happy to answer the question – want to add anything. MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes. MS. BREWER: Yeah, that’s correct. We wouldn’t put in the budget anything unless MS. C. BENNETT: – but this particular negotiations were at a certain point, like the last heading is not related to staffing – set of negotiations, the template was known. Once the template was known, the 0 per cent, 0 MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, okay; fair enough. per cent, 2 per cent and 3 per cent, then we start picking up the Estimates for the salary increases. MS. C. BENNETT: – in the Department of Finance. If we knew which ones then we would budget in the department, but in a lot of cases we wouldn’t MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, that’s good for me. necessarily know so that’s when the block would go in. Ms. Michael.

MS. C. BENNETT: The block that’s there now MS. MICHAEL: Okay, just for clarification, would have been, for example, like I said, the Minister – I think I’ve got it right – so the Transportation and Works grievances, the ferry Employee Benefits, I do understand that line. So captains, contracts or grievances that are already for example would that also cover employees in in play or in process of being implemented or the caucus offices as well? Because I know in executed on. our budget we have to worry about the salary, but the benefits are covered elsewhere, and I’m MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Just so I’m clear, assuming that would be covered under this line halfway through this fiscal year, if you were to as well. conclude contract negotiations with a particular union, if there were increases in salaries for MS. C. BENNETT: Yes, my understanding is compensation to those members, where would that it would include all benefits through core that money come from to execute that new government. collective agreement? MS. MICHAEL: Yes, okay. Thank you. MS. C. BENNETT: It would happen in the same process that it’s happened for decades. And under – When the collective bargaining is finalized then you would budget based on the information that MS. C. BENNETT: Sorry to interrupt, Ms. we have. We don’t have information right now Michael. Any employee who’s being paid, on where we will be at the end of collective regardless of where they’re being paid, this bargaining, so it would be premature for us to would be where we’d pick up the CPP and the include in the Estimates a number at this stage. EI.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you. MS. MICHAEL: Right, thank you.

111

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Under the provincial revenue, what is the source increase for the allowance of JES and the of that revenue? I’m assuming it’s money that’s annualization of JES for qualifying JES coming back from some of the departments to positions. the Department of Finance, but just to get the specifics from you. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT: So these would be That just reminds me, the JES, any appeals that government-wide recoveries for employee there has to be payouts in regard to a successful benefit costs, like EI, CPP, group health and life, appeal, would that be in the prior form we just and HAP SET from other agencies. talked about?

MS. MICHAEL: Oh, okay. MS. C. BENNETT: That would also be included as one of the potential numbers there. MS. C. BENNETT: And these recoveries would be a result of annual billing recoveries MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you. and secondments where salaries may have been used in an ABC, but government needs to Regarding 2.1.01, we come down to recover the costs associated with that, including Professional Services. Obviously, that would be the benefits costs. consultants, maybe actuaries, those types of things. What would that be? MS. MICHAEL: Right, thank you very much. MS. BREWER: The Professional Services, That’s all I have for that subhead. there’s a combination of things. They use Buck Consultants for a system they use within CHAIR: So does 1.3.01 carry? pensions. They use actuaries. They have to get actuarial evaluations done. That will fluctuate, All those in favour, ‘aye.’ depending on the timing of the evaluations. They also have to use actuaries to help with SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. when employees request computed value calculations and things of that nature. CHAIR: Carried. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you. On motion, subhead 1.3.01 carried. When we come down to the Revenue – CLERK: 2.1.01. Provincial, there seems to be a change there from what was budgeted and up to this year’s CHAIR: Shall 2.1.01 carry? estimate. What would that be related to?

MS. MICHAEL: Okay, I’ll start off, I guess, MS. C. BENNETT: The projected revised of since I still have time on the clock. I don’t have $1,053,200, that’s a $224,000 decrease. As a lot of questions for the first one. I really don’t Members of this House may be aware, and this have any questions for 2.1.01. Keith, do you? might be new information for some of the government Members on the Committee, all MR. HUTCHINGS: Just to maybe on the expenditures for pension administration are 100 Salaries piece, what was budgeted and then what per cent recoverable from the pension fund. The was executed and the revised in 2015-2016 was expenditures were reduced through discretionary down, and then it’s a little higher from what was spending, hence the revenue was less. budgeted last year. The $1,501,000 is an increase of $223,800. As I MS. C. BENNETT: So the $644,800 was mentioned earlier, all expenditures for pension $145,900 of savings, and that was resulting from administration are 100 per cent recoverable from a vacancy related to a management position and the pension fund and the budget for these a clerk III position. The increase under the expenditures was increased, hence the revenue budget for this year, ’16-’17, to $803,200 is an was increased.

112

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

We will also be now charging the pension fund – The Teachers’ Pension Plan too, there’s and they are concurring, obviously, with this – legislation I think that has to come to the House. for office space of $200,000 which wasn’t included as part of last year but the pension MS. C. BENNETT: That’s correct. corporation has obviously seem the value of the space that they have currently. MR. HUTCHINGS: That will be coming, I guess, this session to deal with that. MR. HUTCHINGS: And that’s up and running, the pension corporation? MS. C. BENNETT: That’s correct.

MS. C. BENNETT: Yes. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Any update on that in MS. C. BENNETT: Oh, just for clarity, I think terms of how things are going? the Member opposite said that the legislation would be coming into the House this session. MS. C. BENNETT: We’re meeting with them I’m not the House Leader, so I’m not familiar Tuesday or Wednesday of next week, so I’ll with exactly when the legislation is, but I know provide you some information when I get to that the legislation is progressing and we’ve had meet with Loyola then. joint discussions with the teachers’ union and that’s progressing as normal. MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you. CHAIR: Shall 2.1.01 carry? CHAIR: Shall 2.1.02 carry? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. Carried. MS. MICHAEL: No, I have some questions. On motion, subhead 2.1.01 carried. You said 02, right?

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, sorry, if I might, CHAIR: Yes. just for the Member opposite too, it would also be worthwhile for me to share that the manager MR. HUTCHINGS: We are at 2.1.01, right? of pensions has also met with Treasury Board to provide an update with Treasury Board. All MS. MICHAEL: We already voted on 2.1.01, indications are from the pension corporation that right? they are continuing to proceed with their work plan and their business plan. The directors that CHAIR: Yes, starting at 2.1.02. are in place for the government representation, we will be meeting with next week, and MS. MICHAEL: Okay. So now we’re on certainly they have a combined board meeting 2.1.02. next week where they are continuing to work through the plans for the pension corporation. MR. HUTCHINGS: We have to vote on 2.1.01.

And we’ll continue to do what we can to support MS. MICHAEL: We voted on 2.1.01. them as they transition in this year to being a stand-alone entity outside of government. I MS. C. BENNETT: We did vote. I interrupted would expect that next year in Estimates you’ll after, I think, sorry. see a very different reflection in the Estimates book as it relates to that once the transition is MS. MICHAEL: I was getting really confused fully implemented. here.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. CHAIR: I’m just assuming that you’re working together on the time frames here.

113

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

MS. MICHAEL: We are. in the number of positions. In actual fact, I think she actually increased some resources on a Okay, 2.1.02 has been called, right? temporary basis to manage through the budget process. CHAIR: Yes. MS. MICHAEL: The Treasury Board MS. MICHAEL: Okay. Committee of Cabinet, how does that operate and how much work does it actually do as a I do have questions here. First of all, Minister, if committee? you could explain a bit, originally this head just said budgeting and now the head has been MS. C. BENNETT: Well I can’t speak to changed to Treasury Board and Budgeting Treasury Boards before December 14. I can tell Operations. Maybe that’s a reflection of what’s you that there are two functions as Treasury coming in the future. Board President I’ve seen since January; one is the kind of weekly meetings that we have as I notice that the “Appropriations provide for the Treasury Board to review any requests from effective and efficient operation of the Treasury departments that would be around funding Board Committee of Cabinet including the changes, changes that they might have, provision of analysis and advice on various questions they might have about policy as it matters placed before the Treasury Board ….” relates to how money is spent throughout the Has money for the Committee of Cabinet been year. here before? It hasn’t been here in terms of explained in the subheads, so is this new money The other project and expectation that we had at being provided for the Treasury Board Treasury Board this year was that they would Committee of Cabinet? complete a line-by-line review with every single department, as well as agencies, boards and MS. BREWER: It used to be two separate commissions, where we brought those entities activities within the Department of Finance; one into Treasury Board to review their historical was called Treasury Board support and the other spending as well as the budgets that they were one was called budgeting. This year, the proposing, and went through line by line the assistant deputy minister, Denise Hanrahan, items. came to me. In order to better manage the workload, particularly with the Government Treasury Board will be used this year as well, in Renewal Initiative coming up, she recommended this fiscal year, to support the work of the zero- to me, and we agreed and brought it forward to based budgeting, which will allow for a more Treasury Board, to actually combine the fulsome visibility into the budgeting for funding. It allows her to move positions from agencies, boards and commissions, which we one area to another, depending on where the believe will continue to support the efforts of peak workload is. making sure we are spending money on critical services and not allowing for any waste or For example, the current Director of Budgeting slippage in very sparse public money. was transferred over on a temporary assignment, so she assumed the position of Director of MS. MICHAEL: Right. Treasury Board Support. As well, one of the budget Cabinet officers moved over to Treasury I’m trying to get a handle on the – so the Board Support to provide more substantial Treasury Board Committee of Cabinet, I analysis to the Treasury Board Committee of assume, is made up of ministers? Cabinet, particularly with regard to some of the Government Renewal Initiatives. MS. C. BENNETT: Yes.

It also allows her to move resources during the MS. MICHAEL: Okay and they give advice to budget time, the peak time where a lot of the Treasury Board. When you say we did the overtime is occurring. It allows her to better line by line, was that the committee that did that, manage her resources. But there was no decline or was that the Treasury Board that did that?

114

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

MS. C. BENNETT: The committee is Cabinet Treasury Board. Just so that we’re clear, this is a Members. combination of both those responsibilities.

MS. MICHAEL: Yes. The increase from the original budget of $1.419 million to the projected revised of $1,532,800; MS. C. BENNETT: And the Cabinet Members that was an increase for additional costs as a on the committee sat through with every single result of a payment to a retiring employee and department and a large number of agencies, incremental costs relating to the organizational boards and commissions – certainly the ones change that Donna spoke about. The budget for with higher revenue and expense lines – and this year, the $1,412,700; that came about – the reviewed their financial performance and $6,900 worth of savings was a result of the line- reviewed financial questions. by-line review reductions. The assistant deputy minister had made some reorganization there MS. MICHAEL: Is that a Committee of the and was able to come up with some savings. Whole or is it just some of the Cabinet who are on that committee? MS. MICHAEL: Okay.

MS. C. BENNETT: It’s seven Members. My Does that staff line or the Salaries line – is there understanding and maybe officials can speak to staff support there for the Cabinet Committee? it more clearly, but this is a standing committee When you say the Treasury Board, does that of Cabinet and has been in place – I would have include the Cabinet Committee as well? assumed other administrations would have had Treasury Board. There are specific legislative MS. C. BENNETT: Yes, that would include the requirements that Treasury Board is supposed to historical support for Treasury Board. There’s execute. always been – my understanding – support for Treasury Board, no different now as there There’s been an orientation for the Treasury always has been because the Treasury Board Board ministers to make sure they understand will be responsible for certain functions. They their responsibilities and their accountability. would capture requests for TBAs, Treasury The committee is responsible for the day-to-day Board actions, as part of the legislation under the financial operations of government. It doesn’t Financial Administration Act. provide policy advice in the same context as the Economic Policy Committee or the Social There are certain things that departments are Policy Committee, but it would have, during the allowed to do and much more that they’re not line-by-line review, any recommendations that allowed to do when it comes to financial we would have made would have been filtered decisions. Treasury Board is supposed to make into the Cabinet process, budget process. those decisions, so there is support staff there that has been in place for many, many years to MS. MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you. support the Treasury Board’s efforts.

Well then, related to all of that, if we could look MS. MICHAEL: Okay. at the Salaries line, 2.1.02. Under Salaries, the projected revision last year was $1,532,800. This And that includes the Cabinet Committee? I’m year the budget line is $1,412,700, so about just wondering because its two different bodies, $100,000 less. Could we have an explanation of right, the Treasury Board and the Cabinet that, please? Committee. Are they considered part of the Treasury Board? MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. MS. C. BENNETT: No, the Treasury Board is Just to make sure, I want to re-emphasize what the Cabinet Committee. It’s not two separate Donna said earlier, this Salaries line would things. include the individuals that work in the Budgeting Division as well as the few MS. MICHAEL: Okay. That’s what I’ve been employees that are also there to support trying to get at.

115

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

MS. C. BENNETT: Sorry, I misunderstood, On motion, subhead 2.1.02 carried. Ms. Michael. CLERK: 2.1.03. MS. MICHAEL: Yes, okay. CHAIR: Shall 2.1.03 carry? MS. C. BENNETT: Treasury Board is the Cabinet committee. There is no second MR. HUTCHINGS: Just a general question, committee. Treasury Board, under the Financial Minister, in this heading. This would be for Administration Act, has always been in place issues of insurance claim or that kind of thing in and that’s the – I don’t know if the officials want government that Finance – this would be the to add anything. administration to oversee it.

MS. MICHAEL: Because the way it’s written MS. BREWER: Yes, this is the property-type here as the explanation under the subhead, it insurance. It’s not the group insurance. The sounds like two different groups. The Treasury group insurance still is part of the Human Board committee of Cabinet gives advice on Resource Secretariat. various matters placed before the Treasury Board. It’s written in a way that makes it sound This would be coverage for vehicle accidents, like it’s two different bodies. I’ve been trying to slips and falls. We would negotiate and put in get – I have the clarification then. place insurance for the schools, for the ferries, various government assets. Thank you. MR. HUTCHINGS: If someone was to make a MS. C. BENNETT: Do officials want to add claim, this is where it would be reviewed by anything for clarity? staff, correct?

MS. BREWER: I just wanted to add that the MS. BREWER: Yes. We have an insurance Treasury Board support is the group, almost like adjuster and he then would work with the a secretary to Treasury Board. They receive the particular insurance carrier. submissions. They set the agendas. They sit. They review. They take the minutes. They do MR. HUTCHINGS: Right. So the payout for the follow-up with departments. that, that wouldn’t come out of this envelope. Where would that come from? MS. MICHAEL: Yes. MS. BREWER: Depending on the particular MR. BREWER: I mean in reality, the Office of insurance; like if it’s ferries, there’s money over the Comptroller General, all of the Department within the Department of Transportation and of Finance, is there to support, depending on the Works. particular agenda item, as well as our colleagues in the Human Resource Secretariat. With all claims there’s a deductible, and once you hit your deductible then you would make a MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much. claim under the insurance from the insurance company. MR. HUTCHINGS: I’m good there. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIR: Okay. I’m good. CLERK: 2.1.02. CHAIR: Okay. CHAIR: Shall 2.1.02 carry? CLERK: 2.1.03. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. CHAIR: Shall 2.1.03 carry? CHAIR: Carried.

116

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. include those things that would offset the department expenditures, that the department CHAIR: Carried. may incur, Human Resource Secretariat may incur. Items that would be Professional Services: On motion, subhead 2.1.03 carried. backfilling of positions that would need to be added to continue the collective bargaining and CLERK: 2.1.04. bring it to a successful conclusion for employees and for government. It would also include things CHAIR: Shall 2.1.04 carry? like room rentals and logistical costs associated with collective bargaining. MS. MICHAEL: Minister, this is 2.1.04, Financial Assistance, “Appropriations provide This area would also include the money that we for promoting business opportunities and would anticipate for the office of the Seniors’ financial support for departments and Crown Advocate, the setup of the Seniors’ Advocate, agencies for initiatives consistent with and that would be transferred to the Legislature government’s objectives ….” once the legislation enabling the office is approved and the office is established. It would Last year the budget line was $1,684,200, the also include the monies associated with the projected revision was $256,800 and this year anticipated spending around the Government we have a major jump of $3,054,000 in this line Renewal Initiative, which would again be of Grants and Subsidies. Could we have an transferred to Cabinet Secretariat, and that explanation of what the plan is for that line, would be used to cover the salary costs please? associated with the secretariat for Government Renewal Initiative, as well as the operational MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. and professional service costs of the GRI secretariat. The increases over last year are made up of five different areas. They would include the pension I think Members opposite would have – reform initiative, so dollars that would be certainly the Oppositions Members, it might be associated to provide legal and actuarial and new for the government Members – some other consulting services as may be required to historical context around other secretariats that support pension reform, and particularly have been established over the years. I think transitioning the pension investments and the former Finance Minister, Ross Wiseman, administration from a single trustee to a joint actually chaired one years ago. Certainly, the trustee corporation. Those would be the Government Renewal Initiative as a secretariat, government expenses as opposed to the pension the costs associated with that would need to be corps expenses related to that. budgeted for, and as Cabinet Secretariat determines how they spend that money, that This would also be where the dollars that would would be allocated to Cabinet Secretariat. need to be transferred to Cabinet Secretariat to cover the costs associated with the Muskrat Falls MS. MICHAEL: You mentioned the collective oversight committee would be held and then bargaining. Would the announcement that transferred to Cabinet Secretariat when they are government made last week with regard to requested. Those costs would, for the Muskrat hiring legal support for collective bargaining, Falls oversight, include the costs of staff would that cost be included in this $4.7 million? resources that the Cabinet Secretariat would require, as well as resources relating to the MS. C. BENNETT: Yes, any costs associated enhanced oversight, as well as professional with collective bargaining as a whole, and that services associated with the oversight of might include additional support. As we’ve Muskrat Falls. discussed in the House, collective bargaining – which will be undertaken shortly – will be for It would also include the allocation of monies some 23 government departments, agencies and that we may need to use or expect to use related boards. We have some 35 collective and service to support for collective bargaining. That would agreements.

117

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

In 2004, the public sector had 11 dedicated your notes, please? Unless you have it there, but resources to the provision of labour relations and if you don’t, if we could receive it separately. bargaining services. Again, in 2008 there were 11; and currently, as we approach collective MS. C. BENNETT: So the $256,800 would bargaining, there are seven negotiators for the have been for a contract that the former entire public sector. So some of those costs government had in place with Ernst & Young would be associated with collective bargaining, under the transformative change initiative. It was but they would also be cost associated, as I said an initiative that was to analyze why earlier, with the Muskrat Falls oversight, the Newfoundland spends so much per capita to pension reform initiatives and the entire setup provide an initial indication of opportunities to for the Government Renewal Secretariat, which realize savings across government. So that was has been operational now since January. the monies from the former administration.

MS. MICHAEL: And will your briefing notes MS. MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much. show the breakdown of how much money for each of those five areas? I don’t know if Keith has any other questions on that. MS. C. BENNETT: Well, we don’t know for sure how much each is. This is a block of money MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, just a couple of that needs to be requested from Cabinet questions. Secretariat and requested from the Human Resource Secretariat, so this amount of money is Minister, you mentioned the Oversight based on what we think would be kind of the Committee and supporting the Oversight total. Committee. The Minister of Natural Resources, I guess, government, has initiated a further Certainly, as we determine what those costs will review by Ernst & Young for $1 million. be, it will become clearer. This amount of They’ve done a supplementary report and money is a block for those five items. And if there’s another expected $700,000 to complete there is another item that is unrelated to these that work. Does funding for that come out of this five that in the best interest of the people of the or is it coming out of Natural Resources? province it means us taking a look at whether or not these funds should be spent in this way, MS. C. BENNETT: It would be coming all we’d obviously have to make those decisions, from this block. and those decisions would have to go into Treasury Board and through the Treasury Board MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, so any future – process. whether it’s $1.7 million or that increases, this would be the fund to basically pay for that MS. MICHAEL: Right. report.

Could we receive the breakdown of what was MS. C. BENNETT: Yes. The Cabinet spent last year in 2015-16 under this subhead? Secretariat would have the accountability for paying for the work that you referenced the MS. C. BENNETT: You’re referring to the Minister of Natural Resources has spoken about. $1.6 million. That work includes the re-baselining of the project and there are a number of reports we MS. MICHAEL: Well, $1.6 million wasn’t anticipate over the coming weeks. Two that I spent; $256,800 was the revision. understand will be available, according to the minister’s comments, by the end of May and MS. C. BENNETT: My apologizes, the another one in further June. The monies $256,000 I will certainly – associated with the Oversight Committee certainly will help to provide further clarity on MS. MICHAEL: If you don’t have it there in the costs associated with the project. your notes, could we receive it separate from

118

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

It’s critical for us to understand that, particularly SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. in light of the fact that the province has to borrow for the equity and we need to make sure CHAIR: Carried. that we have clarity on what those costs might be. On motion, subhead 2.1.04 carried.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you. CLERK: 2.1.05.

The other question I had is with regard to the CHAIR: Shall 2.1.05 carry? collective bargaining and assistance related to McInnes Cooper. You referenced, I think, there MS. MICHAEL: This 2.1.05, Financial were 11 negotiators at one point and now it’s Assistance, I guess two questions; the first one down to seven. Was there some analysis done as under Loans, Advances and Investments, could opposed to increasing that capacity internally in we have some details on that, Minister, in terms regard to human resources as opposed to what of who these loans, advances and investments may be spent through the contract with McInnes are made with? Last year the budget was $9.7 Cooper? Because I think to date, the indication million. The projected revision was $4.3 million, was you couldn’t quantify what the expenditure but we’re up to $10.7 million this year. would be with McInnes Cooper. Is there any analysis done on what would be more efficient MS. C. BENNETT: I’ll let the deputy answer from a government perspective? those questions for you, Ms. Michael.

MS. C. BENNETT: To date, as of – I want to MS. BREWER: The $10,731,400 is the balance say – the 28th of March, the amount that has that is owing on, you may recall, the $110 been spent is about $14,000. Certainly, the sense million loan to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. So was that having an outside support to the the balance is what we call capital advances. As collective bargaining, at this time when we have they complete the work and they submit that peak activity, made sense. We certainly have a they’ve committed to doing capital work in large number of contracts that we intend to accordance with their sustainability plan, then bargain in good faith and need to bargain in we would advance them money. We anticipated good faith, want to bargain in good faith, and $9.7 million roughly in ’15-’16 and the actual having the resources to be able to do that is capital demands were only the $4.3 million. So important. basically it’s a carryover of the difference there, plus the balance owing on that money. The process that we’re undertaking in providing some additional outside support is not different. MS. MICHAEL: Okay. Quite frankly, it has been used by the former administration, as you would be aware, as part I didn’t get that at the very beginning because of the pension reform activity. your mic wasn’t on.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes. MS. BREWER: Oh, sorry.

MS. C. BENNETT: It was also something that, MS. MICHAEL: Is that all this is covering? when the pension reform was undertaken, both government and labour had provided external MS. BREWER: Yes. counsel at that time. Based on the fact that there is a need to work through this process this year, MS. MICHAEL: It is? it was felt that this was a reasonable solution for the peak period of activity that would be MS. BREWER: Yes. undertaken in the next number of months. MS. MICHAEL: Okay, thank you. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you. Then under Grants and Subsidies this $20 CHAIR: Shall 2.1.04 carry? million, there was nothing in this line last year.

119

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Could we have an explanation of what’s government is providing clarity. When our anticipated with regard to this $20 million, budget completed and the federal budget was please? completed, there was an expectation that we would be able to take advantage of the federal MS. C. BENNETT: Absolutely. In the interest infrastructure spending. We needed to have a of keeping the Question Period emotion in block of money put aside. The prioritization of Question Period, I won’t refer to this by the the projects has to happen in a way that name it has been referred to by the Members of leverages the guidelines that the federal the Third Party, but I will share the information government announced in their infrastructure that I did share in the House of Assembly. I program. The social infrastructure program was understand, in fairness to Ms. Michael, she one of the ones that we had the information most wasn’t here the day that I tabled it. recently.

The $20 million for Grants and Subsidies was Donna, would you like to provide any additional put in there to leverage federal infrastructure commentary? initiatives. It will be used to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador has the ability to MS. BREWER: The only additional access new federal funding, such as the social commentary I would add is that there actually infrastructure programs that were announced as have been guidelines now released by the federal part of the federal budget ’16-’17. government for the post-secondary education. So both the college and Memorial are looking at Program details are now being provided by the those criteria now. They’ll be submitting federal government in several areas, such as the projects – once the government approves them – new federal program for post-secondary to the federal government. infrastructure through the new federal strategic infrastructure fund, and details of the new clean So it’s not a fixed amount going to water and waste water program. Newfoundland and Labrador. It’s application based. So once they make the application, then Departments are determining the projects that the federal government will advise whether or will be required to assess these funds for not any of the projects have been successful. consideration. As those projects are approved, through the federal and the provincial processes, MS. MICHAEL: Under the clean water – the applicable cash flows, as regards to’16-’17, will be transferred out to the applicable MS. BREWER: But it’s 50-cent dollars – department. MS. MICHAEL: Sorry. You go ahead. I can provide Ms. Michael with the notes that I tabled in the House for that amount of money. MS. BREWER: I’m sorry.

MS. MICHAEL: I received those notes. I did It’s 50-cent dollars so we have to prepare – request those from the Clerk’s table and did either Memorial will identify a source for us, 50 receive those notes. cents, or the department will come on behalf of Memorial and apply to this fund and seek MS. C. BENNETT: Okay. Treasury Board approval for the funding and the same with the college. So it is really dependent MS. MICHAEL: I was hoping for more detail – on what applications actually get screened and approved through the federal process. MS. C. BENNETT: Yes. MS. MICHAEL: Minister, you mentioned MS. MICHAEL: – now in Estimates. projects that had been prioritized, would we be able to have a list of the projects that have been MS. C. BENNETT: The projects that are being prioritized? I’m assuming that’s under the waste looked, each of the departments have provided water. some indication of the projects. The federal

120

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

MS. C. BENNETT: The projects are in the MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, there are Aboriginal process of being prioritized, based on what the communities too that were a component of it as guidelines are from the federal government. well. Would that be part of it as well? We’re waiting for clarity from some the agencies, boards and commissions that would be MS. BREWER: It could be; I just don’t recall considering some of their infrastructure projects offhand. as part of this. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. I think the federal At this stage, the final list of applications that government said it’s 50-50 application based. So will be provided, as part of this federal we’re not talking here of per capita. This is no infrastructure, has not been fully finalized. guaranteed funding. It’s based on applications and whether it’s approved. MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much. MS. BREWER: I know, Mr. Hutchings, the That’s all I have for that subhead. post-secondary is not guaranteed per capita allocation. I can’t say yet whether some of the MR. HUTCHINGS: Minister, you referenced others will or won’t. waste water and post-secondary as components of the new federal infrastructure. Are they the MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, fair enough. only two components or is there more outside of that that this money would look at supporting? This money is allocated here, and obviously in other departments, Municipal Affairs, TW, AES, MS. C. BENNETT: Donna, do you want to there’s funding in their Estimates, no doubt, for speak to that? various projects that they may pursue to leverage federal dollars which would be normal practice, MS. BREWER: There were a number of probably, within those departments anyway. initiatives that the federal government announced. One has to do with public transit. Is this in any way restricting what they do or is Right now, the criteria hasn’t been finalized, but this additional money that you would look at there’s potential that it could go towards ferry based on the federal government and increasing operations. the infrastructure program?

There was money under – I want to call it Arts MS. C. BENNETT: The departments who and Culture, but I’m not sure of the correct name would’ve had clarity on the federal – Culture and Heritage. There were several infrastructure spending would have proceeded to blocks of money within the federal budget that include approved projects inside their spending was announced, I think it was March 22, that, to envelope. me, there wasn’t clarity on (a) necessarily the amount for Newfoundland and Labrador or the MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. criteria. So we felt it was prudent to put the block in. As I indicated, right now, the one that MS. C. BENNETT: This particular amount of is getting a lot clearer and application guidelines money was related to the fact that there were are out and the deadlines have been set is the pieces of the federal infrastructure program, that post-secondary one. at the time of the budget we still didn’t have 100 per cent clarity on the regulations and the rules, MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. so the funding was put in a block.

MS. BREWER: But there are, as well, others Maybe I could ask the deputy to speak to the under the Newfoundland Housing Corporation, rigour around how the projects would be social housing initiatives. Again, once they get approved so that there is no confusion that this the criteria and know the amount, they may have would be something that a minister, for example, the ability to finance it within their own would decide on their own because in order for resources. If not, they have the ability to come the money to be allocated – Donna, maybe you and apply. can walk through that process.

121

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

MS. BREWER: Sure. MS. C. BENNETT: To not have the money in the budget in this form would have meant that There is a deputy minister’s committee of we would have been unable to leverage the infrastructure so the individual departments federal infrastructure spending, and we felt it would receive the criteria. In this particular case, was prudent to have an amount of money the one that has come forward most recently was blocked, as opposed to missing the opportunity the post-secondary education. There were to be able to leverage infrastructure money – criteria that were established by the federal which has been done in the other departments government. Both Memorial and the college, based on the information they had. with the assistance of Advanced Education and Skills, looked at that criteria and identified MR. HUTCHINGS: Sure. projects that they felt would fit the federal criteria. Is there a timeline on this envelope of federal infrastructure? So they came forward to the committee, the committee met with the officials and we made MS. BREWER: The post-secondary, one of the recommendations to the ministerial criteria was what they’d call shovel ready. So infrastructure committee. Once the ministerial they’re trying to get the money out and the infrastructure committee reviewed them, they money spent over this year and next year. then sanctioned them and would have brought them – I guess, Minister – through to Cabinet for MR. HUTCHINGS: The other comment was – final consideration. MS. BREWER: You may recall the old MS. C. BENNETT: These would have been Building Canada Fund; it was like on a ten-year projects that, for example, Memorial or the horizon. College of the North Atlantic would have had as a priority in their own entity. However, due to MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, that’s right, yes. funding they would have been unable to proceed That’s why I asked. or to funding limitations, the timing of when those projects might happen, would be slower. MS. BREWER: So that was also the impetus to actually put the money in, because ordinarily When the actual money is moved out of Finance, with a federal announcement you can do your though, it does need to go out through a legwork, get your plans in place and then put the Treasury Board process, as is the norm, if you’re money in the budget once you know the going to reallocate something from one area to a projects. But because we knew they were department. So that would mean there would expediting and wanting to get the money flowed need to be Treasury Board approval. Once the as quickly as possible, we opted with this block federal funding was in place, the department funding, as the minister had indicated. would have to come back and ask for Treasury Board approval to move the money out into their MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. purview for spending. Thank you. MR. HUTCHINGS: And, no doubt, at that particular time you’d probably announce what CLERK: 2.1.05. the infrastructure project would be and you’re supporting it and that kind of thing. CHAIR: Shall 2.1.05 carry?

MS. C. BENNETT: Certainly, when the SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. decisions are made and you get through to that position you’d certainly be making it very clear CHAIR: Carried. as to what the spending was for. On motion, subhead 2.1.05 carried. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. CLERK: 2.2.01.

122

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

CHAIR: Shall 2.2.01 carry? Under the provincial revenue, what is the source of that revenue on the provincial level? MS. MICHAEL: Will I start? MS. C. BENNETT: The amount of $1.2 MR. HUTCHINGS: You go ahead, yes. million?

MS. MICHAEL: Not a lot of questions for MS. MICHAEL: Yes. here, but under Professional Services, Minister, the anticipated revision last year was $1,829,500 MS. C. BENNETT: That is the anticipated and this year all that’s allowed in Professional revenue in ’16-’17 for the indirect HST tax Services, the estimate is $340,000. So why the review. That’s where we pick up the revenue. big drop in this area? MS. MICHAEL: That’s where you pick it up, MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. okay.

The change of $453,000 from the original MS. C. BENNETT: Yes, of $1.2 million. budget last year to the actual projected revised was an increase. This was as a result of an MS. MICHAEL: Minister, I asked this question indirect tax recovery audit which was done on in AES but I was told by the minister you’re HST. probably the one who could answer the question more accurately for me. The requirements were higher than anticipated; however, they also resulted in an anticipated Under the new tax on books, will post-secondary HST recovery from the federal government of students have to pay tax on their textbooks? $11.4 million. The additional $453,000 that was spent on the audit, the audit in its entirety MS. C. BENNETT: Craig, do you want to take yielded additional revenue for the province of that one? $11.4 million. MR. MARTIN: Yes, post-secondary textbooks MS. MICHAEL: Okay, got it. I got that. purchased by students will be taxed.

MS. C. BENNETT: So the decrease would be MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much. that’s not happening anymore. That’s all I have for that one. MS. MICHAEL: That’s not happening. Yes, got that. MR. HUTCHINGS: Grants and Subsidies, could you give me an understanding what that is Thank you very much. and what it’s used for?

Under Purchased Services, what are the services MS. C. BENNETT: Yes, this would have been that are covered under there? – the Member may actually remember this one. The $104,600 would have been – I’m sorry, just MS. BREWER: The majority of that would be for clarity, is it the $23,000 or the $104,000 that administrative fees that we pay, primarily, to you want some details on? Canada Revenue Agency for administrating a lot of our taxes like the HST, personal income tax MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, just give what and corporate income tax. As well, there’d be $104,600 represents and we’ve got $23,600. charges there for photocopiers, shredding Again, what would that be used for? services, just like most other divisions within the department. MS. C. BENNETT: Yes, so the revised budget for ’15-’16; there was a grant of $80,000 that the MS. MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much. former administration approved for the department of economics under the CARE program. Also, there was an amount of money

123

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

that was required for transitional expenses CLERK: 2.2.03. related to the province’s membership in the Maritime Provinces Harness Racing CHAIR: Shall 2.2.03 carry? Commission. So the $23,600 now is – the $6,400 decrease from the original budget is the MS. MICHAEL: I have no questions. allocation of the provincial membership to the Maritime Provinces Harness Racing MR. HUTCHINGS: No, that’s fine. I’m good. Commission which is estimated at $23,600 this year. CLERK: 2.2.03.

MR. HUTCHINGS: That’s an annual fee, I CHAIR: Shall 2.2.03 carry? think, is it? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. Yes, correct. CHAIR: Carried. MS. C. BENNETT: To my understanding it’s annually, right? On motion, subhead 2.2.03 carried.

MS. BREWER: Yes, there’s a budget CLERK: 2.2.04. (inaudible) that’s set by the commission and then each of the four Atlantic – it’s now the CHAIR: Shall 2.2.04 carry? Atlantic Provinces Harness Racing Commission. Each of the four Atlantic provinces would share MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, 2.2.04. in that budget. Just on the Salaries piece, Minister, the budgeted MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Thank you. last year, the revised was down. As well, this year is very similar. Is that positions related or CLERK: 2.2.01. what exactly, or not filled?

CHAIR: Shall 2.2.01 carry? MS. C. BENNETT: The change for projected revised would have been savings as a result of SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. reductions in projections primarily attributed to vacancy savings and recruitment delays. CHAIR: Carried. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. On motion, subhead 2.2.01 carried. MS. C. BENNETT: And the changes in the CLERK: 2.2.02. original budget would have been primarily due to the removal of salaries associated with the CHAIR: Shall 2.2.02 carry? Home Heating and the Parental Benefits rebate programs. This was primarily offset by the MS. MICHAEL: I don’t have anything for increase in JES, annualized for qualifying JES 2.2.02 personally. positions.

MR. HUTCHINGS: No, I’m good. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. So they would be the positions in Grand Falls, I think it is, the CHAIR: Shall 2.2.02 carry? office there?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. Okay. Professional Services there under the heading; $152,000 was budgeted, $225,000 and CHAIR: Carried. that’s taken out now. I’m just wondering what’s – On motion, subhead 2.2.02 carried.

124

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

MS. C. BENNETT: So the projected revised, CHAIR: Carried. the $225,100 was actually an increase related to additional legal costs associated with a tax On motion, subhead 2.2.04 carried. proceeding. As I’m sure the Members here would understand, we can’t discuss the specifics CHAIR: At the request of the Deputy Chair of the tax proceedings, but those would have we’re going to take a five-minute break and been legal fees associated with that. come back and clue up.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. That’s good. Recess

Lorraine, do you have anything? CHAIR: Okay, we’ll resume with the final part of the Estimates on Finance. MS. MICHAEL: I have one question. We were told in previous Estimates over the, well, past CLERK: 2.2.05. two years, I guess, Minister, that the specific was the Vale transfer pricing audit. And when CHAIR: Shall 2.2.05 carry? that audit is done – can you say whether or not it’s been done? There’s no money allotted for MS. MICHAEL: I just have one question and it this year, I’m assuming that it’s come to an end. has to do with the Salaries line. The Salaries line has gone up $147,600 over the projected MS. C. BENNETT: I can’t comment on – revision. If I could have an explanation, Minister, please. MS. MICHAEL: You can’t comment. MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. MS. C. BENNETT: I can’t comment. The savings or the lower than anticipated MS. MICHAEL: Would that ever be made spending in the revised budget of ’15-’16, public? bringing it down to $494,000, that savings was from a manager of capital markets, which is a MS. C. BENNETT: I can’t comment on that borrowing position that was unfilled for ’15-’16. now. OFFICIAL: (Inaudible.) MS. MICHAEL: You can’t comment at all. Okay, thank you very much. MS. MICHAEL: Do you have any other questions that are urgent? MS. C. BENNETT: I don’t have the information to answer the question. MS. C. BENNETT: If I can continue, the original budget for ’16-’17 with Salaries at MS. MICHAEL: Okay. Is there any way to get $743,300, that represents an increase of information just to those? They’re fairly neutral $147,600. That increase is a result of adding an questions. additional two resources for the borrowing program that would also include resources that MS. C. BENNETT: If I can provide the would help with succession planning. information, I will. The two positions: number one would be a new MS. MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you. position for a manager that would provide support for the entry into the US markets for the That’s all I have for that? province. Number two would be for a registrar, which is a new position. Again, that would be to CLERK: 2.2.04. support the entry of the province into US markets. CHAIR: Shall 2.2.04 carry? MS. MICHAEL: Maybe I could ask the SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. minister for an explanation of the need for a new

125

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

manager for that. Is it because of different CLERK: 2.3.01. expertise or more work? CHAIR: Shall 2.3.01 carry? MS. C. BENNETT: I’ll ask the assistant deputy minister to speak to that. MR. HUTCHINGS: Minister, if I could get some information in regard to the 2.3.01, MR. MARTIN: It’s a combination of both, Salaries, what was budgeted in 2015-16 and really. It’s a level of expertise, but a lot of it is what was executed in the revised. Then there’s a also additional workload. further reduction this year, I guess, comparatively in the Estimate to last year’s Essentially, the Debt Management Division was budget; some information on those numbers. primarily in caretaker mode for the last seven or eight years, where the province hadn’t been MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. substantively borrowing, and borrowing started again this past March. So this is to add The $3,846,600 under projected revised is a additional resources in order to support the new $546,600 savings primarily from reduction in borrowing programs. projections attributed to vacancies and recruitment delays. Also, there was a lower MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much. requirement for temporary assistance relating to miscellaneous projects that would arise during That’s all I have for there. the fiscal year in the Economics and Statistics Branch. MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, if I could add that specifically the entry into the US markets The budget for ’16-’17 is decreased over last requires that we have different technical advice year’s budget by $344,600. That decrease is due to be able to do that. There are significant to the results of the line-by-line review regulatory requirements that the province must reduction, and this was partially offset by an undertake as part of that effort. increase for JES annualization for qualifying JES positions. The move to include the US market as part of our borrowing plan would be for two reasons. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. That would be our continued concern about our capacity to borrow, as well as ensuring we can Purchased Services, could you give me an idea access the best rates we can to keep our of what that would be under this division, what borrowing costs as low as we can. it would represent?

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you. MS. C. BENNETT: I can let Wanda or Alton speak to it, but my understanding is this would MR. HUTCHINGS: I’m fine. be purchases for, for example, data from Stats Can that we would purchase, and rent as well for Thank you. the Economics and Statistics Branch.

CHAIR: Okay. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

CLERK: 2.2.05. When we get down to Revenue – Provincial, we have a revised figure there of $249,600. Could CHAIR: Shall 2.2.05 carry? you explain why that was up so high compared to what was budgeted? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. CHAIR: Carried. The increase of $214,000 was additional On motion, subhead 2.2.05 carried. revenues that were due to revenues from ’14-’15

126

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

being received in ’15-’16, as well as additional A similar question with regard to the salary line project revenue recoveries in ’15-’16. here, Minister; just an explanation, please, of the drop. MR. HUTCHINGS: Project recovery, you had done project work for somebody and had – what MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. do you mean by that? The reduction in Salaries from last year’s budget MS. C. BENNETT: The Economics and to the projected revised was $468,200. That Statistics Branch would occasionally do work reduction is primarily attributed to vacancy for – they might do it for the City of St. John’s, savings and recruitment delays. The reduction for example, or others. from the original budget of last year to this year’s proposed budget is just over $257,000 in MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. savings. That came from the line-by-line review that the Office of the Comptroller went through. MS. C. BENNETT: Alton, do you want to add anything else? MS. MICHAEL: With regard to Salaries, the line-by-line review, how could it go down so MR. HOLLETT: The work that was carried much without a loss of a salary unit? over, basically, last year was work that was billed towards the end of the year, and it was the MS. C. BENNETT: It could be positions that City of St. John’s, Goss Gilroy, Newfoundland weren’t filled that we will no longer budget for. Housing, Memorial University and ACOA. MS. MICHAEL: Okay and you don’t have the MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. details on that.

MR. HOLLETT: We billed them and received MS. C. BENNETT: Ann Marie, do you want to them after the books were closed off. provide some details.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, thank you. MS. MILLER: Some of it would have been in our Corporate Services Division. That’s the That’s good for me. invoice processing that we do for government. We’ve had some vacancies in that area. MS. MICHAEL: I don’t have (inaudible) the same questions. We found some efficiencies, better ways to do business. Vendors can now send their invoices CHAIR: Okay. electronically to us so it allows us to be more efficient and thus save positions as a result. But CLERK: 2.3.01. those positions would have been vacant.

CHAIR: Shall 2.3.01 carry? MS. MICHAEL: Do you have the number of vacancies? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MS. MILLER: We can certainly provide some CHAIR: Carried. information.

On motion, subhead 2.3.01 carried. MS. MICHAEL: Please. Thank you.

CLERK: 2.4.01. Under Purchased Services, the budgeted item last year went down in the revision. We’re CHAIR: Shall 2.4.01 carry? slightly up from the revision, but it’s still down $86,500 from the budget last year. MS. MICHAEL: Okay, I’ll start off then. Can I get an explanation of that?

127

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

MS. C. BENNETT: Sure. MR. HUTCHINGS: So obviously, Minister, that was for a block of pensioners that a The $91,200 savings from last year’s budget was particular circumstance we made a a result of savings attributed through determination on it. So in future, similar cases discretionary spending. The changes from last when pensioners, seniors would have something year’s budget to this year’s budget, resulting in a occur, is that an automatic now that it would be difference of $86,500, would have come from again cancelled and picked up by government? the line-by-line review based on what the office felt they could save and contribute to the overall MS. C. BENNETT: My understanding, since cost reductions that we were undertaking. the pensioners were informed in December, 16 more pensioners have been identified and the MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much. That’s dollar amount is, I believe, $160,000. We’ve all I have there. been communicating with those pensioners that we would be handling those situations with the MR. HUTCHINGS: Just a couple of questions same compassion that we handled the other before I clue up, Minister. seniors.

In regard to overpayments, there was an issue MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, and as your that came up and you dealt with in regard to officials said, at the end of the year you would overpayments. Under the legislation I think it’s a reconcile that, I guess, in terms of what had requirement to keep the pension fund whole. transpired during the fiscal year. Okay.

Are there monies allocated in the budget to The other question I had, we had discussions in offset any overpayments that may have been the House in regard to discretionary travel and written off in the future? How do you propose to some savings that were met leading up to the proceed with that? budget. There was information that, at budget time, we would get access to that. I think your MS. C. BENNETT: Are you speaking figure was $25 million. Can we have or can you specifically about pension overpayments, just list for us now what that $25 million was in for clarity? terms of discretionary savings and where it was to? MR. HUTCHINGS: I’m sorry, pension overpayments, yes. MS. C. BENNETT: Sorry, I’m not sure I understand the question. MS. C. BENNETT: Okay. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, so in the House of Yes, there is a commitment that any pension Assembly we had asked – I think you had overpayments that would not, we wouldn’t indicated that there was $100 million that was expect – we’ve publicly said we’re not expecting discretionary travel leading up to the budget that seniors to pay back, that government would be you were able to identify. Further discussion on accountable to making the pension plan whole. that indicated that was annualized, but in fact I’ll ask Donna to provide you some clarity on there was $25 million at that point in time that where that would show up. was recognized.

MS. BREWER: It wouldn’t show up in the At discussions in the House you indicated that Department of Finance. Pension payments are would be available at budget time. I’m just covered off by the Consolidated Fund Services. wondering if we have clarity on what that $25 million discretionary savings actually was. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. MS. C. BENNETT: The amount of money that MS. BREWER: I’ll confirm, but I believe we I referenced would have been savings from did that before the March 31 year-end. So it discretionary and salary savings, Estimates would have been a payment made in (inaudible). review and proper cash management. The total amount was $113.2 million. We can certainly

128

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

provide you, Mr. Hutchings, with a detailed MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, through attrition. So explanation of that. four of those positions won’t be filled?

But it relates to $11.3 million that was saved as a MS. BREWER: Right. result of salary savings, $29.9 million that was saved as a result of stopping discretionary MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. spending; $31.8 million savings that we achieved through the Estimates review; and Minister, in regard to your 650 full-time $40.2 million that we were able to provide equivalents, do these positions relate to that savings from proper cash management, which number at all? provided an opportunity for savings. MS. C. BENNETT: No. MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. I look forward to that breakdown. MR. HUTCHINGS: No.

Thank you. MS. C. BENNETT: The numbers – Donna can speak to – with reference to the changes are in MS. C. BENNETT: You had also asked a the home heating and the parental. question earlier about attrition and we didn’t get back to it. MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Oh, I’m sorry, yes. MS. C. BENNETT: Donna, you can speak to those, specifically, for Finance. MS. C. BENNETT: I want to make sure we leave you with no questions unanswered. MS. BREWER: Sure.

Donna, would you provide the information. There were 21 positions. Eight would involve some sort of layoff action; 13 were vacant MS. BREWER: Our five-year attrition number positions at the time. Five of those are was 15 positions. For ’15-’16, the target was permanent positions, and one of which was in three positions and salary money was removed St. John’s, the rest would have been Grand from the Department of Finance, $196,600. Falls-Windsor. The other 16 were seasonal positions. We reported to Treasury Board that we’ve identified four positions that became vacant that MR. HUTCHINGS: For seasonal, what type of we were able to eliminate. The savings we activity would they be involved with, a seasonal achieved in ’15-’16 was $265,715. position like that?

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. MS BREWER: Well, primarily both the Home Heating Rebate and Parental Benefits. So the first number three was attrition, the second number four is –? MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay.

MS. BREWER: The target of three was the MS. BREWER: It’s not a constant. So there’s a target we were given and we’ve managed to peak and as the volume decreases then people achieve, in ’15-’16, four. cease their seasonal employment.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay, and that’s through MR. HUTCHINGS: Okay. Thank you. attrition. That’s good. MS. BREWER: The actual savings was $265,700. CHAIR: Okay.

CLERK: 2.4.01.

129

May 10, 2016 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

CHAIR: Shall 2.4.01 carry? MR. HUTCHINGS: I agree, yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Carried. CHAIR: Okay.

On motion, subhead 2.4.01 carried. Motion to adjourn.

CLERK: 1.1.01 to 2.4.01 inclusive. MR. HUTCHINGS: So moved.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 to 2.4.01 inclusive carry? CHAIR: Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. On motion, the Committee adjourned sine die.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 2.4.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Department of Finance, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Department of Finance carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Department of Finance carried without amendment.

CHAIR: I’d like to thank the minister and her staff for giving a very thorough Estimates review, and I’d like to thank the Government Services Committee for their participation over the last two weeks.

Before I move to adjourn, I’d just like to say that the next meeting of the Government Services Committee will be at the call of the Chair.

Motion to adjourn.

MS. MICHAEL: (Inaudible.)

130