CONTENTS
Standing Committee on Crown and Central
Agencies
Bill No. 14 — The Power Corporation Amendment Act,
2025
THIRTIETH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
Hansard Verbatim Report
No.
7 — Tuesday, May 6, 2025
[The
committee met at 15:29.]
Chair
Steele: — Okay. Welcome, everyone. Standing
Committee on Crown and Central Agencies. I’m Doug Steele; I’m the Chair; Chris
Beaudry to my right; Terri Bromm to my right. Hon. Lori Carr is to the right.
Don McBean. Okay. Jordan McPhail, and Keith Jorgenson substituting for Erika
Ritchie.
[15:30]
Consideration of Bill No. 15. Today
the committee will be considering two bills, one with the Minister Responsible
for the Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority and one with the Minister
Responsible for SaskPower.
Bill No. 15 — The Alcohol and
Gaming Regulation Amendment Act, 2025/Loi modificative de 2025 sur la
réglementation des boissons alcoolisées et des jeux de hasard
Clause
1
Chair
Steele: — We will begin with the consideration
of Bill 15, The Alcohol and Gaming Regulation Amendment Act, 2025, a
bilingual bill. Minister Ross is here with her officials. As a reminder to the
officials, please state your name for the record before you speak. Please do
not touch the microphones. The Hansard operator will turn them on for you when
it’s your turn to speak. Minister Ross, please introduce your officials and
make your opening comments, please.
Hon. Alana
Ross: — Thank you,
Mr. Chair. The officials joining me here today are, on my right, Susan Ross,
SLGA [Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority] president and CEO [chief
executive officer]; to my left is Lynnette Skaalrud, director of policy and
legislation; and behind me I have my ministerial assistant of comms, Josh
Fryklund.
As the regulator of liquor, gaming, and
cannabis, as well as the wholesale distributor of liquor in the province,
Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority, SLGA, is committed to ensuring
accountability and fairness across these sectors. To reinforce these
principles, Bill No. 15 proposes the following: increase the maximum
administrative penalties from $10,000 to $25,000 to ensure greater deterrence
against non-compliance; authorize SLGA to charge interest on overdue accounts
and encourage timely payments and responsible fiscal practices.
Under The Alcohol and Gaming
Regulation Act, 1997, SLGA has the authority to impose administrative
penalties on liquor permit holders and gaming registrants who fail to comply
with the Act, its regulations, and specified terms and conditions. The
regulatory framework helps to ensure that businesses operate responsibly and in
accordance with SLGA’s rules that promote public health and safety.
The maximum administrative penalty has
not been updated in over 20 years and no longer serves as an effective
deterrent. The existing maximum administrative penalty of $10,000 does not
align with the penalties established in The Cannabis Control (Saskatchewan)
Act, which is currently set at $25,000, nor is it in line with maximum
administrative penalties in Western Canada. Updating the maximum penalty will
align Saskatchewan with other jurisdictions and promote consistency across
cannabis and liquor regulations.
At the same time amendments contained in
Bill 15 will increase the maximum administrative penalties that the First
Nation charitable gaming regulators, like Indigenous Gaming Regulators, can
assess on gaming registrations. This approach will maintain parity between SLGA
and IGR’s [Indigenous Gaming Regulators] maximum administrative penalties.
Administrative penalties play an
important role in SLGA’s progressive sanctioning process. The process typically
begins with educational guidance or warnings, and administrative penalties are
generally used as a last resort for repeat or particularly egregious offenders.
While these penalties are used infrequently, they can serve as an effective
deterrent to liquor permittees and gaming registrants not complying with the
Act, regulations, or terms and conditions of their licence or registration.
Additionally SLGA will introduce
interest charges on all overdue accounts within SLGA’s liquor distribution
system. While this is not a significant issue for SLGA, adopting a collection
policy is anticipated to improve SLGA’s management of overdue accounts while
encouraging timely payments.
The collection policy includes a rate
increase of 1.5 per cent compounded monthly, totalling an annual rate of 19.56
per cent. Other Crown corporations in Saskatchewan have similar policies. By
aligning with these entities SLGA can strengthen its financial position and
follow the industry’s best practices.
The advantages are clear: efficient debt
collection, increased revenue from interest, and consistency with other Crown
corporations. While some businesses may raise concerns about higher operating
costs, the interest charges will only apply to those businesses that do not pay
their bills in a timely manner.
With that, I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Chair Steele:
— Thank you, Minister. Now I’ll open the floor for questions. I recognize Mr.
McBean.
Don McBean: — Thank you very
much, Minister Ross. Yeah, when I saw there was a bill coming down that was
about SLGA, I thought, oh good. As the shadow cabinet person responsible for
SLGA, this was going to be an opportunity for me to learn a bit more, some of
the dynamics that go on.
And then when I saw the bill, I guess I
thought, well it’s a fairly straightforward thing. Probably not really getting
into the meat of the operation of SLGA, but still it’s given me a chance to
study some of this a little more, understand the process of bills, adjourned
debates, and now actual committee.
If anyone was listening or went back and
read Hansard after I moved this moving forward . . . I’m
getting Mr. Chair to laugh; that’s a good sign. You know, sort of as I moved it
into the committee stage, a good deal of my questioning sort of centred around
the need at this time for the amendment. And I think that actually you covered
off some of that at least in your introduction.
Maybe I’d start with, you said it’s used
infrequently. Could you give some sort of number to, I don’t know, the last
year? Maybe the last five years? How often does the penalty — and then as the
follow-up will be — how often is that penalty the maximum?
Hon. Alana
Ross: —
Thank you for your question. I don’t have the last five years, but I can go
over since 2003. I have those figures to share with you. So in 2003 there were
— 2023, sorry — there were eight suspensions and 30 fines imposed. In 2024
there were 13 suspensions and 65 fines, along with one cancellation. And in
2025 to date, one suspension and 21 fines issued.
Don McBean: — And those fines,
would they be the maximum fine? Is that sort of the place we start at or is
there some escalation?
Lynnette
Skaalrud: —
Lynnette Skaalrud. The SLGA has a progressive penalty system, so we start with
educational components. The inspectors will speak with the permittees and let
them know what they’ve noticed, how they can correct that.
We may elevate that to a written letter
acknowledging that there were some oversights in the compliance but nothing
serious, and just educating them on how to correct that action. The penalties
are really a last resort. And within that progressive penalty structure we also
have progressive fines. So they start around 500, $1,000 and increase to the
maximum of 10,000 as offences occur.
So I did check in right before I came,
but I asked too late I’m afraid. It’s pretty rare to issue that maximum $10,000
fine. We do find that the educational component is our most effective tool to
compliance. Most of our permittees do want to comply, so when we give them that
corrective information they typically follow it. So it’s pretty rare that we
use that maximum $10,000 penalty.
Don McBean: — Okay. I wasn’t
scrolling down things quickly enough. 2023, eight suspensions and how many . . .
Hon. Alana
Ross: —
30 fines.
Don McBean: — 30 fines. 13
suspensions and . . .
Hon. Alana
Ross: —
65.
Don McBean: — 65.
Hon. Alana
Ross: —
Fines.
Don McBean: — And so far . . .
Hon. Alana
Ross: —
With one cancellation.
Don McBean: — And one
cancellation, yeah.
Hon. Alana
Ross: —
And to date in 2025 one suspension and 21 fines.
Don McBean: — Twenty-one fines
in the first four months. So is it fair to think that we perceive that this is
an increasing problem? I mean, it’s gone up — 30 fines, 65 fines, 21 already in
the first third of the year.
Lynnette Skaalrud:
— Lynnette Skaalrud. So we don’t see this as an escalating issue at this stage.
It ebbs and flows a little bit over the years. It has to do with things around
timing of enforcement actions and when the inspectors are going out into the
field. And even though the 21 fines were issued in the first quarter of this
year, or first one-third of this year, some of those offences may have occurred
in the later stages of 2024. So it’s a bit cyclical, but at this stage we don’t
see a growing concern with non-compliance.
Don McBean: — Okay. Some of this
is kind of leading toward what I said last week and what I said just now is
sort of like, why now? And I get — and it’s well stated — that I get the sort
of alignment with other Crown corporations, other degree of penalty. But I was
curious, I guess, if there was such a need as to be able to raise it from 10 to
$25,000. And what do we expect the effect of the raise of that maximum penalty
to be?
Hon. Alana
Ross: —
Thank you for the question. This is actually quite late in coming because it’s
been a number of years since there has been any type of changes to the
regulations, and we do want this to be a deterrent. And it’s also a significant
cost of doing business. And with the current fine structure that we have, it
actually costs more to do the inspections than it does to . . . The
fines don’t cover the cost of doing that, the investigations.
Don McBean: — But that would be
a sign of compliance. I mean there’s not very many fines because people are
complying, or the various agencies are complying.
Hon. Alana
Ross: —
So I maybe didn’t explain that. When there is a fine and we go out and do an
investigation, the current fine structure does not cover the cost of doing that
business, so it comes at an expense to SLGA.
[15:45]
Don McBean: — Yeah. Sorry, I
heard that as sort of the general investigation and monitoring of all that.
So you did say it’s been 20 years. You
talked about the cannabis control Act, alignment with the cannabis control Act.
Is it just been an oversight that it stayed at 10,000 for so long, that it has
been so far out of line with the others? Or has there been something within the
SLGA legislation that exempted something, or allowed . . .
Lynnette Skaalrud:
— Lynnette Skaalrud. It was a combination of a couple of things, the first
being that in 2018 the provincial government passed the cannabis control
legislation, and the maximum administrative penalty in that legislation is
$25,000. So SLGA also acts as the cannabis regulator. So as much as possible we
try to align the regulatory structures for both of them. With liquor at 10,000
and cannabis at 25,000, there wasn’t alignment there.
And the other piece is that our
neighbours across Western Canada have significantly increased their fines over
the last few years, and so we just didn’t want to get too far out of step with
them.
Don McBean: — It makes sense. I
mean as I first looked at it I thought, well that makes sense. You want some
consistency; you want some alignment, etc. But I was just curious if there was
something within SLGA. But if it’s seven years to get around to doing what you know
you should do, that’s about how I operate sometimes too. You know, good
intentions.
We often think about, you know, the
stakeholders involved. I kind of can’t imagine that the stakeholders came to
you and said, you should raise the fine on this. But was there . . .
Sort of what level of communication has there been with stakeholders other than
what I might have done from my side? Was there consultation going on with
various organizations? Hospitality I’m thinking of, or something like that.
Lynnette Skaalrud:
— Lynnette Skaalrud. We haven’t done formal consultation around this. Typically
we don’t. SLGA does not conduct formal consultations around our regulatory
enforcement measures.
We can assure you that, you know, out of
more than 2,500 liquor permittees in the province, this will only impact a very
small handful of the very worst actors out there.
Don McBean: — Good. I’m glad that it’s not . . .
So the various associations I’m thinking of, Hospitality Saskatchewan, I met
with them. They didn’t have a lot of feedback to
me, but they’re aware that this is coming? And this is maybe just educating me
as to when regulatory changes, amendments are made, what level of communication
. . . Or does it wait for the bill to pass and then we tell everyone?
Hon. Alana
Ross: — So this
was announced in this year’s budget, so this shouldn’t be a surprise. And then
once everything is passed, we will be sending out formal communication to the
stakeholders involved.
Don McBean: — And then now I’m asking you to look into
the crystal ball. Do you think people will just say, oh, about time. You know,
it’s been cannabis for eight years. Or do you expect any sort of repercussion
to it? Yeah.
Lynnette
Skaalrud: — Lynnette
Skaalrud. We’re not anticipating a significant reaction to this. It is
consistent with what’s in place for cannabis. It’s consistent with what’s in
place in Western Canada. And again it’s only the very few permittees that will
be negatively affected by this.
Don McBean: — The other little part was the charging of
interest. Was that something that was part of cannabis — I guess I could have
looked that up myself — the charge on interest? Or that interest was not
charged and sort of what consistency that brings in?
Hon. Alana
Ross: —
So this is part of the wholesale side of this file. It’s not part of the
regulatory system. And what it is, it’s customers of the wholesale department
who have overdue accounts. So it would be really no different than if you
purchased something from any other business, and most businesses typically
charge interest to encourage payment of accounts on time. And if you look at
other provinces — Alberta, for example — they don’t sell to anyone who doesn’t
prepay.
Don McBean: — There you go. So
then again, it’s just kind of been a historical thing that SLGA didn’t get to
charge an interest on late payments? And then it kind of makes me wonder
because it is pretty standard. Yeah, you don’t pay your bill, you start getting
charged interest. Just historically it’s been that way.
Hon. Alana
Ross: —
That’s what I understand. And it also puts us and aligned now with the other
Crown corporations.
Don McBean: — Good. As I said,
you know, when I first looked at it I thought, well consistency is an important
thing. I get that we’re . . . I’m not sure how far I can go with this
but because we’re talking about on-reserve, a lot of that, and if I’m
understanding correctly . . . Perhaps I’ll ask it as a question.
Am I understanding correctly that the
mention of — how do we word it? — on-reserve, it’s just aligning their
abilities to charge the 25 K and the interest just so that SLGA is not getting
away with something that SIGA [Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority Inc.]
can’t? Am I understanding that correctly?
Hon. Alana
Ross: —
So the interest has nothing to do with IGR. It’s the regulatory penalties.
Don McBean: — You said that. I
didn’t connect that dot quickly enough. Well so I guess when I saw this I
thought, oh, there’s something about IGR; there’s something about SIGA. I don’t
know that I understand completely. Well I’ve studied a bit the history. I’ve
studied a bit the difference of what SIGA and SLGA are able to do and not do.
We’re kind of drifting into casinos and such here.
But I’m curious, just because it’s been
brought to my attention lately, about people saying things in the press that,
you know, certain First Nations hope to be able to purchase the SLGA casinos.
Is that fair to ask for some feedback on this or some understanding of the
relation there?
Susan Ross:
— Susan Ross, president and CEO of SLGA. It was in 2023 that all of Gaming, the
relationships in Gaming, moved to LGS [Lotteries and Gaming Saskatchewan], a
newly formed Crown corporation. So the government created an umbrella Crown
corporation called LGS, and the relationship that was between SLGA and SIGA is
now between LGS and SIGA. And so LGS and/or SIGA would really have to be the
people that answer that question. That was in 2023, about March.
Don McBean: — Okay. Well then I
apologize in the sense that I’m not quite up to speed on that relation. I just
know that as SLGA became part of my world, I had different people speaking to
me about these things from both sides. And I thought maybe this would be an opportunity.
And indeed I’ve learned something more interesting. Good, I have homework. I
have homework every day.
Unless one of my colleagues has a
question, I don’t know that I have more to try to illuminate around this bill.
The amendments, it strikes me — as I said at the beginning and as you said —
fairly straightforward, a little bit technical. If anyone . . .
Chair
Steele: — Mr. Jorgenson.
Keith Jorgenson:
— Thank you very much. I was wondering if you’d be able to provide us with a
breakdown in terms of the enforcement actions that occur in a typical year. Is
there a breakdown that you can provide us in terms of whether or not those are
permittees that are selling liquor — like what type of licence those people are
holding, whether it be like a craft-production licence; whether it be, you
know, a restaurant or tavern licence; and whether or not it’d be like an
off-sale permit; if there’s any information about how those break down by class
or category of licence?
Hon. Alana
Ross: —
So we can undertake to get you that information. It will take some time, but we
will provide you with what we’re able to.
Keith
Jorgenson: —
Fair enough. And just in a quick follow-up to that, in terms of the people who
hold craft-production licences, has the number of people who have had to be
fined, has that changed over time as kind of the enforcement protocols have
changed? Or has it been fairly consistent?
Lynnette Skaalrud:
— Lynnette Skaalrud. We don’t have that information with us. It’ll be broken
out in the information that the minister’s undertaking to provide it with you
when we divide it out by liquor permit type.
Keith
Jorgenson: —
Much obliged. Much obliged. Are we concluded now? Okay, I wasn’t sure if we
just kept going until the other people got here.
[16:00]
Chair Steele:
— Okay, thank you. Seeing no more questions, we’ll proceed in to the voting on
the clauses.
Clause
1, short title, is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Steele: — Carried.
[Clause 1 agreed to.]
[Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.]
Chair
Steele: — His Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The
Alcohol and Gaming Regulation Amendment Act, a bilingual bill.
I would ask a member to move that we
report Bill No. 15, The Alcohol and Gaming Regulation Amendment Act,
2025, a bilingual bill, without amendment.
Terri Bromm:
— I so move.
Chair
Steele: — MLA [Member of the Legislative
Assembly] Bromm. Is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Steele: — Carried. Any closing comments?
Hon. Alana
Ross: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank yourself, all the committee members,
the staff who have joined me here today, and Hansard, the officials from the
Legislative Assembly that are here, very much for taking the time to conduct
this important business today. Thank you.
Chair
Steele: — Thank you, Minister. I’d like to
thank all the members for their attendance here this evening. So we’ll take a
brief recess. Closing remarks? I’m sorry, guys. Mr. McBean? Mr. Jorgenson? No?
Don McBean: — Thank you very
much for this opportunity, and I will echo . . .
Chair
Steele: — Okay. We’ll take a brief recess to
change out the officials. Thank you.
[The
committee recessed for a period of time.]
Bill No. 14 — The Power
Corporation Amendment Act, 2025
Clause
1
Chair
Steele: — Okay, we’ll get under way. We will
now consider Bill No. 14, The Power Corporation Amendment Act, 2025.
We will begin with our consideration with clause 1, short title. Minister
Harrison is here with his officials. I remind officials to identify themselves
for the record the first time you speak at the microphone, and not to touch the
microphones. The Hansard operator will turn them on for you when you’re
speaking. Mr. Harrison, please make your opening comments and introduce your
officials.
Hon. Jeremy
Harrison: —
Sure, well thanks very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the committee for all
being here today as well. With me today, Rupen Pandya, president and CEO of
SaskPower; Troy King, executive vice-president and chief strategy, technology
and financial officer; and Rachelle Verret Morphy, executive vice-president of
legal and corporate services and general counsel.
This legislative amendment will do three
things: (1) increase SaskPower’s borrowing limit; (2) include in legislation
SaskPower’s ability to advance loans and guarantee indebtedness of its
subsidiaries; and (3) ensure consistency with other Crown legislation to make
it explicit that SaskPower subsidiaries are agents of the Crown.
SaskPower forecasted borrowing to
increase above its currently legislated limit of $10 billion by
approximately 2026, as the corporation continues its considerable investment in
infrastructure including new and sustainment activities. This bill will amend
subsection 43(1) of The Power Corporation Act to increase SaskPower’s
borrowing limit from 10 billion to 14 billion. Without this
amendment, SaskPower will not be able to meet its financial commitments,
affecting its ability to maintain and expand infrastructure, impacting
reliability of the electricity grid.
This bill will also add a new section to
the Act to provide SaskPower with the express authority to make loans and
advances to and guarantee the indebtedness of its subsidiaries. This change is
necessary to eliminate any legal uncertainties and to gain confidence from
third parties such as regulators, lenders, and investors who may otherwise be
hesitant to approve or participate in a project.
This amendment is required to remove all
interpretational risk and provide SaskPower with the authority to make loans
and advances to its subsidiaries and guarantee the obligations of its
subsidiaries. And given the scope and magnitude, particularly of the SMR [small
modular reactor] project, this change is crucial for the success of
SaskNuclear.
Chair
Steele: — Thank you, Minister. I’ll now open
the floor to questions. MLA McPhail.
Jordan McPhail: — Thank you, Mr.
Chair, and — sorry, that was a lot louder on the microphone I’m sure — and to
the ministry officials for joining us here today. You know, on quick review of
the bill, I think it’s important in where we’re at as a province with the
potential tariff war. Electricity is going to be a major issue here in
Saskatchewan. And I think that the calls that we’ve had for expansion of power
lines and, you know, tariff-proofing our infrastructure here in Saskatchewan
will be a very important discussion that can be had.
And just to go into the questions here,
I’m just wondering, the figure to go from 10 billion to 14 billion,
what were the key factors in determining the number of that additional
$4 billion to the debt?
Hon. Jeremy
Harrison: —
Yeah, it’s a valid question and I thank the member for that. So the last time
the debt limit was adjusted was in 2016‑17, and we moved it up to that
$10 billion mark. And you know, we’d been able to function comfortably up
until probably end of next calendar, middle of next calendar, something around
there. That’s why we’re here today.
So as far as the actual number that will
enable SaskPower to have borrowing ability for the next number of years, I mean
there are a whole bunch of discussions and decisions that are going to go into
exactly how long that is going to be for. And we were able to talk about that
at committee, I think, in estimates to a degree. There is a pretty rapidly
changing landscape right now in electricity generation, production, capital
expenditure that’s going to have a significant impact on what our borrowing needs
are going to be as we go forward.
You know, one of the projects we
actually talked about at estimates — and I’ll maybe reiterate it — was around
the north-south interconnect between the two grids. You know, my view is that
it’s probably been far, far too long that the grids have really been separate
grids, I mean aside from the interconnect through Manitoba. But that means a
$700 million investment if we’re to move forward with connecting the
northern and southern grid in Saskatchewan.
Yeah, so those are . . . The
decisions have not been made yet but would have, you know, a significant impact
on the capital needs the company would have.
Jordan McPhail: — And I guess just
on the amounts there, you had said that it was last readjusted in 2016 by
roughly the same amount? Sorry, I . . .
Hon. Jeremy
Harrison: —
Yeah. That was a $2 billion increase in 2016.
Jordan McPhail: — So from
8 billion to 10 billion.
Hon. Jeremy
Harrison: —
From 8 to 10.
Jordan McPhail: — Understood. And so
from just I guess a high level, this is mainly so to free up some dollars for
capital investment into the power grid. And so I guess one of the questions I
have is, have you factored into consideration, you know, the potential cost of
the tariff on some of the things that would be needed to build those capital
projects to adjust it into the $14 billion that we’re seeing in the
adjusted amount in this bill?
Hon. Jeremy
Harrison: —
Well it’s an interesting question because I mean that really I think any tariff
issue as far as SaskPower procurement, we do the vast majority of procurement
from outside the United States. I mean 97 per cent or thereabouts in the
aggregate is non-US [United States] procurement for the Crown. So we’d have to
delve into maybe a bit more detail but it’s a very, very high proportion that
is procured from within the country.
You know, as much as we can, we do from
within the province. And you know, there’s procurement from other parts of the
world for items that we can’t get from within the country. So the tariffs are
not really applicable in that we’re going to . . . If there are
tariffs, and there really aren’t in a lot of these spaces other than steel, if
we’re procuring from Canada though, we’re obviously not subject to any of those
activities.
I think there have been some concerns
from companies. And it’s not as big of an issue given the fact that the vast
majority of procurement is from within the country. But for companies that are
having to procure from the United States on counter-tariffed items, that’s
actually been, you know, a concern that has existed out there as well.
So you know, I would just say to the
overall aggregate question, really it’s going to be a pretty minor issue,
simply because we procure as much as we do from within the country.
[16:15]
Jordan McPhail: — Thanks for the
response. And the $14 billion that has been established in the bill here
to go from 10 billion to 14, was that established before or after the
government’s decision to pause the OBPS [output-based performance standards]?
Hon. Jeremy
Harrison: —
We made this decision months and months ago. So I think it probably would have
been one of the first things we actually talked about after I was appointed as
CIC [Crown Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan] minister. And officials may
have had that discussion with the previous minister as well because, you know,
there’s obviously pretty significant lead time to preparing legislation, having
it prepared to go, all of these questions.
So I can’t speak for Minister Duncan
from before, but I know we had that discussion very, very shortly after I
became minister. And then we went through the internal process for approval of
the bill and moving it through the budget process as well.
Jordan McPhail: — Thanks for the
response. Was there . . . Sorry. And very similar question in the
same vein, was the $14 billion established before or after the
government’s announcement on the coal refurbishment project?
Hon. Jeremy
Harrison: —
Coal, we haven’t made any formal announcement. I think I’ve been pretty clear
in telegraphing where we’re going on that, but we haven’t made the final
announcement yet on where we are going on coal life extension. So the fact
that, you know, we haven’t yet done that means that this decision was obviously
made prior to any formal announcement of a decision on the other item.
Jordan McPhail: — Thanks. After this
takes effect, what will the SaskPower’s debt/equity ratio be?
Hon. Jeremy
Harrison: —
I’ll leave that to officials. But I would say, as far as comparators across
North America, we would be very much in industry standard position on
debt/equity. But I will turn it to Rupen, Troy for that.
Troy King:
— Troy King, executive vice-president, strategy, technology, finance with
SaskPower. So our debt ratio we expect to float between that 76.5 per cent and
about 75 per cent over the next five years.
Jordan McPhail: — Thank you for
that. What impact will this borrowing have on SaskPower’s operations and
capital spending program?
Hon. Jeremy
Harrison: —
Well I can maybe just speak to elements of that anyway. I mean really the
quantum at which we are looking at making investment over the next number of
years really is dependent on having the authority to borrow, which is not a new
thing. So this is really essential, the bill to have go forward and pass and be
recommended by the committee and voted on by the Assembly for our future needs.
Although I would say with regard to, you
know, specific projects, those are determined on an annualized basis through
the budget process, approved by the board, recommended by the CIC board, and
ultimately approved by the cabinet. So that is done kind of on an annualized
basis. So you know, how specifically resources would be allocated out into 2028‑29,
I mean there is no answer to that because we haven’t made those formal
decisions yet.
Jordan McPhail: — And so when you’ve
put it into I guess the budgetary considerations of future capital projects, in
the increase in the borrowing limit going from 10 billion to
4 billion, have you put it into kind of the capital spending plans? And do
you know whether that 4 billion will be spent on SMRs, the coal refurb
project, or gas plants?
Hon. Jeremy
Harrison: —
I think the short answer is that it could be all of the above. But really that
will be dependent on annual budgetary decisions on the capital front that
government will consider. But you know, which is kind of going back to the
previous response I gave, it’s hard to give a specific answer on a lot of those
simply because we haven’t made the individualized decisions yet. But it would
be fair to say that all of those items — SMR, gas, coal life extensions — could
very well be recipients of some of the resources for capital.
Jordan McPhail: — Thank you.
Chair
Steele: — Okay. Seeing no more questions we
will proceed to voting off the clauses. Clause 1, short title, is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Steele: — Carried.
[Clause 1 agreed to.]
[Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.]
Chair
Steele: — His Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The
Power Corporation Amendment Act, 2025.
I would ask a member to move that we
report Bill No. 14, The Power Corporation Amendment Act, 2025.
Chris Beaudry: — I so move.
Chair
Steele: — MLA Beaudry moves. Is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Steele: — Carried. Okay. Any closing comments
by the minister?
Hon. Jeremy
Harrison: —
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I’d just like to thank our team at SaskPower for the work
they do every day in providing reliable power — affordable, reliable power —
for the people of Saskatchewan.
Chair Steele:
— Mr. McPhail, do you have any closing comments?
Jordan McPhail: — I do. I just wanted to quickly say thanks
to the Chair, the legislative staff, SaskPower, the officials, the minister,
and Hansard and the production team for taking the time here today to do the
good work on behalf of the people of Saskatchewan. So thank you.
Chair Steele: — Thank you so much. That concludes our
business for today. I would ask a member to move a motion for adjournment. MLA
Bromm has moved. Is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Steele: — Carried. This committee stands
adjourned to the call of the Chair.
[The committee adjourned at 16:22.]
Published
under the authority of the Hon. Todd Goudy, Speaker
Disclaimer:
The electronic versions of the Legislative Assembly’s
documents are provided on this site for informational purposes only. The Clerk
is responsible for the records of each legislature.