CONTENTS
Standing
Committee on The Economy
THIRTIETH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of
Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
Hansard
Verbatim Report
No.
3 — Wednesday, April 2, 2025
[The
committee met at 17:00.]
Chair
Thorsteinson: — Welcome to the Standing
Committee on the Economy. I’m James Thorsteinson. I am the Chair of the
Standing Committee on the Economy. With us here this evening we have Darlene
Rowden, Kevin Weedmark, Hon. Terry Jenson, and we have Tajinder Grewal. And
sitting in for Kim Breckner is Brent Blakley, and sitting in for Sally Housser
we have Erika Ritchie.
Today the committee will be
considering the estimates for the Water Security Agency and the Ministry of
Agriculture. We’ll take a half-hour recess at 8 p.m.
General Revenue Fund
Water Security Agency
Vote 87
Subvote (WS01)
Chair
Thorsteinson: — We’ll first consider the
estimates for vote 87, Water Security Agency. We’ll begin with the
consideration of Water Security Agency subvote (WS01).
Minister Harrison is here
with his officials from the agency. I would ask that officials please state
their names before speaking at the microphone. As a reminder, please do not
touch the microphones. The Hansard operator will turn your microphone on when
you are speaking to the committee.
Minister, please introduce
your officials and make your opening remarks.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to join the committee today to provide
details on the Water Security Agency’s planned activities for 2025‑26.
I’m joined today by my chief
of staff, Jean-Michel Ferre, and senior officials from Water Security Agency,
including Shawn Jaques, president and CEO [chief executive officer] of Water
Security Agency; David Cooper, vice-president of agriculture services and
economic development; John Fahlman, vice-president of infrastructure; Thon
Phommavong, vice-president of science and licensing; Terri Kentel-Weinheimer,
vice-president of corporate services; Jordan Huber, vice-president of finance;
Ali’i Lafontaine, general counsel; Leah Clark, executive director of irrigation
and economic development; and Krystal Tendler, executive director of
agriculture water management. And my apologies if I mispronounced any one of
those names.
Water is a driving force in
Canada and Saskatchewan. Water Security Agency is doing great work to manage
and protect this precious resource while growing our province. As you know,
water plays a major role in Saskatchewan. They are unique in Canada, bringing
together the government’s core water management responsibilities in one place.
In Saskatchewan, Water
Security Agency performs all the province’s water-related functions, including
effectively managing water supply to ensure the needs of all users are met,
protecting water quality by ensuring the more than 750 wastewater treatment plants
meet strict effluent guidelines, ensuring safe drinking water for our citizens
by regulating over 600 drinking water treatment plants, safely operating over
70 dams and hundreds of kilometres of related water supply channels, helping to
reduce flood and drought damage with dedicated programming, and protecting
aquatic habitat by providing easy-to-understand mitigation conditions for work
in and around the province.
Water Security Agency
represents Saskatchewan on national and international transboundary water
issues.
The Water Security Agency is
committed to exceptional client service. Since implementing their client
services unit, 62 per cent of all calls into their toll-free lines are answered
by client services agents. This means their technical specialists are available
to help more clients and provide the high-level service our residents expect.
One of the most effective
ways that water is helping drive economic growth in Saskatchewan is with the
expansion of irrigation across the province. Five years ago, as part of the
province’s 2030 growth plan, the government set a goal of creating 85,000 new
irrigated acres. The target was very ambitious. To date we have added just over
81,000 new irrigated acres, nearly hitting our 10‑year target in half the
time we predicted.
Water Security Agency is
leading the way in developing new projects of varying size across the province.
Work continues on the Westside irrigation rehabilitation project. This project
is part of the larger Lake Diefenbaker irrigation project and will add up to
100,000 new irrigable acres for Saskatchewan.
Elsewhere, we are looking at
opportunities including west of Lake Diefenbaker. The Luck Lake Irrigation
District expansion project consists of the Greenbrier, Dunblane, and Luck Lake
expansion phases to develop 48,000 acres. This project is led by producers
through the Luck Lake Irrigation District. The Government of Saskatchewan is
supporting the irrigation district as they work with Farm Credit Canada and the
Canada Infrastructure Bank on their project.
Reliable infrastructure is
the backbone of effective water management. Whether it’s dams and control
structures, reservoirs, or conveyance channels, our ability to provide secure
and sustainable water resources depends on strategic investments.
Since 2012 Water Security
Agency has invested $306 million into our network of water management
structures. This year we are prioritizing projects that enhance system
efficiency, reduce losses, and improve climate resilience. Some of these
projects include upgrades to the Grant Devine dam spillway to improve safety
and efficiency.
Water Security Agency is also
completing upgrades to the East Side pump station with a new electrical
substation. These upgrades significantly improve reliability for the power and
water supply to the M1 canal and the communities and users it supplies
downstream. The M1 canal is a 22.5‑kilometre-long water supply canal
extending from Lake Diefenbaker to Broderick reservoir near Outlook. The canal
provides water for thousands of acres of irrigation, supplies water to six
reservoirs for several towns and villages, five potash mines, 13 wetland
projects, and Blackstrap Provincial Park.
With the completion of the
new substation, Water Security Agency is now able to reliably operate all four
pumps at one time if necessary. Water Security Agency is also undertaking
regular ongoing maintenance and upgrades at other sites across the province,
ensuring our water infrastructure continues to serve the people of this
province.
Saskatchewan has nearly half
of Canada’s arable acres. That’s why we take agricultural water management
seriously. Recent wetland inventory work confirmed that thanks to the
stewardship of Saskatchewan producers, 86 per cent of Saskatchewan wetlands
remain undrained, contributing to habitat protection, water quality management,
and the strength of our agricultural sector. The recently introduced
agricultural water stewardship policy will continue to ensure that
Saskatchewan’s water resources are managed for the benefit of all Saskatchewan
people now and for the future.
Water Security Agency
supports both drainage and wetlands. Drainage is an important tool for farmers
to manage water on their land, and wetlands are important to our landscape’s
resiliency. Over the last couple years, Water Security Agency has engaged with
more than 80 stakeholders and Indigenous communities to develop a policy that
will guide how many more wetlands can be drained and how many should be
retained on the landscape. This policy is a part of the agricultural water
management program that ensures drainage is done responsibly. The stewardship
policy was built for Saskatchewan people by Saskatchewan people and strikes a
balance between landscape resiliency and economic development.
The policy provides
flexibility in how the retention targets are met. Every farm in Saskatchewan is
unique, and the agency will work with farmers to find an option that works for
their operation. We are committed to getting this right, and we will be doing
ongoing research and monitoring, committing $1 million over three years to
support research, monitoring, and reporting on 10 different indicators to
understand and learn.
Regulation is most effective
when it is understood, embraced, and integrated into how people operate. That’s
why we are shifting towards an outcome-based compliance model for small-scale
and lower risk projects and activities. Rather than heavily relying on
enforcement, we are focusing on education, collaboration, and clear guidance to
ensure that developers, landowners, and other regulated entities meet
environmental standards. This approach will increase compliance rates, reduce
administrative burden, and create a more co‑operative regulatory
environment. The goal is to protect our water resources while making it easier
for stakeholders to do the right thing.
As part of our mandate to
support economic growth, quality of life, and environmental well-being, Water
Security Agency conducts long-term surface water quality monitoring across
Saskatchewan and makes the data available online. In addition to long-term monitoring,
Water Security Agency monitors surface water quality to inform decision making
in response to emergencies and special projects.
Priority water bodies and
structures routinely monitored include five intermittent streams; 10 major
rivers; Lake Diefenbaker, Rafferty, and Grant Devine reservoirs; and the
Qu’Appelle Lakes. Most of the monitoring is conducted in the southern half of
the province to ensure the quality of source water is sufficient to support
water use for municipal drinking water treatment, irrigation, recreation, and
environment.
Standardized metrics for
river health indicate that river health in Saskatchewan ranges from “fair” to
“excellent,” with an overall watershed score of “good,” indicating water
quality is protected with only a minor degree of threat or impairment.
Water Security Agency is also
committed to continuing to research water quality to ensure ongoing protection
of source water and protection of water quality and ecosystem functions in our
rivers and lakes. Water Security Agency will continue to monitor and report on
the state of water quality and quantity in Saskatchewan.
[17:15]
I look forward to your
questions and discussion on how we can continue to advance these priorities
together. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair
Thorsteinson: — Thank you, Minister. I will
now open the floor for questions. MLA [Member of the Legislative Assembly]
Ritchie.
Erika
Ritchie: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the minister for those introductory
comments. I’ll maybe just start by also providing my appreciation to the
officials that are here today to provide support to the minister as we conduct
these budgetary estimates.
I guess the first thing that
I want to start by asking is, we’ve heard today some further announcements
about tariffs from the States, and I’m wondering if you could tell me how
you’ve accounted for the potential threat of tariffs through this budget.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, predominantly 99 per cent of our goods that we use and
our work that is done is sourced locally out in the field. So tariffs, the
impacts of tariffs would really be pretty light. But I’ll ask my deputy
minister Shawn to follow up.
Shawn Jaques: — Shawn
Jaques, president and CEO of Water Security Agency. The bulk of the work that
we do or projects that we undertake at WSA [Water Security Agency] are largely
engineering work, dirt-moving work, concrete work around the structures that we
have. And so all of that material can be procured locally here in Saskatchewan
or within Canada.
Erika
Ritchie: —
Okay. Does the Water Security Agency have any current or planned contracts with
American companies to support its work?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. So out of a $40 million budget, less than $190,000
involves contracts, and those were procured well ahead of the tariff threat.
So, Shawn, would you care to comment further?
Shawn
Jaques: —
Yeah, I think, Minister, you’ve covered it well. Like you said, out of all the
infrastructure work that we do — it’s a $40 million budget — there’s about
less than 190,000 were US [United States] companies.
Erika Ritchie: — And
could you tell us the nature of these contracts and the duration, the value of
them?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I’ll ask Shawn to go through some detail in those contracts.
Shawn Jaques:
— Thank you for the question. So like I said, we had six of them. One of them
is a contract we had with SurveyMonkey for a value of just over $20,000, and it
was to create, you know, both internal and external surveys for WSA business
divisions. We had a contract with Nave Analytics, again just over twenty and a
half thousand dollars, and it was used for identifying critical data analysis
for irrigation sustainability and assessment.
We had a contract for just
under 70,000 for Everbridge incorporated, and it’s a web-based mass
notification services, a dam safety program for contacting impacted
stakeholders if a dam emergency should occur. Then we had one with an
individual from the United States on some work that we’re doing on an
endangered species, bigmouth buffalo fish, and it was research that requires
the expertise to collect process . . . identifying fish. Expertise to
complete this work doesn’t exist in Canada, so the individuals in the US in
that contract was about $20,000.
We have one for hydrometric
forecasting of just about 55,000 and it was a pilot that we had focusing on the
short-term and seasonal forecasting models on the Souris River Basin. And then
we had a subscription with a company called Ground Control Systems for about
$4,000 and it’s IT [information technology], SIM [subscriber identification
module] cards. It’s just an IT product. So when you add up those six, it’s just
shy of 190,000.
Erika
Ritchie: —
And so as part of that question I was asking sort of, you know, particularly
which of those contracts are extending into the current year and what plans are
there to source Canadian alternatives?
Shawn Jaques:
— Okay.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Yes, when we look for contracts to conduct the work, we
certainly look for Saskatchewan and then Canadian contracts first before we go
outside. So if there’s no interest or no availability from Saskatchewan, or
Canadian, then we will look outside to the US. And Shawn will have some details
here.
Shawn Jaques:
— Thanks, Minister. Just a little more detail, and to answer your question.
So there’s a number of them
that will be wrapped up this year, where we won’t be renewing. So for example,
the Nave Analytics one on the irrigation monitoring, that one will be wrapped
up and we won’t be renewing. The Everbridge mass notification, that’s a
three-year contract, so the end date is October 31st, 2027.
The bigmouth buffalo project,
that’ll wrap up this year. The hydro forecasting, that’s a continuing contract.
We’ll be continuing that one. And then the SIMs, the IT one, that goes to March
’26.
Erika Ritchie: — Thank
you, thank you very much for those responses. So I think, as the minister
indicated, that it’s currently the practice of the agency to source from
domestic vendors as a matter of course. Am I correct in that understanding? I
guess I’m just wondering, you know, is there any planned adjustments to the
procurement process that the agency is undertaking to enhance and identify
domestic suppliers for future contracts? What would that look like?
[17:30]
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. And yeah, as a normal course, we do source Saskatchewan then
Canadian first. And like I previously said, 99 per cent of what we source is
already that way, but to further align with the direction of the government, we
will continue to look in there. And Shawn will provide some more details about
the work we do and where it’s sourced.
Shawn Jaques:
— Thanks, Minister. And yeah, just to further add what the minister’s saying,
as we mentioned earlier on, a lot of the projects that we do are, you know,
engineering work or dirt-moving work. And so the engineering companies we use,
they’re either Saskatchewan companies or Canadian companies.
If we’re doing work at a dam
and we need, you know, material aggregate, we can source that here in the
province. You know, the contractors moving the dirt, moving the aggregate are
Saskatchewan companies. So you know, we’re already looking at how we can source
that here in our province or at least within Canada.
Erika
Ritchie: —
Thank you for that explanation.
Chair
Thorsteinson: — Minister, go ahead.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Yeah,
just to add, Mr. Chair, you know, economically it’s advantageous to source
these closer to the project. In most cases, it makes sense to get that as close
to the project as possible, which is right here in the province. Thank you.
Erika
Ritchie: —
Okay. I’ll move on to some other questions. It’s been brought to my attention
that presently there is a review under way of The Environmental Management
and Protection Act and that there are some proposed changes that will
impact on the mandate of the Water Security Agency.
I
wondered if you could please take some time to provide a summary of what some
of those changes are that will affect the agency, and also describe the role
that the agency is undertaking as part of that review and public engagement
process.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I’ll ask General Counsel Ali’i Lafontaine to respond. Apologies if I . . .
Ali’i
Lafontaine: —
No, that’s fine. Ali’i Lafontaine, general counsel. Thank you for the question.
At this time the Water Security Agency is responsible for a narrow scope when
it comes to this area. We are being consulted, but at this time they haven’t
made specific recommendations that would impact how we operate.
Our
primary responsibility is under The Water Security Agency Act, which is
fundamentally where we derive our statutory responsibilities. So this is
ongoing, and any proposed changes will be incorporated but will align with our
responsibilities under The Water Security Agency Act.
Erika
Ritchie: —
I wonder though if you could provide a little more detail on some of the
proposed changes that you have been consulted on by the Ministry of Environment
that relate to water security.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you. Mr. Chair, with regard to the question, it probably would have been better
directed towards the Ministry of Environment. Estimates were held earlier this
week and the opportunity would have been presented at that time.
Erika Ritchie: — Well
with all due respect, Mr. Minister, I’m looking for an answer to a question
that pertains directly to water security in terms of the nature of the
consultation that your agency has been engaged in. It’s my understanding that
there are specific elements that have been identified that directly impact on
the agency. And so I’m looking for some clarity on those items.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. The environmental considerations are still ongoing, and I’ll
ask Ali’i to comment.
Ali’i Lafontaine: — Yeah.
So because Environment is primarily responsible to provide the proposed
changes, the consultation period with multiple stakeholders is still under way.
And so when we do receive specific details as to how it would impact our
agency, we can provide that feedback, but that consultation is ongoing.
Erika
Ritchie: —
So the consultation document makes 72 references to wetlands, and the Ministry
of Environment has provided a number of responses in this consultation document
indicating that the Water Security Agency is developing policy regarding
agricultural water management and wetland conservation.
And
so I guess I would just ask the minister, you know, how it sees its role in
maintaining and preserving wetlands as part of its mandate going forward and in
light of any changes to The Environmental Management and Protection Act.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. So the environmental management is an environmental policy, so
they have to be accountable for that, and that’s in that ministry. If it
pertains to water security and our budget, then we’d certainly take care of
that.
Erika
Ritchie: —
Right. And I guess it’s a situation where there’s this overlapping
jurisdictional responsibility where you have, you know, water in wetlands. And
so there is the policy implications in both Ministry of Environment and within
the Water Security Agency. And I think that’s where the question comes from,
and in particular whether it has to do with any kind of land use
considerations, any sort of ministerial or agency work and decisions around how
wetlands can be affected.
And I think in particular the
ag water stewardship policy is sort of the prime example of where, you know,
wetlands are directly affected by policy of your agency to drain wetlands. And
so I don’t think it’s so cut and dry, if you’ll excuse the pun. And maybe you
could just identify for us, kind of given the status of the policy, if there
are going to be changes to EMPA [The Environmental Management and Protection
Act], how will wetlands be, you know, sort of . . . Where do you
sort of see your jurisdictional or legal obligations as part as any discussions
around those changes?
[17:45]
Chair
Thorsteinson: — MLA Ritchie, I think it was
made quite clear that this is a bill that is coming forward under Environment.
It’s not part of the budget estimates that we are looking at here tonight. So I
would ask that you would please move on to a different line of questions.
Erika
Ritchie: —
So I did want to ask some questions about the policy that came into effect at
the end of January. It obviously is a key aspect of the operational spending
line for Water Security. And like I say, I have a few questions around that
that maybe sort of touch on this issue a little bit around wetlands. For
example, it’s my understanding that in the event that wetlands are drained and
then put sort of into agricultural production, that there is a question around
the legal status of those lands, which according to legislation is deemed Crown
land.
Could
you please provide some, you know, explanation or sort of what the approach of
the ministry would be in those cases where what is part of Crown land now moves
into agricultural production?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I’ll ask Krystal to comment on this.
Krystal
Tendler: —
Thank you. Krystal Tendler, agriculture water management. So at WSA we can’t
make a unilateral decision on ownership of lands in the province, and so it’s a
large legal endeavour to work with various different ministries and agencies to
look at kind of the legal framework around that.
But what we’re interested in
is managing the impacts of drainage, regardless of where they’re happening or
why they’re happening. And so we look at managing those impacts to water
quality, water quantity, and water habitat as per our WSA legislation.
And so our agriculture water
management regulatory program is designed to do that. That program was
established back in 2015 with a mission to facilitate responsible drainage in
resilient watersheds. And so we take a risk-based approach at that where we look
at all types of wetlands in the province, all types of drainage, and ensure
that that drainage is being done responsibly and in alignment with our rules
and regulations.
Erika
Ritchie: —
That’s an interesting approach. Is there any specific legal analysis that backs
up or led you to take that approach?
Ali’i Lafontaine:
— Do appreciate the question. The challenge that we deal with is, because we
are a statutory-created entity, we cannot go beyond the obligations and powers
that are established in our existing legislation. And even though there are a
number of legal analyses that have been presented, we can only align with those
responsibilities that are outlined in our legislation.
So when it comes to the
details that you’re providing, it does require alignment across various
ministries that would be impacted by our decision making. But we can only go to
the extent that our legislation allows us to.
Erika
Ritchie: —
Well it does sound like there’s quite a bit of ambiguity there that you’re
facing which, you know, does stem from the implementation of a policy or at
least has implications for a policy that is going to create more of these kinds
of situations where this indeterminate ownership will be in question.
You know, it was mentioned
that there is sort of a risk-based approach to how this is being handled. And I
would submit that, you know, that the risk is significant in terms of both the
obligation of the Crown and the potential for risk or obligations for lands
that currently are considered bed and bank of a water body that could now be
subject to, you know, adverse effects related to a change in the land use.
[18:00]
Krystal Tendler: — Thanks for the question. So
we do have common law and statutory obligations that we must oblige to, and so
that really was a key component as we were working through policy development
along with our stakeholder engagement, along with our research and demonstration.
It was understanding those legal obligations, and that provided the foundation
for our policy development.
But
I do want to touch on the policy that I’m sure that you’re referencing — it’s a
stewardship policy — because that policy isn’t a policy that’s going to result
in the drainage of more wetlands. That’s a policy that’s providing protection
to wetlands, greater protection than has ever existed in Saskatchewan before.
And so it’s not a drainage policy. It’s a part of our ag water management
program that is regulating drainage. And so all these pieces come together to
manage the risks that may be presented by drainage.
Erika
Ritchie: — I do think though that there
are implications for the uncertainty that exists around this issue. And you
know, whether it’s the case that it’s promoting or just simply regulating, at
the end of the day we still have a situation arising where the ownership comes
into question. And so I’m wondering if the agency would be, you know, open to
putting this before court to resolve this ambiguity and resolve the issue going
forward.
Hon.
Daryl Harrison: — Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Generally we believe Saskatchewan farmers are the best caretakers of our land
and water here in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan farmers are caretakers of 4.6 million
acres of wetlands, and they are good stewards of those lands. I’ll ask Ali’i to
provide some further comment.
Ali’i
Lafontaine:
— Yes, to your question, there have been multiple challenges in court
proceedings. However because of the unique and complex landscape of
Saskatchewan, it’s very difficult to make one determination that would be
directly applicable to another fact scenario. And as we review the details of
this policy, the intention is to create as much understanding from a wider net,
as opposed to narrowing rules to create essentially hard and fast rules that
would be applicable to one type of fact scenario.
So
court challenges continue to be pursued. However when it comes to our
obligation, to engage as many stakeholders as possible and create a broader
solution through policy is something that aligns more with our obligations with
the Water Security Agency.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay. I do have a few more
questions on this though. I mean of course no one’s disputing, you know, the
role of farmers as caretakers of the land, but I think there is a broader
public interest here that is in play.
I
think also that there are cost implications. Certainly if we see land that is
now sort of either being transferred into the ownership — you know, being taxed
by the municipal level at a different rate — and basically a transfer of Crown
lands over to private landowners, you know, oftentimes corporate entities, then
there’s definitely cost implications.
There’s
also issues around the loss of ecosystem services, conservation, conservation
implications, as well as, you know . . . We are part of national and
international agreements around meeting certain obligations for conservation.
All those things start to come into play if now we take, you know, aquatic
habitat and now place it into agricultural production. I also forgot to mention
of course the climate resiliency implications as well too, when this Crown land
is taken out of ecosystem service.
Krystal
Tendler: —
All right. Thanks for the question. Again just want to clarify that the policy
that we’re talking about today is a stewardship policy. It’s not a drainage
policy, and so it’s designed to ensure that we’re being stewards of those
Saskatchewan resources, of farmers’ land, of our province’s resources.
So the policy will ensure
that wetlands remain on the landscape, and that’s a part of the design of the
policy. And the policy design has gone back many years. We’ve been working on
this — well in this round — since 2019, at which time we started our investigation
analysis into some of the questions and considerations that you raised about
how does drainage impact habitat, and to climate change, aquatic habitat. All
these different things that you mentioned, that’s a part of those research and
demonstration projects we did.
And so we invested a million
dollars and worked with partners all over the province to explore the various
different considerations that goes into designing a policy like this.
The other thing that we did,
as you know, is we worked with stakeholders and got input about what’s going to
make sense for the landowners of the province to be able to implement a policy
to ensure that it achieved the outcomes.
And so the policy, it’s six
different outcomes that really capture some of the considerations that you
mentioned. So we’re looking at habitat. We’re looking at water quality, looking
at water quantity, but also agricultural economy, agricultural stewardship, and
our communities, our rural communities.
And so it’s a balancing act,
looking at those six different outcomes and ensuring the policy can achieve
progress in each of those different areas.
We also now have an ongoing
commitment to research and monitoring, and so as we released the new policy in
January we made a commitment to continuing to learn more. And so it will be
another million dollars invested over the next three years where we’ll continue
to better understand the implications of drainage and how they can be managed
to ensure that we’re achieving the outcomes that we designated.
[18:15]
And as a part of that we also
have an indicator framework. So we have 10 different indicators that we’ll be
monitoring through policy implementation to ensure that the policy is doing
what it’s designed to do over time. Because at the end of the day, we need to
be able to do both things. We need to be able to retain wetlands on the
landscape to ensure that landscape resiliency, but we’ve got to keep drainage
as a tool for farmers to be able to use. It’s critical to the business.
And these aren’t big
corporate farms. These are family farms, for the majority of the time in
Saskatchewan, who are caring for these resources. And it’s important that they
maintain those tools in the tool box to manage their operations in a way that
makes sense for them while helping us achieve those landscape-level outcomes.
Erika
Ritchie: —
Thank you for that response. I note that it’s rather high level, and I do want
to ask if, you know, there is more specific analysis that can be provided with
respect to the questions that I was asking.
I think the question around
sort of the cost-benefit analysis that has accompanied the policy work so far
is a piece of this that stakeholders are interested in understanding better,
and you know, in terms of whether or not there’s been scenario analysis done. I
mean you talk about there being, you know, wetlands retained on the landscape,
but there is significant concern for the amount of, you know, the floor that’s
been sort of set as part of the policy and the consequences of, you know, that
floor being achieved.
And
that’s specifically where I would like to have a better understanding of those
implications. If there are those studies and analyses that have been
undertaken, if we could be provided with those.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I just want to reiterate that Water Security Agency has engaged
with over 80 stakeholder organizations and Indigenous communities since 2022 in
developing this policy. This consultation continues, is ongoing, and we are
continuing to engage with all our stakeholders at this time. Krystal, I’ll ask
you to comment a little further.
Krystal Tendler:
— Yeah, thanks, Minister. Through the engagement we’ve been really committed to
transparency. And so as a part of that, we’ve done a lot of analysis that we’ve
made available to the stakeholders, but also they’re all publicly posted on our
website.
So if you’re interested in
reviewing those, all of our analyses, including our threshold analysis, our
economic analysis that kind of form the foundation of the cost-benefit
approach, are all publicly available on our website along with various
different studies, as well as copies of the reports from those engagements
where we shared that information and got feedback from stakeholders.
So that information is
available, but I would jump to add a little bit more details on the floor. You
referenced the floor and consideration of kind of how we landed where we did on
the floor. And so that floor was based on understanding through the wetland
inventory that helped us assess where all the wetlands are in the province, how
many of them, and of what types.
And so through that we
understood that we have 86 per cent of our wetlands are undrained, but it also
helped us understand that 29 per cent of our wetlands exist in areas that are
just unlikely to be drained. And so this can be for a number of different reasons,
but often it’s because they’re in provincial parks under WHPA designation, The
Wildlife Habitat Protection Act, or they’re in slope classes or soil types
that are unlikely to be drained. And so that data is through the wetland
inventory. That report on that is also available on our website that speaks to
our methodology in determining that.
Erika
Ritchie: —
Despite what, you know, has just been described or explained, I continue to
hear from eminent water experts that they continue to have serious concerns
with the policy and the fact that it ignores voluminous scientific evidence
that wetland drainage causes profound environmental damages, including many
studies summarized by the blue-ribbon panel that was contracted by the Water
Security Agency to evaluate the wetlands mitigation policy.
There are concerns that there
has been highly misleading and, as stated, factually false information
regarding the extent of wetlands and the degree to which they have been damaged
by agriculture, the amount of wetlands that can be safely drained, and the
ability of their evaluation metrics to actually measure the effects of the
policy, and their ability to monitor changes to surface water and remediate the
effects.
And so these damages, as the
experts go on to say, will include but are not limited to a loss of oxygen from
lakes, thereby damaging or collapsing fisheries and reducing biological
diversity; recreational damages due to lake nitrification; the reduction of
water potability due to increased solute content, including agri-chemicals; and
toxic blooms of cyanobacteria or more commonly known as blue-green algae.
I
think it’s highly concerning that, you know, when we in fact have eminent
experts at our world-class public academic institutes here in the province that
we are not listening and heeding their warnings and concerns. And I’m wondering
if you could please provide an explanation of why that hasn’t occurred.
[18:30]
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. In regards to stakeholders and consultations, we took
everyone’s perspective into account, and we certainly listened to over 80
stakeholders — experts if you will — in that regard.
In regard to our water
quality, I don’t think Saskatchewan has anything to be ashamed of. Our water
quality is rated from fair to excellent, with an overall water quality score of
good. And our water quality is protected with only a minor degree of threat or
impairment. So I think our Water Security Agency is doing a fabulous job in
this regard. And I commend them for that.
So Krystal, I’ll ask you to
comment a little.
Krystal Tendler:
— Sure. Thank you. So I think through this it’s really become clear how
passionate everyone is about the subject, and that’s been really helpful to understand
the various different voices and perspectives of the different stakeholders.
And I think at the end of the day, we all agree that wetlands are important.
They’re important to our landscape, they’re important to our resiliency, and
people care about them. And there’s no disagreement there.
I think where we need to find
the balance is between . . . how do we achieve those outcomes.
There’s different ways to get to that same spot. And so if we want to take
those six different outcomes, the way I describe it — and I have little kids,
so sorry, forgive the jelly bean analogy — but we’ve got 100 jelly beans. We’ve
got six different buckets. And we need to weigh our different trade-offs
between economics, between habitat, between water quality, between communities,
and their health. We need to divide those jelly beans up between those six
different buckets, and everyone who we talk to and every perspective we get
would do it a bit differently. So it’s not that we discount any one
perspective, but we need to consider a lot of different perspectives.
And so I appreciate that you
are hearing from some experts who are concerned. We hear concerns from all
different places about different things, and we need to put those all into
perspective of the policy we’re trying to build and weigh it with the evidence
that we have of Saskatchewan-specific projects that help to inform the policy.
We also need the policy to be
practical, and so a huge part of our focus hasn’t been about necessarily just
getting a nice-looking piece of policy that we can put on our website and walk
away from it. It’s about getting a policy that’s going to be practical for our
landowners to implement as a part of their agricultural operations. And so if
it wasn’t going to be practical, it wasn’t going to help us achieve our
outcomes. And so we took a lot of time understanding those landowner
perspectives, and that was incorporated into the policy design as well.
But at the end of the day,
this policy is about holding wetlands on the landscape — wetland retention. And
so our focus here is about that. It’s not about increasing drainage, it’s about
how can we still allow producers the ability to manage their water while
keeping those wetlands. But we are committed to ongoing monitoring and have the
investment as a part of our this-year budget to ensure we’re able to do that.
And so we’re committed to continuing to learn more, and as we learn more we’ll
do better.
Chair Thorsteinson: — Minister,
you wanted to add . . .
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Yeah,
if you wouldn’t mind, Mr. Chair, I just want to say, when I talked about water
quality, those aren’t Water Security Agency’s metrics that were used. They’re
Environment and Climate Change Canada metrics. So to be fair, our Water
Security Agency is doing a very good job to be measured with that kind of a
measuring stick. So I’m very proud to say they’re doing a fabulous job. Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
Erika
Ritchie: —
I’d like to delve into this a little bit further. You know, I guess part of the
concern is that it’s important to engage widely and talk to a diverse range of
stakeholders in developing policy. There’s strong agreement on that.
But I would say two things in
response to that, one of them being, you know, when we have water experts whose
specialization is studying water quality and land use practices, wetlands, so
on and so forth, and they come forward and raise significant concerns about the
impacts of this potential policy, then, you know, I think it’s important to
take heed to those concerns and be transparent about it as well.
And I guess that’s one of the
things that I have concerns about is that I’m hearing very different things
from the Water Security Agency, Mr. Minister, about the effects of this policy
and those that researchers, experts in this field are saying about the policy.
So
in terms of sort of the scientific underpinnings, there is a wide discrepancy,
I would submit, between what I’m hearing here and what I’m hearing from those
water experts. And I’d like you to please address that and tell me why there is
such a disparity there.
[18:45]
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I just want to reiterate to the committee that 86 per cent of
the wetlands in our province are undrained, so we know Saskatchewan producers
are great stewards of the land. This policy change won’t change most producers’
approach to managing water because most producers are already choosing to
retain these wetlands on their land. For further comment I’ll ask Krystal to
provide more detail.
Krystal Tendler:
— Thank you. Yeah, I think it’s an important piece that when we think about
what drives producers’ decisions to retain wetlands as a part of their
operations on their land, there’s many different factors. Government regulation
is one of those pieces, but there’s many different components that are going
into those decisions. It’s also what’s happening in the market. What’s the
price of canola? That’s a part of the decision. What market incentives exist?
That’s a part of the consideration. Education and outreach is a part of it.
And so we’ve made a
commitment to looking at this from various different pieces, not just from a
policy and regulatory approach. But this policy does establish what we consider
kind of a bumper pad of we have 86 per cent of wetlands on our landscape still
without a policy that said producers had to keep them. They made that choice to
keep them over the last 100 years because it made sense. And so this policy is
now proactively establishing a bumper pad that ensures that that number stays
in a positive range that allows us to achieve our outcomes.
But we know these various
other factors also influence those decisions, and so we’re also investing in
extension as a part of our 2025‑2026 budget. We’ve reaffirmed our
commitment to agricultural extension where we’re working with producers to help
them understand agriculture water management and how to do that responsibly.
I do understand that there
are some misconceptions about some of our data, and that is understandable. I
appreciate that because some of this data is new. This wetland inventory that
serves as a foundation for many of our decisions was just established over the
last number of years, and it’s a newer data set, a larger data set than has
ever been available before. So the results of that, the determinations that are
coming out of that are different from the common narrative that had always been
the case in Saskatchewan. And it’s just, before we didn’t have the data that we
have now, so we’ve learned more, and we’re able to make more informed decisions
from a policy perspective.
Some of the misconceptions
that we hear, things like the starting point. I’ve heard kind of the
conversations that, you know, we’re only looking at wetland loss over the last
20, 30 years, and that’s not true. Through the wetland inventory we’re actually
able to assess loss since the time of European settle-ization. And so the data
set is pretty robust.
We also hear misconceptions
that, you know, we’re calling lakes a part of our 86 per cent classification
and that’s why the number’s so high; it’s because we’re thinking about all the
big lakes. Again, that’s not true. Lakes are considered separately. The 86 per
cent wetlands undrained is just considering the pothole wetlands, not
considering the northern wetlands.
The final misconception we
often hear is the difference between, are we counting up the wetlands or are we
considering their area. And so we have chosen to consider the area of wetlands
retained versus the count. And that just means that, you know, a small wetland
the size of this room is considered differently than a wetland the size of this
Wascana Park. They’re just a different size. They provide different habitat
benefits and so forth.
And so we are considering
area when we talk about 86 per cent intact. And there is misconceptions around
that, and we are committed to continuing to provide education and information
sharing to build understanding of the data set so we can all be working from
the same playing field when we’re having conversations about best policy
approaches to achieve some of these shared outcomes we have with all of our
stakeholders.
Erika
Ritchie: —
Thank you. So you know, you’ve mentioned these misconceptions, and I would
suggest that, you know, dealing with experts whose livelihoods and careers are
based on understanding the science, you know, take more than just a casual
interest in the facets of the policy and what it means. And I think to
characterize it as misconception is, you know, characterizing and not really
giving the due credence to these very legitimate concerns that we are hearing
from experts.
And I’ll maybe just give one
example here. There is a paper that has been published by faculty from the
University of Regina. It’s the “Aquatic deoxygenation as a planetary boundary
and key regulator of earth system stability” article in Nature Ecology &
Evolution. And this paper suggests that many lakes in the northern
hemisphere are losing oxygen due to a combination of warmer water and nutrient
pollution.
Southern Saskatchewan has
some of the most impacted lakes on the planet and the highest rates of oxygen
loss, reflecting the above-average rates of atmospheric warming and widespread
nutrient pollution. They argue that natural feedbacks in aquatic ecosystems
will intensify oxygen loss, leading to fundamental changes in other earth
parameters such as climate systems, nutrient biogeochemistry, biodiversity, and
utility of water resources for humans.
Of note, they say, is that
the Water Security Agency wetlands drainage program will greatly increase the
rate of oxygen loss as nutrients normally held within isolated wetlands will be
joined into natural drainage systems leading to all prairie lakes. And as
oxygen is lost, fisheries are compromised and historical nutrients are released
from sediments to re-pollute surface waters and develop blooms of toxic algae.
And
so I’ve included that as just one example of several where we see significant
concern listing significant impacts of policies that while, you know, are
intended to regulate drainage, I would submit haven’t got the balance right.
And these are the sorts of disparities where I don’t think it’s necessarily a . . .
Well I’m understating my point, but this is more than just a misconception. I
think this is a fundamental disagreement between the outcomes, as you call
them, that this policy will lead to and what the science is currently telling
us is already in play and will continue to be in play unless, you know, some
other kind of action is taken.
And
so I would just like you to maybe respond to that and, more particularly, tell
me how you intend to resolve these contradictions and work with scientists, as
has been recommended by the Provincial Auditor, you know, to work with our
local experts in these areas to ensure that we get this policy right.
[19:00]
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I’ll ask the member for some clarifying on what exactly
discrepancies she’s referring to. And then I’d just ask, are you thinking that
we should ban all forms of drainage? Are you leaning towards that?
Erika
Ritchie: —
So I’ve asked a question about the disparity between the scientific research
and work that was put forward by a blue-ribbon panel to the Water Security
Agency that outlined concerns around the effects of the policy. And then I’ve
shared some information about just an example of some research that has looked
at oxygen levels in lakes and how said policy is expected to exacerbate an
existing situation.
And so that is where I see
the discrepancy between a policy that’s put forward that is suggested to be
sort of a balance of all factors and, you know, that there’s going to be a risk
management approach that is going to provide a reasonable level of protection
to aquatic environments and water quality. That’s the discrepancy I’m referring
to, and that’s where I hear repeatedly from the academic community that their
concerns have gone unheeded, that their recommendations have been ignored, that
the policy does not reflect the advice that they have given. And so those
concerns remain outstanding.
And then of course as things
continue on, there’s concern particularly with a changing climate that, you
know, the situation will only get worse. And that all sort of flies in the face
of other commitments that have been made for protecting habitat, you know,
agreements at the national and international level as well.
It does not square that this
policy is going to be able to achieve all those objectives, and so that’s why
I’m asking the question. What is being done to resolve those disparities and
ensure that the advice and recommendations of water experts that we have here
at global, leading institutions in the province are given full consideration
moving forward?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just because
policy isn’t exactly how they want it, doesn’t mean that they weren’t heard or
valued. We don’t disagree that we need to pay attention to impacts. We don’t
think we need to ban drainage to do that. Experts that you’re referring to,
would their position be to ban draining? And would you agree with that
position? We need to mitigate impacts and manage risks while still allowing
agriculture to thrive. And I’ll ask my deputy minister to comment.
Shawn
Jaques: —
Yeah. Thank you, Minister. I’d maybe just like to add a few comments to what
the minister has already said. You know, there are a lot of water experts that
we deal with, and we do work with all of them. You know, even in my own agency,
the Water Security Agency, we have a whole division called science and
licensing that employs people that have Ph.D.s [Doctor of Philosophy] in water
quality, have spent their careers working on water quality. And you know, we
have people that have education in studying water, hydrology. So we do have a
full team of experts at WSA.
We
also do work closely with academics. I have regular interaction with Corinne
Schuster-Wallace, the executive director of the Global Institute for Water
Security. We have collaborated with them. We’ve exchanged, you know, meetings.
We’ve exchanged information. And you know, really as the minister said, we are
committed to the research.
That’s
why in our most recent budget we’ve committed a million dollars for ongoing
study to look at the impacts of water management. And one in particular we are
going to be funding is a research project at the Buffalo Pound water treatment
plant. And I’ll maybe just get Krystal to talk a little bit more about that
project and anything else she might want to add.
Krystal
Tendler: —
Yeah, sure. I think it’s a really good example of where concerns were raised to
us about a water body, so Buffalo Pound Lake, and we were able to acknowledge
those concerns. It’s obviously a very important drinking water source for many
people in Saskatchewan and particularly the cities of Regina and Moose Jaw. So
we took those concerns seriously, and we worked with various different
stakeholders to design a research project that will help us understand what’s
going on.
And
so we need to assess various different factors, and we’re embarking upon a
$300,000 project, starting here any day now as runoff is starting, to assess
water quality and flows into Buffalo Pound Lake from four different sites. That
will help us understand the various different implications that we need to
consider into managing that important water body.
[19:15]
And so that
project is just one example of how we take concerns. We think about it through.
We don’t jump to conclusions, but we work in a
collaborative way to assess and respond to and manage potential impacts.
Erika
Ritchie: —
So I mean, I guess I would just restate that, you know, it’s highly concerning
that peer-reviewed, scientific data . . .
Chair
Thorsteinson: — Excuse me, Ms. Ritchie. This
isn’t the forum to debate policy. This is the place where we look at the
estimates of the budget, not debate specific policy. So if I could ask you to
move on.
Erika
Ritchie: —
Yes. And I think where we’re focused right now is the part of the budget that
funds the program that implements the policy around agricultural water
stewardship here in the province. And so the work of those officials within the
Water Security Agency, whose salaries are paid through these budget lines and
results in the implementation of the said policies, is what my questions are
related to.
And you know, the concern
that if . . . When we have unmitigated drainage contributing to
oxygen loss where fisheries are compromised and nutrients are released from
sediments that re-pollute surface water and develop blooms of toxic algae, I mean
obviously that is highly concerning and obviously fits within the purview of
the Water Security Agency’s mandate. And I would say that . . .
Chair
Thorsteinson: — Ms. Ritchie, you are
bringing things forward . . . This is not about the budget. It’s not
about WSA officials. That is a study that was performed. If you could bring it
back, that would be appreciated.
Erika
Ritchie: —
Right. Right, yeah. The research is in relation to the underpinnings of the
policy that was developed and the information that was or was not considered in
its development. But I would just, in response to the minister’s question,
point out that the policy . . . And this is a concern that I have
heard from stakeholders — you know, a very deep concern — is the fact that
there is, as you know, no-net-loss component to the policy.
And so no one is suggesting
that, you know, drainage not occur. It’s the manner in which drainage occurs.
It’s a question of the design of the policy and what’s in it, what’s not in it,
and how that also reflects what’s happening in neighbouring jurisdictions such
as Manitoba and Alberta, where they have a no-net-loss policy — you know, how
it also reflects the best practice by other jurisdictions.
And then the other thing that
it doesn’t include either is any type of a compensation component too. And so
that’s where, you know, I would just say in response to your question, those
are some aspects of the policy that are limiting.
And
I’m wondering if you could speak to both why it is that this policy in its
final form did not include either of these aspects, in the face of the
scientific studies in peer-reviewed journals which indicate that there are
significant threats being posed to the natural environment, to water
environments of which your agency is responsible for protecting.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. We did look at best practice, but for our neighbours — Alberta,
Manitoba — have no-net-loss policies, which is in fact a drainage ban. But they
have seen a 60 to 70 per cent loss. We’ve only seen a 14 per cent loss, and we
believe we will continue to see wetlands as an important part of our landscape.
In regards to compensation,
through engagement with our landowners, very few farmers are asking for
compensation to be good stewards. They do it anyways. I’ll ask Krystal to add
some further comment.
Krystal
Tendler: —
I just wanted to add a few comments around your note about unmitigated drainage
having impacts. And so our drainage approval process, through the agriculture
water management program, is designed to look at all the different potential
impacts that could occur from drainage and apply mitigation conditions to
ensure that that unmitigated drainage you reference isn’t happening. We want to
see responsible drainage.
And so through our ag water
management program and the change that it saw in 2015, we’re seeing a 13-times
increase in the number of quarter sections that are coming into the compliance
with that mitigated state that we’re looking for, so responsible drainage.
And so what that looks like
is we’re seeing drainage projects now with flow controls that are managing the
flow at which, and the speed at which, water is moving. They’re also managing
to make sure nutrients are staying in place, not going downstream. They’re
looking at habitat and how do we make sure we’re doing work at the right time
to protect habitat. They’re looking at various different factors, ensuring
we’re mitigating those things.
And so that’s what a drainage
approval does, and that’s why we’re working with our team through the
agriculture water management branch to achieve those approvals.
Erika
Ritchie: —
According to the government’s climate resilience report 2024, multiple systems
need to be strengthened to enhance the resilience of the province to the
effects of a changing climate, and this includes the ability of our natural
systems, including water, to adapt and thrive in a changing environment.
It goes on to say that
responsible management of our natural resources sustains habitat for plants and
animals while also providing ecological goods and services. You know, as is
well known and understood, wetlands store carbon in the form of methane.
And I’m wondering if you
could tell me what impact the ag water stewardship policy is expected to have
on the government’s climate resilience strategy as it’s stated above.
[19:30]
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Just to reiterate that wetlands are important to resiliency.
The stewardship policy provides the greatest protection for wetlands that
Saskatchewan has ever had.
Erika Ritchie: — And is
that the response? Okay, so if that’s the case, do you feel it goes far enough?
Shawn Jaques:
— So you know, maybe just a couple comments I’d make. You know, the stewardship
policy that we implemented back in January is really just one component to that
resiliency. There are a lot of other parts of the business that we have at WSA,
you know, that support that.
And one of them that I think
about is, you know, the management of reservoirs or that important storage of
water. So making sure that, you know, there’s room in those reservoirs in years
when there’s excess moisture that we can capture that and hold it to be used in
years when there isn’t enough water. Managing the 72 dams that we have across
the province to help protect against, you know, drought or floods.
You know, I think back in the
last couple years where it’s been extremely dry. We work closely with our
neighbouring provinces, both Alberta and Manitoba. And to think about the
situation Alberta was in where their reservoirs were low, they were running
into problems not having enough water for communities, whereas how we were
operating our structure and having, you know, Lake Diefenbaker — probably one
of the gems of this province — being able to store all that water. We managed
it such keeping the water higher than we normally would have on the dry years
to make sure we had water that could be used in, you know, in the dry years.
So I think that’s also part
of resiliency, you know, investing in irrigation. You know, in years when
producers don’t get enough natural precipitation, supplementing that with water
from Lake Diefenbaker and other reservoirs.
Working with our communities,
you know, there are a number of communities that we helped to implement drought
preparedness plans for. That’s also part of resiliency. Working, you know, with
the federal government — I’ve had the opportunity to appear twice before a
House of Commons committee on the environment to talk about resiliency.
You know, like I mentioned,
working with our prairie provinces and then also working with international
commissions on water management. So those are all, I think, components of, you
know, what WSA does to help with the climate resiliency.
Erika
Ritchie: —
Yes, thank you very much for that response. I don’t think it addresses the
issue sort of at the front end of the problem where drainage of wetlands
contributes greenhouse gases, and you know, contributes overall to the kinds of
responses that you just mentioned. And I think it’s incumbent on all
jurisdictions and all ministries, and as per your own Prairie Resilience
report, to be ensuring that we’re focused on, you know, mitigation of emissions
to limit the amount of response we need to have on the back end. It’s like, you
know, an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure, right.
But nevertheless I will move
on. Local water governance experts have criticized the ag water stewardship
policy as a narrow and fragmented policy that fails to consider the full range
of aspects and interactions water has in ecological systems and in a socio-economic
context, contributing to conflicts between stakeholders with divergent
interests. And about four years ago, the budget removed funding for regional
watersheds.
Could
you please explain to me how, through this budget this year, how other crucial
stakeholders concerned about or directly affected by local drainage networks on
a larger watershed level are engaged in decision making?
[19:45]
Krystal Tendler:
— Thanks for the question. So we do absolutely agree that that watershed level
collaboration is critical to responsible water management. It’s actually why we
identified Saskatchewan communities as one of our six outcomes in our
stewardship policy. Because it’s about that collaboration across diverse
stakeholders within local regions that makes the best outcomes.
And so you’re right that a
few years ago, there was some changes to watershed stewardship groups in the
province. Most of them amalgamated under the Saskatchewan Association of
Watersheds that became kind of a provincial body being able to deliver services
across the province. They do have districts that still have district-level
boards that provide some of those same services they always have. And they’ve
been incredibly successful in securing federal funding to deliver new
programming to producers across the province that still, you know, look at some
of those same considerations around watershed services.
And we do continue to work
with Saskatchewan Association of Watersheds on various different projects. And
in fact the Buffalo Pound one I mentioned earlier, they’re actually supporting
a lot of the testing and monitoring that’s going on over the next couple of
months. And so we continue to collaborate with them where it makes sense.
But there’s many other ways
that we support kind of that stakeholder relationships, the working between
landowners that’s important to those good project designs. And one example of
that is the qualified person program. And so qualified persons are defined in
our legislation as consultants that can support in designing and developing
responsible water management projects. And a big part of that job is working
with landowners to get kind of a consensus agreement around different water
management projects.
We have an Agricultural Water
Management Fund that will provide — as of, I think announced maybe today,
rolled out; maybe tomorrow — that will provide support to producers who are
hiring those qualified persons to work on their projects. But also through the
Agricultural Water Management Fund, mediation services are eligible for
support. And so if there is conflict, they can access 100 per cent
reimbursement for mediation support that they engage to resolve conflicts at
the local level where we think they’re best resolved.
Erika
Ritchie: —
I believe in your opening remarks, Mr. Minister, you mentioned money for some
irrigation projects, small irrigation projects. I wondered if you could provide
some more detail on where those projects are planned to be implemented over the
course of the next year.
Shawn Jaques:
— Thanks for the question, Ms. Ritchie. So you know, in addition to what the
minister commented in his opening comments, some of the other areas
. . . We are seeing irrigation interest across Saskatchewan, many
different parts of the province. So we saw expansion at the SSEWS [Saskatoon
south east water supply] irrigation expansion. That’s on the Saskatoon south
east water supply. That was 15,000‑plus acres. We have interest,
producers that want to look at irrigation off the North Saskatchewan River.
There was, in addition to Luck Lake, was the Elbow east expansion.
And what’s really positive
about the Luck Lake project is that’s a collaboration amongst producers.
Producers are driving that, that want to expand irrigation. It’s producer
driven. Another example of that, as I said, is the Elbow east. The Riverhurst
Irrigation District, they want to expand as well. That’s potentially 23,000
acres. The Lake Diefenbaker area study, we’re looking at, where can we expand
irrigation around Lake Diefenbaker? And there’s also some work that we’ve been
doing in the Swift Current basin as well.
Erika Ritchie: — Thank
you for that detailed list. Appreciate that. And then I wanted to also ask
about the channel clearing program, and if you could provide us with some
details on the plan for the coming year.
Shawn Jaques:
— Thanks for the question, Ms. Ritchie. So the channel clearing program has
been in place for a number of years. WSA, we budget a million dollars a year
for the program. And so for example in ’23‑24 we paid out $892,000 under
that program, and in ’24‑25 it’s 871,000.
But a little bit about the
program. It’s a program where we provide 50 per cent funding with either a
producer or small, local governments on projects. Producers can receive up to a
maximum of $50,000, and small municipalities or group applications can receive
up to ninety-nine and a half thousand dollars.
Erika
Ritchie: —
So it’s basically a sort of applicant-driven process, that’s where the channel
clearing occurs?
Shawn Jaques:
— Yeah, that’s correct. You know, we’ve seen some smaller communities that have
trouble, you know, with a . . . There could be a drainage or a
waterway in their community that’s grown in and they need help with it. They
just don’t have the resources to do it themselves, and this program helps
provide some of that funding to be able to help them manage water in their
communities.
Erika Ritchie: — I think
we’re coming full circle on this one though unfortunately. Is there a
requirement for proof of a permit to drain before those amounts are disbursed?
Shawn
Jaques: —
Just to clarify a couple of points though, this isn’t about drainage. So it can
only be done on approved projects, so like an approved C&D [conservation
and development] project. And it’s also removing debris on systems that aren’t
drainage projects.
Oh, and then I should clarify
for ’25‑26 the funding will be 700,000.
Erika
Ritchie: —
Okay. Thank you for that response.
Chair
Thorsteinson: — We are basically right up
against the clock here. So having reached our agreed-upon time for
consideration of these estimates, we will now adjourn consideration of the
estimates for the Water Security Agency. Mr. Minister, do you have any final
comments?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank my officials with the Water Security
Agency for their hard work and dedication and the good work they put forward.
I’d also like to thank the committee for their time tonight. Appreciate all the
questions and their dedication to their role on this committee as well.
I also want to thank Hansard
and the Clerks here tonight. Appreciate the time they commit to getting this
logged and in the books, so to speak. And they’re probably overtime tonight
here, so I truly thank you for your time. And once again thanks to the committee
for their time as well. Thank you.
Chair
Thorsteinson: — Thank you, Mr. Minister.
MLA Ritchie, do you have any final comments?
Erika
Ritchie: —
Yes. Thank you so much. I just want to take a moment again to thank all of the
officials for being present here today. I know that the president is someone
that I bump into regularly in the community at various events, so it’s always
nice to see you again here along with your officials and the minister.
I want to thank the committee
and of course Hansard for their work this evening, and the Clerks-at-the-Table
that have been managing these proceedings. And to the Chair as well, thank you
so much.
Chair
Thorsteinson: — Well thank you very much.
Thank you to the minister. Thank you to all the officials who joined us here
this evening. This committee will now stand in recess until 8:30 p.m.
[The
committee recessed from 19:58 until 20:34.]
Chair
Thorsteinson: — Welcome back, everybody.
Thanks for bearing with us while we had a few technical difficulties. For the
second session of the Economy Committee meeting here tonight, we have Sean Wilson checking in for Mr. Jenson.
We have Carla Beck sitting in for Sally Housser, and Trent Wotherspoon sitting
in for Kim Breckner.
General
Revenue Fund
Agriculture
Vote 1
Subvote
(AG01)
Chair Thorsteinson: — We
will now consider the estimates and supplementary estimates no. 2 for the
Ministry of Agriculture. We will begin with Vote 1, Agriculture, central management
and services, subvote (AG01). Minister Harrison is here with officials from the
ministry. I would ask that officials please state their names before speaking
at the microphone. As a reminder, please do not touch the microphones. The
Hansard operator will turn your microphone on when you are speaking to the
committee.
Minister,
please introduce your officials and make your opening remarks.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m pleased to
be here today to discuss the 2025‑26 Ministry of Agriculture estimates.
The
officials joining me here today include Jean-Michel Ferre, chief of staff; Bill
Greuel, deputy minister; Penny McCall, assistant deputy minister, regulatory
and innovation; Sharla Hordenchuk, assistant deputy minister, field operations;
Rob Pentland, executive director, corporate services branch; Amanda Sich,
executive director, policy branch; Kim McLean, director, board governance unit;
Jeff Morrow, president and CEO, Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation;
Lorelei Hulston, vice-president of operations, Saskatchewan Crop Insurance
Corporation; Waren Ames, executive director of AgriStability, Saskatchewan Crop
Insurance Corporation; and Christine Virostek,
executive director, finance and accounting, Saskatchewan Crop Insurance
Corporation. And I apologize if I butchered anyone’s names too badly.
I appreciate this opportunity
to talk about what is ahead for the year and to hear questions from you as
well.
This past year we saw the
agricultural industry continue to demonstrate its resilience and strength. As
you know, the agriculture industry is foundational to Saskatchewan’s Growth
Plan, with several 2030 targets focused on agriculture. One target includes
increasing Saskatchewan’s value-added agriculture revenue to $10 billion
by 2030. We are on track to meet that goal. Our sector is one of the fastest
growing in Canada, with annual revenue that has more than doubled since 2012
from $3.5 billion to an estimated $7.9 billion in 2023‑24.
The province is also on track
to achieve the growth plan target of increasing crop production to
45 million metric tonnes by 2030. Producers have harvested a crop of more
than 35.5 million tonnes in 2024, an impressive feat given some of the dry
conditions this past growing season. This is a 7.8 per cent increase year over
year, and a 4 per cent increase above the five-year average.
This continued success
reflects positively on Saskatchewan’s agriculture sector, providing evidence of
the global demand for the high-quality agricultural products our province
consistently delivers. Staying competitive, staying sustainable, and staying profitable
are fundamental to our agriculture industry here in Saskatchewan.
We are focused on supporting
the resiliency of the sector, which is foundational to a resilient economy in
Saskatchewan. We know there are challenges ahead with the US threatening and
China imposing tariffs on our industry and the resulting market volatility
currently top of mind for all of us here. Saskatchewan producers are facing
these tariff uncertainties just as seeding begins.
We are actively engaging with
our industry stakeholders to better understand the impact of these actions and
to discuss ways to mitigate the impacts. Our stakeholders understand that we
are in a challenging time and place in national and international politics.
They’ve also told us that they appreciate the work we are doing in
international and national trade missions to defend our industry and find new
markets.
There is a lot of uncertainty
on what the impacts will be. The countries imposing them have been erratic and
unpredictable. These unknowns made it extremely challenging to develop our
budget this year. I know that some other provinces have included contingencies
for tariffs in their budget; however we know that these contingencies are not
surpluses that are set aside. They simply increase the deficits that will
already be funded by borrowing. And we believe there are currently still too
many uncertainties to make any amount of contingency planning at this time
realistic. Of course we remain committed to collaborating with our federal
counterparts in Ottawa to resolve these issues as quickly as possible.
Ultimately we want to ensure
our industry continues to be supported so that it can remain competitive.
Towards that, we also are committed to further diversifying and focusing our
engagement with the 130 countries around the world our agriculture sector does
business with. We have a strong sector that is no stranger to challenges, and I
am hopeful that together with our valued producers, ranchers, and
agribusinesses across Saskatchewan, we will work together to meet these
challenges.
And now on to this year’s
budget. The 2025‑26 agriculture budget is a record $625 million, an
increase of $54.6 million from last year’s budget. The budget includes
$483.8 million to continue funding a strong existing suite of business
risk management programs: crop insurance, AgriStability, livestock price
insurance, and the wildlife damage compensation and prevention programs. These
programs are our producers’ first and best line of defence to mitigate risk
within their operation.
Over the last four years,
Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation programs provided approximately
$7 billion in claims directly to Saskatchewan producers. Through strong
producer participation, government cost-sharing, and a sound premium, Saskatchewan
Crop Insurance Corporation has adequate reserves to provide financial support
to producers through their crop insurance claim payments.
A continued approach to
long-term sustainability, Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation proactively
manages funds with a target to rebuild the surplus as there will be loss years
in the future. Work continues developing future opportunities to enhance support
for the livestock sector. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation is evaluating
new remote sensing technologies to measure soil moisture and plant growth to
evaluate potential improvements to forage and pasture insurance. This focus
will ensure forage insurance is relevant and accessible in Saskatchewan for
Saskatchewan livestock producers.
As we currently face all
types of uncertainty and market disruptions, the nature of the AgriStability
program makes it well suited to support Saskatchewan producers who may be
impacted by tariffs. As a margin-based program, AgriStability responds when a producer’s
profitability is impacted by factors including rising costs and declining
market prices.
The AgriStability program
responds when there is a significant reduction in the profitability of the
whole farm. Coverage is personalized for each farm operation by using
historical information based on income tax and supplementary information.
Saskatchewan Crop Insurance
plays a vital role in the government’s strategic direction for agriculture by
providing strong risk management programs to Saskatchewan farmers and ranchers,
so Saskatchewan farmers and ranchers can be innovative while remaining
competitive and successful.
This year’s budget once again
allocates $89.4 million for the five-year federal-provincial Sustainable
Canadian Agricultural Partnership, otherwise known as SCAP, to continue to
deliver on our investment in priority areas to help ensure producers remain
competitive and profitable. We are in our third year of this partnership, and
we anticipate seeing a large volume of applications again in 2025‑26.
[20:45]
Popular programs include the
farm and ranch water infrastructure program to develop sustainable water
resources, the resilient agricultural landscape program to increase resiliency
of agricultural land, and the animal health and biosecurity program. This
funding supports a wide range of initiatives: innovative work on pest
biosecurity, disease surveillance, and invasive weeds; research to develop
solutions to new emerging problems; continued support for value-added
processing; and farm safety research.
The ministry’s core operating
budget for ’25‑26 including salaries and FTEs [full-time equivalent]
remains largely unchanged at $50 million. Agriculture research remains a
top priority in Saskatchewan, and this budget invests $37 million in
research to help producers stay competitive and profitable in international
markets. This funding will support our research partners and the world-class
research institutions in this province.
Investing in research is one
of the smartest investments we can make. It helps our agriculture sector stay
competitive and able to respond to future challenges and opportunities. Our
investment includes continued efforts through the Agriculture Development Fund
and the strategic research initiative. Over the last five years we have
invested almost $166 million in key personnel at our crop and livestock
research facilities, in research chairs to advance strategic priorities, and in
research projects that demonstrate innovative technologies to producers and
agronomists at the local level.
These results show that
Saskatchewan’s production of five major field crops have some of the smallest
carbon footprints you’ll find among any competing jurisdictions. Our footprint
ranges from 67 per cent smaller for canola and 130 per cent smaller for lentils.
The institute is now leading work to compare the carbon footprint of Western
Canadian beef production to international competitors. You’ll hear more about
this in the coming year.
With this budget we are once
again providing support through industry grants. We are pleased to be able to
assist organizations and events that help drive the current and future success
of the industry. This includes a variety of activities throughout the year,
from conferences to shows such as Canadian Western Agribition, Canada’s Farm
Show, and the Western Canadian Crop Production Show. These events are important
to producers to help our industry continue to grow and advance as we work
towards achieving our growth goals for agriculture.
Feedback from our producers
also remains important to us. This year, after reviewing feedback from
producers, we have revised the grazing rate formula. The amended formula will
offer relief to producers renting Crown land and contribute to affordability and
stability for the livestock sector in the face of rising production costs. The
new rate provides more predictability for producers and uses price averaging
for cattle marketed between October 1st to November 30th of the five preceding
years. And to ensure rates are less vulnerable to fluctuations over those
years, we have implemented a 20 per cent cap on any annual rental rate
increases.
As Agriculture minister and
as a cow-calf producer myself, I have a first-hand view of the great work
taking place in this industry. We are fortunate to be able to able to rely on
our agriculture producers to help us meet our growth plan targets for 2030.
They are the best in the world at what they do, and in many ways they are doing
it more sustainably than anyone else.
It is my privilege to
introduce this agriculture budget that will continue to support this key
economic sector in Saskatchewan. Thank you for the time today, and I look
forward to your questions.
Chair
Thorsteinson: — Thank you, Minister. I will
now open the floor for questions. MLA Beck.
Carla
Beck: —
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister, for your opening comments. And I just
want to say quickly but sincerely off the top, thank you to all the officials
that have joined you here today. I know there’s a lot of preparation that goes
into this in a normal year, and this certainly is not a normal year. So I
really appreciate your work and your attendance here today. Thank you to the
committee members and the Chair, folks at Hansard, and my colleagues.
I’m going to keep my comments
off the top fairly brief, but I think it’s worth mentioning the day that we
find ourselves here in committee. And you know, Minister, you mentioned off the
top how important agriculture is to this province and how incredibly proud we
all are of the innovation that has come out of Saskatchewan year after year and
also incredibly proud of the resilience of the industry. I think some years we
wish there was a little less need for that resilience, but it’s there
regardless.
We’re incredibly proud of not
only what we produce but how we produce it. And we certainly have some
questions tonight, but all towards that goal of ensuring that we do our part
here to set those producers, those ranchers, those ag businesses up for success.
So a few questions perhaps.
Or perhaps I’ll turn it over to Trent to see if he’s got any opening comments.
Then we’ll get into questions. Okay, we’re going to start straight into it.
Okay.
Of course today
. . . and, Minister, you mentioned it off the top, the difficulty
predicting. There are a lot of variables in agriculture in any given year, this
year especially the case. Liberation day came today and we didn’t see any
additional tariffs from the US, but you know, that volatility remains. And even
the threat of those tariffs certainly had impacts in agriculture, price
volatility, and many other things.
We
also do have, not as a hypothetical, but we have the Chinese tariffs on canola,
oil, meal, pork. And I’m just wondering off the top, have those tariffs been
accounted for in this budget or have you done any scenarios about what the
potential impact of those tariffs could be over, you know, a three-month,
six-month, one-year period?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Yes, in regards to engagement and being accountable, we’ve
fully engaged with our producer groups, Sask Oilseeds, the crushing industry
itself. Those impacts, you know, remain to be fully comprehended, but they’re
fully aware. We’re pretty early in this tariff game.
I’ve engaged with both
minister MacAulay at the federal level and now Minister Blois, also at the
federal level. And he assures me he will take my concerns to cabinet. The
question of the federal government engaging . . . Of course, politics
right now on the federal level is kind of on pause while they campaign, and I
look forward to the next cabinet, the next prime minister, the next minister of
Agriculture to fully engage with China and get to the bottom of these
counter-tariffs as a result of the Liberal-NDP [New Democratic Party] coalition
that implemented the EV [electric vehicle] tax in the first place.
And my predecessor wrote the
minister at the time about the potential of counter-tariffs and warned him that
we would see this. And it came not as soon as we expected, but it still came.
And we need the federal government to engage.
I’m going to ask my deputy
minister, Bill, to provide some additional comment.
Bill Greuel:
— Yes. Yes, thanks, Minister. I’m Bill Greuel, deputy minister of Agriculture.
As was stated in the question, there’s a lot of questions about the variables,
and in order to account for the variables and the impact of tariffs, we really
need to understand three things. It’s the product that’s being tariffed, the
value of the tariff, and the duration of the tariff.
And unfortunately in the
situation that we’re in today, we don’t have the answer to all of those
variables because, as you well know, what’s happening in the canola sector is
dependent on two major markets, the United States and China, which account for about
90 per cent of our export market. So 100 per cent tariff on meal in China
essentially closes that market. And you know, if there was to be additional
tariffs on canola meal into the US it would make that market very unattractive
as well.
So it’s very difficult at the
time to assess the impact of it. But as the minister stated, we’ve had
extensive consultation with the canola crush sector. They’re very aware of
this, and we’re continuing to have conversations with them about the impact of
this and the implications of it should the tariffs with that third variable,
the duration of which take longer than is expected.
Carla
Beck: —
Thank you for that. This is not what I
want to do tonight. I think there are some questions out there that need to be
answered, but there are some things that I’m not going to let go.
This tariff was signalled
back in August of last year. Regardless of who’s going to be the prime minister
after this election, we would expect them to engage fully to have these tariffs
removed. I hope that the minister will continue, regardless of who’s in power,
to take that same message because this was a tariff that was called for not
just by one party, by leaders . . . Actually it was Pierre Poilievre
who initially was calling for this tariff when the Americans put their tariff
in. So if you want to go there, I’m not sure that’s what people at home, who
have very real questions, want to talk about tonight.
So my question next is, in
the short term, obviously there are already impacts. And again, I thank you for
. . . to the deputy minister, for the thoughtful response. We’ve
talked to producers, canola crush, the oilseeds folks. And the impacts, although
the tariffs went in in March, they were already realizing impacts before that.
Is there anything in the short term for support for that industry to ride out
some of this volatility until we have a prime minister installed who can turn
this tariff around?
[21:00]
Chair
Thorsteinson: — I would just like to remind
officials to not touch the microphones, please.
Bill
Greuel: —
Yes, thank you for that. I’d just maybe speak a little bit to the short-term
and immediate actions that it is that we’re taking. And of course as a
provincial government we’re dealing with the federal government on review of
business risk management programming as the first line of defence for
producers.
But
in addition to that we’ve taken a number of steps in the short term to try to
insulate the sector against the compounding effects of tariffs, and that
includes support for targeted countermeasures but not support for export
tariffs.
We’ve
done a lot of engagement with US government officials at all levels. In
February the minister and I attended the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture, where we had an opportunity to meet with a number
of state legislators and talk about the impacts
of tariffs in the US, not only on the Canadian economy but more importantly on
US economies and what’s happening there. And very good support and
understanding from US legislators about the issues. So I think this idea of
continuous engagement, not only with legislators in the US but also a number of
Canadian and US commodity organizations that we met with in Washington as well.
And then I think the final
measure, and the minister can speak to this as well, was the recent removal of
the carbon tax to make sure that we’ve got a resilient and robust agricultural
economy that can handle some of the issues and the economic shock that will
come with tariffs. So I do believe we’ve taken a number of immediate steps to
help strengthen the agriculture economy in the face of the tariffs.
Chair
Thorsteinson: —
Minister, do you have some comments?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Yeah,
just going to follow up on Bill’s comment there. The removal of the carbon tax
was huge for our Saskatchewan producers. It cannot be understated. They were
fighting tooth and nail to get fuel removed for grain drying, and that fell on
very deaf ears. So removing it entirely was a huge, huge win for our
Saskatchewan producers.
Carla
Beck: —
Thank you for the answer. You mentioned the canola diversification, and
certainly this has had an impact on canola crush, an emerging industry here in
the province. We’ve seen projects put on pause. Are there efforts towards
providing supports to see those value-added industries re-emerge, have some
stability in light of the volatility and the stated purpose or the stated goal
of Donald Trump to move a lot of production, a lot of those investments, a lot
of those jobs south of the border?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Certainly our canola crush industry here in the province is
growing and growing at a fabulous pace. And you know, it’s a pace we don’t want
to see slow down, and this certainly slows that down. And I’ll get Bill to
comment a little further on this too. It’s a process that we’ve encouraged and
engaged with, you know, our value-added industry here in the province. The
supports for them are second to none.
As I said before, the removal
of the carbon tax levels the playing field for those canola crush producers as
well, and they really appreciate that level playing field with the US. You
know, we were the only ones punishing our producers and our manufacturers with
the industrial carbon tax. And by not collecting that, that was a huge win for
the canola crush industry as well as producers, like I said before.
And I’ll ask Bill to maybe
follow up with some further comments.
Bill Greuel: — Yes,
maybe a few things I would add is just support that we have for the overall
value-added sector in the province, stemming from things like the Saskatchewan
value-added incentive. Again the minister referenced the removal of the carbon
tax, which makes value-added processing more efficient in the province. And
even things like we’re doing from a business risk management perspective that
helps de-risk the production of commodities at the grower level, and making
sure that value-added processers have the feedstock that they need in an
abundant supply.
But there’s no denying the
challenge that the canola crush sector will be facing, and efforts mostly are
focused on the removal of tariffs in China because that is the most important
thing that we can do for the canola sector today.
Carla
Beck: —
Thank you.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Thank you. Yeah, obviously we’ve long pushed for the removal of the carbon tax,
and certainly it brings some relief. Clearly those tariffs from China have to
be scrapped, and we’ve been clear as well that the tariff that’s been put on
Chinese EVs, that that should certainly be scrapped if that’s a tool to get
this resolved.
This
was an issue that emerged in August of last year which signalled that we were
threatened with some challenges on this front. Could you speak to, as minister,
how you represented Saskatchewan’s interests with the federal minister and with
China on this front?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I’m going to go back to when these tariffs were imposed on
Chinese EVs. That was in August of 2024. My predecessor immediately wrote a
letter to the federal government indicating the potential response by China to
these tariffs.
Upon my role as Minister of
Ag, I had several FPT [federal-provincial-territorial] calls, including the
federal minister of Agriculture. And it started and ended with canola
counter-tariffs from China. I had a face-to-face meeting with minister MacAulay
when he was here in the city for Canadian Western Agribition, and I again
started and ended with these Chinese EV tariffs and how they impacted our
producers here in this province.
I continue to engage, work
with those producer groups. Minister Blois, upon being installed as the new
federal Minister of Agriculture, reached out to me immediately. And again I
started and ended with the importance of engaging with China on these counter-tariffs.
I encouraged him to talk to
the new Prime Minister and to immediately engage with China. It started and
ended with removing these tariffs and engaging with China. I couldn’t reiterate
that strong enough that it’s very, very important, not to Saskatchewan’s
economy alone, but indeed Canada’s economy. And he assured me he would take it
forward.
I did not hear back that the
Prime Minister did engage with China before the election was called, even
though it was committed to at the premiers’ table and I had assurances from
Minister Blois that he would carry that forward and ask the Prime Minister to
do that. So I had no response that he did, and now we’re into the election
campaign. It’s very unfortunate, but that’s the reality we’re in now. The
federal government needs to bear responsibility for this and engage
immediately. Again, I can’t say that enough. I started and ended each of my
conversations with the importance of canola, canola crush, canola meal, and
canola oil is to our trade here in Saskatchewan.
Carla
Beck: —
Thank you, Minister. A statement and then a question. I have written to all
three of the federal leaders outlining a number of priorities in agreement
here, one of them being the need, the urgent need, to have these Chinese
tariffs removed. I’ll let you know if I hear back from them.
The other question I had, you
mentioned having a phone call with the new Minister of Agriculture federally,
and certainly appreciate that the EV tariffs, the canola tariffs, the Chinese
tariffs, were raised. Was there any discussion of business risk management, particularly
AgriStability, on that call?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. No, my phone call with Minister Blois was very brief and
mentioned that working on some things. Asked me for no input. And the day
before the election was called, you heard the announcement the same as we did.
Carla
Beck: —
Thank you for that. Last year in committee, the previous minister indicated
that there were continued consultations about improvements to AgriStability
with the federal minister. Could you give an outline of what some of those
improvements might have looked like, and how they hold up against what the
suggested changes that have been put forward by the Ag minister to
AgriStability?
[21:15]
Jeff Morrow:
— Jeff Morrow, president-CEO, SCIC [Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation].
So last year and throughout
this year I’d say there was a focus for AgriStability to improve how it
responds to livestock producers. So some of the things that were looked at
included the way hay is valued, and really to acknowledge that because hay is such
a local market, when there’s dry conditions in Saskatchewan or Alberta the hay
price goes up, and that’s when producers need hay.
And the way the AgriStability
program works currently is that value of inventory rises. So when they need
hay, we’re counting that it’s got a higher value in their feed yard. So looking
at is there ways to address that?
The other piece was looking
at if there were considerations for expanding the list of allowable expenses
for the livestock sector, including things like pasture rent or some of the
feed costs that aren’t allowable. And I’d say the status of those is those are
currently being discussed at kind of the officials levels, at FPT tables. So
that’s some of the work that was going on.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Sure, thank you. With respect to some of the support that canola producers
. . . Obviously we need these tariffs scrapped. We know how
devastating this could be on the canola meal side, what this means for crush,
crushers. We all know the price impacts and income impacts for producers.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. No, certainly removal of the counter-tariffs, and probably that
begins with the removal of our tariffs on Chinese EVs. Certainly we see that as
the sticking point. We need the federal government . . . We needed
the old federal government to engage, and it seems that they didn’t. But we
look forward to encouraging and insisting that the new federal government takes
this on.
I appreciate that the Leader
of the Opposition did write the three main party federal leaders in regards to
these tariffs. I’m glad she’ll report back when she hears something. I’m
curious to know when those letters were written. Was it after the Chinese
counter-tariffs were imposed or was it at the outset back in August? And I’ll
just leave that there.
The AgriStability program is
certainly suited to help producers through this, and we look forward to working
with any future federal Ag minister in that regard. We’ve asked for increased
interest-free advance payments to help producers in the short term, but overall
we need tariffs removed, our Canadian tariffs on EV vehicles from China, and we
need China to remove the counter-tariffs on our canola oil, canola meal, and
peas.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Thanks. Yeah, and we’ve been consistent with all the three leaders there about
this matter. We value that. I think it’s critical.
So you’ve talked about
engaging rightfully with the previous government, with the current prime
minister, with the previous Ag minister. What about Poilievre on this front?
We’ve kind of gone right across the piece, because in our view, this should be
a position where we just have a very clear position that represents, you know,
producers’ interests here.
Have you had a chance to
communicate this position to Poilievre? Because we haven’t seen him call for
that removal of the EVs, the tariff on EVs, as far as I’m aware. And I think
it’s just one of these matters where we need to be consistent and clear with
all leaders in Ottawa, and ideally we need all leaders in Ottawa, regardless of
who the next prime minister is, to be clear on these matters as well.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I spoke with the federal Ag critic with the Conservative Party
of Canada and I reiterated my same concerns that I shared with both the current
Minister of Ag federally and the previous minister of Ag. He heard me loud and
clear.
Again I started and ended
with, we need to remove these Chinese EV tariffs and engage with China and have
them remove their counter-tariffs on our canola oil, our canola meal, and peas.
Carla
Beck: —
You’ll let us know if you hear back too?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — That’s
where it starts. I spoke with him actually, so I’m going to say . . .
And you know, I think as they’re in campaign mode, our canola groups, our
producer groups have been fully engaged with all the candidates. They’re not
stopping their advocacy because of a campaign. In fact I’m going to suggest
they actually ramp it up during the campaign. They’re very active. They’re
actually active over in China, you know, as we speak.
And we encourage all those
producer groups, our manufacturers, anybody. All hands on deck. And our beef
and our pork producers the same. It’s no better time to come together and
support removing these tariffs.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Yeah, without a doubt the tariffs need to go, and without a doubt, as we’ve
identified, producers need to be supported and have a solid backstop in the
interim while they’re being hit with the impacts.
The minister identified
AgriStability, as we have and as producers have, as a tool on this front to be
a backstop. Talked as well about the advanced payment program and some
improvements that could be brought there. Certainly we’ve been advocating along
with producers on this front for needed improvements around increases to that
payment rate and compensation rate into the cap, importantly, as well.
I guess my question to the
minister, as this is, you know, his estimates that we’re dealing with here, the
budget: have any of those improvements that are going to be needed, at this
time, are any of those reflected in this budget?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. As the federal announcement came out just a day before the
federal election was called, it was after our provincial budget. Also with that
announcement, there was no ask, no mention of funding. There’s really nothing
to sign on to, nothing to negotiate. That remains to be seen. But it’s one
thing you can be guaranteed, that this Saskatchewan government will always be
behind our producers and support them in whatever they need to ride this out.
And we’ll be there advocating with those producer groups, advocating with our
federal government — whoever that may be — to remove these EV tariffs that the
Liberal-NDP coalition government instated in August of 2024.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Okay, getting kind of the political stuff in of course supported by Poilievre,
so right across the piece. And this is the thing. Like, this is where we
shouldn’t get distracted. Just good, united table out of Saskatchewan is what
will allow us to succeed for producers right now, not sort of divisive, petty,
partisan arguments.
And not booking the costs,
I’d say, Minister, in the budget here. And fair enough that you don’t know
exactly what the design of the program’s going to be, but the way it works is
these are cost-shared programs. So if we’re advocating out of Saskatchewan, as
I sure hope we are, that we need improvements to AgriStability and some of
these backstops, the way it then works is there’s a cost-share that we’re on
the hook for along with the federal government. So it’s disappointing that
that’s not in the budget with any level of plan or contingency.
But I’ll take it to another
place that producers of course have been pushing hard for — some fairness and
equity in the livestock sector and a better backstop for livestock producers —
for a long time, and so have we. We’ve been pushing at this table and in this
Assembly for equity and that better backstop.
One of the improvements that
needs to be brought — it’s a matter of simple equity — is for the provincial
and the federal government to cost-share premiums for livestock price insurance
and for improved livestock business risk management programs. We don’t see this
in this budget, but we certainly hear it very clearly from the livestock
sector, the importance of this, and it is a matter of fairness.
I guess my question to the
minister is, where is he at on this important call that’s been made now for a
number of years from the livestock sector and certainly from the official
opposition as well?
[21:30]
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Just in regards to the federal AgriStability changes
announcement, that there was no mention of cost-sharing or any details around
that, so we don’t know what that looks like. It was their announcement and
their announcement alone. It does take buy-in from all the provinces, so we’ll
see where that is.
Getting back to the
Saskatchewan livestock price insurance and what producers are, the livestock
price insurance is a valuable program. The main pushback has been that it’s not
a national program. That’s why the feds don’t want to cost-share that with the
provinces.
So Saskatchewan Crop
Insurance Corporation has successfully worked with the Maritime provinces to
support them in their eastern livestock price insurance program. And the
Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation will continue the efforts to have
livestock price insurance be considered national in scope, a distinction that
our federal partners require for it to become a standard business risk
management program and the ability to have that cost-shared.
I’ll ask the president and
CEO of Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation, Jeff Morrow, to comment a
little further on some of the other initiatives.
Jeff Morrow:
— Thanks, Minister. So on the livestock sector, it’s an area that we have been
focused on. And we have a working group that we’ve had for a number of years
across the sector kind of looking at their priority items to make the programs
better. And I know we’ve checked off a number of those priorities.
Maybe some of the recent
enhancements I would highlight, a couple of years ago we added a number of
weather stations. That’s always been a concern of producers, that the weather
station’s too far away from where they’re grazing their livestock. So we filled
in some gaps there, added some weather stations.
You know, in the news release
when we announced the program this year, we did talk about evaluating different
remote sensing satellite technologies to see if we can get the coverage more
localized so that it’s more relevant or responsive to the producers where
they’re actually grazing their livestock.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Yeah,
just to follow up on my comments, you know, with crop insurance. Saskatchewan
Crop Insurance Corporation got to help out the Maritime provinces with their
livestock price insurance program, so got them on board. What we really need is
Ontario and Quebec to sign on. We won’t give up. And you know, it’s important
to our producers, and we will continue to advocate to those two provinces to
come into a national program and put some pressure on the federal government to
cost-share this livestock price insurance.
You know, as a producer
myself, I’m certainly a participant in livestock price insurance and understand
the value there is in protecting and backstopping our livestock cattle
producers.
Carla
Beck: —
Minister, can you report on the status of the crop insurance satellite forage,
the forage insurance pilots?
Jeff Morrow:
— So with regard to the satellite forage pilot, that’s the remote sensing that
I referred to. So we are evaluating to see if that is a feasible solution to
improve what we have currently. So our plan for 2025 is what we’re calling a
shadow pilot, to kind of look at our current technology and satellite
technologies and run them through on all of our forage acres, talk to a number
of producers to see how it resonates with them, how it responded. So our plan
is, because we do want to be thoughtful and deliberate to make sure, if we do
make a change, that we’re adding value and that it’s improving the program.
Carla
Beck: —
Thank you. Unfortunately, you know, also facing some producers, some ranchers
in the province right now, concerns around TB [tuberculosis]. And I’m just
wondering if there’s anything in this budget or any plans to support those who
have been impacted. I understand some of them have been having to quarantine
and feed cattle for a prolonged period before the investigation has even
started. They’re facing some significant costs. And I’m just looking to see if
there’s any support in this budget to help them with those costs that they’ve
incurred already and are likely to incur going into the future.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Sorry,
I may have missed . . . You’re referring to . . .
Carla
Beck: —
TB.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Okay.
Bill Greuel:
— Yes, certainly. So you know, our chief veterinary officer has been in contact
with both the producer that’s affected by the bovine tuberculosis and working
very, very closely with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I will state that
first off, bovine TB is a federally reported disease, so compensation for
depopulation and testing is borne by the federal government, so we’re working
with them.
The unfortunate situation
sometimes is that, in a case like this where it might be breeding stock, they
might be undervalued. So we’re working very closely with the federal government
to ensure that the right level of compensation is achieved for this farming
operation. And we won’t know the extent of this until all of the trace-in and
trace-out work has been completed, and experience has told us that that can
take an extended amount of time. So we’ll continue to monitor that.
You know, the specific
question about what supports that we done, a couple of things that I would
point to. We’ve written a letter to the federal government asking for an
extension to the livestock tax deferral for this producer. And the other one is
that ministry staff will explore AgRecovery as an option for support for the
extraordinary costs that the producer will face. And again continuing to press
the federal government because compensation only covers depopulation. It does
not cover sanitation and the cleanup of the disposal sites. So we’re continuing
to press the federal government to make sure that there is a fair compensation
for this producer in this unfortunate situation.
Carla
Beck: —
Yeah, certainly those concerns have been raised both with the timeliness, as I
mentioned the feed that it costs, as well as the inadequacy of the $5,000‑per-cow
max, and then nothing to deal with the disinfecting after. So encouraged, hope
to see some changes to that. It’s not a situation, on top of everything else,
that of course any producer wants to be in and then be paying an extra price on
top of that.
A
quick question about RALP [resilient agricultural landscapes program]. There
was a bit of discussion in estimates last year. I’m just wondering about the
uptake on that program. How many producers, how many acres are enrolled?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Regarding RALP, 374 applications and $7.94 million paid.
Carla
Beck: —
Number of acres converted?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — I don’t
have that number here tonight.
Carla
Beck: —
Okay. Can you table it with us or table it with the committee? Thank you. One
of the questions that was asked last year — and I’m going to try a new minister
on this question — there was discussion about stacking RALP with other
initiatives, the NGO [non-governmental organization] initiatives to increase
payments to producers.
The reason I think that was
stated at the time was it might encourage more conversion to have two different
programs. We’ve seen Alberta, for example, be able to stack. I noted on the
Alberta website today that their program is fully subscribed. I’m just
wondering if there is any reconsideration of those producers, those ranchers
being able to stack RALP and other initiatives?
[21:45]
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. So yes, under that program we have decided not to allow
stacking to environmental groups to top up on our programming. We wanted to
ensure that both the government dollars and the environment dollars could
impact the maximum number of acres as opposed to stacking them and which, I
mean, less acres being impacted at the end of the day. So you know, we’re just
into year three, so we want to make sure we can impact the most acres out
there.
Carla
Beck: —
Was the program fully subscribed this year?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — This
program runs for five years. Like I said, we’re in year three, and it’s managed
over that five years. And we’ve never left dollars on the table yet, so I would
expect it to be fully expended.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Thanks so much. Just to turn our attention to a file that we’ve worked with the
livestock sector for some time and brought to this legislature, this committee
in the past, but it’s the importance of addressing meat pricing and fairness
for producers, and importantly then addressing some of the anticompetitive
behaviours of the duopoly or these out-of-province, out-of-country
multinational meat packers, and being able to build up meat processing here in
Saskatchewan. Certainly we see some good local abattoirs and processors across
this province. But this really represents an opportunity for producers across
this province, better value for them. It’s a job creator across the province as
well, and providing value and choice for consumers.
So
we’ve laid some policy on some proposals and pushed for action in the past. I’d
like to hear if the minister is stepping up to make building our meat
processing industry a priority.
Bill Greuel:
— Yes, thank you for that. As you know, one of the goals in the Saskatchewan
plan for growth is certainly to double the revenue from the livestock sector.
And we’re doing a number of things in support of a robust livestock sector,
including creation of a robust business risk management suite of programs.
We’ve already talked about
LPI [livestock price insurance] and forage insurance today. We support the
livestock sector through a number of research and innovation investments
through the Agriculture Development Fund, the strategic research program, and funding
for the Livestock and Forage Centre of Excellence in Saskatoon. All of this is
aimed at building a very robust livestock production sector on which to build
value-added processing.
And I think you can maybe
draw a bit of a corollary to what’s happened in the crop sector as well in
terms of a robust primary agriculture crop sector that has led to investment in
value-added processing in canola.
So you know, for us it’s
really about support at that primary level that hopefully will lead to
investments in additional meat processing here in the province.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
I’d just say that there’s . . . I mean there’s really active
conversations with producers and some improvements that could be brought to
policies and some of the incentives to make meat processing a priority and to
make sure that we’re getting fairness as well for live cattle for producers
and, you know, standing up against anticompetitive behaviours of that
out-of-province, out-of-country duopoly.
And so I’d really urge action
on this front. It’s about value for producers and it’s about opportunity,
economic opportunity in the province, and as well for, you know, kind of a
win-win for consumers. We’ll continue to push on those fronts.
I’m going to kick it over.
You touched on research, and I know our leader has a couple comments on
research.
Carla
Beck: —
At the risk of looking foolish in front of my own crop scientist beside me here
. . . Kidding aside, you know, one of the things, Minister, you
mentioned off the top — the resiliency, the growth in yields, in value of crops
in this province — many of the innovations that have happened right here have
been due to investment and research. I know some would peg it at every dollar
invested in research has a $33 return, and it’s certainly something we’ve heard
consistently. Changing weather cycles, volatility is super important —
especially at this time, I think — to be investing in research.
I’m just wondering, Minister,
why the decision was made in this budget at this time to basically flatline
research dollars.
Hon.
Daryl Harrison: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, as we’re into year three of the five-year plan, the
five-year agreement, and the current year is 38.228. But I hear from producers
and researchers over and over, “Thanks for that commitment.” And going into the
next five years, we will look forward to funding even more additional projects.
Carla
Beck: —
Certainly we’ve heard from producers, from commodity groups, you know, the
importance of research. Certainly funding for public research and plant
breeding is something that’s valued. It’s something that we have derived a
great deal of value from so I look forward to increased investments in coming
years.
I’m starting to get a bit
nervous about the time here, Minister. There’s a few things that I wanted to
ask about. One of the things, again given the number of months we’ve just been
through, renewed focus on the trade infrastructure, not only increasing that
trade infrastructure but improving the reliability and effectiveness of rail
transport in particular when we’re talking about exports out of this province.
One of the things that has
been called for is an export sales reporting program for rail efficiency to
improve market transparency and planning throughout the grain handling and
transportation system, including the ports as well. Has there been any consideration,
or has that call been made, or any work towards developing such a system here
in the province? I know we’ve heard a lot of concerns about the percentage of
grain cars that have been delivered, demurrage, and difficulty in the ports. Is
this something that you’re engaged in? And can you report progress towards it,
please.
[22:00]
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Certainly when it comes to rail we have ongoing meetings with
both CN and CPKC [Canadian Pacific Kansas City], get reports from them as well.
I will mention that Highways kind of takes the lead in that transportation
space. But it’s one thing that producers and buyers of our commodities, I hear
time and time again, is the reliability. And being a landlocked province, that
reliability is so important. And part of that reliability is having the
capacity on the rail.
So I’ve used this line
before. We need to keep the oil in the pipeline and the grain on the train. And
that pipeline is a big part of interprovincial trade and we need it from coast
to coast. And that grain and our oilseed shipments and other ag and ag value-added
commodities can fulfill that rail and get to port. We need some labour
stability and we need reliability at the port as well. Bill, anything to add?
Carla
Beck: —
Minister, I think you’ll find we’re in agreement here. The question that I had
specifically was about the call from producers to basically have a reporting
system around reliability to ensure that things are running as they ought to
be. Absolutely we need to be investing in pipelines, in rail capacity, but also
improving the reliability of those systems. We need to be improving, you know,
reducing interprovincial trade barriers when it comes to trucking and other
industries. I mean there’s agreement there.
Bill Greuel:
— Yeah, so we monitor rail performance of CPKC and CN on a weekly basis. A lot
of this data is pulled from public sources that we compile. If there are
producer groups that are interested in more information related to the
performance of rail lines on a weekly basis, they can feel free to connect with
us and we can share with them where we get this data and information.
Carla
Beck: —
I’ll send something to the minister. These certainly have been public calls and
I can forward these to the minister. You know, the accountability there is
certainly important.
I’m going to move on to
something else now. I’m going to go back to a report from the Provincial
Auditor back to the fall of last year around the Farm Land Security Board and
concerns around foreign entities purchasing Saskatchewan farm land. Of course her
report is publicly available as well.
There were a number of
recommendations. I believe that there were nine recommendations that came forth
in that report. I’m just looking to the minister to get confirmation that he
accepts these findings and report progress towards the recommendations that
were contained therein.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Yes, the Provincial Auditor released her report in the fall,
and we fully accept her report.
I understand that the board
has adjusted how it documents conflicts of interest; provided exemption
applicants a confirmation of the date that their application will be heard by
the board; directed a 30‑day maximum time frame for transaction review;
and staff are requesting statutory declarations from all out-of-province
corporations when purchasing land.
In the coming months the
board will implement a new statutory declaration requesting additional
information with a focus on financing, modify the annual report and website
with additional enforcement activities, review registered lease interests, and
refine processes and focus on escalation procedures to meet the board’s needs.
Carla
Beck: —
Thank you, Minister. Those are calls that I know my colleague has made for some
time. It’s important to see some of those changes made.
I believe you said
refinements. One of the specifics that I wanted to ask you about was something
that was presented on page 77 of that report, volume 2 of the 2024 report, that
noted that in Saskatchewan, land titles registration requires farm land to review
the purchases after the transaction. Other jurisdictions look to have that
verification before, like in Alberta and Manitoba. Was that a change that was
considered? Was it implemented?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. As the Provincial Auditor highlighted in their recent audit,
there are pros and cons to registration before and after compliance is
confirmed. It is important to consider all of the impacts of the different
models. Registration of land in the province involves The Land Titles Act,
2000 . . . and the Act. Our government needs to explore the most
effective way to register land.
We will continue to explore
options to determine what makes sense for landowners and the province. And I’ll
just add that The Land Titles Act is under Justice. Bill, do you have
anything to complement that?
Bill Greuel:
— Yeah, the only thing I would have added, Minister, that you added at the end
was that this is dependent on the Ministry of Agriculture working with the
Ministry of Justice, because it would involve changes to The Land Titles Act
as well.
Carla
Beck: —
Just to confirm, that work is ongoing now?
Bill Greuel:
— I think we’re taking into consideration all of the recommendations made by
the Provincial Auditor.
Carla
Beck: —
Thank you.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Just with respect to the Bunge-Viterra merger, could you give us an update of
whether or not you undertook an economic assessment with respect to that
merger? And could you share some of the results around impacts for producer
incomes, for example, or transport impacts or competition impacts, job impacts,
canola crush impacts? Just any of those pieces.
[22:15]
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. The Government of Saskatchewan, led by the Ministry of
Agriculture, consulted with stakeholders about the proposed merger. Based on
the consultation, the ministry made a submission to Transport Canada and the
Competition Bureau in December 2023.
In its submission the
ministry asked for further review regarding competition in the country,
including for small crops; competition at the port of Vancouver, Prince Rupert,
and Thunder Bay; impact on the crush sector; impact on port capacity and
highway infrastructure; and level of rail service for Bunge Viterra and its
competitors.
Transport Canada report
provides a public interest assessment. The report is not made public and was
shared with the federal Minister of Transport for review in June of 2024. There
are 24 terms and conditions stemming from Transport Canada’s report, and I’d be
available to share those if you like.
Carla
Beck: —
If you’re offering to share them, absolutely. Could you table it?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — I’d
rather just read it off here but . . .
Carla
Beck: —
Well I have a few more questions. So if you could table it, that would be
greatly appreciated.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — I’d
prefer getting it onto the record but, Mr. Chair, what do you think?
Chair
Thorsteinson: —
If you want to read them, Minister, that’s your prerogative.
Hon.
Daryl Harrison: —
Okay. There are 24 terms and conditions including:
Bunge’s divestiture of six
grain elevators that purchase canola seed near Bunge’s canola crush plants at
Altona, Manitoba and Nipawin, Saskatchewan to maintain competitive options for
producers in the region.
Legally binding controls on
Bunge’s minority ownership stake, 25 per cent, in Saudi-owned G3. This includes
ensuring that Bunge nominates only independent directors of G3, preventing
Bunge from exercising unilateral rights to impede the operation and growth of
G3 initiatives linked to grain origination, grain handling, and port terminal
businesses, as well as borrowing related to such activities.
Protecting G3’s confidential
information through a minority shareholder confidentiality protocol and notably
the terms and conditions do not include requirements for Bunge to divest of G3.
Retaining Viterra’s head
office in Regina for at least five years with no fewer than 200 personnel.
A binding commitment from
Bunge to invest at least $520 million in Canada within the next five years
composed of 500 million for capital such as port terminals and grain
elevators, 15 million for not-for-profit or charitable causes, and 5 million
for regenerative agriculture programs.
Specific to canola
processing, Bunge is required to maintain Bunge Canada’s and Viterra Canada’s
existing oilseed processing capacity in Canada and to complete a feasibility
study within two years on adding canola processing and export capacity in
Canada. Details on the proposed Viterra canola crush facility near Regina,
capable of crushing 2.5 million metric tonnes annually, are absent from
these terms and conditions. Announced in 2021, this project was paused, and it
is unclear if it will resume since many factors, not including this merger,
have changed.
Bunge will be required to
engage with the National Supply Chain Office to further strengthen the
resiliency of the agriculture supply chain and with industry partners,
including the major Canadian rail carriers, to address shipping bottlenecks and
inefficiencies in Canada’s rail transportation network.
Bill, did I miss anything?
Bill Greuel:
— No. The rest of the terms and conditions are in the OC [order in council]
that was published by the Government of Canada.
Carla
Beck: —
Minister, I thought you were giving me new information here, but thank you for
that. I’m going to turn it over to my colleague here.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Just a couple quick questions here. One around drought and, you know, hopefully
we’re in a better moisture situation here this year, but we still have some dry
areas through this winter. Hopefully we get some good rains as we go into a
growing season.
But what are you doing to
respond to potential of drought? At some point you’re going to be facing these
situations. And there’s always been a standing call from producers that, as
opposed to just reacting in an emergency with, you know, emergency programs,
that an active drought committee working with you and your ministry would be of
great value. Could you speak to actions you’re taking to work with producers on
this front?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. As I’ve said before, our suite of business risk management
programs is always our first line of defence for our ag producers. The
Government of Saskatchewan supports research projects that help our farmers
adopt more sustainable practices and new methods to counter the effects of
drought, diseases, and other environmental challenges they face. With an
emphasis on monitoring, the Ministry of Agriculture leads a moisture monitoring
committee with participants from the ministry, Water Security Agency,
Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
In the fall of 2023, the
Government of Saskatchewan brought together provincial ministries and agencies
to establish a provincial drought steering committee. Led by the Saskatchewan
Public Safety Agency, the committee includes the Ministry of Environment,
Ministry of Government Relations, and Ministry of Agriculture along with
Saskatchewan Water, Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation, and Water Security
Agency. The ministry holds regular stakeholder calls with crops and livestock
groups to understand conditions they may be facing.
Ongoing discussions with
industry and hearing from stakeholders is vital to the work we do. Saskatchewan
Crop Insurance Corporation administers a full suite of business risk management
programs, including crop insurance, AgriStability, livestock price insurance,
and wildlife damage compensation and prevention program.
Continuous innovation in the
crop insurance program is ongoing to ensure that it is responsive for
Saskatchewan producers. For example, work continues in evaluating potential
improvements to forage and pasture insurance to ensure forage insurance is
relevant and accessible for livestock producers here in Saskatchewan.
After consultation with
livestock producers and industry associations to determine what changes to the
grazing formula would provide more predictability for producers, the Ministry
of Agriculture amended the Crown land grazing lease rate formula effective for
this year, 2025.
The revisions in the grazing
formula will offer relief to producers renting Crown land and contribute to
affordability and stability for the livestock sector in the face of rising
production costs. Amending the rental formula provides a transparent and straightforward
calculation for producers to understand, while increasing the stability and
predictability of the annual rental rate.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Thanks. Thanks again. The call is to work together, yeah, with an active
drought team so we can be as responsive or proactive as possible. And I know
producers would really value being fully involved in building a team on that
front, working with you and your team.
Penny
McCall: —
Good evening. My name is Penny McCall. I’m an assistant deputy minister for
innovation and regulation. And regarding the irrigation questions that you
have, in the last five years we now have just over 81,000 acres that have come
on. And actually within our growth plan we were trying to achieve 85,000 acres,
so we’re over 95 per cent of the way there. And so we have seen significant
increase in terms of that acres.
We continue to support the
irrigation sector through, again, the research and development sides, through
various programming, extension, through The Irrigation Act, where we
support them to ensure that they are following their sustainable production.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
And just a last question: how many irrigable acres are available right now?
Penny
McCall: —
So you mean in the province total?
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
That’s right.
Penny
McCall: —
In total we are at around four hundred and . . . Sorry, I’m going to
make sure I have my numbers.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Land available for uptake.
Penny
McCall: —
So what I’ll be able to speak to is the total number of irrigated acres in the
province so far, and that’s 145,000 acres. As I said, just in the last five
years we have put on 81,000.
[22:30]
And
you know, we expect that next year or this coming season we’ll probably have
another 20,000 acres.
I am speaking though more to,
based on our current infrastructure that we already have, and I’m speaking to
what I would call the infill acres. And so I don’t have the exact number of
what the remaining acres are. It really is up to the irrigation districts as
well as independent irrigators to put that forward. If you are referring to the
larger expansion project . . . No, okay. Then yeah, leave it there.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Yeah, it was the question around the infill acres that I followed up with in
the past. I’ll touch on one other. Another piece here is the whole value-add
opportunity and . . .
Chair
Thorsteinson: — Just, Mr. Wotherspoon, we
have reached 10:30.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
We started five late.
Chair
Thorsteinson: — Okay, we’ve got three
minutes.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Thanks, Chair. With respect to value-add opportunities and ILOs [intensive
livestock operation], we certainly hear challenges in just some levels of
uncertainty. And I’m wondering what plans you might have as a ministry to
provide greater certainty to, you know, realize some of the opportunity around
value-add and ILOs in the province. Intensive livestock operations. Thanks,
Chair.
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, certainly always encourage and supportive of any
value-added efforts that we can garner in this province. In regards to
intensive livestock operations, ILOs, just for the member to understand clearly
what that is, Government Relations and municipalities, we work strongly with
them to set up a favourable regulatory environment to allow these to proceed.
Thank you.
Chair
Thorsteinson: — Thank you, Minister. Having
reached our agreed-upon time for consideration of these estimates, we will
adjourn consideration of the estimates and supplementary estimates no. 2
for the Ministry of Agriculture. Minister, do you have any closing comments?
Hon. Daryl Harrison: — Yes,
thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d firstly like to thank all my officials here tonight
and their help preparing for estimates, and thank you very much for all the
work you do. Thank you to the committee here tonight for going into overtime. I
appreciate you all. I know it’s past my bedtime, and I don’t know about the
rest of you, but probably close as well. So I appreciate the extent of time you
put forth here.
Also like to include Hansard
and their endeavours to getting this all logged for us for future reference,
and the Clerks tableside here for all their extended efforts in this regard as
well. It’s very much appreciated. Then just once again, thanks to the committee
as a whole. Thank you.
Chair
Thorsteinson: — Thank you, Minister. Closing
comments, MLAs?
Carla
Beck: —
Thank you. I want to say thank you to the minister and to the officials from
the Ministry of Agriculture sincerely, for not only the work tonight but the
work probably more importantly that you do outside of this room, definitely in
supporting producers here in this province — our world-class agriculture
industry, something that we’re all incredibly proud of — and especially during
a time that they’re looking to you, looking for answers and support and
stability. I just want to say thank you very much. I know that it’s
appreciated.
To my fellow committee
members, the Chair, the Clerk’s office, Hansard, the folks in broadcast
services, as well as my colleagues here on this side, I just want to say thanks
to all of you. And those watching at home, it’s time to go to bed. It’s past
everyone’s bedtime. Thank you.
Chair
Thorsteinson: — Great. Once again, thank
you, Minister, and all your officials for taking the time to be here with us
tonight. And at this point the committee will stand adjourned to the call of
the Chair.
[The
committee adjourned at 22:35.]
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.