CONTENTS
Standing Committee on The Economy
Bill No. 35 — The
Mineral Resources Amendment Act, 2025
THIRTIETH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
Hansard Verbatim Report
No.
11 — Wednesday, April 1, 2026
Chair
D. Harrison: — Welcome to the Standing Committee on
the Economy. I’m Daryl Harrison, the Chair of this committee. And we have MLA
[Member of the Legislative Assembly] Clarke, chitting in for MLA Conway;
Tajinder Grewal; Racquel Hilbert; Sally Housser; Kevin Kasun; and Kevin
Weedmark.
The first item on our agenda today is
consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Environment. We will then
recess at 5:30. When we reconvene at 6:30, we will consider Bill 35 and then
move into consideration of estimates and supplementary estimates no. 2 for
the Ministry of Energy and Resources.
General Revenue Fund
Environment
Vote 26
Subvote (EN01)
Chair
D. Harrison: — So no. 2, consideration of
estimates, Environment. So we will begin with the consideration of the 2026‑27
estimates for vote 26, Environment, central management and services, subvote
Environment 01.
Minister Rowden is here with ministry officials. I would ask
that officials please state their names before speaking for the first time, and
please don’t touch the microphones. The Hansard operator will turn your
microphone on when you are speaking to the committee. Minister Rowden, please
introduce your officials and make your opening remarks.
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: — Good
afternoon, members of the Standing Committee on the Economy. I am Darlene
Rowden, Minister of the Environment. Here with me this afternoon are members of
our team: Kevin France, the deputy minister of Environment; Kevin Murphy, the
assistant deputy minister of the resource management division; Wes Kotyk, the
assistant deputy minister of the environmental protection division; Jessica
Kilbride, the assistant deputy minister of the corporate services and policy
division; Marsha Powell, the executive director of the budget and reporting
branch; Kyle Worth, acting executive director of the climate resilience branch;
and chief of staff in my office, Josh Hack.
I’m pleased to
be here today to present to you the 2026‑27 Ministry of Environment
estimates and to highlight some of the initiatives this budget will support.
Overall, this
budget reflects the government’s continued commitment to protecting
Saskatchewan and ensuring the long-term well-being of its people. It reinforces
our responsibility to manage our natural resources carefully and to respond to
emerging environmental challenges with clarity and purpose. It strengthens
ongoing initiatives to protect our province’s natural environment while also supporting
responsible, sustainable economic growth that benefits communities across
Saskatchewan.
This balanced approach ensures that
environmental protection and economic development remain aligned, practical,
and achievable. This includes ensuring that the industries driving our economy
have the regulatory certainty, timely services, and stable environmental
conditions they need to operate and invest with confidence.
By prioritizing environmental
stewardship alongside economic opportunity, this budget helps preserve
Saskatchewan’s natural beauty and resources. It ensures they remain vibrant and
resilient for future generations while also supporting the industries, workers,
and communities that contribute to our province’s continued success.
For 2026‑27, the ministry’s
overall budget submission was $97.717 million. This year’s budget supports
key Saskatchewan growth plan commitments in accordance with its core lines of
business, including environmental protection, resource management, and climate
resilience.
In addition to the critical core work
undertaken by the ministry every day, there are a few key initiatives from this
budget I would like to expand upon. These further strengthen our ability to
protect Saskatchewan’s environment and support sustainable growth across the
province.
First I would like to highlight the
business transformation initiative. Saskatchewan is a critical mineral
powerhouse. The business transformation project has been built around creating
a digital client experience for accessing and leveraging ministry information
and services. Environment CRM [customer relations management] application is
the last CRM system in government to be replaced. Therefore government is
keeping old infrastructure around with significant cost and risk for this
single system.
We are investing $2 million to
advance phase 3 of the ministry’s multi-year business transformation
initiative, because modernizing this system is essential to protect service
reliability, reduce operational risk, and meet the expectations of a rapidly
growing resource sector.
This funding will allow the ministry to
replace outdated tools, improve digital security, and restore efficient online
services that industry depends on for . . . in our timely regulatory
decisions. Without this investment, delays, inefficiencies, and security
vulnerabilities would continue to grow, creating real barriers for companies
making major investment decisions in Saskatchewan.
With phase 3 of this project, the
ministry is committed to ensuring regulatory and permitting decisions are
clear, consistent, predictable, and timely to support industry’s investment
decisions and community engagement. This work will help protect Saskatchewan’s
competitiveness and strengthen confidence in our regulatory system.
Next I would like to detail the grant
increase to our recycling partner, Sarcan. Reflecting an increase in beverage
container recycling, the 2026‑27 budget includes an increase of $117,000
to an overall amount not to exceed 37 million in grant payments to Sarcan
through beverage container collection and recycling programs.
In ’24‑25, Sarcan collected and
recycled approximately 491.6 million containers and a return rate of 82.6
per cent, the second highest in the country following Alberta with 82.9 per
cent, exceeding the national average of 75.9 per cent.
Sarcan’s operation led to over
43 million pounds of resources being diverted from landfills across
Saskatchewan. Sarcan continues to be a critical partner in overall waste
reduction in the province. Their work protects our environment, reduces
pressure on municipal landfills, and supports a strong, circular economy.
In addition to the beverage container
program, they have partnered with other recycling programs such as electronics,
paint, and batteries to create a one-stop shop for customers to drop their
recyclable items, contributing to the reduction of waste entering our
landfills.
This grant increase helps protect the
long-term sustainability of these services, supports Sarcan’s growing
operational needs, and ensures they can continue to meet rising recycling
volumes across the province.
Next I’d like to highlight the work
planned around the Saskatchewan Fish Hatchery. The hatchery plays a central
role in protecting healthy fish populations and supporting sustainable angling
opportunities across Saskatchewan.
The hatchery is responsible for the
production of all fish stocked in the province’s public water bodies. The
existing infrastructure has exceeded its intended lifespan and is at
significant risk of critical system and equipment failure. This budget allocates
700,000 to initiate preliminary design work for the modernization of the
Saskatchewan Fish Hatchery. This is an essential step to protect the facility,
the broodstock, and the long-term sustainability of our fisheries. This
investment will explore feasibility of modernizing the facility to improve
efficiency, reduce operating costs, and address biosecurity risks.
Modernization will also strengthen our ability to protect fish health and
prevent disease outbreaks.
In addition to the hatchery
modernization, the ministry will also commence planning of a new stand-alone
walleye-intensive rearing facility. Advancing the modernization and rearing
facility at the same time will allow the ministry to find efficiencies and
achieve economies of scale. This combined approach protects program continuity
and ensures we can meet future stocking demands. We intend to take funding from
the Fish and Wildlife Development Fund to support the implementation of both
initiatives.
I also want to note that the
Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation has been asking us to do this work. Protecting
the long-term health of our fisheries will require sustained investment,
careful planning, and continued partnership with stakeholders across the
province, which leads into ensuring this important project is funded.
When purchasing a hunting licence in
Saskatchewan, hunters are also required to purchase an annual wildlife habitat
certificate. Proceeds from the sale of this certificate are deposited into the
Fish and Wildlife Development Fund.
For the upcoming ’26‑27 angling
season, the habitat certificate will be extended to purchases of angling
licences. Annual angling licences will require the purchase of a $20 angling
habitat certificate, while one- and three-day angling licences will require a
$5 certificate.
Individuals who purchase both an annual
angling licence and a hunting licence in the same year will only require the
purchase of a single habitat certificate. Saskatchewan residents age 65 and
older, under 16 years of age, or who are veterans — all who are exempt from
purchasing angling licences — will also be exempt from purchasing the angling
habitat certificate.
The extension of the habitat certificate
to angling licences is expected to generate an additional $2.1 million
annually. This new revenue will help protect long-term fisheries management by
providing stable funding for stocking, habitat enhancement, and conservation
programs. All revenue will be deposited into the Fish and Wildlife Development
Fund to support modernization and expansion at the fish hatchery and support
long-term fisheries’ stocking and enhancement activities. This ensures that anglers’
contributions directly protect the resources they rely on.
The Ministry of Environment currently
administers a hunter harvest survey for each hunting licence sold in
Saskatchewan. Hunters are asked to complete the survey following the hunting
season, providing details such as dates and locations hunted and animals
harvested. Data collected from these surveys are an important tool for wildlife
biologists to assess game population trends and adjust hunting quotas.
Although the surveys are mandatory,
completion rates have plateaued at about 60 per cent. Effective August 25th,
2026, hunters who fail to submit their required hunter harvest survey will be
charged a $15 fee when purchasing their next hunting licence. This new
surcharge is intended to provide a stronger incentive for survey completion.
Higher completion rates will protect the accuracy of wildlife data and support
responsible quota decisions.
I would also like to note a recent
change to non-resident game bird licences that supports both wildlife management
and the long-term sustainability of Saskatchewan’s outfitting industry.
Saskatchewan is recognized as a premier game bird hunting destination, and
hunters contribute significantly to rural economies. However we have received
complaints about some non-residents using full-season licences to offer
unauthorized outfitting services.
To address this concern, non-resident
hunters will now be limited to three five-day short-term licences. This reduces
opportunities for illegal outfitting while maintaining access for legitimate
hunters. The five-day term licences for non-residents in 2026‑27 will be
$225 for the first five days, $150 for the second five-day renewal, and $150
for the final five-day renewal. This is expected to generate revenues of nearly
$4 million. The Saskatchewan Commission of Professional Outfitters and the
Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation have expressed support for this change, which
protects licensed outfitters, rural communities, and the integrity of our
wildlife management system.
The work we have presented today is only
the beginning. There is still significant progress to be made, and this budget
positions us to continue strengthening the programs and services that protect
Saskatchewan’s environment and support the people who rely on it. We believe
these measures will help us continue to protect our natural environment while
also supporting sustainable, economic growth. They reinforce our commitment to
responsible resource management, stronger partnerships, and long-term environmental
resilience across the province.
This budget reflects a balanced,
practical approach that supports both environmental protection and the
industries and communities that depend on it. I would like to thank the
Committee on the Economy for your attention and support, and I look forward to
your questions.
Chair
D. Harrison:
— Thank you, Minister. I will now open the floor to questions. I recognize MLA
Clarke.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you, Chair.
And thank you, Minister, for your opening remarks. Looking forward to good
discussion this evening. To start I’m going to pass it over to my colleague,
MLA Young.
Aleana Young: — Thanks, Jared.
Minister, on November 20th, 2024 the Canada-Saskatchewan equivalency agreement
regarding greenhouse gas emissions from electricity producers was signed by
former minister Keisig. I believe this agreement came into force on January
1st, 2025. Is that correct?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Yes.
Aleana Young: — Thank you very
much. So on January 16th, 15 days later, the Minister of CIC [Crown Investments
Corporation of Saskatchewan] announced that coal would be extended by the
Government of Saskatchewan. What discussion occurred between ministers and
ministries? And has your ministry given notice of the termination of this
agreement as per 5.2?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: — So the
equivalency agreement is still in effect until 2026.
Aleana Young: — Thank you, Minister. I take that response
to indicate that the ministry did not give any termination notice of
the existing agreement. Can you speak to then the negotiations on a new
equivalency agreement that ought to have been launched as per section 5.3? Can
you update the committee on the state of those negotiations, given they are
supposed to be concluded by the end of this year?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
So we are in negotiations, and I’m going to turn it over to my deputy minister.
Kevin France:
— Yeah, thank you and good afternoon. Kevin France, deputy minister. To the
minister’s point, as she outlined at the officials’ level, we have been having
negotiations with the federal government, doing engagements with the federal
government, and those continue to this day.
Aleana Young: — Thank you. And
what position is the Government of Saskatchewan advancing, I assume, with
EnerCan and officials at the federal level?
Kevin France:
— Yeah, thanks for the question. Again it’s actually . . . Just to
clarify, the conversations are with ECCC, or Environment and Climate Change
Canada. And again the negotiations are continuing in terms of the equivalency
agreement.
Aleana Young: — Thank you. Is the
province looking to extend the current equivalency agreement, or is the
province negotiating new terms?
Kevin France:
— I would say it’s still in negotiations, right. And so right now we have a
current agreement, and we’re looking to extend or negotiate that agreement.
Aleana Young: — Thank you, Deputy
Minister. Minister, I just want to be clear because we are talking about
potentially billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and an agreement signed by
former minister Keisig that is set to expire this year. You and your officials
are unable or unwilling to provide any updates on what position the Government
of Saskatchewan is advancing as it pertains to the equivalency agreement
related to greenhouse gas emissions and the coal fleet in Saskatchewan?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Not unwilling. Unable at this time because of ongoing negotiations.
Aleana Young: — Thank you. Perhaps
moving on, The Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases (Standards and
Compliance) Regulations, 2023 were introduced by the Government of
Saskatchewan on May 17th, 2023. Have these been amended since?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
No, they have not been amended.
Aleana Young: — Thank you,
Minister. So on April 1st of last year, your government declared that
Saskatchewan was carbon tax free. However the province’s own quarterly and
mid-year financial statements indicate that the Government of Saskatchewan
continued to account for revenue from the province’s own carbon tax, the
output-based pricing system. Are you able to identify then with precision what
legislative or regulatory mechanism the government used, if any, to eliminate
the carbon tax here in Saskatchewan?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
It was a pause, not an elimination, due to tariffs and stuff like that, right.
Aleana Young: — Thank you. So,
Minister, I’m just trying to wrap my head around why the ministry didn’t repeal
this legislation if the carbon tax no longer exists in Saskatchewan.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Excuse me. I’m going to rule that
question not related to the estimates, so please move along.
Aleana Young: — Thank you, Mr.
Chair. In relation to the clean electricity transition grant and its
elimination from the Ministry of Environment in this budget, can the minister
explain why then, if this legislation wasn’t repealed or amended,
$194.6 million was paid by the Government of Saskatchewan for the carbon
tax on home heating?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
That is a question for the Ministry of CIC or SaskPower.
Aleana Young: — Thank you,
Minister. Now I understand your ministry and the federal government are
currently engaged in negotiations regarding industrial carbon pricing, and in
fact, an announcement was originally planned for today. What position has the
ministry been advancing with the federal government in regards to industrial
carbon pricing?
Kevin France:
— Thank you for the question. I’m actually not sure about the April 1st
announcement. But more specifically in terms of negotiation strategy, again I
think it’s been clear that the Government of Saskatchewan’s position on OBPS
[output-based pricing system] give the province the control of OBPS to ensure
the realities of Saskatchewan are understood in emissions management.
I think a national approach doesn’t
appreciate our industries, whether it’s potash, agriculture, value-added
agriculture, mining, oil and gas. And so the position has been we’re in the
best position to manage emissions and ensure emissions management stays within
the province.
Aleana Young: — Thank you. So just
to be clear, the ministry’s position is that it should be the Government of
Saskatchewan who is responsible for the OBPS, and that’s the position being
advanced currently.
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Yes.
Aleana Young: — And is that for
the electrical sector as well? I’m seeing nods. Thank you. Now with Alberta’s
industrial carbon tax set at $95 a tonne through the tier program, and
Saskatchewan’s own industrial carbon tax historically mirroring that same
price, would it be safe to assume then, Minister, that if Saskatchewan is not
successful at becoming the only jurisdiction in Canada without a similar
program, that your government’s carbon price will continue to match that of
Alberta’s?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
So first and foremost, we recognize and believe that Saskatchewan is not the
same as Alberta, so we are negotiating for Saskatchewan and those negotiations
are ongoing. To be clear, I would not automatically assume what you just
questioned.
Aleana Young: — Okay, great.
That’s fair enough. You’re not going to put a dollar figure in terms of a price
per tonne that the government would be advancing right now. That’s correct?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Correct.
Aleana Young: — Okay, great. So,
Minister, hearing that your government is advancing negotiations with the
federal government, pushing for Saskatchewan control of the OBPS program, can
you provide the figure then for the OBPS liability for the ’26‑27 fiscal
year?
[16:00]
Kyle Worth:
— Hi. I’m Kyle Worth, acting ED [executive director], climate resilience
branch. Thanks for the question. So with regards to identifying what the
outstanding compliance payments are, for the ’25‑26 it’s not really
possible because of the delay in reporting, to basically identify that.
But I can give you some information
associated with . . . I think you’re asking is what, you know, what’s
the outstanding compliance amount. And with regards to that, the amount that’s
outstanding is $242 million. That is basically compliance that has been
paused.
And so to provide some context to that,
we’re also expecting to issue about $268 million in credits. So largely
speaking, much of what that compliance is could be offset by credits because
you’ll have companies that will generally have a combination of both credits
and compliance owing. Some might just only have credits that they might want to
sell and could be purchased by those who are owing compliance.
So those are the numbers that we have
with current reporting up until really the calendar year of 2024. Even ’25
reporting, that’s still required and we’re still processing them — will come in
this summer. So there’s a delay in calendar years and the reporting.
Aleana Young: — Thank you. Can you
help me understand then, Minister, or perhaps Mr. Worth, why in past fiscal
updates from the Government of Saskatchewan, in past budgets, there has been a
publicly reported figure for that OBPS liability or compliance payments owing, and
it is missing from certainly the budget this year. It’s a bit of a question
mark.
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Member, can you explain to us where you believe it’s missing?
Aleana Young: — I hope so. So
typically my recollection is that — and I don’t have the government’s quarterly
financials from the past year — but I believe the OBPS figure has been reported
out each and every quarter, including last year’s budget and the years preceding
that.
And in this year’s budget looking
forward, there is no dollar figure associated with what I’m calling the
liability associated with the OBPS. Perhaps your folks have a different term
that is used internally, but the amount of money that ought to have been
collected that has not been.
I’m trying to suss out why that figure
is no longer available through public reporting. And if your ministry is in
fact negotiating this with the federal government, which you’ve confirmed, I’d
assume there is a dollar figure that can be provided, identifying what the
liability is for the Government of Saskatchewan or perhaps for either the
electrical sector here in Saskatchewan — I’d be interested in that — as well as
for industry.
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Yeah, so the ’23 and ’24 payments were deferred, and the ’25 was paused.
Aleana Young: — So for ’23‑24,
I believe Mr. Worth said the number was $242 million. For ’24‑25
there’s not a number available because those payments were paused. The
understanding then of the minister and your officials is that because
collection was paused that’s just money that may not, will not ever have to
materialize?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Well if it’s not in our possession, I guess that’s why they didn’t.
Aleana Young: — Okay.
Kevin France:
— Well maybe just to build off that, Minister. So yeah, to the minister’s
point, so April 1st, 2025 the Government of Saskatchewan paused the collection
of ’25. And going forward, we also deferred the payments. And at that time was,
you know, specifically around the tariffs, the pressures the industry was
facing, economic uncertain times, and so that deferrals were made.
So from what Kyle was speaking to is, I
mean the reporting still happens and that reporting comes with estimates. But
we have not accrued or identified that because current state, negotiations
aside, the position still is it’s paused and those payments are deferred.
Aleana Young: — And you don’t have
a number that you’re able or willing to provide in terms of what the cost of
those deferred payments was?
Kevin France:
— Not at this time.
Aleana Young: — Does that number
exist anywhere?
Kevin France:
— That’s the work that we’re working on with companies, yes.
Aleana Young: — And that’s what
Mr. Worth said will be available in June, in terms of the reporting lag? Is
that correct?
Kyle Worth:
— Yeah, thanks for the question. So yeah, in regards to coming to an answer or
collecting that data, that data won’t be submitted until June. And then it
takes us generally up to six to eight months to process it. So we go through an
audit process to review all of the submissions. And so we’ll be working with
industry stakeholders as we typically do on each annual submission to review
that.
Then, we make modifications, revisions
to it and to identify what the compliance or the credits earned could be. And
so, you know, we’ll continue to work with industry on the reporting that they
will have submitted.
But kind of in parallel to that, it will
largely depend on the negotiations going forward too because that can have
implications on . . . What the design of the program is can
ultimately affect what, you know, what the outcomes for the compliance owed and
the credits earned will be.
Aleana Young: — So it’s reported
to you by industry in June, and then it takes six to eight months to go through
the ministry audit process. The last numbers that you have are from ’22‑23.
You have nothing for ’24‑25, and nothing for ’25‑26.
Kyle Worth:
— The number that I gave you was for ’22, ’23, and ’24. So up until the end of
’24.
Aleana Young: — Cumulatively?
Kyle Worth:
— Cumulatively, yeah.
Aleana Young: — So then what are
the cost assumptions? As the minister responsible for the management and
reduction of greenhouse gases legislation, what are the cost assumptions within
your ministry for the OBPS? Hearing that you said it will apply to the
electrical sector, what are the cost assumptions in light of your government’s
decision to reinvest in unabated lignite coal generation? Because the
application of an industrial carbon price, even from your own government, will
have a significant impact on the business case and the economics of that
project as well as rates.
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
We cannot give you a number because of the ongoing negotiations.
Aleana Young: — Will those costs
in your negotiations be borne by the Crown, the customers, or industry
retroactively?
Hon. Darlene Rowden: — Because of
negotiations, this is where we’re at. We cannot . . . We don’t have
an answer for that.
Aleana Young: — Okay. With
negotiations I think originally committed publicly to be concluding today, and
I understand timelines can slip — respectfully I see your deputy minister
shaking his head — but it’s been reported publicly. So if I’m mistaken, my
apologies. Do you have . . .
Chair
D. Harrison: — MLA Young, I’m just going to ask
. . . I mean you’ve asked, you’re trying to make assumptions.
Aleana Young: — It’s my last
question on this point.
Chair
D. Harrison: — So, yeah. Please.
Aleana Young: — Yes. When do you
expect negotiations to conclude? And when will you be reporting back to the
people of Saskatchewan on this?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
I cannot answer that. I do not have the answer to that.
Aleana Young: — Thank you. And
thank you, Mr. Chair. You’ll be relieved; this I believe is my last question
for the evening. In regards to the clean electricity transition grant that’s
been eliminated, I do note that there is a new grant of identical value that is
being provided to SaskPower. With the elimination of the clean electricity
transition grant, which did use to flow over, and the new, I believe it’s a
rate affordability grant, is this supposed to replace the clean electricity
transition grant funding?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
It’s not within our budget. So you’ll have to ask the ministry responsible.
Aleana Young: — What a great time
that will be for us all. Thank you so much, Minister.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Any further questions? MLA Clarke.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. Just
looking at the budget, (EN06) under climate resilience, there’s a $166,000
reduction from last year’s budget. I’m wondering if you can speak to that.
Kevin France: — Yeah, thanks for the question. Just to
clarify, did you say 166,000?
[16:15]
Jared Clarke: — I believe so. I
see in (EN06) last year was 5.511 million and this year is 5.345.
Kevin France:
— Yeah, thank you. Sorry, I just had to clarify. Thanks for the question again.
So part of the budget this year includes
some workforce alignment work, and so that’s really focused on attrition. And
so we’re 3 per cent salary reductions across the ministry which has been spread
across the different subvotes. And so that includes the workforce adjustment
work which is focused on vacancy management, so whether that’s through
retirements or voluntary resignations. And so we’ll achieve that savings there.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. I do
see in the classification by type in (EN06) there is a reduction in salaries
there. But there’s also a reduction in goods and services, so from 561,000 to
480,000. So can you speak to that?
Kevin France:
— Yeah, sorry about that. Thanks again for the question. So there’s a reduction
as well in some contract dollars that we’ve removed as well as a reduction in
some travel expenses.
Jared Clarke: — So what will this
mean in terms of the work that the climate resilience unit does in these
reductions?
Kevin France:
— We’ve seen savings in our travel expenditures year after year so that the
travel reduction will not have an impact on the work itself. The contract
dollars, again we have . . . I’m continuously impressed by the team
that we have in that branch in terms of the knowledge and the expertise from
engineers to data managers and so on.
And so when this area of work was built
up, we assumed that there would be need for some external expertise through
contract dollars. We’ve been very successful with our recruitment initiatives
and bringing in some very talented people. So the need for that contract work
is not there to the same degree.
Jared Clarke: — Can you speak to
the work being done by the climate resilience unit in terms of any kind of risk
analysis that Saskatchewan faces in the face of climate change? I think of the
unprecedented wildfire season we had last year and the devastation that brought
to the province. We’re seeing predictions already of another extremely dry year
in the North and a potential disastrous wildfire season again.
So
what kind of work is the climate resilience unit doing to analyze any risk
posed to Saskatchewan economy or people in relation to climate change?
Kevin France: — Yeah, thanks.
Thanks again for the question. And so the branch of climate resilience does a
lot of work in this space, and Kyle will speak to some more specifics.
But one of the areas that, you know, the
work that we do around Prairie Resilience, that really is led by the Ministry
of Environment. But it’s coordinated and work that happens between multi
ministries and agencies, whether it’s from flood protection working with Water
Security Agency, to agriculture resilience and working with the Ministry of
Agriculture, and as well as SPSA [Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency].
And I think, you know, to your point
about risks, I read the same report around the North, and that’s a role that
our forest service branch plays, a really important role working with SPSA in
communities around fire mitigation. And I think one of the things that, you
know, we’re very mindful of is the role that forestry, logging, can play in
helping the resilience and the health of some of those forests.
It’s a really important, obviously,
sector for our northern communities, but also more importantly the tool that
manages the health of our forests and I think some of the fires we’ve seen
definitely, you know, driven by weather but also the age and the stand
dynamics. And so building fuel loads in those ecosystems, you know, causes some
of these extreme events, coupled with wind and then lack of precipitation.
But you know, the important role the
forest service does in planning on a landscape level is really, really
something that we’re focused in on to ensure that we think about firebreaks.
And not just around communities, but take yourself back, you know, 100 miles
and think about where we can create some of those breaks in the ecosystem. It
creates jobs in the economy, but more importantly it considers forest health.
And so that’s at the high level. And
I’ll turn it to Kyle more specifically in terms of the work that his branch
does as it relates to climate resilience.
Kyle Worth: — Hi. Thanks. Yeah,
so in regards to, you know, Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan is building climate
resilience. And so you know, the two primary areas are through emissions
stewardship, and you know, practical adaptation. And so through those two
lenses is really the essence of our Prairie Resilience strategy.
And so the Prairie Resilience strategy
links a number of systems, whether that be, you know, natural systems or
infrastructure or community preparedness or human health and well-being. Our
part of the entire strategy that now includes over 21 ministries all providing
initiatives that in combination are helping to achieve, you know, real
practical outcomes for that strategy.
What’s really important from an
emissions stewardship perspective is that, you know, it’s known that the
products that we produce are generally, by nature, fairly high-emission
intensive. They’re energy intensive, therefore emission intensive. And that’s
why we focus on, you know, emission intensity as part of our OBPS regulations,
that the regulations itself regulates and incentivizes low-emission intensity
products.
And so you know, the outcomes from the
OBPS to date, we’ve seen 6 per cent reduction in emission intensity, all while
achieving 4 per cent increase in production. So you can see that the program is
working where you can find that balance between, you know, achieving emission
intensity reduction while still, you know, protecting competitiveness and
growing the economy together.
So with that being said, you know, you
can look at what, you know, what we’ve achieved in addition to just the program
itself and the emission intensity that it has reduced, but through compliance
options. So a flexible compliance option is our Saskatchewan Technology Fund.
And so for organizations that may not have a project or have, you know, the
technology available necessarily to meet the requirements for their emission
intensity reduction, they have a flexible compliance option which they can pay
into the Saskatchewan Technology Fund.
And the successes that we’ve had through
that Saskatchewan Technology Fund is we have awarded over 22 projects with
private and industry investment of over $630 million matching, you know,
the 22 projects that we’ve awarded. And that will ultimately abate six million
tonnes in emissions as well as 13 million gigajoules of energy. And so in
combination with the program itself and the Saskatchewan Technology Fund, we’re
really seeing, you know, technically achievable, practical, real results from
the program. And so that’s emission stewardship.
When it comes to practical adaptation,
again we can’t take credit for all the ministry’s initiatives but I can kind of
identify a few which, you know, help strengthen our climate and our resiliency,
and whether that be, you know, lidar mapping for high-risk flood areas,
upgrading culverts, you know — 1‑to-50 year, 1‑to‑100 year
culverts upgrading.
It could include maintenance of our
shortline railways. It can include adding, you know, forest fire tankers to our
fleet. We have accomplished, and one of the ministries has included, many
FireSmart plans to the northern communities. So in combination of having all of
these systems, whether it’s the natural systems, whether it’s physical
infrastructure, whether it’s this community preparedness, they’re all
contributing to, you know, having a resilient economy and province going
forward.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. I’m
wondering if you could speak specifically to some of the risk analysis that
you’ve done in the North. We’ve been hearing reports from scientists already
last week or this week in projecting again another severe forest fire season
potential in northern Saskatchewan. So what work is the ministry doing to
prepare for that? And what kind of publicly sharing of information is being
provided by the ministry to help communities prepare?
Kevin France:
— Yeah, thanks. Thanks again for the question. Just to speak to, in terms of
the role that the Ministry of Environment plays from an analysis perspective in
the North, again we work very closely with (1) the Water Security Agency to
understand snowpack levels, understand drought conditions. We work very closely
with SPSA in thinking about both modelling and fire risk potential.
You know, again I think it’s, as we all
know, the snowpack level, that reference of the work that was done, was really
speaking to how quickly . . . the fact that those soils are quite
parched from multiple years of drought. And so melt will really drive
. . . You know, if it warms up really quickly and that water runs
off, not very advantageous for those soils versus, you know, a slower melt, you
know, more saturation.
We don’t know what spring rains will
bring in terms of moisture to the North and reducing fire risk. But that’s the
challenge in this space, is predicting what the weather might do, from
temperature and melt to precipitation patterns and so on. As well as wind. And
we all realize the scariness of those winds that we saw in the North and across
Saskatchewan last spring, and how those drove fire in those events.
And so the work that we’ll continue to
do from an analysis perspective is (1) the proactive nature, to your point, I
think to your question, is that’s the work again that we’re working with SPSA
on from a landscape level — to understand risk from an age, you know, stand
dynamic perspective of old-growth forests versus where can we create natural
firebreaks from a wildfire perspective, you know — especially in that
commercial fire zone where last year we saw the largest fire in the commercial
forest zone, which impacts our communities, impacts the jobs in the sectors
that depend upon that.
So the work that the forest service does
around forest management, the forest management health, we spend money
obviously on disease management. And that’s another thing that we’re really
focused in on. So as everyone is probably aware, mountain pine beetle we were
really concerned, you know, about a decade ago. Thankfully we didn’t see the
spread or the advancement of it into Saskatchewan. It’s definitely down to
lower levels and the risk is lower, but there’s other, whether it’s mistletoe
or spruce budworms, and the risk that can create from a forest health
perspective.
And so again that’s what we’re trying to
ensure from a forest management perspective, which really drives the logging or
the harvest plan decisions, not just from an economic perspective but also from
an environmental perspective of where do we want to see that disturbance in the
landscape.
These systems, as we all know, have
evolved with fire. They have serotinous cones, that being that cones open up
with fire, so they’re fire dependent. But if we don’t have active logging or
active disturbance in the landscape, we’re going to see more severe and
significant fires. So just to build off of that a little bit, Kevin, I’ll turn
it to you in terms of the forest service and the work that they do.
Kevin Murphy:
— Thank you. Kevin Murphy, assistant deputy minister for resource management
division. Forest service works in synergy with the agencies that the deputy
minister mentioned. So forest service works to look at updating our inventory,
looking at the actual structure of the forest, not just from a perspective of
harvestable timber but the overall structure of the forest.
[16:30]
We partner then with the Saskatchewan
Public Safety Agency folks to look at what that means from a fuel-load
perspective. SPSA tends to work closely with communities and to work with
communities on risk, looking at FireSmart programming, some of the work that’s
done in the immediate environs of the community to reduce risk of fire entering
the community.
The forest service tends to take the
role of working with industry beyond that level to look at cut planning at
harvest and what can be done adjacent to communities outside of those immediate
firebreaks to harvest older growth forests that is posing a fuel-loading risk
to ensure that we’re not having overly senescent stands further away from
communities that act as either fire starts or a passage for a fire to move
through.
Obviously a lot of work has to be done
this year to look at what the impacts of the fires are to that inventory and to
adjust that. But the ongoing work is to look at what existing fuel load is
there and what those stand types and things that pose a risk further out from
the communities. So community work tends to be SPSA and then forest services
tends to be further out from that.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you for
that. You spoke of SPSA kind of working closely or collaboratively with
communities. Does the ministry play any role in sharing, you know, fire risk or
risk management kind of to a broader audience across the province at all?
Kevin Murphy: — Hello. With regard
to communication with the public, broad communication on fire safety is SPSA’s
responsibility. They tend to do that work. Our engagement through the forest
service tends to be jointly with industry when we’re talking about the actual harvest
planning. The work that we do, both from a consultation and an engagement
perspective, to illustrate how a particular harvest opportunity is helping to
keep communities safe. But from a broad perspective that’s SPSA’s role.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. I’m
going to pass it over for a couple of questions to my colleague from
Cumberland, the shadow minister for forestry.
Jordan McPhail: — Thank you so much.
And thanks to the ministry officials for being here today, and Minister for
being here to answer a few questions.
From
the forestry sector, I was wondering, in the budget they talked about the
modernization of Crown dues. And I’m wondering if you can maybe highlight what
the government has taken in in Crown dues maybe for the last two years, you
know, respectively, as well as what your intention is for this year and next
year for the amount brought in in Crown dues from the forest sector.
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
I’ll start with we had to do a little digging to get those past numbers, but we
got them for you. And Energy and Resources is involved in this with the
allocation. But we do have the numbers for you, and I’ll turn it over to Kevin.
Okay.
Kevin Murphy:
— Thank you. Timber dues and fees structure is actually set by our colleagues
in Energy and Resources. They work with industry in conjunction with us.
Ministry of Environment, because we are actually responsible for the scaling of
the timber as it comes in, is also responsible for collecting those dues and
fees as they’re set. It’s a bit of a sliding scale. So there’s a trigger price.
There’s a base amount that’s set for each kind of timber, and then the sliding
scale works as revenue goes up. So for the period of ’23‑24, the value
was $28.1 million in royalties or dues, fees. And then for ’24‑25 it
was 23.1, so down 5 million from the previous year.
Jordan McPhail: — And I’m just going
to assume that that’s probably due to a shortened season due to the wildfires
in the North, that we see a 5 million reduction?
Kevin Murphy:
— I’m thinking changes in the overall pricing structures from things like post-COVID and now
moving towards some of the tariff structures, softwood lumber changes, things
like that that have happened with the United States. Our overall impact on
harvest from the wildfires has not significantly changed the overall amount of
harvest or goods and products that are being produced by the industry so
far. We may see some change from that during this coming year, but so far it
has not had the impact. It’s mainly been global economic forces that have made
those changes.
Jordan McPhail: — Understood.
Thanks. And then from a standpoint on the distribution or where the money goes
once it is collected, would you say that’s for Energy and Resources? Or do you
guys get some of that money back to reinvest into the forestry industry? Or
does those Crown dues basically go straight into the GRF [General Revenue
Fund]?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
GRF is where it goes.
Jordan McPhail: — Okay. And you
know, some of the challenges that we heard from some of the forestry leaders is
that, you know, when they’re paying into these dues and these fees, sometimes
they’d like to see some of that money reinvested back into maybe some of the
data. I’m interested kind of, maybe the data that is being gathered for the
SPSA on risk management is not the same data that’s being given to foresters.
Because they say, in a lot of cases when they go into a wood allotment or they
go into the timber supply area, that it’s not quite exactly the map that
they’re given in that area.
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Thank you for the question. And good question. So we’ve allocated
$8.57 million into this area, and we rely heavily on those forester
companies to do this very work. And I’m going to let Kevin take it over, though
— Kevin Murphy — and explain it more deeply to you.
Kevin Murphy:
— Thanks, Minister. Forest inventory is a long-standing practice and a complex
one. It’s one that has relied on a variety of tools throughout the decades,
ranging from aerial photography to now satellite imagery, lidar information, a
variety of different tools. And it also tends to be split in terms of
responsibility between government and industry. Most of the FMA [forest
management agreement] holders are actually responsible for their own inventory.
So if they’re actually speaking to you about not having appropriate stand types
and things like that as they’re conducting harvest in an FMA, it is their own
responsibility from that perspective.
Government however recognizes that we
play a role in this, not only in terms of smaller term supply-licence areas
where we are responsible for those inventories and providing them for the
forest harvest companies, but also in terms of providing better technology and
standards, and working with industry so that we can refine those models.
So the dollar figure that the minister
gave you is actually part and parcel of that. It’s not only to do the
inventory, but it’s actually to seek out new methodologies, new ways of doing
business, incorporating tools like AI [artificial intelligence], working with
forestry practitioners and academics to understand how we can better get
imagery. Low-cost, distance-related products that allow us to do a better job
of classifying those stands for everything from what is available for
harvestable timber, to what the understorey looks like from a biodiversity
perspective, to what the fuel loading looks like from a risk perspective.
So we’re using those dollars to refine
that inventory, passing it along to industry, and expecting them to adopt some
of those new methodologies to better refine and better understand what their
harvestability is.
Jordan McPhail: — Thanks. And just
really quickly — I just checked my notes here — there’s another question that I
had in relation to, I guess, like First Nations rights in the treaties across
northern Saskatchewan.
[16:45]
I know that in some areas, in some wood
allotment areas, forestry companies are then told to like do some consultation
and potential impact benefit agreements with Nations if it’s going into areas
that are like trapping-sensitive and whatnot. And by the sounds of it, there’s
a bit of a discrepancy between different wood allotment areas.
From my understanding, part of the P.A.
[Prince Albert] FMA will work with Nations like Lac La Ronge Indian Band, PBCN
[Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation], and even into the Cumberland House Cree Nation
areas.
And on the west side of the province,
like Meadow Lake, MLTC [Meadow Lake Tribal Council] Nations, they don’t have
the same rights over some of the forestry and unable to negotiate in the same
regard. I’m wondering if the minister can comment on the reasons why that might
be.
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
So I’m just going to quickly lead off your question. So the ministry’s job, or
what we ensure, is that duty-to-consult happens on the landscape, and companies
that are . . . They need to do the duty-to-consult. We provide
mitigation options, stuff like that, that’s happening.
So I’m going to turn it over to Kevin
again because he’s been here a lot longer and knows exactly what’s happening.
Yeah, some of what you’re saying I don’t think we’re quite all aware of, of
what’s happening. I’m not sure though. Kevin.
Kevin Murphy:
— Absolutely, Minister. So as the minister stated, the duty-to-consult is the
responsibility of the Crown. And so we work with industry through engagement to
ensure that that duty-to-consult has been fulfilled. Duty-to-consult’s
responsibility is to ensure that rights of harvest and Indigenous rights are
not being harmed. And if there is no way to accommodate that, we look at
mitigation. We look at whether we change the place or the timing, or some other
method of mitigating those impacts to Indigenous people’s rights for
utilization.
If there are economic agreements
occurring between industry and First Nations or Métis peoples, those are solely
the responsibility of the industry and the individual Indigenous peoples. The
Crown does not intercede in those kinds of economic contracts. We don’t
actually have a right to do so from a legal perspective. We can only look at
whether the duty-to-consult has been satisfied.
In terms of industry in the three major
FMAs, it’s a Sakâw construct that has a number of different corporations and
some Indigenously owned harvest companies in the Prince Albert FMA. The
majority of the work that’s done in the Hudson Bay FMA on the east side of the
province is Weyerhaeuser and Dunkley Lumber. And on the west side of the province,
there are a number of companies again there, but the majority holders of that
are the NorSask group under the Meadow Lake Tribal Council.
So those particular entities would be
the ones who are responsible for engaging in an economic arrangement with
Indigenous peoples in those FMAs.
Jordan McPhail: — Well thank you
very much. I will pass it back to my colleague from Regina Walsh Acres.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. I’m
going to switch gears here, wondering about the additional elk hunt season that
happened November 20th to 27th, 2025. Can you provide us with the number of
tags that were purchased, the number of tags that were successful in harvesting
an animal, the total harvest rate, and the estimated population impact?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
So tags sold, number of elk harvested. That was your question, right? Yes,
okay.
Jared Clarke: — And estimated
population impact.
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Yes. So tags sold were 11,546. And according to the hunter harvest survey —
which is only at 60 per cent, right — our best estimates are between 1,500 and
2,750 elk were harvested. As far as the question about impact to the elk
numbers, I’m just in the midst of briefings on hunting allocations and stuff
like setting the season, so I cannot give you that yet.
Jared Clarke: — So, Minister, do
you think that the additional elk season was successful in reducing the
concerns that producers had around elk damage to feed stocks? You know, the
nature in which the special elk season occurred, in which you could purchase a
tag in any zone and it wasn’t specifically targeting, like, areas where we know
are the issue areas in the province. So do you deem the elk hunt from November
20th to 27th, 2025 as a success? Did it achieve your management goals?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
So I would say to a degree, yes, this hunt had a positive impact on problem
areas. But I’m going to let my deputy minister elaborate more on that, okay?
Kevin France:
— Yeah, thanks again for the question. To your point, was it a success in terms
of those areas where we see higher concentrations of elk but also a higher
incidence of forage loss from feed, stacked forage, and so on? And I would say
that based on the numbers that we have, the concentration of hunters and where
they purchased the tag and the zones they tended to hunt in and the harvest of
those animals were concentrated in those areas such as zone 39, 37, and 48
which are predominantly those areas where we see the highest amount of SCIC
[Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation] claims due to wildlife degradation.
Jared Clarke: — Okay. So how many
complaints did the ministry receive? I know Sask Wildlife Federation has spoken
publicly about a number of complaints that were coming in around, you know,
ethical hunting and all of that. What kind of response from the public did the ministry
receive on hunting concerns?
Kevin France:
— Yeah, thanks for the question again. In terms of the number of complaints, we
don’t have a tally because the concerns came through multiple different
mediums. That being, we do have, you know, a call centre where we did receive
concerns, community services with their conservation officers.
But you know, I think to your question
about the general theme of concerns, there was a lot of different themes,
whether it was hunter behaviour . . . And that’s the one thing
obviously, through this decision, the one thing we can’t control. We can’t
control how hunters go out and behave on the landscape. Whether it’s, you know,
what we heard of incidents of fox shooting or those type of things. And so
social media drove a lot of that.
But there were legitimate concerns
around, you know, population levels or the amount of take. And as we keep
responding to those concerns, it’s taking a balanced approach from
understanding that there are . . . and SCIC data demonstrates and plays
this out in terms of the level of loss or financial payments being made and the
concentration of elk in those areas.
I think, you know, from a policy
perspective, it achieved that focus, that concentration in there. In terms of
the hunter behaviour, you know, one of the things that we are very mindful of
when it came to complaints or concerns was also from those hunters who
appreciated the opportunity to get a tag, but maybe they had some challenges
accessing land.
And so that’s another thing that we’ve
been focusing on working with SARM [Saskatchewan Association of Rural
Municipalities] and SWF [Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation] and our hunting
community is how do we support? Where we see some of those higher concentrations
of elk and problem areas, how can we best support or facilitate access to land
and those hunting opportunities so we actually can remove some of those animals
from that landscape and decrease some of that pressure at those locations?
[17:00]
Jared Clarke: — Last year there
was another additional elk hunt in January, February, specifically around
testing for bovine tuberculosis. I asked about this in estimates last year.
Wondering if there, since that time, have been any positive cases of bovine
tuberculosis in the elk herd in Saskatchewan.
Kevin France:
— I can confirm that the answer is no. There has been no confirmed cases.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. Hearing
from a number of folks around a sharp decline of white-tailed deer. Also seeing
significant, you know, increase in chronic wasting disease in mule deer
populations across the province. The minister already has indicated you’re in
discussions or briefings around allotments for those species. Are you expecting
a reduction in white-tail and in mule deer allotments in the coming hunting
season?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
So our biologists have noted both of those concerns as well, and they will be
taken under advisement as we do the allocation process.
Jared Clarke: — Okay. Thank you.
In your opening preamble, Minister, you talked about the $2.1 million of
new revenue coming from the angling habitat certificate. I’m wondering, is that
represented in this budget? Because under the fish and wildlife lands, I believe
you said that it would go into the Fish and Wildlife Development Fund. If you
look at the budget line for Fish and Wildlife Development Fund from last year
and this year, it is identical. Is the $2.1 million from angling habitat
certificates going in there, and is that represented in the numbers presented
in the budget currently?
Kevin Murphy:
— The Ministry of Finance works with us in creating the budget allocation for
the Fish and Wildlife Development Fund. And the way that they do that
appropriation is based on the previous year’s revenue with some estimation for
the forthcoming year. It’s always lagging a year behind for that reason, the
amount that’s actually allocated to the Fish and Wildlife Development Fund. So
I would expect to see those dollar figures in next year’s Fish and Wildlife
Development Fund allocation. It lags by a year.
Jared Clarke: — Okay. So you’re
going to collect those fees over this year, and then those won’t be deposited
into Fish and Wildlife next fiscal.
Kevin Murphy:
— Yes, correct.
Jared Clarke: — Okay, thank you. I
want to talk about the derelict building pilot project. We discussed that a
little bit last year as well. Wondering if you can give the committee an update
as to how many municipalities participated in the pilot project and how many permits
were issued to allow for a structure to be burned.
Jessica Kilbride:
— Good afternoon. Jessica Kilbride. I’m the assistant deputy minister of
corporate services and policy in the Ministry of Environment. And appreciate
your question. I’m also the Chair of the governance committee for that pilot
project, so happy to provide an update and get to your questions.
So of course, this project had come from
municipalities talking about their concerns with the derelict buildings. That’s
not surprising — the cost associated with demolition and disposal, concerns
around safety hazards and barriers. And so the pilot project was going to
attempt to deal with those concerns.
And of course it was announced at last
year’s SARM convention. And the purpose was to allow participating
municipalities to work with volunteer fire departments to safely dispose of
municipally owned derelict buildings through firefighter training exercises.
So just a little bit around the work
that took place after the announcement. We wanted to take a one-government
approach, and so we assembled a committee of ministries and agencies. So
Government Relations participated, the Ministry of Health, Labour Relations and
Workplace Safety, Justice, and the Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency.
And so what followed after the
announcement was just lots of consultation and conversation in June and July.
Stakeholder consultations were held with SARM and SUMA [Saskatchewan Urban
Municipalities Association] and the Saskatchewan Volunteer Fire Fighters
Association to share our early thoughts on what the pilot could look like and
get a sense of their feedback. And in August we held two educational webinars,
attendance of around 100 participants with two sessions there.
In October the application package was
shared with municipalities. And in November we met our target of launching the
pilot project and ready to receive applications. So just one note: we opted for
a one-window approach for the pilot, meaning the Ministry of Environment would
sort of be the one window taking the lead with communicating with
municipalities with respect to their interest in the project. And we were able
to maintain a pretty strong communications standard throughout.
So to date, through that one-window
approach, we received a number of inquiries, around 15 inquiries from
municipalities, a handful of applications. We’ve issued one permit but that’s
not ready for a burn yet, so nothing to report in terms of a burn from the
pilot project to date.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. So just
to be clear, no buildings have been burned under the pilot project to date?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Not yet, no.
Jared Clarke: — Okay. Thank you.
Last year . . . well I guess in the business plan for the Ministry of
Environment ’26‑27 in terms of protected and conserved lands in the
province, last year I asked about this. I think the last two years I’ve asked
about this and we’ve kind of stagnated at the 9.9 per cent protected lands in
the province. The goal was 12 per cent by 2025, and last year it was expected
to hit the 12 per cent. But I see in the business case that we continue to be
at a baseline of 9.8 per cent for 2025, and the 12 per cent target has moved to
2026‑27. I’m just wondering what happened. Why didn’t we reach that goal
last year?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Thank you for the question. So I’ll just make a correction. We are at 11.1 per
cent of area protected. And we are still committed to that 12 per cent target
though.
And to answer your question why, the
engagement and the consultation with communities. It takes a long time. Back
and forth and respect and all of that, right. So I guess that’s the reason why
we’re not quite there yet. But we are very close.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you,
Minister. Can you speak to where the increase of 1.1 per cent has come from
. . . or 1.2, I guess, 1.3? So it was 9.8 and now you’re saying 11.1.
So where is that protected land, where is it?
Kevin Murphy:
— Thanks for the question. So the additional area that was added comes from two
major initiatives which leveraged the OECM [other effective area-based
conservation measures] categorization, as it’s been called, which is the other
effective area-based conservation measures. I recognize there’s a lack of
correspondence between the acronym and the actual words. But that’s a category
that embraces ongoing utilization of the landscape with compatible uses.
So in this case we’ve done two things.
One, in partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture, we have added all of the
remaining grasslands in Agriculture’s holdings that significantly recognizes
the great stewardship that ranching communities and other agricultural stewards
use in keeping those lands in grasslands, recognizing the ongoing use of those
grasslands for mainly cattle production. And it won’t change the way that
that’s being done, but also recognizes that stewardship.
That will not have an impact on overall
utilization by either the forest industry or in fact the Indigenous users or
the recreational users from the perspective of low consumptive activity of
recreational users. And from the forest industry perspective, it’s mainly
because these areas have little to no merchantable timber. So they’re not of
interest to the industry, but they’re of incredibly high value for our woodland
caribou populations.
And those two programs are what resulted
in that significant addition to the representative areas network, a lot of it
being able to leverage that OECM tool that is becoming increasingly recognized
not only nationally but internationally as well. So it doesn’t require the
level of regulatory requirements and overall process that a traditional
protected area that’s in legislation requires. The minister simply does this
through recognition and an order.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. Can you
just speak to the ranchland and native prairie grassland piece, to their
. . . You said they were in Agriculture’s holding. So those are Crown
land or Crown land that’s being privately managed by a rancher, right?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Yes.
Jared Clarke: — Okay. Thank you.
The federal government just announced yesterday $3.8 billion to protecting
nature. What’s the Saskatchewan government’s plan on engagement in that
announcement? Are you supportive of protecting 30 per cent of Canada’s nature
by 2030, and will you be accessing any of those dollars?
[17:15]
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Thank you for the question. So I’ll share with you that we are committed to the
12 per cent. And as far as the announcement from Nature Canada or
. . .
Jared Clarke: — Government of
Canada.
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Government of Canada yesterday, we don’t know about all the funding streams
yet. We are looking into it. Some analysis has been done, very preliminary
though, and like, around the protected species and things like that. I’ll let
my ADM [assistant deputy minister] share a little more of their thoughts. This
just came out yesterday. Or DM [deputy minister]? Sorry.
Kevin France: — It’s okay. Thanks
for the question. Yeah, so obviously the announcement came out yesterday. There
wasn’t any engagement prior to the announcement, and so we’re learning in live
time as well in terms of the funding, the 3.8 billion that’s available.
You know, our quick analysis, a lot of
it around marine area, protected area, and conserved areas — obviously
unfortunately we won’t be able to participate in that — but 266 million
for the advancement of the two national protected areas, national parks, the
Indigenous Guardians program including a new Arctic Indigenous Guardians
program, and then the High Seas Treaty. So a lot of marine plus some obviously
inland opportunities.
I think to the minister’s point, that
commitment to 12 per cent is there. And I think one of the things that we’re
really focused in on in our ministry is, the 12 per cent protected areas is
important, but we can’t lose sight of the 88 per cent that we’re also managing.
And that’s why we have things like the habitat management plan to ensure that
we are considering the entire province as it relates to our ecological
integrity and the management of those systems.
And if you think about the North and you
think about the work that we’re doing on range plans for woodland caribou, you
know, if you look at that landscape and you travel to that area, it is intact.
In a lot of areas it’s pristine habitat and doesn’t require protection to
ensure that. It requires the management of both industry as well as the
government to make sure that what we do in those areas understands the
ecological aspects but also the biology of the woodland caribou and so on.
And so that’s the work that we’re really
focused in on, the 30 by ’30 commitment that the federal government has made.
You know, I think we’re, again, to focus on the 12 protected areas and the 88
per cent that really is important for all of us as well.
So Kevin, any other additional
. . .
Kevin Murphy: — Just to add with
respect to the woodland caribou program, I can confirm that as of yesterday,
Saskatchewan has extended the section 11 agreement in co-operation with the
federal government on woodland caribou. And in the past as a part of that
agreement implementation, federal dollars were provided to the province.
I have some level of expectation that,
given some of the focus of this new announcement from the Prime Minister being
on the protection of endangered species, that similar agreements will be taken
with the federal government. And we’ll work with our colleagues there to extend
and renew some of that. But the agreement does stand, so that’s why we have an
expectation that some of those relationships will continue for the protection
of endangered species.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. I think
we’ve got about 12 minutes, and I want to get a couple more questions in here.
The Ministry of Environment held
consultations on amending The Environmental Management and Protection Act over
the last year or so. Last I heard from some of the participants based on what
they had received from the ministry, there at that point was no planned
amendments to the Act. I’m wondering if you can give an update as to what is
the status of amending the Act currently.
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Thanks for the question. So the intent to EMPA [The Environmental Management
and Protection Act], the environmental protection Act, was just minor
housekeeping issues and some enhancements to compliance. So it wasn’t a big,
major rewrite to the Act. And the consultation was ensuring that we were
capturing everyone’s ideas and suggestions.
Jared Clarke: — And so my
understanding is that there is no desire to amend the Act at this stage. Is
that correct? I guess, can I clarify: maybe no plan to amend the Act at this
point?
Chair
D. Harrison: — I’ll ask MLA Clarke to keep to
estimates. And somehow if you can tie it to . . . that’d be great.
But if you cannot, please move along.
Jared Clarke: — I always love
these conversations because it’s the work that the ministry is doing, so
clearly salaries that we’re debating in the budget will be linked to any work
that’s going to be happening in terms of consultation. So is there any plan to
use salary in this fiscal year to work on amending the Act?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Not at this time.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. Is
there anything in the budget to protect the Cumberland delta, the largest
inland delta in North America? I’ve been up to the Cumberland delta a couple
times during my time as an MLA, and it is certainly dying. So we see invasive
species like the phragmites. We see a reduction in water flow. We see a
reduction in the silt that’s flowing into the delta. Is there any work being
done or anything in this budget to help support, mitigate some of the issues
the delta is facing currently?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
So thank you for the question on this. I do know that our COs [conservation
officer] have been up in the area multiple times engaging on this issue, but it
is WSA [Water Security Agency] that you need to ask those questions of.
Jared Clarke: — I appreciate that,
given that it’s water security and it is a water body. I do think the delta
itself is, like, a keystone ecosystem in Saskatchewan when it comes to a number
of species, wildlife species, that exist in the area. I think of migrating birds
that use the delta in huge numbers. And if they lose the delta, populations of
the bird species that are very heavily hunted in this province — such as snow
geese and the greater white-fronted geese, Canada geese, a number of duck
species — will be impacted if that ecosystem dries up. And in your business
plan, your goal no. 2 is protect and restore the natural environment. This
is a vastly important ecosystem in Saskatchewan. So I’m kind of reading that
there’s nothing in the budget here to protect the Cumberland delta.
Kevin France:
— You know, I think there’s obviously the work that we do with our biologists,
and you touched on . . . In terms of our migratory species, you know,
there’s outfitters in the area that we work with. And so, yes, there is dollars
in our budget to ensure that that work continues. It is led by Water Security
Agency. And to the minister’s point, I know the CEO [chief executive officer]
has been up there multiple times with, as well, the CEO of SaskPower to engage
with the community. It really is a watershed function perspective, and so they
are the lead.
But just like other agencies or
ministries, we work very collaboratively together on these issues. And so the
importance of the migratory fly route is obviously duly noted, and we’ve shared
that with the outfitting perspectives we shared. And we’ll continue to work
with Water Security Agency as well as the community to ensure that, whether
it’s control of invasive species or water flow and those type of things, are
well understood and supported. And I think that work again is led by Water
Security Agency, but supported through our budget with our biologists and the
knowledge that we gain from our species management perspective.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. I look
forward to asking those questions to Water Security Agency when we reconvene
after the Easter break. I would challenge the minister to think about how she
can work towards improving habitat around the delta. I only have a few minutes,
so I won’t get into a lesson of what’s going on up there. But I would encourage
you to have your officials brief you on the value of that region, of that
ecosystem, and maybe plan to put some dollars into how the Ministry of
Environment can help manage invasive species or ensure that that delta doesn’t
just dry up and become a river like the South Saskatchewan River. It would be
devastating to lose that out of Saskatchewan.
A couple more minutes here. The
Government of Canada has also allowed an emergency use for strychnine. I’ve had
a number of biologists reach out to me, gravely concerned about secondary
poisoning to ferruginous hawks, burrowing owls, other endangered species,
badgers. What is the Ministry of Environment going to do to ensure that
strychnine is properly administered to control Richardson’s ground squirrels
and we are not seeing — or we are reducing significantly — any impacts to
species at risk?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
So I’m going to lead off with very new knowledge on all of this, right — just
yesterday. So I think how it’s being viewed is as a pilot project from the
federal government on this, right. So there is a limited amount of RMs [rural
municipality] that are going to qualify for the use of strychnine. And
applicators, or the person applying strychnine, needs to be a trained person as
well. So I mean, some of that is going to mitigate a species at risk. It will.
And for further, I’m going to turn to my ADM on that, right.
Kevin Murphy:
— Thanks, Minister. So that exemption does require the ministries of
Agriculture and Environment in Saskatchewan to actually come up with a set of
mitigations for endangered species, which will become part of the protocols for
application and must be enforceable, and must be something that we can monitor
to ensure that those mitigations are both being successful and not abrogated.
[17:30]
We are working at present to actually
compile those mitigation expectations and submit them to the federal
government. They will become a part of that order. So in addition too, as the
minister stated, you’ll see that it only applies in certain areas which, having
looked at them, I believe, already is excluding significant portions of lands
occupied by endangered species. They do require the mitigations for
implementation in the areas where it is applicable.
So we have to come up with all of those
and are, you know, busy doing so with our colleagues in Agriculture right now
in order to be able to ensure that we don’t have the negative impacts that you
are addressing.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Thank you, Minister. Having reached our
agreed-upon time for consideration of these estimates, we will adjourn
consideration of the 2026‑27 estimates for the Ministry of Environment.
Minister Rowden, do you have any closing comments?
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
Yeah. I just want to thank my government colleagues for spending the early
evening with me and my opposition colleagues for spending this time with us and
your good questions. And thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the people that
operate Hansard. It’s much appreciated. And my fabulous team beside and
behind me, I cannot thank them enough. I think they do exemplary work for every
person in this province, and I’m proud to be on their team with them. It is an
honour and a pleasure. Thank you.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Thank you, Minister. MLA Clarke, do you
have closing comments?
Jared Clarke: — Real briefly,
thank you to the committee for this work, and to my colleagues and members
opposite for sitting in here. Thank you to all of the staff at the Ministry of
Environment for the work you do every day; much appreciated. Minister,
congratulations on surviving your first estimates here tonight, and I hope I
see you here next year so we can chat.
Hon. Darlene
Rowden: —
I do too. I like to smile, you guys. I’m only going to get better now too.
Watch out.
Jared Clarke: — Good. Awesome.
Thank you.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Thank you. This committee will now
recess until 6:30.
[The committee recessed from 17:32 until
18:30.]
Chair
D. Harrison: — Welcome back, committee members.
Bill No. 35 — The Mineral
Resources Amendment Act, 2025
Clause
1
Chair
D. Harrison: — The committee will now be considering
Bill No. 35, The Mineral Resources Amendment Act, 2025. We’ll begin
the consideration of clause 1, short title. Minister Beaudry is here with
ministry officials. I would ask that the officials please state their names
before speaking for the first time. And please don’t 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. Chris
Beaudry: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening to you, and good evening to committee
members. Accompanying me today are Blair Wagar, deputy minister of Energy and
Resources; Scott Giroux, assistant deputy minister; and Yanyan Han, executive
director of lands and mineral tenure branch. Also accompanying me is my chief
of staff, Dan Rozdilsky.
We’re pleased to be here to discuss The
Mineral Resources Amendment Act, 2025. The purpose of this Act is to
support the efficient development of Saskatchewan’s resources and to ensure
that resources which might otherwise remain stranded underground are developed
to maximize value for our economy and the people of Saskatchewan.
The bill will enable the establishment
of designated subsurface development areas to provide subsurface access for
resource projects. The amendments establish two pathways for designating such
an area. The first path applies in cases where there are no confirmed owners
after five years of searching. In such cases, an order designating a subsurface
development area will be issued.
The second applies in more complicated
situations, including where there are confirmed owners but a voluntary
agreement may not be reached. In such cases, approval of the Lieutenant
Governor in Council is required. The main considerations for recommending
approval of an application for a designated subsurface development area will be
the applicant’s meaningful efforts to reach an agreement with any known private
owners and demonstrating that a lack of access would lead to significant mining
inefficiencies, wasteful operations, or reduced public and private revenues.
In both situations the bill requires
equitable compensation for affected mineral owners, ensuring the proceeds from
privately owned minerals are set aside and may be claimed at any time. The bill
ensures that procedural fairness is maintained throughout the process,
providing all parties with a meaningful opportunity to present their position
to the minister and have their views considered before a decision is made.
Finally, Mr. Chair, there are various
housekeeping changes that will serve to modernize and clarify sections of the
Act. At this time we would be pleased to answer any questions from the
committee.
Chair
D. Harrison:
— Thank you, Minister. I will now open the floor for questions. I recognize MLA
Housser.
Sally Housser: — Great. Thank you
so much, Mr. Chair. This is great. As we’ve debated in the House as we’ve gone
through various different readings on this bill, we are largely, or in
principle, in favour of this. I just have a couple of questions today about how
we arrived here essentially.
So can you let me know — and I’ve talked
to a lot of different stakeholders on this, particularly in potash and the SMA
[Saskatchewan Mining Association] — but how this was first identified as a
problem to be solved by these amendments?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
Thank you. Yeah, this was an industry-driven issue that we heard for years from
our partners in potash, that they didn’t want to leave any inefficient areas in
mining and that they also wanted to make sure and try their very best to reach
out to all individuals, all parties that were available, to make sure that they
can find a fair way to get in contact with individuals who hold mineral rights.
Sally Housser: — Yeah, no, I
understand that’s the crux of the bill. But I guess what I was more getting at
is that, do you have any information or data around how often this was
happening, in terms of industry finding parcels of land where they couldn’t
locate the owner? Basically I’m trying to get at is, you know, the problem
we’re solving, was it really big and majorly affecting many people? Or was this
kind of a one-off thing that, you know, happened a couple of times that you
said, well this would be an easy fix here?
Blair Wagar:
— Blair Wagar, deputy minister, Energy and Resources. So in terms of when you
think of the whole province, this isn’t something that’s an issue right across
the province. It’s narrowed down to where you have freehold landholders that
either can’t be located or, in some cases, there’s some issue with the company
being able to negotiate agreements. So it’s not an issue that’s cutting across
the whole province per se. It’s specific areas.
But when you look at the areas that are
being impacted . . . And there was some numbers that were shared with
us where, you know, Mosaic and Nutrien both have their own examples where the
amount of revenue that was being left behind, by not being able to sort through
this and identify and move forward, was getting close to a billion dollars just
in these particular areas. So again not so much of it’s cutting across the
whole province, but where it does impact the province the impact is really large
from a dollar-figure perspective.
Sally Housser: — Thank you so much.
And in addition to, say, I imagine the mining association and, as we know,
Nutrien and Mosaic, were there any additional consultations done with First
Nations around potential impacts of this bill, or landowners? You know, I’m
understanding that if you could find a landowner to talk to, then that wouldn’t
be an issue in terms of trying to get. But in general, people who own land who
have dealt with mineral exploration before, how they saw this as being
impactful.
Scott Giroux:
— Hi. It’s Scott Giroux, assistant deputy minister with Energy and Resources.
So the ministry engaged in two phases of consultations. So the first phase
focused on 10 potash and lithium companies and the Saskatchewan Mining
Association. So really these stakeholders helped us refine the proposed
legislation and clarify some of its key provisions.
For the second phase of consultations,
we engaged a broader group of stakeholders in which we posted a public notice
on the government’s website. We also reached out to oil and gas, mining, and
private mineral ownership associations. And then we also contacted 37 of the
largest private mineral owners in Saskatchewan, who collectively account for
about 50 per cent of all private mineral rights in the province.
So in total, ER [Energy and Resources]
received 11 responses — two from associations, eight from industry
stakeholders, and one from a private mineral owner.
Sally Housser: — Thank you very
much. And I guess, you know, we’ve talked about this largely both in the House
and here today, largely in the context of potash. That’s the first time I’ve
heard kind of the consultation with lithium on this.
I guess I’m curious, kind of
applications for this, for exploration and in other areas. I’m thinking
particularly around critical and rare earth minerals. You know, this sounds
like, as you say, this is more narrow. But I’m thinking as we start to explore,
more particularly in the North, if this has any impact or effect on that
exploration. And are we dealing with similar kind of stranded assets because we
can’t find somebody that owns land, or is that all Crown land? Or you know,
does it have any applicability going forward? Or is this mainly kind of in the
South we’re dealing with this?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
So the short answer is we own all the minerals in the North still. In the South
is where the freehold mineral rights holders are.
Sally Housser: — Yeah, that’s what
I thought. I was just interested just as we go forward with all the development
here in the province.
Now is there any, you know, exceptions
or stipulations on the length of time you have to search for an owner? And you
know, I understand kind of perhaps a length of time, but around the efforts
that must be made. Like, the specific steps that you have to make to find
somebody before declaring that we can go forward without that, without knowing
who that owner is.
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
It’s five years.
Sally Housser: — Five years. Yeah.
But what are the, like, what constitutes looking for somebody for five years?
Do you post a notice on the website? What do you do to look for the person in
those five years, is what I’m getting at.
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
The list is actually quite extensive. So just some highlights is that there are
social media searches, detailed notes, and steps taken. There’s information
collected by private investigators and records of interviews and phone
conversations. And all this will be made public when the legislation moves
through.
Sally Housser: — Okay. And you
know, you say there’s a lot of things. Is there any stipulation to, you can use
a combo of them or like if every single step must be made? You have to do
social media; you have to have a private investigator? Like if you have a very
long list, is every one of those avenues followed? Or is it a combination of
the more . . . is there any real stipulation on that?
[18:45]
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: — It’s
really a case-by-case basis. And the ministry has a lot of experience with
handling this so that we feel, once we’ve reached a satisfactory threshold,
that that is sufficient for the ministry.
Sally Housser: — Okay, so there’s . . . on vibes
then if it’s gotten done. No, I understand that, and I appreciate the work that
the ministry does on that one.
In the cases where you can find the person and
for whatever reason there is a problem with permission to then explore and
develop that land, and you need the Lieutenant Governor’s approval, I’m
interested in that process. If that’s just somebody who refuses to sell or
doesn’t want us to protect it or doesn’t . . . What are the
extenuating circumstances that would require us to go to the LG [Lieutenant
Governor] in that respect?
Blair Wagar:
— So this is one where we would see this not happening very often for the most
part. The majority of the time, and what’s driving this, is much more on the we
can’t locate. Or the complexity of the ownership structure, because the title
mineral rights have been passed down and you get many, many people on the
title, and you have to get all of them lined up to be able to actually move
forward with it. So it’s much more that being the norm than the situation where
someone isn’t interested in moving forward with selling their mineral rights to
be produced.
And so one of the things that I think is
an important premise, is mineral rights are issued for the purposes of having
them produced and creating revenue and all that. But you do run into the
situation where someone isn’t prepared to do it, and there’s lots of different
reasons potentially why that is the case. Sometimes it’s a health issue or a
capacity issue, and that holds things up that the mining industry can’t get an
agreement with that particular landowner. Sometimes people don’t understand
that they have the mineral rights, and there’s a bunch of questions around that
and they get concerned about what that means.
And so that again creates some blocks in
time to the point where, in some cases, some people are worried if that gets
produced, what’s going to happen to the surface? So there’s a variety of
different reasons why that might occur. Again these we would see on an extreme
kind of exception that you would have someone that isn’t wanting to produce
their mineral rights. Most landowners, the freeholders that have mineral
rights, are pretty excited about the fact that either a mining company, a
potash company, potentially lithium in the future, is coming along and looking
to produce their minerals.
Sally Housser: — Yeah. Absolutely.
But, you know, and I know it’s rare, and again I’m very, you know, supportive
of this legislation. But if the provision is in there, I’d like to know why and
what would be not so much the reasons why somebody would refuse. I agree that
if I, you know, held title to mineral rights, I’d be super excited if somebody
came and wanted to develop it.
But
I guess, what would constitute kind of extenuating circumstances that you would
have to . . . If somebody did refuse to develop it, at what point
would you or industry give up on that particular parcel of land or go to the
government and say, we’ve got this extenuating circumstance and we’ve got to
talk to the Lieutenant Governor about it now and, you know, deal with it
essentially?
Blair Wagar: — So yeah, it’s
similar again where it’s case by case. And we’re trying to work through, you
know, the scenario where if you have a mine — and we’ve had this — where you
have a mining situation; you have a mixture of Crown and freeholders.
Everyone’s lined up to be able to sell, and there’s a significant public
interest.
You know, when you think of BHP’s mine
with a $14 billion investment, it’s multi-generation kind of in terms of
benefits, jobs, revenue to the province. So significant public interest. We’d
want to make sure that that one particular piece, one freeholder that would be
left in that, would be not the situation that would hold up that greater
development.
So again, not an easy weighing of
interests for sure, but that’s really what this is designed to do is to make
sure that we’re able to bring some clarity and bring some certainty to some of
these developments that involve multiple different players in the mix.
Sally Housser: — Yeah, for sure. I
was just picturing like, you know, freeways that are built around the one
little house that refused to sell out their land, right. That makes sense.
But so there’s no specific threshold of,
like, it means X number of dollars in provincial revenue in order for this to
be triggered? Case-by-case basis then. Okay.
Blair Wagar: — Yes. Yeah, no. It’s case by case. There
isn’t that prescriptive of thresholds. Again as we put this in
place and utilize it, we’re going to learn as we go along. And if we need to
make adjustments to bring some of that in to bring more clarity for it, we
will. But yeah, at this point there isn’t those kind of prescriptive criteria
that we’re putting in place.
Sally Housser: — All right. And in
the cases where you can’t find the individual, can you explain to me a little
bit more on the process or mechanics of basically holding any revenue that
would generate it in trust? Is that done through the Ministry of Finance? I’m
just interested in the straight logistics of that.
Scott Giroux:
— Hi, Scott Giroux again. So the mechanism, we export a number of different
options to track the funds. The mechanism we’re going to use is actually the
General Revenue Fund. So when money gets paid into the General Revenue Fund, we
will track it by parcel. So if the owner eventually does surface and proves
that they are the rightful mineral rights holder, we’ll simply pay that out of
the General Revenue Fund. So that will be the mechanism that we use to receive
and pay out the money.
Sally Housser: —
Okay, excellent. And this is just my own kind of ignorance here. How do you
calculate that so down to the specifics of that one parcel of land in the
massive general revenue? I’m just again interested in kind of how the math
works on that.
Scott Giroux: — Hi. So the
provincial Crown royalty rates will be applied to the production within a given
land area, within a given land base, and then that revenue would be apportioned
out to the individual rights holders in that area.
Sally Housser: — Okay, great.
Thanks. I guess one more in under the wire here for this portion. In all the
consultations you get, as I know talking to them myself, industry is very much
supportive of this. You also spoke with 37 of the largest mineral rights
holders. Do you have any concerns or possible kind of unintended consequences
that were brought up by any of the stakeholders during the consultation
process? Any that you hadn’t thought of essentially?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
Stakeholders supported the approach and believe that the proposed legislation
would enhance Saskatchewan’s mineral resource sector and encourage more
investment.
Sally Housser: — So in all the
consultations, there was not one kind of “you might want to do this” or “think
about this”? Or everything was just thumbs up and “go for it”?
[19:00]
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
There was suggestions for slight improvements, but there was never any concerns
raised.
Sally Housser: — Thanks very much.
That’s all for me.
Chair D. Harrison: — Thank you. Are
there any further questions or comments from any committee members? Seeing
none, we will proceed to vote on the clauses.
Clause 1, short title, is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair D. Harrison: — Carried.
[Clause 1 agreed to.]
[Clauses 2 to 17 inclusive agreed to.]
Chair D. Harrison: — His Majesty, by and
with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts
as follows: The Mineral
Resources Amendment Act, 2025.
I would ask a
member to move that we report Bill No. 35, The Mineral Resources
Amendment Act, 2025, without amendment.
Kevin Weedmark: — I so move.
Chair
D. Harrison: — MLA Weedmark moves. Is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Carried. Minister Beaudry, would you
like to make any closing comments?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
Yeah. I’d like to offer some thanks to my officials for their support. I’d like
to thank the committee. I’d like to thank the critic for her questions. And I’d
like to thank Hansard for the tireless work that they do.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Thank you, Minister. MLA Housser, would
you like to make any closing comments?
Sally Housser: — Thank you very
much. You know, I think that this is a common-sense bill that is really going
to help maximize our world-class mining industry here in the province. Thank
you, Minister, and to all of your officials and everybody who’s worked on the
development of this amendment Act. Thanks to the committee and of course to Hansard
and the production team. Thank you very much.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Thank you. Minister, do you need some
time to change out your officials before we enter into estimates?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: — Yes.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Yes? We’ll take a short recess.
[The
committee recessed for a period of time.]
General Revenue Fund
Energy and Resources
Vote 23
Subvote (ER01)
Chair
D. Harrison: — We will now turn to consideration of
the estimates and supplementary estimates no. 2 for vote 23, Energy and
Resources, central management and services, subvote (ER01).
Minister Beaudry is here with his
officials. For any new officials joining us, I would ask that you please state
your names before speaking for the first time. And please don’t touch the
microphones. The Hansard operator will turn on the microphone when you
are speaking to the committee.
Minister, please introduce your
officials and make your opening remarks.
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It’s a pleasure to be here to discuss the
2026-2027 Ministry of Energy and Resources budget. Before I begin my opening
remarks, allow me to introduce the Ministry of Energy and Resources officials
who are with me today.
Deputy Minister Blair Wagar; my chief of
staff, Dan Rozdilsky; Assistant Deputy Minister Cory Hughes; Assistant Deputy
Minister Scott Giroux; Assistant Deputy Minister Rebecca Gibbons. And there are
other officials supporting us who will introduce themselves if they address the
committee.
The Ministry of Energy and Resources’s
2026-2027 budget of 55.8 million makes strategic investments in mining,
oil and gas, and forestry, strengthening our world-class energy and resource
sectors so they can continue to perform an important role in protecting jobs,
the economy, and our province.
I’m pleased to say this budget enhances
our already strong reputation as one of the best places in the world for
resource development. Recently our province moved up to third in the world for
mining investment attractiveness according to the Fraser Institute.
For 2025 we led the country with an
estimated $6.7 billion in mining investment. This year we expect to
attract another $6.5 billion. This investment is crucial to the continued
growth of our mining sector, which is leading to more employment and economic
opportunities for the citizens of our province.
This year’s budget includes the most
substantial investment yet in the Government of Saskatchewan’s 10‑year
$10 million public geoscience initiative. This program improves access to
new, high-quality geoscience information that companies can rely on to make
decisions about exploration and investment.
This year’s investment of
$2.3 million will focus on geophysical surveys, the digitization of
subsurface data, regional glacial till sampling, critical mineral focus mapping
programs, and a lithium study. Improving the quality and availability of this
data will encourage more mineral exploration and promote new critical mineral
discoveries, both of which will contribute to the continued growth and
diversification of our mining sector.
The budget also provides
$3.5 million for the continuation of the targeted mineral exploration
incentive, or TMEI, another key program for expanding our mining sector and
driving mineral exploration activity. First introduced in 2018 and later expanded
to support the critical minerals strategy, the TMEI supports a wide range of
activities related to hard rock mineral exploration throughout the province.
This program is a key reason why exploration investment in Saskatchewan is
strong.
Exploration expenditures in our province
are projected to have exceeded $400 million in 2025 and accounted for over
16 per cent of the Canadian exploration expenditure total. This surpasses our
provincial critical minerals strategy goal of reaching 15 per cent of national
exploration spending by 2030.
Interest in the uranium sector is the
main driver of this growth in exploration spending. And on that note, I’d like
to take a moment to outline the incredible advancements in our uranium industry
over the last couple of months. Both Denison’s Wheeler River project and
NexGen’s Rook I project have now been federally approved for construction. To
understand the magnitude of these approvals, consider the last time a uranium
mine was approved for construction in Saskatchewan. It was over 20 years ago.
Additionally, Paladin’s Patterson Lake
South project continues to advance toward construction later this decade after
receiving provincial approval under The Environmental Assessment Act.
A number of other early-stage projects
are also progressing in the Athabasca Basin, which holds the world’s largest
high-grade uranium deposits. Our government is excited to see these projects
advance, and we are committed to supporting these companies and projects into
the future.
The existing uranium industry also
continues to set new records, with sales in 2025 increasing by almost 25 per
cent to $3.2 billion. Production at the McClean Lake mine also resumed
last year. And Cameco has signed a new $2.6 billion long-term contract
with India.
Energy creation is the new superpower.
With our world-class resources, stable and reliable regulatory framework, and
strong incentives, Saskatchewan is well positioned for the future.
A few more words on the performance of
our mining industry before I return to the budget and move on to our oil and
gas sector. Our potash sector continues to be a pillar of our province and a
key component of our economic engine. Thanks to rising prices and production
continuing at record levels set in 2024, our potash industry partners increased
sales by 18 per cent last year to a tune of $9.3 billion.
BHP and K+S also continue to invest in
their Jansen and Bethune mine projects, setting up the province for its next
phase of potash production growth. Over the last two decades the Saskatchewan
potash industry has invested over 35 billion in constructing new mines and
expanding existing operations. Our province’s potash producers continue to
create good jobs, strong economic opportunities, and support community programs
and services.
Later this year we’ll also see the
McIlvenna Bay copper and zinc mine move into commercial production. With this
project and the commercial lithium facility being constructed by Prairie
Lithium, we expect production of six critical minerals by the end of 2026 —
copper, zinc, uranium, potash, lithium, and helium. Producing of these six
critical minerals is a goal for 2030 in the provincial critical mineral
strategy and we are on track to achieve this well ahead of target.
[19:15]
When we talk about Saskatchewan’s
significant role in the global energy landscape, we cannot forget about our oil
sector. It continues to be a component of our economic engine, employing tens
of thousands of people across the province and contributing significant
revenues to government through royalties and taxes. The oil sector has also
laid the foundations for some of the new, emerging opportunities in the
province, including in helium and lithium production. In 2025 the sector
invested $3.6 billion in exploration and development in Saskatchewan,
producing oil and gas valued at $11.5 billion.
The ongoing conflict in Iran highlights
the value of oil to global economies and the importance of Saskatchewan’s
position as a stable and reliable supplier of sustainable and ethically
produced oil. We must continue to grow production and expand access to global
markets.
In this year’s budget we’re reinforcing
our commitment to oil and gas production with the extension of the
high-water-cut oil well program, which supports continued operation of wells
producing high volumes of water and extends the life of existing oil-producing
assets.
We are extending the high-water-cut oil
well program because it continues to deliver strong results. Since it was
redesigned in 2021, more than 20 companies have participated, over 420 wells
have been approved, and the program has supported more than $27 million in
capital investments. These wells are generating meaningful production and
approximately $1.5 million per month in royalties and taxes.
The extension of this program will
encourage reinvestment in water handling infrastructure and existing
infrastructure, support economic activity and job creation in rural and
resource-dependent communities, reduce inactive wells, and improve water handling
efficiency and disposal practices.
Our government is committed to
supporting the growth of the oil sector. The high-water-cut program is one
example. Another is a low productivity and reactivation oil well program, which
was introduced in last year’s budget. Since April 2025, 16 oil wells have
utilized the program, with an additional 30 new laterals drilled on existing
wells. This led to an additional 600 barrels of oil per day in January 2026. We
expect this program will continue to grow in the years ahead.
These
are just a couple of the programs we have in place to encourage investment,
extend the life of existing oil wells, and increase oil production to reach
Saskatchewan’s Growth Plan goal of 600,000 barrels per day by 2030. All
upstream and downstream aspects of energy generation need to be top priority,
and the investments being made in this budget clearly demonstrate they’re at
the top of our government’s list.
With budget 2026‑2027, the
modernization of Saskatchewan’s timber royalty system will come into effect.
These changes will align the timber royalty system with other resource royalty
structures in Saskatchewan and ensure the industry remains competitive with
other jurisdictions. The modernized timber royalty system will support the
forestry industry in meeting Saskatchewan’s Growth Plan goal to double the size
of the forestry sector by 2030.
Forestry is a cornerstone of northern
Saskatchewan. It is the second-largest industry in the region, creating good
jobs for thousands of people. Six large forest product mills produce lumber,
oriented strand board, and pulp. In addition more than 140 smaller businesses
produce a variety of primary and secondary products.
Indigenous workers make up roughly 29
per cent of forestry employment, the highest percentage in any province.
Additionally 32 per cent of the timber is allocated to Indigenous businesses,
the highest in Canada. This is an industry that promotes inclusive growth and
contributes to strengthening of the economy, and I’m happy to see this improved
royalty system in place to help make our forestry industry more competitive.
Finally this budget demonstrates our
focus on regulatory excellence. This year we will continue to deliver
initiatives designed to maintain strong public confidence in industry
regulation, enhance client service, and deliver programs with greater efficiency
and impact.
For example, in 2026‑2027 we are
investing $750,000 in the risk-adjusted liability rating initiative. This will
improve the process of evaluating the financial health of our oil and gas
companies to ensure industry is accountable for risks such as site reclamation.
This initiative will enhance the ministry’s ability to evaluate a company’s
risk profile and, where necessary, collect security deposits from companies
that are deemed high risk. This will help to maintain a reliable and
competitive regulatory environment while also protecting Saskatchewan citizens
from risk.
I’ll conclude my remarks by saying this
budget strengthens Saskatchewan’s position as one of the top jurisdictions in
the world for resource development. It makes strategic investments in our
energy, mining, and forestry sectors so those industries can continue to create
good jobs and power economic growth in our province, and it demonstrates our
government’s commitment to supporting our world-class resources and protecting
Saskatchewan.
Thank you. And I’d be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Thank you, Minister. I will now open
the floor for questions. I recognize MLA Housser.
Sally Housser: — Thank you very
much, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Minister, for your opening remarks. Thank you
to all the officials that are here today. I know that not only preparing a
budget in general, but then going into estimates takes a lot of time and energy
and work, and really appreciate you being here this evening.
Just starting off with some questions
around, well, funding for operational support under energy and resource
development, and the central services under central management and services,
(ER01). Both saw decreases in funding.
Can you confirm just for me whether it’s
central management and services, (ER01), or resource development, (ER06), which
handles approvals of resource projects? Which one does it fall under?
Blair Wagar:
— Blair Wagar, deputy minister. So the two subvotes that you’re referring to,
central services and then the resource development . . . So first of
all, just some clarity is that our ministry doesn’t approve the resource
projects. We work with the companies. Those projects often are permitted
through the Ministry of Environment. We certainly work on the front end in
terms of getting them access to the land that they’re going after, subsurface.
So just clarity there.
And I think your question also then was,
you know, the reductions in those two subvotes. For both cases it’s kind of the
averaging of some reductions around salary benefits generally speaking in those
two subvotes. And then in the central services one specifically there was some
IT [information technology] projects that were finished up, as well as some
reallocation and centralization of some of our IT expenses to SaskBuilds and
Procurement. So that’s kind of the reflection of the reductions in those two subvotes.
Sally Housser: — Okay, thanks very
much. You know, obviously top of mind for the ministry and everybody involved
is the ongoing conflict and war in the Middle East. And seeing kind of the
significant disruption to global trade obviously has really highlighted our
need to grow our critical minerals industry.
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
The majority of our critical minerals are actually already being processed in
Saskatchewan. And as for the future, we’ve already introduced incentives such
as the CMPI [critical minerals processing investment] incentive that will
attract more manufacturing in the province. I would also like to pass it off to
assistant deputy minister Cory Hughes.
Cory Hughes: — Cory Hughes. So yeah, all of our potash is
fully processed in Saskatchewan. Uranium is mined and milled in Saskatchewan
and further processed in Ontario. And as the minister said, we have introduced
incentives to ensure that other critical minerals that we currently don’t
produce, we are attracting the processing here.
And you’ll
also see the SRC [Saskatchewan Research Council] rare earth facility, which is
attracting not only processing — eventually, we’re hoping, from Saskatchewan
ore — but bringing ore into the province for additional processing. Also
Saltworks, which is looking at processing lithium. So you know, we’re trying to
encourage as much as possible, but currently virtually all our critical
minerals are processed in Saskatchewan.
Sally Housser: — And just as you
mentioned SRC . . . And I’m sure we can probably talk about it at
that different committee as well. But you know, inasmuch as it relates to your
projections and your estimates, now that there was an additional
$650 million provided to the SRC, is there any update on timing of when we
see that fully come online and get to start reaping those benefits?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
SRC is an exciting project in our province, especially with the work they’re
currently doing. I mean, I’d love to go on and on about what I’ve seen there,
but I really feel that that’s a question that’s better suited for the Ministry
of Trade.
Sally Housser: — So just going back
then to the critical minerals processing investment incentive, how many
projects are currently approved for that?
[19:30]
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
There are three approved projects, two conditional, for almost a billion
dollars worth of investment.
Sally Housser: — And the two
conditional projects, can you talk about them? Is there a reason that they’re
not fully approved? Or what’s the process for . . .
Cory Hughes: — Under the program
you receive conditional approval up front for a project that meets the criteria
that we’re looking for under that program. That allows the companies to then
use that future capital to raise additional capital. So it’s been very well received
by companies that receive a conditional approval. And then once the facility is
built and operational, then you get a contract under the program and then the
supporting royalty credits.
Sally Housser: — On page 47 of the
budget, I can see that the mineral exploration tax credit, the expenditure is
to stay stable compared to last year and slightly lower than 2024. Just with
everything that we’ve been talking about today in terms of people being excited
and all that we have to offer here in the province, I’m just surprised that
it’s staying flat in that respect. I would assume that if we are going out
there and trying to attract much more investment and people involved, that we
would see that tax credit or that incentive and expenditure increase.
So can the minister just break down the
expected exploration activity? And given inflation, if we’re seeing that
expected expenditure stay flat, does that mean that we’re actually seeing less
exploration?
Cory Hughes:
— Exploration in the province is growing. Now the mineral exploration tax
credit is really just subject to what companies are issuing flow-through shares
to raise that capital. So in this case, it would just be less in that year.
Less companies used flow-through shares, so it was a lower cost to that
program. But that is not reflective of necessary exploration levels, which are
continuing to increase over the last few years.
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
And we’re also heading to Ottawa shortly and trying to expand the eligibility
of helium into some of the tax treatment and flow-through shares.
Sally Housser: — That’s great to
hear. I met with the helium association in Calgary not too long ago, and that’s
something that they’ve been pushing for some time. So yeah, I’m very supportive
of that. And it doesn’t seem to make sense that it’s not, so hopefully Ottawa
makes the right decision in that respect.
Just moving a little bit — and I’ll
probably come back to some mining questions in a bit — but you know, the
ambitious target of 600,000 barrels of oil a day by 2030. Just according to
CAPP [Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers] data, we’ve actually seen
less drilling in terms of wells and metres drilled since 2019, which is not a
great trend.
Can
you provide, you know, where in the budget, in your estimates here and the
ministry, where that’s really helping to increase getting to that? I think the
goal this year is 450,000 barrels, 460,000 barrels, but that still is a big
jump up by 2030 in just four short years. So just wondering if you can point me
to kind of in the budget, rather than just saying this is what we want to get
to, how we’re going to get to it.
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
Yeah, in my opening remarks I had mentioned the high water-cut program, the
multi-lat program. But the Government of Saskatchewan is continuing to work
with industry to advance progress toward the 2030 target. And recently
announced programs include the multi-lateral oil well program, the low
productivity and reactivation oil well program. And those will play a large
role in growing production.
We have a very attractive oil and gas
investment climate in Saskatchewan, and we’ll continue to work collaboratively
with industry to identify other production and growth opportunities. We also
continue to engage with the federal government to ensure that climate policy
reflects the unique nature of Saskatchewan’s oil and gas industry, which
focuses on real cost-effective emissions, reduction opportunities, and promotes
growth of sustainably produced oil.
Another very important aspect is the
enhanced oil recovery tax credits. They offer an extremely bright future for
Saskatchewan oil. And I mean we can talk about multiple, multiple other areas.
Like even in the Southeast, our rock is not the rock that we see across other
parts of the country. And a big and an important aspect is understanding
Saskatchewan’s unique oil fields and our unique oil play.
Sally Housser: —
Thank you, Minister. Can you just provide a little more of a summary of the
uptake and impact of the first year of the low productivity and reactivation
oil well program?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
Just to preface my answer, these programs are generally driven by price of oil.
We’ve gone from one end to another, but being at the lower end we’ve seen
almost 250 wells and almost 20,000 barrels per day. And it’s very early in the
development of these programs, and there’s become more and more interest in
both of these programs. So with the increase in interest and the increase in
the current price of oil, I would expect the barrels per day to increase.
Sally Housser: — All right. So just
no specific numbers on kind of uptake?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
Almost 250 wells and almost 20,000 barrels per day.
Sally Housser: — Sorry, I meant
more financial impact.
[19:45]
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
We’re collecting about a million dollars of revenue from both programs per
month.
Sally Housser: — Great. Thank you,
Minister. This year’s allocation for the Surface Rights Board of Arbitration is
being reduced by 6.6 per cent. Is there currently a backlog of cases? I’m just
wondering if this reduction might impact landowners who are waiting to see their
cases being heard. So is there a backlog? If so, how long is it? And is this
going to impact it and make it longer essentially?
Hon. Chris Beaudry: — The operating cost
is offset by meetings being held virtually now instead of in person. And the
deputy minister will answer the second half of the question.
Blair Wagar:
— Yeah, so there has been more recently some backlog that’s been generated. And
a big part of the reason for that was there was a certain operating model that
the board had used. Then there was a court decision that changed when certain
landowners could have some of their leases reviewed that caused, instead of
these leases coming in kind of in a smooth fashion, that court decision — it’s
a bit of a technical decision for sure and a technical impact — but it changed
the window of time.
So instead of them coming in smooth
across kind of multiple years, now they come in in big lumps, and that’s what
created the backlog. So we are looking at different options. We don’t have that
solution yet, but we’re looking at different options as to how we make
adjustments to either legislation potentially or different options we have
around operating. But that’s what’s created the backlog.
Sally Housser: — And just what’s
the length of the . . . How many people are waiting to be seen now,
waiting to be heard?
Blair Wagar:
— So we don’t have with us today the numbers of the backlog. But just to give
you a sense of the quantum of change, we would average, you know, some of the
hearings would be around, you know, in around that 4, 5, 600 area would be
pretty consistent. And now that’s shot up because it’s coming in a lump, like
around 3,200. So we have to figure out how to smooth that out. But in terms of
converting that into number of people waiting to get in, we don’t have that
information here today.
Sally Housser: — Thank you very
much. If you could get that information and provide it to the committee, it’d
be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
I guess another more kind of technical
thing here, on page 42 of the budget it highlights that the Saskatchewan
chemical fertilizer incentive is being extended for five years instead of
sunsetting this year. I think that’s great news and will continue to strengthen
the industry. But can you give us an estimate or thoughts on the economic
impact of this? And frankly has there been any consideration given to making
the incentive permanent to just provide a little more certainty for industry?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
That incentive is under Trade and Export.
Sally Housser: — I will kick that
over to Kim then. Okay, on page 66 of the budget, it highlights the resource
revenues from uranium are lower. Is that primarily due to higher than expected
mine capital costs? Or are these increases primarily due to inflation?
Cory Hughes: — Those changes are
primarily due to increased capital costs in 2026.
Sally Housser: — All right. Oh,
just . . . And I apologize if I’ve missed this somewhere in the media
or something like that, but there’s a long-standing lawsuit you filed with the
federal government with respect to federal cost sharing on remediation work. Has
that been resolved at any point? Or it’s still ongoing?
Blair Wagar: — Hi there. Yeah. So
I think I heard you say the lawsuit. I believe you were referring to the Gunnar
in the northern reclamation site? Yeah, I just
wanted to make sure I heard that correctly. So yeah, that is still active.
That’s not been settled. There’s still ongoing conversations
between our legal and the federal legal. For sure we’ve done . . . I
think we reported last year, we’ve done some work to update the claim when
there was an update to the liability. No changes to our liability at this point
in time, but we’ve updated our statement of claim and continue to work with the
federal government to see if we can’t find a path forward there. But at this
point, the lawsuit is still active, and we’re looking to bring that to a
resolution as soon as we can.
Obviously this has been around for a
while. The work on the project itself continues as well. We’re very close to
the end of that project which is great, but still waiting to sort out the cost
share with the federal government.
Sally Housser: — Thanks so much.
Yeah, I was just curious about that more than anything else.
Just with that being said, you stated in
the budget documents that you’ll reduce in 2026 kind of the inactive industry
liabilities. What is that sitting at right now? What’s the current liabilities
we’re on the hook for, for inactive industry liabilities?
Blair Wagar:
— Inactive wells?
Sally Housser: — Yeah.
Blair
Wagar: — Yeah, thank you.
[20:00]
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
Could you clarify the question, if that was on oil wells? Or were you speaking
on uranium, on the Gunnar project?
Sally Housser: — Oil wells. Sorry.
Blair Wagar: — So just to be clear, so the number of
inactive wells — now these are wells that are currently held by the active oil
and gas companies — there’s about 34,000 inactive wells. They don’t have
liability associated with them to the public sector. If that was your question,
we have no liability. If a company that has an inactive well goes insolvent,
that’s where the orphan program comes in, which is funded by the industry
itself. That’s where that liability goes, and the industry holds on to the liability
and will deal with those wells through the orphan program. So there’s no
liability to taxpayers for inactive wells.
Sally Housser: — Right, thanks very much. Sorry, if I could
jump back to helium for a second and if you could just update us on the meeting
of targets. I know we talked about going to Ottawa, and I know that that would
absolutely help meeting the target. I know for the ’23,
’24 years, fell far short of the targets in helium production. I’m just
wondering if, you know, what not getting that concession from Ottawa would mean
for the targets. Would that significantly impact your goals to reach the helium
target stated by 2030?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
We’ve seen significant growth since we released our helium action plan. We’re
Canada’s largest producer of helium. These tax changes are extremely important.
And it’s the reason why every time that we have spoken to officials in Ottawa,
we bring up the differences between Alberta and Saskatchewan, that our helium
industry is not the same industry as it is in Alberta. And we feel that these
changes are very important to Saskatchewan helium producers.
Sally Housser: — Absolutely, I
agree. But if there’s some reason that Ottawa doesn’t do this, has there been
any, I don’t know, modelling or consideration given to what that would mean for
your 2030 goals?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
We anticipate future growth and we’re confident in the industry working with
our great partners, Helium Evolution and North American. I think with the
current geopolitical issues, we have no better opportunity than right now.
That’s why we’re going to Ottawa with our helium partners to speak directly
with the federal minister to get these changes, because they’re very important.
But we still anticipate great growth with these. Thank you.
Sally Housser: — Okay. Thank you,
Minister. We’ve heard, the Premier and several of the ministers have often
referenced the 60 projects worth 60 billion in potential investment.
Obviously that is across a number of sectors. It includes the AI data centre
and agri-food and all sorts of other things, but there’s a significant amount
of those projects in the energy and resource sector.
Would you or your officials be able to
provide the list of those projects that are referenced in that 60 projects and
60 billion that fall under Energy and Resources, and provide a breakdown
of that for each project, the projected investment?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
A lot of the list of projects cannot be shared because they include
commercially sensitive or confidential information. But there are a few that
pertain to our ministry that we can share, which are the Jansen BHP potash mine
near Jansen, Saskatchewan; the Bethune mine expansion by K+S; McIlvenna Bay
mine for Foran near Flin Flon; the Wheeler River uranium mine through Denison;
the Rook I uranium mine through NexGen; Meota Central SAGD [steam-assisted
gravity drainage] for Strathcona in west central Saskatchewan; the Plover Lake
McLaren SAGD in through Strathcona in west central Saskatchewan; the Prairie
Lithium project in southeast Saskatchewan through Prairie Lithium. And that’s
everything that falls under us that we can share.
[20:15]
Sally Housser: — Okay. And would it
be possible to break down the estimate of . . . I’m just trying to
get to the 6 billion in investment. And I know it’s potential investment,
and I understand that, but trying to get to how we arrived at that number. And
the Energy and Resources file is a big piece of that. And if you’re unable to
provide a certain number, I guess we’ll just have to take your word for it that
there’s 60 projects.
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: — We aren’t
able to share the individual numbers, but on aggregate it’s around
$25 billion from the projects that I listed.
Sally Housser: — Great. Thanks. Just in terms of natural
gas, has there been any natural gas wells drilled in the past three or four
years here?
Blair Wagar:
— So we just did a quick check there. Zero natural gas wells drilled this year.
Like 2025 and 2024, we’ve not had any gas wells drilled. I think we talked
about this before. We’re largely an oil play. Our geology, we have gas. Most of
that gas is associated with the production of oil. And in terms of
. . . You know, there are gas fields that we have, but from a
competitive perspective, if you’re looking to deploy capital, it tends to flow
into the Alberta, BC [British Columbia], kind of Montney, Duvernay kind of
plays. So it’s difficult for us on the gas side to compete. So that’s why we’re
very focused on oil production in our reservoirs.
Sally Housser: — Sure. Just going
back a little bit . . . Not going back to it. Starting I guess, a
little bit on the workforce. And I know, Mr. Chair, that that seems a little
outside of estimates, but bear with me because I think it plays a huge role in
how we meet all the assumptions that you’ve made in your business plan.
And
so can you just give me a breakdown, or I guess a rough number of how many
workers are currently employed in our resource and energy sector as it would
fall under your ministry in Saskatchewan?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
There’d be about, direct and indirect, 60,000 jobs.
Sally Housser: — And I’m thinking
more of probably direct in this respect, but of the people directly employed.
And I’m thinking more in the building trades and working on-site and
development and doing the work with their hands as opposed to the offices in
Saskatoon, as it were. But do you have figures on how many of those workers are
residents of Saskatchewan?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
The vast majority of the workers live and work in Saskatchewan, but the exact
number isn’t reported to us.
Sally Housser: — Vast majority of?
And I guess if you don’t have a breakdown of that, you probably don’t have a
breakdown of how many, what percentage of the workforce is unionized in the
building trade.
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
That’s not something that’s reported to our ministry.
Sally Housser: — Thanks very much.
And so essentially the reason I’m trying to get at this is the number one thing
people in industry, First Nations, people in Labour speak about is an impending
labour force gap. And so I’m interested in our ability to grow that labour force
here in Saskatchewan. That’s why, if we could find a greater breakdown of
people who are employed, live . . . Essentially I want permanent
residents of Saskatchewan paying taxes, people who are . . . as
opposed to coming and living in camp.
And I know we travel, you know, to
Alberta. And I’m from Newfoundland myself originally. People move all over the
country. But I’m interested in the tax base being generated by the jobs, but in
addition to that, what that means for developing our own homegrown labour force
here in Saskatchewan.
So if I could get a commitment — I know
that those numbers exist somewhere from either your ministry or a colleague’s
ministry — I would very much like to have that information.
I
guess moving . . . [inaudible interjection] . . . Oh,
sorry. Go ahead, yeah.
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
We’ll try and find that number for you but there are already amazing
opportunities. And I think the member from Humboldt, what BHP is currently
doing there with their potash school. There is the oil and gas class with the
Distance Learning Centre, and the SMA goes into high schools and junior highs
to discuss amazing careers in mining.
Sally Housser: — Yeah, and I had
the opportunity to visit those. And I even, during Mining Week, got to
participate in a grade 7 girls’ project where they learned about all the great
careers in mining. You know, and I understand that there’s some efforts being
under way in that respect, but it remains the top number one thing I hear.
And so I’m curious if there have been
any discussions, data, or modelling about what that growing or coming labour
force gap means to your projections and assumptions in your business plan,
because if we are building all across this country, the competition for these
workers becomes much more significant.
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
Yeah, I know we are the best jurisdiction in the world for this type of work.
All eyes are on Saskatchewan. But I do think that this question would be best
directed to Immigration and Career Training.
Sally Housser: — Okay. Thanks very
much. Saskatchewan is now one of the only . . . and understanding
that you, in terms of impact assessments and that stuff . . .
[20:30]
But obviously, you know, the approval of
projects massively affects your department’s bottom line. So just curious, you
know, Saskatchewan being one of only — I think it’s two or three — provinces
that haven’t signed a co-operation agreement with the federal government on
impact assessment yet . . . And you know, obviously the goal of that
agreement as I understand it is the idea of one project, one review.
Do you have any information or update on
that process? If that can be expected, inasmuch as it affects your department
and how quickly projects get approved and can be added to your roster of the 60
projects and 60 billion.
Blair Wagar:
— So thanks for the question. Obviously the Impact Assessment Act is
something that our ministry pays really close attention to. It’s not a file
that we lead. It’s the Ministry of Environment that is having the conversations
with the impact assessment agency around the co-operation agreement. But it
certainly is something that we pay a lot of attention to, and wanting to see
the permit process at the federal level move at the pace.
Obviously our mission is around
responsible resource development, and you know, there’s certainly a lot of
positive things that are being said at the federal level about speeding things
up and making projects move through that process quicker. But at this point in
time I think the question is better answered by Environment. We’re not in those
discussions directly.
Sally Housser: — Thank you. Just if
we can go back to forestry for a second.
Could you talk a little more about
talking about modernizing the forestry royalty structure and what exactly that
looks like and the financial impacts on the province’s bottom line, but also on
the industry? Understanding, you know, we’re dealing with all sorts of global
forces on the forestry side as well as the oil and gas and mineral side.
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: — These
changes were something that industry had asked for, and we had listened. This
was helping update a system where it was still based off costs from 2014. And I
believe that ADM Cory Hughes has a few more details.
Cory Hughes:
— Yeah, so the minister’s correct. The costs were flatlined in 2014 costs. So
the big change was modernizing the system to be reflective of actual industry
costs under the current situation, which is, you know, a huge help to the
industry now to get through a very unprecedented fire season in 2025, which has
increased cost to industry, as well as US [United States] duties, tariffs for
the softwood side.
So you know, a very welcome change that
it makes us also a lot more competitive with other jurisdictions moving forward
in attracting investment and ensuring that our facilities continue to operate.
Sally Housser: — And can you tell
me what impact, if any, that has on the revenue side for the province?
Cory Hughes:
— It’s highly variable depending on price, which is a fairly price-sensitive
system, but it does have an impact to the province. But as I said, the
modernization was required because the costs we recognized were not reflective
of the actual cost that industry was incurring.
Sally Housser: — Thank you. Going
back to kind of I guess the global climate, I’m wondering, given the volatility
that we see right now obviously in oil and gas, it has a massive impact. And
I’m thinking not just on the WTI [West Texas Intermediate] and the price of oil,
but in terms of how nations and certainly Canada and Saskatchewan looks about
its own production. Has the department done any modelling of different
scenarios based on the cost of oil, length of conflict, and international
relations? Or are we just kind of waiting to see how it all shakes out here?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
In current difficult and volatile markets, it can almost border on being
irresponsible to say what is going to happen in the future and what isn’t. But
that being said, we do have quarterly forecasts and you’ll see those in the
next quarter.
Know we’re currently in breakup season
in the oil and gas sector, so to report how this has affected drilling is going
to be completely inaccurate at the current time. We’ll see when the snow melts
and the holes can continue to be drilled. We’ll see how the industry responds.
Sally Housser: — Thank you very
much. It is kind of changing tack a little bit in that one, just in that this
is . . . well I’ll confess I don’t know much about this side of
things. But the oil and gas drilling exclusion zones, could you explain to me
just kind of where those are in Saskatchewan and, you know, when the last time
that there were any changes made to the exclusion zones in Saskatchewan. And
what’s the process of kind of naming those, changing those?
Cory Hughes:
— So the one area that oil and gas permits are not permitted is within the
Crown reserve of the potash zone. And that was put in place to ensure that
we’re protecting the incredible potash resource that we have in the province.
If there’s a request to come into that zone, then we would take careful
analysis. But really there is no one allowed into that outside of potash
activity with, you know . . . I’ll leave it at that for now.
Sally Housser: — Okay, thanks very
much. Just going back to kind of incidents and safety. And when I asked this
last year, I was told to google it, and so I understand that the incidents are
available online. But I’m interested in . . . Obviously there was an incident
with Cenovus in the Lloydminster area with a leak that went for some time.
[20:45]
Rebecca
Gibbons: —
Rebecca Gibbons, assistant deputy minister for the energy regulation division.
So to your question, in response to the Rush Lake incident there’s a couple of
internal things that we have done. We have added basically a risk profile for
our thermal facilities. They are now all automatically treated as high risk in
terms of our approval process. We’ve also made changes to our incident
management framework as well, and that is in response to the longevity of this
incident rather than the severity of it.
We’re also waiting for the results of
the investigation, which will be known within the next few months. And that
will also help support some of our findings and help finalize those changes
going forward.
Sally Housser: — Thanks so much.
And in terms of the investigation, is that all done through the ministry? Is
there any independent or outside actors involved in that process?
Rebecca Gibbons: — So just in response to your question, under
the minister’s order, that requires the investigation into the Cenovus
incident. They are required to use third-party validation as part of the
investigation work, and that’s something that the ministry expects to receive
in the next few months.
Sally Housser: — Thanks so much.
Just an understanding that, you know, our coal production in Saskatchewan is
used almost exclusively for power generation. I’m just curious. Does the
reported increase in cost for coal refurbishment have any significant effect on
the Energy and Resources bottom line assumptions inasmuch as it, you know,
relates to the larger power grid and the various different projects that
require that power to operate here in the province?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
With refurbishment and with us continuing using coal, our revenues are going to
remain stable. And any of the other information I think would be best directed
to CIC.
Sally Housser: — Great. Thank you
very much, Minister. All right, I’ve got a few minutes left, so just a few I
guess more housekeeping things. I think I’ve covered most of the material stuff
I wanted to. Can you just let me know how many employees are currently employed
in the Ministry of Energy and Resources, and if it’s an increase or decrease
from the previous year.
Blair Wagar:
— So the number of FTEs [full-time equivalent] in the ministry is 112. And
that’s consistent from the previous year as well, so no up or down.
Sally Housser: — Consistent. And
how many staff, FTEs, employed in the minister’s office?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
In my office we have three and a half. And just to make a correction on the
previous answer, it’s 312, not 112.
Sally Housser: — 112 sounded pretty
light to me for our province’s energy and resources industry. Great, thanks. Do
you have a breakdown — just because I’m always interested in communications —
of how many communications staff you have within the ministry?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
Five.
Sally Housser: — Okay, thank you
very much. I’m seeing if there’s anything that I’ve missed here. Oh, can you
talk a little bit about . . . Obviously there’s news of the potential
of a significant aluminum deposit that everybody’s pretty excited about, myself
included.
Can
you just provide a little more information on kind of that exploratory process
of how — I don’t know how convinced we are that it’s as good as it looks — and
what the ministry is doing to try to kind of expedite that process and see,
like I said, see if it’s as good as it looks? I know that there’s a lot of
excitement and a little bit of skepticism. So any information you could provide
on that would be great.
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
The Ministry of Energy and Resources has supported this project through the
TMEI incentive. And the Thor project, it’s still in early stages, and there’ll
be significant work required before the project could potentially be approved
to begin construction.
Sally Housser: — Okay. And is there
a timeline around that process at all?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
In the end that’s up to the company, but we anticipate several years of work
before we know if it’s a viable project.
Sally Housser: — Okay, thanks very
much. And just going back, a similar question to kind of, I guess, on our oil
production in terms of the global climate with potash. If you have any
information, or have there been any discussions or again modelling, given the
volatility? And I understand, particularly with oil and gas, that waiting until
the season starts up again, it’s best to wait until that, but potash works a
little differently.
Any
kind of concerns around the global impact, obviously particularly Russia and
Belarus, in your assumptions and projections going forward?
Hon. Chris
Beaudry: —
World demand for potash continues to grow, as does production in Saskatchewan.
I mean I spoke earlier about the expansions at K+S and BHP. And I think it’s
because of significant work done through our trade offices that we have the
ability to grow Saskatchewan’s potash industry along with our potash partners.
Sally Housser: — Minister, 8:59. I
think I’ve gotten everything I wanted to ask out. Over to you, Mr. Chair.
[21:00]
Chair
D. Harrison: — So no further questions from you, MLA Housser?
Sally Housser: — No further questions from me.
Chair
D. Harrison: — I’ll ask any other members of the committee if
there’s any other questions. We have until 9:06 to finish up
our two hours. MLA Kasun.
Kevin Kasun: — Of course. What’s holding
Saskatchewan back from getting resources to the world market?
Hon. Chris Beaudry: — Thank you. You know, we do
everything we can to get our products to market. And we do see some hurdles and
some delays in other areas of the country, be that the Port of Vancouver, the
Second Narrows bridge. We see inefficiencies at the port that quite frankly
harm the people of BC but mainly harm the people of Saskatchewan. We see port
inefficiencies that have them ranked 347th out of 348 in the world, the
second-worst on the CPPI [Canadian Petroleum Products Institute] rankings, and that
directly hurts every single person in Saskatchewan. And those delays and
inefficiencies are a direct reflect of current government policy.
Kevin Kasun: — Thank you.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Any further questions?
Sally Housser: — I just want to hop on that. I guess
I’ll tag back in here.
Chair
D. Harrison: — MLA Housser.
Sally Housser: — Thank you very much. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chair. In terms of that port access, when I worked for the Manitoba
government a few moons ago, we were very much trying to make the Port of
Churchill happen. And that’s kind of back in discussion now, I think probably
less so in terms of oil and gas, but more so as an avenue for other of our
resources. Is the ministry having any conversations with Manitoba or the
federal government around the potential development of the Port of Churchill,
particularly as it comes to trying to diversify our markets into Europe more?
Hon. Chris Beaudry: — We’re in discussions with all
jurisdictions and are looking at all options in moving the goods that
Saskatchewan can produce. We also have an MOU [memorandum of understanding]
between Trade and Export and the Port of Churchill.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Any further questions?
Kevin Weedmark: — Sure.
Chair
D. Harrison: — MLA Weedmark.
Kevin Weedmark: — Sure, I’ll ask one if you guys are
out of questions there. How and what has led to the progress toward the
critical minerals strategy?
Cory Hughes: — Certainly I can give an update on
the . . . There was four key goals in the critical minerals strategy,
the first of which was to capture 15 per cent of Canadian exploration
expenditures. We were in the 8 to 9 range when we introduced this strategy. We
have now met that goal, and that goal was a 2030 goal. So you know, a
significant increase in exploration in the province. And now we’re above the 15
per cent threshold that we were looking to achieve.
Two, we also wanted to double the number
of critical minerals we produce. When we introduced the strategy, we only
produced potash, uranium, and helium. This year we’re anticipating commercial
production of lithium as well as the Foran mine will begin production, which
will add copper and zinc. So we will achieve that goal well ahead of time.
Third goal was to support our existing
critical minerals, primarily potash, uranium, helium. The minister spoke to our
efforts with the federal government to increase helium. We’ve seen two new
uranium mines approved by the CNSC [Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission]
recently and earlier this year, which was a really positive step. And of
course, potash: BHP continues to advance their project. K+S is looking at
doubling capacity.
And then the fourth goal is, you know,
establishing Saskatchewan as the rare earth processing hub. And I think that we
have seen great progress as SRC moves towards that goal.
Kevin Weedmark: — Thank you.
Chair
D. Harrison: — 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 Energy and
Resources.
Minister Beaudry, do you have any
closing comments?
Hon. Chris Beaudry: — Yes, I’d like to again thank my
officials for their support and their work and everything they’ve done
throughout the year to get us to this point. I want to thank the committee for
your time, your questions. I want to thank the critic for all your questions.
And again, Hansard, as always, thank you for the work that you do. And
that’s all.
Chair
D. Harrison: — MLA Housser, do you have any
closing comments?
Sally Housser: — Yeah, thanks again to the committee,
for everybody that’s here much later in the evening than typically we would be.
You know, it’s a pleasure to really get to discuss the great potential of our
energy and resource industry outside of the sometimes more theatrical forum of
question period. And thanks very much for being so forthcoming with your
answers. I made it through all my questions for this one, which is great.
Thanks very much to Hansard and
the whole production team. And to you, Mr. Chair, and your team. I appreciate
it. Thank you.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Thank you, Minister, and to your
officials for joining us here this evening. Thanks to the committee for the
work and staying with us here this evening. Thanks to the Clerks and Hansard
crew; all the work is muchly appreciated, if that’s a word. But thank you very
much.
So that concludes our business for
today. I would ask a member to move a motion of adjournment. MLA Hilbert has moved. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Carried.
This committee stands adjourned to the call of the Chair.
[The committee
adjourned at 21:09.]
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.