CONTENTS
Standing Committee on the
Economy
THIRTIETH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of
Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
Hansard
Verbatim Report
No.
12 — Tuesday, April 14, 2026
Chair
D. Harrison: — Welcome, everyone. Standing
Committee on the Economy. I’m your Chair, Daryl Harrison. With us today we have
Racquel Hilbert, Kevin Kasun, Kevin Weedmark, and we
have Trent Wotherspoon chitting in for Sally Housser
and Brent Blakley chitting in for Meara Conway. Any further substitutions?
None.
General Revenue Fund
Agriculture
Vote 1
Subvote
(AG01)
Chair
D. Harrison: — Consideration of estimates.
Our first item of business today will be the consideration of the 2026‑2027
estimates and the 2025‑2026 supplementary estimates no. 2 for the
Ministry of Agriculture. We will begin with consideration of vote 1,
Agriculture, central management and services, subvote
(AG01).
Minister Marit is here with
his officials. I would ask that officials state their names before speaking,
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.
David Marit: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Pleased to be here today to discuss the Ministry of
Agriculture estimates. The officials joining me here today include Jean-Michel
Ferre, my chief of staff. Bill Greuel, to my right, is deputy minister, and his
team is: Amy Standish, assistant deputy minister of policy; Penny McCall is
assistant deputy minister of sector growth; Brady Pollock is assistant deputy
minister of regulatory; Rob Pentland is executive director of corporate
services; and Kim McLean is the manager of Farm Land Security Board.
Jeff Morrow, president and
CEO [chief executive officer]
of Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation, is on my left. And his team is:
Lorelei Hulston is the vice-president of operations,
Waren Ames is the executive director of AgStability,
and Christine Virostek is vice-president of finance and accounting. I
appreciate this opportunity to talk about what is ahead for the year and hear
your questions as well, talk about the highlights from last year.
As you know, the agriculture
industry is foundational to Saskatchewan’s Growth Plan, with several 2030
targets centred on agriculture. One of those targets is increasing value-added
agriculture revenue to $10 billion by 2030, and we are on track to get
there. Since 2022 we’ve seen more than $3 billion in private investment in
value-added agriculture. Our sector is now one of the fastest growing in
Canada, with annual revenue rising from $3.5 billion in 2012 to an
estimated $8.4 billion in 2024‑2025. That is a $384 million
increase from ’23‑24.
We are also on track to meet
our 45 million metric tons crop production target. Despite dry conditions
in several regions, particularly in the Southwest and south central,
Saskatchewan farmers still produced a record crop of 41.9 million metric
tons. That’s up 13.7 per cent over 2024 and 24.1 per cent above the five-year
average. The growth plan target of expanding irrigation to 85,000 acres has
been achieved with over 27,000 acres of irrigation developed in 2025.
On the livestock side, our
goal of livestock cash receipts reaching $3 billion was surpassed ahead of
schedule. In 2024 Saskatchewan reached $3.9 billion in livestock cash
receipts, and this number grew to $5 billion in 2025. We also saw strong
agri-food export numbers reaching $18 billion in 2025 in the face of
tariffs and market access challenges. These results show the strong position
we’re operating from even as we face challenges.
One
challenge has been controlling Richardson’s ground squirrel populations to
limit their extensive damage to crop and pasture lands. We were recently
successful in working with Alberta and the federal government on a revised
emergency-use registration for strychnine to control populations for the 2026‑2027
season. While this will be an important management tool in eligible regions,
the province will continue to support Richardson’s ground squirrel management
through extensive efforts, the gopher control program to offset the costs of
registered strychnine alternatives, and Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation programs.
Global trade volatility and the impact on our economy
have been top of mind over the past year. The Government of Saskatchewan has
been collaborating with our federal counterparts in Ottawa to resolve these
issues as quickly as possible. In January our Premier travelled to China with
the Prime Minister, where they reached a preliminary agreement in principle to
significantly reduce tariffs on Canadian canola and other agriculture products.
As of March 1st, China has lowered tariffs on canola seed to 14.9 per cent.
In early March, the Premier again travelled with the
Prime Minister to India to address trade barriers on pulse imports into that
country. These are important steps on the way to rebuilding our trade relations
with China and India, two key export markets.
With this year’s budget, we look to protect
Saskatchewan’s agriculture sector in the year ahead. The 2026‑2027 budget
includes a strong commitment to agriculture with the $662.7 million
investment to support the industry. This year we received an increase in
funding of $37.4 million, which clearly demonstrates the province’s
support of farmers, ranchers, and the agribusiness, and understanding of how
critical agriculture is to the provincial economy.
A $524.3 million investment — an increase of 8.4 per cent over ’25‑26 — builds sector resilience through a strong suite of
fully funded business risk management programs, including Saskatchewan crop
insurance and AgStability. This increased funding ensures Saskatchewan
producers can access reliable coverage and responsive service delivery that
meets the needs of their operations.
We
know our suite of programs supports producers. It has paid out over $8.1 billion
from 2021 to 2025. In 2025, over 85 per cent of the seeded acres were insured
through the crop insurance program. Despite variable growing conditions across
the province, many producers experienced improved production compared to recent
years, supported by strong on-farm management decisions. These results have
helped renew strength in the crop insurance program,
ensuring it remains reliable in supporting farmers and ranchers year after
year.
Additionally in 2025,
responding to ongoing international trade concerns, changes to the 2025 AgStability program year strengthened its support for
Saskatchewan producers. Further changes starting in the 2026 program year,
responding to industry feedback, include enhancements to better recognize feed
costs and pasture use. This will help AgStability
provide more meaningful and responsive support for the livestock sector.
SCIC [Saskatchewan Crop
Insurance Corporation] continues to innovate the design and delivery of their
programs. Leveraging technologies allows SCIC to enhance program accuracy and
responsiveness for Saskatchewan producers. This includes the introduction of
satellite forage insurance as a localized, responsive, and accurate approach to
managing forage risk. SCIC works closely with producers and industry to ensure
programs remain relevant and responsive.
Through ongoing collaboration,
SCIC remains committed to developing programs to meet the evolving needs of
Saskatchewan agriculture while advancing customer service provided to
producers. SCIC’s programs and services are built to support producers in
managing risk and making confident, forward-looking decisions. Reliable
programs not only strengthen individual operations but also contribute to the
long-term economic growth of Saskatchewan’s agriculture sector.
We’re headed into our fourth
year of the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership. This is a five-year,
$3.5 billion investment by federal and provincial governments and
strategic initiatives for Saskatchewan agriculture. This year we are again
committing $89.4 million towards these programs. Through this suite of
programs we continue to deliver on our investment in priority areas to help
ensure producers remain competitive and profitable.
Popular programs for
producers include the farm and ranch water infrastructure program to develop
sustainable water resources, the resilient agricultural landscapes program to
increase resiliency of agriculture land, and the animal health and biosecurity
program. We continue to see a strong program uptake from the producers.
This program funding also
invests in programs that support agribusinesses and industry organizations.
This includes programs like the Saskatchewan lean improvements in manufacturing
program, or SLIM as we call it, for infrastructure projects that improve
productivity and efficiency, and market development grant funding for industry
associations to increase domestic and international trade capacity and grow
demand for Saskatchewan agriculture products through support for in-market
development, incoming missions, and trade advocacy.
The budget fully funds animal
welfare enforcement in the province for livestock and companion animals. We
know proper animal care is a high priority for Saskatchewan producers and the
public. The ministry introduced amendments to The Animal Protection Act
in 2018 following a comprehensive review of the gaps and impacts of
animal welfare enforcement under the current legislation.
The amended legislation
establishes a clear framework for animal protection agency accountability,
fiscal responsibility, and transparency while streamlining the process for
addressing animals in distress. The Saskatchewan Animal Enforcement Agency took
over enforcement of the Act as of April 1st, 2026. They will provide animal
enforcement services for Saskatchewan, excluding the city of Regina where the
Regina Humane Society provides that service.
Agriculture research remains
a top priority in Saskatchewan, and this budget invests $37 million in
research. The funding will support our research partners and the world-class
research they undertake. It helps our agriculture sector stay competitive and
able to respond to future challenges and opportunities, and it ensures
producers stay competitive and profitable in the international markets.
Our investment includes
funding for the Agriculture Development Fund and the strategic research
initiative. It also includes core funding for Saskatchewan’s world-class
research institutions and research and demonstration farms. This includes key
personnel at our crop and livestock research facilities; research chairs to
advance strategic priorities and to train the next generation of producers,
agronomists, and scientists; and research projects that demonstrate innovative
technologies to producers and agronomists at the local level.
The Ministry of Agriculture’s
core operating budget for 2026‑2027 remains largely unchanged at $46.9 million.
These dollars support the staff that supports and advocates for the sector and
delivers the programs, service, and advice our agriculture industry relies on.
This includes funding for 10 regional extension offices that work directly with
producers and the Agriculture Knowledge Centre phone line.
[16:00]
As part of the budget, we’re increasing
our investment in producer mental health supports to $200,000. One of the best
ways to protect the agriculture industry is by supporting those who work in it.
In partnership with a new organization, SaskAgMatters,
we will expand mental health services to Saskatchewan agriculture workers and
their families. SaskAgMatters is a Saskatchewan-based
organization led by farmers and agriculture community members.
Beginning April 1st, 2026,
the Farm Stress Line will connect with the Canadian Centre for Agricultural
Wellbeing’s Farmer Crisis Line. This will provide free, confidential mental
health support along with access to follow-up counselling from Saskatchewan-based
registered mental health clinicians with agriculture backgrounds. We’ve heard
how important it is for those answering those calls to understand the unique
challenges of working in agriculture, and this change addresses all of that.
In closing, it is my
privilege to introduce this agriculture budget that will continue to protect
the Saskatchewan agriculture sector so it remains a key economic sector in this
province. Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to the questions.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Thank you, Minister. I will
now open the floor to questions.
Oh, my apologies. We have one
more substitution. Jared Clarke is sitting in for Tajinder
Grewal. Welcome, Jared.
Questions. I recognize Trent
Wotherspoon.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks, Mr. Minister, for your remarks. Thanks to your
team, all your officials that are here today and those that are involved in the
work here today as well. I think we have an incredible team there in the
Ministry of Agriculture that, you know, is just like our producers, is the best
within this country.
Thanks to them, this is a
really proud and dynamic industry, world-leading. From our primary producers
through to research and innovation, agribusiness through to commercialization,
and that whole ecosystem. It’s an honour to address it and advocate for it here
tonight.
I guess maybe right off the
top, of course, we’re facing a fair amount of uncertainty and some cuts from
the federal government around ag research in this province. We know how
valuable ag research is. I think Sask Wheat
identifies ag research with a return of 35 to 1. And those cuts, you know, are
really a step in the wrong direction. And I’d like to focus maybe very
specifically on where the federal government is at.
Now I know the moment this
was announced, we met with industry and with local leaders and with Indian Head
and the research folks and the seed growers, and advocated directly with the
minister and the Prime Minister, calling on them to stand down these cuts.
I’d like to hear what the
latest update is. I hear that there’s a bit of a reprieve for things like the
planting out at Indian Head. But you know, that leaves too much uncertainty
with respect to this invaluable research. So I’d like to hear what your advocacy
has been and what the latest is from the feds on this.
Hon.
David Marit: —
Yeah, thanks for that question and good question, Trent. We’ve obviously been
very engaged in this since we heard of the notification of it as well. I’ve had
a few calls with the federal minister and text messages as well from him in
regards to this, both these facilities at Indian Head and at Scott.
We, as I said, we have had
discussions with the industry stakeholders here as well. This isn’t going to
happen overnight. My understanding from the federal minister, it’s probably
going to take two years. The process is quite lengthy. Obviously it goes through
all the other federal ministries before there’s any transition.
After that is — and no,
there’s no interest — then the provincial government has the first opportunity.
We’re seriously having some discussions with our industry stakeholders on that.
Just in my meeting last week with Kody Blois, who’s the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, we had a good discussion about these and how it might
work out.
Obviously there’s an asset
there, and so there will be some discussions on how we go through that. I know,
Bill, you might want to comment on some of the discussions we’re having with
officials on that and how it’s working with the other research as well.
Bill Greuel:
— Yeah, thanks, Minister. My name is Bill Greuel, deputy minister of
Agriculture. I think one of the things I would add, Minister, is we’ve had a
lot of good conversations with my federal deputy counterpart really trying to
understand the timelines. And the federal government has committed, to date, to
put seed in the ground at the Seed Increase Unit at Indian Head, which is
positive.
I think what we’re looking at
is what is kind of the short-term solution for ’26 and ’27, and then working on
a longer term solution that might be a sustainable plan, especially for the
Seed Increase Unit at Indian Head. And so we’ve had a number of good
conversations, as the minister has stated, with Sask
Wheat, SaskOilseeds, Western Grains Research
Foundation, and the Saskatchewan Seed Growers’ Association about what a plan
looks like for the long term. And in addition, we’ve had some good
conversations with the Crop Development Centre at the University of
Saskatchewan, who certainly has a stake in the Seed Increase Unit at Indian
Head.
So you know, moving target,
lots of things to decide, but certainly a groundswell of support for a made-in-Saskatchewan
solution for the long term.
Trent
Wotherspoon: — Yeah,
it’s such a critical site, isn’t it? And you know, the replication unit, you’ve
got a real valuable asset. You’ve got continuous research that has provided
incredible innovations and gains for this province and for producers.
Is there a possibility that
the feds will step away from the commitment to close Indian Head, as we’ve
called on them to do? Or is it clear now from the minister that the planning
has to get to what sort of proposals, what sort of structure would be in place,
and what role would the province play along with, you know, whether it’s the
Western Grains Research Foundation or the Canadian Seed Growers’ and IHARF [Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation] and
the other leaders to ensure this site continues and this research continues in
a sustainable way?
Hon.
David Marit: —
Thanks for the question. Yeah, and my discussions with the federal minister
obviously have been around a lot of this, and Bill commented about his
discussions with the deputy minister as well. And so those discussions are
going on.
One of the things I did hear
from both the federal minister and from the parliamentary secretary, Kody
Blois, last week was the challenge they’re having with a lot of these
facilities is maintenance and upkeep. And their costs around that is what
they’re challenged with.
I was happy to see that the
crop was going in. That was one thing we had asked for, and I was very, very
glad to see when the federal minister actually texted me and said, no worries,
the crop is going in. Because that was a big concern for me as a farmer, just
because that’s where all the certified foundation seed is grown, right. And
obviously it goes out to the seed growers and then it becomes certified and
down the line. So that was important for us.
The other part that’s
concerning for us as well, especially with the Indian Head facility, is the
forage side. That’s obviously really going to be important and challenging on
how we move that through too. There’s a lot of balls in the air on this one right
now just because of the asset. There’s land involved as everybody knows too as
well.
There’s also partnerships
that they have with our folks in the Ministry of Ag. And so there’s
partnerships and how we work relationships that way too. I’m confident we’re
going to land in a good place here at some point. It’s just right now, the
process that we’re going through is going to take, as the federal minister . . .
probably two years, he told me.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Can you commit to the industry that the province is really going to play a lead
role to make sure that in the end, that Indian Head, that this operation is
going to continue and sustain well into the future? It may look like, you know,
may be operated by a different entity. Maybe the province plays a lead role or
some of these other entities that we’ve identified that are putting forward
proposals and looking to partner. But can you commit as minister that the
province is prepared to do all they need to do to be a partner with industry to
keep this site continuing to operate and bring the gains forward that producers
deserve?
Hon.
David Marit: —
As I said to the industry when we made this call, I said the Ministry of
Agriculture and the province of Saskatchewan will lead this. And then we will
engage with the industry stakeholders once we know, you know, what the asset
is. Is there value, and some of the concerns and challenges around that. But
I’ve made that very clear to the industry on that our ministry will lead the
discussions with the federal minister.
As I’ve said, we know what’s
happening this year. We still have to worry about the harvest of that crop as
well, so we’re going to have to see how that all plays out, but we’re going to
ensure that the discussion is going to take place with all our stakeholders on
the go-forward on both these facilities.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
It’s certainly important that the province leads that discussion along with
industry, but we also, you know . . . The province is going to have
to be ready and willing to act to potentially be a partner or to take on, you
know, some active role within this project. So we’ll continue to follow up and
track it.
Do want to give just
recognition obviously, as you’re sort of identifying as well, just all the
industry partners and all the producers and all the seed growers and all the
research community and all those folks, you know, across the research community
and certainly at Scott but at Indian Head and the foundation and the farm
there. They’re just awesome. All the seed growers, just awesome proponents to
work with who are all working in the best interests of producers in our
province and our country. Also a big thanks to the leadership at the
municipality there, the town of Indian Head as well. It’s a very important
operation.
And I think that maybe what
gets lost sometimes down in Ottawa at some bureaucratic level is just a lack of
understanding of how important this site is and the continuous research, and
the fact that much of it just isn’t portable to another site. The geographic
location itself and the soil and the weather is unique and presents significant
value to producers. So we’ll continue to push and advocate. And wherever
possible, Minister, we’re happy to have a very strong, united voice, you know,
from this Assembly to the federal government and to work with industry on this
project.
Maybe shifting gears just a
little bit to another concern with the actions of the federal government — and
they’ve stepped back as we’ve both made calls on this front — and that’s around
the traceability program that emerged in the early part of 2025 here. And as
soon as this emerged, it was really clear at the primary producer level with
livestock producers that what was being conceived just wasn’t practical at all,
wasn’t advancing, you know, a greater means and that really came at the cost of
producers as well.
[16:15]
Hon.
David Marit: —
Thank you. Obviously this was a big issue when it first came out. When the new
regulations were presented, we were one of the first provinces, along with
Alberta, to make the call. And really this is a real credit to the federal Ag
minister, Minister MacDonald, for walking across the floor to the Minister of
Health and saying, this has to be paused. So we’re obviously very happy to get
that.
Obviously I think we’re all
in the same position. The one thing we want to make sure is this does not come
as a significant cost to the producers in this province and some of the
challenges around that. I know Bill has had some discussions at a federal level,
and I’ll have him comment on those discussions that he’s had with CFIA
[Canadian Food Inspection Agency].
Bill Greuel:
— Yes. Thanks, Minister. I would just add that late last week I had a
conversation with Dr. Harpreet Kochhar, who is the new president of the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. And we talked at length about the issues and
challenges that these traceability regulations cause for producers and some of
the practical challenges that they will have implementing them.
Dr. Kochhar is of course very
well versed in the file. He’s the former chief veterinary officer for the
country and understands very well the traceability and some of the issues and
challenges and the reasons why we need some form of it, but also understands
the issues and challenges with the regulations as prescribed.
I will say that, for the
first time in a long time, I heard the president of the CFIA talk about really
having to know and understand the issues and challenges that producers are
facing. And he did offer to come to Saskatchewan at any time and meet with producers
and hear first-hand the issues and challenges that they’re facing.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Yeah, thanks for the update. It’s a very important file. And I think being
proactive on this is going to be important because we saw, you know, that entry
that really was a big concern for our livestock sector.
And again just a big
shout-out to, you know, the Sask Cattle Association,
to the stock growers, to the livestock sector in this province for being so
effective in making their case as to why this really missed the mark and why it
wasn’t in the interest of producers or the sector.
Shifting gears a bit to some
of the business risk management programs and some of the . . . a few
questions there. I guess around AgriStability, is Saskatchewan actively
advocating with FPT [federal-provincial-territorial]
partners to make the temporary changes of 2025 to AgriStability permanent,
specifically the 90 per cent compensation rate and the 6 million payment
limit increase? I think that in light of the current trade and tariff
challenges that producers face and the uncertainty on this front, coupled with
the rising input costs that producers are facing, there’s a real strong
argument to make these changes permanent.
Hon.
David Marit: — Yeah, I was just
getting clarification from the team. First and foremost, Canada has to agree to
it first before anybody can say anything. I know in my discussions with the
federal minister, this will be on the agenda at the FPT
meeting in July. So that’s where the discussion will be.
Obviously there is parameters around any increase for things like that. They
have to have so much support around the table, otherwise it doesn’t go through.
But first and foremost, the
federal government has to agree to it. It wouldn’t matter if the province did;
if the federal said no then it wouldn’t be happening. So the discussion has to
take place with the federal government at the FPT
table at some time. And then we’ll have that decision to make then on whether
we’re going to be in or not once we hear who else is in and who is not.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Are you advocating? Is Saskatchewan advocating? We’re in a good position to
lead of course on these fronts. Are you advocating
for those changes to be made permanent, just based on the challenges and the
circumstances producers face here right now?
Hon.
David Marit: —
Well obviously there’s lots of challenges in that sector right now. And to
advocate for changes and continued changes, that also comes at a cost. And so
the big discussion will be, you know, first and foremost, does the federal
government agree to it. I would probably hardly say there wouldn’t be too many
that wouldn’t be onside with it, but there’d be first and foremost the feds
have to agree to it. So it’s really not whether a province advocates for it or
not. It’s really whether the federal government says they’re in or not.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Yeah. No, fair enough, Minister. But at the end, if you decide it’s in the
interests of your producers, we should make the case, right. And you make that
case in an effective way with your relationship with the feds, and a
constructive way and with the other provinces.
And so that’s sort of my
question to you of whether . . . What I’m hearing is that you’re not
advocating to make that program permanent at this point. It’s a bit of a wait
and see on your end?
Hon.
David Marit: —
No, you’re not hearing that at all. I’m saying that we have to wait and see
what the federal government does before then we make our decision.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
You can always use your voice with the federal government and be clear about
some of the priorities that we’d like to see advanced around. That’s kind of
how the partnership works.
With respect to the livestock
sector, for many years I’ve come to this committee and to you previously as
minister and ministers previous, pushing for a livestock price insurance to
have both contributions from the provincial and federal government — in essence
to be made a national program. Originally there was a fair amount of reluctance
out of your government a number of years back. Then there was recognition that
this should in fact be a national program, and that there should be federal and
provincial contributions.
I just wanted to follow up as
to where your advocacy’s been at on that front, where your position is. And
certainly this is something important to the livestock sector. So seeing where
you’re at going into some of the processes ahead of us to make livestock price
insurance a national program with both federal and provincial contributions.
Hon.
David Marit: —
Well I want to clear the record up that we were the first province to go online
to make the livestock price insurance a national program. We were the very
first province to take that to the federal table.
We now have everybody but
Ontario and Quebec. And we can’t . . . Unfortunately this is a
program that’s not a 7 out of 10. This is, you’ve got to have everybody.
Ontario right now is saying no to the program because they have their own
program and they have administration issues there. And I think if the federal
government addressed that, they would probably be in line. Quebec has not
agreed to it either at this time, so it’s unfortunate.
We advocated really hard with
our Maritime folks and we got the Maritime folks onside with it, which really
wasn’t an issue for them in the first place. But I was very happy when I was in
that role to get all the Maritimes to come onside with it. It’s a challenge
right now for Ontario and Quebec. We always have that discussion with our
counterparts in those provinces as to where they’re at with it, and we continue
to have it. And I think it’s a negotiation unfortunately between the federal
government and those provinces to decide whether they’re going to compensate
Ontario on the one side. And I don’t know what the challenges are with Quebec.
I honestly don’t.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
No, thanks for the update. Certainly important to the livestock sector. I guess
on that front, can you speak to any other changes or changes that you’re
advocating for to ensure an improved backstop for the livestock sector?
Hon. David
Marit: —
This is a good one, Trent. And you know, I’m glad you asked it, because I think
it’s a program that I am very proud that this government has made some
significant changes that obviously come with dollars attached to them. They do.
And I know I’m going to ask Jeff to ask just what the dollar amount that we
paid out on some of this over the last few years. And I know he’ll have it
there somewhere or one of the staff will, but I think it’s important for it to
be on public record on what that has been.
You know, I’ll just talk
about one of the programs that we implemented a few years ago that is really
being utilized, is the fencing costs around feed stacks for the wildlife, for
that side of it. And I know I was talking to a rancher in my area — he’s a
fair-sized rancher — where he has utilized that program four times because he
doesn’t want to keep all his feed in one yard, right. So he moves it. I just
talked to him here a couple weeks ago at a meeting in Rockglen
and he said that that program has really saved his feed and his feed costs.
But I’ll let Jeff get into
exactly all the other things on the satellite and everything like that.
Jeff Morrow:
— Thanks, Minister. Jeff Morrow, CEO for SCIC. So one of the things the
minister referenced was the satellite forage insurance program. So we worked
for a couple of years with industry on that and then did a pilot with about 50
producers across the province in 2025. And really just wanted to make sure we
understood from our producers’ perspective, our stakeholders’ perspective how
this satellite program could work for their operations. And they gave us advice
and feedback on program design ideas.
What we were able to do was
give those 50 producers access to 20 years of data, looking at satellite for
their township so they could, you know, recollect back to when they had feed
shortages and how the satellite would’ve reacted compared to our existing
program.
And I’d say the feedback that
we got from that focus group and from working with industry over two years
really led us to the path that the satellite forage insurance was a better
program than our forage rainfall. Because one of the common concerns we heard
about our forage rainfall was it was based on weather stations, and sometimes
weather stations were just too far away from where the producer was actually
grazing their livestock and it didn’t always represent what happened. So it
rains at the weather station, doesn’t rain where I’m grazing my livestock. The
program has a gap there.
And with what we are able to
do with satellite forage insurance is bring that down to the township level. So
we go from 224 weather stations that producers could pick from to now it’s
going to be 3,700 townships. And we know where the producer’s land is so he
doesn’t have to pick a weather station like he did before. Now it’s going to be
based on where you’re actually grazing your livestock, so the producer just has
to pick kind of the coverage options that they want, the species that they want
to cover.
[16:30]
And the way the satellite
forage works is it covers basically a lack of precipitation. So with satellite
we’re able to measure the soil moisture, and so if soil moisture is below
historic normals, that’s when the program would pay.
So this is the first year of
launch. I’d say through the sale season . . . I’d say good feedback
from producers and industry about how the program could work. And we did see an
increase over what we had insured last year of about 400,000 acres more insured
using satellite forage than forage rainfall. Forage rainfall has been discontinued
and satellite forage replaces it.
On the stacked forage that
the minister referenced, that’s a prevention program that we have in place for
producers to protect their stacked hay from . . . mainly it’s elk and
deer. And the way that program works is if a producer is incurring losses —
because we do cover stacked forage — if they’re incurring losses, we’ll work
with that producer to see if it makes sense based on the losses they’re
incurring. And the wildlife pressure that’s coming to those yards, that we’ll
provide the cost for the material and 25 per cent above that too if they have
to clear a fenceline or hire somebody to help build
it.
So that program has been, I’d
say, more popular in the last few years due to the pressure. And I think to see
that it actually can save the feed yard which . . . It’s not fun to
have to try and find hay in the middle of winter. So stacked forage prevention
has been positive.
The other piece that we’ve
done based on the conditions to help with livestock feed is double low-yield
appraisal. And the way that works is if there are areas in the province that
are experiencing dry conditions and the crop is deteriorating to a point where
we are pretty sure it’s going to get to zero, we made some changes to allow
those acres to be diverted to livestock feed.
So we’ve done that three
times in the past five years because of the conditions. We’ve been able to
divert 730,000 acres that would have essentially gone to zero. Those acres were
diverted to livestock feed to help support the livestock producers in those
years.
And then in the minister’s
opening remarks he mentioned AgriStability changes. So two changes that we
worked with industry closely on have been gaps or things that didn’t make the
program as relevant as it could be. And it was the way that we value feed in
the AgriStability program.
So the change now is . . .
Or the way it used to work is that if your producer were short of hay . . .
Hay is a local market. The price of hay goes up. So at the beginning your
inventory price is $100 a tonne. The end of year might be $200 a tonne because
there’s shortage of hay and the producer’s inventory is likely going down.
So we were taking producers
or moving producers further away from a benefit the way we were doing that
inventory valuation. The way we do it now is we’re going to use that
end-of-year price for both. So if the producer’s short of hay, we’re going to
move him closer to an AgriStability benefit than further away.
And the other feed expense
piece is acknowledging and allowing the feed cost associated with pasture rent
to be an allowable expense for AgriStability.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Thanks for the update there. You know, we’ve gone through and advocated on
these fronts over the years. Thanks for the update on some of these programs.
I guess I’d look to the
minister here. You know, we’ve spoken in the past with respect to the
protracted drought that some have faced in the Southwest as an example, in
around the RM [rural municipality] of Big Stick and Fox Valley and Enterprise
and Waverley. And there’s other areas as well that are isolated but that have
just been through this protracted drought that, you know, now nine years on.
And you know, I hope we face a whole bunch of rainfall in the next little bit
as we head into this growing season. That being said, they’re in a really
precarious situation — many would say at a real tipping point — producers in
through that area.
And the business risk
management programs of course just aren’t built for protracted drought like
that, right. So they’re not effective in mitigating the real devastation that
they’re facing. They’ve been desperately calling for some additional measures and
actions.
So has SARM [Saskatchewan
Association of Rural Municipalities], of course, directly with the minister,
calling for actions on this front including some sort of additional policy
package for those in a protracted drought area. Other things like having that
double low-yield program apply as well if a combine is used, so that that seed
can be captured and utilized in the following year. SARM’s
laid out some other calls as well.
But these folks are headed
into another growing season right now, and right now there hasn’t been any new
initiatives taken on. And I was there at SARM with you, Mr. Minister, when you
were taking questions from these local leaders from these RMs,
and you talked about potential actions that might be taken some time down the
road.
I
think it leaves producers really uncertain and really stressed when they need a
little bit more predictability and to know what sort of other measures may be
there to have their backs. Will there be any other actions or programs taken to
support these producers in these drought-devastated areas that have faced this
protracted drought for many years?
Hon.
David Marit: —
Thanks for the question, and a good one. Obviously you know, we’ve had that
discussion. I personally had that discussion with one of the RMs as well around some of the challenges around that and
the crop insurance coverage. And Jeff will get into the details on that.
Obviously we are, you know,
we’re looking at some other things, but there’s obviously challenges when you
do that. Is it actuarial sound? And if we do any changes to the crop insurance
program, we got to have federal approval. And there’s things like that. Or do
we do a stand-alone program, you know, where the producer pays. But then if
there’s a payout, you know, how is it paid and things like that.
So there’s some challenges
around that that we are looking at. I can say that we are looking at some
options on just if we can do these things. But as I’ve said in the first part,
we’ll have to have federal approval. And so obviously we’re working on some
things, just have to see whether we can bring them forward or not.
But I’ll have Jeff talk on
just how the crop insurance program has really worked for those municipalities
that have had severe droughts, and I know a lot of my areas had it as well.
Jeff Morrow:
— Thanks, Minister. Maybe just overall I’ll talk about kind of the support over
the last five years. So when we look at the last five years for SCIC, it’s $8.1 billion
in payments provincially. When we look at the areas that declared a disaster in
2025 — and majority of those RMs are in the Southwest
— 1.8 billion of that 8.1 has gone to those RMs.
So you know, about 9 per cent of the RMs getting
about 20 per cent of the compensation.
So I mean it is targeted to
the areas that are having the most significant challenges at a high level.
And I think one of the other . . .
There’s two pieces that we do to support coverage. One is yield cushioning, and
it’s directly to help with situations where there are consecutive years of
challenging conditions and low yields. And the way yield cushioning works is
that we cushion yields at 70 per cent of whatever we offered you the year
before when you have consecutive challenges.
So in the first year of a
poor yield, even if it’s zero we pay the claim out at 100 per cent. Zero gets
used to update your future coverage. But in the second year if you have zero
yield again, we pay the full crop insurance claim, but to update your future
coverage we use 70 per cent of whatever we offered you the year before.
And so if there are producers
that have had nine years in a row of really challenging yields that fall below
that 70 per cent trigger each year consecutively, each year we would prop that
coverage up to 70 per cent. That has helped to stabilize coverage and that’s
what that yield cushioning was intended for. And we’ve had that as a feature of
the program since 2009, I believe.
The other piece is yield
trending and that’s for crops where . . . Because we built our yield
coverage to be stable by design because we know we have cycles in this province
where we’re going to see some challenging yields, so it’s stable by design. But
that means our yield methodology doesn’t always capture the great improvements
that have been made through research and farming practices, so it’s lagging
sometimes. Yield trending applies to crops like canola, wheat, and durum, and
yield trending also supports that coverage that is available to producers
wherever they are in the province.
And I think, you know, some
examples of looking at those risk zones in the Southwest, how yield cushioning
and trending combined have helped even with challenging years. Since 2016
long-term average yields for durum, for example, have actually increased by 4
per cent; for hard red have increased 6 per cent; red lentils have declined by
11. I think it just helps to demonstrate that some of the pieces that we have
in place to stabilize that coverage for producers is helping, is responding,
and hopefully helping those producers out.
The other piece, maybe just
back to the satellite forage insurance, you know, most acres in our forage
insurance programs are in the Southwest, and so we’re hopeful with the
improvements to satellite forage that makes that coverage more relevant and
responsive and accurate.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Okay, well I would just identify . . . I appreciate the responses and
those that work on the matter in crop insurance. But there’s a real disconnect,
I think, with just where producers on the ground are with the pressures they’re
facing and, you know, their plea to work with the ministry, as they are heading
into this growing season, to see some additional measures. That would be a bit
of a backstop at what seems to be an incredibly precarious situation that they
face.
And you know, I would
continue to press the minister. I think that from what I hear from these
producers in these rather isolated areas — we’re not talking huge, huge areas,
but rather isolated areas — is that it really could be a tipping point as far
as their operations and ownership of multi-generational farms. And I think it’s
incumbent of the province and the minister to work with these producers that
are in an isolated area to make sure there’s some programs built up to ensure
they have some backstop through this very challenging period. We’ll continue to
push and advocate on that front on their behalf.
I think to even illustrate
that, you know, it’s like the . . . Of course we’re all supportive of
the utilization of strychnine for control of gophers and the devastation they
can cause, the emergency utilization or the limited utilization that’s been
extended. But as that map got brought forward — and it was positive news that
there was going to be some utilization — but the map didn’t even include some
of these drought-devastated areas. And in essence that was because they hadn’t
filed crop insurance.
I wrote you as the minister
on this right away advocating for the extension of that map. But basically
producers in those regions hadn’t made claims of course for gopher devastation
because their crops themselves were devastated. So that illustrates I think
just how stark things are in some of those areas. Now we’re pleased to see the
broadening of that map.
Maybe just on the point of
strychnine, I’m really hearing concerns of course on supply and timelines. It
needs to be used very early here to be effective. So I just want to hear what
actions the ministry’s taken to address and make sure that supply is in place
when it’s needed.
[16:45]
Hon.
David Marit: — Yeah. Yeah, I mean
obviously we were challenged with all of this. We’d been asking for it for a
long time. And we knew that the other products were not working, and that was
the challenge we had. And that’s why we have the outbreak we have in most of the
South and Southwest.
And in fact now it’s even going farther up,
even up into Lloydminster now. And I can tell you, I never thought I would see
it on the east side of the province either, and it’s bad there too as well.
I’ve seen quarter sections of canola actually destroyed within a matter of a
week because of gophers and the challenge we have around that.
The challenge we had with
this, quite frankly, was PMRA [Pest Management
Regulatory Agency] and not giving us the approval. The product can only be
sourced from one country, as you know, and there’s no way they’re making it
until they know there’s an entrant level that they’re going to get. And so it’s
our understanding we’re probably going to get so many bottles this year between
Alberta and Saskatchewan to utilize. We haven’t got final verification on what
that is. They’ve given us kind of an idea of what it might be, but we’re
probably not going to see it till June or July because it’s . . . as
you know, to get it into the product and then to get the product processed
here.
Obviously I’m very concerned
about it. In my part of the area it’s way too late. I was just touring the
constituency last weekend, and I mean they’re rampant to the point where they
are destroying pastures now. And it’s very concerning for us on that side of
it. But I can say I’m very thankful that we got the 18 months out of it so that
we can show PMRA and the federal government the
utilization of this product is something that we have to have in permanency.
And obviously the rules
around the usage are very restrictive, and that’s fine. The farmers and
ranchers that I’ve talked to — when we had it a few years ago it was the same
rules — and they’re all prepared to live by those rules and use the product in
the best means it has to be. But this is obviously a very serious problem in
many parts of the province now and it’s not getting any better. Thanks.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Yeah, thanks for speaking to it. The timeliness of the supply is a real
challenge. In the meantime my son will continue to do his part with his
twenty-two, but that doesn’t go the distance, right?
Hon.
David Marit: —
I’ll give him some names.
Trent
Wotherspoon: — Yeah,
so an important file. Shifting gears just a bit. Looking at RALP [resilient agricultural landscapes program],
looking to see if there’s any changes or any reductions on that front provincially.
And then maybe to give you
two questions at once — and I’ve identified this in the past — I know there’s
been a real reluctance by the province to stack some of the programs that exist
on this front. But I continue to hear from the stock grower community and the
livestock community that it’s really important that these programs be allowed
to be stacked in an accountable and transparent way to be able to respond to
just the cost pressures that producers are facing and to be as effective as
they can be.
Hon.
David Marit: —
I’m going to have Amy come up and explain the issue and the challenge that you
raised, and it is the stacking side of it.
But on the RALP program,
there’s no reductions. It’s a program. I know some ranchers in my constituency.
A good friend of mine was very happy about it where he took some marginal farm
land and seeded it back into forage and increased his cattle herd. So no, we’ve
been obligated or we’ve been committed to that funding and we have signed onto
the agreement.
But Amy’s going to talk to
the other part, to the question you had about the stacking side and the program
itself. Go ahead, Amy.
Amy
Standish: —
Amy Standish, assistant deputy minister at the Ministry of Agriculture. And so
this would be a bit of a twofold response. And so when we look at RALP and the
agreement that we have with the federal government, there is principles written
in there already that there is no stacking allowed with certain other programs.
So I will use the On-Farm Climate Action Fund, which also provides beneficial
management practices. And so that principle is in the agreement. So we cannot
stack between those two programs.
The other piece that you
mentioned, I think gets into some of the other programming that’s offered
through some of the NGOs [non-governmental organization] and other
organizations. And so the decision was made to then extend that principle
through to other programming that’s available with the idea that we don’t want
to duplicate or overlap those dollars on the same activity given kind of the
finite resources of the program. Wanting to make sure that we’re maximizing the
positive impact out there with producers and extending those dollars as far as
possible.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Thanks for that. So then to be clear, there’s no reductions planned on the
forage on the seeding of perennial grass? Okay.
And with respect to . . .
I understand the agreement that may be in place with the feds, but the decision
the province made as it relates to some of the other organizations — let’s use
Ducks as an example — there’s no reconsideration on your end? I continue to
hear from the livestock community that really, and faced with some of the cost
pressures that folks are facing, that the stacking of some of these in a
transparent and accountable and honest way is, you know, really important from
their perspective. There’s no consideration to change that?
Hon.
David Marit: —
I think Amy hit it really good in her reply saying that we want to make sure
the dollars are utilized in the right way. So if I’m a farmer and I apply for
the funding under RALP and they agree to it, and then Ducks Unlimited comes
along and they say, yeah, okay we’ll give you some money too, then to me, I’m
getting a benefit as a farmer. I agree with what you’re saying. But on the same
token I’m not utilizing the dollars in the best interest.
If you’re getting $10 or $20
an acre from the program and somebody else offers you another 20, well then as
a producer I should only really get $20 an acre. I should either get from one
program or another.
That’s my thoughts on that. I
think Amy hit it right on the head. We want to make sure that the dollars and
the producers can be utilized to the greatest degree we can. Otherwise if you
did the stacking and allowed it to some degree, you would see obviously not as
many acres being utilized through the program through another means, that’s
all.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Is there full uptake in the provincial program?
Amy Standish:
— Yes.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
And do you happen to know at all, like some of these other NGOs, like Ducks or
something, is there full utilization of their program in the province?
Hon.
David Marit: —
I wouldn’t know that. You’d have to ask them directly.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Okay, shifting gears just a little bit with respect to export sales reporting.
I know particularly APAS [Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan]
has done some good work along with some of the producer partners. Their
research has shown that export sales reporting could boost farming, improve
market decisions, support risk management, and identify logistics bottlenecks.
I guess my question is, how is your government acting on this evidence to
inform its position?
Hon.
David Marit: —
This is quite an easy answer because it wasn’t done by me, it was done by the
former minister, who is the Chair — yeah, a good guy — who wrote a letter to
his federal counterpart expressing support for the concept of a federal export
sales reporting program highlighting potential advantages for producer decision
making, market transparency, and sector competitive. So it’s a federal issue,
but I guess we’re on record as the letter is there.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Thanks. You know, that’s good. That former minister, good guy, good Chair, good
minister, good letter there obviously. I think it’s an area that we continue to
advocate, right? Because ideally it becomes a national program that that sales
data is reported out. And the province could play a lead role in bringing this
through to fruition by bringing on board other provinces to understand what
this means for producers.
I guess, would you speak to
what you’d see as Saskatchewan’s role on this going forward and maybe identify
any key barriers to implementation?
Hon.
David Marit: —
Yeah. You know, in just talking to the team here, there’s obviously challenges.
It all falls under federal jurisdiction and changes in legislation. I think
they’d have to find . . . There’s obviously going to be some
commercial sensitivities around this from industry as well. So there’s going to
have to be full consultation in how it proceeds, but hopefully they can find a
balance in this.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Have you taken a look to see . . . So it’s agreed we need to get to
national export sales data. Have you looked to see if there’s any short-term
measures that the province could take itself that would improve market
transparency and data access for producers?
[17:00]
Hon. David Marit: — I’m going to have Amy come
and just comment on how there’s some . . .
Trent Wotherspoon: — Sure.
Hon. David Marit: — Yes. If there’s more
technical stuff in this one, then I want to . . . Yeah.
Amy
Standish: —
So to get at the question here, I would say provincially we don’t have a
database or tool that is public facing that would assist in this area. But
there is a number of public data sets or systems that are out there that even
we as a ministry use that we would suggest to any producers or industry groups
to look at.
And so the first one being
the Canada grain commission. They publish a number of data that people can look
at. There is sometimes a lag in that data, but ultimately you can look at
volume and throughput, producer deliveries by commodity and province, the
stocks and inventory, and different pieces there.
There is also the Ag
Transport Coalition, and so they do some surveying across the West, Western
provinces. And they are going to look at kind of the health of the system and
how well things are moving as well.
And the last one that I’ll
mention is the Grain Monitor. And so this is a program that the federal
government funds, and they are also looking at kind of the health of the
system. And they publish data regularly so that producers or industry groups
can look there for some of that market transparency.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Okay, thank you. With respect to movement of grain and transport, certainly
this is an incredible cost that producers face and also, you know, very often
they’re faced with lack of performance of that system. That’s why it’s
critically important, of course, that we get the big things done as far as to
make that system perform — pipeline infrastructure, ports, addressing rail
bottlenecks.
But if you look at what
producers are up against, you know, we really pay the lion’s share of the cost
on the rail side, Saskatchewan producers. In fact combining production and
distance to port results in Saskatchewan farmers paying 65 per cent of total
rail cost for moving grain. And you know, I think that constitutes 35 per cent
of total farm costs according to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. So a
really major cost for producers, very little transparency, and very little
competitive forces or reforms to be on the interests of ensuring value and
fairness for producers in this system.
Now I know the CTA [Canada
Transportation Act] is overdue for review. This is timely. It’s always very
important that Saskatchewan play a lead role in a review like that. And an
important part of this as well is a costing review on the transport side. I’ve
spoken to this in the legislature. I met with producers about the importance of
a costing review by the federal government, by the CTA [Canadian Transportation
Agency].
What’s your government’s
position? And have you advocated on this front? And if not, is it a file that
you’re interested in making a priority?
Hon.
David Marit: — Well
this is going to take the rest of the night just because, Trent, you hit it
right on the head. I mean, farmers pay the freight bill, and I’d been paying it
for 50 years. And it comes off every check, every rain check that we get. And
we have no recourse for it because we’re a landlocked province and we’re living
within a duopoly of two railways.
The challenge we have with it
obviously when you talk about the freight rate . . . And I mean,
there is the revenue cap within the CTA agreement and that’s obviously
concerning. Is this something that I’m going to advocate for? I always have
been, probably in all my career in municipal politics. And I’ve said it
publicly: there’s two railways that don’t like me. And they don’t and I really
don’t care.
One thing this province did
that I was very pleased with was, back in 2017 when I was Highways minister, we
lobbied hard for the Port of Vancouver to get in the neighbourhood of $500 million
to streamline the tunnel to get more trains through. And now they have
installed jet engines within the tunnel so they can get more trains through.
This was a real debacle and a bottleneck and some of the challenges we have
around the Port of Vancouver.
I think we’re obviously . . .
We have signed an MOU [memorandum of understanding] with Alberta and Manitoba
and us at looking at the Port of Churchill and some opportunities around
expanding our trade corridors that way. I can assure you — and I’ll assure
anybody listening — that this will be a strong issue for this government and
will be a strong issue for this minister and I’m sure the Minister of Highways
as well.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Thanks for the response. And yeah, it’s super important to producers. They
don’t have transparency, and often they don’t have performance and they don’t
have a competitive market on this front. And clearly there needs to be some
reforms to ensure performance and value and fairness for producers. An
important step of that is a full costing review. And just to be clear, have you
advocated recently with the federal government for a costing review?
Hon.
David Marit: —
That’s probably a question better given to the Highways minister at this time.
I’m sure they have. If they haven’t, I’m sure they will be. So at the time . . .
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Okay. Well this can be one again if we can all stand united out of this
Assembly. I offered up to the minister here, you know, we’ve been real clear
publicly on the importance of this matter and would be ready to stand together
in any way that may be helpful to advocate with the feds, and to make the
position that producers deserve a costing review. And then I think from that,
there’s going to be some important actions and measures to ensure fairness and
value for producers. So thanks for the response on this file. We can follow
back up on the file.
Hon.
David Marit: —
You know, and I will comment too — and I have been told this even by producer
groups to some point and even by other entities et al. — if there’s a costing
review, we’d better be careful too. It could go the other way, so we’d better
be very careful on it. I think though that it has to be done. I think there has
been one done. But it could come with a challenge too.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Well I think that’s why it’s important Saskatchewan plays a lead role on it,
right?
Hon.
David Marit: —
Yes, I agree.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
And you know, this province, this ministry, and certainly producers in this
province bear the costs of an inefficient, unfair transport system. And I know
we would stand united and fight and have the backs of producers to ensure
fairness for them and to make sure a costing review properly captured the
burden that producers face.
Moving on a little bit, I’d
be interested to see what you’re up to and what you’re looking at or taking on
with respect to some improvements around grain contracts and addressing some of
the ongoing concerns that grain contracts can be unbalanced and leave producers
with limited protection. And looking to see what role your government may be
playing to better protect producers and improve fairness in contract terms.
Hon.
David Marit: —
I’ve just talked to the team, and I guess it’s apparent on our website that we
have put out there some best practices when you’re looking for contracts or
looking at contracts, and things you should be looking for. I can’t see where
this government is ever going to get in the way of a commercial deal between a
farmer and an entity that they choose to do business with. And I guess that’s
as far as I’ll go. That’ll be our position. We won’t get in the way or
intervene on a commercial deal between a producer and a company.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Do you review sort of this environment and see if there is any improvements
that you might act on, on this front, to address some of the concerns that
exist around like delivery windows or penalties or contract flexibility?
Hon.
David Marit: —
No, not since we had that issue a few years ago with the drought with some
contracts that couldn’t be fulfilled. And I think the industry has learned from
that. Both sides of the industry have learned from that. The producers have
learned, and I’m sure the industry has also learned from that.
I know some contracts now do
have an act-of-God clause in them. Obviously it’s at a reduced price. I’ve
signed act-of-God contracts myself. You take a reduced price. That’s totally a
business decision between a farmer and a commercial entity, and no way is this
government going to get involved in that at all. We’re not.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Would the province work at all, or do you work at all, with the federal
government and the Canadian Grain Commission to strengthen contract
transparency at a base or some of the dispute resolution mechanisms?
Hon.
David Marit: —
No, we don’t.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Okay. Moving on a little bit to matters of trade, maybe focus a little bit
first on some of the interprovincial focus. And I’d be interested in if you’re
working on anything like with respect to interprovincial trade for meat direct
to consumer.
For
example, if you’ve got a producer down . . . You know, maybe they’re
in the Southwest and they’re having their meat processed out at Ranchhouse
in Shaunavon and got a customer just over the border in Alberta. Or maybe over
on the east side of the province you’ve got a producer that has a customer
directly over the border in Manitoba, and processing in at that great operation
down at Wawota, for example. It seems that we don’t
have common-sense measures for producers to have some improved markets and direct
sale to some consumers.
Hon.
David Marit: —
Yeah, thanks for the question. Obviously I’m pretty proud of the project we did
get. That was obviously a collaboration between Alberta and Saskatchewan to get
the Lloydminster pilot project on the interprovincial issue, which really
seemed kind of hilarious in a way — that if you made a sandwich on the one
side, on the Alberta side of Lloydminster, you couldn’t take it over to the
Saskatchewan side and sell it. So you know, I mean that finally got some . . .
And obviously the CFIA has regulations on interprovincial trade and things like
that, and Bill will get into some of that side of it. But obviously it’ll be a
discussion at FPT as well, but Bill will get into
some . . .
Bill
Greuel: —
Yes. Thanks, Minister. To your specific question about working at the FPT table on this, we’ve had a number of discussions both
at the policy, regulatory, and at the DMs’ [deputy minister] table looking at a
couple of things. So the CFIA is looking at two regulatory amendments — they
haven’t been published in a Gazette yet — but looking forward, looking
at exactly what you were driving at, which is serving underserved slaughter
capacity.
So working on some regulatory
amendments but also being cognizant of the risk we have about what that might
do to our free trade agreements, and being cognizant of the risks associated
with importation of meat and the interprovincial movement of meat. And so
trying to balance all of that is part of the work of the CFIA.
[17:15]
The second thing that they’re
doing is really helping companies who have slaughter capacity or food
processing capacity bring themselves up — if they’re at provincial level —
bring themselves up to be in line with the Safe Food for Canadians
Regulations and providing a concierge service to those companies. So any
company in Saskatchewan that wants to bring themselves up to the federal
standard can get preferential treatment from the CFIA to implement the
processes, procedures, and bring themselves up to that level of regulation.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Okay, thanks for the updates. I think there’s some important improvements that
could be brought on this front that would present value for the livestock
sector, for producers, even improve sort of food security, if you will, and
certainly boost our local economy as well.
And it kind of goes hand in
hand with this push I continue to bring forward which is the importance of
building up our meat processing industry in this province. I mean we have the
second-largest beef herd in Canada and we process, I believe, 1 per cent of
that meat here in this province. And we’re really beholden to these foreign,
out-of-province, anti-competitive meat packers who don’t present value for
producers or for the food supply chain or consumers in the end. And so it’s
really good to see some growth in that sector.
New project that’s popped up,
of course, in around Perdue that I know you’ve toured as well. And a
multi-species facility, other operations as well. But I think this is, you
know, an area that we really should lean into to make sure that there’s value
and fairness for producers, fair price. And you know, then importantly
addressing those anti-competitive behaviours of the packer industry.
So
I’d like to hear about some of the actions you’re taking as minister on this
front. And then I guess as well some of the advocacy with the federal
government to crack down on those foreign, out-of-province, anti-competitive
meat packers.
Hon.
David Marit: —
It’s a difficult question. It is for a number of reasons. Obviously the
business case has to be made and that side of it.
But I do want to touch on
just what we have done as a provincial government to really improve the
value-added processing here in the province of Saskatchewan, and that’s through
our SLIM program. Since 2023 over $6.2 million . . .
And I just want to list some
of the projects because some of these are actually interprovincial already.
Drake Meats Processors, both their facilities in Drake and Saskatoon, we have
helped those out; Prairie Meats with two facilities in Saskatoon; Southeast
Butcher Block in Alameda, we’ve helped them; Horizon Meats in Maryfield; Harvest Meats in Yorkton, who is obviously a
national; Boryski’s Butcher Block in Saskatoon; SJ Fine Foods in Saskatoon; Larson’s Abattoir in Leross; Hub Meat Market in Moose Jaw; Maple Leaf Foods in
Regina; Valley Meat Processors in Gruenthal; and
Bison Ridge Farms in Prince Albert. Just a few, and I think there’s just about
another half a dozen that have applied for funding and doing it.
And also even talk about the
pork processing plant in Moose Jaw with Donald’s Fine Foods where they, you
know, have opened another facility and obviously came to us for some assistance
on part of the processing plant that in the event there was ever a disease
outbreak that there would have to be a massive cull in the province of
Saskatchewan and how would we do that. And it was working with Donald’s Fine
Foods that we helped them and assisted them in building that line so that we
could do a cull. So that’s the program we have that really does assist that
side of it.
The other side that you’re
asking for, obviously the business case has to be made. I’m in agreement with
you. The challenge we have with the slaughter facilities, the two big ones in
Alberta, obviously are concerning for us there. I mean that’s where it is, and
I would have thought and hoped that at some point the business model would work
for a company to come to this province and say, yes, this makes sense.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
But the file we’ll continue to work with across the livestock sector and across
the province . . .
Hon.
David Marit: —
If I could add to it, and I do want to add to it, and just for public record.
We have had some discussions, but I just can’t talk about it here. Sorry.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
When do you think you can talk about it?
Hon.
David Marit: —
I’ll talk about it if there’s a sod turning.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Yeah, that’s good. I think something important as well, obviously we want to
have those programs in place, those incentives in place and the regulatory
environment here in this province to make sure we can build up meat processing.
But then importantly we really have to make sure that we have actions against
the anti-competitive meat packers if they’re going to use their clout and their
control against the economic interests of an enterprise here in the province.
So I just, kind of the second
part of my question . . . Of course we want to build that industry up
here. It needed to have that strong foundation. But we really need to I think
work and push with the federal government to make sure that they’re ready to
act and crack down on anti-competitive behaviours of that packer industry as we
. . . I think that builds some certainty for capital in this province
as well and for projects. And certainly it’s rather critical if we want to
build up the processing sector in this province which is certainly for the
benefit of producers, certainly for the benefit of our economy and rural
communities, and certainly for the benefit of consumers as well.
So just on the, you know,
working with the feds to make sure that . . . and Saskatchewan is
well positioned to be a leader on this front. Have you undertaken actions with
the federal government on this front, or do you anticipate doing so?
Hon.
David Marit: —
No, we haven’t yet at this time. And I think, you know, your question probably
falls into probably a lot of different departments that would have to be
consulted or have to be dealing with the same issue as that way. I think we try
and do as a government the best we can to create the value-added processing.
And you’ve seen it explode here in this province over the last 10 years
probably because of the policies we’ve put in place on the tax incentive side
for the capital investment side.
So we’ll continue, you know,
doing that and promoting that. And we’re obviously seeing some great
value-added as we’re just seeing in Regina that will probably open either later
this month or next month with that canola crush facility and other opportunities
around that as well.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
And just on the meat processing side though, I think there’s some really good
initiatives, some great operations across the province doing awesome things. I
love to support them. They’re really doing a good job. It’s hard work as well.
But this is a sector that we
really should focus on growing, and I think that we’re going to need to make
sure that they’re protected against anti-competitive behaviours of that packer
industry. And we’re well positioned as a province to really lead this because
of our livestock sector and the importance of it and what this means for
producers, as well what it means for our province economically and certainly
for consumers as well.
Shifting gears a bit, you
know, we’ve had the discussion around the serious concerns producers have
around farm landownership and illegal foreign farm landownership and the Act
itself and the Farm Land Security Board over the years, not having the resources
and teeth that it needs to make sure that our law can be enforced on this
front. You’ve had a bit of a preliminary committee reported out here today, and
you’re going to be going into another project on this front.
Certainly I’d want to thank
all those producer groups and organizations and people that have committed to
being a part of that project. I think this is really important to rural
communities and to agriculture in our province that we’re able to enforce the
laws that we have and that our laws are up to the test of making sure they’re
in the interests of agriculture in Saskatchewan and our producers.
I think there’s some
frustration that, well to say it lightly, over the years that this issue’s been
dismissed for a long, long time. But I’m not going to dwell on that too far
here. We have exchanges back and forth across the public domain and in the legislature
on this front.
So just looking at the
project you’re leaning into right now, I guess, can you speak to some of the
timelines? I know there’s been suggestion as well that there might be some
legislative changes. Can you speak about anything that you have a sense already
that you’d like to see changed or brought about to bring improvements around
enforcement or to address some of the concerns that producers have on this
front?
Hon.
David Marit: —
You know, I’ll talk about the timeline, and then I would like Dr. Kim McLean to
come up and maybe give some comments on some of, you know, what the committee
heard and presented to the board.
I really want to commend the
committee for the work that they did. It was phenomenal in who they reached out
to and it was a great committee of three to do a lot of work. And that’s why
we’re going to do this further consultation. Because there was things, you
know, that were discussed at the committee level that haven’t been discussed in
a public format world or in a room in the public format. So my goal is, any
changes that we will be making will be made in the spring of 2027.
Kim McLean:
— Hi, everyone. Kim McLean, general manager of the Farm Land Security Board. I
did assist the committee throughout their consultations, and so they did do
quite a lengthy conversation with most of the groups independently and heard
them. Some of the biggest ones . . . There’s no surprise that the
verification before land transfer definitely came up, but there’s also some
concerns that they don’t want to see that slow down transactions. They want to
keep the speed of business flowing, and so there’s a lot of things that have to
come together to make that happen.
Oversight for permanent
residents to make sure that everybody is meeting the requirements to be a
permanent resident. And so that’s a federal program, and so there’s a little
bit of concerns there. And so perhaps adding to the Act that they must report back
to the board is one way to address that.
And again of course the
increase in penalties. Penalties are pretty standard across government. And so
to come in and say that a board should be allowed to levy a million-dollar
penalty might be a hard piece to deal with, with Justice. But that’s certainly
something that was heard, that it better match the crime. And so those are all
things that I don’t think were a surprise.
There was some conversations
about how can we help young producers or producers trying to expand have access
to capital, and certainly making sure that that lines up with where people can
be in control of the land still and that it’s owned by Canadians or permanent
residents.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Thank you very much for the update here and the work on this front. The role of
the Farm Land Security Board is essential. And yeah, I actually want to thank
you for your leadership, your current board, previous boards. You know, an
exceptional organization.
[17:30]
You don’t need to respond to
this. It’s my view — and I think many — that you haven’t had the resources or
the teeth and the tools that you need and deserve as an organization for a long
period of time to enforce the law.
With respect to . . .
Going back, there’s very serious concerns around landownership. It requires an
audit and deeper review of some of the land holdings and financial structures,
some legal structures of those entities, of those operations. Minister, are you
committed at this point to having an audit of past transactions that are of
concern part of this review here?
Or would you see that . . .
Do you want to get the . . . Obviously we need to have the penalties
beefed up. We need to have the enforcement structures in place to deal with it.
In our view, we have legislation before us, you know, that to force the
forfeiture of any profit, no one that’s broken the law should be allowed to
make bank on it or to make money on it, and that we need to have improvements
there.
So I guess my question is,
you know, we think there are some serious improvements that are long overdue on
these fronts, and then there needs to be the enforcement side and there needs
to be an audit of previous land transactions. Is that part of this current
review? Or are you looking to get those other pieces dealt with around
enforcement and penalties and those legal matters before you would go in and do
a proper review and audit of farm landownership in the province?
Hon.
David Marit: —
Yeah, I don’t think it’s the intent. I’m going to have Kim comment on it. I
think in 2016, under former minister Lyle Stewart, gave the Farm Land Security
Board a lot of teeth. And Kim can probably comment on that as well, just on the
transactions and being able to follow the money if that’s . . . the
case may be. But you did ask earlier about the number of cases and things like
that. But I’m going to have Kim comment just on, you know, how far back and how
resourceful they have been on doing the checklist on some of these cases.
Kim McLean:
— So certainly this is the board’s responsibility. This is not the minister,
and it’s up to the purview of the board. And the board certainly wants to make
sure that there’s no foreign owners, and that’s why they implemented the change
back on September 15th. They are now requesting that everybody that’s had a
transaction complete a new stat dec [statutory declaration].
And so there’s certainly a
lot of concerns from individuals that have been owning land for 60 years or 80
years, and it’s one of the ways that the board is auditing currently. Certainly
the board would like to do for their audits, and they have items planned. Once
we get through this new process and get the letters flowing to all of the individuals right now, they do have a plan that they will
be implementing for regular audits. If there’s ever a complaint, they will do a
thorough review of that. But they are auditing as they see fit.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
We’ll continue to press, I think. Anyways I commend the board, and you know, I
am thankful for all the folks that are going to be involved in this work ahead
of us here. But there needs to definitely be a beefing up of penalties and
measures that match the crime and that, you know, act as a deterrent. And then
there needs to be a will and resources to support a proper audit of farm land
in the province. We’ll continue to push on these fronts and work with the
review and work with, you know, producers and rural leaders on this front.
With respect to . . .
Can you clarify for me? It’s my understanding that investment funds aren’t
allowed to own farm land in Saskatchewan.
Kim
McLean: —
In order to own land in Saskatchewan, you must be 100 per cent Canadian owned.
All funds need to come from Canadians. And so there is some investment funds
that are currently owning land. They are on title. They are only using funds
from Canadians or permanent residents. They have not opened it up outside of
that. There’s no trusts involved with that. Those are all individual investors
that have provided funds there. We do monitor them very closely.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Because there had been actions years ago — it was my understanding — and I
thought some regulations to address investment funds from holding farm land.
Certainly we saw it with the CPP [Canada Pension Plan]. We had legislation that
was passed. And there was regulations that were brought forward more recently,
if I understand, to crack down further on this front around investment funds.
Could you speak to what those changes were?
Kim
McLean: —
So the changes were to eliminate the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board from
being able to own. But the trusts were changed in 2016 and 2017 to limit only
family-owned trusts to be able to own land. And so there is one large
investment firm that had an exemption for a trust. That trust is expiring, and
so there will be no investment trusts that are owning land in the province.
Only family, and it’s specified whether it is dad, sister, nieces, etc. And
they can only have up to 10 individuals in that trust.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Can you speak to what trust that is?
Kim
McLean: —
Avenue Living has an exemption for a trust.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
So they have an exemption. But you know, that’s where I’m getting to here is
they’ve got over . . . They’re touting over 100,000 acres of land
they’ve acquired. They lay out their prospectus with the return on it here.
They’re headquartered in Calgary. So why are they compliant? Why are they able
to hold land as an investment fund, but others aren’t?
I’m
not suggesting we go this way. I think my
question is, I hope this is an outlier and I’m wondering then what’s the
minister doing, I guess. Is it your view that Avenue Living, headquartered in
Calgary as an investment fund, should be able to continue to own land in
Saskatchewan and position itself as an investment for Canadians?
Kim McLean:
— So Avenue Living was an early adopter of investing in farm land. And so that
was before the amendments were made in 2016 and 2017. And so they knew they
needed an exemption at that time, and that’s why they applied to the board and
the board reviewed it at the time. They have since . . . You have to
be a Canadian to be a beneficiary of that trust, and so that is specified on
that.
They did apply for an
exemption in . . . I think it was last year. That was denied. And so
they are currently owning land under a limited partnership where it is only
Canadians that are allowed to invest in that fund.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Okay, so they were denied? I think that’s the right decision. I don’t think
Saskatchewan producers should be up against, you know, an investment fund from
across Canada. That’s not in the interest of rural communities or ag.
My question is this. So they
still are advertising that investment and the growth that they see. I think
they touted that there’s real opportunity in Saskatchewan in driving up the
price by consolidating landownership. That’s sort of their prospectus, if you
will. That’s their pitch to investors. If the exemption has been denied, why
are they able to continue to advertise that investment and continue to hold
land in the province?
Kim McLean:
— So they are currently owning that as a limited partnership with only
Canadians as investors, and that is not something that has been removed from
their ability to do that in the Act. So that’s certainly something that might
come up in a review. It’s certainly something that the board is concerned
about. They want to make sure that it is Canadian farmers that own the lot.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Okay. Yeah, no, it stands out like a sore thumb, hey, when you look at this,
when you look at the pressures that producers are facing. There’s serious
concerns around, you know, breaches to the spirit and intent of the Act around
foreign capital and ownership and then, you know, other big interests like this
investment fund.
Are there other investment
funds? If this is legal and it’s — which I don’t think it should be — if this
is legal right now, are there other investment funds that are accumulating land
right now with investors from across Canada?
Kim McLean:
— There is some and the board is watching them. They are sent a stat dec on a
regular basis to ensure that they still meet the requirements of the Act.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
And so the requirements are basically that it’s Canadian investment then, that
it’s a Canadian permanent resident or a Canadian citizen.
Kim
McLean: —
No pension plans or trusts.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Yeah, but wide open on the investment fund side as it stands right now.
Kim
McLean: —
I think mutual funds, that is not specified in the Act. But no trust, and
that’s typically how people like to operate out of a fund.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Yeah. But it’s giving, you know, I think it’s a minimum $25,000 investment for
example into Avenue. And so it’s giving wealthier Canadians or permanent
residents in other parts of Canada the opportunity to, as it states, to profit
off the consolidation of farm land in Saskatchewan. I mean it just seems
. . . Do we have to wait on this front? Or is this not something that
if we feel this is wrong . . . As the minister, do you feel this is
wrong, Minister?
Hon.
David Marit: —
Well I mean the Act acts on its own, according and within the Act. I think
that’s why we’re doing this process now. We’ll do the process and go through
it, and if it comes through as a legislative change, then we’ll make those
changes in March of ’27 or in . . .
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
You’ve changed regs in the past so . . .
Hon.
David Marit: —
This wouldn’t be a reg, though. This would probably be a legislative change, so
we’d have to go through the process, and that’s why the consultation.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
How many . . .
Hon.
David Marit: —
And you’ve always said to us that we don’t do a fair consultation. This is
going to be a fair consultation that’s going to take some time to process. We
know right now between now and August, it isn’t going to be a very good time
for farmers and ranchers to do a lot of consulting. We announced that we’re
going to start that process. It’ll be a very good process. You’ll be able to
make your recommendations as well, which you will, I’m sure. And then we’ll go
through that process, and then in the spring we’ll introduce legislative
changes if those changes come forward.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Yeah. No, to be fair though, Minister, we’ve been identifying these concerns
with your government for almost 18 years going on, including statutory
declarations at this committee, you know, almost till we’re blue in the face
over the years. Glad to see they’re being implemented at this point in time,
but you know, there needs to be sometimes a bit of a hurry-up offence if you’re
going to act in the interests of producers and rural communities here. And I
wouldn’t disguise consultation as a reason to punt or slow walk some of the
changes . . .
Chair D. Harrison: —
Excuse me here, if I could ask the member here to please get to a question.
Trent Wotherspoon: — Right. So we’ve established that
right now Avenue Living is then allowed to continue to grow its holdings and to
have this investment fund in place. I guess my question is, how many other
funds? Can you list the funds that are currently holding land as well? And how
many acres of Saskatchewan farm land are held by investment funds like Avenue?
I think Avenue . . . I don’t know what their exact number is, but I
think it’s identified that it’s over 100,000 acres anyways.
[17:45]
Kim McLean:
— Just in the interests of business and protecting people’s privacy, we will
not disclose their names. Certainly the board has reviewed stat decs on all of
the funds that they are aware of. Anybody that is currently holding land meets
the requirements of the Act. And so if you would like to go find more, you can
go to The Land Titles Act or the Saskatchewan land registry as a way to
find those.
We certainly don’t have the
number of acres. With the amount of acres that ebb and flow for some of these
companies, we don’t keep track of them; we look to make sure that they are
allowed to own land. And as long as they’re allowed to own land, they can have
100,000 or they could have 10 acres. We make sure that the people are allowed
to own the land. Certainly if you’ve heard names, we’ve reviewed them.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
I think the understanding for many is
that investment funds weren’t allowed to hold Saskatchewan farm land. I think
it’s going to be a surprise to many in the province. And I think it’s an
expectation as well for transparency from the minister back to the producers of
the province to be able to identify some facts around this. Can you speak to
the number of investment firms, funds that own land in Saskatchewan?
And I find it surprising, Mr.
Minister, that you wouldn’t be tracking the number of acres. I don’t know why
it would’ve been legislated that the CPP, the Canada Pension Plan, couldn’t
hold those funds. I agree they shouldn’t. But that somehow it was acceptable
for other investment funds across this country to buy up and consolidate farm
land in the province, competing against Saskatchewan producers.
Kim McLean:
— So I’ll say that every fund and every landowner has a very different business
structure. The board has denied I believe it’s two different companies that
have applied for exemptions as well that would like to operate as an investment
— come in and assist a farmer, whether they take on the infrastructure
payments, etc. — and then they partner with the farmer. The board has denied
those as they’re concerned about that. There’s just some very unique
arrangements, and everyone’s structured differently. These ones currently meet
their criteria.
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Well I think this is a point of some pretty significant concern, and it’s going
to need to be some actions taken in the interest of producers, including basic
transparency. You know, I would push the minister for action on that front in
the days ahead here.
I would like to shift, just
cognizant of the time here . . .
Chair
Harrison:
— Excuse me. Having reached our agreed-upon time for consideration of these
estimates, we will adjourn consideration of the 2026‑2027 estimates and
the 2025‑2026 supplementary estimates no. 2 for the Ministry of
Agriculture. Minister Marit,
do you have any closing comments?
Hon.
David Marit: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Trent, for the questions and the committee
as well. I just want to thank the entire team within the Ministry of
Agriculture and the work that they do. Make it pretty easy for me to be the
spokesperson for it. And I’ll leave it at that, because that’s probably about
my biggest role. It’s a great team, both at Crop Insurance and at the Ministry
of Ag and also at the Farm Land Security Board, and the work that Kim and her
team are doing as well.
No, I just want to thank
everybody for this evening, and thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Thank you, Minister. MLA
[Member of the Legislative Assembly] Wotherspoon, do you have any closing comments?
Trent
Wotherspoon: —
Yeah, no, you bet. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks,
committee members. Importantly, thanks to the minister for the time, all the
officials for your work and your time here tonight as well. Definitely as a
team of officials, you’re exceptional. So I appreciate that.
We’ll continue to press on
some of these important issues, and I had other . . . We ran out of
time there. I wanted to get through disease management and some of these other
key areas, but we’ll look to continue to advocate on these fronts. And I’m
thankful for some of the undertakings that have been committed to here tonight.
And then there’s clearly a few files that are going to require some action
here. Thank you very much.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Thank you. This committee
will now recess until 6:30 p.m.
[The
committee recessed from 17:49 until 18:30.]
General Revenue Fund
Water Security Agency
Vote 87
Subvote
(WS01)
Chair
D. Harrison: — Welcome back, committee
members. The committee now will be considering the 2026‑2027 estimates
for Water Security Agency. We will begin with consideration of vote 87, Water
Security Agency, subvote (WS01).
Minister Marit is here with
his officials. And I would ask that the officials state their names before
speaking, and please don’t touch the microphones. The Hansard operator
will turn your microphones on when you are speaking to the committee.
Minister, please introduce
your officials and make your opening remarks.
Hon.
David Marit: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today to discuss the 2026‑2027 budget and the
important work carried out by the Water Security Agency.
I’m joined today by senior
officials from the Water Security Agency, who will assist in answering your
questions following my remarks, including members of the executive leadership
and senior management team. I have with me the executive team: Shawn Jaques,
president and CEO; John Fahlman is vice-president of infrastructure; Thon
Phommavong, vice-president of science and licensing. Oh, Terri’s not here,
okay. Jordan Huber, vice-president of finance is here; and Ali’i Lafontaine is
here, the general counsel. Also joining us is Krystal Tendler, executive
director of agricultural water management, and Leah Clark, executive director
for irrigation and economic development.
Water has always been
foundational to Saskatchewan, not just as a resource but as a responsibility.
It shapes our landscape, sustains our communities, and powers the industries
that keep this province moving forward. From agriculture and energy to communities
large and small, our shared prosperity depends on how well we manage and
protect this vital resource. As the world changes around us, one truth remains
constant: a strong, resilient Saskatchewan depends on secure, sustainable
water. That is why planning for the future means investing wisely today,
ensuring our water systems are protected and reliable, our stewardship is
sound, and our province remains competitive and secure for generations to come.
That clear commitment is
reflected throughout this year’s budget. For 2026‑27 the Water Security
Agency has an overall budget of $130 million. This investment focuses on
protecting Saskatchewan’s water resources through three core priorities:
rehabilitating and maintaining critical infrastructure; supporting economic
growth while protecting aquatic habitat; and ensuring Saskatchewan people
continue to have access to clean, safe, and reliable water.
At a time when jurisdictions
across North America are facing increasing pressures from more extreme weather
conditions to aging infrastructure, our government is taking a proactive
approach by supporting economic growth, strengthening rural growth, and enhancing
quality of life in communities across Saskatchewan. We are investing now to
protect what matters most.
A key part of this proactive
approach is fixing and maintaining what we already have. This year Water
Security Agency will invest $38 million in capital funding for water
management infrastructure. Reliable infrastructure is the backbone of effective
water management. Without it we cannot effectively manage the more than 70 dams
and control structures or the hundreds of kilometres of conveyance channels
that support our communities, producers, industry, and aquatic ecosystems.
Capital investment this year
is focused on maintaining and upgrading existing infrastructure, expanding
irrigation capacity, and ensuring the long-term integrity of dams, canals, and
control structures across the province. Key projects include replacement of the
Cowan Lake dam structure, improvements to the Lafleche dam spillway, and
continued refurbishment of the East Side pump station. These are targeted
investments designed to ensure the infrastructure Saskatchewan relies on
continues to meet the needs of a growing province and remains adaptable in a
changing and dynamic future.
To put this in perspective,
in 2006, roughly 20 years ago, WSA’s [Water Security
Agency] predecessor organization invested just $2.8 million annually in
capital projects. This year WSA will invest
$38 million. That represents an increase of more than 1,200 per cent.
Since 2010 our government has invested over $360 million in water
management infrastructure across Saskatchewan. We are protecting our water
infrastructure more than ever before, and it’s this infrastructure that
supports many different parts of our lives.
In rural areas it supports
irrigation. Expanding irrigation across Saskatchewan remains a key priority
under the province’s growth plan. Increasing irrigation capacity delivers real
and lasting benefits, supporting producers, strengthening food security, and
driving economic growth across rural and urban communities. As part of the
Saskatchewan growth plan, the province set an ambitious goal of 85,000 acres
new irrigated across by 2030. I am proud to tell this committee that
Saskatchewan has already surpassed that target with roughly 108,000 new
irrigated acres added to date, and we are just getting started.
This year’s capital plan
includes $19 million dedicated to irrigation development and expansion,
including $1 million for the Luck Lake irrigation project and
$3 million for irrigation development initiatives across the province.
Also a major focus within this plan is the Westside irrigation rehab project.
In 2026‑27 WSA will invest $15.5 million
to further advance this important initiative.
In
December 2025 WSA released the final economic
analysis for the Westside irrigation rehab project, which demonstrated the
scale of its potential impact. An estimated $12.9 billion contribution to
the GDP [gross domestic product] and the creation of approximately 80,000 jobs
over the life of the project. This analysis, completed by KPMG, identified
significant benefits across the crops, livestock, land, and food manufacturing
sectors.
Prairie Engineering Partners,
a joint venture between Stantec and MPE engineering,
continues to advance design and engineering work, allowing for more detailed
cost estimates and enabling the project to expand from 90,000 to 100,000 acres
of potential irrigated land. These investments recognize water as a strategic
asset, one that strengthens Saskatchewan’s economy and ensures the benefits of
growth are shared by people across the province.
It is important to note that
the progress we’ve made in irrigation expansion and the confidence we have
looking forward rest squarely on the leadership of Saskatchewan’s producers.
Government cannot do this work alone. Producers are on the ground managing
water responsibly, investing in their operations, and helping turn opportunity
into results.
Their partnership is not just
valuable; it is essential. The economic analysis done by KPMG shows that every
dollar of public investment will result in $11 of private investment. Since
2020 it is estimated that Saskatchewan producers have invested over $430 million
in irrigation expansion projects.
Turning to operations: WSA will invest nearly 72 million this year to deliver
the programs and services Saskatchewan people rely on every day. I will
highlight a few of these areas for the committee.
The science and licensing
division is at the core of informed and responsible water management decisions.
Their work ensures water resources are allocated based on sound science,
balancing user needs while protecting long-term sustainability.
Key priorities include
strengthening scientific capacity and continuing support for the outcome-based
compliance framework. Investments include $100,00 in one-time funding for
hydrology service needs assessment to identify current and future demands; 125,000
to fully fund a hydrologist position, adding specialized expertise to support
core services and economic development; and funding for species assessments
including lake sturgeon, bigmouth buffalo, and other species at risk.
Funding under the flood
hazard identification and mapping program will total $2.4 million,
advancing flood science and flood hazard mapping across the province. This work
supports public safety, protects infrastructure, and reduces economic disruption
from flood events. In fact the Water Security Agency found that every dollar
invested in flood mitigation activities prevent $20 to $30 in damages to both
public and private assets. Flood mapping is the most cost-efficient way of
planning effective flood mitigation activities, and we are investing in it.
WSA
will also continue its $1.55 million investment in key grant programs
including the Agricultural Water Management Fund, the flood damage reduction
program, and channel-clearing initiatives. In addition, the budget maintains
support for the Agricultural Water Stewardship policy announced in January
2025. Since its launch, 17 projects have been approved under new wetland
retention requirements and $1 million has been committed to ongoing
stewardship research and monitoring.
Infrastructure operations
remain central to ensuring water is available when and where it is needed. The
infrastructure division manages the planning, operation, maintenance,
assessment, and the rehabilitation of dams, conveyance systems, and pump stations
across the province. Their work directly supports Saskatchewan’s Growth Plan.
This year, infrastructure has an operating budget of $14.8 million
supporting day-to-day asset management, enhanced governance processes,
improvements to early warning systems, increased condition assessments, and
support for the province’s anticipated dam infrastructure audit.
In closing, this budget reflects
a clear and deliberate commitment to protecting Saskatchewan’s water resources,
not only for today but for the generations to come. It speaks of our
responsibility to plan ahead, to invest wisely, and to ensure that the choices
we make now continue to serve our province well into the future. It
demonstrates how we’re making responsible, forward-looking investments that
strengthen Saskatchewan in a meaningful and lasting way by aligning
infrastructure, economic growth, and stewardship into a single long-term
vision.
Second, it expands economic
opportunity by recognizing water for what it truly is — a strategic asset. By
supporting irrigation expansion and long-term water security, this budget helps
unlock growth, increase productivity, and enhances Saskatchewan’s competitiveness.
And third, it strengthens our
approach to stewardship, ensuring Saskatchewan’s water resources are managed
sustainably and responsibly. That means decisions grounded in sound science and
guided by a deep respect for our environment.
Taken together these
investments position Saskatchewan to remain resilient in the face of aging
infrastructure, extreme weather conditions, and growing demand. They enable us
to manage water responsibly while supporting economic growth, protecting public
safety, and preserving the environment we all depend on. This is a budget that
reflects confidence in Saskatchewan’s future and a commitment to building it
carefully, collaboratively, and with purpose.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I
will now look forward to the questions.
Chair
D. Harrison: — Thank you, Minister. I will
now open the floor for questions. I recognize MLA Clarke.
Jared
Clarke: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Looking at page 126 in the Estimates booklet, I see a
reduction from 99.407 million in the 2025‑26 budget reduced to
85.778 million. Wondering if you can speak to that reduction.
[18:45]
Hon.
David Marit: —
I’ll turn it to officials.
Shawn Jaques:
— Yeah, good evening. Shawn Jaques, president and CEO of Water Security Agency.
I’ll take a first crack at it and then I’ll have my VP [vice-president] of
finance jump in.
So where the difference comes
in is you’ll see on the line item there the 70 million for ’25‑26
and the 58 million for capital. For this year we’re not expecting as many
capital projects to move ahead, so we didn’t need as much capital for this
coming year. So that’s where the reduction . . . As well as the
number above is the transfer from the GRF [General
Revenue Fund]. We’re expecting an increase in power revenue, our power
generation revenue and water that is used by the hydro dams in the province. So
then our appropriation is a little bit less from the GRF.
So that’s the reason for the change.
Jared
Clarke: —
Okay, thank you. I’m wondering how many in-scope and out-of-scope staff do you
currently have in the Water Security Agency? And how does this compare to last
year as well as five years ago?
Hon.
David Marit: —
I’m just going to make one brief comment, then I’ll turn it over to Shawn or on
some of the others too. You asked for the last five years.
Jared
Clarke: —
Just comparing the last year and five years ago, not necessarily all five
years.
Hon.
David Marit: —
Yeah, we’ve gone up every year. It’s gone up every year from ’25‑26. We
went up another full employee from ’25‑26 to ’26‑27 and up
significantly from ’20‑21 to ’26‑27.
Jared
Clarke: —
You going to give those numbers?
Shawn
Jaques: —
Yeah, so as the minister indicated, we have 325 FTEs [full-time equivalent] for
’26‑27, 324 for ’25‑26, the same number for ’24‑25, 320 for
’23‑24, 297 for ’22‑23, and 296 for ’21‑22.
Jared
Clarke: —
And how does that break down in terms of in-scope and out-of-scope staff?
Shawn
Jaques: —
I don’t have that number here right now. We’ll look for it. One thing with
Water Security Agency, we employ a lot of engineers, and the engineering
profession is out-of-scope, so our out-of-scope numbers are probably higher.
But I don’t have the breakdown right now.
Jared
Clarke: —
Okay, yeah.
Shawn
Jaques: —
We’ll try to get it before the end of the evening.
Jared
Clarke: —
Okay, sounds great. Thank you. How many staff were terminated in the last
fiscal year?
Hon.
David Marit: —
Yeah, just two.
Jared
Clarke: —
And what was the total severance cost for the last fiscal year?
Shawn
Jaques: —
So for the ’25‑26 fiscal year the severance was 115,338.
Jared
Clarke: —
Thank you. In the past, Water Security Agency has relied on complaints to look
at illegal drainage, and farmers wanting to
register a complaint have to pay $1,000 for that fee. I’m wondering, have you
included that revenue and monitoring and inspection into this budget? And what
kind of dollar value of revenue do you expect from that $1,000 fee over this
fiscal year?
Hon.
David Marit: —
Since the $1,000 fee has been introduced, we don’t keep any of that. If the
complaint is legitimate, is a complaint that is understood or real or whatever,
the money’s returned to the complainant. Since 2024 since we implemented it,
there’s been 27 complaints and 23 have been paid back and four are pending and
probably will get back as well.
Jared
Clarke: —
So the program is working.
Hon.
David Marit: —
The program is working the way it is intended to do.
Jared
Clarke: —
How does that compare? So 27 complaints, I believe you said, since 2024 since
you initiated. How many complaints did you have, say, in 2022‑2023?
Shawn Jaques:
— So in the ’23‑24 year we had 26 complaints or RFAs [request for
assistance] registered. And in ’22‑23 we had 16.
Jared
Clarke: —
Thank you. How does Water Security Agency define a nuisance complaint, so one
that wouldn’t be paid out?
Krystal Tendler:
— Hi. Krystal Tendler, executive director of agricultural water management. And
so to file an RFA, the first thing is you have to be a registered landowner.
You have to have your name on title to be able to file it. And then you have to
be hydrologically connected to where the drainage works exist.
And so if you’re, you know,
driving down the highway and see something, you couldn’t file it. You’d have to
be the landowner. You would have to have your land be connected to the drainage
works. And there has to be actual drainage works in question. And so it can’t
be a natural weather event or something like that. There has to be drainage
works constructed on the landscape.
Jared Clarke: — When
did those criteria come into force?
Krystal
Tendler: —
So once we get an inquiry about someone being impacted by drainage, the first
thing that we do . . . We have a team of compliance specialists who
would first work with the client to help screen the inquiry, to ask them those
general questions to get a sense of what’s going on before an RFA is filed. So
ideally we’re trying to find the right pathway, the right mechanism for them to
find resolution for their issue.
If they chose to continue
with the process and file their RFA, that would then trigger us to do an
investigation. That’s where we’re looking at those questions that I mentioned
about hydrologically connected, who’s the registered landowner, are there drainage
works. And through that investigation we’re able to make a recommendation on
how the issue be resolved. One mechanism to get into compliance is an approval,
or recommending closure of works are the choices typically.
The intent behind this again
is to ensure that the concerns that are coming in are coming into the right
mechanism to solve them. And so we were previously getting a number of
complaints that were coming in that were about something completely other than
drainage. And in fact we saw that number up to about 30 per cent of the
complaints coming in weren’t actually about drainage. So we weren’t able to
help solve their problem, which is frustrating for the client and also is a big
use of resources for us.
And so what we were able to
do by implementing this fee is ensure those compliance resources are being used
to solve real drainage problems. And although it’s only been implemented for
two years, we have actually seen our number of RFAs in our system — so the
backlog of RFAs — nearly cut in half. We’re at a 46 per cent reduction of the
backlog. And that in turn allows us to provide better service to the clients
who are coming in the door now.
So our goal is to be as
responsive as we can when we have new clients coming in the door who are being
impacted by drainage. We want to be able to get out there and help them solve
those problems right away. Part of that is ensuring that we can clear that
backlog up and free up the capacity to focus on the real stuff that we’re
experiencing right now.
Jared
Clarke: —
I guess my question is kind of to get an idea of the number of complaints that
have been coming in. And so I am curious as to like the timeline of when the
decision was to make, you know, being the local landowner that’s impacted, a
requirement of whether you can lodge a complaint or not. That’s kind of my
question. When did that policy change occur? Just to get an understanding of
how the number of complaints have changed over time.
[19:00]
If you had to be a landowner,
you had to be connected to the watershed or the water system. Was that a rule
that was implemented or a policy that was implemented prior to 2023‑24
where you only had like 16, 26 complaints? I’m just trying to get an idea as to
when that change occurred.
Krystal
Tendler: —
So the requirement having to be a landowner impacted by drainage in order to
file a complaint about drainage has been in place since, we think, the
beginning of the drainage regulations, so about 1982. That’s always been how
this program’s operated, how the request for assistance mechanism was framed.
The language talked about,
you know, being impacted by drainage in order to file that complaint, and so
again the criteria of being hydrologically connected. You have to be a
landowner, but you also have to be upstream of the point of adequate outlet. So
it means you can’t be on the other side of the lake where the drainage works
exist. You know, you have to be between the drainage works and the outlet in
order to submit the complaint. So that was a criteria as well.
And so this isn’t a new
criteria. It’s not something that changed over the last number of years. It’s
something that’s always been in place.
The problem was there was no
deterrent that would stop somebody from filing it. You could quickly throw in a
complaint in a number of minutes that came to us. We would investigate it, look
at all those considerations. But it might not be for a number of years before
we would have determined, oh, this isn’t actually the right mechanism to solve
that issue. And so for the client who thought they were, you know, on a pathway
to resolution and then figure out a couple years down the road this wasn’t even
the right mechanism for them to find a solution, it would be really
frustrating.
So what that RFA fee has done
is allowed for that screening up front, cause clients to pause, make sure that
they’re pursuing the right pathway to resolution, ensure they’re serious about
the pathway. And then they’re able to work with us and again provide more
timely service.
And so I did just want to
note the numbers that I provided for 2023 was accurate that we . . .
Or the 2023 number, that we received 56 in that year, was correct. But it was
2022 we actually received 54. So I just wanted to correct that.
But it obviously fluctuates
over time, and a lot of that is dependent on weather, the number of RFAs we
receive in a year. In wetter years we receive more. We can see that history
over the last number of decades. But that rule about needing to be impacted by
drainage in order to file a complaint, that hasn’t changed.
Jared
Clarke: —
So I’ll just look for clarity then, just so I understand correctly. 2024, since
implementing the $1,000 fee, there has been 27 complaints; 23 of those have
been paid back, four are pending. In the 2023‑24 there were 56
complaints? In 2022‑23 there were 54 complaints? I’m just not clear on
those numbers.
Krystal Tendler:
— So you’re finding an interesting little nuanced piece here, is that the RFAs
fees we receive doesn’t exactly equate to how we count RFAs, because you can
file one fee, so pay a $1,000 fee, against a number of different quarter
sections. So you might pay one fee and that counts for three RFAs. And so that
might be why you’re saying, why do these numbers kind of sound funny.
So if I take you back through
the total RFAs received in the fiscal year, in 2025 the number is 22; in 2024
the numbers received is 14; in 2023 the numbers received is 52; and in 2022 the
number received is 70. And so that doesn’t exactly equate to how many fees we
might have received if we were charging those previous years and what we
receive now. But that’s the number of RFAs that we got physically in our hands.
Jared
Clarke: —
Thank you for that. How many RFAs are still . . . You spoke about a
backlog. How many RFAs are still in that backlog and being investigated?
Krystal Tendler:
— So currently the number of active RFAs, so RFAs that are still in our queue
is 178. Of note again, that’s a 46 per cent reduction since this fee was
implemented in January of 2024. Also of note, during this last fiscal year, we
were able to resolve 85 RFAs in the one year. And so the majority of those are
through getting the works into a state of approval. There’s some voluntary
closures, some dismissed, and some withdrawn. But we’re able to, as we talked
about, able to be more responsive to those concerns coming in and provide more
timely service because we’re getting the right issues into this stream now.
Another thing I want to note
about the 178 active RFAs, a number of those are quite old. So they would have
come in to WSA’s system before the RFA fee came into
place. Along with the RFA fee came also a prescribed timelines resolution. So
now when we get a concern coming in the door, we put a clock on it and say that
within a certain amount of days, certain things need to happen. And so that
goes from how many days until we can acknowledge the receipt, until we
investigate the receipt, until we issue recommendations, until they have to
come into compliance.
And we have timelines on
every step of that process now. That wasn’t in place previously, and so that’s
why we saw some of these drag out. So again with the addition of the fee, we’re
able to put higher quality service standards in place as well, and clients know
what to expect once they come in the door.
Jared Clarke: — Thank
you. Of the 85 RFAs that were resolved in the last fiscal year, how many of
those would have not had the $1,000 fee repaid?
Krystal Tendler:
— So as of right now, we haven’t kept any fees. So we’ve returned every fee
that we’ve received. And so of the 27 that we’ve received, 23 have been
returned; 4 are still pending investigation. And so when we look at the 85 that
were resolved last year, if they would have paid a fee, if they came in since
January 2024, it would have been returned to them. If they came in before that
timeline, they wouldn’t have paid a fee. That was a new instrument.
Jared
Clarke: —
Thank you. Yeah, I’m just trying to get a feel for or an understanding for how
many RFAs you’re dealing with that are not appropriate. And so the minister
kind of spoke to the fact that, you know, the $1,000 fee is working; it’s doing
what it’s supposed to do. But I’m not really seeing in the data necessarily
that you’re receiving a lot of unnecessary complaints or unfounded complaints
given how many are receiving back their money or are being resolved.
Krystal Tendler:
— Yeah, so previously to 2024 when we implemented the fee, we were finding 30
per cent of RFAs that were coming in the door were not about drainage. They
were about other issues. They might have been water related, they might have
not been water related. But this wasn’t the right mechanism to solve them.
Since January 2024 when we
put the fee in place, it was intended to ensure that we’re getting only those
drainage-related concerns coming in. And it’s doing exactly what it’s intended
there, that we aren’t getting those issues that maybe are about something else
coming in this way. They’re finding the appropriate pathway to resolve their
concerns.
And so our goal was never to
generate revenue from this. It was to ensure that we can get clients in the
right pathway to find resolution and ensure our resources are being reused for
the appropriate thing.
Jared
Clarke: —
Were you pre-screening the applications prior to the $1,000 fee in terms of
just, like, doing that pre-evaluation?
Krystal Tendler:
— It would have been case by case and depending on how the client reached out
to us. If they called us, talked through their concerns, there would be some
amount of pre-screening that would be involved. But there was also a mechanism
where they could get a copy of the form and send it in without ever talking to
anyone, in which case we didn’t have the opportunity to do any pre-screening or
discussion on it.
[19:15]
And the only way that we’re
able to really dig into whether it was a drainage issue or not is to begin the
investigation, and so begin spending resources on that. And that, depending on
what our queue was at that time — what the backlog was — it might have taken us
a while to get to that file. And again that impacts our ability to be
responsive to those clients.
Jared
Clarke: —
So it would be fair to say that it’s possibly the pre-screening that’s
happening now that is having a large impact on whether these are nuisance
complaints or not?
Krystal Tendler:
— We don’t have any way to really determine what is preventing the RFA or is
redirecting some RFAs. Whether it’s the pre-screening process, whether it’s the
fee, we aren’t able to determine that. But when we initiated the fee it was
always about a full package. It was never just a stand-alone fee. There was
always a set of new procedures, new timelines, new service standards that went
along with that. And so it’s the combination of that change that we made that
we’re seeing the impact from. I don’t know that we can piece that apart.
Jared
Clarke: —
Thank you. How many compliance managers and compliance officers does Water
Security Agency currently have?
Krystal Tendler:
— So within the agriculture water management branch we have 29 staff who are
working towards compliance. So compliance with the legislation would involve
either getting and issuing drainage approvals or pursuing some sort of
enforcement or closure.
Also within that team are
folks focused on education, and so encouraging adoption, compliance with the
regulations as they’re in place. That’s a part of our approach to compliance as
well. So within that full team we have 29 employees.
Jared
Clarke: —
How many specifically compliance officers do you have?
Krystal Tendler:
— So we don’t technically have anybody with the job title “compliance officer,”
but I’m going to kind of again talk about the people working in the area,
working on RFAs and related work.
So we have a compliance unit
that has six people in it. They would be the ones who would be receiving RFAs,
who would be screening them, who would be investigating them, and would issue
recommendations and work through the compliance process on that side. But we
have 20 who work on the approvals side. So if an RFA came in the door and we
need to get the works into compliance, issuing a drainage approval would be a
pathway to do that. So that team of 20 approvals staff would be issuing
drainage approvals for varying term lengths, doing the work to assess risk, and
ensuring the right mitigation conditions are in place.
So although we don’t have the
compliance officers, I think that’s probably more of what you’re intending is
how many people are actually doing this work. And we have, between the two
teams, 26.
Jared
Clarke: —
And how many . . . I guess two questions. One, it was my
understanding that there were possibly three compliance officers, so I’m
curious as to when you went to zero. But also is any of those six individuals
in that compliance section actually out on the land when there isn’t a
complaint but just checking on drainage projects or doing any fieldwork that
isn’t related to a specific RFA?
Krystal Tendler:
— So all of those 29 staff that we have are proactively working with
landowners. Whether it be within a network, whether it be a voluntary project
coming in the door, they all spend some amount of time in the field working
with clients. Some of them are RFA driven, we call it; some of them aren’t. And
they’re all working with farmers proactively.
Education we know is a key
component of this, is that we have to help producers understand what
responsible drainage looks like and what does compliance with the regulations
look like. And so we’re committed to doing that client service, that education.
And in fact we have a new drainage extension unit and a drainage extension
strategy that’s just that. It’s all focused on educating those clients and
helping them to come into compliance with the regulation.
Jared
Clarke: —
Thank you. I mean at the crux of it, I think government has chosen a system
where concerns are brought forward around a potential illegal drainage in a
complaint system, instead of having staff out looking and looking for
compliance and ensuring that, you know, if people are illegally draining water
that there’s maybe compliance officers out on the landscape just looking
around.
So I’m wondering, Minister,
can you speak to why you’ve chosen to go down the path of a system where you’re
kind of pitting neighbour against neighbour? Like if the requirements are that
you have to be connected to the watershed, you have to be a landowner, you’re
basically got to say, “I’m going to complain about my neighbour,” versus, you
know, a neutral entity like a compliance officer who could go around and check
for illegal drainage without having to pit neighbour against neighbour.
Hon.
David Marit: —
I think I’ll speak on the political side on some of your comments about pitting
neighbour against neighbour. I think this process has done the exact opposite.
It has actually put neighbours working with neighbours to find solutions on the
challenges they’re having around water, and we’re seeing that through a lot of
the process and a lot of the projects. This is really working more in the
respect of really neighbours working with each other and not against each
other. And so the process seems to be working quite well that way. But I know
Shawn’s going to add, and then Krystal is going to add as well.
Shawn
Jaques: —
Yeah, like I think just like the minister said, it really is about what we’re
seeing is, you know, producers are working with producers when it comes to
managing water on the landscape.
You know, the RFA process is
risk based. We want to spend our time on the most risky files. And I think, you
know, when we’re bringing these works into compliance, we are working with
producers to, you know, have the least impact, making sure we’re not adversely
affecting another neighbour or road infrastructure, things like that. And we
will focus on the ones, you know, that are causing some issues for people. And
I don’t know if you have anything else to add, Krystal.
Krystal
Tendler: —
Yeah. I think the way our system is designed right now is that we want to tell
producers how to do the right thing, how to drain responsibly, rather than just
hit them if they don’t. We don’t just need to go out and penalize them when
they didn’t do it right without trying to help them understand how to do it
right.
But
it doesn’t mean that we can’t look at other things. It means we’ve prioritized
those compliance files where somebody is being impacted today and is willing to
stick up their hand and ask for government’s help on those. That triggers us to
put it at the top of our pile. It doesn’t mean we’re not looking at anything
else, but those are the ones that we’re prioritizing through our compliance
process.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. I don’t think
that having compliance officers means that you necessarily have to just go out
and find people. You can still do that education piece. But again, we’ve
certainly heard and we’ve had producers in to the legislature who don’t feel
like this is a collaborative model, that they are being pitted against their
neighbours. And their concerns, I think, are valid. And that group continues to
grow in membership. So there’s clearly a group of producers in the province who
are feeling the negative impacts of drainage and don’t feel like their voices
are being heard in this conflict.
I’m
wondering about the ag drainage, ag water management policy. The ag management
policy, drainage policy gave certain metrics that were to be developed. I’m
wondering if any of those metrics have been reported on in 2025. Is there an
annual report?
Hon.
David Marit: — I’ll start just for
clarification. And a good question. But I think I just want to emphasize here
the work that Krystal has done on this through the implementation of this whole
process, and the consultation process that we went through on all of this, and
the discussions we had with a lot of organizations, municipalities, farmers,
individuals as well. But this young lady did a phenomenal amount of work on
this one. So, Krys, I’ll turn it to you.
[19:30]
Krystal Tendler: —
Thank you, Minister. So within the agricultural water management program
there’s over 20 different policies. Each of those have different measures of
success, different indicators we’re looking at. But the most public policy that
was announced — although not the most recent, the most public — was the
agriculture water stewardship policy, and that’s the one with a lot of
attention around it. And it really set the bar for how much wetland retention
we’re looking for on the landscape.
That policy was released with an
indicator framework that identified 10 different measures we are going to be
looking at over time. Eight of those were published initially in January of
2025. Two of them were in development at that time and have been recently
finalized, and you’ll see an updated indicator framework coming out right away
that will have those posted.
The next piece that you’ll be seeing is
the baseline measures for each of those 10 indicators will be published, and
those will tell you where are we at right now, or where were we at upon policy
implementation. And that’ll provide us the baseline to measure against in the
years to come.
Some of the measures that we’re looking
at are things that we can see change over a year. You know, how many projects
adopted the policy? Well we know that right now. In the last year we had 17
projects who adopted the policy and have wetland retention as a part of their
project. But there’s some of those measures that are going to take a long time
to assess change. We might not see any difference in some of the indicators for
a number of years, or the data sources take a number of years to be renewed.
And so those ones will take longer for us to be able to publish that new data
on. And so this isn’t a short-term initiative. This is something we’re
committed to over time.
And that correlates to our commitment to
ongoing research and monitoring. So when we announced the policy in January
2025, we also announced a million-dollar commitment to ongoing research and
monitoring. And so in our first year of that research commitment we were
advancing a number of different projects. I think we have about . . .
We have 12 projects on the ground already through that million-dollar
commitment.
And an exciting part of that is we’ve
also now seen our investment, our initial million-dollar investment, nearly
doubled. We had $900,000 in additional commitment come through the Agriculture
Development Fund and the Western Grains Research Foundation because they’re
interested in the same questions we are and assessing some of those same
indicators over time. And so we’re looking forward to see how this research
commitment, these new projects, help us understand and assess the policy’s
effectiveness — not, again, over one year but over the next 10 years — really
helping us to understand what’s working, where we need to adjust.
The other point of importance for us is
assessing how it’s working for the clients. How is it working for producers who
are adopting that policy on the ground? And so getting ongoing feedback from
our stakeholders. Is it practical? That was one thing we knew all along is if
the policy wasn’t practical, it wasn’t going to be effective.
And so we’ll continue to solicit that
feedback from clients on, how is the policy working for you? Are you able to
adopt it? What improvements can we make in terms of the administration of it to make
sure that it’s going to work for you while also meeting our landscape level
outcomes? And we had those six defined outcomes that we set out with and we
continue to measure against those.
So
long answer to say, lots of measurement going on. The indicator framework is a
big piece of that, and we will continue to invest in research to ensure we’re
having the data to support those metrics.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. So when do you
think that those baseline measurements will be published publicly?
Krystal
Tendler:
— We anticipate the baselines to be published by the end of the year.
Jared Clarke: — And then going forward, how
often will they be published?
Krystal
Tendler:
— So the reporting frequency will depend on the measure. We will have to put
out . . . Some of them, as I said, will be annual measures. Some, the
data sources won’t be available annually; they’re longer term, so maybe every
three or every five years. And so again, it will be a bit dependent on the
indicator, but we will publish those that are available annually. We’ll publish
them annually and add in those others as they become available.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. What kind of data
is going to be collected? So what are you looking at? You talked about 12
different projects. I don’t want you to go through all of the 12, but I’m
wondering kind of, what kind of data in what locations are you collecting to analyze water quality or those kind of measurements?
Krystal
Tendler:
— So the indicators themselves are published online in the policy. And so
there’s the eight there, the two in development. So just examples of some of
those things that we’re looking at. So total area of wetlands retained through
the stewardship policy, so how many acres are actually retained with the
condition of approval. So on the land title that it says that that wetland must
be retained. So that’s a really important measure to see what type of
protection is in place for wetlands in Saskatchewan. What we know already is
this will be the greatest protection that ever has existed in Saskatchewan for
wetlands, and so seeing that number over years will be important.
We
also look at things like, in terms of water quality, we’ll be looking at a
subset of indices that will help us understand where drainage is having an
impact on water quality or if it’s having an impact. So there’s the indicator
but then there’s also the research work. And so there’s research projects that
are going to help us understand kind of the bigger picture around these
indicators.
And
so I can give you a few examples of some of those research projects you might
be interested in. One is the Buffalo Pound water quality research project.
That’s a really significant investment where we are assessing water quality
coming into Buffalo Pound Lake through a number of different tributaries. Some
of them are natural tributaries, various different creeks and streams, but one
of them is a C & D [conservation and development area authority] project.
And so assessing what’s the water quality difference that we’re seeing and what
could we do about that if there is differences. So we are one year into that
project. It’s a WSA-led project, a significant
investment to understand water quality impacts in various different tributaries
coming into that lake.
Another
example of a research project that’s going to help us better understand the
effectiveness of our stewardship policy is a project we’re doing with Ducks
Unlimited where we’re developing new methods for mapping wetlands in the
province. As we’ve talked about before, we have completed the most thorough
inventory of Saskatchewan wetlands in our history over the last number of
years, but that was a really intensive project to develop that inventory. We’re
now working with Ducks Unlimited to develop new methods for doing that type of
inventory work. It will benefit us as well as other stakeholders who are
interested in that data. And so those types of investments in long-term data
will help inform future policy decisions as well.
Another
one that might be of interest would be another water quality project we’re
doing with Irrigation Saskatchewan that’s looking at the water quality
implications of tile drainage under pivot irrigation. So irrigation being an
incredibly important priority for the Government of Saskatchewan, we need to
make sure that the drainage that’s associated with those projects is being done
well and is positively contributing to soil health, to agricultural
productivity, and managing environmental mitigation as well.
And
so this project is a proactive one to understand what the implications of tile
under pivot could be, what our water quality implications would be, and again,
how do you mitigate those if they exist. And so these types of projects will
help us understand the full picture around the stewardship policy while we have
the 10 indicators that are directly tied to our policy.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. Will the results,
the findings from, say, like the Buffalo Pound research project that looks at
water samples coming in from the C & Ds as well as the natural tributaries,
will that be publicly available?
Krystal Tendler: — Yes, our intention is to
publish the results, the reports from the Buffalo Pound study and all the
studies that I’ve described today, just as we have with all of our past
research and demonstration projects that we conducted in development of the
stewardship policy. So our commitment to transparency was a principle of our
policy and we’ll continue down that pathway.
Jared Clarke: — You spoke about the mapping,
the most extensive mapping of wetlands to date in Saskatchewan. Is that the 86
per cent number?
Krystal Tendler: —
The inventorying provides the data source for the 86 per cent undrained
statistic.
Jared Clarke: — And so what kind of . . .
You kind of spoke about how that was a fairly intensive endeavour.
How often will that metric be identified? And I’m thinking about in the water
stewardship policy there are, you know, 60 per cent wetland retention goals, 40
per cent water retention goals. How will you know . . . How often are
you monitoring that? And how will you know if you’re meeting those goals?
Krystal Tendler:
— So the determination of whether or not we’re hitting those targets — the 40
per cent retention target, the 60 per cent retention target — that’s actually
right through the drainage approval process. So every drainage approval we
issue since January has to have wetland retention as a part of it. It’s a
condition of approval. And so we won’t issue a drainage permit if it doesn’t
meet that requirement.
And so going forward every
project will ensure, if it’s within the Buffalo Pound basin, it will have 60
per cent retention on it or it won’t be in compliance. We won’t issue the
approval.
But the question of how often
will we update that full wetland inventory of the whole province, we don’t know
right now. We’re working on the development of those new methods. And then once
we’ve moved through that process, we’ll have a better sense of what’s going to
be feasible in terms of updating that inventory data.
Jared
Clarke: —
Is it true that class 1 and class 2 wetlands would be sufficient to meet, say,
the 60 per cent or 40 per cent retention on the landscape?
Krystal Tendler:
— So the way the wetland retention policy works is there’s two components that
go into the total calculation of retained wetlands.
[19:45]
The first is called the
floor. So it’s the wetlands that are unlikely to be drained that exist on the
landscape already. And so those might exist under some sort of protected
status. They might be under WHPA [The Wildlife Habitat Protection Act]
designation. They might be in provincial parks. They might be in land that’s
just unsuitable to drain, that those wetlands are going to be stayed there
forever. And so those are considered floor.
So we take the total
retention target. You minus what’s going to stay there, and then the remainder
is what’s the landowner retention target. And so for wetlands that the
landowner needs to retain, there’s a lot of flexibility given to the producers
to work together with their neighbours to find solutions about what’s going to
make the best sense for their collective project.
And so it might be class 1s.
It might be class 4 and 5s. There might be more likelihood a combination of all
the various different classes depending on the landscape, depending on the type
of operation. We see a lot of projects where you have a variety of different
producer types. So you’ve got livestock operators with grain operators who are
working together. Well they have different interests in what type of wetlands
they want to see on the landscape, what they need them for.
And so at this point we don’t
have a sense of what type of wetlands are going to be the ones retained. That’s
something we’re going to continue to look at. But we do allow producers the
flexibility to choose which type they want, so whether it’s those class 1s or
the class 2 through 5s.
Jared
Clarke: —
Thank you. One other question just before I move on to another line of
questioning. In terms of the 86 per cent, I heard someone say that that number
includes existing lakes and rivers, creeks, as part of the cumulative total of
86 per cent wetlands retained on the landscape. Is that accurate?
Chair
D. Harrison: — If I could just interject
here. Could I get the question to refer to estimates?
Jared
Clarke: —
In terms of the work that will continue to be done in the upcoming budget on
this indicator, which is clearly outlined in the budget document, does that
number include or continue to include lakes and streams and rivers?
Krystal Tendler:
— The 86 per cent is 86 per cent undrained of pothole wetlands. So that does
not include lakes, creeks, or rivers in Saskatchewan.
Jared
Clarke: —
Thank you. Switching gears, one of the places that I have in both my roles as
shadow minister for Environment as well as newly Water Security Agency, that
has been a focus of concern is the Cumberland delta. I’m wondering what in this
budget . . . Is there anything in this budget or in the work of Water
Security Agency in the coming year that will monitor or collect data or do any
work in modelling flows of the delta and what can be done to save the delta?
Hon.
David Marit: —
I’ll start. Obviously we just had discussion. There’s been a lot of work done
and it’s a lot of technical things. And Shawn’s going to start on what we are
doing and what’s in this budget. And then Leah is going to get into exactly all
the dynamics around what we’ve done at Cumberland.
Shawn Jaques:
— Yeah, thanks, Minister. Yeah, we have done a lot of work with, you know, the
northern community, both the village of Cumberland House and the Cumberland
House Cree Nation.
You know, in this budget
what’s included — I don’t have it itemized — but we have hydrologists that do
work studying the flows on the river that flows through Cumberland House. We
have a number of hydrometric stations that are measuring the water. We spent
significant dollars here a few years ago flying LiDAR [light detection and
ranging] for the whole area, which helps determine, you know, where the water
flows, things like that.
As well as we have two
committees that we meet regularly with, you know, northern residents. The delta
water management committee is one that is chaired by Water Security Agency, and
it brings together representatives of, you know, SaskPower, Minister of
Environment, WSA. We meet three to four times a year
with that group and it also involves people from the community.
I’m going to get Leah to talk
about some of the significant activities that we’ve done over the last couple
years with this group.
Leah Clark:
— Leah Clark, executive director of irrigation and economic development.
There’s a number of things that we’re proud of that we’ve partnered with in the
area of Cumberland House. I think first and foremost is the communication
streams with those two committees and just building some trusted partnerships
with some of the locals there.
But there’s a lot of both
indirect and direct things that we’ve done on the ground at Cumberland House to
support the delta and the water in that area. The first is we did a big LiDAR
capture where we shared that data with that area. We also are just in the
process of completing some flood maps, which will be really important.
Bathymetric surveys have also been done.
And then just lots of
different communication-related things, like high-flow warnings and forecasts
that we do on the ground. We’ve done lots of tours of the delta, bringing lots
of different partners from SaskPower, Water Security Agency, Minister of Environment,
and actually Ducks Unlimited as well.
Fisheries branch, we have a
focus on the delta there. We’ve done lots of fish tagging, as well as we have a
senior biologist assigned to the Cumberland House delta. Initiations of
discussions, both in the delta and local lakes — Dumbell
Lake area is one of those areas.
We also purchased some solar
water gauges. We have them right now at Niska and Big Eddy. And those are nice
because they’re locally owned and operated. But we do support with the
different numbers that are coming in, and helping with data, reviewing agreements.
We’ve submitted a report to DFO [Department of Fisheries and Oceans] for
relicensing.
And then those secondary
things that we’ve done, related initiatives. I mentioned the LiDAR survey, but
that’s a big one, a big investment for the area. WSA
hydrometric works, lots of work with our hydrologists there. Vegetation is an
issue with water flows in the area. So we’ve looked at different ways to
control vegetation and get those water flows going.
Birdsong recording project in
the area, cultural initiatives, DFO studies, electrofishing, log clearing,
sturgeon management program, and different cameras that we have looked at to
look at different species in the area. So really proud of the work and the
team. It definitely takes a lot of different groups and different organizations
working together.
Shawn
Jaques: —
If I could just add as well some of the most recent work. I was up there in
February with my colleague from SaskPower, and we’ve been working with the
First Nation in the northern village on, you know, what other options are
available. What could we look at, you know, to help capture water in some of
those areas that maybe are drying. Does it mean maybe putting in a dike or a
weir? We’ve been working with Ducks Unlimited on that. They have a number of
projects up there.
And you know, in my most
recent conversation with both the mayor and the chief because they have a lot
of snow out there, they’ve actually reached out to me and asked about, you
know, are we going to see a significant increase in the river? They’re thinking
they’re going to get a big flush because, you know, there’s looking like
there’s going to be more water this year than there has been for a number of
years. So we are doing a lot of work with that community.
Jared
Clarke: —
Thank you. It sounds like there’s lots going on in terms of monitoring and
especially warning the community if there’s flooding and that kind of thing.
I’m looking more for details
around mitigation work that can help protect and re-establish the Cumberland
delta. Since the E.B. Campbell dam and the Tobin Lake dam was established 50
years ago, we’ve seen a change in the hydrological system of how the river
flows, right. And that has had incredibly detrimental impacts on the delta
itself.
And so that nutrient load is
not being flushed in, and because of the flow — or the increased flow during
winter under the ice — the water is carving deeper into the riverbed and
creating more of a channel, and less water is actually flowing in. We’re also
seeing increases in phragmites, an invasive species; all of those pieces.
So I’m wondering, is there
any work . . . You spoke a little bit about it in terms of what can
be done, because we know the dam is there. The dam is going to be there; it’s
being refurbished right now for another 50 years. What can be done by Water
Security Agency and the Saskatchewan government to actually ensure that this
incredibly important ecosystem is not lost? I’ll leave it at that.
Shawn Jaques:
— Yeah, so thank you for the question. And I mean, that’s exactly why we put
together that delta water management committee, to work collaboratively with,
you know, the community and the First Nation, our partner at SaskPower, to . . . What can we do? What options are
available? I spoke a little bit about some of the, you know, initial
conversations we’ve been having about, where can we capture water? How can we
hold water in areas, in some of those tributaries that may be a bit drier?
[20:00]
We’ve been working with the
U of S [University of Saskatchewan]. They’re doing an extensive study
on invasive weeds and grasses. We’ve been doing some work on that. We’ve just
also started the modelling, the hydrological model that we talk about, to study
the water. So I would say it’s ongoing and we’re going to continue those
conversations with the northern community.
Jared
Clarke: —
I guess my question would be to the minister. In terms of your government, how
much of an appetite is there to put money, invest money into protecting the
delta and ensuring that it exists? The community is 250 years old this year.
Will the delta be there 250 years from now?
Hon.
David Marit: —
Yeah, I’ll start. Obviously the delta is important to us. I have been there. I
have been up there I think it’s two times for sure, if not . . . two
times for sure, and I’ve actually been out on the delta. I have been along with
former ag minister Lyle Stewart. We toured there for an entire day and saw the
importance of it. And yeah, it is very important and the community is important
to us as well.
And we have done some things
to really help it, and I know full well. Shawn had come to me a while ago. The
community, we put a million dollars into their water infrastructure to ensure
they had good clean water for the community as well. I don’t think there’s ever
been a time we haven’t been there for the community that I can remember, that’s
for sure. And I know Shawn’s going to get into some more of the technical
things that we have done, and then Leah might add something as well.
Jared
Clarke: —
I think I’m okay with that answer.
Hon.
David Marit: —
Okay.
Jared
Clarke: —
Thank you. In terms of the AI [artificial intelligence] data centre that’s
being suggested to be built just outside of Regina here, what kind of water
implications are there?
Hon.
David Marit: —
It’s my understanding that the CEO of Bell, at the press conference, had made
comments about the water usage on that site. Right now all we can tell you is
there’s been no application to Water Security Agency yet, so we can’t comment
on something we haven’t received an application on.
Jared
Clarke: —
Thank you. In terms of water flow coming in on the North and South Saskatchewan
River, what kind of modelling does Water Security Agency have in terms of the
impacts of climate change? How will the flow rates change say in the next 5,
20, 50 years?
Shawn Jaques:
— So at Water Security Agency, we have a large team of scientists. We have
hydrologists, hydrogeologists, people that study flows on both rivers. We look
at things like, you know, the snow pack in the mountains. We work with academia
to understand better what’s happening on the water that’s coming into our
province. We work very closely with our neighbours, both to the west and to the
east, to study those flows. And we ensure that we get our share of the water.
I think what’s also
important, you know, in speaking with Dr. Pomeroy, he’s commented a couple
times that he thinks Saskatchewan is well suited. We’re probably going to see
the same amount of water, if not more, at certain times of the year. And so
that’s why we’re very fortunate in our province to have a gem like Lake
Diefenbaker that can capture, you know, that excess water as it flows down the
South Sask River to use in times when there’s less
water available.
And if I think of the last,
you know, five years, we’ve been in a significant drought in this province. But
because of Lake Diefenbaker, we’ve been able to mitigate some of the impacts
on, you know, on industrial users, on human consumption, recreation, etc. So I
think Saskatchewan is well suited to be able to utilize that water as it comes.
John, I don’t know if you
have any other technical information you want to add.
John Fahlman:
— Thanks. John Fahlman, vice-president of infrastructure. I think you’ve
captured it very well, Shawn. I think the key to remember here is that we live
in a mid-continental climate that has a lot of variability in water, and the
effects of climate change will only increase that variability. When we
developed the Lake Diefenbaker operating plan, we also looked at long-term
records in Dr. Dave Sauchyn’s tree rings to develop
long-term estimates of droughts in high-water years to try and look at that too
and work that into it.
So I think on the South Sask River specifically, the important thing is is that it’s going to be different. There’s no real
consensus on higher or lower as far as volumes go, but because we have that big
storage there, it buffers that.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. So it’s safe to
say, reading between the lines there, that like Water Security Agency isn’t
doing its own modelling in terms of what are the effects of climate change
going to be in 5, 20, 50 years.
Shawn
Jaques:
— So thank you for the question. WSA, we aren’t doing
. . . Even though we have a team of scientists and we do all the work
on, you know, the flows and the hydrology, all of those pieces, we are not
running climate models. That’s where we partner, where I’ve mentioned that
we’re doing work with academia. They’re the ones that are doing some of that
work, the work of Dr. Pomeroy.
But
what we do is we operate. We manage the water. We manage the reservoirs based
on, you know, the real time and the flows that are coming in, what we’re being
told is expected to come in. And then we change the operating of that
structure.
So
for example, we’re seeing, you know, the snowpack on the eastern slope of the
Rockies significant this year, probably higher than we’ve seen in decades. And
so we’ve changed the operation of the reservoir to make sure we can capture
most of that water. We’re probably going to have to let some out this spring if
that snowpack melts the way we anticipate it does. And so that’s how we manage
it at WSA. John, I don’t know if you have anything
else to . . .
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. Yeah, just kind
of linking all the things that we’ve been talking about today in terms of, you
know, wetland drainage and seeing more water coming into rivers and lakes, into
those systems faster because they’re not being retained on the landscape to the
Cumberland delta, which is drying up, to climate change, where we know glaciers
are melting at an alarming rate, which is providing a significant amount of the
water that flows through the South and North Saskatchewan River.
It’s
kind of concerning I think that Water Security Agency, if we’re talking about
new irrigation projects or new industry coming online, that we aren’t putting
forward any kind of thought to how much water is actually going to be flowing
through those rivers in the coming decades. I’ll just leave it at that I think.
Yeah, go ahead, Minister.
Hon. David Marit: — Yeah, if I could, I think
there’s a stat that has to be put on the record here
too. And it’s something that really alarmed me when I first was told it by the
Water Security Agency, but just how big that Lake Diefenbaker reservoir is.
It’s bigger than all the reservoirs in the province of Alberta combined. And 1
metre of water on Diefenbaker will provide enough water for 300,000 people for
more than 15 years. So that’s how massive that water system is. And it’s
unfortunate that we’re losing more to evaporation than we’re ever using on
irrigation.
[20:15]
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. And yet the
Cumberland delta is going dry. It is.
In
the annual report under progress of goal 2 — clean, safe, reliable water supply
that is responsive to change — under key actions you talk about WSA signing a memorandum of understanding to advance the
Canadian-Saskatchewan flood hazard identification and mapping program. I’m
wondering if you can give a status update on that.
Shawn Jaques: — Thank you for the question.
So as you said, we have an agreement with Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, and it’s a four-year deal starting back in ’24‑25.
And the total value of that partnership is $9 million, and it’s shared
50/50 between the federal government and the Water Security Agency.
Jared Clarke: — And when will the mapping
. . . Well I guess are you using that flood hazard identification and
mapping system right now? Is it developed? Is it implemented?
Leah
Clark:
— Hi. So we are developing flood maps across the province. And what we do is we
work collaboratively with communities that request flood maps. We’ve
prioritized the most at-risk communities for flooding, and are working with
those communities to create those flood maps.
In
addition to that we’ve used some of that money to collect LiDAR for different
areas around the province, what has been really beneficial for a number of
different things, both from an environmental habitat standpoint to a
development and an economic use standpoint. So it’s been a really good
investment.
Jared Clarke: — What is the total amount of
funding allocated to the conservation and development, or C & Ds, in this
budget?
Shawn
Jaques:
— The Water Security Agency doesn’t directly fund C & Ds. But what we do is
. . . There is a fund available to C & Ds if they want to do
maintenance through our channel-clearing program that is cost-shared 50/50, as
well as the Ag Water Management Fund if they have a project that they want to
bring into compliance. They can also apply for that. But we don’t provide
direct funding to C & Ds.
Jared Clarke: — So how much
money was given to C & Ds to bring those projects into compliance in 2025?
And how many projects would have been completed?
Shawn
Jaques:
— So under the Ag Water Management Fund, people who’s
eligible for the funding, it could be individuals, corporations. It could be
First Nations, Saskatchewan rural municipalities, C & D authorities,
watershed association boards, or irrigation districts. So in ’25‑26 under
the Ag Water Management Fund, we funded 30 projects for a total of 650,000. I
don’t have the breakdown of which are C & Ds or not.
The
other program that I referenced that C & Ds can access money was the
channel-clearing program. And there were 71 projects there for a total of
$700,000. And 90 per cent of those projects were either municipalities and C
& Ds. But again I don’t have the breakdown of how many were C & Ds.
Lots will be municipalities, I’m assuming.
Jared Clarke: — Thank you. How much money
did Water Security Agency spend in 2025 restoring any drained wetlands?
Shawn
Jaques:
— So Water Security Agency, we don’t spend money on restoring wetlands. There’s
86 per cent of the wetlands are retained. We don’t need to pay producers to
restore them because they’re already keeping them. There’s consolidation
projects around the province, so the corporation isn’t paying to restore
wetlands.
Jared Clarke: —
Thank you. Just in the last few minutes we’ve got here, I’m wondering if you
could clarify, when is the data point being used as a baseline for that 86 per
cent?
Krystal Tendler:
— Hi. Krystal Tendler, agricultural water management. So in developing the
wetland inventory, we were looking at what wetlands were historically on the
landscape pre-development. And so we’re able to look at historical aerial
imagery and mapping to look back at what wetlands were once there. So we’re not
just looking at what’s there at any given point in time; we’re able to see what
might have been drained at any point in time. So we’re able to see that
historical picture of wetlands.
Jared
Clarke: —
So the 86 per cent baseline is pre-settlement, is what you’re telling me?
Krystal Tendler:
— Yes. Because we’re mapping drained wetlands, we’re able to use that baseline
of pre-settlement — pre-settlement of the province.
Jared
Clarke: —
Thank you. In closing, my last question would be again looking through the
annual report, you know, really an emphasis on economic development. I don’t
see any mention of preserving wetlands or preserving waterbodies for wildlife,
for the importance of like the intrinsic value of those ecosystems.
[20:30]
I’m wondering, is there
. . . I guess my question would be, why not? Why not have a wetland
conservation policy that specifically makes commitments to protecting and
conserving those wetlands or the ecosystems that so many Saskatchewan people enjoy
through hunting, fishing, recreation, living on a lake, drinking fresh water?
Why is that not included in the annual report?
Shawn
Jaques: —
So while we don’t have a budget line item that’s specifically for retaining or
restoring wetlands, the largest budgeted area of the corporation is our science
and licensing division at $17 million. And that division is dedicated to
making sure we have safe drinking water for every community in the province. We
have money that is spent on testing water, water quality. We have money that is
spent on measuring the hydrometric program, measuring flows, making sure we
have water flowing into the lakes, as you mentioned.
It’s also the area that looks
after a number of programs such as, you know . . . We have the piping
plover program, an endangered species, that we’re spending money to make sure
operations aren’t impacting that. We have the lake sturgeon study. We have the
bigmouth buffalo study. We strategically fund the Saskatchewan Association of
Watersheds. You know, there’s programs that incentivize good practice.
So back to my earlier
comment. You know, we’re not paying producers to restore wetlands. We think
they’re doing a good job. They’re good stewards. But we are investing a lot of
money in the corporation in that science area of protecting our habitat and the
environment.
Chair
D.
Harrison: —
From a previous question that
MLA Clarke had regarding FTEs, did you find that information?
Shawn Jaques:
— Yes, I’ve got that number, Mr. Chair. So you had asked the question about
in-scope and out-of-scope. So I’ll give you the five-year breakdown: ’21‑22
we had 158 in-scope, 148 out-of-scope; ’22‑23 is 153 in-scope, 145
out-of-scope; ’23‑24, 164 to 141; ’24‑25 is 166 to 144; and ’25‑26
is 166 to 143.
And again I just want to
clarify the reason for our high numbers. Our engineering profession are
out-of-scope positions, and we have a large contingent of engineers in our
corporation.
Chair
D.
Harrison: —
Having reached our agreed-upon time for consideration of these estimates, we
will now adjourn consideration of the 2026‑27 estimates for Water
Security Agency. Minister Marit, do you have any closing comments?
Hon.
David Marit: —
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And thank you all, committee members, for the
questions as well. It was a good discussion.
I really want to thank this
team at the Water Security Agency and the work they do. And I think it was
really presented well in the answers that were given to the member through this
whole discussion on the budget. We have a great team at the Water Security
Agency and — I’m surrounded by a wealth of knowledge — and really are very
committed to ensuring that the safety of the water that is in the province of
Saskatchewan is going to be very well looked after and maintained.
So with that, Mr. Chair, I’ll
end my comments and thank everybody for their presence and their questions here
tonight. Thank you.
Chair
D.
Harrison: —
Thank you, Minister. MLA Clarke, do you have any closing comments?
Jared
Clarke: —
Sure. Thank you, Minister, for your answers this evening. As well to your team,
thanks for taking time out of your evening to be here and answer my questions.
Of course always thank you to the Clerks and broadcast and Hansard and
the folks on the committee opposite and my pals here on this side. So with
that, thank you.
Chair
D.
Harrison: —
I’d also like to thank the minister and his officials in the committee here
tonight and Hansard and Clerks as well.
This concludes our business
for today. I would ask a member to move a motion of adjournment. MLA Kasun has
moved. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
D.
Harrison: —
Carried. This committee stands adjourned until Wednesday, April 15th, 2026 at
3:30 p.m.
[The committee adjourned at
20:36.]
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.