CONTENTS
Standing
Committee on Human Services
THIRTIETH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of
Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
Hansard
Verbatim Report
No.
4 — Wednesday, April 2, 2025
[The committee met at 17:00.]
Chair Weger:
— Welcome to the Standing Committee on Human Services. My name is Mike Weger.
I’m the Chair, and today we have on my left Noor Burki, Joan Pratchler chitting
in for April ChiefCalf, and Ms. Jacqueline
Roy chitting in for Brent Blakley. On my right I have Barret
Kropf, Kim Gartner, and Kevin
Kasun chitting in for Ms. Colleen Young.
Today
the committee will be considering the estimates and supplementary estimates no. 2
for the Ministry of Education. We’ll take a half-hour recess at 7:30 p.m.
General Revenue Fund
Education
Vote 5
Subvote (ED01)
Chair Weger: — We will now begin with consideration
of vote 5, Education, central management and services, subvote (ED01). Minister
Hindley is here with officials from the ministry. I would ask that officials
please state their name 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.
Everett Hindley: —
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the committee
members for being here and for your time this evening. I am pleased to be here
today to talk about the Ministry of Education’s 2025‑26 provincial
budget. I’ll do a few brief introductions before I get into my opening remarks
and talk a bit about the education budget for this year.
Pleased to be joined today by
my chief of staff, Mitch Graw; deputy minister, Clint Repski; assistant deputy
minister, Sameema Haque; assistant deputy minister, Jason Pirlot; assistant
deputy minister, Charlotte Schriml. Saskatchewan Distance Learning CEO [chief
executive officer], Darren Gasper, is here as well. We have several other
officials from the Ministry of Education and from the Sask DLC [Distance
Learning Centre] with us as well to try to answer any questions that may come
up here this evening.
So, Mr. Chair, and committee
members, we’re making some fairly significant investments into education in the
2025‑26 budget to advance the learning success and well-being of
Saskatchewan children and youth. The Ministry of Education budget is $3.5 billion
to support pre-kindergarten to grade 12 schools, early learning and child care,
and libraries and also literacy. This is an increase of $183.5 million or
5.5 per cent over last year.
In addition to a significant
operating funding increase for school divisions, this year’s budget continues
to support an investment in early years. We continue to manage transformational
changes in the early years sector in Saskatchewan and expand the number of
regulated child care spaces available at $10 a day.
This budget also supports
libraries and funded literacy groups and the services they offer in communities
around the province.
School division operating
funding is the largest portion of our budget in education. The province’s 27
school divisions will receive $2.4 billion in school operating funding for
the 2025‑26 school year. This is a record increase of $186.4 million,
or 8.4 per cent, over last year. This investment will provide school divisions
with the resources to hire more teachers and also more support staff.
Included in the budget
increase to school divisions is $130 million to fund the new teachers’
collective bargaining agreement and to address the pressures of growing student
enrolment and other challenges facing today’s classrooms. There’s $54.4 million
to address inflationary pressures including non-teacher salaries,
transportation, and to implement the first 50 of 200 specialized support
classrooms in the province. This will build on the eight specialized support
classrooms already in place to help assist school divisions in designing
school-based approaches to help address challenging classroom behaviour.
Initial outcomes from the
specialized support classrooms included reduced classroom disruptions so that
teachers can focus on teaching and the students in those classrooms can focus
on learning. Long term, the program will offer successful targeted intervention
methods and will also build teacher expertise and capacity to manage complex
classrooms.
With this year’s budget,
there’s also an additional $2 million to advance early years literacy
across the province. To improve early literacy, the ministry will explore the
use of common screeners that will identify students’ reading levels and provide
comparable provincial data, renew kindergarten and grade 1 to 3 English
language arts curriculum to reflect current reading research, and also identify
supports to build expertise in early literacy.
Across our schools, mental
health of students and staff continues to be a priority. Education has a $4.6 million
budget within the budget to deliver the mental health capacity-building
program, a school-based community mental health promotion and prevention
program helping students develop coping skills to address mental health
concerns. Now this is an increase of $1.6 million over last year, with
work under way to further expand the program to more schools in the province.
This funding used to be part of the Ministry of Health budget but is now
included as part of our budget in Education. This budget also provides $616,000
to support initiatives related to bullying prevention, positive mental health,
and student safety, and this includes funding to support student access to the
Kids Help Phone.
The Ministry of Health, in
collaboration and to help support the Ministry of Education, is also providing
four and a half million dollars to fund the Homebase project. The government is
partnering with the John Howard Society of Saskatchewan to coordinate Homebase,
which was formerly known as integrated youth services, to meet the needs of
youth aged 12 to 25 and their caregivers with rapid access to youth-targeted
supports. The Humboldt Homebase hub opened in September of 2024, Moose Jaw hub
in November 2024, and Regina hub in December 2024, and a hub in Sturgeon Lake
First Nation will open in 2025.
This budget is continuing to
support online learning across the province. Grant funding for the Saskatchewan
Distance Learning Centre, or the Sask DLC, will be $18.5 million for the
2025‑26 school year. This is a $470,000 increase over the last school
year. Sask DLC is funded through a combination of tuition fees from local
school divisions and schools based on the number of courses that students enrol
in, as well as a grant from the province.
Sask DLC continues to offer
high-quality online learning opportunities for kindergarten to grade 12
students no matter where they live in Saskatchewan. Online learning provides
students with flexibility and the choice to learn online full-time, or for high
school students to supplement their in-class learning with unique electives and
career-focused programs that offer hands-on learning.
As of the end of February of
this school year, Sask DLC had served more than 12,000 students taking more
than 30,000 courses, with enrolments continuing to come in. And that is well
above enrolment in their first year of operation, in ’24‑25, and we
expect this to continue to grow in future years.
The school infrastructure is
again a significant priority in this year’s budget. In 2025‑2026, we are
investing $191.3 million for safe learning environments and to respond to
enrolment growth.
There were five new major
school capital projects in this budget in addition to the 21 new or
consolidated school builds and three major renovations already under way around
the province.
The new projects include the
replacement of South Corman Park School; preplanning for a new joint-use public
and Catholic elementary in Saskatoon northeast, known as the Aspen Ridge area;
and preplanning for a new public and Catholic elementary schools in Saskatoon
west, known as Kensington.
The ongoing projects include
new joint-use elementary and high schools in the Regina east neighbourhood of
The Towns, and a new joint-use elementary school in Regina’s Harbour Landing
neighbourhood.
Work is also under way
towards a new Saskatoon east joint-use high school in the Holmwood
neighbourhood, and new Saskatoon east joint-use elementary school in the
Brighton neighbourhood, as well as a new francophone elementary school in
Saskatoon’s Kensington neighbourhood.
There are four consolidated
school projects on track to be ready for students this coming fall, and that
includes a new K to 12 [kindergarten to grade 12] school to replace and
consolidate the elementary and high schools in Lanigan; a new elementary school
to replace St. Frances Cree Bilingual elementary school in Saskatoon, which I
had the opportunity to tour earlier this winter; a new joint-use elementary
school to replace Sacred Heart, St. Mary, Empire, and Westmount schools in
Moose Jaw; and a new joint-use elementary school to replace St. Peter, St.
Michael, Imperial, and McDermid schools in Regina.
Other ongoing projects
include a new K to 12 school to replace and consolidate the elementary and high
schools in Carlyle; a new elementary school to replace Princess Alexandra, King
George, and Pleasant Hill elementary schools in Saskatoon; a new francophone
pre-K to 12 [pre-kindergarten to grade 12] school in Prince Albert to replace
École Valois; and a new high school to replace Minahik Waskahigan High School
in Pinehouse.
The ongoing major renovations
include significant projects at Greenall High School in Balgonie, renovations
to Campbell Collegiate in Regina, and a significant renovation to the Swift
Current Comprehensive High School.
There is $15.3 million
for minor capital renewal projects this coming fiscal year to allow school
divisions to address structural repairs and renovations. New minor capital
projects this year include a roof and exterior repair project at Canora
Composite, a renovation project at the Barr Colony School in Lloydminster, and
a roof replacement project at St. Olivier School in Radville.
There is also $28.5 million
for the relocatable classroom program to help alleviate space pressures in
schools across the province. Since 2008 the government of Saskatchewan has
committed over $2.8 billion towards school capital.
We also want to support
school divisions in being proactive in addressing critical rehabilitation and
maintenance projects. The ministry’s 2025‑26 budget includes $65 million
for the preventative maintenance renewal, or commonly referred to as PMR
[preventative maintenance and renewal] program, an increase of 30 per cent from
last year. And this will bring government’s total commitments to over $551 million
since the PMR program began in 2013‑14.
PMR funding allows boards of
education to strategically maintain facilities. The increase of $15 million
from last year will help school divisions with infrastructure projects to meet
the needs of their educational facilities, such as repairing or replacing
building components, improving energy efficiency, or addressing accessibility
needs. The PMR funding formula has also been updated to distribute funds more
equitably in 2025.
This budget also supports the
province’s youngest learners. Our government is committed to working
collaboratively with stakeholders to build a community-based system of quality
regulated early learning and child care. The 2025‑26 budget provides
$413.3 million for early learning and child care, and this includes an
increase of $3.5 million for federal-provincial child care agreements. The
funding will continue to support child care at $10 per day for children under
the age of six.
From April 1st, 2021 to
December 31st, 2024 over 14,300 child care spaces have been created, which
represents a 46 per cent increase. New child care centre spaces have been
allocated to 98 communities across Saskatchewan, so this means that as of
December 31st, 2024, there were a total of approximately 32,000 child care
spaces in the province, of which almost 25,800 are operational in homes and
centres, and more than 6,200 are in various stages of development.
In addition a further
existing 6,744 early learning program spaces that support the development of a
child’s early years are recognized as contributing to the overall target set in
the Canada-Saskatchewan Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement.
What this all means is we have achieved 75 per cent of the space target
included in the agreement.
The 2025‑26 budget will
support us in adding more regulated child care spaces in the province, which in
turn will support parents to live, work, and also get an education. We are
committed to attracting, retaining, and growing a strong and skilled workforce
of early childhood educators, also known as ECEs, as the province expands
regulated child care spaces.
The province has implemented
a made-in-Saskatchewan approach that supports recruitment and retention to the
ECE profession. This approach has resulted in a 29 per cent increase in the
number of individuals working in child care centres across the province. This
includes a 26 per cent increase in the number of certified ECEs and a 45 per
cent growth in the number of ECE level 3s who work as leaders in providing
developmentally appropriate programs for children in their care.
We continue to offer valuable
workforce initiatives such as tuition-free post-secondary education and
bursaries, and we’re working to increase public awareness of the benefits of
pursuing a career as an early childhood educator.
The Canada-Saskatchewan
Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement is in place until March
31st of 2026, and as I’ve previously indicated, we are prepared and ready to
negotiate and sign an extension before it expires. We look forward to
continuing conversations with our federal counterparts to make sure that this
is a program that works for Saskatchewan families, works for child care
operators, and works for everyone in this province to make sure that we have a
long-term, sustainable, affordable child care system.
[17:15]
The ministry also continues
to support several programs that provide services to our youngest learners and
their families. This budget will provide $5.7 million to the early child
intervention program, an increase of $166,000; $18.6 million for
KidsFirst, an increase of $543,000; $8 million for early years family
resource centres, or an increase of $234,000; and $2.7 million for the
current provincially funded child nutrition program which is an increase of
$80,000.
Of note, our government also
recently signed on to the federal government’s national school food program,
which is in addition to Saskatchewan’s child nutrition program. Saskatchewan
will receive an additional $15.8 million over three years from the federal
government for that particular program.
Now in support of the
provincial public library system, the 2025‑26 budget continues to provide
$11.6 million, and there is also $1.1 million for funded literacy
organizations.
In conclusion, I thank you
for the opportunity to highlight this year’s investment in pre-kindergarten to
grade 12 education, early learning and child care, and libraries in
Saskatchewan.
I appreciate the work of all
of our sector partners, including teachers, early childhood educators,
librarians, and all the staff across the sector for all that they do to support
the learning success of Saskatchewan children and youth. And that’s something
that will continue to be a priority for this government and our officials in
the ministry in the weeks and months and years ahead.
Thank you as well to the
ministry team that is here tonight. They’re a dedicated team of officials, not
just here this evening but who put in this work each and every day to help
support the education system and everything that it represents right across
Saskatchewan. Simply would not be able to do it without the amazing support of
the great team and the officials within the Ministry of Education, so I extend
my gratitude to everyone there. And I look forward to our continued
collaboration in support of education, early learning, and literacy in this
province.
So to the committee, we would
be welcoming any questions that you might have here this evening. Thanks again.
Chair Weger: — Thank
you, Minister Hindley. I will now open the floor for questions. Okay, Ms. Roy.
Jacqueline
Roy: —
Yes. Thank you. So thank you first to Minister Hindley, and I would like to
join him in not only welcoming but saying thank you to the ministry team that
is here tonight. We know that you have families at home that you would like to
be home with as well, and we absolutely appreciate that this is a late hour. We
will try and be as efficient and effective when we are asking questions on this
side to make the best use of everybody’s time.
I would like to acknowledge
first of all that I’ll be asking questions on behalf of Matt Love, our shadow
minister of Education. Beside me I have my esteemed colleague Joan Pratchler
who is the shadow minister of early education, and behind me my colleague Noor
Burki. Later on tonight we will be joined by my colleagues Darcy Warrington and
Aleana Young for some other questions. And we also have hon. members from the other side of the
House present here with us tonight, so thank you for all caring so much about
the future of our students.
Personally
my background is francophone affairs, so we will start out with some questions
around the Conseil des écoles fransaskoises, and you will see our questions
will vary from a little bit broad to a little more granular. Then we will be
handing it off for some questions about early education from MLA [Member of the
Legislative Assembly] Pratchler and later on this evening some more questions,
broader questions to the sector as a whole if that makes sense. Excellent.
So
first starting off then with some Conseil questions. How many years into the
future does the ministry project enrolment numbers for the CÉF [Conseil des
écoles fransaskoises] and can you provide the projections for the CÉF over that
time span, perhaps broken down by the school council areas?
I will note if there are questions that
we cannot immediately answer in about five to six minutes, I will be asking
that we perhaps table those questions and get the answers for the April 7th
meeting, just in everybody’s interests. Thank you.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
So the September 2025, so this coming
September projection is 2,188. That’s the total projection. We don’t have with
us just the school-by-school breakdown. If the member is looking for that we
can provide that. Is that what you’re . . . Would you like that level
of detail, or just a overall projection good for you?
Jacqueline
Roy: —
The overall projection today is great. So is September 2025 the most recent
one? We don’t have anything further into the future than that?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Yeah, my understanding is that these are the numbers provided to us by CÉF, and
that’s as far as we have. Yeah.
Jacqueline
Roy: —
Okay, for now that’s no problem. Perhaps if we could get tabled for April 7th,
broken down by school council area and just projections perhaps for the next
four years, possibly the next seven if possible. Thank you.
Clint Repski:
— Clint Repski, deputy minister. In terms of the enrolment projections, those
are provided to us by the school division. They’re not our independent
enrolment projections. So I don’t want to commit the CÉF to something they’re
not ready to provide quite yet.
So we do have what we have
for received information, which is the enrolment projections for next
September. We don’t collect information beyond that. So I would hate to commit
to something that we can’t deliver for next session.
Jacqueline
Roy: —
All right. I would ask that we still at least try. As the shadow minister, I
have been in contact with the CÉF, and I have been in contact with a few
third-party organizations that have made projections going forward.
So we do know that with the
schools, we have a 23 per cent target that we are meeting with the number of
francophone students that should be in those schools right now and that we need
to find capacity for the other 73 per cent going forward. So I would ask that
we do table something on April 7th, working with the CÉF at least around a
four-year projection if possible . . . [inaudible interjection] . . .
Thank you.
Okay. Moving on with some of
these questions. When it comes to tariffs, which obviously are on the mind of
everybody right now, and capital and operational funding going forward, I know
we mentioned several of the projects that we have. For example I could point to
the new francophone school, for example, that’s set to be built in Prince
Albert. I know we had halted that project because we were waiting for some
capital funding estimates. But not only estimates; we were looking for Canadian
suppliers.
Could
we get a brief update on where we are at with finding Canadian suppliers and
where we might start to see those projects move forward?
[17:30]
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Okay, so on the Prince Albert school project the update that we have is that a
parcel of land has been identified and the officials and the teams are just
working through finalizing the actual purchase of the land. So that’s the
current status of that specific project.
With respect to tariffs and
the prioritization of Canadian suppliers and that sort of a thing, so that is
an initiative being led by SaskBuilds on a project-by-project basis, so whether
this would be happening in education, be happening in health care, be happening
in all the various ministries and agencies. So SaskBuilds would be working with
the individual project or specific project managers on each of these particular
projects and dealing with that, as I said, on a project-by-project basis in
terms of who’s being utilized for that particular project, whether it’s
suppliers or firms that are involved.
Jacqueline
Roy: —
Thank you for that answer, and it definitely makes sense. Would it be possible
to get from SaskBuilds and Procurement, for our next seating around April 7th,
at least some ballpark idea in terms of months until completion for those
projects and those retrofits that were mentioned?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Yeah, I think SaskBuilds will be able to provide that information at their
estimates. I don’t think they’ve been up yet, so that would be a question
they’d be able to answer then.
Jacqueline Roy: —
Perfect. Thank you very much for that. I guess moving on — one thing that I did
notice when we mentioned schools that are due for major retrofits and we were
talking about roofs — have we considered the situation of Bellevue? I know for
10 years they have been facing a leaking roof. It has been professionally
recommended that they do a $1 million retrofit and install on that roof to
prevent mould in the child care area and in the gymnasium and in several
corridors. Is that project being considered as well?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Thanks for the question. And I’ll ask one of the officials to talk a bit more
specifically about this particular project and how projects are scored and
ranked, knowing of course that there’s, you know, a number of projects around
the province, schools around the province, divisions that have priorities. And
of course they would rank them and submit their priorities to us for
consideration as part of the overall provincial list.
I’ll touch on maybe just a
little bit around one of the things that I mentioned in my opening remarks,
which was around the preventative maintenance and renewal funding pot, which is
increasing this year up to $65 million with the $15 million increase.
And you know, that was one of
the things I think that I had heard in my fairly short time since being
appointed as the Minister of Education and talking to school boards and school
divisions, was one, the importance of — in addition to — the overall major
capital investments that we’re making as a government, but two, the importance
of the PMR program.
But the next part of the
conversation was also that while, you know, PMR has been an excellent program,
also the demands on it — so therefore the increase in the budget towards it as
well — I touched on a little bit, about the changing of the formula for PMR
this year going forward to help better equitably distribute those funds for
projects that qualify for the PMR program.
That’s just kind of at a high
level how that works, but I’ll maybe turn it over to our assistant deputy
minister Charlotte Schriml to talk a bit about more about this specific project
and then just the overall kind of scoring and ranking of projects. So, Charlotte.
Charlotte Schriml:
— Thank you. Charlotte Schriml, assistant deputy minister. So as the minister
said, I can just speak a little bit about the process for how we assess and
guide and evaluate the minor capital program.
So this particular school, my
understanding is that they have submitted a proposal for next year. So we’re
currently in the process of reviewing those. And I can just speak a little bit
about what that process looks like for reviewing our programs.
Number one, the first thing
that we look at is the health and safety and any concerns in that school. They
will submit specific . . . In this case if it’s a roof replacement,
they will describe what the impacts are, how long they’ve had it, whether
they’ve had patch work done or, you know, kind of so on. We will also look at
the efficiency, whether or not the work that’s being done provides for any
efficiency for that particular school.
We will also look at whether
or not there’s functionality in contributions to programming. And in addition
to that . . . And this is one where, you know, the CÉF often has a
community contribution in their schools and they have community spaces in their
schools, so we also look at that. And we also just look at the overall
condition of the facility, as well as looking at provincial priorities. And
often we will work directly with the CÉF to determine what their priorities are
for their school division. So that’s just kind of a quick outline on how we
will, you know, go about doing the prioritization exercise for next year.
Jacqueline Roy: — Thank
you. And when it does come to that pot of money — and I am definitely in
agreement with the minister that that’s definitely a priority for schools and
just having a separate fund — how was the decision made to calculate that extra
amount that was allotted this year, percentage-wise? So what factors and what
stakeholders were considered when the increase to the PMR was decided?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
So on preventative maintenance and renewal, like I said in my opening remarks,
it’s been about $551 million in total since that program began in 2013‑2014.
The increase this year, the $15 million, represents a pretty significant
increase to that budget, from 50 up to 65 million. So it’s roughly a 30
per cent increase. We would’ve had, you know, feedback from a variety of
sources within the sector, boards of education, school divisions of course.
[17:45]
On the impact of PMR and
where it’s been beneficial, I think just in terms of the number itself, you
know, we as a ministry go through the budget process for all of our programs
and all of our various buckets of funding. And this was the amount, I think,
that we were able to accommodate in the budget this year. Certainly would be
wanting to try to increase that whenever we can and as much as we can.
So I think, you know, it’s a
positive news story that we’re able to increase the amount of funding and it’s
for PMR in this year’s budget. And we’ll continue to have those discussions
with school divisions, with the boards about what the priorities are for repair
and replacement and renovations and you-name-it within school divisions and
take that feedback each and every year as part of the budget development
process.
Jacqueline Roy: — Thank
you for that response. And in terms of that 30 per cent then — you know, just
talking to people about their improvements even around their houses, the cost
of lumber going up, a lot of those things — what part of that 30 per cent is
accounted for just in terms of year-over-year inflation that we’re going to
see?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
So in terms of the PMR increase, you know, I think what we looked at was
inflation can be difficult to predict. And certainly there has been
inflationary pressures on school division budgets whether it’s from a variety
of factors, and in particular on the capital projects we’re seeing, again, not
just in Education but I think every ministry and even obviously those in the
private sector are as well.
So when we were looking at
trying to build upon this, the program and the funding, again we were, as part
of the budgeting process, really trying to see how much we could increase that
in terms of what we had available for funds to us as part of the budget
process.
So again I think, you know,
the $15 million presents a pretty significant, a 30 per cent, increase
compared to last year’s funding for PMR. And you know, it’s our hope that that
would help address some of the inflation that’s been recognized and felt by
school divisions on their projects and on their facilities, I should say. And
maybe just touch on — and again I know this is not news to any of us here — but
a lot of uncertainty of course in the economy these days and where things are
going to be at. So that also makes it difficult to predict as well.
Maybe just touch on a bit on
the funding change that I spoke of a little bit in my opening remarks . . .
Not the funding change, I guess, but the formula, the change to the formula for
preventative maintenance and renewal.
So what the program does, as
the members will know, is provides annual funding to all 27 school divisions.
It’s based on total square footage of their schools. What we’ve done — and this
is part of the feedback that we had heard, I think, at the officials level and
also myself as minister and previous ministers as well and MLAs across the
province — was about how can you make that program better if you make changes
to it, in addition to just not only increasing the pot of money that’s
available, but how do you perhaps identify and address some of the challenges
or inequities that might be seen out there in school division land.
So effective April — so
yesterday, April 1st — the method of calculating the PMR funding will change to
exclude the gross area of schools less than seven years old, and a location
factor will also be applied to recognize higher cost for schools outside of
Saskatoon and Regina. So that’s the change to the formula. I think that this is
taking effect now.
But again, based on feedback
that we heard from the sector in how do we — again in addition to not only
trying to increase the level that’s in the total pot for PMR funding — but how
do we use that funding and target it as best we can to really be able to
stretch those dollars as far as we can, but targeted to schools and to school
divisions that truly need it. Again, knowing that there’s an ongoing list of
requests for replacements, renewals, significant renovation projects, but also
again to extend the life of existing schools and facilities around the
province.
So I think that again will be
addressed by both the 30 per cent budget change and the increase to the PMR
overall budget, but also in the method for calculating the PMR funding and how
that gets distributed to schools across the province.
Jacqueline
Roy: —
Thank you, Minister. And that definitely is something that we appreciate and
understand in terms of some of the higher costs with some of our more rural
schools.
And
that actually brings me nicely into my next question, and the last that I will
burden you with when it comes to francophone affairs. Simply that the division
is a little bit half-urban, half-rural, and that can cause some huge financial
stressors, especially when it comes to planning and preparedness. What
methodology is your ministry using when we compare its funding system for the
CÉF to the basic urban versus rural layout? Thank you.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
I’ll get the deputy minister, Clint Repski, just to talk a bit about some of
the specifics as to how this works. You know, this comes from the funding
manual, which is publicly available in terms of how the dispersion works. At a
high level I can say that there is a francophone factor applied to the
calculations, as the member, I’m sure, likely knows. But Clint, maybe if you
just want to get into a bit more of some of the specifics as to the numbers and
how that is calculated and is put out there.
Clint Repski:
— So yeah, thank you for the question. And it’s actually a good question
because there’s a sense sometimes that we look at funding on how many students
you have times a factor, that’s the amount of funding that gets rolled out.
There’s actually a lot more that goes into it. And it does get hard sometimes
to compare funding level by funding level on a very straight-line basis because
there are so many different factors.
There’s 27 school divisions
in the province, and they all have a bit of a uniqueness to them, almost every
single one. And so we do try to find those common factors, those cost drivers,
and recognize them through the funding distribution, which is largely
unconditional for boards to be making allocation decisions.
With the francophones,
they’re particularly unique because of, as you indicated, they’re both urban
and rural. So the funding model works, in very, very simple terms, of the sum
of the parts. We look at each individual school and look at where it is geographically
and looking at the enrolment composition. We also look at things like a small
school of necessity. So where a school is outside of the next like school by 40
kilometres, we know that it costs additional funding to recognize those
typically low-enrolment schools. And so they’re provided a factor for what’s
called small schools of necessity, and they get topped up to make sure that
they have adequate staffing to make sure those schools can continue to
function.
You’re not going to have the
same pupil/teacher ratio as you would in a large urban school because those
kids simply don’t exist in those areas, but the school still needs to operate.
So with the CÉF funding, we provide a francophone factor of between 1.3 and 1.8
times the factors that go across the board.
[18:00]
In addition to that, we do
give recognition to their geography. We take into account the number of
kilometres that their buses need to travel because with a francophone school,
oftentimes they do need to pick up kids from further away to make sure they get
to school.
So from that perspective we
do recognize their kilometres. And the other additional piece that we provide
to them is a $3.9 million cultural and language amount on an annual basis
to recognize the unique minority language status of the CÉF.
Jacqueline
Roy: —
And that 3.9 million coming through the feds, right?
Clint Repski:
— That’s a provincial amount. Not part of the federal.
Jacqueline
Roy: —
Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you for those questions. On the last one I do have
a few more questions. I will submit those though via email. They’re not
immediate or urgent, and they’re just slightly more granular level. So thank
you very much for your time. I am now handing it over to colleague Pratchler.
Joan
Pratchler: —
Thank you, Jacqueline. I would also like to extend warm thanks to the committee
staff and to the minister and his deputy ministers and all the people that are
working in education, and the members across the aisle as well. Education is
big work, hard work, and very important work. And I thank you for that.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Thanks for the question. Just consulting with the team, and at this time we’re
not aware of any impacts. Of course as the member had said in her question, it
kind of changes day by day, hour by hour, but we’re monitoring it. You know,
should there be an impact to specifically the child care sector, again
certainly I’m sure we’d have it brought to our attention or officials would be
made aware of it fairly quickly. So we’re monitoring it but it’s just not
something that we’re aware of having a specific impact on the child care sector
as of this point in time.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank
you. The $10‑a-day initiative is much more than about reducing parent
fees. It’s a comprehensive, long-term public policy to build a universal,
affordable, high-quality, and inclusive child care system across Canada. And of
course the current agreement is contingent upon — especially in Saskatchewan —
it being non-profit. How does your government respond to this statement in
being part of this initiative, and whether this is good public policy from your
government’s point of view?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Thanks to the member for the question. You know, I think, I hope I’ve said
publicly before just, you know, number one, our appreciation to the sector, to
all those child care operators on behalf of, you know, the Government of
Saskatchewan and the work that’s being done in this very important area.
In reference to my opening
comments at some of the significant expansion that’s happened in Saskatchewan,
some of the other advances we’ve been able to make to help support early
childhood educators and centres right across this province regardless of whether
they’re, you know, in big cities like Regina and Saskatoon or smaller
communities, regional centres like my own in Swift Current and rural
communities as well.
I think as we’re, you know,
we’re grateful for the opportunity that we’ve had as a province to be part of
the $10‑a-day child care and we want to see that continue. We want to
ensure that we are working collaboratively with stakeholders right across the
sector. And that includes not just the operators but the families as well,
communities. We know how important this is to everyone right across this
province.
Again, we want to be able to
ensure that we do have, you know, a quality child care system here in this
province. We want to make sure that it’s affordable as well for Saskatchewan
families. That’s something that clearly that we’ve heard, I think, on both
sides of the Chamber as elected members. I know that our team has when they’ve
been in consultation. I know when I’ve spoken to groups like SECA [Saskatchewan
Early Childhood Association] and individual child care operators as well, the
importance of an affordable child care sector that’s also sustainable as well
for everyone, whether it’s governments provincially, federally, and for the
operators too.
So I think, again just to
reiterate, we do recognize how important this is to families right across
Saskatchewan, and so that’s why we’ve been gathering feedback through the life
of this program thus far and really trying our best to negotiate on what the
next version of this looks like and how we can make sure that we do identify
some of the . . . And every province is a little bit different,
right, in terms of the agreement that they’ve signed with the federal
government, either the initial agreement or on the extensions perhaps.
But we want to ensure that we
do everything we can to get the best possible deal that we can for Saskatchewan
families, for child care operators, when it comes to making sure that we do
have an affordable, sustainable, long-term child care program here in this
province.
Joan Pratchler: — And it
seems to be quite important that it’s non-profit. Is that also fit into that
picture as well?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
The vast majority of the operators in the province, a significant majority,
have been non-profit operators. So that’s the history of what we have here in
Saskatchewan. And again I would just say that I think it’s our goal that, as a
province, that we continue to add more child care spaces in the province as
part of the agreement that we currently have — that is a requirement — but
again, that we expand what is, you know, a long-term, sustainable, and
affordable child care sector for families right across this province. And
that’s what our goal is as a provincial government, to help support that.
Joan
Pratchler: —
So do I hear you saying you’re going to move into for-profit more often?
[18:15]
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
So budget information of the allocation is for, you know, for the non-profit
sector, which is in accordance with the current, with the existing agreement
that we have with the federal government. It’s difficult to anticipate what any
sort of future agreement may or may not look like. And like I’ve said before,
we have been open to negotiating with the federal government on what the
extension looks like for the province of Saskatchewan. We always have been
willing to be at the table to have those conversations with them. But in terms
of, as I said, the existing funding allocation, that is specifically tied to
the parameters of the current agreement.
Joan
Pratchler: —
Okay. Every year certain amounts are allotted to be expended in the agreement,
and sometimes for a variety of reasons that I’ve read they, you know, maybe
didn’t all get spent every year especially at the beginning because it’s such a
big new thing that’s being rolled out, and that’s understandable. It also said
in the agreement that the allowable . . . It was about 10 per cent
that you could roll over from, you know, one year to the next and that was
sometimes typical. And I understand there was some agreement early at the
beginning that maybe we had to roll over a little bit more than 10 per cent at
the outset.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
So just at a high level in terms of the carryforward, that is an amount that,
as I understand it, is negotiated with the federal government, and it’s not a
set level or a set percentage I don’t believe. It’s negotiated each and every
year so that’s how it’s calculated.
But I’ll turn it over to the
assistant deputy minister to get into a bit more of the detail to the question
that you’re asking specifically.
Sameema Haque:
— Good evening, I’m Sameema Haque, assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of
Education. I’m very pleased to meet you in person, Ms. Pratchler.
So I can give you a little
bit of detail in regards to the process. What you stated in your question is
absolutely accurate. In the terms of the agreement, they had mentioned
carryforward, but it was subject to discussion and negotiation with the federal
government in anticipation of how the implementation of those agreements will
roll out, and there might be changes that might be necessary.
The carryforward amount for
each of the federal-provincial agreements has to be negotiated in the annual
action plan negotiation with the federal officials and is subject to approval
by the federal minister. Once the minister approves at the federal level that’s
when we have the set amount for each year. So it’s subject to negotiation.
Now we have multiple
federal-provincial agreements under child care. We have three different
agreements and three different action plans that have to be negotiated and
three different carryforwards. So I can give you the carryforward percentage as
well as the amount for the last year and for this year, for each of those
agreements.
For the Canada-wide
agreement, which is the largest agreement under child care, we had allowed
carryforward was 35 per cent from ’24‑25 to ’25‑26; 35 per cent
which is equal to $85.2 million . . .
Joan
Pratchler: —
You said five . . . or 85?
Sameema Haque:
— Thirty-five. Three five. 35 per cent, which is $85.2 million in dollar
amount. So that is allowed carryforward. But as you mentioned, as you implement
the different initiatives under the agreement that is the allowed amount, but
that does not mean that that is what we carry forward. So our expenditures as
we’ve expanded the sector continue to increase year over year. So this was our
allowed carryforward, but as of our December forecast we only estimate that
we’ll be only carrying forward 12 per cent, so only 27 point . . .
million is what we anticipate we’ll be carrying forward once we do a year-end
closure based on our forecast.
So that is what is being
carried forward from the ’24‑25 to ’25‑26. Under our action plan
that’s been approved for the next year, we are allowed to carry forward 10 per
cent from ’25‑26 onwards, and that equates out to $29.6 million. The
carryforward amount has to be expended first. That is also a requirement.
So that is the first
agreement, and if you’d like me to I can go into the next two agreements as
well.
Joan
Pratchler: —
Yeah, that would be nice. Thank you.
Sameema
Haque: —
Under the infrastructure fund agreement the allowed carryforward was 50 per
cent from ’24‑25 into ’25‑26, and that 50 per cent amount equates
out to $3.3 million. Similar to the other agreement, our December forecast
estimates that we will be expending $10.5 million, which would only leave
us about 0.5 per cent, which is $31,000 to be carried forward into the next
fiscal year. Our approved allowed carryforward under this agreement is 10 per
cent for ’25‑26, which is $858,000.
Our third child care
agreement is the bilateral agreement, and under that agreement the allowed
carryforward is 10 per cent from ’24‑25 into ’25‑26, which comes up
as $85.2 million. Based on our December forecast we only anticipate that
we’ll be carrying forward 2 per cent, which would be about $18.9 million
into the next fiscal year. And our allowed carryforward for ’25‑26 is 10
per cent based on our approved action plan, and it comes out to $1.8 million.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank
you. How much of the federal grant was returned because the ministry did not
meet its spending requirement, itemized for any of the past years?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
So we haven’t returned any dollars, any federal dollars. We’ve spent all the
dollars that have come through thus far. And I’ll just maybe turn it to Sammi
to get into a bit more detail in terms of the tables and the details that we
have there.
Sameema Haque:
— Sure. So although initially the agreement specified a minimal amount as
carryforward, we’ve been very strategic in negotiating carryforwards in our
action plan discussions with the federal officials and the minister. What we’ve
done is we’ve looked at all our initiatives and made projections in regards to
our expenditures. And also not just for one year, but overall through the term
of the agreement and being strategic and anticipating what kind of carryforward
we might need to the max amount so that if we are actually under that, that
means we are not leaving any federal dollars on the table.
So what we’ve done is we’ve
initially, at the start of every agreement, we’ve had very high carryforward
amounts that we’ve been able to negotiate and then slowly decrease that. But we
always attempt to negotiate a carryforward amount that is significantly higher
than what we anticipate our expense will be. That allows us to ensure that we
spend all the dollars that are allocated for our province under the federal
agreement.
And then like once we have
that approval, we are very strategic in expensing it out so that the
carryforward expenditure stipulations under the federal agreement are also met.
So that’s the strategy we’ve used. I can give you an example. For example, for
our Canada-wide agreement, which is our largest agreement, in our first year we
had a carryforward amount of 60 per cent in the agreement. But we were able to
negotiate it to 64 per cent. This allowed us to carry forward about $63.4 million,
which ended up being 56 per cent. So the agreement was 60 per cent; we
negotiated to 64 per cent. In the end we only needed 56 per cent, which allowed
us to have some safe room there.
For the next year, ’22‑23,
the agreement only allowed for 30 per cent of carryforward, but we were able to
negotiate 45 per cent. And in the end, we only needed 42 per cent, which was
about $72.2 million.
And in ’23‑24, again,
the agreement only allowed for 10 per cent. And this time, with significant
time and effort into negotiations, we were able to negotiate 45 per cent
carryforward. We ended up only needing 32 per cent, and that allowed us to
carry forward $66.5 million.
And in 2024‑25, again
we only had 10 per cent carryforward under the agreement, but we were able to
successfully negotiate 35 per cent carryforward. And we’ve only needed 12 per
cent, and we anticipate that’s going to come up to be about $27.9 million.
So a similar strategy has
been used in other agreements. Our infrastructure agreement was signed close to
the end of the fiscal year last year, and we were able to negotiate 100 per
cent carryforward for that one. Similarly for our food program agreement that
was just signed, we’ve been able to negotiate 100 per cent carryforward.
So we are using the terms of
the agreement and negotiating the best deal for Saskatchewan so that we are
able to utilize all the dollars that the federal government is allowing under
these agreements.
Joan
Pratchler: —
So what would you describe as some of the challenges for spending that money
when you have to roll over those, you know, fairly large amounts from one year
to the next?
[18:30]
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
So I think we recognize that these are long-term investments, a long-term
initiative. And that’s what, you know, as we’re making investments into
expanding child care across the province, we need to be cognizant of the
sustainability — as I’ve said earlier on — of the investments and of the
initiatives.
So that’s part of it, you
know, in terms of where we kind of strategically make those decisions and how
we make sure that we’re always looking not just at the pressures that we’re
facing today in trying to address the needs of families and communities right
across the province but what does that look like down the road years from now
to make sure that it is a sustainable program.
The other part of this that
is significant as well is that, you know, we want to ensure that we’re working
closely with communities and with the sector to make sure that we’re able to
plan out how we’re going to not only grow and increase the number of spaces,
but again how we’re going to make sure that they are viable for years and years
to come.
And maybe just turn it over
to Sammi again for a bit more detail as to how that works and what that’s going
to look like.
Sameema Haque:
— So under all of these agreements there are negotiated actions plans and
there’s a variety of initiatives under those action plans. The funding is
further divided into federally defined pillars: access, quality, accessibility.
Like there are . . . I mean access and affordability. So what I’m
getting at is from the perspective of expenditure, we need to make sure that
within this agreement, the money is allocated to all of these pillars, all of
these buckets and initiatives, and is also there to ensure that these
initiatives . . . These are multi-year initiatives. These are not per
year. Many of these projects are not going to be completed within one year.
So we have to look at that
and ensure that funding is not just available for the first year but also the
second year and the third year and the fourth year of that particular project.
Whether it’s education for our workforce, we’re not just going to have
tuition-free education for just one year or bursaries for one year. We have to
have the same for the next year or possibly expanded and more the following
year and the following year. So we’re looking at incremental costs for existing
projects. We are looking at ongoing projects such as education and bursary
initiatives and make sure that money is available for that.
We’re also looking at another
factor that I just want to make sure I state is that, you know, this is a new
sector that’s being developed and it’s rapidly being expanded. So there are
always going to be emerging costs that arise, and we’re constantly listening to
our stakeholders and listening to the pressures that they’re experiencing and
making adjustments accordingly.
So even in our existing cost
structures for grants, we have ensured that every grant is increasing at a
certain pace year over year, so we have to allocate funding for that. The
federal government agreement does not have inflation built into it in the way
the funding is allocated. So in our structuring of that expenditure we have to
build for those incremental costs year over year, so we are able to increase
those grants year over year, and we are also able to address any emerging or
new pressures that come up.
And we’ve been able to do
that and have received some very positive feedback from associations such as
SECA and our large operators that we’ve been able to kind of look at those
emerging needs and address them through that initiative.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank
you. So I see that the federal allocation last year was $265 million. This
year, ’25‑26, it’s more than $316 million, an increase of over 50 million.
Why would the increase for child care, in this budget that I see, is less than
$4 million when it could have easily been 50 million plus whatever
the rollover would have been? And that’s a bit of a funding riddle for me. How
is that accounted for? I’m a bit unclear on that.
Clint Repski:
— You had identified the $50 million increase was Canada-wide.
Saskatchewan’s share of that, which is a census based on 0‑to‑12‑year
olds, is $5.8 million. That is offset by a reduction of 1.95 million
for the infrastructure fund. And the reduction on that infrastructure fund is
simply due to a timing difference. Last year there was multiple allotments, so
it looks like a reduction. So the net difference is $4 million.
Joan
Pratchler: —
Okay. So I’ve been talking to a lot of stakeholders over the last few months
and they’ve got a couple of burning issues that they’d like me to ask. The
first one is, what criteria have you considered . . . And maybe
before I go there, going forward I’m going to use the phrase “legacy centres.”
So those are the ones that have been around 30, 40, you know, 50 years. And
then we’ve got the new ones coming on board and I’ll call those the new ones,
and I’ll call the other ones the legacy centres so I won’t be tripping all over
my words.
So what criteria has been
considered in formulating an equitable funding model to recognize the disparity
of input costs that currently exist between legacy and new ones? There is a lot
of angst out there and worry. Could you help me understand what those criteria
would be? Because they’re waiting for this funding model.
[18:45]
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
So around the funding model and just the member’s question around equitable
funding and the legacy versus the new child care centres, I think, you know,
important to note that there would be specific cost drivers that the new
facilities would experience that others wouldn’t, the legacy centres wouldn’t.
And of course that factors into the numbers that we’re currently using.
So the current method of
funding child care facilities is based on specific grants, and that’s allowed
the ministry to be able to quickly target the needs that are out there. For
example, such as providing a $19 million one-time operational support
grant. That was in ’23‑24.
As has been referenced here
this evening, we are meeting with individual facilities. I know that the member
has said that she’s been talking to them too to understand their current
pressures, reviewing their historical payments. So that’s part of the work that
we’re doing right now at the officials’ level to look at, you know, what’s been
happening in the past. This work is providing some additional data to help
guide the development of a funding model as we go forward.
In addition to that, you
know, I think I’d also say that we are reviewing existing models in other
provinces and other jurisdictions to understand how that might potentially work
here in Saskatchewan, knowing that of course we’re not always comparing apples
to apples. But I think we can learn from our partners in other jurisdictions,
other provinces and territories to see how they perhaps are maybe addressing or
dealing with existing challenges, and perhaps they’ve found some solutions
there. So we’re hoping to learn from best practices from other areas and then
how we might be able to implement that here in Saskatchewan.
There have been working
groups established, is my understanding, to not only hear about the concerns
but the pressures, but also to better understand what the cost drivers are out
there in various parts of the province, again recognizing the uniqueness of
different areas of Saskatchewan. What might be a cost driver in one part of the
province might look a little bit different than another part of the province.
So those working groups are helping to provide some of that context for us at
the officials level as we work to make, you know, potential changes here.
Finally there has been some
work to engage with MNP, Meyers Norris Penny, to collect some financial
information to further understand and analyze from an accounting perspective
what the cost drivers are in the sector. So I guess all that to say that there
has been a lot of work currently being done, that has been done previously but
currently being done to help inform how we’re funding it right now and how we
can again best make changes to it to improve the funding for everyone that’s
involved in the sector.
Joan
Pratchler: —
Well with all due respect, it’s not working very well, and it’s very much more
pressing than doing more research. The legacy centres are telling me that they
were told they couldn’t raise fees when they joined on to the agreement, while
new centres can set their fees at whatever levels they need to, to a certain
cap. And I’ve heard that that’s changed over time.
So what’s happened with these
legacy centres is that they’re chewing up their reserves and they’re on the
verge of bankruptcy. And in Regina alone the estimation is that there’s almost
800 spaces that will be non-existent within the next 6 to 12 months in areas
where there is no other child care available.
When I talk to some new
centres who’ve done their bake sales and all these things and got their boards
and their non-profit boards and all these things together, they’re ready to
start getting their centres up and running, and now they need to go to the bank
to continue on. Because this agreement hasn’t been signed, the banks are very
hesitant to give them money, because they only have guaranteed one more year of
funding, which has put many of them on the precipice of stopping.
So there is urgency for some
of these legacy centres, not only here in Regina but around the province, and
they need funding. And they need urgent funding now. And if they could raise
their fees, that would be awfully helpful.
[19:00]
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
So we too are, as I’ve said before, hearing the concerns from operators, both
new operators and the legacy operators in Saskatchewan. You know, I’ve heard it
when I talk to groups like SECA, when I’m hearing from an individual, whether
they’re operators or families, you know, the operators of child care centres
who are writing to me or speaking with me and the team in the ministry about
some of the challenges with the existing arrangement.
Which again, that’s why I’ve
said before, I don’t think it’s responsible for us to be . . . And I
understand, you know, the pressures in the system, but I don’t think it’s
responsible for us to be jumping to quickly sign an agreement when we know that
there are improvements that need to be made. That’s what’s being asked of us.
And again I think for me, that’s the frustration from our perspective. We know
this is number one, that this has been a very good program. There have been
successes within the $10‑a-day program, but that being said, we know that
it’s not been perfect either.
And so that’s why, as I’ve
said previously, I think it’s incumbent upon us to make sure that we are taking
that feedback that we’re getting from the sector, that as we work to
renegotiate the extension of this agreement and what the next version of this looks
like, that we are not just acknowledging but also addressing the concerns that
have been brought to our attention.
So that’s where I think, you
know, it’s been a bit of frustration for us as a government. On one hand we’re
hearing that we’ve been given a very short timeline to negotiate an extension,
frankly with pretty much no negotiation, I think, from the federal government.
But also at the same time understanding that we’re having concerns brought to
us as to where this isn’t working as well as it should be.
So you know, there was a
meeting of federal, provincial, and territorial ministers and officials back in
late November, I think it was. And this was touched on very briefly on the
agenda, I think. And at that point it was about just, you know, the program
itself, but there was no indication given as to when renegotiating of the next
version of this agreement would occur.
So on February 6th when we
received the letter from the then federal minister at the time, that was the
first indication that they wanted to begin negotiating again. Again you know,
I’m looking at the minister’s letter right now. It says that officials, Employment
and Social Development Canada officials have been instructed to begin these
negotiations with your officials at the earliest opportunity with the aim of
concluding agreements by February 21st of 2025.
So beginning negotiations on
a long-term multi-million-dollar agreement that requires some area of
improvement, I would argue, but under a very, very limited time frame. Our
officials were in consultation and did reach out and talk to the federal
counterparts about that to raise our concerns from Saskatchewan’s perspectives,
based on what we’re hearing from SECA and operators across the province and
families as well. And you know, to my understanding there was essentially no
room for negotiation.
As I’ve said before publicly,
you see other provinces who have now stepped forward to say, you know, we
signed this in haste; now we’re looking for some changes to that existing
arrangement. We want to be able to consider what other provinces have perhaps
had included in their existing agreements. Again I think, as an example,
Manitoba, that’s kids under the age of seven. Here in Saskatchewan it’s kids
under the age of six. We think that’s something that’s reasonable that should
be considered for our province. We haven’t been provided that opportunity, as
far as I understand, to even have that very, very basic conversation.
But anyway, that’s again just
my (a) acknowledging that this is an important program, but (b) that we want to
make sure that the next version of this builds upon the successes that we’ve
already achieved and addresses some of the challenges with the current version
of that.
But maybe turn it over to
either Clint or Sammi to talk a bit more about the funding, and again
acknowledging the member’s concerns that she’s raised on behalf of operators
and just specifically in Regina and in this particular area. But I’ll ask Sammi
to get into a bit more detail about how the program currently works and some of
the challenges that have been identified with its existing parameters.
Sameema Haque:
— Thank you, Minister. To use your language, the legacy, existing operators, we
do collect a lot of financial information and did some analysis; even through
third parties the information was collected. And what we found, that prior to
this agreement coming into effect, of course these operators, the only source
of revenue they had were fees. And they were setting their fees in accordance
with their market conditions.
So the trend that we saw at
that time was the fees, on an annual basis, were increasing by 0.7 per cent. In
2019, 1.9 per cent. In 2020, 1.6 per cent. So anywhere from 0.7 to 1.5 per cent
is the trend that we saw in fee increases when they were completely at the
discretion of the operators and the sole source of revenue for them.
Over the term of this
agreement — over the last four years — the fee increases that have been allowed
by the ministry are 11 per cent, which average out to be more than 2 per cent
per year. So what happens is the parent fee is capped. The parents only pay $10
a day, but the centre can increase their fees by that percentage, which means
the grant that is given to the centres to make up for the total is increased.
So what the ministry has been paying to the operators on a per-space basis for
parent fee reduction grant has continued to increase. We have allowed 11 per
cent increases over this term.
There are centres who maybe
missed . . . Because these increases have happened on an annual
basis, sometimes they missed applying that increase to their fees, and they
have come back to us and said that they’ve had problems. And we work with them
and we’ve made adjustment and allowed them to increase that. So we’ve allowed
them to catch up and be able to increase to the allowable increase over the
term of the agreement. Even at times applying it is slightly retroactive, a
couple of months back where we’ve kind of provided them funding. So that’s how
the fee structure has increased. So it’s not that they have not had any
increases. These increases have been happening, not for the parents but for the
operators.
For the new centres that are
coming on, again they don’t set their fees. They don’t get to set their fees as
they so wish before the agreement, because we want some level of equity and
standardization in the sector. So what we do is, again through a third-party
analysis as well as a lot of financial data that we have continued to collect,
we look at the average fees across the province for each category — you know,
children, toddlers, and for those infants, toddlers, for each of those
categories. And new centres that are coming on board set their fees at 80 per
cent of that average. So it’s not whatever they so wish; it is within 80 per
cent of that.
And that is to recognize the
start-up costs that these operators will have because they are coming on board.
They’re just starting a business. They are getting into a new lease. They might
have equipment and other pressures related to starting off a new business. So
that’s where — and you know, again in discussion with large operators — that’s
been seen to be a very reasonable approach. And so we’ve continued to increase
the fees as well.
I would also add that now
this is not the sole source of revenue for the operators because there is
multiple other grants that are provided to the operators beyond the fees. And
many of these grants have continued to increase year over year — you know, nutrition
grant, equipment grant, wage top-ups for the employees. So all of those other
grants are also continuing to see increments, so that is also funding that’s
flowing to the operators.
But as the minister
indicated, we recognize the pressures in the sector, but we are continuing to
address them and make adjustments. As you can also . . . We just
talked about the funding allocations. We continue to expend more and more and
more. And also at the same time we have to comply with the terms of the
agreement where the funding is allocated not just for core operations and
affordability but multiple other initiatives, which include inclusion,
accessibility, and programs related to special needs and, you know, also the
workforce development — training and those kinds of initiatives. So all of
those are seeing an increase.
Joan
Pratchler: —
Those centres that are most at risk of closing right now are the ones that take
more of the intensive-needs children. And their reserves are not able to cover
that, and they are very, very worried. And perhaps it might be a point to
revisit how that funding could go for those people and those families and those
centres that are under severe pressure that might close within . . .
well now it’s going to be five months.
[19:15]
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
So inclusion is one of the pillars of not just this agreement but I think, you
know, for us as a government as well. The provincial government funds a number
of programs that do address and benefit children with intensive needs, and that
would include in our child care centres.
So 2025‑26 investment
for early years inclusion programs is a little over $25 million. A number
of these programs have been around for some time. I believe most are
provincially funded, if I’m not mistaken, but there may be some federal dollars
perhaps attached to some of this.
But in that $25 million
overall, early years inclusion program funding would be $7.9 million in
the budget for early learning intensive support program. There’s funding there
for Children Communicating, Connecting and in Community, the 4Cs program;
specialized pre-kindergarten; ECIP [early childhood intervention program], of
course; child care enhanced accessibility grants; child care individual
inclusion grants; inclusive practices initiatives; supports for medically
fragile children. And I think there’s been a number of increases in various
different buckets here as part of that.
It does speak to this again
though being a priority for us as a provincial government, and recognizing that
it has been identified with us by child care operators and by families too that
there are some, I would say, probably some growing needs when it comes to these
particular children in Saskatchewan.
And that’s why, I think,
again it speaks to not just an extension of the current federal agreement, but
this would be an area that we would want to have a renegotiation on to say, is
there a way to better support and to better target perhaps some . . .
whether it’s the existing funding or additional funding for children with
intensive needs? So again, I think that again speaks to some of the dollars
that are put towards this particular area. But why this is important again,
this has been identified as an area where we wanted to make improvements
wherever we can.
I don’t know, Sammi, was
there anything you wanted to add just about some of the feedback we’ve had from
the sector? I guess from maybe not the sector, but whether it’s operators or
families about the investments that have been made thus far and how that’s been
working.
Sameema Haque:
— So I can give three very recent examples of, you know, inclusion-related
measures that we’ve taken based on feedback from our stakeholders. We have an
enhanced accessibility grant that allows for operators to hire staff members to
support children with higher needs. We’ve recently increased the amount by
$2,000 per month. This has been very positively received. Essentially our
enhanced accessibility grant now covers on a per-space basis equal to ECE I
wages per month. So we’ve provided that grant, and very well received by large
operators. This is a feedback item that we had heard on a regular basis.
The other initiative that I’d
speak to is we’ve rolled out accessibility rating, wherein we are providing
funding to operators. And they can have professional assessment done of the
centre, where there’s barriers to accessibility, and determine what kind of
barriers exist and how they can be addressed. And we are further looking into
providing some support and funding to those operators to actually address those
barriers so there’s accessibility to the building and there is appropriate
equipment available for them to support the children.
So there are multiple
programs. Of course one of the conditions of the federal-provincial agreement
is that the provincial funding, it cannot be displaced with federal funding. So
many of these programs are dually funded by federal dollars as well as provincial
dollars. Many of our legacy programs that have existed through provincial
funding are very, very well received and are appreciated across the nation, and
we’ve continued to build and enhance on those existing programs through
providing additional supports and spaces.
Joan
Pratchler: —
Well what’s not in your control was the prorogation of parliament, the writ,
and now the election. So I can understand that finalizing those negotiations
because you want to get it just right is important. It’d be silly to suggest
otherwise.
However
what is in your control is giving peace of mind to the sector. Is there any way
you could please consider internally reallocating some kind of funds to help
these people and these centres that are so at risk of closing? Five months is a
very short timeline.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Thanks to the member for the question. Just to reiterate a couple of things and
then touch on the specific question. Again, I think we’ve been pretty clear
that both myself and the Premier as well, that we fully intend to sign, to
renegotiate this agreement. We’ve been saying that for some time now. And I
would hope that that would provide some assurance to the sector and to those
who are asking questions and have concerns that that’s what this government
will be doing.
And again, recognizing that
there remains to be a year left in the funding, to March 31st of 2026, we
believe that there is time to be able to negotiate the next version of the
child care agreement, one that works for continuing the affordability of this
program, makes it long term, makes it sustainable, and really does try to help
families right across this province.
So I think, in addition to
stating it publicly — whether I’ve been interviewed by media or been answering
questions here in this Chamber or elsewhere, letters that I’ve received,
meetings that I’ve had with people involved in the sector in various different
ways and forms, whether they’re operators or providing the child care, whether
they’re families that are benefiting from it — I’ve tried to be very, very
clear about our government’s intention to do so.
Again, when we received the
letter on February 6th, I had not only a virtual meeting with the then minister
at the time to talk about Saskatchewan’s interest in renegotiating an
agreement, and never said at any point that no, we’re not going to sign. I said
we want to. This has been a good program; we need to address some areas where
there’s some gaps if you can make some improvements, but we want to be able to
do that. Followed that up with a written letter to the minister as well again
to reaffirm our commitment to our willingness to renegotiate.
And then when there was, you
know, a short, very kind of a quick cabinet shuffle, again immediately sent a
letter to the new minister and just said again, just reiterating Saskatchewan’s
position — as I’ve said to the previous minister, to your predecessor — this is
important for us.
So again, I think we’ve been
very clear about what our intentions are here to make sure that we continue
this program but in a better, an improved fashion going forward.
But to the member’s question
about how do we help these centres that, you know, that she’s been talking to
that are perhaps at risk here. I know that our team, we receive and have
contact with centres across the province all the time. I think it’s happening
on a daily basis with our great team at the ministry where centres do reach out
and say that they might be . . . You know, they have a question. Are
we missing something here? Is there something that we’re — we’re having trouble
perhaps covering this cost pressure — is there something that we’re missing?
And it is a complex and
evolving sector. Frankly sometimes I think operators are reaching out and
aren’t aware of all the variable grants that might be available out there. And
I think our team has been doing a really good job of being able to as quickly
as possible communicating with them and trying to say, okay, have you applied
for this grant? Yes, no. You know, and what about this one? Tell us where are
your pressures. And sometimes I think it’s been identified that there are
areas, sources of funding that have not been accessed that the operator just
might not have been aware of because of how evolving the sector is and how
complicated and complex it can be.
So, I think, credit to our
team that’s been doing that. But certainly if any of those are reaching out to
the member, I’d offer to have them to be in touch with us. And we can certainly
have our ministry team follow up and make sure that we are talking to these
operators individually and doing everything we can, within the existing
parameters of the agreement and the funding we do have allocated, to make sure
that they aren’t missing anything. And we can do everything we can to support
them.
[19:30]
And again, the longer term
goal is to make sure that we have an even better program with an agreement with
the federal government so that we can identify these needs and provide support
where it’s necessary.
Joan
Pratchler: —
Thank you. And it sounds to me that you do want them to keep in operation.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
That’s right. Certainly, of course.
Joan
Pratchler: —
Thanks. So the next section I’d like to go on is the remuneration for workers.
So it’s time now . . .
Chair Weger:
— Joan. Joan. Ms. Pratchler.
Joan
Pratchler: —
Oh, I’m sorry.
Chair
Weger: — It’s 7:30, so we have an
agreed-upon time to take a break.
But
just before you do that, as we take this break I would just ask you to
consider, as far as the questions being directed towards the estimates, a
little more precise. We are here to more or less talk numbers, I think, rather
than philosophical opinions.
With
that being said, the committee will recess and we’ll return at 8:00. Thank you.
[The
committee recessed from 19:31 until 20:01.]
Chair Weger:
— Welcome back, committee members. We will now resume consideration of the
estimates and supplementary estimates no. 2 for the Ministry of Education.
I recognize that Ms. Aleana Young is now chitting in for Noor Burki, and we
have Darcy Warrington chitting in for Brent Blakley.
I recognize Ms. Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank
you. I just want to know how much funding has been set aside now for the salary
grid and for pension benefits for child care workers in this budget.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Thanks to the member for the question. Just pulling together some numbers here:
total federal and provincial investments into ECE initiatives for the budget
year, 41 million, if I have that number correct for this particular
sector. Just some other detail and some of the work when it comes to incentives
to recruit and retain ECEs and some of these that we’ve talked about
previously. But I think it’s just important to mention as well some of the work
that’s being done to support these very valuable early childhood educators
working across the province.
Wage enhancements up to $8.50
per hour for licensed ECEs; free and accelerated and remote ECE training and
professional developments; some tuition-free seats we’re providing as well;
grants for child care facilities to hire substitute staff while regular staff
attain their ECE accreditation; a number of other workforce enhancements and
additions to increasing ECE wages that have happened in the past number of
months as well here.
But yeah, to the member’s
question, overall, federal and provincial investments into ECE initiatives of
41 million.
Joan
Pratchler: —
Well I guess I didn’t ask that question very well, did I? The picture in my
mind of a salary grid is how much we’re paying people for every year they’ve
been working, what their levels of credentials are. So the longer they’re in
the, you know, in the sector, the more they get paid. The more education they
have, you get paid. And you kind of just make it on a little grid and then, you
know . . . I think I should have asked that better but I didn’t.
So
when’s that happening? Because the predecessor said that that was well on the
way and I just want to know when they’ll get it.
[20:15]
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Some numbers here for average hourly wages of full-time ECEs by certification
levels. So there would be obviously three different certification levels, and
just looking back over the past I think it would be four-ish years that we’re
looking at here: ECE certification level I, percentage growth in average wage
up 31 per cent; ECE certification level II, percentage growth in average wage
up 35 per cent; and at ECE level III, percentage growth in average wage up
about 33 per cent in the past four years, I think that is.
Additionally our numbers
indicate that our most current calculation I think is that average wages for
all certified ECEs in all positions is approximately a bit over $25 an hour,
and again in the neighbourhood of north of 30 per cent wage increase just in
the past number of years.
So there’s pretty significant
increases in the wages that are paid to early childhood educators here in the
province. And I’ll maybe ask Assistant Deputy Minister Sammi Haque to talk a
bit about the different certification levels and just sort of how that works in
collaboration with other benefits that ECEs might be able to qualify for and
what they’re looking for.
Sameema Haque:
— So when we consider the grid by definition, like the grid is providing a
differentiation in wages based on experience and level of education and
training.
So in the ECE sector there
are three levels: ECE I, II, and III. So there is a differentiation of wages
based on their level of certification. The top-up that’s provided by the
ministry is slightly different, but all of these levels have actually seen an
increase in their wages as the minister indicated, significant percentage
increase.
The other thing is if they
are workers within a particular operation. Because these are private
businesses, many of the certified workers will call themselves directors or
assistant directors because they’re owner and operators. If they are certified,
they’re still getting the top-up irrespective of what their actual title is,
whether they’re working as an, you know, ECE or their administrative position.
As long as they have certification, because of us considering this as a wage
differentiation based on education and experience we continue to provide that
top-up.
The other thing I would say
is we have increased the bottom up by increasing the wages of the lowest
workers up to a provincial average.
We did do a survey to see if
there is a particular trend. And we got feedback from the ECEs across the
province looking for a variety of things, depending upon the age and location
of the workforce. Some were looking for paid vacation. Some were looking for
training opportunities. Some were looking for mentorship and leadership
training opportunities. Others were looking for pensions and benefits. So there
were different needs that the workers identified based on where they were in
their career.
And so we left that autonomy
to the operators to determine what kind of employment contract structure that
they wanted to ensure so that they can have recruitment and retention. We do
provide the funding for that, and in the sense of it’s a workforce enhancement
grant, we’ve always provided that every year. And that allows the operator the
flexibility to determine the employment contract as the employer.
Joan Pratchler: — So if I
understand right, in that salary grid there’s no recognition for five years’
experience and then more for 10 years or anything like that. It’s just the
salary as is for each classification. Okay.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Thanks. The wage grid is, as we said earlier, based on the three different
certification levels. And that’s, you know, how that is calculated. But any
additional, whether they’re wage increases or benefits, would be at the
discretion of the employer, the individual business.
Joan
Pratchler: —
One last question because I don’t even want to hear my voice anymore tonight. I
did not write my notes very carefully about the question, and I’m just going to
say it again and then I’m going to try and write it properly. If not, maybe you
can send it to me.
The federal allocation last
year was 265 million, and this year it’s 316 million. And that’s an
increase of about $50 million. So why is the increase for child care in
this budget less than 4 million when it could have easily been the
50 million plus, you know, rollover if there was any?
And
I didn’t quite write that down as clearly as I should have, and that’s my
problem. But if you could help me, that would be good and we could just call it
a day then.
Sameema Haque:
— We just needed to confirm the source of the 316. Just to give you a little
bit of a context, the 316,567,960, that’s the number you’ve shared. That is in
the agreement. When the federal government signs the agreement they actually
provide an allocation based on what they anticipate the funding will be. Within
the agreement — all of these federal-provincial agreements — there’s a clause
that these allocations are subject to probation, of course, but also subject to
adjustment based on census of zero-to-six population in that province in June
of each fiscal year.
So these allocations and
anticipated amount, they are not the actuals that we get from the federal
government. So every year there is an adjustment that’s made based on census of
how our growth of zero-to-six-year-old children is across the nation. Every
jurisdiction, they do the same calculation. So adjustments are made across the
nation for allocations for everyone, based on that. That’s the same clause that
exists in every agreement.
So the 316 number, that was
their anticipated number. That’s not the actual that we’ll get. Based on our
census right now, in 2025‑26 we anticipate getting 295, not 316.
Joan
Pratchler: —
It’s still not quite the same math at the 50 million. So that would even
be a greater variance, then?
Sameema Haque:
— Pardon me?
Joan
Pratchler: —
That would be even a greater variance than not.
Sameema Haque:
— No, you’re not going to get 316 million from the federal government on
this agreement. We will get less than that because our zero-to-six census is
much lower than what they anticipated when they actually drafted the agreement.
Joan
Pratchler: —
But our population has increased.
Sameema Haque:
— The population can increase. They look at it across the nation as to
percentage increases across the nation and make an adjustment based on that for
all jurisdictions.
Joan
Pratchler: —
Hmm. So it’s not provincial population.
Sameema Haque:
— It’s provincial population for each jurisdiction. So every June they do it.
And they do that for all of the agreements. All three agreements, including the
new nutrition agreement, that adjustment happens. So the amount that’s written
into the agreement is not the actual amount that we get every year. That’s an
anticipated amount, subject to adjustments.
Joan
Pratchler: —
So it will be less than . . .
[20:30]
Sameema Haque:
— It has been less. Now it could be . . .
Joan
Pratchler: —
It wouldn’t be down to four million, would it?
Sameema Haque:
— It’s been down. That’s what we anticipate based on our talks, and we will get
a letter by mid-year. After June we get a letter in regards to our actual
allocation for that year. Once they have the data for all the jurisdictions,
they do the calculation at the federal level and indicate to us what our
allocation for this year would be. So it’s not based on the amount that’s
written in the agreement. It’s subject to that adjustment. So what we
anticipate we will get is 295.782.
Joan
Pratchler: —
And one last thing. Being a math teacher for a million years, could you show
that work and send that to me so I can fully understand it?
Sameema
Haque: —
Absolutely.
Joan
Pratchler: —
By next week would be good. Well thank you very much, and I want to thank you
for your patience. And I turn it over to my esteemed colleagues over here.
Chair Weger:
— Ms. Young.
Aleana
Young: —
Thank you. Great to be here tonight with so many familiar faces from the
education sector. I want to start off by thanking my colleague, the MLA for
Saskatoon Eastview, for trusting me with this as well as, Minister, yourself
and all of your officials for being here tonight as well as the viewing public
at home and my colleagues across the aisle and the Chair.
Given the importance of this
sector to the province and our future, I think I’ll just jump right into some
questions and apologize in advance for being just fairly straightforward with
the questions, and hope being we can get some fairly straightforward answers.
My understanding is the
school divisions would typically have their operating grants by this point.
Understanding they do not have them, I’m wondering if, Minister, you can table
the operating grants for each school division here tonight.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Thanks to the member for the question. So when the budget was being developed,
we didn’t have the arbitrator’s report back obviously, but since that point in
time we do have that back. So school divisions don’t have those numbers yet.
The CBA [collective bargaining agreement] has yet to be ratified. There were
some meetings last week, I think, between the GTBC [government-trustee
bargaining committee] and the STF [Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation]. And we
anticipate that things will progress fairly quickly.
And then once the new CBA has
been agreed upon, then from that point forward, as I understand it, the process
is that the final calculations will then be developed for the school divisions.
We expect that should not take terribly long.
A little bit later this
spring, we’ll have those numbers. Those’ll be provided to the school divisions,
at which time they’d be available to anyone who’s wanting to know what those
numbers are. But yeah, we don’t have those numbers as of right now.
Aleana
Young: —
When will the school divisions be receiving those?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
As I said, you know, it should not be a long process. We expect in a matter of
weeks, this spring, they’ll have those numbers as quickly as possible.
Aleana
Young: —
Is there a reason then, looking at the fact that we’re in Education estimates
tonight, that these were scheduled so early in the process instead of later in
the estimates schedule so that, you know, the committee might actually be able
to ask some questions at the specific school division funding level?
Chair Weger:
— Ms. Young, I don’t think that’s a question that relates to the estimates that
are before us.
Aleana
Young: —
Sorry, Mr. Chair, can you clarify? The operating grants for school divisions in
the education sector isn’t relevant to the Education estimates before the
Assembly?
Chair Weger:
— I think you were asking a question about the timing of this meeting.
Aleana
Young: —
Sure.
Chair
Weger: —
Yeah, and I don’t think the timing of this meeting relates to the material in
the estimates.
Aleana Young: — Were
any changes made to the funding formula this year? And if any were, can you
speak to what those were and why?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — So
prior to the arbitrator’s report, there were no changes to the funding formula,
to the model. But given that both sides right now are working on just
finalizing the terms of the CBA and then having it ratified, we do anticipate
there could be some adjustments based on what the arbitrator’s ruling was and
how that will impact things going forward.
Aleana
Young: —
Sounds like there’s a lot in flux at the moment with school divisions not
having their operating grants because of the CBA. The entire education
. . . Well, I shouldn’t say the entire. A significant portion of the
education budget being impacted by the outcome of the CBA, and there’s
additionally unknown but potential changes coming to the funding formula, also
related to the outcome of the CBA.
As
we look at operating funds, what is the projected per-student funding for next
school year in Saskatchewan?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
School operating funding is increasing a record amount this year,
$186.4 million as I’ve stated before, compared to last year’s budget day.
The increase does include the funding for the new teachers’ collective
bargaining agreement. The ’25‑26 average per-student amount is expected
to increase by approximately $800 compared to ’24‑25 budget.
So our estimate — and again
this is just an estimate right now; the actual allocation of funding will
depend on the conclusion of the CBA contract negotiations, so that amount might
fluctuate a little bit — but it is, yeah, approximately about an $800 increase
per student. So roughly $12,700 estimated per-student funding amount.
Aleana
Young: —
Thank you. To be crystal clear, that’s per student not per capita?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Per student.
Aleana
Young: —
Great. Thank you, Mr. Hindley.
Darcy
Warrington: —
Hi, I’m Darcy
Warrington. I’m the MLA for Saskatoon Stonebridge. It’s a pleasure to be here.
I’m a 17‑year teacher and it really is truly an honour, and thank you to
the ministry and to the minister for your work on your portfolio. It’s a very
important one.
Minister
Hindley, what is the percentage enrolment increase that was experienced this
year and what is projected for next year?
[20:45]
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Sorry, just had to clarify a couple of numbers here. This year the enrolment
increase . . . And I think the member asked percentages, right?
Darcy
Warrington: —
Correct.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Yeah, 2.6 per cent. And for the next school year, projected increase 1.2 per
cent increase in enrolment.
Darcy Warrington: — And how
is in-year enrolment growth funded in Saskatchewan?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Historically there would be a rebalancing or recalculation as of September 30th
when we’ve got calculations in, in actual numbers, right, of students. And
that’s what we’ve typically done for years and years in Saskatchewan.
But I’ll maybe turn it over
to the officials to get into a bit more detail around kind of the second
adjustment/recalculation.
Clint Repski:
— Sure. So as the minister indicated, the enrolment and the school division
funding packages or operating grants are calculated based on their estimates
for the upcoming September. When September 30th rolls around and we get an
actual count is when there’s adjustments made for who’s higher, who’s lower
from their estimates.
But what we’ve seen over the
past few years is historically September 30th was the high point of enrolment.
Being a teacher for a long time, you would have seen those numbers spike — and
there’s a lot of butts in seats on September 30th — but they tended to trickle
down. They come back up in second semester. But with the growth that we’ve seen
in the province on enrolment, September 30th is no longer the high point. And
we’ve seen numbers of students coming to the province and that number increases
where historically it certainly hasn’t.
And so we were working with
the school divisions over the past few years to determine, what does that
calculation look like? So we landed on an approach over the last couple of
years where if you’ve had significant in-year growth, there’s a mechanism to recognize
that enrolment piece.
You want to talk about the
formula for doing that?
Angela Chobanik:
— Sure. Angela Chobanik. I’m the executive director of the education funding
branch.
So as the minister and deputy
minister said, with the recent enrolment growth we did look at adjustments to
the funding formula to recognize that significant growth had happened after
September 30th, primarily driven by immigration. And we saw this impact mostly
in our urban centres. We have a standing committee that reviews the operating
grant formula, the operating grant advisory committee, that has a number of
stakeholders from our education sector. And we work with this group to review
various items of the funding formula.
So traditionally the funding
is updated based on September 30th enrolment counts, but with this, we call it
post-September 30th enrolment growth. We also look at enrolments on January
31st and we use that to then project forward what enrolment growth might be for
the rest of the school year.
In order to focus the money
at this point on where significant growth is, we try to estimate significant
growth using an eligibility threshold of 125 students and 0.5 per cent growth,
and then we take those projections of what enrolments will be for the rest of
the school year and apply a per-student rate. This recognizes the salaries for
the remaining months of the school year, essentially semester two. This formula
was first implemented in ’23‑24 and provided an increase of
2.9 million in the middle of the year. And ’24‑25 it was performed
again. An increase of 1.67 million was allocated in ’24‑25.
Aleana Young: — Thank
you. Sorry, just one follow-up question to Ms. Chobanik’s answer. There you
mentioned the 2.6 growth earlier as well, 2.6 growth for the year as well as
you . . . How much of that growth — either by percentage or student
numbers, whichever is easier, Minister, for yourself or your officials — comes
after that September 30th date?
[21:00]
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
February 1st numbers here in the charts. Enrolment, so the checkpoint there for
February 1st of this year, province-wide enrolment, student enrolment actually
went down 605 total students, and there were decreases in just about every
school division except for two.
Aleana
Young: —
I’m sorry, Minister, those two were?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Regina Catholic and Saskatoon Catholic. Yeah. And just, sorry, another
. . . just a point of clarification as well, or maybe not a point of
clarification but just some additional information. That doesn’t mean that from
those other divisions that there was funding pulled back as a result of their
enrolment reductions. So just to be clear on that.
Chair Weger:
— I recognize Mr. Warrington.
Darcy
Warrington: —
I’m new. I keep raising my hand like I’m a student. Sorry.
So
this next question is somewhat overarching. There’ll be additional follow-ups,
but just to keep it reasonable to answer in a timely fashion. Your budget
documents and materials referenced $54.4 million to address non-teacher
salaries, inflation, transportation, and specialized support classrooms. Can
you break that category down to each of those items and the investment that was
included for each? And I’m willing to repeat that if you require.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Okay, so the increase — and this does tie a bit as well to the CBA as well, so
that’s going to have an impact — the increase, the overall increase, to the
operating budget for the school divisions, that will stay the same. So the
186.4 million increase, there’s not going to be any fluctuation to that.
That is the number, and that’s what the increase will be and is.
But within that, as the
members identified, there would be for example the 54 million identified
for non-teacher salary increases, transportation, inflation, some other
factors, as well as specialized support classrooms. But that number may
fluctuate slightly. We don’t have that breakdown yet because until the CBA, the
details, are worked out, finalized, ratified, then we’ll have that exact,
specific calculation, which then will be communicated to school divisions. And
then we’ll have a more specific breakdown of what those actual numbers look
like.
So I guess short answer is
there will be some minor tweaks, but we won’t know that until the CBA is
completed and concluded this spring.
Darcy
Warrington: — So could you still
provide the breakdown of what you have, regardless of the tweaks that are going
to need to occur?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: — Yeah, again the numbers
that we had were pre-arbitration report numbers. So those would have been
numbers that would have been built into the budget before the arbitrator
released his report and recommendations, which are then going to lead to the final
contract that again hopefully will be concluded here fairly shortly. So I don’t
think it’d be appropriate to share that because that’s now going to change
based on what the implications are from the arbitrator’s report on what that does
to the various buckets of funding as part of the 186.
Aleana
Young: — Sorry, Minister. I’m a
few years out of this sector, but can you explain it to me like I’m dumb and
just help me understand? Appreciate the significant impact of the CBA on
education funding here in Saskatchewan, but in the budget documents provided to
the legislature, as my colleague pointed out, there’s the fifty-four and a half
million dollars for non-teachers’ salaries, inflation, transportation. And
those numbers are not available to the committee because of the CBA. Can you
help me, can you be really clear about why the teacher contract is going to
impact, for example, transportation costs in the fifty-four and a half million
dollars?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: — Okay. So trying to
explain this as clearly and succinctly as possible, but I guess the best way to
do it is to say it this way.
In
the budget we committed to a number of things prior to the arbitrator’s report.
One of those items that’s included in one of these buckets is the specialized support
classrooms. So we’ve publicly said that we’re going to be adding 200 more of
these across the province over the next four years, and the initial budget
allocation was for the first 50. So that is a number that we are committed to,
is the 50.
[21:15]
That
being said, that’s where the arbitrator’s report comes in. The arbitrators
report then impacts the CBA, which of course impacts how much the teachers in
these specialized support classrooms are going to be paid. So therefore we
anticipate that amount is going to go up.
So
as a result of that, in order to make sure that we still hit our commitment of
50 specialized support classrooms in this budget year, that might mean that
some of those other buckets of funding within that 50 — well in this case
within that 54 million — might have to move around.
Now
again, not major. We don’t expect major fluctuations, based on what the
arbitrator was saying, but still it’s a calculation that has to be determined.
And then of course from there, then we’ll have the actual breakdown of what
each of these specific amounts will be. Does that help?
Aleana
Young: — Yeah, it does. I’m just
trying to square that circle with the communication that went out around the
$130 million specifically for the teachers’ contract, which I took as an
indication — and please tell me if I’m wrong — that your government was going
to be fully funding the CBA, which is positive. I hear the minister saying
that’s correct. Great news. And that there was also communication around what
was impacted by the CBA and what wasn’t. But I suppose we don’t need to hammer
that too much tonight.
What
I would ask, Minister, then is that as those numbers shake out, as you get that
clarification around the CBA, if you could commit to providing that to the
committee in a timely fashion.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: — Yeah. Certainly. You
know, we have every intention of trying to get this finalized as quickly as
possible. Meetings happened a couple of days last week around finalizing the
language around the agreements. And my understanding that there was a lot of
progress being made and hopefully we’ll have the CBA finalized here in
relatively short order.
And
then once that is done, then certainly then our ministry team, our officials,
then work . . . And we’ve committed to the school divisions because
we understand, you know, they’re just looking for some clarity, looking for
some certainty.
Typically
they would find out their numbers on budget day. This year we sat down with
them, a number of them were here in Regina earlier in the morning to have an
embargoed briefing, some in person, some on Webex and Zoom. But having to
explain to them we don’t have your specific numbers yet, it’s a bit of an
anomaly this year. And so they’re looking for that clarity as well.
So
we’ll get that process done as quickly as possible, provide the specific
numbers for each of the 27 school divisions. And then from there of course that
would be publicly available information, so we could provide that to the
committee. So yeah.
Aleana
Young: — Thank you.
Chair
Weger: — All right. Yes, Mr.
Warrington.
Darcy
Warrington: — Thank you, Minister
Hindley. My next two questions are knowledge-based questions, the type that
should be known or not known. They’re the lowest level of questions. So anyhow,
the reason I say that is that I would expect that someone would know these off
the top of their head.
Minister
Hindley, what rate of inflation were you factoring into the budget as it was
being developed, and what inflationary costs does your government now recognize
in the education sector?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: — So to the members, a
question. Just conferring here with the officials and the team. We don’t use a
specific inflationary number, the reason being though is that because 80 per
cent of what makes up the education budget is salaries. So not to say that
there aren’t some costs, but not the same sort of inflationary costs that would
typically impact, you know, perhaps other sectors, I guess I would say.
Certainly
when it comes to capital projects — you know, our new school builds, renovation
projects, costs of materials — that has increased and impacts our Education
projects just as it does in any other ministry or in the public sector, and of
course in the private sector as well. But again the vast significant majority
of the expenses in the Ministry of Education are salaries, so that’s why we
don’t build in an inflationary number.
Darcy Warrington: — Okay.
Thank you for your response, Minister Hindley. I think you could still go
beyond what you said in terms of infrastructure and new builds. What
inflationary costs does your government now recognize in the education sector
beyond new builds, as there would be more than one?
Clint Repski:
— So within the operating grant of funding — and as we’ve talked about, the
specifics are going to be determined hopefully in short order once the
collective agreement is finalized — the things that are factored into the
budget deliberations and ultimately the allocation of school divisions would be
things like non-teacher salary increases, transportation fuel, cost of bus
purchases, non-salary inflation, and general items like that.
Aleana
Young: —
So, Deputy Minister, we’re hearing there’s not a standard rate of inflation
that is used by your ministry on those items, like to calculate estimated costs
for, say, school buses or transportation. There’s not?
Clint Repski:
— There’s not.
Aleana
Young: —
Okay. A couple of very specific questions, then I’m going to throw it over to
my colleagues. Where are we currently sourcing relocatables from?
[21:30]
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Thanks. Just to preface the answer, the province, the Ministry of Education,
doesn’t procure, find, or source the relocatables. It’s done by the school
divisions. They obviously go through that process too to find them. My
understanding is that the vast majority of the relocatables are sourced from a
Saskatchewan company.
Aleana
Young: —
Thank you. Is the ministry intending to provide clarity or expectations for
divisions as they move forward in putting out tenders for repairs or
procurement?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Could you repeat the question, please? We thought we heard two different
things, so we’ll just ask the source. Yeah.
Aleana
Young: —
Oh, I’ll happily take both answers.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Both answers.
Aleana Young: — Will
the ministry be providing clarity or expectations for divisions when they’re
putting out tenders for repairs or procurement?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Okay. Sorry, just had to find the letter that we had sent earlier in March. So
March the 5th I had sent a letter under my signature to board Chairs and
directors of education and CEOs across the province, and in that letter
indicated that . . . It referenced the pending and current situation
with tariffs with the United States. And then in the letter it indicated that
as part of these measures, goods and services procured by the Government of
Saskatchewan must prioritize Canadian suppliers with the goal of reducing or
eliminating US [United States] procurement.
And so that was sent out by
myself to the school divisions. That was then followed up by the deputy
minister. I’ll maybe ask Clint just to talk about that step there as well.
Clint
Repski: —
So following the minister’s letter to the school divisions, we had a call with
the directors of education across the province. And in that call we reiterated
the contents of the letter. And what we had asked at that point in time was for
school divisions to take a look at their purchasing, where they’re sourcing
their goods from — Is it an American company? Is it Canadian? Are there
different alternatives? — with the goal of prioritizing Canadian purchases.
It was fairly straightforward
in what that message was. And that was a follow-up a couple of days after the
letter had been sent.
Aleana
Young: —
Thank you very much. So the short answer is, yes. March 5th. Great. One final
question and if, Minister, just recognizing the time, your officials don’t have
this information at their fingertips, like to indicate off the top, very happy
to receive it at a later date so we don’t burn the clock here.
Does
your ministry specifically have any contracts with American vendors? And if
yes, what are they and what steps are being taken, if possible, by the
ministry?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Just checking with the officials here. The Ministry of Education has two
agreements with US vendors. One is with — and these are both IT [information
technology] providers — one is Blackboard, Inc. and the other is Jaggaer,
spelled J-a-g-g-a-e-r, Inc.
Brittney
Senger: —
Hi. It’s great to be here tonight. Really excited just to be here, asking
questions for the first time at budget estimates. And fantastic to see so many
folks out late this evening.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Thanks for the question. Based on the pilots, the amount that we had budgeted
for the specialized support classrooms was approximately $300,000 per
specialized support classroom.
That being said, as I’ve had
to reference a couple times earlier tonight with some of the other questions,
that is also impacted by the CBA. And once that’s finalized because of — I feel
like I’m repeating myself — the arbitrator’s final report on the teacher
contract situation.
So yeah, estimated amount
pre-arbitration was 300,000 per specialized support classrooms, but subject to
some fluctuation once the CBA is finalized and ratified.
Brittney
Senger: —
Great. And just for clarification, this brings the new total of specialized
classrooms to 58?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Correct. Yeah because there’s 50 additional. The eight pilots are annualized
and then we’re adding another 50 in this budget year.
Brittney Senger: —
Awesome, thank you. And what type of students is this program intended to
serve? Is it a program for students with behavioural challenges or is it a
program for students with intensive needs?
[21:45]
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Thanks for the question. So the goal of the specialized support classroom model
— and you know, both with not just the pilots but the initial pilots, of which
we had some very good feedback and results from both teachers and families, and
students themselves — but the goal is to provide short-term support for any
number of students that might be able to be helped through this model, to help
with self-regulation whether that’s challenging behaviour or for any reason. So
I don’t think it’s . . . You know, again it’s really meant to be used
for any of the students where they might be able to benefit from that
particular program.
But again, I had the chance
actually to visit one of the pilots in North Battleford as a matter of fact and
talked to the teachers there and the principal about the positive impacts of
the specialized support classroom. And really good to see the work that they
were doing with the students there.
The reports back have been
very positive in terms of . . . And each school is doing this a
little bit differently in terms of what they’re using their resources for and
how they use it to best support the students in that school that can benefit
from those supports. But again, it’s really meant to be utilized for any
student that can be seen to benefit, that might need some additional short-term
support to help get them back on track and then of course get them back into
that classroom with the rest of their classmates as soon as possible.
Brittney Senger: — Thank
you very much. And what school divisions will these specialized classrooms be
in?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Specialized classroom support, the expansion, annualizing the initial eight. So
I’ll try and go through this as quickly as possible.
So the initial eight in the
pilot were one in each of these divisions: Light of Christ has one, Living Sky,
Prince Albert Catholic, Regina Catholic, Regina Public, Saskatchewan Rivers,
Saskatoon Public, and Saskatoon Catholic.
With the expansion of the
additional 50, every school division will have at least one specialized support
classroom. And some will get multiple just based on, you know . . .
And thanks by the way to the ministry team who had reached out to school
divisions. And by the way, there was a lot of interest as well from school
divisions in being able to be considered for a specialized support classroom.
By the time this year’s expansion is complete, every school division will have
at least one specialized support classroom.
I’ll maybe just list off the
ones who will have multiple specialized support classrooms. So you know, for
example, Chinook’s going to receive one. Christ the Teacher will receive one.
Light of Christ will have two. Living Sky will have two. Northern Lights School
Division currently don’t have any, but will have three specialized support
classrooms. Prince Albert Catholic is going to get an additional one, so they
will have two.
Regina Catholic will get an
additional four, so they will now have five specialized support classrooms.
That was Regina Catholic. Regina Public will receive an additional seven
specialized support classrooms, so they’ll have a total of eight. Saskatchewan
Rivers will receive an additional one, so they will have two.
Saskatoon Public School
Division will receive an additional eight, so they will have nine specialized
support classrooms in Saskatoon Public. And Saskatoon Catholic will receive an
additional six, and so therefore will have a total of seven specialized support
classrooms.
So again, every school
division will have at least one added to their roster this year, and several of
them will have multiple. And of course this is the first 50, and we’ll add the
remaining 150 specialized support classrooms in future budget years.
Brittney
Senger: —
Thank you. What criteria is given to school divisions to be approved for this
funding? And can you table the criteria that’s provided to school divisions?
Jason Pirlot:
— Good evening. Jason Pirlot, ADM [assistant deputy minister] with the Ministry
of Education.
So primarily the allocation
of the support classrooms was determined through two main factors, those being
enrolment — so school division enrolment — and the second one being
vulnerability. We do have a policy and procedures document that we’ve put together.
It worked for school divisions through the implementation of the pilot. We will
be finalizing that. We can table that with the committee once we have the
opportunity to finalize our conversations with school divisions.
As you’ll appreciate, budget
day kind of just hit us, and we’re still working with school divisions on quite
a few things as we’ve talked about a little bit tonight.
School divisions are aware of
their allocations for the upcoming year. I would go back to a little bit
earlier, I think, from a parameters approach, our conversations with directors
of education. It’s been very clear that the pilot approach model, which provided
a great deal of flexibility to school divisions, has been appreciated,
recognizing factors that, you know, might change from one part of the province
to the other.
And so in my conversations
personally with directors, I’ve heard a great deal of support for that
approach. It’s our intent to continue that approach. Having said that, also
sticking to principles for the program of student-centred, ensuring safety for
students and teachers, ensuring parental involvement, inclusion, and
flexibility.
Brittney
Senger: —
Thank you. I just have a couple of quick questions about temporary exclusions
in Saskatchewan schools, also known as assigned-to-home or deferred enrolment.
But it’s different than a student who just has a medical exemption or is
engaged in home-based study. Essentially this is when a school simply does not
have resources to safely accept a student and they are denied access to an
education on a part-time or even full-time basis.
Are
you aware of how many students in Saskatchewan are being denied an education
because adequate supports do not exist?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
The Ministry of Education doesn’t have those stats centrally. We don’t have
them. School divisions, I anticipate they would though. They make the
individual decisions. So school divisions would have that information but not
the ministry.
Brittney
Senger: —
Thank you. I appreciate you looking into that. I do want to follow up though.
Is your ministry now tracking these instances? And if not, why not?
[22:00]
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Again, just to the member’s question, it’s the school divisions that have the
responsibility to make the decisions around the funding that’s provided to them
by the Ministry of Education, by the government. So the divisions make these
decisions at the local level on an individual basis in terms of how they
allocate that funding and how they use it to support the students that they
have within their division. So again that’s something that’s determined upon at
the division level. And I would assume that they would track that.
Brittney Senger: — Thank
you. So have any divisions communicated their numbers of students that are
excluded from attending school or expressed any concern about the trend?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Not that I’m aware of. I’m just conferring with the officials here. But again,
to the best of my knowledge I don’t think we’ve had that information
specifically provided to us by school divisions and school boards and
individual schools.
That being said though, you
know, when I’ve been meeting with, whether it’s the school divisions, the
directors of education, their senior administrative team, and often at the same
time in conjunction with the school board trustees, we’ll talk about a number
of issues.
And that will include, you
know, specifically within whether it’s the school division as a whole or for
example, you know, and I’m thinking of when I’ve met with both Regina Public
and Catholic and I’ve also met with Saskatoon Public and Saskatoon Catholic as
well in addition to some other school divisions — I haven’t had the opportunity
to meet with all of them yet but working on my way to doing that — but for
example, meeting with Saskatoon Public and talking about supports for learning,
talking about the need for expansion of the specialized support classrooms
model.
When I was in Saskatoon and
meeting with Saskatoon Public, had a chance to have them tour me through John
Dolan School as well to see the work that this . . . the amazing work
that’s being done there for some very high intense-need students there in that
environment.
So again, I stand to be
corrected, but I’m not aware of any specific numbers that have been brought to
our attention by the school divisions. But again, we do speak when I meet with
them, with the boards, with the divisions, when I talk to directors of education,
you know, when I’m talking to the SSBA [Saskatchewan School Boards Association]
and LEADS [League of Educational Administrators, Directors and Superintendents]
and other groups, the STF, we do talk about how do we best collaborate to
address the challenges in the classroom around some of these complexities and
making sure that we’re providing support to those students that require some
additional supports in order to help them to best succeed.
Brittney
Senger: —
Thank you. And are you concerned that there might be a human rights violation
happening with students on temporary exclusions?
Chair Weger:
— Ms. Senger, I’ll just caution you. We’re referring to the estimates here. I’m
not sure how that question relates to the estimates, if you could clarify that.
Brittney
Senger: —
Yes. So, sorry. Just for clarification on, you know, the number of temporary
exclusions and given that education is a human right, and since there are
students that are not being able to attend school, I was really just looking
for some clarification.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
If the member’s question is, you know, am I aware or is the ministry aware of
any specific human rights violations or specific complaints? No, not to my
knowledge. We’re not aware of that, you know, but that being said, you know, as
I commented I think earlier in some of my other answers, you know, it’s our
expectation that school divisions are.
And they receive funding to
provide education for students within their division. And so, you know, it’s
our expectation as a government and as the Ministry of Education that they
would be using that funding to provide an education to the students that reside
within their boundaries, and recognizing that that might look different for
certain students depending on their needs.
And again that’s why, you
know, I think we have these conversations. That’s why we, you know, are making
the additional investments in the specialized support classrooms into, you
know, specific funding buckets like the supports for learning. And always open
to collaborating in how we best provide that support to school divisions, to
teachers, to EAs [educational assistant], to all the professionals that work
within the school system to make sure that they are doing everything they can
to provide an education, as I said, to the students that reside within their
school division boundaries.
Aleana
Young: —
Thanks. I want to bring us back to the provincial CBA. Minister, are you able
to share with us what the estimated cost of teacher salary and benefit
increases for ’24‑25 and ’25‑26 school years are? And how is this
reflected in the budget?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
CBA salary estimates, so factoring in the 4, 3, and 2. I think the member
asked, it’s ’24‑25 and ’25‑26?
Aleana
Young: —
Correct.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
’24‑25, so that’s the 3 per cent increase, approximately
$42 million. That’s on the school year. And then for ’25‑26 at the 2
per cent increase on the school year, about 29 million.
Aleana Young: — Thank
you. And the budget documents highlighting the $130 million, does this
include retro pay for teachers? And if yes, how much?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Yes, retro pay is included in that. And I will turn it over to Jason to get
into the details.
Jason Pirlot:
— So one of the fun things about school divisions’ budgets is we have school
years and government years and never the two shall meet, except they do
sometimes and sometimes they don’t.
[22:15]
Short answer to the question
is, up to the point of March of this expiring fiscal year, so just recently
expired fiscal year, school divisions have received payment for the full retro
costs going back. And then in this current upcoming April to August of 2025
period, the additional dollars required to meet the retro payment commitments
is about $40 million. And yes, that is included.
Aleana
Young: —
That is part of the $130 million.
Jason Pirlot:
— Well no, because the $130 million gets into a school year for the next
fiscal year. So in short the retro pay has been, up to the point of March of
’25, has been provided to school divisions, and an additional amount of
40 million will be provided up to August. And that would be in our 2025‑26
government budget. But when you’re talking about the $186 million, we’re
actually talking about school year for next year, to make it super clear.
Aleana
Young: —
Okay, ’25‑26 school year.
Jason Pirlot:
— Yeah.
Aleana Young: — Okay.
Are you funding increased cost to LINC [local implementation and negotiation
committee] agreements resulting from the CBA? I’ll give you a specific example.
Top of mind would be sub costs, sure, of course expected to increase.
Clint Repski:
— So a quick point around the example of the substitutes. Those are a part of
the local agreements, and they’re not directly tied to the collective agreement
as they are negotiated locally around the province for the 27 LINC agreements.
But the quick answer to your
question is yes, the teacher amounts in the LINC agreements are going to be
reflective of the 4, 3, 2 per cent of the new collective agreement.
Aleana
Young: —
So yes, the government will be funding all increased costs to local teacher
agreements, or just specifically the ones you referenced?
Clint Repski:
— So as I indicated, the LINC amounts are going to be increased by the
collective agreements as it pertains to the teacher salaries. There are going
to be other components that may or may not be covered through the other
increases in the overall operating funding agreement. I can’t say specifically
if they’re going to be covered, simply because there’s a various state of
collective agreements across the province. Some are in negotiations; some are
set; some may have negotiated things that we may not have contemplated yet. So
I can’t say for certain whether they’ll be covered or not.
Aleana
Young: — Thank you. What’s the cost for
additional teachers required in the new CBA, and how many teachers need to be
hired to ensure the contract is fulfilled?
Jason Pirlot:
— Thanks for the question. Jason Pirlot, ADM, Education. So at this time again,
until the collective agreement is signed between the two bargaining committees
— the GTBC and the TBC [teachers’ bargaining committee] — it’s difficult to
predict with certainty how many additional teachers that’s going to lead to.
Aleana
Young: —
So I’m to understand there was no estimate, there were no figures that you used
in producing the budget for the education sector this year? There’s no
consideration of what the costs would be for additional teachers contemplated
by the CBA?
Jason Pirlot:
— So you know, certainly we’ve done high-level work inside the ministry. It
would be premature to release those estimates right now before pen has gone to
paper on that collective agreement, and I wouldn’t want to jeopardize that
process.
Aleana
Young: —
Okay, thank you. Since 2010-2011, the ratio of students to educators in
provincial schools has gone up every single year — save 2020-2021, the school
year of course following the beginning of the pandemic. And that ratio has
increased from 14.4 to 16.7 since 2010-2011, which is an increase of 16 per
cent.
I want to be clear. I
understand that this is a decision that local boards make to meet their
staffing needs. I’m also well aware of the diversity of schools across the
province, so I don’t need that explained. But what are the expectations for the
PTR [pupil/teacher ratio] ratio in this budget?
[22:30]
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Thanks to the member for the question. Just conferring with the officials here.
And based on the budget estimates that we do have — you know, the amount of
funding that is being increased to school divisions for an increase in
operating, looking at all the factors we have that we’ve talked about earlier
this evening, enrolment, and again just with the additional dollars there for
school divisions being able to hire more teachers, you know, in the coming
period of time here — we do expect that the PTR, or pupil-to-teacher ratio, for
provincial school divisions is estimated to go down compared to the previous
year.
So that’s again just based on
our best calculations right now. We do expect that that number will be
decreasing.
Aleana
Young: —
Thank you. And recognizing the time I’ll ask questions, simple yes/no. As in
years past, is the minister willing to provide tabled documents to update data
on the two following issues? The number of students requiring intensive
supports, broken down by school division, as well as the number of students
requiring EAL [English as an additional language] support at various levels,
also by division.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Sorry, what was the first part?
Aleana
Young: —
Students requiring intensive supports by school division, and EAL at any level
by school division, as has been provided in years past.
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Yeah, we can agree to table those. We can get those to you. Yeah.
Chair Weger:
— Thank you. Having reached our agreed-upon time for consideration of these
estimates, we will now adjourn consideration of the estimates and supplementary
estimates no. 2 for the Ministry of Education. I just want to thank
Legislative Service, committee members, Minister Hindley, and your ministry
officials for your attendance and great work on this matter. Minister, do you
have any closing comments?
Hon.
Everett Hindley: —
Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just brief closing comments. Thanks to the
committee, the Chair, the committee members for your indulgence tonight. Those
that are here and those that were here previously asking questions, thank you
for that.
And thank you most
specifically to the ministry team, those who have joined me up at the table
here this evening trying our best to answer the questions from the members
opposite, all those that perhaps didn’t get called upon but are doing some
amazing work within the ministry each and every day and I’m sure can think of
far more exciting ways to spend — or maybe more restful ways to spend — a 10:32
at night on a Wednesday evening.
So thanks for being here and
thanks for the great work that you do day in and day out, recognizing your
passion for the education sector and making sure that we’re all remembering
that — as much as we’re trying to make improvements and support our teachers
and our educational assistants and other support staff and other professionals
in the education sector, and recognizing those that have experience in the
sector as well — always remembering that it’s students that we’re trying to
keep at the centre of all of our decisions and making sure that we really do
give them every opportunity to learn and to learn from ourselves where we can
make improvements upon the system we currently have.
So on behalf of myself and my
office — and thanks to my chief of staff, Mitch, and others in the minister’s
office — a thank you to the ministry team for your committed work and to all of
the committee members here for your time this evening. Thank you.
Chair Weger:
— Ms. Young or any other committee members, have any closing comments?
Aleana
Young: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, on behalf of our side, we’d like to extend our
thanks, to start with in particular, the ministry officials here tonight as
well as the minister.
For the people watching at
home, they likely can’t see there is a stack of binders here in the room that
do appear to be about 11 inches high prepared by the hard-working civil
servants here, and I would love to just FOIP [The Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act] an entire binder. But the amount of work that’s
clearly gone into preparing for tonight and the care shown to this critical
sector in the province is evident. So you have our thanks for all of that work,
as well as the people behind the scenes who aren’t sitting here in the Chamber
with us tonight but no doubt contributed to the countless hours that go into
not only preparing for the budget, but the estimates process which is so
important for accountability and democracy.
In addition I’d just like to
quickly thank all those people who are watching at home. As the minister
pointed out, like the care and love that people have for the education sector,
be they education workers currently on the front lines working with students,
working with families, retired educators, directors, bus drivers. I really
can’t throw a stone in this province without meeting somebody who is somehow
connected to the education sector. And it’s always actually incredibly, I
think, encouraging for all of us to know how much people care about education,
about the process that happens, even at 10:30 at night on a Wednesday.
So just on behalf of the
official opposition, my colleagues up here as well as those who have come
before us, and the Education critic, the member from Saskatoon Eastview, our
sincere thanks as well to you, Mr. Chair, and the members opposite who have joined
us here tonight.
Chair Weger:
— Thank you. This committee stands adjourned to the call of the Chair.
[The committee adjourned at
22:35.]
Published
under the authority of the Hon. Todd Goudy, Speaker
Disclaimer:
The electronic versions of the Legislative
Assembly’s documents are provided on this site for informational purposes only.
The Clerk is responsible for the records of each legislature.