CONTENTS
Standing Committee on Human Services
Labour Relations and Workplace Safety Vote 20
THIRTIETH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan
HUMAN
SERVICES
Hansard Verbatim Report
No.
7 — Tuesday, April 15, 2025
[The committee met at 16:59.]
Chair Weger:
— All right, welcome to the Standing Committee on Human Services. My name is
Mike Weger. I’m the Chair. To my right I have MLA [Member of the Legislative
Assembly] Brad
Crassweller chitting in for Kim Gartner, MLA Barret Kropf, and MLA Kevin Kasun
chitting in for Hon. Colleen Young. On my left I have Mr. Noor Burki, Mr.
Nathaniel Teed chitting in for Brent Blakley, and Ms. April ChiefCalf.
[17:00]
Today the
committee will be considering the estimates and supplementary estimates no. 2
for the Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety.
General Revenue Fund
Labour Relations and Workplace Safety
Vote 20
Subvote (LR01)
Chair Weger: — We will now begin with our consideration
with vote 20, Labour Relations and Workplace Safety, central management and
services, subvote (LR01).
Minister Reiter is here with officials from the ministry. I would ask that
officials please state their names before speaking and please don’t touch the
microphones. A 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. Jim
Reiter: — Thanks,
Mr. Chair. And thank you to the committee members for being here today to
discuss the budget, Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety.
Officials joining me at the front table today are Deputy Minister Veronica Gelowitz; Assistant Deputy Minister Elissa Aitken; and Phil
Germain, the CEO [chief executive officer] of the Workers’
Compensation Board. We’re joined by other officials as well, and I’ll ask them
to introduce themselves should they be called on to speak.
The Ministry of Labour Relations and
Workplace Safety’s ’25‑26 budget of 21.7 million is a 6 per cent
increase from the previous year. The change is primarily a result of collective
agreement increases for in-scope salaries and similar increases for
out-of-scope staff. The ministry’s budget will ensure we continue to foster
safe, healthy, and productive workplaces throughout Saskatchewan.
This year the ministry will continue to
support Saskatchewan workplaces to further reduce time-loss injury rates. The
ministry and the Workers’ Compensation Board will continue to partner to
implement the fatalities and serious injuries strategy. About 2,400
Saskatchewan workers are injured each year and that number needs to come down.
Nothing can overstate the significance of the 27 people we lost to workplace
injury in 2024. Using a targeted intervention strategy, the ministry focuses on
employers with serious injury and/or high time-loss injury rates.
The second focus for the ministry is
maintaining fair and balanced employment laws that support a strong economy and
quality of life. This year we will focus on supporting employers and employees
to implement any changes to the employment standards provisions of The
Saskatchewan Employment Act. Bill 5 is currently before the Legislative
Assembly for consideration, and I look forward to more discussions on that bill
when it comes to this committee.
In ’25‑26 we will begin a review
of The Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, 2020. These
regulations are not just lengthy; they’re significant. They impact almost every
workplace in Saskatchewan. We look forward to hearing from employers and
employees with their ideas and suggestions of how we can continue to improve
health and safety in Saskatchewan workplaces while also reducing red tape.
Now, Mr. Chair, we would be happy to
answer any questions from the committee.
Chair Weger:
— Thank you, Minister. I will now open the floor for questions. Mr. Teed.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you. I first
want to say welcome to all your officials to the legislature. Thank you for
taking time this evening to join us.
I’m
going to start with some questions around the increases to the budget. You are
increasing the salary budget for occupational health and safety by 8.9 per cent
in this budget. My question is, how many new staff are you hiring as a result
of that increase? And how much of that increase is for increases to existing
work compensation?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
Officials tell me that that increase is all for increased compensation to
existing FTEs [full-time equivalents]. There’s no change in FTEs.
Nathaniel Teed: — Okay, sounds good.
Is there any comment on increases to existing work in the ministry, or is there
any existing work compensation?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
Sorry. Just for clarity, you’re asking like if the workload has increased?
Nathaniel Teed: — Yes. Yeah, yeah.
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
Okay.
Veronica Gelowitz:
— Veronica Gelowitz, deputy minister. So I wouldn’t
say there’s an increase in workload. We use an evidence-based approach to
determining our targeted efforts at workplaces. So the workload itself per se,
we wouldn’t see an increase in that.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much.
I’m going to move on to the salary increases for the budget of labour relations
and mediation. We saw a $50,000 increase there, or a 7.9 per cent increase in
this budget. So my question is, is this an increase in hearing hours, an increase
in the number of mediators, or an increase in compensation for the mediators?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: — To
your question, this is the same situation. The increase is for increased compensation
for the current FTEs. There’s been no changes in numbers of FTEs in that unit.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much.
I’m wondering if it’s a similar situation in the salary budget for the injured
worker appeals services, 94,000 or a 10 per cent increase in this budget. Is
this increase again for hearing hours, worker hearing appeals, or increase in compensation?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
Yes, that’s the same.
Nathaniel Teed: — Okay, thank you so
much. Again, the question, the salary budget for the employment standards, this
time 311,000 or 10.7 per cent in this budget. Is this again FTE, hearing hours,
number of employees, or compensation?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
Yeah, again, that will be the same. No changes in FTEs. It’s compensation for
existing FTEs.
Nathaniel Teed: — Okay. Do you have
any information about the collective agreements that you are facilitating, both
for, I guess, the in-scope employees, and then how much out-of-scope employees
received in a pay increase this year?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
Sorry, so the question is, what percentage increase did in-scope and
out-of-scope get? Okay. First I was just going to mention, so Public Service
Commission does that on behalf of all of government. So I’ll give you the
numbers, but they’re not going to vary from what you’ve seen in other areas of
government.
So for the in-scope, the wage increases
were 3 per cent on October 9, 2022; 3 per cent on October 8, 2023; and 1.67 per
cent on October 6, 2024. And then my understanding, the out-of-scope
essentially follows that, like parallels that.
Nathaniel
Teed: — Perfect, thank you so much. I
understand that the review of the employment standards Act and regulations was
started in 2023 and completed in ’25‑26. Could you please detail the
process used to make that review and what the next steps will be?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
So the bill that you’re asking about is the one that I was referencing in my
opening comments. So it’s before the legislature right now and I think you had
asked about the process of getting there, so I’m going to ask Elissa to kind of
run through the process that the ministry followed.
Elissa Aitken: — Elissa Aitken,
assistant deputy minister. The ministry undertook a pretty broad approach when
we were looking at engaging stakeholders on that specific provisions in the
employment Act. We started our stakeholder engagement on August 14th of 2023
and we concluded it October 31st, 2023.
We posted a discussion paper to the
government’s public engagement websites on Saskatchewan.ca
and we also sent letters to 153 stakeholders. And that list included employer
groups, organized labour, and just other interested parties. At the end of the
engagement we got 89 different submissions, so that was the process that we
took to really make sure that we were getting a broad cross-section of input
into the Act.
Nathaniel Teed: — Are you able to
table the list of the 83 submissions?
[17:15]
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
We’re just having a discussion here. Can I just clarify? So did you ask for
like the actual submissions or for a list of who did submissions?
Nathaniel Teed: — I would take both
if that was available. I would take a list of those submissions if that was
available.
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
Okay, just give us a minute. We’re just having a privacy discussion to see what
we can and can’t . . .
Nathaniel Teed: — Please. Thank you
so much.
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
So I’m told there’s some concerns around privacy issues. So what I would
suggest is officials are willing to contact everyone who did that, and then we
would require their permission to share it. So you know, I would just ask for
your patience with that though, because that’s going to take a fair bit of time
for them to do that. And then once that work’s done, I can follow that up with
you with a letter then. Okay?
Nathaniel Teed: — Appreciate very
much. I guess my next question: of the 89 submissions that you received, were
any in-person meetings held in consultation for Bill 5?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
So I’m told that it was requested to be written submissions and that’s what was
received.
Nathaniel Teed: — I guess then it
might answer the question. But I know that Don Morgan had like a minister’s
advisory council of labour partners. Would that group have been engaged with,
separate from like a written submission? Or has that council met in the last
little while?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
So first of all to your point on the committee, I wasn’t minister at the time
this had happened, so if there was some discussions I wasn’t privy to it. I’m
not sure. Officials don’t know of any discussions in that committee, and you
mentioned that.
I’ve had an opportunity since having
this file over the last few months. I’ve been meeting, as much as time permits,
been meeting with labour leaders on this. And several of them have brought up
the value of that committee to me, so it’s something that we’re actively
looking at right now.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much.
Appreciate that. Were there any goals as to the time frame of the review
process set out when it was started? We just note that a two-year review seems
like a long process, although you want to get something like this right. What
is the goal around a time frame for something like this? Or is that set out at
the beginning? Can we comment on just the timeline of that?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
So this section of the bill I’m told is lengthy and pretty intensive. So
obviously they wanted to take some time, do a good job with that. I would say
that consultation time periods for bills, at least in the time I’ve been
around, it varies greatly depending on the type of Act, depending on how
extensive it is. And this one . . .
The other thing I’d point out, like you
mentioned rightly, that it was in two years. But the start in ’23 was midway
through the year, so it wasn’t a full two years. I think it was closer to
probably 18 months or somewhere in that range.
Nathaniel Teed:
— No, I appreciate that. Thank you so much. Could you or your officials provide
me with a sense of some of the key issues that were raised during the
consultation process by employers and the unions? Would you say that all the
main issues made it into the legislation, or were there things that were raised
that may not have made it this round? Is there a sense of that?
[17:30]
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
So discussing with officials, and again I wasn’t there at the time, but getting
a better feel for how this went about. I would say, because as we mentioned
earlier, the responses . . . They asked for written responses. That’s
what was given. They tried to sort of address as much as possible, for sure the
ones that came up most frequently. Because of the way the process is, it wasn’t
a negotiation. So you know, it wasn’t able to sort of try to achieve some kind
of consensus or something. But what was important was to try to be balanced.
And officials do feel, and I would concur with this, that the issues that came
up the most frequently — things like leaves, the tipping thing, the doctors’
notes — those were addressed.
So again I would just repeat, I think
the intent here was to try to be as balanced as possible, address the things
that the folks that did the submissions were most commonly concerned with. And
I think they’ve achieved that.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much.
In your preamble you mentioned that you’ll be starting a review of The Occupational
Health and Safety Regulations in ’25‑26. Could you give a little
explanation on the process you’ll be using for that review? And when do you
expect to complete it? And has a consultation paper been posted?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
So officials are in the planning phase right now with that. They’re hoping to
get started on it late this year. And then this section, I’m told, is even sort
of more extensive than the other one, and it’s very technical in nature. So the
consultation is going to take longer than the last one.
As far as what’s being considered right
now, what sort of a consultation approach, it’s not determined yet. But to give
you a better idea, I’m going to ask Elissa to just kind of walk through what
they’re considering right now for the approach.
Elissa Aitken: — Thank you,
Minister. Some of the things that we’re thinking about — again just to make
sure that we can reach a really broad group of stakeholders — we’ll of course
use Saskatchewan.ca again, the public engagement
element of the website and be posting discussion papers on there. We would be
certainly reaching out to employee-employer associations and labour
organizations and safety groups to make sure that they’re aware that it’s happening
and that they have access to those documents that are posted. We might use
something like the Workers’ Compensation Board inserts or mailers or, you know,
any sort of technology that they have that could reach across a good
cross-section.
We have a number of advisory committees
in the ministries. We’ve already talked about the minister’s advisory
committee; the Occupational Health and Safety Council is another one, and so
those are groups that we would want to be seeking their input.
And then as the minister said, these
regulations are very technical, and so there would be probably technical
discussions with specific groups who have that technical expertise around the
sections.
Nathaniel Teed: — Are there any
issues that you’re foreseeing that may have been received through old proactive
communications from stakeholders? Are there pressure points that are kind of,
that you’re seeing people reach out and say, this needs to be changed in the
next legislation? Does that take into account . . . Or are there
issues that you foresee as this process goes forward?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
So from time to time, to your point, people will reach out to the ministry
proactively, as you called it, raise concerns, raise things that they think
need to be changed. So what the officials do at that point is they essentially
keep a list because they know, you know, legislation’s going to be reviewed
from time to time. So they have issues already that when the review starts,
they know that that’ll be considered, looked at. And then the consultation
process will still allow other issues to be raised as well.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much. That helps me
kind of understand the process a little bit more for sure. According the review
schedule — and maybe you can confirm, or it wasn’t mentioned in your preamble —
but will there be a review of the minimum wage regulations in the next little
while? I guess the schedule would say that it should start in ’25‑26, but
maybe you can comment on that.
[17:45]
Hon. Jim Reiter: — So to your question, minimum wages were
part of the consultation process for the bill. But as you mentioned, they’re in
a regulation. So once the bill is passed, normal process would be the ministry
then will do an internal review of all regulations dealing with this section of
the Act.
Nathaniel Teed: — Sounds good. Thank you so much. I’m
going to move over to a question around a culture change. Now last year the
minister and deputy minister talked about a cultural change in your approach to
compliance with employment laws to improve outcomes. And I was just wondering,
can you comment on the impact of those changes from 2024?
Hon. Jim Reiter: — So that started, as you mentioned,
before my tenure. So I’m going to get Elissa to just kind of talk sort of the
broad parameters of that. And then I’ll ask Bryan to get into a bit more detail
on that.
Elissa
Aitken:
— Thank you, Minister. In the last while, we’ve shifted our approach to really
use three pillars as we interact with employers. We think of it as the
education, intervention, and enforcement model. And so we really do start with
that education piece. And so when we go out and interact with employers, it’s
about making sure that they understand the provisions and then understand
what’s required of them.
And
then when it’s needed, we move to an intervention. And so that’s using more of
our enforcement tools, that might mean notice of contravention, to make sure
that they understand that they need to come into compliance.
And
then when that doesn’t work, of course we shift into the third model, which is
enforcement, and so using more of our prosecutions models or sometimes summary
offence ticketing model for people where those kind of approaches are
warranted.
Bryan
Lloyd:
— Good evening. Bryan Lloyd, executive director, OHS [occupational health and
safety] branch. In terms of culture in the OHS branch, we developed a
professional responsibility guide which is very much like a code of conduct,
but it essentially enhances field conduct by the officers, sets out the number
of parameters. That was complemented with an internal training course specific
to the professional responsibility guide. And that was rolled out in the last
couple years.
Beginning
last year in April we rolled out a survey called a PIN [post-inspection] survey,
whereby when officers go out and do an inspection they collect an email from
one of the health and safety committee members that may have attended them on
the inspection, or the employer rep. Then a survey is sent out. And the survey
asks that respondent a number of questions around the professional
responsibilities guide: how was your interaction with the officer, were they
professional, were they knowledgeable about the regulations, did they inform
you? And we collect those survey results.
The
participation rate’s been quite good, you know, kind of above that 35 per cent
area which we would expect. The response rate has been above 90 per cent in
terms of positive responses to those questions in the survey, both by employer
reps and labour reps from the occupational health and safety committee.
Nathaniel Teed: — Wonderful. Thank you so much. I’m going
to move over to — I guess, back to — occupational safety here. I’m wondering
how many charges for violations of The Occupational Health and Safety
Regulations occurred last year, and do you expect these violations to
increase during ’25‑26?
Veronica Gelowitz: — Okay, so for the numbers of notices of
contraventions, these numbers are as of December 31st. We haven’t completed our
year-end tally, so at December 31st there were 1,736 notices of contravention,
and there were 195 compliance undertakings. There were 47 summary offence
tickets issued. And I’ll ask Elissa to speak about prosecutions a little bit.
Elissa Aitken: — Thanks. So again, this is the year
until December 31st of 2024. During that year we sent 19 occupational health
and safety files to Justice for prosecution. They initiated 10 prosecutions. We
had 21 convictions, and so just keep in mind those don’t necessarily line up.
Prosecutions take more than a year, so that’s why you’ll see more convictions
than prosecutions initiated. And in this year, again to December 31st, the
total penalties levied was $3.494 million. And so for us that’s one of the
largest numbers we’ve had, or the largest number on record in terms of the
amount of fines levied under the occupational health and safety provisions of
the Act.
Nathaniel Teed: — Could you comment a little bit on maybe
why you see an increase in those fines?
Hon. Jim Reiter: — So officials tell me that the number of
convictions are approximately the same, but there was two exceptionally large
fines that were levied. That is what drove the total dollar amount up.
Nathaniel Teed: — And maybe this is a silly question, but
is that all public record?
Elissa
Aitken:
— That information is public. Of course through the court process, that would
be public. But also in fall of 2020, the ministry began publishing fatality
notification and investigative summary reports on the WorkSafe Saskatchewan
website.
Nathaniel
Teed: — Thank you so much. And how many
charges for employment standards violations were issued in ’24‑25?
Hon. Jim Reiter:
— Can I just clarify? Did you ask for interventions or for prosecutions?
Nathaniel Teed: — I asked for
violations out of the employment standards, so I guess all of the above maybe.
[18:00]
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
So your question was on violations. It’s difficult to give that because what
they’re tracking is the actual complaints. So what I’d like to do is give you
. . . Elissa will give you the complaints and then the complaints
that were resolved and walk through those numbers with you, okay?
Nathaniel Teed: — Okay.
Elissa Aitken:
— The number of formal complaints filed was 1,644. And again that’s our fiscal
year up to December 31st, so that’s three-quarters of a year. And just to give
you a bit of background on the process, if somebody thinks that there’s a
violation of the Act they contact us and then we investigate that or look at
the file. And so that would be the number of files we’re looking at.
The number of formal complaints that we
resolved this year, again to December 31st, would be 1,721. So again, that’s a
bit of a time lag in terms of more were being resolved than came in, but
there’s just that time lag in the numbers.
Nathaniel Teed: — Could I ask what
happens to the revenues from the fines that are issued either under OHS or
employment standards?
Elissa Aitken: — Thank you for
that. So it’s a couple of different paths that the funding follows for our
prosecutions and our summary offence tickets. So both when it goes to the
courts for prosecutions and the summary offence tickets, it follows the same
formula in terms of 60 per cent of that funding going to General Revenue Fund,
40 per cent into the Victims’ Fund, and there is that victim surcharge there.
The exception on our tickets would be
tickets under 500. So if it’s under $500, then that goes entirely into the
General Revenue Fund. The one other source that we do have is in employment
standards, and there’s a small fee when we do a wage assessment, and so those
fees would come directly into the General Revenue Fund.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much.
Could you give me a little bit of explanation on the victim fund?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
So that fund is, it actually goes to the same fund that you’d be familiar with
in Justice, the victims of crime, that fund. So the money is forwarded there,
and Justice handles it from there.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much.
I’m going to move over to some questions on asbestos. One of the issues that
bears kind of repeated scrutiny, I think, is the impact of asbestos on our
workforce. There’s a long period between exposure and impact, exposure on
individual workers. Are you able to tell me about the numbers of reported
exposures in 2024 and the number of claims that arose in 2024?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
There’s a number of components to this. I’m going to get Elissa to talk first
about regulatory enforcement on this. And then Phil will give the WCB [Workers’ Compensation Board] perspective on that,
okay?
Elissa Aitken:
— Asbestos exposure does continue to be one of our leading causes of workplace
injuries in terms of cancers and fatalities. In 2024 there were four worker
fatalities in Saskatchewan due to asbestos-related exposure. In the first
three-quarters of the year — so again to December 31st of ’24 — occupational
health and safety officers conducted 156 asbestos-related work site visits and
issued 41 contraventions on asbestos-related inspections. That same time
period, up to December 31st, there were 384 high-risk asbestos project
notifications received. And that compares to there being 550 in that year
before.
Nathaniel Teed: — So when someone is
doing . . . [inaudible interjection] . . . Oh, sorry. Yes.
Yeah.
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
Sorry. The WCB, if we could.
Phil Germain:
— Phillip Germain, CEO with the Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board. So
four fatalities, four of our occupational fatalities accepted in 2024 were
related to exposure from asbestos. Those claims often take a long time to
develop. In 2024 we had 46 claims registered related to asbestos exposure
which, it varies from year to year. 2023 was 58. 2022 was 17. 2021 was 40. And
2020 was 61. So you can see that it takes a long time for some of these to work
their way through the system.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much.
But when you mention the 156 asbestos-related calls, is that folks who are
doing, you know, repairs or renovations, and then they notify the ministry for
that assistance in determining if it is asbestos-related? Is that kind of how
that works?
Bryan Lloyd:
— Bryan Lloyd, executive director of OHS branch. In terms of the 156
asbestos-related inspections we did, those were all related to asbestos work
activities. Primarily they come from the directed list whereby we know that
those activities are being done by certain companies, certain locations that
may have asbestos-containing materials in the buildings. And that’s mostly
targeted intervention work, doing inspections in those areas where we expect
asbestos.
There would be a portion of those that
are made up of complaints. Primarily those complaints would come from workers
or members of the labour market. There are occasions a few times a year when we
would get complaints from members of the public who are not in an employment
relationship, whereby they might notify us that, hey, it looks like some
asbestos-related activity is going on in this adjacent area. We would follow up
and do an inspection.
Nathaniel Teed: — Yeah. And then I’m
imagining for the 384 high-risk projects, is that kind of the same situation?
Known areas or places where asbestos is related, would that be similar?
[18:15]
Bryan Lloyd:
— So we received 384 high-risk asbestos project notifications. And in those
notifications, we would do follow-up inspections to a certain percentage of
those. Those are typically done on a random basis. There are really a certain
limited number of asbestos abatement contractors in the province.
And we would follow up to ensure that
when they’re doing that high-risk asbestos work, which is work whereby fibres
can be in the air space, that they’re following proper protocols, they have
respirators, other personal protective equipment, sampling, decontamination,
and those pieces.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much.
Last year there was capital funding dedicated to the replacement of the current
asbestos registry. Could you provide an update to the committee on how this
transition went?
Bryan Lloyd:
— The hosting service contract for the asbestos registry for public buildings
expired at the end of December ’24, and a new solution was required to continue
to make the registry available to citizens. And the ’24‑25 budget
included 230 K to update that technology. It went through an RFP [request for
proposal] process.
As of February 27th, ’25, we have that
new system in place, the new asbestos registry system. Currently within that
registry we have 59 organizations with 5,268 facilities reporting over 26,000
locations of asbestos in public buildings throughout the province.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much.
I’m going to move to claims by firefighters, both for asbestos and diverse
types of exposures while fighting fires. And to note, that as of spring 2024, Bill 138, the Workers’ Compensation
extended firefighter coverage. Could you give me any information about the
number of claims made by firefighters for both asbestos and diverse types of
exposures while fighting fire?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: — Can I just
clarify? It was the cancer claims by firefighters you were asking for, correct?
Nathaniel Teed: — Yes. Yes, both for I guess asbestos and
diverse types of exposures.
Hon. Jim
Reiter: — I’ll get
Phil to run through those with you.
Phil Germain: — So when we’re talking about cancer injuries
reported to firefighters, in 2024 there were 13 cancers reported specifically
for firefighters, 16 in 2023, 11 in 2022, and we can go back. And then
obviously a portion of those would be exposures to asbestos. We had reported,
for example, 18 exposures to asbestos for firefighters in 2023. And there’s no
new updated numbers for 2024 yet.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much. And now I know we had
the passage of Bill 138, which extended coverage. We have legislation on the
floor of the House to extend to wildland firefighters. The question we had is,
are volunteer firefighters also covered under that WCB
coverage?
Phil Germain:
— Yeah, so for volunteer firefighters who are registered under a local
municipality emergency services or provincial emergency services, they’ll be
covered. Wildland firefighters will be covered. And then obviously the new
legislation expands the coverage in terms of presumptive coverage for wildland
firefighters.
Nathaniel Teed: — Perfect, thank you
so much. I’m wondering if you can advise me a bit on the impact that you’ve
seen on firefighters as far as Bill 138 last year, which extended that
coverage. Have you heard any concerns, issues? Are there other cancers that
firefighters and their organizations are advocating for coverage on?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
Officials tell me that the firefighters, the types of cancers they have been
advocating for, they’ve all been covered now and that the response, to date
anyway, has been very, very positive.
Nathaniel Teed: — Wonderful. Thank
you so much. I’m going to jump to some questions around some Workers’
Compensation Board claims. In the annual report for the Workers’ Compensation
Board, the claims for 2024 increased significantly from 2023, and we’ve seen it
back more in line with our 2022 levels. Can you explain why you think this has
happened and what you expect in terms of claims for 2025?
Phil
Germain:
— So as it relates to the total number of injuries, the main reason for that is
the number of full-time equivalent workers grows from 409,158 in 2023 to
443,344 in ’24. So even though the rate of injury dropped from 3.75 down to
3.71, there was still a result because there was just significantly more
workers. It resulted in more injuries being reported, claims being reported.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much. I guess I’ll ask a
similar question to the problems we’re seeing around mental health. Mental
health claims have been climbing for the past four years and peaked at 283
claims in 2024. What types of programming have you been implementing to try to
deal with these escalating claim numbers?
[18:30]
Phil
Germain:
— So as it relates to the prevention of psychological injuries, WorkSafe, WCB, and LRWS [Labour Relations
and Workplace Safety] through WorkSafe Saskatchewan . . . If you go
onto the WorkSafe Saskatchewan website, you’re going to see quite a number of
resources that have been made available to workers, employers, employer associations,
unions.
There’s
promotional material. There’s videos. There’s written resources. There’s a
number of online courses that we’ve partnered with through the Canadian Centre
for Occupational Health and Safety. There’s some courses, programming that’s
targeted at employers, supervisors, workers through the University of New
Brunswick that have all been Saskatchewan-ized, so to
speak, for WorkSafe and all of that.
And
then we’ve got some group work, some committee-type of work where we’ll pull
together like-minded employers and try and assist them in implementing programs
that help address mental health or psychological safety in the workplace. So
there’s a number of things that we have in play. All of those resources are
available through the WorkSafe website.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much. How does WCB or WorkSafe determine workplace injury is psychological
or PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] or something like that? I know that
during my time as the critic for SGI [Saskatchewan Government Insurance], one
of the challenges was folks to access coverage based on PTSD. You’re in a bad
accident, and it’s hard to get behind the wheel again to go back to work.
Do
you find that folks . . . Is it a difficult area to determine when a
claim comes forward that is psychological in nature, mental health in nature?
Do you see those? Are there lots of claims coming in? Are a few being actioned,
I guess would be my question.
Phil Germain: — So as it relates to . . .
I’ll start off with all injuries. What we look for, is it arising out of and in
the course of employment? So we have a process to always look at (a) is there
an injury, and then (b) is it work related. So that’s always in the process.
When
it comes to psychological injuries, we rely heavily on psychiatrists,
psychologists, maybe even some social workers who have a special designation,
an APE [Authorized Practice Endorsement] designation from the College of
Psychologists, and that determines whether or not those individuals have the
ability to diagnose an injury versus treat an injury.
And
so we rely heavily on mental health; we don’t really make the diagnosis.
That’ll help us determine if the injury is a mental health injury. And then we
try and figure out, is there a connection? And often that comes through the
reporting by the psychologist or the psychiatrist if there’s a connection to
the work event or events that may have happened. It could be a chronic type of
exposure situation.
Nathaniel Teed: — Do folks have access to those
psychologists here in Saskatchewan, or are they virtual? Is it out of province?
Is it here in Saskatchewan that folks have access to those APE-designated
psychiatrists, psychologists? Does Workers’ Compensation set those people up
with those psychologists? Is that kind of how the process works?
Phil
Germain:
— In Saskatchewan as it relates to the assessment of a mental health injury,
the mental health assessments, we have contracts with 21 doctor-level
psychologists to provide mental health assessments to help us or help the
customers. In some cases the clients have already sought out a mental health
specialist. Sometimes those are 1 of the 21 that we have contracts with.
Sometimes it’s not, and we’ll look at each situation and determine whether or
not we need to provide them. So if necessary, we will set up an appointment
with 1 of the 21 mental health specialists and get the assessment done.
Typically it’s taking us right now about 23 days to get them into one of those
assessments.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much. I’m going to jump
over to a couple . . . I think we have about 20 minutes left, so I
have a couple maybe slightly more random questions that I’m going to move
through here as we end our time. But I really appreciate the conversation about
Workers’ Compensation Board and the work that you’re doing.
My
first question on this list is, which CBOs [community-based organization]
received funding through Labour Relations and Workplace Safety in the ’25‑26
budget?
Hon. Jim Reiter: — Officials tell me no CBOs are funded
through this ministry.
Nathaniel Teed: — Oh, okay. No, appreciate it. I was
asked to ask that question by our shadow minister of CBOs. There’s nothing like
WorkSafe or anything like that, or the construction associations?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: — So I just want to make sure for
clarity that everybody’s on the same page. So for example, safety associations
aren’t considered CBOs. And in the ministry I was referring to . . .
but WCB does fund some non-profits. So I’m just going
to get Phil to elaborate on that.
Nathaniel
Teed: — Thank you so much.
Phil Germain:
— Yes. So we provide funding to various levels. The safety associations would
be by far the most funding that we provide to a non-profit. We provide funding
to about 50 different non-profits. Whether or not any of those are CBOs I don’t
know off the top of my head, but certainly we could provide that information if
necessary.
Nathaniel Teed: —
Yeah, do you happen to have a list of the safety associations that WCB would fund? And I guess the same would go if there is
an available list that could be provided for the 50 non-profits, that would be
very helpful.
I guess the next question I might have
is also, did any of those associations or non-profits see a funding increase in
this budget?
Phil Germain: — So as a matter of clarity, our fiscal year
is December 31st, so it doesn’t line up completely with the government’s budget
cycle. But I can tell you that the safety associations all received
. . . I think, when I look at from 2023 to 2024 it was flat, and then
2024 to 2025 there was an increase.
Nathaniel Teed: — What was that increase?
Phil Germain: — From 2024 to 2025, all of that is reported
in our . . . Like when we posted our annual report, we’ve got our
compendium. So all of those numbers are
in there as a supplier, so to speak. The increase was roughly, I think
1.3 million in totality.
Nathaniel Teed: —
Thank you so much. And as far as the 50 non-profits, is there any criteria that
they have to meet to receive funding?
Phil Germain:
— So as it relates to our process of engaging with non-profits — whether it’s
us to them sometimes, or them to us — we always sit down and try and figure out
how we can understand where they’re at and where they’re going, and where we’re
at and where we’re going, and then how do we make it a win-win. How do they
help us, you know, with our strategies, our initiatives, our objectives, and
then how do we help them?
We always find a kind of a win-win
formula and then just try and determine the value of that. A good example of
that is STARS [Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service], for example. We have a
partnership with STARS, and we always sit down and just figure out where is it
that we can help them and where is it that they can help us.
[18:45]
Nathaniel Teed: —
No, I really appreciate that, and as we talk about STARS I think it’s important
to just thank those folks who do that work. I know, very anecdotally, my uncle
was just airlifted from Kindersley. And it’s always just such important work,
and yeah, really appreciate those folks. So I appreciate just understanding a
bit more about how the funding comes from WCB and
goes into those non-profits.
I’m going to move on to the next
question around . . . Last year there was some conversation about the
foreign worker recruitment and protection unit that was transferred to
Immigration. I’m wondering if we can speak a little bit on how that transition
has gone. And my next question would be like are there any checks and balances
in place for foreign workers as it’s moved into career and immigration
training? Does labour and workplace safety do any checks or balances on the
welfare of folks who would be declared foreign workers?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
So you’re going to have to ask that question of the Immigration minister.
Nathaniel Teed: —
Okay.
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
I’m just kidding. That’s me.
Nathaniel Teed: —
That’s you.
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
So foreign workers have the same protections as any workers. They can file
either formal or anonymous complaints just like every other worker.
Nathaniel Teed: — So
largely it was just kind of an internal situation, but still mainly the similar
oversight is what you’re saying?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
I’m sorry, I missed what you said.
Nathaniel Teed: — Yeah,
so it’s just an internal transition and there’s similar oversight.
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
Oh, I’m sorry . . . [inaudible] . . . the transition, I
believe so. My understanding from officials is that went smoothly, I think.
Nathaniel Teed: —
Oh, okay. Thank you so much. I’m going to ask next about group termination
notices. I know it’s something that’s coming up in Bill 5, a change. I was
wondering, can you provide me with how many notices of termination the ministry
received in the ’24‑25 budget year, or I guess the previous budget year?
Hon. Jim
Reiter: —
So these are the group termination notices by year. And just to give some
context, I’ll just go back just a few years. In 2019 there was 50. In 2020
there was 44. In 2021 there was 22. In 2022 there was 15. In 2023 there was 27.
And in 2024 there was 33. So you can see, it varies.
Nathaniel Teed: — It varies. Absolutely. Thank you so
much. I guess, is that information public record as to companies that would be
making those notices to the ministry?
Hon. Jim Reiter: — Officials are telling me that it’s
not provided publicly, and there would be individual names in there, so there
would be privacy issues around it.
Nathaniel
Teed:
— Sounds good. Thank you so much. I guess this could be probably a question for
when we discuss Bill 5, but I guess the logic behind increasing to 25
. . . At the moment, is an employer allowed to let go 10 people one
day, and then let 10 people go the next day and have to do those same
. . . Or would they lay off nine people and then they wouldn’t have
to notify, and then lay off nine people the next day? Is there any regulations
around that process?
Hon. Jim Reiter: — So section 2‑62 of The
Saskatchewan Employment Act governs in that case. And to your point about
sort of nine one day, nine the next, they wouldn’t be able to do that because
it’s 10 or more employees within a four-week period.
Nathaniel Teed: — That’s very helpful for my
understanding. I’m going to move over to some of the work of the employment
standards. I know that I’ve had a stakeholder engage with me about the work of
employment standards staff being more visible to the public, and I’m wondering
. . . So the request has been, you know, is there any plans that the
ministry has to start releasing work of employment standards staff to the
public in an annual or biannual report that would identify the nature of the
cases being dealt with — resolution, names of businesses, etc. — in an interest
of compelling a change of behaviour, that something would be public record in
that sense?
I know that there have been
. . . You know, this information is FOIP-able [freedom of information
and protection of privacy], but I’m wondering if the ministry has any plans to
make that information more public.
Elissa
Aitken:
— When we look at what goes out publicly, I guess the first thing that we think
about is just sometimes when people make claims, it’s an honest
misunderstanding between an employee and employer. And so again, starting with
education, we work through that process. And you know, it can be an honest
mistake on either part.
When
we do wage assessments and they’re appealed, those decisions go to the Labour
Relations Board and an adjudicator hears them. Those results are public and so
you can find those on the Labour Relations Board website. And then if there is
a prosecution, those pieces are public and are listed on Saskatchewan.ca.
Those can be found there.
Nathaniel Teed: — Okay, thank you so much. I hope that
helps with that question. I think I will ask one more question here. During
estimates last year, my colleague, the member from Regina Douglas Park, raised
the issue of the young man, 14 years old at the time, who was poisoned by
carbon monoxide in Canora. At the time the conventions were issued to the
employer.
I’m wondering if since that incident, if
there have been any changes that the ministry has brought forward, considered
in legislation, to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen again, but
also that we might see some administrative monetary penalties potentially be
issued in cases where young people are injured in the workplace.
[19:00]
Hon. Jim Reiter: — So you know you mentioned earlier about
how the ministry approaches when they’re going to be reviewing a section of the
Act. I think this is a perfect example. This was a terrible situation. It
shouldn’t happen. And so this will be one of the examples where the ministry,
whether a submission raises it or not, they will have it on the agenda. So when
they do that review we were discussing earlier, they’ll be reviewing the Act
and then the regs as well. So this will be part of that review.
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much. And I think that’s
all my time here today, Mr. Chair.
Chair
Weger:
— 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 Labour Relations and Workplace Safety. Minister,
do you have any closing comments?
Hon. Jim Reiter: — Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like
to thank you. I would like to thank the committee members. I’d also like to
thank Mr. Teed and his colleagues for the great discussion and the respectful
questions. Thank you for that. And lastly but foremost, I would also like to
thank our ministry officials for their time tonight and their good work. Thank
you.
Chair
Weger:
— Mr. Teed, any closing comments?
Nathaniel Teed: — Thank you so much. I’ll reiterate.
Thanks to the Chair and the folks who make this evening possible here as well.
To committee members and to the minister and the ministry officials, thank you
so much for taking my questions this evening, and thank you so much for all the
work that you do in our Labour Relations and Workplace Safety ministry.
Chair
Weger:
— Okay, and I would just echo those same comments. And that concludes our
business for today. I would ask a member to move a motion for adjournment. MLA
Crassweller has moved. All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Weger:
— Carried. This committee stands adjourned until Wednesday, April 16th, 2025 at
5:15 p.m.
[The
committee adjourned at 19:02.]
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.