CONTENTS
Standing Committee on Human Services
Bill No. 18 — The Regulated Health Professions Act
THIRTIETH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
Hansard Verbatim Report
No.
10 — Tuesday, May 6, 2025
[The committee met at 16:01.]
Chair Weger: — Welcome to the Standing Committee on Human Services. My
name is Mike Weger. I’ll be the Chair. To my left I have Ms. Betty Nippi-Albright, chitting in for Noor Burki; Mr.
Brent Blakley; and Ms. Vicki Mowat, chitting in for April ChiefCalf. On my
right I have Mr. Kevin Kasun, chitting in for Colleen Young; Mr. Kim Gartner;
and Mr. Barret Kropf.
Today the committee
will be considering two bills, Bill No. 18 and Bill No. 19.
Betty Nippi-Albright: — Mr. Chair?
Chair Weger: — Yes?
Betty Nippi-Albright: — Mr. Chair, before we get started with these important
bills, I have a motion I would like to move. It’s an important motion for this
committee to declare that the drug and overdose crisis is an emergency, and to
task this committee with carrying out an investigation to provide
recommendations to the government. I hope we can pass it today.
Mr. Chair, I move:
That in the opinion of the Standing Committee
on Human Services the overdose crisis in Saskatchewan is an urgent public
health emergency; and further,
That the Standing Committee on Human Services
conduct an investigation into the overdose crisis in Saskatchewan and that the
committee provide recommendations to the government on the policies to address
the crisis.
Chair Weger: — MLA [Member of the Legislative Assembly] Nippi-Albright
has moved a motion:
That in the opinion of the Standing Committee
on Human Services the overdose crisis in Saskatchewan is an urgent public
health emergency; and further,
That the Standing Committee on Human Services
conduct an investigation into the overdose crisis in Saskatchewan and that the
committee provide recommendations to the government on the policies to address
the crisis.
Are committee members
ready for the question?
Some Hon. Members:
— Question.
Chair Weger: — Do members agree with the motion
as read?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Some
Hon. Members: — No.
Chair Weger:
— The question before the committee is the motion. I would like to inform
committee members that I will be exercising my right to a deliberative vote.
Those in favour of the motion say aye.
Some
Hon. Members: — Aye.
Chair Weger:
— Those opposed to the motion please say no.
Some
Hon. Members: — No.
Chair Weger:
— I think the nos have it.
Vicki Mowat: — Can we have a
recorded division?
Chair Weger:
— A recorded vote has been called.
All those in favour of the motion please
raise your hand.
All those opposed to the motion please
raise your hand.
Those in favour of the motion, 3; those
opposed to the motion, 4. I declare the motion defeated.
Today the committee will be considering
two bills, Bill No. 18 and Bill No. 19.
Bill No. 18 — The
Regulated Health Professions Act
Clause 1‑1
Chair Weger:
— We will first consider Bill No. 18, The Regulated Health Professions
Act. We will begin our consideration with
clause 1‑1, short title. Minister Cockrill 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. 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. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Pleasure to be here today as we discuss The Regulated Health Professions
Act. Joining me today to my left is Deputy
Minister Tracey Smith; to my right, Tami Denomie. We also have behind us my
colleague Minister Lori Carr as well as Norman O’Neill joining us today.
So I’ll just start by making some
opening comments regarding this Act. And you know, for sake of clarity, I think
we can all understand the two Acts that we are going to be discussing today are
really partnership Acts, although I understand that we will be discussing them
separately. So please understand that comments made in regards to this first
Act, you know, very much related to the piece of legislation that we’re going
to be discussing after this.
Governments grant self-regulatory status
to professions such as lawyers, physicians, and registered nurses because these
professions provide highly skilled services that can potentially harm the
public if performed by an incompetent and/or unethical practitioner. In Canada
and around the world there have been substantive changes in how self-regulating
professions, particularly health professions, are governed based on the
public’s growing demand for more accountability and transparency from
regulatory bodies.
Now in Saskatchewan today there is
currently a great deal of variation between the 21 individual statutes
regulating 28 health professions governed by 26 regulatory bodies. These
statutes define the province’s existing regulatory framework. Now the inconsistencies
in the current regulatory framework create challenges for regulators to
effectively govern their respective members in the public interest.
As one of the last Canadian provinces to
implement umbrella legislation, this proposal would bring Saskatchewan’s
regulatory framework of health professions in alignment with what is considered
best practice across our country. Consolidating these statutes under a single
umbrella Act would establish consistent and improved regulatory standards for
all health professions regarding registration, governance, complaints,
disciplines, public accountabilities, public representation, and bylaw-making
authority. Greater consistency in these areas would in turn enhance public
protection and confidence in both regulatory bodies and the health system as a
whole.
The development of umbrella legislation
will still require the drafting of subordinate regulations specific to each
regulated health profession to address the unique features of each profession.
This is consistent with the development of umbrella legislation in other
provinces.
The ministry is continuing to consult
with health regulatory bodies regarding the development of the proposed
umbrella legislation to ensure that the legislation will provide them with the
tools they require to effectively govern in the public interest. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Chair Weger:
— Thank you, Minister. I’ll now open the floor for questions. MLA Mowat.
Vicki Mowat: — Thank you, Mr.
Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister, and to the officials who are attending
today.
I think I have some specific questions
around how the bill will be implemented and questions that have arisen through
conversations with regulatory bodies. Many of them likely will not be a
surprise to you. But there’s still some outstanding questions around what this
whole process looks like and has looked like. I have some questions around
implementation. Can you speak to the estimated timeline for implementation of
this project?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
Thank you, Ms. Mowat, for the question. You know, we have been, I’d say,
signalling and communicating to the sector that we expect this process really
to last two or three years.
You know, obviously there’s the content
of the bill that we’re discussing today, but really the meat of this whole
movement is going to be in the regulations. Again we’ve started consultations
on the regulations, you know, generally speaking, but then also about the
restricted activity list as well as profession-specific regulations.
Now again, you know, in parallel to that
at some point, you know, likely at some point next calendar year we’ll start
work on the sets of bylaws. Again I mean I still maintain there’s 28 separate
sets of bylaws that need to be created here for each health profession and then
obviously getting into the standards of practice.
And then, you know, once we have
everything done, then there’s obviously kind of how we apply that within the
health care system and some work to do obviously between each profession, the
Ministry of Health, the Saskatchewan Health Authority, and other health care
sector partners.
But again to answer your question, we
expect two to three years for the whole timeline of this.
Vicki Mowat: — Thank you,
Minister. What have the timelines looked like in other provinces?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
So I guess I’ll speak to the comparison from provinces that I’m aware of. You
know, I believe BC’s [British Columbia] process took 10 years. Manitoba is
still under way, as I understand, in their process. I believe they’re into
their fifth year.
Again you know, we’re hoping
. . . You know, we see some real advantages to how the health system
here in Saskatchewan is regulated. You know, we think that us working together
with the various stakeholders in the sector, learning from what other provinces
have done and maybe their mistakes or maybe kind of how their process was
. . . You know, that’s why we remain optimistic with a
two-to-three-year timeline.
Again that will depend once we get into
the meat of the consultations too, you know, and ensuring that stakeholders
feel heard and, you know, certainly respected of course, as always, but
certainly heard, and making sure that we’re moving forward together with the
regulations and bylaws that we view . . . that we can all say are
good for the people of Saskatchewan.
[16:15]
Vicki Mowat: —
You mentioned conversations with other provinces. What have you learned from
other provinces who have went through this process already?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
Perhaps I’ll make a couple comments. You know, certainly we’ve observed and
learned from other provinces that this process takes time, as I indicated in my
previous answer.
You know, the other piece is really
around how important engagement is with the stakeholders in the sector. And I
mean like the first consultation on this bill goes back to 2023. We’ve been
working with the stakeholders, certainly hearing their concerns. And you know,
my understanding is there were some concerns with earlier drafts of the bill.
But you know, going back and forth with
the stakeholders means that we’re going to get to a better spot here. I think
we’ve gotten to a good spot here, but certainly I think the process to how we
got here, certainly we’ll be taking that approach into consulting regarding the
regulations and the bylaws. And again that has been productive, but it takes
time to get to a place where everybody can be on the same page.
You know, I would just say too
. . . I can’t necessarily speak to this, but certainly the 28
regulatory bodies could. All the regulatory bodies are watching what has
happened in other provinces and are certainly . . . They know their professions
best. So if you’re with the college of pharmacy here in Saskatchewan, you’re
going to be watching what happened in Manitoba and British Columbia, taking,
hopefully, what’s good and leaving what isn’t.
So I guess I spoke to what we’ve learned
as a ministry from other provinces. But certainly all 28 regulatory bodies are
going to be taking lessons from their respective colleagues in other provinces
that have gone through the umbrella legislation process.
Vicki Mowat: — Have you folks
talked to any of the regulators out of province as well about what their
experiences have been like?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
So the feedback that we’ve sought from people outside of the province would
really be limited to, you know, number one obviously the other ministries right
across the country that have already gone through this process, but also the
national regulatory bodies — say, the CRNS [College of Registered Nurses of
Saskatchewan] for registered nurses.
Now I will say that my understanding is
that the feedback that we’ve received from the national regulatory bodies has
been fairly brief just because, again, these regulatory bodies that are
national recognize that the legislative frameworks in the provinces are all
very different and unique. And I think they respect that.
But in terms of seeking feedback from
other regulatory bodies in other provinces, I mean, we’re really looking for
something that’s going to work here in Saskatchewan. And certainly again we
would rely on, but I think it’s also fair to say that the regulatory bodies in
Saskatchewan are, I’m sure, speaking with colleagues in other provinces and
understanding what’s been done there.
Vicki Mowat: — The national
bodies that you receive feedback for, did you seek that feedback out or did
they come to you with that feedback?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
Yeah, from the national regulatory bodies, that was sought out. And again what
we have received back has been fairly brief in nature.
Vicki Mowat: — Which of those
bodies have you received feedback from?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
So again, you know, we’ve sought feedback from several national organizations
via email. We haven’t heard back from all of them, but certainly the
associations that have gotten back to us would be the associations representing
RTs [respiratory therapist], dental assistants, OTs [occupational therapist],
natural health practitioners.
So again the feedback from national
bodies has been very limited. And I think it’d be fair to expect, and again I
hate to assume, but certainly I would imagine that our provincial regulatory
bodies are seeking comment from their national regulatory bodies and their
national associations as well.
Vicki Mowat: — Speaking a little
bit about comparing our situation to other provinces and how long it’s taken
some other provinces, I had also heard that I think Alberta took 10 years to do
something similar as well, in addition to the examples that you provided. And I’ve
heard that it took much longer than five years in Manitoba. Like people are
saying like 20 years to me. Is that not the case?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
It’s my understanding Manitoba is not complete yet. Again I haven’t spoken to
the Health minister in Manitoba regarding this specific issue, but that’s my
understanding.
Vicki Mowat: — Okay. In terms of
what makes us the same or different from other provinces, you spoke about being
optimistic about a shorter timeline. Do you think it’s realistic that there is
this short of a timeline?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
You know, I think Ms. Mowat, you’re correct in saying it’s . . .
Sorry, I won’t quote you; this wasn’t your word. You know, it is an ambitious
timeline, but I would say I think what gives us hope on this is again the
productive back-and-forth that we’ve had with stakeholders thus far on it.
There’s a mutual desire from all parties involved to see this through and, you
know, stakeholders and ministry alike both recognize that there’s a need to
move in this direction and quickly. Again — and speaking to the productive
nature of the discussions thus far — certainly, you know, the ministry is
committed to being proactive and collaborative to move this through as quickly
as possible.
[16:30]
And I’ll say that the ministry is also
adding some legal capacity to our team, and so that will again add to I guess
the volume of work that we’re able to work through, you know, in concert with
the Ministry of Justice, and obviously the legal counsels from each regulatory
body. So certainly, you know, we see an opportunity here.
Again speaking to the constructiveness
of the process thus far and the changes that we have been able to make, you
know, back and forth with the regulators, if we get to a point where there’s
places of disagreement, we’re going to take the time to make sure that we get
to a good spot. Because at the end of the day this piece of legislation is all
about representing the public interest in the best way. So certainly this is
the timeline that we’re aiming for, but want to make sure that both the
ministry and the regulators end up in a good spot.
Vicki Mowat: — Thank you. Has a
project plan been developed for this project?
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — So in regards to a project plan, we do
have a draft plan that’s been developed. Obviously once we get through the
passage of this legislation — hopefully — and the legal capacity being added to
the team, that draft plan will be finalized.
Vicki Mowat: — Thank you. Who is going to lead this
work?
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — So this project, obviously being led by
the ministry and specifically the partnerships, privacy and legislative
services branch of the Ministry of Health. And some of those people are sitting
beside me here and joining us.
Certainly
I can say that there’s been significant work within the ministry, not just in
the PPLS [partnerships, privacy and legislative services] branch but engaging
with other branches in the ministry. Some branches interact with the regulatory
bodies more frequently. And so again, that’s also been, I’d say, a parallel
process over the last little while is, you know, this specific branch in the
ministry gathering feedback from other parts of the ministry and making sure
that what we’re hearing and what’s being drafted and introduced is
representative of where the ministry would like to go.
Vicki Mowat: — Thank you. You talked about adding some
legal capacity. Can you talk about what human resources are being added to the
project in particular?
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — So you know, within the ministry
there’s a team in this branch that works exclusively on regulatory issues and
engagement with the regulators.
When
I talked about adding additional staff . . . So there’s already two
dedicated staff on this project within the ministry. Then we’ve added two term
positions specifically for this project around policy and research.
The
legal capacity that I mentioned earlier and that you asked about specifically,
that will be a contract position. My understanding is that we do not have a
contract signed as of yet.
And
don’t forget, you know, there’s also capacity within the Ministry of Justice
with their drafting folks. I can’t speak to exactly how the Ministry of Justice
is allocating staff resources, but my understanding is there’s a couple of
drafters specifically that are a part of this project. And so we’re working
quite closely with them, as any ministry would on a piece of legislation and
the development of regulations.
Vicki Mowat: — Thank you. For the two term positions
that you mentioned, what are the contract dates of those positions?
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — So the policy position, that’s a
two-year term. And then the research position is currently on a summer term,
and then we’ll start a new term come this fall. Certainly as the project
progresses and develops, we’ll look at extending those terms as needed as the
project necessitates.
Vicki Mowat: — For the two-year policy position, how
long has that person been working already?
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — So the individual filling the policy
position, unclear on the exact date but sometime in January of this year. My
understanding, the individual has had quite extensive experience in the health
sector, working in the ministry and various other partner agencies as well.
Vicki Mowat: — In terms of the workload that’s
required here, talking about the capacity of the ministry team and the added
capacity here, which tasks is the ministry prepared to assist with?
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — Sorry, Ms. Mowat. Maybe we didn’t quite
understand your question, or maybe you want to rephrase it. I mean in terms of
assisting with the . . . I mean the ministry is running the project.
The people I talked about, the two dedicated staff already within the branch.
The two term positions, we’ve added. The contract legal position we’ll add. You
know, obviously not to mention the work being done by other people in the
ministry adjacent to the project.
I
mean this is a key priority project for the ministry. So this is something that
gets reported up through the deputy minister on a regular basis and then
obviously to myself as the minister. So yeah, sorry, maybe I didn’t quite
understand.
Vicki Mowat: — So I can rephrase my question. Can you
walk us through the workload that is required of the regulatory bodies to
transition in order to be in compliance with this new legislation?
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — Okay, so the question is really in
regards to kind of understanding what’s required of the regulatory bodies?
Vicki Mowat: — Yeah.
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — Okay, thank you.
[16:45]
I
think it might be really too early to be very specific around what the workload
for each regulator looks like. Certainly we would request — as we have, you
know, to get to this point — we would be requesting their participation from
all of them on the regulations. You know, the heavy lifting will be in the
regulations and then certainly the bylaws.
Now
again we have regulators of various sizes, and so the College of Physicians and
Surgeons, I mean, a well-developed organization, lots of capacity in that
organization. A smaller regulatory body, for example, you know, massage
therapists, just a smaller organization, right. So yeah as I said, certainly we
expect the heavy lifting to really be around the bylaws. And that’s where, you
know, the work there for the various regulatory bodies is working with their
respective memberships. And obviously there’s a whole process within that to
collect feedback and engage members that way.
As
I said this is a priority project for the ministry, and understanding there’s
varying capacities within the bodies, you know. We want to be collaborative, as
I’ve said, and be working with the regulatory bodies to move this along. So
certainly as we get into the process more, get a better sense of the workload,
I think there’ll be some opportunities for similar regulatory bodies to work
together and perhaps, you know, use some of each other’s work when it comes to
bylaws, as one example.
So
certainly again the ministry will be collaborative and hopefully we see some
collaboration between the regulatory bodies as well.
Vicki Mowat: —
You identify that it’s going to look different for different sizes of
regulatory bodies, you know, so many different professions. Different
regulatory bodies do different things and have different responsibilities as
well. You’re very aware of this.
Is there any consideration for tailored
approaches to different regulatory bodies? And what might that look like in
terms of the support that they’re able to receive from the ministry? You know,
we’re talking about like hundreds of documents having to be updated — like just
so people can get a sense of how big this project is for some of these
regulators — legal oversight being needed in so many different cases,
especially with regulators that have been in practice for a long time.
Like there’s quite a large body of work
that’s going to be required, and what consideration has been given to providing
supports in those circumstances?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
You know, again in response to your question, I think perhaps it’s still maybe
early days to give a definitive answer on that. You know, we have considered
tailored approaches, and I would say that we would be receptive to that.
But again understanding that we want to
be collaborative throughout this process, again as we get into meeting with all
the regulatory bodies one on one, I expect that we’ll hear, you know, specific
feedback on what a tailored approach for individual regulatory bodies will look
like. Certainly we’re open to that. I mean keeping in mind, you know, we talk
about the workload for the regulatory bodies, keep in mind, I mean all these
organizations already have a set of bylaws, right. You know, there’s been a good
volume of work that have been done by these organizations in the past to get to
where they are today.
So certainly open to tailored
approaches. I think once we get into, again, those one-on-one consultations
then we’ll have an opportunity to hear more, and you know, make the
determination on that.
Vicki Mowat: — I think one of the concerns that I’ve heard is
about the ability of smaller regulators to do a very large volume of work off
the side of their desk and not have any of their other duties suffer as a
result of that work. And I think the timeline pressures factor into that. I’m
sure you’ve heard the same thing.
And I think
what folks are looking for is some assurances that there will be some balance
on that front and support provided. And I think there is a question around how
much of that work falls on the individual regulators and how much of it falls
on the ministry.
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: — You know,
I’ll just say as I said in a previous answer — and I’ve met with several of the
regulatory bodies already — there is a variation in size and administrative
capacity. Certainly understand that some colleges have thousands of members;
some have tens of members. So you know, certainly can appreciate that there’s
going to be a difference in administrative capacity.
I think where
we generally are is we’ve got 28 regulatory bodies, to my understanding, that
are all, you know, supportive of moving in this direction. But yeah, certainly
questions. Once we get into the drafting of regulations and bylaws, then we’ll
have a better sense. Or once we get closer to that point, we’ll have a sense of
capacity and then again how the ministry can work with those bodies to get to
where we need to be at the end of the day for the members, at the end of the
day for the public interest.
As I said, I
know I perhaps sound like a broken record tonight, but we want to take a
collaborative lens to this. And again we have a timeline that we think reflects
how important we think this piece of legislation is and the following
regulations. You know, we’ll be working ambitiously to work with these 28
groups to get there.
Vicki Mowat: — Has the ministry asked regulators to estimate what
additional resources they would require to get this work accomplished within
that time frame?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
So yes, the regulators were asked about financial implications very early in
the process, and as I said, generally speaking, the consultations on this piece
of legislation go back to 2023. So early in the process certainly a range of
estimates, you know, as we both understand, large and small regulatory bodies.
I think as we get into these more
detailed discussions with the regulatory bodies, we’ll be able to better flesh
out with them, you know, resources required and that will inform the individual
regulatory bodies and the decisions they make, and also the decisions the
ministry makes throughout its budget process each and every year.
Vicki Mowat: —
Have you been made aware of regulators hiring additional folks to assist them
with their work on this project?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
So the ministry hasn’t heard that to date, that regulators have staffed up or
added staff. Certainly that doesn’t mean that they haven’t, but as far as the
ministry is aware that has not occurred yet.
Vicki Mowat: —
If regulators have to seek out additional hours of legal advice, I think there
are concerns that there is only a small amount of folks who do work in this
field that would have the awareness of how to do this. And if everyone’s trying
to access those folks at the same time, that could add some pressures into
timeline for implementation.
But in terms of costs, is there an
understanding of how much this is expected to cost regulators as you look at
those additional resources that will likely be required?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
Not an estimate at this time. As I indicated in a previous answer, you know, we
received perhaps some high-level, back-of-the-napkin type estimates very early
in the consultation process. But certainly as we get into further one-on-one
consultations we expect that regulators will be kind of quantifying the work in
their own bodies, and you know, and then we’ll have a discussion once we have
some more detail. Hard to kind of work on, you know, a resourcing plan without
kind of quantifying the scope, right, or the required work.
[17:00]
Vicki Mowat: —
You mentioned contracting one legal individual and also relying on Ministry of
Justice with some of the drafting. Can you clearly sort of identify which legal
work would be the responsibility of a regulator and which legal work would be
the responsibility of the ministry? Certainly I’m thinking folks that are
working for the ministry would not be at the beck and call of the regulators.
You know, where are those lines drawn?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: — I
mean, I would emphasize still early days on figuring out some of these
boundaries and how that’s resourced.
I would say that there will likely be
some utility or value in having that ministry legal capacity directly engaged
with perhaps legal counsels from the regulatory bodies or, you know, a board or
a smaller subset of, or a committee of members that are focused on this.
But I guess that’s really probably the
most I could say at this point around the breakdown of activity there.
Vicki Mowat: — What is the
anticipated cost to government? Is there a budget for the project?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
Too early to say at this point. Again, as I indicated earlier, some initial
estimates, but those were very early days. And now that we’ve moved along a
little ways, I expect that we will, as part of next year’s budget process,
begin to contemplate that and try to provide some more firm numbers for
government.
Vicki Mowat: — In terms of the
project plan, we have all these different regulatory bodies. Is there a desire
to sort of start tackling them all at the same time? Is there an idea of which
ones will be going first? Are there going to be a few at a time? What is that work
expected to look like?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
So the plan as it stands right now is to have kind of an initial contact with
all 28 bodies by the end of June, kind of as a first touchpoint. Obviously that
first touchpoint will kind of inform the project plan and kind of where we get
into things.
I do think there may be an opportunity
for similar professions or related professions to work more in concert with
each other. I mean, take for example the dental professions. They currently
reside under one Act. Like I won’t speak for them, but it likely makes sense
that there’ll be some economies of scale of being able to do engagement with
those regulatory bodies together, as well as those regulatory bodies being able
to, when we talk about resources required, be able to access one resource
instead of three resources, right?
So again, I won’t speak for the
regulatory bodies today, but certainly as we reach out to all of them before
the end of June and have those conversations, we’ll get a better sense of that.
Vicki Mowat: — A few more general
questions here before my time comes to an end. Speaking specifically around the
intent of the legislation, I know that when Bill 120 was introduced and passed,
there was great attention toward modernization, some ability for, I think, a
little bit more portability within the health care professions. What does this
legislation do to modernize and improve the professions that Bill 120 didn’t
do?
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
So to my understanding, Bill 120 required each regulatory body to make
amendments to their own legislation. Again what this does is bring everybody
together, have some standardization, you know, specifically around the areas of
registration or complaints or governance and, I think, to have some
consistency.
And while we recognize there’s
regulatory bodies of different sizes, I think it’s in the public interest to
have clear consistency in terms of how does a member of the public
. . . how does the complaint process work with one regulatory body versus
the other? I think it makes good sense, you know, for the folks that we
represent, if they have a concern with a practitioner, having that consistency
across the 28 bodies I think makes good sense.
There’s also a piece of this too that as
we seek to, you know, again within the health care system, encourage people of
different professions to work in more collaborative models, this legislation
will help I think move us further down that road. I think that’s what our
constituents are looking for is, you know, different models of care that can
give them better access to health care, whatever that may look like in their
community, large or small. I would say this piece of legislation helps us move
down that road.
But really I think the core of it comes
down to protecting the public interest. And part of the way that this
legislation does that is provide some standardization and consistency.
Vicki Mowat: — Can you speak to
the impact on processes that are already under way? I’m thinking of the scope
expansion projects, scope modernization. My understanding is that changes in
scope will have to be put on hold during the transition period and that there
are a lot of questions about how that will work.
Hon. Jeremy
Cockrill: —
So I think it’s important to note that this piece of legislation does not
expand scope. It optimizes the current scope.
I will say that the work that’s already
under way to expand scope — whether that be on the pharmacy, and we’ve talked
about some of the pilot projects there both in Swift Current and Weyburn as
well as the point-of-care testing pilots happening in 50‑some communities
right around the province improving access to care for patients in those
communities — that work will continue to go on with regulatory bodies.
And I think the government has been
clear that we will continue to look for opportunities to use scope expansion to
improve access to health care for people in communities large and small.
Certainly when we talk about, you know, improving health care in rural and
northern communities, I think there’s some really exciting opportunities ahead
for scope expansion.
[17:15]
That work will not be put on hold by
this work and this project. You know, this is happening in the background.
We’ve talked over the last hour here about, you know, the many complexities of
the project. But while that work continues on — you know, ministry, regulatory
bodies doing heavy lifting — there’s also other branches of the ministry and
the Saskatchewan Health Authority and obviously those regulatory bodies and the
corresponding professional associations that are all working, I’d say, trying
to find opportunities for their members to offer more services.
This government’s very supportive of
that. We’ll continue to work with all those stakeholders to expand scope where
we can. And again, at the end of the day it’s about the patients, and we see
some opportunity there.
Vicki Mowat: — That’s really good to hear. Thank
you. In terms of the decision to use the restricted activities schedule, I
wonder if you can speak to why this model was chosen. You know, what other
jurisdictions use it, and provide a bit of an explanation of what the plan is
for this.
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — So really the restricted activities
model is, I mean, going back to ensuring, optimizing the current scope for all
regulatory bodies. The legislation that we’ve seen in other provinces has
something very similar to this, maybe just different names in different
provinces. But you know, this is a model I think that we can optimize existing
scope, again while protecting the public. So that’s why we’ve chosen to go down
this path.
And
as I said earlier, this will be one of the places of heavy lifting for the
ministry and the regulatory bodies.
Vicki Mowat: — Can you speak to how changes to
restricted activities will be addressed? I’m thinking about, you know, changes
in technology, which sometimes happen quite quickly. You know, will there be
flexibility within this model to address that? And then if there are disputes
between professions, who’s the arbiter of restricted activities? What does that
process look like?
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — Yeah, Ms. Mowat, you raise a very good
point on being responsive to advancements in technology. You know, again,
certainly the consideration of that and how that works would be in the
regulations. And I think that does obviously — it being in regulations — that
uncouples it a little bit from the legislative calendar, if you will, or the
typical legislative process. So I think that does provide some sufficient
flexibility for the ministry to adjust.
I
think though that this is where, you know, when issues come up down the road
regarding technology or disputes, we’d seek to have a collaborative approach
with the regulatory bodies. I mean if there’s technological advancements,
certainly I think you could expect that the ministry would work with any
affected regulatory body on finding a good spot where practitioners can feel
like their profession is protected while still, you know, ensuring that
patients have access and can be protected as that technology is used. That
would be my hope.
You
know, in regard to being the arbiter of disputes, this legislation does give
the minister bylaw-making authority. And certainly while that is significant,
again I would say that we would want to be working with the regulatory bodies
to find a collaborative way to sort through issues. You know, when I look at
that list of affected regulatory bodies, all of those professions have
important roles to play in the health care journey of us as individuals in the
province.
So
I think, you know, while we’re seeking standardization and consistency,
disagreements are sure to arise down the road. The minister will have
bylaw-making authority under this legislation, but finding a collaborative
approach would be our desired outcome.
Vicki Mowat: — I have a couple more questions. I want
to ask about the situation that massage therapists are in. So their bill was
passed in 2021 but hasn’t been brought into force, and so it hasn’t been
proclaimed. And so I understand that with this legislation it would repeal The
Massage Therapy Act, which has not yet been proclaimed. Like will that Act
be proclaimed first? And what does that look like for them, I guess?
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — Yeah, with respect to massage
therapists, you know, Bill 3 has received Royal Assent. It’s just not in force,
as you mentioned. That bill will need to be repealed as a part of this process.
Vicki Mowat: — So when . . .
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — And then, sorry, I should just say
that’s not unlike the other 25 pieces of legislation that will have to be
repealed.
Vicki Mowat: — So just in terms of, like if they
haven’t . . . They don’t have a college yet. If and when this bill is
proclaimed, does that create a college for them? Or are we then having to
proclaim legislation that is just going to immediately be repealed? I just
don’t understand what comes next under the circumstance. It seems a little
complicated.
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — An order-of-operations question, more
than anything, is that what I’m getting? Okay.
Again
with respect to the massage therapists, you know, the intent would be to roll
the work that has been already done into this process. And then obviously once
this legislation is proclaimed, then that would establish them as a college
with the bylaws and regulations.
And
again certainly, you know, you identify a unique situation on the list. And so
again, perhaps when we talk about, all the talk about collaboration, no more
necessary than in that specific case just to make sure that we get it right as
part of this legislation.
Vicki Mowat: — Thank you. In terms of that bill not
being proclaimed for so long, I’m just wondering now when we expect this bill
to come into force or if we expect that there will be a similar process of
waiting.
I
just feel like there was a lot of excitement and momentum about the passing of
that bill, and then it kind of just deflated as it became a cumbersome sort of
work project to get all of these things in place before the proclamation.
[17:30]
When
do you expect that this bill will come into force, assuming it, you know, gets
through all the stages here this spring in the next couple weeks?
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — Yeah, well I’ll just say, it will take
likely a minimum of three years, two or three years to get to that point. Again
we have to get through all the development of the regulations and the bylaws
before we get to that point. And you know, again certainly recognize that
massage therapists do play a crucial role in the system and represent an
important mode of care for many people in the province.
And
the timing is perhaps, you know, not intentional. It’s just here is the
opportunity to bring everybody together, standardize it in the name of public
interest. So certainly we don’t expect this bill to come into force obviously
until all the regulations and bylaws are in place across all regulatory bodies,
including the massage therapists in this case.
Vicki Mowat: — So I suppose a quick follow-up then. So
is there an expectation that The Massage Therapy Act will be proclaimed
in the meantime?
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — So the ministry will be meeting with
the college of massage therapists later this month, you know, having
discussions with them about obviously this piece of legislation, but also I
would expect Bill 3 to come up as part of that conversation.
If
everything is in order from a regulations and bylaws perspective, then I
wouldn’t see a reason at this point not to proclaim that, but obviously we have
to make sure that that’s in place in the meantime. But I think again, certainly
we would look to that meeting and our engagement with them to get some specific
feedback and see where they’re at and certainly where their members are at in
regards to that.
Vicki Mowat: — Thank you. I have no further questions,
Mr. Chair.
Chair
Weger:
— Okay, are there any more questions or comments from any committee members?
Seeing none, we will proceed to vote on the clauses. Minister Cockrill, you and
your officials, if you want to spread your wings a little and stretch your
legs, this may take us a little while.
Part
1, Preliminary Matters. Clause 1‑1, short title, is that agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Weger:
— Carried
[Clause
1‑1 agreed to.]
[Clauses 1‑2 to 14‑1
inclusive agreed to.]
Chair
Weger:
— His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly
of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The Regulated Health Professions Act.
I
would ask a member to move that we report Bill No. 18, The Regulated Health Professions Act without amendment.
Kim Gartner: — I so move.
[17:45]
Chair
Weger:
— MLA Gartner moves. Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Weger:
— Carried. MLA Mowat, any closing comments?
Vicki Mowat: — I just want to thank the minister and
all the officials for spending some time here with us today and shedding some
clarity on the process. And please extend our thanks to everyone who’s doing
work on this. It’s quite the undertaking. Just appreciate everyone’s time
tonight.
Chair
Weger:
— Minister, any closing comments?
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — Mr. Chair, just thank you and all
committee members for the discussion here tonight, and all the support services
for making these committee evenings happen.
Happy
to share some details here, and obviously as we talked about, this is a project
of significant size for the health care sector that is just kind of starting to
get under way. But at the end of the day, when we think about how this can
positively impact patients in Saskatchewan, certainly it’s something that we’re
hopeful for, that we all see as patients benefit from. So thank you to the
committee.
Bill
No. 19 — The Regulated Health Professions Consequential Amendments Act,
2025/Loi de 2025 corrélative de la loi intitulée The Regulated Health
Professions Act
Chair
Weger:
— Thank you. We will now move on to consideration of Bill No. 19, The
Regulated Health Professions Consequential Amendments Act, 2025, a
bilingual bill. We will begin with consideration of clause 1, short title.
Minister
Cockrill, you mentioned previously your opening comments from the last bill
would apply, but if you have anything further to add, I will turn the floor
over to you.
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — No comments to add from me.
Chair
Weger:
— Okay. Thank you, Minister. Any questions from any MLAs? Seeing none, we will
proceed to vote on the clauses. Clause 1, short title, is that agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Weger:
— Carried.
[Clause
1 agreed to.]
[Clauses
2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.]
Chair
Weger:
— His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly
of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The Regulated Health Professions
Consequential Amendments Act, 2025, a bilingual bill.
I
would ask a member to move that we report Bill No. 19, The Regulated
Health Professions Consequential Amendments Act, 2025 without amendment.
MLA Kasun moves. Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Weger:
— Carried. Minister, any closing comments?
Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: — No. Thank you very much.
Chair
Weger:
— Thank you. Seeing no other closing comments, that concludes our business for
today. I would ask a member to move a motion of adjournment. MLA Kropf has
moved. All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Weger:
— The committee stands adjourned to the call of the Chair.
[The
committee adjourned at 17:48.]
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.