CONTENTS
Standing Committee on Human
Services
THIRTIETH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
Hansard Verbatim Report
No.
12 — Monday, March 30, 2026
Procedural Clerk:
— Good afternoon. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Human Services. My name
is Nadine Coderre, and it is my duty as Procedural Clerk to preside over the
election of a new Chair. I’d like to remind members of the process. I’ll first
ask for nominations. Once there are no further nominations, I will then ask a
member to move a motion to have a committee member preside as Chair. I will now
call for nominations for that position. I recognize MLA [Member of the
Legislative Assembly] Bromm.
Terri Bromm: — I nominate MLA
Keisig to the position of Chair.
Procedural Clerk:
— MLA Bromm has nominated MLA Keisig
to the position of Chair. Are there any further nominations? Seeing none, I
would now invite a member to move the motion. I recognize MLA Bromm.
Terri Bromm: — I move:
That Travis Keisig be elected to preside as Chair of
the Standing Committee on Human Services.
Procedural Clerk:
— It has been moved by MLA Bromm:
That Travis Keisig be elected to preside as Chair of
the Standing Committee on Human Services.
All in favour
of the motion? All opposed? I declare the motion carried and invite MLA Keisig
to please take the Chair.
Chair Keisig: — Well thank you,
everyone. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Human Services.
My name’s MLA Travis Keisig,
Chair. We are joined today by Noor Burki, Deputy Chair; MLA Terri Bromm; MLA
David Chan; MLA Barret Kropf; and we have MLA Matt Love; MLA Joan Pratchler;
and MLA Noor Burki joining us here as well.
Pursuant to
rule 148(1), the following
2026‑27 estimates and 2025‑26 supplementary estimates no. 2
were committed to the Standing Committee on Human Services on March 26, 2026
and March 18, 2026, respectively. 2026‑27 estimates: votes 37 and 169,
Advanced Education; vote 5, Education; vote 32, Health; vote 20, Labour
Relations and Workplace Safety; vote 36, Social Services.
2025‑26 supplementary estimates no. 2:
vote 37, Advanced Education; vote 5, Education; vote 32, Health; vote 36,
Social Services.
I would like to table two documents from
the Law Clerk and Parliamentary
Counsel. These are lists of regulations and bylaws filed with the Legislative
Assembly between January 1st, 2025 and December 31st, 2025 which have been
committed to the committee for review pursuant to rule 147(1). The documents
are Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: 2025 bylaws; and Law Clerk and
Parliamentary Counsel: 2025 regulations filed.
The Law Clerk
and Parliamentary Counsel will assist the committee in its review by submitting
a subsequent report at a later date identifying any regulations that are not in
order with the provision of rule 147(2). However the committee may also decide
to review any of these regulations or bylaws for policy implications.
General Revenue Fund
Education
Vote 5
Subvote (ED01)
Chair Keisig: — Consideration of estimates. This
afternoon the committee will be considering the estimates and supplementary
estimates no. 2 for the Ministry of Education with a recess planned from
6:30 until 7. We will begin with consideration of vote 5, Education, central
management and services, subvote (ED01).
Minister Hindley is here today with his
officials. I would ask the officials to please state their names before
speaking for the first time. And please do not touch the microphones. The Hansard operator will turn on your
microphone when you are speaking to the committee. Minister, please introduce
your officials, make your opening remarks.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations to you on being successfully elected as
the Chair of the committee after a long and arduous campaign. Well deserved.
I’m pleased to be here to talk about the
Ministry of Education’s 2026‑27 budget. I’m joined today by chief of
staff, Caelan McIntyre; deputy minister, Clint Repski, to my right; assistant
deputy minister, Jason Pirlot, to my other further right; assistant deputy
minister, Sameema Haque, who’s behind me; assistant deputy minister, Charlotte
Morrissette, to my left; Saskatchewan Distance Learning CEO [chief executive
officer], Darren Gasper, who’s out in the crowd there; as well as a number of
other officials from the Saskatchewan Distance Learning Corporation and various
officials from the Ministry of Education that support the good work that is
happening in the education system across Saskatchewan.
Mr. Chair, we are making some
significant investments in education in the 2026‑27 budget. This budget
protects our children’s futures through strong investments that respond to the
needs of our growing province and strengthen the supports in today’s
classrooms.
The budget also invests in education
infrastructure to continue to provide students with safe, modern learning
spaces. Several new school builds and major renovations are advancing across
the province, ensuring that students today and for generations to come can
learn in environments designed to support their success.
The budget also continues to support
Saskatchewan families through affordable, high-quality early learning and child
care, helping children get a strong start while ensuring stability for child
care operators.
With these investments in education,
child care, and libraries, we are securing a strong future for children and
families across the province and ensuring we are giving Saskatchewan kids their
best start.
The Ministry of Education budget is $3.6 billion
to support pre-kindergarten to grade 12 schools, early learning, and child care
and libraries, and also literacy. This is an increase of 2 per cent over last
year.
Under the category of school division
operating funding, pre‑K [pre‑kindergarten] to grade 12 school
division operating funding is the largest portion of our budget. Saskatchewan’s
27 school divisions will receive $2.5 billion in school operating funding
for the 2026‑27 school year, an increase of 62.2 million or 2.6 per
cent over last year.
Our government has increased school
operating funding by approximately 20 per cent over the past three years. This
investment funds salary and benefit increases, classroom supports, inflationary
pressures, and enrolment growth.
Specialized support classroom model will
grow by an additional 50 classrooms through this budget investment, bringing
the total number to 108 classrooms. We welcome the partnership we’ve had with
school divisions in implementing the model in schools across all 27 school
divisions. The expertise, commitment, and innovation within divisions has been
absolutely instrumental in bringing this model to life. We know this approach
is supporting calmer classrooms, fewer disruptions, and more instructional time
for kids. We look forward to the continued expansion of the model over the
coming year.
Improving early literacy also remains a
key focus for this government. This budget again includes a $2 million
investment to support the work of improving reading for our youngest students
through renewed curriculum, teacher development, and provincial literacy
screening.
In the area of mental health, supporting
the mental health and well-being of students and staff remains a key priority
across all of Saskatchewan’s schools. Education has $4.6 million to
deliver the mental health capacity building program, a school-based community
mental health promotion and prevention program helping students develop coping
skills to address mental health concerns.
Just this past fall we again expanded
the program to Creighton school division, encompassing the communities of
Creighton and Denare Beach, in the wake of the wildfires affecting northern
Saskatchewan. That was something that I heard as the minister, when I was up in
that area this past fall and meeting directly with community leaders and asking
about the impacts on our students in northern Saskatchewan. The mental health
capacity building program provides staffing and school-based supports to help
students build resilience and also build well-being, and it’s now operating in
20 of our 27 school divisions.
The Saskatchewan Distance Learning
Corporation. This budget is protecting students’ and families’ access to
choice-driven education by continuing to provide sustainable funding to
Saskatchewan distance education centre, or the Sask DLC [Saskatchewan Distance
Learning Centre] as it’s more commonly referred to. In the 2026‑27 school
year, Sask DLC will receive grant funding of $25.4 million. This is a
nearly $7 million increase in grant funding over last school year to
support demand for online learning.
The Sask DLC is funded through a
combination of tuition fees from local school divisions and schools, based on
the number of courses students enrol in, as well as a grant from the provincial
government. This allows for students in local schools to access the wide range
of high school courses available through Sask DLC, including options to explore
future career opportunities in agriculture, business, trades, technology, and
our newly announced health careers 20L course that we were talking about just
last week.
These options are available to students
no matter where they live in the province. The Sask DLC supports students and
local schools in ensuring that students have access to the courses they need to
ultimately reach graduation and to also make informed decisions about their
future in post-secondary and in the workforce, while supporting, growing, and
developing our skilled workforce here at home.
As of the end of February of this school
year, Sask DLC has provided online education to more than 13,000 students
taking approximately 40,000 courses, with enrolments continuing to come in. Now
this is higher than the same time at this period last year, and we project this
growth to continue into the next school year. And we will continue to support
flexible, choice-driven learning for all Saskatchewan students.
On the capital side of things, we’re
continuing to respond to Education’s infrastructure needs in a fiscally
sustainable manner. Our Education capital budget is at $123.8 million this
year. There’s $20 million allocated for relocatable classrooms to give
divisions flexibility to manage local pressures.
For 2026‑27, new major capital
projects include a new joint-use middle and high school in the cities of
Martensville and Warman. The public and Catholic schools in a joint-use
facility will address growth in the Martensville and Warman communities.
Another significant project moving
forward is the replacement and consolidation of Shellbrook’s aging elementary
and high schools. This initiative will bring W.P. Sandin high school and
Shellbrook elementary school together into a single, modern pre-K to 12
facility, serving that community and surrounding area.
With existing schools now more than 60
years old, this investment will provide students and staff with a safe,
contemporary learning environment for decades to come. Consolidating the
facilities will also reduce the overall infrastructure footprint resulting in
long-term savings through lower operating and maintenance costs.
Also approved to begin moving forward is
a major renovation to Esterhazy High School. Now this project will add decades
of life to the building and address important issues like the HVAC [heating,
ventilating, and air conditioning] system and moisture-management problems. The
renovation will include work on the building as well as classrooms, office
space, and washrooms.
We continue to support 20 new or
consolidated school builds and also three major renovations that are already in
progress. This includes: a South Corman Park School replacement; a new
Saskatoon northeast joint-use elementary school in the Aspen Ridge area; new
Saskatoon west public and Catholic elementary schools in Kensington; a new
Saskatoon east joint-use high school in Holmwood; a new Saskatoon east
joint-use elementary school in Brighton; a Saskatoon elementary school to
replace Princess Alexandra, King George, and Pleasant Hill elementary schools;
a new Regina east joint-use elementary school in The Towns; a new Regina east
joint-use high school also in The Towns; a new Regina joint-use elementary
school in Harbour Landing; a new Carlyle K to 12 school to replace and
consolidate the elementary and high schools; a new Prince Albert francophone
pre-K to 12 school to replace École Valois; a new Saskatoon francophone
elementary school in Kensington; a new Pinehouse high school to replace the
current high school in that community; renovations and addition to Greenall
High School in Balgonie; renovations to Campbell Collegiate in Regina; and
renovations to Swift Current Comprehensive High School.
[15:45]
As part of our broader commitment to
protect Saskatchewan, we will ensure that when construction proceeds, projects
are delivered efficiently, responsibly, and with strong value for Saskatchewan
residents. All approved projects remain fully supported and we are committed to
working together to deliver them.
There’s $18.5 million in the 2026‑27
budget for new minor capital renewal projects as well to address structural
repairs and renovations to prolong the life of schools across the province. The
six new projects for minor capital are a project at Christopher Lake to
demolish and rebuild a portion of that particular school, a project to convert
oil heating systems to propane in six northern schools in the Northern Lights
School Division, a roofing project at Laird School, a renovation project at the
Estevan Comprehensive high school to replace the HVAC and electrical systems, a
roof replacement project at École de Bellegarde, and a roof replacement at
Spiritwood High School.
Work continues on the following minor
capital projects: Canora Composite School roof and exterior repairs,
renovations to Barr Colony School in Lloydminster and a roof at St. Olivier
School in Radville, a renovation and roof repair at Waldheim School, completion
of the gym at the community school in Jans Bay, renovation at Medstead Central
School, and renovation at École St. Margaret in Moose Jaw.
Since 2008 the Government of
Saskatchewan has committed approximately $2.9 billion towards school
capital. This includes 77 new schools, 32 major renovation projects, and 17
projects approved through the minor capital renewal program.
For 2026‑27 the ministry’s budget
maintains $65 million for the preventative maintenance and renewal, or
PMR, program. Now since its introduction in 2013‑14, the government has
invested significantly in PMR to help ensure that school facilities remain
functional and well maintained. PMR funding enables boards of education to
strategically plan and complete essential facility upkeep such as repairing or
replacing building components, improving energy efficiency, and addressing
accessibility requirements. This continued commitment supports school divisions
as they manage ongoing infrastructure needs.
In the area of early learning and child
care, this year’s budget strengthens our continued commitment to ensuring that
Saskatchewan children and families with support for early learning and child
care. In 2026‑27, the Ministry of Education has allocated $425.5 million
to early learning and child care. This includes an increase of $12.3 million
to support both the federal-provincial child care agreements and also
provincial investments. These funds will help maintain the progress achieved
under these agreements.
This year’s investment focuses on
stabilizing and sustaining the rapid expansion we have seen in child care over
the past several years and in the first iteration of the child care agreement
with the federal government. Now this work is essential to keeping Saskatchewan
one of the most affordable places in Canada to live and to raise a family.
Key components of the budget include
continued funding to provide regulated child care at $10 per day for children
under six and, beginning April 1st of 2026, extending eligibility to children
who turn six on or after that date while enrolled in kindergarten, until the
end of the school year in June or until they turn seven, whichever comes first;
operational funding to support child care facilities with core expenses;
ongoing support to meet the child care space target across the province.
Our progress to date demonstrates the
success of these efforts by the way. Nearly 19,000 child care spaces in homes
and centres were created between April 1st of 2021 and December 31st of 2025.
And in addition to that, nearly 7,000 early learning program spaces are
recognized as contributing to the space target under the Canada-Saskatchewan
Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement. So all told, as of
December 31st Saskatchewan has achieved 92 per cent of the agreed-upon space
target.
Our made-in-Saskatchewan approach to
supporting the recruitment and retention of early childhood educators has
yielded very strong results. Since 2021 we have seen strong increases in the
number of individuals working in child care centres, along with a 52 per cent
increase in the number of certified early childhood educators.
The ministry also continues to support
several programs that provide services to our youngest learners and their
families. This budget will provide $5.8 million to the early child
intervention program; $19.1 million to KidsFirst; $8.2 million for
early years family resource centres across the province; $12 million for
child nutrition programs, including $2.8 million for the provincially
funded child nutrition program and $9.2 million for the continued rollout
of the national school food program.
When it comes to public libraries and
literacy programs, libraries and literacy remain essential components of our
portfolio. The budget provides an investment of $11.7 million, an increase
of $175,000 to support the provincial library system. This funding includes
library grants as well as support for in-province shipping of library
materials, internet access, and services for individuals with print
disabilities.
The Provincial Library and Literacy
Office continues to deliver critical services to public libraries, including
multilingual collections, an Indigenous languages collection, and cataloguing
services. In addition, $1.1 million is being provided to funded literacy
organizations to advance family literacy initiatives across Saskatchewan.
In conclusion, thank you for the
opportunity to outline this year’s investment in pre-kindergarten to grade 12
education, early learning and child care, and to Saskatchewan’s library system.
I am grateful for the commitment of our
education partners including teachers and school staff, early childhood
educators, librarians, and so many other across the sector whose work helps
protect and strengthen the learning success of children and youth across the
province.
My thanks as well to the ministry and
the Sask DLC and the dedicated teams there. I look forward to continuing our
shared work to strengthen education, early learning, and literacy in our
province, and we welcome the committee’s questions today. Thank you.
Chair
Keisig: — Well thank
you, Minister, for those informative opening comments. I will now open
questions from the floor. I recognize MLA Love.
Matt Love: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Minister, for your
opening comments. And I’ll take a moment just to express my thanks to all the
public servants who spend their days working on behalf of Saskatchewan
students, teachers, education workers, and families. Thanks for all that you
do. I’ve been in this position for a number of years and there’s many familiar
faces and new faces around the room. But on behalf of the official opposition,
thanks for what you do in support of children and youth especially in this
province.
Minister, I’ll
have a number of questions along with my colleague, MLA Joan Pratchler, this
afternoon and this evening and later tonight. So thanks everyone for a long day
of work here in the legislature. We’re going to focus our questions on a number
of topics that I’m sure you could predict around school capital, PMR, school
operating funds, distance learning, early learning, child care and a host of a
number of other issues this evening.
My first question for
you, Minister. You spent a good amount of your opening comments talking about
school capital projects. So we also heard in the days following the
announcement of the provincial budget that several projects would be delayed.
Can you provide a list of school capital projects being delayed for the
committee this evening?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks, Mr. Chair, and to the member. So maybe let’s go through a few things
here. Number one, just for clarity, there are no school projects being
cancelled. Everything that’s been announced is going to be completed and work
is under way and continues. We continue at a record pace when it comes to
investing in school infrastructure in this province.
You know, I talked about in my opening
remarks the 123.8 million dedicated in the budget this year. Now there’s a
number of projects that are part of that that are in various stages of
preplanning, design, development, construction. Of course some projects are
being sequenced differently — and that’s what I said previously — to align
with, you know, a number of factors. Sometimes it’s construction capacity,
sometimes it’s labour availability, the cost pressures in an active market. But
all the projects that we have announced, they’re approved, they’re funded, and
there are dollars flowing towards and making sure that the work continues on
these projects.
Now in terms of adjustments to timeline,
there have been some adjustments to Campbell Collegiate and Carlyle. I think
we’ve discussed those previously. We’ve had some conversations with school
divisions and through the officials have been connecting with the school
divisions with respect to those two particular projects.
Joint-use schools in Regina, they are in
early design phase. Still quite some work to be done on those, continuing
throughout the ’26‑27 year.
In the case of Carlyle, for example, I
would say that I, you know, had the opportunity to speak to the mayor and to
the school board Chair and Vice-Chair recently where we talked about just some
issues they’ve identified with the site there. This was leading to some . . .
I guess just a second look at what’s happening in terms of the timeline with
that particular project. And we’ve managed these through not just Education
through our officials, but through the Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement.
[16:00]
I will maybe run through a number of the
projects that are under way right now in the education sector and just provide
some update as to where they’re at. So Regina, Harbour Landing, the new
joint-use school there, currently in construction phase. You know, you can see
it happening as you drive by the site. That’s a joint-use school that will
accommodate 500 Regina Public and up to 350 Regina Catholic students from pre-K
to grade 8, plus a child care centre with 80 spaces on it.
Saskatoon City Centre consolidation,
that one is well under way with respect to replacing — and I talked about it in
the opening comments — Princess Alexandra, King George, and Pleasant Hill,
accommodating 350 students there with the ability to expand and accommodate up
to 400 students. So everything is proceeding at Saskatoon City Centre.
Construction projects starting in the
new budget here include the Balgonie Greenall High School renovation addition,
currently in the design phase right now. And we’ve been clear with the division
and we’re working closely with them and the community as well, as a matter of
fact. You know, I was out there some time ago to meet with the locally elected
leadership at the community of Balgonie to talk about that particular project.
That’s a renovation and an addition project that will address some of the
structural issues at that particular school, and we’ll create some renovations
there — a larger gym, increased capacity for students.
The other one that is going into
construction is the Swift Current Comprehensive High School. That’s going
through the design phase, but we’ll be ready to go replacing an end-of-life
HVAC and electrical system there. That was announced I think probably two or
three budgets ago when we first made an announcement with respect to that
particular initiative.
Others that are continuing through
various stages of project delivery: Regina southeast joint-use high school.
That’s the shared facility between Regina Catholic and the Public School
divisions, with space for up to 1,600 grade 9 to grade 12 students and the
ability to expand up to 2,000 students. Regina, Campbell Collegiate, a
renovation project there.
Regina southeast joint-use elementary.
That is a new facility between Regina Catholic and the Regina Public School
divisions, with space for 1,000 kindergarten to grade 8 students, 400 Catholic
and 600 public, with the ability to expand up to 1,400 students. It also
includes 180 child care spaces.
There’s Saskatoon Brighton joint-use
elementary school there, that facility, and work continues on advancing that
project. We’ve talked about it before, providing a facility between Saskatoon
Public and Greater Saskatoon Catholic, providing space for 1,650 kindergarten
to grade 8 students. So 900 public and 750 Catholic, and the ability to expand
to 2,050 students and plus 90 child care spaces.
Saskatoon Aspen Ridge joint-use
elementary school continuing through project delivery, again another very large
school; Saskatoon Kensington public and Catholic elementary schools; the CÉF
[Conseil des écoles fransaskoises] schools in Saskatoon and in Prince Albert as
well. And just a couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to — it’s been open
for some time now — but to mark the official opening of École du Parc here in
Regina. But we’ll be working very closely with our partners at the Conseil des
écoles fransaskoises on the two projects in Saskatoon and Prince Albert.
Pinehouse, the high school there
continuing through its design phase as part of everything that occurs to lead
up to construction. That will accommodate up to 175 students between grades 7
to 12 and replace the existing high school in Pinehouse in northern
Saskatchewan. South Corman Park replacement school, and as I mentioned earlier,
the Carlyle pre-K to 12 school.
So that is a list, I think, of all the
projects that are currently under way. Again some full-on in construction,
others in design, pre-design, preplanning, various stages in advance of the
construction phase.
Matt Love: — Thank you,
Minister, for that lengthy answer. Early on in your response you said that
there are adjustments to the timeline for Carlyle and for the Campbell
renovation. Now to be clear, those adjustments to the timeline aren’t speeding
them up; it’s delaying the timeline. So my question is, why have you and the
Premier of Saskatchewan continuously said that there are no delays when tonight
in this committee you said there’s adjustment to the timeline that will be
pushing those projects back in time?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
So in the case of, and I speak to the example of Carlyle, that particular
project, again had some conversations with the community and with the school
division where there were some issues identified with the site. As part of the
work that’s done by the Ministry of Education and by SaskBuilds and
Procurement, you know, it’s incumbent upon us to make sure that the teams are
looking at those concerns before advancing to the next step of that particular
project.
As I said earlier, I had the opportunity
to speak to leadership in the community, and through the MLA as well, and
reassure them that everything will continue to advance. There’s money in the
budget this year to continue to advance all these projects. So nothing is
paused as we continue to work forward on the next steps and identify challenges
that might be identified in the project.
Again there can be a number of things
that can impact a project, whether it’s this particular case of some questions
specific to the land and work that has to be done there. If it’s specific to
availability of labour and costs, we need to be mindful as we’re advancing
these projects, the money that’s being used to bring them on to the next stage.
And as projects are completed and move
from construction to opening, that frees up capital and allows for further
advancements into projects that are under way and in various stages of design
and development. We’ll move these projects ahead as quickly as we can. Projects
will continue to move ahead with the money that is allocated to them in the
budget this year, to ensure that they advance and get them into the
construction phase when it’s time to have them go to tender.
Matt Love: — Minister, do you
think it creates confusion for the public, for families who are depending on
commitments made in the past, when the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Minister of
Education put forward a different opinion than the province of Saskatchewan, and
then school divisions have to come out and set the record straight on how these
projects are being delayed? Do you think that that creates confusion for
families in Saskatchewan? Do you think that they expect better?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
We continue to monitor the progress of our projects, all the projects in the
education system. We’re in regular contact with the project teams. And I would
say that, you know, whether it’s through Education or through other ministries
and projects as well — not even just in the public sector but, I would say,
probably in the private sector as well — that there will be issues that arise
as part of the design of the project. It can even start before that in terms of
the procurement of the piece of property for a particular project. But through
the design there may be issues identified.
You know, there’s a number of partners
that are involved in all of these projects on the public school side, on the
Catholic school side. When you’re dealing with and talking about joint-use
facilities there, that adds an extra layer of complexity to the project.
But I think it’s important for us that,
as issues are identified, that we make sure that we take those seriously: we
consult with the project teams, hear what they have to say and make sure that
we are taking those into consideration. And if there are adjustments that have
to be made, that we make the right decision around those projects. And again we
work to be clear with the communities and those impacted about what that might
look like. And that’s done through, you know, officials at the ministry level —
whether it’s the Ministry of Education or through SaskBuilds and Procurement as
well — and you know, at the elected level as well, I would say, to provide
those updates.
But ultimately we’ve communicated on all
of our projects, and not just these ones, but along the way. We’ve built a
number of new schools across the province since 2007 — whether they’re brand
new builds, whether they’re major renovations or some of these other ones we
talked about, minor capital projects. And so we work very hard to make sure
we’re communicating to the public that are impacted by these decisions, what
stage they’re at to make sure that they get delivered.
And in the case of the projects that are
under way this year and in previous years, we work very hard to make sure that
we’re providing that clear communication to communities and through to school
division partners. But ultimately, these are all projects that will get done in
a timely fashion.
Matt Love: — Minister, do you
think that you personally have been clear with the public when last week you
said that there will be no delays, and tonight you’ve said that there will be
adjustments to the timeline? Is that clear?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Well you know, we continue to advance these projects along. And as I said there
will be, you know, issues identified as part of the process, as part of the
construction, design, and planning. And so when that happens — again through
the officials level and through myself at the elected level — we communicate
that things are advancing and they are.
I mean no projects are paused and no
projects are cancelled. And you know, these are all projects that have had
significant dollars and had time and effort dedicated to them and that will
continue until we see them through to completion. And that’s going to happen on
every one of these projects.
Matt Love: — Minister, you said
that there’s money in this year’s budget for all of these projects. What money
is there in this year’s budget for the renovations that have been planned, and
planned for, at Campbell Collegiate?
[16:15]
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
So the funding for each of these projects is included as a part of the global
$123.8 million amount. Now we don’t communicate and specify how much is
allocated to each particular project because the budgets at this stage aren’t
finalized.
And so once the budgets are finalized . . .
And then we don’t finalize them until the construction tender is completed,
essentially is what happens. So until the construction tender occurs, we’re not
in a position to share what that specific amount is on each of these projects.
It can compromise the bidding process as we send these projects to tender.
But there is, just to reassure the
committee, there is funding allocated for all of these projects — the ones that
I listed as part of the ongoing major capital. And then again just because the
budgets aren’t finalized at this point, they’re part of that global $123.8 million
dollars.
Each major capital project is in a
different stage of completion, requiring different amounts of funding each
fiscal year. So there’s some flexibility that way. The ministry actually, they
try to do a forecast of the amounts that needs to be provided for funding for
each project based on their circumstances. And then afterwards they, with those
forecasts, then come up with the overall combined budget amount for all these
capital projects. But it allows for some flexibility. And so we actually get to
the construction tender phase and through the bidding process, at which point
we have more finalized numbers for each of the specific capital projects.
Matt Love: —
So, Minister, you indicated in my previous question that the renovation project
at Campbell will be delayed. It’s not going forward this budget year. And so my
follow-up question was, well then what is in the budget? You said, there’s
dollars for everything there; there are dollars in the budget for Campbell. So
I guess if you can’t give me a dollar amount — which I think is fair to expect
that you could — but if you can’t, then what are the dollars in the budget
going to do at Campbell for a project that isn’t happening this year?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Campbell Collegiate, that is in the design stage and is intended to . . .
We’ll have design completed this year. That’s what the funding that we have as
part of the overall 123 million on that project is going towards with that
particular project. So we’ll complete design this year. And then after that,
you know, as all these projects move on to their next stages, then a
determination is made at that time as to the next step for these projects.
Further to that I would just say as well
that SaskBuilds and Procurement is also leading on these projects as well
across government and would have . . . And that might be a question
for that round of estimates with that minister just overall. But SaskBuilds and
Procurement does have some involvement when it comes to the status of these
projects and next steps too.
But on the case of Campbell Collegiate,
the money is intended to complete the design this year.
Matt Love: — Thanks, Minister.
In the last number of days and again tonight you’ve explained that one of the
reasons for delaying these projects and the sequencing that you speak of is due
to increasing costs for construction — certainly something I hear from school
divisions who have been waiting years in some cases. I mean you can use
Saskatoon Holmwood and Brighton as a great example there. So school divisions
are concerned that, due to your reasoning, that future projects could be at
risk too as costs continue to escalate.
So
my question for you is, can you explain how delaying these projects further, as
costs continue to go up, is going to not lead to escalating costs in future
years?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks for the question. I’m just going to reiterate something I said
previously, just to remind the committee that we’re not cancelling any school
construction projects. As I said, 123.8 million dedicated in the budget
this year and trying to be able to manage those projects based on construction
capacity, labour availability, cost pressures in a very, very active
construction market right now, in addition to the . . .
[16:30]
And this is just, you know, we’re
talking today about the projects in the education sector. There will be other
ministries that will be coming before committee estimates this spring as well.
And they’re going to be talking about their projects too, as is the Ministry of
SaskBuilds and Procurement, who oversees all of the capital in the province.
And that’s just on the public side of things.
Like the Premier’s indicated and talked
about, the 60 or 62 projects in the private sector, $60 billion of capital
investment. So that’s in addition to everything that’s happening in the capital
sector across the province — public side of things, private side of things, and
being able to manage all of that through the budget allocation and make sure
that, again, that these projects do carry on, they do go ahead, and they are
going ahead. That’s why there’s dollars allocated in the budget this year to
make sure that we get them to the next stage, and then we will get them into
construction and built and open.
Matt Love: — Okay. Thanks,
Minister. I’m not sure that I really understand your answer there. I think that
what I’m trying to say . . . You know, we’ve got a number of
communities in this province that have been waiting for a school for a long
time. And if we look at the requests coming from divisions, they’ve been asking
for these schools for, you know, up to a decade in some cases. And the wait has
added to the cost.
And I guess my question is, won’t
continuing to wait and delay these projects continue to add to those costs? I
mean I think that that just makes sense as a concern that’s out there in the
province. Continuing to delay projects will continue to add to the costs that
are already escalating.
I’m going to move on here, Minister. And
I’d like to ask, one of the concerns . . . And let’s use The Towns
project as an example here. I understand that you didn’t put that in your list
of projects that are being delayed, but we can look at the commitments made by
this government before the last election. We can look at, you know, comments
made on the record, and we can look at a very different opinion coming from the
school division about a delay to that project.
But here’s my question for you. This is
a project that I think the school division was hoping would see doors open in 2028.
Due to this year’s budget, those plans are being delayed. It’s a project that I
understand to be planned. It’s ready to go through the RFP [request for
proposal] process. It’s ready to go to tender, and delaying it is going to add
to costs to the school division, in particular transportation. It’s the school
division that will have to pay to transport students to other communities to go
to school. It’s going to add to costs for the school division.
So
my question to you is, what is the plan of your government to support divisions
who will see increased costs due to the delays in this year’s budget?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks to the member for the question on The Towns, the Regina east elementary
project. Still a ways to go on that particular project. Maybe just back up a
little bit prior to that. We’re just working very closely to make sure that
we’re delivering all these schools, announcing schools, and funding them in a
fiscally responsible manner. I think we had seven schools we opened this past
year that dropped off tens of millions of dollars in funding that was going
towards construction.
So certainly there is, you know,
communities around the province that are looking for new schools for a variety
of reasons — enrolment growth, community growth, occupational health and
safety, schools that are just simply, in the case of Shellbrook for example,
schools that are beyond their useful life. But trying to manage those
expectations with our school division partners and identify, you know, the
priorities for each of the divisions and then work within the ministry’s
envelope of funding.
But specific to the Regina east
joint-use elementary school project, design services on that particular
initiative began June of 2025. Currently the school design is approximately 15
per cent complete, so still very early on with respect to that particular
initiative.
You know, we’re very careful when
talking about opening dates for new schools because we don’t publicly announce
those until after the construction tender process is complete. That’s what
establishes a more specific and direct timeline when it comes to construction
timelines. In the case of this one I have had the opportunity . . .
I’ve spoken to the board Chair about any concerns that the board may have with
respect to timelines and decisions they are needing to make as a board with
respect to, you know, how they’re addressing some of the pressures and the
students in that part of Regina. So I’ve had that conversation with the board
Chair.
In addition to that at the officials
level there have been I think a number of conversations, regular ones, with the
director of education for Regina Public, and as we do for, you know, for all of
our education partners in all 27 school divisions to make sure that we have the
ability to pick up the phone and vice versa. They can reach out to us when they
have questions.
But we’ve made that commitment to the
leadership, both the director and the board Chair, to say that, you know, we’ll
work with them on the project. And like I said, this one still has quite a ways
to go and will be managed. But we’ll continue to move ahead, and looking
forward to the opening dates when that project is done.
Matt Love: — And as far as
additional supports, the extra costs that they’ll incur due to the delay, have
you made any commitments to support those additional costs? Example given,
transportation.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Again there’s no delay in any of these projects. They’re moving forward at
varying stages. Again this one, as I said, is 15 per cent complete on the
design side of things. But as I mentioned we’ll continue to have the
conversations with the board Chair and the board for Regina Public as well as
the administration, and work with them closely.
Matt Love: — Okay. Minister,
I’ve got a question about preventative maintenance and renewal. You and I, I
think, can both agree that Saskatchewan School Boards Association says that
industry standards outside of education would be a PMR budget somewhere between
2 and 5 per cent. They’ve specifically requested a PMR budget of roughly 2 per
cent of insured asset value for Saskatchewan schools.
So
in Saskatchewan we have over 140 schools in poor or critical condition, and yet
our PMR line in this budget remains about 0.5 per cent of insured asset value
for Saskatchewan schools. So that’s about 25 per cent of what Saskatchewan
school boards say they need.
So
can you provide justification to the committee this evening for providing
Saskatchewan schools with 25 per cent of the funds they need to maintain aging
buildings?
[16:45]
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks. On preventative maintenance and renewal . . . And I’ll maybe
get one of the officials to talk a bit more about some of the other funding
envelopes we have for capital projects in the province. And I think the member
talked about industry standards, I think was the term, or just questions, you
know, numbers there that had been quoted.
Just to be clear, I’ve had the
opportunity on multiple occasions to talk to the president of the SSBA
[Saskatchewan School Boards Association] and others as well — directly with
school divisions, directors of education boards — on the significance of PMR
and about how much is put into that particular program. This was one that this
government created in the 2013 year. 2013, 2014 we started PMR.
In Saskatchewan since that point in
time, $616 million has gone into preventative maintenance and renewal. We
made an increase in the amount for PMR last year, from 50 million with an
additional 15 million last year, bringing it up to 65 million
province-wide for PMR, so maintaining the amount that was the increase in last
year’s budget. Recognizing of course that it is a very well-received program
and an envelope of funding for school divisions. So we’re pretty proud of the
616 million that the government has put into this program since its
inception in 2013.
Again we need to be able to manage, and
there’s lots to manage in the education sector on the capital side, operating
side, making sure that with the funds that we do have available that we are
managing those pressures across the province. And that can be done in a variety
of ways: through major capital, new builds, major renos; in this case, PMR.
But I’ll maybe just ask Charlotte to
speak about one of the other . . . in addition to PMR we also have a
minor capital program as well. That’s relatively new in nature, in terms of
that particular envelope of funding. But I’ll maybe ask Charlotte to talk about
the minor capital side too, another benefit for school divisions.
Charlotte Morrissette: — Sure. Charlotte
Morrissette, assistant deputy minister. So as the minister mentioned, it’s a
fairly new program, but just wanting to recognize that the dollars that go
towards this program are for maintenance and renewal as well. This year with
18.5 million for this program, that represents a 21 per cent increase
compared to last year for this program.
Just a few words about the program. The
minor capital renewal program provides funding for minor projects that are
between 1 million and $10 million that don’t get addressed through
other existing capital funding programs. Projects that focus on the
revitalization or the prolonging of life for aging school facilities are really
prime candidates for this program, so similar to the needs that are also met
maybe on a smaller scale through PMR.
And this program as well . . .
I won’t go into great lengths unless you’d like me to on the prioritization on
those. But certainly prioritizing health and safety and any risks are of the
highest priority for that program as well.
Matt Love: — Thank you for that
information. Just a quick follow-up, Minister. If a school division doesn’t get
as much funding in PMR as the needs of their aging buildings are, where do they
get the funds to maintain their buildings? Where does the money come from if
they’re not getting enough from the government?
And you referenced bringing this in as a
government. Well of course, you know, in the years prior to that, school
divisions were able to set their own mill rate to generate income that they
needed for their local needs. And of course, you know, over a number of years
that’s . . . promise from this government that the funding would be
adequate coming from the provincial budget to supply those needs. So if a
school doesn’t get enough to maintain their aging buildings, where does the
money come from?
Chair Keisig: — I’d just like to
remind members that we are here tonight debating about the importance of the
budgetary restraints and not talking broad policy discussions on moving
forward. So just keep the questions about our budgetary estimates that are in
tonight.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks to the member for the question. You know, this is a government that
takes the investment into our schools — the capital, the operating, you name
it, but we’re talking about capital right now — very seriously. You know, we
have a very, I would say, a very strong record when it comes to what we’ve
invested to in terms of new schools in the province, major renovations, as I
said, minor capital, the addition of that particular program, the creation of
the preventative maintenance and renewal program — $616 million since the
institution of that particular program.
Again on an annual basis, we look at how
much money we’re able to allocate to capital projects in Saskatchewan. Last
year in PMR we were able to increase that program by another $15 million.
We maintained it this year, and again in the years going forward we’ll look at
if there’s an opportunity to increase those investments.
But again, we’ve just in the past year
opened seven brand new schools, and those are positive things for those
families and communities and school divisions. And in some cases they take time
to get to that stage because of the growing and, you know, the pressures around
the province and the requests. And it’s something we’ll continue to advocate
for and make sure that we’re doing that on behalf of Saskatchewan communities
and families.
Matt Love: — Minister, when
making decisions with this year’s budget on school capital, what role does the
report that you receive from SaskBuilds on facility condition index . . .
What role does that play in your budgeting decisions for capital projects?
[17:00]
Charlotte Morrissette:
— Hi. Thanks for the question. So I’ll just explain a little bit on the
prioritization for the major capital program. So conditions of the school are
considered at the school division level when the school division is submitting
their top major capital projects to us.
And then on our side, when we receive
all of the submissions, we follow a process to prioritize the requests that are
submitted by each of the school divisions. Requests for the major capital
funding are ranked by the ministry using an eight-factor rating system, with
the greatest priority being on the health and safety of schools as well as
addressing enrolment growth in the past.
So the factors, just quickly, those
eight factors I referred to. So health and safety, this addresses elements that
pose risk to students or teacher health and safety. Utilization is also
considered; this is a reflection of how full the school is, shown as a
percentage of capacity. Efficiency is also considered; this incentivizes
consolidations of schools and also recognizes joint-use projects and the
efficiencies.
New growth is also considered,
recognizing enrolment pressures and new communities and subdivisions that are
being created in our growing communities. Functionality and contribution to
program is also considered, which addresses functionality and programming
concerns. Contribution to community, recognizing the positive impacts that
communities have to their community.
Project evaluations are also based on
provincial priorities and assessing the most effective and efficient means to
address each project by examining funding options. Thanks.
Matt Love: — So, Minister, in
your words, just to be clear, the facility condition index is not considered by
the Ministry of Education?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Yeah, FCI [facility condition index], the FCI report is one of many factors.
That’s probably the best way of putting it, that it’s part of the consideration
of a number of factors, as Charlotte described earlier, and it’s taken into
consideration as part of the overall decision-making process.
Matt Love: — Thanks. Thanks for
clarifying that, Minister. We’ve certainly seen that reported by the auditor,
the impact that FCI has in making these budget determinations. You know,
Minister, certainly we’ve had debate in here and other places about the
announcement for consolidation, a new school in Shellbrook. Wondering if you
can respond to the data, the list produced by your government that states that
the two schools in Shellbrook are rated at 5.3 and 5.7 per cent on the FCI
chart.
So to put that in context, that would be
right around average of all 638 schools in Saskatchewan — you know, one of
those schools slightly better than average, one of them slightly worse than
average. And I understand this is one data point in making decisions. I get
that. But it’s the only data that we have access to in opposition, and I’m sure
that you also get that.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks for the question about Shellbrook. And the member is right; we’ve
debated this, discussed it a number of times. Just an FCI is part of
. . . it’s one of the many factors that’s considered when we’re
looking at approving projects going forward to the next stage.
In the case of Shellbrook, number one,
it’s a consolidation of a couple of the schools so therefore it has to be, you
know, a major capital request summary. And we’re doing a number of these and
have done a number of these around the province, so that’s an important factor
to consider.
Both schools are over 60 years old. It’s
actually going to reduce the total school area and address many of the upgrades
that are required in both of these schools with respect to HVAC, plumbing, roof
repair, structural issues in the school. And there are a number of issues with
this particular . . . or sorry, these two schools.
[17:15]
In the case of the high school, W.P.
Sandin — built in 1961, had an addition in ’85 — the school’s roofing system,
which was obviously developed and designed and constructed back in the ’60s, is
failing. Water penetration into the wall envelope, creating rot in windowsill
plates, and wall envelope deterioration through much of the original portion of
the school. Needs windows, needs a roof. Wall insulation has been compromised
as well. Signs of twisting at joints in several locations. Structural issues in
the gym, including cinder block saturation with water leaking inside the gym
walls, creating the blocks that are shifting sideways. Structural issues within
the soil shifting as well.
HVAC and electrical are original.
They’ve been maintained but have aged out. And I know I hear that when I’m
talking to officials and to those that, you know, the facilities folks in
school divisions, who do a remarkable job of all our facilities. They’ve talked
about, there comes a point where you just can’t replace them anymore, you can’t
repair them anymore, and you can’t get parts for them anymore.
Shellbrook elementary, many of the same
issues. It was built in ’56. HVAC and electrical has aged out, building
envelope is leaking, cold spots, air and water infiltration. They’ve been using
electric heaters as supplementary heat.
So these are a number of things that are
taken into consideration, along with FCI, and it’s been a priority for
. . . And then the school divisions all provide their priority lists
to the Ministry of Education, you know, as they see fit based on the needs
within their school division boundaries.
In the case of Saskatchewan Rivers, this
has been on their list for quite some time, dating back . . . And I
think again we’ve talked about this publicly, but it’s been one of their top
three projects. They submit the top three to the ministry in ’23, ’22, ’21,
’20, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016 — and that’s as far back as this particular
document goes. And I know, just from people that I’ve spoken to in that area,
the need for this particular initiative.
But to get to the answer, FCI’s part of
it, but there’s obviously a number of other things that are factored in as well
when we make these decisions on major projects.
Matt Love: — So, Minister,
thanks for the answer. You just gave us a long list of some of the challenges
in the school facility: leaking roofs, water damage, window replacement, HVAC,
all of that. Quite a lengthy list. I didn’t have a chance to write it all down.
I’ll review Hansard later.
And yet these schools are about average
in Saskatchewan. Does that concern you as far as the state of our schools, that
list that you just provided, that that would be considered by your government
average in the province?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
To the question, as I said previously, we’re pretty proud of the investment
we’ve made into capital in this province in education. And we have hundreds of
schools across Saskatchewan. Some, in the case of the Shellbrook schools, were
built in the 1960s or even, you know, even earlier than that. And in addition
to that we have projects that, in northern parts of the province and projects
in Saskatoon and Regina, that are addressing enrolment pressures.
You know, we are proud to announce in
this year’s budget new schools, joint-use schools, for the cities of
Martensville and Warman, two of the fastest-growing cities certainly in Saskatchewan,
perhaps in all of Canada in recent years.
And again we’ve . . . Through
significant record investments and through major capital new school builds —
108, now 109 in the case of Shellbrook — whether it’s a brand new school or a
major renovation project, these are significant and important investments for
communities and school divisions right across this province.
The creation of the PMR program in 2013
— didn’t exist prior to that — $616 million overall into that particular
initiative. Minor capital as well. And we understand there are pressures around
the province in requests. And that’s why we work with our locally elected
school boards for them to identify the needs in their communities. There is the
opportunity for school divisions to be able to address, through a number of
different avenues, the capital needs of schools within their division
boundaries. And again we’ll work very closely with our partners to address
those needs throughout the province.
Matt Love: — Minister, I’ve got
a couple questions about relocatables. First one’s pretty straightforward. Can
you report to the committee how many relocatable classrooms are included in
this year’s budget? And can you also share how many relocatables were relocated,
as in moved locations, in the last year?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Budget this year, $20 million for relocatable classrooms. And school
divisions apply in the fall for the funding for relocatables, so we’ll be in a
better position then to answer what that looks like.
In terms of the most recent numbers
here, we have — would be for ’25‑26 — we have 39 new relocatables and two
moves were funded. The ’25‑26 relocatables were provided to schools in
Blaine Lake, Clavet, Corman Park, Humboldt, Lanigan, Prince Albert, Regina,
Saskatoon, and Swift Current.
Matt Love: — And that was two
moves that were funded in ’25‑26?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Yeah.
Matt Love: — Okay, thank you.
Minister, one of the concerns or questions that I’ve heard has to do — I’m sure
you’ve heard this too — with the challenge in adding relocatables to some of
the schools that need them most, which are P3 [public-private partnership] schools.
I’m
wondering, can you comment at all . . . In making these decisions
where portables are going and where they can go, one of the challenges I
understand is the contract with JCI [Johnson Controls Inc.]. And my question
is, have you looked into or is there an ability to amend the contract to allow
more relocatables at some of the P3 schools that were built in the past?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
So we work with the school divisions on all of our, obviously, our school
capital projects and the new builds. And then if there’s a need for
relocatables and the ability to expand and add on relocatables in this specific
case or instance, with respect to the P3 schools that were opened in the 2017‑28
year, we’ll follow up with SaskBuilds on the contract piece.
The members have identified that’s a
unique component to that particular block of schools that was done. So we’ll follow
up with SaskBuilds and Procurement and just have a look at what was negotiated
into the contract with respect to portables.
Matt Love: — Would it be
possible to get an answer to that question by tomorrow’s meeting of this
committee? Just specifically if your government can look at amending the
contracts to allow for more relocatables at P3 schools.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
We’ll try to get an answer as quickly as we can, but we’ll follow up very
quickly here.
Matt Love: — And if it’s not
available by the committee tomorrow, which I understand, how will you deliver
that answer to the committee?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
We can get it for the committee. Yeah.
Matt Love: — Okay. Thank you.
Minister, I’m going to move on to some
questions around school operating funds. It’s a bit of a shift here in our
topic. So in this provincial budget, you’ve budgeted for an increase of 2.57
per cent for school operating funds. The Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation
estimates that, when adjusted for inflation and enrolment, that this will lead
to a decrease in per-student funding of roughly $33 per student.
Could
you report to the committee what is the provincial per-student funding for next
year, the average per-student funding for the province, and how can you justify
cutting adjusted for inflation per-student funding at a time when your
government also says we have the best-performing economy in the country?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks to the member for the question. There’s no cut to average per-student
funding. As I’ve said publicly before a number of times, on the operating side
of things, a 20 per cent increase over the past three budget years when it
comes to operating funding. And the average per-student funding amount — the
average operating funding per student — is estimated to increase this year in
the ’26‑27 budget to $13,185 per student. That’s an increase of
approximately $412 or 3.2 per cent compared to the ’25‑26 budget year.
School operating funding has received an
increase of $62.2 million compared to last budget day. That includes the
implementation of 50 more specialized support classrooms, plus provides for
salary and benefit increases, inflationary funding, and enrolment growth. And
the per-student amount will change in the fall once the funding is updated to
reflect the actual September 2026 enrolments. But it is an increase this year
on the average per-student funding amount.
Matt Love: — Yeah. Yeah, I
know, Minister. And I know, you know, every year with different ministers we
have this conversation about the impact of inflation. I mean the cost of
everything is higher today than it was, you know, 10 years ago or 3 years ago.
That’s the way inflation works, and I won’t get into the nitty-gritty of that
back-and-forth that we’ve enjoyed in this committee pretty much every year.
But
I do have a question about dollars in this budget. You’ve budgeted
28.9 million for non-teaching salary increases. So my first question is,
what percentage increase for education support workers did you calculate into
this amount as far as a, you know, percentage increase to wages?
Clint Repski:
— Hi. Clint Repski, deputy minister.
We don’t like to give a specific
percentage, and I’ll tell you why. There is ongoing bargaining, as you may well
know, that’s happening right now. But I mean you can reverse-engineer some of
this, which I’m sure you’re going to want to do at some point in time. But it
is ballpark 2 per cent. The way that that $28.9 million is allocated for
non-teacher salaries is throughout the funding model, which is unconditional.
School divisions are going to make
choices of what they do with those dollars, and so that money is split between
the components of base instruction, supports for learning, locally determined
terms and conditions, transportation, plant op, and maintenance. So it picks up
little categories throughout to reflect that the non-teacher salaries component
is spread widely across the school division — EAs [educational assistant], bus
drivers, etc.
Matt Love: — Thanks for that
explanation.
So, Minister, you know, StatsCan data
shows that Saskatchewan EAs are paid at the second-lowest rate in the country.
And I’ll take a minute to just express how important, you know, educational
assistants are in our classrooms. Our classrooms work because education support
workers work.
You know, these are folks that are
vital, often in one-on-one supports for students, supporting learning in the
classroom. And they’re often tasked with doing all sorts of work that probably
delves into more, you know, personal support for students and medically complex
students who absolutely deserve the right to education and deserve to be there.
So these are really vital people in our schools. And I find it troubling to
learn that in Saskatchewan we pay EAs at the second-lowest rate in the country.
[17:45]
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
With respect to EAs — and I think that, you know, the member opposite is very
accurate — I think that we all recognize the importance that they play and the
value they have to the education system. I think there’s a lot of parents and
teachers certainly that count on the very important work that EAs do and the
value they bring to individuals, schools, and to classrooms.
As an example, we know that EAs are
important to all of our schools, increasingly so as part of the specialized
support classrooms model that we continue to expand. They’re a very important
component as part of the ratios there. You know, we’ve in the past number of
years since 2021 added nearly 1,100 EAs into the system.
Now we do understand and respect that
local school divisions have the authority to negotiate their local agreements
with respect to EAs. But I would just say that, you know, it’s something we
take very seriously as a government, that there’s more than obviously just
teachers that help make the education system a success. So it’s teachers. It’s
EAs. It’s the other specialized supports, whether they’re OTs [occupational
therapist], speech-language paths, bus drivers, admin folk — everybody that is
part of that whole team.
And certainly EAs are a very important
component of that. And I know I’ve heard that when I meet with them directly,
one-on-one. Talked to some on budget day, as a matter of fact, in the rotunda,
had a discussion and a conversation there with some of the folks that are part
of the school system.
So with respect to the province’s
overall strategy with respect to recruitment and retention, as I’ve said, we’ve
been able to hire a significant number over the past number of years. But
certainly when we meet with them, when I do as the minister, just as an MLA in
Swift Current, as a member of my community — and I think MLAs on both sides do
that; they hear from EAs — we’re always looking for ways to address their
concerns around recruitment and retention. Again, still respecting that the
school division authorities negotiate the agreements and the contracts, but
know that this is a valuable part of the system.
Matt Love: — So, Minister, in a
budget year like this one where we’ve heard from some school boards and from
SSBA, their initial response to the budget — and you know, when I meet with
school boards — I hear typically around needing an operating grant increase of
at least 3 per cent to maintain status quo, right, and this budget doesn’t get
there.
But in addition to the . . .
You know, with the 2.57 per cent operating grant increase, some of that’s
already allocated to things like specialized support classrooms, which — I
agree with you — are valuable and important in our province. But that’s already
included in that 2.57 per cent increase.
And so if we’re not providing school
boards with a budget that can even maintain status quo, and we are predicting
when school boards release their budgets — which will be later this spring, you
know, as we get later into May and June and they release their budgets — I
predict, Minister, we’re going to see cuts. We’re going to see cuts to supports
that our students depend on. And yet these same school boards have to negotiate
these local agreements with their education support workers.
So
my question to you is, how can a school board that’s already making cuts to
supports . . . What funds are they supposed to negotiate with, in a
year when they’ll be cutting as a result of this budget? Does that question
make sense? Like with what are they supposed to negotiate locally to ensure
that they can recruit and retain and pay workers a fair wage? How are they
supposed to do that with a provincial budget that will lead to cuts at the
local level?
Clint Repski:
— So thank you for the question around the increases that have been provided to
the school divisions for the upcoming year. As we mentioned before in the
committee, the funding that has been provided to school divisions for operating
is largely unconditional. And we do talk about it being in different
components, but at the end of the day school divisions are in a position to
manage their budget.
The point I just wanted to bring up was
regarding the 2.6 per cent increase. And yes, that is a 2.6 per cent increase,
but you do have to recognize that amount is over the entire cost of the
operations. And more than 50 per cent is simply teachers’ salaries, which is a
locked-in amount. So that actually frees up that 2.6 per cent to spread across
the remainder of those operating pieces. At this point in time we do feel that
the school divisions will be able to manage within the 2.6 per cent that
they’ve been provided.
Matt Love: — So would you say
that you’re expecting, to the minister, that there . . . Are you
predicting that there will not be cuts to supports that students depend on this
spring as a result of this budget?
[18:00]
Hon. Everett Hindley: — The school
divisions obviously make their own decisions. They make their staffing
decisions — all of their decisions — as part of the overall budgeting process,
which they will be going through now in preparation for, getting ready for the
next school year. So I’m not going to speculate on what their decisions are.
And they obviously make decisions based at the local level and what they need
in terms of staffing, and where that’s allocated.
I
would say though that, overall in the ’26‑27 classroom supports, funding
is $436 million. So that’s a $41 million increase over the previous
year, about 10.4 per cent increase in funding. And that is primarily comprised
of increases to supports for learning, specialized support classroom expansion
as we’ve talked about, and enrolment funding growth savings from the previous
year. In addition, just a reminder that we also signed the multi-year funding
agreement in ’24‑25. And since signing that multi-year funding agreement,
classroom supports have increased by about 22 per cent.
And
as I said, there’s funding in a number of areas, supports for learning:
specialized support classrooms, targeted supports, the Teacher Innovation and
Support Fund. But again, these are all significant increases that have been
made to support classroom supports, and school divisions will make their budget
decisions in the coming weeks and months.
Chair Keisig:
— I recognize MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you, Chair.
There was a budgeted amount of $9.2 million for inflationary pressures.
Would you be able to delineate some of those cost-driving factors included in
that amount? And I’m listening for insurance increases. I’m listening for power
rate hikes. I listen for fuel price because I think that is certainly what I’ve
been hearing a lot in our rural school divisions and urban as well: the cost of
gas, the cost of buses, and things like that.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Transportation funding for ’26‑27 is increased by $8 million over
the ’25‑26 budget to recognize salary increases for transportation
personnel and also non-salary inflation pressures. ’26‑27 budget includes
an increase of 28.9 million for salary and benefit increases. That
includes funding for positions such as the bus drivers.
Now the 9.2 million for
inflationary funding, as the member is asking about, that supports non-salary
costs such as classroom and school supplies, cleaning and upkeep of facilities,
but also school bus maintenance as well.
I would just point too that over the
last couple of years, transportation funding has increased by a total of
twenty-eight and a half million. That includes 15 million in the ’25‑26
budget to address rising school bus costs. So that was something that we were
obviously hearing from school divisions, you know, recently. And so we
addressed that in last year’s budget.
Plus there was then a reallocation.
There was $2 million of reallocated in mid-year when we realized some
enrolment growth savings that came as a result of lower than anticipated
enrolment growth in schools, particularly in Regina and Saskatoon but, I think,
in other areas of the province as well. So some of that funding, we used that
$2 million to reallocate it for what was initially designated for
enrolments to put that further directly to transportation.
So I guess all that to say that there,
again, that there’s been a number of increases here recently to the
transportation side of things. But specifically to the 9.2 per cent for
inflationary funding, again that’s for a number of areas in the school divisions
but that does include for school buses as well.
Joan Pratchler: — So given the
spikes that we have in fuel costs now, is that going to be adequate? And also
how do you financially address the decision tug that’s going to be happening
between getting students to schools and then having teachers in the schools
when they arrive?
[18:15]
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks to the member’s couple of questions there.
Certainly, you know, through our school
division partners, we watch it too. We monitor the increases and the decreases
in fuel costs. You know, we’re seeing some increases this winter and now into
the spring that were unexpected — unprecedented, I guess — in terms of what our
school division partners are seeing. So clearly that’s something that we’ll
remain in contact with the school divisions to make sure that we’re monitoring
it closely.
I don’t think anyone’s in a position to
be able to say how long this will last at this rate. And you know, if it’s
something that school divisions are talking to us about having to do sort of
additional steps — we’d certainly listen to them — that need to be taken with
respect to that. But not going to prejudge any decisions there. But this is
something we all see visibly as we drive past gas stations across the province.
But I would reiterate that this is, you
know, a good budget. It’s a good budget for the education sector and then for
school divisions across the province, protecting a number of the investments
that we have made over the past number of years. And as I said in my previous
answer, you know, in the last two years transportation funding has increased a
total of twenty-eight and a half million dollars.
And I know that I’ve, in the
conversations I’ve had with school boards, with board Chairs, and directors of
education, it’s been appreciated. It’s been, you know, the government has been
told that it’s made a difference. And so we’ll continue to make those
investments and make sure that we protect the investments that have been made
there and continue to support the transportation.
It’s one of the components of a very
complex education system — staffing, capital — and transportation’s part of
that.
Joan Pratchler: — So do I hear you
saying that you’re considering having a contingency fund in the wings just in
case they continue to escalate?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Oh no, don’t have a contingency fund. But this would be, again as we talk to
school divisions, this is part of the consultation we have with them, not just
at budget time but throughout the year. As I said, they’re going through the
process now of preparing their budgets for the upcoming school year.
And you know, if they come to us, again
over and above the investments we’ve made in recent years to help with a number
of the pressures on the transportation side of things — school bus costs, other
areas of concern; and again speaking here specifically tonight around the fuel
cost for the school bus transportation system — we would certainly listen to
what our school division partners bring to us for consideration.
Chair Keisig: — MLA Love, you have a question?
Matt Love: — Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I’m going to turn to a question about the funding formula for
operating grants for school divisions. And I will ask, you know, in the past
when I’ve asked some questions about funding formula, it can often lead to very
long explanations. If we can keep the answer focused on my question this
evening.
Clint Repski: — So the question was around a reference
to the OGAC [operating grant advisory committee] committee. Lovely acronym.
That structure has been changed moving forward. What we have now, instead of
having this standing committee of the same members, is it has more flexibility.
And
I’ll give you an example of it. When we’re taking a look at the funding model,
we want to get specific points of view for who can provide the best information
and feedback and analysis for us. An example of that was over this past year we
created a First Nations enrolment working committee. And it was around
reconciling enrolments across . . . And that was done with a series
of CFOs, chief financial officers, of the school divisions across the province.
Moving forward, that structure’s going to continue.
We
create a working plan to review various components or other financial matters,
again across how we roll out operating funding. And this provides us the
ability to bring in folks who have a deep level of understanding based on the
topic at hand. And we do have a work plan for that moving forward.
The
other question that you had asked was, were there changes to the funding
formula this year. And there was not.
Matt Love: — So just to clarify here, Minister, and
make sure I’ve got this straight, so the answer provided last year in the
committee about the existence of an operating grant advisory committee, that
structure has changed completely since last year in this committee, and that
that body doesn’t operate any longer?
Clint
Repski:
— That’s correct.
Matt Love: — That’s correct. Okay. So in its place,
is there any role, mechanism for teacher voice and the inclusion
. . . I mean last year your official said that it brings together “a
number of stakeholders from our education sector.” So the question today is,
how are teachers and teacher voice included in those decisions?
Clint
Repski:
— I would answer it in that it’s not a set structure. And so depending on the
topic at hand, having teacher voice, having teacher representation may be very
appropriate. But where we’re discussing matters of, say, transportation, it may
not be all that pertinent. And so if the topic was regarding something that was
relevant to teachers in their day-to-day work, then they would have a place at
the table. So this provides us the flexibility to bring in the appropriate
members.
Matt Love: — When was the last time that the
operating grant advisory committee met?
Sameema
Haque:
— Sameema Haque, assistant deputy minister, Ministry of Education.
[18:30]
The
last year I met with the full OGAC, the older structure, was about a year and a
half ago. I don’t have the exact date, but it was about a year and a half ago.
Matt Love: — Okay. Thank you.
Chair
Keisig: — Thank you, Minister and members. We shall recess now, and
being it’s 6:30 we shall reconvene at 7 p.m. Thank you, everyone.
[The committee recessed from 18:30 until
19:00.]
Chair
Keisig: — Thank you to committee members. Seeing as it 7 o’clock we
will resume estimations. I recognize MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. I would like to talk about
child care now. When I look at what’s in the child care budget for this year,
$396 million, how much of that included monies from the Saskatchewan
government into that number?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Thanks for the question. In the ’26‑27
budget year, the provincial amount is $64.29 million.
Joan Pratchler: — And so how much did the federal
government put in for the year 1 of this new extended agreement?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — The estimate from the federal
government, because it does get adjusted for that population demographic, but
the estimate we have is about 317 million.
Joan Pratchler: — Can you tell me, in this budget how
much money has been set aside for consultations for the wage grid?
Chair Keisig: — I apologize, MLA Pratchler. I missed
that last word.
Joan Pratchler: — I said, how much money was set aside in
this budget for consultations for the wage grid?
Chair
Keisig: — Thank you.
Joan Pratchler: — Sorry.
Hon. Everett Hindley: — We don’t have an appropriation or a set
amount for consultation. We know consultation occurs throughout the year, as it
has in previous years. It takes a number of different forms. I think some of
that is obviously in person. Some would be through online consultation as well,
but that happens with the stakeholders and in the sector. But yeah, in terms of
like an actual number for consultation, we don’t allocate a specific amount to
that. It’s just part of what we do in amongst the overall budget.
Joan Pratchler: — So then would you be able to tell me
how much money might be set aside for discussions regarding the pension and
benefits program for the EC [early childhood] workers?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Sorry, the question was around
consultation again, right? We’re on pension and benefits? Yeah, no, same as the
previous answer. There isn’t a dedicated amount specifically set aside for
consultation.
Joan Pratchler: — Could you tell me how much money has
been set aside to finalize an equitable funding model?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Yeah, on that question, just around
dollars set aside specifically for consultation, again there’s not a specific
amount that we set aside each budget year to pertain directly to consultation.
But I’ll maybe ask just the ministry team here to speak a bit more about the
dollars we get and what’s put towards administration of the child care and
implementation of the child care agreement.
And
we’ve strived pretty hard on the, you know, on the first iteration of the
agreement to make sure that we’re getting as much of the dollars as we can
directly to front lines, to the daycare, child care providers across the
province. But I’ll ask the team just to go a little bit further into the
administration costs and implementation.
Sameema
Haque:
— Absolutely. Any consultation works, meetings of the stakeholders, any of
those administrative tasks, in each of these agreements we can spend up to 10
per cent on administration costs. However in the province of Saskatchewan we
have really tried really hard to get all the funding possible out to the
sector. So our administration costs typically run from 1 to 2 per cent
depending upon the year, so that’s where these kinds of costs would fall.
Joan Pratchler: — My question wasn’t about consultation.
My question was how much money was set aside for an equitable funding model.
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Just wait while maybe Sameema’s pulling
together some information just on the various grants that make up the funding
that’s allocated to this sector. But just, my apologies. I thought I heard
consultation, but understanding that you’re wanting not just consultation in
this piece. So Sameema’s just pulling some information, and we’ll share that
with the committee.
Sameema
Haque:
— So as you clarified, MLA Pratchler, the question was not about consultation.
It’s actually about the funding model. Our funding is through the funding
. . . Our funding framework is grant-based funding at this time. So
all of the money that comes through the provincial budget as well as the
federal budget, less 1 to 2 per cent, is for the funding of this sector. All of
it goes to the sector through those variety of grants and we have about 19
grants.
So
all of the funding in all of these agreements, which is $400‑plus million
annually, and that is set aside for the grants such as: start-up grants; space
development capital grant; fire, health, and safety grant; play and exploration
grant; active play grant; early childhood services grant; equipment and program
grant; northern transportation grant; teen student support grant; nutrition
grant; parent fee reduction grant; wage enhancement for early childhood
educators grant; workforce enhancement grant; individual inclusion grant;
enhanced accessibility grant; professional development grant; tuition
reimbursement grant; training support grant; skills enhancement grant.
So
all of those grants, all of the funding is allocated for those.
Joan Pratchler: — And what all the stakeholders are
telling me, that I’m meeting across the province, is the funding model is
broken. And for the legacy providers — so those are the ones that had signed on
in 2021 — are having financial difficulties. And they were having them all the
way along and now they’re getting to a critical point.
[19:15]
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
In the conversations, consultations that I’ve had, you know, with child care
providers as well, this is one of the topics of conversation that’s come up.
And that’s whether it’s, you know, I think in some of the bigger centres or in
cities of my size, the community that I represent, we touch on a number of
topics. And some of it is the discussion around . . . And I’ve heard
it from the advocacy groups too with respect to the legacy operators and some
of the challenges that they’re facing. That is one of the reasons that we’ve
advocated for some additional flexibility in the new agreement, is to be able
to see what might be possible around addressing some of these concerns there.
But it is something I know that the
ministry team has put a lot of effort into and a lot of work into as they’re
consulting with the sector, trying to identify through all the, you know, the
myriad of various grants and funding envelopes that are available for child
care operators, some of these challenges that might persist.
But I’ll ask Sameema to talk a bit more
about just some of the differences between the legacy operators and the new
operators and how they’re funded. And again to the member’s question just about
equitable funding, you know, again that’s part of the conversations that we’re
having right now. But I’ll turn it over to Sameema.
Sameema Haque:
— So in looking at the funding and expenses related to child care operations,
you know, 7 per cent are related to inclusion-related initiatives, and those
grants are the same between legacy operators and new operators. About 30 per
cent are workplace operating-related expenses, and again those grants are the
same between the legacy operators as well as the new operators. Eighteen per
cent are workforce-related grants, and those are also the same between legacy
operators and new operators.
The only difference is the family
affordability, the parent fee reduction grant. That is the only difference that
is between the legacy operators and the new operators. Our analysis, based on
the information we have, the difference on a per-space basis is about $100 per
space. That’s the difference between the legacy operators and the new operators
on average. So it’s a smaller difference.
But even with that, we have undertaken
several initiatives to try and, you know, bring up the funding for those legacy
operators that had lower fees. And to give you a little bit of information of
the steps that we’ve taken: in April 2023 we provided additional
$2.8 million of funding to support child care facilities which were at the
bottom third, to ensure greater equity among child care operators. So we
provided an additional lift for them.
Other additional grants that are
available to child care operators that I mentioned that have provided increase
in funding is a one-time operational support grant of 19 million that was
given for inflation-related costs, 3.3 million for one-time workforce
enhancement grants, recruitment, and retention. And these were in February
2024.
In October 2025, the wage enhancement
grant was increased again, and we’ve increased that every year. And you know,
in that increase that we’ve given, about 8 per cent is included for employment
insurance as well as Canada Pension Plan. And 3 per cent is included for
administration costs as well. So that’s also built into that grant.
October 2024, the ministry increased
fees for all regulated child care facilities. What we observed was that some of
the facilities were delayed in increasing their fees themselves, because this
was left to the facilities to increase their fees earlier on and some of them
were late in when they increased their fees.
And so they ended up losing some revenue
of funding from us because they didn’t increase fees for maybe sometimes months
and sometimes until they contacted us, and we were able to talk to them and
say, well why didn’t you increase your fees? And they were then able to
increase their fees. So in some cases, we actually went back and retroactively
applied the parent fee reduction grant and gave them that additional money,
where they should have increased their fees and they didn’t increase their
fees, to make them whole again. So they had that additional funding.
But the last parent fee increase that
was applied, we actually went and applied it for the entire sector at 3.83 per
cent. And so that was applied to the entire sector from us. And you know, it
was not left to the operator to increase their fees; we just increased their
grant by that amount.
In January 2026, we provided six
workforce enhancement grants for all the operators as well. So all of these
initiatives have brought them closer and closer together, and we continue to
work on that.
Joan Pratchler: — So do I hear you
saying that an equitable funding model will be agreed upon?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks. And as Sameema had indicated in her previous answer, talked about the
equitable funding that we’re getting to between the legacy operators and the
new operators. And I think, you know, she detailed quite specifically a number
of the initiatives that have been taking place to get us there. And I think
we’re pretty confident that . . . as the gap has been closed and
they’re going to continue to do that.
This is why, you know, it’s something
. . . You know, you mentioned hearing from the sector. I do as well.
That’s why we consult with providers and groups like SECA, the Saskatchewan
Early Childhood Association, there as well, talking to them on a regular basis
to get their input on behalf of the people they represent in the sector.
The other point is just around the
negotiation of the five-year action plan with the federal government. So it’s
my understanding, just through the ministry team, that that work is under way.
And of course anything that we are looking to implement here in Saskatchewan
requires that sign-off from the federal government. But that work will happen
behind the scenes with the federal officials on the action plan and help us get
to, you know, to as good of a spot we can get to when it comes to equitable
funding for the operators.
Joan Pratchler: — As you know,
children can turn six any time in kindergarten in the school year from
September all the way to June. Can you tell me how many children would turn six
from September of 2025 — they’re in kindergarten — to April 1st of 2026? And
then could you also share what your cost projections would’ve been if those
children would’ve had access to their $10‑a-day child care?
[19:30]
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks for the question. So just to reiterate, you know, our negotiations were
always for the new agreement. And we were the only jurisdiction in the country
that was able to get this negotiated into our new agreement starting on April
1st.
So we don’t have a calculation of what
would have been . . . you know, what the numbers were from September
’25 to April 1st or March 31st, tomorrow, because again that’s the current
agreement, the one that expires tomorrow.
So the negotiations were always on
having this as something we wanted to have a very serious conversation with the
federal government about adding this enhancement. But starting with the new
agreement for April 1st and going forward, that the children who do turn six
while they are in kindergarten, that they do have the ability to qualify for
this.
So again as I’ve said before, that’s
what our negotiations were always focused on was on building on this
enhancement into the new agreement which will take its effect on April 1st. And
that was the direction that we were taking.
Joan Pratchler: — Well you probably
realize that most other provinces have full-time kindergarten, so they don’t
need the six-year-old top-up there. And secondly we did some calculations on
our own and we looked at . . . It was probably 2 to
$3 million to take care of those children who were born prior to April
1st.
My next question is talking about, a
little bit about the spaces. So if I understood right in your opening comments,
you suggested that 19,000 spaces are new $10‑a-day child care spaces. Was
that correct?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Yeah, in my opening remarks I used the approximate number of 19,000 new spaces
developed. But yeah, as of December 31st, actual number of new spaces developed
December 31st, 2025: 18,837. So that’s the reference to 19,000 new spaces
developed.
Joan Pratchler: — And then could we
talk a little bit more about the 7,000 spaces then? I’m assuming that you’re
subsuming under there the early learning spaces and also pre-kindergarten
spaces under there. Is that correct?
Sameema Haque:
— Sorry. Just to clarify, did you mention developing spaces?
Joan Pratchler: — No. If I
understood right, it was 19,000 spaces that were the $10‑a-day that was
just discussed here, but there was also additional 7,000 spaces. And could you
disaggregate who populates those 7,000 spaces? And I’m questioning whether
that’s pre-kindergarten spaces and early learning spaces that were
pre-existing.
Sameema Haque:
— So the early learning program spaces, it’s 6,984 that were recognized through
our negotiation with the federal government. These are CCCC [children,
communicating, connecting, in community] programs, that’s children deaf and
hard of hearing, that program; pre-kindergarten; specialized pre-kindergarten;
and ELIS [early learning intensive support] spaces.
Joan Pratchler: — And so those are
recognized under the $10‑a-day agreement?
Sameema Haque:
— Some of those are recognized, and some are provincially funded, and some are
federally funded for those programs. Provincial funding cannot be displaced
with federal funding, so there are a mix of provincial and federal funding in
those programs.
Joan Pratchler: — And so the
agreement that is going to be finished I guess tomorrow at midnight would have
us as a target of 28,000 spaces here in Saskatchewan or very close to that, is
what the agreement would be. Can you tell me, of those 28,000 spaces that we’re
supposed to have by midnight tomorrow night, how many are actually operational?
And how many are in the queue then?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
So of the 28,000 new space creation target set under the initial agreement,
we’re at 92 per cent of having those operational. We have to add another 2,100,
is the number of spaces to hit that target. However we do have . . .
The deadline isn’t tomorrow, March 31st, 2026. We have another year yet in that
to March of 2027 to add those remaining spaces in order to hit our 28,000
target as per the initial agreement.
Sameema Haque:
— Just one correction, if I may: 92 per cent developing and operational, not
operational. So we’re at 92 per cent of the target for spaces that we’ve either
allocated or they’re operational.
Joan Pratchler: — Yes, so could
. . . I guess I didn’t word that properly. How many are operational
at this point in time?
Sameema Haque:
— So we have 11,277 operational spaces. And then we have 6,981 spaces that were
recognized that we talked about, and we have 7,561 in development.
Joan Pratchler: — And when do you
anticipate those getting on board then?
Sameema Haque:
— So the 7,561 in total that are developing, out of that we have about 6,646
that are centre-based spaces, including some that are in our post-secondary
institutions as well. So depending upon the progress of those capital projects,
some centres will develop quickly. And some are part of a larger infrastructure
project, might take a little bit longer. Then we have 915 spaces that are
school-based spaces, and they are progressing with the school capital projects
as well.
We anticipate that quite a significant
number of these developing spaces will become operational over the next year
and a half. That’s the estimate, but again that depends on . . .
These are private entities, and they have their own capital agreements, and how
those are progressing. But we do expect, based on our previous years’ trends,
that many of these will become operational within the next year, year and a
half.
[19:45]
Joan Pratchler: — Do you anticipate
any of the school ones being delayed in terms of the school builds and the
school operation challenges we have with delays or pauses?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Child care spaces will, the ones that are tied specifically to whether it’s a K
to 12 education or in some cases there would be post-secondary builds and
construction and renovation projects. So they will obviously come online when
those projects are completed.
It’s my understanding that the federal
government understands that when we’re providing and sharing this information
on how we’re hitting our targets, they understand that a number of these spaces
are included as part of brand new builds. And I think — again, it’s my
understanding — that the federal government is aware of that and that they
understand that these projects are taking place in a sequenced process and that
they know that we’re building them. Projects are going ahead.
As example, you know, Harbour Landing
School under construction right now. A number of child care spaces are part of
that particular build. But other ones that are perhaps further down the road,
the federal government knows that we’re including those as part of the
build-out. And they don’t, to my knowledge, have not expressed any concerns
around the timelines there because they know that the spaces have been
committed to in the projects and will be included upon the grand openings of
these schools.
Joan Pratchler: — So if I understand
correctly, the number of spaces that were included in that type of a category,
about 6,000?
Sameema Haque:
— The school-based spaces that are currently in development are 915. 6,646, the
other number that you’re referring to, is all centre-based spaces, which is a
whole . . . all kinds of operators developing.
Joan Pratchler: — I’d like to talk a
little bit more about the rollovers. So in the past agreement, there was the
initial understanding that 10 per cent could be rolled over from year one to
year two to year three. And then there were significant challenges with those,
and those became much larger numbers than just the 10 per cent.
So in the end, or as we’re completing
that first agreement, how has that rollover situation been? Where did those
rollover funds go? Have they all been expended in child care, or has there been
some other disposition of those funds?
Sameema Haque:
— So each of the federal agreements, the carryforward amounts, as you
mentioned, must be negotiated in the action plan. Because we had annual action
plans, most of these were negotiated annually.
As part of the conditions of the
agreement, the carryforward is first expensed in the following year. So that’s
the first item that goes into expenses. And they are expensed for the same
grants that I listed earlier on in a response. So they’re part of the
operational funding that goes to child care operators. So each of these were
spent the following year.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. And then for the new agreement
coming up, is that the same amount rollover that the federal government allow
from 10 per cent per year unless otherwise agreed upon?
Sameema
Haque:
— We were very fortunate to get another enhancement in our future agreement. We
are now going to be able to negotiate a five-year action plan. We would be the
first jurisdiction across Canada that the federal government agreed to pilot
the five-year action plan, which will provide some level of stability for us in
the sense that we will have the allocations and the negotiation done once with
the federal government. So those carryforwards will be part of that discussion.
Can’t anticipate what they would be; that’s part of the discussion with the
federal government. It’s subject to the federal government and the federal
minister’s approval.
Joan Pratchler: — So do I hear you saying that the
rollovers between year 1, 2, 3, 4, and the upcoming still haven’t been
negotiated yet as finalized?
Sameema
Haque:
— They are part of the action plan negotiation. The first draft of action plan
negotiation is due to the federal government as of May 1st. And then we just
operate based on their timelines as to when they’re ready to kind of continue
on with the discussions.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. I’d like to talk about ECE
[early childhood educator] training and ECE availability. So how many students
are enrolled in the ECE [early childhood education] I, II, and III levels for
this year, and also how many would be graduating from each one of those? How
many people are going to be coming onto the workforce after graduating their
programs in each of those categories?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Just some
high-level numbers, and then Sameema will get into just the number of
tuition-free training seats. Some of this would be, I think, better answered by
Sask Poly in terms of the number of seats they have and what the uptake is. But
overall 37 per cent increase in the number of staff, 52 per cent increase in
certification, 84 per cent increase in the number of ECE III. So all very
positive advancements over the past number of years in the sector and in terms
of how we’ve been able to build this up in collaboration with the early
childhood education sector itself.
But maybe, Sameema, just talk a bit about some
of the numbers we do have specific to the tuition-free training seats we have
in the province and what we have for data there.
Sameema Haque: —
Absolutely. Just one more point that I would make in regards to the 52 per cent
certification. Under the agreement one of our targets was 15 per cent increase
in our certification levels across the province. We have far exceeded that
target, and we’re very proud of that achievement within the province. So 52 per
cent is the number that’s much, much bigger than 15 per cent, so very proud of
that.
[20:00]
Now I can only speak to the number of seats
that we provide funding for. I’ll give you the seats for each level for the ’25‑26
year. So ECE level I,
1,312; ECE level II, 452; ECE level III, 335. And then we also fund supports
for students to obtain any of the ECE levels, additional professional
development courses, and so 475 of those. And then advanced certificates that
ECEs can take, we fund about 62 seats for that.
So
this is just for last year. But since 2021 to this year, we have funded 3,893
seats for ECE I, 1,272 seats for ECE II, 856 seats for ECE III. We’ve supported
500 students in regards to their professional development and 132 students for
advanced certification. So a total of 6,653 tuition-free certifications.
Joan Pratchler: — So how many ECE IIIs are graduating
this year?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Yeah, I was just going to jump in on
that and maybe go back to Sameema on it. But I think we were just having a
discussion at the back about just sort of the profile — if you will, I guess,
the student profile — in terms of, like, some of these would be part-time
students, right? And so that makes it, I think, somewhat challenging to be able
to predict what the numbers are going to be in terms of graduation rates going
forward. But I don’t know if we have anything more specific than that, Sammi,
but yeah.
So
that just makes it a bit more challenging because there are a number — and I
don’t know if it’s a significant number or not — that take the training on a
part-time basis. So again just makes it a bit of a challenge that way to
determine, you know, predict what our graduation rates are. But something
obviously that we work closely with the advanced education sector in terms of,
you know, what is their demand, what’s the uptake, and do we have to look at
that going forward too.
Joan Pratchler: — So if we put an end date as August 30th
of 2026, how many ECE IIIs would have graduated and entered the workforce after
that training for this year? And how many IIs? And how many Is? And could we
just get that furnished to the committee so you don’t have to use your time now
to do the calculations?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Certainly an area that we’re working to
get better data on to make sure. And I think, you know, this has been mentioned
by the Provincial Auditor. So we’re working with Advanced Education on better
data reporting, better tracking of this. So you know, that has been mentioned
publicly, so we have to do better at that.
Just
going back to one of the other stats that I indicated — and this is where we do
get some of our numbers — the 84 per cent increase in ECE level IIIs that are
able to actually qualify for that particular top-up, they’re showing us they
have the certification. So we are, to a certain degree, able to point to that
number and say that there has been a significant increase in certification,
obviously, because people are showing that they do have the ECE level III
training so they can therefore qualify for the wage top-up that’s available.
But
again I would say that we are working and our teams are working to do a better
job of tracking the information, collecting the data so that we have a better
handle on what’s happening in terms of our post-secondary institutions as we
further develop the workforce.
Joan Pratchler: — I hear you saying that you’ll be able
to provide that data within a week.
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Yeah, we’re working on collecting it.
You know, I would say that I don’t think we’ll be able to provide it in a week,
but our teams are working to gather that data as we speak.
Joan Pratchler: — And so what date would you be able to
provide it to the committee?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — The best data we have is, as I said,
you know, the wage top-up data that we have internally here. Again we’re
endeavouring to try to collect that data and have a better tracking mechanism
for that. So once we have that, we can endeavour to provide that to the
committee. But I wouldn’t be in a position to say . . . Just in terms
of the work being done by the officials and the ministries, I wouldn’t be able
to say exactly what that deadline or what that date would be.
Joan Pratchler: — I’m on the Public Accounts Committee,
and they usually give them a 30‑day . . . And wouldn’t you be
providing that for Public Accounts anyway?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Yeah. The difference there is that, you
know — and this has been reminded to me — that we have to create the data. We
don’t have the information yet. So again that’s where we’re working to create
that data to do that tracking. And then once we have that information
available, then we can, as I said, endeavour to get that to the committee.
So
we don’t have the information right now, so we can’t share it. I can’t give a
timeline if we don’t have that data, if the teams are working right now to
create that data and to get the answers that we’re looking for.
Joan Pratchler: — So are you suggesting we ask Advanced
Education to call Sask Poly and see how many are graduating this year?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Yeah, that’s part of the information
gathering or the conversations that are happening with Advanced Ed right now as
we speak. So that’s part of the work that we have to do to satisfy the
auditor’s recommendation, and so those conversations are happening. And again
once we have that data all collected, then that becomes available to us and
then we’d be in a position at that point to share it.
Joan Pratchler:
— And that would be public? We wouldn’t have to FOIP
[freedom of information and protection of privacy] them or anything?
Clint Repski:
— So it’s not the type of thing that we would normally make public but, as was
referenced earlier, this has been cited as part of the Provincial Auditor’s
report and it would be clearly brought to Public Accounts.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you very
much. I’m finished now. Well I’m stopping.
Chair Keisig: — I recognize Mr. Love.
Matt Love: — Thank you, Mr.
Chair. I just want to go back to one question that I missed, the topic that we
were on before our supper break. In the past, Minister, we’ve had conversations
in this committee about how LINC [local implementation and negotiation committee]
agreements are funded. And there’s often, you know, in the last number of years
there would have been specific commitments from your government to fund teacher
contracts in the budget.
Of
course this year, the contract expires in August, and there’s negotiations
beginning this spring. I understand that that’s on the budget. But when it
comes to LINC agreements, how is your government funding increases that will be
required to allow local divisions to negotiate new LINC agreements with
teachers? Because I don’t see that present in this budget anywhere.
[20:15]
Clint Repski:
— Funding for LINC agreements for school divisions, now there’s usually two
factors that adjust that funding, typically in the up fashion. The first one is
when there’s a CBA [collective bargaining agreement] settlement. And so the
last time that we settled that collective agreement, there was a significant
enhancement to locally determined terms and conditions.
The other one is tied to enrolment
growth. And in this year, as we’ve indicated before, we don’t have a new
collective agreement. When that’s settled, LINC will be adjusted at that point
in time as we roll funding out. And the enrolment growth component of LINC will
be adjusted when we do the September 30th enrolment adjustment. So at this
point in time, there is no change to the LINC funding.
Matt Love: — So how can school
boards know what leverage they have to negotiate with their locals, which is
ongoing at this time, if they don’t know what they have to work with? Does that
question make sense? I think what I’m asking, if they don’t know what they have
to work with, what do they have to negotiate with?
Clint Repski:
— Effectively it’s the same position that they would be in with any other
negotiating settlements that they might be incurring right now. Right now the
school divisions would be working within the existing funding that they’ve been
provided over the past couple of weeks with their budget packages. And they
would likely be estimating what these adjustments would be moving forward, and
they’d have to make that work for now.
Matt Love: — Yeah, ultimately I
guess I agree with you, Deputy Minister, that working with what they have,
there isn’t much new that they can offer, either through local agreements or to
other locally negotiated contracts with education support workers that we discussed
before the break. You know, in a budget year I do suspect — and the minister
said he won’t be speculating; I’ll speculate based off of the years of
experience I have in this role — that we’re going to see cuts.
And so what’s left over to do these
local negotiations is going to put incredible strain on local divisions,
especially in hard-to-recruit positions, whether it’s bus drivers in rural
Saskatchewan or more EAs across the province. I think that we’re going to see
some challenges. And I’m not looking forward to hearing how school divisions
report back on this in the coming weeks.
Minister, I’m going to move on to some
questions that are related to classroom complexity as kind of a general theme —
classroom complexity, supports for learning, and inclusion. So just to start
off with, my question to you, Minister: how is the ministry handling the
funding of article 17 in the new provincial collective bargaining agreement,
the requirements for the article 17 teachers, for classroom complexity
teachers, with respect to the separate and distinct specialized support
classroom program?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks. I’ll start and then I think we’ll have just the officials jump in with
some additional information. Where funding is provided for a new specialized
support classroom, funding for an additional classroom complexity or an article
17 teacher is not provided. The government however is meeting its commitments
to funding classroom complexity through the combination of article 17 funding
and also the specialized support classroom.
But I think Jason wanted to go into a
bit more detail around this.
Jason Pirlot:
— Yeah, thanks, Minister. Jason Pirlot. So for 2026‑27, there’s
$35.2 million in the budget for the SSCs [specialized support classroom].
That’s an increase of 16.3 million, and that’s an amount of about 326,000
per classroom.
Matt Love: — So I think our
calculations are the same there, Minister and your officials. So that funding
per classroom would cover one full-time teacher or two full-time teachers?
Jason Pirlot:
— Thanks for the question. So staffing models across school divisions are
different. The staffing mix that school divisions have landed on in terms of
how to deploy this program, there’s a variance. But I would say is it’s a
minimum of one certified teacher.
Obviously with the 325, there’s funding
for different approaches. We’ve seen some classrooms, some school divisions
deploy multiple teacher approaches. We see some lean more heavily on EAs. But
we also see a lot of divisions leave some funding back for additional
professional supports, whether that be ed psychs, speech paths, occupational
therapists, etc.
And I think one of the benefits of that
flexibility that has been provided to school divisions in this province relates
to the fact that, as we all know, we have 27 divisions across, you know, a
pretty wide swath of this province. And the ability to recruit and procure
resources changes from community to community, and school divisions are
maximizing that funding to do what’s best for their communities.
Matt Love: — Yeah, I appreciate
that. And I agree that, you know, when school divisions have additional
resources and flexibility to implement them based on their needs, good things
happen. So I certainly agree with the need for that flexibility.
Can
you just confirm, Minister, that the funding for these specialized support
classrooms include the full-time teacher that is not also being counted as one
of the Article 17 teachers funded in the budget? That those are two distinct
. . . That your government is funding both of those things, not one
but counting it in the other?
[20:30]
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks. With respect to the specialized support classroom model and the
classroom complexity teachers, I just would point to that the specialized
support classrooms, we started to do that work prior to the conclusion of the
CBA through the arbitrated settlement. And that began with the pilots of
course, and then funding in the budget here that’s about to wrap up tomorrow,
and then the expansion this year.
We do believe that the specialized
support classroom teachers should be counted as article 17 teachers. There may
be some disagreements around that and how they’re counted but that’s our
belief, that teachers that are staffing the specialized support classrooms do
meet that definition as an article 17 teacher.
Matt Love: — Now, Minister,
your officials just spoke of the flexibility with which specialized support
classrooms are being implemented. And I know that there’s a variety of models
out there that are, you know, decided upon at the local level, which is great.
Some of those are maybe itinerant models, where a group of professionals travel
and support teachers and learners in the classroom, and some of those are more
of a classroom model, you know, located in a school.
So can you further explain your
perspective that those classes, despite the incredible variety, that that
should encompass article 17 teachers when I’m pretty sure that article 17
teachers are not allowed to . . . or that the agreement, the arbitrary
agreement is that they would not be performing classroom instruction, and if
some of these models are . . . or that they can’t be used to reduce
pupil-teacher ratios. So can you further explain your belief that article 17
teachers should be included as specialized support classroom teachers?
Chair Keisig: — I just would ask the member opposite to
tie that question into the budget. I’m trying to understand the nuances of this
and how it ties into the budget of ’26‑27.
Matt Love: — Gladly, Mr. Chair,
while the minister discusses with his officials. So my previous question was
about asking the minister to clearly delineate between how this budget is
communicated to school divisions. Because when they get their operating grants,
some of that is, you know, no strings attached. Some of that is in envelopes
where — for example specialized support classrooms — that’s a requirement from
this government to spend that money in a certain way. And then article 17
teachers would be required in the collective bargaining agreement.
So the question really comes down to how
this is communicated to school divisions, whether or not they’re getting funded
for both of those or whether or not they’re only getting funded for one of
those. But the government is taking credit for funding both of them. So it
really is about the budget because a school division only has one source of
revenue or one source of income, and that’s their operating grant.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
So a couple of points. The information was communicated to school divisions as
part of their budget packages. Secondly, just to reiterate my previous answer
around our belief that the specialized support classroom teachers do meet the
definition of an article 17 teacher and that’s how it was calculated, presented
for the budget, for this year’s budget, the new budget, ’26‑27 budget,
and consistent with last year as well. So it’s the same position that we’re
taking in terms of that.
But in addition to that as well, though,
I understand that there has been a grievance filed. And so it wouldn’t be
appropriate for us to comment any further, given that situation.
Matt Love: — Thanks, Minister.
That’s news to me that there’s been a grievance filed. By the Saskatchewan
Teachers’ Federation?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Yeah.
Matt Love: — Okay. Thank you.
I’m going to turn things to my colleague for a question here.
Joan Pratchler: — I don’t need an
answer right now, a verbal answer, but if you would continue to furnish the
committee with the documents like you did last year regarding the data on the
number of students requiring intensive supports, broken down by school
divisions; and secondly, number of students requiring EAL [English as an
additional language] supports at the various levels in a school division, and
broken down by divisions as well.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Just double-checking with the team, and we did get that information to the
committee last year, and we’re still collecting some of the information from I
think a couple of the school divisions. So once we have that we’ll be able to
share that information.
Joan Pratchler: — And what
anticipated date?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Team’s telling me a few days. I think again it’s just a matter of us hearing
back from a couple of these outlier divisions right now. I think there was a
reporting issue or something with one of them. So we just want to make sure
that they’re double-checking their numbers to get that back to us for the
global provincial number. But I don’t anticipate it’s going to take very long,
so yeah.
Matt Love: — Minister, I’m wondering if you could
comment for the committee. You know, as we look at . . . We’ve had a
number of, I’d say, questions and discussions happening in this province over a
number of years in this committee on inclusive education. Could you share for
the committee your view on inclusive education and how that’s reflected in this
budget?
[20:45]
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
I’ll start maybe just on some of the numbers that I’ve talked about before and
then get into just the member’s question about inclusion in our school system.
So the overall amount in this year’s
budget: $436 million into classroom supports. And then in that,
$398.5 million dedicated to supports for learning. So that would be the
students who require intensive supports, students with vulnerable circumstances,
those that require EAL. And then 35.16 million for the expansion of the
specialized support classroom model to 108 classrooms, and two and a half
million for implementing the Teacher Innovation ideas and enhancing education
outcomes in schools.
But above and beyond that, I think just
around the member’s question around inclusion, that is something that’s very
much a priority for the government I think. And in terms of working with our
partners, whether it’s Inclusion Saskatchewan — I’ve met with Inclusion
Saskatchewan on several occasions, and recently here this spring they had a
reception here in the legislature — but had a chance to chat with Christina and
Brittany and the team then and met with them earlier this winter. Met with them
last year as well. Try to make sure I do a regular check-in with them.
In addition to that, some of the other
work, I know that . . . Not just, you know, that the ministry team is
doing, but I’ve reached out to a number of other organizations around the
province just to gain some of their feedback and advice. And as part of our
consultations, you know, Autism Resource Centre, I’ve talked to Ability in Me,
Saskatchewan Down Syndrome Society, Autism Services of Saskatoon — those are
just some of the groups that I’ve had a chance to talk to in the past number of
weeks and months in my time as the minister. Because I felt it’s important to
do that, to make sure that we are hearing from a number of these organizations.
And in addition to that, directly from
parents — parents of children who do have any number of challenges, whether
they’re physical limitations, intellectual disabilities, you name it. And I
think what’s been, you know, very important for us to consider as part of this
is that there have been some differing approaches to how do we continue to
address this.
And I think for example . . .
And I hope I’m not speaking out of turn, but I think in the conversations I’ve
had with Inclusion Saskatchewan, they’re very much in support of the
specialized support classroom model and how that’s benefited a number of
students in terms of working to provide them with better inclusion into their
schools.
So that’s a positive, you know, I think
for us to be able to hear that from groups like that, but also at the same time
ask the question as to how do we do a better job of that. And again that’s why
we’re advancing the specialized support classroom model across the province as
part of our target to add 200 on top of the initial eight that we had.
But I would say that, you know, some of
the other challenges we face are . . . And what, you know, I think
I’m very optimistic about is how we can try to find some new and creative ways
to improve inclusion in the classroom and in the education sector. And I think
what I’ve heard . . . and not I think, I know what I’ve heard from
the associations is that there isn’t one simple solution to this.
It’s not as simple as saying, well just
go and hire, you know, 500 — I’m just picking a number out of the air, but —500
more EAs. Yes, in some cases it might be more educational assistants that might
be the answer, but it’s not easy, and I don’t think it’s fair to be able to
paint that with a broad brush that way.
One of the things I’ve heard from
teachers as well on the other side of it — and this, I think, comes from both
sides — is how, you know . . . There are some times I’ve heard
directly from teachers that I’ve spoken to directly who say that, you know,
sometimes they wish they had better tools at their disposal to be able to
provide the necessary supports that they need to provide to the kids, students
that face some challenges. So I’ve heard that.
The flip side of that is the
associations that I’ve talked to and continue to meet with have said, we’ve got
some answers for that. We’ve got some initiatives we think that would help
provide additional tools for teachers and EAs and all of the professionals that
make sure that we’re doing the best that we can for kids that do require some
additional supports.
So the work continues. Again I’ve
committed to these groups that I’ve met with that . . . Happy, and
will continue to meet with them in the weeks and months ahead as we work on
developing a path forward and then building upon some of the work we’ve already
done in this budget and in previous budgets to support inclusion.
And we’re going to work closely with
groups like that, as I said, some of the ones that I listed earlier today like
Inclusion Saskatchewan. Again I’ve had very positive and productive meetings
with Inclusion Saskatchewan. And we’ll make sure we continue to do that work so
that we can make enhancements and build upon some of the work that’s already
taken place and do better for all the students who require some additional
supports in our education system. So pretty optimistic and upbeat about where
we can get to.
And I think, you know, honestly I think
we can really be a leader not just here in our province. But I think we can
probably take some lessons from some other jurisdictions, but I think we can
also lead the way in certain regards as well.
Matt Love: — Thanks. As
Minister of Education in Saskatchewan, do you believe that every child has a
right to be included at school?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Yeah, absolutely. We wanted . . . oh, sorry.
Chair
Keisig: — Can I just interrupt? While you’re answering that, just
I’d like to remind the member we’re here for the ’26‑27 budget. And how
that question pertains to the budget, I’m just struggling in my mind to connect
the dots. So what the minister feels about an issue or topic does not concern
the financial details that we are here debating this evening.
So,
Minister, go ahead. But just for future reference, members, please ask
questions about the ’26‑27 budget.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
I can probably predict where the member’s going, so I think he’ll make the
connection for us.
Yeah, as I was starting to say, I do
believe that every student should have the opportunity to be in a classroom, if
that’s what their family so chooses. And there’s a number of choices there. You
know, parents need to have that choice. I think, you know, they appreciate
having that choice to have their child in, whether it’s public or Catholic
school system or whether it’s in other parts of the education system. But
absolutely. You know, if a parent wants their student to be in a classroom and
to be able to learn in that type of an environment, they should have that
opportunity.
We know it’s a bit more complicated than
that though too, right? That we have — as we talked about already a lot here
tonight and many times about — the complexity of classrooms, and you know, it’s
changed. It really has changed over the past number of decades. And so we do
have more challenges that are presented in the classroom and students that all
have very unique circumstances from time to time. Sometimes it’s, you know,
medical supports. They may require fairly intensive ones. And it’s a matter of,
you know, do we have the supports there available to deliver that.
The other thing we have to consider too
— and again, this is part of the challenge and conversations we have, I think
all of us whether it’s at the Ministry of Education, but you know, our school
division partners and teachers as well — is addressing . . . And this
is a concern that I’ve, you know, had conversations with leadership at both the
school division level and also with the STF [Saskatchewan Teachers’
Federation], is around violence in the classroom. And so we have to be mindful
of that and really relying on, at the local level, at teachers and
administration be able to try to make sure that they have a plan in place, that
the school remains safe for everybody and as a learning environment that
everybody can be part of, if at all possible.
But you know, recognizing, of course,
that sometimes that isn’t always the case, and there aren’t any easy solutions
to some of these challenges. So that’s work that we’re advancing with respect
to violence in not just the classroom, I think, but we want to make sure our
teachers are safe, our EAs are safe, our school bus drivers are safe, and
people that are in the administration office at the schools, that they are safe
as well.
But again I just, you know, I do believe
that we need to do everything we can to make sure that students have the
ability to learn in a safe, inclusive classroom in our schools in Saskatchewan.
Matt Love: —
Thanks, Minister. In 2021 your ministry adopted an inclusive education policy,
and in 2023 your ministry adopted a policy titled Actualizing A Needs-Based
Model. Can you share with the committee if supports for learning funding to
support students with exceptional needs is delivered on a needs-based model?
[21:00]
Clint Repski:
— So the first part of the question that was asked was regarding the
needs-based model. And the answer is yes, we do. There was a period of time a
number of years ago when funding used to be rolled out on more or less a
diagnosis-based model. And what school divisions would do was identify
additional-needs students through diagnosis and they’d be classified into tiers
1, 2, 3 in terms of intensity level of support. We would take the available
pool of funding, divide that by those identified students, and roll that
funding out.
When the new funding model was rolled
out — it might have been prior to that, but around 2012 — what was happening
was students weren’t getting the support they needed for a variety of reasons,
partially because in order to get provincial funding, you would have a
diagnosis. So a lot of time, effort, and energy was spent into doing those
pieces as opposed to providing the actual supports. So what we did was to take
a look at some broader-level indicators — poverty, EAL, other broad-level
factors — to distribute the funding.
So that’s the SFL [supports for
learning] pool that you were referring to, which was what we call a needs-based
model. It doesn’t require a diagnosis. Rather that’s how we cut up that
allocation of funding to give to school divisions in terms of . . .
Some kids don’t have a diagnosis. Some parents choose not to have their child
diagnosed for a variety of different reasons, but that doesn’t mean they don’t
need some additional supports.
What our model does is allows the school
divisions to provide the support as they deem appropriate without having to
have a diagnosis. In some cases they may not be able to get a diagnosis. That
doesn’t mean the child doesn’t need additional supports. So that’s a bit of the
reasons why we do the needs-based.
But Mr. Chase here is going to talk to
us about the update that’s currently happening.
Sean Chase:
— Thank you. Good evening. Sean Chase, executive director, student achievement
and supports. Earlier in the fall our branch reached out and conducted a pretty
fulsome survey with student support services, superintendents from all 27
divisions in the province. And one of the items that they prioritized for us
was the Actualizing a Needs-Based Model document and refreshing it to be
better aligned with our current principles of inclusion as well as how we’re
funding across the province.
So very pleased to report our team
brought together about 42 staff from across the entire province here in Regina
on March 4th and had a full day of those folks undertaking a refresh of that
document, recognizing that while it was recreated in 2023, this is a rapidly
changing environment that we’re facing in schools. And therefore we needed to
have the most current documentation to support the inclusive approach to
supporting students in the province of Saskatchewan.
So we’re hopeful to turn around an
updated version of that in the coming months. But it was great to have what we
saw as overwhelming support from the school divisions in their commitment to
join us in this work.
Matt Love: — Thanks, Minister,
for those comments from your officials. You know, I understand the need to move
away from a medical diagnosis-based approach. But I think the reality is, in
many school divisions in this province, students are waiting years for a diagnosis
to help connect them with the supports that they need. So they’re also not
being, you know, served well in that regard.
And I would say, Minister, as far as the
current approach to using third-party data and some of these larger data points
to determine how supports for learning funding is dispersed, also doesn’t fully
capture the needs of students who walk into buildings. And so one of the things
that I’m hearing is the disconnect — many school divisions.
And
I’d like to ask you, Minister: are you hearing these same concerns that there’s
a gap between the funds that divisions receive in supports for learning and the
needs of the students walking into their schools every day? Again that’s the
gap that exists in funding the needs of our students between what school
divisions receive in supports for learning and the actual needs that I would
say we need to examine if we are to actualize the needs-based approach to
funding education. Are you hearing those same concerns, Minister?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
I’ll speak to again, you know, that there has been significant investments in
this budget, in previous budget years, when it comes to supports for learning.
And I’m not going to go through those numbers again. But these are significant
investments into the education system to address these, you know, the
complexity, the challenges we face in the classroom. And the government’s going
to continue to do that.
Now specific to children with intensive
needs. There are a number of programs, and the earlier side of things, because
as we all know, the earlier we can get at children who have these requirements,
that need some additional support, the better it is for everyone, but most
specifically those children.
And whether that’s, you know, some of
the K to 3 literacy work that’s being done, but I would point to a
number of other areas where there are supports and funding provided by the
ministry to early years programs to support children with intensive needs. That
includes early . . . and run through a bit of a list here: but the
early learning intensive support program that provides a number of spaces,
hundreds of spaces across the province; children communicating, connecting in
the community; specialized pre-K; the ECIP program that we’re all very familiar
with, the early childhood intervention program; child care enhanced
accessibility grants; child care individual inclusion grants; inclusive
practices initiative; accessibility rating grants. And there’s supports for
medically fragile children as well. So a number of different programs there
that help to provide some supports to children with intensive needs.
But as I said in a previous answer, it’s
not always just about funding. And I, you know, I talked about the significant,
the millions and millions of dollars of funding that we have put towards this.
But it isn’t always just about funding. And again that’s what I am hearing from
groups like Inclusion Saskatchewan, some of the other ones that I’ve mentioned
that I’ve met with here particularly as of late.
Sometimes it’s an education approach,
and teachers wanting to be able to have more information on how they can do an
even better job in the classrooms supporting these kids. And the flip side of
that is the organization saying, we can help provide some of that information.
They are eager to provide some of these solutions to make sure that we’re doing
everything we can for students that have intensive needs.
Maybe go back to Sean here for a second
just in terms of some of the work that’s going to be taking place here, I
think, in a couple of weeks time in April that I think that speaks to this very
topic.
Sean Chase: — Thank you. One of
the pieces our staff certainly hears from a resourcing end is resourcing
opportunities for staff — not just teachers, but all educators — around the
challenges that some of the students present in terms of the world of
complexity. And so we’re leveraging the opportunities and the resourcing out of
the specialized support classroom model to do just that.
We’re, at their request, pulling
together folks from all 27 school divisions in a couple weeks’ time here in
Regina. And they’ll have a chance to network about some of the promising
practices that we’re seeing in that model right now to help them leverage those
as we expand by another 50 instances next year and a hundred more to come after
that.
But one of the pieces we’re really
excited about is, the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation professional learning
group has recently created a facilitation learning module on supporting
neurodiversity in an inclusive manner in classrooms. And so they’re spending
about two-thirds of that day that we have the entire province pulled together
doing that facilitation — which is quite responsive to what we hear in the
number of instances, not just from staff but also from parents — of helping our
very talented staff get up to speed on some of the leading practices to create
those inclusive learning environments in our schools.
So that’s an example of using the
resource in a proactive educational manner for our wonderful educators.
Matt Love: — Thanks, Minister
and officials. Minister, in your — and for the purpose of the Chair, this
question is about the supports for learning funding in the provincial budget
which is the topic that we’re exploring right now — in your document on Actualizing
a Needs-Based Approach, it indicates that the intent of a needs-based model
is to ensure that, “all students have access to appropriate learning
opportunities, all students are supported through differentiated and responsive
instruction, and all students are provided with inclusive opportunities to
reach their potential.”
Now we saw a report this year from
Inclusion Saskatchewan, from FOI [freedom of information] and local school
divisions that they’re up to 1,300 students in this province who are being
denied access to full-time education, some of those on a part-time basis, some
of those full-time being denied any access to K to 12 education in
Saskatchewan.
And
so can you help the committee understand how this budget addresses that massive
gap between the policy on actualizing a needs-based approach that your ministry
has adopted and the reality of 1,300 students being denied their right to
education?
[21:15]
Hon. Everett
Hindley: — Thanks. I
think I’ve addressed the question a couple times previously. And again I think,
you know, I’ve spoken about the increase to supports for learning and some of
the other investments that we’re making into classroom supports when it comes
to the topic of inclusion and making sure that every student has an opportunity
to be learning in the classroom. And understanding as well that schools and
school divisions are making those decisions as well at the local level based on
what students’ needs are and what supports are available, because that does
vary from school to school and community to community across the province.
And again I
would just say that in the conversations and the consultation that I’ve had
with a number of groups . . . And there’s more to come, whether it’s
Inclusion Saskatchewan, whether it’s, you know, some of the autism
organizations, or Down Syndrome Society, and others, there’s many others across
the province. What I’ve heard is that — and I think the member’s question is
around what’s in the budget specific to that — but what I’ve heard as part of
the conversations is that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach. There isn’t
a simple solution to all this.
So I think
rather than, you know, jumping to a conclusion or, you know, coming to a
solution that maybe misses the mark, that we have agreed to continue these
conversations. I know I’ve had them. The ministry, the officials are having
conversations as well behind the scenes. I’ll have follow-up meetings with each
of these groups in the weeks ahead and in the not-too-distant future, because I
think there is a path forward. There are some ideas coming forward. But I think
we want to make sure that we take the appropriate amount of time to involve
those organizations as we’re developing these solutions.
And again I
don’t think there’s . . . As I said before, there’s not an easy
answer to any of this. But I think by collaborating with a number of groups in
this space and the advocacy that they’re doing, I think that’s helpful to us
and some of the work that has been mentioned here by the officials here
tonight. As a matter of fact, some of it’s already happened and some that will
be taking place in just a couple of weeks here with respect to engaging with
teachers, but everyone that is impacted by this.
I think
there’s really an opportunity, but we want to make sure that, you know, we do
everything we can to get this right but we do so in a timely basis. And I think
the work we get done, the feedback we get from these advocacy organizations and
frankly from parents too . . . As I said, I’ve heard directly from
parents as well, sat down face to face with them, met with them one-on-one, and
I think that will help inform some of the decisions going forward. And we’re
going to have a collaborative approach to that and make sure that we do that,
we take the time we need to make sure that, as best we can, we get it right.
Matt Love: — You know,
Minister, I know that you and I can disagree on a number of items, but I hope
that we can find common ground and agree on the fact that, if there are 1,300
students in this province being denied access to full-time education, that
that’s unacceptable for a province like ours.
And my final question on this topic to
you is, is there any movement in this budget or any actions being taken from
your government to track school exclusions? Is there any accountability for
what needs to happen within a school division before an exclusion is issued to
a student? And are there any supports that the province can offer to school
divisions to help minimize school exclusions?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Yeah, just in terms of the tracking of exclusions, that’s again something that
we’ve spoken about, that’s been identified by Inclusion Saskatchewan and the
report, and that directed the ministry to do some work around, you know, how do
we track this? What does it look like? And you know, as I said before, there’s
a number of different groups, part of the sector, that would have varying input
on what this looks like in terms of, you know, what should be provided for
supports in the classroom, what defines an exclusion, what doesn’t.
And there’s a lot . . . And
again I had a sit-down with a number of groups here, including Inclusion
Saskatchewan, to speak specifically about their report. And I think they would
also probably indicate that they’re trying to get a better picture and
understanding of that as well. So I think it’s broad consultation across the
sector and trying to do a better job of identifying that and, you know, the
exclusions and what they are.
But again with the ultimate goal that
we, as much we can, provide — and recognizing every student’s a bit different;
every school in terms of supports they provide is a bit different as well — and
do everything we can to make sure that we have students in the classroom.
Matt Love: — Okay, Minister,
we’re going to move onto some questions about Saskatchewan Distance Learning
Corporation. We’ll see if that takes us to 10 o’clock here tonight.
If you could just start with some
updated numbers for the committee, Minister, as far as . . . And
we’re looking at some of the information provided last year to this committee
as well as Public Accounts. If you could provide us with some updated enrolment
numbers, including full-time equivalents broken down into however SDLC
[Saskatchewan Distance Learning Corporation] breaks that down.
I think that you had provided it back
. . . Roughly 3,500 students in probably K to 9 and then a
different number of groups in the high school years, as far as what that turns
into, in terms of full-time equivalents when you add up those courses in high
school.
Whatever
information you can provide us with that’s readily available is appreciated for
the student enrolment numbers, as well as what is projected for next school
year, as well as if you have calculated a per-student average funding for SDLC
students.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Data we have is a snapshot. Would’ve been as of March 1st of this year, so
roughly . . . Well we’ve got some actual numbers here. I was going to
say roughly 13,000 students taking online courses this year, but the actual
number: 13,067 students registered with the Sask DLC this school year.
[21:30]
That includes 3,296 full-time
kindergarten to grade 12 students, including 1,246 kindergarten to grade 9
students taking 9,544 courses, 1,462 full-time online grade 10 to 12 students
taking 8,119 courses, 1,669 young adults aged 18 to 21 taking 5,555 courses,
8,263 part-time grade 10 to 12 students taking 16,810 online courses, and 462
adults over the age of 22 taking 1,374 online courses.
And I’ll maybe turn . . .
That’s the stats, but I’ll maybe turn it over to Darren just to talk a bit
about the funding that goes towards DLC and the students, just some of the
complexities around that. Darren.
Darren Gasper:
— Yeah, you bet. Darren Gasper with the Sask DLC. So, Mr. Love, in response to
your question around the average funding, the way our funding model works — and
I’m speaking specifically to our full-time online students in this case — the
funding provided for each of those goes directly to the local school division
of which they reside within that boundary. And then we invoice on a
$500-per-course cost.
So to calculate that average would
depend on how many courses each student took, which varies quite a bit from one
student to another. But at the end of the day the funding connected with that
student is in the local school division, and $500 per course is invoiced out.
Matt Love: — Could you report
on how much SDLC receives in total between operating grants in the provincial
budget and tuition received from school divisions? Is that a number? If it’s
not readily available, could you table that for the committee?
Darren Gasper:
— Yeah, and we’d be able to give a projection, right, for next year. Thank you,
Mr. Love, for that question. For our projected budget for next year, it’s a
total of 42.8 million, which is broken down into a GRF [General Revenue
Fund] allocation of 25.4 and a projected 16 million in tuition collection
back from the school divisions.
Matt Love: — Thank you so much,
Mr. Gasper. Minister, in the past — you know, albeit under a different minister
— they were able to provide a per-student average for SDLC for comparison’s
sake to the provincial average that you provided, I think, in my first . . .
No, not my first question. Earlier tonight. It’s a long time ago.
Darren Gasper:
— Thank you, Mr. Love, for that question. We’re just discussing the complexity
of being able to provide the answer for what you’re looking for. We would be
able to do some work around the funding that’s allocated to us and break it
down by learner group, but I’d caution that it’s not a direct apples-to-apples
comparison there. But we could break it down by learner group.
Matt Love: — Yeah, that’s fair.
I mean in particular by your younger years who are enrolled in . . .
You know, a full-time grade 3 student might be a fair comparison there. But I
understand the high school student taking one course online might be a little
different. But whatever you can provide by tomorrow’s meeting would be
appreciated.
I’m going to turn questions over to my
colleague, MLA Pratchler, for some more questions on SDLC.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. We
visit school divisions all over the province, and the greatest irritant to
school divisions is the Distance Learning Centre.
This year the budget was
24.59 million. Last year it was 18.436 million. That’s a 35 per cent
increase. What budget lines are responsible for this 35 per cent increase?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks. The increase, and the member mentioned it just in her numbers there,
but a $7 million increase over previous school year for the DLC. Enrolment
driven is the reason for that. I think Darren has a bit more detail in terms of
some of the numbers that make up the enrolment increase that the DLC is seeing,
and therefore as a result, the increase in the funding to the DLC.
Darren Gasper:
— Thank you, Minister. Just to follow up then in terms of the increase in this
year’s budget. Those funds, the vast majority of them will be going to
front-line supports for students with the majority of that being classroom
teachers, a little bit towards the CUPE [Canadian Union of Public Employees]
agreement that we have signed to support students, and one occupational
therapist position that’s here to support students as well.
Joan Pratchler: — Is that online
occupational therapy?
Darren Gasper:
— Excuse me. Yes, that occupational therapist works with our full-time
students. They perform that work . . . Their assessment work, for
example, may be done in person or online, depending on the situation for the
students. So they do travel out to meet with our families.
Joan Pratchler: — And what did you
say your percentage of enrolment increase was?
[21:45]
Darren Gasper: — Thank you for your
question. I’m going to start by answering with, first off, the growth that
we’ve experienced over the last two years, which gives you a percentage growth.
So from 2023‑24 to 2024‑25,
in full-time online students we saw a growth of 47 per cent increase. In our
part-time online students — those would be the ones who are in a
brick-and-mortar school, taking a course — we saw an increase of 50 per cent
over our first two years. And then for our adults over 22 years of age we saw a
48 per cent increase in numbers over those two years.
During this year we have data from
September 1st up until March 1st. So our growth throughout this school year,
we’ve had a growth of more than 570 K to 9 students, a growth of 523 high
school students taking 5,377 courses, and we had a growth of 34 adults over the
age of 22.
Joan Pratchler: — So if I understand
right, when you had mentioned earlier that you have 13,000 students registered,
you’ve got 1,000 more. That’s about 10 per cent change. So for $6 million,
if I’ve got the finances right, which is a 35 per cent increase, you’ve got one
OT position, one physical therapy position, a 10 per cent enrolment increase, a
new health course online. How much is that new health course costing?
Darren Gasper:
— Sorry. Per course costs roughly around $30,000 per course to develop — some a
little bit higher, some a little lower depending on the development needs of
it. But just to help answer the question, we’re also needing to include the
students that we continue to grow with throughout this school year as well. So
we do look at the growth throughout the year.
We will continue to have students come
in and join us throughout this school year, from now on right through until
. . . Typically into about the start of May it begins to slow down.
So we will have higher numbers by May 1st.
Joan Pratchler: — Yeah, I guess the
part I can’t see the finances working here is that a 35 per cent increase in
operational funding for this delivery and much less for the regular classrooms
all over the province. So I’m just trying to understand if we’re getting value for
our money in terms of $6 million in that. I was just itemized.
Darren Gasper:
— So just to clarify your question, member, when you say 35 per cent growth,
I’m trying to understand that calculation when our overall budget is 42, which
is a combination of the GRF and the tuition collection, and that includes a
7 million growth. That’s where I’m looking to understand that percentage.
Joan Pratchler: — Well I’m looking
at page 40 of the government’s ’26‑27 estimates. And I’m looking at the
line that says Saskatchewan Distance Learning Corporation. And I see that last
year’s budget was $18,436,000 and this year’s budget is $24,590,000. So when I
do the math on that, that’s a 35 per cent increase in operational funding when
other school divisions didn’t well get that much.
Darren Gasper:
— Thank you for your question. So that is in regards to the GRF part of our
budget only. When we say 35 per cent, that’s of increasing from the 18 that we
had in the current year up to 25 next year.
Joan Pratchler: — Yes, that’s what
I’m referring to, exactly.
Michelle
Miller: —
Michelle Miller, Sask DLC. So to kind of answer your question, the GRF portion
of our budget was the same from inception till now. This is the first year
we’re seeing any kind of a rebase on that $18 million. So over the first
two years of growth at Sask DLC, we saw about a 50 per cent increase in
enrolment plus the enrolment that you’re seeing year-to-date this year. So
5 million of that 7 was a rebase on our GRF from inception till now to
cover the three years of growth, not just this current year. And then we
received 2 million for a staffing increase.
Joan Pratchler: — And you still
receive $16 million from school divisions for tuition on top of that GRF
then?
Michelle Miller: — That is an estimate based on the number of
enrolments that we potentially will get. So if, for example, for some reason we
had zero enrolments, we would get none of that 16 million. So it’s based
on courses that come from school divisions, which they’re receiving that
funding for, and we’re billing out tuition at $500 per course.
Joan Pratchler: — Yes. Yes, I think
that’s clear. Thank you.
Michelle Miller:
— You’re welcome.
Chair Keisig: — I recognize Mr. Love.
Matt Love: — So one of the
questions that we often get from school divisions is about the funding that
they’re required to pay for a course that a student may enrol in with SDLC.
Tuition is paid, that student drops out of the course at a certain date when
that tuition is not returned, and then the school is required to take them
back. So they’ve essentially paid for a student to take a course, and then
they’re required to then provide that student with in-person learning.
So
to the minister, what would you say to school divisions who feel like they may
be on the hook for providing the same course to the same student in the same
school year, sometimes even at the same time, and paying twice for that course?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks. Maybe touch on a couple of topics here. One was the refund and how that
is handled by the DLC and with the school divisions.
So the policy that is in place is that
there’s no invoice for students who drop a course within 15 days of their
selected start dates. School divisions or adults over 22 are charged 50 per
cent of the course cost for courses that are dropped between 16 and 30 days of
their selected start date. And then after that there is no refund provided for
courses dropped after the 30 days.
And then just around, you know, just the
DLC as well and how it works within school divisions and our bricks and mortar
schools, I guess, for lack of a better term. Having the distance learning
corporation is about providing some additional options for parents and for
students, right? To be able to access courses for a number of reasons.
And it allows for that flexibility, and
we want to make sure that students do have the ability to, you know
. . . that they aren’t hampered by or they don’t have a barrier in
front of them. And perhaps for whatever reason that they need a more flexible
option to be able to then take their schooling.
And that could be anything from
sports-related things in their lives that limit their ability to be in a
school, you know, on a more traditional basis, or — as we’ve talked about
tonight — I think students that have some other challenges that might be, that
the DLC is an option for them for whatever reason. But that they do have that
option to be able to access education online.
[22:00]
So definite benefits due to the DLC and
why it was created. And again to be able to provide some additional avenues for
students to be able to get their education.
And I think based on the numbers that
Darren and Michelle talked about tonight, some of the enrolment increases we’re
seeing, and some of the new, exciting opportunities that are being developed.
Courses through, as we talked about last week, the health careers 20L offering;
energy and mines, for example, or energy production I think it’s called; and a
whole host of other courses that are available to students.
So anyways it’s about having choice for
students and the ability to be able to achieve their academic success through
another model.
Chair Keisig: — Having reached our agreed-upon time for
consideration of these estimates today, we will adjourn consideration of the
estimates and supplementary estimates no. 2 for the Ministry of Education.
Minister, do you have any closing
comments?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: — Yeah,
just briefly, Mr. Chair, thanks to the committee members for being here tonight
and for their questions, and of course to the ministry team that’s in my
office, in the minister’s office here in the Legislative Building. But
particularly to the ministry, deputy minister, assistant deputy ministers,
executive directors, and Mr. Gasper and Michelle from the DLC. But thanks to
everyone for your support and information here tonight, endeavouring to answer
as many of the questions as we can. And appreciate everyone’s time this
evening.
Chair Keisig: — MLA Love, do you have any closing
comments?
Matt Love: — Yeah, I’ll join
with the minister and thank all those who are here from the ministry and from
the minister’s office, as well as Hansard who has a late night, and
support we get from the Clerks and everyone in the building who are probably
waiting for us to leave for their end of their workday too. So I won’t delay
that. I know we’ve got one more hour tomorrow, but again just on behalf of the
official opposition, thanks to everyone for the work that you do and for all of
your time here this evening.
Chair Keisig: — Thank you for that. And I want to thank
the committee for supporting me in my run for committee Chair. So I appreciate
that. That concludes our business for today. I would ask a member to move a
motion of adjournment. MLA Bromm has moved. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair Keisig: — This committee now stands adjourned
until Tuesday, March 31st at 3:30 p.m. Thank you all very much.
[The committee adjourned at 22:02.]
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.