CONTENTS
Standing
Committee on Human Services
Labour Relations and Workplace Safety Vote 20
THIRTIETH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of
Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
Hansard
Verbatim Report
No.
15 — Monday, April 13, 2026
Chair Keisig: — Well welcome, everyone, to
the Standing Committee on Human Services. My name is Travis Keisig. I am the Chair of the
Human Services Committee.
We
are joined this afternoon by MLA [Member of the Legislative Assembly] Chan, MLA
Bromm, MLA Kropf, and MLA Blakley with MLA Grewal chitting in for him, and MLA
ChiefCalf with MLA Mowat chitting in for her.
Our
first order of business today is the consideration of the ’26‑27
estimates and the 2025‑26 supplementary estimates no. 2 for the Ministry
of Advanced Education.
General Revenue Fund
Advanced Education
Vote 37
Subvote
(AE01)
Chair
Keisig: — We
will begin with consideration of vote 37, Advanced Education, central
management and services, subvote (AE01). Minister Cheveldayoff is here with his
officials.
I
would ask that officials state their names before speaking for the first time.
And please do not touch the microphones. Hansard operator will turn your
microphone on when you are speaking to the committee.
Minister,
please introduce your officials and make your opening remarks.
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: — Well thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It
is indeed a pleasure to be here before the committee today. Good afternoon to
colleagues, all legislative colleagues. I’m
pleased to be here to speak about the Ministry of Advanced Education 2026‑27
budget.
I am joined by several
individuals from our professional public service. I’ll introduce them by name
to begin with. I’m joined by Deputy Minister Louise Michaud, and my chief of
staff, Ken Cotterill, is also here.
From the ministry we have
Mark Wyatt and Lindell Veitch, both assistant deputy ministers; Jon Altwasser,
executive director of corporate finance; Dana Schmalz, executive director of
strategic capital planning; Kirk Wosminity, executive director of student and
support services; Jill Tzupa, executive director of strategy, planning and
sector engagement; Mike Pestill is the executive director of sector management
and relations; Anna Robinson, executive director of international education and
jurisdictional initiatives; Duane Rieger, executive director of business
systems and information management. I want to thank each of them for being here
to assist all of us with providing information this afternoon and early into
the evening.
Post-secondary education
plays a crucial role in shaping and protecting Saskatchewan’s future. A strong
post-secondary education system is essential for preparing individuals for
meaningful careers. Our universities, colleges, and technical institutions equip
learners with the advanced skills and knowledge they need to succeed in a
changing workforce.
The Ministry of Advanced
Education’s budget protects affordability, health care, communities, and
residents. It protects affordability through more funding for students and
institutions. It protects health care through continued support for expanded
training seats, adding new seats, and launching new programs in Saskatchewan.
And the sector and the economy are protected through stable funding increases
that will help institutions produce skilled graduates who will meet our labour
market needs.
In ’26‑27 the Ministry
of Advanced Education will invest $847.1 million to support post-secondary
education through funding to institutions and students. This represents a 7.5
per cent increase over last year, which is truly significant. Our largest and
most impactful budget commitment is a new multi-year funding agreement with our
post-secondary education institutions. The new agreement took effect on April
the 1st, offering stable, annual funding increases that allow Saskatchewan’s
institutions to plan more strategically. It provides approximately $250 million
in additional funding to institutions over the next four years.
In ’26‑27 operating
funding will increase by $33.6 million. Institutions will continue to receive 3
per cent increases to operating funding each year of the agreement — a strong
commitment to their long-term financial stability. The new agreement also
limits annual tuition increases to a lower range of zero to 3 per cent,
reducing financial pressure for students.
In ’26‑27 approximately
$776.4 million is dedicated to operating and capital grants for post-secondary
institutions, which represents 92 per cent of our total budget. 513.4 million
will go to the University of Saskatchewan, University of Regina, federated and
affiliated colleges. It also provides $222.4 million to Saskatchewan
Polytechnic, the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies, and the Gabriel
Dumont Institute. And regional colleges will receive some $40.6 million.
Capital funding is seeing a
significant increase of 40 per cent for a total investment of $56.8 million. Of
that, 24.6 million will go towards preventative maintenance and renewal
funding. Saskatchewan Polytechnic will receive $10 million for the Joseph A.
Remai Saskatoon campus, as well as 2.2 million to expand several trades
programs in Regina. North West College and Carlton Trail College will continue
receiving funding to support ongoing capital planning in North Battleford and
renovations to the Humboldt campus. The University of Regina will receive $3
million to support the relocation of its facilities of nursing and social work
into Saskatoon. And several institutions will receive capital funding to
support new and expanded health care training seats.
On that note, let’s talk
about our health care training investments. High-quality training is essential
to advancing the goals of the health human resources action plan and the new
patients-first health care plan. The post-secondary sector supports a strong,
adaptable health care workforce that serves Saskatchewan people. That’s why we
are continuing to expand and create new health care training opportunities
right across the province. Approximately 78.5 million will support the addition
of nearly 190 seats this year as well as ongoing expansions. That means the
Government of Saskatchewan will soon have added over 1,000 new health care
training seats since 2022.
It also brings our total
operating and capital investment for health training programs to nearly $245
million over that same period of time. 36.5 million in operating funding will
support previously announced seat expansions in programs such as nursing, primary
care paramedics, and medical radiologic technology. We also continue to invest
in new health care training programs, ensuring students have more opportunities
to study and build their careers right here in Saskatchewan.
In ’26‑27 we are
providing approximately $9.9 million in operating funding to support 105 new
seats in three new domestic training programs. Beginning this fall,
Saskatchewan students will be able to study occupational therapy, speech
language pathology programs at the University of Saskatchewan, and respiratory
therapy at Saskatchewan Polytechnic. These programs have been intentionally
designed to respond to the needs of our evolving and growing health system.
To be able to offer three
brand new programs in the same year takes a substantial amount of coordination
and commitment. We are grateful to our institutions for their partnership, and
we are very proud that students can now pursue these high-demand professions
without leaving the province.
In addition, $15 million in
capital funding will support essential health training program expansions in
Saskatoon and Regina and continue the development of dedicated space for our
new domestic programs. These programs will train individuals for high-demand
positions within hospitals, schools, businesses, correctional facilities,
long-term care and mental health centres, and more.
We are also training more
continued care assistants in the province through a pilot project based in La
Ronge. Northlands College and the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies
will lead the training, giving students the chance to earn while they learn in
a culturally inclusive setting.
Over $6.5 million in
operating funding will help train more nurse practitioners and doctors in the
province as well as adding 26 nurse practitioner seats in this year’s budget.
Thirteen will be offered through the University of Regina and Saskatchewan Polytechnic’s
collaborative nurse practitioner program, and 13 will be offered through the
University of Saskatchewan.
We are also adding 20 new
training seats for physicians at the University of Saskatchewan’s College of
Medicine, bringing that total number of seats to 128.
[15:45]
As the Ministry of Health
recently announced, the University of Saskatchewan will priorize 95 per cent of
those seats to Saskatchewan students. This approach will help strengthen the
pipeline of Saskatchewan students who will go on to care for patients in their
own communities.
Another exciting part of our
College of Medicine’s funding is the physician assistant program, which had a
highly successful launch last fall. We are building on that momentum by
expanding funding to support a new cohort of students this coming fall.
Overall the Ministry of
Advanced Education is providing $61.5 million to the College of Medicine. When
you take the combined funding from Advanced Education and Health, the College
of Medicine will receive approximately $225 million in ’26‑27.
Saskatchewan has made
historical investments to expand health care training capacity across the
province. At the same time, some high-demand health care careers require
specialized training that is only offered in a select few Canadian
institutions. That’s why our government has interprovincial agreements to
ensure our students have access to the expertise they need so they can bring
those critical skills back to Saskatchewan communities.
In ’26‑27 we are
investing $7 million to reserve seats for Saskatchewan students in 13 IPA
[interprovincial agreement] programs, three of which are winding down as we
begin accepting students into the new domestic programs this fall. Of note,
Saskatchewan students now have access to five new training seats in the
radiation therapy program at the University of Alberta. This will help increase
the number of radiation therapists in Saskatchewan, improving patient access to
critical cancer treatment.
Seats are also reserved in
programs like the MRI [magnetic resonance imaging] technologist, cardiovascular
perfusion, and others that prepare students for specialized occupations that
are indeed hard to fill. Students in these programs complete clinical placements
in Saskatchewan, connecting them to our health care system. They also have
access to bursaries, return-of-service financial incentives, and more,
encouraging them to find opportunities and build their careers right here at
home.
Funding for institutions is
not the only thing that is increasing this year. The ’26‑27 budget
priorizes an ongoing investment in students to help empower them to succeed at
Saskatchewan post-secondary institutions. Investing in students ensures
Saskatchewan has the talent needed to strengthen existing sectors and expand
emerging industries.
Overall the ’26‑27
budget invests 119.3 million in repayable and non-repayable financial
assistance for students. This includes tax credits and all student financial
support.
Post-secondary students will
receive more than $51.3 million in direct financial support. 12.2 million of
that is for scholarships and bursaries, including the Saskatchewan Innovation
and Opportunity Scholarship and the Saskatchewan Advantage Scholarship, amongst
others.
Student support account for 6
per cent of our total budget. Together with institution funding, that means 98
per cent of our total budget goes right where it matters the most — to
Saskatchewan post-secondary institutions and students.
Saskatchewan continues to
offer the graduate retention program, the envy of the country, which provides
up to $24,000 in tax credits to graduates who stay and work in the province
after finishing their program. It helps encourage our graduates to stay in
Saskatchewan, to live, work, and raise their families. Almost 90,000 people
have claimed these credits to date.
Indigenous students and
programs will receive $24.1 million to support Indigenous student learning, a
21 per cent increase over last year. To further break down that number, over
$122,000 will go towards Dene and Cree teacher education programs in northern
Saskatchewan. 813,000 is directed to continued funding for expanded health care
training seats at our Indigenous post-secondary institutions. 150,000 is
dedicated to an Indigenous Pathways program as part of the Mitacs research
internships for students. And we continue to provide annual funding of $50,000
for Indigenous language scholarships at the First Nations University of Canada.
Notably the Saskatchewan
Indian Institute of Technologies will receive a $2.5 million funding increase
to recognize and support its unique and important contributions to our training
sector.
Saskatchewan supports French-language
education through a partnership with Heritage Canada. We have a
federal-provincial agreement that provides annual regular funding, and
additional funding is available for project-based initiatives, student
bursaries, and urgent needs. In ’26‑27, French-language education will
receive $4 million, which will support French-language education programs at La
Cité and le Bac [Baccalauréat] at the University of Regina, as well as Collège
Mathieu.
Saskatchewan continues to
adjust to recent federal changes to the international student program. Federal
policy changes have had significant implications for our province and for
post-secondary institutions right across the country to be sure. Fewer international
students are coming to Canada which is impacting tuition revenue and the labour
market here and across Canada.
Our institutions have
affirmed that in this climate of financial uncertainty, securing a multi-year
funding agreement is and has been extremely beneficial. We are focused on
attracting and retaining high-quality international talent that aligns with our
labour market needs and supports long-term economic growth for the province.
We continue to work with our
post-secondary institutions to promote Saskatchewan as a top study destination
for international students. And we continue to engage with the federal
government to foster greater collaboration on international education.
I’d like to highlight briefly
just a few more areas. We will provide $14.8 million to the Western College of
Veterinary Medicine this year, and an additional 500,000 in capital funding for
the planning and design of a potential facility expansion. Mitacs will receive
$1.15 million to support students and post-doctoral fellows in research and
development internships that support Saskatchewan industry and institutions.
We’re also investing $225,000 in GIEMS, the Global Institute of Energy,
Minerals and Society, which will help GIEMS build long-term sustainability and
continue to secure research funding to advance its work.
Before I close, let’s return
to the impact that the federal international student policies are having on
institutions right across the country. A number of post-secondary institutions
across Canada have had to make the very difficult decisions to reduce programs
and lay off staff outside their normal planning cycles.
But institutions also
routinely review their staffing complement as part of their annual planning
cycles which happens each spring. I understand Saskatchewan Polytechnic is currently
in that process. I want to emphasize that this is a routine process that does
happen annually at this time of year. Post-secondary institutions in
Saskatchewan have full autonomy over operational and human resource decisions,
and government will not undermine that autonomy.
This budget provides strong
support for our post-secondary sector. Our sector is not immune to the
uncertainty and pressure that others are seeing, but it is certainly in a
stronger position than most. While some post-secondary institutions across
Canada are losing funding, Saskatchewan is delivering a four-year commitment of
annual increases of funding.
We are increasing our Student
Aid Fund while at the same time limiting tuition increases. This financial
commitment is an undeniable vote of confidence in the value of post-secondary
institutions in Saskatchewan. It underscores the post-secondary sector’s role
in meeting the goals of Saskatchewan’s Growth Plan, the labour market strategy,
the health human resource action plan, and the patients-first health care plan.
And most importantly it helps protect Saskatchewan’s future.
In closing I want to take
this opportunity to share my gratitude to leadership across our post-secondary
institutions. I greatly value the relationships I’ve built over the last few
years, and I am proud how well everyone truly works together. I look forward to
continuing to work side by side with our institutions to support a strong,
sustainable sector that continues to adapt, innovate, and meet the needs of
Saskatchewan students and communities.
With that, Mr. Chair, I thank
you and the committee members for your time, and I welcome the chance to answer
any questions that committee members may have. Thank you.
Chair Keisig: — Well thank you very much, Minister. First of all
I want to start with welcoming our Deputy Chair, Mr. Burki, to the committee
meeting. And I also want to remind all committee members that we are here to
debate the ’26‑27 supplementary estimates. I open the floor for
questions. I recognize MLA Grewal.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to the minister for his opening remarks, and
also thanks to the ministry officials and everyone involved in this estimates
process.
So
we have important issues to discuss here on behalf of the people of
Saskatchewan, and I hope that we can work in that spirit to explore and discuss
them. So first of all I would like to pick up where I left last year. So I
asked this question, but there was no definite response. The Regional
Colleges Act requires that there be regular review of the regional college
system, yet no review has occurred since 2010‑2011. Is the ministry
planning a review this year?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Thank you very much for the question. With major priorities like the multi-year
funding agreement over the last year and now having that finalized and
completed and implemented, we are in a better position to move forward on the
next regional college review.
Over the past year we’ve
taken some initial steps, but personally I wanted to have an ability to move
around the province to meet with various regional college institutions. I
haven’t met with all of them, but I have had an opportunity to visit several of
them. And over the past year the ministry has been preparing the groundwork for
the next review, to ensure that it’s focused on finding actionable solutions to
real challenges.
I continue to be very
impressed with our regional college system. They are very responsive to needs
in the local communities. I have MLAs from both sides of the House come to me,
talk about the outstanding work that is being done and the response to communities.
And whether you talk to mayors or councillors . . . And I’m sure
we’ll have an opportunity to do that at SUMA [Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities
Association] over the next few days here. I did have somebody reach out to me
this morning from a community and wanting to talk more about regional colleges
in a positive way in what they’re done.
But we do commit as a
government to, from time to time to do a review and to see if, you know, we’re
operating in the most efficient manner possible. And you know, happy to say
that we are preparing to undertake the next regional college review in ’26‑27,
which will focus on ensuring that the regional college system remains
responsive to local and provincial training needs.
So again very impressed with
the work that they’re done, wanting to ensure that they have the support of the
ministry and all involved, but at the same time look if we can do even better.
[16:00]
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister, for a very good answer. I’m looking forward to the review.
So during the last many
months I have had many consultations with the post-secondary schools with the
management, faculty, staff, and the students. And one of the major concerns we
are hearing is that post-secondary schools in Saskatchewan are forced to
suspend programs in 2026 and 2027, largely due to the loss of revenue from
significant reduction in international students. That’s what you said in your
opening remarks. I would like to ask a few questions about this.
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Well thanks very much for the question. And certainly the member is right. The
situation with international students as necessitated by the federal
government’s policies is very serious. It impacts financially. It impacts on
faculty. And we’re very, very concerned.
And I had an opportunity to
speak to many colleagues across the country over the Easter break as well, and
heard first-hand the impact that’s happening in provinces, you know, which are
in a much more serious situation than we are in. You know, Manitoba, for
example, having to close institutions, and Ontario and BC [British Columbia]
and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. But that’s not to lessen the impact here in
Saskatchewan.
The member’s asked for some
specific dollar values. I have those here. The University of Saskatchewan
experienced a $10.22 million decrease in ’25‑26. The U of R [University
of Regina] is still working on those final numbers, but the president has said
it is about $20 million over two years. So again using an average close to the
same as the U of S [University of Saskatchewan], about $10 million a year. Sask
Poly is $24.58 million in ’25‑26, so a significant decline.
Specifically, you know, a hit
to the bottom line, but of course also not having those students there impacts
on the jobs of faculty as well. So we continue to lobby our colleagues in the
federal government to, you know, ensure that . . . The pendulum was
swung too far open under the previous federal government and now, in my view,
has swung too far the other way, and we have to move it to a more balanced
position.
I know many ministers and
many provinces are lobbying for the same thing or at least to have an
individual province-by-province approach. And I think that Saskatchewan would
be in a very good stead if they were to look at each province individually as
well. But the lobbying continues. The frustration continues. But we still are
working hard, and that’s why the multi-year funding was so important this year
to go forward.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. Do you have numbers for the loss of revenue for regional
colleges?
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — No. I would have provided it
if we did. But we don’t have that yet for the regional colleges.
Tajinder Grewal: — So my next question is, how
many programs across the province must be suspended? And can you break it down
by the institution?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
So we don’t have an exact number on the number of programs cancelled or
suspended. Right now all of the institutions are going through their business
plans. This is the time of year that they do it. And you know, certainly the
impact is greater on Sask Poly than it is on the universities because the
programs are shorter and they’re more influenced by immediate needs and changes
and all of that.
And you know, we’re talking
about international students. It’s hard to attribute exactly how many of the
programs are specifically regarding international students. Because again this
is the time of year that institutions undertake their annual analysis, their
analysis of enrolment and, you know, the amount of instructors needed and the
amount of programs that need to be adjusted. This is their annual business
planning cycle, and I don’t have any more specific information than that right
now.
Tajinder
Grewal: — I have
read somewhere that the number of programs to be closed are more than 30. Do
you believe in that?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
That’s a number that, you know, I haven’t heard specifically on it. But that’s
a number that, you know, institutions determine at this time of year each and
every year. So it’s hard to speculate. It’s hard to comment on specific
numbers.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. So my next question just follows up on that. How many
domestic students have been enrolled in these programs? And how many is the
ministry expecting to enrol in similar programs outside this province?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Sorry. If you could just . . . So domestic students?
Tajinder
Grewal: —
I’m just saying that all these programs that are closing, which of the programs
are closing in different institutions. How many domestic students are enrolled
in these programs? Programs which will be suspended next year or the year
after.
[16:15]
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Thank you very much for the question. And you know, just as a general
observation that certainly international students, they contribute financially,
but they contribute to having the bodies to have the wherewithal to put those
classes in place. So when those students disappear, it does impact on of course
the international students that aren’t there but the domestic students as well.
But we don’t track those numbers specifically. We don’t really have that level
of information.
You know, what I can say
though, it was very positive that in the fall of 2025 there was a 3 per cent
increase in the number of domestic — non-international — students studying in
Saskatchewan, bringing our total to 40,290, the highest rate that it’s ever
been. This follows a strong academic year for enrolment in ’24‑25 and
suggests that after years of minimal growth, domestic enrolments are on the
rise.
Again I thank the member for
the question. I wish I had more specific detailed information. You know, maybe
we’ll start trying to ask the institutions to provide some of that so we have a
better understanding. But overall, in light of the international challenges and
headwinds that we have, I’m very pleased to see a domestic increase of 3 per
cent in our students studying in Saskatchewan.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Well I do agree with you, Minister, on that. Enrolment of domestic students
increased significantly. I just heard 3 per cent. So my question was again that
same. When those programs closed, the majority were international students, but
there were also domestic students. So basically then those domestic students,
when the program is closed, so they have to go somewhere else to study in their
particular program?
Hon. Ken
Cheveldayoff: —
Yeah, if the program is no longer offered then they’ll have to, you know,
choose another program or maybe go somewhere else. But the overall enrolment
numbers are showing a 3 per cent increase, so that’s very positive. If I had
more specific numbers on the exact content, the exact impact of those, I’d
provide them. But I do not have that.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Yeah. Given that we have seen an outflow of people out of Saskatchewan in the
last two quarters, this raises a concern that we will lose more young people
who won’t have the chance to study in the province due to the suspension of the
programs. And does the ministry have any analysis of how many students are
leaving the province compared to the ones that study in the province?
Chair
Keisig: —
I don’t understand how that question relates to the budget. The minister just
told us that enrolment was 3 per cent higher. I’m just confused on how that’s
related to the budget.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
The question: if the program is suspended, then the students who will go into
that program, then they will go somewhere else. They’re leaving the province to
go somewhere else to study that program. So that’s relevant to the Ministry of
Advanced Education that when we don’t offer the programs, our young students
are leaving the province to seize that program somewhere else.
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
You know what, let me try, Mr. Chair. Let me try. You know, I think I follow
the logic in what the hon. member is getting to. But yeah, I guess that same,
you know, equation could be followed for every province. And many provinces are
in a much more difficult situation than we are as well. When you have hundreds
of program closures, you know, people are going to have to look at different
studies or to move somewhere else. But I guess in our situation, very pleased
to see the overall domestic 3 per cent increase. Wanting to ensure we have more
international students.
You know, I think the member
knows too, like the federal government puts a cap on it like that, it sends a
message around the world that Canada is not the place to study. So that’s why
I’m working so hard to have bilateral agreements with countries. And we’re
trying to put the message out there that Saskatchewan is still the place to
come. So we’re, you know, running uphill but we’re working very hard on it.
But you know, to say that
population numbers . . . I was elected at a time when we had under a
million people in Saskatchewan. And now we’re very, very pleased with our
number, and we’re very, very enthusiastically working towards 1.3 million, you
know. Every quarter, with the exception of the last two, have seen increases,
you know, over the last almost 20 years. And yeah, the last two quarters have
seen a dip. I’m confident that they will continue to turn around, and I’m
confident that we’ll see 1.3 million people. But you know, will Advanced Education
be responsible for all of that? No.
And you know, as the Chair
said, I think we’re wandering away from some things here, but I hope I’ve
attempted to answer your question in a way that’s relevant to advanced
education.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
I agree, Minister, that we have increased in the current year 3 per cent more
domestic students. I’m talking about the future years — next year or year after
— when we are going to close that program. So we do have increase. We know
that. It’s a fact. So I’m talking about the next year and the year after when
we are going to close the program. The program’s already in place right now.
The current year they’re in place, but they will be closed in the future.
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Well you know, I would say to the member, it goes way back to the way we view
advanced education as a government. Advanced education is a leader. Advanced
education contributes to population growth and to economic growth. And that’s
why we make sure that, first of all, we come up with growth plans. And we share
that information with all of the institutions so everybody is operating on the
same song sheet, that we’re able to move forward in that direction.
And I’m very excited about
the future when I think about the 60 major projects that are coming forward,
and you know, representing over $62 billion in economic activity. All of those
programs are very, very closely related to advanced education. And I’ve had
meetings with a lot of those companies, you know. Most recently in Saskatoon,
Paladin had their grand opening. And you know, they’re talking about the need
for relationships with places like North West College, for example. You know,
we’re all aware of BHP and their partnership with Carlton Trail and the
wonderful work that they are doing and the example that they are setting.
That’s how we reverse those
numbers. That’s how we get back to the same trajectory that we were on, you
know, with the exception of the last two quarters. And that’s how you grow a
province. And that’s something that, you know, has happened very well here. And
I’ll continue to do my part to ensure that the institutions are following the
growth plan and helping us grow those population numbers. And I know we will
see the day when 1.3 million is achieved here in the province.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. Has the government considered the potential workforce
impacts? So not only in the total side of the workforce I’m talking about, but
also on the critical skills. Some of the programs are important — health and
technology skills — that our province needs. So my question is, like is there
impact on the potential workforce impact when we close these programs?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
To answer the member’s question, yes, of course we take into account the skills
and the technology and the workforce needs and the labour-skills needs. To give
an example I think, and a very topical example right now, is health care in
Saskatchewan. You know, we’re expanding programs in Sask post-secondary right
across the province, every institution — the HHR [health human resources], 1,000
new seats in the province. So again it is a very ambitious target. We’re seeing
those numbers come forward. You know, we’re bringing programs home for speech
pathology and occupational therapy and some of what I alluded to in my initial
remarks. And so we’re very, very in tune with what’s needed and what’s
happening and what direction we have to go.
And I just want to share a
statistic with the committee. In a recent Stats Canada release it showed that
over the past 10 years Saskatchewan has attracted more university graduates
from other provinces than we’ve lost, and we’ve had a net gain of around 320
graduates in that period. So that’s the benefits of a growing economy. That’s
the benefits of having a BHP here, a Cameco, a Paladin, and others.
So you know, we’re able to
continue to do that and to work well, but of course to specifically answer the
member’s question, skills, technology, workforce needs, labour force needs are
right at the top of our priority list for sure.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Minister, I can also give you one example that, on the health care side, that
there’s one program, health care information, HIM [health information
management], health care information management program at Sask Poly is going
to close next year. And it provides workers to more than 10 organizations in
Saskatchewan.
So once this program is
closed, all these organizations have to go somewhere else to find the workers.
It will directly impact our workforce, the skilled workforce, as we need more
people on for data accuracy, for data management, as like everything now going
to data. So we need more of these workers, not less, in the future. And this
program is going to have big impact on the Saskatchewan organizations, the
employers. And what’s your take on this?
[16:30]
Hon. Ken
Cheveldayoff: —
Thanks very much for the question. And yeah, indeed it is a concern. And it’s a
relatively new announcement that happened as far as this health information
program goes. And you know, we want to continue to work with the SHA
[Saskatchewan Health Authority] and the Ministry of Health to ensure that we
are able to deliver all of the programs when the demand is there.
There have been some
enrolment issues in some of these programs. You know, the online option is
proving to be somewhat popular as well, so that’s impacting the numbers. The
Ministry of Advanced Education is working closely with both post-secondary and
health sector partners to understand the provincial needs for the profession
and to assess the viable options for training availability into the future.
Current health information
management students can complete their program without interruption. And the
program has 46 first-year students — 14 full-time, 32 part-time — and 15
second-year students that are currently enrolled and expected to meet the short-term
workforce needs. But even those numbers, looking at 46 first-year students and
15 second-year students, they’re showing some attrition there as well. Students
are choosing to not complete the program or to do other things or maybe get
into the workforce a little bit earlier. We’re not sure.
So again it’s a priority.
It’s a priority for me. It’s a priority for the ministry, and we’re working
together with the SHA and the Ministry of Health to just ascertain what the
enrolment needs are and what the program needs are as well. And as the member
knows, the institutions themselves are at arm’s length and make the decisions
possible, you know, with the information that is in front of them. And I don’t
hesitate to talk to them, to challenge them, to provide some direction in that
regard. And that’s what we’re doing in this instance.
Tajinder Grewal: — Thank you. How does this
current trend affect the sustainability of our regional colleges in their
current form?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Thanks very much for the question regarding sustainability. And you know, it’s
one of the real advantages that we have with our regional colleges. They are
sustainable. And they are very nimble, and they are able to adapt to the labour
market needs of their region and of the province very, very quickly. So you
know, I don’t see any concerns regarding long-term sustainability, for sure.
They are less impacted by international students than some of the larger
institutions, for sure.
But you know, again going
back to the budget and specifically what we’re talking about, regional colleges
have seen a $2.2 million increase or a 6 per cent increase in operating funds;
3.5 of that increase delivered through a new four-year funding agreement as
we’ve talked about, and you know, increases to create health care training
programs as well.
So you know, I don’t want to
say that there’s no impact, but it’s certainly a less impact. And as far as
long-term sustainability, we see our regional colleges as very sustainable and
able to adapt very quickly. And again my earlier comments about talking to MLAs
and to mayors and to city and town councillors, they’re very impressed with the
ability to change things quickly. If some new business comes in and needs some
specific skills, they’re able to move on that right away. So I think that will
hold them in good stead for the future and ensure that sustainability going
forward.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Good to hear that. The minister is saying that these colleges are sustainable,
but I’m hearing something different. So my next question is, do we see further
reduction of the programs being offered, or even closures, without more
funding?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
So you’re not talking regional colleges. You’re talking around . . .
Tajinder
Grewal: —
I meant regional colleges, yes.
[16:45]
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Thank you very much. And yeah, we’re not aware of any planned suspensions or
closures or anything like that. If the member has some additional information
that I’m not aware of, I’d be happy to have those discussions.
But going back to the actual
numbers and what we’re seeing and what we’re hearing. Like for example, the
numbers for 20-21 for regional colleges was 16,097 students, and their most
recent numbers, 17,133. So we’re seeing a modest increase over time, but in
light of substantial headwinds, an increase nevertheless.
But again, as I said earlier,
you know, the institutions are beginning their planning cycle right now for the
next year, so I hope that the information they’re giving me continues to be
very positive. Because what I see is stability right now, enrolment enhancement,
meeting the labour market needs.
And again we work very
closely with Immigration and Career Training, with the ministry, with the
minister. He’s my seatmate in the legislature, so we’re very, very close on
things. That’s more a joke than anything. But again, you know, the two
ministries are very much in line because again we have to educate to the needs
that are out there and to fulfill those needs in the labour market for sure.
I have some specific numbers
on regional colleges, and you know, we see funding again increasing
substantially: Carlton Trail, up 7.2 per cent to $317,000; Great Plains,
increase of 11.3 per cent, $598,000; Northlands, 7.7 per cent, $738,000; North
West College, 11.1 per cent increase, $577,000; and Southeast, 462,000, 11.7
per cent increase; and Suncrest, 813,000, 11.7 per cent increase.
I see the Chair writing
numbers down, probably wishing his salary went up by that much, but no such
luck. You’re in politics like the rest of us. That’s not going to happen.
But in all seriousness, you
know, a substantial increase. Getting back to the original premise of the
question, we see a stability in the regional sector. And a lot of that credit
doesn’t come to this chair or this desk. It comes to those institutions and how
they adapt and respond and are nimble to the economy.
Tajinder Grewal: — Thank you, Minister. So one
thing we do know, that our post-secondary institutions are way more dependent
on international students as compared to in the past. So my next question, my
last question on this topic is that, can the ministry make known the percentage
of their budget coming from foreign students this year, last year, 5 years ago,
10 years ago?
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — Thanks very much again for
the question. I do have a number of statistics to share. I don’t have, you
know, going back 5 years, 10 years, what it was like. But Sask Polytechnic:
4,171 students comprising 21 per cent of their student population; U of R: 3,907
students comprising 23.5 per cent of their student population; USask: 2,236
students comprising 9.4 per cent of their student population. So modest
percentages certainly led by the USask being only 9.4 per cent.
But
when we compare that across the country, Saskatchewan’s population as a
percentage of the whole of the country is 3.1 per cent. Our per cent of the
international student population is 1.8 per cent. So we were actually quite
modest when it comes to international students.
And
when you talk to the institutions, you know, they didn’t load up on
international students by any way. They wanted to participate. They wanted
students from across the country, across the world to come here. They find
great advantage of them coming and studying here, a great advantage to our
economy, great advantage to the other students as well. So our numbers are very
modest, and we have to credit the institutions because of course we know that
they pay a higher tuition rate and that can be somewhat enticing.
And
that’s what has run into problems in Ontario and British Columbia. And again,
Ontario has 38.9 per cent of Canada’s population, but they have 56.4 per cent
of international students. BC is 13.6 per cent and 13.8, you know, but it
doesn’t include large private college of international enrolments in the BC
numbers as well.
So
again we’re in good stead. I would say that it’s been done in a responsible
manner, and you know, we would like to get back up to those numbers, where they
were before this federal government decision.
Tajinder Grewal: — Thank you, Minister. So in
reaction to the budget, Geraldine Balzer, Chair of the University of
Saskatchewan Faculty Association, she stated that “This budget emphasizes
health care training, a necessary response to Saskatchewan’s needs, but
seemingly ignores other areas such as engineering, agriculture, and education.”
These
are extremely important for our province’s future. So the question is, how many
new spaces in these fields is the budget supporting, and to what extent will
the number of young people trained help cover our needs for our skilled
graduates in these fields?
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — Again, thanks very much for
the question. And you know, the member threw out some specific colleges:
Education, Agriculture, Engineering. You know, we don’t fund specifically to
each of those, but we again go back to the multi-year funding. We have a 7.5
per cent lift, so that lift raises all boats for sure. And so we’re in a good
situation when it comes to those specifically.
When
we talk about Education, for example, in 2024‑25 there were 5,390
students enrolled in Education. Between 2015 and ’24 nearly 12,000 Education
students have graduated from our institutions. So Education is doing very, very
well.
Health
care has been a priority, absolutely, and through the HHR program is funded a
little differently, but the numbers are astounding. Like you know, in 2024‑25
there were 11,600 post-secondary students enrolled in health programs. And over
the period from 2015 to 2024, over 27,000 students have graduated from health
programs in our institutions.
[17:00]
And
you know, Engineering, Agriculture, and others are doing very, very well, and
again I have to give credit to the institutions. Let’s use the University of
Saskatchewan for an example. And I know the member, the critic has been at many
of the announcements that I have been at when we see engineering, the private
sector coming forward and making donations and helping out and expanding the
areas in the engineering field, for example. We certainly have seen that in
great amounts, and agriculture as well. You know, there are times when I’m on
campus two, three times a month to welcome direct investments from the private
sector into those areas as well.
But
that being said, the government is doing our part, and certainly a 7.5 per cent
increase helps all of those colleges. But that’s why, you know, we’re so
fortunate to have a U15 university like the University of Saskatchewan. And
they’re able to provide that research in so many areas and to excel in all of
those areas as well. And again, great credit to the institution. I’m using the
U of S in this example, but we can say the same thing about other institutions
as well.
Tajinder Grewal: — Thank you, Minister. So I
have a follow-up question on that. Has the ministry conducted an analysis or
looked at external data on potential labour shortage in the next decade? And
can you share with us if we are on track to meet the shortage in mining, agriculture,
and other fields?
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — Again thank you for the
question. You know, we don’t see any potential labour market shortages, for
example. But I know when I go to meet with the Saskatchewan Mining Association,
they always say, we want more, more, more, and one more thing, Minister — we
want more.
So
you know, they certainly want us to continue doing what we’re doing and to do
more because . . . Part of it is because they see their future as
being very bright in Saskatchewan and very aggressive. And so that’s, you know,
specifically on mining and agriculture we ensure that we do that. And I value
that interaction with the mining association and with agriculture groups as
well. It’s good for me to hear that first-hand. It’s good for officials to hear
that.
And you know, I gave some
pretty good credit to USask in the last answer; I want to give some credit to
Sask Poly in this one. They have program advisory committees. They go out, they
reach out to the private sector and hear first-hand about what their needs are,
what their vision is for the future, where their expansions are happening. So
again, Sask Poly tries to get ahead of it through their program action
committees, or PACs.
So I’m very, very pleased
with again how the institutions are very much in tune with what the government
is doing and where the government wants to go, but also very in tune with the
private sector and where they’re moving and where they’re going.
So you know, pleased with
that. Can we do more? We have to do more. We have to continue, because the
economy is so reliant on advanced education that it’s incumbent upon us to do
that.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. My next few questions are on regional colleges. So we are
seeing some desperately needed funds for our regional colleges. As the minister
is aware, that we are expecting collective bargaining to start on August 31st —
collective bargaining agreement, new agreement. And what does the ministry
approximate an agreement like the one cost in 2026?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Thanks very much for the question. And I guess I hope I understood the question
and the cost of, you know, the collective bargaining going forward. You know,
one thing you learn very quickly when you become Minister of Labour, you don’t
discuss the collective bargaining situation in the floor of the legislature or
in committee at all. But again, you know, we want to have those agreements done
in a timely manner. We want to work towards that.
We’ve introduced the
multi-year funding agreement with post-secondary institutions, but we’ve been
very clear that it provides predictable funding and supports financial
sustainability. We expect institutions to manage expenditures, including
collective bargaining costs, from the combination of government funding along
with tuition and other revenue sources. So we feel that, you know, institutions
are in a situation where they can cover those costs now with the multi-year
funding agreement. And you know, we encourage the collective bargaining process
to operate as it should, and we’ll do everything we can to assist in providing
information.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
So it seems like the answer is that they have to serve those extra funds from
already allocations you provided, or they can choose their reserves too if they
need to, right?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Yeah, we went away from providing additional funds to cover and had a very
lucrative multi-year funding agreement in place that puts the onus on them to
cover that. And you know, they realize that as well.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you. My follow-up question is, if these institutions are expected to pay
for the majority of the cost of their new agreement, how will their reserves
and budget be impacted?
[17:15]
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Well you know, the member is correct. We expect a high level of financial
management by the institutions to ensure that they with, you know, the generous
increases that they’ve received and the tuition funds that they have and other
funds coming forward, you know, we want to make sure that they’re able to fund
their human resource needs for sure.
As we know, 70 to 80 per cent
of some budgets are, you know, they’re human resource needs coming forward. You
know, collective bargaining is part of that. We expect them to have balanced
budgets. From time to time there are deficits, but over the long term we expect
them to have balanced budgets and to, you know, ensure that they have it going
forward.
Again these are very
professional institutions. They do their best to budget accordingly. They were
very, very pleased with the announcement that they have received in November.
And again of course I won’t speculate on the collective bargaining process, but
I’m encouraged that we’re going to make some headway in that regard.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. And for future years, how are the potential fees increase
factored in the multi-year funding agreement?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Well the multi-year funding agreement sees an increase of, you know, a
substantial amount every year going forward, a 3 per cent increase each year
for four years, so that has to be worked into it in all of that.
I can tell you to compare
that to any other province in the country. Our institutions are in a very, very
good position. It’s not going to solve every problem and fund everything, but
it’s going to put them in a position to make responsible decisions. And what
I’ve seen in the past, and what I’ve seen in the current, and I expect in the
future, will be those responsible decisions.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. You already said that our regional colleges across
Saskatchewan are a great asset, or a great strength to our province. Given the
current challenges, did the ministry analyze how sustainable . . .
again I ask this question again. I’ll ask the question in different form now.
How sustainable are regional colleges currently or with the new agreement,
potential well-deserved wage increases, current reserves, and inflation
pressures? There are so many things happening. A new agreement happening,
they’re using their reserves, and inflation’s happening. So still you feel that
they are very sustainable in the future?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Yes, I do. And I read to the member some of those increases — some 7 per cent,
some 11 per cent — and very, very generous increases as well. So yeah. No, I
believe that they are sustainable.
All of them will have
difficult decisions to make. I agree. They will make those difficult decisions,
and the sustainability of those vital colleges will continue.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
The government of BC just finished a review of the post-secondary education
sector. And meanwhile Manitoba government’s latest budget, they approved the
commission to study the sustainability of post-secondary sector. Do you think a
similar commission in Saskatchewan would be helpful?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Yes, you know, we’re aware that British Columbia and Manitoba are choosing to
do a review of their situation, you know.
We had some choices to make a
number of years ago and we felt that the multi-year funding approach was the
best approach. And as you know, the recent agreement we signed was the second
agreement. And the first one served us very, very well.
And you know, I don’t want to
pat ourselves on the back too much, but we do hear this from institutions that
amongst their colleagues, amongst their groups across Canada — there’s the
similar institutions — they are seen as the leaders. And unprompted I hear that
from our senior leadership; I hear that from middle leadership, that when they
go and meet with their peers — and I’ve seen it first-hand when I meet with my
peers, with the ministers of advanced education across the province — that
we’re leading the way when it comes to advanced education funding in the
country right now.
And you know, to be frank, I
see no need for a review of the overall sector right now. I think it’s steady
as she goes. It’s continuing to lead in that manner. And I’m sure we’ll have
some headwinds along the way and all of that. I don’t want to, you know, say
things are perfect at all, but I just don’t see a need for an overall review
right now.
I see some very serious
situations in British Columbia and Manitoba that maybe need to be addressed as
well, but I don’t want to speak for those provinces or those ministers.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. And we all know that with AI [artificial intelligence]
becoming increasingly important in workforce efficiency, is the ministry
planning any implementation of AI?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Sorry, AI? What do you mean? I haven’t heard about that.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Artificial intelligence.
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Yes. Every discussion we have is, you know, regarding the adoption of AI in
institutions and all that. And that’s why we were so pleased to have the Bell
announcement right here — the largest AI project in Canada right here in
Saskatchewan. And even more pleased about it is already agreements that are
being made with the University of Regina and Sask Poly.
And of course, we all know
about the announcement of the quantum computer at the University of
Saskatchewan as well that’s going to play right into that. You know, I had a
chance to talk to the CEO [chief executive officer] of Bell at the
announcement, and I said, you know, we have a quantum computer coming at the
University of Saskatchewan. It’s not public yet, but we have one coming. He
said, oh really? Wow, he said, I didn’t know that. And then of course we all
celebrated — I think members on both sides of the House celebrated — when that
announcement came. So yeah, right on top of AI.
When I meet with the
presidents of the institutions and hear about their activities, you know,
quarter by quarter, they’re making sure that they’re on the top of their game
regarding AI, attending conferences nationally to make sure that, you know, we
know the challenges and we know the benefits going forward.
So you know, we all read the
newspaper and we all see what’s happening across North America and how the
major companies are adopting it, the billions of dollars that they’re investing
into the technology. And so we’re all learning as we go, but once again the
universities, the regional colleges, and Sask Poly are amongst the leaders in
the country when it comes to this, and continue to do that and are continuing
to challenge themselves.
And you know, and as a
minister I’m trying to learn along that road as well, to know what does the
future look like and . . . But it’s very exciting. And to have that
Bell Canada investment in our province, in our backyard — just a couple of miles
from where we’re sitting right now, or a few kilometres away — is very, very
positive.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. My next question is about the operational, (AE03). The
allocation for operational support under student supports is down this year
despite a large investment in student support overall.
Can the minister explain why
this item is being reduced, and explain if the ministry has looked at if we
will still be able to efficiently process applications and ensure students get
the supports they need?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
All right. Well as far as student supports go — and a very important part of
what we do — the budget in ’25‑26 was $48.4 million, and that
increased to 53.1 million in the ’26‑27 budget. So as far as student
supports go, an increase of $4.7 million or an increase of 9.8 per cent.
So a very, very hefty increase as far as student supports. Government continues
to support the post-secondary students, focusing on the students with the
greatest need.
In ’26‑27 government
provided $119.3 million in direct support to students through tax credits,
grants, and scholarships. Government will be providing $12.2 million in
scholarships in ’26‑27, including 8.6 for the Saskatchewan Advantage
Scholarship, $50 million for the Indigenous language scholarship. Yeah, it
continues. But it’s an important part.
You know, I am seeing in
talking to students as well that private sector institutions — banks and others
— are being more aggressive in helping with student loans as well, and student
supports, because they want to entice those students to become clients earlier
and as they progress and certainly in the professional colleges as well. So we
are being assisted by the private institutions I feel as well. But we’re
certainly doing our part and increasing those supports.
And you know, any time you
talk about supports, you have to talk about the graduate retention program. And
you know, moving that program up by 20 per cent from $20,000 to $24,000 is
certainly helping in that regard as well.
[17:30]
And when we do hit that
90,000 postgraduate number as far as people that take advantage of the graduate
retention program, we’ll all be able to celebrate that number as well. So I
hope that answers the member’s question regarding student supports.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. The cost-of-living crisis in Saskatchewan is also
affecting students, many students I would say. If we compare increase in
tuition, the cost of living, etc., to the increases in the student aid since
2021, can the ministry break down if the average student aid recipient is
better off today than in 2021?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Well I think the member knows, and some new numbers came out just this morning,
I think, that continues to show that Saskatchewan has the lowest cost of rent
across the country. And you know, we continue to look at all aspects of
affordability for students. And we want to make sure that this is a
cost-advantage place for students to come and to get their education. So I’m
very pleased that we’re leading the pack as far as modest rents go.
I still know that it’s
trouble to make ends meet sometimes when you’re a student. You know, we look at
student supports. We look at affordability measures that we have for all
members of the province. We look at the graduate retention program from when they
graduate and continue on. So I can honestly say I feel students are better off
from year to year.
And that investment in their
own education, we’ve seen the numbers. It helps with their income throughout
the year and changes the way that, you know, they’re able to live for the rest
of their lives for themselves and their families. So you know, I talk to
students about this when I meet with them. They are concerned. That’s why, you
know, the multi-year funding agreement had a reduction in tuition from zero to
3 per cent. A 3 per cent cap, I think, is a recognition factor about that.
But to answer the basic
premise of your question, yes, I think students are better off today than they
were a year ago. And I think they’ll be even better off in the few years going
forward under the multi-year funding agreement.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. Has the ministry looked at the student population as a
whole? How have the rates for students, who cannot continue their studies due
to cost, changed?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Again, some very good questions by the member. And certainly, you know, this is
something that we looked at a number of years ago, trying to define or find out
why students discontinued their studies. But it is very difficult to quantify
and we weren’t able to get an answer.
When questioned, the answers
we got back were numerous different things. Some was cost. Some was
affordability. Some was, you know, change in program. Some left the learning
cycle to get a job. You know, one thing is when the economy is moving very well
there’s an enticement sometimes to get into that economy very quickly and maybe
not complete, or complete your education at a later time. So it’s just not
possible to know the exact numbers and the exact reasons why.
A couple other facts that I
did receive here, just shortly. Direct support to students in Saskatchewan over
the last five years: up 18.2 per cent. So you know, we adjust student aid by
CPI [consumer price index] every year. So we’re continuing to monitor the
economy, monitor the needs, and try to address those needs through our student
support programs.
Tajinder Grewal: — Thank
you, Minister. And how does the average student loan repayment of a graduate in
Saskatchewan differ from that of other provinces, particularly compared to
Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Manitoba, which do not have
interest on the provincial portion of the student loans?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
So the question regarding loan repayments, regarding student loans, I think
we’re in the sweet spot. We’re in a good position here in Saskatchewan. We loan
payments at prime interest rates, and you know, we have a 91 per cent repayment
rate, so 91 cents on every dollar repaid.
We’re about at the national
average, and you know, we’re continuing to want to do better. And this is
something that’s funded by the taxpayer, and we want to be responsible to the
taxpayer as well.
And I think it’s a good
lesson for students that — you know, at a modest interest rate — that you’re
taking out a loan, but you’re investing in yourself and the value. And I talked
about that a little bit earlier, but you know, it’s formally called an earnings
premium. And in 2023 compared to someone without high school completion,
Saskatchewan residents in 2023 earned an average extra $10,550 with a high
school diploma and an extra $19,700 with a post-secondary certificate or
diploma and an extra $33,000 — you know, this is on a yearly basis — with a
bachelor’s degree and an extra 46,000 with a graduate or professional degree.
So the numbers speak for
themselves. And I think that’s why we’re all so passionate about advanced
education, because it is truly life changing for those students and for their
families and for their individuals that rely on them. So we have to do that.
And you know, we continue to
operate with a modest prime rate of interest, and I know that students want to
operate in a responsible way. And it’s getting them ready for life in the
future. Because if they have a car payment or a mortgage payment, any type of
loan payment, they are going to be paying interest on it.
And then again, you know, we
feel the best way to deal with that is through the graduate retention program
where you can take that graduate retention money and the tax credit — and at
this time of year, as everybody’s doing their taxes, I’m hoping that it results
in a tax refund for a lot of individuals — and they’re able to take that lump
sum and put it against their student loan. And that’s the way it operates the
best, and that way we can reinvest that money in future students.
So I’m very comfortable with
where we’re at. Some provinces choose to do it differently, but I think we’re
in a good spot.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. And how has the average level of total student debt
changed over the last 5 and 10 years for the average graduate in Saskatchewan?
Chair Keisig: — I just want to advise the
member, we are talking about the ’26‑27 budget. And it’s a valid
question, but to ask the minister to go back 5 and 10 years on budgetary
things, I can’t see how it’s relevant to the current budget questions.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
This is comparing like the numbers. And if they are taking time they can
provide the numbers later, not now. They can give the numbers later on to us if
they don’t have the numbers right now handy. They could provide us later.
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Thank you for the question. And the Chair is right, most oftentimes we just
don’t have that, you know, 10-year history right at our fingertips. But in this
instance we do.
So you know, the average
Saskatchewan student debt load in thousands of dollars in 2025 is about
$10,000. That number — I’ve got it going back a number of years. You know,
let’s say 2020 it was $8,000; 2021, 8.7; 2022, 8.9; 2023, 9.2; 2024, 9.9. And
as I said earlier, 2025, $10,000. So again modest increases to that student
debt, and hopefully with the multi-year funding and the cap on tuitions that
will continue to be kept modest.
We know that there’s funding
pressures. We know there’s rent pressures right across the country. So that
will continue. But when I put that up against the earnings premium that you get
from being a post-secondary student in the province, I know how I would advise
my children and have advised them in my personal circumstance to continue to do
that. So I hope that provides the member with the information he was seeking.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. And according to Stats Canada, Saskatchewan increases in
the average undergraduate tuition since 2019 have outpaced the increases we
have seen in Canada on average. How has this affected the affordability of
being a student compared to other parts of Canada?
[17:45]
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
All right, lots of numbers to share here. You know, our interprovincial college
tuition fees, in Saskatchewan from 2019 to 2024‑25, there’s been an
increase, a year-over-year increase of about 4 per cent. The average across the
country has been about 4.1 per cent. So we’re just slightly below that average.
But when you look at very recently, like ’23‑24, ’24‑25, ’25‑26,
our increases have been quite modest.
But undergraduate tuition
fees were the third highest. We are the third highest in the country, and our
goal is to be right at the middle of the pack. So we’ve got some work to do
here. But we’re down from the second highest a year ago.
We’re the third lowest for
domestic graduate tuition. So on the graduate side, we’re below the middle.
We’re actually in the lowest quadrant.
Fifth highest for
international undergraduate tuition, but this is nearly $9,000 less than the
national average. So we are in that middle of the pack when it comes to
international undergraduate tuition, and second lowest for international
graduate tuition as well, down from the third lowest a year ago.
So we’re moving in the right
direction. And you know, I started here in 2003 and I was the critic for
post-secondary at that time, and I remember the minister telling me those
numbers back some 20 years ago. And that continues to be our goal as well coming
forward.
So we’re in the middle of the
pack. But then when you look at the lowest cost bundle that we try to achieve
here in Saskatchewan with our utility rates and the fact that, you know, we do
have more rental space available than others and reflect that in the lowest
rental rates across the country, when all that comes together, we’re in a
pretty good situation to offer affordability for students. And that’s where we
see it at this time.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. Currently the Government of Canada provides grants for
students with disabilities, while the ministry does provide supports for
disabled students in the form of material and academic supports. Given that
affordability that become a major challenge for many students, does the
ministry have any plans to increase grants to disabled students?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Well another good question. I’ve learned a few things along the way here myself
as well. And you know, the federal government has a very generous program, as
you’ve outlined, and it’s up to $20,000 for a student with disabilities —
$20,000 for equipment and other needs as well. There’s a $2,800‑a-year
cost-of-living allowance as well.
And what we do with the
ministry is provide a $2,000 top-up if the $20,000 isn’t enough. But we find
the vast majority of students that we’re aware of that are accessing the
20,000, the 20,000 is enough. But we do have a $2,000 top-up if that is
necessary.
And we also . . .
You know, one of the areas that we want to contribute is repayment assistance
if that individual does not get the job that they’re looking for, to repay that
on schedule. We will look at repayment assistance to ensure that they’re able
to keep up with those payments as well. So you know, modest compared to what
the federal government is doing, but happy that they are providing leadership
in this way. Providing a top-up and the repayment assistance, I think it’s a
good model overall.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. In the past year we have seen significant layoffs at
Saskatchewan Polytechnic. This represents an unfortunate loss of talented
individuals at the institution, potentially impacting the training provided at
the institution. Why we are seeing an increase this year? I’m wondering if the
government has been working with the institution to potentially increase
staffing levels again.
[18:00]
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Well the member asked if we’re working with the institutions, and absolutely we
are. Because you know, this minister and this government feels that one layoff
is too many. But that being said, we have to look at the situation across the
country — 20,000 layoffs across Canada. Saskatchewan, you know, we’re in the
150 range. Again I have seen this in my own family. Layoffs — my wife, my son,
others — it is not happy times. It is not something that we want to have
happen, but at the same time we see this across the country.
And again credit to those
institutions for not going overboard with international students, having it
operate in a responsible manner. But that being said, because of the federal
government decision, we have less international students. We have less students
in the classroom. And you know, as I mentioned earlier, at this time of year
institutions have to make those decisions going forward. And there have been
some layoffs and there may be some more, and we want to make sure that we do
all we can to minimize that amount.
So what we do is the
multi-year funding agreement. And you know, some 8 per cent in operating
increase is coming to our institutions this year. We trust them to use that
money responsibly and accordingly to develop their own financial plans in a
professional way and to ensure that that money is used to employ the right
individuals at the right time and to educate as many students as possible. And
that process is happening right now.
And you know, I’m confident
if the federal government didn’t move in that direction, or if they consulted
on a province-by-province basis, we wouldn’t be in this situation today. But it
is what it is, and we’re working with them very, very closely to ensure that
they are able to make the decisions with the least amount of impact as possible
to Saskatchewan workers and to Saskatchewan students.
So you know, the institutions
are arm’s length and we respect that. But at the same time we feel a
partnership and we want to work with them as best we can. And again looking
across the country and doing a cross-country scan, when we see, you know, 1,000
in British Columbia, programs shut in Manitoba and others, I think we’re in a
pretty good situation. So I’m trying to be as forthcoming as I can, least
political that I can, and just say that, you know, relative to other
institutions in the country, we’re in a pretty good spot. But we will not stop
until those directions are . . . we’re going in a different direction
again.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. In some fields, such as sonography, Saskatchewan offers
its own programs but also has reserved seats in Alberta, in this case SAIT
[Southern Alberta Institute of Technology]. So can the minister explain the
difference in cost to the province in reserving seats compared to creating more
in the province?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Well when it comes to interprovincial agreements, not to let out of the bag
what we talk about in our caucus meetings, but you know, it is something that
members from my caucus certainly ask me about a lot. And you know, it’s a
balance. It’s a delicate balance between interprovincial agreements and what
you can do in your province. And we have to weigh that balance and look to see
if we have a critical mass in Saskatchewan and to offer that program.
And that’s something, you
know, philosophically I certainly want to have all those programs that we can
afford to bring back to Saskatchewan. But I’ve also learned that there’s some
partnerships that work very well with NAIT [Northern Alberta Institute of
Technology] and SAIT and Red River College. And sometimes it makes sense. And
of course we’re the beneficiary of the Western College of Veterinary Medicine.
We have students come from British Columbia and Manitoba to Saskatchewan, and
we feel we offer them a great education at a modest cost.
And you know, that’s another
thing that we have to look at is the cost of the program in our province and
looking at what the cost is out of the province. And the cost out of the
province is only the seats that you use that you pay for. But in all that realm,
the goal is to bring those programs back. And we’ve had much success over the
last year.
This year $9.9 million
will support a total of 105 seats in three new Saskatchewan-based programs that
were previously available only through interprovincial agreements. And you’ve
heard me talk about it off the top. Occupational therapy, respiratory therapy,
and speech language pathology will all start in Saskatchewan in 2026. So we’re
very, very pleased to do that.
The member indicated
sonography. And you know, it immediately came to mind when I was touring
Suncrest. They have a program there where they have six seats. And I know other
members are nodding their heads; they have been there and heard about it as
well. We purchased 16 seats from SAIT and five seats from NAIT that were
phasing out as well.
So this is top of the agenda,
sonography, and we are looking to see how best to move forward with it. It’s a
growing area, a growing demand, but we’re showing greater expertise in
Saskatchewan and enabled to deliver the program. And I’ll give a shout-out to
Suncrest College for the great work that they do as well.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
So in terms of cost, you didn’t answer my question, that it costs the same to
us, offering a course in Saskatchewan and offering the same course buying the
seats from Alberta. It costs the same or less about?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
What I’m saying is there’s a critical mass that has to be there to offset the
cost. If the number is lower, it’s going to be cheaper to do it outside the
province. But if we reach that critical mass and that we can do that, as we
have with Suncrest, then it becomes cheaper to do it in the province. So our
goal as a government is to reach that critical mass.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. How does Saskatchewan’s post-secondary institutions
compare in terms of safety to other provinces? And can the minister outline if
his ministry’s taking any action to support safety on campus? Or is this solely
done by allocation to the post-secondary school?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Well, being the Minister of Workplace Safety I guess this has to be very
important to me, and I’m very glad that it is and the institutions take it very
seriously. You know, as a government we want to provide a safe workplace for
all workers in Saskatchewan, and specific to learning institutions we want to
make sure.
And again we do work with the
institutions, but you know, I have conversations with all of the senior
leadership — certainly the presidents — on a quarterly basis. And this comes up
from time to time, and you know, they’re usually way ahead of me, because these
are operational safety decisions that have to take place within the
institutions.
[18:15]
And again they participate in
best practices across the country and show leadership in many regards as well,
you know, whether it’s mental well-being; suicide prevention; dealing with
racial violence or antisemitism; anti-violence seminars, certainly they’re
doing that; sexual assault policies; and ensuring accessibility on campuses as
well. So these are operational safety decisions, but I’m pleased to say that
with my experience, it is a priority with all of our institutions and they take
that responsibility very seriously.
And you know, since 2021 the
ministry has supported this area in a specific way, and it’s called Healthy
Campus Saskatchewan, which brings together over 20 post-secondary institutions
to form a community of practice. It supports institutions with knowledge,
tools, and resources to support student mental health and well-being. Healthy
Campus focuses on mental health promotion and prevention supports across the
post-secondary sector. It coordinates training opportunities and general mental
health literacy and suicide awareness to build institutional capacity to
connect students with the appropriate supports.
So that comforts me greatly
when I hear that and I see that, and credit to those in 2021 that made those
decisions. And again, we’re listening very closely. You know, if I happen to
get a letter from a student that is in this regard, I ask for it to be followed
up and to ensure that we look across the country and make sure that we’re
leading best practices.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. Currently Ontario, BC, Quebec, Manitoba, and PEI [Prince
Edward Island] have laws and policies that relate to gender-based violence in
universities. Given that Saskatchewan has some of the highest rates of
gender-based violence in the country, does the ministry have any plans to
support or legislate a policy that will reduce gender-based violence on campus?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Thanks very much for the question. And you know, I received a letter not too
long ago from the president of the University of Saskatchewan Students’ Union,
Emma Wintermute. And I’ve met with her and her executive and certainly heard
their concerns and have passed them along to the university, to USask. And I’ll
just read from my response back to Ms. Wintermute.
We have contacted the
University of Saskatchewan and they have assured us that they take these
concerns seriously. The university is currently in the process of reviewing
their sexual violence prevention and response policy and procedures. A working
group is in the final stages of drafting a revised policy and procedures
document.
The University of
Saskatchewan has conducted an extensive review of other policies at Canadian
universities right across the country, as well as the current literature and
best practices. The university will begin consultations on the draft with key
stakeholder groups sometime in late April with the expectation that an updated
policy and procedures will be ready to bring to the Board of Governors this
fall.
So as you can see, that topic
is of utmost importance to the University of Saskatchewan and it certainly is
to this minister and to this government. And I work very closely with the
minister in charge of the Status of Women in the province here as well to
ensure that that information flows freely from my ministry to her ministry as
well. So again, thank you for the question and certainly a priority for us in
this government.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. You already talked about Healthy Campus Saskatchewan and
mental health support. Many students report that access and waiting times for
mental health support is still a problem. Can the minister update us on last
year’s wait times and waitlists? And on this year’s target?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
You know, the question is a very timely one. As the members will know, this
came up in question period today, and the Minister of Rural and Remote Health
addressed the question as well regarding mental health wait times. And you
know, I think it’s the goal of all of us to try to reduce those times as much
as possible, to get the help that people need as soon as they need it. And the
minister answered that question in question period today.
You know, what we are trying
to do — the ministry is, you know — beyond the question of wait times is do all
we can to ensure that mental health-related programs are supported and that the
education necessary is there so we have more support workers in the province —
over 100 new seats in mental health-related programs. Saskatchewan residents
will benefit from over 100 new training opportunities for students in key
mental health and related programs including clinical psychology, mental health
and addictions counselling. This brings the combined total of first-year seats
in these programs to over 200.
So from a ministry we realize
that you just can’t do enough to educate people in this regard, so we’re doing
all that we can. You know, we don’t have the statistics on the mental health
wait times at specific institutions. We know that it’s a priority for all of
them. Yeah. We want to make sure that students have that success. And as the
minister indicated in question period today, she said that the many, many
programs that her ministry is funding as well are of great importance.
So you know, it’s something
that we’ll continue to do better on. And the member and I can have discussions
going forward as I learn more about what the institutions are doing. But I’m
convinced that it’s a priority for them and they’re doing all that they can to
make those wait times as short as possible.
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Minister. I believe all Saskatchewan post-secondary institutions
have some sort of initiatives or plan to ensure reconciliation efforts. Can the
minister update us on how far along our institutions are implementing these
plans?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Well the topic of reconciliation is certainly a key part of every strategic
plan of every institution that I’ve had a chance to review of in advanced
education in Saskatchewan.
And I’ve got some of the
details, a lot of the details here in front of me, but I just want to stress
that from an overall perspective, you know, we value reconciliation. We value
the efforts. And we’re showing leadership in the country, and so we should
because of our large Indigenous population in Saskatchewan. The First Nations
University of Canada is located here, and we see great strategic work from
places like the SIIT, the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies.
[18:30]
And I’ve had those
discussions with Riel Bellegarde and with Darcy Bear, and I remember their
words to me when I let them know about the multi-year funding program and the
funding that they received. I think it was $2.5 million to that
institution. And their words back . . . Yeah, in ’26‑27
Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies will receive $2.5 million
funding increase to recognize and support its unique and important
contributions to the province’s training sector.
You know, those individuals
said to me that that’s economic reconciliation right there by giving them the
means and the needs and the way to ensure that those students are able to get
those skills in a way that recognizes the reconciliation in our province.
I can go on. Like the
University of Saskatchewan, as all members will know, make this a priority
absolutely, as does the University of Regina, Sask Poly, and the regional
colleges as well. I don’t want to take up too much time. I know we’re getting
to the end of our time.
But I can see, you know, basically
starting in 2021‑2022, very aggressive programs have been put in place
and they are led by consultations with Elders, and Indigenous strategies are
something that are part of the university plan at the U of S in 2025.
University of Regina has been
Indigenizing the university and implementing specific initiatives to support
the success of Indigenous students. It’s something that we monitor very
closely. And there’s dips along the way; it’s not a straight line going up and
forward. So when those numbers do dip a little bit, we take great concern and
ensure — because again, that’s the future of our province and that’s the future
of our economy — to ensure that Indigenous students have reconciliation and
we’re part of it and we’re going forward.
So in many ways we’re leading
the country, and you know, specifically when it comes to advanced education we
are now investing more than $24.1 million in Indigenous post-secondary
institutions and programs, an 84 per cent increase in funding from 2007‑2008
— $13.1 million to $24.1 million. Money isn’t everything but it shows
the importance to each and every institution and to this ministry, to this
government, and to this minister. Thank you for the question.
Chair Keisig: — Well thank you, Minister,
for that very knowledgeable answer. Having reached our agreed-upon time for
consideration of these estimates, we will now adjourn considerations of the ’26‑27
estimates and ’25‑26 supplementary estimates no. 2 for the Ministry
of Advanced Education.
Minister, do you have any
closing comments?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Well thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And you know, I joked about it with the
member, with the critic, earlier that last year went pretty well, and I have to
say this year went pretty well also. I have to thank him for the
well-researched and knowledgeable questions and the way they were delivered in
a professional manner, and I hope my responses were the same way.
I think we share many goals,
all of the colleagues here, in wanting the very best advanced education system.
And those in front of me and those behind me share all those goals.
And I’m just very excited
about the future and how this ministry is going to support a growing economy.
There’s no place I’d rather be. There’s no Minister of Advanced Education I’d
rather change places with. And I’m just very, very pleased.
But credit to you, sir, for
the questions and the way you delivered them today. Thank you. And thank you to
all my ministry folks and for helping me to answer the questions as well.
Chair Keisig: — Thank you for that,
Minister. MLA Grewal, do you have any closing comments?
Tajinder
Grewal: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the minister for answering very well-researched
or very well-mannered answers. And also thanks to all the ministry officials
for your hard work for the budget and estimates. You worked very hard. Thank
you. And thanks to all the committee members, Assembly Clerk, and Hansard
operator. Thank you very much.
Chair Keisig: — Thank you. Thank you for
that, MLA Grewal. I want to thank all the committee members for their hard
work, their due diligence, and their attention to details on the estimates
coming forward today. Thank Hansard and all of the building staff for
all of their hard work. And this committee stands adjourned until 7 p.m. this
evening. Thank you everyone.
[The committee recessed from 18:35 until
19:01.]
Chair Keisig: — Well welcome back, committee
members. We have Nathaniel Teed joining
us, chitting in for committee member April ChiefCalf. The committee will now be
considering the ’26‑27 estimates for the Ministry of Labour Relations and
Workplace Safety.
General Revenue Fund
Labour Relations and
Workplace Safety
Vote 20
Subvote
(LR01)
Chair
Keisig: — We
will begin with consideration of vote 20, Labour Relations and Workplace
Safety, central management and services, subvote (LR01).
Minister
Cheveldayoff is here with his officials. I would ask that officials state their
names before speaking for the first time, and please do not touch the
microphones. A Hansard operator will turn your microphone on when you
are speaking to the committee. Minister, please introduce your officials and
make any of your opening remarks.
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Well thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good evening. Good evening to committee
members as well. It’s a pleasure to be here to discuss the budget of the
Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety.
The officials I have with me today are
my chief of staff, Kenneth Cotterill; deputy minister, Veronica Gelowitz;
assistant deputy minister, programs division, Elissa Aitken; executive director
of corporate services, Pat Parenteau; executive director of occupational health
and safety, Bryan Lloyd; executive director of fair workplaces, Kristin
Anderson; CEO of the Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation
Board, Phil Germain; CFO [chief financial officer] Dale Markewich of Workers’
Compensation Board; and Labour Relations Board registrar, Jonathan Swarbrick.
The
ministry’s ’26‑27 budget of $20.33 million will enable the ministry
to continue its work in supporting workplaces to reduce time-loss injury rates,
creating fair and balanced labour laws, and establishing a
culture of workplace health and safety.
A key focus of our government
has been on keeping the economy strong, our communities safe, and building on
our success and protecting Saskatchewan. In the Ministry of Labour Relations
and Workplace Safety, I get to see that vision put into practice each and every
day. With every workplace inspection, mediation, review of injured workers’
claims, and through strong employment standards and provisions that support
workers and employers, the work of this ministry directly impacts people,
workers, and employers.
While I may be new to the
portfolio, I’m not new to how important creating safe, healthy workplaces is to
the citizens of this province. The work of the ministry does contribute to this
goal. In the last fiscal year, our government passed amendments to employment
standards provisions that would strike a balance for both workers and
employers. We extended various leave provisions, protected workers’ tips, and
removed administrative burdens for employers. We know that having effective
employment legislation in place is key to protecting and growing Saskatchewan’s
economy.
In ’26‑27 we are going
to continue reviewing legislation and regulations. We began a review of labour
relations and essential service provisions last year and are analyzing the
responses we received to determine if we need to make amendments. We will also
continue the review of occupational health and safety regulations this year.
This is a significant piece of work and will take place over several years
through a multi-phased approach.
We’re also looking at how we
support trade across Canadian jurisdictions through an enhanced mutual
recognition framework. Saskatchewan will continue to rely on inspections,
enforcement, and compliance to ensure that standards recognized from other
jurisdictions deliver equivalent safety outcomes.
We recognize that workplace
violence trends, ongoing labour disputes, expired collective agreements, and
rising costs continue to challenge workers and employers. This is not just in
Saskatchewan, but indeed right across the country. To address these issues and
to keep our economy strong, our government continues to work together with
citizens, unions, businesses, and other stakeholders in protecting Saskatchewan
and creating healthy, safe workplaces.
I’m confident this budget
will allow the ministry to deliver on its vision while building a framework of
regulatory authority that sets our province up for success today and into the
future. These are just a few of the highlights of the work of the ministry, and
I’m sure we will get into more details as we engage in conversation today.
I’ve had the opportunity to
be minister now since mid-December. I’ve had an opportunity to reach out to
stakeholders across the province, both from unions and from businesses, and to
talk to workers. And I’m finding it a very interesting ministry and something
that certainly I’m learning a lot as we go. But I look forward to our
discussion this evening and would be happy to answer any questions that any
committee members have at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Keisig: — Thank you, Minister, for
your brief and poignant opening remarks. I will now open the floor for
questions and just remind all committee members that we are here to debate the
’26‑27 budget and all questions must relate to such topics. I recognize
MLA Teed.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And thank you very much to the minister and the
ministry officials and Assembly staff and everyone else who contributes to this
estimate process here tonight. Appreciate your remarks here off the top. We
have some important issues so I’m going to jump in.
But I’m going to start with
some of the comments from the opening statement around changes to employment
standards, specifically around the OH & S [occupational health and safety]
multiphase approach and the labour relations and essential services requests.
Could you provide me with the number of submissions that you received for the
OH & S regulatory changes?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
All right. Regarding the OH & S submissions, the number of submissions was
the question. The public was invited to provide input into the submission phase
from October 7 to November 30, 2025. The ministry issued a news release and a
discussion paper and sent letters to 137 stakeholders inviting their
participation. A total number of 87 submissions were received and the ministry
is currently analyzing these submissions.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
I have received a number from stakeholders, but I’m wondering if we would be
able to table those submissions. I know last year they were able to provide me
kind of the package of submissions following the legislation going through. I’m
wondering if I’m able to receive those earlier than that.
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
When we asked for the submissions, we put a disclaimer on and we said, please
be aware that submissions may be disclosed according to the provisions of The Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act. So you would be certainly able to request that information
through that process.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Okay. Last year they were just provided to me. We didn’t have to do a FOIP
[freedom of information and protection of privacy] process. Is that an option
this time?
Chair Keisig: — I’m just curious. To the
member of the committee, how is tabling these documents analyzing the ’26‑27
budget?
Nathaniel
Teed: —
The minister mentioned them in his opening remarks and the work of the
ministry, which would be dollars allocated from the budget to do this process
under . . .
Chair Keisig: — No, fair point to the member
opposite.
Veronica
Gelowitz: —
Veronica Gelowitz, deputy minister. Thank you for that question. We can release
them once we receive permission from the third parties who provided them. Any
submissions that are public, we’ll be able to release those right away.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Thank you so much. And then following OH & S regulatory changes, there were
submissions — a call for submissions, as you mentioned in your opening remarks,
to labour relations and essential services. Can you provide how many letters
were sent out and how many responses you received from that process?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
So the ministry began external engagement on October 23rd, 2025 with letters
being sent to 102 organizations including employers, employer associations, and
labour organizations. The engagement process closed on December the 4th, 2025.
The ministry received 32 written submissions.
The ministry is in the
process of analyzing stakeholder feedback. We appreciate the responses and
certainly thank those stakeholders for sharing their thoughts as part of the
review.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Anything high level of note in those submissions? Or you know, one of the
feedbacks I received about this was that it was a short window and it didn’t
have an explanatory paper when it went out. And so stakeholders were left
wondering what the intention of the review . . . Of course the
business plan talks about the need to move through those reviews.
But we were just wondering if
there is a little bit of background both from what the ministry is seeking and
if there’s any high-level intentions to move on issues surrounding labour
relations and essential services legislation.
Veronica Gelowitz:
— You’re correct. We did not issue a discussion paper with this review. There
weren’t any specific provisions that we were looking for any advice on. And
really we wanted stakeholder perspectives to really drive this review, so we
didn’t issue a discussion paper.
What we’ve heard so far: as
you can expect, pretty diverse opinions on a number of things. But I think it
would be premature to discuss any specifics until we’ve completed our analysis.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Thank you so much. As far as timelines go on the OH & S regulations, when
can we expect to see the first phase of that released?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
So what we are looking at is a multiphase review, of course with phase 1
happening. And we’re looking at a goal of late fall. Certainly by the end of
the year, but the goal is by late fall to have that phase 1 in process.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
And as far as the labour relations and essential services, what is the timeline
that we might see any legislation from that process?
And I guess I’ll just tack on
the additional request of the tabling of the 32 written submissions for that
one once the privacy process has been completed.
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
So with regard to labour relations and essential services, there’s certainly a
number of steps that we need to go through. Our target timeline is the fall or
the spring, so we’re looking at both.
And you know, at some point
here I wanted to bring in the topic of the minister’s advisory committee. And
I’d spoken earlier about, you know, when I first became minister in December, I
sought out to have one-on-one meetings with most of the labour leaders in the
province and business organizations and interested individuals. And every one
of them took up the opportunity to have a chat and to educate me on their
priorities. And I found it very useful.
But certainly the majority of
people I met, unprompted mentioned the minister’s advisory committee. And it
has taken place various times throughout history under different ministers. And
you know, a lot of it’s on time availability of ministers and whatever. But
most people that talked to me said they found it valuable, and having everybody
in the same room. And I’m kind of that type of person too. I like to get
everybody in the same room, and then if divergent views are coming, we can
certainly have those discussions.
So I’m looking forward to the
committee and looking forward to their advice when it comes to things like
labour relations and essential services and all of that. And I’ve heard from
various members that they’re excited and interested about it as well. So at the
end of the day, I think we’ll get a better result if we just take the time
necessary to get that in place and to use their advice.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Thank you so much. No, you took the question on the minister’s advisory council
right out of my pages. So I know that I’ve heard the same, and I think that
stakeholders are really looking forward to an opportunity to have those
discussions. And I know that the minister’s advisory council had been something
that had been missed for the last number of years under Labour ministers since
Morgan, I believe. So yeah, I really appreciate that. Do you have any idea when
the first meeting might be?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Well they’re just finalizing the invitations and the membership list, so it’s
still very early days. The news release I think just went out last week, so you
know, finalizing that. Again I don’t want to commit to an exact date. A lot of
it’ll depend on my schedule and the legislative schedule and when we can put
this together, but I guess late spring would be a target. And I think that’s
what the expectations are from committee members or prospective committee
members, so we’ll target for that.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Thank you so much. Tying it back to central management and services that likely
will be doing the work around these policy analyses and changes, I notice that
we are seeing a 468,000 reduction in central management and services. Can the
minister give a little comment on why we’re seeing a reduction and whether that
will affect those timelines that we’re seeing on these regulatory and
legislative changes?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
All right. Relatively easy answer to this one. The 468,000 decrease is due to
central adjustments for changes to enterprise IT [information technology]
recoveries from the Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement. So it’s a
cross-ministry manoeuvre. And with the consolidation of certain
responsibilities with SaskBuilds and Procurement, the financing has to happen
as well. So no staff implications, no timeline implications that we can see.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Yeah, I think I remember last year we discussed that there were IT systems
being integrated into SaskBuilds. Is that fair to say? Is that where this, the
change . . . or no?
Veronica Gelowitz:
— I think last year the conversation we were having was around the asbestos
registry, yeah. No, this is something different, but it was government-wide.
All ministries were reallocating some of their IT dollars, centralizing it into
SaskBuilds and Procurement.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Thank you so much. You had mentioned in your preamble the Ministry of Labour,
or your role in the enhanced mutual recognition laws. What role does the
Ministry of Labour play in those policies?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Thanks very much, and a very timely question indeed. I just had the opportunity
to participate in my first labour FPT, a federal-provincial-territorial
meeting. And we’ve been an active participant in this for many, many years,
probably for decades. And we find it very beneficial, and certainly attendance
at the FPT was beneficial for me being a new minister and hearing from other
jurisdictions. We had many invited guests and national labour leaders and
business leaders and others as well.
So just some of the
highlights from the meeting. Saskatchewan, for example, harmonized personal
protective equipment regulations with other Canadian jurisdictions in 2021. The
current phase of harmonization focuses on adopting a single national standard for
first aid training for the workplace. The next stage will focus on
high-visibility safety apparel.
[19:30]
Very interesting, very good,
you know, 14 different positions around the table. Every province, all the
territories, and the federal secretary of state was there as well. Very
interesting. The humour of the meeting, the best joke of the entire meeting was
the minister from Alberta, who is 6 foot 8, and he says, “I have a lot of
experience in working from heights.” And so he does. If you see the picture,
he’s a good two-thirds of a foot higher than most of us there.
But you know, you learn from
around the table — and some ministers have been there quite some time and they
are quite well versed in all of this — but Saskatchewan, we play our part. And
the deputy presented a paper, a position paper at the meeting, and so it was
well done and well attended. And I think, you know, it falls into the work that
the Prime Minister and the premiers have been asked to do to come up with
common ways of doing things and making it easier for transitions across
provincial boundaries and things like that.
Naturally the larger
provinces want to, you know, do things their way. But I think we punch above
our weight when it comes to doing that in Saskatchewan. And the work continues
and goes on, but at the end of the day I think we’re going to land in a good place
and have those national, you know, harmonization. I guess there’s debate around
the word “harmonization” as well but, you know, those national prospects across
the country, to ensure that we’re part of it. And I think it will help our
economy going forward.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Thank you so much. I really appreciate the insight into the process of mutual
recognition, specifically around workplace safety. I think at the start of this
term, both parties had submitted mutual recognition legislation, and a little
different, and so they were allowed to remain on the order paper.
Specifically ours included
exclusions around occupational health and safety so that we wouldn’t race to
the bottom on that health and safety. We’ll recognize, you know, training and
we’ll recognize all sorts of those other things to ensure that we can trade
across Canada, all the provinces. But the occupational health and safety piece
was really important. And I think what I’m hearing from stakeholders is that we
just can’t see a race to the bottom in that process, and that that rising tide
should raise all ships in the process.
Would you say that from those
meetings that you’re seeing a willingness for provinces to look to the best
health and safety procedures of the country and then go in that direction?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Yeah, many times that exact phrase, “it’s not a race to the bottom; let’s do
best practices across the country.” Yeah, I got a good feeling from that but my
depth in that area is not large, I would say though. But I’m happy that we’re
moving in the direction of moving to a higher standard across the country.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Thank you so much. I’m going to move on here because I think I’ve gone through
some of these questions around the preamble. I’m going to come up to Workers’
Compensation Board. I was wondering if officials from the WCB [Workers’
Compensation Board] can provide me with the occupational health and safety
funding line for 2025, and if there is a projection or if they have a number
for 2026. And possibly I guess, I’m imagining we’ll see the 2025 Workers’
Compensation Board annual report come with the AGM [annual general meeting].
Would that be correct to say?
Phil Germain:
— Phillip Germain, CEO for the Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board. Thank
you for the question. If I understood the question correctly, for 2025 WCB
ended with a net positive of $18 million. Now there’s a number of
subcategories like you get to that number with, but it was a net positive. And
for 2026 we’re anticipating a net positive again. The projection is similar for
2026. It’s not significant but it’s a net positive again I know for 2026. I
just don’t have the number off the top of my head.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Oh, for sure. Do you happen to have the figure for the funding line? I’m
specifically like just looking at occupational health and safety funding line.
In 2024 it was 13,190. The year before, 12,099.
Phil Germain:
— Yes, the 2025 occupational health and safety funding for 2025 is 14,376
compared to 13,190 in 2024.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Can you provide me with a breakdown of that funding line? And where does it
correspond in the provincial budget?
Phil Germain:
— The only thing I’ll add to that is that does not include the Workers’
Advocate funding, which was another 1,528. That’s the breakdown we get, and
then the ministry has their own details.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Okay. Thank you so much.
Veronica Gelowitz:
— So you wouldn’t necessarily see a direct correlation with our estimates. So
we bill WCB at the end of the year for our actual costs, and some of those
costs would also be . . . They’re in our OHS. They’re also included
in our central management services, a bit of overhead in those pieces, and
again for the injured worker appeal services. And so our budgets wouldn’t
necessarily match what we’re billing them at the end of the year.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Okay. So that’s why there would be like a discrepancy between say, for example
2024 . . . Well I guess we’re looking back. In 2024‑25 we had
13,190 in ’24 for Workers’ Comp, and then in the corresponding budget, OHS
budget line, we have 9,675. So there wouldn’t be a direct correlation between
the two?
Veronica Gelowitz:
— Correct, because the budget is produced for the year in advance, and then
we’re billing WCB at the year-end. Again it’s not just the one line item.
There’s a number of pieces from other line items.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Is it easy to get a breakdown of where those funds are like specifically?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
I’m told that we could provide that breakdown. We don’t have it here, but we
certainly are very comfortable providing that to you.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
I appreciate that. Yeah, one of the questions that I was looking at was,
certainly the envelope of money like goes into workers’ occupational health and
safety. Where in the annual report for Workers’ Compensation Board would
. . . Pursuant to 146 of the Act, WCB levees additional premiums on
certain industries, collects from them, and pays them out to corresponding
safety agencies. Which line item is that in the annual report?
Phil Germain:
— So there is a couple of line items. One of them is under safety association
grants. So in 2024, 11.824 million. In 2025, 12 million four hundred
and ninety-five.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Thank you so much. Further on to this, so the question that I was looking at
was, you know, we have the envelope of money that comes from Workers’
Compensation Board. We would bill them at the end of the month. Why are we
seeing a cut in occupational health and safety of 775,000? Do we need more
money coming from Workers’ Compensation Board to do the work in occupational
health and safety? It seems like a symbiotic relationship — the better the
funding, the better resources OH & S has, the better WCB would perform.
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
All right. Similar to a previous question, the 551,000 decrease is due to
central adjustment for changes to enterprise IT recoveries from the Ministry of
SaskBuilds and Procurement. So that’s 551. And then on the government-wide
workforce alignment, there’s a $224,000 decrease due to vacancy management.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
I imagine the reduction in employment standards line item is similar to the
213,000 from employment standards?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Yeah, a little bit different in this instance. The $213,000 decrease was due to
a planned organizational restructuring resulting in elimination of two vacant
positions. So a savings of 213,000 there.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Thank you. So the cut . . . Oh, I mean I guess the reduction you’ve
mentioned is part of an internal technology transition, but we’re still seeing
I guess at this point a 4.7 per cent reduction to OH & S from this
occurring. Will this affect work site visits and inspections that the
department expects to occur?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
No, we’re not anticipating any changes to front-line services at this time.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
I’m going to move on to some questions around workplace safety and some
violence in the workplace. As we’re all aware, Saskatchewan is above the
national average of employees that experience being harassed or sexually
assaulted in the workplace. Again as we’ve heard, that these are technological
changes but, you know, a cut is a cut in some capacity.
[19:45]
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Now there’s quite a bit of information. I’ll touch on the highlights, and if
the member wants more I can go into more detail.
But Workers’ Compensation
Board is participating in the following violence prevention initiatives by
sector. Under health care there’s various points. In 2026 Workers’ Compensation
Board plans to partner with the Saskatchewan Health Authority on a health care
violence prevention awareness campaign. Under education, project funds are
supporting the Regina Catholic School Division in implementing a
school-specific workplace violence risk assessment. And in service and
hospitality industry, Workers’ Compensation Board is leading a learning
collaborative with the Service & Hospitality Safety Association and two
community youth facilities to identify and implement best practices in violence
prevention.
City transit operations, you
know, certainly a big topic in Saskatoon, where the member and I share our
constituencies. A province-wide transit violence prevention campaign was
launched in 2024 and ’25. Ongoing support through occupational health committee
engagement. Workers’ Compensation Board continues to monitor outcomes following
the implementation of their safety solutions.
Under training and resources,
WorkSafe Saskatchewan and Workers’ Compensation Board provide coordinated
training, prevention resources, and guidance to help employers meet
occupational health and safety obligations, including workplace violence
prevention, psychological health, and return-to-work practices.
So that provides a
cross-section in various areas. Certainly able to expand on any if you like.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Yeah, I guess my next question is, is there any way to gauge that the money
that we are spending on the campaigns that you mentioned is reducing the
incidence of violence in those workplaces?
I think one of the things
that I am consistently hearing from stakeholders, especially in the public
sector and public-facing roles, is that, you know — health care, be it health
care facilities, a school classroom, the transit that you mentioned, the transit
workers, group homes — all these people are reporting higher than normal
incidents of violence. And so, you know, they will point to short-staffing in a
lot of these cases — burnout, overwork.
But is there any metric that
you can point to to say, this is the money that we are spending on these
campaigns is lowering these rates over here?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
I’m going to start with the answer, and then I’m going to turn it over to Mr.
Germain for more complete, front-facing information that he has.
Back in May of 2024,
amendments to the occupational health and safety provisions of The
Saskatchewan Employment Act came into force requiring all provincially
regulated workplaces have a violence policy and a prevention plan in place. The
policy also needed to be separate from a harassment policy.
The policy statement and
violence prevention plan must include the employer’s commitment to minimize or
eliminate risk and review the policy and plan every three years; identification
of work sites where violent situations have occurred or may occur;
identification of staff positions that have or could be exposed to violent
situations; the procedures to inform workers about the nature and risk of
violence at their place of employment, and any information the employer has
about persons who have a history of violent behaviour who could become a risk
to the workers; the actions an employer will take to minimize or eliminate risk
of violence; the procedures for reporting a violent incident to the employer; the
procedures the employer will follow to investigate violent incidents; a
recommendation that workers who have been exposed to violent incidents consult
a physician for treatment or obtain a referral for counselling; and a
commitment to provide a training program for workers.
So I think the member will
agree it’s a thorough undertaking and certainly a lot of work has gone into it.
So that’s from a, sort of a high-level overview, and I’ll just ask Mr. Germain
to come up with some other examples and some other information.
Phil
Germain: —
Thank you. So when we think about the work that we do with industries are
crosscutting issues like violence across many different industries. The
strategies that we develop are multi-year because there’s a lot of things that
need to kind of go right in order for systemic changes to happen. That includes
— campaign is one piece — awareness, training, targeting, and consulting.
So there’s multi facets to
these strategies, and over the course of our history where we look at the
WorkSafe program overall, the last couple of decades it’s been very successful
in reducing time-loss injury rates, total injury rates. And this is the model
we’ve been using for many years.
Now we’ve tweaked it over the
last few years to really focus in on serious injuries and fatalities. So we’re
only about three or four years into it. And I know that seems like a long time,
but it’s really not in terms of the type of work that we’re trying to do and
the influence that we’re doing across many different employers, many different
industries.
You know, and with our
partnerships across labour and organizations, we’ve made a real difference. Our
time-loss injury rate is the lowest it’s ever been. Our total injury rate is
the lowest it’s ever been. Our serious injury rate trend is downwards.
And when we talk about
industries in particular, things like health care. So the time-loss injury
rate, our three main targeted industries for the fatalities and serious injury
strategy is health care, transportation, and construction. And last year we saw
two of the three go down and the third one, which was transportation, stayed
the same. So we’re starting to see what we believe is consistent progress, but
it’s based on that multi-tiered approach of campaign, education and training,
awareness, consulting, inspection. So there’s a multitude of things that we do
to make sure that the changes that we see are sustainable.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Thank you so much. So is there any way to . . . I’m just going to
rephrase here. We’ve got injuries. We’ve got violence in the workplace. It
seems like we — and this might be more for the minister — we use a lot of
carrot. And I know in previous estimates I’ve had Labour critics talk about,
and we’ve talked a bit about, policy development. The ministry is working on
these things.
Has there been ever any
discussion that we need to move to stick — proper fines, making sure that
employers know that if employees get injured or killed in their workplaces that
appropriate fines and consequences will be in place?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Thanks for the question, very good question. And you know, I’m told we
certainly do both. We have the carrot approach and the stick approach as well.
And your question was more to the stick approach. And I guess, you know, that
might be somewhat subjective, but I’ll look at the summary offence tickets that
are issued, for example.
There are nine occupational
health officers designated as peace officers to issue tickets, and there are 12
ticketable offences. They include fall protection, excavations, trenching,
personal protective equipment, submission of progress reports to occupational
health and safety, and submission of information requested by the director.
OHS issued 42 summary offence
tickets in ’25‑26 from April 1st to December 31st. And a ticketing
program was implemented back on July 1st of 2014. And total number 349 tickets
issued: 296 guilty pleas or just paid; 40 stayed or withdrawn; and 13 remain in
progress. So on a summary standpoint, you know, certainly some very enforceable
options there.
[20:00]
For prosecutions, you know, The
Saskatchewan Employment Act violations for occupational health and safety:
19 occupational health and safety cases sent to the Ministry of Justice for
consideration. Fourteen prosecutions were initiated, eight convictions,
$981,000 in total penalties levied by the court. And you know, the penalties
increase significantly over time, increase to $10,000 for the first offence,
25,000 for a second offence, and 50,000 for a third offence and subsequent
offence. And you know, so you know, there is that option as well.
And I have other information
here, an example of occupational health and safety, the prosecutions’ outcomes:
files sent to Justice, 19, or maybe I went through all of that. Yeah, so, you
know, it goes back a few years but overall there seems to be a good balance
between summary and prosecutions as well.
And then our friends at
Workers’ Compensation Board have just informed as well that they have a
surcharge that they implement and it can be up to 200 per cent as well. So that
would certainly fall under the stick approach as well. So three different options
from that regard, you know. We still prefer the carrot and still try to get
ahead of it that way, but facing reality, there’s three examples for you.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Could you provide any examples of anyone receiving that 200 per cent surcharge?
Phillip Germain:
— Yeah, well obviously I won’t provide employer names, but we have many
employers that hit that 200 per cent annually. It’s not a few; it’s surprising
how many hit that. Some work their way off of it. That’s usually who we’re
targeting through WorkSafe is the poor performers, and we’re trying to help
them change that. So there are many employers each year that get significantly
surcharged above 100 per cent up to 200 per cent.
Nathaniel Teed: — Why aren’t those companies
or actors named publicly? I don’t know, another bit of feedback I received from
stakeholders is, along the stick method, you know, the name-and-shame method,
is that like, how do I know that any one of our young children are going to be
going into a workplace that’s, you know, on the list? How do you, how do we
protect future workers from these, from possible bad actors? And I appreciate
the folks who are working off that. But there’s a little bit of . . .
The transparency piece has always been in question.
Phil
Germain: — So a bit of the challenge is
understanding what that number represents. Because even if somebody’s 200 per
cent surcharged, that could be a medium-sized company who had one major injury,
for example, somebody who slipped and fell. That could be their only injury,
but it may have cost the system a million, million and a half dollars.
If
it’s a young parent who’s got two dependents, it could become really costly
really quickly. For that employer, they may end up being significantly
surcharged. But it could be one incident. So the dollars don’t always tell the
story. It can in a lot of cases, but not always. Some people might get a
misunderstanding of what that surcharge can represent sometimes.
Nathaniel Teed: — Yeah. I guess, yeah. So
there isn’t really a way to gauge a bad actor employer because you could be a
small operation with one significant accident and boom, you’re at the top of
the list. Okay, no, I appreciate that.
I
guess then maybe coming back to the symbiotic relationship between WCB and the
Ministry of Labour and understanding that WCB funds the occupational health and
safety, and like, as you mentioned, a number of other lines within the
ministry. In an effort to reduce injury, is there ever the opportunity to say,
in these good years, to WCB, you know, we need more money to achieve the goals
that we want to see in Saskatchewan of education and the like? Is that an
option?
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — So payments from the
Workers’ Compensation Board to government, they go to the General Revenue Fund.
They’re considered a “other business entity” on the balance sheets.
But
I guess we have to take a step back and realize that, you know, the funds at
Workers’ Compensation Board, you know, are obtained directly from employers. So
it’s all about a balance. And we have to take that balance seriously and
realize it’s not a bottomless pit of money because, of course, then premiums
will be going up. So that’s the way we approach it. We take a common-sense
attitude. And you know, upon becoming minister, I was informed that premiums
were actually going down this year. A well-managed fund, great returns, and you
know, very, very pleased to see that. So I guess that’s a balance that has to
take place.
You
know, you referenced in the good years, can we get more? And that indeed has
happened. And you know, my experience is Workers’ Compensation Board is very
eager to offer up where they think they can make the biggest bang for the buck
and at the same time be very, very strident on watching the dollars that
they’re asking the employers, the businesses to put forward.
So
you know, I was going to save it for the end, but I just want to say, from what
I’ve seen in the first five months of being minister here, is Workers’
Compensation Board is a model that is seen across the country as being a leader
and doing very, very well. And you know, to be frank, we used to hear from
employers about ever-increasing rates, and that doesn’t happen, I’m told,
anymore. They see it as fair, and the recognition that, you know, it’s coming
from the one taxpayer is appreciated.
So
I guess that’ll be part of my job to, you know, look at that balance and
suggest areas where maybe funds could be increased or . . . You know,
this year it’s a premium decrease, and I think everyone’s happy with that. And
you’ll know. You’ll see the annual report, I believe, on Wednesday.
And
you know, I ask all members to come. And you learn a great deal, but seeing the
stats that are behind the Workers’ Compensation Board, it’s very, very good to
see the trend lines. Where they compare to others across the country is very
favourable. So I think we’re reaching that balance, but again that’ll be my job
to look at both sides and see if we can do even better.
Nathaniel Teed: —
I
appreciate that, and I’ve always been very appreciative of the tech briefings
that we have received when the annual report comes out and the annual general
meeting. And I think I was sitting . . . I sat in on them even before
I was Labour shadow and always appreciated seeing the work that that
organization does. And so thank you so much to your folks for doing that.
You
know, earlier I did ask . . . I was asking, you know, corresponding
the health and safety funding line item to the budget, and you mentioned that
those funds go into the General Revenue Fund. And so I guess my question really
was aiming at, you know, are we seeing 100 per cent of the occupational health
and safety funding going into the Ministry of Labour? Or is it, you know, going
into general revenue and then we’re sending some in another direction, or is it
going to other ministries, or is 100 per cent of those funds linking up to
budget line items in the Ministry of Labour?
Veronica
Gelowitz:
— So as I mentioned previously, the ministry bills WCB for those expenses. So
that’s where the direct correlation to our expenses comes into play. There
isn’t a flat rate that goes into the General Revenue Fund to be used by other
ministries.
Nathaniel Teed: — Okay, perfect. So basically
100 per cent of those funds being billed to are being received in the Ministry
of Labour. Wonderful. Thank you so much.
I
was wondering if the department might be able to break down for us how much we
are investing in total in prevention initiatives this year and possibly
compared to last year.
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — Just wondering if the member
could be a little more specific. We do it in all streams, so just maybe . . .
Nathaniel Teed: — Like central management,
occupational health and safety, employment . . . [inaudible]
. . . Would you say all three, all of those streams are involved in
preventative measures or are paying for preventive measures? Does that help? Or
which budget line item would preventative measures be coming from?
[20:15]
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — All right. I’ll do my best
to answer the question here. I think if the member has, you know, more detailed
. . . certainly we can go down that road. Labour relations and
mediation, preventative services, and employment standards, you know, certainly
provide that. But we don’t have the
specifics as far as a dollar breakdown. But occupational health and safety,
that goes over to Workplace Safety and the Workers’ Compensation Board. And
again, numbers aren’t specific but that’s from a high-level general way of
doing things.
Nathaniel Teed: — Yeah, maybe. I guess I was
just thinking here. Like I am just looking at the financial summary in the
business plan — or sorry, this might be from the annual report — and it breaks
down into the pie chart of the percentages of what Labour Relations and Workplace
Safety overall does. I’m wondering if you have any breakdowns for like
occupational health and safety specifically. You know, like percentages of what
work that budget line item is facilitating. That might be closer to maybe what
I’m looking for.
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — All right, I think here we
found the pie chart that you’re looking at as well, so the occupational health
and safety branch. And yeah, a large part of the budget there. We have it
broken down by core lines of business. So safety operations, health standards,
mine safety, legal affairs, and branch services. But we don’t have dollar
values associated with each of them, but those are the primary areas.
Nathaniel Teed: — Well I think that helps. Do
you ever do the breakdown of those, of like the percentages, or is that not
really . . .
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — All right, good news. We
found that we have the information — but it’s just not here with us — for ’25‑26.
’26‑27, the allocations haven’t been made. But we’ll undertake to get you
that information, and it should give you a good start on where things are for
’26‑27.
Nathaniel Teed: — Really appreciate that. I
apologize, I’m making a little make-work here tonight, and I apologize to all
the folks who have to do that work.
I’m
going to jump over to employment standards. And my question around employment
standards was that in your annual report you note that there was an increase in
complaints that were investigated. And I’m wondering to what extent is that an
increase in complaints as opposed to the department being able to investigate
more cases.
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — I think we need some
clarification on just exactly what you’re looking at.
Nathaniel Teed: — Yeah, I could go with like
how many complaints did employment standards receive? And I think what I’m
looking for is like, you know, were we just really efficient this year in
processing complaints? Or was there like a lower amount of complaints that we
received? Maybe more in that line of questioning.
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — All right, I’ve got some
numbers. You know, formal complaints filed. I’ll go to sort of the post-COVID
era. 2022‑23, 1,582 bumped up to 1,923, which is what I’m told is a
stabilization rate about that 1,900 level or so. It bumped up a little bit in
’24‑25 to 2,151. And for ’25‑26 we’ve got three-quarters of a year
and it’s at 1,338, so we’re trending down in the ’25‑26 era as well.
And
you know, percentage-wise the branch collection rate, again it’s bouncing
around in the 80 per cent range. Eighty per cent, 88 per cent, and now back to
81 per cent.
Nathaniel Teed: — And what percentage of those
complaints are investigated? Would all those complaints be formally
investigated?
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — Yes, all of them.
Nathaniel Teed: — We are seeing the reduction
of two FTEs [full-time equivalent] in employment standards. That’s the
difference in the budget from last year. Will this affect the department’s
ability to investigate these complaints?
I
think as a backgrounder I’m hearing feedback amongst kind of departments across
the government that workloads are going up, and the Public Service Commission
shadow minister as well. We’re facing down a budget. And you know, we’re
looking at attrition and we’re not going to replace attrition. That’s what the
government has signalled.
Will
we see a reduction in the ability of the employment standards to do the work
that they’re getting with the loss of those two FTEs?
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — So the two FTEs were vacant
positions: an executive director and an executive coordinator, not really
impacting the front line or the ability to respond in a direct manner. And you
know, as the member will know and all colleagues will know, the heads of
departments are asked to identify per areas, but along with that, where they’ll
have as least impact as possible.
And
then I guess when you have a couple of spots like that and they’re not filled
for a while, you understand that you can operate without them. And you know, as
a government we’ve tasked ministries to take a look at that, and we want to
ensure that government doesn’t grow faster than the economy grows. And we’re,
you know, quite adamant about that.
So
no, I’m comfortable saying, you know, it’s not going to have an impact on the
front line or the ability to respond.
Nathaniel Teed: — You mentioned that one of
those FTEs was an executive director that was an empty position. Does that mean
the department and the branch of like reporting as . . . Is there a
head of department that still is in that position, then the executive director
reports to them? How does that function there if you have no executive director
for a long time?
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — Basically to answer your
question, effective April 1st of this year we established a fair workplaces
branch that brings together three former areas: the employment standards, the
injured workers appeals services, and the labour relations and mediation. So
all that falls under fair workplaces branch from April 1st going forward.
Nathaniel Teed: — Fair workplaces branch,
okay. Thank you very much.
[20:30]
I’m
going to jump over to — while we’re in kind of employment standards — the area
of the regulations around tips. So it’s been about four months now that we’ve
seen regulations in the space of tipping for workers in the province. I’m
wondering what work the ministry is doing to make employers and workers aware
of those changes.
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — Yes, very good question, and
certainly a lot of work has been done in this area. So I’ll take the time to go
through it, but I’ll go through it quickly.
Information
on the impending amendments was added to public training sessions, and webinars
were made public. Public webinars were offered specifically regarding the
amendments in November and December ’25 and January ’26, with a total of 153
attendees. A recorded webinar was posted on the ministry website since November
2025. News releases were issued in May 2025, when Bill 5 passed, and in
September of 2025.
Presentations
were delivered to employers, employees, stakeholders on demand through the
period of September ’25 to December ’25. Ministry website information and
employment standard publications — Understanding Saskatchewan’s Employment
Standards: A Guide to Your Rights and Responsibilities — was updated
to reflect the legislative and regulatory amendments.
Employment
standards unit received public phone and email inquiries as amendments were
announced, with 2 per cent of the total inquiries related to the amendments,
particularly regarding tips and medical note restrictions. Since January 1st,
2026, employment standards has delivered three specific training sessions on
amendments on request and delivered one additional public webinar on
amendments. So public overview presentations, including special content
regarding recent amendments. You know, they looked at each and every option
available and have done a good job of getting that information out there.
Nathaniel Teed: —
Awesome. Thank you so much. How many complaints have you received in this
space? And I guess, have you had any violations of these new regulations?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
So the highest inquiry volumes were related to restriction on sick notes of 14
inquiries, and to tips, 13 inquiries. The area of unlawful discrimination
action as well has seen an increase of 64 per cent increase in claims.
But what we’re finding is
there’s a direct correlation to when the ministry highlights the changes. And I
think people are quite inquisitive because of the 18 complaints regarding
discriminatory action opened and closed in January 2026. None were found to be
valid. So there’s still an education process that has to go on for sure, but at
the same time there is an interest in that from employees.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Sorry, could you repeat just the numbers around sick notes? Eighteen complaints
or sorry . . .
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Fourteen on the sick notes and 13 on tips.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Fourteen. Okay.
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
And then 18 complaints, which is an increase of two-thirds.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
And you mentioned discriminatory . . . Sorry, I was just jotting it
down.
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Yeah, discriminatory action.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
And that would be in general? Or is that referring specifically to health, the
sick notes and tips?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Yeah, each of those are different things. The discriminatory action is an
entity on its own.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
And so when folks are . . . So we actually haven’t had any formal
complaints processed through the tip regulations. Would that be fair to say? Or
like if they’re calling in, they’re making note of it, it’s investigated, or
. . .
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
So I’m informed at this time they’re all being investigated, but they haven’t
proceeded far enough to report anything to you. But they are all being
investigated. I think it’s a learning process on both sides here as we go.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Sure. What is the consequences of a non-compliance with this specific
regulation?
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Just referring the member back to something I said earlier, and it would fall
under The Saskatchewan Employment Act and maximum fines. And so we’re
talking about 10,000 first offence, 25, and 50,000. So you know, very heavy
fines and certainly, I think, a serious look at the first offence and up to
$10,000.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
No, that’s very interesting and good to know.
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Just additional information for the member. Fines paid are approximately $4,200
per conviction. That’s the average.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
Perfect, thank you so much. I appreciate that. I’m just going to jump over to
. . . I think I have about 20 minutes left, so I might jump to a
couple different questions here. I’m going to go to group terminations. I’m
wondering if you can provide me with how many notices the ministry received for
group termination in the ’25‑26 year.
Hon.
Ken Cheveldayoff: —
Yeah, I’ve got the information by years. And so in 2025 there were 41 group
termination notices and affecting 1,062 employees. And in 2024 it was 33 group
termination notices affecting 875 employees. And you know, we’ve seen numbers
as high as in 2015, there was 81 group termination notices and 3,160 employees
affected. So yeah, that’s the latest information there. So 41 is, I want to
say, about average, but it’s bounced around a lot.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
No, I appreciate that. And mostly I know I had asked last year, just with the
change in Bill 5 to the number — the threshold raising from 10 to 25, I think
it was. I’m going to jump over to the labour board. How many dispositions did
the labour board render this last fiscal year?
Jonathan Swarbrick:
— Jonathan Swarbrick, Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board. So in the past
fiscal year of 2025‑26, the board disposed of 267 applications.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
And how long on average did it take to decide those in the last fiscal year?
Jonathan Swarbrick:
— So the average day from application at the board to order was 114 days.
Nathaniel
Teed: —
And what is that . . . Do you have any comparison year over year?
Like one of the issues that I’m hearing from stakeholders is, you know, I guess
they’ll point to — and you’re aware — you could get fired on Friday afternoon,
go to the labour board, and you’d be reinstated by Monday. But it seems like
the process now is taking much longer.
[20:45]
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — So as a rule we don’t hear
reinstatement applications. They’re based on the collective bargaining
agreement. Matter of practice, written submissions are preferred. They
actually, in our experiences, allow hearings to go faster and they’re able to
triage what’s the most important and to go forward.
So
written are faster, but we’ll hear oral submissions. And then again it gives
time to any individual. They’re welcome to have legal counsel present or they
could engage in legal counsel and have the time to determine how they move
forward.
Nathaniel Teed: — Okay, so what about
employers in non-unionized environments? You wouldn’t hear those cases of
wrongful dismissal? I understand like in a union environment that would be done
between the employer and the union. But what if I just work at the 7-Eleven and
I’m fired and I want to get my job back because I think it’s wrongful
dismissal?
Jonathan
Swarbrick:
— So when it comes to non-unionized workplaces, that would fall under the
jurisdiction of typically employment standards or occupational health and
safety if it’s potentially harassment or discrimination based, but typically
employment standards.
Nathaniel Teed: — Okay, and so those folks
would not go to the labour board. So they’re heard in employment standards. Is
there a tribunal, or how are those folks heard in a labour dispute?
Veronica
Gelowitz:
— So after our staff do an investigation a decision is rendered. An appeal on
that decision would go to . . . If there’s an appeal it would go to
our director either of employment standards or of occupational health and
safety. If that decision is held up, they can apply to have an adjudicator
appointed from the Labour Relations Board, and then that adjudicator’s decision
could be appealed to the board.
Nathaniel Teed: — Okay, and do you have any
average on the timeline of that process?
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — All right. I know our time
is getting short here. I apologize for taking so long, but there are some
nuances here.
So
most are under 100 days, and if that’s, you know, going forward without a
hearing or anything like that. Of course if you’re going to an adjudicator, it
is longer. We do have a shortage of adjudicators. We’re trying to get more. But
you know, to accommodate both parties and all that, it can be substantially
longer than that. So of course our preference is to go with the shorter and try
to get that done that way.
Nathaniel Teed: — Yeah. No, I appreciate that.
I guess maybe my last question here, coming back to the labour board
dispositions and applications, it seems like the average days it’s taking to
decide are trending upwards. I’ve got 59 days in ’23‑24, ’24‑25 was
74 days. Now we’re at 119 days. Is there any indication of why we’re seeing an
upward trend in the time it’s taking to see these applications resolved?
Jonathan
Swarbrick:
— I believe the first numbers you were quoting were actually from the
conclusion of a hearing, of all the hearing dates to order. Whereas the number
I provided you earlier was from the first date of application to final
disposition of the matter. It would appear that we’re dealing closer to about
80 days right now. I would attribute that . . . Sorry, apologies.
With the transition to written materials, it allows us to address hearings
without having to wait for the entirety of a set of hearing dates, which for
some matters can be short but many can be quite lengthy to complete.
Nathaniel Teed: — No, I appreciate that.
That’s good insight. I think that originally the thought around that was just
an increased complication to the process. But if a written application is
saving you from having to take the time to book all the parties in one room, that
can always take time.
I
think I’ve reached the end of my time limit here. But as I’m speaking about
time in the labour board, I’ll do a shout-out to all the folks, the workers at
the Heritage Inn picket lines. I think this line of questioning really came
from feedback I was getting from UFCW [United Food & Commercial Workers]
1400. Workers locked out make applications to the labour board. It takes a long
time. By the time that order comes down, the order says that the employer is in
breach, and then the employer doesn’t do anything after. And finally we have
seen those workers, you know, reinstated.
[21:00]
But
really this line of questioning came from . . . It just seemed like
the time it was taking to process these, you know, unfair labour practices or
breaches of the Labour Code left the workers basically out walking the picket
line for so much longer. And it seemed like what the folks in the labour
community were saying is that, you know, this used to be a lot quicker we used
to get these rulings. So that’s where this line of questioning came from and
I’ll give a shout-out to those folks. But I think that I’m complete in my time
here.
Chair Keisig: — Having reached our
agreed-upon time for consideration of these estimates, we will now adjourn
considerations for the ’26‑27 estimates for the Ministry of Labour
Relations and Workplace Safety. Minister, would you like to make a few closing
comments?
Hon. Ken Cheveldayoff: — Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
And just to respond to that last little bit as well. And you know, I’ve
received some correspondence directly from both sides in different disputes
that are under way right now, you know, Saskatoon Catholic and things like that.
And I’m quite willing to undertake to consult with my ministry officials and to
get back to those individuals.
So
if you’re in contact with them, you know, you can tell them to write a letter
directly to the ministry, to the Minister of Labour, and I’ll read it and I’ll
do my best to try to move it along and to answer their questions. I may not
have the answers they’re looking for, but they’ll have my undertaking to do
that.
And
yeah, so I want to thank you as well. You obviously have some good background
in this area and bring some skills to the table and certainly I appreciate your
tone and your research and your questioning as well. So it’s been a good day
overall starting with Advanced Education and finishing up with Labour and
having my colleagues listen to me go on for five hours, but that’s what we do.
But
I think it’s been a productive day and I think we’ve gone into most of the most
topical areas as well. I think we’re very well served by the people beside me
and the people behind me and Workplace Safety. And you know, they’re undergoing
some changes there and some branding and things like, you know . . .
We’ll be talking more about that in the future as well. And I mentioned earlier
our friends at Workers’ Compensation Board and the good work that they do.
So
thank you to everyone here. And I think it’s been a productive couple of hours
and thank you to yourself, Mr. Chair, and colleagues. Appreciate it.
Chair Keisig: — Thank you, Minister. MLA
Teed, any closing comments?
Nathaniel Teed: — Yes, thank you so much. No,
really appreciate the time we’ve had here today and appreciate your willingness
to engage with the stakeholders in this file. I think it really helps that
we’re able to, you know, have those relationships. Really appreciate that
openness to read the letters as they come forward and appreciate all the work
that all the folks do in the ministries.
Thanks
so much for answering questions here today and for championing safety in the
province. And appreciate all the work of the committee members and the Chair
and all the folks here who make this possible tonight.
Chair
Keisig: — Thank you. MLA Burki,
any closing comments?
Noor Burki: — No.
Chair Keisig: —
Okay, well thank you for that. Anyway, thank you, Minister. Thank you to all
members of the committee. Thank you to Hansard. Thank you to all the
officials and for all of your hard work and attending this evening, truly
appreciate it.
This concludes all of our business for
today. I would like to ask a member to make a move of adjournment. MLA Kropf
has moved. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair Keisig: —
Agreed. This committee stands adjourned to the call of the Chair. Thank you,
everyone.
[The committee adjourned at 21:04.]
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.