CONTENTS
Standing Committee on Intergovernmental
Affairs and Justice
THIRTIETH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AFFAIRS AND JUSTICE
Hansard Verbatim Report
No.
12 — Tuesday, March 31, 2026
Chair
B. McLeod: — Good evening and welcome to the
Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice. Pleased to see
everyone here. My name is Blaine McLeod.
I’ll be Chair for tonight’s meeting. And I will just introduce members before
we get things started here.
So myself, and
then we have MLA [Member of the Legislative Assembly] Brad Crassweller; MLA
Jamie Martens; and MLA Megan Patterson. And on my left we have MLA Jordan
McPhail, chitting in for Betty Nippi-Albright; MLA Leroy Laliberte; and also
with us tonight is Erika Ritchie, chitting in for Jacqueline Roy. So those are
our substitutions for tonight, and the members that you see around the table.
So today we’re
working with Government Relations, and we’ll be considering the 2026‑27
estimates for Government Relations right through until 9 p.m.
General Revenue Fund
Government Relations
Vote 30
Subvote (GR01)
Chair B. McLeod: — We’re going to begin with vote 30,
Government Relations, central management and services, subvote (GR01).
Now here with
us tonight is Minister Schmalz and all his officials. And I would ask that
officials, as per usual, please introduce yourselves, themselves, before they
speak for the first time. And again remind everyone, do not touch the
microphones. The Hansard operator’s got that under control and will turn
them on when you speak.
So, Minister,
no further ado, let’s introduce your officials and make your opening comments
please.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: — Thank you,
Mr. Chair. And you are correct, all of my officials are here tonight. Thank you
and good evening. I’m pleased to speak to the spending priorities outlined in
the Ministry of Government Relations’ budget and business plan for 2026‑27.
I’m joined this evening by Deputy Minister Laurier Donais, ministry executive
management and officials, as well as representatives of the Provincial Capital
Commission.
I look forward
to providing a quick overview of the budgets for the Ministry of Government
Relations and the Provincial Capital Commission. Afterwards I will be happy to
answer questions from committee members. I wish to thank the senior leadership
at Government Relations and the Provincial Capital Commission, as I’m sure that
we will all be relying on their expertise to provide the best information for
committee tonight. They will introduce themselves as necessary.
The 2026‑2027 provincial budget
protects key priorities for Saskatchewan people, including affordability,
health care, education, community safety, and sound financial management. The
provincial budget introduced on March 18th supports job growth, international trade,
and key industries to build on Saskatchewan’s strengths, including its people.
Last year’s budget for the ministry was
$781.1 million. This year it is $830.2 million. The increase in
funding is driven by increases in two areas. For municipal relations, there’s
an increase to municipal revenue sharing, a new record amount for Saskatchewan
communities. For First Nations, Métis and Northern Affairs, the increase is a result
of forecasted gaming agreement payments.
The annual allocation of the Provincial
Capital Commission remains at $7.5 million for the 2026‑27 budget.
The investments made in this budget
continue to protect the strength of Saskatchewan and the services that the
ministry provides. The Ministry of Government Relations’ goals remain that
citizens live in safe, well-governed, and sustainable communities that support
economic growth, and that First Nations, Métis, and northern communities fully
share in Saskatchewan’s benefits and opportunities.
On our commitment on affordability and
sustainable financial management, we will be holding the line on educational
property tax mill rates. Our government reduced property tax mill rates last
year, and they will remain the same for the 2026‑27 fiscal year. For most
ratepayers the tax levy will remain the same, but the total revenue to
government will increase by $8 million to 804 million due to base
growth from new construction or property improvements.
Also, as part of the Government of
Saskatchewan’s plan to rightsize operations and control spending, the Ministry
of Government Relations will reduce our expenses by $333,000 this year. Our
government is committed to preserving the programs and services for all
residents, so these savings will be found in staffing and ministry operations.
I am confident that Government Relations can meet this target this year.
The 2026‑27 budget for the
Ministry of Government Relations supports the direction of government by
helping build stronger communities. We ensure residents live in safe and
well-governed communities through record municipal revenue sharing, resources
to support officials with governance and administration, and investments in
integral infrastructure. This year $392.4 million will be distributed to
761 municipalities through the municipal revenue-sharing program. It’s an
increase of 30.7 million from last year, more than 8 per cent.
Since 2007 the Government of
Saskatchewan has provided more than $5 billion in unconditional grants
through municipal revenue sharing. This is the highest ever amount allocated
under MRS [municipal revenue sharing] and the result of the underlying strength
in Saskatchewan’s economy.
It is based on a fixed formula, and
communities can count on their allocation each year. The reason that this
program is the envy of so many Canadian jurisdictions is that it is
predictable. During the budget deliberations our government understood how important
this funding is, and that a reliable government serving its residents would
deliver on the commitment of revenue sharing. I’m proud to stand by that
commitment, ensuring that communities are best positioned to decide how to
invest those dollars.
Another indicator of our provincial
economy’s strength is that we continue to build. Not just government, but
businesses and residents choose to invest in their properties. Because of this
investment, Government Relations provided an increase of $602,000 to SAMA
[Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency] this year for an annual allocation
of $12.9 million. The Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency develops
property assessments, policy, and standards; confirms municipal assessment
rolls; and conducts property valuation services. This increase will assist SAMA
to maintain its property assessment services.
Funding for SAMA is essential for the
agency to fulfill its mandate, which in turn maintains the integrity and
reliability of the Saskatchewan property taxation system. In the ’26‑27
provincial budget it represents one of the largest capital investment plans for
our province, and the Ministry of Government Relations plays a significant role
in infrastructure investment. A total of $239 million will be allocated
through infrastructure programs administered by the Ministry of Government
Relations in 2026‑27. This includes the Investing in Canada
Infrastructure Program, which will receive 158.2 million, with 74.8 million
of that being provincial funding.
The New Building Canada Fund will
receive 6 million in provincial funding. The Canada Housing Infrastructure
Fund will receive 3 million, with 1.3 million of that being
provincial funding. Government Relations will also distribute $69.5 million
to municipalities under the Canada Community-Building Fund, through what is
federal funding only.
At this time ICIP, or the Investing in
Canada Infrastructure Program, and the New Building Canada Fund are fully
subscribed, and there is new funding under the Canada Housing Infrastructure
Fund. This program is not as large nor as flexible as past federal, provincial,
and municipal cost-sharing programs. The Government of Saskatchewan continues
to work with our federal counterparts on such cost-share programs.
I was joined by municipal
representatives in Ottawa last fall, meeting with federal Minister of
Infrastructure and several other ministers’ staff, including Minister of
Finance, MPs [Member of Parliament], and senators to advocate for a new,
flexible infrastructure cost-shared program. As leaders of our respective
governments, we feel municipal infrastructure investment supports the federal
direction to build a stronger, safer Canada. As Minister of Government
Relations I am committed to continuing this dialogue with the federal
government as well as local municipal leaders to see a new program delivered to
benefit Saskatchewan communities.
The other notable increase in our ’26‑27
budget is for First Nations and Métis communities through the Saskatchewan
gaming agreements. It is estimated that the gaming payments will be $137.9 million
this year. This is a $30.5 million increase over the ’25‑26 budget
and, like municipal revenue sharing, would be a new record amount. These are
estimates based on forecasted gaming revenues for the year and is reasonable
based on the growth of gaming revenue in the province.
These dollars are reinvested in
Saskatchewan communities. Gaming payments are made to First Nations and Métis
organizations and grassroot projects that advance economic, cultural,
educational, and social programs in Indigenous communities throughout the province.
Including those estimated gaming agreement payments, the ’26‑27
provincial budget earmarks $324 million in targeted funding for
Saskatchewan’s First Nations and Métis in community safety, education, and
economic reconciliation.
While those investments are made across
government, including Advanced Education, Community Safety, Justice, and Social
Services, the Ministry of Government Relations continues to offer community
grants and sponsorships. These grants for First Nations and Métis organizations
and communities empower economic, social, educational, and cultural initiatives
throughout the province.
The Missing and Murdered Indigenous
Women and Girls+ Community Response Fund is $400,000 of provincial investment
and $400,000 of federal investment through Women and Gender Equality Canada,
supporting events, initiatives, and projects that prevent violence and build
safety, dedicated to Indigenous women, girls, and two-spirited individuals.
The First Nations and Métis Community
Partnerships Projects program supports initiative projects that help build safe
communities, strong families, student achievement, or economic growth.
Applicants may receive up to $45,000 for their program or event.
First Nations and Métis Sponsorships has
funding available for public events that promote reconciliation and cultural
understanding organized by qualifying community or non-profit organizations.
These events must focus on education, employment, professional development,
cultural celebrations, or honouring veterans and elders.
Through the three grant programs,
Government Relations approved nearly $1.2 million this fiscal year for
more than 60 projects. The consistent investment in these grant programs year
over year is a significant part of reconciliation and strengthens our province
as a whole.
This budget, we continue to stress our
focus on front-line services that serve our stakeholders and the residents of
the province. The dollars invested through Government Relations pay for
municipal services and infrastructure, community building, and reconciliation
efforts that build a stronger, safer province and protect our way of life.
My officials and I are happy to take any
questions you may have. Thank you very much.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Thank you, Minister. I will now open
the floor to questions. And who’s going first? I recognize MLA Ritchie.
Erika Ritchie: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start under
subvote (GR01) where you have listed an estimated budget of 6.452 million
for central services. It looks like about a million-dollar increase over last
year, and wondered if you could explain what that’s for.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: — Thanks for
the question. Yes. So the increase specifically was to consolidate some of our
legacy IT [information technology] systems. Some of the older systems that were
used to administer programming through the ministry has been outdated for a
significant amount of time, and we are looking to consolidate that into a new,
renewed IT system to allow a more effective application of our programming. And
I defer to our deputy minister here to elaborate a little further if he feels
the need to.
Laurier Donais:
— Sure. Thank you, Minister. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Laurier
Donais, deputy minister, Government Relations.
[18:15]
So yes, as the minister indicated, under
that subprogram, central services, an increase of just under a million, so
997,000. There’s a few things going on there, as the minister indicated.
Capital funding for our municipal
investments transformation project. So as the minister indicated, we’ve got six
or seven or eight — eight, I think — systems that are very outdated, no longer
being supported by the existing platforms. And so that project is to
consolidate all those into a new system over the next couple of years.
We did have a $947,000 reduction with
regards to consolidation of IT services across government. So as you may be
aware, under SaskBuilds and Procurement, they provide IT services to
ministries. There were some services that they felt just needed to be provided
to sort of everybody and no longer do that cost-recovery piece. And so what
they did instead of charging ministries, they just consolidated those budgets
into that ministry for those specific IT services.
And then we do have a salary reduction
of 85,000, and that is related to sort of the government-wide effort around
efficiency and to basically reduce salaries, I guess, through vacancy
management. So these are voluntary resignations, whether it’s due to retirements
or people leaving for other positions. When those positions become vacant, we
will assess those and look at those going forward.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Minister Schmalz, just add to that?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
If I just could quickly. And to maybe just further drive home the point that
the vacancy management is the key to here. We’re not firing people or laying
people off. This is strictly through attrition, the means of attrition, whether
that’s through retirements, or you know, people moving on to a different career
or moving on within ministries, other ministries. So we’re not out there
cutting jobs. Jobs will remain as long as there is a person filling it. Once
that position is vacated, then it is reviewed to ensure that it’s essential
before it’s restaffed.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, so it sounds
like there’s a few things, a few moving parts here in that. So I’ve got a
couple follow-up questions. So yes.
So the capital asset acquisition project
I see listed at basically $2 million. So that was new spending. But then
it’s sort of offset by some of these savings that you mentioned in the
consolidation that occurred plus the vacancy management. What was the change to
the number of FTEs [full-time equivalent] over last year with that?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Thank you. Yeah, so there’s no actual reductions as of yet. We were
concentrating on the dollar value of the reduction. So if that has to include
the component of a reduction in staffing through attrition, then that will
occur. But currently we don’t have earmarked how many positions or anything
like that. It’s going to be an ongoing assessment based on the work of the
management of the ministry. And if . . . Yeah, go ahead.
Laurier Donais: — Yeah, just if I
could elaborate on that. So there’s really no way for us to know which
positions are going to become vacant throughout the year, right? And so you
could have positions, you know, at different salaries, right? And so there’s no
way for us to sort of predict that.
And so what we’ve committed to is, as
positions become vacant, again as the minister indicated, you know, through
voluntary reasons — whether that’s a resignation or people leaving the job for
other opportunities or just leaving the job under their own decision — then we
will assess those positions and likely keep those positions maybe vacant for a
certain period of time, you know, until such time as we’re able to determine do
we need to fill this position, or do we repurpose it for another purpose or those
types of things.
Erika Ritchie: — So how many
full-time equivalent positions are currently on the books right now for
Government Relations?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Currently we are at a 192.4 staffing complement. I don’t pretend to know why
there’s a 0.4 in there, but . . . [inaudible interjection] . . .
Oh, part-time staff. I understand.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, maybe you’re
providing some workforce flexibility to your staff.
Okay, moving along, Saskatchewan
Municipal Board, (GR06). So here I see that again we have a reduction in
amounts that the Municipal Board is going to be receiving, in the range of
about 7 per cent. Has the department prepared any analysis to look and see, you
know, what sort of impact on service delivery times? Or how this will impact
services in general?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Yeah, thanks for the question. It’s again that IT component that’s been removed
from the budget for the centralizing of the IT programs in SaskBuilds. And it’s
also going to be, part of that also will be managed under the Municipal Board.
Part of that will also be managed through staffing as well through there.
Laurier Donais: — Yeah, I guess I
was just going to indicate that the Sask Municipal Board really operates very
arm’s length, independent from the ministry. I’m sure you can appreciate that
some of the decisions that they may make impact the ministry and some of the
ministry operations, so we do have that arm’s-length relationship with them.
Erika Ritchie: — Well then perhaps
you could tell me a little bit about what sort of governance and oversight the
ministry provides for the board. Or what is that relationship like?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Yeah, thanks. Again, the Sask Municipal Board does report directly to the
minister when it comes to things like budget allocation and what they are
prescribed to operate under, which is the legislative authority delegated to
them through the Act. And they hear varying cases and adjudicate matters on
behalf of individual applicants or petitioners. I’ll maybe pass it over to
Bonnie Chambers here to have a little more in depth of some of the types of
cases that they hear.
Bonnie Chambers:
— Thank you for the question. My name is Bonnie Chambers. I’m the assistant
deputy minister of municipal relations division within the ministry. Municipal
Board is the second level of appeal in a matter of cases. They will hear
assessment appeals after they’ve gone through the local board of revision.
They also will hear development appeals
board for planning appeals. Other things they hear may be boundary alterations
if two municipalities are in dispute in a boundary alteration. They also
approve water and sewer rates for municipalities, and they also approve debt
limits.
Erika Ritchie: — And how many appeals would they hear in
a year, and what would be the length of duration of time for those appeals to
be settled?
Laurier
Donais:
— Thank you for the question. So in 2025, just on the assessment appeals, Sask
Municipal Board processed or heard 1,443 appeals. So that’s just the assessment
appeals.
They
would have some other, as Bonnie mentioned, development appeals and, you know,
reviewing debt limits — those kinds of things. We don’t have that information
with us right now. I suspect — I don’t know this for certain — but in their
annual report they likely report some of those things. So we could endeavour to
get that annual report for you.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay. Yeah, that was going to be my
next question. I don’t think I’ve seen their annual report recently anyways.
And so once a decision is rendered, is there any further recourse? Or where
would one go in terms of sort of further appeal in such a case?
[18:30]
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — Yeah, so again there’s probably another
level through judicial review, but only if there’s an issue of process. So if
the process wasn’t followed or if there was a matter of, yeah again, technical
process not being followed where there would be a judicial review not for
overturning but for . . . yeah, through the Court of Appeal, correct.
And Bonnie if you want to speak to it.
Bonnie
Chambers:
— Yeah, it would be a matter through the courts for a judicial review or Court
of Appeal but only if there was a matter of impropriety, like processes, as the
minister said. But to appeal it further, the actual appeal would not be through
the courts in that respect. I don’t think I’m explaining it well.
Erika Ritchie: — Is the minister aware of any cases
currently before the courts on a procedural matter related to the board
decision?
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — Yes, thanks. We wouldn’t track that,
given that this is an arm’s-length organization specifically outside of the arm
of government obviously, but in the judicial aspect of it as well. That would
be something that would be done at its own level and not part of something we
would be able to, you know, comment on or influence.
Erika Ritchie: — All right, thank you, thank you very
much, Mr. Minister. I’ll move on to (GR07). You mentioned in your remarks, you
know, a number of figures related to the allocations with respect to a number
of the programs within this subcategory. And you’ll have to forgive me because
it was going pretty fast, and my handwriting’s not that quick.
I
did have kind of a general question in terms of, you know, which of these funds
are sort of flow-through from the federal government and what portion of them
is provincial versus federal. And wondered if you could sort of restate that
for me please.
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — Yeah, so when it comes to the
programming that we administer as a ministry, the municipal revenue sharing is
100 per cent provincially funded. We also obviously administer the integrated
bilateral agreements that are, you know, in a broad sense, about a third, a
third, and a third.
So
we’ve entered into those historically with the federal government, particularly
or most notably would be the ICIP. That would have been the largest program I
think in the history of any of the programs we’ve delivered. That was the
biggest one. ICIP, yes, our portion of that as a province was $700 million
allocated over 10 years to varying numbers of projects. You know, that was
significant and beneficial to our province. We were happy to be playing a part
in that.
Going
forward we have of course the new Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund, which
again has components written into it to support the growth of housing
availability in the province and in the municipalities across the province.
Particularly focused on water: wastewater, solid waste management, those types
of things. And we were, you know, obviously as a provincial government, we look
to engage with our federal partners to ensure that there are the maximum amount
of dollars available to Saskatchewan municipalities through any of those
integrated bilateral agreements.
Laurier
Donais:
— If I can maybe just elaborate on or speak to a few of the programs that would
be listed there. So the ICIP, Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program,
you’ll see the budget is 158.287 million. That consists of 74.8 million
provincial funding and then 83.485 of federal funding. And so again, I mean
those are federal-provincial applicant cost-share programs.
Canada
Community-Building Fund, this budget is 69.496 million. There’s no
provincial money in that. That’s federal funding. So that’s all transferred.
It’s just a flow-through from the federal government, if you will. That’s the
old gas tax program under CCBF [Canada Community-Building Fund].
And
then as the minister talked about, Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund, or CHIF,
that program budget is 2.962 million. And it consists of 1.346 million
in provincial funding and 1.616 million in federal funding.
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — Yeah, thanks. And just quickly to
further expand on the numbers that Deputy Minister Donais has outlined there on
the ICIP funding. Specifically the reason why those numbers are far lower than
they would’ve been in the large allocation is because those projects, as they
come to completion, they fall off and then the funding allocation for that year
is reduced, as I’m sure you’re aware. But I want to make sure that we’re all
communicating from the same songbook here when it comes to that. So I think
that’s important to note.
Erika Ritchie: — Yes, so I guess the big question is,
sort of moving forward, what funding streams there will be available to
municipalities to continue to address their infrastructure deficits. I did
note, I think on page 50 of the budget, there is a forecast where municipal
infrastructure funding is shown at the 239 million — as long as I’m
getting my zeros right there — in the current year, and then is sort of
tapering off in successive years. And that was a bit alarming to see. I
wondered if you could explain how you arrived at those values and, like whether
you feel that’s adequate moving forward.
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — Thanks for the question. Yeah, as we
engage in these integrated bilateral agreements, again some of those as the
budget forecast moves forward, as time moves on and those projects come to
completion in the absence of another revenue stream or an integrated bilateral
agreement from the federal government, we will be looking to engage again with
them to ensure that we are again advocating at all levels of government for
another investment in municipal infrastructure for the province.
So
last year we had a lobbying mission that we took the mayors of the seven
largest communities in the province, along with SARM [Saskatchewan Association
of Rural Municipalities] and SUMA [Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities
Association] representation and advocated to federal ministers. The Minister
Gregor Robertson, Secretary of State Buckley Belanger, as well as several
others. Minister — and I’m going to try to get her name correctly — Olszewski.
I think we’re close enough. Okay, apologies to the Minister if she ever sees
this.
But
we’ve had opportunity to advocate alongside our mayors and our municipal
representation there to ask for a re-engagement, alongside the current CHIF
funding, of a more flexible program to allow for communities to allocate that
funding, not necessarily to the Government of Canada’s specific criteria, but
to broaden or open the aperture, if you will, to create a more flexible fund to
be used in anything from recreation to infrastructure and in-ground
infrastructure, things like that.
And
I’ll turn it over to Laurier kind of to round that out, if you would, please.
Laurier Donais: — Sure, absolutely. And so just for
example, like on the ICIP program, I know you had talked about . . .
Or you had asked the question, how confident we are in the numbers. And I would
say we’re 100 per cent confident in those numbers, you know, at this point in
terms of the budget. We have a fairly robust process where we’re interacting
with municipalities on a regular basis throughout the year to sort of see what
their progress of their projects are, right? And so we take that information
into consideration when we build the budgets.
And
then as we travel through the year we’re always updating that information as
well to determine if we still have, you know, appropriate funding, or if
there’s some savings and those kinds of things. So it’s a regular process that
we go through.
And
so just to give you a bit of an example, under the ICIP program we had 434
projects in total, and 268 of those projects are now complete. So as the
minister indicated earlier, we’re seeing some of those projects, you know, come
to completion. And of course there’s no longer a funding requirement for those.
And then we still have 166 projects that are in progress. And that program goes
until 2033, I think. Municipalities have until 2034, sorry, to complete those
projects.
Erika Ritchie: —
Thank you for that. Yeah, I know somewhere here I saw a variance chart which
showed, you know, that things were pretty spot-on. I was more asking about the
outlook piece and just how accurate those projections are. It’s 237.9 million
in ’27‑28; 161.7 the following year; and then 148 million. And it’s
a declining number which, as I say, is concerning because the deficit in
infrastructure is growing, but the outlook in terms of what’s going to be
available is shrinking. So that’s why I’m asking. Like are these just sort of
like placeholder numbers? Or what are they based on?
Laurier Donais:
— Just a point of clarification. If I could just find out what you’re
referencing and what . . . Yeah, okay, so it is this document.
Erika Ritchie: —
Page 50.
Laurier Donais:
— Page 50. Okay.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
I believe that that is a reflection of the current infrastructure programming
that we have right now. And what they’re forecasting is how many projects they
expect to be coming to completion as that funding draws down. So I think that’s
where we’re forecasting the budget for that municipal infrastructure when that
federal and provincial program is slowly coming to full subscription and
projects are dropping off. Their funding allocation will shrink up as that
funding shrinks up.
And so what we’re doing as a provincial
government is trying to engage with our federal counterparts which . . .
And I’m not going to usurp any future announcements, but stay tuned. There is
some very good conversations happening right now on a replacement to, or a
subsequent program coming online. So we are engaged at the federal level to
look towards a new program after CHIF comes to completion.
Erika Ritchie: —
And I guess, of that amount for the current year, of 239 that’s been budgeted
out, how much of that — well I guess I could probably reverse the math myself —
but I mean how much of that would be spent on PST [provincial sales tax]?
[18:45]
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: — Thanks for
the question. We wouldn’t have that with us, obviously. But there would be
probably a question for the Minister of Finance.
Erika Ritchie: —
Okay. So I mean, I think we’ve kind of in past years had this conversation
around, you know, the PST on construction labour and how it sort of eats into
the amount of money that’s available for these infrastructure projects. I’m
often told, well it’s a net gain in terms of, you know, that goes back in and
then it comes back out through municipal revenue sharing.
And I guess what I’d like to see maybe
is the math on that, that shows that, because it is a little hard to believe, I
guess. I wonder if you could take a stab at explaining to me how that can be
the case for municipalities, that they’re getting more than they give back.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
So I would say that, broadly without speaking to specifics, obviously that
would have to go through the Ministry of Finance. But any PST collected in the
province also goes into funding these infrastructure programs outside of
municipal revenue sharing. So any time that we fund things like ICIP or CHIF
where the provincial government is putting money back into those programs, that
would constitute part of that funding.
It would also be any time the provincial
government undertakes a construction project of its own, so like the highways
budget, any hospital infrastructure programs that we’re doing, like with
building of a billion-dollar hospital in Prince Albert. All of that PST paid on
that construction is paid by the provincial government, and then three-quarters
of one per cent of that project will eventually find its way into
municipalities.
And the province does not collect
municipal revenue sharing. So that is where it benefits the municipalities in
the province directly, is that that program, anything that the provincial
government is spending also gets calculated into the municipal revenue-sharing
pool and is provided to the municipalities as well. So it’s not entirely on the
backs of municipalities, as one might say, but the whole province is paying
into the municipal revenue-sharing fund, including the Government of
Saskatchewan on any of their projects, which I would suggest is a large and
significant amount of spending.
Erika Ritchie: —
I continue to hear from municipal leaders that they’re continuously under
pressure to do more with less and that the funding provided by the municipal
revenue sharing is no longer enough. Municipal leaders have been calling for,
you know, new financial remedies and revenue streams to be able to fund the
programs and the infrastructure that they need to provide.
And so I guess, you know, the municipal
revenue sharing does provide a base, and as the PST grows, the revenue sharing
also grows. But there does seem to be . . .You know, it doesn’t seem
to be increasing at the same pace that the needs are growing within these
communities.
So I’m wondering if you can tell me what
sort of initiatives or policies you are considering at the moment to adjust
these shortfalls in funding that municipalities are needing.
Hon. Eric Schmalz: —
So I would respectfully submit that municipal revenue sharing is a flagship
program for this government. We are the only jurisdiction in Canada that
provides it to their municipalities within their provincial boundaries.
Alberta, BC [British Columbia], Manitoba, Ontario — none of them have this
programming or this type of program that’s available to their municipalities.
And we’ve heard through various groups like FCM [Federation of Canadian
Municipalities], through the Manitoba municipal association, that they are very
envious of the programming that’s available to municipalities in this province.
This year we’re bringing forward an 8
per cent lift, which is . . . What’s the CPI [consumer price index]
right now, 2.1?
Laurier Donais:
— Yeah.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
2.1 per cent. We’re looking at four times the rate of inflation, nearly four
times the rate of inflation that we’re providing in additional funding to
municipalities through the municipal revenue-sharing program. Since 2007 it’s
been $5 billion that this government has provided. And we understand, and
we hear those pressures are continual and constant when it comes to ensuring
that the services are available and that that in-ground infrastructure is in
good, solid shape.
We, in addition to that as outlined
before, we’ve always engaged in the integrated bilateral agreements with our
federal counterparts to try and stretch the dollars that we are able to obtain
for municipalities to ensure that they are not bearing the brunt of this alone;
that it is also shared by both the federal and provincial governments wherever
and whenever possible.
I understand that there are constant
pressures with municipalities. I would just suggest that Saskatchewan really is
leading the way through this, our programming in this province.
Bonnie
Chambers: — Thank you.
I just wanted to add to that, that we also encourage municipalities to use
asset management as a tool to make sure that their utility rates are paying for
the utility and that what they are charging is actually paying for the services
that they provide. So instead of just money, it’s a tool for them to make sure
that their finances are in order too.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, thank you for that. Yeah, I guess I
have always understood that the municipal revenue-sharing formula and policy
was an innovation of the past NDP [New Democratic Party] government that was
then implemented by the current administration. And that it had originally been
at a rate of 1 per cent, and then was reduced to 0.75 per cent.
And then in
addition to that, I guess what I’m kind of saying, there’s a lot of moving
pieces. Like some things have gone up and broadened and scaled. And it’s just,
you know, a lot has changed over the years, including a number of changes in
terms of the grants-in-lieu program which used to provide a grant in lieu of
property tax from Crown corporation properties as well.
And then I
think we’ve also heard a lot from municipalities about some of those shifts in
terms of land allocations for schools in communities and the loss of the
grants-in-lieu, the funding pressures for responding to community safety, fire
and police, social housing. I mean, just the list goes on. I mean,
the number of things that municipalities are now undertaking, all those things
are continuing to add that pressure, so feeling a bit squeezed and looking . . .
So again I think that municipal leaders
are very thankful for municipal revenue sharing. The problem is, is that it’s
just not enough. And so the question really I guess is that, given all that,
how are you looking to sort of provide them with those funding sources and
tools that allow them to address all those pressures?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Yeah, thanks. And just I will start, I guess there’s a bit to unpack there. And
I’m going to do my best to do it justice. So in the historical context, there
was a system or an ad hoc system in place prior to 2007, which was not
predictable for municipalities. The formula was done on an ad hoc basis, so
that municipalities had to wait until budget day to be able to calculate or
depend on the funding that would have been possibly coming down the pipe for
them.
What this government has done is
solidify the model in a way that it makes it predictable and sustainable for
municipalities when it comes to their dependence on the revenue-sharing program
as it stands today. So it was — again, you know, respectfully — this government
that provided that stability for this program to continue and to be sustainable
long into the future.
I would just point to again, I know that
broadly speaking we can’t speak to the Crown grants-in-lieu, but I know that
there are still grants-in-lieu that happen currently with federal property in
the province, particularly with federal penitentiaries. I can’t speak to the
provincial one currently. That would be, I believe it would be the Minister of
Finance, Ministry of Finance question to have them answer that.
In addition to those, there’s still some
one-offs that occur, you know, from time to time. The federal government might
come up and say, hey listen, would you partner with us on some of this stuff? I
mean, we’re open to discussing any of those options, specifically as it relates
to municipal infrastructure for this portfolio.
But again the primary bulk of our
funding model comes from the sustainable and predictable municipal
revenue-sharing program, and also through our advocating efforts and signing on
to our integrated bilateral agreements with the federal government.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay. Well there
are a few items here related to that I do want to ask about. One of them is the
potash tax sharing, which currently rural municipalities receive 90 per cent of
the levies, and urbans receive 10 per cent. And I’m just wondering, you know,
do you think that that’s a fair distribution of those royalties and sort of
reflective of population distribution and community needs?
[19:00]
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
So specifically to the potash royalty sharing structure, it is directly related
to the road network that is used to transport those commodities to market. And
it also relates to the distance of those mines or the distance of that road
network to the municipalities. So if it’s entirely in one RM [rural
municipality] and uses provincial highways to transport to market, then that’s
where that formula is set out in the legislation to provide those supports to
the municipalities whose roads are being impacted most directly by the
development and ongoing development of that resource. But I’ll let Andrea
Ulrich speak to that.
Andrea Ulrich:
— Thank you. Andrea Ulrich, executive director of policy and program services.
So the Potash Tax Sharing Administration Board administers according to the
legislation and the regulations, and there’s a formula to determine the
distance from the potash mines called areas of influence. So the resulting
revenues are pooled and redistributed to the rural and urban municipalities, as
you noted, using the distribution formula. No other commercial industry in fact
shares its tax in this way. So this is unique in Saskatchewan.
That distribution is based on the
proportion of the municipality in the area of influence; so the closer the RM
is, the more of its land is encompassed in that area, the proximity of the
mine. And as the minister noted, the roads are particularly important because
there’s a heavy toll on the roads from the potash mining. Cities are not part
of that either. And so the rationale is just to provide compensation based on
the level of services and the impact on the surrounding municipalities.
In 2026 it’s expected that about
22.9 million in potash property taxes will be redistributed among 105
rural and urban municipalities.
Erika Ritchie: — Thank you very
much. Another area that is highlighted relates to recreational and cultural
facilities. And as I’m sure you’re aware, there’s been a lot of discussion
around, you know, who bears the cost of building those facilities and
maintaining them. There doesn’t seem, that I’m aware of anyway, anything sort
of compelling municipalities to sort of collaborate and work together to
jointly build and operate these facilities.
And so again, what is your ministry
undertaking, in maybe a policy way or otherwise, to sort of facilitate and
ensure that we have these kinds of either funding agreements, co-operation
agreements, that can see these facilities be built and operated in a way
that’s, you know, sharing the costs and sharing the services?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: — You’ve
actually struck on something that was a key message that I carried when I went
to Ottawa, is that the need for recreational facilities in our communities is
integral to the social well-being and social fabric of our communities.
I’ve lived and worked as a police
officer for most of my working life. And where I’ve lived and worked in
communities that had a vacuum of outlets for young people, or even adults
alike, when it comes to recreation, there is a breakdown in the social fabric.
It provides a place and space for anti-social behaviour to take root.
And in the engagement of young people in
recreation or structured sport, or whether it’s the arts or some level of
activity, it provides them an outlet. It provides them an outlet and keeps them
from, you know, starting to develop those anti-social behaviours early in life.
Because, let’s face it, a life of
addictions doesn’t occur when you’re 19 years old. It starts when you’re much
younger. It starts when you’re 12 — 11, 12, even younger in some instances.
Where we can provide some outlet and ability for those kids to engage in
activities that are constructive, community building, and provide them with a
good base for a strong future, is something that I’m a fervent believer in.
What I advocated in those meetings with
the federal government is that we would, you know, be there as a third-share
partner in any opportunities for recreational infrastructure to be put and
brought to the table across the board. We want to promote that. In my mind,
it’s the first step in crime prevention. It stops kids from being
. . . or you know, provides an outlet for kids to not be involved in
that anti-social behaviour.
And I want to make sure that going
forward we have that message carried to all levels of government that we want
to be there to support that type of initiative. When it comes to communities
building infrastructure, when it comes to recreational sports, we want to have
those early discussions.
And actually this also speaks to part of
my working life as a municipal elected official in a rural municipality
bordering one of the larger urban centres in the province. There was always the
conversation around, well can you guys come in and help us fund the operation
or facility within another municipal boundary?
And my opinion on that has changed over
time. I think it’s important that there is a regional look to some of these
facilities. That as a large urban, if you’re going to build something or
undertake to build something, that you engage with your rural partners early to
ensure that they’re willing to come on with you. Don’t build it and then come
and ask them for the money afterwards even when they had no say in it, is what
I’ve told a lot of people.
So those kind of conversations and
collaboration are important to ensure, you know, the regional aspect of
ensuring we have recreational facilities available to young people across the
province.
Bonnie Chambers:
— The ministry always encourages municipalities to work together. And one of
the programs that we have that has been in existence for the last five years is
our targeted sector support program. And while it’s not an infrastructure
program, it is a program. It’s a non-infrastructure program where
municipalities can work together, whether it’s a regional co-operation — we’ve
funded a lot of projects for governance training for municipal officials — it
might be regional co-operation where they look at regional planning bylaws
where they’re all coordinated. So that’s one thing that we have put in place in
the last few years. And each year it grows, and we’re happy about that.
The other thing that we do is when we do
have an infrastructure program, regional projects do take precedence. They
score higher when it is a regional project.
Laurier Donais:
— Just one other thing to add here, you know, with regards to some of the
maintenance costs with some of the facilities. I would note that Parks, Culture
and Sport does have a program, the community rink affordability grant. And it’s
listed at 3.2 million in funding that goes to communities to help us
offset some of those operational costs that they incur.
Erika Ritchie: — And so I guess
what I’m hearing you say though is that other than regional projects scoring
higher when you’re looking at sort of funding allocations, there really isn’t
anything else out there sort of compelling municipalities to work jointly on
projects. Are you contemplating anything further?
I guess I ask that question because I
continue to hear a lot of frustration about, you know, just that lack of
structure, I suppose, to really facilitate co-operation. And wanted to see if
you had any intentions of doing anything further.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Yeah, thanks. The municipalities themselves — the owners of the capital
infrastructure, the owners of the rinks, the facilities as it were — have
autonomy within their own jurisdictions to be able to provide a fee structure
separate. I know it’s happening in some communities where there’s a separate
fee structure for those who are not undertaking to bring some money to the
table and helping fund the operations of some of these facilities.
The municipalities in this province are
indeed an independent level of government. They are able to act under the
. . . They have legislated authority to act in an independent way.
And the provincial government very, very, very sparingly reaches its hand into
that order because we provide the Act and the umbrella under which they are
able to operate.
And
I’m encouraged actually having some conversations most recently at the SARM
convention where I know there are RMs already that are paying into funding
municipal infrastructure, recognizing that their people are using that
infrastructure. And I’ve talked to a few other RMs at that conference who were
in active negotiations with their large urban partners next door and wanting to
come on board. So I would encourage that to happen organically rather than
legislatively at this time.
Erika Ritchie: — And then I also wanted to ask about the
Communities in Transition fund. The capital portion is at 1.5 million in
the current budget. I understand that that comes off of the municipal
revenue-sharing amount and there’s the way that . . . I guess what
that means is that it kind of takes that funding away that otherwise would be
going to communities. And there have been some concerns about it being
disproportionate in terms of, you know, how it’s benefiting communities.
Perhaps you could speak to the structure of the program and why it’s set up the
way that it is.
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — Yeah, thanks for the question. So
Communities in Transition funding has been in place for a significant
. . . I’m not exactly sure the exact date when it was . . .
’07, okay. So it’s been around for quite a while. The purpose of that funding
was to support communities that were under a requirement to dissolve into the
RMs that surround them. We’re talking of hamlets, villages, just through
attrition. We’re talking, you know, loss of their tax base, loss of quorum at
the municipal level, unable to provide or meet the legislative requirements to
be in compliance with the legislation in order to operate as a municipality.
And
with those communities comes . . . They are urban municipalities that
are being transitioned. With those communities comes some legacy infrastructure
with those communities. So these urban residents who are now, through no fault
of their own other than the passage of time and the natural flow of the
population to gravitate to larger centres, they are now in a situation where
they face not having support to keep providing that legacy system like water
treatment or septic treatment, things like that.
[19:15]
So
now that responsibility has been placed in the custody of the RM. However these
individuals are municipal residents up until the day that they move into the
RM. And what this funding is meant to do is to support those legacy systems to
ensure that those services are still available to those urban residents.
So
when we transition to the new model, which is an increase, obviously we’re
seeing this happen more and more, and we’re expecting it to happen more and
more. And we want to ensure that there is enough funding available, and that it
is divided off the top in equal sum, because it is going to support urban
residents who are faced with a dissolution of their urban status, but their
systems are not. Their systems are urban systems still, and the RMs are having
to take this over. And it helps to ensure that the RMs will continue or will
continue to provide those services to those municipal residents after they
become RM residents. We want to make sure that that’s available to them.
In
addition to this funding, we also have some funding available for strategic
initiatives for both SARM and SUMA that are provided to them to be able to
access some funding to be able to, you know, identify areas where they feel
they can make some innovative steps to an approach to a certain issue. That’s
also available to them.
But
in the meantime, this is not an open pot of funding. People just can’t reach
into it whenever they want. This is a fund that just stays in place and is a
placeholder for when applications to the fund and approved applications to the
fund are made. And that funding then is withdrawn to support those legacy
systems, whether they be water, sewer, solid waste — whatever that community
had in place prior to its transition into a rural community.
So
I speak to this, you know, this is truly an across-the-board level funding
model to ensure that both urban and the rural municipalities are supported
through this transition.
Erika Ritchie: — Thank you for that response. I do want
to ask a few more questions about this because, like I think as you say, it’s a
program that is going to be . . . You know, demand is going to
increase. And so first of all, you know, what is the average amount of an
application? Like how much funding would a community receive on average? So I’m
just trying to get a sense of like, $1.5 million, well was that fully
subscribed last year? And how many communities received funding? What was the
average amount?
And
then going forward, what are your forecasts telling you in terms of the need
for the program? And at what sort of a rate?
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — So I’ll just open quickly that the
increased value of the fund was meant to help accrue a cushion or continue to
grow the fund so that it would be a more robust amount of money through slow
growth, through municipal revenue sharing as the years go by, to ensure that
there would be enough funding in there for a significant number of these coming
down the road. I mean that work was done through calculations through the
Ministry of Government Relations on the best predictive models that we can.
I’ll
turn it over to Bonnie maybe just to answer a little bit more specifically on
what that model looks like.
Bonnie
Chambers:
— Thank you. Great question. So this program, we did increase it this year, and
we took it off the top as municipal revenue sharing, as the minister said. But
what we also did is that we’ve opened it to allow . . . Previously
the program was just where a small village would dissolve into the RM. Now we
are allowing for urban to urban, so if two villages wanted to become one or if
a rural municipality and an urban one to become a municipal district, it would
help some of that transition. So we’ve expanded the program, which was one
reason why we took it from the top.
In
regards to the money that was spent last year, prior to this it was the
$700,000 that was allocated each year for this program. And all of that was
allocated in ’25‑26.
I
can’t answer on what an average application would be because they range from
the needs of the municipality. And each year is different because when the RM
takes on a village, they have 10 years of where they can apply for projects. So
it might be a water treatment plant this year; next year they might be working
on a lagoon or other stuff. And they have 10 years when they can apply for
projects. So we have funded projects that may be well over a million dollars,
and we’ve funded some that may only be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Erika Ritchie: — And just for a little bit of clarity in
terms of, you know, when the communities are transitioning and you’re
addressing those facilities, are we talking mainly that they’re being
decommissioned? Or what exactly are we talking about?
Bonnie
Chambers:
— That’s another good question. It may be decommissioning when it comes to
landfills because that is one project that is funded often. If it’s a water
treatment plant, it may be upgrades. Or it could be where the council decides
that they’re going to put in a reverse osmosis program in and provide water for
each place in the former village.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you very
much. I guess I will go back . . . That was a little bit of a
jumping-off point. So I think I had a few more questions in the list of
allocations for municipal relations I want to go back to.
I
did hear you mention in your introductory remarks, Mr. Minister, that SAMA
would be getting a slight increase to their funding. You know, I do have a lot
of questions around SAMA and property assessment. It seems to me that there is
a lot of fluidity in that space, just in terms of a little bit of AI
[artificial intelligence] being a bit of a destructive force or constructive
force in terms of, on the appeal side.
And
I think, at the end of the day, you know, adequate, stable funding is super
important to ensure the integrity of the work that SAMA does. And I understand
that their funding had been frozen for a number of years at a set amount. And
you know, I am concerned about if the funding that’s been provided this year is
going to sort of address some of the immediate pressures that they’re facing in
terms of, you know, staff retention and the number and quality of assessments
that they’re able to do.
So
it’s kind of a general broad question, but I just want to see if you can tell
me a little bit about, you know, how you arrived at the amount of increase that
you did and how you see that improving the work that SAMA undertakes.
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — So just for a point of clarification,
last year SAMA did receive a $900,000 increase to their budget. And that’s in
addition to the $602,000 that’ll be this year. So we’ll be at the little over
$1.5 million increase over the past two years, which is significant.
When
it comes to SAMA and their budget, what they do is they submit a budget request
to the ministry, and that goes forward through the finance process. And so
essentially what we’re basing our budget on is their requests. So I would turn
it over to Yomi here with our ministry to further explain some of those
processes.
Abayomi
Akintola:
— Hi, my name is Abayomi Akintola. I am the director of property tax and
assessment with the ministry. So basically what happens would be SAMA would
present to the ministry what their important projects would be and their
capital needs, and the ministry would review what they’ve submitted. And then
we would also consult with SAMA to have some conversations to review what
they’ve submitted.
And as the minister mentioned, although
there was a freeze that happened a couple of years ago, in the last couple of
years the SAMA’s budget has increased accordingly, even sometimes more than
what they’ve requested for; especially last year when they got the 900,000.
With respect to SAMA’s use of technology,
SAMA’s funding does not only come from the municipal sector, from the ministry.
It also comes from the municipal sector through requisitions. And SAMA also has
a contract with the city of Moose Jaw, and they also have access to other
revenue sources by sales of data. And then this is something, decisions that
SAMA’s board of directors make. But with respect to their technology, they have
their own in-house group that manages technology, and SAMA has invested
significantly on that front with the ministry’s support as well. Thank you.
Erika Ritchie: —
Okay. Thank you very much for that. I’ll move on to the transit assistance for
people with disabilities. I’ll have to admit to a little bit of confusion on
that one because I see the amount of about 3.8 million listed, but then
there was also an $800,000 capital amount, I believe, in the capital budget.
And I’d like to know how many
individuals that program is supporting. I understand that there’s like a
transit pass that that pays for. And so just wanting to know just, you know,
overall what that funding is for exactly, and how many individuals it benefits.
[19:30]
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
And Mr. Chair, I’ll quickly hand it over to Iryna Soloduk, then back over to
Laurier Donais for an answer after.
Iryna Soloduk:
— So good evening. Iryna Soloduk, executive director of municipal
infrastructure and the finance branch. So when it comes to the transit
assistance for people with disabilities program, or short for TAPD, in ’25‑26
we have 13 capital grants were approved for the funding of 715,000. For ’25‑26
the capital, as I said, was 715,000 and operating budget with
3.72 million.
When it comes to the ’26‑27, that
total capital budget would be split for 800 will go to the capital, and
2,987,000 will go to the capital. So when it comes to the TAPD operational, we
basically paid based on the ridership, and then municipalities decided to use
it for the operating of the system.
Laurier Donais:
— Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, this relates to your earlier
question about Sask Municipal Board. So we just did some looking up at their
annual report, and they’ve actually got quite a nice display of information
there. They’ve got some nice graphs and charts about the various appeals that
they hear, the applicants, and some of the debt limits and some of that
information. So that’s all available on their annual report. And you can access
that on publications.saskatchewan.ca. Thank you.
Erika Ritchie: —
Okay, thank you for that. So just hoping we can sort of unpack that a little
bit more. Now you said that, you know, the pay was based on ridership. So what
do you mean by the pay? I don’t quite understand the terminology.
Iryna Soloduk: —
So just back to your question, thank you so much. So the calculation is
basically based on the ridership detailed. And the formula itself is very
complicated, and it is written in the grant regulations.
But in order for municipalities to
receive this funding, they obviously have to apply to us and tell us how much
ridership they have in the previous year. Then we take the ridership from all
the municipalities and give them a weight, based on their population. So the
municipalities that have over 100,000 population will have a bit higher weight.
And then it goes from 20,000 to 100,000 population will have again little bit
lower. And it has five, like, stages of the population, and each of them
obviously will have a different weight. And then we stick with the overall
operational budget and then divide it.
So it is complicated, I apologize. Like
we can send you the grant regulations exactly where the formula is written. So
the bigger basically the municipality, the better chance, so the higher weight
they will have and the more funding they will receive.
Erika Ritchie: —
Okay, I guess . . .
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
I just wanted to add something. The program is under review currently, and we
are looking at adding the capital portion to that program, increasing the
capital portion.
Erika Ritchie: —
Okay, well why don’t I start there? So there is $800,000 in capital funding in
the current budget. What will that be used for?
Iryna Soloduk: — So the capital funding is used for purchase
of the buses.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay.
Iryna Soloduk: — So a municipality will have to apply. We
obviously review how many applications we have, and then we determine who gets
the funding. Capital portions go up to a maximum of 55,000 per bus. So again,
dependent on how many applications we get, you know, some of the cities may get
one or two or three buses, depending again on the amount of applications we
receive and the priorities that they get.
Erika Ritchie: — And then the other amount is to cover off
on the operating costs, correct?
Iryna Soloduk: — That’s
right.
Erika Ritchie: —
Okay. According to the formula that you explained to me, would this be like
full cost allocation, or is it basically a subsidy? What share of the operating
cost would you be providing through the program?
Iryna Soloduk: — And so the
budget is utilized every year for the original portion of the funding. It’s
hard to say which percentage we are covering because the amount varies every
year when it comes to submission of the ridership for the municipalities. So
you know, during the COVID time for example, we know that ridership decreased.
But we still provided the same amount just across the border.
In the last two years we see significant
increase in the ridership, specifically that post-COVID time. And again we do
split the same pool, just between the same amount of municipalities.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Just again to reiterate, this program is under review currently and there is a
review of the capital amount, the cap.
[19:45]
Erika Ritchie: — And just forgive
me my ignorance on this program. I haven’t asked questions on this piece
before. So you’re providing funding to the municipalities based on the formula,
and then they’re using that money to pay for a portion of the service. And then
how does that work in terms of the riders themselves? They’re purchasing a bus
pass or token? Or how does that ridership piece fit into it?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Yeah, thanks for the question. So what this funding does is essentially puts
the funding into the municipality’s hands. And they decide how they’re going to
subsidize the transport for the individual, if they do it. Obviously we want
to, again, not reach in where we don’t need to and just provide what we can
provide to the municipalities in order for them to make those decisions based
on their need.
Erika Ritchie: — Is any of this a
flow-through from the federal government? No?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
It’s entirely us. It’s entirely provincial funding, yeah.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, all right.
Thank you very much. So another area of funding is the TSASK [Technical Safety
Authority of Saskatchewan]. Let me see if I can find that here. Yeah, okay, so
buildings and technical standards, I believe there is a decrease. Oh, okay,
found my spot here. Okay, I’m seeing a slight decrease from 947 to 932,000 in
the current budget. Could you tell me what that reflects?
Laurier Donais:
— Yeah, thanks. Thanks for the question. So this really is the same reason as
earlier under the central management and services subvote, where we saw that
reduction on the salaries, the 67,000 on the salary side of things. So this is
part of the workforce alignment process that we’re going through. And so it
will be achieved through vacancy management, so voluntary resignations and
retirements from staff.
And so we allocated it amongst all of
our various program areas, based on salary budgets, because that’s really the
only way that we could because there’s really no other way to predict where
those vacancies will occur.
Erika Ritchie: — I’m just kind of
wondering, you know, sort of given the events of last year with the tragic loss
of life to the Losco family and their young boy due to carbon monoxide
poisoning, just an absolute tragedy . . . And I did write to you at
the time, you’ll recall, asking about the governance and oversight for boiler
systems in these residential, commercial buildings. And I understand that it is
a matter that’s under investigation right now.
So I just wonder though, kind of given
the circumstances at this time, if that is an area that should be undergoing a
reduction at a time when, you know, I would expect that you would be looking to
beef up and ensure robustness overall within that department to ensure, going
forward, that tragedies like that won’t happen again.
I mean obviously there’s a lot at play.
I get that. But yeah, just at such a critical time here it does seem a bit
concerning.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Thanks for your comments there with respect to the family and their loss. I
would echo those and, on behalf of the government, offer condolences to the
family as well. That’s something that no parent should ever have to deal with
in their life. And I know that many, you know, in this building have dealt with
a similar situation. It’s something I personally would never want to deal with.
And to talk to people that have had that happen, it’s very traumatizing and
traumatic. And we offer our condolences to them.
Specifically to this issue, as you
mentioned, this is a matter under investigation currently. So we don’t know
where the issue lies when it comes to how this tragedy unfolded, other than the
obvious things that have been reported. But specifically, there is a burden
upon any landlord or property owner to ensure that they are providing a good,
sound dwelling for any individuals who would be potential tenants or tenants of
them currently. And maybe I’ll just pass it over to Bill or Laurier for further
comment on that.
William Hawkins:
— Thank you very much. Bill Hawkins, I’m the executive director of building and
technical standards. I share your condolences to the family in this tragic
incident.
Relative to carbon monoxide alarms,
early warning devices, the interests of families and citizens in Saskatchewan,
effective July 2022, Saskatchewan implemented a new program under which every
building with sleeping accommodations in Saskatchewan is required to have
adequate carbon monoxide detection and smoke alarm detection.
That was implemented following an
incident in Saskatoon where 40‑some residents of an apartment building
arrived at an emergency room. And a quick-thinking doctor there realized that
there was something awry at the building since all of the patients came from
the same location.
At the time government determined that
it was necessary to do more to protect the people. Prior to that, the only
requirement for carbon monoxide or smoke alarms was in new construction, and
those two requirements had come about at varying times in different editions of
the building code that had been adopted in Saskatchewan.
We were asked if there was a way to
improve that and how to do that. And we responded that there was. So we, here
in Saskatchewan, developed an implementation plan that required carbon monoxide
and smoke alarms in all buildings of residential occupancy, or all buildings
with overnight sleeping accommodation. It made it retroactive throughout
Saskatchewan in all buildings.
So the application of that I probably
should go into a little bit. All of the construction codes and technical safety
programs administered by government in this area are operated under five very
simple principles. The owner is responsible for compliance with construction
codes or any technical safety legislation. The delegated authority — in the
case of building codes, energy codes, and in some locations plumbing codes — is
delegated to the municipality. The government is responsible for legislation,
regulations, and the policy framework. The inspectorate — building officials, fire
inspectors, boiler inspectors, and others — work for the delegated authority.
And then finally, contractors, architects, engineers, tradespeople work for the
owner.
So in that context there’s a bit of
shared responsibility for all of these programs and all of these services.
Government set the policy, amended the regulations for it to take effect.
Owners became responsible to install the CO [carbon monoxide] and smoke alarms
as required in the regulation, and local authorities are providing passive
enforcement where that applies to existing buildings. Brand new buildings or
renovations that require building permits, there would be active enforcement of
ensuring carbon monoxide and smoke alarms were installed.
Erika Ritchie: — Thank you for that
overview. At the top you mentioned, I think you said “adequate detection.” And
could you tell me what you mean by that?
William
Hawkins: —
Adequate detention?
Erika Ritchie: — Detection.
William
Hawkins: — Detection.
Sorry. Thank you. Feel like I’m in detention. Been a long time.
Adequate
detection is sort of described in the National Building Code as to where carbon
monoxide and smoke alarms must be located in a dwelling unit. So I don’t have
those details immediately in front of me, but we want to protect people where
they’re most vulnerable, okay? In their sleeping rooms, okay? Because you know,
carbon monoxide is an odourless, colourless, tasteless gas that we don’t
respond to typically as humans except we get groggy, may feel flu-like
symptoms, and so on. So a person that is sleeping is likely not to know they’ve
been poisoned by carbon monoxide.
So we want it
either in or close to the sleeping room. We want it on each floor. In buildings
that have multiple residences, we want it in
— not want it; we require it — in all rooms that are adjacent to the parking
garage, if it’s attached to a parking garage; in all rooms that are adjacent to
a boiler room or a room that has a fuel-burning appliance, so furnace, water
heater, even a clothes dryer. And we want it in all locations where there are
any risks.
So in a multi-unit residential building,
it is not necessarily required in every dwelling unit in that building. It is
required in those locations where the risks are most prevalent or closest to
the source of the carbon monoxide poisoning.
Erika Ritchie: — And that’s laid
out in the National Building Code?
William Hawkins:
— Correct. It’s laid out in the National Building Code and augmented in The
Building Code Regulations.
Erika Ritchie: — So augmented in The
Building Code Regulations that pertain to the province of Saskatchewan?
William Hawkins:
— Correct.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay. And so then,
augmentation could include expanding the requirements further then, I would
assume? If you understand my question, sorry?
William Hawkins:
— I would say that’s possible.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay. So for
example, would it be possible to modify the regulations to require carbon
monoxide detectors in every dwelling unit within an apartment building,
theoretically speaking?
William Hawkins:
— Theoretically, yes.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay. And I guess
that’s kind of one end of the problem, sort of the detection when there is a
malfunction. And then maybe you could tell me a little bit more sort of on the
front end, you know, in terms of the inspection of boilers and how failures are
avoided, detected, and repaired.
[20:00]
William
Hawkins: —
So if I understand the question, it’s about the front-end safety of boilers,
other tactical safety products. I can help build some understanding around
that.
So boilers and pressure vessels
generally are fired by gas, natural gas, right? So they have a combustion
chamber in them that heats water or creates hot water or steam for heating
purposes and, in some locations, for industrial purposes. But let’s stick to
apartment buildings. They’re there to create heat to heat the building, right?
So in Saskatchewan there are few
technologies that have been regulated any longer than boilers and pressure
vessels. I think the original legislation dates back to about 1910. So there’s
been a fairly robust program in place for a very long time.
Today that program is administered by
the Technical Safety Authority of Saskatchewan, a delegated authority of the
government. They employ a number of engineers, boiler inspectors, and other
vocations that work in the field of plan review, inspection, engineering around
the boiler systems.
They also work with other provinces and
territories in Canada on assessing boilers for registration in other
jurisdictions. We call it the Canadian registration number that’s available or
is subject to a reconciliation agreement under the Canadian Free Trade
Agreement.
So throughout Canada all of the
jurisdictions subscribe to this model, are signatory to that reconciliation
agreement. So, sorry; I’m off track there just a little bit. I’m going to bring
it back to this situation you asked for.
So the boilers are installed. So the
boilers are designed by engineers. The plans for the manufacturer are reviewed
by engineers in one jurisdiction or another. It could be anywhere in Canada.
But if that boiler is sort of an assembly line-type boiler, it might be first
approved in a place like Nova Scotia. That approval can be registered in
Saskatchewan for installation.
The installation is done under a permit.
The inspectors would go to a site to see a boiler commissioned, or shortly
after it’s first started, they would check on the commissioning to see how it
was working and that.
In terms of its operation, depending on
its size, a different plant operator may be required. And it goes all the way
from a fireman’s certificate for the operation of simple, small boilers to
first-class boiler operator for larger, more sophisticated, higher capacity
boilers.
So they have regular supervision. They
have regular inspections done by the boiler inspectors from TSASK, and that’s
the model under which they generally operate in terms of design, permitting,
installation, inspection, and commissioning.
On an ongoing basis, most boiler systems
that I’m familiar with — and I’m not the expert — have multiple fail-safes
built into them, right? If the water were too low, it would shut itself off. If
there was a power outage, it would wait until the power was on before it reset
itself.
Two or three years ago I toured the
boiler manufacturer in Saskatoon, and they demonstrated one on the floor there
and pointed out all the fail-safe mechanisms. If there is something wrong with
the gas component, or the gas blower, they shut themselves off. In addition to
regular supervision, there are a lot of fail-safe provisions that can prevent a
boiler from malfunctioning.
Erika Ritchie: — Thank you so much
for that overview. In the interests of time, I’m going to turn the mike over to
my colleagues who have some further questions for the minister.
Chair
B. McLeod: — I recognize MLA Laliberte.
Leroy
Laliberte: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to Minister Schmalz. I have a few
questions. And I know everybody’s tired here; I promise we’ll be done here by
midnight.
I have a few questions. The first one
is, we’ve seen a few announcements around the mining projects in the province,
which is positive to see obviously. However for this to be successful, we need
adequate Indigenous consultations. In the estimates the allocation for the
First Nations and Métis Consultation Participation Fund is flat year after
year. Can you explain why that is, and if we’re going to be expecting some more
consultation with those First Nations and Métis communities?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Yeah, thanks for the question. When it comes to the consultation policy
framework with Indigenous stakeholders and northern stakeholders and everyone
that would be engaged on a project, it is a varied process. It’s not a
cookie-cutter approach that can be applied, as far as the funding model goes.
We expect and hope that the economy
would drive a larger number of resource projects and continued growth in the
resource sector, which it has over the years. But we also want to be cognizant
that we can’t forecast that accurately, given we don’t know who’s going to be
wanting to come forward with a project.
So what we do is we allocate a certain
amount to that fund. However if the need arises — which it has, thankfully, in
the past, over the past year — we will continue to fund that beyond the
allocated funding so that we can ensure that that consultation is supported and
ongoing. We want to make sure that that’s a key component to any resource
development for both the stakeholders who live in the North as well as the
companies or proponents of a project. So we want to make sure that they are
both in support. And this current model was indeed lobbied for by industry and
stakeholders alike.
So this model is functioning well, and
we’re very happy to participate or provide supports for that ongoing
consultation whenever there’s a prospective project in the North.
Leroy
Laliberte: —
Thank you. Just going off a comment that I heard earlier after my colleague
here had asked . . . You were speaking about recreation outlets being
really constructive in the communities in the North — well, throughout the
province. And I also noticed, with the announcements of new federal funding
that’s been announced in the North, is there any money that’s going to be
allocated to recreation outlets for northern Saskatchewan?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Yeah, and thanks. I just want to also just go back to the previous question,
just really quickly touch on it. The original funding for consultation was set
at a flat rate of $400,000. We’ve since increased that to 1 million and
have continually ensured that the supports are in place, if needed, to go above
and beyond that. We have in the past.
When it comes to recreational funding
and those dollars, those are allocated through, what we would use is an
integrated bilateral agreement. They’re not a single-source funding like a
health care facility where the province would fund them entirely on their own,
on our own. They would come through a federal and provincial partnership when
it comes to those applications.
And again those applications would be
made with the criteria outlined by both the federal and provincial governments.
So currently we do not have . . . ICIP was the last integrated
bilateral agreement that accounted for recreational facilities in the program.
The current program is strictly associated with growing housing availability
and ensuring that those infrastructure investments are made to support the
growth of housing.
But currently right now we are not
seeing any programming that’s coming to us in an integrated bilateral way —
currently, I say — to go towards what would be considered a recreational
facility program stream.
Leroy
Laliberte: —
So with that, the next question, I don’t know if it might sound a little silly
or whatever. But with the money that’s being allocated from the federal
government to the province — like I noticed a few months back that there was an
announcement where we had had minister Buckley Belanger up in La Ronge, for
example — and you were there with that announcement for these funds. Now the
funds come into the province, and do you have a say, your ministry, as to where
that money is going to be allocated to?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
So that funding, specifically that announcement, was for the Canada
Community-Building Fund, was formerly known as Gas Tax. And for some reason the
word “gas” is no longer amenable to certain people to say. It’s just what the
program was, and it was meant, primarily meant for use on road infrastructure
kind of thing.
So what that allocation does is it comes
in through the federal government, and we provide or are provided with the
formula by which that money is distributed. And I’ll let Laurier maybe expound
on that a little bit more. But essentially that is single-source federal
dollars coming into provincial administration really, and then it’s provided to
communities all across the province.
Bonnie Chambers:
— Yes. Recreation facilities are allowed under the Canada Community-Building
Fund, and it’s allocated on a per capita basis.
Leroy
Laliberte: — Okay.
All right. Thank you for that.
So you were saying with the money that
went . . . that with the announcement up north would go to something
like roads, for example. But so is there, is that money going to be utilized
for the roads in the North? Or does the ministry get to pick where that’s going
to happen?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
No, it’s allocated on a per capita basis. So whatever community is able to
receive that funding, they allocate where that funding goes. And it’s not just
for roads specifically. As Bonnie outlined, you can use it for recreational
funding. You can use it for fire services. You can buy fire trucks with it, if
you needed to in your community. You can use that money, direct it essentially
anywhere you see fit.
Wherever there’s a need for your
community, you can provide that funding essentially. It’s not entirely no
strings attached, but there is a broader spectrum of applicable projects that
that money can be put toward.
Bonnie Chambers:
— And we encourage communities again to . . . As the minister said,
they could buy fire trucks. We encourage them to work together and pool their
money for things like recreation and fire trucks.
Leroy
Laliberte: —
Perfect.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
There’s also an opportunity under the targeted sector support funding that if
you wanted to come together as a community on a project, we will as a ministry
provide some funding for feasibility studies and things like that. So there’s
supports there available for communities right across the province.
Leroy
Laliberte: —
Thank you. So next question: many Indigenous people in our province live in the
North. That is something that you know. Many of these communities are growing
and in need of infrastructure. We are also seeing additional industrial
developments. Despite that, the northern revenue sharing, 7.8 per cent, is
growing at a lower rate than the urban revenue sharing at 8.4 per cent. Can you
outline how you think that the infrastructure challenge is being addressed?
[20:15]
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Yeah, just a point of clarity or a point of information that the municipal
revenue sharing went up equally across the board. So it went up nearly 8 per
cent entirely across the board. So the lift was not varied or fluctuating
depending on where the funds are going to be coming from.
But I want to get Brad Henry up here and
have a bit of a conversation on some of the infrastructure projects that are
being undertaken currently in the North.
Leroy
Laliberte: —
Just one second before that, please, before you start. And so with the urban
revenue sharing, that’s at 8.4 per cent, right? Is that, or am I getting
. . .
Laurier Donais: — Yeah, thanks for
the question. And just clarification, as the minister indicated, all three of
those revenue sharing. So urban revenue sharing went up 8.5 per cent, went up
19.65 million. Rural revenue sharing went up 8.737 million, which was
8.5 per cent. And then the northern revenue-sharing pool went up
2.268 million, which is also an 8 per cent, 8.5 per cent increase. So they
were all the same per cent increases year over year.
Brad Henry: — Thanks for the
question. Just speaking to infrastructure in northern Saskatchewan that we
support. In 2025 we were supporting 27 projects in 20 communities, and three of
those projects were shared with neighbouring First Nations. Our total cost
expenditure that year was $5.8 million.
In 2026 we have 19 active projects in 17
municipalities. Two of those projects are shared with a neighbouring First
Nation, and we’re estimating 31.6 million in investments this year. That’s
going to depend on the ability for the construction industry to meet those
needs. That changes every year depending on availability, but that’s what we’re
projecting this year.
Leroy
Laliberte: —
And those projects are north of Prince Albert and north of North Battleford,
right?
Brad Henry: — That’s correct. I can walk through those
right here if you like.
Leroy
Laliberte: — Yeah,
please.
Brad Henry: — So in Buffalo Narrows we’re delivering a
project to upgrade three of their sewage pump stations. They’re having
mechanical control and electrical upgrades and implementing portable
standby generators as well a permanent genset for one of their SPSs [sewage
pump station]. That project is being delivered with the support of the federal
government through the New Building Canada Fund. And the total cost of that
project is $2.8 million, of which Buffalo Narrows is responsible for
$233,700.
In Cole Bay we’re delivering a project
to assist them with upgrading their lagoon and sewage pump station. Right now
that project’s just in pre-design and design stage, but it is estimated to be
completed in 2026. That project is to install standby generators as well as
upgrades to their buildings’ mechanical, electrical, and control systems. The
total cost of that project is $400,000, and the municipality is responsible for
just over 33,000 of that.
In Creighton we’re estimating completion
of a project this year to upgrade their wastewater treatment plant. They’re
currently having capacity and discharge quality issues. That one again is being
delivered with the support of the federal government through the New Building
Canada Fund. That total project cost is $3 million, and the municipality
is responsible for 250,000 of that.
Another project we’ve got ongoing in
Creighton is rehabilitating their sewage system. They’re doing spot repairs on
their sewer main as well as relining the sewer main, repairing manholes, and
replacing manholes where needed. The total estimated cost of that project is
just over $3 million. This is another project that’s supported through the
Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, and the municipality is responsible
for 253,000 of that.
In the northern village of Cumberland
House we’re assisting them with water treatment plant distribution and
programmable logic controller upgrades. They need to replace distribution pumps
and headers, replace corroded piping, replace a control panel and some
human-machine interface controls. Again this project is supported by the New
Building Canada Fund at a total project cost of $844,000, and the municipality
is responsible for 70,000 of that.
Another project in Cumberland House is
to assist them with their water supply and treatment system. That project is
estimated to be complete in 2026 as well. The total project cost is $350,000,
of which the municipality is responsible for just over $29,000.
In Denare Beach we’re working with them
on wastewater treatment plant upgrades. They’re experiencing a high volume of
what’s referred to as liquid sludge, and dewatering infrastructure is required.
The issue is affecting effluent quality, which is a compliance issue. This is a
project funded by the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program. Total project
cost is 3.7 million, of which the municipality is responsible for just
under 313,000.
In Green Lake we’re working with them on
water treatment plant upgrades. They need mechanical, electrical, building,
treatment, and raw water supply upgrades. The issues are that sodium and
alkalinity exceed the objectives, and as a result they have elevated ammonia
and elevated THMs [trihalomethane]. This is an Investing in Canada
Infrastructure project, and the total project cost is $4.65 million, of
which the municipality is responsible for 387,000.
Ile-a-la-Crosse is currently struggling
with required upgrades to two of their sewage pump stations. Corroded piping
and valves; upgrades to buildings, mechanical, and electrical systems; and
we’ll be adding generators to those infrastructures as well. This is another
project that is supported by the New Building Canada Fund. Total project cost
is 4 million, of which the municipality is responsible for 333,000.
In Ile-a-la-Crosse we’re also assisting
with a water and sewer main replacement project, inspecting and developing a
new water main replacement program. Their water mains are currently cast iron
pipes. And in 2011 they experienced four water main breaks during the same
year, which tells us that we need to do something differently. So this is
another New Building Canada Fund project. Total project cost is
$3.3 million, of which the municipality is responsible for 275,000.
In Jans Bay we’ve got a project for
water treatment plant and sewage treatment plant upgrades. The treatment
process as well as distribution pumps need upgrading, as well as the electrical
system and the standby generator. And that’s for both their SPS, sewage pump
station, 1 and 2. Total project cost is $300,000, and the municipality is
responsible for 25,000 of that.
In La Ronge the wastewater treatment
plant has effluent quality that doesn’t meet federal guidelines, which creates
a compliance issue. We delivered a feasibility study over the last couple of
years, which has now led to a project to upgrade this infrastructure. This is
another project that’ll be funded by the Investing in Canada Infrastructure
Program. Total project cost is estimated at 17.65 million, and the
municipality’s responsible for just under 1.5 million of that.
In Missinipe we’ve got some issues with
pumps and a discharge pipe at the sewage pump station. Total project cost is
845,000, of which the municipality’s responsible for 70,000.
In Pinehouse we’ve got a project under
way for raw water and wastewater upgrades as well as upgrading the capacity and
sewer main lining leading to their sewage pump station no. 2. And their
raw water pumps are nearing the end of life as well. This is another Investing
in Canada Infrastructure Program project. That total project cost is
$1.86 million, and the municipality’s responsible for 155,000 of that.
In Sandy Bay there, we’re delivering a
sewage lagoon upgrade project, expanding the primary and secondary cells due to
a lack of capacity. This project is $14.7 million, and the municipality’s
responsible for 106,000 of that. This is one of the projects that’s being
shared with the neighbouring First Nation, and the neighbouring First Nation is
funding 13.5 million of that.
In Stanley Mission we have a project,
the water treatment plant. We’re exploring a new pilot process and now
implementing that. Total project cost of 14.2 million, of which the
municipality’s responsible for 45,000 and the adjacent First Nation, 13.6 million.
In St. George’s Hill we’ve got a
wastewater treatment plant and sewage treatment plant upgrade project,
implementing permanent generators for both the water treatment plant and sewage
treatment plant as well as replacing standby pumps, rehabilitating their well,
and installing two additional fire hydrants. This is a project for which we’ve
applied to the CHIF program for. Total project cost is $360,000, of which the
municipality’s responsible for 30,000.
In Timber Bay their sewage lagoon cells
need a synthetic liner upgrade to prevent exfiltration of the effluent, and
we’re expanding the storage cell to meet new regulations. This is a New
Building Canada Fund project. Total project cost is 1.655 million, of
which the municipality’s responsible for 199,000.
In Uranium City their water system needs
a number of upgrades — the floor drains backflow prevention, water metering
systems. This is an Investing in Canada Infrastructure funded project. Total
project cost is 4 million, and the municipality is responsible for
333,000.
In Weyakwin we’re delivering a lagoon
and sewage pump station upgrade project. The lagoon needs expansion and repair.
Much like the Timber Bay project, the lagoon cells need replacement with a
synthetic liner to prevent exfiltration, and the cells need to be expanded as
well. And at the same time we’ll be installing standby generators and upgrading
the building mechanical, electrical, and control systems for the sewage pump
station. This is another New Building Canada Fund project. Total project cost
is $2.7 million, of which the municipality is responsible for 230,000.
And in Wollaston Lake we are replacing
their sewer main. Blockages were found. Grade issues were found. Some of the
manholes are deteriorated. And with support of the Investing in Canada
Infrastructure Program, for the total project cost of just over a million
dollars, the municipality is responsible for just under $90,000.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
I was just going to say what Mr. Henry has outlined there constitutes a very,
very significant list of investments being made by this government in northern
Saskatchewan, in northern communities. And you know, we’re very proud to
partner with First Nations and Indigenous partners in the North whenever and
wherever possible. But you can see that, when it comes to integrated bilateral
agreements, we are in fact working to ensure that it is being impactful across
the province, not just in certain areas.
Leroy
Laliberte: —
So there are two communities, one that was named up as Green Lake, a
$4.6 million project or whatever. And this was through the federal
government funding where the municipality would have to come up with $387,000.
Is that correct? Is that how that works? Or does the province kick some money
in there? Or is that all federal funding? Like how does that work?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
So under the ICIP program particularly, the Investing in Canada Infrastructure
Program, the provincial component of that program was $700 million. So the
provincial government pays roughly a little less than a third I think. The
federal government did step up significantly and it helped offset the costs to
municipalities as well. So it was really a good program. We’ll call it a
full-scope program that provided funding for any number of projects throughout
the province, provincial boundaries.
[20:30]
And this would have been one of those
programs where the province kicked in a third, essentially a third; the federal
government 40 per cent, and then the municipality had the smaller share of that
program.
Leroy
Laliberte: —
Yeah. No, the only reason why I was asking is I sat with the council at Green
Lake and for them to have, you know . . . and spoke about the money
that they have to run their community. And I tell you, it’s nothing around that
$387,000 that they would have laying around there.
And it’s the same thing with a lot of
the other small communities. So that’s why I was asking if the province would,
you know, support them . . . [inaudible] . . . because they
do need those water treatment plants and the money allocated to those northern
communities.
I’m going to move on to the next
question here. Sorry. I have a few more questions before we run out of time
here.
Brad Henry:
— I just wanted to note that for the projects that I spoke to, the Northern
Municipal Trust Account subsidizes the majority portion of the municipal share.
So for example, with respect to that Green Lake project, the federal
government’s share was 1.86 million. The provincial share was
1.549 million. The NMTA [Northern Municipal Trust Account] funded $852,655
of the municipal share and so the municipality itself was only responsible for
8.33 per cent of the project cost; whereas, as the minister mentioned, for
southern municipalities they would be responsible for up to a third . . . .
[inaudible interjection] . . . A full third.
Leroy
Laliberte: —
Yeah, no I get that. It’s just that where communities that don’t have much
money, that’s still a lot for them, right.
Brad Henry:
— Absolutely.
Leroy
Laliberte: —
So I’ll ask one more question and then I’m going to pass things over to my
colleague here. Maybe we need a little more time there, Mr. Chair. You know, if
we could go till midnight that would be great.
So my last question here is, wildfire
season is coming up and, you know, we see now that we’re expecting another dry
season coming out of a three-year drought. And we’ve seen the devastation had
taken place in northern Saskatchewan in 2025. And I want to know, is the
ministry working through its First Nations and Métis and Northern Affairs
allocation or other allocation with Indigenous communities and other government
partners to help Indigenous communities adequately prepare for this season?
Because, you know, it’s March now and going into April, and we seen that when
this all started last year. So we want to make sure that the communities are
prepared.
Now I wanted to see if the ministry was
going to help with that.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
I can speak broadly to some of the . . . Obviously we’ve mentioned
some of the programs that communities can direct the funds toward bolstering
their . . . essentially what we would call not . . . well I
guess, fireproofing in the community or fireproofing their . . . or
helping to augment their firefighting capabilities that we talked about early
on.
Specifically related to things like
FireSmarting and things like that, that all flows through the Ministry of
Community Safety, through the SPSA [Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency]. And
those are typically where those kind of program dollars come through because
that is their specialty. They are tasked with the provincial safety element
when it comes to the firefighting response in the North particularly.
Leroy
Laliberte: —
So just one more quick question. So when does your ministry kick in for like
. . . I’m talking more like collaboration to ensuring that the
communities are — in the North — are prepared?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Obviously as a government in its entirety, we have those communications
regularly with the ministries who are responsible for those specific elements
of supports that are going to be delivered to those communities. Again, the
Ministry of Government Relations is somewhat of a liaison between northern
municipalities and identifying those needs, particularly when it comes to
programming.
And any programming that is available
through, again, the integrated bilateral agreements with our federal
counterparts, come through us. And if there is such a program — which we have
advocated for as well, particularly with Minister Olszewski — that there would
be, you know, an eye to some of the emergency preparedness measures that are
needed in communities — across Canada, really, not just in Saskatchewan. But
for us it was an advocation effort on our part to try and get some engagement
with the federal government. Obviously we would look to engage with them on an
integrated bilateral agreement if that came through.
But right now currently as it stands,
the Ministry of Community Safety is the tip of the spear, as we’ll call it,
when it comes to dealing with community safety in the North.
Chair B. McLeod: — I recognize MLA McPhail. Please.
Jordan McPhail: — Well, thank you so much. And to some of the
northern folks that I see in here: Brad, nice to see
you again; Scott, my old hockey coach in the back; Dee, nice to see you again.
Haven’t seen you, I think, for almost a year here.
I could tell a lot of stories about the
folks in behind the minister here, but in sense of time maybe I’ll save that
for another time. But good to see you. I’m sure that yesterday you had to drive
through snow, freezing rain, wind — or as we like to call it in the North,
Monday.
So to just to get into some of the
questions here right off the hop. You know, me and my colleague here — both my
colleagues, actually — were at the New North gathering. It was good to see, you
know, the board of directors find a new CEO [chief executive officer] and
starting to get that operations going. Some of the things that, you know, were
obviously brought up at that meeting — when we talk about northern
municipalities and the supports that they need — was like good councillor
training, governance training, as well as like CFO [chief financial officer]
training.
When we look at the amount of issues
that we have in northern Saskatchewan, not only in retention, but the
recruitment of people into northern Saskatchewan, a lot of folks will start
their careers in the North and move elsewhere, which ties into a lot of
training and retention kind of supports.
And so a two-part question when it comes
to New North. The first is being, has the government put in the budget plans to
continue to fund the circuit rider program that New North at one time did
operate?
And second, from like the core funding
model of New North, has there been any changes to the funding for that
organization from your ministry?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Yeah, thanks for the question. So last year we did fund New North to the tune
of $90,000 to get them started back up again. Obviously we see the value as a
government in having what we’ll call a combined effort by northern communities
to, you know, be the voice of the North, as you were, as you would put it.
The circuit rider program obviously, as
their reconstitution — I’ll call it, to be fair — with New North, as they come
back together as an organization and put down the base and start to build
again, they are eligible for $360,000 a year. That funding is available through
. . . What’s it called again?
Brad Henry:
— Grants for municipal interest.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Grants for municipal interest. Thank you. And what needs to happen though,
obviously, is that there still needs to be some legislative requirements met
prior to that funding being triggered. Obviously audited financial statements,
all of those things.
With respect to the circuit rider
program that was being stood up earlier, in the earlier iteration of New North,
that funding is available for that to continue under targeted sector support.
So there’s opportunity there for those programs to be explored and supports in
place to help provide for those studies and feasibility studies and things like
that to occur. Do you want to add anything?
Brad Henry:
— No, I think you did it.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Okay.
Jordan McPhail: — Yeah, I just
waited for the mike to come on there. Yeah, thanks for that. Just to touch on a
little bit what my colleague had said about the preparedness for wildfires in
northern Saskatchewan, I know that you’d mentioned that the SPSA is strictly
there for like the wildfire itself. But I know that an integrated model of
battling against wildfires in northern Saskatchewan will include some local
fire teams and some local, you know, fire assets that have been accumulated
from municipal governments.
And I’m just wondering, from an opinion
yourself, do you think municipalities are funded enough to prepare in northern
Saskatchewan for those wildfires in their fire halls? And has there been any
conversation through the budgetary processes to maybe increase for a short term
to allow for some capital purchases of fire halls across northern Saskatchewan
to make sure that they have an inventory for some sort of value protection in
the community on a defensive standpoint through the northern capital grants program
or Northern Municipal Trust Account, or anything that might allow for them to
invest in that kind of infrastructure?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Yeah, so again I have to reiterate the Ministry of Community Safety is tasked
not only with fighting the fire and the attack of the fire in the moment, but
they’re also the arbiter of programming when it comes to FireSmarting
communities or any of those types of initiatives that are undertaken by the
provincial government.
So Ministry of Government Relations
primarily is there to support communities in the day-to-day implementation of
things like funding for, again, the in-ground infrastructure, the
infrastructure that pertains to daily life in any community across Saskatchewan.
[20:45]
So this would be specifically related to
the Canada Community-Building Fund, again to reiterate that point, and also
through programming available through the Ministry of Community Safety, which
would be through the SPSA again. That’s the current funding that’s available
toward fire prevention and fire protection under the model right now.
Jordan McPhail: — Thanks. Just on a
different note, I know last year in estimates I had asked you if you’d made it
up into northern Saskatchewan. I have had the opportunity to scroll through
some social media, and I’ve seen that you’ve made your way up into northern
Saskatchewan, and I appreciate you getting up there. There’s good folks all
across the North, and I’m truly honoured to represent them.
So I have a bit of a two-part question.
The first is, just as a general rule for ministerial travel, what’s been put in
the budget and what was spent last year for yourself to be able to travel
across northern Saskatchewan? And then specifically to the Indigenous protected
area tour that was in northern Saskatchewan, was any part of your budget spent
in being able to go out and see some of these beautiful spots in northern
Saskatchewan?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Yeah, so just to back it up a little bit, I did catch some of the inference
there when we were talking last year on going to the North and being in the
North. And I think I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that the first home my
wife and I shared together was in La Loche, Saskatchewan.
Most of my service in the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police was spent in service of the North, whether that was in La Loche,
whether that was in Stony Rapids or Black Lake, whether that was in Pelican
Narrows or not being able to fly into Pelican Narrows because of the
deteriorating airstrip there which has now been, under our government, funded
and replaced. So there’s the availability of aircraft landing in Pelican
Narrows.
A lot of those communities
. . . Obviously spent some time, you know, providing relief work in
some of those far North spots and happy to do it. And you know what? As a kid
we didn’t go to Disneyland. We went up north whenever we went anywhere.
So with respect specifically to the
travel allowances, obviously last year I took a team from Government Relations.
We visited several communities in your constituency, in particular, of
Cumberland. Had some good conversations and learned about some of the
challenges that are being faced in northern Saskatchewan and how we can help
support some of those issues that are being faced in those communities. And
part of that is outlined in the list of projects that are being undertaken
currently through the Northern Municipal Trust Account as well as through the
integrated bilateral agreements that we’re rolling out.
When we went up to the communities in
the far North that was actually not through ministerial travel, that was
through MLA travel. We went up to check on some of the areas that were being
proposed as protected areas. And those are conversations that are ongoing with
the relevant ministries, which would be myself, Ministry of Environment,
Ministry of Energy and Resources. So again those perspectives and that type of
face-to-face communication and understanding what’s going on at the ground is
invaluable, as you would know.
And I’m sure you would appreciate, you
know, the effort that was made by several members of the government caucus to
go up and be involved in that. So you know, happy to make those connections,
and happy to continue to communicate and be in contact with the people that we
had the privilege to spend time with and the honour and occasion to be in their
communities with them.
And sorry, I’ve got some specific
numbers here from Laurier.
Laurier Donais:
— Sure. Thanks, Minister. So there was a few trips that the minister took last
summer. One was up to Denare Beach, La Loche, Ile-a-la-Crosse areas, and the
total amount that was expended on those — so that would include like meals and
transportation, accommodations — was $3,049.
Jordan McPhail: — Thanks. I want to
quickly turn to a community that’s obviously been struggling as of late and
that’s the community of Sandy Bay. I’ve had some concerns brought to me about
some of the municipal infrastructure that they have, namely their fire truck
and being able to respond to like, you know, house fires in the community.
I know that this is something that can
be funded through . . . Part of the formula for the per capita
distribution has things on emergency services, on how it’s distributed into
northern Saskatchewan.
And being that the community is
currently under third-party financial stewardship, so basically directly under
northern municipal services, is there a particular reason why that
infrastructure hasn’t been adequate to like properly fight the house fires in
the community? From my understanding they’re using a water pump and a water
reservoir on the back of a half-ton truck currently to fight fires in the
community.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Okay, so a little bit of context. Obviously a very complex issue in that
community, as you’re well aware. I’ve been to that community. Spent some time
there last year.
So the Ministry of Government Relations
is not in control of that community’s finances. There has been a third-party
financial comptroller that’s been put in place. They are not affiliated with
the government, but they are appointed by the government to ensure that the
financial stewardship is being met when it comes to the requirements under The
Municipalities Act.
With respect to decisions of that
community, the mayor and council is still making the decisions as a council in
that community. So if there was a resolution put forward that would be under
review, obviously we’re trying to ensure that we have — I’m trying to put this
delicately — ensure that we have a good fiscal position for that community to
be able to move forward from where they are right now.
Currently there has been reduced debt
numbers in that community. And I’ll let Brad speak to those a little bit more.
Brad Henry: — Thanks for the
question. Over the last couple of years the overall debt in Sandy Bay has
reduced from 3.4 million to 1.7 million, but they are still at
1.7 million in liabilities. So given that, they would naturally have
financial troubles. That said though, specific to the issue with the fire
truck, they do have a fire truck. It’s just currently being repaired. And once
that’s fixed, it’ll be back in the community again.
Jordan McPhail: — Thanks. Just for
the sake of the clock here, I’ll pass it back to my colleague Erika.
Erika Ritchie: — Thank you. I did have another follow-up
question on page 50 of the budget under municipal infrastructure. It does show
that last year the budget number was $239 million, but it’s forecasted to
only come in at 211 million, which is a fairly significant shortfall. And
wondering if you could explain the reason for that.
Iryna
Soloduk:
— So thank you so much for the question. So when it comes to the ICIP project —
this specifically was on the ICIP; the number was a decrease of the ICIP —
there is multiple factors that are taken into account in order for a project to
move forward. ICIP projects are done by municipalities and the municipalities
have to submit the claim to the provincial government. And provincial
government, we try to pay it as soon as possible; our kind of service standard
is within 30 days.
We
do submit the budget obviously almost a year in advance. So in order to do
that, we communicate with our municipalities with an active project which would
be, if you think about last year, would be around 200 active projects. And we
communicate with them on a quarterly basis to understand their budget flow. So
they do have to submit the budget forecasts till the end of their project,
which sometimes, you know, some of these big capital projects may take up to
three, four, five years. Sometimes we do see a variance.
[21:00]
So
some of the projects experience delay due to the weather, as we have noticed.
Some of them have delay when it comes to the opportunities to secure the
company that will build, for example, the water treatment plant, some of them
due to delay to the specific component of the project not being delivered.
Obviously after the COVID we noticed lots of problems with the shipments and
some of that.
Also,
you know, there is always obviously the projects are signed with the
municipality. The municipality may want to move the funding from one year to
another due to the, for example, ad hoc priority coming with the municipality.
So
it’s a lot of factors. And sometimes we joke that our projects depend on the
weather, but sometime that is a factor. And that’s why we kind of keep close
eyes on the project. We try to communicate with them on a quarterly basis to
understand the cash flow but sometimes they do vary.
Chair B. McLeod: — Thank you very much for great
questions, good answers, and the participation of so many sitting in the back.
There’s a lot of wisdom and knowledge behind the minister and sitting with him
at the table. And so we appreciate each and every one of you and the input that
you put into making this work today.
So
we’ve reached our agreed-upon time for consideration of these estimates, and
we’re going to adjourn consideration of the estimates for the Ministry of
Government Relations. Minister, do you have any closing comments?
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to
first start by recognizing and acknowledging the hard work and diligence of our
team at Government Relations. We’ve had a lot of growth together as a team over
the last year and a half with me being in this role for that period of time.
And I’ve come to appreciate many of the individuals who constitute a large
portion of this team.
And
I want to take a moment quickly to . . . And she’s going to be
annoyed with me because this is about the sixth time I’ve told this story. We
are going to be seeing one of our integral team members retiring this year at
the end of May. Bonnie Chambers will be completing her service with the
ministry and the province, for the people of the province, at the end of May
this year.
And I just want to, along with all
members of our GR [Government Relations] team, whether they are in the
building, the Mistasinihk building in La Ronge, or in the Victoria Avenue
building here in Regina, want to congratulate them on a job well done again.
And particularly I want to . . . I would hope that I could rely on
the room to give Bonnie a round of applause and congratulate her on her service.
[Applause]
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — And second, quickly if I may, I’d like
to thank the Clerks, Hansard, and all of the legislative team that’s
been put in place here to help conduct these estimates. And I also want to
thank the committee. I appreciate all your hard work and diligence in your
roles, and both on the government and opposition sides. So thank you very much.
And thank you too, Mr. Chair, for you presiding over these estimates.
Chair B. McLeod: — Any closing comments from committee
members? Not limited to one, but whoever would like to speak.
Erika Ritchie: — I would like to just take a moment to
also thank the minister and his officials for being here so late on a Tuesday
evening. Also want to thank legislative services staff who ensure that we could
have a good meeting here today. And thank you very much for your time,
Minister, in answering all of our questions. Thank you.
Chair B. McLeod: — Please go ahead, MLA McPhail.
Jordan McPhail: — Well let me tell you a story about
Scott Boyes. No, in all seriousness, I want to thank specifically the folks
from the North, but ultimately everybody from the Government Relations team for
showing up here tonight, taking some time to answer our questions.
And,
Bonnie, we wish you well in your retirement. And if you’re ever up into the
beautiful parts of northern Saskatchewan, make sure to let my constituency
office know. We’ll show you around.
To
the other committee members, thank you for the evening here tonight, and to the
minister for answering some of the questions. And yeah, thank you, all.
Chair B. McLeod: — Please go ahead, MLA Laliberte.
Leroy Laliberte: — I also want to say thank you. Thank you
to the minister and your colleagues for sitting in tonight and answering a few
of the questions that we had had. Happy retirement to Bonnie, and if you’re
going to come to the North, come to the west side. You’ll get better fish over
there. So with that I just want to say good night. Thank you.
Chair B. McLeod: — Very good. Thank you so much. I’ll
just add my own thanks as well to each one here. I count 20 names on the list
of people, 22 actually I think, if I remember . . . No, 20 in total.
And I think, you know, all of you participated while in the discussion and also
in securing the information.
But
I want to give a little shout-out to folks that have been here twice now in
estimates, and the Provincial Capital Commission has not received a question.
And I just want to say that the management and stewardship of that provincial
asset that we have does not go unnoticed by me. And so thank you, Jenna and
Ryan, for being here and part of it. And I’ll encourage our committee members
to consider a question for the folks from Provincial Capital the next time we
meet. Not a criticism, just an encouragement, and that’s what I will say.
So
that does conclude our business for today. And I would ask a member to move a
motion of adjournment. Anyone. MLA Megan Patterson has moved. All agreed?
Some Hon.
Members: — Agreed.
Chair B.
McLeod: — Carried. This committee stands adjourned
until the call of the Chair. Thank you so much.
[The
committee adjourned at 21:06.]
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.