CONTENTS
Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice
Bill No. 38 — The
Building Schools Faster Act
Bill No. 43 — The
Municipalities Modernization and Red Tape Reduction Act
THIRTIETH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AFFAIRS AND JUSTICE
Hansard Verbatim Report
No.
15 — Tuesday, April 28, 2026
Chair
B. McLeod: — Welcome to the Standing Committee on
Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice. And thank you everyone for your being
here as quickly as you could. We will get started right away.
I’m going to introduce myself: Blaine McLeod as Chair of the Standing
Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice. To my right, I have MLA
[Member of the Legislative Assembly] Megan Patterson, MLA Jamie Martens, and
MLA Brad Crassweller. And today also, on my left, we have MLA Erika Ritchie,
MLA Matt Love, and MLA Noor Burki.
Welcome,
everyone, and thank you for your presence here tonight, or this afternoon I
guess, and it will turn into tonight. Last time I was in
this Chair, I signed my name and initials 800 times. I’m not planning on doing
that tonight. There’s only this much, so we’re in good shape that way. But
today we will be considering three bills.
Bill No. 38 — The Building
Schools Faster Act
Clause 1
Chair
B. McLeod: — And we’re first going to consider
Bill No. 38, The Building Schools Faster Act beginning with the
consideration of clause 1, short title.
Now Minister Hindley is here with his
officials. And again I ask that officials introduce themselves the first time
they speak. And don’t touch the microphones, and the Hansard operator
will turn them on for you when you speak.
Minister Hindley, please introduce your
officials and make your opening comments, please.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m pleased to be here today to talk about The
Building Schools Faster Act, 2025, which is Bill No. 38. I’m joined
today by Chief Of Staff Caelan McIntyre; Ministry of Education Deputy Minister
Clint Repski; Assistant Deputy Minister Charlotte Morrissette; Ministry of
Government Relations Assistant Deputy Minister Bonnie Chambers; and as well,
several officials from the ministries of Education, Government Relations, and
SaskBuilds and Procurement.
The Building Schools Faster Act
will define the requirements to acquire and service land for new schools
throughout the province. Purchasing additional land is often necessary, as we
are building larger schools requiring more land than what is often available
through municipal reserve under The Planning and Development Act, 2007.
The new Act will establish municipal
responsibility to acquire sufficient serviced land for the purpose of
constructing new schools in development areas. The cost contribution formula
will be defined in regulations, allowing the Government of Saskatchewan and
municipalities to share the cost of land in a predictable and consistent
manner. The new Act also establishes the authority to set land acquisition time
frames and enforcement mechanisms for municipalities.
[15:45]
Now in conjunction with the new Act,
amendments to The Planning and Development Act, 2007 have also been
introduced to provide municipalities the tools to fund and acquire school
sites. Providing mechanisms for municipalities to fund the purchase of land
through levies or municipal reserve, for example, are necessary as this new Act
requires municipalities to pay for a portion of the land.
A consequential amendments to The
Education Act, 1995 will also be required in conjunction with the new Act
and regulations which are currently under development and will be brought
forward after Royal Assent. A defined-cost contribution from the province will
be developed in the regulations.
A defined-cost contribution allows the
ministries of Education and SaskBuilds and Procurement to advance projects
consistently and more effectively. This will reduce lengthy negotiations and
allow parties to plan and budget for education infrastructure.
Thank you for the opportunity to outline
the key elements of The Building Schools Faster Act and amendments to The
Planning and Development Act. My thanks to the ministries of Education,
Government Relations, and SaskBuilds and Procurement for the dedicated teams
that have worked together to develop this important Act and related amendments.
I look forward to continuing our shared work to deliver on our school
infrastructure commitments in our province.
And our team would welcome your
questions today. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Thank you, Minister. I will now open
up the floor to questions, and I recognize MLA Love, please.
Matt Love: — Thank you, Mr.
Chair. And thank you, Minister, and for your officials from Education and
Government Relations who are here today. We’ll have a number of questions.
We’ve got lots of time, starting in the afternoon, moving into the evening. Mr.
Chair. Hopefully we’ll keep those signatures under your 800 quota for today.
Minister, my first question for you is
what is the position of your government on municipal governments paying for
education-related costs in Saskatchewan?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks to the member for the question. So as part of the planning around this
particular Act, and this helps to address some of the issues and concerns that
we’ve seen in municipalities across the province but predominately specifically
in our cities where, you know, as I mentioned in my opening comments that we’re
building schools that are larger than we ever have before, larger than perhaps
would have been contemplated previously with respect to the land that was
available for schools of this size.
As part of the consultation, government
is coming to the table with a contribution agreement as per the consultation
and the consultation we had with a wide variety that are impacted by this
legislation. Municipalities have paid before. So this concept isn’t necessarily
new, but what we’re trying to bring to the table is some consistency and
predictability with respect to what that is going to look like. So that’s just,
at a high level, the reasoning for it, but I’ll just maybe turn it to one of
the officials here to explain it in a bit more detail.
Bonnie Chambers: — Hi, my name is Bonnie Chambers. I am
the assistant deputy minister of the municipal relations division with the
Ministry of Government Relations. Happy to be here and happy to answer the
question.
Minister Hindley is correct. Over the
years, municipalities have provided land for schools. But now we’re seeing that
in the larger cities where the growth is happening, the cost of this land is
higher and the schools that are being built are for the neighbourhood that
surrounds them too, the concept plan.
So with this Act not only will the
province provide funding for it too, the municipalities will provide it, but it
will also be a collaboration about where these schools are and the
neighbourhoods that they service as well.
Matt Love: — Great. So just
coming back to the minister’s comments here. Minister, you indicated and your
officials that municipalities have paid before. Costs are going up as the size
of school projects escalate. You know, we have a project committed to in
Saskatoon that will serve 3,600 students. As of today, I believe that that’s
the plan.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks. And to the member’s question just, you know, as I said earlier around
the land component, it’s been viewed as a shared responsibility between the
province and municipalities.
Again, this is about trying to replace
some of the case-by-case negotiations that have happened up until this point
with respect to planning for new school developments which are . . .
They’re a good thing that they’re happening, but we just need to be able to
update what we’re doing, the tools that we have to be able to address some of
the realities of today with respect to how municipalities and the government
plans for this. The Ministry of Education, we’re looking at building new
schools in communities. But maybe I’ll just ask Ian to speak a bit about the
tools and why we have those in place.
Ian Goeres:
— Great. Thank you, Minister. Ian Goeres, executive director, community
planning branch, Ministry of Government Relations. So through the Act and the
related amendments to The Planning and Development Act we are providing
municipalities with some tools to be able to pay for these costs of a school
site.
So that includes an increase in the
municipal reserve dedication amount by 2 per cent or up to 2 per cent if
authorized in the municipality’s official community plan and/or they can also
implement a development charge. So off-site levy, development charge, service
agreement fee — they’re all one and the same. Essentially what it does is
allows the municipality to share those costs with that growth area with the
neighbourhood that school would be servicing.
So what we heard from stakeholders is if
this is going to be something that is required, then the municipalities need
some tools. So we clarified through The Building Schools Faster Act that
municipal responsibility and then ensured that the municipalities have those
tools.
[16:00]
Matt Love: — Okay. Thanks to
your official for that response, Minister. And we’ll be coming back to discuss
some of these tools later in our time today. We’ve got plenty of questions from
stakeholders on these issues.
Minister, to you, you know, I hear you
say that municipalities are expected to fund education through school land
acquisition. So my question to you is, where should municipalities
. . . From what revenue source should municipalities fund the cost of
purchasing school land? Should that come from property taxes from ratepayers or
should that come from municipal revenue sharing? Or, Minister, do you have
another source of revenue from which municipalities should pay for these
education-related costs that I haven’t mentioned yet?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Thanks. With respect to the question around the avenues or the options that
municipalities have for this, what we’ve done is we’ve provided . . .
And there are several levers, several avenues here for municipalities to pay
for a number of things in this regard, whether it’s levies, whether it’s
municipal revenue sharing — which, as members of the committee know, that is
no-strings-attached funding provided by the provincial government to
municipalities, and they have the ability and the decision-making powers to
spend that money as they see fit — whether it’s on, you know, sidewalks and
sewers and local infrastructure projects, whether that’s recreation or perhaps,
in cases like this, they do have the ability or the option to use it for these
sorts of initiatives as well.
And I think, you know, what’s important
is that this is essentially growth paying for growth in areas of the province
where we have some of these challenges. And we do provide, again
. . . The reason we have the tools that are there, are to provide
municipalities with some options that they can decide at the local level. The
local city council or town council, you know, they can decide what they use,
what works best for their community in terms of being able to address some of
these initiatives and pressures, but you know . . . these
investments, I should say, with respect to new schools.
And so we do provide that flexibility
for municipalities, the ability to use a number of sources of funding to pay
for growth.
Matt Love: — Minister, my next
question is specifically prior to the drafting of this legislation — prior to,
you know, first reading. Who was consulted and when did these meetings take
place? If you can provide the committee with a list of, again, which
organizations were consulted and the dates that those meetings occurred.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Stakeholders engaged with: city of Saskatoon; city of Regina; the Saskatchewan
Urban Municipalities Association, SUMA; Saskatchewan Association of Rural
Municipalities, SARM; Regina & Region Home Builders’ Association, and the
Saskatoon & Region Home Builders’ Association. Consultations occurred
spring of 2025.
Matt Love: — Thanks, Minister. We’ll return to that
list here shortly. My next question is, since the bill was released publicly,
what feedback have you received since first reading of this bill from those
stakeholders listed or others? And have you received any feedback raising
concerns about this legislation?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — In terms of feedback — and I went
through the list of the stakeholders who were engaged — the responses were
varied from the groups that we heard feedback from, that we consulted.
There
was general support for expanded municipal tools and early identification of
school sites and concept planning. High school sites in particular raised some
unique size and funding and regional challenges requiring some additional work.
That was some of the feedback that we heard back from as part of the
consultation. There was some questions raised around cost-sharing clarity, with
some questions around what that would look like, you know, and if there was an
opportunity for further discussions with our officials.
We
did hear that local flexibility was preferred with respect to servicing
standards, with consistency being sought under subdivision regulations. There
was conversation, I think, and feedback around some of the timelines with
respect to if, you know . . . for example in a case where a school
might not be built.
[16:15]
Strong
interest in consultation and transparency though, particularly in the
regulations, the funding formulas, and enforcement tools. And there were a
number of areas of support for the legislation. Of course there were some
questions and concerns — I think the home builders had raised some concerns
publicly — but we’ve committed to continue working with them through the
development of the regulations and the work that’s happening going forward.
But, Ian, I think there’s probably some other aspects to this you can touch on
as well.
Ian Goeres: — Great, thank you. Yes, the home
builders’ associations raised concerns about the cost of affordability of new
homes if these costs would be transferred directly to a new homebuyer. Now what
we’ve done is provide municipalities with those tools that we mentioned,
whether it’s the increase in municipal reserve or the ability to charge a fee
or, as the minister mentioned, MRS [municipal revenue sharing], property taxes,
etc.
What
we’ve done through this and the related amendments to The Planning and
Development Act is to allow the municipal council to make that decision, to
work with their development industry to see what works best for their
situation. So Regina may have a different process than Saskatoon, and we want
to ensure that they had that flexibility.
Matt Love: — Okay, thanks, Minister. We’ll come back
to that topic. I think it raises a lot of questions that we’ll get to today.
I’d like to, Minister, if I can, I have a letter from the Saskatchewan Urban
Municipalities Association that I’d like to quote from extensively. So I
brought a copy for you to follow along. I’m happy to table that for the
committee, Mr. Chair, if you’d prefer to do it that way. And I even have an
extra copy if the minister would like to take this one. I’ll just wait a moment
until it’s in your hands.
So
Minister, my next number of questions are going to be related to the concerns
raised in this letter, and I’ll go through chronologically so you don’t need to
read it all now. We’ll go through kind of chunk by chunk. You know, SUMA raises
a lot of concerns in this letter that they have shared with us and requested us
to share with you. My first question. I’d like to read a quote from the first
body paragraph and then ask for your response.
So
to quote from the letter from SUMA president Randy Goulden:
The most concerning aspect of this entire process has been
the lack of engagement, communication, and transparency. Although a working
group was established, meetings have been minimal, sporadic, and insufficient
to gather meaningful input from affected stakeholders.
So
Minister, can you respond to this concern from the Saskatchewan municipalities,
who will most certainly be impacted by this bill?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Thanks to the member for providing the
letter. First time I’ve seen the letter, so just having an opportunity to
review it and the concerns raised by SUMA.
I
guess I would just say again, having just seen the letter now, you know, we’ve
been having consultation and meetings with the two largest impacted
municipalities — with the cities of Regina and Saskatoon — and I think it’s
been appreciated by this province’s two largest cities that we are having this
feedback or this consultation, that the feedback is being taken seriously, that
we are engaged with them.
You
know, I can quote from letters where the city of Saskatoon says:
We’d like to thank you and your team for engaging with the
city and for the continued opportunity to provide feedback on the development
and implementation of the regulations for The Building Schools Faster Act.
They
appreciate the province’s support in providing tools for it. They do comment
that:
We see benefits in further discussion. Looking forward to
future discussions on the forthcoming regulations. Thank you for your continued
conversations and your commitment to partner in the development of schools and
support of neighbourhood planning.
Again
so some issues that have been identified, but very grateful comments from the
city of Saskatoon for the engagement of our government and of various officials
from all the ministries that are involved.
Similar
comments from the city of Regina along the way in working with our officials.
They appreciate the ability to collect development charges and levies. They
want to continue the conversation with the working group.
Again
some challenges identified both with respect to our two largest cities. Both
appreciative of the work that’s been done thus far by the ministries and their
teams.
Again
having seen the letter from the president of SUMA for the first time and having
to look at the concerns from the president, I’ll take note of those comments
that she has made and raised in her letter. But again, would point to what we
feel at government has been consultation and engagement with municipalities,
particularly our two biggest cities where this presents, you know, the largest
challenge with respect to planning and development of new schools in growing
neighbourhoods.
Matt Love: — Returning to the letter, Minister,
following the quote that I just read, another quote:
The absence of follow-up clarity on next steps and ongoing
communication has been particularly disappointing given the time and effort
invested, reinforcing concerns about poor and at times dismissive consultation.
So
my question is, can you share with the committee why a major stakeholder like
SUMA would describe your engagement as “dismissive consultation”? And could you
share with us what concerns they raised that you dismissed?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — To the member, I would just simply say
that, you know, I’ve given some examples where both the cities of Saskatoon and
Regina have appreciated the involvement of our officials and the consultation
and the communication that’s happening back and forth between officials within
the various ministries of government. Again thanking the government for
engaging with the cities, thanking the government for the continued opportunity
to provide feedback and further discussion. And these are recent comments at
the officials level, I think, which reflects, you know, the work that has been
done.
I
can’t speak to why the president of SUMA would make those comments. You know, I
would hope that in writing a letter that SUMA and the organization, that the
leadership would have engaged with officials at some of these municipalities to
gather their feedback.
Again
understanding that there are some concerns that have been raised, but also a
number of areas of support for the steps that are being taken, the reasons
behind why this legislation and this Act and the regulations are being
introduced: to provide clarity and consistency with respect to building more
schools in the province and being able to make that process quicker and more
efficient with respect to the expectations for land and the acquiring and the
development of land for school projects.
So
again, having seen the letter for the first time, I don’t know, you know, what
would have gone into that. But what
I’ve heard from officials at the cities of Saskatoon and Regina or what I’m
seeing from those two cities is that they are identifying some challenges.
That’s the nature of these sorts of discussions and consultation and
communication. But again, it’s my view that they do not feel that they haven’t
been engaged and that they have not had an opportunity to be engaged with our
officials as we work through this.
Matt Love: — Thanks, Minister. Returning to the
letter: “Early in the process, materials were not made available to working
group members despite repeated requests.” So, Minister, who was included in the
working group for this bill? And why were materials not made available to them?
[16:30]
Ian
Goeres:
— Great, thank you. So we had the two meetings — one in April, one in May — to
kick this off. So for the first meeting, it was really an introductory to have
everybody meet each other, provide a broad overview of school acquisition in
the province, and hear some initial thoughts.
The
second meeting in May, we discussed what we had heard from the first meeting,
and it was really a general discussion item. So materials were the agenda that
would have been sent out in advance. There was a PowerPoint that was on the
screen to keep the conversation moving. That would be it. That’s how we were
gathering the feedback from those stakeholders, including SARM, SUMA, the home
builder associations, and the two big cities.
Matt Love: — Were school boards included in that
working group?
Charlotte
Morrissette:
— Hi. Charlotte Morrissette, assistant deputy minister at the Ministry of
Education. So the Saskatchewan School Boards Association, we met with them,
with the president, with Government Relations to have a discussion about the
Act as it was in development, so to hear their concerns and to meet with them.
Matt Love: — So, Minister, I’d like to hear from
you. Were Saskatchewan School Boards included in the working group that led to
the development of this legislation?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — I talked to the president of the SSBA
[Saskatchewan School Boards Association]. We’d had conversations, as we do, on
a number of topics when we meet with the SSBA. And this would have been a topic
of conversation as part of one of those regular meetings that we have with the
leadership at Saskatchewan School Boards Association.
Matt Love: — So your officials have listed members
of a working group, some who have raised concern that consultation was
dismissive and materials were not provided. That working group included SUMA,
SARM, Saskatoon, Regina, and home builders from each city. But I did not hear
Saskatchewan School Boards included in that list.
So
just for clarity’s sake, I think a yes or no would work here. Were Saskatchewan
School Boards included in the working group for this legislation?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Yeah, they weren’t a part of the
official working group, but we did engage with them through other forms of
consultation.
Matt Love: — So I’m just going to pause my prepared
questions here, Minister. Do you think it’s wise as the Minister of Education
to bring forward a piece of legislation for which major stakeholders are
raising very reasonable concerns? And for you, as Minister of Education, school
boards were not included in the working group to draft this legislation. Just
to pause right here. Do you think it’s wise to proceed at this point?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Don’t appreciate the context of your
question, Member.
Matt Love: — I think it’s a reasonable question
considering the concerns and now learning in this committee that school boards
were not at the table. And you’re the Minister of Education, so I think it’s a
fair question . . .
Hon. Everett Hindley: — I’ve said that, you know, we’ve engaged
with a number of organizations — with municipalities, the cities of Saskatoon
and Regina, home builders’ associations — and the consultation has taken
different forms as well. And you know, as we develop this legislation
. . . And with respect to the regulations, we’ve said it in some of
the feedback that we’ve had and the responses that we’ve had to various
stakeholders. And we’re going to continue to consult and have these
consultations as we develop the regulations, working our way through the
legislation.
Matt Love: — Okay, I’ll accept that answer, Mr.
Chair. And you mentioned you’re going to continue to consult.
So
let’s return to the letter that we’re working through here. I’m going to read
another quote following the previous one:
Engagement has not improved since the legislation was
announced. And five months after the Throne Speech, there is still limited
information on the regulations and cost-sharing formula for how these costs
will be split between municipalities and the province.
So
again we have a major stakeholder who’s upset about the process and the
transparency, and they indicate that there’s been no improvement since this
bill was announced in the Speech from the Throne.
So
my question to you, Minister, is, when will regulations be made available? And
will there be a working group to ensure that important feedback is included
this time in the drafting of the regulations?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — I’ll reach out to the president of
SUMA, again having seen the letter that yourself and one of your colleagues had
solicited as per trying to receive some feedback from them. So I’ll reach out
to the president of SUMA.
We
haven’t had any letters from SUMA, is my understanding. At least I haven’t. I
stand to be corrected, but it’s my understanding I haven’t had any letters from
the president of SUMA asking for a meeting specifically on this or to raise
concerns. We haven’t had any letters since last fall.
But
I’ll reach out to the president of SUMA and engage with her and ask for further
clarification as to, you know, the nature of her concerns — where they come
from, who they represent — and endeavour to address those concerns as part of
the work that’s going forward.
Matt Love: — So just to repeat the question: will
there be a working group to ensure that important feedback is considered in the
regulations? And, Minister, this time will school boards be at the table when
those regulations are drafted?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — We’ll continue to involve the various
groups that are impacted by this, you know, as part of the consultation going
forward. And that will include the SSBA.
Matt Love: —
And when can stakeholders expect to see regulations released following
. . . Assuming that you choose to proceed with this bill, when can
they expect to see regulations? And what will be the cost-sharing component of
that when it . . . Have you determined that yet?
[16:45]
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
We’re targeting introduction for the regulations in the fall. And then with
respect to the cost-sharing agreement, that is, you know, that is precisely one
of the items that’s being discussed right now as part of the consultations. So
that work is happening as we speak.
Matt Love: —
Okay. Returning to the letter, I’d just like to read another quote here and
hear your response to these concerns, Minister:
We do not feel SUMA
has had a fair opportunity to provide our concerns to this legislation. Our
primary concern relates to the requirement for municipalities to procure and
service additional lands for schools where municipal reserves are insufficient,
with limited financial tools to do so.
Ultimately these
costs will be passed down to home builders and eventually to homebuyers,
resulting in further increasing housing prices in a time when all levels of
government are working to address housing affordability. This is deeply
concerning as it further burdens municipalities with costs for providing a
provincial service in education.
If you could just take a moment to
respond to that concern, Minister.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: — Again
having just seen the letter for the first time here this afternoon, as I said
previously, I’ll reach out to the president of SUMA to have the conversation
around the concerns that are raised in the letter with respect to, you know,
having an opportunity to offer their feedback and input as an organization. So
I will have that conversation. I’ll have that conversation with SUMA and
discuss it further in order to try to address the concerns that they are
bringing forward.
Matt Love: — Well, Minister, I’d like to ask a few
questions about this concern that they’ve brought. And I’ll say, you know, as
shadow minister for Education
and you as minister, we usually have conversations about things like class size
and complexity, you know, collective bargaining, education workers, those types
of things.
I am now, as shadow minister for
Education, going to ask you about housing affordability, which is not something
I had on my bingo card when this session started, but here we are.
One of the concerns that SUMA has raised
in this letter is about house prices at a time when all levels of government
are working to address housing affordability. And so my question to you is on
that topic. Just one moment here. I’m going to pull it up. So given these
concerns . . . And one of your officials pointed to the tools that
this legislation provides municipalities to rely on. One of those tools would
be a levy for new homes.
We’ve heard concerns that the end payer
for this legislation will be a homebuyer. And let’s just consider for a moment
a first-time homebuyer for a new build in a developing community — Saskatoon or
Regina or another, you know, municipality — in the province. And one of the
concerns that we’ve heard is that this legislation and the cost sharing could
result in increasing costs that will be worked into the cost per square foot of
a new home build that would result . . . I’ve seen a figure of somewhere
between additional costs of 7 to $10,000 for a new house.
So as Minister of Education, you’ve
brought forward this bill that stakeholders have indicated may result in
increasing housing costs 7 to $10,000 for a first-time homebuyer. So what is
your response to that concern? And what would you say to that first-time
homebuyer who’s looking at additional costs of 7 to $10,000 that could
potentially result from this legislation?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Just in response to the question, again municipalities asked for flexibility
and some tools with respect to, you know, what options they would have here.
And that’s what we’ve attempted to provide through the Act and what we’ll
determine through the regulations. So that’s how we’re going to and have been
approaching this.
Matt Love: —
So again, any response to that first-time homebuyer that will see their costs
go up?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
You know, I would just say that, you know, that as a government we are
concerned about affordability on a number of fronts. And I think we’ve had this
debate in the House and elsewhere publicly around affordability measures that
the government has taken in a number of areas and the steps that we have taken
for long-term affordability measures.
And that impacts people in different
ways, whether we’re talking homebuyers, whether they’re first-time homebuyers
or not. You know, not necessarily every homebuyer that’s a first-time homebuyer
might be building a new home. But I do, you know, recognize that there are a
number that, in new areas and new developments, that this would be something
that they would be looking at.
Again the government takes a number of
measures and steps to make sure that we are making affordability, you know, a
top priority for this government. And we’re, you know, we’re proud of the steps
we’ve taken over the years to be able to do that, but recognizing that these
are challenges that face jurisdictions across the country. And so we’re mindful
of that when we make these sorts of decisions.
And again want to make sure that we
continue to engage in this particular case with our municipal partners and
others to identify these challenges and try to address them as best we can.
Matt Love: —
So thanks for bringing up the topic of affordability, Minister. Thinking of
affordability, would you say that this is a step in the right direction or the
wrong direction?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Well the critic’s now bridging into . . . from his housing critic
portfolio duties to now the critic of Finance. So I guess I’m happy to have the
conversation.
But I would just say again that we’re
here to talk today about The Building Schools Faster Act and addressing
some of the issues and concerns that we’ve seen with respect to making sure
that we have the appropriate amount of land available for new school builds,
and some of the challenges we’ve come across the way over the past number of
years, and the 109 new schools that we’ve either built or are in the process of
building right now. And a number in our two largest centres in Regina and
Saskatoon, but also across the province.
[17:00]
So you know, we take that challenge, we
don’t take it lightly. And recognize that we’re working very hard with our
partners at all levels to make sure that we address those challenges.
Matt Love: — Okay. Returning to
the letter, Minister:
Additionally if
municipalities are given limited choice but to charge development fees for the
acquisition of land for new schools, this puts them in direct contradiction of
a large push from the federal government to lower development costs.
Access to current
and existing federal funding comes with an expectation that federal grant
monies will be used to offset/lower development charges, further leaving
municipalities handcuffed on how to find additional resources to pay for these
downloaded charges.
Minister, can you comment on these
concerns that increasing development charges may jeopardize federal housing
programs and our participation in them.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Yeah. Not going to comment. I’m not the Minister for Government Relations. So
I’m not going to comment on, you know, federal government policy or potential
policy that might be in conversations that they might be having with
municipalities with respect to development cost. You know, I don’t think that
would be appropriate for me to intervene from that perspective.
But again, I just say with respect to
this particular bill that we’re here to answer questions about today, and as
I’ve said before, we’re committed to engaging and continue to engage with the
various stakeholders. And in the case of the letter, we’ll reach out to the
president of SUMA to further that conversation with that organization.
Matt Love: — So, Minister, I
think that points to some of the questions that a lot of folks have on this
bill in terms of how it was brought forward. You know, we’re not in the Human
Services Committee. This is a bill that largely impacts municipal stakeholders.
I know you’re not the Minister of Government Relations. But yet as Minister of
Education you brought this bill forward. And one of the things that
stakeholders are saying is that it may jeopardize Saskatchewan’s participation
in federal housing programs.
So my next question is about that. And
it’s very, very much related to this bill, and since you’re the minister that
brought it forward, you’re the minister here to answer these questions. I can’t
bring in another minister at this time. So you’re the minister here. And I’m
going to ask questions about federal housing programs.
So my question is, there is a potential
conflict with the Housing Accelerator Fund agreements. And the HAF requires
municipalities to reduce barriers and cost to spur supply. Adding new mandatory
servicing costs for schools could be viewed as an impediment to these federal
commitments.
So my question to you is: if this
legislation makes it more difficult for municipalities to access federal
housing accelerator grants, will your government repeal or amend this
legislation in the future?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Sorry, where’s the member getting this information from? This isn’t in your
letter that you’re reading out for the committee here word by word? Like where
is this?
Matt Love: — No, it’s my own
question based on the concerns brought forward in the SUMA letter. So I’m not
quoting from the letter. I’m simply asking if, you know . . . One of
the requirements that I understand is required to access the federal housing
accelerator grants is that all parties are working to lower development costs,
and if this legislation increases development costs, it could impede
municipalities’ ability to receive these grants from the federal government.
So my question to you is, if that is the
case — and I’m not certain it is, Minister; I’m saying if it is — will you repeal
or amend this legislation so that Saskatchewan communities can take part in
those federal Housing Accelerator Fund grants?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
We’ll bring it up as part of our consultations. My understanding is that the
accelerator fund, that that’s a conversation directly between the federal
government and municipalities. I don’t think the province is — what I’m told —
at the table.
Again if that’s something that we hear
as part of our conversations we have, then you know, we can certainly take a
look at those concerns and what steps might be possible to address it. But
again that’s not something that I’ve come prepared to answer today. But
certainly if it’s raised in the conversation with SUMA or others as part of the
ongoing conversations, we can certainly have that discussion with them and look
into it further.
Matt Love: — Yeah, I think
that’s correct, Minister, that these are agreements directly between
municipalities and the federal government. And my question is, if this
provincial legislation impedes the ability for the municipalities to receive
those grants to make housing more affordable and more accessible, would your
government consider in the future repealing or amending this legislation so
that those housing grants can be delivered to folks who are trying to access
housing? And municipalities are trying to lead the way in providing the needed
housing for a growing province.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Yeah. As I said, we’ll . . .
Chair
B. McLeod: — Just a second. The minister’s been
asked that question now several times, and his response has reflected the
available information that he has. That’s more a question for Government
Relations. So I want you to move to a different line of questioning, please.
Matt Love: — Thanks, Mr. Chair.
And I want to explain that I think that a number of my questions are about
housing and are about affordability. Despite the fact that this is the Minister
of Education bringing this bill forward, it has far-reaching impact that I do think
he should be prepared to answer today.
I respect your judgment, and I’ll move
on to my next question. But certainly, I think these are important questions
that folks deserve answers to.
Chair
B. McLeod: — And I will just respond by saying
that the minister has indicated and will be having conversations with the
affected parties in regards to this, and ongoing consultation will happen. So I
think that has satisfactory answered the question in my opinion. Thank you.
Matt Love: — Yeah, I’ll just
take just a moment to move on to my next question then.
Okay, returning to the letter here,
Minister:
SUMA recognizes
that municipalities can use tax tools including development charges and levies
to support school site planning. However we remain concerned that the proposed
changes do not adequately address the unique site requirements of high schools
which serve broader regional populations.
So the way that I interpret this concern
is, you know, that high schools draw in students often from surrounding areas.
They serve a region in a way that’s, I think, often different than elementary
schools.
So how would you respond to that
concern, the offloading of these costs and the planning to municipalities for a
service that serves the entire region? How would you respond to those concerns,
Minister?
[17:15]
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
With respect to that particular paragraph in the letter, I think that actually,
you know, it does reflect the reasoning behind the legislation. And you know, I
would say that this is one of the main reasons why we’re pursuing this. And
again I’m recognizing the president feels that the proposed changes
. . . she has some concerns with that, I suppose.
But that again, to the broader context
of the paragraph, high schools do have unique site requirements. As I said in
my opening remarks and earlier in committee, high schools are large — larger
than the high schools that we’ve ever built before. They do serve a broader and
a larger area. And we’re seeing that as municipalities grow, as neighbourhoods
grow and new neighbourhoods are established.
And part of the challenge that we’ve
come across is that growth has been happening so quickly in some areas of
Saskatchewan as a result of continued population increase and immigration and
newcomers that come to our province. And just for a whole host of reasons that,
you know, we’re finding ourselves in situations where what may have worked
previously in terms of the amount of land that was set aside or contemplated
either for residential developments or potentially in this case — in the topic
that we’re talking about here today — for schools might not necessarily be
enough given the student population that we’re trying to serve.
Again though, you know, this is
something that I think we feel is needed in order to be able to provide some
clarity, some consistency to help plan for, to prepare for these sorts of
situations to get ahead of them sooner with respect to making sure that we are
thinking about this in as far advance as we can and having clear communication
between us as the government through our various ministries, through
municipalities. As well, as new neighbourhoods are being contemplated and then
what services might be required there that are either (a) offered by the
municipality; or (b) in the case of schools and education, through the
province.
So I would just again say that with
respect to the question around high schools, that is something that we
recognize is a challenge. And that’s why we’re committed to having these
conversations and looking at approaches that we can use to collaborate to come
up with the best plan to move forward.
Matt Love: — Okay, Minister, my
next question is about the short title of this bill. The short title, The
Building Schools Faster Act, certainly infers that school builds have been
happening slowly and that this bill intends to speed up the pace at which
schools are built. So in your opinion, why have school capital projects been
moving slowly in this province? And what problems are you looking to solve with
this bill?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
The reasoning behind The Building Schools Faster Act is — as we’ve
talked about today and previously — it’s around the acquisition of the land.
And that’s something that, you know,
we’ve felt and have identified, and it’s been recognized that there have been
some challenges, particularly in our two largest centres, I guess predominantly
with Regina and Saskatoon — not saying that this can’t be an issue in other
parts of the province as well — but just the increased complexity of
identifying land, the acquisition, the site infrastructure challenges that
affect project timelines. The negotiation that’s involved is part of this as
well. The cost to acquire land, install infrastructure for schools, that places
significant demands on budgets for everyone.
And so it has been happening very much
so on an ad hoc basis. And you know, the whole purpose of the land is to be
able to provide a consistent approach to school land acquisition and
development and a defined funding formula for both parties in order to have
that predictability there.
And so we have seen instances where in
the past where there have been some challenges with respect to how do we, you
know, work collaboratively with our partners in the municipal sector? And we’ve
committed to improving and working on that collaboration and making sure that
we are having these conversations well in advance so that we have the
municipalities and the government on the same page with respect to, if there’s
going to be a new development in a new neighbourhood, what does that look like
for the province?
Where do we, you know, have to be
thinking ahead? Is that going to mean . . . Is there capacity in
nearby and existing schools in that particular school division in that area and
in that neighbourhood? Or do we need to start thinking about, you know, how
we’re going to serve that? What is the condition of schools in that particular
neighbourhood? Are they reaching end of life? Should we be having discussions
about replacement of that particular school?
And if we’re having those sorts of
conversations, should we then also be looking at, you know, potential growth in
that area with respect to the K to 12 population and demographics for that
area?
So again, the purpose of the legislation
is to address some of those issues and challenges that have come up along the
way, where perhaps hindsight is 20/20. And I think all parties would agree
that, you know, there perhaps could have been a different approach with respect
to preparing for schools and new schools, and making sure we address that.
I’ve said multiple times, you know,
we’ve made significant investments into infrastructure in this province: minor
capital, major capital projects, brand new schools, major renovations across
Saskatchewan, and 109 new schools that are either have been built or are in the
process of being built. They’re at various stages of planning, design, and
development right now across Saskatchewan, and working closely with our
partners on that.
We know that Saskatchewan’s 27 school
divisions provide a capital list to the government, to the Ministry of
Education, of their priorities. And we work closely with those divisions on
working to advance projects. And again they’re all excellent projects, but
they’re difficult decisions to make. And so it’s part of this and the
discussion and debate that we’re having today, and the work around the Act is
to address specifically some of the challenges around the land and making sure
that we have the land in place for schools and making sure that we do
everything we can to make that part of the process as efficient as possible.
Matt Love: — Thanks, Minister.
In that response you indicated that the slow pace of building schools has
primarily impacted Saskatoon and Regina. We have a letter from both board
Chairs of Regina Public and Catholic that we’ve previously released following
question period a number of weeks ago. I’d like to quote from that letter:
While this may
support earlier access to school sites, land readiness represents only one
component of the overall school construction process. Other key factors —
including funding approvals, design processes, and construction coordination —
remain critical hurdles.
As a result, their
proposed changes may address one barrier but are unlikely on their own to
substantially accelerate the delivery of new schools.
So can you respond to this? These are
the two largest school divisions — here in Regina, one of the two
municipalities that you said will be impacted — and they indicate that they
don’t expect The Building Schools Faster Act to build any schools
faster.
So could you respond to that quote and
also share with the committee what you’re going to do to address all of those
other factors indicated by Regina Public and Catholic that are also important
if we want to deliver schools faster?
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
Yeah, I don’t have the letter in front of me. But I’ve seen it, you know,
earlier this spring and had a good co‑operation and collaboration with
both board Chairs of Regina Catholic and Regina Public. I understand, you know,
talking to both of them and both of those divisions and their administration
through our officials, the concerns that they’ve raised.
I would say that, and just reiterate
that, land acquisition and site servicing is often an early and lengthy source
of delay. So ensuring that we have serviced land secured early allows for
approved school projects to proceed to design. So this is one of the issues,
and I think that’s what the Act addresses. And that’s the intention of the Act,
is to address those sorts of concerns.
And again we have had instances in the
past where that has been the case, where we’ve identified this being a
challenge in cities where there have been some issues with respect to acquiring
the land, having it serviced, and preparing for this sort of growth. So that’s
what I would say on that.
I take issue with the member’s earlier
comments, and he put words in my mouth because I did not say anything about the
government building schools slower. As I said, the government is proud of the
record we have of investing in new schools across Saskatchewan — 109 major
capital projects, brand new schools right across this province. I think, 26 in
each of Saskatoon and Regina. Projects right across this province in rural
communities, in northern Saskatchewan, in the communities that members on both
sides of the House represent as MLAs.
And the member may choose to disagree
with that. We know there are certain schools he does not want to see built and
go ahead, namely the Shellbrook school and perhaps others. But this government
is proud of the work that we’re doing where we continue to build schools across
this province.
Matt Love: — Minister, my
comments were about indicating that building schools faster, I asked you what
problem you were trying to solve. And I was responding to that.
Hon. Everett
Hindley: —
I was pretty clear, as I have said multiple times — and I don’t know why the
member doesn’t understand, but I’ll say it again for the committee — on the
challenges that we’ve identified around land acquisition and site servicing. So
I hope the member has written it down.
Chair
B. McLeod: — I’ll just comment here that we are
approaching two hours, which was requested for both of these bills. 5:43 will
be the stop time. And so if there are any questions that you want on the
consequential amendment Act as well, you’ve got 10 minutes roughly.
[17:30]
Matt Love: — Yeah, I’m going to focus mostly on Bill
38. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Minister,
section 9 of the bill, return of cost contribution grant. One of the concerns
that I have is the potential for a municipality and potentially a school
division, based on cost sharing, to incur fees for acquiring and servicing
land, and then that the minister could essentially withdraw or pause the plan
to build the school on that site. Can you help the committee to understand the
intention of this section in the bill?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — So section 9, just for reference for
the rest of the committee if they don’t have the bill in front of them, reads:
Return of cost contribution grant
9 If land has been acquired for a school
site in accordance with this Act and the minister determines that the land is
no longer required as a school site, the cost contribution grant made by the
minister to the municipality or to a board of education or the conseil scolaire
pursuant to the contribution agreement must be repaid by the municipality or
the board of education or conseil scolaire to the minister within the time set
by the minister.
It’s
highly unlikely that that would ever be the case. The provision is in there
just for the very rare instance where the land that is acquired for the purpose
of building a new school, for whatever reason, isn’t required anymore.
And
again I can’t see necessarily where that might be the case. But if for some
reason something changes in that neighbourhood or in that municipality or for
that school division and it’s determined or deemed that the land is no longer
going to be used for a school, it just provides that opportunity to have this
assurance in there for municipalities. But again, highly a rare and unlikely
event that that might happen. But it’s a provision in there that provides that
assurance.
Matt Love: — So would those funds need to be repaid
even if the municipality or the school division already incurred large costs to
service the land or other costs related? Would that be deducted from the amount
that they have to return, or would they return the entirety of the funds?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Thanks. You know, pretty specific
instance, but a fair one nonetheless, provided by the member. That would be
something, just in consultation with my officials, I understand will be
determined as part of the regulations, that sort of a calculation. Further to
that . . . And again, this is, you know, a fairly unlikely
circumstance or event. But in the event that we are faced with that sort of a
situation, the regulations would address that.
The
regulations will also establish dispute resolution processes as well so that
fairness can be applied to, you know, the particular circumstances and why that
would have occurred. Again, I can’t necessarily foresee, you know, an instance
where that might happen. But again, this will allow for those rare instances
where this might present a challenge.
Matt Love: — Thanks, Minister. Can you share for the
committee which previously announced, or you know, projects that the Government
of Saskatchewan has committed to, will be impacted by Bill 38 and 39?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Yeah. And again, maybe just some
clarity around, not 100 per cent wouldn’t say “would be” but “could be”
impacted, could benefit from the Act.
The
anticipation is that the Act will come into force this fall. So there are
several school projects that have been announced and are anticipated that they
could — again, using the word “could” — be benefiting from changes as a result
of the Act. That would be the Regina East joint-use high school in the Towns,
dependent on the timing of requiring the land in that particular case;
Saskatchewan West public elementary school, so that’s one of the Kensington
schools; and the Saskatoon West Catholic elementary school, so the other
Kensington school; and then as well the Martensville-Warman joint-use
middle-high school.
Matt Love: — So just from my understanding,
Minister, the east side Saskatoon projects in Holmwood and Brighton, those
wouldn’t be included because the land has already been acquired. Is that
correct?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Yeah, that’s correct.
Matt Love: — Okay. And one of those projects I just
mentioned, we’ve discussed here this afternoon, the Holmwood school which will
be, you know, purpose built for 1,800 students on each side — 3,600 students.
And I understand some of the reasoning you’ve provided for the committee
tonight is, about the increasing size of schools and the scale of projects, you
know, that have increased since these projects were first announced, is one of
the reasons that this bill is needed.
Would
you consider as ministers, is it best practice to build schools of that size?
Is this your intention with this bill to continue to announce schools of this
size into the future?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Just with respect to the size of the
schools, you know, and these are very large schools. I would say that there
are, you know, some existing schools currently operating in the province, not
necessarily joint-use schools that we’re talking about, but that have, you
know, fairly large populations, I think 1,500, 1,800 kids in some existing
schools that we have in Saskatchewan in, you know, a couple of our cities.
But
the numbers that we’re talking about, that’s, you know, us being responsive to
what school divisions are coming to us with. So the sizes that we’re
contemplating and that we’re looking at for these new builds aren’t something
being necessarily directed by the government. It’s the school divisions coming
to us saying, here’s what we think we need based on our enrolment projections
and other factors. So that’s, you know, that’s where we’re responding to, to
the asks from school divisions. So that’s where the numbers are coming from.
And
we of course would ask questions as government about the numbers when they’re
submitting capital projects and new requests and when we’re talking about
numbers of this particular size when it comes to new schools. So that’s where
the response comes in. You know, in some cases we’ve seen in the past where we
do have schools that perhaps could have used more space, because we’re adding
on relocatables sooner than perhaps anticipated.
So
again, I don’t think we, you know, we don’t want to be in a position of
overbuilding of course, but you want to be mindful of what school divisions are
telling us with respect to how many students they think will be coming through
their doors and how many will be registering and taking classes in those
schools in the years to come.
Chair B. McLeod: — Thank you, then. We’ve come to the
time allotted for this bill, and I see that there will be no more questions as
a result of that. So we’re going to proceed to vote on the clauses. And I will
just make reference to the fact that we will wait for closing comments by the
minister and by the members until we go through both Bill — make sure I have
the numbers — 38 and Bill No. 39. So we’ll move through that as quickly as
we can.
So
clause 1, short title, is that agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair B. McLeod: — Carried.
[Clause
1 agreed to.]
[Clauses
2 to 14 inclusive agreed to.]
[17:45]
Chair B. McLeod: — His Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The
Building Schools Faster Act.
I
would ask a member to move that we report Bill No. 38, The Building
Schools Faster Act without amendment. MLA Martens moves. Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair B. McLeod: — Carried.
Bill
No. 39 — The Building Schools Faster Consequential Amendment Act, 2025/Loi
de 2025 corrélative de la loi intitulée The Building Schools Faster Act
Chair B. McLeod: — Consideration of Bill No. 39.
Moving directly to clause 1, short title, without questions due to the
agreement in terms of time spent on its entirety on Bill No. 38. Yeah,
thank you. So clause 1, short title, is that agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair B. McLeod: — Carried.
[Clause
1 agreed to.]
[Clauses
2 and 3 agreed to.]
Chair B. McLeod: — His Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The
Building Schools Faster Consequential Amendment Act, 2025, a bilingual
bill.
I’d
ask a member to move that we report Bill No. 39, The Building Schools
Faster Consequential Amendment Act, 2025, a bilingual bill, without
amendment. MLA Martens moves. Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
B. McLeod:
— Carried. So thank you for everyone being here tonight. Minister and your
officials, good discussion. And thank you for the participation from everybody
involved here. So any closing comments, Minister Hindley?
Hon. Everett Hindley: — Yes, just a thanks, Mr. Chair, to the
committee members who are present here today for their questions around this
bill, and thanks to the officials who were here answering some of the more
detailed aspects of it, providing information to me. So thanks to the team not
just at the Ministry of Education but also the folks here from Government
Relations, and of course SaskBuilds and Procurement is part of this as well.
And so thanks to them, and thanks to all the committee members for supporting
the bill, voting in favour of it.
Chair
B. McLeod:
— Thank you very much. MLA Love, any concluding comments, please.
Matt Love: — Yeah. I’ll thank the minister and the
officials from Education and Government Relations who were here this afternoon,
and I don’t know if this counts as evening yet, but we’ve got a little ways to
go. Thanks for your time and service for our province. Thanks to the committee
members for hearing my questions for the last couple hours as we engaged in
this important discussion. Thanks for your time, and again to all these
officials here today, thanks for your work for the province of Saskatchewan.
Chair B. McLeod:
— Thank you so much. So we’re going to take a short recess. I would suggest
let’s take 20 minutes and be back here at 6:10, and we’ll see if we can get the
evening through. Thank you so much.
[The
committee recessed for a period of time.]
Bill No. 43 — The Municipalities
Modernization and Red Tape Reduction Act
Clause 1-1
Chair
B. McLeod: — And thank you very much, everyone,
for returning from recess, and we’ll move back into the meeting again. So we’re
going to move on to consideration of Bill No. 43, The Municipalities
Modernization and Red Tape Reduction Act, beginning with consider of clause
1, short title.
Now Minister Schmalz is here with his officials.
And I’m just going to ask again that officials please introduce themselves the
first time they speak, and no touching of the microphones. The Hansard
operator’s going to have it turned on for you when you speak. So Minister
Schmalz, please introduce your officials and make your opening comments,
please.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: — Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Good evening, everyone. I am pleased to speak about Bill
No. 43, which will amend The Cities Act, The Municipalities Act,
and The Northern Municipalities Act, 2010.
I am joined by
several ministry officials who will introduce themselves as they speak.
Together these three municipalities Acts establish the legal framework for how
municipalities exist and function. The Ministry of Government Relations’
consultation process spanned nearly a year and a half and included issue
papers, public surveys, research, analysis, and many meetings which informed
the following amendments in three key areas.
The first
focus on transparency and public access to information. Changes in this bill
will require municipalities to post key municipal documents like meeting
minutes, financial statements, and bylaws online. While many municipalities
already do this, citizens expect this standard of all governments in this
information age. For municipalities who do not have websites, they have until
September of 2027 to make arrangements to post information on a publicly
accessible website.
The second set
of changes enhance local governance and accountability of council to the people
who elect them. This bill will require municipalities to offer orientation
training after each general election. All elected officials will have access to
training on roles and responsibilities and other important aspects of the job
they were elected to do. This bill also states that council members must follow
the principles of procedural fairness. This reminds them of their
responsibilities as elected officials and when dealing with challenging
situations of council, conduct, or conflicts of interest.
[18:15]
Finally there
are several amendments aimed specifically to improve municipal process and
reduce red tape. The bill will make it easier for
municipalities to deal with taxation and bylaw enforcement issues related to
illegal dumping, dangerous animals, and tax arrears. This bill also continues
work to improve property assessment appeals, allowing parties an opportunity to
enter into an agreement to adjust the assessment without the expense and time
of holding a hearing.
Additionally there are some House
amendments included. Bill No. 43 includes provisions that gives council
direct authority to give orders concerning dangerous animals instead of going
to a judge. After the bill was introduced, cities asked to remove those changes
to The Cities Act since they do not face the same challenges of court
access as other municipalities.
House amendments will also correct some
record-keeping responsibilities of the Clerk that were incorrectly assigned to
the city manager. After this bill receives third reading and Royal Assent, the
ministry will re-engage stakeholders to develop regulation changes to support
this bill.
Thank you, and I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Thank you, Minister. I will now open
the floor to questions. I recognize MLA Erika Ritchie.
Erika Ritchie: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you and welcome to the minister and his
officials for being here today to answer our questions about Bill No. 43.
I’ll maybe start with some higher level kinds of questions before sort of
digging down deeper into some of the more specific questions that I have here
today.
Minister, in your introduction of the
bill to the legislature, you know, you talked about red tape reduction. And I’m
wondering if you could define the threshold at which red tape reduction begins
to undermine public accountability, and where in Bill 43 that line has been
expressly protected?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Yeah, I’ll start and maybe hand it off to officials in a moment. I just would
point to primarily the removal of duplication or redundancy in some of the
Acts. We want to make sure that we’re streamlining. If there’s one Act that
provides direction for those activities to occur, that they are indeed not
being duplicated in another Act.
With respect to . . . I guess
we could use the example of the dangerous animals in a community where there’s
an opportunity for a municipality to act more swiftly in dealing with dangerous
animals while still providing due process to the owners. I think that that is a
significant reduction for those communities, as they are serious issues for
some municipalities. I’ll maybe hand it over to Andrea Ulrich.
Andrea Ulrich:
— Thank you. Andrea Ulrich, executive director of policy and program services
with the Ministry of Government Relations.
Specifically regarding the duplication,
there was one instance where when a person is nominated for office, they submit
their nomination papers to run for office. Then they also do a public
disclosure form of any conflicts of interest. When they’re elected, The
Municipalities Act then requires them to submit those same papers. Just
removing that second submission, all they have to do now is declare that
nothing has changed and then the same papers can be used again. It’s just one
process where we’re cutting out a duplication.
And with the dangerous animals orders
that the minister referenced, the municipality still has to have a bylaw and
have all the due process and make sure they’re following the right steps. So
they have to have a bylaw that supports that process in order to be able to
make those orders. We’re protecting the process but also letting them be much
more efficient, as the minister mentioned, in being able to deal with those
dangerous animals.
Erika Ritchie: —
Thank you for that response. On the topic of dangerous animals, in some of my
consultations the issue of bylaw enforcement has come up and sort of limited
resources for municipalities. Many, as you know, do not have enforcement
officers or they share them or they contract them. And that with limited funds
and limited access to have bylaw enforcement, they identified that as
problematic in terms of enacting the changes on that piece of the bill.
So I’m wondering if you can share, you
know, how you intend to support municipalities in implementing that portion of the
Act.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
So specifically to the supports that we’re providing through Government
Relations to municipalities and their efforts to provide bylaw enforcement or
any kind of services to their residents or RM [rural municipality] I guess or
urban municipality, what we do typically is we provide support funding through
targeted sector support where municipalities can join, as you mentioned in your
question regarding were there collaborations made between municipalities to,
you know, share the cost burden with bylaw enforcement or setting up a bylaw
enforcement program in their municipalities.
We provide some of the funding in order
to enter into those agreements or build those agreements. We also of course
provide municipal revenue sharing, which is something that can be used to
support the efforts of bylaw enforcement.
Specifically to this bill, what we’re
doing here is removing another barrier from these municipalities. You mentioned
the bylaw may be an impediment for some municipalities. In addition to that
bylaw enforcement piece, they then would have to go and find a judge or seek a
court order to deal with these animals. What we’re doing is removing one of
those barriers and providing supports when and where we can for bylaw
enforcement to occur.
So this is again another measure for
municipalities to deal with, like I said, the dangerous animals, illegal
dumping, tax enforcement, all of those things — removing the impediments around
those and making it a simpler, more straightforward process.
Erika Ritchie: — Thank you, Minister. I also had the
opportunity to discuss these proposed amendments with New North at one of their
recent meetings up in Prince Albert. And you know, for them they deal with a
lot of stray animals in their communities. It’s a major issue, as I’m sure
you’re well aware. They talked about the need for funding for a veterinarian to
be able to address some of those concerns that could turn into I guess
dangerous animal situations.
I
wonder maybe if you could elaborate or offer any feedback in terms of how
communities, especially in the North who are experiencing some of these
changes, how this bill is going to facilitate or address that concern.
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — Yeah. So in our consultations with
respect to judge availability or court availability in the North, having lived
in the North myself for a significant portion of my previous career, there’s
very sparsely timed availability for court and judges in the North. Through our
consultations we heard that that was a problem or an impediment for them to
deal with, specifically the owners of dangerous animals and the ability to deal
with those.
With
respect to the actual stray animals and the animals themselves, that falls
under the Ministry of Agriculture under that . . . I believe it’s The
Stray Animals Act . . . animal protection Act, I apologize. So
we’re again trying to remove impediments for municipalities, whether they be in
the North or not, to be able to deal with animals, particularly as it seems —
and I recall these many times having lived there — the issue with stray animals
in the North.
So
yes, this is again another measure by which we are providing that ability for
communities to deal with these issues in their own way. And maybe I’ll get
Andrea, if you would please, just cover off some of the . . .
Andrea
Ulrich:
— Sure, thank you. So yeah, specifically when we were talking to the council of
Creighton, they raised this, that they have the bylaws in place. They want to
be able to deal with dangerous animals under that bylaw, but they simply
weren’t able to get the court orders that were required by the judge. So they
expressly asked for municipal authority to deal with this.
Under
The Municipalities Act it is about animals that are owned where the
owner is known. Their bylaw can also deal with . . . You know, in a
situation of, like, an emergency situation where an animal’s attacking, then
they can deal with that of course without going through any red tape or
anything like that.
[18:30]
But
that does fall under the Ministry of Agriculture. So we also had discussions
with the Ministry of Agriculture to make sure that we were dealing with animals
effectively from both sides and that we . . . yeah, just also efforts
to help municipalities understand when something came under The
Municipalities Act or when it came under The Animal Production Act.
Erika Ritchie: — Thank you for that. Now you mentioned
transparency being a major theme of this Act, and I guess I have one question
there in terms of the deadline that you mentioned of September 2027. To your
knowledge, or based on the consultation that you’ve undertaken, will these
enhancements for public reporting, development of a website, create a challenge
for some smaller municipalities? And if so, what recourse will they have?
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — Yeah, thanks for the question. With
respect to the websites and website development for small municipalities, I
mean, we’re currently in an age where a lot of these are very simplistic tasks
to be able to set up a web page, reserve a domain name, and move to have
web-hosted documents available to the public. Any number of sites are available
for that. Within the ministry we are providing support to municipalities
through advisory services for them to be able to reach out and have conversations
with our officials and provide some direction on how they may achieve this in
an effective way.
Again,
posting of financials and public record on a website is something that we feel
— again, through some of my experience even from the municipal sector as an
elected official municipally — that there is an opportunity there to cut down
on unnecessary inquiries when those documents are publicly available, and it’s
not tying up administrative time for those individuals having to repeatedly
show, fax, or send emails of those documents when they’re publicly available on
a website that’s fairly easy and cheaply obtained. I’ll let Andrea speak on
that a little further at this point.
Andrea Ulrich: — Thank you. We’ve had calls for
municipal information on websites from Canadian Taxpayers Federation for
several years, from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, from Ombudsman
Saskatchewan. And our public survey also found there was strong public support.
Of course people just expect to be able to find information on websites these
days fairly easily, especially of governments, so there was a lot of support.
Of
course when we did our consultation, we did hear from SUMA particularly that
some smaller villages had concerns about the resources needed to comply with
that. That’s why we’re giving them, you know, quite a bit of time — since it
was announced in fall when this was introduced, almost two years — to come up
with a solution.
They
don’t have to have a municipal website. It can be a regional website. It can be
one of the associations. It could be on King’s Printer. As long as it’s a
publicly accessible website, then that meets the requirements, so they have a
number of different options that way. And SARM has also done quite a bit of
work setting up a hub for rural websites, for rural municipality websites, so I
expect we’ll see an uptake of those sites as well.
We
have also heard personally from some administrators who are, you know, very
supportive. Since they started having a website, they have far less requests
for information, and it in fact is a time saver at the end of the day. It’s not
very difficult, of course, to set up a website these days.
Last
we heard — 2024 is when we did some information collection on this — the
largest number of municipalities that didn’t have working websites were
villages, which is what you expect to see. Almost all towns had them and almost
all resort villages. And about a third of the RMs did not, and then some of the
northern municipalities.
That
was two years ago. I expect even now we’d see some of those numbers change. But
you know, we’re certainly aware of those limitations, and we think this is
going to be a big step forward in terms of transparency and just accessibility.
Erika Ritchie: — Yeah, and I guess I should also clarify
that, you know, certainly I would concur with those stakeholders that you’ve
been engaging with around that being an expected — not just best, but expected
— practice of public organizations to have that kind of information available.
Certainly in the casework that I see coming across my desk, it oftentimes has
to do with a lack of access to, you know, public documentation on files. And so
certainly support the measure, but still had the question for those smaller
municipalities who may find it challenging to implement.
So
maybe moving on, another thing you mentioned in your opening remarks had to do
with procedural fairness. And I’m wondering if you could elaborate on what is
meant by procedural fairness and, in particular for Saskatchewan
municipalities, you know, how that’s defined for them and how they can ensure
that they’re adhering to it.
Andrea
Ulrich:
— Thank you for the question. You know, the reason this came about is some
conversations we heard from some councils who struggle with some of the
investigations that they do into council conduct or things like that — well how
do we do this and that? And really, we don’t want to intercede and say, this is
exactly how you should carry out an investigation, right. We’ve outlined some
principles that they have to follow, but really they are enforcing their own
code of ethics and code of conduct.
So
in discussion with the Ombudsman, you know, the Ombudsman hears about these
issues all the time, has been doing an incredible amount of outreach this year
with municipalities and to talking about the difficulties they face with
carrying out investigations and just doing due process. So the solution that we
came up with was to put this in the Act for something that they can point to.
The Ombudsman can point to it and say, this is a duty of elected council
members to follow the procedural fairness.
It’s
well established in case law. So it’s a concept that is kind of, you know, even
above provincial law. And they can point to it and say, as long as you were
doing the duty of procedural fairness when you’re doing your investigation,
then you’re doing your duty.
Erika Ritchie: — Thank you for that answer. How will
municipal councillors understand what that obligation looks like to achieve
procedural fairness? What in this Act will facilitate that, or beyond the Act,
I suppose?
Andrea
Ulrich:
— There’s a lot of education available because, like I say, it’s a concept
established in case law. This is not unique to a municipal government. And the
Ombudsman is expanding resources and training significantly right now in this
space. We also have advisory services with the ministry, so at any time
councils and administrators can call and ask for advice in terms of how they’re
doing those investigations and be advised. So there’s a lot of resources
available.
Erika Ritchie: —
Okay. I guess related to this is the amendments that address training for
councillors and the requirement for it to be provided. However there isn’t a
similar requirement that it actually be undertaken by councillors. So I’m just
wondering if you could explain that decision process or why you landed where
you did in terms of provisioning but not requiring that councillors receive
training.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Thanks. Thanks for the question. Through a process of consultation, obviously
we’ve had discussions with representative organizations that are SARM and SUMA,
ensuring that they were providing feedback on any proposed amendments in this
area. We wanted to make sure that they were heard as well as our constituent
members were heard on it.
What we wanted to do was to approach
this in a . . . we’ll call it a softer way, ensuring that there’s
educational opportunities available for new council members to be better
equipped to conduct and do their jobs as members of council. We didn’t want to
be overly prescriptive in mandatory training at this point.
We wanted to take the opportunity to do
this on a phased approach. We want to have a look at what the uptake will be
over the course of the next four years in our jurisdictional scans. Across the
nation there are jurisdictions that have started in this way. They began with
the option of mandatory offering of the training to newly elected or currently
elected council members, and then eventually moved to the mandatory.
We wanted to make sure that if there was
an opportunity, if we were seeing good uptake, that it wasn’t necessitated that
it become mandatory right out of the gate. We wanted to make sure that there
was still the ability of people to choose whether or not they take that
training and thereby not discouraging people or intimidating people from
running for council thinking that they would have to take some type of
significant training program, training regimen in order to do their jobs.
[18:45]
Erika Ritchie: — I think that, you
know, one of the things I hear from stakeholders is that . . . I
recognize, you know, you explained a bit of a phased approach. But certainly it
does mean that that lack of knowledge and understanding on the part of
councillors in general will mean that certain issues may continue to persist
without adequate competencies in place.
And so as you go through that process of
phasing in and testing and seeing kind of what is and what isn’t working, are
you providing any kind of mitigation or contingency to address persistent
issues that may continue to present themselves to municipalities?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
So currently what we have in the province is a municipal leadership development
program, which was being offered through both SUMA and SARM. The curriculum on
those programs for those two organizations is being wound down. They’re not
going to be offering it anymore.
What we’re trying to do in conjunction
with SARM and SUMA is to try to develop or help them or lean to a more
regimented education program or educational tools to be able to put in place to
offer to newly elected members of council to ensure that that’s available to
them.
Right now what we’re relying on
specifically is that there are obviously several organizations and
post-secondary institutions in the province who offer this type of training.
We’re again looking to — as this grows and interest grows in the educational components
of municipal councillors — to have that available to them through a more
. . . I guess we’ll call it regimented channel through both those
representative organizations. We’re moving that way to ensure that we as well,
again, don’t intimidate anyone from running for council and ensure that there’s
still that openness to have them attend and learn on the job.
Andrea Ulrich:
— So one of the things we’ll be following up with in regulations though is the
required topics for this training to ensure that the most important things are
covered. So we’ll be consulting on this further, but potential topics would be
administrative rules and processes, roles and responsibilities of council
members and administrators, conflict of interest and code of ethics, budgeting
and financial administration, and the structure of the municipal system, and a
harassment-free workplace.
These are things that we already know
there’s a lot of content out there. But just in terms of making sure that what
is offered by each municipality hits the important topics . . . So we
will be starting with that amount of structure just to make sure that those key
topics are covered.
But as the minister said, we also need
to know that the education, you know, kind of system is built up over time.
That doesn’t happen overnight. And if you’ve got 775 municipalities with
councils needing to take training, that’s significant. So this is certainly
something we’ve been looking at for a while, and we’re excited where this can
go. But it’s not something that you can just snap your fingers and implement
overnight. The implementation side and the back end, there’s significant
challenges.
Erika Ritchie: — Yeah. And I did
want to ask more about that, because certainly I think on the implementation
side, whether it’s mandatory or voluntary, I can only imagine that building
awareness, setting expectations, ensuring people understand why it’s important
that they take this training, that that’s being clearly communicated by the
ministry.
So can you tell me a little bit about
how that implementation and awareness building will occur?
Andrea Ulrich:
— Certainly. We’ve been working with the municipal associations — SARM, SUMA,
the Rural Municipal Administrators’ Association, and the Urban Municipal
Administrators’ Association as well — and cities. And so this is only the kind
of thing that will succeed if all of these associations and the ministry are
working together. So plan to have more discussions on that with them; also
with, you know, some of the post-secondary institutions who are also in this
space of training, and just try to coordinate efforts.
And we’re pretty early on in those
discussions. But we know that the associations are very supportive of better
council training resources and that we all have the same goal at the end of the
day.
Erika Ritchie: — I don’t think
. . . Oh, with all due respect, you know, I heard something a little
bit different when I was speaking with stakeholders. On the one hand, I heard
administrators speak very strongly in favour of requisite training being
compulsory, you know, because I think for them, a lot of this, when there is a
lack of competency, it sort of lands in their lap to sort of clean up the mess,
as I’m sure the minister can be quite well aware of.
And then also, you know, hearing
comments that some people like to sort of learn by doing as opposed to sort of
being more proactive, I guess. And to me it seems like it’s also a bit of a
cultural shift. And I don’t know if there’s a question there actually, more of
a statement. I apologize to the Chair for that.
But just, yeah, I’ll be watching with
great interest to see kind of how that proceeds, unless you had something you
wanted to offer, Minister.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Yeah, to your point, absolutely I think there’s opportunities there,
specifically with . . . we’ll call it on-the-job training with
members of council coming to the table with skills already in hand, finding
specifically around say, large urban centres . . . or not necessarily
even that, but just usually that’s where individuals with significant acumen or
a pre-existing skill set come on to council to provide that leadership and that
voice for their community. They bring skills to the table that wouldn’t require
them to necessarily take all the training.
But again we want to be able to, in
those areas where individuals feel they need help or they need to be able to
deal with an issue where there was a shortfall, or they feel they don’t have
the knowledge or intrinsic knowledge to be able to deal with things like
. . . I’ve worked with council members who have openly admitted they
don’t know how to read a balance sheet and they need the help learning how to
do that. So those type of things. We want to be there to support them, to
ensure that they’re able to actively participate in the processes of their
council. So that’s again some of the things that we feel we can fill that
stopgap.
Erika Ritchie: — You know, I guess
sort of one case that comes to mind readily for me is the RM of Lac Pelletier
where, you know, there has been some decisions that have been rescinded and
then reinstated. A lot of confusion clearly I think on the part of council in
terms of what their obligations and duties are as a council. And I don’t know
even just kind of where that responsibility lies on the part of the
administrator versus a reeve versus the councillors. I mean, you know, they all
kind of play a role in that.
So I wonder maybe if you could highlight
for me how the amendments in this bill would address a case like that.
Megan Istace:
— I’m Megan Istace. I’m the director of municipal engagement. To answer your
question, advisory services provides advice when it’s sought by municipalities.
We can’t comment specifically on municipalities’ inquiries to us at committee,
but if they’re having difficulties with procedures, meeting procedures, we will
be more than happy to help them with those questions, walk them through their
obligations under the legislation and procedures.
Sorry, this is the first time I’ve
spoken at a committee, so I’m a little nervous. I will leave it at that if there’s
anything else to be added.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, over to me.
Thank you. Well thank you for that response. Perhaps I’ll move on. One of the
things that’s been added to the bill is an Indigenous advisor. So the bill
permits councils to appoint Indigenous advisors. I wonder why the government
chose a permissive rather than a mandatory approach if reconciliation is a
stated priority.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Thanks for the question. I guess I would want to point out that municipalities
are in fact an independent level of government and they have the ability to
make those decisions on their own. What we’ve simply done is to provide the
space for them under which, in the Act, under which they are provided the
legislative framework to conduct business, that they have the opportunity to be
able to provide that to their council and to their ratepayers. I’ll turn it
over to Andrea to speak a little bit more and expound on that.
Andrea Ulrich:
— Sure. Yeah, thank you for this question. This was one of the interesting
requests that came in during consultation from a northern village. And it
follows what we already have in place for the ability to have non-voting youth
members, to have them be able to sit with council and participate in
deliberations, however not be a council member and not be a voting member and
have any kind of conditions around that that council may decide. And so they
asked for something similar for an Indigenous advisor.
We did also hear specifically from the
larger cities that already have advisory committees where they’re getting those
Indigenous perspectives and participation. So we recognize that there’s a
number of different ways to do this. However, with the request, you know, it
seemed like a really good idea, but they’re an autonomous level of government.
Of course it’s their option to do that. This just provides that framework for
them and has a kind of built-in option for them to use.
[19:00]
Erika Ritchie: — Will there be
provisions for the province to support municipalities in identifying,
compensating, or appropriately integrating Indigenous Elders or Knowledge
Keepers into their governance processes?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
I would suggest that this probably would be the area that we just described as
far as the non-elected advisor to a council. This would allow them the
opportunity, however they choose, to provide remuneration to the individuals
that would be part of that council. Those would be obviously up to the
municipality.
What we don’t want to be is we want to
. . . Any time that we move into the municipal space, we want to do
so in a very measured way to ensure that that level of autonomy is still
maintained while providing surety to the citizens of Saskatchewan that they are
being represented in the appropriate way. If there is a, you know, a council
that chooses to bring on an advisor and compensate them for that work, I would
suggest that that’s up to that council. But as far as mandating specific
remuneration or requirements for an individual such as Elders to be brought in,
I think that would be up to the municipality.
Erika Ritchie: — Thank you for that
answer. At the SUMA convention recently, there was a presentation by the Office
of the Treaty Commissioner. Certainly there does seem to be efforts under way,
by SUMA at least, to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendations.
And so I think that’s really good work.
I’m just wondering sort of what role you
see as the ministry in sort of furthering relationships between municipalities
and neighbouring First Nations and in . . . You know, there seems to
be a lot of opportunity for collaboration and how the amendments in this bill
would be supporting that.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Thanks for the question. I would put it to the committee that it is happening
now organically. I’ve had many interactions with many rural and urban
municipalities who are in fact engaged with their neighbouring Indigenous
communities and First Nations. In The Municipalities Act we are
providing the space for those activities to occur through some of these
initiatives that have been put forward in these amendments.
What we want to do is make sure that
we’re not impeding those in any way. We’ve got these, you know, wonderful
collaborations happening in large urbans as well. We’ve seen it through our
urgent care centre partnerships. We’ve seen it through, you know, urban reserve
lands being outlined. And those are processes that are being undertaken by both
the Indigenous representation as well as the municipal representation in those
communities.
This is something that our province is
doing quite well on its own. And we’re providing, as a government, that space
for those activities to occur. And we’re seeing real results that are
benefiting both Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in this province.
Erika Ritchie: — Related to that,
in The Northern Municipalities Act there are provisions for economic
partnerships to occur, but we don’t see that in the other two municipal Acts.
I’m wondering if you could speak to why we see it there in The Northern
Municipalities Act but not in the other two Acts, that opportunity.
Andrea Ulrich:
— Yeah, thank you for that question. I could probably speak for an hour on
this, but I won’t. I guess we have some time. The legislation for northern
municipalities has been through a number of different iterations and reflects a
lot of the unique history of how the north part of the province was
administrated and still is administrated differently than the southern part of
the province.
So the differences you see there do come
out of unique circumstances, consultations that happened in 2010 when that Act
was rewritten. And you know, there’s still just a lot of room for improvement.
But what we know is that a lot of these partnerships, economic partnerships,
are happening not even using the provisions of the Act. As the minister
mentioned, these partnerships are already happening in many places, especially
in the North.
Those communities are working very, very
closely. They’re side by side. They’re essentially the same street, right. The
provisions of The Northern Municipalities Act are almost more artifacts
than anything. And it’s certainly something that we’ve looked at at the
ministry and we could improve perhaps. But what’s happening in the real world
right now is often not kind of directly under those provisions. It’s more because
municipalities have natural person powers. They can enter agreements; they can
become part of corporations. You know, they already have all the powers to have
those partnerships and do that collaboration without us expressly permitting it
or setting up the structure and legislation.
Erika Ritchie: — That’s
fascinating. I guess I really want to just sort of ensure that I understand
full scope of what you’re saying. So for example, say a city and a rural
municipality and nearby First Nation want to partner on either a municipal
undertaking or an economic project, are you indicating that the way that these
amendments will work — in addition to the Acts themselves — that there would be
no impediments to them acting in partnership to undertake an initiative or an
undertaking of that sort?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Yeah, thanks for the question. And I mean what I can point to right away is
currently there are some of these conversations occurring right now in the
province and those are around recreational facilities, cultural facilities.
These are real initiatives that are being, again, organically brought forward
by the communities that are going to be benefiting from them the most. And
that’s the regional aspect.
It’s something I’ve taken great pride in
in this role as long as I’ve had the honour to serve here in that I’ve been a
very big proponent of collaboration. Regardless of which communities they are —
rural, urban, or Indigenous — I want to make sure that if we can do something
together for the benefit of all, that we provide the framework or the ability
for those individuals or entities to be able to come together and build what
they need with respect to those types of good works. Our municipalities Act does
provide space for that to happen. The amendments, again, create even more
ability for that to go forward.
So I’ll let Andrea talk to that a little
bit more.
Andrea Ulrich:
— Yeah, I wouldn’t say that we looked at amendments too much on this space in
this go-round, but certainly we have before. Just making sure there’s
transparency for what we call controlled corporations. So that’s the kind of
corporation I was speaking of; that’s a model that can be used. So
municipalities would have 50 per cent or more ownership, then it’s considered a
controlled corporation and they have obligations to do their audited financial
statements and have auditor’s reports and such for controlled corporations.
In the North we’re seeing this model
used for regional landfills. So that’s been a really big undertaking. And then
you have the municipalities sitting on those boards as well as First Nations,
of course. And they’re all engaged together, running these regional landfills.
And yeah, like I said, that’s been a really big hurdle to get over, and it’s
really only one that they’ve been able to make any progress on by working
together as a corporation.
Erika Ritchie: — And so when you
say “controlled corporations,” I don’t think I’m familiar with that concept.
You mentioned municipalities sort of having, I guess, more of a controlling
interest through 50 per cent . . .
Andrea Ulrich:
— Exactly. 50 per cent or more.
Erika Ritchie: — And is that
basically the requirement? So then if a municipality is entering into some kind
of a collaboration, is it necessary that they have at least 50 per cent
ownership? Or can it be less?
Andrea Ulrich:
— They don’t have to have a controlling interest. That’s just when it becomes a
controlled corporation, and that’s when it becomes, under the Act, in terms of
transparency and having financial statements for it.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, I see.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
I’ll maybe expand on that a little bit. I think a lot of that has to come in to
play when you’re dealing with the administrative burden of operating these
facilities. You want to make sure that there’s the ability for those audited
financials to be put in place and have some of that infrastructure for these
corporations to succeed.
Erika Ritchie: — Earlier on,
Minister, you mentioned that a lot of this collaboration you think is happening
organically. I just wondered though, you know, if there isn’t opportunity for
the ministry to demonstrate leadership as well. Or if you are, how that is
being undertaken.
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — Yeah, thanks for the question. Some of
the initiatives that we’ve undertaken over the last 12 months, particularly in
the municipal space trying to ensure that we are approaching any potential
opportunities as a province, that we’re doing so hand in hand with our
municipal partners, our Indigenous partners.
We
want to make sure that, you know, if we’re entering into another integrated
bilateral agreement we have all parties at the table to ensure that they are
being heard and their requests and requirements of their individual communities
are being recognized when we’re at the bargaining table to come forward with a
new set of funding agreements with our federal partners.
We
did that last year. I mean that was highlighted quite effectively by what we
call the Team Saskatchewan approach when we went to Ottawa with our municipal
and urban and rural partners in a joint way to ensure that the federal
government heard from the municipalities, not just the provincial government,
but the municipalities that would be the end user and beneficiary of any
integrated bilateral agreements.
That’s
something we want to continue. We want to ensure that we are taking that
leadership role. We did that at the behest of myself and cabinet in that we
were wanting to again bring a united voice. And it was impactful. It was quite
impactful as stated by the individuals that we met with.
They
hadn’t seen in their experience as federal politicians that there was a
province come to the table with their municipalities at the same time to all
state the same end goal, to provide opportunities for municipalities to benefit
from integrated bilateral agreements, whether they be in the areas of
infrastructure or in the areas of recreation, recreational infrastructure as
well.
So
we want to make sure that again we are supporting our municipalities in this
province. And we look forward to continuing in those leadership roles with
that.
Erika Ritchie: — And I’m sorry . . . Thank you
for that answer. I should have been more specific when I mentioned leadership.
What I’m specifically asking in regards to is around reconciliation and
partnership with Indigenous communities.
[19:15]
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — I’ll just say that, with respect, this
is probably a little bit . . . This is kind of going off the subject
of the bill here. But I will state just publicly that we’ve . . . Of
the 94 recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 34 of
those were pointed at the provinces. Right now we are meeting 30 of them. In
addition to those 30 we are also taking on, of our own volition, 17 additional
recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
So
we, as far as a leadership role, I think we are exhibiting that leadership
through our willingness and our earnest wish to, you know, engage in that
process and ensure that we are being active participants and true partners for
Indigenous people in this province. But like I said, with respect to the bill,
I think we’re probably moving off the bill a little bit with respect to this.
So I just wanted to state that for the record.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, thank you very much. You know,
again sort of in line with more sort of high-level questions, you know, this
opportunity to put forward amendments also sort of raises or begs the question
around why it is that we have three separate municipal Acts as opposed to one
Act that sort of governs all municipalities.
Did you consider that as part of your
review, and if so, what the outcome of that was or if you had feedback.
Certainly I had some questions come to me in my consultations, you know, that
there are some upsides to sort of one large municipal bill as opposed to three
separate ones. Would you care to address that question?
Andrea Ulrich: — And thank you for the question. Again
we could delve into the history of how these came to be, having the three Acts,
but there’s certainly been more differences in the past between what used to be
the urban municipalities Act and what was then the rural municipalities Act.
So
there has been some consolidations over the years, but we did not get any
requests during consultation to consider merging all three into one. In fact we
have heard specifically from cities that they want to continue having a cities
Act that is just for cities. And there are provisions in The
Municipalities Act that are just for rural municipalities, and there are
provisions in The Northern Municipalities Act that are just for northern
municipalities.
So
we have not heard any requests to merge them, and certainly some of those
differences are important in terms of the different structures of how a rural
municipality is specifically compared to a city. And it would also be an
immense amount of work. So if we heard those requests, it’s something we’d
consider if there was an impetus for it, but we have not received any.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, thank you very much. Some of the
casework that again I see in my office has to do with situations where there is
allegations of council members who are acting in a conflict of interest.
We
see that in some cases where, you know, there are unauthorized drainage works
and environmental damage, and oftentimes members of the public can feel quite
powerless in terms of seeking recourse in these kinds of situations where they
may be, you know, the recipients of some of these decisions by their council.
I wonder if you could speak to the
amendments in the Act and how they will strengthen accountability and
discourage conflicts of interest from occurring going forward, and when they do
happen, what enhanced measures these amendments will offer to ensure accountability
going forward.
Andrea
Ulrich:
— Thank you for that question. Conflict of interest is something that was
significantly amended in 2016, and so these rules have been in place for some
time. Saskatchewan was a leader in Canada in terms of putting in the definition
of conflict of interest that aligned with case law.
And
it’s certainly, you know, been a shift for people to think of conflicts not
just pecuniary interests but any conflict that they might have as council
members and then also as citizens. So there are some tools, you know, that are
addressed in these amendments; however the core of those rules have been in
place for some time.
One
thing that we heard of is council members actually refusing to sign an oath of
office which specifically refers to . . . It reinforces their
agreement to follow these rules. And so one change that we made in this bill is
that if they don’t sign the oath of office they can’t actually function as
council members and take part in council activities, which would mean they
could not attend meetings in an official capacity, which could lead to
disqualification.
If
they have a conflict and they do not deal with it appropriately according to
the rules, that can also be taken to a judge for judicial review, again, for
disqualification. Councils also have the ability to declare a member’s seat
vacant if they haven’t followed the rules for conflicts of interest. And that
can be appealed to a judge. So there’s a number of those tools already in
place. Any member of the public could take that to a judge as well.
I
mentioned the Ombudsman already and the educational resources and the
engagement that they’ve been doing with municipalities. They saw quite a few
more interactions with municipalities this year, and we know that a lot of
those are around how to appropriately deal with conflicts of interest. So we
definitely see, you know, that kind of shift in paying more attention to these
things and trying to do it properly and more engagement from councils on doing
that, and certainly support the Ombudsman’s efforts in that regard. And again
our advisory services can always advise if they’re not quite sure how to
navigate those roles.
Erika Ritchie: — I guess I have sort of two follow-up
questions to that response. I hope the minister can respond to just in terms
of, you know, where you see that bar in terms of where you as the minister may
step in and intervene when there has been a miscarriage, you know, lack of
procedural fairness, a conflict of interest — all these cases.
Certainly
it would appear and it’s been my observation that there have been some missed
opportunities for the minister to step in and request or demand a course of
action in some of these more egregious cases. Where do you or how do you see
your role in intervening where cases have kind of reached sort of a tipping
point or a bar where, you know, an immediate response and action is required?
Chair B. McLeod: — I’m just
going to say, I’d like to tie it back to the Act as such and the modernization
of it. I feel like we’re . . . It’s tenuous at best. I will allow the
opportunity to respond to it, but we’re not going to go down this track very
far.
[19:30]
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — So just quickly on this. The
municipalities again are an autonomous level of government. As the provincial
government we provide the legislative framework under which they operate.
So
when we are wanting to effect some level of change in the way municipalities
operate, we do that through legislative procedures, like we’re doing now when
it comes to the review of The Municipalities Act and helping doing that
through consultation with the individual municipalities themselves to ensure
that there are measures in place to prevent or to help mitigate those instances
from occurring.
Again
these are independent levels of government. Members of the public who are
having concerns and feel that there needs to be some type of recourse are able
to do so through the judicial branch of government and seek advice and action
through the court system to ensure that their own measures are being followed.
We
are implementing the transparency measures in these amendments. Again that’s
another way of providing that openness so that the public has a full view on
what is going on to prevent or highlight any potential conflicts that are going
on. And they can seek action through, again, through the judicial process.
Erika Ritchie: — So, Minister, you started out your
response indicating that municipalities are autonomous levels of government,
but you know, it’s also true that they are a feature of the province. I mean
they exist because of The Municipalities Act. And so, you know, the Act
and these amendments provide the framework and provide the rules within which
they conduct themselves. And so I would take issue with your characterization
there.
I
mean certainly you don’t want to be prescriptive and give them as much
autonomy, but at the end of the day when there’s issues, there is a role there
for the province and the ministry to ensure that that fairness, transparency —
all those things are being upheld. And I understand that the measures within
these amendments are, you know, very clearly directed at that.
So
related to that, I sort of have a subset of cases that I deal with where
hamlets feel like they’re sort of being unfairly treated within, you know, a
rural municipal context. And so I’m wondering if you can tell me, with these
amendments, what steps have been taken to ensure that the rights of residents
within a hamlet are protected when they’re dealing with their rural
municipality? And what amendments in this bill assist them in that?
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — Again respectfully, there’s no
reference to that in this bill particularly. That’s just not part of what these
amendments are meant to address. There are provisions in the broader Act that
provide, you know, some framework for hamlets to exist and how they may be set
up or stood up. However, with respect to this bill, it doesn’t have anything to
do with this bill specifically.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, that’s fine. I did need to ask
that question. There’s a follow-up question. I wonder if you could clarify for
me whether Bill 43 removes the Ombudsman investigative role in reprisal
matters?
Andrea
Ulrich:
— So yes, thanks. That’s a fairly technical amendment actually that stems from
an earlier amendment that happened in 2020 that the Ombudsman’s office felt
that the previous wording assigned investigative responsibilities to the
Ombudsman that did not exist, just the way it was worded.
So
this amendment was to clarify that if a municipal employee makes contact with
the Ombudsman, whether or not it’s within the Ombudsman’s power to investigate,
they cannot be reprised against. So it’s just clarifying the role of the
Ombudsman’s office; nothing to do with, sort of, the actual protection from
reprisal.
Erika Ritchie: — Great. Okay, thank you very much for
that. Minister, does your ministry intend to undertake any measures that will
measure whether Bill 43 is improving public trust in municipal governments
versus, I mean, merely streamlining administration?
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — Yeah, thanks for the question. We’ve
got obviously a process in place every four years to review through public
consultation — which was undertaken in this instance, as has been in the past —
public consultation on where and how the Acts, the three municipalities Acts
can be improved. We take those under consideration as government to ensure
that, we’ll say, the requested amendments are merit-based and able to be
implemented without impacting or providing impacts downstream in a negative
way.
We
ensure that through a broad, and again a very robust, consultation process
undertaken by the Ministry of Government Relations, leading up to the
introduction of the amendments as you see them here today.
We
want to make sure that we’re continuing that engagement with municipalities
across this province to ensure that the Acts under which they operate are
working for them. And that’s something we take great pride in, ensuring that we
have that open dialogue with our municipalities across this province to ensure
that again their voice is being heard when it comes time to have these
consultations.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, thank you very much. I’m just
scanning a few items here. I did want to touch on just one other piece of case,
some questions that sort of arose from some casework. Sort of in a related vein
in terms of, you know, that capacity within rural municipalities and their
relationship with hamlets. I wonder if you could tell me, in terms of financial
agreements between hamlets and RMs, what is in the existing Act and is there
anything in the amendments that addresses, you know, rules around how taxation
is applied to hamlets, and if that’s changing at all?
Hon. Eric Schmalz: — Bit of a long consultation for a very
short answer. There’s nothing in these amendments, in this current bill, that
would relate to RMs or hamlets.
Erika Ritchie:
— And did the minister receive any feedback on the bill in relation to the
financial powers that RMs, you know, have versus their hamlets? You know,
certainly I understand that there have been some situations that have gone to
advisory services where, you know, hamlets are feeling, are experiencing
rather, additional tax pressure limiting their ability to meet their basic
community needs and also limit their ability to undertake any sort of legal
recourse in a situation where they’re in that conflict with the governing RM.
And so, would you consider amendments to
sort of address this situation? Or what, you know, what recourse would a hamlet
have in such a situation?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Again nothing in this bill specifically, but there is, has been amendments made
in the past to help deal with that when it specifically, you know
. . . Pertaining to the current amendments before the committee,
there’s nothing in that right now.
Erika Ritchie: — I committed to
asking the question, and I guess you’ve given me what I need. And I’ll do some
further follow-up action on that. So thank you so much.
Okay, maybe we’ll switch gears now. So,
Mr. Chair, there was a letter that was provided to yourself and the committee
from Lee Fuller, and I just want to verify that that has been shared with the
committee and the minister.
Chair
B. McLeod: — It was certainly available to the
committee — but not provided — actually just two days ago or three days ago,
whenever it was. It was some recommendations in regard to assessment and I’m
not sure that that really fits at all with what we’re talking about here in
terms . . . Unless you can provide me with a connection, I’m
. . .
Erika Ritchie: — Oh, it very much
does.
Chair
B. McLeod: — I’ll have to . . . You’re
going to have to convince me on that one.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, well there
are a number of amendments in the bill that deal directly with property tax
assessment, yeah.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Yeah, and it really was unsolicited
letter that came. The minister’s not seen it. And so it did go to the IAJ
[Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice] committee, but I did not pass it on as
of yet.
[19:45]
Erika Ritchie: — So yeah, I
. . . We did make some inquiries and it was my understanding that
yes, if we shared it with you it would be shared with the committee. And
certainly we did also have a letter in the last bill that we reviewed that also
had a letter that was shared. And so I offer that for the minister. If you want
to make copies that’s fine too.
But I guess part of the reason for this
letter coming forward is that we don’t allow for expert witnesses at our
committees. And alternatively it was suggested that the letter come forth with
very specific recommendations that I’d like to address with my next series of
questions.
And this is coming from an individual by
the name of Lee Fuller. He is a former tax assessor, retired; also served on
the SAMA [Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency] board, so is very
knowledgeable on property tax assessment. And he had a number of suggestions
and questions that he wanted to bring before the committee for their
consideration.
So with that, I’ll try to get myself
organized here.
Chair
B. McLeod: —
Before we go any further with this, it would be very fair for the minister to
have the opportunity to have a moment to discuss this with his staff. I’m
reticent to allow this to go forward. There are some suggestions in here which
. . . Yeah, let’s get a copy and let’s take a short recess, 10
minutes.
[The committee recessed for a period of
time.]
Chair
B. McLeod: — Okay, we’ll come back here. And I’ll
just say that we’re going to have to make sure that any questions in regards to
this letter that’s been presented is tied very tightly to the amendments that
are in the bill that’s in front of us. And so I’ll ask for that to happen
please.
Erika Ritchie: — Well okay, we’ll
do that. It’s my understanding and view though, however, that the contents of
this submission are entirely within the subject of the meeting here today,
looking at amendments and addressing assessment provisions that are included in
this bill. But let’s see where we get to. Okay, all right.
So maybe the first matter to bring up is
in relation to the amendments to section 214 of The Cities Act. And
maybe I’ll just start by asking, what . . . well hang on a second
here. So this is a proposed amendment that would allow direct appeals to
Saskatchewan Municipal Board, bypassing boards of revision. I’m wondering if
you can tell me what specific problem this clause is intended to solve that
cannot be addressed within the existing board of revision framework?
Yomi Akintola: — Yeah, good
evening. My name is Abayomi Akintola, director of policy and program services
with Government Relations. Thank you for your question.
When it comes to the assessment appeal
system in the province we have three levels. We have three tiers. The first
level would be the local board of revision, which would be at the appeals
first. And if, let’s say, they make a decision and the ratepayer does not agree
with the decision or the assessor does not agree with the decision — so
basically anyone with an interest in the property that does not agree with the
decision given by the local board of revision — could go to the Saskatchewan
Municipal Board, the SMB, give an assessment up to this committee.
They would hear the appeal and they
would review the new . . . If their evidence or if they think the
first level did not do a proper job or maybe there’s some omission or errors in
the application of the legislation, so that goes to the SMB. And if any party
in the property or in the appeal, if they’re unsatisfied with the decision of
the SMB, then they can go to the Court of King’s Bench, the appeal court, to
kind of look at if there’s administrative error in application of the law.
[20:00]
So what we’re looking at in the
amendment to 214 is to work on simplifying the process and ensuring that
appeals, that direct appeals that go to SMB, they have proper grounds.
And during the consultation process for
these amendments we consulted with multiple stakeholders, our tax agents who
are involved, the municipal sector, administrators, and some industry players
too to listen to their concerns. And there were no consensus with respect to
what it means for appeals to go to the second level. That is why we are looking
to do more prescription in the regulations. And when we get to the regulatory
amendment stage we will do for that consultation as well.
So in answer to your question is to look
for opportunities to streamline the process, court redundancy, and ensure that
the appeals that go the second level will have merit and it’s not going to lead
to wastage with respect to the system itself.
Erika Ritchie: — I guess I’m
failing to understand why it would be necessary to override a local appeal
process and go straight to the SMB. Does that not contradict procedural
fairness provisions?
Yomi Akintola:
— Yeah, thanks for the question. The type of appeal that would go directly to
the second level, these are appeals that are complex and in some cases the
local board of revision themselves, they might not have the capacity to hear
those appeals. And also in some cases too we have situations where corporations
are property owners, that they own properties across many municipalities, so it
is cost savings for the system itself if they can bundle the property appeals
together and have one single appeal that goes directly to the SMB.
So the idea is not to take out the first
level. The idea is to even make it a better system in ensuring that ratepayers
have access to administrative justice and opportunities to argue their point if
they don’t agree to the assessment. So in essence to that, only appeals
. . . There’s some criteria with respect to appeals that would go to
second level. We will work on the regulations to have more definition, but as
it stands right now, complex appeals can go directly to the second level.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, well I think
that partially answers my next question. So who will determine in practice
whether an appeal qualifies for a direct referral to the SMB? Will it be the
assessor, the board secretary, or another authority?
Yomi Akintola:
— Thank you for that question. In most cases it is the secretary. The secretary
might be able to look at the grounds of appeal. And in some cases too, the
secretary of the board, they have discussions with their board members, with
the local board to kind of have maybe a preliminary review of the appeal, and
they can make that decision to say this appeal should go directly to the second
level.
Also the legislation allows the
appellant to make that decision on their own in some cases. For example, in the
case where I said how if you own multiple properties across the province, you
can now go with what we call a consolidated appeal that will go to SMB, instead
of going to one local board of revision.
Erika Ritchie: — Just to clarify
what you just mentioned, are you saying that the appellant could choose
themselves without the secretary concurring or consenting to that process? Like
I’m just looking for those checks and balances in terms of, you know, like
who’s controlling the process and the decision making.
Yomi Akintola:
— Right, so the appellant must also be in that discussion with the secretary to
make that decision. So it is not just one individual that will make that
decision. I’m just talking about, I’m making references to the provisions in
the current legislation.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, so it’s not
unilateral by an appellant. Okay. All right, I wonder if you could tell me a
little bit more. You know, it says that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may
make regulations respecting appeals made directly to the appeal board. So what criteria
will be prescribed in regulation to guide that determination, and why aren’t
those criteria set out in the statute?
Yomi Akintola:
— Yeah, thank you for that question. Right now we are gathering more
information. And as I mentioned earlier, in our consultation phase there are
many ideas, but there was no really consensus on how to resolve some of these
situations. So we know that we can make more prescription in the regulations.
So there’s some criteria that have been
ideas that have been floated around. One of them would be the definition of
what a “complex appeal” means. Maybe setting criteria with respect to the
amount of the assessment value of a property to say, if the property was this X
amount of dollars and if the assessment model is let’s say for instance, income
approach versus cost approach, maybe this could go to the SMB.
As it stands right now the criteria is
still in development. And the criteria will be developed in consultation with
Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency, with Saskatchewan Municipal Board,
with the municipal sector and all the stakeholders, including the industry and
property owners.
Erika Ritchie: — Are you able to
give us any sense or flavour of the kinds of things that would be included in
those criteria?
Yomi
Akintola: — During the consultation stage some of the ideas that were
floated around include the type of the property. So if it’s, you know,
high-value commercial property. Also if it’s like maybe millions of dollars’
worth of property. And also the assessment methodology. And that is just some
of the ideas that were floated around.
Erika Ritchie: — So how will the
ministry prevent inconsistent application of this clause across municipalities?
Yomi Akintola:
— One thing that we are taking our time to develop is that prescription that I
mentioned in the regulations. And that is why we want to make sure that we have
parameters that would ensure that an appeal meets the criteria to go to the
second level. So it is not going to be a general term. It is going to be
prescriptive, and it is going to be specific criteria that an easy checkbox
could fulfill.
Erika Ritchie: — And will there be
any form of recourse if an appellant or a municipality disagree with the
decision to refer or not refer an appeal directly to the SMB?
Yomi Akintola:
— Okay. Yeah, thank you for the question again. So the current system allows
for recourse. So in the current system that we have, if the appellants or maybe
the assessor, if they do not have an agreement as to whether the appeal should
go to the second level, then that’s a part of the decision that they have to
make, especially the secretary. And it doesn’t mean they have to be this; it
has to go to second level. It could go to the first level first then, before it
goes to the second level or it goes to the third level.
And in 2023 the ministry also
established a local board of revision training through the Johnson-Shoyama
Graduate School of Public Policy. It’s . . . [inaudible] . . .
training to ensure that board of revision members and secretaries, they have
the knowledge and they develop the competences that would enable them to do
their job. And the training has been successful, and it is also part of the
criteria for a local board of revision to be certified. So in answer to your
question, the current system allows for recourse and it allows for those types
of situations.
Erika Ritchie: — All right, thank
you very much. I’ll move on to the next item, which has to do with section
197(6)(d) of The Cities Act, where Mr. Fuller identifies the importance
of meaningful dialogue between prospective appellants and assessors. And I
think his concern mainly centres around how that provision isn’t regularly
taken up.
And so given the evidence that,
according to Mr. Fuller, the existing provision has been largely ignored, how
does the minister expect this clause as drafted to change actual behaviour?
[20:15]
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
So the revision here is to clarify and encourage individuals to have that
conversation. We’ve also expanded the period in which that conversation can
occur, the dialogue between the appellant and the assessor, to have that
dialogue any time up to the hearing so that there’s an opportunity for them to
engage and attempt to, if at any point, jump off of the appeals process and
move in a way that would be more amenable to both parties. So I’ll let Yomi
expound on that a little bit more.
Yomi Akintola:
— Yeah, thank you for the question. Again so one of the amendments allows those
type of conversations and discussions to happen, as the minister said, right
from when the appeal is filed until the year-end, before the year-end, before
. . . There is a limit to when they have to have that discussion. So
what we’ve done is to extend that time, the window of discussion, to allow that
mutual, you know, a resolution to occur.
And another requirement would be that in
the notice of appeals filed, there has to be documentation that speaks to those
discussions happening to say, we’ve had a discussion; we just don’t agree and
we would like to go to hearings.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, well that
kind of answers my next question. So there is that provision for documentation
showing evidence of those conversations occurring. Because I think the things
that are being suggested here are intended to ensure that, you know, issues are
getting resolved substantially before they reach the board of the SMB, and
address some of the backlog and sort of get some timely resolution, and also
ensure some accountability as well of the appellants.
So who determines whether dialogue was
meaningful? And how is that judgment documented or reviewed?
Yomi Akintola:
— Okay, so thanks for the question. When the conversations happen like that
with respect to the appeal, the secretary of the board will review that
documentation to make sure that the discussion happened. However when it comes
to whether the discussion is meaningful, the meaningfulness definition is not
in the legislation.
But in the internal document, the policy
for board of revisions, they have to determine and check whether this
conversation has happened and who and when those conversations happened with.
So to make sure that the appellant would have conversations with the assessor,
or if they used SAMA, they had a conversation with SAMA. If it’s the city of
Regina, they would talk to the city assessors.
So it’s, those are like internal policy
document that ensures those conversations happened. And in cases where the
documentation is not provided, then the appeal could be rejected.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay. And so then
just a really basic question. So that’s the role of the secretary, to ensure
the robustness and that the process is followed. And where does that person
. . . like within what organization do they reside and who are they
accountable to?
Yomi Akintola:
— It depends, and I’m going to just give you some, maybe two scenarios of that
situation. So typically the secretary is accountable to the board of revision.
And in some cases too, like maybe in large municipalities, the secretary might
be an administrator. But we rarely find that happening.
So in most cases, the secretary is
accountable to the board of revision. The board of revision is arm’s length
from the council. It’s an independent quasi-judicial, you know, entity. Their
main focus, is to, you know, uphold the justice and the assessment appeals
regulations and legislation. So yeah, thanks.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, thank you
for that explanation. The next item has to do with frequency of appeals within
an assessment cycle. And so this is something that is not within the
amendments. It was part of the consultation.
It’s my understanding that 84 per cent
of respondents to a SUMA survey were in support of that recommendation for one
appeal per cycle. It’s also my understanding that it would also follow along
with customary law and jurisprudence, as Mr. Fuller has outlined in his
documentation. And so I mean it would also go a long ways obviously towards
reducing the administrative burden that boards are seeing.
And so could you please tell me what
policy rationale supports allowing multiple appeals of the same assessed value
within a single assessment cycle?
Yomi Akintola:
— All right, thank you for that question. So during the consultation, we
consulted not only with the municipal sector; we also consulted with a wide
variety of property owners. And one of the concerns that we’re not comfortable
with is limiting access to justice. So if there’s any limit on the number of
appeals for the ratepayers, it’s just unfair to them. And just for instance, if
there’s a new error in the assessment values, they would be unable to appeal.
So we didn’t feel comfortable proceeding with that provision.
And another thing too is the results,
even though the survey had full support for it, but the question has to do with
the respondents of the survey. So like it’s not really clear whether the
property owners, based on what we had during the consultation from property
owners, from tax agents who have interest in their properties, it does not
align with that survey.
Erika Ritchie: — Well let’s dive
into that a little bit more. We currently have a four-year assessment cycle in
Saskatchewan. That was something also that was up for debate, but we’ll leave
that aside for now.
And so given that it’s one assessment
within a four-year period, what materially would be changing within that
four-year period to necessitate a subsequent appeal?
Yomi Akintola: — Okay. Yeah, thank
you for the question. There are a couple of things that might change during a non-evaluation
year. So for instance, there could be improvements to a property or there could
be changes, other structural changes. So meaningful changes to the property. A
garage or a storage that used to be in a premise that is gone.
And there could also be situations where
an error is discovered, right? How the assessment was done previously. And then
maybe if there is limitation to that, they will not be able to appeal. There
could be also opportunities for administrative errors in the appeal process
that were just recently discovered, and that could change the grounds of
appeal.
And one thing that we also want to
mention is that this is an amendment that led to, I would say, a lot of debates
amongst our stakeholders, especially the property owners as I have mentioned.
We understand the importance to the municipal sector. We understand it’s going
to reduce cost. It’s going to streamline the process for them as they think
because it’s going to weed out more repetitive appeals.
[20:30]
At the same time too, there were a lot
of strong opinions from property owners with respect to, what if we discover an
error, then we don’t have the opportunity to appeal? And we would continue to
consult on this item specifically. That’s one of the goals: to continue to
discuss, talk to our stakeholders, ratepayers, and the municipal sector. This
is not just off the shelf yet; it’s a work in progress. And it requires
extensive consultation and analysis to really make sure that the property
appeal system is fair and it supports everyone that is part of the process.
Erika Ritchie: — So are you
suggesting that there will be time to introduce further amendments or make
revisions to the current bill to make a change to the appeal process time
frame? I do have some other questions, but just going off that last point you
made, I’m not quite sure what timeline you’re referring to, you know, things
being improved upon.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
What Mr. Abayomi is referring to is the review of the Act over the four years,
continuing those consultations into the future. It’s always a work in progress,
always moving into that space in advance of any amendments that are going to be
made through legislative changes. So we’re talking about the four-year cycle
under which we are currently operating with respect to the amendments to The
Municipalities Act.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, thank you
for that. I just wanted to get some clarification. I wasn’t really quite sure
how to sort of take that response.
You mentioned first of all though that,
you know, there may be improvements that happen within that four-year cycle
that may require some appeal. But I mean, this seems a little bit backwards to
me in terms of, I mean, all properties are subject to that same situation. And
it’s why there’s been, you know, advocacy around shortening the assessment
cycle to say two years. Of course that also has pros and cons.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
So I would point out, for just in point, that this is again outside the scope
of the current amendments before the committee. And this would be entirely, I
guess, related to the overall Act. However with respect to these specific
amendments before the committee, that would be outside of that realm.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, well I would
just beseech the minister and his officials to have a close read of Mr.
Fuller’s expert advice and recommendation as it pertains to the one appeal per
assessment cycle.
I think he makes a number of really good
points that are equally important and valid in terms of, you know, trying to
strike that balance between the interests of the property owners and the
interests of the municipalities, who are under significant pressures right now,
I would say, in terms of ensuring that, you know, they have those revenues
coming in and not always be in a, you know, constant cycle of appeal.
It does create a lot of burden, and if
we have an Act that’s all about, you know, red tape reduction and finding
efficiencies, I think that this is an area where there is some really good
advice and opportunity here to strengthen the legislation and ensure that it’s
meeting the needs of Saskatchewan people overall.
It’s something I hear a lot about from
municipal leaders in terms of, you know, this appeal process that it is used in
ways that are . . . I can’t think of the right word I want to use
right now, but you know . . . It’s not vexatious, but it is causing,
you know, undue administrative burden.
And I would also take exception to the
justice argument that you made. I think Mr. Fuller also talked about, you know,
one appeal per assessment, you know, following in line with customary law and
jurisprudence. And so I hope you’ll take a look at that as well, Minister, and
maybe come to see the merits of the argument. But with that, I’ll move on.
The next one has to do with disclosure
of assessment information. Here we have some concerns I think around, you know,
the requests for information that come from appellants and how that can also
get in the way of privacy considerations and not even be necessarily useful.
It’s like they’re mining for data to then go back and do another appeal.
And so some of the questions I wanted to
ask around that is if you could tell me what you understand to be included in
information that forms the basis of an assessment.
Yomi Akintola:
— Okay thanks for the question. So the information that has been provided
during the assessment appeals isn’t changing in these amendments. These
amendments would only seek to clarify confidentiality and then with respect to
just clarifying to all parties involved.
And another thing changing in these
amendments would be when information has been provided to the assessor, the
deadlines, we are moving those dates. We are moving them to the regulations. So
the information being provided stays the same. It is not impacted.
Erika Ritchie: — One of the things
that I’ve heard from stakeholders is a concern related to the information
disclosure and the multiple appeals per cycle is that . . . You know,
there’s a whole industry that has been created that deals strictly or
exclusively in appeals. And now they’re using artificial intelligence to sort
of aid them in sort of mining the data and, you know, putting together
applications to appeal processes.
And so you know, I was at the SAMA
annual meeting last week and heard from their strategic director around some of
the things they’re doing that will also benefit from AI [artificial
intelligence] in terms of how they improve their processes.
But it’s kind of a double-edged sword
there, you know, because both sides are using it. And you kind of have to keep
up — one step ahead I would say — to ensure that, you know, that fairness and
justice are maintained in the assessment and appeal process.
And so can you tell me, within these
amendments and the consultation process that you entered into in bringing these
amendments forward, how did you consider the impact and the effects of AI on
the assessment process?
Yomi Akintola:
— Okay, yeah. Thanks. Yeah, thanks for the question. So this amendment that
we’re working on, the assessment appeals, one of our focus has to do with the
effectiveness of the system itself. And that it is why we focus more on the
timelines. We wanted to make sure that all parties in the appeal, they have
enough time, especially through the agreement, to adjust and then the provision
of information and this discussion. And so at the end we would be able to
reduce redundancies and then make the system more effective.
You know, on the topic of the AI usage,
it’s a tool that is available for anyone to use. And you also have to admit the
fact that it could be a double-edged sword, right, that would work in both
ways. But we are not really looking at legislating the use of AI with respect
to assessment appeals.
However all parties in the appeal, they
have to still follow the legislation and the regulation. And with respect to
confidentiality, which has to do with data being provided to them, that they
could use it but it has to still . . . We want to make sure that the
confidentiality aspect is clear to all parties. So thanks.
Erika Ritchie: — Yeah, I think
that’s a really good point you raise around the confidentiality. And so I’m
just wanting to know, how is that enforced and ensured going forward as part of
whether it’s the Act or these amendments? Because it does seem to be an
increasing risk with AI.
[20:45]
Yomi Akintola:
— Okay, yeah thanks for the question. In answering your question I would like
to just refer to The Municipalities Act in section 231 that speaks to
declaration of confidentiality. It says that:
Before providing information to the
assessor or any other party to an appeal, the party that is to provide the
information may:
declare the information confidential;
and
[could also] seek an undertaking of the
other party that:
all or some of the information so
provided is provided solely for the purpose of preparing an assessment or for
an appeal hearing; and
no other use may be
made of the information.
And subsection (2) states that the:
Failure to provide
an undertaking pursuant to subsection (1) forfeits the right of a party to
obtain the information being sought by any other process.
And subsection (3):
No person who is
required to comply with an undertaking given pursuant to this section shall
fail to do so.
So in summary of that, if anyone
requires a request for information and they are also party to the appeal, they
have to sign an undertaking declaring that the information is confidential and
they will abide by the confidentiality requirements that’s required of them.
And if there’s any breach, the provider
of the information could bring this forward to the board of revision, and then
also it’s a general offence. Breach of confidentiality is a general offence.
Erika Ritchie: — So general offence
subject to penalties as described in the Act. Is that right?
Yomi Akintola:
— Yes. The answer to your question is yes. It’s a general offence under The
Municipalities Act.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, great. Thank
you. I just have one last set of questions here with respect to the letter
submitted by Mr. Fuller in regards to boards of revision — their training,
guidance, and quality control. And I wonder if you could tell me how the
minister assesses whether standardized training is sufficient for boards
hearing complex, high-value commercial appeals.
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Again, respectfully, this is not part of the bill before the committee. But I
will say broadly that there are over 300 individuals, closer to 400 individuals
who have been trained and certified by a third party in these complex and very,
some would consider, tedious applications and appeals to ensure that there is a
fair and equitable process put in place. So aside from that, that’s I guess as
far as we want to go here I think.
Erika Ritchie: — And so the
amendments that are before us here today, how would you say that they’re
addressing the needs of local municipal boards in addressing these complex
cases?
[21:00]
Yomi Akintola:
— Thanks again for the question. So the couple of ways where these amendments
would help the local Board of Revisions, especially with complex appeals, as
we’ve discussed earlier, we are working on the criteria that would allow
complex appeals to go to the SMB. And that would ensure that the local Board of
Revisions, they focus more on appeals that they could handle with their
expertise and their competencies. That’s one thing.
The other thing which we believe is
going to help the local board of appeals has to do with the agreement-to-adjust
process, that we’ve extended the time. And in that situation it would make sure
that only appeals that are supposed to go for a hearing will go for hearings.
And most appeals, we would expect most appeals to be resolved through their
agreement-to-adjust stage.
And another thing, another aspect of the
amendments too that would help the local board of appeals, the local boards
with complex appeals, it’s about changes to the grants. So part of these
amendments would not allow appellant to change the grants of appeal during the
hearing. It has to be in advance of the hearing to ensure that both parties
have an opportunity to review what the new grants are, and then they would
have, you know, they have adequate time to do that. Also the time that we also
are putting into the regulations would also help with that regard.
Erika Ritchie: — Okay, thank you
very much. I appreciate those answers. I guess overall I just have sort of one
final question for the minister. You know, for the amendments that we see here
before us, what sort of measurements or indicators of success will you be using
to assess whether fairness and efficiency has been improved overall with these
amendments?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Thanks for the question. We have in place an assessment appeal advisory
committee that does exactly that. It advises the ministry and the minister on
the success of, or issues or challenges that are being faced by, the process.
In addition to that, obviously we do have a robust review of the Acts. Every
four years ostensibly is when those occur, like we’re doing now. That’s when
those changes are made and those inputs are weighed and assessed on their merit
to be implemented.
Erika Ritchie: — Thank you,
Minister. Mr. Chair, I have no further questions. Thank you.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Thank you then. So seeing no more
questions, we are going to proceed to vote on the clauses. But before we do, I
want to thank the minister and all the officials for your involvement tonight.
And I’m going to make the executive decision that I will allow the minister to
conclude with some remarks.
And the tedious process of us going
through the signing and voting on this, we won’t make you endure that process
as we did in our last meeting as IAJ committee, which took an hour and 10
minutes. It’s not going to take that long tonight. But we’ve got a fair number
of people here that I think have families and involvement at home and we will
allow them to depart. So, Minister, any concluding comments?
Hon. Eric
Schmalz: —
Yeah, absolutely. I want to express my sincere appreciation to the members of
the board, both the government and opposition members here tonight, as well as
you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the respectful and cordial tone struck by the
committee and again express my appreciation for the work done by this
committee.
I also want to thank the members of Hansard
and the support staff here this evening. I know these are often long evenings
for everyone, and I want to sincerely express my appreciation to all of you for
that work as well.
With respect to my ministry team here
tonight, we’ve had some long evenings in these rooms, and I really, really want
to express my sincere appreciation for everything that they do on behalf of the
people of this province every day in their role as ministry officials.
I want to thank Yomi particularly,
because his technical expertise never ceases to amaze me at what some of us
might refer to as a very numbing subject matter at times. So I want to express
thanks to everyone here with me tonight as well. So thank you.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Excellent. And I would also allow
the opportunity for concluding remarks by the members. Yeah.
Erika Ritchie: — Well yes, I want
to join with the minister in saying thank you to his officials, the minister
himself for the answers to the many questions. We maybe went down a few rabbit
holes and learned more than we ever thought we would learn about such an
engaging topic as property tax assessment and value assessment. So I hope
everyone enjoyed that, and I know I certainly did. And I’ve been on a pretty
steep leaning curve as it relates to that, but I did really very much
appreciate the responses and the answers to my questions.
I want to also give thanks to members of
legislative services, Hansard, and the Clerks-at-the-Table here for
assisting us, and the rest of the committee for bearing with us through all of
these questions. And yeah, just say thanks again.
Chair
B. McLeod: — I will also add my thanks to
everyone being here tonight. And we wish you well, and we’ll see you next time
as well. And the Oilers are up 3‑0 at the end of the first, just so you
know that. That’s all good. So thank you for being here. And we’ll dismiss
officials and we’ll get to the voting.
So right off the top I’m going to inform
committee members I will exercise my right to deliver a vote this evening, if
that is registered at this point in time. And we’ll go through things right
from the start and make it happen.
So clause 1‑1, short title, is
that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Carried.
[Clause 1‑1 agreed to.]
[Clauses 2‑1 to 2‑8
inclusive agreed to.]
Clause 2‑9
Chair
B. McLeod: — 2‑9. I recognize MLA Martens.
Hon. Jamie
Martens: —
Mr. Chair, I’d like to move an amendment, please.
Chair
B. McLeod: — MLA Martens has moved an
. . . Oh, you’ve got to read it. Sorry. Please go ahead.
Hon. Jamie
Martens: —
All right. I’d like to move the following amendment, that:
Clause 2‑9
of the printed Bill
Amend
subsection 68(2.1) of The Cities Act, as being enacted by subsection (2)
of Clause 2‑9 of the printed Bill, by striking out “commissioner or manager”
and substituting “clerk”.
Chair
B. McLeod: — MLA Martens has moved an amendment
to clause 2‑9. Would any members like to speak to the amendment? The
committee members agree with the amendment as read?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Carried. Is clause 2‑9 as
amended agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Carried.
[Clause
2‑9 as amended agreed to.]
Clause 2‑10
Chair
B. McLeod: — Where are we at? Clause 2‑10.
I recognize MLA Martens.
Hon. Jamie
Martens: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to move the following amendment for:
Clause 2‑10
of the printed Bill
Amend subsection
68.1(3) of The Cities Act, as being enacted by Clause 2‑10 of the
printed Bill, by striking out “commissioner or manager” and substituting [with]
“clerk”.
Chair
B. McLeod: — MLA Martens has moved an amendment
to clause 2‑10. Would any members like to speak to the amendment? Do
committee members agree with the amendment as read?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Carried. Is clause 2‑10 as
amended agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Agreed. Carried, yeah.
[Clause 2‑10 as amended agreed
to.]
[Clauses 2‑11 to 2‑12
inclusive agreed to.]
Clause 2‑13
Chair
B. McLeod: — Clause 2‑13. MLA Martens.
Hon. Jamie
Martens: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to move the following amendment to:
Clause 2‑13
of the printed Bill
Amend section 91 of
The Cities Act, as being enacted by Clause 2‑13 of the printed
Bill:
(a) in clause
(1)(e) by striking out “commissioner or manager” and substituting “clerk”; and
(b) in subsection
(7) by striking out “commissioner or manager” and substituting “clerk.”
[21:15]
Chair
B. McLeod: — MLA Martens has moved an amendment
to clause 2‑13. Would any members like to speak to the amendment? Do
committee members agree with the amendment as read?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Carried. Is clause 2‑13 as
amended agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
B. McLeod: — It’s carried.
[Clause 2‑13 as amended agreed
to.]
[Clause 2‑14 agreed to.]
Clause 2‑15
Chair
B. McLeod: — Clause 2‑15. I recognize MLA
Martens.
Hon. Jamie
Martens: —
Yes, Chair. I’d like to move the following amendment to:
Clause 2‑15
of the printed Bill
Amend subsection
116(1) of The Cities Act, as being enacted by Clause 2‑15 of the
printed Bill:
(a) in clause (a) by striking out
“commissioner or manager” wherever it appears and in each case substituting
“clerk”; and
(b) in clause (b)
by striking out “commissioner or manager” and substituting “clerk”.
Chair
B. McLeod: — MLA Martens has moved an amendment
to clause 2‑15. Would any members like to speak to the amendment? Do
committee members agree with the amendment as read?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair B. McLeod:
— Carried. Is clause 2‑15 as amended agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Carried.
[Clause 2‑15 as amended agreed
to.]
[Clauses
2‑16 to 2-34 inclusive agreed to.]
Clause 2‑35
Chair
B. McLeod: — Clause 2‑35, is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — No.
Chair
B. McLeod: — I hear a no, so I will be calling
for a voice vote. And I’ll exercise my right to a deliberative vote. All those
in favour of clause 2‑35 as written, say aye.
All those opposed to clause 2‑35
as written, say no.
Some
Hon. Members: — No.
Chair
B. McLeod: — No. And the nos have it. Clause 2‑35
is not agreed. This clause is defeated.
[Clause 2‑35 not agreed to.]
[Clauses 2‑36 to 2‑40
inclusive agreed to.]
Clause 2‑41
Chair
B. McLeod: — Clause 2‑41, is that agreed? I
recognize MLA Martens.
Hon. Jamie
Martens: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to move the following amendment to:
Clause 2‑41
of the printed Bill
Amend subsection
356(1.3) of The Cities Act, as being enacted by subsection (3) of clause
2‑41 of the printed Bill, by striking out “commissioner or manager” and
substituting “clerk.”
Chair
B. McLeod: — MLA Martens has moved an amendment
to clause 2‑41. Would any members like to speak to the amendment? Do committee members agree with the amendment as
read?
Some Hon.
Members: — Agreed.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Carried. Is clause 2‑41 as
amended agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Carried.
[Clause 2‑41 as amended agreed
to.]
[Clauses 3‑1 to 3‑52
inclusive agreed to.]
[21:30]
Clause
3‑53
Chair
B. McLeod: — Clause 3‑53? I recognize MLA
Martens.
Hon. Jamie
Martens: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to move the following amendment:
Amend Clause 3‑53
of the printed Bill:
(a) by striking out
subsection (2) and substituting the following:
“(2) Subsection
375(4) is amended by striking out ‘The owner’ and substituting
‘Before a judge . . . [appears] a complaint pursuant to subsection
(1), the owner’”;
(b) By striking out
clause (6)(c) and substituting the following:
“(c) by adding
the following clause after clause (b):
‘(c) in the
prescribed manner, if the order was made by council’”; and
(c) by adding the
following subsection after subsection (7):
“(8) The
following subsection is added after subsection 375(10):
‘(11) The
Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the manner in
which an appeal may be made pursuant to clause (8)(c)’”.
Chair
B. McLeod: — MLA Martens has moved an amendment
to clause 3 . . . Oh, did we miss something?
Hon. Jamie
Martens: —
And sorry, Mr. Chair, there was just one word on my part that I had actually
had misread, and that was during:
“(2) Subsection
375(4) is amended by striking out ‘The owner’ and substituting
‘Before a judge hears a complaint pursuant to subsection (1), the owner’”;
Chair
B. McLeod: — Good catch. All right. So MLA
Martens has moved an amendment to Clause 3‑53. Would any members like to
speak to the amendment? Do committee members agree with the amendment as read?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair B. McLeod:
— Carried. Is clause 3‑53 as amended agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Carried.
[Clause 3‑53 as amended agreed
to.]
[Clause 3‑54 to 4‑40
inclusive agreed to.]
Clause 4‑41
Chair
B. McLeod: — Clause 4‑41. MLA Martens, I
recognize.
Hon. Jamie
Martens: —
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to move the following amendment:
Amend Clause 4‑41 of the printed
Bill:
(a) by striking out subsection (2) and
substituting the following:
“(2) Subsection 396(4) is amended by
striking out ‘The owner’ and substituting ‘Before a judge hears a
complaint pursuant to subsection (1), the owner’”;
(b) by striking out clause (6)(c) and
substituting the following:
“(c) by adding the following clause
after clause (b):
‘(c) in the prescribed manner, if the
order was made by the council’”; and
(c) by adding the following subsection
after subsection (7):
“(8) The following subsection is
added after subsection 396(10):
‘(11) The
Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the manner in
which an appeal may be made pursuant to clause (8)(c)’”.
Chair
B. McLeod: — MLA Martens has moved an amendment
to clause 4‑41. Would any members like to speak to this amendment? Do
committee members agree with the amendment as read?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Carried. Is clause 4‑41 as
amended agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
B. McLeod: — Carried.
[Clause 4‑41 as amended agreed
to.]
[Clauses 4‑42 to 6‑1
inclusive agreed to.]
Clause 2‑35
Chair
B. McLeod: — I recognize MLA Martens.
Hon. Jamie
Martens: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to move the following new clause:
New Clause 2‑35
of the printed Bill
Add the
following Clause before Clause 2‑36 of the printed Bill:
“Section 327
amended
2‑35
Subsection 327(9) is repealed and the following substituted:
‘(9) If a city has passed a bylaw respecting
dangerous animals and, in accordance with that bylaw an order has been made
declaring an animal to be dangerous, that order continues to apply if the
animal is sold, given to a new owner, moved to a different location within the
city or moved to any other municipality governed by this Act, The
Municipalities Act or The Northern Municipalities Act, 2010’ ”.
Chair B. McLeod: — MLA Martens has moved new clause 2‑35.
Would any members like to speak to the new clause? Do committee members agree
with the amendment as read?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair B. McLeod: — Is new clause 2‑35 agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair B. McLeod: — Carried . . . [inaudible
interjection] . . . Oh, I didn’t. Let’s do this again. Do committee
members agree with the amendment as read?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair B. McLeod: — Carried. Is new clause 2‑35 agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair B. McLeod: — Carried.
[Clause 2‑35
agreed to.]
[21:45]
Chair
B. McLeod: — His Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The
Municipalities Modernization and Red Tape Reduction Act.
I would ask a member to move that we
report Bill No. 43, The Municipalities Modernization and Red Tape
Reduction Act with amendment. MLA Brad
Crassweller moves. Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair B. McLeod: — Excellent. No concluding comments; we
already did that. And adjournment. That concludes our business for today. I’d
ask a member to move a motion of adjournment. MLA Crassweller has
moved. All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair B. McLeod: — Carried. This committee stands adjourned to
the call of the Chair. And thank you everyone for your patience and indulgence
today.
[The committee
adjourned at 21:46.]
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.