CONTENTS
Standing
Committee on Public Accounts
Public Accounts 2025-26 Volume 1
THIRTIETH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
Hansard Verbatim Report
No.
18 — Tuesday, October 13, 2026
[The committee met at 08:30.]
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, folks. Good morning. We’ll convene the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts. I’m Trent Wotherspoon. I serve as the Chair of the Public Accounts,
MLA [Member of the Legislative Assembly] for Regina Mount Royal. I’ll introduce
the members of the committee: Deputy Chair, MLA Thorsteinson; MLA Bromm; MLA
Keisig; MLA Gordon; MLA Pratchler. And MLA Martens is substituting for MLA
Chan.
We have the following documents to table: PAC
103‑30, Ministry of Education: Report of public losses, June 1, 2026 to
August 31st, 2026; PAC 104‑30: Ministry of Community Safety: Response to
a question raised on the October 1st, 2026 meeting.
I’d like to introduce and welcome our officials
that are with us here today. From the Provincial Comptroller’s office, Brent
Hebert, Provincial Comptroller, and joining him is Gabriel Plosker, who’s the
director of financial management. Thanks for being here.
I’d like to welcome and introduce our
Provincial Auditor, Tara Clemett, and
welcome all of her officials that are here with us here today. And they’ll be
introduced as each of the chapters come along.
Social Services
Chair Wotherspoon: — And at this time we’ll turn our attention to the first set of
chapters, all pertaining to the Ministry of Social Services. I’d like to
welcome Deputy Minister Wagar to the committee and all the officials that have
joined him here today, all those that have been involved in the work that we’re
discussing here today. I’ll kick it over to DM [deputy minister] Wagar to just
briefly introduce the officials that have joined him here today. Maybe refrain
from getting into the chapters at this time. I’ll come back to you after we
have a presentation from the auditor.
Blair Wagar: — Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
good morning, everyone, to Chair and committee members. I’ll take a moment to
introduce colleagues that I have with me here today: Tobie Eberhardt, assistant
deputy minister, child and family programs; Joel Kilbride, assistant deputy
minister of finance and corporate services; Giselle Marcotte, assistant deputy
minister of disability programs; and Julene Restall, assistant deputy minister,
income assistance. Other ministry officials are also in attendance. They will introduce
themselves if they are required to answer questions.
And we are ready to provide you with updates on
the status of auditor recommendations and look forward to answering your
questions. Back to you, Mr. Chair.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Right on. Thank you very much. Welcome to you all. I’ll kick it over now to
the Provincial Auditor to make presentation on the newest chapter, chapter 7
from the 2026 report volume 1.
Tara Clemett: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Deputy Chair, committee members, officials. With me today
is Mr. Jason Wandy. He’s the deputy provincial auditor that is responsible for
work at the Ministry of Social Services. And then behind him is Ms. Michelle
Lindenbach, and she’s our liaison with this committee.
Jason’s going to present the chapters for the
ministry in the order that they do appear on the agenda, and that will result
in four separate presentations. We will pause for the committee’s discussion
and consideration after each presentation. The first presentation does include
five new recommendations for the committee’s consideration related to
monitoring group homes. The remaining presentations include status updates on
outstanding recommendations that the committee has previously agreed to.
I do want to thank the deputy minister and his
staff for the co-operation that was extended to us during the course of our
work. With that I’ll turn it over to Jason.
Jason Wandy: — Thank you, Tara. Chapter 7 of our
2026 report volume 1 reports the results of our audit of the Ministry of Social
Services’ processes to monitor group homes providing care to children, for the
12‑month period ending November 30th of 2025. We concluded the ministry
had effective processes other than the areas reflected in our five
recommendations.
The ministry licenses and monitors group homes
providing care to children. It funds and partners with community-based
organizations to provide a home-like setting as a healthy, nurturing, and
supportive living environment for children in care. At September 2025 the
ministry licensed 177 group homes with 885 children in care at those group
homes in Saskatchewan.
On page 127 we recommend the Ministry of Social
Services use a risk-based approach for conducting its detailed reviews at group
homes caring for children, to confirm quality of care provided. The ministry
conducts detailed reviews at a few group homes each year to confirm whether
homes meet select standards of care as required by its residential services
manual, covering areas such as sleeping accommodations, medication
administration, nutrition, and critical incident response.
The ministry conducted four detailed reviews in
2024‑25 and six detailed reviews of group homes during 2025‑26 up
to November of 2025. The ministry does not set an annual schedule based on risk
for its detailed reviews. The ministry indicated it considers its last
completed review; the ages of the children residing at a group home; and number
of allegations it has received such as those relating to abuse, neglect, or
quality of care. The ministry could not provide evidence of how it prioritized
when it conducts detailed reviews.
Our analysis of the ministry’s data about its
detailed reviews found 71 per cent or 126 homes had not had a detailed review
completed for over five years, with one home last reviewed over 20 years ago.
Our testing of three group homes without a detailed review since 2017 found all
three homes had allegations relating to staff and/or quality of care between
December of 2024 and October of 2025. Not formally assessing risks when
planning detailed reviews of group homes does not allow the ministry to
effectively prioritize reviewing high-risk group homes first. This can delay
identifying and addressing key areas of non-compliance that impact children’s
safety and well-being.
On page 130 we recommend the Ministry of Social
Services issue detailed review findings reports to group homes caring for
children within a reasonably set time frame. The ministry compiles findings
from a detailed review into a report reviewed by several levels of ministry
management prior to sharing findings with the group home. We found the ministry
had not set an expected time frame for completing and sending findings reports
to group homes timely.
For the three detailed reviews tested, we found
one review occurred in September 2025 and the ministry had not yet prepared the
findings reported at the time of our testing, 70 days after the review
occurred. The remaining two detailed reviews had findings reports provided to
group home operators 113 and 127 business days respectively after the review,
which exceeded our expectation of 30 business days to complete reporting. These
findings reports included concerns such as group home staff giving children medication
without confirming they ingested it.
Not reporting detailed review findings timely
to group home operators increases the risk that homes do not address identified
deficiencies timely, which impacts the quality of care children receive.
On page 132 we recommend the Ministry of Social
Services track the implementation status of corrective action plans to confirm
group homes caring for children address non-compliance issues identified during
detailed reviews. During detailed reviews, ministry staff often find
deficiencies such as non-compliant areas in a group home. Where ministry staff
identify a significant concern to children’s safety and well-being, they report
it to the group home operator immediately for resolution.
For other, less significant deficiencies, the
ministry waits to inform the group home via a recommendation in its findings
report. Once a group home receives the ministry’s findings report and
recommendations, the ministry requires the group home to complete an action
plan detailing how it plans to address the recommendations.
We found the ministry typically allows one to
three months or three to six months for a group home to address its
recommendations, depending on the severity of the deficiency and the nature of
the corrective action. We found the ministry does not centrally record
recommendations and expected corrective actions or implementation. The ministry
needs to know the status of implementation to effectively oversee actions group
homes take to prevent future non-compliance. Not tracking the status of group
homes’ corrective action plans to respond to non-compliance concerns increases
the risk that deficiencies go unaddressed.
On page 138 we recommend the Ministry of Social
Services analyze key information — for example, serious incidents, serious
complaints investigated, deficiencies identified during detailed reviews —
related to group homes caring for children.
The ministry analyzes some key information such
as space utilization to confirm homes do not care for more children than
permitted, but more analysis is needed on serious incidents, serious complaints
investigated, and detailed reviews at group homes.
The ministry’s quality assurance unit tracks
serious incidents and reports annually to senior management. For example, as
high-impact serious incidents occur, such as a death or serious injury
requiring significant medical attention, we found the ministry provides
individual reports to senior management outlining what occurred and the outcome
of its investigation. The ministry does not indicate on the tracking document
whether the care at a home was a contributing factor to a serious incident.
In June 2024 the ministry’s provincial resource
assessment team began tracking all serious complaints received as well as began
reporting quarterly to senior management. However management indicated it did
not have sufficient data to perform any type of trend analysis such as a year
over year or by type of serious complaint. It planned to do so once it has
sufficient information available.
Additionally we found the ministry had not
established a method to monitor and analyze overall results from its detailed
program reviews at group homes. For example we found a common theme in our
testing of three detailed reviews. In two of those reviews, staff at group
homes were not fully aware of the procedures for reporting allegations made
against a group home staff member.
By not analyzing trends on key data related to
group homes, it increases the risk of the ministry not making necessary changes
to processes, educating group homes on areas of concern, or adjusting
legislation to address incidents or deficiencies occurring in group homes
caring for children. Such analysis could also assist the ministry in selecting
higher risk homes for detailed program reviews.
On page 138 we recommend the Ministry of Social
Services centrally track key information, for example licensing, detailed
reviews, serious incidents, or serious complaints related to group homes caring
for children.
The ministry does not centrally track all
findings related to individual group homes caring for children. We found
different units within the ministry track information related to group homes in
different databases. For example, one unit tracks licences issued and those
group homes with conditional licences, while another unit tracks detailed
reviews. Without centrally tracking information on each group home in one
location, the ministry is unable to effectively monitor and analyze homes to
identify and examine trends on what happens in a particular home. There is a
risk that areas of concern are not identified, compiled, and mitigated
appropriately.
I’ll now pause for the committee’s
consideration.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Thanks so much for the presentation and the focus of the chapter. These are
new recommendations that are before us here today. I’ll kick it over to DM
Wagar for brief comment. And before I do that I guess I’ll table the document
PAC 105‑30, Ministry of Social Services: Status update, dated October
13th, 2026. And thanks to whoever prepared that, and thanks to all whose work
is reflected in that document. DM Wagar, go ahead with some remarks, and then
we’ll see what we have for questions.
Blair Wagar: — All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Related to the recommendation that Social Services use a risk-based approach
for conducting detailed reviews of group homes caring for children to confirm
the quality of care provided, the ministry is in the process of implementing
the recommendation.
The ministry maintains a strong collaborative
relationship with group homes, allowing for detailed reviews and ensuring they
are properly equipped to deliver high-quality services to meet the needs of
children in their care. We also have established multiple oversight and
accountability mechanisms to ensure group homes consistently meet required
standards and are able to effectively support children that they are providing
care to.
Since the audit was completed, child and family
programs has made progress to meet the recommendation by reviewing assessment
processes used by other program areas of the ministry as we begin to develop a
specific approach in child and family programs, initiating a jurisdictional
scan to identify leading practices for risk-based review planning, and
beginning to develop a centralized tool to support implementation of a
risk-based approach.
Building on this initial work, we’re planning
the following actions to implement the recommendation by the end of December of
2026. We will develop and implement a risk-based approach to support detailed
reviews and incorporate information from allegations, investigations, and
licensing data into the new central tool to inform planning.
Related to the recommendation that Social
Services issue detailed review findings reports to group homes caring for
children within a reasonably set time frame, the ministry is in the process of
implementing the recommendation.
[08:45]
The ministry has strengthened review capacity
through dedicated resources, including positions that are focused on intake,
protocols, reviews, and action plan monitoring. Status and progress report
mechanisms have been implemented to support review tracking, performance
monitoring, and ongoing oversight. An action plan is in place to lead the work.
To fully implement this recommendation by the
end of November 2026 we will establish service standards for the review
process, including targets to support timely completion of reporting of
reviews, and continue to identify opportunities to streamline the review-report
process and implement overall efficiency.
Related to the recommendation that Social
Services track and implement status of corrective action plans to confirm group
homes caring for children address non-compliance issues identified during
detailed reviews, the ministry is in the process of implementation.
As I previously mentioned, work has begun to
develop a centralized tool that will support ministry staff responsible for
group home oversight to track implementation of corrective action plans,
monitor progress, and manage follow-up activities with group homes. Using the
centralized tool, the ministry will fully implement this recommendation by the
end of November of 2026 by enhancing existing tracking to include outstanding
recommendations, time frames and due dates, and establishing a formal process to
address instances where a group home has not implemented corrective action.
Related to the recommendation that Social
Services analyze information — for example serious incidents, serious
complaints investigated, deficiencies identified during detailed reviews —
related to group homes caring for children, the ministry is in the process of
implementation.
The development and implementation of our
centralized tool is also at the core of our plan to implement this
recommendation. The ministry has initiated assessment information currently
collected by child and family program teams that work with group homes to
identify data that warrants further analysis. Once a centralized site is
launched, these teams will meet on a quarterly basis to review and discuss
developing concerns, share data, and analyze trends. This recommendation is
also on track to be fully implemented by November of 2026.
Related to the recommendation that Social
Services centrally track key information — for example licensing, detailed
reviews, serious incidents, serious complaints — related to group homes caring
for children, the ministry is in the process of implementation. Using the
centralized tool that is in development, the ministry plans to also meet this
recommendation by November of 2026.
Key information maintained by child and family
program teams involved in group home tracking will be added to the central tool
to support centralized tracking, analyzing, and sharing of key group home
oversight information. Quarterly reviews will also be used to support
information sharing and coordinated responses across teams involved in group
home oversight.
I’ll now turn it back to the Chair.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Okay, thank you. Thanks very much. I’ll open it
up now to committee members that may have questions. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you, Chair. Good morning and welcome.
Could you help me
understand why up to now there has been no risk-based approach in conducting
reviews? On page 126 it appears that it was a challenge to explain how reviews
are prioritized, since they were not risk based. Could you explain now and help
me understand that?
Blair Wagar: — I can start. Thanks for the question. I think . . . I mean
I can’t speak to kind of the why we weren’t using a risk-based model. We were
using a compliance-based model where we set out standards and then we audit and
license against all of those standards. So that was the approach that was
taken, based on the review.
And within that
compliance-based system there is still a risk-based lens that’s put on a lot of
the work that the ministry has done. But now with the audit, just continue to
build out a much more risk-based focus in terms of how to analyze the group
homes themselves and target those based on the information that’s collected,
using that risk-based lens as opposed to strictly a compliance-based lens.
So there’s still a
tremendous amount of oversight that’s been in place all along. So lots of
interaction and engagement with the group homes. So it’s not like we’ve not
been engaging with the group homes; it’s just a different lens in which we take
some of that information and use it to further engage and focus. So I’ll stop
there and see if there’s anything that Tobie can add.
Tobie
Eberhardt: — Good morning, everyone. Tobie Eberhardt,
assistant deputy minister for child and family programs.
Previously we were
doing maybe an informal risk-based approach. We would look at new homes. We
would prioritize if there was a number of allegations in the home. I think with
this recommendation it’s really about us formalizing that and having sort of something
that we can go to and show why we’ve picked which homes we’re doing. So we
appreciate that recommendation, and it is something we are working on.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. By your most recent count, how many homes have not had a
detailed review completed in the last five years?
Tobie
Eberhardt: — So I would say that, first of all we do do a review of
each home every year through our conditional licensing process. And so
someone’s in the home assessing it for certain standards to ensure the safety
and well-being of children. The detailed review, I don’t have the number for
which homes haven’t had a detailed review. The number is smaller than it would
be for licensing. Obviously with a detailed review we’re maybe doing an average
of 10 homes, 10 to 12 homes a year.
And we determine with the detailed review as
well, one of the things we look at is, for example, if it’s a large
organization such as, say, Ranch Ehrlo who’s accredited and we know that
there’s a number of oversights that are in place, we might not prioritize doing
a review of all their homes. We might do one or two as part of that, but then
we will want to look at the homes that are newer.
Joan Pratchler: — How many
of those schedules for review are for next year, 10 or 12? Are you saying that
that’s what the typical is?
Tobie Eberhardt: — As a
result of this audit and recommendations, we are looking to enhance the number
of the reviews each year. So we will be doing more than 12; we’re just right
now figuring out which ones we’ll do.
Joan Pratchler: — And what’s
the longest period any currently operating home has gone without a review?
Tobie Eberhardt: — I think
that in the auditor’s report they found that there was one home that had gone
20 years. That would be one of the homes at Eagle’s Nest, so again another
large organization where we’re in working with them regularly. But one specific
home perhaps was not reviewed.
Joan Pratchler: — On page
127 it says you had one manager and six staff that were responsible for doing
these detailed reviews. And if you have 177 homes divided by six staff, that’s
29 per, which works out to roughly one every . . . anyway, you can do
the math as well as I can. Do you have enough staff to do that?
Blair Wagar: — So I appreciate the question for
sure. I think that’s the importance of that risk-based approach versus
compliance-based where you start assessing how do you best utilize the
resources that you have and making sure that you’re dealing with those homes
that present the largest risk to you based on the evidence and data that we’re
collecting.
So that’s where that centralized model will
come in to be very, very effective for this team to be able to look at where
they’re best able to utilize the capacity that we have.
Joan Pratchler: — And so in
the risk-based approach, it’s not after the incident happens. I’m assuming that
part of that risk-based approach is to help prevention of those things. Is that
correct, or can you help me understand that?
Tobie Eberhardt: — The
risk-based approach would be to identify which ones we should be going in to do
that. I think, as was mentioned in the report, we have a number of teams that
work with group homes. We have about five different types of teams that work
closely with group homes.
We have our licensing team that’s in there
every year; they’re looking at those standards. We have our provincial resource
assessment team. So they are the ones that are going when there’s a report that
could be a concern. They’re the ones that go in. They assess the report, they
determine whether or not it meets the standard for maybe a quality of care
concern or investigation, and then they’re working with them at that point.
We also have our team that works around that
contract. So each group home has a contract on what service they’re providing.
We have a team that works with the group home making sure that they’re living
up to the contract outcomes that are there.
And we also have an operational oversight unit,
and this is a team that goes in when a group home is identified that may have
some staffing challenges or some concerns. They’ll go in and they’ll work with
the group home around training of staff around processes. And then we have our
quality assurance team who receives reports of any serious occurrence and does
their work with that.
So we have a number of teams that work with
group homes. The resident services unit, I mean they’re really looking at sort
of that bigger picture, and so the intent was not necessarily that they would
be into every group home yearly. It’s about really taking all that information
and helping the group home ensure that they’re meeting all our standards.
Joan Pratchler: — So through
this whole review I’m sure you’ve identified some of the challenges or barriers
to be able to do, you know, what needs to be done or what is important to do.
Given some of those barriers, what are some of the successes that you’re able
to mitigate some of those barriers to make it better?
Tobie Eberhardt: — I think
one of the main ones that we’re working on right now is, as I’d mentioned,
there’s a lot of teams working with group homes. And as the auditor
recommended, it’s really about how do we capture that all in one place so
everyone’s getting a full picture.
So we really have an integrated approach when
we’re supporting group homes. But we want to make sure everyone’s doing their
job; we want to make sure that they’re communicating. And there’s one place
that we can see what everyone is doing so we can start to see some of those
patterns.
So I think that that’s one of the big
take-aways that we’re working on, and I think that’s going to help us really
target where we need to put our most effort.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is
going to involve the detailed review findings reports and the length of time
that it takes to do that. I’m wondering if you could share with the committee
today, you know, how many of these reports are completed outside the current 30‑day
window. How many may have been completed inside of it, and how many are still
outstanding? You know, essentially what I’m getting at here is, you know, why
are these reports taking longer than usual according to the auditor’s report?
I’m wondering if you could speak to that for the committee today.
Tobie Eberhardt: — So I’ll
start off with a bit of, you know, the review process, and I believe the
auditor’s office spoke to this. When a review is conducted on site, they meet
immediately on site with the leadership to identify any immediate concerns or
any things that they need to address right then and there. So there’s that
feedback provided initially, as well as a follow-up email communication about
some of the general findings.
Our team then goes back to do more of the
detailed review, and that is taking longer. So we have 12 reviews that have
been finalized over seven organizations since November of 2025, and we have
nine reviews right now in various stages of approvals. And so right now what
we’re targeting is . . . In ’26‑27 we were targeting a 90‑day
turnaround. So that was for the detailed report, and we’re certainly looking at
that. It is quite detailed. And we’re looking at other efficiencies that we can
get the information out quicker.
Part of the detailed report then is working
with the organization around what are they going to do to address that. And so
I think we’ve been trying to be very collaborative on working through those
processes, but recognizing that we do really need to get them the final report
earlier. And so our target would be 60‑day turnaround in ’27‑28.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA
Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — I was just wondering if that means
that, in fact, the most concerning homes are the ones who aren’t receiving
much-needed feedback about their areas of concern. Like you’re saying this is a
process. It’s why there’s a bit of back-and-forth going on, correct? There’s
information flowing both ways while you’re doing the detailed report. And
that’s essentially what’s been explaining the difference in times for some than
others, depending on the circumstances, depending on if they have on-site
review.
And then if they get on site, I presume,
depending on how many issues they may encounter, then they also have to
investigate that to some degree. You’re confident then that you’ll be able to
bring that down with the recommendations that the auditor has provided?
[09:00]
Tobie Eberhardt: — Yes, I am.
The other thing I just want to emphasize is that if it’s an allegation of abuse
or neglect, that goes through a different process. So that goes through our
provincial resource assessment team. And so those timelines are more immediate.
Depending on what the allegation is, we’re out there either same day or within
five days.
So that’s a bit different. I just want to be
clear that if there was an allegation of some kind of abuse or neglect, we
would be out there immediately or within the time frames. And that’s a
different report that’s being written for that, for those instances.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — I’m going
to ask a few questions about the criteria for significant concerns. How many
significant concerns did staff identify in the last year? And are there formal
criteria for significant concerns, or is that more left up to the professional,
you know, judgment of the people going in? And are any formal criteria for
giving one to three months or three to six months to address significant
concerns?
And then follow up as well with how many
instances of non-compliance with recommendations occurred in the past year.
Tobie Eberhardt: — So thank
you. So I’ll start off talking about the formal criteria, how many significant
concerns in the last year. So our provincial resource assessment team, who
responds to allegations of abuse or neglect, from April ’26 to September ’26,
they received 123 intakes. Those are reports regarding group homes.
Through their assessment process — and they do
have a formal assessment process, but there is flexibility because again it’s a
bit of a consensus — you’ve got a team that sits down, so you could have folks
from our child protection teams, folks from our teams that work with group
homes, folks with our out-of-home care team. So there’s a team that actually
sits down and looks at what the allegations are and assesses it. And there’s
always the ability by a director to either override, so to say that we should
respond or not respond depending on what their assessed approach is.
And so of those 123, 37 were determined to be a
quality-of-care concern, and 14 resulted in an investigation.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay,
thank you.
Tobie Eberhardt: — Sorry, I
think the second part of your question was around . . .
Joan Pratchler: — The
criteria, whether it’s a one to three not to rectify or, you know, longer.
Tobie Eberhardt: — The
response. Yeah, right. Okay. So regarding the time frames for response, that
comes through the detailed review, and right now it’s more of an informal
setting the timelines. So based on what the situation is, working with the
organization on what we feel would be a reasonable approach to addressing that.
So there could be some times in a formal review
where it’s something — a building standard that will take some work to fix. We
might work with them to bring in something to mitigate it, and so it all
depends on that. So right now there isn’t, I guess, a formal point that makes a
decision on the timelines.
Joan Pratchler: — Are you
worried about that, that some might fall through the cracks if that isn’t a
specific timeline? Or are you confident that things are getting done as they
should?
Tobie Eberhardt: — I would
say I’m confident that when there’s allegations of abuse or neglect, we are
responding to those in a timely manner. I think we have room for improvement,
as the auditor’s report talks about. And so I think really by developing that
centralized tracking where everyone is able to see what’s going on and speak
together, that I feel that from there we’ll look and see whether or not we have
to also divine some time frames for some of these resident services reviews.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Just a follow-up to that. Can you help us understand a little bit about
non-compliance? Do you know what the rate of non-compliance is for serious or
non-serious concerns? What happens if non-compliance is discovered? How quick
is the response? Can you just speak to your response to non-compliance, yeah.
Tobie Eberhardt: — So thank
you for that question. And as I sort of talked about, we have a number of
different teams that work with the group homes. So there’s a couple of places
there could be non-compliance.
So in our licensing, you know, there could be a
conditional licence issued. So currently we have six conditional licences
issued across the province. And the conditional licence could be anything from
— like I had mentioned before — maybe something to do with something in the
home like a locked . . . something that needs to be locked.
We also issue conditional licences, for
example, if a group home was approved for four placements but they have the
capacity to have more placements. In summertime we find the need for more
placements. We might issue a conditional licence just to increase the capacity
for that period of time. So through that there is sort of what we’re working
with them around remedying what the reason for the conditional licence is.
Through our resident services unit there is
also the non-compliance around . . . So those are the ones that we’re
in doing the detailed review, and what they’ll do there is really based on
risk. So they might go in and assess the home. And it might have, for example,
a weight-bearing rod in a room, which is a safety risk for youth. And so they
would have them remove that right then.
So there’s certain ones that, if it’s deemed to
be an immediate risk, they would wait and have them do it right then and there.
And then the other ones, they would develop a bit of an action plan in
conjunction with the group home.
Joan Pratchler: — I think
that’s all for my . . .
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — I was wondering if you could speak
to tracking and analyzing the serious incident data. It seems that you were
having some struggles in doing that as an agency. And on page 136 it says 37
per cent of serious incidents occur at group homes. Could you share with the
committee today what percentage of children in the system reside in group
homes? And would you say that the number of serious incidents is proportional?
Tobie Eberhardt: — The second
part of . . . Before you said the number of the residing group home,
what was the other request?
Hugh Gordon: — Yeah, I’m just wondering if the
percentage of children that are in group homes, if there is some correlation
between that and the number of serious incidents.
Tobie
Eberhardt:
— So currently, you know, as of 2026 we had 876. As of June 30th, 2026 we had
876 children in group home placements. And I don’t have the percentage, but to
compare it to our overall number of children in ministry care — so not counting
children who are in the custody of a person of sufficient interest — the
overall number of children in ministry care is 4,138.
So group homes are a percentage of that; it’s a
smaller percentage of that. And it’s on actually our web page stats. I probably
can tell you what the percentage is. It is 16 per cent children in care at the
end of Q1 [first quarter] were in group home placements.
I don’t have with me today the number of
incidents. We do track that though. We have what we call medium-serious
occurrence and high-serious occurrence, and we do a roll-up annually of the
medium. So a medium could be something like self-harm that didn’t cause,
require hospitalization. It could be an injury — fell off a trampoline and
broke their . . . So we do track that. I just don’t have that with me
today, but we do track where they were at the time of the injury. And that’s
information then we report to our managers up so that they can see some of the
trends.
Hugh Gordon: — So you speak a lot about developing
the centralized tracking tool or centralized tool to help you do risk-based
assessments, tracking and analyzing, and all that. I was wondering if you could
speak about that tool. Is that something that’s been developed in-house? Is
that something you’ve contracted with a vendor? And could you give the
committee an indication or some details about what you hope this tool to be
able to do for the ministry?
Tobie Eberhardt: — Thank you
for the question. So the development of the tool is an in-house development,
and we’re really looking at a SharePoint site that we will be able to put the
information that we’re already tracking into, broken down by group homes to
start with. And once we have that, the plan is to have that live, I guess, at
the end of this year. From there we’ll start to look at are there ways we can
start to get some of the analysis done? So whether or not we need someone to do
some of that analysis or if there’s some technology that can help us, that’ll
be our second step.
Hugh Gordon: — And you’re confident you’ll be able
to develop this tool within the time frames in your update?
Tobie Eberhardt: — Yes,
they’re already working on the tool right now.
Hugh Gordon: — Okay.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — So in this
committee we’ve seen a variety of organizations having IT [information
technology] challenges with big rollouts. So what are the plans to mitigate
those before they happen or to support the IT services to enable that
cross-unit collaboration and analysis? And I guess, in addition to that, when
was the last time there was an IT audit of tracking systems? How many
unsupported applications does Social Services have right now? Because that all impacts
into how you have a robust IT, well-rolled-out, on-time, on-budget process.
[09:15]
Tobie Eberhardt: — So thank
you. So what we’re building is through a system that’s already run, so a
SharePoint site. And we’ve also collaborated with our partners in a different
part of Social Services. So disability programs has already developed such a
system, so we’ve been working with them about what they’ve done, sort of any of
the kinks they had to iron out. So we’re actually in pretty good shape in what
it’s going to look like because someone’s already done it with in-house.
Joan Pratchler: — And what’s
your ETA [estimated time of arrival] having this IT system rolled out,
functioning?
Tobie Eberhardt: — With the
SharePoint, so it’s not necessarily a new system. It’s already there; we’re
just, I guess, adapting it for our own needs. And so that will be for the end
of this calendar year.
Joan Pratchler: — And are
there any unsupported applications in Social Services?
Blair Wagar: — Thanks for the question. I’ll do the
best I can to answer and may have Tobie or others to join in.
So we do have some — we don’t have the specific
number here with us — but we do have some legacy systems that are end of life
that are not supported any longer. All of those get assessed every year. We’re
working with our ITD [information technology department] to kind of do a risk
assessment.
There is mitigation plans that we have in
place. Some of them might be as simple as spreadsheets that we’re using. The
ministry has actually quite a good track record of delivering fairly large IT
projects. So a lot of times there’s plans for some of these legacy databases to
be converted into our MiCase system it’s called, or our Linkin system. So as we
move forward or start to see too much risk or have availability of budget to be
able to move some of these legacy systems, integrate them into our . . .
whether it’s the MiCase or Linkin system, we move to do that. So have legacy
system unsupported and in many cases have mitigation plans either to continue
to manage them as long as we can or plans to transition them over time into our
existing, newer systems.
Joan Pratchler: — That can
be a monkey.
Blair Wagar: — Yeah.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — On page 137 it said that group home
staff weren’t fully aware of procedures to report allegations against their
fellow staff. What are you doing to improve education in this area? Are there
procedures you have designed to better enable underage residents, for example,
to report staff? This would be in connection with your last recommendation and
actions you’re taking in that regard, I would imagine.
Tobie Eberhardt: — Thank you
for the question. As I had mentioned earlier, we have a team called our
operational oversight unit that we developed a couple years ago. And so some of
the proactive stuff that we are doing now is that team is doing monthly
meetings with group home staff where they’ll pick a theme or a policy or
procedure to remind the group homes on what is the processes, to take any
questions. They can also identify if there’s an area they want their employees
to be trained in. So a group home could also come to that team, one specific
group home say we’re having some challenges around this, and the team could
come in there and do some best-practice trauma and formal care best-practice
training.
In addition for the youth that are in the
homes, we have a handbook that we’ve created. It’s called the youth in care
handbook. It’s your right to know, I think it’s called. I might get the name
wrong. But it’s a handbook for youth in care they’re given that goes through
all their rights that they have and what they can do if they feel that their
rights aren’t being upheld.
In addition, all group homes are required to
post information regarding the Office of the Advocate for Children and Youth
and to be able to contact. So a youth in a group home sometimes, if they feel
that they’re maybe not being listened to, they can also contact the advocate’s
office directly and the advocate’s office could then also help work with them.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Do you expect central tracking to lead to more frequent detailed reviews? Do
you have new targets that you’re putting in place as benchmarks, or how many
reviews should be carried out? How is that rolling out?
Tobie Eberhardt: — Thank you
for the question. I think right now the central tracking is sort of
. . . We’re now just trying to roll that out to start to see how that
helps the teams and helps the communication. At this point, I don’t know if
it’ll lead to more reviews, but I think it’s going to give us the evidence on what
we need to do. And if it certainly points in that direction that will be
something we’ll be looking to do in the future.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Looking to committee members, any further questions on this chapter? Not
seeing any at this time, I would welcome a motion to concur with
recommendations 1 through 5 and note progress.
James Thorsteinson: — I’ll so
move.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson. All agreed?
Some Hon.
Members:
— Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, that’s carried. Okay, we’re going to move along to our next agenda
item. And I’m going to turn it back over to the Provincial Auditor for
presentation.
Jason Wandy: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. In 2019 the
Ministry of Social Services began operating the Saskatchewan Income Support
program, also referred to as SIS, as a program of last resort to provide
financial assistance for people to meet their basic needs while they take steps
toward self-sufficiency. During 2025‑26 the ministry had an average
monthly SIS caseload of over 20,000 clients and planned to provide almost
$264 million in SIS benefits.
Chapter 23 of our 2026 report volume 1
describes the results of our first follow-up audit of management’s actions on
the six recommendations we first made in 2023 regarding the ministry’s
processes to deliver SIS. By March 2026 the ministry implemented four of the
six recommendations.
The ministry made it easier for potential
clients to apply for SIS benefits by bringing services to potential clients
through mobile outreach in various communities, offering computers and Wi-Fi at
most of its service centres, and striving to return phone calls timely. It also
analyzed causes of SIS client evictions, including clients’ unpaid utilities,
and made changes to help address these issues. For example, it implemented a
new $1,000 one-time utility arrears recoverable benefit for SIS clients. The ministry
identified about 1,200 SIS clients with unpaid power and gas utilities
totalling almost $900,000 at June 2025.
Additionally in 2026 the ministry began
monitoring whether its staff followed updated SIS service standards that
included time frames for scheduling initial planning meetings with SIS clients,
following up on clients’ individualized case plan goals, and referring SIS
clients for housing support and career counselling.
The ministry partially implemented the
recommendation on page 244, where we recommended the ministry establish a
reasonable time frame for completing initial planning meetings with those SIS
clients requiring case management supports.
We found the ministry’s updated service
standards require staff to schedule initial planning meetings with service
level 3 or 4 clients within 30 days of validating their service level. It began
preparing monthly reports in January 2026 to monitor staff compliance with its
updated service standards.
Our review of the monthly reports found an
average of 36 per cent of service level 3 and 4 clients had initial planning
meetings scheduled within 30 days of their service level validation. The
ministry indicated these results may under-represent the actual scheduling of
initial planning meetings with clients due to staff not correctly using the
ministry’s case management IT system.
The ministry needs to work with staff to ensure
that information in the system reflects the initial planning meetings scheduled
with clients so it can effectively assess compliance with its service standard.
Without conducting timely initial planning meetings with clients, the ministry
is unable to assist clients in developing their individualized case plans. Such
planning helps clients to establish goals to work toward self-sufficiency.
The ministry partially implemented the
recommendation on page 246 where we recommended the ministry implement further
performance measures in assessing the effectiveness of SIS.
The ministry implemented two new performance
measures related to SIS in 2024‑25. These new performance measures
focused on the number of clients who returned to SIS after leaving the program
within 12 months, and the number of clients who require less support and yet
continue to receive SIS payments for more than a year.
We tested two quarters and found the ministry
accurately reported to senior management about the results for these two
measures, as well as publicly reported results in its annual report. However
the ministry had yet to establish targets for its new performance measures.
Ministry management indicated they are using the initial data for these
measures as a baseline that can help inform future targets. Setting targets for
its new SIS performance measures will help the ministry set out clear
expectations to evaluate the effectiveness of SIS and allow the ministry to
make adjustments to SIS when targets are not met.
I’ll now pause for the committee’s
consideration.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thanks
very much for the follow-up on this front. Of course we’ve considered this
chapter before this committee, I think in 2025. And thanks for the status
update that states the actions that have been taken. Any quick remarks before
we get to the questioning?
Blair Wagar: — Yeah, thank you, Chair. Related to
the recommendation that Social Services establish a reasonable time frame for
completing initial planning meetings with those clients requiring case
management supports in the Saskatchewan income assistance program, the ministry
now considers this recommendation implemented.
Since the audit, the ministry has met this
recommendation by implementing a work plan to strengthen timely client
engagement including scheduling initial planning meetings; connecting
follow-ups; tracking progress toward case-plan goals and monitoring referrals;
implementing a 30‑day service standard for scheduling initial planning
meetings for service level 3 and 4 clients and developing a report to track
this; and providing training sessions for staff focused on client engagement,
motivational interviewing, and service standards.
Monthly compliance reporting and management
oversight processes are now also in place to support monitoring,
accountability, and continuous improvement in service delivery.
Related to the recommendation that Social
Services implement further performance measures in assessing the effectiveness
of the Saskatchewan income support program, the ministry also considers this
recommendation now implemented.
The two performance measures recommended by the
auditor related to client recidivism and client tenure were fully implemented
in ’24‑25. Targets have now been established for both measures and are
now publicly reported in the ministry’s annual report. The ministry continues
to use these measures to evaluate program effectiveness and support
evidence-based programming, planning, and decision making.
I’ll now turn it back to the Chair.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thanks
very much, DM Wagar, and all those that have been involved in the work
reflected in the implementation on this front. I’ll open it up now to committee
members that may have questions. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you. I believe it says in the
report that approximately 70 per cent of calls to the call centre go
unanswered. I’m just wondering if you could tell us what percentage of these
calls don’t get a callback within three days. What’s the median call time to
get back to those folks? And do you track how many of those calls don’t get a
callback, whether they leave a name or not, a number or not?
[09:30]
Julene Restall: — Hello, my
name is Julene Restall. I’m the assistant deputy minister of income assistance
program. So since the audit, we actually looked at our deflected calls that
come in to our call centre. So this is specific to the SIS program and the call
centre. A deflect is when phone queues are maximized at capacity and a caller
is required to call back.
So we actually have been ongoingly reviewing
these deflects to ensure if there’s any trending. What we’ve seen is 70 per
cent of the callers who were initially deflected were handled within the same
day. So that means that we’ve been able to track those phone numbers within the
system, and they actually did talk to somebody that exact day.
Eighty-five per cent of those received a call
or a phone conversation within the ministry within three days. So it’s 85 per
cent within three days. Given the significant volume of calls within the
ministry that we receive every month — last month it’s about 13,200 — we think
this is a pretty responsive response rate for our team to achieve.
The majority of the deflects tend to occur
within five business days. So it’s as soon as the benefits run and at the
beginning of the month. So it’s when people were not receiving those benefits.
The number of unanswered calls are actually also artificially increased because
the person just repeatedly redials the call, so then you don’t have a unique
caller. It’s just the same person calling in again and again.
In our regional offices we’ve actually added an
additional offering to press 0 to actually talk to a person automatically. So
if there’s a person that’s away from the desk, they actually have the ability,
our clients have the ability to press 0 and receive an automatic response to an
emergency worker too.
Hugh Gordon: — Just to follow up on that, your
lunch hour pilot program. I was wondering if you could tell us how many staff
are available during lunch hour at each of the three testing sites and whether
or not you’ve consulted with the staff to determine that that is a sufficient
number.
Julene Restall: — Okay, so
we actually had Regina and Saskatoon service centres begin remaining open over
the lunch hour in October 2025. As of October 2026 we’ve actually also expanded
this to Prince Albert, Yorkton, and Moose Jaw offices. And we’ll be expanding
this to North Battleford in November 2026.
We’ve been obviously monitoring that on an
ongoing basis and ensuring that we have the appropriate staff levels to
actually achieve support over that period of time. And that’s why we’re looking
at being able to expand this, is ensuring that we have the appropriate number
of staff in each of those offices to provide those services over the lunch
period.
Hugh Gordon: — The question was, was staff
consulted to determine if we had the right numbers? Like is there some
back-and-forth, making sure that they’re able to actually provide that service
and that program?
Julene Restall: — We talk to
on-site managers regularly to ensure that we have the right complement of staff
to achieve the needs of the clients that we serve.
Hugh Gordon: — Okay.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — I have
another little happy face here to celebrate the mobile outreach. It sounds like
that was quite positive, or am I right in that? Like what were some of the
celebrations you had on that?
Julene Restall: — Sure.
That’s actually something that we continue to get a lot of feedback on from our
community-based organizations specifically, asking for additional resources to
support our clients where we are. Currently we’re at over 40 different
locations within the province. On site we’re able to take IA [income
assistance] applications for benefits. We’re also able to do case planning.
So we really work with individuals to find, for
example, stabilized housing or emergency shelter options right on site, and
we’re able to support them as soon as they walk in. We’re actually on location
at emergency shelters throughout the province as well as supportive housing
units. We’ve worked really closely with clients at emergency shelters as well
as supportive housing to ensure that they’re supported in managing their
benefits.
So we also align them with our trusteeship
services or direct pay of SIS benefits. We really try to take those wraparound
services and collaborate with our CBOs [community-based organization] and
continue to strengthen our relationships through that approach.
Joan Pratchler: —
Congratulations on that. One more question here. To confirm, you measure the
success of a SIS client is when they go off the program? And have you accounted
for clients who may go off the program because their condition may have gotten
worse? And do you have performance measures that can address the amount being
paid to clients is sufficient for their survival, given inflation and those
kind of challenges?
Julene Restall: — Thank you
so much for your question. So as mentioned, we do actually track our
recidivism, so individuals that come back to our program within the 12 months.
Right now our target for that is 72 per cent that they leave our programs and
do not return. Right now we’re achieving 73 per cent for the first quarter of
this year, so we are achieving that.
Regarding individuals that might have
additional challenges, we really focus . . . Within our programs we
do our service level screenings. So that really is a questionnaire to determine
the level of need or support that a client needs through the Ministry of Social
Services. So with that we have service level 1s, which are considered very
employable. And that’s about 25 per cent of our caseload.
Then we have SLS [service level screening] 2s,
and those are individuals that might need some support, for example, doing
résumé building. So we actually directly refer them to our partners at
Immigration and Career Training for career services support. And that’s about
23 to 26 per cent of our caseload.
Then we have our SLS 3s, which are individuals
that have some barriers that really want to kind of build some independence.
And those are our individuals that have planning and support specialists, so
they actually have IA workers at each of the regional offices. And that’s about
65 per cent of our caseload is SLS 3s.
Then we have our SLS 4s. So those are
individuals that are having possibly housing instability or challenges managing
their money or addictions or mental health challenges. And those are really
about 5 per cent of our caseload for our SIS program.
We really focus on those SLS 4s to ensure that
they have the support to maintain eligibility for our program. So we really
focus on trusteeship, which is we put them on community-based trusteeship. So
trustees can manage actually the whole money and the whole benefits for an
individual and ensure that their basic needs are met. They can also pay
directly their rent and utilities and hopefully help stabilize them in the long
term.
So that’s really how we focus on ensuring those
with the most challenges are addressed in a proactive approach. A lot of those
individuals do actually see our mobile outreach workers in community as well.
Regarding your comment about how we determine
rates for our programs, when reviewing IA program rates, the ministry reviews
low-income and property measures such as the market basket measure or the MBM,
Canada’s official poverty line, the median and average market rents reported by
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Saskatchewan’s provincial ratings
based on the Maytree Welfare in Canada reports, as well as minimum wage
and inflation rates.
The ministry also takes into account
geographical variances by using the tiered approach that considers differences
in housing costs in different communities and higher needs of costs of
necessities in the northern Saskatchewan administrative district.
So as part of the SIS performance audit, the
Provincial Auditor actually reviewed how the ministry assesses the benefit
rates and confirmed that we’d used these inputs as part of the budget process
for our program.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — In the last recommendation in your
update, we’re talking about a couple of measures for client recidivism and
client tenure. If I understood correctly, you said that your target for
recidivism was 72 per cent. What’s the target for client tenure? Is it 28 per
cent?
Julene Restall: — No. Target
for SIS client tender is the proportion of SIS clients still receiving income
assistance over one year. So they’ve been on our program for one year. So we
have a lagging process. That’s why we needed some time to create a target. So
we have set a target for 40 per cent or less for that measure as well.
Hugh Gordon: — And then with respect to program
delivery or services, I’m just wondering what changes you’ve made since the
ministry analyzed the reasons for unpaid utility bills.
Julene Restall: — So when we
actually reviewed the unpaid utility bills, that was actually utilizing
information from June 2025, where we found about 6 per cent of our caseload had
arrears in those. So that actually helped us inform a collaborative budget
request and a plan to actually have a new utility-based arrears benefit. It’s a
recoverable benefit up to $1,000 that eligible SIS clients can now access to
ensure that they’re able to pay down those utilities, which actually is our
hopes to actually support them in creating more housing stability going
forward.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Any further questions on this chapter? Again this has come back to us, and I
think anyone that’s observing this knows that this shows kind of the follow-up
of this committee, that of the auditor, and then the implementation work of the
audit entity. So thanks to those that have taken the actions to get these
recommendations off the books and to implement them. And the auditor does do a
follow-up after — I don’t know what that time period — in the next couple years
and reports back here as well.
Not seeing any further questions, I’d welcome a
motion of adjournment of this chapter. Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson. All
agreed?
Some Hon.
Members:
— Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— That’s carried. I’ll turn it back over to the auditor and we’ll shift gears
with the next chapter.
Jason Wandy: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Ministry
of Social Services is responsible for children when they require protection and
out-of-home care. At December 2025 the ministry had 448 foster families
approved to provide care. There were 954 children requiring protection and
out-of-home care living with foster families.
Chapter 24 of our 2026 report volume 1
describes our third follow-up audit of management’s actions on the three
remaining recommendations we first made in 2020 regarding the ministry’s
processes to monitor whether foster families provide a safe and secure
environment for children in care.
By February 2026 the ministry implemented the
three remaining recommendations. The ministry is completing required background
checks on all adults in a foster home prior to approving new foster families.
We found the ministry also consistently checked its records to identify whether
foster care applicants had previous involvement with the ministry, such as a
documented history of child abuse or neglect, and it obtained criminal record
and vulnerable sector checks for the seven new foster families we tested.
Additionally we found the ministry now obtains
criminal record and vulnerable sector checks periodically every three years for
all adults residing in approved foster homes. We found the ministry obtained
these checks within the last three years for 25 of 26 foster families we
tested. The one foster family not having updated checks was because the family
had not fostered children since 2024 and closed as a foster home in 2026.
We found the ministry also improved its timely
completion of annual review reports of foster families. The annual reviews
evaluate whether foster families still meet ministry requirements for fostering
children. As of February 2026 the ministry completed review reports during 2025
for 91 per cent of foster families we tested.
Effectively monitoring the safety of children
in care and providing needed support to foster families is crucial to nurturing
these children’s health and well-being.
I’ll now pause for the committee’s
consideration.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Well thanks again for the very important focus of this chapter and for the
actions that have been taken on this front. I’ll turn it over to DM Wagar for a
brief comment, and then we’ll see what we have for questions.
[09:45]
Blair Wagar: — Thanks, Mr. Chair. Given all the
recommendations are considered implemented, we’ll forgo any further comments
and just turn it right back to the Chair.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Thank you. Looking to committee members. Any questions on this front? MLA
Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Could you help us understand how frequently criminal record checks are
performed? And is that the same across all foster families or are some
identified as higher risk? Is the frequency consistent with other types of
housing in the system, let’s say, such as group homes? And what is the timeline
for response when an offence is discovered?
Tobie Eberhardt: — Thank you
for the question. So when a foster parent is first being assessed to be a
foster parent, part of the requirement before they are approved is that they
are required to complete a criminal record check and a vulnerable sector check
for every adult in that home over the age of 18. So that would have to be
completed before we approve them as a foster parent.
A number of years ago, as a result of a
recommendation from the auditor’s office, we brought in a requirement to do a
check every three years. So in between we do what’s called a self-declaration.
So previously to bringing in the periodic criminal record check, as part of
their annual review with the foster parent, we’d ask them to self-declare
whether or not anything had changed from their previous criminal record check.
As a result of the auditor’s recommendation a
couple of years ago, we brought in a requirement to have a criminal record
check for everyone over the age of 18 every three years. So that has been
brought into place now.
Joan Pratchler: — And are
you confident that’s sufficient to manage risk?
Tobie Eberhardt: — We feel
that between that and the frequency we are working with foster parents and
having people in the home . . . We have real good partnerships with
our foster parents, and we are confident that is managing risk.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
How many applicants to become foster care providers last year were found to
have criminal records? And how many for sexual or violent offences? How many
were flagged for previous involvement with the ministry, you know, a history of
child abuse or neglect?
Tobie Eberhardt: — Thank you
for the question. We do not keep stats on that, about how many had a criminal
record. They would not get past our assessment process so they are cancelled
out.
Even before we ask for the criminal record
check we go through what is required to be a foster parent. And so I would
assume a lot of them would cancel themselves out once they realize they need to
get a criminal record check.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — What’s the timeline for an annual
foster family report? And is staff carrying out these reports the same staff
that carried out the detailed reports for group homes?
Tobie Eberhardt: — Thank you
for the question. So we have a different team that works with our foster
parents. So every foster parent would have a support worker that’s assigned to
them, and that support worker is responsible for carrying out an annual
assessment. So that’s done yearly.
As part of that, they meet with the foster
parents. They talk about what’s been going well with their fostering, any areas
that they want to develop further. They would do a check on the home again with
our safety standards. So we have a checklist, anything that’s changed within
the home. And then they would do the self-declaration I mentioned. Or if it was
their time for the periodic criminal record check, that would all be part of
that package that’s been written up as part of that process. So it’s done annually.
Hugh Gordon: — What’s the timeline for the annual
foster family report? Is it semi-annually is what you say?
Tobie Eberhardt: —
[Inaudible] . . . once a year.
Hugh Gordon: — Once a year?
Tobie Eberhardt: — We do it
once a year. Sorry.
Hugh Gordon: — Do you have another question? I have
a couple of follow-ups. Sorry.
My next questions are with respect to children
in foster care. I’m just wondering what efforts the ministry makes to ensure
that children placed in a particular foster home remain in that home for the
duration of their care. There have been a number of studies around
trauma-informed care with children requiring, I’ll just say, very stable home
environments in order to develop in a number of areas. And I’m just wondering
what efforts you make to try to maintain that kind of stability for these young
kids.
Tobie Eberhardt: — Thank you
for that question. I think I’d start by saying our priority when children come
into care is always to try to work with the family to mitigate the risk. And if
we’re not able to safely return them to their family, to their parents, we are
always looking for family. So our priority of placement through our policy is
always to try and find family for children in care.
So when a child comes into care, if we can’t
find family right away, a foster home would be our preference. And we would
want to support that foster parent in caring for that child. But the foster
parent would be aware, through their training, that we are still looking for
family during that placement. And so if a family member comes forward during
that placement that we assess is able to meet the child’s need, we would
transition that child from foster care to extended family placements. So that
could happen, and foster parents are very well aware of that and are supportive
of that through the training we provide them.
The other part is we do really want to keep
stability for children, as you mentioned. You know, we know about trauma and
the impact of placement movements. And so we’ve developed, in partnership with
the Saskatchewan Foster Families Association, a number of supports that are put
in place for foster parents to help maintain those placements. So we have an
in-home support program that the Saskatchewan Foster Families Association
operates.
And so that could be if the foster parent is
struggling with maybe some of the child’s behaviours, we could have someone go
in and support that foster parent in caring for that child. We might have some
children that are up in the night and the foster parents got other children, so
we would help support that by bringing someone into the home to help in the
evening for example. The other thing we would do is a foster parent working
with them, if they identify the child has got some challenges where they maybe
need counselling, we would put that into place.
So we would always work with the foster parent
about what are the things that we could put into place to help support that
placement, but we would also always be looking for a family for that child on a
long-term basis.
Hugh Gordon: — Just to follow up on that because,
you know, obviously the children were removed from their primary home for a
number of very good reasons. You’ve, justifiably so, placed into a foster home
obviously with all the, hopefully, requisite supports that they were able to
provide that child in the interim, knowing that you’re still looking for
perhaps a family member. Like that’s got to be handled very carefully, correct?
Like where you just, you know, making sure that child is not going back into
the same situation, that those family members who are able now to care for that
child are not going to subject them to, you know, the same situation that they
were taken out of, correct?
So I guess my question is with respect to a
trauma-informed approach for these kids and for those that you can’t find a
home for. I’m wondering if you could tell the committee just how many children
for which there is no family to return them to, no one steps up to take the
child into their care, for those children that are now within the foster home,
care home system, how often do those . . . Do you have any idea how
often those children change foster homes?
Tobie Eberhardt: — Thank you
for the question. I don’t have statistics on the movement, how often children
might be moved between foster homes and extended family or other placements.
What I could say is, first of all, when we’re
assessing an extended family member, we’ve developed a trauma-informed lens for
that assessment. The requirements are similar to foster parents’ criminal
record checks, child welfare checks, safety assessments. So we’re very careful
about ensuring that the home is prepared to care for the child. Because most of
these children do have trauma, and so oftentimes they’ll have behaviours as a
result of that.
And then we would always want to do a
transition plan. So working with the foster parent and the potential extended
family caregiver, once they’re approved, we want them to be working together
closely as a team to ensure sort of the least challenge or the least impact to
that child.
And that’s all part of the training we provide
to foster parents. The model just really talks about and emphasizes that it’s
really about them supporting family to care for their kids. I know the
Saskatchewan Foster Families Association, their motto is like “families helping
families.” And that’s really what it is about.
For children to leave a foster home or for us
to move a child from a foster home, it would normally be because either they’re
transitioning home — that we’re working with the foster parent around that — or
to a family member, which would be a longer term placement that would allow the
child to be connected to their culture and their community. Or it could be
sometimes we have a larger sibling group and we’re able to find a resource
that’ll take all the siblings together now. And so that could be another reason
why we may transition them from a foster home.
And the final one could be if a foster parent
is asking for the child to be moved. Again we would want to work with that
foster parent to try and say, you know, what is the situation, why you’re
asking them to be moved. Oftentimes it’s because of behaviours of the child
again, you know, resulting from past trauma. And so we would try to mitigate
that and put in to supports. But at the end of the day if a foster parent asks
for the child to be moved and we couldn’t resolve it with them, we would have
to look for a new placement.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Any further questions over here? Questions over here? Okay, not seeing any.
Again thank you for the work on this front. Certainly, you know, when you start
talking about children’s lives, right, it puts it all in perspective. So thanks
to, you know, all your teams and all those that are involved in providing
stability and care to those that deserve it most.
I would welcome a motion at this point to
conclude consideration of chapter 24.
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson. All agreed?
Some Hon.
Members:
— Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, that’s agreed. We’ll kick it back over to the auditor and focus on the
last chapter pertaining to Social Services today.
Jason Wandy: — Thank you. Chapter 7 of our 2025
report volume 2 reports the results of the annual audit of the Ministry of
Social Services for the 2025 fiscal year. We found the ministry complied with
authorities governing its activities and had effective rules and procedures to
safeguard public resources other than the matters described in our chapter.
During the 2025 fiscal year, the ministry
implemented three outstanding recommendations associated with procuring hotel
rooms for clients. The ministry maintained sufficient documentation, including
appropriate rationale to support the selection of hotels even if they cost
slightly more, for its child and family program clients. It also began
centrally tracking and monitoring the hotels it pays and at what rates for
clients from its income assistance and child and family programs.
[10:00]
For example, its tracking showed that
contracted room blocks, which have a set number of hotel rooms available
throughout the year, were utilized approximately 75 per cent of the time in
Saskatoon and approximately 90 per cent of the time in Regina for a year.
Additionally we found the ministry evaluated
its two hotel pilot projects to procure hotel rooms for income assistance and
child and family program clients. As a result of the evaluation, the ministry
decided to continue to contract a block of rooms in one Saskatoon hotel and one
Regina hotel.
The ministry did not implement the
recommendation on page 54, where we recommended the ministry work with the
Ministry of Finance to consider how to publicly report payments made to vendors
like hotels on behalf of income assistance and child and family programs’
clients.
We found the ministry had yet to determine how
it could publicly report payments made to vendors on behalf of income
assistance and child and family programs’ clients. The ministry’s counterparts
in two other Canadian provinces — that is, Alberta and Manitoba — report payee
details for payments made to vendors such as hotels or grocery stores on behalf
of clients exceeding a specific threshold. For example, payments exceeding
$50,000. The ministry indicated it paid 10 hotel vendors more than $50,000
between January and September 2025 for SIS clients, and yet these vendors and
the amounts paid were not publicly available.
The ministry indicated it had preliminary
discussions with Ministry of Finance staff during fiscal 2024‑25 to
consider options for publicly reporting payments made to vendors on behalf of
clients. It expected to continue these discussions in 2025‑26.
The ministry partially implemented the
recommendation on page 49, where we recommended the ministry record and recover
overpayments related to its Saskatchewan income support program in a timely
manner.
An overpayment occurs when the ministry pays a
SIS client before receiving all information necessary to confirm a client’s
eligibility for benefits, where it makes errors in determining benefit amounts,
or when a client provides inaccurate information to the ministry. At March
2025, the ministry recorded accounts receivable related to SIS overpayments of
$16.2 million, a 65 per cent increase from 2023‑24.
The ministry’s IT system used to administer SIS
benefits allows staff to establish automatic payment recovery beginning the
following month and record the related amount due, as in accounts receivable,
as overpayments from future SIS benefits. Our testing of 13 client files with
confirmed overpayment issues found staff did not record the overpayments nor
set up the automatic payment recovery process for three files, staff did not
set up the automatic payment recovery process for nine files, and staff did not
set up recovery for one file . . . or sorry, staff set up recovery
for one file, but did not do so timely.
Not recording amounts due and not initiating
automatic payment recovery delays timely overpayment recovery. The ministry
will have limited ability to collect on overpayments if clients leave the SIS
program.
I’ll now pause for the committee’s
consideration.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay. Thanks for the important follow-up on this front. I’ll turn it over to
DM Wagar for brief remarks, then we’ll open up for questions.
Blair Wagar: — Thank you, Chair. Related to the
recommendation that Social Services record and recover overpayments related to
its Saskatchewan income support program in a timely manner, the ministry
considers this recommendation now implemented.
Since the audit, the ministry has implemented
improvements to ensure overpayments are recorded and recovered in a timely
manner. We have completed a targeted review of SIS cases with an overpayment to
ensure overpayment recovery has been established; delivered training for staff
on entering and recovering overpayments in the system; implemented additional
system functionality to enable overpayments to be transferred and recovered
across cases; and established a specialized overpayment team to review SIS overpayments,
ensure appropriate client notification is issued, verify overpayment accuracy,
and establish recovery in accordance with the ministry’s procedures.
Related to the recommendation that Social
Services work with the Ministry of Finance to consider how to publicly report
payments made to vendors on behalf of income assistance and child and family
program clients, the ministry considers this recommendation now implemented as
well.
In consultation with the Ministry of Finance
and following the review of our systems to ensure that they would support
accurate, reliable, and consistent reporting, the ministry will meet this
recommendation by publicly reporting payments made to vendors on behalf of
income assistance and child and family programs as part of Public Accounts
volume 2 to be released later this month.
While expanding public reporting, protecting
client privacy remains a top priority. No client names or their identifying
personal information is included, ensuring the confidentiality of individuals,
children, and families receiving services.
We are taking a phased approach to public
reporting to ensure that information released is accurate, reliable, and
consistent. We’ll begin reporting vendor payments for Saskatchewan income
support and child and family programs where the necessary reporting
capabilities are already in place.
The Saskatchewan assured income for disability
program, or SAID, operates a legacy payment system that was not designed to
support this type of reporting. Rather than release information that may be
incomplete or inconsistent, we will expand public reporting to include SAID
once the system and data improvements are completed.
I’ll now turn it back to the Chair.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Thank you for the comments. I’ll kick it open to members that may have
questions. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
How many overpayments were recorded in the last fiscal year? What was the
median time frame of corrections for those overpayments? Do you track
underpayments, and are these flagged primarily by the ministry or the payee?
And what’s the median time frame for correcting those as well?
Julene Restall: — Thank you
so much for the question. Overpayments occur when the ministry paid benefits
that a client’s not eligible for. So there’s many instances in which that might
occur. For example, changes in a client’s circumstances that are not known to
the ministry, such as receiving income or benefits from other programs.
We sometimes, as the auditor mentioned, respond
to urgent situations in which we don’t have the documentation and once we
receive it, receive the documentation, unfortunately the client is not eligible
for that benefit. We also issue recoverable benefits, such as security
deposits. So that would also be included as part of an overpayment.
We also have administrative errors completed by
the ministry. We don’t have a central tracking system that breaks down how
those overpayments are assessed or what area those overpayments come into. It’s
on each individual file. So we wouldn’t be able to break down the percentages
for you at this time.
As of March 2026 the ministry-recorded
overpayments were about $22 million for SIS, an increase of 36 per cent
from the 16.2 million at the end of ’24‑25, which is trending
downwards from the 65 per cent increase the prior year. This lower rate of
growth is consistent with expectations of a maturing program. As SIS continues
to mature, historical overpayments are added to the outstanding balance while recovering
efforts increase, resulting in a more gradual increase to the overall
overpayment balance.
So it’s actually very interesting because SIS
is one of the first programs in income assistance that actually can transfer
overpayments from other programs. So part of our overpayment amounts are
actually overpayments that were part of the Saskatchewan assistance program, or
the SAP program, or the transitional employment assistance program, or the TEA
[transitional employment allowance] program.
So as clients have joined onto IA for the SIS
program, they might have an outstanding balance from those prior programs. And
we’ve actually put those overpayments back onto their cases right now and set
up those recovery rates of $50 per month to ensure that we’re able to collect
on those amounts.
So one of the things that you didn’t ask about
was how are we making sure that we’re recovering on the overpayments as quickly
as possible. We’ve actually set up a specialized team at our client service
centre that has reporting capabilities to ensure that those overpayment
recovery rates are set up as soon as possible. So this is an ongoing process
now as part of our procedures. And with that approach we hope to actually be
able to recover on overpayments as soon as possible.
Joan Pratchler: — And
underpayments?
Julene Restall: — We don’t.
Sorry, I do not have underpayments tracked in front of me right now.
Joan Pratchler: — And they
exist?
Julene Restall: — In certain
circumstances, they do exist. But the ministry actually will issue
underpayments. So as soon as we’re aware of a person being eligible for a
benefit that they weren’t receiving, we’ll actually do an underpayment and
assess it to when they started eligibility for that benefit.
Joan Pratchler: — What would
be the timeline for doing that?
Julene Restall: — As soon as
we’re made aware of it.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — What were some of the reasons that
staff wasn’t setting automatic recovery for these known overpayments? Was there
any common themes? Is there any rationale for that?
Julene Restall: — Our
ministry has had system enhancements over the time. So as mentioned, SIS was
actually implemented in 2019. Since 2019 we have increased our capabilities
within the system. So some of the rationale for some of the delays is due to
old cases, for example, that had technical issues for setting up overpayments.
So by having a specialized team, we’re able to kind of do a little bit of
analysis to ensure that those overpayments are assessed appropriately and
applied to the appropriate files too.
Hugh Gordon: — I have questions with respect to the
last recommendation on reporting. I’m wondering if you could elaborate on the
phased approach to supplemental reporting and why you feel that’s necessary.
Blair Wagar: — So I can start and then we’ll turn
it over to Julene to maybe explain. But it really goes back to a legacy system,
IT system that has some really challenging capabilities to be able to do this.
So instead of us jumping out in front, we’re focusing on what we can do quickly
with the other programs that are on a newer system that has the capability of
doing this. And then as we navigate that old system to our new systems, like I
was talking about before around the IT question, then we’re able to do the same
thing with SAID.
Hugh Gordon: — Are you confident though that,
between the legacy system and this new reporting system, that you’re going to
be able to, you know, report accurately enough on what those numbers are with
respect to those vendors?
Julene Restall: — So we are
doing a phased-in approach for the vendor reporting. So we’re starting this
month with our SIS caseload as well as the child and family programs. And then
once SAID goes onto the MiCase system, that’s when we’ll be able to ensure
consistency and reliability of that information, which will then allow us to
respond publicly on the vendor reporting there.
Hugh Gordon: — And my last question with respect to
vendors: will the names of the vendors, will that be made public as well? The
folks that have been . . . the businesses that have been receiving, I
guess, funds from Social Services.
Julene Restall: — So we will
be releasing the names of the vendors over $50,000 that receive benefits
through those different programs. We are taking, obviously, client safety and
privacy very seriously. So things like trustees, those will not be released
because those are obviously benefit administrators, and we want to ensure
people have their privacy tracked throughout the process.
Hugh Gordon: — That’s all I have.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— I’ll turn it over to the comptroller right now.
Brent Hebert: — Yeah, just to add to that, I just
want to clarify that those payee details will be included in the compendium of
payee details that are along with the public accounts reporting package.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— And that’s the one that will be released here very shortly.
Brent Hebert: — The end of October.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Right. Yeah, good. Thank you very much. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — What is
the challenge with that legacy migration?
Julene Restall: — So our
SAID program is actually still issued through the SWIN [Social Work Information
Network] program, and that is a program from the 1980s. So we just don’t have
the ability or the confidence in the data that’s actually extracted from that
because of just the legacy elements. We very much are confident in our other
programs, and that’s what we’ll be starting with for reporting.
Joan Pratchler: — So is it
literally the migration of that legacy, or is it creation of a new platform to
make that happen?
Julene Restall: — It will be
a migration to the MiCase system.
Joan Pratchler: — And what
would be your ETA or time of completion?
Julene Restall: — During
this fiscal year sometime.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay,
thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Any further questions from committee members? Not seeing any. Again thanks
for the follow-up on this, Auditor, and thanks for the actions that are being
taken to ensure implementation. We’ll see the vendor information, as has been
identified, in just a couple weeks’ time when the volume 2 is released for ’25‑26.
Not seeing further questions, I’d welcome a motion to conclude consideration of
chapter 7.
[10:15]
James Thorsteinson: — I’ll so
move.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson. All agreed?
Some Hon.
Members:
— Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, I think that concludes our questioning in time with Social Services.
Thank you very much to all the officials that have joined us here. Thanks to
all those that are involved in the very important work that’s discussed, all
the important work of Social Services. I’d kick it over to DM Wagar for some
parting remarks before we kick you all out of here.
Blair Wagar: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the
committee, thank you as well. I appreciate your time and the opportunity to
update you on the ministry’s progress on the Provincial Auditor’s
recommendations. I also want to express my thanks to the Provincial Auditor’s
office for the work you’ve done with the ministry, and we appreciate the
recommendations to help us improve in delivering on the essential services that
we provide Saskatchewan people. And I want to take a second to thank the team,
who clearly, if were not here, I would be in big trouble answering a lot of
these questions. So thank you to the team and all the great questions. So back
to you, Chair.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Right on. Thank you very much. Thanks to you all. And we’ll take a very brief
recess as we get the Sask Municipal Board before us.
[The committee
recessed for a period of time.]
Saskatchewan Municipal Board
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, we’ll reconvene the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We’re going
to turn our attention now to the Sask Municipal Board. Before us here this
morning is the Chair, Chad Boyko, as well as director Brandee Murdoch. Thank
you for joining us here today. I’m going to come back over to you in a moment
after a brief presentation from the auditor.
Tara Clemett: —
So thank you, Mr. Chair, Deputy Chair, committee members, and officials. With
me today is Mr. Trevor St. John, and he’s the deputy provincial auditor that is
responsible for the work at Saskatchewan Municipal Board. Behind me is Michelle
Lindenbach, and she’s our liaison with this committee.
This presentation does include five new
recommendations for the committee’s consideration related to municipal appeal
decisions. I do want to thank the Chair and his staff for the co-operation that
was extended to us during the course of our work. With that I’ll turn it over
to Trevor.
Trevor St. John: — Thank you.
The Municipal Board receives funding from the Ministry of Government Relations.
In 2023‑24 the Municipal Board spent 1.3 million handling appeals
and collected 218,000 in revenue.
Under The Municipal Board Act, the
Saskatchewan Municipal Board, an administrative tribunal, is responsible for
hearing appeals regarding disputes arising between Saskatchewan municipalities
and other parties like property owners. This includes appeals related to
property assessments and zoning and development permits.
The Municipal Board uses various separate
committees to handle appeals. Board members serve on these committees to hear
and make decisions on municipal appeals. Its two most active committees are the
assessment appeals committee, which receives approximately 90 per cent of the
annual appeals submitted to the Municipal Board for consideration, and the
planning appeals committee. These two committees were the focus of our audit.
Chapter 13 of our 2025 volume 2 reports the
results of our audit of Saskatchewan Municipal Board’s processes, for the
period ended June 30th, 2025, to provide timely and supported appeal decisions
regarding disputes arising between Saskatchewan municipalities and other
parties such as property owners. We made five recommendations.
In our first recommendation, on page 146, we
recommend the Saskatchewan Municipal Board update its appeal guidance to be
consistent and fully aligned with legislation. The Municipal Board had an
overarching board policy manual that includes procedures for its meetings,
board Chair responsibilities, code of conduct, and procedures for each
committee. The Municipal Board also uses various procedures outlined in
separate manuals to guide its work on assessment and property appeals.
However we found not all its manuals contain
consistent information for the committees to follow. For example we found the
planning appeals committee’s procedures manual did not include all types of
appeals as noted in legislation, such as appeals related to the development
permits issued pursuant to the global transport hub authority Act.
We also found the planning appeals committee
procedures within the board policy manual had not been updated since 2001. Not
consistently and regularly updating guidance increases the risk legislative
requirements may not be met or followed during appeals.
In our second recommendation, on page 148, we
recommend the Saskatchewan Municipal Board have board members annually review
and sign off on its code of conduct, including declaring any conflicts of
interest. The Saskatchewan Municipal Board has a code of conduct policy for its
board members. The policy includes details on conflicts of interest and bias,
aligns with good practice and The Municipal Board Act.
We found it clearly written, easy to
understand, and included detailed descriptions, definitions, and examples in
each area. However the Municipal Board did not have a formal process for its
eight board members to annually declare conflicts of interest.
The Municipal Board assigns board members to
various panels to hear appeals. It will remove a board member and assign a
different board member to the panel if the member has a conflict of interest or
if requested due to a perceived conflict of interest. Not requiring board
members to annually review and sign off on the code of conduct increases the
risk of bias either real or perceived in decisions issued.
In our third recommendation, on page 151, we
recommend the Saskatchewan Municipal Board monitor and follow up on property
assessment and planning and development appeals in case management taking more
time than expected.
[10:30]
The purpose of case management is to have the
Municipal Board’s case manager meet and work with parties to clarify the
grounds of appeal, determine the hearing format, review jurisdictional issues,
discuss preliminary matters, and discuss confidentiality of information. The
Municipal Board typically receives over 600 assessment appeals in a year and
about 20 planning appeals.
The Municipal Board assigned two board members
responsibility for case management: one for assessment appeals and the other
for planning appeals. These members can delegate case manager duties to other
board members as needed.
The Municipal Board expects case managers to
take approximately 20 days once the notice of appeal is acknowledged and the
appeal is sent to the case manager. For 13 appeals tested, 8 appeals in case
management took over 20 days. We found the Municipal Board uses a case
management tracking spreadsheet for assessment appeals, but it did not always
update the spreadsheet — for example, missing some dates. The Municipal Board
does not track the status of case management for planning appeals.
We also found the Municipal Board does not
always follow up with case managers who have exceeded the 20‑day target
for case management. Without adequately monitoring appeals and case management
and following up on those taking more than 20 days, the risk of delays in
scheduling hearings increases. As a result, appeals may not be heard within a
reasonable time frame, thus delaying a decision.
In our fourth recommendation, on page 158, we
recommend the Saskatchewan Municipal Board periodically analyze key stages of
its property assessment and planning and development appeal process to
determine actions needed to address delays.
On a quarterly basis, the Municipal Board Chair
monitors the status of property assessment appeals. On an annual basis, the
Municipal Board assesses and summarizes the status of planning appeals. We
found the Municipal Board is tracking decision status, and it is meeting its 60‑day
target for issuing a decision after a hearing is completed over 90 per cent of
the time. However delays are occurring before a hearing is held.
We found the Municipal Board does not analyze
other key stages of the appeal process, like case management or scheduling, to
determine whether appeals progress as expected. The Municipal Board has set
expected time frames for key stages in the appeal process. For example it
expects case management to take 20 days, as I previously mentioned; scheduling
to take seven days; and the whole appeal process from notice of appeal to
hearing decision to take approximately 200 days.
For the nine appeals we tested — seven
assessment appeals and two planning appeals — we found instances where appeals
were taking longer than expected at key stages. Without periodically analyzing
its key stages in the appeal process, the Municipal Board may be unable to
determine whether it needs to take action, for example providing additional
training, hiring staff, or improving IT systems to address any issues causing
those delays.
In our fifth recommendation, on page 159, we
recommend the Saskatchewan Municipal Board publicly report information about
the status of property assessment appeals.
Each year, the Municipal Board reports various
statistics with trend information in its annual report. We found the statistics
reported in its annual report consistent with other jurisdictions, other than
the Municipal Board does not include a summary of the status of the assessment
appeals at various stages, such as case management, hearing to be scheduled, or
hearing scheduled. We found it only provides us information for planning
appeals.
Periodic reporting of all key appeal
information would increase the transparency of the Municipal Board’s processes
and decisions and keep the public better informed about efforts occurring to
provide timely and supported appeal decisions.
I’ll now pause for the committee’s
consideration.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, thank you very much for the focus of the chapter and the new
recommendations before us. I’ll turn it over to Chair Boyko for brief remarks,
and then we’ll open it up for questions.
I also want to thank the Municipal Board for
the status update that’s been prepared and the actions that are reflected
there. I’ll table that document right now: PAC 106‑30, Saskatchewan
Municipal Board: Status update, dated October 13th, 2026.
I’ll kick it over to Chair Boyko for some brief
remarks, and we’ll go from there.
Chad Boyko: — Well good morning. The auditor’s
report identified 13 audit criteria associated with appeal and tribunal good
practices relating to the appeals framework, conducting of impartial and timely
hearings, and monitoring the performance of the appeal process.
In summary the auditor’s report found that the
SMB [Saskatchewan Municipal Board] operates with transparency, professionalism,
competence, and timeliness. Specifically the auditor noted the SMB provides
parties to appeals with ready access to information on the appeal process, that
it’s clear and easy to understand, our staff are qualified and professional,
communication regarding process is provided in a timely manner, written
decisions are rationalized, and in general the SMB processes align with good
practices.
Overall the SMB operates to ensure parties to
appeals have a fair and transparent resolution to the issues before us. Of the
13 audit criteria, the auditor has noted eight areas where the SMB is fully
compliant and, as you just heard, made five recommendations to enhance the
operations of the organization.
These observations arise in the context of a
significant increase in the volume of appeals, many complex, involving millions
of dollars in disputed assessment values adjudicated by the SMB in recent
years. For example total appeals increased from 1,434 during the 2017 to 2020
assessment period to 2,519 from 2021 to 2024. Last year, in 2025, we processed
1,443 appeals in one year, almost double the number of appeals processed during
the first year of the 2021 assessment cycle.
To address the recommendations made by the
Provincial Auditor, the SMB approved an internal plan to align with a full
adoption of remedial measures. We have completed our action plan to address the
identified deficiencies and are reporting full compliance to the auditor and
this committee.
I can walk you through the document we’ve
provided, or I can address your questions now.
Chair Wotherspoon: — That’s
great. Yeah, thanks again and thanks for the actions that have been taken and
reported to us that have implemented the recommendations. Let’s open it up to
committee members now for questions, and then we’ll go from there. MLA
Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Thank you and welcome. What procedures have you put in place to ensure the more
regular updating of the guidance and manuals? And is there a maximum interval
between reviews for any required updates?
Chad Boyko: — We have undertaken a full review of
the policy and procedure manual, which was reviewed and adopted by our board.
And that was undertaken and led by Ms. Murdoch and her team. Now there had been
a gap on that. Well that’s recently completed.
We will look to what reasonable best practice
would be to, you know, continue to review and update policy, I would think, on
kind of a . . . will occur as necessary. But you know, certainly
legislative changes would initiate a review if there’s something that impacts
the policies. So that would precipitate the review; otherwise I think maybe a
biannual review if there’s nothing specific that initiates that process. But
for example if there’s a change to The Cities Act that impacts our
appeal processes, we would have to immediately make that change along the
lines.
Joan Pratchler: — So
biannually unless something else precipitates something more emergent?
Chad Boyko: — Yes.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — We’ll just
announce as well there’s a pretty big trade that’s gone on with the Public
Accounts Committee here today. It appears for the rest of the day MLA Kropf
will be substituting for MLA Keisig. That’s for the rest of the day? All right.
That’s future considerations here, eh. Okay, good.
I’ll kick it back over to MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
I notice in the first recommendation that things needed to be updated in
references to the GTH [Global Transportation Hub] and other updates, I’m sure.
Are any large-scale data centres referenced in any of the new legislative
changes?
Chad Boyko: — Not that would be under our
jurisdiction that we’re aware of at this time.
Joan Pratchler: — Now
talking a little bit more about declared conflicts of interest with regards to,
you know, your meetings and things like that, have there been any conflicts of
interest declared lately regarding data centres at all?
Chad Boyko: — No, we haven’t had any appeals
relating to data centres at this time.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you. I’m wondering if you
could share with the committee what the current median timeline of case
management broken down by assessment appeals and planning appeals is? What
percentage of cases in the last year have taken under 20 days, and what’s the
longest current timeline of a case? And what appeal that may be, what type?
Chad Boyko: —To have the granular detail, I’m not
sure I would have that, but I can maybe provide you a broad overview of the
process. And just with respect to the case management, and we do acknowledge
the Provincial Auditor’s comments, but just to provide a little context on
that, any delays that came out of case management — while we certainly did need
to memorialize those, I think, better — any of those delays would have been due
to a participant in the process requesting a delay.
We are moving our appeals through as we get
them. Currently, even with that large volume of assessment appeals, as we get
them in we process them. We move them to case management, and within 14 to 20
days they are scheduled because we are currently current with both the PAC
[planning appeals committee] and the assessment appeals.
So you know, I would say that everything that
we are dealing with is within those guidelines at this time, and anything that
wasn’t previously was . . . For example, in a planning appeal you’d
have maybe, you know, a party that’s going away for the winter asking us if
they could have a couple months of delay, postponement while they’re on
vacation, those sorts of things. Because we have been moving them forward to
scheduling as received and processed.
Hugh Gordon: — Just as quick follow-up on that,
maybe you touched on the answer to my next question which is, well what are
some of the reasons then for, although perhaps undocumented, as to why appeals
cases were not dealt with in a timely matter? What were some of
the . . .
Chad Boyko: — That would really be it. Some
appeals, you know, would be more complex to deal with in a case management
standpoint that maybe take more time for what we call the record book to get
through, and all the documentation we might be waiting for for the lower
. . . We deal with appeals from a lower board. Perhaps there was a
delay there to get it to us. But our case managers, once they receive them, are
moving them forward unless the parties to an appeal aren’t available to meet
with them. So that’s basically the only delays.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — What’s the
current percentage of decisions appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal?
How does that compare to last year? What trends have you observed over the past
five years?
Chad Boyko: — We have 19 total appeals at the end
of 2025. So do that math out of 1,400-and-some. I mean the Court of Appeal has
shown an interest in municipal law over the last few years. They’ve provided us
some direction that is useful for us certainly in applying to our appeals.
Joan Pratchler: — And what
trends have you observed in the last five years in terms of cases being
referred to the appeal court?
Chad Boyko: — In the sense of specific issues that
would be appealed or . . .
Joan Pratchler: — You’d know
your trends. I’m just wondering, are you seeing a pattern?
Chad Boyko: — Well I mean in the sense you have 19
out of almost 1,500. Trends, you know, they are all for the most part
assessment appeals. There’s been very few planning appeals. There’s one in the
last five years, which provided some excellent direction with respect to the
standard of review to be applied by the planning appeals committee.
Joan Pratchler: — Good.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Yes, my question is with respect to
analysis. Your update on recommendation 4 on page 158 mentions that you’re
receiving monthly updates, but it doesn’t appear to provide details in your
update as to what actual kind of analysis is being done.
Can you tell the committee what analysis gets
done with respect to periodically analyzing the key stages of its appeal
process to determine action on delays? And if you could also discuss if there
are any escalation measures that are identified or required when the analysis
gets done.
Chad Boyko: — Ms. Murdoch will respond to that
question.
Brandee Murdoch: — For the
most part that analysis is timelines. It’s days, it’s how long they’ve been
sitting. So if you look on our website, it breaks down where the appeals are in
the process and how many are sitting there in the days.
[10:45]
That was always provided to our key
stakeholders — you know, SAMA [Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency], SUMA
[Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association], SARM [Saskatchewan Association
of Rural Municipalities]. And now it’s provided publicly on our website at the
recommendation of the auditor, and it’s done monthly instead of quarterly.
So you know, the other part of it is we’ve been
looking at how we categorize because we did put a lot of appeals in case
management, and that’s where we put them. But you know, when the auditor came
in and spoke with us, we realized that we needed more like categories because
there could be a case management hold. You know, there are properties that come
in, due to the volume, that a property may be at the Court of Appeal. And we
won’t handle the next year appeal on that until we hear it from the court, right,
because the grounds could be similar. They’re preserving their right to appeal.
So we have started categorizing a little bit
more accurately like which ones are on hold. And again they might be on hold
because they’ve asked to be on hold or just a joint recommendation that we put
it on hold until we have, you know, that court decision come in. Is that
helpful?
Hugh Gordon: — Yeah. I was just wondering like
maybe there doesn’t need much analysis if some of the delays are associated
only in particular causes you’ve mentioned.
Chad Boyko: — And I should have mentioned, as just
a follow-up on what Ms. Murdoch is stating, that the majority of the appeals
that are on hold with us are on hold pending a Court of Appeal decision because
there’ll be implications from that decision that should be applied. And that’s
based on the agreement of the parties.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Could you
explain why the board did not previously report publicly on the assessment
appeals? Or is it a decision or an oversight?
Chad Boyko: — I think it
was reported annually. And as Ms. Murdoch said, we were reporting regularly to
our stakeholders that were most impacted. I guess there was just maybe not
enough thought given to publicly put it on our website, which certainly we are
now doing. Yeah.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Any further questions? Not seeing any, so we have the five recommendations
before us. We’ve heard the actions that have been taken to implement all five
of them. I would welcome a motion to concur and note compliance with
recommendations 1 through 5.
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson. All agreed?
Some Hon.
Members:
— Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— That’s carried. Okay, well listen, I’d give Chair Boyko, Director Murdoch,
thanks for your time here today. Thanks to all those as well that have been
involved in the work that’s reflected here today. Chair Boyko, do you have any
final remarks for us before we shift gears?
Chad Boyko: — Just briefly I would state that
beyond the numbers, the quantitative numbers that are reflected in the
auditor’s work, I think also that if there was a survey of our stakeholders —
for example, SAMA, property agents, participants in our process — I think you
would get some positive feedback on the qualitative nature of our decisions,
the decision writing, I think.
We’ve heard from our stakeholders that that’s
improved over the number of years. We’ve put a lot of work into the quality of
our decisions as well, so I think that’s really the last comment I’d make.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— That’s great. Well, thanks for sharing that. Thanks for your time this
morning. We’ll briefly recess and bring before us the Ministry of Government
Relations for the chapters that are focused on them.
[The committee recessed for a period of time.]
Government Relations
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, folks, we’ll reconvene the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and
we’re going to turn our attention to the Ministry of Government Relations. I’d
like to welcome Deputy Minister Wilby for joining us here today along with an
official. DM Wilby can briefly introduce your official. Refrain from getting
into the chapter right now. We’ll take it over to the auditor and then come
back your way.
Drew Wilby: — Sounds
good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you indicated, I’m Drew Wilby, deputy minister
of Government Relations and deputy minister of First Nations, Métis and
Northern Affairs. I have with me today ADM
[assistant deputy minister] Dan French, who is our assistant deputy responsible
for municipal relations in the province.
Chair Wotherspoon: — And
coach of the U15 [under 15] Walleye.
Drew
Wilby: — That’s
correct, sir. Yes.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay,
I’m going to turn it over to the Provincial Auditor to present there on the
chapter, and then we’ll come back your way.
Tara Clemett: — Thank you. Mr. Chair, Deputy Chair,
committee members, and officials, with me today is Mr. Trevor St. John, and
he’s the deputy provincial auditor that is responsible for the audits at
Government Relations. Behind me as well is Ms. Michelle Lindenbach, and she’s
our liaison with the committee.
This presentation includes a status update on outstanding
recommendations that the committee has previously agreed to, and we are pleased
to see that all the outstanding recommendations are now fully addressed. I do
want to thank the deputy minister and his staff for the co-operation that was
extended to us during our work.
And with that I will flip it over to Trevor.
Trevor St. John: — Thanks.
The Ministry of Government Relations is responsible for providing safe drinking
water to Saskatchewan’s northern settlements. The ministry owns and operates
drinking water systems in five settlements and obtains water for two
settlements through contracts with First Nations communities.
Chapter 13 of our 2026 report volume 1 reports the results of
our fifth follow-up on the Ministry of Government Relations processes to
provide safe drinking water to seven northern settlements. We originally made
10 recommendations in 2012, and by January 2024 eight had been implemented. By
January 2026 the Ministry of Government Relations implemented the remaining two
recommendations.
The ministry implemented the recommendation on page 173 where we
recommended the ministry take prompt action to address problems in providing
safe drinking water to northern settlements. As of February 2026 the Water
Security Agency had rescinded the long-standing drinking water advisory for the
northern settlement of Uranium City, and there were no emergency boil-water
orders or precautionary drinking water advisories in place for the seven
northern settlements. Taking corrective action to resolve drinking water
quality issues is essential to ensure the safety of water consumed by northern
settlement residents.
The ministry also implemented the recommendation on page 174
where we recommended the ministry consistently carry out all required
maintenance for its water systems. The ministry uses various processes to
supervise maintenance of the five ministry-owned and -operated water systems as
well as the two water systems operated by First Nations communities.
We found the ministry continued to contract a third-party
infrastructure management consultant to review the maintenance records, advise
on maintenance expectations, and supervise water systems for each water system.
And since our last follow-up the ministry started tracking maintenance
information in an IT system. We found 92 per cent of the required maintenance
activities were completed.
Properly monitoring completion of maintenance
reduces the risk that water quality and supply to northern settlements could be
adversely affected.
I’ll now pause for the committee’s
consideration.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, thank you. Thanks very much for the presentation and the follow-up work
on this front. This was originally presented in 2012, of course, as a chapter,
considered by us in 2014. We’ve had follow-ups since then and some actions that
have been taken. I’ll kick it over to DM Wilby for brief remarks. Then we’ll
open it up for questions.
And I guess before we do that, maybe I’ll just
thank you for the status update, or your officials. And I’ll table status
update PAC 107‑30, Ministry of Government Relations: Status update, dated
October 13th, 2026. DM Wilby.
Drew Wilby: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you,
committee, for having us here today. Obviously a big thanks to the auditor and
her staff for the work that they do in helping us conduct our business and move
through and holding us accountable as well for a lot of those pieces.
You know, firstly I would say these chapters
have been on the books since 2012. That’s far too long, but very happy that
we’ve seen them fully implemented now and, you know, can present today on how
that played out and where that went. A very important piece, providing that
water up in our northern settlements.
And you know, as I became deputy minister of
Government Relations, learning about how the northern Saskatchewan
administration district works and the work of northern municipal services
within the ministry and the interaction between the local First Nation
communities, the settlements, as well as the incorporated towns, villages, and
hamlets in the North as well, there’s been quite a fascinating learning curve
for me.
So you know, I’ll open it up to any questions
the committee may have obviously, and we look forward to providing responses
accordingly.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Thank you. Open it up to committee members that may have questions. I see MLA
Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. You’ve
submitted that the water advisory in Uranium City, which was under an emergency
boil water order since 2015, has been lifted due to the installation of the
potable water bottle fill station. Can you describe the size and the
application of that water fill station?
Drew Wilby: — Well certainly, and thanks for the
question. I appreciate that. We’re happy that that boil water advisory has been
lifted, of course, and that there is that water available in Uranium City.
And Uranium City’s a fascinating concept that
you’ve got. It’s a community that was really built for 50,000 that now has
about 50 people in it, and so some interesting infrastructure pieces. And I was
talking to our executive director up there this morning, who had a true
Saskatchewan experience where a bear attacked his garbage. So he was a little
bit late getting to our briefing but thought that was, you know, sort of
perfect and par for the course.
[11:00]
He says the system that’s in place there — that
was in place — was actually a clay tile-based system. As well it’s got iron
piping, and so you can imagine the holes and also the clay tile and how that
can basically fall apart and not function. And so, you know, a lot of decisions
were conducted to figure out what a cost-effective alternative was to a full
rebuild of that system.
And so what they’ve moved to is a distribution
piece where it’s a smaller bottle fill station in essence. And so when I asked
him to describe it, I said, so when I go to my local Co-op and I take my
five-gallon jug, is that in essence what’s set up? He said, yeah, basically in
short that’s where it is, or if I’m out at the lake and I head into Miller’s in
Riverhurst to fill my jug so I’ve got portable water.
And so the water continues to flow for hygienic
purposes to those areas of Uranium City where it’s required. They’ve shut it
off to the other areas, but that bottle fill station is available to those
members of the community that live there and give them a clean drinking water
source.
From there obviously we have technicians that
go up and take a look to make sure that it’s functioning appropriately, to make
sure that the proper testing is done on that, that are under the authority of
our public works manager that works for northern municipal services out of La
Ronge.
Hugh Gordon: — Just as a follow-up on that water
fill station, I was wondering if you could tell us what the expected usage of
that station is. How much traffic do you expect the fill station to handle?
Drew Wilby: — Yeah, great question. I mean
obviously with about 50 members of the community right now, we believe it’s
equipped to deal with that on an ongoing basis. You know, we continue to look
at the proper maintenance on it and what that may do. It is in a fully weather
sustainable — well that’s tough to say for Saskatchewan — but at this point in
time, weather sustainable shop that’s there. So it’s insulated, one of the few
buildings that we do have that we’re able to provide that in. So again it’s
able to be looked after in that way. It does fill the equivalent of a
five-gallon jug at any given time. And of course you can fill multiples as
well.
So we believe that it is in place to deal with
the load that the community currently would put on it. I would love to say, you
know, if the community was to grow we would be able to accommodate that,
although I’m not sure Uranium City is growing at this point in time. But we’ll
see what happens down the road and just make sure that we’re adjusting
accordingly as we need to.
Hugh Gordon: — So on that point then, you feel like
there’s adequate water in that capacity to meet the needs of these 50 community
members?
Drew Wilby: — At this point in time, yes, I’m
confident saying that.
Hugh Gordon: — What’s the maintenance cycle for a
fill station like this?
Drew Wilby: — So the maintenance cycle, we would
look at that at least twice a year, if not more often, to be able to go through
and make sure that all the checks and balances are on that.
In terms of an official breakdown of what the
maintenance cycle is, I don’t have that on me at this point in time, Member,
but if I could provide that to you, I’d be happy to bring that back to the
committee and lay out what that is. I’d like to vet it through the experts
before I go off cuff and say something that I probably shouldn’t, if that’s all
right.
Hugh Gordon: — No, I appreciate that. And you know,
we’d be happy to accommodate, give you adequate time to provide that at a later
date. That’d be good. I don’t know if you could include in that some answer to
my next question, which is the cost associated to the maintenance of this water
fill station.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Maybe I’ll just stop you there, MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Yeah.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Thanks for that and the undertaking as well to get the information back. Is
it reasonable to supply that information to those questions that were posed
within a month’s time to this committee?
Drew Wilby: — Not a problem, Mr. Chair. You know,
and just on the cost piece if I could, you know, in terms of what the cost of
the maintenance is, the replacement for the waterworks out there would have
been about $10 million. So we believe that this was a good cost-effective
alternative. And I’ll bring back those costs accordingly for the maintenance
cycle and what that looks like.
Hugh Gordon: — Fair enough. So, sorry, did I
understand that system costs about 10 million?
Drew Wilby: — That would have been the full
replacement if we were to replace the waterworks that’s currently in place.
Hugh Gordon: — Right.
Drew Wilby: — So in terms of the bottle fill, it’s
much cheaper than that as a cost-effective alternative that continues to
provide drinking water as well as the hygienic purposes as well.
Hugh Gordon: — Right. Were there any other
recommendations other than the water fill station and complete replacement to
address this issue?
Drew Wilby: — At this point it was to provide that
drinking water into Uranium City, which of course we have now done, so we
believe that that’s implemented the chapter as a whole.
Hugh Gordon: — I guess, sorry, let me clarify. Were
there any other options that were considered other than the water fill station?
Drew Wilby: — I understand. Sorry about that. We
did look at minimizing the size of the system to any of those that were living
there, which we did on the hygienic side, and just determined that the amount
of chlorine that would be needed in order to, you know, continue to make that
potable as well, the work with those clay tiles and that iron system wouldn’t
make sense to do the upkeep on it to bring that back to a potable standard.
They did look at a variety of different options and settled on the bottle fill
station as being the most cost-effective option that got water into the
community and made sure that there was that drinking water source available for
those residents there.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — So I
understand that this is a singular station. What’s the backup plan if it fails?
Drew Wilby: — Their backup plan if it fails
obviously would have, you know, a tech be able to travel into the area to look
after that and make sure that it was back up and running. And we would look to
commit to doing that, I mean, as quickly as we possibly could.
In terms of sort of a business continuity model
to make sure that there’s water there, there’s a variety of options, you know —
sending water up into the community for a short gap until we’re able to fix
that, as well as other options. But we’re confident in the system that’s there
and its ability to continue to operate.
Joan Pratchler: — Backup is
really important even for an interim. If it went down today, how long would it
take for them to get water?
Drew Wilby: — In terms of the system as it is, it
would be dependent upon getting the tech there and whatever maintenance might
need to be provided on that system. In terms of getting water into the
community, I mean it would be the availability of moving that via, you know,
however we’re going to move that — likely by plane — into the area.
You know, in terms of that full continuity plan
and backup, again, I could commit to bringing that back to the committee and
what that looks like. But I know the work of northern municipal services,
that’s something they do on an ongoing basis to make sure that those pieces are
in place.
Joan Pratchler: — I think
that’s really important. If you could provide that, that would be great. So do
I understand they have drinking water, and they have what we would call
hygienic water? So they have both of those comes from that one spot? Or can you
clarify? I’m not quite sure on that picture.
Drew Wilby: — No, absolutely. The hygienic water —
so that would be used for bathing, showering, and those purposes — comes from
the original waterworks that’s in the community. And so it’s transported
through a piping system from the waterworks to the houses. And then from there,
obviously because that’s not consumable from a potable perspective, we have a
shop system that’s in a similar location to the initial waterworks that houses
the bottle fill station for the local residents.
Joan Pratchler: — And now
the priority, you know, when an emergency happens, would be to have potable
water. What’s the backup for the hygienic water?
Drew Wilby: — For the hygienic water, I mean
obviously we would go up and look and try and fix that system. In terms of an
immediate backup, because of the remote location of Uranium City, it’s
difficult, obviously, to get an immediate backup system in place. I mean in
Regina if it occurs, obviously we’ll take up trailers of water — not take up,
but take out to a local neighbourhood — which of course we don’t want to have
happen, but sometimes happens. And so we would look at those options as well
for the community that’s there.
As part of that report back I can also check to
see if there’s been history of that, and if we do have some examples, you know,
what the length of that was and how that looks.
Joan Pratchler: — Yeah, I
think that’s really important because of the situation. The backup, having it
ready to go when water’s out, is important regardless of whether it’s in urban
or remote.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Just a question on that system that you have there, just for understanding.
So are you pulling that, then, just from the watershed, from the lake and then
treating it? Or is that a well system, or what’s going on there?
Dan French: —Hi. Dan French, ADM for municipal
relations. It’s our understanding it’s a well system. But to Drew’s point
earlier, it wasn’t feasible to rebuild it as is. So that’s where the potable
water filling station came about, but the well system is still being used for
non-potable.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— And the well itself is then treated and that supplies the potable water? Is
that how that system works?
Dan French: — I couldn’t confirm that at this
moment. We’ll have to add that to the list as well.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Sure. Thanks. I’ll kick it back over to MLA Pratchler. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Sorry, I have to wait for the Chair
to get permission. Sorry, I’m a little eager, Mr. Chair.
In reference to the recommendation on page 174
regarding the necessity of seamless and continuous maintenance by the ministry
of all water systems it’s responsible for, what exactly have you changed in
your practices since this recommendation was made?
Drew Wilby: — We have a public works manager hired
within northern municipal services. That public works manager used to work for
the city of Saskatoon, so obviously fully trained on water operation systems
and certifications and the such. Outside of that we do have some staff that are
able to go and able to provide that maintenance as well, as well as the
certification and making sure that things are up and running.
We do have contracts with local First Nations
in places too, where there may be a shared service model or the local First
Nation may have a certified operator that’s employed, and we’re able to utilize
that and contract their services.
And then we also have third party too. We have
third-party service delivery where we can go and we can contract with them to
look at those, again the certifications and the maintenance piece, and make
sure that they’re intact.
Hugh Gordon: — Go ahead.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — I see on
page 172 that the Ministry of Government Relations . . . or pardon
me, five ministry-owned water systems. How long has the ministry been
responsible for these systems?
Dan French: — Yeah. We don’t have those answers
right now, but we can certainly . . . Like our executive director has
been there since 2012, the year this audit started, and so those systems have
been there prior to that.
Joan Pratchler: — Just in
follow-up, if the ministry has been responsible for those systems that long,
why did it take an auditor’s report and recommendation to incite change in the
way the systems are looked at?
Drew Wilby: — I believe, you know, that work is
constantly ongoing in terms of looking at the systems and how they operate,
making sure those certifications are in place. That system we referenced from
Uranium City was originally put in the ground in the 1950s, and so, you know,
operating that on a continuous basis with the technology that was there in the
1950s compared to where we are now. You know, it’s safe to say the ministry has
looked at the operations. It’s not just all of sudden in 2012 that this was brought
to light.
But I would say that this is the strength of
working with the auditor. When they come in, they take a different lens. They
take a different look and ensure that there’s that accountability there, which
we really appreciate from our perspective, and so being able to work with the
recommendations and move through that. And it helps us . . . I don’t
want to use the word “business” because providing water isn’t business, but it
helps us with the work that we do, ensuring that we’re on, you know, the
appropriate track and that things that maybe we aren’t looking at are brought
to light. And again why we’re here today, that public accountability piece for
some of our northern residents is very, very important.
So I wouldn’t say that the ministry hasn’t
looked at it at all since some of those works were put in the ground in the
1950s and 1960s. But again it just sheds a different light and provides that
higher level of accountability that I think is important for the people of
northern Saskatchewan, the taxpayers of the province.
Joan Pratchler: — It’s true.
Many of our team have been up north over the past summer, and water is just one
of many, many challenges. So that’s why we . . . Priority. Thanks.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — In the case of Bear Creek and
Brabant Lake, has there been any discussion on changing the practice of
trucking water in to the residents’ homes to a more modern delivery system?
Dan French: — Yeah. So for Bear Creek, repairs
were made to the community well in 2021, and the water and sewer system
currently is being assessed now. There are many projects either in the design
phase or the concept phase — and one of them is Bear Creek — about determining
what the future and the improvements that are required for Bear Creek.
Hugh Gordon: — And Brabant Lake?
Dan French: — Sorry?
Hugh Gordon: — And the same for Brabant Lake?
Dan French: — Yes. So yeah, in 2022 wells were
drilled. In 2023 the control systems in the treatment plants were upgraded. And
again a new water system assessment is currently being planned through
municipal northern services.
Hugh Gordon: — Do you have a diary date for those
systems once they’ve been . . . when they’ll be completed?
Dan French: — Well the systems . . . No,
we don’t. No, we don’t. We have kind of an outline of funding, but we have no
specific dates at this moment.
Hugh Gordon: — Fair enough. Can you share with the
committee today what’s the cost to the people of Bear Lake to have their water
trucked in to their homes by the ministry, versus Brabant Lake’s residents who,
according to a report, are made to hire a private company to provide the same
service your ministry provides to Bear Creek?
Drew Wilby: — So I think what’s important to note
with those northern settlements is that the governance structure for them falls
to northern municipal services, which is the ministry operation. And so those
costs will be borne through the Northern Municipal Trust Account as well as
through the work of northern municipal services.
[11:15]
Obviously when we look at these pieces, we’re
looking for, you know, that safe provision in a cost-effective means that makes
sense across the board. So in terms again of the cost that’s being borne,
that’s being borne out of the northern municipal services budget.
Hugh Gordon: — Okay, thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Any further questions for folks? Not seeing any at this time. Thanks for the
action taken to implement this recommendation and for the time here today. I’d
welcome a motion to conclude consideration of chapter 13.
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson. All agreed?
Some Hon.
Members:
— Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— That’s carried. Thanks again to you both as officials for being here and all
those involved in this important work. DM Wilby, do you have any final remarks
for us before we send you packing?
Drew Wilby: — You know, I would just say thank you
to the auditor again. Thank you to the committee for the great questions and
for the structure here today. And just thanks to those hard-working folks in La
Ronge and our northern municipal services shop. They’re doing this work. You
know, being up in La Ronge this summer and seeing the work they do, it’s pretty
impressive, canvassing everything north of the northern Saskatchewan
administration district line.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Thank you very much, and thanks to those all that are involved in this work.
Thanks for your time here today. And we’ll take a brief recess as a committee
before we bring before us the Public Service Commission.
[The committee recessed for a period of time.]
Public Service Commission
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, good
morning. We’ll reconvene the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and turn our
attention to the Public Service Commission and chapter 11 that the auditor has
focused on.
I’d like to introduce and welcome all the
officials that have joined us here today, Chair Csada that’s joined us along
with her officials and her team. I’d invite her to briefly introduce the
officials that have joined her here today, and then I’ll refrain from getting
into the chapter right now. I’ll go over to the auditor and then come back your
way for that.
Brittany Csada: — Okay,
sure. Good morning. Thank you. Appearing with me today on behalf of the Public
Service Commission we have Claudia Burke, assistant Chair; Amanda Mullan,
executive director of our talent branch; and Kendra LaHaye, executive director
of the employee well-being and inclusion area. Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay,
excellent. I’m going to turn it over to the Provincial Auditor to make their
presentation.
Tara Clemett: —
So thank you, Mr. Chair, Deputy Chair, committee members, and officials. With
me today is Mr. Trevor St. John, and he’s the deputy provincial auditor that is
responsible for the audits at the Public Service Commission. This presentation
includes a status update on outstanding recommendations that this committee has
previously agreed to. I do want to thank the Chair and her staff for the
co-operation that was extended to us during our work. With that, I’ll turn it
over to Trevor.
Trevor St. John: — Thank you.
The Public Service Commission is responsible for working with ministries on
workplace, workforce management, and supporting the delivery of services such
as payroll; staffing and classification; and strategic support, including
labour relations and organizational development. The commission also works with
ministries to support workplace diversity and inclusion. In 2023‑24 the
commission had 289 full-time equivalent positions in Regina and Saskatoon, with
a total budget of 34 million.
Chapter 11 of our 2025 report volume 1 reports
the results of our first follow-up on Public Service Commission’s processes to
advance workplace diversity and inclusion in ministries. We made six
recommendations in 2022. By November 2024 the Public Service Commission
implemented one of the six recommendations.
The commission implemented the recommendation
on page 137, where we recommended the commission modernize the employment
equity policy to align with good practice. The revised policy, now called the
employment equity, diversity, and inclusion policy, includes a section for key
definitions and sets out clear roles and responsibilities for the commission as
well as ministries.
Research on good practice and consultation with
a variety of interested parties appropriately informed the key definitions. The
commission utilized the corporate inclusion community of practice, which meets
six times a year, to educate ministries on the updated policy.
The commission did not implement the
recommendation on page 138, where we recommended the commission set clear
indicators for measuring progress in a time frame for its inclusion strategy.
The commission last updated its inclusion strategy in 2021, which lacked clear
indicators and targets for measuring success related to key diversity and
inclusion goals and objectives, like employee satisfaction scores by designated
groups or the number of self-declarations from new hires. The commission
expected to update its inclusion strategy during 2025‑26.
The absence of clear indicators for measuring
progress of key diversity and inclusion strategies can make it difficult to
hold the commission and ministries accountable for results and increases the
risk that strategies may not be working as intended.
The commission partially implemented the
recommendation on page 139, where we recommended the commission expand its
inclusion tool kit to embed diversity and inclusion concepts consistent with
good practice. The commission made some amendments to its inclusion tool kit
between September 2022 and November 2024. The inclusion tool kit is intended to
support ministry managers with embedding diversity and inclusion in their
workplaces.
However the commission had yet to update its
inclusion tool kit to align with the definition it now uses in its updated
employment equity, diversity, and inclusion policy previously mentioned. Also
it had yet to expand other key areas of the tool kit we expected in our 2022
audit, such as additional Indigenous-related content, content on accessibility
and neurodiversity, and case studies on bias. Without sufficient content in its
inclusion tool kit, ministries may be less likely to achieve key diversity and
inclusion goals and initiatives.
The commission partially implemented the
recommendation on page 140, where we recommended the commission monitor
ministry diversity and inclusion plans and progress reports to help ministries
increase diversity and inclusion in their workplaces. The corporate inclusion
community of practice provides direction and a community for all 18 ministries
to learn and share tools, practices, ideas, and resources related to inclusion.
The number of annual diversity and inclusion
plans received by the commission from the ministries did increase from four in
2023‑24 to six in 2024‑25. However the commission had yet to
receive a diversity inclusion plan as of November 2024 from the majority, or 67
per cent, of the ministries it oversees.
We found the commission also continued to lack
a structured process to collect and assess any progress reports or to provide
formal feedback to ministries. The commission gave no formal feedback to the
ministries that provided diversity and inclusion plans. The commission had yet
to establish formal guidance, for example a template, for the annual ministry
diversity and inclusion plans.
We assessed each of the plans received by the
commission during the year and found they lacked consistency. Without a
consistent method or process to analyze ministry diversity and inclusion plans
and reports, the commission cannot sufficiently monitor the effectiveness of
diversity and inclusion initiatives across ministries and may not identify or
offer sufficient support to ministries where challenges appear to exist.
The commission did not implement the two
recommendations on page 141, where we recommended the commission sufficiently
analyze diversity and inclusion data to identify and address risks that may
prevent ministries from achieving cross-ministerial diversity and inclusion
goals, and to implement a written policy for reporting diversity and inclusion
results to its senior management and to the public to demonstrate
accountability and commitment for workplace diversity and inclusion.
The commission was waiting on the development
of the new payroll and HR [human resources] system for a more robust process to
analyze diversity data. As a result, the commission performed limited analysis
each year related to diversity and inclusion data consistent with our original
audit findings.
At November 2024 the commission continued to
use employee data to obtain the percentage of ministry employees who
self-declared as Indigenous, persons with disabilities, members of visible
minorities, or women in middle or senior management. We found it consistently
provided semi-annual reports on these statistics to the commission senior
management. For the first time, the commission’s ’23‑24 public annual
report included the five-year trend.
[11:30]
The commission’s internal analysis and
reporting still did not routinely analyze hiring or retention rates of
designated groups or use exit interviews to gather additional information that
may indicate issues.
The commission’s annual report did not provide
any targets for the public to determine whether the commission was successful
in achieving its diversity and inclusion goals. Good practice suggests the
commission should publicly report meaningful indicators for diversity and
inclusion goals such as progress towards Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission
targets and trends in retention and survey satisfaction results of employees
belonging to designated groups compared to all employees. Having, analyzing, and
reporting progress towards specific targets helps provide clear expectations
and direction, and enables appropriate assessment of progress.
I’ll now pause for the committee’s
consideration.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, thanks very much for the presentation, the follow-up on this front.
This all stems from the 2022 report of course, and we’ve had this considered
and heard before our committee before. I’ll kick it over to Chair Csada in a
moment here.
I’ll table at this point PAC 108‑30,
Public Service Commission, Status update, dated October 13th, 2026. And thank
you to you and your officials, all those that were involved in the work
reflected in that status update.
Chair Csada, feel free to provide some brief
remarks and then we’ll open it up to the committee for questions.
Brittany Csada: — Thank you.
The Public Service Commission appreciates the work of the Provincial Auditor
and we particularly value the collaborative working relationship that we have
with the auditor’s office throughout the process. The recommendations have
helped guide our efforts and strengthen how we support ministries in building
representative and inclusive workplaces across government.
Since the follow-up audit, our focus has been
on strengthening the foundations needed for long-term success. One of the most
significant advancements has been the implementation of the GEM [government
enterprise management] system. This system now provides senior leaders with
expanded workforce data and reporting capabilities. These enhancements will
provide leaders with greater visibility into representation across diversity
groups, strengthen our ability to identify opportunities, and measure progress.
I’ll now share some of the progress made
towards the recommendations. Regarding the recommendation to set clear
indicators for measuring progress and a time frame for the inclusion strategy,
this recommendation is partially implemented. Since the follow-up audit in
November of 2025, we transitioned from an annual inclusion action plan to a
three-year inclusion action plan with annual review and enhanced measures of
progress.
The inclusion action plan, which is guided by
the inclusion strategy, sets a framework to outline the priorities for the
Public Service Commission and for ministries across government. The plan
focuses on four themes including inspiring accountability at all levels;
improving intercultural competence through awareness, education, and training;
enhancing talent attraction processes and tools; and creating an inclusive and
supportive workplace for all employees.
Within each theme, the plan establishes clear
goals, timelines, and measures to support implementation and monitor progress.
This approach provides greater consistency and accountability while ensuring
that priorities remain aligned with the evolving needs of the public service.
On June 1st of 2026 the GEM system was
implemented, providing enhanced access to workforce indicators, including
self-declaration, hiring, promotion, and separation information. These
enhancements represent a significant step forward in our ability to understand
workforce trends and measure progress. As we are in the early stages of GEM
implementation and learning to use the new system, we will continue building
capacity and refining reporting approaches for measuring progress, and we
anticipate full implementation by the end of the fiscal year. In addition, we
are planning for review of the inclusion strategy in the 2027‑28 fiscal
year.
Regarding the recommendation that the Public
Service Commission expand its inclusion tool kit to embed diversity and
inclusion concepts consistent with good practice, we consider this
recommendation partially implemented. We continue to enhance the inclusion tool
kit to provide employees and leaders with practical resources that support
inclusive workplace practices. Throughout 2025‑26, the tool kit was
updated to refresh existing content, improve functionality, and expand content
in alignment with the recommendations. Additional content will be added to the
tool kit, and we anticipate full implementation of this recommendation by the
end of the fiscal year.
Regarding the recommendation that the Public
Service Commission monitor ministry diversity and inclusion plans and progress
reports, we consider this recommendation implemented.
In ’25‑26 a standardized inclusion plan
template was developed and shared with ministries alongside the new three-year
inclusion action plan. The template was designed to support a more consistent
and strategic approach to inclusion planning across government while
encouraging ministries to identify priorities, actions, and measures that
reflect their unique workforce needs.
The shift to a three-year planning cycle also
provides ministries with greater opportunity to focus on longer term outcomes,
monitor progress over time, and align inclusion efforts with broader workforce
goals. To date, 13 ministries have submitted inclusion plans, with several
others actively developing their plans. This represents a significant increase
in engagement and demonstrates a growing commitment across government to
advancing inclusion in ministries.
Ministry inclusion representatives continue to
be supported through the inclusion community of practice, which continues to
serve as a forum for collaboration, knowledge, and information sharing. Through
this network, participants share their action plans and have access to
consultation, feedback, and resources that help strengthen inclusion action
planning and implementation.
Regarding the recommendation that the Public
Service Commission sufficiently analyze diversity and inclusion data to
identify and address risks that may prevent ministries from achieving
cross-ministerial diversity and inclusion goals, we consider this recommendation
to be partially implemented.
As previously noted, we now have enhanced
workforce data and reporting capabilities available in GEM. The system provides
the commission and ministry leaders with a more comprehensive view of workforce
trends and strengthens the ability to monitor progress.
In addition to workforce data analysis, data
from the engagement and culture survey is analyzed through an inclusion lens to
identify themes and trends related to workplace culture and inclusion. Findings
are shared with the inclusion community of practice to support awareness and
discussion.
Regarding the recommendation that the Public
Service Commission implement a written policy for reporting diversity and
inclusion results to its senior management and to the public to demonstrate
accountability and commitment for workforce diversity and inclusion, this
recommendation is considered implemented.
The commission continues to report this
information through established internal reporting mechanisms. Senior leaders
have access to workforce data within the GEM system available to them at any
time through enhanced dashboards and reporting tools. We continue to report
publicly through the annual reporting process.
In 2024 the commission updated its diversity
and inclusion policy, a recommendation noted as implemented by the Provincial
Auditor in the follow-up audit. The policy establishes clear responsibilities
regarding the commission’s role in providing oversight, guidance, and support
to ministries. We believe this policy broadly addresses the intent of the
recommendation by establishing accountability for measuring and reporting
progress while supporting a coordinated approach to inclusion across
government.
The policy provides overall direction and
oversight but does not set detailed reporting requirements or procedures. These
are addressed through business processes, reporting tools, and operational
guidance that can be updated as organizational needs change.
Taken together, the updated policy, enhanced
analytics available through GEM, and established reporting process to senior
leaders and the public provide a strong foundation for monitoring, reporting,
and supporting representative workforce initiatives across the public service.
For these reasons we consider this recommendation to be addressed through both
policy direction and operational practice.
Overall the work completed to date has
strengthened the foundation for a more representative and inclusive public
service. Since the original audit, we have made meaningful progress in
establishing the tools, processes, and governance needed to support long-term
success. The implementation of GEM, the introduction of a three-year inclusion
action plan, enhanced resources, and continued collaboration with ministries
have all contributed to a more coordinated and informed approach.
As we move forward, our focus will be on
maximizing the value of the GEM system by building capacity, increasing
self-declaration participation, and using workforce data to better understand
trends and identify opportunities. We will continue to support ministries
through the diversity networks and inclusion community of practice; expand
resources available through the inclusion tool kit; advance accessibility
initiatives; and strengthen recruitment, retention, and inclusion efforts.
The Public Service Commission remains committed
to providing leadership, guidance, and support to help build a public service
that reflects the people of Saskatchewan.
Thank you, and we’d be pleased to answer any
questions.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Well thank you very much, Chair Csada. I’ll open it up now to committee
members that may have questions. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you
and welcome. At the outset, can you list some of the organizations or list the
organizations you consulted to, you know, to inform your strategies and when
you consulted them?
Brittany Csada: — I’ll speak
a bit to our approach to updating the policy. So the policy was informed
through best-practice research and that included information available through
the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion and consultation with
stakeholders including the Human Rights Commission, the inclusion community of
practice that I referenced earlier, employee diversity networks such as the
Saskatchewan visible minority association, as well as internal Public Service
Commission business areas.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Was the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission consulted before or after the
Minister of Justice had replaced every commissioner in 2024?
Brittany Csada: — I don’t
have the exact timing but the consultations did occur prior to 2024 as the
updates were made in 2024.
Joan Pratchler: — And what
input in terms of criteria did the Human Rights Commission add?
Brittany Csada: — So I don’t
have all the feedback that they provided with us today, but generally they
would have been provided with the policy, and they typically provided
recommendations, advice, and guidance related to language and terminology,
pieces like that.
Joan Pratchler: — Would you
be able to provide that to the committee if we gave you a reasonable amount of
time, like a month or something?
Brittany Csada: — We could
take that under consideration.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —The question I’m going to ask is
something maybe you could table at a later date with some numbers. If you could
table the number of employees self-identifying as a member of each designated
group — as mentioned on page 136 of the report — in each of the last five
years, the proportion of the workforce they represent, and how that breaks down
by ministry. Would that be possible to table at a future date?
Brittany Csada: — Yes.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Thanks for that undertaking to provide that information. So the standard
process would be to then supply that through the Clerk, and the Clerk will
provide that information to you. Is one month a reasonable time frame to get
that information to us?
Brittany Csada: — Yes.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Right on. Thank you.
Brittany Csada: — The one
piece I’ll add just for context around that, so our reporting is based on
self-declaration information. And with the transition to our new system we
weren’t able to migrate all of the legacy data as it relates to
self-declaration, so there will be a bit of a difference in numbers from last
year to this year. So just a bit of context around that information.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Just to
clarify that you would consider, but would you furnish to the committee
information that the Human Rights Commission added?
Brittany Csada: — Like
recommendations they provided?
Joan Pratchler: — Yes.
Brittany Csada: — Yeah. We
can check and see what we have, yeah.
Joan Pratchler: — Could you
give us a better idea of the good practice you’re aiming for, particularly for
gender transition guidelines?
[11:45]
Kendra LaHaye: — Hi there. I am Kendra LaHaye,
executive director with the employee well-being and inclusion unit. So the
gender transition guidelines were developed prior to the 2022 audit, I believe,
in consultation with the Pride Alliance Network. So they were heavily involved
in the update and really a key contributor. The guidelines are available on the
inclusion tool kit. They’re intended to support managers and employees, of
course supported by consultation through the commission, whether business
partners or our office, to apply those. They really focus around empowering
employees, privacy, confidentiality.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — What oversight are you carrying out
to confirm ministries are actually following their inclusion action plans?
Brittany Csada: — So the
inclusion community of practice is the forum we have that ministries share
their inclusion plans and the actions that we’re working towards. And so that’s
the avenue where they would share kind of the actions undertaken and use that
community of practice body to gather feedback, share ideas, best practices,
that sort of thing.
Hugh Gordon: — So just to be clear, like some of
these early-adopting ministries, they’re using this action plan template.
They’re not relying on a prior process to adhere to the inclusion plans you
have. Is that right?
Kendra LaHaye: — So we update our inclusion action
plan annually and we share that. So it’s a three-year plan, but we revisit it
annually with the community of practice to answer questions around, is it
aligning. It’s really intended to be broad. Each ministry is really unique.
It’s that balance of what are our common goals and objectives, and how do we
also make space for ministry-specific priorities and their workforce needs.
So they provide updates on that. Through the
community of practice certainly those early adopters have added a lot of value
in sharing what’s worked for them, what are some of their best practices, so
that other ministries could adopt and learn from those and ensure that it fits
within their overall plan as well.
Brittany Csada: — And I
would just add to that, the standardized template was something that was added
based on a recommendation from the Provincial Auditor, and all ministries would
have access to that standardized template as the mechanism for completing.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Could you
tell us what risk factors you’ve identified that are preventing ministries from
achieving diversity and inclusion goals? And are any of those ministry
specific, or are these across all government?
Brittany Csada: — So the
challenges we would typically see, I think they’d be a bit different for each
ministry based on, you know, operational practice. There would be some common
ones; some might be unique. But kind of the themes around challenges would be
education and awareness, recruitment practices, and the tools available to
support.
And so, you know, we as a commission will
continue to support ministries through the diversity networks, through the
inclusion community of practice, through the expanded resources that we’ve
talked about in our policy and tool kits, as well as strengthened recruitment,
retention, and inclusion efforts.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. How many
ministries are currently meeting inclusion targets? I know there was some
discussion that there weren’t. Maybe you can clarify what those targets might
be if they exist. But how many ministries are currently meeting those targets
across all categories and overall?
Brittany Csada: — So I don’t
have the breakdown today of ministry-by-ministry targets, but we do seek to
align to the Sask Human Rights Commission recommended targets.
I’ll share a little bit about some of the
pieces that are in ministry inclusion plans just to give you a sense. Common
actions we would see include communication and awareness campaigns, employee
learning opportunities, activities to promote understanding inclusion and
engagement in workplaces. You might see things like speaker sessions; cultural
awareness events that have an educational component such as smudge ceremonies
or blanket exercises, just to name a few; as well as recognition of
commemorative dates. That’s some of the actions that are in those plans.
Hugh Gordon: — Just as a follow-up, I think that’s
why the targets are really important, because how are you able to keep track of
your progress, like how do you know? And I may come back to it about how GEM
may assist you in that regard. But I guess unless you’ve set targets and you’re
holding ministries to account to meet those targets, it’s very difficult, from
what I understand, for you to actually tell the committee what progress you’ve
made in these areas. Correct?
Brittany Csada: — Yeah, I
think that’s where the GEM system will provide that enhanced reporting, along
with, you know, our efforts to increase self-declaration through communication.
That’s a really important aspect as well. Those two things combined will give
us access to more robust data.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — How many
diversity groups within the workforce did you meet with to help informed, lived
experience in your best-practice targets?
Kendra LaHaye: — So we frequently consult with our
employee diversity networks. And so we have four networks across government:
the disAbility Inclusion Network, the Indigenous Employee Network, Saskatchewan
Visible Minority Employees Association, and our Pride Alliance Network.
In addition we have our Senior Indigenous
Advisors Council, which provide government-wide representation. And so
consultation with that group, as well as PSC [Public Service Commission], has a
senior Indigenous advisor that will provide more input on a day-to-day basis
across all programs and services as well. So really rely on that consultation
and then also engage with areas across PSC business partner teams around what
they’re also hearing from ministry clients.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
When I look at the recommendation on page 138, could you explain to me the
rationale and the efficacy of going from a one-year plan to a three-year plan
and suggesting that that’s better?
Kendra LaHaye: — When it comes to diversity and
inclusion, of course it takes sustained commitment and action and activity. So
we found that within one year, for ministries to set a target or set their
actions, implement, and evaluate progress, we’d be back in a planning phase
again. Over a three-year period . . . [inaudible] . . . for
longer term actions, short-, medium-term actions, and more time to be
thoughtful about those plans, implement them, and take meaningful action.
Joan Pratchler: — Well
couldn’t that be divided yearly to provide more transparency to the people of
Saskatchewan?
Kendra LaHaye: — I think we were in a yearly planning
process and just felt the time for them to implement that and take action,
sustained across all of their, you know, program areas . . .
Certainly we do a one-year check-in every year. So every year we come back to
the inclusion community of practice to say . . . We provide a
one-year progress report around the commitments PSC has, share that out, invite
feedback, and sort of adjust as we go.
[12:00]
Joan Pratchler: — And just
layering that over the recommendation that’s on page 141, the auditor suggests
that the policy should or that it needs to have more specificity. And the
response from the group was that it’s to broadly capture the recommendation.
And I guess I’m piggybacking on what my
colleague says: why not the specificity of having targets and, you know, make
them reasonable and review them for continuous improvement rather than having
them spread out over three years? It almost . . . or the sense that
I’m seeing is that the targets don’t matter, but we think they do and I think
the people of Saskatchewan think they do. So I need to understand why the
specificity on the targets aren’t there and why we would not go to specifics
and really want to capture it broadly.
Kendra LaHaye: — So thank you for that comment. I
will just clarify that we do measure against the Saskatchewan human rights
targets. So we don’t set different targets from there. We trust their expertise
and the work that they do to set those. So we do measure against those
representation numbers.
Now in GEM we now have access to hires,
separations, promotions. Prior, we really relied on representation information
provided through self-declaration. So that’s really some of the work that’s
under way is what’s available to us now, how are we using that to set up sort
of whatever those measures might be, what the reporting process looks like. So
in the past measured against Sask human rights recommended targets, continue to
do that, and looking forward to the enhanced measures that we’ll now have through
GEM.
Here your other comment in terms of some of
those inclusion action plans are more qualitative, right. And then these are
around the measures around that representation information.
Joan Pratchler: — So how are
the ministries held to account for their targets?
Brittany Csada: — So the
role of the Public Service Commission is really to work collaboratively with
ministries to provide the guidance, the tools, the templates, the centralized
policy support to assist with the development of those plans. So you know, we
don’t necessarily have the authority to mandate certain targets or things to
them. However I would say each ministry’s permanent head oversees the
activities related to inclusion and diversity and provides, you know, support,
guidance, and direction to their specific ministries.
Joan Pratchler: — So it is
upon each ministry to ensure that their targets are met, and that’s the
oversight that’s provided for each ministry?
Brittany Csada: — Yeah,
again aligning to those Sask Human Rights Commission targets. All of government
aligns to those. But each ministry has their own accountability to set forward
what their ministry-specific actions are going to be related to their inclusion
plans.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. So
it is the oversight of the auditor that would ensure that they would comply?
Brittany Csada: — I’m not
sure . . . Sorry, can you repeat?
Joan Pratchler: — So no one
oversees all the ministries together? It’s really only when the auditor does a
report and finds out that it’s not happening that it’s not happening?
Brittany Csada: — Again it’s
through that inclusion community of practice. That is the sharing forum where
ministries bring forward their actions and their progress. And in terms of
reporting on the targets, that’s the broader government-wide data that’s
available in the system. So it’s kind of two parts. The data, the PSC does have
that data piece through the system. But in terms of the ministry-specific
actions in their inclusion plans, they would share those with the broader
community of practice, so that becomes that body to share.
Joan Pratchler: — And so
does that community of practice help them reach their targets? Or is it that
they’re accountable to that committee then?
Brittany Csada: — I think
the role of the committee is to provide, you know, feedback. It’s a place to
share ideas. So in some ways they might help, share what’s worked for them. And
so part of that group, they might share ideas and take practices. What’s worked
in one ministry may work and help support in another ministry. So there is that
mechanism of support at that committee.
Joan Pratchler: — And so
it’s just public opinion whether the targets are being met? Or like what I’m
wrestling with is, where’s the accountability to ensure that these targets are
being met? And what would be the consequence if they’re not? How do we move
that forward? Because typically what’s measured gets it done. And I’m not sure.
Maybe I’m just not getting all the, you know, ducks in a row for this one.
Brittany Csada: — Yeah, I
think that public reporting comes through the annual report, the PSC report on
government-wide trends and metrics related to designated groups. The PSC holds
that reporting piece for all of government, but ministry-specific actions, they
report on those to the committee themselves.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Speaking of data, I imagine GEM is
going to assist you in acquiring more detailed information about, you know, the
diversity and equity in the workplace. I’m wondering what work will you be
undertaking once perhaps GEM’s been utilized for a certain period of time to
analyze that data? What are your actions? What actions will you take to analyze
that data?
Brittany Csada: — I think
the first step for us will be really understanding what data’s available and
what it looks like from a reporting perspective in GEM. So we’re in early days
since implementation, so we now know the system has that enhanced
functionality. We need to figure out what it looks like from a reporting
perspective. So I think that’s step one, is to make sure that we have that good
data.
We talked a bit about the importance of
self-declaration. We’ll be doing some communication around the importance to
promote that. That’s an important part of having good data. And then from there
I think we’ll be able to take a look at what’s possible, based on the data
that’s available.
Hugh Gordon: — So that’s not something that GEM
will do for you? You will have to do that in addition?
Brittany Csada: — For sure.
I think it will provide the data; we’ll still have to do some analysis around
it.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Any further questions, committee members, with respect to chapter 11 here?
Not seeing any at this time. Now these, we’ve already had motions to concur on
these recommendations. You’ve laid out the actions to implement. Some have
already been implemented. Thanks for that and the work that will be undertaken,
the information you’ll provide back.
At this point I’d welcome a motion of
adjournment with respect to chapter 11.
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson. All agreed?
Some Hon.
Members:
— Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, that’s carried. Thanks so much for your time here today before us.
Chair Csada, do you have any final words our way before we shift gears and
break for lunch?
Brittany Csada: — Just
wanted to say thank you again to the Provincial Auditor, to you, Mr. Chair, and
to the committee members today for your time and questions.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, thank you very much. Thanks to you all for your time here today, and
thanks to everyone across government that’s involved in the work that’s
reflected and discussed here today. Thank you.
Okay. So we’ll recess for a brief lunch here
and reconvene at 1:15.
[The committee recessed from 12:11 until
13:17.]
Public Accounts 2025-26 Volume 1
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay,
folks, we’ll reconvene the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We’re going
to turn our attention to the volume 1 Public Accounts for 2025‑26.
And just as
like a little bit of a statement for anyone that’s kind of watching this at
home, this is part of the committee’s mandate is to review and report on the
observations, opinions, and recommendations of both the Provincial Auditor’s
reports and on the province’s public accounts. And the review of the public
accounts completes some of the accountability cycle of parliamentary control
over the raising and spending of public dollars. We instituted this session a
few years back, and we see it as an annual session, usually in the early fall
following the tabling of the Public Accounts.
I’d like to give a shout-out to everyone
involved in putting those public accounts together and a recognition just that
you’re real leaders in Canada in doing so. And I know there’s incredible work
done by all the folks out of Finance and the comptroller’s office and our
auditor’s office as well. And we’re the first public accounts to be tabled
right across the country. And just like football, we like being first. We like
beating those other places. So anyways, thank you to the incredible service
that you all provide.
What I’d do at this time, we’re going to have
two presentations here. We’re going to have that from Finance and the
comptroller, and then we’re going to turn it over to the auditor and her team
to present, and then we’ll open it up for questions. So at this time I would
turn it over to Deputy Minister Smith and Provincial Comptroller Hebert to, I
guess, introduce the officials that are here with you here today, here with us
here today, and then to provide your remarks.
Tracey Smith: — Thank you, Mr. Chair, Deputy Chair,
and committee members. Joining me here today from the ministry are Brent
Hebert, the Provincial Comptroller; Cullen Stewart, assistant deputy minister
of the fiscal policy division; Rod Balkwill, assistant deputy minister of the
provincial treasury office. Jeff MacDonald, assistant deputy minister of
treasury board secretariat, will be joining us shortly, and I do have
. . . There are some other members of the team that are with us here
today. And if they do end up coming and speaking on behalf of some of the
questions, they’ll introduce themselves at the time. So just a big thank you to
the team for joining us here today.
On behalf of the Ministry of Finance, thank you
for the opportunity to discuss the ’25‑26 Public Accounts volume 1, which
includes the government’s summary financial statements and related financial
statement discussion and analysis. I would also like to thank the Provincial
Auditor and her team for their audit work on the financial statements. We have
an excellent working relationship with the Provincial Auditor’s office, and we
really appreciate and value that within our entire ministry.
Finance is committed to preparing timely,
high-quality financial statements and analysis on behalf of the government,
which are the foundation of strong accountability and transparency. I am
pleased to report that the ’25‑26 summary financial statements were
released in June of 2025 and received a clean audit opinion from the Provincial
Auditor.
I’m now going to turn it over to Brent to
provide you with an overview of the financial statements and results for the
fiscal year ’25‑26.
Brent Hebert: — Thank you, Tracey. Good afternoon,
Mr. Chair, Deputy Chair, and committee members. I’m pleased to present the
Government of Saskatchewan’s Public Accounts volume 1 containing the summary
financial statements and related analysis for the year ending March 31st, 2026.
These statements report the financial results
of the full government reporting entity, including the General Revenue Fund,
Crown corporations, boards, and other government service organizations. A
listing of the organizations that comprise the government reporting entity can
be found in schedule 19 on pages 85 to 87 in the Public Accounts volume 1.
The statements were prepared in accordance with
Canadian public sector accounting standards and received an unmodified or clean
audit opinion from the Provincial Auditor. The statements include a retroactive
accounting policy change for amortization of certain tangible capital assets,
which increased the opening accumulated operating deficit by 92 million,
and this restatement did not affect net debt.
Overall the key takeaway from the ’25‑26
financial results is that revenue was essentially on budget, while higher
service demand in health services, higher compensation, and extraordinary
wildfire response costs drove expenses above budget and resulted in
$947 million operating deficit.
In terms of overall financial results, total
revenue was 21.13 billion, or 77 million, 0.4 per cent above budget.
Total expense was a little over 22 billion, 1 billion or 4.9 per cent
above budget. The operating deficit was 947 million, as I mentioned,
compared with a budgeted surplus of 12 million. The 960 million
deterioration from budget was predominantly expense driven. Revenue remained
close to plan.
At year-end accumulated deficit was
2.39 billion, an increase of 629 million from budget due to the
operating deficit net of remeasurement gains.
In terms of revenue, taxation revenue was
10.34 billion, 114 million above budget. Corporation income tax was
above budget while most other tax categories were below planned.
Non-renewable resource revenue was
2.73 billion, 33 million above budget. Stronger potash and resource
surcharge revenue more than offset weaker than expected oil and natural gas
revenue.
Net income from government business enterprises
was 537 million, 168 million below budget, mainly reflecting lower
utility results. Other own-source revenue was 3.53 billion, or
268 million above budget, largely because of stronger fee revenue and
output-based performance standards revenue.
Federal transfers were 4 billion,
58 million above budget, mainly from health and agricultural income
stability funding. Overall 81 per cent of revenue came from Saskatchewan
own-source revenue and 19 per cent from federal transfers.
On the expense side, health expense was
8.67 billion, 667 million above budget. Key factors were higher
service demand, compensation pressures, physician utilization, drugs, medical
supplies, and information technology costs.
Education expense was 4.53 billion,
100 million above budget, reflecting collective bargaining costs, school
maintenance, specialized classroom investments, and a residential school claim
settlement.
Social services and assistance was
1.9 billion, 54 million above budget, driven by higher utilization,
expanded eligibility, and benefit rate increases.
Protection of persons and property was
1.5 billion, 405 million above budget, primarily because of wildfire
response and evacuations in ’25‑26, higher correctional facility costs,
and increased policing costs.
Agriculture expense was 1.24 billion,
356 million below budget due to improved crop yields and reduced crop
indemnities.
From an overall operations perspective, the
largest year-over-year increases were salaries and benefits, up
701 million, mainly due to collective bargaining increases; and transfers,
up 585 million, mainly due to the rate affordability grant, higher
AgriStability benefits, increased funding to community-based organizations, and
wildfire evacuation support. Operating costs decreased by 429 million,
primarily due to lower crop insurance payments paid to producers, as I
mentioned, due to higher crop yields across the province.
In terms of financial position in debt, net
debt was 17.17 billion, 350 million above budget. The increase
reflects the operating deficit and net investment in tangible capital assets,
partly offset by remeasurement gains. General debt was 25.57 billion,
compared with 22.52 billion a year earlier. Borrowing supported the
Saskatchewan capital plan and recent operating requirements.
Financing charges were a little over
1 billion, an increase of 14.7 million over budget. The average
effective interest rate on gross debt remained at 3.5 per cent. And pension
liabilities declined to 5.7 billion from 4.94 billion a year ago.
In terms of infrastructure and fiscal health,
government-owned infrastructure investment totalled 4.12 billion —
2.56 billion by government business enterprises and 1.56 billion by
government service organizations. Investment supported schools, hospitals,
roads, electricity generation and transmission, and communications networks. A
further 299 million was provided to third parties for capital purposes
such as municipalities.
Saskatchewan improved to the highest overall
provincial credit standing when ratings from Moody’s, S&P Global ratings,
and Morningstar are considered.
Fiscal sustainability indicators reflected some
pressure in ’25‑26 from the operating deficit and continued
infrastructure investment. However own-source revenue relative to GDP [gross
domestic product] remained generally stable, and financing charges remain a
modest share of revenue.
Going forward, an important financial
management priority will be continuing to balance service demand and
infrastructure needs with a sustainable operating path and prudent debt
management.
In closing I would like to acknowledge and
thank our team in the Provincial Comptroller’s division who work tirelessly to
prepare the financial statements and analysis each year, and the folks behind
me who provide a supporting role at Finance. I would also like to thank staff
in the ministries, Crowns, and public agencies that help us prepare these
statements each year. We couldn’t do it without them. And finally I’d like to
thank the Provincial Auditor and her team for their audit work and the strong working
relationship we have between our offices.
And with that I’ll turn things back over to
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— All right. Well listen, thank you very much. Thank you to all the officials
that have joined us here today and all involved in the work here today as well.
I’ll turn it over to the Provincial Auditor to introduce officials and make a
presentation, and then we’ll go from there.
Tara Clemett: —
Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Deputy Chair, committee members, and officials.
With me today is Mr. Trevor St. John, and he is the engagement lead on the
audit of the summary financial statements. And then behind is Michelle
Lindenbach, and she is our liaison with this committee but also would have
worked on — as everyone does in my office — on the summary financial
statements.
Our office annually audits the government’s
summary financial statements which are included in Public Accounts volume 1.
These financial statements include the combined financial results of all of the
government agencies that are controlled and reports the financial performance
of the entire government and the financial condition of the province.
Through our audit opinions the Office of the
Provincial Auditor provides independent assurance to the members of the
Legislative Assembly and the people of Saskatchewan that public money is spent
as presented, and sufficient information and disclosures are provided to inform
users about the provincial government’s actual financial results. Our office
follows generally accepted auditing standards when forming our audit opinion on
the government’s financial statements.
The audit process involves collecting and
evaluating audit evidence. The audit of the summary financial statements
focuses on coordination of and timely receipt of reliable — in this case,
audited — financial information from over 150 agencies for the consolidation of
the summary financial statements. Through this process we can provide a high
level of assurance to users about whether the financial statements are fairly
presented and free from material misstatements.
[13:30]
The provincial government follows Canadian
public sector accounting standards when preparing the government’s financial
statements. Our audit assesses whether the financial statements are presented
in accordance with those standards. It is important that the government does
follow the standards to support the credibility, the reliability, the quality,
and the comparability of the government’s financial information.
For the year ended March 31st, 2026, we issued
an unmodified, or clean, audit opinion. This means the financial statements
comply with public sector accounting standards, and there are no material
misstatements in the numbers or notes presented in the financial statements,
which means any material errors found were corrected.
The audit opinion was dated June 18th, 2026,
which continues to be one of the earliest in all the provinces across Canada.
And thanks to a lot of hard work by a great team of people at the Provincial
Comptroller’s office as well as my office.
Our audit opinion is also a place where you
will find out where we report the more significant key audit areas that we
focused on in the audit, and basically it required more significant auditor
attention and effort. We include these as key audit matters in the audit
opinion.
For the year ended March 31st, 2026, the key
audit matters are significant management estimates and require a high degree of
estimation and judgment. These matters include pension liabilities and
individual and corporate income tax revenue. Pension liabilities amounted to
$5.7 billion in ’25‑26, and income tax revenue was 5 billion in
’25‑26. These accounting estimates are subject to measurement
uncertainty, as they are subject to management’s judgment, assumptions, and
information that is available at the time of the estimate. Actual results may
differ from estimates.
We address the significant management estimates
in our audit by evaluating the reasonableness of management’s assumptions and
the methodology used to make the estimates. This included analyzing the
accuracy of previous year estimates, testing the completeness and accuracy of
the information used by management for making the estimate, and testing the
estimate calculations. We may use the work of experts to help assess the
reasonability of these estimates. So for example, when it comes to pension
liabilities, we use actuary reports. Overall we found these accounting
estimates were reasonable.
The government based decisions on reported
assets and liabilities and how much money will be spent or generated in the
future. It is vital to record all transactions and estimates as well as
disclosures in the financial statements accurately.
This year’s audit also required work around a
new financial system called GEM and included completing work on the conversion
of data from the old financial system to the new financial system.
The government’s financial statements alone are
not sufficient to communicate the complete picture of the province’s financial
health and annual results. The Public Accounts volume 1, which includes
financial statement discussion and analysis, also provides additional
explanations for significant variances from budget and prior years’ financial
results. It also provides data on key financial indicators that focus on the
province’s fiscal health. This report allows the public and this committee to
ensure that public money was spent as the legislature intended.
Demonstrating public accountability is a key
responsibility of public sector entities. Reporting accurate financial results
in the public accounts and through our associated audit opinion, they show it
does play a major role in fulfilling a government’s duty to be publicly
accountable and transparent. It is a key part of the government’s
accountability cycle, reporting what the government planned or budgeted and
then closing the loop by accurately reporting what actually happened.
That concludes my presentation.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Thank you very much, Auditor. We’ll open it up now to committee members that
may have questions. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for
coming today and taking our questions. Mr. Comptroller, you went over a number
of interesting statistics, so we may have to return to them and you may have to
repeat yourself. I apologize in advance, but I’d like to get some more details
to better our understanding here at the committee.
Let’s start with the final deficit number from
this year that’s being reported in ’25‑26. I know you’ve given some
rationale, but could you maybe zero in specifically a little bit better for us
how do we account for this final year’s deficit number for this fiscal year
being so wildly over the budget estimate of $12 million?
Brent Hebert: — Thanks for the question, Member. So
as I stated before, revenue was relatively stable in ’25‑26, so the
pressures were on the expense side. So from a health perspective I had
mentioned that the health costs — and there was health pressures last year —
there’s about a 667.7 million increase in health. And that was primarily
driven by the Saskatchewan Health Authority reflecting salary pressures,
including an accrual for retroactive pay associated with the recently tabled
offer, as well as increased overtime in unbudgeted positions, higher payments
to physicians, new physician contracts, inflationary and service volume
pressures in the system, and a net loss related to a scheduling system
writedown.
The other large part of that expense pressure
was on the protection of persons and property, mainly with the Saskatchewan
Public Safety Agency and the expenditures resulting from significant wildfire
and evacuation responses that occurred in ’25‑26.
Hugh Gordon: — Just as a follow-up, you know, I
think with the wildfires, it’s very difficult to predict in advance. You’re
going through your budgeting processes to determine what kind of wildfires
you’re going to face. In spite of all the best preparations in anticipation,
that one I can understand would be a, you know, unforeseen cost to a good
amount.
But when it comes to health and when it comes
to education, I just recall — and you may correct me for the record if you wish
— but I recall that, you know, what the government actually spent the year
prior was actually less than what they budgeted for this past year.
And so you know, I guess this all speaks to the
question of reliability in the budgeting process. Part of that is special
warrants spending. And I’m just wondering if you could tell the committee how
much of this expense side pressure you’re talking about is a direct correlation
with special warrants spending. Like how much do you attribute the special
warrants spending to the increase to the deficit?
Brent Hebert: — Thanks for the question, Member. So
when we look at the special warrant funding that was provided, and if you look
at Health specifically, there were a number of areas where utilization in, you
know, in programs and services — the drug plan, the Cancer Agency, eHealth
Saskatchewan, physician services — where utilization pressures were just higher
than what was expected and budgeted for the year.
In addition to that, there was a significant
amount of compensation, increase in compensation costs that had been accrued
into the year. And there was higher than budgeted Canadian Blood Services
utilization. So it was utilization based, and they were utilization levels that
were not expected, you know, going into the year when the budget was set.
Hugh Gordon: — So you’re saying that these were
completely unexpected. Nobody had forecast them. Like so for example, we’ve
known every year of the amount for service in our health care sector; we know
also perhaps a number of other ministries like Education and Social Services.
The numbers don’t usually go down. They go up, particularly with the health
care file, you know. And it seems that every year the government’s become
increasingly reliant on special warrant spending to meet service needs.
So I guess my question is just specifically
around, you know, why isn’t there just better thought and emphasis put at the
beginning of the budget process when looking at these major expense items so
that we are anticipating it better. That’s my question, is we’ve gone from a
$12 million surplus now to nearly a billion-dollar deficit. And we could
also tell in last year’s budget that the amounts that were allotted for health
care, for example, didn’t even equal the actuals for the year prior.
So I don’t know. Is there an expectation then
that health care spending was going to drop this year?
Brent Hebert: — I think given the year prior, there
was a significant amount of compensation, collective bargaining amounts that
were paid out the prior year, so those were rolled into the base. And so those
weren’t expected to create pressures. But I think primarily it’s around that
utilization base and the forecast that they build the budget on in terms of
utilization of services which, you know, in the end those forecasts and the
utilization exceeded what was budgeted for.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — If we
would take out those few COVID years — let’s say those three COVID years — is
the amount of special warrant spending comparable, greater, or lesser over the
five years prior to COVID, five years post-COVID? Like were we better at
estimating how much we were going to be spending pre and post?
[13:45]
Tracey Smith: — Thanks for the question. I’ll maybe
just start. I know the team has, you know, details obviously. And we’ve got
lots of information in the Public Accounts document. But I’ll just maybe start
generally. You sort of asked that question around, you know, if we were to
exclude those COVID years and sort of look at things from pre-COVID versus
post-COVID.
I think just more a general comment that I
would make — and I do still feel relatively close to my previous role at Health
just in terms of, you know, a lot of the pressures that were experienced during
COVID. But I would also just say coming out of COVID — and this isn’t just
unique to Health — but we really have seen it across the entire province and
across all sectors in terms of the impact.
We have had a higher population growth
throughout the province when we think about that relative to pre-COVID years.
We’ve had some inflationary costs due to the supply chain issues that we’ve
had. We’ve had sort of new drugs coming on board. And then with all of that,
you just think about utilization and access to services.
And again, I know we spent some time here
talking about health already, but I can say in the other sort of sectors that
are very much services to the public and to patients and to students, that
utilization . . . we have seen an increase, you know, over recent
years relative to sort of pre-COVID.
So I would just say generally . . . I
know I used to do that myself a lot here, trying to sort of look at the
environment pre-COVID, look at it post-COVID. But we really are in some
different times, unique times where we are seeing sort of the impact, both
challenges around pressures. But a lot of that is because of a lot of the
positive in terms of like population growth, investment in Saskatchewan. And
we’re seeing that on some of our other sort of service ministries, is how I
would characterize that.
Joan Pratchler: — But I
guess what I’m trying to understand is how does the impact of increased
warrants impact the reliability of the government’s budget number and
forecasting?
Tracey Smith: — You know, I would just comment that
when we go through the budget process and you are sort of forecasting what that
future state looks like, taking into consideration all the things you do know,
the reason why we do need to use special warrants from time to time — and
again, I know that there were a number of ministries that have had to use that
in recent years — it is really to deal with some of those unanticipated
pressures or pressures that are, you know, that extend beyond what was
originally forecasted at the time when you were using the information that you
had available.
So that is one of the, you know, the areas that
we need to look to sometimes, but that is . . . You don’t go into the
budget, you know, sort of preparing for that. You really are trying to prepare
with the best information that you have at the time in order to make those
decisions as you go forward around the budget.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — I’ll just turn your attention to
pages 8 and 9. I’m just wondering if you could explain what factors contributed
to the accumulated deficit going up year over year and by budget.
Brent Hebert: — Thanks for the question, Member. So
you’re referring to the table on the bottom of page 9, the accumulated deficit
surplus. So that accumulated deficit surplus is just an accumulation of the
deficits and surpluses that government has run over the 10‑year period.
So if you see it trending up from 2022, we are posting surpluses till we get to
2024. And then we’ve posted a small deficit in ’25, and then the deficit that
we’re now recognizing from 2026 — $947 million. So it’s an accumulation of
those surplus deficits over that 10‑year period.
Hugh Gordon: — Fair enough. But you mentioned in
your report that that’s primarily due to the operating deficit with a slight
offset with remeasurement gains. Could you tell us what kind of remeasurement
gains those were?
Brent Hebert: — Yeah, sure. If you flip over to page
47, we have a statement of accumulated remeasurement gains and losses, and so
essentially it’s the operating deficit net of those accumulated remeasurement
gains and losses. So those are the unrealized changes, gains or losses of the
fair value of financial instruments. And so they’re remeasured at a point in
time based on market conditions and interest rates. And so those remeasurements
gains and losses are netted off against the operating deficit to come to the
ending amount.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Brent Hebert: — Yeah, you’re welcome.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Could you
provide some more details on the government’s investments into infrastructure,
namely what are the 2.56 billion for government business enterprises and a
1.56 billion in schools, hospitals, roads, and government services
organizations? And is the amount of government investment in capital
infrastructure actually down from the year prior then?
Brent Hebert: — Thanks for the question. If you go
to page 11 in the . . . I think that’s where you’re at, right? So you
look at 2026. So the lighter blue bars there with respect to government service
organizations, the 1.56 billion and the 0.3, those would be on budget. The
enterprise capital acquisitions for government business enterprises, so the
Crowns, that was 2.56 billion. That’s about $200 million less than
what was planned on the Crown side.
Joan Pratchler: — And then
right next to . . .
Brent Hebert: — And I think you asked like what made
up the capital expenditures.
Joan Pratchler: — Yes.
Brent Hebert: — So I can give you a bit of an
overview. So the 2.49 billion in utility Crown corporations, that was
SaskPower, SaskTel, SaskEnergy, and SaskWater. I don’t have the specific
projects, but that 2.49 billion was spread across those four Crowns.
646 million was expended in the health care sector, mainly hospitals and
integrated facilities. P.A. Vic [Prince Albert Victoria Hospital] would have
been one of the larger ones on that one.
There was 440 million on transportation
infrastructure, mainly highways. 257 billion in the education sector, so
mainly schools, universities, and capital improvements at Sask Polytechnic. And
then 195 million for community development, which would have been mainly
grants to municipalities for capital infrastructure.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay,
thank you. And then the description that’s right beside that chart at the top
of page 11, it says, “In addition, 299 million was provided to third
parties.” Could you give me an example of third parties?
Brent Hebert: — Sure. Like so that would be
municipalities.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay,
thank you.
Brent Hebert: — As an example.
Joan Pratchler: — Why was
the investment from budget in government-owned infrastructure down
558 million, as per page 11?
[14:00]
Brent Hebert: — Okay so maybe, Rod, you can take that one. Thanks for the
question. It’s a bit of a technical question so I’m just trying to find my
words here for you. So we talked about the 200 million already of Crown.
So there’s the $299 million that we’re talking about in terms of third
parties. That’s capital funding that’s expensed because it’s transferred to
universities, as an example, or Sask Polytechnic. So it’s identified as
capital, and it’s a capital transfer, but ultimately it’s expensed by the third
party.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — How does the 2.56 billion to
government business enterprises compare to last year? And what are those
amounts?
Brent Hebert: — Thanks for the question, Member. So
we had 2.56 for 2026, and it was 2.689 billion for 2025.
Hugh Gordon: — And do I understand correctly then
that that is money that was transferred to the government business enterprises,
is that a form of a loan? Is that a form of a grant? That is just money for
operating?
Brent Hebert: — No, so that 2.69 billion in
2025 and 2.56 billion in 2026, that’s self-funded capital in those
government business enterprises.
Hugh Gordon: — So that would be money just given to
them to continue operations.
Brent Hebert: — Part of their operations.
Hugh Gordon: — Part of their operations. There
wasn’t any specific project that that was associated to?
Brent Hebert: — Just the ones I mentioned earlier,
just over the four Crowns.
Hugh Gordon: — Okay.
Brent Hebert: — So their own self financed capital.
Hugh Gordon: — Okay.
Thank you.
Brent Hebert: — The big jump in those two years,
Cullen is telling me, is the Lanigan gas plant, to be more specific.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Just before you move on to that, you said that it was down $200 million
less than was budgeted in this year. What does that reflect? What capital
project didn’t advance, or what is that associated with?
Brent Hebert: — Thanks for the question, Mr. Chair.
So I think that’s reflected in just the cash flows of the projects that they
have going, and cash flows change from one year to the next.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Sure. Hard line . . . [inaudible].
Brent Hebert: — Yeah. Yeah.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — What
factors do you foresee contributing to the province’s credit rating? Is there a
particular level of debt or deficit that could see that rating being affected?
Because our net debt-to-GDP is up now.
Brent Hebert: — We’ll ask Rod to take that one.
Rod Balkwill: — Hi, I’m Rod Balkwill, the ADM of the
provincial treasury office. Thanks for your question. So there are many things
that come into play when a credit rating agency issues a credit rating on a
province or an issuing entity. And so there a few ratios, like hard numbers
that they follow including debt-to-revenue, interest expense compared to total
revenue, like how much of your expenses is being absorbed by interest costs.
Higher debt, higher interest rates can mean higher interest costs.
But they also look at many qualitative things
like history of the practice of the province in terms of their balanced
budgets, things they’ve done for example in terms of repayment of debt during
good times. So we had that experience in 2022‑23 where large surpluses
precipitated the ability to pay back two and half billion dollars of debt. So
they look at that as good practice.
Other things like liquidity — how much money do
we hold as a province for hard times that could come, like immediately
available cash should we not be able to borrow or expenses go up unexpectedly.
So there’s a number of things. So I wouldn’t
want to put a number on what would precipitate any kind of rating action from
the rating agencies just because of those other things.
We’re also rated as a group, the provinces. So
we’re in comparison to what the other provinces are doing. And at the moment
Saskatchewan has some of the more favourable credit metrics, you know, those
two things I mentioned. The debt repayments, debt-to-GDP overall is lower than
9 out of the 10 provinces. So I think I’m missing one . . . The other
nine provinces except one.
So generally those are all things that we try
to manage. But I wouldn’t be able to put a number on what debt level or
interest expense level would precipitate a rating action. Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— You spoke about liquidity. Could you speak, kind of give us a picture of
liquidity right now?
Rod Balkwill: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when we’re
talking about liquidity of course we’re talking about extra cash or investments
that can be immediately converted into cash in times of stress. And the
province has a policy at the treasury office to maintain a certain level of
immediately available cash. We run that between 1.25 billion and
1.75 billion. That’s been in place and is reviewed by the treasury board
as a policy.
We will go higher than that when we have a bond
maturity or some other large acquisition that we need to have funds for, so it
can go up higher than that. And then in addition we have cash in the system
that maybe isn’t available for liquidity, but is in various entities that is
there to run those operations.
If you look at page 32, there is some details
on financial assets. As of the end of 2026 if you look at the stacked bar, the
4.03 billion, that’s current liquidity that’s outstanding, including those
other entities within the government. But within immediately available, that’s
probably around 3 billion of immediately available liquidity.
We also have other liquid assets that aren’t
intended for liquidity but for other purposes, for example the Small Modular
Reactor Investment Fund which is 900 million. Again have short-term liquid
bonds for other purposes, and also the sinking fund which has been in place for
decades to repay debt. And that’s currently at a level of $4 billion which
allows us to have money available when bonds mature, which provides liquidity
for refinancing.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Thanks. Thanks for that. And just one other piece that you identified there
was the borrowing cost relative to revenues. Could you just provide us some
numbers on the trend, what that percentage is at right now and what it’s been
over the last number of years, and then what sort of forecast you have moving
forward?
Rod Balkwill: — Thanks again for the question. So in
terms of interest costs as a percentage of revenue, that is one that credit
rating agencies look at and it’s essentially compared around all the provinces.
And we’re currently running at 5.1 per cent, as you can see on page 14 of the
Public Accounts. That’s risen steadily for the last two years from 4 per cent,
partly due to your higher debt levels for capital investments in executive
government as well as higher refinancing rates as interest rates have gone up and
maturing debt that has lower rate has rolled off the books.
I’ll just mention that, at 5.1 per cent, we’re
the second-lowest in Western Canada compared to BC [British Columbia], Alberta,
Manitoba and indeed I think across the country.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Thank you for that. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — So the graphs on page 13 with
respect to net debt to GDP, net debt to revenue, net debt per capita, I
understand you’re attributing it to operating deficits and significant
infrastructure investments for the most part. Correct me if I’m wrong in any of
that, by the way.
Can you just tell us what portion the operating
deficits have contributed to that? Like is there a particular percentage that
they’ve contributed to that?
[14:15]
Rod Balkwill: — Thank you. Just to clarify, was your
question about how much was from this year and last year? How much of the
deficit contributed to the change in net debt?
Hugh Gordon: — Right. Percentage.
Rod Balkwill: — Percentage, okay. So just going by
page 48 in the Public Accounts, there’s a statement of change in net debt that
does list all the components of the change. So in 2026, the $947 million
deficit, there was a $947 million deficit and a $1.537 billion
increase in net debt. So the deficit accounted for 61.6 per cent of the
increase in net debt for that year.
In 2025 there was a deficit of 249 million
with a total increase in net debt of 1.281 billion. So the deficit
accounted for 19.3 per cent of the increase in net debt for that year.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Rod Balkwill: — You’re welcome.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA
Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — So we’re
now spending over a billion dollars a year on debt financing costs. Has an
assessment been made as to how much this is actually impacting the province’s
ability to pay for services such as health care, education, and supports for
people?
Cullen Stewart: — Cullen
Stewart, assistant deputy minister with the fiscal policy division. Thank you
for your question, Member. When you look back over the last number of years of
actuals, whether education, protections of properties and person, social
services and assistance, and health care, there’s been substantial increases in
all of those areas providing human services, and the capital plan continues to
be quite elevated in terms of investments in hospitals, schools, highways,
those sorts of things.
So with respect to the ability of the province
to manage that within, you know, the consideration of financing charges, we do
have the best credit rating in Canada, and that was reaffirmed again this
summer. So I think the view of the credit rating agencies would be the province
is in a strong fiscal position to manage its debt load relative to the size of
the economy and the expenditure commitments that we have.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. So
in some worlds, the best prediction of future behaviour is past behaviour. It’s
the same in the financial world. If we keep at the current pace of debt and
service costs, are you as financial experts worried about the future of
financial health or providing or being able to respond to human services as we
just mentioned over the next four years, let’s say?
Tracey Smith: — Thank you
again for the question. You know, just circling back I think your question was
around sort of four years out and I’ll just sort of, you know . . .
Obviously it’s difficult to be looking out that far ahead. And I think with
respect to what we’ve been talking about today, again just as we develop the
budget and as we go through that process, we take into consideration all of
those factors.
And the credit rating agencies, as they did
this year, again reaffirmed us as having the best credit rating in all of
Canada. And they take those factors into consideration in terms of debt
servicing and financing charges relative to the whole budget. Throughout the
process . . . again when we go through the budget development process
we make those assessments continually, you know, each and every year as we’re
working through that. And again those are sort of key metrics that
. . . those are what the credit rating agencies use too in terms of
understanding just the overall fiscal sort of environment that we’re in. They
don’t look at any one single indicator. It’s a whole series of indicators that
are taken into account.
And I can say that the team here as well, as
we’re going through those budget cycles, we take all of those pieces into
consideration as well so that we have a good understanding of where we sit
relative to those different indicators.
[14:30]
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — I guess the concern that we’re
trying to relay here is, you know, we’re now spending more on debt charges,
interest than we are on a good number of government ministries and departments.
Maybe the majority of them. Obviously not the bigger ones, like health care,
education, what not. But we’re seeing, you know, that burden accumulate.
And you know, I get notices all the time from
my credit card company saying that I’m good for a $30,000 limit, but I’m not
like taking that as an indicator of my own personal financial health either.
You know what I mean? So the ability to continue to operate today is good to
know. But I would hope that there is some honest assessments happening within
the ministry and the Finance minister and this government about its spending
decisions and how this is going to impact their ability to deliver these services
as our interest payments continue to grow. This has to be a cause for concern.
With that I’ll move on to another question.
From page 15, I see that there was a slight decrease to the amount of
government’s own-source revenue to GDP from last year. Can you tell the
committee what that is attributed to?
Brent Hebert: — Thanks for the question, Member. We
had an income drop . . . You know, recall back the previous fiscal
year we had recognized $400 million from the tobacco settlement. So it was
recognized, of course, that year and dropped off this year from revenue. And
then the lower-than-expected net income from GBEs [government business
enterprise] also was a factor in that ratio by now.
Hugh Gordon: — Sorry. A decrease in the income
. . .
Brent Hebert: — Sorry. Of Crowns. GBE.
Hugh Gordon: — Oh, sorry.
Brent Hebert: — My apologies.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Brent Hebert: — Yeah.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — The
government appears to be increasingly dependent on transfers from the federal
government for health care and some things in education. I want to just hone in
on page 28, bottom right-hand part. This year-over-year increase is also due to
. . . The beginning of that paragraph there, that’s where I’m
referring to. And it’s the second bullet. It says that it was due to “increased
spending related to the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement.”
I trust that is from what? How much of
Saskatchewan money went into that? Or was that just spending of what the
federal government had given in the first place? Because I know from years gone
by there was a lot of rollovers from one year to the next. And is the increased
funding really just spending the federal government funding now as opposed to
the past few years? Or has this government actually put money into child care
for increased spending? Because I don’t have an answer to that one.
Brent Hebert: — Thanks for the question. So that is
increased spending of the federal dollars that flow to the province. And I
think it was about $12 billion, I’m told, increase in spending. But it’s
the spending of the federal dollars on that program.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
And just a follow-up to that. So this spring there was an announcement that
there was going to be more money coming into child care. And we did the
calculations along with some people from . . . child care experts
across the country. They estimated it was roughly 97 million that would be
coming into child care as an additional funding allotment to Saskatchewan. I
was wondering, was that put into these numbers for this year or is that next
year?
Brent Hebert: — That’s a ‘26‑27 number. Yeah.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay.
Thank you. Can you explain what contributed to the increase in corporate
revenue this year?
Brent Hebert: — Thanks for the question, Member. So
it’s just higher than expected prior-year adjustments from corporate tax
revenue. So as people file their tax returns and there is adjustments made, we
get those adjustments . . . Yeah, exactly. So just higher than
expected tax adjustments.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you very much. Turning your
attention to page 24, talking about other own-source revenue. I want to focus
on the output-based performance standards. The Sask Party government has
assured the people of the province we’re the first carbon tax-free jurisdiction
in the country. Yet it’s quite clear that we’re continuing to impose an
industrial carbon tax on businesses and industries, and that money we’re
reliant upon in order to help pay the bills.
My question is, in spite of that, do I
understand it correctly that in spite of assurances from the government, that
the amount of carbon tax collected from businesses and industries this past
year went up, actual year to actual year?
Brent Hebert: — Thanks for the question, Member. So
the government is in negotiations with the federal government on that front,
but the legislation is still in place. And so we are required to continue
accruing that revenue until that legislation changes and those negotiations
. . . from an end to those negotiations. So we still have to accrue
it because the legislation’s in place. We have that obligation.
Hugh Gordon: — Fair enough. Just a couple of
follow-ups on that then. Can you give the committee any idea of a timeline of
when they expect those negotiations to pay dividends?
Brent Hebert: — Not at this time.
Hugh Gordon: — Okay. Fair enough. Is that an
ongoing process? Is that something that the government, the provincial
government and federal government are negotiating on a regular basis? Can you
give us an idea as to whether or not, like there are plans to have a meeting
with the Minister of Finance for Canada and the Minister of Finance from
Saskatchewan and tell us when they’re going to hammer out a deal?
Brent Hebert: — I don’t have those details. All I
can say is there’s negotiations happening in terms of those specifics. That
isn’t something we can share or answer.
Hugh Gordon: — Fair enough. The other follow-up on
that question is, the province has removed the consumer portion of the carbon
tax on utility bills, correct? I was wondering if you can share with the
committee how the government is intending to make up for the loss of that
revenue on the consumer portion of the carbon tax.
[14:45]
Brent Hebert: — Thanks for the question, Member. So
of course, you know, that portion is also part of these negotiations. But in
terms of mitigating impacts on rates, there was a rate affordability grant that
was a float to SaskPower at Q3 to mitigate the impacts of that on ratepayers.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Are you
able to provide the committee with an estimate of the extra revenue the
government will be collecting on oil and gas revenues for ’26‑27?
Brent Hebert: — Thanks for the question. We’re kind
of leaking into ’26‑27, but there will be an update on that one at Q2, in
the Q2 mid-year update.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Let me just remind members I think that the focus of the work is out of the
Public Accounts. It’s kind of the after-the-fact audit. In this case it’s the
books of ’25‑26. There might be some questions that might be appropriate
when we’re looking, you know, forward looking regarding information they’d have
around trends or information or work plans that they have. But I think that
that’s a fair response. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you. Can you explain to the
committee what kinds of health care fees are being charged for the province for
what services? On page 24 it seems to indicate that that amount has gone up by
$63 million if I’m not mistaken. I hope that’s the right page on that
. . . Fees, yeah, fees. Sorry, health care fees.
Brent Hebert: — Thanks for the question, Member. I
guess looking at page 24, those increased health care fees are due to higher
service volumes or rate increases mainly in supportive and long-term care and
out-of-province services. That would be where the increases are coming from.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — It appears
that Crowns have had some losses if I look at from 2025 to 2026 schedule 14,
page 80. I assume, if I put together what we’ve heard today, it was mainly
because their operations cost more. Is that right?
Brent Hebert: — In the Crowns? Are you looking at
schedule 3?
Joan Pratchler: — Schedule
14. Oh, maybe I should be on schedule 3, but now I’m on 14.
Brent Hebert: — No, that’s okay. Pop over to
schedule 3 on pages 66 and 67. And you look down — so this is just the
investment in GBEs — and on page 66 down at the right-hand side, you’ll get to
net income loss for government enterprises. And so you’ll see the net incomes
that were brought into the revenue side of the financial statements across the
board. So they’ve got the Crowns that are along the top, and you can see most
Crowns had net incomes. SaskPower had a loss in ’25‑26, the Auto Fund —
those were the two that had losses in ’25‑26. The rest of the Crowns had
net incomes.
Joan Pratchler: — Thanks.
Brent Hebert: — Yeah, you’re welcome.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — I was wondering if you could explain
to the committee how the general debts shown on page 33 — I believe, public
debt — appears to have grown by, and maybe I’m wrong on this number, but it
appears to have grown by several billion from the year prior. How does the
deficit factor into that number? I guess I’m referring to the operating side.
Rod Balkwill: — Thank you, Member, for the question.
Regarding debt levels, increases from 2025 to 2026, a $3 billion increase
in debt, and 1 billion of that is attributable to the growth of the
deficit, to finance the deficit. About 1.5 billion of that is to finance
executive government capital expenditures.
We also increased debt to essentially
pre-borrow for the next fiscal year to the tune of about 600 million. So
it was not for specific projects this year, but was in anticipation of next
year’s, the following year’s borrowing. So those are the components.
Hugh Gordon: — The 600 million is for what
again?
Rod Balkwill: — To pre-borrow for the next fiscal
year. So it’s a timing difference between borrowing for needs in ’25‑26
that are actually . . . We increased debt to partially borrow for the
’26‑27 fiscal year.
Hugh Gordon: — Can you explain to the committee how
that works? It sounds to me as though you’ve borrowed the money, it’s sitting
in a bank account. What’s it doing?
Rod Balkwill: — Yeah. Well when we borrow, it does
go into liquid investments. And we earn a return that is commensurate with the
term and maturity of the investments we put them in, which is essentially short
term. So it earns a rate of interest right now, say, two and a half to three
per cent. You can imagine, for the committee, like March 31st is a very
important day but it’s sort of arbitrary from a cash management perspective
because we do have things that we need to pay for immediately after that. So
it’s sometimes prudent to borrow ahead of time so that money is available, say
on April 15th or June 2nd or something like that.
So we don’t manage to a particular date. We
look forward the next three or four months and determine our cash needs. And
sometimes that means borrowing more in the current fiscal year for cash needs
that come up quickly in the next year.
Hugh Gordon: — But presumably the rate of return
isn’t equal to the rate for borrowing it.
Rod Balkwill: — That’s absolutely correct, and it’s
a price you need to pay for that safety, that insurance, that you will have the
money available. Because if we have a large outflow, say on a certain day, we
have to plan three months in advance to raise that money. We can’t just do it
the day before. So that’s the price of it. And we evaluate that cost, and
generally write the . . . We’re borrowing at a higher rate because
it’s longer term than the investments we’re purchasing.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you. Mr. Chair, that’s all my
questions. Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Last
question. I’m trying to reconcile if I’m understanding things right. I hear
that we have record spending in education, and then I see the chart on page 27.
So it looks like that last bar on education is actually the spending for 2026.
Is that right?
Brent Hebert: — Yes, that’s correct. The last bar to
the right? Yeah.
Joan Pratchler: — That looks
like it’s shorter than the one from the year before. Is that a typo or is that
correct?
Brent Hebert: — Thank you, members. So the reason
that is lower is because we had a major pension adjustment on the education
side that lowered that spending that year.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. So
that would explain why it’s less, but that’s only the pension part?
Brent Hebert: — Right. The other thing I’ll point
out is that that education indicator is the education theme. So it’s not just
the Ministry of Education and boards of education; it includes post-secondary
education, a number of other education institutions. So Advanced Education, the
Ministry of Education, and so boards of education, Immigration and Career
Training, regional colleges — they’re all rolled up into that education number.
So when you look at that drop, there was a pension adjustment. But you know,
you can’t look at that and say, well that was just the boards of education
spending. Because it’s reporting on the theme, not just the boards of
education.
Joan Pratchler: — So where
would we find that delineated on the boards of education in here in terms of K
to 12 [kindergarten to grade 12], pre-K to 12?
Brent Hebert: — You won’t find it in the summary
financial statements because they’re all rolled up and consolidated.
Joan Pratchler: — Thanks.
Brent Hebert: — Member, just to follow up: if you go
to page 46, I would note — my colleagues noted this — if you look at the
expense line there for education, budget was 4.4 billion and the actual
was 4.5 billion. So spending was up in education based on budget.
Joan Pratchler: — That does
not include the pensions, this line right here, right?
Brent Hebert: — Yeah, the chart on page 29 was a
percentage of total expense, not the actual total expense. Yeah.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Committee members, I’m just interested a little bit on the pension
liabilities. You have the chart there, of course, page 33, and you see the
trend that’s there. Of course the defined benefits came to an end, so you see a
downward trend on that financial pressure each year on the liability side, kind
of from 2017 to 2026, down over about $2 billion. 7.8 down to
5.7 billion, so down $2 billion.
Now at the risk of looking into the future too
far: what your forecasts are, can you speak to what that trend looks like for
the next decade ahead based on the estimates? Does that trend just continue?
Are you going to be down another 2 billion in 10 years? It’s all based, of
course, off factors of age and these other factors.
Brent Hebert: — We don’t have those forecasts,
Chair. But the reason why we don’t have it is because of those actuarial and
mortality assumptions and assessments that are done, you know, each year that
impact that pension liability.
[15:00]
So we don’t have a forecast here today, but
generally it’s pretty tough to forecast given the uncertainty around those
assessments, actuarial and mortality assessments. And they change significantly
every couple years when they’re done by the plans.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Do equity markets factor into the pension liability? Does a more robust
equity market, say, that we experienced for the last couple years, does that
bring down that liability?
Brent Hebert: — Equity markets don’t come into play
because we don’t fund them. And they will go down to zero, as my learned
colleagues pointed out. They will go to zero at one point eventually.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Yeah, understood. You spoke about crop insurance. You gave a little bit of a
statement about it in your opening remarks. Could you speak around what the
surplus situation was for crop insurance that would be reflected — I know it’s
rolled into agriculture — that would be reflected in these books?
Brent Hebert: — As of March 31st, 2026, surplus is
809 million.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— And that’s up by how much from the year prior?
Brent Hebert: — It was up 68.4 million over
budget. I’m just trying to see what it was the previous year. It think it was
around 600 million, but let me check. Yeah, the surplus the previous year
was 665 million. So it’s increased to 809.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— And what about the reinsurance last year? How much reinsurance was taken on
and at what cost for the year ’25‑26?
Brent Hebert: — We don’t have that with us, Mr.
Chair, but we can bring it back. We’ve got the numbers; we just don’t have it
with us.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Thanks. You can bring that back to the committee. And what should be the
greatest concern regarding the financial vulnerability for Saskatchewan people
when they’re looking at . . . What measure do you believe is the one
that folks that care about the financial position of the province, what should
they be looking at? And what’s the greatest risk or concern?
Tracey Smith: — Thanks for the question. I know
you’re asking for sort of that single kind of metric or measure, but I would
just sort of just say generally I think the area that we really look to is
around that revenue volatility around oil and commodity prices, exchange and
interest rates, inflation. I think we can all appreciate just the environment
that we’re in right now in terms of, there is some uncertainty. So that’s
definitely sort of the key area that we’re looking to to assess kind of where
we’re at very regularly.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, appreciate that. Looking to committee members. Arm River? Nothing?
Okay. Not seeing any further questions at this time. I think that gets us to
the end of our questioning with respect to the volume 1 Public Accounts.
Thank you to everyone for the time here with us
here today and to the auditor and to you all for what you do to compile this
really valuable information. I think that, you know, Saskatchewan people care
about our province, right. They care about our fiscal position. And you put
good information in there for people to go and assess the financial state
within the province. So thanks for your work on that front.
Not seeing any further questions here right
now, I guess I would simply welcome a motion to conclude consideration of the
2025‑26 volume 1 Public Accounts.
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson. All agreed?
Some Hon.
Members:
— Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— That’s carried. Before we have a motion of adjournment, Deputy Minister Smith
or Comptroller Hebert, do you have any final words for us before we shut this
thing down?
Tracey Smith: — I just want to say a big thank you
to the committee for the time today, for the questions. Again I want to extend
a sincere appreciation to the Provincial Auditor’s office, Tara and her team.
And I also just want to acknowledge the fabulous team that is around me today
and Brent for answering a lot of questions along with Rod and Cullen. A great
team supported by other great people behind us. So just a huge thank you to
everyone overall. Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay. Thanks so much. And you said you wanted to thank the really great team
and Brent. Right, okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Comptroller Hebert, any
final words?
Brent Hebert: — No, I think I’ll remain silent on
that last comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, folks, I would welcome a motion of adjournment.
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson. All agreed?
Some Hon.
Members:
— Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— This committee stands adjourned until Wednesday, October 14th, 2026 at 8:30
a.m.
[The committee adjourned at 15:08.]
CORRIGENDUM
On page 458 of
the October 1, 2026 verbatim report No. 17 for the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts, the ninth paragraph in the right-hand column was incorrectly
attributed to John Fahlman. It is correctly attributed to Aaron Schweitzer.
The
publication has been corrected online. We apologize for the error.
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.