CONTENTS
Standing Committee on Public
Accounts
Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board
THIRTIETH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
Hansard Verbatim Report
No.
19 — Wednesday, October 14, 2026
[The
committee met at 08:31.]
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay. Good morning, folks. We’ll
convene the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. My name is Trent
Wotherspoon. I serve as the Chair of the Public Accounts. I’d like to introduce
the members of the committee: Deputy Chair Thorsteinson, MLA [Member of the
Legislative Assembly] Chan, MLA Bromm, MLA Keisig, MLA Gordon, MLA Pratchler.
I’d
like to welcome and introduce our officials with the Provincial Comptroller’s
office, of course Provincial Comptroller Brent Hebert and assistant provincial
comptroller Donica Smart. I’d like to welcome and introduce our Provincial
Auditor, Tara Clemett, and her team that’s with us here today.
Health
Chair Wotherspoon: — And we’ll move right along to our
first agenda item. We have a whole bunch of Ministry of Health considerations
here this morning and the different health affiliates and different health
organizations, so we look forward to a morning focused on health.
I’d
like to welcome ADM [assistant deputy minister] O’Neill and all of the
officials that have joined us here today and all those that will join us here
today, all those that are involved in the work that’s going to be discussed
here today.
I’ll
kick it over to ADM O’Neill to briefly introduce the officials that have joined
him here today. And refrain from getting into the audit, the chapters right
now. We’ll come to the auditor and then come back your way for that part. ADM
O’Neill.
Norman O’Neill: —
Sounds good. So good morning, everybody, and thank you to the Provincial
Auditor of Saskatchewan, Tara Clemett, and her team for meeting with us today.
The
Ministry of Health and our health system partners sincerely appreciate the work
of the Provincial Auditor and the independent oversight that it provides. We
are joined today by representatives from the Ministry of Health and system
partners to discuss the Provincial Auditor’s reports and to address any
follow-up questions.
I’m
pleased to introduce the Ministry of Health representatives, who include Chad
Ryan, assistant deputy minister, to my right; James Turner, assistant deputy
minister; Ingrid Kirby, assistant deputy minister; Ryan Dobson, director of
operations and internal audit; Olu Hassan, senior performance measurement
specialist; and other senior leadership team and ministry officials who will be
introduced at the microphone as we progress.
We
will also be joined throughout the morning by representatives from our health
system partners. eHealth Saskatchewan representatives include Davin Church, CEO
[chief executive officer]; Crystal Zorn, VP [vice-president] of information
security and privacy. Saskatchewan Cancer Agency representatives include Deb
Bulych, president and CEO; Karen Efthimiou, VP of population health, quality,
and research; David Tran, director of population health; and Braden Giblett,
CFO [ chief financial officer].
3sHealth
[Health Shared Services Saskatchewan] representatives include Mark Anderson,
chief executive officer; Alana Shearer-Kleefeld, vice-president of employee
benefits; and Boye Adetogun, director of claims services; and Luke Malach,
executive director, internal audit and enterprise risk management.
This
meeting is an opportunity to discuss the work that has been undertaken in
response to the auditor’s recommendations. Today’s discussion will include
updates on progress and identify areas where further work may be required.
Thank you to everyone for being here this morning, prepared to discuss the
issues before the committee. Today’s agenda covers a range of important areas
within the health system, including oversight of health services and programs,
enforcement and compliance, stewardship of public resources, and health
information and payment systems.
We
recognize the value of the auditor’s ongoing review. With this in mind we
appreciate the opportunity to engage with the committee and share information
on the steps being taken to strengthen programs, processes, and accountability
across the health system. We share the same goal to support continuous
improvement and ensure effective stewardship of public resources in delivering
health systems. This work also supports our broader commitment to putting
patients first and strengthening the health system for Saskatchewan residents.
We
look forward to today’s discussions and the opportunity to review these
important reports. Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay. Thank you, ADM O’Neill and all
the officials that have joined us. I’m going to turn it over now to the
Provincial Auditor to focus on chapter 11 from the 2025 report that focuses on
special-care homes.
Tara Clemett: — Thank you,
Mr. Chair, Deputy Chair, committee members, and officials. With me today is Mr.
Jason Wandy, and he’s the deputy provincial auditor that is responsible for the
portfolio of work that includes the Ministry of Health. And then behind us and assisting
us today is Ms. Michelle Lindenbach, and she’s our liaison with this committee.
We
will present the chapters for the ministry and the health care affiliates in
the order that they appear on the agenda, and this will result in six separate
presentations. We’ll pause after each of the presentations for the committee’s
discussion and consideration of each presentation. There are two presentations
that will result in a total of seven new audit recommendations for the
committee’s consideration. The remaining four presentations include status
updates on outstanding recommendations previously agreed to by this committee.
I
do want to thank ministry staff for the co-operation that was extended to us
during the course of our work.
So
chapter 11 of our 2025 report volume 2 reports the results of our audit at the
Ministry of Health regarding its processes to inspect special-care homes for
the period ended July 31st, 2025. We concluded the ministry had effective
processes other than the areas reflected in our six new recommendations.
Special-care
homes are facilities that provide comprehensive personal and nursing care for
individuals who no longer live independently due to health conditions,
disabilities, or advanced age. Some special-care homes are owned and operated
by the Saskatchewan Health Authority and some are contracted by the Authority
to deliver care, known as affiliates. As of 2025 there were 161 special-care
homes across the province, 125 of them operated by the Authority and 36
operated by health care affiliates.
Special-care
homes are regulated by the Ministry of Health. The Ministry has established
minimum standards for operating these homes and is responsible for inspecting
them. In the fiscal year 2024‑25 the ministry spent approximately
$483,000 on inspections.
In
our first recommendation, on page 106, we recommend the Ministry of Health use
a risk-based approach for inspecting special-care homes. The ministry began
inspecting special-care homes in December 2021 and planned to inspect each home
within three years. We found this timing did not align with good practice. Also
the ministry did not consider risk to determine when it should inspect
special-care homes. At July 2025 the ministry had inspected 130 out of the 161
special-care homes across the province since December 2021.
We
found the ministry did not schedule or inspect two care homes with very high
rates of potentially inappropriate use of antipsychotics, about 60 per cent or
higher, until March and August of 2025. That’s over three years after the
ministry’s inspection program began. Ministry inspections completed at these
two homes identified critical risks related to chemical restraints at both
homes, meaning that the homes inconsistently documented the use of chemical
restraints and may have been using antipsychotic drugs to manage resident care
when a diagnosis did not support the use of that medication.
Not
considering risks when planning special-care home inspections does not allow
the ministry to effectively prioritize inspections at the highest risk
special-care homes. This can cause delays in identifying and ultimately
addressing key areas of non-compliance.
In
our second recommendation, on page 107, we recommend the ministry conduct
unannounced inspections at special-care homes. Unlike some other jurisdictions
like Ontario and Alberta, we found Saskatchewan does not utilize unannounced
inspections as part of its normal inspection cycle and also has the longest
duration between inspections. All other jurisdictions we reviewed conduct
inspections of special-care homes at least every one to two years as well as
perform unannounced inspections, compared to Saskatchewan, who performs
announced inspections every three years.
Announced
inspections allow special-care homes to rectify issues prior to an inspection.
For example, during our on-site observations we found a special-care home
updated its resident care plans after the ministry informed the home of its
upcoming inspection. The care plans had not been updated as required prior to
receiving an inspection notice. Announced inspections may increase the risk
that practices are altered to appear compliant, resulting in inaccurate
assessments of resident care, quality, and safety.
In
our third recommendation, on page 108, we recommend the Ministry of Health
analyze its resources to determine whether it has sufficient capacity to carry
out risk-based inspections at special-care homes. At July 2025 the ministry had
six inspectors in Regina responsible for inspecting all 161 special-care homes
in the province. Management indicated inspecting special-care homes takes up
about 60 per cent of the inspectors’ job responsibilities.
The
ministry undertook 44 inspections between January and July 2025, and it
expected to complete another 31 by the end of March 2026. This does support
that ministry inspectors would be capable of inspecting special-care homes more
frequently than every three years.
While
the ministry increased its inspectors from two to six since the inspection
program began in 2021, it did not analyze whether it had sufficient staff and
resources to carry out timely inspections. For example, the ministry had not
analyzed whether all inspectors based in Regina is reasonable, given some
special-care homes are located in northern Saskatchewan, and whether assigning
special-care homes to specific inspectors would make more sense.
Without
sufficient resources to conduct inspections, the ministry may encounter
challenges in carrying out their inspections and follow-up inspections in a
timely and effective manner. The ministry will need to analyze the resources
needed as part of the risk-based approach for inspecting and reinspecting
special-care homes.
In
our fourth recommendation, on page 113, we recommend the Ministry of Health
conduct independent follow-up inspections at special-care homes to determine
whether previously identified non-compliance issues are sufficiently addressed.
Our analysis found the number of days it took for special-care homes to
implement remediation plans for critical and high-risk non-compliance issues
decreased in 2025.
The
Saskatchewan Health Authority still requires up to three months to address
certain critical and high-risk non-compliance issues. The ministry did not
track or analyze the reasons for extensions causing delays in implementation,
nor . . . it did not track and analyze the number of critical and
high, or moderate and low, non-compliance issues identified during inspections.
Additionally
we found the ministry did not return to verify whether special-care homes
sufficiently rectified the areas of non-compliance identified during
inspections. Instead it relied on self-reported information the Authority
collected from the home operators to confirm proper remediation took place. We
found other jurisdictions such as Ontario and Manitoba conduct follow-up
inspections to confirm whether homes sufficiently address non-compliance
issues. Without periodic follow-up inspections to confirm compliance, the
ministry is unable to verify and ensure special-care homes have properly
addressed non-compliance issues.
In
our fifth recommendation, on page 116, we recommend the Ministry of Health
formally analyze and report on special-care home inspection results — so
non-compliance issues — to identify common trends and potential areas for
improvement. After completing special-care home inspections, inspectors prepare
a report on the results of the inspection. The director of continuing care and
rehabilitation of the Ministry of Health informally reviews the inspection
results.
However
the ministry has not established a method to monitor and analyze overall
inspection results to determine the significance of findings. Without
analyzing, the ministry is unable to determine trends such as common
non-compliance issues.
In
June 2025 ministry senior management began receiving quarterly reports on the
current status of inspections. We found the reports provided an overview of the
status of inspections and extensions since the inspection program began in
December 2021.
[08:45]
We
found the quarterly report did provide some information related to the
significance of non-compliance issues, but it only included the results from
the 2025‑26 inspections. We found the ministry identified some common
issues from inspections. For example it noted inconsistencies in resident care
planning and assessment as well as medication management.
Our
testing of 16 inspections identified additional common issues: care plans not
consistently appropriately completed, resident pain not assessed daily and the
effectiveness of pain intervention not consistently documented, fire drills
occurred inconsistently and not documented, and inconsistency in documentation
around individual fall prevention. Analyzing and reporting on special-care home
results is crucial for implementing corrective action and making informed
decisions on the inspection program.
Our
sixth recommendation, on page 116, we recommend the Ministry of Health publicly
report results of special-care home inspections. We expected the ministry to
report at minimum the inspection dates and non-compliance issues found
associated with the special-care home inspections. At October 2025 the ministry
was determining what inspection results to publish and how often. Management
indicated it expects to publicly report results in ’26‑27.
Without
public access to special-care home inspection results the process lacks
transparency, leading to less pressure for special-care homes to quickly
implement remediation plans and allow for reoccurring non-compliance putting
residents’ health and safety at risk. In addition families and the public are
unaware of issues identified at special-care homes.
I
will now pause for the committee’s consideration.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, thank you very much, Auditor.
A new focus here with new recommendations before us. I’ll turn it over to ADM
O’Neill for some brief remarks. Thanks as well for the status update and
detailing some of the actions that have been taken towards implementation, or
in some cases, implementation. And I’ll table that status update here at this
time. That’s PAC document 109‑30: Ministry of Health, Status update,
dated October 14th, 2026.
ADM
O’Neill, feel free to provide some brief remarks and then we’ll see what we
have for questions.
Norman
O’Neill: — So thank
you. As it is a new audit, I’ll just touch on all six recommendations as
briefly as I can.
Regarding
the recommendation for the Ministry of Health to use a risk-based approach for
inspections, the ministry has enhanced its processes and implemented a
standardized risk-based approach to prioritize inspections. This approach
allows the ministry to consider a number of available indicators such as length
of time since last inspection, previous inspection findings, critical
incidents, resident and family concerns, and quality indicators to help
prioritize homes and determine inspection frequency.
Regarding
the second recommendation, which is for the Ministry of Health to conduct
unannounced inspections at special-care homes, the Ministry of Health has
expanded the frequency of unannounced inspections. In 2027 all inspections will
be unannounced which will provide a more representative view of day-to-day
operations and strengthen accountability.
Regarding
the third recommendation, which is for the ministry to analyze its resources
and capacity for risk-based inspections, the ministry has implemented a
risk-based approach to prioritize special-care homes inspections and continues
to assess its overall capacity to fully implement this approach.
In
2025‑26 the Ministry of Health added funding to increase the number of
inspectors by two full-time positions. Since 2021 the ministry has added human
resources to the special-care home inspection process. Currently there are six
inspectors and a manager responsible for implementation.
In
addition, there are two research officers that support the technical aspects of
the inspection tool — data and tracking. This increased capacity provides
additional oversight to manage the inspection process, focus on continuous
improvement activities, and implement the recommendations from the Provincial
Auditor’s report.
Regarding
the fourth recommendation for the ministry to conduct independent follow-up
inspections to determine whether previously identified non-compliance issues
are sufficiently addressed, this is considered partially implemented by the
ministry.
Prior
to the Provincial Auditor report, the ministry had conducted a small number of
independent, unannounced follow-up inspections when the risk associated with
the non-compliance was assessed as high. This was determined by the
special-care home exceeding remediation timelines, demonstrating a lack of
progress. Following the implementation of a risk-based approach and unannounced
inspections, the ministry is reviewing its current criterion to trigger a
follow-up inspection and is refining the inspection tool to accommodate
independent follow-up inspections.
Regarding
the fifth recommendation, which is to formally analyze and report on
special-care home inspection results to identify common trends and potential
areas of improvement, the ministry also considers this partially implemented.
Since 2021 the ministry has tracked and analyzed inspection results using the
data to identify and understand areas for improvement. The ministry is
formalizing its methodology for trend analysis and developing a consistent
approach for sharing findings with special-care homes, the Saskatchewan Health
Authority, and ministry leadership.
The
ministry has also begun publicly reporting special-care home inspection
results. Regarding the final recommendation, which is for the ministry to
publicly report results of special-care home inspections, the ministry launched
public reporting of special-care home inspection results on August 31st, 2026.
Public reporting strengthens transparency and accountability, and provides
residents and families with accessible information about inspection findings
and remediation status.
And
that concludes my remarks.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, thanks for the remarks and
thanks for detailing the actions that have been taken to date. I’ll open it up
now to committee members that may have questions. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Good morning. Good to see you again.
Past practice in long-term care homes was typically, I would think, the larger
centres would report quarterly on their MDS [minimum data set] indicators and
several other reporting, and then have to supply remediation if they were below
whatever the Saskatchewan numbers would be. Does that process still continue?
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Keisig.
Travis Keisig: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a question for the member opposite: MDS indicators?
Joan Pratchler: — Minimum data standards.
Travis Keisig: —
Thank you. I despise acronyms on sheer principle, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Good point of clarification for
anyone watching. I think that’s helpful, right. So thank you.
A Member: — I had to ask too.
Chad
Ryan: — Thank you for
the question. So there is the practice. The practice still is in place. And so
what it is right now is the Saskatchewan Health Authority does lead this in
receiving those reports. SHA — Saskatchewan Health Authority — does set the
targets for that on the reporting. So essentially what it is is that when a
home reports on any corrective action, they give very targeted and specific
timelines of when they’re going to correct that action. And then on the next
quarterly it’s also followed up on.
In
addition to that is that although this seems like a very high administration
process of reporting, there is conversations happening outside of this where
the Saskatchewan Health Authority, who oversees the principles and services
agreement, what they’ll do is they’re having conversations.
So
if we see that a special-care home specifically had corrective actions to take
place, there’s conversations between the Saskatchewan Health Authority and the
facility to talk about what’s being done. In addition to that there’s a bit of
education and support, and so they’re able to achieve that. So very, very, very
logged, and very clear, and a back and forth.
Joan Pratchler: — Right. And so I’m just trying to
clarify that there is ongoing work that happens in care homes that report
quarterly. Then we have this other tranche over here which are the physical
inspections of going in to see that. So it’s not like they’re out and not being
inspected once every three years or whatever. So there is lots of ongoing work
happening there. That’s what it appears to me and you’ve confirmed that.
Have
the minimum data standard indicators changed over time? If so, what are the MDS
indicators now that are typically in that report that you would also go and see
when you do the inspections?
Heather Murray: — Good morning. I’m Heather Murray, the
executive director of continuing care at the Ministry of Health. At the
ministry and with the SHA we still track the same key indicators. We align with
CIHI [Canadian Institute for Health Information] and so we continue to track
falls in the last 30 days; mood symptoms of depression; worsened behavioural
symptoms; worsened, newly occurring pressure ulcers; experiencing pain; daily
physical restraints; and antipsychotics without a diagnosis.
And
that’s been consistent, well, since I’ve been around. So long enough. But we
haven’t changed those. Those seem to be the key indicators. Some of them are
contingent on others. So like I call them the three-legged stool: like
antipsychotics, falls, plus restraints, they interact with each other, so we
continue to monitor that. And I have data back to 2021, but I know we’ve been
doing that a lot longer and we’re slowly improving.
So
the health care excellence work on antipsychotics, so we had homes in
Saskatchewan that participate in that, and we had four successfully get the
certification that they’ve met all the requirements. We had a fifth, but they
were late submitting their data so they’ll get it the next round.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. And we know that there are
some things that typically happen over time to give a baseline of what is
acceptable. In the past, antipsychotics without a diagnosis, it sounds really
frightening but there are times when that just has to happen because of an
emergent nature at some point in time. In the past that used to be 18 per cent
is typically those emergent ones that would appear. Has that percentage changed
in terms of your typical guidelines for reviewing antipsychotics, whether
they’re out of that range or not?
Heather
Murray: — So we review
anytime that indicator is triggered. So what happens is if you’re over the
percentage target, we ask the homes to explore that because there is a clinical
review of each resident that . . . Because there is at times episodic
need for these drugs. And so then it’s looking at that over time that, okay,
fine, for that quarter they were on it for various reasons, but then making
sure that medication review occurs so that it’s not a long-standing use.
Joan Pratchler: — And what is that typical standard? Is
it less than 18 now or more?
Heather
Murray: — Well we don’t
necessarily for episodic have it. Well the goal nationally is to get to 15 per
cent or reduce your current use by 15 per cent, and so we’re working towards
that.
Joan Pratchler: — And when the mention was of
conversations that happen with organizations to help, what are the generally
accepted best practices in reducing antipsychotic use without a diagnosis? What
are the generally accepted practices? They’re on that excellence program? Or
are there other ways that that’s managed?
[09:00]
Chad
Ryan: — So over the
last couple of years, the antipsychotic utilization we’ve really dove into. So
there’s a bit of a process and it is multi-faceted. And so how we target it
with residents is that once a resident does transition into a long-term care
home it will trigger a medication review. That medication review then will be
looked at to find out . . . to ensure that whatever pharmaceuticals
the individual’s on, or medication, have not . . . It’s reviewed to
ensure that it’s going to be safe for that individual to take.
The
next thing is, is that it is — in the multi-faceted realm of this — is that
it’s also the support and education within that staff in that realm. And so
it’s also having them understand behavioural management, looking at
environmental controls, all those type of things that better can support some
of those individuals on antipsychotics. What we’re finding more and more within
our affiliates in special-care homes is that they’re taking a very
non-restrictive environment by essentially allowing individuals, say on
dementia wings, to open up those wings and allow individuals more accessibility
across. And certain affiliates are seeing quite a good result in that.
So
in looking at that, the pharmaceutical review, looking at the training for the
staff specifically, we also have geriatric teams that will also come in to
support certain special-care homes should an individual have more expressive
behaviour within those environments. And as well as going back to then just
basic staff training and staff knowledge with that.
So
what we’ve seen is, as a result of that, is that we’ve seen a dramatic drop
within our antipsychotic utilization. So where Saskatchewan came roughly around
33 per cent, we’re sitting right now at the Saskatchewan average of 26.5 per
cent for antipsychotic utilization. So we’re seeing a significant decrease
overall.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you, and congratulations on that.
Because that has been a challenge over the years, hasn’t it?
Med
reviews are triggered once a client moves from one care facility to another,
whether that’s from a hospital, back to the hospital, back to the home, that
kind of thing — or that’s what past practice was. Is that still the case? And
are there subsequent med reconciliations or med reviews over the time that a
client would be in a care home? And what would that frequency be?
Heather Murray: — Yes, it still continues if they are
. . . When they first are admitted to a home there is a med
reconciliation, particularly coming from acute care because that was an
episodic treatment where things get added. But then it’s time to review that
it’s not supposed to be necessarily long-term use of some of those medications.
So it is a multi-disciplinary review
with the care home pharmacist, and then that also continues as part of our
regular assessment. So it may not be quarterly, but there is an ongoing review.
Particularly as care needs change, there would be a review of that medication,
or if there’s some sort of expressive behaviour or something going on. And
particularly with antipsychotics, if it was episodic, a key thing is family
needs to be aware that it’s being prescribed for a short term so that it’s not
just the home doing things to people. It is about communicating with the
relevant family members so they understand.
Joan Pratchler: — So it continues that when they
change facilities, of whatever nature it is, and then ongoing throughout a
year, it’s reviewed yearly or on some type of schedule. If there was no change,
it’s still reviewed anyway.
Heather Murray: — That’s correct.
Joan Pratchler: — Well we have small and large care
homes. Could you tell me how many of the special-care homes here in
Saskatchewan are accredited under Accreditation Canada?
Heather Murray: — They all are.
Joan Pratchler: — They all are.
Heather Murray: — Yeah.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. And the oversight is
long-term care guidelines. Has that been changed to long-term care policy with
ensuing funding?
Heather Murray: — So the special-care home guidelines
are the policy, and they were updated in 2024. For third parties we did have a
funding increase in 2024‑25. We invested $40 million to support them
in meeting those guidelines, because we had heard concerns that it was a
challenge. And so we have done that, and I’ve only heard positive feedback from
the homes on that funding.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. How many special-care
homes have you identified with very high rates of potentially inappropriate use
of antipsychotics, I mean beyond what your target is?
Heather
Murray: — I don’t have
an exact, like a count of the homes that would be over, but I will say
provincially we do have high rates. Where we are improving — as Chad mentioned
that we’ve dropped — there’s maybe a handful of homes that are lower, but for
overall it is a higher rate. And we’re very similar across Canada; it’s high
rates across Canada. And I think that’s why there’s the emphasis on the work
we’re doing.
Joan Pratchler: — Yeah. And just because everybody else
is doing it, doesn’t mean it makes it right.
So
when I look at recommendation no. 2, expanding frequency of unannounced
visits, what is the frequency now of unannounced visits? Because before, it was
one to three years. You have six inspectors. You do the math. Like you can do
the math like I can. So what’s the frequency now, and really what’s your goal
for a target rate on that?
Chad
Ryan: — Yeah. We’re
actually really happy with where we lined up. And so this all cascades into
each other. And so essentially what it is right now is that all inspections
will be unannounced. And what we did is that we met with our partners to let
them know back in early spring that this is the process for this. What we found
with that is that all 161 will be unannounced.
Next
phase, full phase will start in January for all affiliates. And so our target
for inspections typically before . . . not typically, was before was
about 50 inspections per year. Based on our analysis that we’ve conducted,
we’re targeting 70 per year. And the result of that is exactly what the auditor
talked about, is that we are able to, say, show up into a town unannounced, go
in and possibly inspect a facility. Should there be an outbreak in that
facility, we actually don’t inspect. We allow that facility just to follow the
guidelines.
But
what we can do is we can drive down the street and go to the next one. And so
in that process is that that avoids a lot of that opportunity where potentially
affiliates or SHA long-term care would know that we’re coming.
So
what we found though going through the first inspection cycle is that a lot of
the remediation that came out of those was a lot of policy-based stuff. So a
lot of our inspections are moving along quicker, so to speak. And so it did
change that target significantly. So out of 161 total special-care homes,
targeting 70 per year, we actually have a bit of a gap of 49 open spaces for
inspections, which we will continue then to do follow-up remediation or pop
inspections on that. So we have a bit of a targeted plan and so far it’s under
way.
Joan Pratchler: — Good. So there is that connection and
that oversight with Accreditation Canada too, and when you mention policy,
that’s one of the huge parts of Accreditation Canada is getting your policies
in order. And then that would explain a little bit why the speed of inspections
is able to take the rate it is now. Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Sorry, I just want to go back to your risk criteria for inspections. Looking at
the update, I see it noted, it says family concerns is considered. Does that
include non-family, like complaints from other individuals or people, or does
that encapsulate all complaints?
Heather
Murray: — Yeah, so it’s
anyone who, like we have a tracker of folks who may phone the ministry with
concerns. So it’s a family, a supporter, or others who may call in and we’ll
connect with them. But we are now tracking that so that we can . . .
not that we didn’t track it, but we are better able to see like which homes it
was and to understand if there’s a common theme or just there’s more general
concerns with that home which is part of our risk assessment.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you. I want to get to your resourcing. I notice that you’re currently
assessing whether or not you’ve got the capacity to carry out these
inspections. So my question around that, particularly when you look at
recommendation 2, your update there where you’re going to be now conducting all
your inspections unannounced. Presumably one will find more problems if you are
conducting these unannounced. This is not giving the care homes a heads-up, so
to speak, so presumably there will be more things to find in special-care
homes. Correct me if my logic is wrong on that, but I imagine it’s something
you have to anticipate.
So
with that in mind, how confident are you that you’re going to have enough staff
knowing that you’ve got six people right now that are in charge of these
inspections? What is your assessment or analysis of your resources going to
look like? And how long will it take for you . . . I know you say
you’ll implement recommendation no. 3 in 2027, but will this new change in
unannounced inspections change your assessment of your resources? That’s
essentially my question.
Chad
Ryan: — Yeah, no, and
thank you for the question. So as we have progressed along this since the start
of the inspections going from four inspectors, adding the additional two, we
also added two research and background positions that handle a lot of the administration.
So
the question that you’re asking right now is, you know, what’s the analysis
being done? So what we did is that we targeted freeing up the inspectors to not
have to do that background work, where the inspectors’ target focus is
inspecting. The other thing is that we did add a manager position which allows
for that coordinated service, and the manager actually is able to also inspect.
And so we have a good complement.
Based
on that, in early spring what we did is that we changed our targets. We knew
where we wanted to go with unannounced inspections, and so we changed our
targets to 70. Coming off the first phase we knew that we had a lot of
affiliates do complete remediations, which was updating a lot of the stuff. And
so exactly what you’re citing is that there is a potential for more issues to
come forward with unannounced inspections.
What
we did with our new target is that we allow year over year that flexibility of
49 additional inspections based on this target and the capacity on which the
inspectors can do. So we have equated that all into a bit of a formula on where
we want to be hitting. We track it weekly to monthly to ensure that we’re
hitting these targets with regards to inspections.
As
I said earlier, we were hampered, and we would sit at this table and explain we
were hampered in previous inspections because we would show up and we would get
notification there was a possible outbreak. We would then have to call an
additional special-care home and indicate we’re going to be coming out within a
week to give them some opportunity, create that travel time. So where it is
with the unannounced inspections is actually reducing quite a bit of our
front-end loading work that has to be completed by where we can walk into
communities and have that.
The
other thing I should note too though is that there is background work through
the principles and services agreement that is with the Saskatchewan Health
Authority and, say, the affiliate where there is those conversations happening,
where there is that clarification, where there is that opportunity for
interaction. So the ministry coming in to do the inspections is not the only
single touch point on these affiliates. So it’s quite a comprehensive program.
Hugh Gordon: —
And getting back to the resources, was the number of people available to
conduct these inspections the reason why the ministry hadn’t inspected like the
five facilities noted on page 106 sooner, or why it’s taken so long to conduct
those inspections at facilities?
Chad Ryan: —
Yeah, a bit of a start-up to start on the original inspections to get our legs
under us, so to speak. And so the thing is is that we have fairly solid cadence
in what it is. The other thing too is that inspections took longer. We had to
dig in more. We had to, you know, in looking at some of the issues that are
identified that are not following those guidelines we have to stop and address.
[09:15]
The
inspections too have shifted not only to inspecting, but a lot of the feedback
that we get from facilities is that hey, you know, the inspector came out, and
I appreciate the feedback and opportunity for that conversation. It’s not, no,
you didn’t meet; you didn’t meet. It’s a bit of a conversation too, and so
those have shifted within a lot of the inspections and where we can walk in and
actually just complete the inspection in a way more timely manner.
Hugh Gordon: —
And just to tag onto that then, is part of your objective in these inspections
to get to them sooner than every three years?
Chad
Ryan: — Yeah, and again
that target . . . So go back to that 70 target. So the 70 target
doesn’t make sense, because theoretically based on 161 inspections we do have
that gap. And so what this does is not only offers an opportunity for more
inspections. On that risk-based approach what we’re doing is that if there’s a
certain facility that we feel, based on the risk-based approach, that requires
a sooner inspection, they are prioritized within the year. So it’s not a simple
formula as everybody gets touched one year. It’s that we’re constantly analyzing
what’s come out of those inspections to do those follow-ups.
And
then second of all, again the Saskatchewan Health Authority then goes in to
provide that support.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — I just want to circle back to
Accreditation Canada and their process. (a) How often is that happening in care
homes, and secondly, what kind of supports does SHA provide? Because that is a
big job to be accredited, and all these other things flow through which makes
your inspections easier and that kind of thing.
So (a) how often is the accreditation
process happening, (b) what kind of supports is SHA providing for those to
happen in a timely and effective, financially effective way as well for them?
Heather Murray: — On the accreditation, the SHA sort
of leads that with the affiliates, so I can’t speak necessarily to the
frequency. I believe it’s three to five years. They do a cycle. So the SHA does
provide supports to all homes particularly providing, you know, common policies
so that they can make them their own. But they’re not starting from scratch
because we do want consistency across all the service lines regardless of who
owns or operates. And so there is a collaboration.
Joan Pratchler: — Is there anything in place
. . . Because it’s so labour intensive, what supports are there for
SHA to help support the homes that embark on that?
Heather
Murray: — I’m not 100
per cent sure. They have central offices in the SHA that support quality
improvement, but I can’t speak to that.
Joan Pratchler: — Could someone?
Chad
Ryan: — The SHA did add
some more rural positions to supports, some more rural leadership on that side
of it, to support affiliates more targeted towards . . . on that
support side. But as we stated, on the accreditation side, that is supported by
the Saskatchewan Health Authority and so with regards to targeting resourcing,
we do not know.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. And is that something that’s
going to be included or something to be looked at? Because it really does help
elevate the quality.
Chad
Ryan: — Yeah, and
specific to this, our focus is on the inspection side of it and quality
indicator and all that. So we are looking targeted on that. With regards to the
accreditation side of it, again we support that and we’re happy that there are
organizations using that accreditation. But really when it comes down to it,
it’s adhering to the guidelines as well as the principles and services
agreement. That’s what we’re looking at.
Joan Pratchler: — Looking back over all that work that
has happened, what were the lessons learned?
Heather
Murray: — Fortunately
I’ve been around since we started, and so I’ve got to observe the team and
their growth and what we’ve learned. And so some of what we’ve learned is
. . . Well we had a lot to learn because this was new space for us.
And we looked at our other jurisdictions and toured in Alberta and saw what
they did.
So
we learned as we went. We used to have to have multiple inspectors on and so we
weren’t very efficient. We’re now, you know, sort of a lean, mean, fighting
machine that we can go on our own. We’ve adjusted our assessment of the
inspections. It still aligns with the guidelines but to reflect more what
actually happens when you inspect versus theoretical, when you look at the
policy and, say, they know what to look for, understanding, you know, the
balance between accountability and supportiveness, because you do want to have
quality improvement and have a relationship if there is an accountability.
Some
other things we’ve learned is recently we’ve changed so we no longer will
provide extensions. It is, here’s the target; here’s your concern; like you
have to get it done. Because again I think the auditor pointed out we hadn’t
tracked why the extensions occurred and we were finding it just kept going. And
so it was like, nope, we’re no longer having extensions. It’s more efficient.
It pushes people to make those improvements and improve resident care.
I
think the public reporting was a good learning lesson for us about what we
report and how it reflected. And there was lots of discussions on that about,
you can’t just at one point post everything is compliant without showing that
there were some non-compliance, so that people know it happened but it’s been
rectified, so that there’s some public confidence in that.
And
so we continue to grow as we get better at this. The unannounced has been going
very well. The only thing we do is we have to check there’s no outbreak. So
it’s call and just say, hey, are you in outbreak? We don’t say why we’re
calling, and then people show up. Today I know there was a surprise inspection
and they were going early in the morning, at 7 or so, to watch the med pass
because there had been concerns.
So
we’ve really learned a lot about how it works and what we need to be looking
for. And that’s just from my level with my team. And I think Chad has some
other . . .
Chad Ryan: —
Yeah, and we have just completed as well the resident and family experience
survey that we received back. And so that is sent out publicly to all residents
and families. And so we had about 2,000 residents respond and about 1,400
families.
And
so the results of that were very positive. We saw increases. Safety improvement
from 92 per cent from previous to 94. We saw resident involvement in care
decisions increase from 70 to 76 per cent, confidence in raising concerns from
76 per cent to 81 per cent, and residents report pain improvement from 82 to
86. So again going back to the recommendations from the auditor is that this is
a piece of data that we use too to ensure that the inspection side is working.
Now
we’re not going to take all the gratitude that it was the result of the
inspection for the increase in the resident and family experience. It is a
collaborative effort by the Saskatchewan Health Authority and the supports they
do, but also the acknowledgment has to be given to the individual affiliates.
It’s a very, a very strong service that they’re providing in these communities
and using the quality indicators very . . . addressing all those
issues or remediations that come forward in a timely manner to make these
results as such.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Just to talk about your unannounced inspections. You said you’ve increased the
frequency of them in preparation for them all being unannounced next year. I’m
just wondering what the nature of the issues that you have encountered during
these unannounced inspections, if you’ve noticed any trends you could identify
and relate to the committee, the common themes you’ve found, that kind of
thing.
Chad Ryan: —
Within the unannounced, commonly what we are seeing, based on the first cycle
that has come out of this, is that we’re seeing it going quicker. And so also
what we did is that we did have specific engagements with the affiliates and
the SHA on, we’re going to be doing this.
So
what we found is that everyone is essentially ready in the sense where there is
nothing to hide. A lot of feedback directly from affiliates is sort of like,
this is great. You know, come on out any time.
So
I can’t report anything specific to date where there’s any concerns or any
issues, but more of a positive light where there was a bit of trepidation
announcing this, that we’re just going to do unannounced. However it was more
embraced by that component and a lot of affiliates said, sure, come out; you’re
welcome any time.
Hugh Gordon: —
And then with respect to compliance and follow-up visits, I think you mentioned
that you’ve given them a bit of a hard-date timeline, the diary date to
implement these things. How is your work in these recommendations going to
assist you ensuring that, you know, you’re not just relying on the care home
operator to self-report and say, we fixed that?
Heather
Murray: — So the SHA is
involved as well. Whether it’s a third party or the SHA, they do a lot of the
on-the-ground work reviewing compliance. Like they would go in and do some
monitoring of like a med pass or something to make sure there’s compliance.
And
as I said, like right now we had some concerns about a home, and so I have two
people out there right now, knowing that there was issues with medication
management. And so that’s why they timed it a certain way so that they can
verify that, while they had reported compliance, that actually they haven’t
slipped back to, I will call, bad habits. And so that’s what we’re doing.
And
so all our inspections have been unannounced since April. And so then how that
links to public reporting, there’s about 60 days for them to come into
compliance. If they’re not, that report will get posted regardless. So they’ll
say what’s been compliant, and then there’ll be a couple that will say no,
meaning they’re not compliant.
And
that’s also some incentive to continue because now it’s out there publicly that
you’re not in compliance. And so I think that is really driving it, knowing
that it is going to be publicly reported. There’s not as much like, well we’re
busy, we can’t get to it, or you know, there’s lots of things going on. This
becomes a priority because no one wants their dirty laundry aired.
Hugh Gordon: —
And with respect to public reporting, I know you say in the recommendation
implementation that you are public reporting. Just curious where one might find
that information.
Heather
Murray: — If you look
up special-care homes, it’s on the government website and then it’ll say,
long-term care inspections. And then I can’t remember how many are currently
posted. Like we’ve only publicly reported back to April 1 just because we’ve
switched things and then, as they come on, they’ll get added. So I think we
have five more coming shortly.
But
if you google special-care homes Saskatchewan, there’s a long-term care
website, and at the bottom of that, that’s where you can find them. And it’s
just a PDF [portable document format]. It’ll list like when an inspection was,
the date where the report came in, and then all the non-compliance and whether
it’s in compliance now, yes or no.
Hugh Gordon: —
And I imagine there’s some details about what they were non-compliant with.
Heather
Murray: — Yeah, it has
like what the guideline is and how it’s measured.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you.
[09:30]
Chair Wotherspoon: — Any further questions, committee
members? Not seeing any, thanks for laying out the commitment towards
implementation. For anyone watching at home, the auditor of course follows back
up, and these get reported back to the committee. But thanks for all that have
been involved in this important work.
I’d
welcome a motion at this point to concur and note compliance with
recommendations 1, 2, and 6.
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson. All agreed?
Some Hon.
Members:
— Agreed.
Chair Wotherspoon: — That’s carried. And I’d welcome a
motion to concur and note progress with respect to 3, 4, and 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. Moving right along, I’m going to kick it back over to
the Provincial Auditor and turn our attention to the next chapter.
Jason Wandy: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is illegal
for retailers to sell tobacco or vapour products to minors under 19 years of
age. There are also restrictions around the display and promotion of these
products at retail locations. The Ministry of Health uses the Saskatchewan
Health Authority’s tobacco enforcement officers to enforce these legislative
restrictions. Officers conduct inspections to assess almost 1,300 retail
locations in Saskatchewan that sell tobacco and vapour products.
Chapter 16 of our 2025 report volume 2
describes our second follow-up audit of management’s actions on the six
remaining recommendations we originally made in 2021 about the ministry’s
processes to monitor the Authority’s enforcement of tobacco and vapour products
legislation. By July 2025 the ministry implemented the six remaining
recommendations.
The ministry took steps to maintain a complete
list of tobacco and vapour product retailers by obtaining quarterly listings
from the Ministry of Finance that include retailers registered to collect taxes
from the sale of tobacco and vapour products. We found the ministry adopted a
risk-based approach to inspect retailers and improved its frequency of
inspections to meet its new inspection requirements. We found the ministry is
on target to complete routine compliance and youth test shopper inspections at
retail locations at least once every two fiscal years. We also found it
strengthened completion of youth test shopper reinspections, completing almost
73 per cent within the required six months following an infraction.
The ministry updated its time frames for
handling complaints related to the sale and promotion of tobacco and vapour
products. It updated its enforcement manual to require tobacco enforcement
officers to initiate follow-up of complaints within two business days and
resolve complaints within one month. We found tobacco enforcement officers
consistently met these time frames, with almost 87 per cent of complaints
resolved within one month.
Additionally, the ministry enhanced its
quarterly reporting to both ministry and Authority senior management, including
providing supplementary reports about delayed inspections, overdue infractions, and outstanding
complaints.
Effective
and active enforcement restricts access to tobacco and vapour products by youth
which protects them from the harms associated with the use of such products.
I’ll
now pause for the committee’s consideration.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, thanks so much. Thanks for
following up on this front. This report or this chapter came out originally in
2021, and then we considered it here at this table. We have the actions that
have been taken to detail the implementation or the compliance that’s in place,
which is very good.
Any
brief remarks, ADM O’Neill? And then we’ll see where questions are at.
Norman
O’Neill: — I’ll just
note that we agree with the auditor’s assessment that the six recommendations
have all been implemented. And we’ll just be happy to take any questions from
the committee.
Chair Wotherspoon: — All right. Committee members, any
questions? MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you very much. How many retail locations currently sell tobacco and
vapour products in the province? Do you track how many of these locations are
focused on the sale of these products, as opposed to offering them alongside
other products?
James
Turner: — Good morning.
James Turner, assistant deputy minister. The end of the fiscal year ’25‑26
number was 1,352 for total retailers in the province. And we do regularly
update that number.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you for that. I’m just wondering how maintaining this complete list of
retailers is assisting you in regulating the sale of products to minors?
James
Turner: — Yeah, so as
new retailers come online, they are added to that list. And using the
risk-based approach that was mentioned here, those would be prioritized for an
inspection for youth shoppers.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler. Oh, sorry. Gordon,
you’ve got a follow-up on this, right? Continue that stream, yeah.
Hugh Gordon: —
So maintaining the list allows you to identify which locations are having some
issues with respect to compliance?
James
Turner: — Well the
inspections would be the indication of compliance or non-compliance, and then
that would allow us to determine whether we need to revisit those locations.
Hugh Gordon: —
My next question is, how has the implementation of the recommendations on page
190, with respect to youth test shopper inspections, reinspections, frequency,
periodic routine inspections, how has that assisted you in enforcement?
James
Turner: — Yes,
specifically with reference to page 190 and 191, I think the non-compliance has
allowed us to actually refocus our efforts on those sites that are
non-compliant. And so using the risk-based approach, we’re not trying to get to
every site. We’re trying to actually target the ones that are non-compliant
more frequently as part of that to get back to them to make sure they are in
compliance.
Hugh Gordon: —
A risk-based approach.
James
Turner: — Yes.
Hugh Gordon: —
Just an add-on to that. If you could tell the committee how many youth test
shopper inspections were conducted, how many reinspections were conducted, and
the frequency of inspections since you’ve implemented these. Or I don’t know
how you want to provide that to the committee, but I’ll leave it to you to
decide.
James Turner: — So for the end of the ’25‑26
fiscal year, total number of test shopper visits was 948. The number of
non-compliant retailers was 120 with a non-compliance rate of 12.7 per cent. So
the test shoppers, the target is to visit them every two years to make sure
they’re inspected. If they are in non-compliance, they will be targeted for a
re-inspection in the timeline of one to six months.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — How does
the ministry plan to inspect? What would be the process to inspect the
yet-to-be-inspected locations, the new ones that have come on? What process?
How does that look and what’s the timing on that?
James Turner: — Yeah, so in the new risk-based
approach the new retailers are prioritized for as soon as possible, for both
the retailers and the test shopper program, to be inspected.
Joan Pratchler: — In what
time frame? They set up shop; within X amount of time, what would that be? Or
do you have a sense of what that looks like?
James Turner: — I don’t have a specific number, but
it would be as soon as possible prioritized in the list for the site
inspection.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay,
thanks. Are there any notable trends with the vape and tobacco retail or with
enforcement? Like are the youth just ditching vaping and eating more
vegetables?
James Turner: —
Yeah, maybe some context there in terms of like tobacco smoking rates are
generally on the decline. Vaping rates are on the decline as well. However we
do have some of the highest rates of vaping for youth in Canada.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay, thanks.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you. Just wondering if . . . This touches on a couple items
identified in the report. What percentage of follow-ups do tobacco enforcement
officers initiate within two business days? What percentage of complaints do
they resolve within one month?
James Turner: — Yes, so you’re right. Tobacco
enforcement officers do re-initiate their follow-up two business days after,
resolve complaints within one month. By and large, most complaints are resolved
within that time frame. It’s a rare exception, and the ministry does follow up
with the SHA when there is a rare exception.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you. And then with respect to
follow-ups, there were some cases, there may be some cases that are still
outstanding in terms of follow-ups and resolution. Do you have enough staff to
ensure that that is actually happening? Do you have any concerns or issues with
resources in enforcement in those areas?
[09:45]
James
Turner: — Yeah, I think we’re not too concerned about the complement of
resources because they are meeting the targets. At the point where we’re
monitoring them and they aren’t meeting the targets, I think we would probably
have to have a conversation about resourcing if targets do start to slip.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Those are all my questions, Mr. Chair.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — And just to give an update I guess to folks following at home,
there’s been a trade here at the Public Accounts Committee. We’ve had a trade
for . . . MLA Bromm is being substituted by MLA Crassweller. I think
there were some future considerations and a couple draft picks involved in the
deal as well. Thanks, MLA Crassweller, for being here.
Just seeing if there’s any further questions on this
follow-up chapter and audit. Not seeing any, I’d welcome a motion to conclude
consideration.
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — All right. Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Okay, that’s carried. I’ll turn it back over to the Provincial
Auditor to make a presentation on the next chapter.
Jason Wandy: — Thank you,
Mr. Chair. The Ministry of Health, under an agreement with the Saskatchewan
Abilities Council, its service provider, loans special-needs equipment such as
wheelchairs, walkers, or lifts to persons with disabilities at no cost. It
refers to this arrangement as the special-needs equipment program. The total
cost to operate the program in fiscal 2024‑25 was almost
$11 million.
Chapter 17 of our 2025 report volume 2 reports the
results of our fourth follow-up audit on management’s actions on the last
remaining recommendation we first made in 2016 about the ministry’s processes
to provide special-needs equipment to persons with disabilities. By May 2025
the ministry, in collaboration with its service provider, implemented the last
remaining recommendation.
We found the ministry and its service provider
implemented a process to recover special needs equipment of significant value
no longer utilized; for example, equipment loaned to clients who are now
deceased or who left the province. Once returned, equipment can be used to
assist other persons with disabilities.
To focus its equipment recovery efforts, we found
the ministry periodically provided the service provider with a list of deceased
clients or clients who left the province that have loaned equipment of
significant value, such as power wheelchairs. In January 2025 the service
provider began using this information to attempt to recover the loaned
equipment by sending letters to clients or their estates.
We found the service provider confirmed the recovery
of such equipment it loaned to 110 clients. Regularly encouraging and reminding
clients and health care facilities to return special-needs equipment no longer
utilized will help to
recover specialized equipment for other clients in need.
I’ll
now pause for the committee’s consideration.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thanks so much for the follow-up
chapter here. And I’ll kick it over briefly to ADM O’Neill for a remark if he
has one. And then we’ll go to the questioning.
Norman
O’Neill: — So thank
you. Regarding the recommendation to recover unused special-needs equipment,
the ministry, in collaboration with its service providers, implemented the last
recommendation and agrees with the Provincial Auditor’s assessment.
So
we’d be happy to take any questions that the committee has.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Right on. We’ll see what we’ve got
for questions. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you. Just wondering if you could share with the committee what progress
you’ve been able to make to recover more loaned special-needs equipment? It
appears that you may still have some challenges with that.
Chad
Ryan: — Yeah, thank you
for the question. Chad Ryan, ADM of Health. So what we have done
. . . challenged or implementation. In May 2025 we implemented this
program. Essentially what it is is twofold, is adding stickers, a communication
website, and having SaskAbilities then follow-up on equipment, anything over
$1,000. Since the implementation of that, what we have seen is that we have
seen increases in the amount of equipment returned.
And
a bit of a caveat: it’s very hard to accurately describe as the cycle is
constantly going on where you’re having wheelchairs go out and wheelchairs come
back. Initially when we first started this, we wanted to target special-care
homes and such where there was loaned equipment. And so a lot of work had been
done with some of our affiliates and partners. That and getting some of those
returned.
What
we’ve seen for return rates of improvement is that from . . . we’ve
gone from 75 per cent in ’23‑24 to 76 per cent in ’24‑25, with
wheelchair returns being the most important for us from 76 to 82 per cent. So
we have seen improvement in the program. Although progressive, I feel it’s one
of those things where people are becoming more aware of returning the
equipment, and conversations are more deliberate towards that.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — So the stickers are on there. Stickers
don’t return it; people do. So what is the cascade of processes when we know
that that person has deceased or we’re following up? What’s the cascade of
processes to physically get that item back to where it needs to go to help
others?
Chad Ryan: —
Thank you for the question. So again integrated model with this return. So it’s
more than a sticker. And so what happens is is that we are running individuals
within our system who have deceased. And we do provide notification if they
have equipment loaned out back to SaskAbilities, which then pursues them with
regards to a letter.
Should
it be within a rural or remote location, there are 10 SaskAbilities locations
across Saskatchewan where individuals then bring those items in to those kind
of hubs. And that’s where the equipment is returned for that.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Could you share with the committee how you identify equipment on loan that’s no
longer being utilized? And how many pieces were identified last year? And of
those, how many successfully recovered?
Chad Ryan: — It’s a bit of a process, up to the
user themselves. So again we’re targeting equipment that’s over $1,000, to
. . . [inaudible] . . . that. So when an individual does no
longer require that, say in the instance where a physician recommends them not
using it, or an OT [occupational therapist], is that then it is identified by
that physician to then return it. So it’s up to the individual and the onus on
the individual to return it.
Again it’s going back to what we originally
stated; it’s that follow-up with the individual. So if I’m loaning you the
equipment, I’m going to have a conversation; so when this is done you can then
return it, say, into your Yorkton SaskAbilities office. So it’s that
conversation specifically.
I don’t have the specific tracking on that
loaned equipment out. What I can tell you is that our percentages year over
year are rising based on that more formal communication, the letters going out,
as well as individuals being aware that once the equipment is done is that
SaskAbilities does want that back.
Hugh Gordon: — And my last question: are clients
expected to return equipment if they are moving to another province even if
they still need the equipment?
Chad Ryan: — Yeah. When an individual does
transition to another province, typically what they’re allowed through a health
system . . . So let’s say if I move to Manitoba, I have about a
six-month kind of gap or lenience where I can move into that new province,
bring my equipment with me. There is an expectation that that equipment comes
back, and it provides them a little bit of a gap that they can continue to use
it and not have that equipment. Once they do, say, obtain that new equipment in
Manitoba, then the expectation is to return it. It’s very rare in these cases
that we would see that, but there is a process in place in which we do want
that equipment back.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Any further questions on this follow-up? Of course we’ve had implementation
of the recommendation taken by the ministry and reported here today. Not seeing
any, I’d welcome a motion to conclude consideration of the chapter.
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson. All agreed?
Some Hon.
Members:
— Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— That’s agreed. I’ll turn it right back over to the Provincial Auditor to
focus on the next chapter.
Jason Wandy: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Ministry
of Health directly compensates fee-for-service physicians at established rates
for medical services provided to eligible residents. It pays about
$650 million to just over 2,000 physicians each year. Physicians may
submit bills for incorrect amounts because of misunderstandings, mistakes, or
on occasion deliberate actions.
Chapter 14 of our 2026 report volume 1 reports
the results of our fourth follow-up audit of management’s actions on the one
remaining recommendation we made in 2017 regarding the ministry’s processes to
detect inappropriate fee-for-service payments to physicians. By March 2026 the
ministry implemented the last remaining recommendation. The Ministry of Health
implemented a new claims IT [information technology] system in February 2024
that helps prevent inappropriate physician billing claims. The ministry also
enhanced its capacity for investigating and auditing potentially inappropriate
physician billings.
During fiscal 2025‑26 the ministry
completed 39 physician claim audits along with another 46 audits that were in
progress, a significant increase from its audit of four claims in fiscal 2023‑24.
Having enhanced investigation capacity, supported by an adaptable IT system,
allows the ministry to detect inappropriate physician billings.
I’ll now pause for the committee’s
consideration.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, thanks for the follow-up report on this front as well. I’ll turn it
over to ADM O’Neill for a brief remark. Of course you’ve reported
implementation on this front so whatever remark you have, and then we’ll go to
the questions.
Norman O’Neill: — So regarding the
recommendation to assess options to conduct more investigations into physician
billing practices, the ministry agrees that the recommendation is fully implemented. And we’d be happy
to take questions from the committee.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, committee members. Who might
have questions? MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. There were a variety of
reasons that there were errors or anomalies in billing. In the past five years,
can you break down as to how many were just oops, fixed, or intentional? Do you
have that categorized?
Ingrid Kirby: — Thanks for the question. I’m Ingrid
Kirby, assistant deputy minister. We would not have an ability to tell which
claims were submitted in error versus which were purposely submitted
incorrectly.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. It
says on page 179, you know, they began to meet monthly to discuss IT systems,
for new assessment rules, modifications to existing rules in the system. Who
was the provider? Who was the IT provider for that system? Or was that done
in-house?
Ingrid Kirby: — Again
thanks for the question. The solution was implemented through eHealth
Saskatchewan, but the provider is CMS, or Canadian Medical Solutions.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
And it is fully operational at this point?
Ingrid Kirby: — Yes.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay.
That’s all I have.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA
Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — I wonder
if you could share with the committee how the new IT billing system has
assisted the ministry and doctors with accuracy in submitting these claims.
Ingrid Kirby: — Give me
one second.
Hugh Gordon: — Sure.
Ingrid Kirby: — So the new
system allows physicians to attach documents. So if they’re submitting a claim
that requires additional information, they can attach it directly into the
system. They can also include the times. So we do have some fee codes that are
time based. So you know, we pay a base on 15‑minute increments, and so
physicians can directly enter the times into the system.
[10:00]
And then our previous system would run on a
biweekly basis. This runs continuously, so physicians would get almost real-time, next-day feedback on their
claim. So if there is an issue with their claim, they get it the next day. They
can adjust their claim or work with a claims assessor to fix it.
Hugh Gordon: —
Okay. Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Would you be able to provide any
numbers as to the achieved savings since implementing that new IT billing
system?
Ingrid Kirby: —
So to answer this I’ll speak to the increased audit functionality that we have.
So we have, as the auditor noted, increased our audit capacity through
additional senior audit officers. So specifically I noted in the auditor’s
report we went from four audits in 2024, and in ’24‑25 full fiscal year
we completed 40 total audits, and at that point we recovered $179,000 through
routine audits.
In
2025‑26 we increased that to 88 total audits with total recovery of
$446,000. And then year to date so far, April to September, we have 20 audits
completed, 35 in progress, again with 182,000 to date. So we have increased our
recoveries through our routine audit functions.
Joan Pratchler: — And what trends are you seeing?
Ingrid
Kirby: — So in terms of
trends, it’s just all over the map. We do have, you know, family physicians,
roughly 50 per cent. So a lot of them tend to be family physicians that have
claims audited. But other than that, it’s just generally all over. There’s no
specific trends that we’re seeing at this point.
Joan Pratchler: — And is that because it’s still too new?
Ingrid
Kirby: — We’re two
years in with it, so it is still fairly new, I would think. But just generally,
you know, with the increased functionality, we’ll probably see more trends over
time because we do make adjustments to the assessment rules and stuff over
time. So yeah, still to be determined maybe.
Joan Pratchler: — And do you have plans in place to start
analyzing that to find out where there might be room for, you know,
professional development or education on those things?
Ingrid
Kirby: — Well the team
is always assessing where there are opportunities to improve our billing
processes. The team did work closely this year with the College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Medical Association. And just in
September they launched a new physician billing education course. So that’s
been received quite positively. But again, just released last month. So we’ll
assess and see how that goes going forward.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay, thank you. That’s all my
questions.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Any further questions, committee
members? Again this is a follow-up chapter. Implementation’s been identified.
I’d welcome a motion to conclude consideration of chapter 14.
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson.
All agreed?
Some Hon.
Members:
— Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, that’s carried. And I’ll turn it over to the Provincial Auditor to
shift our focus to chapter 15.
Jason Wandy: — Thank you. While opioid medications
can improve patients’ quality of life by relieving pain, they are associated
with a high risk of misuse and addiction or diversion leading to overdoses and
deaths. Saskatchewan had a total of 331 apparent opioid drug toxicity deaths in
2025, an increase of 84 per cent from 2019.
Chapter 15 of our 2026 report volume 1 reports
the results of our third follow-up audit of management’s actions on the two
remaining recommendations we made in 2019 about the ministry’s processes to
monitor the prescribing and dispensing of opioids to reduce misuse and
addiction.
By March 2026 the ministry implemented the two
remaining recommendations. The ministry enhanced the prescription review
program by beginning to implement the recommendations from an external program
evaluation completed in 2023. It established an advisory committee to enhance
communication with program
partners, such as the Saskatchewan College of Pharmacy Professionals and the
College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan, and developed program objectives,
actions, and deliverables. The advisory committee plans to monitor progress on
the program deliverables annually.
In
February 2026 the ministry also established a comprehensive, risk-based
approach to identify concerns and set mitigation strategies, like referrals of
pharmacies to the Saskatchewan College of Pharmacy Professionals, for
inappropriate opioid dispensing practices in Saskatchewan pharmacies. Actively
monitoring prescribing and dispensing of opioids helps ensure only patients
experiencing chronic pain receive opioids and risks of opioid addiction are
appropriately managed.
I’ll
now pause for the committee’s consideration.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, thanks again for this
follow-up for folks following along at home. This chapter was delivered in ’19,
and then follow-up here at this committee in 2022. And we’ve had the
implementation and some of the actions reported by the ministry, which is
excellent. I’d kick it over to ADM O’Neill for some brief remarks, and then
we’ll go from there.
Norman
O’Neill: — I’ll just
note that we agree with the auditor’s assessment that our two outstanding
recommendations have been implemented. And again we’d be happy to take
questions from the committee.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Looking to committee members that
may have questions. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. On page 184 it talks a
little bit about the advisory committee in the references at the bottom of the
page. And it’s quite a robust group that you have on that committee.
I
don’t see any former users. And maybe there was; it’s just not mentioned here.
Was that community consulted as to how they might input into recommendations?
Chantelle
Patrick: — Hi,
Chantelle Patrick, executive director, drug plan and extended benefits branch.
So I do sit on the advisory committee. And so we just updated the terms of
reference as part of our ongoing work in this area, and we are consistently
looking at people that we could potentially add to the committee. We haven’t
yet, but we are in discussions about potentially adding more people to the
advisory committee that could provide some value.
Joan Pratchler: — Would that be people that have been
former users or have direct connections with the community, to provide some
insight that perhaps health professionals might not bring to the table?
Chantelle
Patrick: — Yeah,
absolutely. Yes.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. On 184 it suggests that
there was an external consultant to help, you know, roll this through. Who was
that?
Chantelle
Patrick: — That was
Meyers Norris Penny.
Joan Pratchler: — What kind of objectives were set with
that program?
Chantelle
Patrick: — So the
objectives under the prescription monitoring and analysis is to collect,
analyze, and review prescription data related to the panel of monitored drugs.
The outcomes or measures that we use: our annual review of data reports for
alignment with program objectives, annual analysis of prescribing trends, and
communications issued.
Under
prescriber support and education: to provide timely, evidence-based prescribing
information and program guidance. And how we measure this is tracking of
external inquiries and response times; annual reporting on education
activities, topics, and formats; completion and maintenance of service
agreements with each regulatory college, with copies provided to the Ministry
of Health.
And
then our targeted prescriber communications: issue alerts and explain letters
where monitoring indicates potential inappropriate prescribing; our measures to
develop and maintain evidence-based parameters to assess the impact of
prescriber communication through specific quality improvement initiatives;
annual reporting on the volume, type, and outcomes of communications;
identification and reporting of impact of time to initiate prescriber
communication and follow-up compared to the previous year.
We
have another objective under risk-based profiles and dispensing oversight. So
to maintain prescriber, patient, and pharmacy profiles to support risk-based
monitoring.
Next
one: reporting, evaluation, and trend analysis to provide statistics, reports,
and analysis to support program oversight and policy development.
Sixth
one is system improvement and jurisdictional review to conduct jurisdictional
scans and system reviews to inform program and system improvements.
Next
is public and stakeholder education to deliver education initiatives to
prescribers and the public related to appropriate use of monitored drugs.
Next
one and last one is strategic advice and governance support. So provide
strategic advice and information to program partners, so the ones on the
advisory group.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. Thank you. So the overall is to
reduce or hopefully eliminate inappropriate use of opioid prescriptions or use,
I suppose. If you were to give an interim update, is it working? And what would
be your evidence on that?
Chad Ryan: —
Right. I have a couple of things on that. I think what we have to look at too
is that the policy and guidelines in place does not replace clinical judgement,
regulatory authority, or professional standards. So we want to make sure that
physicians still have that opportunity to prescribe when required, and so we
don’t want to over-police something or pull away from somebody being able to do
their ability.
What
we have seen is that we have seen reductions since 2023 specifically in each of
the areas. And so most notably in pediatric codeine, a 70 per cent decrease in
follow-ups required. Pediatric, another pediatric opiate, a 43 per cent
decrease in prescribing following educational letters.
The
80 per cent of practitioners who received in 2024 a portrait, which were
identified, are no longer a part of those top 50. So we had them reduced
through that education component. And then a 31 per cent decrease in patients
prescribed in combination among the original letter group. So we’re seeing a
consistent decrease with opiate being prescribed in that.
[10:15]
And
the whole intent behind that is really looking, identifying through the system
with regards to the risk to ensure that individuals, they’re not doctor
shopping, they’re not using multiple pharmacies, there’s no required early
refills, and there’s no diversion of the pharmaceutical as well as then the
potentially inappropriate side.
So
we really want to create a robust system to guide it, but we also want to allow
the physician the opportunity to prescribe it. But we are seeing the results.
Joan Pratchler: — And has there been any feedback from
physicians feeling that they may be a bit constrained, or are they by and large
happy with what’s going on?
Chad Ryan: — Yeah, no. Good question. Not
directly. Again this is not to stand in front of the physician to reduce it.
Physicians prescribe freely based on their education and regulatory bodies and
professionals that they adhere to. What this is to do is to catch situations
where it may be flagged in the systems. There’s a very robust system with
regards to prescribing opiates, internal systems of checks and balances, and
this is just the adding to it.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA
Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Yeah, I’m just going to circle back
to the implementation of the first recommendation. It says you’ve a
prescription review program advisory committee, saying that it has this mandate
to oversee and assess whether the prescription review program is helping to
reduce. I know you say you’ve implemented that recommendation, but I’m not
certain if it’s in the update as to how you’ve determined whether that
prescription review program is actually working. Can you expand on that,
please, for the committee?
Chad Ryan: — I think if we’d go back into the
previous statement that I provided, specifically on the reduction of the
opiates being prescribed as well as the physicians who have been flagged in the
system, is that we’re seeing significant decreases in the amount of opiates
prescribed by physicians. We’re seeing a decrease in the amount of letters that
were being sent out by this.
And again, I’m constantly reminded that this is
an education program. And so statistically, as I read out previously in this
statement, that we have seen some reductions in the overall. So we feel at this
time that it is working. As well as Chantelle indicated, as her sitting on that
committee, is that the committee started up again, revised with terms of
reference last year. So again they’re seeing more and more results with regards
to the work with the College of Physicians and Surgeons to reduce that prescribing
or look to seek, identify those risks that are happening within the community.
Hugh Gordon: — Is that something the committee
would also like fashion reports on and say, we can indicate we’re seeing some
trends, here’s some numbers we can track and monitor that progress in that
regard?
Chad Ryan: — Right now the College of Physicians
and Surgeons does provide an annual report, and maybe . . .
Chantelle
Patrick: — Yeah, and
that’s what the staff are there to do. So the funding that we provide for the
program delivery, there’s PRP [prescription review program] staff, and they
provide those updates to the advisory committee when we meet.
Hugh Gordon: —
In the report towards the end there, it refers to 10 risks related to
inappropriate prescribing, dispensing of these medications, four of which are
associated with pharmacies. Can you, just for the benefit of the committee,
advise us what those risks are?
Chad
Ryan: — Yeah, thank you
for the question. So I can summarize the 10 specifically, going back to that
original statement that I had.
Specifically
it’s looking at the risks for physician shopping. So individuals may go around
to different clinics at the time to try to get opiates prescribed. The
utilization of multiple pharmacies, looking at different pharmacies — if I were
to go to a pharmacy and get the prescription filled and then go to another
pharmacy — so that is flagged within the system there. Early refills, if I’m
coming back consistently beyond my 30‑day meet or whatever I’m prescribed
on it. Diversion of the drug, having the prescription filled and moving along.
And just the potential inappropriate prescribing generally by physicians.
So
all these categories then are looked at and flagged within the system, which
then would result in potentially a letter being sent out to the physician or to
the pharmacy which it’s flagged.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Keisig.
Travis Keisig: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Patrick, you made a comment: PRP staff. Could you
just define that acronym for myself, the committee, and Saskatchewan people.
Chantelle
Patrick: — Prescription
review program.
Travis Keisig: —
Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — I like these points of
clarification. These are good for everyone following along. Any further
questions, folks? Not seeing any. Super important work again on this front. And
thanks to everyone that’s been involved in improvements on this front. I’d welcome
a motion to conclude consideration of chapter 15.
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson.
All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Health
Care Affiliates
Chair Wotherspoon: — All right. Okay, we’re going to
shift gears here now. The health care affiliates. ADM O’Neill, are we ready to
rock on those ones, that new chapter there?
Norman
O’Neill: — We’re ready.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, let’s go. I’ll turn it over to
the Provincial Auditor to turn our attention to chapter 3 focused on health
care affiliates and a new recommendation.
Jason
Wandy: — Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Chapter 3 of our 2025 report volume 2 describes the results of the
annual audit of 33 health care affiliates for fiscal 2024‑25.
We
found that health care affiliates prepared reliable financial statements and
complied with the authorities governing their activities related to financial
reporting and safeguarding public resources. Additionally they had effective
rules and procedures to safeguard public resources, other than the one new
recommendation described in our chapter.
We
found one recommendation made to All Nations’ Healing Hospital Inc. was no
longer relevant as All Nations’ did not undertake any capital projects
exceeding $100,000 in 2024‑25 and therefore did not need to obtain
minister approval.
On
page 27, we recommend All Nations’ Healing Hospital Inc. appropriately approve
expense transactions prior to processing payments. Audit testing of 33
transactions found All Nations’ processed 16 payments without appropriately
documented approval of the invoice and/or electronic fund transfer. These
payments amounted to almost $43,000 in total expenses. Without consistent
documentation of expense approvals, there’s increased risk of All Nations’
processing payments for inappropriate or fraudulent transactions.
I’ll
now pause for the committee’s consideration.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, thank you for the focus of the
report. I’ll kick it over to ADM O’Neill for some brief remarks and then we’ll
see what we have for questions.
Norman
O’Neill: — I’ll just
touch on the first recommendation since it’s new. It is for All Nations’
Healing Hospital to appropriately approve expense transactions prior to
processing payments. Since the issue was raised and brought to management’s
attention, the financial policies have been reviewed with all staff.
In
addition, onboarding of all new finance employees and senior managers includes
review of financial policies and procedures as they affect the organization,
including contract and signing approval thresholds. Our view is that this
recommendation has been fully implemented.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, thank you for that. Looking to
committee members that may have questions. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. Have any payments been made
or attempted without approval since the implementation of this recommendation?
Norman
O’Neill: — We’re not
aware of any.
Joan Pratchler: — What is the All Nations’ Health current
score on the facility condition index? Do you expect to perform any capital
projects beyond $100,000 in the next five years?
Norman
O’Neill: — I’ll just
note that the threshold’s been raised from 100,000 to $250,000 for the approval
levels. I don’t have the FCI, or facility condition index, in front of me at
this time, but we wouldn’t expect All Nations’ to proceed without approaching
us for some level of funding, given the amount that they need approval on.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. Would you be able to furnish the
facility index at a later time to the committee at all?
Norman
O’Neill: — Just give me
one second to check. We’re just checking with officials whether or not we have
that information. If we have it, we’ll provide it by the end of this meeting.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. Thank you.
Norman
O’Neill: — Given that
they’re an affiliate, we’re not 100 per cent sure that we do have it, but we’ll
check with the people that would know.
Joan Pratchler: — So would you be confident or be able to
comment whether the staff would have received guidance on how to properly seek
ministerial approval at that time should they need something that’s beyond
250,000?
Norman
O’Neill: — I’ll note
that they responded to this audit. They sent us a letter on December 3rd. They
noted that the issue was raised and raised with their managers in October. The
response was in December, but they raised it with their managers in October.
They pointed to their policy. So they have an internal policy, and it says the
following:
(9.9.4) Onboarding of all new financial employees and
senior managers includes a review of the policy financial procedures as they
affect the organization, including contract and signing approval thresholds.
So
they’re basically reinforcing with new hires, and alleviates concerns for us.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. That’s all my questions.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
I know that the second recommendation on page 27 says it’s no longer relevant.
That may be perhaps the case today, but what of the event that perhaps there is
going to be a capital project that comes along for All Nations’ Healing
Hospital? Cost of inflation these days, you know, 100,000 might not actually be
a whole lot of money in 10 years’ time compared to today. I’m just wondering if
the All Nations’ Hospital at least has some kind of policy or formal guideline
to follow in the event it does undertake a capital project in that amount.
Norman
O’Neill: — So I suspect
that the relevancy question is primarily due to the policy changing from 100 to
$250,000. That’s why it’s no longer relevant. Our experience anyway would be
that most of our partners are going to come through the SHA looking for some
contribution anyway, particularly at that threshold or higher. So we wouldn’t
expect to see something as a surprise, and typically it’ll be foreshadowed in
advance. We do capital planning on a multi-year cycle.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay. Any further questions,
committee members? Not seeing any, I’d welcome a motion to . . . I
guess we’re not concluding. This is a new recommendation that we concur and
note compliance with recommendation 1. Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson. All
agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay. That’s carried.
eHealth
Saskatchewan
Chair Wotherspoon: — We will shift gears once again, a
little changeup of officials at the table here, I know, and turn our attention
to eHealth and the chapter pertaining to eHealth. And I’ll kick it over to the
Provincial Auditor to make presentation.
Jason
Wandy: — Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Chapter 1 of our 2025 report volume 2 reports the results of our annual
integrated audit of eHealth Saskatchewan for the 2024‑25 fiscal year. We
found eHealth’s financial statements were reliable and it complied with the
authorities governing its activities related to financial reporting and
safeguarding public resources. Additionally eHealth had effective rules and
procedures to safeguard public resources other than the matters described in
our chapter.
During
2024‑25 we found eHealth finalized the remaining key aspects, including
security and disaster recovery requirements of its IT service level agreement
with the Saskatchewan Health Authority. Having an adequate service level
agreement decreases the risk that eHealth fails to meet the Authority’s IT
needs.
eHealth
partially implemented our recommendation on page 18, where we recommended
eHealth Saskatchewan have an approved and tested disaster recovery plan for
systems and data. eHealth Saskatchewan is responsible for 55 critical IT
systems that are critical for the delivery of health care in Saskatchewan. As
of March 2025, we found eHealth completed partial testing of its disaster
recovery plans for these systems.
[10:30]
eHealth
indicated that annual full disaster recovery tests may not always be feasible
for all systems, as full system outages may negatively impact patient care. In
response, it planned to use a risk-based approach to complete partial tests in
non-production environments. However it had yet to begin summarizing all the
system components it had partially tested to demonstrate coverage of all
necessary components and aspects of the recovery plans for these critical
systems. eHealth expected to begin tracking its partial tests by fiscal 2026‑27.
As
ransomware and cyberattacks steadily rise and evolve, agencies like eHealth
need tested disaster recovery plans that enable speedy and easy recovery of
systems and data. Pages 19 and 20 include an update regarding two
recommendations about eHealth’s IT network we first made in our 2019 audit of
eHealth’s processes for securing portable computing devices.
We
assess eHealth’s progress to implement these recommendations annually. We
recommended eHealth Saskatchewan implement a risk-based plan for controlling
network access to mitigate the impact of security breaches and utilize key
network security logs and scans to effectively monitor the eHealth IT network
and detect malicious activity.
At
March 2025 we found eHealth partially implemented both of these
recommendations. It continued to make progress toward implementing effective
network access controls and improved monitoring of the eHealth IT network.
eHealth continued working toward having centralized network access controls for
all health sector agencies and network access ports. Network access controls’
primary function is to deny access to unauthorized devices or users while
allowing authorized devices and users appropriate access.
eHealth
also began using a service provider in May 2023 to help monitor and manage the
security of its IT network. At March 2025 the service provider had yet to
implement network monitoring tools for all expected aspects of the eHealth IT
network and had not started reporting on its monitoring activities. eHealth
controlling IT network access helps mitigate the risk of security breaches and
the extent of breaches. Effective IT network monitoring helps timely detection
of malicious activity and mitigates the risks of a successful attack on its
corporate network.
I’ll
now pause for the committee’s consideration.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, thanks for the important
follow-up on this front. I’ll welcome as well CEO Church and officials from
eHealth that have joined us here today. And I’ll turn it over to ADM O’Neill
for a brief remark, and then we’ll see what we have for questions.
Norman
O’Neill: — I’ll just
touch on recommendations 2 through 4 given that the others are implemented.
Starting
at recommendation 2, which is for eHealth to have an approved and tested
disaster recovery plan for systems and data, eHealth established a formal
disaster recovery program and continues to implement multi-year disaster
recovery road maps to strengthen organizational resilience. Ongoing
enhancements continue to be advanced through the disaster recovery road map and
broader health system IT modernization initiatives.
Regarding
recommendation 3, which is to implement a risk-based plan for controlling
network access to mitigate the impact of security breaches, eHealth has
advanced its road map to implement centralized network access controls across
the health sector.
Foundational
planning and preparation have progressed with implementation beginning in 2026
and continuing through 2029. This work will strengthen the security,
visibility, and management of network access across the health system.
Network-level compensating controls are implemented across the environment
including internet access restrictions, network segmentation and isolation, and
firewall restrictions.
There
are also physical, identity, and access management controls in place that
further restrict unauthorized access to the environment.
Regarding
recommendation 4, which is to utilize key network security logs and scans to
effectively monitor the eHealth IT network, eHealth uses centralized security
tools, vulnerability scanning, and 24‑7 security monitoring to identify,
investigate, and respond to malicious activity across key health system
infrastructure and technologies. These capabilities are supported by
strengthened incident response and recovery processes that help protect critical
health services and reduce the potential impact of security incidents.
Reporting
is provided to eHealth leadership on a regular basis and metrics continue to be
reviewed and evolved.
Those
are my comments. Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, thank you. I’ll open it up now
to committee members that may have questions. Any questions, folks? MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you very much. With respect to, I
guess it’s recommendation no. 2 on page 18 of the report, can you tell the
committee why it took eHealth so long to implement this recommendation? It was
made in 2008, or almost 20 years since that recommendation was made.
Davin Church: —
Davin Church, CEO of eHealth Saskatchewan. Thank you for the question. Can’t
really speak to, you know, decisions or approaches made 20 years ago. What I
can say, over the last two to three years our primary focus has been to
establish appropriate governance, work through appropriate maturity models, and
progress the technology used in an appropriate formal road map to achieve the
implemented status of this. And so that has really been where our focus has
been, is around establishing an appropriate program with the proper governance
and processes around it to implement so we can be in a position to have an
appropriate disaster recovery program.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
But certainly you must know internally that this has been outstanding for so
long. And you must know the reasons for that, do you not?
Davin Church: — So as you mentioned, progress on
this recommendation certainly occurred over an extended period of time, as you
mentioned. And you know, in that time we had significant restructuring of the
health system within there as well.
And so you know, with that, combined with the
operational bans of COVID during that time, certainly I would say extended the
duration of the implementation of this. Since COVID really, you know, the
addition of those critical accountabilities and the focus on those really were
a primary focus of our organization over the last few years.
And
so we did prioritize this work across the organization and really taking a
different approach around a risk-based approach and really focusing on the most
critical assets supporting the health system, and really then again around the
governance and the maturity models and putting appropriate road maps in place
to achieve this. And so I would say the expedited focus and culmination with,
you know, extended duration with COVID as well as health system restructuring
certainly extended that period of time.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — I’m looking at recommendation
no. 2. The auditor recommended that eHealth would have an approved and
tested disaster recovery plan for systems and data. When I look at your actions
taken to implement, I see it says they have a formal program, and it continues
to implement its multi-year disaster recovery road map and strengthen
organizational resilience.
And
so I ask the question: so the disaster recovery plan still has not been tested?
If so, can you help me reconcile where partially implemented is now
implemented? I’m confused.
Davin
Church: — Thank you
again for the question. So as you mentioned, testing is a core component of the
disaster recovery program. So all active disaster recovery playbooks have
undergone testing using approved methods such as walk-throughs, partial
testing, tabletop exercises, and as well as full tests.
In
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026 we did complete four full disaster
recovery tests. Twenty-four partial recovery tests were completed as well as
nine tabletop exercises were completed.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. I’m looking at
recommendation no. 3. The auditor recommended — just that last part — that
“mitigate the impact of security breaches.” And the planned actions for
implementation are a multi-year network and connectivity road map. So this
still suggests that it’s still insecure. How many breaches have you had in the
past five years, and how many more do we want? People of Saskatchewan would like
to say, zero. What date can you assure the people of Saskatchewan that their
health data is going to be secure and that there’s checks and balances to make
sure that that happens from this organization?
[10:45]
Davin
Church: — Thank you for
the questions. I’ll try and address all of them. And certainly if I miss any,
please let me know. So we’ve had zero cyber incidents in the last five years
that have resulted in any breach or data loss. And you know, to the question
around, you know, guaranteeing whether or not there’ll be any, or not be any,
cyber events, that’s certainly not something in today’s technology climate that
anybody could guarantee. And so our focus has really been about mitigating
controls and practices and implementing those.
And
so eHealth, we continue to mature our information security management system,
which really determines the security controls and requirements using industry
best practices. As part of our maturity efforts, eHealth undergoes an annual
external third- party maturity assessment, which we’ve continued to see
positive improvements, which also then continues to inform our annual road map
planning.
So
you know, our focus has really been around the access and password policies,
added verification for remote and higher risk access, regular reviews of some
of the more powerful user accounts that help ensure that only authorized
individuals are accessing health system technology.
As
mentioned in ADM O’Neill’s opening comments, the use of firewalls, internet
restrictions, and separation of key parts of the network help prevent
unauthorized connections and limit how a threat could spread. And we continue
to modernize our network and network security through the implementation of new
technologies as those come available.
The
security operation centre that we have implemented monitors key health system
technology around the clock, investigates potential threats, and coordinates
timely action to contain risk and protect health information and essential
services. Security reviews are completed before significant technology changes
or new products are introduced so the risks can be identified and addressed
before they are connected to the health sector environment overall.
Joan Pratchler: — Just a follow-up. Who was the
third-party assessor?
Davin
Church: — Our last two
maturity assessments were performed by Sagefrog, who was procured through a
public procurement process.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
If the system goes down, what’s your mean time for recovery?
Davin
Church: — There are
recovery time and recovery point objectives established for our 60
mission-critical systems. Now they vary depending on the system, and those are
updated annually through defined processes as we work with the appropriate
business owners predominantly, whether that be the SHA or others, on what those
are and whether or not those recovery point or recovery time objectives need to
be adjusted annually.
Hugh Gordon: —
Can you just give some examples on a few?
Davin
Church: — With the
sensitive nature of that, that’s not something that we like to put in the
public realm. But we can table the recovery point and recovery time objectives
of all those 60 mission-critical applications with the committee, if that’s
acceptable.
Hugh Gordon: —
Yeah. How much time do you think you would need to do that?
Norman
O’Neill: — So I think
we can do it within the 30‑day time limit that we usually get for
returns. We can meet that 30‑day window that we typically have for our
returns.
Hugh Gordon: —
Yeah. Very much appreciate that.
Chair Wotherspoon: — If I could intervene for just one
sec. Just a point of clarification here. So if it’s actually provided to the
committee and tabled, it will become public. Are you comfortable with the
information? Just I heard your first response there and I want to respect any
matter of . . . just to make sure we have an understanding. So if it
is tabled, which is certainly appreciated if that’s appropriate, it would
become public though.
Norman
O’Neill: — Just given
the sensitive nature, what we were talking about is that we could probably
provide some level of scrubbed data within the time window. And then if it’s
not sufficient for the needs, we can follow up after that. But we can take it
away and we can do it within the 30 days with some scrubbed information to be
respectable of the security vulnerabilities that we don’t want to reveal.
Hugh Gordon: —
Fair enough. I guess the heart . . . Sorry.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thank you. Yeah, thank you for that.
I think that’s very reasonable, and then we can assess that information as
well. I think it’s valuable to have as much information that’s able to be
viewed in the public domain available in that way.
We
have the alternative as well as a committee to move in camera or something at
different times. But it seems to me, with what your response is, that you feel
you can respond to this question, providing information that protects the
organization and any interests. And I think that we can go from there.
Just
sort of flagging that we do have the ability to receive information in camera
as well. It is preferred to take it publicly, but never want to put something
at risk. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Yes, just the heart of the question essentially is, are we comfortable with the
recovery time frames, the mean time for recovery? Is that adequate? Like the
job of the committee is to do some oversight in this regard because this was
touching on one of the major recommendations that’s been outstanding for so
long.
So
if there is some way to communicate that to the committee, table it later,
maybe without the specifics that you were concerned about, but in a way that
assures the committee that you in fact have addressed this recommendation in a
satisfactory way so that, you know, we’re assured that the mean time for
recovery if the system goes down is . . . You are capable and you’ve
got the ability to mitigate any damage or any risks that are inherent there.
And
I’ll go on to my next couple of questions, put them together here. How much
data can you accept the loss of? And if it’s not recoverable, what are your
business plans to go forward?
Davin
Church: — Your question
regarding how much data can be accepted to be lost, that is again defined on a
system-by-system level by the business owners. So that would be the clinical
service lines and so forth. And so that’s what we then use our disaster
recovery testing to ensure that we could meet. We certainly, you know, through
our backup strategies and backup security strategies is our mitigating
approaches to minimize any loss as well as that duration.
To
the question on business continuity, again the business continuity plans are
those of the service lines or the business owners versus eHealth. And so that
would be relied upon for the service lines’ business continuity plans to be
enacted should there be any of those data losses or system outages.
Hugh Gordon: —
Are you comfortable with those plans? If that data is not recoverable, are you
comfortable with the service provider, the service owners’ plans in that
respect?
Davin
Church: — That’s not
something I could speak or weigh in on. That’s really within the parameters of
the Saskatchewan Health Authority to determine whether or not their business
continuity plans are sufficient to continue to operate their services.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — So are the users happy with a certain
amount of data getting lost? And are they comfortable with the amount that has
to be recovered so that they can carry on?
[11:00]
Davin
Church: — Linking back
to the IT service agreement and the service catalogue, all of those objectives
are set out within there, which is then agreed to by the SHA including the mean
time to recovery. The recovery point objectives are included in there. And so they
would be the ones that would be agreeing that that’s sufficient as far as the
business continuity as well as the recovery point objectives.
Joan Pratchler: — And you’re confident that you can
deliver that to them under those parameters that they set out?
Davin
Church: — Yes.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. So I’m looking at no. 4
recommendation where the auditor recommended that eHealth utilize key network
security logs and scans to monitor the eHealth IT network and detect malicious
activity. And then when I read the actions that are taken to implement that,
there’s a variety of them: 24‑7 security monitoring; next paragraph,
infrastructure is being built. Anyway all of those things sound good to hear.
Could
you please tell me what the industry standard metrics are that you’re employing
and that you’re reporting on that demonstrate your security systems are
effective?
Davin
Church: — So certainly
I mentioned earlier around the ISMS [information security management system]
maturity rating, which is an industry standard and independently assessed, we
also have various security KPIs [key performance indicator], including our
vulnerability management coverage, training in awareness which also ties to
results from phishing simulation. And so we do have a number of KPIs. Those are
a few examples. Those are reported to both the eHealth executive team, our
board, as well as our partner governing structures that are set out through the
ITSA [IT Solutions Association of Saskatchewan] governance on a regular
cadence.
Joan Pratchler: — And are you comfortable in saying that
those are effective?
Davin
Church: — Yes.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Just with respect to the outstanding recommendation no. 3. You say you’re
going to begin the implementation this year, or have begun. When do you expect
to have it implemented? How long will that be?
Davin
Church: — Thank you for
the question. So the timeline for this recommendation will carry through 2029,
and the biggest component of that is we do have to do this work across all the
SHA facilities. And so really balancing not disrupting patient care with the speed
of delivery.
Notwithstanding,
just to reiterate, these aren’t the only controls that would be in place.
There’s certainly, you know, the network-level compensating work to controls
that are already implemented, firewalls and the like that was mentioned earlier
that are also currently in place. And this is continuing to strengthen that in
conjunction with our five-year road map.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you for that. You mentioned that you conducted four full tests, and I
think it was 24 partial — correct me if I’m wrong — partial tests. Did you find
any critical issues with those tests? If so, how many of those issues have yet
to be resolved?
Davin
Church: — So certainly
the testing is designed to validate the recovery capabilities, as you
mentioned, and ensure that services remain available. And so as we perform our
tests, any issues that arise, we do have a tracking mechanism and those are
continuously monitored. We did have one recovery failed in 2024. That system
has since been replaced with a new system which has undergone its own testing,
which was successful.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you for that. Could you also share with the committee how frequently
partial, full, and tabletop tests are planned to be conducted moving forward?
Davin
Church: — Back to the
risk-based approach. So again, it varies depending on system. Right now it’s
between, depending on the system, either between one and three years unless
there is any type of major change to that system — substantial upgrades, those
kinds of things. Then that would be revalidated at that point sooner than its
current cadence.
Hugh Gordon: —
Do you have an update on the progress that’s been made to summarize all the
system components that have been partially tested to show it’s covered all the
necessary components of the recovery plans?
Davin Church: —
So we are just getting some additional information on your question. However I
just wanted to iterate, when we speak to partial testing, we aren’t saying that
we’re just testing a component of a single system. That is end to end, so a
complete test would include everything that is required for that system to
wholly operate, whether it’s part of that solution used directly by the
end-users or not. And so that would be everything from how people log in to if
information needs to move to different systems. That would be the complete
test, kind of tip to tail.
Partial
tests would be that we’re actually testing, say the lab information system as a
whole but not the integration or the active directory component, say. That
would be considered a partial test if it’s just the lab system as an example.
[11:15]
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Now what things has your organization
done or what provisions have they taken to address the impact of AI [artificial
intelligence] and specifically rogue AI infiltration into your systems?
Davin
Church: — Thank you for
the question. Provincially we have an AI governance committee that’s been
established which looks at any of the artificial intelligence tools being
requested or used within the health system. Any tools used within the system,
no different than any of our other corporate applications, they need to be
vetted, assessed, and approved, including security assessments and risk
assessments associated with them.
To
your question around some of maybe what’s been in the news around some rogue AI
components and things like that, certainly, you know, our continued monitoring
and other security controls would be a mitigating factor in that as well.
Joan Pratchler: — When you speak of the AI committee, is
that specifically only to SHA or is it a province-wide committee?
Davin
Church: — Yes, it’s
province-wide, and so has representation from all health system organizations.
Joan Pratchler: — Health system organization.
Davin
Church: — Yeah.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay, thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — No further questions over here. Any
further questions, committee members? Not seeing any, thanks for the time and
the responses here today and the undertaking to get a little bit of information
back to us. Not seeing any other questions, I’d welcome a motion to conclude
consideration of chapter 1.
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 to CEO Church and your officials for
joining us. And we’re going to turn our attention now to the Saskatchewan
Cancer Agency.
Okay,
folks, before we shift gears fully to the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency — and I
want to thank the officials, CEO Bulych and her team, for joining us here today
— I would invite ADM O’Neill. He’s identified that they have some information
in response to one of the earlier chapters. Probably best for us just to
receive it in this way. So go ahead, ADM O’Neill.
Norman
O’Neill: — So it’s in
regards to the health care affiliates chapter. Earlier in the meeting it was
asked about the facility condition index for All Nations’ Healing Hospital. We
last did a facility condition index assessment in 2023, and the score is 0.46,
where a range of zero to five is considered good. And our next scheduled
assessment of the FCI will be in 2028.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thanks for getting us that
information.
Saskatchewan
Cancer Agency
Chair Wotherspoon: — We’ll shift gears now, and again we
welcome the officials here with the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency and president
and CEO Bulych and her officials. But I’m going to turn it over to the
Provincial Auditor to make presentation on chapter 20, and then we’ll go from
there.
Jason
Wandy: — Thank you, Mr.
Chair. In Saskatchewan, colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of death
by cancer. Approximately 90 per cent of colorectal cancers can be prevented or
successfully treated if caught early. The Saskatchewan Cancer Agency is responsible
for providing services with respect to screening individuals for and prevention
of cancers including colorectal cancer.
In
2024‑25, the agency spent over $2.7 million on its screening program
for colorectal cancer. Chapter 20 of our 2025 report volume 2 describes our
second follow-up audit of management’s actions on the six remaining
recommendations we originally made in 2020 regarding the agency’s processes to
deliver its population-based screening program for colorectal cancer.
By
June 2025 the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency implemented five of the six remaining
recommendations. We found the agency worked with the Ministry of Health and the
Saskatchewan Health Authority to reduce the time patients wait for
colonoscopies by standardizing the booking process and expanding booking
services coordinated through the agency. It also worked with the Authority to
determine an expected time frame for providing pathology results to health care
providers related to colorectal cancer screening; that is, completing 95 per
cent of pathology reports within 14 days after a colonoscopy.
Additionally
the agency provided senior management and its board with annual analysis of
results for key quality indicators, aligning with nationally accepted
indicators for its screening program for colorectal cancer.
The
agency partially implemented the recommendation on page 211 where we
recommended the agency analyze if its promotional strategies help increase
participation in its screening program for colorectal cancer.
Since
2017 the participation rate of individuals aged 50 or older in the agency’s
colorectal cancer screening program remained well below Canada’s benchmark of
60 per cent. The agency tracks participation in its screening program by former
health regions. We found the participation rates of northern Saskatchewan
residents in the screening programs, such as residents in La Ronge or La Loche,
remain the lowest in the province, below 30 per cent.
We
found the agency drafted an outreach and engagement strategy for its screening
program for colorectal cancer to address the province’s low participation rates
and expected to finalize the strategy in 2025‑26. During 2024‑25
the agency held 11 events, such as conference presentations or display booths
at community health fairs, to promote colorectal cancer screening.
While
the agency began using a new tracking tool in April 2024 to better collect and
manage promotional event information — for example, the purpose, target
population, or the number of attendees — it had yet to analyze the impact of
its promotional activities on participation rates, such as whether events held
in La Ronge increased program participation rates.
Further
promotional strategies on under-screened areas and groups to raise awareness
and educate should lead to increased program participation rates. Analyzing
these promotional events will help to determine whether these events achieve
desired outcomes.
I’ll
now pause for the committee’s consideration.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, thank you very much for the focus
of the chapter and the follow-up on this front. I’ll turn it over to ADM
O’Neill for some brief remarks, and we’ll go from there.
Norman O’Neill: — Okay, I’ll just touch on recommendation
1, since the remaining recommendations are considered fully implemented by the
Provincial Auditor office. Regarding that first recommendation, which is to
analyze whether promotional strategies increased participation in screening
programs for colorectal cancer, the agency is evaluating community outreach
alongside participation trends, recognizing that provincial participation rates
alone cannot tell the whole story.
The
agency combined its prevention and screening departments to bring screening,
health promotion, and outreach together. Dedicated staff work with communities,
partners, and health care providers to improve colon check education,
awareness, and uptake. An outreach and engagement framework, as well as
evaluation tools and trackers, are in place to analyze its promotional
activities and community engagements.
The
agency’s dashboards provide screening the participation data by age and region
to support this work and guide local outreach. Projects under way include
understanding barriers to participation among people aged 50 through 54 and
updating promotional materials.
And
this concludes my comments for this chapter.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, thank you for that. Committee
members, does anyone have questions? MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. Welcome. On whatever page
last year — ’24‑25 — $2.7 million was spent on this program. How
much was spent this last fiscal year? Do you have a sense of that? Okay.
Deb
Bulych: — Good morning.
Deb Bulych, president and CEO of the Cancer Agency. Thanks for the question.
This past year, 2.9 million spent on colorectal.
Joan Pratchler: — And how much of that would you say was
used for promotion and outreach? And if I could just add to that, especially up
North.
Deb
Bulych: — 514,000 were
spent on advertising and promotion. I apologize; we don’t have it stratified
north-south. It’s for the province.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay, because up north has more
challenges in terms of this — yeah — disease. Do the underserved communities
receive tailored promotional materials and tailored information compared to,
you know, maybe the other parts of the province?
Deb Bulych: —
Yes, and I have a good example for you.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay, perfect.
Deb Bulych: — Thank you for your patience with me.
A couple examples of how we’ve amended promotional materials. We’ve attended
Back to Batoche and we’ve done broader campaigns, and hearing from our northern
partners there was some specific information needed. There was misconceptions
around colorectal screening. So we have since redone our ColonCheck brochures
with specific information targeting some of those misconceptions, and people in
our rural and remote areas.
Joan Pratchler: — Are there
plans to put a more concerted effort into, you know, north of P.A. [Prince
Albert] and up there for helping with this?
Deb Bulych: — Yes. We do have a few examples, but
I think the one that best illustrates what you’re asking is we have a program
that we’re building with La Ronge and Ile-a-la-Crosse where issues have been
identified specifically in those areas, and we’re going to work with those
partners in terms of building specific promotions to them.
But it’s also about barrier reduction. Because
we know certainly that promotional activities are only one part of helping
increase participation rates, we have to be able to work with communities and
understand what the barriers are to participating in screening. And so those
projects are under way and they are definitely targeted areas that we’re
working with.
[11:30]
Joan Pratchler: — And so right now, just what’s your
rough sense of what some of those barriers are then?
Deb
Bulych: — The biggest
barrier is the misconception around the FIT [fecal immunochemical test] kit and
how it works. And people don’t want to do it. So we’re targeting the education
around exactly what it is, how easy it is, and working with the community up there
to understand and utilize language and concepts that makes most sense to them.
So the big barrier is the kit itself.
Joan Pratchler: — And do you have people from the
community helping input into what might be, you know, ameliorations into those
materials and things?
Deb
Bulych: — Yes,
absolutely. We firmly believe we do things with community, not to them. And
it’s engagement with them that guides our work.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you for that. I notice that most
of the reporting is in three-year segments in terms of tracking participation.
Is it time to move to yearly?
Deb
Bulych: — We do have
the ability to know yearly intervals. The test is done every two years. The
three-year interval rate is CPAC, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer,
which we follow. So we adhere to their guidelines for reporting, which is why
the three years. But we can pull out yearly rates.
Joan Pratchler: — So what would be the participation for
our northern friends this past year? Do you have an idea of that?
Deb
Bulych: — So the three
northern regions that we’re tracking, we have 2025 participation rates.
Mamawetan Churchill River was 35.04 per cent, Keewatin Yatthé was 29.97 per
cent, and Athabasca health authority was 32.67 per cent.
Joan Pratchler: — A bit better than the last three-year
. . . What about provincially? Are you finding participant patient
rates are going up?
Deb
Bulych: — Yes. We’re
currently at 49.5 per cent. We’re the highest in Canada. I think as long as
I’ve been around, we have been the highest in Canada. But again, you know, we
talked last year, that 60 per cent target. It’s a target we’re all still
aspiring to. Happy to say though that . . . Not that we’re not
reaching it. That doesn’t make us happy. But what makes me happy is we’re still
the highest in Canada, and we do continue to show improvements.
Joan Pratchler: — And what are the key factors in
improving that? Is it promotion? What is it that’s going to bring that up in
your secret sauce of tools?
Deb
Bulych: — You know, I
don’t know about the secret sauce so much as it’s multi-faceted. I think again
it would be a recipe with several ingredients. So it’s the community engagement
that we’re doing. We’ve done 29 events since the last audit, where we’re out promoting
colon check and other screening programs as well.
Combine
that with a lot of our engagement work with communities, where we’re trying to
reduce barriers — the misunderstandings, some practical barriers, people’s
understanding of the importance of screening and the fact that we can prevent
cancer through screening. I think the more that we continue to not
. . . I know we’re talking about promotion strategies, but as long as
we do that plus all of these other things, I think we’ll continue to make great
strides.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — I just have a question here as well.
Just with respect to the colonoscopy to pathology and the lab-by-lab
information that’s provided here, obviously that’s very important. And we know
there’s huge pressure on the pathology labs in the province and, you know,
specifically looking at the Regina Pasqua numbers there.
The
target of course is 14 days from colonoscopy to pathology. In 2024 that number
was over 70 days for Regina. Do you know what the current numbers would be for,
I guess, 2025 and if that’s trending downwards? Again we know there’s huge
pressures on those labs, and we know how important that quick turnaround is.
Deb
Bulych: — For the year
’25‑26 the number was 72.18 days.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thanks. Thanks for that information,
yeah.
Deb
Bulych: — Sorry, I
believe that’s the average provincially. One second, I’ll just . . .
I gave you the wrong number. It’s a good thing I checked. I apologize, Mr.
Wotherspoon.
Chair Wotherspoon: — No, that’s good. I was nervous.
Deb
Bulych: — It’s going
. . . It’s trending down. Please don’t be nervous.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Right.
Deb
Bulych: — Yes. It was
40.77 in 2024. It is now 33.27.
Chair Wotherspoon: — And that’s the average of the Regina
. . .
Deb
Bulych: — Pasqua
Hospital.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Sure. And do you know what the
number was for 2025?
Deb
Bulych: — 2025 is 33.27
average days.
Chair Wotherspoon: — That’s good because that 70 seems to
be an outlier point of concern, and that was there for ’24. So they’ve kind of
cut that in half in 2025. And the target being 14 days for any one of these
labs. So thanks very much for that information. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
What’s the current median wait time for a colonoscopy? And do you have a
breakdown by region or group for that?
Deb
Bulych: — Sorry, I just
wanted to make it clear and remind the committee that this is actually within
the purview of the SHA, but we have come prepared with some numbers today.
Chair Wotherspoon: — For sure.
Deb
Bulych: — So this is
the 72.18 days waiting overall average for ’25‑26 for colonoscopy, and I
do have it broken down by region. But I will say that my eyes are old; I might
ask for help. If you’re interested in knowing the wait times per region, I can
ask for assistance with that.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Would you like that provided here
today, or would you like that sort of tabled or submitted through the
committee?
Hugh Gordon: —
Whatever you feel comfortable with is fine by me. If you want to table it for
us, that’s fine as well.
Deb
Bulych: — Thank you for
your patience. So the Northwest region average wait is 96 days, the Northeast
region is 59 days, Saskatoon is 63, Southeast is 60, Southwest is 58, and
Regina is 48.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you. If you can answer this, what percentage of follow-up colonoscopies
due to abnormal screening results are booked within 60 days? And how does that
compare to the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s benchmark of 90 per cent?
Deb
Bulych: — I think for
this one I would defer to the SHA. These are their numbers.
Hugh Gordon: —
Fair enough.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Can we talk a little bit about lab
. . . Just looking at that chart on 215; there’s a variety of delays,
I suppose. What do the labs need to pick up the speed and get those out
quicker?
Deb
Bulych: — The FIT kits
or the results?
Joan Pratchler: — The results from colonoscopy to
pathology by lab location. So some are almost in that time range of the 14
days, but we see those other ones that are still high. What do they need? What
has to happen to make those numbers come down a little bit?
Deb
Bulych: — I apologize.
I would only be speculating, and again I would have to defer to the SHA since
that’s within their purview.
Joan Pratchler: — And would you be able to help on that
one?
Chair Wotherspoon: — Just if the auditor wouldn’t mind
commenting on this.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay.
Tara Clemett: — So I will just mention that we have
work that we just finished in terms of we had done work around pathology labs
and timeliness of, I guess, diagnosis and done by pathologist. That report and
the follow-up of that work is coming out in our next public report.
But
yeah, there isn’t necessarily — you are right — improvements in terms of some
of the time frames. So there’s a need for the SHA to now analyze why they’re
not meeting those targeted time frames in terms of the delivery of those
results overall. So the challenges, they do indicate as such, will be pathology
assistants, seem to be, so probably capacity in relation to that.
Joan Pratchler: — Good. Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Where’s the agency currently at in terms of expanding navigated services for
colonoscopy appointments?
Deb Bulych: — So navigation is currently available
in 10 regions, but the three regions that we’re currently working with for
expansion are Keewatin Yatthé; Mamawetan Churchill; and AHA, the Athabasca
Health Authority. Our plan is to implement by the end of calendar year within
those regions, but we’re trying to be very respectful of equity by design, and
certainly working with them and not doing it to them.
So there’s a great deal of engagement that is
happening with those communities to understand what they would see would work
best for their areas. And that’s the way that we’re proceeding. But our intent
is to be implemented and in those communities navigating by the end of calendar
year.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — MLA
Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — I’d like to talk a little bit about
quality indicators and where they diverge between the SHA or Cancer Agency and
the national quality indicators. Can you give us an idea of what you’re working
on to align to standardize those?
Deb Bulych: — With the
SHA or nationally?
Joan Pratchler: —
Nationally.
Deb Bulych: — Thank you.
Okay.
[11:45]
So
we have a list of many metrics and quality indicators that we report on to CPAC
regularly as our national reporting body. We also share that information with
the SHA to keep them in that loop of partnership since we share so many
responsibilities for the screening programs. And I’m not sure if that answered
your question, but I could give you an example of some of the indicators if
that might be helpful.
Joan Pratchler: — There’s some on page 216. Are there any
there that would diverge from what you already have? And which ones would you
have different than what the national levels would be?
Deb
Bulych: — So which ones
where we’re not meeting what the national target would be?
Joan Pratchler: — Well yes, or maybe you exceed it.
Deb
Bulych: — Okay. I’ll
have a look. Sorry, that took a little long. So we are measuring, I’ll give you
just some examples. And your specific question of where we’re exceeding, of
course we’re exceeding the overall participation rate. We have the highest in
Canada and have for years. We’re sort of, what I understand is, in the
mid-range of average for some of these other ones, and I’ll just give you a
couple examples.
The
up-to-date screening, we’re meeting that target, but we’re not exceeding or
beating the rest of Canada. Colonoscopy waits, while we’re measuring and
reporting on those, we’d be right in the middle pack for Canada. Not exceeding
benchmarks there. Interval cancers, of course, we’re within that range. And I
should say that all of these metrics are available online at any time too, if
you wanted to ever view the whole report.
Joan Pratchler: — Where will that be then?
Deb
Bulych: — On the CPAC
website.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. How frequently, and to whom other
than CPAC, do you report the results on the key quality indicators?
Deb
Bulych: — Other than
CPAC, these are reported to our executive leadership team as well as our board.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. Could you tell us a little bit
more about the reporting tools you’re using to access to metrics and decision
making?
Deb
Bulych: — The tools to
access? Oh, the trackers, the dashboards.
Joan Pratchler: — Yeah.
Deb
Bulych: — So we’re
using multiple Microsoft tools — Microsoft Lists, Power BI — where our
dashboards exist. And there’s quarterly updates in there for all of the metrics
so that I myself can go on and look, or Karen as the vice-president responsible
could go on and look. And they’re available to us readily.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Not seeing any further questions
here. Any other, any further questions, committee members? MLA Crassweller.
Brad Crassweller: — Not really per se a question, but just
a thank you. I don’t know of anybody in this room that hasn’t been touched by
cancer, and so I just want to say thank you to you and your team.
I
know we’re talking about colorectal, but I know that a mammography unit is
currently sitting in Emerald Park, in my constituency, until the 21st and it’s
completely booked solid. And so I just want to say, on behalf of this committee
and our government, thank you so much for the work you guys do. Really, really
appreciate it, so thank you very much.
Deb
Bulych: — Thank you.
That means a lot to our team, and I will share that. Thank you.
Brad Crassweller: — Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Yeah, thank you. Thank you very
much. Good comments, MLA Crassweller. And our thanks to you all and, you know,
your entire team for the work and service you provide that’s so critical right
across this province. Thanks for your time here today as well.
That
concludes I think the questions we’ve got here. And these aren’t new
recommendations. We have implementation in place, which is excellent. I’d
welcome a motion to conclude consideration of chapter 20.
James Thorsteinson: — So move.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson.
All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, that’s carried. We’ll shift
gears, and I think I saw the 3S [Health Shared Services Saskatchewan] gang
hanging out in the hallway there. You tell them to come get before us at the
end of the table and we’ll go from there. Very brief recess.
[The
committee recessed for a period of time.]
3sHealth
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, folks. We’re going to turn our
attention, shift gears here now and turn our attention to the chapter, the
follow-up chapter with respect to 3sHealth. We certainly welcome CEO Anderson
and the 3S team that have joined us here today. I’m going to turn it over to
the Provincial Auditor to make a presentation and then we’ll come your way.
Jason
Wandy: — Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Health Shared Services Saskatchewan, also known as 3sHealth, administers
four disability benefit plans for certain health care employees, including
health care staff working in hospitals, emergency services, and long-term care
facilities. 3sHealth receives approximately 3,000 applications for disability
benefit claims each year.
Chapter
8 of our 2026 report volume 1 reports the results of our second follow-up audit
of management’s actions on the two remaining recommendations we originally made
in 2021 regarding 3sHealth’s processes to manage disability claims for certain
health care employees. By September 2025 3sHealth implemented the two remaining
recommendations.
Since
February 2025 we found 3sHealth sent completed disability benefit claim
applications to adjudicators within its expected three-day time frame,
resulting in timely claim decisions. 3sHealth also consistently met its target
of adjudicators making claim decisions within eight days 90 per cent of the
time.
Since
April 2024 we found 3sHealth completed appeal reviews on disability claims
within the required 30 days or documented reasons for significant delays; for
example, when it encountered difficult appeals requiring peer review. By having
effective processes to manage disability claims, 3sHealth minimizes delays in
plan members receiving the appropriate support and treatment needed to improve
their health and return to work.
I’ll
now pause for the committee’s consideration.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, thanks so much for the
follow-up on this front. These were part of the chapter back in 2022. We’ve
considered it here and taken time at the committee before. We’ve had
implementation reported so we’d welcome a brief remark, ADM O’Neill, and then
we’ll see if there’s questions.
Norman
O’Neill: — I guess just
as both recommendations are considered fully implemented, we’ll be happy just
to take questions.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Sure. Committee members, any
questions? MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you. Wondering if you could tell the committee what work remains to be
done to ensure that disability claims are sent to the adjudicator within the
desired three-day time frame 90 per cent of the time, and for decisions within
the eight-day time frame.
Mark
Anderson: — I’m Mark
Anderson, CEO at 3sHealth. Thanks for having me today. So as noted, you know,
we have implemented the recommendations. So just really proud of the team on
the work they’ve done to consistently meet this target.
From
January to August 2026, overall performance remained above the established
service target at 92.35 per cent despite fluctuations in monthly volumes and
staffing levels. And so you know, those are the two variables: of course what
do the volumes look like, and then do we have staff or there’s people off sick,
do we have turnover, those types of things. But the team’s done a great job of
just keeping eyes on it daily and triaging work and making sure the most
important work is done every single day.
We’ll
need to continue to do that, you know, daily visual management we call it, and
keep eyes on it and make sure nothing gets away on us. And then continuous
improvement, little things that can be done each and every day to just make it
better and better would be the areas of focus. But no specific things that I
would point to.
Hugh Gordon: —
Okay, thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — I just want to talk about the
technology, the IT business that helps support what you do. We have AIMS
[administrative information management system] on. We have AIMS off. Would you
say the processing times have improved since AIMS has been finished? I don’t
know. And then we have ServiceNow. How is that related to . . . Help
me understand those two.
Mark Anderson: —
Sure. I’ll just convene the team. So thanks for the question. So just for
clarity, so ServiceNow, we call it our case management system. So it’s a place
to document basically customer intake. You know, I have a request for
something; I have a claim. All those sorts of things go in there. And then we
can triage work. We can track our turnaround times. We can track the work
overall in the workflows. That’s how we utilize ServiceNow.
And
then the disability management system is actually called Penad. So we don’t use
AIMS for disability adjudication. We use a product called Penad.
Joan Pratchler: — And is that fairly new then for you?
Mark Anderson: — No, we’ve had Penad in place for
four years. I was going to say since 2022.
Joan Pratchler: — And it’s
doing what you need it to do?
Mark Anderson: — Yeah. We’re working with that
vendor. They’re an important vendor for us, so we work with them on a regular
basis to discuss improvements that we can make, things that we’d like to see in
their product road map. And they’ve been a good partner for us.
Joan Pratchler: — And have
you ever used AIMS? Was that a utility for you?
Mark Anderson: — Not in disability adjudication, no.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. In
anywhere in this 3sHealth for . . . this area at all?
Mark Anderson: — No. Not for disability.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay,
thanks.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — What percentage of appeals were
processed within 30 business days last year? What was the longest time frame
for a claim to be processed? And if you could explain the possible delay for
that.
[12:00]
Mark
Anderson: — Okay. Thank
you for the question. So last year we processed 100 per cent of our appeals
within the 30 days. So that occurred last year. So the longest was under 30
days. We don’t have the specifics in front of us today.
Hugh Gordon: —
That answers the question. Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Not seeing any further questions
from these guys, any further questions over here? Crassweller,
you got a couple burning questions here?
Brad Crassweller: — Just
getting hungry, Mr. Chair.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Yeah, lunchtime, right. 3S stands between us and lunch. Listen, thanks so
much CEO Anderson, your team for the time here today, the follow-up on this
chapter, and the implementation of the recommendations. Not seeing any other
questions, I’d welcome a motion to conclude consideration of chapter 8 here.
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson. All agreed?
Some Hon.
Members:
— Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Okay, that’s carried. This committee will stand with a bit of a recess here,
reconvene after lunch at 1:30.
[The committee recessed from 12:02 until
13:29.]
Saskatchewan
Workers’ Compensation Board
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, folks, we’ll reconvene the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We’re going to turn our attention to the
Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board and the chapters that have been
brought forward by the auditor. I’m going to welcome chief executive officer
Phillip Germain for joining us along with senior officials here today.
CEO
Germain, would you care to briefly introduce the officials that have joined you
here today. You can refrain from getting into the chapters at this time. We’ll
go over to the auditor and then come back your way for that.
Phillip
Germain: — Thank you,
Mr. Chair and committee members. With me today is Dale Markewich, chief
financial officer, and Sophie Ferré, chief legal officer.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thank you very much to you all for
joining and all those that are involved in the work that we’ll be discussing
here today. I’ll turn it over to the Provincial Auditor to present on the
chapter, and then we’ll come back your way.
[13:30]
Tara
Clemett: — So thank
you, Mr. Chair, Deputy Chair, committee members, and officials. With me today
is Mr. Jason Shaw, and he’s the deputy provincial auditor that’s responsible
for the portfolio of work that includes the Workers’ Compensation Board. And
then behind him is Ms. Michelle Lindenbach, and she was involved in some of the
audit work that we are discussing today, and is also our liaison with this
committee.
There’s
no new recommendations for the committee’s consideration in these two
presentations. We will pause after each chapter for the committee’s
consideration of each chapter. We are pleased to see though that WCB [Workers’
Compensation Board] has fully addressed all of the recommendations in both of
these chapters and the audits that we did. Before we do begin our
presentations, I want to thank the CEO and his staff for the co-operation that
was extended to us during our work. With that I’ll turn it over to Jason.
Jason
Shaw: — Thank you. The
Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board operates under the authority of The
Workers’ Compensation Act, 2013 and is responsible for administering
workers’ compensation claims, including psychological injury claims.
Psychological injuries such as post-traumatic stress disorder and depression
are often more complex, generally more difficult to administer as a claim, and
require more judgment than some other injuries.
Chapter
29 of our 2025 report volume 2, starting on page 269, reports the results of
our first follow-up of the Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board’s processes
to administer compensation claims for psychological injury. By July 2025 the
Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board fully implemented the five outstanding
audit recommendations we first made in 2022.
In
section 3.1 we described how WCB developed tools to help monitor its key
performance measures and take action to meet its established targets. WCB
developed a dashboard for its psychological injuries unit to actively monitor
key measures and to assess monthly why measures may not be met.
During
2024 WCB improved the timeliness of communicating an initial psychological
injury claim decision within 14 days of receiving an application. For 26 of 30
psychological claims tested, or 87 per cent, we found WCB made its decision on
claims within 14 days as expected. This was a significant increase from only
achieving this target for 43 per cent of claims in 2022.
Also
WCB expects staff to contact claimants every three weeks for 80 per cent of
ongoing claims. We found it achieved this for 79 per cent of claims in 2024.
Following and monitoring established decision and communication time frames
helps to reduce delays in injured workers receiving benefits and treatment.
In
section 3.2 we noted WCB completed reasonable quality reviews for both
psychological claim and appeal files. WCB conducts three separate reviews on a
sample of psychological injury claim files. We tested samples of its review
files and found staff appropriately completed and documented their review
results. Its reviews found staff made correct claim acceptance decisions.
Having effective quality review processes reduce the risk of instances of
non-compliance with WCB policies. This helps reduce delays in injured workers
receiving appropriate treatment as well as may decrease the risk of appeals
occurring.
In
section 3.3 we outline how WCB developed additional guidance for staff
assessing appeals. We found staff appropriately followed this guidance. We
tested nine appeals and found appeals officers appropriately communicated
results to claimants as well as used templates to include key information.
Consistently and clearly communicating results of appeals to claimants reduce
the risk of additional appeals as claimants will be able to understand the
bases for their decisions and their alignment with policy and legislation.
In
section 3.4 we found WCB developed sufficient guidance for staff and what
information to release to employers from a worker’s psychological injury claim
file during an appeal. WCB staff used guidance and on-the-job training to
decide which information to include or remove when preparing file packages for
employers. We tested two appeal files where an employer requested worker
information and found WCB only provided appropriate information to the employer
for both appeals.
Having
guidance for staff on which file information WCB expects to provide to
employers decreases the risk that staff may provide confidential worker
information while still allowing for necessary information to be shared with an
employer to assist in their decision making.
This
concludes my presentation. Thank you. I’ll pause for the committee’s
consideration.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thanks so much for the presentation
and the follow-up on this front. I’m going to turn it over to CEO Germain for
some brief remarks.
Before
I do so I’ll table the document, the status update that you’ve provided to us.
And that’s PAC 110‑30, Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board: Status
update, dated October 14th, 2026. Thanks to those involved in the work that’s
reflected in that status update.
I’ll
kick it your way and then we’ll see what we have for questions.
Phillip
Germain: — Again thank
you, Mr. Chair and committee members. And thank you, Provincial Auditor Clemett
and deputy provincial auditor Shaw. I’d like to begin by thanking your team for
the work that they’ve provided in a very collaborative approach that you’ve taken
throughout both the original audit and the follow-up audit.
The
Provincial Auditor conducted an audit of the WCB’s administration on
psychological injury claims in ’22 with five recommendations aimed at
strengthening our processes. Those recommendations focused on, as Jason said,
appeals, information disclosure, communication with workers, timeliness of
decisions, and quality assurance activities.
WCB
accepted all five recommendations and immediately developed an action plan to
address each of them. We are pleased that the Provincial Auditor’s follow-up
audit confirmed that WCB fully implemented all five recommendations. The
auditor also found that staff were following guidance, monitoring processes and
quality assurance activities that were put in place as a response to the audit.
One
thing that I think is important to highlight is that the follow-up audit went
beyond simply confirming the existence of policies and procedures. The auditor
reviewed claim and appeal files and assessed how these processes were working
in practice. The auditor found that staff were applying the guidance,
appropriately communicating appeal decisions, appropriately handling
information disclosure requests, and conducting quality reviews of
psychological injury claims and appeals. Since the original audit we’ve
strengthened guidance and training for appeal staff, implemented enhanced
training monitoring, established ongoing quality assurance processes, and
improved oversight of both claims and appeals.
While
today’s discussion is focused on the audit, psychological injury claims
continue to be an important focus of the WCB. Since the introduction of the
psychological injury presumption in 2016, both reported and accepted
psychological injury claims have increased. Although these claims represent a
relatively small proportion of overall claims, they are often more complex and
may require specialized supports and longer recovery and return-to-work times.
Many of these claims involve first responders, correctional workers, health
care workers, who through their nature of work may be exposed to traumatic
events.
As
an organization, our focus is not only on administering claims effectively but
also on prevention. Through the 2023‑28 fatalities and serious injury
strategy WCB and WorkSafe Saskatchewan continue to support initiatives that
promote psychological health and safety in Saskatchewan workplaces, including
resources aimed at first responders and other workers exposed to traumatic
events.
We’ve
also continued to build on the work recognized in the audit by updating
psychological injury policies, expanding access to psychological health
supports, and increasing engagement with employers. We’ve recently established
a chief mental health officer position to help provide leadership in this area,
and recruitment is currently under way.
We
sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback provided by the OPA [Office of the
Provincial Auditor] and how we were able to translate that feedback into
value-added changes for our staff and our customers. We are pleased that the
Provincial Auditor confirmed all five recommendations have been fully
implemented. At the same time we also recognize that continuous improvement is
important, particularly in the area of complex and evolving issues like
psychological injuries. We’ll continue looking for opportunities to improve the
services and supports that we provide to injured workers and employers. Thank
you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thank you very much for the actions
that have been taken on this front, for detailing them here before us. I’ll now
look to committee members that may have questions. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you for being here today. What percentage of psychological injury claim
applications received a response within 14 days last year, and what was the
longest time frame for a response?
Phillip
Germain: — Thank you
for the question. So based on the independent review, approximately 87 per cent
of claims were responded to within 14 days. So the sample size and the data
that we have would suggest that we’re up over 80 per cent.
Now
some claims can be challenging in terms of trying to get people to respond, so
the 14‑day time frame, as much as it’s a goal, sometimes it’s
. . . you need all parties participating to get to that goal,
including the injured worker and the employer. But of the ones that were
sampled, 87 per cent were within 14 days. The longest, I do not have that
information in front of me. I apologize.
Hugh Gordon: —
Is it fair to say that — I think you’ve touched on it — some of the delays in
getting or hitting that 14‑day time mark is responses you get back
. . . you’re waiting for a response.
Phillip
Germain: — It is.
That’s a lot of it. So not specific to psychological claims, but just reporting
in general, the average time for workers and employers to report an injury to
us is usually over eight days. So the clock is ticking long before we even get
notice that something has happened.
Sometimes
the first piece of information we’ll get is a medical document that indicates
there’s an injury. Then we reach out to the worker; then we reach out to the
employer; then we’ll reach back out to the health care provider and try and
figure out what is going on: (a) is in fact there an injury, and (b) is the
injury work related?
And
then when we talk about psychological injuries, as we know, it’s getting
better, but there’s stigma around reporting. So sometimes it’s difficult for
individuals. They don’t want to talk about it. They want help, but they don’t
always want to talk about it. But for us, in order to collect the right
information to make adjudicative decisions, we need information, so chasing it
can be a challenge at times. It’s getting better.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you. How many claims for psychological injury did you receive last year,
and how many did you approve? What was the total dollar amount paid out? How
does that compare over the last five years?
Phillip Germain: — So in 2025
we had 808 claims registered with us. We approved or accepted 339 of those
claims. That’s typically in line if you go back over, you know, a long time
now. Acceptance rates are typically around that 40‑ish, 35 to 40 per
cent. And reason being that sometimes there’s not an actual DSM‑5 [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fifth Edition] diagnosis. It’s not an injury. Somebody, you
know, has an emotional reaction, but it’s not necessarily an injury. And then
at times, we can’t figure out how it’s work related.
But overall it’s really consistent, between 35
and 42 per cent acceptance rate. Last year was right in line with that. The
year before we had 884 claims. So in 2024, 884 claims registered with us,
psychological claims. And again, 339 accepted. So fairly in line. Last year was
probably the first year we saw from year over year a bit of a levelling off,
but I wouldn’t say that’s a trend at all. We still are expecting claim numbers
to climb.
Hugh Gordon: — Do you have a dollar amount
associated to that number of claims?
Phillip Germain: — Yeah. If
we go back the last few years, in 2025 it was about 9.4 million related to
costs associated with psychological claims. The year before it was 13.8. The
year before that, 15.9. Now you have to remember that each one of those claims
in that particular year will accumulate. Some of them go beyond a year. So the
attachment to a claim from 2023 could accumulate costs in 2023, 2024, 2025.
That will all get attached to that 2023 claim.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you. Have you made any effort
to survey workplaces in the province and evaluate if workers are aware of
psychological injury and that it’s a valid compensation claim?
[13:45]
Phillip Germain: — That’s a
good question. We haven’t really had a campaign per se to promote the fact that
psychological injuries are compensable. But having said that, I mean we have
had information that we send out. We do education, training. We do try and create awareness, but I
don’t recall a specific campaign to make workers or employers specifically
aware. I don’t know that we’ve done that for any type of injury claim
specifically.
We’ve
raised awareness on specific issues, mostly on the prevention side of it. And
usually once we raise an issue on the prevention side there’s some awareness
that it’s an accepted issue within the Workers’ Compensation system.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — How have the guidelines for use of
funding helped to ensure that the money spent on workplace . . .
Oops, wrong question. Sorry. That was the other one. Sorry.
What
improvements has WCB seen from the implementation of recommendations of
psychological injury claim decisions within 14 days and from communicating with
claimants?
Phillip
Germain: — Yeah, one of
the big advantages is being able to establish more of a consistent approach to
adjudicating and managing the claim. We haven’t seen durations necessarily
follow in terms of . . . But we’re seeing what we would consider
better, more timely access to care, more focus on good rehabilitation.
And
we’re understanding more and more through partnerships about what effective
return to work looks like. This is a learning experience, even though we’ve
been working at it, honestly, prior to 2016, and then when the presumptive
legislation came in in 2016 we certainly got a lot more focused on it.
But
the research around effective return to work as it relates to psychological
injuries, especially ones that are related to traumatic exposure, as all
psychological issues are, it’s an evolving space that we’re learning more and
more. We have started working with Wounded Warriors, who specialize in
traumatic care support for first responders, and we’re learning a lot from them
and other jurisdictions that have worked with Wounded Warriors across Canada.
So
I guess my main point I want to say is thanks to the support from the OPA, you
know, we’ve engaged in other organizations that are helping us learn and
improve as we move along here.
Joan Pratchler: — Thanks.
Hugh Gordon: —
How have the actions taken on the recommendation on page 272 about quality
reviews on claims helped to manage these types of claims and the ability for
claimants to get healthy and back to work? Are you seeing any tangible benefits
to the claimants and to the board?
Phillip
Germain: — We are. The
quality assurance and the more consistent quality assurance is leading to less
variation in how our staff are responding to the information that they’re
given. As Jason had mentioned, there’s a lot of difficult decision making in
these types of claims. And you can imagine, you can get a wide variety of
responses to the same information. The quality assurance is allowing our staff
to understand how to think about that information: what is considered work
related and not work related, what is actually considered an acceptable injury
versus a non-acceptable injury. And you know, what we’re trying to do here is
match the science with our legislative obligation, and then from there get more
consistent in applying that.
Joan Pratchler: — How has the formal guidance used by the
appeals officers helped in communicating decisions?
Phillip
Germain: — Again it’s
been better consistency. Similarly the appeals decisions, I would say different
people had different styles. And some people would quote legislation; some
people wouldn’t. There was different approaches to how they would respond to
the customers. We have a much more consistent approach to how we communicate
that decision to the customer.
Joan Pratchler: — Have you solicited feedback from staff
and claimants on the effectiveness of the new guidance and templates and
communicating?
Phillip
Germain: — We regularly
get feedback from our staff and on our customers as it relates to psychological
injuries. So we’ve had a couple of rounds, and this is going back a few years,
where we’d meet with injured workers, with researchers, with employers, with practitioners.
And we get feedback on what’s working and what’s not working. They have
different views of the problem or the issue or the opportunity that lays. We
take all of that and we work with them to figure out what’s the next best step
to evolve.
All
to say it’s one of the reasons why we’ve decided to hire a chief mental health
officer, to have an expert in the middle of that conversation understanding
what the research is telling us, understanding what the customers are telling
us, understanding what our staff are telling us, and evolve all this in the
right direction.
Joan Pratchler: — Has training been delivered to all
current appeal staff? Is it a one-time, or is it ongoing training with that
group?
Phillip
Germain: — It’s both.
So training has been delivered to all staff. There’s standardized training
that’s given to everyone who’s in claims. And then there’s particular training
that’s provided to anybody who’s in the psychological unit. And then that
training is evolving.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Can you give some details about what kind of information is released to an
employer when an employee makes a psychological injury claim?
Phillip
Germain: — That is a
really good question that Sophie will be able to provide more details on, but
that is something we’ve done a really deep dive on over the last few years to
try and understand how to put our toe on the line without stepping over the
line. Because employers need a certain amount of information to facilitate an
effective return to work.
If
the return to work isn’t supported, there are lots of psycho-social impacts of
not getting somebody back to work. It’s even, I’ll say, even supported recently
with the Canadian Medical Association’s recent — I think as of August 2026 —
their recent paper on the importance of return to work and how physicians
engage in return to work and the importance that return to work is part of the
healing process. But more specifically, Sophie?
Sophie
Ferré: — So employers
are able to access file information by submitting an application to the WCB,
and what they’re entitled to receive is outlined in section 174. So they’re
entitled to the facts surrounding the injury itself and anything that may
involve cost relief.
And
then there’s a more expansive interpretation of that in our information
disclosure policy, which is on our website. And that, to Phil’s point,
addressees those return-to-work aspects, which gives them a little bit more.
But given our interplay with The Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, we’re limited, in what we can disclose, to what’s outlined in
the Act and in policy. So that’s where you would find those parameters.
Where
we may disclose a little bit more is if something escalates all the way to a
board appeal tribunal matter. In that case you’re looking at a procedural
fairness issue, in which case they would get more information because then it’s
kind of quasi-judicial at that point. And so they will get a bit more in those
circumstances. And that really becomes anything upon which the board relied to
make its decision, and so at that point they would see that.
Hugh Gordon: —
I am just curious if, you know, you’re tracking how often employers are
requesting, you know, information maybe they’re not entitled to, or if any
information’s ever been released to them they weren’t entitled to. Can you talk
about your processes there, please?
Sophie
Ferré: — Sure. So their
employers would submit a request through the employer portal. It then makes its
way to someone who has a claims background but is specialized in file release.
And so they work closely with our legal department to assess if there’s anything
that’s out of the ordinary that they’re specifically looking for. We’ll have
one of the lawyers or one of our privacy employees assist in analyzing whether
or not it meets the criteria. So all of those requests that come in either
through the portal directly from the employer or through the staff to the legal
department are all counted and tracked.
And
if ever there’s either a complaint from a worker that we’ve over-shared or it’s
identified internally by staff, we have a privacy breach reporting form that is
also submitted through a system and tracked. And so any circumstances that
would meet the threshold for self-reporting to the OIPC [Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner], we would also self-report.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Not seeing any further questions
here. Any further questions, committee members? Thanks for sharing the
information, taking the action to ensure implementation of these
recommendations, as you’ve identified. I’d welcome a motion at this point to
conclude consideration of chapter 29.
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson.
All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, that’s carried. We’ll move
right along. I’ll turn it back over to the Provincial Auditor for presentation,
then we’ll come your way.
Jason
Shaw: — Thank you. For
the five-year average from 2019 to 2023, Saskatchewan ranked the highest in
Canada for injury-related deaths in the workplace for provinces with at least
100,000 full-time equivalent employees. The Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation
Board works with the safety associations and other organizations to assess and
develop programs to prevent injuries and promote safety.
Chapter
21 of our 2026 report volume 1, starting on page 229, reports the results of
our first follow-up audit of the effectiveness of the Saskatchewan Workers’
Compensation Board’s processes to monitor safety associations’ use of funding
for injury prevention and workplace safety. By March 2026 the board fully
implemented all four recommendations we made in 2023.
In
section 3.1 we noted WCB implemented detailed guidelines on eligible expenses
for safety association use of WCB funding. In March 2025 WCB implemented the
safety association guidelines following its review of good practice and
consultation with safety associations. We found the new guidelines set clear
expectations for eligible costs, such as consistent travel allowances. The
guidelines also require safety associations to use WCB funding solely to
support employers in the industry covered by that safety association.
WCB
indicated it expects its internal audit department to audit whether safety
associations complied and used funds for eligible expenses for two associations
per year, starting in 2026. By establishing clear guidelines for eligible
expenses and permitted uses of funding, WCB enhanced consistency and
transparency in how safety associations spend funding.
In
section 3.2 we found WCB documented its review of key financial planning
information and key performance results submitted by safety associations,
including discussions with safety associations and resolution of any issues
identified.
Management
established an annual evaluation process to analyze key safety association
information such as annual financial results, and reported performance measures
and results against approved funding applications. We tested five safety
associations and found in all cases a documented review of key information as
expected.
Consistently
reviewing safety association financial information and performance results
enabled WCB to promptly identify any non-compliance with established guidelines
and its expectations. This supports informed funding and oversight decisions
and helps ensure public resources are used effectively.
In
section 3.3 we found WCB informally verified that safety associations provide
key information to employer members, such as financial statements and strategic
plans. It expected to have its internal audit department audit key information
for two safety associations starting in 2026.
Our
review of five safety associations found they mostly shared required
information, with all five posting annual reports, financial statements,
strategic plans, and board information like board rules online. Verifying
safety associations make key information available to members helps ensure
members are aware of services available to them, which can help reduce injury
rates.
Thank
you. This concludes my presentation.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay. Thanks so much for the
presentation, the follow-up on this front. I’ll turn it over to CEO Germain for
brief remark, and then we’ll open it up for questions.
Phillip
Germain: — Thank you,
Mr. Chair, and again I’d like to thank the Provincial Auditor for your work and
for your continued collaboration through both the original audit and the
follow-up processes. The recommendations helped strengthen WCB’s oversight
framework and provided an opportunity for further improvement for
accountability and transparency in the administration of the safety association
funding.
When
the Provincial Auditor first released its report in 2023, WCB accepted all four
recommendations and committed to addressing the areas identified for
improvement. Since that time, WCB has worked collaboratively with the safety
associations to strengthen reporting requirements, formalize evaluation
processes, enhance documentation and oversight practices, and clarify
expectations regarding the use of employer-funded prevention dollars.
The
Provincial Auditor’s 2026 follow-up found that WCB had implemented all four
recommendations and had effective processes to monitor the safety associations’
use of funding for injury prevention and workplace safety.
[14:00]
Key
improvements included the development and implementation of comprehensive
guidelines; structured annual evaluation process to review and document safety
associations’ financial planning, performance results, budget variances, and
follow-up actions; enhanced verification and monitoring of reporting
obligations to help ensure employer members receive key financial governance
and performance information; and funding agreement compliance audits conducted
by an independent third party with support from WCB’s internal audit, providing
additional assurance that the funding is being used appropriately and in
accordance with program requirements.
These
enhancements support WCB’s responsibility to ensure employer-funded prevention
dollars are used appropriately, transparently, and for intended purpose by
reducing workplace injuries and promoting workplace safety. WCB remains
committed to continuous improvement and maintaining strong oversight of the
safety association funding. Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thank you. Thanks for detailing the
actions that have been taken. I’ll look to committee members that may have
questions now. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — I look on page 230 in the auditor’s
report and see the chart at the bottom of the page. What the heck is Ontario
doing right? Those numbers are so low. Have you any idea? And not that you’re
an expert on Ontario’s . . . but that’s quite striking.
Phillip
Germain: — I’m looking
for page 230 right now. Yeah, good question. So what I would say is, on the
injury prevention front, Ontario had started long before most jurisdictions.
They got into . . . Even though we were the first on the legislative
side, on the support side of things they were well ahead. And their safety
associations, or safety organizations, in the province are large. They’re
complex, and they are very well established — many, many decades. Yeah.
Joan Pratchler: — Well we’ve seen this question before.
Why don’t I try and ask it again then? How have the guidelines for use of
funding helped to ensure that this money is spent on workplace safety programs?
And do you have any examples of yet?
Phillip
Germain: — Yeah, so the
guidelines just help to clarify the expectations. We’ve always had the
expectations, but the support, the recommendation around getting more specific
with guidelines, we work with the safety associations to establish the
guidelines. Implementation has been challenging at times in terms of
clarifying. But during an annual review, we go through all of those
expectations and highlight where there might be variances or subtle
interpretation differences, and then continue to clarify those. We continue to
have those conversations. We continue to document those conversations.
But
it’s going positively, I would say. A good example of that is managing surplus
dollars. We’ve gone back and forth. When I say surplus, it’s additional
funding. So you know, we have some safety associations that are sitting on
millions of dollars. And what we’re telling them is, with that money sitting
there, we don’t need to charge our customers maybe as much if you’ve got the
funding to execute the programs. The key is making sure that they can execute
their programs and they’ve got the funding to do so, instead of necessarily
just building up a bit of a war chest, so to speak — and my choice of words, no
one else’s. So clarifying that and being very consistent with that
communication.
And
in this year, as a matter of fact, there’s a couple of safety associations
where they requested increases in funding, and we said no because they were
sitting on what we consider surplus dollars — two-point-some million dollars of
cash sitting there with no intended purpose.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
I just was wondering, you know, with respect to the guidelines, have you seen
any improvements through efficiencies in this regard, like following these
guidelines?
Phillip
Germain: — With the
majority of the safety associations, the quality . . . So we get
quarterly reports, we get annual reports, we meet with them one-on-one a couple
of times a year, and then leading into the budget cycles there are a series of
one-on-one meetings. All of those meetings with the majority of the safety
associations are going much better. The reporting we’re getting from them, the
conversations we’re having, there’s way better alignment, way better
co-operation, way better collaboration with the safety associations. And we
feel that that’s a one-plus-one-equals-three scenario.
So
the feedback and the way we’ve . . . I think based on the
recommendations and the way we’ve implemented the recommendations, it’s much
better collaborative working, and we believe it’s resulting in more value-added
use of the dollars at the end of the day.
Hugh Gordon: —
Can you maybe give some examples of areas that have improved?
Phillip
Germain: — Yeah. A good
example is . . . So we’ve got a provincial serious injury and
fatality strategy. And out of the gate in developing that strategy we, right or
wrong, had an expectation that the safety associations would be supporting that
strategy. Initially some were; some weren’t.
But
based on the way the expectations roll out now and the conversations and the
tools and processes that we’ve got, we’ve got much better alignment where we’re
working on initiatives together. How are we all in the boat rowing together to
reduce these serious injuries and fatalities? That is much better today than it
was two or three years ago.
Hugh Gordon: —
What kind of feedback have you received from the safety associations on these
recommendations to review their financial and performance results?
Phillip
Germain: — Overall I
would say collectively positive from the overwhelming majority, real positive
feedback, and in the end appreciation. Even they have admitted they’ve learned
something about their businesses that they didn’t necessarily know or
understand. So it’s been a positive learning process for everyone.
As
I’ve said, we’ve had a couple of pinch points, let’s call it, that we’ve had to
work through but nothing major. But overall the general feedback we’ve been
getting from the safety associations is positive.
Hugh Gordon: —
Are the key performance results standardized across all the safety
associations, or do they vary by organization?
Phillip
Germain: — So at the
highest level we look at the injury rates for each rate code associated. That’s
at the highest level. But beyond that it depends on the specific issues within
the industry. We’re trying to get them focused on the issues that are driving
injuries, the issues that are driving serious injuries, and the issues that are
driving fatalities. Those can vary from industry to industry, and that’s what
we want them focused on.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you. And you know, how co-operative have these safety associations been
in sharing the performance or the financial information since the introduction
of the requirements?
Phillip
Germain: — They have
always shared financial information. So we’ve always demanded audited financial
statements. They’ve given us reports. The challenge would be inconsistency from
the plan to the report. There wasn’t always alignment. You would get a plan and
at the end of the year you’d get a report. Those things didn’t always line up.
So there was transparency around financial reporting. The connection of really
what did you spend those dollars on, what were you focused on, wasn’t always
clear. That has become much clearer through all these guidelines and new
processes.
Hugh Gordon: —
You mentioned external audit firm was employed by WCB to review the safety
associations. What was the name of that auditing firm?
Phillip
Germain: — Deloitte.
Hugh Gordon: — Okay.
Phillip
Germain: — Deloitte has
been supporting our internal auditor. So our internal auditor is leading it,
but Deloitte is primarily doing the work to execute the independent evaluations
of how the money at the end of the day is really being spent.
Hugh Gordon: —
And have you received any complaints from member businesses that haven’t
received this financial information or otherwise from the respective safety
associations?
Phillip
Germain: — Not really.
Once employers understand what we’re doing, they’re very, very appreciative.
And in fact some of the information we’ve provided them has actually caused
them to ask certain questions of their safety associations resulting in
changes.
It’s
more transparent for some of the boards. Some boards, some associations and
their boards have been very transparent. Others maybe not as much as they
could’ve or should’ve. I’m not sure if that’s just unintentional. But the new
processes, the audit for example, the independent audit reports go directly to
the Chair of the board and the CEO at the same time. So they can see in real
time and then, you know, there’s no filtered information there.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you. Those are all my questions.
Deputy Chair Thorsteinson: — Are there any other questions? All
right, seeing none I would accept a motion to adjourn consideration of this
chapter. MLA Bromm so moved. All in favour?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Deputy Chair Thorsteinson: — Carried. Do you have any final
remarks?
Phillip
Germain: — Just a
sincere thank you to all of you, in particular the Provincial Auditor and her
team for . . . Again we appreciate the feedback we get. We take it to
heart. And sometimes as organizations we can have blind spots, and
organizations like the OPA help us sometimes see what we don’t see. So thank
you.
Deputy Chair Thorsteinson: — Thank you very much. We will now
move on to consideration of the Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport, and we
will take a brief recess while we bring in those officials.
[The committee recessed for a period of time.]
Parks,
Culture and Sport
Deputy Chair Thorsteinson: — Okay, well welcome back. We are
ready to move on with the consideration of Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport
status update. Ministry officials are here. I would ask you to introduce
yourself and your officials, and then we will move it to the auditor and then
back to you for some statements on the update.
Greg Gettle: —
Great. Thank you very much, Chair. My name is Greg Gettle. I’m the deputy
minister of Parks, Culture and Sport. With me today is Paul Johnson, assistant
deputy minister of Parks. Behind me we have Mike Roth who is the executive
director of park management services. And beside me I have Christine Markel and
she’s our director of the landscape protection unit.
Deputy Chair Thorsteinson: — All right. Thank you. I will now
turn it over to the auditor.
Tara Clemett: — Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chair, committee
members, and officials. With me today is Mr. Jason Shaw, and he’s the deputy
provincial auditor that is responsible for the portfolio of work that does
include the Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport. Behind me is Ms. Nicole
Dressler, and she is a principal in our office who was involved in the audit
that we are discussing today. And beside her is Ms. Michelle Lindenbach, our
liaison with this committee.
[14:15]
There
are eight new recommendations for the committee’s consideration in this
chapter. Before I do begin our presentation, I want to thank the deputy
minister and his staff for the co-operation that was extended to us during the
course of our work. I’ll turn it over to Jason.
Jason
Shaw: — Thank you. The
Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport is responsible for managing parks and
natural resources in a sustainable manner. The ministry manages the protection
and conservation of over 1.2 million hectares of parkland in 36 parks.
Nearly 70 per cent of parkland is forested land. Protecting park ecosystems
means managing unique ecosystems to sustain habitat for wildlife, plants, and
people while also supporting recreation and economic opportunities.
Chapter
12 in our 2025 report volume 2 reports the results of our audit of the Ministry
of Parks, Culture and Sport’s processes for the period ending May 31st, 2025 to
protect provincial park ecosystems. We concluded the ministry had effective
processes to protect provincial park ecosystems, except in the areas of our
eight recommendations.
In
our first recommendation, on page 125, we recommended the ministry enter
provincial park ecosystem data and management activities in its IT system
timely. The ministry’s IT system has ecosystem data such as types of
vegetation, number, and age of trees and species at risk, which it uses to
monitor ecosystem health. Staff collect park ecosystem health data in the
spring and summer. The ministry did not have a formal timeline or deadline for
staff to enter data, although staff indicated it should be entered in the fall
or winter.
One
way the ministry collects ecosystem information is through range health
assessments, which check the health of grasslands. We tested one range health
assessment conducted in August 2022 and found staff had not entered data in its
IT system at May 2025. We also found, as of May 2025, the IT system did not
include some information from 2015 such as the number of trees planted. Without
timely and complete data, the ministry’s future ecosystem health assessments
could be inaccurate and may result in a lack of action to protect parks’
ecosystems.
In
our second recommendation, on page 130, we recommended the ministry prioritize
creating ecosystem-based management plans, aligned with good practice, for all
high-risk provincial parks. High-risk parks are those with critical habitat or
low park ecosystem health index scores. The ministry had an ecosystem-based
management plan template from 2011 but had not used it when completing
management plans. As a result, we found plans lacked consistency in format and
content and did not include some key elements of good practice.
We
tested seven management plans and found none of the seven plans included topics
such as fire behaviour, human use levels, and impact of human use. The ministry
did not have a process to monitor the impact of visitation on park ecosystems.
One
plan was more than 20 years old and three plans were created without public
consultation. We also found the ministry expects these management plans to be
20‑year plans. We found good practice is to update plans about every 10
years.
The
absence of complete updated ecosystem-based management plans aligned with good
practice for all high-risk provincial parks increased the risk of inconsistent
decision making and unaddressed threats to ecosystem health.
In
our third recommendation, on page 132, we recommended the ministry create
detailed plans such as fuel management plans for all high-risk provincial
parks. We expected the ministry to create ecosystem-based management plans for
each high-risk park and then set detailed plans outlining key activities like
extensive grazing to protect park ecosystems.
We
expected the ministry’s detailed plans to include key ecosystem management
activities including expected deadlines for completion of those activities. In
particular, fuel management plans outline wildfire mitigation efforts such as
harvesting timber and grassland in forested parks and prescribed burns in
grassland parks.
We
found the ministry did not have fuel management plans for 13 of its 18 forested
parks. As a result, we could not tell whether the ministry sufficiently planned
actions to reduce wildfire risks in forested parks. This increases the risk of
greater severity of wildfires should they occur. Not having detailed plans for
all high-risk parks increases the risk of inconsistent ecosystem management
activities or not completing the right activities at the right time.
In
our fourth recommendation, on page 133, we recommended the ministry complete
ecosystem management activities to protect provincial park ecosystems
consistent with planned actions and deadlines. Key ecosystem management
activities in parks include grazing, haying, prescribed burns, and forestry
management activities like harvesting trees. We found the ministry used the
appropriate types of activities to protect park ecosystems consistent with good
practice.
In
2022 the ministry developed four targeted action plans to improve the parks
ecosystem health index in some of the provincial parks below the ministry’s
minimum threshold. The action plans had 10 planned activities from 2022 to fall
of 2024. We found the ministry had not completed 4 of these 10 planned
activities in two parks. Activities included grazing, seeding native grasses,
and a prescribed burn. Not completing planned ecosystem management activities
timely may negatively impact ecosystem health.
In
our fifth recommendation, on page 134, we recommended the ministry centrally
monitor completion of planned ecosystem management activities to protect
provincial park ecosystems. The ministry plans to complete ecosystem management
activities in its various plans and assessments.
The
ministry did not centrally track or monitor these recommended activities. We
found it was also not aware of which recommendations had been started, which
were in progress, and which had been completed. Without centralized tracking,
the ministry risks not completing required activities which can result in
further deterioration of park ecosystem health. In addition, lack of readily
available information for monitoring limits the ministry’s ability to make
decisions efficiently and to adjust plans as required.
In
our sixth recommendation, on page 136, we recommended the ministry report to
senior management and the public on key ecosystem management activities taken
to protect provincial parks. The ministry had limited internal reporting on the
results of its management activities. Without adequate internal reporting on
ecosystem health and conservation activities in provincial parks, the ministry
may not have sufficient information to make informed decisions.
The
ministry reported some limited activity information to the public through its
annual report. However it did not report its provincial park health index score
for each park nor its target to have each health index score above a minimum
set amount. Also it did not report its target to have ecosystem-based
management plans completed for all 12 natural environment parks by March 31st,
2028. Without adequate public reporting on ecosystem health and conservation
activities in provincial parks, the ministry may not sufficiently build
conservation awareness among visitors.
In
our seventh recommendation, on page 137, we recommended the ministry formalize
factors it considers when determining which Indigenous communities to consult
with when planning activities to protect provincial park ecosystems. The
ministry must follow the Government of Saskatchewan’s First Nation and Métis
consultation policy framework when determining which activities impact
Indigenous communities and require consultation.
When
assessing ecosystem-based management plans, we found the ministry consulted
with Indigenous communities for four of seven plans tested. For the four plans,
the ministry did not document who it consulted with and why. For example, the
ministry told us it used a radius of at least 100 kilometres surrounding parks
to identify which Indigenous communities to consult. It did not have rationale
for using this method.
Formalizing
consultation processes with Indigenous communities who may be affected by
activities to protect provincial park ecosystems can help to promote
understanding, transparency, and credibility of the ministry’s processes.
In
our eighth recommendation, also on page 137, we recommended the ministry retain
sufficient evidence of consultations with Indigenous communities related to
protecting provincial park ecosystems.
For
consultations it undertakes, the ministry sends letters to Indigenous
communities and invites them to respond with concerns. We found the ministry
did not retain evidence of the letters sent and received from Indigenous
communities for three of the four ecosystem-based management plans and for one
of two forest operating plans tested. We were unable to evaluate the ministry’s
assessment of responses for the consultation process where the ministry did not
retain evidence of the letters sent and received from Indigenous communities.
Without
retaining sufficient evidence of consultations with Indigenous communities, the
ministry cannot demonstrate it followed transparent processes consistent with
the Government of Saskatchewan’s framework.
Thank
you, and that concludes my presentation of this chapter.
Deputy
Chair Thorsteinson: —
Thank you. Now I’ll turn it over to Deputy Minister Gettle for some comments on
the chapter.
Greg Gettle: — Thank you. We appreciate the
opportunity to appear before the committee today to discuss the Provincial
Auditor’s recommendations on the management and protection of ecosystems within
Saskatchewan’s provincial parks.
I want to take the first few minutes of our
time here today to shed some light on our work related to managing the
ecological health of our provincial parks, and the auditor’s report. This is
incredibly important work as illustrated by our goal number 2 in our ministry’s
strategic framework, which is to protect our natural and cultural resources for
the benefit of all current and future generations.
Saskatchewan has 36 provincial parks, which
encompass approximately 1.2 million hectares of land and span all of the
province’s ecoregions. The Parks Act recognizes different park
classifications, which includes natural environment, recreation, wilderness,
and historic. And each with distinct purposes, but all with the commitment to
protect and conserve our parklands.
The provincial park system as a whole has a
dual mandate: to conserve natural and cultural resources and to provide
high-quality recreation and visitor experiences. The healthy park ecosystems
sustain biodiversity and resilient landscapes. It gives people opportunities to
connect with nature and contribute to the health, wellness, and quality of life
of Saskatchewan citizens and communities.
Ecosystem management is the coordinated
science-based stewardship of land, water, species, and ecological processes to
maintain ecosystem health
and resilience while supporting appropriate public use.
The
landscape protection unit provides the ministry’s technical expertise in
ecology, ecosystem management, environmental review, data, and conservation
planning. They do all of this while working within the parks division and our
partners to apply that expertise across the entire parks system.
Importantly
the audit concluded that other than the areas identified for improvement, the
ministry has effective processes to protect provincial park ecosystems. It
recognized qualified and experienced staff, science-based tools, and
appropriate conservation activities led by our landscape protection unit. The
recommendations are therefore an opportunity to strengthen the system,
supporting good work already under way, particularly planning, documentation,
accountability, monitoring, and reporting.
Four
years ago the ministry developed and implemented the park ecosystem health
index, which we have referred to as the PEHI. The PEHI is a very unique
ecosystem health measurement system that provides a consistent and comparable
assessment of ecosystem conditions across our provincial parks. I’m very proud
to share this innovative work received a national award from the Canadian Parks
Council in 2025. The PEHI evaluates indicators of ecological integrity and the
pressures affecting them, helping the ministry understand relative condition,
track change, and identify where management attention may be needed.
The
auditor uses the term “high-risk parks.” The ministry does not currently apply
high-risk as a formal park designation. We use PEHI thresholds, environmental
trends, and other ecological evidence to identify where ecosystem condition
requires management attention and to prioritize the appropriate planning and
management response.
Together
with planning processes, such as ecosystem-based management plans, these tools
support the ministry’s goal no. 2. The ministry accepts the auditor’s
recommendations and is committed to building on this strong technical
foundation. This work did not begin with the audit. Internal reviews have
identified opportunities to raise awareness of resource conservation and
strengthen program accountability and reporting.
In
addition the ministry has recently developed a draft healthy parks strategy
that will set common direction and goals across the parks division for
protecting and conserving our provincial parks. The strategy provides a shared
long-term framework to align conservation priorities, responsibilities, and
outcomes across our park system.
[14:30]
A
coordinated, three-phase implementation plan will establish the necessary
foundation for addressing the audit recommendations. This includes priority
planning, conservation delivery, and embedding ongoing monitoring and
reporting. Early actions, including defining criteria for risk-based
prioritization, updating ecosystem-based management plan standards, clarifying
responsibilities and timelines, strengthening data entry expectations,
identifying key data gaps, and developing centralized tracking for commitments
and evidence.
Internal
reporting systems will be established and validated first. And once they are
producing reliable, consistent information the ministry will sequence public
reporting on conservation activities, ecosystem condition, and progress against
commitments. This approach will help ensure that conservation priorities are
risk-based, commitments are visible and measurable, and decisions are supported
by reliable evidence. It will also strengthen the ministry’s ability to
demonstrate not only what work has been completed but the outcomes being
achieved for park ecosystems.
I
would like to close by thanking the Provincial Auditor and her team. We
appreciate their suggestions on ways to improve our work to protect our natural
and cultural resources in our beautiful provincial park system.
Thank
you, Chair. Ministry officials and I would be pleased to answer any of the
committee’s questions.
Deputy
Chair
Thorsteinson:
— Thank you, Deputy Minister Gettle, for your comments on this chapter. At this
time, before we go to questions, I would like to table PAC 11‑30,
Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport: Status update, dated October 14th, 2026.
Are there any questions from the committee? MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Welcome. Regarding some of the first few recommendations, can you explain what
informed that the implementation date would be like four years out, like up to
2030? Is it because of a vast amount of information? Is it the data that needs
to be gathered? Is it the inputting? And what . . . Well we’ll just
go with that one first. Like it takes four years. What informed that timeline?
Christine
Markel: — Okay, well
thank you for the question. And what that timeline was based on was an analysis
of the eight recommendations and the systems required to complete those
recommendations.
So
I had identified a three-phased plan that started with establishing the
necessary foundation and baseline. Phase 2 is focused on implementing the
priority planning and management work while operationalizing new controls
needed. And phase 3 is about embedding the system in regular governance, public
reporting, and continuous improvement.
So
basically what formed that three-phase plan was the need to first and foremost
establish the foundation and baseline for filling in the gaps that were
identified in the data requirements and entry. And then following up on that,
it’s about implementing the priorities and the controls necessary to monitor
and ensure accountability of the system and make sure that the system is
functioning as intended. And then from there it’s about the embedding the
reporting and the public reporting and ensuring that we have good solid
evidence and a system in place for which to do that.
Joan Pratchler: — Sounds complex in the details.
Christine
Markel: — It is
extremely complex, yes.
Joan Pratchler: — How will you ensure that each park’s
health index will be accurate and reliable?
Christine
Markel: — We ensure
that through a team of technical experts who are conducting ongoing ecological
management activities as per our baseline results for the park ecosystem health
index that was derived in 2022. As they are conducting those ecological
activities, they are entering that data into the system.
And
we do other work across the park system where we collect data and conduct
analysis with our GIS [geographic information system] and data analyst within
the ministry, who makes sure all of that information is compiled and updated
into our park ecosystem database.
And
then we will be conducting an analysis recalculation of the park ecosystem
health index in 2027‑2028 and evaluate the results and the scores for all
provincial parks and continue with our ecological management activities as
necessary based on our park ecosystem health index scores.
Joan Pratchler: — And that system, it’s an IT system. Is
it one of your in-house systems, or did you have to, you know, outsource for
something? Can you tell me a little bit more about that please.
Christine
Markel: — The park
ecosystem health index is an in-house system that was developed by an expert
within the ministry who developed the system in collaboration with external
support through the University of Saskatchewan. And that system is fully
in-house, and it is assessed by internal expertise.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Deputy
Chair
Thorsteinson:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just to talk about the system, the auditor noted that
the data is collected, or was being collected, by employees. It just wasn’t
being entered, I presume, entered into an already existing IT system. Are you
saying then you’ve got something new you’re trying to implement, a new IT
system? If you could just tell us what these challenges have been in entering
the data. If it’s already there, then why would it take, you know, up to
three-some years to fully implement recommendation no. 1?
Christine
Markel: — Sorry, can
you repeat the question?
Hugh Gordon: —
Fair enough. So the data exists. It’s being collected. It’s just not being
entered in a timely fashion, is what I understand from the auditor’s report. So
for example, recommendation no. 1 was about, you know, making sure that
that was done in a timely fashion. You’re giving yourself until ’28‑29 to
implement that. If you’re not changing into some new system that requires like,
you know, testing and integration and functionality and all that other stuff,
what’s the root challenge you guys have in just putting that data into the
system?
Paul
Johnson: — Yeah, I’ll
respond to that question. Thank you for the question. Data collection and
management is incredibly complex, as you’ve already indicated. Like the
vastness of our parks and the amount of plans and work we have under way in any
given season is very, very challenging. On a seasonal basis, Christine and her
team of six technical experts are out in the field gathering the data and doing
the work gathering the data. And generally the data entry then would happen in
the off-season.
Now
you’ve referenced some long-outstanding data entry pieces. And I think it’s a
part of a bigger answer where we have developed the PEHI system, which is now
the tool to collect that data and enter it in. So we are still adjusting to
having better processes and more timely processes for entering data, and it’s a
commitment we agreed to with the provincial audit. And it’s still a fairly new
system, so we are getting better at data entry on a timely basis.
Hugh Gordon: —
Just so long as, like there must be some internal process, whether it’s with
the IT system, with management. Maybe it’s a check sheet. I don’t know what it
might be that you’d be like, okay, we know employee XYZ has collected
information ABC. Now has that been entered, and has it been entered into the
system? Is your oversight of this process going to be sufficient to ensure that
there is some accountability in that regard?
Paul
Johnson: — The answer
is yes. Our oversight of the system will ensure that we’re better at entering
data on a much more timely basis. And we’ve already begun doing that as a
result of the audit and even before the audit, once we had the PEHI tool to
accept that data. And it also uses GIS platforms. I don’t think we’ve mentioned
geographical information system platforms, but we also use the GIS platform for
data collection, management, mapping, and the analytical tools. So we have
improved our data entry, and we will continue to do better at data entry on a
timely basis.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Gordon. MLA Gordon, that is.
Hugh Gordon: —
Close enough. It’s not a recommendation, but it was a suggestion on the part of
the Provincial Auditor to include biodiversity of species-related indicators in
your park health index. Is that something you are considering doing?
Christine Markel: — That is not something we are currently
considering doing. And so the park ecosystem health index is a unique tool in
Canada and, as we have mentioned, we have won an award for this tool. We have
to continue to assess park ecosystem health index based on the indicators that
were chosen at the time of the baseline that was developed in 2022.
So
if we add new indicators to the system, it changes the overall result of the
park ecosystem health index. And it would no longer be a reliable comparison to
the original 2022 baseline that was developed without including biodiversity as
an indicator.
Hugh Gordon: —
Is there some way to maybe integrate it or do it separately, just to give you
an understanding of where you’re at in those two respects?
Christine Markel: — Yes,
absolutely, and we are doing that. And I’ve actually redefined one of my
positions who was our senior ecologist, and she gathers and collects
biodiversity indicators, including wildlife and plant and other biodiversity
indicators across provincial parks. And we’ve entered into numerous
partnerships with the University of Saskatchewan and the Ministry of
Environment to continue to gather a full data set of biodiversity for
provincial parks across the province. So that process is under way and that recommendation
is being implemented in other ways.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — How many
of the provincial parks are currently classified — I know you mentioned you
don’t do low, medium, high, whatever your rating would be — that would be high
risk? Because those would be, you know, most concerning. And if you could tell
me whether they have flora and fauna classified at risk, if those are
endangered in those parks. What are the ones you’re most worried about, and
why?
Paul Johnson: — Yeah, thank you for the question.
The PEHI tool that we have is fantastic for exactly that — assessing health. We
haven’t characterized it in terms of risk. We characterize it in terms of health with, you know, a scale
of zero to five, zero being low and five being healthy. And based on that,
we’ve created data-based, scientific-based evidence that shows us that we have
five parks that are below the standard health index that we want to focus on.
I
can let you know which parks they are and I can talk specifically about the
action plans, but they are very unique for each park. For instance some may
have invasive species in there so we take management actions to control
invasive species. Some may have excessive grasslands and high fuel load for
fires, so we do prescribe burns in those parks. So each of these five, we have
a very specific action plan to address the reasons why it falls below the lower
level on our ecosystem health index.
Joan Pratchler: — And I assume those action plans would
have time frames attached to them, or are they open-ended?
Paul
Johnson: — Yes, they do
have time frames. However things change. So for instance I think the auditor
noted that some of the actions that were planned were not carried out. So for
instance if we do have a prescribed burn as one of the responses in a
provincial park to reduce invasive species or excessive grasslands, and the
wind conditions aren’t there, it’s a wet fall, there’s reasons why sometimes
individual actions get shifted on a year-to-year basis. So overall there’s
broad time frames to complete the action plans, but there’s no specific
timeline for each action.
Joan Pratchler: — That helps me understand that. So
sometimes there’s other ministries or cross, you know, connections and
collaboration with other ministries. What co-operations have you negotiated
across ministries to manage the ecological risks in provincial parks? And does
the ministry have the authority to prevent action from other ministries it
considers, you know, detrimental to the health of your park?
[14:45]
Paul
Johnson: — Thank you
for the question. I had to have a discussion about negotiation because, you
know, across the Government of Saskatchewan, we’re one team. We have
partnerships with the Ministry of Environment, with Saskatchewan Public Safety
Agency on activities and actions that flow into our ecosystem mandate. And it
is a collaboration. We do work very closely with the Ministry of Environment
and their ecologists on things like grassland or forest management, and we work
closely with the Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency on things like wildfire
management. So there’s a number of partnerships that span across the Government
of Saskatchewan, and they’re very much collaborative that we work with those
agencies.
Our
authorities, I think, was part of your question, and we fall under The Parks
Act. So we have a significant amount of authority to what happens within
parks land, including any activities that may be detrimental to the ecosystem
health of those parks.
Joan Pratchler: — Well thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Just to touch on wildfires for a moment, what improvements has the ministry
made to its wildfire risk reduction measures since the fires of 2025, and how
did that event affect how the ministry mitigates wildfires?
Greg
Gettle: — Yeah, great
question. I’ll reframe the context a little bit because it’s not since 2025
that we’ve started to do work to do wildfire management in parks. This has been
an activity that’s been going on in parks for decades. Of course 2025 was
significant, and we’ve seen other significant episodes of wildfires in other
jurisdictions as well.
But
we work very, very closely with the Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency on fire
management. They are the provincial lead and the technical expert in this area,
and they guide us on wildfire management and protection in parks. Now it is
collaboration, so we definitely work with our teams in parks and with our team
in the ministry on activities and actions.
And
there’s a lot that’s going on, and it’s not just . . . I think the
term that the Provincial Auditor used was fuel management. That’s a very
specific term and a very specific tactic. There’s other things that we use in
provincial parks, things such as — I’ve mentioned it already — prescribed fires
in some of our grassland parks. We do forest harvesting in some of our forested
parks. There’s cutlines that are put in in provincial parks in collaboration
with SPSA [Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency]. So there’s a number of
activities that we are doing constantly, and we are constantly assessing the
fire risk in our parks in conjunction with the Saskatchewan Public Safety
Agency.
Hugh Gordon: —
Did that wildfire season though change, you know, any of your plans or any of
your activities?
Paul
Johnson: — Not
specifically. We stay the course. And by that I mean we continue to do fuel
management plans with the SPSA. In ’24‑25 I think the auditor referenced
that 13 of 18 forested parks had not had a forest management plan in place.
Well since then we’ve completed five more in ’25‑26, and this year we
completed another five. So we stay the course, and we continue to do work in
parks with our team and with SPSA to assess the risk and to do work and
activities to prevent wildfires from spreading in parks.
Hugh Gordon: —
On that point as well, what work are you currently undertaking to provide fuel
management plans for the 13 remaining parks in the province that don’t have
one?
Paul
Johnson: — So yeah,
thank you. That 13 of 18 was a point in time. That was in ’24‑25 that the
auditor noted it. So ’25‑26 we did fuel management plans for an
additional five parks. This year we did fuel management plans for another four
parks and two recreation sites that fall under the provincial parks purview. So
we continue to do fuel management plans, but I’ll emphasize that not all of
those parks — the forested parks — require a fuel management plan.
And
I’ll point specifically to Athabasca Sand Dunes Provincial Park. It’s a
wilderness park. It’s a remote park. Fuel management plans are a specific
practice that SPSA uses to protect infrastructure, humans, and other assets.
And in some of our wilderness parks there’s very little of that, so forest
management plans aren’t necessary, but maybe some of the other tactics that we
use in parks like fires, prescribed fires, harvesting — those types of things —
are utilized.
Hugh Gordon: —
You mention in your update you’d be setting up a meeting with the SPSA to
create these detailed fuel management plans and the like. Has that occurred?
Paul
Johnson: — I’ll maybe
ask Christine if that’s occurred. I’ll answer that it’s an ongoing basis. We
have regular discussions with SPSA on prioritization of which parks we need to
assess gaps in wildfire mitigation.
Christine
Markel: — And the
answer to that question is yes, that has occurred. And my team is also
participating in a provincial wildfire management working group with the SPSA
and other ministries across government. And then we have ongoing meetings with
the SPSA regarding fuel management throughout provincial parks.
Hugh Gordon: —
And in the event that you haven’t gotten to some of these fuel management
plans, do you have interim plans available at the ready for those parks?
Paul
Johnson: — I will
answer by saying there are parks where we do not have formal fuel management
plans in place. But in every single provincial park we have actions and
activities that are under way to assess the risk, to understand the gaps, and
to plan for responses. So that is across the system.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you. What were the four natural environment parks the auditor found
didn’t have ecosystem-based management plans, and what has been done about
those plans? I believe it’s on page 129 of the report.
Chair Wotherspoon: — The auditor would like to just say
something here.
Tara Clemett: — Yeah, in terms of your question and to
get a better sense of almost like . . . I would flip to section 5.0
where we did outline a table of all the parks and their health index. So when
MLA Pratchler was asking about those parks that fall below the health index
target that the ministry is striving for, the blue highlights are already
outlining which ones fall below. So you have a sense of which parks.
You
can see in the last column it talks about does the park have an ecosystem-based
management plan, yes or no, or there’s blanks. So the ones with the blanks on
that first page are where they do not have. They’re a natural environment park
and they did not have an ecosystem management plan at the time of our audit,
but may since. Thank you.
Paul
Johnson: — Thank you to
the Provincial Auditor for pointing that out on the table. That’s a great
answer. I mean I think the other part of the answer is that we do have plans to
have all 12 natural environment parks have an ecosystem-based management plan
in place by March 31st, 2028.
Christine
Markel: — And what I
would add to that is two of the four parks listed here that indicate they do
not have plans currently have plans drafted, and we’re just undergoing
finalization processes and have public engagement and Indigenous consultation
to do on those plans before they’re finalized.
Hugh Gordon: —
Does that include Pike Lake? Is that one of the two you’re talking about?
Christine
Markel: — It is not.
One of the two is Duck Mountain Provincial Park, and Porcupine Hills Provincial
Park.
Hugh Gordon: —
Was Pike Lake one of the parks that the auditor described as being high risk?
Christine
Markel: — It was one of
the parks the auditor described as high risk because it has critical habitat
identified within that park.
Hugh Gordon: —
And is there a management plan in the works? Has it been done?
Christine
Markel: — There’s
currently not a management plan in the works for Pike Lake Provincial Park
because it is a recreational park, and we conduct ecosystem-based management
plans for our natural environment parks at this time.
Hugh Gordon: —
What are some of the reasons you could share with the committee that the staff
didn’t enter the results of the six completed activities in the IT systems
mentioned on page 133?
Paul
Johnson: — Thank you
for the question. I think the reason why the information wasn’t entered on a
timely basis was first and foremost because our technical staff are very, very
busy collecting and gathering the information, and at the time it references in
the report that we didn’t have resources that were prioritizing data entry. I
can say that since then we have added a resource, a grasslands ecologist
position, that will be focused on timely data entry of data gathering.
Hugh Gordon: —
When you say lack of resources, are we talking personnel?
Paul
Johnson: — I think it’s
probably as much prioritization of resources and what we ask them to do at the
time. And again we have added personnel in that direct function that will
support timely data entry.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — What’s the ministry doing to centrally
track all the completed activities for the ecosystem management activities
mentioned on 132 — including grazing, haying, prescribed burns — into the IT
system?
Greg
Gettle: — Sorry, could
you repeat the question?
Joan Pratchler: — What is the ministry doing to centrally
track all completed activities for ecosystem management activities that would
be mentioned on page 132?
[15:00]
Greg
Gettle: — Thank you for
the question. Yes, absolutely and I think we mentioned it where we’re certainly
prioritizing the data entry components. You know, we’ve got a very technical
team. They’re very, very good at doing the technical work. And so we’re certainly
re-emphasizing the fact that we need to do the data entry. And then there will
also be elements where management will also be regularly reviewing the
reporting to ensure that the entry is done and that the information is
complete.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
What are you doing to address something that the auditor found, which is that
employees weren’t always aware of what activities have been completed or what
recommendations or what stage those recommendations were at? What are you doing
to follow up on that?
Christine
Markel: — We are going
to be doing a baseline assessment to review all of the identified
ecosystem-based activities, identify which ones have been completed to date,
which ones are outstanding, why they’re outstanding, and then re-prioritize
based on our current park ecosystem health index scores to ensure that we are
completing those in a systematic way that aligns with the park priorities of
the day.
Hugh Gordon: —
That’s something all employees have access to? Where they can look up and see,
okay, we know where we’re at on this activity in this park?
Christine
Markel: — That will be
something that all employees have access to. Absolutely.
Hugh Gordon: —
Okay, thank you. Perhaps it’s an awareness thing. I don’t know. I’m just
curious. You may have touched on it earlier in one of your prior responses, but
I’m just wondering why it’ll take so long to implement the recommendation to
improve reporting to senior management and to the public for park management
activities. Can you speak to that briefly?
Christine
Markel: — Part of it is
the answer I just provided, where we first want to conduct a baseline
assessment of all of the ecosystem management activities that have been
identified. And then it’s about developing a system where we have consistent
reporting and accountability to fill in any of those gaps so that we can
ensure, when we are reporting to senior management and the public, that our
information is accurate and up to date.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you. And are you still relying on this 100-kilometre radius rationale to
determine whether or not to consult with First Nations?
Christine
Markel: — I would say
that is not the basis of our rationale for whom we consult with for Indigenous
engagement. We typically collaborate with Government Relations and senior
Indigenous advisors when conducting duty-to-consult. And then aside from that,
we are following the Government of Saskatchewan consultation policy framework
for how to conduct duty-to-consult.
Hugh Gordon: —
So it’s a little bit more wholistic approach to whom you consult with?
Christine
Markel: — Absolutely,
yes.
Hugh Gordon: —
Some First Nations could be hundreds of kilometres away from land that they own
elsewhere. Correct?
Christine
Markel: — Correct.
Hugh Gordon: —
Also with respect to the last recommendation, retaining evidence of letters
sent to Indigenous communities, I know you’ve given yourself to ’27‑28.
I’m wondering what steps you’ve undertaken to date to try to centrally record,
you know, any of that stuff. How are you mitigating it in the interim?
Christine
Markel: — Yeah, the
starting point is setting clear expectations with staff and identifying that
everyone on the team has the appropriate training for following the Government
of Saskatchewan consultation policy framework guidelines, and then that we are
documenting all necessary documents within a common file system so that
everyone has access to those records, and that that is being done in a
consistent manner.
And
then through the landscape protection unit annual plan and quarterly reporting,
there’s an accountability framework set up there where I will be checking with
the team and identifying, for any ongoing projects, that those records have
been documented up to date and that we are following process. And where we are
not following process, we’ll be requiring additional training and skill
development in that area to ensure everyone’s meeting the standard.
Hugh Gordon: —
So if someone were to come to you and say, listen, we’d like you to show
evidence that you have consulted First Nation band XYZ, you have a way today of
verifying whether that’s the case.
Christine
Markel: — Yes.
Hugh Gordon: —
Those are all my questions, Mr. Chair.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Right. Not seeing any further
questions here. MLA Keisig. He’s looking for some fishing advice out of Rowan’s
Ravine there on Last Mountain. He’s a bit of an endangered species there at the
fileting shack. But I’ll kick it over to MLA Keisig instead of telling jokes.
Travis Keisig: —
Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just I’m not sure, Mr. Chair, if you’ll allow this,
but actually I have a question for the auditor and her team.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Sure.
Travis Keisig: —
I’m just curious, what data did you use to ascertain that some of these
provincial parks are high risk? Like where did you get the data? How did you
make that decision?
Tara Clemett: — Yeah. So in terms of the work we did,
we would have also . . . Like we are satisfied, as we have indicated,
with the process and the health index rating scale that the ministry’s using.
And so obviously there is parks that are falling below almost like the baseline
in which they would envision, you know, I guess the parks to be considered
healthy. We also, if you notice, within our audit approach we leveraged an
expert to actually support the work of this audit. And so that expert would
provide us advice and good practice as we went through our audit process.
Travis Keisig: —
Could you provide the name of the expert?
Tara Clemett: — Sure, but I don’t know if I have it on
me. Or I can always . . . Yeah. Usually we use . . .
Travis Keisig: —
Provide it to the committee.
Tara Clemett: — Yeah, we will. Usually it’s someone
from outside the province and that we do also vet through the ministry, and
that they would have agreed to and considered them I guess reasonable and
appropriate when we did our audit as well.
Travis Keisig: —
Well thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thank you. Any further questions? Of
course these are about eight new recommendations here today. So thanks for
taking the time to detail the many actions that have been taken and others that
are under way. Not seeing any further questions, I’d welcome a motion to concur
with recommendations 2, 3, 5, and 6.
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. And I would
welcome a motion to concur and note progress with respect to recommendations 1,
4, 7, and 8.
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson.
All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair Wotherspoon: — That’s carried. Okay. Listen, yeah,
and thanks so much, DM [deputy minister] Gettle and all the officials that have
joined us here today, all those involved in the work. Our provincial parks are
incredible assets in this province. And we certainly value all the work and all
those involved in that work in being great stewards of those parks and putting
them in a good position for today but for many years moving forward. DM Gettle,
any final remarks our way before we shift gears?
Greg
Gettle: — Sure. You
know, just more than anything, thank you very much for the very thoughtful
questions. Thank you to the Provincial Auditor and her team for the
recommendations. And I would just like to reiterate the incredible work that
Christine and her team is doing. The PEHI is certainly, you know, nation
leading, and that’s why it was given a national parks award. And we’re very
proud of that in Saskatchewan. And we certainly look forward to maintaining the
ecological health of our provincial parks moving forward.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thank you. Thank you for that, and a
very well-deserved recognition. And I’m glad we have that leadership happening
within the province. With that being said, a very brief recess, and we’ll put
SaskBuilds up before us here in a moment.
[The committee recessed for a period of
time.]
[15:15]
SaskBuilds
and Procurement
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay folks, we’ll reconvene the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We’ll turn our attention to the Ministry
of SaskBuilds and Procurement and the auditor’s chapters pertaining to
SaskBuilds.
I’d
like to welcome DM France and all the officials that have joined him and us
here today. I’ll kick it over to DM France to provide a brief intro of everyone
that’s with him here today, all the officials that have joined him. Maybe
refrain from getting into the chapters just now because I’ll go over to the
auditor and then come back your way after that.
Kevin France: — Well thank you and good afternoon,
Mr. Chair and committee. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to and assist
in addressing questions today. So again I’m Kevin France, deputy minister of
SaskBuilds and Procurement. And joining me today is David Boehm, assistant
deputy minister of information technology; Maire Coulthard, assistant deputy
minister of the enterprise business modernization project; Sammi Haque,
assistant deputy minister of corporate strategy and services; Brent Pritchard,
executive director of risk, audit and information management; Fuad Iddrisu,
executive director of cybersecurity and risk management; and Tyra Dorosh,
executive director of the office of the chief information officer.
We’ll be happy to address any questions
that you may have following the Provincial Auditor’s presentation. And with
that, I’ll turn it back to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Okay,
thank you for that. I’m going to kick it over to the Provincial Auditor and
we’ll go from there.
Tara
Clemett: — So thank
you, Mr. Chair, Deputy Chair, committee members, and officials. With me is Mr.
Jason Wandy. He’s the deputy provincial auditor responsible for the audits at
the Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement, along with Ms. Michelle Lindenbach,
our liaison with the committee.
Jason’s
going to present the chapters for the ministry in the order that they appear
and this will result in two separate presentations. He’ll pause after each
presentation for the committee’s discussion and consideration. The first
presentation includes five new audit recommendations for the committee’s
consideration.
I
would like to thank the deputy minister and his staff for the co-operation that
was extended to us during the course of our work. I’ll now turn it over to
Jason.
Jason
Wandy: — Thanks, Tara.
Chapter 14 of our 2025 report volume 2 reports the results of our audit of the
Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement’s processes to monitor the
implementation of IT business application projects for the period ended March
31st, 2025.
We
concluded the ministry had effective processes other than the areas reflected
in our five recommendations. For the purposes of this audit, IT business
application projects included those where the ministry signed the related IT
project contracts, often on behalf of clients like government ministries, or
completed the project internally.
As
government IT systems age, large-scale IT business application projects are
often launched to improve efficiency, security, and service delivery. These
complex projects carry risks such as inadequate governance or poor planning
that can cause significant budget overruns, missed timelines, or unmet needs.
The ministry’s clients spent about $84 million on IT capital in fiscal
2024‑25 and planned to spend about 62 million in fiscal 2025‑26,
including for IT business application projects monitored by the ministry.
Now
I’m going to walk through the five recommendations. On page 169 we recommend
the Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement formalize sufficient reporting
requirements to support effective monitoring of IT business application
projects by central IT governance bodies. The ministry supports central IT
governance bodies responsible for coordinating strategic decision making for IT
investments and recommending which IT projects to pursue at which time. These
central IT governance bodies are the information technology governance
committee, or ITGC; and the Information Management Advisory Council, or IMAC.
The
ministry’s portfolio management office is responsible to monitor the status of
IT projects and escalate concerns to IMAC and ITGC; however we found it was not
clear which IT projects this includes. For example, we noted the portfolio
management office did not receive status updates about the enterprise business
modernization project, or EBMP, that the ministry leads, and the ministry did
not explicitly exclude from its reporting and monitoring practices some other
government agencies such as the Saskatchewan Health Authority and Crown
Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan.
Additionally
we found the ministry followed the same practices for all IT projects it
monitors, regardless of size or risk profile. The ministry may need to consider
adjusting some reporting requirements as some projects may require more
frequent or extensive reporting than others.
The
ministry also does not have a policy setting out reporting requirements for IT
business application projects. In addition, neither the ministry nor the
central IT governance bodies have established performance targets to help
monitor effectiveness of IT project management practices. Some examples of good
practice for reporting on IT projects includes reporting on planned versus
actual budget variances and project timelines, scope changes, and major risks
encountered along with relevant mitigation strategies.
While
we found ITGC and IMAC met at least quarterly, they received insufficient
reporting that did not cover all areas of good practice. These IT governance
bodies did not receive written reports, such as a status overview of all
current IT projects, until later in fiscal 2024‑25. When they did receive
written reports, we found these reports did not compare planned to actual costs
and timelines with explanations for differences, highlight where scope changes
and risks existed, or provide overall results compared to targets such as
percentage of IT projects on budget and on time.
Without
sufficient and formalized reporting requirements, the ministry may not identify
and report relevant IT project risks and opportunities to support IT governance
bodies or may not support delivery of high-quality IT projects on time and
within budget.
On
page 172 we recommend the Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement follow up when
it does not receive monthly progress reports from client IT business
application project teams as expected. The ministry requires clients to report
monthly on the status and progress of IT business application projects under
way such as updates related to project cost, schedule, risks, and activity.
Clients use a reporting application with specific fields for various required
information which automatically feeds into the ministry IT project dashboard.
We
found the ministry did not routinely follow up with its clients if they did not
submit their monthly reports as expected. For two of four IT projects tested we
found clients did not consistently submit expected reports to the ministry each
month. These two projects had challenges. Both projects encountered delays and
budget concerns, and one project changed its scope. More timely reporting may
have helped inform decisions to address the challenges or to provide support
for the project teams.
Without
processes to follow up when reports are not received timely, the ministry may
not have complete and accurate information to inform its analysis and
subsequent reporting on risks and issues to the central IT governance bodies.
On
page 174 we recommend the Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement sufficiently
analyze IT business application project information reported by clients. The
ministry did not have documented requirements for analyzing IT project
information submitted by its clients.
Rather
the ministry’s portfolio management office staff used informal practices.
Weekly these staff review progress reports that client project teams submit
into the ministry’s dashboard reporting application. Their review focused on
projects reporting potential issues such as risks in meeting budget or
deadlines that they could then discuss during their weekly meetings.
We
found staff did not retain formal documentation of analysis or of decisions
made at these weekly meetings, although the ministry began to keep some brief
notes starting in February 2025. Sufficiently analyzing project progress to
inform risk assessment and decision making is important given most — that is,
15 of 20 IT business application projects monitored by the ministry’s portfolio
management office — were expected to be over budget and/or late as of March
2025.
For
four projects tested we found when clients submitted reports, information
included planned and actual work completed and funds spent, status, and key
decisions. However we were unable to identify what analysis the ministry
completed for these reports and also found little evidence of issues identified
or actions planned. We also did not see evidence the ministry analyzed project
reports to identify root causes of reported issues or potential lessons
learned. Without further analysis it is unclear what sometimes caused higher
costs such as potentially poorly defined user requirements or insufficient
vendor capacity to complete the work.
Additionally
for all four projects tested we saw cases where data appeared inconsistent with
other data reported or different than previous periods. For example, we found
the percentage of projects completed or budgets spent decreased rather than
increased as expected or fluctuated significantly. Not sufficiently analyzing
IT project data submitted by clients limits the ministry’s ability to identify
and centrally report on issues in IT project management. If issues go
unaddressed and root causes are not identified, IT business application
projects may continue to be over budget, miss deadlines, and inadequately meet
user needs.
On
page 176 we recommend the Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement continuously
assess key IT business application project risks to support effective risk
mitigation strategies. Client project teams are responsible to manage risks
related to their IT business application projects. We found the ministry
reviews risk data as it is entered by clients as part of its monitoring of the
monthly IT project progress reports. However the ministry did not assess
completeness of the risks reported or consider the appropriateness of clients’
risk mitigation strategies.
Additionally
while the ministry required clients to report key risks on a monthly basis, it
did not have a formal process for clients to report urgent or emerging key
risks that may arise between the monthly reports. For the four projects tested,
we found three projects did not report consistently about their risks during
fiscal 2024‑25, and their reports lacked sufficient detail such as not
including risk impacts or mitigation plans. The remaining project did not
report any risks during fiscal ’24‑25 so follow-up may have helped to
ensure there were no key risks missed in the reporting.
For
EBMP we found the ministry tracks and prioritizes identified risks and issues
using an IT system different from the reporting application used for other IT
projects. To support timely monitoring and action, the IT system automatically
alerts relevant members of the EBMP team when a new risk is added or a critical
or high risk is changed. We found the ministry followed its processes to
address risks for EBMP; however 44 out of over 270 critical or high-priority
risks and issues were not assigned a due date or closed timely, up to about 500
days after the risk or issue was identified.
At
March 2025 there were 42 critical or high-priority risks and issues outstanding
for EBMP with some of them outstanding for over 700 days. Without sufficient
assessment of risks, the ministry may not provide timely support to help IT
business application project teams implement effective risk-mitigation
strategies. The ministry may also not report timely about risks to IT
governance bodies to support decisions that may prevent or manage project
failures, cost overruns, or delays.
On
page 178 we recommend the Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement formally track
lessons learned from IT business application projects. The ministry did not
have a policy requiring clients to provide a lessons-learned report at the end
of each IT business application project. While the ministry did not have an
established practice to track lessons learned for IT business application
projects, the ministry or IT governance bodies sometimes requested a specific
project team to prepare lessons learned during or at the end of an IT project.
Our
review of lessons learned for about 10 projects found they identified areas of
improvement, such as planning for resources to better support peak testing
cycles, or planning for consistent, dedicated IT project resources. We also
found the EBMP team started identifying some interim lessons learned, although
these were not shared centrally within the ministry. The EBMP team had
considered lessons learned from Saskatchewan Health Authority’s implementation
of AIMS, a similar financial and administrative system project.
In
addition to monitoring the completion of lessons learned from IT business
application projects, the ministry may want to consider centrally obtaining and
assessing lessons from other projects or agencies, such as from CIC [Crown
Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan] or other jurisdictions, and sharing
this knowledge within the government to avoid similar issues with other
projects. Without clear requirements to complete and share lessons learned at
the end of all IT business application projects, the ministry’s clients may
repeat mistakes that result in other project cost overruns, delays, or unmet
user needs.
I’ll
now pause for the committee’s consideration.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, thanks very much for the
chapter and the focus of the chapter and new recommendations that are before us
here today. I’ll turn it over to DM France for remarks and then we’ll go from
there.
Kevin France: —
Perfect. Again thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for the introduction, and
want to acknowledge the important work done by the Provincial Auditor and team.
We
accept the auditor’s recommendations and look forward to discussing what we’ve
accomplished in our response to the five recommendations. The ministry has
worked diligently on the auditor’s recommendations in chapter 14 related to its
processes to monitor the implementation of IT business application projects.
[15:30]
The
first recommendation was for the Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement to
formalize sufficient requirements for reporting to IT project governance
bodies. I am pleased to report that since we received the auditor’s report, the
Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement has established a project health
reporting framework. The framework outlines monthly reporting requirements,
required information, and submission timelines. The framework is supported by
standard tools, templates, and procedures to promote consistency. With that we
believe we’ve completed the actions associated with the recommendation and will
continue to work with the Provincial Auditor’s office as part of its follow-up
process.
The
second recommendation was for the Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement to
follow up when monthly IT progress reports are not received from clients. The
Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement implemented a project reporting
framework that includes reminder and escalation processes to support compliance
and accountability. As well, if a client fails to report monthly, the issue
will be escalated to the IT governance committee to ensure a timely resolution.
The ministry has completed actions we believe should fulfill that
recommendation.
The
third recommendation was for the Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement to
sufficiently analyze IT project reports from clients. In response, the project
reporting framework we implemented defines requirements for analyzing monthly
project reports, including performance metrics, health indicators, and
escalation thresholds. In addition, a project analysis tool has been developed
and implemented to automate metrics and document results. And again we believe
this recommendation has also been addressed.
The
fourth recommendation for the Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement was to
continuously assess key IT business application project risks to support
effective risk mitigation strategies. The Ministry of SaskBuilds and
Procurement is pleased to report that it has enhanced its project risk
reporting analysis and review requirements. The ministry developed the
portfolio risk report to improve the identification, monitoring, analysis, and
escalation of risks, and to support oversight.
In
addition, the ministry’s portfolio management office meets biweekly with
representatives from each project’s steering committee to discuss risks,
mitigation activities, and emerging issues. We believe we’ve completed the
actions associated with this recommendation and are hopeful the Provincial
Auditor agrees.
The
last recommendation for the ministry was to track lessons learned from IT
business application projects. The Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement is
pleased to report we have documented a project-reporting framework requiring
project teams to complete project close-out reports including lessons learned
upon project completion.
These
close-out reports for each project will be consolidated into an annual summary
and presented to the governance committee for review. This will be to support
knowledge sharing, trend analysis, and continuous improvement with annual
reporting used to identify common challenges, highlight successful practices,
and strengthen future governance reporting and portfolio management processes.
The first annual summary report is planned for March 31st, 2027. We believe we
have completed the actions associated with this recommendation as well.
With
that, Mr. Chair, I’m happy to answer any questions the committee may have.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thank you. Thanks for that. I’ll
open it up now to committee members that may have questions. And before I do
that, I’ll table the status update that was provided: PAC 112‑30,
Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement: Status update, dated October 14th,
2026.
Committee
members, who’s got questions? MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. Welcome. So when we talk
about SaskBuilds and Procurement in terms of IT, SaskBuilds and Procurement has
a variety of divisions. One of them happens to be ITD [information technology
division] — information technology department, I assume. What are the other
divisions that would be connecting with some of these big IT projects besides
the IT division?
Kevin
France: — Yeah, thanks.
Thanks for the question. So yeah, it’s the information technology division, and
we do have multiple divisions within the Ministry of SaskBuilds and
Procurement. The main touch point would be our procurement management division.
Essentially they work through the RFP [request for proposal] or the tendering
process with the vendor community and with partner ministries and the Ministry
of SaskBuilds and Procurement.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. So typically major projects
like this have a prime contractor that oversees the execution and deliverables
associated with a project. For AIMS that was $260 million over budget and
five years beyond the end date. Who was that prime contractor?
Kevin
France: — So because
AIMS actually was with SHA and eHealth, we weren’t part of that IT project.
SaskBuilds was not part of that IT project.
Joan Pratchler: — That’s right. So SaskBuilds had nothing
to do with AIMS?
Kevin
France: — That’s
correct, yeah.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. So the second project, EBMP which
was $130 million over budget and 2.5 years delayed, who was the prime
contractor on that one?
Kevin
France: — Yeah, thanks
for the question. The prime was Deloitte.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay, and just going back to AIMS, the
IT community knows who it was.
Kevin
France: — Sorry, say
that again.
Joan Pratchler: — The IT community knows who the prime
contractor for AIMS was even that you weren’t involved. Do you know who that
was?
Kevin
France: — Well I do not
know because I started this position four months ago, so I wasn’t part of that
discussion. But from the IT community, or do you mean the ministry?
Joan Pratchler: — No. Like who was the prime contractor
for AIMS? Somebody’s got to know because that’s a pretty big project in the
province.
Kevin
France: — Yeah. Again
as a ministry we weren’t part of the AIMS project.
Joan Pratchler: — So do I hear you saying you do not know
who the prime contractor was for AIMS?
Kevin
France: — We can caucus
here and see if we know it behind me. But yeah, I don’t.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay, I’ll wait.
Kevin
France: — Yeah. Again
I’ll just reiterate that we weren’t part of it, but Deloitte was the same
partner for AIMS, yeah.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. So what mechanisms are in place
to hold the prime contractor — in this case we can talk about EBMP —
accountable for their costs and deliverables? What kind of vendor management
metrics and practices are in place to understand if they’ve been accountable to
the ministry and to the people of Saskatchewan for this?
Maire Coulthard: — Hi. My name is Maire Coulthard. I’m the
ADM responsible for EBMP. So the question around how we maintain governance of
the vendor. So we do manage risks on the project through a tool and program
that logs, classifies, and monitors our risks. So all of those risks were a
part of our regular reporting. We also managed the project through a governance
structure as mentioned. So our vendor is a partner with us, but government
retains all decision making and control through our governance process, including
our steering committee made up of deputy ministers.
Joan Pratchler: — So that governance process would have
known that there were going to be extensions and high expenditures, and
130 million, and be two and a half years over? And my understanding is
that the vendor would have given that information on a regular basis?
Maire Coulthard: — So the
vendor and the government work in partnership, but government retains all
decision making. So yes, we meet at times weekly with our deputy minister
governance committee, and they are very aware of all project risks, all costs.
And certainly we went through IMAC and ITGC for any changes to project costs or
timelines throughout the entire government decision-making process.
Joan Pratchler: — And so if
we look at that big picture, they knew it was 130 million over, and 2.5
years late, and they were still okay with that?
Maire Coulthard: — By “they”
you mean the governance group?
Joan Pratchler: — Whoever is
in charge of it.
David Boehm: — David Boehm, ADM of IT division. So
with any IT project there is, as Maire mentioned, monitoring of that project.
And as new information comes forward through a discovery process as you get
into the project, oftentimes that can lead to scope that was not identified
maybe at the start of the
project. And it would be up to that steering committee to make decisions on
that cost increase or a change in scope or a change in the timeline, assessing
the project and the likelihood of ultimate success with the project.
And
again it’s a judgment call, but that is what the governance, the oversight
committee is expected to play in the project. And sometimes difficult decisions
have to be made. But if there’s a reasonable probability of success with the
project, again they make that call between maybe shutting it down, abandonment,
or continuing on.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Sorry, just to clarify for the committee though, EBMP was not reporting to ITGC
or to IMAC, correct? They were excluded. That project was excluded from those
governing bodies, as well as the dashboard.
Maire
Coulthard: — So the
EBMP project had a stand-alone steering committee. So it was comprised of our
deputy ministers of Finance, SaskBuilds and Procurement, Highways, Community
Safety, as well as the Chair of the Public Service Commission. And they
received weekly updates from our project management office and our stream
leads, providing reporting on project status updates, issues, risks, budget,
and other important information for government leadership.
And
the steering committee also was attended by deputy ministers of all of our
impacted business areas, so that included the chief information officer, chief
procurement officer, Provincial Comptroller, assistant Chair of the Public
Service Commission, and assistant deputy minister of custody.
So
we had a significant group of senior leaders gathered in government every week
to review and monitor the EBMP project.
Joan Pratchler: — When I look at the chart on page 166,
it outlines all the variety of governance bodies there. And so when I read that
the auditor said sometimes the governing bodies didn’t receive reports, or they
are less than fulsome data, it leads me to question what qualifications were
required to be a member on that governance body and how many of them had IT
governance, architecture project management and planning expertise. Could you
share that with the committee as who had that kind of expertise on that EBMP committee.
[15:45]
Maire
Coulthard: — So when it
comes to the EBMP steering committee, the members attending were primarily
focused on strategic, senior-level decisions. However we did have support, for
example, by the chief information officer and project-level folks who have the
expertise that you were describing.
Joan Pratchler: — So the CIO [chief information officer]
was part of ITD?
Maire
Coulthard: — Was part
of the EBMP steering committee.
Joan Pratchler: — And the CIO of . . .
Maire
Coulthard: — Sorry,
information technology division.
Joan Pratchler: — Can you just clarify? So do I hear you
saying that the CIO of ITD was on that steering committee throughout the whole
time?
Maire
Coulthard: — Yes.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Just to follow up on that, EBMP presumably — we know it as GEM [government
enterprise management] now, correct? — presumably one of the largest projects
ever undertaken perhaps by SaskBuilds. Very important project. I appreciate the
qualifications, perhaps, or the folks that sit on that steering committee, but
yet I’m curious if you could tell the committee why such a major project was
excluded from reporting to the portfolio management office and the IT governing
bodies.
Kevin
France: — So just to
clarify, they were not excluded from IMAC or ITGC. In fact regular updates were
provided to both governing bodies.
Hugh Gordon: —
Did ITGC and IMAC have input into that project?
Maire
Coulthard: — Yes.
Hugh Gordon: —
Okay, can you explain why it was excluded from the dashboard?
David Boehm: —
So the first point would be that the EBMP project, when it started, predated
the governance structure that exists within IT division for IT projects. And
the other point I would make is it had its own focused governance group — again
very senior officials. All of the key resources within IT division were made
available as well, whether that was architecture or security or any of the
other technical resources.
So
it was simply a focused governance process that was just different from the
later-established IMAC and ITGC processes.
Joan Pratchler: — So can you help me understand if the
lessons learned compiled afterwards related to specific contractors or service
providers that are taken into consideration for future contracts. For example,
does a poor performance on project A eliminate a vendor for project B?
David Boehm: — So for all the projects that we do,
we do have a vendor scorecard that we complete on a periodic basis to evaluate
every vendor that works on government projects. And then beyond that, you know,
we’d have the scorecard to determine past success, and with any new project
that may involve that same vendor, reference checks would also be done.
Joan Pratchler: — So did any
red flags get seen by anybody looking at this same vendor doing AIMS? Whether
it was under the purview, it’s still part of the government. Taxpayers still
paid for that.
So were any red flags, you know, kind of made
some alerts that if AIMS kind of went sideways, maybe we should put some
guidelines and guardrails on this other one that’s coming along here? I don’t
know. Can you help me understand and the people of the province understand that
one.
Maire
Coulthard: — So
Deloitte was selected as the project vendor following a competitive request for
proposal process that indicated they had the expertise and experience required
to support government with our business transformation and system integrator
services. I will also add that we began projects around similar timing as AIMS,
and so our projects were happening in parallel in the early days.
Joan Pratchler: — Yeah, so AIMS was five years overrun
and this one is two. They were both at the same time? There must have been some
pre and some post, or are they both exactly start at the beginning, same time?
Maire
Coulthard: — I don’t
have details of exactly when AIMS began, but we ran in parallel for portions of
the project for sure.
Joan Pratchler: — Would it have that been the first part
of the portions or the second part? So was AIMS already running for two years
and then now EBMP started? Or I’m confused on the timing.
Kevin
France: — Yeah, I can’t
speak to when AIMS started. So the AIMS project wasn’t completed when our EBMP
project started. So the RFP that we ran, 3sHealth or eHealth was working with
Deloitte, but that project hadn’t concluded by the time we started ours, if that
clarifies it.
Joan Pratchler: — It was operating prior to
. . .
Kevin
France: — Well the
system wasn’t. They were working on the system with 3sHealth.
Joan Pratchler: — Right. So AIMS was not under the
purview of SaskBuilds and Procurement.
Kevin
France: — Correct.
Joan Pratchler: — EBMP was under SaskBuilds and
Procurement. So then does SaskBuilds and Procurement have any responsibility to
manage any of those projects then? So SaskBuilds would be managing AIMS then?
Tell me more.
David
Boehm: — So the AIMS
project — and again I’m no expert there because again we have little to do with
it — we certainly learned from it and changed our governance approach based on
it. But that would be managed by the health system, and I assume either eHealth
or 3sHealth. They look after the IT needs of that part of government. And
SaskBuilds and Procurement, we have our own client list, and of course it does
not include that group.
Joan Pratchler: — So EBMP was under the responsibility of
SaskBuilds? And they have the responsibility for that project?
David
Boehm: — The clients
who were the sponsors of the project would have been our clients, yes.
Joan Pratchler: — Remind me. Who were the clients that
sponsored that project?
David
Boehm: — Public Service
Commission, Ministry of Highways, SaskBuilds and Procurement, and Ministry of
Finance.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay, so there’s a lot of IT projects.
In your opinion, is SaskBuilds properly staffed and funded to prevent these
kinds of cost overruns in the future?
David
Boehm: — So I think we
are adequately resourced to address these processes, you know, notwithstanding
the items identified by the auditor. There’s always room for improvement of
course, but we have a very robust governance system when we compare it to other
jurisdictions across Canada. We have a technical level group of innovation
tables that look at each project depending on the subject matter. There’s four
of those, or three of those innovation tables. We have the Information
Management Advisory Council which then provides that strategic level review,
and then the senior leadership group IT governance committee which provides
again the higher level strategic review.
So
there’s certainly no shortage of oversight of the projects. And then within the
IT division itself we have a number of technical review board type
organizations — so architecture, security, technology — again to make sure that
any project that we take on aligns with existing technology standards. And by
doing that type of work we make sure it’s got a high probability of success.
But I think, as we know, with any projects once you get into it there’s a
degree of discovery that has to be managed, and that’s what the governance
process is all about.
Joan
Pratchler: — And I
suppose the question that comes to us is, so nobody could see any of this
coming? I mean there’s been massive IT projects all over the country. There’s
always going to be something coming up, and this isn’t the first government in
the country that had to get a type of program like EBMP, GEM. What kind of, you
know, preventative or foresight was used to say, hey, we want to make sure this
doesn’t go so crazy. What did your committees and groups do to kind of prevent
that kind of thing?
David Boehm: —
So if you look at the literature around information technology projects, the
best way to achieve an outcome that is on budget, on time, on scope is through
preplanning. And certainly we make tremendous efforts in that regard, but we
also know it’s no guarantee. Again there is a lot of discovery that happens
through any project, and I would say again that discovery process — the
governance team, the project leadership team — is there to manage that. And I
believe my colleague has more to say.
Maire Coulthard: — Yes. For EBMP specifically, you know,
we worked with our vendor to develop a high-level business case. We worked that
through the governance process. That determined the initial budget estimate. We
worked with our vendor again on a more detailed business case to determine the
cost and timeline at the time of project initiation with a relative degree of
confidence.
But
as David says, additional complexity identified throughout the project and
lessons learned that we took from other projects that were already under way
resulted in additional timeline and budget requirements in order to ensure that
we had done, you know, all of the pieces that we needed to have a successful
outcome to the project in the end.
Joan Pratchler: — So ITD services all the ministries
pretty much. Why was this project not done in-house? Why was it outsourced?
[16:00]
David Boehm: —
So we simply don’t have capacity for a project of this scope and magnitude.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
Just want to return to the governance of EBMP again here. You’ve mentioned that
ITGC and IMAC did have a role to play all along. However the auditor had
written in her report on page 167 that IMAC and ITGC were not getting reports
routinely. Would the governance of that project turned out better or been
better governed had they been receiving reports routinely?
Maire Coulthard: — So as I mentioned, you know, EBMP was
initiated prior to current IT governance reporting approach, and it was
grandfathered into the IT governance process. And it’s such a large project it
has its own governance structure that includes the executive steering committee
made up of many, if not almost all, of the same deputy ministers and assistant
deputy ministers as ITGC and IMAC.
And
the project monitoring for EBMP was done separately from the IT portfolio
management office because it was much more robust and frequent than the
portfolio management office. And we had our own project management office with
a number of employees who monitor the project daily.
And
so EBMP did not go through the IT governance project process for regular like
updates, but it did go through for approval and for change request updates to
IMAC and ITGC.
Hugh Gordon: —
Just going to move on to costs. The auditor’s report is dated 2025. What is the
cost to implement GEM or EBMP to date? And how much more will it cost to fully
implement?
Maire
Coulthard: — So as
reported, the total project budget is 260.6 million. We have completed the
project now within the budget of 260.6 million.
Hugh Gordon: —
260.6.
Maire
Coulthard: — Yes.
Hugh Gordon: —
So there won’t be any more additional costs associated to that?
Maire
Coulthard: — None.
Hugh Gordon: —
Okay. Well that takes me to my next question: functionality so far. Can you
please explain to the committee the difficulties GEM has had just with dealing
with employee payroll? Well I’ll just ask that, and I’ll wait for your
response.
Maire
Coulthard: — We haven’t
had any challenges with employee payroll upon implementation.
Hugh Gordon: —
Okay. You go right ahead.
Joan Pratchler: — You do realize every two weeks MLAs can
hardly pay their constituency assistants because GEM doesn’t work for us? So
we’re every, twice a month we’re reminded about the challenges of GEM. So I
guess (a) that’s an issue, (b) what is the cost of maintaining this program,
and is anybody evaluating it now that supposedly it’s over and there’s parts
that can’t work?
Maire Coulthard: — I am aware of the challenges that
you’ve raised, but we’re working closely with the Legislative Assembly who is
the service provider for MLAs and constituency assistants using the GEM system.
So there are not any system problems with processing payroll, but there are
some processes that we continue to work through to ensure that everyone has a
smooth experience with GEM.
So
we are continuing to evaluate and work with both change management and
processes to make sure that it is working. It does take time to stabilize the
system. So while we’re working to stabilize, the actual system functionality is
working as expected. But we continue to work through processes and through
stabilization.
We
also have opportunities to continually enhance the system. Because it’s a
cloud-based system, we can keep getting updates and we can keep enhancing the
system as we go to make sure that it meets the needs of everyone.
Joan Pratchler: — And so which entity is charged with
making sure that EBMP operates or GEM operates properly for everyone? Is that
ITD is its own . . . I don’t know. Who is in charge of the
maintenance?
Kevin France: —
Yes, so it will be SaskBuilds and Procurement through the ITD division. Yeah.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay.
Maire Coulthard: — But we do have a combined sustainment
governance. So we continue to have the three partner organizations who own the
business areas. So the Ministry of Finance, SaskBuilds and Procurement’s
procurement management division, as well as ITD along with the Public Service
Commission who are owners and system — you know, decision makers who support
the clients that they serve in using the system.
Joan Pratchler: — Is there a help desk that’s attached to
this?
Maire Coulthard: — There are
three actually. So each stream — HR [human resources], financials, and
procurement — have their own service and support areas and help desks.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay.
Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — The question, you know, related to
that, it’s been months since we’ve not been able to utilize GEM the way it was
intended. Are you aware of any other issues affecting any other clients with
respect to the application of GEM right now?
Maire
Coulthard: — Overall
the system has been incredibly successful and is working quite well, but any
new system will of course have its challenges as we work through processes.
So
the other area, you’ve asked if there’s any challenges. I would say our
procurement area was very new. We went from having no system to using a system.
So there has been a transition process both for a brand new area of government
that stood up as a service provider and using a system, and then with all of
their clients, so all of our suppliers who are using our procurement system to
bid on projects.
So
we’ve used a phased approach to implementing procurements through GEM so that
we could work through the change management and the process improvement to make
sure that our suppliers have access to bid on government projects. So that
would be the other area we keep close attention on and have spent a lot of time
to make sure that that’s working towards being smooth. Yes.
Hugh Gordon: —
Does that include your own procurement and management division’s use of GEM for
procurement?
Maire
Coulthard: — Yes. So
using a system was very new to them, so we did a lot of training and change
management with that team and had new roles associated with GEM when it was
implemented. So we’re working of course with them as well as suppliers who are
citizens, members of the public, in using the system.
Hugh Gordon: —
And have there been any reported issues with clients utilizing it for finance,
HR?
Maire
Coulthard: — We haven’t
experienced . . . You know, we get regular tickets and opportunities
to enhance training and provide clarity where we need, but we haven’t had any
significant issues with employees using the system for financials or human
resources.
Hugh Gordon: —
Can you share with the committee how many people were seconded from other IT
projects to EBMP, if they were backfilled at all?
Maire
Coulthard: — So at the
peak of the EBMP project we had approximately 150 government employees working
on the project. That included employees across all streams — financial
employees, procurement employees, human resource employees, as well as change
management, communication, training, documentation, and a technical team of
configuration people and IT specialists.
So
we gathered the group from across government. We did not take anyone from other
IT projects, and all of the people who came to the project, because the project
was dedicated funding, all of their home positions could be backfilled.
Hugh Gordon: — Have you
determined how many other IT projects had to be delayed or had to stop due to
those secondments?
David
Boehm: — I don’t think
there were any projects that were delayed or put off, you know, with respect to
the projects within IT division that we would help to resource. It is typically
our ministry clients who bring those forward, and they would seek the necessary
resources. And oftentimes the vendor community is involved with the delivery,
and we would provide some of that technical support that I described earlier.
Hugh Gordon: — Are there still
clients of yours that are using other legacy systems while this integration
continues? And are you keeping track?
Maire
Coulthard: — So we have
fully transitioned to using GEM for what it was intended. There are a number of
integrations with many other systems in government that continue to run, and we
are working towards decommissioning the legacy systems that GEM has replaced.
[16:15]
Hugh Gordon: — Was there ever a
recommendation by the steering committee to senior government officials that
GEM or EBMP wouldn’t work and should be abandoned?
Maire
Coulthard: — So those
were the kinds of discussions we had with our executive steering committee on,
you know, an ongoing basis based on the risks of the project. There were often
conversations about the costs and benefits. The reality is that we have very
aging IT infrastructure in that financial and HR space and no infrastructure in
the procurement space. So this system was very necessary for government.
The
governance committee regularly weighed the costs and the benefits of moving
forward and then ultimately decided that this is the path that we would take,
and it was important to invest and continue to complete a successful project.
Hugh Gordon: — I guess as a
follow-up to that really quickly is, just like the auditor had identified in
her report, is we’ve got extra money being spent but no appreciable, you know,
advancement or progress on the project. In fact she noted on page 178 of her
report that the estimated cost has doubled and the expected quantitative
benefits will not be achieved.
So
the million-dollar question here is what have we bought with EBMP?
Maire
Coulthard: — So we do
have a benefits realization strategy that’s a part of our sustainment. And once
our system gets stable, we do expect to realize benefits over the life of the
new system. However there are many, many benefits that came with the
implementation.
For
example, in human resources, GEM automated many of our HR tasks that were
currently completed manually. Employees now have direct access to all their
personal HR information, including pay and benefits information. Their time-off
requests are submitted, approved, absences, and auto-populated to time cards,
so there’s a number of benefits there.
Procurement
has now been centralized into one integrated system. So all of our approvals
for purchasing requirements, contract awards, contract signatures can all be
completed in the system, including digital competitions and electronic
contracts where all information is available, both to government and suppliers.
GEM
introduced a new chart of accounts redesign in our financial area, a new
projects module that integrates with our financial system, and a new system
expenditure approval process. It has intelligent document recognition in order
to expedite invoices.
From
a technology perspective, we have a modern and scalable platform for all three
areas of government. Compared to dozens of applications that were used before,
it offers improved data security, data privacy, data management, and a single
point of entry for all employees when using all areas, including single
sign-on. We have analytics with prebuilt dashboards available across HR,
Finance, and supply chain to highlight key performance indicators, giving
decision makers more access to information to make informed decisions.
And
then we have significant security and privacy benefits. So you know, our Oracle
Fusion Cloud has robust security and privacy by design, combining mandatory
encryption of data at rest and in transit, strong tenant data isolation, and
granular role-based access controls that enforce least privilege across all of
our modules. So there’s lots of great security features and access and privacy
that also come with our system.
Hugh Gordon: — Those are all
qualitative benefits, but clearly quantitative have not been met, right?
Maire
Coulthard: — We will
monitor that. So we will continue to evaluate over the course of the life of
the project to determine the quantitative benefits.
Joan Pratchler: — So part of our committee is to help the
people of Saskatchewan to understand that the government’s using their
taxpayers’ dollars in a good way. What’s SaskBuilds’s responsibility in keeping
the vendor accountable? How much of the overrun is attributable to vendor
charges, contract amendments, software defects, scope changes, government
implementation decisions? And what contractual protections, holdbacks,
warranties, service credits, remedies, and penalties apply to late or deficient
delivery? And has the government attempted to recover any costs? If not, why
not?
David
Boehm: — So with
respect to this project and I guess any other project that the IT division or
government is involved in, as I mentioned earlier there is often a degree of
discovery with any project, just things that, despite significant upfront
planning, just aren’t known, can’t be known in some cases at the beginning of
the project.
And
again it’s important that you do have a robust governance structure in place so
that that senior governance team can evaluate the project on an ongoing basis
and make, in what can be some cases, very difficult decisions about go, no go
type decisions. And that was very much part of the process of this project. And
nobody likes to see a cost overrun, but we do have an effective system that
largely works as intended. And again that was monitored throughout the
development phase, the build phase of the project.
Joan Pratchler: — So do I hear you saying the vendor has
no responsibility for any of these cost overruns? Or are the people of
Saskatchewan going to be compensated in any way with the amount of overrun that
occurred in this particular project?
David
Boehm: — I think what
you hear me saying is that in any project you develop as robust a plan up front
as you possibly can, but there is a certain amount of discovery. And
particularly in a very large and complex, you know, multi-decade undertaking
such as EBMP or GEM, you’re going to have that discovery as part of that
process, something that the government client couldn’t necessarily know up
front and something that the vendor partner doing their upfront planning
couldn’t know in that level of detail up front either.
And
so you’re going to have to again make those judgment calls along the way. Is
there enough value that will be achieved even at that higher price or that
longer time frame that we want to continue with this project? Or of course the
alternate decision is also a possibility, where you do make a call with certain
projects because, you know, the expected expenditure to achieve what you set
out to achieve in the first place, the probability of achieving that is not
there. And so again a difficult decision could be made in that regard. And I’m
confident that the governance and oversight group that led the EBMP project was
making those decisions effectively throughout the project.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
I appreciate your comments on the governance, but along with governance comes
accountability. So you know, the EBMP deputy minister’s steering committee was
responsible for making those major decisions affecting the scope, affecting the
schedule, affecting the budget. Will government release relevant information
with respect to the decisions that were made, the dates on which they were
made, which risks were escalated, and the names and positions of the officials
accountable for approving those major changes?
Maire
Coulthard: — The
information you’re describing, the auditor had access to. So all of our
steering committee minutes, all of our risk registers, all of our budget
documents, that is what the auditor reviewed to come up with these
recommendations.
Hugh Gordon: —
But that’s not something you’re considering sharing with the committee, that
particular information? Like who the decision makers were, what decisions they
made, the timeline of those decisions? It’s kind of important where we’re
talking about a project that keeps getting delayed, a project which costs keep
going up. Someone pushes the go button every time, and that’s where the
accountability part comes into the governance structure. So that’s the nature
of my question.
Kevin
France: — Yeah, and I
think we’ve tried to demonstrate the governance structure that was in place,
the level of decision making that occurred, you know, as per the auditor’s
comments in terms of the effective processes as documented and the five gaps
that we have rectified.
[16:30]
I
think that process, that accountability has been demonstrated through
. . . Yes, you know, to my CIO’s comments about project discovery,
there were things that were unforeseen that led to both delays in time and
increasing costs. But a decision-making process around the benefit of that, the
realized benefit, I think again, as we’ve demonstrated . . . Yes,
there’s still, from a training perspective and rollout, there are things that
we’re working with within government itself, but I think from a standpoint that
the project is successful.
And
you know, I think the reality is this replaced systems that at 20 years old
were either a cybersecurity threat or unsupported. And the need and the
magnitude of this project, I think we’re satisfied that it’s actually working.
And there’s always going to be opportunities for improvement for sure, but it’s
achieving the results that we were expecting.
Hugh Gordon: —
Just a bit of a follow-up attached to that. Has the ministry then considered
using an independent cost assessment to validate actual costs for IT projects
before starting IT projects and/or during execution?
David Boehm: —
So yes, in some cases we do use third-party expertise to assist us, whether
it’s an IT research firm or a vendor from the IT vendor community. So yes, that
is done. We also use though the procurement process itself through the RFP and
the various bids that we get for a project to help determine cost and scope and
time and likelihood of success.
But
I can also tell you that, in my experience in government in IT procurement and
project management, that there are occasions where, despite tremendous upfront
investment on planning, you can still again run into enough discovery during
the project that, despite all of those efforts, you can still have an outcome
that is not according to the plan, I’ll say, or maybe even in some cases
satisfactory.
So
it is no guarantee, but we do do our due diligence to narrow the range of costs
and scope and time to the best of our ability.
Hugh Gordon: —
Just associated with that as well is, you know, we presume there’ll be a
lessons-learned report on EBMP, and perhaps that question that involved using
an independent cost assessment process could be included in that. We look
forward to that. And I appreciate your comments about the unforeseen
circumstances. Thank you.
Joan Pratchler: — And just a follow-up, which I think
will be the last question. Because you know, when you renovate your kitchen you
know how much it’s going to cost, and then you always have like a 20 per cent
extra just in case. Does that apply for IT projects? I don’t really need an
answer because I think I know.
And
just a follow-up for some details is, before any further major rollout, will
the government publish an independently verified readiness assessment covering
security, data migration, payroll and payment accuracy, contingency plans,
remaining costs, and credible completion dates? Will it also publish the full
lessons-learned report urged by the auditor, name the officials responsible for
acting on it to commit that a public reporting timetable occurs?
David
Boehm: — So EBMP will
be subject to our lessons-learned and evaluation process and that will start in
the not-too-distant future. And again, that reporting process I understand
lasts a number of years. So yes, we will be hearing more about the outcomes of
the project through that process.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. We’re good.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Any further questions from committee
members? Thanks. I know it’s run a little later here today, which is just fine.
I mean the scope of the considerations and some of the costs and stuff are
significant, so I appreciate members taking their time as well as the officials
taking the time to, you know, respond to the questions that are coming.
I
see MLA Chan has a question.
David Chan: —
It’s not a question. It’s just a comment. I just want to say that a lot of
these projects are incredibly complex. I used to take computer science;
actually I was going to become a software engineer. And so you know, designing
those programs, you think you have it figured out and then you run the
iteration, you run the test to debug, debug. Debugging was way more work than
actually designing the system. And I imagine there was some transferability
into the type of planning that goes on at that level.
You
know, a university project is one thing, never mind running a government
operation. So I just want to say that I can really appreciate the work that you
guys are doing, and I appreciate the challenges involved with the nature of
that work. That’s my comment.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, not seeing any further
questions on this chapter here. We have five new recommendations before us, and
I’d welcome a motion to concur and note compliance based on what’s been
reported to us.
James
Thorsteinson: — I so
move.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson.
All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, that’s carried. We’ll turn our
attention now to chapter 19 and I’ll turn it over to the Provincial Auditor to
make presentation.
Jason
Wandy: — Thank you, Mr.
Chair. The Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement provides IT services to
government ministries and other government agencies. The ministry utilizes a
data centre that houses computer equipment and servers to support client
systems and data.
Since
2010 the ministry outsourced the data centre to a service provider. Chapter 19
of our 2025 report volume 1 describes our third follow-up audit of management’s
actions on the last remaining recommendation we first made in 2019 regarding
the ministry’s processes to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and
availability of client IT services and data.
By
December 2024 the ministry implemented the last remaining recommendation. We
found the ministry worked with its service provider to properly configure its
data centre firewalls to restrict inappropriate access to the data centre. It
implemented a process to identify higher-risk firewall rules using a digital
tool called a firewall analyzer. The analyzer assessed which firewall rules are
higher risk or may cause vulnerabilities. We found the ministry reviewed
higher-risk rules the analyzer identified to ensure they are properly
configured to restrict inappropriate access.
As
a result, the ministry reduced the number of high- and critical-risk rules,
from 87 that had not been remediated in December 2022, to six by February 2025.
Having appropriately defined firewall rules decreased vulnerabilities and
reduced the risk of unwanted access to the data centre.
I’ll
now pause for the committee’s consideration.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay. Thanks very much for the
important focus here, the follow-up that you’re providing. We got some report
through the status update from the ministry here. Thanks for that. DM France,
do you have any quick remark on this front before we kick it open to see if
there’s questions?
Kevin
France: — Yeah, and
I’ll make them brief, Mr. Chair. But thank you, and thanks for the discussion
on chapter 19. At that time the auditor conducted a follow-up audit on a
recommendation related to configuring the data centre firewalls. This report
focused on the recommendation to provide adequate controls to protect the
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of client IT systems and data. We
accepted the auditor’s recommendation and worked diligently to address it.
The
Ministry of SaskBuilds and Procurement reviewed and cleaned up all high-risk
and obsolete rules in our core firewalls. A firewall analyzer was purchased and
deployed to monitor unauthorized firewall changes. Firewall changes are
required to follow formal change management processes. All unsecure protocols
have been addressed and are being monitored daily.
We
have invested in improved monitoring systems that provide real-time alerts for
unusual activities related to firewall rules. The cybersecurity and risk
management branch has established a formal process for managing our firewall
rules which includes periodic reviews and cleanup on unnecessary rules. The six
remaining high and critical rules noted in the 2025 auditor’s report have now
been remediated.
And
with that I’m happy to address any questions the committee may have.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, thanks for that. Looking to
committee members that may have questions. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — It says that it’s cleaned up all the
high-risk and obsolete rules on core firewalls. Am I to assume that that is,
all the firewalls have been totally addressed for those challenges?
Fuad
Iddrisu: — That would
be accurate for significant firewall rules. So there are several thousands of
rules in the environment, but the risky ones have all been addressed.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay, thank you. Who is the service
provider for the data centre?
Fuad
Iddrisu: — That would
be ISM.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. Thank you. Has there been
consideration or any implications — and I know it’s not an AI data centre —
implications of AI hacks to these kind of systems? What provisions are out
there, especially now that this is becoming more and more prominent?
Fuad
Iddrisu: — As much as
AI is being used to attack, we are also using AI to defend ourselves, so we’re
heavily investing in AI technologies.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler . . .
[inaudible] . . . We’ve got a member that would like to ask a
question over here. MLA Keisig, go ahead.
Travis Keisig: —
Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could I just ask the witness, for the record, to
identify himself, his name and his title, for the Saskatchewan people watching
at home? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Wotherspoon: — That’s a negligent Chair. You know,
I knew who this guy was, and I should have stated that any official that comes
to the table that’s not the DM or been previously introduced, just introduce
yourself. That’s right.
Fuad
Iddrisu: — Sorry, my
apologies. Fuad Iddrisu, executive director and chief information security
officer, executive government.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thank you very much. Anything else,
MLA Keisig?
Travis Keisig: —
That was it.
Chair Wotherspoon: — All right. Okay, we’ll come back if
you’ve got anything else too. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — So there were some auditor
recommendations in 2019, 2022. Can you help me understand what the barriers to
the implementation of those recommendations were?
Fuad
Iddrisu: — Yeah, the
main barriers were really related to legacy, so we had a lot of compatibility
issues. We just couldn’t upgrade because the ministries didn’t want to upgrade.
And so it was very difficult trying to push them to invest in modernizing the
technology.
Joan Pratchler: — Is there more compliance with those
kind of upgrading things now? Do the ministries understand the importance of
how we have to move forward?
Fuad
Iddrisu: — To some
extent. There’s still a lot of education going on.
Joan Pratchler: — Thanks.
Hugh Gordon: —
Just a clarifying question. Is ISM the vendor that also helps to analyze the
firewalls?
Fuad
Iddrisu: — No, the
firewall analyzing is done by my team, the security team.
Hugh Gordon: —
In-house?
Fuad
Iddrisu: — In-house,
yeah.
Hugh Gordon: —
Thank you. That’s all I have for questions.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Any further questions from committee
members? Any significant breaches of concern?
Fuad
Iddrisu: — Nothing
significant. We would have been in the news.
Chair Wotherspoon: — There’s a guy that speaks the truth,
eh?
[16:45]
Okay,
listen. I don’t see any further questions at this time. We have this
outstanding recommendation. We have the action that’s been taken to implement
that recommendation. Thanks to those that have been involved in that work. And
thanks to those that are involved in the very important work protecting our
systems and our information and the integrity of all of that. Certainly it’s a
dynamic and challenging space and world around us on these fronts.
So
thank you for that. I’d welcome a motion to conclude consideration of chapter
. . . What are we looking at here, 19 at this time?
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Moved by Deputy Chair Thorsteinson.
All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, that’s carried. Looking
around. I guess before we sort of shut this thing down, any final words our
way, DM France, before we go?
Kevin
France: — Yeah, just a
few and I’ll keep them brief again. Just again thank you for the discussion on
both chapter 14 and 19. Today’s discussion reinforces our commitment to
addressing the auditor’s recommendations and strengthening our processes.
And
again I’d like to extend my appreciation to the auditor and your team for their
hard work, and to the committee for your attendance and questions here today.
With that, that concludes my comments. Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thank you. Thanks again to you and
your team for being here and being forthright in the questions that have been
put to you.
Not
seeing any further questions, I think that’s got all the business of the day.
Deputy Chair, I’d welcome a motion of adjournment at this time.
James Thorsteinson: — I so move.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, moved by Deputy Chair
Thorsteinson. All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair Wotherspoon: — That’s carried. This committee
stands adjourned until the call of the Chair.
[The
committee adjourned at 16:46.]
Published
under the authority of the Hon. Todd Goudy, Speaker
Disclaimer:
The electronic versions of the Legislative Assembly’s
documents are provided on this site for informational purposes only. The Clerk
is responsible for the records of each legislature.