CONTENTS
Standing Committee on Human Services
Bill
No. 138 — The Workers’ Compensation (Extending Firefighter Coverage)
Amendment Act, 2023
TWENTY-NINTH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
Hansard Verbatim Report
No.
31 — Monday, March 18, 2024
[The committee met at 15:30.]
The
Chair: — Good afternoon and welcome to the
Standing Committee on Human Services. My name is Alana Ross and I am the Chair
of this committee. On my left, we have Mr. Matt Love substituting for Mr. Jared
Clarke; Ms. Meara Conway; and on my right we have Mr. Muhammad Fiaz; Mr. Warren
Kaeding; Mr. Hugh Nerlien; and Mr. Marv Friesen.
I would like to table the following document:
HUS 27‑29, Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, Seniors and Rural
and Remote Health: Responses to questions raised at the April 4th, 2023
meeting.
Today our committee is also tabling
lists from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of regulations and bylaws
filed with the Legislative Assembly between January 1st, 2023 and December
31st, 2023 which have been committed to the committee for review pursuant to
rule 147(1).
The law and parliamentary counsel will
assist the committee in its review by submitting a subsequent report at a later
date, identifying any regulations that are not in order with provisions of rule
147(2). However the committee may also decide to review any of these
regulations or bylaws for policy implications.
I am also tabling three reports from the
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel
that identify any issues pursuant to rule 147(2) that he found with regulations
and bylaws filed in 2017, 2018, and 2019 and any steps that may have been taken
to rectify these issues. If the committee chooses, it may bring in the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to
review these reports at a subsequent meeting.
The documents are HUS 25‑29, Law
Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: 2023 regulations filed; HUS 26‑29, Law
Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: 2023 bylaws filed; HUS 28‑29, Law Clerk
and Parliamentary Counsel: 2017 report on regulations and bylaws; HUS 29‑29,
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: 2018 report on regulations and bylaws; HUS
30‑29, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: 2019 report on regulations
and bylaws.
Today we will be considering two bills,
one with Minister Cockrill and
one with Minister McMorris.
Bill No. 143 — The Child Care
Amendment Act, 2023/Loi modificative de 2023 sur les garderies d’enfants
Clause
1
The
Chair: — We will begin with Bill
No. 143, The Child Care Amendment Act, 2023, a bilingual bill.
Minister Cockrill is here with his officials. I would ask that his officials
please state their name before speaking. And just a reminder not to touch the
microphones. The Hansard operator will turn on your microphone when you are
speaking to the committee. Minister, please introduce your officials and make
your opening remarks.
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Thank you, Madam Chair. With me
today I have Clint Repski, Sameema Haque, and Janet Mitchell from the Ministry
of Education. And I’m here today to continue the debate of Bill No. 143, The
Child Care Amendment Act, 2023.
Now we, as a government, recognize the
value of early learning and early childhood educators, and the purpose of this
bill is to update the Act to be in line with the vision and objectives within
the federal-provincial agreements that we have signed. The Canada-Saskatchewan
Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement and the Bilateral Early Learning
and Child Care Agreement provide funding for early learning and child care
programs in Saskatchewan until 2025‑2026.
Now through these agreements, over
$1.2 billion is being provided to the early years sector to improve access
to child care spaces across the province, and we continue to increase spaces.
We capped parent fees at $10 a day in April of 2023, and in October of 2023 we
announced another wage enhancement for early childhood educators here in
Saskatchewan. These are all being accomplished through this funding.
These amendments to the Act demonstrate
that we are committed to improving support for early childhood education
programs and services for Saskatchewan children and Saskatchewan families. I’d
like to just outline a couple of the amendments here before we get into
discussion.
Section 7 outlines the requirements for
the establishment of regulated child care centres. Section 10 develops
requirements for the establishment of parental advisory groups at regulated
child care centres. Sections 18 and 18.1 create the requirements for the
issuance of child care facility licences after cancellation.
Section 25 provides the minister the
authority for payments and financial oversight to do the following: to support
core child care services, to make grants to former facilities, and to make
grants to or on behalf of parents respecting child care facilities that have
closed. Lastly section 25.1 provides the minister with the authority to request
data or financial information from the facility to recover any overpayments and
to increase transparency and accountability of public funds.
The Act also repeals outdated
terminology and other drafting updates to align the Act with current practices,
new requirements, and forthcoming improvements contemplated in both of the
bilateral agreements.
Now these amendments were identified
through both internal review in the Ministry of Education and through
consultation with the regulated child care sector. I’d also like to thank the
Ministry of Social Services and our early learning and child care stakeholders
who provided input on these amendments. These amendments will further support
families, early childhood educators and continue to drive strong economic
growth in the province.
And, Madam Chair, I’m pleased to answer
questions related to Bill No. 143, The Child Care Amendment Act, 2023.
The
Chair: — Thank you, Minister. I will now open
the floor for questions. Ms. Conway.
Ms.
Conway: — Thank you, Chair. Minister, just
wondering if you could provide a bit more detail about the stakeholders that
you consulted with on the Act. That would be great. Thanks.
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Maybe I’ll just start, Madam Chair,
and then I’ll let both maybe Sameema and/or Janet, you know, speak more
directly to the external stakeholder consultation.
Obviously, as I mentioned in my opening
statements, many of these amendments came to be through, you know, again folks
like we have here today — internal ministry staff who work with the child care
sector partners on a daily and weekly basis. You know, obviously we did
significant external stakeholder consultation as well and received, you know,
numerous supportive responses to these amendments.
You know, again folks like Georgia
Lavallee from SECA, the Saskatchewan Early Childhood Association, several
individual child care providers, both home providers but also centre providers
as well. I’m just looking here at the list of folks that we consulted with.
YWCA Regina as well as . . . We know the YMCA and the YWs in this
province are some of the largest child care providers in terms of number of
seats. And so again, certainly significant consultation out there with external
partners.
Sammi, Janet, do you have anything to
add to that?
Ms. Mitchell:
— The Child Care Act is of course terribly interesting to early learning
and child care stakeholders. And we have spent a considerable amount of time
with them over these past few years as we’ve been implementing the agreements.
The invitation list went out to quite a number of stakeholders, and a
relatively small number attended the very specific consultation on this. But it
was very positively received, I think.
Ms.
Conway: — As the critic in the area, I also
struggled with that. It’s not terribly interesting, and I recognize that this Act
is a whole lot of housekeeping. But it does kind of fit into that larger
picture of pursuing and hopefully achieving some of the targets and goals
outlined in the provincial-federal agreement.
I guess what strikes me as one of most
substantive changes is the stuff around wages. It gives obviously the ministry
authority to . . . I’m guessing that the crux of those changes are
allowing you to set that wage grid that we’ve heard so much about. So I recall
last estimates in 2023, I believe the wage grid had still not been announced. I
had been told the year previously that it was on the way and that it would be
released that year. That was 2022. I still haven’t seen a wage grid.
Minister,
can you speak to that? Where are we at with the wage grid, given that that wage
grid will have such an impactful role on being able to retain workers in the
child care sector?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Thank you, Madam Chair. In response
to the question, I mean obviously, you know, certainly as I have met with child
care centres around the province, obviously attracting people to the sector is
a major priority, and certainly to do that there needs to be competitiveness
from a wage perspective in order to recruit and retain quality people as early
childhood educators.
You know, again the government, through
the agreement, has done several things, whether that’s, you know, different
workforce grants or to provide training to individuals seeking to get into the
early childhood education space. So in practice, and I mean the member would
know that there’s been a couple of wage enhancements now provided for through
the money coming from the agreement — you know, wage enhancements up to an
additional 7.50 per hour in some cases.
[15:45]
And what we’ve done with those wage
enhancements is really start to delineate between the three levels of ECE
[early childhood educator] education, you know, I, II, and III. And so in
essence, in practice there’s been a wage grid developing already in practice.
Again what this legislation allows us to
do is gives us the authority to have something more formal in place when it
comes to a wage grid. But again through the wage enhancements that have been
provided, already that is creating the grid where there’s delineation between
the levels of education and starting to provide for that.
Sammi, is there anything else that you
want to add particularly on that point?
The
Chair: — Minister, can I just . . .
A quick reminder to have your officials introduce themselves when they start.
Thank you.
Ms. Haque:
— Sameema Haque, Ministry of Education. And I would add to what the minister
has already said, is this is a fundamental change in the child care sector for
this province, from going to predominantly unregulated child care sector to a
highly regulated child care sector. As part of that transformational change,
the workforce needs to be developed.
We
didn’t have a lot of the workforce with the certifications, so it’s been
important for us to kind of invest in getting the workforce to be trained and
seeking those certifications and provide a balance between the wage
enhancements as well as the educational opportunities and support for those
opportunities.
Ms.
Conway: — Thank you. Thank you for that. So
I’ve had the privilege of working on this file for a few years, so I’m very
familiar with the file, with the wage enhancements, with some of the training
opportunities, with some of the grants. I know of course a lot of, many child
care providers weren’t eligible for some of those enhancements for various
reasons.
And I fully acknowledge there have been
steps in the right direction, but what I’ve been hearing clearly from the
sector is this need for a formalized wage grid. And during my conversations in
the past with the previous minister of Education, I was led to believe that a
more formalized wage grid would be coming. And based on my conversations with
the sector, there are many stakeholders that were led to believe that as well.
Am I hearing now that there isn’t going
to be this formal wage grid coming out? I’m confused. Each time . . .
Like so in previous estimates, we had had conversations about when we might
expect the wage grid, and often there were timelines around that. Am I hearing
now that a formal wage grid is not going to come into effect? Of course it’s
going to acknowledge all of those things that you mentioned, Minister, the
differentiation between ECE I, II, III, director, all of that. I had understood
that a wage grid would be coming out as part of this larger work of the funding
model and a workforce strategy. Is that not the case?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — I would say I don’t think that’d be
a fair characterization. I mean again, I mean as I outlined, you know, in
practice what we’ve done with the wage enhancement grants is, as I said,
creating a delineation between the levels and providing some overall structure
and really, you know, getting us to a place where there’s knowledge
province-wide about where wages are going for those various levels, certainly
again with legislative authority to start I guess delivering on parts of the agreement.
I mean again, the formal wage grid is
something that we continue to work on, you know, so I don’t think it’d be a
fair characterization to say that it’s not going to happen. It’s something that
we continue to work towards. As I said, in practice, you know, I think the wage
enhancement grants have moved us in that direction.
And then with this legislation, again
we’re . . . I’ve used the metaphor of, you know, building an airplane
while you’re mid-flight with kind of the regulated child care space, and I
think that’s something that as we continue to move forward with these
agreements, we continue to build the airplane. We’re still in the air, so you
know, we need to continue providing quality child care around the province in
communities to parents and families.
And again I think, as you outlined, many
of the amendments in this Act are largely housekeeping in nature and again,
formalize some of the things that we need to do on a provincial level to
deliver on the agreements.
I mean I would caution that again, as I
said in my opening remarks, you know, the agreement provides funding to be
delivered through the province to the end of ’25‑26. And so we’re mindful
of that, and you know, are having discussions with the federal government about
ensuring that there is some predictability beyond that. Because again any time
that we create something that’s longer term in mind, we want to know that
there’s some — to use another aviation example — we want to see that there’s
some runway there going forward. So we’re just mindful of that as well.
Ms. Conway:
— Minister, I think I’m hearing that a wage grid will be forthcoming.
Understanding that there have been wage enhancements as we transition and make
steps towards the ultimate goals outlined in that Act, when will that wage grid
kind of become formalized? When can we expect to see that in the sector?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — So as I said to the member in my
previous answer, again with the wage enhancements that we provided, we’re
working on ensuring that the sector is competitive across, you know, other
similar types of human service sectors across the province.
Again you know, as we look beyond 2025‑2026
and continue to have conversations with the federal government about what that
funding model looks like long term, I mean a wage grid would be part of that
funding model, but again understanding, you know . . . So in terms of
a specific date I think that’s part of, I would say that’s part of the
discussions that we’re having with the federal government to understand kind of
what’s coming in so that we can create policy that’s sustainable and
predictable for child care operators.
I mean I think again I would highlight
where we’ve gotten to now after the most recent wage enhancement grant is a
place where, you know, I think very competitive compared to what’s going on in
Alberta and Manitoba. I mean looking at Saskatchewan on average is, you know,
offer of ECE wages is at just over $24 an hour. Manitoba is at 22.26 an hour,
and Alberta’s averaging 23.68 an hour in the ECE sector.
So I mean certainly, you know, we
recognize that there is transiency between Western provinces, and so ensuring
what these wage enhancement grants have ensured, that we’re at a competitive
place. But again to have something more set in stone, I guess, you know, that’s
the give-and-take of understanding what’s going to be in the sector after 2025‑2026
before we can lock in something more firm on a wage grid.
Ms.
Conway: — So no wage grid before the agreement
expires.
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Well if we can continue to work with
the federal government, obviously we want to get a renewal agreement signed
before the end of the current agreement. That would be the hope from a
provincial perspective. Obviously lots can happen between now and then, but
that’s certainly what we’re working towards in terms of, you know, negotiating
our action plan between now and till the end of this current agreement, and
then we’ll begin to start working on what’s beyond that.
You know, again being mindful from a provincial
policy perspective of knowing what’s coming down the road so that we can plan
accordingly and structure the sector appropriately.
Ms.
Conway: — Minister, I’m having difficulty
parsing your answer on this. It sounds like a backtrack on that commitment to
the formalized wage grid during the life of the agreement.
I’m going to bring your attention to the
comments of your predecessor. This is April 13th, 2022 in Hansard at
estimates. He indicated:
And as you
mentioned as well and as you’ve noted [this is a quote], we have made a
commitment to develop a wage grid and make progress on implementation. And I
would expect that that work’s going to take us through probably to the end of
2022.
Now the end of 2022 came and went, and I
brought the wage grid issue again to your predecessor on, this is April 4th,
2023. And he said, this is a quote, “A portion of those would be operational.”
He’s talking about operational child care spaces. Then he says, “That’s why we
are focusing on the expansion strategy this year as well as the workforce
strategy as well as things like a wage grid.”
We still don’t have a wage grid. We have
wage enhancements. We had those last year. We had those the year before. The
sector wants a wage grid because the sector acknowledges that in order to truly
get at the equality and retention issues that we see in child care, we need a
wage grid.
And the opposition has always been very
concerned that this government was quick to announce $10‑a-day daycare,
but when it comes to doing the hard work under this Act of expanding spaces and
creating a well-trained, quality workforce that is well remunerated and remains
within the sector, we haven’t seen action on that. And a big part of this is
the wage grid.
[16:00]
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — As I said, you know, a lot of the
conversation around child care I think probably that we’ll have today and we’ve
had in other forums, you know, leads back to ensuring that we have
predictability on the agreement with the federal government going forward.
I guess I would just, I would remind the
member, I mean to define a wage grid, I mean we are defining specific wage
levels or specific wage minimums for specific levels of education that are
above the provincial minimum wage, right. And so, I mean, it’s making it clear
to operators that, here’s the minimum for ECE I; here’s the minimum for ECE II;
here’s the minimum for ECE III.
And you know, so when it comes to a wage
grid, as I said, in practice we have that now. We’re providing these wage
enhancements to top up and to ensure that employees in the child care sector
are compensated commensurate to their levels of education. You know, the work I
think that perhaps you’re referring to and the work that certainly we are
working on getting closer to a resolution on is — again once we get an
understanding from the federal government in terms of their plans long term on
child care — is formalizing the funding model and to make sure that there’s
some work and formal guidelines on that.
But again, in practice as I’ve tried to
outline a little bit here, what we have provided through these wage
enhancements is essentially a wage grid. You know, again compensating different
levels of education appropriate to those levels.
Maybe I’ll just ask Sammi to make a
couple more comments on where we’re at currently.
Ms.
Haque: — Sameema Haque, Ministry of
Education. From our perspective, when you look at a grid, a grid can be defined
many ways. As we develop the sector, we’re looking for more and more people to
be certified and to seek their different levels of certification from level I
to II to III. And we are ensuring through our wage enhancement grants to ensure
that the operators have the ability to meet the requirements that we’ve set
forward for them for minimum wages for these different levels and to ensure
that the wages are comparative for each level across our neighbouring provinces
so that we remain competitive for the workforce.
In addition to that we are looking at
workforce grants which allow the operator to determine what additional benefits
and enhancements that they want to provide their workforce to allow for recruitment
and retention. The workforce grant that we are providing operators is
completely flexible and at their discretion as to what kind of benefits they
want to provide their employees to support the well-being of the employee,
whether it’s through different programs, different educational opportunities,
workshops, or paid benefits of any kind. So these are recruitment and retention
incentives.
The operators have been very satisfied
with the ability to be flexible in regards to having that workforce enhancement
grant to add on to the wage enhancement. So the compensation is set as a grid
that’s above the minimum wage grid, that distinguishes between the three
levels, is based on a comparison with other jurisdictions. And we continue to
look for cost drivers and continue to enhance our provincial supports
accordingly. And also in addition we’ve provided an additional grant with the
flexibility for the operators to determine other supports they want to provide
their employees.
Ms.
Conway: — Thank you. Minister, we can have a
debate about this idea of a wage grid as a term of art, but this is a term that
I have used, and this is a term that your government has used, and it’s a term
that is used in the sector. Because a grant-based model, wage enhancements, these
are, while needed, are piecemeal and short term. And I think the hope is to see
us transition to a systemized early learning and child care sector that is
affordable, accessible, and high quality, eventually irrespective of how the
federal government might feel about that.
These are lofty goals and these are
goals that Saskatchewan people deserve to see realized in their province. And
part of getting there is to entrench some of this system. And I think that that
is what the sector is expecting, a wage grid. That’s my understanding. So I’m a
little concerned to hear that it sounds like nothing further should be expected
in the near future and certainly before ’25‑26.
I’m going to propose to move away from
this topic unless there’s something more you want to put on the record. I
invite you to do that maybe in answering my next question. But I want to ask
next about section 10, which is the mechanism whereby a child care centre
. . . So previously, my understanding is, the assumption is that a
child care centre will be governed by a board of directors, the majority of
which are parents who fulfill a certain criteria. That existed under the old
Act. Similarly under the old Act if there wasn’t a board made up of parents,
there was a parental advisory committee.
And my understanding is that the change
under this current Act is that the minister may exempt a licensee from the
requirements of having a parental board of directors or a parental advisory
committee if, in the opinion of the minister, it would cause undue hardship or
an exemption should be granted in the public interest.
Minister,
am I right that that last section is the addition under this Act? And can you
talk about why that change, and what circumstances you would envision requiring
a board of directors made up of parents or an advisory committee made up of
parents causing undue hardship and/or when it might be in the public interest
for the ministry to grant an exemption in that situation?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — So maybe I’ll just share some
context as to, you know, the reason for section 10 in the legislation. I mean I
mentioned earlier, for example, I mean the YMCA and YWCA are two of the larger,
if not the largest, child care providers in Saskatchewan, and obviously with
multiple centres, right. And we’re not, you know, as they expand and open a new
centre, the ministry’s not asking the YMCA or YWCA to change the makeup of
their board of directors to necessarily include parents that are there, right.
I mean, those are organizations that do multiple things in our communities.
And so, you know, again section 10
allows for a larger organization — like using those two for example — to
continue with their planning in terms of board succession and board composition
but ensures that there are parental advisory groups, you know, at the various
additional locations that those organizations might open over time.
Now when it comes to, you know, an
exemption and a potential situation where an exemption may be in the public
interest, obviously we want to make sure that . . . you talk about
how important accessibility is in the child care space, and certainly, you
know, you and I are both parents of young children. I mean having the
continuity of a child care facility is absolutely important.
But obviously with that you’re going to
have some . . . You know, say there’s a dysfunction and there’s now
low participation in a board or advisory group. You know, obviously the
ministry would work on a case-by-case basis to offer an exemption to kind of
let that group reform. Otherwise, you know, we don’t want to just shut down a
child care centre because there’s not necessarily participation on a board or a
parental advisory committee.
So you know, obviously children age out
of child care and new parents are coming in. So again, the focus of the
amendment is to allow for this, as organizations open up multiple locations and
allowing for parents to still be involved in the overall governance. And then,
you know, as I said, the exemption piece is really to ensure that we can allow
continuity of centres and ensure that if all of a sudden there’s no
participation, then we don’t need to say, hey, you’re out of line of your
licence. We’ve obviously . . . The continuity piece, and I’m sure you
would agree, is important in these sort of situations.
Ms.
Conway: — So previous to these changes,
centres with multiple locations, were they just required to have just one board
of directors, or were they required to have board of directors at all of their
multiple locations?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — So yeah, under the existing, no more
than two centres, you know, under one board of directors. So I mean obviously,
you know, we do want to encourage organizations like the YM and the YW to
continue to open spaces.
[16:15]
So you know, again we think this will
allow growth of regulated spaces in the sector. We still have to balance that
with how do we ensure that parents are involved. I mean if an organization has
five or six locations, we still want there to be parent voice in that. I think
that’s important. But then again, ensuring that as parents transition in and
out, you know, based on their kid’s age, or move in or out of a community, that
the continuity piece can be preserved.
Ms.
Conway: — Yeah, Minister. It just struck me, I
guess, that it wasn’t long ago that we had an emergency session here about
so-called more parental inclusion in children’s lives. And it’s a bit of a
contradiction that you’re presiding over this change under the Act that
actually allows for situations where there would be less parental involvement.
I think that’s fair to say. Do you agree?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Well I don’t think that’s quite a
fair characterization. You know, again considering if a family is accessing $10‑a-day
child care in our province, are we going to shut down a facility because
parents have decided not to be on a parental advisory group anymore? I think
this is a reasonable change to really ensure the continuity piece.
Obviously we want parents to be involved
in their children’s lives, you know, at any stage, whether that’s in the early
years or whether that’s in pre-K to 12 [pre-kindergarten to grade 12]
education. We would encourage that of course, and we hope that parents are
engaged. But I think what this change allows is again really preserving the
continuity of child care.
Ms. Conway:
— Minister, can you just speak to . . . Like it does seem that if you
can find enough parents to be involved in an advisory committee, it might be
reasonable to expect you could find enough parents to be on a board. Can you
speak to some of the challenges there that these changes are addressing?
You know, I agree with you, we shouldn’t
be closing down child care facilities if there’s a lack of parental engagement.
I didn’t know that this was a challenge being faced by some of the child care
providers — a lack of parents stepping up to be part of that process. And if
this is a change very much in response to that, it makes sense. But could you
speak to that differentiation between the board of directors and the parental
advisory committee, and why, if you’ve got one, why not just make it a board
with a little bit more ability to kind of guide and have input in the centre?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — You know, to answer that question, I
would say I’d go back to my previous example of, take YWCA Regina. I mean
obviously that’s an organization that does much more than just child care, but
they do operate child care facilities as well.
I mean the legislation . . .
You know, obviously we all know the YWCA in Regina does excellent work, and
they have done a good job at recruiting people that are interested in that
organization and contribute greatly in terms of, you know, contributing in a
board capacity. I mean obviously it’d be great if there were, you know, if the
board was filled with parents. But again if you’re running a multi-faceted
organization, you need different professionals on your board, whether that be a
financial or legal professional, you know, if you’re going to run a board for
an organization of that size.
You know, so again, we have to let those
. . . we have to respect those organizations, you know, structure
their board in a way that’s reasonable for all the offerings that they do. But
when it comes to an individual facility — again using the YWCA as an example —
I mean if they have a child care facility in east Regina, there’s a requirement
to have a parental advisory committee of parents whose children attend that
facility.
And you know, I think that requirement
to have parental voices is certainly reasonable and something that — again as a
parent myself with a child, you know, accessing child care — certainly I’d hope
that I’d have an opportunity or a forum to have my voice heard if I had any
concerns, or you know, desire to be more involved in my child’s child care
facility.
And again going back to the exemption,
you know, we require the parental advisory committee. But you know, as families
come and go, age out, age in, again I think the exemption allows some
flexibility there to ensure that there’s good transition over time.
Ms. Conway:
— Thank you, Minister. Am I correct though that, like with the YWCA as an
example, am I to understand that the board of directors of the YWCA, like writ
large, was responsible for the child care? Or they would have had a separate
board of directors specifically for their child care or, as you noted, at least
one board for two facilities?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Well again, continuing to use the
YWCA as an example, and you know, perhaps we should have invited Melissa to
committee here today and she could provide more detailed comments on,
specifically, board governance and organizational governance in her
organization.
You know, again using that example, I
mean my understanding is they would have one board for their whole organization
— obviously child care being one of the services that they deliver in Regina —
you know, a single board for their entire organization. But again, this
legislation allows for that parent voice to be heard at each individual child
care centre that they may run.
Ms.
Conway: — So presently the Y, the overall Y’s
board of directors had to have a majority of parents with a child enrolled at
one of their child care facilities?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Yeah, to meet the licensing
requirements, that would have been the existing requirement. But as we know we
want, you know, with the goal here of making child care more accessible and
expanding it across the province, obviously at some point that becomes
impractical, right.
And certainly again using the YWCA as an
example and thinking about all the services that they do offer in the city
here, it’s not necessarily practical for one ministry to determine to them, you
know, the structure and composition of their entire board. And I think this
. . . Again these changes allow for that parental voice to be present
but without kind of interfering in the operations of the entire organization,
if that makes sense.
Ms.
Conway: — Noted. I just want to though go back
to that. Is it not the case that the Act does provide for situations where you
won’t have a board of directors that are a majority of parents or a parental
advisory committee? That is a possibility now under these changes, that a child
care facility will have neither.
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Sorry, can you just repeat that
question? I’m sorry.
Ms. Conway:
— Correct me if I’m wrong, but the changes introduced under this Act now mean
that child care centres, if they are granted such an exemption, will not need
to have a board of directors made up of a majority of parents or a parental
advisory committee. So specifically that the Act allows for exemptions so that
that parental involvement isn’t there at either the board level or the advisory
level.
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Yeah, I mean if we’re in the forest
of hypothetical situations I guess that could happen, but any exemption would
be on a temporary basis. But you know, and certainly the ministry would work
with the operator to ensure that the parental advisory committee comes back
online or that, you know, if it’s a smaller one-off operator, that there would
be a return of parents to the board, if that makes sense.
Ms.
Conway: — Minister, the change around the
board makes a lot of sense to me, and especially with regards to the Y. The
removal of a requirement that there’s an advisory committee is more concerning
to me. As a parent with kids in licensed child care, it seems like that would
be a very low-barrier way to get parents involved. It wouldn’t require the
commitment of a board of directors. Surely that could be set up in a way that,
you know, you could get parents’ feedback and involvement very easily if done
right.
So
I guess like also combined with some of the rhetoric we’ve been seeing come from
your government and you particularly in your role as Minister of Education, I’m
a little surprised by that change given that an advisory committee seems to be
a good solution to some of the challenges you’ve identified around requiring
that a majority of parents with children in the facility be on the board.
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Well certainly, Ms. Conway, as you
point out, I’m a strong believer in the involvement of parents in education.
And again I think characterizing this legislative change as a work around
parents I don’t think is accurate. In fact I think it actually strengthens the
opportunity and the ability for parents to be involved.
I mean, you know, if we work on kind of
a hierarchy there, if there’s no parents on . . . You know, there’s a
requirement for parents to be on the board, but if that requirement can’t be
met, there’s a requirement for a parental advisory committee. And obviously in
a very rare circumstance where, you know, again a parent’s child ages out, or
you know, there would be a rare exemption by ministerial order, certainly the
ministry would be working diligently to work with that centre and that operator
to find parents to be back involved.
[16:30]
I mean another example that we were just
talking about was, take for example if, you know, in the example of a parent
that is under the age of 18. Maybe by a board’s bylaws they’re not able to be a
member of the board. And so there’s, you know, these sort of situations, they
would be odd — not odd but they would be certainly unique circumstances.
And I think what really this legislation
is trying to do is to ensure that parents can be involved. But as we
. . . [inaudible] . . . on child care across the province,
as larger organizations are doing some of that expansion, you know, the
inclusion of parental advisory committees is a key part going forward. But
certainly having the flexibility again in the case of where not meeting these
requirements may threaten the continuity of operations, obviously we want to make
sure that operations can be continued, and we work on, you know, engaging
parents at that particular centre.
Ms.
Conway: — Thank you, Minister. Yeah, I mean I
would just push back against this idea that these changes strengthen parental
involvement because they do the opposite. There may be good policy reasons for
that, but the involvement of parents in the board of directors and the advisory
committee, that pre-dated these changes. What these changes introduce is this
idea that that requirement can now be exempted. So to say that it strengthens
parental involvement, I would push back on that strongly.
Can
you speak to what happens once you’ve granted an exemption for anything under
the Act? What then happens? Is there like a review in a year or . . .
I couldn’t find that under the Act. I don’t know what’s practically done when
exemptions are granted under this Act, so could you speak to that?
Ms. Haque:
— So exemptions are, ideally want to be very specific in regards to exemptions
rather than overarching exemptions. This is a very specific exemption. Again,
as the minister mentioned, it’s important for us to have parental involvement
and their voice heard in the governance
process. So this exemption really provides for that very specific rare scenario
where there is a situation where we need to address a particular unique
circumstance.
And in regards
to the follow-up process, our follow-up process is to immediately look towards
resolution of whatever issue has led to an exemption. And the ideal state is to
bring the operator into compliance with the legislation overarchingly and not
be in an exemption situation. So these are time-bound, very specific. We’re
looking to resolve the issue, whatever it may be, and then bringing the
operator into compliance into a normal situation where it’s operating under the
legislation as it exists without the exemption.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you. Am I correct that . . . Am
I right? Sorry, I looked more closely at the amendment Act than the original
bill. Am I correct that those strict timelines and those steps that you’ve
described are not in the regulation? Is that fair to say that’s just Ministry
of Education policy?
Ms.
Haque: — Those would be procedural elements that we would address through policy
and our standard operating procedures.
Ms.
Conway: — Does the
ministry track data on how many exemptions are granted under the Act and what
requirement is being exempted?
Ms. Haque:
— Exemptions are dealt with at the consultant level. We don’t consolidate them
centrally. But exemptions are a very temporary situation and they are an active
file. Our consultants work on them until the issue is resolved and the operator
is in compliance.
Ms.
Conway: — So, Minister, if an exemption was
granted for having parental inclusion in a child care facility, that wouldn’t
be centralized or dealt with by your ministry. It would be left to an individual
consultant to address that. It wouldn’t be tracked by your ministry. It
wouldn’t be dealt with by staff of the ministry. It would be dealt with by
consultants. Is that correct?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Your support for parental
involvement is noted. I will take note of that here at committee today and
thank you for that. You know, as Sameema just outlined again, any exemption is
temporary. That’s based on an active file that is managed at the consultant
level. I mean these consultants are Ministry of Education staff. Again these
files are worked on through each individual consultant, rectified, and then the
exemption is no longer necessary.
But certainly I mean as with any part of
the legislation the . . . I know again I’ve spoken with consultants
on different files, and you know, obviously consultants are working diligently
if there’s anybody out of compliance in a particular area, working with those
centres to bring them back into compliance.
Ms. Conway:
— Minister, one concern I have is, the intense workload of consultants is well
known. How do you know that these are being worked on and rectified if they’re
not being centralized or tracked, like centrally?
Ms.
Mitchell: — Janet Mitchell with the Ministry of
Education. The work of our consultants is complex, and they are dealing with
facilities that are operating all across the province and often facing some
challenges that are unique to their particular situation. So when there is an
issue like that, we trust our consultants, and we expect that they are going to
try to resolve them as quickly as possible, work with the facility, figure out
a way to get the whole situation back into compliance.
Sometimes that doesn’t work out and then
we need to escalate it within the ministry. And so we have a structure that
involves program managers that work directly with the early learning and child
care consultants. Again many situations would get resolved then at that program
manager level. Then we have a director who’s responsible for child care operations,
and that position certainly would deal with some situations like that,
absolutely.
When on the rare occasions that wouldn’t
get resolved, then it would be escalated to the executive director level, and
so that would be to myself. And I would see very few things that come to me,
because they have been able to be resolved at the local level.
There are exemptions that we track. So
for example, we track early childhood educator exemptions, and you know,
because those take a little longer . . .
Ms.
Conway: — You mean the ratios?
Ms.
Mitchell: — I’m speaking of if someone doesn’t
have their ECE I, but they’re working on getting their ECE I. So we can still
ensure that that facility can hire that person and work with them, but it just
won’t be resolved very quickly. So we certainly do track to make sure that
we’re counting, you know, those sorts of things.
Ms.
Conway: — So you track exemptions for the
workforce when you don’t have, like, a certain level of ECE I’s, II’s, and
III’s. That’s data you do track, correct?
A Member:
— It is, yes.
Ms.
Conway: — Can you give me examples of other
exemption scenarios that come up on a fairly regular basis?
[16:45]
Ms. Haque:
— So as we’ve mentioned, and I just want to reaffirm this, that exemptions are
not common. Exemptions are very rare. The most common, within those rare
exemptions, would be where we would increase the number of spaces that a
licensee is allowed to have due to some temporary issue in a centre that’s
close by.
So if there is a reason that a centre in
town X has to close due to structural issues or something else that they need
to address right away, in order to accommodate the displaced children, we would
temporarily provide an exemption to surrounding child care centres and increase
their allocation for child care spaces, provided they meet the other
requirements and can get the workforce, and allow the centre that’s affected to
address the issue and take the remedial action until the children can return to
their regular spot.
That is the most common example, I would
say. But in those cases, as Janet has mentioned, we work diligently, and there
is very regular communication between the consultant and the program manager
and the operator as to how they’re addressing the issue, where they are with
their remedial action, what progress they’ve made, and how soon the children
can be expected to be back in their regular centre.
Ms.
Conway: — Thank you. So for example at
estimates, if I were to ask how many exemptions were granted in the last year
around this issue of spaces, would you have tracked and be able to say, X
amount; this is where; and this is why; and this is how quickly it took to
resolve? Any of that?
Ms. Haque:
— We could make our best effort.
Ms. Conway:
— It sounds like you do track exemptions to some extent in a way that, you
know, you could be providing some data at these kinds of opportunities.
Ms. Haque:
— It is a very paper-based system. Again I would say that, you know, this
sector has very passionate workers, whether it’s the external workforce or the
ministry workforce, and so addressing any exemption situation is a key priority
for the team, and they continue to look at it until the issue is resolved. This
is why this has never been an issue where we’ve had to track because it’s been
an open file for longer than a few days to a week. But certainly even with the
paper-based system, we could make our best efforts.
The reason we track the exemptions
related to workforce specifically are because there is an expectation right at
the start of that exemption that this will take some time. These individuals
are in the workforce. They are working full-time as they seek their
certification level. So to support the workforce development, to support that
they get their certification and are eligible for those wage grants, we want to
make sure that we support them through this time period. That is usually the
most extended time period that we see an exemption for. The others are very,
very temporary.
Ms.
Conway: — Thank you. Yeah, I didn’t expect to
ask questions about exemptions. I kind of stumbled into the topic and realized
it’s not something I know that much about. So thank you for those answers.
The
term “public interest,” it comes up in the provision we were just discussing,
and it comes up in other places throughout the Act. And then the new exemption
possibility for parental advisory committees and parental board of directors,
also there’s an opportunity for exemption under where it would cause “undue
hardship.” So that’s kind of a new concept introduced under the Act, so I’m
just wondering if the ministry has a working definition of “public interest”
and “undue hardship.”
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — You know, so the terms that you’ve
outlined, I mean certainly I’d say we have a strong degree of trust in our
consultants in the ministry in terms of helping to evaluate a situation and
determine what is in the public interest. And obviously when we talk about
public interest in the context of early years care, early years education, it’s
really around child safety, right, and ensuring that children have a safe
place, you know, to be going every day.
So you know again public interest in
that regard, that’s obviously one of the key hallmarks is ensuring that
children are safe, whether they’re receiving child care in Moose Jaw or Regina
or Buffalo Narrows, you know.
And when it comes to undue hardship
again I think, you know, again placing a high degree of trust in our
consultants to evaluate situations knowing that there’s going to be situations
that our consultants come across that we haven’t seen yet in other communities
or elsewhere in the province. And you know, the conversation that we had
earlier about continuity of care, right, again we don’t want to create undue
hardship where the continuity of an operation could be affected because again
then that becomes against the public interest in that community, say for
example, right.
So certainly I would say, you know, how
we would define public interest and undue hardship . . . Again I’ve
got a high degree of trust in the consultants and the early years team in the
ministry, as they work through individual situations with individual operators,
to raise issues, you know, where there may be public interest issues or issues
of undue hardship. And then so we can evaluate, you know, if an exemption is
necessary, for example, if we’re going to talk about exemptions or talk about
how we will work with that individual operator to get to a resolution.
Ms.
Conway: — Minister, I’m sure you have every good
reason to trust and put faith in ministry staff and consultants. My question is
a little more straightforward. I’m just wondering if there are guiding
documents that exist within the ministry around how to define and conceptualize
those concepts of public interest and undue hardship.
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Well again I would . . .
Ms.
Conway: — And I guess follow-up to that: do
those documents exist and like, would they be available to share if they do
exist?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Yeah, those guiding documents, you
know, don’t exist in this context, again because our consultants are dealing
with a variety of instances and situations around the province in a variety of
communities. And certainly we don’t want consultants to be in a situation where
they’re not able to work towards what may be public interest in an individual
community. So again I think I do have good reason to trust our consultants to
ensure that those concepts are met.
And I would say too, I mean obviously
there are manuals and other documents in place that child care operators around
the province, you know, work from in terms of understanding how to operate
their facility. And I would say that those manuals do offer some broad guidance
in terms of what is in the public interest for children and families.
Ms. Conway:
— Of course, Minister, under the Act it’s the minister that grants the
exemption under the public interest. So can you speak a little more to how that
public interest is conceptualized under the Act?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — You know, ultimately as the member
points out, I mean authority lies with the minister on exemptions. You know,
certainly there are examples where I’ve delegated that authority to officials
within the ministry who are dealing with operators on a more day-to-day basis.
But certainly when it comes to, you know, me evaluating any exemption or public
interest, obviously as I said earlier, the wellness of the child; the wellness
of the family; certainly the continuity of the child care operation ensuring that
operation, if it is a safe place for child and family, that it can continue to
serve many families in that community.
So you know, again there’s been minor
circumstances where I can think of where, you know, I’ve delegated authority to
officials to deal with the situation, you know, bring someone back into
compliance. Obviously for any larger instance, you know, when it comes to child
safety, that would be my purview and my authority to grant any exemptions if I
deemed them reasonable.
Ms.
Conway: — Thank you, Minister. I want to just
shift gears here for a moment and look at section 18. This is the section of
the Act that deals with situations where a licence can be amended, suspended,
or cancelled if the minister considers it to be in the public interest to do
so.
Sorry, just bear with me for one moment.
So the existing section is amended. This is an interesting change because it
brings about more strict requirements and timelines around how to then deal
with that suspension or cancellation of a licence.
I want to ask you . . . Last
time we had an opportunity to ask questions about this subsection, we spoke
about Grace ministries and their child care facility, and I asked whether their
licence had been cancelled given the pending class action lawsuit related to
Legacy Christian school. And at that time Simbo Olubobokun was still the
director of that child care facility, and the ministry had not seen fit to
suspend or cancel the licence of that child care facility. Is there any update
on that?
[17:00]
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — So the child care facility that
you’ve asked about, it is still licensed. It’s not being operated by those
individuals any longer that are accused in the litigation. Those individuals
are not allowed on the property during any operating hours where there may be
children present.
There’s been increased oversight from
the ministry at that particular facility in terms of ministry staff attending
all the board meetings, you know, increased visits in both announced and
unannounced, unannounced meetings with the parents at the facility. And I would
just, you know, confirm that there’s been no complaints from the parents of the
facility in terms of the quality of care that children are receiving there.
So that site is still operational, still
licensed, obviously with some pretty significant conditions on the operation.
And the licence overall is conditional as well in terms of them continuing to
meet those standards. And again the ministry I would say is, you know
. . . that would be a high degree of involvement from the ministry in
terms of ensuring oversight there.
Ms.
Conway: — So when I last had an opportunity to
ask questions, those conditions were in place and I was told that oversight was
also in place. But Simbo is still the director of that child care facility,
correct?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Yeah, that individual is no longer
on the board, no longer working at the facility, to my understanding.
Ms.
Conway: — No involvement in . . .
okay, okay.
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — And I mean again, sure you can
appreciate that the level of oversight is, it’s important work being done by
the ministry, but it’s not . . . I mean it’s fairly significant work
undertaken by ministry officials to ensure child safety and child wellness
going forward. So I mean those are pretty significant conditions, I would say,
for an operation.
Ms. Conway:
— One of the gaps that I’ve noticed just kind of in consideration of that case,
which at the time I was surprised that it didn’t meet that definition of being
in the public interest to suspend the licence when that class action came
about, and then since then when one of the folks has been charged criminally.
But one of the gaps I’ve identified is just that in terms of certification of
early learning educators . . . Of course the ministry issues those
certifications, and my understanding is that in an unfortunate situation where
an ECE was, for example, convicted or charged with assault or child abuse of
some kind, there actually isn’t a mechanism under the Act to revoke or suspend
those certificates. Can you speak to that, Minister, and maybe why that gap
isn’t addressed under this Act?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — I think there’s a delineation we
need to make clear. I mean the certification piece, it’s kind of like a
. . . And I can’t remember your post-secondary history, but I mean say
you have a B.A. [Bachelor of Arts] and then you commit a crime of some sort.
Nobody can take your B.A. away necessarily. So I mean the certification is
granted when someone provides proof that they’ve completed, you know, X, Y, and
Z.
So where we do have authority to manage
potential risks are really around the operation. So it’s not necessarily the
certification that that gate would be at. It would be at the operation point.
So you know, sure, they still have completed this piece of schooling or this piece
of education. Can’t take that away from somebody; they’ve completed that. But
when it comes to their eligibility to work in the sector, that’s where the
ministry has the ability to restrict that.
Ms.
Conway: — Thank you, Minister. Just backing up
for one moment, the child care facility that we were just discussing, is it
still run by Grace Capstone Ministries?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Yeah, to our knowledge, you know,
and our understanding Grace Capstone Ministries is still the operator, but
those individuals in question are no longer on the board of that organization.
Ms.
Conway: — They’re no longer directors of,
like, the Grace Capstone Ministries? Just not talking here about the child care
centre at all, but Grace Capstone Ministries. They’re no longer involved in
Grace Capstone Ministries?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — That’s our understanding, that
according to ISC [Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan] documents
they’re no longer directors of that organization.
Ms.
Conway: — Is it fair to say that a lot of the
changes or many of the changes we see under this Act are designed to decrease
barriers, be it to expand spaces, to expand access? I think of allowing
. . . You know, we look at subsection (7), which allows child care
centres, for example, the authority to operate more than one facility.
Obviously that’s a common-sense change to allow expansion. And I’m getting head
nods. I think we can agree that a lot of these changes are with an eye to
reducing barriers to some of the goals under the federal-provincial agreement.
And I’ve had a lot of conversations with
your predecessor about, you know, the need to expand spaces and some of the
movement that there’s been on that. And at the time, you know, we talked about
home-based daycares and the fact that they were sort of the low-hanging fruit.
Licensing those facilities was a quick and kind of easy way to expand the
licensed child care spots.
I think it’s fair game to ask about this
because we are opening up the Act very much with this view to expand access. I
sent a letter to yourself and some of the officials back on February 22nd, 2024
about an individual who’s running a home child care facility here in Regina.
And just to kind of provide some context so that folks, you know, reading this
a day or a year or 50 years from now know what I’m talking about, this
individual is running a home child care facility. She’s got eight kids in her
care. I had an opportunity to speak to some of the parents of some of those
kids. They’re very happy with her level of care. She has one of her ECE
designations, I believe.
She was born, I believe, in Cuba — I
hope I’m getting that right — and came to Regina a few years ago. She’s very
committed to staying here. And in an effort to kind of make the child care facility
more sustainable for herself and access supports that would be available to her
as well as make the cost much more manageable for the parents that she was
serving and the families she was serving, she applied to become a licensed
child care facility and went a significant way through that process. And then
also changed homes hoping to get more space, and then was told that she didn’t
meet the definition of “resident” under the Act, the current Act that we’re
talking about.
I’ve gone to that Act, and I tried to
provide examples in the letter that I penned to you of other provincial
legislation where “resident” is not interpreted so strictly as to require
citizenship or permanent residency. There’s lots of examples where that isn’t
the case. And it just seems to me that this is a no-brainer barrier that we
could get rid of.
I’m wondering if there’s been any
thought to that. Does the ministry continue to take the position that
“resident” needs to meet this higher, more stringent definition? Or has there been
any change in terms of opening up a pathway to people like this individual
licensing their home child care operation?
[17:15]
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — So, Ms. Conway, I certainly did
receive your letter and have read through it, you know, the situation, and
tried to brief myself on the details.
Now I would also say that some of the
amendments that we have in front of us today also speak to quality, right,
ensuring quality and safety. I mean there’s many parents in the room here
today. You know, we understand that this is some of the most, one of the most
vulnerable populations that we deal with from a public policy perspective. And
so there is a fine balance, I would say, in terms of, you know, lowering the
barriers but also ensuring that there is adequate safety procedures.
Now when it comes to residency, you
know, and again I don’t want to get into too much casework in committee, but
the challenge with this particular case and the residency requirement is,
obviously we want operators to be able to have a criminal record check and a
vulnerable sector check. But again if people haven’t lived in the country very
long, it’s difficult to have necessarily a high degree of confidence, if you
will, in terms of, you know, a relatively newcomer to our province or our country.
So I would say that’s the challenge in
this specific case. But I do think, Ms. Conway, you have raised with your
letter and this particular situation, you have raised a good point. And I think
it’s something within the ministry we’re trying to see if there’s other avenues
that we can, again, walk that fine balance that we have, and you know, provide
more spaces but do that with the confidence that kids will be safe because
obviously that is in the public interest.
Ms.
Conway: — Minister, on that safety and quality
piece, I think I’m having some difficulty connecting the dots here. Like, this
is an individual who has an early learning designation that she got here. She’s
been here in Regina for three years. She has a degree in early learning
education that she would be required to do a criminal record check and a
vulnerable sector check. It just seems like one more barrier.
And you know, I hear you; you don’t want
to be debating casework in committee. But casework is really important when
we’re talking about legislation because casework represents the on-the-ground
reality of how legislation is making problems better or making problems worse.
And I think this is a situation where it’s made child care for these eight
families — all of whom I think would be willing to speak to you about how happy
they are with the care that they’re receiving — making their situation worse.
If it’s off the table to consider a
change to section 8 as part of these amendments . . . You know, I
would note that legislation often goes years without being updated, so this is
a really good opportunity to do that. You know, an amendment could be
introduced if there’s any issue here, although I think under the way that the
Act is worded, there’s lots of precedent for just your officials giving this a
different interpretation.
And then also there’s the section 28
which we’ve talked so much about, which would grant you the ability to issue an
exemption for this individual, which would sort of negate some of the
floodgates, you know, issues that you’ve identified with wanting to maintain
quality in this sector.
So you know, I urge you to look at that
closely. These real-life situations are where what we do in here, you know
. . . It’s the rubber that hits the road. So this is precisely the
kind of thing we should be looking at when we’re talking about legislation.
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Absolutely, and as I said in my
previous answer, I think you’ve raised a very valid point in this. And again
since your letter, receiving your letter and reading it through, I mean we are
already having discussions within the ministry about where we find that
reasonable place in the public interest.
And I mean like you, I’m very passionate
about casework in my own community because it is where rubber hits the road and
ensuring that we can navigate, you know, existing legislation and regulations
to a place that’s best for the people that we serve every day.
So certainly, you know, we’ll give
section 8 consideration with this particular case and this particular woman in
your constituency. Certainly we’re giving that consideration and understanding,
again, how we support her and the families that she serves every day, but also
again always thinking about, you know, the public interest and just being mindful
of that. So certainly not wanting to stand in the way of families being served
in the province, but just keeping that in mind.
So I will certainly commit to you, Ms.
Conway, we are giving both the long-term and the short-term consideration on
this issue. And I do appreciate you bringing it to our attention because it is
. . . As the workforce in our province changes over time, it may be
an issue that we see in my community in the not-too-distant future, or other
communities. So I do thank you for bringing it forward.
Ms.
Conway: — Thanks, Minister. Thank you for
those words. I hope this case is given some attention. I’ll also note she was
kind of well into the process before this was identified, so it might be
something . . . You know, I think it was a bit heartbreaking for her,
and she made some material changes, relying on the fact that this was a high
likelihood.
I will just say on this specific case,
you know, she’s actually not a constituent. I think she reached out to me in my
role as critic. I’m not sure who her MLA [Member of the Legislative Assembly]
is. But you know, I would note like back when the scandal around Grace Capstone
came about, I believe that the thinking within the ministry was to continue
funding to that daycare because spots were so hard to come by.
And you know, I just think if we can
find a way to give Grace Capstone Ministries that licence and keep them
operating and give them some oversight and keep those spots open, you know,
surely this is a situation that is a real no-brainer, someone with ECE
qualification, with a degree, with a proven track record now of years of
providing really high-quality child care within Regina. It would be a shame, I
think. You know, eight spots is eight spots, and when you look at the fact that
we’re nowhere near our 28,000‑spot goal, you know, everything makes a
difference.
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Point well taken, and I’m not being
dismissive at all. I hope you don’t hear that in my voice. If you can give my
office a bit of time with it, we’ll certainly . . . Again we’re
looking at the short-term need and also the long-term issue that you’ve
identified because I do think they’re both valid. And we’ll certainly endeavour
to find a way forward.
Ms.
Conway: — Thank you, Minister. I actually
don’t have any other questions . . . I do have one question, sorry.
After having said that I have no more questions, I have one more question that
is just a very discrete data point.
Because, you know, we do acknowledge
that some of these changes have been created as an effort to expand licensed
spaces. So on that note, I think the last time I asked about where we were at,
I was told April 2023 that since March of 2021, we had created 2,124
operational spaces and 4,696 . . . Sorry, I forget the word for when
they’re not operational. They’re designated. Is that the word?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Allocated.
Ms.
Conway: — Allocated. Sorry. Yeah, allocated.
Could you just provide an update on those two numbers to date from March of
2021? How many spaces have we created, operational and allocated?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — Yeah. So my numbers here, I have
just until the end of December of 2023. So obviously we’re now in mid-March, so
continuing to work on, but as of December 31st, 2023, 8,656 spaces have been
created and 4,345 are currently operational.
Ms.
Conway: — Thank you, Minister. I have no other
questions. I want to thank the officials that joined us today as well.
The
Chair: — Thank you. Are there any further
questions from other committee members? Seeing none we will proceed to vote on
the clauses. Clause 1, short title, is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried.
[Clause 1 agreed to.]
[Clauses 2 to 12 inclusive agreed to.]
The Chair:
— His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly
of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The Child Care Amendment Act, 2023,
a bilingual bill.
I would ask a member to move that we
report Bill No. 143, The Child Care Amendment Act, 2023, a
bilingual bill without amendment. Mr. Fiaz moves. Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Members:
— Agreed.
The Chair:
— Carried. Minister, do you have any closing comments?
Hon.
Mr. Cockrill: — No. I’ll just thank the committee
and Ms. Conway for your time today and of course you, Madam Chair, as well as
all the staff. Thank you.
The
Chair: — Thank you, Minister. Ms. Conway, any
further?
Ms.
Conway: — No further comments except also to
thank all those who joined us today and you, Madam Chair.
The
Chair: — Thank you.
The committee will now take a brief
pause to change out officials. Thank you.
[17:30]
[The
committee recessed for a period of time.]
Bill
No. 138 — The
Workers’ Compensation (Extending Firefighter Coverage) Amendment Act, 2023
Clause 1
The
Chair: — Welcome. I would like to introduce
Ms. Nicole Sarauer who will be sitting in for Ms. Meara Conway.
We will now move on to consideration of Bill No. 138, the
workmen’s compensation, extending firefighter coverage, amendment Act, 2023.
Minister McMorris is here with his officials. I would ask that officials please
state their names before speaking and please do not touch the microphones. The
Hansard operator will turn your microphone on when you are speaking to the
committee. Minister, please introduce your officials and make your opening
remarks.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — Thank you, Madam Chair. On my left
is Drew Wilby who is the deputy minister. And to my right is Phil Germain, CEO
[chief executive officer] of the Worker’s Compensation Board. And I have other
officials back to my left, and if we call them up to answer they will introduce
themselves and give the answer.
So I’m pleased to be here today to
discuss Bill No. 138, The
Workers’ Compensation (Extending Firefighter Coverage) Amendment Act, 2023.
On October 31st our government introduced Bill 138 which makes several
amendments to The Workers’ Compensation Act, 2013. The amendments came
as a result of the recommendations from the committee of review who engages
employers, employees, organizations, and the public around the legislation and
the Workers’ Compensation system.
This review is conducted at least every
five years from receipt of the last committee’s report to ensure that
Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation system reflects the changing needs of
workers, employers, and communities. This includes changing the definition of
“worker” to remove executive officers and include students in recognized
programs, as well as the ability to add other categories of workers in the
regulations; amend the privacy provision to mirror The Health Information
Protection Act, provide for administrative penalties if a privacy breach
occurs, and simplify the process for releasing information during
reconsideration of or review of a decision or compensation claim; requiring all
appeal tribunal decisions be published; covering the expenses associated with
transporting a deceased worker’s body to the usual residence outside of Canada;
providing compensation to a worker’s dependent children when the worker passes
away from a non-work-related injury while on compensation, no matter the length
of time on compensation; simplify the medical review panel process; increase
the permanent functional impairment award over a four-year period and indexed
afterwards; indexing the independence allowance; and expanding presumptive
occupational disease coverage to firefighters to include six additional primary
site cancers — penile, pancreatic, thyroid, soft tissue sarcoma, mesothelioma,
and laryngeal cancer.
Madam Chair, our government believes
that these amendments will address concerns of injured workers, their families,
as well as ensure the ongoing financial stability of employers. I look forward
to answering any questions from the committee members to address these changes
to The Workers’ Compensation Act.
The
Chair: — Thank you, Minister. I will now open
the floor for questions. Ms. Sarauer.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
Minister, for your opening comments. I have several questions about the bill.
I’m going to try, for ease of all of us, to go through it from the beginning to
the conclusion of the bill as it stands.
My first question is related to section
3 of the bill, which amends subsection 2(1). At subsection (e) the bill is
repealing clause (ff) of the legislation. Can you provide some clarity to the
committee as to why that subsection’s being repealed?
Mr.
Germain: — Phil Germain, WCB [Workers’
Compensation Board]. Can you just clarify the section one more time?
Ms.
Sarauer: — Section 3 of the bill which amends
subsection 2(1) of the legislation, I am looking at subsection (e) which
repeals clause (ff) of the legislation. I was asking why is that being
repealed. It’s related to post-secondary institutions, as a hint.
Mr.
Wilby: — Drew Wilby, deputy minister, Labour
Relations and Workplace Safety. I’ll apologize in advance for my voice. I was
on the hockey bench all weekend, and so it sort of disappeared on me. If you
need me to repeat something, by all means please ask.
So clause (ff) is being repealed, and
it’s actually included in the new section 79.1. As well there’s a new clause
(ff.3) which is added to define the term “SDLC,” which of course is the
Saskatchewan Distance Learning Corporation.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. Can you expand as to why
that’s being repealed?
Mr.
Wilby: — My understanding of that is because
it’s being included in the new section 79.1, so it’s no longer needed in the
existing clause that it’s in in (ff). And so basically the pieces of that are
included as it goes forward through that new section.
Ms.
Sarauer: — And so it’s simply redundant at this
point then.
Mr.
Wilby: — Correct.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. Now as you mentioned,
subsection (g) of section 3 is amending the definition of “worker.” In the new
definition, “executive officer” has been removed. Can you please explain why?
Mr.
Germain: — So in this particular case the
change of the definition is “executive officer.” And in applying that, it’s
hard to define which executive officers are actually working in the business as
a worker, as opposed to being just an independent owner of the business. And so
when we compared our legislation to other jurisdictions, most jurisdictions
don’t cover executive officers or owners of the business. That’s done usually
through a voluntary process.
So we’re still making it available to
owners or executive officers to voluntarily apply to be covered by the WCB, but
it wouldn’t be mandatory. And that’ll make it easier for them to understand the
rules, even for us. Like it’s hard sometimes to figure out when you’re
administering it which situations apply to which circumstances because
executive directors or directors, officers of the corporation are often paid in
very different ways.
Ms.
Sarauer: — You touched on this briefly, but I
would like to know more in detail how this change compares to what exists in
other jurisdictions. Can you give us a bit of a jurisdictional scan?
Mr.
Germain: — Yes, I can. The majority, I think
it’s nine jurisdictions do not cover directors. Three do — New Brunswick,
Newfoundland, and Yukon and Nova Scotia. Sorry, four do and nine do not.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Do you have any data as to how many
times instances of claims by executive officers, like how often has this issue
come up in front of the WCB?
Mr. Germain:
— We don’t have the data in the sense that it’s not clear. When employers
report their payroll, they report it as one number. We don’t know exactly which
workers are covered under which amounts unless we do an audit. So we don’t get
it broken down by worker versus director, so we don’t have that specific data.
Ms. Sarauer:
— How was this flagged to you as an issue?
Mr. Germain:
— Well employers and directors have been bringing this to us, and our own
staff, as an issue for many years. It’s been a very challenging piece of
legislation to apply. This creates a lot of clarity for our staff and for
directors.
Ms. Sarauer:
— So just so I understand, you don’t know for sure how many individuals would
be impacted by this change.
Mr. Germain:
— Not specifically, no.
Ms. Sarauer:
— Okay, thank you.
Hon. Mr. McMorris:
— But I think it would be fair to say that through the review committee it
would have come forward — the latest review — as well as the fact that
directors can opt in or out. They have the choice, so it’s not excluded or
whatever. They have the choice.
Ms. Sarauer:
— It’s voluntary now, correct?
Hon. Mr. McMorris:
— Yes.
Ms. Sarauer:
— Moving on to section 4 of the bill which amends section 7 of the legislation,
it appears that registered mail has been removed. Can you explain why?
Mr.
Wilby: — It’s largely just a modernization of
the legislation. We’ve been asked why we’re not moving towards email and other
electronic means, of course. So just with the changing nature of the times it
made sense to do those housekeeping amendments to the legislation as well.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. Moving on to section 7 of
the bill, which adds section 23.1 to the legislation, can you explain what the
current practice is for publicizing appeal decisions?
[17:45]
Mr.
Germain: — In Saskatchewan?
Ms.
Sarauer: — Yes.
Mr.
Germain: — So in Saskatchewan we don’t
publicize appeal decisions right now.
Ms.
Sarauer: — This appears to leave it a little
broad. In terms of how this will be publicized it says, “. . . in any
manner that the board considers appropriate . . .” Can you explain
why this wasn’t made more prescriptive?
Mr.
Germain: — Well part of the decision that we
have to do is make sure that we’re balancing privacy with transparency in terms
of what decisions were made and why, without necessarily violating an individual’s
privacy in explaining why a decision was made. So there’s a process that we
need to develop. We don’t exactly know today what that process will look like,
and we just need to balance the interests of all parties involved.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Sure, there’s the challenge of
anonymizing decisions, which I think is what you’re talking about, but I’m more
focused on timelines for publishing and how accessible that publication will
be. So where will they be published, and what sort of goal do you have in terms
of making those publicly available? Will it be 30 days after the decision is
rendered, 45 days, 15 days? Will it be on the website? I see that it could
include the website, but will it be on the website? Will it be on CanLII
[Canadian Legal Information Institute]? That sort of thing is what I’m more
focused on.
Mr.
Germain: — You know, and because we don’t have
the process in terms of double-checking the privacy, we don’t know what those
timelines will look like. I mean our objective is to publish them as soon as
possible. And because this is a new process we want to make sure we get it
right from the beginning and make sure that we’re not inadvertently violating
peoples’ privacy as we publish it.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Do you have a timeline for when
you’re going to figure out internally how that process is going to work?
Mr. Germain:
— That will be spelled out through the regulations.
Ms.
Sarauer: — The timeline for how the process is
going to work, or the timeline for how long till publication?
Mr. Germain:
— Both. That’s my understanding, that both will. As indicated, what we will do
is develop the appropriate process first, and then once we understand based on
best practice what . . . because there are other jurisdictions that
are doing this. So we’ll be able to learn from other jurisdictions what they’ve
done, how they’ve done it, and we’ll be able to take that best practice and our
process and then embed that into the regulations once we know what that
actually looks like.
Ms.
Sarauer: — The process will be spelled out in
regulations at a later date, is what you’re saying.
Mr. Germain:
— That’s right.
Ms.
Sarauer: — What is the WCB’s timeline for
finalizing the process?
Mr. Germain:
— We don’t have that right now. We’re working on the process currently in terms
of a legal and policy review, but that process is not in all . . .
We’re waiting for the legislation to pass in order to make sure we know exactly
what will be passed.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Okay.
Mr. Germain:
— And then we’ll . . . We are working on it, but nothing is finished
yet.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. Moving on to section 7
which amends section 28 of the legislation, this is where all of the new listed
diseases are added. We’ve spoken before about how this will set a very positive
precedent for Canada. We’re very much excited about this. We too have heard
from a lot of individuals, firefighters in particular, who have been advocating
for this. It’s a very positive step forward.
Have heard some feedback from wildfire
officers who indicate that there are some cancers that they are exposed to that
are not included in this list. Can you provide some commentary as to why those
have been left out at this time?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — So what I would say is that, you
know, this came forward from the firefighters, professional firefighters. And
the wildfire-fighters have some concern. And so we’ve heard that, and we’ll be
working on addressing those concerns in the real near future. It isn’t in this
legislation, but that doesn’t mean we can’t address it in the next legislative
cycle.
Ms.
Sarauer: — So I’m hearing it’s perhaps in the
works and will hopefully be introduced sooner rather than later.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — I think that’s fair to say.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Okay. Thank you. I’m now looking at
section 9 of the bill, which repeals section 45 of the legislation. Can you
explain why this section has been repealed? It looks like a service requirement
has been removed, and I would like to know why.
Mr. Wilby:
— This again is a modernization piece. The notice is still required. It’s just
the service of notice being that registered mail piece, so it’s all included in
that other section.
Ms.
Sarauer: — So this is another redundant section
now.
Mr. Wilby:
— Correct. Yeah.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. I’m looking at now
section 10 of the bill, which amends section 48 of the legislation. I’m just
curious if you can provide some information as to what the substance of the
change of this section is. It appears to me that it’s adding the employer to
who will be served with reasons — if I’m incorrect, please correct me — and if
that’s the case, why has that change been made?
Mr. Wilby:
— So that again is a modernization. What that’s doing is amending to
standardize the service of documents as per section 178.1.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Has the employer always been served
in the past?
Mr. Wilby:
— I’m seeing a nod from Phil, so I believe the answer is yes.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. I was waiting for that
nod to make it onto Hansard, so thank you for that.
A
Member: — We’ll formalize the nod.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. Okay, I’m moving to
section 11, which amends section 59 of the legislation. This is in relation to
the medical review panel. It appears that some changes are being made which
will make it more difficult for employees to access. Can you explain what change
is being made in this section and why?
Mr.
Germain: — So the changes in this section are
intended to make it easier for injured workers to access medical review panel
by virtue of expanding which doctors in which areas they can access those from,
whether Regina or Saskatoon.
So there’s a series of changes in
sections 59, 60, and 61 which are intended to expedite the medical review panel
process by allowing the Chair to be from Regina or Saskatoon and for the
injured worker to provide a list of the specialists so that we don’t have to
keep going back and forth to the injured worker every time a potential
specialist disagrees to be part of the medical review panel. So the majority of
these changes are intended to make it easier for the worker to get to the
medical review panel.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Is it also correct though to say
that this change will only allow accepted claims to have access to a medical
review panel?
Mr.
Germain: — That’s a clarification. That’s
always been the case. And so it’s a misunderstanding within trying to
. . . Some workers will apply on the issue of acceptance or denial,
but that’s never been the case for a medical review panel. So the legislation
is just making it clearer what the medical review panel is intended for. They
only deal with accepted claims.
Ms.
Sarauer: — So just again to clarify, currently
if WCB denies the initial acceptance of a claim, the worker is not able to
access the medical review panel.
Mr.
Germain: — That’s correct.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Okay, and then this legislation
doesn’t change that.
Mr.
Germain: — That’s correct.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Okay. I’m moving on to section 15 of
the bill, which amends section 66 of the legislation. This is around the awards
for permanent functional impairment. Can you provide some detail as to what the
change is in this bill?
Mr. Germain:
— So with this bill change, what it’ll do is increase the amounts that are
awarded to an injured worker who qualifies for permanent functional impairment,
and it will increase from a minimum of 2,200 to a minimum of 4,000 and will go
from a maximum of 45,200 to 82,200. And it is staged over, I think, four years
of implementation, and then after that it will be indexed to CPI [consumer
price index].
Ms.
Sarauer: — How does this compare with other
jurisdictions?
Mr. Germain:
— This puts us roughly in the middle of the pack.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Was that a concerted policy
decision, to be in the middle of the pack jurisdictionally?
Mr. Germain:
— No, we just simply looked at increases of certain types of benefits over time
and we increased this particular award based on the changes in benefits,
certain other benefits. So proportionally we’ve increased it to where
. . . For example, the average weekly wage went up. Proportionally this
all kind of went up together with that.
Ms.
Sarauer: — I’m wondering if you can provide
some similar information about section 16 of the bill, which amends section 67.
This is around the independence allowance.
Mr. Germain:
— Yes. The independence allowance was not part of the committee of review
recommendations, but when we saw the changes to PFI [permanent functional
impairment] we realized that it would probably be a good idea to index the
independence allowance. Those two issues were normally linked. We delinked them
and then created an opportunity for the independence allowance to be indexed
annually as well.
Ms. Sarauer:
— Can you explain how the independence allowance and the permanent functional
impairment work with the definition of average weekly earnings in section 70?
Mr. Germain:
— It used to be linked to the average weekly wage, but we realized that you
would disproportionately impact low-wage earners for permanent functional
impairment. And we felt that, depending on the degree of impairment, each
worker should receive the same amount regardless of what their base salary is.
So we disconnected it to the average weekly wage which means, regardless of
what you earn, each worker will receive the same amount for permanent
functional impairment.
[18:00]
Ms. Sarauer:
— Thank you. Can you explain, I’m looking at section 17 of the bill which
amends section 70 of the legislation, why this subsection is being added? 70(6)
is the new one.
Mr. Germain:
— This is to address the fact that some secondary and post-secondary students
that are working as part of their education or training, they won’t have a
salary to base their wages or their compensation from. So this gives us the
authority to actually assign a wage to that student if they’re injured so we
can pay them compensation related to their injury.
Ms. Sarauer:
— Thank you. Okay I’m now looking at section 23 of the bill which amends
section 174 of the legislation. Could you please explain why these changes are
being made? It looks like a quicker timeline than what exists in the
legislation currently, so can you provide some reasoning as to why?
Mr.
Germain: — There was a few reasons this was
amended. Some of it was just to create neutral language, communication. But the
main point of the changes here is to improve the timelines around getting
information to either party as it relates to an appeal because time is of the
essence sometimes when you’re talking about getting a decision to the injured
worker, the employer.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Has there been some timeliness
challenges within the WCB?
Mr. Germain:
— The challenge for this is the back-and-forth process and the timelines for
each. So each step allows for up to 15 days for each party, and it can go back
and forth. In total that can add up to 30, 45, maybe 60 days while somebody is
waiting for a decision, and so that can be very challenging. And we’re one of
the very few jurisdictions that allows a rebuttal by an injured worker, let
alone two rebuttals. So we just thought we’d simplify the process for everyone.
Ms.
Sarauer: — And if anybody is wanting to do a
rebuttal, for example, they do have the ability to access the Workers’ Advocate
if they’re having concerns about timeliness, being able to get their
information. Is that correct?
Mr. Germain:
— Yes, the Workers’ Advocate is always available to assist a worker with any
issue they have related to a claim.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. I have no further
questions.
The
Chair: — Thank you, Ms. Sarauer. Are there
any more questions or comments from other committee members? Seeing none, we
will proceed to vote on the clauses.
Clause 1, short title, is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried.
[Clause 1 agreed to.]
[Clauses
2 to 27 inclusive agreed to.]
The
Chair: — His Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: the
workmen’s compensation, extending firefighter coverage, amendment Act, 2023.
I would ask a member to move that we
report on Bill 138, the
workmen’s compensation, extending firefighter coverage, amendment Act, 2023
without amendment.
Mr.
Kaeding: — Move.
The
Chair: — Mr. Kaeding. Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The Chair: — Carried. Minister, do you have any closing comments?
Hon. Mr. McMorris: — Yeah, thank you first of all to the opposition
for the questions, to the government members for making this committee happen,
and to all the officials for the great work that they have done. This is a
very, very important file. It affects a lot of people. You hope it doesn’t, but
it does. And the great work that WCB and Labour do in the province. So thank
you to the committee.
The Chair: — Thank you, Minister. Ms.
Sarauer, do you have any comments?
Ms.
Sarauer: — I’d just like to join with the
minister in thanking yourself, Madam Chair, and the rest of the committee
members for their work. And the officials for answering my questions this
afternoon, first of all, very thoughtfully, as well as all of the work that you
do as well as all of the staff that you represent here for the people of the
province every single day.
The
Chair: — That concludes our business today. I
would ask a member to move a motion of adjournment. Mr. Nerlien. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried. This committee stands
adjourned to the call of the Chair. Thank you.
[The committee adjourned at 18:08.]
Published
under the authority of the Hon. Randy Weekes, Speaker
Disclaimer:
The electronic versions of the Legislative Assembly's documents are provided
for information purposes only. The content of the documents is identical to the
printed record; only the presentation differs unless otherwise noted. The
printed versions are the official record for legal purposes.