CONTENTS
Standing Committee on Human Services
TWENTY-NINTH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan
HUMAN
SERVICES
Hansard Verbatim Report
No.
35 — Monday, April 15, 2024
The Chair: — Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to
the Standing Committee on Human Services. My name is Alana Ross and I’m the
Chair of the committee. Committee members with us this evening are Ms. Meara
Conway, Mr. Doyle Vermette sitting in for Mr. Jared Clarke, Mr. Marv Friesen,
Mr. Hugh Nerlien, Mr. Warren Kaeding, and Mr. Muhammad Fiaz.
General
Revenue Fund
Social
Services
Vote 36
Subvote
(SS01)
The Chair: — Today the committee will be
considering the estimates and supplementary estimates no. 2 for the
Ministry of Social Services. We will take a one-hour recess at 5 p.m. We will
begin with the consideration of vote 36, Social Services, central management
and services, subvote (SS01).
Mr.
Makowsky 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 on your microphone when you are speaking to the
committee.
Minister,
please introduce your officials and make your opening remarks.
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I’m pleased to be here to share the Ministry of Social Services budget
priorities for 2024‑25. To my left is Deputy Minister Kimberly Kratzig.
Tobie Eberhardt is with child and family programs. Devon Exner, income
assistance programs; Grant Hilsenteger, financial and corporate services; Joel
Kilbride, disability programs; Louise Michaud, housing, and president and CEO
[chief executive officer] of Saskatchewan Housing Corporation; and chief of
staff Lee Guse. Other officials are of course there and, if required, will come
forward to answer any questions. They’re mostly executive directors for the
different divisions.
Before
I discuss the Ministry of Social Services budget, I’d like to begin by
highlighting some of the great work in this ministry over the past year and
take this opportunity to thank the many staff for supporting clients every day.
The ministry employees across the province deliver front-line services and work
directly with individuals and families. Services are also delivered in
partnership with Indigenous and community-based service providers. Together
we’re helping people and families with their immediate needs and providing
support as they build a better quality of life.
I’d
like to highlight a few ways where the ministry is making a difference.
In
October the Government of Saskatchewan announced their provincial approach to
homelessness. The integrated approach between Social Services; Health; and
Corrections, Policing and Public Safety provides a continuum of services with
targeted supports in appropriate settings. Since October more than 100 new
permanent emergency shelter spaces have been opened, located in Prince Albert,
Regina, Meadow Lake, La Ronge, and Moose Jaw, and the ministry hopes to develop
additional spaces in Regina and Saskatoon. Seventy-five new supportive housing
units were created in Regina and Saskatoon with a goal of developing 155 units
overall.
To
better support individuals at risk of homelessness, the income assistance
mobile workforce pilot was launched to serve clients where they are. Seeing a
positive impact, income assistance workers are now on site at 26
community-based organizations and locations in Regina, Saskatoon, Prince
Albert, Moose Jaw, North Battleford, Yorkton, and La Ronge.
In
the ’23‑24 budget we raised income assistance rates to provide an
increase in benefits to help people with low incomes, families, and seniors to
meet their basic needs. ’23‑24 was the third year out of our three-year
commitment to increase the seniors’ income plan benefit. The maximum monthly
benefit today is 360. This compares to . . . It was $90 a month in
2007.
Personal
care home benefit increased about $400 per month, and SAID [Saskatchewan
assured income for disability] clients under the age of 65 who live in personal
care homes received up to $684 more per month.
Launch
of the Saskatchewan employment incentive in January of this year is another way
our government is making life more affordable for Saskatchewan families. This
program provides a financial benefit of up to $600 per month to working parents
with low incomes. By helping parents enter and stay in the workforce, this
program will have lasting positive impacts on the quality of life for families
with lower incomes.
Finally
I’d like to highlight two significant pieces of legislation . . .
[inaudible] . . . The Child and Family Services Amendment Act,
2022 received Royal Assent. The bill is anticipated to become effective
this spring, and will improve child welfare services for children, youth, and
families we serve by raising the age of the child from 16 to 18 years of age to
allow youth to be supported as they transition to adulthood; strengthening
language in the Act to enhance family, community, and cultural connections; and
increasing the flexibility of information-sharing disclosure and
confidentiality in the best interests of the child or former child in care who
is now an adult.
On
December 3rd The Accessible Saskatchewan Act came into force. The
purpose of the Act is to remove and prevent accessibility barriers that persons
with disabilities experience. Work is under way to develop the Government of
Saskatchewan accessibility plan by December of this year. A public survey is
open this month to gather feedback to help guide this work.
I’m
pleased to turn to this year’s ministry budget that provides more targeted
investments to meet the evolving needs of clients. The ’24‑25 budget for
the Ministry of Social Services is $1.54 billion, an increase of
112.4 million. That works out to 7.8 per cent over the previous budget.
Highlights include an increase to income assistance benefits; continued
implementation of integrated approaches to respond to homelessness; investments
to rejuvenate social housing and address vacancies; enhancements of services
for people with disabilities; and increases to supports for at-risk
individuals, families, children, and youth.
I’ll begin with the income assistance
increases to support individuals and families with low income as they work to
become more self-sufficient and independent to the best of their abilities. A
$17 million investment will deliver the first full year of the
Saskatchewan employment incentive that provides working families with low
incomes with a monthly financial benefit, supplementary health benefits, access
to discount bus passes, connections to employment supports through the Ministry
of Immigration and Career Training, access to the Saskatchewan housing benefit
through the Sask Housing Corporation.
A 7.4 million investment will increase
Saskatchewan income support benefits for the third year in a row. This 3 per
cent increase will raise monthly benefits by up to $90 a month. Saskatchewan
assured income for disability benefits will also increase by 3 per cent. A
6.34 million investment will raise monthly income benefits by up to $55
per month.
Clients
in both programs who are single, or couples without dependent children will
also benefit from increased monthly earned income exemptions, enabling those
who work to keep more of what they earn. This aligns with the new Saskatchewan
employment incentive program that is targeted to families.
Additionally
the personal care home benefit monthly income threshold will increase by
another $100 this year to help make costs of living in a licensed personal care
home more affordable for seniors.
The
ministry remains committed to supporting individuals experiencing homelessness
and those at risk of homelessness. In ’24‑25, the province will continue
to implement the provincial approach on homelessness, investing
28.9 million, which is an increase the previous budget of
$16.7 million. This includes a 7.2 million increase supporting
ongoing emergency shelter operations across the province and a 9.5 million
capital investment for supportive housing spaces in Regina and Saskatoon.
I
previously mentioned the success of the income assistance mobile workforce
initiative. Pleased to share that this budget provides a $690,000 increase to
expand the program to place up to 10 more ministry employees on site at select
community-based organizations. We’re also expanding trusteeship and money
management supports by approximately 150 spaces. The $250,000 increase will
help more clients across the province to pay their expenses each month. A new
benefit is also being introduced in income assistance to support clients to
secure identification so they have better access to services.
Another
key area of focus is social housing. The Sask Housing Corporation provides
affordable rental options to people and families in 280 communities across the
province who could not otherwise afford adequate, safe, and secure shelter. In
’24‑25, SHC [Saskatchewan Housing Corporation] will invest
83.4 million in repair and maintenance of provincially owned housing
units. This includes an additional 9.6 million in provincial funding to
prevent and reduce vacancies, and respond to the increased demand for social
housing In the coming year, investments will be focused where there is ongoing
demand for those in greatest need, such as major urban centres as well as
northern Saskatchewan.
The
’24‑25 budget also provides additional funding for people with
intellectual disabilities. Additional funding of 10.4 million will support
the changing service needs of current clients and the delivery of residential
and day programs to new clients. A 7.6 million investment will plan and
construct 10 new group homes and one assessment and stabilization home.
The
ministry developed a new quality assurance team to strengthen relationships and
oversight of homes supporting adults with intellectual disabilities. The autism
spectrum disorder individualized funding program will receive a $4 million
increase to continue to meet the needs of children and their families.
Saskatchewan Accessibility Office will partner with the Rick Hansen Foundation
to raise awareness about barriers to accessibility.
The
final area I’ll highlight is increased funding to this year’s budget to improve
services and supports for at-risk families, children, and youth. These
investments include a $2.7 million increase which will support additional
residential care options for children and youth with complex needs, enabling
them to remain in their home communities; 500,000 in new funding to assist
youth transitioning from care to access housing, employment, and educational
opportunities as was recommended by the youth advisory teams.
And
there’s a $375,000 increase to expand intensive in-home services for at-risk
families outside of Regina and Saskatoon to communities where those services do
not exist. The ministry is also providing increased funding to partners
providing support and out-of-home care services. This includes increasing
foster care and extended family care allowance rates, and higher funding to the
fetal alcohol spectrum disorder network as well as mobile crisis services in
Regina, Saskatoon, and Prince Albert.
I
started my remarks today highlighting how the Ministry of Social Services works
in partnership with community-based service providers across the province to
deliver services that enable Saskatchewan people to achieve a better quality of
life. In the coming year, the ministry will provide an additional
13.7 million to third-party service providers it contracts with to
effectively meet the needs of the people we jointly serve.
I
touched the microphone. I hope I . . . We were told not to.
We
truly do not do this work alone. The ministry has many partners of course.
Dedicated ministry employees and community partners work together every day to
help Saskatchewan’s most vulnerable people with their immediate and ongoing
needs by ensuring that people’s basic needs are met while also providing
necessary support as individuals work towards self-sufficiency; supporting
families and their children so they can stay together in safety; providing
access to services for people with disabilities and their communities;
increasing access to safe and affordable housing; and ensuring that children
and youth in care have the support and services to be successful now and in the
future.
Thank
you for listening to the opening comments by myself to the committee. And so we
are ready now, my officials and myself, to answer any questions that may come
forward. Thank you.
The Chair: — Thank you, Minister. I will now open
the floor for questions. I recognize Ms. Conway.
Ms.
Conway:
— Thank you, Chair. Minister, approximately how many people from executive
level of government to front-line workers work within the Ministry of Social
Services, including the political staffers that staff your office?
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — I’ll handle part of the answer and
then I’ll pass it along to Ms. Kratzig. In the political office here at the
legislature, there are six staff members.
[15:45]
Ms. Kratzig: — And in the ministry there are 1,911
FTEs [full-time equivalent] in ’24‑25.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you. Minister, you’ll recall
the controversy that broke out in November of 2023 when Evelyn Harper was
staying at the Sunrise. We had a number of questions around hotel use, hotel
use policy by the Ministry of Social Services. And then on February 8th, 2024,
I was going to say you penned a letter, but I believe it was . . .
yeah, it was Ms. Kratzig penned a letter with some of the data points that we
were looking for.
Did anyone else in the civil service
assist with compiling those numbers, outside of the Ministry of Social
Services?
Ms.
Kratzig:
— No. No one outside of the public service.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you. As part of that letter
penned by Ms. Kratzig there’s an outline of what has been spent, total hotel
expenditures by the Ministry of Social Services in both income assistance and
child and family program streams. In the 2018‑19 fiscal year, the total
spent was roughly 1.7 million. In the 2019‑2020 year, the total was
roughly 1.3 million. In the 2020‑21 year, it was roughly
1.38 million. 2021‑22 year, it was roughly 2.7 million. And
then the last year where we have a number that covered a full-year span is ’22‑23
where over 3 million was spent.
And
then I’ll also note — I’m referring here to appendix B of that letter — that
the expenditures out to Sunrise for those same time frames were 2018, $282;
2019, $1,027; 2020, $12,931; 2021, $37,041; big jump in 2022 at $220,474.
I’m wondering, Minister, if you have an
updated number on total hotel expenditures for the 2023‑24 year, and the
total that was . . . just to complete that column regarding the
Sunrise as well. Because of the nature of the time that we got this letter, you
provided us data for the 2023‑24 years from April to September, so we
only got half of that year. Do you have that updated information today? And if
so, can you tell me what those two global numbers are: hotel expenditures
generally, and then what was paid out to the Sunrise Motel?
Mr. Exner: — Thank you. Devon Exner, assistant
deputy minister, income assistance. All right, just before I answer your
question, I’ll just go back. And I believe that you indicated that in 2018‑19
the total expenditure was 1.7 million. Our record has that it was
1.166,605. So just wanted to clarify that.
Ms.
Conway:
— Thank you. I rounded up one decimal too soon: 1.17. You’re correct. Sorry
about that.
Mr. Exner: — With the fiscal year just ending we
do not have further information regarding the final total for the fiscal year
of ’23‑24.
Ms.
Conway:
— Minister, can you undertake today to provide me with those updated numbers as
soon as you’re in receipt of them?
Hon.
Mr. Makowsky:
— I don’t believe we were asked for that at any point in the past, so that
information has not been compiled. And if you’re asking if we will, we can take
a look at that, see if we can get that.
Ms.
Conway:
— Yeah, I guess I’m just asking for it now because back when we got this, I
recognized that was the most up-to-date information you would have had. And I
guess, you know, I’m just a sad opposition MLA [Member of the Legislative
Assembly] so I don’t know how these things necessarily work but, you know, when
I grab . . . I see everyone working very diligently in that
department. When do you usually have those year-ends available to you? Like
when do you think you can get the information?
Ms.
Kratzig:
— Thank you. So as you’ve referenced the letter, the February 8th letter, you
would know that we have implemented a couple of improvements to how we work
with the hotel sector.
First
we’re implementing a new formal process to obtain quotes from three hotels. And
we also have issued an RFP [request for proposal] to implement a one-year pilot
project to look at the concept of damage deposits. We would plan to — after a
year of operating in our new three-quote system and having an RFP that’s
awarded, which hasn’t been yet — we would then evaluate the numbers for the end
of ’23‑24. So that was our time frame to get those numbers.
Ms. Conway: — Sorry. You can’t get me that number
till a year from now?
Ms.
Kratzig:
— That would be when we were planning to track those numbers.
Ms.
Conway:
— Could you get them sooner?
Ms.
Kratzig:
— Thank you. So we don’t currently have that information. Our teams are
working, again in the two areas of improvement that we’ve talked about in terms
of getting the best . . . the three-quote system, the RFP. So we do
not currently have plans to track those ’23‑24 numbers until we’re doing
an evaluation of the new processes.
Ms. Conway: — So it’s not that you can’t get this
information sooner; I’m hearing that you won’t get this information to me
sooner. Can you clarify, Minister?
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — I don’t think it’s a matter of
won’t. I think it’s concern around implementing the new policy, getting things
going, and of course with limited resources within the ministry and other
important work going on besides hotels or whatever. But if this is the will of
the committee, the ministry can look into those. And in terms of a time frame,
it’s tough to put an exact number on it. But if the committee wishes so, that
can be undertaken in the next couple of months, I think.
Ms. Conway: — Minister, when you wrote this letter
it was February. It was early February. You provided me numbers up until, like
till the end of September. So that was a three-month turnaround. Is it safe to
assume that kind of timeline would be reasonable for this update? I think this
needs to be a priority.
You
know, this is a hotel owned by a government MLA. People have questions, rightly
so. It also looks like hotel expenditures are trending upwards. It looks like
expenditures at this government MLA-owned hotel are trending upwards. You know,
I think it’s important to prioritize this for the people of Saskatchewan given
that there are a lot of questions around not only the fact that this is a
government-owned hotel, but also just how is housing policy functioning more
generally.
When
the story first broke, you said that hotel use was trending down. That turned
out not to be the case. That speaks to policies that aren’t working very well,
if we’re having to rely more and more on emergency hotels.
So
I’m really glad to hear that the ministry has adopted new policies around
hotels. I still think that from an accountability, transparency perspective we
need to close this loop on everything that went down, up until hotel policy and
this government’s approach to hotels changed.
[16:00]
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — So I’ll just start off and then I’ll
get Mr. Exner to clarify a few things. But in terms of priority, you know, I’d
say within the ministry there are many things that are going on as well as the
Housing Corporation. That may be your priority, this particularly narrow focus
on hotels, but I certainly as the minister have many priority areas — child and
family, CLSD [community living service delivery] clients, family reunification,
in-house supports to keep families together — and so frankly those do take a
higher priority from my perspective. However we’ll take your suggested timeline
and take that under advisement.
But
in terms of the . . . I think you’ve misrepresented what I may have
said in the House that was on the income assistance side. That was the
information I had at the time. But like I said, I’ll turn it over to Mr. Exner
to clarify in terms of usage over time.
Mr.
Exner:
— Thanks, Minister. Yeah, so the numbers that were previously quoted, and I
believe as part of this committee as well last year, we had referenced about
$1 million in expenditures in ’21‑22 and $0.85 million in ’22‑23,
and those were related to individuals that could not access an emergency
shelter. So those stats were more readily available and were tracked, so that
was the information that was provided.
Of
course there’s a whole number of reasons why the ministry, rarely, provides
funds for clients to stay in hotels. There’s a variety of circumstances that do
occur: so they’re at risk of homelessness; they’re seeking safety due to
interpersonal violence; currently living in unsafe living conditions; to facilitate
family visits; participating in family reunification; maintaining family
contact and/or cultural case planning; attending health care appointments
outside of their home community; supporting foster parents and extended family
caregivers with children in care to participate in recreation, school, or
cultural activities; and facilitating Opik which includes travel and
accommodations for elders and the cost of the meeting rooms to host Opik.
Ms. Conway: — Minister, I understand there are a
number of reasons to use hotels. Can you break out any of that information for
me? Do you track why you’re using hotel rooms other than through the specific
streams? If you do, I’d love to see that information.
I guess, Minister, this does paint a
picture. You know, every single year that expenditure goes up. What do you take
from that as the Minister of Social Services? How do you interpret those
numbers?
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — Your question I believe was to me
about, in terms of interpreting those numbers. We have seen, as Mr. Exner
talked about, a decrease in the income assistance. I think that somewhat has to
do with the investments that the government’s made in terms of increasing in
shelter spaces and supportive living and those sorts of things.
And
as we go further along that, as we hope to open more beds and more spaces — as
well as my colleague from Mental Health and Addictions, Minister McLeod; the
work going on there — hopefully that will continue to decrease or maintain a
steady rate. But acknowledging there are challenges out there, you know, on the
homeless side of things, in emergency situations, hotels are used, as you know.
In
terms of the child and family side, I’ll get the two ADMs [assistant deputy
minister] to talk a little bit more about that. I would say it’s good work that
is occurring. And if a hotel happens to be a place where it’s a gathering point
or a place to stay for whatever it might be, family reunification
. . . And I hope the committee wouldn’t put words in my mouth that
it’s a good thing. Of course we’d love to have a situation where there’s no
children in care or a need for reunification. Of course that’s the case.
But
this is a challenging environment or situation we’re in and seeing more
children come into care over time. But again good work is happening to
hopefully reverse some of those things and hotels are one of the things needed
to do that. So I’ll turn it over to Mr. Exner, and then to Ms. Eberhardt.
Mr. Exner: — Thank you.
Yeah, so as previously stated our overall expenditures when folks couldn’t get
into an emergency shelter was $1 million in ’21‑22, and
0.5 million in ’22‑23. So the number is decreasing. This year we do
believe that we will be projected right around that same value of $850,000 as
we kind of continue to work through that.
So
all in all we are still forecasting that number to be about $0.85 million.
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — And then, Ms. Eberhardt, on the
child and family side.
Ms. Conway: — Sorry, can I just . . .
Sorry. I just missed the numbers, Mr. Exner, the first numbers you gave. Can
you repeat those before we move on?
Mr.
Exner:
— So for individuals that could not access an emergency shelter, it was
approximately $1 million in ’21‑22 and 0.85 million in ’22‑23.
And we’re projecting for ’23‑24 to be roughly about 0.85 million.
Ms. Conway: — Sorry. Yes.
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— Tobie Eberhardt, assistant deputy minister for child and family programs.
[16:15]
Within
child and family programs we know that our hotel costs have been going up. One
of the things that we’ve done that sort of has impacted that was in 2021, we
implemented a new policy called ensuring family, community, and cultural
connections.
And
that policy requires for every child in care, if they’re First Nations or
Métis, that we’re working with their home First Nation or Métis community to
develop a cultural case plan for them. And as part of that it might have them
having family visits more frequent, attending their home community for certain
cultural events.
And
in addition to that we have really been focusing on our Opiks, which is a
dispute resolution process that we’ve been trying to use instead of a court
process for families. And as part of that we need to bring groups together,
usually in a meeting room. We bring elders to that, the family, whoever their
supports are. And that can be up to a five-day event. So we’ve seen that cost
going up as well.
Ms. Conway: — Ms. Eberhardt, to what extent do a
lack of placements impact using hotel rooms for apprehended children and youth?
Is that a driver of hotel use?
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— We don’t use hotels for children’s placements. But there would be times that
children maybe are placed in a different community and we’re bringing their
families to visit them or their families are living somewhere else. So
sometimes children are placed with extended family in a different community.
And so we’re using hotels to have their parents come visit them, or the other
way around.
Ms.
Conway:
— In situations where you don’t have a spot for a child or youth, be it in a
group home or you can’t find a foster placement or an extended family member,
you don’t use hotels in that situation?
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— It’s been very rare that we’ve ever had to use a hotel in the last few years
for placement, and it would be because of something unusual such as bad weather
and that they weren’t able to travel somewhere. We work with our community
partners, and our Indigenous partners have really been helpful when we’ve
required placement. They are usually able to help us develop something in an
emergency, so we haven’t had to rely on hotels as a placement option.
Ms. Conway: — So the main, like this steep
. . . sorry, maybe steep isn’t fair. But this increase in hotel
reliance in the family and children services stream is mostly just due to
accommodating visits and elders? Yes?
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— Yes, and ensuring children are getting connected and attending their home
communities for events.
Ms.
Conway:
— Minister, I understand that you are trying to distinguish from these two
streams — the income assistance versus the child and family services stream.
But in my experience, if there is an open child and family services file,
you’ll often use that funding stream to address the need for an emergency hotel
in a situation of homelessness or housing insecurity.
So I guess I’m struggling to understand.
I guess my first question is, do you acknowledge that? Do you agree that these
numbers captured by child and family services also capture housing and
homelessness issues in addition to the income security stream?
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— So within child and family programs, our first priority is always to support
families to stay safely together. And so we do use hotels to prevent children
from having to come into care if the family does not have safe housing. It’s
not the majority of . . . Like I think when we look at, really, our
use more around the Opiks and around the cultural case planning and family
visits. But we will use hotels to keep families together.
Ms.
Conway:
— Minister, do you have any data to support, you know, these claims? Like are
you breaking down the reason for hotel use? Because I had understood the data
that you collected wasn’t this nuanced. But if you have this data, like can you
tell me what you have and can you provide it?
Ms.
Kratzig:
— Thank you. As you’ll recall when this issue started being discussed, the
minister directed the ministry to look into Sunrise expenditures over the past
five years. And that is information that we would be able to break down by
child and family and income assistance. We don’t have that information more
broadly.
Ms. Conway: — Okay, but that wasn’t my question.
My question was further to that because, you know, Evelyn Harper, that’s a
perfect example of what I’m talking about. She was evicted — so it was a
housing issue, a homelessness issue — but that hotel was covered through child
and family services.
[16:30]
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — I’ll get the two assistant deputy
ministers to talk, but in terms of something that you had said, it was
something along the lines of “nothing to see here,” I think. I’m not sure where
that came; I haven’t said that. Officials have worked very hard to come up with
the information that has been asked for, and so they appear as they are.
I
think I’ve acknowledged there are certainly challenges out there in our
province, and we’re working very hard to try and address those in this budget
and in previous budgets. It’s certainly not a panacea by any means. And hotels
are used when needed, oftentimes in emergency situations where shelters are
full. So I’m not sure I’d characterize it that way, but I’ll turn it over to
ADM Exner and then Eberhardt to answer the other part of the question.
Mr.
Exner:
— Thank you. As outlined in the letter sent by Deputy Minister Kratzig on
February 8th, it does outline the policies for income assistance as it relates
to hotel usage. So we do have short-term emergency supports that are available
to clients when they need, due to unforeseen situations or circumstances.
There’s also procedures around that, around authorizing the approval of the
stay.
There
are travel benefits that are available for those clients if they have to travel
outside of their current residence. And then those that are coming from another
province or maybe leaving to go to another province for some reason that
require a hotel stay, there’s a policy for that as well. Each of those payments
is made directly off the client file, and they are not categorized that we can
easily report on that information.
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— And within child and family programs, under our child protection policy we
can use hotels in exceptional circumstances to maintain a family unit and
prevent children from coming into care. So we would know when we use that
policy, but we wouldn’t necessarily know the circumstances. So it could be the
family had some kind of backup sewerage and they need to get out of the house
for a couple of days. It could be that they didn’t have safe housing. It could
be they were fleeing a domestic violence situation. So the policy is pretty
broad, but the detail, you know, it would be the caseworker and their
supervisors that would know more the detail of why we’ve used that.
We
also have a policy around using hotels, costs associated with this. This is for
children in care. And that could include food, transportation, accommodation.
So again we would know under what policy we made a payment, but the details,
we’d have to go again talking to the caseworker or going into our system to see
more the minute details of that.
And
we also have a policy around using hotels, as mentioned before, for Opik. So
there’s a certain section of our policy that allows that. And we have policy to
allow us to use accommodations for children in care for recreational
opportunities, and then also around allowing so children can have visits with
their families. So we have distinct policies, but again you would have to go in
to see the specific details.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you. And I guess that is kind
of what I was getting at. I have received a lot of information on, you know,
the policies and what’s available, what circumstances may cause people to
access hotels. But as they say, the devil is in the details in terms of what is
driving these numbers and what is driving the increase. And it sounds like we
don’t actually know. We have a partial picture. We don’t have a full picture.
And
I think I gave the example of Evelyn Harper. That was a hotel expenditure made
in the child and family services stream, but that was due to an eviction. It
was due to houselessness.
And I guess, Minister, you know, you
push back against my comment of “nothing to see here.” I guess what I’m getting
at is it sounds to me like . . . I guess I’ll pose this in another
way. Is it a controversial statement, in your view, to say that homelessness is
going up in Saskatchewan?
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — I think the member of the committee
asked if this is a contentious issue or is it a controversial thing to say,
that homelessness is a challenge. No, I don’t think that’s the case at all.
There are certainly challenges in our province. There’s challenges in Alberta;
Manitoba; BC [British Columbia]; every state in the nation, California in
particular. And so we’re dealing with complex issues and challenges, just like
many across our nation.
In
terms of, you know, knowing an exact number, that can certainly be a challenge,
the number of people experiencing homelessness. I know there’s point-in-time
counts, and that’s done by the third-party CBO [community-based organization]
sector.
But
I can certainly tell you what we are doing because we know there are challenges
out there. We’re taking a coordinated approach — I talked about this in my
opening comments — about the need for increased shelter spaces. We often hear
it, the conversation around homeless camps and, well if they’re not here, what
do we do with these individuals. So we need spaces for them. We’re trying to
increase the amount of shelter spaces here in our province by 100, and that is
directly in this budget, being supported. It includes supportive living. That
is also contemplated in this budget, as I said in my opening comments.
Complex-needs
emergency shelter is another avenue. These are two 15‑bed spaces here in
Regina and Saskatoon for those most complex of individuals who are experiencing
their challenges. Mental health and addictions are often the two most dealt
with on the homeless side of things, you know. Large investment in those two
facilities, 24‑hour facilities that are essentially medical facilities.
And
those are meant again for those most complex of individuals who have, maybe
have been banned from various shelters or various organizations because of
whatever the case may be. It might be behaviour. It might be other things. And
so those two facilities are meant to fill that gap.
Some
of the other things that we’re working on: increasing the amount of funding to
the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation on the repair of units to get those turned
over as quickly as they can. I know that’s been a challenge over the last
several years with those units, and I’m sure we’ll get into that later. So
maybe I’ll save my comments for that a little bit later.
Outreach
services. We have organizations like the Saskatoon Tribal Council. We’re
funding outreach with the sawêyihtotân project. We’ve been partners with that
community outreach to try and meet individuals where they are in the community
to help get them to the many supports that are out there as well as, again in
talking in my opening comments about some of the work we’re doing in the income
assistance side, for having those outreach individuals on the income assistance
casework side to be at different facilities. We want to expand that.
But
I think what I’m trying to say here is there is a lot of things the provincial
government is doing to try and help individuals when they do come forward
needing help. And that work is continuing all the time with, again, our
partners in the CBO sector who do great work each and every day.
So
absolutely it’s a challenge, I acknowledge that. And many of the things in
government we’re doing, not only from MSS [Ministry of Social Services] side
. . . I talked about that coordinated approach with Corrections and
Policing, with my colleague in Mental Health and Addictions, and of course the
Health side. So we’re all on the human services side of things trying to help
these situations, and again avoiding some of those higher cost services. I think
that when people don’t have a place to go, they often find themselves in those
situations as well.
[16:45]
So
is the job complete? By no means, but I think this government is showing that
we care about the situation, number one. The folks in this room care a lot
about it. They’ve committed their working lives to make things a little better,
and we should be thankful and acknowledge that. But to say job complete or
there isn’t more to do, obviously I hope I didn’t give the committee that
indication at all.
Ms.
Conway:
— Minister, my question was not whether homelessness is a challenge. My
question was whether homelessness is going up. You referenced the point-in-time
counts. Those suggest that homelessness is indeed going up across the province
in not small ways, in significant ways. Do you as Minister of Social Services
acknowledge that homelessness is getting worse?
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — So in terms of the member’s
question, you know, is homelessness getting worse? You know, I think the
numbers, it wouldn’t surprise me the next point-in-time the numbers go up,
globally the number going up just like it has in many jurisdictions around our
world. I’d say the complexity that is sort of . . . anecdotally I’m
hearing about that as well, the complexity of individuals and their challenges
they are facing.
But
you know, in terms of an individual, I would hope that there are opportunities
for things to be less worse for an individual, and some of those investments I
talked about, having a place for them to stay, maybe getting some of those
wraparound supports available to them if they so choose. And again I’ll get ADM
Michaud to talk about some of things we’re trying to track with the provincial
approach to homelessness in a second here. Again difficult to say an exact
number as things go along, but in a general sense the numbers are increasing.
But in an individual sense I hope there is some hope for people out there
working with the CBO sector, working in the health system, for example on a
recovery.
I
think that’s certainly the way out for many individuals experiencing a
challenge is to be able to, you know, find a better path, whether that initial
point is at a homeless shelter, whether that’s at a complex-needs emergency
shelter, whether that’s a supportive living environment. Hopefully there can be
those . . . Again like I said, I might be repeating myself a bit
here, but those wraparound supports can hopefully make things better for an
individual and having those supports available.
So
in terms of getting worse, I’d say the numbers are going up, but hopefully if
someone is able to connect and wanting to connect — I think that’s an important
aspect of this as well — there are more options. There are more doors. There
are more facilities. There are more caseworkers. There are more CBOs in this
space. Thank goodness for them. You know, things are getting a little bit
better because of those supports out there for individuals that choose to take
those supports.
So
a lot of work to do. I think we are actively working on it, made some
significant investments. Is it case closed, game over? Absolutely not. And
there’s certainly more to do. But I want to get ADM Michaud to talk about some
of the numbers we’re tracking to get a little context around this thing.
Ms. Michaud: — Louise Michaud, assistant deputy
minister for housing. What we want to accomplish with the provincial approach
to homelessness is to make sure that we bring all of government’s services to
bear on the situations that people are facing. And to that end, we have had a
very strong governance and collaboration among ministries, as Minister Makowsky
noted with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Corrections, Policing and
Public Safety.
We
have an oversight committee of assistant deputy ministers that, you know,
oversees the approach, the provincial approach to homelessness. The reason that
we were doing it this way is because we recognize that there’ll be no one
ministry that’s going to be able to provide all of the services that one individual
or a group might need to respond to their homeless situation. And what we need
to be able to do is wrap those services around, and more so as the
implementation of the provincial approach to homelessness proceeds. This is of
course the 155 supportive housing units and the 100 new shelter spaces which
are, you know, a combination of enhanced emergency shelters and basic emergency
shelters.
But
we will be developing a comprehensive evaluation framework so that we are able
to understand what the outcomes that we are achieving through this service
delivery model. So we’ll be looking to understand what is the impact of this
service on an individual’s use of other services, and an individual’s need for
emergency health care versus being able to access primary health care. We’re
going to be looking at, you know, people’s progress in acquiring and
maintaining stable housing and making sure that we understand that stable
housing will look different for people depending on their needs.
So
we’ll be working through the continuum of housing, whether that be, you know,
shelter spaces while that’s all a person is ready or able to access through the
supportive housing continuum for some individuals, to social housing or
potentially independent market housing. But we’ll be tracking, at the
individual level, what the impacts of the services they’re receiving are.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you. I just want to go back to
that February 8th letter from Ms. Kratzig. You know, we had a little discussion
about questions I haven’t asked before. One of the questions I have asked
before is Thriftlodge expenditures going back six years.
And
just for some context, we didn’t make that ask originally because we didn’t
have the information that we received on February 8th, that one of the top
three utilized hotels by the ministry was the Thriftlodge. And then we learned
that Mr. Grewal, member for Regina Northeast, is an investor in that hotel.
Do you have that information today? If
not, can you speak to why not? It seems that you’ve done a lot of number
crunching here. Like you’ve provided the expenditures out to that hotel, at
least for the past two years you’ve looked at it. So wondering what the holdup
is, and if you can speak to that. And wondering when we can get that
information. Ideally we’ll get it today.
[17:00]
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — Madam Chair, we will provide those
answers. I believe we have an agreed-upon break time for the next hour. But
after that we can provide most of the information I think the member asked for.
The Chair: — Thank you, Minister. So it now being
5 p.m., we will recess until 6 p.m.
[The
committee recessed from 17:02 until 18:00.]
The Chair: — Welcome back, committee members. We will
now resume consideration of estimates and supplementary estimates no. 2
for the Ministry of Social Services. I would like to remind the officials to
please identify themselves for the record before they speak. I recognize the
minister.
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Prior to the supper break, there was some questions asked about Thriftlodge
motel. Prepared to table those with the committee this evening and I will do
that right away here.
I
think in terms of the numbers the member brought forward . . . I’ll
get officials to talk about the procurement and how that is handled. But when
concerns were brought forward by the member and some of these things were
brought to light, I asked officials to look into the process of procurement and
see how we could maybe do things better. This certainly isn’t a — what’s the
right word? not indictment — not a criticism of mobile crisis workers who do
extremely difficult work in very difficult circumstances and situations. That
is not what that is meant to imply by any means. We’re very thankful for our
third-party providers. They make very difficult decisions in not a lot of time.
So
the new process, and again I’ll get Mr. Exner to elaborate on this
significantly, but asked officials how we can do things a little bit better in
terms of maybe taking some administration pressure off of our front-line
workers and having that done. But in a general sense, wanted to make things a
little better, keeping in mind that at the end of the day we want to provide
services to vulnerable people in oftentimes difficult and emergency situations,
particularly on the income assistance side.
But
I’ll turn it over to Ms. Kratzig and Mr. Exner to talk a little bit more about
procurement previously and the changes we’re proposing that I’ve somewhat
outlined publicly, but a chance to dive into those maybe a little bit more here
tonight.
Ms.
Kratzig:
— Thank you. Kimberly Kratzig, deputy minister. You know, the ministry’s
priority is really about safety and well-being of individuals, children, and
families. And that is sort of our guiding light in all of this. We balance, you
know, the safety, the urgency of needing a room, etc., the cost-effectiveness,
how we can best support people.
As
you know, the minister directed us to do a review of our policies to make sure
that we were transparent and open about how we were procuring hotels. I think
it’s really important to note that at no point in any of our use of hotels has
the Minister of Social Services ever directed placement of an individual in any
hotel. That is done by our front-line workers. That is done by our third-party
service providers. That is not something that the Minister of Health has ever
been involved in, and I think it’s just important to really put that on the
record. Pardon me, the Minister of Social Services. I spent a bit of time at
Health, so old habits . . . The Minister of Social Services.
So
as you know, we did do a review of sort of how we were procuring hotels and we
did identify areas for improvement. One of the key things that I talked about
earlier and Devon will elaborate on is we have implemented a formal process
internally to ensure that we are obtaining at least three hotel quotes from
each of the major cities: Regina, Saskatoon, Prince Albert, and Moose Jaw.
Caseworkers are using the lowest cost hotels when they are available, with
consideration for things like the client’s safety, the need, and circumstances.
So that has been implemented.
We
also are implementing a one-year pilot project by publicly procuring a block of
five rooms in each of Regina and Saskatoon at a confirmed rate. We’ll also be
including a damage deposit option guarantee for that stay. And that one-year
pilot will really allow us to evaluate cost-effectiveness of this approach. And
I know we’ve had discussions about our use of damage deposits and their
potential impact on what we have been paying previously. So we’re really
looking forward to seeing the results of that RFP process which is under way.
I’ll
maybe just conclude by saying that we are also working really closely with the
Provincial Auditor and have provided information and look forward to their
findings and any recommendations on improvements that they may have in terms of
how we utilize hotels. But again I really want to reiterate for the record that
the Minister of Social Services has played no role in the placement of
individuals in hotels in the experience of any senior official in the ministry
that has been involved in this. So that really is handled by front-line workers
and third-party service providers.
Devon
will now give a bit more detail on sort of how we have worked with hotels in
the past and what we’re doing currently and going forward.
Mr. Exner: — Thank you. As Deputy Minister
Kratzig outlined, the hotel policies that we had in income assistance and child
and family programs are decades old, are very long-standing provisions, and as
we conducted our review there was an opportunity to improve on those.
So
we implemented a hotel-quote procedure on March 1st, 2024 to improve our
procurement practices. So the procedure that we created and implemented was
really collecting price quotes from hotels, and again that was to meet the
immediate needs of our clients but also ensure that we were using public funds
as best we can.
So
ministry staff maintain a list of hotel providers that are accepting referrals
from both child and family programs and income assistance programs in Regina,
Saskatoon, Prince Albert, and Moose Jaw. Twice a week we have ministry staff —
these are central ministry staff — that are contacting these hotels to obtain
price quotes in each location. So that occurs twice a week. Hotels in each
location are contacted on a rotational basis. That way we ensure that we’re
reaching out to multiple hotels.
So
the price-quote lists are then shared with our child and family staff and our
income assistance staff and after-hours service providers, as those individuals
are the ones that will be reaching out to confirm availability when a hotel
room is needed. So the new procedure is really an improvement to our overall
ministry’s hotel procurement process as it helps to ensure that the lowest
price options are utilized when appropriate for the client’s need.
And
as Deputy Minister Kratzig identified, there are situations where clients can’t
be placed in certain hotels, whether that’s due to behaviour or there is
multiple people staying there or it’s a family versus a single that may have
some complex challenges. So you know, we do our best to ensure that we’re not
only supporting our clients but also ensuring that the public is safe and that
we’re thinking about those things as we’re booking hotel rooms.
I
think, you know, we’re very hopeful that this will expand the number of hotels
that will be working with us as we develop those relationships, as we continue
to reach out and have those conversations twice a week. And again just, you
know, that rotational approach where we’re ensuring that we’re placing clients
appropriately and then working with them as we conduct ministry business week
to week, month to month.
So
that kind of outlines the three-quote process and at the same time we also are
implementing our one-year pilot as it relates to booking a block of hotel rooms
in Regina and Saskatoon through a request for proposals process.
So
we posted the RFP, or request for proposals, on SaskTenders on March 1st, 2024.
It closed at the end of March and we are currently looking at that information.
So the RFP will select one hotel or motel in each location, being Regina and Saskatoon,
to provide five rooms every night for the duration of the agreement at a single
fixed rate for all nights. This will really allow us to ensure safe shelter for
very vulnerable IA [income assistance] individuals and families. So I just want
to be clear that this pilot is specifically targeted towards income assistance
clients.
We
will establish a process with the successful hotel or motel to assess, verify,
and cover the damages of up to $200 per stay if incurred by the clients. The
successful hotel or motel, they will be required to submit documentation that
shows damages as per the process defined by our ministry. So we will be working
with the successful proponent on that process.
Once
the process comes to be, we will be conducting an evaluation of this pilot
which will assess the cost-benefit, the efficiency, potential innovations,
longer term viability, and possibly expansion if deemed successful. And that
will all be done after one year.
Ms. Conway: — The question was about the
Thriftlodge and the expenditures over the past six years. I thought you were
going to answer some of that, Minister.
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — We’re prepared to table the
information.
Ms. Conway: — Oh, great. Minister, while we’re
just getting that document copied and distributed . . . So the new
policy and the new pilot are not live at this time. Is that correct?
Mr.
Exner:
— At this time we have started the three-quote process so we’re working through
that. The RFP just closed so we are just receiving that information back
through SaskBuilds and Procurement, and our team will be evaluating proposals
here shortly.
Ms. Conway: — So in terms of the block-holding
rooms, that’s not begun yet or that has?
Mr.
Exner:
— There’s a process to follow when going through the request for proposals
process. So the competition closed. We have received the submissions. So the
evaluation team in concert with SaskBuilds and Procurement will now evaluate
the proposals. Part of that is potentially doing reference checks, and
obviously then coming back with the final results of that which then lead into
establishing a contract with the successful proponent.
The Chair: — I wish to table the following
document: HUS 32‑29, Ministry of Social Services: Responses to questions
raised at the April 15th, 2024 meeting. Copies will be here in a moment for
committee members.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you,
Chair. According to Public Accounts, the directions of the Public Accounts
Committee is that all expenditures to specific payees greater that $50,000 must
be listed in volume 2 of Public Accounts. Is the Ministry of Social Services
now going to begin to list hotels that they use in excess of $50,000 a year?
Ms.
Kratzig:
— Since the mid‑1990s, supplier payments made for accommodations and
other supports under large, high-volume programs of a confidential and personal
nature, such as income assistance and child and family programs, have been
reported in Public Accounts together as one amount, as per the government’s
financial policy established under The Financial Administration Act, 1993,
and accepted by the Provincial Auditor, FAM [financial administration manual]
2010.
[18:15]
The
ministry will continue to follow government’s financial reporting standards.
Ms. Conway: — When I wrote back in February, in
the final paragraph of my letter I write:
The original justification you gave for paying the inflated
$200 a night [this was in reference to the Sunrise Motel] was the ministry’s
policy of not paying a damage deposit. I see nothing referring to this in your
disclosure package. Can I safely assume it doesn’t exist?
We’ve heard a lot of talk about the
ministry’s policy around damage deposits. I haven’t seen anything official. Is
there an official policy floating around? If so, can I have it in writing? And
I’m assuming I’m going to get follow-up numbers on certain things I asked
tonight. As part of that follow-up, can you please provide the new policy for
hotel use in writing, like how it will appear in a policy manual? Can you
provide that going forward? But could you specifically speak to the existence
of this damage deposit policy and where it exists and if so, can I have a copy
of it?
Mr. Exner: — Thank you. I apologize but I would
ask, could you just repeat the question just to ensure that I can answer it
accurately for you?
Ms. Conway: — Sure. Well one of them is
straightforward. I’m just wondering if I can get the written policy as it will
appear in the policy manual, the new hotel use policy, the one that you’ve
already been over — you’ve summarized it — when it’s available.
And
then, I’ll just read the last paragraph of my February 13th letter to the
minister:
The original justification you gave for paying the inflated
$200‑a-night rate at the Sunrise Motel was the ministry’s policy of not paying
a damage deposit. I see nothing referring to this in your disclosure package.
[By “this,” I mean like not paying a damage deposit.] Can I safely assume this
policy doesn’t exist?
So
is there a written policy anywhere around damage deposit and if so can you
provide it to me?
Mr. Exner: — Thank you. So as far as the
three-quote process, so we have developed the process and we will be building
out a policy to support that process after we’ve had a bit of time around, you
know, kind of working through the implementation. So we will be documenting
that policy. That policy will be availably publicly, so it at that point can be
shared.
In
regards to damage deposits, it’s important to note that currently we do not
have a damage deposit policy. So part of our process in working with hotels
when we’re securing a hotel room, we do identify . . . the
organization, the hotel, the damage deposits are not covered. So that’s the
responsibility of the individual that’s staying there and to work that through
with the hotel.
So
we do not have a policy specifically for damage deposits; therefore we do not
pay for damages.
Ms.
Conway:
— So, Minister, what I’m hearing is the damage deposit was the responsibility
of the client previously. So in the case of Evelyn Harper who had paid a damage
deposit, why did the ministry then agree to the inflated rate of, you know,
close to $200 a night for someone like Evelyn if she had put down a damage
deposit? It still doesn’t make sense to me. Could you speak to that?
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — I’ll ask Ms. Eberhardt to say a few
comments and I’ll have a few comments after that.
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— Thank you. So of course under The Child and Family Services Act
we can’t speak of any cases or any services we’ve provided to a family. So I’ll
just answer in a sort of general way.
You
know, when our front-line workers are looking to support families that are
requiring some kind of housing service, they’re sort of balancing what’s best
for that family. And so they’d want to look at stability, what’s the best match
for the number of children they have, the location. And so prior to the new
three-quote policy, that would be how they would look around finding a hotel for
a family member.
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — And so I guess in a general sense I
understand the need to have a look at this. And that’s exactly why I directed
the ministry to look at the policy around this situation. Can’t speak to the
situation, any situation in specifics, but in a general sense, my focus will
and has been looking after vulnerable people in a difficult situation, an
emergency situation. I hope members of the committee would agree with that.
Haven’t
heard from anyone a number which you would not go beyond. Now I understand
these are taxpayer dollars, and I want to ensure there’s a balance between
expenditures and keeping people safe with erring on the side of not having a
tragic situation here or anywhere in our province.
[18:30]
So
I understand the member’s concern, but I hope she also realizes that we are
dealing with very vulnerable people in many instances in difficult situations.
Front-line workers are in challenging situations, and you know, at the end of
the day we want to keep people safe. And so, not sure where the number is where
you shouldn’t go over. Again that’s some of the context I wanted to provide
around this matter.
Ms. Conway: — Respectfully, Minister, I would pit
my advocacy around the right of people to be housed and live with dignity
against any member in this House. This is not about putting a number on that.
This is about transparency and accountability. This is also the explanation
that you, as minister, gave for the reason that Evelyn Harper paid a certain
rate when she checked herself into the hotel and then paid a $200‑a-night
rate, a highly inflated rate, once the Ministry of Social Services started
picking up the tab.
It
was literally the explanation given by yourself that this had to do with the
ministry’s policy around not paying a damage deposit. That was the explanation
you gave. And so I’m scrutinizing that explanation, as is my job as critic on
behalf of the people of Saskatchewan, to ensure that public money is being
spent as, you know, responsibly as possible.
So
it doesn’t sound, again, like that damage deposit explanation makes any sense
if your answer is, I agree this doesn’t really make sense; it doesn’t really
hold water and that’s why we’re looking at the policy. I hear that. But if
there is still some suggestion that these rates were being charged because of
the lack of damage deposit, it simply doesn’t make sense to me. Because Evelyn
Harper did pay a damage deposit.
The Chair: — Ms. Conway, I am going to interrupt
you here and ask you to focus back onto the estimates, not to specific
casework.
Ms.
Conway:
— Can you speak to whether, Minister . . . It sounds like this damage
deposit policy doesn’t exist. Do you want to say anything else about that? Is
it safe to assume that the damage deposit issue was not the main driver in the
rates that were being paid to hotels by the Ministry of Social Services?
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — So I’m not 100 per cent clear where
the member may have got that. It might have been in a media scrum or however in
terms of me saying damage deposits are the only thing affecting rates.
I
would say it’s one of many things that could potentially affect rates, is my
understanding. So I guess anecdotally there would be things like time of year,
how full a particular establishment might be, might not be able to put certain
family members in the same hotel, whatever it may be. There could be many
different reasons for those things. I think the situation you’re referring to
is one situation, but there could be so many other different variables, you
know, including a hotel willing to take income assistance clients to begin with
right off. But I turn it over to Mr. Exner to add further colour to that.
Mr.
Exner:
— So just to clarify maybe my previous statement, so in income assistance,
benefits must be really included or outlined in policy. Our staff are required
to follow those policies before a payment is made. So in income assistance we
do not have a provision nor really a mechanism to make any payments for damage
deposits.
Again,
there are multiple reasons why hotels may charge a higher-than-regular rate. It
could be availability. It could be time of year or events that are occurring.
It could be past practices.
You
know, anecdotally we don’t know if they’ve increased their rates or not. So we
don’t have any, you know, evidence or information that outlines that. What we
do know is that we are working through the RFP process to trial this new
process to ensure we get a better understanding of damages, and working with
hotels to better understand that to help inform and improve our policies going
forward.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you, Minister. One of the
things that I learned in looking into this matter, and I don’t know if it’s
true, but I understand that the ministry can sometimes . . . there’s
sometimes a delay of upwards of six months or more sometimes for ministry to
pay hotel bills. Might be something you want to look into. I don’t know whether
that’s true. That’s just what I’ve heard.
So as we await this RFP to kind of go
through the process and then have this in place, is it fair to say that we’re
just kind of continuing on as status quo and that the ministry is still paying
for hotel rooms at both the Sunrise and the Thriftlodge motels?
Mr. Exner: — Thanks for the question. So in
response, it definitely is not status quo, and that’s what the three-quote
process really is about. And kind of further developing that policy, as Deputy
Minister Kratzig outlined, we will be evaluating that
process after a year.
I think it’s fair to say, as we work through
obtaining three quotes twice a week, we try to ensure that we are getting the
lowest available rate. And again that’s balancing client need and kind of
what’s going on at that hotel — you know, it could be due to availability or
maybe there’s a sporting event and there’s families there — so working with
those hotels to ensure that we are supporting our clients but also
understanding and supporting them.
An example of this could be where we’ve gone
through our lowest available hotels when it comes to rates, and there’s a house
fire or apartment fire where we have to place a number of individuals. We will
continue to work through that process and those rates to utilize the least
expensive ones. But that could be that we are utilizing other hotels, and their
rates at that time due to availability and circumstances may be higher.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you,
Mr. Exner. And some of it may just be that I’m . . . So the
three-quote process is in place, and the RFP is for the block rooms. Okay.
You’re nodding yes, just for the record. Okay.
The document that was just tabled, total expenditures to the
Thriftlodge, indicates that in 2018‑19, zero money went to the
Thriftlodge. In 2019‑2020, zero money went to the Thriftlodge. In 2020‑2021,
zero money went to the Thriftlodge. In 2021‑22, 46,679 went to the
Thriftlodge. In 2022‑2023, $163,704 went to the Thriftlodge. And for the
first half of 2023‑24 — yes, first half-ish — $139,478 was paid out to
the Thriftlodge hotel. How long, Minister, have you had these numbers crunched?
[18:45]
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — I think I had alluded publicly
before about, and maybe just in this committee here today, but priority has
been implementing the new policy and procedures and the process. That’s what
the ministry has been working on. I asked them to prioritize that. But along
with that, my office has been working with the ministry to gather information.
We got the final information that we presented here today, today.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you, Minister. I guess I just
have one more question about hotels. As far as you’re aware, are any of the
other hotels utilized by the Ministry of Social Services financially connected
to Sask Party MLAs?
The Chair: — Ms. Conway, I will overrule that
question and have you move on to the estimates, please.
Ms. Conway: — Chair, this is money that’s going
out on this budget to hotels. It’s fair game to ask whether any of them are
connected to Sask Party MLAs.
The Chair: — No. Continue questions about the
estimates, please.
Ms. Conway: — Minister, the budget for hotels
. . . Obviously the ministry has hotels they’ve used in the past and
one can expect they’ll continue to use similar hotels going forward. You have a
budget for hotel use. As far as you’re aware, is any of that budgeted money, is
there any risk that it will go to hotels connected to Sask Party MLAs?
The Chair: — Minister, do you wish to answer that
question?
Hon.
Mr. Makowsky:
— I’m going to ask the officials a question about that.
Ms.
Kratzig:
— I was wondering if you could repeat that question, just so we are answering
it correctly, and understanding if you’re asking about current hotels or different
hotels. So could you just repeat that question for us?
Ms. Conway: — So the ministry has a list of the
hotels that they utilize for AI and child and family services clients. And I’m
just wondering if money is being paid out to any other hotels apart from the
Sunrise or the Thriftlodge with connections to . . . in which other
Sask Party MLAs or the same Sask Party MLA has any financial benefit.
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — Thanks for that clarification. There
are none that I or the ministry is aware of.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you, Minister. I’m going to
move into the Sask Housing Corporation area. I don’t know if Ms. Michaud wants
to come down or if you want to change your configuration at all, but I think
I’m just going to jump into it.
Last
estimates, you provided a breakdown of number of units for both social and
affordable housing managed by SHC together with vacancies, client groups — so
be it senior, family, or disabled — and broken down by community. I don’t know
. . . Sorry if I already said that. I’m just wondering if you can
commit to providing that same breakdown just updated to this past year in that
same format so I can compare apples to apples. I don’t expect that today
because it would take a very long time to read out all those communities. But
just wanting a commitment on the record that you will provide that.
[19:00]
What
I would be interested in maybe hearing tonight is the total number of units in
the province, the overall vacancy rate broken down for senior and family, and
then breakdowns for just Regina, Saskatoon, and P.A. [Prince Albert] in terms
of units in all of those communities by seniors versus family, the vacant
units, and the available units for those three communities.
So just to sum up, the SHC inventory
list. I think you provided me last year like a 74‑page inventory list
updated. So that same piece of information this year, but not right this
second. And then at this moment the number of vacant units, the number of total
units, and then some meat on the bone for just those Regina, Saskatoon, and
P.A. communities if possible.
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — So I do have quite a bit of
information here. Hopefully it matches up with what the committee had asked
for.
In
terms of vacancy rate right across the province, I guess I’d start in 2018. It
was, provincially, 17 per cent.
2019,
16.8 per cent.
2020,
18.5.
2021,
19.5 per cent vacancy rate.
2022,
18.1 vacancy rate.
2023,
16 per cent.
As
of March 15th, 2024, 15.5 vacancy rate.
And
that roughly equates to . . . There’s approximately, I believe this
is as of Q4 [fourth quarter] 2023 — some of the information I just gave you is
more updated in terms of the 2024 numbers where we’re seeing a continual
decline — 17,599 units available provincially and 14,752 occupied, 2,819 vacant.
Of
course that’s . . . Not all units are available, but that is where we
are at in the province in the three major centres. In Regina we have 3,003
rentable units, March of 2024 that is. The vacancy is 562, so again that is
decreasing over time. In Saskatoon the rentable units of March 2024, 2,417. The
vacancy is 247. Prince Albert, 934 are the amount of rentable units in that
municipality as of March 2024, and the vacant units is 140.
And
again I’d note to the committee that . . . of course a difference
between vacant units and available units. There’s lots of reasons, that I’ve
gone over several times, as to why a unit may not be available. But I’m sure
there’ll be subsequent questions about that.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you, Minister. Yeah, I think
we have discussed that in the past. I’m just trying to get those concise
records.
Minister,
I don’t need these today, but can you break down those numbers for families and
seniors? I guess what I’ve asked for would do that, so I just want a commitment
from you that you’ll provide the — sorry, I want to get my wording right here —
the number of housing units and the number of vacancies for all social and
affordable housing managed by the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation, in the same
format that you provided me last year, up until March 31st, 2024.
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — In terms of tracking available units
and all that, that happens to update the spreadsheet. I believe that we can
endeavour to get that to the committee. Will take some time.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you, Minister. There is a bit
of daylight between the number you quoted for 2023 and what I was provided. And
I believe the inventory I was provided, it says, at least on here, that it is
up till April. So you’ve quoted 17,599 total units. The information I had was
that there were 17,465 total units and that there was a vacancy rate of 17 per
cent, not 16 per cent.
Can
you speak to that daylight or have one of your officials speak to that
daylight?
[19:15]
Ms. Michaud: — Louise
Michaud, assistant deputy minister for housing. The difference between the
numbers is that the numbers that you were provided for 2023 did not include
purpose-built life lease units, and the numbers provided this year do. And
they’re part of our senior housing portfolio.
And the difference for the vacancy rate is that
between the number that the minister provided here this evening was as of
December 2023, and so we had seen improvement between April ’23 and December
2023.
Ms. Conway: — Minister,
can you explain what purpose-built . . . Sorry, I missed the term.
What are those? And like why would those have not been included in the previous
disclosure?
Ms. Michaud: — So the information provided in 2023,
I outlined that it did exclude these purpose-built life lease units. And the
answer that we’ve provided today is more comprehensive.
So
what life lease units are is a program that allows seniors with low to moderate
incomes to be able to access an affordable housing option where they provide a
deposit and then for the term of their tenancy with the housing authority,
their monthly fees are based on maintenance fees for the unit. And then the
deposit is returned to them when they depart the unit.
And
the reason that these were not included in 2023 is we had tried to answer the
asked question around social and affordable housing units. And today’s response
was to answer sort of what the whole inventory includes.
Ms. Conway: — Minister, when you provide the
updated information, can you just keep it to, or can you at least distinguish
between what those numbers are — including those life lease purpose-built units
and without them — just so I can compare apples to apples going forward.
Ms. Michaud: — Yes, we can do that.
Ms.
Conway:
— How many new units did SHC acquire in Regina in this past fiscal year, so
2024? Right.
Ms.
Michaud:
— We have not acquired any units in Regina this fiscal year.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you. Again there’s a
discrepancy between the number of overall units I was quoted for Regina. At
this time last year it was 2,952. Now that number is 3,003 rentable units. Is
that because you’ve now included the life lease purpose-built units?
Ms.
Michaud:
— Yes.
Ms. Conway: — I think, just for the record, that
was a yes, just for future people reading the Hansard in case that
wasn’t captured. So of the 2,952 — that doesn’t include the life lease
purpose-built units — how many of those are vacant, just so I can again compare
apples to apples?
[19:30]
Ms.
Michaud:
— Louise Michaud, assistant deputy minister for housing. I need to make a
correction. You asked if the difference from last year to this year was related
to the life lease. It’s not. One of the things that . . . Our records
show that we had provided a number of 2,999 units last year, and our records this
year do show a difference of four. And so there’s a data issue that we will
undertake to sort out and follow up.
Ms. Conway: — So you’re not taking issue with the
number that’s quoted in Hansard. You’re just saying that when you
provided that 2,952 to me last year, that was perhaps an error? Just to clarify
what we’re talking about.
Ms.
Michaud:
— I’m just looking at the copy of what we had provided last year, and our
records show that we had provided the number that we tabled — that we provided
in writing — the number 2,999. But we are going to sort out the difference
between that number and the number 3,003.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you, Ms. Michaud.
Minister,
just for clarity, you are right that in the written inventory that you gave me,
the total units listed in Regina is 2,999, but in Hansard on April 5th,
2023 at page 419 the total number of units you quote for Regina is 2,952. And
it strikes me that the difference might be . . . Well no, none of
that makes sense. I thought maybe the difference was affordable housing units,
but yeah, there is a difference between what was quoted to me in Hansard
and what was provided as a follow-up. So if we could just get to the bottom of
that, I would appreciate it. And I’m getting nods, so no issue there.
Minister,
so for example in Regina, looks like this time last year we had just shy of one
in four units were sitting vacant. Now there’s been a bit of improvement, and
just shy of one in five units is sitting vacant. It’s an improvement, but not a
significant one, particularly when we consider the cost-of-living crisis that
we have.
Recent
calculations of housing needs in Canada has Saskatchewan at the second-highest
level of housing need among the provinces. We also see huge increases in rents
in our major urban centres.
And
then, like a corresponding total lack in acquiring new public housing units
even though, you know — and this is something the Sask Party likes to talk
about a lot — we’re a growing population. There’s been growth, and we just
haven’t invested in public housing over the last decade. If anything, we’ve
cut. And you know, public housing can have a really positive impact on housing
affordability.
Is
acquiring new units not a priority for the province? Is there any plan to
acquire additional units in our urban centres where the housing need is highest
and growing every day?
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — So thanks for the committee’s
patience. There’s a lot of numbers to filter through here, based on the
question.
So
in a general sense I think there has been an improvement in our major centres
in terms of vacancies going down and turnover units. Unfortunately it’s an
ongoing process. Once a unit is repaired, whether it’s minor or major, that
doesn’t mean it can’t be used gently or used very roughly, let’s say, with the
next tenant. So there’s always that constant cycle.
But
some of the things the Sask Housing Corporation has done, we’ve talked before
about the flat-rate pilot here in Regina, allowing a flat rate no matter the
number of people in there that have income, and I’d say the vast majority would
be on income assistance. So that allowance to have different family members or
roommates has really been popular in North Central. It started with a pilot
with four. It was increased to 21, and now it’s increased to 67 units within
North Central, which has traditionally been a tougher area for individuals to
choose to stay over time.
Another
thing the member noted in the question, and part of the affordability context
that we’re all hearing about, the rent has not increased in Sask Housing units
since 2021. So that has stayed flat where, you know, for the affordability side
of things, that will continue. But IA rates have increased on top of that.
So
what we’ve focused on, what the Sask Housing Corporation is focused on is units
that we do have and improving those so they’re brought up to rent standards.
And like I said before, that’s always a constant turnover and a thing that we
have been focusing on, including in this budget.
And
we’ve done several partnerships, that I think I talked briefly about, to better
use units within our existing portfolio. So whether it’s moving people around
. . . We have several in Regina in particular — large seniors’
housing complexes, whether they be towers or whatever the case may be. They
have had larger vacancy rates, so moving tenants around when feasible. Well
it’s never a simple thing, but we’re trying to make best use. And that includes
partnerships, and so we partner with third parties with existing Sask Housing units
to deliver supportive housing.
And
in this budget there’s $9.5 million to either convert or, if needed, we
can use that to acquire if necessary. But again, the focus has been on using
those units that are underutilized within the portfolio. And so acquiring units
at this point outside of the supportive living, which we have that budget for,
I wouldn’t say it’s a priority at this time; using the existing units and using
the funding we have in place and the increase in this year’s budget to be able
to turn over those units in a quicker manner.
There’s
several programs that are available. I could certainly go through them, but the
two I want to point out is the co-investment program that is a fixed amount
that is available to third parties who want to develop units, and there are
several examples of that here in Regina. For example, the dancing horse, I
believe it is on Broad Street, is just one example of that. It’s supportive
housing.
We’re
working with other partners, the city of Regina, and I believe RT/SIS [Regina
Treaty/Status Indian Services Inc.] does the operating. Don’t quote me on that.
But you know, that is another partnership. And Silver Sage is the entity that
is bringing that deal, I guess you’d say, all together. There’s the rental development
program that there’s an expression of interest every year. And then, you know,
that’s another way that we in the Sask Housing Corporation are able to get new
units going, not owned by Sask Housing Corporation but in partnership with the
Sask Housing Corporation, and by extension the Government of Saskatchewan.
In
terms of cuts, you know, I think that was mentioned by the member. And you
know, I think maybe based on the report I read she put out, you know, there’s
this characterization of a decade worth of cuts. Now I think maybe that member
is talking about money that was received more than a decade ago from the
federal government. This goes way back to the Stephen Harper government, and
that seems like a long time ago to all of us. That was part of the Canada
economic action plan in 2009 and to be completed and committed by March 31st,
2011, so one-time stimulus funding that the Sask Housing Corporation received
from that.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you, Minister. I’m glad you
brought up my report because you’re right that I do compare ongoing provincial
contributions to SHC compared to 2011 levels. But then in fairness to the
government I also compare the decade, the year-by-year provincial contribution
to social housing based on the average from 2008 through 2011.
Just
hoping to get through as much as we can tonight and to kind of use our time as
best as I can. There’s a few data points I’m hoping to get at a later point,
like you can just follow up with them, and then there’s a few things I’m hoping
to just kind of focus in on tonight.
So
with your indulgence, I just might mention a few things that I’m happy to get
at a later point. I don’t think they’ll be controversial. They’re along the
lines of things I’ve been given in the past. But on that topic that we were
just covering, I’m wondering if you can provide the provincial subsidy budget
for social housing in ’24‑25, and the provincial subsidy estimate for
social housing in ’23‑24.
And
then if you could go back 10 years, that would be great. I don’t need that
right now. I just, I’m hoping to get that at a later point. So specifically the
provincial contribution to SHC, because as we know, SHC has a number of revenue
generators — one is federal money, one is provincial money, one is
municipalities, and another is, you know, stuff like rental income. So if you
could commit to that, that would be great.
I’m
also looking for the number of demolished, transferred, or sold units, just an
update to that number from this past year, broken down by community. You’ve
provided me that in the past, so I’m guessing that will not be controversial.
I’m
wondering if you could also provide the SHC maintenance budget for this past
year. Last year you provided that going back to 2013, so I just want this past
year’s update to that, as well as this past year’s update, 2023 update, to the
modernization and improvement expenditures. Does all of that so far sound like
it can be provided at a later point before I move forward?
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — I think we’ll endeavour to get that
information, if available, to the member.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you, Minister. I’m also
wondering if the minister could at a later point provide me with a list of
housing authorities in Saskatchewan receiving provincial subsidies for the
operation of social housing, together with the board members of each housing
authority as of April 1st, 2024. If there is an existing list that is dated
late in 2023 I’m happy to receive that as well. Is that something you can
commit to providing at a later point, Minister?
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — We’ll certainly look into those
requests, and I know they’ve been asked for. You know, we’ll see what
information is available. But I know the request has been out there, so we’ll
take that under advisement.
[20:00]
Ms. Conway: — Concerningly noncommittal. It sounds
like you’re willing to provide that data if it exists. Is that what I’m
hearing, Minister?
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — Yeah, we’ll certainly take a look if
we have that available. Yes, you bet.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you. Is the minister able to
table the budget detail for the Sask Housing Corporation down to the program
and major expenditure category level for administration? Is that something that
you could provide? I’m happy for that to be at a later point. Just wondering if
that exists and can be provided.
Ms.
Michaud:
— Louise Michaud, ADM, Saskatchewan Housing Corporation. And those will be
found in the SHC financial statements which will be published in the annual
report at the end of April.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you. Minister, this is kind of
a multi-pronged question. It’s about seniors housing at SHC. How many seniors
buildings does the province currently manage under SHC? Can you provide a list
of those seniors buildings? And how many now have a mix of clientele other than
seniors in those buildings? So that’s the data point I’m looking for. Do you
think it’s good to mix seniors with other types of social housing clients? And
if you do, what are the parameters that you use to guide the decision to mix
clientele?
And
then just on this, we had some seniors come out from a Moose Jaw seniors social
housing high-rise earlier, I believe, in the fall session. I’m just wondering
if anything was done to address the issues that they’re facing and if there’s
any plans to address the issues facing the seniors that came forward to the
media I believe it was just last week.
So how you’re approaching these issues
and then if you can answer the policy question as well as the data point
question. And if you need to provide this at a later point, I’m happy to
receive the list of seniors housing and which ones have mixed clientele at a
later point if necessary.
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — So I’ll start off with a few
comments then I’ll pass it on to Roger for what’s done with the security side
of things. But obviously the government and the Sask Housing Corporation take
tenant safety very seriously, and it is certainly a priority.
Heard
a few different situations previously. I believe you brought, Ms. Conway, you
brought individuals from the Moose Jaw Housing Authority, their building and
some of the concerns there. They weren’t able to meet with me specifically so
that wasn’t . . . For me to sit down and get the particulars of that
case wasn’t able to happen but I believe . . . I can’t remember if I
directed or the Sask Housing Corporation, upon hearing the case wanted to know
more about it. And there was an inspection that took place, a meeting. And I’ll
get Mr. Parenteau to talk about that.
In
terms of the mix of clientele within a given building, again that’s not
something that’s tracked. Certainly want to be careful when, I guess, I think
the word you use is “mixing” of clientele, but I think it also highlights the
. . . There’s certainly a lot of nuance in these particular
situations. I know many have said — I believe including yourself — that well,
we have all these vacant units and we have a homeless problem; let’s just put
the two together and there we go.
But
it’s certainly not as simple as that. We have to consider the type of building,
the vacancies, and supports needed for individuals. And so it’s not a simple
one-plus-one situation. There’s a lot of different things that you have to
consider before doing any of those sorts of things.
So
again in terms of the number of buildings, I don’t think we have that readily
available. We can look at that, see if we have it, but I’ll turn it over to
officials about the specific situations. Usually starts with a tenant meeting
and understanding what’s going on, but can go on from there. So anyway, Roger.
Mr.
Parenteau:
— Thank you, Minister. Roger Parenteau, executive director, housing operations
with the corporation. Yes, the corporation takes the tenant safety very
seriously. And projects that are experiencing challenges, we’re definitely out
there talking with them.
Specifically
to Moose Jaw, as Minister Makowsky mentioned, we were in Moose Jaw with my SHC
team, along with the housing authority, and met with the tenants of that project
and talked to them about the concerns that they did have.
For
overall in Regina what will be undertaken here is some education and tenant
meetings. We’ve also brought in the Regina Police Service, partnered with them
to bring in and bring them to tenant meetings and talk about again public
safety and awareness and best practices on what to do when individuals are
trying to get into the building, and also looking at ways to keep the doors and
the vestibules closed so that people that are trying to buzz in and not
. . . tenants are not just kind of freely buzzing people in that they
don’t know, so trying to get a lot of public education on that.
[20:15]
Some
security measures that we’ve taken in different buildings across the province
is again upgrading the security door systems and a fob system, a fob access
system, so having a fob system instead of a physical key, and we’re able to
track those fobs a lot better . . . It’s better tracking as well as
we can track tenants coming in and out of the building. If they happen to lose
their key we can better, easily track those keys and cancel them and provide
new fobs to the individuals that lost their fobs.
Installing
some cameras at entrances, more security cameras, better lighting in the
parking areas and the exterior of the buildings, and in some locations hiring
some on-site security guards as well at different times of the day depending on
what kind of activity that’s going on at a given project.
So
just some examples of some different things we’re doing around safety at our
seniors buildings.
Ms.
Conway:
— Thank you, Minister. One of the questions was, how may seniors buildings are
in the province, if I could get a list of those. Can you provide that? And then
are you saying you cannot differentiate between which of those seniors
buildings are accepting clients outside of the senior demographic?
Ms. Michaud: — Louise
Michaud, ADM for housing. And we don’t track the people who are under 55 who do
live in our seniors building. It’s not a specific thing that we track. The
housing authorities do have the discretion to allow people who will live a
seniors-like lifestyle or people who have a physical disability. They’re given
the opportunity to live in our seniors buildings.
One of the other things that I think is
important to note is that we are finding that it isn’t necessarily people who
are, you know, not seniors who may present with complex needs with regard to
housing. So what we try to do is match people according to the housing need and
try to get the best fit, versus you know, always making that distinction
exactly by age.
Ms. Conway: — Just in
response to the previous answer about Moose Jaw, what those seniors talked
about was actually feeling locked in. They felt they . . . I think
they described it as feeling like a jail and the closure of their common space.
So I appreciate the answer focused on some of the security measures that have
been taken, but actually I think maybe some of the concerns that were raised
were kind of in response to that, in reaction to that, that those measures are
not a response to the concerns that were brought forward. They were perhaps
partly a catalyst for some of the concerns in addition to feeling like, you
know, that this policy was
not being followed, that this combination of people was not being done
thoughtfully. Perhaps, Minister, you can speak to that.
And then, Minister, you did say in your
answer that I said we should just throw them all in together. I challenge you
to point to where I’ve ever said that. I have urged your ministry to get vacant
units up and running during an affordability crunch and a homelessness crisis.
I have never advocated for what you’ve just accused me of advocating for.
Mr.
Parenteau:
— In response to your question, the housing authority and SHC team that went
out to meet with the tenants of that project did hear that concern. And it’s a
balance of the individuals that are feeling threatening of their safety of
individuals getting in by buzzing in and stuff and then feeling that
. . . another group feeling that they can’t let people in with
hitting their buzzer and letting people in, so they have to physically go down
to the main floor and let the individuals in that’s coming over to visit for
company.
So
that first door of access to the building is locked after a certain time,
either 8, 9, or 10 p.m. — I’m not sure what exactly it is for Moose Jaw — but
before that people can buzz in and go in and visit their friend or relative
inside. But after 8 p.m. they would have to physically go down to the main
floor and let them into the building.
So
there is a balance of individuals that were feeling that people were coming in,
trespassing, coming in, and others that felt like that they couldn’t, you know,
just allow people to use the buzzer to let company in. And the choice was to
err on safety, caution on safety, and have the doors locked after a certain
time at night.
Ms.
Conway:
— Minister, it strikes me there aren’t very many seniors high-rises. Has any
consideration gone to, you know, getting a doorman security person after hours
so that, you know, people don’t feel like they’re “in jail”? Has any thought
been given to that? And I don’t think I’ve gotten an answer of whether I can
get a list of seniors buildings in the province.
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — Sorry. I thought maybe it was
mentioned before, but we should be able to find the list of seniors focus
buildings here in Saskatchewan. And then Mr. Parenteau will answer the second
part of your question.
Mr.
Parenteau:
— So similar to what we’ve met with and worked with senior groups in Moose Jaw,
we do that in many locations across the province. We assess the safety issues
that they are bringing forward at the different projects. And there’s many
instances and examples of where we do employ security companies to have
oversight of these senior projects, using different hours of the day depending
on the severity of some of the concerns that are being raised.
We’ve
done that in many locations, including this project at one time. We did employ
security officers, a security company there. The reports and information that
we were getting from this security company . . . We reduced the hours
of it and then minimal activity was occurring, so we just ended up just using
housing authorities to have oversight of the safety issues and no longer
employing the security companies in Moose Jaw.
But
there are other communities right now that we do have active security companies
with the oversight of some of our projects.
Ms. Conway: — Perhaps, Minister, you could include
the number of these buildings that have active security in what you disclose to
me, if you’re agreeable. The tenants of this particular high-rise did speak
about that period of time when they had that in place. They spoke of it fondly.
I think it increased their quality of life.
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — We can look into that. Yeah.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you, Minister. So I’m
wondering if SHC, if the Sask Housing Corporation tracks the number of eviction
notices they send out to tenants.
[20:30]
Ms. Michaud: — Louise Michaud
with the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation. We don’t track the number of
eviction notices, and the reason we don’t is because far more of those are
issued than ever result in eviction. The way that the housing authorities are
required to notify tenants and begin the process of notifying tenants for rent
arrears, etc. in order for — if it should come to that — for the Office of
Residential Tenancies to recognize it, the process begins with a notice to
vacate. And as I said, we don’t track the number of notices to vacate because the vast majority of
those result in a tenancy being continued. They result typically in arrears
being resolved, a solution being found.
The
housing authorities. I’ll talk a little bit about what housing authorities do
in order to prevent evictions — and I want to note that — with good success,
recognizing certainly that social housing clients may typically present with or
often present with more complex needs than, you know, overall tenancies. And
according to the UBC [University of British Columbia] Housing Research
Collaborative, the overall eviction rate provincially in Saskatchewan is at a
rate of 4.5 per cent between 2016 and 2021. For that same period Saskatchewan
Housing Corporation’s actual eviction rate has been below 1.5 per cent.
So
you know, certainly the eviction for housing authorities is the last resort,
and it’s only the last resort when tenants have arrears or, you know,
behavioural issues that impact other tenants. Housing authorities support and
work with tenants to resolve issues in a number of ways that are, you know,
beyond what’s required in The Residential Tenancies Act.
So
some of the things that the housing authorities will do is they will actually
. . . So just give me one second to find the right spot. So some of
the measures that they take is they will work with tenants to identify sort of,
you know, a payment plan, a repayment plan if there are rent arrears. They will
work to connect tenants with services in other parts of the ministry or other
parts of government if tenants need other supports.
There
is also . . . You know, they’ll provide advice, as I said, on
budgeting. There’s also work with the tenants and make available to them the
rent education program to help people understand sort of their rights and get
the proper skills to be, you know . . . And that’s offered through
Camponi Housing. That’s a program that was developed by Camponi Housing. And
also refer tenants to interagency tables for wraparound supports when
available, where tenants need more supports than, you know, affordability to
remain safely and stably housed.
If
an eviction process has begun, then you know, the housing authority
. . . and the issue is resolved, arrears are paid, etc., the housing
authority will typically reverse the eviction.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you, Ms. Michaud. So one of
the challenges in analyzing and understanding the eviction sort of horizon, as
it were, is that a lot of . . . Like we can track what evictions go
through the ORT [Office of Residential Tenancies], but we can’t track how many
tenants out there, be it with private landlords or with housing authorities,
get a notice to vacate or something along those lines and then just leave,
which is one of the challenges.
I guess one of my questions is, how do you
know that most of these get resolved if you’re not tracking it? And then my
other question is, what data are you tracking around evictions, and would you
agree to provide me those numbers going back, say, 10 years?
Ms.
Michaud:
— Louise Michaud, assistant deputy minister for
housing. So as I mentioned earlier, the notice to vacate itself is used as the
initial contact officially where there’s an issue. And we work closely with the
housing authorities who work with these on a day-to-day basis. And they tell us
that they issue many, many more of these than tenants that, you know
. . . than situations that result in tenants having to vacate or
being evicted. So while we don’t track it . . . Because, you know,
what we do is ensure that what we’re careful about is that we want to make sure
that eviction prevention measures are happening.
The other question asked was around eviction, sort of numbers over
the past 10 years. We’re going to look at the data and just, you know, we’ll
take it under advisement. We want to make sure that the data is, you know, make
sure that the data is ready.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you, Ms. Michaud. What do you
track? Like I understand that you may not be able to get it back going as far
back as 10 years, but surely you do track something around evictions. Is that
correct?
[20:45]
Ms. Michaud: — Thank you. We do track sort of
eviction as a reason to vacate. We’re going to have a look at the data and
ensure that there are no gaps, and we’ll take your request under advisement.
Ms. Conway: — What does that mean, take my request
under advisement, Minister?
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — We’re aware of what you’re asking
for. We’ll look into it.
Ms.
Conway:
— Will you provide me with the data that you do have available?
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — So I guess what I’d say is, I
believe Ms. Michaud has said and I’ve said we’ll look through their information
— there’s a lot of information — trying to get the most accurate information.
So we’ll endeavour to get it for the committee, but I believe Ms. Michaud has
committed to that as well. So there’s some work to do. We’ll look at it and
endeavour to get that if we’re able.
Ms.
Conway:
— Do you have any data with you on evictions here with any of your officials
today?
Ms.
Michaud:
— We don’t have data with us this evening that we are able to share. We don’t
have anything that’s been validated with us. We will endeavour to get data
focusing on the largest six housing authorities and going back a few years to
provide that.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you, Ms. Michaud. How far back
do you think you can go?
Ms. Michaud:
— We’d
have to do the validation before I could commit.
Ms. Conway: — Okay. Can you go back as far as 10
years, obviously with a view that you may not be able to go that far back based
on what you can acquire? But can you try to go back as far as possible but no
further than 10 years?
Ms.
Michaud:
— Yes, we’ll review it. And certainly we’ll provide what we can and commit to
not going back further than 10 years.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you. I just have a couple more
questions on the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation file. Three areas. I’ll just
maybe mention them all and you can answer them however you see fit, Minister.
My
first question is rather simple: have you acquired any new Sask Housing Corporation
units since the 2020 election? That’s my first question. My second question
relates to the federal government announcement of a new housing program to
develop new housing across Canada to address the lack of new construction, to
ensure housing is available for all Canadians. Will the province be signing on
to the program and financially supporting the development of new housing for
Saskatchewan families through that program? If not, why not?
The
feds also announced a top-up to the Canada housing benefit. If you could take
us through how the province will be using those funds, that’s the second area.
And
then the third area of outstanding questions that I have are around that
9 million you designated to repair vacant units. How far do you see that amount
going? How many units do you think that that will address? Which communities
are you going to focus on?
And
you know, we’ve seen in the media and elsewhere some of the issues with
inhabited units around mould, sewage, pests, the like over the past couple of
years. Is any of that money going to go to non-vacant units that are in need of
maintenance? And then what is your plan with respect to the outstanding units
that won’t be captured through that $9 million increase?
[21:00]
Sorry, I’ll just put one thing on the
record. I just realized I have the new units for 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023
broken down by community. So if you could just provide new units that SHC has
taken on for 2024, either today or at a later point, I’d appreciate that.
Thanks.
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — So quite a few questions in that from
the committee. I’ll start, and then I’ll ask Ms. Michaud or Mr. Parenteau to
answer some of the questions. So just in terms of the federal agreement or
potential agreement, I would say the provincial government has worked with the
federal government on the national housing strategy. That is a ten-year
agreement signed a few years ago, and that work is under way.
In
my, I guess, my first year as the minister, I happened to be the Co-Chair of
the FPT, federal-provincial-territorial group of ministers on the housing file.
And I know rarely is there a consensus of all the provinces and all the
territories, but at our first meeting, when I was first brought to that table,
there was general consensus across the country that there is a need for
flexibility in agreements that are signed with the federal government. So what
may work in Toronto and Vancouver might not necessarily work in Regina or Swift
Current or Estevan or what have you. And so generally what I’d say we’ve been
asking for flexibility and alignment from the federal government with not too
much success so far. So we’ll see.
But
in terms of the most recent announcements — and I believe the federal budget is
being announced tomorrow — we’ll have to wait and see. We need details on what
is being proposed. Is it going to be cost matched? Is it going to be per
capita? It’s difficult to sign on to an agreement we haven’t seen. So that
would be obviously something I, officials, and the government in general I
think, would be looking at very carefully to see how it can align with the
province of Saskatchewan.
So
I think that’s what I wanted to say on the federal side of things. I turn it
over to Ms. Michaud for any other technical questions that I believe the member
brought forward.
Ms.
Michaud:
— Thank you. In response to the question about acquisitions made by
Saskatchewan Housing Corporation in 2024, we did acquire in Saskatoon the
property formerly owned by The Lighthouse Supported Living, and so that
consists of 120 units. And then I can pivot to the question on housing repairs
and how the $9.6 million that you asked about.
So
the overall goal for repairs for the housing corporation in ’24‑25 is
1,400 units. And through the 9.6 million, that will include bringing back
online 150 units this coming year.
And
the community breakdown for that is going to be, in Prince Albert, we’ll
bringing back 20 units, we’ll be bringing online 20 units; in Regina, 25; in
Saskatoon, 20. And then through being able to do major component replacements
in urban centres, we’ll be able to bring an additional 35 units on for a total
of 150 units sort of being brought back into the portfolio.
The
1,400 units that we anticipate, that we target for repairing this year, will
include both vacant units as well as needed repairs to units that are currently
occupied.
Ms. Conway: — Sorry, so the budget is for 1,400
units. But I don’t understand the 150 units versus the 1,400. I’m just
. . . I think it’s just getting late. Sorry.
Ms.
Michaud:
— So we’re saying our overall target is 1,400. The 150 is where that
9.6 million is focused.
Ms. Conway: — So the 1,400, that’s just to
maintain existing inhabited units?
Ms.
Michaud:
— So every year the housing corporation has, you know, a budget to maintain for
modernization and improvement, and so that 1,400 will cover that. So that will
be major repairs to units. That will be component replacement. So it’s not just
turnover; it’s turnover of units that require major repairs to be kept
rentable.
Ms. Conway: — So the 1,400 is targeting rentable
units to ensure they remain rentable. Is that a fair statement?
Ms.
Michaud:
— So I would say 1,250 is targeting that, and 150 will be to bring new units,
like to bring units that are currently not available into rent readiness.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you, Ms. Michaud. You
anticipated my next question about whether that 150 was part of the 1,400 or in
addition to it. Sounds like it’s part of the 1,400. Okay. Okay, thank you. So
the 120 new units in Saskatoon, those are the only new acquires in 2024. There
were no new units in any other communities. That’s correct?
Ms.
Michaud:
— Correct.
Ms. Conway: — Okay, thank you. And then I believe
the only outstanding issue is the Canada housing benefit. I believe, like, a
hard number . . . I thought that that was separate from this federal
housing program and that they have committed a very clear number on that. Am I
wrong in that? And if I’m right, where is that going to go in terms of
administering the Saskatchewan housing benefit?
Ms.
Michaud:
— Thank you. So for the Saskatchewan housing benefit, and this relates to the
question about the top-up, so we have done a number of things in order to
increase the top-up. The federal top-up was presented to provinces, including
Saskatchewan, with a number of conditions, and one of those was around having
the Saskatchewan housing benefit fully subscribed.
And
this is something that we have been working on for a number of years, and we
are seeing some improvement in the numbers for the Saskatchewan housing benefit.
So by the end of December, for 2023 we were in excess of 2,900 people receiving
the Saskatchewan housing benefit. Some of the things that we have done to
expand the program is creating new streams of the housing benefit for
individuals who are fleeing domestic violence and individuals in supportive
housing.
When
the top-up came out with the federal government, the way that it was designed
we were not able to take advantage of it. So we sent a letter to the federal
government requesting flexibility to allocate the unused portions of the
housing benefit to other housing programs, and we’re waiting to hear back from
the federal government on that.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you for that. I think I’m
ready to move on from the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation. I’d like to go to
income assistance next.
But
actually on child and family services, I actually am mainly interested in
getting updates to the data points that I was provided last year in appendix A.
So I’m just going to read out what those are and you can let me know. Like I’m
fine to just get it as I did this past year at a future point. And I
understand, like, Ms. Eberhardt will have this appendix, so she’ll hopefully
know what I’m reading off of. And I made a copy if that would be helpful.
So
I’m seeking the total number of children in care and then broken down: number
of youth in the 16/17‑year-old program, so section 10; number of children
in the custody of a PSI [person of sufficient interest]; number of children in
care under apprehended status; number of children in care under a section 9;
number of children/youth in care under a temporary wardship order; number of
children/youth in care under a long-term wardship order; number of permanent
wards; number of youth under a section 56 agreement, an extension of support
agreement; number of children/youth under wardship of another province or
territory; and the number of children in foster homes, not including First
Nations agency transfers. So that’s the breakdown of the number of children in
care.
I’m
also wondering a number of approved foster homes; a number of foster homes with
more than four foster care placements; the percentage of children in care who
are Indigenous; the number of licensed group homes; the number of
Indigenous-operated group homes.
And
then I have questions around death and critical injury in care, which I
understand is tracked according to a calendar year. So I’m asking for 2023.
That would be the number of children who have died in ministry care in 2023.
And then the legal status of children who died in care — long-term ward,
permanent ward, temporary ward, or apprehended status; the placement type of
the children who died in care — group home, hospital, etc.; the location of
their death — group home, hospital, community, etc.; the number of children who
were critically injured in ministry care; the legal status of children who were
critically injured in ministry care; the placement type of children who were
critically injured in ministry care; and the location of the incident for children
who were critically injured in ministry care.
So
again I’m just seeking an update on these numbers. I’m happy to receive this at
a later date. My one question — I believe this is how I did it last year for
the minister on this issue — is whether the total number of children in care is
trending upwards or downwards, and whether the death and critical injury in
care is trending upwards or downwards.
So if you could answer those two
substantive questions today that would be great, but I’m happy to receive, you
know, all of the validated numbers and all that at a future time.
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — So quite an extensive list asked for
by the committee. And I’ll turn it over in a minute to Tobie Eberhardt, ADM,
child and family services to get into some of the details there. And we’ll of
course maybe not have all of the extensive information requested, but there are
some available data today.
So
I want to inform the committee about a few of the things we’re doing in order
to hopefully decrease the amount of children in care, and this budget increases
those supports for at-risk families, children, and youth. It will support
additional residential care options for children with complex needs, increase
supports for youth transitioning from care, and bringing in intensive in-home
support programs to communities where they currently don’t exist.
The
ministry, those preventative-type programs, it’s also increasing funding to
partners in providing care, increasing foster care and extended family care allowance
rates, increasing funding to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder network and mobile
crisis services. I think I maybe touched on a few of these in my opening
comments.
But
I want to let the committee know that the government takes this very seriously.
I take it seriously, and there are increases in this budget. For example,
5 million for service providers supporting at-risk children, youth, and
families in their homes and communities — that’s more detail on what I just
said.
1.8 million
to support growing needs for private treatment for those highest complex need
patients or children; 950,000 to expand group home services for children and
youth and provide eight new spaces in those services to children.
This
summer a $600,000 increase to foster care and extended family care allowance
rates to help cover the cost of caring for a child, such as school fees and
promoting family contact for children in care.
$500,000,
an increase to assist youth transitioning from care to access housing,
employment, educational opportunities as recommended by the use of the advisory
team. So again I could talk quite a long time about the youth advisory teams.
In the last several years, last couple of years I should say, I’ve had the
chance to meet with this group. Looking forward to it again right after session
and listening to the people who have been through the system and knowing what
they would like to see happen to make things just a little bit better for those
going through those tough times.
And
so as a direct result of those interactions this budget, as well as previous
budgets, have group homes for mental health for youth, for example, teamed with
CBOs to bring those particular homes online. And again that transition we’re
always hearing — once you turn 18 and once you graduate from grade 12 hopefully
— services become different so that’s what this infusion in this budget will be
able to do. We’ll partner with some, again, CBOs to deliver that programming.
Increase
in mobile crisis support for critical after-hour services. I had mentioned 375
to increase expanded intensive in-home services for those families outside
Regina and Saskatoon. That’s a situation maybe I should defer to Ms. Eberhardt
on this . . .
Ms. Conway: — Sorry, Minister, sorry. Can I just
weigh in for a sec? I don’t mean to be disrespectful. We have a little over 20
minutes left. I get to do this once a year. You had an opening statement
. . .
The Chair: — So, Ms. Conway, the minister will
answer the question the way he chooses to answer. Thank you.
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — I also only have estimates once a
year so I want to talk about the good budget that we’ve been able to bring
forward. And I’m almost done, but there’s a lot of things. You had a lot of
points in your question, so I, you know, using equal time to answer.
375
to expand intensive in-home services for at-risk families outside of Regina and
Saskatoon. We’ve talked about that, how we use third-party providers to not
always remove children from a family situation but provide wraparound supports
for that family so they can stay together, and you know, continue to work as a
family and work out their challenges.
And
then 135 increase to support the fetal alcohol spectrum disorder network to
expand supports. They do good work and they’ll have, my understanding, more
outreach people as a result of this budget.
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— So I can speak to some of the trends that we’re seeing. So you know, over the
last fiscal year what we’ve seen is our intakes and investigations are about
the same. There hasn’t been a lot of change in that, which is good. But we are
seeing increased number of children being discharged home and also a decrease
in the number of children coming into care, like within that fiscal year. And
the number of children under the age of 30 days, so infants having to come into
care, has also decreased.
So
I think some of that, you know, as Minister mentioned, there was some targeted
investments around supporting families to safely care for their children. We’ve
also seen an increase in the number of families that we’re able to support to
safely care for the children at home. So that’s gone up almost 5 per cent from
last year. So that’s good news.
Regarding
children in care — and so these stats are as of March 31st, so they’re a
point-in-time count — the number of children in care was 3,916. So we’ve seen
that has gone up about 2.7 per cent from last year. However the number of
children who are placed in the custody of a PSI, a person of sufficient
interest, has gone down. So it’s 1,981, so that’s a decrease of 5.5 per cent.
So
what we’re finding is, as we work with families and with First Nation
communities, you know, obviously we’re working with them around what’s the best
plan for the child on a long-term basis or longer term basis. And what we’re
finding is oftentimes now families are wanting a little bit more support.
And
so we are oftentimes now, the trend’s been that we’re going maybe more often
with a wardship order as opposed to a person-of-sufficient-interest order.
Ms. Conway: — Why is that a positive trend?
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— Sorry?
Ms. Conway: — Like, would you consider that to be
a positive trend? And if so, why? Because the PSI placement, like usually
that’s someone that’s more connected to the child. Am I not right about this?
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— Yeah. And sorry, I didn’t mean that necessarily that part is the positive
trend.
Ms. Conway: — Okay.
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— I think, you know, what it points to is really the work that we’ve been doing
to work with families and their supports and their communities, and really working
together to come up with the best plan that everyone can get behind and support
for that young person or that child. And so those plans are geared and
developed specific to each of those children.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you. Do you have any breakdown
for those wardship numbers? Temporary, long-term, or permanent?
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— Yeah, I can give you those. So of those 3,916 wards, we have 726 were on
apprehended status; 407 are a voluntary agreement, or section 9, we call that;
1,080 are temporary wards; 1,162 are long-term wards; 306 are permanent wards.
We have 77 who are wards of another province; and 158 are getting the extension
of supports, the section 56, post-majority extensions.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you. Can you speak to the
trend in death and critical injury?
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— Yes. So last year, we had six children who died while in care, and this year
we have seven. And so more of those specifics I don’t have with me right now
about the location.
Ms.
Conway:
— That’s fine, thank you. Sorry, I forgot to ask this: there were previously
two CBI for-profit group homes functioning. Are those two group homes still
functioning? Are there any other for-profit group homes functioning in the
child and family services realm?
[21:45]
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— Thank you for the question. Last year we had five homes in the province that
were operated by for-profits: two by CBI and three by Neighbourhood Home Care.
And this year we have added one additional one with CBI. So there’s a total of
six homes now in the province.
Ms. Conway: — Sorry, can you repeat the other
company?
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— So last year we had five homes, and we’ve added one. So now there’s six.
Ms. Conway: — Sorry, the name. I know CBI. Sorry,
the other . . .
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— And Neighbourhood Home Care.
Ms. Conway: — Neighbourhood Home Care. Where’s the
third CBI? Where are those additional homes operating out of?
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— The three CBI homes operate in Saskatoon.
Ms.
Conway:
— And the Neighbourhood Home Care?
Ms. Eberhardt:
— So
the three homes that are operated by Neighbourhood Home Care, two are in
Saskatoon and one is in Regina.
Ms. Conway: — Do you know what’s been budgeted in
this budget to go to Neighbourhood Home Care and CBI in total?
Ms.
Eberhardt:
— Thank you. So the contracts for Neighbourhood Home Care are budgeted for
$2.7 million and for CBI it’s budgeted for 3.1 million. I think it’s
important just to note that we sort of have standardized rates for our
contracts. You know, there’s not a difference between if they’re a for-profit
or a not-for-profit. And the standardized rates are really based on the type of
service that they’re providing; the number of children they’re caring for; are
they children with special needs, medical needs, developmental needs. And so
that’s all part of what would help determine what the cost of the contract
would be.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you. I’m prepared to move on
to income assistance . . .
The Chair: — I will just remind members that we
have 10 minutes left of our time tonight.
Ms. Conway: — Thank you. We’ll just get as far as
we can get in. Maybe I’ll just start with the data points. I’m looking for the
number of SAID and SIS [Saskatchewan income support] beneficiaries and
households, the dependency rates, an update on global expenditures to Linkin
and MiCase, how many people left the ministry in ’22‑23 and ’23‑24.
We can start there . . . [inaudible interjection] . . . Do
you want me to repeat them?
Ms.
Kratzig:
— If you could. And particularly the last question — is that about staff
leaving the ministry?
Ms. Conway: — Yeah, the way that you’ve couched it
to me in the past, number of people that left the ministry per year including
retirements. And I’m looking for an update on ’22‑23 and ’23‑24.
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — SIS and SAID . . .
Ms.
Conway:
— SIS and SAID, so both beneficiaries and households because sometimes we couch
those in both of those terms; the dependency rates for ’22‑23 and ’23‑24;
an update on the global expenditures for Linkin and MiCase; and the number of
people who have left the ministry per year including retirements for the ’22‑23
years and ’23‑24 years. And if any of this you need to provide at a later
time, that’s fine.
[22:00]
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — So, Madam Chair, I know there was a
lot of information asked by the committee just a few moments ago. The officials
are working hard to endeavour to get that information. It looks like we are
going to expire for tonight’s deliberations. I believe we’re coming back
tomorrow, and so we’ll have that information for the committee.
Once
we resume, we’ll talk about the SIS and SAID caseload, dependency rates,
Linkin, MiCase, people who left the ministry. Talk a little bit about some of
the investments we’ve made in the income assistance side to help individuals
who are of low income or, you know, trying to meet some of their basic needs,
realizing that these programs are income of last resort.
Talk
a little bit about the Sask employment incentive, which hopefully will have an
impact on some of the numbers on the SIS and SAID caseload as well. So making
those investments in individuals.
We’ll
— at your discretion, Madam Chair — pick it up at the next opportunity. We’ll
have that information, is what I wanted to let the committee know about, when
we resume.
The Chair: — Thank you, Minister. Having reached
our agreed-upon time for consideration of these estimates, we will adjourn
consideration of the estimates and supplementary estimates no. 2 for the
Ministry of Social Services. Minister, do you have any closing comments?
Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — I know, like I said, I look forward
to continuing the examination of the Ministry of Social Services budget the
next time this committee meets. And thanks to all the members for their questions,
and the officials of course for their work today but also all year round to
help vulnerable people.
The Chair: — Ms. Conway, do you have any
comments?
Ms. Conway: — Just
looking forward to continuing the conversation tomorrow. I left out one ask, and
it may not be something that can be provided tomorrow, but in the past I’ve
asked about the closure of files in March of each year. So I’m also
wondering about closure of files for core AI programs for March ’21‑22,
’22‑23, ’23‑24, and new SAID applications. I forgot to include
that. It may not be available tomorrow, but I thought if you’re doing all this
work of compiling what I’ve already asked for, I would complete some of my asks
in this area.
But
apart from that, no closing comments at this time. Just looking forward to
continuing this conversation tomorrow at 7 p.m., I believe.
The Chair: — Thank you, Minister and officials.
Thank you, committee members and Legislative Assembly staff. That concludes our
business for today. I would ask a member to move a motion of adjournment. Mr.
Nerlien has moved. All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The Chair: — Carried. This committee stands
adjourned until Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 3:30 p.m.
[The
committee adjourned at 22:03.]
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.