CONTENTS
Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice
Supplementary Estimates
— No. 1
Corrections, Policing
and Public Safety
TWENTY-NINTH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of
Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AFFAIRS AND JUSTICE
Hansard
Verbatim Report
No.
28 — Tuesday, November 28, 2023
The
Chair:
— Welcome to the Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice. I
am Terry Dennis. I’ll be chairing the committee today. With us today we have Ms. Nippi-Albright, Deputy Chair. We have Mr.
Todd Goudy. Okay, sorry, Erika Ritchie is not here today; Ms. Nippi-Albright
will be substituting in. We have Mr. Todd Goudy. We have Mr. Travis Keisig, Mr. Blaine McLeod, and Mr. Doug Steele, substituting for
Gary Grewal.
I’d
like to advise the committee that pursuant to rule 148(1), the 2023‑2024
supplementary estimates no. 1 were committed to the Standing Committee on
Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice on November 27, 2023: vote 73,
Corrections, Policing and Public Safety; vote 30, Government Relations; and
vote 27, Parks, Culture and Sport.
And
with us today, Mr. Matt Love
has joined.
General
Revenue Fund
Supplementary
Estimates — No. 1
Parks,
Culture and Sport
Vote
27
Subvote (PC01)
The
Chair:
— Today the committee will be considering these supplementary estimates. We’ll
begin with the supplementary estimates no. 1 for vote 27, Parks, Culture
and Sport, central management and services, subvote (PC01). Ms. Ross is here with her officials. I’d ask the
officials to please introduce themselves before they speak for the first time.
And do not touch the microphones. The Hansard operator will work those.
Minister,
please introduce your officials and make your opening comments, please.
Hon.
Ms. L. Ross:
— Well thank you very much, Chair and committee members. I’m pleased to be here
today to answer your questions related to the supplementary estimates for the
Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport. First I would like to start with the
introductions following by some brief remarks.
The officials joining me here
today are Drew Lumbard, my chief of staff; Twyla MacDougall, deputy minister;
and Bernadet Hamill, executive director, Status of Women office here in
Saskatchewan.
Thank you all for being here
today. Now two initiatives for the Status of Women office require supplementary
appropriation from treasury board for this fiscal year. First is Saskatchewan’s
implementation of the national action plan to end gender-based violence. The
following appropriation requests are fully offset by federal funding under the
implementation plan. An additional 5,000 is for a four-year program management
FTE [full-time equivalent]. The Status of Women office
received 110,000 in funding for the FTE in ’23‑24, and the additional
funds will bring our appropriation to a matching level with the federal funding
which is 115,000.
Another 50,000 appropriation
will allow the Status of Women office to double their small-grant funding
program and inject a total of 100,000 into community-based programs that target
prevention of interpersonal violence and abuse.
The second item stems from
the partnership with Shoppers Foundation for Women’s Health. Under the
partnership, Shoppers will provide approximately $5 million worth of
menstrual products over three years, 350,000 cash to cover initial distribution
costs. The province agrees to cover distribution costs for the remaining term
of the agreement. This appropriation request will grant approval for the
spending of 350,000 received from Shoppers earlier this year. This will pay for
the initial distribution of the products to school divisions, transition
houses, and women’s shelters.
The Status of Women office is
responsible for the shipping expenses over the next three years as directed by
cabinet. This supports the mandate and the objectives of the Status of Women
office to lead and coordinate and the development of initiatives that support
women to live safe, healthy, and prosperous lives which supports a high quality
of life for all of us, for all Saskatchewan residents, and the province’s
economic growth.
With that, I will turn it
back over to the Chair. My officials and I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have. Thank you very much.
The
Chair:
— Thank you, Minister. We’ll now open it up for questions. Ms. Nippi-Albright.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— miigwech, Mr. Chair. For sake of time — we’re only here for a few minutes —
so if you don’t have the answers available, you can table or send it to us if
you’re not able to answer the questions. I’m just going to start with the
. . .
Hon.
Ms. L. Ross:
— Well first off, it depends on what the question is, right.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Yes. If you don’t have it available.
Hon.
Ms. L. Ross:
— No, but it also depends on what the question is. Some questions we cannot
table. So depending on what they are, we’re more than happy to be able to
accommodate you to the best of our ability.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Yeah. My questions will be related to this one.
Hon.
Ms. L. Ross:
— Excellent. Thank you so much.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay. I’ll just talk a little bit about the funding that you have here. So my
question is, why wasn’t this included in the original budget estimates? These
supplementary estimates, why are they included now rather than in the original
budget estimates?
Hon.
Ms. L. Ross:
— Which program are you talking about? Are you talking about the national
action plan? Or are you talking about the . . .
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— I’m talking about the central management and services dollar item, Parks,
Culture and Sport.
Hon.
Ms. L. Ross:
— Okay. Okay. Do you want to . . . Bernadet?
Ms. Hamill: — Hi, my name is Bernadet Hamill and I’m the executive
director for the Status of Women office with the Ministry of Parks, Culture and
Sport.
So in answer to your
question, last year when we presented our budget and our budget ask, at the
time we were estimating the value cost of the FTE. And at that time we budgeted
at a mid-range level for that staffing level for the skill and abilities
required.
And when we were negotiating
the national action plan funding for Saskatchewan and developing Saskatchewan’s
implementation plan, we were . . . Treasury board provided us with
the funding in the budget, but the agreement wasn’t signed until July. So we
were able to include an additional $5,000, which covers the better level, if
you will, reflects the salary of the FTE. And so, yes, at that time the amounts
hadn’t been confirmed. So that’s why we’re here today.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Thank you. So will any money go to support survivors of sexual assault?
Ms. Hamill: — So Saskatchewan’s
implementation plan is being finalized right now, and through that Saskatchewan
plan we have a variety of initiatives that are targeting prevention, education,
and survivors of interpersonal violence and abuse.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— So just to be clear, are you saying that that funding will be allocated for
new programming, or adding to what already exists?
Ms.
Hamill:
— I’m sorry. Could you clarify the question? Because I believe our ask is for
the FTE, and I’m not sure if you’re asking about the plan itself.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Your plan, the Saskatchewan plan. That’s what I’m asking you.
Hon.
Ms. L. Ross:
— We’re discussing the FTE here.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay. So then that is it. The dollars here is just for that FTE. It’s not
going to administration; it’s just for the FTE. Is that correct?
Ms.
Hamill:
— That’s correct.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay. So with this national action plan, do you perceive that there will be
any — or is there going to be any more — money available to organizations?
Ms.
MacDougall:
— Twyla MacDougall, deputy minister, Parks, Culture and Sport.
The action plan to end
gender-based violence is an agreement that we have between the federal
government, and it is an agreement for $20.3 million over four years. I
think that’s what you’re talking about. That’s not related to the supplementary
estimates.
These estimates are purely
for us to be able to manage over that four-year period. And we worked
diligently with many ministries across government to either enhance existing
programs or consider new programs. And all of that will be detailed once
they’re finalized with the appropriate ministries.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay. Oh, just one second. I’m going to move over to the question on the
menstrual products.
So how will these menstrual
products be disseminated? And will they be publicly available for all students?
And how will we be creating space for trans and two-spirit menstruators? And
the other question is — there’s a number of them — how many products will be
available for each student? Basically each student may require 130 to 260 pads
or tampons per year. So how will that look?
Hon.
Ms. L. Ross:
— Well the project has been designed to really meet the ones with economic
need, and so we distribute to women’s shelters. Like we had a really good
opportunity where we went to the YWCA [Young Women’s Christian Association]
here in Regina and had the opportunity to be able to present them with their
allocation of menstrual products.
So it will be for the women’s
shelter there but also too for women who, say, have come from the general
public who require it. They would be able to supply for them also. So we have
women’s shelters and we have, like I said, YWCA. And then we also have, within
our schools, the allocation will go to schools in need. So the school boards
are the ones who are going to be in charge of the distribution.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— So then they’re left with the communication strategy to the trans, two-spirit
community that may need that. Is that correct?
Hon.
Ms. L. Ross:
— Well like I said, it’s the shelters and then, like I said, the YWCA which is
open. So it’s not specifically designed, say, for as you’re saying, the trans
or two-spirited. I mean if they are in need, absolutely. They’re more than
welcome to, you know, come to the Y and pick some supplies up.
Because we know that — I did
some quick math myself — it’s about $20 a month is what it costs an individual
for menstrual products, and that’s just a rough. So when you think of a family
in need, say has three daughters and the mom, well then that starts to add up
fairly significantly.
And this program really is
going to be a blessing to a lot of families. I must say that the Shoppers
Foundation for Women’s Health is so forward thinking, so really understands and
is helping us meet the needs of women in this province.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— So thank you for that. So can you share how safe space will be created for
trans and two-spirit menstruators?
Ms.
Hamill: — So just to answer the question a little bit with
that, so as the minister said, we’re distributing the products to school
divisions and school divisions are then distributing the products to the
schools. So they’ll be working, school divisions are working with their schools
specifically, and they would be working with any policy or process that is in
place.
And
as the minister pointed out, the products are for any individual who
menstruates, so that includes a trans or two-spirited person. They’re not being
just designed specifically only for . . .
Hon.
Ms. L. Ross:
— A certain segment of the population.
Ms. Hamill: —
Right,
yeah. It’s meant to be an inclusive program.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— So you’ve mentioned the Ys, the school divisions are going to get it. What
about the front-line crisis centres? Will they be part of this distribution
where they will get products?
Ms. Hamill: —
So
transition houses as well. Provincially funded transition houses have all
received products as well.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— So are those the only front-line crisis centres that you have identified or
will there be more?
Ms. Hamill: — Well at this time we’re
working with our ministry partners to identify the most vulnerable individuals.
So provincial transition houses, women’s shelters, and the schools were
identified as where the most vulnerable individuals are.
[15:45]
We’re constantly working with
our partners so if there’s any opportunities — because we were fortunate enough
to be getting increases, small increases, but some incremental increases in
years two and three of the program — that if there’s other opportunities for
other areas those ministry partners will cue us for that.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay, so I’m going to go back now. My apologies.
Hon.
Ms. L. Ross:
— I just want to say, I really want to commend the work that’s being done
within the ministry within the office of the Status of Women along with the
individuals from the Shoppers Foundation for Women’s Health where they said,
where is there a need? And we’re doing everything we can to ensure that we can
meet that need. And so I must commend them for the work they’re doing because
this has got a lot of moving parts, but I think it’s going to be very
successful.
And I know when we did one of
the first distributions, it was in the city of Prince Albert. And we had the
principals of the schools that were in attendance, and oh, they just said, you
know, I don’t think you really realize how this is going to be so life changing
for a lot of students because a lot of them do, when they’re facing financial
choices to make, it’s not the easiest choice to make. And you know, we don’t
want students choosing to miss school or miss the opportunity to participate in
activities because they don’t have menstrual products. So I must say the
Shoppers Foundation for Women’s Health, they get it. And they really have been
so supportive of Saskatchewan, so we can’t say enough good things about them.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Thank you. Thank you. Now I’m just going to go back to the gender-based
violence. As you know, as many know, that the most recent data from Stats
Canada outlines that Saskatchewan has the highest rate of gender-based violence
in Canada and has the highest rate for almost the entire time that the government
has been in power. So this $5,000, like this extra adding to the FTE position,
so how is that going to help Saskatchewan women in the whole province? Like
these dollars that you have.
Ms.
Hamill:
— Yes, so $20.3 million over the course of four years is going to be
greatly expanding, enhancing Saskatchewan’s initiatives and through the work
through the Status of Women’s office.
And this particular position
that was approved by treasury board for this current budget year is leading the
work. There’s a lot of intricate work that goes on in coordinating and leading
the work across the ministries through the Government of Saskatchewan. We are
responsible for the management and oversight of the federal agreement. And so,
coordinating all the accountability reporting, gathering the data, rolling it
up, doing all the intricate work that it takes in managing an agreement and a
project of this level and magnitude requires dedicated staff. And so treasury
board recognized that when they provided us with the FTEs.
So the $5,000 that we’ve come
to ask for today is to just enhance that one particular FTE to bring it up to
full range. At the time the $110 was to cover at a mid-level salary. It did not
include some particular benefits and things that would be associated with the
level of that position. So this extra $5,000 was approved through the federal
agreement. So that’s what we’re asking for here today, is to support that
specific staff member so they can do the full scope of work that’s required of
them.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— So in that work that’s going to be required of them, do you have target
measures and timelines of when you’re going to achieve them? And also do you
have incentives or disincentives if you don’t reach them? And how are those
dollars, this 20.3 million, is it going to be available to organizations?
Or tell me where that’s going.
Ms.
Hamill:
— The management of the agreement includes a specific . . . Thank you
for asking about accountability and measures. So this position specifically is
managing all that work for across government because there’s many data targets,
other several specific measures and specific accountability reporting, that
Saskatchewan is obligated to the federal government to uphold our minimum requirements
to meet the terms and conditions of the agreement. So with that includes
gathering all that data and rolling it up.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— So, like I’ve been involved in projects that are from the federal government
as well. And often what I see is what’s the real benefit to the communities,
other than the administration piece where we spend a lot of money in
administration, are the deliverables? What is the impact we’re going to see for
women, mainly women, that are in these situations?
Hon.
Ms. L. Ross:
— You know, the administration aspect is so minuscule out of this whole
project. If you look at it, it’s 115,000 times a year, and this project is for
four years. And this is over a $20 million project, so that lets you know
that this is just a small part.
However, I have to commend
the work that the Status of Women here has done. They ensured that when we
negotiated the national action plan to end gender-based violence for here in
Saskatchewan, we put our elbows up and we made sure the programming fits
Saskatchewan because, you know, the federal government would have been more
than happy to have one size fits all.
But let’s be honest. You and
I all know that in fact what is relevant here in this province is maybe not
relevant in the Northwest Territories, maybe not in Newfoundland-Labrador. So
we made sure that when we put forward to the federal government, before we
signed on, to ensure that the programs that are going to be developed are going
to be developed to best meet the needs of the women in Saskatchewan.
That’s what we did, and I
have to commend the Status of Women. They did not fail us. They absolutely went
to the wall. They put their elbows up and they made sure that Saskatchewan’s
needs are going to be met.
Now you said something very
interesting. You said we have the highest rate, and yes, we acknowledge that.
Are we proud of that? Absolutely not. And that’s why we signed on. But the sad
part is this is not new. This did not just happen when we formed government in
2007. We had those numbers beforehand.
So this is why we are
addressing this today, because we know that this cannot continue. We want to
ensure that every woman, every child in this province — every man, woman, and
child in this province — has the ability to live in a safe community. And this
is how we’re going to do this, is we are rolling up our sleeves, and we are
doing everything we can to ensure that the programs that are going to be
delivered here in this province are going to meet Saskatchewan’s needs.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— That is fantastic. So tell me how much funding will be allocated for new
programs? Or will it just be added to already existing programs?
Ms. Hamill: — So Saskatchewan as part of
this agreement had to put up $20.3 million. It’s a match-funding
agreement. So the programs and services that we have are . . .
Because it’s only four years’ worth of funding that covers a 10‑year
national action plan that the federal government has provided us, we are
looking to maximize the benefit of having this extra funding through expanding
initiatives and existing actions to go further with what we’re doing already,
what we know what works.
We’re working across
government with all the ministry officials to identify initiatives that they
have that they know works and continues to expand upon those.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Thank you for that. You said that you’re going to continue identifying
programs that do work. So I’m First Nation and I do a lot of work with First
Nation communities. And the domestic violence within First Nation communities
is horrendous, and many, many visible First Nation women do not feel
comfortable, often don’t feel safe enough to come and take part in the
programming.
So when you talk about you
know that these are successful, like so how have you measured the effectiveness
of the programming that are working within First Nation and Métis communities?
Ms. Hamill: — So I have to
be clear on something. The Status of Women’s office is not responsible for the
programs and services that are delivered by other ministries. So in developing
Saskatchewan’s implementation — I call it Saskatchewan’s action plan —
is relying on the subject matter expertise from our colleagues across the other
ministries who do their diligence in measuring programs. We talk about
performance measures. They’re measuring and evaluating their programs and
services.
So part of the evaluation of
the implementation of the action plan, Saskatchewan’s implementation of the
national action plan includes a variety of specific measures that the federal
government worked with the provinces and territories to say, this is what we
want to look at. So we have to roll up our reporting into that.
Hon.
Ms. L. Ross:
— But today we are here to talk about the supplementary estimates that are here
before us.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Right. So thank you for that. I know we’re wrapping up here, so I’m going to
do my own at the end here. So we do know that gender-based violence against
women doesn’t seem to be, doesn’t appear to be an issue that is taken seriously
by this government. And you just have to look at . . . It appears
this government is not really protecting women. Just as an example is the
recent arrest of Ryan Domotor . . .
Hon.
Ms. L. Ross:
— I’m going to stop you right now.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— And the invitation last year of Colin Thatcher to the Throne Speech.
The
Chair:
— Ms. Nippi-Albright, I would ask you to stay on the path of the estimates
please.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay. Okay. So my question again, okay, I’ll go back to this then. So you say
that you’re quite proud. How are you working and coordinating and collaborating
with different ministries to come to be on the same page, to work in
coordination with each other and intersectorially? How is that working and how
do you measure that?
Ms. Hamill: — So as I mentioned
earlier, we lead and coordinate and work with ministries across government to
identify different initiatives that support really, I mean, working towards
ending intimate partner violence and abuse really means really ramping it up
around prevention.
So the Status of Women’s
office, part of the work that we do with this is we co-chair a group called the
inter-ministerial committee on interpersonal violence and abuse with the
Ministry of Justice and Attorney General. And there’s members from most of the
human service ministries, probably all the human service ministries, including
the Ministry of Social Services; the Ministry of Corrections, Policing and
Public Safety; the Ministry of Education; the Ministry of Health; Ministry of
Government Relations; and several others. And through that group, that
committee, we come together as public servants in our roles and share
information. We talk about the different strategies and actions that are going
on.
And one of the very
interesting ones that’s really helping raise awareness across this province is
the collaborative work that we’re doing, that Status of Women office has been
doing with the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General and the Ministry of
Corrections and Public Safety and Policing and a couple of other ministries
that have come along, on a public awareness campaign called Face the Issue.
At ICIVA [inter-ministerial
committee on interpersonal violence and abuse] we have three pillars. They are
prevention, intervention, and accountability. And so from that work and those
pillars and that standpoint, if you will, the human service ministries come
together. They share information with the work that they’re doing and the
progress that’s being made, and also talk about continuous improvement and
where there’s areas that we can improve. And so public awareness was one of
those ones that was identified a couple years ago, and so that’s where a lot of
good effort has been made. That’s just one example that I can give to you
today.
[16:00]
The
Chair:
— Thank you for that. Now that we have reached our allotted time, I will ask
the minister for her closing comments and then yourself.
Hon.
Ms. L. Ross:
— Well thank you very much. I am proud of the work that we are doing. But some
individuals, as you brought forward, I’m not going to ever stand up and say
that was acceptable behaviour. And I want you to know that.
But I am so proud of the work
that we are doing within the ministry, within the Status of Women. We’re really
making a difference. We’ve taken a small mighty group of women who have risen.
Their voices are being loud and clear across government. And us standing up and
being one of the first provinces and territories to sign on to the national
action plan, that was big. They came to Saskatoon and we signed that. And you
know, it was celebrated because it sent a message that we take this very
seriously. We would never condone any activity that would make a woman feel
unsafe or make a child feel unsafe.
To me, I’m passionate about
this and I think everyone in the room here knows that. I will always go to the
wall to ensure that we do absolutely everything we can to ensure that we have a
safe place for women and children and men to live. So you have my word that
I’ll do absolutely everything we can to advance what we need to do in the
Status of Women. Thank you.
The
Chair:
— Thank you for your comments, Minister. Closing comments, Ms. Nippi-Albright?
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions. So one of the
things that would be interesting and I’d be curious to know down the road is
how are we helping those in the North, would be one of them.
The other one that’s near and
dear to me because it touches me is the MMIW, missing and murdered Indigenous
women, girls, and two-spirit. Often when an Indigenous woman goes missing or
murdered, we don’t hear about it. And you say that you want to protect the
women in this province. I think the most vulnerable in this province are First
Nation and Métis and two-spirit individuals. They’re the most left out. And we
need to do all that we can and work in coordination to make sure that all women
are safe.
And far too often domestic
violence is something that . . . Like it’s touched my life. It’s
touched my family’s life. And we don’t do enough to protect our women. We don’t
do enough to ensure that they have a voice to say, stop. That this is not
acceptable anymore. And we as legislatures need to step up and protect the most
vulnerable.
So I will take your word and
say, you’re here to protect the women in this province and to ensure that we
are moving this upward scale to move it down so that we can end domestic
violence, gender-based violence against women. So gichi-miigwech for answering
my questions.
The
Chair:
— Thank you for your comments. We’ll now move on to vote 27, Parks, Culture and
Sport. Central management and services, subvote (PC01) in the amount of
405,000, is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members:
—
Agreed.
The
Chair:
— Carried. I will now ask a member to move the following resolution:
Resolved
that there be granted to His Majesty for the 12 months ending March 31st, 2024,
the following sums for Parks, Culture and Sport in the amount of 405,000.
Do I have a mover? Mr. Goudy.
Is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members:
—
Agreed.
The
Chair:
— Carried. Thank you everybody. We’ll take a two-minute break here to change
minister and officials. Thank you.
[The committee recessed for a
period of time.]
General
Revenue Fund
Supplementary
Estimates — No. 1
Government
Relations
Vote
30
Subvote (GR12)
The
Chair:
— We’ll move on to vote 30, Government Relations. Subvote (GR12), First
Nations, Métis and Northern Affairs. Minister McMorris is here with his
officials. I would ask the officials to please introduce themselves before they
speak for the first time and do not touch the microphones. Hansard will take
care of that. Minister, please introduce your officials and make your opening
comments.
Hon. Mr.
McMorris:
— Thank you, Mr. Chair. On my left I have Jeff Marcotte, who’s the assistant
deputy minister of central services. To my right is . . . Jeff
Markewich, sorry. Jeff Markewich, and Giselle Marcotte on my right. I got the
M’s mixed up. Sorry. And Giselle is the assistant deputy minister of First
Nations, Métis relations and Northern Affairs. And behind me is Sheldon Green,
the assistant deputy minister of municipal relations.
So first, Government
Relations, or GR, requires an additional $17.5 million in First Nations
gaming agreement and Métis Development Fund payment to be paid to the First
Nations and Métis organization. This payment reflects actual net casino profits
for ’22‑23 coming in higher than forecast, partially offset by lower than
forecast actual online gaming profits for ’22‑23 and a reduced forecast
for online gaming profits for ’23‑24. Gaming payments are made based on
casino and online gaming profits in accordance with formulas set out within the
gaming framework agreement and lotteries and gaming Saskatchewan Act.
Second, GR requires 700,000
for the First Nation and Métis Consultation Participation Fund. This is the
result of increased utilization of this fund.
And finally, GR requires
$400,000 for the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls+ Community
Response Fund. This fund is fully offset with revenues from the federal
government as the fund has been offered through the national action plan to end
gender-based violence. With that, that concludes my remarks and I’d be happy to
answer any questions.
The
Chair:
— Thank you Minister. We’ll move it on to opening it up for questions. Ms.
Nippi-Albright.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Thank you. Thank you for that. And you’ve answered a few of the questions I
was already going to ask, so thank you for that.
So I’m curious. We’ll go
straight to the MMIW dollars. So did I hear you correctly, that was 400,000? Or
you’re putting more additional dollars in? I missed that. I was busy writing.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— So yes, it’s $400,000 for the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and
Girls+ Community Response Fund, which is a federal flow through. But yeah,
$400,000 more. I’ll just leave it at that.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— 400,000. So the $400,000 is from Saskatchewan? From this government, is that
correct?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— I’ll let . . . [inaudible].
Ms. Marcotte: — Good afternoon. Giselle
Marcotte. So we have a $400,000 fund already in existence. And as part of the
national action plan we have received another 400,000 into government coffers,
and that is what we are seeking for supplementary estimates. So it’s an
$800,000 fund for a couple years.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay. So with that additional 400,000, how much of it is going to existing
programming? Is there anything going to the federation or the communities
themselves or families that have loved ones that have gone missing and/or
murdered?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— So I’ll start, and then maybe Giselle would want to talk a little bit about
some of the applications that we’ve already received. So 100 per cent of those
dollars will go out, and it’s on an application basis. In other words,
communities will have an idea of what they would like to see to support
murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls, and so they will put in an
application. We have a look at it, approve it, the money goes out. So 100 per
cent of the dollars that we receive will go out through an application-based
process.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— So of the $400,000 that you have, do you have criteria in place for like what
this will go towards? And I’ll just ask, like how much of that will go towards
supporting families that have loved ones that have gone missing or murdered?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— So I think what we’ll do is I’ll just get Giselle to talk about a few of the
successful applications, which will then give you kind of . . . Like
it isn’t dollars to an individual family, for example. That’s not what this
program was set up to do. But I think when maybe Giselle goes through a couple
of examples, it will explain better kind of maybe the criteria, but what has
been accepted.
Ms. Marcotte: — So the overarching focus
is on prevention and safety, and so a variety of projects, such as healing
lodges, self-defence classes, human trafficking awareness workshops,
intervention initiatives to support Indigenous women and girls and two-spirited
individuals to leave abusive relationships, and training to build healthy
relationships.
And you know, a big part of
it is about partnering with other organizations. So some of the activities include
educating young women in intergenerational trauma and history behind why First
Nations women are viewed negatively in society. That’s something with Sturgeon
Lake Health Centre, the creation of a young girls’ advocacy group, reawakening
traditional teachings through a variety of tools. It’s funding that goes to an
organization, community that has put in a proposal on what they want to do in
this regard.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— So how much of those dollars will go towards supporting, say, RCMP [Royal
Canadian Mounted Police] detachments?
And there’s a reason I ask,
so I’ll just share. One of my nieces went missing, and the missing persons
report only went to Saskatoon, the municipality. And I asked, why is it not
across the province? And part of it is, I don’t know if it’s coordination, lack
of coordination, or lack of financial resources. So my question is, will there
be any dollars to support RCMP detachments or municipal police organizations
when they do a missing persons alert or posting to ensure that it gets to all
the detachments and, I guess, be widely distributed across Saskatchewan?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— We have a couple of examples of money that has gone kind of to policing, but
not to kind of the question that you’re asking, which tends to get into more
policy of Justice and/or the police forces. But again, maybe Giselle will talk
about the two that we can identify.
[16:15]
Ms. Marcotte: — Thank you, Minister. So
RCMP Heritage Centre for example, partnership with a Place of Reflections, has
programming and, you know, they had Red Dress Day. And it’s closing in October.
The Sisters in Spirit vigil, they had some sessions. Saskatoon Police Service
equity and cultural engagement unit, in response to Call for Justice 9.2 about cultural
engagement unit in partnership with Saskatoon Tribal Council. So projects that
way. But what you’re speaking of, we’ve not received applications for that, nor
would it be in line with a community organization or an initiative in that way.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay. The other piece I wanted to ask was, will any of these go towards
. . . Like I know that the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous
Nations, they’re opening up a centre — Eagle . . . I forget — and
it’s a centre to help MMIW. Is there any dollars going to be allocated to help
the Nation in their support program, etc.?
Ms. Marcotte: — I’m not seeing any
applications or grants that were provided, nor do I think any were applied for.
We have supported the FSIN [Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations] and the
Prince Albert Grand Council and the PAGC Women’s Commission in their proposal
to hold a one-day event, an event to bring . . . missing and murdered
Indigenous women and girls, plus their families, two-spirited women and girls
and families together.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— So would there be, I guess like one of the challenges with families is when a
loved one goes missing, that initial time that their loved one is missing,
after a while the families are left by themselves to go and continue the
search. And they often are working with different organizations.
Will there be an opportunity
in your allocation funding stream to, say, to offer supports for the continuing
search for missing loved ones or murdered . . . I guess, looking for
their loved ones?
Hon. Mr.
McMorris:
— Again, I think kind of missing the mark on what the program . . .
The program is for applications to come forward on programming in a certain
area as opposed to supporting, for example, you know, the ongoing search of a
missing person. That kind of really doesn’t fall into the mandate.
That is directed, really, through the
federal government on through the commission as to where these dollars kind of
would go. So it isn’t really targeted towards that. It’s more around specific
programs, as Giselle has mentioned, to help people deal with trauma at the
time, not necessarily funding to increase, you know, the search for a missing
person.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay. So do you have the funding criteria that you have, and would that be —
I’m just cognizant of the time — if it’s possible to table that so that when I
go out and work with the communities that I can share that information to say,
here is the funding that’s available, here’s how you . . . who’s
eligible and under what circumstances they’re eligible for. Is that something
that could be tabled?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— Yes, absolutely.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— We’ll table it. It’s also online. It can be found online.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— But we can also get you a hard copy.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Perfect. Thank you so much.
Okay. I’ve spent enough time
on that one, so I’m going to move to the Consultation
Participation Fund.
So you’re asking for additional dollars. To date, with these additional dollars
is this consultations with the communities or Métis locals, First Nation bands,
or . . . Help me understand.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— I’ll start with it, and then I’ll turn it over to probably Giselle again to follow
through. But so this is, again, when the duty-to-consult is triggered.
Communities, which would be quite often First Nations or Métis, have the
opportunity then to apply for some dollars to help deal with the consultation
process. They would apply through GR. We kind of have a fast grant that we’re
processing quite quickly. And we go out to the various communities. The uptake
has been great — lots of activity but also lots of activity from both First
Nations and Métis communities to help with the consultation process.
So that’s why we’re back. In
other words, the allotment that we had, the budget that we had has been fully
allocated and we need to then allocate more to get to the end of this fiscal
year.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay. So go to the gaming agreement. So this, just for clarification, so that
additional dollars is for the shortfall in the online gaming. Is that correct?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— No. What this is is that revenues from casinos, for example, have been higher
than anticipated, than budgeted, so it would be at whatever number. It’s offset
a little bit because the revenues from online gaming hasn’t been as high. So
the total number is $17.5 million. That needs to be adjusted and then will
go out to First Nations and Métis communities.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay, just hold on. Maybe go through more questions here. Okay, so in these
four areas that you have here for the 18.553, so are these, like these four
areas, contractual in nature?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— Well the gaming agreement for sure is contractual. And there’s stipulations
on how . . . I guess all four would be. I mean, the murdered and
missing Indigenous women is a contractual agreement with the federal
government. And maybe the consultation policy framework is not necessarily contractual;
it’s just a fund that we have that’s accessible by communities when the
duty-to-consult has been triggered.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— So just with the Consultation Participation Fund, is there a cap at 50,000?
100,000? 150? 200,000?
Ms. Marcotte: — No. We have maximum grants,
maximum $10,000 fast-track grants per project. If a community has been notified
several times for different types of projects and they apply for grants and
it’s over 50,000, we do what we need to do to get that authorization. And we
don’t have a cap.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— So is there a communications strategy that you have for communities that
would like more than the 10,000 or 50,000 or 200,000? Like is there a
communication strategy that you have that they’re not limited just to the
10,000? That you’re open to 50,000 or 100,000?
Ms.
Marcotte:
— When a duty is triggered, they receive a notification letter with the
opportunity to see if they’re eligible to apply for a $10,000 fast-track grant
for that project. So if there’s another project, then they are informed. That’s
the strategy is that they receive information every time something
. . . they receive a notification. It’s noted in that letter that
they have the opportunity to apply for that grant.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— So that first letter doesn’t say that if you require more than $10,000, ask
for more than $10,000? And that this is not the only time, that this is not the
one-time funding for this? Is it clearly identified in the letters that are
sent out when duty-to-consult is triggered?
Ms.
Marcotte:
— It’s a $10,000 grant per project, and that’s the maximum. And so if another
project comes up, they would get another letter saying, you can apply for
another fast-track. But it’s for a different project, a different duty-to-consult
that’s been triggered.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay.
Ms.
Marcotte:
— And sorry, it’s also on the website with the community guide on how to follow
through with these grants and the criteria.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay, so just help me understand. I’m a little confused because I know one
organization in Pinehouse got $200,000. So what was that? And it was in the
last fiscal. I think it was July last year.
So I’m just wondering, so I’m
just trying to clarify, trying to get some understanding why there appears
. . . Maybe I’m confused why one place got $200,000 and somebody else
got 10. Was it clarified, or how did that . . . Help me understand.
Ms.
Marcotte:
— It would have been project-based. So there would have been that many
projects, that many duty-to-consults, that much exploration going on for
example, or vegetation management. Anything that triggers a duty-to-consult,
they would get a notification letter and be able to apply each time and it just
totalled up.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— So, okay, so then what you’re saying is that that $200,000 was one project?
Ms.
Marcotte:
— No, that could have been 20 projects.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— But it could have come in maybe one payment because . . . It would
be unlikely, but all the projects would be roughly around the same time. But
they would show they received X amount of dollars globally but it would be
individually how that funding would be allocated.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Okay. So is it something that, like where would somebody find that if it was,
like how it was divvied up, like that? Just as that example. Is that something
that the public can access, or is that something that could be tabled for here?
Ms.
Marcotte:
— We can table it.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Thank you. That would be helpful. Because often when communities say, we want
to get some dollars, I’m like, well I only understand it that you can get
10,000. And then they come back and say, well why did this community get 2,000?
And I’m like, I don’t know. And so if you could table that, that would be
extremely helpful when I go back to the communities.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— I would just ask that if you could kind of narrow it down, what you’re
looking at, instead of us having to go through every grant that has gone out.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Well just . . .
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— That would probably be a fair amount of work, which we’re not opposed to
doing. But if you have specific communities you would like to know first of
all, let us maybe start working on that so it’s narrowed down.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— So we could start with the Pinehouse, the $200,000, because it would
definitely show a clear picture of what projects and the extent of activity in
that area that triggers consultation.
Ms.
Marcotte:
— Okay.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— And did you want it for just this past fiscal year?
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Yeah, this past fiscal year would be just a good starting point
to . . .
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— No, the one we’re in? Or the last fiscal year? Or does
it . . .
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Although, well we’re in . . . what is it, 2023‑24 fiscal
year? Yeah, this fiscal year.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— Okay.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Or 2023. Actually if you could go back to . . .
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— The year before?
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Last year, and then because you don’t report until the end of next
. . . the end of March, right?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— Right.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Yeah. So just for clarity, 2022 to 2023 fiscal year.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— Yeah.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Yeah. Thank you.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— Yeah, we’ll do that.
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— For Pinehouse.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— Yeah.
The
Chair:
— Seeing no more questions, we will move on. Minister, do you have some closing
remarks?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris:
— I just want to thank my officials — even though I got the names wrong — but
thank my officials for the great work that they do each and every day. We’re
very, very fortunate.
The
Chair:
— Thank you, Minister. Ms.
Nippi-Albright, do you have any closing comments?
Ms.
Nippi-Albright:
— Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions and help me get
a better understanding of some of the requests that’s coming forward here. So
miigwech.
The Chair: — Okay, we’ll now move on
to vote 30, Government Relations. First Nations, Métis and Northern Affairs,
subvote (GR12) in the amount of 18,553,000, is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members:
—
Agreed.
The
Chair:
— Carried.
Government Relations, vote 30
— $18,553,000. I’ll now ask a member to move the following resolution:
Resolved
that there be granted to His Majesty for the 12 months ending March 31st, 2024,
the following sums for Government Relations in the amount of 18,553,000.
Do I have a mover? Mr.
Keisig. Is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members:
—
Agreed.
The
Chair:
— Carried. We’ll have a quick pause here as we switch out officials and
minister. Thank you.
[16:30]
[The committee recessed for a period of
time.]
General
Revenue Fund
Supplementary
Estimates — No. 1
Corrections,
Policing and Public Safety
Vote
73
Subvotes (CP06), (CP13), and
(CP15)
The
Chair:
— We will now consider the supplementary estimates for no. 1, vote 73, Corrections, Policing and Public Safety.
Subvote (CP06), Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency; (CP13), Custody, Supervision
and Rehabilitation Services; and (CP15), policing and community services.
Before we get going I’d like
to welcome Ms. Sarauer here, and Minister Merriman is here with his officials.
I would ask the officials to please introduce themselves when they speak the
first time, and do not touch the microphones. The Hansard operator will take
care of them. Minister, please do not touch that, and introduce your officials
and your opening remarks. Thank you.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon to committee members. I’m
pleased to attend the committee today to provide you with information regarding
the additional funding that we are requesting be provided to the Ministry of
Corrections, Policing and Public Safety for the ’23‑24 fiscal year.
The ministry requires an
additional funding of 11.401 million in ’22‑23 to support the
operations of the province’s correctional facilities. Correctional facilities
are facing overtime salary pressures as well as other operational pressures
such as food service and offender provisions.
As the province’s lead agency
for emergency preparedness and response, the Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency
experienced a very busy fire season. Response expenditures are $85 million
over our annual budget. The SPSA [Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency] is faced
with the unfunded expenditure of 47.02 million. Broken down,
6.9 million for the provincial disaster assistance program, and the
remaining portion of 40.12 million is for unfunded emergency fire
response.
The RCMP also requires an
additional fund of 7.643 million. This is due to costs related to
contractual obligations.
Finally, 1.160 million
is required to support the provincial protective services due to operating
costs associated with the PPSTN [provincial public safety telecommunications
network] radio fees.
I’d be now pleased to answer
any questions from the committee, and I’ll have my officials introduce
themselves as they speak. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
Chair:
— Thank you, Minister. We’ll now open it up for questions. Ms. Sarauer?
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Thank you. And thank you, Minister, for your opening remarks. I’m going to
ask a few quick questions understanding we’re limited on time here, trying to
get through as much of this as possible.
First, a few questions for
Corrections. I understand that there is an expenditure for overtime. Could you
go into further detail on how much overtime we’re talking about?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— Did you want it in dollars or hours overtime?
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Hours, please.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— Hours, please.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— If available.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— Okay. I’ll just go through, kind of because it’s broken out into different
categories just for the committee: one-to-one hours we are 25,549 hours;
hospital shifts of 40,202.8 hours; transportation and escorts of 8,380.75
hours; overflow dorms are 87,870 hours; lockdowns and searches is 4,570 hours;
maintenance supervision is 2,187.5 hours; and others is 9,892. And others, well
others are a bunch of varieties, about 10 different things in the others.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Just to clarify, those numbers are overtime?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— Those are total hours used, as I understand it, for overtime.
Ms. Sarauer: — Thank you. This challenge
for overtime, is this a capacity issue in terms of inmate capacity issue, so
you need to add on staff? Is this a recruitment and retention issue of having
enough staff? Or is it all of the above? Or is it something else that I haven’t
mentioned?
Mr. McFadyen: — Mark McFadyen, executive
director of custody services. It’s a little bit of a combination of both, but
the count certainly drives, you know, drives the business. Our counts are high
and we can demonstrate that later.
But just, you know, for
staffing, your question in regards to staffing, we are shy for staffing. We
have several correctional officers who are on leave, in ’23‑24
approximately 81.5; worker’s comp, 34; vacancies, 53; and then our nurses as
well; admin support staff, 19.5. So we’re kind of down just for those reasons
alone.
And then when you add the
extra contingency units because of our high count, it just perpetuates itself
that if you don’t have enough staff to start with, and then we have the extra
units open, that the overtime just continues to grow. But it’s a combination of
both, but the counts drive the need for the staff to begin with.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Thank you. Could you drill down into those numbers that you said — staff that
are on leave and the reasons why they are on leave?
Mr. McFadyen: — Well I don’t have the
reasons for why, if you’re looking at worker’s comp numbers, why they’re on
comp. I don’t have a listing of every reason why somebody’s on comp or a reason
why people are on leave. But it would be maternity. It could be terms to other
areas within government. It could be parental, etc. But if you’re looking a
list down for every single staff that’s on leave and the reason, whether it be
comp or other, I don’t have that with me right now. But if it’s required, we
can certainly get that. But it would be a combination of those type of
activities.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— That’s okay. I was more just looking to see if there was a pattern or a
challenge in a particular area or something like that.
Mr. McFadyen: — It’s pretty much standard
from one facility to the next for the same reasons.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— You mentioned capacity being a challenge. Do you have point-in-time counts
for today or recent, and how those numbers compare to a year ago if possible.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— Just for the committee’s knowledge, the numbers, this is as of today, but
they do fluctuate on a daily basis of new offenders coming in and people being
released. But as of today it’s 2,249 individuals is our count.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Can you have that broken up by facility please?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— Sure. And again — sorry, just to clarify — this is just adult. This is not
youth. Saskatchewan Hospital North Battleford, 35; Regina correction at 759;
Whitespruce, 22. What else? In the impaired driving treatment program; 15.
Besnard Lake — sorry, I went right to White Birch — Besnard Lake, it’s 13;
White Birch is 11; P.A. [Prince Albert] correction is 566; Pine
Grove, 240; and Saskatoon correction centre, 588; for a total of again 2,249
individuals.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Could you provide the percentage of capacity? Do you have that number for
each facility?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— For each facility? Saskatchewan Hospital, 48 per cent; Regina correction, 97;
Whitespruce, 56; the impaired driving, 50; Besnard is 52 per cent; White Birch
is almost 69 per cent; P.A. is 114 per cent; Pine Grove is 144 per cent; and
Saskatoon is 116 per cent, for a grand total average across the province of
105.4 per cent.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Thank you. Do you have these same types of numbers for a year ago as
comparables that you can provide the committee?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— I have a roll-up total count of this point in time last year. I don’t have a
breakdown of that. Last year at November of 2022 was 1,973 individuals.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Do you have a percentage as well, or no?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— A total percentage of last year as far as capacity? No I don’t, but I’ll make
sure that the committee does get that.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Okay, thank you so much. I appreciate that. I have some questions for SPSA.
I’m wondering if you could talk a bit about the provincial fire season in terms
of the number of fires as compared to the assumptions behind the original
budget for wildfire and evacuation activities.
Hon. Mr.
Merriman:
— As I’m learning a lot about this file, we do have a placeholder of in and
around $90 million in our budget for fire season. And as we don’t know
what that season will entail, depending on what the moisture is in the North,
there’s a whole bunch of mitigating factors in that. So we always have a base
budget for that. And then if there are flex, if we need more dollars, then we
go back and we have the ability to get more dollars like we did this year.
Because the fire season was very bad in the first half of the fiscal year and
then in the second quarter it actually settled down quite a bit.
But we did have, I think it
was over 500 fires in the North. And on top of that there were also grass fires
as well that also consume dollars, and I think there was over 700 grass fires
in the province. So that’s where we have to be able to flex up those dollars,
the additional dollars that we’re looking for today.
[16:45]
Ms.
Sarauer:
— So how many fires does the ministry anticipate when they set their original
budget?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— I don’t think we have a prediction of how many fires there are going to be.
We predict on what our base funding is in the budget and again if we need more
budgetary dollars then we can go back to treasury board and come back for
supplemental estimates. As we did have a very challenging fire season, we were
able to meet that with the dollars from the treasury board that was allocated.
Very similar that we have in
other ministries where there are placeholders and if something goes up or down,
we do have that flexibility to do that. But we’ve seen over the last couple of
years the fire season has been very challenging so we do have the ability to
flex up on that.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— What is the placeholder based on?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— My guess, and I would stand corrected, I think it’s on a historical 10‑year
average.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— And when is it up for review again?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— I would say we’re always continually doing it. If we need to adjust up, we
always have the dollars available to us. So whether it’s budgeted or not
budgeted, we have the ability to meet the needs of what the fire season is. So
we’ve never had a problem with that as far as cash flow and financing that.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— But does this money also include funding for hotels and alternate
accommodations for those who need to use them because they are evacuated, in
particular those from northern communities during fire season?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— Yeah, I can break it out a little bit of the dollar amounts of that
90.6 million, if that’s what you’re asking.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Sure.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— Sure, okay. 77.316 million is for evacuation search and rescue for
response to wildfire activities and . . . Trying to see where the
breakdown of this is. There is an additional 4.795 million for power
outages in the North where people’s food were spoiling. And there’s also some
offsetting costs included, I believe, in that original amount of transportation
as well as lodgings.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— How does the ministry choose which hotels to use for individuals evacuated
from northern communities?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— We have an ongoing working relationship with a lot of the different hotels to
be able to house individuals when they are being evacuated. Obviously we try to
keep them closest to their home community as we can, making sure that we keep
family members together, and we work with all the different hotels. There’s 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 different hotels that are used during evacuations, but we also
have overflows into other hotels and agreements with them that if we need to
flex into those we can as well.
One of the big areas that we
use certainly in the South is the U of R [University of Regina]. We use their
campus which we have utilized quite a few times in the past. So it’s not just
hotels. It’s other dorm facilities depending on what the exact situation is.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— What are the financial guidelines with respect to hotels that are used to
house individuals evacuated?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— We actually have a pre-negotiated set amount for . . . depending on
again volume of how many that we’re using. But we have that all negotiated out.
Usually it’s a preferred rate that we get based on volume. If we’re renting out
50 rooms, we would get a preferred rate on that, and most of it is under the
rate that the average person would get walking in the door. So we get a better
rate just because of the volume.
And it’s also, you know, the
volume of rooms that we’re renting out at that point in time, and we’re also
usually renting them out for a longer duration of time. It’s not just an
overnight stay. So the hotels understand that people will be staying there for
weeks and can accommodate their schedule and their cleaning in and around that.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Could you provide some more detail as to the ministry’s policy in
compensating for power-outage food loss?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— The policy as I understand it is $100 per person per community that they can
receive for power loss due to wildfires. We want to make sure that again we
understand that the cost is certainly larger or of increased value in the North
and also the availability of food is not as convenient as it is in the major
cities. So we want to be able to make sure that we . . . From what I
heard from some local leaders up there, that they were very happy that we were
able to do this. And again it was $790,000 and there’s about a dozen different
communities that utilized this, up to one community was a maximum of $256,000.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Thank you. I have some questions about the RCMP allocation. You mentioned
this is related to some contractual obligations. Could you provide some more
details?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— I can provide some high-level . . . There are some directives that
come out of Ottawa through the RCMP that increase the costs that we are not
aware of that has been decided, whether it be equipment or whether it be
clothing, whatever it is, or additional training that the RCMP requires. The
federal government will mandate that and we have to pay our percentage, which
is on a 48/52 split with the federal government. So a lot of it is mandated.
Oh, sorry — 70/30. I keep getting the First Nation one and the . . .
70/30 for the province.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Are you able to provide more detail as to what exactly the funding is for?
Mr. Cameron: — Rob Cameron, ADM
[assistant deputy minister] of policing. So the kind of things that we’re
seeing in the context of the RCMP and what they’re looking for for new expenses
or increasing expenses and what’s adding to this increase in budget, so
specifically things like body armour, shields, tasers, carbines, night vision,
breeching tools — a variety of other equipment that gets mandated through
either occupational health and safety issues or through changes in national
standards.
The national standards are
set by Ottawa, the RCMP in Ottawa, and then they spread across the country as
you would expect. As a province that is in contract with Public Safety Canada
for the service of the RCMP, we don’t get a lot of say in that so we end up
having a situation where a cost is downloaded to us. As the minister said, it’s
a 70/30 split with us, and so we cover 70 per cent of that cost overall.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— You mentioned national standards. I’m wondering if you can walk me through
how that differs from, for example, municipal police and their standards?
Mr.
Cameron:
— So generally speaking the standards aren’t necessarily a lot of distance
apart. But what you have at the national level is some key incidences that have
created very public incidences, for example Mayerthorpe, Moncton, other events
like that where the RCMP has done quite an extensive review, looked at
equipment and different parts of those situations and then as a result have
come up with a new standard of equipment they need.
And some of this goes not
just into the equipment that is personally required by the members themselves
but also the way they structure their communications, their command and
control. We just saw a lot of this through the Mass Casualty Commission where
there was some indication of changes required in the RCMP, not only in
equipment but training. So these are the kind of things that we see.
In the province here the
Police Commission sets standards, as well as internally police services will
set their standards as well. There is an attempt to have some uniformity across
the board, but not always is it exactly the same. And so things like
Mayerthorpe and Moncton brought out the requirement for additional carbines,
patrol rifles or patrol carbines I think is technically what they’re calling
them now. So these were things that all of a sudden we had to invest in so our
RCMP here in this province would have that equipment as well. And there’s a
variety of other pieces of equipment or technologies that they’ve now acquired
that have cost us additional funding.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Are you able to provide any details as to any specific differences between
the two — the standards of RCMP, the national standards that have been set and
other policing bodies? You mentioned carbines in particular. I believe there
are other police services that do already have those. So are you able to
provide more details on that? I know we’re getting into . . .
Hon. Mr.
Merriman:
— Yeah, maybe I can just provide a higher level on that. As Rob said, each
police department determines what they are. Obviously smaller police
departments would need different pieces of equipment versus Saskatoon. And the
RCMP have to respond to a wide variety of issues, so they have a different
standard as well. I’m not sure if there is one specific standard for municipal
policing across our province, just because they do have differences.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— No, I understand that and I’m not asking for that. I’m just wondering if, I
suppose what I’m trying to get to is, are they trying to bring RCMP up to a
standard that perhaps other municipal forces or other policing forces in
Saskatchewan are already at? I’m just trying to get a gauge of, a lay of the
land of where all of policing services generally are in Saskatchewan and where
there are gaps, I suppose.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— I think maybe to answer your question, the RCMP would be close to the top as
far as setting standards, and the municipalities would assess whether they need
to meet those standards for their particular needs. Or is the need overall for
that area being met by the RCMP?
So I think that we work in
conjunction with the municipalities and the RCMP to see if the need is there,
and if it is there, who is able to be able to meet that need, whether it’s the
RCMP having that standard already, and if it’s not close to an RCMP detachment
that has that standard, do they need to be able to bring it up to meet the
needs of their community.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Mr. Cameron, could you provide a breakdown of the actual costs? You had
mentioned body armour, for example. Do you have how much money was spent on
body armour, how much money was spent on training, that sort of thing?
Hon. Mr. Merriman: — For the RCMP?
Ms.
Sarauer:
— For this allocation of funding.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— We’ll have to provide that to the committee. Because we have the overall
dollar amount, but we’ll provide that breakdown of that. I think it’s at
$7 million, just over $7 million. But we can provide a breakdown of that,
of what the RCMP, their new standards are and what it exactly cost per. We’ll
provide that breakdown for you.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Thank you so much.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— There will be a human resource component in there as well, just for salary
increases and that type of stuff.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Thank you. The Chair is informing me I have one question left, so I’m going
to ask if the PPS [provincial protective services] could provide a little bit
more detail as to the allocation of funding for their, I think it was
mentioned, radio fees.
Mr. Cameron: — Rob Cameron, ADM of
policing, again. So the cost for the $1.160 million is for our cost for
two areas. One is for the actual radio usage, so the dispatching for our
provincial protective services specifically.
[17:00]
And then 0.5 million of
that annually is related to the leasing and licensing of the actual radio
system and the units that are in the vehicles or portable radios and that kind
of thing.
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Thank you. I appreciate it. I think Mr. Chair was going to cut me off, I
believe.
The
Chair:
— You betcha I was. Thank you. Having agreed upon our time, we will ask the
minister for his closing comments.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman:
— Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank my officials and the
committee members and thank Ms. Sarauer for the questions and the respectful
dialogue. And just a quick thanks to all of our first responders that are out
there, being able to do this day in and out.
The
Chair:
— Thank you, Minister. Ms. Sarauer, do you have any closing comments?
Ms.
Sarauer:
— Thank you. I echo the comments of the minister in his thanks, in particular
to the officials who were here today. I really appreciate, always appreciate
any opportunity I have to speak with all of you and ask questions. Thank you
for all the work that you do on behalf of the province every single day.
The
Chair:
— Thank you. We will now move on to vote 73, Corrections, Policing and Public
Safety. Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency, subvote (CP06) in the amount of
47,020,000, is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members:
—
Agreed.
The
Chair:
— Carried. Custody, supervision and rehabilitation services, subvote (CP13) in
the amount of 11,401,000, is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members:
—
Agreed.
The
Chair:
— Carried. Policing and community safety services, subvote (CP15) in the amount
of 8,803,000, is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members:
—
Agreed.
The
Chair:
— Carried. Policing, Corrections and Public Safety, vote 73 for 67,224,000. I
will now ask a member to move the following resolution:
Resolved
that there be granted to His Majesty for the 12 months ending March 31st, 2024,
the following sums for Policing, Corrections and Public Safety in the amount of
$67,224,000.
I have a mover, Mr. Steele.
Is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members:
—
Agreed.
The
Chair:
— Carried. Thank you. All right, committee members, you have before you today a
draft of the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Intergovernmental
Affairs and Justice. We require a member to move the following motion:
That
the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs and
Justice be adopted as presented to the Assembly.
Do I have a mover?
Mr.
B. McLeod:
— I so move.
The
Chair:
— Mr. McLeod has moved. Is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members:
—
Agreed.
The
Chair:
— That completes our committee’s business for tonight. I’d like to thank the
committee members and staff here. Seeing that we have reached our time of
adjournment, this committee stands adjourned until the call of the Chair.
[The committee adjourned at
17:05.]
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.