CONTENTS
Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice
Bill No. 153 — The
Miscellaneous Municipal Statutes Amendment Act, 2023
Bill No. 144 — The
Police (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act, 2023
Bill No. 140 — The
Miscellaneous Statutes Repeal Act, 2023
Bill No. 141 — The
Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023
Bill No. 146 — The
King’s Bench Consequential Amendments Act, 2023
Bill No. 148 — The
Film Content Information Act
TWENTY-NINTH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AFFAIRS AND JUSTICE
Hansard Verbatim Report
No.
29 — Monday, March 18, 2024
[The
committee met at 15:30.]
The
Chair: — Good afternoon. I’d like to welcome
everybody here this afternoon. My name is Terry Dennis. I’ll be chairing the
meeting this afternoon. With us today we have Ms. Erika Ritchie, Mr. Nathaniel
Teed, Todd Goudy, Gary Grewal, Travis Keisig, and I do believe that’s it right
now.
Before we get started today’s business,
I’d like to table the following document: IAJ 14‑29, Ministry of
Government Relations: Responses to the questions raised at the November 28th,
2023 meeting.
Today our committee is also tabling a
list from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the regulations and bylaws
filed with the Legislative Assembly between January 1st, 2023 and December
31st, 2023 which have been committed to the committee for review and pursuant
to rule 147(1). The Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel will assist the
committee in its review by submitting a subsequent report at a later date,
identifying any regulations that are not in order with the provisions of rule
147(2). However the committee may also decide to review any of its regulations or
bylaws for policy implications.
I am also tabling three reports from the
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel that identify any issues pursuant to 147(2)
that he found with regulations and bylaws filed in 2017, 2018, 2019, and any
steps that have been taken to rectify these issues. If the committee chooses,
it may bring in the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to review these reports
at a subsequent meeting.
IAJ 15‑29,
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: 2022 regulations
filed; IAJ 16‑29, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: 2021 bylaws filed;
IAJ 17‑29, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: 2017 report on
regulations and bylaws; IAJ 18‑29, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel:
2018 report on regulations and bylaws; and IAJ 19‑29, Law Clerk and
Parliamentary Counsel: 2019 report on regulations and bylaws.
With that we’ll move on to consideration
of bills. Today we will be considering seven bills: one with Minister McMorris,
one with Minister Merriman, and five with Minister Eyre. We will recess from 4:30
to 6:30.
Bill No. 153 — The Miscellaneous
Municipal Statutes Amendment Act, 2023
Clause 1-1
The
Chair: — First we will consider Bill 153, The
Miscellaneous Municipal Statutes Amendment Act, 2023. Minister McMorris is
here with his officials. I will remind officials to identify themselves for the
record before they speak, and do not touch the microphones. Hansard operator
will turn them on for you. We will begin our consideration with clause 1, short
title. Minister McMorris, please make your opening comments and introduce your
officials.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — Thank you for that, and I’ll make
sure I don’t touch the mike. I almost did and would’ve blown this whole
committee meeting apart. But anyway thank you very much. And I will let the
officials, as they speak, if they answer any questions, to introduce themselves
because I’ve got some at the table and some at the table behind me.
Today we are considering Bill
No. 153 which proposes changes to the three municipal Acts. The three Acts
that govern municipalities in Saskatchewan are The Cities Act, The
Municipalities Act, and The Northern Municipalities Act, 2010.
These three municipal Acts create the
framework for how municipalities are established and function. These proposed
amendments are limited in scope. The changes improve key areas related to
assessment appeal, organized hamlets, and other minor process adjustments. I
want to highlight a few of these key areas for you.
The first is improvements to the
property assessment appeal process. In recent years the ministry has updated
the regulations to improve the system. Now we are adjusting wording in the Act
to better reflect the changes.
Another key policy area is organized
hamlets. Regulatory amendments to clarify the roles of an organized hamlet’s
board and the rural municipality were approved in the summer of 2023. As part
of the review, some changes were identified for the Act. The most important was
to require an agreement between the organized hamlet and the rural municipality
on things that are a shared or delegated responsibility.
Virtual meetings have become more
commonplace. Proposed changes will establish clearer rules for holding virtual
council meetings and ensuring the public continues to have a place to view the
meetings.
These changes will also provide all
municipalities the authority to phase in property taxes, whether increase or
decrease. Extending this property tax tool to all municipalities will allow
them to manage tax shifts that may occur due to revaluation of properties. Currently
only cities have this authority.
Some of the proposed amendments are in The
Municipalities Act only, such as those related to organized hamlets. Others
are in all three municipal Acts to ensure consistency in all three Acts. With
that I would be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.
The
Chair: — Thank you, Minister. We’ll now open
it up for questions. Ms. Ritchie.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to
start by asking some questions starting with the amendments to section 68, the
organized hamlet agreement, and the 68.1(1) where the amendments call for a
hamlet board and a rural municipality to enter into an agreement in accordance
with the regulations. Then it goes on further to indicate that such an
agreement must be signed by the rural municipality and the hamlet board, and
there are some time stipulations around that.
And so I guess maybe my first question
is . . . The amendments make reference to the regulations. Are those
regulations already in existence or are they something that is contemplated in
the future?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — I’ll maybe just turn it over to
Andrea, to my right, to go through this.
Ms. Ulrich:
— Thank you, Minister. Andrea Ulrich, director of legislation and regulations
at Government Relations.
The Municipalities Regulations
is where the details of the agreement would be. Those details are not there yet
because we needed to put the authority in the Act first. But it is something
that we’ve been consulting with stakeholders, with organized hamlets, and RMs
[rural municipality] for a few years now. And we’re currently actually
consulting on proposed wording for those regulations but, yeah, they do not
exist yet.
Ms.
Ritchie: — And thank you for that response. I
wonder if you could please tell me what is being contemplated for the content
of those regulations.
Ms.
Ulrich: — Yes, I can speak a little bit to it.
Of course, nothing’s been approved. We’re still in the consultation stage as I
mentioned.
One of the items is a communication
protocol between the hamlet board and the municipality. From the consultations
we’ve done, from speaking with organized hamlets and RMs, when there’s
disagreements or disputes, one of the problems often is lack of communication
or lack of consistency of that communication or one side feeling misunderstood
by the other — you know, fairly common kinds of problems.
And so one part of the agreement we were
proposing is that they would establish a communication protocol, so how they
would communicate about certain things like budgets, like having joint
meetings, that sort of thing. But it would be not something we would prescribe
and tell them how to do, something they would agree on.
A few other things are areas where it’s
not quite as clear who decides if there’s a percentage of levies or taxes, or a
different mill rate in organized hamlets, just having those things for clarity
in the agreement.
And then there’s some areas where the RM
can delegate certain functions to the hamlet boards, such as asset management,
facility management, even project management. So if they were doing things like
that, having that in the agreement for clarity.
Ms.
Ritchie: — And it was mentioned that there’s
been some consultations occurring on these amendments. Can you please tell me
how many RMs and organized hamlets were consulted? And in particular perhaps if
you could tell me if the RM of Wilton was consulted or the organized hamlet of
Lone Rock?
Ms. Ulrich:
— I can check. We mostly work through the associations, and so we work through
PARCS [Provincial Association of Resort Communities of Saskatchewan], which
represents a number of organized hamlets. That’s the provincial association of
recreational communities of Saskatchewan. And we did do some specific focus groups
back in 2021. And I don’t believe either of those parties were there. There may
have been some submissions through the associations from either of those
parties but I wouldn’t know specifically.
Ms.
Ritchie: — And how would they have been
notified of this opportunity to provide feedback? Was there notification sent
to all RMs?
Ms. Ulrich:
— It would have been through PARCS and through Municipalities Today, the
newsletter that goes to all administrators. So yes, the RM of Wilton would have
received that along with other RMs.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Well it’s maybe a little bit ironic
but perhaps with the lack of a communication protocol, that may not have gotten
to all the interested parties.
I guess just sort of delving a little
bit deeper into what may be the subject of those regulations, I understand that
there are some concerns with access to RM council records in general by
organized hamlets who will be sort of affected by these changes. So will the
regulations contemplate how RM decision items, bylaw changes, and anything else
affecting the organized hamlet is communicated and in what form?
Ms. Ulrich:
— Yes, there are currently regulations regarding matters like that that were
approved since, I believe it was August 2023. And so it regards policies of
what information needs to be available to the public, both by the hamlet board
and by the rural municipality. So those come under documents for public
inspection.
And also requiring hamlet boards to have
certain policies in place regarding how they function as a board and the RM to
have certain policies in place in terms of their requirements and processes for
approving the budget, for example.
Ms.
Ritchie: — And are there any penalties for an
RM refusing or not meeting those requirements? Are those in the new regulations?
Ms.
Ulrich: — They would be treated like any other
document that is required to be available for public inspection. So if they’re
not doing that, it’s a matter of public accountability. So that’s something
that the public could point out: I’m trying to access this, it’s not available.
With over 700 municipalities it’s not something we can possibly manage. But as
many things that RMs are required to do, it’s there. It’s in the Act — and in
this case, the regulations — and their citizens can hold them accountable.
[15:45]
Ms.
Ritchie: — I’m not sure that that fully
addresses the concern. There have been cases in the past where there has been a
failure on the part of RMs to provide information as per section 117. And what
I’m looking to establish is whether or not the changes that are reflected, in
these amendments before us and the corresponding regulations, are going to in
any way hold RMs accountable in a timely fashion to provide information that’s
requested and duly by rights should be shared by municipalities with their
organized hamlets.
Ms.
Ulrich: — Certainly, and you know, that’s one
of the issues we heard about when we were consulting and when we were looking
into some of the issues around organized hamlets, is the communication and
information. So, yeah, that’s certainly something we’ve attempted to provide
clarity on. And as I said, it’s very new, so we haven’t received a lot of
feedback yet on how that’s working.
Also the Office of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner is certainly a good place for people to go if they feel
that they can’t access the information that they should be able to access.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Well I guess there’s always that. It
does sometimes become cost prohibitive though if, you know, fees are then
applied for accessing documents that should be readily available.
I notice in that section it does
identify that a lot of this information could be made available on a website
and not require going to those sorts of extents in order to access information
that should be available to the public, and especially as it relates to
organized hamlets, something that deeply affects their interests, particularly
in cases where RMs have an interest in changing the manner in which they are
part of that RM in terms of dissolution, in the case in particular for Lone
Rock.
But I guess I just want to go back and
ask the question again. Are penalties contemplated when an RM refuses to
provide information as per section 117?
Ms. Ulrich:
— I guess one last resort is there’s fines and penalties so anyone that
contravenes the Act can be brought . . . the court system and then it
could be enforced that way.
Ms.
Ritchie: — And if that route is taken, what
would be the process that they would need to follow?
Ms. Ulrich:
— I’m not familiar with bringing up a case to the courts.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Would another official be able to
respond?
Mr. Nasewich:
— Rod Nasewich, executive director of policy and program services. Yeah, there
are general offence and penalty provisions in the Act that provide for any
violation of the Act to be fined for an individual. And there’s continuing
fines, there’s lump sum fines, but it has to go through a court. One would have
to make an application through the provincial courts about exactly what the
contravention is and show up, and then the court decides on those fines and
penalties and who is creating the offence and levy those against a municipality
or an administrator. I mean those things are required in the Act, so it’s the
duties of an administrator to follow to make sure that stuff is available for
public inspection and for council as well.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Thank you for that response. There’s
been some changes in terms of the manner in which disputes between a hamlet
board and a council are resolved. I see in section 77(1), there is a number
that are listed that can go forward.
Does
the ongoing dispute between the RM of Wilton and the organized hamlet of Lone
Rock fall under any of the categories that are provided in that section?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — I think I’ll start by answering
that. You’re certainly being very specific on an organized hamlet, Lone Rock,
and the RM of Wilton, and we probably aren’t going to discuss, get into the
particulars.
This is an overarching legislation that
affects all organized hamlets, and the intent of the overarching legislation is
to avoid disputes between organized hamlets and rural municipalities. I think
it’s fair to say that not all, maybe, RMs understand their responsibility to
the OH [organized hamlet] and not all OHs understand the responsibility towards
the RM.
On the Lone Rock-Wilton piece, a lot of
their dispute is in front of the Municipal Board. It’s probably not appropriate
for us to start singling them out and what is or what isn’t appropriate. We’ll
kind of answer to general questions regarding organized hamlets and
municipalities.
Ms.
Ritchie: — So in that case, hypothetically
speaking, if say an organized hamlet has an existing dispute before the
Municipal Board, and now we have these regulations coming into effect where it
requires an agreement as it’s laid out in section 68, how would a case that’s
currently before the Municipal Board be impacted by these changes?
Ms. Ulrich:
— So when these changes come into effect and they’re required to have an
agreement, then existing organized hamlets and RMs will have to also establish
that agreement, and it’s defined that failure to come to an agreement is also a
dispute.
And so their current dispute is already
before the SMB, the Saskatchewan Municipal Board, and if that is not resolved
at the time this comes into effect, then there could be potentially more items.
I’m not sure that would really be within the purview of the Saskatchewan
Municipal Board on how to deal with the current case versus what might happen
in the future.
Ms.
Ritchie: — In reviewing the latest annual
report for the SMB, that being 2022, they’ve set out, I guess, service targets.
But I didn’t see anything there in terms of sort of what would be a reasonable
time frame in which a dispute — in particular such as, you know, one occurring
between an organized hamlet and an RM — should be resolved within. Could you
please tell me if those kinds of targets exist and, if so, what they would be?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — I’ll let Bonnie come up and answer.
But before she answers it, I’ll just say that this is really . . .
the bill has nothing to do with the Municipal Board. We’re going to try and
keep it on what this bill pertains to, but it’s hard to not use the expertise
that we have in the room because they can answer all your questions. So you
know, we’ll certainly take a crack at that one, and then we’re going to try and
bring it back to just bill-specific, please.
The
Chair: — I would caution that we stay on
track to the bill, to what’s in front of us as far as bills and not get into
confidentiality and a specific case.
Ms. Chambers:
— Bonnie Chambers, executive director of the advisory services, municipal
relations branch in Government Relations.
Our understanding with the delay at the
Municipal Board, and that this hasn’t happened, is because of changes to legal
counsel on one side or the other. As that is a separate entity of government
and arm’s length, we’re not aware of or privy to when the hearings will be
held. What we do know is that there was changes to legal counsel and the SMB
gave time for the legal counsel to be brought up to speed on the matter. And
that’s as far as our understanding is.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Thank you for that response. Do
these amendments to the municipal statutes contemplate having, either within
the Act or the regulations, stipulated time frames in which disputes will be
resolved?
Hon. Mr. McMorris:
— No, that would not be contemplated in this. I mean, you can imagine the
number of different disputes that come before the SMB. Some can be handled
quickly; others take quite a bit of research and time. And so no, we’re not
. . . The SMB is arm’s-length. It would not be appropriate to put
time frames in an Act like this.
Ms.
Ritchie: — And as part of the consultations
that occurred in lead up to these amendments, was it considered to include
anything further with respect to either ensuring that conflicts of interest,
real or perceived, are avoided by RM councillors?
Ms. Ulrich: — There
are no conflict-of-interest-related amendments pertaining to RM councillors. As
part of the organized hamlet consultations, we did look at conflict of interest
for hamlet board members, and those are in the regulations that were approved
in summer of 2023.
Ms.
Ritchie: — And could you please share with us
what those were?
Ms.
Ulrich: — Just very similar to municipal
council members. If there’s a conflict of interest they step away, they declare
what it is, and they remove themselves from deliberations.
Ms.
Ritchie: — So in terms of conflict of interest,
do the regulations include anything with respect to political donations?
[16:00]
Ms.
Ulrich: — Nothing that specific.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Nothing that specific. Okay. Sort of
not related to that line of questioning, but it’s also my understanding that
before services can be dismantled within an organized hamlet, the RM needs to
receive approval from the SMB before performing those works. Is there anything
in these amendments that would address situations where such approvals have not
been received?
Ms.
Ulrich: — No, there isn’t.
Ms.
Ritchie: — There isn’t. Okay. So just maybe
going back to one of your earlier responses when you mentioned that PARCS was
consulted. It’s not clear to me that all organized hamlets would be represented
by PARCS, because some would be, you know, resort villages and some would not.
And so what attempts or efforts were made to consult with OHs that are outside
of that sector?
Ms. Ulrich:
— That’s correct. Not all organized hamlets would be part of PARCS. We also
worked with SARM [Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities] in terms
of, for them to communicate to their members. So that covers all of the RMs
that have organized hamlets. And what we would like to see . . . We just
can’t consult with every single municipality. Numbers-wise it’s impossible of
course. But we do our best to work with the associations, and they’re very good
at getting information out to their members. So we did have a number of
touchpoints over the last several years with SARM on this.
And we also communicate through Municipalities
Today which goes to administrators, so there is an expectation, a
responsibility that administrators of RMs that have organized hamlets will be
passing on that information.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Okay. But just to be clear, in those
consultations you did not receive any feedback regarding issues or concerns
with lack of SMB approvals with respect to dismantling of the services within
organized hamlets?
Ms. Ulrich:
— No, we did not hear about that.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Okay. Or did you hear any issues
about information being provided to organized hamlets on the issue of council
elections or by-elections? Did that issue come up at all?
Ms. Ulrich:
— No, I don’t believe so. We definitely heard a lot about organized hamlet
board elections and some clarification about who can vote in those. The manner
of voting, it used to be just show of hands. We’ve now made it more flexible so
that they can use a ballot or they can continue to use show of hands if they
want. They can have nominations.
But really, because we are now treating
them more like a board, as a board they’re going to have policies around their
elections and how they are held. So all the talk we heard about elections
during consultations were about the hamlet board member elections.
Ms.
Ritchie: — But you didn’t hear any concerns
regarding how there was obstruction of information being shared between RMs and
organized hamlets with respect to upcoming elections?
Ms. Ulrich:
— I don’t recall anything like that.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Okay. Okay . . .
The
Chair: — Sorry, Ms. Ritchie, if you could
please stay on task of Bill 153 please.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Right. No, no. Yes.
The
Chair: — Keep your questions pertaining to
Bill 153.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m just
trying to understand, as part of the consultations for the amendments that came
forward, you know, the feedback that was received and then contributed to the
amendments that we see before us. Because certainly in my own engagement with
stakeholders, these were some of the matters that were identified, issues
around timeliness, information sharing. Good to hear that, you know, there’s
going to be some communication protocols, and some of the things I’m mentioning
might be things that you might want to consider as you build those out.
I think related to that has been the
issue of decisions for the establishments of corporations by RMs. It’s my
understanding that before an RM can establish a corporation, it has to, obviously,
you know, go before the RM, be approved and signed off and then publicly
shared. Are the amendments that I see before me, is there anything either here
or in the regulations that address issues where . . . the manner in
which that needs to be undertaken?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — No, that has nothing to do with this
Act.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Okay. Okay. I guess then lastly sort
of along this line of questioning, another issue that’s come to my attention is
the cost for insurance of residents within organized hamlets for fire
protection and also the protection of water pipes and things of that nature.
Will the regulations, if that will be part of the amendment process, be
addressing insurance provisions for these ratepayers?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — No, that’s not really part of this
either.
Ms.
Ritchie: — No? Okay. Okay. I wonder if you
could tell me what feedback you received that suggested organized hamlets
should get a shorter period of inactivity before they’re demoted.
Ms.
Ulrich: — Yes. So one of the concerns we heard
is that two years is a very long time, especially when there’s annual
requirements for organized hamlet boards. So once that organized hamlet is no
longer serving its function, is no longer engaging in its legislated
activities, then the RM would request that their status be revoked or
disestablished. But that’s a request to the minister, so it’s not an automatic
reversion either. It’s a request to the minister.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Back to sort of some of the changes
to section 77, you know, I’m wondering if you could explain to me why it was
necessary to itemize the types of disputes that are listed in subsection (2).
What has been gained by taking this approach?
Ms.
Ulrich: — Certainly. So we of course consult
with the SMB when we have amendments concerning their role. And as part of that
discussion, it was recognized that the matters for disputes should be
pertaining to matters within The Municipalities Act and The
Municipalities Regulations, so matters that are legislated. And that is the
clear role where the SMB has the expertise and is more appropriate for them to
be ruling on.
So the disputes, the matters under
subsection (2), are things that would be in the agreement and therefore — it
would be clearly laid out in the regulations in terms of what’s supposed to be
in the agreements — it would be clear, you know, where that dispute lands and
there would be no question of whether that jurisdiction would fall under the
SMB or not.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Okay. So that’s a very helpful point
you just made in terms of there would be sort of a clear relationship here
between the items that are part of the agreement and then those things that
would be identified as . . . if there was a dispute, they could come
before the board. So what about in the case of, if an RM is contemplating sort
of dissolution of an RM? Would that be something that would be considered or
contemplated under section 77(2)?
Ms. Ulrich:
— Sorry, do you mean organized hamlet?
Ms.
Ritchie: — I mean organized . . . I’ll
try to restate it. Sorry if I misspoke. I’m talking about a case where a rural
municipality makes a decision to dissolve an organized hamlet. Would that be a
matter that would fall under the items listed in subsection (2)?
Ms. Ulrich:
— No, it would not because it would be the minister who would make that
decision. Yeah, it’s a request to the minister, so it would not be the RM
making that decision. Therefore it couldn’t be a dispute.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Okay. Oh, I wasn’t aware of that. So
that’s interesting. So before an RM can proceed with dissolution, they have to
. . . And what section would that fall under?
Ms. Ulrich:
— So in the bill, section 52 where it makes that change from two years to one
year, that’s also where it has the wording that the council shall request the
minister to order the reversion of the status of the organized hamlet if no
active hamlet board has existed for the preceding year.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Okay. So I’m just looking at that
section right now. And so is my understanding correct in terms of the
municipality . . . Maybe you could just put that in layman’s terms
for me, please.
Ms. Ulrich:
— So if the organized hamlet is not active, and “active” is now defined in
regulations as having an annual general meeting as well as the policies that
they’re required to have, then the council of the RM come to the ministry and
say, this organized hamlet is not active. We’re requesting that the minister
order that its status be reverted. And then the ministry, the minister would
look at that and see if it’s appropriate to make that order. And then just as
an organized hamlet is established by a minister’s order, then that status is
also able to be taken away with a minister’s order.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Okay. And so those would be the only
circumstances under which that dissolution could go forward. Basically it’s
that the organized hamlet hasn’t sort of been managing their affairs, meeting
as an organization, that it’s . . . Would it have anything to do with
any kind of financial considerations of the RM?
Ms. Ulrich:
— Under this provision it’s if they’re not active, so if they’re not meeting
their responsibilities. There’s always section 399, and the minister has the
authority to intervene. So if there are other situations where the minister
decided to order an inspection and found something was remiss, could make any
order that pertains to whatever that inspection found.
So there’s other circumstances where
something could be changed, but under this section in terms of the status of
the organized hamlet, it’s whether there’s activity or not. In many of these
places population is declining. There’s maybe 20 people left. There’s several
organized hamlets with very small populations, and so they simply don’t have
the resources or the will to carry out the requirements of having an organized
hamlet board. So those would be the more common.
[16:15]
Ms.
Ritchie: — So if I understand you correctly, an
RM cannot act unilaterally. They have to put the request to the minister.
Ms. Ulrich:
— In terms of the status of the organized hamlet, yes.
Ms. Ritchie:
— Okay. And then likewise, in order to proceed with dismantling waterworks,
that too would need to . . . That would require minister approval or
a board approval or both?
Ms. Ulrich:
— And so because the services are the RM, whether those services are in the
organized hamlet or not, it’s still under the governance and the authority of
the RM. So in the future something like that could be contained in an
agreement, and that would certainly be a good practice so that there is
clarity, especially when there could be impacts on an organized hamlet. But
currently that’s not a requirement and the RM has the ability and authority to
act in what services they provide their residents.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Well that’s different than my
understanding, so thank you for that correction. But again just to make sure
that I have this correctly, so you’re saying that it’s within the RM’s
authority to dismantle services and they do not require approval from SMB
before and there’s nothing in these amendments . . . Well you are
saying that in the future, it could be part of the agreement but at the
current, as it presently sits, there is no approval required.
Ms. Ulrich:
— Correct.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Correct? Okay. All right. Thank you
very much.
So with the changes that we see to
section 77, how are you anticipating this to impact on the casework before the
SMB?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — That isn’t the reason why we’re
doing this. I mean I don’t think we’ve done any work on that that wouldn’t be
kind of what . . . This is just to make sure that organized hamlets
and RMs are communicating better and have a better understanding of the
responsibilities before there gets to be any dispute.
Ms.
Ritchie: — So in that case, hopefully it would
reduce and limit the number that need to go for it because these things would
be more clearly outlined in an agreement.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — I guess, yes. I would say that
hopefully that’s the case.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Okay. And in the consultations that
have occurred on these amendments, did you hear anything back from stakeholders
regarding lengthy delays or and how these amendments might be able to reduce
them?
Ms. Ulrich:
— Specifically regarding disputes?
Ms.
Ritchie: — Yes.
Ms. Ulrich:
— We did send out a survey because we don’t have information regarding disputes
if they’re using the three-person appeal board, and there was only the one.
They’re really not that common to have formal disputes. There were a couple of
instances where they were heading that way and were able to come to a
resolution. But they’re really quite uncommon. So since the ability for them to
be referred to the SMB, only the one has, the one you’re referring to. But yes,
other than that it’s not common, and so we did not hear that from anyone else.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Has any consultation report been
prepared that summarizes the feedback received?
Ms. Ulrich:
— There is a report that we published regarding the focus groups we did in 2021
and I believe that would be the only thing that has been published publicly.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — I think probably it’s common to, as
Andrea mentioned, who we consult with. It’s not common to do a report on every
piece of information. We did on the focus groups, but it isn’t common on other
legislation.
Ms.
Ritchie: — And would it be possible to receive
a summary of the feedback that was received?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — So we could probably do a summary of
what we heard from the focus groups from three and a half years ago, three
years ago, 2021.
Ms.
Ritchie: — But there were consultations that
have happened since then, is that right? Is there a record of that feedback
that could be provided?
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — As I said, we can tell you who we
talked to.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Okay.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — I don’t think we have a roll-up of
what we . . . a printed version of what we had heard.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Okay, thank you very much. I
appreciate that. Perhaps maybe just to kind of round this out, in cases where
there are disputes between hamlets and councils, as is sort of contemplated and
in section 77, subsections (1) and (2), will there still be an appeal process
if one of the parties is not satisfied with the outcome?
Ms. Ulrich:
— A decision of the SMB can be appealed to the courts.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Okay, so nothing’s changed in that
regard?
Ms. Ulrich:
— No.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Okay. Mr. Chair, thank you. I have
no more questions.
The
Chair: — Thank you. Seeing no more questions,
we’ll proceed to vote on the clauses. We have clause 1‑1, short title, is
that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried.
[Clause 1‑1 agreed to.]
[Clauses
2‑1 to 5‑1 inclusive agreed to.]
The
Chair: — His Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The
Miscellaneous Municipal Statutes Amendment Act, 2023.
I’d ask a member to move to report Bill
No. 153, The Miscellaneous Municipal Statutes Amendment Act, 2023
without amendment. Mr. Goudy, you move? Is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried. Thank you. I’d like to ask
the minister for some closing comments.
Hon.
Mr. McMorris: — Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank
you to the critic and government members for being here, to allow this to
happen. And especially thank you to all the officials that are behind me, that
know this stuff so well.
The
Chair: — Thank you, Minister. Ms. Ritchie.
Ms.
Ritchie: — Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just
also want to echo the minister’s remarks and thank the officials for all being
present and answering my question, as well to legislative services for their
role in these proceedings. Thank you all.
The
Chair: — Mr. Keisig, you have comments?
Mr.
Keisig: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d just like
to add and thank the minister and his team and just give a really big shout-out
to all of the organized hamlet, resort village, and rural municipal
administrators across the province for all the hard work that they do and
staying current on bills and legislative changes that we bring forward. So
thank them for their service and all of their hard work. So thank you, Mr.
Chair.
The
Chair: — Thank you. I’d also like to thank
the ministers and the staff and Ms. Ritchie and the crew here for all their
work today. We will now recess till 6:30 tonight. Thank you.
[The committee recessed from 16:29 until
18:29.]
The Chair:
— Good evening.
I’d like to welcome everybody back. With us . . . joining us is
Nicole Sarauer and Mr. Blaine McLeod.
[18:30]
Bill No. 144 — The Police
(Miscellaneous) Amendment Act, 2023
Clause 1
The Chair: — Next on our agenda is Bill No. 144, The
Police (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act, 2023. Minister Merriman is
here with his officials. I will remind the officials to identify themselves for
the record before they speak and do not touch the microphones. Hansard operator
will turn them on for you.
We
will begin our consideration with clause 1, short title. Minister Merriman,
please make your opening comments and introduce your officials.
Hon. Mr. Merriman: — Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I’ll now offer my opening remarks for Bill 144, The Police (Miscellaneous)
Amendment Act. With me I have Greg Gudelot, and I also have Neil
Karkut.
This
bill contains two sets of changes. First the bill creates new provisions
respecting the Saskatchewan marshals service. The Saskatchewan marshals service
is a police service that will provide an additional law enforcement presence
across Saskatchewan. Its duties will include detecting, disrupting, and
deterring criminal activity, primarily in rural and remote areas; conducting
proactive investigations into offences relating to farming and agriculture;
enforcing provincial and federal statutes; locating and apprehending high-risk
and prolific offenders with outstanding arrest warrants; and providing
emergency and specialized support to other law enforcement services.
The Saskatchewan marshals services was
established by order in council last August in accordance with section 24.1 of
the Act. This was an interim step to allow staffing and procurement process to
begin, including the appointment of Rob Cameron as chief marshal.
The proposed amendments designate the
Saskatchewan marshals services as a police service through legislation and sets
out details respecting its structure, operation, and governance as well as
collective bargaining and human resource matters. Under the proposed
legislative structure, a chief marshal will administer and manage the
Saskatchewan marshals service’s operations and maintain discipline. The minister
will work with the chief marshal to develop long-term strategic priorities.
The legislation expressly prohibits the
minister from providing direction respecting investigations, the conduct of
operation, the discipline of members, or the day-to-day administration of the
Saskatchewan marshals service. And Saskatchewan marshals service governance
advisory council will advise the minister on the minister’s powers and the
duties respecting the Saskatchewan marshals services.
Additionally, the deputy minister will
act as the board while dealing with public complaints, collective bargaining,
and serious incidents. This legislative structure ensures that the Saskatchewan
marshals service can carry out its own duties and mandates independently
without political bias.
The second set of changes to the Act,
its provisions respecting the serious incident response team or SIRT. First,
the changes create a warrant process to allow SIRT to obtain evidence from
third parties that will assist with investigations. Currently if SIRT requires
third-party evidence and the third party is not co‑operative, a warrant
is required under the Criminal Code. That warrant process requires a reasonable
belief that a criminal offence was committed.
Specific warrant powers for SIRT will
help ensure transparency and public confidence in policing, even in cases where
there are no grounds to believe an offence was committed. Appropriate rules and
processes are included to ensure the privacy rights of third parties are
respected. These changes also update matters respecting notices and timing
requirements. Most of these changes are currently addressed through
regulations, but it will now be clarified under the Act.
With that, Mr. Chair, I welcome
questions to Bill 144, The Police (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act, 2023
from the committee.
The
Chair: — Thank you, Minister. We’ll open it
up for questions now. Ms. Sarauer.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
Minister, for your opening remarks. I have a few questions about some changes
in the bill. I will try and go through them from start to finish, but I might
end up jumping around based on our conversation. The first provision I wish to
ask a question about is in relation to section 5 of the bill which repeals
subsection 24.1(5) of the legislation. Can you explain why this subsection is
being repealed?
Mr. Karkut: — Neil Karkut, I’m from the Ministry of
Justice and Attorney General. As the minister mentioned previously, initially
the marshals were established by order in council through section 24.1. In the
previous set of amendments to the Act, there were some updates made to that
section to accommodate the development of the marshals, and one of them being
that subsection (5) you see there.
As a default, it’s anticipated that the
police commission regulations will apply to the marshals, however those
commission regulations are very detailed. So in some instances it might be
necessary to create specific regulations to the marshals. So for example, if a
logo is different than set out in the regulations or some of the clothing or
equipment requirements differ slightly from what the commission sets out in its
normal regulations. So that power was established at that time in case that
needed to occur.
Those types, no specific regulations
have been passed yet. However now that the marshals are going to have their own
specific provisions under the Act, the legislation is removing that general
provision and it will be under the marshals’ specific provisions that those unique
regulations can be passed.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. Now looking at section
36.1(1), which is a part of the new part III as you’re saying, this distinct
part of the bill that includes the Saskatchewan marshals service. So going back
to my question, 36.1(1)(2) speaks about something that you have alluded to in
your opening remarks, Minister, that there will be consultation with the
minister around direction, policy, strategy, or plans. That’s clearly
contemplated in this subsection of the Act. Can you provide some examples of
what that might include?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — Thank you for the question. As it
was addressed in my opening comments, this would be providing overall very
high-level direction to the marshals service for making sure that they’re in
compliance with The Police Act and making sure that any needs that they
are requiring as far as financial needs, that those are brought to my attention
to be able to make sure that there is budgetary dollars for that. But it
wouldn’t be, as I identified, anything to do with day-to-day operations or
anything to do with specific investigations that . . . no different
than any other police service that’s in the province.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Sorry, you said at the very end, “no
different than any other police service that’s in the province.” Do you mean a
police service that answers to a . . . like it’s similar to how a
police service answers to a police board? That’s what that relationship will
be?
Mr.
Karkut: — You mentioned the board. The deputy
minister would step in where a board would traditionally act with the police
service. So an example for that would be in human resource matters; in
collective bargaining; in some instances, for example, with a public complaint
the board might play a role. So it’s the deputy minister that would playing
those roles with the marshals.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you for that clarification.
This provision deals directly with the minister, and I see . . . Now
the minister’s spoken a little bit about what this provision means broadly. He
mentioned “high-level direction.” Can you provide some more detail as to what
that would look like, for example?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — Yeah, like I had talked about, some
of the general goals would be — and as I identified, there’s going to be no
hands-on from the minister in any direction as far as investigation or day to
day — but like I said, it’s very similar to other police. Technically under the
Act, the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] in section 5(1) indicates that
the RCMP Commissioner is “under the direction of the Minister of Public Safety
and Emergency Preparedness.”
It is very similar to what that is.
Again, duties include detecting, disrupting, and deterring criminal activity;
proactive investigations into offences; enforcing provincial and federal
statutes; locating and apprehending high-risk offenders; providing emergency
and specialized supports — these are some of the duties that the marshals
service will be able to execute once they are up and running.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. I understand what the
legislation disallows the minister to be involved in specifically, but I am
asking around more detail as to what the minister is allowed to do, provided
under subsection (2). So there are clear words here like “direction,” “policy,”
“strategy,” or “plan” in 36.11(2), and I’m wondering if you can provide more
detail than you have provided as to what that could mean for the marshals
service.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — Well I would think it would be very
similar to what I do right now when I meet with the Saskatchewan association of
police chiefs, when I talk to them, I talk to the commissioner of RCMP — not
providing specific direction, but providing support for those individual
agencies and agencies working together, working with the RCMP, working with
municipal police.
I interact with chiefs of police and not
providing specific direction but providing support in their doing. And any
direction that is provided is at very, very high level and is nothing
. . . like I said, mentioned it has nothing to do with the day-to-day
operations or any execution.
The marshals will be an independent
organization from the ministry. It’s very similar to what I do with other
agencies is I check in with them how I can support them, how I can make sure
that their budgetary needs are being met and try to work as coordination of
these different entities through my office.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you, Minister. As you know
well, words matter in legislation. You’ve mentioned that you see the role as
one being a support role to the marshals; however, “support” is not used in
that provision. There are . . . “direction,” “policy,” and “strategy”
are the three words that are used.
Mr. Karkut:
— So I guess just an example of the strategic direction that you might see is
what the minister had originally gone over. For example, the SMS’s
[Saskatchewan marshals service] duties involve, you know, detecting,
disrupting, and deterring criminal activity primarily in rural and remote
areas; locating and apprehending high-risk and prolific offenders with
outstanding arrest warrants. The marshals are going to be carrying out specific
duties in those types of listed areas.
That’s an example where the minister
would be providing high-level, strategic guidance on what their goals and
duties are to carry out. They’re not the police force of original jurisdiction.
They’re going to be carrying out the specialized duties. So that’s, I guess,
one of the best or clearest examples we can provide of what type of strategic
direction and policy the minister would be providing to them.
Ms.
Sarauer: — You mentioned that the deputy
minister will be acting as the board in a traditional sense. I’m just looking
at the definition of . . . or not the definition but the Regina
Police Service board of police commission’s website where they outline what
their responsibilities are. One of them is “the Board establishes the objectives
and priorities of the Regina Police Service.” So will the deputy minister be
serving in that role or will the minister be serving in that role?
[18:45]
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — I guess as I identified in my
opening comments, the deputy minister will act as the board dealing with very
high-level public complaints, collective bargaining, and serious incidents.
That would be where the deputy minister’s role is on the operation. Then it
would be talking, you know, as far as the specific operational side of things, that
would be up to the chief marshal.
And I’ll also mention that there would
be an advisory committee that’ll be . . . make up of community
members that will also assist in providing direction, which will be made up of
organizations such as SARM, SUMA [Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities
Association]. We will work with First Nations to find an additional person from
our Indigenous, representing our Indigenous community, as well as rural and
remote areas. So we’ll make sure that that advisory committee is in place to
also help advise myself as well as the deputy minister if need be, or the chief
marshal.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. We’ll get to more detail.
I’ll ask some questions around the advisory council as well shortly. So I’m
just looking at 36. I was talking about 36.11 but in addition there’s 36.4, the
role of the minister. You’ve talked a lot about what the minister will not do.
And then here where it says in subsection (1)(a) that:
. . . the
minister shall:
(a)
provide general direction, policy and priorities to the chief marshal
respecting the SMS . . .
So it looks like that role, and as you
have just described, Minister, what the specifics of the DM [deputy minister]
will be, the DM role, that that policy and direction will . . . The
“high level” as you’ve described it will come from the minister specifically.
Now you’ve spoken a bit about the role
of the marshals and what their duties will be. And I know that is also laid out
here in terms of 36.3 around “Members.” I just have a few questions about the
scope of work for the marshals. Now you mentioned in your opening remarks,
Minister, that they will be focused on the rural and remote areas of the
province. Is that correct?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — Primarily
rural and remotes, but also helping to assist other police force in backfill if
there is any requirement for that to happen.
Ms. Sarauer: — They will be based out of Prince Albert. Is that
correct?
Hon. Mr. Merriman: — Yeah, they’ll be headquartered out of P.A.
[Prince Albert] and it’ll be up to the chief marshal to decide operationally
where he feels individual postings will be.
Ms. Sarauer: — So have there been any decisions yet as to where
those individual postings will be or how many of them there will be in the
province?
Hon. Mr. Merriman: — I don’t think so. The chief marshal hasn’t
identified anything. I would leave it up to his discretion as to where they
are. He wouldn’t necessarily . . . It’s an operational issue.
Ms. Sarauer: — Will a piece of that be a funding issue, though,
from the government? I’m assuming with individual postings
there will be buildings and equipment and the like that will need to be
purchased through the ministry. Is that correct?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — That hasn’t been determined yet.
Ms.
Sarauer: — So the only thing that has been
determined so far is where the headquarters will be?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — That’s correct. I assume that the
chief marshal is looking at a plan operationally on where he feels that the
marshals will be the most effective. But they will be mobile throughout the
province. It’s just more where they’re posted. But that would be an operational
decision based on his experience as a former police officer himself.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Has that building been purchased yet
for that headquarters?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — No. Yes, there is a building that
has been purchased for that.
Ms.
Sarauer: — How much was the purchase price?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: —
It was leased. My mistake.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Okay. What is the price of the
lease?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — I’m not sure what that has to do
with the piece of legislation, but it would be within budgetary dollars that
have been allocated to the chief marshal.
Ms.
Sarauer: — How much?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — I don’t know how much it is. It’s
within the chief marshal’s budget.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Could you provide that number to the
committee at a later date?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — Again I’m not sure what that has to
do with the legislation. It’s an operational decision. This is a high-level,
strategic legislative bill that is not into the operation. I feel we’re very
deep into the operations of the chief marshal. I don’t think that that has
anything to do with the piece of legislation in front of us.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Just for clarity of the committee,
are you refusing to provide an answer to that question?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — I’m not refusing to provide any
answer to . . . I’m talking about the piece of legislation in front
of us. Those would be something that could be done through written questions,
question period, or through estimates. We’re talking about a piece of
legislation in front of us, not necessarily the operations.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Well we’re asking about the marshals
service and how it’s going to operate, which is what this legislation is doing.
A piece of that involves purchasing equipment, purchasing buildings, hiring
staff. And I think it’s imperative on us as legislators to ask the ministry and
yourself as minister what the costs are associated with that with respect to
this bill.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — Yeah, and we’ve been very clear with
that. The start-up costs this year were $7 million, which was budgeted,
which was gone through the legislative process. And we’re looking at the budget
for next year, which is . . . Everything that you were asking about
is encompassed in that budget. So if there’s some budgetary questions when that
comes, we’d be more than happy to answer those budgetary questions. We’re
speaking specifically about the legislation, not about the budget.
Ms.
Sarauer: — So are you saying that any expenses
related to the lease did not happen in this budget term, but that it will be in
the following budget? Like it’s not coming into effect until April 1st?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — What I’m saying is that there are
$7 million allocated in this year’s budget for the marshals and
$20 million in next year’s budget for that, which we’ve been very
transparent about. All of the costs that are going to be incurred for the
lease, the vehicles, the equipment, the outfitting of the specific officers,
the training of those specific officers are all within that budgetary number.
Ms.
Sarauer: — So just to clarify, the cost of the
lease falls within the $7 million allocation that was provided for this
budget cycle.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — That’s what I’ve been told, yes.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Okay. But you will not provide us
the exact number.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — I don’t have the exact number.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Okay.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — We’re talking about two different
things. We’re talking about a budgetary number versus a piece of legislation. A
piece of legislation does not necessarily . . . There’s nothing in
this legislation about dollars. That’s a budgetary issue that we can discuss at
a financial committee meeting, absolutely. I’m just not sure what that actually
has to do with the piece of legislation in front of us, because the budget has
been set and is being adhered to.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Well again it deals with the
operations of the marshals service, which is what this legislation is designed
to do. I will move on because you’re not going to answer that question.
Can you provide some more details as to
what the scope of the work of the marshals service will be?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — Like are you talking about this
. . .
Ms.
Sarauer: — You had talked about warrant
enforcement and . . .
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — Sure.
Ms.
Sarauer: — You had talked about that in your
opening remarks.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — Sure. Yeah, I can go through it,
sure. The duties will include detecting, disrupting, and deterring criminal
activity primarily in rural and remote areas; conducting proactive
investigations into offences related to farming and agriculture; enforcing
provincial and federal statutes; locating and apprehending high-risk and
prolific offenders with outstanding warrants; and providing emergency and
specialized support to other law enforcement services, which I think is a very
big piece of the marshals that might not be understood by the general public,
that we will be able to backfill and help support municipal policing as well as
RCMP with marshals so we can keep more officers in the field versus them being
pulled off to do special duties.
Ms.
Sarauer: — So you mentioned municipal backfill.
Is that being done at the request of municipal police forces?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — Well in a situation where just
recently the Prince Albert police with one of the recommendations came out that
they needed to form a special task force or a special group of officers, and
they said it was very difficult and challenging for them to do that because
they have officers that are being used in other capacities. So this is where
the marshals could come in and backfill those positions to help out so those
officers would be able to go out onto the special task, and marshals would be
able to help them and provide some support in behind those municipal or RCMP
depending on what the task force is.
Ms.
Sarauer: — I’m actually curious to know how
that’s going to work operationally. So if the marshals are coming in to support
municipal forces, are they then answering to and taking direction from the
police chief of that jurisdiction, say the P.A. chief for example? Or are they
taking direction from the chief marshal?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — I think it would be requested by the
municipality for them that they need some support in there, that if the chief
marshal is able to allocate that support out to that specific police force,
that would be an operational decision no different than when we have a lot of
our task force, our crime reduction team are made up of municipal and RCMP. So
they work in conjunction together, not necessarily reporting to the
municipality or the RCMP, but they have a specific task. And the crime
reduction team or warrant enforcement team, the marshals would dovetail into
that very similar and be able to assist wherever they’re needed.
And that’s why bringing an additional 70
officers into Saskatchewan to be able to address this and be able to help out
and support other municipalities is being very positively received by the
Saskatchewan Association of Chiefs of Police.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Sorry. Are you saying that the
marshals service has been very positively received by the Saskatchewan
Association of Chiefs of Police?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — I would say that yes, the police
officers that I’ve spoken to are supportive of that, the chiefs that I have
talked to.
Ms.
Sarauer: — There has been a concern about
poaching, whether or not this service will, instead of adding more bodies to
Saskatchewan, will just move bodies from one policing force to another. Do you
have any comments on that?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — Well I would again leave that up to
the chief marshal as far as who he is hiring and who he is not hiring. We’ve
had lots of interest from outside the province. I think we’ve had over 125
résumés come in of seasoned officers that would like to be a part of this. They
certainly see the value of the marshals as law enforcement. And we would do our
best to make sure that we’re not pulling from one police force to be adding
into another police force. We would make sure that we keep them as whole as
possible.
In saying that, we want to make sure
that we have the most effective marshal force out there as well.
Ms.
Sarauer: — What is the starting salary for a
marshal?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — As I’ve been told, we’re going
through the process of the public service to be able to determine their salary,
but it will be somewhat comparable to other law enforcement at that level.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. What is the salary of the
chief marshal?
[19:00]
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — Again, I think we’re venturing off
into budgetary questions again. And I understand where you’re trying to go with
this, Ms. Sarauer, but we just hired the chief marshal as of January 1st. It
would be the equivalent of a police chief in other areas such as Prince Albert
Chief Nogier, in and around that specific area. But we’re really venturing into
budgetary questions, not policy questions.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. I understand you have the
number and are not providing it to the committee at this time. I will ask it
again at estimates.
I’m going to move on to the governance
advisory council which you touched on very briefly, Minister. Can you provide
some further explanation as to what their role will be?
Mr. Karkut:
— So the SMS governance advisory council, that was based partly on Ontario’s
new policing legislation, so we modelled that partially off their approach. And
I guess the best way to describe the role of the advisory council goes back to
what the minister was describing as there’s the role of the minister to provide
general policy and administrative oversight, and then the role of the chief
marshal who really runs the operational day to day, the investigations, those
elements.
So the advisory council I guess helps
maintain an extra level of oversight to ensure that independence and separation
of roles.
Ms. Sarauer:
— So just walk me through how that’s going to work, the ensuring the
independence of the roles or the separation of the roles. Sorry, I can’t
remember if you said separation or independence.
Mr. Karkut:
— Separation. Separation works.
Ms.
Sarauer: — So 36.7 speaks specifically about
what the role of the advisory council is. It looks like the minister, they’re
not required to but they can submit, for example, a policy to the advisory
council who will then determine whether or not the minister is able to provide
that policy to the SMS? Is that correct?
Mr. Karkut:
— That would be a correct description. I would just add that there’s two
branches. So the minister may submit a policy, for example, to the advisory
council. But if you also look at subsection (3), the advisory council can
request that the minister provide a direction or policy or strategy as well. So
if there was something in the works or something recently introduced, they
could also request that be provided. So they could initiate the review as well.
Ms.
Sarauer: — So what happens after that review
concludes?
Mr. Karkut:
— That would be, I guess, 4(b) would be the main description there, is they can
“provide any advice or recommendations to the minister with respect to the
direction, policy, strategy or plan . . .” It’s an advisory role.
Ms.
Sarauer: — So would their recommendations ever
be publicly available?
Mr. Karkut:
— Yeah. That’s addressed in subsection (5). It’s in the minister’s discretion,
but may publish any advice they receive in the manner that the minister
considers appropriate.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. So you hit the piece that
I wanted to ask about. It’s a “may” clause not a “shall” clause. Why was that
drafted in that way?
Mr. Karkut:
— That’s essentially to protect the operational integrity of the marshals. When
you’re dealing with the types of . . . For example, there might be a
policy or strategic initiative looking into gang activities where the marshals
don’t want to be publishing the details of those operations because it could be
a very sensitive area that would impact policing operations. So that’s the main
reason why the legislation leaves that as discretionary.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. I’ve a very specific
question around — now I’m going back — 36.5(2) which is around indemnifying
members for costs in the cases of criminal prosecution. Now if you look at the
end of subsection (2) it says, “. . . the minister may indemnify the
member for all reasonable costs incurred in the defence of the criminal
prosecution.” Now my understanding is most municipal police collective
bargaining agreements actually require their employer to indemnify members.
Could you explain why there is a
difference between what municipal police members receive in their CBA
[collective bargaining agreement] and what the marshals service members will
receive pursuant to this legislation in terms of indemnification?
Mr. Karkut:
— When this piece was reviewed there was concern that there may be instances
where you would have a police officer who was acting in a negligent or criminal
matter, and it’s not appropriate to be indemnifying them for their criminal
prosecution, for example. So that was the reason it was determined to make this
a discretionary power.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. I forgot to ask a
question about the advisory council when we were on it, so I’ll go back to it.
You mentioned that the board will consist of at least three members. Do you
have any idea yet how big that board is going to be? You had mentioned,
Minister, some of the stakeholders, organizations that you anticipate will form
part of the advisory council. I’m just wondering what more work has been done
with respect to what the board is going to look like.
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — Yeah, I think I can tell you this:
there’s been a lot of stakeholders that have approached us and said that they
would like to be involved with this as it is a new initiative. We’ve had lots
of groups like the Cattlemen’s Association. SARM, SUMA have specifically asked
if they could be involved with this. I gave them my verbal that, yes, they
would be involved.
We would make sure that SARM and SUMA
have a representative, now whether that’s the president or a designate, because
I think it’s very important that the marshals look at what’s happening rural
and urban as well, First Nations. I don’t have the size of that made up, but I
would like to be able to make sure that it’s inclusive of northern communities,
rural communities, as well as First Nation communities. We’ve had a very
preliminary discussion with some Métis communities as well to see if they would
be interested.
I haven’t got the total number of how
many people would be on that board. I would like it to be effective, usually I
would think 8 to 10 would be maximum, just otherwise it gets too convoluted.
And I want to make sure that they’re very focused on helping me make decisions,
or helping the minister make the decisions, and also helping out with the chief
marshal.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. I also used the word
“board.” I need to be more careful with my language — “advisory council,” just
to be specific. Do you have a timeline for when the advisory council will be
formed?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — I don’t have a specific timeline,
but we’ve had a lot of interest. So we’re just gathering the information, and
we’re going to set up a matrix to make sure that we do have a robust advisory
council. But we do have a lot of interest from a lot of our stakeholders right
now. It’s hard to provide an advisory council without operationalizing the
marshals. But we’ll make sure that we are meeting with lots of stakeholders
right now, not in an advisory capacity but in an unofficial capacity, and
they’re providing lots of great input to us, especially SARM and SUMA.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. Do you have a timeline
for when the marshals will be operationalized?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — 2026.
Ms. Sarauer:
— You had mentioned in terms of scope of duties of the marshals a focus on
rural and remote areas of the province. As I’m sure you well know, one of the
main challenges that the RCMP are faced with right now in Saskatchewan is the
exponential file load of the officers who are working north of Prince Albert.
And as a result RCMP have had to shift resources from the south of the province
to the north of the province.
Will the marshals service be addressing
some of the challenges that are being faced currently north of Prince Albert?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — There’s a few things that have to
happen north of Prince Albert. Certainly the marshals are a piece of that, but
obviously not addressing that issue until we’re operational, as in 2026. And
it’s also how we can help Assistant Commissioner Blackmore fill up her roster
of individuals, not just in the South but in the North and all areas of the
community. And I think she’s done an amazing job of opening up recruits’ eyes
that are from different parts of the country to be able to fill that.
So the marshals are a piece of that.
They’re not going to fix all of the gaps that are out there from the RCMP. As
we sit right now in the last . . . We’re about 16 per cent short on
our RCMP complement, either hard or soft vacancies. The marshals can’t fill
that. We need to raise all of our police forces, whether they be municipal,
First Nation, marshals, or the RCMP. We need more officers, especially in the
North because there are some unique challenges.
And it does take a unique individual to
be able to work in the North, just because of the geography and the culture
that is up north. There’s a lot of nuances to that, so we want to make sure
that we’re supporting the RCMP to be able to fill those spots, as well as helping
out with the marshals to be able to fill in some of those gaps to assist the
RCMP.
[19:15]
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. No further questions.
The
Chair: — Seeing no more questions, we will
proceed to vote on the clauses.
Clause 1, short title, is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried.
[Clause 1 agreed to.]
[Clauses 2 to 14 inclusive agreed to.]
The
Chair: — His Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The
Police (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act, 2023.
I’d ask a member to move that we report
Bill No. 144, The Police (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act, 2023
without amendment. Mr. Keisig moves. Is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried. Minister, do you have any
closing comments?
Hon.
Mr. Merriman: — I’d just thank my officials. I thank
Ms. Sarauer for the respectful discussion. And my quick comment is, I think
this is my first bill under His Majesty, so it was one little nuance there that
I caught. But thank you very much to all my officials and thanks very much to
the committee for their time this evening.
The
Chair: — Thank you. Ms. Sarauer, any closing
comments?
Ms.
Sarauer: — I just join with the minister in
thanking yourself, Mr. Chair, and the rest of the committee for their important
work, as well as the minister and his officials for their thoughtful responses
to my questions. And just thanks to everyone within your ministry, including
those behind you, for all the work that they do in serving the province every
single day.
The
Chair: — Thank you. I too would like to thank
the minister and the staff and all the colleagues here that are here tonight as
well. We’ll now take a brief recess to change officials. Thank you.
[The
committee recessed for a period of time.]
The
Chair: — I’d like to welcome everybody back,
and we have Minister Eyre here with her officials for consideration of our
remaining bills. I would remind officials to identify themselves for the record
before speaking and not to touch the microphones. The Hansard operator will do
them for you.
Bill No. 140 — The Miscellaneous
Statutes Repeal Act, 2023
Clause 1
The
Chair: — We will begin with Bill
No. 140, The Miscellaneous Statutes Repeal Act, 2023, clause 1,
short title. Minister Eyre, please make your opening comments and introduce
your officials.
Hon.
Ms. Eyre: — Absolutely. So thank you, Mr. Chair.
I’m here with Darca Tkach, Crown counsel, legislative service; Darcy McGovern
as well. And this is Bill 140, as stated. To that bill, Mr. Chair, we are
always reviewing legislation to identify any statutes which have become
outdated or obsolete. These include older Acts that are no longer relevant,
Acts that have been replaced by new legislation, private Acts where non-profit
organizations have ceased operations.
And this year there are eight Acts
proposed for repeal. Three of these are public. The Names of Homes Act
from 1927 has had its purpose partly assumed by The Business Names
Registration Act. The Saskatchewan Advantage Grant for Education Savings
(SAGES) Act oversaw a program of provincial education grants which ended in
2017. An Act respecting The Summer Resort Village of Carlyle Lake Resort
is out of date, as what is now the White Bear Lake Resort is currently managed
by the White Bear First Nations.
And the other five Acts to be repealed
are private Acts relating to non-profit organizations which are no longer
operating as corporate entities in the province. These are An Act respecting
the Canadian Bible Society, Saskatchewan District; An Act to incorporate
Sacred Heart Academy; An Act to incorporate The Catholic Women’s League;
An Act to incorporate the Herbert Bible School Association; and An
Act to incorporate The Wildlife Foundation of Saskatchewan.
In preparing this bill, officials have
worked with officials from other ministries and stakeholders to confirm that
the proposed repeal of legislation is appropriate. And with that I welcome
questions respecting Bill 140, Mr. Chair.
The
Chair: — Thank you, Minister. I’ll open it up
for questions. Ms. Sarauer.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. Minister,
thank you for your opening remarks. In your opening remarks you’ve answered all
of the questions that I had with respect to this bill, so I have no further
questions.
The Chair:
— Seeing as there was no questions, not more questions, we will proceed to vote
on the clauses. Clause 1, short title, is that agreed?
Some Hon. Members:
— Agreed.
The Chair:
— Carried.
[Clause 1 agreed to.]
[Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to.]
The
Chair: — His Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The
Miscellaneous Statutes Repeal Act, 2023.
I’d ask a member to move that we report
Bill No. 140, The Miscellaneous Statutes Repeal Act, 2023 without
amendment.
Mr.
Grewal: — I so move.
The
Chair: — Mr. Grewal moves. Is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried. Is there any closing
comments on none of the questions?
Hon.
Ms. Eyre: — No.
The
Chair: — Thank you. Ms. Sarauer, you have
none? Okay, we’ll move forward.
Bill No. 141 — The Statute Law
Amendment Act, 2023
Clause 1
The
Chair: — Next on our agenda will be Bill
No. 141, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023. We will begin our
consideration with clause 1, short title. Minister Eyre, please make your
opening comments and introduce your officials.
Hon.
Ms. Eyre: — Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This
bill will make housekeeping changes to a number of Acts. The changes won’t have
substantive impact on the Acts being amended, but they fit into the policy of
keeping legislation up to date.
Cross references and language errors
will be corrected in The Animal Production Act; The Architects Act,
1996; The Business Corporations Act, 2021; and The Saskatchewan
Technology Start-up Incentive Act. Provisions relating to the new
application for leave-to-appeal process will be added to The Insurance Act
and The Securities Act, 1998.
References to repealed Acts will be
replaced with the current applicable legislation in The Enforcement of Money
Judgments Act; The Public Guardian and Trustee Act; The Public
Health Act, 1994; and The Summary Offences Procedure Act, 1990.
Redundant or out-of-date provisions will
be repealed in The Personal Property Security Act, The Public Pension
and Benefits Administration Corporation Act, and The Time Act.
The name of a government branch will be
updated in The Medical Laboratory Licensing Act, 1994.
Finally, references to Her Majesty will
be amended to say the Crown or His Majesty in The Justice and Attorney
General Act, The Provincial Sales Tax Act, and The Sale or Lease
of Certain Lands Act.
And, Mr. Chair, with those remarks I
welcome any questions.
The
Chair: — Thank you, Minister. I will open it
up for questions. Ms. Sarauer.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr.
Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your opening comments. As you had
mentioned, there are several changes in this legislation, all housekeeping, one
of those being a change to pieces of legislation to make the language gender
neutral. What other work is the ministry doing to ensure that language
throughout all legislation is gender neutral?
Mr.
McGovern: — Thank you. The role of our drafters,
on an ongoing basis with respect to all the legislation that is coming forward,
has been to identify methods for dealing more specifically with the officers.
As you know, in the old days it was “he.” That was how the references defaulted
to, and that became “he or she.”
And it became clear that it was more
appropriate to, in cases where they could, refer instead to the officer, to the
sheriff, to the office of the director of land titles, for example, and then
that was simply a more appropriate way to do it.
And at this point that’s been a very
effective way to bring the legislation forward without having to be specific
with respect to the gender changes, and our drafters view that as a standing
challenge and something that they try and do.
Ms.
Sarauer: — So legislation is being continually
reviewed for that purpose?
[19:30]
Mr.
McGovern: — That’s correct. As you know, in
Saskatchewan we haven’t had an approach of seeing, since 1978, a full, revised Statutes
of Saskatchewan. Instead the policy and the direction of cabinet and the
ongoing direction of the ministers has been to continually seek to refresh the
legislation and do that on a consistent policy basis.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. No further questions.
The
Chair: — Seeing as we have no more questions,
we will proceed to vote on the clauses. Clause 1, short title, is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried.
[Clause 1 agreed to.]
[Clauses 2 to 19 inclusive agreed to.]
The Chair:
— His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly
of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023.
I’d ask a member to move that we report
Bill No. 141, the statute amendment law Act, 2023 without amendment.
Mr.
B. McLeod: — So moved.
The
Chair: — Mr. McLeod moves. Is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried. Any closing comments on
this bill? Hearing none. Ms. Sarauer,
you’re good? Okay.
Bill No. 145 — The Funeral and
Cremation Services (Legal Decision-Maker Protection) Amendment Act, 2023
Clause 1
The
Chair: — We’ll be moving on to consideration
of Bill No. 145, The Funeral and Cremation Services (Legal
Decision-Maker Protection) Amendment Act, 2023. Clause 1, short title. Minister Eyre, please make your
opening comments.
Hon.
Ms. Eyre: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. And with me,
Maria Markatos, senior Crown counsel, legislative services branch with the
Ministry of Justice; and Denny Huyghebaert, executive director, consumer
protection division, Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan.
So thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m pleased to
offer opening remarks on, as stated, Bill 145, The Funeral and Cremation
Services (Legal Decision-Maker Protection) Amendment Act, 2023. This bill
amends The Funeral and Cremation Services Act to make important changes
to the priority scheme for decision making regarding the disposition of human
remains.
When a death occurs it can be of course
a very difficult and emotionally charged time for family members. In some cases
the family members of a deceased person cannot agree on how the remains of the
deceased should be disposed of, and specifically where there is no executor and
family members cannot agree.
This bill amends the Act to create a
distinction between the legal decision maker for a child and another parent.
And, Mr. Chair, this distinction is necessary because where persons in the same
category disagree, the oldest is currently given priority — despite not perhaps
having had legal decision-making responsibility for a child. The amendments
will instead give priority decision-making responsibility over the disposition
of remains in these circumstances to a legal decision maker appointed by the
court.
The proposed amendments also include
some housekeeping changes. And with those opening remarks, Mr. Chair, I welcome
questions regarding this bill.
The
Chair: — Thank you for your comments,
Minister. We’ll open it up. Ms. Sarauer.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
Minister, for your opening comments. I have a few questions with respect to
this bill, the first one being section 6 of the bill, which repeals subsection
25(6). Could you provide some explanation as to why this particular subsection
is being repealed?
Ms.
Markatos:
— Thank you. Maria
Markatos, legislative services branch, Ministry of Justice and Attorney
General. This amendment is entirely around clarifying the terms for members
appointed to the Funeral and Cremation Services Council. So 25(6), which is
being repealed, applies only to members who are applied pursuant to clause
(1)(a).
Those members
were the ones who were appointed back in 1999. They were at that time entitled
to be appointed as part of the first council and then for two additional
three-year terms. Current members are entitled to hold office under 26(2) for
two consecutive terms. So to avoid any issue about which section applies, we’re
repealing this section to make it clear that 26(2) applies.
Ms. Sarauer: — Thank you for that. Now the crux of this
bill is around section 91 and who will be an authorized decision maker. And I
think, Minister, you laid out the problem with the original legislation very
well. Could you provide any explanation as to why section 91 was enacted in its
original form?
Hon.
Ms. Eyre: — Thanks, Mr. Chair. Maria can perhaps
provide just a little bit more background. I mean this is sort of late ’90s and
around some of the health care Acts of the time.
One thing that you had raised
previously, and it’s on whether there were any remaining bills that have this
priority scheme. And so just as a foreword to Maria’s comments on some of the
history of that section and the history of the Act, I thought it was
interesting or perhaps important to point out that there are no remaining
pieces of legislation that will have the oldest parent take priority over a
legal guardian. And we can provide more information around that, but I know
that was something that we had talked about previously.
And so with the proposed amendments,
this Act will be now in line with the other Acts that have a priority scheme
for decision making, so all of which provide that that legal decision maker
takes priority over another parent regardless of age. But Maria, please, if you
want to go into the history of the section.
Ms. Markatos:
— Sure, thank you. This provision dates back to 1999 and it came about right
around the same time as The Health Care Directives and Substitute Health
Care Decision Makers Act in 1997, which has a priority scheme for decision
making in a timely manner.
So I think — and I wasn’t around back in
the ’90s — but I think the intention was because there is a concern around a
timely disposition of human remains and dignity to the deceased person, that a
priority scheme be in place so that an authorized decision maker can be found quickly
to make those decisions.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you. And thank you, Minister.
You anticipated and answered my follow-up question and I appreciate that.
With respect to this amendment, in
particular in relation to adult children, how does this amended provision
compare to how this issue is handled in other jurisdictions throughout Canada?
Ms. Markatos:
— Across the country, BC [British Columbia] and Alberta are the only other
jurisdictions that have priority schemes that are similar to ours. The further
east you move, there are no priority schemes in place, so the disposition of
human remains lies with the executor. If there is no executor under the will,
then it would be an administrator if there’s a dispute over human remains
. . . [inaudible interjection] . . . I know, I was
surprised as well.
Ms.
Sarauer: — I’m very curious to how that works,
how that . . . Operationally it seems like it would be a challenge in
a lot of circumstances.
Ms. Markatos:
— There is definitely a lot of case law in other jurisdictions, but BC and
Alberta are very similar to our current framework; they came about around the
same time.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you for that.
As you well know, Minister, and I spoke
about this in my adjourned debate . . . Just for the purposes of the
committee, this was an issue that was brought to my attention and my
colleague’s attention — Ms. Young — from a woman who had a pretty horrific
story about her adult son who died in a car accident. And although her adult
son had lived with her up to recently, had been . . . You know, she
was the legal decision maker for many years because she had left an abusive
relationship.
Because her ex, the father, was older
than her, he ultimately was the one who was granted decision-making powers as
to how to deal with the body and what the funeral would look like, which was
very traumatic for her and actually has resulted in a lot of challenges in
terms of accessing . . . being able to know when the funeral was
going to occur and being able to access the body, frankly.
So we wrote a letter, my colleague and
I, to you, Minister, and very much appreciate how quickly you acted on this
particular issue and how you were able to expeditiously move a practical
solution forward so hopefully another person in this province doesn’t have to
experience what that woman experienced. So I just thank you.
Hon.
Ms. Eyre: — Thank you for that. And again, I
won’t reiterate anything that you said in terms of the tragedy of the
situation. And correctly there was . . . the woman involved, I think,
around the same time wrote to you and your colleague, wrote to my office and a
colleague as well. And so we’re pleased to be able to do this practical but
important . . . to carry out this change.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Absolutely. We don’t always get to
celebrate when we work together to achieve positive solutions, so I always want
to make sure that we take the opportunity to point those out, because they
definitely do happen. So thank you for that. I have no further questions.
The
Chair: — Thank you. Seeing no more questions,
we will proceed to vote on the clauses.
Clause 1, short title, is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried.
[Clause 1 agreed to]
[Clauses 2 to 15 inclusive agreed to.]
The
Chair: — His Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The
Funeral and Cremation Services (Legal Decision-Maker Protection) Amendment Act,
2023.
I’d ask a member to move that we report
Bill No. 145, the funeral and cremation services (legal decision-maker
protection) Act, 2023 without amendment. Mr. Goudy moves. Is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried. Any closing comments? Thank
you. Any comments?
Bill No. 146 — The King’s Bench
Consequential Amendments Act, 2023
Clause 1
The
Chair: — Next on our agenda will be Bill
No. 146, The King’s Bench Consequential Amendments Act, 2023,
clause 1, short title. Minister Eyre, will you please make your opening
comments and introduce your officials if you wish.
Hon.
Ms. Eyre: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. With me, Kara
Moen, Crown counsel at legislative services; and I’m not sure I properly
introduced Darcy McGovern earlier, K.C. [King’s Counsel], legal executive
director of public law. I should have done that.
So, Mr. Chair, pleased to offer opening
remarks concerning Bill 146. It is a companion to The King’s Bench Act
which was passed in the spring of 2023 following the succession of the Throne. The
King’s Bench Act updated The Queen’s Bench Act, 1998 and made some
amendments to bilingual legislation to replace references to the Queen with
references to the King.
[19:45]
This bill continues that work by making
consequential amendments to over 250 English-only statutes, and it’s entirely
housekeeping in nature, Mr. Chair. Ensures that the name of our superior court
and its rules will be accurately cited in our legislation.
So with those remarks, I welcome any
questions.
The
Chair: — Thank you, Minister. We’ll now open
it up for questions.
Ms.
Sarauer: — Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
Minister, for your opening remarks.
Understanding that this legislation is
housekeeping, I’m just wondering if there are any anticipated further amendment
legislation required to deal with the succession of the Throne in the future.
Hon. Ms. Eyre:
— Kara can certainly add anything. My understanding is that there are about 600
amendments here to over 250 statutes that refer to Queen’s Bench, Queen, etc.
So that will all be updated herewith, and the legal effect of Queen to King, as
you’ll know, already took place with the introduction of The King’s Bench
Act in the fall. So this just cleans up all the statutes.
Ms. Moen: — Kara Moen, Crown counsel. That’s correct.
And I tip my hat to the drafting branch that does a very fine-tooth comb of all
this legislation. And we may see some changes in regulations going forward, but
we’re hopeful that we’ve caught most, the vast majority of the changes.
Ms. Sarauer: — Thank you. And join with you in respect and
empathy for the drafting branch who went through all of this legislation with a
fine-tooth comb. I have no further questions.
The Chair: — Thank you. Seeing no more questions we will
proceed to vote on all the clauses. Clause 1, short title, is that agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried.
[Clause 1 agreed to.]
[Clause 2 to 33 inclusive agreed to.]
[Schedule 1 agreed to.]
The
Chair: — His Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The
King’s Bench Consequential Amendments Act, 2023.
I’d ask a mover that we report Bill 146, The King’s Bench
Consequential Amendments Act, 2023 without amendment.
Mr.
Keisig: — I do so move.
The
Chair: — Mr. Keisig has moved. Is that
agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried. Is there any closing
comments on this bill?
Ms.
Sarauer: — Mr. Chair, yeah, thank you. Since it’s
my last Justice bill of the evening, I just want to take the opportunity to
thank yourself, Mr. Chair, and the committee for their work, as well as the
minister for her thoughtful answers to my questions. And all of your officials,
thank you for being here tonight answering my questions and for all the work
you do on behalf of the province every day.
The
Chair: — With that I’d like to thank Ms.
Sarauer for her work tonight, and thank you for all the good questions and an
easy job.
Mr. B. McLeod:
— Mr. Chair?
The
Chair: — Yes?
Mr. B. McLeod:
— I just noticed that we passed
a motion for schedule 1. There also is a schedule 2, and I just don’t want to
have to come back here again. Page 9.
The Chair:
— Oh, okay. That’s right here. Look at that.
Okay.
Schedule 2, is that agreed?
Some Hon. Members:
— Agreed.
The Chair:
— Carried. We will add that on to the list if everybody’s in agreeance. Thank
you.
[Schedule
2 agreed to.]
The Chair:
— Thank you for catching that, Mr. McLeod.
Bill No. 148 — The Film Content
Information Act
Clause
1
The Chair:
— We will now move on to Bill No. 148, The Film Content Information Act,
clause 1, short title. Minister Eyre, please make your opening comments and
introduce your officials.
Hon. Ms. Eyre:
— Absolutely. My pleasure again, Mr. Chair. Denny Huyghebaert, executive
director of FCAA [Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan].
Karen Pflanzner is here, senior counsel with FCAA; and Darca Tkach, Crown
counsel, legislative services with me.
So
pleased to offer opening remarks on this bill, Bill 148, Mr. Chair. The film
industry has undergone significant changes since the existing film
classification system was originally implemented. Digital technology, streaming
platforms have changed how media is being distributed and consumed.
Increasingly, film content is being downloaded over the internet or streamed on
demand rather than being viewed at theatres or at home.
That said, the film industry has also
seen something of a renaissance since the pandemic, and the current Act
requires classification of films before they are exhibited to the public or
sold or rented. It also requires that advertising associated with films be
approved.
Film exhibitors and distributors must
also currently register with and submit an annual return to the director of
film classification with the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority.
Additionally, exhibitors and distributors must pay — that’s currently — a fee
of up to $440 per film for the classification of a film unless it’s exempted
from classification in Saskatchewan. This Act will remove that fee, resulting
in savings to operators of about $65,000.
There is a certain amount of red tape
for cinema operators currently. National exhibitors must at times pay multiple
sets of classification fees in different provinces for a film to be viewed in
Canada. Film industry stakeholders in Saskatchewan asked the government to
consider ways to reduce the burden and cost for film exhibitors, large and
small.
This Act, Mr. Chair, will modernize film
classification, remove cumbersome and expensive requirements for cinema
operators, and ensure that Saskatchewan filmgoers continue to make informed
viewing choices. Exhibitors will now be required to provide information about a
film’s content to consumers in advance of exhibition.
It’s also important to note that the
bill will still require that adult films be reviewed and approved by an entity
authorized to approve adult films. And this proposed Act will continue to
ensure that consumers are provided with film content information that they need
to make informed viewing choices but, as stated, will also reduce unnecessary
red tape and compliance costs for businesses.
The legislation and accompanying
regulations will still require that film exhibitors provide detailed
information on a film’s content with the public, which could include the age of
the intended audience; adult themes; violent, coarse, or obscene language; and
substance use. And with that, Mr. Chair, welcome questions regarding Bill 148.
The
Chair: — Thank you for your opening comments,
Minister. I will now open it up for questions. Mr. Teed.
Mr.
Teed: — Yes, thank you so much for your
opening remarks, Minister. My first question is just, which stakeholders did the
ministry consult with specifically about these amendments?
Hon.
Ms. Eyre: — So thanks, Mr. Chair, and certainly
any additional comments officials can certainly weigh in on.
So a consultation paper regarding the
review of Saskatchewan’s film and video classification legislation was posted
on the FCAA’s website on August 31 of 2023. And it was emailed directly to over
145 stakeholders, including all existing film registrants, the Saskatchewan
Coalition for Tobacco Reduction, the Saskatchewan Medical Association, Consumer
Association of Saskatchewan, and film industry associations.
There was a news release issued on
August 31 also of last year, inviting the Saskatchewan public and interested
stakeholders to offer feedback on the consultation paper and the regulatory
framework which governed film classification. And the FCAA received 17 written
responses, is my understanding, received them from parents, from consumers,
exhibitors, distributors, industry groups, a consultant, and other film
registrants. There were no responses, again is my understanding, that were
received from health advocacy groups.
Mr.
Teed: — And since introduction, have there
been any further concerns or feedback brought forward by those or similar
agencies? Anything new?
Hon.
Ms. Eyre: — My understanding is that it’s been
largely no. Very limited, if at all, and largely positive. Anything that
officials want to add there?
Mr.
Huyghebaert: — Yeah, I’ll just add, you know, from
consumers, no additional feedback or comments or questions. We’ve had a couple
of inquiries from industry members inquiring about when this legislation might
come into effect in anticipation.
Mr.
Teed: — In the opening remarks, it was
mentioned that film advertisement had, in the past, needed to be approved
before exhibition. Will that continue, or is that one of the red tapes that
will kind of be taken away in this upcoming legislation?
Hon.
Ms. Eyre: — Do you want to just repeat the
question? I’m sorry, Mr. Teed.
Mr.
Teed: — Yeah. It was just mentioning that
film advertisement in the past had needed to be approved before it could be put
forward. I’m wondering if that will continue, or is that kind of the red tape
that’s mentioned, that these operators will be able to just go forward without
having to approve that advertisement?
Mr.
Huyghebaert: — Yeah, that’s being removed as well.
Mr.
Teed: — Okay, perfect. As I was doing a bit
of a deep dive into film classification, I came to understand that we have our
own film classification but have kind of opted to use British Columbia. Us in
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and British Columbia kind of use a similar
classification. Will there be any change to the way consumers see those
classifications on posters, I’m imagining, advertised or communicated through
websites? Will we continue to maintain that kind of 14A, 18A, rated R type
classification system?
Hon.
Ms. Eyre: — Certainly again, officials, feel
free to weigh in. So in terms of the BC aspect that you referenced, I believe
you are referring to the classification system which we currently are part of,
through which we have to go through BC. So basically so exhibitors and
distributors currently get charged twice. So the current fee for age
classification of a film in Saskatchewan, as I said, is 440; 220 is retained by
BC and 220 to Saskatchewan, so as it currently is to the film classification
unit within the FCAA.
Ontario went down this road, so I guess
if there was any looking to another jurisdiction it was perhaps more eastward
in that sense in terms of how they had manoeuvred around this. It really is
taking out that middleman, if you like, of going always through the BC
classification system and the cost involved really for anyone who wants to show
films, including of course in Saskatchewan independent theatres. And so it’s
not only the bigger players. So it’s really removing ourselves from that red
tape, I guess, if you like.
Mr.
Teed: — No, that makes a lot of sense. My
next question maybe kind of is answered along the same line, as I was looking at
the director of film content and potentially any deputies. Are these new
positions that will be created to facilitate this new Saskatchewan model where
we won’t have to rely on British Columbia? Is that kind of the line of that?
Hon.
Ms. Eyre: — There are no positions in terms of
this change.
Mr.
Teed: — Oh okay. In the legislation it says
that there might be a director appointed, a director of film content.
[20:00]
Mr.
Huyghebaert:
— So within existing staff. And so right now there’s a director of film
classification; now under the new regime it would be a director of film
content.
Mr.
Teed: — Perfect. I think that is all my
questions this evening. Thank you so much.
The
Chair: — Thank you. Seeing no more questions,
we’ll proceed to vote on the clauses.
Clause 1, short title, is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried.
[Clause 1 agreed to.]
[Clauses 2 to 21 inclusive agreed to.]
His Majesty, by and with the advice and
consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The
Film Content Information Act.
I would ask a member to move that we
report Bill No. 148, The Film Content Information Act without
amendment. Moved by Mr. Grewal. Is that agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried. I will now ask the minister
for some closing comments.
Hon.
Ms. Eyre: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to
committee members. Thank you for your vigilance around subclause (2). Very
important. And I want to thank officials.
One is very struck every year by the
proverbial journey that is these bills. And so they go through many processes
and much scrutiny, and it’s all worthwhile in the end. But I do want to thank
all officials for all their work, their very detailed work on all of this.
The
Chair: — Thank you, Minister. Mr. Teed, do
you have any closing comments?
Mr.
Teed: — I just echo the comments by the
minister. Thank you all so much for yourself and your team and committee
members and all the staff here at the Legislative Assembly.
The
Chair: — Thank you. I would also too like to
thank the minister, staff, and all the committee today, and also the staff for
putting up with us tonight.
That completes our committee’s business
for tonight. I would ask a member to move the motion of adjournment. Mr.
McLeod, you’re efficient enough. You can move it.
Mr.
B. McLeod: — I so move.
The
Chair: — Is that all agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
The
Chair: — Carried. This committee stands
adjourned till the call of the Chair.
[The committee adjourned at 20:03.]
CORRIGENDUM
On page 597 of the November 28, 2023,
verbatim report No. 28 for the Standing Committee on Intergovernmental
Affairs and Justice, the last sentence of the first paragraph, right column,
should read:
Like these dollars that you have.
The online transcript for November 28,
2023 has been corrected.
We apologize for the error.
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.