CONTENTS
Standing Committee on Public Accounts
Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency
Summary of Implemented Recommendations
COVID‑19 Financial Support Programs
Standing Committee on Public Accounts
THIRTIETH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
Hansard Verbatim Report
No.
3 — Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Well good
morning everyone. I’m Trent Wotherspoon, MLA [Member of the Legislative
Assembly] for Regina Mount Royal, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I’d
like to introduce the members of the committee that are with us here today: MLA
Chan; MLA Crassweller; Minister Harrison; we have MLA Pratchler and MLA Gordon;
and MLA Kropf is substituting for MLA Wilson here this morning.
I’d like to introduce officials from the
Provincial Comptroller’s office. We have Chris Bayda, Provincial Comptroller,
and Jane Borland, assistant provincial comptroller. Welcome to you both.
I’d like to welcome our Provincial Auditor,
Tara Clemett, and her team to the committee here today from the Provincial
Auditor’s office. She’ll be introducing the respective members of her team with
each of the various chapters that we focus in on here today.
Saskatchewan Polytechnic
Chair
Wotherspoon: — With that
we will turn our attention to the Saskatchewan Polytechnic. I want to welcome
CEO [chief executive officer] Larry Rosia to the Assembly — and president —
along with his team here today. Thanks for being here. Thanks for all your
leadership for this very important institution in our province. And I would ask
Mr. Rosia to briefly introduce the officials he has with us here today at this
time. Not to get into the focus of the chapters because we’ll focus on those
individually in a moment.
Larry Rosia: — Well thank you, Mr. Chair. And good morning
to the committee members, the Provincial Auditor’s office. And to help me
respond to the questions today, I have two of my colleagues here: Jacquelynn
Brown, director of finance and administration of applied research and
continuing education, as well as Deanna Kematch, director of Indigenous
student success strategy.
Chair Wotherspoon:
— Right on. Thanks for being here today to you all. I’ll turn it over now to
the Provincial Auditor, and I believe they’re going to focus their attention on
the first chapter there, the 2022 report volume 2, chapter 22.
Tara Clemett: — Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee
members, and officials. With me today is Mr. Victor Schwab, and he’s the deputy
provincial auditor that is responsible for the advanced education sector, which
does include Sask Poly. Behind me to my right is Jennifer Robertson, and she
was involved in the performance audit that we’ll discuss around Indigenous student
success. And then directly behind me is Michelle Lindenbach, and she’s the
liaison with this committee. She will be joining us for the entire morning, so
I won’t keep reintroducing her for the further agenda items.
So
there are two chapters on the agenda for Sask Poly. So Victor is going to
present the details and our findings within those chapters. He will pause after
each chapter for the committee’s discussion and consideration.
First
is a follow-up audit. We looked at whether or not Sask Poly had taken
appropriate actions to address the five recommendations we first made in 2020
related to carrying out applied research. This committee agreed with our
recommendations in September 2022. We are pleased to see that two years later
when we came back, all five recommendations were fully implemented and Sask
Poly’s processes improved.
The
second chapter is a performance audit that did examine Sask Poly’s processes
for supporting the success of Indigenous students. There are four new
recommendations for this committee’s consideration in this chapter.
Just
before I turn it over to Victor, I do want to thank the president and CEO of
Sask Poly as well as his officials for the co-operation that was extended to us
during the course of our work. With that, I’ll turn it over to Victor.
Victor
Schwab: — Thank you. Chapter 22 of our 2022
report volume 2, on pages 231 to 235, reports the results of our first
follow-up of Sask Poly’s progress towards addressing the five outstanding
recommendations initially made in our 2020 audit of its processes to carry out
applied research.
The
committee agreed with our five recommendations in 2022. By September 2022, Sask
Poly had implemented all five recommendations. Having effective applied
research processes helps protect Sask Poly’s reputation with research funding
partners and maintain the success of research activities.
Since
our original audit, Sask Poly established additional success measures to
evaluate the achievement of its applied research objectives, beyond focusing
solely on generating research revenues.
These
additional applied research measures included the number of and total funding
for external applied research projects awarded during the fiscal year, the
number of faculty members and researchers who participated in applied research
projects, and the number of students who were paid participants in applied
research projects.
Sask
Poly also developed an adequate process requiring staff and students to review
and sign off on its code of conduct annually. Annual acknowledgement of the
code of conduct policy provides staff and students with reminders of acceptable
business practices and the need to consider whether they have any conflicts of
interest to disclose.
Sask
Poly developed a new database for applied research projects that requires staff
to enter all key project information, for example, project status, project
dates, ethics approvals, etc. Improving documentation of research projects
better positions Sask Poly to track and report on projects as it grows its
applied research activities and its project numbers increase.
Another
area of improvement resulted in Sask Poly documenting its key risks — such as
capacity, reputational, financial viability, ethical — those risks associated
with externally funded applied research projects in this new database.
Documenting risk assessments in the database will allow Sask Poly to easily
recall the basis for decisions about project viability and acceptance.
Finally,
Sask Poly developed and implemented a policy requiring all applied research
projects with funding in excess of $5,000 to have a written agreement signed by
Sask Poly and its industry partners. Having established funding agreements with
industry partners can assist Sask Poly in recovering agreed-upon project
funding if a partner terminates its involvement with a project.
I
will now pause for the committee’s consideration.
Chair Wotherspoon:
— All right. Well thank you very much for the presentation. Thanks for the work
in this audit and the follow-up here today. I’ll turn it over to CEO Rosia for
brief remarks on the actions taken here, and then we can open it up for
questions.
Larry
Rosia: — Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want
to begin by acknowledging the work of the Provincial Auditor, and thank you to
you and your team for your advice and your recommendations. We look forward to
providing you with information and updates on the status of the
recommendations, and we’re pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
[09:15]
Saskatchewan
Polytechnic accepts and is acting on all recommendations to ensure that we
provide a high-quality learning environment and opportunities and support for
success for all of our students. Related to the recommendation regarding
applied research, Saskatchewan Polytechnic considers all recommendations to
have been fully implemented.
And
with that, Mr. Chair, Deanna, Jacquelynn, and I are happy to answer any
questions that the committee may have.
Chair Wotherspoon:
— Well thanks very much. I also want to thank CEO Rosia and your team for
putting together the work on the status update. That gives us a good summary of
actions taken. I’ll now table PAC 11‑30, Saskatchewan Polytechnic: Status
update, dated January 21st, 2025.
I’ll
now open it up to members if there’s any questions on this chapter. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you. With
recommendation 4 which we see is fully implemented, I was just curious about
your experience with the implementation of the policy that requires all
research projects with funding in excess of $5,000 to have a written agreement
signed by Sask Polytechnic and its industry partners. So what has the
experience been since the implementation of the policy?
Jacquelynn
Brown: — We’ve had success with it. It’s
helped both our team and the industry partners clearly lay out what their terms
are, when funding is expected, any invoicing requirements. It really helps both
parties clearly understand what they’re agreeing to. Rather than just, you
know, verbal communications or emails back and forth, it’s all documented.
Hugh Gordon: — I imagine with
that it also assists both you and your partners to fully define your roles and
responsibilities, I take it too.
Chair Wotherspoon:
— MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — So I see in
recommendation no. 1, there was a recommendation to broaden the measures
used to assess the success of its applied research. And I see that those
metrics were number of and total funding, number of faculty, that list.
Also
I’d like to know a little bit more about the knowledge translation. So the
research is getting done, and that knowledge translation out into the field,
industry, or you know, for that group that that research was being done, but
broadened. How is that research shared with other industry to raise the bar of
some of the things that are happening in Saskatchewan industries because of the
help from Sask Poly?
Jacquelynn
Brown: — I think that’s a great question. I
would credit our communications and marketing team. So any time we have a great
success story, those are highlighted and shared, you know, through our social
media and different media releases.
Joan
Pratchler: — Do you . . . [inaudible] . . .
are proprietary? The students have discovered something new. Are there
proprietary risks or things that have to be addressed in some of those
research?
Jacquelynn
Brown: — So with Saskatchewan Polytechnic
none of our research . . . All of our intellectual property stays
with the industry partner. We don’t hold any intellectual property.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. Thank you.
Hugh Gordon: — Just with respect
to . . .
Chair Wotherspoon:
— [Inaudible] . . . The members just need to be identified. We’ll see
if there’s . . . MLA Gordon, go ahead.
Hugh Gordon: — Sorry, my
apologies. With respect to recommendation 5 as well, I was just wondering if
maybe you’re able to highlight one or two exciting projects that are currently,
your facility is working on and things that you would be prepared to share with
us today.
Larry
Rosia: — Well we are thinking of one; maybe I
can come up with one.
We
were working with a major mining company in Saskatchewan to help them improve
productivity of their mining operations. And I don’t want to give the name out
because it is sort of still confidential there, but they’ve improved their
productivity to the point where they’re saving millions of dollars a year. But
we used our digital integration centre of excellence centre, and with the use
of AI [artificial intelligence] and machine learning were able to improve their
mining operations.
Another
example would be another mining company. We helped them with telecommunications
systems in the mine. So we used a mesh system that we helped them develop so
that they could use cell phones quite a few feet below the surface and still be
able to pick up signals. So that would be two examples.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Larry
Rosia: — And as Jacquelynn pointed out, one
of the advantages and why industry comes to us to adopt new technologies is
we’re not interested in copyrights or patents. We’re interested in the student
learning experience. So in some cases, what we discover and some of the things
that we help industry adapt, our students learn from that, and then when they
go out into industry they take that knowledge and that’s how it’s spread
through industry as well.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Any further questions on this chapter? I
know of course we probably have thousands that are watching at home here today.
And so for those that are watching this, these considerations have been before
us before, and so this is a follow-up. And of course we’ve had the detailed
actions that have been taken to implement these recommendations. So just for
those that are watching, it also demonstrates a bit of the follow-up process of
the auditor and this committee as well.
Any
other questions by committee members on this chapter? Not seeing any, at this
point I’d look for a motion to conclude consideration of chapter 22 of the 2022
report volume 2. Mover? Minister Harrison moves. All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair Wotherspoon: — All right. That’s carried.
We’ll
turn our attention now to the 2023 report volume 1, chapter 5. We have some new
recommendations in this chapter, and I’ll turn it over to the Provincial
Auditor and her office to make presentation.
Victor
Schwab:
— In 2021‑22 Saskatchewan Polytechnic had enrolment of approximately
15,000 students, of which 15 per cent self-declared as Indigenous. Sask Poly
uses its Indigenous student success strategy to improve post-secondary
educational outcomes for its Indigenous students. Sask Poly helping to reduce
disparities in educational outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
students will support more equitable outcomes in attaining higher education as
well as in employment earnings and overall success.
Chapter
5 in our 2023 report volume 1, starting on page 63, reports that we concluded
for the period ending February 15th, 2023, Sask Poly had effective processes to
support the success of Indigenous students by increasing student enrolment,
retention, and graduation rates other than in areas of our four
recommendations.
In
our first recommendation, on page 70, we recommend Saskatchewan Polytechnic
regularly consult with Indigenous communities to obtain feedback on its
strategies and to report results on Indigenous student success.
Sask
Poly solicited Indigenous stakeholder feedback during its Indigenous student
success strategy development in 2017 and its 2023 update. However we did not
see evidence of regular engagement with Indigenous stakeholders to obtain
continuous feedback on areas such as barriers faced and community needs and
reports on results of Indigenous student success consistent with good practice.
Having regular interactions with Indigenous communities helps establish a
strong relationship with Sask Poly which could result in Indigenous communities
recommending their members to pursue post-secondary education at the
institution. This could help Sask Poly increase its Indigenous student
enrolment.
In
our second recommendation, on page 73, we recommend Saskatchewan Polytechnic
verify the Indigenous identity of staff in Indigenous-designated positions.
Sask Poly’s Indigenous strategy does not require staff who self-declare as
Indigenous to provide proof of heritage; however it does require verification
for students who self-declare as Indigenous, such as providing treaty status
card or health card, to qualify for Indigenous scholarships or
Indigenous-specific services.
Sask
Poly has determined Indigenous staff should hold about 25 positions directly
involved in supporting Indigenous students. A number of high-profile instances
at Canadian post-secondary institutions where individuals benefited from making
false claims of Indigenous identity profile the need for identity verification.
Using only self-identification for Indigenous-designated positions, jobs, or
other opportunities may not be reliable. False identity claims can affect
institutional trust and negatively impact reputation.
In
our third recommendation, on page 74, we recommend that Saskatchewan
Polytechnic enhance and report on key performance measures and targets specific
to Indigenous student success. Sask Poly has an IT [information technology]
system that provides sufficient detail for Indigenous strategy department staff
to track Indigenous students’ success. However, as of March 2023, department
staff were just being trained on the use of this IT system. Once fully
utilized, this IT system will allow department staff to see real-time data on
the success of Indigenous students, such as graduation rates and enrolment, and
data for other measures supporting the success of Indigenous students such as
Indigenous student awards earned.
Sask
Polytech tracks several relevant measures to evaluate Indigenous student success,
such as Indigenous program enrolment, program retention rates, student
satisfaction with learning environment, graduation rates, graduate employment
rates, and graduate overall satisfaction with program. However Sask Poly has
established an associated target for only one key performance measure. It set a
target of a 65 per cent graduation rate for Indigenous students by 2025.
Not
establishing targets for all key measurements of Indigenous student success
increases the risk that Sask Poly may not identify disparity in outcomes
between non-Indigenous and Indigenous students. Additionally, not establishing
targets or tracking results makes it difficult to assess whether the strategy
is working or adjustments are needed to improve the success of Indigenous
students.
In
our fourth recommendation, on page 77, we recommend Saskatchewan Polytechnic
establish thresholds for when to investigate and take action on unexpected
changes in key performance measures related to Indigenous student success. Sask
Poly prepares an annual report on its Indigenous student success strategy. It
makes these annual reports available on its website. These reports include a
description of the activities and initiatives undertaken in the previous year
and statistics on Indigenous student enrolments and graduation rates.
In
addition to not having established targets, the Indigenous strategy department
had not established thresholds for when to investigate changes in key
performance measures. For example, Indigenous program enrolment fell by almost
30 per cent from 3,200 in 2019 to 2,300 in 2021. We expected Sask Poly to
document its evaluation of the reason for the decline and establish actions to
help improve enrolment. It had not done so.
Not
having established thresholds increases the risk that Sask Poly may not
identify or identify in a timely way when changes or actions are needed to
address fluctuating trends that affect Indigenous student success.
I
will now pause for the committee’s consideration.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thank you very much for the
presentation and the focus of this work. I’ll turn it over to CEO Rosia to
speak to this report briefly, and then we’ll open it up for questions.
Larry
Rosia:
— Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I get to chapter 5, a little fun fact about
applied research. Research Infosource every year kind of ranks the top 50
colleges and polytechnics in Canada. On a ranking this past year we were number
one in Canada for completed research projects, 498. And we were number one for
the number of research partnerships, 249. So just a little fun fact on the
applied research side.
And
now getting on to chapter 5, related to the recommendation that Saskatchewan
Polytechnic consult regularly with Indigenous communities to obtain feedback on
its strategies and to report results on Indigenous student success,
Saskatchewan Polytechnic considers this recommendation partially implemented.
Several initiatives have been undertaken throughout the Indigenous student
success strategy to connect regularly with Indigenous students; for example,
recent consultations that have included those related to the development of the
new Joseph A. Remai Saskatoon campus and the renewal of our institution’s
strategic plan.
[09:30]
The
team prioritizes these consultations based on issues raised that are important
to Indigenous students. To further strengthen our partnership with Indigenous
communities, we will establish mechanisms to ensure that results are shared
back to these communities. These outcomes will be incorporated into the
Indigenous student success reporting.
Related
to the recommendation that Saskatchewan Polytechnic verify the Indigenous
identity of staff in Indigenous-designated positions, Saskatchewan Polytechnic
considers this recommendation to be fully implemented. In April of 2024, we
implemented policies and procedures to verify employee declarations of
Indigenous ancestry, and that is policy and procedure no. 714.
Related
to the recommendation that Saskatchewan Polytechnic enhance and report on key
performance measures and targets specific to Indigenous student success,
Saskatchewan Polytechnic considers this recommendation to be partially
implemented. Saskatchewan Polytechnic’s Indigenous strategy department, in
consultation with our provost’s office and with the support of our strategy
department, developed specific targets for seven key performance measures
related to Indigenous student success. These measures and targets are aligned
with the objectives outlined in the refreshed Indigenous student success
strategy.
Related
to the recommendation that Saskatchewan Polytechnic establish thresholds for
when to investigate and when to take action on unexpected changes in key
performance measures related to Indigenous student success, Saskatchewan
Polytechnic considers this recommendation to be partially implemented.
Saskatchewan Polytechnic has established thresholds for when to investigate and
mitigate unexpected changes in the following key performance measures: program
persistence, enrolment, cohort graduation, graduate overall satisfaction with
the program, student satisfaction with the learning environment, and
reconciliation-focused curriculum.
With
that, Mr. Chair, Deanna and I are happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, thanks so much for those remarks and the work
in this important area on this chapter. I’d open it up now to committee members
for questions. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — I see that in the 2021‑22 report that Sask
Poly had 15,000 students, of which 15 per cent were self-identified as
Indigenous students. Could you provide updated statistics, the number of
students, and whether the proportion of self-identified Indigenous students has
changed since then?
Deanna Kematch: — We’ve seen an increase in our areas and our certificate, degree, and diploma areas of
identified Indigenous students. We’ve seen an increase in our adult literacy
program compared to 2020 when we’ve seen the abundance of Indigenous students,
and then we had the pandemic, so we’ve seen the decline. So we’re tracking that
information, but we’re seeing an increase every year since the auditor has came
and first investigated, a slight increase.
Joan Pratchler: — Good, thank you. Would you have an idea
of what percentage are now self-declared?
Deanna
Kematch:
— Thirteen per cent are self-declared right now.
Joan Pratchler: — So that’s a bit of a decline from 2021.
Deanna
Kematch:
— Overall, but we see, if we break it into three different areas — the
apprentice, adult literacy, and then our certificate, degree, and diploma area.
So we see the increase in that area. So we broke it down in three different
areas.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Sorry, just to follow up on that. And
then I notice in the auditor’s report that Indigenous program enrolments fell
by almost 30 per cent from 2019 to 2021. And you know, getting some updated
information on that could be helpful to know kind of where you’re at.
That
said, was it COVID‑related
issues that led to that reduction in enrolments on behalf of Indigenous
students or was there more to it? I guess I’m asking you to expand on the
reasons for that drop in enrolment.
Larry Rosia: — Yeah, I certainly can add more specifics. But COVID overall, we saw
a decrease in all of our student population, particularly in our Indigenous
student population. That was the 30 per cent drop. So again, the reason behind
that — we did some digging — some of it was due to during COVID we weren’t able
to get out into the communities with our recruitment practices to recruit and
to talk about our programs and to get people interested in the programs. And
because of that, we feel it’s one of the reasons enrolment went down. We just
didn’t have that recruitment activity taking place in some of the communities
of our Indigenous learners.
And then the other was,
there was a change in the funding mechanism for the Indigenous students. And it
moved over to different departments within the government and, as a result, we
were hearing from them it was a reason that some of the enrolments went down as
well. You may want to comment further?
Deanna Kematch:
— Yeah, our adult literacy program has seen a 45 per cent decrease of enrolment
due to the funding agency which served a high population of our Indigenous
learners at that time. So as Dr. Rosia has shared, our recruitment mechanism of
getting students back into a hybrid learning environment, back into learning at
home, the connectivity of that, we’ve created new, innovative ways to meet the
students at their needs. Now that we’re back fully functioning, we’re seeing
the increase now.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: —
I have a question regarding the consulting with the Indigenous communities.
It’s a three-part question. One, which Indigenous communities does Sask Poly
typically communicate with and consult with? And to the . . .
[inaudible] . . . interactions — or that was what I read here — when
did those start? And then can you tell me, what are the things that you’re
hearing from the Indigenous communities that inform your decisions to do what
you need to do for their success?
Deanna Kematch:
— So annually we report on out to all Indigenous communities, all First Nations
and Métis communities, and urban centres with high populations of Indigenous
students. We submit our ministry report, our calendar activities of events as a
recruitment mechanism too as well.
And
then all our funding agencies are invited into each one of our campuses across
the province as we landscape the whole province of Saskatchewan. So they have
opportunity to come and see and take part of Saskatchewan Polytechnic and to
ensure that their students or potential students have a safe space in what
we’re doing.
So
in our annual report that we just did, I think we had 42 Indigenous communities
just come in. So we do that twice a year — once in the spring and once in the
fall — and have our funders come into each one of our campuses now that we have
a fully established community relations team within Indigenous student success.
And that just was implemented the last two years, a community relations team.
Joan Pratchler: —
And what are you hearing from them?
Deanna Kematch:
— The barriers of moving to the cities. Yeah, socio-economic. How can we pivot?
You know, we have a really great advancement team that has bursaries to support
our learners to eliminate some financial burdens that they’re having. Over
500,000 has been committed just last year to Indigenous scholarships and
bursaries. And we have an emergency bursary program too, our holiday hamper —
like, many initiatives. But how do we decrease the loneliness from moving from
their community and increase our support services to make it feel as a safe
space to learn?
Chair
Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: —
And following up on the discussion regarding the success targets. I see that
you have seven KPIs [key performance indicator], and I trust that those are the
seven that are on the next page. My question is, those appear to be a more
demographic kind of indicators and more output indicators. Maybe you have them;
what are your input indicators, sort of benchmarks to know before we see that
they aren’t successful, these are the things that we are doing interim to keep
that at a certain level so that they’re successful on the output indicators?
Deanna Kematch:
— I’ll comment on the enrolment target for the KPIs, the first one. So now that
we have a community relations team, we’ve set that target to increase obviously
our domestic student enrolment but to enhance, with Indigenous Student Success,
our Indigenous enrolment. So a lot of focus is going out and starting now.
So we’ve started a brand new initiative
for our mining and engineering program — full tuition and books — to increase
our enrolment of Indigenous students in our mining and engineering program. We
have a bursary program for our business program too as well to enhance, to
increase those enrolment areas where we’ve seen . . . to address that
first KPI of Indigenous enrolment in specific areas, obviously the whole
institution.
So we have funded applications too, so
we eliminate the first barrier for any Indigenous student that’s looking to
come to a polytechnic, that their funding application is paid for on behalf of
Indigenous Student Success. And so we’re out in the school communities; we
bring our laptops, and we have our funders and our high school counsellors. A
great marketing and communications campaign has went out. All recruitment
efforts are just specifically for that target of our KPIs.
Joan Pratchler: —
And so looking at the beginning, getting them in seems to be quite strong, and
output, you can measure those. But that part in the middle, the instruction in
the classroom or in the field, what are some of the indicators that help know
whether the teaching is done right and the learning is done right, that
in-between part?
Deanna Kematch:
— I can comment on our learning environment that we could say that we’ve met
100 per cent of all program areas within the . . . Saskatchewan
Polytechnic has a reconciliation component. Our staff and faculty at
Saskatchewan Polytechnic have to do Indigenous awareness as a part of the terms
and conditions of their employment too as well as a part of our HR [human
resources] strategies too. So that’s, you know, starting at the faculty level
to enhance the learner experience.
The great team of Indigenous Student
Success — there’s 17 — enhances that learner experience, whether it is from
adult literacy to the apprentice to a degree program, to be a generalist to
support our Indigenous learners at all levels.
So we offer language-based services for
all students within Saskatchewan Polytechnic, Elder services. We have
lunch-and-learn opportunities. We have counselling services. So that’s meeting
the student at their need to walk them on their academic journey. To enhance
the classroom is our staff and faculty and their program training too, as well.
And then we get them on to graduation.
We have a great career services team and look for summer employment. We have
career fairs starting in February to help students get job readiness, have
employers come into the organization within our Indigenous student centres to
meet and greet our student population as well.
Joan Pratchler: —
For any of those input indicators, do you have metrics for them? And are they
reported on as well?
Larry Rosia:
— Well the input metrics would be enrolment, and we monitor that regularly.
While they’re in the program, a couple of the indicators would be program
persistence that we measure — and those are the new metrics we put in —
graduate overall satisfaction with the program. So we collect that feedback
from them as well as collecting feedback on their satisfaction with the
learning environment. And those are metrics that we’re monitoring and keeping
track of.
Joan Pratchler: —
Oh, so those would be the metrics that would be monitored during their program
rather than . . . Okay, thank you. That’s all. I’m done.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Any other . . . MLA
Crassweller.
Brad
Crassweller: —
Yeah, not a question, just congratulations on finishing top spot there for
Saskatchewan. So thank you very much, and please pass on our congratulations to
your team. Great job, so congratulations.
Larry Rosia:
— Thank you. I’ll do that. Thank you very much. Another fun fact on our
Indigenous students: we’ve hit an all-time high for Indigenous employment. So
our employment rate of our Indigenous graduates is now 94 per cent, and our
completion rate is the highest it’s ever been as well.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — That’s wonderful. And good words,
MLA Crassweller. Certainly I think that’s a message, as this committee, we’d
want to extend to you and your entire team and to all those staff and team
there and all those students and families as well. So thank you.
Just maybe a bit of a focused question
around the first recommendation around getting feedback directly from
Indigenous communities and then reporting back to them.
[09:45]
I know you’ve laid out some of the
processes you’ve undertaken here. And I think that what’s preventing this from
being implemented, if I’m understanding when I look at this status update here,
is you’re still evaluating. You’re still establishing what mechanism it is that
you’re going to use to do that consultation with Indigenous communities, and
then what sort of loop to ensure the feedback. Is that correct? And could you
be a little more, kind of, specific just where you’re at as an organization on this
front?
Deanna Kematch:
— Yes, absolutely. Now that we have, like I shared, the Indigenous community
relations team well established across the province, that’s why it’s considered
partially implemented and ongoing as what best practice is on a move-forward
basis.
So we know that bringing the Indigenous
funders into our location works really well, and they feel a part of the
Saskatchewan Polytechnic learning environment to enhance and share with their
students and their communities what work is being done at Saskatchewan
Polytechnic and move forward on an ongoing basis. Our annual reports that we
would report on out is looking back and providing the link of feedback for that
consultation work.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Thanks. And then timeline for
implementation, there’s the three that you’ve taken on this work and that
you’ve agreed with, and there’s progress certainly happening here towards
implementation. What’s been shared in the status report is that the timeline is
ongoing for the recommendations 1, 3, and 4. I’m just wondering if you’re able
to provide us, you know, a little more clarity on when this committee might
expect implementation or also what barriers you may have right now from offering
that clarity on that timeline to this committee.
Deanna Kematch:
— I believe that Saskatchewan Polytechnic will move from partially implemented
to implemented by the next academic year, and it will be passed by all levels
within the institution. And we will have metrics and it will be implemented by
the next academic year.
Larry Rosia:
— So we do annually update on all the key performance indicators. So now that
they’re implemented, we’ll be able to monitor that. At the end of this year
we’ll be able to say they’re completed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — That’s great. So the timeline
towards implementation then, would that be for all the ongoing ones or all the
ones that are in progress right now — 1, 3, and 4 — within the conclusion of
the next academic year, that implementation would be likely in that case?
Larry Rosia:
— That’s correct. Yes.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Any further questions from committee
members on this chapter? Not seeing any, I would welcome a motion that notes
that we concur and note progress with recommendations 1, 3, and 4. Moved by MLA
Kropf. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — That’s carried. And with respect to
recommendation 2, I would welcome a recommendation that we concur and note
compliance. Moved by MLA Crassweller. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — That’s carried as well. Okay, well
listen, I think that comes to the conclusion of our time with Sask Poly here
today. To President Rosia, to your wonderful team, to all those students and
all those staff that lead this organization and all that are connected to this
work through communities across Saskatchewan, we just want to say thank you.
And thank you for the work that you’ve committed to here today and that’s under
way. And thanks for your time here today. Any final remarks for us before we
kick you out of here?
Larry Rosia: —
I’d like to thank you, Mr. Chair, and the committee members and the audit
committee for their questions. They’re great questions. And thank you for the
recommendations as well. I mean in the spirit of continuous improvement,
something we always look to strive for within our organization, I like the
saying, excellence never rests. And that journey to excellence requires
constant improvement, so really appreciate the feedback, the recommendations.
It makes us all stronger. Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon: —
Right on. Well thank you so very much. As a committee we’ll now turn our
attention . . . We’ll have a brief, brief recess while we pull in the
folks here from the Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency.
[The
committee recessed for a period of time.]
[10:00]
Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Okay, folks, we’ll turn our
attention now to the Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency. I’d like to welcome
President and Fire Commissioner Marlo Pritchard and his team that have joined
us here today. At this point I’d ask him just to briefly introduce the
officials that are with him here today. Refrain from getting into the chapters
of the auditor right now because we’ll then turn it over to the auditor and
come back to you. Mr. Pritchard.
Marlo Pritchard: —
Thank you. It’s an honour to present today. Mr. Chair, we have with us today
Deputy Minister Denise Macza from CPPS [Corrections, Policing and Public
Safety]. Beside me is Laura Debassige, vice-president of our corporate
services. Behind me is Kate McCannell, director of our policy area; and Allan
Laird, manager of our privacy and information. And that’s our team today.
Chair Wotherspoon:
— Okay, thanks. Thanks very much. Thanks to you all for your work and thanks
for being here today. I also want to table at this time PAC 12‑30,
Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency: Status update, dated January 21st, 2025.
Thanks to those that put that status update together for us and those that have
taken on the work that’s reflected in that update.
I’ll
turn it over now to the Provincial Auditor for their presentation. We have
three chapters before us here today. We’ll focus on each of those stand-alone.
Tara Clemett: —
So thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members, and officials. With me today is Mr.
Victor Schwab, and he’s the deputy provincial auditor that is responsible for
the audits at the Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency.
The three chapters on the agenda for the
agency are all follow-up audits. The committee has previously agreed to all the
recommendations in these audits, and there are no new recommendations for the
committee’s consideration. The purpose of these chapters is to provide an
update to the committee in regards to the recommendations that our office has
made and the committee has agreed to, and whether or not there has been
adequate improvements made to the recommendations.
In summary, these three chapters show
the agency has made sufficient progress in relation to provincial emergency
preparedness and the SaskAlert program, but there’s still more work to do in
obtaining annual wildfire prevention and preparedness plans from industrial and
commercial operators. Victor’s presentations will provide more detail. Victor
will pause after each of the presentations for the committee’s discussion and
consideration.
I do want to thank the officials at the
Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency for the co-operation that was extended to us
during the course of our work. I’ll now turn it over to Victor.
Victor Schwab:
— Chapter 23 of our 2022 report volume 1, on pages 237 to 239, reports on the
results of our third follow-up of Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency’s progress
towards addressing the one outstanding recommendation initially made in our
2015 audit of the processes to coordinate emergency preparedness for provincial
emergencies.
By August 2022 the agency had
implemented the outstanding recommendation. The agency finalized an update to
and received cabinet endorsement of the provincial emergency management plan.
The agency also established a review process to assess alignment of each
stakeholder’s plan with the provincial emergency management plan. Key
stakeholders include the ministries of Environment, Government Relations,
Health, Highways, and Social Services, along with SaskEnergy, SaskPower,
SaskTel, and the Water Security Agency.
Periodic formal confirmation that
stakeholder emergency plans align with the provincial emergency management plan
provides confidence there will be an overall and consistent approach to
emergencies. It also assists key stakeholders in delivering on expected roles
in the event of a provincial emergency.
I will pause now for the committee’s
consideration.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Thanks so much for the presentation.
Of course this is a follow-up, and I believe this was first considered by
Public Accounts back in 2016, so just . . . those are for folks that
are watching kind of at home. I’ll turn it over to President Pritchard for
remarks, brief remarks, then we’ll open up for questions.
Marlo Pritchard: — Thank
you, Mr. Chair. As indicated, we have done a lot of work in regards to
Saskatchewan emergency preparedness and the provincial emergency management
plan. We continue to improve those processes. We have done a lot of work around
the hazard, risk, vulnerability assessment across the province, in all
fairness, using critical infrastructure individuals that are professionals or
subject matter experts. We’ve identified the highest risks for Saskatchewan.
We continue to work with our municipal
partners in regards to preparations around emergency management and doing
tabletop exercises. As example, we have done tabletop exercises with the
Saskatchewan health association, Meadow Lake Tribal Council, and just recently
Ministry of Agriculture and the federal food inspection agency around swine flu
and preparation around that.
We continue to meet on a regular basis
around the provincial emergency operations centre. We meet with the Canadian
council of emergency management. And I sit on a FPT
[federal-provincial-territorial] table around emergency management, or the
SOREM [Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Management] table. So we
continue to increase our awareness of risks and what our response will be.
Also around the emergency preparedness,
we have worked across government in regards to strengthening business
continuity or emergency plans with different government agencies in case the
province is faced with a very significant emergency where we have to pull all
of our affected ministries, agencies, Crowns together. So we work on a regular
basis.
We also meet yearly or annually. Our
emergency operation advisory committee meets annually to discuss risks in
operations and opportunities for improvement. And I guess I will stop there and
take any questions.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Thank you for those words. And of
course just thank you to you and your team for critical work for all of us in
this province on all of these fronts. I’ll open it up now to members for
questions. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. I see in recommendation 1 in
2022 . . . And just help clear up my thinking. In 2019 this
organization moved from Government Relations to the Sask Public Safety — is
that correct? — Agency. That kind of morphed over?
Marlo
Pritchard: — That’s correct. The history behind
it, it was a government, I guess, order in council that set up SPSA
[Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency]. Started in 2017 with the emergency 911
system. And over the next number of years they brought over from Government
Relations emergency management, the fire commissioner. In 2019 in November,
wildfire would have come over. And I believe it was 2022 — end of 2022, early
’23 — PDAP [provincial disaster assistance program] came over.
So what you have is the Public Safety
Agency that’s able to go right from prevention, response, mitigation, and then
of course recovery. So it’s a one-stop shop.
Joan Pratchler: —
And I see that this work began in 2015, and here again on page 239 there’s a
request for a formal review of each stakeholder for August 2023 was the goal.
It’s the beginning of 2025. What date are you thinking that the completion of
all the first formal reviews will occur?
Marlo Pritchard:
— Are we talking around emergency management? Like the,
sorry . . .
Joan Pratchler: —
It’s called the first formal review of the stakeholders’ emergency plans, on
page 239.
Marlo Pritchard:
— Okay. Yeah, I can tell you that we have done . . . Across
government with business continuity, I would say probably 80 to 90 per cent of
them have been reviewed and the work is continuing.
We started the work a little later
because of the pandemic. It was delayed, but we continue to work with our
partners across government, showing best practices and working to strengthen
the business continuity and emergency plans.
Joan Pratchler: —
And though it says 2023 here, when do you think 100 per cent might be
completed?
Marlo Pritchard:
— It depends on, I guess, the maturity of the plan that we’re assessing and
then tying it in with the risk assessments, and then we would always like to
tabletop them. So to say that it’s complete, I don’t know if you ever complete
the work because in all fairness you should be reviewing it again to make sure
that it’s current. So we would hope that within the next, I’m going to say,
fiscal year — so the end of 2025, early ’26 — we will have touched all of the
emergency plans and then we’ll be starting it again.
Joan Pratchler: —
Okay. Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
The auditor in her report indicated that the agency established a sufficient
review process in which the agency will assess the content of each individual
stakeholder plan and provide feedback as necessary. Can you just expand on that
for this committee and tell us what this review process entails and who’s
involved in reviewing stakeholder plans?
Marlo Pritchard:
— Thank you for the question. We have a number of individuals with the agency
that their job is around that emergency plan business continuity, but it
depends on where we’re looking at them.
If we’re looking at community emergency
plans, we have emergency services officers that will go out and work with a
community and help develop an emergency plan which then, in all fairness, ties
into the provincial emergency management plan. So we have a template. We walk
them through the best practices and how to get there. And we encourage them to
do a tabletop exercise to see where the gaps are within their communities.
When you’re looking across government,
we have one individual that is working around business continuity plans and
business plans, looking to make sure that they are aligned with the — again
I’ll use the term — best practices around emergency management; reflects the
requirements around critical infrastructure, dealing with those top risks which
we’ve just completed this year, in all fairness, the risk assessment.
And then from there we overlay the plan
from a provincial perspective. We will do tabletop exercises, bringing in
government partners, and then what I referenced earlier. Every year we bring in
. . . through the committee, on an annual basis, to discuss not only
the risks and the work but also some of the learnings that have happened over
the year.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
And then could you just tell the committee about the emergency operations
advisory committee as well? Who’s on that committee? And can you tell us how
people are appointed to those positions?
Marlo Pritchard:
— We have EPOs [emergency planning officer] which are appointed from ministry,
agencies, and Crowns. They are asked, I guess, or requested that they have a
decision-making ability should they be activated.
The EPOs again meet on an annual basis,
although they are activated depending on what other actions are happening in
the province. I’ll use an example. If we have significant wildfires, we will
sometimes do a call-out to the EPOs just to keep them advised in case there’s
an area where there may be, I guess, critical infrastructure exposed to the
fire. So those EPOs they can then . . . The idea is to transfer
knowledge into their ministry, agencies, and Crowns.
So there is a connection between the
emergency plan response and the different ministry, agencies, and Crowns. So
they’re appointed by the different entities, I guess, whether it’s the
minister, deputy minister, or ADM [assistant deputy minister]. That’s who
appoints it at that level. Within SPSA I appoint our EPO, because we also have
one.
Chair Wotherspoon:
— Any further questions on this chapter from the committee? Not seeing any, I’d
welcome a motion to conclude consideration of this chapter. Moved by MLA Chan.
All agreed?
[10:15]
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Okay, that’s carried. We’ll turn it
back to the Provincial Auditor to focus their attention on their 2023 report
volume 2, chapter 27.
Victor Schwab:
— Thank you. Chapter 27 of our 2023 report volume 2, on pages 235 to 239,
reports the results of our second follow-up of the Saskatchewan Public Safety
Agency’s progress towards addressing the three outstanding recommendations we
initially made in our 2021 audit related to its processes for alerting the
public about imminently dangerous events that may pose a risk to public health
and safety.
Timely, accurate, and clear public
alerting can help residents and visitors to Saskatchewan adequately prepare for
situations that pose risks to their health and safety. By January 2023 the
agency had implemented the three outstanding recommendations. The agency
monitored its SaskAlert program administrator through quarterly meetings and by
reviewing regular reports on practice and live alerts issued. The agency
regularly confirmed authorized participants like municipalities, Environment
Canada, and the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] completed practice alerts
for each quarter or removed those participants when they did not complete
required quarterly practice alerts.
Regularly monitoring the SaskAlert’s
program administrator and whether participants complete required practice
alerts reduces the risk of participants using inappropriate or inaccurate
alerts in real emergency situations. The agency maintained a listing of users
who could access the Alert Ready system and periodically updated this listing
based on participants’ completion of practice alerts, user changes sought and
provided by participating agencies, and changes requested directly by the
agency.
At January 2023, there were about 100
active participants with access to Alert Ready. Periodically reviewing user
access ensures only authorized participants have appropriate access and reduces
the risk of participants issuing inaccurate or inappropriate alerts.
I will pause now for the committee’s
consideration.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Thanks so much for the update and
the follow-up on this front. Again for anyone observing the conversation here
today and the scrutiny, these recommendations were originally made in 2019, and
then this committee considered them and concurred with them in 2020. And now we
have the follow-up loop, closing the actions that have been taken by government
to implement these recommendations, and that being verified and reported back
out by the auditor. I’ll kick it over to President Pritchard for brief remarks
on this front and then we’ll open it up for questions.
Marlo Pritchard:
— Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will concur with the auditor’s statement. We’ve put a
lot of work into this to meet those, I guess, audited improvements, and I would
be honoured to take questions.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — We’ll open it up now to the
committee for questions. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: —
I see that the remaining recommendations have been implemented, but can you
generally speak to the process of having a potential alert broadcasted through
the SaskAlert system?
Marlo Pritchard:
— Absolutely. Thank you for the question. We have a number of different ways
that can be activated. A SaskAlert, it is typically for a situation that has
imminent danger to the public whether it’s a weather event, a critical event in
regards to a dangerous person; it could be anything in regards to blizzards,
train derailments; I mean the list goes on and on.
We have a number of communities,
individuals, organizations that are trained that they can activate a SaskAlert.
So they have been trained on how to enter it and then broadcast it whether it’s
a regional broadcast — so very contained — or a provincial-wide broadcast which
you would have seen a couple times. It can be a SaskAlert immediate broadcast
which also activates in regards to your TV’s and radio’s interruptions. It
doesn’t happen very often, but it can occur.
Over the past number of years we’ve also
focused on training our clients in regards to phoning in to SPSA. We have 24‑7
coverage so that reduces the exposure to errors because we have individuals
that are trained. And so the community can phone us if they have an incident
that would fit the criteria for an activation, and we would enter it on their
behalf. We have a process and policies to follow, and then we would send it out
whether it’s a regional, again, or a province-wide.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Any further questions on this
chapter? Again there’s been significant discussion and scrutiny at this table
already on this, and thanks for the work. And obviously thanks for the work
that’s implemented these recommendations. So not seeing further questions at
this point, I would welcome a motion to conclude consideration of this chapter.
Moved by Mr. Kropf. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — That’s carried. Okay, we’ll turn our
attention now and I’ll turn it back over to the Provincial Auditor to focus on
chapter 28 of the 2023 report volume 2.
Victor Schwab:
— Chapter 28 of our 2023 report volume 2, on pages 231 to 244, reports on the
results of our third follow-up of the Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency’s
progress towards addressing the one outstanding recommendation initially made
in their 2017 audit related to its processes to detect wildfires in
Saskatchewan’s wildfire management areas.
By October 2023, the agency had
partially implemented the outstanding recommendation. The agency tracked annual
wildfire prevention and preparedness plans received from industrial and
commercial operators conducting activities in wildfire management areas during
the wildfire season, but did not know whether all such operators, like forestry
and mining operators, provided plans as required by law under The Wildlife
Act.
The agency had not undertaken follow-up
or enforcement actions against any operators who have not submitted a plan as
required by law. The plans intend to prevent fatalities and injuries and to
reduce damage caused by wildfires. They set out the location of operations and
personnel and related contact information to help the agency notify the
operators in the event of wildfire threats, and outline measures taken by
operators to prevent fire starts and protect infrastructure and assets from a
wildfire threat.
The agency was working with certain
government ministries to document standardized practices to support development
of these plans and require submission of plans as part of licensing and
permitting process, such as timber licence agreements, to efficiently support
safe operations in Saskatchewan.
Having incomplete information about
operators’ wildfire prevention and preparedness plans, including information
about values at risk, increases the risk of the agency not prioritizing its
wildfire detection and suppression activities appropriately. It also means
industrial and commercial operators may not be taking adequate measures to
reduce or prevent fire starts. Wildfires can be costly and threaten lives and
structures.
I will now pause for the committee’s
consideration.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Okay, thanks very much for this
important focus and recommendation as well. I’ll turn it over to President
Pritchard for brief remarks. Then we’ll turn to questions.
Marlo Pritchard:
— Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an area that we continue to work on. We are
working on the wildfire standards to meet the requirements of the wildfire
prevention plan, so we continue to do the annual reviews. We are developing
training for investigators along with an inspection plan. We continue to
provide awareness training to the forest industry and operators on the
provincial wildfire standards. We have successfully negotiated with the forest
industry, that amends timber licence agreements that require operators to
comply with the provincial planning and preparedness standards, so when they do
get a licence, they must submit a plan at that point in time.
We’re working with the Ministry of
Energy and Resources and mining to create a wildfire standard for their
industry. This would include part of their licensing requirements. That is an
ongoing effort. We have not, you know, landed that one yet but we are
continuing to work on that.
And we’re continually internally
increasing our capacity of our investigation and compliance units to do
compliance audits, and we’re optimistic that we will be able to start doing
that in the near future. And with that, Mr. Chair, back to you.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Okay, thanks. And just for those
following along, again this report originally came, these recommendations came
in 2017, and this committee concurred with them in 2018, just to give a little
bit of background on this work. I will open it up now to committee members for
questions. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: —
I see that in 2019 there were 238 operators to submit plans. So now 2024 has
arrived and I’m wondering, has that estimate of operators . . .
amount of operators become an actual amount?
Marlo
Pritchard: —
We do not have, at this point in time, the ability to find how many operators
are working in the forest. I mean businesses come and go, but the ones that are
licensed are licensed under another ministry. So we do not have a mechanism to
answer that at that point in time, but that’s an area we are trying to
strengthen in part of our inspections.
Joan Pratchler: —
And what kind of process would one follow to determine who are unlicensed to
add to that list?
Marlo
Pritchard: — Thank you
for the question. If we build the capacity, like we would be able to do
periodic inspections, but it’s more important for us to work with the licensing
bodies, whether it’s been business licence, forestry, mining, to make that as
part of their requirements to get a licence. Because now we not only can track
who has a licence but the plan will be also submitted at the same time. That
does not stop individuals that are working, that have a business that don’t get
a licence, so there’s still going to be a gap or a potential gap.
Joan Pratchler: — And their
fires can burn just as well as a licensed person, I would think.
Marlo Pritchard: — Yeah.
Thanks.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Are there further questions? MLA
Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — I see that the Saskatchewan Public
Safety Agency has, as part of this remaining recommendation, has created and
staffed a compliance and enforcement unit. Can you tell the committee about the
unit and how many full-time employees, where they’re located, and what their
duties are?
Marlo
Pritchard:
— Thank you for the question. Yes, we have four full-time employees that are
compliance investigators. Their duties are investigation of cause and origin of
fires, both structural and wildfires.
So
starting with structural. If there is a fire that is significant or has a
fatality and it’s from a community that does not have their own investigators,
they have the training to go in and support the community, do the fire
investigation, often working with the coroner’s office if there is a fatality.
In regards to wildfire, they go in to investigate the wildfire cause and origin
and complete a report in regards to that.
Part
of their responsibility as we expand will be the auditing capabilities of
emergency plans. We will also be, you know, enhancing that capability,
hopefully over the next couple years.
Hugh Gordon: — As a follow-up though, how many
full-time employees do you have and where are they located?
Marlo
Pritchard:
— We have four full-time employees, both Regina and Saskatoon and out by
Melville is where our investigators are. We also tap into our ESOs [emergency
services officer] and ERTs [emergency response team] for assistance in
investigations. They’re not investigators. So we can, I guess, ramp up our
resources up to, you know, 10 or 15 if there’s a requirement.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — I see that the forest industry is
complete in terms of their plans being submitted. What would be examples of
other industrial and commercial operators that might be outstanding? I wouldn’t
know what some of those might be.
Marlo
Pritchard:
— We’re focusing on the mining industry at this point in time because there is
a lot of mining or exploration companies that do get up into the forest. A lot
of them do have plans, but they’re not submitted so it’s . . . but
tying that into that licensing requirement.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. And are there other types of
industries that are operating in the forest besides mining and forestry then?
Marlo
Pritchard:
— I’m sure there is, but I can’t get the list on it right now. But there’s
outfitting industries, you know, fishing camps, recreational camps. Although
they’re not required by law to submit plans, we work with those communities
often about protecting their property from wildfire, you know, being fire
smart. And we continue to work with that and communicating that.
[10:30]
Joan Pratchler: — And you mentioned prior that in mining
you haven’t landed all of those things yet. What would it take to do that and
when do you think that could be completed?
Marlo
Pritchard:
— That is still ongoing communication with the ministry, and we have
individuals that are working on that. I do not have a time frame, but it took
us a couple years to get the forest industry and the negotiations and all of
that part of the planning. So you know, I’m optimistic that it will not be far
in the future. I think there’s a definite need and a recognition of why we have
these and so we’ll continue to work on that.
Joan Pratchler: — What would you interpret as the barrier
to getting those?
Marlo
Pritchard:
— You know what, I don’t know if it was so much a barrier. I think what it was
is we started with the forest industry and we worked closely with the forest
industry because of connections, working with Ministry of Environment which
. . . We will still be doing it and now we’re working with a
different ministry, so I don’t think there’s a barrier. It’s just more of
focusing on one, getting a proven process to get the plans implemented in a
system through the permitting and licensing, and now we’ll move on to the next
one.
Joan Pratchler: — Good. Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Good questions. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Sorry, just a quick follow-up on that.
So we’re tying in the licensing requirements with prevention plans as well,
correct? And so I think you had said that — just to clarify — you couldn’t
really provide a timeline for that at this stage, correct?
Marlo
Pritchard:
— No, I do not have that.
Hugh Gordon: — Great. And I’m just curious, how would
the respective ministries involved with this process . . . Have they
been responsive to the recommendation? Or is it seamless? Are there some issues
to be dealt with in issuing the licences and coordinating it with these plans?
Marlo
Pritchard:
— Nothing has come up to my desk to indicate that there’s a barrier. It’s often
juggling priorities and getting things done. But there’s always been a
willingness to work toward the recommendations, you know, especially in the
forest industry, and I would expect no different as we move into other
industries.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you for that.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Just how many folks are we not
getting plans from? How many operators aren’t complying with the law from your
perspective? I guess you’re not able to fully assess that because you don’t
have the information, I understand, from Energy and Resources entirely on who
those operators are. That’s one of the barriers. Is that correct?
Marlo
Pritchard:
— That would be one of the barriers. The other ones would be unlicensed
businesses which, you know, that are working up in the forest, which could
happen. We don’t know, you know, what that number would be. But it would be
very difficult at any given time to have a solid number because businesses
start, businesses shut down. It would be a revolving number, but yeah, at this
point in time we don’t have a measure.
Chair Wotherspoon: — So you had 34 plans submitted in
2023, the last year that this report focuses on. Can you break down the
composition of the industries that are there? How many of those would be for
the forestry sector? How many for the mining sector? You’ve identified that the
forestry sector has . . . that you’ve got compliance with this, and
you’ve implemented the recommendation, so I’m just trying to get a sense of how
many then from the mining sector or other sectors are we . . . aren’t
complying with the law here?
Marlo
Pritchard:
— I will have to bring that information back. The vast majority of those plans
will be from the forest industry, but I’d have to do an analysis on that.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay. So then, so if 34 plans were
submitted — that’s the forestry sector — and you feel you’ve got a good system
here of accountability and having those plans submitted and you’re working with
Energy and Resources here, how many operators are we talking about in a year
that right now aren’t submitting plans? What’s the range? Does Energy and
Resources share with you how many operators they license or how many they have
active in the province?
Marlo
Pritchard:
— I don’t have that information. I apologize, Mr. Chair. But I can get it back
to you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — We know that these are very
important industries to our province, so tons of respect to forestry and
certainly the mining sector. And you know, they’re very important to the
province. So is emergency protection and the work that you’re tasked with for
the people of Saskatchewan. Just trying to get a sense of where the gaps are,
you know, and what this committee could do to support you in these efforts in
ensuring compliance on this front. Are you getting the level of co-operation
you need from Energy and Resources proper? We’ve got a very good ministry
there, very important operation.
But
these recommendations go back to 2017 at this point, right, and we first
considered them here in 2018. So I’m just wondering, you know . . .
Again it’s always a problem when you have a law and then it’s not being
followed, and we’re not getting, you know, in this case what I’m hearing, the
information you need to be able to act on some of these fronts to ensure that
folks are complying. What could we do to support your efforts on this front?
Marlo
Pritchard:
— I think just having this conversation is support. In all fairness we have
worked with forestry and been very successful.
I
will say that although we do not always have the plans . . . I will
use an example of a mine that was in the centre of a wildfire last year. They
did have a plan. They safely, you know, were able to put value protection
equipment up with our assistance. They had an evacuation plan and although the
fire basically rolled right through that area, they did not lose anything of
significance.
So
I’m optimistic that there are a lot of plans out there, because you know,
companies want to look after their assets and look after their resources. We’re
just not seeing them. So it’s really about strengthening that connection
between us and the mining industry and other industries that we may not be
aware of.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thanks for identifying that. And in
that plan . . . So this operation had a plan. Was that a plan that
would have been formally submitted to you or is that a plan that they had as
part of their operation?
Marlo
Pritchard:
— I don’t have an answer for that. All I can say is that their plan, they
activated and it worked. So I would . . . Whether it was submitted, I
would have to actually analyze those plans.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, well thanks so much. Again you
know, these operations are super important to this province, but we have laws
in place. And you know, emergency preparedness is incredibly important. And you
know, it’s been a long time since these recommendations have been made so we
sure appreciate your leadership on this front.
And
you know, I think we’d want to really urge priority attention over with the
Ministry of Energy on this front as well to prioritize working and supplying
the information that you require on this front and making sure that our laws
are being upheld, and ultimately that we’re as prepared as we can be for the
kinds of emergencies that can devastate lives and natural resources and
businesses and operations as well. So thanks.
I
don’t have any further questions other than, you know, I think to impress that,
you know, this needs to obviously be a priority and maybe with a bit of a
hurry-up offence with some of the other folks that are maybe not interacting
with your agency in the way that they need to to make this happen.
Any
further questions on this chapter at this point? Not seeing any, I’d welcome a
motion that we conclude consideration of chapter 28 of the 2023 report volume
2. Moved by Minister Harrison. All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair Wotherspoon: — That’s agreed. Okay, that concludes
our time and our chapters, our focus on the Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency.
President Pritchard, to you and your team, thanks for your time here today.
Thanks for all of your work and leadership in this province. Your work is
invaluable to the people of this province and we’re thankful for it. Do you
have any final remarks for us before we move along with our day?
Marlo
Pritchard:
— I’d like to just recognize the auditor’s work and the willingness to work
with us. I find these audits very helpful and it allows us to focus on areas
that we might not otherwise do that. So again, thank you for the work that the
auditor has done and thank you for the opportunity to present today at the
committee.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, right on. Well thanks. Thank
you very much. And as a committee we’ll have a very brief recess and then we’ll
invite in right now the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General and turn our
attention there.
[The committee
recessed for a period of time.]
Justice and
Attorney General
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, folks. We’ll move along here
this morning as the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We’re going to turn
our attention to the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General. I’m going to
welcome Deputy Minister Kratzig and her officials that have joined us here
today. Thank you for being here. Thanks to you and all of your team for your
work.
Deputy
Minister Kratzig, I’ll invite you to briefly introduce your officials that are
with you here today. You can refrain from getting into the consideration of
chapters. We’ll go over to the auditor and get her presentation and then come
back your way for that.
Kimberly
Kratzig:
— Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members, Provincial Auditor
and her team, and the Provincial Comptroller and his team. Before I introduce
ministry officials accompanying me today, I would like to thank the Provincial
Auditor’s office for their work on the ministry’s performance audit.
Members of the leadership team with me
today are: to my right, Rory Jensen, assistant deputy minister, courts and
community justice division; Jeff Wagner, Chief Coroner, Saskatchewan Coroners
Service; and right behind us is Brad Gurash, our assistant deputy minister of
corporate services. Thanks.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay, right on. Thanks again to you
all, and I’ll turn it over to the Provincial Auditor and her team to make
presentation on the chapters. I think they’re going to focus on the first two
chapters and there’s, I believe, eight new recommendations contained in one of
those chapters.
Tara Clemett: — So thank you, Mr. Chair, committee
members, and officials. With me today is Mr. Victor Schwab. He’s the deputy
provincial auditor that is responsible for the audits at the Ministry of
Justice and Attorney General. Behind me is Mr. Maro Ojaide and he’s a senior
manager in our office, and he was involved in some of the audits that we will
be discussing this morning.
This
morning Victor is going to present the three chapters in two presentations. The
first will cover the new performance audit related to the provision of coroner
services, and then the relevant follow-up audit that we did two years later.
The performance audit includes eight new audit recommendations for the
committee’s consideration.
The
second presentation will discuss the follow-up and two outstanding
recommendations related to managing court workloads. This committee agreed with
those recommendations in 2015, but we continue to report on the progress made
by the ministry until these recommendations are fully addressed. Victor will
pause after each presentation to allow for the committee’s consideration and
discussion.
I
do want to thank the deputy minister and her officials for the co-operation
that was extended to us during the course of our work. With that I’ll turn it
over to Victor.
Victor
Schwab:
— Saskatchewan Coroners Service is part of the Ministry of Justice and Attorney
General and is responsible for the provision of coroner services. The Chief
Coroner and his team of about 15 staff provide independent and impartial
investigations into the circumstances surrounding unexpected, unnatural, and
unexplained deaths in Saskatchewan. The coroners service also uses
approximately 75 part-time community coroners.
Saskatchewan
uses the coroner model where appointed members of the community are trained and
independently conduct death investigations. Where needed, the investigating
coroner will request post-mortem examinations completed by pathologists. The
qualified, independent, full-time coroner is supposed to review all coroner
reports before issuance and communicating results to families. Conducting and
completing accurate and timely death investigations, as well as promptly
reporting investigation results to stakeholders, provides closure for deceased
persons’ loved ones and can improve public safety.
Our
2021 report volume 2, chapter 16, on pages 107 to 126 concluded that the
Ministry of Justice and Attorney General had effective processes other than in
the areas of our recommendations to conduct timely and accurate coroner
investigations into certain unexpected, unnatural, or unexplained deaths other
than suspected homicides. For the 12‑month period ending July 31st, 2021
we made eight recommendations.
Chapter
22 of our ’23 report volume 2 on pages 197 to 204 highlight the findings of our
first follow-up audit. By July 2023 the coroners service made significant
progress and implemented six of eight audit recommendations and partially
implemented the other two.
On
page 115 of our original audit in our first recommendation, we recommend the
Ministry of Justice and Attorney General establish formal timelines for
communicating coroner investigation results to families and making
recommendations to agencies. During our 2023 follow-up we found the ministry
partially implemented the recommendation.
While
the coroners service established formal timelines for communicating coroner
investigation results to families and making recommendations to agencies such
as the Saskatchewan Health Authority, it did not communicate results to
families in line with its policy expectations. For example, 63 per cent of
coroner investigations we tested had no evidence that coroners communicated
investigation results to families at the end of the investigations. A coroner
investigation and subsequent conclusion provides families with closure by
identifying and confirming the cause of death.
In
our second recommendation on page 118 of our original audit, we recommended the
Ministry of Justice and Attorney General routinely confirm coroners understand
confidentiality and conflict of interest. During our 2023 follow-up we found
the ministry implemented the recommendation.
The
coroners service provided coroners with refresher training on confidentiality
and conflict-of-interest policies and had those coroners sign forms
acknowledging they read and understood the policies. Clear understanding and
formal acknowledgement of conflict-of-interest and confidentiality requirements
helps to reduce the risk of conflicting situations and inappropriate release of
personal or sensitive information.
In
our third recommendation, on page 120 of the original audit, we recommended the
Ministry of Justice and Attorney General consistently complete timely coroner
investigations and reports. During our 2023 follow-up we found the ministry
partially implemented the recommendation.
The
coroners service is not completing coroner reports within expected timelines,
but did implement reporting in May 2023 to better monitor and identify where
and why delays occur. We found 17 out of 30 coroner cases we tested were not
completed within expected timelines. For example, one case was closed almost
six months after receiving all investigative information. The coroners service
established a new timeline assessment report in 2023. This report will enable
management to make quarterly assessments of policy compliance within expected
timelines. Not completing timely coroner reports can affect families and public
safety.
In
our fourth recommendation, on page 121 of our original audit, we recommended
the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General conduct timely review of coroner
investigation files and reports before issuing coroner reports. During our 2023
follow-up we found the ministry implemented the recommendation. By June 2023
the coroners service finalized its policy around timely review of coroner
investigation reports by an appropriate authority before issuing coroner
reports. Adequately reviewing coroner reports before finalizing them supports
communication of accurate investigation results.
In
our fifth recommendation, on page 122 of our original audit, we recommended the
Ministry of Justice and Attorney General perform timely follow-up to determine
implementation of coroner recommendations to improve public safety. During our
2023 follow-up we found the ministry implemented this recommendation. The
coroners service makes recommendation to agencies such as the Saskatchewan
Health Authority or the Highway Traffic Board based on death investigation
results. The coroners service policies now appropriately describe the processes
to follow up with agencies to determine whether they implemented the
recommendations. We found the coroners service follows up with agencies to
ensure they implement recommendations. Timely and appropriate follow-up of coroner
recommendations can help improve public safety.
In
our sixth recommendation on page 122 of our original audit, we recommended the
Ministry of Justice and Attorney General centrally log coroners service
complaints and actions taken to resolve them. During our 2023 follow-up we
found the ministry implemented the recommendation. The coroners service
appropriately issued a new policy on compliant management in January ’22 and
maintained a compliant management log. Centrally logging complaints allows the
coroners service to identify trends or issues regarding investigation quality
or other concerns.
In
our seventh recommendation on page 123 of our original audit, we recommended
the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General analyze death investigation data
to inform coroner recommendations to improve public safety.
[11:00]
During
our 2023 follow-up we found the ministry implemented the recommendations. Death
investigations were showing concerns with drug-related deaths and suicide. The
coroners service implemented annual reporting on type of opioid drug, sex,
race, location, and age of deceased persons due to suspected and confirmed drug
overdoses and made these reports publicly available on its website.
In
addition the coroners service began working with a public health officer
seconded from Canada’s public health agency to analyze death investigation
data, including drug-related death and suicide data. It planned to report
publicly on suicides in fall of 2023. Such death investigation data helps
assist agencies in improving public safety and death prevention.
In
our eighth recommendation on page 123 of our original audit, we recommended the
Ministry of Justice and Attorney General report on its coroners service
activities and results to senior management. During our 2023 follow-up we found
the ministry implemented this recommendation.
The
coroners service began sending reports on activities and results to senior
management of the ministry twice a year, in April and October. These reports
summarize investigative activities, budget information, upcoming initiatives,
and challenges and successes of the coroners service. Regular reporting on
coroner activities to ministry senior management may enhance strategic
decisions with respect to the coroners service and inform public safety
changes.
I
will pause now for the committee’s consideration.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thank you. Thank you for the
presentation and for the focus of the work. I’ll turn it over to Deputy
Minister Kratzig and her officials for comments with respect to the
recommendations in the chapters and then we’ll open it up to the committee for
questions.
Kimberly
Kratzig:
— Thank you. The ministry appreciates the work done by the Provincial Auditor
team on these chapters and is pleased with the progress we’ve made to address
the auditor’s recommendations.
The
auditor’s follow-up report notes their concurrence that six out of eight of the
initial recommendations are fully implemented. The ministry believes the
actions taken since the Provincial Auditor’s report concluded that we have
fully implemented the final remaining two recommendations.
From
the follow-up chapter in the auditor’s 2023 report volume 2, chapter 22,
regarding the recommendation on page 198 about establishing formal timelines
for communicating coroner investigation results to families and making
recommendations to agencies, the ministry now considers this recommendation
implemented.
The second and final outstanding
recommendation is from the follow-up chapter page 200, about consistently
completing timely coroner investigations and reports. The ministry also
considers this recommendation implemented.
The coroners services team completed a
study to determine the length of time reports take to complete and used this
information to develop a policy with expected timelines for coroner
investigations and reports. All staff receive training on the policy. The
policy expects final coroner reports will be prepared, reviewed, and completed
within 24 business days of receiving all investigative information.
Coroners services management monitors
compliance monthly by reviewing data on outstanding reports for all coroners
and taking appropriate action as needed. There are also quarterly reports
management uses to monitor all policy timelines. Our most recent quarterly
report as of September 2024 shows that timelines are consistently being met for
completing coroner investigations and reports.
This concludes my status update. The
team and I would be happy to answer any questions the committee members may
have. Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— Thank you very much and thanks for all the work on this front in response to
the recommendations that have been made. I will open it up now to the committee
for questions. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: —
First off I’m new to this committee and I’ve been reading these binders for the
last two weeks, and I can tell you there is no other one that had all of their
recommendations implemented. And I can only imagine the amount of work and the
thoughtfulness that had to go into moving a big organization from there to
where we are today. So congratulations.
I have a few questions and I just want
to check with the Chair. Will we go through chapters 16 and 22 just continuous,
or do we want to stop in between? I wasn’t focusing on the speaker when the
instructions were given.
Chair
Wotherspoon:
— So 16 and 22. And, MLA Pratchler, if it’s appropriate I noted some of the
. . . You know, as a former principal for many years, I noted sort of
that sort of entry in her remarks there, commending your team and doing some
assessment of the actions that were taken. So back to you, MLA Pratchler. And
yeah, the two chapters together.
Joan Pratchler: —
Perfect. On the first recommendation way back, it says that the ministry had
established formal timelines for communicating coroner investigation results.
And I know you briefly went through them — I didn’t write them down — but what
were some of those timelines?
Rory Jensen:
— Rory Jensen, assistant deputy minister, courts and community justice. Thank
you for the question. So the timelines that the coroner service works for is
communicating investigation results to families within five business days of
receiving all investigative information and complete final coroner report
within 24 business days of receiving all investigative information.
Joan Pratchler: —
Could you provide some updated statistics for ’21, ’22, ’23, and ’24 on the
number of investigated deaths, as shown in figure 4 on page 111?
Kimberly Kratzig:
— Just to clarify the question, were you referring to figure 3 on page 111 or
figure 4? I want to make sure I’m providing the apples-to-apples comparison.
Joan Pratchler: —
Right. So figure 4 goes from 2017 to 2020. I’m asking ’21, ’22 . . .
Kimberly Kratzig:
— Yeah. Thank you for the clarification. We just wanted to ensure we were
providing sort of apples-to-apples comparison for you. So the auditor’s report
stops the data in 2020, so I’ll provide 2021 for you first. Number of coroner’s
investigations, 1,598. Number of non-coroner cases, 1,331. Number of deaths
investigated, 2,929. And total deaths in Saskatchewan, 11,065. Number of
post-mortem examinations in 2021 was 916. So that was 2021 data.
For 2022, number of coroner
investigations, 1,674. Number of non-coroner cases, 1,412. Number of deaths
investigated, 3,086. Total deaths in Saskatchewan, 11,435. And number of
post-mortem examinations, 944. So that was data for 2022.
In 2023 the number of coroner
investigations was 1,613. Number of non-coroner cases, 1,383. Number of deaths
investigated, 2,996. Total deaths in Saskatchewan, 10,925. And number of
post-mortem examinations, 940.
2024 data is still preliminary data. So
if you’re comfortable just stopping at 2023, are you okay with that?
Joan Pratchler: —
Do you have . . .
Kimberly
Kratzig:
— We have the preliminary data. It’s not final.
Joan Pratchler: — So I’ll just write “preliminary” here, but
if you could give those too.
Kimberly
Kratzig:
— Sure, yes. So the preliminary data for 2024, number of coroner
investigations, 1,566. Number of non-coroner cases, 1, 380. Number of deaths
investigated, 2,946. The total deaths in Saskatchewan is not available yet. And
the number of post-mortem examinations, 829.
Joan Pratchler: — With recommendation no. 5 — requires a
coroners service to “Follow up on recommendations within six months of the date
they are sent” — can you speak to how often the recommendations aren’t
followed?
Rory Jensen:
— Thank you for the question. Since the follow-up audit period, the coroners
service has made 141 recommendations to 16 agencies and received agency
responses for 79 of those recommendations. Responses were received from 10 of
the 16 agencies. Five agencies responded within six months, five more agencies
responded in longer than six months, and six agencies have not yet responded.
The coroners service completed follow-up with the six agencies who have not
responded.
It’s important to note the coroner
recommendations are not compellable; therefore the service does not follow up
on whether they have been enacted on.
Joan Pratchler: —
And you’ll keep reminding them? In 2021, July of 2021, the ministry employed or
appointed 83 coroners. How many are there now?
[11:15]
Jeff Wagner:
— Jeff Wagner, Chief Coroner for the Saskatchewan Coroners Service. As of
January 1st, 2025 the ministry employs and/or has appointed 68 coroners. Sixty
are appointed as community coroners, which are part-time coroners within the
field, and eight are full-time coroners inclusive of our regional and
supervising coroner.
Joan Pratchler: —
So that makes 74. That’s less than the 83. You’re doing more with less?
Jeff Wagner:
— We’re always looking at the workload and appointing people. We have turnover
with coroners so some people are leaving. So we’re always trying to balance
that workload within the community with the coroners that we have. So we end up
having two different classes that we train coroners — twice a year — and each
year we’re doing an assessment on whether or not we need more in the community.
Joan Pratchler:
— Thank you very much. Chapter 22, just quick questions. Can
you speak to the average time that it might take for a coroner to investigate a
death, maybe by one classification?
Jeff Wagner:
— So for ’23‑24 the average time to close a coroner’s case was 92 days.
And I want to bring you back to the 24 days, our timeline. The 24 days is after
receiving all investigative reports. So that sometimes takes some time. We’re
looking at other stakeholders and other agencies to receive different reports,
but on average it’s 92 days.
Joan Pratchler: — And so death
occurs. Investigation, 24 days after the final of that, that gets reported to
the family. Is that the right picture in my mind?
Jeff Wagner:
— Just to clarify. So 24 days is what we’re asking coroners to complete their
. . . once they’ve received all investigative reports, it’s 24 days
to close the case. But to notify families, once they have that, we ask them to
notify families within five days.
Joan Pratchler: — What kind of
barriers have you found there to be in completing investigations in a timely
manner?
Rory Jensen:
— So I’d like to point out we wouldn’t consider them barriers to completing
timely investigations. There’s a number of factors. We work a lot with external
stakeholders, so it’s receiving investigative information from police services,
receiving toxicology or post-mortem exam reports, information from Highway
Traffic Board, and investigations from SGI [Saskatchewan Government Insurance].
So those are considerations about what goes into the length of time it takes to
complete a coroner’s investigation.
And once all that information is
received, the policy that the coroners service has is that from that point we
would want final reports completed within 24 days and families notified within
five after that.
Joan Pratchler: — And are you
finding any challenges with getting those inputs to be able to do your work
with that timing?
Rory Jensen:
— The ministry wouldn’t consider that we have concerns of the timelines of when
we receive information. We are in contact with other stakeholders to remain
updated on the status of their investigations and their work. We’re pleased
with the quality of work that we receive and the quality of information that we
receive from other stakeholders that allow the coroners service to complete our
final reports within our policy timelines.
Joan Pratchler: — Good. Well that’s
good to hear. You conducted a large study. Can you speak to a couple of
findings that that study was able to elucidate for you?
Jeff Wagner:
— Yeah, so obviously I wasn’t around when the study was done, but I know the
results of the study. So they did an in-depth study to see what timelines were
appropriate, and out of that they came away with several different criteria to
monitor timelines. And so there’s multiple, but I can list off a few. Some of
them are around post-mortem conducted, so the average time it takes for a
post-mortem report to be received, average number of days for a case to go from
open to closed to submitted.
On a toxicology only conducted, we have
timelines that are best practices that we’re looking for for that: average
number of days for the tox report to be received, average number of days from
submitted to review. We monitor when no post-mortem or tox is conducted. So
again we’re looking at those timelines, how long does it take for a case to go
from open to closed to submitted. And then non-coroner cases, we’re monitoring
those ones.
So there’s probably 30 different
timelines that we’ve set to look at best practices and service delivery that
we’re monitoring that came out of that study.
Joan Pratchler: — So the study gave
you some standards, and you’re implementing them as you go along.
Jeff Wagner:
— Correct.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. And one
last question. I see on the bottom of page 204 of the 2023 report volume 2, the
last sentence, it says, “Regular reporting on coroner activities to Ministry
senior management may enhance strategic decisions with respect to the Coroners
Service and inform public safety changes.”
Could you outline maybe one or two that
you might know of? What strategic decisions have been informed by your good
reporting to the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General senior management?
[11:30]
Rory Jensen:
— Thank you for the question. As a result of this reporting, there’s a lot of
communication that I can work closely with the Chief Coroner on to help us
inform staffing levels based on distribution of coroners’ cases, identify if
there’s been any communication challenges with other stakeholders or
ministries. One of the things we’ve identified, working closely with Health, on
pressures that are addressed based on utilization of resources with both Health
and the coroners service.
And then another small but very
meaningful change is the coroners has implemented daily huddles to talk about
cases that they’ve received and help them identify the best way to handle those
and communicate as one team to make sure we’re having a consistent approach.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you very
much. It’s a lot of work. That ends my questions.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — I’m just looking to other committee
members for any questions that might have any. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Just a follow-up
on one here, one of the recommendations that was implemented with respect to
creating a system for complaint management. My understanding — and correct me
if I’m wrong — was that before a complaint was made, I presume either against a
coroner or the investigation or aspects of the investigation or any reports,
that was documented internally in the actual file pertaining to that individual
or incident.
Can you just briefly, as I know we have
to move along in time, but can you just briefly touch on the new system you’ve
implemented, what that looks like, and how you’ve separated it and how you
track it and how you supervise and manage those complaints? I know it’s a
loaded question.
Jeff Wagner:
— Thanks for the question. The system has been created for the complete
management that includes centrally logging complaints and then the subsequent
resolution of the complaint. It has been documented in policy, and then also
there’s training that’s been provided to all coroners and all Saskatchewan
Coroners Service staff.
Typically, so an example, a complaint is
received about a potential coroner investigation. It’s reviewed, and depending
on what level it needs to be brought up to it could be handled at the
supervisor level or regional supervisor coroner level, and they’ll engage and
will respond appropriately to whatever level we decide. Often we’ll engage our
family liaison consultant with families with the complaints, help them through
the process. The policy covers, you know, expression of dissatisfaction made to
or about our products or service, the staff, or the handling of a complaint
where a response or resolution is expected or legally required.
So we have some timelines that are
involved too, so we want to respond within five days, five business days,
acknowledge the complaint, and then we strive to have it completed within 20
days. And if that isn’t done then we’ll communicate that back to the
complainant and explain to them why.
Hugh Gordon: — And just another
quick follow-up. Is that treated like a separate file, like a separate
investigation essentially? Or is it still attached to the main coroner file
involving the incident or the person?
Jeff Wagner:
— Yeah, we would deem it as a separate file. It’s logged separately. Only
certain management has access to it.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Any further questions from committee
members at this time? Not seeing any. And again maybe to reiterate the words of
MLA Pratchler, thanks for the very important work on these very important
chapters, and the respect that’s given to the lives and circumstances, and how
important your work is in that accountability in getting answers back to
families and people across Saskatchewan. So thanks for the work on this front,
and thank you for what you do.
I would welcome a recommendation
. . . I guess the new recommendations are in chapter 16. I’d welcome
a motion that we concur and note compliance with recommendations 1 through 8 in
chapter 16 of the 2021 volume 2 report.
Moved by MLA Crassweller. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — That’s carried. And with respect to
chapter 22 of the 2023 report volume 2, a follow-up chapter, I would invite a
motion that concludes consideration of this chapter. Moved by Mr. Kropf. All
agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — That’s carried. Okay, I’ll turn it
back over to the Provincial Auditor and her office to focus on the 2024 report
volume 1, chapter 15.
Victor Schwab: — The Ministry of Justice and Attorney
General, through its court operations and services branch, is responsible for
supporting the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan in managing court workloads.
Chapter 15 of our 2024 report volume 1 on pages 183 to 186 highlights the
ministry’s actions regarding processes to support the Provincial Court of
Saskatchewan in managing court workloads.
By March 2024,
the ministry implemented one of two outstanding recommendations we first made
in 2014. In 2020 the ministry started using a data analysis tool, or dashboard,
to aid its collection, analysis, and monitoring of
information related to key performance measures for supporting the Provincial
Court of Saskatchewan’s workload. However the ministry is not using the
dashboard to publicly report on its key performance measures, such as
time-to-case resolution and average number of court adjournments. The ministry
indicated it was in the process of re-evaluating its measures and targets to
reduce Provincial Court wait times.
Publicly reporting on progress and
achieving performance measures can help legislators and the public understand
operating pressures affecting Provincial Court workloads and the ministry’s
actions to address them. Inappropriately managing court workloads can result in
delays in delivery of justice. In turn, this can result in additional costs and
loss of public faith in our justice system.
The Ministry of Justice and Attorney
General implemented a new forecasting process for court services in May 2023.
Implementing a new forecasting process to support the management of court
workloads should help the ministry better determine resources needed and reduce
delays at the Provincial Court.
I will now pause for the committee’s
consideration.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Good. Thank you very much for the
presentation there. Of course this is a follow-up on a chapter that was
originally brought in 2014 and was supported, concurred with by this Public
Accounts Committee in 2015. I’ll turn it over to Deputy Minister Kratzig for
some brief remarks, and then we’ll open it up for questions.
Kimberly Kratzig:
— Thank you. The ministry appreciates the work done by the Provincial Auditor’s
team on this chapter. We are pleased one recommendation is fully implemented,
and we are committed to implementing the outstanding recommendation.
The partially implemented recommendation
noted on page 184 is related to improving collection, analysis, monitoring, and
public reporting of information related to supporting the management of
Provincial Court of Saskatchewan workloads. As noted in the auditor’s report,
there are several measures in place in this regard. To address this
recommendation, the ministry is evaluating its measures and targets related to
supporting the management of court of Saskatchewan workloads. Once evaluation
of measures is complete, the ministry will then determine public reporting, and
we are committed to addressing this recommendation in a timely manner.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — I’ll open it up to committee members
for questions at this time. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Can you speak to
your experience as to whether workloads have or are currently affecting timely
scheduling of court hearings?
Rory Jensen: — Thank you for the
question. Looking at the workload at Provincial Court, when we look at the
data, we have seen that the number of matters coming before the Provincial
Court is increasing. The heart of this chapter is we’re committed to helping
manage that workload for the courts. With an increasing number of matters
coming before the court, Saskatchewan still remains one of the fastest
time-to-trials for the country.
Part of that is solutions that we’ve put
in place to help manage that workload, such as the Provincial Auditor has
noted, reporting and measuring how many video court appearances we have to
alleviate some of those issues. But as I said before, Saskatchewan still
remains one of the fastest time-to-trial, if not the fastest, in the country.
Hugh Gordon: — So according to
the auditor, the Ministry of Justice has been using a data analysis tool for
the last four years — I think since 2020 — to aid in your collection, analysis,
and monitoring of information related to key performance measures for
supporting the courts. If the data’s been collected within a standardized
program, why isn’t the ministry publicly reporting this data?
[11:45]
Rory Jensen: — So
there are a number of pieces of information that . . . pieces of data
that we do report publicly. As noted in the Provincial Auditor report, we do
report the number of court appearances, the number of video court appearances.
We also report to Statistics Canada the time-to-trial in the province.
In terms of the other measures we are
looking at, as we mentioned, evaluating what really will drive and assist in
managing court workload to make sure that we’re providing the information that
is, really what is the drivers of the work, a number of these measures within
the strategic . . . While the strategic dashboard is shared with the
judiciary, so we also share this information with stakeholders to help them
evaluate what measures and what information to help them for their decision
making. And that is the evaluation. We’re receiving feedback from them and
internally evaluating what can and will help to continue to manage the workload
of the Provincial Court.
Hugh Gordon: — And so some of
those types of data are, as you mentioned, it’s the number of video
appearances, the number of appearances, number of hearings held. And sorry,
what was the other data that you rely on?
Rory
Jensen: — Right now just Statistics Canada. We
report time-to-trial, so from the time a charge is laid to the matter being
heard in court.
Hugh Gordon: — I just want to speak on something here.
We had a pretty high-profile, unfortunate case in Saskatoon with the death of a
young girl and alleged impaired driver that . . . And I know it’s
still before the court and a potential appeal. This involves the Jordan issues.
And so I’m just wondering if you could speak to that a little bit more about
how you’re trying to mitigate issues and managing, you know, like average
length of time to trial in both the Saskatoon and Regina court circuit court
points, as well as what you’re doing internally to manage, you know, vacancies
at the Crown counsel and other positions or level of turnover in order to
mitigate Jordan issues.
I’m
not suggesting that this is related to the case I mentioned. But obviously when
it becomes a public issue or becomes public and a high-profile case like that,
a lot of people are left scratching their heads. And I just want to know what
your office is doing with some of these items we’ve discussed here to mitigate
that, so you’ve done all that you can do to prevent these things from
happening.
Rory
Jensen: — Thank you for the question. While we can’t speak to
individual cases, Jordan timelines are something that is front and centre
across the country. When we talk to other jurisdictions this is something they
are monitoring very closely. We work to find best practices, talking to our
colleagues in other provinces as well.
Some
of the things we’ve implemented to help ensure that the court can manage their
timelines: we’ve expanded the number of video court appearances by putting more
video conference suites in correctional centres and RCMP detachments; we
closely monitor time-to-case resolution that I mentioned; we report with Stats
Canada.
With
Saskatchewan we remained, even with the increasing workload, we’ve remained
fairly steady at 247 days which was within those Jordan timelines. We also work
and share information with the judiciary so they can understand the workload
and manage what issues are within their purview and control.
So
we are constantly evaluating these and monitoring to ensure that the courts
have the resources and the processes in place to manage those issues. And
Jordan is very top of mind for the ministry and the judiciary.
Hugh Gordon: — Yeah, it’s very important because we
want to make sure you’re able to manage your workload appropriately so that
we’re not missing these dates and/or it becomes an issue later in court.
So
I just was curious. My last little question was, is if there was a
. . .if you could speak to the number of vacancies with Crown counsel
or other positions and whether or not that’s an issue at this stage.
Rory Jensen: — So as a ministry, with any profession
there is turnover at certain positions regularly. However the ministry has
implemented and working on a couple initiatives over the last couple years. One
is what we call the case readiness unit. So this helps prosecutions ensure that
the upfront work and preparing for major files is done by a group that’s
dedicated to this, to help when it’s handed off to a Crown prosecutor to ensure
that all the information is gathered together to help them be better prepared
to move matters forward through the court.
Another
initiative that the ministry has implemented is externship with the U of S
[University of Saskatchewan]. So law students joining rural Crown offices to
get some experience on the ground with the hope of recruiting in rural
communities as well, so to help recruitment for prosecutors in rural
communities as well.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — A quick question. Would you be able to
respond to what you think is the current rate of turnover for Crown counsel,
for all others besides prosecutors?
Kimberly
Kratzig:
— We don’t have that information with us but we can commit to get something
back to the committee in terms of turnover rate and vacancy rate.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
And one last question. I see here, page 184, partially implemented regarding
measures and targets. So it says here that the ministry is evaluating its
measures and targets. And I’m wondering how many of those measures and targets
are informed or have insight from Indigenous perspective for an Indigenous
lens.
Rory Jensen: — So we don’t track specific Indigenous
metrics for the court workload. However the courts do have a number of
initiatives that are targeted to support Aboriginal, Indigenous citizens going
through the court system, such as the Aboriginal court worker program, which
supports people going through the system and their families as they are working
through the court system. As well as Provincial Court operates Cree court in a
number of jurisdictions that have a very Indigenous lens on sentencing and
sentencing circles and supporting the Cree Indigenous members going through
that, through the system.
Joan Pratchler: — And is there communication or links
back to see how it can be improved from their point of view as well?
Rory Jensen: — So the court engages and partners with a
number of Indigenous organizations for some of the partnerships we have. The
ministry also employs a senior Indigenous coordinator, which I meet with on a
regular basis to discuss some of the programming that we have and
how we can improve processes through that Indigenous lens.
[12:00]
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. That’s
all the questions.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — No further questions there. Any
further questions from any other committee members?
I guess maybe I’ll just say, you know,
we know how busy your roles are in your team. You’re providing incredibly
important work in this province. But it gets challenging too, as a committee,
when you have what I think are fairly straightforward recommendations — you
know, a decade old in this case, right?
And if you look at the spirit of that
recommendation, it just provides that you have these performance measures that
guide your operation, and of course they’re important. You’re sharing that some
of that information is shared with internal leadership within Justice, and
that’s wonderful. But there’s another loop that gets closed around public
accountability and the legislature.
And the whole recommendation, you know,
is that these are measures that you’ve identified — you collect the information
— and that it should simply, you know, in part be made public. Whether or not
you’re assessing and evaluating, is there other information to collect? Is
there other ways to report? I’m sure there are. But the recommendations are
fairly straightforward from the auditor.
And then when I look at page 185 here,
it identifies, you know, you’re reporting out. You have these five performance
measures if I’m reading this correctly. One of them is being reported out
publicly. Four of them are being kept internal. And I just can’t see why that
information wouldn’t be part of your annual report as well or be reported out
in a public fashion.
You know, the auditor identifies the
performance measures including case resolution and average number of court
adjournments as two of those examples of the four that aren’t reported out. And
then she just identifies that “Publicly reporting on progress in achieving key
performance measures can help legislators and the public understand
. . . pressures affecting Provincial Court workloads and the
Ministry’s actions to address them.”
So anyways, we’re 10 years on here. I’m
just wondering. You’re doing evaluation of what the best performance measures
are and what not to provide to the public moving forward. Just why is this
information not provided publicly right now? And when I see the timeline for
implementation we’re, you know, 10 years at these recommendations and it’s
still to be determined.
And so it just seems strange that we
don’t have more clarity on this front. Is there a reason that those measures
wouldn’t simply be included in the audit in your annual report while you
evaluate the best performance measures that you want to utilize and
communicate?
Kimberly Kratzig:
— Maybe I’ll start with a response and then turn it over to Rory. Agree with
many of your comments in terms of, you know, the length of time between the
original recommendation. I think that, you know, the issue has evolved over
time in terms of what are the best metrics, what actually allows us to measure
workload which is the purpose of this sort of recommendation. So there’s
metrics that might tell us other things and then there’s metrics that will
address workload, so I think that’s been some of the discussion that the
ministry has been having.
As you noted, Chair, there are various
metrics that are reported in business plans and annual reports. There are still
some that aren’t, and that’s what we are looking to assess, which ones we’re
able to report. Some of these do involve the courts, and we are working with
them in terms of that judicial arm and what makes sense to be reporting.
So I think it’s fair to say that, you
know, we want to do this in a timely way. We believe in transparency. We
believe that, you know, from the public perspective it is good to know what’s
happening, and transparency is one of the principles that we certainly lead by.
But maybe I’ll turn it over to Rory with any additional context around sort of
what we’ll be doing to get this addressed.
Rory Jensen:
— Yeah, so just maybe a little build-off of what Deputy Minister Kratzig
mentioned. One of the things that we have found is, in identifying these key
performance measures, regardless of whether or not we find that they are the
best ones, some of this data is not owned directly on the ministry.
As court services, we are supporting the
judiciary and the judicial arm of government, and we’ve been working with them
to make sure that the data that we are reporting, that we actually have the
ability to legally report based on ownership of the data. Because we’re
collecting data on their behalf and sharing it with them, and we want to make
sure that we have that proper agreement in place to have that data sharing.
We’ve been working on an agreement with them that will help clarify that nature
of that data so we can move forward.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Thanks for that. The information,
the context, does that relate specifically to the measures that are identified
here, the four measures not reported like the case resolution measures and the
average number of court adjournments? Is there a concern with respect to your
ability to share that information?
Rory Jensen:
— So yes, some of these matters, there is some work going through and an
agreement that we’ve been working on for a number of months with the courts
around these. And it is critical to make sure that these are actually getting
to the heart of what the original recommendation was around court workload, and
do these actually inform and help us make decisions on whether we can help
manage court workload.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Any further questions? I guess maybe
I just have a question to the auditor, whether she’s in a position to speak to
it or not. Is she aware of some of the question as to whether it’s appropriate
for this data to be shared, whether the judiciary has a concern with respect to
some of the performance measures that have been identified here today?
Tara
Clemett: —
So I guess the ministry’s already commented that there is information being
provided to Stats Canada, so it sounds like there would be context around this.
I think the biggest thing is from that transparency side. And I realize the
focus of our work was around workload as such, but the ministry needs to be
able to communicate to legislators and the public. Whereby, from that Jordan’s
principle perspective, you need to have trials take place within those 18
months, and whereby the court services contributed to any delays, you have to
be willing to explain what actions are being taken where there would have been
any contributing factors that those court services played in those delays in
that delivery of justice as such.
So I do think, I hope to see the
ministry . . . Obviously annual report will be coming out. You know,
we’re almost at the end of the fiscal ’25. So if measures and targets haven’t
been established by this fiscal year, I do hope that they get defined,
determined, and reported and measured on by the next annual report for this
ministry.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Any further questions of committee
members? Not seeing any. And of course this is a follow-up audit, and there’s
work that’s been committed to in the weeks and months ahead on this front.
We’ve concurred already with this recommendation.
I would welcome a motion to conclude
consideration of chapter 15. Moved by Minister Harrison. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — That’s carried. The Clerk is, I
think, the best in the country because when I miss things, helps me out here. I
neglected to table the status update that was provided by your ministry. Thanks
again for putting that together and for detailing so many of the actions that
were taken and the implementation on so many fronts, so many of those
recommendations. So I table PAC 13‑30, Ministry of Justice and Attorney
General: Status update, dated January 21, 2025.
With that being said or that being
tabled, we’ve concluded our considerations for the Ministry of Justice and
Attorney General. I want to thank again Deputy Minister Kratzig for her
leadership and her response, along with all of her officials here today and all
those that are involved in the very important work that we were discussing here
today and the work of your ministry. We offer a big thanks, and if you have any
final words for us before we have a brief adjournment for lunch.
Kimberly
Kratzig: — I’ll say thank you to the committee
for your thoughtful questions and to the Provincial Auditor for the time and
opportunity to respond to their recommendations. Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Okay, well thank you so very much.
We will have an adjournment for lunch and we’ll reconvene at 1:00 with the
Ministry of Government Relations.
[The
committee recessed from 12:10 until 13:03.]
Government Relations
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Okay folks, we’ll reconvene the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and we’re going to turn our attention
now to the Ministry of Government Relations. I want to welcome Deputy Minister
Donais and all the leadership that has joined him here today for our hearings.
I would invite Deputy Minister Donais to introduce the officials that are with
him here today. You can refrain from getting into the chapters at this time.
We’ll turn it then over to the auditor and come back your way.
Laurier Donais: — Thank you very
much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. We’re pleased to be here today to
address the committee and answer your questions on behalf of the Ministry of
Government Relations. Joining from the Ministry of Government Relations here I
have with me Bonnie Chambers, assistant deputy minister of municipal relations.
I have Jeff Markewich on my left here, ADM, assistant deputy minister of
central services and standards. To my far right I have Brad Henry, executive
director, northern municipal services. And then in behind us here we have
Heather Evans, executive director of corporate services branch. So that’s the
officials.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Well thanks. Thank you and thanks to
all of your team for being here as well. I’ll turn it over now to the
Provincial Auditor to make a presentation on her chapters. I think she’s
focusing on the first three that are on our agenda. There is a presentation and
then we’ll come back your way.
And at this time maybe what I’ll do is
table PAC 14‑30, Ministry of Government Relations: Status update, dated
January 21, 2025. And I want to thank all those that were involved in the
ministry that have compiled the actions that are reflected in that status
update.
Tara
Clemett: —
So thanks, Mr. Chair, committee members, and officials. With me today is Mr.
Trevor St. John, and he is the deputy provincial auditor that is responsible
for the audits at Government Relations and will be doing the formal
presentation. Behind me as well is Ms. Michelle Lindenbach. And she is our
liaison with this committee, and she’ll be joining us for the remainder of the
agenda this afternoon.
Trevor is going to present the four
chapters noted on the agenda in the two separate presentations. The first
presentation will relate to the annual integrated audit of the Northern
Municipal Trust Account that Government Relations is responsible for. These
chapters include two new recommendations for the committee’s consideration. The
last three fiscal years the trust account has struggled to have financial
support adequately prepared and reviewed for audit, and as a result has not
provided the trust account’s annual report to the Legislative Assembly within
the time frames required by law. The presentation will focus on the
recommendations outstanding at December 31st, 2023, the last integrated audit
that was completed at the trust account.
The second presentation summarizes our
most recent follow-up related to safe drinking water in Saskatchewan northern
settlements, and it includes four outstanding recommendations. This committee
agreed with our recommendations in 2014.
Trevor will pause after each
presentation for the committee’s consideration. I do want to thank the deputy
minister and his officials for the co-operation that was extended to us during
the course of our work. With that, I’ll turn it over to Trevor.
Trevor St. John:
— Thank you. So the Ministry of Government Relations is responsible for
administering the Northern Municipal Trust Account. The trust account provides
for the administration of the funds and property held for administering and
financing the municipal functions and operations of the northern Saskatchewan
administration district and assisting northern municipalities in providing
quality services to the residents through operating and capital grants.
My presentation will provide our audit
results of the annual integrated audits for December 31st year-ends 2021, 2022,
and 2023. For each of those years we report the trust account had reliable
financial statements. It complied with its legislative authorities and had
effective rules and procedures to safeguard public resources other than the
matters reflected in our recommendations.
I will provide a quick summary and
update of each recommendation in chapter 1 of our 2023 report volume 1,
starting on page 13. The report contains one new recommendation for the
committee’s consideration, two partially implemented recommendations, and two
recommendations not implemented. I’ll provide updates for each of these
recommendations that we subsequently reported on in 2023 volume 2 and 2024
volume 2.
On page 16 of the 2023 volume 1, we note
the ministry made progress towards our recommendation made to require
management to carry out a detailed review of quarterly and year-end financial
information prepared by staff responsible for recording the trust account’s
financial information. This recommendation remained partially implemented in
both of our subsequent reports. Management needs to consistently review and
approve financial information in a timely manner.
The ministry hired a director of finance
and accounting in January of 2024 to assist with preparing and reviewing the
trust account’s financial information and annual financial statements. This
contributed to our office finding fewer errors in the financial statements
prepared for the year ended December 31st, 2023 compared to prior years.
Although we noted some improvements, we found the financial reporting
information was not consistently prepared and approved on a timely basis during
2023.
On page 18 we made a new recommendation
that the Ministry of Government Relations regularly update its cost estimates
to decommission landfills under the Northern Municipal Trust Account’s
responsibility. We found the 2021 landfill decommissioning liability estimate
was overstated by 900,000 as the ministry staff responsible for calculating and
recording the estimate did not receive updated engineering reports in a timely
manner.
In our 2024 report volume 2, on page 27,
we reported that the ministry implemented this recommendation for December
31st, 2023. The ministry obtained updated information to better estimate
decommissioning costs for the seven remaining landfills under the trust
account’s responsibility for the year ended, as part of adopting Canadian
public sector accounting standards 3280 for asset retirement obligations.
Regularly obtaining updated cost information related to landfill asset
retirement obligations reduces the risks the amounts recorded for asset
retirement obligations in the trust account’s financial statements are
incorrect.
Also on page 18 of our 2023 volume 1, we
noted no progress was made towards the recommendation on clarifying the
legislative authority to make grants from the trust account to northern
municipalities for landfills that are not wholly owned by the ministry. But by
our 2024 report volume 2 the ministry implemented the recommendation and
updated The Northern Municipalities Regulations and its related grant
policy to provide clear authority to make grant payments through the trust
account for landfills that are not wholly owned by the ministry. Clear
legislative authority for landfill grant payments decreases the risk of making
payments that are inconsistent with the mandate of the trust account.
The first recommendation on page 19 of
our 2023 volume 1 report, we noted the recommendation the ministry adequately
segregate duties of employees responsible for key accounting functions of the
trust account was partially implemented. But by our 2023 report volume 2 we
noted the ministry implemented this recommendation by adequately segregating
incompatible duties of staff responsible for making and approving transactions.
This proper segregation of responsibilities assigned to staff responsible for
key accounting functions reduces the risk of undetected fraud and error,
including inappropriate adjustments to accounting records. This also reduces
the risk of errors in the trust account’s financial information.
The second recommendation on page 19, we
noted the ministry had not implemented the recommendation related to the
ministry providing the trust account’s annual report to the Legislative
Assembly in accordance with the timelines set in The Executive Government
Administration Act. This recommendation continues to not be implemented in
both of our subsequent two reports.
The trust account has not tabled its
annual report on time since its 2014 annual report, as difficulties in
preparing accurate financial statements have delayed completion of its annual
reports. Not tabling the trust account’s annual report within the time frame
set out in legislation results in legislators having insufficient information
to monitor the trust account’s operations and make informed decisions.
With that, that concludes all the
recommendations in the 2023 report volume 1.
There was also one new recommendation in
our 2023 report volume 2, which I’ll touch on now. On page 27 of that report,
we recommended the Ministry of Government Relations obtain the necessary
information to adopt Canadian public sector accounting standard 3280— asset
retirement obligations for the year ended December 31st, 2023.
The ministry had not sufficiently
supported the trust account’s management to be ready to implement the new
Canadian public sector accounting standard for recording asset retirement
obligations. The trust account’s December 2023 financial statements were
required to comply with accounting standards and record asset retirement
obligations. And at October 2023 the ministry had not yet obtained adequate
information to estimate the costs related to asset retirement obligations for
the trust account. Having such information is also important to accurately
reflect public resources needed to clean up costs in the future.
On page 25 of our 2024 report volume 2,
we report the ministry implemented this recommendation for the December 31st,
2023 financial statements, as the ministry supported the trust account’s
management in obtaining the necessary information to comply with the new
standard and properly record asset retirement obligations.
I’ll now pause for the committee’s
consideration.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Thank you very much, and thanks for
the focus in the presentation on these three chapters and the two new
recommendations that are there as well. Again thanks as well for already
detailing many of the actions that have been taken to implement these recommendations.
I’ll turn it over to the deputy minister to see if there’s any further comments
at this point, and then we’ll open it up for questions.
Laurier Donais: — Sure. Thank you,
Mr. Chair, and I also want to extend a thanks to the Provincial Auditor and her
staff for the valuable work that you do. We really do appreciate the work that
you do and value your feedback as it pertains to our internal processes, our internal
controls, and really, you know, the work that we do to improve on the work that
we do for this great province.
[13:15]
So I will make just a few comments on
the three reports that the Provincial Auditor just presented on. So over the
past couple of years the ministry has focused its efforts on addressing the
Provincial Auditor recommendations. And of the five carry-over recommendations
that were listed from the 2023 audit, the ministry has implemented three by the
time the audit was completed. And for the remaining two outstanding
recommendations, pleased to report that the ministry has since implemented one.
So in January 2024 the ministry hired a
director of finance and accounting to manage the finances of the NMTA [Northern
Municipal Trust Account]. As a result all quarterly reports of the NMTA were
consistently reviewed and approved within the expected timelines. Therefore in
2024 the ministry has implemented that recommendation to require management to
carry out a detailed review of quarterly and year-end information prepared by
the staff responsible for recording NMTA financial information.
And with the final remaining outstanding
recommendation, that pertains to not tabling the annual report in accordance
with the timelines prescribed in The Executive Government Administration Act,
which is within 120 days of year-end. To this end the ministry has been working
closely with third parties, the Provincial Auditor’s office, to gather and
review the information that is needed for the timely completion of the NMTA’s
annual report.
And the ministry also continues to
review its financial reporting processes to reduce the risk of errors in its
accounting records and financial statements. And so we do plan to table the
2024 annual report on time in April 2025.
And that concludes my remarks on these
chapters. So we’d be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Great. Thank you very much. I’ll
open it up now to committee members for questions. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Regarding the tabling of the Northern Municipal Trust Account’s annual report,
I see that the ministry intends to have the last fiscal reports tabled in April
of 2025, correct?
Laurier Donais: — Thank you very
much for the question. And yes, that is a recommendation that has concerned us
for some time. I think there was various factors that contributed to that. I
think relying on, like, outdated information when we prepared information for
the annual financial statements. I think even just turnover in staff. I think
we’ve had some challenges with regards to recruiting and retaining, you know,
qualified individuals in those key finance and accounting roles.
And then, you know, like I said earlier
just third-party information. You know, just we have relied on maybe not
current information in preparing those financial statements. And then, you
know, when we’ve invited the auditors in, you know, it became clear that that
information has since been updated and then of course it requires changes in
the financial statements.
So those are some of the things that
contributed to that. It was something that has certainly been on our radar, and
we’ve been certainly putting a lot of effort, or trying to meet those time
frames, but it just seemed that year after year we were continuing to have some
challenges there. But I think we’re certainly on a good path now and well
prepared for meeting that recommendation here for 2025.
Hugh Gordon: — Well then I guess
also on that, I’m just taking note of this part here on page 26, chapter 3 of
the ’23 report, where the auditor noted that the Ministry of Government
Relations management does not adequately support management of the Northern
Municipal Trust Account to prepare timely and accurate financial information
statements. I’m just curious what the rationale for that lack of support is, or
was, and what steps have been taken to mediate it. And if you could speak on
that I’d appreciate it.
Laurier Donais:
— Sorry, I missed . . . Which report was that? Was that the 2024
volume . . .
Hugh Gordon: — 2023, chapter 3,
page 26. Right underneath 4.1. First paragraph of 4.1.
Jeff Markewich:
— I’ll answer this one. Jeff Markewich, assistant deputy minister, central
services and standards. Maybe just to start to answer your question, as a
ministry we hired a director of finance within the NMTA in just January of 2024
here. One of the challenges that we had in the past though was having adequate
oversight and responsibility within the NMTA when it came to reporting
responsibilities. And within the staff, within our corporate services within
Regina here, trying to assist wasn’t the same as having somebody directly
responsible within La Ronge to actually oversee the program.
Hugh Gordon: — In your status
report it also indicated Government Relations has been working closely with
third parties that are required to provide information for the annual report.
Can you tell the committee who the third parties are, what type of data they
would be providing, and why they have not been providing information or appear
to have not been providing that information over these last nine years?
Brad Henry:
— Thank you for the question. My name is Brad Henry. The two entities that
we’re referring to here are the Ministry of Environment and the Lac La Ronge
regional solid waste management corporation.
With the Ministry of Environment we’re
dependent on lease revenue information that we receive from them. Unfortunately
given the timing of our audits, we need to receive that information prior to
the completion of their audits and so sometimes through the process of their
audit, corrections are made which leads to then errors in our financial
statements.
With Lac La Ronge Regional Waste
Management Corporation it’s a timing issue. The corporation has the same
year-end as we do, which is December 31st, and that means that they’ve got a
very limited amount of time to prepare and approve their financial statements
for inclusion in ours. And so that’s really where the two conflicts occur.
Hugh Gordon: — So on that point,
it wouldn’t be . . . When we talk about lack of support that might
also include third parties not also perhaps having enough support internally to
deliver the information that you require for your report. Do I understand that
correctly?
Brad Henry:
— With the Ministry of Environment, I know that they have also over time
experienced staffing issues and capacity issues which I believe are addressed
now. So I think as Laurier mentioned, we’re in a good position with them going
forward. With Lac La Ronge Regional Waste Management Corporation, their audits
are done by a third party, and we’re in the process of establishing an
agreement with them to make sure that we all have the same expectations and
understandings around timing and delivery of these statements to meet our
needs.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Any further questions from committee
members on these three chapters before us. Two new recommendations and on both
those recommendations I think you’ve demonstrated and stated that you’ve
implemented those recommendations and laid out some of the actions to do so. So
thank you for that.
Not seeing any other questions then I
would look for a motion with respect to chapter 1, the 2023 report volume 1.
There’s one new recommendation there, and I would welcome a motion that concurs
with that recommendation and notes compliance. MLA Kropf. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Okay, that’s carried. There’s a new
recommendation as well in the 2023 report volume 2, chapter 3. I would welcome
the same motion there that we concur and note compliance. Moved by MLA
Crassweller. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — That’s carried as well. With respect
to the 2024 report volume 2, chapter 3, I would simply welcome a motion that we
conclude consideration at this time. Moved by MLA Chan. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — That’s carried. Okay, we’ll turn it
back over to the Provincial Auditor to present on the 2024 report volume 1,
chapter 11.
Trevor St. John:
— Thank you. This chapter is providing safe drinking water in northern
settlements, 2024 report volume 1, chapter 11.
The Ministry of Government Relations is
responsible for providing safe drinking water to Saskatchewan’s northern
settlements. It uses various water systems to provide drinking water to
northern settlements, including ministry-owned water systems for certain
northern settlements. Having access to safe drinking water is essential to the
health and well-being of people living in seven northern community settlements
which are unincorporated communities within the northern Saskatchewan
administrative district which is administered by the Ministry of Government
Relations.
Our 2012 report volume 1, chapter 12
concluded the Ministry of Government Relations did not have effective processes
to provide safe drinking water to those seven northern settlements for the
period ending March 31st, 2012. We made 10 recommendations to strengthen the
processes.
Chapter 11 of our 2024 report volume 1
describes our fourth follow-up audit of management’s actions on those
recommendations we originally made in 2012. As of January 2024, the ministry
made some progress in improving its processes to provide safe drinking water to
these seven communities, but still has more work to do. We found the ministry
still has not fully implemented two recommendations by January 2024, which is
12 years since the original audit.
The ministry partially implemented the
recommendation on page 159 to take prompt action to address problems in
provision of safe drinking water. We found Uranium City continued to have an
emergency boil water advisory in place, meaning significant drinking water
quality problems exist.
Since our last follow-up in 2021, the
ministry did contract with a third party to install a new modular water
treatment plant in Uranium City. The ministry expected the plant to be in
operation at the time of our audit by summer 2024. Once in operation the
ministry still would require final testing, but it expected the new treatment
plant to address the outstanding boil water advisory in Uranium City, which has
been in place since 2015. Taking prompt corrective action to resolve drinking
water quality issues is essential to ensure the safety of water consumed by
northern settlement residents.
We found the intent of the
recommendation was met on page 160 to test drinking water samples as required
by permits. The Ministry of Government Relations received regular test results
for drinking water samples at each of the seven water treatment plants we
tested. For any tests not submitted the ministry, along with its consultant,
provided training and suggested procedures to the water treatment plant
operators to rectify the issues.
For drinking water tests we examined, we
found all daily, weekly, monthly, and biannual water quality tests were completed
in accordance with the related permit. This is an improvement from the results
from our previous follow-up audit. We did note some twice-monthly and quarterly
water quality tests required by the permit were not completed, but this was
consistent with the Water Security Agency’s monitoring reports. And the
ministry took corrective action to address the missed tests, such as requiring
the mandatory training.
Third recommendation. The ministry
partially implemented one . . . On page 162, the ministry partially
implemented one recommendation and implemented the other recommendation related
to water system maintenance.
[13:30]
We found northern settlements still had
drinking water systems requiring significant maintenance. The Ministry of
Government Relations sufficiently supervised water system maintenance and
monitored such maintenance, however did not always consistently carry out all
high-priority maintenance like repairing leaks in water distribution lines in a
timely manner.
The ministry hired a public works
manager who began piloting the use of a digital maintenance application in
2023, available to both operators and ministry staff. The application logs and
tracks maintenance in real time, which allows the ministry to better monitor if
and when operators conduct key maintenance activities at the water treatment
plants. Not completing maintenance in a timely manner increases the risk that
water quality and water supply to northern settlements could be adversely
affected.
I’ll now pause for the committee’s
consideration.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Okay, thanks again for the
follow-up. Important recommendations, obviously. And you know, I guess just for
those that are observing as well, these recommendations go back to 2012 and
then also 2014. This committee has concurred in both recommendations, and you
know, certainly some time has passed. I would open it up to Deputy Minister
Donais to offer a few remarks and then we’ll open it up for questions.
Laurier
Donais: — Thanks again, Mr. Chair. So yes,
just in with regards to responding to the providing safe drinking water in
northern settlements chapter, the ministry has made progress with the two
remaining recommendations.
For the first remaining recommendation,
take prompt action to address problems in providing safe drinking water to
northern settlements, the ministry installed a bottle-fill reverse osmosis
water system to replace the water treatment plant as the source of potable
water in Uranium City. This system has been operational since October of 2024.
Uranium City has a permit to operate its
old water treatment plant and distribution system. A new permit is needed to
replace the old water treatment plant with the new reverse osmosis water system
as a source of potable water in Uranium City. So the permit is currently being
applied for, and we anticipate the recommendation to be fully implemented by
April 2025.
The
ministry will continue to expand the use of the digital water maintenance
system to track maintenance activities on all assets related to water treatment
plant operations, and we anticipate completing this work throughout 2025.
So
that concludes our remarks on this chapter. So, Mr. Chair, we would be pleased
to answer any question that the committee may have on this.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Yeah, thanks so much, and thanks for
detailing the actions as well that have been taken. I’ll open it up to the
committee members for questions. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Hello. How long had Uranium City been
in an emergency boil water advisory? And how many people were impacted by that?
Brad
Henry:
— The Ministry of Government Relations took over the operations of the northern
settlement in Uranium City in 1984, and I believe the precautionary drinking
water advisory has been in place since 2014. The question of the number of
residents isn’t quite as easy to answer because it has quite a large seasonal
population shift. On the population low it can be as few as 20 people, and at
the maximum sometimes we see as many as 75.
Joan Pratchler: — Is the bottle-fill reverse osmosis
water system in Uranium City meant to permanently replace that water treatment
plant?
Brad
Henry:
— It’s not intended to replace the water treatment plant; it’s intended to
supplement the water treatment plant. So because we are having so many
difficulties delivering potable water through that water treatment plant, the
water treatment plant is going to be maintained as is, and is going to be
providing hygienic water through the pipe distribution system. But the bottle-fill
reverse osmosis system is to make sure that they have safe potable drinking
water, and so it’s intended to be a long-term solution.
Joan Pratchler: — And will that digital monitoring
suffice to make it a permanent solution then for that treatment plant?
Brad
Henry:
— Digital monitoring as well as daily monitoring by our operators, yeah.
Joan Pratchler: — And so the picture in my mind is in the
future, which is pretty soon. It will be a permanent solution, that treatment
plant?
Brad
Henry:
— The reverse osmosis system is already operational and has been since October.
We’re just applying for a permit right now to change the status of that system.
Because right now the permit says that we’re delivering a potable water system
through the water treatment plant, but we need to change the permit so that it
addresses the hygienic system component.
Joan Pratchler: — What other northern settlements have
drinking water systems that require significant maintenance?
Brad
Henry:
— We have seven northern settlements that have water treatment systems that
would require significant maintenance. In the Northwest we have a water
treatment plant in the community of Bear Creek. Along Highway 2 North, Brabant
Lake, we have a water treatment plant there as well. Again on Highway 2 North,
in the community of Missinipe, we have a water treatment plant. Sled Lake in
the Northwest, we have a water treatment plant. And Uranium City, again in the
far North, has a water treatment plant.
We
also have water treatment plants that we utilize in the northern settlements of
Stanley Mission and Wollaston Lake, but those are owned and operated by the
First Nation there. We’re just users of those systems.
Joan Pratchler: — And the few that you mentioned, they’re
all in working condition and they’re going to continue to be so?
Brad
Henry:
— Absolutely.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. Are there any settlements
currently experiencing precautionary water advisories or boil water advisories
as we speak?
Brad
Henry:
— The only one would be Uranium City due to that long-standing issue, but once
we get the permit changed that’ll remove the precautionary drinking water
advisory.
Joan Pratchler: — The demographics of northern
settlements, the majority are Indigenous people. Can you tell me a little bit
more about the engagement and the consultation you had with Indigenous peoples
in solutioning these situations?
Brad
Henry:
— Sure. We worked directly with Indigenous Services Canada on behalf of the
First Nations as the federal funding partner who provides the majority of the
dollars to support the First Nations interests in these facilities. And a lot
of our work on the engineering and contracting side is with them as the funding
agent. But we also work very closely with the community, the local First
Nations as well as the tribal councils, to make sure that facilities are
meeting the need and are able to be maintained by the populations that exist on
those sites.
Joan Pratchler: — Would you say that the Indigenous
population has meaningful input into those solutions?
Brad
Henry:
— Yes, absolutely.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. Those are all my questions.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thanks for those questions. Any
further questions on this front? I just had interest out of . . .
What was the cost of the reverse osmosis system in Uranium City?
Brad
Henry:
— I don’t have the exact number for that part of the project. It was contained
within another project where we built a shop out at Uranium City. The shop plus
the reverse osmosis system together were about $2 million, but I can’t
tell you how much of which was which.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Is that information you could
provide back to the committee as far as the cost of the reverse osmosis system
itself?
Brad
Henry:
— Definitely.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thank you very much. That
information can just be supplied back through the Clerk, and then will be
properly posted for this committee. Any further questions at this time from
committee members?
Not
seeing any, these are outstanding recommendations, two that are outstanding;
both have implementation occurring in 2025. One in April, the other one
sometime in 2025. So you know, I just look forward to seeing those sort of come
off the books, if you will, as the auditor comes in to do that follow-up. And
thanks to your deputy minister and your entire team for all the leadership and
work on these fronts and with the respective communities to make this happen.
Certainly they’re very important recommendations to those respective
settlements.
With
that being said, we have no new recommendations, so I would ask for a member to
move conclusion of consideration of chapter 11 from the 2024 report volume 1.
Moved by MLA Crassweller. All agreed? Okay, that’s carried.
Deputy
Minister Donais, thank you so much to you and your officials, and all those
involved in your ministry and in municipalities right across the province from
the far North to the South and everywhere in between. Thanks for your time here
today. Before we kick you out of here and move on to the next considerations,
do you have any final remarks for us?
Laurier
Donais:
— Thanks, thanks for that. I just want to thank my officials here that came out
in support. And as you mentioned, these are recommendations that we do take
very seriously, and so very good questions I think from the committee members.
And we thank you for that.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay. At this point we will have a
brief recess and we’ll turn our attention to the Western Development Museum as
soon as they’re in the chairs before us.
[The committee recessed for a period of
time.]
Western
Development Museum
Chair Wotherspoon: — Okay. Good afternoon. We’ll
reconvene the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and turn our attention to
the Western Development Museum. Thank you so much to CEO Joan Kanigan for
joining us here, along with your officials. I’d ask you to briefly introduce
the officials that have joined you here today.
Joan
Kanigan:
— Okay.
Chair Wotherspoon: — And then we’ll turn it over to the
Provincial Auditor to make presentation on the first chapter, and then we’ll
come back your way.
Joan
Kanigan:
— Thank you. This is Greg Gettle, the deputy minister for the Ministry of
Parks, Culture and Sport, and Dan French, the assistant deputy minister, who
have joined me today.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Well again, thanks again. I’ll table
right now PAC 15-30, Western Development Museum: Status update, dated January
21st, 2025. Thank you as well for whoever was involved in putting together that
status update, and for those that were involved in the actions reflected there
as well. I’ll turn it now over to the Provincial Auditor and her team. I
believe she is focusing on chapter 25 to start.
Tara Clemett: — Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee
members, and officials. With me today is Mr. Jason Shaw, and he is responsible
for the audits at the Western Development Museum. Or we often refer to them as
WDM [Western Development Museum], if you don’t mind.
Today
Mr. Shaw, he’s going to present the three chapters in two separate
presentations. The first will be a presentation on a follow-up audit which we
did around the outstanding recommendation at WDM with regards to removing
historical artifacts in its collections. This committee already agreed with the
recommendation in this chapter, and we are just providing an update to this
committee, outlining whether or not the recommendation has been fully
implemented.
The
second presentation will be in relation to WDM’s annual integrated audits, so
it’s really the financial statement and control audit over the past two fiscal
years. This chapter, the first one, does contain two new recommendations for
the committee’s consideration to strengthen WDM’s financial related controls.
Jason will pause after every presentation for the committee’s discussion and
consideration. I do want to thank the CEO and her staff for the co-operation
that was extended to us during the course of our work. With that I’ll turn it
over to Jason.
Jason
Shaw:
— Thank you. The Western Development Museum is responsible for collecting,
preserving, restoring, and exhibiting objects of historical value and
importance to Saskatchewan. It has a collection of over 75,000 artifacts,
ranging from pins to locomotives displayed in four locations in the province.
With
so many artifacts, effectively reviewing its collection is important to help
reduce costs and increase available storage space for artifacts that have more
value to the museum. Chapter 25 of our 2022 report volume 2, starting on page
245, reports the results of the progress made on the recommendations we
initially made in our 2016 audit of the Western Development Museum’s processes
to permanently remove historical artifacts from its collections.
We
made eight recommendations. By March 2020 the museum implemented seven
recommendations. By August 2022 the museum fully implemented the one remaining
recommendation. The museum completed its collections development plan to help
guide staff how to review its collection. The museum’s board of directors
approved of the plan in November 2020. The plan includes a sufficient
assessment tool to help guide museum staff in their assessments of artifacts.
The tool will require the staff to assess each artifact using established
criteria, including artifact condition, historical significance to
Saskatchewan, rarity, and other aspects that increase the value to the museum.
We
found staff consistently used this tool when assessing its antique vehicles
collection in late 2020. We tested nine artifact assessments and found staff
appropriately completed the assessments tool. In April 2022 the board approved
these nine items for disposal. Assessing its artifact collection consistently
can help staff recommend whether artifacts should remain in the collection or
be removed and disposed, which in turn can help reduce costs and increase
storage space.
This
concludes my presentation and I’ll pause for the committee’s consideration.
Thank you.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thanks so much for the presentation.
Thanks so much for the work on this front. Would you care to offer any brief
remarks before we open it up for questions on this chapter?
Joan
Kanigan:
— Certainly. With the completion of the final recommendations for the
collections development plan, it’s been a really great tool as we work through
all of our collection assessments.
We’re
currently doing some major renovations in one of our storage rooms of smaller
artifacts to be able to meet fire code requirements. And so we’re in the
process of using the collections development tools that we’ve created to assess
everything that . . . Since we have to move it out of the room to do
the work that we’re doing, we may as well assess them before we put them back
in. And then anything that doesn’t meet the criteria for staying in the
collection is then disposed of after the board has approved the deaccessioning.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thank you for that. I’ll open it up
now to committee members for questions. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Could you provide the committee with an
update on the collections development plan? The auditor notes in her report
that the museum’s board of directors started evaluating the plan in 2020 and
expect to complete the work in five years.
Joan
Kanigan:
— The collections development plan itself has been approved. It’s actually
available on our website for anybody who wants to see it, but I can share that
link with committee staff so that it can be shared. The work of evaluating
parts of the collection . . . So the automobile collection is one of
those five-year projects. It is getting a bit delayed because we now have fire
code violations that we have to address, so we’re now focusing all of our
efforts on the 12,000 artifacts that are in one room that have to be removed
and then returned.
So
we’ve done a little bit of a shift in terms of the focus of the plan, but the
automobiles we’d have deaccessioned — can’t remember the exact number — but we
have about 20 ready for disposal now to actually be moved out of the WDM
storage in the spring. So we’ll be working with a couple of auction companies
for the ones that did not go to other museums.
Hugh Gordon: — So to add to that, could you speak to
some of those artifacts, like, that could be identified as potential ones for
deaccession?
Joan
Kanigan:
— So the ones that we . . . We’ve created a tiering process so we
have tier 1 to tier 4 grading for all of the artifacts based on their
condition, their historical significance, their significance to the province,
or their local significance. And our rating tool allows us to then determine
what classification we’re giving each of the objects. And any objects that are
in tier 3 or tier 4 are prime candidates for deaccessioning and disposal
because they have no significance. There’s no historical connection to anything
of significance to the cultural and economic development of the province, which
is our mandate focus. And so those are items that are then recommended to the
board for deaccessioning.
So
for example we have a lot of 1920s vehicles that were collected when the WDM
was first formed in the ’40s, and we don’t know who the owners were other than
the last owner. We have many, many of them so we have multiple 1920s vehicles.
I think there’s at least 20 in our collection. They take up a lot of space to
store. They’re not in the greatest of condition. So we’ve gone through and
assessed those vehicles for the ones that are most significant and the ones
that we should put our resources into, and then the ones that have no
significance to our cultural or economic development of the province. The board
approves the deaccessioning and then we work on disposal.
[14:00]
And
ideally with disposal we try to keep them in the public domain, but if there
isn’t another museum or public organization that would be able to take these
on, then they go for public auction, and the proceeds from those auctions go
into the preservation of the remaining collection.
Hugh Gordon: — And just with respect to those
artifacts, so I take it at one point or another they were deemed important
either to the history or to the museum. So could you explain how that changed
per se and why now they are deemed deaccession-able?
Joan Kanigan: — When museums first started, the premise
for most museums, particularly as we went through the ’40s and the ’50s, was to
collect everything. There wasn’t any real . . . If it was old it was
collected. There wasn’t any real sense of, you know, what is the significance
of this object? How is it important? And as museums collected and amassed lots
and lots of objects, those take up a lot of space.
So
as the discipline of museology has developed over the last couple of decades,
we’re being much more conscious of the . . . Why are we collecting
these objects? What is their purpose? What is their significance? And how do
they serve a broader purpose other than just being something that we store in a
warehouse?
And
so that’s really how the discipline has changed over the last, you know, 50 to
70 years. There’s really been a shift in what is the purpose of the museum
beyond just holding objects, and then how do those objects serve the broader
public in the work that we do.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you for that.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Any further questions by committee
members on this front? Would you have any ballpark estimates as to the value of
some of the collection that you might be taking to the marketplace by way of
auction?
Joan Kanigan: —
Unfortunately no, that’s not something I could even begin to ballpark. It’s not
my area of expertise. And that’s one of the reasons why we go to public
auction, because we can’t . . . You know, we don’t have the skill set
within our organization to make that kind of assessment.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Can you confirm or deny if former MLA Don
Morgan was one of the original purchasers of one of those 1920s vehicles?
Joan Kanigan: — I would
have absolutely no idea.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Listen, we’ll make sure we send that
transcript his way. Thank you very much for the exchange on this and the work
on this chapter here. Not seeing any further questions on this chapter, and
there’s no new recommendations, I’d welcome a motion to conclude consideration
of chapter 25. Moved by MLA Chan. All agreed?
Some Hon.
Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — That’s carried. I’ll turn it over now to
the Provincial Auditor and her team to focus on the two chapter 10s there, and
there’s a couple new recommendations there.
Jason Shaw: — Thank you. This presentation provides our
audit results of the annual integrated audits of the Western Development Museum
for the years ended March 31st, 2023 and
2024. For those years we report the Western Development Museum had reliable
financial statements. It had effective rules and procedures to safeguard public
resources and complied with the authorities governing its activities except for
the matters reflected in our two recommendations.
Chapter 10 of our 2023 report volume 2,
starting on page 63, contains two new recommendations for the museum for the
year ended March 31st, 2023 for the committee’s consideration.
On page 66 we recommended the Western
Development Museum require management to conduct a detailed review of financial
information — for example, financial reports, journal entries, and bank
reconciliations — prepared by staff.
We found management neither consistently
reviewed or approved financial reporting information in a timely manner, nor
formally documented their approval. Adequate segregation of duties requires
timely and independent review and approval of key transactions and entries. We
found several instances where staff did not approve financial information. For
example in ’22‑23 we found the museum did not prepare seven monthly bank
reconciliations, did not maintain evidence of review and approval of all
journal entries tested before making the entries in its financial system, and
did not maintain evidence of review for 19 of the 30 catering revenue entries
we tested.
Not having an independent review of
financial information increases the risk of inaccuracies. Consistent review of
financial information identifies potential issues and allows for corrective
actions in a timely manner. Without adequate review, errors in the museum’s
financial information or fraud may occur without detection.
In chapter 10 of our 2024 report volume
2, starting on page 65, we continued to find and report the museum did not
adequately review and approve financial information, like journal entries and
bank reconciliations, for the year ended March 31st, 2024, and so the
recommendation remains not implemented.
On page 67 of our 2023 report volume 2,
we recommended the Western Development Museum require management complete a
full review of its year-end financial statements. The financial statements
initially presented for audit in ’22‑23 contained numerous errors and
were incomplete. The museum eventually corrected all significant errors. For
example the museum understated the asset retirement obligation liability by
$3.2 million. Because of the numerous changes required to its financial
statements during the audit, the museum did not table its March 31st, 2023
financial statements timely in accordance with its legislative requirements.
In chapter 10 of our 2024 report volume
2, we report that the Western Development Museum implemented this
recommendation by March 31st, 2024. The ’23‑24 audit did not identify any
significant errors. The financial statements initially presented for audit were
complete and we observed evidence of the chief executive officer’s review of
the initial set of financial statements received for audit.
Having a full review of the year-end
financial statements and supporting materials helps museum management identify
potential errors and have accurate financial information, as well as confirm
the financial statements are appropriate and align with Canadian public sector
accounting standards.
This concludes my presentation, and I’ll
pause for the committee’s consideration. Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Good. Thank you very much for the
presentation and the recommendations. I’ll open it up for a brief remark on the
recommendations and the chapters, then we’ll open it for questions.
Joan Kanigan:
— Thank you. I’m actually going to turn this one over to Deputy Minister Gettle
to make some initial comments.
Greg Gettle:
— Thank you. Just a couple of opening comments. The Western Development Museum,
under the authority of The Western Development Museum Act, is a
corporate body with exhibit branches in North Battleford, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw,
and Yorkton. And I’m happy to report that as per the auditor’s 2022 report
volume 2, all of the recommendations from 2016 were fully implemented.
Now on to the 2023 report. The
Provincial Auditor’s report identified and made two recommendations to the
Western Development Museum, and through a follow-up audit in 2024 only one of
the two recommendations remained outstanding. Today I’m actually happy to
report that both recommendations have been implemented for chapters 10 of the
2023 and 2024 reports. I would like to thank the Provincial Auditor’s office
for their diligence and recommendations, and for the opportunity today to
comment on those recommendations. And that concludes our opening comments.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Thank you very much, Deputy
Minister. I’ll open it up now to committee members that may have questions. MLA
Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: —
Thank you. Just an overall question. What type of governance structure is in
. . . With the Western Development, does each site have its own
board? Or how is the governance structure set up?
Joan Kanigan:
— The Western Development Museum is governed by a single board of directors
which is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and then we have the
four locations plus our central corporate and curatorial office. So we operate
as a central-hub-and-spokes sort of system. So we’re all one entire entity.
Joan Pratchler: —
Did they have a practice in the past to appoint an auditor every year and then
audit its statements every year? Or did that change over the last few years?
Joan Kanigan:
— The WDM has always been audited by the Provincial Auditor. And so what
changed for us in that ’22‑23 year is our director of finance of 22 years
retired, and when we hired a new director of finance we ran into some
challenges with knowledge and skills that managed to slip under the radar
longer than they should have.
And so when we found out about the
problems, the individual had just left suddenly, and we were busy trying to
pull an awful lot of things together very quickly. And I’m not an accountant or
a financial expert by any means, but I certainly became one. And I really want
to thank the Provincial Auditor’s office because they provided and supported us
with a lot of information to make sure that we were able to get the audit
completed. And so I really thank them for the help that they provided during
that rather challenging period in our financial systems.
Joan Pratchler: —
Thank you. Could you speak to some of the Western Development Museum’s revenue
streams? You know, admissions, donations, you know, self-generated revenue.
Joan Kanigan:
— Certainly. Our revenue streams are . . . As you have mentioned, we
have admissions, membership sales, our gift shops, program and service fees. So
like if a school comes to one of our programs, they pay a fee. If people
partake in any of our large special events, they pay fees.
We also have catering and rental
services in both Saskatoon and North Battleford. Saskatoon also operates a
cafe, which is one of the services that we provide our guests. Moose Jaw and
Yorkton just provide rental services. We don’t provide any food services. And
we changed North Battleford’s business model in 2022 to license out our
kitchen. So we weren’t doing the food services. There was a licensed caterer
doing that work and working directly with the clients. So that’s one of the
other revenue streams that we have.
Certainly as with every organization or
as we’ve experienced, since the pandemic, our self-generated revenues are still
not at pre-pandemic levels. We got really, really close last year, and we’re
projected to exceed our 2020 revenues, but we’re still probably about 50 per
cent off of our 2019 revenues.
Joan Pratchler: —
Thank you. It’s great to see that the final outstanding recommendation has been
implemented. How has the staff responded to the new checklist, and is that
being followed so far, and how’s that going?
Joan Kanigan:
— Oh, it’s going great. It’s the most . . . I don’t know why I didn’t
think to do this before. It’s probably because we had a director of 22 years
who just knew everything. So it’s the tool that I use to review absolutely
everything. It’s the tool that our financial controller uses to prepare
everything.
And our staff have really stepped up in
terms of understanding why this is important and why the . . . You
know, not just looking at it but actually documenting that you’ve looked at it.
And having that evidence is so critical to the auditing process. So we’re
really grateful to the Provincial Auditor for their helping us improving our
processes and systems.
Joan Pratchler: —
Thank you. It feels good to do a good job, doesn’t it?
Joan Kanigan:
— It does. Yes.
Joan Pratchler: —
Those are all my questions.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Thank you. Any further questions for
the Western Development Museum here today? Okay. Not seeing any, what we’ll do now
is I’d welcome a motion with respect to that chapter 10 from the 2023 report,
the two new recommendations, a motion that we concur and note compliance on
both recommendations 1 and 2. Moved by Mr. Kropf. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — That’s carried. And then with
respect to the follow-up chapter, 2024 report, no new recommendations there.
I’d welcome a motion to conclude consideration. Moved by MLA Crassweller. All
agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — That is carried as well. At this
time, I’d just simply want to thank CEO Kanigan and Deputy Minister Gettle and
ADM French for your time here today. I want to thank all those that are
involved in the very important work of the WDM. And if you have any final
remark for us before we send you packing and invite in Agriculture, any final
words?
Joan Kanigan:
— Just again a thank you. A thank you for the opportunity to be here today and
just talk about the work that we’re doing. And a thank you to the provincial
auditors because their support has been invaluable over the last couple of
years. And you’ve got a great team, and we really enjoy working with them.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Very good. Thank you very much. And
we will have a very brief recess while we bring in the Agriculture folks here.
Thanks again.
[The
committee recessed for a period of time.]
Agriculture
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Okay, folks, we’ll reconvene the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We’re going to turn our attention to the
Ministry of Agriculture here this afternoon. I want to welcome Deputy Minister
Greuel and his officials that have joined him here today and all those that are
involved in that ministry and involved in this work here today. So thanks for
being here.
I would turn it over briefly to Deputy
Minister Greuel to introduce his officials, and then we’ll refrain maybe from
getting into the chapters at that point or the focus of the auditor. I’ll turn
it to the auditor and come back your way. Deputy Minister Greuel, go ahead.
Bill Greuel:
— Good. Yeah, thank you. I’d like to introduce the officials with me today. To
my right, representing the lands branch is Dianna Emperingham, executive
director of the lands branch; and to the right of her is Helen Rud, our
director of policy and administration at the lands branch. For the next
chapter, where we’re considering pest control, I’d like to introduce Barbara
Ziesman, who is the director of the plant industry section of the crops and
irrigation branch.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Right on. Thank you. Thank you very
much. Thanks to you all for being here today. I’m going to turn it over now to
the Provincial Auditor and her team to present. I think they’re going to focus
on the first chapter that’s on the agenda with the new recommendations to
start.
Tara Clemett:
— Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members, and officials. With me today is Mr.
Jason Shaw, and he’s the deputy provincial auditor that is responsible for the
audits at the Ministry of Agriculture. Behind me and to my right is Ms. Nicole
Dressler, and she was the engagement lead on the performance audit with regards
to conserving agriculture Crown land.
Today Jason’s going to present the two
chapters noted on the agenda in the order that they do appear in two separate
presentations. The first chapter is a performance audit that assessed the
ministry’s processes to manage the conservation of agriculture Crown land. It
contains eight new recommendations for this committee’s consideration.
The second chapter is a follow-up audit
whereby we assess whether the ministry fully addressed our five recommendations
we originally made to strengthen the ministry’s processes to mitigate the
impact of regulated pests in crops and pastures in Saskatchewan. This committee
agreed with our recommendations in February 2021.
Jason will pause after each presentation
for the committee’s consideration and deliberation. And I do want to thank the
deputy minister and his staff for the co-operation that was extended to us
during the course of our work. With that, I’ll turn it over to Jason.
Jason Shaw:
— Thank you. Agricultural land makes up the highest amount of non-forested land
in Saskatchewan. The Ministry of Agriculture owns and is responsible for
conservation of about 2.8 million hectares of native prairie, pasture, and
tame hay Crown land and cultivated Crown land. The ministry has over 7,000
leases on this managed land with individuals and pasture associations. The
ministry appropriately monitoring the health and use of agricultural Crown land
is important to keep agricultural landscapes healthy and productive and prevent
depletion or exploitation.
Chapter 12 of our 2023 report volume 2,
starting on page 73, reports the results of our audit of whether the Ministry
of Agriculture had effective processes to manage the conservation of
agricultural Crown land under its responsibility. We concluded for the 12‑month
period ending July 31st, 2023 the Ministry of Agriculture had effective
processes to manage the conservation of Crown land in Saskatchewan, except in
the areas of our eight recommendations.
On page 80 we recommended the Ministry
of Agriculture track all critical habitat on Crown land it is responsible for
in its IT system. The ministry uses an IT system to track information about the
land it manages, including information about wildlife critical habitat. The
Ministry of Agriculture appropriately tracks land location in its IT system
designated as provincially protected wildlife habitat under Saskatchewan’s Wildlife
Habitat and Ecological Lands Designation Regulations.
[14:45]
However the ministry needs to update its
IT system to track land that the federal government identifies as critical
habitat under the Species at Risk Act. We tested 14 locations the
federal government identified as critical habitat for species at risk, like
greater sage grouse, and found two locations the ministry did not appropriately
mark in its IT system as having critical habitat. Without an accurate and
complete list of land of critical habitat, ministry staff may be working with
incomplete data and lessees may not take appropriate actions to protect land
with critical habitat.
On page 84 we recommended the Ministry
of Agriculture formalize factors it considers when determining which Indigenous
communities to consult with when proposing the lease or sale of Crown land. The
Ministry of Government Relations requires ministries to follow the Government
of Saskatchewan’s First Nation and Métis consultative policy framework when
determining which Indigenous communities may be impacted by decisions to lease
or auction vacant Crown land for sale.
At the time of our audit the 2010
framework was in place. We found the Ministry of Agriculture used a radius of
at least 100 kilometres surrounding the land it planned to lease or sell to
identify the Indigenous communities it would consult with. Indigenous
communities include both First Nations and Métis communities. The ministry did
not have documented rationale for using a 100‑kilometre radius.
In 2022 the ministry began consultation
for agricultural Crown land it originally planned to lease or sell in fall of
2023 or later. The ministry sent general notification letters to about 160
Indigenous communities and specific consultation notification letters to
Indigenous communities within approximately 100 kilometres notifying them of
the ministry’s intent to sell or lease land they might use. This broader
consultation process was not formalized so it was not clear whether it would be
consistently used in the future when notifying Indigenous communities about the
ministry’s intent to sell or lease land.
At September 2023 the Ministry of
Government Relations told us it was working to expand its guidance to
ministries to provide more detailed factors to consider when determining which
Indigenous communities to consult with. Some examples of other factors include
historical Indigenous ties to the area even if those communities are not within
the 100 kilometres, and those Indigenous communities with potential treaty rights
in the area. Formalizing consultation processes with Indigenous communities who
may be significantly affected by the leasing or selling of vacant agricultural
Crown land can help to promote understanding, transparency, and credibility of
the ministry’s processes.
On page 87 we recommend the Ministry of
Agriculture complete baseline range-health assessments of pasture association
leases. The ministry uses range-health assessments to evaluate productivity of
land and to develop strategies to maintain the health of agricultural Crown
land. For example, staff use the assessments to identify invasive weeds,
overpopulation of non-native species, or evidence of overgrazing. The ministry
started completing baseline range-health assessments in 2018 on its higher
priority pasture leases leased by pasture associations.
These pastures consist of former Prairie
Farm Rehabilitation Administration community pastures, former Saskatchewan
pasture program community pastures, and pastures used by grazing co-ops. At the
time of our audit the ministry had not assessed 44 per cent of its
1.16 million hectares of Crown land leased by pasture associations.
Completing range-health assessments is
important to assess productivity of land and to develop strategies to maintain
the health of land; for example, assess how many cattle pastures are able to
sustain. Range-health assessments are also important to identify land that
contains sensitive wildlife habitat, which can then be protected from things
like industrial development. The government protects this type of land by
listing it under the provincial wildlife habitat protection Act and related
regulations. Once protected, land users shall not alter the land except as
allowed in the regulations or authorized by the Ministry of Environment.
The government has a goal of protecting
12 per cent of Saskatchewan’s land by 2025. At the time of this audit at
January 2023, about 10 per cent of land was protected. The Ministry of
Agriculture told us the majority of the land of former community pastures is
already provincially protected, but the pasture land used by grazing co-ops is
not. This is about 250 000 hectares, or almost 630,000 acres.
Assessing grazing co-op pastures may
help the ministry to further identify land that should be protected. The
ministry planned to assess the health of this remaining pasture land by 2028,
which was too late to contribute to the government’s land protection goal.
Also on page 87, we recommend the
Ministry of Agriculture communicate the results of range-health assessments to
pasture associations timely. In our testing of four range-health assessments we
found the ministry consistently used sufficient checklists to document these
assessments. We found qualified staff completed the assessments and reviewed
the reports timely. However the ministry did not communicate its findings to pasture
associations in a timely way.
We found staff conducted eight range-health
assessments in 2020 and 2021, but they had not yet finalized and communicated
findings to the relevant pasture association at August 2023. Without timely
communication of range-health assessment findings to pasture associations,
issues the ministry identifies may go unaddressed and the health of the pasture
may deteriorate. For example, if the assessment reports the presence of
invasive weeds, the problem may get worse if the ministry does not communicate
results to their pasture associations timely and the pasture associations do
not take appropriate action.
On page 88 we recommend the Ministry of
Agriculture make implementation of key recommendations to the lessees in range-health
assessments mandatory and set consequences for non-compliance.
Ministry staff assesses the overall
health of agriculture Crown land as healthy, healthy with problems, or
unhealthy, but the ministry does not specify which recommendations in
assessment reports are significant. The ministry indicated it would make recommendations
mandatory for any unhealthy pasture, and pasture associations would be required
to implement changes.
Since the ministry started completing
range-health assessments in 2018, it has not assessed a pasture as unhealthy,
therefore all recommendations up to July 2023 from range-health assessments
were not mandatory. By not having mandatory, enforceable recommendations, there
is a greater risk that the overall range-health deteriorates and the problems
the ministry identified may continue.
We tested the four range-health
assessments the ministry completed and found it assessed one pasture as healthy
and three as healthy with problems. In each of the assessments, staff provided
at least one recommendation to the pasture association as an area for
improvement. For example, one report included recommendations to reduce the
number of cattle grazed on the land during consecutive years of drought, and to
contain and control invasive weeds.
By not having mandatory, enforceable
recommendations, there is a greater risk the overall pasture health
deteriorates and the problems the ministry identified may increase.
Additionally the pasture association is less likely to take appropriate actions
to conserve land when recommendations are not mandatory or enforceable.
On page 89 we recommend the Ministry of
Agriculture conduct timely inspections on individually leased Crown land and
centrally track results. The ministry leases grazing and cultivated land to
individuals. For leases to individuals, the ministry completes land health
inspections when a lease expires, which can be up to 33 years. We found
inspecting land every 21 to 33 years was not timely compared to other
jurisdictions, or good practice. Good practice suggested inspections
approximately every 10 years.
With a long time frame between
inspections, significant changes can occur to a parcel of land such as changes
to plant species or land erosion, both of which potentially indicate unhealthy
land. Without more frequent inspections centrally recorded, the ministry may be
unaware of changes to its land and may not adequately protect the land.
On page 90 we recommend the Ministry of
Agriculture monitor implementation of range-health assessment recommendations
and required actions from lease utilization plans. The ministry does not
formally track recommendations made in range-health assessments and whether the
pasture associations address them. For example, the ministry did not use its IT
system to track what recommendations or the type of recommendations it makes to
each pasture association.
For lease inspections the ministry has a
listing of outstanding lease utilization plans for individual leases but does
not track the required actions or when it plans to follow up to verify the
lessee complied. Required actions may include constructing fencing to prevent
overgrazing or removing garbage. For these required actions, staff track the
required completion dates in their own notes. However, these notes are not
centrally available to all staff, so the ministry cannot monitor completion.
Without a formal process to track recommendations the ministry makes to pasture
associations or required actions for individual leases, there’s a risk lessees
will not address issues affecting the health of agricultural Crown land. This
can lead to further deterioration of usable land.
Lastly, on page 90 we recommend the
Ministry of Agriculture track and evaluate the trends of non-compliance it
observes when completing range-health assessments or inspections. The ministry
does not formally assess the results of its pasture association range-health
assessments in individual lease inspections to help it identify trends of
common issues. For example, staff may frequently identify a specific invasive
weed in a certain region when they perform inspections and assessments.
Tracking trends of non-compliance enable
it to appropriately manage risks overall, such as adjusting its plan for
completing assessments or inspections. Without processes to monitor trends of
non-compliance, the ministry cannot effectively develop strategies to
communicate and work with key partners to resolve common issues it may
identify.
This concludes my presentation, and I
will pause for the committee’s consideration. Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Thanks so much for the presentation
and the focus of the work and the new recommendations. Thanks again to
Agriculture for your detailing some of the actions you’ve taken, some of the
implementation that’s already occurred with some of these recommendations. And
I’ll table now that status update as well that you’ve provided: PAC 16‑30,
Ministry of Agriculture: Status update, dated January 21st, 2025.
I’ll turn it over to Deputy Minister
Greuel to provide some brief remarks on the chapter before us. Then we’ll open
it up for questions.
Bill Greuel:
— Great. Thank you. Yeah, as indicated, there are eight recommendations covered
in the report. The first recommendation is that “We recommend the Ministry of
Agriculture track all critical habitat on Crown land it is responsible for in
its IT system.” The ministry has been tracking general critical habitat
reservation since 2018 on each lease. Beginning in 2023 the ministry has added
species-specific critical habitat reservations on each parcel of land and
implemented checks to ensure the accuracy of information contained in our
enterprise Crown land management system.
The second recommendation is that “We
recommend the Ministry of Agriculture formalize factors . . . when
determining which Indigenous communities to consult with when proposing the
lease or sale of Crown land.” The revised First Nations and Métis consultation
framework was implemented in January of 2024, and the ministry has worked to
formalize the factors it considers when determining which Indigenous
communities it consults with in a formal policy.
The third recommendation is, “We
recommend the Ministry of Agriculture complete baseline health assessments of
pasture association leases.” The ministry is fully engaged in completing the
baseline range-health assessments on pasture association leases within the
established 10‑year time frame as part of our ongoing role and work,
along with post-range-health assessments, follow-up with extension on our
clients.
The fourth recommendation is, “We
recommend the Ministry of Agriculture communicate the results of range-health
assessments and pasture associations timely.” The ministry staff meet with the
pasture associations to discuss the range-health assessments during the pasture
associations’ annual general meetings. All inspections, notes, photographs,
etc., are stored in our enterprise Crown land management system.
The fifth recommendation is that “We recommend
the Ministry of Agriculture make implementation of key recommendations to
lessees in the range-health assessments mandatory and set consequences for
non-compliance.” If the ministry identifies a range-health concern during an
assessment, a lease utilization plan will be created with the pasture
association.
The plan contains several required
actions, such as mandatory reductions in stocking rates, mandatory periods of
rest, removal of livestock owned by non-patrons, or weed control. If these are
not followed, it could lead to lease cancellation.
[15:00]
The sixth recommendation is, “We
recommend the Ministry of Agriculture conduct timely inspections on
individually leased Crown land and centrally track results.” The ministry
continues to review and assess individual lessee’s land ahead of the lease
renewals, targeting the 300 to 400 lease renewal inspections per year. The
ministry has implemented tools to assist in improving inspection of leases and
ensure tracking of Crown land leases. All inspection notes and photos, etc.,
are stored in the enterprise Crown land management system.
The seventh recommendation is, “We
recommend the Ministry of Agriculture monitor the implementation of range-health
assessment recommendations and required actions from lease utilization plans.”
Actions in the lease utilization plans are mandatory. If the lessee does not
implement the actions, it may lead to lease cancellation. The ministry uses the
enterprise Crown land management system to electronically track lease
utilization plans.
The eighth and final recommendation is,
“We recommend the Ministry of Agriculture track and evaluate trends of
non-compliance it observes when completing range-health assessments or
inspections.” The lease utilization plans are now stored in the enterprise
Crown land management system and will allow for data tracking so that trend
data can be monitored and evaluated in the future.
Now we’d be pleased to answer any
questions the committee may have.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Thanks so much, and thanks again for
taking this work on in such a rigorous way. I will open it up to members for
questions. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — I see in the
auditor’s report that the Ministry of Agriculture consults with the Ministry of
Environment regarding ecologically sensitive areas before deciding to sell
Crown land. Do you have any stats on how often land is classified low,
moderate, or high? Or even by year?
Helen Rud:
— We do. And we can get those numbers for you, but I don’t have them here
because it is very specific. So we can provide those.
Hugh Gordon: — Okay. That would
be good to know so we can sort of track what you’re tracking, follow up on.
Exactly how much Crown land was sold in
2022, ’23, and ’24? Do you have those numbers for us, potentially?
Dianna Emperingham:
— We don’t have them today, but we could certainly provide that. We don’t have
them with us today.
Hugh Gordon: — So we have
commitment for both of those things?
Dianna Emperingham:
— Yes, absolutely.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Maybe I’ll just follow up here.
Thanks so much. Just as Chair, when folks undertake to provide information
back, I’ll often just let folks know you can do so by providing that back to
the committee Clerk, and then they’ll make that posted. Do you think getting
that within a month’s time, is that reasonable?
Dianna
Emperingham: —
Yes.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Sounds great. Thank you. Back to you, MLA
Gordon. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — I’m looking at the second recommendation
regarding consultation with First Nations and Métis communities. Which
Indigenous groups were part of the creation of the consultation policy
framework?
Helen Rud: — Government
Relations led that work, and they had reached out to all of the First Nation
communities in the province. But you would have to consult with that ministry
to let you know exactly which groups were part of the consultation process
because it was very extensive and it took several months.
Joan Pratchler: — What did you hear
from them then?
Helen Rud: — During the
consultation policy framework meetings?
Joan Pratchler: — Yeah, what kind
of input did the Indigenous people provide for coming up with that framework
then?
Bill Greuel: — As Helen
indicated, that was a process led by Government Relations. I’m not sure it’s up
to us to consult on that because it wasn’t necessarily specific to the treaty
land entitlement for land or other issues. It was a broader consultation led by
Government Relations, and I think they’re in the best position to answer those
questions.
Joan Pratchler: — Can you discuss
some of the factors that the ministry considers when it was determining which
communities to consult with? Or is that still under that same category that you
just mentioned?
Bill Greuel: — Yes, that is part
of the defined consultation policy framework led by Government Relations.
Joan Pratchler: — In the status
updates it says that it’s included in a draft policy. Would you be able to
commit to tabling that policy with this committee once it’s finalized? Or
perhaps it is already. I don’t know.
Helen Rud: — So if you were
asking, if you were asking about which factors we consider when we trigger the
duty-to-consult, I can speak to that. It is based on location. So if there is a
piece of land that we expect might impact treaty rights, we use a 100‑kilometre
radius. And any communities, First Nation communities or Métis communities that
would have any land within that area or if the Métis is within that area we
would notify them. Or if we have any prior knowledge that they are using that
land to exercise treaty rights, we would also consult with them on that land as
well.
We are working on . . . We have a draft policy at this point.
We expect it to be finalized in April, but I believe we can share it.
Joan Pratchler: — So I guess all
the rest of the questions are about the Indigenous communities and the
consultation, the information that they provided
to Government Relations. Then you took that information to come up with your
draft policy. Is that what I’m understanding?
Helen Rud:
— So the consultation policy framework is a lot bigger. It is how all of
government should be conducting the duty-to-consult. And I think if you’re
asking the bigger questions on feedback received and stuff like that, it would
be better directed to Government Relations. I don’t want to speak on their
behalf on what they heard during those meetings. Our 100‑kilometre radius
is something that we have been doing since 2015 and aligns with the revised
policy.
Joan Pratchler: — What I was really
looking for is, you know, did Indigenous communities have meaningful input into
it rather than saying, we decided it’s 100 kilometres, what do you think?
Helen Rud:
— Again, that would be a question for Government Relations. Yeah.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay.
I see in recommendation 7 it says that
if there are serious concerns from a range-health assessment, the ministry
would enter a lease utilization plan. What would be some of the criteria for a
serious concern — an invasive weed on 25 per cent, 50 per cent? What would be
that criteria?
Helen Rud:
— Well they do it on a field-by-field review when they’re doing range-health
assessments because these pastures, these leases are quite large. So when they
go and they do these assessments, they will go and they divide it, kind of
block by block, and each pasture is given a rating. So if it has serious
concerns — so that means that it’s not meeting our requirements in our lease
agreements — we would develop a lease utilization plan.
So for example, since we had our audit
we have had a pasture that did have serious concerns. So if there’s
overgrazing, things like that, that is when we would, like, enter into it. So
it’s not so much a percentage; it’s if there’s serious concern on parcels of
land, then we would enter into a lease utilization plan.
Joan Pratchler: — All right. I was
just trying to quantify it, what serious concern would be.
Helen Rud:
— Generally it would be overgrazing. The land’s just not, like there’s not a
lot of . . . Like I’m going to . . . [inaudible]
. . . like litter, which means there’s not a lot of grass left over
from previous years. Or if they’re not, for example, having cattle on the land
that they own or that members own. Or if there is invasive weeds is tricky, if
they’re not making efforts to control invasive weeds because this could be an
inherited problem, right? So you don’t want to penalize the pasture association
as long as they’re making effort here. Does that answer your question?
Joan Pratchler: — Yes, I just wanted
to know to what extent. If it has 10 per cent, is that a serious problem of
that pasture land? Or is it 50 per cent? Do they have a criteria for this?
Bill Greuel:
— I think in this case it’s important to recognize that we’re dealing with
native prairie grasslands, which are a biological system. And it’s not always
easy to put a quantifiable number on that says the grass is X per cent
deteriorated. It depends on a series of variables and factors which is the
management, the animal stocking unit, the rainfall. And so we’re working with
pasture associations to determine that.
We’ve got extremely experienced land
management specialists and range-health specialists that are evaluating this
land on an ongoing basis and based on their experience of viewing many of these
different pastures. So it can be sometimes subjective, but we need to recognize
that in a biological system it’s not always easy to quantify a number to an
answer of a question. I think what I would say is that our range-management
specialists have the best interest of preserving the Crown land at their
interests.
Joan Pratchler: — And they’re
probably following trends, I would assume?
Bill Greuel:
— Very much so, yes.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay. And then I’m
looking at recommendation no. 8. It’s talking about evaluating trends of
non-compliance. It says here that the ministry would collect data over multiple
years to allow for the . . . What would be a number to quantify multiple
years? What would be a ballpark? Is that two years, four years?
Helen Rud:
— This is one that we’ve just started making progress on, like fully admitting.
So we are now saving those lease . . . or kind of like saving the
. . . our computer system . . . When we’re doing lease
inspections, things like that is all saved in the system. So I think we would
probably need at least three years to develop a trend. Other words, I don’t
think it would be a trend at that point.
Joan Pratchler: — So it’s fairly
new.
Helen Rud:
— Yes, it is new.
Joan Pratchler: — Okay, thank you.
And that’s all my questions for this section.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — I’m looking to other committee
members for questions. Not seeing any. Thanks again for all the work on this
front and the important relationship as well with those pasture associations
and producers across the province. And thank you to the auditor for the focus
on this front to ensure land health and sustainability on making sure those
lands are in the kind of condition that they should be.
At this point I would welcome a motion
with respect to recommendations 1, 4, 5, and 7 that we concur and note
compliance. Do I have a mover? Mr. Kropf. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — That’s carried. With respect to
recommendations 2, 3, 6, and 8, I’d welcome a motion that we concur and note
progress. Moved by MLA Crassweller. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — All right. That’s carried as well.
Okay, we’ll now turn our attention to chapter 17, and I’ll turn it back over to
the Provincial Auditor and her team.
Jason Shaw: — Thank you.
Saskatchewan accounts for almost half of Canada’s total field crop acreage.
These crops and pastures are at risk of damage from regulated pests which are
either an animal, insect, or disease that the Ministry of Agriculture declares
a pest. The ministry is responsible for mitigating the impact of these
regulated pests in crops and pastures.
Chapter 17 of our 2023 report volume 2,
starting on page 159, reports the results of the progress made on the
recommendations we initially made in our 2020 audit of the Ministry of
Agriculture’s processes to mitigate the impact of regulated pests in crops and
pastures in Saskatchewan. We made five recommendations. The Public Accounts
Committee agreed with our recommendations in February 2021. This is our first
follow-up since the original audit, and by June 2023 we found the ministry
implemented two recommendations and made progress on three remaining
recommendations.
I’ll start by highlighting the work the
ministry still needs to do to address our recommendations. As outlined in
section 3.1 of the chapter, the ministry continued to develop a robust process
to estimate Richardson’s ground squirrel, or gopher, populations. In 2022
strychnine was deregistered in Canada and no longer available for landowners to
purchase and use to reduce gopher populations. Previously the ministry tracked
gopher populations based on strychnine sales.
Beginning in 2022 the ministry created a
report to evaluate gopher populations based on data collected from Saskatchewan
Crop Insurance Corporation. However the ministry was still working to enhance
its population estimation method. Having a robust model to determine gopher
populations will reduce the risk the ministry may not have correct information
to make decisions in order to manage gopher populations.
In section 3.2 we report the ministry
drafted written guidance for detecting and reporting bacterial ring rot and
late blight diseases. We found the draft documents aligned with good practice
and included key information such as what each disease is, how it spreads, and
practices to prevent it.
[15:15]
In 2023 the ministry updated its
guidance for crop protection insect control that includes guidance for
grasshopper infestations. The ministry had not yet developed guidance for the
brown or Norway rat. Having published guidance for detecting, reporting, and
responding to identified infestations for all declared pests would allow for
early detection and response planning for outbreaks, allowing producers to
minimize the risk of crop losses from such pest infestations.
After the time of this follow-up in June
2023, we now recognize the ministry reassessed the list of regulated pests upon
the replacement of the previous pest control Act with the new . . . The
Plant Health Act. This included no longer deeming certain pests as
regulated pests, such as grasshoppers and gophers, and we will re-evaluate
these changes and the impact it had on the recommendations in our next
follow-up audit.
Now I will touch on some of the other
process improvements the ministry made. In section 3.3 we found the ministry is
now communicating clubroot lab results to producers timely and within its 30‑day
expectation of receiving the results. For the 15 lab results we tested, results
were communicated to producers within the 30‑day period. Timely
distribution of clubroot lab results enables producers to implement appropriate
measures promptly to contain clubroot disease in order to control its spread.
Timely action helps to reduce the impact of the disease on crops and pastures.
The ministry’s crops and irrigation
branch also now provides senior management with reports of regulated pest
activity annually. Beginning in 2021 the branch submitted reports, including
appendices for each regulated pest mitigation activities, to senior management.
Overall we found the report provided sufficient detail to inform and assist
senior management in its decision making for mitigation strategies for
regulated pests.
Formal, regular reporting to senior
management on regulated pests decreases the risk of ineffective decision making
about the sufficiency of resources provided and the success of mitigation
activities. It also assists in assessing whether the ministry is responding
appropriately to control confirmed regulated pest infestations and to prevent
the risk of future occurrences.
This concludes my presentation, and
thank you. I pause for the committee’s consideration.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Thanks again for the follow-up on
this work and this important chapter. I’ll turn it over briefly to Deputy
Minister Greuel on this front. I know that you’ve identified many of the
actions in the status update here as well. And for anyone following along at
home, of course this report goes back. It was 2020, and then it was considered
by this, the Public Accounts Committee, and we concurred in 2021. And now this
is part of the follow-up process. Deputy Minister Greuel.
Bill Greuel:
— Thank you. I’ll follow up on three recommendations covered in the report, the
first one being that we recommend the Ministry of Agriculture revisit how it
will conduct surveillance to determine populations of Richardson’s ground
squirrel. The ministry continues to evaluate gopher populations in the province
using Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation claims data and a
ministry-developed online survey. With these tools in place, we consider this
recommendation fully implemented, but the ministry also provides funding to
rural municipalities, First Nations communities, farmers, and ranchers to
control Richardson’s ground squirrels through the Sustainable Canadian
Agricultural Partnership program, the gopher control program.
The second recommendation is that we
recommend the Ministry of Agriculture proactively provide producers with
written guidance about detecting and reporting the presence of late blight and
bacterial ring rot. The ministry is in the process of finalizing science-based
communication plans for regulated pests under The Plant Health Act,
which came into force in June of 2024. These communication plans include
disease detection, reporting, management practices, and response plans, and
will be made available for the 2025 growing season. The ministry supports
producers by also providing potato extension publications on the Government of
Saskatchewan website.
The third recommendation is we recommend
the Ministry of Agriculture, working with its key stakeholders, provide
producers with written guidance on developing response plans for grasshoppers,
late blight, bacterial ring rot, and brown or Norway rat. Again the ministry is
in the process of finalizing science-based communication plans for these
regulated pests which will be made available by the start of the 2025 growing
season.
In addition, the ministry provides rural
municipalities, producers, and industry with guidance on integrated pest
management for declared pests and nuisance pests through extension materials,
presentation, and extension events.
We’d now be pleased to answer any
questions the committee may have.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Well thanks again for detailing the
work, and thanks for the commitment to have all of the recommendations
implemented in 2025 as identified in each of the individual recommendations on
the status update here. So thanks for that. I’ll open it up to committee
members for questions at this time. MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Could you tell us
if there’s any data on how many farmers, if any, have stockpiled strychnine
prior to its deregistration and are still using it?
Bill Greuel:
— We would not have that data. That data would not be available for us to
access even.
Hugh Gordon: — And I guess on
that point too, there’s no way for you to determine if that is factored into
your modelling for gopher populations?
Bill Greuel:
— No, because we wouldn’t have access to that information.
Joan Pratchler: — Can you explain a
little bit more about developing the guidance for dealing with the brown or the
Norway rat? It says here that the ministry was, at the time, undertaking an
assessment to determine which pests would continue to be regulated pests. Was there
discussion of deregulating the brown and the Norway rat, then?
Barbara Ziesman:
— It was examined when we did the repeal and replace of The Plant Health Act
and a review of the regulations. It was examined, but due to the risk to human
health and to the agriculture system, it was not deregulated. So the brown and
Norway rat continue to be regulated and monitored in that manner.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. I’d
also like to know a little bit more about feral pigs. What category are they
in?
Barbara Ziesman:
— They also remain a declared pest under The Plant Health Act.
Joan Pratchler: — And what is the
process or what’s happening to help address that situation?
Barbara Ziesman:
— Yeah, so it is managed under a number of different legislation. So that does
fall under the mandate also of Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation. But
under The Plant Health Act, our rural municipalities have authority,
similar to any other declared pest.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. That’s
all of my questions today.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Any further questions for
Agriculture here today? Not seeing any. Thanks again to the auditor for their
focus of these chapters. Thanks to the ministry for their time here today and
all the actions that they’ve taken to address these recommendations and for all
the other work that you’re involved in as well. At this point in time I would
welcome some final remarks if you had any, Deputy Minister Greuel.
Bill Greuel:
— No, just that we remain committed to the outstanding recommendations on the
Crown land file, and we’ll be happy to report at some point in the future.
Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Thank you. With respect to chapter
17, I’d invite a motion that we conclude consideration of chapter 17. Moved by
MLA Chan. All agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — That’s carried. Okay, well thank you
so much for your time again here today and all your work. We’ll have a very
brief recess before we turn our attention to the summary of implemented
recommendations.
[The
committee recessed for a period of time.]
[15:30]
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Okay, folks, we’ll reconvene the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We’re moving through our agenda here
this afternoon. Thanks to all committee members for their work here today and
certainly thanks to the auditor.
Summary of Implemented Recommendations
Chair
Wotherspoon: — At this point in time we’re going to
turn our attention to chapter 7, the summary of implemented recommendations.
And this is from both the 2022 report chapter 7, sorry, and then also chapter
11, the 2023 report volume 2. And I’m going to turn it over to the Provincial
Auditor.
Tara
Clemett: —
So thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members. I am going to do a presentation
that covers both chapters, and then happy to take questions with regards to one
or both at the same time.
So as part of our annual integrated
audits at the various government agencies — so that’s an audit that assesses
the financial, almost the controls the agency has in place to safeguard public
resources and then their compliance with legislative authority; so it’s an
audit we do each year — we follow up on the recommendations that we’ve
previously made each year until they are fully addressed.
So these two chapters provide a summary
of those recommendations that we made at the various government agencies and
what actions they have taken to address the recommendations. In all cases,
these chapters show that the actions that have been taken are sufficient to
fully address the recommendations that were made.
So the agencies outlined, like the Water
Security Agency, had no outstanding audit recommendations related to their
annual integrated audit. So rather than doing a separate chapter for this
committee’s consideration, rather we summarize all the actions that have been
taken to address our recommendations we made and those that have been agreed to
by the committee in these chapters. This way we are specifically tracking and
reporting the implementation of the committee’s recommendations by government.
And with that I would be happy to take
any questions that you have with regards to, yeah, the specific
recommendation’s actions taken. Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Thank you. Thank you very much. And
I think for anyone that’s following along — and we also have a fairly new
committee here as well — this is again another example of the level of
follow-up and accountability that the auditor provides to us, and then this is
an important function for us. It recognizes the actions that have been taken by
government as well to address recommendations that have been brought by the
auditor and then concurred in by this committee over the years. I’d open it up
at this point to members for questions. MLA Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. I have
a question about the Advanced Education. What are the subsidiaries of the U of
S? I’m not familiar with that.
Tara
Clemett: —
I don’t know if I know all the names off the top of my head. There’d be
something disclosed. I’ll check with my Advanced Ed . . . Do you
know? Because you’re more U of R [University of Regina], right?
Michelle Lindenbach: — Like
the Sylvia Fedoruk nuclear . . . something centre. The synchrotron?
Whatever, I forget the name of the agency that runs that.
Tara
Clemett: — So they
would all be disclosed. That would be in their financial statements too because
they are controlled and consolidated. And so yeah, at the end of the day our
concern was such that if you have a subsidiary of that parent sort of overall
organization that needs to be monitored by Advanced Education, to make sure
they weren’t just monitoring the university, that they were monitoring that the
sub was doing appropriate activities as well.
Joan Pratchler: — And am I correct in understanding that the
U of R doesn’t have any subsidiaries?
Tara Clemett: — Correct. And they
still do not.
Michelle
Lindenbach: — Correct.
Chair Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — With respect to the All Nations’ Healing
Hospital, can you tell us what the status is of the construction of the new
helipad? And have any additional funds been requested since the $100,000
mentioned in the report?
Tara Clemett: — Yeah, so this was
an example where basically, I guess, almost the health care organizations need
to seek approval from the Ministry of Health when they’re undertaking
significant capital projects, just so the Ministry of Health . . .
It’s within the law, I guess as well, but probably also so the Ministry of
Health has a sense of any new undertakings that will have impact from funding
perspectives going forward, or just how that will impact ultimately the care.
So in this specific, given this is 2022, I would envision this capital project
would be done at this point. And ultimately we continue to monitor whether or
not they comply with these regulations each year then going forward.
Joan Pratchler: — I have one
regarding Energy and Resources. How many grant payments have been made under
the accelerated site-closure program and what would be the total dollar amount?
How many payees? How is that flushed out?
Tara Clemett: — Yeah, so in our
next chapter, on that COVID chapter, there is some details. Ultimately they
ended up planning to give out, it looks like $400 million, right? Would
you have a sense? So this is my engagement lead for E & R [Energy and
Resources]. Do you have a sense of the number of grants?
Jason Shaw: — I don’t remember
the number of payments or the number of different recipients that received
money and provided services under that program. Many, but I don’t know an exact
number, sorry. But I know, and as you know, the 400 million was paid out in
time to the vendors that provide services to that program.
Hugh Gordon: — With respect to
the highways, can you tell us what the limit was on the purchase cards that
were used to pay vendors, and how many times in the last 10 years that limit
was exceeded?
Tara
Clemett: —
Yeah, so typically what we find in government, there’s often a threshold of
$5,000 or $25,000 for PCards [purchasing card]. Let me just check with my
engagement lead on Highways.
So like I said, typically $5,000 would
be the lower sort of more minuscule-type purchases. $25,000 . . . And
Nicole has indicated, given Highway Patrol makes some significant purchases,
they might have had limits up to $200,000 at times.
And what we had found is there was, you
know, potentially instances whereby those limits are being exceeded, and so
they were splitting purchases. But when we did our testing in this current year
everything was on par, and there was a separate invoice for each of the
purchases they did. So even though something was maybe worth $200,000 and then
they purchased something later in the day worth $200,000, they were separate
allowed purchases and everything was fine.
Joan Pratchler: — I have one more
for the Water Security Agency. The last one on that page, it looks like it
began in 2010 and then it ended in 2020, 2021. Is 10 years typical for an
agency to do some remediation in that manner?
Tara
Clemett: —
Yeah, so I would say that we do find sometimes with our IT recommendations and
when it comes to almost addressing cybersecurity issues, that can take some
time. Disaster recovery, business continuity, making sure you get all the
players. I think this one took a little while because I do think that they were
trying to do some things on their own and then they were working at times with
SaskWater. And then eventually, as you can see, they decided to go the service
provider route. So obviously that sort of worked to address the issues that we
were identifying.
Overall we find from a recommendation
standpoint, some of these complex ones we make, we do anticipate it might take
upwards of five years for a government agency to address them. If it is taking
10, I do think that’s a bit longer than we would like to see, for sure. So
we’re always looking to go, where are you at in terms of . . . We
call them type 2 recommendations, sort of more hard and more complex. Where are
you within five years? And we would envision they should be off the books as I
guess the Chair indicated.
So this one, a little bit longer than we
would have liked to see. But I think there was some things where they were
trying to get the model set up correctly.
Joan Pratchler: — And just a
follow-up to that one. Have there been any other cloud disaster incidents with
Water Security Agency since the signing of the contract?
Tara
Clemett: —
Yeah, they haven’t had any significant cybersecurity incidents, no.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — MLA Gordon.
Hugh Gordon: — Back to Highways.
So you also mentioned that you recommended the ministry implement policies to
better oversee the purchase of regulated firearms. So can you outline what that
approval process looks like with the Ministry of Corrections, Policing and Public
Safety for the purchase of firearms?
Michelle Lindenbach:
— Okay, I could try to answer your question. So the Highway Patrol has since
moved under the responsibility of the Ministry of Corrections, Policing and
Public Safety now. So some of this issue has resolved itself now because
Corrections, who was responsible for approval of firearm purchases, is now
responsible for that agency. Having those purchases just go through the
delegation of authority approval process within the ministry, they’re now in
compliance with that recommendation essentially.
Hugh Gordon: — Gotcha. So then my
next question probably would be moot where if I ask how many firearms the
ministry has, you’d say none.
Tara
Clemett: —
For Highways? Exactly.
Hugh Gordon: — Highways.
Michelle Lindenbach:
— Yeah.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Any further questions on this
chapter here? Not seeing any, thanks again to the auditor for this follow-up
work in closing this loop.
And for committee members that are
sitting here and for anyone, of course, that’s watching this, but these
recommendations have all come before this committee, likely in many cases,
spoken to and addressed twice. Auditor, is that a fair assessment or not
necessarily?
Tara Clemett:
— Sometimes probably only assessed once and fixed the next year, which is great
to see.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Okay, right. And then you’re
outflowing them off the books.
Tara Clemett:
— Yes. Yeah.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Looks like Mr. Gordon has come up
with another question.
Hugh Gordon: — And we’re dealing
with both chapters, correct?
Tara Clemett:
— Correct, so yeah.
Hugh Gordon: — Yeah, so I was
just curious. The policy for handling credit card information with respect to
SLGA [Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority]. So there was an issue there
with respect to credit card information being sent via email, right, and how
that information was being inputted and how that data was being handled
afterwards.
Can you tell us if . . . Would
an employee still be able to view the email, close out of it without inputting
it or deleting it, returning to it at a later date . . . I guess what
I’m asking, is that process still got a weakness to it or has that been
sufficiently dealt with?
[15:45]
Tara Clemett:
— Yeah, we’re satisfied that it’s sufficiently dealt with. So the concern was
such that, as you said, there was credit card information that was being
obtained and then remained on almost SLGA’s network. So they now have a
mechanism by which if they’re obtaining that credit card information via the
phone, it’s being entered into this Moneris vault. And for anyone that probably
. . . If you google Moneris, you’re going to find they’re PCI
[payment card industry] compliant. So it’s almost like they’re putting it in a
secure storage place off of their network, giving it to the service provider
that’s going to protect that credit card information.
I guess I would say in the event that
you have clients or vendors submitting their credit card information to SLGA
through an email, I guess that’s on them to be accountable and responsible for
their own credit card information. SLGA, in the event that I guess they would
get that, they’d put it in the secure system as such, they would delete the
email, and it would be off.
But in the event like could that be, as
you indicated, almost breach or potentially, you know, contacted by a hacker
through the mechanism in which it was sent? Yes, but I would say that’s on the
person that sent the information. They shouldn’t be doing it in that manner. So
I encourage the public to, yes, not provide your credit card information via
email. Use a secure form, right, or use the phone.
Hugh Gordon: — In a past life, I
used to counsel people at exactly that regard as a fraud investigator for the
RCMP. Good practice. But what you’re saying is essentially you’re confident
that the practices in SLGA’s end are sufficient enough so you wouldn’t have to
worry about leakage of that information or theft of that information.
Tara
Clemett: —
Correct. They’re using, yes, controls in place to appropriately mitigate that
risk now.
Hugh Gordon: — Thank you. That’s
all I have.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Further questions? Okay, not seeing
any further questions with respect to the summary of implemented
recommendations in the two chapters, 7 and 11 from the 2022 and 2023 years
respectively, I would welcome a motion to conclude consideration. Moved by Mr. Kropf, MLA Kropf. All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair Wotherspoon: — That’s carried.
COVID‑19 Financial Support Programs
Chair Wotherspoon: — We’ll now turn our attention to the
auditor’s chapter, chapter 1 from the 2021 report volume 2, COVID‑19
financial support programs. I’ll turn it over to the Provincial Auditor.
Tara Clemett: — Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.
I’m going to provide you with an overview of the work our office did in
relation to COVID‑19
financial support programs. Chapter 1 of our 2021 report volume 2 contains
these results.
This chapter
doesn’t contain any new recommendations for the committee’s consideration. As
noted in the chapter, the COVID‑19 pandemic response required the government to get
money out quickly to the people of Saskatchewan and businesses. Our office
needed to make sure the government did so while also properly safeguarding
public resources.
As part of our
office’s annual integrated audits we examined government spending on the
additional pandemic response programs and the use of any
related federal funding received. For example, we examined financial support
programs related to safe schools, temporary wage supplements, and
small-business emergency payments. Other legislative offices across Canada also
reviewed their province’s COVID‑19 financial support programs, and so we did feel
that it was important to convey to the legislators and the public what work our
office did do and what we found.
Ministries administering the financial
support funding were still responsible to ensure proper internal controls
existed. Our expectation when doing our audit work was that ministry staff
verified eligibility requirements were met, properly approved the support
payments, tracked the expenditures made, and monitored the allocation of
resources.
Figure 1 in the chapter outlines the
audit findings for significant — and when you ask what’s significant, it was
over $10 million — COVID‑19 financial support programs we audited. Overall we
found no significant concerns except with the accelerated site-closure program
administered by the Ministry of Energy and Resources where we made specific
recommendations. Generally we found ministries were able to deliver programs
quickly while meeting appropriate administrative processes.
As part of our audit of the accelerated
site-closure program at the Ministry of Energy and Resources we did make five
recommendations related to the program enhancements needed. We reported these
recommendations in a separate chapter which was in our 2021 report volume 2.
The committee considered those recommendations and that chapter at its February
6, 2023 meeting and concurred with our recommendations. And we noted at that
meeting that we found the ministry had addressed our recommendations by March 31st,
2022 which was officially reported to this committee just previously in chapter
7 through the summary of implemented recommendations chapter we just discussed.
So with that, that concludes my
overview, and I’d be happy to take any questions you have.
Chair
Wotherspoon: — Thank you very much for the
presentation and thanks as well for the focus of this work. That was a time
when programs were built quickly and dollars were being deployed in a quick
way. And your audit and assurance is an important one for the people of the
province. So I would open it up now to committee members for questions. MLA
Pratchler.
Joan Pratchler: — Well we can see in the report that the
funding for a number of COVID‑19 stimulus programs came out of the ’20‑21
budget. Did any of these programs continue past that? And if so, what’s a
breakdown on the spending of them? Did the auditor apply the same
auditing processes in those following years if they extended past?
Tara
Clemett: —
So an example of one that went beyond . . . So the accelerated
site-closure program was a three-year program that took us till, I think, 2023.
So ultimately the government’s summary financial statements and really the
audit of public accounts we do each year would have included all the spending
for COVID during this fiscal year, so 2021 and then anything that went beyond
into 2022 we would have audited as well.
Always as part of those government
agency audits each year, what we do make sure is from that payment processing
standpoint, that these criteria that I describe in this chapter are always met
such that are those payments almost properly supported, authorized. If there’s
eligibility criteria, is that met before that payment’s processed as such, and
is really money going out approved in a timely manner and properly recorded in
the financial statements that hence you see within the . . . So I would
say the majority of the funding probably definitely went out in 2021 though,
yes.
Joan Pratchler: — Most of the
programs came in at or under budget, but I notice that Sask tourism sector
support cost almost more than double than it was budgeted. Can you explain why
those costs were so much higher than budgeted and who would have approved the
increased spending or some background on that?
Tara
Clemett: —
Yeah, so I was thinking you were going to ask that question. I don’t have any
details with me. It does look like that one went through the Ministry of
Finance as such, but again I envision what it was is there was probably like an
increased need. So there’s always a mechanism by which, in the event that
government spends more than what has been approved through the budget, if that
money obviously moves around and overall, you know, the budget is still what it
needs to be, there isn’t necessarily a mechanism by which approvals are needed.
But there is a mechanism by which if
there’s supplementary estimates and so forth, that there is ultimately
approvals whereby the legislators get those increased amounts and it comes
through that additional approval process. So I assume what it was, just an
increased need here. We would have still been satisfied with the process in
which there was . . . these applicants made their requests and that
there was appropriate authorization and support for the approvals and the
payments provided.
Joan Pratchler: — Thank you. That’s
all my questions.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Good questions. Any further
questions on this front? I think for anyone watching back at home, you’ve
detailed each of the different areas and not identified concerns in those
respective areas with the exception of the accelerated site-closure program,
which we’ve already had the scrutiny on that front. And this Public Accounts
Committee has concurred in those recommendations and has, you know, has the
ministry obviously addressing those concerns.
Okay.
Not seeing anything further at this point, I would welcome a motion to conclude
consideration of the COVID‑19 financial support programs from the 2021 report
volume 2, chapter 1. Moved by Minister Harrison. All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair Wotherspoon: — That’s carried.
Standing
Committee on Public Accounts
Chair Wotherspoon: — Now we’ll turn our attention to
. . . We’re kind of turning the table here on us, where we focus on
the Standing Committee on Public Accounts itself. And I’ll turn it over to the
Provincial Auditor to make a presentation on the three chapters that she has on
this front.
Tara Clemett: — Sure. We’re just going to shuffle the
deck with a few people because Michelle is the liaison with this committee, is
going to do the detailed presentation for this one. So she’ll come beside me.
So again, Michelle Lindenbach, liaison with this committee. And ultimately
she’s the one who attends all the committee meetings and then tracks the
recommendations and then obviously liaisons with the Clerks to set the agendas
before you and make sure we’re reviewing a number of our chapters and recommendations
in a timely manner.
So
she’s going to basically provide an overview of the three chapters on the
agenda. Overall I would say she’ll focus probably on the most recent chapter,
just because they are all framed very similar, and so we’ll probably just focus
on the present as such.
Overall
I do want to say that really the work of this committee is crucial for a
well-managed parliamentary system of government. And this chapter does show
that the timely review of our chapters does help hold government agencies
accountable. So with that I’ll turn it over to Michelle.
Michelle
Lindenbach:
— Thank you, Tara. So yes, the chapters before you this afternoon do not
contain any recommendations. Rather they provide your committee with an
overview of its accomplishments and the status of implementation of the
committee’s recommendations. My comments will focus on the most recent chapter
in our 2024 report volume 2, which is chapter 33, as it contains much of the
same information as the other chapters, including the comparative statistics
and numbers reported in those chapters.
In
our view, your committee is very important in that it is the audit committee
for the Legislative Assembly. It plays a critical role in fostering an open,
accountable, and transparent government and better management of government
operations. Your work contributes to the government’s implementation of a
significant number of recommendations.
In
your review of our work, your committee makes recommendations either through
the concurrence with those of our office or on its own. Your committee includes
its recommendations in its reports to the Assembly. Your committee also reviews
the Public Accounts volume 1, which contains the government’s summary financial
statements.
Your
committee has asked our office to assess the government’s compliance with its
recommendations and to report on their status. We make this assessment as part
of our follow-up audit examinations. We report the results of these assessments
in either specific chapters, or if not discussed elsewhere in the report, in a
summary table in the Public Accounts chapter. Each year, the Public Accounts
Committee chapter provides a status summary.
As
set out in chapter 33 of our 2024 report volume 2, as of September 2024, the
government has implemented 54 per cent of the 367 recommendations included in
your committee’s reports over the past five years. As well by September the
government had partially implemented 59 per cent of the remaining
recommendations. These percentages do not include recommendations that the
committee has considered but not yet reported to the Assembly, so
recommendations not yet compiled in its reports to the Assembly.
You
will notice in section 5.2 of our 2024 chapter we also summarize
recommendations this committee has agreed to and agencies have not yet
implemented. This summary table includes agencies and their related
recommendations not found elsewhere in our 2024 report. We have highlighted in
grey the various agencies where recommendations are not yet implemented and
they have been outstanding for more than six years. This helps to highlight to
the committee where we have made complex recommendations but where more work
needs to be done at certain agencies to strengthen processes soon.
At
the time of this chapter, so at September 2024, we also noted the committee had
not yet reviewed 88 chapters, which has remained steady over the past few
years. The majority of the chapters not reviewed by this committee were from
our publicly released December 2022 report or later, which means the committee
is about two years or less behind in reviewing the majority of our chapters.
After the committee’s three meetings held today and over the next two days,
there will only be five chapters that have not yet been reviewed by the
committee that relate to our reports released before December 2022.
All
five of these chapters are follow-up audits, and the committee has already
considered the recommendations from the initial performance audit chapters. We
do think it’s acceptable for the committee to want to give government agencies
time to report progress before the committee considers the results of our audit
work and recommendations, and therefore coming before the committee about a
year or two after the audit is complete is likely reasonable. Timely review of
chapters and recommendations in our reports does demonstrate the committee
undertakes appropriate scrutiny and holds agencies accountable.
And
that concludes my overview. We’d be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thank you again for the reports.
I’ll open it up to members for questions. I see MLA Pratchler.
[16:00]
Joan Pratchler: — I’d like to talk about dam safety. On
the very last one, I see it was started in 2005, and it’s 2025. So that’d be
like 20 years. What are some of the barriers to getting those completed?
Tara Clemett: — Well I will say that we just completed
our latest follow-up, and things are looking really good is the one thing for
sure. The two recommendations were around almost the need to have, I guess,
appropriate dam operational manuals and almost maintenance procedures in place.
And I don’t know if necessarily that, you know . . . It’s probably
best to ask the Water Security Agency if that was a bit of a struggle to just
find the time to make that happen.
There
was some work though where we also expected them to do testing, such that when,
in the event there ever is a significant dam failure at any of . . .
We focused on more the, I think, four significant dams within Saskatchewan,
that they obviously have a process whereby they have that response plan.
They’ve tested it and got all the parties together. So I think it took a bit of
effort to coordinate all the players that were needed to be at the table, but
we’re pleased to see in our recent work that that has come to fruition.
Joan Pratchler: — Happy
dance when
that does.
Tara Clemett: — Yes.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Just a comment as Chair. Thanks for
the chapters. Thanks as well for reporting back out the number of chapters not
yet reviewed by us, because it’s a reasonable measure for us to see where we’re
trending. It certainly is a goal for us as a committee, is timely consideration
of the work. And so thanks for speaking as well to sort of what that may look
like and then recognizing that some of the follow-up work, you know, that those
times might be . . . you might give a little bit of time before we
bring folks back in.
And
you’ll notice as well, I think we’ve lost the number from the 2020 but I know
we did fall behind as a committee during the COVID period. It was sort of a product of just
not being able to convene meetings during that period of time. I want to
commend everyone involved in, you know, catching back up on that front.
And then just a reminder:
we’re a new committee here with wonderful new members. I know our Deputy Chair
and myself, along with the Clerk, form sort of the steering committee. And I
know we’ve got a commitment from everybody there to make sure that we just
really build out, as we look to this committee, a real cycle of the number of
days we need to make sure we’re committing to it and through the sort of winter
period, that January, February, again into the May and June, recognizing that’s
a busy time for the auditor as well so making sure that we’re planning in advance. And
then typically into that fall cycle again before you’re coming back into the
session is important as well.
And
I think as long as we can kind of work with . . . I’d urge members
here to just work with your Chair and your Deputy Chair to get them, you know,
just give them a thumbs-up if they’re asking if dates will work, because then
that allows us to initiate the work with the Clerk and the auditor and the
audit entities to get those meetings booked.
Not
seeing any further questions. Any final comments to us or any questions for MLA
Gordon or anything here today?
Tara Clemett: — No. Again just thank you so much to the
committee members for your attention to our work and for making the time to
ultimately review a number of the chapters in the audit work we’ve done and
then to ultimately hold the government agencies accountable. So I thank you for
your support and look forward to continuing to bring you relevant and reliable
information.
Chair Wotherspoon: — Thank you. Thank you very much,
auditor. Thanks for the work here. I know it sometimes seems redundant when
we’re mentioning sort of what the follow-up process looks like in the various
meetings, but I think it’s important to do that because it allows anyone who’s
involved, that may only be observing the chapters that they’re interested in,
right, I mean that they’re affected by or that they’re involved in. And so I
think it’s important that they kind of understand what that process looks like.
And
as well, as we say, I don’t know if we have thousands watching us each day that
we convene — I suspect the viewership is pretty high — but it’s important for
the public to know, I think, that follow-up process that the auditor leads and
then our important function within it.
That
being said, I don’t see any further questions. I would welcome a motion to
conclude consideration of chapters 27, 32, and 33 respectively for 2022, ’23,
’24, focused on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Moved by MLA
Crassweller. All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair Wotherspoon: — All right. That’s carried. Okay, so
we’re at the end of our considerations for today. I would welcome a motion to
adjourn our meeting here today. Moved by MLA Kropf. All agreed?
Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.
Chair Wotherspoon: — That’s carried. So this committee
stands adjourned until January 22nd, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.
[The
committee adjourned at 16:06.]
Published
under the authority of the Hon. Todd Goudy, Speaker
Disclaimer:
The electronic versions of the Legislative Assembly’s
documents are provided on this site for informational purposes only. The Clerk
is responsible for the records of each legislature.