Petitions of citizens of the province of Saskatchewan were presented and laid upon the Table by the following members: Jordan McPhail, April ChiefCalf, Jacqueline Roy, Nicole Sarauer, and Brittney Senger.

Reading and Receiving Petitions

According to order and pursuant to rule 16(7), petitions from residents of the province of Saskatchewan, requesting the following action, were read and received:

To immediately protect tenants and implement rent control.

(Addendum to sessional paper no. 2)

To immediately renovate all SHC units that require renovation, make units available and affordable, and ensure that all currently vacant SHC units are made occupied.

(Addendum to sessional paper no. 14)

To immediately mandate education on intimate partner violence be included in the orientation process for all new employees across all workplaces in the province.

(Addendum to sessional paper no. 107)

To amend provincial health-care policy to provide financial support for reasonable travel-related expenses for residents obtaining medically necessary treatments not available within Saskatchewan.

(Addendum to sessional paper no. 156)

Statement by the Speaker

Ruling on a Point of Order

(Question of Repetition)

On Thursday, March 12th, 2026 the Opposition House Leader (Nicole Sarauer) rose on a point of order addressing to the Speaker, requesting that I explain specifically which rule the member for Regina South Albert (Aleana Young) violated. I commented that it was concerning repetitive questions and that I would get back to the House on Monday with more clarity.

So I have brought some of our rule books, and we’ll read a few portions that are applicable. First of all, from our Rules and Procedures of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, rule 20(4) says:

The rules of debate shall apply to Question Period except that the Speaker shall not entertain points of order during Question Period.

Rules of Debate, 51(m) says, persistent, irrelevant, or “. . . tedious repetition, either of his or her own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members.”

And though that’s not specific concerning debate, I do want to touch on the question period, I do want to read from Beauchesne’s, 6th Edition, page 124. It says, point 428:

“A question . . . must not:

(d) repeat in substance a question already answered, or to which an answer has been refused.”

I think that’s fairly clear.

Also House of Commons Procedure and Practice, just for some clarity on the questions because I know there was some concern being raised:

The Speaker ensures questions and answers follow parliamentary rules but does not judge the quality of questions or answers.

In response to a question, a minister may provide an answer, defer an answer, explain briefly why an answer cannot be provided or even say nothing at all.

11.12 The Speaker ensures that replies adhere to the standards of order, decorum and parliamentary language, but is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions.

And in again our Saskatchewan rule book: “Responses shall be relevant to the question, but a Minister of the Crown may decline to answer or may take notice of a question.”

I also wanted to make a point that I couldn’t find in the rules, but I think at some point repetitive questions can bring disorder to the Chamber, which is the rule that the Speaker has the right and responsibility to keep order. And the same question was asked six times, and I had asked that we would move on from that. That is the first point that I wanted to make.

If anyone has any concerns with that, I suppose there is a spot in the rules where we can bring up a concern of the Speaker’s conduct. Because one of the concerns I had with Thursday was that a point of order was brought up by the Opposition leader of the House concerning a ruling of the Speaker.

The role of this Chair is to uphold the rules and make sure that all members have their rights and privileges upheld but, according to rules of debate, to “ . . . reflect on the conduct of the Speaker or other presiding officers except by way of a substantive motion with notice.” That would need to be done in a different way than bringing up a point of order or involving the Speaker or any presiding officer or Officer of the Assembly in the debate.

I would say that Thursday, some lessons learned.

One of the clear rules of this Chamber would be that when the Speaker is standing and putting a question, no member may enter, walk out or across the Assembly, or make any noise or disturbance, let alone while I was making comments. And I don’t think I was being angry or, you know, lashing out. I think I was fairly rational in my comments.

And a statement was made when I was talking about my responsibilities that I was also supposed to remain neutral. So when the Speaker stands as the representative of this Legislative Assembly, they’re supposed to keep order. When he stands and there’s heckling and discussion and debating going on, I don’t know what you expect that my role would be to do at that point.

And so I would hope that, moving forward as an Assembly, that we honour the people of this good province. And that we show the level of decorum that needs to be held and that we would follow the rules. If there’s questions that you would like to ask me afterwards, I don’t think any of you in this place would feel you couldn’t contact me afterwards for clarification.

So unless it is about my conduct and you would like to ask by way of a substantive motion with notice, I would ask that we don’t in future have a point of order on the Speaker’s judgment for clarification in this Chamber. Because that, I believe, is not showing honour to the role of the Chair in this Assembly.

Written Questions

The order of the day being called for question no. 31, it was answered. (see appendix)

Adjourned Debates / Débats ajournés

Bill No. 24 — The Saskatchewan Internal Trade Promotion Act

The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon. Warren Kaeding: That Bill No. 24 — The Saskatchewan Internal Trade Promotion Act be now read a second time.

The debate continuing, it was on motion of Vicki Mowat adjourned.

Bill No. 33 — The Credit Union Amendment Act, 2025

The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon. Tim McLeod: That Bill No. 33 — The Credit Union Amendment Act, 2025 be now read a second time.

The debate continuing, it was on motion of Kim Breckner adjourned.

Bill No. 36 — The Change of Name Amendment Act, 2025 / Projet de loi n^o36 — Loi modificative de 2025 sur le changement de nom

[Le français suit.]

The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: That Bill No. 36 — The Change of Name Amendment Act, 2025 be now read a second time.

The debate continuing and the question being put, it was agreed to and the said bill was accordingly read a second time.

By designation of the Hon. Tim McLeod, in accordance with rule 85, Bill No. 36 — The Change of Name Amendment Act, 2025 was committed to the Standing Committee on Human Services.

—————

L’Assemblée reprend le débat ajourné sur la motion de l’hon. Jeremy Cockrill: Que le projet de loi n^o36 — Loi modificative de 2025 sur le changement de nom soit maintenant lu une deuxième fois.

Le débat se poursuit et la motion, mise aux voix, est adoptée et, en conséquence, ledit projet de loi est lu une deuxième fois.

Selon la désignation de l’hon. Tim McLeod, conformément au règlement 85, le projet de loi n^o36 — Loi modificative de 2025 sur le changement de nom est renvoyé au Comité permanent des services à la personne.

Bill No. 37 — The Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2025 / Projet de loi n^o37 — Loi modificative de 2025 sur les services de l’état civil

[Le français suit.]

The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon. Jeremy Cockrill: That Bill No. 37 — The Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2025 be now read a second time.

The debate continuing and the question being put, it was agreed to and the said bill was accordingly read a second time.

By designation of the Hon. Tim McLeod, in accordance with rule 85, Bill No. 37 — The Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2025 was committed to the Standing Committee on Human Services.

—————

L’Assemblée reprend le débat ajourné sur la motion de l’hon. Jeremy Cockrill: Que le projet de loi n^o37 — Loi modificative de 2025 sur les services de l’état civil soit maintenant lu une deuxième fois.

Le débat se poursuit et la motion, mise aux voix, est adoptée et, en conséquence, ledit projet de loi est lu une deuxième fois.

Selon la désignation de l’hon. Tim McLeod, conformément au règlement 85, le projet de loi n^o37 — Loi modificative de 2025 sur les services de l’état civil est renvoyé au Comité permanent des services à la personne.

Bill No. 38 — The Building Schools Faster Act

The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon. Everett Hindley: That Bill No. 38 — The Building Schools Faster Act be now read a second time.

The debate continuing, it was on motion of Noor Burki adjourned.

Bill No. 39 — The Building Schools Faster Consequential Amendment Act, 2025 / Projet de loi n^o39 — Loi de 2025 corrélative de la loi intitulée The Building Schools Faster Act

[Le français suit.]

The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon. Everett Hindley: That Bill No. 39 — The Building Schools Faster Consequential Amendment Act, 2025 be now read a second time.

The debate continuing, it was on motion of Noor Burki adjourned.

—————

L’Assemblée reprend le débat ajourné sur la motion de l’hon. Everett Hindley: Que le projet de loi n^o39 — Loi de 2025 corrélative de la loi intitulée The Building Schools Faster Act soit maintenant lu une deuxième fois.

Le débat se poursuit et sur motion de Noor Burki, il est ajourné.

Bill No. 40 — The Animal Protection Amendment Act, 2025

The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon. Daryl Harrison: That Bill No. 40 — The Animal Protection Amendment Act, 2025 be now read a second time.

The debate continuing, it was on motion of Hugh Gordon adjourned.

Bill No. 41 — The Heritage Recognition (From Many Peoples, Strength) Act / Projet de loi n^o41 — Loi sur la reconnaissance du patrimoine (Nos origines multiples, notre force)

[Le français suit.]

The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon. Alana Ross: That Bill No. 41 — The Heritage Recognition (From Many Peoples, Strength) Act be now read a second time.

The debate continuing, it was on motion of Brent Blakley adjourned.

—————

L’Assemblée reprend le débat ajourné sur la motion de l’hon. Alana Ross: Que le projet de loi n^o41 — Loi sur la reconnaissance du patrimoine (Nos origines multiples, notre force) soit maintenant lu une deuxième fois.

Le débat se poursuit et sur motion de Brent Blakley, il est ajourné.

Bill No. 43 — The Municipalities Modernization and Red Tape Reduction Act

The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon. Eric Schmalz: That Bill No. 43 — The Municipalities Modernization and Red Tape Reduction Act be now read a second time.

The debate continuing, it was on motion of Jacqueline Roy adjourned.

Bill No. 44 — The Co-operatives Act, 2025 / Projet de loi n^o44 — Loi de 2025 sur les coopératives

[Le français suit.]

The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon. Tim McLeod: That Bill No. 44 — The Co-operatives Act, 2025 be now read a second time.

The debate continuing, it was on motion of Jordan McPhail adjourned.

—————

L’Assemblée reprend le débat ajourné sur la motion de l’hon. Tim McLeod: Que le projet de loi n^o44 — Loi de 2025 sur les coopératives soit maintenant lu une deuxième fois.

Le débat se poursuit et sur motion de Jordan McPhail, il est ajourné.

Bill No. 45 — The Co-operatives Consequential Amendments Act, 2025

The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon. Tim McLeod: That Bill No. 45 — The Co-operatives Consequential Amendments Act, 2025 be now read a second time.

The debate continuing, it was on motion of Jordan McPhail adjourned.

Bill No. 47 — The Response to Illicit Drugs Act

The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon. Tim McLeod: That Bill No. 47 — The Response to Illicit Drugs Act be now read a second time.

The debate continuing, it was on motion of Tajinder Grewal adjourned.

Bill No. 48 — The Compassionate Intervention Act

The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon. Lori Carr: That Bill No. 48 — The Compassionate Intervention Act be now read a second time.

The debate continuing, it was on motion of Vicki Mowat adjourned.

On motion of the Hon. Lori Carr:

Ordered, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

The Assembly adjourned at 3:27 p.m. until Tuesday at 1:30 p.m.

Hon. Todd Goudy

Speaker

APPENDIX

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The following response to a written question was tabled by the government:

Question no. 31 (Meara Conway):

To the Minister of Health, how many doctors have come to Saskatchewan under the American Physician Recruitment Campaign since April 9, 2025?

Answer:

Since April 2025, the Saskatchewan Healthcare Recruitment Agency has engaged with nearly 130 U.S.-based physicians about opportunities in Saskatchewan. So far, 15 are in various points of the recruitment process, and three have signed offers of employment with the Saskatchewan Health Authority.

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.