CONTENTS
READING AND RECEIVING
PETITIONS
SECOND SESSION — THIRTIETH LEGISLATURE
of the
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan
VOTES AND
PROCEEDINGS
No. 40
Wednesday, March 25, 2026
1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
Presenting Petitions
Petitions of citizens of the province of Saskatchewan were presented and laid upon the Table by the following members: April ChiefCalf, Darcy Warrington, Jared Clarke, and Hugh Gordon.
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 stand up for Saskatchewan and advocate for the restoration of federal
Jordan’s Principle funding to support Indigenous students in schools.
(Addendum to sessional paper no. 6)
To immediately
implement a comprehensive affordable housing strategy aimed at stable and
affordable housing.
(Addendum
to sessional paper no. 12)
To adopt fair and effective rent control
legislation that limits annual rent increases.
(Addendum
to sessional paper no. 13)
(Addendum to sessional paper no. 111)
Statement by the Speaker
(Relevance of Answers and References to Party Business)
On Monday, March 23rd, 2026 the Opposition House Leader (Nicole Sarauer) rose on a point of order alleging that, during question period, the Premier’s (Hon. Scott Moe) answers were not relevant to the questions asked and the Premier was referencing party business when he referred to a fundraising email. In response, the Government House Leader (Hon. Tim McLeod) argued that the Premier’s comments were relevant to the questions asked. I committed to meeting with the House leaders ahead of ruling on the matter, and having met with them, we agreed that it was ultimately up to the Speaker to decide.
The first matter I will address in the point of order is the issue of referencing party business during question period. Rule 20(2) states that:
Questions on issues not officially connected with the government, of a private nature, related to Board of Internal Economy, caucus, party or political responsibilities are prohibited.
Although the rule sets restrictions on questions asked rather than answers given, this Assembly is also governed by the principle that you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly. As such, this rule can be understood to apply broadly to both questions and answers during question period.
I have cautioned members from both sides many times in the past against referring to caucus business or party business, and I have stated that it is not permissible. On that point, I will again caution both sides to abide by the rules and refrain from references to party business when asking questions or giving answers.
This Assembly has also had a long practice, including many rulings, of giving latitude to ministers to answer questions and allowing them to answer in the way that they consider the most appropriate. In reviewing the Premier’s remarks from Monday, I find that they are relevant to the question, even though they included additional comments which may not be considered relevant. Therefore I find the point of order not well taken.
Furthermore, I would like to read from a few of our rule books.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practice. I think you’ll understand what I mean by some of these comments:
When members swear or solemnly affirm allegiance to the Sovereign, they are also swearing or solemnly affirming allegiance to the institutions the Sovereign represents, including the concept of democracy. Thus, members are making a pledge to conduct themselves in the best interests of the country [or in our case, the province]. The oath or solemn affirmation reminds members of the serious obligations and responsibilities they are assuming.
Speaker Fraser ruled that the Chair was:
. . . not empowered to make a judgment on the circumstances or the sincerity with which a duly elected Member takes the oath of allegiance. The significance of the oath to each Member is a matter of conscience and so it must remain.
When I asked to meet with the two House leaders, it’s because it’s a big responsibility for me to decide on some of the disagreements that this Chamber has. There was talk about hate in a document and “well, you hated first” or “no, you were worse.”
It’s not up to the Speaker. As it says here, it’s not up to the Chair. They are “not empowered to make a judgement on the circumstances of the sincerity with which a duly elected Member takes the oath of allegiance.” That should be our guide. Not just the rules.
When we come into this Chamber, when we’re elected as MLAs and sent here as the most honourable members of our communities to serve our province well, as it says, “members are making a pledge to conduct themselves in the best interests of the. . . [province].”
It is not up to us to set your conscience. I can’t raise the bar for someone else, but I certainly can raise it for myself. I can’t legislate morality in this Chamber, but we can certainly do it for ourselves.
I want to read: “Only the House can examine the conduct of its members.” So the actions. We judge ourselves by our intentions, others by their actions. “Well they did this.” “But yeah, well, I didn’t mean that.” “And they did that.” Well, you know, we judge ourselves by our intentions.
Let’s look at here, just for a moment, at our own Saskatchewan rules and procedures put together in 2007. The Code of Ethical Conduct:
As Members of the Legislative Assembly we recognize that our actions have a profound impact on the lives of all Saskatchewan people. Fulfilling our obligations and discharging our duties responsibly requires a commitment to the highest ethical standards.
To our colleagues in this Assembly, we owe loyalty to shared principles, respect for differences, and fairness in political dealings.
Members of this Assembly must act not only lawfully but also in a manner that will withstand the closest public scrutiny; neither the law nor this code is designed to be exhaustive, and there will be occasions on which Members will find it necessary to adopt more stringent norms of conduct in order to protect the public interest and to enhance public confidence and trust.
Our world is pulling apart. We’re Saskatchewan. We can’t change the world, but we can certainly stand to our own conscience. The King, the Queen, they uphold. When they become the Sovereign, they take off their crown and submit to an authority greater than themselves.
And I would say that when we come into this place, it’s not up to the Speaker to legislate what’s right and what’s wrong. We all know what’s right and what’s wrong.
I’m going to hold to the rules. I’m going to be more firm moving forward, just holding the rules. I’ll do my absolute best, but I am challenging us to raise our bars because the province is watching. The people are watching. And we need to be the example of what they expect in this place.
Introduction of Bills
The following bill was introduced, read the first time, and ordered to be read a second time at the next sitting:
|
Bill No. 53
— |
The Saskatchewan Chemical Fertilizer Incentive Amendment Act, 2026 |
|
|
(Hon. Warren Kaeding) |
Resumption of Budget Debate
That the Assembly approves in general the budgetary policy of the government,
and the proposed amendment thereto moved by Trent Wotherspoon, seconded by Keith Jorgenson:
That all the words after “Assembly” be omitted and the following be inserted:
does not approve the budgetary policy of the government because it fails to invest in cost-of-living relief, health care, and public safety while pushing the provincial debt to unprecedented levels; and further,
That the Assembly has lost confidence in the government.
The debate continuing on
the motion and the amendment, pursuant to rule 6(6), the Deputy Speaker
interrupted proceedings and adjourned the Assembly.
The Assembly adjourned at 5:00 p.m. until Thursday at 10:00 a.m.
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.