The Speaker: — I’d just like to welcome all our guests here today. It’s great to see you in your Legislative Assembly. I’d just like to caution you, you’re not to take part in any of the proceedings, and that means no clapping or talking or yelling or taking videos or pictures. Please enjoy your stay.

STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

Ruling on Points of Order

The Speaker: — Yesterday, November 21st, 2023, two points of order were raised in this Assembly following question period. I committed to reviewing the record for each and am now prepared to rule.

The Deputy Government House Leader rose on a point of order alleging that the member for Saskatoon University made a lewd gesture during question period. At approximately 2:13:02 on the video, the member can be seen making such a gesture. I would ask the member to apologize for her action. I recognize the member from Saskatoon University.

Ms. Bowes: — I apologize and withdraw.

The Speaker: — Thank you. The Opposition House Leader rose on a point of order alleging that the Government House Leader made a personal charge and accusation against the member for Regina Elphinstone-Centre. On Hansard page 4733, the Government House Leader stated:

What we saw here yesterday was an attack on democracy orchestrated by that member and at least one more member on that side, Mr. Speaker, who organized, who colluded with, and who participated, and who high-fived at the end of it.

Members know that it is unparliamentary to make inflammatory statements that impugn improper motives of another hon. member. I ask the Government House Leader to withdraw and apologize.

Hon. Mr. J. Harrison: — Withdraw and apologize.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Parks, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Ms. L. Ross: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In honour of Saskatchewan Multicultural Week I would like to introduce, to you and through you, several guests seated in your gallery who are dedicated to supporting multiculturalism in Saskatchewan. Joining us today is Multicultural Council of Saskatchewan executive director, Rhonda Rosenberg.

This past weekend the Multicultural Council of Saskatchewan held their annual Multicultural Honours ceremony. We are honoured to have three award winners joining us today. These individuals were recognized for their work in reconciliation through the new Leading Together Awards. I’d like to invite all members to join me in welcoming Maureen Lea Keewatin Desjarlais and Angus Lee Desjarlais, recognized for creating the All Nations Gathering Powwow, and George Grassick who represented the Treaty Land Sharing Network. Thank you for your continued dedication to serving the people of our province, raising awareness of the benefits of cultural diversity.

I ask all members to join me in welcoming our guests to their House and thank them for the good work they do during Saskatchewan Multicultural Week. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Meewasin.

Mr. Teed: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s an honour, to you and through you, to join with the Minister of Parks, Culture and Sport, as the official opposition critic for Parks, Culture and Sport, and welcome these esteemed guests to their Legislative Assembly. I want to first by welcoming executive director Rhonda Rosenberg to her Legislative Assembly, as well as the award winners in the category of reconciliation: Maureen Lea Desjarlais, Angus Lee Desjarlais, and George Grassick.

Yes, thank you so much. This award is just truly, truly deserved. I was just hearing some amazing things about you from my colleague here. Congratulations again, and I hope that you will enjoy your time here in this legislature. And I just want to thank you all for the work you’re doing this Multicultural Week to continue to advance multiculturalism in our province every day of the year. Thank you so much.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Churchill-Wildwood.

Ms. Lambert: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to join with the Minister of Parks, Culture and Sport in welcoming the guests here today from MCOS [Multicultural Council of Saskatchewan]. Rhonda, I was just with this group on Saturday at Wanuskewin in Saskatoon where I was honoured to bring greetings on behalf of the minister and the Government of Saskatchewan to those Honours Awards. So welcome, all of you, to your Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Centre.

Ms. Nippi-Albright: — miigwech, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to join my colleague and also the others opposite in welcoming the guests. As the critic for First Nation, Métis Relations and a residential school survivor, it is important, it is imperative that we walk our talk on reconciliation. And to have visible Indigenous people leading that and also treaty land entitlement folks generously, generously sharing their land with treaty people, that is what we call meaningful truth and reconciliation.

So with that:

[The hon. member spoke for a time in Saulteaux.]

I am grateful that you are here today. So welcome.

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Environment.

Hon. Ms. Tell: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To you and through you and to all members of this Assembly, I wish to take notice of a school group from W.S. Hawryluk School here in Regina Wascana Plains. Twenty-eight grade 7 and 8 students are here today to witness the proceedings. I ask all members to join me in welcoming them all to their Assembly.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina Walsh Acres.

Mr. Clarke: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To you and through you, I’d like to welcome the students from Elsie Mironuck School. We’ve got 56 students from grades 6, 7, and 8. We’ve also got their teachers Ms. Janessa Weir, Scott Motlik, and Jean-Claude Kouassi.

It’s so good to have you guys join us here in your Legislative Assembly today. I hope you’re watching closely the procedures. And Ms. Weir was telling me that many of you are here for the very first time, so I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome you. And I ask all members to join me in welcoming these students and their teachers.

PRESENTING PETITIONS

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Melville.

Mr. Goudy: — Could be Melfort too, but that’s great. So thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have a petition from some good people of northeast Saskatchewan, and I would like to read it.

We, the undersigned residents of the province of Saskatchewan, wish to bring to your attention the following: whereas the Trudeau Liberal-NDP [New Democratic Party] coalition carbon tax is one of the main causes of affordability issues and inflation in the nation of Canada, and that the federal government has signalled that the carbon tax does affect Canadians differently by issuing an exemption on home heating oil for Atlantic Canadian provinces; further, that the people of Saskatchewan, 85 per cent of whom rely on natural gas to heat their homes, are unfairly left without support by the Liberal-NDP coalition who continue to drive up the cost of living with the price on carbon.

We, in the prayer that reads as follows, respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan take the following action: to call upon the Government of Canada to immediately remove the carbon tax from all home heating costs across Canada to reduce inflation and to drive down the rising costs of living faced by all of Canadian residents from coast to coast.

The below undersigned are residents of the good community of Carrot River. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Fairview.

Ms. Mowat: — Mr. Speaker, I rise once again today to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan calling for improved mental health services for northern and rural Saskatchewan. These citizens wish to bring to our attention that the rate of suicide among Indigenous people is three times higher than that of non-Indigenous people, and that suicide rates of Indigenous people living on-reserve are twice as high as those living off-reserve.

We know that there are historical and ongoing impacts of colonization, displacement, and intergenerational trauma, and that these are related to the high rates of suicide among Indigenous people. This government has a responsibility to act. The time is far past when they needed to act, Mr. Speaker.

I’ll read the prayer:

We, in the prayer that reads as follows, respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan call on the Government of Saskatchewan to address and work with vulnerable communities in the North and rural areas and to provide adequate mental health funding for services for northern and rural Indigenous communities.

This is signed by individuals from Saskatoon today, Mr. Speaker. I do so present.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Eastview.

Mr. Love: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m honoured to rise again and present this petition calling for adequate funding for education. Those who signed this petition would like us to be aware that the education funding included in this year’s provincial budget is wholly inadequate. Many have raised alarm over this, including school divisions, parents, and teachers. And they note that it’s been a decade of underfunding in education that has led us to a system described by many divisions as a system that’s been cut to the bone.

By this government’s own numbers, last year we had 3,840 new students, which is great, but we had 66 fewer teachers. Over the last 10 years we’ve seen an 80 per cent reduction in teacher-librarians, a reduction in in-school counsellors. All of those supports that are there to ensure that every student has access to an education have been dwindling under this government.

I’ll read the prayer, Mr. Speaker:

We, in the prayer that reads as follows, respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan call on the Government of Saskatchewan to provide adequate, sustainable, and predictable operating funds for our 27 public and separate school divisions to ensure that schools, teachers, and other caring professionals are able to meet the needs of every student in Saskatchewan.

Today’s petition is signed by residents of Swift Current and Gull Lake. I do so present.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina University.

Ms. A. Young: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m on my feet again to present a petition to the legislature calling for the funding of in vitro fertilization treatments, Mr. Speaker.

Cost-of-living costs are sky-high for people across this province, Mr. Speaker. Groceries are up, gas is up, interest rates are up, mortgages are up. The last thing that people struggling with the cost of living can afford is more than $10,000 for a single cycle of IVF [in vitro fertilization] for those struggling to conceive.

While people’s pocketbooks are struggling, Mr. Speaker, while people are struggling to get by and people are desperate to grow their families, we have a government whose own coffers are looking a little bit to the better, Mr. Speaker. And it would be the right thing, it would be a compassionate thing as well as make some good economic sense to invest in these people here in Saskatchewan who are desperate to grow their families right here.

With that I’ll read the prayer:

We, in the prayer that reads as follows, respectfully request that the Government of Saskatchewan immediately move to cover the financial burden of two rounds of IVF treatment for Saskatchewan people experiencing infertility.

The signatories of this petition today, Mr. Speaker, are from St. Brieux. I do so present.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Walsh Acres.

Mr. Clarke: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present our petition calling on the government to address the affordability crisis facing Saskatchewan people. The undersigned residents of the province wish to bring to our attention that inflation is the highest it’s been in more than three decades, that half of Saskatchewan residents were living paycheque to paycheque before transportation and food costs skyrocketed in 2022, and that the Sask Party government’s 32 new tax and fee hikes make life more expensive, all while harming struggling industries like tourism, culture, and fitness.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve been up on my feet with this petition time and time again to get the government to hear that people in this province are struggling. They need help today — not last year, not next year — now.

So I’ll read the prayer as follows:

We in the prayer respectfully request the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan call on the Government of Saskatchewan to meaningfully address the affordability crisis in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Speaker, the signatories today reside in Regina. I do so present.

[13:45]

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina Douglas Park.

Ms. Sarauer: — Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to present a petition calling for the government to improve labour laws in Saskatchewan. Now this is a petition I’ve introduced many times already. It talks about the importance and the challenges around workers facing lowest minimum wage in the country, unpaid sick leave, and challenges around workplace harassment and violence. This mirrors the bill that we have before the House, Bill 613, Mr. Speaker.

I want to specifically speak about the NDA [nondisclosure agreement] provision which is included in this petition because since the introduction of the bill, I have heard from a lot of workers, women in particular, who have experienced this situation in the workplace, have had to sign NDAs, and feel trapped by those NDAs. I sincerely hope that the government looks at all of the provisions in that private member’s bill, but in particular the one around NDAs, and consider passage.

I’d like to read the prayer:

We, in the prayer that reads as follows, respectfully request the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan call on the Government of Saskatchewan to improve conditions for Saskatchewan workers by passing legislation to increase the minimum wage, guarantee paid sick leave, limit nondisclosure agreements which could silence survivors of workplace harassment, and require employers to track and report incidents of violence and harassment in the workplace.

Those who signed this petition today come from Regina and Regina Beach. I do so present.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Nutana.

Ms. Ritchie: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present a petition to the Government of Saskatchewan calling for paid sick leave legislation. The undersigned residents of the province wish to bring to your attention the following: a healthy workforce is good for the economy; lives could be saved if workers could afford to stay home when they’re sick; no one should have to make the choice between going to work sick or risking the roof over their head by staying home; workers, doctors, and public health officials have all called for paid sick leave in Saskatchewan.

The official opposition has twice introduced paid sick leave legislation since the onset of the pandemic, calling for a minimum of 10 paid sick days each year and 14 days during a public health crisis. And indeed most recently Bill No. 613 was introduced, calling for that very same thing.

We, in the prayer that reads as follows, respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan call on the government to introduce and pass paid sick leave legislation.

This is signed by residents of Saskatoon. I do so present.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS

Clerk: — According to order, a petition concerning the provision of improved mental health services for northern and rural Saskatchewan presented on November 21st, 2023 has been reviewed, and pursuant to rule 16(7) is found to be irregular and therefore cannot be read and received.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Southeast.

Recognizing Community Partners on National Housing Day

Hon. Mr. Morgan: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today is National Housing Day, an opportunity to shine a spotlight on our partners, the organizations, and individuals committed to ensuring that residents have access to safe and affordable housing which contributes to the health and well-being of our province.

Mr. Speaker, our government has invested over $830 million to housing supply, repair programs, and affordable rental development. We have also invested close to $600 million to repair and maintain government-owned housing. We have taken steps to help households better afford their rent by increasing the monthly Saskatchewan housing benefit and expanding eligibility to reach more households in need.

We are also investing in initiatives to improve homelessness and to support those who need more than a home to remain connected to housing. Through an integrated approach, we are aligning supports with individual needs. We remain committed to helping people in need find affordable housing while supporting them in raising their families, planning for their future, and building a life in their community. This work would not be possible without strong partnerships with Indigenous and community partners and all levels of government.

I now ask all members to join me in recognizing our community housing partners and celebrating National Housing Day. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina University.

Shop Local to Support Small Business

Ms. A. Young: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

’Twas the season of joy, and all through the town,

Small businesses twinkled, not letting us down.

The stocks they were out in the shops with delight,

In hopes that customers soon would alight.

Families gathered, their hearts full of glee,

To support local businesses, under the tree.

The holiday spirit, like snowflakes, descended,

As shoppers, with purpose, their dollars expended.

In small boutiques and quaint stores so dear,

They found unique treasures, spreading good cheer.

No Amazon boxes or corporate disguise,

Just the warmth of small shops, a feast for the eyes.

The community flourished, the spirits did soar,

As neighbours supported each other’s stores.

So let’s toast to the bakers and craftspeople too,

Whose talents make holidays feel fresh and new.

This Christmas, let’s cherish our local delights,

And make the season merry for small businesses’ nights.

For in every purchase, a story unfolds,

Of dreams and hard work, of tales to be told.

This season let’s pledge to all do our best,

And bring joy to all by supporting small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday is Small Business Saturday. And with nearly 8,000 small businesses in Saskatchewan looking at closing their doors, I would like to take this moment, thank them for their work, and ask all members to shop local this Saturday and every day.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Churchill-Wildwood.

Team Saskatchewan’s Success at North American Indigenous Games

Ms. Lambert: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This past July, the 2023 North American Indigenous Games took place in 21 venues across Nova Scotia. Team Saskatchewan put in a phenomenal performance, and we couldn’t be prouder of our athletes.

Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan contingent was named overall champion after winning 176 total medals, more than any other delegation. This included 52 gold, 61 silver, and 63 bronze medals. Our athletes competed in 16 different sports including three traditional Indigenous sports — canoe/kayak, lacrosse, and 3D archery. Team Saskatchewan was made up of more than 500 Indigenous athletes, coaches, and team personnel from across this province.

The North American Indigenous Games help celebrate Indigenous culture and traditions through community and sport. Mr. Speaker, participating with Team Saskatchewan is an opportunity that helps shape the lives of our Indigenous youth. Team Saskatchewan alumni have gone on to successful careers, to make lifelong friends, and to give back to their home communities. Thank you to the Team Saskatchewan steering committee for ensuring everyone had the experience of a lifetime.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to join me in congratulating these amazing Indigenous athletes, coaches, and team personnel and thanking them for continuing to represent our province so well with their talented sportsmanship. Thank you.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Centre.

Member’s Gratitude for Help Following Injury

Ms. Nippi-Albright: — miigwech, Mr. Speaker. It is truly an honour to be standing to recognize some outstanding heroes at the Legislative Building. The morning of the Throne Speech, I took a nasty spill on sheer ice outside of this building. I tried to resume my duties as quicky as possible; however that wasn’t in the cards for me. Mr. Speaker, after my fall I experienced exactly how strained and stressed our health care system is. The Highway Patrol and the legislative staff and I waited out front for an ambulance, an ambulance that did not show.

The minister stated that my waiting for an hour and a half was an anomaly. Mr. Speaker, waiting for over an hour and a half is standard across this province. After an hour and a half of waiting for an ambulance, the Highway Patrol drove me to the hospital. I am grateful I wasn’t alone for an ambulance to show up and I didn’t break any bones or it wasn’t life threatening.

I will forever be grateful for the legislative staff, the peace officers, and the Highway Patrol officers helping me, comforting me, and making sure I was okay. That means the world to me. Thank you to all the health care professionals for taking good care of me. To my colleagues here in our caucus office, to our staff, thank you for your care and compassion while I recover. miigwech.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Yorkton.

Health Foundation Gala Raises Funds for Yorkton Area

Mr. Ottenbreit: — Mr. Speaker, October 21st at St. Mary’s hall we celebrated the 26th annual Yorkton and area Health Foundation Gala, this year fundraising for various equipment upgrades as well as training initiatives, supportive and important to our area. This year the fundraising goal for the foundation is $800,000 and the gala funds will help in attaining their goals.

Besides the banquet proceeds and much-appreciated sponsorship of many philanthropists and businesses throughout our community, amazing auction items contributed greatly to the evening’s success. The night was capped off by music and entertainment by Bobby Bruce’s world-class tribute to Neil Diamond, who ended the evening with an engaged crowd singing, of course, “Sweet Caroline.”

Another very notable addition to the evening was the $300,000 donation to the foundation by Farming for Health. Their total over the years is in excess of $2 million with half that amount allocated to the construction of our new hospital now under planning and coming in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating the health foundation on another successful event and thanking the many volunteers and others involved for their contribution to health in our community. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Moosomin.

Agriculture Solutions Company to Join Provincial Delegation at Sustainability Conference

Mr. Bonk: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Another great day in Saskatchewan and another great Saskatchewan success story to tell. Many times in this House we’ve talked about how proud we are of our Saskatchewan-based businesses and I’m so excited to have the opportunity to just do that again today. Today we have the pleasure of announcing that Nutrien will be part of the delegation joining our Premier at COP28 [Conference of Parties 28].

Mr. Speaker, Nutrien has undertaken many initiatives to ensure that they’re operating sustainably, initiatives such as enabling growers to adopt sustainable and productive agricultural products and practices on 75 million acres globally; launching and scaling a comprehensive carbon program enabling growers and our industry to accelerate climate-smart agriculture and soil carbon sequestration while rewarding growers for their efforts; leveraging their on-farm focused technology partnerships and investments to drive positive impact in industry and grower innovation and inclusion; and investing in new technologies and pursue the transition to low-carbon fertilizers including low-carbon and clean ammonia; and so much more, Mr. Speaker.

I believe I speak for all of my colleagues when I say we’re proud that Nutrien will be part of the Saskatchewan story told this year at COP28.

Mr. Speaker, COP28 is providing Nutrien the opportunity to meet with people from across the world, to meet with investors, and also gives Nutrien the opportunity to tell their sustainable story. We look forward to continuing to work with Nutrien and to see their goals for sustainability come to fruition. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Northwest.

Opposition Position on Conflict in the Middle East

Hon. Mr. Wyant: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I know about the atrocities of anti-Semitism and genocide. That’s why I never got to know many members of my own family. Premier Tommy Douglas once called Israel “the light of democracy in a night of darkness.”

Yesterday the NDP member from Saskatoon University said Israel is guilty of genocide, and the NDP leader refused to renounce that accusation. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of dangerous and inflammatory rhetoric that gives licence to acts of anti-Semitism and it’s an incredible abdication of leadership for the NDP leader to stand by these dangerous accusations.

And there’s another problem for the NDP leader. Yesterday in the rotunda the NDP leader told reporters that no member of the NDP caucus had any role in organizing the protests on Monday, but just a few minutes later the member for Saskatoon University completely contradicted her leader. She said she worked with organizers to promote and encourage people to attend Monday’s demonstration. She also called the riot that shut down this Assembly a legitimate way to participate in our democracy.

And all this raises some serious questions, Mr. Speaker. Why did the NDP leader say none of her members had any role in organizing this demonstration when her member freely admitted helping organizers promote the event? Does the NDP leader agree with her member that causing the shutdown of this Assembly is a legitimate exercise of democracy? And does the NDP leader stand by the member’s extreme accusations that Israel is committing genocide?

QUESTION PERIOD

The Speaker: — I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

Actions of Members and Supports for Women

Ms. Beck: — Yesterday the Premier said that removing the member for Cut Knife-Turtleford was “a difficult decision.”

Was it, Mr. Speaker? Was it really a difficult decision for that Premier to eject a member of his caucus who was charged in a human trafficking operation?

The Speaker: — I recognize the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Moe: — Difficult news to accept when I learned of this Friday, Mr. Speaker. It’s a difficult decision, of which I made, I made very quickly, Mr. Speaker. And I would say that the NDP leader has an equally difficult decision to make here today with a member of her caucus, Mr. Speaker.

And I would ask the Leader of the Opposition, does she agree with her member, her extremist member, Mr. Speaker, when she says that Israel is guilty of genocide?

[14:00]

The Speaker: — I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Beck: — Mr. Speaker, it really shouldn’t have been a difficult decision. Yesterday I asked the Premier about his government’s record on protecting women in this province and what message it sends that a member of the Sask Party caucus was caught in a human trafficking sting operation. To recap, a member of his caucus was charged with a serious sexual criminal offence, and the Premier compared that to a 40‑minute disruption of this question period.

Does the Premier, does he actually believe that those are two equally serious offences?

The Speaker: — I recognize the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Moe: — Mr. Speaker, there is no comparison to be made. Mr. Speaker, we had made, I had made decisions very quickly on learning of last week’s events, Mr. Speaker. Those decisions, I think, were quickly made. They were harsh, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition, I think, has some decisions to make of her own, Mr. Speaker.

But when it comes to supporting women in our province, Mr. Speaker, there’s been unprecedented supports by this government totalling just under $30 million each and every year in second-stage housing, not only in capital investments but in operational investments as well, Mr. Speaker, which were called for, in fairness, by that side, which were delivered by the government of the day. A number of additional investments, Mr. Speaker, as well as, I believe, first reading just as recently as yesterday on amendments coming to the human trafficking Act, Mr. Speaker.

This is a government that most certainly supports women, in particular those women that are in their most vulnerable state, Mr. Speaker. And we are going to continue to do so, Mr. Speaker.

There are times when leaders are faced with decisions that you might not otherwise want to be faced with, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is facing one of those right now. And I’d ask her again, does she agree with her extremist MLA [Member of the Legislative Assembly], Mr. Speaker, her extremist member of caucus when that member says that Israel is guilty of genocide?

The Speaker: — I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Beck: — Mr. Speaker, I will remind the Premier that it took him five full days to find his feet and denounce the invitation of a convicted wife killer to this Assembly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, clearly it wasn’t appropriate for proceedings to be disrupted on Monday, but there is simply, there is simply no comparison between a government MLA being charged with a serious criminal offence and a 40‑minute disruption of this Assembly.

Now how does the Premier justify comparing protest in this legislature to the serious criminal charges against one of his members?

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Ms. Harpauer: — What the Leader of the Opposition is failing to recognize is it’s not a comparison of the incident, it’s a comparison of leadership skills. That’s what we’re discussing here, quite frankly: which leader will take action when there is questionable actions by one of their members.

I remember being in this House and the NDP were, they were government, Mr. Speaker. And I think there was a couple of us others that were here at that time. And they had a very high-profile gentleman by the name of Murdoch Carriere who was accused by not one but several women for harassment in the workplace. And do you know what the NDP government did at that time? They did not take swift, decisive action. They covered it up, Mr. Speaker. They covered it up. And finally when it became too much for them they severed it with severance. He got paid for harassing women, Mr. Speaker. So we are talking about leadership and the strength of leaders.

The Speaker: — I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

Emergency Hotel Stays Paid by Social Services

Ms. Beck: — Mr. Speaker, I will compare my record to that of the Premier any day of the week. But, Mr. Speaker, this, and again, clearly tired and out-of-touch government is so desperate, so desperate to change the channel from their scandal and mismanagement that they’re reaching back decades now to distract, let’s be clear, from a member of their caucus being charged in a human trafficking investigation and also to distract from serious questions about the Sunrise Motel.

Mr. Speaker, we’re joined again today by Evelyn Harper. She saw the rate at the Sunrise Motel jump more than 50 per cent when the public started paying the bill. She wants answers, and she’s not the only one. Will the Premier call in the Provincial Auditor to investigate how the ministry pays for these hotel bills?

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — Mr. Speaker, I’m glad to see Ms. Harper here. Once again had a meeting with her last time she was here and had a brief conversation with her just before the House. And I’m also glad the Sask Housing Corporation worked very hard in concert with the ministry and was able to find an appropriate location for her and her family in this case. Mr. Speaker, some of the same policies as under the NDP in the ministry when they find a client who needs help. I would also note that Ms. Harper checked herself in and the ministry became involved after that point, Mr. Speaker, when we learned of her case.

But again, the ministry works to try to get the best rate available. There are of course various factors that go into this, Mr. Speaker. I have asked officials again, as I said yesterday, to review the policies and processes that the ministry has in terms of finding a balance between taxpayer dollars and keeping people safe in potentially tough situations. Thank you.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina Elphinstone-Centre.

Ms. Conway: — Didn’t touch the question, Mr. Speaker. Yes, Evelyn is here again today, and it is on behalf of Evelyn as well as the wider Saskatchewan public that we’re again asking for answers and accountability from this Sask Party government.

She booked herself into the Sunrise Motel, yes, at a rate of $132 a night. But when the Ministry of Social Services started picking up the tab, it jumped to $200 a night. Two hundred dollars a night for the Sunrise Motel — the whole thing stinks and people deserve answers, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Sask Party government call in a special investigation from the Provincial Auditor to look into how this was allowed to happen?

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — As I said before, Mr. Speaker, in emergency situations the ministry will look for hotels. There’s a limited number of hotels that are willing to work with Social Services, either in child and family as well as income assistance, Mr. Speaker, and we’ll do what we can to find the best rate.

But again we have to balance that with a situation where there may have been a fire in their apartment, Mr. Speaker, fleeing a domestic violence situation, Mr. Speaker, or they are on income assistance and it’s a cold night where we have to find a place for them to stay. So we try and get the best available rate, Mr. Speaker, and that is the process that we’ve had. My understanding it’s been that way for many years, including under the previous government, Mr. Speaker.

We’ll look at the policies and maybe what we can do differently, or look at how we will do things into the future in terms of finding places but also having the best use of taxpayer dollars. Thank you.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina Elphinstone-Centre.

Ms. Conway: — Mr. Speaker, news flash for the minister. His government evicted Evelyn; that’s why we’re here. Then the government services that were offered to her failed her. And yes, she’s now housed and yes, she’s now — now — getting some supports in the community. And that’s a good thing. But her case has brought many things to light, and again he didn’t touch the question, Mr. Speaker.

The Provincial Auditor is independent, she’s trustworthy, she’s accountable to this Assembly. They talk about leadership, action. This is it, Mr. Speaker. She is exactly who we should be asking to look into this and how it all happened. Saskatchewan people have serious and well-founded questions about how this went down. The auditor is the perfect person to take a look at the books and make a determination on whether taxpayers are being protected under this government’s watch.

The Sask Party cabinet has the ability to call in the Provincial Auditor to review all of those policies. They’ve done it before with the GTH [Global Transportation Hub]. Will they do it today?

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — Mr. Speaker, again I’ve asked officials to review the policies in terms of how we procure spaces, Mr. Speaker. And that work is under way, Mr. Speaker. We’ve also, in light of the previous situation with Ms. Harper, looked at our policies in terms of evictions within Sask Housing Corporation. So that work is under way, Mr. Speaker.

We want to try and find a balance of having a good rate for the taxpayers. But also, Mr. Speaker, in a pinch, in a situation where there is very challenging situations and not a lot of time to find the perfect place, sometimes we rely on hotels if shelters are full. And that happens in child and family. It happens on income assistance. We’re looking at this case, Mr. Speaker, our officials in the ministry.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member for Regina Elphinstone-Centre.

Ms. Conway: — Mr. Speaker, the minister’s officials aren’t independent. The auditor’s independent. A little advice for the minister, as a former public defender: if you have nothing to hide, the truth is the best defence.

Mr. Speaker, it’s more than passing strange that the government now has no interest in looking into how the government spends public money when it comes to hotels. Because just the other day at Agribition, the Premier said he had some questions, too. I’ll quote from CJME: “Moe also said it would be good for the Ministry of Social Services to explain the policy around hotel stays to the public.”

If the minister won’t table the policies, if he won’t explain it to the public, I know someone who the minister should explain those policies to — the Provincial Auditor. Why won’t he call her in for a special investigation today?

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the policy, when there is not an available room, a caseworker will work to try and find the best available rate in a challenging situation, and sometimes a last-minute situation, in order to find a safe place to stay.

So again I’ve asked officials to review this, the circumstances of this case, and see if, you know, there’s a way that we can do things. Should we, for instance, RFP [request for proposal] a block of rooms and have them available at all times, Mr. Speaker? Should we say no at a certain rate, Mr. Speaker?

But again that begs the question. There’s a choice. If we aren’t able to find a place at a rate that we won’t pay above, what happens when somebody’s in a vulnerable situation, Mr. Speaker? So again, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day we’re going to make the choice to cover the costs of an emergency situation because we think it’s the right thing to do to keep people safe.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina Elphinstone-Centre.

Ms. Conway: — Mr. Speaker, the minister is brainstorming a great list of questions for the auditor.

Mr. Speaker, the waste we’ve seen in Evelyn’s case has already been established, and we’re concerned it’s just the tip of the iceberg. The inflated costs of this hotel led to them paying $750 of extra public dollars, all to avoid a $200 damage deposit. It makes no sense.

If the Sask Party really thinks that their policies and procedures are up to snuff, they should have no problem with asking the auditor to take a look. Sunlight, not sunrise, is the best disinfectant, Mr. Speaker. Why won’t they ask the auditor to take a look at these policies and ensure taxpayers are being protected?

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — As I’ve said before, Mr. Speaker, damage deposits generally aren’t paid by the ministry to take on liability for income assistance clients. The same policy as was under the NDP, is my understanding.

So what we’re going to do, continue to have the ministry look at the best way we can try to find that balance between taxpayer dollars and being able to house people in emergency situations when there are a limited number of hotels and spaces being available. I know, as I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we have a limited number of hotels, particularly here in Regina, that work with this ministry to find the clients on emergency basis. It seems hotels generally do charge a different rate based on the perceived higher risks.

So, Mr. Speaker, we’ll take a look at these policies and continue to work to help vulnerable people in a difficult and time-sensitive situation.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina Elphinstone-Centre.

Ms. Conway: — Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that the Ministry of Social Services relies on a great number of hotels. Who are those hotels? Are they also being paid $200 a night? These are all great questions for the auditor.

Mr. Speaker, $200 a night for the Sunrise Motel, and we heard this explanation again. The Ministry of Social Services doesn’t pay a damage deposit. That’s why they’re willing to pay more than 50 per cent what Evelyn Harper paid when she checked into the Sunrise hotel. But Evelyn paid a damage deposit; one, I might add, she still hasn’t gotten back and she’s entitled to. There was no damage to the room. She still hasn’t gotten that damage deposit back. And the ministry still paid this inflated price of $200 a night. It doesn’t make any sense.

So morals, ethics aside, the question of the fact that this hotel was owned by a member of the Sask Party government aside, there are serious fiscal questions here. And we have no answers, zero, when it comes to how this government makes those decisions, how they make sure taxpayers aren’t being overcharged.

Why won’t the Sask . . .

[14:15]

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — Not sure whether there was a question there, Mr. Speaker. But, Mr. Speaker, Ms. Harper is here again today. I was very glad, very glad that the ministry, the Sask Housing Corporation was able to work very hard to find an appropriate place, a location for Ms. Harper and her family.

Again, committed to look at this, Mr. Speaker, from the ministry. And the member opposite will have a chance to scrutinize, to look at that in the appropriate way throughout what we do here at the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina Elphinstone-Centre.

Ms. Conway: — Mr. Speaker, I have the same question. It’s a simple question. I believe they call this a yes or no question, Mr. Speaker. The auditor should be looking into these policies to ensure public dollars aren’t being wasted. That’s their job. That’s our job as members of the Assembly.

Yesterday in question period, the minister confirmed what we feared, which is that the Ministry of Social Services regularly refers clients to the Sunrise Motel, a motel owned by the member from Regina Northeast, and that they have paid out $172,000 to the Sunrise Motel just last year.

How much of that was wasted on inflated prices? How much was paid out to the hotel during the first two years of the member from Regina Northeast’s term? We don’t know. Why not ask the auditor to open the books and figure out how much more money was wasted on the Sunrise Motel?

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — Mr. Speaker, yes, I have asked officials to look at this. And that work is under way and they’ll continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker, you know, in terms of what we’re doing to help people who are vulnerable and who may need help from time to time, Mr. Speaker, here’s something else we’re doing.

The government, with many meetings with our partners in First Nations communities: Chief Wapass; Chief Dieter; Chief Catarat; Chief Cameron; I know of several MLAs, including the member from Athabasca, who’s been very vocal on this particular item . . . Mr. Speaker, we’re announcing today the government is going to exempt per capita distribution payments for First Nation members who happen to be on income assistance. So along with this announcement, Mr. Speaker, we hope and encourage the federal government will follow suit in this exemption cap.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina Elphinstone-Centre.

Ms. Conway: — Mr. Speaker, so yes he’ll have his officials look into it, but no to the Provincial Auditor? We need some clarity here, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has said in this Assembly that the member for Regina Northeast has nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of the Sunrise Motel, despite the fact that he owns it. But Evelyn, who still hasn’t gotten her damage deposit back to this day, was told that all the records, all the receipts, all the ministry requisitions related to her stay are off in California.

Again, does the Minister of Social Services stand by his answer in the Assembly that no, he won’t have the Provincial Auditor look into this, and that the member has nothing to do with the operations of his own hotel, one where prices shot up more than 50 per cent after taxpayers started picking up the tab?

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Makowsky: — Mr. Speaker, in terms of the member from Northeast, my understanding he is away dealing with a family matter, Mr. Speaker. I’m not sure those locations the member was referring to, not sure what she means by that.

Of course I don’t decide and members of the government don’t decide what caseworkers do and how they send . . . and their decision making on what hotels are used or what is appropriate support that particular day for a vulnerable person, Mr. Speaker. There’s a limited number of hotels throughout the province. There’s very few of them throughout the province, as I mentioned. We work with those hotels that are able to accommodate each individual’s situation, Mr. Speaker.

I think the bottom line we want to make sure that the most vulnerable people in our province are looked after each night when there is a difficult situation, and we’re going to continue to do that.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina Elphinstone-Centre.

Ms. Conway: — Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Services can’t keep his stories straight. Last week he said that over $800,000 was spent by the Ministry of Social Services on hotels. Yesterday, that number was revised. Apparently it’s more than 2 million — $2.25 million last year, Mr. Speaker. These are public dollars. And he refuses to show his work. He refuses to table any information. This tired and out-of-touch government should be making sure those dollars aren’t wasted.

Why won’t the Sask Party call in the Provincial Auditor and make sure the tax dollars of Saskatchewan people aren’t being wasted on inflated hotel costs?

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Ms. Harpauer: — Mr. Speaker, the member has dealt with these questions a number of times. He has assured the member opposite that the officials are looking at the policy and they will get the exact numbers to her as soon as they can compile them.

But quite frankly, I think something that has not been dealt with, a question that has not been answered. And that is, does the NDP leader agree with her extremist member that Israel is guilty of genocide?

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina Elphinstone-Centre.

Ms. Conway: — Mr. Speaker, this is a desperate attempt to spin and deflect from yet another Sask Party scandal. And frankly I would expect better from that Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker.

So again, we have serious questions here on behalf of the people of Saskatchewan, people who work hard for their money. They don’t want to see public dollars that should be going to health care, sustainable housing, highways, classrooms, wasted on inflated hotel costs, particularly hotels owned by Sask Party government members, Mr. Speaker. All signs point to this case in the case of Sunrise Motel.

It’s our job as legislators to ensure public dollars are used wisely and not wasted. It’s our job as opposition to hold the government to account and get those answers. And we will not back down. When will we see all the outstanding information — the policies, the rates charged, the requisitions? When will we see some basic transparency from this Sask Party government?

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Ms. Harpauer: — Again, the minister has committed a number of times that his officials are working on reviewing the policy, that they will compile the numbers. There was a number of years that was asked for. Those numbers will be compiled by the ministry officials. It’s disappointing they’re questioning the professionalism of the professionals of the public service within the Ministry of Social Services, but quite frankly all that’s being reviewed.

Is the NDP leader reviewing her caucus, statements they’ve made, things that they have orchestrated. Is she reviewing? Is she being a leader? Because I’ll tell you something, Mr. Speaker, I will stand behind our leader and so will the rest of our caucus any day of the week. He makes decisions even when they’re difficult to make.

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina Elphinstone-Centre.

Ms. Conway: — There you have it, Mr. Speaker. This tired and out-of-touch government is too afraid to call in the auditor. And I think we all know why, because they are afraid of what she’ll find.

And all this talk about leadership, Mr. Speaker, there was a time under Brad Wall when the Sask Party had the courage to open the books and ask the auditor if everything was above board. That’s what they did with the GTH, but those days are long gone.

This is the new face of the Sask Party government. What has changed, Mr. Speaker? Why does the Sask Party no longer have the courage to open the books and make sure members of the public aren’t getting ripped off?

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Ms. Harpauer: — Mr. Speaker, there will be numbers available as soon as the officials can put them together. We have committed to that, Mr. Speaker, and we will again. The Provincial Auditor can look at this. All of our books are available. All of our books are available to the Provincial Auditor at all times, Mr. Speaker. And in fact she has given some clean audits of our books from time to time. She also has recommendations, Mr. Speaker.

But this weak NDP caucus and NDP leadership have some questions to answer to, and we’ve yet to hear an answer.

The Speaker: — Before orders of the day I will respond to the ruling on the question of privilege.

STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

Ruling on a Question of Privilege

The Speaker: — On November 21st, 2023, I received a letter from the Government House Leader in regard to an alleged breach of privilege that occurred on November 20th, 2023 in this Chamber.

During question period a group of protesters in the galleries disrupted proceedings by yelling and chanting. I recessed the proceedings pursuant to rule 58 which states, “In the case of grave disorder, the Speaker may recess the Assembly, without question put, for a time to be determined by the Speaker.”

The Government House Leader states that the grave disorder resulted in a breach of privilege by disrupting proceedings for 40 minutes, and further, that members’ rights were violated when their mobility through the Assembly was limited by security while the galleries were vacated.

The Government House Leader maintains that the protesters attained proceedings with an intent to interfere with members’ ability to carry out their duties. He further maintains that opposition members are “complicit in the breach of privilege” because they invited the protesters to the Assembly via social media, escorted them through the building, introduced a number of them during proceedings, and allegedly stood in support of the disruption.

The evidence presented by the Government House Leader that “the opposition caucus was involved in planning, orchestrating, and supporting the occupation” include a social media post by the member of Saskatoon University inviting concerned individuals to the Legislative Building; examples illustrating that the opposition caucus greeted the group, hosted individuals of the group in their caucus office, and escorted members of the group through the building; media articles published after the incident that allege the premeditation of the protesters and the member of Saskatoon University’s support for the disruption; and an introduction during proceedings of several members of the group by the member for Regina Coronation Park.

Further the Government House Leader notes the member for Saskatoon University’s apparent head nodding, rising to her feet, and delay in leaving the Chamber during the disruption is further evidence to his case.

In her response, the Opposition House Leader states that the opposition member did in fact greet the group and help it obtain passes to the galleries, but opposition members had no advance knowledge of any plans to disrupt proceedings. She further notes that no reasonable person would construe the social media invitation as a call for disruption. Finally she maintains that the disruption during question period was to the detriment of the opposition, as it resulted in lost time for opposition members to ask questions of the government.

While the Opposition House Leader agrees that the opposition caucus greeted the members of the public attending proceedings, obtained gallery passes for some of them, and provided overflow seating in room 255, she disputes advanced knowledge of the protesters’ plans to disrupt the proceedings. Further she states that the member for Saskatoon University disputes the veracity of the allegations made against her and did not hear the Speaker’s order to leave the Chamber over the noise of the protest.

The Government House Leader refers to the recess for grave disorder as unprecedented in this Assembly. However similar events occurred in 1991. On April 19th, 1991, Speaker Tusa recessed the Assembly for a period of time when members on the floor refused to come to order. No case of privilege was brought forward as a result.

[14:30]

On June 6th, 1991, a demonstration overflowed into the Legislative Building, and the Chamber and lobby doors were locked to ensure the safety of members. A question of privilege was brought forward with respect to the rights of members to move freely through the building, but the Speaker ruled that no prima facie case had been established, as he had properly followed established security protocols.

Questions of privilege alleging member complicity in disruptions from the galleries as well is documented in other jurisdictions. For example, on December 6th, 2011, House of Commons Speaker Scheer addressed two separate incidents — one involving opposition members and one involving government members — in which demonstrators caused disruptions from the galleries, interrupted proceedings, and were applauded and encouraged by members on the floor. In both cases members were alleged to have prior knowledge that the disruption was to occur.

In this ruling Speaker Scheer noted three additional occasions when Speaker Milliken had ruled on similar incidents. He stated:

In all three of those cases, it was alleged that a certain member had prior knowledge of, and was therefore complicit in, a disturbance in the galleries. Then, as now, the accused members denied involvement and Speaker Milliken accepted those explanations. Remembering the time-honoured tradition in this place that members are taken at their word and so in keeping with the precedents just cited, the Chair is prepared to consider this particular aspect of the matter to be closed.

No prima facie case was found in any of those cases.

Nor was a prima facie case found by the House of Commons Speaker Fraser on November 6th, 1990, following an interruption in the proceedings by demonstrators who threw objects onto the floor of the Chamber. In this case also, the question of privilege alleged that members of the House had prior knowledge that such a protest was to take place but had done nothing to stop it. The accused members denied the allegations.

While the Speaker took the members at their word and could find no prima facie evidence to implicate them, he did find the disturbance itself to be prima facie contempt of the Assembly and worthy of investigation by the Assembly. Accordingly he allowed the motion proposed in the question of the privilege to be stripped of any reference implicating members before being put to the Assembly for debate.

In this case, both House leaders agreed that the disruption in the proceedings improperly and directly obstructed members on both sides in the fulfillment of their duties. However they disagree as to whether any members had prior indication that the disruption would occur.

This puts the Speaker in a difficult position. In determining a question of privilege, the Speaker’s role is to decide whether a prima facie case has been established, or in other words, whether there is sufficient evidence to merit setting aside the regular business of the Assembly to debate the matter.

The motion proposed in this particular case requires me to be satisfied from the evidence presented that the opposition caucus and the member for Saskatoon University had in some way facilitated this protest. An extremely high threshold of proof is required. There must be persuasive and substantiated evidence to prove the intent of members.

In light of this, a precedent does exist as to how the Assembly may be able to address this issue. In the previously stated ruling by Speaker Fraser, the Speaker allowed the member to amend the motion by removing the words relating to the accused member. Similar to the ruling by Speaker Fraser, if the Government House Leader asks for and obtains the Assembly’s leave to remove the middle paragraph of this proposed question of privilege motion, which implicates the opposition caucus and the member for Saskatoon University in the case, I will ask the Government House Leader to move the motion. The proper way to resolve this issue is for the members to decide through debate.

If members require additional time to review the matter, I would entertain a motion to recess. I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. Mr. J. Harrison: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. So if I heard Mr. Speaker’s ruling correctly, that would entail an amendment of the motion at the conclusion of remarks but with the invitation to move the motion with the paragraph removed. Okay, the Clerk’s nodding, so appreciate that.

And thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the work that you and your team have clearly done on a matter of grave seriousness, a matter on which I rise with no particular pleasure but a matter that needs to be addressed by the Assembly.

And I will just briefly recount why we are here today. I think Mr. Speaker went through the precedents in significant detail and I won’t be going back through the ruling itself. But the events that led us here today are that on November the 20th, the Legislative Assembly was disrupted by a large group of activists resulting in the . . .

The Speaker: — Mr. House Leader, could you ask leave to amend the motion? I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. Mr. J. Harrison: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So if I understand correctly, asking for leave to amend the motion as submitted in the question of privilege which we can do on short order.

The Speaker: — Just to clarify the process. The House Leader has moved his motion, but I’ll remind members of the process. Once the Government House Leader moves his motion, it shall be taken into . . . considered by this Assembly immediately pursuant to rule 12(6). In accordance with rule 12(7), the Government House Leader may speak for no more than one hour and each subsequent member may speak for no more than 45 minutes. Before the question is put, the Government House Leader will be permitted 15 minutes to close the debate. At 4:50 p.m. today, I will interrupt proceedings to put the question on the motion.

You have made your motion?

Hon. Mr. J. Harrison: — I have not made the motion yet. I haven’t moved the motion until the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: — Before we proceed, is leave granted?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

The Speaker: — Leave is granted.

PRIVILEGE

Hon. Mr. J. Harrison: — Great, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to members opposite for granting leave. And I can inform the Assembly in advance that on the government side, I believe I will be the only speaker to this matter, so I would not anticipate the debate taking the entirety of the afternoon. So at the end of this, I will move the amended motion though, Mr. Speaker.

I will pick up where I had left off here initially though. The minutes of the Assembly state, “. . . the Speaker interrupted proceedings and suspended the sitting on the grounds of grave disorder.”

In a video posted to Facebook, the grave disorder can be witnessed. Protesters are seen climbing on the clock in your gallery, on the ledges in this Assembly. Groups of schoolchildren were in attendance in the west gallery while this event took place and were clearly disturbed and scared.

Thank you to our legislative district security unit, Mr. Speaker, who did an amazingly professional job in clearing the galleries and securing the spaces in the Assembly to keep members safe. This is a unit that did great work. I think some members have spoken to the history of the unit. I’m not going to get into that, but not everybody supported it being here. Thankfully, thankfully they were.

This grave disorder is really an unprecedented thing as far as anybody in this Chamber can remember. It’s the first time that members were forced to vacate the House on an emergency basis instead of fulfilling their duties as MLAs. This is a matter that must be dealt with, with the utmost seriousness and swiftness to safeguard our legislative democracy from undue influence.

And during this event, Mr. Speaker, members were locked in a secure location. Protocols were followed by security, by members. And we didn’t know what was going to happen next, Mr. Speaker. I know some have characterized this as somehow a random day at the office. This was not a random day at the office.

Protests of a similar nature by groups with a similar objective have turned violent, have turned extremely violent, Mr. Speaker, in locations around North America. And the intent of this protest was clear before the protesters arrived. The protesters planned to interfere with the ability of the members of the Assembly to carry out their duties. The Leader-Post reported that the protesters’ intent was to pressure the provincial government to openly call for a ceasefire: “That’s what brought us to the legislature today, and the intention was always to deliver that message in that way.”

CTV Regina reported: “The protest was planned to hold the Saskatchewan government accountable for its support of Israel by flooding the galleries of the legislature.”

Clearly the protesters’ intent was to intimidate and interfere with the members of the legislature. Interfering with a member’s ability to carry out their legislative duty is on the face of it — and thank you for your ruling — a breach of privilege. Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition, states:

A valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with a Member must relate to the Member’s parliamentary duties and not to the work that the Member does in relation to that Member’s constituency.

Erskine May’s Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament provides the classic definition of parliamentary privilege:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of . . . [certain] rights enjoyed by each House collectively . . . and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.

According to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd edition, these rights include “freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation.”

MLAs and cabinet ministers were limited in their movement of the Assembly because we were locked in a secure location during the occupation. Without question, the grave disorder of the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly breached the members’ rights by forcing members to evacuate the Assembly for 40 minutes during routine proceedings with no clear path as to when the Assembly was going to reconvene.

And I appreciate the discussions that we had in the period immediately reconvening and a decision by members that we were not going to let those responsible for the grave disorder win, that we weren’t going to let them disrupt this Chamber for the entire day, that we were going to come back in and sit and finish the business of the people, Mr. Speaker.

And we’ll have an opportunity to canvass a number of questions at the Privileges Committee, Mr. Speaker, about how this happened, about how we got here, about who was involved, about how this all could have come to pass, Mr. Speaker. But let me be very clear. This is as serious a matter as it gets.

We have seen elsewhere instances where legislatures have been shut down because of those who wish those members to not have the opportunity to meet and discuss the business of the people, Mr. Speaker. It’s been taken seriously because there is nothing more sacred than the right of the people’s elected representatives to carry out their duties and their business unintimidated, unfettered, and unmolested. And that, in this province for the first time in a very, very long time if ever in this way, was not allowed to happen on Monday.

[14:45]

So, Mr. Speaker, with that I will move the motion:

That the disruption and occupation of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan clearly constitutes a breach of the privileges of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan by preventing all members from exercising their duties and responsibilities of members of the Legislative Assembly; and further,

That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges for a full investigation and a report with a remedy to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly.

I so move.

The Speaker: — It has been moved by the Government House Leader:

That the disruption and occupation of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan clearly constitutes a breach of the privileges of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan by preventing all members from exercising their duties and responsibilities as members of the Legislative Assembly; and further,

That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges for a full investigation and a report that a remedy be tabled in the Legislative Assembly.

Is the Assembly ready for the question? I recognize the member from Regina Douglas Park.

Ms. Sarauer: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to enter in on this discussion, this very important discussion that we’re having today.

Now because of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will stay away from and not comment further on the very serious and unfounded allegations that were made by the Government House Leader against opposition members and opposition caucus at this point in my discussion. As you know and as you have indicated, those allegations were discussed in our response letter to yourself, Mr. Speaker, and you’ve outlined well in a paraphrased form the letter that we had provided to your office. I do want to speak very briefly to this before it goes to a vote.

Did a disruption happen on Monday? Absolutely. What was disrupted? The opposition’s only opportunity every day during session to hold this government to account — question period. The opposition lost question period. This is a big deal to us. We were not happy about it. Government still got to go through their orders. We still went through all the adjourned debates. The orders of the day concluded before we rose, before 5 p.m., Mr. Speaker.

In the Government House Leader’s letter, he calls what happened on Monday “an occupation.” I very strongly dispute that allegation. Mr. Speaker, let’s talk about what happened on Monday again. There were people in the gallery. They stood up. They shouted. They refused to stop shouting. You adjourned the House, and then they were evacuated after we were evacuated. Nobody stormed the floor of this Chamber. Nobody had to be arrested to get removed. In fact, the slowest process that happened on Monday, Mr. Speaker, were all of those protesters at the front desk trying to exchange their visitor passes for IDs [identification]. That doesn’t sound like much of an occupation to me, Mr. Speaker.

I don’t dispute that a disruption happened — to the detriment of opposition members, Mr. Speaker. And let’s be clear. There were a number of different groups that attended that day. Community groups. Mosques, Mr. Speaker. Some of the folks here were part of the Dawah Centre in Saskatoon, Mr. Speaker. Pride groups were here. I hope that we are not painting everybody with one brush. I hope government members aren’t painting everybody with one brush, but that’s what it’s been sounding like here for the past three days, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge members opposite to give thought about this, to let cooler heads prevail, and to ultimately vote against this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: — Before I put the question, does the Government House Leader like to make another comment? Is the Assembly ready for the question?

Some Hon. Members: — Question.

The Speaker: — Those in favour of the motion please say yea.

Some Hon. Members: — Yea.

The Speaker: — Those opposed say nay.

Some Hon. Members: — No.

The Speaker: — I think the yeas have it. Recorded division. Call in the members.

[The division bells rang from 14:50 until 14:55.]

The Speaker: — The question before the Assembly is:

That the disruption and occupation of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan clearly constitutes a breach of the privileges of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan by preventing all members from exercising their duties and responsibilities as members of the Legislative Assembly; and further,

That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges for a full investigation and a report with a remedy to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly.

All in favour of the motion please stand.

[Yeas — 39]

Moe

Morgan

McMorris

Hindley

Reiter

Harpauer

Duncan

Merriman

Tell

Makowsky

Marit

Cheveldayoff

Skoropad

Kaeding

Cockrill

L. Ross

Eyre

J. Harrison

Carr

Hargrave

T. McLeod

Buckingham

Bradshaw

A. Ross

Dennis

Kirsch

Lambert

Ottenbreit

C. Young

Steele

Bonk

Nerlien

B. McLeod

Friesen

Goudy

Keisig

Lemaigre

Jenson

D. Harrison

The Speaker: — All those opposed please stand.

[Nays — 14]

Beck

Nippi-Albright

Vermette

Mowat

Wotherspoon

Love

Teed

A. Young

Burki

Clarke

Sarauer

Conway

Bowes

Ritchie

Clerk: — Mr. Speaker, those in favour of the motion, 39; those opposed, 14.

The Speaker: — I declare the motion carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Justice.

Appointment to the Public and Private Rights Board

Hon. Ms. Eyre: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move:

That an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor:

Recommending that Itemobong Umoh be appointed as an interim member of the Public and Private Rights Board during the absence of the current member, Stacy Muller, for a term not exceeding December 31, 2024 pursuant to section 6 of The Expropriation Procedure Act and section 2‑33 of The Legislation Act.

The Speaker: — It has been moved:

That an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor:

[15:00]

Is the Assembly ready for the question?

Some Hon. Members: — Question.

The Speaker: — Is it the pleasure of the Assembly to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

The Speaker: — Carried.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

ADJOURNED DEBATES

SECOND READINGS

Bill No. 138

[The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion by the Hon. Mr. McMorris that Bill No. 138 — The Workers’ Compensation (Extending Firefighter Coverage) Amendment Act, 2023 be now read a second time.]

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina Walsh Acres.

Mr. Clarke: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A pleasure to be on my feet today to speak to Bill No. 138, The Workers’ Compensation (Extending Firefighter Coverage) Amendment Act of 2023.

You know this, Mr. Speaker, is a bill that for the most part we’re very excited to see coming to the House here. Our team has been working hard over the last number of years to have these additional cancers included on the list of occupational diseases for firefighters. It’s exciting to see that this is leading the nation in terms of mandatory coverage or presumptive coverage for these cancers for firefighters across the province. So exciting to see.

You know, I’ve got a number of friends who are firefighters, and I have a lot of respect for those friends. A number of my colleagues have spoken about their connections to folks who are firefighters and the good work that they do, so I won’t belabour the point. But I am excited to support firefighters across this province, who put in a lot of effort, a lot of heart, and a lot of sacrifice into their role to protect us in this province. And that’s across the board in terms of volunteer firefighters, professional firefighters, and of course wildfire firefighters.

We do have a couple of questions, Mr. Speaker, about some of the coverage and what some of the changes, the other changes that the bill will cover, not related to the presumptive cancer coverage. Some of the questions were revolving around the removal of the definition of “worker,” removing “executive officer.” So we’re wondering, you know, why is this change being implemented. Many of the questions that we have revolve around how many people are being removed from that scope of coverage, and is this consistent with what we’re seeing, what is in place in other provinces across the province.

So I think some serious questions to be answered before this bill proceeds through the different steps of legislation. Also wondering about the simplifying the medical review panel process and how this will affect the accessibility and ability of a claimant to participate in this process if we are increasing expediency. So these are things that we need to consider.

I want to touch for a moment, Mr. Speaker, about stigma and going back to the presumptive cancer coverage. You know, we talked in this Chamber for two weeks about pronouns, Bill 137, and I spoke at length about being a grade 6/7 teacher, you know, teaching sexual health in the classroom to grade 6/7s. And one of the things that we talked about, one of the things that I set out at the beginning of each health lesson, was stigma and the ability of my students to be able to have adult conversations about issues regarding their sexual health in the future to either their parents or their partners or to their doctor if there was a medical issue that they needed to have addressed.

And so I think it’s important for us to continue to talk, to talk about cancer, to talk about mental health, to try and reduce a lot of those stigmas that we have in our society today. So I want to commend the government for moving forward with this coverage on these types of cancer, the presumptive cancer coverage for firefighters, and I would like to make sure we have some more detailed looks at this legislation before it passes.

But with that, Mr. Speaker, I will move to adjourn debate on Bill 138.

The Speaker: — The member has moved to adjourn debate. Is it the pleasure of the Assembly to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

The Speaker: — Carried.

Bill No. 140

[The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion by the Hon. Ms. Eyre that Bill No. 140 — The Miscellaneous Statutes Repeal Act, 2023 be now read a second time.]

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Nutana.

Ms. Ritchie: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me to be on my feet speaking to Bill No. 140. It would be such a help to me if there was a binder someone could get me so that I could go a little deeper.

But I will start my comments out by stating that this. There’s many bills that are being repealed, and I’ll just give you a list of them, Mr. Speaker. There’s The Summer Resort Village of Carlyle Lake Resort Act, 1959; there’s The Names of Homes Act, 1941; The Saskatchewan Advantage Grant for Education Savings Act, 2013.

Oh yeah, you know, this one came up in some recent conversations, and it was new to me that the government had stopped providing the grants for parental plans for education savings in line with what the federal government had been doing. And I was very, very disappointed to learn of that, particularly in this age of, you know, skyrocketing tuition costs and the debt burden that that is imposing upon our students, our young adults that are already facing crushing, crushing cost-of-living increases, low wages, you know, housing costs, interest rates. The list is long, Mr. Speaker, and you know, I think that there is so much more that we should be doing. So I’ll just maybe make mention of that as I continue on down the list.

So those are public bills that were repealed. On the list of private bills, we have the Canadian Bible Society, Sask district Act, 1986. We have An Act to incorporate Sacred Heart Academy, 1920. We have An Act to incorporate The Catholic Women’s League, 1920; an Act to incorporate the Herbert Bible School, 1928; and lastly An Act to incorporate The Wildlife Foundation of Saskatchewan, 1971.

I did, Mr. Speaker, have the opportunity, I believe it was just last year, to bring in a bill. It was a private bill for the United Church of Canada. That was to repeal a previous bill that was then modernized. And so I think that’s a sort of a usual course of business that is undertaken as things evolve and are replaced by more modern legislation. As mentioned in my earlier remarks, I think when this occurs that, you know, that it is always an opportunity to modernize language, make it gender neutral, and account for, you know, the way society has evolved over time.

So just a few other comments here. So we do have a number of . . . you know, there’s the Wildlife Foundation of Saskatchewan. Certainly wildlife organizations play an important role here in Saskatchewan. We had the opportunity, as you’ll recall last week, to honour those organizations by wearing camouflage wristbands. I was happy to participate in that effort.

And I don’t really think there’s too much more to say on this bill at this particular point in time. I’m certain that the other members of the opposition will have much more to say and not the least of which will be the member for Regina Elphinstone-Centre.

And with that I will move to adjourn debate on Bill No. 140, The Miscellaneous Statutes Repeal Act, 2023.

The Speaker: — The member has moved to adjourn debate. Is it the pleasure of the Assembly to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

The Speaker: — Carried.

Bill No. 141

[The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion by the Hon. Ms. Eyre that Bill No. 141 — The Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023 be now read a second time.]

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina University.

Ms. A. Young: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me begin by saying a remarkable set of remarks by my colleague, the member from Saskatoon Nutana, on that past piece of legislation. Today I am on my feet for Bill No. 141, The Statute Law Amendment Act. Mr. Speaker, there has been extensive and fiery debate on this piece of legislation. But despite that fulsome exercise of democracy, Mr. Speaker, I think it is only right to allow this to continue. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I would like this bill to proceed to its next stages.

The Speaker: — The question before the Assembly is the motion by the member that Bill No. 141 be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of this Assembly to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

The Speaker: — Carried.

Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: — Second reading of this bill.

The Speaker: — To which committee shall this bill be committed? I recognize the Minister of CIC [Crown Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan].

Hon. Mr. Duncan: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I designate that Bill No. 141, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023 be committed to the Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice.

The Speaker: — This bill stands committed to the Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice.

Bill No. 142

[The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion by the Hon. Mr. Duncan that Bill No. 142 — The Miscellaneous Statutes (Utility Line Locates) Amendment Act, 2023 be now read a second time.]

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Fairview.

Ms. Mowat: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to enter into debate on Bill No. 142, The Miscellaneous Statutes (Utility Line Locates) Amendment Act, 2023. What’s being changed here, Mr. Speaker, is that three days’ notice is now going to be required for SaskTel, SaskPower, SaskEnergy who will be doing any digging and entering anyone’s property to do utility line work. This used to be 48 hours, Mr. Speaker, so it is a bit of an extension. And this inclusion of working days also means that people won’t be caught over the weekend without knowledge of the work that’s supposed to happen, Mr. Speaker.

We know that safety is quite important, Mr. Speaker, for private citizens and for Crown employees, and it is rare that we see this government worrying about consumer protections at the cost of making it harder for Crowns to do business. It’s good to have consistency among the Crowns so that everyone’s subject to the same rules, Mr. Speaker.

And there’s a lot of responsibility here. I think we all have a strong connection to our Crown corporations in this province. We know that we have lots of folks that are gainfully employed through our Crowns, that these are good jobs that folks have and strongly contribute to our local economy, that our Crown corporations should not be sold off to the highest bidder, and that we have seen that this government can’t be trusted when it comes to not privatizing our Crown corporations. So we need to see strengthening of those Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker.

[15:15]

And we’ll definitely be going through this with a fine-tooth comb and looking through the changes and making sure that there are no unintended consequences. And, Mr. Speaker, I know many of my colleagues will want to weigh in on Bill No. 142, but with that I would move to adjourn debate on Bill 142 for today.

The Speaker: — The member has moved to adjourn debate. Is it the pleasure of the Assembly to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

The Speaker: — Carried.

Bill No. 143

[The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion by the Hon. Mr. Cockrill that Bill No. 143 — The Child Care Amendment Act, 2023/Loi modificative de 2023 sur les garderies d’enfants be now read a second time.]

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Meewasin.

Mr. Teed: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s an honour to be on my feet today to enter into adjourned debate on Bill No. 143, The Child Care Amendment Act, 2023. Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to see legislation brought forth to address a number of the needs that our child care providers have been asking for. Mr. Speaker, no doubt that we have seen challenges on this front. We have had child care providers come to this Assembly to appeal to this government to address more of those issues.

I have some statistics and thoughts I’d like to enter into the record. But I think it’s important that we continue as a legislature to be on top of this file, hugely important file for people in Saskatchewan, for families in Saskatchewan and a hugely important file for our working mothers and women in this province. So, Mr. Speaker, they are demanding that we get this file right.

Now I know that we had seen an announcement last session, a very fast track over the $10‑a-day daycare proposals and promise, Mr. Speaker, so fast that it actually threw the system into a lot of chaos. And we have been hearing from parents, from those child care providers that this just simply wasn’t acceptable, that the government should have done more due diligence on implementing this.

Yes, we want to see affordable child care made available for women, but there needs to be closer attention paid. And so we’re seeing a bit of that here, Mr. Speaker, and we’re pleased to see it. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, for those watching at home, makes some amendments that makes sure that centres have boards of directors, parental advisory committees, allows for non-profits who are facilitating child care to operate more than one facility at a time.

It throws some amendments there about folks who, if they are to lose the licence, you know, that they are not allowed to apply for one year, must pay the fees, do training, correct efficiencies laid out and in the public interest. This is another example of this government using the phrase “in the public interest” in legislation as of late. A little bit vague, but you know, good that we’re seeing the government look to the public interest in these cases, but that the minister can refuse to reissue those licences if that is deemed fit.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation also provides minimum wage and wage enhancements. We know that the wages of folks working in our child care providers is a hugely, hugely important aspect of the system. We need to make sure that when any parent, any family entrusts their child to these very important child care facilities that the workers there are also receiving very fair remuneration for the work that they are doing.

These are some of the most, most important workers in our province. They are caring for our children. We know that children are our future. You know, by actions of this Assembly you might question that recently, but we on the opposition certainly believe that children are our future. They should be cared for, and the people who are working in our child care spaces are being paid a living . . . you know, that they are able to make their bills, pay their groceries, that they have that comfort.

Mr. Speaker, more so the legislation says that centres can’t set higher fees for non-grant parents to the grant folks and can make grants to licensees and parents. A few of the options here, you know, you have letting centres operate multiple facilities really doesn’t really address the fact that . . . I know we mentioned wages. There just simply aren’t enough workers out there. You know, we have a government only opening a scant percentage of the child care spaces, and in fact we’re seeing child care spaces close because of the complications.

You know, Mr. Speaker, our official opposition has always been clear in supporting women and ensuring that we want child care that works for them and their families, but this government is just not really consulting when it comes to making these decisions. And we really saw that and how half-baked the $10‑a-day rollout was.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get some thoughts on the record here before I sit down. In preparation to speak to this bill, I did a little research about, you know, we look at child care spaces as one of the key platforms in ensuring and increasing women engagement in the workforce.

So how do we get more women into the workforce? Well as I did some research, there’s a good list. There’s provide genuine work flexibility, number one. Increase paid family leave is the second. Subsidize daycare is number three in those lists. Equal pay, address the gender pay gap; put women in leadership; hire blind; offer professional development opportunities; and initiate mentorship programs.

Those were just a simple list when I googled “how do we increase engagement of women in the workforce.” An easy, an easy list that I would be happy to provide to my colleagues on the other side. Important, each point important, each point something that we could be debating in this House. We could have an emergency session, Mr. Speaker, and debate these points. I think that’s how important this is.

But today we’re looking at number three, subsidize daycare. This is something that when push came to shove, and I’ll say push because the official opposition was crucial in pushing this government to get to the table with the federal government and initiated this. But the fact was is that this provincial government only acted once the feds passed them their credit card, Mr. Speaker.

You know, when there’s money on the table, this government is very happy to put their hand out for federal transfers, federal money as part of the federation. But, Mr. Speaker, on other issues, and you know, some of them very important, we’ve had this Chamber assent, consent as a unanimous body on issues like carving out the carbon tax. But on a lot of other issues where the federal government is concerned, it’s a fight. You know, division and fight. And on an issue of increasing women engagement in the workforce, this is something that we could all agree on. Let’s get this done. Let’s do it properly.

Mr. Speaker, so the issue that we’re looking to solve, subsidized daycare is one of the planks in ensuring that women are able to with confidence return to the workforce after taking time off knowing that their loved ones are in good hands.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I am not a parent. I am only the parent to a pet, and I have a hard enough time leaving my dogs at home when I — and my cat — on Monday morning when I come to this Assembly. I can’t imagine what it’s like to a parent who making that decision to go back to work and on that first time leaving their child in care, Mr. Speaker. This is a hugely important issue.

So I want to quickly as well go over a few statistics on this issue. And I promise I won’t keep more time, but there’s a few numbers I want to read into the record. These are 2023 numbers. So what I looked at was women engagement in the workforce. And the top two countries that popped up on OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] numbers was, the first was Sweden. Sweden has achieved one of the highest rates of female employment rate in the OECD.

Another country, Finland; Finland, 67.60 per cent. Finland has actually averaged 66 per cent women engagement in the workforce from 1988 until 2023. Strong numbers, strong leadership.

Now we look at Canada. We look at Canadian labour force participation of women in the workplace, 56.8 per cent. And I’ll note that the OECD average of women engagement in the workforce is 60 per cent. So we are four points below the OECD average.

Why do these nations that I’ve mentioned — Finland, Sweden — have such high levels of women participating in the workforce? Because they have prioritized it, Mr. Speaker. They have prioritized it by ensuring that women have options for very affordable child care.

I even have friends who live in Sweden who . . . They have to have their kid in the daycare to get those amazing rates and so sometimes the parents actually will both have a day off, but you know, to ensure that they maintain, they send their kid to daycare so that they are able to do things together, but they know that their child is being cared for.

But, Mr. Speaker, the prime, one of the prime reasons is that these nations prioritize affordable child care and they’re doing it right.

Lastly I want to talk about one little interesting tidbit I heard on the CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation] the other day. There was a recent study in Canada that showed in the cases of sick children in schools, women are still being called more frequently. The study showed that even in cases where parents had put the name of the father as the primary contact, the mother was still called at work, was still interrupted at her work, and expected to be the one to come and pick up their child.

So we, Mr. Speaker, I think this example shows that we have a lot of work to do in equity. I would pass this on to the Minister for the Status of Women as something that, I think, that that ministry should be looking at closely.

One issue though I would like to address just before I sit down, an issue that’s coming into my office quite regularly is the issue of children aging out of this $10‑a-day daycare regime. Children who turn six but don’t have a school placement until some number of months later, in some cases children who will turn six in January who may not go to a school till September — a nine-month gap — they see the cost of their child care skyrocket because this $10‑a-day daycare regime says that when a child turns six, they are no longer eligible for the $10‑a-day coverage.

This is a glaring, glaring misstep missing from this legislation. This is something that needs to be addressed. I know that my colleagues, the critic for child care, my colleague from Regina Elphinstone-Centre has sent letters, has advocated on behalf of those parents to the Minister of Education. This should not be a new issue for members of the Saskatchewan Party government, but I want to raise it here today again.

This is a huge financial barrier. The promise of $10‑a-day daycare is being . . . Those parents are being failed and their costs are skyrocketing when their children age out of this regime. This is not right; it’s an oversight. I know that we will continue to press for greater coverage of child care to ensure that more Saskatchewan women are able to enter the workforce with the confidence that their children are cared for. This is an equity issue, Mr. Speaker, that we have to address.

My colleagues will continue to speak to this. I know our critic will have very good questions for the Minister of Education when this bill comes to committee. So at this time I will move to adjourn debate on Bill 143, The Child Care Amendment Act, 2023.

The Speaker: — The member has moved to adjourn debate. Is it the pleasure of the Assembly to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

The Speaker: — Carried.

Bill No. 144

[The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion by the Hon. Mr. Merriman that Bill No. 144 — The Police (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act, 2023 be now read a second time.]

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Meewasin.

Mr. Teed: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Back on my feet again to enter into adjourned debate on Bill No. 144, The Police (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act, 2023. Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly file Bill No. 144 under the category of waste and mismanagement, right off the hop.

Mr. Deputy Speaker . . . Mr. Speaker, I apologize. We have been so clear on this . . . I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Suddenly I said “Mr. Deputy Speaker.”

We have been so clear on this file from the start. I’ve heard about this file, questions on the doorstep in my constituency. Questions on the doorsteps while door knocking for my new colleagues in Regina Coronation Park and Regina Walsh Acres. Questions by a Saskatchewan public that just can’t fathom the spending of $20 million on a new wing of a police service, Mr. Speaker, a new wing of a police service that, all the while, municipal and our federal counterparts, the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] police services have been calling on this government for investments, for supports. But instead, Mr. Speaker, we see a government that has decided that those groups should not be awarded with more funds, that we will create our own marshal service.

[15:30]

And so, Mr. Speaker, Bill 144 lays out the structure, the duties, some of the conditions of which this new marshal service will be operated, a number of questionable . . . Unclear transparency regarding how this organization will, you know, receive the basic transparency of even receiving complaints against it, Mr. Speaker. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Saskatchewan deserve better.

Now we hear a lot from this government about, you know, we want to see our health care systems properly funded. We want to see education properly funded in Saskatchewan. We want to see investment kept here. We want good jobs with better paycheques for people in Saskatchewan.

And one of the questions that we receive is, how are you going to pay for this? Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a prime example of $20 million on the public purse that we would scrap and we would redirect into those existing municipal and RCMP police services as well . . . We would redirect that 10 million into those services, and we would direct 10 million into mental health services.

And I just want to just quickly read a quote from our leader, the member from Regina Lakeview and the Leader of the Official Opposition:

We need to be tough on crime, yes — $10 million for existing police services and RCMP, money that they’re asking for . . . [She continues] . . . and tough on the causes of crime. Saskatchewan people are tired of feeling unsafe and unsupported by this government and we know that there is an underlying cause to crime in our province. And one of those underlying causes is lack of mental health supports. And so we have committed that if we are to form government, we would scrap this marshal police service and invest those dollars in policing and in mental health supports.

Mr. Speaker, there’s a lot . . . We have more concern over this bill, and I know that our critic, the critic for Justice, will continue to be engaging with stakeholders and my colleagues will continue to be speaking to this. So at this time, with those feelings on the record, I will move to adjourn debate on Bill No. 144, The Police (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act, 2023.

The Speaker: — The member has moved to adjourn debate. Is it the pleasure of the Assembly to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

The Speaker: — Carried.

Bill No. 145

[The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion by the Hon. Ms. Eyre that Bill No. 145 — The Funeral and Cremation Services (Legal Decision-Maker Protection) Amendment Act, 2023 be now read a second time.]

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Nutana.

Ms. Ritchie: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be on my feet and enter into debate on Bill No. 146, The Funeral and Cremation Services (Legal Decision-Maker Protection) Amendment Act, 2023.

This is a bill that will replace the parental and legal custodian designation wording with that of “the legal decision-maker.” And as I understand it, this has been necessary to also resolve situations where, if in the case of a deceased minor and their parents are separated and unable to agree on how to proceed with funeral preparations, that previously the control would go to the oldest member or oldest parent in that parental grouping.

It’s sort of an odd situation — I’m sure you’ve heard it described already by my colleagues — and arose from an actual situation where a mother was dealing with the loss of a child. And I’m sure, you know, we all can appreciate how devastating such a situation would be, and to then be, you know, in some sort of a conflict or disagreement with an ex-partner and not having that active control to be responsible for the affairs of the deceased child.

And so I think this is a good amendment that we’re seeing here. It’s addressing a real limitation and shortcoming that existed in the legislation and one that is relevant in cases that are coming forward to this day.

And I guess what I wanted to do in the time that I have to debate this bill is also, you know, it’s been brought forward as basically a mechanism to resolve how a parent is going to be designated to be responsible for those funeral matters. And you know, I think conflict is something that exists in all relationships. Sometimes we have healthy conflict. Sometimes it’s unhealthy conflict. And certainly in a case where you have the death of a loved one, to have these kind of either unsatisfactory or unclear ways to resolve the conflict and move forward, things can devolve very quickly.

And so that’s why I think this is a reasonable change that has been proposed so that, you know, the parent who has been the legal guardian and responsible for the care of the child, that they also be the ones who are responsible in the case of an untimely death such as what is contemplated in this legislation. But I would say that in other types of conflict, you know, we certainly have no better example than our Office of the Ombudsman in providing mechanisms and tools for decision makers around how to get to fair decisions and resolve issues when they arise.

You’ll recall, Mr. Speaker, that we did have a reception last spring to recognize, I think it was the 50th anniversary of the Ombudsman’s office here in Saskatchewan, a ground-breaking office that provides for that dispute resolution mechanism.

They talked a lot about the fairness triangle. You’ll recall that that is a triangle with three sides that involved both the process based on a foundation of a relationship and then an outcome. It’s my understanding that recently the Office of the Ombudsman provided training on their fairness triangle model to a range of ministries, including the Legislative Assembly Service also participated in those presentations on this fairness triangle and dispute resolution mechanism. And I’m happy that we’ve been able to receive a copy of that presentation.

I think that everyone in this Assembly could benefit from learning about the fairness triangle and its application not just to this bill, but all areas of life and work. It is a framework that’s based on a non-defensive communication style that involves administrative fairness. I think we saw that demonstrated here in the Assembly today. It also involved trauma-informed practices. Those are so important in this day and age where, you know, we see trauma impacting on individuals right across society. And fundamental to that trauma-informed practice is self-awareness.

Also part of this framework is a commitment to continuous improvement, also being curious and not judgmental in our dealings when presented with a dispute. Being compassionate and using active listening, I mean, there’s entire books written on the subject. I encourage people to look that one up.

But I’ll just kind of end with this. So it’s been said that civility once lost can be regained, and we don’t have to accept every invitation to a fight. And so I think that those are wise words for us to remember here in this Assembly.

And I know that our critic will have much more to say on this small but important bill and amendments that we see to The Funeral and Cremation Services Act, and so with that I will move to adjourn debate on Bill No. 145.

The Speaker: — The member has moved to adjourn debate. Is it the pleasure of the Assembly to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

The Speaker: — Carried.

Bill No. 146

[The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion by the Hon. Ms. Eyre that Bill No. 146 — The King’s Bench Consequential Amendments Act, 2023 be now read a second time.]

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Meewasin.

Mr. Teed: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s an honour to be on my feet again today to speak to Bill No. 146, The King’s Bench Consequential Amendments Act, 2023. You know, as a new legislator I probably didn’t imagine how much legislation it takes in the chance of a change in the gender of a monarch. As someone who had lived most of my life under one monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II — may she rest in peace — you know, the idea that we would ever change seems very alien.

You know, the Queen’s passing actually happened during my Meewasin by-election campaign and actually happened, very sadly, on my birthday. And so it was certainly a sad day as someone who, you know, had followed the Queen and had really seen her as a national figure and a unity figure for Canada. Someone who I had gone out to the synchrotron in Saskatoon when she had come to Saskatoon so many years ago. You know, got to stand and sit on my parent’s shoulders and kind of see her, see her move through the crowd with, at the time it was Lynda Haverstock was the Lieutenant Governor.

And so yes, it was a sad day and didn’t really expect or consider that there was a lot of legislative changes that would need to be made in that ascension.

So what we have here is simply more housekeeping rules that replaces the reference to “Queen’s Bench” — Queen’s Rules, Regulations, Act — with “King’s Bench.” You know one of the first things that we saw was some of the folks that we knew who were Q.C.s [Queen’s Counsel] suddenly changed their titles to K.C. [King’s Counsel] for King’s Bench lawyers.

Like as we’ve said, and as my colleagues have canvassed, updates keep coming, but it just is a real testament to how deeply baked the “Crown” or “Her Majesty” was in our legal code for so long.

You know, we’ll likely see a century now of kings as we see the line of succession has been fairly well established now with King Charles; his son, William; his son, George. And so hopefully we won’t be having to amend these. But you know, if something is to happen, we will be ready in this legislature for sure, as we have other legislation that’s looking to make sure that pronoun use is the Majesty is referred to as “the Crown” or “Their” in the future.

So, Mr. Speaker, said enough on Bill 146, will let my colleagues speak to it a bit, and I will move to adjourn debate on Bill No. 146, The King’s Bench Consequential Amendments Act, 2023.

[15:45]

The Speaker: — The member has moved to adjourn debate. Is it the pleasure of the Assembly to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

The Speaker: — Carried.

Bill No. 148

[The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion by the Hon. Ms. Eyre that Bill No. 148 — The Film Content Information Act be now read a second time.]

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Regina Coronation Park.

Mr. Burki: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my honour and pleasure to be on my feet today to be a part of the debate on Bill 148, The Film Content Information Act. It’s really a very important bill in our daily life when we want to buy or purchasing any book, or looking into any movie or anything that we’re looking for, our children or for ourselves.

Content is one of the most important things that can give us what it is and give us a lot of good information. Especially I’m a father of seven daughters, so two of them are young. On weekends normally we watch media together with family. So it gives a lot of information about what we’re watching, and especially kids when they’re out with the parents, and especially if they are with the schools. So if they are watching any kind of thing, those kind of information should be in the content where we can make a good decision what should we have to show to our young children and what we have to be not.

Mr. Speaker, as we know the film industry was thriving in our province years ago. And one of my friends, he came from abroad and he came in category of skill. He was very talented and he refreshed his education over here in University of Regina. And he was really competent and a very hard-working person. But due to the cuts and crushing of the film industry rebate, he and his fellows, they moved to Ontario. So they are working out there. They have really a good job, and they have been really working with . . . [inaudible] . . . over the years. I wish we could be having the same rebate on the film tax credit to those people so that we could retain people over here in our province.

As we know that our economy will grow only when we can retain people in our province. It’s possible, doable to make sure we can make this place a place of affordability and to make sure we can retain people by providing this facilitation to them.

This bill is being moved forward from the government side on this floor of the Assembly which I appreciate for that. But along with that we make sure that people that are . . . We are doing something like that we should have to make sure we can do some legislation where we can attract people in this profession and also taking care of those people. They are with the film industry community, those that are theatre owners, creators, and professionals to work in our province and do businesses over here. It will work both economically as well and demographically. We will be a place where we’ll be attracting more people based on their services, based on their dedication for introducing or launching something that we would be proud as a province on that.

During my election campaign both in 2020 and 2023, I heard from many families the same stories. I heard from families their brother, sister, or their children were in the film industries, and they were really competent, very genius in that area. But unfortunately for not having opportunity in our province, they moved out of the province. I wish we could retain the people . . . [inaudible] . . . people I wish, I dream that we could have Los Angeles or Las Vegas that are very famous for those kind of things. We should have those in our province as well.

Mr. Speaker, I will look forward that we can attract more professional people in the film industries in our province, and we want that they can be a part of our growing economy. And we expect that they should have to be putting first their knowledge and good work in the industry of training and making a centre of excellence where our people in our province can get benefit from them, and we can produce more and more professional people over here.

Before I sit down I will say that we must have to make sure that what type of content and what the structure of the content will be. And will that be mandatory for each and every film or each and every production? And what will be the costs of that? Are some kind of other questions that at that time I will be not able to address all of those critical . . . But our critic for the bill, she will be looking into that and will be consulting the stakeholders of that and further whatever their debate, they will have to continue from this point.

So with this I will adjourn the debate on Bill 148, The Film Content Information Act, 2023. Thank you.

The Speaker: — The member has moved to adjourn debate. Is it the pleasure of the Assembly to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

The Speaker: — Carried.

Bill No. 149

[The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion by the Hon. Ms. Eyre that Bill No. 149 — The Franchise Disclosure Act be now read a second time.]

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Meewasin.

Mr. Teed: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again pleasure to be on my feet to speak to another bill before this House, this time Bill No. 149, The Franchise Disclosure Act.

Mr. Speaker, reviewing through the bill, this is an important piece of legislation that looks to ensure that anyone looking to start a small business in Saskatchewan through a franchise has the provincial government on their side. So, Mr. Speaker, you know, we on this side are always happy to see legislation that puts in place legislation that has teeth and that ensures that folks who are looking to start out on an entrepreneurial journey have the backing of their province and their government.

A few items I’d like to highlight within this bill. What we’re seeing is a bill that is ensuring that when someone goes into a franchise agreement, this bill makes sure to establish that there is an obligation to the franchisor to disclose important information to the prospective franchisee: material facts, financial statements, additional prescribed information and documents, written statement on any material changes concerning the franchisee.

These are all what is being established. What we’re seeing is this will apply to franchises operated wholly or partly in Saskatchewan. And what we’re seeing is a little bit of protection for franchisees in that they may rescind the agreement that they have made with a franchisor within about 60 days if the franchisor doesn’t honour requirements.

So all really common-sense legislation, common-sense ideas, common sense for people who are entering into a franchisee-franchisor relationship.

What this is also putting in place is that the franchisee will have the right to associate with other franchisees and may form or join organizations, and it also establishes a legal background for franchisees that they can take liabilities and damages alongside.

So, Mr. Speaker, again important legislation that will ensure that when folks are going into an entrepreneurial journey through purchasing of a franchise in Saskatchewan that they will be protected.

I know that we will have our critic review through this legislation, and more of my colleagues will put more comments on the record. But I can say that we welcome these amendments. We welcome ensuring that folks who are looking to start a small business are able to do so with confidence that their government will support them. And at this time then, I will move to adjourn debate on Bill No. 149, The Franchise Disclosure Act.

The Speaker: — The member has moved to adjourn debate. Is it the pleasure of the Assembly to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

The Speaker: — Carried.

Bill No. 150

[The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion by the Hon. Ms. Eyre that Bill No. 150 — The Securities (Saskatchewan Investors Protection) Amendment Act, 2023 be now read a second time.]

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Nutana.

Ms. Ritchie: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be on my feet for Bill No. 150, The Securities (Saskatchewan Investors Protection) Amendment Act, 2023. And you know, it’s funny because I think some of the comments I made just on the earlier bill might actually apply to this one in some respect because this is a bill that is primarily focused on designating an independent dispute resolution service by the Saskatchewan Securities Commission. It will allow for the service to set its own standards and also for the commission to make orders that are in the public interest. Certainly I am no stranger to that type of terminology. It’s rather broad in its application, and so I think that that will be worthy of some scrutiny by our critic to understand what is meant by that language.

Also the independent dispute resolution service will be able to order registrants to change conduct and practices and explain reasons for their actions. It will allow them to order the registrant to pay fees, forgive debts, waive contracts, meet insurance claims, and compensate complainants. It will require that correct information and credit ratings be provided, and it will order a registrant to not repeat privacy-violating conduct.

I don’t know if this is coming before us because of the events of last spring and the business dealings of Epic Alliance. As I’m sure you’ll recall, Mr. Speaker, that that was a very terrible situation of a business that was running afoul and taking investors’ money and using it improperly and more. So I’m not sure if these amendments are in direct response to that horrible situation that impacted many investors and is meant to sort of tighten up legislation coming out of that incident or not. But it did make me think and wonder about that when I saw this piece of legislation come forward.

I do know that this legislation will also increase the maximum administrative penalties from 100,000 to $1 million. That certainly seems to be a reasonable amendment and a necessary one to have, you know, effective penalties in place that will act as deterrents to those contemplating any type of legal misdemeanours.

Also I see that the independent dispute resolution service will be subject to confidentiality only when they’re undertaking Saskatchewan Securities Commission business. I don’t know what other business it might undertake that wouldn’t be subject to that kind of confidentiality requirement. Perhaps our critic can look into that a little bit further.

What else can I say about this? Well you know, certainly we do welcome greater oversight and decentralization. Oversight bodies should have the means to enforce their rulings. But you know, as always it’s important that there be appeals processes also for when, you know, the applicants take exception to the rulings that are coming forward.

We’ve seen time and again where those appeals processes here in Saskatchewan have been removed, and the only manner of recourse is to take it to the courts. You know, there can be many barriers to do that. Not to say that it isn’t appropriate in this case, however, but I just make mention of that.

[16:00]

You know, I did also note, in reviewing the minister’s remarks on this bill, that many of these amendments come forward based on the recommendations of the federal securities commission. And it leaves me to wonder, you know, what other recommendations may or may not have also come forward and not included in this legislation.

Certainly at a time when we see things like cryptocurrency scams, Ponzi schemes, and further requirements for environmental and social governance, that we need to ensure that our securities legislation is current and updated and is contemplating the full range of potential risks that investors may be experiencing here in Saskatchewan.

So I’m sure our critic will have more to say on these important matters, and with that I will move to adjourn debate on Bill No. 150.

The Speaker: — The member has moved to adjourn debate. Is it the pleasure of the Assembly to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

The Speaker: — Carried.

Bill No. 151

[The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion by the Hon. Mr. Duncan that Bill No. 151 — The SaskEnergy (Carbon Tax Fairness for Families) Amendment Act, 2023 be now read a second time.]

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Saskatoon Fairview.

Ms. Mowat: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to enter into debate again today, this time on Bill No. 151, the SaskEnergy amendment Act. Mr. Speaker, we have been engaged publicly and put some of our comments on the record on this topic already through some motions that have come through the Assembly.

This bill makes Saskatchewan the sole distributor of all natural gas in the province. Saskatchewan pays any tax to the feds from the General Revenue Fund and outlines the fact that SaskEnergy has no right to send the federal government emissions dollars. The minister’s in charge of distribution and delivery of natural gas, it outlines that. And that no one can sue anyone at SaskEnergy for flouting federal emission laws.

This legislation is no surprise. We have heard the intent behind these changes come from the government for some time now, and we have expressed our agreement with the general concept that SaskEnergy shouldn’t have to pay the carbon tax either, after some very concerning comments and actions that came out of the federal government recently in their exemption for home heating oil from the carbon tax, Mr. Speaker, which we know advantages residents in Atlantic Canada but does not advantage Saskatchewan residents, calling into question the fact that it’s not being fairly, evenly applied across the country, Mr. Speaker.

We know we are facing a cost-of-living crisis. We talk about that every day in this Assembly. It’s only reasonable that we should be provided with the same relief as other folks across the country. And it’s completely unacceptable to hear a federal minister implying, directly implying that if we want this exemption, we need to vote in more Liberals as our members of parliament, Mr. Speaker. Completely not on. Completely something that is being unfairly applied.

We will have to go through this and have a look at everything else that’s changing here, of course. Our job is to do our due diligence, so of course we’re going to be consulting with folks about the constitutional law that is at play here.

And we know, Mr. Speaker, that this is only one piece to the puzzle and it’s absolutely no excuse for the government to not be taking action on climate change. We have seen them bury their heads in the sand, not come up with a meaningful plan that will work to reduce emissions in Saskatchewan. And we need to see leadership from the government on this front as well and make sure that we are doing our part for the next generation, who expect so much more from us as legislators, when we refer to the climate, Mr. Speaker.

But with that, Mr. Speaker, I know many of my colleagues will want to weigh in further, but I’ll move to adjourn debate on Bill No. 151 for today.

The Speaker: — The member has moved to adjourn debate. Is it the pleasure of the Assembly to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

The Speaker: — Carried. I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. Mr. J. Harrison: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that this House do now adjourn.

The Speaker: — The Government House Leader moved to adjourn the House. Is it the pleasure of the Assembly to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

The Speaker: — Carried. We stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

[The Assembly adjourned at 16:06.]

Disclaimer: The electronic versions of the Legislative Assembly's documents are provided for information purposes only. The content of the documents is identical to the printed record; only the presentation differs unless otherwise noted. The printed versions are the official record for legal purposes.