CONTENTS
Standing Committee on Privileges
TWENTY-NINTH
LEGISLATURE
of
the
Legislative Assembly of
Saskatchewan
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
Hansard
Verbatim Report
No.
1 — Wednesday, December 6, 2023
The Chair:
— I’d like to call to order the Standing Committee on Privileges. I’d like to
introduce the members in attendance. It’s Minister Harrison, Minister Carr, Ms. Lisa Lambert, Mr. Greg Ottenbreit from the
government; and from the opposition, Ms. Sarauer
and Ms. Conway.
And
just introduce the agenda. First thing is going to be the election of Deputy
Chair and the establishment of a steering committee that will go into the
consideration. I recognize the Government House Leader . . .
[inaudible interjection] . . . The first order of business is the
election of the Deputy Chair. Pursuant to the rules of the Legislative
Assembly, the Speaker is the Chair of the standing committee
and the Deputy Chair shall be an opposition member.
I’d
like to remind members of the process. I will first ask for nominations. Once
there are no further nominations, I will then ask a member to move a motion to
have a committee member preside as Deputy Chair. I will now call for nominations
for that position. I recognize Ms. Carr.
Hon. Ms. Carr:
— I will nominate Nicole Sarauer.
The Chair:
— The seconder? Don’t need a seconder? Okay, we’re good. Ms. Carr has nominated Ms. Sarauer to
the position of Deputy Chair. Are there any further nominations? Seeing none, I
would now invite one of the members to move that motion. I recognize the
Government House Leader.
Hon. Mr. J. Harrison:
—
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would move:
That Nicole Sarauer be elected to preside as Deputy Chair of the
Standing Committee on Privileges.
The Chair:
— It has been moved by the Government House Leader:
That Ms. Sarauer
preside as Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on
Privileges.
All in favour of the motion?
Some Hon. Members:
—
Agreed.
The Chair:
— Any opposed? Carried. I declare the motion carried.
Now
a motion for establishment of a steering committee. I ask the Government House
Leader to make a motion.
Hon. Mr. J. Harrison:
—
Sure. Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I would move:
That a steering committee be
appointed to establish an agenda and priority of business for subsequent
meetings and that the membership be comprised of the Chair, the Deputy Chair,
and Government House Leader; and further,
That the steering committee
shall meet time to time as directed by the committee or at the call of the
Chair, that the presence of all members of the steering committee is necessary
to constitute a meeting, and that substitutions from the membership of the
Standing Committee on Privileges be permitted on the steering committee.
I
so move.
The Chair:
— All in favour?
Some Hon. Members:
—
Agreed.
The Chair:
— Any opposed? Carried. Now the consideration of the order.
Consideration
of the order of reference adopted by the Legislative Assembly on November 22nd,
2023 as follows:
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.
The Chair:
— I recognize the Government House Leader.
Hon. Mr. J. Harrison:
—
Sure. Well thanks very much, Mr. Speaker, and thanks for your Chairmanship of
the committee and having the meeting held here today to discuss the matter that
had been referred to it by the House a couple of weeks ago.
So
basically what I’m going to do, Mr. Speaker, is read a
letter into the record of which you were the recipient, and which was cc’d to
both the Opposition House Leader and to myself. And there was a request that
the letter be used as a part of the consideration for this meeting here today.
Letter
is from B’nai Brith Canada. And I think that most
people are familiar with B’nai Brith which is the
advocacy organization for the Jewish community in Canada. And I will table the
letter, but I also will read it into the record:
Dear Speaker Weekes,
B’nai Brith
Canada is Canada’s oldest Jewish advocacy organization, nationally active since
1875. We write today to alert the members of the Saskatchewan legislature to
the deep concerns of the Jewish community regarding the recent demonstration
which disrupted the democratic functioning of the Assembly’s work and during
which extremely troubling and anti-Semitic slogans were chanted by protesters.
On October 7th, Israel was
the victim of an unprovoked bloody attack by several Palestinian terrorist
groups led by Hamas. Thousands of missiles were fired at Israeli civilian
targets. Some 1,200 Israelis were massacred by the terrorists in what can only
be described as a horrific and brutal atrocity.
Moreover 240 people,
including many children and elderly persons, were taken hostage. Residents of
Saskatchewan have joined other Canadians in calling for their immediate and
safe return. Canada has stood with the democratic world in condemning Hamas and
recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself. So has the Government of
Saskatchewan.
Yet these protesters felt
they had the right to disrupt the democratically elected legislature to openly
vilify Israel, portraying the Jewish state as the aggressor rather than the
victim of terrorism.
Instead of abhorring the
terror attack, the demonstrators shouted slogans calling for the obliteration
of Israel. In particular the phrase “from the river to
the sea” is hateful and calls for Israel to disappear and its territory to be
entirely absorbed by a future Palestinian state.
The slogan epitomizes the
Hamas manifesto which denies Jewish history, incites vicious anti-Semitism
worldwide, and promotes violence to destroy the Jewish state. In practice, the
slogan “from the river to the sea” has encouraged acts of terror against Jews
in Israel and elsewhere.
Jews are indigenous to Israel
with a history dating back many thousands of years. Jews have always dwelt in
the Holy Land, and denying their ancestry there is anti-Semitic incitement to
terrorism. The use of this slogan impacts the Jewish community here in Canada.
Attached please find our one-page informational document describing the
pernicious impacts this hateful slogan has on our community.
In 1947 Canada joined the large majority of United Nations members in adopting
resolution 181, which recognized Jewish statehood in the land where Jews have
always been indigenous. Hamas inherits the legacy of those who, at the time,
rejected the two-state solution which aimed to ensure self-determination for
both the Jewish and Palestinian peoples. Those refusing the right of the Jews
to their own country have been at war for 75 years.
The Abraham Accords, which
are fostering peace and co-operation between the Jewish people and their Arab
neighbours, offer a path we can all endorse. The call for the destruction of
Israel and the implicit support of violent aims that the slogan “from the river
to the sea” connotes must, on the other hand, be absolutely rejected and
condemned.
B’nai Brith
has enlarged its advocacy with the Government of Saskatchewan over the past two
years. We are pleased with the seriousness the province gives to combatting
anti-Semitism. In December 2022 to assist stakeholders better recognize and
react to hate aimed at Jews, Saskatchewan adopted the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance, IHRA, definition of anti-Semitism. The province thus
joined the Government of Canada and 40 other nations, five other Canadian provinces,
and 30 states of the United States in adopting the IHRA definition, recognized
globally as the most authoritative definition of anti-Semitism.
The definition is clear.
Criticism of the state of Israel and its government in the same manner as any
other nation is legitimate. Calling for its destruction and refusing to
acknowledge its legitimate right to exist is anti-Semitism.
We note that Premier Scott
Moe and Opposition Leader Carla Beck have been unequivocal in their
denunciation of the use of the hateful slogan by these protesters. We thank
them for that.
However
the Jewish community in Saskatchewan is concerned that members of the
Legislative Assembly may have aided to organize the demonstration, which we
understand is the first time ever that the legislature has been disrupted and
been unable to function.
In
particular, news reports carried by several
Saskatchewan news outlets suggest MLA Jennifer Bowes shared social media posts
promoting the protest and quote her as admitting she was in contact with the
protest organizers. The CBC report mentioned that members of the official
opposition caucus met with the protest organizers on November the 14th. Several
media quote protester Valerie Zink admitting the following: “That’s what
brought us to the legislature today, and the intention was always to deliver
the message in that way.”
It’s difficult to believe
that MLAs who helped facilitate this so-called peaceful protest were unaware
that the legislative session was about to be disrupted. The event was evidently
not spontaneous and required a large number of police
and security forces to eject the protesters. Videos and photos available online
show angry shouting protesters, efforts to remove the Israeli flag from the
legislature rotunda, and a situation that could easily have degenerated to
violence.
We do not agree with the
quote from MLA Meara Conway made in the Toronto Star that the protest
was “a peaceful disruption.” The fact that there were no arrests does not make
the incident less frightening for anyone not associated with these protesters.
The legislature has its own
rules of functioning, and as Speaker you can take the appropriate measures in
your rules of procedure, such as barring attendance of any of these protesters
from future sessions of the Assembly.
We are however more concerned
with the message certain MLAs have sent to the province’s Jewish community. No
MLA should endorse slogans that call for the obliteration of the Jewish
homeland. No MLA should condemn Israel for its right to defend itself. No MLA
should simply parrot the talking points of terrorist groups that are banned by
Canada.
We invite the legislature to
adopt a clearly worded motion to denounce the unprovoked attacks on Israel and
on innocent civilians by the terrorist group Hamas, and
affirm the right of Israel to respond and defend itself. We understand the
Privileges Committee will be meeting later this week. We ask it to ascertain
whether and how certain MLAs did in any way facilitate this disruption of the
legislature and allow for the hateful, anti-Semitic “river to the sea” slogan
to be chanted.
Jews have played an important
role in the growth and success of Saskatchewan since before Confederation.
Jewish farming colonies took root in what is today Saskatchewan as early as
1882. A historic synagogue in Edenburg, completed in
1908 attests to Jewish history in the province.
Today’s Jewish population is
primarily urban and continues to contribute to the well-being of the province
in so many ways. Yet the appalling, chaotic event at the legislature has made
the entire community feel targeted.
Thank you for your attention
to this matter.
Most warmly,
Michael Mostyn
Chief executive officer
B’nai Brith
Canada
Marvin Rotrand
National director, League for
Human Rights
B’nai Brith
Canada
And
I so table that letter, Mr. Speaker. And I would add the government’s
concurrence with the letter.
And
with that I would put a motion on the floor:
That this committee condemns
both the organizers’ and perpetrators’ actions on
November 20th, 2023, which resulted in a breach of privilege of the Legislative
Assembly of Saskatchewan; and
That this committee expresses
its gratitude and appreciation for the professional work of the legislative
district security unit, ushers, commissionaires, Sergeant-at-Arms, and all
legislative staff in dealing with the breach of privilege; and further,
That this committee requests
that the legislative district security unit, in co-operation with the
legislative staff, review the incidents on November 20th, 2023
and develop proposals to prevent further breaches of privilege.
I
so move.
The Chair:
— The Government House Leader moved:
That this committee condemns
both the organizers’ and perpetrators’ actions on
November 20th, 2023, which resulted in a breach of privilege of the Legislative
Assembly of Saskatchewan; and
That this committee expresses
its gratitude and appreciation for the professional work of the legislative
district security unit, ushers, commissionaires, Sergeant-at-Arms, and all
legislative staff in dealing with the breach of privilege; and further,
That this committee requests
that the legislative district security unit, in co-operation with the
legislative staff, review the incidents on November 20th, 2023
and develop proposals to prevent future breaches of privilege.
Any
comments? I recognize Ms. Conway.
Ms. Conway:
— Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chair. I have a few comments I want to put on the
record. I’m just having a look here at the motion. There have been a lot of
things said in the Legislative Assembly to date, and I think it’s important for
the opposition to correct the record on a few accounts because we’ve seen quite
a performance, frankly, from that Government House Leader on this matter.
[15:45]
I
want to begin by reading into the record new information that this opposition
has obtained since the last time this matter was touched on in the Assembly.
I’m going to begin by reading a record that I wrote to the director of the
legislative district security unit on November 29th, 2023
as it’s quite pertinent to this matter and to this motion. Again
this was November 29th, 2023:
Dear Ms. Herman,
As official critic for
democracy and Deputy House Leader, I am reaching out about a serious matter
that has come to the attention of members of the Saskatchewan NDP caucus.
On November 22nd, 2023, House
Leader Jeremy Harrison reported the following to the House as outlined at page
4754 of Hansard:
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 . . .
MLAs and cabinet ministers
were limited in their movement of the Assembly because we were locked in a
secure location during the occupation.
That’s
the end of the quote.
Saskatchewan NDP caucus
members were not locked in a secure location. Saskatchewan NDP caucus members
were not asked to follow any protocols or even informed of any. In fact Saskatchewan NDP caucus members continued to roam about
the building visiting with guests. For example, the member for Regina Rosemont
went upstairs to speak with three attending school groups.
Mr. Harrison’s account
suggests government members received different treatment from legislative
district security unit staff than Saskatchewan NDP caucus members. Members of
the Saskatchewan NDP caucus are understandably concerned and seeking
clarification.
I look forward to a prompt
response.
Sincerely . . .
Signed by myself, critic for democracy,
Deputy House Leader
And
the Speaker, the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the minister responsible for the
legislative district security unit, Paul Merriman, were all copied on this
letter.
On
December 4th, earlier this week, I received a response from the director of
legislative district security unit, and she writes:
To Meara Conway,
Thank you for your letter
dated November 29, 2023 regarding the disruption that
occurred during the Legislative Assembly on November 20, 2023.
On November 20, ’23 members
of the legislative district security unit did not provide direction to
government officials to lock themselves in a secure location nor did members of
LDSU lock any individual or government official in a secure location. If
individuals chose to lock themselves in a secure location, it was a
determination made by those individuals. Accordingly
Saskatchewan NDP caucus members received the same treatment as government
members by the LDSU.
I trust this alleviates any
concerns you and the other Saskatchewan NDP caucus members may have in this
regard.
Certainly
our concerns about the appearance of different treatment were alleviated by
this letter, but it does raise questions about that Government House Leader’s
account of events, what was suggested both directly and indirectly about what
happened that day. And this opposition has always been clear that the way that
this event is being treated and discussed by this Sask
Party government is all about distracting from its own failures.
Mr.
Speaker, in terms of condemning speech, which this motion would have us do, we
must tread carefully. This is the people’s House. It’s important to note that
the expression at issue here, political speech at the legislature, would
receive the highest possible protection under the Charter. This is the place
where the protection of expression is most robust, and we are not the arbiters
of acceptable speech.
The
right to political expression is considered the lifeblood of any democratic
society. Underlying values include democratic discourse, truth-seeking, and
personal fulfillment. There are few, if any, rights
of such fundamental importance. Political speech is at the very core of section
2(b) protection, being that it is vital to the democratic process. And it may
only be curtailed “in service of the most compelling governmental interest.”
This
is not what we would have done, Mr. Speaker. We lost our question period, one
of the few tools we have to hold the government to
account. Individuals in this place — and by that I
mean members of this Legislative Assembly — don’t have to agree with the
methods and content of speech in order to recognize that people have a right to
be here.
So
again, we tread very carefully. We must not get into rubber-stamping speech we
agree with and denouncing the speech that expresses views we don’t agree with,
which is precisely what this government is asking us to do with this motion, is
my fear.
Disruptions
in this place have taken different forms over the years, including, I would
note, by members of government themselves. Interrupting and suspending the
business of the legislature has been a tradition used by parties in
Saskatchewan to protest against specific issues or
treatment.
The
NDP [New Democratic Party] used it most effectively in the 1980s to stop a bill
that would have eventually privatized SaskEnergy. The
rules were rewritten such that the practice was outlawed in the ’90s. In the
1970s the Conservatives of the day walked out of the legislature. And I’ve
reviewed an article, a media article about that, and it appears that the House
was suspended until they returned. A farm protest occupied the Legislative
Building in 2000 for a couple of days, as well as overnight, and the building
went into a lockdown, which essentially meant that the government couldn’t
operate.
Did
we on this side once call to shut down anti-masking protests happening outside
of this building? Never. We took them on. We disagreed with them, but we fought
them on the merits. We didn’t try to suppress them or condemn their speech.
I
just want to refer also that this is consistent with the comments of the
Premier himself. On September 14th, 2021 on Twitter he
indicated the appropriate place for people to disagree and protest policy
decisions is at the provincial legislature, not at our hospitals and health
care facilities.
Asking
this House of democracy to condemn individuals who come here to petition their
legislature for a ceasefire is not something that we can do. It bears noting,
since the latest chapter of this bloody conflict began, 1,200 Israelis and over
16,000 Palestinians, including over close to 7,000 innocent children, have died
since October 7th.
On
this side we have spoken openly about the tragic loss of life on both sides,
whether Israeli or Palestinian. Our leader’s comments on this conflict have
been a call to understanding, to empathy, and for peace. She has called
repeatedly for the release of all hostages, and she has called for a ceasefire.
Saskatchewan
people believe that the loss of any innocent life is a tragedy. We worry that
the contents of this motion and the approach of this government is further
dividing the communities of our province that need to be brought together at a
difficult time. Saskatchewan people have a proud history of standing up for
human rights and advancing peace across the world.
And
we have seen this government, desperate to distract from their failures, their
scandals, as they limp from crisis to crisis, going on the offensive. What’s
more, the group that came here that day was a broad cross-section of society.
There were campus groups. There were social work students. There was a number of individuals from one mosque in Saskatoon. A
respected imam attended. Peace activists attended, many different individuals.
And you can see even from the video posted by protesters that the entire first
row of the east gallery didn’t even stand or join in the chant for ceasefire.
It
was disgusting and, frankly, dangerous to see the Government House Leader and
even the Premier attempt to label us on this side as extremists, including the
member for Coronation Park — the only member, the only Muslim member on our
side and one of the few in the legislature who has never received so much as a
parking ticket. He is now facing questions from his community about being
labelled an extremist by the Premier.
It’s
disgusting to see this government ramp up this rhetoric. That man — that
gentle, thoughtful, hard-working man who has contributed much to his community
in so many ways, who has raised seven beautiful daughters — he welcomed and
introduced members from his community into the legislature that day, and then
he got labelled an extremist by the Sask Party
government for doing it.
That
has to stop. These are the kinds of loaded antics
we’ve come to expect, who take more and more cues from Trump-style politics.
It’s divisive, and frankly it doesn’t play well in Saskatchewan.
With regard to
the third paragraph of the motion, Mr. Speaker, this event was then used as a
pretext to put in place policies to restrict who could enter the galleries,
require people to give names and addresses, requiring guests to give 72 hours’
notice. This was heavy-handed, and we are on record strongly opposing those
measures that could have a chilling effect on people’s ability or desire to
participate in their democracy. So we are very
concerned and certainly not in agreement with those kinds of approaches.
Really
what we saw before when this was first raised, Mr. Speaker, and what we’re
seeing today is, we believe, an attempt to distract from the record of this
government. The Government House Leader’s earlier accusations of NDP
involvement in this disruption, which appear to be referenced to some degree in
the letter read into the record, are simply not true. They were unfounded and
they were made in the complete absence of proof, which is precisely why you
made the ruling you did.
We
had a Government House Leader accuse us of being extremists, ramping up
divisive rhetoric. We believe this is because they want to distract from their
record. But we believe that nothing is lower than trying to use this conflict
halfway across the world, so steeped in pain, in misunderstanding, in
entrenched views, to further sow division in this House and in this province.
We will not feed into this, Mr. Speaker. We will not give in to notions of us
versus them. We will not value some lives over others. And we will not condemn
political speech in this House of democracy.
Our
entire caucus has been meeting with members from Saskatchewan’s Jewish
community who, I might add, hold a range of views on this conflict. We’ve also
been meeting with members of Muslim communities who again hold a range of views
on this conflict. We’ve met with many individuals. Many understandably feel
very strong about this conflict.
The
Government House Leader has read one letter into the record from individuals
outside of this province. I note and emphasize that individuals from our caucus
have met with and broken bread with members of the local chapter of this
organization, the Saskatoon chapter.
We
valued those conversations. Those conversations will continue. The letter we
received from that chapter had a very different tone than the one read into the
record today. It raised concerns, yes, but it was very constructive
and it was very conciliatory. We have received on this matter hundreds of
letters, Mr. Speaker, from individuals across the province: teachers, doctors,
data analysts, geneticists, students, and others.
But
there is one from which I want to read in particular because
it is from a Saskatchewan individual, a Jewish individual who is also active in
a national Jewish human rights organization called Independent Jewish Voices.
And
she writes:
It cannot be inherently
violent to call for your own dignity to be respected. “From the river to the
sea, Palestine will be free” is not hate speech. It’s simply a call for
Palestinian liberation and a call for the freedom and human rights of
Palestinians to be respected in their homeland.
It
is crucial to distinguish between supporting a cause for justice and promoting
hatred. And of course when this slogan became an
issue, Mr. Speaker, Jennifer Bowes made a statement, a nuanced statement. And
she removed a like on a social media post out of respect for the fact that this
statement is fraught, and in recognition that it is deeply offensive to others but it does not mean the same thing to everyone.
[16:00]
The
best we can do as legislators operating on the other side of the world of this
conflict is try as much as we can to foster a dialogue between the
representative communities that we serve, to lean into empathy and humanity,
and to spark hope for a lasting peace. We on this side will continue to do the much needed work of bringing communities together to call
for an end to this violence and for a lasting peace.
True
leaders bring people together, look for better paths forward. They don’t try to
wedge communities or sow division even if there is an opportunity for a quick
headline, a political point, or a quick and easy distraction from a crisis. We
will not be supporting this motion with the opposition because we believe that
it doesn’t work towards the goals that we’ve stated. It will result in further
division. Thank you.
The Chair:
— You read two letters. Are you tabling those?
Ms. Conway:
— I read an excerpt from a letter. I don’t have that person’s permission to
enter it into the record, but I could undertake to request permission. But I
don’t have it with me today. I don’t have the person’s permission.
The Chair:
— Okay. It was two letters? One letter you wrote?
Ms. Conway:
— Oh, I’m sorry. I do have those letters.
The Chair:
— Yes.
Ms. Conway:
— Yes, sorry. The two letters you were referring to are . . . Yes. So I have a letter from myself to the director of
legislative district security dated November 29, 2023, and then a response
dated December 4th, 2023.
The Chair:
— Thank you. I also just want to recognize the Government House Leader tabled
the letter he read into the record from the B’nai Brith
as well. Discussion? I recognize the Government House Leader.
Hon. Mr. J. Harrison:
—
Sure. I’m not going to be lengthy, Mr. Speaker. You know, I would say that
deliberations when you’re in the Privileges Committee are a serious matter. I
didn’t come here to make political speeches, so I’m not going to. But it is
disappointing though that the opposition would take this opportunity to
literally make political speeches. Happy to have a debate in question period.
We do that every day, but when we’re down here . . .
This
committee meets very rarely. I actually can recall
only one other meeting in the last 16 years, and I’ve been on this committee, I
think, over that period of time. It’s a serious matter. I mean when something
comes down here, this is not because we’re playing silly politics. And it’s
disappointing. It’s disappointing. I would just say that, and I’ll leave it
there with regard to the comments from that member.
What
I would say though is disappointing as well in her comments, on kind of not
tone but fact, really is the attack on B’nai Brith
and the questioning of the sincerity of what was submitted from this
organization — they’ve had this letter for a week — about what they told us and
how this impacted them. I very factually read into the record what was said.
She’s questioning that. And I think that says probably everything you need to
know about this debate and about where the different sides of the legislature
line up on this.
The
fact is the House was shut down. The fact is that there was “grave disorder,”
and that is a term in the Rules and Procedures where the House was shut
down by Mr. Speaker because we were unable as an Assembly to do our work.
That’s about as serious a matter as it gets. And I talked about this in the
Chamber. It’s about as serious as it gets. And that’s why we’re here.
And
that’s why I put this motion before the Assembly, frankly, which I think is pretty reasonable and pretty balanced. We could have put a
motion into the Chamber, into this Assembly with a majority, that could have
gone much further, that could have called for very real sanctions. We didn’t do
that because what we put here, I think, is a very balanced, very balanced — if
not even going onto one side — approach to dealing with this.
So
the members can . . . I wouldn’t say the members, I would say that
member can treat this Assembly or treat this committee as some sort of silly
partisan game. It’s not. And we’re not here because this is some silly,
partisan game. We’re here because we weren’t able to
do our work as members because of grave disorder.
And
what we have put in front of the committee — condemning those who were
responsible for this; commending those who dealt with this, our security staff,
and asking for them to do some work and make a recommendation about how it can
be prevented from happening again — that is the absolute picture of
reasonableness. And the fact that that member can’t even support that, I think
should tell anybody watching everything they need to know.
The Chair:
— Any other comments? Yes, Ms. Sarauer.
Ms. Sarauer:
— I have no other comments other than Ms. Conway who spoke very well, spoke on
behalf of all of us. And I think we’re ready to vote on the motion.
The Chair:
— Well we need to go into the question before the committee:
That this committee condemns
both the organizers’ and perpetrators’ actions on
November 20th, 2023, which resulted in a breach of privilege of the Legislative
Assembly of Saskatchewan;
That this committee express
its gratitude and appreciation for the professional work of the legislative
district security unit, ushers, commissionaires, Sergeant-at-Arms, and all
legislative staff in dealing with the breach of privilege; and further,
That this committee requests
that the legislative district security unit, in co-operation with the
legislative staff, review the incidents on November 20th, ’23 and develop
proposals to prevent future breaches of privilege.
All
those in favour of the motion please raise your hand. I count four. Opposed?
Two. The motion is carried.
Okay.
So since the committee is discussing a substantive
report pursuant to rule 135(1), I would ask for a member to move a motion to
move in camera. Ms. Carr moves. All in favour?
Some Hon. Members:
—
Agreed.
The Chair:
— Carried. Opposed? Carried. We’ll go in camera. Would it be okay if all the
Clerks stay in attendance?
[The
committee continued in camera from 16:07 until 16:20.]
The Chair:
— We’re back in session, and the time is 4:20. So before you is
the first report of the Standing Committee on Privileges committee. I recognize
the Government House Leader.
Hon. Mr. J. Harrison:
—
Sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think all members have had a chance
to review the first report. And thank you very much to the LAS [Legislative
Assembly Service] staff for so rapidly producing the report based on the
discussion that just went on.
With
that, I would move the following motion:
That the draft first report
of the Standing Committee on Privileges be adopted and presented to the
Assembly.
The Chair:
— The Government House Leader has moved:
That the draft first report
of the Standing Committee on Privileges be adopted and presented to the
Assembly.
All
in favour say aye.
Some Hon. Members:
—
Aye.
The Chair:
— Opposed.
Some Hon. Members:
—
Nay.
The Chair:
— Nay. Two opposed. Recorded division, 4 to 2.
I
would entertain a motion to adjourn the committee. Mr. Ottenbreit moved. We are
adjourned.
[The
committee adjourned at 16:21.]
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.