Indigenous groups signal upcoming legal battle over Sask. First Act

The Saskatchewan First Act was borne out of meetings and consultations, but its a lack of consultation with Indigenous communities that has the act destined for a courtroom.

On Thursday, Saskatchewan Party government members voted unanimously to pass the act, known as Bill 88.

The government has said the bill is meant to assert provincial jurisdiction and prevent federal government intrusion.

Usually, bills pass with little fanfare outside of cheers and the sounds of hands slapping desks on the governing party's side of the aisle.

That happened on Thursday, but it was the presence of a large opposition in the public galleries that stole the attention.

Approximately 150 people from First Nations and Métis communities packed the benches to watch the proceedings.

As Opposition NDP members stood to vote no, the gallery stood as well — an unusual sight in the legislature.

Perhaps more unusual was the fact that many in the gallery on Thursday morning also watched committee on Wednesday in person.

On Wednesday, the Opposition introduced a motion in committee to have Indigenous guests appear as witnesses and give testimony about Bill 88, but that was voted down by Saskatchewan Party committee members.

Following proceedings on Thursday, Premier Scott Moe said the government was not bothered by the presence of opposition to the bill saying, it was democracy in action.

"We're very appreciative of when folks engaged at committee last night and engage today. We can be thankful for the democracy we have. And when people engage in that democracy, most certainly we're a government that's going to meet them and have those conversations as we have over the last number of months," he said.

Moe said he planned to meet with some people in attendance Thursday.

Moe called the discussions over the past few months "admittedly what is a sensitive conversation that we're finding our way through as we look ahead."

For First Nations and Métis leaders, the crux of the issue is an alleged lack of meaningful conversations, both in advance of the creation of the bill and leading up to its passage.