What was said, and what was missing

The standard

What the public interest requires

Elected officials in Canada routinely contact the subjects of their public criticism before making statements, particularly when those statements involve serious characterizations of a private citizen's conduct. This is a basic principle of procedural fairness and is consistent with the standards that govern journalism, regulatory proceedings, and parliamentary conduct.

The public record does not show that Clarke contacted Dr. Goodenowe before the press conference, before the subsequent legislative statements, or before calling for police and regulatory investigations.

A direct response

A video response from Dr. Goodenowe

On March 17, 2026, Dr. Goodenowe recorded a video response addressed to residents of Saskatchewan. In the video, which runs approximately 31 minutes, Dr. Goodenowe sets out his scientific background, the operating model of the Centre, his account of the events involving Ms. Silvestri, and his position that all services provided to residents of Saskatchewan, including those of the Moose Jaw Vitality Project, are offered without charge. The video also features participants in the Centre's programs speaking about their own experiences. A full chapter guide is available on the corresponding response page.

The legal response

A defamation action filed

On March 4, 2026, OMQ Law wrote to Mr. Clarke on behalf of Dr. Goodenowe and the Centre. The letter set out the plaintiffs' position that statements made outside the Legislative Assembly are not protected by parliamentary privilege, identified specific allegations the plaintiffs viewed as defamatory, and demanded the removal of the relevant posts, a public correction, refraining from further statements, and the preservation of related records. A parallel letter was sent to Ms. Beck on March 9, 2026, addressing posts on Facebook, X, video, and the public release of the December 2 NDP letter to police.

On April 15, 2026, a Statement of Claim was issued in the Court of King's Bench for Saskatchewan, Judicial Centre of Regina, naming Ms. Beck and Mr. Clarke as defendants. The action is brought by Dr. Goodenowe and Lakeview Regional Wellness Centre Inc., represented by Lenczner Slaght LLP. The court file number is KBG-RG-00802-2026. The relief sought includes general, special, aggravated, and punitive damages, an injunction restraining further publication of the statements at issue, and a public retraction.

The allegations in the Statement of Claim have not been tested or adjudicated. The defendants are entitled to respond on the record.

The response

A letter to Ministers Cockrill, McLeod, and Carr

On April 19, 2026, Dr. Goodenowe wrote to Saskatchewan Health Minister Jeremy Cockrill, Justice Minister and Attorney General Tim McLeod, and Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, Seniors, and Rural and Remote Health Lori Carr. The letter formally opposes Bill 55 in its present form and offers a set of proposed amendments. It opens by recognizing the legitimacy of the government's underlying public safety objective and frames the concerns that follow as constructive alternatives that would achieve that objective through narrower means.

The letter raises three concerns. The first is overbreadth. Bill 55 does not narrow Saskatchewan's existing definition of "practice of medicine," which the Saskatchewan College of Pharmacy Professionals has itself acknowledged is exceptionally broad. Combined with new provisions that make a single act sufficient to prove an offence, the result is a regime that captures personal trainers, health food store employees, wellness coaches, regulated health professionals operating within their authorized scopes, and non-profit organizations offering free community wellness programs. The letter cites Supreme Court of Canada decisions, including Canada (AG) v. Bedford and R. v. Heywood, in which legislation found to capture conduct unrelated to its purpose has been struck down under Section 7 of the Charter.

The second concern is the delegation of investigative and prosecutorial powers to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, a professional self-regulatory body whose mandate is to regulate licensed physicians. The letter notes that police already possess authority to investigate unauthorized practice, that the Moose Jaw Police Service has confirmed an active investigation, and that the Crown has prosecuted such cases successfully under existing legislation. It also references the Canada Competition Bureau's published view that self-regulatory organizations are not the proper avenue for enforcement against non-members. The Supreme Court's distinction between regulatory and penal investigations in R. v. Jarvis is raised as a constitutional concern with the bill's combination of compulsion and prosecution powers in a single body.

The third concern is the practical effect on community wellness programs in Saskatchewan. The letter references the Moose Jaw Vitality Project as one example of the type of community-based, privately funded programs that the bill's overbreadth would put at risk. These programs operate outside government reimbursement systems and are designed so that participants continue working with their chosen medical and health care providers. The letter argues that prosecution risk under the proposed framework would discourage these programs at the cost of the people who benefit from them.

The letter closes with eight specific proposed amendments. Among them: keep the College's jurisdiction restricted to its registered members, raise the penalties available to police and Crown prosecutors to the levels Bill 55 proposes, narrow the definition of "practice of medicine" in Section 79 to distinguish clinical practice directed at specific individuals from general health education and wellness services, and add explicit exemptions for regulated health professionals operating within their authorized scope, Health Canada-licensed natural health products, health education and wellness coaching that does not involve individual diagnosis, and Indigenous healing practices.

The committee process

What happened in committee on May 4

Bill 55 was referred to the Standing Committee on Human Services on April 28, 2026. A member of Dr. Goodenowe's team monitored the Legislative Assembly's public calendar to track when the bill would be considered. The bill was taken up by the committee on May 4, 2026. Public notice of the May 4 committee meeting was not visible on the Legislative Assembly's calendar before the meeting occurred.

During the May 4 proceedings, Saskatchewan NDP MLA Meara Conway named Dr. Goodenowe and the Lakeview Regional Wellness Centre operation by name multiple times. Conway asked Minister of Health Jeremy Cockrill whether the situation at the Centre in Moose Jaw was the impetus for introducing Bill 55. Minister Cockrill responded that "the situation involving Mr. Goodenowe and his operation in the city of Moose Jaw" had "identified a gap" in the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan's authority, while also stating that the legislation "is really not driven by a single stakeholder."

Conway returned to the operation in subsequent questions, citing specific operational details including her stated understanding that "possibly eight" LLCs operate within "those four walls."

Dr. Goodenowe's April 19, 2026 letter to ministers, which raised constitutional and procedural concerns about the bill, was not referenced during the May 4 committee meeting. Dr. Goodenowe and Lakeview Regional Wellness Centre Inc. are plaintiffs in an active defamation action against the Leader of the Saskatchewan NDP, Carla Beck, and Saskatchewan NDP MLA Jared Clarke, filed April 15, 2026 in the Court of King's Bench (KBG-RG-00802-2026). That litigation context was not disclosed during the May 4 committee proceeding.

The full recording of the May 4, 2026 committee meeting is provided below. The official Saskatchewan Hansard transcript will be linked here when it is published. Mentions of Dr. Goodenowe and the Centre are flagged in the chapter guide.

Where Dr. Goodenowe and the Centre are referenced

MLA Conway's first question, asking whether the events involving the Goodenowe Health Centre were part of the impetus for Bill 55, begins at 5:13. Minister Cockrill's response, in which he states that the legislation is not driven by a single individual but that the situation involving Mr. Goodenowe and his operation in the city of Moose Jaw identified a gap in the College's authority, begins at 5:35.

MLA Conway returns to the Goodenowe Health Centre by name at 9:34, asking whether the College's inability to seek injunctive relief was one of the gaps the bill is intended to remedy. Minister Cockrill confirms at 10:52 that the inability to obtain an injunction was one of the gaps identified.

MLA Conway raises the operating structure of the Goodenowe Health Centre at 32:48, asking whether the bill's tools extend to corporations not registered in Canada operating through multiple LLCs, citing her stated understanding that "possibly eight" LLCs operate within "those four walls." She returns to the same operating structure at 38:45, raising a concern that the bill's injunctive relief provisions may apply only to natural persons rather than corporate entities.

Third reading and passage

Bill 55 passes on a voice vote

Later on May 5, 2026, the Standing Committee on Human Services reported Bill 55 back to the Assembly without amendment. The Minister of Health requested leave to waive consideration of the bill in Committee of the Whole and proceed directly to third reading. Leave was granted. The motion that Bill 55 be now read a third time and passed under its title was put to the Assembly and carried on a voice vote. The proceeding lasted approximately one minute. There was no recorded division and no debate.

Bill 55 then awaited royal assent.

The full recording of the May 5, 2026 third reading is provided below. The official Saskatchewan Hansard transcript for the sitting is also available.