This year, New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs took a stand. In changing a school policy to require schools to talk to a student’s parents before recognizing a student’s claim of a new gender identity, he was the first Canadian premier in years to stand against modern gender identity theory and in favour of parental rights. He has staked the leadership of his party and the province on this issue. So far, he remains standing. But will he remain standing after the next provincial election?

Higgs’ Stand

In May 2023, Higgs’ government changed Policy 713, which laid out the province’s policy on sexual orientation and gender identity matters in public schools. It made three substantial changes:

1. Students under the age of 16 had to get their parents’ permission to change their name on official school documentation. Students who were unwilling to talk to their parents about a change in their gender identity would be referred to a professional (e.g. a social worker) to help them speak to their parents about their transition.
2. Wording that allowed students to participate in extracurricular activities “consistent with their gender identity” was dropped, presumably to give schools greater leeway to limit participation in extracurricular activities based on biological sex.
3. It mandated that every school must have a private universal changing area and washroom and refrain from making all public washrooms gender neutral.

The first change in particular – requiring students under the age of 16 to get parental consent for a name change in school – is a big win for the principle that parents have the responsibility to raise and educate their children. Before this change, students could – and did – socially transition at school (e.g. change their name, use new pronouns, or dress as the opposite sex) but keep this transition hidden from their parents at home. Premier Higgs had specifically mentioned the skyrocketing rates of rapid onset gender dysphoria as a justification for the policy. (Rapid onset gender dysphoria refers to when someone, typically a teenage girl, suddenly identifies as transgender after never giving any prior indication that they were struggling with gender confusion.)

Recent survey data suggests that Higgs’ changes are in line with popular opinion. Forty-three percent of Canadians believe that parents should be informed and give their consent for a school to recognize their child’s new name, pronouns, or gender identity. A further 35% agree that parents should at least be notified of these changes. A mere 14% of Canadians think that children should be able to identify however they want without their parents knowing or consenting.

And yet, there is a debate on whether taking a stand in favour of parental rights and against modern gender identity theory is a winning strategy politically. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe obviously thinks it is. This past fall, his government followed New Brunswick’s lead and went a step further by passing a parental bill of rights in education, with Premier Moe stating, “I believe the leading experts in children’s upbringing are their parents.”

Other commentators suggest that this isn’t a politically winsome issue, citing Manitoba’s recent election results. In that race, former Premier Heather Stefanson campaigned in Manitoba’s October election on a promise to review and update the province’s policies around parental involvement in their children’s education, but lost her re-election bid.

And some other governments are sitting squarely on the fence on this issue. Ontario Minister of Education Stephen Lecce restated that the government of Ontario recognized that parents should be involved in the education of their children. Since then, the Ontario government has been silent on the issue. The Alberta United Conservative Party voted in favour of adopting Higgs’ school policy at their last convention. However, Premier Danielle Smith would not commit to implementing the policy.

Higgs’ Opposition

Premier Higgs has staked the leadership of his party on this issue. In the summer of 2023, he held a comfortable majority government, holding 29 of the 49 seats in the New Brunswick legislature. The change to Policy 713, however, angered many of his fellow Progressive Conservative MLAs and fractured his caucus, leading to “endless meetings” on the topic. Things came to a head when six of his cabinet ministers and two more backbench MLAs failed to show up for their House duty to protest their leader’s handling of the issue, giving the Progressive Conservatives only 20 votes in the legislature and the opposition party 20 votes as well (the Speaker of the House normally does not vote). Two of his cabinet ministers resigned their posts but remained within the caucus. If disgruntled MLAs were to vote with the opposition parties on a confidence vote, the Higgs government could collapse.

Furthermore, a majority of the Progressive Conservative riding association presidents attempted to trigger a leadership race to replace Higgs as leader of their party. That effort failed, albeit narrowly. At the same time, the New Brunswick Children and Youth Advocate released a report reviewing the changes to Policy 713, and strongly opined against the policy changes.

Higgs’ Future

Faced with this precarious situation, Higgs threatened to call a snap election prior to the next scheduled election in October 2024 as a way to force his caucus to fall in line. Such a snap election could be viewed as a referendum on his changes to Policy 713 with the possibility that some of his dissident MLAs would be replaced by MLAs who support his position on parental rights. Higgs even went so far as to hire a campaign manager and to deck out a new campaign bus with his likeness and campaign slogan emblazoned on the side.

A fall snap election didn’t materialize, however, as the Progressive Conservative MLAs who criticized Higgs’ change to the Policy 713 supported his government on other pieces of legislation throughout the fall legislative sitting. Higgs didn’t introduce many new pieces of legislation this fall and finished passing the other bills left over from the spring session, suggesting that Higgs is preparing to call a snap election in the spring. Currently, his Progressive Conservative Party is trailing in the polls but narrowly ahead in the seat projections, suggesting that the next election will be close. In a unique move, Higgs is soliciting campaign donations from not just New Brunswickers but Canadians across the country to support his re-election bid.

Higgs’ stand for parental rights and against modern gender theory drew Faytene Grasseschi, one of the leaders of the Christian political advocacy organization 4MyCanada to seek the Progressive Conservative nomination in one riding in the next New Brunswick election.

Regardless of when the next election is, it very well might be a referendum on parental rights and modern gender theory.

Canada’s Future

As such, the result of the next New Brunswick election could be a bellwether for if and how other provincial parties will wade into this issue. Saskatchewan’s Premier Moe is already championing this issue but Manitoba’s former Premier Stefanson lost an election running in favour of parental rights (albeit as a very small part of her campaign). Alberta and Ontario are sitting on the fence.

Who will break the deadlock? As of right now, it seems like the balance will tilt in favour of whichever side wins the next New Brunswick election. If the Progressive Conservatives under Higgs win on a platform that prominently champions parental rights and pushes back against modern gender theory, it could benefit parental rights in other provinces. If, however, they lose an election that is seen as a referendum on modern gender theory, then we may go back into an era where provincial governments of all stripes are unwilling to touch the issue.

Saskatchewan is aiming to be the first province in Canada to enshrine a parental bill of rights into its education legislation.

The story behind this legislation started several months ago, when New Brunswick announced that it would change its school policies to require schools to obtain the consent of parents before allowing a child under the age of 16 to adopt a new gender identity at school. Saskatchewan’s premier, Scott Moe, soon announced that he would implement a similar policy in his province.

After Premier Moe announced that he would implement this policy, a LGBTQ legal advocacy organization challenged the new policy in court. They argued that the policy would lead to discrimination and would misgender children. The provincial child advocate also claimed that the policy would violate “the rights of students to gender identity and expression.” (The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not mention gender identity or expression, but the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code does.) The judge granted an injunction to stop the policy from coming into effect until the court made a final decision.

Premier Moe was undeterred, stating that “Our government is extremely dismayed by the judicial overreach of the court blocking implementation of the Parental Inclusion and Consent policy – a policy which has the strong support of a majority of Saskatchewan residents, in particular, Saskatchewan parents. The default position should never be to keep a child’s information from their parents… It is in the best interest of children to ensure parents are included in their children’s education, in their classrooms and in all important decisions involving their children.”

Following this strong statement, the very first piece of legislation introduced in Saskatchewan’s fall legislative sitting was a parental rights bill that invokes the notwithstanding clause. The notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows provinces to override certain rights and freedoms for a certain length of time. The purpose of this clause is to ensure that elected parliaments and legislatures, rather than the courts, have the final say on laws and policies. Unlike the United States, where the constitution and the courts reign supreme, Canada was built on a model of government that holds the elected parliament as supreme.

Here is the full list of rights enshrined in this legislation:

A parent or guardian of a pupil has the right to:

(a) act as the primary decision-maker with respect to the pupil’s education;

(b) be informed on a regular basis of the pupil’s attendance, behaviour and academic achievement in school;

(c) consult with the pupil’s teachers and other employees of the school with respect to the pupil’s courses of study and academic achievement;

(d) have access to the pupil’s school file;

(e) receive information respecting the courses of study available to the pupil, including online learning, and to make decisions as to which courses of study the pupil enrols in;

(f) be informed of the code of conduct and administrative policies, including discipline and behaviour management policies, of the school;

(g) be informed of any disciplinary action or investigation taken by the school in relation to the pupil’s conduct;

(h) if the pupil has been expelled from school, request a review and reconsideration of the expulsion after a year;

(i) be informed and consulted in relation to the pupil’s school attendance problems;

(j) be consulted or request a review in relation to the pupil’s capacity to learn;

(k) excuse the pupil from participating in the opening exercises [of religious instruction classes];

(l) be consulted before any medical or dental examination or treatment is provided to the pupil;

(m) if sexual health content is to be presented to pupils in the school:

1. at least 2 weeks before the sexual health content is presented to the pupils, be informed by the principal of:
   
   a) the subject-matter of the sexual health content; and
   
   b) the dates on which the sexual health content is to be presented to the pupils; and
   
   
2. if the parent or guardian so chooses, withdraw the pupil from the presentation of the sexual health content by giving written notice to the principal;

(n) if the pupil is under 16 years of age, provide consent before the pupil’s teachers and other employees of the school use the pupil’s new gender-related preferred name or gender identity at school; and

(o) be a member of the school community council of the school.

We applaud the government of Saskatchewan for not only taking a stand on the issue of gender identity but also for taking the rights and responsibilities of parents seriously in this legislation. This type of legislation is one of ARPA’s recommendations in our newly released Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity report. We hope that other provinces will follow Saskatchewan’s cue and take greater steps to safeguard parental authority in educational matters.

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski: EDMONTON, Alberta, March 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Alberta government will consider changes to its human rights law to give parents more control over what their children will be taught in school, according to a Calgary Sun report.

“Though there is some coverage of this issue under existing rules governing schools, the decision of parents would now be recognized as a fundamental human right,” the report explained.

(more…)