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.

In the last few years, the month of June and then the entire month of July have been designated “pride month” or even “pride season.” This celebration of same-sex sexual activity and transgender identities is one of the obvious signs that our country has increasingly abandoned a Christian view of gender and sexuality.

But this summer, we saw signs of hope.

Premier Blaine Higgs of New Brunswick took the first step. Earlier this year, his 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:

The first change in particular – requiring students under the age of 16 to get parental consent for their name change in the school – is a big win for the principle that parents have the responsibility to raise and educate their children. Before this change, it was common for students to 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, very suddenly identifies as transgender.

A couple of months later, Saskatchewan followed suit, also requiring that parental consent for students under the age of 16 to change their pronouns, name, or gender identity in school. Premier Scott Moe took to social media to explain himself: “I’ve been asked what experts we consulted in creating the Parental Inclusion and Consent policy. I believe the leading experts in children’s upbringing are their parents.”

Manitoba Premier Heather Stefanson, in the midst of a provincial election, also is campaigning to review and update the province’s policies around parental involvement in their children’s education.

The Ontario Minister of Education Stephen Lecce also recently announced that the government of Ontario was also planning to change their school policies so that parents could be more involved in the education of their children.

While many media reports and LGBTQ2S+ groups have decried these changes, recent survey data suggests that these 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.

Why is this all important?

These developments are a long-awaited step away from governments’ unquestioning embrace of transgenderism and towards regaining parental control over education. Christians should celebrate these changes and either thank elected officials for making this change or petition their own provincial representatives to follow New Brunswick’s, Saskatchewan’s, and Ontario’s example.

Those who support a policy to keep a child’s gender identity secret from parents are saying, in effect: “We don’t trust parents to know what is best for their kids. The home isn’t the safest place for children to be. Lots of moms and dads are ignorant and abusive towards their children and so public school staff, rather than parents, should be entrusted with guiding children through such intimate matters.”

There are a host of problems with that mentality, but let’s just point out two. First, nearly all parents know and love their children more than any teacher will. Second, God has given the primary responsibility and authority over children to parents because God designed children to be born to one man and one woman who are committed to each other in a loving relationship. Teachers, government bureaucrats, or even pastors don’t inherently have this authority or responsibility because children are not fundamentally entrusted to them. Our law even recognizes that teachers act on authority delegated by parents. Delegated authority, of course, can be revoked.

Tempering expectations

However, we should also fully understand how long a road is before us. For example, New Brunswick’s Policy 713 still states that:

New Brunswick and Saskatchewan have initiated these policy changes not so much because their cabinet ministers actually believe that a transgender identity is wrong. We can be thankful that they have taken a step towards recognizing the responsibilities that parents have in the lives of their children. But we should also encourage our political leaders and fellow citizens to consider the equally fundamental question of where our sexual and gender identity comes from. Are these identities received from God? Or are they up to individual choice?

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has provided a petition (click here) petition (click here) calling on the Legislature of BC, AB, and SK to amend their respective human rights codes and acts to protect free expression. We encourage our readers to print it off, get some signatures, and follow the instructions on the petition: (more…)

Stand Up for Freedom Canada sat down with John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms , after a presentation he made for Alberta ARPA chapters in Edmonton this spring. In this video Mr. Carpay explains the work he does and the opportunity for Western Canadians to stand up for freedom by reforming their human rights codes. (more…)

The National Post published an editorial on July 3rd, titled “Taking the free speech campaign to the provinces”. They note that, now that the Federal hate speech provision has been repealed, those provinces with hate speech provisions should be the next to reform. (more…)

 

In light of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s ruling that laws which would allow provincial officials to refuse to perform marriages against their religious beliefs would be unconstitutional, Member of Parliament Maurice Vellacott (from Saskatoon) wrote the following letter to the provinces Minister of Justice, urging him to consider Ontario’s example. What follows is the letter:

(more…)

ARPA Note: Read EFC’s quality commentary on this decision here, which notes that the court “stated that government practices and policies could be put in place that would ensure that both the constitutional rights of marriage commissioners and the legal rights of couples to access marriage services would be respected.”

Toronto Sun, Jan 10, 2011: A Saskatchewan court has determined that, regardless of personal religious beliefs, civil commissioners in the province must marry gay couples when asked to do so. Following proposed legislation that would allow provincial officials the right to refuse to perform marriages that conflict with their religious beliefs, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was asked to rule on whether the very idea of such amendments would be constitutional. Read more

Saskatoon StarPhoneix, Dec 16 2010 : Following is the viewpoint of Arnot, chief commissioner of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. Professor Ken Norman recently observed that the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission is “marching to a different drum” (SP, Dec.3). He is absolutely correct. The commission has proposed innovative changes to the Human Rights Code designed to give it the tools to provide the best service to Saskatchewan citizens. (more…)

Karen Selick, National Post · Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2010: The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to reconsider 20-year-old jurisprudence that limits free speech. The case under appeal is The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission vs. William Whatcott. (more…)

Saskatchewan StarPhoenix, Oct 30 2010: The provincial government plans to introduce human rights legislation that will dissolve the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal in favour of having a court hear the complaints. Justice Minister Don Morgan said the change, among other reforms to the Human Rights Code, is being undertaken at the suggestion of Judge David Arnot, chief commissioner of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. (more…)