Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe says his government is committed to putting into law a policy that would require schools to seek parents’ permission if their child wants to change identities at school.
On Aug. 22, Mr. Moe’s government announced a policy that would require schools to get the permission of parents for students expressing a desire to change pronouns if they are under the age of 16.
A legal challenge brought by an LGBT peer support group based in Regina has resulted in the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench approving an injunction until the court can make a decision.
“We feel there’s paramount importance to provide clarity to parents, to families, and ultimately to school divisions and educators that are in our classrooms across the province,” Mr. Moe said with regard to his decision to recall the MLAs back to work early.
“We’ve said for a number of weeks now that there are tools available to the government to ensure that this policy is in place moving forward to the next number of months and years, and that is going to be the case.”
Support for Students
Mr. Moe said his government has been looking at supports that could be useful for children and their families on these issues.“We’re looking at some of the rapid access counseling services that we have expanded. I think we have them available to adults and 30 communities, now expanding 13 of those communities to youth,” he told reporters.
Court Challenge
The UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity filed a court challenge shortly after Mr. Moe announced his policy. The group sought an injunction, and it was granted on Sept. 28.In the written decision published by CBC News, Justice M.T. Megaw said he believed the policy needed to be paused until a court could determine the issue.
“On the whole of the evidence, I am satisfied that those individuals affected by this Policy, youth under the age of 16 who are unable to have their name, pronouns, gender diversity, or gender identity, observed in the school will suffer irreparable harm,” Justice Megaw wrote in the decision.
He added that the Saskatchewan government is not entitled to a “free pass at this stage of the inquiry.”
The Saskatchewan Teachers Federation (STF) has called the policy dangerous and harmful to students.
“Parents and guardians must always play a role in the educational lives of children,” STF President Samantha Becotte said.
“However, to suggest this is the motivation for these announcements stretches the Minister’s credibility considerably. Government states that they believe in safe and caring schools, and yet student safety and quality of education are being sacrificed to meet this government’s political needs.”
Saskatchewan’s Advocate for Children and Youth Lisa Broda also expressed concern over the policy.
“We agree with the government’s desire to place a high importance on the involvement of parents and guardians in education,” said Ms. Broda in a news release.
“However, this objective can be achieved without imposing such strict rules around consent, which could result in a violation of a young person’s rights under provincial, constitutional, and international human rights laws.”
Notwithstanding Clause
Following the court decision, Mr. Moe announced on X that he was recalling the legislature and his government would use the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Constitution to put its policy into effect.He told reporters that the clause had been developed for situations when rights collide.
“When those rights collide, the notwithstanding clause was provided to ensure that the elected government of the day would be able to make the decision on as to which of those rights would be in effect for the people that they ultimately represented. In this case, that’s the rights of a parent to ensure they’re involved in their children’s decision.”
In 1980, the province used it to protect back-to-work legislation after a Saskatchewan court of appeal found the legislation interfered with the Charter’s freedom of association.
At the time, the government was appealing the appeal court decision. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the province’s position that the legislation did not violate the Charter right.