REGINA - The special sitting of the Legislature continues Thursday with second reading debate on Bill 137- the Parents Bill of Rights Act.
MLAs are quickly using up the 40 hours allocated for debate on the bill and the indication is that second reading debate will wrap up around 12:45 p.m. today.
That would be followed by the vote on second reading, which would send the bill to committee before returning to the House for third reading. The committee is scheduled to meet for five hours to discuss the bill.
The plan is for another evening sitting Thursday night, and the expectation now is that the final third reading vote to pass the Parents Bill of Rights Act will happen Friday.
The focus of the opposition New Democrats this week has been to give lengthy hours-long addresses in the House speaking against the bill, while focusing Question Period on a range of other issues.
On Thursday, however, the Opposition shifted their focus back on the bill, and on the mounting opposition being expressed by various organizations about the provision requiring schools to inform parents about gender based name changes for those under age 16.
Opposition Leader Carla Beck opened Question Period by pointing to news that the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission had called on the government to reconsider the bill because it infringes on the rights of students.
In response in Question Period, Premier Scott Moe defended the policy, saying it was largely reflective of what was already in practice in school divisions. He also repeated his "commitment to the parents of this province" to use all the tools at their disposal.
"The fact of the matter is governments are not parents, teachers are not parents, Mr. Speaker, courts are not parents, and the Human Rights Commission also is not a parent either. This is a government that has made a commitment to the parents of this province, Mr. Speaker. This is a government that is doing what it said it would do."
Beck also raised the issue of a lack of consultation, saying the Premier "didn't even bother to pick up the phone" to express concerns about Regina Public School Division's policy, which the government had pointed to as an impetus for the Bill 137. She also decried a lack of consultation with the Indigenous community, with a number of those members in the Legislature that day. "When will you start listening to the Indigenous voices who oppose this bill?"
Education Minister Jeremy Cockrill responded saying "we have been listening to people all across the province," adding "we've heard loud and clear ... that parents have a right to be included in their child's education."
In the rotunda, Tyler George, councillor of Ochapowace First Nation appeared alongside several Indigenous opponents to the Bill.
"Our Indigenous people, we are no stranger to not being consulted in any policies and legislation," George said. "We've seen it time and time again, we're not consulted, and this policy, again, they've continued to say 'we've consulted tens of thousands of people, of parents.' But you're not consulting people who this actually affects. As a two spirit person, they're not consulting us. The FSIN, the Assembly of First Nations which represents all First Nations in Canada - we're not consulted."
There was also word that law professors at the University of Saskatchewan College of Law had also voiced their opposition to the legislation.
Justice minister responds
In response to reporters asking about the consultations the government had done, Justice Minister and Attorney General Bronwyn Eyre pointed to "letters that flowed in to MLA offices, to minister offices," she said.
"That would not include all the conversations and thoughts we were having as we weighed what Regina Public had done, what two provinces over the Toronto District School Board had done, the conversation that was raging around such policies in New Brunswick. We were seeing discussions on these and related issues in the UK, in Sweden, in Denmark, and a number of other jurisdictions in a number of different countries. So we decided, as you know, in August to bring forward this policy from the former Minister of Education, and to then go forward with legislation having listened to the people of the province but also having made a decision this was a policy which was important to the government and which we wanted to bring forward."
When reporters suggested the government's story keeps changing, Eyre said she didn't agree.
"From the beginning we've always been clear that it was about parents. It's always been clear it's been about listening to parents."
Eyre also defended the government's use of the Notwithstanding Clause and pointed to Quebec invoking the clause numerous times. "The Notwithstanding Clause is a well acknowledged tool at legislatures' disposal. And I would say I would question why Saskatchewan would be accused of changing rules or altering rules when other provinces have used the Notwithstanding Clause on many occasions. It is a legislative tool."
In speaking to reporters, Opposition Justice critic Nicole Sarauer blasted the government in particular over the use of the Notwithstanding Clause.
"I don't think there's been another time in Canada where the Notwithstanding Clause has been used to override the Charter rights of children," said Sarauer. "This is another example of a government using the Notwithstanding Clause to override the Charter rights of a minority group. I think that's egregious, and to do it to override the rights of children is horrific and it sets a very dangerous precedent."
You can no longer count on social media to deliver important news to you. Keep your news a touch away by bookmarking SASKTODAY.ca's homepage at this link.
Subscribe to SASKTODAY.ca newsletter to get our daily news to your inbox.
