REGINA - Education Minister Jeremy Cockrill has introduced the Parents’ Bill of Rights in the Legislative Assembly Thursday, and the public finally has a clearer idea of what is included in the bill's provisions.
Perhaps the most notable aspect is that the bill goes well beyond its most notable provision: that of schools requiring parental consent for gender-related name changes for those under 16.
In addition it also covers a range of other school situations where parents and guardians are deemed to have rights in the province.
The provisions spell out the rights of parents and guardians to be informed on a regular basis of the pupil's attendance, behaviour and academic achievement in school; to have access to the pupil’s school file; to receive information on courses of study available; and to be told of any disciplinary action or investigation taken by the school in relation to the pupil's conduct, among others.
A key provision is section 197.2(m), the provision covering notification to parents of sexual health content in schools. This provision requires if sexual health content is to be presented to pupils in the school, that at least two weeks before the sexual health content is presented to the pupils, that parents or guardians be informed by the principal of the subject matter of the sexual health content; the dates on which the sexual health content is to be presented to the pupils; and 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.
Name change provisions included, covered by Notwithstanding Clause
As expected, the most discussed and controversial provision is section 197.4(1), which states “if the pupil who is under 16 years of age requests that the pupil’s new gender-related preferred name or gender identity be used at school, the pupil’s teachers and other employees of the school shall not use the new gender-related preferred name or gender identity unless consent is first obtained from the pupil’s parent or guardian.”
Another key provision is 197.4(2) which states: “If it is reasonably expected that obtaining parental consent as mentioned in subsection (1) is likely to result in physical, mental or emotional harm to the pupil, the principal shall direct the pupil to the appropriate professionals, who are employed or retained by the school, to support and assist the pupil in developing a plan to address the pupil’s request with the pupil’s parent or guardian."
Notably, not directly addressed in the bill is the use of pronouns, with no mention of "pronouns" in the language of the bill.
As expected, the bill contains provisions invoking use of the Notwithstanding Clause. Section 197.4(3) of the bill would invoke the notwithstanding clause for sections 2, 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while section 197.4(4) would invoke it for sections 4,5 and 13 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.
Minister Cockrill spoke to reporters following Thursday’s sitting about the bill, and was asked particularly about the long list of instances laid out in the bill where parents had rights.
He said that with the "exception of two or three, all of those provisions were already in the Education Act elsewhere in the Act.” What was added were a “couple of key pieces we made public back in August.”
“What this bill is about is about enshrining the right of parents to be involved in their child’s education,” said Cockrill.
Cockrill was especially grilled by reporters about the use of the notwithstanding clause to override not just the Charter but the Human Rights Code.
When it was suggested this in particular was a big deal to a lot of people, Cockrill replied “but as a parent, it’s a big deal to be involved in your child’s education.”
“I think it’s justifiable because we want to ensure parents have rights to be involved in child’s education, it’s as simple as that… We believe that parents absolutely have rights and those rights should be protected, and that’s certainly what we’ve heard from many Saskatchewan people, parents, grandparents in this province, and so that’s what this bill does.”
Procedural tactics on display during Thursday’s sitting
There were plenty of procedural maneuvers on display during Thursday morning’s sitting in the Assembly. After Cockrill introduced the bill for first reading, the Legislature proceeded to a standing vote which passed on party lines 37-12, with the independent Sask United MLA Nadine Wilson joining the Sask Party government members in support.
All 12 New Democrats in the house voted “no." In the case of Nathaniel Teed of Saskatoon Meewasin, the words he used were “absolutely not.”
Soon after, Government House Leader Jeremy Harrison presented his procedural motion to extend hours of debate for the bill to 40 hours. His motion proposed sittings from Monday to Sunday next week, with hours of 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily.
In response, Opposition House Leader Nicole Sarauer began what would be an almost two-hour-long filibuster response to the procedural motion.
In particular Sarauer denounced the decision to hold a special sitting instead of introducing the bill during the regular fall sitting, something that she said would have allowed proper time for public input. She argued the special sitting would decide the issue in a matter of days, greatly reducing the time for scrutiny and feedback.
“Why do they want to limit the ability of the public to see this legislation prior to it being passed?” said Sarauer. “That to me does not make any sense at all.”
Sarauer used the words “an absolute joke,” “a farce” and “a slap in the face to democracy” to describe the procedures being offered. Sarauer also accused the government of limiting debate and “ripping up our rules of procedure,” and blasted the bill’s use of the Notwithstanding Clause to “trample on the rights of children.”
Sarauer ended up successfully running out the clock on the allotted time for debate that day, which means the bill will come back at the next sitting on Monday at the usual time of 1:30 p.m.
Opposition reaction to the bill
In speaking to reporters following Thursday's sitting, Education Critic Matt Love said he saw no indication the government was budging on the bill in spite of concerns that have been expressed about it.
"We've had the Children's Advocate way in since this policy was introduced. We've had an independent Court Justice Megaw weigh in on this. I've seen no change from the Sask Party government. They only appear to be listening to those inside their caucus, not the people of Saskatchewan."
Love was critical of the Notwithstanding Clause provisions, as well as additional provisions to protect the government from legal action.
"So they've got clauses in here to extinguish any legal action against the government for enforcing this policy. It's an indication that they know this policy will harm children, and they're more interested in protecting themselves."
Love accused the government of "trampling on the rights of vulnerable kids." He also ripped the government for not providing enough supports in schools to deal with any mental health issues arising from the legislation.
"When I heard the Education Minister say on the radio the other day that he believed there was adequate support for mental health in schools, I couldn't believe it. It's an unbelievable statement. There's no evidence to back that up... Last year, we had 3840 more students, 66 fewer teachers, two fewer psychologists. There is no reason this minister has to believe there are ample supports in schools. Anybody who's been in the school doesn't believe what he has to say."
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.
