75-Minute Debate (23 November 2023)

From Hansard (23 November 2023)

 

Significance of Bill No. 137

The Assembly was debating the following motion moved by Nathaniel Teed (NDP - Saskatoon Meewasin):

That the Assembly calls upon the government to repeal Bill 137.

Mr. B. McLeod: — Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is indeed an honour to stand in this Chamber, this hallowed Chamber today, to bring this message through you and to you to members opposite.

This, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is me speaking as a parent, as a grandparent, as a former Chair of the local school board, a parent of three children who went through the education system, and now 10 grandchildren, half of them who are already in education as we speak. And so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our government totally recognizes the importance of ensuring that the rights of Saskatchewan parents are protected.

And this is why Bill 137, The Education (Parents’ Bill of Rights) Amendment Act of 2023 was passed utilizing all legislative tools available to the government. And why was this done, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Because, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our government recognizes the important role that parents and guardians have in protecting and supporting their children as they grow and develop.

Our government simply does not accept that it is in the best interests of children to hide information from their parents. That certainly didn’t work for me. After hearing from parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles from all across my constituency on this summer’s campaign, I know first-hand that this bill has strong support from the majority of Saskatchewan residents.

That is why, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our government moved to remove the contents of this bill as government policy and replaced it in enshrined legislation. Our government wholeheartedly believes that it is in the best interest of children when parents are involved in their education, in their classrooms, and in all important decisions in their lives. Success, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in our children’s lives requires involved and engaged parents. This bill ensures that can and will happen.

This bill provides clarity and certainty regarding the rights and responsibilities of parents and guardians. The former education Act of 1995 was silent on these issues and that resulted in limited parental rights, responsibilities, and decision making on key issues surrounding the education of their children. We know that parents and guardians have an important role to play in supporting and protecting their children. Children working through significant questions and issues relating to gender identity need support, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and parents and guardians must, must be involved in these discussions and decisions.

We also know that education is a shared responsibility between parents, guardians, children, school divisions, the Saskatchewan Distance Learning Corporation, Conseil des écoles — as I know I’ve murdered that phrase — and government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this bill demonstrates our government’s commitment to ensuring that parents’ and guardians’ rights must be included in their child’s education and they are enshrined in law. This bill reflects feedback and concerns our government has received from parents and Saskatchewan residents regarding the sexual health content being presented to their children. And so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this bill makes it very clear that parents or guardians of a pupil have the right to act as the primary decision maker with respect to their child’s education.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, let’s take a moment to remind ourselves of what is contained in this bill, Bill 137, The Education (Parents’ Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2023. First of all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, parents must be provided with at least two weeks’ notice prior to sexual health content being presented to their child, including the subject matter and dates. It includes the right to withdraw their child from the presentation without demerit or penalty. And, Mr. Deputy Speaker, parents must provide consent for their child, if under the age of 16, to use a different gendered name and identity prior to its use by school staff.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, in section 197.4 of Bill 137 it outlines the legislative framework for consent from a parent or guardian that is required for a student under the age of 16 to use an alternative gendered name and identity and have it used by school staff in a school setting. Importantly for me as a parent, as a grandparent, and knowing that this is a significant concern, this section adds protections that if the child may suffer physical, emotional, or mental harm by obtaining consent from the parent, the principal will engage the appropriate school resources to support and assist the child in developing a plan for that child to address the request with their parents or guardians.

And as I stated previously, our government knows that parents and guardians have an important role to play in supporting and protecting their children. This bill, the parental bill of rights, protects the fundamental rights of parents and guardians and enshrines that they are the primary decision maker, the primary decision maker, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with respect to their children’s education.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my comments with a quote from a man with a visionary mind, who anticipated the need for this legislation that we are discussing here today. And I quote, Mr. Deputy Speaker:

So it is entirely likely that the rights set out in the Charter will come into conflict with other equally important rights, which are the responsibility of the legislative and executive arms of government to protect.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, that quote is from the Hon. Allan Blakeney, the 10th premier of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Speaker, with the passing of Bill 137, The Education (Parents’ Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2023, our government exercised that responsibility and used the notwithstanding clause in exactly the way the late Premier Blakeney envisioned. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---

Mr. Teed: — Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In his remarks the member from Lumsden said he believes in parental engagement as both a parent and as a grandparent. So my question to him today is, why did the member from Lumsden vote against our amendment to create a parental engagement strategy? How can he continue to explain to parents that they don’t want them involved in their children’s education?

Mr. B. McLeod: — Thank you for the question, Mr. Deputy 4Speaker. Moments ago the member from Regina University spoke about support for parents in the education system and then used the word “but.” When you use the word “but,” Mr. Deputy Speaker, it negates everything that’s said before that question as asked.

On this side of the House we support parents’ rights in the education system. Always have. Always will. And that is now enshrined in legislation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

. . .

Ms. Sarauer: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the member for Lumsden-Morse who talked a bit about the use of the notwithstanding clause. I’m curious about his opinion on the use of the term “judicial overreach.” Does he agree with the Premier that Justice Megaw’s injunction was judicial overreach?

Mr. B. McLeod: — Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for the question from the member opposite. Judicial overreach, that is why the notwithstanding clause is in place. And lost in the conversation is that for me, the policies that were already existing in numerous school divisions across the province mirror what this policy is. Yeah.

Why do the NDP want to shut parents out of the education? In this government, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our default position will always be that parents should be involved, especially when it comes to big decisions or controversial issues. Mr. Speaker, that will always be our position.