Sask. students and teachers continue to grapple with pronoun consent law as school year wraps
The Parents' Bill of Rights or Bill 137, a law passed by the provincial government in 2023, requires parental consent before a child under the age of 16 can use a different gender-related name or pronoun at school.
Kimberli Kolody-Watt, who identifies as a member of the queer community, is graduating school this year. Kolody-Watt is also a part of a gay-straight alliance (GSA) at her Regina Catholic high school. GSAs are school clubs for students who wish to support school environments that are safe for, inclusive of, and responsive to gender and sexually diverse people.
Kolody-Watt said she's been hearing concerns from younger students over the last couple years.
"When the bill came out, I had a lot of kids come up to me saying they were afraid that they were going to die, basically, because of their homes being unsafe," Kolody-Watt said.
"Another one that I got was that they were telling me to use their dead name now instead of their preferred name because they did not want to be outed and scolded in front of the school, or in front of their family. They just didn't need that."
Deadnaming means using the name a transgender person was given at birth, but no longer uses after transitioning.
Kolody-Watt said she's noticed a hush in the corridors during school hours.
"Everyone was more silent, more secured. No one was really hanging out with each other anymore."
The pronoun rules were part of a provincial policy announced in August 2023. In September that year, a judge granted an injunction against the change until a court challenge could be heard, saying the protection of gender-diverse youth surpasses the interest of the government.
That court challenge prompted Premier Scott Moe to recall the legislature to make the rule a law. The legislation invoked the notwithstanding clause, a measure that allows governments to override certain Charter rights for up to five years.
The province has not offered details on how teachers would be punished if they don't abide by the law, saying it has left it up to school divisions to make sure it's followed.
In 2023, dozens of teachers signed an online petition calling on school divisions not to follow the law. Aubrey Swift, an elementary school teacher at Regina Public School, was one of the signatories.
"The fact that Bill 137 is only in existence because of the notwithstanding clause, I don't know if I can legally be compelled to follow a law that is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," she said. "I'm working on my personal ethics and the morals of my professional organization as I see those to be."
She said she's not aware of a situation yet where a teacher has been reprimanded for not following the consent law.
Swift, who is part of the GSA at her school, said she has been put in an uncomfortable spot over the last two years.
"It's an extracurricular, so it is connected to school, but because it's an extracurricular, I respect the privacy of my students in that space," she said.
"From my perspective, I have seen very few students in the last two years make that request publicly in the school because they don't feel safe to do so. Personally, I know students who might prefer a different name or pronoun, but don't feel safe to use it outside of that club."
Swift said the club is a safe space within the school. She said she fears for the students outside of the club.
"Those are the students whose mental health I worry about the most, because I can't tell you for sure how those students are doing," she said.
In an emailed response to the concerns, the provincial Ministry of Education said that if obtaining parental consent for a pronoun change is reasonably expected to cause the student harm, schools must acquire appropriate professional resources to support and assist the student in developing a plan to address the request with their parents.
Some students who have been dealing with the repercussions of the law first-hand haven't stopped fighting and protesting it.
"I think that it's really brave of them to be themselves and to do not what is popular, but what is right," Swift said.
Analu Alvarez, education manager at OutSaskatoon, said its youth program has around 30 students. She said she believes all of those students would agree that schools aren't safe anymore.
"This is super unsafe for them because if their parents are not supportive, then either the teachers out them to their parents, which can be very unsafe for them and stressful, or they have to hide their true self and they can't be using their correct name and pronouns," she said.
Alvarez said she's also seeing some students drop out of school.
Saskatoon Public Schools didn't respond to a request from CBC about how many students have had to get parental consent to use preferred names or pronouns over the last two years. Regina Public Schools, in an emailed statement, said compiling the information would take considerable time and that it was unable to honour the request.
The province has maintained its position that the law is meant to make sure that parents are included in their children's lives.
j wallace skelton, an assistant professor of queer studies and education in the faculty of education at the University of Regina, said most people have a clear sense of their gender when they are somewhere between two and a half to three years old.
"The adults around them are not ready to listen at that point."
The law has also been criticized by the province's Human Rights Commission, which said invoking the notwithstanding clause significantly affects the rights of minors. Heather Kuttai, a former Saskatchewan human rights commissioner, resigned over the legislation, saying it assaults the rights of gender diverse children.
A 2024 report from Saskatchewan's child advocate said the law violates rights to gender identity and expression. The report by Lisa Broda also raised concerns that teachers may be violating their professional standards of practice if they follow it.
Court of Appeal reserves decision at latest Sask. school pronoun law hearing
9 months ago
Duration 2:06
The law, meanwhile, continues to be in court.
Court of King's Bench Justice Michael Megaw ruled in favour of UR Pride, a 2SLGBTQ+ group in Regina, in a 2024 decision allowing it to make its case on the constitutionality of the new pronoun rules. The province challenged that decision in the Court of Appeal, where the court has reserved its decision until an undisclosed date.
There also might come a situation where the law goes away when the notwithstanding clause expires in a little more than three years from now, but j wallace skelton said people shouldn't have to wait.
"This is a law that could be changed in the legislature as soon as they desire to, and for the Sask. Party government to be targeting trans and gender diverse and two-spirit young people, really because they think it will appease their political base, continues to be a form of injustice."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Post
19 minutes ago
- National Post
City of Ottawa to raise U.S. flag to celebrate Independence Day despite trade tensions
The City of Ottawa will fly the U.S. flag on July 4th to celebrate Independence Day, a decision that is drawing mixed feelings from the city's residents. Article content Since Donald Trump's inauguration in January 2025, the U.S. president launched a tariff war with Canada and repeatedly expressed a desire to turn it into the '51st state.' Article content 'No Tyrants, No Kings' rallies have shaken up Ottawa's downtown scene, with many protestors occupying the streets in front of the U.S. Embassy near ByWard Market. Article content Article content Despite the public's response, Mayor Mark Sutcliffe said that the City will fly the Star-Spangled Banner on Marion Dewar Plaza, as it does every year. This follows the city's flag protocol, which states that the flag of every country Canada has diplomatic relations with will be raised on their national holiday. Article content Article content Sutcliffe says the U.S. Independence Day is another opportunity to highlight the long, shared history between the two nations and the 'deep, lasting friendship'. Article content 'Now, more than ever, we should focus on building relationships and working together,' he said in a statement to the Citizen. Article content Nancy Wasserman, who holds Canadian and American dual citizenship, says July 4th represents the 'revolutionary spirit of the U.S. founders.' She says there is more to the flag than the Trump administration. Article content 'The fact is the American flag belongs to all Americans, not just the ones who are currently running the government,' she said. Article content Wasserman is one of the founders of Indivisible Ottawa, a group advocating for Canada's sovereignty and people targeted by the U.S. administration. She says many Americans who live in Ottawa oppose the current policies and actions of the Trump administration but still believe in 'the promise' of what the flag represents. Article content Article content 'Independence, no authoritarianism and what the Constitution says and stands for,' she said. 'It's important for all of us to remember that we can be opposed to a government but that doesn't mean we're vehemently opposed to the flag.' Article content Elliot Tepper, a Carleton University professor of international relations, says continuity between countries is important, even during times of tension. Article content 'It would be a startling change if the city broke its long-standing tradition in this period,' he said. Article content Tepper says he wouldn't be surprised if Canadians felt alienated or disagreed with the city's decision to move forward with the flag raising. He noted that the 'rupture of trust' occurred over and over again with Trump's behaviour, including threatening Canadian sovereignty. Article content 'No one will trust the U.S. government again, particularly in Canada, but our ties with the U.S. run much deeper than government-to-government relations,' Tepper said.
Globe and Mail
23 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Suddenly, MPs are behaving like grown-ups
Bill C-5 is one of the most controversial laws Parliament has adopted in a decade. Its passage in the House of Commons was also notable for bringing about one of the most welcome moments seen in Parliament over the same period. But we'll get to that. Bill C-5, or at least Part 2 of it – the Building Canada Act – gives the government the unilateral power to override or suspend federal laws that would otherwise delay the rapid implementation of infrastructure and energy projects deemed by cabinet to be in the national interest. (Part 1 of Bill C-5 is an entirely non-controversial act to reduce federal interprovincial trade barriers.) It follows through on Prime Minister Mark Carney's election promise to counter the U.S. trade war on Canada by (sort of) releasing the economy from its regulatory chains. As we've already said, letting cabinet decide which projects are in the national interest is problematic. Canada's economy needs Ottawa to get out of its way, not perch itself on its shoulder and pick winners and losers, and then set aside regulations for the lucky few. Better to get rid of the regulations altogether and let the market decide. That critique aside, lost in the drama of Bill C-5 was an important and hopeful moment only mentioned in passing in news reports. It came on June 20, when the House of Commons adopted the bill and Mr. Carney crossed the floor to shake hands with Conservative Parliamentary Leader Andrew Scheer and Deputy Leader Melissa Lantsman. After 10 years of unrelenting partisanship, acrimony and division, here were leaders of the two parties that dominate Parliament cordially acknowledging the swift passage of legislation deemed urgent. (The bill went on to the Senate where it was adopted without amendment; it became law on June 26.) This is the Parliament that Canadians want to see, a place where MPs respect each other rather than erode the institution by turning into a content studio for creating snarky partisan social media posts and decontextualized attack ads. In Ontario's north and south, Indigenous groups protest new laws designed to fast-track infrastructure Opinion: Carney promised internal free trade by Canada Day. Is that enough? A Parliament where parties make the compromises needed to achieve consensus on important legislation, and which is not merely an arena where political games are won or lost. Bill C-5 was an example of Parliament's better angels at work, from the day it was tabled on June 6 to the day it was acknowledged with a handshake. Yes, the Carney Liberals tightly controlled debate on the legislation in order to rush its passage through the House before the summer break on June 20. But debate still did occur, and the Liberals accepted a number of key amendments that will make the government act more transparently. For instance, the government will have to inform the public how and why a project was deemed in the national interest, and explain the normal regulatory process that would have been followed had that not been the case. As well, the government agreed to remove the Indian Act from the schedule of federal laws that it can override. These and other improvements to the law demonstrate that, when MPs and their party bosses set aside rank partisanship, they can get things done. This new willingness to play nice resurfaced last week, when Mr. Carney called a by-election in the Alberta riding of Battle River-Crowfoot in order to allow Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader who lost his seat in the April 28 general election, to run for office and get back into the House. Mr. Carney called the by-election quickly, instead of playing games and leaving the Conservatives dangling. We admit that there are caveats to the example of Bill C-5. Its goal aligned with the political agendas of both the Liberals and the Conservatives, making cooperation mutually beneficial. And a single handshake doesn't herald a lasting new era of adult cooperation in the House of Commons. But it has been so bad for so long in Ottawa that any hopeful signs of maturity are enticing. Canadians want and need to see more cooperation and mutual respect between parties, and a laying down of rhetorical arms, in the name of the country's interests. Forceful debate and partisanship are always welcome in a parliamentary democracy, but a bitter fracturing along political lines that makes enemies of opposing parties and erases civility is not. Just look south for proof of that.
National Post
32 minutes ago
- National Post
FIRST READING: EU exempting heavy industry from carbon tax as Canada doubles down
Article content The proposed EU exemption for heavy industry follows closely on another major EU concession on carbon pricing passed just last month. Article content Starting next year, the EU is set to implement a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBMA) that would place tariffs on imports coming from non-carbon priced jurisdictions. The idea being 'to encourage greater climate ambition in non-EU countries.' Article content But in June, the EU announced that 90 per cent of its importers would be exempt from the CBAM. Any firm importing less than 50 tonnes per year of foreign product wouldn't have to worry. Article content The EU exemptions would seem to undermine one of the Liberal government's signature defences of carbon pricing as being necessary to maintain competitiveness with foreign markets. Article content Just last summer, Canada's ambassador to France, Stéphane Dion, delivered an entire speech entitled 'carbon pricing as an asset for Canadian exports to Europe.' Article content 'Carbon pricing is an export tool, and abolishing it in Canada would not only be an ecological mistake, but also contrary to the economic interests of Canadians,' said Dion. Article content In June, Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux told the House of Commons that the industrial carbon tax had to be maintained to preserve Canadian access to the 'global market.' Article content 'The new prime minister and the new government have made a decision to get rid of the consumer carbon tax, but we still understand the importance of having the industrial carbon pricing system,' said Lamoureux. 'Let us be very clear on that, because we understand the global market and the critical role that has to play in it.' Article content IN OTHER NEWS Article content The Liberal government is sticking with its plan not to table a budget until at least the fall, so the eggheads at the C.D. Howe Institute took the liberty of doing it for them. They tallied up the government's various new spending promises, estimated what tax revenue is going to look like for the foreseeable future, and concluded that Ottawa is on track to rack up $300 billion in new debt over the next four years, an average of about $75 billion per year (or, about $5 in new debt per Canadian, per day). And that's under the most optimistic scenario. More likely is that it hits $350 billion. Article content This is way higher than any of the non-COVID spending charted under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Recall that it was only a few months ago that Trudeau was pressured into resigning in part due to shock that his government had allowed the deficit to swell to $62 billion. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, Canada is on a 'troubling path.' 'Adding $300 billion in federal debt while doing nothing to raise investment and productivity will make Canada more vulnerable, not less,' read the analysis. Article content Article content
