The Saskatchewan government today introduced Bill 137, the Parents' Bill of Rights. If passed, the bill will enact the government's policy requiring parental consent to students under 16 using their preferred names and gender identities at school. docs.legassembly.sk.ca/legdocs/Bills/…
The bill forces a cruel choice on students under the age of 16 who are not comfortable coming out to their parents about their gender identities: hide your gender identity at school or be forced to come out to your parents.
This is so even if they are mature minors, and even if seeking parental consent puts them at risk of harm.
The government is intent on enacting its policy even though Justice Megaw found it risked imposing irreparable harm on students: canlii.ca/t/k0gn9
The government is also ignoring the recommendations made by Lisa Broda, the province’s Advocate for Children and Youth, in her report finding that the policy violated the Charter, the Human Rights Code, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. saskadvocate.ca/review-of-mini…
The parental consent requirement is set out in s.197.4(1). It contains a notwithstanding clause overriding the rights protected by s.2 (fundamental freedoms), 7 (life, liberty and security of the person) and 15 (equality rights) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It also overrides all of the rights protected by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code and contains provisions seeking to protect the government from lawsuits seeking indemnification for the harms it knows this legislation will cause.
It does all this for no good reason; it is perfectly possible to achieve a reasonable balance between parental rights and children’s rights on this issue. The government hasn't bothered even trying. A sad and shameful day in Saskatchewan.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 1947, the Saskatchewan government led by Premier Tommy Douglas introduced the Saskatchewan Bill of Rights Act, the first law of its kind in Canada protecting civil liberties and prohibiting discrimination.
Tomorrow the government of Premier Moe will introduce Bill 137, the Parents Bill of Rights Act. Far from being inspired by the legacy of Tommy Douglas, its title and contents are taken straight from a wave of similar laws passed by Republicans in Congress and state legislatures.
Bill 137 will be an anti-bill of rights: we are told it will contain a notwithstanding clause overriding the rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and likely the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code too).
Breaking: Justice Belobaba finds #bill5 breaches s.2(b) of the Charter, and has not been justified under s.1. Declared of no force and effect effective immediately. October 22nd election will proceed as scheduled but with 47 wards, not 25.
"The enactment of provincial legislation radically changing the number and size of a city’s electoral districts in the middle of the city’s election is without parallel in Canadian history.... changing the rules in the middle of the game is profoundly unfair." (paras 6-7).
Judges should generally show restraint and deference to legislatures. Judicial "umpire" should intervene only when government "has clearly crossed the line." (para 8). "The Province has clearly crossed the line." (para 9)
Bill 5, the so-called "Better Local Government Act, 2018" bit.ly/2vimodC, introduced in the Ontario legislature today, is an outrageous attack on democracy at the municipal level.
By disrupting democratic institutions and electoral boundaries with no consultation in the middle of the 2018 election process for Toronto City Council, Bill 5 shows contempt for democracy as a fundamental principle of the Canadian constitution.
Unfortunately the Canadian constitution does not yet protect municipal governments. They are creatures of provincial legislation passed pursuant to s.92(8) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Provincial laws create municipal institutions; they can also transform them.
Since we’ve heard a lot of misinformed or misleading commentary about the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) this week, it seems it might be helpful to clarify the situation regarding the constitutional division of legislative powers in relation to interprovincial pipelines.
Interprovincial pipelines fall within federal legislative jurisdiction pursuant to s.92(10(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (transportation or communication “works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces”).
Some, like @jkenney, have suggested that Parliament could exercise its power pursuant to s.92(10)(c) to declare the TMEP to be a work “for the general advantage of Canada.” But that power applies only to local works that are “wholly situate” within one province.