Murray Wood: Saskatchewan NDP might be better off with a new name
While Carla Beck has been trying to bring the Saskatchewan NDP closer to the centre, Murray Wood says the federal NDP ha...
Saskatchewan’s justice minister says she’s disappointed in a decision allowing a challenge against the province’s controversial pronoun legislation to proceed, but vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court of Canada if necessary.
The law, dubbed the Parents’ Bill of Rights, requires parental consent for children under 16 who wish to change the names or pronouns they use in school.
On Friday, Justice Michael Megaw said the court will hear the Charter challenge against the law brought forward by UR Pride, an LGBTQ group in Regina.
The province says the Charter wasn’t breached, because the government invoked the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to pass the law.
“The Notwithstanding Clause was created to ensure that this power remained with provincial Legislatures, and ultimately the people, when required,” Saskatchewan Justice Minister Bronwyn Eyre said in a statement.
Lawyers for UR Pride, on the other hand, argued the law limits the rights of young people, particularly transgender children.
In his decision, Megaw said the challenge can proceed even if the clause has been used.
Eyre said the government is still reviewing the decision, but won’t back down on the policy and will use “all tools necessary to protect parental rights including requesting a stay of this decision and an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada if necessary.”
Eyre said she plans to write to other attorneys general across Canada regarding the potential precedent set by the decision.
“This is a historic decision for Canadian jurisprudence, as no Superior Court in Canada has ever decided that it may issue a declaration respecting an alleged Charter breach, in the face of a validly invoked Notwithstanding Clause,” Eyre said.
“The importance of this decision for all provincial legislatures cannot be overstated.”
Eyre said the government respects the role of the court, but disagrees with its ruling, saying the primary responsibility “for determining issues of competing rights claims and policy issues” resides with the province.
–with files from The Canadian Press
