New Brunswick’s Child Resettlement War Still Rages on: Selley

Article content

Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) was among the parties satisfied with the result last week’s election in New Brunswick, which resulted in the Progressive Conservative government of Blaine Higgs switching to the Liberals of Susan Holt. CCLA filed a legal challenge against previous government’s amendments to Policy 713which outlines what a school should do when a child wants to be called by a different name or pronouns.

Article content

Holt promises to reverse the Higgs amendments to Policy 713, which made it harder for children to choose their own names and pronouns at school without parental input. But Holt’s majority victory is not a complete victory for those who believe children should be able to do this.

“The Liberal government’s proposed changes to Policy 713 prioritize the comfort of cisgender people over the rights of transgender people.” was the headline on NB Media Co-op’s “social justice” page this week.

CCLA and the opposition Green Party, which won two seats and 14 per cent of the provincial vote in the election, want to return to the original Policy 713, passed by the Higgs government in 2020. “(The student’s) preferred name and pronouns will be used consistently in the manner requested by the student,” it stated. That is, without having to inform parents.

Instead, Holt’s liberals plan to adopt recommendations given by Kelly LamrockNew Brunswick’s Children and Youth Advocate last August.

The main difference in Lamrock’s recommendations for Policy 713 concerns children under 16 years of age.

Article content

Article content

The current version, implemented by the outgoing Higgs government, requires parental consent for the “formal use” of a new name or pronouns. However, “if it is not possible to obtain consent (from the student) to talk to the parent” – and especially if it is determined that talking to the parents may “cause harm (physical or mental) to the child” – we read in the rules “the student will be encouraged to contact with… appropriate professionals to develop a plan.

“The use of a preferred name for transgender or non-binary students under the age of 16 may be used without parental consent if the student is communicating with appropriate professionals as part of developing a plan to talk to parents,” the current policy reads.

In other words, there is a special circumstance in which schools power use the child’s preferred name and pronouns without parental consent – and in my opinion this is very reasonable. “Don’t tell your parents” or “name your kids names they don’t like” are very short-term solutions to very long-term problems. What are the chances that the parents won’t accidentally find out about it at some point anyway?

Article content

Lamrock, by contrast, proposes sixth grade as the threshold at which “pupils are assumed to be able to determine their own terms of … address” unless “the principal has doubts about the child’s ability” – “capacity” is defined as “the ability to … understand nature and consequences of the decision.

If there are concerns about learning ability or if the child is younger than sixth grade, Lamrock suggests that “the principal (should) develop a plan for the child in consultation with school staff… school counselors, social workers, doctors and psychologists.”

If Lamrock’s proposed policy doesn’t seem completely different from the current one, that’s because it really isn’t. Neither is perfect, but both are quite reasonable. Certainly none of these distinctions justify the wildly overheated culture war rhetoric that has dominated this largely unnecessary debate. If we can’t trust teachers, principals, and counselors to handle these situations with their best judgment, without having to resort to a bloodless, multi-page policy, then we probably can’t trust them to follow the policy either.

Article content

Frankly, it’s good for Higgs that he has clearly seen the populist benefits that can be gained from disadvantaged children and school authorities trying to help them, and it blew up in his face even within his own caucus, with a lot of criticism from the public and several MLAs.

Hopefully Holt will be able to make a more explicit case for his preferred policy than Higgs. I like that her position gives school officials more discretion – not because I trust school officials implicitly, but because I trust them much more than I trust ostensible politicians. But I also like that he at least implicitly acknowledges his parents should be involved unless there is an extremely compelling reason not to do so.

A small number of Canadians believe children should be given the opportunity to “socially transition” at school under a policy of unconditional acceptance and no parental notification – just 14 per cent nationwide, according to data Angus Reid Institute survey was released in August last year. Governments shouldn’t make policy based on polls, of course, but sometimes when 86 percent of the population is against you, you’re wrong and the majority is right.

National Post Office
[email protected]

Get more in-depth National Post political reporting and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where every Wednesday and Friday, Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin find out what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill, in every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Register here.

Article content