The Alberta government has introduced legislation aiming to utilize the notwithstanding clause to protect a series of bills affecting transgender individuals from legal challenges. Premier Danielle Smith emphasized the need for this action due to prolonged legal battles over gender policies in healthcare and education, which could cause significant uncertainty. The government’s decision to invoke the notwithstanding clause has been met with criticism, with Bennett Jensen from Egale Canada labeling it as cynical and chilling.
The legislation in question includes three bills introduced by the United Conservative Party government last year, focusing on safeguarding the well-being of children and enhancing parental involvement in decision-making processes. However, critics argue that these laws unfairly target transgender youth and adults, as well as women and girls in competitive sports. Bill 26, passed in the previous year, restricts youth under 16 from accessing gender-affirming treatments and surgeries, marking a first in Canada.
The Canadian Medical Association, Egale, and the Skipping Stone Foundation have contested these laws in court, citing concerns about limiting access to gender-affirming care and infringing on doctors’ autonomy. Despite the government’s rationale that the legislation is necessary to protect children, experts argue that puberty blockers should not impact long-term fertility. The proposed Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act, also known as Bill 9, seeks to shield the laws from Charter challenges for five years and suspend the application of certain human rights acts indefinitely.
Justice Minister Mickey Amery defended the government’s use of the notwithstanding clause, emphasizing the urgency of addressing all three acts simultaneously. The legislation has sparked debates among various groups, with the Alberta Teachers’ Association expressing concerns over privacy and disclosure issues related to students’ identities. Critics argue that the government’s reliance on the notwithstanding clause signifies a broader issue of discord between the judiciary and elected officials.