By Stéphane Sérafin and Geoffrey Sigalet
March 27, 2025
Introduction
Alberta has taken a bold and decisive step to protect children. In December 2024, the Alberta government passed three pivotal pieces of legislation – the Education Amendment Act, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, and the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act.
These laws implement policies announced earlier in 2024 by requiring parental consent for name and pronoun changes, imposing age restrictions on puberty blockers and surgeries, and placing limits on the participation of biological males in women’s sports. The urgency of these measures cannot be overstated: amid growing fears about children’s well-being and safety and about the integrity of girls’ and women’s sports, Alberta’s policies set a vital precedent for other regions grappling with these complex issues.
Last summer, we addressed the one-sided academic and media responses to Alberta’s initial proposals. At the time, we criticized knee-jerk reactions that attacked the policies without engaging with the specifics, including an “open letter” signed by several law professors at the University of Alberta and University of Calgary. We cautioned that critics missed the point by opposing the objectives rather than waiting to critique the actual details of the proposals, which had yet to be fully formulated. We argued that the critics were wrong to claim the policies violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that dismissing parental rights as irrelevant or fictional was not only legally misguided but also socially irresponsible. These policies are not about undermining rights – they are about ensuring children’s safety and fairness in sports.
Now that the policies have been passed into law, the same critics are still focused on the wrong issues. They continue to attack the very objectives of the now-revealed policies. They also refuse to engage with good-faith arguments in support of the enacted policies while failing to recognize the growing support for similar measures both elsewhere in Canada and internationally. In this article, we aren’t rehashing our previous arguments, but instead are directly addressing the focused criticisms of the laws now in effect. It’s time to clear up the misunderstandings and reaffirm why these laws are necessary to protect children and ensure the integrity of girls’ and women’s sports.
The Education Amendment Act, 2024
The first law to consider is the Education Amendment Act, 2024. The general purpose of this statute, as revealed both by the amendments it makes to the preamble of the existing Education Act and the various concrete changes it implements, is to support the health and flourishing of students attending public schools. Indeed, it is perhaps especially telling that the first set of amendments pursued through this law were a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the learning loss experienced by students during the pandemic, the law thus adds a requirement that schools provide either in-person or at-home learning during a public health emergency. It also adds a prohibition on measures that involve non-trivially touching students’ bodies, even under a public health emergency, without parental notification or consent (if the student is under 16) or without the consent of the parent or the student (if the student is 16 or older). Although not explained in the law, this second addition is almost certainly aimed at prohibiting the administration of vaccines without parental consent (or student consent where the student is 16 or older).
One commentator has objected to both of these additions. Of particular note here is his objection to the parental consent requirements for non-trivial bodily interventions, which displays what we consider to be a cavalier disregard for student well-being and a respect for their bodily integrity. In his view, “[i]t doesn’t take too much thought to realize how involved and arduous this opt-in regime will be for the implementation of any public health measure deemed necessary to mitigate an emergency.” But this, of course, fails to recognize that the provisions at issue only apply to health measures that “are intended to apply to the body of a student,” specifically exempting “routine health measures such as hand washing, cleaning, or hygiene” in addition to “any other health measures exempted by an order of the Minister.”
For the most part, however, this portion of the amendments carried out by the Education Amendment Act, 2024 has been ignored by critics, who have instead focused exclusively on its addition of parental notification and consent requirements for name and pronoun changes. This focus is no doubt intentional, since any consideration of the additions aimed at responding to the COVID-19 pandemic casts significant doubt on opponents’ claims that parental notification and consent requirements are nothing more than an “attack” upon trans-identifying children.
In fact, these COVID-19-related amendments not only confirm the primary pro-student purpose of the overall legislation, but also reveal a coherent approach towards this legislative objective. Just as parental notification and consent is required before non-trivial contact with students’ bodies can be carried out on students under the age of 16, even in a public health emergency, so too is parental notification and consent required before schools carry out a significant psychosocial intervention on students under 16 by changing their names and pronouns. Alberta is offering a philosophically consistent approach to guaranteeing the rights of parents to know and control what is happening to their own children’s bodies, including in emergencies.
As for the mechanics of the amendments requiring parental notification and consent for student name and pronoun changes, these are broadly consistent with the approaches adopted in New Brunswick and Saskatchewan. As with the Saskatchewan legislation, in particular, the amendments require the provision of counselling services to students who may experience psychological distress from the notification of a name and pronoun change to their parents. It is true, as some critics have pointed out, that these amendments do not in and of themselves provide for an explicit exception to parental notification in cases of abuse, including physical abuse. However, the additions operate subject to Alberta’s existing child protection regime, as Alberta Premier Danielle Smith stressed during the initial policy announcement.
Indeed, there is nothing in these amendments that displaces the basic common law duties owed by school officials, nor specific legislative duties such as that imposed by section 4 of the Child Youth and Family Enhancement Act, 2000, which requires that “any person who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a child is in need of intervention shall forthwith report the matter.” As that law further provides, any educator who acts in accordance with this requirement is immune from liability for the disclosure. This immunity is not removed by the Education Amendment Act, 2024. To the contrary, this statute adds a provision in section 33.2(5) of the amended Education Act that further exempts educators and other officials from liability “for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith when acting or purporting to act under this section” – which is to say, for good faith actions taken in accordance with or purporting to be taken in accordance with the parental notification and consent requirement.
The main difference between Alberta’s new parental notification and consent requirements for name and pronoun changes and the similar requirements adopted in Saskatchewan pertains to 16- and 17-year-old students. Unlike Saskatchewan, which does not require parental notification and consent for name and pronoun changes by students aged 16 and over, Alberta has maintained a requirement of parental notification until students reach the age of 18. Critics have charged that this is one example of Alberta’s policies being “more invasive and harmful” than earlier measures adopted elsewhere.
However, as we noted in our earlier response to critics of these policies, there is a rather obvious interest served in ensuring that parents are aware of the psychosocial state of their children so long as parents continue to legally owe a duty to act in their children’s best interest. This is especially true if we accept critics’ contention that the practice of “deadnaming” presents a source of harm. If “deadnaming” – calling a person by their birth name after they have transitioned and chosen a new name – really is the concern that opponents claim it to be, then there is little justification for withholding a name and pronoun change carried out by schools from the parents of the affected students, who might otherwise continue to “deadname” them.
Finally, it’s important to review the last set of policies pursued through the Education Amendment Act, 2024, which pertain to sex education. The changes are twofold. First, the amendments impose a requirement of ministerial approval on the use of third-party materials used for sex education purposes. Second, they require schools to contact parents for consent before teaching students sex education, rather than making sex education a default that parents must opt out of.
Once again, critics have failed to see the legitimacy of these changes. The first change in particular is a response to cases such as one out of Saskatchewan, where a third-party organization reportedly provided what was effectively pornographic material to students as part of a sex education seminar. Similar complaints in British Columbia have motivated even Premier David Eby’s NDP government to review its sexual education material to ensure age-appropriate content. The second set of changes, meanwhile, are consistent with the Alberta’s broader reaffirmation parents’ role in ensuring the well-being of their children, whether in school or at home – indeed, it’s they who have a parental duty to act in the best interest of their children.
It is legitimate to disagree on the proper way to balance sex education and age-appropriate content. However, it is not appropriate for opponents of these changes to discount entirely the legitimacy of parental concerns in these areas. Perhaps the critics would prefer a different approach, but reasonable compromise on such issues first requires a recognition of the legitimacy of the objectives being pursued.
The Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2024 (No 2)
In contrast to the Education Amendment Act, 2024, which presents a single legislative objective and a coherent approach to its realization, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2024 (No 2) implements a wide array of amendments. Of particular interest are the amendments to the Health Professions Act that add age-based restrictions on sex reassignment surgery and the prescription of cross-sex hormones and puberty blocking drugs to treat gender dysphoria in minors, subject in the latter case to the possibility of ministerial orders carving out exceptions to the general prohibition. The Alberta government has already announced its intention to implement certain exceptions, most notably for the purpose of authorizing prescriptions of certain drugs to 16 and 17-year-olds.
These are rather straightforward restrictions that largely conform to the Alberta government’s original announcement. As such, it is unsurprising that critics have little to say other than reasserting their argument that these age-based restrictions cause “harm” to trans-identifying children and run contrary to the parental discretion that they consider relevant in this setting, even as they reject it in others. In our previous article, we noted that the evidence then available supported the implementation of blanket age-related restrictions on these kinds of medical interventions in the name of protecting the bodily integrity of trans-identifying children. Notably, the then-recently released report by Dr. Hilary Cass, prepared for the English branch of the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS), had found unreliable evidence of benefits for such “gender affirming” care and serious risks. Since then, more evidence has come to light to support her findings. For instance, a recently released Canadian peer-reviewed study echoed the findings of the Cass Report with regard to the low quality and unreliability of evidence for gender affirming benefits.
It is telling here, especially, that opponents of these age-based restrictions have ignored this growing body of evidence, as well as any of the numerous and significant developments that have occurred in jurisdictions outside of Canada since the original Alberta announcement. Although Alberta is the first Canadian jurisdiction to take steps to impose age-related restrictions on sex reassignment surgeries, cross-sex hormones and puberty blocking drugs, it is far from the first jurisdiction to do so internationally. At the time we wrote our original response, the English branch of the UK’s NHS had just announced that it was indefinitely suspending its practice of granting sex reassignment surgeries and prescribing such drugs to minors, based on the recommendations of the Cass Report.
Since then, not only have other jurisdictions within the UK followed suit, but the UK has also banned the private sale of puberty blocking drugs for the purpose of treating gender dysphoria to minors under the age of 18. A challenge to Tennessee legislation purporting to the use of ban cross-sex hormones, puberty blocking drugs, and access to sex reassignment surgeries for minors is currently awaiting a decision from the US Supreme Court. It is widely expected that the Court will rule in favour of upholding these restrictions, on the grounds that current medical evidence supports their implementation as a matter of overriding state interest. Just as importantly, lawyers supporting the contrary position admitted during oral argument that there was no evidence to suggest that preventing access to such procedures heightens the risk of suicide in trans-identifying youth –a claim that Canadian opponents of the Alberta policies continue to make. Similar restrictions have now been implemented throughout the US through an executive order banning the use of puberty blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones and recourse to sex reassignment surgeries for minors. None of these developments have been recognized, let alone argued against, by opponents of Alberta’s policies.
The Fairness and Safety in Sport Act
In contrast to the other two sets of legislative amendments, the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act differs significantly from the Alberta government’s initial policy announcement. Instead of proscribing the participation of biological males in girls’ and women’s sports, as had initially been suggested, it simply requires that the governing bodies of the various institutions subject to it – the most notable being public school boards – adopt policies establishing eligibility to participate in various sporting activities.
This approach is advantageous because it allows for the adoption of eligibility requirements that are tailor-made to the distinct advantages that biological males may possess and the safety risks that their participation may create in respect of different sporting activities. It also allows for different possible responses, such as the creation of mixed-sex categories, or the adoption of policies aimed at reasonably accommodating trans-identifying biological males who may wish to participate in girls’ and women’s sporting categories, with a view to limiting the risk to fairness or to the safety of all persons involved.
The significant drawback of this approach, in contrast, is that it appears to delegate the primary policy-making duty to the organizations concerned, subject to a reporting requirement by these organizations to the Alberta government. Certainly, the law leaves considerable room for ministerial orders and regulations that ensure organizations develop and follow requirements ensuring that biological males do not unfairly compete in female sports. But absent an active use of such orders and regulations, the adoption of this delegation-centred approach is likely to limit the effectiveness of the law. This is especially likely where the organizations in question are controlled by those who believe that the objectives of ensuring fairness and safety in girls’ and women’s sports are per se illegitimate.
In this context, it would not be surprising if the practical outcomes of these new policy-making requirements ultimately mirrored those of the Alberta government’s earlier attempt to mandate free speech on university and college campuses. Requiring universities to adopt “free speech” policies along with reporting to the relevant minister so far appears to have been largely ineffective.
Nonetheless, critics continue to hurl maximalist claims of potential harms – with some suggesting that by merely adopting the policies, school boards and other organizations “will make all female athletes vulnerable to abuse, especially if they are perceived as “too masculine.” This is completely backwards. The real concern is that in general, biological males hold unfair physical advantages that allow them to dominate some women’s sports, and especially in sports with physical contact, potentially injure female athletes. Most Canadians know this intuitively. Allowing biological men to continue to compete against women without any safeguards whatsoever will likely prompt a public backlash. By failing to establish even minimal standards, and leaving the matter to school boards and other organizations, the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act is unlikely to fully address these issues.
Conclusion
We conclude that not only are the objectives of Alberta’s laws constitutional and just, but the details of the policies enacted are generally well crafted as means to those ends. The Education Amendment Act, 2024 and Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2024 are designed to protect the most vulnerable members of society: children, including children experiencing gender dysphoria. The Fairness and Safety in Sport Act, 2024 has the potential to protect yet another vulnerable group, women and girls, from unfair and unsafe sporting events, but it will require robust executive action to guarantee that delegated decision-making is not abused.
About the authors
Stéphane Sérafin is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and an assistant professor in the Common Law Section of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa. He holds a Bachelor of Social Science, Juris Doctor and Licentiate in Law from the University of Ottawa and completed his Master of Laws at the University of Toronto. He is a member of the Law Society of Ontario and the Barreau du Québec. He has published articles in the Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, the Queen’s Law Journal, the Alberta Law Review, the Supreme Court Law Review, and elsewhere.
Geoffrey Sigalet is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, the director of the UBC Research Group for Constitutional Law, and an assistant professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia Okanagan. He has held research fellowships at McGill’s Research Group for Constitutional Studies, the Queen’s Faculty of Law, and the Stanford Law School’s Constitutional Law Center. He earned his PhD in from Princeton University’s Department of Politics in 2018. He has published articles in Publius: The Journal of Federalism, the Canadian Journal of Political Science, the Osgoode Hall Law Journal, the Queen’s Law Journal, the International Journal of Constitutional Law, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Supreme Court Law Review, and elsewhere. His is the co-editor of Constitutional Dialogue: Rights, Democracy, Institutions.