Bill 44, the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act, 2009 has been the subject of much public debate, including in the media and in the Legislature.

Bill 44 recently passed Second Reading, and will return to the floor of the Legislative Assembly to be debated in Committee of the Whole on the evening of Tuesday, May 26. Should you want to read the transcript of the Second Reading debate, you can find it in Hansard from April 29 (pages 883 and 884), May 6 (pages 1007-1014), May 7 (pages 1036-1038), the afternoon of May 13 (pages 1140-1147), and the evening of May 13 (pages 1161-66).

Minister Hancock's remarks on the Bill from debate on the afternoon of May 13 are reproduced below.

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Education, on the debate.

Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very important debate, and it's a very important debate because it's very important that the clear meaning and understanding of the intention of this bill be on the record and be understood. There has been a significant amount of discussion about what, in my view, is not in the bill, but I think it's important to say what is in the bill.

First of all, what is in the bill is some effort at an administrative change to the Human Rights Commission to make the processes of the Human Rights Commission more effective, to recognize that there are frivolous complaints that come forward and make sure that it's easier to deal with those, and to make sure that the complaints that come forward that are grounded are dealt with appropriately. The important part of the bill, really, is about the reinvigoration of the Human Rights Commission to do its job properly and to arm it to do its job properly.

There had been discussion — and I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Edmonton-Meadowlark — with respect to section 3. There had been comments that this bill does not address section 3, and I'm not going to go into the section 3 issue other than to say that there are all sorts of concerns about our right of freedom of speech. I'm one of these people who believes that I was born with a bundle of rights and that every time society does something through government, it takes away from my personal rights. Hopefully, it does that on an appropriate basis, to encourage and create a civil society. But there's nothing we can do as government which doesn't detract from my personal rights, so we have to always be on guard that when we detract from personal rights, we do it for rational reasons that are for the good of civil society.

The other thing I would say about section 3 and the freedom of speech and our freedom to express ourselves is that there are restrictions on all of our rights. I have a right to flail my arms around, but I don't have the right to connect them with somebody else when I do it, and I think freedom of speech has the same kind of limitations. That's all I'll say about section 3.

The section that I really want to address is section 9, which provides for putting section 11.1 into the act. It's very important because a lot of the public discussion and most of the discussion in here has been focused on that section 11.1 and what it means. Let me clear up something, first of all, that I think has been mentioned in the House - I know it's been mentioned outside the House - and that's whether section 11.1 deals with all educational institutions because it talks about a board as defined in the School Act. That board is defined in the School Act as not just school districts and school divisions; it also includes charter schools under section 36(1) of the act. So it should be perfectly clear that this includes charter schools. Should it also include private schools? Well, that's a subject that we could raise later on. Certainly, I would see no reason why it shouldn't, but clearly it includes charter schools. I wanted to make that perfectly clear.

Then there are the claims that people are making that this will somehow result in students being deprived of knowledge and understanding necessary to participate in a diverse society. This is not the intention or the import of section 11.1 as proposed. Section 11.1 affirms in law parents' ability to opt their child out of instruction that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality, or sexual orientation. This will not result in any changes to current practice.

Section 50 of the School Act already states that parents can opt their children out of religious instruction or exercises. The guide to education, the mandated policy that all schools operate under, states that the principal shall exempt a student from school instruction in human sexuality education at the written request of the student's parents. The guide to education is policy, not law. Mr. Speaker, section 11.1 affirms in law parents' ability to exempt their children but functionally changes nothing.

Now, some comments have been made that this has never extended to sexual orientation before. Human sexuality includes sexual orientation. Full stop. It's always been in there; it's always been part of the policy. Now it's part of the law. Some people didn't realize that that was included, so it's expressly mentioned so that people will realize that that's included.

The other effect of section 11.1, of course, is to require parents to be informed of instruction that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality, or sexual orientation. It only makes sense to do this because parents can't opt their children out of activities that they don't know about. This is a minor change to current practice in that section 50 of the School Act allows for opting out but doesn't require notification.

The guide to education says that parents shall be advised prior to the start of human sexuality instruction of their right to exempt their child from that course component. There is no similar notification about religious instruction or, for that matter, patriotic exercises in the current School Act, so that's now added. All section 11.1 does is mandate a consistent approach to informing parents and allowing them to opt out of religious or human sexuality instruction. When I say "religious," I mean as it says in the section, explicit religious instruction. Are we going to cause mass chaos in the schools by requiring boards to inform parents about instruction explicitly addressing religion or human sexuality? Well, no. We already do that. We already require that parents be advised before instruction begins on human sexuality. Adding a requirement that they be advised of explicit instruction about religion imposes no extra unmanageable burden. In much the same way this does not create a logistical problem in schools, as has been mentioned. In the past teachers and principals have not had any problem accommodating students who have opted out of human sexuality instruction. Students who opt out of religious courses are not going to overwhelm the ability of teachers and principals to find suitable alternative activities.

Mr. Speaker, some critics of section 11.1 say that you can read anything into the meaning of religion, so students could opt out of anything that they interpret to be religious. That is not the import of section 11.1, and it's not the intention of section 11.1. Our current practice of allowing students to opt out of sexual education classes has not enabled anybody to opt out of their biology classes. I don't know why anyone would think that including religion here will enable anyone to opt out of discussions of Middle Eastern politics or evolution or geology. What are clearly intended are courses of study, educational programs, instructional materials, or instruction or exercises that are explicitly, specifically, primarily about religion.

Mr. Speaker, there are also claims that Bill 44 will somehow put a chill on what can be discussed in class. This concept that teachers will have to fear any utterings, that discussions in class will freeze, that there can be no utilization of teachable moments when a topic touches on religion or homosexuality is really not on. Social studies classrooms must and will be able to discuss current events, especially when they involve a clash of cultures, values, or even religions. This is not teaching religion. This is acknowledging that in the reality of today's society in developing students who are global citizens, religion will be part of the topic. That is basic to understanding where we are going and how we deal with disease among other things. Science will continue to teach about cell structure and its continuing adaptive evolution.

Other critics are asking why there is any particular sensitivity at all about teaching religion. The implication of these statements is that allowing students to be exempted from explicit religious instructions or teaching about religion somehow prevents students from learning about and appreciating diversity. That's simply not the case, Mr. Speaker. When it comes to values and value systems, there has always been this question of whether schools should teach values or whether that's the purview of the family.

Bill 44 is not about preventing children from learning about diversity. In fact, we can't prevent that, and we don't want to prevent that. In a modern, pluralistic society there is no way to avoid discussions of values. Just by walking into a modern classroom, with dozens of ethnocultural backgrounds, religious beliefs and, yes, sexual orientations, today's students are going to learn from each other about diversity. Our society increasingly reflects this diversity and celebrates this diversity. That's why students absolutely should be learning about subjects that they do not necessarily agree with, whether a scientific viewpoint or a religious belief. That's why we ask our students to express views based on their personal values and beliefs. Thinking through personal beliefs is an important part of developing judgment and character.

But there is a particular sensitivity for specifically teaching about religion and religious doctrine. While I want my children to understand the spectrum of religions in the world, I may not want you to interpret for my child what the doctrines of my religion are. That's why we respect and honour students' religious beliefs by allowing their parents to opt them out of religion classes. When it comes to sexuality and sexual education, it's important to me that I know what you are teaching my child. Then I can be involved in ensuring that my child has more than a technical understanding of the mechanics of sex but also a clear and unequivocal view of the importance of sex within a loving and caring relationship. It is for these reasons that notification is provided to parents and the opportunity is there for a parent to say, "I would rather my child not participate."

Some people have argued that by putting these provisions in the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, there is a significant change, that we're elevating them to the status of rights. Surprise. Parents have always had the fundamental right to direct the education of their child. That's recognized in the preamble of the School Act, Mr. Speaker, where it says that "parents have a right and a responsibility to make decisions respecting the education of their children." They have the right to review curriculum with teachers and, in fact, are encouraged to do so. I wish more parents would take an active interest in what is happening in their child's school. That's why parental rights, including being informed about and given the chance to opt out of explicit religious instruction and exercises and instruction about human sexuality, are important. But that absolutely does not include allowing a religious interpretation of the broader program of studies as grounds for opting out.

Mr. Speaker, I've always maintained that education exists not just for our children but for our communities and our society as a whole. This legislation is one of those efforts that walks the always uncertain and uneasy line between communal needs and personal preferences. However, it is clear that parents are ultimately responsible for their children, that society has an interest in making sure that children are appropriately educated, and that in some areas there is inevitably going to be a clash of values, which needs rational discussion and resolution.

This is a methodology of ensuring that parents can and will be involved when those sensitive subjects come up. They can opt out if necessary, but hopefully it would only be after a discussion with the teacher as to what was actually going to be included in the instruction and possibly the ability of the parent then to supplement that discussion at home if they had concerns. Ultimately, they have the opportunity, they have the option, they have the right to opt out. One of the other issues that I want to deal with very quickly is this issue that perhaps teachers will be hauled before the Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Speaker, clearly, if this section is in the human rights act, the Human Rights Commission has a role. One of the tenets of the Human Rights Commission is always to require a complainant to first go through other processes that are available to them. In the school process those processes have always been there and always worked. We have all across this province opportunity for parents to talk to teachers not just about these issues but about any issue in the curriculum that they find offensive or any teaching resource that they find offensive. We've had examples of that across the province where a parent has taken an objection to the resource, and the appropriate route is then to talk to the teacher about it. If they don't get satisfaction, talk to the principal about it. If they don't get satisfaction, talk to the school board about it. I'm not aware of any circumstances where that process has not been successful.

However, in the event that someone did complain to the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Commission would first ensure that they went through that process. Secondly, the Human Rights Commission would have the opportunity to determine whether this was a frivolous or a valid complaint. This doesn't have to be a huge process. In fact, the other amendments to the human rights act that are being proposed will make it much easier for the Human Rights Commission to do its job and not be burdened with frivolous complaints, to deal with those expeditiously and to deal with the appropriate complaints that come before them, the ones that have merit, in a robust nature.

I do not believe teachers or school boards should be scared of the process at all. I do not believe that there's anything in section 11 which should freeze discussion in the classroom at all. The clear interpretation that should be put on section 11.1 is that when a teacher in a program of studies is going to teach explicitly about religion or, as is in the School Act, religious instruction, when the teacher has a unit in their program of studies which teaches about human sexuality, which includes sexual orientation, notification is required. In fact, that's the process that's undertaken now, and it works.Changing this, putting it into the human rights act, is not going to change the fact that parents have rights. It's not going to change the fact that parents are required to be notified as they are now under policy - not in the act but under policy - about the teaching of human sexuality.

It will change one thing with respect to religion, and that is not only the right to opt out of religious and patriotic instruction and exercises but the right to opt out of the teaching about religion. But it's explicitly teaching about religion and not using a religious lens on all the other curriculum to determine whether they disagree on religious grounds with anything that's being taught in science or math or social studies or literature.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear about this. The intent of this bill is to make sure that you can opt out where appropriate but not opt out of all the other areas.