ADAMS: Alberta's Anti-Trans Bills and the Cost to At-Risk Youth

There is a long-standing principle in Canadian public life: when a government seeks extraordinary powers, citizens should stop and ask why. When those powers are used not to expand liberty but to restrict it, the obligation is greater still. We must object.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s new legislation targeting trans and gender-diverse youth—combined with her pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause—represents one of the most aggressive intrusions into the private lives of children in modern Canadian history. Stripped of branding and rhetoric, these laws do one thing plainly and deliberately: they compel the state to out LGBTQ youth to their parents.

That is not “parental rights.” It is forced disclosure by government order.

Supporters of Bill 9 insist the law merely ensures parents are “kept informed.” That framing collapses under even minimal scrutiny. When the state mandates that a child's name, pronouns, or gender expression be reported regardless of context, safety, or risk, it ceases to act as a neutral intermediary. It becomes an enforcer. And enforcers do not protect the vulnerable, they expose them.

The Legal Fiction of “Parental Rights”

The core justification for this legislation rests on a concept that simply does not exist in Canadian constitutional law.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not contain a general, inalienable right of parents to control their children's identity, expression, or personal development. It does not grant parents ownership over a child's thoughts, beliefs, or self-understanding. Outside of a narrow protection related to minority-language education, “parental rights” are nowhere to be found.

What does exist in Canadian law is the recognition that children are rights-bearing individuals. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that minors possess Charter protections—including rights to security of the person, privacy, and freedom of expression—and that the state has a duty to act in the best interests of the child, not the preferences of adults.

The conservative invocation of “parental rights” is therefore not a constitutional principle. It is legal fiction. And fiction does not override the Charter.

A Law Built on a Dangerous Assumption

This legislation also rests on a second, deeply troubling premise: that all parents are safe, supportive, and entitled to full disclosure regardless of consequences.

That assumption is false.

Teachers, counsellors, social workers, and child-protection professionals know this. Many parents are loving. Some are not. Some homes are safe. Others are hostile. For LGBTQ youth, disclosure can mean punishment, violence, coercive conversion “therapy,” or homelessness.

When the government mandates reporting of a student's identity exploration, it removes the child's ability to assess their own risk. It strips them of discretion. It tells them, in effect, that the state—not the child—will decide when it is safe to come out.

If families were universally supportive, this law would be not be unnecessary in the first place. Parents who foster trust do not need legislation to force communication. Only parents who create fear require the state's help in extracting information.

Public policy should not be designed to reward those parents.

The Notwithstanding Clause as Political Armour

Premier Smith's willingness to invoke the notwithstanding clause before the ink is dry exposes the government's true expectation: that this law violates fundamental rights.

The notwithstanding clause was intended as a constitutional last resort: a safety valve in extraordinary circumstances. It was not designed to function as routine political armour against judicial review. Using it to target a small, vulnerable minority is a profound distortion of its purpose.

Rather than adjusting the legislation to comply with the Charter, the Alberta government has chosen to suspend constitutional protections altogether. That is not strength. It is an admission of legal failure.

What This Will Actually Do

The consequences of this policy are not speculative. They are predictable.

More fear in classrooms.
More silence from vulnerable students.
More youth hiding who they are to remain safe.
More kids pushed toward isolation, mental distress, and instability because the state decided it knew better than they did what their home life could withstand.

When teachers are forced into the role of informants, trust evaporates. When children are told their identity will be disclosed regardless of risk, safety is no longer possible. When courts are barred from intervening, harm becomes policy.

A Choice, Not an Inevitability

This is not about ideology. It is about whether we believe children deserve privacy, dignity, and protection from state-mandated harm.

These laws fail because they assume the best of adults and the worst of children.
They fail because they replace care with coercion.
They fail because they treat identity as a threat rather than a fact of human life.

And they fail because no genuinely loving parent requires the force of government to communicate with their own child.

Outing children is not a policy choice rooted in liberty.
It is an act of state compulsion.

And no free society should ever legislate cruelty.

This piece was written by an individual contributor and reflects the editorial position of The Provincial Times and Left Lane Media Group. Read our Content Policy here.Read our Content Policy here.Read our Content Policy here.