I believe in Gay Straight Alliances. The proportion of LGBTQ teens at risk is very high, including unacceptable levels of risk of self harm and suicide. GSAs provide peer support and have been shown to significantly mitigate these risks.
Laurie Blakeman was the political champion of the GSA issue. Her private members bill (Bill 202) and the support it garnered forced the PC government to enact Bill 10, which had all party support in the Legislature. That bill provided for GSAs in any school where students wanted one and provided that joining a GSA did not require parental consent or even notification. In practice parental notification was rare.
The NDP government enacted Bill 24, which tweaked GSAs by essentially forbidding parental notification. It also gave greater enforcement powers to the Education Minister to ensure that all schools provide a GSA where there was a request to have one.
The UCP have had a concern that forbidding parental notification is not appropriate in certain circumstances, especially where joining a GSA puts a child at risk of harm. While a GSA putting a child at risk of harm is possible, it is going to be extremely rare.
The concept of children at risk is also a child welfare issue and that is where notification is more complex. School officials are required to notify Childrens Services when they know of a child at risk of material neglect or abuse (the legal term is "in need of services"). Nothing in Bill 10 or Bill 24 changed that.
Under the Bill 10 regime, where participation in a GSA puts a child at risk a school official would be expected to notify the parents or guardians and required to report the matter to Childrens Services. A Childrens Services worker would investigate and that investigation would involve the guardians to see if the guardians understand their duty to protect the child from the risk.
Under the Bill 24 regime, where participation in a GSA puts a child at risk the school official would be prohibited from notifying the parents or guardians, but would still have to call Children Services. The Childrens Services worker would likewise have to investigate to see if the guardians are fulfilling their duty to protect. How the worker could do that without asking the parents if they knew their child was in a GSA is a really good question. Asking the question is tantamount to parental notification.
It is reasonable for parents to assert that if a GSA puts their child at risk, and they have a legal duty to protect their child from risk, they should be made aware of the risk.
In my opinion, parental notification should generally not happen. Circumstances where parental notification may be warranted are going to be extremely rare and they should be. The differences between the processes under Bill 10 and Bill 24 are minor. I am concerned about the level in which this has been politicized. The Bill 24 changes (which I am on the record as having supported) were not an assault on parental rights. Similarly the process under Bill 10, and the UCP desire to return to it, is not an undermining of GSAs or a desire to out "gay kids". Both processes are consistent with the duty of guardians to protect their children from the risk of harm. It is arguable that Bill 10 did this better as the parents would be notified about the risk sooner.
The time when GSAs should be a political issue has passed. Bill 10 reflected a rare and valuable political consensus. The NDP brought in Bill 24 as a political wedge issue. They should have respected the political consensus and left things as they were. The UCP took the bait in opposing Bill 24 and doubled down by bringing the issue into the present election campaign. They should also have left well alone.