Ms Notley “very much appreciates” that Bill 206’s definition of bullying includes sexual orientation, but remains concerned Bill 44 might allow the parents of bullies to opt their children out of sensitivity programs suggested by the principal

The following is copied from the June 1, 2009, printed transcripts of the Legislative debate and discussion:

 

Ms Notley: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I am very pleased to be

able to rise and join in debate on Bill 206, the School (Enhanced

Protection of Students and Teachers) Amendment Act, 2009.  This

is an interesting bill.  I want to start out by congratulating the

sponsoring member for her insistence on putting it forward again

because I know this is her second attempt to get it forward.  I don’t

question for a moment her commitment to addressing and trying to

deal with a very important issue, that I think probably almost all of

us in this House share an opinion that that issue is one we need to

take very, very seriously and do everything we can to address, and

that is the issue of bullying in our schools.

 

I do applaud the member for this initiative and for taking the time

and using this opportunity to put this issue on our agenda here in the

Assembly so that we can discuss the issue and address a number of

the factors or circumstances relevant to the debate.  I guess at this

point that while I appreciate the objectives and the goals of this bill,

I’m not sure whether this bill is the best vehicle for achieving these

objectives.  When I say that, I say that quite genuinely.  I really am

not sure.  I have some questions with respect to how the bill would

be interpreted and some technical questions in some respects in

terms of its implications.  So I will put those out there, and then I

look forward to the opportunity to have further debate and discussion

on it as the bill works its way through, which I assume it probably

will.

 

The first question that I’ll put to you, because I’m afraid I will run

out of time, may seem a bit rhetorical, but truly it’s not.  It is

something that I genuinely believe we need to address, and I’m sure

it will come as no surprise to the sponsoring member.  I very much

appreciate that this bill we have before us today includes amend-

ments to the definitions of bullying to include sexual orientation as

a prohibited ground upon which bullying could occur.

 

I note that within the bill there is the provision that where it’s

determined by a teacher in consultation with the principal that

bullying may have occurred, the principal and, ultimately, a peace

officer will consult with one another to talk about a potential

program of education to which the perpetrator, for lack of a better

word, would be invited to attend in order to have that person,

hopefully, learn something from that education process such that we

would mitigate and prevent further bullying activity in the future.

 

So, of course, it should be no big surprise that my question is: how

will the provision in this bill, were it to pass, work in conjunction

with the proposed section 9 of the human rights code, that would

potentially allow a parent to withdraw a child from a specific course

of education that might deal with the issue of sexual orientation?  In

fact, I’m quite convinced that everybody who works, particularly, in

education and in particular around issues of bullying – in fact, I’ve

consulted with many over the last two or three weeks – will tell you

that sexual orientation or suspicions of minority sexual orientations

form the foundation of 40 to 50 per cent of the bullying that occurs

in the school setting.

 

Obviously, if you’re truly going to mitigate it and prepare a course

of education that will prevent it in the future, you simply can’t have

a passing or incidental reference to sexual orientation in the

education that arises.  You have to talk to the perpetrator of the

bullying about the issues around sexual orientation in order to

promote understanding and, ultimately, discourage and persuade that

person to not engage in bullying in the future.

 

My concern, of course, is that we might well have a parent come

along and say: no, my kid is not going to participate in that.  Right

now, as it stands, it’s not clear to me that there is anything to stop a

parent from doing that.  That is a concern I have, and I look forward

to hearing from the member about how that particular outcome can

be avoided.  On the face of it I don’t know how it can be avoided,

and that is of grave concern.

 

The other question I have, somewhat related to that but also

relating to all types of bullying, is just the question of what the

authority is right now of the school – and I genuinely don’t know –

to suspend students who do engage in bullying.  My understanding

is that they have the authority to suspend at this point.  Is it arguable

that this bill might actually undermine that ability to suspend?  I

don’t know the answer, but if the answer is yes, then I guess I’m

concerned about that because I think that there are occasions where

the bullying becomes so systemic and so engaged and so deeply

embedded that for the sake of the victims of the bullying it is

necessary to remove the bully from that setting.

 

So those are two of, probably, about six or seven questions that I

have, but I suspect I’m coming close to the end of my opportunity to

speak right now, so I may have to adjourn debate on this bill and

come back to it in the future. (1438)