Saskatchewan Party leader Scott Moe said in October 2024 that he did not know a provincial NDP candidate’s two children were involved in the school change-room complaint he cited when promising a province-wide rule. The campaign issue involved minors and transgender rights, requiring unusual care with privacy and political language.
The proposed directive
Moe said his government’s first action after re-election would be a directive preventing what he called “biological boys” from using change rooms with “biological girls.” The proposal had not appeared in the Saskatchewan Party’s written platform before he announced it.
He said a recent complaint from a southeast Saskatchewan school showed the need for consistent rules across divisions. Reporters later learned that the children’s parent was running for the NDP.
What Moe said he knew
Moe said he became aware of the complaint shortly before announcing the policy and answered no when asked whether he knew the children’s identities. He said the party had no role in distributing information about them and that no one should contact the family.
Those statements should be reported as his account unless independent evidence establishes the internal flow of information. The children should not be named or identifiable through unnecessary school and family detail.
The opposition response
NDP leader Carla Beck accused the government of divisive politics and argued that a blanket rule would increase risk for vulnerable children. She said voters were more concerned about class size, staffing, health care and living costs.
LGBTQ+ advocates warned that singling out transgender pupils could expose them to harassment and exclusion. Supporters of sex-separated facilities emphasized privacy and comfort. Good policy has to address all students’ safety without treating a child as a campaign symbol.
Existing legal context
Moe’s government had already used the notwithstanding clause to enact a law requiring parental consent before students younger than 16 could use a different name or pronouns at school. Critics argued that the measure could force teachers to out children who feared harm at home.
The change-room proposal was a separate policy promise. Conflating the two obscures the safeguards, evidence and legal analysis each requires.
Questions a province-wide rule must answer
Schools need private changing options available without stigma, accessible facilities and procedures that do not invite students or staff to inspect bodies. A rule must explain how it applies to individual stalls, team travel, non-binary pupils and students with disabilities.
Consultation should include pupils, parents, educators, human-rights experts and child-health professionals. An anecdotal complaint can identify a concern but should not be the sole evidence for province-wide policy.
Responsible reporting about children
Minors connected to a candidate do not surrender privacy because their parent entered politics. Journalists and campaigns should avoid details that allow online communities to identify them.
Terms should be attributed when they reflect a politician’s framing. Transgender identity is not evidence of misconduct, and an unresolved school complaint is not proof that any child harmed another.
The public-interest test
Voters could legitimately ask why the promise appeared late in the campaign, what evidence supported it and whether schools already had workable policies. They could also expect the government to protect students who raised privacy concerns.
The central accountability issue was not the identities of two children. It was whether provincial policy would be developed transparently, lawfully and with evidence about its effects on every student required to use a school change room.
