Notwithstanding Bill 9

This is an email exchange with my Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of Alberta.

A short preamble:

First, I really need to work on my substack to fill in background detail that will explain why I hold these views and values.

Second, this is dense reading, hopefully coherent, and really important details into a law the Provincial Government of Alberta is trying to force through so that legislation it passed last year can not be challenged in court on the basis that the legislation may infringe upon the rights and freedoms of Albertans. That is called the “notwithstanding clause”, more information on it can be read here: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art33.html

My basic premise is that the government passed three flawed and largely demonstrative but ineffective laws. Using the notwithstanding clause to prevent legal challenges is indefensible and ultimately immoral. This current government has used the notwithstanding clause twice recently, the first time to force Alberta teachers to end a strike (see https://cba-alberta.org/news/cba-alberta-statement-on-the-use-of-the-notwithstanding-clause/) and the second to prevent the challenge on Bill 9 (see https://www.lawnow.org/the-alberta-legislature-repeatedly-uses-the-charters-notwithstanding-clause-to-shield-controversial-laws-from-court-challenges/ for a better background than I’ve written below.)

My original email is at the bottom, then the reply, and my final response above it. Contact information is redacted, but honestly is very simple to find. My hope is to do whatever meaningful act I can in order to prevent the abuse of the notwithstanding clause, and to hopefully inspire other Albertans to contact their MLAs.

I hope that you find this a reasoned and respectful stance, while being absolutely clear that these laws are entirely unacceptable in our society. Umbrage happily given and received. And with that:

Notwithstanding Bill 9.

I’m sorry, but Thursday was very much not a good afternoon, particularly after receiving this reply. Let’s get into it. I will endeavour to do my best here, but I am very unaccustomed to reading line by line through legislation and I ask for grace and latitude should I miss a provision, or should I require direction to relevant details, or should I need an explanation on, for instance, a specific term of art I am unfamiliar with. I have and will continue to write in fully good faith and will assume the replies come in the same tone. I will state clearly where and when I take offence to your reply.

I am reading from the bills found here:

https://docs.assembly.ab.ca/LADDAR_files/docs/bills/bill/legislature_31/session_1/20230530_bill-026.pdf

https://docs.assembly.ab.ca/LADDAR_files/docs/bills/bill/legislature_31/session_1/20230530_bill-027.pdf

https://docs.assembly.ab.ca/LADDAR_files/docs/bills/bill/legislature_31/session_1/20230530_bill-029.pdf

I have paid little attention to this specific legislation passed last year. I believed they did not particularly affect me and I do not particularly feel that I need to keep a lasered eye on everything that happens in government. I see that I was mistaken.

Bill 26, Bill 27, and Bill 29 comprise unequivocally bad legislation at their very core. I have no intention to argue the bills line by line, but there are critical and obvious flaws I see in them that are strictly unacceptable to me.

In Bill 26, the spirit is clearly to ban irreversible procedures and changes to a minor person’s body that may be regretted later. I do not argue that aim, to some degree I laud the principle. I strongly argue the point and purpose of such of the legislation existing at all.

The inclusion of defining “gender dysphoria” and “gender incongruence” is the first warning to me that this is bad legislation. Those are scientific terms and principles, very difficult to measure, very controversial to present to a broad audience, particularly without carrying an undercurrent of an agenda unrelated to the law itself. Scientific terminology, particularly in new or rapidly changing fields, will change as more knowledge is added. Legislation inevitably lags, while meanings and definitions which are set in stone typically gets abused by bad actors.

Furthermore, this legislation appears to be toothless and ineffective because it ignores the reality experienced by children and adults that experience “gender incongruence.” From my knowledge and experience, it is not a condition that is taken lightly from a medical perspective. A person goes through many hours of analysis and counselling before a diagnosis is even rendered. By definition, to be diagnosed it “..must also be associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.” (See https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria#section_0)

This isn’t willy-nilly happenings where decisions are made on a whim. They are considered carefully, and treated in the least harmful manner possible.

Should the law be contested in good faith, the child would have already had a serious diagnosis from a medical team that understands the issue better than you or I ever shall. By the time a child has ever reached the point of enduring “gender dysphoria”, the condition would already have been thoroughly investigated, compared against criteria relevant to that particular individual, and most likely already undergone treatment that would be as minimally damaging as possible to the child’s body, while averting as much damage as possible to the child’s mental health.

In good faith, should this law go to court on good standing, the medical team would present their findings of a monumental amount of work to achieve a diagnosis and the recommendation in full consideration as to why this particular law would be harmful to the person. This law would not stand, it simply ignores the work and evidence required to get to the point of a treatment, and it glosses over the fact that work to find the least harmful treatment has already happened. Gender dysphoria is a medical issue.

It is a bad law.

Bill 27 offends me deeply.

I am a divorced parent. My experience in divorce was categorically horrific on every level. I am going to address one line point of history - my court order as written and the unfair and unreasonable amount of effort required to enforce any behavioural issues in my court order. I am only paraphrasing hereafter.

Specifically, I am referring to my interactions with the school system. My court order stated I was entitled to all information about my children, their performance, issues that arose, their report cards, etc. In order to merely discover which school my child was attending, I made repeated calls to the Public and Private school boards, attempts with private and charter schools, and had to engage my lawyer to merely get my first answer. The Public board had been delaying replying at all, until they supposedly had engaged their lawyers to ensure that my court order 1) did not contain a restraining order and 2) did contain a provision that I was entitled to all information about my children’s educational status and well being.

When I read Bill 27, I see a well meaning, cheery effort to ensure some kid doesn’t get swept up in an over-exuberance trend of gender dysphoria that seems to be all the rage compared with when I was in school.

What I do not read is any provision whatsoever on the excruciating hell that is endless time, expense, and repeated trips to court in order to get the most basic of information. In many respects, I find the laws treat divorced parents - and especially non-custodial parents - as second class citizens. In my reading of this bill, my past experience is entirely passed over. I immediately have a warning flare set off when I see just how badly this bill ignores reality, particularly should parents become divorced over irreconcilable differences over a weighty familial matter such as a child enduring gender dysphoria.

This is an offensively bad law that would purport to defend my parental rights in name and principle, but deny me those rights without great cost of time and resources.

Bill 29 simply confuses me. I have read through it many, many times.

Please point out where and how the legislation specifies the governing bodies of amateur competitive sports in Alberta are required to implement policies that limit participation in women’s and girl’s sports to those who were born female.

Please explain where and how the legislation specifies the governing bodies of amateur competitive sports in Alberta are required to implement policies that limit participation in men’s and boy’s sports to those who were born male.

Please clarify why your reply exclusively addresses women’s and girl’s competitive sport and omits men’s and boy’s sport as described below.

Please present measurable data of how frequently this has arisen as an issue in the province of Alberta within the past one, five, and 15 year time frames.

Bill 29 is confusing, messy, and strikes me more as an aspirational statement, not a good law.

None of the stated laws are fit for purpose. I state this independent of my judgment of the stated goals they are purportedly trying to achieve.

-=-=-

Bill 9 is unconscionable. You can not protect our rights by invoking the nothwithstanding clause and removing our rights pertaining to the legislation.

I maintain as previously stated that removal of rights by the notwithstanding clause to any Albertan is an offence upon all Albertans. This is a grossly wrong act that does not meet my standards. You have not presented any reasonable justification to invoke the notwithstanding clause. Invoking the notwithstanding clause here is equally as offensive as when it was invoked in Bill 2, as well as when invoked in Bill 202. This, in addition to the ruling of Judge Feasby only yesterday, demonstrates a very concerning pattern. (See https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-judge-proposed-referendum-unconstitutional-9.7004982, particularly the epilogue of the decision.)

You have told me that three lawsuits have been filed by “activist organizations(sic)”. I hold that all three laws consist in part or in whole of bad legislation. I welcome any and all good faith challenges to laws - they cause our legislators to be more careful and attentive to the bills they write that affect us all. Bad legislation causes harm. Bad legislation costs all of us when it gets challenged in court. Bad legislation needs to be struck down, preferably as rapidly as possible. An injunction is entirely acceptable, because pausing this truly horrific legislation prevents harm for children at risk immediately, until it can be further evaluated for flaws.

I take particular umbrage with the use of “activist” above because the challenges to the law have clearly been put forward by persons with standing, else an injunction would not be ordered. The challenges have arisen in response to your legislation. These are not activist organisations, at best they are reactionary towards an activist government. If you cannot defend your legislation before a court, you have no business forcing your legislation through by invoking the notwithstanding clause.

Using the notwithstanding clause is entirely unnecessary. It wholly ignores the professionalism, expertise, and care of the medical community. It takes on a mantle of superiority that the legislation is good simply because you declare it so, and takes on the stench of mendacity that your opinion is better than everyone else in Alberta due to the fact that you currently hold the reigns of power.

Using the notwithstanding clause in no way protects my rights as a parent and in no way ensures that I would be fully involved in a major decision in my child’s life given my status as a non-custodial parent. In quite the opposite manner, in times of contention I would be forced to endure extra cost and legal battles just to discover such an event at great time and effort. I am not explicitly ensured of my right to be involved, and an implicit inference completely ignores my involvement would require a cooperative spouse or extended time at the courts trying to get an affirmative ruling. This bill passes the burden of litigation to me, a citizen, instead of at the governmental level where it belongs.

I am very well aware the notwithstanding clause is built into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You are very well aware that I object to its use under any but the most extreme emergencies. This does not qualify. In my opinion, this is a flagrant violation that “Charter rights should be read broadly, putting the burden of justifying limitations on the state.” (see https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/principles-principes.html under “The Purposive Approach”.)

Instead of reassuring me, I am entirely convinced that this decision was not made with adequate deliberation and forethought.

I also wish that every child has the opportunity to grow into adulthood before making life-altering decisions about their gender and fertility. However, I do not take the paternalistic stance that I know better than any other person what their thoughts and feelings may be. Regardless of my personal thoughts or feelings, I put much more faith that the medical community and associated professionals will consider my thoughts and feelings in order to guide my child to a better outcome than I would in such shoddy legislation.

Invoking the nothwithstanding clause treats all opinions dissenting to your own with contempt. I ask that you demonstrate to me a solid understanding of the underlying facts and circumstances, and provide a reasoned explanation that such a drastic decision is indeed warranted. Instead I feel you have tried to pat me on the head and send me on my way, trusting that you know best. That is offensive to me.

Should Mr. Sigurdson wish to respond with an open mind and a serious reply, I would be pleased to hear back and I will listen in good faith.

In furthered annoyance,

- Mr. Zaugg

On Dec 3, 2025, at 1:31 PM, Highwood <REDACTED> wrote:

Good afternoon Mark,

Thank you for reaching out to the office of MLA Sigurdson regarding Bill 9 and the notwithstanding clause.

As you know, the government introduced three pieces of legislation last year to protect the health and well-being of children and strengthen the role of parents as a child’s primary caretaker. This includes:

• Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, which prohibits both gender reassignment surgery for children under 18 and the provision of puberty blockers and hormone treatments for the purpose of gender reassignment to children under 16.

• Bill 27, the Education Amendment Act, 2024, that requires schools to obtain parental consent when a student under 16 years of age wishes to change his or her name or pronouns for reasons related to the student’s gender identity and requires parental opt-in consent to teaching on gender identity, sexual orientation or human sexuality.

• Bill 29, the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act, that requires the governing bodies of amateur competitive sports in Alberta to implement policies that limit participation in women’s and girls’ sports to those who were born female.

Since passing this legislation, three lawsuits have been filed by activist organizations, with one injunction already in place. Lengthy court proceedings would cause this legislation to be paused – potentially putting children at risk for years.

Using the notwithstanding clause is a necessary measure to ensure that laws safeguarding children’s health, education, and safety cannot be undone - and that parents are fully involved in the major decisions affecting their children’s lives.

The notwithstanding clause is a tool that is built into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for federal and provincial legislatures to use and reflects Canada’s system of parliamentary democracy.

I want to reassure you that this decision was not made lightly and was made on the premise that children deserve the opportunity to grow into adulthood before making life-altering decisions about their gender and fertility.

Sincerely,


<image001.png>
Highwood Constituency Office
Hon. RJ Sigurdson | MLA – Highwood
Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation
<REDACTED>





-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Zaugg <REDACTED>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:27 PM
To: Highwood <REDACTED>
Subject: Notwithstanding Bill 9

Mr. Sigurdson,

My name is Mark Zaugg, I live in the home my mother built in Okotoks. I’m proud to live here, I am ecstatic with my town and my neighbours, I am grateful to be in this wonderful province, and I absolutely do my best each and every day to try to make the world around me just a little bit better.

I am furious with news that once again the government is planning to invoke the notwithstanding clause *yet again* with another bill it plans to pass in the legislature. Signalling that your bill is more important than the rights inherent within our constitution is abhorrent to me and tramples the values I hold dear.

The constitution lays out the fundamental rules in which we build our lives as Canadians. I can disagree with clauses of the constitution and yet still live faithfully under it. For instance, I am no great fan of the monarchy, but I shall swallow my pride and swear allegiance to King Charles III when appropriate. I am absolutely, foundationally opposed to the notwithstanding clause and the worst of the excesses in how it has been leveraged. It is a permanent blemish on Premier Lougheed’s record.

I opposed the use of the notwithstanding clause with Bill 202 in the year 2000. I oppose the recent use of the notwithstanding clause with regards to the back to work legislation just three weeks ago. I oppose it now.

I view it as an affront to all Albertans to declare that notwithstanding one’s rights, a section of our population must endure the violation of those rights specifically set out and listed within the constitution. It is wrong as a whole, it is particularly immoral used with Bill 9.

Premier Smith cites three points as to the purpose of Bill 9:
- Preserving the future choices of children and youth
- Strengthening the role of parents as a child’s primary caregivers
- Ensuring fairness and safety in amateur competitive sports

Not one point is valid or wildly hypocritical. We can not preserve future choices through removing current choices. Nor does the government have any role whatsoever in such personal decisions, especially in such a paternalistic and haughty way. The government has no credibility and no business interfering in my relationship to my children. Meanwhile, sticking your noses into competitive sports for what is an insignificantly common occurrence is laughable - particularly when done in such a sexist, cruel, overwrought, and - yet again - paternalistic and haughty a manner as is done here.

This is wrong-headed decision making that stomps upon the freedoms Albertans deserve. Because those freedoms have already been granted to us.

I do expect a meaningful explanation beyond the pathetic talking points set forward by Premier Smith. I care deeply about this - so much so that I am stirred to write you to complain. Bill 9 actively undermines my values, my principles, and erodes both the rule of law in our province and my esteem of our government.

This is also cross posted to my social media.

In annoyance,

- Mark