Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Kitchen & Dining Tech Style & Beauty Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Amazon Prime Day Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNP CommentJamie Sarkonak: N.L. policy blocking parents from children's health records was an avoidable mistakeConservatives shouldn't wait for a scandal to clean up the messes of earlier progressive governmentsLast updated 5 minutes ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.Premier Tony Wakeham. Photo by Keith Gosse/The TelegramEarlier this month, Newfoundland parents were told by provincial authorities that they wouldn’t be entitled to view the health information of their kids, if aged 12 or over, on a new government portal. Tweens and teens would have to consent to allow parents access to health files, which would inevitably undermine the care of stubborn, angry, difficult, behaviourally-issue-ridden youth.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorWhat was perhaps most surprising was this happened under a Progressive Conservative government — which, at least, walked the idea back some days later. The PCs blamed the awkward policy choice on past practice, which checks out. But from this, conservatives everywhere should draw a lesson: don’t blindly accept the status quo that’s been handed to you by your predecessors.This newsletter from NP Comment tackles the topics you care about. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againPremier Tony Wakeham stated Thursday that “current laws and policies have been in existence for decades.” The new digital health platform merely exposed that there was a “fundamental misalignment” between parental expectations and the old way of doing things.He’s right that this has been around for a while. The Telegram traced back the rule to at least 2021, when a now-archived webpage stated that record requests for children between 12 and 15 years of age required signatures of parent and child; for those 16 and older, disclosure to a parent required the consent of the youth. This was when the provincial Liberals were in power, by the way.As far as the actual law goes, Newfoundland’s privacy statute is largely silent on children. It does say, however, that parents may stand in for children for information-access purposes when the government custodian of that information believes “the minor does not understand the nature of the right or power and the consequences of exercising the right or power.”It’s usually presumed in Canadian law that parents are the primary decision-makers of children, with some exceptions for “mature minors” in the health context.Alas, Newfoundland takes an extreme approach: it appears that the health system considers all 12-year-olds to have a deep understanding of the consequences of denying their mom or dad the ability to see into their health file. A memo N.L. Health Services sent to parents of school-aged children in Newfoundland and Labrador, outlining the policy for accessing children’s medical records through the MyHealthNL online tool. (NL Health Services) Photo by NL Health ServicesIt just so happens that the Newfoundland approach to kids’ health information aligns with the no-parents-allowed policies that transgender activists have rallied so hard for in recent years. The activists, of course, falsely claim that “parental rights” don’t exist, and that parental access to information (whether medical- or school-related) jeopardizes the safety of LGBT youth.These activists often win: look at any province where schools are permitted to socially transition kids at school without parental knowledge or consent. Of course people had their hackles up over the situation in Newfoundland: it looked like yet another inappropriate attack on parents to appease a small movement that puts children on the path towards irreversible, cross-sex medical alterations. Perhaps it was; it’s still not clear why the policy came to be, and why no one in the Progressive Conservative government moved to get rid of it until now.The good news is that Wakeham appears to recognize the absurdity in all of this. “Parents are the primary protectors of their children,” reads his Thursday statement. “Our government believes that parents or guardians should always have the right to access their children’s health care information.” He added that his government would review the province’s privacy legislation and committed to putting forth a bill in the fall to “ensure that parental access to their children’s medical records is protected.”It’s promising, but it’s a gaffe that didn’t need to happen in the first place. If there was a memo being circulated throughout the province by health authorities to parents, one would think the health minister had been made aware. Senior civil servants in the education department were aware, as they were addressed in the government memo. At some point, someone in political office should have clued in that there was a rule barring parents from accessing the health information of their kids. They could have said something. They didn’t. If it wasn’t for a deluge of parental outrage, nothing would have changed, either.Further, there’s still time for Wakeham to bend the knee to whatever activist groups who insist on stripping parental authority from the lives of children. These groups are experts at spamming government consultations with their concerns and complaining to media about their anxieties about a fast-approaching fascist regime. With hope, there will be no floundering.Newfoundland isn’t unique here. Progressive governments leave behind vestigial laws like this all time, and conservative governments fail to clean it up until it’s too late. Even Alberta, the most ambitious province when it comes to standing up for equality and parental rights, is guilty of neglect on this front. The previous NDP government explicitly authorized identity-based discrimination against people who aren’t considered “disadvantaged” — i.e., white, straight, male, able-bodied, etc. — by amending the province’s human rights legislation to excuse “ameliorative” discrimination back in 2017. It somehow remains the law to this day.Conservative supporters expect progressive policies from left-wing governments, but the sting is particularly sharp when the call comes from inside the house. Let the Newfoundland blunder be a lesson to conservatives everywhere: deal with the wokisms of past governments before they blow up into an embarrassment that invigorates opponents and demoralizes your own side.National Post Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.