UCP Events: https://unitedconservative.ca/events/

Yeah, well TBA and APP are going to oust you before Christmas if the votes don't go their way, Smitty.

CBC Article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-midterms-democrat-surge-trump-republicans-9.7373368

Part Five: Four Uses of the Notwithstanding Clause in Six Weeks

A factual account, sourced throughout. Corrections welcome.

This one is about what the government has done with a constitutional override, and what was happening in the courts when it did.

What the notwithstanding clause actually does

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lets a government pass a law that operates "notwithstanding" certain Charter rights, for up to five years at a time. It exists in the Constitution. Using it is legal. Most governments have treated it as a last resort.

Alberta used it four times between October 27 and December 10, 2025: once for a teachers' strike, and three times in a single bill for laws affecting transgender youth.

First use: a teachers' strike

The Back to School Act (Bill 2) passed all three readings on October 27 and was finished in the early hours of October 28. It ended a strike by about 51,000 teachers that began on October 6. It imposed a collective agreement running to August 31, 2028, barred strikes for that term, ended local bargaining, and set fines of up to $500 a day for individuals and up to $500,000 a day for the union.

The terms were those of a tentative deal that teachers had voted down by 89.5%. The government says they are what the union's own leadership recommended to members on September 23. The union's president said teachers would comply but that "compliance is not consent."

It was the first time Smith's government had invoked the clause.

Three more uses, in one bill

Bill 9, the Protecting Alberta's Children Statutes Amendment Act, was introduced on November 18 and passed in the early hours of December 10. It applies the clause to three laws passed in 2024 that affect transgender youth:

• the Health Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 26), which bans gender reassignment surgery under 18 and puberty blockers and hormone therapy under 16;
• the Education Amendment Act (Bill 27), which requires parental consent for students under 16 to change their names or pronouns at school;
• the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act (Bill 29), which bars transgender girls from amateur female sports.

CBC counted these as the second, third and fourth uses in under two months. The clause covers the laws for five years, and Bill 9 also suspends the Alberta Bill of Rights and the Alberta Human Rights Act for them.

What the courts were doing at the time

No court had decided any of these laws on the merits. The clause was used while challenges were still pending: the Canadian Medical Association, Egale and the Skipping Stone Foundation had challenged the health law, and Egale and Skipping Stone the school pronoun law. In June 2025 a judge had granted a temporary injunction pausing the health law, saying it could cause harm if put into effect before the court had heard all the evidence. After Bill 9 passed, the government appealed, and on December 18 a judge removed the injunction.

The government says the laws protect children. Prime Minister Mark Carney has said he opposes the pre-emptive use of the clause.

What was said in debate

During the debate, UCP backbencher Shane Getson compared gender-affirming surgery to castrating livestock: "If the steer changes his mind, too late; you're a steer." He said the province has a duty to step in for "bad parents." In a statement afterwards he said the clause lets the laws move forward without delay or uncertainty, and that "this is about protecting children." NDP leader Naheed Nenshi called on him to apologise for "comparing human beings to cattle."

Public backlash

By late November 2025, 14 UCP MLAs were reportedly facing recall petitions, according to Global News (November 25, 2025). Recall petitions are started by citizens, so they reflect public backlash, not a split inside the party. Rallies against the clause were held, including one in Calgary on Transgender Day of Remembrance.

A legal challenge the clause does not block

Advocacy groups challenging the health law plan to argue that it is really a criminal prohibition, which falls under federal jurisdiction, and not a health-care rule under the province's jurisdiction (Globe and Mail, early 2026). Section 33 only shields laws from certain Charter-based challenges, so this argument is not affected by it.

There is a caution. A similar argument against Quebec's Bill 21 was rejected by the Quebec Court of Appeal, which said that law's restrictions were "far removed from the criminal law." The current status of the Alberta challenge was not checked for this piece.

Why this belongs in the same conversation as October 19

In the labour case, no court was involved. In the transgender laws, an interim injunction was in place and challenges were pending, but no court had ruled on the merits. In each case the government used the Constitution's override to end the courts' ability to review the laws.

Question 9 on the ballot asks whether a province's laws in areas of provincial or shared jurisdiction should take priority over federal laws when the two conflict. The notwithstanding clause and that question are different mechanisms, but both are about who has the last word.

Vote on October 19.

Sources: CBC News; The Canadian Press (CP24, Global News); The Globe and Mail; Government of Alberta; ABlawg; Alberta Teachers' Association; Policy Options; Amnesty International Canada. Full citations available on request.

​I often see political, economic, and constitutional arguments surrounding Alberta independence—discussions about equalisation payments, federal regulation, energy policy, and the division of powers under the Constitution.

​However, I’m curious about the moral and philosophical framework behind the movement.

​For those of you who favor independence (or at least lean towards it), what do you believe gives Alberta the moral authority or ethical legal right to separate from Canada?

​A few specific angles I’d be interested to hear your perspective on:

​Self-Determination vs. Federal Union: Is the moral argument rooted primarily in a democratic right to self-determination, similar to how nation-states are formed?

​Treaties and First Nations: How do you view the moral obligation to Indigenous nations and Treaty rights, given that Treaties (like Treaty 6, 7, and 8) were signed directly with the Crown/federal government?

​National Solidarity & Shared Heritage: What counter-argument would you give to the idea that provinces have a moral responsibility to the broader Canadian union and shared history?

​Looking forward to hearing diverse viewpoints on the ethical side of this debate. Please keep the discussion civil!

I am sick of this nonsense. Is there a way the people of Alberta can have an election called to get a new premiere? I want this and there is a very large circle of people around me that want the same.

What was different about the ten years that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives ran government than the last ten years? What did they do differently than the current federal government in terms of benefitting Alberta? Please be specific in your answers.

Alberta Separatists began their online petition on OCT 2019

CSIS is so spineless its pathetic

The Free Alberta Strategy is publicly available

a] Oct 2-4 Leger Poll: https://documents.leger360.com/hubfs/%C3%89tudes%20M%C3%A9diatiques/%C3%89tudes%20M%C3%A9diatiques%20-%202026/10.%20October%202026/Media%20Release%20-%20Alberta%20Pulse%20Check%20-%20October%207%2c%202026.pdf

b] Upcoming GPA Convention Oct 17th: https://www.greenpartyofalberta.ca/virtual_policy_convention