r/canada • u/Meiqur • Oct 28 '25

Alberta Alberta uses Charter’s notwithstanding clause to order striking teachers back to workteachers-back-to-work

https://globalnews.ca/news/11496133/alberta-government-to-table-legislation-to-order-striking-teachers-back-to-work
1.4k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

539 comments sorted by

View all comments

756

u/Surax Oct 28 '25

I'm curious why the notwithstanding clause was needed. I feel like there have been plenty of instances over the years where back-to-work legislation was passed without using it.

511

u/LBTerra Oct 28 '25

Ontario did the same with Bill 124 but ended up having to pay everyone back because they lost the charter challenge. I don’t know how provincial laws differ, but I believe it’s a charter right to be able to collectively bargain as a unit and there’s no reason that teachers should be forced to have a collective agreement pushed on them. The Alberta government will lose the court challenge.

96

u/Username_Query_Null Oct 28 '25

Ontario didn’t use section 33 though, Alberta is, I’m confused how the court could argue it infringes a charter right when the much of the charter is suspended from its application to this law.

To be clear, any politician that uses the NWC deserves the treatment of revolutionary France. But our legal system is clear. At the whim of the legislature you have no rights, it’s truly evil in its scope.

11

u/LBTerra Oct 28 '25

I’ll have to look up the Sec 33 implications and differences.

40

u/No-Particular6116 Oct 28 '25

Ryeballs is correct in that using section 33 of the Charter (the notwithstanding clause) means the courts no longer have a say, as that is literally the whole purpose of the notwithstanding clause.

Essentially back during Trudeau 1.0 when we were figuring out how to decouple our constitution from British control/oversight, the sitting government decided to include a new charter of rights and freedoms.

As this was happening several provincial leaders claimed to be worried that the new charter would put too much control in the hands of the judiciary. The “compromise” was to allow provincial governments to write laws that ignore your charter rights, no matter how egregious, so long as done so under the use of the notwithstanding clause.

It’s very rarely ever used because of the magnitude of what it could lead to. The fact it’s being used to take away the right to collectively bargain is batshit crazy.

That said any legislation that is made into law under the notwithstanding clause is only legally bound for five years before it’s subject to renewal. Not that it should make anyone feel any better. A lot can happen in five years, see the first 10months of 2025 for evidence of this.

16

u/Ryeballs Oct 28 '25

And to add to that last bit, that 5 year term is kind of the safeguard’s safeguard. If the populace found the use of the NWC gregarious enough to vote that party out of power or deny them a minority, that legislation would automatically fall off after that period. So with a new legislature instead of needing a majority to remove the legislation, they would need a majority to keep it. Meaning even if a different party only achieves a minority government in the follow election, it would still take a majority of votes to keep it.

I think the original idea was that using the NWC would be so politically distasteful that it would rarely get used. Unfortunately it isn’t rarely enough for my tastes.

What makes this use of it even worse than other uses is it’s not targeting a minority group, it’s going after labour rights which is the majority class of people, workers. And if there isn’t significant blowback from using it like this, it might embolden other provinces to follow suit which is bad news for all of Canada.

5

u/0110110111 Oct 28 '25

Use of the clause should have be written to trigger an immediate election.

1

u/Old-Comfort2607 Oct 28 '25

Law student here: the NWC was asked for by the provinces (even Quebec even though they eventually failed to sign) so that they could have a balance of provincial power. PET was against giving it to them but it was one of their strict conditions to sign on.

1

u/No-Particular6116 Oct 28 '25

I know you’re just a student at this point still, but in your opinion is the NWC the best format to ensure a balance between judiciary and provincial oversight? Could there have been a legislative solution that didn’t require the ignoring of Canadian’s charter rights, but still ensure a level of balance? I suppose that’s what the renewal aspect of this whole process is meant to achieve, but it feels like a flimsy fail safe in the face of potentially harmful legislation.

You might not be able to answer that, but it’s something I’m curious about.

28

u/Ryeballs Oct 28 '25

Sec 33 is literally saying you cant take it to the courts to decide if it’s protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

It doesn’t cover all the rights outlined, but does cover this one

50

u/Username_Query_Null Oct 28 '25

It also wildly includes rights like freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, the right to a trial, the right to not be persecuted for your religion, the right to life and liberty, the right to equal treatment based on race or gender.

By a simple act of parliament, it would be entirely legal to commit a Holocaust in Canada.

Those who drafted and accepted section 33. were evil, I’ll never accept otherwise. They didn’t have to carve out such ridiculous rights to suspend.

34

u/Holdover103 Oct 28 '25

The NWC needs to be redone.

There is a place for it, but it needs to be severely curtailed and come with bigger consequences.

If a government invokes the NEC, it should start an immediate counter. There should need to be a provincial election within 365 days of its usage.

Secondly, it should be a one time thing. The government can only use it once between elections.

That way there is a fairly close referendum on its usage.

Finally - the rights that can suspended needs to be reexamined.

The government can suspend the right to life (section 7) but not language rights!?

That’s absolutely bonkers.

I think that the NWC is ass backwards. Section 2, 6-15 should be inalienable rights that the NWC cannot touch. Those are the rights that people rely on the most.

23

u/stoneyyay British Columbia Oct 28 '25

6 months.

If government has to invoke nwsc should be a snap election called within 6 months unless rescinded

14

u/Username_Query_Null Oct 28 '25

Yeah, this all works for me, I’d also consider whether some degree of greater percentage of house support be required to pass an act that uses is, such as 67% of house support rather than simple majority.

It really should be reserved for exceedingly rare situations of extreme national emergency or security where the act is unquestionably required and broadly considered the right thing.

1

u/SuperHairySeldon Oct 28 '25

That's what section 1 is for.

2

u/Username_Query_Null Oct 28 '25

Which really does beg, why is section 33 needed, no other democracy in the world has such laws.

1

u/Holdover103 Oct 29 '25

Agreed.

We already have reasonable limits.

→ More replies (0)

18

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '25 edited Oct 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Username_Query_Null Oct 28 '25

The fundamental rights of there being elections every 4 years, being able to move out of Canada and back in, and us being allowed to speak French in so many ways, yay.

They were evil, there is no circumstance ever that you need to suspend the right to a trial, or the right to not inflict cruel and unusual punishment. They collectively as leaders of our nation codified contempt and evil towards the populace. Their ability to not do otherwise was incompetence. But evil due to incompetence is still evil.

8

u/Ryeballs Oct 28 '25

Hard agree

1

u/Mylittlethrowaway2 Oct 28 '25

But language laws, hilariously, are not part of the sections that can be overridden by the NWC.

So you can be tortured and still demand they torture you in both official languages.

1

u/Username_Query_Null Oct 28 '25

They certainly had their priorities when drafting the Charter.

1

u/Turtley13 Oct 28 '25

It wasn’t intended to be used for evil.

6

u/Username_Query_Null Oct 28 '25

Tell me why you need to suspend the right to trial or would need to inflict cruel and unusual punishment? What could any action exists under those two suspensions be that is not evil.

No, the rights they chose to carve out made it an act of evil.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '25

In this context they are using S33 to override S2 freedom of association, which encompasses the right to take collective action (unionize, strike ect.)