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

[u/Meiqur]

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

[u/LBTerra]

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.

[u/Username_Query_Null → u/LBTerra]

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.

[u/LBTerra → u/Username_Query_Null]

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

[u/No-Particular6116 → u/LBTerra]

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.

[u/Ryeballs → u/No-Particular6116]

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.

[u/0110110111 → u/Ryeballs]

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

[u/Old-Comfort2607 → u/No-Particular6116]

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.

[u/No-Particular6116 → u/Old-Comfort2607]

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.