Alberta’s Notwithstanding Clause Gambit: A Dangerous Precedent for Canadian Rights

Canada’s Charter: A Promise, Not a Permission Slip

We tell ourselves—and the world—that Canada is a country built on rights, not privileges. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees every person freedom of expression, equality before the law, and protection from discrimination. These are not suggestions. They are the bedrock of our democracy.

Yet Alberta’s government is now preparing to ignore them.

Premier Danielle Smith has directed her government to invoke the notwithstanding clause—a rarely used override of Charter rights—to shield three controversial laws from legal challenge. These laws target transgender children and teens:

• Forcing schools to notify parents if students under 16 change their names or pronouns, and requiring notification even for 16- and 17-year-olds.
• Banning transgender girls from female school and amateur sports.
• Restricting gender-affirming healthcare for minors, including hormone therapy and surgeries.

These laws are already divisive. But Alberta isn’t just passing them—it’s amending them to operate “notwithstanding” the Charter. In other words: even if courts rule these laws violate fundamental rights, they will stay in force.

This is not governance. It’s a power grab.

The Notwithstanding Clause: A Safety Valve, Not a Sledgehammer

Section 33 of the Charter was designed as an emergency brake—a way for governments to temporarily override certain rights if they believed courts had misread the public will. It was meant to be used sparingly, not as a routine tool to bypass accountability.

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act during the 2022 Freedom Convoy, Canadians erupted in protest. That was a temporary measure, subject to legal review. Alberta’s plan is worse: it’s a preemptive strike against the Charter, blocking challenges before courts can even rule.

If rights can be suspended at will, they are not rights—they are permissions.

Who Pays the Price?

This isn’t abstract. It’s about real children:

• Students exploring their identity, now forced into the spotlight.
• Athletes just wanting to play.
• Teens seeking medical care, with doctors and parents involved.

Alberta’s government claims it’s defending parents’ rights. But if that’s true, why override the Charter to make those decisions for them? Why take away the ability of schools, doctors, and families to decide what’s best for their kids?

This isn’t parental choice. It’s state control.

A Slippery Slope for Democracy

The Charter exists to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. If governments can pick and choose who gets full protection, what’s next?

• Women’s rights? Should we return to a time when a husband’s signature was required for a bank account?
• LGBTQ+ rights? Should people be fired for being gay, as they once were?
• Indigenous rights? Should the state decide whose culture is “acceptable”?

Once a government claims the power to override rights, there’s no limit to who they might target next.

The Stakes Are National

This isn’t just about Alberta. It’s about whether Canada still believes in the principles that hold our democracy together.

If governments can legislate around the Charter, then rights exist only until they become inconvenient.

And once that door is opened, it’s very hard to close.

The Question for Canadians

Is this the country we want? One where rights are conditional, where the powerful can bypass the Charter at will?

Or do we still believe that in Canada, rights are for everyone—no exceptions?

What do you think? Is Alberta’s use of the notwithstanding clause a necessary stand, or a dangerous overreach?

About The Author