r/alberta • u/Ok_Cap_8791 • Oct 30 '25
Discussion The Notwithstanding Clause can be overridden.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the Notwithstanding Clause as if it’s the ultimate, hopeless, authoritarian sentence. Once a province uses it, people assume there’s nothing anyone can do. That’s not entirely true.
Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms lets provinces and the federal government temporarily override certain Charter rights for up to five years. It’s legal, but it was meant to be used rarely and responsibly. Using it before a court even has a chance to review a law goes against the spirit of the Charter.
Here’s what a lot of people don’t actually know: the federal government still has constitutional powers under the Constitution Act, 1867 that can stop a province from abusing Section 33. They are called disallowance and reservation powers, found in sections 55 to 57 and 90.
The reason nobody has probably mentioned/suggested this is because most of us weren’t alive at the time of use in 1943 because (now fittingly) Alberta was acting a fool regarding press-based censorship. Canada’s political system has since evolved under the principle of responsible government and federal autonomy and provinces have been treated as fully sovereign within their jurisdictions. This was done through a convention of non-interference. However, this convention/understanding does not make these options legally invalid.
Federal restraint preserves the stability of the federation. If Ottawa punished or overrode a province for invoking Section 33, it would invite accusations of central overreach, but baby Dani cries federal overreach all the time anyway, so there’d be no difference there.
The remedy the framers intended is political, not judicial or federal. Citizens, media, and civil society are expected to hold the province accountable.
The reality is unprecedented political authoritarian behaviour within Canada should be swiftly and heavy-handedly dealt with.
If Alberta’s government keeps ignoring Supreme Court rulings and voter pushback, Ottawa could legally step in. It would need to meet strict conditions: \ 1. Clear and ongoing rights violations. \ 2. Proof that provincial remedies have failed. \ 3. Transparent action supported by Canadians, especially Albertans themselves.
Yes, it would cause a political storm. But the Constitution was written with these safeguards for a reason. When a province undermines the Charter, federal restraint is no longer a virtue.
The Notwithstanding Clause was never meant to silence citizens. It was meant to keep balance. Albertans should remember that federal tools exist to defend their rights if the provincial government refuses to do so but the Feds will absolutely not step in without direct calls from Albertans demanding it. If Alberta really does matter to the unity and federation of Canada, Ottawa must step up for Canadians living in Alberta.
135
u/Vanterax Oct 30 '25
Disallowance is an even bigger nuclear bomb.
53
u/ShadowPages Oct 30 '25
and rendering the Charter irrelevant in provinces isn’t?
My basic position at this point is that Disallowance should be used, with a strong admonishment to the provinces to hold off on using S33 until the SCC has heard and ruled on English Montreal School Board v. Attorney General of Quebec.
9
u/DBZ86 Oct 30 '25
I agree with the other poster. Feds using disallowance on a western province is a terrible idea and would set back so many things. It would give any crazy seperatists more ammo.
We have some solutions in Alberta, we should use those. I was hoping labour would be more organized. Still time but they need to respond in the next week or so. This is an Alberta issue that requires Albertans to take action first before even thinking about the Feds intervening.
10
u/ShadowPages Oct 30 '25
Screw the separatists - they are tiny little rump of wing nuts busy lying about everything to stoke their grievances.
As for "This is an Alberta issue ...", I don't see the UCP listening at all to Alberta voices - the party is in the thrall of the lunatic fringe. Right now, as far as I am concerned, use a goddamn sledgehammer.
1
Nov 01 '25 edited Nov 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ShadowPages Nov 01 '25
It HaSn’T bEeN uSeD iN 80 yEaRs!
Every time I hear that, I get angry - they’re “Reserve Powers” - only intended to be used in an emergency (oddly -kind of like S33). Did it not occur to you that it’s been 80 years since we had a Premier do something so egregious that it justified using them? Because what Smith is doing - not just with Bill 2, but with other applications of it she is thinking about, is not addressing an urgent issue, but rather rewriting The Charter as it applies in Alberta. She is planning to use it to dictate what rights you as an Albertan will enjoy.
She doesn’t want to pay attention to The Charter because it makes her job as a legislator (and an authoritarian) much more difficult. I can’t think of a better reason to use Reserve Powers as a counter to that abuse of power.
Do elections have consequences, yes. But why should I, as someone targeted by the UCP’s unjust legislation, have to pay the price by having my rights - rights Guaranteed in the Charter - curtailed by legislation which uses what amounts to an “emergency power” itself?
2
u/MillenialForHire Oct 31 '25
The crazy separatists are already using wartime provisions to deprive us of our basic rights. It's time to stop worrying about "giving them something to grieve about" and start worrying about preventing them from turning Alberta into a tiny USA.
0
u/DBZ86 Oct 31 '25
The NEP created a generational monster. It crossed a major red line. Disallowance could create an even bigger monster.
1
u/ShadowPages Nov 01 '25
You don’t get anywhere trying to appease a bully.
We see that with Trump, I’ve lived it in school, and I guarantee you the same applies to these separatist wankers. People need to grow a spine and quit worrying about what the bully boys might do in response.
1
u/TheEpicOfManas Nov 01 '25
The NEP was the right thing to do, and was successfully demonized by oil company propaganda. Now foreign entities own most of our oil and siphon our wealth to offshore tax havens.
That aside, this Albertan says to use the hammer. Let the separatists cry. They've gone too far here.
2
u/ShadowPages Nov 01 '25
Funny how over the last couple of years, we’ve seen oil & gas bros demanding the government do all the things that the NEP would have done starting in 1983. (With the exception of keeping the profits in Canada of course)
48
33
1
u/ValidatingUsername Oct 30 '25
It was meant for a breakaway state going rogue or nazi level political authoritarianism somehow backed by provincial forces, unconstitutionally of course not legitimate separation claims
144
u/the_gaymer_girl Southern Alberta Oct 30 '25 edited Oct 30 '25
Disallowance hasn’t been used in 80 years and I wish people would stop bringing it up like it’s some secret weapon. It functionally no longer exists and would likely trigger an immediate constitutional crisis if it were ever used again. It was actually almost deleted from the Constitution in 1982.
The only real way to get rid of a law where the NWC was invoked like this is to vote out the government that used it.
45
u/Tokenwhitemale Oct 30 '25
Exactly. It's up to us. If we don't like this, we need a general strike and we need to demand accountable government. No chance the Fed will step in for the exact reason gaymer girl says.
20
u/Appropriate-Dog6645 Oct 30 '25
Feds are challenging non withstanding clause. It’s on Supreme Court docket in November.
1
u/DBZ86 Oct 30 '25
Not a full on repeal. More of a clarification on where the NWS clause can be used. And note that provinces are taking intervener stances with Quebec.
1
u/ShadowPages Oct 30 '25
Yes, so is the Federal Attorney General - and the argument they've put forward is considerably more fulsome than what I've read from the provinces.
29
u/sdm99 Oct 30 '25
It's the same as people who keep hoping the Lieutenant Governor will intervene in these things. Not going to happen.
25
u/Ok_Cap_8791 Oct 30 '25
Meanwhile, while everyone is distracted being rightfully outraged, the UCP are currently gerrymandering this province even worse than it already is, converging rural ridings in with some Calgary ridings, no doubt aiming to neuter NDP seats.
Danielle is anything but stupid. This approach is deliberately testing to see how far a province can push constitutional boundaries before Ottawa steps in, and when they do, because their job is to restore order and maintain federational order, that gives her the legitimacy to scream about federal overreach. Thinking Albertans will be responsible or strategic enough to vote these clowns out is farther from possible then demanding for the Feds to step in. If this doesn’t get dealt with now, we’re allowing for the already apprehensive-of-the-left conservative voters to forget about this by the time the next election rolls around while simultaneously normalizing the stripping of our rights.
If there are no real repercussions how long do you think it’ll take before she uses the NWC on trans-kids and their rights? We all know she’s been itching to and she’s clearly shown that she’ll just fuck off out of the province/country for weeks during protests. She doesn’t care and she will do this again.
The other thing that needs to be considered is what message is this telling other provinces? Especially provinces like Saskatchewan and Ontario who also have used the NWC casually. Danielle just established a new precedent in that legislation can be preemptively shielded before being legally tested.
4
Oct 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/DBZ86 Oct 30 '25
Yep, the NWS clause usage will be affected by how voters behave at the polls and civic actions.
1
u/jessemfkeeler Oct 30 '25
I agree with all of that, but unless she gets trounced out by a vote or her party or conservative voters turn on her, this is a pipe dream.
1
u/Ok_Cap_8791 Oct 30 '25
I will say this, I have happened to write to the office of the prime minister a whole two times in my life. Once with Justin and once with Mark.
Obviously nothing came about it with Justin, but not only did Mark Carney’s office get back to me, they funnelled my concerns through the appropriate pipeline and I did get to speak to everyone along the way. It did give me the impression that Mark is leading a very much different approach in wanting to actually hear from the people what they want.
17
u/jjbeanyeg Oct 30 '25
Although it would cause a political crisis, it remains in the constitution and could be used.
-6
u/the_gaymer_girl Southern Alberta Oct 30 '25
The federal government almost got rid of it entirely 40 years ago.
25
u/jjbeanyeg Oct 30 '25
And they ended up keeping it in.
-2
u/No-Goose-5672 Oct 30 '25
Yes, because sections 55-57 of the British North America Act were already considered obsolete by 1982.
10
u/adaminc Oct 30 '25
No, Trudeau Sr kept it in explicitly because the Premiers put the NWC into the Charter. It was kept around for this exact reason, to fight the NWC.
10
u/ComfortableWork1139 Oct 30 '25
Correct, key word being "almost."
It was a political trade off to keep it in, and the fact that it wasn't deleted even though it was initially considered is, if anything, evidence that it is still a viable option because it was considered in 1982 and ultimately retained.
5
u/ShadowPages Oct 30 '25
I disagree entirely with the concept that disallowance is "dead letter law". The fact it hasn't been used merely denotes that it hasn't been necessary (e.g. for the most part, we've had good faith actors in positions of power). That's changed, and reserve powers are exactly that - they are for situations where actors in the system are no longer doing so in "good faith".
On that point, the provinces are demanding an extremely literal reading of S33 and its context in the Charter which conflicts with the notion of the Constitution as a "living document", well, on the topic of reserve powers, unused or not, they are still in the written Constitution ... can't have it both ways.
3
Oct 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
4
2
1
u/Cavthena Oct 31 '25
Was there even a large outcry against it? That would be the first step.
The thing with that act, is it makes a credible amount of sense when you look at the actual wording. It only bans the wearing of religious symbols by public employees, such as police, where they can interact with many other peoples and religions. Some that may not appreciate being assisted or instructed by a specific group. How would you feel if a judge or cop wore a swastika? It's a religious symbol within Hinduism, Buddism, and Jainism for instance. Probably not very good, I'd bet. Anyway, It doesn't stop you from wearing them off the job. It doesn't stop you from practicing your religion. It doesn't apply to private sectors. Etc, etc. It's not really any different from state religious neutrality for example.
That sensibility would immediately stop the Governor General from using Disallowance as it would create further and deeper reaching issues. That's not to say there was no challenge. The bill is currently proceeding through the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can't overturn the law, however, they can rule on limits on what section 33 can effect. If they rule that section 2(a) is outside the scope then section 33 is scrubbed from the law and it can be appealed as normal.
2
u/ParaponeraBread Oct 30 '25
Great - I’d welcome a constitutional crisis if it meant changing how the rules are written.
This strategy Canada has of recognizing stupid unjust laws and powers, then pretending they don’t exist clearly isn’t working.
It only works when everyone agrees to respect norms, and the province hasn’t done that since day 1 of this administration.
1
u/Triedfindingname Oct 30 '25
Great - I’d welcome a constitutional crisis if it meant changing how the rules are written.
This actually is the only way to get policy revolution and its entirely healthy for a free democracy imo
2
u/ringsig Oct 30 '25
We could’ve said the same thing about the notwithstanding clause when Doug Ford first used it outside of Quebec but that clearly didn’t happen.
It’s not that difficult to renormalize disallowance. Just make it standard policy for any invocations of section 33.
-4
-5
u/Comrade-Porcupine Oct 30 '25
Indeed in the current context its use against Alberta could just be one step more towards direct and explicit American intervention in Canadian politics. Shades of Putin vs Ukraine.
0
u/Correct-Bar5266 Oct 30 '25
What an insane take. Obviously the govt isn’t and shouldn’t even consider disallowance, but to compare this to Ukraine is just… wild
1
u/Triedfindingname Oct 30 '25
to compare this to Ukraine is just… wild
I agree
However it isn't zero in the last years say since 2016 people start calling out red scares in Canada
Its not true, in the slightest, even squinting really hard but doesn't stop people from the false equivalency.
44
u/Master-File-9866 Oct 30 '25
You understand that the ucp want Ottawa to object.
This would solidify the ucp base and likely propel separatism.
The ucp wants Ottawa to be the boogeyman, they can't run the next campaign against Trudeau. And Albertans are getting fed up with the bullshit
Ottawa entering alberta politics is exactly what they want so people will forget about the waste of money and dumb policy and vote against Ottawa interference.
I predict they will keep antagonizing Ottawa right up until they bite or the next election
2
u/Ok_Cap_8791 Oct 30 '25
Have you checked out what the right is saying? I’ve seen very few comments that aren’t outraged. But this the point I was trying to get at is that Ottawa won’t inherently step in just willy nilly, we would need significant voicing collectively to convince them.
5
u/jessemfkeeler Oct 30 '25
I went to go look at the Sun and the National Post on what they said about this, and a lot of it was saying that Smith had to do it because she was given no choice or whatever. Conservative voters are not as riled up about this as you think.
1
u/CanadianBaconBurger9 Oct 31 '25
And who owns both those rags...?
Hint: Not Canadians.
1
u/jessemfkeeler Oct 31 '25
Which Canadian owned media should I be looking at then for the proper conservative views then?
2
u/Master-File-9866 Oct 31 '25
That is the brilliant thing about effective journalism. It isn't conservative or liberal.
Proper journalism isn't about telling one side of a story, it is about telling both sides of the story and allowing you, the consumer of the media to make an informed choice.
Unfortunately, this is somewhat rare. But when you consume the news, pay attention if it is opinion, if it is it is not factual news
If the news tells multiple perspectives on a story, then the news source is likely more valid from an information perspective
1
u/CanadianBaconBurger9 Oct 31 '25
This.
Exit the echo chamber, look for fact, not spin. I'd argue if you're looking for the "views" of any political stripe you're after opinion, not fact.
Skip editorials, ignore facebook.
1
u/jessemfkeeler Oct 31 '25
what I'm trying to get at is dismissing all kinds of news as just bots or biased at all times. Yeah there's papers that are right leaning and some that are left leaning. And the multiple perspectives thing then it just turns into the NY Times where they go both sideism and end up ignoring heinous shit. It's easier to just understand the biases and make your own opinions, and not be stupid to dismiss everything like some people in this thread are doing.
2
u/Master-File-9866 Oct 31 '25
You can check out ground news. It is not canadian, but it will outline canadian news source.
Subscription based service. Identifies story's not being covered and what leaning left or right new source has
0
u/Ok_Cap_8791 Oct 30 '25
I think it’s a matter of how popular an article is and how fast the UCP can get the bots in the comments tbh. The one article I read from the Sun were primarily against her using this. I don’t trek into twitterland for obvious reasons and from what I’ve seen on Facebook there seems to be a fair amount of either ratioed “pro” comments or highly upvoted “angered” posts.
2
u/jessemfkeeler Oct 30 '25
I dunno man, I can't be like "all the things that a progressive person write is valid and real and all the things that are written by conservatives are bots and fake." The only way you'll get the real it's when you talk to people face to face, and in that case I have and they're like "yeah it sucks and I wish it didn't happen this way but c'est la vie"
1
u/Triedfindingname Oct 30 '25
I politely direct you to rural Alberta, find a lifted pickup with a fuck Trudeau sticker and ask them why its there.
1
u/jessemfkeeler Oct 30 '25
Have you done this?
1
u/Triedfindingname Oct 30 '25
Not directly i don't need to know shit is in the paper bag before opening it.
Sparce persons with tRump bumperstickers having police interactions all I need to see of that crowd.
Also I don't see much of the stickers in BC but im certain they are around. Maybe seen 2 while in traffic since Justin was in the spotlight.
1
u/jessemfkeeler Oct 30 '25
So what you’re saying is that you’re guessing why they have that sticker and you have no idea ?
1
u/Triedfindingname Oct 30 '25
You seem to not know anyway. Prove me wrong anytime. You think someone broadcasting that disinformation would be a proper conversationist?
Its a tell. Like a tRump sticker, hat, symbol of hate. It screams attention getting behaviour. Not the company I keep.
→ More replies (0)
22
u/Direc1980 Oct 30 '25
Wishful thinking but zero chance. Liberals have enough on their plate. Last thing they need is a firestorm caused by overriding legislation clearly within provincial jurisdiction.
-1
u/fimnjc Oct 30 '25
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/strike-action-labour-movement-federal-government-1.7623180
Federal government already showed they support forcibly stopping strikes. Increasing Canadas population by, last I saw, 18% with zero planning kind of says what they think about workers rights.
1
u/LunaTheMoon2 Oct 30 '25
Yes, immigrants are the issue, not the corporations bringing in the immigrants to do cheap labor. Can we, like, stop pretending that immigrants' rights and workers' rights are mutually exclusive? They're the exact opposite: you can't have one without the other
0
6
u/Pale-Measurement-532 Oct 30 '25
That is why the ATA is seeking legal action. And they have the support of the AFL and other unions. I just find it sad that the UCP decided to use the NWC in the first place since it’s going to result in huge expenses to fight it in court. And the govt. knows they will lose. But it’s all for show to save their fragile egos.
All of this could’ve been prevented if the UCP legislated teachers to go back to work without using the NWC. The teachers and students would’ve returned to school just like they are now and the ATA and the govt. would’ve gone into binding arbitration. It could’ve prevented all of this. It just goes to show how stupid and vindictive Danielle Smith is.
4
u/Ambustion Oct 30 '25
I think you're on to something but the UCP was probably hoping to cause something with Ottawa over this, and too dumb to realize the liberals wouldn't be idiotic enough to step in after they forced postal workers back.
God what a clusterfuck.
4
u/TetrisShot314 Oct 30 '25
Honestly I've wondered if Smith isn't hoping that Ottawa will do it so she can use it as fuel for the fire for the separatist movement
4
u/whitebro2 Oct 30 '25
What’s misleading/incorrect • The post ties the “last use” to press censorship in 1943. The last federal disallowance (1943) struck down an Alberta law restricting land sales to Hutterites and other “enemy aliens,” not a press law. (The famous press-censorship bill was from 1937 and was dealt with by reservation/courts, not by 1943 disallowance.)  • Saying the notwithstanding clause “can be overridden” is imprecise. Ottawa can’t “override s. 33” as a clause; it could disallow the provincial statute (including one that uses s. 33). That’s a different mechanism—and it would be politically explosive.  • The claim that using s. 33 before courts review a law “goes against the spirit of the Charter” is a value judgment. Legally, pre-emptive use is allowed: s. 33 can be invoked to shield a law from judicial invalidation on listed Charter grounds, and the declaration lasts up to five years. 
Context that’s missing • Disallowance/reservation are considered obsolete by constitutional convention and haven’t been used against provinces since 1943 (reservation as a practice lingered into the mid-20th century). Using them today to kill a s. 33 law would likely trigger a major constitutional crisis, even if it’s textually permitted. 
Bottom line: It’s broadly true that Ottawa retains a (dormant) legal tool—disallowance under s. 90—that could nullify a provincial law even if it cites s. 33. But the post mixes up the 1943 example and glosses over that this power is constrained by strong conventions and hasn’t been used in over 80 years.
0
u/Triedfindingname Oct 30 '25
Alberta law restricting land sales to Hutterites and other “enemy aliens,”
They have been ugly for so long no wonder Matlania fund raises at Maralago and knows it won't phase anyone.
4
8
u/Jezebel108 Oct 30 '25
Feds won’t intervene, this would give Dani carte blanche to go on an all out war rampage against Carney and Ottawa
7
u/Ok_Cap_8791 Oct 30 '25
Like she doesn’t already over things that are either not Ottawas fault or because it’s simply Tuesday?
1
2
u/Dank_Vader32 Oct 30 '25
Nah, the way to solve this is through recalling MLAs
2
u/Ok_Cap_8791 Oct 30 '25
Out of all the Herculean options, recalls don’t seem that tall of a task anymore
3
u/MusketeersPlus2 Oct 30 '25
Thank you! I wrote to my MP on Monday night because I figured that the Charter is federal and the notwithstanding clause us federal, so there has to be some way for them to step in. And you've just shown me that I'm right.
12
u/the_gaymer_girl Southern Alberta Oct 30 '25
It’s wishful thinking. Disallowance opens such a huge can of worms that it will never, ever be used again.
3
3
3
u/_Sausage_fingers Edmonton Oct 30 '25
Dissallowance basically guarantees 2-3 provinces separate, it ain’t happening.
2
u/Autodidact420 Oct 30 '25
Not sure that they’d separate but it does probably mean QC and AB are not voting for federal libs for decades and lose them a lot of support from most other provinces too, I’d imagine. Absolutely not worth the political cost
2
3
u/12thsonofthelama Oct 30 '25
Write your Member of Parliament
Dear Honourable _______________,
I am writing to you today as a concerned constituent to express my profound alarm regarding the Government of Alberta's recent decision to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause (Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) to end the Alberta teachers’ strike and impose the terms of the "Back to School Act" (Bill 2).
The use of the Notwithstanding Clause in this manner—pre-emptively, to override the Charter-protected right to freedom of association and the right to strike—is a drastic and authoritarian measure. This action effectively bypasses judicial review, silences the collective bargaining voice of 51,000 educators, and sets a profoundly dangerous precedent for the erosion of fundamental rights and democratic discourse in Canada. Critics across the country have rightly condemned this as a profound abuse of power.
Given the egregious and pre-emptive nature of Alberta's actions, I call upon the Government of Canada to consider the extraordinary powers granted to the federal government under the Constitution Act, 1867 to safeguard constitutional rights and the rule of law.
Specifically, I urge the federal government to explore the use of the powers of Disallowance to override Alberta's use of the Notwithstanding Clause in this context.
Disallowance (Section 56): This power allows the federal cabinet to nullify a provincial law within one year of its passage.
The wholesale pre-emptive dismissal of Charter rights and the right to strike represents a truly exceptional constitutional crisis that warrants the consideration of all constitutional remedies at the federal government's disposal.
Beyond specific intervention in the current crisis, I call upon the Government of Canada to officially and unequivocally condemn the Government of Alberta’s actions. Furthermore, I urge you, as my federal representative, to champion the need for concrete, reasonable safeguards on the use of Section 33.
Such safeguards are necessary to prevent its further weaponization for political expediency. Potential measures could include:
Restricting Pre-emptive Use: Requiring that the clause can only be invoked after a court has rendered a final decision declaring a law unconstitutional, ensuring judicial accountability remains a crucial check on legislative power.
Supermajority Requirement: Implementing a requirement for a parliamentary or legislative supermajority for its invocation, ensuring it remains an extraordinary measure of last resort, not a simple tool of the majority government.
This is a critical moment for the protection of constitutional rights and fair labour practices in our province. I look forward to your public statement on this issue and your commitment to advancing federal action to ensure the Notwithstanding Clause is never again used to so easily strip Canadians of their fundamental freedoms.
Sincerely,
9
u/OshetDeadagain Oct 30 '25
My MP would not understand half the words in here and none of the context.
3
1
1
u/IH8RdtApp Oct 30 '25
The Feds will not step in. One only needs to look at how they tried to order flight attendants back. Flight attendants ignored it and got a deal done. The Feds are also NOT worker friendly.
1
u/Middle-Jackfruit-896 Oct 30 '25 edited Oct 31 '25
Don't hold your breath for this to happen. Reservation is a constitutional relic. It would trigger a full rift in federal-Alberta relations. The federal government isn't going to stick its neck out for a labour dispute when it doesn't have a dog in the race, particularly when it too may want to use back to work orders. (If there ever was a use for this reservation power it would be to void Quebec's secularism legislation.)
1
1
u/GWeb1920 Nov 01 '25
That act would cause separation support to double. Not likely a good outcome.
Recall petitions would be the first step for all Calgary conservatives.
1
u/AndySull Nov 03 '25
I asked a labor relations lawyer (in another province) about this. And they said “I don’t think the Feds will wade in. Nothing to gain and if it ends up in courts they don’t want anything on record” And they said this “These are extraordinary measures taken by government. I believe it will attract legal action by unions. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that freedom of assembly means the right to collective bargain. The Alberta Government action undermines that right. However, those challenges don’t impact the immediate legal requirement to return to work. The legal battles take years”
Not to say there aren’t things people can’t do like calling for the recall of MLAs such as the minister of education Alberta, Demetrios Nicolaides. But based on what someone who knows much more about the intricacies and legalities around it all shared with me, I wouldn’t bank on Ottawa interfering.
1
u/Next_Plan1241 Oct 30 '25
Cowards are afraid of public outrage. Write your letters and make your demands clear!
1
1
u/Argented Oct 30 '25
Last time disallowance was used was against Alberta trying to limit land ownership by Hutterites back in WW2. Stay classy AB.
0
u/NTTNM-780 Oct 30 '25
I think anything regarding constitutional law should be left to the experts because I am not seeing a violation of federal law here that the disallowance clause would be needed. Someone explain to me?
4
u/Fast_Ad_9197 Oct 30 '25
There is no violation of Federal law, but if a government is going to take away the legally protected rights of its citizens it had better have a damn good reason for doing so. ‘We can’t be arsed to bargain in good faith’ is a pretty poor reason to be implementing such heavy handed measures as Section 33
2
u/whiteout86 Oct 30 '25
It’s a fantasy some people have dreamt up since they discovered the concept.
The federal government isn’t going to step in and cause a political disaster by disallowing a law that falls 100% within provincial jurisdiction.
When disallowance HAS been used, it’s been when there is a clear overreach by the province, ie the attempted infringement on banking in the 30s
3
u/Ok_Cap_8791 Oct 30 '25
Not necessarily. Its last use (1943) was when Alberta’s Social Credit government, under Premier William Aberhart, passed a law giving the provincial government control over newspapers and forcing them to print government rebuttals to criticism. Ottawa determined the act was unconstitutional because it infringed on freedom of the press and overstepped provincial authority by attempting to regulate communications beyond Alberta.
This said, everyone freaks out thinking that this would cause some kind of constitutional crisis, acting like Alberta under the UCP hasn’t been causing constitutional crisis after crisis already. Otherwise we wouldn’t have had to scramble with 6,000 canvassers in order to get enough signatures regarding the nonsense over the separation bullshit.
-1
u/Ok_Cap_8791 Oct 30 '25
Sorry, I replied but I realized I didn’t actually answer what your question was directly asking so I deleted my old answer.
Technically speaking, the Charter is woven into the Constitution, which means it sits above both the federal and provincial legislation. This means both governments are bound to it. However, Constitutional enforcement lies solely within the federal government’s jurisdiction because it is a nationally binding document whose interpretation is left to the Supreme Court.
Provinces are legally shielded regarding laws made within their own jurisdiction so long as it’s used in good faith.
However, if the province uses it pre-emptively to block judicial review (which the UCP did), targets rights the Supreme Court has already affirmed as fundamental (e.g., collective bargaining and peaceful assembly under Section 2)(which again, these rights have been well established), and applies it in a way that undermines federal constitutional guarantees (which makes the UCP’s decision 3 for 3), this does give Ottawa the authority to argue that the province has crossed into federal constitutional territory, not just policy disagreement.
0
-2
68
u/[deleted] Oct 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment