{"id":442,"date":"2025-09-19T04:25:47","date_gmt":"2025-09-19T10:25:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wolvesofthewest.com\/?p=442"},"modified":"2025-10-14T04:03:38","modified_gmt":"2025-10-14T10:03:38","slug":"the-notwithstanding-clause-misuse-or-misunderstanding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wolvesofthewest.com\/?p=442","title":{"rendered":"The Notwithstanding Clause: Misuse or Misunderstanding?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Recently, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith tweeted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter wp-block-embed-twitter\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"550\" data-dnt=\"true\"><p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">The Notwithstanding Clause is integral to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an unassailable provincial\u00a0constitutional right.<br><br>While the Alberta government does not support the content of Quebec\u2019s Bill 21, we stand shoulder to shoulder with Quebec\u2019s constitutional\u2026 <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/3sKnFhL82Z\">https:\/\/t.co\/3sKnFhL82Z<\/a><\/p>&mdash; Danielle Smith (@ABDanielleSmith) <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/ABDanielleSmith\/status\/1968852409163333758?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">September 19, 2025<\/a><\/blockquote><script async src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><br>and her remarks have stirred up renewed debate over what Canada\u2019s \u201cnotwithstanding clause\u201d (Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) <strong>is<\/strong> meant to do vs. <strong>what it is being used for<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Let\u2019s take a closer look \u2014 at what the clause was intended for, how it\u2019s being deployed, and why using it as a blanket tool to override rights departs from the original design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What the Notwithstanding Clause <em>Is<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Passed in 1982 as part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause (s.\u200933) gives legislatures the power to pass laws that temporarily override some of the Charter\u2019s protections: specifically, <strong>fundamental freedoms<\/strong>, <strong>legal rights<\/strong>, and <strong>equality rights<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It <strong>doesn\u2019t apply<\/strong> to democratic rights (e.g. the right to vote), mobility rights, or official language rights.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Critically, any use of the clause <strong>must expire after five years<\/strong>, though it may be renewed. That renewal requirement is meant as part of the check \u2014 public accountability, electoral pressure, debate.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What the Clause <em>Was Meant To Do<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the drafting and negotiation of the Charter, provinces insisted on including s. 33 so that the courts would not have unbounded power over all legislation. The clause was meant as a <strong>political safety valve<\/strong> \u2014 a way to allow elected representatives to occasionally override certain rights in <strong>exceptional<\/strong> circumstances, without entirely surrendering legislative discretion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It was <em>not<\/em> designed as a license for governments to routinely suspend human rights protections simply because rights litigation might be inconvenient or unattractive politically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What\u2019s Happening Now<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When political leaders propose to invoke the notwithstanding clause broadly \u2014 or preemptively \u2014 to avoid court rulings, lawsuits, or judicial oversight, it raises several concerns:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Erosion of Rights Protections<\/strong><br>Deploying s. 33 not in response to a court decision, but in anticipation of one, transforms it from a safety valve into a shield against accountability.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Potential for Abuse<\/strong><br>If government can override Charter protections at will, fundamental freedoms lose stability and predictability. Rights become contingent on what politicians find acceptable at a given moment.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Undermining Democratic Legitimacy<\/strong><br>The rates of social trust, fairness, and rule of law depend in part on citizens\u2019 belief that their rights are protected. Overuse or misuse of s. 33 risks eroding that trust.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Distortion of Legal &amp; Constitutional Norms<\/strong><br>The Charter was meant to establish basic rights that courts can protect. If legislatures routinely nullify rights, what does it mean to have a constitutionally guaranteed right?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What the Original Intention Was <em>Not<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It is helpful to contrast what s. 33 was <strong>not<\/strong> meant to be:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A tool for <strong>blanket suspension of human rights<\/strong> \u2014 especially without justification, parliamentary debate, or sunset.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>An escape hatch to avoid legal accountability or judicial review.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A method to enable permanent override of rights, or to override rights in categories for which the clause does not apply.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What We Should Demand of Politicians<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Given this background, here are some reasonable expectations citizens and civil society should insist on when a government proposes using the notwithstanding clause:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Clear Justifications<\/strong>: Governments should explain the concrete reason(s) a law needs s. 33. What rights are at issue? What harm is being prevented? Why are ordinary legislative measures insufficient?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Narrow Scope<\/strong>: Use should be limited to the specific provisions that are absolutely necessary.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Time-Limited Application<\/strong>: The five-year limit must be observed; renewals should require fresh debate and justification.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Transparency &amp; Oversight<\/strong>: Not just internal justification, but public debate, legislative scrutiny, and perhaps judicial commentary should be allowed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Respect for Rights Where Possible<\/strong>: Even when s. 33 is used, it should be done in a way that least diminishes the rights in question.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The notwithstanding clause is part of Canada\u2019s constitutional balance: courts protect rights; legislatures legislate laws. But that balance only works if rights are not overridden casually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Using s. 33 as a pre-emptive shield, or as a tool to broadly suspend rights on political whim, turns the design on its head. It moves the clause from being a rare, accountable exception to a routine tool of legislative power. That\u2019s a fundamental shift \u2014 and one that deserves serious scrutiny.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Recently, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith tweeted: and her remarks have stirred up renewed debate over what Canada\u2019s \u201cnotwithstanding clause\u201d (Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) is meant <a href=\"https:\/\/wolvesofthewest.com\/?p=442\" class=\"more-link\">[&hellip;]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"Layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["entry","author-jayson","post-442","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-main"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolvesofthewest.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/442","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolvesofthewest.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolvesofthewest.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolvesofthewest.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolvesofthewest.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=442"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/wolvesofthewest.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/442\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":445,"href":"https:\/\/wolvesofthewest.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/442\/revisions\/445"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolvesofthewest.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=442"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolvesofthewest.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=442"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolvesofthewest.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=442"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}