Albertans’ Rights on the Line
The Alberta government has recently invoked Section 33 of the Charter, marking the second time in Alberta’s history that the clause has been invoked.* On October 28, 2025, the United Conservative Party (UCP) passed Bill 2 (now the Back to School Act) by utilizing time allocation as a tool to limit debate on the bill, rushing it through the legislature in a single day. Subsequently, teachers were both compelled to return to the classroom via the imposition of a collective agreement, as well as denied the right to strike, overriding Section 2(d) (freedom of association). On November 18, 2025, the UCP government tabled Bill 9 (Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act). This bill applies the notwithstanding clause to three existing laws that undermine protections for transgender youth in healthcare, education, and sports, and introduces additional limits on the participation of adult transgender women in certain sports divisions. These restrict transgender people’s freedom of expression (Section 2(b)), right to life, liberty, and security of the person (Section 7), and equality rights (Section 15). One of these laws had already been temporarily blocked by The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta on June 27, 2025. Due to this Charter restriction, the Government of Alberta seeks to invoke the notwithstanding clause for the third, fourth, and fifth times in Alberta’s history.
The notwithstanding clause, set out in Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allows governments to temporarily override certain fundamental rights, specifically those in Sections 2 and 7 to 15, for a renewable five-year period. Designed as part of a political compromise that enabled the Charter’s adoption in 1982, Section 33 was intended as a rarely employed constitutional safeguard to preserve parliamentary supremacy while still establishing constitutional rights. Its use is meant to be exceptional, balancing democratic decision-making with the protection of individual freedoms.
In addition to allowing the above-mentioned legislation to stand despite limiting protected rights, the use of Section 33 shields these laws from judicial review, meaning courts cannot strike them down, even if they infringe Charter protections. The Charter exists to ensure that vulnerable and marginalized groups are not subject to the will of the majority or the political priorities of the government of the day, meaning its override has profound implications for those with the least institutional protection. The invocation of the notwithstanding clause is therefore a clear signal of the government’s awareness that these measures violate the rights of Albertans. By embedding rights-limiting provisions into multiple statutes, the government is creating a precedent that could affect not only future policy but potentially the rights of all Albertans.
These actions have several policy implications:
Labour relations: Teachers may face reduced long-term bargaining power, potentially affecting collective agreements across other public and private sector unions.
Education outcomes: Limiting teacher autonomy and creating uncertainty in schools could impact student learning environments and teacher retention.
Legal and administrative precedent: Invoking Section 33 in multiple areas sets a precedent for future governments to bypass Charter protections when pursuing partisan-motivated legislation.
Impact of Anti-Trans Legislation on Trans Youth in Alberta:
Census data from 2021 shows that of the total number of individuals aged 15 or older living in Alberta, 12,500 of them identify as transgender or nonbinary. To put things into perspective, the same census accounted for 3.3 million cisgender individuals within the same age category. That means that transgender and nonbinary individuals account for just 0.38% of all individuals aged 15+ in Alberta.
Recent research demonstrates a direct causal link between anti-transgender legislation and severe negative mental health outcomes for transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) youth. A study published in Nature Human Behaviour by The Trevor Project, analyzing data from over 61,000 individuals, found that the enactment of state-level anti-trans laws in the U.S. significantly increased suicide attempts, with rates rising by as much as 72% among youth under 18 (The Trevor Project, 2024). This quantifiable harm is occurring against a backdrop of widespread legislative activity. Research from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law details that in 2024 alone, 113,900 transgender youth in the U.S. live in states that have enacted bans on gender-affirming care, while 120,200 face restrictions on sports participation.
This anti-trans legislative trend has extended into Canada, with Alberta introducing policies that mirror those studied in the U.S., including restrictions on gender-affirming medical care and requirements for parental consent for a student’s use of their affirmed name or pronouns. Compulsory disclosure laws can force out TGNB students to their families; this is a significant concern given that TGNB youth experience disproportionately high rates of family rejection, abuse, and homelessness. These policies institutionalize barriers to social affirmation, which multiple studies identify as a critical protective factor. For instance, research cited in the Canadian Journal of Public Health confirms that social affirmation, including the use of correct names and pronouns, is associated with a reduction in suicide risk of more than 70% among TGNB individuals.
As students of the School of Public Policy, one of the most important lessons we are taught is the value of fearless advice: to speak truth to power based on evidence, even when it is uncomfortable. In that spirit, it is worth noting that these actions are not simply partisan maneuvers; they represent a significant shift in how rights protections are being overridden in Alberta. Using Section 33 to block judicial review changes the balance between legislative authority and the Charter, with long-term implications for teachers, transgender youth, and potentially any Albertan.
The broad and increasingly frequent use of this constitutional override raises important considerations about the direction of governance in Alberta and the role of legal safeguards in protecting citizens. Critics have previously expressed concerns about its use when the public supports the limitation or elimination of minority rights, which is when minority groups need the most legal protection of their rights, not less.
Action is warranted to ensure that the Government of Alberta remains accountable to its constituents and protects the rights and freedoms of all Albertans. Alberta’s increasing reliance on the notwithstanding clause has significant implications for federalism and intergovernmental relations in Canada. While the Charter grants provinces the authority to invoke Section 33, the frequency and breadth of Alberta’s use intersect with federal responsibilities for upholding national standards of rights protection. This tension is becoming more visible as the federal government explores options to define limitations on the uses of the clause and limit overrides causing the “irreparable impairment” of Charter rights. There are also national calls for limiting the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, to preserve judicial review and accountability.
Moreover, Alberta’s actions have ripple effects on province-to-province relations. As one province normalizes the use of Section 33, others may feel emboldened to follow suit, potentially creating a landscape of fragmented rights where protections vary greatly by jurisdiction. Such divergence challenges the principle that Canadians should enjoy consistent constitutional rights regardless of their province of residence. In this context, Alberta’s approach not only shapes its internal governance but also influences the evolving norms of intergovernmental behaviours and the future of rights protections within the federation.
Without strengthening accountability for the increasing use of the notwithstanding clause, this begs the question: How many more rights will the UCP government take away, and which Albertans will be next?
About the authors: Emma Bennett, Amanda Paterson, Jenny Duong, and Alysha Lakhani are current Master of Public Policy students at the School of Public Policy.
*Alberta invoked section 33 in 2000 when they passed Bill 202 (the Marriage Amendment Act), which effectively banned same-sex marriage. However, in 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled it ultra vires (because the ability to marry is under federal jurisdiction) (Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, 2004 SCC 79).