In a series of controversial moves that have sparked widespread concern, Alberta's United Conservative Party government has repeatedly invoked the constitutional notwithstanding clause to override fundamental rights while simultaneously facing allegations of political interference in the judicial system.
Rights Under Fire: The Notwithstanding Clause's Expanding Use
Over the past three weeks, the UCP government under Premier Danielle Smith has deployed the notwithstanding clause to bypass rights protections for teachers as well as transgender and gender-diverse youth. Justice Minister Mickey Amery joined Smith in outlining further legislative steps for children, families, and women and girls in sports through Bill 9 on Monday, November 17, 2025.
Critics now worry about which groups might be targeted next. Policy resolutions scheduled for review at the upcoming UCP AGM suggest the government may next use the constitutional tool to restrict women's reproductive rights, specifically late-term abortion, and limit healthcare access for immigrants.
This approach fundamentally alters how legislation is challenged in Alberta. Rather than engaging in time-consuming arbitration hearings and court challenges, the government can effectively shield its laws from legal scrutiny for up to five years through preemptive use of the notwithstanding clause.
Democratic Foundations at Risk
The ability to challenge government actions in court represents a cornerstone of Canadian democracy that distinguishes the country from authoritarian regimes. By systematically stripping away rights protections for various groups, the Alberta government threatens this fundamental democratic principle.
As Edmonton resident David Milne noted in his letter, this trend should concern every Albertan regardless of political affiliation. The messy process of democratic debate and legal challenge, while sometimes cumbersome, ensures proper oversight of government power.
Judicial Independence Under Threat
Parallel concerns about political interference have emerged following the abrupt dismissal of two Edmonton Crown prosecutors. While privacy considerations may prevent full disclosure of the reasons behind these terminations, the timing and circumstances suggest potential political motivation.
This action appears to contradict the Alberta government's own description of Crown Prosecution Services, which emphasizes achieving just outcomes through fair, fearless, and independent prosecutions to support public safety.
Kim Bouwmeester of Edmonton expressed alarm that the government appears to be adopting what she described as a Trump-style approach to justice - firing prosecutors when their decisions prove inconvenient. Crown attorneys make complex determinations based on numerous factors, with negotiated pleas involving multiple parties including the accused, defense attorneys, and ultimately being decided by judges according to Canadian law.
Broader Policy Concerns Emerge
The controversy extends beyond constitutional and judicial matters to healthcare policy. The government's plan to privatize surgeries faces sharp criticism following the problematic privatization of lab testing that left taxpayers responsible for $125 million in costs.
Critics argue that privatizing surgeries will not miraculously create additional capacity, reduce wait times for ordinary Albertans, or address fundamental healthcare staffing shortages. Instead, they advocate for streamlining health administration and redirecting savings to front-line services including more doctors and nurses.
These consecutive policy decisions - from rights overrides to justice system interference and healthcare privatization - paint a concerning picture of governance in Alberta that demands careful public scrutiny.
