By coincidence, we're releasing this final episode about the way section 33 has been deployed in Western Canada just a few days after Alberta tabled and passed Bill 2, which uses the notwithstanding clause to force striking teachers back to work. This is the first Alberta invocation in 25 years, but it's far from the first time that Western provinces have dabbled with section 33.

In this episode, we tell two stories. The first is about Ralph Klein's government, which engaged with the notwithstanding clause several times in the late 90s and early 00s. To tell this story, we talked to Doug Stollery, co-counsel in the landmark case of Vriend v Alberta, which culminated in a Supreme Court judgment declaring Alberta's failure to legislate against sexuality-based discrimination unconstitutional. This was followed by a week in which the Klein government openly mused about the use of the notwithstanding clause.

The second story that we then tell is more recent. In 2023, the Saskatchewan government, led by Scott Moe, used section 33 to pass the parents' bill of rights, which includes a requirement of parental consent before schools change the preferred names or pronouns of under-16 students. To understand the potential impacts of this law and the controversy surrounding it, we talked to Jack Saddleback, a Saskatchewan-based public speaker and activist, who told us about some of the potential impacts of the law on trans youth and the wider trans community in Saskatchewan.

While the notwithstanding clause was once aptly described as a "sleeping giant," things were always more complicated in Quebec. Having seen the Constitution partiated without its consent in 1982, the Quebec government promptly used section 33 as a tool of protest, applying it to all existing provincial legislation to blunt the force of the new Charter. More than a dozen invocations followed in the ensuing decades, but the public response was generally muted, if not silent. Then, in 2019, the Legault government passed Bill 21, a law that prohibits the wearing of visible religious symbols in certain public sectors jobs. The backlash against Bill 21 was swift, and the question was posed: where is the line between legitimate protection of a province's distinct culture, and the othering of its minority populations?

With the controversy over Bill 21 still raging, and with a Supreme Court hearing coming up, we talked to Professor Jean Leclair (University of Montreal) and Cee Strauss (LEAF) about the past, present, and future of Quebec's unique relationship with section 33, and about how litigants in the Bill 21 case are trying to get around the seemingly insurmountable obstacle of the notwithstanding clause.

After ignoring the notwithstanding clause for nearly forty years, the Ontario government has recently changed tack, starting with its (successful) attempt to restructure Toronto City Council during a municipal election in 2018. Although a Court of Appeal decision rendered the invocation of section 33 unnecessary in that instance, the Ford government's readiness to hit the notwithstanding button was the beginning of a (now) clear attitudinal shift. Subsequent years brought two actual invocations -- one of which was withdrawn after intense public backlash -- and, more recently, murmurings about the possibility of a fresh invocation to shore up governmental powers to clear homeless encampments. For a survey of these developments and the constitutional questions they raise, we talked to two Ontario-based lawyers: Marion Sandilands (Conway Litigation) and Kris Kinsinger (SV Law).