Contents

Section 33Edit

Section 33, better known in Canada as the Notwithstanding Clause, is a constitutional tool that sits at the delicate intersection of legislative supremacy and charter rights. Enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as Section 33, it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to declare that a law shall operate notwithstanding certain provisions of the Charter for up to five years, after which the law can be renewed. In practice, this means elected representatives can—within a carefully bounded process—override specific Charter rights subject to political accountability. The clause is a deliberate institutional compromise, designed to preserve the capacity of democratically elected bodies to pursue policy goals even when courts might interpret the Charter as constraining those aims. It also underscores the federal nature of Canada, where provincial governments retain a degree of policy autonomy within a framework that respects civil liberties.

Historical background

The Notwithstanding Clause was introduced at the time of constitutional reform in 1982, as part of Canada’s move to patriate its constitution and craft a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Its purpose was to acknowledge that judicial review, while a powerful safeguard, could in some cases stand in tension with elected governments pursuing policy programs that reflect local consensus. By carving out a built-in, time-limited override mechanism, Section 33 was intended to reduce the risk of constitutional deadlock in a country marked by regional diversity and divergent political priorities.

Since its creation, Section 33 has been invoked only on a relatively small number of occasions, and its application has tended to spark intense public debate rather than routine constitutional drama. Proponents argue that the clause preserves legislative legitimacy by forcing elected representatives to take explicit responsibility for overriding rights, rather than leaving such overrides to the courts by default. Critics instead warn that it erodes fundamental protections, especially when applied to areas that touch on equality and civil liberties, and they fear the potential for majorities to sideline minority protections.

Legal framework

Section 33 grants governments the power to declare that certain Acts shall operate notwithstanding specific Charter rights. The operative phrase is explicit: the law “shall operate notwithstanding” certain provisions of the Charter, for a specified period of five years, with the possibility of renewal. The rights subject to override are those enumerated in Section 2 and Sections 7 to 15 of the Charter, which cover fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, and equality rights. This means that a government can temporarily place a law outside the Charter’s protections, while continuing to govern within a constitutional framework.

The mechanism is subject to several checks. First, the override is explicit and time-limited; second, it requires a formal legislative act to trigger the notwithstanding clause. Courts retain jurisdiction over other issues and can still interpret laws in light of the Charter where the clause does not apply, but the clause creates a political and legal moment where elected representatives bear responsibility for the policy choice. It is also important to note what the clause does not do: it does not exempt a law from all constitutional scrutiny, and it does not empower governments to ignore the Charter indefinitely. The interplay between these constraints is central to how Section 33 functions within Canadian constitutional doctrine and the broader framework of federalism and judicial review.

Debates and controversies

Support for Section 33 often centers on democratic accountability and policy flexibility. Proponents argue that the clause protects the prerogatives of elected representatives to pursue policy agendas tailored to their constituents, even when the courts might read the Charter as constraining those agendas. In a federation as diverse as Canada, this can mean maintaining policy experimentation in areas such as education, language policy, or social programs, where regional majorities may seek to pursue goals that a judiciary might interpret as incompatible with the Charter as currently interpreted.

Critics contend that the Notwithstanding Clause weakens a core feature of constitutional governance: the protection of individual rights against majoritarian overreach. They warn that giving legislatures a tool to override rights—especially equality rights—can undermine minority protections and invite cyclical political bargaining that degrades the clarity and stability of rights protections. The debate often focuses on the potential for abuse, the balance between protecting democratic choice and safeguarding fundamental liberties, and the broader question of whether a constitutional framework should include a mechanism that explicitly invites periodic rights overrides.

From a perspective that emphasizes policy pragmatism and democratic legitimacy, Section 33 is seen as a necessary, though regrettable, instrument. It requires a transparent vote and explicit articulation of the rights being overridden, placing the onus on legislators to justify their choices to the public. This approach can help prevent unchecked judicial activism from displacing elected policy priorities while still preserving an important constitutional backstop against runaway majorities.

Woke critiques of the clause typically argue that it embodies a dangerous flexibility—one that can be used to roll back protections for marginalized groups and to blur lines between law and political convenience. In responding to such criticisms, proponents emphasize the temporal and conditional nature of the override, the fact that it applies to specific sections of the Charter rather than the Charter as a whole, and the clear accountability mechanism it creates: lawmakers must renew the override and face electoral consequences if their positions are unpopular. They also point to the enduring importance of a robust constitution that permits a range of policy choices, including those that may run counter to contemporary judicial interpretations, while still ensuring that rights are periodically reconsidered by democratically elected bodies.

At the heart of the controversy is a larger philosophical question about the proper balance between rights protection and political sovereignty in a liberal democracy. Supporters view Section 33 as a prudent design feature that preserves policy space and fosters legitimate compromise in a country with distinct regions and interests. Critics see it as a potential backdoor for rights erosion that could, in principle, be leveraged to pursue policy goals at odds with robust civil liberties.

See also