From the Editor: Notwithstanding clause for labour dispute? Not very strong, not very free

By Scott Schmidt on November 1, 2025.

“Mr. Speaker, the democratic process matters. We are elected by Albertans to come to this assembly to make sure everything that comes out of it is debated, vetted, tweaked, adjusted and voted on to represent our constituents’ views.

That is how this is supposed to work. But the arrogance of this government is astounding. Bills are introduced and passed in a matter of days. Amendments are steamrolled as though perfection has already been achieved. Committees are side-stepped, consultation is ignored.

Mr. Speaker, this process has to be stopped. We cannot keep making laws like this.”

– Danielle Smith

Obviously, people can change with time, and it should be noted Smith said this more than a decade before leading the very government she was chastising, but it makes for an interesting point.

Politics in Alberta, and really, across our society, have been reduced to a series of performances aimed at base groups which already bought the product. It stopped long ago being about doing right by the public good, and because of it, the public has in many ways stopped demanding that.

Maybe Smith believed her words when she said them in the legislature as leader of the Wildrose Party, maybe she didn’t. One could never know. What we do know is she doesn’t believe them anymore, and her hypocrisy, while condemnable, is nothing more than a symbol of the toxicity we have all allowed to seep into our political spheres.

Rushing through back-to-work legislation this week to end the teachers strike is an obvious contradiction of her once claimed view of democracy, but to immediately invoke the notwithstanding clause to do it shows she and her government care so little for that old view, they won’t even wait around to see if their actions are constitutional.

In fact, some would argue it’s an admission that they don’t really believe they are.

Premier Doug Ford once attempted legislation like this in Ontario but had to walk it back within four days due to relentless public pushback.

In Alberta, we have a teachers association that hopes teachers will really think hard before coaching volleyball, and a labour federation that threatened a general strike before immediately saying, ‘But only if you guys wanna.’

It’s not to say the province’s law isn’t a checkmate play under the circumstances, because it was. But if anyone thinks the government is worried about backlash at this point, they assuredly aren’t.

And if that’s what Albertans decide, then that’s what Albertans decide. But ask yourself one simple question: Would I be OK if the government used a constitutional loophole to override my rights?

Surely in the home province (and city) of the Freedom Convoy, which was totally about the rights of all and not just a three-week display of selfishness, people can see that a line has been crossed this week. Any time a government crosses a line like this, it must be scrutinized and studied to ensure it was done for the right reasons.

Do Albertans feel the province did this for the right reasons? Some will, there’s no doubt.

Kids belong in a learning environment, it’s a topic covered under a spotlight through a years-long pandemic, and no one would argue this.

But is it not also universally acceptable to suggest the environment in which they learn be set up for success? If 90% of teachers say they are set up to fail, enough to vote down a contract and strike without pay, should we really be comfortable sending kids back after the government forces in that same contract and threatens fines to anyone who defies them?

Regardless of how you felt about the strike, or if you felt teachers were in the wrong, we can agree that coercion doesn’t lead to the best effort, to the best morale.

We at the News have 25 staff members, from the newsroom to the mailroom, and a daily paper must be finished by 9:30 p.m. The work required to pull that off is entirely dependable on how those 25 people are feeling.

With personal lives that include emotional and physical stresses of their own, it is crucial for people to enter a positive workplace set up with everything they need. Without the proper environment, it doesn’t take much to throw off the entire group.

If we aren’t firing on all cylinders, the product suffers. If teachers aren’t firing on all cylinders, that product is our kids.

It’s been widely reported during this labour dispute that Alberta spends the least amount per-student in the entire country. That alone should be enough to demand better.

It’s been widely reported during this labour dispute that subsidies offered to parents during the strike cost more than meeting teacher demands would. That alone should be enough to demand better.

And it’s been widely reported during this labour dispute that the province refused to talk about class sizes, possibly the No. 1 issue keeping teachers from signing a contract. That alone should be enough to demand better.

But when the government is willing to invoke rights-removing legislation, when the government is willing to spend $16 million a day in subsidies, when the government is willing to refuse to even discuss the very issues for the strike, then demanding better becomes a requirement.

It’s not necessarily because Albertans need to think teachers are right. We need to demand better because we know the methods used by the government are wrong.

Taking away the rights of workers is an authoritarian approach to governing, and left alone, it won’t be the last time they do it.

Perhaps those ‘Strong and Free’ licence plates will come with some fine print.

Scott Schmidt is editor of the Medicine Hat News

30
-29