Send us a text

Who gets the last word in Canada’s democracy: judges or elected lawmakers? 

Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele unpack the politics and law of the notwithstanding clause, tracing its 1982 origins as a grand bargain that paired constitutional rights with parliamentary supremacy and a five year sunset. 

Using Quebec’s secularism law as a live test case, they explain why some rights like voting cannot be overridden and how current fights over bike lanes and speed cameras pull courts into policy making. 

They debate proposed “guardrails” such as supermajority requirements, argue that any real limits would need a formal constitutional amendment, and warn that frequent use could normalize section 33 and water down the Charter. 

The result is a sharp, timely primer on how law, politics, and accountability collide when governments invoke the clause.

Listen For

1:20 Who gets the last word in Canada’s democracy, courts or parliament?

3:50 Why can’t the notwithstanding clause override voting rights under section 3?

6:01 Could bike lanes or speed camera rollbacks trigger Charter challenges on safety?

7:26 Why was section 33 created and how does the five year sunset tie to elections?

14:16 Should Canada add guardrails like a supermajority to use the notwithstanding clause?