Charter override on trans laws to prevent ‘medical experiments’ on children: Smith

EDMONTON – Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says using the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to uphold restrictions on transgender health care is about preventing “medical experiments” on children.

“We believe in science,” Smith told the house during question period Wednesday, eliciting laughs and guffaws from Opposition benches.

“This is about protecting children and making sure that medical experiments are not conducted on them because we do not have good data.”

The statement came in a heated back-and-forth exchange with Opposition NDP house leader Christina Gray.

Gray chided Smith’s United Conservative Party government for using the notwithstanding clause four times in the last three weeks. Gray called it an affront to human rights.

“Does the premier understand that the repeated use of the notwithstanding clause literally means she opposes the freedoms of all Albertans?” Gray said.

On Tuesday, the province introduced a bill that, if passed, invokes the notwithstanding clause, overriding certain Charter rights for up to five years, to protect a trio of laws affecting transgender youth and adults from court challenges.

One law prohibits doctors from providing treatment, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, to those under 16 for purposes of gender reassignment.

LGBTQ+ advocacy groups and the Canadian Medical Association have challenged the law in court, calling it unconstitutional, a threat to the health of gender-diverse youth and an intolerable interference in the doctor-patient relationship.

Gray, echoing the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said Smith’s government has already targeted teachers by using the notwithstanding clause to end a strike last month and questioned who might be next.

“They know this is an abuse of power,” she said. “Why has the UCP decided to steal away parents’ freedoms to decide what is best for their own children?”

Smith replied that final accountability must always reside with elected officials. “We are not going to defer to unelected judges who do not have democratic accountability on their side,” she said.

Justice Minister Mickey Amery added that hormone replacement therapies for minors have been restricted or ended in several European countries because of “detrimental impacts.”

“We are not outliers here,” he said. “We are at the forefront in Canada in protecting our children, and we are using the consensus of the global medical community to support our position.”

During full debate on the bill, Amery said children shouldn’t be allowed to make life-altering decisions about their bodies when they can’t vote, drink alcohol or drive a car.

“We have a moral imperative to move forward in a way that is in the best interest of children and their futures,” Amery said. 

In late October, the province used the notwithstanding clause to force 51,000 striking teachers back to work. Their union has filed a legal challenge against the government’s back-to-work order, arguing the use of the clause was improper and, therefore, invalid. 

The province is also seeking to use the clause in a law that requires parental consent for children under 16 to change their name or pronouns at school.

That law remains in force pending a court challenge. Jason Schilling, head of the Alberta Teachers’ Association, said Wednesday it puts teachers in a bind and threatens to jeopardize their students’ trust.

He said members worry they’ll be reprimanded for not reporting when children talk to them about their gender identity or sexuality. Saskatchewan passed a similar school pronoun law in 2023 and invoked the clause to shield it.

The third law Alberta seeks to use the notwithstanding clause on blocks transgender athletes 12 and older from competing in female amateur sports.

In Ottawa on Wednesday, federal Justice Minister Sean Fraser weighed in.

Asked what he thinks of Alberta’s use of the clause, he told reporters he’s concerned about it being used to address “very complex social issues.”

Fraser said the Constitution already allows for policies that run counter to people’s rights to be adopted — provided they can be reasonably justified.

“When you are reaching for the notwithstanding clause, what you’re essentially doing is saying we’re going to adopt a law without regard as to whether that law is reasonable in a free and democratic society,” he said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 19, 2025.

— With files from Nick Murray in Ottawa