FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

CALGARY — A short report released today by the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy examines the legitimacy of the Notwithstanding Clause, challenging its critics. 

Authored by Bronwyn Eyre, Saskatchewan’s former attorney general and justice minister, Parliamentary sovereignty is not a “nuclear option”: Why the Notwithstanding Clause can save Canadian democracy—and the Constitution makes the case for keeping the power of the Supreme Court in check.  

Key Quotes 

• “Judges now interfere in matters of public policy, which creates unnecessary conflict between the courts and Parliament.”  – Retired Supreme Court justice John Major on increasing court overreach 

• “Canada is not [ruled by judges] …The judicial voice must not toll louder than the ballot.” – Saskatchewan Justice Neal Caldwell  

• “We needed to have the supremacy of the legislature over the courts. We did not want…public policy to be dictated or determined by non-elected people.” – Former Alberta Progressive Conservative premier Peter Lougheed arguing for the Notwithstanding Clause in 1982 

• Former Saskatchewan NDP premier Allan Blakeney argued that section 33 was “intended to ensure that the state could, for ‘economic or social reasons’ or ‘because other rights were found to be more important, choose to override a Charter-protected right.’” 

“The Notwithstanding Clause helps ensure Canadians are not governed by a handful of unelected judges,” said report author and Aristotle Foundation senior fellow, Bronwyn Eyre. “Are Parliament and the Constitution sovereign, or the courts?” 

The full report is available at aristotlefoundation.org. 

-30- 

Media Contact 
Cathy Simpson | cathys@aristotlefoundation.org | 905-329-3548