Alberta's recent decision to invoke the notwithstanding clause to compel striking teachers back to work has sparked significant debate. Critics have labeled this move as a potential threat to democracy, igniting discussions about the implications of such actions on civil rights and legislative authority.

The controversy intensified following a CTV article that described the use of the notwithstanding clause as a threat to democracy. The article drew criticism for its perceived bias and lack of balanced expert opinions. Many readers expressed concerns that the article did not adequately represent differing viewpoints on the issue.

The original headline, "Experts call Alberta’s use of the notwithstanding clause a threat to democracy," faced backlash for suggesting a consensus among experts that was not present. Critics pointed out that the article primarily featured voices opposing the clause, including University of Alberta political science professor Jared Wesley, who argued that the Alberta government had undermined the legislative process and ignored public input. Wesley stated, "That’s not the way the notwithstanding clause was intended there in the beginning."

However, some readers questioned Wesley's expertise on the matter, noting that his focus is primarily on political culture and public opinion rather than constitutional law. The article also included historical references to past uses of the notwithstanding clause, which some felt sensationalized the current situation by drawing parallels to controversial legislative actions.

In response to the criticism, CTV amended the article's language, changing "experts" to "critics" in the headline. Despite this, the article continued to lack perspectives from those who support or take a neutral stance on the use of the notwithstanding clause. Notably, UBC Okanagan political science professor Geoffrey Sigalet, who has expertise in Canadian Charter politics, was interviewed but his insights were largely omitted from the written piece.

Sigalet expressed frustration over the lack of representation of his views, despite providing extensive commentary on the topic. He noted that he discussed how the use of the notwithstanding clause aligns with its original intent, referencing former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed's stance on the matter. Sigalet remarked, "I’ve watched most of CTV’s coverage on this now and they let Jared Wesley, the union leaders, teachers, and even students all decry the use of the notwithstanding clause but no one picked up anything I said about how Smith’s use of section 33 is exactly in line with the intentions of Lougheed on this same issue."

The article also failed to include comments from other legal scholars who could provide a more balanced view. For instance, Dwight Newman, a constitutional law expert at the University of Saskatchewan, argued that the use of the notwithstanding clause is a legitimate legislative decision. He stated, "Democracy involves debate on challenging issues. This is actually a democratic decision to implement a legislative decision rather than leaving a question to the courts."

Kerri Froc, a constitutional law scholar at the University of New Brunswick, echoed similar sentiments, asserting that the use of the notwithstanding clause is not inherently undemocratic. However, she cautioned that if it becomes a routine workaround to the Charter, it could pose risks to democratic principles.

The ongoing debate surrounding the use of the notwithstanding clause highlights the importance of balanced reporting in media coverage. As discussions continue, the need for diverse perspectives remains crucial to ensure an informed public discourse on democratic processes and civil rights.