Alberta’s teacher strike could reach an abrupt conclusion this week, not through negotiation, but by government decree. On Monday, Premier Danielle Smith is set to introduce emergency legislation, dubbed the “Back to School Act,” which aims to compel thousands of educators back into classrooms.
As reported by The Globe and Mail, Smith stated on her weekly radio show, “We’re at a point now where if they don’t voluntarily agree with us to return to work and do that kind of mediation work, we’re just going to have them back.”
However, labour advocates and critics warn that the cost of this swift resolution could be far greater than simply ending the three-week walkout. Concerns are mounting that the government might resort to using the Charter’s notwithstanding clause, a controversial legal tool that could suppress the constitutional right to strike.
Protesters hold placards expressing their opinion during the demonstration. (Getty Images)
While Smith has yet to confirm or deny the use of this clause, her silence has only intensified fears among unions nationwide. The strike, which began on October 6, 2025, erupted after negotiations between the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) and the provincial government stalled. The primary sticking points were the union’s demands for contractual limits on class sizes and classroom complexity. An estimated 750,000 students have been out of school since the dispute began. The government’s last offer, a 12% salary increase over four years and a commitment to hire 3,000 additional teachers, was overwhelmingly rejected by approximately 90% of teachers.
What began as a localized dispute over working conditions and pay has now evolved into a significant national test, pitting political power against fundamental labour rights.
Explained: Alberta’s Back to School Act and Why It Matters
Alberta’s legislature has fast-tracked the “Back to School Act,” designed to immediately end the teachers’ strike. The Order Paper for October 23, 2025, reveals that the government has authorized Bill 2 to proceed through all legislative stages in a single day, allowing for only one hour of debate per stage. Once enacted, this legislation will legally mandate teachers back to their posts, effectively outlawing the ongoing strike.
The rapid and extensive nature of this motion has ignited widespread controversy. Labour proponents argue that bypassing the standard legislative process severely undermines collective bargaining rights. While the government prioritizes getting 750,000 students back to school after nearly a month of disruption, critics contend that forcing teachers back to work does not resolve the core issues of class size, classroom complexity, and teacher workload. These unresolved grievances are likely to resurface, potentially leading to future legal challenges.
The Notwithstanding Clause: What Exactly Is It?
Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, known as the notwithstanding clause, grants governments the power to override certain constitutional rights—including freedom of association and the right to strike—for a period of up to five years.
A notable precedent occurred in 2022 when Ontario Premier Doug Ford invoked this clause to halt a strike by 55,000 support staff in education. However, intense nationwide protests ultimately forced Ford to repeal the contentious law, a political setback Premier Smith will undoubtedly want to avoid. Yet, she may be willing to take that risk if she perceives the strike as a direct challenge to her governmental authority.
The Constitutional Impact of Invoking the Notwithstanding Clause
The true ramifications of this situation extend beyond just classrooms; they touch upon the very limits of constitutional power. According to The Globe and Mail, the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL) has threatened an “unprecedented mobilization” if the province activates the notwithstanding clause. The federation, representing 350,000 workers, issued a stern warning that such a move would “escalate the situation from a confrontation between your government and the teachers to a confrontation between you and the entire Canadian labour movement.”
The AFL’s message signifies a critical shift: transforming a wage dispute into a full-blown constitutional confrontation. By invoking Section 33, the federation redefines the strike as a question of fundamental rights, drawing national labour organizations and civil-liberties groups into the fray. This significantly raises the reputational stakes for Alberta. Should Alberta successfully employ the notwithstanding clause without facing substantial consequences, it could set a dangerous precedent, potentially normalizing its use in future public-sector labour disputes across other provinces. This would diminish the power of collective bargaining for years to come and exacerbate labour relations far beyond the education sector.
Alberta’s Test: Who Holds the Power?
Alberta’s decision now stands as a critical juncture for labour rights. While a back-to-work law might temporarily reopen schools, it simultaneously shrinks the arena for genuine negotiation. If the government proceeds with the notwithstanding clause, it will do more than just end a strike—it will suspend a fundamental right that underpins union power. Such an action could establish a problematic model for other jurisdictions, signaling to workers that collective discussions can be easily sidestepped by legislative force. The outcome: classrooms may fall silent, but the political reverberations will only grow louder. Trust will erode, and future labour conflicts could become even more entrenched. The core challenge is clear: how to reinstate education without dismantling the essential protections that enable workers to secure fair and safe working conditions.