As luck would have it, today I’m scheduled to teach my first-year class about … constitutions. And constitutionalism (the idea that government should operate within a framework of laws that limit its powers and protect individual rights).

Inevitably, one of them will ask a question along these lines: ‘what’s the point of having a Charter of Rights if governments can override it?’ And I will trot out my explanation of why the Premiers back in 1980 wanted to ensure the supremacy of parliament. And I’ll explain that the idea of the notwithstanding clause is that it forces governments to admit to what they’re doing when they knowingly impair a right. And I’ll tell the students that the clause places the onus on citizens to hold governments to account when they use it.

Which is easier said than done.

The Smith government passed Bill 2 in the dead of night, after mere hours of debate. The Bill includes hefty fines for teachers who disobey and even heftier penalties for the Teachers Association if it does not comply.

Now it’s up to Albertans to demonstrate to the government that they object to the idea that Charter rights can be swept away when they’re inconvenient. Public sector workers are likely to be at the forefront of this fight. In passing this Bill and taking away teachers’ right to strike, the government signaled that public sector bargaining is a mere charade. Government will go through the motions for a while, but doesn’t need to meet in the middle because it’s free to legislate a contract when it tires of the exercise.

Public sector unions will certainly be animated by this, but what about the rest of the province? I suspect that for many Albertans, the question will not be about abstract Charter rights but rather about the fairness of imposing a contract on striking teachers.

Before skulking off to the Middle East, the Premier issued letters to teachers and to parents, essentially acknowledging that the teachers were right - the situation in our public schools is a mess. But teachers and parents are supposed to trust the government to fix things; it’s ‘unrealistic’ to put the government’s promised actions into a collective agreement, where there might be accountability.

It’s worth taking a moment to consider what it cost teachers to draw the government’s attention to the situation: three weeks with no pay only to have the contract they rejected imposed on them, along with vague promises that their working conditions would improve.

The rationale for the notwithstanding clause — that governments would hesitate to use it because the public wouldn’t accept having their rights eroded — was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. The whole idea of a constitutionally entrenched guarantee of rights is to protect citizens from illiberal acts favoured by a majority of the population. As provincial governments have normalized the use of the notwithstanding clause, it has freed them up to trample on the rights of trans kids, religious minorities, and now unionized workers.

So, students, you’re right. What even is the point of having a Charter if governments can set it aside when it’s inconvenient?