When governments can override the Charter before a court even looks at it, who's left to protect the people who can't protect themselves at the ballot box?

Winnipeg labour and human rights lawyer Dayna Steinfeld joins Stuart to break down one of the most consequential constitutional debates in Canada right now: the expanding use of the notwithstanding clause, and what Manitoba's Bill 4 is trying to do about it.

Provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan are invoking Section 33 to push through so-called "parental rights" legislation: restricting access to gender-affirming care, controlling names and pronouns at school, limiting sports participation. Legislation that physicians say causes measurable harm. And some governments aren't waiting for courts to weigh in. They're invoking the clause preemptively, with the argument that courts aren't even allowed to look at it afterward.

Manitoba's Bill 4 is a direct response to that. It would make court review mandatory any time the province invokes the override, keeping the judiciary in the conversation even when government has the last word.

We're talking:

What the notwithstanding clause is and how its use has shifted dramatically since 2018
Why Alberta's "parental rights" legislation almost certainly violates the Charter — and why the government invoked the clause anyway
Why this isn't only a trans rights issue
Why "just vote them out" fails when the people most affected are children, or minorities without electoral power
What Bill 4 does, and why it matters that a future government could repeal it

Dayna also shares how growing up in Winnipeg and studying the General Strike — particularly the role of immigrant and Jewish communities, and the women who helped sustain it — set her on the path to labour and human rights law.