The book-banning legislation crusade in the United States has officially spilled over into Canada with the passing of Bill 28 by Alberta’s United Conservative Party government under Premier Danielle Smith on the 15^th of May 2026.

Bill 28 empowers the Municipal Affairs Minister to appoint an individual to inspect libraries, including what property they make available to the public (para 2(2)). It also introduces language granting the Minister “regulation-making authority” pertaining to the access of library property, including age-based restriction (para 2(3)). In other words, the Minister has been tasked which determining which “offensive books” are currently freely available in public libraries and then drafting regulations to restrict this. Bill 28 has also handed gender critical groups a direct pathway to book-banning through a complaint process.

Although this is not Smith’s first foray into book-banning, it is the first time this has taken legislative form. Her government’s July 2025 ministerial order to remove certain books from school libraries was met by well-deserved malicious compliance on the part of the Edmonton school board.

Bill 28 will allow Smith’s government to draft lists of materials to be removed from general shelves in public libraries. Notably, the government no longer must rely on librarians or school boards to determine what materials are captured by policy. In its explanatory guide, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs insisted that it “is not banning books” and is instead focused on “explicit visual depictions of sexual acts” and “age-appropriate access.” Bill 28 contains no language restricting the Minister’s newly vested powers in this manner. The guide goes on to explain that identified materials will be physically removed from general shelves. This means that even adults attempting to access age-restricted material will be subject to staff “supervision.”

Such legislation is offensive to the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression under section 2(b) in that it controls access to certain expressive material. This violation cannot be saved under the Charter’s reasonable limits clause, as Bill 28 does not represent a reasonable and demonstrably justified response to a sufficiently important goal.

According to the explanatory guide, the ostensible goals of this legislation are to “protect children” and to recognise parents’ decision-making role in the content their children access. These stated goals are specious and the proposed furthering action is an unnecessary overreach of ministerial power.

Smith’s book-banning efforts are the results of lobbying from two groups – Parents for Choice in Education (PCE) and Action4Canada – who have openly claimed credit for their influence. These groups were proudly responsible for the removal of four books from Alberta school libraries in 2025, three of which included 2SLGBTQIA+ content; they do not represent parents concerned about their children accessing pornographic materials. PCE and Action4Canada are openly anti-2SLGTBQIA+ groups who seek to portray the 2SLGBTQIA+ community as sexual predators for merely existing outside of “traditional” gender and sexual norms.

Bill 28 is counterintuitive to the stated goal of acknowledging parents’ rights, as the introduction of government control overrides parental decision-making rather than empowering it. Concerning the other goal of child protection, librarians already play a role in ensuring that children do not have access to depictions of sexually explicit acts. Bill 28 is thus superfluous – at best – to the stated goals.

Unfortunately, in an era where the political taboo of the notwithstanding clause no longer holds the same weight it once did, a successful Charter challenge will likely not be enough to put an end to Smith’s book-banning designs. Section 33 of the Charter, also known as the notwithstanding clause, allows Canadian governments to pass legislation in violation of specific guaranteed rights, including the freedom of expression, for a period of five years at a time. Bill 28 raises renewed concerns about the far-reaching consequences that the resurgence of section 33 will have on Canadian human rights and democracy. Book-banning has, historically, never been a positive sign for democratic health. Moreover, in a time where transphobic rhetoric and legislation are on a meteoric rise, the use of section 33 to ban content humanising the trans community will only contribute to societal ignorance and disdain for this vulnerable community.