April 2025
Re: “Erosion of rights doesn’t stop at first violation,” (Christopher Holcroft, Hamilton Spectator, 25 April):
Could you please explain to me how it’s a violation of the Charter, when the notwithstanding clause is actually a part of the Constitution Act, Section 33, in fact. By definition, the notwithstanding clause allows for the temporary suspension of a specific Charter Right, if it serves the greater good. A perfect example of this are the RIDE spot-checks we regularly see on our roads. The courts have determined that, regardless of the fact that being stopped by police for the purpose of determining sobriety is a violation of Section 9 of the Charter Rights and Freedoms (the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned), it’s a reasonable violation of our Charter Rights, given the greater good in preventing impaired driving.
You don’t have to like it, but there is nothing illegal with invoking Section 33.
It’s similar to tax avoidance, which is legal under our tax laws, whereas tax evasion is illegal. It may be distasteful that Prime Minister Carney’s former company, Brookfield Asset Management, can re-locate their core operations to an address in Bermuda, one that houses a bike shop, where the corporate tax rate is much lower than in Canada, but neither Carney, nor Brookfield, have broken any Canadian tax laws. You may not like that either, but it’s lawful.
Sources: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art33.html, https://www.ndp.ca/news/mark-carney-has-helped-brookfield-avoid-53-billion-taxes-2021, The rights and freedoms the Charter protects.
