A pride flag appears at a pro-LGBTQ+ rally on Parliament Hill in Ottawa in 2023. In Alberta, the government has used the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to shield legislation that affects transgender people from legal challenges.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
All things considered
Re “Lots of other countries have charters of rights. None has anything like the notwithstanding clause” (Opinion, March 28): Who rules: elected parliamentarians, who can be removed by election, or unassailable, unelected judges?
As we have seen, this country’s basic problem is that the Constitution is practically frozen. Is there a problem with elected politicians saying, in effect, that a bill should be law to meet current, not 1982, circumstances?
If there needs to be constraints on the notwithstanding clause, then let’s add a rider that says any Supreme Court findings of unconstitutionality must be ratified without debate by 75 per cent of unwhipped votes in a legislature within 30 days.
How could politicians object to the ability to support their actions? This would force individual politicians to understand the issue and take a position for which they can be tossed out at the next election – by which time, public opinion may be such that the unconstitutionality is considered acceptable, or the rascals thrown out.
Roger Love Saanich, B.C.
I’ve been following this pernicious clause since its inception.
I can recall the times it was invoked and see it is not justice served each time, but rather human right violations while often pandering to an electorally powerful lobby. There was Ontario reducing Toronto city council and preventing a teachers strike, Quebec on secularism and many others in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
It was, as Jean Chrétien said, not to be used this way. At the time, it was the only “out” which Pierre Trudeau had to get the Constitution passed with the provinces.
It behooves us all to remember: “Justice, justice shalt thou pursue.”
Debby Altow Richmond, B.C.
Yes, it’s a difficult case.
One side says the notwithstanding clause must remain, since it’s a political matter that got Canada a patriated Constitution. The other side says it’s destroying the rights and freedoms in our Charter.
It would help a little if commentators and other observers would read the decision in Ford v. Quebec (1988) and stop saying the court held it had “limited” latitude or similar language to inquire into the substance of a Charter rights infringement.
The Supreme Court in Ford held invoking the notwithstanding override was a matter of form, then found Quebec’s prohibition of any language but French was a violation of the Charter right of freedom of speech, but protected by the Section 33 override.
Darrell Roberts Comox, B.C.
To me, this is another great Canadian compromise cobbled together by the framers in order to give Canadians a Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined as a basic principle and the foundation supporting our entire legal system. But in this case, as pointed out, the compromise has defeated the purpose.
When accompanied by the notwithstanding clause, the Charter is essentially rendered meaningless. If elected governments, or even a majority of voters in a referendum, can trample the basic rights and freedoms of any minority, then the minority have none of these rights and freedoms. And each of us is in the minority on something.
The two are incompatible. So either scrap the Charter or eliminate the notwithstanding clause.
To me, that is no choice at all.
Mark Roberts Calgary
Altogether now
Re “I support Quebec’s independence because the alternative is its erasure” (Opinion, March 28): Polls show that Quebec identity has become interconnected with Canadian identity for most in the province. Only a minority of Quebeckers do not consider themselves Canadian at all.
Throughout the referendum years, support for sovereignty has eclipsed a slight majority on but a few occasions, highly influenced by external shocks. Issue is also taken with Ottawa’s policy of mass immigration, yet Quebec already wields a lot of control over its immigration system based on language requirements.
This vision of the Québécois people seems based on a narrow and exclusionary idea of who should be included. Quebec is a beautiful and complicated place.
Je suis fier d’être Québécois et je suis fier d’être Canadien.
Noah Leve Montreal
Re “Alberta’s push for independence is the culmination of decades of poor treatment by Ottawa” (Opinion, March 28): Equalization is not a transfer extracted from Alberta and handed to others; it is funded from federal general revenues, albeit with higher-income provinces contributing more per capita. That is the basic function of a national tax system, not evidence of exploitation.
Alberta remains one of the most prosperous regions in the country, benefiting from national infrastructure, market access and federal intervention when it has mattered most. We’ve seen, time and again, Alberta premiers squander that wealth in stunningly short-sighted ways, with no input from “big, bad” Ottawa.
More egregious are attempts to dress up lawless blockades in Coutts and Ottawa as legitimate democratic expression. They were coercive and disruptive, harming communities and defying court orders. To elevate them as moral justification for separatism feels reckless.
Alberta is not a victim of Canada; it is a cornerstone of the country.
Jeff Phillips Saskatoon
Slippery slope
Re “If young men embrace the manosphere, we’re in more trouble than we realize” (Opinion, March 28): The target audience of the “manosphere” is the young and vulnerable, yet by their very existence, young, straight white men in North American society accrue an abundance of advantages.
They historically earn more money than women and are more often given preference in job selection and promotion. They are not targets for racial bias faced by minorities. They are not subjected to homophobia and derisive attacks on transgender people.
Despite all this, the manosphere seems to weaponize advantages to attack those who do not share the upper hand its audience was dealt at birth. If the manosphere’s talking points continue to converge with mainstream political conversation, we all have much to fear.
Paul Tortolo Waterloo, Ont.
Back at it
Re “Blue Jays tap into transformative connection of 2025 one last time” (Sports, March 28): To write off the Blue Jays’ dream season as a “disaster,” because it ended one narrow loss shy of the Holy Grail, is like saying marrying a childhood sweetheart was a failure because it rained on their wedding day.
This shows me a cynical misconception of the accomplishments of a team written off early last season, after a slow start coming on the heels of a last-place division finish. The vast majority of those who got caught up in Jays fever last fall will always treasure their memories of the unlikely climb.
Jays fans saw their team go all the way to a first World Series in 32 years, before falling in seven games to a team they outscored by eight runs despite their status as heavy underdogs.
Bruce Stapley Whitchurch-Stouffville, Ont.
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com