Re: 鈥淭aking a look at the Charter,鈥� editorial, Sept. 26.
The editorial makes the point that there 鈥渋s no point of certainty here.鈥�
If it is referring to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is very certain. If it is referring to Section 33, it too, is very certain. If it is referring to where parts of the Charter begin and federal or provincial jurisdiction end, then that is in the nature of constitutions.
Actions to invoke parts of the Charter are subject to challenge. And Section 33 is a part of the Charter to guard against courts鈥� encroaching on governments鈥� jurisdiction and hence policy-making.
In this case, the Appeal Court of Ontario (three judges) has ruled that the lower Superior Court judge erred in attempting to use other parts of the Charter, i.e. free expression, to usurp the exclusive jurisdiction of the province under Section 92 (8) of the Constitution. Premier Doug Ford鈥檚 actions to invoke Section 33 were in order, but, thankfully, the Appeal Court confirmed the original bill of the premier鈥檚 government, and made unnecessary the use of Section 33, the notwithstanding clause.
This is in the nature of constitutions, especially in federations such as sa国际传媒, where distinct divisions of power exist, especially when later in the evolution of the country, something like a Charter is introduced that might challenge that jurisdiction.
As a person involved in developing the Charter, I am happy that Section 33 is a part of it, and available in 2018 to preserve the delicate balance between the judiciary and Parliament, if necessary.
A. Brian Peckford
Former premier of Newfoundland
Nanaimo
