Paul Martin has a point when he says that establishing property rights in the Charter "might" make it impossible to ban handguns.
Because Charter rights are so general, and the Courts' powers of interpretation so broad, nobody has a clue when they establish a Charter right what it's going to mean. It's like saying, "we have no idea what this means, or where it might lead to, but here it is".
The "right" to an abortion is not in the Charter. Who can recall from memory what right that is found in the Charter was used to form the "Charter right" of a woman to abort her unborn child? The right to privacy? Wrong.
The "right" to same-sex marriage is not in the Charter. What was it based on? The right to equality based on sexual orientation -- which also is not in the Charter. Then what is it based on?
All of these rights were created by judges' interpretations of the Charter; given a different set of nine judges, the results may have been different.
And that's why it is utterly foolish to do away with the Notwithstanding Clause.
Nine persons. Deciding the moral course of a nation. And why nine? Why not six? Or five? Or three? Why not just one individual? Let him or her decide the nation's moral values and future course. Why not? Do you really think that having nine, from the same general milieu, vetted by the same Prime Minister, gives sufficient breadth to safeguard against bias?
Nine godlike persons picked by one man. Or 300+ persons picked by 20 million. Which arrangement do you think provides the best safeguard of Canada's foundational moral values, rights, freedoms, and democracy?
Exactly. That's why Trudeau went with the Charter.