Which is meaningless considering the chart allows for almost everything inside of it to be either suspended (as per section 1) or outright ignored even outside of an emergency (not-withstanding clause). So yes it's not reassuring for an emergency law to have to follow the charter that explicitly allows for almost anything in cases where it's needed (such as government declared emergencies...).

The joys of having a "living constitution" where nothing is really set in stone and almost every right in the charter of rights can be just essentially ignored because of the very first section of said charter.