The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is facing renewed criticism, with some arguing it should never have been included in Canada's Constitution. Critics claim that the Charter has led to a significant transfer of legislative power from elected officials to unelected judges. They warn that if the Liberal government succeeds in limiting the use of the notwithstanding clause, Section 33, it could lead to a constitutional amendment imposed by the courts, further diminishing legislative authority.

Supporters of the notwithstanding clause argue that it does not allow legislatures to override rights and freedoms. Instead, it protects laws from being invalidated by judicial review. Critics, however, express skepticism about the courts' ability to safeguard rights compared to elected representatives. They contend that the increasing number of judges with progressive views has shifted the courts' role from interpreting the law to actively shaping it.

Recent court rulings have raised concerns about judicial overreach. For instance, laws enacted during Stephen Harper's tenure, such as those allowing consecutive sentences for mass murderers, have been overturned by the Supreme Court, which deemed them "cruel and unusual punishment." Similar decisions have been made regarding minimum sentences for sexual offenses and other criminal matters.

The courts have also engaged in social issues, making rulings on topics like abortion, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia. Additionally, judges have intervened in policy matters, such as ruling against the dismantling of illegal homeless camps and the removal of bike lanes, citing violations of the Charter.

The Liberal government's push to limit Section 33 is partly a response to Quebec's Bill 21, which restricts certain public employees from wearing visible religious symbols. This has sparked debate over whether it infringes on religious freedoms. Critics argue that the expanding influence of the judiciary in areas beyond individual rights complicates governance in Canada.

While some laws struck down by the courts may have needed reform, critics believe Parliament could have addressed these issues through the political process if given the opportunity. They argue that the Charter has diverted resources and attention from political engagement to constitutional challenges, making politicians hesitant to propose controversial legislation.

This dynamic, where courts assume a role akin to that of the government, raises concerns about the health of democracy. Critics of the Charter had warned of this potential outcome prior to its adoption in 1982. Political scientist Donald V. Smiley, in a 1969 address, articulated several arguments against the Charter, emphasizing that rights evolve over time and that the rights established in one generation may not hold the same relevance in another.