**Debate Over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Continues** The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has sparked a significant debate regarding its impact on Canadian governance. Columnist Carson Jerema recently argued that the Charter has inadvertently shifted power from Parliament to the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. He questions the necessity of parliamentary processes when judicial authority appears to hold greater sway. The underlying principle of the Charter is to protect individual rights from the majority's potential overreach. While this concept is generally sound, concerns arise when the public perceives judicial decisions as arbitrary or disconnected from societal values. This perception can undermine the legitimacy of the Charter itself. To address these concerns, Jerema suggests that judges should embrace two key virtues: judicial humility and a clear understanding of their role under an entrenched constitution. Judicial humility is crucial, as judges wield significant power when they invalidate laws passed by democratically elected representatives. This power should not be taken lightly. Judges must approach their responsibilities with caution, especially when balancing competing rights and interests. Jerema points to the Supreme Court's handling of cases in the early years of the Charter, such as the 1989 case of Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec, where the Court recognized the need to balance the rights of various groups against state actions. Judges must also be prepared to enforce rights for marginalized groups, even when such decisions may be unpopular. Jerema highlights the importance of rigorous Charter review, referencing the case of Hunter v. Southam, where the Supreme Court established that the government cannot unilaterally determine what constitutes a reasonable search. This principle, articulated by then-Justice Brian Dickson, remains relevant today, as seen in recent rulings regarding the federal government's actions under the Emergencies Act. The second virtue Jerema emphasizes is the need for judges to clarify the nature of judicial decision-making within the framework of an entrenched constitution. The framers of the Charter granted judges the authority to assess legislative actions against the Charter's standards, recognizing their expertise in legal matters. However, constitutional law is complex and often unwritten, encompassing principles such as the rule of law and the separation of powers. As Justice Malcolm Rowe has noted, the judicial role involves navigating these intricate principles, which requires a nuanced understanding of the law. Judges must articulate their decision-making processes clearly to maintain public trust in the judiciary and the Charter itself. In summary, the ongoing discussion about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms raises important questions about the balance of power in Canadian governance. As the judiciary continues to play a pivotal role in interpreting the Charter, the virtues of humility and clarity in decision-making will be essential to uphold its integrity and public confidence.