Pierre Poilievre isn’t planning to use the notwithstanding clause to pass his crime bill. The point of his crime bill is to use the notwithstanding clause
I honestly think that’s the most productive place to focus influence. I geew up in Saskatchewan, where the lieutenant governor reserved assent 70 times, sometimes explicitly stating the legislation was not in the best interests of the people. It’s at least a viable line of defence against populism and corporate interests.
I don’t know Canadian politics nearly as well as I do Australian, so I’m happy to be proven wrong if you have a source. But my search tells me that the last time a Canadian vice-regal reserved assent was in 1961, when it happened to one bill (and another source seemingly telling the same story, but placing it in 1963). And that reserving assent isn’t actually the same as withholding it, but instead leaving it up to the federal Governor. And in that case, the bill ended up being passed anyway.
The role of the monarch (and by extension, governors, lieutenant governors, and governors general) in the Westminster system is highly ceremonial. It is exceptionally unusual for them to exercise prerogative powers and often leads to constitutional crises when they do. I would not be looking to this avenue to stop any undesirable bills.
Good thing we still have the Governor General, then, who can block the use of the notwithstanding clause by withholding royal assent.
Can, yes. But would she?
I honestly think that’s the most productive place to focus influence. I geew up in Saskatchewan, where the lieutenant governor reserved assent 70 times, sometimes explicitly stating the legislation was not in the best interests of the people. It’s at least a viable line of defence against populism and corporate interests.
I don’t know Canadian politics nearly as well as I do Australian, so I’m happy to be proven wrong if you have a source. But my search tells me that the last time a Canadian vice-regal reserved assent was in 1961, when it happened to one bill (and another source seemingly telling the same story, but placing it in 1963). And that reserving assent isn’t actually the same as withholding it, but instead leaving it up to the federal Governor. And in that case, the bill ended up being passed anyway.
The role of the monarch (and by extension, governors, lieutenant governors, and governors general) in the Westminster system is highly ceremonial. It is exceptionally unusual for them to exercise prerogative powers and often leads to constitutional crises when they do. I would not be looking to this avenue to stop any undesirable bills.