Political blowback has been enough to keep the power in check - it significantly raises the visibility of the attempted action whenever it's invoked(1) and historically has been associated with a political hit. It also has a 5-year sunset/renewal requirement, and can only override certain sections.
I think everyone would generally agree a constitution would be stronger without it, but even if 'it's only a matter of time', it's played out as a pretty decent compromise to actually get the charter signed ~45 years earlier than potentially no charter at all.
Canada generally relies on trust and good behaviour more than the US system of checks-and-balances - the most obvious difference is that our Prime Minister plays the role of both US president (head of exec) and congress (technically just the House equivalent, but the senate equivalent is much weaker)
Note that this comment once again diverges from the truth. The war measures act has only been used once in the last 60 years (1970 October Crisis), and was repealed in 1988. You might have (intentionally or unintentionally) confused it with the Emergencies Act, which was used in 2022. It's much more limited, specifically requires governmental action to be in line with the charter, and requires review by parliamentary committee and a public inquiry following any usage.
What? There has been absolutely no blowback when Quebec used it. And minimal blowback for all other uses. This is just a weird cope, people don't really care if they use it here. It's sad but true.
I agree but that's not super actionable. There's no actual consequences. In fact, I don't think said usage has ever been even slightly important in any election for any of the government that has used it.
And since that's usually the main defense for the notwithstanding clause ("using it would lead to too much backlash so self policing is fine!"), then i don't see how it's defensible.
Not that it actually even makes sense anyways. If it won't be used, why have it? If it will be used for issues as trivial as what it has actually been used for up until now, that's super dangerous, so again why even leave it there? And for exceptional situations, we already have a government that's pretty trigger happy with the emergency act that allows for basically anything.
So it leaves us with provincial government using it in non critical situations (which would be handled by the federal government anyways). I guess that's also a "valid" option, and the one we have now, but then it's hard to argue that our constitution isn't completely worthless.
Don't think I agree with your reasoning. I'm also guessing you're from Quebec in your attempt to minimize how cavalierly the CAQ has used this law in recent times to advance it's agenda.
I suspect we will start to see Alberta's provincial government use it more frequently, starting with small items eventually leading up to challenging the equalization act. Saskatchewan may follow suit. This law is likely to become the centerpiece of Canadian politics over the next five years.
Wait what? Where did you get that from? I'm against the clause, why would I minimize Quebec using it? That's the opposite of what I'm trying to do. That we even have such a mechanism in Canada is super bad imo. Quebec hasn't been the only province using it but that's besides the point. The RoC didn't do anything about Quebec misusing it, because they can't do anything about it. Sure there's some outrage but again, what does that do to stop the laws that were passed using that "no constitution lol" card? Absolutely 0.
And if you think I'm in favor of the CAQ out of all things then there's again been a severe misunderstanding. I can't think of any politician that's as low and repulsive as Legault in Canada.
My apologies, that didn't come out clearly in your previous response. Sure, you're right of course, it's not just Quebec, but it's been mostly Quebec [1]. Once we normalize it's use though, it will start to get weaponized for partisan reasons.
I think everyone would generally agree a constitution would be stronger without it, but even if 'it's only a matter of time', it's played out as a pretty decent compromise to actually get the charter signed ~45 years earlier than potentially no charter at all.
Canada generally relies on trust and good behaviour more than the US system of checks-and-balances - the most obvious difference is that our Prime Minister plays the role of both US president (head of exec) and congress (technically just the House equivalent, but the senate equivalent is much weaker)
(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/notwithstanding-clause-doug...