[Galxeagle]

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)

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/notwithstanding-clause-doug...

[thsksbd]

Keep what in check? The war measures act has been used twice in 60 years!

The trucker fiasco ended only when the Ukraine war substituted the COVID madness

[SECProto]

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 The war measures act has only been used once in the last 60 years (1970 October Crisis), and was repealed in 1988.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.

[mardifoufs]

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.

[glitchc]

There's no doubt that the RoC, especially the West, is not particularly happy with Quebec's liberal use of the notwithstanding clause.