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 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.
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.