Election 2021! (Canada votes again...)

[kaysixteen]

The part about 'the leader having the final veto' would be the part that would make most Americans rebel.   Americans love their primary elections, the chance to select whomever they choose, irrespective of whether party bigshots like it.   Sometimes, sadly, this gives us, well...

And I was unaware that Canada had, taken as a whole, fewer elective positions than the US does (though the number of positions elected here varies somewhat significantly from state to state-- here in Mass., for instance, 100% of judges are appointed by the governor, never elected, whereas in some states, more or less all judges are elected).   I take it no law enforcement positions in Canada are ever elected, including judges, prosecutors, and cops?   Does Canada even maintain the office of 'sheriff'?  What about school boards, and things like treasurers/ comptrollers?

There are advantages to appointed offices, of course, esp in small cities/ rural areas, where the sheer smallness of the population renders it less likely that signifcant offices will find a local candidate qualified to hold it.

[Puget]

The part about 'the leader having the final veto' would be the part that would make most Americans rebel.   Americans love their primary elections, the chance to select whomever they choose, irrespective of whether party bigshots like it.   Sometimes, sadly, this gives us, well...

And I was unaware that Canada had, taken as a whole, fewer elective positions than the US does (though the number of positions elected here varies somewhat significantly from state to state-- here in Mass., for instance, 100% of judges are appointed by the governor, never elected, whereas in some states, more or less all judges are elected).   I take it no law enforcement positions in Canada are ever elected, including judges, prosecutors, and cops?   Does Canada even maintain the office of 'sheriff'?  What about school boards, and things like treasurers/ comptrollers?

There are advantages to appointed offices, of course, esp in small cities/ rural areas, where the sheer smallness of the population renders it less likely that signifcant offices will find a local candidate qualified to hold it.

This does seem to be very regional in the US. In the western states I previously lived in we voted for absolutely everything-- not only sheriff, judges and school board, but also coroner, port commissioners or ditch wardens (don't laugh, water rights are a big deal in the arid parts of the west) depending on the place, etc. Ballot measures (initiatives and state constitutional amendments) are also very common. I think it comes from a long history of small-l libertarianism in the west going back to pioneer days. When I moved east I was surprised at how slim the ballots were!

And apologies to the Canadians for hijacking their thread with comparative US politics. I've enjoyed learning more about the Canadian system as well.

[Parasaurolophus]

I take it no law enforcement positions in Canada are ever elected, including judges, prosecutors, and cops?

Correct. Even our Supreme Court is not a political entity. I couldn't even name a single serving judge.

Does Canada even maintain the office of 'sheriff'?

No? To be honest, I don't even know what a sheriff is, other than a medieval tax collector or someone in charge of local cops.

  What about school boards, and things like treasurers/ comptrollers?

Some school boards are, but increasingly less so (many are also being dissolved). As for the rest, see 'sheriff' above.
There are advantages to appointed offices, of course, esp in small cities/ rural areas, where the sheer smallness of the population renders it less likely that signifcant offices will find a local candidate qualified to hold it.

[marshwiggle]

There are advantages to appointed offices, of course, esp in small cities/ rural areas, where the sheer smallness of the population renders it less likely that signifcant offices will find a local candidate qualified to hold it.

Appointed offices run the risk of nepotism. Elected offices run the risk of demagoguery. The US looks at their history with England and it fuels their fear of nepotism. Canadians don't have to look across an ocean to see examples that make them fear demagoguery.

[marshwiggle]

Sorry for the double post, but this raises an interesting point.

I take it no law enforcement positions in Canada are ever elected, including judges, prosecutors, and cops?

Correct. Even our Supreme Court is not a political entity. I couldn't even name a single serving judge.

I stand to be corrected, but I'd say our Supreme Court appointments are far less controversial than the American "public" process.
(The biggest controversy is often about how fluent they are in both official languages.)

[Parasaurolophus]

Sorry for the double post, but this raises an interesting point.

I take it no law enforcement positions in Canada are ever elected, including judges, prosecutors, and cops?

Correct. Even our Supreme Court is not a political entity. I couldn't even name a single serving judge.

I stand to be corrected, but I'd say our Supreme Court appointments are far less controversial than the American "public" process.
(The biggest controversy is often about how fluent they are in both official languages.)

Yeah, totally. And since 2016, any qualified lawyer or judge can apply to be on the court. At one point in the Harper years, 7/9 of the justices were appointed by him, and he was still losing cases (including major ones) left and right. It's just not the same kind of partisan entity. Also, the mix of law degrees is a lot better than in the US: in addition to the obligatory McGill/Toronto/Osgoode trifecta, the current justices have degrees (often several law degrees) from Laval, Victoria, Ottawa, Alberta, Yale, and Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.

On the language thing, it makes sense as a requirement since it's a bijural court whose jurisdiction includes Francophone stuff. But, if you'll allow me to wade into the current tempest in a teapot: in my view, bilingualism is an important requirement, but I'd accept fluency in an Indigenous language in lieu of French (in principle, in lieu of English too, except that the judge wouldn't be able to perform most of their duties, then). That seems totally fair to me.

[dismalist]

I'd say our Supreme Court appointments are far less controversial than the American "public" process.

Well, appointments are apportioned by Province or region. If Provinces or regions are relatively stable in their political preferences, that amounts to a quota system. That's fine unless or until some come about who are unconsidered. Looks like Canada gets nice and quiet appointments to its Supreme Court because the powers that be can live with current quotas.

For appointing a judiciary, that's not a terrible system, by the way.

In the US, the outcome will not be much different on average over time, as the political parties alternate in office. But, of course, each time it looks like there's more at stake than in Canada, so it's worth making more noise.

[Parasaurolophus]

I'd say our Supreme Court appointments are far less controversial than the American "public" process.

Well, appointments are apportioned by Province or region. If Provinces or regions are relatively stable in their political preferences, that amounts to a quota system. That's fine unless or until some come about who are unconsidered. Looks like Canada gets nice and quiet appointments to its Supreme Court because the powers that be can live with current quotas.

The only regional regional requirement is that 3 of the 9 must come from Québec--because Québec uses civil law instead of common law. The rest of the apportionment (3 from Ontario, 2 from the west and prairies, and 1 from the Maritimes) is just convention (roughly based on population).

[dismalist]

I'd say our Supreme Court appointments are far less controversial than the American "public" process.

Well, appointments are apportioned by Province or region. If Provinces or regions are relatively stable in their political preferences, that amounts to a quota system. That's fine unless or until some come about who are unconsidered. Looks like Canada gets nice and quiet appointments to its Supreme Court because the powers that be can live with current quotas.

The only regional regional requirement is that 3 of the 9 must come from Québec--because Québec uses civil law instead of common law. The rest of the apportionment (3 from Ontario, 2 from the west and prairies, and 1 from the Maritimes) is just convention (roughly based on population).

Conventions are solutions to problems we have forgotten. Were the conventions lifted, the problems would re-emerge.

[secundem_artem]

Sorry for the double post, but this raises an interesting point.

I take it no law enforcement positions in Canada are ever elected, including judges, prosecutors, and cops?

Correct. Even our Supreme Court is not a political entity. I couldn't even name a single serving judge.

I stand to be corrected, but I'd say our Supreme Court appointments are far less controversial than the American "public" process.
(The biggest controversy is often about how fluent they are in both official languages.)

I cannot confirm or deny the veracity of this statement, but one of the Con Law faculty at Artem U once told me that decisions made by the Supremes in Canada are made in such a way as to allow a later Parliament to address the issue, correct the error, redress the wrong etc.  He felt it was one reason why appointments and decisions from the Supremes in the Great White North tend not to be controversial.

[dismalist]

Sorry for the double post, but this raises an interesting point.

I take it no law enforcement positions in Canada are ever elected, including judges, prosecutors, and cops?

Correct. Even our Supreme Court is not a political entity. I couldn't even name a single serving judge.

I stand to be corrected, but I'd say our Supreme Court appointments are far less controversial than the American "public" process.
(The biggest controversy is often about how fluent they are in both official languages.)

I cannot confirm or deny the veracity of this statement, but one of the Con Law faculty at Artem U once told me that decisions made by the Supremes in Canada are made in such a way as to allow a later Parliament to address the issue, correct the error, redress the wrong etc.  He felt it was one reason why appointments and decisions from the Supremes in the Great White North tend not to be controversial.

Dictatorship of Parliament.

[kaysixteen]

So the Canadian supreme court cannot, ultimately, nuke a law passed by Parliament on grounds of unconstitutionality?   What is the current state of abortion law in Canada?

[marshwiggle]

I cannot confirm or deny the veracity of this statement, but one of the Con Law faculty at Artem U once told me that decisions made by the Supremes in Canada are made in such a way as to allow a later Parliament to address the issue, correct the error, redress the wrong etc.  He felt it was one reason why appointments and decisions from the Supremes in the Great White North tend not to be controversial.

I don't see how this wouldn't be the case anywhere; the point is that by specifying how a law violates the constitution, it suggests ways that a different law might try to address the same issue without violating the constitution.

Why wouldn't that be a good idea? (Unless one sees a law as pure evil, with evil intent from the get-go.)

So the Canadian supreme court cannot, ultimately, nuke a law passed by Parliament on grounds of unconstitutionality?

Sure they can and do. There's often (usually?) a phase-in period that governments have to adapt where just removing the law instantly would be chaotic.

  What is the current state of abortion law in Canada?

There is none. When the court struck down the previous law, successive governments have been too afraid to touch the third rail, even though most Canadians favour some restrictions.

[Parasaurolophus]

Yeah, any and all abortions are legal, at any point in the pregnancy. But you're not going to find anyone who performs them at week 40.

All kinds of laws have been struck down as unconstitutional, including (relatively recently) laws against physician-assisted suicide and sex work. In those cases, governments were given a certain amount of time to pass new, constitutional, laws.

[kaysixteen]

So ultimately, if the govt refuses to rewrite the law to comply with the court's objections, the court's view wins out and the law is nuked?

BTW, exactly what comprises the 'constitution' in Canada?   Is this essentially just equal to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or is there more to it?   And how might it be amended?   I have read that the US constitution is essentially the hardest current constitution in a democratic country, to amend, but maybe this is wrong?