Misplaced Pages

User:SimonP/Comparison of Canadian and United States governments: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User:SimonP Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:54, 24 October 2003 editRossami (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,096 editsm disambiguation← Previous edit Revision as of 06:11, 26 October 2003 edit undo24.66.94.140 (talk) Removed irreleveant topics; Removed thesis' which were not designed to explain CDN/US diff; reorganized headingsNext edit →
Line 3: Line 3:
**] **]


The history of ] indicates that much of Canadian politics is defined by reaction to, opposition to, following, or leading US trends. The two North American nations are so similar as to be often indistinguishable to a casual outsider, much as Canadians pride themselves on being somehow different. Cynical commentators have noted the difference between Canadians and Americans as: "Americans pronounce foreign words and names as if they were in Spanish. Canadians pronounce those words as if they were in French, say 'eh', and 'oot' and 'aboot' rather than 'out and about', use British spellings, and refer to the letter 'z' as 'zed'". (See ].) The history of ] indicates that much of Canadian politics is defined by reaction to, opposition to, following, or leading US trends. The two North American nations are so similar as to be often indistinguishable to a casual outsider, much as Canadians pride themselves on being somehow different.


⚫ ==Origin of Differences==
Certainly there is a basis for saying that Canada and US politics are just as similar. The main differences are due to the ] that assigns a very limited role in ] to the provinces, but a very powerful role in ], ], education (which is mostly public in Canada with very few private colleges or universities), and professional health care (which is almost entirely public institutions in Canada). U.S. states by contrast can have their own ], must conform to US-wide standards in accounting, securities and civil law, and typically do not control the natural resources under their soil, this role being ceded to the federal government.


The differences between Canada and the United States' political structures date back to the ]. With the creation of the United States of America, the founders of that nation rejected the ]and the ]. In contrast Canada was created by the ], and thus it chose to emulate the ]. However, Canada copied some concepts from the US, such as a Senate (which acts more like the British ]), a ], and eventually a Constitution which spells out rights and freedoms.
⚫ ===Origins of Differences===


Likewise the origin of the differences between the political polices of Canada and the United States can be traced back to that original divide in 1776. The revolutionaries chose a path of independence, innovation and rejection of ]. Canada chose a path of dependence on the British empire, being largely settled by ], many of whom were given generous land entitlements. For example the entire province of ] was partitioned to nobles of the Kings choosing, whom displaced the original French settlers. Thus while the United States government is meant represent the people, of which are entitled to fundamental rights, Canada's citizens are only permitted to have any rights by the graciousness of the Crown.
There are a number of explanations for why Canadian and American politcs are different.

====Fragment Thesis====

The fragment thesis argues that a nation's poltical culture is the product of the immigrants who formed that nation. Thus the American poltical tradition originates with those leaving Britain, either because of religious prosecution or to pursue trade and make money. Neither of these groups were keen on powerful government and they were much affected by the writings of British political philosophers ] and ]. By comparison those who founded English Canada were ] who had lived in the United States but who rejected the democratic system in existance there. Canada thus was orginally far more conservative than the US, hwoever. In later years Canada was a major destination of Eastern European socialists and British ], however, that have given Canada a much stronger leftist bent as well. The differences between the origins of the two nations is often compared by contrsting the American motto "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" with the Canadian one "Peace, Order, and Good Govenrment."

====Laurentian Thesis====

Ascribes the differences betweem Canada and the United States to different trade patterns. While the US's trade in its early years was almost entirely north/south along the ] Canadian trade patterns were east/west along the ].

====Religious Thesis====

The religious thesis ascribes the differences between Canadian and American political cultures to the differing religious make up of the countries. The United States for most of its history was overwhelmingly radical protestant, with most of its people belonging to churches that were evangelical and non-heirachical. In Canada by contrast the ] dominated English Canada while the ] dominated in Quebec. Both of these chruches were very heirachical ealding the Canada's long standing predisposition to deference towards authority. The lack of an evangelical tradition also contributed to Canada's strong belief in multiculturalism and multilateralism.


==Division of powers== ==Division of powers==


Both Canada and the United States are ]s, they are both divided into a number of governmental sub-units. In Canada these are known as provinces, in the United States they are referred to as states. While the founders of Canada intended their union to be stronger and more centralized than that the United States this has not come to pass. Canadian provinces have more power and a larger role in government than do US states. Canada is one of the only countries in the world where the combined budgets of the provinces exceed that of the federal government. Canadian provinces are responsible for most of Canada's ], including health care, welfare, and education. Like the United States Canadian provinces became as smaller copies of the federal government. Over time, however, all the provinces have eliminated their upper house, and are now all ]. Many similarities remain, however while governors are similar in role to the president, so Canadian premiers are comparable to the prime minister. The United States is ] and Canada is a ], though in many ways Canada acts more as federation in practice. Both countries are divided into a number of governmental sub-units. In Canada these are known as provinces and territories, in the United States they are known quite aptly as states (as well as the District of Columbia). Due to the high amount of centralization in the Canadian system, Canadian provinces are often more greatly controlled by federal government than US States are. While Canadian provinces are responsible for most of Canada's ], including health care, welfare and education most provinces rely heavily on federal funds. In the United States the federal government also exerts a great deal of power but because of the ] in the US system this control is often tempered by the different branches. While Canadian provinces follow a common criminal code, US states have many differing laws, creating differences in everything from gun control measures to capital punishment. While each State has its own police force, restricted by law to arrest in another State, many Canadian provinces share a common federal police force. While each State has equal representation regardless of population in the Senate, each Province receives representation based on its population. Like the United States Canadian provinces became as smaller copies of the federal government. Over time, however, all the provinces have eliminated their upper house, and are now all ]. Many similarities remain, however while governors are similar in role to the president, so Canadian premiers are comparable to the prime minister.


===Municipal powers=== ===Municipal powers===
Line 33: Line 21:
===Special powers of Quebec=== ===Special powers of Quebec===


] is primarily French-speaking and, like ] in the USA, follows the ] with respect to its civil law. Quebec's public pension and social insurance schemes are kept in separate funds from those of the rest of Canada, and are managed by the powerful ] fund, which often provides investment capital to Quebec-based businesses that are deemed strategic by its government. ] is primarily French-speaking and like ] in the US, follows the ] with respect to its civil law. Quebec's public pension and social insurance schemes are kept in separate funds from those of the rest of Canada, and are managed by the powerful ] fund, which often provides investment capital to Quebec-based businesses that are deemed strategic by its government.


Provincial politics in Quebec tend to revolve (since the 1970s at least) on the question of ] from Canada, to create a new French-speaking nation-state. The large parties (] is separatist, the ] is federalist) are divided on the question, and only recently has Quebec politics shown signs of moving away from this polarization. Provincial politics in Quebec tend to revolve on the question of ] from Canada, to create a new French-speaking nation-state. The large parties (] is separatist, the ] is federalist) are divided on the question, and only recently has Quebec politics shown signs of moving away from this polarization.


There is no state in the United States, by contrast, where state politics is so dominated by a party with the goal of separation from the USA. There is no state in the United States, by contrast, where state politics is so dominated by a party with the goal of separation from the USA. Although Puerto Rico which is a Commonwealth within the United States does share some parallels with the Quebec situation.


==Equalization payments== ==Equalization payments==
Line 47: Line 35:
From time to time Canadian premiers have made intolerant remarks about this situation in public. Alberta Premier ] once famously offered any unemployed person "a free bus ticket to ]" (to exploit that government's more generous assistance). Ontario Premier ] once famously referred to ] as "welfare bums". Both reflected underlying resentment of making payments to poorer regions, often voiced by constituents in their generally-more-politically-conservative provinces, who feel they are paying for the social assistance in these other places. From time to time Canadian premiers have made intolerant remarks about this situation in public. Alberta Premier ] once famously offered any unemployed person "a free bus ticket to ]" (to exploit that government's more generous assistance). Ontario Premier ] once famously referred to ] as "welfare bums". Both reflected underlying resentment of making payments to poorer regions, often voiced by constituents in their generally-more-politically-conservative provinces, who feel they are paying for the social assistance in these other places.


Although these politics of 'have' and 'have-not' states are also present in the United States, there is less subsidy of the latter by the former, and more appreciation of the role 'have-not' states play in providing labour to 'have' states, and in serving in the military. Although these politics of 'have' and 'have-not' states are also present in the United States, there is less subsidy of the latter by the former, and more appreciation of the role 'have-not' states play in providing labor to 'have' states, and in serving in the military.


==Political parties== ==Political parties==


There are five political parties with seats in the ], three of which have at times held power at some point in various provinces. Both countries continue to use a ] system of electing representatives. Such a system works best to reinforce a two-party system. This can sometimes work to exaggerate regional differences and interests, whether in the name of Quebec or of the southern "Dixiecrats". There are five political parties with seats in the ], three of which have at times held power at some point in various provinces. Both countries continue to use a ] system of electing representatives. This can sometimes work to exaggerate regional differences and interests, whether in the name of Quebec or of the southern "Dixiecrats".


The vote-splitting effect on the Canadian ] has often resulted in governments that have an absolute majority of representatives elected by far less than half of the overall popular vote, and effectively accountable to no one until the next election. In the United States, by contrast, the election of ] in 2000 with slightly less than half of the popular vote is an anomalous effect of the electoral college system. The 1988 United States election was the most recent one in which the president received a majority of the popular vote. It is far more difficult for third parties or independents to be represented in the United States. This usually requires an exceptional personal popularity, as was the case with ] in ]. The vote-splitting effect on the Canadian ] has often resulted in governments that have an absolute majority of representatives elected by far less than half of the overall popular vote, and effectively accountable to no one until the next election. In the United States, by contrast, the election of ] in 2000 with slightly less than half of the popular vote is an anomalous effect of the electoral college system. It is far more difficult for third parties or independents to be represented in the United States. This usually requires an exceptional personal popularity, as was the case with ] in ].


The five Canadian political parties in the federal parliament are: The five Canadian political parties in the federal parliament are:
Line 62: Line 50:
* the ] which was the traditional right-wing party, and often held power but was devastated in 1993 when the Bloc and the Alliance's predecessor the ] were formed largely out of disgruntled Conservative supporters. * the ] which was the traditional right-wing party, and often held power but was devastated in 1993 when the Bloc and the Alliance's predecessor the ] were formed largely out of disgruntled Conservative supporters.


The rise of the Bloc and decline of the Conservative party very drastically changed the political landscape of Canada. Before that, the largest change was the rise of the New Democrats that tended to split the Liberal vote, and elect more conservatives. The rise of the Bloc and decline of the Conservative party very drastically changed the political landscape of Canada. Before that, federal politics were dominated by two parties; the Conservatives and the Liberals.


A consequence of these changes has been that the Liberal Party has tended to move more to the centre, and has successfully split the vote between two parties 'on the right' (PCs and the Alliance), and two parties 'on the left' (Bloc and New Democrats). Since the Liberals are often referred to colloquially as the 'Grits', this condition of perpetual Liberal control is called 'the Grit lock'. A consequence of these changes has been that the Liberal Party has tended to move more to the center, and has successfully split the vote between two parties 'on the right' (PCs and the Alliance). Since the Liberals are often referred to colloquially as the 'Grits', this condition of perpetual Liberal control is called 'the Grit lock'.


Although the Clinton-era Democrats also moved to dominate the centre of the political spectrum in the United States, they did not manage to successfully divide and conquer their opponents, who were perhaps not so willing to be divided. Nonetheless the rise of the ] of ] in 1992, and the rise of the ] in 2000, could both be said to have 'split the vote' and elected a candidate of opposite political views. Perhaps due to such annoying short-term results, 'third parties' in the United States have almost always been very successfully integrated into the two 'mainstream' parties, time and again. In Canada, by contrast, this worked until the postwar period, but in recent times has failed again and again, most recently when Prime Minister ] (a ]) asked the ] publicly to join the ] and cease to run candidates against each other. Numerous attempts to 'unite the right' in the 1990s have also failed. Although the Clinton-era Democrats also moved to dominate the center of the political spectrum in the United States, they did not manage to successfully divide and conquer their opponents. Nonetheless the rise of the ] of ] in 1992, and the rise of the ] in 2000, could both be said to have 'split the vote' and elected a candidate of opposite political views.


In the United States, by contrast, splits in the solidarity of 'the right' and 'the left' have generally been rather temporary, and quickly re-formed by binding together new coalitions, despite a more distinctive and enduring "liberal vs. conservative" culture that tends to make American political culture more dualistic and interest-group driven. It also tends to lead to a polarization that is unusual in Canadian politics, where personalities can be often dominant over ideology in determining what really happens. In the United States, by contrast, splits in the solidarity of 'the right' and 'the left' have generally been rather temporary, and quickly re-formed by binding together new coalitions, despite a more distinctive and enduring "liberal vs. conservative" culture that tends to make American political culture more dualistic.

This may be a symptom of an over-centralized government (see below), or it may reflect a different attitude to parties in Canadian society. Most Canadian political parties are "broker parties" that contract deals with diverse interest groups and organizations. A good example is Prime Minister ] and his successful integration of Quebec separatists and Alberta advocates of ] in his party. This coalition dominated the government with an unprecedented (210 seat) majority government, then dissolved into just ''two seats''.

This demonstrates the difficulty of holding coalitions together in a bilingual political culture with vast disparities in key values. The rise of regional parties, such as the Bloc (only in Quebec, by definition) and the Alliance (successful only in the West), seems to ensure that future Canadian governments will be coalitions of minority parties, or Liberal pluralities based on fewer than 50% of votes cast. At least until more ] can occur, which will probably force parties to merge, co-operate, or dissolve as members go elsewhere.


==Bureaucracy== ==Bureaucracy==


A key and often unnoted difference between Canada and the United States is the role of professional bureaucrats. In Canada, as in the ], very few appointed officials lose their jobs during a shift of government even to a new party. While the Prime Minister of Canada has power within his government and over his Supreme Court unknown elsewhere in the developed world (often leading to the comment that "we elect a dictator"), these powers do not extend to the unionized public service: A key and often unnoted difference between Canada and the United States is the role of professional bureaucrats. In Canada, as in the ], very few appointed officials lose their jobs during a shift of government even to a new party. While the Prime Minister of Canada has power within his government and over his Supreme Court unknown elsewhere in the developed world (often leading to the comment that "we elect a dictator"), these powers do not extend to the unionized public service.


In the United States, by contrast, over 2500 jobs are direct.appointments of the President of the United States, cabinet ministers need not be drawn from elected Members of Congress/Parliament (and in fact are almost never drawn from the ranks of professional politicians), and "the whole top rank of every federal department is swept away and replaced" with each election. This is very very different from the ] and ] situation, and creates very different dynamics, most notably in the conduct of Ministers vs. Secretaries: In the United States, by contrast, over 2500 jobs are direct appointments of the President of the United States, cabinet ministers need not be drawn from elected Members of Congress/Parliament, and "the whole top rank of every federal department is swept away and replaced" with each election. This is very different from the ] and ] situation, and creates very different dynamics, most notably in the conduct of Ministers vs. Secretaries:


A British or Canadian Minister is often in his or her job for a short time, not a specialist in the particular area of government, and must trust his or her Assistant Deputy Minister (only the Deputy being a political appointee) to convey his or her requests to the bureaucracy underneath. A British or Canadian Minister is often in his or her job for a short time, not a specialist in the particular area of government, and must trust his or her Assistant Deputy Minister (only the Deputy being a political appointee) to convey his or her requests to the bureaucracy underneath.
Line 84: Line 68:
An American Cabinet Secretary always takes one job for the duration of the Administration, unless they are replaced or resign from the government entirely. They have great power to replace their assistants, which extends deep down into the agencies they control, which have no effective unions. An American Cabinet Secretary always takes one job for the duration of the Administration, unless they are replaced or resign from the government entirely. They have great power to replace their assistants, which extends deep down into the agencies they control, which have no effective unions.


⚫ While there are plenty of globally-experienced Americans appointed by each President, they are of course different people, and tend not to be 'insiders' to international institutions, which engage in constant diplomatic and interest group intrigue, requiring constant attention.
Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. Foreign policy tends to be more consistent across administrations in Canada and the UK, as the same people tend to be in charge, and exercise great suasion over their Ministers, who are not typically specialists in foreign affairs, and are also more committed to ] and other forms of international law and cooperation. For instance, Canada has contributed judges to world courts often, and the first prosecutor to issue a Hague prosecution against a sitting head of state ] of (former) ], ], now sits on the ]. Britain likewise has many examples of judicial and bureaucratic personnel who have served in important international roles and institutions.

⚫ While there are plenty of globally-experienced Americans appointed by each President, they are of course different people, and tend not to be 'insiders' to international institutions, which engage in constant diplomatic and interest group intrigue, requiring constant attention. A consequence of this is that American presidential appointees tend to be perceived as arrogant or ignorant, perhaps unfairly, as they are more likely to be new on the job, and to have done non-government jobs during the prior administration, especially if it was of 'the other party'.

An interesting admonition of American foreign policy is that it is 'an amateur empire' that, each administration, is composed of new people that simply don't know the ropes. This may simply be an arrogant admonition from those very professional imperialists, the British. Canadians probably consider both arrogant, especially those of French descent, who often perceive themselves as a minority in an English-speaking Empire that has simply moved itself from London to Washington, and has a minor outpost in Ottawa.


Bilingualism in French and English is an absolute and inflexible requirement of Canadian federal politics at the Cabinet level, and of bureaucrats at literally every level. Unilingual politicians are confined to provincial politics. Weak other-language skills among Cabinet Ministers also tend to increase the power of the very fluent bureaucrats, who are responsible for briefing the Ministers and for the translation of documents from one language into another. Bilingualism in French and English is an absolute and inflexible requirement of Canadian federal politics at the Cabinet level, and of bureaucrats at literally every level. Unilingual politicians are confined to provincial politics. Weak other-language skills among Cabinet Ministers also tend to increase the power of the very fluent bureaucrats, who are responsible for briefing the Ministers and for the translation of documents from one language into another.


===Centrilization of Power=== ===Centralization of Power===


In Canada there are far fewer 'checks and balances' than in the United States. The Prime Minister within Canada has vastly more power than the American president does. Since Canada's legislative and executive branches are fused the Prime Minister dominates both of them. Unlike the US congress the Prime Minister will always have the largest group of supporters in the ]. Also the Prime Minister keeps very close controls on all members of parliament. In the United States there are often periods of cohabitation where congress is controlled by a different party than the White House. The president also has very limited control over the members of congress and must often bargain and make deals for support there. In Canada there are far fewer 'checks and balances' than in the United States. The Prime Minister within Canada has vastly more power than the American president does. Since Canada's legislative and executive branches are fused the Prime Minister dominates both of them. Unlike the US congress the Prime Minister will always have the largest group of supporters in the ]. Also the Prime Minister keeps very close controls on all members of parliament. In the United States there are often periods of cohabitation where congress is controlled by a different party than the White House. The president also has very limited control over the members of congress and must often bargain and make deals for support there.
Line 98: Line 78:
The judicial branch in Canada is also closely controlled by the Prime Minister as they have complete power over the decision as to who becomes a Supreme Court judge. In the US, by contrast, all judicial appointments must be approved by the Senate. Until ] the Canadian judicial branch was for less powerful than the US one because Canada had nothing comparable to the ]. However in 1982 under the urging of Prime Minister ] the ] was added to the constitution giving the courts far more power. However, in Canada's charter there is a ], which allows any government to protect a bill from certain areas of the charter. The judicial branch in Canada is also closely controlled by the Prime Minister as they have complete power over the decision as to who becomes a Supreme Court judge. In the US, by contrast, all judicial appointments must be approved by the Senate. Until ] the Canadian judicial branch was for less powerful than the US one because Canada had nothing comparable to the ]. However in 1982 under the urging of Prime Minister ] the ] was added to the constitution giving the courts far more power. However, in Canada's charter there is a ], which allows any government to protect a bill from certain areas of the charter.


The centrilization of power in Canada has certain benefits and certain liabilities when compared with the American system. A clear line of authority means it is very clear who in government is responsible for any given issue. Unlike in the US the Prime Minister is wholey accountable for the economy, security and other national concerns. The rigid control of Members of Parliament in Canada also serves to reduce corruption and reduce the influence of money in Canadian politics. Unlike American Senators MPs do not need to raise great deals of money, and because they are far less powerful there is far less interest from companies to donate to them. The advantages of the US system include that it is more flexible and more representative as each congressperson can make their own decisions on each issue. This leads to greater regional representation by each party, it also helps discourage the proliferation of third parties which occurs often in Canada. The centralization of power in Canada has certain benefits and certain liabilities when compared with the American system. A clear line of authority means it is very clear who in government is responsible for any given issue. Unlike in the US the Prime Minister is wholly accountable for the economy, security and other national concerns. The rigid control of Members of Parliament in Canada also serves to reduce corruption and reduce the influence of money in Canadian politics. Unlike American Senators MPs do not need to raise great deals of money, and because they are far less powerful there is far less interest from companies to donate to them. The advantages of the US system include that it is more flexible and more representative as each congressperson can make their own decisions on each issue. This leads to greater regional representation by each party, it also helps discourage the proliferation of third parties which occurs often in Canada.


----- -----
Line 122: Line 102:
** Post-materialism and protest in the 1960s ** Post-materialism and protest in the 1960s
----------- -----------

== centralization of power in cabinet ==


== Multilateralism == == Multilateralism ==


Canada is committed to the concept of multilateralism and collective security. It is one of the largest backers of the ] and supports most international initiatives, such as the ], the ], and the ]. The United States pursues both unilateral and multilateral policies at different times, depending on what is in their self interest. Many Americans have problems with the United Nations and are unwilling to see their sovereignty impinged by international organizations. Both Canada and the United States are committed to international economic organizations such as the ], ] and the ]. Canada is committed to the concept of multilateralism and collective security. It is one of the largest backers of the ] and supports most international initiatives, such as the ], the ], and the ]. The United States pursues both unilateral and multilateral policies at different times, depending on what is in their self interest. Many Americans have problems with the United Nations and are unwilling to see their sovereignty impinged by international organizations. Both Canada and the United States are committed to international economic organizations such as the ], ] and the ].

== role of the military ==

== acceptance of separatism ==

== individual rights and role of judiciary in protecting them ==

== marijuana ==

== health care ==

== same-sex marriages ==


See also: ], ], ], ], ]. See also: ], ], ], ], ].

Revision as of 06:11, 26 October 2003

The history of Canada-US relations indicates that much of Canadian politics is defined by reaction to, opposition to, following, or leading US trends. The two North American nations are so similar as to be often indistinguishable to a casual outsider, much as Canadians pride themselves on being somehow different.

Origin of Differences

The differences between Canada and the United States' political structures date back to the American Revolutionary War. With the creation of the United States of America, the founders of that nation rejected the British monarchyand the Westminster system. In contrast Canada was created by the British Empire, and thus it chose to emulate the British Government. However, Canada copied some concepts from the US, such as a Senate (which acts more like the British House of Lords), a Supreme Court, and eventually a Constitution which spells out rights and freedoms.

Likewise the origin of the differences between the political polices of Canada and the United States can be traced back to that original divide in 1776. The revolutionaries chose a path of independence, innovation and rejection of class system. Canada chose a path of dependence on the British empire, being largely settled by United Empire Loyalists, many of whom were given generous land entitlements. For example the entire province of Prince Edward Island was partitioned to nobles of the Kings choosing, whom displaced the original French settlers. Thus while the United States government is meant represent the people, of which are entitled to fundamental rights, Canada's citizens are only permitted to have any rights by the graciousness of the Crown.

Division of powers

The United States is federation and Canada is a confederation, though in many ways Canada acts more as federation in practice. Both countries are divided into a number of governmental sub-units. In Canada these are known as provinces and territories, in the United States they are known quite aptly as states (as well as the District of Columbia). Due to the high amount of centralization in the Canadian system, Canadian provinces are often more greatly controlled by federal government than US States are. While Canadian provinces are responsible for most of Canada's social safety net, including health care, welfare and education most provinces rely heavily on federal funds. In the United States the federal government also exerts a great deal of power but because of the Checks and balances in the US system this control is often tempered by the different branches. While Canadian provinces follow a common criminal code, US states have many differing laws, creating differences in everything from gun control measures to capital punishment. While each State has its own police force, restricted by law to arrest in another State, many Canadian provinces share a common federal police force. While each State has equal representation regardless of population in the Senate, each Province receives representation based on its population. Like the United States Canadian provinces became as smaller copies of the federal government. Over time, however, all the provinces have eliminated their upper house, and are now all unicameral. Many similarities remain, however while governors are similar in role to the president, so Canadian premiers are comparable to the prime minister.

Municipal powers

Canadian municipalities have no rights whatsoever, legally, and are 'creatures of the province' in which they are located. They cannot sue nor can they apply moral purchasing standards in defiance of provincial standards. Provinces may merge and divide even cities at will, without consultation, and may ignore results of any referendum at the municipal level. For details of a current controversy, see the Toronto, Ontario article, and a discussion of the 1998 amalgamation.

Special powers of Quebec

Quebec is primarily French-speaking and like Louisiana in the US, follows the Napoleonic civil code with respect to its civil law. Quebec's public pension and social insurance schemes are kept in separate funds from those of the rest of Canada, and are managed by the powerful Caisse de Dépôt fund, which often provides investment capital to Quebec-based businesses that are deemed strategic by its government.

Provincial politics in Quebec tend to revolve on the question of Quebec separation from Canada, to create a new French-speaking nation-state. The large parties (Parti Québécois is separatist, the Quebec Liberal Party is federalist) are divided on the question, and only recently has Quebec politics shown signs of moving away from this polarization.

There is no state in the United States, by contrast, where state politics is so dominated by a party with the goal of separation from the USA. Although Puerto Rico which is a Commonwealth within the United States does share some parallels with the Quebec situation.

Equalization payments

The richer provinces, notably Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, pay what are called 'provincial equalization payments' to the poorer regions, notably Newfoundland, the Maritimes, and the Territories, who are typically quite dependent on such payments. Quebec, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are typically not so dependent, nor called upon to contribute much, to the 'have-not provinces'.

The negotiations of provincial relief, and the draining of human capital (properly individual capital) from poorer provinces to richer ones, are constant concerns of Canadian provincial premiers. In the post-World-War-II period, Atlantic Canada lost many people to Central Canada (especially Ontario), and Western Canada (mostly Alberta in the 1980s oil boom and British Columbia later).

From time to time Canadian premiers have made intolerant remarks about this situation in public. Alberta Premier Ralph Klein once famously offered any unemployed person "a free bus ticket to Vancouver" (to exploit that government's more generous assistance). Ontario Premier Mike Harris once famously referred to Atlantic Canada as "welfare bums". Both reflected underlying resentment of making payments to poorer regions, often voiced by constituents in their generally-more-politically-conservative provinces, who feel they are paying for the social assistance in these other places.

Although these politics of 'have' and 'have-not' states are also present in the United States, there is less subsidy of the latter by the former, and more appreciation of the role 'have-not' states play in providing labor to 'have' states, and in serving in the military.

Political parties

There are five political parties with seats in the Canadian House of Commons, three of which have at times held power at some point in various provinces. Both countries continue to use a first past the post system of electing representatives. This can sometimes work to exaggerate regional differences and interests, whether in the name of Quebec or of the southern "Dixiecrats".

The vote-splitting effect on the Canadian parliamentary system has often resulted in governments that have an absolute majority of representatives elected by far less than half of the overall popular vote, and effectively accountable to no one until the next election. In the United States, by contrast, the election of G. W. Bush in 2000 with slightly less than half of the popular vote is an anomalous effect of the electoral college system. It is far more difficult for third parties or independents to be represented in the United States. This usually requires an exceptional personal popularity, as was the case with Jesse Ventura in Minnesota.

The five Canadian political parties in the federal parliament are:

The rise of the Bloc and decline of the Conservative party very drastically changed the political landscape of Canada. Before that, federal politics were dominated by two parties; the Conservatives and the Liberals.

A consequence of these changes has been that the Liberal Party has tended to move more to the center, and has successfully split the vote between two parties 'on the right' (PCs and the Alliance). Since the Liberals are often referred to colloquially as the 'Grits', this condition of perpetual Liberal control is called 'the Grit lock'.

Although the Clinton-era Democrats also moved to dominate the center of the political spectrum in the United States, they did not manage to successfully divide and conquer their opponents. Nonetheless the rise of the Reform Party of H. Ross Perot in 1992, and the rise of the Green Party of the United States in 2000, could both be said to have 'split the vote' and elected a candidate of opposite political views.

In the United States, by contrast, splits in the solidarity of 'the right' and 'the left' have generally been rather temporary, and quickly re-formed by binding together new coalitions, despite a more distinctive and enduring "liberal vs. conservative" culture that tends to make American political culture more dualistic.

Bureaucracy

A key and often unnoted difference between Canada and the United States is the role of professional bureaucrats. In Canada, as in the UK, very few appointed officials lose their jobs during a shift of government even to a new party. While the Prime Minister of Canada has power within his government and over his Supreme Court unknown elsewhere in the developed world (often leading to the comment that "we elect a dictator"), these powers do not extend to the unionized public service.

In the United States, by contrast, over 2500 jobs are direct appointments of the President of the United States, cabinet ministers need not be drawn from elected Members of Congress/Parliament, and "the whole top rank of every federal department is swept away and replaced" with each election. This is very different from the UK public service and Canadian public service situation, and creates very different dynamics, most notably in the conduct of Ministers vs. Secretaries:

A British or Canadian Minister is often in his or her job for a short time, not a specialist in the particular area of government, and must trust his or her Assistant Deputy Minister (only the Deputy being a political appointee) to convey his or her requests to the bureaucracy underneath.

An American Cabinet Secretary always takes one job for the duration of the Administration, unless they are replaced or resign from the government entirely. They have great power to replace their assistants, which extends deep down into the agencies they control, which have no effective unions.

While there are plenty of globally-experienced Americans appointed by each President, they are of course different people, and tend not to be 'insiders' to international institutions, which engage in constant diplomatic and interest group intrigue, requiring constant attention.

Bilingualism in French and English is an absolute and inflexible requirement of Canadian federal politics at the Cabinet level, and of bureaucrats at literally every level. Unilingual politicians are confined to provincial politics. Weak other-language skills among Cabinet Ministers also tend to increase the power of the very fluent bureaucrats, who are responsible for briefing the Ministers and for the translation of documents from one language into another.

Centralization of Power

In Canada there are far fewer 'checks and balances' than in the United States. The Prime Minister within Canada has vastly more power than the American president does. Since Canada's legislative and executive branches are fused the Prime Minister dominates both of them. Unlike the US congress the Prime Minister will always have the largest group of supporters in the House of Commons. Also the Prime Minister keeps very close controls on all members of parliament. In the United States there are often periods of cohabitation where congress is controlled by a different party than the White House. The president also has very limited control over the members of congress and must often bargain and make deals for support there.

The judicial branch in Canada is also closely controlled by the Prime Minister as they have complete power over the decision as to who becomes a Supreme Court judge. In the US, by contrast, all judicial appointments must be approved by the Senate. Until 1982 the Canadian judicial branch was for less powerful than the US one because Canada had nothing comparable to the US Bill of Rights. However in 1982 under the urging of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was added to the constitution giving the courts far more power. However, in Canada's charter there is a Notwithstanding Clause, which allows any government to protect a bill from certain areas of the charter.

The centralization of power in Canada has certain benefits and certain liabilities when compared with the American system. A clear line of authority means it is very clear who in government is responsible for any given issue. Unlike in the US the Prime Minister is wholly accountable for the economy, security and other national concerns. The rigid control of Members of Parliament in Canada also serves to reduce corruption and reduce the influence of money in Canadian politics. Unlike American Senators MPs do not need to raise great deals of money, and because they are far less powerful there is far less interest from companies to donate to them. The advantages of the US system include that it is more flexible and more representative as each congressperson can make their own decisions on each issue. This leads to greater regional representation by each party, it also helps discourage the proliferation of third parties which occurs often in Canada.

To summarize the differences:

  • Canada:
    • Hybrid liberalism civic nature with a strong strand of Tory deference.
    • Regional distinction
    • 2 Party qualified but more recently developed a more multiparty system.
    • Post-materialism of 1960s.
    • Oppositional relationship generally except for business links with parties and elites.
    • Fused executive and legislative branches
    • Very powerful Prime Minister
  • United States:
    • Constitutionalism
    • Acceptance of limited state
    • Checks and balances
    • Individualism
    • Civic Culture
    • 2 Party System made up of catch-all parties.
    • Post-materialism and protest in the 1960s

Multilateralism

Canada is committed to the concept of multilateralism and collective security. It is one of the largest backers of the United Nations and supports most international initiatives, such as the Kyoto Protocols, the International Criminal Court, and the International Ban on Land Mines. The United States pursues both unilateral and multilateral policies at different times, depending on what is in their self interest. Many Americans have problems with the United Nations and are unwilling to see their sovereignty impinged by international organizations. Both Canada and the United States are committed to international economic organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization and the World Bank.

See also: Politics of Canada, United States Government, Canada-US relations, Canadian provinces and territories, states of the United States of America.