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

Revision as of 03:27, 14 June 2007

Latest revision as of 23:38, 22 July 2017

(315 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

<ref></ref>[[Image:Parliament-Ottawa.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The [[Parliament of Canada|parliament buildings]] of Canada, known as [[Parliament Hill]], in [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]].]]

{| align=right

| |[[Image:FlagUS ofCapitol CanadaDC 2007.svgjpg|thumb|right|150px250px|CanadianThe flag.[[United States Capitol]] in [[Washington, D.C.]]]]

Though there are many similarities between the '''[[politics of Canada]]''' and the '''[[politics of the United States]]''', there are also important differences. Many of the differences and similarities have formed the foundation for debates in the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries.<ref>Warner (1960)</ref>

| |[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|right|150px|US flag.]]

|}

Though there are many similarities between the '''[[politics of Canada]]''' and the '''[[politics of the United States]]''', there are also important differences. Many of the differences and similarities were the foundation for debates in the 19th century about how "[[Republican Party (United States)|republican]]" or even Americanized Canada should become.<ref>Warner (1960)</ref>

A fundamental concept among these differences are Canada's use of the [[parliamentary system]] rather than the U.S.' [[congressional system]], related differences regarding the [[separation of powers]] and powers of the [[head of government]] (President as Head of State and Head of Government versus Prime Minister as merely Head of Government but ''not'' Head of State), and the much greater American role of a written Constitution (as interpreted by the two nations' respective Supreme Courts). Both nations have a federal system with strong powers accruing to the governments of the constituent states or provinces. Canada lacks an historical commitment to 'republicanism' that is deemed to characterize American political values, though the differences have been diminishing in recent years due to political reforms in Canada. It has been argued that the U.S. has repeatedly rejected the biculturalist percepective of Canada's politico-cultural history.

In sum, the people of both nations share quite similar political, cultural and social values--probably more similar than the peoples of any other two nations in the world, although other contenders might include Australia and New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, or Austria and Germany.

==Origin of differences==

There is much discussion, particularly in academic circles, of the differences and similarities between American and Canadian politics. There are a number of explanations for precisely why Canadian and American politics are different:

There is much discussion, particularly in academic circles, of the differences and similarities between U.S. and Canadian politics. There are a number of explanations for why Canadian and U.S. politics are different:

===American Revolution and republicanism===

Many people believe that the [[American Revolution]] brought about many of the differences between the United States and Canada, a view that has been the dominant one in most studies of Canadian history. With the establishment of the United States, the founders of that nation embraced [[republicanism]], rejecting the [[Westminster system]] of [[parliamentary democracy]]. The republicanism that motivated Americans stressed independence, innovation, and an aversion to corruption, counterbalanced by a perceived need for devotion to civic duty. Many Americans (led by [[Thomas Jefferson]]), in charting a unique, "American" course, feared, and therefore rejected, a strong central government similar to that of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the "Jeffersonians" repeatedly denounced their federalist opponents, such as [[Alexander Hamilton]], for being too tyrannical and undemocratic in character.

Christie notes, "Until recently influential historians of early Upper Canada have sought to highlight a single climate of opinion which was antidemocratic, anti-American, and wholly prescribed by the conservative values of the political and social elite. This uniform portrayal...has been challenged by Jane Errington's '' The Lion, the Eagle, and Upper Canada''." According to these authors, Canada and the U.S. shared many similar political values in 1776 regarding rights, then diverged, and now have started to converge to a common outlook on political rights and responsibilities. To the extent that antidemocratic elites blocked republicanism in Canada by suppressing revolts in 1837 and other points, there was divergence. Thus it is Errington's view that in the twentieth century the deference to British elites and hierarchical modes of deference have diminished in Canada. However, recent survey research conducted by [[Michael Henry Adams|Michael Adams]] and summarized in ''Fire and Ice'' (2003) tends to confirm continuing differences in American and Canadian political values[http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/css/Css_39_2/BRNeidhardt_fire_ice.htm]. Adams points to a "counter-revolutionary tradition" in Canadian politics, in contrast to the "revolutionary tradition" of the U.S. (Neidhardt, 2005).

SomeIn believecontrast, that[[Loyalist the(American differencesRevolution)|Loyalists]] arosewho fromfled the [[Thirteen Colonies]] during the American Revolution (given the title [[United Empire Loyalists]]. Thisin viewCanada) wasexerted thea strong but not completely dominant oneinfluence in mosttheir ofnew thehome. studiesThe Loyalists imported a degree of republicanism and democratic opposition to Canadian-style, history.British-influenced, Withcolonial thearistocratic foundingtraditions. ofThey theaugmented Unitedan States,Anglophone thepopulation founderswho ofchose thata nationmore embracedpragmatic, non-ideological path. [[republicanismGeorge Woodcock]] andargued rejectedin the''The [[BritishCentury monarchy]],that aristocracyMade andUs: theCanada [[Westminster1814&ndash;1914'' system]].that InAmericans contrastare revolutionaries, dedicated to an [[Loyalistideology]] refugeesthey frombelieve makes their country and their nation the United"best" Statesin exertedthe world and a strongbeacon influenceof indemocracy, Canadawhile Canadians simply want chiefly to be left to their own traditions and loyalties, bringingwhich, with141 themyears into its history as a degreenation, have diverged significantly in some ways from those of republicanism"Mother andEngland," democraticwhile oppositionin others, adhering closely to aristocracythe British, monarchist, exemplar. Those Thediversions Loyalistmay refugeeshave werebeen closelyinfluenced watched.early on by the same Loyalists who supported the Crown; Lieutenant- Governor Parr wrote, on March 8, 1788,: "Whatever Loyalty these Lawyers may have brought with them from the States, is so strong tinctured with a Republican Spirit; that if they meet with any encouragement it may be attended with dangerous consequences to this Province. One of them (Sterns) aims at being the Wilkes of Nova Scotia." (<ref>Clark, 132).</ref> TheThese fears were exaggerated, forhowever, as the Loyalists whowere basically were loyal to the Crown, and sought a role in the British Empire.

The difference between the origins of the two nations is often said to be illustrated by the contrast between a key phrase in the American [[Declaration of Independence (United States)|Declaration of Independence]]: "[[life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]]," and the key counterpart phrase in the [[Constitution Act, 1867]], being "[[Peace, order and good government|peace, order, and good government]]."

The republicanism that motivated the Americans stressed independence, innovation and the rejection of [[class system]]s, as well as fear of corruption and devotion to civic duty. Many Americans (led by [[Thomas Jefferson]]) feared a strong central government similar to Britain. Indeed the "Jeffersonians" repeatedly denounced their Federalist opponents, such as [[Alexander Hamilton]] for being too monarchical and undemocratic. Canada, whose Anglophone population included a large proportion of [[United Empire Loyalists]] chose a more pragmatic, non-ideological path. [[George Woodcock]] has argued (in ''The Century that Made Us: Canada 1814&ndash;1914'') that Americans are revolutionaries, dedicated to an [[ideology]] they believe makes their country and their nation the best in the world and a beacon of democracy, while Canadians are rebels who want chiefly to be left to their own traditions and loyalties, which 140 years into its history as a nation have diverged significantly in some ways from those "Mother England", while in other adhering closely to the English, Monarchist, exemplar.

[[Image:Declaration of Independence (1819), by John Trumbull.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[John Trumbull]]'s ''[[Trumbull's Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence]]'', showing the five-man committee in charge of drafting the Declaration in 1776 as it presents its work to the [[Second Continental Congress]] in [[Philadelphia]].]]

[[Image:Fathers of Confederation LAC c001855.jpg|right|thumb|300px|[[Robert Harris (painter)|Robert Harris]]' painting of the Fathers of Confederation. The scene is an amalgamation of the Quebec City and Charlottetown conference sites and attendees.]]

The difference between the origins of the two nations is often said to be illustrated by the contrast between a key phrase in the American [[Declaration of Independence (United States)|Declaration of Independence]]: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," the key counterpart phrase in the Canadian [[British North America Act 1867|1867 constitution]] being "Peace, Order, and Good Government."

Well over half the Nova Scotia settlers in 1776 were [[Yankee]]s from [[New England]]. (Christie) When the militia refused to turn out to defend Nova Scotia against a possible Yankee invasion (which never came), one captain reported in late 1775 to the governor, "I made it my constant employment...to converse with Many of the Inhabitants of the several Townships through which I passed--in order to discover their Principles--Views --Sentiments--Wishes--Hopes & Fears. Very sorry am I to report on this occasion that their Principles are Republican. Their Views, to Subvert the English Constitution in this Province" (Clark, 61). Nor was republican sentiment limited to Nova Scotia, for as S. D. Clark reports, "The English-speaking residents of Montreal were prepared, in the spring of 1775, to go about as far in resisting British authority as were most of the residents of the other colonies" (Clark, 81).

===Fragment thesis===

The [[fragment thesis]], first advocated by [[Louis Hartz]] and later applied by [[Gad Horowitz]] to Canada, argues that a nation's political culture is the product of the immigrants who formed that nation. Thus the American political tradition originates with those leaving Britain, either because of religious persecution or to pursue trade and make money. Neither of these groups was keen on powerful government and they were much affected by the writings of British political philosophers such as [[John Locke]] and the advocates of [[republicanism]]. By 1800 most of the English speakers in Canada were [[Loyalists]] who were defeated in the [[American Revolution]] and choseforced exileto inmove to British Canada, rather than life in the new United States. They calledcalling themselves [[United Empire Loyalists]].; French Canada comprised peasants loyal to an autocratic monarchy and, especially, an authoritarian and highly traditional Catholic Church. Thus, Canada's population thus was originally far more conservative than the US. InHowever, in the late 19th century, however, Canada was a destination of Eastern European socialists and, British [[Fabians]], and trade union members who have given modern Canada a somewhat stronger leftist bent than the United States. Many of the American [[draft dodgers]] who arrived during the [[Vietnam War]] may also have contributed to Canada's anti-American political culture, although that contribution may well have consisted of replacing Canadian socialism's traditional class analysis with American identity politics.

===Laurentian thesis===

The [[Laurentian thesis, advocated by [[Donald Creighton]], ascribes the differences between Canada and the United States to a period much earlier than the revolution. It, arguesarguing that the differences are based on differingcontrasting trade patterns. While the US'American trade in its early years ran almost entirely north-south along the [[eastern seaboard]], Canadian trade patterns ran east-west along the [[St. Lawrence River]]. This thesis was advocated by [[Donald Creighton]]. This dependence on one river led to the domination of Canada by Ontario and Quebec and the peripheralization of the Maritimes and the West.

===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 [[Protestantism|Protestant]], with most of its people belonging to churches that were [[evangelicalism|evangelical]] and non-hierarchical. In Canada, by contrast, the [[Anglican Communion|Anglican Church]] dominated English Canada while the [[Roman Catholic Church]] dominated Quebec. Both of these churches were hierarchical in nature, leading, it is argued, to Canada's long standing predisposition to deference towards authority. In recent decades however, the Catholic Church in Quebec has grown much weaker, and Canadians have been seen as less deferential to authority than they had been in the past. Methodists moved in large numbers from the United States to Canada in the early years of the 19th century, causing some alarm among conservatives who feared they also brought republican and democratic ideals that threatened the hierarchical Canadian system. In 1827 Archdeacon Strachan's published his "Ecclesiastical Chart." He complained "the teachers of the different denominations . . . are for the most part from the United States, where they gather their knowledge and form their sentiments; indeed the Methodist teachers are subject to the orders of the Conference of the United States of America, and it is manifest that the Colonial Government [cannot] . . . prevent them from gradually rendering a large portion of the population . . . hostile to our institutions, both civil and religious." The Methodists finally cut their ties with the U.S. [Lower p. 183] English visitors were often shocked at the egalitarianism found in Canada. They decried "Republicanism", and the invasion of American attitudes. As Lower notes, the critics "rarely realized that equality was in the very essence of pioneer life." [Lower p. 202]

Both of these latter religious organizations were hierarchical in nature, leading, it is argued, to Canada's long standing predisposition to deference towards authority{{Fact|date=January 2008}}. In recent decades however, the Catholic Church in Quebec has grown much weaker, and Canadians have been seen as less deferential to authority than they had been in the past. Methodists moved in large numbers from the United States to Canada in the early years of the 19th century, causing some alarm among conservatives who feared they also brought ideals that threatened the hierarchical Canadian system.

Meanwhile organized religion in the U.S. has retained enormous strength, but with a weakening of the more liberal denominations, and a strengthening of the more conservative fundamentalist, evangelical, Mormon and Catholic elements. Thus organized religion in Canada has weakened and become more liberal, while organized religion in America has strengthened and become more conservative -- to the extent, some argue (including Michael Adams in his recent book, "Fire and Ice") that Canadians today are less deferential to authority than are Americans.

In 1827 Archdeacon Strachan's published his ''Ecclesiastical Chart''. He complained "the teachers of the different denominations... are for the most part from the Unites States, where they gather their knowledge and form their sentiments; indeed the Methodist teachers are subject to the orders of the Conference of the United States of America, and it is manifest that the Colonial Government [cannot]... prevent them from gradually rendering a large portion of the population... hostile to our institutions, both civil and religious." British visitors were often shocked at the egalitarianism found in Canada; they decried "Republicanism," and the invasion of American attitudes. As Lower notes, the critics "rarely realized that equality was in the very essence of pioneer life."<ref>Lower; p. 202</ref>

Organized religion in the United States has since retained enormous strength, but with a weakening of the more liberal denominations, and a strengthening of the more conservative fundamentalist, evangelical, [[Mormon]] and Catholic elements. Organized religion in Canada has weakened and become more liberal, to the extent, some argue (including Michael Adams in his recent book ''Fire and Ice'') that Canadians today are less deferential to authority than are Americans.

===Staples thesis===

The [[staples thesis]], introduced by [[Harold Innis]], argues that Canada became a distinct entity based upon the exploitation of certain staples by the Europeans. New France, and then Canada until about 1800, was completely dependent upon the [[fur trade]] for its existence. Since it was dependent upon exports to Europe no revolutionary zeal took hold there. Innis argues that the borders of the fur trade very closely reflect the borders of modern Canada. The fur trade was eventually superseded by the [[timber]] trade and the [[wheat]] trade, but the close links with Europe remained.

===Court or Statiststatist thesis===

This thesis was developed by [[Michigan State University]] professor Gordon T. Stewart in his book ''The Origins of Canadian Politics: a Comparative Approach,'' where he argues that the differences in Canada's political culture stem from developments which occurred between 1760 and 1848 in the [[The Canadas|Canadas]]: sharp partisan battles, intense use of patronage, strong one-man dominance in party leadership, and a "statist" orientation. Responsible government in the central Canada came only after a "prolonged, violent and bitter struggle," unlike the maritime provinces or other British settler colonies. The struggle between Loyalist, British monarchical, and French-Canadian values led to a unique political culture.

==DivisionPresent of powersdifferences==

===Constitutions===

Both countries are [[federation]]s. In Canada the sub-units are known as provinces and territories; in the United States they are known as states and territories. There is also one U.S. [[Federal District|federal district]] &mdash; the [[District of Columbia]].

Both nations are governed under [[constitution]]s; Canada's is partly written and partly [[Constitutional convention (political custom)|conventional]], while the [[United States Constitution|United States']] is fully codified. The supreme interpreter of the constitutions of both nations are their respective [[supreme court]]s. However, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] has a much longer history of constitutional interpretation than the [[Supreme Court of Canada]]. The [[Constitution of Canada]] consists of [[Act of Parliament|Acts]] of both the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom]] and the [[Parliament of Canada]], but also, due to Canada's [[federalism]], some Acts of provincial parliaments (such as the [[Legislative Assembly of Ontario]]). The Constitution was [[Patriation|patriated]] in 1982, at which time the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] and [[Constitution of Canada#Amending formula|amending formulas]] were added.

===Separation and fusion of powers===

Between 1848 and 1854, a significant and articulate minority of conservatives in Upper Canada advocated constitutional changes modeled on the American federal-state system and the US Constitution. They critiqued Canada's imitation of British parliamentary government as both too democratic and too tyrannical. It destroyed the independence of the appointed governor and Legislative Council and further concentrated power in the Cabinet. This critique led many conservatives to argue that the American model of checks and balances offered Canada a more balanced and conservative form of democracy than did British parliamentary government. These "republican conservatives" debated a series of constitutional changes, including annexation to the United States, an elected governor, an elected Legislative Council, a federal union of British North America, and imperial federation, within this framework. These conservatives had accepted "government by discussion" as the appropriate basis for political order. A historiographical tradition that stresses the existence of a conservative, pro-British, and anti-American political culture in Upper Canada cannot do justice to the extent, thoughtfulness, and discerning nature of political debate in this period. [McNairn 1996]

[[Image:Elizabeth II greets NASA GSFC employees, May 8, 2007 edit.jpg|thumb|right|160px|[[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Elizabeth II]], [[Monarchy in Canada|Queen of Canada]].]]

[[Image:Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg|thumb|right|160px|[[Barack Obama]], [[President of the United States]].]]

One fundamental concept among these differences is the contrast between the Canadian [[parliamentary system]] and the presidential system of the [[United States]], including differences that arise from the concepts of fusion of powers and [[separation of powers]]. In Canada's system, the senior portion of the [[Cabinet of Canada|Cabinet Ministers]] are also legislators. The [[Minister of the Crown|Ministers of the Crown]], who advise the sovereign and the [[Viceroy|vice-regal]] Governor General on how to exercise [[the Crown]]'s powers, are usually directly elected by their respective electorates (known as "[[Electoral district (Canada)|ridings]]") as [[Members of Parliament]] in the [[Canadian House of Commons]]; although the head of state is not required to choose a cabinet from the House of Commons, he or she usually does. This means those responsible for executive actions also participate as legislators in the policy debates and lawmaking activities characteristic of the their roles as Members of Parliament.

The American President, by contrast, has no official role as a legislator, only enforcing and implementing laws passed by the legislative branch; though, the President, like the Canadian monarch or viceroy, may veto a bill passed by the respective legislators. The President participates in only occasional, informal, meetings with [[United States House of Representatives|Representatives]] and [[United States Senate|Senators]], and only officially addresses the assembled [[Chambers of parliament|houses]] of Congress occasionally, most notably during the annual [[State of the Union]] address. Moreover, members of the President's cabinet are constitutionally prohibited from serving in Congress.

Some consider the Canadian government to be more decentralized. Canada is one of the few countries in the world where the combined budgets of the provinces exceed that of the federal government, if one ignores transfer payments organized by the federal government. Canadian provinces are responsible for most of Canada's [[social safety net]], including health care, welfare, and education.

In Canada, the "checks and balances" are very different from those in the United States; it may be argued that the Prime Minister within Canada has more power than the American President does. Since Canada's legislative and executive branches draw from one another, the viceroy rarely exercises power without the guidance of the Prime Minister. This is only deviated from in instances brought on by, or the cause of, [[constitutional crisis]]. However, to ensure the stability of government, the Governor General must always choose as Prime Minister the person who has the largest group of supporters in the Canadian House of Commons. If a majority of the House votes against the government on a matter of [[confidence and supply|confidence]], the Prime Minister must either resign, recommend that the Governor General call an election, or be dismissed by the Governor General. The Prime Minister of a minority government is therefore in a far more precarious position than any American President, whose term is guaranteed by law. In the United States, there are often periods of cohabitation (more commonly referred to in the United States as [[divided government]]) where one or both houses of Congress are controlled by a different party than the [[White House]] is. The President also has limited control over the members of Congress and must often bargain for support there. This can sometimes lead to stalemates that greatly slow down the legislative process.

In the United States residuary or reserve power (i.e., power not enumerated in the constitution) is reserved to the states. Originally, Canadian residuary power was reserved to the federal government by the [[British North America Act]], so that Canadian government was highly centralized. In 1896 the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] ruled that the federal government could exercise its residuary power only to safeguard "[[peace, order and good government]]". However, Prime Ministers as recent as [[Jean Chrétien]] have used such powers in milder forms, such as in the ''Black v. Chrétien'' case.

Among the reasons for the lack of control over legislators is the President's lack of control over the promotion of legislators or their membership in the party. By contrast, members of the Prime Minister's party who defy him or her put at risk any future promotion to executive office and even membership in the party. Losing membership in the party, among other things, makes re-election much more difficult at the next election.

The [[British North America Acts]] had assigned property and civil rights to the provinces at a time when responsibility for these rights involved little more than regulating civil law. However, once the federal government lost its reserve power, new areas of government activity such as labour laws, pensions, and social insurance became the responsibility of the provinces, as regulators of [[civil rights]], rather than of the federal government. Standards of social service soon varied widely from province to province.

The result of these differences is that primary responsibility for policy change is more divided in the United States than in Canada. For example, the Canadian [[Minister of National Defence (Canada)|Minister of National Defence]] is the driving force behind changes in defence policy. In addition to making regulatory decisions, he or she drafts legislation and shepherds it through Parliament. In contrast, the [[Secretary of Defense]] may make regulatory decisions, but he or she must contend with the chairs (and even the [[ranking member|ranking minority member]]s) of both the [[Senate Committee on Armed Services]] and the [[House Committee on Armed Services]]).

In order to reduce these differences, national programs in fields of provincial jurisdiction, such as health care, have gradually been negotiated between the federal government and the provinces, and are coordinated by the federal government, which largely finances them through transfers to the provinces (chiefly the [[Canada Health and Social Transfer]]; territories receive an additional transfer to compensate for higher costs in the North). Provinces retain the option of raising their own taxes to pay part of these programs, although they may be unable to make use of this expedient for economic or other reasons. Provinces may also withdraw from these programs; [[Alberta]] has considered leaving the national health care program. Finally, provinces retain other powers in the areas covered by national programs.

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 obvious who in government is responsible for any given issue. Unlike in the United States, the Prime Minister is wholly accountable for the economy, security and other national concerns.

The provinces have exclusive jurisdiction in many fields which are federal responsibilities in the United States. Primary and secondary education are the most prominent, each province's education system being unique, most noticeably in secondary education. [[Quebec]] is responsible for handling immigration into Quebec, and other provinces have the option of taking responsibility for immigration. Quebec also collects its own corporate and personal income taxes. (Other provinces have their personal income taxes collected by the federal government, and all but Alberta and Ontario have their corporate income taxes collected by the federal government.) Quebec runs a pension plan parallel to the [[Canada Pension Plan]]; other provinces also have these options. In the United States education is the sole responsibility of the states (although many public and private schools receive some federal funding) and all but seven states collect an income tax.

[[Image:Tweedsmuir speech.jpg|left|thumb|150px|Then [[Governor General of Canada]], [[John Buchan|Lord Tweedsmuir]], gives the speech from the throne to the [[Canadian parliament]] in 1938.]]

[[Image:Clinton1997SOTU.jpg|thumb|left|150px|President [[Bill Clinton]], with Vice President [[Al Gore]] and Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]], during the 1997 State of the Union address.]]

Both systems provide for an annual address to the legislature outlining the executive's program: the American State of the Union Address and the Canadian [[Speech from the Throne]], or Throne Speech, read by the monarch or Governor General. The Throne Speech marks the official opening of every new session of parliament. It acts as a declaration, written by the Cabinet, of their goals for the upcoming parliamentary session.<ref>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=Speech from the Throne Frequently Asked Questions | date=2007-10-16 | publisher=The Government of Canada | url =http://www.sft-ddt.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1367#3 | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2008-01-11 | language = }}</ref> The State of the Union address stems from Article II, Section 3 of the American Constitution which states, "The President shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Since [[George Washington]] presidents have generally given either a speech or written message to the nation annually. [[Franklin Roosevelt]] was the first to refer to this annual address as the "State of the Union".<ref>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=History of the State of the Union | date= | publisher=The Whitehouse | url =http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/stateoftheunion/history.html | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2008-01-11 | language = }}</ref>

In the past, the Canadian federal government has periodically deducted health and social transfers to provinces which strayed from federal standards for health care and social programs. This has proven controversial in Canada, however by comparison the American federal government has used the threat of [[Interstate Highway#The federal role in financing|withholding federal highway funds]] in a much more aggressive manner, threatening to withdraw funding to any state which fails to enact various non-highway-related policies mandated by the federal government. In contrast, Canadian government threats to withdraw health and social funds have generally been done on rationale that is restricted to issues directly related to health care and social programs.

===Federalism===

In the United States the federal government 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 in Canada the criminal code is federal legislation, US states may make criminal laws, creating differences in everything from gun control measures to capital punishment. While each state has its own police force, unable by law to arrest in another state, several Canadian provinces contract with the federal police force, the [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police]], to provide provincial police services.

Both nations have a [[Federation|federal]] system; in Canada the constituent units are known as provinces and territories; in the United States they are known as states and territories. There is also one US [[Federal District|federal district]] &mdash; the [[District of Columbia]] &ndash; whereas in Canada the separation of the [[National Capital Region (Canada)|National Capital Region]] from its respective provinces into a similarly independent district has been proposed but never implemented. In both countries, arguably strong powers are accrued to the governments of the constituent [[U.S. state|states]] or [[Provinces and territories of Canada|provinces]]. The movement is referred to in US politics as "states' rights" while the term used in Canada is "decentralization."

Some consider the [[Government of Canada|Canadian government]] to be more decentralized; Canada is one of the few countries in the world where the combined budgets of the provinces exceed that of the federal government, if one ignores transfer payments organized by the federal government. Canadian provinces are responsible for most of Canada's [[social safety net]], including health care, welfare, and education. Others, however, counter that the Canadian government is actually highly centralized, due to the fact that the Prime Minister's Office controls a large amount of power within the government, as it is he or she who advises the monarch or viceroy on how to exercise their executive powers; by convention the monarch or viceroy must almost always follow the advice of his or her representative ministers. The Cabinet, as a committee of the [[Queen's Privy Council for Canada]], may, by an [[Order-in-Council]], also establish treaties, declare war, and is responsible for advice on the use of other executive powers by the Crown.

United States federal law enforcement agencies, such as the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]], become involved when criminal acts cross state juristicions. U.S. Federal law enforcement also work with the the state and local police forces concurrently where federal and state laws have been violated.

In the United States residuary or reserve power (i.e., power not enumerated in the constitution) is reserved to the states. Originally, Canadian residuary power was reserved to the federal government by the [[British North America Act]], so that Canadian government was highly centralized. In 1896 the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] ruled that the federal government could exercise its residuary power only to safeguard "[[peace, order and good government]]." The federal government lost its reserve power; thus, standards of social service soon varied widely from province to province. In order to reduce these differences, national programs in fields of provincial jurisdiction have gradually been negotiated between the federal government and the provinces, and, though the provinces retain other powers in the areas covered by national programs, the national programs are coordinated by the federal government, which largely finances them through transfers to the provinces; provinces may withdraw from these programs.

==Legislature==

The provinces have exclusive jurisdiction in many fields which involve federal responsibilities in the United States; primary and secondary education being the most prominent. (Note: The states and municipalities in the United States also exercise some control over primary and secondary education.) [[Quebec]] is responsible for handling immigration into the province, and other provinces have the option of taking on the same responsibility for their jurisdiction. Quebec also collects its own corporate and personal income taxes. (Other provinces have their personal income taxes collected by the federal government, and all but Alberta and Ontario have their corporate income taxes collected by the federal government.) Quebec runs a pension plan parallel to the [[Canada Pension Plan]]; other provinces also have these options. In the United States education is primarily the responsibility of the states (although many public and private schools receive some federal funding) and all but seven states collect an income tax.

The United States has a [[bicameral]] legislature made up of the [[United States Senate]] and [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]]. Each state has equal representation in the Senate, regardless of population, and representation based on its population in the House of Representatives. American state governments are like smaller copies of the federal government&mdash;only Nebraska has a [[unicameral]] legislature; the rest are bicameral. Like the United States, Canada also has a bicameral legislature made up of the [[Monarchy in Canada|Queen]], The [[Canadian Senate|Senate]] and the [[Canadian House of Commons|House of Commons]]. Canadian provinces had bicameral legislatures. Over time, however, they have eliminated their [[upper house]]s, and are now all [[unicameral]].

In the United States, the federal government 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 in Canada the criminal code is federal legislation, US states may make criminal laws, creating differences in everything from gun control measures to capital punishment. While each state has its own police force, unable by law to arrest in another state, several Canadian provinces contract with the federal police force, the [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police]], to provide provincial police services. United States federal law enforcement agencies, such as the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]], become involved when criminal acts cross state jurisdictions. US federal law enforcement also work with the state and local police forces concurrently where federal and state laws have been violated. US states also operate their own militia referred to collectively as the National Guard.

The [[Canadian Senate]] is also an unelected body that unlike the elected US Senate does not generally have a record of representing provincial interests{{Fact|date=June 2007}}. The allocation of seats in the Canadian Senate is based on the relative equality of regions rather than individual provinces. It also acts as a body of review or "sober second thought". Canadian Senators tend to adopt a longer term view regarding legislation and have generally been more progressive in many ways than their elected counterpart the [[Canadian House of Commons|House of Commons]]{{Fact|date=June 2007}}. This is said{{Fact|date=June 2007}} to be because Canadian Senators have a term of office that ends only upon reaching the age of 75, or by their removal according to the [[Constitution of Canada]].

In contrast to the federal [[Bloc Québécois]] and provincial [[Parti Québécois]], who each promote Quebec becoming a new [[French language|French]]-speaking, [[Sovereignty|sovereign]], [[nation state]], there are no parties in the United States who dominate politics with the goal of separation from the USA. [[Puerto Rico]], a non-state [[Commonwealth (United States insular area)|commonwealth]] within the United States, shares some parallels with the Quebec situation, as its population is primarily [[Spanish language|Spanish]]-speaking (as opposed to the [[English language|English]]-speaking USA). Nevertheless, at the last [[Referendum|plebiscite]], Puerto Ricans voted to remain a commonwealth, with that option narrowly getting more votes than the option of becoming a state, and with the option of political independence coming in a very distant third.

Similarly, executive power is consistent between states and provinces and the federal government in both countries{{Fact|date=June 2007}}. American governors are similar in role to the American president. In Canada however, there is a separation between the Head of State (The [[Monarchy in Canada|Queen of Canada]] represented by her [[Governor General of Canada|Governor General]] at the Federal level and [[Lieutenant-Governor]]s at the provincial) and the Head of Government ([[Prime Minister of Canada|Prime Minister]] at the federal level and [[Premier (Canada)|Premier]]s at the provincial). While in the U.S., the president and each governor is both head of government and head of state simultaneously.

====Equalization payments====

Provincial premiers are also comparable to the Canadian prime minister, as are Lieutenant-Governors to the Governor General of Canada. However, an additional difference between the American Executive offices and the Canadian is that the [[President of the United States]] of America is a separate office from those of the state governors. In Canada the [[Executive (government)|executive]] authority in the right of Canada, as well as in the right of each province is vested in the [[Constitutional monarchy|monarch]] simultaneously. There is only one shared monarch, represented by the Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors repectively.

On the other hand, American grant formulas favor small states regardless of wealth; most grants ensure that a state receive between .5% and .75% of theSix of the ten provinces currently receive such payments;

[[idedAlberta]] are the only provinces that do not.

total grant money regardless of population or need.

The distinctions between "head of state" and "head of government" are not largely relevant in day-to-day governance in Canada, as the Governor General, Lieutenant-Governors, and Queen are largely symbolic [[figurehead]] offices. In the United States the [[Lieutenant Governors]] of states and the national [[Vice President]] often perform similar symbolic duties. What is relevant in the Canadian context, however, is how the [[reserve powers]] of the monarchical offices come to be exercised by the [[head of government]] directly, which in turn consolidates the power of the latter position{{Fact|date=June 2007}}.

Although these politics of "have" and "have-not" states are also present in America, 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. Federal taxation and wealth transfers do redistribute wealth between the "have" and "have-not" states, but primarily on an individual basis rather than statewide. Differences in [[cost of living]] between wealthier and less wealthy states creates controversy, as an individual living in a wealthier state may be forced to subsidize a resident of a poorer state, despite having a lower real income (but higher nominal dollar income).

Many would consider the Canadian government to be highly centralized due to the fact that the Prime Minister's Office controls an inordinate{{Fact|date=June 2007}} amount of power within the government. Though the Prime Minister is appointed by the [[Monarchy in Canada|Queen of Canada]], the [[Prime Minister of Canada|Prime Minister]] is responsible for advice regarding the appointment of the [[Michaëlle Jean|Governor General]], [[Cabinet]], [[Supreme Court of Canada|Supreme Court]] Justices of Canada, and the nomination of Canadian Senators. The Cabinet, as a committee, of the [[Queen's Privy Council for Canada]] may, by an act in council, also establish treaties, declare war, and is responsible for advice on the use of other executive powers by the [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen]]'s representative (the [[Governor General of Canada|Governor General]]).

===MunicipalLegislative powersbranches===

[[Image:Senate of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The Senate Chamber of [[Parliament Hill]] in [[Ottawa]].]]

In both nations municipalities have no constitutional rights independent of state or provincial government. That is they are "creatures of their province/state" and at any time the state legislature can intervene in local affairs. Provinces and states may thus merge and divide cities at will, without consultation, and may ignore results of any referendum at the municipal level. For details of a current controversy, see either the [[Toronto, Ontario]] article, and a discussion of the 1998 amalgamation by the [[Ontario]] government or [[Montreal, Quebec]] which was amalgamated in 2002 by the [[Quebec]] Government.

[[Image:US Senate Session Chamber.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The Senate chamber of [[United States Capitol|Capitol Hill]] in [[Washington, D.C.|Washington]].]]

The United States has a [[Bicameralism|bicameral legislature]] made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Each state has equal representation in the Senate, regardless of population, and representation based on its population in the House of Representatives. American state governments are like smaller copies of the federal government with perhaps a few differences; only Nebraska has a [[unicameralism|unicameral]] legislature, the rest are bicameral. As with the United States, Canada also has a bicameral legislature made up of the Queen, the [[Canadian Senate|Senate]] and the House of Commons. Five Canadian provinces (Manitoba until 1876, New Brunswick until 1892, Nova Scotia until 1924, Quebec until 1968 and P.E.I. until 1893) originally had bicameral legislatures, however, they have eliminated their [[upper house]]s, and are now all [[unicameral]].

===Provincial powers and Quebec===

Canadian provinces may opt in or out of several national programs, especially those which are the results of federal-provincial negotiation. The province which has opted out of the most programs is [[Quebec]]. Quebec is primarily French-speaking and like [[Louisiana]] in the US, follows French 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 et placement du Québec]], which often provides investment capital to Quebec-based businesses that are deemed strategic by its government. Quebec also regulates immigration to its territory, and has refused entry to people who had been accepted by the federal government for immigration to Canada. Other provinces have the option of instituting systems like Quebec's, and governments of both [[Ontario]] and [[Alberta]] have expressed interest in doing so.

The [[Senate of Canada|Canadian Senate]] is an unelected body that acts as a body of review or "sober second thought"; senators are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of his or her Prime Minister. The allocation of seats in the Canadian Senate is based on the relative equality of regions rather than individual provinces. Hence, unlike the elected US Senate, the Canadian upper house does not generally have a record of representing provincial interests, leading to calls for senatorial reform (see: [[Triple-E Senate]]).<ref>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada | date=2001-05 | publisher=THE SENATE OF CANADA | url =http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-E/pub-E/legislative-e.htm | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2007-08-01 | language = }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=Challenges in Senate Reform | date=2004-09 | publisher=Fraser Institute | url =http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/ChallengesInSenateReform.pdf | work = | pages =16-17 | accessdate = 2007-08-01 | language = }}</ref> As Canadian Senators are appointed to serve until age 75, they tend to adopt a longer term view regarding legislation and have generally been more progressive in many ways than their elected counterpart the House of Commons.<ref>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=THE CANADIAN SENATE IN FOCUS | date=2001-05 | publisher=THE SENATE OF CANADA | url =http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-E/pub-E/focus-e.htm | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2007-08-01 | language = }}</ref>

The [[politics of Quebec]] tend to revolve around the question of [[Quebec nationalism]]{{Fact|date=June 2007}}. On several occasions, this has led to debate about [[Quebec sovereignty movement|Quebec's separation]] from Canada, to create a new [[French language|French]]-speaking, [[Sovereignty|sovereign]], [[nation state]], associated in an [[Quebec sovereignty movement|economic union with Canada]] inspired by the [[European Union]]. The major provincial political parties in Quebec are divided on the question, often called the [[National Question (Quebec)|National Question]] in Quebec. The [[Parti Québécois]] is [[Quebec sovereigntism|independentist]], while the [[Liberal Party of Quebec]] is [[Quebec federalism|federalist]].

Similarly, executive power is consistent between the states and provinces and the federal government in both countries; in Canada this stems from the fact that the [[sovereignty]] of the federal and provincial governments is passed on not by the Governors or parliaments, but equally through the Crown itself, meaning there are eleven legally distinct "crowns" within Canada, but only one monarchy. In American states the governors are similar in role to the President. In Canadian provinces the [[Lieutenant-Governor (Canada)|lieutenant governors]] represent the monarch as the Governor General does, and the [[Premier (Canada)|provincial premiers]] (or prime ministers) are comparable to the federal Prime Minister.

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 [[United States|USA]]. [[Puerto Rico]], which is a non-state [[Commonwealth (United States insular area)|commonwealth]] within the United States, shares some parallels with the Quebec situation, as its population is primarily [[Spanish language|Spanish]]-speaking (as opposed to the [[English language|English]]-speaking USA). Nevertheless, at the last [[Referendum|plebiscite]], Puerto Ricans voted to remain a [[Commonwealth (United States insular area)|commonwealth]], with that option narrowly getting more votes than the option of becoming a state, and with the option of political independence coming in a very distant third.

[http://www.example.com link title]====Political parties====

==Equalization payments==

There are five political parties with seats in the Canadian House of Commons, and two in the US Congress. 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 example of Quebec or of the southern "Dixiecrats". The rise of the Bloc Québécois party and the decline of the [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada|Progressive Conservative Party]] drastically changed the political landscape of Canada. Before that, federal politics were dominated by two parties, as in the US; the Progressive Conservatives and the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberals]], though the Liberals held power for most of the 20th century, and were commonly referred to as "Canada's natural governing party" as a result. In contrast to the United States, Canadian third parties have consistently been able to get MPs elected into the Canadian parliament [[List of Canadian federal general elections|since 1921]], at times forming informal coalition governments or supplanting one of the two main parties as [[Official Opposition (Canada)|Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition]].

Federal tax revenue contributes to an equalization fund which makes 'provincial [[equalization payments]]' to the poorer regions to ensure that comparable levels of service are provided throughout the country at comparable rates of taxation. Seven of the ten provinces currently receive such payments. [[British Columbia]], [[Ontario]] and [[Alberta]] are the only provinces which do not.

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. For example, in the [[Canadian federal election, 1997|1997 Canadian federal election]], the Liberal Party under [[Jean Chrétien]] won a majority of seats in the House of Commons despite winning only 38 per cent of the popular vote. These instances led some in Canada to demand [[proportional representation]] to create a more representative parliamentary system. In America, similar results can be produced by the presence of third parties or by the Electoral College.

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 to Western Canada (to mostly [[Alberta]] in the 1970s and 80s oil boom, and to [[British Columbia]] later).

In both countries it is rare for individuals to get elected from outside of one of the main established parties. In Canada, because of the parliamentary system, [[independent (politician)|independent]] candidates can rarely aspire to much influence in government, or aspire to any high executive office, although exceptions occur in cases of minority governments, as in 2005. Likewise, in the United States it is difficult for third parties or independents to be represented in the United States at any level below the presidency (this usually requires an exceptional personal popularity, such as [[Jesse Ventura]] in [[Minnesota]], or great wealth, such as that of [[Ross Perot]]). Third parties have however played important roles in many presidential elections. In more modern times, the rise of the [[Reform Party of the United States of America|Reform Party]] of Ross Perot in 1992 and the rise of the [[Green Party (United States)|Green Party]] in 2000 could both be said to have "split the vote", and thus exercised considerable influence. By contrast, new parties have been significantly influential in recent Canadian politics, with both the [[Reform Party of Canada|Reform Party]] and Bloc Québécois holding the status of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition within a decade of their formation.

From time to time, Canadian premiers have made intolerant remarks about this situation in public. Former Alberta Premier [[Ralph Klein]] once famously offered any unemployed person "a free bus ticket to [[Vancouver]]" (to exploit that government's more generous assistance). Former 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 the generally more politically conservative provinces, who feel they are paying for the social assistance in these other places.

[[File:G.W. Bush delivers State of the Union Address.jpg|left|200px|thumb|The [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] in [[Washington, D.C.|Washington]].]]

[[Image:Parliament2.jpg|left|200px|thumb|The [[Canadian House of Commons|House of Commons]] in [[Ottawa]].]]

Despite the fact that the Canada features more political parties than the United States, the political culture of both nations and the lack of proportional representation tends to encourage broad-based coalition parties, rather than more narrowly-divided ideological parties, as found in many European states. The separate existence of the [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada]] and the [[Canadian Alliance]] party was widely criticized by many members of the Canadian political right as a needless division, and the two parties eventually agreed to merge in 2003. [[Red Tories]] however, maintained that the new party was more in the mould of the American [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] than it was of the older Conservative tradition in Canada. The presence of the Red Tories and the NDP in Canadian politics remains the biggest key difference between Canadian and American political party culture, though it can be argued that views similar to those espoused by the NDP are held by a minority element of the Democratic Party, such as the "[[Progressivism|progressive]]" caucus. It is worth noting that the NDP has historically not held much influence at the national level, always placing a rather distant third (or more recently fourth due to the nature of first past the post) in national elections. Likewise, provinces in which the NDP has been elected to power, such as British Columbia and Saskatchewan usually feature only one major political opponent - if there are two or more major opponents to an NDP government then usually one will quickly dominate the other as NDP opponents will often rally around a common centrist or right-leaning alternative. This often makes provincial NDP parties more ideologically moderate than their federal counterpart.

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. Federal taxation and wealth transfers do redistribute wealth between the 'have' and 'have-not' states, but primarily on an individual basis rather than statewide. Differences in [[cost of living]] between wealthier and less wealthy states creates controversy, as an individual living in a wealthier state may be forced to subsidize a resident of a poorer state, despite having a lower real income (but higher nominal dollar income.) The dispute over the [[Alternative Minimum Tax]] is primarily related to this issue.

Both countries have generally seen a shift in ideology towards the center in recent years, especially among parties of the left. Both Clinton-era Democrats and Chrétien-era Liberals have moved to dominate the center of the political spectrum, at the expense of harder left factions. This strategy has provided great long-term success for the Liberal Party of Canada, but less so for the Democratic Party of the United States. The collapse of Liberal support in Canada following the [[sponsorship scandal]] in 2003 and the drawback of Republican support following the [[congressional page sex scandal (2006)|page sex scandal]] in 2006 have slightly reversed those trends, leading to a resurgence in support for the left-wing NDP during the federal elections of [[Canadian general election, 2004|2004]] and [[Canadian general election, 2006|2006]] and the Democratic Party in 2006. On both the federal and provincial political arenas it has been commonly asserted that NDP supporters have in the past voted Liberal in order to defeat feared candidates of the political right, as happened in the Ontario provincial elections of [[Ontario general election, 1999|1999]] and [[Ontario general election, 2003|2003]] and the [[Canadian general election, 2000|Canadian federal election of 2000]].

==Political parties==

There are four political parties with seats in the [[Canadian House of Commons]], and two in the US Congress. 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 rise of the Bloc Quebecois party and the decline of the Progressive Conservative party very drastically changed the political landscape of Canada. Before that, federal politics were dominated by two parties, as in the US; the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals, though the Liberals held power for the vast majority of the 20th century, and were commonly referred to as "Canada's natural governing party" as a result.

In the United States, 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. However, one of the most important changes in American politics over the last 40 years has been the switch in allegiance of many Southern white voters from the Democrats to the Republicans.

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. For example, in the [[Canadian federal election, 1997|1997 Canadian federal election]] the government of [[Jean Chrétien]] won a majority of seats in the House of Commons despite winning only 38 per cent of the popular vote. In the [[Canadian federal election, 1979|1979 Canadian federal election]] Progressive Conservative [[Joe Clark]] won a minority government with a lead of 22 seats over [[Pierre Trudeau]]'s Liberals, despite the Progressive Conservatives winning only 35.9 percent of the vote compared to the Liberal's 40.1%. However, the Tories had won the most votes in seven provinces and the difference was almost entirely due to the Liberals' strong lead in Quebec. These instances led some in Canada to demand [[proportional representation]] to create a more representative parliamentary system. In the United States, similar results can be produced by the presence of third parties or by the Electoral College. [[George W. Bush]] became president with fewer votes than his opponent, [[Al Gore]], because he carried states with more Electoral College votes, while [[Bill Clinton]] became president with less than half the popular vote in 1992 and 1996 because of the presence of a strong third party.

The two American political parties currently represented in the House of Representatives are:

In both countries it is rare for individuals to get elected from outside of one of the main established parties. In Canada, because of the parliamentary system, [[independent (politician)|independent]] candidates can rarely aspire to much influence in government, or aspire to any high executive office, although exceptions occur in cases of minority governments, as in 2005. Likewise, in the United States it is difficult for third parties or independents to be represented in the United States at any level below the presidency (this usually requires an exceptional personal popularity, such as [[Jesse Ventura]] in [[Minnesota]], or great wealth, such as that of [[Ross Perot]]), third parties have played important roles in many presidential elections. Since the [[World War II|Second World War]] alone, parties led by [[Strom Thurmond]], [[George Wallace]], and Ross Perot have obtained significant percentages of the popular vote for the presidency. Other third parties which played important roles in post-[[World War II]] presidential elections were [[Strom Thurmond]]'s [[Dixiecrat]]s and [[George Wallace]]'s [[American Independent Party]]. In more modern times, the rise of the [[Reform Party of the United States of America|Reform Party]] of [[H. Ross Perot]] in 1992, and the rise of the [[Green Party (United States)|Green Party]] in 2000, could both be said to have 'split the vote' and thus exercised considerable influence. By contrast, new parties have been significantly influential in recent Canadian politics, with both the [[Reform Party of Canada|Reform Party]] and [[Bloc Québécois]] holding the status of [[Official Opposition (Canada)]] within a decade of their formation.

* the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]], which held the majority of seats until the [[United States elections, 2006|2006 Congressional election]]

* the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]], which won a majority of seats in the 2006 Congressional election

The four Canadian political parties currently represented in the House of Commons are:

* the [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative Party]], which won a minority government in 2006 and another minority government in 2008.

* the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]], which held power from 1993 until 2006

* the Bloc Québécois which is an exclusively regional Quebec party

* the [[New Democratic Party]] (NDP), which is similar to a European social democratic party, with some 'green' elements, including strong affiliations with Canadian [[trade unions]], the peace movement and ecology activists

Political parties are also represented in the senates of each country. The make up of these houses, however, is influenced differently; the Canadian Senate is an appointed body whose composition more-or-less reflects the amount of time prime ministers of certain political persuasions have governed, while a third the American Senate is popularly elected every two years.

* the [[Liberal Party of Canada]] which held power from 1993 until 2006

* the [[Conservative Party of Canada]] which won a minority government in 2006

* the [[Bloc Québécois]] which is an exclusively regional Quebec party

* the [[New Democratic Party]] which is similar to a European social-democratic party, with some 'green' elements, including strong affiliations with Canadian [[trade unions]], the peace movement and ecology activists

Despite the fact that the Canada features more political parties than the United States, the political culture of both nations and the lack of proportional representation tends to encourage broad-based coalition parties, rather than more narrowly-divided ideological parties, as found in many European states. The separate existence of the [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada]] and the [[Canadian Alliance]] party was widely criticized by many members of the Canadian political right as a needless division, and the two parties eventually agreed to merge in 2003 . [[Red Tories]] however, maintained that the new party was more in the mould of the US [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican party]] than it was of the older Conservative tradition in Canada. The presence of the Red Tories and the NDP in Canadian politics remains the biggest key difference between Canadian and American political party culture, though it can be argued that views similar to those espoused by the NDP are held by a minority element of the Democratic Party, such as the "[[Progressivism|progressive]]" caucus. It is worth noting that the NDP has historically not held much influence at the national level, always placing a rather distant third (or more recently fourth) in national elections. Likewise, provinces in which the NDP has been elected to power, such as [[British Columbia]] and [[Saskatchewan]] usually feature only two standing political parties, thus making provincial NDP parties often more ideologically moderate than their federal counterpart.

Both countries have generally seen a shift in ideology towards the center in recent years, especially among parties of the left. Both Clinton-era Democrats and Chrétien-era Liberals have moved to dominate the center of the political spectrum, at the expense of harder left factions. This strategy has provided great long-term success for the Liberal Party of Canada, but less so for the Democratic Party of the United States.

In the United States, 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. However, one of the most important changes in American politics over the last 40 years has been the switch in allegiance of many Southern white voters from the Democrats to the Republicans.

The three Canadian political parties currently represented in the Senate are, in order of Senate population:

==Bureaucracy==

* the [[Liberal Party of Canada]]

A key and often unnoted difference between Canada and the United States is the role of professional bureaucrats. In Canada, as in the [[United Kingdom|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, these powers do not extend to the unionized public service.

* the [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative Party]]

* the [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada|Progressive Conservative Party]]

The two American political parties currently represented in the Senate are:

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 [[civil service|UK public service]] and [[Canadian public service]] situation, and creates very different dynamics, most notably in the conduct of Ministers vs. Secretaries:

* the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]]

* the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]]

====Size of constituencies and campaign financing====

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 Deputy Minister to convey his or her requests to the bureaucracy underneath.

The approximately 300 million Americans are represented by 535 elected federal legislators (435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 senators), or about 1 for every 500,000 people. Seats in the House of Representatives are currently apportioned so that the total always remains at 435 (as the 435 Representatives and the 100 Senators are at the upper limit of how many people a Congressional house could comfortably sit during a joint-session of Congress). This constraint is not part of the constitution but rather is a federal law that could be amended without consulting state governments, however the current law dates from 1911. In contrast, the approximately 32 million Canadians are represented by 413 federal legislators (308 elected federal Members of Parliament and 105 appointed Senators), or about one for every 80,000 Canadians of all ages. The number of seats in the House of Commons is readjusted every ten years, based on the results of the most recent census, however unlike the U.S., where House of Representative seats are reassessed every ten years after the [[U.S. Census]], where some states may lose a representative and others gain one (and the total number is never allowed to fall below 435), various measures are in place to ensure that provincial seat totals cannot fall below certain historical levels of seats, thus making the Canadian system less responsive to changing demographic trends. Most of these provisions now form a part of the Canadian Constitution and could not be rescinded without the consent of the affected provincial governments, even if these provincial governments no longer had the population to justify their number of seats. In the current distribution of seats in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, the smallest U.S. state has one House representative and two Senators. Conversely, the smallest Canadian province, like [[Prince Edward Island]], is divided into four electoral constituencies due to various Constitutional guarantees, and no province has lost seats in a re-distribution since [[Canadian federal election, 1968|1968]].

Each of Canada's three territories forms a single constituency. The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the territories send delegates to the House who have a voice, and vote in committees, but have no vote on the final passage of legislation. By contrast while the Canadian territories have just one territorial Member of Parliament and one Senator each, these are full voting members of their respective legislative bodies.

An American Cabinet Secretary always takes one job for the duration of the Administration, unless they are replaced or resign from the government entirely, and must be confirmed by the Senate, a process considerably less automatic than in Canada since the Senate may be controlled by the opposition party. Cabinet Secretaries are generally specialists in their fields, and have great power to replace their assistants, which extends considerably farther down into the agencies they control than in Canada. Originally nearly all civil service positions were assigned by [[patronage]]. However, since the [[Pendleton Act|Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act]] of 1883 , the majority of the civil service, especially at the lower levels, is appointed by merit and belongs to the [[American Federation of Government Employees]] labor union. These jobs of these employees, like in Canada, are not dependent upon election results.

In the United States, elected politicians (at the ''state'' level) are directly involved in and responsible for the decennial process of boundary redistribution for both state and (except in the case of the seven least populous states) federal electoral districts. The federal government plays little role in the process of this boundary redistribution after setting the number of Representatives for each state, the only constraints coming from this level being that the populations of the districts must be as equal as possible, and that districts or portions thereof lying on the same landmass must be [[contiguity|contigous]].

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.

Since state lawmakers undoubtedly have an interest electing friendly Representatives to the federal Congress this state of affairs frequently leads to accusations especially in the more populous states for federal that boundaries are [[gerrymandering|gerrymandered]] to protect incumbent politicians or to defeat opponents by deliberately drawing boundaries to one party's advantage. There are also allegations and considerable evidence pointing to the existence of bi-partisan gerrymandering in some states, where state legislators from both parties seemingly agree to redraw boundaries in such a manner as to protect the re-election prospects of prominent federal lawmakers from both major parties.

==Centralization of power==

In [[Canada]] the "checks and balances" are very different from those in the [[United States]]. It may be argued that the Prime Minister within Canada has vastly more power than the American President does. Since Canada's legislative and executive branches draw from one another, the [[Governor General]] (the representative of [[Monarchy in Canada|Canada's head of state]], [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen Elizabeth II]]) rarely exercises the real legal powers available. Such instances are usually brought on by, or the cause of, [[constitutional crisis]]' such as [[King-Byng Affair]], the last instance of a Governor General actively and independently exercising power over a Canadian government.

While state legislatures (in the 43 states with multiple representatives) are obliged to redraw their House boundaries following each census, the Supreme Court has ruled there is nothing in the Constitution or federal law barring states from redrawing the boundaries at other times, provided the new boundaries stay within the constraints provided by the constitution. The controversial [[2003 Texas redistricting|2003 re-drawing of House boundaries in Texas]] was the action that prompted the Supreme Court ruling.

In Canada the Prime Minister must always have the largest group of supporters in the [[Canadian House of Commons]] in order to retain her/his position, as a result the Prime Minister's Office maintains strict discipline over his/her party [[caucus]]. This control has been tightened since 1968 as governments have consolidated power in the [[Office of the Prime Minister (Canada)|Office of the Prime Minister]].

In Canada by comparison, adjustment of electoral boundaries is done by electoral boundaries commissions, in the federal case these being independent non-partisan bodies convened by the arms-length agency [[Elections Canada]]. Although allegations of gerrymandering still occur pundits in both countries generally agree that the practice is much less widespread (and certainly not as flagrant) in Canada, at least at the federal level. The federal government is responsible for ordering each re-distribution and there is no Constitutional or legal provision regarding how often the boundaries must be re-drawn. In practice, re-distributions have been conducted on average once every other census, in other words once per decade since Canada holds a census every five years.

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. On the other hand, the Prime Minister does not have the luxury of cohabitation. If a majority of the House of Commons votes against the government on a matter of confidence, the Prime Minister must resign or call an election. The Prime Minister of a minority government, therefore, is in a far more precarious position than any American president, whose term is guaranteed by law. The minority [[Joe Clark|Clark]] government of 1979&ndash;80 is famous for having attempted to govern as if it held a majority in the House of Commons; it fell in nine months.

American candidates for the United States Senate must campaign over an entire state, while candidates for president must campaign across the entire country. In Canada, however, each member of Parliament represents a local riding, most of which are compact (only in the far north does sparseness of population create large ridings). Urban ridings in Canada can cover as little as 9 km² (about 3½ sq. mi.).

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 discourage corruption and reduce the influence of money in on Canadian Members of Parliament. Unlike American Senators and even Representatives, MPs do not need to raise great deals of money (one of the reasons why is described in the next section), and because they are far less powerful there is far less interest from companies to donate to them. While there is still great advantage in companies and unions donating to political parties as a whole, campaign finance reform in Canada recently outlawed such practices. 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 and helps discourage the proliferation of third parties which occurs often in Canada, although one may reasonably question whether the absence of third parties is on the whole an advantage.

Neither Canadians nor Americans vote directly for their head of government. Instead of directly voting for the Prime Minister, Canadians vote only for their local candidate. In practice, the major party leaders are obliged to campaign nationally on behalf of their parties. Likewise, voters in the United States vote only for the electors who will represent their state in the formal election. These electors are pledged to a specific ticket but are not always legally obliged to vote for the candidates they are pledged to.

==Judicial system==

The effects of these differences on federal political financing are enormous. American candidates, campaigning over larger areas to a larger population, require much more money than Canadian candidates, and indeed more than candidates in any other industrialized democracy. As a result, there are far fewer legal constraints on American campaign financing compared to most other developed democracies.

The membership of the federal judicial branch in Canada is also closely controlled by the Prime Minister, who gives the final advice for the Queen in Council's appointment of Supreme Court judges. In the US, by contrast, all judicial appointments must be approved by the Senate. In an effort to democratize the Canadian system, borrowing from the US example, a process of convening a multi-party committee to publicly "review" Supreme Court appointments in Canada was established. However, the committee holds no veto power, unlike the US Senate.

Canada, starting with the federal election of 2004, has introduced [[Politics of Canada#Party funding reform|party funding reform]], strictly limiting political donations by corporations and unions; in particular, corporations and unions may not make donations to registered political parties or to candidates for the leadership of a party, and their maximum contribution to a candidate for member of parliament is limited to $1,000. In addition, the political campaigns of all parties which obtain certain percentages of the vote receive public campaign funding, so the influence of corporate and union money is further diminished. In previous elections the influence of corporate and union donations was still less than in American elections, because of the much smaller cost of campaigning.

[[Judicial activism]] has been a concern in both countries. However, prior to 1982 , the Canadian judicial branch was far less powerful than the US one because Canada had nothing comparable to the [[United States Bill of Rights|US Bill of Rights]]. However, in 1982 under the urging of then-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 [[Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|notwithstanding clause]], which allows any government to protect a bill from certain areas of the charter for a period of five years. This has never been used by the federal government however, and the Supreme Court has also ruled that the Charter does not apply to the civil law.

The rigid control of Members of Parliament in Canada is also said to discourage corruption and reduce the influence of money on Canadian MPs. Unlike American Senators, and even Representatives, MPs do not need to raise great deals of money, and because they are far less powerful there is less interest from corporations to donate to them. By contrast the perceived 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 and helps discourage the proliferation of third parties which occurs often in Canada, although one may reasonably question whether the absence of third parties is on the whole an advantage or a disadvantage.

==Size of constituencies and campaign financing==

{{see|List of Canadian federal electoral districts|List of United States congressional districts}}

The approximately 32 million Canadians are represented by 308 elected federal members of Parliament, or about 1 for every 100,000 Canadians of all ages. The number of seats in Parliament is readjusted every ten years, based on the results of the most recent census, and ensuring that the provinces do not fall below certain historical levels of seats. In contrast, the approximately 300 million Americans are represented by 535 elected federal legislators (435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 senators), or about 1 for every 500,000 people; seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned so that the total always remains at 435. In the current distribution of seats in the American House of Representatives, seven states currently have only one statewide representative. Conversely, no Canadian province has just one Member of Parliament representing the entire province — even Canada's smallest province, [[Prince Edward Island]], is divided into four electoral constituencies.

===Judicial system===

The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the territories send delegates to the House who have a voice, and vote in committees, but have no vote on the final passage of legislation. The Canadian territories have just one territorial Member of Parliament and one Senator each, but these are full voting members of their respective legislative bodies.

[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The [[Supreme Court of Canada]] building in [[Ottawa]]]]

[[File:Portico -US Supreme Court Building.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The [[United States Supreme Court|US Supreme Court]] building in [[Washington, D.C.|Washington]].]]

The membership of the federal judicial branch in Canada is also closely controlled by the Prime Minister, who gives the final advice for the [[Queen-in-Council]]'s appointment of Supreme Court judges. In the United States, by contrast, all judicial appointments must be approved by the Senate. In an effort to democratize the Canadian system, borrowing from the American example, a process of convening a multi-party committee to publicly review Supreme Court appointments in Canada was established. However, the committee holds no power to prevent the Prime Minister from making his recommendation, as is his constitutional right, unlike the American Senate.

Furthermore, American candidates for senator must campaign over an entire state, while candidates for president must campaign across the entire country. In Canada, however, each member of Parliament represents a local riding, most of which are compact (only in the far north does sparseness of population create large ridings). Urban ridings in Canada sometimes cover only 5 to 8 km². As well, Canadians do not directly vote for Prime Minister, but only for their local candidate, although in practice the party leaders do have to campaign nationally on behalf of their parties.

[[Judicial activism]] has been a concern in both countries. However, prior to 1982 , the Canadian judicial branch was far less powerful than the American one because Canada had nothing comparable to the [[United States Bill of Rights|US Bill of Rights]]. However, in 1982 under the urging of then-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 [[Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|notwithstanding clause]], which allows any government to protect a bill from certain areas of the Charter for a period of five years. This has never been used by the federal government, however, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the clause does not apply to civil law.

The effects of this difference on federal political financing are enormous. American candidates, campaigning over larger areas to a larger population, require much more money than Canadian candidates, and indeed more than candidates in any other industrialized democracy.

===Bureaucracy===

Canada, starting with the federal election of 2004, has strictly limited political donations by corporations and unions; in particular, corporations and unions may not make donations to registered political parties or to candidates for the leadership of a party, and their maximum contribution to a candidate for member of parliament is limited to $1,000. In addition, the political campaigns of all parties which obtain certain percentages of the vote receive public campaign funding, so the influence of corporate and union money is further diminished. In previous elections the influence of corporate and union donations was still less than in American elections, because of the much smaller cost of campaigning.

A key, and often unnoted, difference between Canada and America is the role of professional bureaucrats. In both cases officials are appointed by the [[Chief executive officer|chief executive]]; however, in Canada, because the Crown is apolitical, very few appointed officials lose their jobs during a shift of government, even to a new party. This creates different dynamics, most notably in the conduct of Ministers vs. Secretaries: a 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 Deputy Minister to convey his or her requests to the bureaucracy underneath. In America, by contrast, over 2500 jobs are direct appointments of the President, cabinet ministers are not drawn from elected Members of Congress, and the top rank of each federal department is replaced following each presidential election.

An American Cabinet Secretary always takes one job for the duration of [[Executive Office of the President of the United States|the Administration]], unless they are replaced or resign from the government entirely, and must be confirmed by the Senate, a process considerably less automatic than in Canada since the Senate may be controlled by the opposition party. Cabinet Secretaries are generally specialists in their fields, and have great power to replace their assistants, which extends considerably farther down into the agencies they control than in Canada. Originally, nearly all civil service positions were assigned by [[patronage]]. However, since the [[Pendleton Act|Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act]] of 1883, the majority of the civil service, especially at the lower levels, is appointed by merit and belongs to the [[American Federation of Government Employees]] labor union. These jobs of these employees, like in Canada, are not dependent upon election results.

== Multilateralism ==

===Multilateralism===

Due to Canada's much smaller political and military size in relation to the United States, Canada has had little opportunity to act unilaterally and largely committed to the concept of [[multilateralism]] and collective security. After rejecting a major role in the [[League of Nations]] in 1935, it later became one of the strongest backers of the [[United Nations]] and the [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] and supports most international initiatives, such as the [[International Criminal Court]], and the [[Ottawa Treaty|International Ban on Land Mines]]. The United States pursues both unilateral and multilateral policies at different times. Many Americans distrust the United Nations as a corrupt institution interested in being a global challenger to the US and are unwilling to see their country's sovereignty impinged on. Both Canada and the United States are committed to international economic organizations such as the [[International Monetary Fund]], the [[World Health Organization]], the [[World Trade Organization]] and the [[World Bank]].

Due to Canada's much smaller political and military size in relation to the United States, Canada has had little opportunity to act unilaterally, and is largely committed to the concept of [[multilateralism]] and collective security. After rejecting a major role in the [[League of Nations]] in 1935, it later became one of the strongest backers of the [[United Nations]] and the [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]], and supports most international initiatives, such as the [[International Criminal Court]], and the [[Ottawa Treaty|International Ban on Land Mines]]. the United States pursues both unilateral and multilateral policies at different times. Both Canada and the United States are committed to international economic organizations such as the [[International Monetary Fund]], the [[World Health Organization]], the [[World Trade Organization]] and the [[World Bank]].

==See also==

* [[Canadian and American economies compared]]

*[[Annexationist movements of Canada]]

* [[Comparison of United States and British governments]]

*[[Canadian and American economies compared]]

* [[Comparison of Australian and Canadian governments]]

*[[Politics of Canada]]

** [[GovernmentPolitics of Canada|Federal]]
** [[Government of Canada]]

** [[Political culture of Canada]]

* [[Politics of the United States]]

** [[Federal Governmentgovernment of the United States]]

* [[Annexationist movements of Canada]]

**[[Political history of the United States]]

==Notes==

{{reflist}}

<references/>

==References==

*Adams, Michael. 2003. ''Fire and Ice: The United States, Canada and the Myth of Converging Values.'' Toronto: Penguin. {{ISBN |0-14-301422-6}}. Reviewed by W.S. Neidhardt, ''Canadian Social Studies, V. 39, No. 2,'' Winter, 2005.[http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/css/Css_39_2/BRNeidhardt_fire_ice.htm]

* Christie, Nancy. "'In These Times of Democratic Rage and Delusion': Popular Religion and the Challenge to the Established Order, 1760-1815" in G. A. Rawlyk, ed .''The Canadian Protestant Experience'' (1994)

* Clark; S.D.''Movements of Political Protest in Canada, 1640-1840'' University of Toronto Press. 1959.

*Errington, Jane ''The lion, the eagle, and Upper Canada: a developing colonial ideology'' McGill-Queen's University Press, 1987.

* Grabb, Edward , James Curtis and Douglas Baer; "Defining Moments and Recurring Myths: Comparing Canadians and Americans after the American Revolution" ''The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology,'' Vol. 37, 2000

* Lipset, Seymour Martin. '' Continental Divide; The Values and Institutions of the United States and Canada'' (1990)

* Lower; Arthur R. M. ''Canadians in the Making: A Social History of Canada'' Toronto. 1958.

*McNairn, Jeffrey L. ''The capacity to judge: public opinion and deliberative democracy in Upper Canada 1791-1854'' Toronto : University of Toronto Press, 2000.

* McNairn, Jeffrey L. "Publius of the North: Tory Republicanism and the American Constitution in Upper Canada, 1848-54." ''Canadian Historical Review'' 1996 77(4): 504-537. ISSN 0008-3755

* Moffett, Samuel E. ''The Americanization of Canada'' (1907)

* Schwartz, Mildred. ''Party Movements in the United States and Canada: Strategies of Persistence'' (2005)

* Smith; Allan. "Doing the Continental: Conceptualizations of the Canadian-American Relationship in the Long Twentieth Century" in ''Canadian-American Public Policy'' 2000. pp 2+

* Allan Smith, ''Canada&mdash;An American Nation? Essays on Continentalism, Identity, and the Canadian Frame of Mind'' (McGill-Queen's University Press, 1994)

* Goldwin Smith, ''Canada and the Canadian Question'' Toronto: 1891, numerous reprints

Line 188 ⟶ 198:

* Stewart, G. 1986. ''The Origins of Canadian Politics: A Comparative Approach''

* Thompson, John Herd and Stephen J. Randall, ''Canada and the United States: Ambivalent Allies'' McGill-Queen's University Press, 1994

* Warner, Donald F. ''The Idea of Continental Union: Agitation for the Annexation of Canada to the United States, 1849&ndash;1893'' (1960).

==External links==

[[Category:Canadian-American relations]]

* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/fr-rf/couronne_crown_canada/6_e.cfm Department of Canadian Heritage: Comparison With Other Systems of Government]

[[Category:Political comparison]]

[[Category:Politics of Canada]]