 |
Before You Compare: Canada vs. The United States |
 |
In this month’s issue, The Seminal explores Canadian life and politics, with a particular eye towards comparisons with America. Though America and Canada look very similar to most people, and Canadian healthcare, drug policies, and education (pdf) have all been targeted for American imitation, key differences between these two countries should be noted before wholeheartedly adapting Canadian solutions to American problems. While some of these differences are minor, they all subtly affect American and Canadian politics. So, what differences make direct comparison so hard?
Revolutionary Birthright
To begin, America was forged during a revolution, while Canada gained its independence gradually from Britain. From the start, America has had its eye on its northern neighbor. America tried to incite revolution in Canada during the American Revolution, and invaded Canada repeatedly during the war of 1812. After the World Wars, Canadian/US relations eased tremendously. However, when comparing the two countries one should remember that Americans look at Canadians as younger brothers, with less of the independent spirit that Americans believe sets them apart. In fact, survey research has shown a distinct “counter-revolutionary” tradition in Canada, compared with a “revolutionary” one in America. While this is a gross generalization, each country’s birthright has no doubt affected its subsequent path in numerous subtle, yet important ways.
Government and Elections
Canada, in a lot of ways, has a less centralized government than the United States. Each territory or province (the equivalent of US states) has control over the universal healthcare and education programs (though these are sometimes centralized in the federal government). Some territories retain their control over things that have nearly always been federally controlled in the US, such as immigration in Quebec. This can lead to a less unified system across Canada, and sometimes leads to problems when richer states feel they heavily subsidize poorer states. However, it speaks to the grassroots nature of Canada’s progressive politics that even though power is less centralized, policies are generally more liberal than in America.
On the federal level, Canada’s Senate is filled with unelected lawmakers who generally serve until they are 75. This changes the way laws are created in Canada (in comparison to the United States), with the Senate often looking after longer-term goals, much like appointed judges do in America. Also, the Prime Minister is directly controlled by his or her party members in the legislature. Unlike America’s President, a Prime Minister elected with a minority of seats held in the legislature can face a vote of no-confidence and be forced to resign or call for a new election.
Election practices vary as well. As alluded to above, Canadians do not directly elect their Prime Minister, only their local representative, and political campaign donations are strictly limited. This means that politicians only have to campaign in a small, local areas and campaigns aren’t nearly as expensive as they are in the US. Consequently, the influence of rich special interests, big business, and organized labor on Canadian politics is severely limited On top of that, though Canada has a “winner-takes-all” election system like the United States, there are four major Canadian political parties of note, while there are only two here in America. Though American and Canadian political parties operate very similarly, Canada has more parties in play, so politics tends to be less dualistic, with more room between and beyond the classic liberal/conservative dichotomy.
Adding to that, Canada is dominated by Anglicans and Roman Catholics, while America has a much higher proportion of evangelicals. Due to the differing church models, America has seen many more political/religious movements than Canada, and religion in America tends plays a much larger role in public life, elections, and politics.
Lastly, Canada stands in contrast to America with respect to Quebec. No US state has such a powerful government whose ruling party’s stated goal is independence. Puerto Rico may be on the fence with respect to this issue, but there has been nowhere near the amount of succession talk as heard in Quebec. The fact that Canada would likely let Quebec go if they voted to secede speaks volumes about the differences between these two countries.
Market Size and Economics
Canada’s market is smaller than America’s, thus causing some significant differences in economic policy between the two countries. For example, there is virtual free trade between the US and Canada, with Canadian industries making products for a unified US-Canadian market. For the few industries that are still protected by tariffs, some Canadian companies hold monopolies over an industry because Canada’s market is not able to support more than one major player. By and large, Canada has not been overly aggressive in breaking up these monopolies.
Perhaps because of this smaller size, Canada has been much more likely to legislate for the “public good” than to allow market forces to decide prices and competition levels. Canada is more apt to enact legislative fixes to social problems (healthcare, broadcasting, etc…), and is more likely to stick to a balanced budget. Contrary to American politics, Canadians are much less likely to hold up “the market” as the perfect economic example. This makes Canadians less susceptible to anti-communist rhetoric thrown around in America in response to universal healthcare initiatives (socialized medicine), welfare (handouts), and market regulation (intervention).
On the other side, the breadth of the American market also contributes to Canada’s brain drain, as Canadians emigrate to the US to find opportunities that are just not available back home. Also, because of the inefficiencies inherent in Canada’s smaller market, Canadian workers are on average 18% less productive than their American counterparts.
Social Issues: Drugs, Poverty, Health, and Race
Canada’s looser drug enforcement policy (pdf), without mandatory minimum sentences or a national “war on drugs,” means that Canada has a dramatically lower incarceration rate (pdf) than the United States. While the US incarcerates over 700 criminals per 100,000 people, Canada incarcerates slightly over 100. Without as many drug arrests, and without the kind of “three strikes” laws that mandate long sentences for repeat offenders, Canada’s crime rate is many times lower than America’s. With less crime comes less cost to the government charged with arresting, housing, and feeding inmates, and fewer ex-convicts (with all the social and economic stigma that go with incarceration) in the general population.
Working with that, Canada does not have a history of institutionalized slavery like America does. Though there were slaves held in Canada, especially during the colonial years, by the early 1800s slavery was gradually being abolished and Canada was a destination for many escaped slaves travelling on the Underground Railroad from America’s South. Consequently, race relations in Canada are less divisive and more complex than in the US, dealing more with the ramifications of indigenous populations and immigration than American race relations, which have focused almost exclusively on African-American equality.
Also, due to a myriad of factors such as different taxation rates, different costs-of-living, different social programs, different education policies, and different ways of measuring, Canada has a lower poverty rate than the US. This is important to keep in mind when discussing welfare, universal education, and crime solutions in the two countries, as the cost and scope of these programs and problems can vary dramatically in relation to the percentage of the population living in poverty.
Lastly, on the health front, Canada has fewer smokers than America, less obesity, and less physical inactivity, all resulting in fewer health problems. These three indicators are some of the main preventable causes of later disease. The fact that they are less prevalent in Canadian society means that Canada’s healthcare costs are inevitably lower than America’s. This, in turn, affects the debate when talking about adopting Canadian universal healthcare policies to the US.
Foreign Policy and Energy
Because of Canada’s smaller size, it often has no choice but to act diplomatically and come to consensus when dealing with international problems. Simply put, unilateral military action like the current US-led war in Iraq is unthinkable in Canadian military circles. Consequently, Canada has fostered strong diplomatic ties to many nations and in general believes heavily in international governing bodies like the United Nations and the World Bank, organizations that many Americans inherently distrust.
Helping that multinational outlook, Canada is a net exporter of energy, even though the cost of heating is generally higher (because of Canada’s cooler climate), and the cost of transportation is generally higher (because of Canada’s sparse population). In contrast, America must import energy because our natural resources cannot keep up with demand. This means the US and Canada react differently to geopolitical concerns relating to energy and energy prices, the latest example being Canada’s refusal to enter into the conflict in Iraq. These differences also mean that higher energy prices tend to grow Canada’s economy and stock market, while depressing ours.
Dare To Compare?
There is no reason Canadian solutions can’t work for the United States, but some adaptation will be necessary. Michael Moore, in his latest documentary “Sicko”, is only the latest in a long line of activists (free registration required) calling for Canadian style healthcare for American citizens. Moore has also cited Canada as an example of how to deal with gun control in “Bowling For Columbine.” However, the complexities of such an adaptation quickly add up. Take the comparison of gun control policies for example: One must remember that Canada does not have the same level of independent spirit present in America, Canada has far less drug crime (because drug use is more tolerated by authorities), and far less crime in general due to liberal sentencing laws and sparser population.
The problems are complex and the solutions are never easy. And for the record, no, it’s not Canadia. What are your feelings on the differences between Canada and America? What key points have I left out?
Illustration by jackrascal.
Just as an FYI, Canada is in Afghanistan, and Canadian soldiers are dieing in Afghanistan. The Canadian contingent has the the most difficult area in the entire country.
Also, the Canadian Senate is completely useless and does almost nothing. In the more common Majority government, the Prime Minister has more power than the US president. A Prime Minister would be the equivalent of the President, Senate Majority leader, and Speaker of the House all in one, with better party discipline. In a minority government (as Canada has now), things do change.
It should also be noted that election campaigns are national affairs. While a local candidate can make a difference, national considerations do take precedence. The reason money isn’t as involved is 2-fold. First, campaign spending is much more limited. Second, alot of election spending is publicly financed. Each vote a party receives in an election gives them $1.75. This makes up a large component of election spending.
Thanks for your thoughts, Derek. Be sure to check out the article that Mac is working on about Canadian involvement in Afghanistan - it should be up toward the end of our Canada series.
Thanks for the correction. I’ve updated the post to reflect the facts. Always appreciated.
As for the Prime Minister, I find it highly interesting that though he holds way more power than the US President, Canada is still much more liberal, and in many ways, much less totalitarian than the US. I guess it speaks to the qualities found in the electorate that Canada is often seen as some kind of liberal bastion state. I guess with the new government, things may be changing. Either way though, we tend to make huge fusses in the States about minor points of government organization and policy. Though these things may well be important, we would do well to remember that you can have a more powerful executive and not fall into dictatorship. Not that I’d trust Bush with that power…
Good article. One major difference between the countries is immigration policy. Canada welcomes immigrants, with one of the highest rates in the world. Once here, immigrants are encouraged to keep their cultural roots alive. There is no “melting pot” here, and it’s made Canadian society better. Being exposed to people from everywhere has made us less afraid of the “other” and less threatened by foreign languages. To say nothing of giving us a wider variety of cuisine to choose from.
Compare the two national mottos. America: “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, Canada: “Peace, Order, Good Government”. Americans believe that an armed society is a polite one, but I can’t imagine where they get data that supports that idea. America as a country and as a group of citizens, is armed to the teeth, but nobody could describe America as anything but a bully. Crime rates are hard to compare, but my experience is that Canadians are far nicer to one another than Americans are. And you’re certainly at a far, far lower risk of getting shot in Canada than in America.
Good article, except for one thing: Drugs are not legal in Canada.
Keith , I can appreciate your allegiance to Canada {are you canadian ? }I am an American that was born in Denmark and immigrated here at 3 and naturalized at 10. I find your comparisons to be contemptfull.
How does the comparison of the two mottos make America out to be a bully? You beleive that Americans beleive an armed society is a polite one,so why should we come up with data to support your interpretations of our society ? If I have a gun in my house to protct my family , does that make me a bully ? Also , I have been all over this country ,I am a chef and have
managed a few restaraunts. and I can tell you with the utmost confidence that we have a wonderful if not endless supply of cultural cuisine.
I don’t know where you get the idea that anyone or immigrants are expected to dump their cultural roots once they get here. We just want you to function in the system thats in place.
My whole family is made up of immigrants who’s cultures are still very much intact in their lives .I have a daughter that is Mexican , Italian ,Danish and German . My son is Portugese , Hawaiian , Scottish , Danish and German. And we all celebrate these cultures in a lot of ways.
Canada is great , I’ve been there 3 times and it was always good . But I can’t sit here and let you marginalize my country with opinions and unsubstantiated facts.
Preach Micky!! As a resident of Brooklyn, New York, working in Manhattan, I can say the cuisine is top shelf, any variety you could wish to taste. I can also tell you any immigrant here will attest to the fact that their cultural heritage is alive and well, encouraged and nurtured by the city and its residents. Granted New York is an exceptional place, but in small town USA (where I was born and raised), you’ll find the same inclusive attitudes. Of course there are a number of small minded people out there as well, ones who will try to keep other cultures down and/or out, but that’s not solely an American phenomenon, that’s a human phenomenon.
Keith, I’ve loved Canada every time I’ve been, love the people, love the culture. In fact, I’ll be traveling to Manitoba for some fishing at the end of this month. But let’s not raise one up by putting the other down. They’re both wonderful places, and I’d be thrilled to call either home.
As a Canadian with a mostly American family, I’ve lived a lot of my life crossing back and forth over the border… I’d really strongly disagree with anyone who thinks there is a great cultural gap between America and Canada.
There is a political gap and also a sociological gap… one in which Canada comes out with a much rosier picture.
I’d definetly disagree with the poster who thinks you can get more diverse cuisine in Canada though… that’s just backwards. However, I think Canada and the US differ in that America wants people to become American and Canadians want people to express their own individual ethnic identities.
@Keith
I do think the difference you pointed out is worth noting. While there is no question immigrant culture survives in America, Canada has not seen assimilation, or even working inside the system, as a goal for its immigrants. Case in point, Canada has two official languages. I don’t necessarily think either system is wrong, but it is a difference worth pointing out when trying to understand the two countries.
@Dylan
I agree with you. The cultural gap is there sometimes (more so in French Canada), but it really isn’t a big deal. There are many more similarities than differences culturally.
You should note that in Canadian parliment the common practice is for all the members of a party to vote together. In the US, contentious bills are won by pressuring reluctant senators to change their vote. In Canada, only a few reluctant rebels vote against their own party. Most members of the ruling party are what we call “backbenchers” They have less say over how their party votes than the cabinet which is the prime minister and his ministers (who form the closest thing we have to an executive branch). What this means though is that earmarks do not exist in Canada and a bill about, say, transportation is actually about transportation, unlike the omnibus bills in the US.
Free votes do happen, and are now more commonly used for social issues (although each party decides whether to vote as a block or not). Recently, the Conservative party had parliment vote on whether to repeal the same sex marriage laws, some parties chose to let their members vote freely, some parties voted as a block. The result was that Parliment voted to keep same sex marriage as legal in Canada. The Conservativee Party (who represent Canada’s social conservatives) now felt they had done their duty towards the social conservatives and stopped worrying about gay marriages and moved on to other issues, perhaps glad to be able to leave such a hot potato alone.
In Canada, divisive issues (abortion, gay marriage,etc) are bad politics. Best not to be defined by those issues. The system seems to favor middle of the road parties. The right wing party learned their lesson the hard way. Our Reform party tried to run the right, and found that ultimately, it could lead the opposition, but never govern, so it merged back with the center-right Progressive Conservatives to form the current Conservative party.
That, right there, seems to encapsulate some HUGE differences between America and Canada. In America, it sometimes seems like divisive issues are all that gets discussed in the political arena. Who wants to worry about the farm bill or transportation initiatives when we can talk about other people’s sex lives?
I wonder why that difference exists.
One glaring problem I find with this editorial is the statement that “Drugs are legal in Canada”. This is absolutely untrue. This is a misconception based on the “Safe Injection Centres” for heroin users and the misdemeanor marijuana possession law.
Also, anti-communist sentiment is completely unnecessary north of the border as we do not fear a governmental system that clearly does not fit with a North American way of life. (Yes, including Mexico)
I fully agree with your statement regarding religion being completely separated from governmental policy, however. As a Canadian I’m surprised at the amount of Americans politicians who call upon a middle-eastern deity to guide their actions.
No offense intended, but discussing a Judeo/Christian god openly while representing people of countless faiths could be deemed as exclusive
To Brian and Tisha -
I think you’re misreading the following sentence:
J is referring here to enforcement, sentencing policies, and the mentality of having a government-declared “war on drugs.”
At no point in the article does he assert that drugs are legal in Canada, merely that the way Canada enforces its anti-drug laws is different than how we do it in the US. This plays into the lower rate of incarceration in Canada.
Thanks Ish.
I guess I need to clarify my drug statements. Drugs are illegal in Canada, but the level of enforcement and incarceration is nowhere near what we see here in the US. One third of America’s prison population is in on drug charges. Canada has taken a much more moderate approach towards drug users, rightly preferring to treat drug crime more as a nuisance than a national priority.
It was in reference to the paragraph “Dare to compare” where the author wrote
“One must remember that Canada does not have the same level of independent spirit present in America, Canada has far less drug crime (because drugs are legalized), and far less crime in general due to liberal sentencing laws and sparser population.”
The parentheses hold the point the author made to which I had contention.
I’ve been following the last few posts and it brought a question to mind.
Does Canada offer a system for drug offenders that offers better choices other than the paradox most American users face. I get the impression that they dont have this snowballing problem that america has. I know that the penalties are less severe in Canada, but I’m curious as to what kind of treatment or preventative measures the govt. offers.You can be hopeless in jail, but you can also be hopeless on the street.
I wonder what the cost is to there govt. is, seeing as how universal health care is already supported by tax revenues. I wonder how much of that is put into drug and alcohol programs. Or is it all a separate system.
Brian,
Our mistake, and good eye! We’ve amended the offending passage.
Yes, the paragraph Brian quoted is what I was responding to also.
(Initially I couldn’t find the original comment - I wonder if it’s a great idea to amend or edit the original work. Perhaps a footnote would be better? I dunno, just a thought.)
I’ve lived in the Toronto area my entire life, so I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but: Police in Toronto and the surrounding areas use a certain amount of discretion with respect to marijuana. Often, they don’t seem to care if you smoke a joint even in their presence, as long as you are not being a jackass about it. I think I’ve heard of similar situations in the US also, when cops just look the other way. When the Liberal party was in power and planning to de-criminalize pot, the police became the most relaxed about pot that I’d seen in thirty years or so. When the PCs got in and scrapped the proposed decriminalization legislation, levels of police response rose and then levelled off again. They care as much as they’re told to care, pretty much. Through my work and social life, I’ve gotten to know a few narc officers and detectives over the years, and they do NOT want to waste their time busting people for anything that will not stick or can be watered down. Seems understandable.
However, having said that, they still can and somtimes do do bust people for simple possession if circumstances merit.
Most people here, including the authorities, seem to realize that pot is by far the lesser of many evils and behave accordingly.
I have lived in several areas of Canada for 26 years of my life and have recently immigrated to the US and became a permanent resident. I can offer some views on the diffrences that i have seen thus far between the two countries. As far as immigration goes (I have just went through it to enter the US) I think Canada has a much more stream lined system as far as immigration goes and I know thats not much help for those who are currently going through it as its rough. The US has a decent system but the complaints I have is the money that is wasted on performing the same endless tasks numerous times to enter the US. On several occasions I would need to fill in and then pay for the same form over and over again as one part of immigration would not speak with the other part of immigration. This seems to be waste of resources and I think something that should be looked into as a possible cost/tax reduction. As far as the health care system goes there is huge diffrences in the quaility of care. I have noticed not just with myself but with family in friends back in Canada the doctors don’t seem to go the extra mile like they do in the US. There are large northern cities in Canada who are paying high taxes but have either no hospital facilities or limited facilities. The government does not want to fund the extra rural areas or to create a center in the rural areas but instead relies on costly and time consuming air ambulances flights back to major cities for the most minor of conditions. So Canada does have good health care but in a sense if your not in the hand full of major cities it seems your at times out of luck. The issue when you move to most cities is that none of the doctors are taking new patients due to the shortage of doctors in the country forcing those that cannot find a doctor to wait in emergency rooms to try to see a doctor thus increasing wait times for those who are in need of emergency services.In the US I am able to find a decent doctor and there appears to be less of an issue with shortages. They all seem to want to go the extra mile to find out what the issue is and take care of it in a timely fashion minus all the lenghty waiting lists which is nice. My only complaint about the US system is that its pricey. But then again you pay for what you get!
I would also like to speak on one of the matters that another person has posted on about the nature of Canadian citizens and American citizens. I can tell you after moving to the US that the people here seem to slightly less friendly than there Canadian counterparts. As far as the statement made in one of the posts about Canadian views to new immigrants and there cultures…well I am still not certain there is a huge diffrence. I work with many diffrent races here in the US and have even had special dinners with diffrent cultural foods to respect the diversity. Back in Canada we did the same thing so I am not buying into the fact that you must drop your culture at the door. I find alot of the people I work with very interested in my Canadian roots.I worked with an American back in Canada and we were all very interested in his views and the way he did things so the respect of others cultures seems to be about on par.
I have found the American people to be less laid back particulary when it comes to working. When working in Canada there is so many days off and made up days off for us to relax. In the US it seems the emphasis is more on working alot more hours then I had found back in Canada. I can say we used to get atleast one long weekend every month.
Anyways just thought I would share my thoughts on some of the issues form a perpective of someone who has lived in multiple locations in Canada such as rural north Canada and the major cities as well as the USA.
Jeff !
I’d be interested in hearing hear more about your initial reason for your move and wanting to be a resident as opposed to citizenship. Health care ? Weather ?
I moved to the US due to the fact that I met a girl that I ended up marrying after a year or more of travelling back and forth. As for being a resident I have been here coming up on a year so I have recently became a permanent resident and in 2 years and a bit I will be able to apply for citizenship at this time. Another comment on the immigration system here in the US. I moved to Texas and was lucky enough to be part of a test program for rapid adjustment status. Basicaly the old system you would get your non-immigrant visa to enter the US and you would then have to apply by mail and go through a lengthy procedure to adjust status to a permanent resident which can take a year or more in some cases and if you forgot a form or did not dot an i or something it would be sent back to make the changes. At this point you would then have to go to an interview where you would be approved. The new program has you make an infopass appointment and go to the office where they take your fees and check over all your paper work to be sure that your case will fit in to the program. Once accepted you get your interview the same day and then in a week or so you go and get finger printed (for about the 10th time I might add) and then get your permanent resident card within 90 days. I think the biggest issue with immigration reform and the policies they need to change is to look at steam lining some of the procedures in immigration. After having gone through the immigration procedures and the stress and length of time it takes of constantly filling out the same papers over and over again I can understand why so many people have bypassed this and entered ilegally! With the current immigration talks about granting a path to citizenship I think it needs to be a very strict process and I find it disturbing how the ilegal immigrants are protesting to get this done like it is a right they have to citizenship. After spending thousands of dollars and over a year in the immigration procedure like many others and came here legally it bothers me to see that the ones who slipped through the cracks get to stay in the country and can now presure for legal status. I have many ideas on this issue having gone through it and a couple horror stories from my own case.
As far as why I decided to move here instead of her. We thought about all the issues and there were a couple considerations. The first being the weather. It was a tough one as she could not stand the cold and I have a hard time with the heat! In the end I thought I could deal with the heat a little better then someone thrown in to 40 below winter conditions. Financialy it was also a better decision for us as she is in a medical field that would have required her recertify again in Canada where as I am in the IT field and my education and certifications are universal between Canada and the US so the move would be easier for me then her again. Finally the health care issues. She heard too many horror stories about the level of care and wait times in some of the places in Canada and thought that although expensice the US system is a better choice for her—and its hard to differ on that. One thing I would like to see change in the current US system is a way to reduce the insurance rates or setup a system that would take some of the benifits to the Canadian system and some of the benifits of the US system. The Canadian system would work great in theory but much of th issues stem from government waste of money. For example in Canada the recent ad scandal where millions were pumped into Quebec (and I believe still are in some instances) to help with the issues there. That money could have been better spent on education and health care to get more doctors and reduce the current wait times…so in the end the Canadian system could be great if there wasn’t so many hands in the cookie jar!
Anyways thats just my 2 cents on it!
Those are interesting comparisons Jeff. As far as healthcare goes, there is no denying that the profit motive for healthcare translates into generally better service and lower wait times. However, as you point out, healthcare is incredibly expensive, especially for the complex procedures. I can understand why those with money do not want to give up their good service to help those without. That is probably the biggest obstacle to healthcare in the States. But the fact is, if only a certain percentage can afford healthcare, we have failed our citizens in a moral sense.
Most proposals for US healthcare reform try and keep the advantages of a profit-driven model while insuring everyone. People are enrolled in basic, government funded care, and can then opt for premium, private care if they want better service. This seems like it will work to some extent (and I believe Canada does the same), but infrastructure can still be a problem. The key would be to pay doctors the same amount while lowering the costs to patients, and that really means government subsidies. It is a vexing problem, to say the least.
Personally, I would advocate for better primary and preventative care, available to all. That way, we could reduce the number of complex, expensive procedures and be able to handle the volume with a reduced staff. The primary care fields would still be well paying because of the increase in patients and government subsidies on the front end, thus reducing cost throughout the lifetime of a patient.
I’ve noticed something { I think } or at least thought of something. I have no question that America wastes millions on the cost of incarcerating harmless people as compared to Canadas jail population and inmate turn over rate which is much less.In America jails have become big business that is granted to private security firms. Which is a big part of why the system here won’t change. And all states are reimbursed a certain % by the federal govt. for each inmate , and not all that money is put into the respective states prison system. Do you think an incentive for carrying the cost of universal health care would be to stop locking up drug users and people that simply posess a small amount. If Canada had to lock up everyone like America did would they be able to do both at the same time. And does the cost of treatment , illness and collateral damage from drugs take a big chunk out of Canadas health care system ? Seeing as how Canadas drug use polocies are relaxed and incarceration is low.
I think Canada treats the real problems, not the perceived threats. If you stop locking up any kid with a bag of weed, then you free up your resources to rehabilitate the addicts that actually need your help. I think a large part of Canada realizes that drug use is not necessarily detrimental to a person’s ability to function in society.
As for the prison system, there is a ton of money tied up in it. I’d think that most conservatives, though, could get behind something that would reduce costs, no matter where the money was going.
Unfortunatly I’ve noticed the conservatives are the most ignorant on the subject of addiction being a disease.And are the party that looks at it as a crime instead of a need. I would count on the left to approach this a little more compassionatly.
A disease is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions. Being willing to ignore the basic instincts of survival such as the need for shelter and personal well being to feed your addiction isn’t a disease, its natural selection at work.
Addiction is recoknized by the CDC , DEPT of health and listed in all American journals of health and medicine as a disease. Schizophrenea and other mental disease do not have to be contagious or transferable to be considerd a disease. It is anything but a natural selection. An addicts organs are highly abnormal and will severly impair bodily function due to serious chemical imbalances This can be due to genetics or the inability to process a chemical due to ones lack of counteractive chemicals in ones body.
Go to the wikipedias site on alcohol and addictions. That should educate you. It will be hard for you to argue your point if you read the findings from The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.If you have a doctor , ask him.
Or you could scroll up to the top ,click on “guests” and read my article ” Thoughts on the drug war from a recovering addict ” Then you and I can talk some more.
There was a great book on Canadian studies - published in India, I believe (could be wrong) called “Ambivalence”. That word, in all of its negative and positive connotations (include just bi-lavence as well), captures *so* much of our cultural self-identity. Comparing the USA in the same conceptual register, the key word might be “Certainty” or “Mission”.
Margaret Atwood wrote the preface to that book, and she wrote about a theme in Canadian studies, which is that the USA is founded on an “Adamite myth” - a moment of genesis, and of self-remaking, growing out of its revolutionary moment. During that moment, America had to define what it was and what it stood for, and develop its own iconography and mythology.
This never happened in Canada. Our soldiers fought under the Union Jack in WWI, and Canadian students only started learning Canadian history in school in the Trudeau era. Before then “history” meant learning European history, and British history more specifically. Modern Canada slowly emerged as a colonial administration basically re-branded itself. Canadian identity has evolved slowly, and we still argue about what it is or what it means.
When Canadian history was being phased in to the primary school curriculum, the contrast was made with the USA often - Americans grow up learning everything about their own country and nothing of the world, whereas Canadian kids (at that time) grew up knowing nothing of their own history and everything about the world’s. Canadian history is still kind of in a “reclaiming our own importance” mode - digging up Canadian heros and Canadian accomplishments for us to build up our own heroic pantheon. Canadians in general resist the idea of heroism in thinking of themselves though. We have lived on the periphery of the French, British and American empires for so long that we are very, very good at detecting the irony and puffery of the heroic poses taken up by imperial representatives. Canadian humour is very subversive towards self-professed powers.
Politically, I would say that although the Parliamentary system does not separate legislation from executive power the way the Republican model does, it is effective at limiting power. We have no term limits, so today’s session in Parliament is *always* about the next election. Also, perhaps because your vote for a party is a vote for a platform, people who have wanted to introduce new platforms have had to launch new parties, and the arrival and departure of political parties keeps changing the political landscape. There is a strong movement afoot to introduce some proportional representation into our electoral system, which will make it even easier to launch new parties that can actually enter parliament.
Our constitutional woes may deserve mention. THe US Constitution is a historical document that is treated with reverence. Our has yet to be fully ratified by the whole country - and in fact the prospect of full ratification seems remote. People accept the same Charter of Rights and all the rest. The main issues that remain unresolved are the balance of powers (and transfers of funds) between the regions/provinces and the federal government. Quebec in particular is holding out for a sweeter deal than the current proposals would offer.
Scale - The US is so much larger - in terms of population. A combination of the scale of communications, the need to make political messages penetrate this mass, the heroic sense of historical mission and the two-party system make it easy to use narratives of good-vs-evil in the American context. THis is *way* too dramatic and Wagnerian for a Canadian context. We’ll settle for reasonable vs. misguided. Also, in the Cold War, the US was one of two adversarial world superpowers. Hey, guess who was right in between the two of you!!
Red scare didn’t play well up here, in part because it is just too dramatic for a non-adversarial culture, and in part because the US was the source of it. Canada is awash in American media and info all the time, but its biases and limitations are so transparent to us, because it almost talks to us, but not quite. We always don’t quite fit the position being addressed… So we develop an ironic distance from US-based information. Then it is *so* hard to get our own messages, stories, movies and stuff circulating with all of this expensively-produced US media around, so we get a real “grain of salt” attitude towards the information we consume. That included red-scare stuff, and in general Canadians were willing to think about socialist countries in ways that preserved important distinctions between our evaluations of the people, their governments, and their economies. We didn’t assimilate socialism wholesale into a good vs evil dichotomy as much as the Americans did, in part because we don’t view that dichotomy as a touchstone in our decision-making. Americans sometimes think we’re wishy-washy because we don’t take sides as categorically as they do.
This difference in “taking sides” is extremely pervasive. Except for hockey, Canadians don’t get into the home-team vs away team mind set as much, or in the same clear-cut manner as Americans do. THis is huge. I don’t know why, but it kind of touches everything, and leads to a very different feeling when in each culture.
Americans accept inequality more than Canadians. Canadians don’t like to see people struggle and fail. We like to lift them up to the point where they are able to contribute like the rest of, and not a milimeter farther. Canadians hate the welfare state as much as Americans do at the point where able-bodied people become lazy and dependent. The difference is that when we perceive that someone is actually so hard off that they are unable to pitch in, we are generally willing to help them back up to their feet. If you google re