Please pardon the length of this comment; I had a few fish-out-of-water moments while reading this article.
"Under a sunny afternoon sky in Ottawa, Mr. Martin took a leisurely walk to visit Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson's official residence and asked her to dissolve Parliament for the five-week election campaign."
This is my first waitaminnit moment ... The Parliament can be dissolved at any time and a new one elected if the Governor-General so decides? Is the Governor-General analogous to the President of the United States and does he or she outrank the PM? Is this position a hold-over from the British Empire days where Governors of territories were appointed by the Crown and held near-complete autonomy over the colony? As I understand it, Canada being a Commonwealth country, Canadians are still subjects of the Crown, but how much governing control does the Monarch have over Canadian affairs (same question in regard to British Parliament)? This is one of those cultural points Americans don't quite grasp: The President can NEVER dissolve Congress and request new elections of the entire body. The Constitution forbids it. Even in wartime, if Martial Law were instituted, Congress would still be in session and would still control the pursestrings and could (if they were to disagree with the PUSA's instituting Martial Law) impeach the PUSA and restore Civil Law.
What is this "Sponsorship Scandal?"
"The Conservatives may stand to gain some ground based on their election platform. Economists have said that their campaign promise to hand out multibillion-dollar tax cuts while balancing the budget, paying down the debt and maintaining social programs could work."
Conservative thought in America jibes with Canadian Conservatives even up to the point that maintaining existing social programs seems to be a sacred cow that would be abolished if it could, but must not be because too many people view it as necessary. The difference is that many American Conservatives are less concerned with a balanced budget and paying down the debt. Temporary debt can be accrued as long as the economy is growing at a sufficient pace. Budgetary debt tends to keep inflation and interest lower and thus provide more impetus for investors and producers to pile money into the economic cycle. At any rate, this works in America's more free-market style economy where our tax burden is less and social programs fewer. Does Canada's economy tend to operate the same way? If there is enough free market style flexibility in the economy, then the quickest, fairest and most lucrative way to grow government revenue is to slash taxes to provide both incentive to earn and incentive to report earnings. How much sway does the free-market have to establish pricing and earnings based on what the market will bear rather than what the government decree?
"The NDP ... released a health platform last week saying it would drive private health care clinics out of business by increasing funding to public health facilities."
WHAT?! This is a legitimate plank in a platform? Government-approved torpedoing of a private business that is in no violation of civil law? This is acceptable to a block of voters? I can't possibly understand this through my prism of American politics. What is the balance in Canada between Capitalism and Socialism? 60/40? 50/50? Variable depending on the arena? I've never studied Canadian politics, but somewhere in the back of my brain was the assumption that Canadian politics and government was just like America's except with more political parties, allegiance to a Monarch in some vague undefined manner, and a larger welfare program (plus that pesky universal health care). Where have I gone wrong?
The Governor-General is basically the Queen's stand-in in Canada. The Queen of Canada is the head of state in Canada (analagous to your President) and the Prime Minister is the head of government (analagous to your Speaker of the House, I'd guess). In practice, the Queen (and the Governor General) have no real power and only do things based on the advice of the government. They sign the laws that the government has passed. And they dissolve the parliament when the government asks. Usually. (There's a famous incident -- the King-Byng affair in which the Governor-General did not dissolve parliament when Prime Minister King asked him to. This whole matter relates to the weirdness of minority governments. It was considered a political crisis for the Governor General to not follow the advice of the Prime Minister).
Canada is required to have a new election every five years. Usually, it ends up being every four years because if you time your election right, you end up campaigning in the spring / summer months (rather than the fall / winter months). But if the party in power is pretty sure that they're going to get sacked in the election, they hold on to power as long as possible.
Our last election happened early. The Canadian Alliance had just elected their leader who bragged that they were ready for an election immediately. So the Prime Minister called his bluff and called an election. That Party Leader is no longer in power.
The ability to dissolve the parliament is an interesting power. It's one way in which the government can delegate certain decisions to the public. If the Prime Minister believes that the public is behind him, but the party is too weak-kneed to enact the legislation, the PM can call an election. In Ontario, for example, Premier David Peterson decided to call an election to establish whether or not Ontario supported a constitutional amendment. It backfired on him, and his government was swept out of power.
The Sponsorship Scandal is a recent budget scandal. Basically, a lot of money was diverted to the cause of "Canadian Unity" (convincing Quebec that they really want to stay with Canada) and ended up producing nothing.
The scandal has marred the reputation of the popular Liberals and will be one of the biggest discussions in this election.
The politics of tax-breaks is not terribly popular in most of Canada. Alberta (which is one of our more conservative provinces) has used tax breaks and other conservative policies fairly effectively to end up in a good financial position. In Ontario, Premier Mike Harris ended up being despised by doing much the same thing because the effect of the tax breaks was to gut social programs. Most polls currently suggest that people in Ontario would rather pay more taxes if those taxes went to supporting Health Care (for example). Quebec has much the same problem with Premier Jean Charest (who was following the Harris model).
Finally, most of Canada believes that socialized Health Care is a Good Thing. If you're talking about essential health services, you're dealing with government run health care agencies. Private clinics for non-essential services (such as plastic surgery or fertility) do exist, but it's not legal for non-socialized doctors to offer essential health care (except in, I think, Alberta).
In that sense, private health care is in violation of law.
On the other hand, private business are sometimes involved in health care. My mother, for example, worked for a private lab that tested blood. Doctors and hospitals would send blood samples to the lab and they would bill the hospitals who would in turn bill the government. The conservatives in Canada want more of this. I, personally, don't understand why.
In the last few elections, the question of private health facilities is generally discussed in terms of "two-tier health care" where the two tiers are "health care for the affluent" and "health-care for everyone else". Two tier health care is very unpopular because people generally believe that if you have a separate health care for the rich, the public health care will suffer. (Public and private schools in the US are often pointed to as a model for this problem. People with money send their kids to private schools, and don't really want the government spending lots of money on public education so it just gets worse and worse).
Even our most conservative parties have had to distance themselves from the idea of "two-tier health care". (Stockwell Day, former leader of the Canadian Alliance once held up a sign during a televised debate that said "No Two-Tier Health Care"). Again, Alberta seems to be the only province that has found the idea of privatization of Health Care can be palatable).
The whole socialism/capitalism debate varies in different arenas. At the moment, the idea of privatizing services is very unpopular (especially in Ontario). There's a general feeling that privatization lead to the Walkerton deaths. And the big Blackout from last August.
In general, I think that seeing ourselves as different from the US is probably the Canadian National Sport.
"In general, I think that seeing ourselves as different from the US is probably the Canadian National Sport." And I thought it was hockey or curling :) Is the operation of the government (Parliament, PM, Governor-General, responsibilities of the branches) and the maintenance of the government (elections, taxation, rights of the people) codified into your constitution? Does Canada have a constitution? I just wonder because of the fluidity of the election date and how that is set by the controlling party (whenever it is most politically beneficial to the status quo). As you are no doubt aware, our elections are the first Tuesday in November in even years for federal election (Representatives [House] are elected every two years as is 1/3 of the Senators and the President is elected every four). This is codified in the US Constitution and is therefore inviolate without Amending said document. I don't understand how an electorate would stand for such inequity in elections; not that our own track record is flawless by any measure. I take it as an article of faith that every election year, I know precisely when I will be voting, even if I don't know who I am voting for. I prefer the day being set so that my politicians have a deadline on getting things accomplished. If they don't get their sh*t together by November (and March for Illinois local elections) and accomplish what they promised, they're gone. I do like the capability to call an opponent's bluff though :) This is just yet one more thing foreign to American minds. We don't handle third parties well, let alone multi-party governing. I can't even imagine what a four-party America would look like. It would be interesting to say the least, and my choices for PUSA this year might be a great deal better or at least different. Personally, I like the idea of privatization of nearly everything except protection and infrastructure services. I think that anything that puts more control of his own life into the private citizens hands is inherently better. I don't think the US will ever institute a universal health CARE system (for that and similar reasons), but (and I regret this) I see a universal public health INSURANCE system not too far away. I think that is one of the deep cultural divides between the US and much of the rest of the world. There isn't the same faith in the free-market and the same obligation placed on the individual to be responsible for his own well-being elsewhere as there is in the US. And Americans distrust their government too much to handle what are seen as private matters. Better or Worse not implied. This is detailed at length in Walter Russel Mead's "The Jacksonian Tradition" (http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html). It is this trait of Jacksonianism that prevents other countries from understanding the American viewpoint and makes us seem unpredictable. I was also intrigued by this: "In practice, the Queen (and the Governor General) have no real power and only do things based on the advice of the government. They sign the laws that the government has passed." I have always heard that the British Monarch is only a figurehead, but has that ever been formalized? I've long wondered what would happen if when Prince William takes power, he decides "To hell with Parliament and all this democratic rot and nonsense. I'm the God-chosen King of Britain. My word is law and I'll not be kowtowed by my own subjects." Would Parliament or the citizens overthrow him? Would it cause civil war as those loyal to the King and those loyal to Parliament had at it? How do you think the Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada would react? Do you think they would break from the Commonwealth, or swear fealty to a newly empowered Monarch? SDB makes an attempt at answering a similar question (http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/QueenandCommonwealth.shtml), but he is not a Royal subject, and you are. Sorry to be a pest. I know you're not a history teacher, but I seldom realize how limited my understanding of other governments is. I was completely unaware that the Canadian Parliament is completely re-elected every four to five years. Is there a feeling of discontinuity or does it generally flow well?
Is the operation of the government (Parliament, PM, Governor-General, responsibilities of the branches) and the maintenance of the government (elections, taxation, rights of the people) codified into your constitution? Does Canada have a constitution?
A lot of matters relating to the operation of government are based on precedent and practice, and a lot derive from the parliamentary tradition of England.
The Canadian public has, especially in recent years, made its displeasure known when a government appears to be trying to obviously to "work the system" of calling elections. The David Peterson case I mentioned earlier is a classic example.
There are other checks and balances in the system. Non-confidence votes, for example. Leadership challenges. Etc.
I have always heard that the British Monarch is only a figurehead, but has that ever been formalized? I've long wondered what would happen if when Prince William takes power, he decides "To hell with Parliament and all this democratic rot and nonsense. I'm the God-chosen King of Britain. My word is law and I'll not be kowtowed by my own subjects."
The limitations on Monarchy essentially start with the Magna Carta in 1215 and have been evolved in a variety of forms since then. The whole beheading of Charles I and the rise of English parliamentary supremacy also plays an influential role (circa 1650). In essence, the monarch has been a figurehead since then.
One thing that I think is typical of the difference between Canada and the US is the difference in emphasis on codification. I believe that, in Canada, the de facto rules are generally considered more important than the de jure rules, whereas I perceive that, in the US, people fret more about the de jure rules. As a result, a lot of your questions about whether or not something has been codified seem, to my Canadian ears, weird. When I was in the Netherlands, I noticed that the emphasis on de facto law was even stronger than here. (I remember the Dutch government changing the law on euthanasia: they'd already implemented a particular policy and it seemed to be going fine for a few years so they were finally going to update the law to reflect that policy.)
Is there a feeling of discontinuity or does it generally flow well?
I think there's a feeling of big change when the public wants big change, and a feeling of not much change when the public doesn't want much change.
Personally, I like the idea of privatization of nearly everything except protection and infrastructure services. I think that anything that puts more control of his own life into the private citizens hands is inherently better.
I guess I fail to see that as putting something in your power. I know of far too many people in the US who are unable to get health insurance because of conditions that they have. The average US citizen doesn't have the power to convince an insurance company to cover them. I recognize that this is something that our countries Just See Differently, but there it is.
Further, I guess I've always seen health care as one of the most important human rights
I think that is one of the deep cultural divides between the US and much of the rest of the world. There isn't the same faith in the free-market and the same obligation placed on the individual to be responsible for his own well-being elsewhere as there is in the US.
I guess that's something that's always struck me as a contradiction in the US: the idea of individual responsibility. In Canada, we often find it hard to understand some of the thinking behind your case law. Litigation in the US doesn't look, to my outsider eyes, like it believes that individuals need to take responsibility for their well-being.
Also, the idea that health care is an individual responsibility sounds very foreign to my ears. Health care is so often about the stuff you can't control or plan for -- accidents, chronic illness, etc.
And Americans distrust their government too much to handle what are seen as private matters.
I think that's a true statement, and a real disconnect between Americans and Canadians. And it's also something that seems extremely paradoxical to me. For example, I think that the USA PATRIOT Act is a horrible piece of legislation, and that it grants the wrong kind of power to the government. I think that it stands in stark contrast to the US Constitution. And meaning no offense, I think that it's a far more topical than the "What if the monarch attempts to reclaim political power?" question. Will the public rise up against the government that passed the USA PATRIOT Act? Will it cause civil war? Well, no, it hasn't. Most of my American friends are vehemently against the USA PATRIOT Act, but it doesn't seem like most of the US is. And I genuinely don't know what to make of the fact that a country that makes such a big deal about the importance of its de jure rights has enacted such a piece of legislation. It's something that looks like a complete contradition to me.
By contrast, in Canada, where our constitution allows laws that infringe upon rights (the key phrase is "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"), our government and our citizens did not feel comfortable with the initial versions of Bill C-36 (which is the closest equivalent to USA PATRIOT) and it didn't get passed until significantly rewritten.
I think Canadians generally trust the government (and are thought naive for doing so), but we didn't trust them with C-36. My American friends remind me that it's important that they distrust their government and yet the US comes out with USA PATRIOT (I believe the vote was 356 to 66 -- weren't these lawmakers afraid of public outcry?). It makes no sense to me.
Anyway, I agree that there are just some fundamental differences in outlook between our two countries. I grew up in a border town and am very familiar with the depth of difference between our countries, even if I don't fully understand them.
And no problems asking questions. It's interesting stuff to talk about.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
This is why I am confused by Canadian Politics
Date: 2004-05-24 10:26 am (UTC)"Under a sunny afternoon sky in Ottawa, Mr. Martin took a leisurely walk to visit Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson's official residence and asked her to dissolve Parliament for the five-week election campaign."
This is my first waitaminnit moment ... The Parliament can be dissolved at any time and a new one elected if the Governor-General so decides? Is the Governor-General analogous to the President of the United States and does he or she outrank the PM? Is this position a hold-over from the British Empire days where Governors of territories were appointed by the Crown and held near-complete autonomy over the colony? As I understand it, Canada being a Commonwealth country, Canadians are still subjects of the Crown, but how much governing control does the Monarch have over Canadian affairs (same question in regard to British Parliament)? This is one of those cultural points Americans don't quite grasp: The President can NEVER dissolve Congress and request new elections of the entire body. The Constitution forbids it. Even in wartime, if Martial Law were instituted, Congress would still be in session and would still control the pursestrings and could (if they were to disagree with the PUSA's instituting Martial Law) impeach the PUSA and restore Civil Law.
What is this "Sponsorship Scandal?"
"The Conservatives may stand to gain some ground based on their election platform. Economists have said that their campaign promise to hand out multibillion-dollar tax cuts while balancing the budget, paying down the debt and maintaining social programs could work."
Conservative thought in America jibes with Canadian Conservatives even up to the point that maintaining existing social programs seems to be a sacred cow that would be abolished if it could, but must not be because too many people view it as necessary. The difference is that many American Conservatives are less concerned with a balanced budget and paying down the debt. Temporary debt can be accrued as long as the economy is growing at a sufficient pace. Budgetary debt tends to keep inflation and interest lower and thus provide more impetus for investors and producers to pile money into the economic cycle. At any rate, this works in America's more free-market style economy where our tax burden is less and social programs fewer. Does Canada's economy tend to operate the same way? If there is enough free market style flexibility in the economy, then the quickest, fairest and most lucrative way to grow government revenue is to slash taxes to provide both incentive to earn and incentive to report earnings. How much sway does the free-market have to establish pricing and earnings based on what the market will bear rather than what the government decree?
"The NDP ... released a health platform last week saying it would drive private health care clinics out of business by increasing funding to public health facilities."
WHAT?! This is a legitimate plank in a platform? Government-approved torpedoing of a private business that is in no violation of civil law? This is acceptable to a block of voters? I can't possibly understand this through my prism of American politics. What is the balance in Canada between Capitalism and Socialism? 60/40? 50/50? Variable depending on the arena? I've never studied Canadian politics, but somewhere in the back of my brain was the assumption that Canadian politics and government was just like America's except with more political parties, allegiance to a Monarch in some vague undefined manner, and a larger welfare program (plus that pesky universal health care). Where have I gone wrong?
Re: This is why I am confused by Canadian Politics
Date: 2004-05-24 11:23 am (UTC)Canada is required to have a new election every five years. Usually, it ends up being every four years because if you time your election right, you end up campaigning in the spring / summer months (rather than the fall / winter months). But if the party in power is pretty sure that they're going to get sacked in the election, they hold on to power as long as possible.
Our last election happened early. The Canadian Alliance had just elected their leader who bragged that they were ready for an election immediately. So the Prime Minister called his bluff and called an election. That Party Leader is no longer in power.
The ability to dissolve the parliament is an interesting power. It's one way in which the government can delegate certain decisions to the public. If the Prime Minister believes that the public is behind him, but the party is too weak-kneed to enact the legislation, the PM can call an election. In Ontario, for example, Premier David Peterson decided to call an election to establish whether or not Ontario supported a constitutional amendment. It backfired on him, and his government was swept out of power.
The Sponsorship Scandal is a recent budget scandal. Basically, a lot of money was diverted to the cause of "Canadian Unity" (convincing Quebec that they really want to stay with Canada) and ended up producing nothing.
The scandal has marred the reputation of the popular Liberals and will be one of the biggest discussions in this election.
The politics of tax-breaks is not terribly popular in most of Canada. Alberta (which is one of our more conservative provinces) has used tax breaks and other conservative policies fairly effectively to end up in a good financial position. In Ontario, Premier Mike Harris ended up being despised by doing much the same thing because the effect of the tax breaks was to gut social programs. Most polls currently suggest that people in Ontario would rather pay more taxes if those taxes went to supporting Health Care (for example). Quebec has much the same problem with Premier Jean Charest (who was following the Harris model).
Re: This is why I am confused by Canadian Politics
Date: 2004-05-24 11:24 am (UTC)Finally, most of Canada believes that socialized Health Care is a Good Thing. If you're talking about essential health services, you're dealing with government run health care agencies. Private clinics for non-essential services (such as plastic surgery or fertility) do exist, but it's not legal for non-socialized doctors to offer essential health care (except in, I think, Alberta).
In that sense, private health care is in violation of law.
On the other hand, private business are sometimes involved in health care. My mother, for example, worked for a private lab that tested blood. Doctors and hospitals would send blood samples to the lab and they would bill the hospitals who would in turn bill the government. The conservatives in Canada want more of this. I, personally, don't understand why.
In the last few elections, the question of private health facilities is generally discussed in terms of "two-tier health care" where the two tiers are "health care for the affluent" and "health-care for everyone else". Two tier health care is very unpopular because people generally believe that if you have a separate health care for the rich, the public health care will suffer. (Public and private schools in the US are often pointed to as a model for this problem. People with money send their kids to private schools, and don't really want the government spending lots of money on public education so it just gets worse and worse).
Even our most conservative parties have had to distance themselves from the idea of "two-tier health care". (Stockwell Day, former leader of the Canadian Alliance once held up a sign during a televised debate that said "No Two-Tier Health Care"). Again, Alberta seems to be the only province that has found the idea of privatization of Health Care can be palatable).
The whole socialism/capitalism debate varies in different arenas. At the moment, the idea of privatizing services is very unpopular (especially in Ontario). There's a general feeling that privatization lead to the Walkerton deaths. And the big Blackout from last August.
In general, I think that seeing ourselves as different from the US is probably the Canadian National Sport.
Re: This is why I am confused by Canadian Politics
Date: 2004-05-24 02:58 pm (UTC)Is the operation of the government (Parliament, PM, Governor-General, responsibilities of the branches) and the maintenance of the government (elections, taxation, rights of the people) codified into your constitution? Does Canada have a constitution? I just wonder because of the fluidity of the election date and how that is set by the controlling party (whenever it is most politically beneficial to the status quo). As you are no doubt aware, our elections are the first Tuesday in November in even years for federal election (Representatives [House] are elected every two years as is 1/3 of the Senators and the President is elected every four). This is codified in the US Constitution and is therefore inviolate without Amending said document. I don't understand how an electorate would stand for such inequity in elections; not that our own track record is flawless by any measure. I take it as an article of faith that every election year, I know precisely when I will be voting, even if I don't know who I am voting for. I prefer the day being set so that my politicians have a deadline on getting things accomplished. If they don't get their sh*t together by November (and March for Illinois local elections) and accomplish what they promised, they're gone. I do like the capability to call an opponent's bluff though :) This is just yet one more thing foreign to American minds. We don't handle third parties well, let alone multi-party governing. I can't even imagine what a four-party America would look like. It would be interesting to say the least, and my choices for PUSA this year might be a great deal better or at least different.
Personally, I like the idea of privatization of nearly everything except protection and infrastructure services. I think that anything that puts more control of his own life into the private citizens hands is inherently better. I don't think the US will ever institute a universal health CARE system (for that and similar reasons), but (and I regret this) I see a universal public health INSURANCE system not too far away.
I think that is one of the deep cultural divides between the US and much of the rest of the world. There isn't the same faith in the free-market and the same obligation placed on the individual to be responsible for his own well-being elsewhere as there is in the US. And Americans distrust their government too much to handle what are seen as private matters. Better or Worse not implied.
This is detailed at length in Walter Russel Mead's "The Jacksonian Tradition" (http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html). It is this trait of Jacksonianism that prevents other countries from understanding the American viewpoint and makes us seem unpredictable.
I was also intrigued by this: "In practice, the Queen (and the Governor General) have no real power and only do things based on the advice of the government. They sign the laws that the government has passed."
I have always heard that the British Monarch is only a figurehead, but has that ever been formalized? I've long wondered what would happen if when Prince William takes power, he decides "To hell with Parliament and all this democratic rot and nonsense. I'm the God-chosen King of Britain. My word is law and I'll not be kowtowed by my own subjects."
Would Parliament or the citizens overthrow him? Would it cause civil war as those loyal to the King and those loyal to Parliament had at it? How do you think the Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada would react? Do you think they would break from the Commonwealth, or swear fealty to a newly empowered Monarch? SDB makes an attempt at answering a similar question (http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/QueenandCommonwealth.shtml), but he is not a Royal subject, and you are.
Sorry to be a pest. I know you're not a history teacher, but I seldom realize how limited my understanding of other governments is. I was completely unaware that the Canadian Parliament is completely re-elected every four to five years. Is there a feeling of discontinuity or does it generally flow well?
/me ceases asking questions
Re: This is why I am confused by Canadian Politics
Date: 2004-05-24 05:59 pm (UTC)Is the operation of the government (Parliament, PM, Governor-General, responsibilities of the branches) and the maintenance of the government (elections, taxation, rights of the people) codified into your constitution? Does Canada have a constitution?
Wikipedia claims that our constitution is uncodified, but what they mean is that it isn't written in a single document. In truth, our constitution is codified in a large number of documents from the very old to the fairly recent. Two of the key ones include the British North America Act of 1867 (which is generally regarded as the "birthday" of Canada) and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982.
A lot of matters relating to the operation of government are based on precedent and practice, and a lot derive from the parliamentary tradition of England.
The Canadian public has, especially in recent years, made its displeasure known when a government appears to be trying to obviously to "work the system" of calling elections. The David Peterson case I mentioned earlier is a classic example.
There are other checks and balances in the system. Non-confidence votes, for example. Leadership challenges. Etc.
I have always heard that the British Monarch is only a figurehead, but has that ever been formalized? I've long wondered what would happen if when Prince William takes power, he decides "To hell with Parliament and all this democratic rot and nonsense. I'm the God-chosen King of Britain. My word is law and I'll not be kowtowed by my own subjects."
The limitations on Monarchy essentially start with the Magna Carta in 1215 and have been evolved in a variety of forms since then. The whole beheading of Charles I and the rise of English parliamentary supremacy also plays an influential role (circa 1650). In essence, the monarch has been a figurehead since then.
One thing that I think is typical of the difference between Canada and the US is the difference in emphasis on codification. I believe that, in Canada, the de facto rules are generally considered more important than the de jure rules, whereas I perceive that, in the US, people fret more about the de jure rules. As a result, a lot of your questions about whether or not something has been codified seem, to my Canadian ears, weird. When I was in the Netherlands, I noticed that the emphasis on de facto law was even stronger than here. (I remember the Dutch government changing the law on euthanasia: they'd already implemented a particular policy and it seemed to be going fine for a few years so they were finally going to update the law to reflect that policy.)
Is there a feeling of discontinuity or does it generally flow well?
I think there's a feeling of big change when the public wants big change, and a feeling of not much change when the public doesn't want much change.
Re: This is why I am confused by Canadian Politics
Date: 2004-05-24 06:40 pm (UTC)Personally, I like the idea of privatization of nearly everything except protection and infrastructure services. I think that anything that puts more control of his own life into the private citizens hands is inherently better.
I guess I fail to see that as putting something in your power. I know of far too many people in the US who are unable to get health insurance because of conditions that they have. The average US citizen doesn't have the power to convince an insurance company to cover them. I recognize that this is something that our countries Just See Differently, but there it is.
Further, I guess I've always seen health care as one of the most important human rights
I think that is one of the deep cultural divides between the US and much of the rest of the world. There isn't the same faith in the free-market and the same obligation placed on the individual to be responsible for his own well-being elsewhere as there is in the US.
I guess that's something that's always struck me as a contradiction in the US: the idea of individual responsibility. In Canada, we often find it hard to understand some of the thinking behind your case law. Litigation in the US doesn't look, to my outsider eyes, like it believes that individuals need to take responsibility for their well-being.
Also, the idea that health care is an individual responsibility sounds very foreign to my ears. Health care is so often about the stuff you can't control or plan for -- accidents, chronic illness, etc.
And Americans distrust their government too much to handle what are seen as private matters.
I think that's a true statement, and a real disconnect between Americans and Canadians. And it's also something that seems extremely paradoxical to me. For example, I think that the USA PATRIOT Act is a horrible piece of legislation, and that it grants the wrong kind of power to the government. I think that it stands in stark contrast to the US Constitution. And meaning no offense, I think that it's a far more topical than the "What if the monarch attempts to reclaim political power?" question. Will the public rise up against the government that passed the USA PATRIOT Act? Will it cause civil war? Well, no, it hasn't. Most of my American friends are vehemently against the USA PATRIOT Act, but it doesn't seem like most of the US is. And I genuinely don't know what to make of the fact that a country that makes such a big deal about the importance of its de jure rights has enacted such a piece of legislation. It's something that looks like a complete contradition to me.
By contrast, in Canada, where our constitution allows laws that infringe upon rights (the key phrase is "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"), our government and our citizens did not feel comfortable with the initial versions of Bill C-36 (which is the closest equivalent to USA PATRIOT) and it didn't get passed until significantly rewritten.
I think Canadians generally trust the government (and are thought naive for doing so), but we didn't trust them with C-36. My American friends remind me that it's important that they distrust their government and yet the US comes out with USA PATRIOT (I believe the vote was 356 to 66 -- weren't these lawmakers afraid of public outcry?). It makes no sense to me.
Anyway, I agree that there are just some fundamental differences in outlook between our two countries. I grew up in a border town and am very familiar with the depth of difference between our countries, even if I don't fully understand them.
And no problems asking questions. It's interesting stuff to talk about.