Canadian and U.S. Political Systems: Key Points of Comparison

Donald Alper

Department of Political Science and Center for Canadian-American

Studies Western Washington University

PNWER Legislative Academy

Yellowknife, Northwest Territories November 15-16, 2015

Michael Treleaven, S.J. Political Science Department

Gonzaga University and the Pacific Northwest Canadian Studies

Consortium

Saskatchewan was created a province in 1905. Its legislative building was completed in 1912. Photo from the website of the Saskatchewan Legislature

Characteristics of Federal Systems Highly Relevant to sub-national Govenments & Regions

• America is increasingly centralized; federal power over states • Canada is more decentralized; provinces play larger role • In Canada party discipline in the Commons means some regions and their

issues lose prominence in central government – Increases division of issues – regional v central

• In America state interests may have strong voice in Congress via the Senate,

but not state governments, as such

• The Commons is based on representation by population, representing voters more than jurisdictions, in Parliament; but regional parties in Parliament may displace national ones, e.g., the Bloc Québécois

• Provincial governments have dominant jurisdiction over lands, natural

resources, and social services, in the constitution

Sources of America’s Centralization

• Unitary, national executive (the presidency – not the ministry)

• Elected Senate, two per state, regardless of population

• State governments are NOT represented, voters are

• Interest groups, national as well as state, gather around U.S. senators

• Senators build careers in part by working on national issues

In the U.S. Constitution: The supremacy clause

Inter-state commerce clause Income taxation;

Regulating, mandating state activities for national goals

Sources of Canada’s Decentralization

• Senate • Constitution on

natural resources, on social policy

• Language/ Quebec • Centre v regions/

Ontario • ‘Strong’ provincial

governments • Two-level party

system

Ontario 106

Québec 75

British Columbia 36

Alberta 28

Manitoba 14

Saskatechewan 14

Nova Scotia 11

New Brunswick 10

Prince Edward Island 4

Yukon 1

NWT 1

Nunavut 1

Total 308

House of Commons Representation by Province

181 = 60%

92 = 30% } }

The Commons will have more seats, and more in the West, after the next census driven revisions, the Globe and Mail reported recently.

Parliamentary v. Presidential-Congressional Systems: Comparative Framework

Executive authority is exercised by the Cabinet, made up only of members of the Commons and the Senate.

Executive authority is vested only in the president; there is no collective ministry.

Government and Opposition Note the “face-off” architecture of The House of Commons

Differences: The Administration (USA) & the Government (Canada)

America divides government to check & balance its separated powers

Presidents, alone, have executive power; may/do veto

bills Governors have executive power, but other officers are also elected by state voters

Presidents, governors

negotiate for budgets, policy with legislatures

Legislators & executives have different political bases, electorates

In US separation of powers systems

In Canada’s Westminster systems: Cabinet, collective government as ministers of the Crown, as the Queen’s ‘advisors’ & delegated servants Drawn from the assembly; all ministers are also MPs/ MLAs (almost always) Commissioned due to their party’s dominance in the assembly -- Voters alone determine Commons, assembly membership Cabinet is supported by that party majority; Cabinet business dominates house activity An official opposition, the minority party, challenge, criticize, question the Government, & are a possible alternative ministry, if party standings change Legislative Building, Victoria mtphoto

6 February 2006 The Governor General and the newly commissioned Conservative Party ministry.

Being a Canadian MLA does require a certain quality of formality, mind you, unless you are a dog -- then you just go au natural. Dog membership, however, has been curtailed.

Differences between the Provincial & State Legislatures

Like all other provincial, territorial legislatures, the British Columbia assembly is unicameral. mtphoto

As with American legislatures, provincial assemblies have speakers - chief and presiding officers of the house. Unlike America’s practice, Westminster speakers uphold and enforce rules of process and decorum, but they do not lead partisan caucuses, and in fact seldom vote at all.

Upon election speakers are often ‘dragged’ to the chair, feigning reluctance. In past centuries monarchs, unhappy with the Commons, had speakers executed for treason. This custom has fallen into disuse.

Montana’s capitol building, like B.C.’s parliament building, has two wings. In B.C., the assembly house is at the centre. In Montana the House and the Senate occupy one wing, each. mtphoto

Montana’s House of Representatives chamber gives no hint of any ‘team sport’ between a ministry and an opposition. Speakers are elected by the house, most often by the majority, to both uphold the rules of the house, and to lead the majority. mtphoto

In Canada’s legislatures, the business of the house is mostly the Government’s business.

In Oregon’s legislature the business of the legislature is

influenced by Oregon’s governor. But the chambers of the Oregon legislature set

their own work and initiatives.

In state legislatures money bills may and do come from any member, in both houses.

In provincial assemblies, money bills may come only

from ministers of the Crown, that is, the

Government.

mtphoto

Conventions As with governors, provincial premiers have offices in the legislative building. But unlike governors, premiers are members of their provincial assemblies. Premiers are expected to be, and by ‘convention’ are required to be, MLAs. Such unwritten ‘conventions’ are at the base of Westminster government and ‘conventions’ are what makes the system ‘responsible’ and democratically accountable via elections. At the Alberta legislative building, Edmonton mtphoto

In many democracies executives have gained influence, resources, and legal authority. Legislatures have sought to balance this trend. Important is a legislature’s ‘institutional capacity’ in analyses, research, budgeting, and auditing, in short, the staffing and services which will support representatives, senators, and MLAs.

Idaho’s capitol building, Boise mtphoto

How can the representatives of our several state, provincial, and

territorial democracies improve: a) assembly-to-assembly communications b) assembly capacity to aid regional, shared needs c) representation of interdependent opportunities d) legislative oversight of regional projects, governance