Comparative Public Policy: Same Countries, Dissimilar Policies

• Pages: 179-216



 

Comparative Public Policy: Similar

Countries, Dissimilar Policies

Introduction

Examining policy choices in Canada and the United States pre-

sents an array of similarities, while also providing sometimes

unexpected and profound dierences. Whether the policy issue is

climate change, social welfare, health care, guns, the death penalty,

gay rights, civil rights, immigration, abortion, doctor-assisted death,

marijuana, education, religion, free speech, or language, the land-

scape of comparison can be fascinating. Unfortunately, time and

space do not permit us to examine all these areas. We canvass a

selection to get a f‌lavour of the policy worlds in the two countries,

beginning with a review of the institutional context of making pub-

lic policy in Canada and the United States.

A. Policy Making in Canada and the United States

1) Constitutions and Policy Making

As we noted in Chapter , the Canadian Constitution is a combin-

ation of conventions (British parliamentary traditions), the British

North America Act, 1867 (BNA Act, ), and the Constitution Act,

THE SAME, ONLY DIFFERENT



1982, which contains the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Char-

ter). Prior to , the Canadian Constitution was amended eight-

een times. Until , amendment of the Canadian Constitution

required petitioning the British Parliament; after , a domes-

tic amending formula was incorporated into the Constitution. It

requires the approval of the federal government plus seven out of

ten provinces containing at least  percent of the population of

Canada for most amendments, although some require the unani-

mous consent of the federal government and all ten provinces. In

Canada, there are no written provincial constitutions. Provincial

governments’ powers either are listed in the national Constitution

(mainly in section  of the BNA Act, ) or are derived from

British parliamentary traditions.

e United States Constitution was fully written in , and

it has been amended twenty-seven times since then, including the

f‌irst ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. All f‌ifty states in

the United States have written state constitutions that establish each

state government, list and limit its powers, and set up local gov-

ernment institutions. Amending state constitutions requires voter

approval in forty-nine states (the exception being Delaware). is is

in contrast to the national Constitution, for which amendments do

not require voter approval. e federal Constitution can be amended

through approval of two-thirds of each House of Congress and then

approval by three-quarters of states.

As the supreme law of the land in both countries, the constitu-

tions set the parameters of policy making. ey determine the rela-

tionship between the branches of government (executive, legislative,

and judicial), the relationship between the levels of government

(national and provincial/state), and the relationship of the govern-

ments to their citizens (the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

and the Bill of Rights). An examination of select policy areas reveals

the similarities and dierences f‌lowing from each countries’ con-

stitutional law. ese similarities and dierences in policy making

also stem from each nation’s historical trajectories, and institutional

structures such as electoral constraints on elite decision-making,

Comparative Public Policy



the courts, and the nature of federalism. To illustrate the similar-

ities and dierences in policy choices between the two countries, we

consider marijuana legalization, abortion, medically assiste d death,

government funding for religious schools, health care, guns, climate

change, free speech, and language.

2) Marijuana

One way to measure a country’s democracy is to determine if its

constitutional framework permits citizen involvement in proposing

and approving policy. e policy case of the legalization of mari-

juana provides an example of the extent to which each country dif-

fers in relation to direct citizen approval of laws.

In , the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v Parker ruled Can-

adians have a constitutional right to use medical cannabis. Initi ally,

under a law passed by the government of Conservative Prime Min-

ister Stephen Harper in , users could get medical marijuana

only via mail from licensed producers. Me dical marijuana dispens-

aries popped up in Toronto and other cities, but they were illegal.

In November , the Canadian House of Commons approved a

bill to make recreational marijuana legal nationwide, but the Sen-

ate delayed approval. A Senate committee added a large number of

amendments, including one to allow provinces to ban homegrown

marijuana (the House of Commons bill allowed four plants per

residence). e House of Commons bill also allowed each province

to regulate how legal marijuana was sold. e Senate f‌inally passed

the bill on  June . As is typical of the Canadian policy mak-

ing process, there was no public involvement or ratif‌ication of the

relevant legislation.

As discussed in Chapter , in the United States, twenty-three

state constitutions allow voter initiatives, in which voters sign peti-

tions to put a proposed law directly on the ballot in an election and

bypass state legislatures. If a majority of voters approves the proposal

on election day, it becomes law even if elected leaders oppose the

idea. For example, in ,  percent of California voters approved