Some Differences Between Canada and the United States

Government Structure

The United States and Canada, bordering countries with a shared history of British rule,
are both democracies, but each uses distinct methods of government. Canada, for
example, is a constitutional monarchy governed by a prime minister and a parliament. In
contrast, the United States is a republic governed by a president and Congress. These
political systems function in contrasting ways that create unique differences between
the two governments.

1Heads of State and Government

One of the most fundamental differences between Canadian and American government
is that Canada is a constitutional monarchy while the United States is a type of
democracy known as a republic. As a constitutional monarchy, Canada's head of state
is the British monarch, who is represented in Canada by an official known as the
governor general. The head of state chooses the Canadian head of government, its
prime minister, and has the power to act as a restraint on the prime minister's power.
The United States has no division between head of state and head of government. The
American head of state is its president, who is elected for a four-year term by a national
vote.

2Parliament and Congress

The Canadian Parliament and United States Congress have similar structures and
functions, but operate in different ways. Congress is made of two bodies: the House of
Representatives, whose members are voted in once every two years, and the Senate,
whose members are voted in once every six years. Parliament is also divided into two
bodies, the House of Commons and the Senate. Unlike Congress, however, only the
members of the House of Commons are publicly elected. These elected officials hold
office until Parliament is dissolved or for a period of five years, whichever comes first.
Members of the Canadian Senate are appointed by the governor general and serve until
they step down or reach a mandatory retirement age of 75.

3. Political System
 Canada is a parliamentary confederation of provinces and territories. There is
one federal criminal law and Criminal Code, and they apply universally.
 Bankruptcy, immigration, and some other matters are governed by one uniform
federal law.
  Other areas of law are provincial. All provinces follow a system based on British
Common Law, except Quebec, which has a French-inspired Civil Law system.
There is little conflict between provincial and federal jurisdictions.

4The Prime Minister and the President

Like the American president, the Canadian prime minister is the head of government,
and is customarily an elected official, although this is not required by the Canadian
Constitution. The prime minister is chosen by the governor general, and is usually the
leader of the political party with the most members in the House of Commons. The
position has no term limit, and a prime minister may remain in office until there is a
change in the majority party. In contrast, the American president is elected by a
nationwide vote for a term of four years. A president may serve no more than two terms
and remains in office regardless of the dominant political party in Congress.

5.Division of Powers

A significant difference between the Canadian and American political systems is the
division of power among governing bodies. The United States was founded on the
principle of division of powers. To prevent any branch of the government from becoming
too powerful, the United States Constitution divides the government into three equally
powerful branches, each serving as a check against the other two. The Canadian
system, in contrast, is founded on the concept of consolidation of power. The prime
minister is always a member of Parliament and has the authority to override majority
opinion and personally decide government policy. In addition, the prime minister can
control dissent with the ability to require any member of Parliament to resign at any
time.

Legal Differences

Despite Canada’s physical and cultural proximity to the United States, Canadians are
quick to point out the larger cultural differences such as free health care in Canada, our
penchant for politeness and our rainbow-hued currency. But many Canadians, raised on
a diet of American movies and television, are unaware that our legal systems are quite
different. Although the American and Canadian legal systems are both based on British
common law, in practice there are significant distinctions.

The following is a list of a few things you may not know about the legal system in
Canada, as it relates to criminal law:
1. Criminal law is under federal jurisdiction

In the U.S., criminal law varies from state to state. But in Canada, there is only one
federal criminal law and Criminal Code across the country.

2. No death penalty

 In the United States, 31 states still have the death penalty. The last execution in
Canada was performed on December 11, 1962 at the Don Jail in Toronto, but the
death penalty for murder wasn’t officially abolished in Canada until 1976.

3. Judges are appointed by the government, not elected.

 Our judiciary in Canada is independent, but judges in provincial courts are

appointed and paid for by the provincial governments. Other judges, the
Supreme Court of Canada and in superior and federal courts, are appointed by
the federal government and paid for by the provincial governments.

4. Canadian courts are bilingual

 Canada has two official languages – English and French. Language rights are
protected in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Everyone is entitled to a trial in
either English or French.

5. You cannot “Plead the Fifth”

 In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is part of the Bill of
Rights. This amendment protects a person from being compelled to be a witness
against him or herself in a criminal case. “Pleading the Fifth” allows a witness to
decline to answer questions where the answers might incriminate him or her.
Canadians have a similar protection against self-incrimination under section 13 of
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but witnesses are not able to excuse
themselves from testifying.

2. Structure of the Court System

 Provincial courts (in Ontario they named the Ontario Court of Justice) deal with
less serious criminal and civil matters. Provincial court judges are appointed by
the province.
 Superior courts (the Ontario Superior Court of Justice) deal with most remaining
matters. Superior court judges are appointed by the federal government.
 Each province has a Court of Appeal (not Appeals) whose decisions are binding
on the provincial and superior courts. Court of Appeal judges are appointed by
the federal government.
  There is a Canadian Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal. Their
jurisdiction is limited and specialized. There is also a Tax Court. These courts are
the domains of relatively few lawyers.
 At the top of all courts is the Supreme Court of Canada. Its decisions are binding
on all courts. Subject only to Parliament and the Constitution, it has final authority
over all public and private law throughout Canada.
3. Judges
 Although there is judicial independence in Canada, judges are appointed by the
government, not elected.
 Provincial court judges are appointed and paid by provincial governments.
 All other judges, from the Supreme Court of Canada down, are appointed by the
federal government, but paid by provincial governments.
 No judges are elected.
4. Lawsuits
 In most cases, a lawsuit is assigned to the courthouse where it was filed, not to a
single judge.
 Any judge may be assigned to handle any step in the lawsuit.
5. Death Penalty
 There isn’t one in Canada.
6. Costs
 Loser pays, i.e. the losing side in a case or a motion normally pays most of the
other side’s costs, i.e. legal fees.
 There are some, not many, exceptions to this rule..
7. Discovery
 Discovery in Canada is akin to production of documents and depositions or
interrogatories in the U.S., but different.
 The terms deposition and depose have no in meaning in the Canadian system.
 The right to examine the other party for discovery is automatic, but limited.
 Each side must produce all relevant documents (paper and electronic) to the the
other, subject to lawyer-client confidentiality (or privilege), and a proportionality
principle (e.g., you don’t have to produce a zillion documents in a 475,000 case.).
This is a more limited process than in the U.S.
8. International Outlook
 Canadian courts are more open to examining the law and decisions of other
Common Law countries to help formulate answers to legal questions here.

9. Juries
  They are much less frequently used here.
 Few civil trials have juries. In some cases litigants may not even be allowed to
ask for a jury.
 Some criminal trials have juries. Many don’t.
10. Damage Awards
 Civil damage awards tend to be much lower here.
 Most importantly, damages for “pain and suffering” (called general damages)
cannot be higher than about $350,000. Even then, that amount is reserved for
the most severe cases.
11. Bilingual Courts
 Courts in Canada are officially bilingual.
 You are entitled to a trial in either English or French.
12. Media
 Cameras are generally not allowed in Canadian courtrooms.
 After a jury trial, it is illegal for jurors to talk to the press (or anyone) about the
case.
13. More Differences
 There are some terms the American system uses that the Canadian one does
not. In court, Canadian lawyers call the opposing counsel “My friend”.
 Most judges, lawyers and some court personnel all wear formal black robes
and white collars (but no wigs).
 It is common practice to bow to the court when entering and leaving the
courtroom while the judge is sitting.
 There is no gavel in the courtroom.
 There are no “sidebars”.
 In Canadian trials, you cannot strike something from the record.
 When addressing the court or examining, lawyers are expected to remain at
the counsel table.
 Article
Life, Liberty and Happiness? Or Peace,
Order and Good Governance?
Faculty, Most Recent News, Press Release July 17, 2017July 17, 2017

Wurzweiler Professor Gary Stein: What We Can Learn From Canadian Policymaking
Unlike many of my fellow Americans, who don’t usually give much thought to our neighbor to the north, I
have always been interested in Canadian culture, politics, and geography. This began in my childhood, as I
longed to visit the Montreal world’s fair known as Expo and poured over glossy brochures from the Canadian
tourist authority. As an adult, I’ve marveled at the Canadian single-payer health system, with hopes we could
do the same here with so little controversy (seemingly impossible), and their early leadership in pursuing
marriage equality. So I jumped at the opportunity to learn first-hand about Canadian government as a fellow in
the Health and Aging Policy Congressional Fellowship Program this year, with the hope that it could benefit
my teaching at Yeshiva University’s Wurzweiler School of Social Work.
Through the fellowship – a selective Washington, D.C.-based program that trains health care faculty and
clinicians on federal policymaking – I’ve had the great privilege to immerse myself in the federal
policymaking process. Last fall, I spent several months gaining perspective from government and academic
leaders on the intricate working of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This past May, I joined a
small group of self-selected fellows for a trip to Ottawa to learn about policymaking in Canada. Partnering
with our sister program, the Canadian Parliamentary Internship Programme, our group was provided
unparalleled access to leaders at the highest level of Canadian government. This experience allowed
exploration of the similarities and differences of the U.S. and Canadian political systems. But most of all, the
visit facilitated relationship-building between our two countries – so important between two friends currently
encountering some rocky moments.
While Americans value “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” Canadians are said to prefer “peace, order,
and good governance.” How do these values play out in public policy? My takeaways are gleaned from
meetings with leaders of the governing Liberal Party – including the unofficial number two in Canada (the
Minister of Finance) — and the leader of government in the House of Commons; the interim leader of the
opposition Conservative Party; the leader of the New Democratic Party; the Speaker of the House of
Commons; the Speaker of the Senate; and a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Most memorably, our
group heard a talk by Canada’s Governor General, following a tour of his official residence. The Governor
General is Queen Elizabeth’s representative in Canada; I had not been aware that the British Queen, who also
holds the title of Queen of Canada, remains a largely symbolic figure in Canadian government.
While Canadians are often described as being polite, I witnessed the raucousness of a parliamentary system.
The Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party: Justin Trudeau leads the Liberal Party, more moderate
or centrist than the party name suggests. On the right is the Conservative Party, which seemed relatively more
moderate than their U.S. Republican counterparts. The New Democratic Party is the more progressive party,
towards the left of the Liberals. Debates play out in the national parliament building in Ottawa. Although
seemingly scripted, and definitely of great value as “political entertainment,” party members have the chance
to raise emotions and voices in support of, or in opposition to, policy and party leaders. Policy leaders need to
be able to defend their policies, programs, and reputations from emotional catcalls, unlike anything seen
publicly in the U.S. Capitol. During my visit, a Liberal party M.P. needed to publicly defend himself against a
scandal involving claims of his over-glorified military roles while serving in Afghanistan.
Despite the intensely emotional and vocal public displays in Parliament, there appeared to be greater consensus
on how to address social issues. The intense political polarization that exists in the U.S. appeared largely
absent. I witnessed consensus among leaders on the left and right on the public good of their single payer
health system, although differences on benefits and funding were evident. Canadians by and large value the
roles immigrants bring to the country and its economy. The Quebecois separatist movement that had been
active for many years seemed largely in the past. And Canadians recently legalized aid-in-dying and are about
to legalize marijuana use, both highly contentious issues in the U.S.
For me, the most moving discussion was led by a First Nations (native Canadian) senator and former chief
commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which exposed decades of the Canadian
government’s forcibly removing indigenous children from their parents, in the hope of acculturating children
in “white people’s” culture. It was intensely moving to hear of official attempts to recognize and remedy past
wrongs. Comparable U.S. commissions have yet to be empowered to address the impact of slavery or the
treatment of our native communities.
Unfortunately, this is a tense time between close friends and allies. Canadian leaders were energized to point
out the importance of close U.S. and Canadian relationships and the interdependence of our economies. The
great monetary value of trade on both sides was emphasized, and how products (such as cars) are assembled
from parts made throughout North America. We were frequently reminded of the current timber conflict
between our countries – an issue of great economic import that I (and most Americans) have been largely
unaware of. While many Americans hardly thought about Canada (at least before our last election), it was clear
that Canadians recognize, think about, and value good relationships with their great neighbor to the south.
Gary Stein is a professor at the Wurzweiler School of Social Work. Opinions expressed are solely those of the
author and do not reflect the views of Yeshiva University.