What is the difference between Canada and the US re: socialism

[Grinning_Colossus]

Also 15-25 days of paid vacation required by law in Canada vs. 0 in the U.S.

I thought paid-vacation-type laws would be provincial, not national. 

They are, which is why it varies between 15 and 25 days. There's no statutory requirement for paid vacation anywhere in the US, though.

[Josephus]

Education. Though it's not free (as it should be), post secondary education is far cheaper in Canada.

GF touched upon a lot of labour stuff, unemployment insurance,   paid maternity leave, paid vacation, etc, which are pretty important.

Does the US have anything similar to the Canada Pension Plan?

[grumbler]

They are, which is why it varies between 15 and 25 days. There's no statutory requirement for paid vacation anywhere in the US, though.

So the difference is that the US doesn't have a national policy requiring paid vacation, and Canada does.  The number of days is actually not relevant and varies anyways.

[grumbler]

Does the US have anything similar to the Canada Pension Plan?

Yes.  It is referred to as Social Security in the US.

[Barrister]

Berk, the problem is the term "socialism" really doesn't apply to either country.  Nobody in Ottawa or Washington believes in state ownership over the means of production - not even the NDP.

What is practiced in Canada and the US is a form of social democracy.  The perceived difference between the countries is I think more imagined than real, but it does have some historical basis.  If you go back to the 60s-70s and Trudeau, you did have the state much more involved in the economy then you see now.  We had a state-owned railroad (CN Rail), a state-owned airline (Air Canada), and a state-owned oil company (PetroCanada).

Beyond direct government ownership, the Canadian government was much more involved in the economy in a number of other means - the National Energy Program of course, which mandated that oil producers sell their oil within Canada at below-market rates is a notorious example.  But there was also the Wheat Board, which mandated that western wheat farmers sell their wheat to a single agency, and the Foreign Investment Review Agency which attempted to restrict foreign takeovers of Canadian companies.

But that is all history now.

If you want to compare the US and Canada now, there are areas where one government is more involved than the other of course.  I was reminded of your surprise that you couldn't buy a bottle of wine at the grocery store - our liquor sales regime is much stricter than in the US.  But of course, you can buy at age 18.

[crazy canuck]

Berkut, one of the reasons the people you are with are having trouble coming up with the differences is, as already stated, you sitting in the region of Canada that is most like the US in mentality.

The other problem is the premise of your question as it relates to "socialism".  Both countries have capitalist economic systems.  Neither is Socialist.

But that aside, off the top of my head, here are some signficant differences between our two countries as related to social policy writ large:

1) labour laws - there is no such thing as at will employment in this country which means that all employees are entitled to severance payments for termination without cause and which are far more generous than in non at will States.  Our laws protecting the rights of unions to bargain collectively are much stronger (including our laws regarding strikes).  Our minimum employment standards are much more generous (everything from vaction pay, maternity leave, overtime pay, etc etc etc.). 

2) Our medical system.  You only mention one aspect which is significantly different and that is it is government funded.  But that isnt the big difference.  Your system is largely governement funded too.  In fact your government spends more per capita then we do.  There are a number of differences between our system which come down to the Tone Sheilbh mentioned.  We have no concern about having a single payor health care system because most Canadians fundamentally believe that all Canadians should have the same basic level of health care and we are prepared to pay the taxes required to fund such a system. In US our system is condemned as "socialized medicine".  That may be all you have to know about what separates our two countries in terms of mentality and "tone".

But there is more to it than that.  Our governments (Provincial and Federal) actively cooperate with the medical profession to train doctors, nurses and technicians in programs that are highly subsidized from the time the student begins the undergraduate degree, on to medical school and through to the completion of resident training.  As a result our doctors, nurses and technicians graduate with significantly less debt burden.

3) Regulatory laws.  Again this is a matter of tone.  Our finincial sector is more heavily regulated than yours.  Part of this difference is historical.  In Canada we have historically had few banks while in the US I am not sure anyone kept an accurate count.  The practical result is that when our Federal government introduces new regulations to this sector we dont have a fire storm of "omg socialism!" in response.  There is some debate whether our regulatory controls allowed us to avoid the mess the US went through.  I think there is some merit to the argument.

4) Our Parliamentary form of government is designed to actually get things done.  The US form of government is designed to prevent the executive from doing as it wishes.  In our country if the Prime Minister thinks there should be stronger gun laws we get stronger gun laws.  And by the way we would never think we dont need strong gun laws.  In the US when the President says the country needs stronger gun laws nothing happens.  A lot of people in the US like it that the government can't do what it wants.  That is perhaps the other major difference.

I am sure the list could get a lot longer if I spent more time but that is it for now.

[grumbler]

Berk, the problem is the term "socialism" really doesn't apply to either country.  Nobody in Ottawa or Washington believes in state ownership over the means of production - not even the NDP.

What is practiced in Canada and the US is a form of social democracy.  The perceived difference between the countries is I think more imagined than real, but it does have some historical basis.  If you go back to the 60s-70s and Trudeau, you did have the state much more involved in the economy then you see now.  We had a state-owned railroad (CN Rail), a state-owned airline (Air Canada), and a state-owned oil company (PetroCanada).

Beyond direct government ownership, the Canadian government was much more involved in the economy in a number of other means - the National Energy Program of course, which mandated that oil producers sell their oil within Canada at below-market rates is a notorious example.  But there was also the Wheat Board, which mandated that western wheat farmers sell their wheat to a single agency, and the Foreign Investment Review Agency which attempted to restrict foreign takeovers of Canadian companies.

But that is all history now.

If you want to compare the US and Canada now, there are areas where one government is more involved than the other of course.  I was reminded of your surprise that you couldn't buy a bottle of wine at the grocery store - our liquor sales regime is much stricter than in the US.  But of course, you can buy at age 18.

I think that you have hit a very important nail here.  The two countries are, in many ways, very similar.  Their differences have allowed each to experiment with policies that the other wouldn't touch, but the similarities make the lessons of those experiments valuable across the border.  That, to me, is the real virtue of having such neighbors.

[Grinning_Colossus]

They are, which is why it varies between 15 and 25 days. There's no statutory requirement for paid vacation anywhere in the US, though.

So the difference is that the US doesn't have a national policy requiring paid vacation, and Canada does.  The number of days is actually not relevant and varies anyways.

Just saying that one country has such a policy and the other doesn't is less illustrative than using numbers.

[Ideologue]

I get the impression Canada actually funds its infrastructure.  Is this correct?

[Jacob]

Yeah, I agree that the term "socialism" is somewhat misleading in that it is mostly used as a nebulous short-hand for a number or interrelated concepts which have varied across time and place.

That caveat out of the way...

One area where the US is more socialist than Canada in my view is in the involvement of the state in the defence industry. There is much more of it, and the government is much more directly involved as I understand it. The reasons for this is pretty obvious, given the US position in global politics compared to Canada's.

What others have said about healthcare and general legislative climate towards worker rights and protections seem accurate to me. I think in general there is a bit more support on parental and childcare issues, though it varies from province to province and from state to state; but as a trend I think Canada is a bit more generous.

We do have a number of Crown Corporations which could be viewed as somewhat "socialist" in spite of being notionally derived from "monarch". They are non-profit institutions focused on providing some sort of perceived public good, owned by the state but operating at arms length from the government. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (the CBC) is probably the most well known, but there's a whole list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada

I expect that some of those functions are similarly served by semi-autonomous government agencies in the US, so I can't say with confidence that the Crown Corporations make Canada more socialist; but there may be some differences beyond the existence of the CBC.

I think on education, Canada is basically equivalent to the various US state based university systems, lacking a tier of private and expensive at the top end of the prestige rankings making the system seem more egalitarian and socialized as well.

[Jacob]

I get the impression Canada actually funds its infrastructure.  Is this correct?

It does seem that way to me.

[Barrister]

I get the impression Canada actually funds its infrastructure.  Is this correct?

No.  Your highway system is miles better than ours, for one obvious example.  Hell, in Yukon, it is the US that pays for our infrastructure! 

[Jacob]

I get the impression Canada actually funds its infrastructure.  Is this correct?

No.  Your highway system is miles better than ours, for one obvious example.  Hell, in Yukon, it is the US that pays for our infrastructure! 

Really? Are highways provincial or federal? Because the highways I've driven in BC have been great.

[Barrister]

I get the impression Canada actually funds its infrastructure.  Is this correct?

No.  Your highway system is miles better than ours, for one obvious example.  Hell, in Yukon, it is the US that pays for our infrastructure! 

Really? Are highways provincial or federal? Because the highways I've driven in BC have been great.

Highways are provincial, though the Feds fund the #1 to a certain extent.

And that's probably the difference.  The US Interstates are federally funded and regulated, which means they have a very good network of highways.  We just leave every jurisdiction to its own.

[crazy canuck]

I get the impression Canada actually funds its infrastructure.  Is this correct?

No.  Your highway system is miles better than ours, for one obvious example.  Hell, in Yukon, it is the US that pays for our infrastructure! 

I think that is a function of where you have lived most of your life.  Highways in BC are far superior to those in Washington State.  Its a relief when you cross the border as the road surface improves significantly.  The best highways are in the maritimes where buying votes is a venerable tradition.