This paper provides a comprehensive comparison of the American and Canadian political systems, with a focus on how they address contemporary security and economic challenges. It examines the structures, processes, and ideologies that shape policymaking in both countries. Key areas of comparison include constitutional frameworks, legislative and executive institutions, political parties, interest groups, political culture, and public policy responses to issues like terrorism, immigration, healthcare, trade, and the environment.
While the US and Canada have many historical and cultural linkages, their political systems have diverged in important ways. The paper finds that the Canadian system tends to be more deferential to government authority and collectivist solutions, while the American system is more skeptical of government power and individualistic. The multi-party parliamentary structure in Canada fosters coalition-building and compromise to a greater degree than the two-party presidential system in the US. However, both systems grapple with deep social cleavages based on race, language, region, and ideology. The paper concludes by assessing which aspects of the Canadian model could plausibly be adapted to improve governance and policymaking in the contemporary United States.
The United States of America and Canada have been close allies, important trading partners, and geographic neighbors for over two centuries. Yet despite their historical, economic, and cultural linkages, their political systems have diverged in substantial ways over time. This paper undertakes a comprehensive comparison of American and Canadian governance, political institutions, ideologies, interest groups, and policy responses to key issues including terrorism, immigration, healthcare, trade, and the environment.
The analysis is grounded in the scholarly literature on comparative politics and policy studies, which emphasizes the need to understand domestic structures, not just bilateral ties, in order to make sense of relations between countries (Katzenstein 1978; Rosenau 1969). As Milner and Keohane (1996, p. 7) argue, differences in state institutions and ideologies help explain variations in international cooperation and conflict. A deeper appreciation of Canada’s parliamentary system and collectivist political culture provides insights into why cross-border partnerships seem to work better in some issue areas than others. A detailed comparison also illuminates strengths and weaknesses in each country’s policymaking processes and outcomes. Learning from the Canadian experience could improve American governance in specific ways, even while the US remains distinctive as a global superpower.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of key similarities and differences in the historical development, constitutional structures, legislative and executive institutions, political parties, electoral systems, and interest groups in the US and Canada. Section 3 analyzes differences in political ideology and culture, especially attitudes toward government intervention in the economy. Section 4 explores how institutional and ideological contrasts shape public policy responses in the key issue areas of terrorism, immigration, healthcare, trade, and the environment. Section 5 concludes by reflecting on insights from the Canadian system that could plausibly strengthen American democracy and policy performance.
Foundations of the Political Systems
The United States and Canada share common historical roots as former British colonies in North America. The Thirteen Colonies declared independence in 1776 and formed a union under the Articles of Confederation, replaced in 1789 by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The British colonies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada were unified as the Province of Canada in 1841, gaining self-government in 1848 and eventually becoming the Dominion of Canada in 1867 (Martin 2010, pp. 53-75). Confederation joined the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; other provinces joined incrementally over time.
Despite their common British ancestry, the Canadian path to independence was more incremental and peaceful than the American Revolutionary War. Canadians remained loyal British subjects during the colonial era, while American settlers rebelled against perceived tyranny and taxation without representation. The American Republic was founded on the liberal principles of natural rights and distrust of government power, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The Canadian system retained more conservative British traditions of parliamentary sovereignty and deference to centralized authority (Lipset 1990).
As former frontier societies, both nations expanded across North America in the 19th century. The purchase of Alaska and conquest of northern Mexico expanded America’s territory to the Pacific, while Canada extended control across the Prairie provinces. Westward expansion brought diverse new states/provinces into each nation’s political union and shifted the ethnic balance from Anglo-Protestant dominance toward more pluralism. It also sparked conflicts with Indigenous peoples, forcing renegotiation of treaties and residential schools that suppressed tribal identities (Leslie 2002).
Demographic shifts brought by immigration and higher birth rates drove Canada toward independence in the 20th century. But the Canadian identity remains split between English and French constituencies, stemming from the 1759 British defeat of New France. Quebec’s distinct culture was recognized in ‘co-nations’ approaches, but separatism remains an intermittent challenge. In contrast, the United States experienced higher immigration that facilitated assimilation into a ‘melting pot’ Anglicized culture. Southern slavery and the Civil War left a legacy of racial cleavage in American politics (Lipset 1990).
The American political system was designed by the Framers to avoid concentrated power through horizontal and vertical checks and balances. The written Constitution enumerates limited federal powers, reserves broad authority to the states, and separates executive, legislative, and judicial functions. The branches balance institutional power throughDEVICESlimiteLY GOclike appointed jupublic FIGUREathing But they &OTIMIZINGto POLICY LEAthe Congress through oversight and impeachment. An independent judiciary interprets the Constitution and protects minority rights from majoritarian impulses. Policymaking is intended to be slow, consensual, and deliberative.
In contrast, the Canadian system is modeled on the British Parliamentary system and the unwritten principles of common law. The 1867 Constitution Act created a federal system, but the Constitution is not entrenched against legislative amendment. The Parliament holds supreme constitutional authority; courts cannot override legislation based on abstract review. Executive power is concentrated in the Prime Minister and Cabinet who dominate the legislative branch. This fusion of powers facilitates prime ministerial control, party discipline, and decisive action relative to the American separation of powers (Simeon and Papillon 2006). Judicial review exists but is limited; judges generally defer to elected officials. Canadian federalism has evolved toward more provinces’ rights after an initial period of centralization.
The US Congress is bicameral, comprised of a 435-member House of Representatives elected for 2-year terms, allocated by state population, and an indirectly elected 100-member Senate with staggered 6-year terms where each state has equal weight. This structure balances interests of small and large states. Congress has enumerated constitutional powers over taxation, budgeting, commerce, foreign policy, and impeachment. Bills may originate in either chamber but must pass both houses then gain presidential approval (veto override requires 2/3 vote). The Senate enjoys special ‘advice and consent’ authority over treaties and executive appointments. Congress engages in extensive oversight of the executive branch through hearings, investigations and reporting requirements.
The Parliament of Canada has three parts: an appointed 105-member Senate, a directly elected 338-member House of Commons, and the sovereign Queen represented by the Governor-General. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister and provide regional representation, while Commoners are elected for 4-year terms by districts allocated by population. The House’s constitutional powers are similar to those of the US Congress, including budgeting, taxation, and impeachment. But in practice, party discipline means the executive-controlled majority dominates the legislative agenda; MPs rarely contradict the Prime Minister contrary to the independence of US legislators. The Senate has less power than its American counterpart – it can propose bills but the House can override Senate amendments.
The American president is independently elected for a 4-year term, with a 2-term limit adopted in 1951. Presidents are Chief Executive, Commander-in-Chief, chief diplomat, and nominate Supreme Court justices and top officials subject to Senate approval. Foreign policy powers include treaty negotiations and executive agreements. Critically, the presidency is constitutionally separate from Congress – allowing direct popular appeals above party politics. The president sets the agenda but needs legislators’ cooperation; when the branches are controlled by different parties, gridlock can result. Presidents have expanded power through national crises like the Great Depression, wars, and global leadership demands on the nuclear superpower. Critics argue presidential authority has grown dangerously imperial.
Canada’s Prime Minister holds office as long as he/she retains majority support in the House of Commons. The post has much less constitutional authority than the US president but gained powers through party loyalty and parliamentary dominance in practice. The Governor General is Commander-in-Chief and possesses reserve constitutional powers but acts on Cabinet’s advice by convention. Prime ministers appoint Senators, Justices, and officials without legislative approval. Foreign policy powers are extensive, negotiating treaties and commanding military forces. Critics contend the concentration of executive and legislative power reduces checks on prime ministerial authority compared to the American system’s separated institutions sharing power (Savoie 2010).
The American two-party system emerged early in US history from the Federalist/Anti-Federalist split. The Democrats coalesced under Andrew Jackson against the Whigs, succeeded by Republicans. Third parties like the Populists, Progressives, Dixiecrats and Reform have challenged this duopoly, but enduring two-bloc dominance is rooted in winner-take-all elections. The parties have weak organizational capacity but perform critical coordinating and voter mobilization functions at election time. There are few formal controls over candidate selection or campaigns, and money has an outsized influence. Geographic, racial, cultural and ideological cleavages shape partisan coalitions. Republicans draw strength from the South, rural and evangelical voters; Democrats from urban, coastal, minority and educated constituencies.
Canada developed a complex multi-party system rooted in its English/French cleavage but affected by immigration and ideology. The Liberals and Conservatives (Tories) were initially dominant, but the social democratic New Democratic Party (NDP), Bloc Québécois, and Reform/Canadian Alliance arose by the late 20th century. Five major parties compete regionally under first-past-the-post elections. Party structures grew stronger over time, with membership, education and leadership selection controlled by central institutions. Party discipline is strictly enforced in parliamentary votes. Coalition or minority governments are common when no party wins a majority. Ideological differences between the major parties were once muted but have sharpened since the 1980s, pitting western-based free-market conservatives against liberal progressives.
US elections follow the single-member district plurality system: each district has 1 seat, filled by the first-past-post candidate with most votes but no minimum threshold. This system favors two catch-all parties able to build majority coalitions. Redistricting occurs after each Census, providing opportunity for partisan gerrymandering, currently favoring Republicans. Campaign finance regulations are minimal; contributions to candidates, parties and PACs have risen dramatically thanks to legal ‘dark money’ loopholes. Presidential elections use the Electoral College: 538 electors selected winner-take-all statewide. This can allow popular vote losers like George W. Bush in 2000 to become president. Turnout is about 60% in presidential years but just 40% for midterms. Lower participation by minorities and the poor reduces democratic legitimacy.
Canadian national elections also follow single-member plurality districts. But redistricting is controlled by independent commissions not parties, curbing gerrymandering. Campaign spending laws are stricter with low individual contribution limits and public subsidies. Turnout runs around 65%. The multi-party system generates competitive three-way district races, though provincial strongholds reduce uncertainty. Canada has no national direct elections like the US presidency. The party winning a House majority forms government, so seats rather than vote shares determine power. This sometimes distorts representation: the Liberals with just 34% of votes won a strong majority in 2015, while Conservatives with 40% only won 99 seats. Critics argue proportional representation would be fairer. Voter participation is relatively high but uneven across groups.
The American pressure group system is open, pluralistic and corporatist, with around 100,000 active groups spanning business, labor, public interests, minorities, religions, and all levels of government. Groups lobby elected officials directly, mobilize supporters for advocacy campaigns, litigate to shape judicial rulings, and leverage access through fundraising. Major resource imbalances advantage corporate interests, but dynamic issue entrepreneurs like the NRA wield outsized influence. Political Action Committees and ‘superPACs’ raise unlimited funds since the Citizens United decision, although donations must not be coordinated with parties or candidates. Overall the pressure system is exceptionally active but tilted toward the wealthy.
Canadian interest groups parallel many US alignments but rely more on insider lobbying of officials than mass mobilization. Groups are more concentrated in a few major players like the Business Council of Canada, largest labor federations and aboriginal bands. Access practices are opaque and backroom dealmaking favoring insiders was once notorious, improving slightly due to reforms in the 1960s-70s. Judicial decisions expanded rights of interest participation. Third party election spending is limited to prevent the dominance of US-style PACs. Groups focus more directly on Parliament, rarely using courts. Provinces have distinct pressure systems centering on health and education policies. Overall the interest system is smaller in scale than the US, with greater limits on spending and coordination in the name of curbing special interest power (Pross 1986).
Political Culture and Ideology
The American civic culture synthesizes elements of Protestant individualism, faith in economic mobility, skepticism of strong government, libertarianism, and republicanism passed down from the Founders. Revolutionary origins bred distrust of elite authority. Underlying strains of racism, nativism, and anti-statism recur in political thought. Surveys show Americans are more likely than citizens of other Western democracies to see success as determined by individual effort; to support free markets over social welfare policies; to oppose redistribution and display social intolerance. The ‘American Dream’ holds that hard work can overcome barriers to mobility. But race and growing inequality undermine these beliefs for many groups.
Canadians share general Western liberal-democratic values but place relatively greater emphasis on collective rights and interests. The political culture tends toward communitarianism, order and restraint of powerful interests in favor of the public good. Surveys indicate Canadians are more trusting of government, open to collective solutions for healthcare and social protection, welcoming of diversity and committed to multicultural integration (Adams 2007). National cohesion remains challenged between English and French identities. Historically there was less revolutionary zeal and more incremental state-building. Both radical and conservative strains are muted compared to the US. Pragmatic pluralism is the dominant tone, seeking compromise over ideological purity.
These cultural differences show up in divergent interpretations of freedom. Americans emphasize negative liberty – freedom from government coercion. Canadians see freedom as requiring positive government action to provide resources enabling meaningful choices – an equality of opportunity requiring intervention to overcome class barriers (Lipset 1990). Hence social programs and regulation are less suspect in the Canadian ethos. The American Dream centers on individuals surmounting obstacles alone through grit; the Canadian equivalent relies comparatively more on collective assistance for those facing structural disadvantages.
Ideologically, the US spectrum runs from centrist liberal-conservative Democrats to a strongly right-wing Republican base, with sizable populist undercurrents. Canada has a genuine leftist party in the social democratic NDP along with a moderate liberal-centrist Liberal Party. The Conservatives combine liberal and corporatist wings. A small democratic socialist contingent pushes the spectrum slightly further left than the Democrats. Overall the Canadian policy discourse is more collectivist than the individualistic American debate. Opinions split more on economic class than culture war cleavages around religion and social values prominent in the US (Adams 2007). Americans more often see government as intrinsically inefficient and threatening to liberty compared to the Canadian view of government as potentially protecting freedom by reducing economic inequality and risk.
These ideological and cultural contrasts manifest in divergent public attitudes on issues from healthcare to immigration, as explored in the next section. Institutional differences in executive power and partisan configurations further mediate how contrasting political cultures shape public policies.
Policy Responses and Outcomes
Terrorism and Security
Since 9/11, the paramount security threats facing the US and Canada have come from Al Qaeda and ISIS-inspired radical Islamic terror networks along with cyberwarfare and espionage from rival states like Russia. Domestic terrorism persists on the far right but has declined from peaks in the 1990s. The security partnership is integrated through institutions like NORAD air defense and NATO cooperation abroad, along with deep law enforcement and intelligence relationships (Daudelin and Schwanen 2021). But legislative counterterrorism policies revealed differences in rights versus security balancing.
The American response was swift, maximalist and militarized. The 2001 Patriot Act greatly expanded surveillance powers and defense/intelligence spending, while creating the Department of Homeland Security consolidated domestic security functions. Military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and covert operations across the Middle East, South Asia and Africa became open-ended conflicts authorized by Congress. Civil liberties and human rights critics argued the global War on Terror went too far sacrificing freedoms at home, entrenching permanent war bureaucracies abroad. But the public largely supported forceful counterterrorism, and partisan dissent was muted.
Canada’s legislative response was more circumspect, tempering security powers with rights protections. Laws increased intelligence surveillance powers but mandated reporting and privacy oversight. No major bureaucracy reorganization occurred. Canadian forces served in Afghanistan but did not join the Iraq invasion due to human rights concerns. Canada resettled many Syrian refugees while the US limited intakes. Detention and interrogation policies adhered closer to civil liberties principles despite cooperating closely on border defenses. These policy differences suggest American political culture leans further toward security over liberty compared to Canadian restraint (Daudelin and Schwanen 2021).
Immigration and Demographic Change
Immigration flows and ethnic/racial diversification represent another policy divergence. The US foreign-born share tripled from 5% in 1970 to 15% by 2015 due to increased arrivals from Latin America and Asia. Canada’s immigrant population doubled to over 20%. Both nations struggle to integrate and provide opportunity for newcomers, visible minorities, and historically marginalized groups like Black Americans and Indigenous peoples. But policy frameworks differ significantly.
The American approach has been primarily deterrence and enforcement toward illegal immigration, while legal admissions were unchanged at 1 million per year for decades. Policing and deportations climbed since the 1980s, but 12 million unauthorized migrants remain, comprising nearly 5% of the labor force. Family unification dominates legal visa categories rather than labor skills. Newcomers have less social benefit access and pathway to citizenship than in Canada. Public debates on immigration reform have bitter partisan and ethnic divides; agreement is elusive (Tichenor 2016). Discrimination remains widespread, seen in controversies around police brutality, voting restrictions, and Trump’s derogatory rhetoric toward Mexicans, Muslims and Africans.
Canada’s policy is more welcoming of multiethnic diversity and immigration as nation-building forces. The annual target for new permanent residents doubled over 30 years to 300,000 by the 2010s across economic, family and humanitarian streams. Undocumented populations are small; deportations are less politicized. Newcomers enjoy early access to social programs, voting rights, multicultural education funding and anti-discrimination laws to facilitate integration. Public discourse encourages pluralism rather than insisting on rapid assimilation (Bloemraad 2006). Nevertheless, racial and religious prejudice exists, and rural western provinces exhibit anti-immigrant populism similar to US trends. On balance, Canadian policymaking is comparatively more proactive on immigrant integration and equitable inclusion.
Access to affordable quality healthcare stands out as a defining contrast in values and governance capacity between the American and Canadian systems. US health financing is dominated by private insurance plans provided by employers or purchased individually. Medicare covers seniors, Medicaid assists low-income residents, and the Affordable Care Act expanded coverage, but about 10% remain uninsured with worse health outcomes. Costs are exceptionally high, reaching 18% of GDP. Congress blocked universal public plans that poll favorably. Critics point to fragmented bureaucracy, fee-for-service incentives that inflate costs, high prices and profits for insurers and drug firms, uneven quality, and rationing based on ability to pay.
In contrast, Canada adopted a universal single-payer model, Medicare, in the 1960s to provide comprehensive care for all based on need not income or employment. Private supplemental insurance covers elective benefits like dentistry. Overall costs are far lower at 10% of GDP with better population health outcomes. Healthcare is managed by the provinces within national standards like the Canada Health Act requiring universality. The system has high public satisfaction despite complaints on wait times for some services (Martin et al. 2018). Implementation benefited from a period of stronger ideological consensus and trust in policy solutions; efforts to expand social programs since then have been more conflictual.
This comparison reveals sharply different underlying values about state obligations, individual versus collective risk-sharing, and the public/private delivery mix. Institutional fragmentation in the United States requires strong special interest demands from labor and seniors to achieve partial social insurance protections on healthcare and retirement. Universal social policy was infeasible. Canadian communitarian norms and parliamentary capacity enabled unified national health insurance despite initial doctor protests. The system enjoys deep legitimacy as a core pillar of national identity. Nevertheless, both nations face cost pressures from aging populations that are prompting difficult policy debates on how to ration beneficial but expensive new technologies.
As adjacent trading partners and allies, the US and Canada have among the world’s most integrated bilateral economic relationships. Each is the other’s largest export customer. Key institutions govern these flows such as NAFTA/USMCA, the WTO, and organizations regulating transportation, telecommunications, and finance. Trade accounts for over 1/3 of America’s GDP, though less than 1/4 of Canada’s smaller, commodity-based economy. Both nations struggle with tensions between globalization and domestic industries facing import competition. But their policy frameworks differ in balancing free trade orthodoxy versus interventionism.
The postwar United States was a key architect of the open liberal global order, reflected in institutions like the IMF, World Bank, GATT and WTO. Congress granted the President trade promotion authority to negotiate bilateral and multilateral agreements. Objectives included anchoring Cold War allies, exporting deregulation to foreign markets, and benefitting American agriculture and digital sectors. Organized labor protested loss of manufacturing jobs. Bipartisan pro-trade consensus frayed starting in the 1990s over NAFTA’s impacts. The Trump Administration adopted unilateral tariffs and an aggressively nationalist approach, crossing traditional party positions. But the institutional status quo still favors Presidential leadership and corporate interests on trade matters.
Canada was also an early free trade champion, signing agreements like the 1965 Auto Pact and 1988 FTA en route to NAFTA. But later integration revealed greater strains on the smaller economy’s manufacturing sectors. Progressive parties and unions advocate a more selective, managed approach than American free market ideology. Ottawa has invoked trade remedy laws over 300 times against dumped or subsidized imports since the 1980s (Stanford 2010). Recent agreements with the EU and Trans-Pacific nations retain sovereignty exclusions absent in US deals. Canada also uses more activist approaches like local content rules and targeted protection. This pragmatism accepts some trade-offs of growth versus equity and sovereignty. The comparison suggests that larger economies can sustain more doctrinaire liberalization policies than smaller, export-dependent jurisdictions.
Environmental protection policies reveal more similarities than differences between the two North American neighbors given shared ecosystems, resources and pollution flows. Landmark laws like America’s Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act of the 1970s built cross-partisan coalitions to curb ecological harms from growth. Canada lagged in passing equivalents like the Environmental Protection Act but strengthened standards steadily from the 1980s-2000s. Unique American legal provisions like citizen enforcement lawsuits spurred more activist regulations than in Canada’s parliamentary model. But outcomes overall were comparable by the 1990s as Greens gained political leverage in both systems.
The key divergence came with climate policy in the 2000s. Canada was an early Kyoto Protocol joiner, pursuing carbon markets and provinces like Ontario shuttered coal power. But greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions stalled as Conservative governments backed out of Kyoto while protecting the carbon-intensive oil industry. Canada targets just 30% GHG cuts by 2030. The US never ratified Kyoto; Republicans and fossil fuel interests blocked any national cap-and-trade bills. State and regional initiatives made progress until Trump revoked all climate regulation and withdrew from Paris. However, the Biden administration has rejoined Paris and aims to decarbonize power by 2035 en route to economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2050 – the most ambitious national climate plan to date. Both nations face challenges transitioning automotive, oil/gas and heavy industrial sectors toward sustainability. But the policy pendulum has swung from Canadian climate leadership under Chretien-Martin to American leadership under Obama-Biden, revealing how ideological cycles and energy economies shape regulation.
This comparative study reveals some clear differences but also surprising similarities between the American and Canadian political systems and policy pathways. Assumptions of extreme Canadian communitarian collectivism versus American individualist libertarianism require some qualification. Both nations uphold democratic capitalism, private property, fundamental rights and freedoms. But Canada’s parliamentary system concentrates executive power more than America’s constitutional checks and balances. This allows decisive leadership but opens risks of abuse absent in the constantly contested US system. Canada has sustained more ideological diversity through its multi-party elections that defuse populism. The American two-party duopoly contributes to hyper-partisan polarization absent in Canadian coalition-building politics. These structural contrasts shape some policy divergences as detailed above.
In areas like healthcare, economic regulation, industrial policy and climate policy, the Canadian government intervenes more robustly in pursuit of collective benefits and egalitarian outcomes. The American system’s multiple veto points – Congress, courts, states, lobbies – hinder such activist policies. But in domains like security, criminal justice and geopolitics, American power enables global military reach and muscular tactics that democratic restraints in Canada prohibit. Mass publics in both nations contain a mixture of ideological preferences, but institutional filters mediate which emerge into policy.
This analysis suggests several reforms that could reasonably improve governance and policy performance in the United States drawing on Canadian practices. Integrating independent redistricting commissions could reduce partisan gerrymandering incentives. Moderate campaign finance and lobbying limits might curb special interest distortions. Loosening two-party control over debates and election rules could allow alternative voices and views. Creating nonpartisan research bodies to inform legislative policy could counter ideological think tanks. Applying fiscal impact criteria in legislative budgeting may improve transparency and efficiency. None of these plausible Canadian innovations would undermine core tenets of American democracy. Blending the best of both systems offers opportunities to govern an increasingly diverse, technology-driven and globally interconnected society.
Adams, M., 2007. Unlikely Utopia: The Surprising Triumph of Canadian Multiculturalism. Toronto: Penguin Canada.
Bloemraad, I., 2006. Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United States and Canada. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Daudelin, J. and Schwanen, D., 2021. Canada and the United States: Differences that Count. 5th ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Katzenstein, P. ed., 1978. Between Power and Plenty: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Leslie, J., 2002. The Historical Development of the Indian Act. 2nd ed. Ottawa: Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Lipset, S.M., 1990. Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions of the United States and Canada. New York: Routledge.
Martin, G., 2010. Britain and the Origins of Canadian Confederation, 1837-67. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Martin, D., Miller, A.P., Quesnel-Vallee, A., Caron, N.R., Vissandjée, B. and Marchildon, G.P., 2018. Canada’s universal health-care system: achieving its potential. The Lancet, 391(10131), pp.1718-1735.
Milner, H. and Keohane, R.O. eds., 1996. Internationalization and Domestic Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pross, A.P., 1986. Group Politics and Public Policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Rosenau, J. ed., 1969. Linkage Politics: Essays on the Convergence of National and International Systems. New York: Free Press.
Savoie, D., 2010. Power: Where is It? Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Simeon, R. and Papillon, M., 2006. Canada: Federalism, Language, and Regional Conflict. In: U.M. Amoretti and N. Bermeo, eds. Federalism and Territorial Cleavages. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stanford, J., 2010. Maintaining Canada’s Economic Sovereignty: New Policy Directions for Developing a More Balanced North American Partnership. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Tichenor, D., 2016. Struggles for Immigration Reform in the United States, 1973–1990. In: D. Tichenor and A. Kossoudji, eds. Struggles for Inclusion: The Politics of Immigration in the United States from 1945 to the Present. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.