Canada: Where inconsistency is always the rule. And the key to its success.
Fifteen years ago, as we sat in line waiting to move back the border into Canada, the country of my birth, I turned to my partner in the other seat gave him the secret to understanding his new country: “The thing to understand about Canada is that inconsistency is always the rule. If you are okay with that, you will get along fine here”, I said.
And in the 15 years since I have returned here, I have become more and more convinced that the key to Canada’s success is its ability to create flexible solutions and that often unwritten rules work better than written ones.
The inconsistency hits you immediately as you cross the border. The speed limits are all posted in kilometers, but when you ask the attendant at the gas station how far it is to Thunder Bay, they will reply that it is roughly 50 miles up the road. Canadians pump gas in litres (liters — sometimes), but everybody talks about the miles per gallon they can get from their vehicle in order to make it to their destination.
The metric mayhem continues in the retail world. We built a house consisting of 2 and three/eighths inch screws and lumber that was two yards long. Over the years, I have gotten used to ordering 300 grams of hamburger meat from the deli counter, but then buying my rice in pounds and cannabis in ounces.
Temperatures are largely posted in Celsius, which most Canadian have come to understand and adopt, but they know that when the temperature in Florida is 86° Fahrenheit, it’s time to book their vacation. And when the rain comes down as 10 millimeters they get a vague sense of what that means, but when you tell somebody that you were buried under 3 feet of snow they are all suitably impressed.
Another clear indicator of Canadian inconsistency that can also be seen from the road is the use of French and/or English. In British Columbia, where I live, you are much more likely to see bilingual signs using English and the local indigenous language than you are to see French. Yet, when I am traveling the Trans Canada Highway to our cottage near Sudbury, Ontario, French appears alongside English due to the local francophone population. However, once you pass into Québec it is all French all the time, making every Anglophone in the country wish they pay little bit more attention in French class in school.
The linguistic asymmetry also creates a checkerboard pattern across the entire country. Few people know that the only province where French and English have official status is New Brunswick. There are also official indigenous languages in Nunavut, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The official language of Québec is French, with begrudging acknowledgement of English usage in the province. Most the other provinces are officially or unofficially English with a patchwork set of rules and regulations for the use of French based on the region, history, or the service involved. Some provinces, like British Columbia, take no position at all. Language is always a contentious issue. And sometimes it is better to say nothing at all then bring up the topic.
Canada’s consistency challenge extends from the provinces to the federal government. In contrast to the Americans, Canada adopted the parliamentary system from Mother Britannia lock, stock and barrel, including the use of a Senate that has no clear rules for inclusion. At least in the US, senators are elected based on the state. And in the UK, it is at least clear who is eligible to become part of the House of Lords, regardless of whether such a feudal institution, which grants power based on birth, is still appropriate. Canada does not have the inbred aristocracy to make up the Senate, and instead relies on the whims and whimsy of individual prime ministers to appoint their friends and followers to the Senate. In the end it does not matter, because the House of Commons can often ignore the advice of the Senate regarding legislation, leaving the country to debate the perennial issue as to why there is a Senate to begin with.
The fact that there are no clear system of “checks and balances”, as is widely touted by our cousins to the south, is due to the fact that for more than 100 years after its birth, the country had no official Constitution. The country was subject to amendments to the British North American Act by the British Parliament. The roles and responsibilities that were shared between Britain and Canada varied over time. And it was not until 1982 that a Constitution was actually repatriated to Canada. This unleashed a flurry of debate to find a unifying system for the country, but with inconsistent results, as not all of the provinces signed on to ratify the Constitution. And they still have not.
Instead, we have a Constitution that lays out the rules for how the government should operate, with an opt-out clause, otherwise known as the “Notwithstanding Clause”. This clause allows individual provinces to opt out of federal legislation, thereby undermining the power of the federal government to begin with. Why have a federal government lay down the law if the provinces can simply opt out? How can any country operate like this?
And yet it does. Successfully for more than 150 years. Canada is still considered one of the top 10 best places in the world to live. While dwarfed by its southern neighbor, Canada still has one of the most important economies in the Western world and has a standard of living that is the envy of many people around the world. Despite the inconsistencies, the country is known for its governmental transparency, lack of corruption, a compassionate social welfare system and a distinctly open-armed approach to immigration.
Canada’s inconsistency is actually its greatest strength, I would argue. In a world of constant change drawing fixed lines in the sand creates conflict by definition. Countries, and effective leaders, who can tolerate a fair level of ambiguity and inconsistency can actually create greater flexibility within the organization, allowing it to last longer than most.
Opt-out clauses, and unenforced rules actually provide people with a mental “safety valve” that allows them to adopt new usages and new ways of thinking gradually over time. With less pressure. It provides the citizens with a greater sense of their own power. It is an unspoken acknowledgment that the power rests in practicality, and laws are only as good as they are adopted and accepted by their citizens. Top-down approaches take time. And it is important to recognize that not all issues need to be solved all of the time. Some things are better left unsaid.
In the wake of new nationalism, where borders are being drawn in people’s hearts and minds, Canada remains a beacon of Western, liberal tradition of democracy that involves debate, discussion and dissent — and all the frustrating inconsistency that fragile humans bring with it. The world may not be one-size-fits-all, but it needs a heart that is big enough to embrace everyone in it.
Happy Canada Day!
