[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S997-S998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       SMILE WHEN YOU COMPARE US

 Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest all Senators will be 
greatly interested in an article by Robert H. Pines, ``Smile when you 
compare our countries,'' which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail 
several weeks ago.
  While the United States and Canada share many common interests, 
including the longest undefended border in the world, they also differ 
in many ways. Bob Pines, who served with distinction as Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of State for Canadian Affairs in the Bush 
administration, eloquently identifies some of the differences between 
the United States and our neighbor to the North.
  Mr. President, I ask that the text of this article be printed in the 
Record.

            [From the Toronto Globe and Mail, Nov. 30, 1995]

                  Smile When You Compare Our Countries

                          (By Robert H. Pines)

       Perhaps the holiday season is a good time to dissect a 
     cliche.
       Earlier this month I attended my fourth biennial conference 
     of the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States 
     (ACSUS). About 40 percent of those in attendance were 
     Canadians. Almost all the rest were Americans who make their 
     living teaching about Canada. There were a few others like 
     myself who have had a long love affair with your country in 
     non-academic pursuits.
       The Canadian contingent frequently launched into the 
     familiar self-congratulatory litany of differences between 
     the two countries. Heads wagged in reflexive agreement at 
     mention of superior Canadian civility (undoubtedly true), the 
     famed United Nations report about Canada being the world's 
     best place to live (conceivably true if real meaning can be 
     assigned to sociological statistics), and on and on through 
     invidious comparisons of descending degrees of validity. 
     Raymond Chretien, Canada's ambassador to the U.S., orated 
     that ``we have a low crime rate and you have a high crime 
     rate.''
       As noted, the American contingent numbered few of the Pat 
     Buchanan stripe. One intrepid soul at a symposium was 
     rewarded with icy stares when he diffidently mumbled 
     something about southward emigration dwarfing that from the 
     U.S. to Canada.
       Another politically incorrect type daringly asked a 
     question approximately along these lines: If your country is 
     so great and ours so awful, how come you are on the verge of 
     breaking up and we are not? (Actually, being an academic, he 
     put it more politely.)
       Therein lies the point of this essay. I submit to Canadian 
     readers that the American political system (not necessarily 
     American people or American society) holds one enormous 
     advantage over that of Canada; that of decisiveness.
     
[[Page S998]]

       There is no ``notwithstanding clause'' in the U.S. 
     Constitution. When the U.S. Supreme Court renders one of its 
     frequent 5-4 decisions, the minority has been known to 
     grumble; however, stare decisis, the decision stands, and by 
     and large the country just goes on to the next problem.
       Several Canadian speakers patted themselves on the back in 
     reference to the sanguinary American Civil War. To be sure, 
     more than 400,000 people died before their time, and the 
     result nowhere nearly approximated the end of history.
       However the Civil War was as decisive as history gets: The 
     abomination of human slavery ended. When I visit my 
     grandchildren in Florida I do not go to a foreign country.
       Well-intentioned monstrosities such as the Charlottetown 
     accord are virtually unknown south of the border. One of my 
     Manitoba political friends characterized it as ``everybody 
     shouting `gimmie gimmie' '' until nothing was left for the 
     country.
       The ability to respond to special-interest groups with a 
     brusque no is not in the long run destructive of a country's 
     civility and livability. When grievances are genuine, 
     experience shows that the best compromise derives not from 
     liberal guilt but from self-respect, with a fair offer of 
     ``thus far and no further.''
       A 19th-century American humorist told the story of the 
     fellow who was so kind he amputated his dog's tail by inches. 
     A cruel inability to solve problems is the obverse of 
     mindless kind intent.
       The usual disclaimer: This somewhat harsh analysis does not 
     presume to offer advice to sovereign Canadians. The only 
     point is that perhaps there is something to be said for the 
     United States.

                          ____________________