A Usenet persona calling itself Paul Skoczylas wrote:

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Paul Skoczylas wrote:


Well, I believe the RCMP does also enforce federal and province laws in the
vast largely uninhabited areas of Canada, including Indian reservations.

In all provinces other than Ontario and Quebec, that would be correct. ON and
QC have their own police forces which enforce the
laws in the remote parts of their territories. None of the other provinces
have chosen to form their own police forces, though they
do have the authority to do so. Many Indian reservations have their own
police forces. Those that don't would hire the RCMP in
most provinces, or the provincial police in ON and QC.

It says on the RCMP website: "We provide a total federal policing service to
all Canadians and policing services under contract to
the three territories, eight provinces, approximately 198 municipalities and,
under 172 individual agreements, to 192 First Nations
communities." Note that it specifically says "under contract" for provinces,
territories and municpalities, and
"under...agreements" for the reservations. Contracts and agreements can be
terminated.

I think the important part is the "total federal policing services." This
indicates that they retain federal powers everywhere, no matter what, and
may choose, or not choose, to provide local and municipal enforcement.



So
tell me, does the RCMP have jurisdiction to take control of a major case in
the event the locals aren't (or can't) handle it?

My understanding is that they would NOT have such jurisdiction in the vast
majority of cases. There would be likely be some
exceptions (I believe smuggling across international borders is RCMP's
exclusive jurisdiction, for example). Enforcing the national
criminal code (including murder, kidnapping, etc) is the exclusive
responsibility of the provinces.

I don't think so, based on your quote above. Clearly the national criminal
code is a federal matter, and thus the RCMP has jurisdiction to enforce it
wherever it chooses. That's always been my understanding of the role of the
RCMP.

Note that municipalities exist
at the pleasure of the provinces (not the feds), and are not enshrined in the
constitution, so the *provincial* solicitor general
would have the authority to grant jurisdiction in any specific case to a
different police force (which could be the RCMP, or the
provincial force where there is one, or it could be a force from a
neighbouring municipality) if he/she feels a municpal police
force was not up to the task for that case. The RCMP does not have the
authority to make that decision themselves.

I would guess that only applies to provincial or local laws, not national
(federal) laws.


Moreover, I suspect that in those areas where the locals do not have local
cops, the RCMP maintains jurisdiction to enforce, at the very least, federal
and province laws.

Where there is no local force, the provincial force prevails. Outside ON and
QC, that means the RCMP, but at the pleasure of the
provinces, which do have the authority to form their own forces if they wanted
to.

But I still say that the RCMP retains its authority in *all* provinces to
enforce federal laws, and that it has jurisdictional superiority over
provincial and local law enforcement in that sphere.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott, sounding strangely... well.... "Canadian":
=================
Strangely, the model I would like to see in the US is the original
Canadian/British model where the police are hired, trained and
supervised by
the federal or state government. Having been a cop in a small town, I
know
precisely how hard it is to do good police work on a limited budget
with
limited training and equipment budgets while being under constant
pressure
to play favorites in enforcement based on who's friends with the town
council and Mayor.

For a long time I've thought that, at least at the state level, all
police
officers should be hired, supervised and trained by the state, so that
they
meet uniform standards for qualification, equipment and supervision, as
well
as pay, and that local communities should have local officers appointed
to
them from the state police pool, and should have to provide a share of
the
funding through taxes.
=================

And you know what, Scott, I've always though that was a good model for
education. All teachers should be hired, supervised and trained by the
state, so that they
meet uniform standards for qualification, equipment and supervision, as
well
as pay, and that local communities should have teachers appointed to
them from the state teacher pool, (and should have to provide a share
of the
funding through taxes).

I don't disagree at all. Moreover, I would like to see monies collected for
schools brought into a central, state-operated distribution center, and
distributed to the individual schools (not districts) based on per-capita
attendance and demonstrable need or sub-standard facilities and/or
equipment. That would eliminate the disparity in facilities, equipment,
supplies and qualified teachers seen between wealthy communities and
inner-city areas.

If the taxpayer funded model is to be retained, then at least the money
should be doled out with absolute equality to ensure that every school is
equally good.


Which, btw, is sort of the way it happens in Germany. Education is a
state responsibility there, hence teachers are hired and paid by the
state.

See, Scott, I acknowledge when you've got some really good ideas. [And,
yes, I agree with you on the police issue.]

Well, there you go. See what happens when you don't take it personally?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 31-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

Now, are you 100% sure that provinces can't opt out of the national
healthcare system?

Now be VERY careful when you answer this. This IS a trick question. To
answer it, you'll need to explain what would happen to a province that
opts out (or tries to opt out).

Actually, there are a couple of ways out. However, ol' snotty could
never muster up that much understanding of any issue, let alone
Canadian politics, to know what they are.

Not really. The provinces are firmly attached to the federal teat and depend
on it for health care money, and, the Health Care Act mandates certain
things that obligate the provinces to provide health care plans, and then
the feds set the standards for the provincial plans.

A province opting out would violate the rights of its citizens, which are
established by the Act, and the federal government would not allow it and
can issue financial sanctions against the province for failing to comply
with the requirements of the Act.

Now, I suppose a province could secede and join the US, but I imagine Ottowa
would have something to say about that too.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

I think that's Scott's way of saying, "Whoops! I was wrong on that
issue. frtzw906 was right."

Thanks, Scott.

No, it's my way of saying it doesn't matter to me who is wrong or right.
It's the journey that's important, not the destination.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
=================
Too right!

frtzw906

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

In discussing the finances of Whazzits State Univ, Scott asserts:
======================
But there's profit to be made nonetheless.
================

Profits!!!! Profits!!!???? A public university makes a profit! Surely
you jest. Help me with this. Point me to a source.

No, the hospitals and clinics who hire med school graduates make the
profits. They support the med schools so they have graduates to hire.

=================
That's a stretch and I think you're making that up. It's OK to admit that
there are institutions in the USA that do not operate according to the
profit principle (police for instance). And your state universities fit into
that category. And in those universities, the med schools are a terrible
drain on resources. They are everywhere.
===============




Scott:
================
While the Governor does appoint regents for all other colleges,
====================

OK, and then you presume to tell me that the government exercises NO
control over the affairs of the universities and colleges?!

Other than appointing the Regents, no.

================
Well, in our other threads, you've demonstrated a number of characteristics,
but naivete was never one of them.

If the governor appoints the Regents, they also get certain "marching
orders".
========================



Sounds like a direct link from the governor's mansion into the
university president's office.

He may have persuasive power, but no legal authority except over a very
small portion of the budget.

====================
All he needs is persuasive power.
================


frtzw906

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Not really. The provinces are firmly attached to the federal teat and depend
on it for health care money,

Bull**** again. You don't know anything do you? The feds contribute
a _small_ portion of health care funding. Most of the funding is from
provincial governments.

the Health Care Act mandates certain
things that obligate the provinces to provide health care plans,

Which the provinces could opt out of - though that's unlikely,
since the plan is what the vast majority of Canadians support.

the feds set the standards for the provincial plans.

Minimal standards. The provinces are responsible for health
care.

You still haven't offered any info on how they could opt out,
but then we know you can't. You claim to have investigated
the Canadian health care system, but we know you lied about
that.

Mike

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

, I don't believe it.

What you believe is irrelevant. We are concerned with the
facts. Your believes have already been shown to be mostly
fictional.

Private insurance is not allowed for
"medically necessary" care.

Where does it say that?

And IF a "medically necessary service" is insured, then access to that
service is directly controlled by the government. It is rationed and
priority lists are created and people are not allowed to "jump the queue" to
get better or faster care.

You make this up and we are supposed to believe it? Where does it say
anything of the sort?

THEY are the ONLY civilians who CAN
seek better, faster private treatment at their own expense. Of course,

No - they get treatment through different clinics, not at their expense.
Stop making this stuff up.

Good thing the US doesn't recognize extraterritoriality

Though the yanks expect their laws to be applied extraterritorially.

As it is, it's ambiguous how the Canada Health system pays
for care in the US.

Not at all. It's well defined.

feds have to "consult and agree" with the provinces, but push comes to
shove, the feds can shove the plan down the province's throat by withholding
required funds and imposing penalties.

The latter is your fantasy. All things where federal and provincial governments
are required to work together require both levels to consult and agree. That's
why federal-provincial conferences are regularly held (Unlike the US, where states
do not have enough power to require the feds to negotiate on a regular basis).
There are ten provinces, three territories and only one federal gocvernment.
When push comes to shove, the feds are outnumbered. Constitutional changes in
the early 80's were wiped out by one province - that's power.

I imagine even more force would be
used if a recalcitrant province still refused.

You imagine a lot of things. We've come to ignore most of them.

Thus, the FEDERAL government (in the person of the Governor in Council) can
define what is covered and what is not and who gets it.

Yet the coverage is defined, and changed, by the provinces. Funny how reality
doesn't follow your fantasies.

[...lots or ranting elided...]

If the government were really interested in
people, they would be happy to take on the more complicated, costly cases
that private enterprise doesn't want to deal with.

No, dickhead. If the easy stuff is done by second tier medical clinics,
then only the _expensive_ and _less_common_ procedures are left for
government. This means that the taxpayer foots the bill _only_ for the
minority of worst case care situations. If the private clinics are so
much more efficient, they should be able to handle the tough stuff.
They won;t since they are only interested in a quick buck.

Private clinics do exist already. They keep costs down by hiring poorly
trained staff and providing inferior service for routine procedures.

The threat of private enterprise is so scary that the provinces have been
bullied into regulating private clinics so that they can't even opt out of
the system and provide service strictly to those who are willing and able to
pay.

And yet the private clinics exist and provide services that one can buy.
My example of a friend that payed for cataract surgery rather than wait
for her hospital shows that.

Thus, the government SETS THE PRIORITY LIST by
dictating what is covered and what is not,

What is covered is not the same as a priority list, dickhead.

That's undeniably government priority setting and list
making.

Relax dickhead. That's an example of a region not being able to
provide an adequate level of service.

This is mostly bull****. It didn't just eliminate over-billing, which would
have been fine, what it actually did was utterly eliminate the ability of a
patient to pay for BETTER care if they can afford it, while still providing
ADEQUATE care for everyone.

There is no correlation between extra billing and better service or treatment.
Extra billing is just a way for a doctor to inflate his earnings.


YOU CANNOT GET BETTER, FASTER MEDICAL CARE IN CANADA FOR "MEDICALLY
NECESSARY" TREATMENTS NO MATTER WHAT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE, NO
MATTER WHETHER OR NOT A PRIVATE PHYSICIAN IS WILLING TO GO THE EXTRA MILE
FOR YOU!

Take a pill, dickhead - you'll bust a blood vessel.

There is no correlation between how much a doctor wants to charge and the
quality of health care. "Better" is entirely bogus in the above rant.
Faster is debatable.

Their compensation is strictly limited to what the government
feels is "reasonable," and they can't set up a private practice to make
more,

They make as much as they care to according to how many patients they
see. Doctors are allowed to set up private clinics and can take
profits out of the clinic for all work that is paid that does not
directly involve their services. They can also make money from clinical
services that are not medically necessary. Doctors remain in the highest
income earning bracket in Canada.


the only people who can get better care by paying for it are tourists,

Since when should we provide free health care for tourists?

There it is, folks, the proof positive that Canada centrally controls and
rations health care.

Not much proof. Lots of ranting though.

Mike

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I know enough to know that even in Canada, the provinces are political
subdivisions of the federal government, not sovereign nation

No they are not subdivisions of the federal government. It is
a confederation.

So what? That's free enterprise for you.

You claim free enterprise is better. Yet free enterprise would
_reduce_ the services for many people. Not much of an improvement.

I get the very best health care in the world whenever I want it

_IF_ you can afford it.

while you
get to wait till your government tells you it has room for you, ****wit.

I have never waited for any government to tell me anything. Every time
I have needed any surgery, I got it in a timely manner with only my
surgeon and referring physician being involved. Sorry, dickhead,
but your lies don't hold up.

It worked very poorly.

Nah, it's just that the socialists took over.

You haven't a clue.

Mike

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

It defines more than "minimal standards." It defines who get medical care
and when.

Prove it.

I've done so, in a rather long post I won't repeat here.

Your ranting did not in any way address who gets medical care and when.

Mike

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

But I still say that the RCMP retains its authority in *all* provinces to
enforce federal laws, and that it has jurisdictional superiority over
provincial and local law enforcement in that sphere.

And you'd still be wrong. The RCMP takes a back seat to all local and
provincial police in enforcing federal law. If an RCMP officer observes
a person violating a federal law in an area under the jurisdiction of
a local police force, they are able to make a _citizen's_arrest_ and
call in the local cops. The only exceptions are where the RCMP work
directly with local police on a specific case - such as drug rings,
smuggling etc.

The priority structure of police in Canada allows that, for example,
the provincial police can be called in where local police are under
suspicion or are compromised. Similarly, the RCMP can step in to
investigate provincial police in the same way.

The only way they enforce laws directly is where they have exclusive
jurisdiction - such as federal buildings, airports etc. In provinces
where they are contracted to provide local policing, they obviously
have authority.

Mike