A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


On 29-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

But there is a national system of classifying medical conditions by priority
is there not?

Medical care is a provincial jurisdiction, not a federal one.

And you don't think the provincial governments are under the control of the
federal government? It is to laugh!

Your ignorance
continues to show every time you post.

Pot, kettle, black.


If doctors are free to admit whomever they please whenever
they please and do surgery on them, how is the system "socialized?" If
things are as you imply, it's a free market economy. Obviously, it's not,
because many people are complaining about their inability to get served
because the government won't allow them to see a doctor or go to a hospital.

Exactly who in the government won't allow them?

The reason that folks aren't being served is that the system is overloaded
in a specific area for a specific treatment.

Yup, precisely. And that occurs because the system is centrally controlled
and is not a free market.

It is not because the government
refuses to treat people.

No, they just cut funding so that the services are not available. Same
result though.

Providing unlimited resources in every area is not
efficient.

Indeed. Why not let the free market control that?

The taxpayers have indicated that they want to see better service
in many areas, but the politicians have been dragging their heels on getting
improvements in place.

Thus, the government IS "refusing to treat people" by denying funding for
the necessary improvements. Thanks for proving my thesis!

Most of the real problems in Canada's health care
system have been the result of right-wing politicians' meddling.

Yup. Exactly. The government controls and rations health care in Canada.
That's what I've been saying all along. Thanks for confirming it!

Folks
like Mike Harris and Gordon Campbell have done a lot of damage to a system
that used to work much better.

Yeah...when it was a free market system...

--
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

Scott asks:
==============
And you don't think the provincial governments are under the control of
the
federal government? It is to laugh!
==============

OK, let's play that game. And do you think the state governments are
under the control of the federal government?

Answer me that.

frtzw906

in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 3/30/05 11:54 PM:

Scott asks:
==============
And you don't think the provincial governments are under the control of
the
federal government? It is to laugh!
==============

OK, let's play that game. And do you think the state governments are
under the control of the federal government?

Answer me that.

frtzw906

Why play that game, his statement is goofy.

How little does this guy know about Canada?

Has he heard of a little province called Quebec?

Does he think the federal government controls Quebec?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

What an ignoramous.

Has he heard of Alberta?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

Even Newfoundland bosses the Feds around!

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott asks:
==============
And you don't think the provincial governments are under the control of
the
federal government? It is to laugh!
==============

OK, let's play that game. And do you think the state governments are
under the control of the federal government?

Answer me that.

Absolutely it is, within the sphere of authority our federal government has.
Our central federal authority is strictly limited (in theory) in the span of
its authority, and all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal
government remains with the states, or with the people themselves. But
within the sphere of federal authority, Congress' power is very strong, and
in some cases, plenary.

Unfortunately for Canadians, you don't have the same degree of separation of
powers that we do, so provinces are much more under the control of the
federal government up there. For example, here in the US, we don't have any
"national police" equivalent to the RCMP. Each state has its own system, and
some have "state police" with statewide criminal jurisdiction, and others,
like Colorado, don't, and rely instead upon the county sheriff as the
primary law enforcement official of the county.

--
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

Scott explains:
===============
For example, here in the US, we don't have any
"national police" equivalent to the RCMP. Each state has its own
system, and
some have "state police" with statewide criminal jurisdiction, and
others,
like Colorado, don't, and rely instead upon the county sheriff as the
primary law enforcement official of the county.
=================

Can you say FBI? Is that not a "national" police agency?

So that's your best explanation? And how did you come up with the
"Unfortunately for Canadians, you don't have the same degree of
separation of powers that we do, so provinces are much more under the
control of the federal government up there."

I trust you have evidence thereof. In what way are the provinces "more
under the control...."? Examples please....

OH BOY! This is going to be good. I can't wait!

Rubbing my hands in anticipation,
frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott explains:
===============
For example, here in the US, we don't have any
"national police" equivalent to the RCMP. Each state has its own
system, and
some have "state police" with statewide criminal jurisdiction, and
others,
like Colorado, don't, and rely instead upon the county sheriff as the
primary law enforcement official of the county.
=================

Can you say FBI? Is that not a "national" police agency?

No, it's not. The FBI is a federal investigative agency, not a police force.
Furthermore, it's agents don't have authority to enforce state or local
laws, they can only investigate and enforce federal crimes and laws and have
no general police jurisdiction.


--
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

Scott on RCMP vs FBI:
=============
The FBI is a federal investigative agency, not a police force.
Furthermore, it's agents don't have authority to enforce state or local
laws, they can only investigate and enforce federal crimes and laws and
have
no general police jurisdiction.
=================

semantics!

frtzw906

"Scott Weiser" wrote:
Unfortunately for Canadians, you don't have the same degree of separation of
powers that we do, so provinces are much more under the control of the
federal government up there. For example, here in the US, we don't have any
"national police" equivalent to the RCMP. Each state has its own system, and
some have "state police" with statewide criminal jurisdiction, and others,
like Colorado, don't, and rely instead upon the county sheriff as the
primary law enforcement official of the county.

Same in Canada. The RCMP only has national jurisdiction in some areas, like narcotics, and crimes in airports. (I'm sure there are
a few more.) Really a very narrow jurisdiction. In some places, the RCMP do highway patrol and even city policing, but in those
places, the provincial and/or municpal governments have hired the RCMP to be their police forces. And if they wanted to, they could
form their own and be rid of the mounties.

When I lived in Ontario, the only place I ever saw RCMP was at airports. Ontario has its own provincial police for highway patrol
(as does Quebec), and small towns that don't want to form their own police hire the OPP rather than the mounties.

-Paul

A Usenet persona calling itself Paul Skoczylas wrote:

"Scott Weiser" wrote:
Unfortunately for Canadians, you don't have the same degree of separation of
powers that we do, so provinces are much more under the control of the
federal government up there. For example, here in the US, we don't have any
"national police" equivalent to the RCMP. Each state has its own system, and
some have "state police" with statewide criminal jurisdiction, and others,
like Colorado, don't, and rely instead upon the county sheriff as the
primary law enforcement official of the county.

Same in Canada. The RCMP only has national jurisdiction in some areas, like
narcotics, and crimes in airports. (I'm sure there are
a few more.) Really a very narrow jurisdiction. In some places, the RCMP do
highway patrol and even city policing, but in those
places, the provincial and/or municpal governments have hired the RCMP to be
their police forces. And if they wanted to, they could
form their own and be rid of the mounties.

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

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.


When I lived in Ontario, the only place I ever saw RCMP was at airports.
Ontario has its own provincial police for highway patrol
(as does Quebec), and small towns that don't want to form their own police
hire the OPP rather than the mounties.

That happens a lot with sheriff's departments down here.

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.

In Britain, as I understand it, when you get a British police officer, you
get a *British Police* officer, not someone hired and supervised by the
local town fathers, which too often results in poorly trained, poorly
equipped, poorly supervised police officers who are subject to the personal
biases of the town administrators.
--
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

"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.

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. 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.

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.

-Paul