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

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

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ...

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.

They can choose not to. But they can only choose to if asked to by the province (or municipality, but those are mere adjuncts to
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.

Actually no. Canada's Consitution says that the feds make the criminal code, but the provinces have exclusive authority to enforce
it. It doesn't have to make sense to you, but it is true. It's a good thing in a way: we have a uniform criminal code across the
whole country, but we still have regional policing. It does have drawbacks, though, such as when a provincal premier declares that
he will not allow crown attorneys (who work for the province) to prosecute a federal law which he disagrees with. This is a
problem, since the feds don't have their own prosecutors. (This has actually happened.)

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.

Nope. As I explained above, things are different here in Canada. Criminal laws are ALL federal laws. But according to the
Constitution it falls to the provinces to hire police to enforce them and crown attorneys to prosectue them. Most provinces (though
they cover only half the population of the country) CHOOSE to hire the RCMP to be their police force, but this is at their (the
provinces) own discretion.

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're still wrong. With the exception of a very small category (e.g. international smuggling) as I said before.

-Paul

Paul informs Scott:
=============
It doesn't have to make sense to you, but it is true.
=============

That, Paul, is one of the difficulties with Scott. He's a curious
enough fellow, but I have a sense he's never travelled much out of CO,
because he "wants" to see everything through the prism of the CO
constitution. Essentially, he'll answer most descriptions of how things
are elsewhere with: "ya but, I think that's more likely to be [insert
Scott's fantasy du jour], based on the way judges have ruled here in
CO."

We can assure him about how things work in Canada based on daily
experiences, but it it doesn't correspond to his fantasy, he'll insist
we're wrong.

Oh well!

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Paul informs Scott:
=============
It doesn't have to make sense to you, but it is true.
=============

That, Paul, is one of the difficulties with Scott. He's a curious
enough fellow, but I have a sense he's never travelled much out of CO,

You'd be wrong. It's just that I haven't seen a system which works better
than what we have in the US (including Colorado) anywhere in the world, and
I've seen many that are much, much worse, including, notably, every
socialist state on earth.

because he "wants" to see everything through the prism of the CO
constitution. Essentially, he'll answer most descriptions of how things
are elsewhere with: "ya but, I think that's more likely to be [insert
Scott's fantasy du jour], based on the way judges have ruled here in
CO."

Hey, we've got a great system here, why shouldn't I use it as a touchstone?
Besides, when discussing legal issues related to Colorado law, I of course
use Colorado law as the determinative element. Why wouldn't I?

We can assure him about how things work in Canada based on daily
experiences, but it it doesn't correspond to his fantasy, he'll insist
we're wrong.

Well, you can be factually correct and still be wrong. Socialism is wrong,
period. It's inexcusable, evil and always ends up in tyranny and oppression.


--
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 claims:
============
It's just that I haven't seen a system which works better
than what we have in the US (including Colorado) anywhere in the world,
and
I've seen many that are much, much worse, including, notably, every
socialist state on earth.
============

WOW! You've "seen" every socialist state on earth?!

Scott boasts:
===========
Hey, we've got a great system here, why shouldn't I use it as a
touchstone?
===============

One those issues on which we agree --sort of. You have a pretty good
system and it makes for a good touchstone. But, there's also plenty
wrong with it and, guess what, occasionally other nations have figured
out how to do things better.


frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott claims:
============
It's just that I haven't seen a system which works better
than what we have in the US (including Colorado) anywhere in the world,
and
I've seen many that are much, much worse, including, notably, every
socialist state on earth.
============

WOW! You've "seen" every socialist state on earth?!

Don't pettifog.


Scott boasts:
===========
Hey, we've got a great system here, why shouldn't I use it as a
touchstone?
===============

One those issues on which we agree --sort of. You have a pretty good
system and it makes for a good touchstone. But, there's also plenty
wrong with it and, guess what, occasionally other nations have figured
out how to do things better.

Really? Name one.

--
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:
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:


Scott claims:
============
It's just that I haven't seen a system which works better
than what we have in the US (including Colorado) anywhere in the world,
and
I've seen many that are much, much worse, including, notably, every
socialist state on earth.
============

WOW! You've "seen" every socialist state on earth?!


Don't pettifog.


Scott boasts:
===========
Hey, we've got a great system here, why shouldn't I use it as a
touchstone?
===============

One those issues on which we agree --sort of. You have a pretty good
system and it makes for a good touchstone. But, there's also plenty
wrong with it and, guess what, occasionally other nations have figured
out how to do things better.


Really? Name one.


We've been down this road before, so I won't spend too long on it, but
so far as "elections" are concerned, Canada, for example does a better
job -- no hanging chads, etc. AS far as "system" of government
(bicameral, judiciary, etc), Germany is a nation that has taken the
American model and improved on it. Any number of nations do a better job
of educating their children... Need I go on?

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself Paul Skoczylas wrote:

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...

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.

They can choose not to. But they can only choose to if asked to by the
province (or municipality, but those are mere adjuncts to
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.

Actually no. Canada's Consitution says that the feds make the criminal code,
but the provinces have exclusive authority to enforce
it. It doesn't have to make sense to you, but it is true. It's a good thing
in a way: we have a uniform criminal code across the
whole country, but we still have regional policing. It does have drawbacks,
though, such as when a provincal premier declares that
he will not allow crown attorneys (who work for the province) to prosecute a
federal law which he disagrees with. This is a
problem, since the feds don't have their own prosecutors. (This has actually
happened.)

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.

Nope. As I explained above, things are different here in Canada. Criminal
laws are ALL federal laws. But according to the
Constitution it falls to the provinces to hire police to enforce them and
crown attorneys to prosectue them. Most provinces (though
they cover only half the population of the country) CHOOSE to hire the RCMP to
be their police force, but this is at their (the
provinces) own discretion.

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're still wrong. With the exception of a very small category (e.g.
international smuggling) as I said before.

Interesting. Thanks for the information.
--
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:

Interesting. Thanks for the information.

You're welcome, Scott. In researching this topic, I learned a few things, too.

And to everyone else: see what happens when you avoid hurling invectives. Most people don't respond well to insults. And who can
blame them? Once the insults start, nobody is going to gain anything, and it's all just a waste of time. And I don't care who
started it. Even if you think the other guy did it first, it's still no excuse for doing it yourself.

-Paul