-Caveat Lector-
Arthur Hickman wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: No Canada
> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 13:52:49 -0600
> From: The Republican <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopelprint122000.html
Canada bashing! This is great. However, this article is wrong in so
many ways that it would take forever to refute it. I will try though,
in a brief way.
> No Canada
> Why America would follow Canada's political lead is mind boggling.
> By Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant, & Dr. Joanne Eisen of the Independence
> Institute
> The Electoral College is an important part of the checks and balances built
> into our Constitution, and is now under siege precisely because of its role
> in checking centralized power.
>
> The American Founders foresaw the dangers of large urban centers being able
> to overwhelm the smaller states. For this reason, each state is represented
> by two Senators, regardless of the state's population. That Wyoming and New
> York each have two Senators is inconsistent with "one-man-one-vote," but
> fully consistent with protecting Wyoming from being bullied by a federal
> government run on New York values.
> Similarly, each state's representation in the Electoral College is
> determined by the sum of the Senate and House seats, thereby giving extra
> clout to small states. This keeps the presidential race from focusing
> entirely on urban population centers. The fact that states vote as states
> helps maintain state governments as independent centers of power.
>
> Americans - who have largely been ignorant of the national election held in
> Canada on November 27 - should look to the Canadian political system for
> the poignant lesson it provides on the value of checks and balances to
> protect minorities and to discourage centralization. In Canada, power s
> concentrated in the central government in Ottawa.
I guess they are conveniently forgetting about the Provinces. Each
province has a Premier - and they are very powerful. Just ask Lucien
Bouchard, Mike Harris and Ralph Klien, to name a few. In fact, they are
so powerful that Lucien wants to take Quebec out of our confederation.
The House of Commons,
> like the U.S. House of Representatives, is elected from districts
> approximately equal in population. Thus, Members of Parliament from the two
> most populous provinces - Ontario and Quebec - far outnumber the MPs from
> all other provinces.
And what is wrong with that? It is the Prime Minister's job to appoint
people to the Cabinet, and they are usually representative of the
regions - in fact, with Ontario having so many liberal MPs, it is, if
anything, vastly underepresented in Cabinet. And the power in Ottawa
rests with the Prime Minster and his Cabinet. Individual MPs have very
little power. The real power rests with the bureaucracy. For example,
a Deputy Minister can have 20,000 employees working for them right
across the country. The elected Minister has his staff and gives
direction to the Deputy Minister, but cannot interfer with the
bureucray. It would be viewed as political interference.
While American senators are elected two-per-state,
> Canadian senators are appointed by the head of the national government.
> Dennis Young, assistant to Saskatchewan's Member of Parliament Garry
> Breitkreuz, explained:
>
> Our Senate was supposed to protect the interests of the underpopulated
> provinces of the country but was flawed from the outset. Senators are
> appointed solely by the Prime Minister. The Senate has enough power to
> provide provincial or regional balance to the representation by population
> in the House of Commons, but it doesn't use the power because, in the end,
> they owe their positions to the Prime Minister who appointed them.
Ah, the Senate. You must realize that in Canada, the Senate is the body
that reviews legislation and often sends it back to the House for
revision before it becomes law. The Senate has never exercised it full
powers because it is unelected. There has been talk about senate
reform, but I'll believe it when I see it.
> If Senators from the western or maritime provinces were loyal to their home
> provinces, rather than to the prime minister who appointed them, they would
> still have difficulty in stopping centralization. Ontario and Quebec have
> 24 senators each. Most of the other provinces have only six.
The fact is that the Senate has little power and generally rubber stamps
legislation. To be appointed a Senator is considered a political perk.
By concentrating on the Senate and ignoring the provincal Premiers,
these authors have shown their naievity about the Canadian political
system. They also ignore the fact that within two hours of the close of
polling stations we knew who our PM and MPs were.
> Prof. Gary Mauser, of Simon Fraser University (in British Columbia),
> explains that Canada's parliamentary form of government contains no checks
> and balances on power: "Majority control of Parliament combines the
> executive and legislative branches of government."
This is true. A majority government can pretty well do what it wants to
do. It is up to the opposition parties and the media to keep people
informed. And if people don't like the government, they can boot them
out at the next election.
> Furthermore, the prime minister appoints all Supreme Court justices without
> any requirement that he consult with, or receive consent from, any other
> governmental body.
This is true. However, The Law Society - the legal community - suggests
and lobbies for certain candiates. Believe me, there are huge behind
the scenes lobbying. The PM generally accepts the advice given him.
Also, the Supreme Court is representative of the country -
French/English/women/men/regions.
> So while America has three genuinely independent branches of federal
> government (and a legislative branch divided into two independent parts),
> Canada has no meaningful separation of powers.
Canada is a confederation. The provinces are very powerful. There is a
huge and meaningful separation of powers there.
The head of one part of the
> legislative branch (the prime minister) controls the executive branch, the
> Supreme Court, and the Senate.
The Prime Minister certainly does *not* control the Supreme Court. He
appoints the members of the Supreme Court on the advice given him from
the legal community. He has *no* say in their decisions. In fact, the
Supreme Court often rules *against* the government when legislation does
not take into consideration the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Our
constitution.)
> There is no meaningful check on the power of
> a single man to impose his will on the entire nation.
Well, Canadians overwhelmingly voted for him! So he has the mandate to
do whatever he wants!
> The Canadian system drastically simplifies the problem of passing
> controversial national legislation. For example, a previous Liberal
> administration abolished capital punishment, clearly against the will of
> the people.
MPs are given 'free votes' sometimes - in other words they vote with
their conscious and not on party lines. They are elected to do this. I
think the cases recently here in Canada where three men were wrongfully
convicted and spent decades in prison and then found innocent says all
that needs to be said about the death penalty.
> In 1995, Prime Minister Jean Chretien demanded and got the Firearms Act, a
> national system of firearm registration and licensing. The Firearms Act has
> been bitterly contested from its inception, especially by gun owners in the
> western provinces.
And here in Ontario too. It goes to show that Canadians will not accept
unrealistic legislation.
> The provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have
> announced their refusal to administer not only the new federal gun control
> laws, but also the 66-year-old handgun registry. They further refused to
> prosecute offenders, and threw the whole matter back into Ottawa's lap.
Proving the power of the provinces.
> The gun-rights issue helped Canada's main opposition party, the Alliance,
> in the Western and Maritime provinces; but by sweeping Ontario and picking
> up scattered districts elsewhere, Chretien's Liberal party returned to
> power. Of course Chretien had an advantage enjoyed by no American
> president: the ability to choose the date of the next election.
Gun registration was but one issue in the election. And since the vast
majority of Canadians don't own guns it was seen as an unnessary attack
on farmers and hunters who need their 'long guns' for their livelihood.
> The concentration of power in any central government is dangerous. If
> Americans had Canada's government structure, we'd have far more than the
> 22,000 gun regulations already on our books. Essentially, if the president
> wanted severe gun control or prohibition, that's what we'd get.
>
> How far Bill Clinton - or Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, and Franklin
> Roosevelt - would have gone if they didn't have to convince two independent
> bodies of Congress can't be estimated for certain. But it's likely that the
> Second Amendment would be a thing of the past by now. As in Canada, the
> right to own firearms for lawful protection would be abolished, with
> hunters allowed an increasingly constricted "privilege" to own
> government-approved rifles and shotguns for hunting. That Americans
> overwhelmingly support the right to self-defense would have made no more
> difference than the fact that the majority of Canadians today support the
> right of self-defense.
Of course, self-defense is a right. When nobody has guns though, you
have to resort to actual phyical contact - like beating the shit out of
someone. However, in general, we are a peacable people, and save
violence for the hockey arena.
> Austrian economist Friedrich August von Hayek noted this half a century ago:
>
> Power has an inherent tendency to expand and where there are no effective
> limitations it will grow without bounds, whether it is exercised in the
> name of the people or in the name of a few. Indeed, there is reason to fear
> that unlimited power in the hands of the people [i.e. majority rule] will
> grow farther and be even more pernicious in its effects than power
> exercised by few.
>
> This was precisely the point made by James Madison in Federalist, number 10:
>
> When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular
> government enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both
> the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good
> and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same
> time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the
> great object to which our inquiries are directed.
>
> Yes, there are dangers when a centralized government goes against the
> wishes of the people (as the Canadian government did on self-defense).
The long-gun registration has nothing to do with self-defense.
But
> the greater danger is when a government has majority popular support, and
> can act without respect for the rights of minorities.
That's a surprise! The rights of minorites are very protected in
Canada.
> Today, Canada is a country steeped in socialism.
That's a joke! Tell our powerful conservatibe Premiers that! Canada is
a capitalistic country! And when we have wealth, we use it on silly
things like health care for all citizens.
Typical of socialist
> societies, its government provides - or at least promises - goodies like
> "free" universal national health care. But the abject failure and myths of
> socialized medicine are quickly exposed by the number of Canadians who
> flock to the U.S. each year to obtain the medical services they can't
> obtain at home, or who must wait so long that delivery of those services is
> tantamount to denial. Complained Sara Oster, a 26-year old post-graduate
> student at the University of Toronto, "I shouldn't be waiting a year to
> receive an MRI."
There are problems with health care to be sure. However, if you are sick
and need attention, you get it. A friend of mine told me that when his
wife had baby in the USA, it cost them $37,000. That's outrageous.
> It is a simple fact that no country can provide top-notch, free universal
> health care without bankrupting itself sooner or later.
Not true. It just depends on what the country's priorities are. For
instance, massive spending on war machines or massive spending on
health.
> Prime Minister Jean Chretien was swept into an unprecedented third term by
> the lure of billions of dollars he promised Canadians to fix their
> country's medical system. According to Canadian papers, "healthcare [was]
> the most vigorously debated issue in this election, and it [was] the one
> that took the forefront at both the English and French leader debates."
> Never mind that it was Chretien who created Canada's national health care
> crisis in the first place by cutting funding from it. But instead of
> telling Canadians the truth - that no government can provide a "free"
> medical system - Chretien promised billions of dollars to "fix" theirs.
> And never mind that Canada's "excellent" compassionate universal health
> care is so bankrupt that it even denies women anesthesia during childbirth.
It is not wise to give anesthesia to a woman giving birth - unless there
is some reason for it.
> As Canada's majority-approved destruction of the health care system shows,
> you can fool most of the people some of the time. That's why purely
> majoritarian political systems like Canada's, which impose no internal
> checks and balances on the majority party, are so likely to lead a country
> to disaster. Why, in one of the richest countries in the world, should
> women be denied pain medication during childbirth?
Because it is not good for the baby. Every case is different though,
and if there is a medical need for it, she'll get it.
> Which brings us back to the Electoral College. Like a Senate chosen by
> states, like a system of government with three genuinely independent
> branches, the Electoral College is part of a broader constitutional system
> to ensure that a gullible plurality of the electorate - especially a
> majority centered in a few urban areas (such as the megapolitan clusters of
> counties carried by Gore) - won't necessarily be able to take the country
> down the rights-constricting, government-expanding path of Canada.
>
> It should therefore come as no surprise that Senator-elect Hillary Clinton
> would waste no time in proposing legislation that calls for a
> Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College. It's just a
> natural progression of the Clinton-Gore administration's attempts during
> the last 8 years to dismantle the Constitution in every way possible.
>
> If you'd like to live in a country where it's against the law to protect
> your family from a violent home invader, and where you get "free" health
> care of lower quality than what a pet receives in the United States,
I can assure you I receive better health care than a pet does in the
United States.
and if
> you think the American Founders were fools for wanting to prevent the
> concentration of political power, then by all means try to get rid of the
> Electoral College.
>
> [Forwarded For Information Purposes Only - Not
> Necessarily Endorsed By The Sender - A.K. Pritchard]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> A.K. Pritchard
> http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/
> http://rosie.acmecity.com/songfest/189/
>
> To subscribe to "The Republican" email list - just ask!
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "The Constitution may not be perfect, but it's a
> lot better than what the government is using these
> days." --anon
>
> >From Mark E. Howerter's Web Page
> "The Other Side of the News"
> http://www.otherside.net/
>
> <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
> ==========
> CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
> screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
> sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
> directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
> major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
> That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
> always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
> credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
>
> Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
> ========================================================================
> Archives Available at:
> http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
> <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
>
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
> <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
> ========================================================================
> To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Om
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
