been a nation based on the Englishntradition of the common law. Undernthat tradition, everyone is inherentlynfree to do anything that is not prohibitednby the law. In the French tradition,nhowever, there is no inherent freedom.nRather, the government confers certainnrights upon the people through a charter.nSuch conferred rights are, ofncourse, vulnerable to whatever meaningnthe government or its courts wishnto give them. The courts define thenrights; by doing so, they limit them.nFrom this, other differences arise.nIn the English tradition, everyone isnsubject to the rule of law, whereas innthe French, le droit administratif protectsncivil servants from prosecution fornacts done in the performance of theirnofficial duties. For example, since thenlanguage law was reinforced and extendednin 1988 the federal ofBcialnlanguages commissioner and staff arenvirtually above the law. Neither he nornthey are compellable witnesses, theyncannot be proceeded against in civil orncriminal courts for anything done innperformance of their duties, and theyncannot be sued for libel or slander.nFurther, in the English tradition.nParliament—the voice of the peoplen— is supreme. But in the French tradition,na written constitution, and thereforenthe courts, have supremacy overnthe legislature.nCanada since its inception has alwaysnbeen home to the two conflictingnstyles of government. But it wasn’tnuntil the advent of Pierre Trudeau thatnthe dominant English style began tongive serious ground to the French style,nthus quietly, and unnoticed by most,neffecting radical change.nIn a nutshell, Canada’s way of governmentnhas been changed into a centralized,nessentially collectivist system—na welfare state — that by itsnnature smothers the whole country,nregardless of regional and other differences,nunder national policies and programsnthat conflict with the wishes ofnthe majority. Far from nurturing thenspirit of nationhood, such a system is anrecipe for dissension, and for the developmentnof a litigious, fractious people.nHow was such radical change engineered?nBy exploiting the fact that nonpolitical party in Canada can win anfederal election without first winningnover Quebec. The one-quarter of Canadiansnwho live in Quebec use theirnpolitical power to control the majoritynby voting en bloc for the party theynthink is going to win. In order to winnQuebec, a victorious party must makenpolitical promises to it. Since makingnthem to Quebec alone would bringncharges of favoritism, it must makensimilar ones to the rest of Canada; tonthat extent, redistribution of wealthnand income has been a political fact ofnlife since confederation.nA native Quebecer and a convincednsocialist, Trudeau used the Quebecnvote that kept him in office to engineernchanges that were consistent with thenFrench style of government. As ColinnCampbell noted in his book GovernmentsnUnder Stress, Trudeau put Canadanthrough “perhaps the most furtivenexpansion of central agencies the worldnhas yet experienced.”nAs a result, the federal governmentnhas become The Creat Redistributor,nwith 60 percent of its noninterest expendituresntaken from taxpayers andnpassed around to governments, businesses,nand individuals through threenlayers of bureaucrats.nThe Canadian confederation is innthe predicament Felix Morley expressednso clearly in his book Freedomnand Federalism: “Socialism and federalismnare necessarily political opposites,nbecause the former demands that centralizednconcentration of power whichnthe latter by definition denies.”nNevertheless, help is at hand. ThenGreat Redistributor is in serious trouble.nOpen-ended “free” medicare,n”universal” social programs, and all thenappurtenances of the welfare state havenraised total government debt, per capita,nto neady double that of the UnitednStates. Ottawa has begun to curb itsnspending by cutting federal subventionsnto the provinces; provincial governmentsnare cutting theirs to municipalities,nand there the buck stops.nBy law, municipalities are requirednto balance their budgets, but on averagen50 percent of their spending hasnbeen money transferred from the otherntwo levels of government. Now thatnthe transfers are diminishing, local governmentsnmust either raise taxes or cutnprograms. Naturally they’re not goingnto cut the local services they’re accountablenfor, such as building andnstaffing schools (education accountsnfor more than half of property taxes),npolice and fire protection, garbage re-nnnVictoria’snLast SiivernCrownnTtie 1893-1900 “Queer) Victoria’nSilver Crown of Great BritainnOnly $39nOwn the most famous Queen Victoria silverncrown, struck at the height of the BritishnEmpire’s glory.nLate in her reign Victoria ruled over thenlargest empire in history, with vastly morensubjects than even the Russian Czar—andnher magnificent silver crown contains almostn50% more silver than Czar Nicholas H’s bignsilver rouble. In its time, the sun never set onnthis impressive silver coin, used in commercenthroughout the Empire. Yet comparativelynfew were minted, so our well-preservednspecimens are genuinely scarce today. Thenportrait designedby Sir Thomas Brock is perhapsnthe most bek}ved image of QueennVictoria; on the reverse is Pistrucd’s famousn’St. George and the Dragon’ engraving. Thenyear of Victoria’s reign is inscribed in Romannnumerals (LVI to LXIII) on the edge of thencoin. Our choice of dates. Each coin containsn28.2759 grams of .925 silver, substantiallynmore than U.S Morgan silver dollars of thenperiod, of which more than 300 times asnmany were struck. While limited suppliesnlast, your price for our guaranteed Fine tonVery Fine quality is just $39 each postpaid orn3 for $112. Order #11723X. To order byncredit card, call toll-free 1-800-451-4463nanyti me. Or send your check or money ordernto: International Coins & Currency, Inc.,n11 E. State St., Box 218, Dept. 1574,nMontpeller, VT 05601. Money-back guarantee:n30-day home examination.nJULY 1990/45n