We can start with the long form census. Statisticians everywhere were against its demise.
And police officers everywhere argue they shouldn't need a warrant to enter a house and inspect it. That's why we don't let police officers dictate those rules. What if all statisticians said that they need laws to force people to answer their questions on voting intentions? Would that make such law right? And BTW, did you know that statistics Canada removed all questions on income from the census this year? Know why? Because they found out that the data given to Revenue Canada is better and more complete, so they will use that set of data. Now here is the interesting thing: the data for 95% of the questions asked on the census form is already in various government data bases, in more complete and precise form, and could be accessed by StatsCan if they wanted to. Does this sound like a good reason to force Canadian to participate in a census to get info the government already has under penalty of law - fines and prison, when, BTW, no other western country does?
We can continue to Canada post. Trudeau originally promised he'd restore door to door delivery. It seems it's been explained to him that such a thing isn't possible while maintaining profitability. Now, you see a wait and see approach combined with a study.
Where do you get that this was explained to him. First of all it is not impossible: The easy straightforward answer of doing this while maintaining profitability has been given to Post canada: delivery on alternate days (i.e. every second day). What has been explained to Trudeau, and properly so, is that Post Canada is a Crown Corporation with it's own board: For him as Pm to interfere with their decisions on how to run their corporation would be illegal - in fact removing those operations from the boot of the political party in place is the very reason crown corporations were invented to start with.
The military is unable to buy things - literally. So, you see an approach of consultation on how we should move forward.
Are you joking? The military purchases billions of dollars of stuff every year. Sure, some big ticket items (and smaller ones, like boots :nod
seem to get bogged down, but that does not mean that no purchases are ever made. Moreover, you honestly think that the public should be consulted on the type of main battle tank we should purchase or the colour of our uniforms, or the amount of ammunition stocks we should have for a given weapons system?
The Fort McMurray wildfires saw the government answer every singe request from the Alberta government, and had the PM acting in deference to people on the ground when it came to what kind of help they needed and wanted.
And what requests did Alberta make of the government of Canada exactly? First of all, forest fires are not a Federal jurisdiction - as a result of which Canada has no resources to provide for those. It is the various provinces that have agreements between them to share forest fire fighting equipment. Second of all, the Federal government has standing protocols to assist the provinces in disasters, including special funds, AND ALL OF THESE REQUESTS ARE PROCESSED BY THE CIVIL SERVANTS WHOSE JOB IT IS TO EXECUTE THESE PROTOCOLS (including assistance by the military). Absolutely nothing of that requires any intervention by the politicians whatsoever. These very same protocols and funds were used by the Conservatives, including Mr. Harper for the Calgary floods, and for international disasters (such as the earthquake in Tibet) exactly the same way. How does that prove that Harper acted on his own, while Trudeau listened to experts?
The assisted suicide bill was crafted with outside experts and a panel of MPs. Though it doesn't go far enough for many, it goes further than what Harper was doing. He had 3 people on a panel, all of which had spoken against the whole idea.
Shows how little you know about bills. ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE bill put before parliament is crafted by experts: They work for the government and are civil servants. No one else drafts bills, even if the advice of external experts is sought on the results of the bills. Second, the Harper government had not yet tabled ANY legislation on the subject, though you may be certain that some had been crafted and prepared for introduction shortly after the election, so you have nO idea what a Harper bill would have proposed. Moreover, since the same civil servants helped draft both, and they were working from the same Supreme Court decision, I am willing to bet that there would be a 95% + commonality between the two.
I could go on. I'm sure you won't agree.
