Oldgateboatdriver said:
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?
So lets peel away the straw men that begin your argument (as if somehow, the census is just like those other things - we can all come up with ridiculous hyperbole) and deal with the end. Yes - they started using CRA data instead of asking their own questions related to income because there was better data available. Don't you think then, that if there was better data available, that they could legally access, that they'd use it? Delving into conspiratorial nonsense really adds nothing.
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.
And yet there was a promise to restore door to door. In response to the Trudeau win, we saw the plan to end door to door pause, awaiting word from above. Now we see that there will be a study, examining multiple options. The study speaks to exactly what I'm talking about with this government - data is more important than foolish promises they made without the benefit of said data.
Are you joking? The military purchases billions of dollars of stuff every year. Sure, some big ticket items (and smaller ones, like boots :nod
![Smile :) :)](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png)
seem to get bogged down, but that does not mean that no purchases are ever made.
Some big ticket items? It's more like every singe large procurement program, other than those that were single sourced. That speaks to very poor management at both DND and Procurement.
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?
Of course, I didn't say that, and the government isn't asking that. The public consultations are also only a small part of the review. Experts, allies, academics, and military leaders all all being consulted.
And what requests did Alberta make of the government of Canada exactly?
Air support for transport. In answer the government provided a CC-130j, and had a CC-177 and CC-150 on standby. They also sent a CH-147 when logistics support that could get to more remote places was needed. On top of this, the federal government sent emergency supplies, including 20,000 cots.
First of all, forest fires are not a Federal jurisdiction - as a result of which Canada has no resources to provide for those.
Funny that I never said that. I'm not sure who you were aiming that at.
It is the various provinces that have agreements between them to share forest fire fighting equipment.
That's correct - it's coordinated through an office in Winnipeg.
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.
And yet it has to be approved by someone in the political chain.
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?
You mean Nepal, not Tibet. In that case, there was most certainly political involvement from both countries, as the military can't go there without permission - so, no.
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.
That's almost a funny statement. If that were true of all Harper bills, you wouldn't see so many of them being shot down by the SCOC.
No one else drafts bills, even if the advice of external experts is sought on the results of the bills.
I'm sure there's no political input whatsoever
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.
Harper had named a panel of 3 experts - all 3 of which spoke out in the SCOC court case against allowing assisted suicide.
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.
In other words, you don't know.