"Better communications" is now s valueless comment. It was used by Trudeau's government to avoid reflection on bills that were opposed. Rather than question why people objected to the Orwellian thought-police provisions of the Online Harms bill or to the increase in the 2024 deficit, they claimed that better communication of the matter would have allowed smooth passage.
I believe a root cause of the decline in trust of government is perceived inattention or opposition to opposing comment by government. The Freedom Convoy could have been stopped in Winnipeg by a meeting with Trudeau. Instead, he insulted the participants as Canadians.
You were spot on when pointing out that "governments listen to whom they choose to listen to!" That is the frustrating truth. We can discuss who talks to governments, but in the end, will they listen? My limited experience with consultants and experts in a field is they are hired to reinforce and expand a preset policy. This is probably why you said the Parliamentary Committees are effective in obtaining input from all the stakeholders have input; however, as aptly pointed out these Reports are generally ignored. Diverse and contrary opinions are not accepted.
The Convoy protest of 2022 was mentioned, and it is a classic example. The truckers and their supporters wanted to have their views heard. They wanted someone, especially in this case the Prime Minister, to listen to them. He refused.
Where is our democracy?
During the election campaign candidate Mark Carney said if elected he would address the housing crisis by having the government finance a $25 billion government/private sector housing project of building modular and prefab homes. Notice more talk of prefab homes lately?
Thoughtful (and thought-provoking) questions and answers. I'd been thinking about this very topic recently so this podcast feels like a bit of a Divine response to my ponderings. Thank you!
When governments decide they want to impliment a new policy, they should first publish their definition of the problem. There's little value in citizen input if there may not be any general agreement of what problem we are trying to solve.
As a long time community activist and volunteer on advisory committees, set by orders in council, and much more, I can attest that the Bureaucracy, municipal, regional, provincial, federal, is meaningless. They are there to hold onto their jobs.
Petitions are absolutely meaningless. 'Input' from addressing councils, committees, etc barely gets past the bureaucratic departments as the individuals who hold a job in government at any level just want to follow Administration instructions/planning.
Food for thought on this topic. if the government chooses not to engage with outside sources would outcomes be any different. Citizens assemblies that are legislated could be useful however I believe proportional representation would alleviate the loss of public trust in government..
Sir, I find your pithy comment intriguing. That is not to say that I disagree with it but that I seriously find it intriguing.
My question of you, therefore - and it is a serious question - is whom (in your opinion) are the top seven types of folks who influence government policy? I can stretch to come up with a couple but I then go blank so I would appreciate being enlightened by you.
Fellow partisans, industry associations, other governments, think tanks, charitable sector, organizations with contracts with government (especially social policy delivery folks), former government bureaucrats would all be on the list before those three.
As someone who has written platforms and been a senior political staffer, I get asked for my advice all the time, and not just by Conservative governments. There is a large informal network of policy wonks both partisan and not who drive an enormous amount of policy.
The story about robust online harms consultation and the subsequent maverick legislative amendments was heartbreaking.
"Better communications" is now s valueless comment. It was used by Trudeau's government to avoid reflection on bills that were opposed. Rather than question why people objected to the Orwellian thought-police provisions of the Online Harms bill or to the increase in the 2024 deficit, they claimed that better communication of the matter would have allowed smooth passage.
I believe a root cause of the decline in trust of government is perceived inattention or opposition to opposing comment by government. The Freedom Convoy could have been stopped in Winnipeg by a meeting with Trudeau. Instead, he insulted the participants as Canadians.
You were spot on when pointing out that "governments listen to whom they choose to listen to!" That is the frustrating truth. We can discuss who talks to governments, but in the end, will they listen? My limited experience with consultants and experts in a field is they are hired to reinforce and expand a preset policy. This is probably why you said the Parliamentary Committees are effective in obtaining input from all the stakeholders have input; however, as aptly pointed out these Reports are generally ignored. Diverse and contrary opinions are not accepted.
The Convoy protest of 2022 was mentioned, and it is a classic example. The truckers and their supporters wanted to have their views heard. They wanted someone, especially in this case the Prime Minister, to listen to them. He refused.
Where is our democracy?
During the election campaign candidate Mark Carney said if elected he would address the housing crisis by having the government finance a $25 billion government/private sector housing project of building modular and prefab homes. Notice more talk of prefab homes lately?
Thoughtful (and thought-provoking) questions and answers. I'd been thinking about this very topic recently so this podcast feels like a bit of a Divine response to my ponderings. Thank you!
When governments decide they want to impliment a new policy, they should first publish their definition of the problem. There's little value in citizen input if there may not be any general agreement of what problem we are trying to solve.
As a long time community activist and volunteer on advisory committees, set by orders in council, and much more, I can attest that the Bureaucracy, municipal, regional, provincial, federal, is meaningless. They are there to hold onto their jobs.
Petitions are absolutely meaningless. 'Input' from addressing councils, committees, etc barely gets past the bureaucratic departments as the individuals who hold a job in government at any level just want to follow Administration instructions/planning.
Written in despair. an Age.
Gail B, St. C.
I enjoy both your podcasts and newsletter. I think I was one of your earliest paid subscribers.I’m having great trouble changing my email address,
Please send me a link or some other way I can continue to both listen and read Paul Welld
Please change it for me.
Food for thought on this topic. if the government chooses not to engage with outside sources would outcomes be any different. Citizens assemblies that are legislated could be useful however I believe proportional representation would alleviate the loss of public trust in government..
Of the 10 types of folks who influence government policy, you focus on the bottom three - journalists, think tankers and academics.
Sir, I find your pithy comment intriguing. That is not to say that I disagree with it but that I seriously find it intriguing.
My question of you, therefore - and it is a serious question - is whom (in your opinion) are the top seven types of folks who influence government policy? I can stretch to come up with a couple but I then go blank so I would appreciate being enlightened by you.
Fellow partisans, industry associations, other governments, think tanks, charitable sector, organizations with contracts with government (especially social policy delivery folks), former government bureaucrats would all be on the list before those three.
As someone who has written platforms and been a senior political staffer, I get asked for my advice all the time, and not just by Conservative governments. There is a large informal network of policy wonks both partisan and not who drive an enormous amount of policy.