The Line starts year three. The limits of apologies. The weirdification of Alberta, and conservatives generally. A task force on task forces. Fertilizer, Ukraine, and more.
Great weekly summary, I especially enjoyed the dissection of the Ukrainian Embassy story. It is quite remarkable how the Liberal marketing department can burn the jet fuel and tie up the Prime Minister and two senior cabinet ministers for a few photos taken thousands of miles away in a war zone.
On to fertilizer:
Regardless of where urbanites stand on climate change/climate action, understand the dynamics of fertilizer usage on a modern farm operation. Fertilizers are needed to make budgets work and also to make the production aspects function. Lenders want to see a business case that points to profits. The profits provide the ability for farmers to upgrade to the newest technologies for fuel efficiency and fertilizer applications. On the production side, reducing fertilizer needs by 1/3 is like running power tools starved for electricity or baking bread with less yeast.
I agree with the Line, that the Liberals ARE HOPING that another round of hillbillies take to the streets across Canada and inconvenience and anger urban people who are happily riding the climate action bandwagon because they have little skin in the game.
Farmers are very mistrustful of Big Government, and also due to their closeness to wildlife can identify a skunk when they see it. The Liberal Party doesn’t care much for western Canada and rather than figure out ways to build bridges, it suits Trudeau and the PMO to turn their back on a significant amount of voters with their tail up.
Who needs chemical fertilizer. Let them eat organic... like the progressive, inner city Liberal types. If only the unenlightened masses outside the confines of dt Toronto could also heed the wisdom of US celebrities.
I don’t write the a sarcasm alert, but maybe should.
The use of the word “hillbillies” is accurate word usage in the context of the comment it is embedded in. In another The Line/Substack submission, an observation was made by a commenter that big urban centers are concentrated with higher education graduates and rural areas dominated by working class people with Grade 12 or less education. The narrative around the Freedom Convoy amplified this narrative from the Prime Minister (racists with unacceptable views) on down to the MSM and the Ottawa residents who focused on trucks, beards and hare brained notions. This subliminal messaging is attractive to Liberals who are clinging to power by dividing Canadians on urban/rural lines every chance they get.
Farmers need to realize that they are walking into a trap, neatly laid by Trudeau Liberals who will happily swap out trucks for tractors driven by bearded fools with “unacceptable views”.
It is important to remember that the Liberals moves on the tic-tac-toe of fertilizer use are quite a few moves ahead of farm organizations and the people on the ground about to be hit with a punitive mandates beyond common sense.
There are two choices: appeal to urban consumers and how this policy will boomerang and hurt them. That’s the approach that I would promote. The other option is high profile protests that attract the outer fringes of common sense. Dumping a load of feedlot manure on a city street is good theatre, but reinforces the negative stereotypes of “hillbillies” that is counterproductive and enabling to a political class who are cheering it on.
Why assume they would dump manure? Because it’s happened before. Lol.
If farmers want to play the role of the skunk (usually reserved for J Trudeau) at an urban garden party, a trunk load of greasy, fly attracting, gut churning manure is as good as it gets. A TV visual of that brings horror to urban people, recoiling at the thought of tracking the stuff onto their driveway in the heat of the summer.
Maybe it will come down to manure disturbing protests, but appealing to the common sense of consumers who need access to fair prices at the grocery store is worth a try first.
“Investments in soil testing could go a long way to helping farmers apply nitrogen more efficiently, which could help them increase yields while maintaining profits.”
Good lord, do you not think farmers have been doing soil testing for like decades? If you can’t comment intelligently on a subject don’t bleeping bother. It’s literally insulting to the agricultural industry. Extremely disappointed as a subscriber.
Yes, of course farmers have been soil testing for many decades. This is why it's farmers themselves who have been widely quoted saying that innovation-based measures like expanding soil testing would be a better way to go about reducing emissions than fertilizer cuts or bans. JG
This video gives a sense of what farmers are already doing with practices to reduce fertilizer consumption and why: www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMG4kuEN_kM&ab_channel=QuickDickMcDick. (Note: it gets political but it is funny so spend the 13 minutes. If you want to get purely to farm practices - go to the 3 minute mark).
My comment to The Line - How many farmers did you speak with on this issue before writing your commentary? It doesn't sound like many (any?) which is why Glenn is triggered. As indicated in the video, this farmer doesn't know a single farmer who doesn't work with one or more agronomists to manage soil including testing. Doesn't mean there aren't any but he's probably closer to being right than wrong.
There is an opportunity to do a well researched piece on this issue. You sent Matt down to the passport office to do some primary research. Maybe send him to AB and Sask to spend some time on some farms.
Bridging your comments with The Line editor, is the rapidly evolving combination of extensive field mapping and rigorous soil testing with gps guided variable rate fertilizing.
In this instance, farm technology is galloping ahead of Ag Canada to find ways to match nutrient needs in the field with precise application. But despite this initiative, Ag Canada threw a dart at the dartboard and hit “30%” as a random amount of fertilizer that must be cut from grain production.
As a layperson, the policy may as well say that farmer's must reduce their yield by 30%. I'd like to hear more about the work that goes into this policy.
I did get the chance to ask some farmers if they felt pressure to increase their yields, with food shortages around the word. What I heard is that farmers already try to get the best yield possible. Also, with crop rotations it seems like there are long term decisions made yearly.
So how does government policy come into play in the agricultural industry? Is it possible for them to make policies that aren't arbitrary?
The Liberal Government is under tremendous pressure to start delivering on the wild GHG/climate action pledges made in Glasgow. Remember, all the grandiose announcements were unilateral decisions, mostly made without consultation and little or no warning. This kind of bunker mentality group think expands in every direction such as single use plastic bans and how much fertilizer farm operations will be able to use.
To meet (or even get close to) the unilateral targets is going to require a lot of pain and it’s a political calculus to decide who is going to shoulder the burden and financial hurt. By their actions, Trudeau Liberals have chosen to target the Prairies where the oil/gas and ag sectors are significant producers of carbon emissions but are an insignificant political base of support. Let the antagonists pay, so to speak.
Hitting farmers over fertilizer use mirrors much of the green shift strategy: force pain on important sectors of the economy and then figure out how to comply.
There is soil testing and then there is interpreting the data from the testing. Improving the land is indeed worthwhile. Not sure if it needs to be subsidized, but I guess it will make the urban progressives feel good about being hosed on taxes.
AG business is a multi-billion $ industry run by some of the smartest people on the planet using some of the most advanced equipment in the world. They already know how to interpret soil test data or else hire people who do. Most equipment these days is GPS guided and employ variable rate fertilizer application. They are not using 44 Massey tractors and a one bottom plow. The comment in the column was condescending at the very least.
I've done more than my fair share over the years running a grain truck during harvest and hauling fertilizer and seed during seeding. Yes, today's equipment including seeders and combines have sophisticated tools to maximize yield.
I'm heavily implying that I would be a customer for these advanced soil testing and data services. I'm sure you have decades of experienced in ag sciences yourself.
I guess this is the quality of government senior leadership you get when you are more focused on English/French proficiency and optics than experience and skill. (The bilingual requirement being an effective affirmative action program ensuring that old Ottawa Valley families are well represented in the senior civil service while immigrants are kept out.)
It's all reflective of what the Canadian chattering classes, and those who want to be them, find important. They value process and optics rather than results and effectiveness. This is who we are, and they wonder why Populism, a movement rejecting their mediocre leadership, is growing in Canada.
We live in a bilingual country--end of story. Ensuring that both French and English are understood and used is a cornerstone of the national compact.
I should point out, though, that the reality does not match this laudable and necessary aspiration. In fact, French is not frequently used as a working language in a number of federal government departments (particularly the so-called central agencies), which contradicts your claim that the focus is on proficiency in both official languages.
In my view, the main issue impeding the effectiveness and credibility of the federal government is a lack of real accountability among senior public servants (and the fact that this seems to suit the main political parties just fine).
The working language of a department doesn't address the mandatory bilingual requirement for senior federal civil servants in Canada and how this requirement acts as an affirmative action program for bilingual Canada who predominantly are from select regions of Canada.
As for the bilingual "fact" of Canada, that isn't the reality for many in Canada, including most newcomers or those who are in for example British Columbia. It's Central Canadian politics shoved down the throats of the rest of Canada where it isn't relevant. If that is the "cornerstone of the national compact" perhaps Canada needs a new national compact rooted in reality instead of myth.
Canadians do not elect prime ministers. They vote for local MPs.
Yes, the political parties (in concert with the national news media) focus on the leaders. But we could, if we put our minds to it, work harder to demand that local MPs be given more power (and push to strip power from the "boys and girls in short pants", a.k.a. PMO).
That would make the Prime Minister what he/she was always supposed to be, primus inter pares, rather than the presidential figure we have now.
Every day that Trudeau continues to talk without acting, he makes that scenario more likely. What's he's done in Ukraine is another perfect example of words without substance.
I think your assessment of the present malaise in Ottawa sounds about right.
Much that happens (or, perhaps more appropriately, doesn't happen) in the federal government boils down to a failure to understand the challenges we face (or, even worse, paralysis in the face of what are paradigm shifts in the world and the enormity of those challenges).
Committees are struck, meetings are called, rounds of self-congratulatory applause are indulged in. But actual work to correct long-standing problems? Nada.
Why is that?
In my view, there are three reasons:
1) No one wants to impose real accountability (like firing incompetent or mediocre senior officials) on either the public service or among elected officials;
2) Officials have perhaps forgotten that diversity in the federal public service should not only be about recruiting First Nations, Inuit and visible minorities employees, but about encouraging real debate and diversity of ideas amongst those employees (and rewarding out-of-the-box thinking, instead of condemning it); and
3) Our apparent loss, as a country, of our sense of who we are and what we (collectively) aspire to.
We could blame politicians for all this, but in all fairness, are not the politicians we support/elect a reflection of our own failure of imagination?
More to the point, too many Canadians seem not to understand what the federal government is supposed to do (because they do not understand the finer points of the distinctions between different orders of government in this country).
For my part, I will continue to respectfully engage elected federal, provincial and regional officials to offer my views and suggestions... but perhaps this is not enough. Perhaps more fundamental reforms (of the political parties and of the parliamentary process in Canada, both federally and in the provinces) is necessary...?
Happy Birthday Oracles of Calgary/Toronto! How is it possible for The Line to be so consistently on point, especially about our federal government?
When Trudeau defeated Harper, I was clicking my ruby red heels, in assless chaps, thrilled to hear, "Canada's back!" -- surely so very, very, very different than the racist "Take back Canada." But now, I'm willfully ready to ignore Cryptogate, Convoygate, and every other flashing red light that should make PP unelectable, for the chance to see this endlessly embarrassing government kicked to the curb. Yes, I know I'm taking a hedge clipper to my nose to spite my face, but that's where I'm at.
I do think you missed two categories on the subject of forgiveness. As someone who believes that forgiveness requires an apology, there are those of us who say, "F*ck 'em, they're not going to take up any more space in my brain," and move on without either apology or forgiveness. And then there are also those like the UCP voters who forget they're about to vote for the person who so royally screwed them the first time around. (Perhaps people like me, now prepared to vote Conservative?)
Anyway, happy birthday again. And thanks for being so funny. Your rants are every bit as spectacular as Rick Mercer's.
Allan -- everyone's rope is a different length. I got to the end of mine much earlier :) I echo your birthday wishes but would compare the rants with those of Rex Murphy, who to my thinking, is more erudite and a better wordsmith, if less photogenic :)
Well, we part company on Rex Murphy. To my mind, his resemblance to Brainiac and familiarity with Roget's Thesaurus are all that create the illusion of smarts. A two-bit mind with 24 carot words. Still, that and the accent make an undeniably effective brand. :)
Yeah, I lost respect for Rex when I realized he was taking money to lie about climate science. He's just another blindly obedient conservative and he's old. Not an insult because I am, too, but he doesn't care about the climate because he knows he won't be around when it gets really bad.
how to have a thoughtful perspective on the papal visit?
I saw a bit of the archbishop of Canterbury visit earlier this spring. I'd like to contrast the two visits.
What really struck me was Justin Welby's rhetorical skills. I am so used to hearing sound bites. Justin Welby spoke for 30 minutes. His words were like honey. Do we have any great orators today in Canada? (And this ain't a rhetorial question).
The press coverage for Justin Welby's visit was generous if not limited. In fact the odd article and column were critical of the low key quality of the visit. Nobody had heard about a world religious leader of 80 million coming to Canada; thus residential school survivors were not able attend the apology. I don't think the critics quite recognized how much the Anglican church has decreased in importance, which to me explains the lack of attention.
In the end, Justin Welby gave a sincere apology for the role of the Church England with regards to residential schools. This was a specific apology; what else could he say? Well, he made a promise to do whatever he could within his power to help the reconciliation process; acknowledging that as a leader in England there wasn't much he could for us in Canada. The reporters at the scrum wanted to know if he would give money. Maybe he will find small ways to help, within his role.
Meanwhile the Pope's visit was at an altogether different scale. The Catholic church is huge, and he is a major leader, of course the amount of attention was amazing. The CBC did a live broadcast. The Governor-General and Prime Minister welcomed and hosted the pope. The pope is afterall a sovereign.
But the apology wasn't that different from Justin Welby's. It was very specific. For example, the pope's initial apology didn't include comments on genocide or the doctrine of discovery. But certainly the press really wanted the pope to say something on these other matters of importance. Justin Welby did not have the same scrutiny or pressure to expand his apologies.
Also both apologies were theological. Easy to understand, but they reflected a Christian understanding of reconciliation. The Christian understanding of reconciliation is different than the Canadian political understanding of reconciliation. I think. I am not sure about this. There definitely is some lack of understanding when it comes to covering someone begging for forgiveness.
And this is where Matt and Jen's commentary hits home; they understand the difficulty of forgiveness.
I was raised Catholic (and chose to be agnostic) and would point out the atonement -- apologies and forgiveness -- are the very core of the faith. Yet, when the representatives of the church do harm, they seem to start acting like any other large, rich organization looking to protect their reputation and limit legal liability. Glad this Pope is making any kind of apology, and hope it suffices for those harmed, but an apology at this point it literally the least they can do.
I expect the Vatican legal department were to blame for the specificity of the apology. It's easy to say `sorry' but what I want to know is where the promised funds are. Millions to build fancy churches but a pittance in reparations?
Happy Birthday! I love your work. Has anyone connected the fact that the federal government unions are saying it is not “safe” for their workers to return to their offices…and the fact that work is not getting done? On a recent trip to Ottawa I couldn’t help but notice that the federal office buildings are pretty quiet…
`... that a necessary precursor to getting our various levels of federal public-service bureaucracy functioning better is an additional level of federal public-service bureaucracy. '
You have been in the journalism business a decent amount of time. You must have had an opportunity to see the government bureaucracy world, up close. It's trapped in tradition. And yes, you do need to do the dance because the territory fights can be bloody.
The territory/silo model should be filed under `redundant' but good luck with that. Everyone has a stake, including the lowest staff who can throw a wrench into the works whenever they get bored. It looks nuts because it is and it's why the British very old comedy 'Yes, Minister' can still amuse. Bureaucrats are called `mandarins' for a reason.
Apologies, however welcome, never solved a boil-water advisory. Noble ideals never solved a boil-water advisory. Boris Johnson was a clown, albeit an intelligent, well-educated, and well-read clown who could quote Homer in the original Greek. On this side of the pond, we only got a clown.
This is why people like Poilievre and Danielle Smith don't worry me so much, at least at the moment. Trudeau and his gov has been an ineffectual Instagram-addled turd from day one; none of this is new. If PP sits in the PM chair, I'll happily rail on him for being a batty conservative weirdo. But he's not in the drivers seat; Trudeau is.
One problem with the public service is that some do know how to put forward solutions but they are stopped by politicians or senior admins. It becomes a viscous cycle of scared bureaucrats who don't say the truth, senior admin who want to look good, and know-it-all ideologues who keep to their bubbles and only tweet to please their followers rather than work to solve problems. Something has change.
Well said. Couldn't agree more. I've been trying to teach (as a former prof) my bureaucrat colleagues that they absolutely must speak truth to power, they are Crown servants and the Crown, as symbol of Canadian political power, gives them the authority to speak and to hell with getting invited to the good parties - that's not their job. But, in small town Ottawa, speaking up has greatly suffered from tall poppy syndrome. It's pathetic for very well paid, practically unfire-able bureaucrats. Some of them aren't servants to the Crown anymore, they are slaves to the weaponization of virtue signalling.
The GWB gif was absolutely wonderful and appropriate for just about every essay....keep up the excellent writing...their ain't nowhere else to find it in Canada
Great weekly summary, I especially enjoyed the dissection of the Ukrainian Embassy story. It is quite remarkable how the Liberal marketing department can burn the jet fuel and tie up the Prime Minister and two senior cabinet ministers for a few photos taken thousands of miles away in a war zone.
On to fertilizer:
Regardless of where urbanites stand on climate change/climate action, understand the dynamics of fertilizer usage on a modern farm operation. Fertilizers are needed to make budgets work and also to make the production aspects function. Lenders want to see a business case that points to profits. The profits provide the ability for farmers to upgrade to the newest technologies for fuel efficiency and fertilizer applications. On the production side, reducing fertilizer needs by 1/3 is like running power tools starved for electricity or baking bread with less yeast.
I agree with the Line, that the Liberals ARE HOPING that another round of hillbillies take to the streets across Canada and inconvenience and anger urban people who are happily riding the climate action bandwagon because they have little skin in the game.
If they want to use fertilizer and grow economical food they should've voted Liberal. Did farmers learn nothing from oil workers?
Farmers are very mistrustful of Big Government, and also due to their closeness to wildlife can identify a skunk when they see it. The Liberal Party doesn’t care much for western Canada and rather than figure out ways to build bridges, it suits Trudeau and the PMO to turn their back on a significant amount of voters with their tail up.
good point :)
Who needs chemical fertilizer. Let them eat organic... like the progressive, inner city Liberal types. If only the unenlightened masses outside the confines of dt Toronto could also heed the wisdom of US celebrities.
I don’t write the a sarcasm alert, but maybe should.
The use of the word “hillbillies” is accurate word usage in the context of the comment it is embedded in. In another The Line/Substack submission, an observation was made by a commenter that big urban centers are concentrated with higher education graduates and rural areas dominated by working class people with Grade 12 or less education. The narrative around the Freedom Convoy amplified this narrative from the Prime Minister (racists with unacceptable views) on down to the MSM and the Ottawa residents who focused on trucks, beards and hare brained notions. This subliminal messaging is attractive to Liberals who are clinging to power by dividing Canadians on urban/rural lines every chance they get.
Farmers need to realize that they are walking into a trap, neatly laid by Trudeau Liberals who will happily swap out trucks for tractors driven by bearded fools with “unacceptable views”.
It is important to remember that the Liberals moves on the tic-tac-toe of fertilizer use are quite a few moves ahead of farm organizations and the people on the ground about to be hit with a punitive mandates beyond common sense.
There are two choices: appeal to urban consumers and how this policy will boomerang and hurt them. That’s the approach that I would promote. The other option is high profile protests that attract the outer fringes of common sense. Dumping a load of feedlot manure on a city street is good theatre, but reinforces the negative stereotypes of “hillbillies” that is counterproductive and enabling to a political class who are cheering it on.
Why assume they would dump manure? Because it’s happened before. Lol.
If farmers want to play the role of the skunk (usually reserved for J Trudeau) at an urban garden party, a trunk load of greasy, fly attracting, gut churning manure is as good as it gets. A TV visual of that brings horror to urban people, recoiling at the thought of tracking the stuff onto their driveway in the heat of the summer.
Maybe it will come down to manure disturbing protests, but appealing to the common sense of consumers who need access to fair prices at the grocery store is worth a try first.
“Investments in soil testing could go a long way to helping farmers apply nitrogen more efficiently, which could help them increase yields while maintaining profits.”
Good lord, do you not think farmers have been doing soil testing for like decades? If you can’t comment intelligently on a subject don’t bleeping bother. It’s literally insulting to the agricultural industry. Extremely disappointed as a subscriber.
Yes, of course farmers have been soil testing for many decades. This is why it's farmers themselves who have been widely quoted saying that innovation-based measures like expanding soil testing would be a better way to go about reducing emissions than fertilizer cuts or bans. JG
This video gives a sense of what farmers are already doing with practices to reduce fertilizer consumption and why: www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMG4kuEN_kM&ab_channel=QuickDickMcDick. (Note: it gets political but it is funny so spend the 13 minutes. If you want to get purely to farm practices - go to the 3 minute mark).
My comment to The Line - How many farmers did you speak with on this issue before writing your commentary? It doesn't sound like many (any?) which is why Glenn is triggered. As indicated in the video, this farmer doesn't know a single farmer who doesn't work with one or more agronomists to manage soil including testing. Doesn't mean there aren't any but he's probably closer to being right than wrong.
There is an opportunity to do a well researched piece on this issue. You sent Matt down to the passport office to do some primary research. Maybe send him to AB and Sask to spend some time on some farms.
Bridging your comments with The Line editor, is the rapidly evolving combination of extensive field mapping and rigorous soil testing with gps guided variable rate fertilizing.
In this instance, farm technology is galloping ahead of Ag Canada to find ways to match nutrient needs in the field with precise application. But despite this initiative, Ag Canada threw a dart at the dartboard and hit “30%” as a random amount of fertilizer that must be cut from grain production.
As a layperson, the policy may as well say that farmer's must reduce their yield by 30%. I'd like to hear more about the work that goes into this policy.
I did get the chance to ask some farmers if they felt pressure to increase their yields, with food shortages around the word. What I heard is that farmers already try to get the best yield possible. Also, with crop rotations it seems like there are long term decisions made yearly.
So how does government policy come into play in the agricultural industry? Is it possible for them to make policies that aren't arbitrary?
Hi Ted.
The Liberal Government is under tremendous pressure to start delivering on the wild GHG/climate action pledges made in Glasgow. Remember, all the grandiose announcements were unilateral decisions, mostly made without consultation and little or no warning. This kind of bunker mentality group think expands in every direction such as single use plastic bans and how much fertilizer farm operations will be able to use.
To meet (or even get close to) the unilateral targets is going to require a lot of pain and it’s a political calculus to decide who is going to shoulder the burden and financial hurt. By their actions, Trudeau Liberals have chosen to target the Prairies where the oil/gas and ag sectors are significant producers of carbon emissions but are an insignificant political base of support. Let the antagonists pay, so to speak.
Hitting farmers over fertilizer use mirrors much of the green shift strategy: force pain on important sectors of the economy and then figure out how to comply.
There is soil testing and then there is interpreting the data from the testing. Improving the land is indeed worthwhile. Not sure if it needs to be subsidized, but I guess it will make the urban progressives feel good about being hosed on taxes.
AG business is a multi-billion $ industry run by some of the smartest people on the planet using some of the most advanced equipment in the world. They already know how to interpret soil test data or else hire people who do. Most equipment these days is GPS guided and employ variable rate fertilizer application. They are not using 44 Massey tractors and a one bottom plow. The comment in the column was condescending at the very least.
I've done more than my fair share over the years running a grain truck during harvest and hauling fertilizer and seed during seeding. Yes, today's equipment including seeders and combines have sophisticated tools to maximize yield.
Hauling grain, fertilizer and seed does not make you an agri-biz data interpreter, now does it?
I'm heavily implying that I would be a customer for these advanced soil testing and data services. I'm sure you have decades of experienced in ag sciences yourself.
Everything will be fine. fine.
I guess this is the quality of government senior leadership you get when you are more focused on English/French proficiency and optics than experience and skill. (The bilingual requirement being an effective affirmative action program ensuring that old Ottawa Valley families are well represented in the senior civil service while immigrants are kept out.)
It's all reflective of what the Canadian chattering classes, and those who want to be them, find important. They value process and optics rather than results and effectiveness. This is who we are, and they wonder why Populism, a movement rejecting their mediocre leadership, is growing in Canada.
We live in a bilingual country--end of story. Ensuring that both French and English are understood and used is a cornerstone of the national compact.
I should point out, though, that the reality does not match this laudable and necessary aspiration. In fact, French is not frequently used as a working language in a number of federal government departments (particularly the so-called central agencies), which contradicts your claim that the focus is on proficiency in both official languages.
In my view, the main issue impeding the effectiveness and credibility of the federal government is a lack of real accountability among senior public servants (and the fact that this seems to suit the main political parties just fine).
But it costs a fortune to maintain; I'm far from convinced that it's worth the cost.
The working language of a department doesn't address the mandatory bilingual requirement for senior federal civil servants in Canada and how this requirement acts as an affirmative action program for bilingual Canada who predominantly are from select regions of Canada.
As for the bilingual "fact" of Canada, that isn't the reality for many in Canada, including most newcomers or those who are in for example British Columbia. It's Central Canadian politics shoved down the throats of the rest of Canada where it isn't relevant. If that is the "cornerstone of the national compact" perhaps Canada needs a new national compact rooted in reality instead of myth.
Who has forced you to receive services in French (or learn the language)?
Ah, if only Canadians had elected a prime minister instead of a mascot.
Canadians do not elect prime ministers. They vote for local MPs.
Yes, the political parties (in concert with the national news media) focus on the leaders. But we could, if we put our minds to it, work harder to demand that local MPs be given more power (and push to strip power from the "boys and girls in short pants", a.k.a. PMO).
That would make the Prime Minister what he/she was always supposed to be, primus inter pares, rather than the presidential figure we have now.
I think we elect Prime Minister's. Our MP"s no longer have a voice since the PMO took over the country going back to at least the Chretien era.
You assume Canadians want something other than a mascot?
Every day that Trudeau continues to talk without acting, he makes that scenario more likely. What's he's done in Ukraine is another perfect example of words without substance.
Especially given :
1) technogical innovation. Want service in French.... Download the French PDF
2) the federal government provides very little front line service
Thank you for this.
I think your assessment of the present malaise in Ottawa sounds about right.
Much that happens (or, perhaps more appropriately, doesn't happen) in the federal government boils down to a failure to understand the challenges we face (or, even worse, paralysis in the face of what are paradigm shifts in the world and the enormity of those challenges).
Committees are struck, meetings are called, rounds of self-congratulatory applause are indulged in. But actual work to correct long-standing problems? Nada.
Why is that?
In my view, there are three reasons:
1) No one wants to impose real accountability (like firing incompetent or mediocre senior officials) on either the public service or among elected officials;
2) Officials have perhaps forgotten that diversity in the federal public service should not only be about recruiting First Nations, Inuit and visible minorities employees, but about encouraging real debate and diversity of ideas amongst those employees (and rewarding out-of-the-box thinking, instead of condemning it); and
3) Our apparent loss, as a country, of our sense of who we are and what we (collectively) aspire to.
We could blame politicians for all this, but in all fairness, are not the politicians we support/elect a reflection of our own failure of imagination?
More to the point, too many Canadians seem not to understand what the federal government is supposed to do (because they do not understand the finer points of the distinctions between different orders of government in this country).
For my part, I will continue to respectfully engage elected federal, provincial and regional officials to offer my views and suggestions... but perhaps this is not enough. Perhaps more fundamental reforms (of the political parties and of the parliamentary process in Canada, both federally and in the provinces) is necessary...?
I agree with your assessment. You can also engage the bureaucrats directly. Some of us are listening.
Happy Birthday Oracles of Calgary/Toronto! How is it possible for The Line to be so consistently on point, especially about our federal government?
When Trudeau defeated Harper, I was clicking my ruby red heels, in assless chaps, thrilled to hear, "Canada's back!" -- surely so very, very, very different than the racist "Take back Canada." But now, I'm willfully ready to ignore Cryptogate, Convoygate, and every other flashing red light that should make PP unelectable, for the chance to see this endlessly embarrassing government kicked to the curb. Yes, I know I'm taking a hedge clipper to my nose to spite my face, but that's where I'm at.
I do think you missed two categories on the subject of forgiveness. As someone who believes that forgiveness requires an apology, there are those of us who say, "F*ck 'em, they're not going to take up any more space in my brain," and move on without either apology or forgiveness. And then there are also those like the UCP voters who forget they're about to vote for the person who so royally screwed them the first time around. (Perhaps people like me, now prepared to vote Conservative?)
Anyway, happy birthday again. And thanks for being so funny. Your rants are every bit as spectacular as Rick Mercer's.
Allan -- everyone's rope is a different length. I got to the end of mine much earlier :) I echo your birthday wishes but would compare the rants with those of Rex Murphy, who to my thinking, is more erudite and a better wordsmith, if less photogenic :)
Well, we part company on Rex Murphy. To my mind, his resemblance to Brainiac and familiarity with Roget's Thesaurus are all that create the illusion of smarts. A two-bit mind with 24 carot words. Still, that and the accent make an undeniably effective brand. :)
Yeah, I lost respect for Rex when I realized he was taking money to lie about climate science. He's just another blindly obedient conservative and he's old. Not an insult because I am, too, but he doesn't care about the climate because he knows he won't be around when it gets really bad.
Happy birthday guys—you give me hope!
how to have a thoughtful perspective on the papal visit?
I saw a bit of the archbishop of Canterbury visit earlier this spring. I'd like to contrast the two visits.
What really struck me was Justin Welby's rhetorical skills. I am so used to hearing sound bites. Justin Welby spoke for 30 minutes. His words were like honey. Do we have any great orators today in Canada? (And this ain't a rhetorial question).
The press coverage for Justin Welby's visit was generous if not limited. In fact the odd article and column were critical of the low key quality of the visit. Nobody had heard about a world religious leader of 80 million coming to Canada; thus residential school survivors were not able attend the apology. I don't think the critics quite recognized how much the Anglican church has decreased in importance, which to me explains the lack of attention.
In the end, Justin Welby gave a sincere apology for the role of the Church England with regards to residential schools. This was a specific apology; what else could he say? Well, he made a promise to do whatever he could within his power to help the reconciliation process; acknowledging that as a leader in England there wasn't much he could for us in Canada. The reporters at the scrum wanted to know if he would give money. Maybe he will find small ways to help, within his role.
Meanwhile the Pope's visit was at an altogether different scale. The Catholic church is huge, and he is a major leader, of course the amount of attention was amazing. The CBC did a live broadcast. The Governor-General and Prime Minister welcomed and hosted the pope. The pope is afterall a sovereign.
But the apology wasn't that different from Justin Welby's. It was very specific. For example, the pope's initial apology didn't include comments on genocide or the doctrine of discovery. But certainly the press really wanted the pope to say something on these other matters of importance. Justin Welby did not have the same scrutiny or pressure to expand his apologies.
Also both apologies were theological. Easy to understand, but they reflected a Christian understanding of reconciliation. The Christian understanding of reconciliation is different than the Canadian political understanding of reconciliation. I think. I am not sure about this. There definitely is some lack of understanding when it comes to covering someone begging for forgiveness.
And this is where Matt and Jen's commentary hits home; they understand the difficulty of forgiveness.
happy anniversary. I hope you have many more.
I was raised Catholic (and chose to be agnostic) and would point out the atonement -- apologies and forgiveness -- are the very core of the faith. Yet, when the representatives of the church do harm, they seem to start acting like any other large, rich organization looking to protect their reputation and limit legal liability. Glad this Pope is making any kind of apology, and hope it suffices for those harmed, but an apology at this point it literally the least they can do.
I expect the Vatican legal department were to blame for the specificity of the apology. It's easy to say `sorry' but what I want to know is where the promised funds are. Millions to build fancy churches but a pittance in reparations?
Happy Birthday! I love your work. Has anyone connected the fact that the federal government unions are saying it is not “safe” for their workers to return to their offices…and the fact that work is not getting done? On a recent trip to Ottawa I couldn’t help but notice that the federal office buildings are pretty quiet…
`... that a necessary precursor to getting our various levels of federal public-service bureaucracy functioning better is an additional level of federal public-service bureaucracy. '
You have been in the journalism business a decent amount of time. You must have had an opportunity to see the government bureaucracy world, up close. It's trapped in tradition. And yes, you do need to do the dance because the territory fights can be bloody.
The territory/silo model should be filed under `redundant' but good luck with that. Everyone has a stake, including the lowest staff who can throw a wrench into the works whenever they get bored. It looks nuts because it is and it's why the British very old comedy 'Yes, Minister' can still amuse. Bureaucrats are called `mandarins' for a reason.
Apologies, however welcome, never solved a boil-water advisory. Noble ideals never solved a boil-water advisory. Boris Johnson was a clown, albeit an intelligent, well-educated, and well-read clown who could quote Homer in the original Greek. On this side of the pond, we only got a clown.
OK, so two clowns?
This is why people like Poilievre and Danielle Smith don't worry me so much, at least at the moment. Trudeau and his gov has been an ineffectual Instagram-addled turd from day one; none of this is new. If PP sits in the PM chair, I'll happily rail on him for being a batty conservative weirdo. But he's not in the drivers seat; Trudeau is.
Congrats on kicking off year 3, Jen and Matt. Looking forward to seeing the Line grow. Keep up the great work and terrific writing.
One problem with the public service is that some do know how to put forward solutions but they are stopped by politicians or senior admins. It becomes a viscous cycle of scared bureaucrats who don't say the truth, senior admin who want to look good, and know-it-all ideologues who keep to their bubbles and only tweet to please their followers rather than work to solve problems. Something has change.
Well said. Couldn't agree more. I've been trying to teach (as a former prof) my bureaucrat colleagues that they absolutely must speak truth to power, they are Crown servants and the Crown, as symbol of Canadian political power, gives them the authority to speak and to hell with getting invited to the good parties - that's not their job. But, in small town Ottawa, speaking up has greatly suffered from tall poppy syndrome. It's pathetic for very well paid, practically unfire-able bureaucrats. Some of them aren't servants to the Crown anymore, they are slaves to the weaponization of virtue signalling.
Conformity is a beast, isn't it? The head down culture exists in all jobs. It's a pity because it holds us back as a civilisation.
Better? Really? how should gov't work then?
Yeah, agreed, that's what I said.
Morgan posed such a risk that he was branded a racist:
https://archive.macleans.ca/article/2006/5/29/interview
You consider lietracker.ca to be as trustworthy as Macleans? It doesn't even post the identities of its contributors and funders.
Canada Proud, The Tyee, Press Progress etc. are all big wastes of time.
The GWB gif was absolutely wonderful and appropriate for just about every essay....keep up the excellent writing...their ain't nowhere else to find it in Canada
Robert Purves
Brackenrig , Muskoka