Hard to disagree with anything that Matt has written here. Our fundamental underlying problem is probably ignorance (or stupidity). We continually elect politicians who are extremists and or idealogues. I am completely gob smacked that Justin Trudeau and his government have won three consecutive elections, and that the NDP get any votes at all. The Greens are a disaster and yet they actually have seats in the commons. And the Conservatives can't seem to open their mouths with saying the word "abortion". Governments at all levels are declaring climate "emergencies" and "crises" and talking about climate change as an existential threat, while the IPCC (you know, that body of experts and scientists who have been studying this stuff for thirty years) have only gone so far as to call it "concerning". How can we possibly achieve competence on a country wide basis when the people with their hands on the levers are full of hyperbole and panic? First we dial down the extremism. Then maybe we get a shot at competent.
How unfortunate that you mentioned all this and that you are right! I know I keep banging on about this but we decided to emigrate to Canada because at the time we thought Britain was going into nothingness. Now things have changed. Every day I read about some innovative idea in the environment, in transportation, even the pandemic was deal with a lot better - all coming from the UK. And most of all they aren’t being dragged into bankruptcy by a leader who is totally unqualified to be PM. I doubt the Uk would think a bunch of academics would be the best suited to run a country.
I doubt the Fraser Institute will ever say anything good about the Liberals, yet their party has yet to deliver a plan, or fiscal responsibility when in power. Wouldn't it be great to get an assessment of where we're at without a "spin"?
I still think we're a fabulous country that overspent on "redecorating the lobby', and now has an enormous task to figure out how to undo the mistakes we've made. We've tried to be everything for everyone and have, perhaps, finally figured out that we can't afford it. The task ahead is massive, and will require leadership; something that is in short supply. We all know where the money is...it's just a matter of the G19 leaders getting together and deciding that the voters are more important than shareholder value, and multinational corporate profits. There is a balance...the pendulum has swung way too far to one side.
Look, our history is essentially we threw together a bunch of people who didn't have a ton in common (US Loyalists, various First Nations, French settlers, British settlers) beyond not wanting to be American! That's set up our national past time: constantly comparing ourselves to Americans.
What we miss in doing that is identifying and leaning into our advantages and strenghts. We could be an effective middle power. I was suprised when I looked it up and discovered we have a bigger GDP than Russia. We could look inward and figure out what we want Canada to be on the world stage, instead on constantly patting ourselves on the back about being slightly better than the US on a few select measures.
Canada does have some significant advantages. We do a pretty decent job at scientific reserach, though we struggle to turn that IP into a business advantage. We have significant natural resources, along with a lot of related expertise. We have found a way to attract a lot of immigration and integrate those folks into Canada, which I think is an extension of our history of being a bunch of different people, kind of thrown together, forced to find a way to (somewhat) co-exist. We've been far from perfect (several Quebec referendums, longstanding hard feelings in Western Canada and the Maritimes and a very not-great history of engaging with First Peoples), we've managed to stumble along without a lot of violence or civil discourd.
I do think there is a community of democratic middle powers that should find ways to work togther to balance the superpowers. That would mean thinking about what Canada could bring to those kinds of partnerships besides words. We've established trade agreements with key partners in the EU and Asia, we could and should back that up with continued diplomatic coordination.
Besides all of that, I suspect that Matt is leaning into a more specific frustration (that I share) which is that our public and private sector institutions seem to be mostly non-evil but also not terribly competent. We can't seem to get stuff done. That's true for things like buying fighter jets. But, it also is true in a business class that seems focused on incremental improvements (look at our productivity) and an economic approach that still seems focused on foreign investment. We have brilliant people in Canada, but we mainly seem to see ourselves as a minor league economy where superstars will eventually leave rather than trying to create something big here. There are exceptions (Shopify, Magna) but mostly Canada doesn't feel like a place where you can dream big and realize your dream here. Part of that is having access to one of the biggest markets in the world right next door, but it also feels a bit cultural -- that we think of Canada as the small hometown you eventually need to leave. Why is that? Why can't greatness flourish here?
Agreed, your last paragraph nails it, why do we struggle so much to build great things here? There certainly is far less of the 'dream big, do it' attitude in Canada. We leave it to someone else.
It would be great if we could channel more students into the areas with high demand. Just the other day I was reading about tech companies being unable to find enough talent. How is that? We've known since the 2010s that tech is a big part of the future, how have we not produced enough workers in these areas?
I can't think of a better allegory for Canada's mediocrity than the prime minister's residence @ 24 Sussex remaining in a state of disrepair for the entirety of the Justin Trudeau Years (all seven of them!)
While true, that example really only applies to politicians and bureaucrats. I suggest the national poll taken a couple of years ago in which a large majority of Canadians ranked the environment as a critical issue while at the same time saying they would not support their taxes being raise by $100 per year to help deal with it.
Now there is talk of him spending more money on a more lavish new one. Where the hell will this over spending leave us? We need a Conservative leader who knows about economics and business, who has a great personality and can win in Quebec and Ontario. Otherwise Canada will quickly into total bankruptcy
You realize ‘he’ doesn’t make that decision, don’t you? The proposed solution is actually very practical since it will provide space for more than housing.
Maybe this is why ‘big things’ don’t get done. As soon as there’s one on the table, someone squeaks ‘But the cost?’
My friend in Ontario is very keen on Pierre. My doctor friend here says Leslyn Lewis. I don’t care who we have - we just have to get someone competent and capable of winning Quebec and Ontario. I liked Harper. He didn’t have panache but he had qualifications. We need someone with both those and more.
I think we need Brad Wall but he’s too happy being a cowboy. He was consistently the most popular Premier.
I think Leslyns social conservative values are unelectable in Canada; especially as it watches the assault on women's rights happening in the US.
I find Pierre every hard to listen to in the House of Commons, as he spins and manipulates to create soundbites without substance. He's a bit like the host of an infomercial....entertaining but hard to believe. I'll be curious to watch him answer questions as opposed to answering them, as that will be a much better measure of what he is. He's saying a lot of the right things...but it's also clear he hasn't spoken to anyone about what is required to make them happen.
Oh, would you like an example of us having our shit together on something, Matt? How about our financial system? The one just south of us, and the one in Britain, collapsed, with multiple bank failures, and more averted only by trillions in hastily-printed Fed-money bailouts. Their failure, sorry, let me spell that correctly, their F*A*I*L*U*R*E, crashed banks and whole economies around the world. Except in so-nearby, so-dependent Canada, which had zero bank failures, needed zero bailouts, and our economics-major PM correctly calculated our "stimulus" at half as much as Obama needed, per capita, and a third as much as Obama was given, allowing us to make the faster recovery.
That smart-manager PM being Harper, to whom I, an opponent, give due credit. As long as due credit is also given to governments of both parties, for decades, building the "norms" and rules into our strong, world-class-reliable, financial system. (Just as the American blunder of bank deregulation was bipartisan.)
There's cherry-picking here: America has far more ability to kill people and blow things up, which I guess is impressive to some, if not to the Afghans who beat them anyway. They really suck at healing and saving lives, though, with their medical system costing twice what ours does ($11K/citizen/year, vs $5.5K) but with worse outcomes. Three times as bad an outcome, for COVID, seven times as bad if you are under 50.
I'm just not jealous of the nation whose vast military power led them to defeat against rice-paddy farmers, Baghdad shopkeepers, and Afghan shepherds. Or the keen intelligence agencies that told them going in was a good idea. I'm not proud that we spent years deciding to buy their airplanes after all, though the delay saved billions; but I'd we way more ashamed if we'd *developed* the F35, an utter embarrassment to the profession of arms.
Can Matt explain why we keep appearing on all those "Best Countries on Earth" lists? Those make sense after my review; after his, not so much.
Canadians suffer from an extreme aversion to risk, which leads to a lot of mediocre outcomes. In government and the public service, this has manifested in an increasing concentration of control and decision making at the highest levels to minimize any potential political consequences of activity. This has disempowered and disincentivized civil servants from taking initiative, a predictable outcome of micromanagement. Why take the risk of doing something if somebody further up the chain will freak out and punish you for it later?
Agreed. Risk aversion is a part of who we are. It also inhibits the political dialogue as nobody can admit any policy proposal has any risks without being piled on. But, part of managing risks is acknowledging and quantifying those risks. We seem to live in a fantasy world where the right answer to any question provides a guaranteed win. But the reality is often that some risks are worth taking, others aren't -- and that avoiding risk at nearly all costs can create its own risks (opportunity costs and kicking problems down the road because we don't want to deal with them).
A culture of smart risk taking might be transformative for us!
I agree but that would also require honesty about the trade-offs and what we value most. The fossil fuel vs environment discussion showcases this well.
That’s a civil service cultural condition you will find in many countries. Over the years of dealing with civil servants at the senior level in more than one country, I’d say continuing dependence on seniority as the major factor in promotion is the cause. It’s completely demoralising. Add to that the political issues and the accompanying politicians and you practically grind to a halt. It’s not unfixable but needs both courage and a Plan.
Having said that, many of us made interesting careers doing the stuff those folks found too hard to present themselves, but could do so and blame us if it didn’t meet with favour.
I would argue we are even failing at being Canadian hosers, emphasis on “Canadian”. We don’t even drink our own beer. What other country in the world fetishizes another country’s beer brands? What are the most popular beers in Canada? Likely Bud lite and Coors. How embarrassing is it that Saskatoon’s hockey barn is named the Coors Event Centre?
And…Timmies long ago sold out to an international conglomerate that only warms donuts up that are made in some vast central location. Pathetic.
As for the rest of the article, I couldn’t agree more.
Old age is taking quite a toll on my mind and body so when Matt's piece arrived this morning I was musing about the future faced by my beloved friends and family.
I was seeing a country with the finest social and legal protections ever designed by humankind. Prosperity providing the basics of life to virtually everyone and much more to most -- indeed, propane-fuelled smokers and lakes full of boats! Compassion, generosity, kindness and equanimity. Industry. Freedom. Education. Opportunity. Safety. Abundant beauty and bountiful natural resources. Adversarial politics to keep everyone thinking and improving.
And then, reading the comments, I found an endless litany of complaints and almost no plaudits. I have no problem with a microscopic examination of what could be better (I enjoy the debate) but could it not be contextualized in a macroscopic and realistic frame of wonderment -- gratitude for what we all have?
We are mediocre because we have uninspiring, value signalling, shallow leadership on all levels of government filled with individuals who are scared of challenging their party cronies for fear of being kicked out of their respective parties, gutless wonders who defer to a bloated ineffective bureaucracy who can’t successfully order a box of paper clips!
Sorry Lou, but no we, as a country, are not mediocre because of a small sub-set of society (even if it is the “political class). We are mediocre because the vast majority of Canadians are mediocre.
Maybe I should have said that Canada is mediocre not “we” are mediocre. Uninspiring and unimaginative leadership results in mediocrity in government and its citizenry. Look at our current crop of feckless politicians.
I think we have a chicken & egg agreement/disagreement. I blame Canada’s mediocrity on its citizen, you blame the political class (which happens to originate from the citizenry). Either way, Matt is correct. Canada is a mediocre country. It has been for several decades. I see little hope that the electorate (citizenry) will act to reverse this trend in either the near to mid-future.
Prescription is a good word, as one is only useful if the person uses / does what is prescribed.
To start, Canadians need to become more self-disciplined and exercise more personal responsibility and accountability. If you don’t believe me, just consider the driving habits you see every day on our streets and highways. The “if I think I can get away with it” mentality is omnipresent in society. Governments will not, should not, and cannot solve all our problems / issues.
A good federal leader could help, if they were disciplined enough to remain focused on what they are responsible for. There are enough areas of federal responsibility that need fixing that the federal government should not be sticking its nose into provincial affairs. The only time the federal government should get involved in provincial affairs is when all, or at least a constitutional change majority, request them to become involved.
Do I think there is a chance in hell that Canadians will step-up to such as challenge? Not likely. Too few are willing to give up anything in order to either enhance their own personal futures, or society’s. This does not just apply to Liberal and NDP supporters. Conservatives as well, especially as I call them the “selfish-libertarians.” Selfish-libertarians are those who demand the right to do whatever they want, and at the same time expect the remainder of society (the majority) to forego their wants and desires just so that small minority can indulge their selfishness.
Fully agree with Matt’s article and I think the mediocrity extends well beyond Canadian public institutions and into the private sector. I would however disagree with Matt in calling our immigration policy a success. Full disclosure, while I was born in Canada I come from a family of immigrants. Ukrainian, Greek, Chinese, Indian - all are a part of my extended family. I believe this country is blessed to have people from such diverse cultures and backgrounds and an immigration policy that continues to bring people from all over the world to our country is indeed a success. However, our immigration policy has become an excuse for our nation’s mediocrity. Other than houses, we don’t really produce things in this country the way we used to be capable of. Not knowing how to grow our economy by getting better at what we do, our leaders grow our economy by growing the number of people in the economy. What could be so bad with that ?
Well, for one we have created a housing crisis because we cannot build at the rate we need, to keep up with increased immigration levels. All this talk of driving up the supply of housing is a bunch of BS. Anyone with a familiarity of home construction knows that the industry is operating at flat out capacity, has been for some time, and cannot produce at a much higher rate than it does.
Second, our immigration policy becomes an excuse for our private sector at having to get better at what they do. Getting better at what you do typically means you become more cost effective and more productive. Canada has some of the lowest productive gains in the developed world. Businesses in Canada have some of the lowest re-investment rates in the developed world. The reason is pretty obvious – in fact it comes across the news almost daily. Across the rest of the developed world, if your labour supply is relatively stable and you want to grow your business you need to get more productive with the employees you have. Very simple math. In Canada, you just complain that we need higher immigration levels or temporary foreign workers so that you don’t need to do the hard work of figuring out how to grow your business with the same general level of staffing. I own three businesses. High levels of immigration are great for me. A constant pool of hard working people low compensation people. Two of my three companies have set missions that aim to be the best at what they do across North America. Now that they are seeing competition that has not had access to a steady stream of low paid workers, they are realizing that there is a lot of catch up to do. I am happy about that because it means that over time, we are going to be able to increase what we pay our people. Growing your economy with an outsized reliance on growing the number of people in your economy means that the economy indeed grows but the GDP per person stays stagnant. Does this sound familiar Canada ? Mediocrity.
Finally there is an outright cost to using population growth as the sole source of growth and Matt refers to it in our infrastructure deficit. I live in BC. We have had high population growth for some time. With the exception of a few downtown cores that have become more livable I would be hard pressed to find one part of BC where the quality of life has improved. It is not due to the increased numbers of people per se. It is the lack of infrastructure. Compared to 20 years ago, it now is much harder to get around in any community in BC, much harder for your kids to attend a school close to their home, hospitals, etc are all over crowded. This is not even mediocrity but actual decline, and it comes from the policy of relying on growing your economy by growing the number of people in your economy.
No politician from any party is even willing to ask the question as to whether our immigration levels are good for our economy for fear of being branded a racist or anti-immigrant. So here is a policy proposal to tackle at least a portion of the mediocrity afflicting this country. Change the immigration level to either target a net zero growth in the labour pool, or some other labour pool growth target (eg .5%) so that we continue to bring people from around the world to our country, we don’t starve our economy with a shrinking labour pool, but crucially, we do not become reliant on immigration as the primary way to grow.
Does anyone honestly think Justin Trudeau has any idea on how to grow our productivity ? No, but he does know this. If he keeps juicing the immigration levels, it will appears from the headline economic growth numbers that Canada is doing well. But underneath it is mediocrity.
I totally agree with our productivity issue -- it's a hard problem to fix but it's something we've known would be an issue due to demographics since the early 2000s (aging population) and yet we've really not made much headway on solving it.
But, I think you've oversimplified with connecting the productivity issue with immigration. At the top level, I think your arguement has merit -- in the absense of productivity growth, we are relying on other factors (population growth via immigration, real estate growth, etc) to nomially keep our economy growing. But, immigration is also needed to address two key demographic truths -- we're having children at less-than-replacement rate and that means our population is aging. Both those have huge impacts on just about everything, including significantly reducing the number of working-aged people.
I'd also argue that policies that really encourage home ownership have created a labour pool that isn't very geographically mobile. That attracts everyone to a few urban areas where there are lots of varied job opportunities, driving house prices sky-high. It also means people living in areas where a few industries make up a lot of the economy (Oshawa and Windsor, Ft. McMurray) can get essentially stranded if that industry declines. So, talent has a hard time getting to where the opportuities lie -- either because they get priced out of big cities or are paying a mortgage on a house whose value has crashed because the local industry is in decline.
All of which to say -- I think immigration plays a very important role in the economy and getting it right is perhaps a bit more complicated than you are implying. But, I agree 100% -- we need to improve productivity across the Canadian economy or all the immigration we can get isn't going to preserve the kind of prosperity we take for granted! Given the differences in our economies, the US is less instructive here; we probably should be looking at other exemplars for policy.
The productivity issue is partly a result of low business investment. Investment is low because investors can make more money some where else. Piling on more government costs isn't going to solve this problem.
True, but we managed to create a pretty solid business environment for a number of years and that still didn't result in productivity gains (or strategic, longer term investment across the economy). I suspect there is a bit of a hangover from a generation of our FDI/branch plant approach of attracting foreign multinationals, who are mainly focused on cheaper talent and our access to markets. That still seems to inform a lot of our economic approach and it isn't going to do the job as growth shifts to the 'intangible economy' (intellectual property, branding, etc) even within traditional industries.
I'm not sure what the answer is and I suspect its a suite of public policies that include efforts to grow emerging companies within Canada and encouraging mature industries to export expertise and processes. Right now, both tend to get absorbed within foreign multimationals and the value (IP, knowledge, talent) tends to go with them elsewhere.
Hi Tony. I agree with you. But i wasn't implying zero immigration. You are absolutely correct about our birth rate and declining work force. Lets focus on an immigration policy that targets the work force size. Should immigration just replace the shrinking domestic work force to produce net zero growth in work force or perhaps it should be some level of growth in work force. That is a policy question to decide. So if we need 600,000 or 200,000 immigrants per year to maintain the size of the work force, so be it.
I think many of us older people despair at the incompetence and mediocrity we see in our institutions and business.
What I have noticed is the fact many managers do not recognize who works and who doesn't. Personality traits are the criteria for judgement rather than straight talk and work ethic.
When using this criteria for filling our bureaucracy we have ended up with mass incompetence in so many areas. Health care, military, public works etc. All are inundated with this disease. Being a hooser is OK. No doing your job is not.
I think we would be lucky to attain mediocrity. We are actually overachievers among democracies when it comes to bad government, especially in the matter of sowing hatred, division, and discrimination among our citizens.
This view is not borne out by the evidence. We have, unlike various EU countries, GB and the United States, not experienced a rise of populism in Canada. Our rates of social mobility compare favourably to all the above-mentioned places. I think our problems are mostly economic, we need more growth based on truly valued-added economic activity (rent-seeking behaviour in the form of property ownerships adds little real value to the economy).
I would disqualify that as evidence of populism. There are articles written about many non-issues because they get clicks. IF Pierre gets the CPC leadership nomination and gets broad support, enough to have a real shot at becoming PM, that is evidence populism has finally taken root in Canada.
I'm partway through a good book about this very issue titled "Reclaiming Populism" and the empirical evidence mostly supports the thesis that economic unfairness coupled with unequal opportunity are what drives populism. In the USA and GB, education is highly stratified and it effectively shuts the middle and lower classes out of success. Economic unfairness is the phenomena of people becoming successful through rent-seeking and other nefarious ways of extracting wealth without creating real value. Per person, Sweden has more billionaires than the USA -- yet there is very little class resentment in Sweden largely because the billionaires are largely real entrepreneurs, creating new businesses and providing economic value.
Nice post, Matt! I won't try to diagnose the issues. It's not clear there is a common cause, either. Lots of blame being put at the feet of Canadian politicians in the comments. I am not sure it's entirely or even mostly their fault -- many, many western democracies are struggling to deliver effective solutions to a host of issues caused by a host of what seem like wicked problems. Every solution (out immigration policies, for example, to deal with declining birthrates and increasing numbers of people needing old-age services) brings its own set of challenges.
And do we not have (relatively) good outcomes in education and healthcare?
What strikes me as completely correct about what you've said is that we enjoy a high standard of living because of the work of prior generations, our natural resources, and our proximity to the USA. For a country with half its working age population having post-secondary education, we have surprisingly little in the way of homegrown businesses. Not a lot of innovation. This is something Coyne seems to emphasize, we need to put economic growth at the forefront of out concerns because it will (mostly) rise all boats. We have educated people, we have a fairly business friendly system, but clearly there are things discouraging the investment that exists elsewhere. How do we change that?
I've had the fortune to work closely with some homegrown entrepreneurs. We do have them and they're pretty good! The challenge: it's really hard to scale a company in Canada as the pull is often to the biggest market: the US. That's not only where the market is, it's also where there is a bigger pool of talent and growth capital.
Canada has done a bunch to try and address this from a policy point of view. And, we do have companies like Shopify, so it's not impossible. But, a LOT of companies 'exit' by being acquired by foreign multinationals, not only because of $$$ but also because it gives them instant access to global networks and growth capital.
It tends to make us the farm team for US giants, which is a challenge -- we keep developing talent and companies, and they can skim off the best of the best.
So what do we do about that? I guess that is the $64 000 question. it seems like access to the US market is our biggest asset and at the same time our biggest liability.
100%. We have the same problem small sports teams have. It's a tricky problem. Maybe the answer is volume: we need to continually be generating new talent, companies and IP knowing the best will migrate out of Canada. If we can do that, we'll build a dynamic network of entrepreneurs, funders, etc here -- so we're always generating something new. We essentially need to be faster in terms of generating new product, companies and talent, which is admittedly a big nut to crack!
I've tried, but I think the boiler takes up so much of the natural gas flow that the grill pressure is very hard to keep up at a good level. So I tend to keep it going as late as possible and then start as early as possible.
Smoker is good all year, though. Runs off propane.
Good article. I have lived in Canada for 53 years and in the US for 15 years and think I have been analytical in seeing the good and bad of both countries. Both countries have slid downhill in a multitude of ways; the US is more worrisome politically, socially and with violence. But Canada, with its vaunted and successful health care system essentially failing is very worrisome. We need a real, sensible evaluation of our problems in Canada and some real solutions. As a commentator below noted, Canadian politicians are failing. They simply are not smart enough or leaders who can focus on the most important aspects that need fixing (and then fix them). Doug Ford in Ontario is text book example of someone who is simply not smart enough to fix problems.
It seems to me lots of people know what to do but we have had diverging political policies for several years. On the one hand, the privatizers of everything refuse to adequately fund anything that smacks of ‘socialism’, the definition of which, to that group, appears to be ‘communism’ as practiced in Russia. On the other are those who understand that any civilized society needs a social ‘safety net’ of some kind and that means investing in public services. The seesaw is disruptive so we spend all kinds of capital going from one to the other side.
I don't believe they know what to do...or possibly, are afraid to say it knowing that the truth won't get them elected. As soon as they get into power, they become "deer in the headlights" for solutions.
Look at the bright side: The Toronto Maple Leaf's will be in the Stanley Cup playoffs again. Canada, especially Ontario and Quebec, will be at the forefront of the EV market. Canada will become a serious competitor to China in the critical minerals sector. Canada will become a world leader in Graphene technology. On top of all that Walleye fishing opens up May 1 on Georgian Bay. Kind of nice being a Hoser!
Hard to disagree with anything that Matt has written here. Our fundamental underlying problem is probably ignorance (or stupidity). We continually elect politicians who are extremists and or idealogues. I am completely gob smacked that Justin Trudeau and his government have won three consecutive elections, and that the NDP get any votes at all. The Greens are a disaster and yet they actually have seats in the commons. And the Conservatives can't seem to open their mouths with saying the word "abortion". Governments at all levels are declaring climate "emergencies" and "crises" and talking about climate change as an existential threat, while the IPCC (you know, that body of experts and scientists who have been studying this stuff for thirty years) have only gone so far as to call it "concerning". How can we possibly achieve competence on a country wide basis when the people with their hands on the levers are full of hyperbole and panic? First we dial down the extremism. Then maybe we get a shot at competent.
How unfortunate that you mentioned all this and that you are right! I know I keep banging on about this but we decided to emigrate to Canada because at the time we thought Britain was going into nothingness. Now things have changed. Every day I read about some innovative idea in the environment, in transportation, even the pandemic was deal with a lot better - all coming from the UK. And most of all they aren’t being dragged into bankruptcy by a leader who is totally unqualified to be PM. I doubt the Uk would think a bunch of academics would be the best suited to run a country.
Surely you jest. Boris and his crew? What can one say?
It doesn’t take much to be better than JT.
In the top five for what? For over spending? And who said that? Some Liberal supporters? I doubt it’s the Fraser Institute.
I doubt the Fraser Institute will ever say anything good about the Liberals, yet their party has yet to deliver a plan, or fiscal responsibility when in power. Wouldn't it be great to get an assessment of where we're at without a "spin"?
I still think we're a fabulous country that overspent on "redecorating the lobby', and now has an enormous task to figure out how to undo the mistakes we've made. We've tried to be everything for everyone and have, perhaps, finally figured out that we can't afford it. The task ahead is massive, and will require leadership; something that is in short supply. We all know where the money is...it's just a matter of the G19 leaders getting together and deciding that the voters are more important than shareholder value, and multinational corporate profits. There is a balance...the pendulum has swung way too far to one side.
Look, our history is essentially we threw together a bunch of people who didn't have a ton in common (US Loyalists, various First Nations, French settlers, British settlers) beyond not wanting to be American! That's set up our national past time: constantly comparing ourselves to Americans.
What we miss in doing that is identifying and leaning into our advantages and strenghts. We could be an effective middle power. I was suprised when I looked it up and discovered we have a bigger GDP than Russia. We could look inward and figure out what we want Canada to be on the world stage, instead on constantly patting ourselves on the back about being slightly better than the US on a few select measures.
Canada does have some significant advantages. We do a pretty decent job at scientific reserach, though we struggle to turn that IP into a business advantage. We have significant natural resources, along with a lot of related expertise. We have found a way to attract a lot of immigration and integrate those folks into Canada, which I think is an extension of our history of being a bunch of different people, kind of thrown together, forced to find a way to (somewhat) co-exist. We've been far from perfect (several Quebec referendums, longstanding hard feelings in Western Canada and the Maritimes and a very not-great history of engaging with First Peoples), we've managed to stumble along without a lot of violence or civil discourd.
I do think there is a community of democratic middle powers that should find ways to work togther to balance the superpowers. That would mean thinking about what Canada could bring to those kinds of partnerships besides words. We've established trade agreements with key partners in the EU and Asia, we could and should back that up with continued diplomatic coordination.
Besides all of that, I suspect that Matt is leaning into a more specific frustration (that I share) which is that our public and private sector institutions seem to be mostly non-evil but also not terribly competent. We can't seem to get stuff done. That's true for things like buying fighter jets. But, it also is true in a business class that seems focused on incremental improvements (look at our productivity) and an economic approach that still seems focused on foreign investment. We have brilliant people in Canada, but we mainly seem to see ourselves as a minor league economy where superstars will eventually leave rather than trying to create something big here. There are exceptions (Shopify, Magna) but mostly Canada doesn't feel like a place where you can dream big and realize your dream here. Part of that is having access to one of the biggest markets in the world right next door, but it also feels a bit cultural -- that we think of Canada as the small hometown you eventually need to leave. Why is that? Why can't greatness flourish here?
Agreed, your last paragraph nails it, why do we struggle so much to build great things here? There certainly is far less of the 'dream big, do it' attitude in Canada. We leave it to someone else.
It would be great if we could channel more students into the areas with high demand. Just the other day I was reading about tech companies being unable to find enough talent. How is that? We've known since the 2010s that tech is a big part of the future, how have we not produced enough workers in these areas?
I can't think of a better allegory for Canada's mediocrity than the prime minister's residence @ 24 Sussex remaining in a state of disrepair for the entirety of the Justin Trudeau Years (all seven of them!)
While true, that example really only applies to politicians and bureaucrats. I suggest the national poll taken a couple of years ago in which a large majority of Canadians ranked the environment as a critical issue while at the same time saying they would not support their taxes being raise by $100 per year to help deal with it.
Now there is talk of him spending more money on a more lavish new one. Where the hell will this over spending leave us? We need a Conservative leader who knows about economics and business, who has a great personality and can win in Quebec and Ontario. Otherwise Canada will quickly into total bankruptcy
You realize ‘he’ doesn’t make that decision, don’t you? The proposed solution is actually very practical since it will provide space for more than housing.
Maybe this is why ‘big things’ don’t get done. As soon as there’s one on the table, someone squeaks ‘But the cost?’
We most definitely do. Is there one?
My friend in Ontario is very keen on Pierre. My doctor friend here says Leslyn Lewis. I don’t care who we have - we just have to get someone competent and capable of winning Quebec and Ontario. I liked Harper. He didn’t have panache but he had qualifications. We need someone with both those and more.
I think we need Brad Wall but he’s too happy being a cowboy. He was consistently the most popular Premier.
What’s your take?
I think Leslyns social conservative values are unelectable in Canada; especially as it watches the assault on women's rights happening in the US.
I find Pierre every hard to listen to in the House of Commons, as he spins and manipulates to create soundbites without substance. He's a bit like the host of an infomercial....entertaining but hard to believe. I'll be curious to watch him answer questions as opposed to answering them, as that will be a much better measure of what he is. He's saying a lot of the right things...but it's also clear he hasn't spoken to anyone about what is required to make them happen.
IMHO.
Oh, would you like an example of us having our shit together on something, Matt? How about our financial system? The one just south of us, and the one in Britain, collapsed, with multiple bank failures, and more averted only by trillions in hastily-printed Fed-money bailouts. Their failure, sorry, let me spell that correctly, their F*A*I*L*U*R*E, crashed banks and whole economies around the world. Except in so-nearby, so-dependent Canada, which had zero bank failures, needed zero bailouts, and our economics-major PM correctly calculated our "stimulus" at half as much as Obama needed, per capita, and a third as much as Obama was given, allowing us to make the faster recovery.
That smart-manager PM being Harper, to whom I, an opponent, give due credit. As long as due credit is also given to governments of both parties, for decades, building the "norms" and rules into our strong, world-class-reliable, financial system. (Just as the American blunder of bank deregulation was bipartisan.)
There's cherry-picking here: America has far more ability to kill people and blow things up, which I guess is impressive to some, if not to the Afghans who beat them anyway. They really suck at healing and saving lives, though, with their medical system costing twice what ours does ($11K/citizen/year, vs $5.5K) but with worse outcomes. Three times as bad an outcome, for COVID, seven times as bad if you are under 50.
I'm just not jealous of the nation whose vast military power led them to defeat against rice-paddy farmers, Baghdad shopkeepers, and Afghan shepherds. Or the keen intelligence agencies that told them going in was a good idea. I'm not proud that we spent years deciding to buy their airplanes after all, though the delay saved billions; but I'd we way more ashamed if we'd *developed* the F35, an utter embarrassment to the profession of arms.
Can Matt explain why we keep appearing on all those "Best Countries on Earth" lists? Those make sense after my review; after his, not so much.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life
https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/#tab:overall
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-20-countries-ranked-by-reputation-2015-7
...I'll stop at three. Best quality of life, best for business, best reputation.
Actually felt like apologizing for the tone, minutes later. Covid-headache-related.
But, the man insulted my *country* with "mediocre". He trolled first!
Canadians suffer from an extreme aversion to risk, which leads to a lot of mediocre outcomes. In government and the public service, this has manifested in an increasing concentration of control and decision making at the highest levels to minimize any potential political consequences of activity. This has disempowered and disincentivized civil servants from taking initiative, a predictable outcome of micromanagement. Why take the risk of doing something if somebody further up the chain will freak out and punish you for it later?
Agreed. Risk aversion is a part of who we are. It also inhibits the political dialogue as nobody can admit any policy proposal has any risks without being piled on. But, part of managing risks is acknowledging and quantifying those risks. We seem to live in a fantasy world where the right answer to any question provides a guaranteed win. But the reality is often that some risks are worth taking, others aren't -- and that avoiding risk at nearly all costs can create its own risks (opportunity costs and kicking problems down the road because we don't want to deal with them).
A culture of smart risk taking might be transformative for us!
I agree but that would also require honesty about the trade-offs and what we value most. The fossil fuel vs environment discussion showcases this well.
That’s a civil service cultural condition you will find in many countries. Over the years of dealing with civil servants at the senior level in more than one country, I’d say continuing dependence on seniority as the major factor in promotion is the cause. It’s completely demoralising. Add to that the political issues and the accompanying politicians and you practically grind to a halt. It’s not unfixable but needs both courage and a Plan.
Having said that, many of us made interesting careers doing the stuff those folks found too hard to present themselves, but could do so and blame us if it didn’t meet with favour.
I would argue we are even failing at being Canadian hosers, emphasis on “Canadian”. We don’t even drink our own beer. What other country in the world fetishizes another country’s beer brands? What are the most popular beers in Canada? Likely Bud lite and Coors. How embarrassing is it that Saskatoon’s hockey barn is named the Coors Event Centre?
And…Timmies long ago sold out to an international conglomerate that only warms donuts up that are made in some vast central location. Pathetic.
As for the rest of the article, I couldn’t agree more.
Brilliant!!
Old age is taking quite a toll on my mind and body so when Matt's piece arrived this morning I was musing about the future faced by my beloved friends and family.
I was seeing a country with the finest social and legal protections ever designed by humankind. Prosperity providing the basics of life to virtually everyone and much more to most -- indeed, propane-fuelled smokers and lakes full of boats! Compassion, generosity, kindness and equanimity. Industry. Freedom. Education. Opportunity. Safety. Abundant beauty and bountiful natural resources. Adversarial politics to keep everyone thinking and improving.
And then, reading the comments, I found an endless litany of complaints and almost no plaudits. I have no problem with a microscopic examination of what could be better (I enjoy the debate) but could it not be contextualized in a macroscopic and realistic frame of wonderment -- gratitude for what we all have?
We must be about the same age. Gratitude is the great gift of aging. I have no patience with these moaners.
I recommend the recent books by Stephen Pinker to reassure you.
We are mediocre because we have uninspiring, value signalling, shallow leadership on all levels of government filled with individuals who are scared of challenging their party cronies for fear of being kicked out of their respective parties, gutless wonders who defer to a bloated ineffective bureaucracy who can’t successfully order a box of paper clips!
Sorry Lou, but no we, as a country, are not mediocre because of a small sub-set of society (even if it is the “political class). We are mediocre because the vast majority of Canadians are mediocre.
Maybe I should have said that Canada is mediocre not “we” are mediocre. Uninspiring and unimaginative leadership results in mediocrity in government and its citizenry. Look at our current crop of feckless politicians.
I think we have a chicken & egg agreement/disagreement. I blame Canada’s mediocrity on its citizen, you blame the political class (which happens to originate from the citizenry). Either way, Matt is correct. Canada is a mediocre country. It has been for several decades. I see little hope that the electorate (citizenry) will act to reverse this trend in either the near to mid-future.
Prescription is a good word, as one is only useful if the person uses / does what is prescribed.
To start, Canadians need to become more self-disciplined and exercise more personal responsibility and accountability. If you don’t believe me, just consider the driving habits you see every day on our streets and highways. The “if I think I can get away with it” mentality is omnipresent in society. Governments will not, should not, and cannot solve all our problems / issues.
A good federal leader could help, if they were disciplined enough to remain focused on what they are responsible for. There are enough areas of federal responsibility that need fixing that the federal government should not be sticking its nose into provincial affairs. The only time the federal government should get involved in provincial affairs is when all, or at least a constitutional change majority, request them to become involved.
Do I think there is a chance in hell that Canadians will step-up to such as challenge? Not likely. Too few are willing to give up anything in order to either enhance their own personal futures, or society’s. This does not just apply to Liberal and NDP supporters. Conservatives as well, especially as I call them the “selfish-libertarians.” Selfish-libertarians are those who demand the right to do whatever they want, and at the same time expect the remainder of society (the majority) to forego their wants and desires just so that small minority can indulge their selfishness.
I was just getting ready to say more or less the same! Thanks.
Fully agree with Matt’s article and I think the mediocrity extends well beyond Canadian public institutions and into the private sector. I would however disagree with Matt in calling our immigration policy a success. Full disclosure, while I was born in Canada I come from a family of immigrants. Ukrainian, Greek, Chinese, Indian - all are a part of my extended family. I believe this country is blessed to have people from such diverse cultures and backgrounds and an immigration policy that continues to bring people from all over the world to our country is indeed a success. However, our immigration policy has become an excuse for our nation’s mediocrity. Other than houses, we don’t really produce things in this country the way we used to be capable of. Not knowing how to grow our economy by getting better at what we do, our leaders grow our economy by growing the number of people in the economy. What could be so bad with that ?
Well, for one we have created a housing crisis because we cannot build at the rate we need, to keep up with increased immigration levels. All this talk of driving up the supply of housing is a bunch of BS. Anyone with a familiarity of home construction knows that the industry is operating at flat out capacity, has been for some time, and cannot produce at a much higher rate than it does.
Second, our immigration policy becomes an excuse for our private sector at having to get better at what they do. Getting better at what you do typically means you become more cost effective and more productive. Canada has some of the lowest productive gains in the developed world. Businesses in Canada have some of the lowest re-investment rates in the developed world. The reason is pretty obvious – in fact it comes across the news almost daily. Across the rest of the developed world, if your labour supply is relatively stable and you want to grow your business you need to get more productive with the employees you have. Very simple math. In Canada, you just complain that we need higher immigration levels or temporary foreign workers so that you don’t need to do the hard work of figuring out how to grow your business with the same general level of staffing. I own three businesses. High levels of immigration are great for me. A constant pool of hard working people low compensation people. Two of my three companies have set missions that aim to be the best at what they do across North America. Now that they are seeing competition that has not had access to a steady stream of low paid workers, they are realizing that there is a lot of catch up to do. I am happy about that because it means that over time, we are going to be able to increase what we pay our people. Growing your economy with an outsized reliance on growing the number of people in your economy means that the economy indeed grows but the GDP per person stays stagnant. Does this sound familiar Canada ? Mediocrity.
Finally there is an outright cost to using population growth as the sole source of growth and Matt refers to it in our infrastructure deficit. I live in BC. We have had high population growth for some time. With the exception of a few downtown cores that have become more livable I would be hard pressed to find one part of BC where the quality of life has improved. It is not due to the increased numbers of people per se. It is the lack of infrastructure. Compared to 20 years ago, it now is much harder to get around in any community in BC, much harder for your kids to attend a school close to their home, hospitals, etc are all over crowded. This is not even mediocrity but actual decline, and it comes from the policy of relying on growing your economy by growing the number of people in your economy.
No politician from any party is even willing to ask the question as to whether our immigration levels are good for our economy for fear of being branded a racist or anti-immigrant. So here is a policy proposal to tackle at least a portion of the mediocrity afflicting this country. Change the immigration level to either target a net zero growth in the labour pool, or some other labour pool growth target (eg .5%) so that we continue to bring people from around the world to our country, we don’t starve our economy with a shrinking labour pool, but crucially, we do not become reliant on immigration as the primary way to grow.
Does anyone honestly think Justin Trudeau has any idea on how to grow our productivity ? No, but he does know this. If he keeps juicing the immigration levels, it will appears from the headline economic growth numbers that Canada is doing well. But underneath it is mediocrity.
Rant over. Thank you.
I totally agree with our productivity issue -- it's a hard problem to fix but it's something we've known would be an issue due to demographics since the early 2000s (aging population) and yet we've really not made much headway on solving it.
But, I think you've oversimplified with connecting the productivity issue with immigration. At the top level, I think your arguement has merit -- in the absense of productivity growth, we are relying on other factors (population growth via immigration, real estate growth, etc) to nomially keep our economy growing. But, immigration is also needed to address two key demographic truths -- we're having children at less-than-replacement rate and that means our population is aging. Both those have huge impacts on just about everything, including significantly reducing the number of working-aged people.
I'd also argue that policies that really encourage home ownership have created a labour pool that isn't very geographically mobile. That attracts everyone to a few urban areas where there are lots of varied job opportunities, driving house prices sky-high. It also means people living in areas where a few industries make up a lot of the economy (Oshawa and Windsor, Ft. McMurray) can get essentially stranded if that industry declines. So, talent has a hard time getting to where the opportuities lie -- either because they get priced out of big cities or are paying a mortgage on a house whose value has crashed because the local industry is in decline.
All of which to say -- I think immigration plays a very important role in the economy and getting it right is perhaps a bit more complicated than you are implying. But, I agree 100% -- we need to improve productivity across the Canadian economy or all the immigration we can get isn't going to preserve the kind of prosperity we take for granted! Given the differences in our economies, the US is less instructive here; we probably should be looking at other exemplars for policy.
The productivity issue is partly a result of low business investment. Investment is low because investors can make more money some where else. Piling on more government costs isn't going to solve this problem.
True, but we managed to create a pretty solid business environment for a number of years and that still didn't result in productivity gains (or strategic, longer term investment across the economy). I suspect there is a bit of a hangover from a generation of our FDI/branch plant approach of attracting foreign multinationals, who are mainly focused on cheaper talent and our access to markets. That still seems to inform a lot of our economic approach and it isn't going to do the job as growth shifts to the 'intangible economy' (intellectual property, branding, etc) even within traditional industries.
I'm not sure what the answer is and I suspect its a suite of public policies that include efforts to grow emerging companies within Canada and encouraging mature industries to export expertise and processes. Right now, both tend to get absorbed within foreign multimationals and the value (IP, knowledge, talent) tends to go with them elsewhere.
Hi Tony. I agree with you. But i wasn't implying zero immigration. You are absolutely correct about our birth rate and declining work force. Lets focus on an immigration policy that targets the work force size. Should immigration just replace the shrinking domestic work force to produce net zero growth in work force or perhaps it should be some level of growth in work force. That is a policy question to decide. So if we need 600,000 or 200,000 immigrants per year to maintain the size of the work force, so be it.
We strive for mediocrity and excel in smugness.
I think many of us older people despair at the incompetence and mediocrity we see in our institutions and business.
What I have noticed is the fact many managers do not recognize who works and who doesn't. Personality traits are the criteria for judgement rather than straight talk and work ethic.
When using this criteria for filling our bureaucracy we have ended up with mass incompetence in so many areas. Health care, military, public works etc. All are inundated with this disease. Being a hooser is OK. No doing your job is not.
I think we would be lucky to attain mediocrity. We are actually overachievers among democracies when it comes to bad government, especially in the matter of sowing hatred, division, and discrimination among our citizens.
This view is not borne out by the evidence. We have, unlike various EU countries, GB and the United States, not experienced a rise of populism in Canada. Our rates of social mobility compare favourably to all the above-mentioned places. I think our problems are mostly economic, we need more growth based on truly valued-added economic activity (rent-seeking behaviour in the form of property ownerships adds little real value to the economy).
I would disqualify that as evidence of populism. There are articles written about many non-issues because they get clicks. IF Pierre gets the CPC leadership nomination and gets broad support, enough to have a real shot at becoming PM, that is evidence populism has finally taken root in Canada.
I'm partway through a good book about this very issue titled "Reclaiming Populism" and the empirical evidence mostly supports the thesis that economic unfairness coupled with unequal opportunity are what drives populism. In the USA and GB, education is highly stratified and it effectively shuts the middle and lower classes out of success. Economic unfairness is the phenomena of people becoming successful through rent-seeking and other nefarious ways of extracting wealth without creating real value. Per person, Sweden has more billionaires than the USA -- yet there is very little class resentment in Sweden largely because the billionaires are largely real entrepreneurs, creating new businesses and providing economic value.
Nice post, Matt! I won't try to diagnose the issues. It's not clear there is a common cause, either. Lots of blame being put at the feet of Canadian politicians in the comments. I am not sure it's entirely or even mostly their fault -- many, many western democracies are struggling to deliver effective solutions to a host of issues caused by a host of what seem like wicked problems. Every solution (out immigration policies, for example, to deal with declining birthrates and increasing numbers of people needing old-age services) brings its own set of challenges.
And do we not have (relatively) good outcomes in education and healthcare?
What strikes me as completely correct about what you've said is that we enjoy a high standard of living because of the work of prior generations, our natural resources, and our proximity to the USA. For a country with half its working age population having post-secondary education, we have surprisingly little in the way of homegrown businesses. Not a lot of innovation. This is something Coyne seems to emphasize, we need to put economic growth at the forefront of out concerns because it will (mostly) rise all boats. We have educated people, we have a fairly business friendly system, but clearly there are things discouraging the investment that exists elsewhere. How do we change that?
There is not much of an entrepreneurial culture here, I don 't know why. Ambitious business people head south to our evil neighbour.
I've had the fortune to work closely with some homegrown entrepreneurs. We do have them and they're pretty good! The challenge: it's really hard to scale a company in Canada as the pull is often to the biggest market: the US. That's not only where the market is, it's also where there is a bigger pool of talent and growth capital.
Canada has done a bunch to try and address this from a policy point of view. And, we do have companies like Shopify, so it's not impossible. But, a LOT of companies 'exit' by being acquired by foreign multinationals, not only because of $$$ but also because it gives them instant access to global networks and growth capital.
It tends to make us the farm team for US giants, which is a challenge -- we keep developing talent and companies, and they can skim off the best of the best.
The heart refuses to go red so I am liking your excellent comment here.
So what do we do about that? I guess that is the $64 000 question. it seems like access to the US market is our biggest asset and at the same time our biggest liability.
100%. We have the same problem small sports teams have. It's a tricky problem. Maybe the answer is volume: we need to continually be generating new talent, companies and IP knowing the best will migrate out of Canada. If we can do that, we'll build a dynamic network of entrepreneurs, funders, etc here -- so we're always generating something new. We essentially need to be faster in terms of generating new product, companies and talent, which is admittedly a big nut to crack!
Money.
Can you comment more on this?
I have heard the view that much of our talent, our best and brightest, go abroad. And that we have a large ex-pat population.
But is this well documented?
Fair enough. What about Canadians who were raised in Canada and now live abroad ? Do you know if this is a significant figure?
I loved this...but you don't BBQ in winter and still call yourself a Canadian??? :)
I've tried, but I think the boiler takes up so much of the natural gas flow that the grill pressure is very hard to keep up at a good level. So I tend to keep it going as late as possible and then start as early as possible.
Smoker is good all year, though. Runs off propane.
I've never used a smoker....I may have to move in shame :)
Just having good friends with smokers is ok.
But buy them beer :)
What? You don’t use wood? And you call yourself Canadian!
Haven't used wood in a smoker, no. I have two. Charcoal and propane. They serve different roles.
Sorry. I was referring to the bbq.
Oh! Yes, then. Of course I have a wood grill.
Good article. I have lived in Canada for 53 years and in the US for 15 years and think I have been analytical in seeing the good and bad of both countries. Both countries have slid downhill in a multitude of ways; the US is more worrisome politically, socially and with violence. But Canada, with its vaunted and successful health care system essentially failing is very worrisome. We need a real, sensible evaluation of our problems in Canada and some real solutions. As a commentator below noted, Canadian politicians are failing. They simply are not smart enough or leaders who can focus on the most important aspects that need fixing (and then fix them). Doug Ford in Ontario is text book example of someone who is simply not smart enough to fix problems.
It seems to me lots of people know what to do but we have had diverging political policies for several years. On the one hand, the privatizers of everything refuse to adequately fund anything that smacks of ‘socialism’, the definition of which, to that group, appears to be ‘communism’ as practiced in Russia. On the other are those who understand that any civilized society needs a social ‘safety net’ of some kind and that means investing in public services. The seesaw is disruptive so we spend all kinds of capital going from one to the other side.
I don't believe they know what to do...or possibly, are afraid to say it knowing that the truth won't get them elected. As soon as they get into power, they become "deer in the headlights" for solutions.
I couldn't agree more. It's not asking a lot of a government to get the basics right, that's the only reason why we pay our taxes.
Look at the bright side: The Toronto Maple Leaf's will be in the Stanley Cup playoffs again. Canada, especially Ontario and Quebec, will be at the forefront of the EV market. Canada will become a serious competitor to China in the critical minerals sector. Canada will become a world leader in Graphene technology. On top of all that Walleye fishing opens up May 1 on Georgian Bay. Kind of nice being a Hoser!