Was Zelensky and his government generally considered competent before the invasion? I genuinely don't know, I only ask because sometimes people really can surprise you under pressure. In both directions I guess, and "they might rise to the occasion" is not a good strategy. But it also seems hard to know who actually will be good under pressure. Who would have guessed Zelensky was going to stay and put himself at such risk? Would Carney do that? He's a serious guy with a serious background, but that might mean nothing. Serious people can crack under pressure and comedians can become heros.
“Zelensky was going to stay, and put himself at risk” ?? 🤔 The only risk he is facing is getting voted out by Ukrainians fed up seeing their country decimated by war, and the amount of casualties, while he jets around the world, making himself a rock star. The last time that our entire elected MPs were physically in attendance in the House of Commons, was when Zelensky spoke there. A very clear message to Canadians: Our priorities are Davos, Kyiv, and London. Not Drummondville, Kitchener, or London, ON. With this article, and other similar ones appearing in Canada lately - apparently we are to temper our expectations of the new Liberal PM and his recycled failed cabinet. I guess Canadians should put their elbows down, or at least save their anger for the evil PP and his Cons. FFS 🇨🇦 🤢
The Covid years should have taught us that, given governments' actual ability to do something constructive and net beneficial (especially Canada's governments), it is very often the case that, as with Covid, "do nothing" is the right response - because it will give a better outcome than doing "something" in practice.
Every government action should be preceded by "what makes us think that this particular action is highly likely to be better than inaction, when viewed in hindsight."
Matt is correct. And what he says makes me wonder if he secretly wishes that we had a different government than what we have now. Because what we have now is a smoke-blowing mirror-flashing version of the Trudeau regime that is even more expensive than the previous lot.
I like the thesis, but suggest that the government does a fabulous job on its own without need for Hollywood. Almost everything they enthusiastically publish or promote are intentions and most people do not differentiate between results and intentions.
And that is why all government hiring should be exclusively merit based. When the dirt hits the fan we need the very brightest and most competent people in control of the wheels of government. The safety and security of every citizen depends on it.
In theory, the law mandates that federal government employment is based on merit - in theory. "Appointments...to or from within the public service shall be made on the basis of merit and must be free from political influence." - Public Service Employment Act, section 30(1) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.01/section-30.html
You are correct; in the langauge profile of a position rated as "CBC", the third "C" refers to oral interaction ability. That's why I said "in theory".
Your Hollywood Thesis was certainly proven in the last election. Canadians thought that a banker, albeit a good one, with no political experience ,
could magically solve the existential threat of a rogue US President with essentially the same team that was well on the way to decimating the country after a failed 10 years at the helm with the cry of “elbows up”
Good God so many pearls of wisdom in this article. And no I’m not calling anybody a swine (although the term heifer would apply to some Liberal ministers, but I digress). The one pearl that I got from Hollywood is the scariest statement of all. “Hi we’re from government and we’re here to help you”
The one approach I’ve found to be the most successful is to listen to Government statements and assume the opposite to be true. Government is the descendant of the robber barons in medieval times- control the population through force and tax it to cover the cost of this control through taxes. This is still true today whether it takes the form of African warlords, elite Canadian families, or senior civil servants .
The author Isaac Asimov some 80 years ago in “I Robot” formulated the three laws of robotics. The first one being do not harm a human, the second being obey human instructions, and the third being avoid situations or actions that cause it to harm itself. The only one that the Government of Canada seem to be obeying is the third one. (A constitutional Monarchy thing?)
Having been condemned to Canadian house arrest for daring to overstay (according to Canada) in the US during Covid times, I was subjected daily to at least 3 threats of fines and imprisonment by my presumed helpful government. I may be assuming this but it seems to me that even a Mafia loan shark wouldn’t have the dedication or resources to harass his/her clients to that extent.
I have nothing but admiration for first responders (AKA “Trauma Llamas” - look it up) who are on the cutting edge of expectations and who manage in spite of failed political promises. Please make their job possible or at least easier by doing the best you can to avoid needing their services through lifestyle, training, whatever you can. And thank them for their service.
Quota queens appointed by Justin Trudeau to achieve Cabinet gender balance. Who never argued with him so as to keep their status. Not expected to contribute to decisions. A female version of “bro”. I’ve only heard it used by women referring to other women.
I disagree with this, partly because my experience has been the opposite of what you write here. People tend to assume that our government and public service have basically no capabilities, no agencies dedicated to emergencies, and *definitely* no expertise about anything. A lot of people tend to point to a news story about a natural disaster or some other emergency, and then just assume it wouldn't have happened or been nearly as bad if those bumbling bureaucrats and politicians hadn't been so stupid and lazy. I get the compulsion, and being critical of these institutions is important, but I think it's often simplistic and dangerous in high doses. It's much harder to imagine how things could have been worse, but weren't.
"Public administration? Never heard of it! Let's just run government like a business, and then everything will be better."
I was in the army reserve briefly, and I remember how baffled people were at what I was doing every Thursday and one weekend of every month. They couldn't even fathom that our soldiers actually train for things outside of boot camp, ever, and accordingly had some really weird ideas about what soldiers do at work. It seemed telling to me. Maybe there's no secret team, but public awareness of what exists in the open is pretty bad, and I don't think that's just a communication problem on the government's part. Maybe it is, though. I do wish people would make more of an effort.
I also don't think it's particularly useful to compare something like having some potholes around the neighbourhood to emergency response. I get that it's frustrating in the "We can put a man on the moon, but we can't (XYZ)," sense, but again, I don't think public policy is a straight line like that. It's like saying modern medicine has failed because we can't eradicate the common cold.
Anyway, I'm (mostly) proud of this country and happy to live here, and I think that's largely because the government is competent at least some of the time, including in emergencies. It can get so much worse. Anyway, just my two cents.
A lot of people take status quo for granted, not realizing what's involved in just keeping the lights on. Some of this is bike shedding: everone has an opinion on X but very few people understand the network that generates and supports X. The military is a good example. Lots of Canadians have fanciful ideas about what the military ought to be capable of ("commission an aircraft carrier!", "only peacekeeping and emergency response!") and relatively few have a clue as to what's involved. "What do you train for if we're not at war?" I wouldn't call Canadian governance highly effective, but it's more effective more consistently than some other places I've been. When was the last time a Canadian public official overtly asked you for a cash bribe? That's a low bar, but it's one that much of the world hasn't cleared yet.
Great read Matt. The point you made about health care seemed to be a (perhaps unintended?) parallel for me. A friend of mine had been extolling the reliability of our health care system that resided at the top of the pile in the world until she had to access it for more than the typical ER visit. The health care professionals absolutely care and exhibit competence but there is only so much they are able to do with the systemic constraints prebuilt into that system. The convey was another wake up call for all of us at just how unprepared we collectively are for any situation that arises that isn’t covered in the “manual”. I chuckled at the pothole remark as well as I’ve used that line many times when governments regardless of size trot out grandiose solutions to repair an entire planet while simultaneously lacking the wherewithal to literally fix potholes and replace broken stop signs. Your concerns are definitely well founded.
Good points. As for the convoy, the government had plenty of time to prevent their parking in Ottawa. Weeks.
There were/are times that I think the inaction on the part of the authorities was deliberate. A person could easily think that for some reason this was desired by someone or people in government.
For what end, though? In my cynical moments I suspect that Trudeau saw a chance to appear strong and decisive. I honestly don’t know. But the occupation of Ottawa could have been stopped well before the truckers from the west were anywhere near Ottawa.
And before they could be vilified and citizens have bank accounts frozen.
Trudeau did seize his moment, but as was pointed out by the inquiry, the EA was totally unnecessary because the whole situation was nearly at its end. Peacefully.
I strongly believe that when something / bloody anything goes wrong, we start of with the beseeching cry of, "Someone otta do something!" ["someone" defined as "the government" and "something" defined as "fix this damned thing"]. That beseeching cry is actually a totally unreasonable EXPECTATION/UNREASONABLE BELIEF that the "something" will actually be done by the "someone" which is, of course, stupid. Not unreasonable but stupid.
Of course, "we" [the electorate] are led to believe that governments are omniscient and benevolent by our politicians and "we" are too stupid [that word again] to think through the implications and limitations of what the politicians are saying.
Cynical? Certainly. Correct? You decide.
Or, put differently, "we" keep proving that we get the government that "we" deserve.
The field of emergency management is very similar, in that the gap between actual capabilities and capacity of all levels of give and the expectations of Canadians is wide and deep. This should be the inspiration or at least a catalyst for building individual resilience, but alas, as I see it from both being a professor in the field and as an entrepreneur, assuming someone will rescue them is the plan for most Canadians. They just want to be taken care of, vice assuming personal responsibility.
I wonder how much the presentation of history affects expectations. Curveballs and horrific events have come at us in the past. By looking in the history books it would appear our success was a given. For an event like WWII it’s easy to sit here today and forget the amount of time between action (invasion) and reaction (build up of troops and material then actual counter-invasion). Also so much else happened, such as on the home front, that isn’t regularly spoken of. Nazi rallies in New York. General accepted antisemitism in everyday society. And the fact our leaders are human that can still make the worst of choices believing they are doing the best for their country. And on and on.
We need to get the little things right to get the big things on track, most definitely. I think the hardest thing to get right is to truly understand, and not just intellectually, that the most beneficent outcome is not guaranteed.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of our politicians have fallen prey to the Hollywood notion of ultracompetent government agencies waiting to leap into action as well. The problem is that the politicians don't check to see if their assumptions are valid, which is like not checking whether those objects next to the door of the airplane are properly packed parachutes until you need to escape a burning plane mid-air.
One of the simplest actions politicians and governments could take is to run regular simulations/wargames of crisis events to test the systems and people. I remember my dad being involved in simulated emergencies every year as part of his work in hospital administration in Saskatoon in the '80s. You create a scenario, then get decision makers and organizations to work through the steps they'd take to respond. You uncover the problems, figure out where the gaps are, and just as importantly, let people and organizations get experience on how to respond.
Crisis response is a learned skill just like anything else. Understanding the confusion and chaos of the early stages with incomplete and often incorrect information is an important part of that. When COVID hit, it was obvious that whatever know-how and experience Canada had from events like SARS had largely evaporated. We were left with amateurs trying to deal with a crisis, and they never found their footing until they were bailed out by vaccine development elsewhere. Testing a pandemic response earlier would've ensure there were plans, people who understood what the plans were, and figured out that public health officials who were flailing in response to a fentanyl supply issue and fixated on youth vaping weren't up to the job.
Not sure if it's Hollywood but the point is certainly possible.
Two other thoughts:
- the government has a multitude of bright competent people with practical skills and relevant lived experiences; however, they are rarely, if ever promoted to positions where they are involved in the decision making processes.
As well the management class who do shape decisions with their poli sci and sociology degrees rarely ask those knowledgeable and experienced people below them for advice and if they do ask they have no practical basis for evaluating the advice they get beyond the political lens of their supervisor.
- the system is only as strong as the least competent decision maker in the chain. Many of them have limited real world experience and would have difficulty running a sixth grade bake sale without their administrative staff doing the work.
We have created a governance system where "anyone can manage anything" as long as you have your BA.
Neither of these situations is limited to the federal government.
As I was trying to come up with a pithy rejoinder, I found myself thinking that all of your assessments were bang on.
Except maybe the one about why we fail to see that there is no “hidden A Team” waiting in the wings to make things right when everything appears to be going wrong.
I don’t think this was Hollywood’s fault. This is our fault, because we fail to see that when we ask for this and that, we encourage a certain type to reflect our supposed “needs” back at us, and we simply lap it all up.
Why we fail to think more about “the big issues” is puzzling to me. Is it that the next hockey game (or th next party or pub crawl) is more important?
Be that as it may, our inability to correct the flaws that give us the governance we so hate is a big issue.
Was Zelensky and his government generally considered competent before the invasion? I genuinely don't know, I only ask because sometimes people really can surprise you under pressure. In both directions I guess, and "they might rise to the occasion" is not a good strategy. But it also seems hard to know who actually will be good under pressure. Who would have guessed Zelensky was going to stay and put himself at such risk? Would Carney do that? He's a serious guy with a serious background, but that might mean nothing. Serious people can crack under pressure and comedians can become heros.
Zelensky is also a lawyer, who had gone into comedy.
He has been a serious and inspiring leader for this country in peril from Russia, again.
Very insightful comment!
“Zelensky was going to stay, and put himself at risk” ?? 🤔 The only risk he is facing is getting voted out by Ukrainians fed up seeing their country decimated by war, and the amount of casualties, while he jets around the world, making himself a rock star. The last time that our entire elected MPs were physically in attendance in the House of Commons, was when Zelensky spoke there. A very clear message to Canadians: Our priorities are Davos, Kyiv, and London. Not Drummondville, Kitchener, or London, ON. With this article, and other similar ones appearing in Canada lately - apparently we are to temper our expectations of the new Liberal PM and his recycled failed cabinet. I guess Canadians should put their elbows down, or at least save their anger for the evil PP and his Cons. FFS 🇨🇦 🤢
Zelensky is no general.
That's why he has generals. He is a leader though.
He's a nice guy who doesn't deserve to have his country conquered by a psychotic dictator.
The Covid years should have taught us that, given governments' actual ability to do something constructive and net beneficial (especially Canada's governments), it is very often the case that, as with Covid, "do nothing" is the right response - because it will give a better outcome than doing "something" in practice.
Every government action should be preceded by "what makes us think that this particular action is highly likely to be better than inaction, when viewed in hindsight."
I have no faith in the government and after the last election in canada and the U.S.A no faith in the people that elected them.
Matt is correct. And what he says makes me wonder if he secretly wishes that we had a different government than what we have now. Because what we have now is a smoke-blowing mirror-flashing version of the Trudeau regime that is even more expensive than the previous lot.
Sometimes it does seem that way. Disappointing it is.
I like the thesis, but suggest that the government does a fabulous job on its own without need for Hollywood. Almost everything they enthusiastically publish or promote are intentions and most people do not differentiate between results and intentions.
And that is why all government hiring should be exclusively merit based. When the dirt hits the fan we need the very brightest and most competent people in control of the wheels of government. The safety and security of every citizen depends on it.
In theory, the law mandates that federal government employment is based on merit - in theory. "Appointments...to or from within the public service shall be made on the basis of merit and must be free from political influence." - Public Service Employment Act, section 30(1) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.01/section-30.html
Yet some jobs require speaking French and promotions are often based on speaking French
You are correct; in the langauge profile of a position rated as "CBC", the third "C" refers to oral interaction ability. That's why I said "in theory".
Your Hollywood Thesis was certainly proven in the last election. Canadians thought that a banker, albeit a good one, with no political experience ,
could magically solve the existential threat of a rogue US President with essentially the same team that was well on the way to decimating the country after a failed 10 years at the helm with the cry of “elbows up”
Good God so many pearls of wisdom in this article. And no I’m not calling anybody a swine (although the term heifer would apply to some Liberal ministers, but I digress). The one pearl that I got from Hollywood is the scariest statement of all. “Hi we’re from government and we’re here to help you”
The one approach I’ve found to be the most successful is to listen to Government statements and assume the opposite to be true. Government is the descendant of the robber barons in medieval times- control the population through force and tax it to cover the cost of this control through taxes. This is still true today whether it takes the form of African warlords, elite Canadian families, or senior civil servants .
The author Isaac Asimov some 80 years ago in “I Robot” formulated the three laws of robotics. The first one being do not harm a human, the second being obey human instructions, and the third being avoid situations or actions that cause it to harm itself. The only one that the Government of Canada seem to be obeying is the third one. (A constitutional Monarchy thing?)
Having been condemned to Canadian house arrest for daring to overstay (according to Canada) in the US during Covid times, I was subjected daily to at least 3 threats of fines and imprisonment by my presumed helpful government. I may be assuming this but it seems to me that even a Mafia loan shark wouldn’t have the dedication or resources to harass his/her clients to that extent.
I have nothing but admiration for first responders (AKA “Trauma Llamas” - look it up) who are on the cutting edge of expectations and who manage in spite of failed political promises. Please make their job possible or at least easier by doing the best you can to avoid needing their services through lifestyle, training, whatever you can. And thank them for their service.
Quota queens appointed by Justin Trudeau to achieve Cabinet gender balance. Who never argued with him so as to keep their status. Not expected to contribute to decisions. A female version of “bro”. I’ve only heard it used by women referring to other women.
I would like to know in what way "the term heifer would apply to some Liberal ministers" ?
I disagree with this, partly because my experience has been the opposite of what you write here. People tend to assume that our government and public service have basically no capabilities, no agencies dedicated to emergencies, and *definitely* no expertise about anything. A lot of people tend to point to a news story about a natural disaster or some other emergency, and then just assume it wouldn't have happened or been nearly as bad if those bumbling bureaucrats and politicians hadn't been so stupid and lazy. I get the compulsion, and being critical of these institutions is important, but I think it's often simplistic and dangerous in high doses. It's much harder to imagine how things could have been worse, but weren't.
"Public administration? Never heard of it! Let's just run government like a business, and then everything will be better."
I was in the army reserve briefly, and I remember how baffled people were at what I was doing every Thursday and one weekend of every month. They couldn't even fathom that our soldiers actually train for things outside of boot camp, ever, and accordingly had some really weird ideas about what soldiers do at work. It seemed telling to me. Maybe there's no secret team, but public awareness of what exists in the open is pretty bad, and I don't think that's just a communication problem on the government's part. Maybe it is, though. I do wish people would make more of an effort.
I also don't think it's particularly useful to compare something like having some potholes around the neighbourhood to emergency response. I get that it's frustrating in the "We can put a man on the moon, but we can't (XYZ)," sense, but again, I don't think public policy is a straight line like that. It's like saying modern medicine has failed because we can't eradicate the common cold.
Anyway, I'm (mostly) proud of this country and happy to live here, and I think that's largely because the government is competent at least some of the time, including in emergencies. It can get so much worse. Anyway, just my two cents.
A lot of people take status quo for granted, not realizing what's involved in just keeping the lights on. Some of this is bike shedding: everone has an opinion on X but very few people understand the network that generates and supports X. The military is a good example. Lots of Canadians have fanciful ideas about what the military ought to be capable of ("commission an aircraft carrier!", "only peacekeeping and emergency response!") and relatively few have a clue as to what's involved. "What do you train for if we're not at war?" I wouldn't call Canadian governance highly effective, but it's more effective more consistently than some other places I've been. When was the last time a Canadian public official overtly asked you for a cash bribe? That's a low bar, but it's one that much of the world hasn't cleared yet.
Great read Matt. The point you made about health care seemed to be a (perhaps unintended?) parallel for me. A friend of mine had been extolling the reliability of our health care system that resided at the top of the pile in the world until she had to access it for more than the typical ER visit. The health care professionals absolutely care and exhibit competence but there is only so much they are able to do with the systemic constraints prebuilt into that system. The convey was another wake up call for all of us at just how unprepared we collectively are for any situation that arises that isn’t covered in the “manual”. I chuckled at the pothole remark as well as I’ve used that line many times when governments regardless of size trot out grandiose solutions to repair an entire planet while simultaneously lacking the wherewithal to literally fix potholes and replace broken stop signs. Your concerns are definitely well founded.
Good points. As for the convoy, the government had plenty of time to prevent their parking in Ottawa. Weeks.
There were/are times that I think the inaction on the part of the authorities was deliberate. A person could easily think that for some reason this was desired by someone or people in government.
For what end, though? In my cynical moments I suspect that Trudeau saw a chance to appear strong and decisive. I honestly don’t know. But the occupation of Ottawa could have been stopped well before the truckers from the west were anywhere near Ottawa.
And before they could be vilified and citizens have bank accounts frozen.
Trudeau did seize his moment, but as was pointed out by the inquiry, the EA was totally unnecessary because the whole situation was nearly at its end. Peacefully.
Okay, Matt, I agree with you.
Now, why do we (the public) believe that?
I strongly believe that when something / bloody anything goes wrong, we start of with the beseeching cry of, "Someone otta do something!" ["someone" defined as "the government" and "something" defined as "fix this damned thing"]. That beseeching cry is actually a totally unreasonable EXPECTATION/UNREASONABLE BELIEF that the "something" will actually be done by the "someone" which is, of course, stupid. Not unreasonable but stupid.
Of course, "we" [the electorate] are led to believe that governments are omniscient and benevolent by our politicians and "we" are too stupid [that word again] to think through the implications and limitations of what the politicians are saying.
Cynical? Certainly. Correct? You decide.
Or, put differently, "we" keep proving that we get the government that "we" deserve.
The field of emergency management is very similar, in that the gap between actual capabilities and capacity of all levels of give and the expectations of Canadians is wide and deep. This should be the inspiration or at least a catalyst for building individual resilience, but alas, as I see it from both being a professor in the field and as an entrepreneur, assuming someone will rescue them is the plan for most Canadians. They just want to be taken care of, vice assuming personal responsibility.
I wonder how much the presentation of history affects expectations. Curveballs and horrific events have come at us in the past. By looking in the history books it would appear our success was a given. For an event like WWII it’s easy to sit here today and forget the amount of time between action (invasion) and reaction (build up of troops and material then actual counter-invasion). Also so much else happened, such as on the home front, that isn’t regularly spoken of. Nazi rallies in New York. General accepted antisemitism in everyday society. And the fact our leaders are human that can still make the worst of choices believing they are doing the best for their country. And on and on.
We need to get the little things right to get the big things on track, most definitely. I think the hardest thing to get right is to truly understand, and not just intellectually, that the most beneficent outcome is not guaranteed.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of our politicians have fallen prey to the Hollywood notion of ultracompetent government agencies waiting to leap into action as well. The problem is that the politicians don't check to see if their assumptions are valid, which is like not checking whether those objects next to the door of the airplane are properly packed parachutes until you need to escape a burning plane mid-air.
One of the simplest actions politicians and governments could take is to run regular simulations/wargames of crisis events to test the systems and people. I remember my dad being involved in simulated emergencies every year as part of his work in hospital administration in Saskatoon in the '80s. You create a scenario, then get decision makers and organizations to work through the steps they'd take to respond. You uncover the problems, figure out where the gaps are, and just as importantly, let people and organizations get experience on how to respond.
Crisis response is a learned skill just like anything else. Understanding the confusion and chaos of the early stages with incomplete and often incorrect information is an important part of that. When COVID hit, it was obvious that whatever know-how and experience Canada had from events like SARS had largely evaporated. We were left with amateurs trying to deal with a crisis, and they never found their footing until they were bailed out by vaccine development elsewhere. Testing a pandemic response earlier would've ensure there were plans, people who understood what the plans were, and figured out that public health officials who were flailing in response to a fentanyl supply issue and fixated on youth vaping weren't up to the job.
Not sure if it's Hollywood but the point is certainly possible.
Two other thoughts:
- the government has a multitude of bright competent people with practical skills and relevant lived experiences; however, they are rarely, if ever promoted to positions where they are involved in the decision making processes.
As well the management class who do shape decisions with their poli sci and sociology degrees rarely ask those knowledgeable and experienced people below them for advice and if they do ask they have no practical basis for evaluating the advice they get beyond the political lens of their supervisor.
- the system is only as strong as the least competent decision maker in the chain. Many of them have limited real world experience and would have difficulty running a sixth grade bake sale without their administrative staff doing the work.
We have created a governance system where "anyone can manage anything" as long as you have your BA.
Neither of these situations is limited to the federal government.
As I was trying to come up with a pithy rejoinder, I found myself thinking that all of your assessments were bang on.
Except maybe the one about why we fail to see that there is no “hidden A Team” waiting in the wings to make things right when everything appears to be going wrong.
I don’t think this was Hollywood’s fault. This is our fault, because we fail to see that when we ask for this and that, we encourage a certain type to reflect our supposed “needs” back at us, and we simply lap it all up.
Why we fail to think more about “the big issues” is puzzling to me. Is it that the next hockey game (or th next party or pub crawl) is more important?
Be that as it may, our inability to correct the flaws that give us the governance we so hate is a big issue.
Thank you for writing this op-ed.