I still think he is dealing with China, fentanyl, money laundering, immigration, Islamophilia, etc. in the worst faith. But his naive egotism may have led him to believe some of his campaign "promises" were achievable.
Until the tanker ban on the west coast is cancelled, I don't think anyone is going to want to build a pipeline.
As for the future of the Major Projects Office, I am reminded of the Milton Friedman quote, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”
Speaking from experience, identifying inefficiencies and then taking steps to change them is hard, even in a private business. It takes a certain hardiness and willingness to drive change and the skills to also move your entire workforce along that path of change.
Unionized environments naturally resist change, which is likely part of the major problem on the government side. Increased efficiency threatens the union pocket. Fewer employees due to increased efficiency directly impacts their bottom line. Union members get used to get pay with less work and so they are also less inclined to accept improvements in work processes that increase productivity. If the course isn’t navigated with precision, you risk actually becoming (temporarily) less productive due to staff pushback or loss. (Loss potentially isn’t bad in this case if you have a training process that prevents the loss of efficiency and expectation of easy(ier) work.
Now take those challenges to a government level where you have multiple levels and silos and maybe not just from people and organizations you’re responsible for but also from the stakeholders you need to bring along with you. I’m not saying it’s impossible - in fact I think it’s very possible. But unless you have someone deeply engaged in looking at these things, and a high level of cooperation across all stakeholders, gosh, it’s going to be a hard and time consuming battle.
It’s not insurmountable, but the right people need to be in the right place and they need to be clear eyed and the source of the problem, the best fix for the problem, and what the stages of fixing it look like to lower resistance amongst as many stakeholders as possible as quickly as possible. Leadership like that is rare, particularly in government agencies where there’s minimal if any incentive for innovation and incentives land on inertia and make-work projects.
I don’t disagree with any of your article, I think I have even less hope than you in the capacity of the government to fix it unless there is buy-in from every leve from private interests to provincial interests right up to federal agencies and potentially even the courts. If court rulings may create an air of uncertainty - which I think they have, then it doesn’t matter what everyone else does if the Supreme Court has the ability to tank progress. (And my sense is the Supreme Court does more ruling in the vein of social activism these days, so my hope is low that our legal system would create a situation where true and lasting change would be allowed rather than railroaded the moment an upset party took a change to the Court.)
All very good. The conclusion is that improvement can only come from a ruthless PM willing to step on a lot of toes, fire a lot of obstructionists, and offend a lot of people. When your political base is just the people you have to fire or offend, it's simply not going to happen.
We need someone who's willing to go all the way to using the NWC or even sec. 99 against recalcitrant justices. I doubt Poilievre is nasty enough to do this: no Liberal has a hope.
AE...as I commented above, there's only 1 guy with the ability, ruthlessness, resources and, as we've witnessed, the nastiness to do this. Again, I lack the courage to name him.
Nasty, or a long runway with high population buy in so that the change could be accomplished without needing to be nasty. 4 years majority government would only be sufficient if there was already a high level understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of all the stake holders who would need be brought along for the ride.
A winning coalition of voters is either invested abroad, collecting a guaranteed pension, or on the government payroll (including NGOs and legacy media). They just don't care that Canada is declining, because it doesn't affect them.
Fake concern for the indigenous or the environment feels better than young Canadians having jobs, and certainly more than Canadian entrepreneurs doing great things.
Maybe with enough righteous anger and relentless demonization, a bigger coalition could be mobilized against them, but sweet reason won't do the job.
Sadly, AE, any sort of "coalition" would become a group grope. It will take a temporary dictator. The problem, of course, would be de-dictatoring him/her.
I would further note that, yes, they have that great power. Until they stop and recognize the legal and regulatory limitations that have been placed on pretty much any action in Canada. Oh, except total inaction, which is the stasis in which we are and have been for some years. Quite frankly, the idea of action (not to mention an oxymoron) is a total illusion in Canada.
Like so many government inventions, the MPO sounds lovely enough until you realize that it involves the government, which is pretty much one guy these days, deciding which companies succeed. This inspires corporate obsequious and, eventually, corruption when all that is needed is a regulatory and legislative environment that inspires investment. So, thanks for taking a measured look at the issue
You identify a significant problem in our country, but I am curious about your impression that Carney understands the problem and is actively searching for solutions. From his previous academic work to the actions taken since he assumed leadership, the evidence would suggest that Carney believes the solution to having too much government is to create more governmental agencies. What evidence do you have indicating Carney understands that the problem is governmental regulatory overeach and that the solution to the problem is to reduce government's role?
You are the first source I've heard for a potential Northern Gateway II. If that happens, I'll have to reassess Carney. In the meantime, I'm with Robert. All I remember from the last 6+ month is new bureacracies.
Bureaucracy creates, follows and enforces regulations. As long as the regulations which strangle progress are in place the bureaucracy will work to ensure that progress is in fact strangled. Change those regulations and bureaucracy will change, not fast but it will change. Carney has shown little inclination to work in this direction. Also many of our recent laws and regulations are negative in nature. The politicians put a positive spin on them; however, that does not change their negative nature. Time to make regulations aimed at achieving positive goals as opposed to inhibiting action. It’s amazing to me that in this capitalist society we call a government progressive based solely on social issues. The last ten years have been a very regressive time for this country while being governed by a so-called progressive regime.
Hopefully, that is not true Matt. I hope you are not just guessing. As a journalist, I would expect that your impressions and hunches do not exist in a vacuum. In academic work, we draw inferences. Such inferences are founded in actual information and data to which we have access. While such information and data may not be conclusive, we infer that they point in a direction based upon all the available data. What is the data to which you (but not me) have access to that lead you to believe Carney understands that too much government is the problem?
Nothing exists in a vacuum. But you asked about a specific thing. I answered. It's an assessment. Also, if you could access all that I could, you wouldn't be asking. You don't have to trust my judgment, but that is my judgment.
It has been a year since Mr. Trump was elected President. Despite all the hysteria (including here), the checks and balances in the US are kicking in and they will move to a saner, more moderate position. We have not made any significant change and Mr. Carney, assuming he would actually do what is needed, is handcuffed by a faulty system of government. If anything, we will sail with the winds of change from the US, and pretend we prevailed.
Bingo, Matt. Nutrien is an excellent example (re: expanding port in the US). Will MPO and current federal government bureaucrats realize that it’s not acting fast enough to get things done? I doubt it.
I will add one idea to your idea -> are both ports are deep enough for the big cargo ships that carry 12,000 40 foot containers? If they aren’t, they’re going elsewhere (aka US ports).
We are long past the time when dockworkers and railroaders were declared an essential service. Collective bargaining has been dead for those groups for decades, with the government always being forced to step in. There is a way for them to step out.
Nick, I have to repeat an apocryphal story/prediction that I saw a few days ago [i.e. not my idea but someone else's truly accurate way of explaining Canada].
Staff member: "General, the [US/Chinese/Russians/Haitians/whatever] have started their invasion that we have foreseen for these last six months."
General: "My God! We haven't had a chance to let the tender for uniform buttons yet. Call the PMO and tell them that we really do need a decision on who we can contract to buy the pistols."
I have a hard time giving the government much credit to want to solve anything plaguing this country. Canadians have a very distorted image of how this country functions. We are more obsessed with process than solutions, we rely entirely too much on government to fix everything when government can fix nothing. We complain that things don’t work but refuse to change things to fix the issues… health care being a prime example. The MPO will likely be no different. It creates the illusion of a busy government intent on getting the country back on track when all it seems to do is create yet another layer of bureaucracy. Unless busy work is happening behind the scene, this just seems to be another scheme to fool a gullible electorate in thinking that their government has their back.
Entirely correct. Canadians seem content with mediocrity which is why our governments never feel the need to achieve, to strive, to want to get ahead. I’m hoping Alberta and Saskatchewan remain the bright exception.
One would love to think that Mark C’s next move will be to direct the Privy Council office to look at how to quickly dismantle the whole Trudeau no-more-projects mess, while somehow saving Liberal Party face.
Maybe he’s already quietly done so behind the scenes! (Ha! just kidding)
Agree.... Its spot on to look at the MPO as a symptom of Canada's malaise in trying to invest in, and start, and complete projects.... The MPO is way to put a temporary fix on another one of Justin's legacies from the lost decade.
If you think that it's only Trudeau's regulations that are the problem, you're delusional. Most of the major projects that have been delayed and eventually failed (like Northern Gateway) were actually being assessed under Harper's regs or even the ones leftover from Chretien/Martin. Once the process starts, it remains with the same set of laws that it started with. It's a myth that all of the failures we've seen are due only to Trudeau-era regs. This mess is decades in the making.
Unfortunately, it likely falls to the Liberals to fix problems with Canada's regulatory process. That's not because they're more competent to do it or the only ones inclined to do it; it's because they're more likely to be able to get the acceptance of the various interests groups who've been gumming up the existing system. Willpower alone isn't sufficient to fix problems with regulatory approvals - the Harper government was stymied because of the hysterical freak-out of those interest groups convinced that a new pipeline would be permission for publicly drowning marine mammals and small children in crude oil while the atmosphere lit on fire due to unchecked global warming, for the benefit of Big Business.
The catch is that the Liberals are a bit like Homer Simpson with his hand stuck in the candy machine: they simultaneously want to be free of the constraints of the current regulatory process, but they don't want to let go of the various elements creating that regulatory tangle.
Great column. No doubt Mr. Carney is aware of the regulatory hoops and reams of paperwork asked of investing corps in Canada today. Although red tape reduction has tended to be an on- going conservative platform item it absolutely needs to be addressed by this Liberal government if we are to have any hope of achieving the goals of the government - GDP increase and the attraction of foreign investment along with the recognition that Canada has a wealth of natural resources to be extracted, transported and sold.
The creation of the MPO as you sa has increased the confusion of those who may want to work in Canada and wonder what their chances are going through the regular channels.
This is not a hard problem to solve with some war time determination and a bit in f time.
Assign the task to a committee of DM’s in every department that has even one regulation impinging on investment. Give them a deadline to decipher the timelines and overlap that have accumulated as Reg’s are added to Reg’s by Environment, Indigenous Affairs, Natural Resources, Finance and others - that’s only at the federal level. I’m riffing here but without a hard press on streamlining Reg’s Carneys global trade missions are a waste of time. They add massive costs to the bottom line and we can’t compete against other jurisdictions like Germany and South Korea who are vying for the same investors.
Germany's economy has flat-lined. GDP shrinking for the second year in a row? GB will follow suit. They are hardly competitive. Look south for a model that will allow us to get in the game.
And yet - PMMC is obsessed with linking us to the bureaucratic, woke, broke EU. Of course the EU are excited to get Canada into their fold - they know how easy they can get Billions of $ of our money under this government.
There aren't enough non-Trudeau MPs to fill Carney's cabinet. He's stuck with a lot of deadwood, which is why he has to correct his ministers so often.
It is a sad statement that out of 170 MPs he can not find 16 competent ones to build a kick ass cabinet and another dozen or so to lead effective committees. I know it is not possible because we have made up stupid rules which make geographical and ideological identity more important than competency. Even the main stream media would rip the PM apart for even suggesting doing something so radical.
There’s another way around this tbh. Instead of cabinet members, get rid of the existing Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers who have been working in government for eons and lack the experience to go fast and get things done; replace them with talented, private sector executives who can shake the box and the organization to go fast (public service needs a Neutron Jack moment to get rid of the higher management deadwood/aka clean house) using Interchange Canada: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ICEC/AO-PA/Welcome-eng.aspx?GoCTemplateCulture=en-CA
Yeah, the "Canada is broken" slogan always sounds true because of things the author describes. And yes, it means something different to each Canadian, young or old, urban or rural, rich or poor.
There is so much complexity and there are so many intricately connected systems and processes which weave together to form a kind of bureaucratic cement. If they were living things they would be called conspirators. If they were a video game they would be different levels and each level would have a Boss to beat.
I can see why it feels good to invent a solution like the MPO. "See? I'm smarter than everybody in the room. I'm just gonna walk around this swamp."
Sometime, somewhere, somehow the DOGE people down south took this idea way too far. But I can sympathize that they (at least) grasped the drastic-ness and urgency of the issues.
And not everyone liked it, but enough did, for a time.
Right?
The problem is that if we don't seriously start to get under the hood and look for what is actually wrong, and who is responsible, and why it needs to be done better, and do this at every government level in every department we haven't got a chance. The urgency is gone.
For me, the winner of the next election should be the leader who can speak across partisan lines and remind us all of the urgency and clarity of what "Canada is broken" means.
Hope the MPO works for Canadians and Canadian businesses. However,I’m afraid it will be just another bureaucratic nightmare to get through before a project gets approved.
My suggestion for a secondary purpose for the PBO is regulatory review. Each ministry would be asked to explain the reason for 10 regulations each week. Those that have no current purpose or are duplicative would be deleted immediately.
A big problem is that Carney consistently overestimates his ability to get things done.
I think he was honest in promising to deal with Trump, but then couldn't.
I think he was honest in promising to get things done faster than we can imagine, but then couldn't.
I think he honestly thought the MPO would help, but it won't do much.
He thought the PM held real power, that he could whip his woke caucus, the Premiers, the FNs, etc., but he can't.
He just wasn't ready. ;)
Why this presumption of good faith?
I still think he is dealing with China, fentanyl, money laundering, immigration, Islamophilia, etc. in the worst faith. But his naive egotism may have led him to believe some of his campaign "promises" were achievable.
Why the presumption of bad faith?
Because he's a Liberal politician. My default setting is to ask for evidence of good faith from all non-ideological politicians.
Experience with MC and with the LPC.
Does that mean he shouldn't try.
Maybe he'll get better when he figures out the system.
No one can make a deal with Trump...his word is meaningless.
Carney said he could.
Until the tanker ban on the west coast is cancelled, I don't think anyone is going to want to build a pipeline.
As for the future of the Major Projects Office, I am reminded of the Milton Friedman quote, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”
Speaking from experience, identifying inefficiencies and then taking steps to change them is hard, even in a private business. It takes a certain hardiness and willingness to drive change and the skills to also move your entire workforce along that path of change.
Unionized environments naturally resist change, which is likely part of the major problem on the government side. Increased efficiency threatens the union pocket. Fewer employees due to increased efficiency directly impacts their bottom line. Union members get used to get pay with less work and so they are also less inclined to accept improvements in work processes that increase productivity. If the course isn’t navigated with precision, you risk actually becoming (temporarily) less productive due to staff pushback or loss. (Loss potentially isn’t bad in this case if you have a training process that prevents the loss of efficiency and expectation of easy(ier) work.
Now take those challenges to a government level where you have multiple levels and silos and maybe not just from people and organizations you’re responsible for but also from the stakeholders you need to bring along with you. I’m not saying it’s impossible - in fact I think it’s very possible. But unless you have someone deeply engaged in looking at these things, and a high level of cooperation across all stakeholders, gosh, it’s going to be a hard and time consuming battle.
It’s not insurmountable, but the right people need to be in the right place and they need to be clear eyed and the source of the problem, the best fix for the problem, and what the stages of fixing it look like to lower resistance amongst as many stakeholders as possible as quickly as possible. Leadership like that is rare, particularly in government agencies where there’s minimal if any incentive for innovation and incentives land on inertia and make-work projects.
I don’t disagree with any of your article, I think I have even less hope than you in the capacity of the government to fix it unless there is buy-in from every leve from private interests to provincial interests right up to federal agencies and potentially even the courts. If court rulings may create an air of uncertainty - which I think they have, then it doesn’t matter what everyone else does if the Supreme Court has the ability to tank progress. (And my sense is the Supreme Court does more ruling in the vein of social activism these days, so my hope is low that our legal system would create a situation where true and lasting change would be allowed rather than railroaded the moment an upset party took a change to the Court.)
All very good. The conclusion is that improvement can only come from a ruthless PM willing to step on a lot of toes, fire a lot of obstructionists, and offend a lot of people. When your political base is just the people you have to fire or offend, it's simply not going to happen.
We need someone who's willing to go all the way to using the NWC or even sec. 99 against recalcitrant justices. I doubt Poilievre is nasty enough to do this: no Liberal has a hope.
AE...as I commented above, there's only 1 guy with the ability, ruthlessness, resources and, as we've witnessed, the nastiness to do this. Again, I lack the courage to name him.
If you lack the courage to say anything substantive, why comment at all?
My comment WAS "substantive". My attenpt at humour clearly passed you over.
Nasty, or a long runway with high population buy in so that the change could be accomplished without needing to be nasty. 4 years majority government would only be sufficient if there was already a high level understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of all the stake holders who would need be brought along for the ride.
It's not a matter of understanding, as new projects being no benefits for many stakeholders. It's a matter of crushing the opposition.
A winning coalition of voters is either invested abroad, collecting a guaranteed pension, or on the government payroll (including NGOs and legacy media). They just don't care that Canada is declining, because it doesn't affect them.
Fake concern for the indigenous or the environment feels better than young Canadians having jobs, and certainly more than Canadian entrepreneurs doing great things.
Maybe with enough righteous anger and relentless demonization, a bigger coalition could be mobilized against them, but sweet reason won't do the job.
Sadly, AE, any sort of "coalition" would become a group grope. It will take a temporary dictator. The problem, of course, would be de-dictatoring him/her.
The great thing about Canada is that every PM is a temporary dictator.
https://www.amazon.ca/Friendly-Dictatorship-Jeffrey-Simpson/dp/0771080794
AE, we depart agreement on this one..."every PM is a WANNABE dictator" but lacks the intellect and initiative to dictate.
Fair. I just meant they have the power, not necessarily the ability to wield it.
I would further note that, yes, they have that great power. Until they stop and recognize the legal and regulatory limitations that have been placed on pretty much any action in Canada. Oh, except total inaction, which is the stasis in which we are and have been for some years. Quite frankly, the idea of action (not to mention an oxymoron) is a total illusion in Canada.
It takes a coalition of voters to put the temporary dictator into office.
Like so many government inventions, the MPO sounds lovely enough until you realize that it involves the government, which is pretty much one guy these days, deciding which companies succeed. This inspires corporate obsequious and, eventually, corruption when all that is needed is a regulatory and legislative environment that inspires investment. So, thanks for taking a measured look at the issue
Excellent take on this Matt. Frustrating to sit back as Canadians and watch.
More proof of "Canada is broken."
You identify a significant problem in our country, but I am curious about your impression that Carney understands the problem and is actively searching for solutions. From his previous academic work to the actions taken since he assumed leadership, the evidence would suggest that Carney believes the solution to having too much government is to create more governmental agencies. What evidence do you have indicating Carney understands that the problem is governmental regulatory overeach and that the solution to the problem is to reduce government's role?
I’m not a detective. I don’t have case notes of evidence. I have impressions and hunches.
You are the first source I've heard for a potential Northern Gateway II. If that happens, I'll have to reassess Carney. In the meantime, I'm with Robert. All I remember from the last 6+ month is new bureacracies.
Bureaucracy creates, follows and enforces regulations. As long as the regulations which strangle progress are in place the bureaucracy will work to ensure that progress is in fact strangled. Change those regulations and bureaucracy will change, not fast but it will change. Carney has shown little inclination to work in this direction. Also many of our recent laws and regulations are negative in nature. The politicians put a positive spin on them; however, that does not change their negative nature. Time to make regulations aimed at achieving positive goals as opposed to inhibiting action. It’s amazing to me that in this capitalist society we call a government progressive based solely on social issues. The last ten years have been a very regressive time for this country while being governed by a so-called progressive regime.
Hopefully, that is not true Matt. I hope you are not just guessing. As a journalist, I would expect that your impressions and hunches do not exist in a vacuum. In academic work, we draw inferences. Such inferences are founded in actual information and data to which we have access. While such information and data may not be conclusive, we infer that they point in a direction based upon all the available data. What is the data to which you (but not me) have access to that lead you to believe Carney understands that too much government is the problem?
Nothing exists in a vacuum. But you asked about a specific thing. I answered. It's an assessment. Also, if you could access all that I could, you wouldn't be asking. You don't have to trust my judgment, but that is my judgment.
It has been a year since Mr. Trump was elected President. Despite all the hysteria (including here), the checks and balances in the US are kicking in and they will move to a saner, more moderate position. We have not made any significant change and Mr. Carney, assuming he would actually do what is needed, is handcuffed by a faulty system of government. If anything, we will sail with the winds of change from the US, and pretend we prevailed.
Bingo, Matt. Nutrien is an excellent example (re: expanding port in the US). Will MPO and current federal government bureaucrats realize that it’s not acting fast enough to get things done? I doubt it.
This has most likely happened because both the ports of Vancouver & Montreal rank in the bottom 5% of global ports - out of approx 350-400 ports.
To much union influence, far to many strikes leading to our reputation as unreliable plus outdated equipment equal a undesirable option for expansion.
Also no port police and highly corrupt by gangs, mafia, etc.
I will add one idea to your idea -> are both ports are deep enough for the big cargo ships that carry 12,000 40 foot containers? If they aren’t, they’re going elsewhere (aka US ports).
sorry not sure
It’s okay. It was a thinking question for everyone to ponder and think about.
A guess, but Halifax and Vancouver are likely a yes, Montreal a no.
Thank you!
We are long past the time when dockworkers and railroaders were declared an essential service. Collective bargaining has been dead for those groups for decades, with the government always being forced to step in. There is a way for them to step out.
Nick, I have to repeat an apocryphal story/prediction that I saw a few days ago [i.e. not my idea but someone else's truly accurate way of explaining Canada].
Staff member: "General, the [US/Chinese/Russians/Haitians/whatever] have started their invasion that we have foreseen for these last six months."
General: "My God! We haven't had a chance to let the tender for uniform buttons yet. Call the PMO and tell them that we really do need a decision on who we can contract to buy the pistols."
Love it! Absolutely love it Ken! Your comment brightened my day cause I started laughing out loud when I read it!
But remember, this is not my story; I cribbed it (poorly, I am certain) from something that I saw a couple days ago.
And, given the veracity of this prediction/story we can now confirm that, indeed, Canada is broken.
Either way, it brightened my day! And it’s an excellent start to my weekend!
I have a hard time giving the government much credit to want to solve anything plaguing this country. Canadians have a very distorted image of how this country functions. We are more obsessed with process than solutions, we rely entirely too much on government to fix everything when government can fix nothing. We complain that things don’t work but refuse to change things to fix the issues… health care being a prime example. The MPO will likely be no different. It creates the illusion of a busy government intent on getting the country back on track when all it seems to do is create yet another layer of bureaucracy. Unless busy work is happening behind the scene, this just seems to be another scheme to fool a gullible electorate in thinking that their government has their back.
That's because we don't have a culture of personal accountability. When the government wipes your bum you don't have to worry about doing it yourself.
Entirely correct. Canadians seem content with mediocrity which is why our governments never feel the need to achieve, to strive, to want to get ahead. I’m hoping Alberta and Saskatchewan remain the bright exception.
This column is spot on. Good information, Matt.
One would love to think that Mark C’s next move will be to direct the Privy Council office to look at how to quickly dismantle the whole Trudeau no-more-projects mess, while somehow saving Liberal Party face.
Maybe he’s already quietly done so behind the scenes! (Ha! just kidding)
You might think that a good idea (I certainly do!) but I highly recommend that you do not hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
Agree.... Its spot on to look at the MPO as a symptom of Canada's malaise in trying to invest in, and start, and complete projects.... The MPO is way to put a temporary fix on another one of Justin's legacies from the lost decade.
If you think that it's only Trudeau's regulations that are the problem, you're delusional. Most of the major projects that have been delayed and eventually failed (like Northern Gateway) were actually being assessed under Harper's regs or even the ones leftover from Chretien/Martin. Once the process starts, it remains with the same set of laws that it started with. It's a myth that all of the failures we've seen are due only to Trudeau-era regs. This mess is decades in the making.
Unfortunately, it likely falls to the Liberals to fix problems with Canada's regulatory process. That's not because they're more competent to do it or the only ones inclined to do it; it's because they're more likely to be able to get the acceptance of the various interests groups who've been gumming up the existing system. Willpower alone isn't sufficient to fix problems with regulatory approvals - the Harper government was stymied because of the hysterical freak-out of those interest groups convinced that a new pipeline would be permission for publicly drowning marine mammals and small children in crude oil while the atmosphere lit on fire due to unchecked global warming, for the benefit of Big Business.
The catch is that the Liberals are a bit like Homer Simpson with his hand stuck in the candy machine: they simultaneously want to be free of the constraints of the current regulatory process, but they don't want to let go of the various elements creating that regulatory tangle.
Great column. No doubt Mr. Carney is aware of the regulatory hoops and reams of paperwork asked of investing corps in Canada today. Although red tape reduction has tended to be an on- going conservative platform item it absolutely needs to be addressed by this Liberal government if we are to have any hope of achieving the goals of the government - GDP increase and the attraction of foreign investment along with the recognition that Canada has a wealth of natural resources to be extracted, transported and sold.
The creation of the MPO as you sa has increased the confusion of those who may want to work in Canada and wonder what their chances are going through the regular channels.
This is not a hard problem to solve with some war time determination and a bit in f time.
Assign the task to a committee of DM’s in every department that has even one regulation impinging on investment. Give them a deadline to decipher the timelines and overlap that have accumulated as Reg’s are added to Reg’s by Environment, Indigenous Affairs, Natural Resources, Finance and others - that’s only at the federal level. I’m riffing here but without a hard press on streamlining Reg’s Carneys global trade missions are a waste of time. They add massive costs to the bottom line and we can’t compete against other jurisdictions like Germany and South Korea who are vying for the same investors.
Germany's economy has flat-lined. GDP shrinking for the second year in a row? GB will follow suit. They are hardly competitive. Look south for a model that will allow us to get in the game.
You’re right. Thanks.
And yet - PMMC is obsessed with linking us to the bureaucratic, woke, broke EU. Of course the EU are excited to get Canada into their fold - they know how easy they can get Billions of $ of our money under this government.
Of course he wants to link us to the EU/continent.
After all, he was (still is despite his claims?) a citizen of the UK and of Ireland.
Is your idea similar to the Red Tape and Reduction plan and progress report implemented by the various federal agencies? Here’s an example from Environment Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/transparency/priorities-management/policies-guidelines/red-tape-reduction-report.html
Exactly. Thank you for sharing.
You’re welcome! Carpe diem!
Another SNAFU. Melanie Jolie already sticking her nose in a major mine merger. ‘Mom’ telling business what is good for Canada. Sad
I don’t understand why she still has a cabinet position. You’d think Carney would want fresh non-Trudeau talent.
There aren't enough non-Trudeau MPs to fill Carney's cabinet. He's stuck with a lot of deadwood, which is why he has to correct his ministers so often.
It is a sad statement that out of 170 MPs he can not find 16 competent ones to build a kick ass cabinet and another dozen or so to lead effective committees. I know it is not possible because we have made up stupid rules which make geographical and ideological identity more important than competency. Even the main stream media would rip the PM apart for even suggesting doing something so radical.
I hope Carney can bring in one of his people when Freeland resigns as an MP. Her new job at the Rhodes Trust starts in July 2026.
To be in cabinet, you must be an MP. Carney can't bring in a non-MP. His selection is the low-quality Trudeau leftovers.
You can in fact bring in a Senator for cabinet. I think Harper was the last person to bother with the Montreal-area cabinet minister back in 2006.
There’s another way around this tbh. Instead of cabinet members, get rid of the existing Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers who have been working in government for eons and lack the experience to go fast and get things done; replace them with talented, private sector executives who can shake the box and the organization to go fast (public service needs a Neutron Jack moment to get rid of the higher management deadwood/aka clean house) using Interchange Canada: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ICEC/AO-PA/Welcome-eng.aspx?GoCTemplateCulture=en-CA
Freeland will resign her seat in HOC at some point in the spring. Carney will call a by-election & appoint a candidate that he can bring into cabinet.
I also expect Guilbeault, Blair & Wilkerson to resign their seats. They are awaiting diplomatic postings in Europe.
Yeah, the "Canada is broken" slogan always sounds true because of things the author describes. And yes, it means something different to each Canadian, young or old, urban or rural, rich or poor.
There is so much complexity and there are so many intricately connected systems and processes which weave together to form a kind of bureaucratic cement. If they were living things they would be called conspirators. If they were a video game they would be different levels and each level would have a Boss to beat.
I can see why it feels good to invent a solution like the MPO. "See? I'm smarter than everybody in the room. I'm just gonna walk around this swamp."
Sometime, somewhere, somehow the DOGE people down south took this idea way too far. But I can sympathize that they (at least) grasped the drastic-ness and urgency of the issues.
And not everyone liked it, but enough did, for a time.
Right?
The problem is that if we don't seriously start to get under the hood and look for what is actually wrong, and who is responsible, and why it needs to be done better, and do this at every government level in every department we haven't got a chance. The urgency is gone.
For me, the winner of the next election should be the leader who can speak across partisan lines and remind us all of the urgency and clarity of what "Canada is broken" means.
Hope the MPO works for Canadians and Canadian businesses. However,I’m afraid it will be just another bureaucratic nightmare to get through before a project gets approved.
My suggestion for a secondary purpose for the PBO is regulatory review. Each ministry would be asked to explain the reason for 10 regulations each week. Those that have no current purpose or are duplicative would be deleted immediately.
I worry that every Ministry would drop most of their existing responsibilities and turn into the Ministry of Justifying Regulations.
If they dropped their existing regulation enforcement responsibility, that would be progress.
Is that a bad thing? All we need is a reverse onus time limit on project approval and we're good to go