Here is the thing I have noticed about Canada – 7 decades later.
One day I woke up and profit had become a bad word – I had several businesses and I thought profit was a good thing. Then I noticed that a bunch of people I didn’t know, wanted my money, either through taxes or through donations, but they didn’t get up in the morning to work, so why should I be giving them so much of my money.
We went from a vibrant, ‘get ‘er done’ and happy to help you neighbour, to a country where if our neighbour is wealthy, they are bad, and all those wealthy people should be giving us their money.
Then Canada didn’t have any hero’s anymore – they all left for the states, where profit was still okay, and loving your country was what you did because you had family that went to war to die for your country.
We didn’t have all those regulations. As Jeff Foxworthy mentioned, we weren’t too good to ride in the box of the truck.
All this is to say – great guest. We need people out there who are not afraid of making a profit, taking chances and telling the guys with their hands out – this is my money, make your own.
By the way, the federal government did plan to have your medical records available to hospitals/doctors across Canada. It was called Panorama. The feds may still be trying to make it work. I was working on it in 2011.
And Matt – I like your provincial challenge. Great idea – any takers yet?
Sounds like a good program. My 2 cautions are don't be arrogant, and team up with some savvy politicians if you really want to make it work.
Arrogance can be addressed by applying Chesterton's Fence: when encountering something that seems like an unnecessary obstacle, make sure you understand why it was put there and what function it serves before trying to eliminate it. Government really is bigger and far more complex than most private sector companies.
Teaming up with politicians is a good idea because governments are run by politics. It's a different game and a different skill set than what usually works in the private sector. The practice of politics has also become a high art that seems to have shut out the opportunity for accomplished private sector people to successfully pursue a 2nd career in politics. Probably way better to become a confidant of a good politician and provide them with the policy to implement, while they provide the skill to sell it.
To me, the whole idea of having to team up with politicians is evidence that we have major problems as a liberal democracy. Large corporations can deal with long timelines and onerous regulatory requirements but for small companies and entrepreneurs it is evidence that you should go somewhere else. When First Nations "consultations" came into effect, as an example, it was fated to became a major problem for all resource development just because there was not a structured route to a yes/ no answer.
Awesome episode!!!! I’ve signed up to get their newsletter at BuildCanada. This was inspiring and uplifting, and in the sea of shittification of Canada 🇨🇦 was a breath of fresh air! Thank you!
Anyone can contribute to the set of ideas. That being said, when the guest said that the tech leaders had expertise in growth, I found the topics they cover are not really about growth. So that's odd. I found the plan put forth on government spending to be surface level, with some inherent contradictions that were not addressed.
I don't agree with the premise that fast is always good. Matters of public policy and people's lives, like Healthcare, maybe slow is better. Not that we don't need new ideas and innovations, but the concept of failing fast may not apply to public policy. Because at the end of the day, the civil service is not the same as private enterprise.
One last quick ask of the host. I am interested to listen to more episodes of On the Line. I would like to see more challenging to the positions of the guest, so that it adds to the consideration of the idea.
Great interview and episode. I wouldn’t be opposed to him coming back. A few things stuck out for me. I find it interesting he built three companies only to sell them to corporations outside of Canada. I think this experience makes him a great person to explain and address the issues with entrepreneurship in Canada. Another frustration I’ve had with the government and academia is nothing major getting accomplished due to insistent planning, committees, committees regarding future committees,consulting with stakeholders, adjourning for further research. At some point work needs to actually be done to address the issues and we often let perfect be the enemy of good. Ex. Build some water wells on reserves and stop the endless TRC committees that are still researching after almost a decade.
As we've seen with the reaction to US threats, there are plenty of Canadians, a critical mass, who would rather strive for harmony, "equality" and otherness rather than improvement, results and excellence.
Too many of the older generation in Canada are comfortable with the ways things are right now, nevermind the underachieving of young people. They need to be pushed to the side.
This is so comical. "Hey, we're soooo into democracy, and we want to empower democracy and here's our contribution to the democratic discourse!"
Policy #1: take the power to set immigration policy away from the democratically elected minister of immigration.
Policy #2: federal government must crush local regulations on food delivery robots and e-scooters
Policy #3: BC must accept the same trucks on its mountain roads that Ontario does on the 401. Saskatchewan must allow Toronto plumbers to work there without any additional licensing despite the different building codes.
A lot of this is just warmed-over Thatcherism that got us into this mess in the first place. Canada has big problems with finance and government capacity that will be made worse with another big deregulation push. Canada needs less centralization, not more. Capital needs to be wrested from the big players and invested in Canada's productive capacity, not in more national financial scams.
There's some good stuff about how our own government should buy stuff from our own companies. Of course, when some poor bureaucrat takes a risk that goes badly, these will be the first guys to wail about wasteful and incompetent government. Nobody gets fired for hiring IBM...
I'll also note that the US has all kinds of different state regulations and interstate labour restrictions. I know US citizens that file fifty different tax returns each year because they travel for work. Canada is not an outlier federation in terms of sub-national regulations. Different places have different rules because they are different. Truckers in Ontario don't want to be restricted by BC weight limits, so there are different rules. BC doesn't want to accept trucks that are too heavy and underpowered for their mountain roads. E-scooters are brilliant in Calgary and a menace in Toronto.
The way we decide if the rules fit local circumstances or not is through "democracy". It's admittedly messy and inconvenient for those with grand plans to dominate the national robot food delivery sector.
A hopeful episode, thank you. I've shared their website with my few people on media. Makes me wonder why more people aren't seeking out constructive projects and amplifying them. But I guess that is part of the problem your guest is seeking to highlight. I feel that once we motivate Canadian citizens to take action (as happened historically, in the last century) we are a force to be reckoned with. But my question now is: what will it take to motivate citizens to both innovate, and push politicians/bureaucracies in the direction of needed resilience, so we continue as a sovereign nation in the 21st century? Or put another way: why do so many people in government and without seem to be content to point outraged fingers at DT, yet sluggish to actually realize the urgency, and act accordingly?
Haven’t listened to this yet though I will. But I hope it talks about Impact Assessment: Bill C-69, the supposed “No More Pipelines Act”. To my view, it’s actually been a “No More Building _Anything_ Act”, including mining (critical minerals), pipelines, export terminals, and even things that one would think would be Trudeau/Guilbeault priorities like wind farms (seriously, search for the amount of wind power constructed in Canada each year under Harper and then under Trudeau — it’s shocking)
The new impact assessment has lots of components, of course, but the piece that’s been the most impactful on timelines and risk, and that would be the hardest to change quickly for some sort of emergency infrastructure build programme is the Indigenous component. Some people even call it an “Indigenous veto” on new projects though strictly speaking it’s not.
It would be fascinating to unpack the factions within the current government and their intention with C-69: was it Reconciliation? Climate action? (A bit counterproductive in that case since it’s impacting nuclear and renewables too…) Or just degrowth / Dark Green / anticapitalism? Do they feel it was a success?
And maybe more importantly: what would our candidates for PM including Mr. Carney and Mr. Poilievre actually do about it? I noticed that they’ll barely even speak the words “impact assessment” out loud, let alone “C-69 repeal”. That may be because it’s too esoteric, but I also suspect it might be because of the third rail issue embedded in it.
What does your guest propose we do about C-69, and how do you do it without provoking another Oka crisis?
He did mention about how it would create indigenous job opportunities and they would be partners so my guess is to make it in their best economic interests.
Really great episode - left me feeling hope for the future. However, as a career public servant, I want to highlight the importance of public service reform going forward if Canada is to be "saved". In the early 2000's I had the privilege of working in some really excellent, vibrant policy shops in Ottawa, only to see these environments wither away over the last 10-15 years. While the federal public service has become a discouraging place to work, I hope the drive and talent of the Build Canada community will spread to the public sector. Happy to see Canada's entrepreneurs picking up this baton.
We absolutely do need to build more - more physical infrastructure to move people, goods and resources around so we can create value. Roads, bridges, rail, and factories. Not just more apps, platforms, and social media networks. And we absolutely do NOT need to build anything that only serves to concentrate wealth and power into fewer hands. We need to build the infrastructure that benefits us ALL.
Absolutely, YES to this - sharing it with my kids and feeling a glimmer of hope for our nation.
That comment about the "Laurentian risk-aversion" was good when he put it in the context of the need to have more of a fix it quick attitude.
Here's his website http://buildcanada.com
Here is the thing I have noticed about Canada – 7 decades later.
One day I woke up and profit had become a bad word – I had several businesses and I thought profit was a good thing. Then I noticed that a bunch of people I didn’t know, wanted my money, either through taxes or through donations, but they didn’t get up in the morning to work, so why should I be giving them so much of my money.
We went from a vibrant, ‘get ‘er done’ and happy to help you neighbour, to a country where if our neighbour is wealthy, they are bad, and all those wealthy people should be giving us their money.
Then Canada didn’t have any hero’s anymore – they all left for the states, where profit was still okay, and loving your country was what you did because you had family that went to war to die for your country.
We didn’t have all those regulations. As Jeff Foxworthy mentioned, we weren’t too good to ride in the box of the truck.
All this is to say – great guest. We need people out there who are not afraid of making a profit, taking chances and telling the guys with their hands out – this is my money, make your own.
By the way, the federal government did plan to have your medical records available to hospitals/doctors across Canada. It was called Panorama. The feds may still be trying to make it work. I was working on it in 2011.
And Matt – I like your provincial challenge. Great idea – any takers yet?
Sounds like a good program. My 2 cautions are don't be arrogant, and team up with some savvy politicians if you really want to make it work.
Arrogance can be addressed by applying Chesterton's Fence: when encountering something that seems like an unnecessary obstacle, make sure you understand why it was put there and what function it serves before trying to eliminate it. Government really is bigger and far more complex than most private sector companies.
Teaming up with politicians is a good idea because governments are run by politics. It's a different game and a different skill set than what usually works in the private sector. The practice of politics has also become a high art that seems to have shut out the opportunity for accomplished private sector people to successfully pursue a 2nd career in politics. Probably way better to become a confidant of a good politician and provide them with the policy to implement, while they provide the skill to sell it.
To me, the whole idea of having to team up with politicians is evidence that we have major problems as a liberal democracy. Large corporations can deal with long timelines and onerous regulatory requirements but for small companies and entrepreneurs it is evidence that you should go somewhere else. When First Nations "consultations" came into effect, as an example, it was fated to became a major problem for all resource development just because there was not a structured route to a yes/ no answer.
Awesome episode!!!! I’ve signed up to get their newsletter at BuildCanada. This was inspiring and uplifting, and in the sea of shittification of Canada 🇨🇦 was a breath of fresh air! Thank you!
Really enjoying this. We need more civil society. How do we build that to help with the rest of the building?
Anyone can contribute to the set of ideas. That being said, when the guest said that the tech leaders had expertise in growth, I found the topics they cover are not really about growth. So that's odd. I found the plan put forth on government spending to be surface level, with some inherent contradictions that were not addressed.
I don't agree with the premise that fast is always good. Matters of public policy and people's lives, like Healthcare, maybe slow is better. Not that we don't need new ideas and innovations, but the concept of failing fast may not apply to public policy. Because at the end of the day, the civil service is not the same as private enterprise.
One last quick ask of the host. I am interested to listen to more episodes of On the Line. I would like to see more challenging to the positions of the guest, so that it adds to the consideration of the idea.
Thanks.
Great interview and episode. I wouldn’t be opposed to him coming back. A few things stuck out for me. I find it interesting he built three companies only to sell them to corporations outside of Canada. I think this experience makes him a great person to explain and address the issues with entrepreneurship in Canada. Another frustration I’ve had with the government and academia is nothing major getting accomplished due to insistent planning, committees, committees regarding future committees,consulting with stakeholders, adjourning for further research. At some point work needs to actually be done to address the issues and we often let perfect be the enemy of good. Ex. Build some water wells on reserves and stop the endless TRC committees that are still researching after almost a decade.
We are a very consensus seeking culture. Quick decision making is anathema to that. People's feelings might get hurt.
As we've seen with the reaction to US threats, there are plenty of Canadians, a critical mass, who would rather strive for harmony, "equality" and otherness rather than improvement, results and excellence.
Too many of the older generation in Canada are comfortable with the ways things are right now, nevermind the underachieving of young people. They need to be pushed to the side.
This is so comical. "Hey, we're soooo into democracy, and we want to empower democracy and here's our contribution to the democratic discourse!"
Policy #1: take the power to set immigration policy away from the democratically elected minister of immigration.
Policy #2: federal government must crush local regulations on food delivery robots and e-scooters
Policy #3: BC must accept the same trucks on its mountain roads that Ontario does on the 401. Saskatchewan must allow Toronto plumbers to work there without any additional licensing despite the different building codes.
A lot of this is just warmed-over Thatcherism that got us into this mess in the first place. Canada has big problems with finance and government capacity that will be made worse with another big deregulation push. Canada needs less centralization, not more. Capital needs to be wrested from the big players and invested in Canada's productive capacity, not in more national financial scams.
There's some good stuff about how our own government should buy stuff from our own companies. Of course, when some poor bureaucrat takes a risk that goes badly, these will be the first guys to wail about wasteful and incompetent government. Nobody gets fired for hiring IBM...
I'll also note that the US has all kinds of different state regulations and interstate labour restrictions. I know US citizens that file fifty different tax returns each year because they travel for work. Canada is not an outlier federation in terms of sub-national regulations. Different places have different rules because they are different. Truckers in Ontario don't want to be restricted by BC weight limits, so there are different rules. BC doesn't want to accept trucks that are too heavy and underpowered for their mountain roads. E-scooters are brilliant in Calgary and a menace in Toronto.
The way we decide if the rules fit local circumstances or not is through "democracy". It's admittedly messy and inconvenient for those with grand plans to dominate the national robot food delivery sector.
A hopeful episode, thank you. I've shared their website with my few people on media. Makes me wonder why more people aren't seeking out constructive projects and amplifying them. But I guess that is part of the problem your guest is seeking to highlight. I feel that once we motivate Canadian citizens to take action (as happened historically, in the last century) we are a force to be reckoned with. But my question now is: what will it take to motivate citizens to both innovate, and push politicians/bureaucracies in the direction of needed resilience, so we continue as a sovereign nation in the 21st century? Or put another way: why do so many people in government and without seem to be content to point outraged fingers at DT, yet sluggish to actually realize the urgency, and act accordingly?
Haven’t listened to this yet though I will. But I hope it talks about Impact Assessment: Bill C-69, the supposed “No More Pipelines Act”. To my view, it’s actually been a “No More Building _Anything_ Act”, including mining (critical minerals), pipelines, export terminals, and even things that one would think would be Trudeau/Guilbeault priorities like wind farms (seriously, search for the amount of wind power constructed in Canada each year under Harper and then under Trudeau — it’s shocking)
The new impact assessment has lots of components, of course, but the piece that’s been the most impactful on timelines and risk, and that would be the hardest to change quickly for some sort of emergency infrastructure build programme is the Indigenous component. Some people even call it an “Indigenous veto” on new projects though strictly speaking it’s not.
It would be fascinating to unpack the factions within the current government and their intention with C-69: was it Reconciliation? Climate action? (A bit counterproductive in that case since it’s impacting nuclear and renewables too…) Or just degrowth / Dark Green / anticapitalism? Do they feel it was a success?
And maybe more importantly: what would our candidates for PM including Mr. Carney and Mr. Poilievre actually do about it? I noticed that they’ll barely even speak the words “impact assessment” out loud, let alone “C-69 repeal”. That may be because it’s too esoteric, but I also suspect it might be because of the third rail issue embedded in it.
What does your guest propose we do about C-69, and how do you do it without provoking another Oka crisis?
Pierre Poilevre has recently spoken about repealing C-69 and building an east to west pipeline.
What’s his plan for avoiding another Oka standoff?
He did mention about how it would create indigenous job opportunities and they would be partners so my guess is to make it in their best economic interests.
Your new On the Line podcasts are excellent! Thank you!
I’m sure you know there’s a program on Documentary ca called On The Line.
Really great episode - left me feeling hope for the future. However, as a career public servant, I want to highlight the importance of public service reform going forward if Canada is to be "saved". In the early 2000's I had the privilege of working in some really excellent, vibrant policy shops in Ottawa, only to see these environments wither away over the last 10-15 years. While the federal public service has become a discouraging place to work, I hope the drive and talent of the Build Canada community will spread to the public sector. Happy to see Canada's entrepreneurs picking up this baton.
Darn it Matty. Now I am listening during work as I cannot keep up! Great content by the way.
We absolutely do need to build more - more physical infrastructure to move people, goods and resources around so we can create value. Roads, bridges, rail, and factories. Not just more apps, platforms, and social media networks. And we absolutely do NOT need to build anything that only serves to concentrate wealth and power into fewer hands. We need to build the infrastructure that benefits us ALL.