Great discussions Matt. Thank you. Found both your guests helpful in enhancing my understanding!
As Mr. Nardi notes there seems, from my perch from afar, to be "some" efforts underway for the federal government to change the way it works, and he also correctly identifies how the gains made in efficiency under emergent conditions can slip away along with the urgency. It unfortunately happens in every bureaucratic organization public or private when accountability is weak or diffuse.
Two specific problems continue to drive inefficiencies in the federal (and provincial) governments.
1) Rarely in the past 20-30 years do the technically knowledgeable, engaged and experienced staff get promoted to supervisory or management positions.
The premise that senior management (Deputy Ministers) couldn't and shouldn't have technical knowledge or experience about the program area, because theirs was the role of managing the political/bureaucratic interface, has now been forced down through all managerial layers such that almost no one in management positions has any practical understanding of the program area. While it’s been a career boom for poly sci grads who start as policy analysts it's disincentivized the senior technical people in the civil service who have been told they are now unqualified for management due to their lack of a BA and policy analyst experience. As such the only driver for a decision is the political, and no one makes decisions because the worst thing for your career is to be wrong on something that reflects poorly at the time on the Minister or DM. Public good/impact is a secondary (at best) consideration.
The government could trim half its policy analysts and middle managers and the only outwardly visible impact will be the increase in the number of unemployed policy analysts and middle management bureaucrats.
2) Remuneration and Title in government is largely driven by the number of direct and indirect reports a manager has.
This perpetuates the stability and growth of what Paul Wells and many others have referred to as the "self licking ice cream cone".
Any effort to reduce the size of government will threaten this institutionalized process.
Cuts in the number of people at the bottom who deliver services to the public is where previous efforts to reform government have occurred. These people are all generally working hard and should be the last place to look for cuts.
The focus of those wishing to "fix government" needs to be higher in the organizational chart to be effective. This "should" also get better support from public service unions as these managerial positions are usually either out of scope or in a different "association".
If Carney wants to be "elbows up" this is where he and Sabia need to focus for maximum benefit.
It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that too many judges, prosecutors and police officers have absolutely no idea what is in fact, quite "reasonable". There may be reasons for that like living in lower crime areas and being rich enough to buy themselves security and legal protection in various forms. And of course there's their connections. If Matt isn't likely to get charged for defending himself compared to the retail clerk living in a basement suite, then a cop or a crown prosecutor defending himself during a home invasion has absolutely no change of being charged for anything remotely close to reasonable.
You can write the law any way you like, but if judges, prosecutors and police officers don't understand "reasonable", we're going to continue to get bad outcomes. You can't make a law that survives the people charged with enforcing it being absolute morons.
The next question is if the authorities generally believe in the right to self defence at all. Let's face it.. in their positions, they are less likely to need that right and a right you don't need is one you might think isn't a right at all. And if the right to defend yourself comes with the suffix "as long as you don't use force and definitely don't hurt the guy attacking you in any way at all... or even make him feel like he might be harmed", then that's the same thing as the right not existing.
It should be HIGHLY unusual for someone to be arrested let alone charged with any crime from an incident resulting from someone else invading their home.
“They talk about the end of the summer — yes, sadly it’s true...”
It's true happily, for me. Some animals hibernate in winter. I cower in air conditioning all summer, reemerging to resume normal life in the fall. I then get three seasons of blessed relief until spring's end again escalates into fiery summer.
I share your sentiment - I actually find that the stretch from September through December are my favorite part of the year. Still, I feel a weird sense of guilt for not properly appreciating the summer months..
Mr. Poilievre should be given the opportunity to shine. Pointing out the irony of Mr. Carney getting credit for removing tariffs he imposed would be a good start.
The self-defence law is another indictment of the Canadian justice system. Allowing unelected judges (or jury) discretion is a mistake. The castle doctrine does not prevent those who are pacifists from rolling over, being robbed and assaulted. All the power to you. Canada is the absurdity.
Great discussions Matt. Thank you. Found both your guests helpful in enhancing my understanding!
As Mr. Nardi notes there seems, from my perch from afar, to be "some" efforts underway for the federal government to change the way it works, and he also correctly identifies how the gains made in efficiency under emergent conditions can slip away along with the urgency. It unfortunately happens in every bureaucratic organization public or private when accountability is weak or diffuse.
Two specific problems continue to drive inefficiencies in the federal (and provincial) governments.
1) Rarely in the past 20-30 years do the technically knowledgeable, engaged and experienced staff get promoted to supervisory or management positions.
The premise that senior management (Deputy Ministers) couldn't and shouldn't have technical knowledge or experience about the program area, because theirs was the role of managing the political/bureaucratic interface, has now been forced down through all managerial layers such that almost no one in management positions has any practical understanding of the program area. While it’s been a career boom for poly sci grads who start as policy analysts it's disincentivized the senior technical people in the civil service who have been told they are now unqualified for management due to their lack of a BA and policy analyst experience. As such the only driver for a decision is the political, and no one makes decisions because the worst thing for your career is to be wrong on something that reflects poorly at the time on the Minister or DM. Public good/impact is a secondary (at best) consideration.
The government could trim half its policy analysts and middle managers and the only outwardly visible impact will be the increase in the number of unemployed policy analysts and middle management bureaucrats.
2) Remuneration and Title in government is largely driven by the number of direct and indirect reports a manager has.
This perpetuates the stability and growth of what Paul Wells and many others have referred to as the "self licking ice cream cone".
Any effort to reduce the size of government will threaten this institutionalized process.
Cuts in the number of people at the bottom who deliver services to the public is where previous efforts to reform government have occurred. These people are all generally working hard and should be the last place to look for cuts.
The focus of those wishing to "fix government" needs to be higher in the organizational chart to be effective. This "should" also get better support from public service unions as these managerial positions are usually either out of scope or in a different "association".
If Carney wants to be "elbows up" this is where he and Sabia need to focus for maximum benefit.
Excellent episode. Both guests were great. The section with Ian Runkle was especially informative.
If there is a defence fund please provide a link to it.
It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that too many judges, prosecutors and police officers have absolutely no idea what is in fact, quite "reasonable". There may be reasons for that like living in lower crime areas and being rich enough to buy themselves security and legal protection in various forms. And of course there's their connections. If Matt isn't likely to get charged for defending himself compared to the retail clerk living in a basement suite, then a cop or a crown prosecutor defending himself during a home invasion has absolutely no change of being charged for anything remotely close to reasonable.
You can write the law any way you like, but if judges, prosecutors and police officers don't understand "reasonable", we're going to continue to get bad outcomes. You can't make a law that survives the people charged with enforcing it being absolute morons.
The next question is if the authorities generally believe in the right to self defence at all. Let's face it.. in their positions, they are less likely to need that right and a right you don't need is one you might think isn't a right at all. And if the right to defend yourself comes with the suffix "as long as you don't use force and definitely don't hurt the guy attacking you in any way at all... or even make him feel like he might be harmed", then that's the same thing as the right not existing.
It should be HIGHLY unusual for someone to be arrested let alone charged with any crime from an incident resulting from someone else invading their home.
“They talk about the end of the summer — yes, sadly it’s true...”
It's true happily, for me. Some animals hibernate in winter. I cower in air conditioning all summer, reemerging to resume normal life in the fall. I then get three seasons of blessed relief until spring's end again escalates into fiery summer.
I share your sentiment - I actually find that the stretch from September through December are my favorite part of the year. Still, I feel a weird sense of guilt for not properly appreciating the summer months..
What a great episode Matt, throughly enjoyed both segments!
Mr. Poilievre should be given the opportunity to shine. Pointing out the irony of Mr. Carney getting credit for removing tariffs he imposed would be a good start.
The self-defence law is another indictment of the Canadian justice system. Allowing unelected judges (or jury) discretion is a mistake. The castle doctrine does not prevent those who are pacifists from rolling over, being robbed and assaulted. All the power to you. Canada is the absurdity.