I don’t disagree. For better or worse, the train has already left the station. Some in Canada’s tech community have been cheering the initiative on, inviting criticism from others. Serious policy thinkers have also gone back and forth about whether Canada needs a DOGE or DOGE-like initiative.
At the same time, there’s something to be said about having enough emotional self-regulation to engage with distasteful ideas. When we can't practice that composure, we inhibit our intellectual growth. I often find it distasteful to run those last few mile repeats on a hot day, but I still run them—and my VO2 Max thanks me!
Here’s a heuristic I’m using right now: in debates about government spending in Canada, people invoking DOGE are not recommending anything like DOGE, whereas those who don't and use more abstract and technical language in their recommendations are (if not procedurally, then effectively). So far, I’ve found this shortcut predictive.
> there’s something to be said about having enough emotional self-regulation to engage with distasteful ideas.
True…. and that’s not the first thing I think of when I think of the overwhelming majority of voters.
By all means, use whatever term you like, but it’s like when Mr. Poilievre uses the phrase “Canada first”. However superior he would be as a Prime Minister to Mr. Carney, it makes me want to smack him for being such an unimaginative copycat and I stop listening to him.
Call it a poor emotional response or call it the world weariness of someone who is just SO tired of decades of lousy politicians metaphorically pooping their bed and calling it leadership… it is what it is and I vote how I want.
Couldn't agree more, Alex. In my career I found many of the banking regulators to be tough, but eminently reasonable. By contrast I found FINTRAC to be obstinate, opaque, and ineffective.
It doesn't surprise me to hear this, Dan. I've heard too many stories about challenged relations. Not even because financial institutions and MSBs don't want to do what they have to do under the PCMLTFA, but rather because they're trying to do it, in service of FINTRAC's purpose, but FINTRAC doesn't make it easy for them. It's like that friend in need we may all have who makes us wonder: how are we supposed to help you if you can't even help yourself?!
Agreed. It’s hard to argue against more efficiency. One source of the legitimacy of government is to do things well, efficiently and effectively. That legitimacy is something we should be willing to get bold to protect, lest we end up with a populist backlash one day that really tests the mettle of our liberal democracy.
Unfortunately the need now goes well beyond protection. Our federal civil service/public sector now functions well below cost-effective. In my view, it now lacks the capacity to respond effectively to crises. I mean no disrespect to middle management and the rank & file. We have not given them the tools they need to function in a world that has changed radically over the last 30 years. I could also rabbit on about how essential a high functioning civil service is for democracy. The populist backlash is here.
Using the term “Doge” to bring this up is a great way to turn a huge number of Canadians against the idea. Possibly most of us.
An idea is no good if you can’t convince enough people because you started by irritating them.
I don’t disagree. For better or worse, the train has already left the station. Some in Canada’s tech community have been cheering the initiative on, inviting criticism from others. Serious policy thinkers have also gone back and forth about whether Canada needs a DOGE or DOGE-like initiative.
At the same time, there’s something to be said about having enough emotional self-regulation to engage with distasteful ideas. When we can't practice that composure, we inhibit our intellectual growth. I often find it distasteful to run those last few mile repeats on a hot day, but I still run them—and my VO2 Max thanks me!
Here’s a heuristic I’m using right now: in debates about government spending in Canada, people invoking DOGE are not recommending anything like DOGE, whereas those who don't and use more abstract and technical language in their recommendations are (if not procedurally, then effectively). So far, I’ve found this shortcut predictive.
> there’s something to be said about having enough emotional self-regulation to engage with distasteful ideas.
True…. and that’s not the first thing I think of when I think of the overwhelming majority of voters.
By all means, use whatever term you like, but it’s like when Mr. Poilievre uses the phrase “Canada first”. However superior he would be as a Prime Minister to Mr. Carney, it makes me want to smack him for being such an unimaginative copycat and I stop listening to him.
Call it a poor emotional response or call it the world weariness of someone who is just SO tired of decades of lousy politicians metaphorically pooping their bed and calling it leadership… it is what it is and I vote how I want.
I hear you. I, too, have grown tired of many things, including our tendency to import Americanisms into our discourse, DOGE included.
Couldn't agree more, Alex. In my career I found many of the banking regulators to be tough, but eminently reasonable. By contrast I found FINTRAC to be obstinate, opaque, and ineffective.
It doesn't surprise me to hear this, Dan. I've heard too many stories about challenged relations. Not even because financial institutions and MSBs don't want to do what they have to do under the PCMLTFA, but rather because they're trying to do it, in service of FINTRAC's purpose, but FINTRAC doesn't make it easy for them. It's like that friend in need we may all have who makes us wonder: how are we supposed to help you if you can't even help yourself?!
Absolutely, although I would like to see vastly improved efficiency as well as effectiveness.
Agreed. It’s hard to argue against more efficiency. One source of the legitimacy of government is to do things well, efficiently and effectively. That legitimacy is something we should be willing to get bold to protect, lest we end up with a populist backlash one day that really tests the mettle of our liberal democracy.
Unfortunately the need now goes well beyond protection. Our federal civil service/public sector now functions well below cost-effective. In my view, it now lacks the capacity to respond effectively to crises. I mean no disrespect to middle management and the rank & file. We have not given them the tools they need to function in a world that has changed radically over the last 30 years. I could also rabbit on about how essential a high functioning civil service is for democracy. The populist backlash is here.