For an answer that was clearly just copied and pasted from some standing key messages, it’s beyond depressing that it took so long to get it to you. Here’s how this likely went:
1) response was given to the relevant desk officer who then assembled the reply from standing talking point.
2) that was then reviewed by their deputy director and likely sent back to the desk officer to make some minor changes.
3) the now-deputy director-approved version was sent to the director for review.
4) sent back to desk officer to incorporate changes.
5) possibly then sent back up to the deputy director to review before being sent onward to the director, depending on the micromanagerial tendencies of the DD
6) director approves
7) desk officer sends the director-approved lines to their director general, where it could languish for a few days because the higher up the ladder you go, the more things there are being sent for review and approval.
8) director general absolutely makes some changes, sends back to desk officer
9) desk officer incorporates changes.
10) director wants to review before it goes back to DG and notices that the DG changed some of the changes the director had previously made. Desk officer now has to manage this little tizzy that the director has gotten themself into.
11) desk officer sends it up to assistant deputy minister’s office for approval. Rinse and repeat.
12) maybe it even goes to the DM’s office? You’re a Big Name, which gets attention when journalists submit questions.
That is an outstanding name for it. There’s a special kind of frustration and demoralization as the original drafter of any product as you watch it wind its way through the improvals process and each version that comes back to you to incorporate changes is a blander, more beige version.
"In 2021/2022 alone, Canada contributed $301M towards inclusive governance globally, with $151M specifically towards democracy initiatives."
I would love to learn how that money was spent and what the results were.
However, as our friends at The Line say, this government is just focused on inputs and does not care about outputs. They spent $301,000,000 on a good cause, why do we need any more information?
The opaque replies you receive from government are maddening, yet somehow you still manage to make me laugh. Or maybe that's just the sound of my brain being sucked out of my nose.
I enjoy the light you shine on these otherwise behind-the-scenes adventures in journalism. It’s enlightening and very frustrating.
But, just when my blood is about to boil, you make me laugh out loud with a killer line like the exasperation-soaked “Who can say! Truth is a cloud! Enjoy the sound of your brain being sucked out through your nose!” and I enjoy the post even more. And the points you’re making are stronger for these devastatingly humourous turns of phrase.
•. “Canada has been a staunch and vocal advocate for democratic principles, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights.”
That two-faced blarney was issued mere weeks after the Government was found to have run roughshod over a group of truckers by abandoning democratic principles like having a “dialogue”, and by setting aside the rule of law which happens to include due process for those accused of crimes.
Summary: it’s pretty rich to dictate to other countries the need to embrace democratic principles while othering your own citizens and ruling over them with a seriously diminished set of rules. (And for those who say, well it was only for a day or two, watch your back.)
As Paul will know full well, the non-answer on a "Centre for Peace, Order and Good Government" (what a horrible title with its trite Canadian history reference) simply means that the project has been abandoned. Perhaps no one could figure out what it would do.
Channelling my inner Fotheringham, I believe that the obfuscation you received is the sewer outlet to everything that is wrong with the swivel service these days. It’s reached an apogee which in turn has swallowed It’s political "leaders".....and all politicians who have allowed it to breathe and grow are going to pay dearly at election time.
One more thing...try Justin's voice blarfing that written non-answer to a scrum question...see what I mean, cringing isn't it.
"I’m not sure whether the 60 or 80 people who spent half a month crafting this thing need to hear it, but just FYI, I would greatly have preferred somebody to write or call me on February 16 with something like 'We’re not going to answer that one, Paul,' or 'That’s up in the air,' or 'When we have something to announce, we’ll let you know,' or even 'Shove a skateboard up your ass,' because at least then nobody would be pretending they had furnished me with an answer. I guess if contempt is on the menu, I prefer that mine be served neat.
Huh. Based on the extremely illuminating Brian Kelcey thread, I would have described this non-answer as reflecting fear and defensiveness, rather than contempt.
On the substantive issue, my take is that in foreign policy, it's always crucial to maintain a balance between means and ends. Post-Trump, we're obviously in a more dangerous and uncertain world. So from Canada's point of view, we need to (a) build up our hard and soft power (which is likely to mean unpopular tax increases), and (b) limit our foreign-policy goals. Providing financial support to Ukraine's war effort seems both more concrete and more important than vague ideas about promoting democracy.
Great job of pestering them to do what should be their job, answering questions and explaining what they are doing. Unfortunately, for those of us who ask such questions, it's not just a federal or Liberal issue. I have received similar delayed non-answers from Conservatives here in Ontario and from large companies. The comms teams always ask your deadline, just so they can be sure to miss it.
Sometimes I wonder if our PM and many in his cabinet understand that the government actually needs to “do stuff” as opposed to just making announcements. In reading the columns yesterday about Brian Mulroney, I was struck by the big things he accomplished and I recall how much of his personal capital and personal effort he put into making those things happen. These were big, thorny issues. And they actually got done! Trudeau’s has now been PM about as long as Brian Mulroney was and a list of his accomplishments on big things is pretty thin.
I asked Midjourney AI to render me an album cover for "Relevant Multilateral Bodies," but Substack doesn't allow images as comments (probably wisely). It's a banger, though.
After a cold 8 year winter of Sunny Daze with the 'Progressives' re-engineering our culture, I am unsure exactly what "Democracy" now even means. Is it still a thing? Rhetoric, gas lighting and spin have taken its places making a mockery of any promised and touted transparency of governance. The death of Brian Mulroney emphasizes to me how low the bar has lowered. While he was not many things, he was a proud, dedicated and focused PM who genuinely worked to try to unite us as a people. When depth, thoughtfulness and vision are absent in our leaders we are in very dangerous water. I'm hearing your frustration Paul. Please don't stop! Between you, Rex and Mister Black, clear free speech is at risk of being erased. I'll try not to think about it'. Those thoughts may soon get us jailed comrade.
For an answer that was clearly just copied and pasted from some standing key messages, it’s beyond depressing that it took so long to get it to you. Here’s how this likely went:
1) response was given to the relevant desk officer who then assembled the reply from standing talking point.
2) that was then reviewed by their deputy director and likely sent back to the desk officer to make some minor changes.
3) the now-deputy director-approved version was sent to the director for review.
4) sent back to desk officer to incorporate changes.
5) possibly then sent back up to the deputy director to review before being sent onward to the director, depending on the micromanagerial tendencies of the DD
6) director approves
7) desk officer sends the director-approved lines to their director general, where it could languish for a few days because the higher up the ladder you go, the more things there are being sent for review and approval.
8) director general absolutely makes some changes, sends back to desk officer
9) desk officer incorporates changes.
10) director wants to review before it goes back to DG and notices that the DG changed some of the changes the director had previously made. Desk officer now has to manage this little tizzy that the director has gotten themself into.
11) desk officer sends it up to assistant deputy minister’s office for approval. Rinse and repeat.
12) maybe it even goes to the DM’s office? You’re a Big Name, which gets attention when journalists submit questions.
13) desk officer questions life choices.
Is it any wonder morale at GAC is in the shitter?
Lol you left out the days absorbed sending it over to PMO for concurrence review “and incorporate changes”. Depressing.
Of course, the “let’s run it by PCO” wild card
t
Kafkaesque
I used to call this, with full irony, “the improvals process”. And it seldom was.
That is an outstanding name for it. There’s a special kind of frustration and demoralization as the original drafter of any product as you watch it wind its way through the improvals process and each version that comes back to you to incorporate changes is a blander, more beige version.
"In 2021/2022 alone, Canada contributed $301M towards inclusive governance globally, with $151M specifically towards democracy initiatives."
I would love to learn how that money was spent and what the results were.
However, as our friends at The Line say, this government is just focused on inputs and does not care about outputs. They spent $301,000,000 on a good cause, why do we need any more information?
And don't forget the gender inclusive mine sweepers!
The opaque replies you receive from government are maddening, yet somehow you still manage to make me laugh. Or maybe that's just the sound of my brain being sucked out of my nose.
I have no comment that could add any value to your excellent work. We need a Super-Like button.
I enjoy the light you shine on these otherwise behind-the-scenes adventures in journalism. It’s enlightening and very frustrating.
But, just when my blood is about to boil, you make me laugh out loud with a killer line like the exasperation-soaked “Who can say! Truth is a cloud! Enjoy the sound of your brain being sucked out through your nose!” and I enjoy the post even more. And the points you’re making are stronger for these devastatingly humourous turns of phrase.
Bullet 3 is a typical Liberal Spin Doctor beaut:
•. “Canada has been a staunch and vocal advocate for democratic principles, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights.”
That two-faced blarney was issued mere weeks after the Government was found to have run roughshod over a group of truckers by abandoning democratic principles like having a “dialogue”, and by setting aside the rule of law which happens to include due process for those accused of crimes.
Summary: it’s pretty rich to dictate to other countries the need to embrace democratic principles while othering your own citizens and ruling over them with a seriously diminished set of rules. (And for those who say, well it was only for a day or two, watch your back.)
As Paul will know full well, the non-answer on a "Centre for Peace, Order and Good Government" (what a horrible title with its trite Canadian history reference) simply means that the project has been abandoned. Perhaps no one could figure out what it would do.
Channelling my inner Fotheringham, I believe that the obfuscation you received is the sewer outlet to everything that is wrong with the swivel service these days. It’s reached an apogee which in turn has swallowed It’s political "leaders".....and all politicians who have allowed it to breathe and grow are going to pay dearly at election time.
One more thing...try Justin's voice blarfing that written non-answer to a scrum question...see what I mean, cringing isn't it.
"I’m not sure whether the 60 or 80 people who spent half a month crafting this thing need to hear it, but just FYI, I would greatly have preferred somebody to write or call me on February 16 with something like 'We’re not going to answer that one, Paul,' or 'That’s up in the air,' or 'When we have something to announce, we’ll let you know,' or even 'Shove a skateboard up your ass,' because at least then nobody would be pretending they had furnished me with an answer. I guess if contempt is on the menu, I prefer that mine be served neat.
Huh. Based on the extremely illuminating Brian Kelcey thread, I would have described this non-answer as reflecting fear and defensiveness, rather than contempt.
Personally I try to stick to the "Cluetrain Manifesto" approach, i.e. being candid. A recent example: https://old.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/1aybed5/more_housing_west_point_grey_safeway_proposal_450/krw1vnc/?context=3
On the substantive issue, my take is that in foreign policy, it's always crucial to maintain a balance between means and ends. Post-Trump, we're obviously in a more dangerous and uncertain world. So from Canada's point of view, we need to (a) build up our hard and soft power (which is likely to mean unpopular tax increases), and (b) limit our foreign-policy goals. Providing financial support to Ukraine's war effort seems both more concrete and more important than vague ideas about promoting democracy.
Great job of pestering them to do what should be their job, answering questions and explaining what they are doing. Unfortunately, for those of us who ask such questions, it's not just a federal or Liberal issue. I have received similar delayed non-answers from Conservatives here in Ontario and from large companies. The comms teams always ask your deadline, just so they can be sure to miss it.
Valid grumpiness. Really, does anyone at the political level think that these non-responses help?
Sometimes I wonder if our PM and many in his cabinet understand that the government actually needs to “do stuff” as opposed to just making announcements. In reading the columns yesterday about Brian Mulroney, I was struck by the big things he accomplished and I recall how much of his personal capital and personal effort he put into making those things happen. These were big, thorny issues. And they actually got done! Trudeau’s has now been PM about as long as Brian Mulroney was and a list of his accomplishments on big things is pretty thin.
What is the point with this government? Just what is the point?
Power.
“I’m never sure what to do with this sort of thing.”
What you’re doing with it right here is certainly very interesting.
I asked Midjourney AI to render me an album cover for "Relevant Multilateral Bodies," but Substack doesn't allow images as comments (probably wisely). It's a banger, though.
I'll post mine on Notes!
After a cold 8 year winter of Sunny Daze with the 'Progressives' re-engineering our culture, I am unsure exactly what "Democracy" now even means. Is it still a thing? Rhetoric, gas lighting and spin have taken its places making a mockery of any promised and touted transparency of governance. The death of Brian Mulroney emphasizes to me how low the bar has lowered. While he was not many things, he was a proud, dedicated and focused PM who genuinely worked to try to unite us as a people. When depth, thoughtfulness and vision are absent in our leaders we are in very dangerous water. I'm hearing your frustration Paul. Please don't stop! Between you, Rex and Mister Black, clear free speech is at risk of being erased. I'll try not to think about it'. Those thoughts may soon get us jailed comrade.