Charles Conteh @charlesconteh - Tumblr Blog

Canada’s Existential Moment: Re-Negotiating the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement

Picture this: Canada, a calm, steady mouse, trying to get a good night’s sleep next to a giant, increasingly restless and occasionally thrashing elephant. That elephant, of course, is the United States, Canada’s closest and largest trading partner, and the moody roommate whose actions have been sending shockwaves across the bedframe.

Well, buckle up, because Canada’s gearing up for a particularly bumpy stretch in the relationship. With the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) review set to begin on July 1 and U.S. politics doing its best impression of a roller coaster in a lightning storm, Ottawa is taking no chances. Mark Carney just tapped Janice Charette - a seasoned, sharp, Brexit-tested public servant - to lead trade negotiations. And when you separate the ambassador role from the chief negotiator job? That’s government speak for: This is serious business.

And then came the latest eyebrow-raising moment: the Trump-triggered tremors over the Gordie Howe International Bridge. A bridge that is supposed to be a symbol of connection and shared prosperity is now wrapped into political drama like it’s auditioning for a Netflix series. But here’s the thing: bridges are metaphors Canada knows well. They aren’t about sameness. They’re about courage - the courage to keep reaching across even when the winds blow cold.

I’ve written a book chapter about this bizarre, beautiful, headache-inducing Canada-U.S. dynamic. Canada and the U.S. grew up differently - one forged in revolution, the other in careful compromise and continuity. One celebrates fireworks, the other celebrates order. One says “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the other says “peace, order, and good government.” These differences still echo today.

But the real story lately is the stormy trade relations (notwithstanding President Trump's offensive and attention-grabbing antics about Canadian sovereignty). Canada sends more than 75% of its exports to the US and receives over 60% of its imports from them. The close trade ties and complex supply chains between the two countries make them Siamese twins. That closeness brings prosperity - but also anxiety. Whenever Washington sneezes (“Tariffs! America First!"), Canada reaches for the Advil.

And yes, U.S. cultural storms spill north too - populism, polarization, conspiracy currents. But Canada has learned to combat these dark forces and even flip some of them into opportunities. When the U.S. shut its doors to the world, Canada opened its arms. When the U.S. turned inward, Canada doubled down on global diplomacy.

The moment we’re in is tense, but also clarifying. Asymmetric power does not mean asymmetric potential. Interdependence does not mean entrapment.

Canada has tools. And swagger. And centuries of practice dealing with its giant erratic neighbour.

Canadians should not view the current crisis through the lens of domination. It is choreography. The defining moment of a dance between two unequal partners, in which the smaller one has developed over the span of two centuries impressive agility and nimbleness.

Canada can walk into this moment not timidly, but confidently, strategically and optimistically.

Here are Some Actionable Steps for Canada’s Next Moves

1. Build more economic escape hatches. Expand trade ties with Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America - anywhere that cushions the country from U.S. policy mood swings. Prime Minister Mark Carney is already moving well on this front.

2. Flex Canada’s global influence. Use leadership positions in the G7 and other multilateral platforms to shape global norms as counterweights to hegemonic bullies. The Prime Minister’s Davos speech in January signals that Canada is up for the task.

3. Strengthen the home base. Tear down petty interprovincial trade barriers, modernize outdated regulations, and invest big in Canada's critical minerals, and consolidate technological innovation ecosystems in hub regions across the country.

Canada doesn’t need to match U.S. power. it just needs to continue mastering the art of strategic engagement globally and some housekeeping domestically.

If Canada is the mouse beside the elephant, it’s a mouse with a playbook - one filled with finesse, resilience, and a surprising amount of swagger. This will be a defining year for Canada, and I’m confident and hopeful that the country will come out more resilient, prosperous and ready to take on the turbulent challenges of the 21st century.

Charles Conteh

#charles conteh #usmca #Canada-US relations #trade

Beware of the 1930s: A Reality Check on the Current Global Rupture

Every now and then, someone asks, “Is the world drifting back to the 1930s?” And honestly, it’s a fair question. Look around: surging nationalism, toxic xenophobia, collapsing trust in institutions, conspiracy-fuelled politics, and the rupture of the global rules-based order. It all feels unsettlingly familiar - like we’re replaying a movie whose ending we already know too well.

I recently read a CBC Radio article and listened to its accompanying podcast on “How can empathy be dangerous?” The piece dives into the wild debate over empathy, the thing we usually celebrate as pure goodness. While science says empathy glues society together, a rising chorus of conservative voices insists it’s getting “weaponized” to push progressive causes. Such thinkers warn that empathy can cloud judgment and distort truth. But what if fear - not empathy - is the real troublemaker, shrinking our compassion into tight little tribes?

Remember. A dangerous brew of economic anxiety, cultural resentment, and political extremism defined the 1930s. Back then, toxic chauvinism and nativist nationalism didn’t just divide societies - they paved the road to the Holocaust, one of the darkest chapters in human history. Ordinary frustrations were weaponized. Economic fear turned into scapegoating. “Us vs. them” thinking hardened into state policy. And silence - or indifference - did the rest.

Today, the echoes are loud.

Across the world, people feel economically alienated and culturally displaced. Populist movements, both right and left, are thriving by tapping into collective fears about national identity, globalization, job security, and shifting social values. We’re seeing democratic norms erode in places once considered stable - Hungary, Turkey, Russia, and countries across Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Even in North America, where democracy is often taken for granted, nothing feels normal lately. The rules that once provided the stable architecture of governance, peaceful coexistence and predictable trade relations with neighbours are being violated. Trust in domestic and international institutions is being chipped away.

And when people feel destabilized? That’s when demagogues thrive.

Just like the 1930s, some political leaders today traffic in racist rhetoric, attack democratic institutions, and undermine the very architecture of global cooperation built after World War II to prevent another catastrophe. We see the rise of inhumane immigration policies and collapsing race relations. Add to that a reckless dismissal of science - on climate change, public health, and more - and you’ve got a volatile global moment.

It’s not identical to the 1930s, of course. History doesn’t repeat itself perfectly, but it often rhymes. And the rhyme we’re hearing today is unsettling.

But here’s the hopeful part: we also know better. We’ve seen what happens when chauvinism and nativism go unchecked. We know what happens when fear is allowed to rule politics.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos speech at the World Economic Forum in January acknowledged and named what everyone in the room already knew - that the old “rules‑based international order” is basically toast. “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition,” he declared.

During my talk at a workshop organized by my home department (Political Science) at Brock University, I argued that countries like Canada have a unique opportunity to stand as a counterweight. Historically, Canada, a middle power, has punched above its weight in defending human rights, building the post-war global order, constructing a world-class, innovation-driven economy, and designing humane social policies that protect the most vulnerable and support people during difficult times. Canada can once again be a bastion of rules-based governance, a defender of democratic values, and a voice for shared humanity in a world increasingly pulled toward division.

The takeaway? We’re not doomed to repeat the 1930s - but we could, if we’re careless. History offers lampposts, and ignoring them is a luxury we can’t afford.

So the real question isn’t whether the world is sliding back into the 1930s. It’s whether we’re willing to pull it forward into something better.

And that part is entirely up to us.

Charles Conteh

#global order #charles conteh

Digital Governance and Canada’s Journey Toward a Connected Future in the Age of AI

Recent digitization trends, including the unfolding waves of generative and agentic artificial intelligence (AI), have fundamentally altered the landscape of how governments design and deliver programs and services. Over the past two decades, governments worldwide have been racing to bring public services online. The promise was simple: make things faster, cheaper, and easier for citizens. But this journey has been anything but straightforward. It’s not just about technology - it’s about governance, culture, and how we imagine the relationship between citizens and the state. For instance, Canada’s experience offers a fascinating case of both progress and missed opportunities. Here are some highlights of the Canadian experience.

From Cost Savings to Citizen Engagement

When digital government first emerged in Canada, the goal was efficiency. Moving services online seemed like a smart way to cut costs compared to traditional, paper-heavy processes. But as technology evolved, so did expectations. Citizens wanted more than convenience; they wanted transparency, participation, and collaboration. Mobile platforms added a new twist: they weren’t just tools for transactions; they became channels for engagement, giving rise to what some call “Government 2.0.” This shift means digital government is no longer about saving money. It’s about creating public value.

AI-powered tools are taking things to a whole new level, enabling governments to automate routine administrative tasks and manage citizen inquiries through chatbots. AI also supports data-driven policymaking by analyzing large datasets to identify trends, predict outcomes, and allocate resources more effectively. Moreover, AI enables personalized service delivery. Governments can tailor benefits and information to individual citizens based on their circumstances, improving user experience and equity. However, these advancements raise challenges around privacy, bias, and accountability, requiring robust governance frameworks. Overall, AI is shifting governments from reactive service models to proactive, data-informed approaches, making public services more efficient, responsive, and citizen-centric.

From Leader to Laggard

But here’s the surprising and somewhat disturbing part to all this development: Canada started strong in digital government but has since fallen behind global leaders like the UK, Denmark, and Singapore. Why? Several reasons:

Fragmented systems: Identity management and payment platforms don’t talk to each other.

Limited mobile services: While other countries offer seamless mobile transactions, Canada still relies heavily on paper and physical service centers.

Governance constraints: Programs like Service Canada and Service Ontario have struggled to integrate services effectively.

The result? Canadians face a patchwork of digital options that feel outdated compared to what’s possible.

The Open Government Promise and Pitfalls

Open government sounds great: transparency, participation, collaboration. And yes, there are bright spots: British Columbia’s public consultations and open data initiatives show what’s possible. But openness isn’t automatically good. It can build trust and accountability, but only if the political culture supports it. In a political environment obsessed with error-free performance and competitive media cycles, openness can backfire, reinforcing mistrust instead of reducing it.

Challenges Holding Us Back

So, what’s stopping Canada from becoming a digital leader again? The list is long:

Persistent reliance on paper-based processes.

Lack of coordination between federal, provincial, and municipal governments.

Digital divide issues that leave some citizens behind.

Underinvestment in agile, open-source technologies.

These aren’t just technical problems - they’re governance and leadership challenges.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The future isn’t hopeless. In fact, it’s full of potential - if Canada takes bold steps in the age of AI:

Create a national research strategy and innovation labs to design services with citizens, not just for them.

Foster political leadership that prioritizes digital transformation.

Embrace open-source platforms and agile methods to speed up innovation.

Shift the mindset from efficiency to co-creation of public value with citizens using mobile and social tools.

This isn’t about tweaking old systems. It’s about reimagining how government works in a connected world.

Digital Tools: Revolution or Evolution?

There is an important reality check: digital technology isn’t a new paradigm. Digital tools accelerate change, but they don’t erase old tensions between competing approaches to governance. For instance, public sector leaders must balance innovation with control, collaboration with performance, and watch for unintended consequences like inequality and resistance to change.

The Bottom Line: Digital governance isn’t just about technology. It’s about values, leadership, and trust. Canada has the talent and resources to lead again, but it needs a bold vision and a willingness to embrace openness, collaboration, and innovation. The future of public service isn’t incremental. It is transformative. And if we get it right, we won’t just make government more efficient—we’ll make it more democratic, inclusive, and responsive to the people it serves.

Charles Conteh

#charles conteh #digital governance #ICT

The electric vehicle (EV) industry has been one of the most defining technological trends of the past decade, transforming the automotive se

Reinventing Mid Sized Cities Takes a Multipronged Approach - Download as a PDF or view online for free

Cities evolve through the activities of industry, finance, culture, and resources. Mid-sized cities depend on industry, which requires them

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are collaborative and strategic agreements between government agencies and private organizations to deli

The State of Multilevel Governance in Canada

Multilevel governance (MLG) is a system where governing bodies at various levels jointly formulate policy to achieve balanced sectoral advancement. Decentralization is fundamental to this system, transferring authority, responsibilities, and resources from central entities to lower tiers to foster autonomy and responsiveness. Within Canada's context, this governance model drives innovation.

The essence of MLG lies in its ability to create public value through collaboration among different levels of government and organizations. This partnership addresses complex policy issues that require shared resources and joint public action. Jurisdictions and entities can aggregate resources, specialized knowledge, and stakeholder support to achieve common goals. This approach, occurring vertically and horizontally, also ensures efficient program implementation, directly addressing citizen needs and expectations.

For Canada, multilevel governance pursues innovative policy deployment to facilitate inclusive and sustainable economic expansion while tackling urgent societal problems. In regions such as southern Ontario, this framework emphasizes flexibility and adaptable interactions over sticking to the strict rules of traditional federalism. However, key actors in MLG must still navigate significant challenges.

Current Canadian MLG research has several shortcomings. First, a short-term focus of collaborations often overlooks the bigger picture of long-lasting systems and their impact, mistakenly viewing them as temporary alliances. Also, a disproportionate focus on high-level federal-provincial agreements and collaboration neglects the crucial role of local governments. In addition, focusing only on government interactions limits understanding of the broader MLG landscape, ignoring the contributions of non-government actors and civil groups.

Addressing the limitations of current MLG research in Canada requires a strategic, long-term approach to policy implementation. Incorporating non-governmental actors, focusing on shared long-term goals, and sustaining collaboration that can adapt to change based on situations and emerging challenges are among the ways to establish enduring MLG structures and create lasting public value.

Canada's Network of Centres of Excellence (NCE), a federal innovation program designed to cultivate dispersed innovation hubs, exemplifies this disconnect. While the NCE fosters collaboration between federal research councils, it lacks formal mechanisms for engaging provincial governments despite these hubs operating within provincial jurisdictions. This disconnect calls for reassessing intergovernmental cooperation strategies.

Local and regional actors have set precedence that federal players can emulate. In regions such as Niagara and Waterloo, MLG actors, although through informal means, have aligned their regional innovation ecosystems with Canada's multi-tiered governance structure. They have established platforms for regular consultation with funding agencies and aligned their innovation needs with federal/provincial programs.

MLG also helps navigate the complex and dynamic nature of education systems, especially given that provincial governments in Canada hold exclusive decision-making power. This domain has witnessed some improvements, particularly with the establishment of formal horizontal and vertical coordination mechanisms. A key example is the Federal-Provincial Consultative Committee on Education-Related International Activities (FPCCERIA), which helps foster cooperation between federal and provincial entities on international education initiatives. Its counterpart, the Provincial-Territorial Consultative Committee on Education-Related International Activities (PTCCERIA), focuses on collaborative projects that support students' needs and address unique regional needs.

Concerning the advancement of economic growth and innovation, influential actors within Canada's MLG structure initiated the Innovation Superclusters Initiative (ISI) in 2018. This federal program creates networks, called superclusters, across sectors. These geographically dispersed networks unite enterprises, academic institutions, and research organizations. Adopting a matched public-private funding model, the ISI stimulates private investment in research and development.

However, despite its ambitious objectives, the ISI encounters challenges warranting attention. Questions arise concerning the impartiality and transparency of the supercluster selection process, with allegations of potential political bias being common. The ambiguity surrounding provincial-federal responsibilities and roles hinders accountability, while balancing supercluster autonomy with government oversight presents another difficulty. Moreover, the ISI lacks suitable mechanisms for evaluating its success.

#Charles Conteh

Introduction to Agricultural Innovation

The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reports that about one in three people in the world are malnourished, while another one in nine are undernourished. Agriculture is what meets the food needs of most of the earth’s population. Experts claim that the world’s population will grow to about 10 billion people by 2050. Therefore, there is a need to develop the agricultural sector to meet current and future demands. One of the ways to achieve this is through agricultural innovation.

Agricultural innovation entails implementing fresh approaches, tools, or organizational strategies to boost farm productivity, adaptability, and competitiveness in the face of climate challenges and other disruptions. In addition to increasing crop yields, agricultural innovation helps enhance soil quality, improve food security, and increase natural capital.

Studies report that today, farming takes up about 40 percent of all the planet’s arable land. Farming also uses about 85 percent of the water drawn from various sources. More land is being put into agricultural use, and scientists agree that farmers need new methods to utilize the same resources available today and still feed a growing global population.

Notably, 80 percent of the world’s food comes from farmers who still use traditional farming methods. These farmers manage 90 percent of the world’s farms, yet the global food supply doesn’t match the demand. For the most part, such farmers have little access to modern equipment and limited know-how. They also don’t have links to markets and have little access to insurance and credit facilities.

While these traditional methods may work for some, it could help if these farmers used new and different approaches. For instance, some farmers in the third world still scatter seeds instead of planting them in rows. Such practices limit the plant's ability to absorb nutrients and reduce productivity. Despite traditional seeds preserving genetic diversity, improved seeds can aid in adapting to climate change, increase disease resistance, and boost yields.

The push toward agricultural innovation is sorely needed. Agriculture is much more than just growing crops, raising animals, or fishing. It takes many people and systems working together to feed the world’s population. As with any other sector in the economy, agriculture has benefited from advances in technology. However, agricultural innovation is not just about technology - it is also about giving farmers new and efficient ways of farming and giving them access to information.

Agricultural innovation faces challenges such as climate change and the fact that water and arable land are finite resources. If farmers can get access to appropriate tools, methods, and information, they can produce high-yield crops by following best practices in fertilizer usage, soil improvement, crop protection, and water conservation.

Today, there are new ways of planting high-yield and disease-resistant crops that don’t damage the environment. Products like soil enhancers and biostimulants play a key role in boosting soil health and crop yields. Advances in these areas are driving global efforts to revolutionize farming methods.

Soil enhancement is a particularly important aspect that farmers should take note of. When microplastics and chemicals enter the soil it reduces its fertility and affects the environment. There are efforts to mitigate such challenges. For instance, the global soil enhancement initiative has grown over the years, driven by factors such as public health concerns. Agricultural biostimulants, on the other hand, are natural products used in farming to improve plant growth, health, and nutrition. These products aid in root development, root thickness, and the soil's ability to retain water. Biostimulants, when used together with fertilizers, make fertilizers more efficient.

Other factors affect agricultural innovation, with some being controlled by other sectors other than agriculture. For instance, global inflation, an aspect that the global economy controls, increases production costs. Consequently, farmers raise prices for their products, further affecting food security since some people cannot afford them. In light of this, some companies are investing in agricultural startups with the goal of helping accelerate agricultural innovation.

#Charles Conteh

What Is Multi-Level Governance?

Multi-level governance describes a decentralized method of governance. With it, all authority does not lie in the hands of a single entity; instead, there is an emphasis on shared decision-making and shared responsibility. Governments and non-governmental organizations usually adopt multi-level governance to ensure accountability.

One of the core elements of multi-level governance is the fact that it acknowledges that no government can provide solutions to all of society’s problems, so there is a need for the government to share some of its responsibilities with key stakeholders like NGOs civil societies, and other private sector actors. Although multi-level governance is currently adopted worldwide in large corporations and federal systems, its origins can be traced to the European Union (EU), where there was a need to develop coordinated governance due to the overlap of duties between member states and institutions within the EU.

Some key elements of multi-level governance are inclusivity, flexibility, collaboration, and subsidiarity. Inclusivity within multi-level governance means that non-governmental stakeholders are expected to play key roles in society's decision-making mechanisms. This is important because it ensures a wide range of perspectives in the policy-making process. Flexibility means there is a better chance of roles and responsibilities changing among stakeholders based on the issue of focus. For instance, climate action issues can be transferred to organizations with a track record of successful climate policies.

Further, subsidiarity means that stakeholders should make decisions at the level closest to the citizens while ensuring that higher levels of governance involve broader coordination. Collaboration implies that stakeholders across all levels must work together. Working together might involve vertical ( national to local) and horizontal (inter-agency or interregional) corporations.

In 2004, Marks and Hooghe identified two different forms of multi-level governance. The first type refers to general-purpose jurisdictions that integrate lower-level jurisdictions with higher levels. The other one centers around a particular policy issue and includes areas that have a distinct, specialized function. The primary reason for the multi-level policy is that political leaders face various forms of externalities in their territories.

Multi-level governance is good for policy coordination because it ensures that efforts across different levels of government align to create coherent and effective policies. This collaboration is crucial in areas like climate action. Local governments can focus on implementing green infrastructure projects tailored to their communities while national governments establish regulatory frameworks. Meanwhile, international organizations are pivotal in facilitating global agreements such as the Paris Accord, ensuring that all levels work together towards a shared goal.

This framework also improves responsiveness by empowering local governments to address the unique needs of their communities. Local authorities are often more in tune with their jurisdictions' specific challenges and opportunities. With the support of higher levels of governance, they can respond more effectively while leveraging resources and strategic guidance from regional, national, or even global partners.

Lastly, multi-level governance helps with better resource allocation. When funds are pooled across different governance levels, it becomes easier to reduce redundancy while ensuring public funds are used efficiently. This approach is especially critical in disaster management, where coordinated efforts can significantly reduce response times, prevent unnecessary duplication, and mitigate economic losses.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Charles Conteh