## Notes from 10 December 2025 [[2025-12-09|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2025-12-11|Next note →]] [Natasha Bulowski at Canada's National Observer](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/12/10/news/ottawa-hands-corporate-leaders-50-roles-government) broke a fascinating story about the origins of the [[Build Canada Exchange]] program. The initiative—which will embed 50 private sector executives in key federal roles for one- to two-year terms—wasn't just inspired by the [[Build Canada]] think tank. According to briefing notes obtained through access to information, the Carney government adopted Build Canada's proposal almost wholesale, even naming the program after them. The group had proposed the placement of private sector senior managers in various Canadian federal government agencies and departments, focusing on AI adoption, procurement reform, and trade negotiations. The government apparently liked it so much they just... implemented it. I keep thinking about Carney as a potential model for something I've been watching for: what does [[Abundance Agenda - Progress Studies|abundance politics]] look like when combined with the fiscal discipline that is imperative for every country in this world except the US? Macron tried something like this in France (pro-growth, reformist, cutting through left-right gridlock) but the execution was messy and the political costs were high. Carney comes from a different background (not an ex-civil servant) and operates in a different context (minority-ish government, Trump chaos next door), but the instincts seem similar: modernize the state, embrace technology, bring in private sector expertise, while also constraining spending. Whether this is genuine state capacity building or just technocratic neoliberal vibes from the 2010s remains to be seen. The Build Canada Exchange itself is worth watching as a policy experiment. The idea of structured secondments from the private sector isn't new (the UK has done versions of this, and the US has various fellowship programs) but the scale and the explicit backing from an abundance-aligned advocacy group is interesting. If well-designed, with proper conflict-of-interest guardrails and genuine knowledge transfer, this could be a useful model for civil service reformers elsewhere. The critics have obvious points. Unions worry about job displacement and data access. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives argues that tech companies have clear commercial interests in gaining inside knowledge of government operations—which is true, though the same applies to any organization, including nonprofits and advocacy groups. Everyone has interests; the question is whether the guardrails are adequate. More concerning is that Build Canada has connections to figures who initially praised Musk's [[Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)]]. It's becoming increasingly clear that DOGE's legacy is messy at best—poorly implemented, overly dependent on the Musk-Trump alliance that collapsed quickly, and leaving a trail of institutional damage. Early enthusiasm for DOGE is a bit of a red flag at this point. I'll admit I was initially drawn to the bias-for-action energy, but the execution was disastrous. That said, Build Canada's [Canada Spends](https://canadaspends.com/en) project points to something more interesting: transparent, accessible data on government expenditure. That's the kind of infrastructure that actually enables accountability, regardless of who's in power. The real question isn't whether this program is good or bad in the abstract—it's whether the Carney government has the institutional capacity and political will to implement it well. That's where most reform agendas fail. **Question:** Is there any evaluation framework built into this? How will we know if it worked?