After more than 25 years advising organizations across sectors, I’ve come to appreciate the vital role NGOs play in filling the gaps governments can’t, or won’t, address. From frontline social services to environmental stewardship to global health and education, their work is often visionary, community-led, and deeply human. But I’ve also seen behind the curtain. And one uncomfortable truth emerges time and again: far too many NGOs are built on a financial foundation so narrow that one funding shift, often from a single government department, can bring the entire structure down.
This doesn’t mean these organizations lack heart or competence. Quite the opposite, but when 60 to 80 percent of their time and energy is spent chasing the next tranche of funding just to pay rent or keep skeleton staff employed, something is clearly out of balance. I’ve worked with executive directors who are more skilled in crafting grant proposals than in delivering the programs they were trained to lead. I’ve seen staff burn out, not from the intensity of service delivery, but from the treadmill of fundraising cycles that reward persistence over purpose.
The tension is most pronounced when a single government agency becomes the main or only funder. In those cases, the NGO may retain its legal independence, but it quickly becomes functionally dependent, unable to challenge policy, adapt freely, or pivot when the community’s needs shift. I’ve often told boards in strategic planning sessions: “If your NGO would cease to exist tomorrow without that one government grant, then you don’t have a sustainable organization, you have an outsourced program.”
This is not a call for cynicism. It’s a call for structural realism. NGOs need funding. Governments have a legitimate role in supporting social initiatives. But the risk lies in overconcentration. With no diversified base of support, whether from individual donors, private philanthropy, earned income, or even modest membership models, NGOs are vulnerable not only to budget cuts, but to shifts in political ideology. A change in government should not spell the end of essential community services. And yet, it too often does.
What’s the solution? It starts with transparency and strategy. Boards must get serious about income diversity, even if that means reimagining their business model. Funders, including governments, should fund core operations, not just shiny new projects, and do so on multi-year terms to allow for proper planning. And NGO leaders need to communicate their value clearly, not just to funders, but to the communities they serve and the public at large. You can’t build resilience without buy-in.
Supporting NGOs doesn’t mean ignoring their structural weaknesses. In fact, the best way to support them is to help them confront those weaknesses head-on. Mission matters. But so does the means of sustaining it. And in today’s volatile funding landscape, the most mission-driven thing an NGO can do might just be to get smart about its money.
Canada’s federal government employs hundreds of thousands of people, yet far too often, success is measured by inputs rather than results. Hours worked, meetings attended, or forms completed dominate performance metrics, while citizens experience delays, inconsistent service, and bureaucratic frustration. Prime Minister Mark Carney has an opportunity to change this by embracing outcomes-based management and coupling it with a planned reduction of the federal workforce—a strategy that improves efficiency without undermining service delivery.
The case for outcomes-based management Currently, federal management emphasizes process compliance over actual impact. Staff are assessed on whether they followed procedures, logged sufficient hours, or completed internal forms. While accountability is important, focusing on inputs rather than outputs fosters risk aversion, discourages initiative, and prioritizes process over public value.
Outcomes-based management flips this paradigm. Departments and employees are held accountable for tangible results: timeliness, accuracy, citizen satisfaction, and measurable program goals. Performance evaluation becomes tied to impact rather than paperwork. Managers are empowered to allocate resources strategically, encourage innovation, and remove obstacles that slow delivery. Employees gain clarity on expectations, flexibility in execution, and motivation to improve services.
This approach is widely recognized internationally as best practice in public administration. Governments that adopt outcomes-focused management report faster service delivery, higher citizen satisfaction, and better use of limited resources. It is a tool for effectiveness as much as efficiency.
Planned workforce reduction: 5% annually Outcomes-based management alone does not shrink government, but it creates the environment to do so responsibly. With clearer accountability for results, the government can reduce headcount without impairing services. A planned 5% annual reduction over five years, achieved through retirements, attrition, and more selective hiring, offers a predictable, sustainable path to a smaller, more focused public service.
No mass layoffs are necessary. Instead, positions are left unfilled where feasible, and recruitment is limited to essential roles. Over five years, the workforce contracts by approximately 23%, freeing funds for high-priority programs while maintaining core services. At the end of the cycle, a full review assesses outcomes: delivery quality, service metrics, and costs. Adjustments can be made if reductions have inadvertently affected citizens’ experience.
Synergy with the other reforms This plan works hand-in-hand with the other two reforms proposed: eliminating internal cost recovery and adopting a single pay scale with one bargaining agent. With fewer staff and a streamlined compensation system, management gains greater clarity and control. Removing internal billing and administrative overhead frees staff to focus on outcomes, while a unified pay scale ensures fair and consistent compensation as the workforce shrinks. Together, these reforms create a coherent, accountable, and modern public service.
Benefits for Canadians Outcomes-based management and planned workforce reduction offer multiple benefits: 1. Efficiency gains: Staff focus on work that delivers measurable results rather than administrative juggling. 2. Cost savings: Attrition-based reductions lower salary and benefits expenditures without disruptive layoffs. 3. Transparency: Clear metrics demonstrate value to taxpayers, building public trust. 4. Resilience and innovation: Departments adapt faster, encouraging problem-solving and continuous improvement.
Political and administrative feasibility Canada has successfully experimented with elements of outcomes-based management in programs such as the Treasury Board’s Results-Based Management Framework and departmental performance agreements. These initiatives demonstrate that the federal bureaucracy can shift focus from inputs to results if given clear mandates and strong leadership. Coupled with a predictable downsizing plan, the government can modernize staffing while maintaining accountability and service quality.
A smarter, results-driven public service Prime Minister Carney has the opportunity to reshape Ottawa’s culture. Moving from input-focused bureaucracy to outcomes-based management, and pairing it with a responsible workforce reduction, creates a public service that delivers more for less. Citizens experience faster, more reliable services; employees understand expectations and have clarity in their roles; and the government maximizes value from every dollar spent.
Together with eliminating internal cost recovery and adopting a single pay scale, this reform completes a trio of policies that make the federal government smaller, smarter, and more accountable. Canadians deserve a public service focused not on paperwork, but on results that matter. This is the path to a modern, efficient, and effective Ottawa.
Food prices in Canada are now so high that a growing share of households are skipping meals or relying on food banks, yet the country’s dominant grocery chains continue to post record profits. It’s an economic contradiction that Canadians are no longer willing to ignore. After years of voluntary codes, polite meetings with industry leaders, and vague promises of self-regulation, the time has come for Parliament to act. Canada needs a Grocery Fairness and Anti-Cartel Act to restore competition, transparency, and trust in the food supply.
The data are damning. Between 2019 and 2024, grocery prices rose by more than 25 percent, outpacing both wages and overall inflation. Meanwhile, profit margins at the country’s three dominant players, Loblaw, Sobeys’ parent company Empire, and Metro, reached their highest levels in decades. These three corporations control nearly 60 percent of the national grocery market and, in some provinces, more than 75 percent. Despite the removal of gas taxes and a slowdown in supply chain costs, prices have not come down. The explanation is simple: the grocery sector operates as a de facto cartel.
Canadians have seen evidence of this before. In 2018, a major bread price-fixing scandal revealed collusion among suppliers and retailers that spanned more than a decade. The Competition Bureau’s investigation led to fines and admissions of wrongdoing, but no lasting structural change. The same corporate families and alliances continue to dominate shelf space, dictate supplier terms, and shape consumer prices. Voluntary codes have done little to curb their power. When a handful of companies can quietly move in lockstep on pricing, even without explicit collusion, the outcome is the same: higher costs for everyone else.
A Grocery Fairness Act would not be radical. It would simply align Canada with the kind of market safeguards that already exist in other developed economies. The United Kingdom established a Groceries Code Adjudicator in 2013 to oversee fair dealing between supermarkets and suppliers. The European Union enforces strict competition rules that prevent excessive market dominance and punish “tacit collusion.” Canada, by contrast, still relies on a Competition Act designed for a different era, one that assumes the threat to markets comes from explicit conspiracies rather than structural concentration.
The model law proposed by several economists and policy experts would impose a national market-share limit of 15 percent per grocery chain, and 25 percent in any province. Companies that exceed those thresholds would be required to divest stores or brands until the market is more balanced. It would also make the existing Grocery Code of Conduct legally binding rather than voluntary, ensuring that farmers and small suppliers are protected from arbitrary fees, delisting threats, and other coercive practices.
Most importantly, the law would require large grocers to publish detailed pricing and profit data by category, showing whether retail increases are justified by rising costs. If a chain’s margins expand while input costs stay flat, the public deserves to know. Transparency alone would discourage the kind of quiet, parallel pricing behaviour that has become the norm.
Critics will call this “interference in the market,” but the truth is that Canada no longer has a functioning grocery market in the classical sense. When three firms dominate distribution, logistics, and supply contracts, the market’s self-correcting mechanisms are broken. Economists call it “oligopolistic coordination”; ordinary Canadians call it being gouged at the checkout.
Breaking up concentration would also open the door to regional cooperatives, independent grocers, and Indigenous food enterprises that have been squeezed out of distribution networks. Local ownership builds resilience, especially in rural and northern communities where dependence on a single chain often leads to higher costs and poorer food access.
There is also a broader principle at stake: when corporations profit from a basic human necessity, government has a duty to ensure that profit is earned through efficiency, not exploitation. If the banking sector can be regulated for systemic risk and telecommunications companies for fair access, surely food, the most essential of goods, deserves the same scrutiny.
Canada’s political establishment has been slow to move. The federal government has encouraged the large chains to sign a voluntary code, but participation remains partial and unenforced. Provinces have little power to act independently. The result is a cycle of press releases, hearings, and photo opportunities, while the price of a loaf of bread continues to climb.
A Grocery Fairness and Anti-Cartel Act would mark a decisive shift. It would give the Competition Bureau real structural tools rather than case-by-case investigations. It would make transparency mandatory and collusion punishable by substantial fines or even criminal liability for executives. Most importantly, it would restore the principle that essential markets exist to serve citizens, not to enrich monopolies.
Canada prides itself on fairness. Yet fairness in the grocery aisle has become an illusion. If Parliament wants to restore public confidence and make life affordable again, it should begin not with subsidies or rebates, but with the courage to challenge the corporate concentration that underlies the problem. The country needs a real grocery market, competitive, transparent, and accountable. Anything less is a betrayal of every Canadian who still believes that food should be priced by cost, not by cartel.
Sources: Statistics Canada, Consumer Price Index data 2019–2024; Competition Bureau of Canada, Bread Price-Fixing Investigation Report (2018); Office for National Statistics (UK), Groceries Code Adjudicator Review 2023; European Commission, Competition Regulation 1/2003.
The rise of high-speed fibre internet has done more than just make Netflix faster and video calls clearer, it has opened the door for ordinary people to run powerful technologies from the comfort of their own homes. One of the most exciting of these possibilities is self-hosted artificial intelligence. While most people are used to accessing AI through big tech companies’ cloud platforms, the time has come to consider what it means to bring this capability in-house. For everyday users, the advantages come down to three things: security, personalization, and independence.
The first advantage is data security. Every time someone uses a cloud-based AI service, their words, files, or images travel across the internet to a company’s servers. That data may be stored, analyzed, or even used to improve the company’s products. For personal matters like health information, financial records, or private conversations, that can feel intrusive. Hosting an AI at home flips the equation. The data never leaves your own device, which means you, not a tech giant, are the one in control. It’s like the difference between storing your photos on your own hard drive versus uploading them to a social media site.
The second benefit is customization. The AI services offered online are built for the masses: general-purpose, standardized, and often limited in what they can do. By hosting your own AI, you can shape it around your life. A student could set it up to summarize their textbooks. A small business owner might feed it product information to answer customer questions quickly. A parent might even build a personal assistant trained on family recipes, schedules, or local activities. The point is that self-hosted AI can be tuned to match individual needs, rather than forcing everyone into a one-size-fits-all mold.
The third reason is independence. Relying on external services means depending on their availability, pricing, and rules. We’ve all experienced the frustration of an app changing overnight or a service suddenly charging for features that used to be free. A self-hosted AI is yours. It continues to run regardless of internet outages, company decisions, or international disputes. Just as personal computers gave households independence from corporate mainframes in the 1980s, self-hosted AI promises a similar shift today.
The good news is that ordinary users don’t need to be programmers or engineers to start experimenting. Open-source projects are making AI more accessible than ever. GPT4All offers a desktop app that works much like any other piece of software: you download it, run it, and interact with the AI through a simple interface. Ollama provides an easy way to install and switch between different AI models on your computer. Communities around these tools offer clear guides, friendly forums, and video tutorials that make the learning curve far less intimidating. For most people, running a basic AI system today is no harder than setting up a home printer or Wi-Fi router.
Of course, there are still limits. Running the largest and most advanced models may require high-end hardware, but for many day-to-day uses: writing, brainstorming, answering questions, or summarizing text, lighter models already perform impressively on standard laptops or desktop PCs. And just like every other piece of technology, the tools are becoming easier and more user-friendly every year. What feels like a hobbyist’s project in 2025 could be as common as antivirus software or cloud storage by 2027.
Self-hosted AI isn’t just for tech enthusiasts. Thanks to fibre internet and the growth of user-friendly tools, it is becoming a real option for everyday households. By bringing AI home, users can protect their privacy, shape the technology around their own lives, and free themselves from the whims of big tech companies. Just as personal computing once shifted power from corporations to individuals, the same shift is now within reach for artificial intelligence.
In contemporary organizational theory, the capacity to share knowledge efficiently is increasingly recognized not merely as a good practice, but as one of the central levers of influence, innovation, and competitive advantage. Influence in the workplace is no longer determined solely by formal authority or proximity to decision-makers; it hinges instead on who opens up their ideas, disseminates outcomes, and builds collective awareness. Knowledge sharing, properly conceived, is a social process that undergirds learning, creativity, and organizational agility.
Why Sharing Still Matters Even with advances in digital collaboration tools, hybrid work environments, and more explicit knowledge management policies, many organizations continue to wrestle with information silos, “knowledge hoarding,” and weak visibility of what colleagues are doing. These behaviors impose hidden costs: duplication of work, failure to capitalize on existing insights, slow adoption of innovations, and organizational inertia.
Empirical studies confirm that when organizational climate is supportive, when centralization and formalization are lower, knowledge sharing behavior (KSB) tends to increase. For example, a recent study of IT firms in Vietnam (n = 529) found that a positive organizational climate had a direct positive effect on KSB, while high degrees of centralization and formalization decreased knowledge‐sharing intentions.
Moreover, knowledge sharing is strongly associated with improved performance outcomes. In technological companies in China, for instance, research shows that AI-augmented knowledge sharing, along with organizational learning and dynamic capabilities, positively affect job performance.
Theoretical Foundations & Diffusion of Influence A number of established frameworks help us understand both how knowledge spreads and why sharing can shift influence within organizations. • Diffusion of Innovations (Everett Rogers et al.): This theory explains how new ideas are adopted across a social system over time via innovators, early adopters, early majority etc. Key variables include communication channels, time, social systems, and the characteristics of the innovation itself. • Threshold Models & Critical Mass: Recent experiments suggest that when a certain proportion of individuals (often around 20-30%) behave in a particular way (e.g. adopting or sharing an innovation), that can tip the whole system into broader adoption. For example, one study found that social diffusion leading to change in norms becomes much more probable once a committed minority exceeds roughly 25% of the population. • Organizational Climate & Intention/Behavior Models: Behavior intentions (e.g. willingness to share) are shaped by trust, perceived support, alignment of individual and organizational values, and perceived risk/benefit. These mediate whether knowledge is actually shared or hidden.
Barriers & Enablers Understanding why people don’t share is as important as understanding why they do.
Barriers include: • Structural impediments like overly centralized decision frameworks, rigid hierarchy, heavy formalization. These reduce the avenues for informal sharing and flatten the perceived payoff for going outside established channels. • Cognitive or psychological obstacles, such as fear of criticism, loss of advantage (“knowledge as power”), lack of trust, or simply not knowing who might benefit from what one knows. • Technological and process deficiencies: poor documentation practices, weak knowledge management systems, lack of standard archiving, difficult to locate material, etc. These make sharing costly in terms of effort, risk of misunderstanding, or duplication.
Enablers include: • Cultivating a learning culture: where mistakes are not punished, where experimentation is supported, and where informal learning is valued. Studies in team climate show that the presence of an “organizational learning culture” correlates strongly with innovative work behavior. • Leadership that is supportive of sharing: transformational, inclusive leadership, openness to new ideas even when they challenge orthodoxy. Leaders who make visible their support for sharing set norms. • Recognition, incentive alignment, and reward systems that explicitly value sharing. When sharing contributes to promotions, performance evaluations, or peer recognition, people are more likely to invest effort in it.
Influence through Sharing: A Refined Model Putting this together, here is a refined model of how sharing translates into influence: 1. Visibility: Sharing makes one’s work visible across formal and informal networks. Visibility breeds recognition. 2. Peer Adoption & Critical Mass: Innovation often needs a threshold of peer adoption. Once enough people (often around 20-30%) accept or discuss an idea, it tends to propagate more broadly. Early informal sharing helps reach that threshold. 3. Legitimization & Institutionalization: When enough peers accept an idea, it begins to be noticed by formal leadership, which may then adopt it as part of official strategy or practice. What was once “radical” becomes “official.” 4. Influence & Reward: As an individual or team’s ideas get absorbed into the organizational narrative, their influence increases. They may be entrusted with leadership, provided more resources, or seen as agents of change.
Recent Considerations: Hybrid Work, Digital Tools, AI Over the past few years, changes in how and where people work, plus the integration of AI into knowledge-sharing tools, add new dimensions: • Remote and hybrid setups tend to magnify the problems of invisibility and isolation; informal corridor conversations or impromptu check-ins become less likely. Organizations must work harder to construct virtual equivalents (e.g. asynchronous documentation, digital forums, internal social networks). • AI and knowledge-management platforms can help accelerate sharing, reduce friction (e.g. discovery of existing reports, automatic tagging, summarisation), but they also risk over-trust in automation or leaving behind tacit knowledge that is hard to codify. • Given the increasing volume of information, selective sharing and curating become skills. Not every detail needs to be shared widely, but knowing what, when, and how to share is part of influence.
Implications for Practice For individuals aiming to increase their influence via sharing: • Embed documentation and archival processes into every project (e.g. phase reports, lessons learned). • Use both formal and informal channels: internal blogs or newsletters, but also coffee chats, virtual social spaces. • Be willing to experiment, share preliminary findings; feedback improves ideas and increases visibility.
For organizations: • Build a culture that rewards sharing explicitly through performance systems. • Reduce structural barriers like overly centralized control or onerous formalization. • Provide tools and training to lower the effort of sharing; make knowledge easier to find and use. • Encourage cross-team interactions, peer networks, communities of practice.
Final Word Sharing is not just a morally good or nice thing to do, it is one of the most potent forms of influence in knowledge-based work. It transforms static assets into living processes, elevates visibility, enables innovation, and shapes organization culture. As the world of work continues to evolve, those who master the art and science of sharing will increasingly become the architects of change.
References: Here are key sources that discuss the concepts above. You can draw on these for citations or further reading. 1. Xu, J., et al. (2023). A theoretical review on the role of knowledge sharing and … [PMC] 2. Peters, L.D.K., et al. (2024). “‘The more we share, the more we have’? Analyses of identification with the company positively influencing knowledge-sharing behaviour…” 3. Greenhalgh, T., et al. (2004). “Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations.” Milbank Quarterly – literature review on spreading and sustaining innovations. 4. Ye, M., et al. (2021). “Collective patterns of social diffusion are shaped by committed minorities …” Nature Communications 5. Bui, T. T., Nguyen, L. P., Tran, A. P., Nguyen, H. H., & Tran, T. T. (2023). “Organizational Factors and Knowledge Sharing Behavior: Mediating Model of Knowledge Sharing Intention.” 6. Abbasi, S. G., et al. (2021). “Impact of Organizational and Individual Factors on Knowledge Sharing Behavior.” 7. He, M., et al. (2024). “Sharing or Hiding? Exploring the Influence of Social … Knowledge sharing & knowledge hiding mechanisms.” 8. Sudibjo, N., et al. (2021). “The effects of knowledge sharing and person–organization fit on teachers’ innovative work …” 9. Academia preprint: Cui, J., et al. (2025). “The Explore of Knowledge Management Dynamic Capabilities, AI-Driven Knowledge Sharing, Knowledge-Based Organizational Support, and Organizational Learning on Job Performance: Evidence from Chinese Technological Companies.” 10. Koivisto, K., & Taipalus, T. (2023). “Pitfalls in Effective Knowledge Management: Insights from an International Information Technology Organization.”
Recently, I read a post from a well-known contributor on a community platform. This writer, an accomplished author with years of experience, lamented the decline of opportunities in her field. She spoke of a shrinking market, a lack of viable contracts, and the challenges of her geographical location in trying to generate meaningful revenue. Out of habit, I rarely respond to such posts, but this time I did. My response drew a public reply, and while I tend not to engage in prolonged debates on public forums, too often they dissolve into vitriol, I chose to bring the discussion here, to my own space, where ideas can be unpacked more thoughtfully.
Artificial Intelligence was seen as the main villain in this public debate, but I believe that’s a red herring. Yes, we are all adjusting to the challenge of AI, but the only constant in life is change, so what is the real issue here.
The heart of the matter is this: the defining advantage of being an independent knowledge worker is precisely the ability to work from anywhere. The office is no longer a cubicle on the twentieth floor of a glass tower, but the laptop on your kitchen table, although I prefer my dedicated home office. The clients may live continents away, but the work flows seamlessly across time zones. In this economy, location is not the limitation it once was. The real limitation is mindset.
Even as I write this post, I am exchanging messages with an Argentine colleague who is currently based in Canada. She is orchestrating a major PR announcement for a company headquartered in the Netherlands. Just last week, I was on a call with a professional in Paraguay to discuss a project in Chile. Another colleague, specializing in agricultural and agri-food writing, maintains an active client list that stretches from Australia to Japan to Portugal. None of us share an office, or a city, but all of us share the same reality: we are independent professionals with global client bases, connected by skill, adaptability, and digital tools.
This is why I push back when I hear colleagues insist that their difficulties are rooted in market decline. It is not the shrinking of opportunity, but the narrowing of their willingness to market themselves that becomes the stumbling block. The truth is uncomfortable: talent alone does not guarantee survival.
The writer whose post sparked this reflection has produced over a hundred articles, essays, and commentaries that I have personally read. Her body of work is substantial, and her craft is evident. Yet the refrain of “just give me work, so I can do my job” misses the larger truth of freelancing. Writing is the service, but self-promotion is the business model. Without branding, without a visible signal to clients about why they should choose you over the hundreds of other qualified voices, the work will not come.
Whenever I submit a proposal for a project, I begin by ensuring I have the necessary expertise and experience; but the more important question quickly follows: “why me?” Why would this client entrust me with their project rather than the next bidder? If I cannot answer that persuasively, I do not waste time chasing the opportunity. The answer to “why me?” is not entitlement, nor is it a résumé; it is positioning, visibility, and the willingness to show that your work has unique value.
In the end, the challenge of independent knowledge work is not scarcity of markets, but the discipline of visibility. The professionals who thrive are those who accept that marketing is not a distraction from their craft, but a core part of it.
For over 25 years, working as a business consultant has meant managing multiple projects for different clients, each demanding unique skills and contributions. Whether leading a project, analyzing business processes, or facilitating strategic discussions, this multi-faceted approach to work offers both challenges and rewards. One of the most appealing aspects of this style is the built-in networking opportunities. Engaging with diverse clients allows for the development of meaningful professional relationships while creating dynamic ways to generate income. By choosing to work independently and focusing on outcomes-based projects from my own space, rather than embedding within a client’s office, I have embraced a flexible, autonomous way of working that aligns with modern career trends.
This approach aligns with what is now popularly referred to as “polyworking,” a concept that has gained traction in recent years. Polyworking involves taking on multiple professional roles simultaneously, often across different industries or fields, rather than adhering to the traditional single-job model. Its rise can be attributed to advancements in technology, the normalization of remote work, and shifting attitudes toward traditional career paths. It enables workers to diversify income sources, build a broad skill set, and gain greater autonomy over their work schedules.
Polyworking is not without its challenges, however. Successfully managing several roles requires careful time management, as balancing multiple commitments can be overwhelming. The risk of burnout is real, with the potential for fatigue and reduced productivity if boundaries between roles are not clearly defined. Additionally, polyworking often lacks the financial and employment stability associated with traditional full-time jobs, as benefits and protections like health insurance or retirement plans may be absent.
Despite these challenges, polyworking offers notable advantages. By maintaining diversified income streams, individuals can reduce financial vulnerability during economic downturns or unexpected job losses. Exposure to various industries not only broadens professional networks but also fosters personal and professional fulfillment by allowing individuals to pursue their passions alongside their careers. Digital tools and platforms, such as project management software and freelance marketplaces, have played a pivotal role in making polyworking feasible, enabling effective collaboration and organization.
As the gig economy and remote work continue to evolve, polyworking is increasingly seen as an alternative to traditional career paths. For some, it represents freedom and flexibility; for others, it is a necessary adaptation to modern economic realities. While it may not suit everyone, polyworking is shaping the future of work, offering opportunities for greater financial independence, professional growth, and a more tailored work-life balance. Understanding how to navigate its challenges is key to thriving in this emerging landscape.
Maple leaves on packaging, “Product of Canada” claims, and patriotic hues of red and white, these symbols of national pride are meant to instill trust and confidence in Canadian consumers. Yet behind some of these labels lies a troubling trend: the misrepresentation of imported food as domestically produced. Known colloquially as “maplewashing,” this practice is drawing increased scrutiny as Canadians seek greater transparency, and authenticity in their grocery choices.
At its core, maplewashing is a form of food fraud. Products sourced from the United States or other countries are being marketed with suggestive imagery or ambiguous labeling that implies Canadian origin. In some cases, food items imported in bulk are processed or repackaged in Canada, allowing companies to legally label them as “Made in Canada” or “Product of Canada” under current regulatory loopholes. This manipulation undermines consumer confidence and disadvantages local producers who adhere strictly to Canadian sourcing standards.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) defines food fraud as any deliberate misrepresentation of food products, including their origin, ingredients, or processing methods. While the CFIA has made progress in addressing such issues, the agency still faces challenges in policing the retail landscape. Consumers have reported examples of apples from Washington state sold under Canadian branding, and frozen vegetables with packaging that evokes Canadian farms but are sourced entirely from overseas. These practices erode the integrity of the food system and compromise informed consumer choice.
In response to growing concern, some major retailers have attempted corrective measures. Loblaw Companies Ltd., for instance, has piloted initiatives to label tariff-affected American products with a “T” to signal their origin. Other grocers have begun offering clearer signage or dedicated sections for verified Canadian goods. Despite these efforts, enforcement remains patchy, and misleading labels continue to circulate freely on supermarket shelves.
Digital tools have emerged as allies in the fight against maplewashing. Smartphone apps now allow consumers to scan barcodes and trace the country of origin of a product, giving them the ability to verify claims independently. These apps, combined with mounting consumer pressure, are gradually raising the bar for accountability in food labeling.
Still, the systemic nature of the problem requires more than consumer vigilance. Regulatory reform is essential. Advocacy groups have called on the federal government to tighten definitions for what qualifies as “Product of Canada.” Under current guidelines, a product can be labeled as such if 98% of its total direct costs of production are incurred in Canada. Critics argue that this threshold allows too much flexibility for products with foreign origins to slip through.
Maplewashing is not merely a matter of misplaced labels. It is a breach of trust between food producers, retailers, and the Canadian public. As more shoppers demand transparency and local accountability, there is an opportunity to rebuild confidence through clearer standards, stronger enforcement, and a renewed commitment to honest labeling. Food should tell the truth about where it comes from, and no amount of patriotic packaging should be allowed to obscure that.
As a business consultant, it’s common to spend extended periods embedded within a client’s organization. You may have a desk in their office, attend team meetings, and collaborate closely with staff at every level. It can feel like you’re part of their team, and sometimes clients may even treat you as one of their own.
But here’s an important reality that every consultant should keep front and center: no matter how much time you spend on-site, you are not, and never truly become, a member of their staff or permanent team. Recognizing this boundary is not just a philosophical point; it’s crucial for your effectiveness, your professionalism, and your well-being.
The Consultant’s Unique Position: Inside and Outside Consultants occupy a unique vantage point that combines proximity and distance. You have access to the inner workings of the organization, insight into its culture, and the ability to influence decisions. Yet, unlike employees, you maintain independence and objectivity. That distance is your strength.
When you start to blur the lines, seeing yourself as “one of them” or becoming emotionally over-invested, you risk losing that objectivity. You may find it harder to challenge entrenched thinking or push for necessary, but uncomfortable changes. This can reduce the value you bring and potentially damage your credibility.
Why Clients Want You Close, But Not Part of the Team Clients invite consultants in because they want fresh eyes, outside expertise, and sometimes a catalyst for change. If you were simply another internal employee, your perspective would be limited by existing organizational dynamics, politics, and habits.
That desk in the office is a practical convenience, a way to collaborate effectively. But it’s also a reminder: you’re a guest with a mission, not a permanent resident. This helps preserve your role as a trusted advisor rather than an insider subject to the same pressures and biases.
Maintaining Professional Boundaries Benefits Everyone Keeping a clear boundary between consultant and client staff creates space for honest feedback and transparent communication. It allows you to speak truth to power without fear of reprisal or emotional entanglement.
For your own well-being, it helps maintain perspective. You avoid burnout that can come from overidentifying with a client’s internal struggles or organizational drama. You’re able to recharge between engagements, bringing renewed energy and insight to each new project.
Practical Tips for Consultants • Remember Your Contractual Role: You are hired for a defined scope and duration. Keep that in mind to avoid mission creep. • Maintain Objectivity: Regularly check your assumptions and biases. Ask yourself if you’re seeing the organization clearly or through the lens of familiarity. • Protect Your Boundaries: It’s okay to say no or push back if a client expects you to overstep your role. • Stay Connected to Your Own Network: Consulting can be isolating. Keep in touch with peers and mentors outside the client environment. • Celebrate Your Outsider Status: Use it as a source of strength. Your independence allows you to spot blind spots and opportunities that internal teams may miss.
Having a desk in your client’s office may create an illusion of belonging, but never forget you are a professional outsider with a distinct role and valuable perspective. Embracing that reality keeps you effective, respected, and energized throughout your consulting career.
Canada stands at a pivotal moment in its digital evolution. As underscored by a recent CBC Radio exploration of internet policy and trade, the current digital ecosystem often prioritizes commercial and regulatory players, rather than everyday users. To truly serve all Canadians, we must shift to an intentionally user‑centric internet; one that delivers equitable access, intuitive public services, meaningful privacy, and digital confidence.
Closing the Digital Divide: Beyond Access While Infrastructure Canada reports 93 % national broadband availability at 50/10 Mbps, rural, Northern and Indigenous communities continue to face significant shortfalls. Just 62 % of rural households enjoy such speeds vs. 91 % of urban dwellers. Additionally, cost remains a barrier, Canadians pay among the highest broadband prices in the OECD, exacerbated by data caps and limited competition.
Recent federal investments in the Universal Broadband Fund (C$3.2 B) and provincial connectivity strategies have shown gains: 2 million more Canadians connected by mid‑2024, with a 23 % increase in rural speed‑test results. Yet, hardware, affordability, and “last mile” digital inclusion remain hurdles. LEO satellites, advancements already underway with Telesat and others, offer cost-effective backhaul solutions for remote regions.
To be truly user‑focused, Canada must pair infrastructure rollout with subsidized hardware, low-cost data plans, and community Wi‑Fi in public spaces, mirroring what CAP once offered, and should reinvigorate .
Prioritizing Digital Literacy & Inclusion Access means little if users lack confidence or fluency. Statistics Canada places 24 % of Canadians in “basic” or non‑user categories, with seniors especially vulnerable (62 % in 2018, down to 48 % by 2020). Further, Toronto-based research reveals that while 98 % of households are nominally connected, only precarious skill levels and siloed services keep Canada from being digitally inclusive.
We must emulate Ontario’s inclusive design principle: “When we design for the edges, we design for everyone”. Programs like CAP and modern iterations in schools, libraries, community centres, and First Nations-led deployments (e.g., First Mile initiatives) must be expanded to offer digital mentorship, lifelong e‑skills training, and device recycling initiatives with security support.
Transforming Public Services with Co‑Design The Government of Canada’s “Digital Ambition” (2024‑25) enshrines user‑centric, trusted, accessible services as its primary outcome. Yet progress relies on embedding authentic user input. Success stories from Code for Canada highlight the power of embedding designers and technologists into service teams, co‑creating solutions that resonate with citizen realities.
Additionally, inclusive design guru Jutta Treviranus points out that systems built for users with disabilities naturally benefit all, promoting scenarios that anticipate diverse needs from launch. Government adoption of accessible UX components, like Canada’s WET toolkit aligned with WCAG 2.0 AA, is commendable, but needs continuous testing by diverse users.
Preserving Openness and Trust Canada’s 1993 Telecommunications Act prohibits ISPs from prioritizing or throttling traffic, anchoring net neutrality in law. Public support remains high, two‑thirds of internet users back open access. Upholding this principle ensures that small businesses, divisive news outlets, and marginalized voices aren’t silenced by commercial gatekeepers.
Meanwhile, Freedom House still rates Canada among the most open digital nations, though concerns persist about surveillance laws and rural cost differentials. Privacy trust can be further solidified through transparency mandates, public Wi‑Fi privacy guarantees, and clear data‑minimization standards where user data isn’t exploited post‑consent.
Cultivating a Better Digital Ecosystem While Canada’s Connectivity Strategy unites government, civil society, and industry, meaningful alignment on digital policy remains uneven. We need a human‑centred policy playbook: treat emerging tech (AI, broadband, fintech) as programmable infrastructure tied to inclusive economic goals.
Local governments and Indigenous groups must be empowered as co‑designers, with funding and regulation responsive to community‑level priorities. Lessons from rural digital inclusion show collaborative successes when demand‑side (training, digital culture) and supply‑side (infrastructure, affordability) converge.
Canada’s digital future must be anchored in the user experience. That means: • Universal access backed by public hardware, affordable plans, and modern connectivity technologies like LEO satellite • Sustained digital literacy programs, especially for low‑income, elderly, newcomer, and Indigenous populations • Public service design led by users and accessibility standards • Firm protection of net neutrality and strengthened privacy regulations • Bottom‑up: including Indigenous and local, participation in digital policy and infrastructure planning
This is not merely a public service agenda, it’s a growth imperative. By centering users, Canada can build a digital ecosystem that’s trustworthy, inclusive, and innovation-ready. That future depends on federal action, community engagement, and sustained investment, but the reward is a true digital renaissance that serves every Canadian.
The Rowanwood Chronicles 