GA Lens: Innovation, Governance, and Global Risk with David Watters

You’ve worked across several sectors. How would you describe your areas of expertise, and what emerging trends are you monitoring closely in Canada and around the world?

David stated that across all these roles, his focus has been on research, new technology development, economic growth, trade, and designing governance structures that enable collaboration between governments, academia, business, and civil society.

In terms of global trends, David highlighted the growing convergence of five major types of risks: economic, environmental, social, technological, and geopolitical. He warned that these overlapping risks are reshaping both the global order and Canada’s domestic landscape. Canada is increasingly affected by issues like trade disruptions, tariff wars, defense spending pressures, and rising geopolitical instability.

“We really need to pay attention to the combination of these new threats in effect to Canadian sovereignty, and hopefully, we can adjust quickly and adapt to them and respond effectively.”

These global forces, David noted, call for faster institutional adaptation and more resilient governance structures capable of addressing both domestic and international vulnerabilities.

Where does Canada stand amid escalating global risks such as conflict, migration, and environmental crises?

David expressed optimism about Canada’s ability to navigate the growing complexity of global risks, grounded in both historical context and current political leadership. He emphasized that Canadians, by virtue of their natural resource wealth and democratic institutions, are positioned not only to address domestic challenges but to contribute meaningfully to global solutions.

“If you’re born Canadian, you were born with such a significant resource base. I mean, you’re really lucky, but I personally feel there’s an obligation to not only help your fellow citizens, but also to help other countries and some of the challenges they face.”

David believes Canada is entering a transformational moment under the leadership of the new government. He sees strong potential for the federal government to respond effectively to the compound pressures of economic instability, shifting geopolitical alliances, and rising global threats.

He pointed to Canada’s increased commitments at international forums such as the G7 and NATO, and to emerging leadership in artificial intelligence, with a growing focus on integrating technology policy with citizen protections.

“We’re doubling down on artificial intelligence but also trying to weave in the challenge of protecting citizens from the unintended side effects.”

Ultimately, David called for urgency in Canada’s response. With the right leadership in place and a clear understanding of the challenges ahead, he stressed the importance of acting decisively and ambitiously.

“Now’s the time to double down, put your foot on the accelerator, and really build responses that meet Canadian needs, and also serve a broader global community.”

What are the major challenges Canada must address before it can seize new opportunities?

David agrees that every crisis holds hidden opportunities, but he cautions that Canada must first confront a number of foundational challenges before it can act on its potential. At the core is the need to restructure the public service, not just in terms of policy capacity but in its ability to implement effectively. He notes that governments often make ambitious announcements, but their ability to deliver remains limited by outdated structures and insufficient execution mechanisms.

“The government will announce things, but it has not had the capacity to really implement these effectively.”

Beyond the federal level, David sees an urgent need for stronger cooperation with provinces and Indigenous communities. He points to recent signs of progress, such as the passage of Bill C-5 and ongoing provincial collaboration on national projects, but believes much more is needed. To move forward, Canada must improve intergovernmental coordination and build inclusive frameworks that bring all stakeholders to the table.

He also calls for a cultural shift in how Canadians view national progress, one grounded in self-confidence and strategic risk-taking. This includes embracing a more “nationalistic” outlook, not in a narrow or exclusionary sense, but in believing in Canada’s capacity to lead and contribute globally.

“We need to think more confidently, more nationalistically, in terms of what we can contribute to ourselves and then to others, and take more risks.”

In David’s view, addressing these structural and cultural challenges is essential groundwork. Only then can Canada unlock the opportunities that lie within today’s crises.

Is inefficient resource allocation in government a recent issue, or is there a deeper structural reason behind it?

David attributes the inefficiencies in government resource allocation to a combination of systemic complexity and institutional decline. While budgeting should reflect clear priorities and operational plans, he notes that many departments today struggle to follow through, often leaving large amounts of allocated funding unspent.

He points to Canada’s Public Accounts, the official ledger of how much government money was actually spent, as a revealing source. Historically, departments were disciplined in budget planning and execution. Today, many are missing the mark and lapsing on significant funding.

In his view, this is not simply about underperformance, but a signal of broader organizational dysfunction. Departments are growing in size, mandate, and number of programs, often without corresponding improvements in coherence or capacity. As complexity increases and fragmentation deepens, it becomes harder for public servants to deliver on their objectives.

“You increase that complexity in a fragmented way, and it almost becomes virtually impossible to administer these government departments.”

He contrasts this with past approaches to governance, where mandates were more focused and priorities clearer. David cites a striking example: under a previous federal government, ministers were handed 645 objectives in their mandate letters, an overwhelming number that diluted focus and accountability.

“When you have that many objectives, you have no objectives.”

By contrast, he applauds leaders such as Mark Carney, who promote a disciplined governance approach. Carney identified just seven key priorities and asked each minister to explain how they would deliver on them. David sees this as a model worth emulating, not just in government, but for organizations working with government as well.

“That’s the way to communicate the value proposition you may have, whether you’re a business, an academic institution, or a nonprofit.”

David encourages clients and partners of Global Advantage to align their strategies with clearly defined government priorities. This kind of strategic alignment, he says, is essential not just to securing public investment, but to contributing meaningfully to national progress.

In recent years, we’ve seen growing risks across many sectors, but perhaps just as concerning is the tendency within Canada to place the full burden of solving these problems on the government. There’s a kind of “Uncle Sam” mindset where people expect the government to take care of everything, and when something goes wrong, the blame is automatically placed on its shoulders. But in any functioning ecosystem, the government is only one stakeholder. Given that, and the need to improve overall system efficiency, what are some good examples, either in Canada or globally, of jurisdictions or models that truly understand how to make the cogs of collaboration run smoothly? Who should we be watching, and what practices could we adapt to the Canadian context?

David agrees strongly with the premise that Canada has developed a culture of excessive reliance on government. He believes this overdependence is not only unsustainable, but counterproductive. Public expectations have grown to the point where government is often viewed as the sole actor responsible for solving complex social and economic issues, from climate change to affordability, while other key players like citizens, businesses, and communities remain under engaged.

“We’ve become a culture that does rely on the government to fix things, and I think that’s quite wrong.”

David advocates for a rebalancing of civic responsibility, where government is not the sole problem-solver, but a co-creator of effective solutions with its citizens. He references a powerful idea: the role of government is not just to deliver services, but rather to develop and sustain a citizen… individuals who, in turn, take ownership of collective responsibility and participate in shaping their communities.

This shift requires Canadians to see themselves as contributors, not just recipients. David underscores the importance of collective responsibility, where citizens not only enjoy rights, but also take on obligations, to volunteer, raise issues, reduce environmental impact, and build local resilience.

To help catalyze this shift, David founded the Institute of Collaborative Innovation (ICI), which promotes a framework he calls citizen-centered innovation. This model aims to reverse the traditional top-down flow of programs and policies, instead grounding them in the lived experiences of communities.

David stated that he recently met with a social innovation leader in Pembroke, where they discussed the very real challenges that many communities face: food insecurity, housing affordability, limited access to healthcare, and job creation. In his view, these problems cannot be solved by the government alone; they demand community-led action, supported by enabling institutions.

As for models to emulate, David cautions against wholesale adoption of foreign systems. Instead, he recommends looking at specific collaboration practices, successful examples where government, the private sector, academia, and civil society have worked together to solve real problems.

“It’s not about adopting a whole system; it’s about borrowing features that work and applying them in a Canadian context.”

Global Advantage, through its work with ecosystems and innovation mapping, has already identified around 16 proven collaboration practices, drawn both from within Canada and internationally. David stresses that local adaptation is key; what works in one context may not directly translate, but the principles can still inspire meaningful change.

“To me, it’s about identifying where multiple actors have come together and made something work and then building on that in Canada.”

Would you agree that Canada’s innovation ecosystem is siloed?

David strongly agrees that Canada’s innovation ecosystem is highly fragmented, with programs and institutions operating in silos rather than as part of an integrated system. He cites recent work by Senator Colin Deacon and a Treasury Board review that identified a staggering 140 separate federal programs aimed at supporting innovation. These programs often have overlapping mandates, conflicting eligibility criteria, and siloed performance metrics.

He explains that each program measures success differently. Some evaluate firm growth by export capability, others by job creation, revenue increases, or product development milestones. This patchwork makes it extremely difficult for firms to understand which programs they qualify for, let alone navigate the application processes.

“They’re all different. Different requirements, different people. They don’t talk to each other, and they don’t share information.”

The result, David says, is an ecosystem that fails to function as a system at all. Entrepreneurs and innovators are left confused and unsupported, while government resources are scattered across disconnected programs. He characterizes it as “really quite a mess”, a system designed with good intentions but implemented without coherence.

David expresses hope that Michael Sabia, the new Clerk of the Privy Council, will bring the leadership and discipline needed to overhaul the current structure. He envisions a comprehensive program review, one that eliminates redundancy, consolidates overlapping efforts, and improves the performance of high-impact programs.

The goal, in David’s view, is to create a more seamless and effective interface between the federal government and its innovation partners in the private, academic, and non-profit sectors. By reducing fragmentation and aligning support with strategic outcomes, Canada can better mobilize its innovation capacity and deliver meaningful results.

What is the most imminent threat Canada is currently facing?

For David, the most pressing threat to Canada isn’t a geopolitical adversary or an economic downturn. It is the potential collapse of an effective public service. He believes that strong government leadership is essential for navigating national and global crises, but fears that the machinery of government has become so eroded that it may no longer be capable of responding when it matters most.

“The public service may have been so damaged over the past 20-year period that it is not capable of responding.”

David uses a vivid metaphor to describe the challenge: imagine a new leader stepping into power, eager to drive change, only to find that when they turn the ignition key…the engine doesn’t start. This, he suggests, is what Mark Carney may have encountered when he first began engaging with senior federal officials, a moment of realization that the core system was broken or, at the very least, dangerously underpowered.

That realization, in David’s view, likely prompted the rapid appointment of Michael Sabia as Clerk of the Privy Council. Sabia, known for his experience in both the public and private sectors, was brought in to stabilize and rebuild institutional capability. But the job ahead is daunting: restoring a weakened public service while also delivering on complex national priorities is a task akin to flying a plane while redesigning it mid-air.

“That is a Herculean task… You’ve got to fly the aircraft at the same time as you have to redesign it.”

David acknowledges that it may not even be fully possible. Still, he sees room for support from external actors, particularly mission-driven organizations such as Global Advantage and the Institute of Collaborative Innovation (ICI). These groups, he argues, can help shoulder part of the burden by offering systemic insight, strategic tools, and cross-sector collaboration.

He notes that while firms like Global Advantage must remain financially sustainable, there is value in occasionally taking on projects that may not be immediately profitable, but which serve a broader public purpose. The alternative, he warns, is watching the slow erosion of trust, performance, and stability in Canada’s most critical institutions, a risk the country cannot afford.

“There’s a danger of the whole thing being lost, and that would be unfortunate for many organizations.”

Do you think the inefficiency of governments is a uniquely Canadian issue or part of a broader global trend?

David believes that government inefficiency is not just a Canadian problem, but a global phenomenon. He attributes this to the sheer complexity of the interconnected world we’ve built, one that has grown far beyond what most modern governance systems were designed to manage. As economies, technologies, and societies have become more deeply interwoven, institutions are increasingly overwhelmed by their own scale and scope.

“We’ve interconnected things so much that it’s almost beyond our capacity to be able to influence and manage the structures that we have.”

He reflects on how, historically, human societies operated in small groups with relatively simple needs, survival, food, sand helter. In contrast, today’s governments are expected to manage sprawling systems across healthcare, climate change, education, security, trade, and technology, often all at once. David suggests that many national governments, regardless of ideology or structure, are now struggling to cope with the complexity of their mandates.

While he is cautiously optimistic about emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, he admits that it remains to be seen whether AI will alleviate or exacerbate the problem. He sees potential in AI’s ability to support decision-making but emphasizes that the real solutions lie not in new tools alone, but in shifting where and how governance happens, and the core human values it embodies.

In David’s view, the answer lies in moving decision-making and resources closer to the community level. Rather than relying on national or even provincial governments to solve everything, he argues for a more localized, community-driven model of governance. His recent work reflects this philosophy. For example, he’s currently collaborating with stakeholders in the Rockcliffe area of Ottawa to support local responses to affordability, housing, and social cohesion challenges.

This approach is also reinforced by insights from a recent documentary project he led with Carleton University students on the “polycrisis.” The students interviewed spoke candidly about the overwhelming scale of global challenges, from climate change to economic insecurity, but remained hopeful by focusing their energy on helping their families, friends, and communities.

“They said, ‘I’m going to focus on helping my family, my friends, and my community.’ That’s where they’re putting their effort.”

This shift from top-down governance to bottom-up resilience is, in David’s view, both necessary and promising. He believes governments should enable this transition by allocating more spending authority to the local level, not just to provinces or regions, but directly to municipalities and even sub-city neighborhoods. Doing so would build social capital where it’s needed most.

“Governments should provide more spending authority not to provinces, not to regions, but to cities and sub-components of cities, into communities to deal with these issues.”

David acknowledges this is a major challenge in federal systems like Canada’s, where municipalities fall under provincial jurisdiction. However, he shares examples from his time at Finance Canada where creative policymaking helped overcome these barriers. One such model involved channeling environmental funding through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to support local initiatives, effectively bypassing most jurisdictional bottlenecks.

“There are small models like that, ways of getting around the rigid structure of national and provincial programs.”

How does Global Advantage add value in tackling complex national and institutional challenges?

David sees Global Advantage’s core value in its unique ability to help clients understand the systems they operate in. How those systems function, where they break down, and how they can be improved. At the heart of this work is ecosystem mapping, a methodology David himself initiated during his time at Finance Canada. While most departments were focused on isolated programs or policies, he recognized the need to understand how all components of the system fit together.

That early effort evolved into a foundational pillar of Global Advantage’s approach. Rather than treating programs, sectors, or departments in isolation, the firm examines them as part of a larger input-output system, asking critical questions: Who are the stakeholders? What flows between them? Are they achieving their intended outcomes? Where is the decision-making brain?

David distills the system down to its essentials. In every ecosystem, only four things flow between actors: people, money, information, and material. These flows define how value is created, shared, and lost across the system. By tracing these flows, Global Advantage helps organizations identify bottlenecks, uncover misalignments, and target systemic constraints that prevent optimal performance.

Over time, this approach has helped governments, Crown corporations, academic institutions, and private-sector clients navigate complex environments with greater clarity. Clients walk away not only with a visual map of their operating ecosystem but with a strategic understanding of where they are positioned and where they can lead.

“Global Advantage helps clients understand the jungle in which they operate, from an ecosystem point of view.”

Beyond ecosystem mapping, David emphasizes Global Advantage’s strength in analyzing business models through a systems lens. Organizations benefit from seeing how inputs (such as funding, talent, and partnerships) convert to outputs (like innovation, economic impact, or public value), and where friction points emerge.

A third area of value, he notes, is in governance. While perhaps less visible, governance is critical to institutional performance. Global Advantage has supported numerous organizations in improving how decisions are made, what information is needed, how it’s synthesized, and how leaders can be equipped with options rather than confusion.

“How can institutions make better decisions? What information do they need to draw upon? These are issues that Global Advantage has tackled in a significant way.”

Taken together, David sees Global Advantage as not just a consulting firm, but a strategic ally for navigating complexity. Its methodologies are grounded in systems thinking, practical insight, and long-term relationships. In a world increasingly marked by uncertainty and institutional strain, these capabilities have never been more essential.