Discussion about this post

Commenting has been turned off for this post
Tony F.'s avatar

These 'feel good' pieces are fun to read. They are in a weird way reassuring -- sure we have problems, but a few common sense changes and they could easily be solved. But, the reality is often much more difficult.

Let's take the remote work point. Studies have shown that people can work in remote teams effectively if they have already built up a trusting relationship. But, if the default is remote (which is what a lot of companies are attempting) that can be really challenging. Let's see how this experiment plays out before we assume the future of cities is doomed. My purely anecdotal take is that grouping people together creates "happy accidents" -- informal conversations that occasionally inspire new directions or new ideas. At the industry level, that's why people in certain industries tend to cluster. At the individual level, you make connections across the industry that helps you build your career. At the industry level, you attract talent and the kind of supporting infrastructure needed to thrive. There's a reason cities exist. Remote work may change things, but to me the whole -- "everyone can work from anywhere" really undersells the importance of these networks.

But a lot of the other points -- high speed rail from Peterborough, chip manufacturing in Thunder Bay, all-season port in Churchill, reshored manufacturing of all kinds of goods -- all would appear to require government intervention to happen. Canada is a very small market, with relatively eductated and high wage workers. There isn't a great business case for a lot of the things proposed unless the government is willing to heavily subsidize and plan them.

High-speed trains from Peterborough? Have you seen how long it has taken just to get all-day GO service to places like Kitchener-Waterloo (hint -- it still isn't complete)? Chip manufacturing in Thunder Bay? If there was a business case, it would have happened. Given it hasn't, we're going to have to make it really, really attractive (think government "investments"). An all-year port in Churchill has been looked at for decades. It'll be expensive -- not only the port, but the required transporation infrastructure to the port. Guess who is paying for that? And, if Canada thinks that our trade partners are going to pay a premium for commodities like fossil fuels or grain because we're more ethical than Russia or Saudi Arabia, then explain to me how that happens. What's more realistic (and what's happening) is that those industries may have increasing opportunities in the global market, but require investment to get there (everything from carbon capture to transportation infrastucture). Guess what -- they want us (the taxpayer) to pay for those investments or at least heavily subsidize them as they know the global price for those commodities is determined within the global market -- there is no 'we're nice' premium.

So, let's call these what they are: calls for government subsidies that favour certain kinds of industries/work.

There is a school of thought that the only way a small market like Canada can thrive is through some kind of government intervention and, if we are going to do that, we need a strategic industrial policy instead of just focusing on creating an attractive business climate. I'm still mulling if I agree with that as government's ability to pick 'winners and losers' is not fantastic. But, the alternative as kind of spelled out here is to continue to favour existing industries that have the ability to lobby governement for effective subsidies without expecting anything at all in return.

A long comment (as usual for me) to point out that while this piece feels good to read (even to me!) making it happen would either require significant government (taxpayer) investment favouring specific industries and not require those industries to do anything in return. That's more of what we're already doing and I'm not convinced it's the best way forward.

Expand full comment
Dean's avatar

He's right. And those of us who live out in rural Canada have known this for years. Unfortunately we live in a city centric country where policy is driven by people who didn't know any of this until the pandemic hit. Check out the colours on the electoral map for a clue. Now that city folks have been enlightened, perhaps they will start voting accordingly. I write this as I work from my home in the middle of 50 acres of bush a short distance from the shore of Lake Huron. And yes, I have 30up/5 down fiber optic internet provided by (one of) the local independent service providers at half the cost of Bell or Rogers. I know the tech support guy by name and wave when his truck drives by. I know the name of the guy who farms the beef I eat, and the lady whose eggs I buy at the end of her driveway. But I pay a premium for electrical delivery despite the fact I can see over 120 useless wind turbines from the end of my lane. I supply my own water from a well and treat my own waste with a self contained septic system. And I heat and cool with geothermal. So yes, let's not return to "normal". Let's start using some common sense. You will find a lot of that outside of the city.

Expand full comment
103 more comments...

No posts