107 Comments
Commenting has been turned off for this post
Jun 16, 2022·edited Jun 16, 2022

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

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

Some interesting ideas, but some removed from reality. And this “boomer” tried to get her children interested in the trades - didn’t work. Stay away from labels, okay?

Expand full comment

Because reality?

People live in citites because they are hotbeds of culture and entertainment and close to things like sports teams and airports.

Even if you can do your job remotely, it's harder to advance in your career when you are not in the city.

The manufacturing supply chain for most goods isn't based in Canada because it's not profitable due to the effects of globalization. A knock on effect of Canada enjoying a high standard of living is that Canada has very high labour costs.

But if you want to try founding a chip company in T-Bay, have at it. Best of luck. I'd be happy to buy Canadian, if the option was available at a comparable level of price and quality.

Expand full comment

I was going to write that Canada needs an Elon Musk type person. However the reality is that between environmental activists and indigenous activists and progressives in power you can’t really get anything done in Canada. If Elon was born here he would have just left. We really are coasting on previous generations achievements.

Expand full comment

Good article for the most part, but this threw me for a loop: "Even if we had factories, the Boomers had convinced everyone that trades and resource extraction were for losers and dirty, so we have orphaned entire generations without useful skills for needed and well-paying jobs." Really? What's the source for this. It's the second time a perfectly good Line piece has been tainted by anti-Boomer bigotry. It doesn't help your argument but rather makes me question the validity of all the other arguments made.

Expand full comment

This was a great article! Thank you Mr. Watson.

Expand full comment

Great article but would even be better if the vitriol aimed at the mayor and landlords was absent. I think it is so important to remain respectful and to avoid generalized comments that simply tar a whole group with the same brush. It only adds to your credibility when you rise about the fray.

Expand full comment

I've been working from home for over 40 years, and living in the suburbs for longer. And all the time asking anyone who will listen, why don't we use our abundant resources and energy to build stuff here?

And I'm a boomer. Please don't tar us all with the same brush. Still a good column. Now let's get to work!

Expand full comment

Quite the rant, with many good points. On chip manufacturing, remember government efforts over 20 years ago to attract chip manufacturers to Canada. No bites, and they don't empty that many once they are up and running.

Expand full comment

Love it. Well said.

Expand full comment

Hard to argue with any of this.

Expand full comment

We are next to the largest market in the world but we refuse to integrate with them beyond trade in goods and whatever we pick up by osmosis. Canadians I'm convinced are okay with "normal" as this author defines it. The rest of the world wonders why we lack ambition. Ambition is supposedly "Too American."

Expand full comment

Mr. Watson, your final two paragraphs, I think, summarize your position in this column:

"... instead of paying people to stay in their parents’ basements, incentivize them to go into the trades and sciences for a better future for all.

Return to “Normal?” Hard No. Let’s be awesome, innovative and visionary instead. Because normal had a lot of problems. And we can do so much better."

You don't like the "normal" that we had. Fine. What should we have? Specifics, please. Be very, very specific.

Oh, and by the way, just so you know, I absolute do have the bias that the most terrifying nine words in the English language are, "We're from the government; we're here to help you." [variously attributed primarily to R.W. Reagan - but don't think that defines my political outlook]

Kindly stop whining, get off your ass and run for public office. Quite frankly, far too many of the current candidates (successful and otherwise) are unsuitable, unsatisfactory and unable, not to mention that they are usually economically illiterate, political panderers and often in it for the pay cheque. Perhaps, you will be different. Or, perhaps not, but stop the whining and try. Therefore, please don't suggest massive government programs that will cost zillions and drive both government debt and inflation massively higher. Be creative. Remember? You wanted creativity, so stop whining and be creative.

You found a way to slam we boomers. That is fair (to the extent that slamming any group for a perceived wrong is "fair" rather than racist/ageist/***ist/blah/blah) but please recognize that some of us discussed with our now adult children the idea of going into the trades, etc.; some of us really did try to accomplish what you seem to want (well, as best I can discern your wants, other than nirvana, of course).

But, but, but, quite your damned whining. You put forth what you perceive as problems and, perhaps, they are but those things (tiny apartments, etc., etc., etc.) occurred for many rational reasons. You may well disagree that the end results (tiny apartments, etc., etc., etc.) are actually rational but you need to look at the WHY of things and what the trade offs were that resulted in the decisions that allowed those things.

So, stop you whining and propose concrete, well thought out solutions. Remember, any policy change will gore SOMEONE'S ox so consider all those oxen to be gored and why it is better for that result as compared to a completely different result and then and only then put forth your "better" alternative. Then think through the second, third, fourth, etc. level of your proposed changes.

But stop you damned whining.

Expand full comment

Watson's piece is the best analysis of what is fundamentally wrong with Canada right now. The question is how to make any --even one--of his solutions to Canada's malaise happen. I doubt if any candidate running in the recent Ontario election addressed these issues. Silence on the Federal front. Any suggestions?

Expand full comment

Hopefully the current inflationary spiral has discredited all vestiges of MMT. Government needs to get back to meaningful measures to boost productivity like building pipelines, expanding ports and building highways. "Stimulus" in all forms has been ineffective and given government a free ride.

Expand full comment