No kidding Audrey! That sounds like my “history” teacher in 1965-1966. He refused to call is social studies. It is from him that I began to learn to think critically. There’s always more “under the hood.” Thank you for this. 🫶🇨🇦
Agree with your analysis 100%. A big part of the problem is the difference between having a politician in charge and an economist. The politician tends to think in 4 year cycles while an economist thinks long term, 15, 20 years or even longer. This clear from many of Carney’s programs from the electrical energy plan by 2050 to many of the shorter plans for docks, railways, electrical corridors etc.
The other side a plan is implementation. There must be quick and immediate action to mobilize the plan, because big things do take a long time. Even not such big things! Think of the Harper initiated plan to built Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS). There must be plan was first tabled in 2007, Definition Phase Approval in 2012, Implementation Approval in 2014 and the last of the 6 ships went into service in 2025! Almost 20 years for 6 ships. 7 years from concept to final approval! This is what the MPO is there for. Once an idea or concept is tabled, we need to move quickly to approve, find investors, initiate contracts and get the job done. If it takes us 20 years to build 6 ships we will never get half of what Carney plans accomplished.
Well said David! We have a winner in Carney. Best PM in my lifetime. Loved the way you described the politician vs the economist. It’s indeed the four year cycle “gotcha” that seems to always mess things up.
I think some people might misunderstand WHY Canada didn't do the "make it here" model, and instead just became a resource provider. The answer is a bit two-fold: Historically, England wanted all manufacturing done there - so "colonies" were hewers of trees, miners of mines, etc., etc. to send raw materials to the mother country (this was one of the reasons for the American Rebellion). But further along in history, with both the British and American influences were at play, the answer was simple economics: It was CHEAPER to just get the resource extraction happening, rather than build an entire industry ecosystem. Factories existed elsewhere already, and just needed more supply of materials. So . . . . .
Back then, nobody ever considered that UK or USA would ever be seriously adversarial or outright threatening to Canada. So now that we have "grown up", one starts rethinking supply chain and national resilience. Now, we won't manufacture everything here—but it certainly doesn't hurt to do SOME of it in Canada, where it makes sense (and the rest, spread it out between several countries).
Look at aluminum smelting -- it happens in Quebec only because it was cheaper to do that here (and that is a good thing, because it has made our Al valuable elsewhere). But we certainly could be doing more with other industries (and to feed on the Al story, like maybe making pop cans, etc. in Canada instead of having to import them from USA).
I come from a small city in ON where there was so much manufacturing going on. Everyone had a job and a job with pensions and unions! Now this city is just about a ghost town! High unemployment, the young people leaving because there isn't any work! The 50's, 60's and seventies provided good jobs to 1000's of men and women. Heck, GE was making nuclear reactors for power that was exported all over the world. And what happened to all these companies. Most of the moved south or off shore! Canadians were the losers. I applaud our PM for trying to get this going again. OUr young people need good jobs, housing and pensions! Lets get working Canada!!
I remember my social studies teacher in 1965 saying something similar. Wake up Canada, we aren't just a resource exporter
No kidding Audrey! That sounds like my “history” teacher in 1965-1966. He refused to call is social studies. It is from him that I began to learn to think critically. There’s always more “under the hood.” Thank you for this. 🫶🇨🇦
Ireland used to sell most of its livestock “on the hoof”
Then it switched to processing the animals and selling the meat - a mega lift in the country’s profit base!
Agree with your analysis 100%. A big part of the problem is the difference between having a politician in charge and an economist. The politician tends to think in 4 year cycles while an economist thinks long term, 15, 20 years or even longer. This clear from many of Carney’s programs from the electrical energy plan by 2050 to many of the shorter plans for docks, railways, electrical corridors etc.
The other side a plan is implementation. There must be quick and immediate action to mobilize the plan, because big things do take a long time. Even not such big things! Think of the Harper initiated plan to built Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS). There must be plan was first tabled in 2007, Definition Phase Approval in 2012, Implementation Approval in 2014 and the last of the 6 ships went into service in 2025! Almost 20 years for 6 ships. 7 years from concept to final approval! This is what the MPO is there for. Once an idea or concept is tabled, we need to move quickly to approve, find investors, initiate contracts and get the job done. If it takes us 20 years to build 6 ships we will never get half of what Carney plans accomplished.
Well said David! We have a winner in Carney. Best PM in my lifetime. Loved the way you described the politician vs the economist. It’s indeed the four year cycle “gotcha” that seems to always mess things up.
I think some people might misunderstand WHY Canada didn't do the "make it here" model, and instead just became a resource provider. The answer is a bit two-fold: Historically, England wanted all manufacturing done there - so "colonies" were hewers of trees, miners of mines, etc., etc. to send raw materials to the mother country (this was one of the reasons for the American Rebellion). But further along in history, with both the British and American influences were at play, the answer was simple economics: It was CHEAPER to just get the resource extraction happening, rather than build an entire industry ecosystem. Factories existed elsewhere already, and just needed more supply of materials. So . . . . .
Back then, nobody ever considered that UK or USA would ever be seriously adversarial or outright threatening to Canada. So now that we have "grown up", one starts rethinking supply chain and national resilience. Now, we won't manufacture everything here—but it certainly doesn't hurt to do SOME of it in Canada, where it makes sense (and the rest, spread it out between several countries).
Look at aluminum smelting -- it happens in Quebec only because it was cheaper to do that here (and that is a good thing, because it has made our Al valuable elsewhere). But we certainly could be doing more with other industries (and to feed on the Al story, like maybe making pop cans, etc. in Canada instead of having to import them from USA).
I come from a small city in ON where there was so much manufacturing going on. Everyone had a job and a job with pensions and unions! Now this city is just about a ghost town! High unemployment, the young people leaving because there isn't any work! The 50's, 60's and seventies provided good jobs to 1000's of men and women. Heck, GE was making nuclear reactors for power that was exported all over the world. And what happened to all these companies. Most of the moved south or off shore! Canadians were the losers. I applaud our PM for trying to get this going again. OUr young people need good jobs, housing and pensions! Lets get working Canada!!
Good history lesson Grant! Thank you!
I think Carney got it.
Again a provocative, succinct article Fred! Prompted some really good commentary. TKX!