Brett Thalmann

This is a fantastic piece in today’s @globeandmail by @arthurhlam on the failures of “branch plant” industrial policy in Canada. Entire article is worth reading but a few call-outs below. Glad we’re finally having this debate! - - - “Stelco and Stellantis are just two examples of multinationals accused of breaking their Canadian commitments to pursue their own financial interests. This trend undermines a central tenet of the federal government’s approach to jobs and economic development: branch-plant economics, where Canada hosts factories and offices owned by foreign-headquartered corporations.” “Canadians should be upset not only that these multinationals took Canadians’ hard-earned taxpayer dollars and enriched their foreign shareholders, but that governments encouraged this unsustainable model of economic development.” “We should not subsidize companies that put foreign shareholders and governments ahead of their commitments to Canadian communities, businesses and workers. Canadian-owned companies tend to have a deeper stake in how this country turns out, and our industrial policy should reflect that.”

Friends, you should check out Lee’s great economic plan. It offers a different approach to economic development than what Ontario is used to, and covers some big things I’ve long talked about. It’s clear our government’s “old way” of supporting businesses has been inefficient given the outcomes, and that we have underperformed on growth, productivity, and building real capacity. Here are a few things Lee’s plan that I particularly like: - Moving public support away from straight grants toward equity co investment alongside private capital and repayable loans. This lets taxpayers share in the upside. The goal is building anchor companies that keep the jobs, the IP, the dividends, and the supply chains in Ontario. - Using procurement so government can act as a buyer of first resort. This does not mean handing cheques to everyone. It means moving faster to test and buy from new companies that are solving real problems. Becoming a proven customer is often more valuable to a young firm than a subsidy. It can also give proof to larger Canadian businesses, which are often slower and more risk averse than their American counterparts, to try new products and partnerships. - Making it faster and easier to start and grow businesses through regulatory reform. Simplifying rules and streamlining how government interacts with firms, with a goal of making Ontario one of the easiest places in North America to do business. - Prioritizing energy and infrastructure by economic return, and pursuing a more “manufacturing” approach to both. That means using standard designs and repeatable procurement to control costs. - A couple of ideas you will have seen from my platform, like pre permitting investment ready sites and partnering with Canadian pensions and private capital on infrastructure. There is clear alignment among many liberals on the importance of productivity and growth to generate the wealth that pays for the things we want in our society (ie great public education, universal healthcare). You’ll see this reflected in the solid platform released by Stephanie Bowman as well! Disclosure: I gave some policy advice earlier, but this is Lee’s plan. leefairclough.ca/policy/econ…

This is a great housing plan by Lee! One thing we talked a lot about during the campaign is changing how we build, so that new housing is more beautiful. (I believe social buy-in for housing abundance is only possible long term if more of what we build is higher quality, in both materials and architecture.) The good news is that if we get tax, land use, permitting, and other rules right, we can lower prices and improve quality at the same time. Lee and I share a similar view on the path forward, and you should read more in her plan: 1) Homeownership is part of our culture, and the opportunity to achieve it matters especially to young Ontarians. Lee is committed to enabling 150,000 new home starts each year by lowering building costs so more projects are viable, through municipal infrastructure funding, tax reforms, building code reform, and reasonable zoning reform. - - 2) Rental prices are too high, and tenure security policies (i.e., rent control) can be paired with incentives to lower building costs and limit supply impact. This includes commitments to fund more non-market housing, align with Build Canada Homes on additional project capital and pipelines, fixing the LTB, and other incentives for market supply. - - 3) Solving homelessness and addiction challenges is a priority and requires a two-pronged approach: - Preventing people from becoming homeless in the first place through welfare reform - Expanding capacity of our rehabilitative health and transitional/supportive housing systems Simply put, this approach is compassionate and common sense. - - - Read more: leefairclough.ca/policy/hous… Disclosure: I provided some guidance on policy (but did not put it together)