Lord’s economic legacy

Data is going to trickle in over the next months and years that will help us better assess the impact of the Lord government over the past seven years. As you know, it is increasingly likely that we will show another Census to Census population decline when the #s start being published early next.

Here’s another interesting and rather troubling statistic.

In 2005, 23% of tax filers in New Brunswick reported investment income – the second lowest percentage among the ten provinces in Canada. Investment income per capita in Nova Scotia in 2005 was almost $900 while it was less than $500 in New Brunswick. Albertans reported $1,571/per person in investment income.

From 1999 to 2005, per capita investment income reported by tax payers in New Brunswick increased by 28% – the lowest increase among the ten provinces in Canada, by far. So we were second lowest in Canada for per capita investment income in 1999 and in 2005 we are also second last but by an even further margin.

Why does this matter? If New Brunswickers aren’t saving at least to the level of other Maritime provinces that will ultimately put an even greater strain on the social infrastructure in the province – relative to other provinces.

Increase in Per Capita Investment Income
By Province 1999 to 2005

Alberta – 88%
Saskatchewan -73%
Quebec 62%
British Columbia 60%
Nova Scotia 59%
Canada 56%
Prince Edward Island 48%
Ontario 42%
Newfoundland 38%
Manitoba 35%
New Brunswick 28%

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Lord’s economic legacy

  1. David Campbell says:

    I was just thinking about an Al Hogan editorial pre-election where he went on and on about how great New Brunswick’s economy was and how Nova Scotia should learn from Bernard Lord and New Brunswick. Of course, he didn’t cite any actual statistics but this kind of report shows that Al Hogan is living in a world of his own construction. He’s Moncton’s version of ‘bubble boy’ only he spews information from this hermetically sealed world to 40,000 homes a day to make them believe they live in that bubble too.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Where did you get your figures?

  3. David Campbell says:

    Just click on the links. I did a rudimentary Excel spreadsheet comparing the #s in 1999 to 2005. Simple math.

  4. scott says:

    As you know, it is increasingly likely that we will show another Census to Census population decline when the #s start being published early next.

    Not that I need data to show me the failings of any provincial government here on the economic development file, but you may be surprised in what you find.

    Moreover, if you want to make a case for petty growth charts and numbers, then take a look at the city of Moncton and Dieppe…a region that Al Hogan and Lord were accused of favouring both in policy and in the press.

    I believe the census may be kind to Moncton in that it will most likely show a positive gain in population wherein they will be the largest urban metropolitan area in New Brunswick. For the first time in its history I might add. 😉

  5. MonctonLandlord says:

    Scott, to add to this, the day with are officially awarded CMA status, hope the invitation to Globe and Mail is sent to come see, imagine if the new Executive Director of Corp de dév. économique de Dieppe, spends the required $$$ to have an insert in G&M. All cameras pointing here is a great basis for any politician to go and “Dance on Bay Street”.

    DC, any way to find-out when and which city was the last to grow to CMA?

  6. MonctonLandlord says:

    ACOA (APÉCA) – At least in french the word Économique appears. re: the post above, what are they going to do when the Moncton economic news breaks-out nationally. What a poorly run agency, too bad the model isn’t the same as FedNor.

    And DC, I can assure you, some former NBers read your blogs, they are proud, and they appreciate that 100% of the time you are dead on the money!

  7. David Campbell says:

    http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030331/d030331f.htm

    Statistics Canada is revising the threshold criteria used to define census metropolitan areas, effective for the 2006 Census. This decision is part of Statistics Canada’s ongoing efforts to ensure that its standard geographic areas remain up-to-date, relevant and meaningful.

    In recent years, clients have questioned whether the requirement for an urban core of 100,000 is too restrictive and, as a consequence, excludes census agglomerations that are metropolitan in nature. Recent research shows that total population of a census agglomeration is more predictive of its metropolitan nature than the population of its urban core. In particular, this research shows that once a census agglomeration attains a total population of at least 100,000 it exhibits metropolitan characteristics.

    Based on these findings and consultations with stakeholders in the fall of 2002 as part of the 2006 Census content determination process, Statistics Canada will no longer require that a census agglomeration have an urban core of 100,000 to be promoted to the status of a census metropolitan area. Instead, a census agglomeration will assume the status of a census metropolitan area if it has a total population of at least 100,000 and an urban core of 50,000 or more. This change in criteria responds to client requests for a more inclusive approach to defining census metropolitan areas.

    Under these revised criteria, two new census metropolitan areas will be added for the 2006 Census: Moncton and Peterborough. Three others – Guelph, Barrie and Kelowna – had already met the old requirement of an urban core of 100,000 based on the 2001 Census results.

    NOTE: I fought hard for this reclassification including a racous personal meeting with the head of the Census from Stats Can, I had the issue raised by Senator Robertson in the Senate and I wrote a number of letters. Mission accomplished.

    Ooopps. I don’t mean that in the G.W. Bush sense of the phrase.