Easier to spend money than to make it

I don’t know. Maybe it’s just me. But it’s kind of funny how the Liberal government can ‘transform’ the way it delivers social services, creating a new Department of Social Development and hiring a new deputy minister with an expertise in poverty issues brought in from in Montreal.

And on the economic development front, no changes, no new blood – in fact the deputy minister is only part-time.

Funny stuff. How about bringing in an expert on economic development? How about creating a new ‘department’ of economic development? Where’s the whiz kid from Montreal on economic development?

I guess it proves the old point. It’s easier to spend money than to make it. However, when you stake your government’s whole brand on making money (bringing the province to economic self sufficiency), you had better at least make a passing effort.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Easier to spend money than to make it

  1. Gawain says:

    In fact, NB had the good fortune of accommodating one of the world’s pre-eminent economic development scholars/experts at UNBSJ until recently when he left to take a position at Ryerson in Upper Canada. Among other successes, while at the now-defunct Science Council of Canada, he spearheaded the much-respected Technology Engine program, the policy framework of which has been adopted in several highly successful jurisdictions — but not in Canada where apparently we will pay for studies but not initiate any of the recommendations.

    Rumors are that he left NB in part because of the “tribalism” that made doing anything almost impossible. Being from away has its risks. For him, it came back to culture…

  2. NB taxpayer says:

    Good point, David. I think we both know that this is bad news for our underdeveloped private sector. Although, I’m sure we could both debate ’til the wee hours of the night about how we should develop it. But that doesn’t mean you are a valiant reformer…which I think you are. Keep pushin’ the envelope my friend.

  3. Anonymous says:

    The stories that Mr. Fraser refers to I’ve heard several times, and they tend to be pretty old stories,” Lussier said.

    He said a 2005 protocol requires provinces and territories to provide financial reports when they receive federal money for language education.

    “We ask the province to provide an action plan which specifies how much and how they’re going to spend the money,” Lussier said. “We’ve got to … receive financial reports on how they spend the money, and they also have to submit certified financial reports which live up to pretty rigorous standards.”

    Annual federal government spending on English and French-language education stood at $281 million for 2005-06, with an additional $639 million spent by the provinces, according to the annual report by the Department of Canadian Heritage.

    The money is spent to help anglophones in Quebec — and francophones in other provinces — go to school in their maternal language, and to help students learn a second official language.

    Yes the Delbert principle hard at work.
    Its actually good to see this part of North America,go down the drain.It earned it.

  4. NB taxpayer says:

    Hey David, I know you’re interested in the history of the old Soviet Union.

    Anyway, away from the history for a moment, it’s interesting to see what is happening in many jurisdiction [there] which have adopted a flat tax and, in turn, have attracted significant investment from the manufacturing industry.

    If you haven’t already read it, then this article by Neil Reynolds may be of interest to you, especially since UPM-Kymmene has form a joint venture and moved their operations to the Vologda region of Northwest Russia. A state of the art facility?? Why not in NB???

  5. David Campbell says:

    These companies are in business to make money. Some of the ex-Soviet client states are very interested in attracting investment and are enacting tax policies and other programs to attract it. New Brunswick will never be among the most aggressive states for economic development – not on tax policy – not on incentive policy – not on the use of power as an economic development tool, etc. I am just hoping that we will at least get in the game. But some battles will be lost and UPM seems to be one of them.