i for one will be happy when they consolidate the ridings as there is so much duplication and waste. Young people and professionals are leaving the towns to the crusty old folks who don’t want any change whatsover which perpetuates the cycle.

And perhaps “hey, we saw what you did with the Federal-Provincial Infrastructure Fund-you spent it twinning a small stretch of the Trans Canada Highway. Don’t you know we like privatized highways?”

Alward: Well, it IS privately managed..

Not to be too critical, but the blog says both that municipal elections are really important, then adds several reasons why they really don’t matter at all. That 40% turnout is still an accomplishment, I think only the atlantic coast gets that kind of turnout. I honestly don’t know whether that makes maritimers bigger suckers, or whether its actually a good thing.

Whats sadly ironic is that here in ontario and places west the turnout is lucky to be HALF that amount. And more to the point, unlike NB, courts and legislatures have been dumping all kinds of responsibilities on municipalities, so they have a LOT more power. It seems the more important the vote, the less likely people are to vote.

What always surprises me about NB is that with higher than average turnout there really is LESS variety than other places. And apart from massive financial malfeasance, its virtually impossible to unseat a sitting representative. There was a guy in Fredericton who has a law degree but was part of the occupy movement who got like, 26 votes. If that isn’t a signal for those who really want change to not bother with elections, I don’t know what is.

Also, Dawn Arnold did not win by a landslide – she took 9519 votes, compared to 7304, 7069 and 5049 received by her competitors. A good result, to be sure, but not a landslide. I would also say that calling her the “brains behind the Frye Festival” is a bit unfair to the people who actually founded the festival (council member Paulette Thériault, in 1999) and to those others who work on it today. I have nothing against Dawn Arnold – actually, I voted for her – but think what is said here is overstated.

Either way, sorry to tell you, but BC is right next to asia. Asia needs its own short term energy, but is rapidly building up long term. People talk about how alternative energy sources are ‘something for the future’, but China is building solar and wind sources at a HUGE rate. Japan, of course, is screwed for obvious reasons and needs short term power, which BC can easily supply.

The markets NB is closest to either have plenty of their own sources (scandinavia), are building up alternative power (Germany) or are too broke to ship it in (most of the others)-or are warm most of the year and don’t need nearly as much (caribean).

Now, a REALLY far reaching society would be looking at power transfer. If you want to look at real money for power, it would be the places with the technology to ship ‘energy’ in ANY form. Its amazing that the few feeble wind turbines in NB provide more power than Dalhousie and Belledune did together, yet the ‘common wisdom’ in the province is STILL that ‘wind power is something that may be cost effective some day but not yet’.

But by all means, do all the legwork for building a business plan for two decades in advance, when you still don’t even know whether there is any gas worth developing, when one of two companies that was looking for gas said there was none, and when one of the major researchers says its not even worthwhile looking for gas so they are looking for oil.

Given all the hoopla for creating a ‘hardwood institute’ in Edmunston to create eight jobs and Harpers claim that it will lead to ‘prosperity’, I think the two plans would go well together. I’d maybe suggest a third-doing the legwork for the ‘magic bean’ industry. I just happen to have a supply that will ‘lead to prosperity’, and I’d be happy to part with them for the right price. Best of all, you don’t need to spray them for decades to kill them, and then pay for an institute to study how to get them to grow again, and they won’t pollute your water (thats a magic bean guarantee!)

John Skelton
Atholville

What is stopping legal companies from following your suggestion? They certainly don’t need any government help to do that. However, you are a little behind the times, because there’s this thing called ‘the internet’, where you can go online and see that legal firms ALREADY outsource all over the world. You can do transcription in your home, so there is no need for an ‘office’ of dedicated workers in ANY province.

In health services, well, just like education, you are talking mostly about government, which either outrightly controls it, or directly funds it. Doctors, for the most part, are busy enough.

But you are messing up your themes. “Attracting Google” is NOT the same thing as assessing industries for potential growth sectors (trying to sneak in your pet theme eh?:). You want Google, I’ve got news, without government, you’ve got an even tougher road to hoe. But again, to posit MY main theme, the ONLY way to attract Google is to develop HOME GROWN companies made of educated high tech workers who will build companies that Google may buy. But if you work on that, you don’t even NEED Google, you may get the next Google, or do fine with a whole bunch of ‘Radian 6′s’.

That means getting control of government though. It means using legislation and government tools that control health and education to get all those people who are going to school and getting them to stop thinking “boy I love teaching, I can’t wait to finish school so I can get a teaching job” (since there ARE none), and getting them to think “boy I love teaching children, I’m developing software that will help teach children and marketing it all over the world”.

Or, as this blog suggests, you can beg and plead for business people to do more than they are doing-running successful businesses, and hope that they will also do the work of supplying jobs to everybody.

Didn’t mean for that to sound so ‘cynical’, but it cheeses me when people talk about the private sector ‘doing more’ and then end with ‘and we should let them’. Who is stopping them? They already have the lowest taxes in the country.

The fact that they HAVEN”T done that, indicates a VERY high probability that they won’t. In short, if you WANT it done, you’ve got to look to…..those guys we don’t like to talk about.

PS: why is it cynical to think that a company wants cheap support to help it maximize profits, and doesn’t want to welcome other industries that may drive up wages and increase competition for both workers and customers? That seems pretty common sense to me. That Irving does that certainly doesn’t SURPRISE me, and I don’t even blame THEM for it, I blame the government that caves in to them. And before we get too weepy for the poor business people, I’m pretty sure that old JD Irving now has more public statues in the province than virtually ANY other public figure.

And as has been said, all you have to do is make those ‘refundable tax credits’ into ‘non refundable tax credits’ and the whole problem goes away. Although I fail to see why even the FEDERAL government makes tax credits in this industry refundable, yet all for the sake of five million dollars, its not good enough for New Brunswick.

The salient point here, I think, is that we need to take a deeper look at the overall effect of subsidies on industries. There are plenty of people who rattle on based on ideological or theoretical grounds, but few who actually take the time to dig in and see that cause/effect.

Forgiven loans and tax breaks in industries that have an overall positive net effect are positive things. People often see them as rewarding large corporations for things they’d do otherwise, but there’s a pretty big library of work out there that suggests that large corporations are becoming more mobile and more willing to up and move than ever before.

So while we might cringe at who our tax dollars are going to on some ideological ground, the reality is that if you want a type of behaviour to occur and you’re willing to incentivize it, you should really know what happens after the fact.

This is from Statscan catalogue number 87-010, the service bulletin for the film and video production industry. So lets do some analysis.

In Nova Scotia its relatively easy,because the province has a crown corporation through which it funds film and video production.

In 2010, Operating Expenses were 66.4 million, while revenues were 68.7 million. Now, the argument is that subsidies tip the scale. This is where Film Nova Scotia comes in. However, its TOTAL budget is 3 million, only 2 million goes to programming. Which basically makes it pretty much break even. That maybe excludes federal sources, but if you are building an industry, why lament the fact that Albertans are bankrolling your industry?

In that industry, wages amount to 17.8 million. So the Nova Scotia government is spending $3 million to help bankroll an industry that generates 17.8 million in wages. I don’t know squat about ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’, but the ONLY thing I can see that would make this industry unprofitable is because the FEDERAL government is putting money into it. And if so, again, what sense does it make to kill an industry just because the feds are putting money into it and making it ultimately not ‘cost effective’?

And this is really weird, because NB and NS are TOTALLY different. In that same year NB had revenues of 13.3 (68.7 in NS) and expenses of 14 million (66.4 in NS), with wages of 2.9 million, which is practically non existent. So its true that in NB’s case the number is negative, although to be fair, Statscan admits that ‘non incorporated entities are not factored’, and we all know that NB tends to grow proprietorships rather than corporations at this level.

So those figures are also from statscan, and seem to me to create quite a different picture. Its true, NB is still a ‘losing proposition’, but if you look at the BC, Ontario and NS examples, you need to have some kind of actual industry in order to make the books tip into the black.

To be fair, in the three years counted in the service bulletin, on only two of those years do revenues exceed expenses. During 2008 the number even in NS is negative. However, that tends to vary. In Newfoundland one year had a 10% profit margin, and a 6% profit margin and the following year saw a -6% loss. Only Ontario and BC had profitable years EVERY year. However, again, we are talking about essentially KILLING an industry before it even gets off the ground in New Brunswick.

Obviously we can’t comment on emails, but the comments were pretty lacklustre. There was a big post with confusing numbers that basically said “investment in film is a dead end”. MY point was that in order to build that industry, you don’t rely on cutting virtually the only support that it had.

There really SHOULD be a post with the other year’s I/O so that there can be a judgement. At the very least it will be VERY interesting to compare it to 2010 when the credits were cut, and many productions said they were leaving the province.

But to compare it to forestry again, the point in forestry was that although there were a few ‘big’ players who dodged taxes, they supported enough jobs and indirect investment that it made the practise worthwhile (depending who you talk to). So the point in the film industry is comparable, the data showed that indirect spending made the industry profitable, and at the very most the ‘subsidies’ ranked only about five million. And for that you have to figure out what final product came out of it. To make a comparison, although taxpayers are on the hook for Charles Leblanc’s welfare payments, I personally think that his blog-in entertainment value alone-is ‘worth’ the six thousand dollars of ‘subsidy’ that NBers send his way (and it also has the added value of putting a roof over his head).

As for statistics canada data, that is ALWAYS highly variable depending of course on what you are looking at. Some published studies from statscan uses other organization’s data, and some they openly admit is restricted by numerous variables. My point though wasn’t to critique the data presented though, because I didn’t even understand most of it, and that the film industry lost more than it brought in wouldn’t surprise me at all. The fact there is ANY industry in the province surprises me.

That’s funny to me.

And to be fair, I know the government WERE promising a new package that was supposed to include all other forms of digital manufacturing, maybe I missed it, but pretty sure we’re still waiting.

And again, from a public policy point of view people here are missing the point. If you don’t like subsidies of ANY kind or corporate welfare of any kind, that’s fine. But that is NOT the issue, because the government IS directly funding production, but it has said ‘only productions we like’-like the guys who are shooting the movie about the Bathurst basketball team. So that corporate welfare IS still going on, but instead of a refundable tax credit, it is simply a ‘handout’ with no set legislation marking how the money is to be used at all.

As for the mining industry, Brunswick Mining and Smelting was notorious for not paying taxes. There are so many carry forwards in the mining and forestry industry that revenues come from payroll taxes and other taxes (not income). Fraser has been in bankruptcy protection for YEARS now, and forestry carry forwards were changed to expand to ten years.

I don’t usually argue with statistics canada, but I’m aware of the big forestry companies in the province, and I’d have to see how those numbers are added. There is almost no mining going on in the province anymore, so for forestry, there are five leaseholders-if you can find me a balance sheet that says “X” amount went to corporate income tax then I’ll believe that. But I’m NOT talking about the taxes that the owner of Fredericton Plywood pays, or some private landowners. I’m talking about what were previously the ‘big five’.

And again, those industries rely on relocating those costs. So for example, there is considerable evidence that clearcuts increase water runoff, and most people have no doubt noted the extreme flooding that happens now each year. That is a HUGE cost, but Twin Rivers certainly doesn’t pay it, nor is it calculated in statistic canada documents.

And just to add my quick two cents, I personally don’t think you need to subsidize this stuff AT ALL. Big productions usually make the worst quality. Like other provinces, New Brunswick simply needs its own internet or television station. It needs a place to ‘feature’ product. Look how much money feeds into Irving, all because its literally the ONLY place to advertise. Or else change the mandate of Rogers Television, which doesn’t even ALLOW them to produce anything but the crap they have on. Somehow they got around that with “Acadiaman”, but by law they can’t fund or show drama on their local stations.

As a New Brunswicker who moved to Nova Scotia many years ago but still works film gigs there on occasion, I’d say Marc, Mikel and Thom’s appraisals are bang on.

The other issue in NB is the “three centers” problem – Fredericton, Moncton & Saint John where supplies and labour aren’t sufficient for that center to handle all needs, so people and materials are brought in for a production. Plus, a lack of infrastructure in NB is a real issue. Sound stages built outside any major center or built only for one show will always fail once that one project ends.

In the heady days of yore, when IA 849 was just starting, I found a mid-1980’s report from BC (perhaps done by ACTRA??) showing that government investment in film had an economic return that was 2 to 3 times higher than those for mining, forestry or fishing. So, seeing this Globe article claiming that film’s a sinkhole, was a real shock for me.

What’s that old joke? There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!

If these new stats are true, how did we get from being an excellent economic incubator to a lousy one? The writers, crews and producers developed their skills, equipment houses settled in, sound stages, post services and animation houses appeared (and some sadly disappeared) school-based training programs grew and our films are world class.

Crew pay cheques certainly aren’t as “robust” as they were and departmental budgets are far smaller too – so how can gov. investment in film not be succeeding as it did before all of these “adjustments”? I just don’t get it.

I remember a story that in 1990 the NSFDC was created only after a politician was told that without any assistance, the NS film biz was “bigger than blueberries”. I wonder, are we still bigger than blueberries?

Rather than looking at film in a vacuum, it would be interesting to see that BC report from the 1980’s again and update it to see how we’re actually doing compared to other industries like fishing, forestry and mining. Mr. Campbell, I hope you’ll have a go at this. Although it may not garner as much press, it would be a far more useful exercise.

The reason for the rise and decline , government money drove it and once that was gone too much space sat dormant and building owners found full time tenants . In the case of the South Shore the local development corporation took a bath on a soundstage. I think the Film Industry can use funding but David Campbell has really dug up something here that points once again to a sense of entitlement in our region that indeed has had Taxpayers as Shareholders in the most risky business in the world Entertainment. Banks dont loan to these things so why are taxpayers the unwilling shareholders in a business that fails to make money. I think funding hobbies is for the ones who enjoy them. How much were we out for K-19 widowmaker which did not recover the costs from the box office.

I suspect there is, and so a certain density of creative talent must be available, in my humble opinion. One year is hardly indicative of the overall activity of the industry. I can’t speak to the value of tax credits as they are applied in this industry, I would be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

NB and Saskatchewan are apples and grapefruits. When the ALward government cancelled the tax rebate, I’m pretty sure I remember the complaint was that “it costs the government 3-5 million dollars a year”. I’m almost positive that was the number, but somebody can check. That is NOTHING. Like I’ve said, the Alward ‘gift’ to apartment owners is going to cost the government SIXTY SEVEN MILLION every single year. So its absolutely insane to complain about five million going to video production.

The other problem is one of averages. For example, SOME video and film production is geared for ‘entertainment’, its meant to make money, simple as that, there is no other real need for it. However, other products are things like documentaries or cultural products, where everybody KNOWS they won’t make money, but there is a ‘good’ invested in the product itself. And you really need to compare the two as separate. And again, how much of that ‘subsidy’ is FEDERAL, maybe through the Heritage department or other federal programs. In that case, its not the province at all.

After reading your post from last year and the comments and the expectation that you will once again see many more for this post, I wanted to make a suggestion. It was clear the vast majority of the readers think film credits represent a tax break that merely represent a reduction in the amount of taxes collected. This is a common misconception and it is 100% the opposite of how the credits work. There is a MAJOR reason film credits are “refundable”–it’s because production companies almost never owe or pay taxes. Almost all of the credits issued in jurisdictions that offer refundable film credits are redeemed for a direct cash payout of their face value. In effect, if a project is awarded a $100,000 tax credit and its tax liability (assuming it has one at all) is just $1,000, then the government writes a check for the other $99,000 and its free cash in the producers pocket. In Saskatchewan, for example, just $2 million was used to cover owed taxes and the remaining $98 million was paid out as cash. It’s critical people understand this.

In France, because of runoff voting, Sarkozy is having to make bigoted comments because the only way he is going to defeat the socialist candidate is by getting the hard right vote-whose leader refused to endorse him. There is a very real chance France could elect a President who is openly talking about nationalizing industries.

In the US, at the federal level there is no ‘fight’. There is a very real fight, but right now its going on at the state level, and at ‘occupy’ locations.

People don’t like to admit it, but poll after poll shows that MOST of the people of the world are ‘socialists’, they just don’t have any representation or power. They are getting some nominal power in central and south america, but thats it.

In the US, because of our proximity, everything is bigger and bolder. However, there aren’t nearly the protests on the level of european states. The example you give is telling. As for women, Obama refused to endorse a pay equity bill for women, saying that was the state’s business.

However, its an election year, so OF COURSE there is going to be an equal and opposite reaction to an election barb. But that has zero to do with policy. Women in the US know they really have no friends in either the democratic or republican party.

I think ALL political struggles are existential struggles. I don’t really see how an advert on women friendly policies signals more of a ‘fight for the soul of america’ than any european struggles. I guarantee you one thing-anything as big as a ‘fight for the sould’ of ANYWHERE won’t take place on ‘social media’. That’s like saying New Brunswick is ready for social upheaval because of the complaints on CBC online articles.

For example, in the subsidies section, calculating out the effect on GDP there is NO number calculated as to actual ‘sales’ of product. The closest thing I can find is ‘output’, but that is not calculated with total GDP for some reason. Unless it is ‘other operating surplus’, which seems a bit of a catch all.

Second, ‘output’ is 1.00 for ALL three provinces? Come on, get real.

But counting in the indirect jobs and actually the total GDP comes out to only -.07. That’s actually pretty good considering all factors. The province doesn’t even have its own television station, unlike most western provinces. Most english NBers probably couldn’t name a single NB production in the last five years.

And compare it to other industries. Natural resource industries basically rely on a piece of the province which is taken away forever. Given lumber subsidies and bailouts, I’d have a hard time believing that the numbers come out much different for most resource industries.

So considering the industry was in such a nascent stage, that’s actually a pretty good listing.

And from a public policy point of view, I should remind readers that when the tax incentives were cancelled, whether you agree with them or not, the province changed its position to one of directly funding productions (which they like). For example, the production about the boys basketball team in Bathurst recieved an outright grant from the province. A policy, I seem to recall, that usually isn’t that popular around here.

I have to speak from the experience of a Nova Scotian employed by the film industry in my province. New Brunswick’s film industry is, frankly, radically different.

I question the choice of year used to calculate these GDP figures. In 2008, Nova Scotia experienced a terrible decline in production, dropping to $76 million and making it the first year in more than a decade that production was less than $100 million. The following year, production rebounded to $150 million. I’m certain this substantial fluctuation would have an impact on your GDP calculations. I can’t actually check how you arrived at these figures, as the hyperlinks you published don’t lead to the data (unless I spend hundreds of dollars requesting them from Statistic Canada, I’m guessing).

Unlike many Canadian provinces, the majority of the activity in Nova Scotia is indigenous, meaning it is local producers and filmmakers who are telling their own stories, screening them at prestigious festivals like Sundance and Cannes, airing them on every major network, and generating economic activity while doing so. The industry employs over 3,000, and is, in the words of the Nova Scotia government, “a cornerstone of the creative economy.” It employs local writers, directors, actors, musicians, visual artists, animators, graphic designers, costume designers and many others, and clearly has a major impact on numerous other industries, while making Halifax and other communities in the province a more vibrant place to live for all.

New Brunswick has a younger, less established film industry, and it has struggled to gain that critical mass that Nova Scotia has achieved. The New Brunswick government’s musing of cancelling the tax credit has seriously injured prospects there. I can say this from my own experience, as I know of so many young, ambitious and creative New Brunswickers who have moved to Nova Scotia to be a part of the vibrant arts scene here.

Nova Scotia is implementing a strategy of nurturing a creative economy that will have an impact on the province’s future for decades. New Brunswick has stumbled badly in this regard, and I feel it is unfortunate the province’s politicians have lacked this vision. I guess the question remains: how important are the arts, and the telling of our own stories, to the future of a province? I suppose we will see in a few years time.

Some people have been scornful of ‘multi-national corporations’ – do you want mom ‘n pop firms to be drilling for shale gas? I don’t know about you but I prefer big firms with a good track record and deep pockets If Moncton’s Major Drilling got into shale gas, I might change my mind on this. As for Windsor and Sussex, that was illegal.

As for the price, very few are suggesting that NB’s natural gas will be commercially viable in the short term. The debate now is whether or not we should cancel the R&D agreements we have in place with existing firms. The current activity is just testing to see if there is gas and if it can be extracted. While not an expert, I doubt there will be any commercial production in New Brunswick until the price rebounds. I have said we should be looking at developing local markets for gas – if we have gas, why not look for more opportunities to use it here?

Although, within 10 years, it may be a moot point as I am told there are times up to 80% of Sable gas never crosses the U.S. border because it is used in NB and NS (and a little in PEI). When that supply runs out we will have LNG or local supply.

Enbridge? The whole thing is sad and there are no winners. I had hoped they would come to an agreement.

You are a valued voice of sanity in the crazy (and often absurd) world of policy in New Brunswick. I don’t always agree with you – but you are always thoughtful and articulate. We need more “It’s the Economy, Stupid.”

Chris

PS If you feel the title of this blog is insulting, perhaps you are taking the “stupid” part a little too personally.

I completely disagree, I think in NB there has ALWAYS been a focus on the bottom line.

I remember the good old days, when there was a lot more political pontificating, and quite a few jabs here at the Irving media. Now its mostly economic analysis, and pretty dry (but interesting). Right around the time you stopped the comments the blogs got very generic-very interesting, but I didn’t miss not commenting because there was really nothing to comment ON.

I doubt people get ‘turned off’ because of the title, you’d have to be REALLY stupid to get that kind of offended. However, in hot button topics you kind of tend to stand in no man’s land. You essentially defend the powers that be (selling NBPower, more fracking), when that government is gone, there is nobody left to stand WITH you.

I do think it says more about the province than it does about you. I remember an anonymous guy who started a blog that was an offshoot of CHarles Leblanc’s. He used to write horribly conservative stuff, but I think he had about a dozen politicians who wrote comments-WITH their names-and they were mostly liberal party reps. I remember Burke even offered him a job!

But the big thing about ‘resonating’ is the question of ‘what is it you want to resonate?’ The government, for example, ONLY talks about the economy. So what is your complaint? That people aren’t all buying into the government’s line? That’s pretty tough when the government announces spending half a million dollars to hopefully find savings in health care. Or are you upset that some people are protesting fracking? Did you want to see EVERYONE with hands up cheering? Did you want to see everyone cheering the selling of NBPower? If you do, then personally I’m GLAD that’s not resonating.

Again, you don’t see much result, because like I’ve said before, you guys never advocate any policies. Charles blog could be measured as to the success or failure of the new residential tenants act-and its no surprise that as soon as he stopped talking about it, it languished in no man’s land for four years. As others have said, its easy to criticize, everybody does it. But there needs to be a policy or something to push. Unless you are just hoping for economic groupies in tight T-shirts cheering “more foreign investment, more foreign investment!”

I don’t think you see the ‘resonance’ because you are preaching to the choir. The difference is, you think the solution is to bend over for specific industries, and certainly not everyone sees it that way-and why should they? And personally I think they are right not to. But your economic analysis comes down to “here’s how bad it is in NB” and most people KNOW that almost instinctively already.

The other reason I don’t think you get more government reaction HERE is a line I remember from “A bridge too far”, which was “you’re terribly bright, and that tends to make people nervous”. It’s good-and bad-that you’ve got some principles. I think if you were against the NBPower sale and against fracking, and posted ‘some’ of the research those oppose have, you’d be all set for a pretty lucrative political career.

But to be fair. We now know the government was lying, and that NBPower is in better shape than they maintained. And we know that fracking is not lucrative-its so cheap even Windsor Energy says it is looking for oil. But although you’ve talked down to those who maintained both of those views, as said above, you’ve never really granted any credence to those views.

In short, you really have no issues that you really push hard. When you push hard, it seems to be against people who are pushing HARDER in the opposite direction. Not sure that makes sense, but finally, just wanted to add, that no blog can really be measured by the blog owner, you just never know where it may lead. Charles has a great blog because 30,000 of the poorest New Brunswickers now have rights, and because the police happened to pick on him in Saint John when they shouldn’t have. THAT ‘resonates’ with people, but only SOME people (as you can see by his comments section). I think maybe part of the reason you stopped the video podcast was the realization that you can’t ‘film’ economic analysis. I think a good video podcast would be you and that lady from the Purple Violet Press, as you both seem to have ‘sort of’ counter views on things, but a real drive to talk about New Brunswick.

Secondly, much of the data you put out there has an underlying message could be perceived as attacks people on the low end of the income scale, or that are under educated. Having read your blog for several years, I have come to the conclusion that you don’t necessarily believe that, but it generally focusses how EI is broken, or our sick days are high. Without context, what people read is David thinks NBer’s are lazy and freeloaders, even if he doesn’t believe that.

I suggest your ideas are not without some merit, but talking down to the audience makes them resist the message.

You know, the true measure of "integrity", is speaking what you believe. As long as you are not trying to get elected in NB, a "just kidding" situation (the election promises, not trying to say anyone with a measure of sense should not run, just be prepared to be a liar).

Sheesh! Perhaps you ask residents of MA what they thought of his performance – so poor he did not bother to re-offer. What data drive you to the position that ‘MA’ Romney would be an improvement over Obama (assuming that ”MA’ Romney’ even exists – a gigantic and unjustified assumption)?

Given the miserable performance of conservative admins around the world, perhaps your default position needs adjustment.

> I am not sure I have actually convinced many New Brunswickers…

Coincidence? I think not. Republican economics destroyed the economy, even the relatively benign Massachusetts kind.

I don’t mean to be glib, but I do think the approach to economic development you’ve advocated resonates with people. People won’t support development if they feel only the rich will prosper from it.

New Brunswick is a small place, so things tend to get overinflated. Particularly with a media that doesn’t like to talk about many issues. Over at CHarles blog I pointed out that the supreme court of Canada has protected panhandling as freedom of speech, yet the province of new brunswick and every city continues to break the charter. But those are ‘just poor people. Again, the province still breaks federal health laws by refusing to pay for abortions. Any coverage? Cue chirping crickets. That’s just dumb women who should know better.

The provincial portion of double occupancy and apartment dwellings is going to cost the provincial government close to 70 million dollars per year, at a time when the province is bleeding red ink-the only mention so far was a story on CBC celebrating that tenants will enjoy a three year rate freeze.

My point is that once ‘talk’ reaches a certain point, then media likes to cover it. For one thing, we have NO idea whether the ‘masses’ support it or not. It also serves a political purpose, it keeps people distracted. The government LOVES it, or should. They just passed legislation that will raise property taxes for rural people. Yes, raised taxes. On a specific group of people. Where is the outcry? Oh, they’re too busy talking about the possibility that maybe somewhere nearby something may happen to their water.

So what you are REALLY seeing, is not a difference in behaviour, but a difference in media. You don’t hear about protests in pennsylvania, and again, fracking is ‘going ahead’ in NB just like everywhere else.

From President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address:

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. (Applause.) And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. (Applause.) Because America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy. (Applause.) And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock –- reminding us that government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground. (Applause.)

I note that while New Brunswick is near the top in donations to religious groups, it is dead last in donations to non-religious groups.

As for direct democracy, I would oppose you and answer ‘yes’. Partly for the ‘vision’ reason you argue about in the top half. People don’t change their minds NEARLY as often as governments.

But let’s be specific. People like lower taxes, true. They also like health care and education. But as for public policy, PEOPLE want higher taxes on those who can afford it-wealthy people and wealthy corporations, particularly ones which are wealthy due to public resources. So whats wrong with that? Those who DON”T love it, are obviously the wealthy people and the corporations.

On the last paragraph, its ludicrous to talk about direct democracy on intricate issues in a province where you have NO say in government policy. Thats like saying “do I want a piece of cake, because if I have a piece of cake I will eat until I die”. Bad analogy, but its morning. The point is, start with something small. However, given that this guy is in the liberal party, I SERIOUSLY doubt his idea of consultation is direct democracy.

Actually, for, say, nursing homes, the point would be that IF we had a functional media system we WOULD know something about these issues. However, just from the few CBC articles I’ve read, we know a fair bit. We know that NB has the most privatized system, we know that there are funding problems with it. More importantly, we at least know HOW to address it as public policy-ask the people involved. That makes for a pretty short video clip, so we can learn what we need pretty quickly, quicker than we can, say, learn all we need about the dozens of public policy issues that we are supposed to in order to vote for a party.

But again I’ll point out that Switzerland operates under a model where the people DO ‘run the government’. And compared to most countries of the world, I think they do a pretty good job. And I am not about to admit that somehow there is a ‘swiss gene’ that makes them smarter.

Richard Reeleder :
“The ‘proper role’ is the one that works best, not the one in tune with someone’s philosophy.

“The ‘proper role’ is the one that works best,…” Who appointed you to make that judgement and “where is the data to support that position”.

That’s quite authoritarian and from my POV an unacceptable premise.

Agreed; but then they are well-funded voices are they not? Funding has kept alive the crackpot philospohy of libertarianism, and much other nonsense that should have been consigned to the history bin ages ago. Thank you, stink tanks!

“I am coming from a position which holds that the money extracted in taxes to pay for such exercises would benefit a province more if left in the hands of the private citizen.”

Philosophy is fine, but where are the data to support that position? I’d take the better RTOI and the resulting increase in growth over who has the money. The ‘proper role’ is the one that works best, not the one in tune with someone’s philosophy.

That’s a key – ‘overall’. A certain fraction of investments will not pay off, by any measure. If an auto part plant fails, for example, that does not mean that investments in the auto sector as a whole have a negative return. Unfortunately, bad news sells better than good news.

“A growing number of people believe that government should not be involved in economic development at all ”

Are there data to support that assertion?

As for the digital age, that doesn’t change human reactions, and those reactions are pretty reasonable. You have a provincial government that essentially subsidized corporations which came in and wiped out huge swaths of the forest, then left when they wouldn’t get subsidized even more. Environmentally, New Brunswick has amongst the worst regulations in the country, so that people will ‘believe a link’ seems pretty reasonable, not amazing at all. Again, go watch “Forbidden Forest” if you are still under the illusion that the Department of Natural Resources is there to ‘protect’ resources.

As for fracking, its true there are lots of people that believe all kinds of things, but what is MORE amazing that at this blog there is a group of educated guys who seem to think “well of course the government is going to pursue this with the proper regulations in place”. Again, it was ONLY because of protest that Alward introduced ANY regulation at all. Why somebody would support development of a resource WITHOUT first having the regulations is beyond me. But like talking to a protestor, I could repeat that til my fingers are blue.

It’s true that SOME of the environmental topics get little airplay-I still remember people going on and on at the CBC comments saying ‘we should wait until they have this technology they are working on in Britain which lets them re-use water’. It turns out they have been using that technology for years right in NB. But that doesn’t mean the only reason people oppose it is because of red herrings. There are TONS of legitimate reasons to oppose it, particularly, as I’ve said, since we’re still waiting on those regulations.

Just to add some science though, its been awhile but it was only six months ago that they had just started studying the earthquakes in Arkansas, and anybody that thinks they can ‘debunk’ anything about earthquakes, which are notoriously unpredictable, well, I’d have to see that bunk. You might also want to add the Duke University study as well though. However, the main fault here is that, especially in Canada, there are almost NO studies done of the impact of industry on various aspects of the environment, let alone health, and even less coverage of ones that do. Nobody even mentions the environmental impact of, say, the peat moss industry, which has had a few studies done on it.

In short, when you have as bad a science program as David indicates, and an even worse media, its no surprise people believe, well, almost anything. But to say “hey, we tried basing our economy on a natural resource before, maybe we shouldn’t do that again” seems a pretty natural comment-whether you agree with it or not.

But as for ‘banning’; dude, you just finished calling the leader of the NDP a bald faced liar (Cardy: “What turned me against it was a combination of research showing the inherent risks….” Richard: I don’t buy that for a second.) So cut the melodrama. And finally, ‘advocating’ something is different than just saying it. You were pretty clear-not until they advocate raising the HST will you pay attention. So again, highly doubtful you are going to be an NDP voter anyway.

It’s just basic accounting that IF you are short during the year, then you make SOME changes to find out if it covers the amount. Even Alward agrees with that, and so far the only real change has been belt tightening. So as we all agree, you raise the CIT and PIT, then find out how short you are the next year. IF its required, THEN you talk about raising the HST. That sounds like pretty responsible fiscal policy. But like I said, HST affects lower income brackets more, so use the progressive income taxes FIRST. Heck, Mr. Campbell himself points out the huge increase in earners over 100 grand. And I’ll bet a good percentage of those are those who earn their salaries from the public dole.

See above in this post and other posts on this blog. Then retract and apologize Mikel or I will ask David to ban you from posting.

The HST example was simply making a point. EVERY person out there has a suggestion and DOESN”T think that politicians taking up on it is ‘pandering’. It’s only ‘pandering’ when they take contrary views to whomever is saying it.

VERY few social agencies are talking about HST increases, virtually NONE that I’ve ever read. But just to make another suggestion, years ago when McGuinty was first elected the province was also in bad financial shape, the first thing they did was bring in a ‘health premium’. This was essentially a tax by another name, but the cost was related to income, so it WAS ‘progressive’. We ended up paying about $1000 the first year. However, the VERY next year the province had a surplus, and it was largely credited to that new progressive tax.

Every social organization knows that if you need more money you tax those that have it. The ONLY way a social organization is going to favour an HST increase is IF all the most common household items are exempted. So ‘in the right way’ essentially means ‘as long as all the things we buy are exempt’. Its well known that lower and middle class earners spend far more of their income in ‘purchasing’ things, and an increase in the HST hits them hardest. In a province where welfare payments in most categories is the lowest in the country, I’d be pretty surprised to see a social agency advocating ‘yes, raising taxes for our members is a great idea’. But again, post an example if you have it.

EVERY group one likes can be called a ‘populist faction’. In fact, we know from polls that in terms of the province, FEWER people want to ban fracking than agree with it. So why isn’t Alward being ‘populist’? Its because Richard happens to agree with that position. Thats the nature of politics. Populism simple means what it says-popular. You’d have to be a crazy politician to say “what a great way to get elected, I’ll tell people what they don’t want to hear”. What Richard is forgetting is that HE ‘wants to hear’ those things. So like I said, IF he disagrees with the NDP, he’s hardly likely to vote for them.

As for corporate welfare, its good to hear some good NDP comments. But by definition IF you are in favour of handing out money to Irving because it saves jobs, what about all those other thousands of jobs lost? If you will pay Irving X amount to create X jobs, what about EVERY other company? So you can see why many want to avoid the slippery slope. I’m not sure this is the same Richard that used to bemoan the control that Irving and the two or three family companies hold over the economy, but essentially it is that practise that has helped keep them in power.

Sorry to disappoint, but I HAVE voted NDP and would be more than happy to vote NDP again. But I will not do it while the NB NDP prefers populist nonsense to real policies. I expect you think that NS Premier Dexter ‘would never vote NDP’; and perhaps you would be right if he was residing in NB.

“YOUR prescription is an HST increase”

If you don’t like that prescription (which is not just mine but that of quite a few mainstream economists), provide another that generates enough tax revenue to significantly reduce the deficit. I have already agreed that corporate taxes can be raised back up and that the income tax system needs rejigging to return to progressiveness. After all, even social justice orgs have come out in favor of HST increases, if done the right way.

“From a policy point of view, we simply don’t KNOW how much of a dent it would put in NB’s ‘fiscal house’”

We don’t??? I think some quite reliable estimates have been generated on that score. Corporate tax hikes and income tax hikes (on the wealthy) will not be enough to get the fiscal issue under control. And let’s not forget that increases in NB’s expenditures in certain areas are practically built in to the last set of federal budget plans.

“I would very much like to see Mr. Cardy state outright that he’d throw all those workers to the wolves rather than grant Irving 10 million.”

But he won’t do that, will he? And a good thing, too, if you have relatives in SJ. The whole ‘corporate welfare’ stuff is just ranting with no real policy behind it. Does ‘corporate welfare’ rule out strategic investments in certain sectors? Does it rule out direct and indirect investments in R&D? Does it exclude aid to a strategic company or sector that has some short-term pain due to a sudden change in market conditions? A libertarian might label all those things ‘corporate welfare’. What exactly is the NDP position here? Or is Cardy waiting for a poll result?

Yes ‘populist’ is a bad thing. In NB populist rage against change has terrified politicians. What we need are politicians with the balls to tell the populist factions things they don’t want to hear. Cardy is afraid to do that. Since he is at least 2-3 elections away from seriously challenging for the Premier’s Office, he has the time to tell some hard truths.

In this Mr. Cardy has the correct ideological standpoint, but the incorrect political one. It is the Irving media which can make or break an election, and IF Mr.Cardy stopped talking about what VOTERS want, then he may get more press and be called ‘ready to govern’. Ready to govern essentially means “ready to do what business wants”.

However, for voters, even Alwards own online survey showed that FAR more NBers wanted higher corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy rather than government cuts. Something Higgs then went on to blatantly lie about. From a policy point of view, we simply don’t KNOW how much of a dent it would put in NB’s ‘fiscal house’, but it would certainly do a heck of a lot more than Alward’s first year, which was essentially a series of cutbacks which really had no effect, except to raise NB’s unemployment rate, which probably had a lot to do with hiring freezes.

The gas debate really is now a political one, in that neither side is even talking about the same thing. One side ASSUMES that gas can never be done safely, the other ASSUMES that the government will get a fair return and have the required regulations in place. NEITHER are true, and both sides now argue the issue like religion.

As for corporate welfare, the Nackawic mill, REGULARLY comes to the government for bailouts, and no doubt the owners or representatives of that mill show up at a few of Alwards $500 a plate dinners. There isn’t much left of the Nackawic union, so even if they did join the owners in asking for more money, its not like their union has ever helped the NDP much, and workers in Nackawic would probably benefit financially as much from a community forest alotment than they do working at the mill.

A better example is the Saint John pulp mill which Irving frequently threatens to move to Quebec. I would very much like to see Mr. Cardy state outright that he’d throw all those workers to the wolves rather than grant Irving 10 million. That takes some real cajones, and I’d like to see a politician say THAT.

Richard talks as if ‘populist’ is a BAD thing. It’s the only thing that wins elections (by definition). Mr. Cardy is hoping to be lucky like Shawn Graham, and hoping some issue like public insurance will take on, which is why he’s got comments on virtually any story that hits the airwaves. There is nothing wrong with that, but it won’t win you an election. Essentially the liberals will sit back and watch you, then wait to see which issues have traction, then they will co-opt them, and they have the nuts and bolts political apparatus to sell them.

However, this MAY be the right time for the NDP, in that neither main party has any ‘populist’ credibility. Although that hasn’t stopped them before.

I don’t buy that for a second. The NDP has jumped on a populist bandwagon, once again. An attempt to curry favour with a recalcitrant electorate and nothing more.

‘ending corporate welfare’ Another empty phrase. What would the NDP do if the Nackawic mill came calling for support, with the union in tow? Say no? I am very doubtful about that.

I’d like to see an NDP as ready to govern as the NDP in Nova Scotia. Instead all I see is grandstanding. Perhaps you could start by telling some hard truths: raising corporate and personal income taxes (on the wealthy), and ending ‘corporate welfare’ (whatever that really means), while popular with your fans, will not be enough to get NBs fiscal house in order. Support a 2% hike in the HST in addition to those measures and I will start to pay attention.

The lack of NDP representation has almost ZERO to do with actual policies. If you go point by point you see BY FAR the NDP is ‘the people’s party’. The elephant in the room is the absurd electoral system. IF there were a functional one, then the NDP would have at least 10% of the seats, and this would not only give them the experience of governing, but also would make their members far more ‘public’, which, I can almost virtually guarantee, would make them ‘an option’. If Jesus Christ himself came down and started a third party he’d never get elected-even in the bible belt.

Add to that the fact that the ONLY private media are so virulently anti-union, plus the constant small party curse-lack of experience, and you can see why people prefer ‘the devil you know’. To use Mr.Campbell as an example, when a guy with a masters degree defines a party as ‘left’ simply because they oppose development with no regulation (even Alward has admitted they do not have the infrastructure for proper regulation, we’re still waiting for those ‘new regulations’), then you can just imagine what a person who has almost zero education thinks-well, we KNOW, we read it all the time on blogs-they are ‘commies’ and ‘socialists’.

Polls though, are only useful WHEN you have a functional electoral system, so Mr. Cardy’s optimism is pretty rhetorical. Like so many in politics, his success has more to do with who the liberals choose as leader, what issues come up, bonehead moves by Mr. Alward, and the success or failure of the other two ‘fringe’ parties.

Since Mr. Cardy is reading this then I’ll restate my first point-that in Nova Scotia they got elected by a relatively HUGE influx of young voters. I’ve seen little attempt in NB to even TALK to those people. The NDP facebook page has fewer than 500 ‘likes’, with less than 20 regular visitors. It’s clear the youth of NB are only mildly interested in shale gas, and even less so in the Occupy movement. What they ARE interested in remains a mystery, but it CERTAINLY isn’t ‘centrism’. And for ammunition for the contrary parties, take a look at what happened to the last party leader who was ‘acclaimed’ by their party executive.

I just read your blog post and thought I’d comment. Stephen Downes does a great job of describing why I am joining him in supporting Thomas Mulcair and leads into provincial politics very nicely with his line about me wanting to lead a government with a conscience.

My goal is to lead the New Democrats to government. To quote Neil Kinnock: “We know that power without principles is ruthless, sour, empty, vicious. We also know that principle without power is idle sterility.” I spent many years working in international politics and I want to put the lessons I learned to work for my province. The first step is turning the New Democrats into a party ready for government. But the goal after that is to win the election.

The New Democrats needed to change in New Brunswick, and we have. The party is growing and reaching out to former Liberals and Conservatives. Despite not having held a seat in the Legislature since 2005 we are now consistently within reach of the Liberals in public opinion polls.

New Democrats have changed their approach. We don’t lecture people and we don’t assume we have all the answers. I became leader without owing favours to any group, and I make it clear to my fellow members that we will always make decisions that put the best interests of the entire province first.

Instead of looking to control the private sector we want to let businesses make money, so their profits support a strong province. We want a tax rate that is high enough to support the programs the public supports, but no higher, and I expect the public sector to be lean and efficient.

Spending tax dollars is a sacred trust that has been abused by New Brunswick’s governments and some businesses over the years. They took cash from struggling tax payers to pay for their latest pet project or sweetheart deal, leaving us a have-not province with looming economic, social, and demographic crises. Ending corporate welfare isn’t an idle policy dreamed up for opposition, it’s a new way to run our province more radical than anything since the Robichaud/Hatfield era.

New Democrats are progressive: we want development, we want growth, and we want it as soon as possible. We also want prosperity to be sustainable, to be shared by as many New Brunswickers as possible, and we don’t think governments have done the right thing to achieve that goal. Governments need to focus on literacy and essential skills, health care, energy, and infrastructure. Let’s get the basics right.

You took a swipe at our energy policy. I started out expecting to support shale gas development. What turned me against it was a combination of research showing the inherent risks, the weakness of our current enforcement regime, and my lack of confidence in the government’s ability to ensure shale gas earned our province enough money to make the other risks worthwhile. Shale gas companies have given fracking the bad name it currently enjoys; my experience being threatened with a lawsuit by the CEO of Windsor Energy hasn’t softened my position on this file.

So, thanks for the column but I hope when you write about the New Democrats again that you will do more research. We have a lot online and in the press – check out our website and Facebook page where you can find press releases, media coverage and so on. I would welcome the chance to talk with you about the party in New Brunswick and why we are leading the fight to really change our province. You can reach me at 506-238-5550 or at dcardy@nbndp.ca.

Best wishes,

Dominic

First, on the ambitions of the NB New Democrats, I’m sure Dominic Cardy can represent the view well, but I would say that the intent is to form a government, not to remain a ‘conscience of the government’.

It would be, though, a government with a conscience, which would be a nice change.

The thing about being in the centre is, it depends on where the edges are. The right wing has had a lot of success shifting the centre right by catering to the extreme fringe – the Reformers in Canada, the Tea Party in the U.S.

Another thing about the centre is, it’s where most of the people are, so if you can move the people, you can move the centre.

I am in the camp of ‘moving the people’. I think that if we can break through media monopolies and the politics of influence and money, we can see an era where people support governments that serve their own interests, rather than those of people with power and money.

I think the centre is moving, and demonstrably moving, not because the NDP suddenly became more right wing (ol’ jack would roll in his grave) but because people are beginning to realize that their interests are not being served by the Liberals or Tories.

One way the NDP does *not* become ‘electable’ is by selling out its constituents and its principles. None of the leaders (and none of the leadership candidates) is running on a platform of abandoning core NDP values – and it is a (typical) misrepresentation of the leadership debate to suggest it is.

For myself, and for what it’s worth, I am supporting Mulcair – not because he is ‘pragmatic’ but because he is smart, speaks well, is fluently bilingual, and believes in social justice. I’m sure Topp is very good, but I found him stilted and wooden, with poor French (not ‘radical’ or whatever you would like to term it.

But whatever. Any of the candidates would be far preferable to what we have seen in the PMO in the past. Because what was one ‘fringe’ is now ‘the opposition’ and stands a decent chance of being the government – all without adopting ‘new labour’ policies of appeasement.

In the end all they need is a few landowners anyway. With drilling techniques now they can drill horizontally for km under anyones land and no one would even know, they can put several horizontal drills through one well pad site. Look at Sackville for example the municipality denied Petroworth a permit but the place they were accessing in Sackville was very small anyway. Regardless, they can still access it as they received 159 of 160 permits they were seeking from the surrounding landowners who wanted the gas companies. So what does Petroworth care about access to Sackville surface rights they can still drill under the Town if they choose to from any outside landowners location all the Town did by not giving them a permit was make it so Petroworth does have to given them any information, do any water well test, or offer any compensation. Sackville’s denial did the company a favour as now they don’t have to deal with their crap. The landowners who wanted the wells will get lease payments for the lifetime of the wells.

Yes it is. And that, in turn, has been driven by the oil and gas industry. I take it you would prefer that NB wages remain low, no?

What bothers me is: The Moncton Chamber of Commerce owns no property in New Brunswick, they are only representing their membership, who happens to be business people, with the only interest, in this matter, to somehow dodge paying their fair share of the taxes in this province.

So, on the one hand we have a group with a hidden agenda (because they won’t come out and say it), and on the other hand we have a group promoting irrational fears (or idiocy, but I didn’t want to say that). One seems to sort of cancel out the other, no?

I have several grave concerns.

“The chamber of commerce said it is worth pursuing the exploration for shale gas given the current financial situation of the provincial government and the financial potential of shale gas.”

*I have no idea of the why, or the how, the Moncton Chamber of Commerce is involved in this business of fracking? Is the Moncton Chamber of Commerce a property owner in the province of New Brunswick? And if they are, one would assume any property they might own would be in Moncton, and how likely would (assuming again) commercial office space be affected by fracking?*

“The chamber said it does have concerns about the impact of shale gas exploration on the environment and there are conditions for its support.
Those conditions include strict government regulations that will protect the public, greater transparency and responsible use of royalties.”

*I have to ask: How likely is this? Have we seen ANY evidence in the past performance of ANY elected provincial government in New Brunswick that they are remotely interested AND capable of actually doing this?*

“The New Brunswick government is forecasting a $471-million deficit this year.”

*Is it not yet time for our government to start acting responsibly and living within their/our means? Or, better yet: How much more “free” stuff can we afford?*

*There are still too many unanswered questions for my liking over shale gas extraction. No matter what we are being told this is not going to get our chestnuts out of the fire, it may be a temporary “fix”, but is not a long term solution*

But this does point out that we would be wise to start thinking about markets for the gas. We could convert the coal fired electricity stations (Colson Cove and in Nova Scotia) and create significant long term demand for our gas to be used here. I would suggest there are other opportunities to build new demand for gas given that it will be around for a long time and it will be reasonably priced for a long time.

I believe the owners relocated most of the operations to the Phillipines, where the same work can be done for a lot lower wage.
While I was aware that Canada was losing manufacturing jobs to Asia, I was very surprised to learn that we are also losing “call centre” jobs.

It’s a reminder that Canada continues to lose jobs to lower wage parts of the world, where a large population is willing and available.
Thank goodness we still have our natural resources with their decent paying jobs.
Jack

“Our legal struggle on behalf of the pensioners and workers of Fraser Papers has now begun,” CEP President Dave Coles said. “This is about fairness for retirees and workers who lost almost 40% of their pensions. The directors of Fraser Papers must now be held to account.”

The union has also assisted Fraser retirees and family members organize in Quebec and New Brunswick in the “Victims of Brookfield Association” which has a Facebook Page and a Twitter account that tells the personal hardship stories of the Fraser pensioners.