Boudreau: New Brunswick needs more transfers and higher taxes

[via Sobering Thoughts];

The Toronto Star editorializes that with yesterday's announced tax cuts Canada's future is threatened, we will descend into barbarism and ... who knows, perhaps even have to pay for a little of our healthcare:

"It has been said that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. Yesterday the Conservatives made this country a little less civilized by killing the hope of the poorest in our midst for a fairer society in which everyone has a roof over their head and enough to eat."

You see, if there is no big surplus laying around, it will be harder for a future Liberal-NDP government to ram universal daycare down our throats later. Or as the Star puts it, not having the revenue from excessive taxation (those were my words) is a "financial straitjacket they will impose on Ottawa for years to come in terms of dealing with the huge social and infrastructure problems that currently plague Canada" (those were the Star's). The Star editorial writer's ask, what about money for "affordable housing," "public transit" and "other municipal infrastructure"? In other words, why didn't Finance Minister Jim Flaherty hand over our hard-earned tax dollars to Toronto Mayor David Miller?

The Star's "socially progressive" Canada might well be threatened if Canadians get too use to keeping their money, and that is a good thing and reason enough to applaud the Tories for the modest tax cuts they announced yesterday. It is also another reason for the government to cut taxes even more.

I see what Tuns means. Cue Victor Boudreau: "This federal government seems to have turned the page on equalization, even though provinces like New Brunswick don't feel like they're getting their fair share."

Funny, because I always thought more transfers meant higher taxes and more dependency. Oh well, I guess the NB Liberals have now turned the page on self-sufficiency, even though they still verbally use the term.

Size of Government

In a study done in 1988, Philip Grossman investigated the size of the American government and its effect on economic growth using data for 1929 to 1982. He found that:

Government spending would initially contribute positively to overall economic growth but that the decision-making processes of government would lead to incremental expenditures that result in an inefficient quantity of public goods. Grossman’s analysis confirmed his hypothesis that there was indeed a negative relationship between growth in government and the rate of economic growth. [1]

On the flip side, Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway found that downsizing government had a positive impact on the economy as well as its overall growth:

Among their many findings were that large transfer payments had negative consequences for economic growth, that the moderate downsizing of the federal government between 1991 and 1997 had resulted in increased rates of economic growth, that the marginal effect of government activities is negative, and that further downsizing of government would be growth-enhancing (Vedder and Gallaway 1998). [2] In fact, Vedder and Gallaway recommended reducing the size of the US government to 17.45% of GDP in order to gain sizable and permanent increases in GDP. [3]

Now I can understand the arguement coming from social activist who believe spreading government programs and services into areas of social welfare and increased income subsidization can be rationalized as a public good, especially if it achieves greater social progress. In other words, advocates of bigger government argue that society could handle higher tax burdens in order to achieve more social progress. But let's be honest, that arguement is another kettle of fish as the data is overwhelming, in that, bigger government does not lead to increased rates of economic growth. However, there are still those who cling to the notion that we as a society are willing to give up some economic growth in order to achieve greater social progress. That's fine because at least these advocates realize that increasing the size of government does lead to a decrease in economic growth, not to mention, economic progress.

Which brings me to today's mini cabinet shuffle in New Brunswick where the premier announced a few additions and changes. Now don't get me wrong here, it wasn't the fact that the Liberals increased the size of government (widening responsibilities and adding stand alone ministries and staff) that bothered me the most, it was the manner in which they tried to spin these changes as sound fiscal policy leading to self-sufficiency. Judge for yourself:

"Today, I'm proud to put before New Brunswickers the team that will make the changes we need to put our province firmly on the road to a self-sufficient New Brunswick," Graham said. "We will soon be unveiling our government's action plan in response to the Self-Sufficiency Task Force report. Today we have realigned our cabinet to support the four pillars of this transformation: our government, our relationships, our workforce and our economy."

Let me get this straight, is the premier actually trying to suggest that increasing the size of government while making it [more] socially active will indeed be a positive thing for the future of economic growth and development in NB? Well, it completely goes against the entire arguement which I made above, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt here and take a look at what was actually shuffled around.

First of all, there were two new ministers, Eugene McGinley and Wally Stiles, that were sworn in. Not that I am a huge expert on the subject of NB politics, however, I think it's safe to say that either one of these guys were huge advocates of economic development in the past. Not to mention, they're heading into portfolios that intervene and increase income subsidization to those no longer participating or contributing, on a full-time basis, to the economy.

So what about the ministries? At first glance, none of the portfolios mentioned, especially community non-profit organizations, appear to be anything more than your typical reaction to increased bureaucracy (i.e. Bradshaw Commission). Not exactly a pillar to self-sufficiency, IMHO. But wait, there is more.

Other ministries mentioned in the press release were Wellness, Culture and Sport, Seniors and Housing, Status of Women and Family and Community. Now did I miss something? How are any of these ministries, most of which have to do with social aspects of society, a pillar for economic development? As I see it, adding to the size of government to achieve greater social balance (in an already bloated bureaucracy) will only lead to one thing, higher taxes and greater reliance on government.

It's far from putting the province firmly on the road to self-sufficiency (whatever that means?).

Endnotes

1. Grossman, Philip J., Federalism and the Size of Government, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Jan., 1989), pp. 580-593

2. Gallaway, Lowell and Vedder, Richard. 1995. The Impact of the Welfare State on the American Economy.

3. Gallaway and Vedder find that the optimal level of federal government spending is 17.57 percent. ibid.

The Grinch Who Stole Our Tax Cut

Every now and then, certain signs point to a coming "grinch night" in Whoville. The signs don't happen often, but when the timing is right, the Whos from Whoville know that trouble is definitely on the horizon.

It usually happens like this: just when the Whos are celebrating the goodies given to them on Halloween, the "Who-hating" Grinch swoops down from Mount Crumpit in his "paraphernalia wagon" and steals all their bags full of candy. And just to rub salt in their wounds, the Grinch replaces the Whos' goodies with rotten apples filled with razor blades.

You're a mean one Victor Boudreau Mr. Grinch.

The Spinning Yarn of Corporate Welfare: Part III

Atlantic Yarns: bottomless-pit filing for bankruptcy?

People who read this blog on a regular basis (all two - thx mom) know all too well that I am no big fan of the practice of corporate welfare. One of the main reasons for this is that corporate welfare decisions are often made by individuals with absolutely no experience in private investment wherein goals are usually set by politicians and unaccountable bureaucrats. For example, to ensure that taxpayer-financed projects meet regional and political criteria, decisions are often made without taking into account the realities of the surrounding economic climate or the industry involved.

In other words, politically driven investments are motivated by political imperatives and the number one factor in these decisions is the preoccupation with "how many jobs are created or saved" regardless of profitability or sustainability. There is no better example of this than the recent response by BNB Minister Greg Byrne to the news that Atlantic Yarns and Atlantic Fine Yarns have 'filed for protection from their creditors and are one step closer to bankruptcy' where he said, "Ultimately we'd like to see the company survive and provide jobs". (For more on Atlantic Fine Yarns see here and here)

It is obvious that the owner of these two textile companies is now so adept at securing government money that he and his company have totally lost sight of their core function: the creation of wealth and maximization of product/service value.

In essence, because BNB has been so generous and irresponsible with our tax dollars over the years when it comes to offering up these forgivable loans and guarantees to Atlantic Yarns and Atlantic Fine Yarns (to the tune of $37 million and $41.5 million respectively) most of the boardroom in that company are preoccupied with being lobbyists for government subsidies rather than successful business entrepreneurs. Let's hope Byrne has some commonsense and doesn't put taxpayers on the hook once again in order to prop up these fledgling textile industry in a slow growth region just for the sake of getting his party elected up there.

There has got to be better investments out there.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

As I said friday, "there is absolutely no conceivable reason now why the Harper conservatives can't offer up broad-based personal and corporate tax relief for Canadians." It would seem that the only thing Minister Flaherty is mulling over, at the moment, is which ones to cut and by how much.

Back at the farm, I see Shawn Graham's boys are going on [another] useless and expensive trip on the taxpayers dime. This time Greg Byrne and BNB bureaucrats will be touting the strength of an IT job sector that clearly doesn't even exist. Thank goodness I'm not the only one that is skeptical about this whole theoretical jobs* approach by BNB.

On the bright side, at least next march's federal tax cuts will make up for the only policy initiative that this "all talk" NB Liberals regime has implemented, that being tax hikes. Oh wait, I forgot the millions of corporate welfare dumped into the textile industry. Gee, I wonder how that is working out for them.

Today really is the story of the good, the bad and the ugly policy initiatives. Unfortunately, for us, the ugly ones always seem to be coming out of Fredericton these days.

* phrase coined by David Campbell

Another reason why FPTP sucks

Last month, I wrote a quick blog citing the weaknesses of the first-past-the-post system referencing, as Political Staples puts it, "the ultimate abuse case [...], the 1987 New Brunswick provincial election."

Well, I see that the 20th anniversary of that election victory just past and a member of that government, Camille Theriault, indirectly makes a case of how the FPTP system can be very unrepresentative, undemocratic and inefficient for many who use it when he jokingly mentions his de facto role as leader of the official opposition/shadow cabinet:

Taking all 58 seats also presented its own challenges. With no opposition party in the legislature, McKenna asked backbenchers in caucus to form a kind of shadow cabinet.

Camille Theriault said he remembers the speculation that he was an obvious choice for McKenna's first cabinet. The former premier had other plans for Theriault -- leading the shadow opposition.

"The ironic thing about that is I have to question Shirley Dysart, who's then the minister of education. I'm trying to get two schools built in my area," Theriault recalled.

"Do you think I'm going to stand up in the house and say, 'Shirley ... you're not nice?' No, I'm going to say, 'Shirley, you're the greatest minister we ever had. I want two schools.' "

With his experience, methinks Camille would make a very good advocate for electoral reform in New Brunswick. Although, I have an inkling he would prefer the status quo over a better and more efficient system.

Ottawa's surplus hits $8.7-billion

This is definitely no surprise. However, on the bright side, I guess there is absolutely no conceivable reason now why the Harper conservatives can't offer up broad-based personal and corporate tax relief for Canadians. Not that I haven't been calling for this time and time again in the past. Although, I have a hunch we may see another wave of pre-election spending by this group of so-called [fiscal] tories.

Burning bridges already built?

After abstaining on a crucial vote and asking zero questions pertaining to the Throne Speech this past week, Liberal MP Dominic Leblanc [below] quickly went on the attack over his problems with the alleged Conservative 'in-and-out' election financing scandal.











Now I know it is the job of the Her Majesty's Loyal Official Opposition to oppose (or attack in this case), however, at what point will this overly partisan strategy against Harper's tories become so divisive that it begins to damage the diplomatic efforts made by your provincial cousins in New Brunswick?

In other words, will these irresponsible attacks by high profile NB Liberal MPs, like Mr. Leblanc, have a long lasting effect on the relationship between the Prime Minister and premier Shawn Graham? I have to believe they will.

Update

It would seem the conservatives believe this particular statement, made by MP Dominic Leblanc, to be libelous:

"To date, we have learned that eleven of the former Conservative candidates and official agents implicated in this scandal were named to federal appointments or were hired in high profile government jobs. One has to wonder if there is a connection between their willingness to participate and employment by this Conservative government."

It will be interesting to see if the rhetoric tones down.

Political correctness trumps commonsense. Kudos to Ezra for pointing that little detail out

If there was a terrible school bus accident where a nine-year-old child was killed and the bus driver in question may have had their vision impaired, wouldn't it make sense to ask the tough questions so that such an accident might be avoided in the future? Not according to the politically correct reporters from the Glib and Frail or the CBC at the scene.

Unsurprisingly, the left is turning this into a racist matter rather than address the obvious. Typical.

Our ship is afloat, so let's jump off it

Only in New Brunswick would someone from another party, at this point, defect and look to the fledgling and leaderless Liberals (under Dion) for clarity on the Afghanistan mission. No wonder the NDP are in a mess in this province.

Now what?

I give Riley credit, when every other NB Liberal apologist blogger went completely silent on this issue, he stuck in there and defended the dreaded government spin:

In a grand gesture this week at getting Ottawa's attention, the Premier hosted a major wine-and-dine party at the National Art gallery with over 200 prominent guests. Among them were cabinet ministers, senators, Native-New-Brunwick beaurocrats, and business leaders.

Although, for the record, I think he's getting the Limousine Liberals' capital wining-and-dining party confused with actual results. But again, I give him an "E" for effort.

Here's the deal, the big problem with the New Brunswick government's [plan] to become self-sufficiency by 2025 (or whatever the date is?) is that the ethos behind the so-called plan is barried in a statist, government knows best mentality. By putting all your policy eggs in one basket wherein you gamble on the notion that 50 per cent of the project must be funded by federal money, it really can be an extreme letdown if the writing on the wall becomes clear that no special deals (or side deal) will be coming your way. That commitment really was the achilles heel of the self-sufficiency policy, study or project (or whatever they call the darn thing?).

Which is why I believe they backed away from their original 50/50 position on a side deal yesterday (the same deal Donald Savoie said is due to them because of what happened in Nova Scotia with the Atlantic Accord). I think even they now realize it just isn't feasible for a fiscally conservative federal government, whose party base is also [semi] anti-statist, to blindly hand over cash to Liberals without some solid policy work behind the plan in place (remember ad scam in Quebec?) Anyway, here's Graham's new position:

New Brunswick is no longer lobbying the federal government to contribute $500 million to a $1 billion superfund to help the province wean itself off equalization by 2026, Premier Shawn Graham confirmed Tuesday.

Instead, Graham is counting on the Harper government to flow money to the province through existing programs they are already committed to, such as twinning Route 1 from Saint John to St. Stephen as part of the Atlantic Gateway trade corridor.

Wow, if the above statement doesn't take the wind out of your self-sufficiency spinnaker, I don't know what will? At least 200 bureaucrats and politicians got some wine and cheese (paid by us) with the "Graham rejection" tour.

On a serious note, the situation that is now in from of us worries me folks. Mostly because if the Graham government is still hopeful of fullfilling their ambitious agenda of self-sufficiency by 2025 without any revenue streams coming in other than equalization and [higher] taxes collected from individuals and business, then they must be seriously considering putting the economic future of this province in jeoparty by building up huge deficits? Deficits the previous government attempted to keep under control.

In other words, with government spending inevitably increasing due to policy commitments (healthcare & self-sufficiency), it means this province will remain a destination that people and business will avoid like the plague as long as regressive property taxes, higher small business and personal taxes, further government dependency and continued corporate welfare remain on the government agenda. Translation: expect to be taxed to death.

I gotta tell ya, if you are a New Brunswicker living in any part of this province, the recent backtracking by Graham has to be worrisome, especially if you are one of the very few who realize that "flow money to the province through existing programs" really means more of the same.

Survival should not be your goal

Rebuilding the PC party in New Brunswick

Well, since I have critiqued (or graded) the New Brunswick Liberal government on some of their policy efforts thus far, I think it's only fair as an unbiased political observer to do the same with the New Brunswick Progressive Conservatives, especially since they are just coming off their first AGM since the 2006 election loss.

Now I know many are bogged down with this [recent] resolution which was put forward by the NB tories on floor crossing this past weekend, however, that will not be discussed in this post, nor will I criticize their decision to set a late leadership convention date (should have been this spring), as I am going to focus more on the future of the party organization and what the next leader of the PCs needs to do in order to [again] govern the great people of New Brunswick. For the record, I will break this down into four parts: 1.) which will focus on policy, and 2.) the rebuilding of party infrastructure 3.) fundraising 4.) electoral readiness and candidate recruitment. This blog post, or Part I, will be dedicated specifically to fundraising.

Background

The 2006 election defeat did not see the PC party decimated in all regions of the province, on the contrary, they were able to win the popular vote. However, it was devastating in so many other ways, but none so much as the financial burden which was placed on the party. The cuts to party infrastructure, which have taken place gradually, had a huge impact on the party's profile, communications, election readiness, membership and overall organization. The first step in rebuilding the party must be to establish a reliable and adequate revenue base to enable the other steps to be taken (and recouping the money lost from floor crossers does not suffice).

Moreover, for a party that has been accustomed to raising an ample amount of money and maintaining a strong head office and regional organizations with lots of volunteers, it has been nothing but a challenge lately to maintain those strengths of the past with so much of the burden placed on a reduced and mostly administrative personnel to process donations and raise funds. And though most riding associations stayed dedicated and active via their core volunteers, at the end of the day, they still found themselves strapped for cash, resources and dedicated workers. In other words, the party was not short on talented volunteers, not short on ideas and innovation, not short on good leaders at every level. The party was short on the cash and infrastructure to support such people and activities.

So if anybody interested in running for the PC leadership is reading this post, then listen up, the next leader should construct the foundation to rebuild the PC party and commit to establishing a party infrastructure and fundraising effort that is second to none.

Survival should not be your goal. The status quo should not be your strategy.

Eight Point Fundraising Strategy

1. Say hello to small donations

It is essential that the next New Brunswick PC leader change their fundraising efforts to a more grassroots approach where small donations are courted rather than large union or corporate donations. We see this strategy working at the federal level where the tories are outpacing their political opponents in the fundraising game, especially the Liberals, who have traditionally relied heavily on large corporate donations from Bay Street.

We also have seen this approach recently south of the border where Barak Obama was able to raise a large amount of money through very small donations (he held numerous fundraising events that cost in the range of $25 to $100 USD per ticket). However, what is more astonishing here is that this strategy was not only successful in a monetary sense, it was also able to bring in younger, first-time donors who ordinarily steer away from the political process due to lack of money. As well, these individuals may prove to be a valuable asset [return on investment] for political campaigns as they haven't come close to reaching their donation limit for contributing to a campaign. In other words, there is an incentive for a candidate to make use of these individuals within the machinery of his/her campaign team.

So for a party like the New Brunswick Progressive Conservatives, this strategy is ideal since it is more dynamic and successful than targeting big corporations and unions as it engages a whole new constituency into the political process. A win-win so to speak. Not to mention, this "small donation" and "grasroots" approach may have bridged the gap, or better yet, played a significant role in reducing citizen ennui when it comes to politics. But let's be realistic here folks, the role of money in politics is definitely nothing new. All parties know they need it to win. However, as demonstrated by Obama and Harper's fundraising methods, the game has definitely changed and the disconnect can now be addressed through the priorites of parties and individuals.

Furthermore, it may be in the best interest of the PC party to challenge the existing provincial election financing laws as they promote kickbacks to politicians and patronage to corporate donors. All of which seem to tilt in the favour of non-grassroots organizations like the Liberals.

For instance, a good example of this was the change in election fundraising rules at the federal level in Canada.

Case: the new financing laws [Bill C-24]. These laws were introduced in 2004 in order to limit the amount a corporation, union or individual could donate to riding associations, candidates up for election and/or nomination contests in the sum of $1000 dollars (which I believe was revised by the FAA in '06). It actually prohibits a corporation or union to donate directly to a registered political party and/or leadership candidate.

However, ever since Bill C-24 (an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act) was given Royal Assent, there have been many individuals amongst the political establishment who continue to view it as an attack on big business [corporate donations], particularly from Bay Street. Not to mention, some view its function as disastrous towards the overall perception of the political trade. In other words, they see it as a law which confirms to its citizens that all political parties are institutionally corrupt.

I, on the contrary, believe that Bill C-24 has gone a long way in curbing the political influence of large corporations and unions on national political parties. As well, the new rules have managed to level the playing field for smaller parties, in that, they ensure that each vote obtained by a registered political party in a general election receives $1.75. So participating in the voting process can be an important monetary reward for the party which you chose to support. Thus, when viewed from an overall democratic perspective, it can be very empowering for the individual citizen as opposed to powerful corporations or unions.

So you can see why it is vital for the next leader of the NB PCs to adopt Mr. Obama's cutting edge fundraising approach, not to mention, challenge the existing election financing laws which favour party's courting big corporate donors and unions.

2. Thou shall not bring any baggage

As we have seen recently at the federal level, local and national election financing schemes, when not completely above board (but not illegal), can come back to bite a party when in office. That is why it is essential that the next New Brunswick PC party leader commit to having every candidate run a prudent and debt free campaign. Campaign debt and controversy is a hardship on the party both financially and organizationally. It distracts a new leader from focusing on his/her new responsibilties.

3. Add new fundraisers to the team

A new leader should commit to integrating his caucus into the fundraising plans. Several MLAs and former senators have excellent corporate and personal networks. Furthermore, recruit those who are exceptionally gifted at promoting the party to individual donors or have been active in successful fundraising activities in the past.

In addition, former party fundraisers and those who have been raising money for other parties must be reintegrated and welcomed into the fundraising plans. Some who have returned to the fold via other leadership campaigns during the leadership contest must be made part of the new team.

Use provincial campus clubs as a way to generate interest in the party. These individuals may not have a lot of money due to their university financial commitments, but their efforts in other aspects of the fundraising strategy are invaluable (check out the blue book cookbook put together by the Nova Scotia Young Tories). As of today, PC campus organizations at Mount Allison, UNB and STU have yet to be used to their full potential. That's why the party needs to give them the tools and knowledge to succeed. I mean honestly, you can't expect the Manning Centre to always keep picking up the slack.

4. Money follows a great message

Let's be clear on why individuals and small business owners fund political parties. The two main motivations to fund the NB Progressive Conservative Party is because they have a good chance at defeating the incumbent Liberals and they do a better job at respecting and welcoming members from the grassroots. There are many individuals in this province who are already discontent with the wasteful spending and tax increases coming out of Fredericton. Many small business owners are already of the mindset that the NB Liberal government is making very poor decisions, which in affect, hurt the province, the economy and their future prospects. Small business donors are business owners, and they do not invest in bad prospects.

A future leader of the PC party must find a way to bring forth good ideas that appeal to both small business donors and individual donors (who I spoke of in the first section). Not only should these ideas appeal to business donors, they must come with the realistic prospect that the party proposing them can form a government. Ideas must go hand-in-hand with a winning formula. It is a catch-22, because to win, the party needs money. Anyway, I'm sure NBpolitico and Spinks would agree, it's time to stop nitpicking and start connecting to donors with great ideas.

5. Direct marketing via mail/email

Contingency plans must be put in place to deal with dwindling membership lists and donors. That will involve a big investment in prospecting out a few new donors lists. The success or failure of a direct mail fundraising campaign to individuals lies heavily on the potential donors themselves and how well they are prospected out. In other words, you could have a thousand people on a list with only a small percentage of them seriously interested in donating. It is up to your fundraising team to reduce the large [initial] list of "possible donors" to "actual donors". The next leader of the PC party must commit to having his fundraising team revise the list so that a fresh set of donors are found, not to mention, online resources are maximized in order to keep donors updated and informed.

6. Close the deal (turn supporters into donors)

It is common knowledge that most supporters who do donate tend to do so (and rightly so) at the riding level during an election. Whether this is the fault of the party, a traditional practice of individual supporters or the distrust of the internet or direct mail as venue to donate is not the big question here. What is more important is taking a more cooperative approach in which HQ in Fredericton provides fundraising support to those local riding associations who wish to undertake a local direct mail program so that local members and supporters can be encouraged to escalate their support in being reliable donors. It's essential that this change in administrating mailing list be implemented ASAP.

7. Identify high-end personal donors as recruiters

High-end business or individual donors must assist the party in identifying others in their region or peer group who could be recruited as new individual donors. As mentioned before, the initial step could be done by a senator, MLA or party worker, but these particular individuals must be trusted to prospect potential donors on their own. Furthermore, a Hatfield club should be put in place in order to honour and recognize these valuable donors. Two categories of donors should be introduced: A $250 level restricted to those younger than 35 years of age, to introduce young professionals and supporters to the club; and a $2500 level for very large personal donors who will need to replace corporate revenue.

8. Maximize summer barbecue circuit

June, July and August should be focused on riding fundraising events --- golf tournaments, BBQs, auctions and a presence at local towns fairs and festivities, whatever works locally. Also, it would be useful to have strong ridings associations help out or guide weaker riding associations through the process. In other words, a province-wide summer fundraising series would not only help the ridings start building sufficient election war chests, but it would also give a potential leader a network of events to form the backbone of a high-profile summer tour.

In the fall and winter months, the party could hold a speakers bureau series or a casino event for charity as well. Although, I'm not big on Halloween fundraising events, especially when they are hosted by a wacky left-wing talk show host turned political candidate.

Stay tuned thursday: Building party infrastructure

Proposals that would make a much better holiday than PET day

Liberal MP Mario Silva has put forward a private member's bill that would officially make October 18th Pierre Trudeau Day. Anyway, instead of going off on a horribly long diatribe on why it's a terrible idea to honour one of Canada's leading statists, I'm going to suggest a list of 10 proposals that would be much better than PET day in Canada. Here goes (with an Atlantic Canadian slant, of course):

10.) Conrad Black day (anybody who pisses off that many statists is a hero in my book regardless of his street address)

9.) Cuban Assassin day (An Atlantic Grand Prix Wrestling legend)

8.) Bubbles day (says the F bomb better than anyone on the planet)

7.) Mark Steyn day (taking the thoughtless left to task)

6.) Pamela Anderson day (click it. I know u want to)

5.) Sidney Crosby day (could be the greatest ever?)

4.) Don Cherry day (even if he does work for the CBC)

3.) Sir John A MacDonald day (our founding father for cripes sakes)

2.) Alexander Keith's day (no comment required)

1.) Shannon Tweed day (Night Eyes II & III. Nuff said)

Ron Paul third in Christianist straw-poll. A victory for freedom lovers.

Mitt Romney – 1,595 votes -- 27.62%
Mike Huckabee – 1,565 votes -- 27.15%
Ron Paul -- 865 votes -- 14.98%
Fred Thompson -- 564 votes -- 9.77%
Undecided -- 329 votes -- 5.70%
Sam Brownback – 297 votes -- 5.14%
Duncan Hunter -- 140 votes -- 2.42%
Tom Tancredo -- 133 votes -- 2.30%
Rudy Giuliani -- 107 votes 1.85%
John McCain -- 81 votes -- 1.40%

As Andrew Sullivan explains: "I'd say that these results show that the Christianists are far less concerned about the war on terror than the culture war. If Thompson can't beat Huckabee, the entire point of his candidacy is moot. You need a Southern Christianist? You've already got one, guys. Oh, and: They really hate McCain, don't they?"

Wow, Ron Paul is really making his case for more freedom, less government and less corruption. I wonder, is this a harbinger of things to come for conservatives in both the United States and Canada? Let's hope!

Update

Gee, these Ron Paul guys are enthusiastic. I just got an email from one of their organizers in Maine asking if I would be interested in working for his campaign. Funny, I've been in New Brunswick for two years now (back from Ottawa) and have never heard a peep from any of the mainline parties. Not surprising though as grassroots politics doesn't seem to be a budding practice here in the mecca of democracy. Honestly, I think they prefer to cultivate member ennuie.

Harper pulled a Stanfield?

Though it was a much different set of circumstances which surrounded former Moncton Mayor Leonard Jones back in 1974, it could be the argued that there are some similar parallels between [his] situation and the one Bill Casey is facing at the moment in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit. I think the message is clear in both cases, people don't like being dictated to or told how to vote. Check out the great article by Al Hollingsworth:

In the early 1960s, Moncton began a transition that continues today. The establishment of the Université de Moncton changed life forever in the Hub City. U de M evolved from St. Joseph’s College in Memramcook. Until that time, young high school graduates seeking to continue their education had to leave their community in order to do so.

The coming of U de M, a bilingual college, was welcomed and praised by both French and English. It didn’t take long for that to change. Soon after the college was built, it became a French speaking institution, much to the chagrin of the city’s mayor, Leonard Jones. First elected as a councilor in 1957, he served as mayor of Moncton between 1963 and 1974.

Jones was a fierce opponent of the Official Languages Act, dead against the use of the French language in city business, and determined to continue to conduct council meetings exclusively in English. This stance pitted him against New Brunswick Premier Louis Robichaud, who was concurrently developing legislation that would recognize the equality of the French language within the province. Robichaud is credited with the opening of the new university campus in 1964. The colourful mayor didn’t mince words. Jones had a running battle with the students, especially the Quebec natives who chose to enroll at U de M. More militant than the locals, they marched on city hall to protest hiring methods and the general running of the city.

Two students decided to deliver a severed pig’s head to the mayor and his family. The students were eventually caught and charged. When it was discovered that one of them had a criminal record, police placed the mayor and his family under constant protection.

In the previous election, held in 1972, the PC candidate Charlie Thomas won the seat recording 22, 657 (remember this figure) votes. When the 1974 vote was called, Jones decided that the only way to change things was to go to Ottawa. So he challenged Thomas for the nomination and won. Enter Bob Stanfield.

Jones, branded by many as a bigot, was viewed by Stanfield as an unacceptable candidate for the Tories, and he refused to sign the nomination papers. Thomas was declared the candidate. It gets better.

Undaunted, Jones decided to run as an independent candidate. Not only did he run, he won big time. In 1974, the results were as follows:

Independent (Leonard Jones) votes: 20,671
Liberal (Leonide Cyr) votes: 16,199
PC (Charlie Thomas) votes: 6,456

Clearly, Jones was not alone in his anti- French stance, as more than 20,000 Monctonians, 46% of the voters, marked their “X” beside his name. Jones, who died in 1998, served as an MP until 1979. Thankfully, his political life ended in 1978 when he decided not to run for a second term.

As suggested earlier, this Harper/Casey confrontation looks pretty tame by comparison.

It may appear pretty tame from the outside looking in, however, if an open nomination meeting isn't granted to the riding association's board when Plett meets with Armstrong this sunday in Wentworth, it will be interesting to see who the conservative's bring in to run against the all but unbeatable Casey, and more importantly, how will he or she be treated by local tories?

The last bastion

That's right folks! Our region is one of the last bastions for the federal Liberals, according to this Unimarketing/La Presse poll, even after obtaining "their worst score of the last 10 national polls". I guess we really do learn the hard way out here. Either that or we like the Liberals (regardless of their corruption), hate Harper's Tories (regardless of their surging strength nationally) or we aren't following the [political] trends like the rest of the country. Any thoughts?

(Hat tip Greg Staples)

Update

Speaking of Liberals in the maritimes, I see Andy Scott's run in Fredericton has officially come to a close.

Btw, a little bit of good news in that riding for Dion (after a disastrous last three weeks nationally), in that, the Green party candidate [Mary Lou Babineau] is now throwing her support behind Innes and the Liberal party of Canada. And just in time too as Jane Taber now has some additional material besides Marc Garneau to bragg about on her sunday show. At least it saves us from hearing her usual berating of Harper's communications director Sandra Buckler.

The tax structure of New France Brunswick. Statism at its worst.

Victor Boudreau, Minister of tax the sidewalks.

So let's get this straight, they have a huge surplus sitting in freddy, but there will be no tax cut for big business, small business, middle income or lower income NBers. Is he serious? With rhetoric like that he would fit in well in places where they tax people and business into cultural isolation.

Although, I believe their citizens [France] were smart enough to realize that this regressive Nanny Statism had to come to an end sooner rather than later if they were ever to make the best of a 21st century global market economy. In other words, though it took them long enough, they realized that capital always takes the path of least political resistance. So here's hoping that New Brunswickers choose a leader in the mold of a Sarkozy the next go around, especially if you don't want your sidewalks and coffee cups taxed.

Enough with the studies already

If one costly study wasn't enough, now taxpayers are on the hook so that a working group can further "hammer out" or "fast-track" a post-secondary education solution. Sigh.

Of course the headline in the Telegraph Journal this morning "Saving Saint John" gives us the impression that the Graham government, or specifically Ed Doherty, is now siding with the public [Saint John] on the post secondary education file, when in retrospect, this is just the conclusion of another political gimmick, a smoke screen of sorts.

In other words, they have created a phony war where they are the good guys standing against the bad decisions made by task forces and studies. The very same studies which they commissioned in order to take the focus off their lack of leadership for cripes sake. Make no mistake, this is not Ed Doherty standing up for the public, it is an exercise where tax-dollars are used to keep the focus off their lack of governing, or better yet, cleaning up a mess they created.

Government not ready to make the difficult decisions

And let me tell you, this government is becoming legendary for not governing. At this point, almost every bold idea is tied up in a study or task force paid for by taxpayers and lead by unaccountable academics and consultants. And at the end of the day, we all know what this current regime will do with the info when push comes to shove. That's right, they will become weaked-kneed and side with what is popular, not with the dificult decisions that need to be made in order to move the province forward and get us back on track.

Let's face it, if this government was serious about being fully accountable and doing what is right for the economy, then they wouldn't have unilaterally raised taxes without consulting New Brunswickers first. I'm certain senior C.D. Howe institute fellow Jack Mintz would agree.

So enough with the studies and task forces already. Start leading. It's what NBers are paying you to do.

Update

Speaking of costly studies or panels paid for by our hard-earned tax dollars, if you're wondering, still not a big fan. Though the receiver in this particular case doesn't surprise me considering he once mused about a multimillion-dollar taxpayers' subsidy deal for Canadian NHL teams.

This s-p-e-e-e-c-h was b-o-r-i-n-g

For a guy who wrote a couple of Replies to the Speech to the Throne in his day, I have to tell you, this speech was as exciting as watching Stephane Dion debate a more electable house of commons glass of water (my apologies to those who wrote it and went over every sentence/word with a fine tooth comb so that Carolyn Stewart-Olson wouldn't whip you if there was a spelling or grammatical error).

Anyway, I'm glad to see that I wasn't the only one who found this Throne Speech extremely boring. Full disclosure: I fell asleep 20 minutes in, woke up near the end, realized I couldn't take one more minute of it, flipped it over to Much Music and caught the end of an OC repeat. Hey, come on, it was a good episode as Seth and Summer are getting back together after three breakups. That Zak is so yesterday!

Anyway, I guess you're probably wondering how I feel about the TS goodies? (I think that's what L. Ian MacDonald called the tax cuts). Since I missed the original, I decided to read the fine print version online, and I have to say folks, I'm pretty impressed with the overall content and language contained within the speech. Particularly pleasing was the government's commitment to reducing taxes, setting a new environmental course, strengthening the North as a symbol of national pride, further funding of military operations and vowing to restrict federal spending power in provincial jurisdiction via new government programs (at least not without their permission).

Hey, even I realize it's just a Throne Speech, but if they make good on their commitments in this speech, the 2nd session really could be better than the 1st (or at least it could build upon its momentum). However, the session could be over before it started, especially if Dion chooses a "principle position" over "ass saving".

The art of the mea culpa

This [CBC] clarification caught my eye (see bottom):

Premier Rodney MacDonald did not say that he will campaign against Bill Casey in the next federal election campaign, as originally reported. MacDonald said he will campaign for the Conservative candidate.

Rodney MacDonald. Premier of Nova Scotia. Campaigning for the Conservatives. Who are running a candidate against Casey. In Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley. I'm not making this stuff up.

Update

Conservative National council president Don Plett issued a release [today] stating "it had unanimously declared the nomination in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley to be vacant". And now "the party will work with the local electoral district association to find another candidate."

Here's the problem Don. With a sea of local politicians, politicos, organizers, party presidents and fundraisers supporting Bill Casey in that riding, where exactly are you going to find a credible candidate? Let's face it, nobody in their right mind will volunteer to put their name forward for the conservatives only to be ridiculed in the press as the Harper lacky/minion/joke who ran against an unbeatable and popular Casey. Get real.

Futhermore, those who know the true dynamics of Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley know that guys like Ron Elliott are the litmus test for that riding, in that, if he's not putting a lawn sign up in Amherst, you can bet your bottom dollar nobody else is.

Update II

Speaking on behalf of campaigners and volunteers like 79 year old Ron Elliott, Casey says, “I think that the prime minister should not overrule these people that have been Conservative campaigners and volunteers for longer than he’s been a Conservative,” he said. “Some of them have been there since before he was born.” Hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!

Harpermania?? Dionmania?? Huh?

After decades of having prime ministers who spent far too much time obsessing over their personal popularity with Canadians, I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see this.

Maybe now Canadians will focus more on the policies and platforms of their particular leader of choice rather than waste their time wondering if s[he] can do a cartwheel off the high diving board. Just sayin'.

Update

According to the Harris-Decima poll, Dion fared even worse than Harper when it came to personality.

Worse then Harper? The same guy who jokingly said he had the charisma of an accountant. Ouch!

Ya know, maybe Gerry's theory that Dion would lose to a carrot isn't all that far fetched after all. ;-)

Pandering to your base? Electioneering? Or both?

Regardless, I like the sounds of this:

Canadians can expect to see more tax cuts and fewer internal trade barriers after Tuesday's highly anticipated throne speech, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Monday after an event in Toronto.

Finally, a government showing signs that they still know where their principles lie or 'bread is buttered' so to speak.

Update

Speaking of fair tax systems, according to the Tax Foundation, it would appear our neighbours to the south [Maine] are one of the ten states in the US with the least hospitable business tax climates. I guess all those meetings with our tax-and-spend premier, Shawn Graham, are now starting to pay off for Governor Baldacci. ;-)

Blogging into mainstream or mainstreaming into blogging?

At least he asked permission to get the picture of this out-of-touch journalist' dog, eh Charles??

Atlantic Discord. The Sequel

When it comes to political promises, Nova Scotians are not easily sold, especially when it is based on half truths and their own money. If you don't believe me, check the comments section of this article in the Daily News. I think that Mackay should have remembered that old political maxim which was championed by Bob Stanfield during a 1956 campign speech in Yarmouth:

"Let me say this, I don't propose to campaign for votes in Nova Scotia by being cute with the truth. we are going to talk sense and talk straight, and if we can't then we shouldn't say anything at all. There is, after all, a clear distinction between fact, a false impression and a falsehood. And no one can tell the difference any quicker than the people of Nova Scotia."

A few thoughts on lastnight's Ontario referendum

Well, as you probably know by now, Ontario's first referendum in 83 years failed by a significant margin lastnight (the "YES to MMP" only garnered 37% of the vote and outpolled the status quo in only five Toronto ridings). Though I would have liked to see it pass, I have a few conclusions to why it came up short.

1. Status quo rules. Because central Canada has been the political beneficiary of government involvement via FPTP over the years, it was difficult for pro-MMP advocates to convince voters that a "reform measure" to the system was something that would benefit them in the long run. I think this ethos can be best explained in Sophie Holyck comments where she said, “Just leave well enough alone. Why do we need something different?” Nuff said on that front.

2. Lack of connection between voters and list candidates perceived as undemocratic. Having 39 MPPs who would be drawn from party lists instead of directly voted on by the public [riding MPPs] was a big reason why people opposed MMP. In other words, it gave people, who were already on the fence and a bit confused by the measure a reason to take the easy way out and vote NO.

STV or straight up PR with open lists would have garnered much more support. Furthermore, cutting the ridings down to 90 meant that directly elected MPPs would have even bigger geographical areas to cover. I brought this subject up a few times on the fact that list voters weren't drawn from a regional pool. More importantly, there wasn't a strong enough arguement out there on the actual jurisdiction of list candidates during an election to reduce voter anxiety on this matter. As I saw it, there [list candidates] duties were much like a federal MP from a safe riding like Medicine Hat (Monte Solberg) campaigning in Ontario during a general election. In other words, even though they are both representing the same party, only one is directly linked to the voter in that region.

3. Too many generals and not enough foot soldiers. I think Dennis Pilon, assistant professor of political science at University of Victoria and author of The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada's Electoral System said it best, "I don't think ever so much money has been wasted in educating people so poorly." I mirror his criticisms as I found there were too many conflicting arguements from pundits, bloggers, journalist and academics. I know it's easier said than done, but it would have been much better for the public, in this case Ontarioans, if the YES side could have settled on one arguement. However, because they failed to do so, I found the message became more and more undisciplined and confusing the closer the referendum date drew near.

4. Lack of choice or a single option did the YES side in once again. No, I don't mean that's what Ontarioans would have received if MMP had passed. Quite the opposite. What I mean when I say 'lack of choice" is if voters were offered "a preferential referendum" with more systems to chose from, then it wouldn't become a war pitting one side against the other. Let MP Scott Reid explain:

...we could avoid the BC situation if we were to establish a Citizens’ Assembly not for the purpose of pre-selecting a single option to be placed on the ballot in opposition to FPTP, but rather to design several options, which would be placed on the ballot in competition to one another. Voters would then have the option of ranking the competing models.

I am advocating that Canada should use a preferential referendum whereby voters would place a “1” on the ballot beside their preferred option, a “2” beside the option that they like second-best, and so on. If no single option won a majority of the votes, the least-favoured option would be dropped from the ballot, and the ballots of voters who had chosen this option as their first preference would be redistributed to the options that had been their respective second choices. This process would continue until a single option achieves a clear majority.

Under a preferential referendum, voters would have the option of indicating their preference for the option of which they most approve, without having to make FPTP the default option. Advocates of all options could aggressively campaign in favour of their preferred option without having to become de facto champions of the status quo, as occurred in British Columbia.

Preferential balloting is the best way of arriving at consensus outcomes, when no obvious majority exists; this is why it is used by many political parties, including my own, for selecting their leaders. Moreover, the idea of using a preferential referendum for selecting a new electoral system is not new. The process was advocated as long ago as 1997 by the Reform Party’s task force on electoral reform, for which I was the researcher. More recently, Fair Vote Ontario has taken stock of the strengths and weaknesses of BC’s Citizen Assembly process, and made the following recommendation:

The BC Citizens’ Assembly was instructed to work with the current number of seats in the BC legislature and to recommend only one system. We believe such restrictions should be removed to allow the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly to recommend whatever they believe best for Ontario .... If they cannot reach a general consensus on the single best alternative voting system, the OCA should be allowed to present two alternatives, with voters using a preference ballot in the referendum to choose among the alternatives and the status quo.

I support the application of this approach at the federal level, and would take it further: The Citizens’ Assembly should be mandated to place several options before the people of Canada, designing each of its alternatives to be as complete as possible, as appealing as possible, and as reflective as possible of the values that Canadians would like to see encapsulated in their electoral system. Then the decision should be turned over to the voters, who will—as Canadians always do—choose the wisest and most generous compromise, from among the available options.

Anyway, I know many are trying to sully the efforts of electoral reformers in Ontario and around the country today, but make no mistake, we have not seen the last of these types of referendums, measures and efforts. As I said to many who ask me about the possibility of this measure passing on the first try: "in a country like Canada where change doesn't come very easy (circa senate reform), it will probably take one or two tries before this thing seriously gets on peoples radar screen, especially in regions like Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes where the status quo is sometimes viewed as a good thing.

It's not a zero sum game

I take exception to the comments made in the Telegraph Journal today by UNB Saint John political scientist Don Desserud:

"the N.S. deal underlined the difficulty New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island face in having Atlantic neighbours blessed with sizeable oil and gas reserves.

Namely, the misnamed Atlantic Accords do nothing for the provinces that lack those resources and yet have to compete, to some extent, with their neighbours to attract investment and new residents."

This statement is completely and utterly false. Firstly, the fact that he is implying that their successes and new investments will not benefit the neighbouring provinces in any way shape or form is way off base because everyone knows economic development is not performed in a bubble.

For instance, if competition is increased in one area of the region, this will be good for all areas. Furthermore, say the economy starts booming in Halifax, that's going to mean good things for many cities and towns in Atlantic Canada, especially if shared infrastructure such as the Atlantic gateway and incoming ports are strengthened.

Secondly, there is a lot of commonality, both historically and geographically, which exist between the maritime provinces. With that in mind, it would make perfect sense for NB and PEI to try to find ways to partner with NS on numerous projects. In other words, it would reduce the pressure and burden on other Atlantic premiers as they wouldn't have to make the yearly pilgrimage to the Alberta oil patch with cap in hand in hopes they will throw a few sloppy seconds our way.

I guess that is why I don't see the successes of our Atlantic neighbours as a zero sum game. I see it as an opportunity for the entire region.

Update

On the subject of "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts", the formation of this group can't be good for the Atlantic region. Can you say Newfoundland & Labrador firewall?

Calling it quits

I see my former boss, Art Hanger, has to decided to call it quits today. As an MP who fought against the "conventional wisdom of the day" for 14 straight years on the hill, he will be sorely missed.

If someone were to ask me what song best describes Art, I would easily have to say "My Way" by Frank Sinatra.

Best of luck my friend.

Feds, Nova Scotia reach offshore resources deal. I think?

Let me tell you, I found this statement in Harper's offshore resources announcement today very peculiar considering that Mr. Casey has told other members of his Nova Scotia caucus (Keddy & MacKay) that he would be comfortable returning to the fold if the Accord was put back in its original form:

"Mr. Casey is not welcome into our caucus (due to his unreasonable demands regarding the Atlantic accord)... when there is a next federal election, there will be a Conservative candidate in Mr. Casey's riding, and it will not be Mr. Casey."

Huh? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but since MP Bill Casey and Nova Scotia premier Rodney MacDonald were both singing from the same songsheet with regards to the Atlantic Accord, if a sufficient deal was reached that was to the liking of MacDonald, then shouldn't Mr. Casey be satisfied as well? In other words, wouldn't he be happy enough to return?

Methinks that this three-member panel to study something called the Crown share is nothing more than a way to delay the rescinding of the O'Brien formula, especially considering if he did, he [Harper] would have the premier of Canada's largest province, fresh from a majority win, breathing down his neck Danny Williams style right before a possible election.

Moreover, does this mean that the PM is softening his position on "no side deals" with the provinces? If so, I know one academic and a premier who will be pleased to hear that, especially when it pertains to the 50/50 cost share of the self-sufficiency plan which Harper hinted in a press conference last week wouldn't be in the cards.

Update

Anyway, judging from what happened today with Nova Scotia, maybe Shawn Graham should consider putting together a group of stronger negotiators in an Ottawa office? I think Dave Campbell mused about the importance of an Ottawa office a couple of weeks after the 2006 election.

Talking tough to PM a new election strategy???

I hate to say it, but I think the election results in Newfoundland and Labrador could be a harbinger of things to come in Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, especially considering the manner in which they were obtained.

In other words, hitching your wagon to the feds in Ottawa doesn't seem to be a working campaign formula for premiers or premier wannabees, especially the "red tory" kind. Just ask Bernard Lord, Pat Binns, John Tory and Jean Charest.

Furthermore, talking tough to the PM isn't just a sport reserved for premiers and MPs uphappy over the implementation of the O'Brien report by Finance Minister Flaherty in the last budget. It also seems to be a strategy that's working well for staunch Tories, like Gerry Nicholls, who are upset that the PM veered away from his principles by implementing "liberal lite" policies.

For the record, in two weeks, Gerry will take center stage against Harper's former sideshow, Tom Flannagan, in a dual to the death. Figuratively speaking.

Make sure you are fully informed before you vote on the 10th

I urge [anyone] still considering their vote on MMP to go take a quick peek at this site before voting so that you can find out what it's all about and make an educated choice.

Note to reader: try to filter out what Nelson Wiseman says on the subject, because believe me, he's anything but a wise man when it comes to MMP vs. FPTP.

The wrath of the Canadian Soldiers

As a staunch Boston Red Sox fan, I have to tell you, it was quite amusing on friday night to see our "Canadian soldiers" come to the rescue of the Cleveland Indians late in Game 2 (8th inning). From MLB fanhouse:

The game's still going on in Cleveland but what was a tense pitching duel between the Yankees and Indians has been hijacked by a swarm of insects that are making it impossible to focus on anything else. Craig Sager of TBS just informed us that the bugs are Canadian Soldiers and that they've come to become our insect overlords and force us into a system of socialized medicine and hockey.

Just kidding, but they do seem to be seriously affecting the players. Joba Chamberlain walked Grady Sizemore, threw two wild pitches to bring him home and hit Victor Martinez during the bottom of the eighth as the Yankees surrendered their 1-0 lead. His neck, shown in terrifying closeup several times, looked like a carnival sideshow attraction and/or a pile of rotting meat with bugs teeming all over it. It clearly affected him on the mound although he got out of the inning by striking out Jhonny Peralta.

If I wasn't a Sox's fan, I probably would have felt a bit sorry for Chamberlain as he swatted and struggled for over 10 minutes as the bugs swarmed the area between the mound and home plate. But I don't.

And furthermore, the bugs subsided somewhat after the game went into extra innings, so in retrospect, they weren't that much of a factor in the end. Though many argued that the Yanks never seemed to recover after the 8th inning bug swarming, losing in the 11th after a Travis Hafner game-winning, bases-loaded single.

As I always say, it's all fair in the battle of playoff baseball, although I see Yankee pitcher Roger Clemens wouldn't agree with that statement. Anyway, enough playoff baseball talk for now, I must go watch my Pats beat up on the Browns.

NB government must reform third party disclosure clauses

Right To Know week should remind NBers of their right to be able to access more information, not less

The CTF's British Columbia Director Maureen Bader explains the importance of full disclosure by government when it comes to P3s (public private partnerships):

Governments have a lot of money and a lot of power tied up in very few hands. And when so much money and power is concentrated in such a small place, the vultures start to circle. People are fallible, and that is why openness and transparency should be the rule, not the exception in the business of government.

Governments are turning more and more to public private partnerships to build core infrastructure. This creates a challenge in terms of transparency and accoutability, because as taxpayers, we need to know that our money is being spent wisely, honestly, and fairly.

In B.C., the contracts between government and industry are on the government's website, but information harmful to the business interests of a third party is not disclosed.

A very good point indeed. And one that brings me back to a situation which I have been wrestling with over and over again ever since the New Brunswick government handed over millions of our tax dollars to bail out the Caisse Populaire de Shippagan without demanding full disclosure of their books to the public. Yes, I know it's not a standard P3 case, but it still involves government funds being allocated to an institution, in this case a credit union, that is only accountable to its shareholders, not taxpayers.

Not to mention, what is more interesting about this situation is that Consumer Affairs Minister TJ Burke defended the bailout on the grounds that "it would be more expensive for New Brunswick if the financial institution folded." But who is he to make that case without properly opening the Caisse books for all NBers to see, especially if there is damning information contained within those financial statements which may make us think otherwise.

Furthermore, since it is our money they are using to bail out the struggling credit union, shouldn't we [taxpayers] be entitled to know the entire story even if it means disclosing information harmful to the business interests of the Caisse? At least then (and maybe then) citizens can make up their own minds on whether or not government is using their money wisely and honestly instead of relying on the punctilious arguement of an obstinate politician as a benchmark.

Right to information a human right

But maybe not in New Brunswick

An individual raised the question on this blog a few days ago about the lack of government transparency in New Brunswick. His main beef was that it was difficult (or I think his words were "impossible") to find out how a particular MLA or cabinet minister voted on a certain bill or motion in the legislature. So instead of complaining without knowing the whole story or facts, I decided to take a trip over to the New Brunswick government website to see what I could find or not find in this case.

So what did I find?? I have to tell you folks, much to my dismay, after surfing around for 20 minutes, all I was able to come up with was a link from the GNB site called Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. After clicking all the links and viewing their site map, my search for a list of bills with the voting records contained within could not be found. As they say in the major leagues: STRIKE ONE!!

Well, judging from that frustrating experience, I can't believe I just didn't quit and cut my losses now while I'm still barely ahead. However, as the dedicated trooper for accountabilty and transparency in government that I am, I decided to soldier on. This time I decided to move my focus away from the accountabilty and transparency of members voting records and set my sights on campaign donations or finance to registered provincial party's during an election campaign. I decided to head over to Elections New Brunswick to see what I could find? More importantly, I was looking to see if I could obtain an online list of personal, corporate or union donations to political parties.

Egad!! Much to my dismay (once again), after clicking around links from applications to a special ballot to searches for DEC or RHA elections information, I came up seriously short and was unable to find any link whatsoever that led to the disclosure of financial reports by political parties. Nothing. Nada. And for the record, other provinces practice complete transparency wherein they make it easy for citizens to access financial reports from all parties and leaders involved in an election campaign. For example, I went over to the Alberta Elections site, and due to its simplistic set up, I was able to obtain the online financial reports of all the political parties within seconds. I you don't believe me, go click on any of the political parities then go to their annual financial statements (click Original) or final financial statement w/t list of contributors (click Final) and you will be able to retrieve the information you want. Pretty simple, huh. Anyway, when it comes to transparency on this sort of stuff in New Brunswick, as they say in the majors: STRIKE TWO!!

Anyway, I'm sure all of you are wondering why I am going off on such a tangent about transparency and the right for citizens to obtain government info. Well, for those of you who are unaware, today is the last day of Right to Know Week in Canada:

The RTK week is celebrated in Canada to promote the right to information as a fundamental human right and to campaign for citizen participation in open, democratic societies.

You know what's very odd [again] when you click the RTK link above? It states in its opening salvo "that this page will act as the portal to gain access to all of the activities planned at the federal, provincial and territorial level. This may be done by clicking on the links found below."

Interesting. You know what's very peculiar about the links at the bottom of the page? If you guessed that New Brunswick is the only province that doesn't link to activities or information about access to information, you are right. You know why?? They don't even have a site dedicated to the Act and they don't seem to care about holding info sessions or activities to promote the RTK week. Even the Yukon has a dedicated site for RTK. Geesh!! I'm sure you know what's coming, don't you folks. Anyway, when it comes to the the promotion and accessibilty to information, as they say in the majors: STRIKE THREE!!! YOU'RE OUT NB!

Time for these guys [NB government] to take their seat in the dugout. They can keep the other world dictators company who don't regard freedom of information as a human right. Furthermore, if I was giving out marks on government transparency, accountability and grading their hopelessly outdated Access to Information Act, I would have no problems handing out an F in this particular case. Let me tell you, it's well deserved. Not to mention, I hear there are musings by certain so-called experts to make it more difficult for citizens to gain access to government info by raising the price to obtain documents (charging a high fee after searching so many hours). Shame.