Countering the Nanny State

Start off the New Year w/t a new tax cut

2009-01-02T12:11:00.012-04:00

Gotta love it. Plus, for personal taxpayers, the new tax-free savings account [TFSA], which came into effect just yesterday, is perfect timing. Happy New Year!

Update

On both sides of the border.

Update - EI, EI, OHHHHHHH!

Off the subject of tax cuts, I agree with Monte Solberg on this one, especially since I have viewed the darkside of EI in my home province of New Brunswick. Let's just say, there has to be incentives restored to ensure ppl go to work a majority of the 52 week work period. Having too many of your citizens relying on EI (when they don't need to be) is not only damaging to those who chose this route, it is (as Monte says) a drag on entrepreneurship, initiative and creativity. Essentials for a healthy economy.

Savoie & Senate Reform

2008-12-24T13:46:00.007-04:00

I don't find myself agreeing with a lot that Professor Savoie says with regards to the economy and Atlantic Canada, but i do agree with his views on senate reform. Although, it's a measure that must be done in the name of democracy, not to tout more pet projects, corporate welfare and regional development. That approach hasn't worked for decades with an appointed senate and it won't work with an elected one either.

Btw, it's too bad Savoie is coming out with this now as he could have counseled Graham on (or even prevented) his decision to throw a monkey wrench into the senate Bill S-4 back in 07. Oh well.

Conservatives back down on subsidy reform for political parties

2008-11-29T17:27:00.014-04:00

Update: If this poll isn't proof that parliament, mainly the opposition, is at a disconnect with real Canadians on the ground, I don't know what is. Glad to see the public/voter is once again the voice of reason when it comes to taxpayers dollars in Canada.

***

Let's just say I'm very disappointed they blinked on this one as you know how much I dislike subsidies and/or corporate welfare, especially when they're earmarked to parties that want to break the country up. Looks like the fat wallets of political parties are the winners and taxpayers the losers, even in these tough, recessionary times.

Although, I see it [annual subsidies to political parties] all may be just cover for larger cuts to the overall size of government and its daily operations. H/T Kevin Gaudet

Debating the debate to nicely debate

2008-11-19T17:55:00.006-04:00

If this isn't a harbinger of things to comein parliament, I don't know what is. From Silver-Powers:

Rob always teases me about borrowing material from the Conservative War Room. Today, I am appropriating some from my Liberal friends, particularly their commentary about the NDP and Bloc, sadly and reflexively saying they oppose the Speech from the Throne - well just because they do. It is unfortunate some people can't demonstrate enough maturity to recognize there are bigger issues at play than simple partisan politics. Anyway Rob, here are the points from your war room:
-- Once again the NDP and the Bloc are proving that they are nothing more than professional opposition parties.
-- Canadians don't want partisan bickering, they want solutions to this serious economic crisis.

Arguing about not arguing. Go figure. (H/T Tim Powers)

If this isn't a case for electoral reform...

2008-11-10T10:39:00.008-04:00

...I don't know what is? From Andrew Coyne's Blog:

"I’ve seen this graph in a couple of places, but as someone sent it to me I’ll post it here. It combines falling turnout with growing electoral fragmentation to track the decline over successive federal elections in the winning party’s “mandate,” expressed not as a share of the popular vote, but of the overall electorate. (Not sure if this means registered voters, or the voting-age population, but it doesn’t make a huge difference either way.)

I haven’t checked the numbers, but they look about right. It’s a pretty depressing picture: governments are now claiming “mandates” with the support of barely two voters in 10." (H/T nbpolitico)

Obamanomics = Massive drain on wealth creation

2008-11-06T18:34:00.008-04:00

National Post columnist Jacqueline Thorpe has an excellent acticle on Obamanomics. Here it is in its entirety (Hat tip Roy Eappen):

As the fervour fades, the world will have to get used to a new word: Obamanomics.

It means tax hikes for the rich, tax cuts for the poor and middle class, a promise to renegotiate NAFTA, greater union power, windfall taxes on oil and gas profits, higher taxes on capital gains and corporate dividends and more comprehensive health care coverage.

Obamanomics is essentially about taking more money from the rich and giving it to the poor, plain old-fashioned "neighbourliness" as Mr. Obama has described it.

-

Or, as others have remarked, taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't.

Under his income tax plan, Mr. Obama says he will provide tax cuts for 95% of Americans. He will do this by repealing Bush tax cuts -- set to expire in 2010 -- and bumping the top rates back to 36% from 33% and to 39.6% from 35%. Individuals earning over US$200,000 and families over US$250,000 will see sizable tax increases. This includes sole proprietors of businesses such as lawyers, accountants or plumbers called Joe.

Since 38% of Americans currently do not pay federal income taxes, Mr. Obama will provide them with refundable tax credits. Under his plan, 48% of Americans will pay no income tax.

"For the people that don't pay taxes, he is simply going to write them a cheque," says Andy Busch, global foreign exchange strategist at BMO Capital Markets. "That is income redistribution at its worst and produces very little value."

Other plans include raising taxes on capital gains and dividends to 20% from 15% for families earning more than US$250,000. He plans to leave the corporate tax rate at 35%, which in a world of rapidly falling rates, looks positively anti-business. He will introduce windfall taxes on oil and gas companies but offer US$4-billion in credits to U. S. auto-makers to retool to greener cars.

Much has been made of Mr. Obama's plan to renegotiate NAFTA to make it more labour-friendly, though no one seems to believe he will actually make it more protectionist.

The bottom line is this: Obama's economic plan is likely to be a drag on growth and it will cost money. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates Obama's program would add US$3.5-trillion to U. S. debt over the next 10 years, including interest. His plans for health care-- which may be delayed by financial necessity -- would tack on another US$1.6-trillion.

Just a thought, but maybe he can start making good by returning some of the money that got him to the white house in the first place.

Hartsfield's Landing; The ultimate exit poll

2008-11-04T13:48:00.032-04:00

[click on image]

Many West Wing fanatics will remember the 2002 episode "Hartfield's Landing" (a fictional town) which was "based on Dixville Notch, an unincorporated small village in the Dixville township of Coos County, New Hampshire, USA. Dixville Notch is best known in connection with its longstanding middle-of-the-night vote in the U.S. Presidential Election, including during the New Hampshire primary." Since 1960 election, all the eligible voters in Dixville Notch gather at midnight in the ballroom of The Balsams. The voters cast their ballots and the polls officially are closed one minute later. The result of the Dixville Notch vote in both the New Hampshire primary and the general election are traditionally broadcast around the country immediately afterwards. A similar tradition in the community of Hart's Location, New Hampshire began in 1948; theirs was discontinued in the 1960s in light of the abundance of media attention, and revived only in 1996. (Wikipedia) Twenty-six voters took part in the 2004 elections.

Anyway, according to the associated press: "Democrat Obama defeated Republican John McCain by a count of 15 to 6 in Dixville Notch, where a loud whoop accompanied the announcement in Tuesday's first minutes. The town of Hart's Location reported 17 votes for Obama, 10 for McCain and two for write-in Ron Paul. Independent Ralph Nader was on both towns' ballots but got no votes."

A harbinger of things to come? Josh Lyman would definitely say it is. But who knows? If anything, it's definitely a very good sign for Obama since "the notch" in NH has a slight lean to the right politically and has never been favorable to a democrat (not even winners like Clinton, Kennedy, Lyndon B or Carter). Other then Obama, Hubert Humphrey is the only Democrat to actually win the notch.

Here are some of the recent past results:

1984 (Reagan- 29, Mondale- 1)

1988 (HW Bush- 34, Dukakis- 3)

1992 (HW Bush- 15, Perot- 8, Marrou- 5, Clinton- 2)

1996 (Dole- 18, Clinton- 8, Perot- 1)

2000 (W Bush- 21, Gore Jr.- 5, Nader- 1)

2004 (W Bush- 19, Kerry- 7)

I guess only time will tell now. But judging from that odd trend in NH, this could turn into a possible mini impeachment (referendum) of George W Bush's unjust war. Anyway, have a great election night. For those who want a good election primer, I have posted one below.

BBC's Guide to US election night

Best policy course: Cut federal spending

2008-11-04T12:40:00.007-04:00

It appears that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has heard Canadians voice their opposition to deficit spending. He is now looking at cutting federal budget costs which is good news for everyone!

Although, it's too bad it took an economic crisis to get there.

Did Canadian taxpayers save the Bloc Québécois?

2008-10-29T16:28:00.016-04:00

[Click on image to enlarge]

I know it's a little late to be revisiting the last Canadian general election, but when it comes to my hard earned tax dollars and how they're used, any time or place is fair game. Anyway, to make a long story short, I was clicking around a few public policy websites last night and happened to stumble upon this fascinating report on campaign finance by Frontier Centre's Mark Milke. Let me tell you, What Saved The Bloc Québécois in the 2008 Election: Public Money is a great read from opening to closing — but what caught my eye above and beyond everything else was the bar graph illustrated above.

For those who find it difficult to read the graph straight up, the blueish green bar to the left represents dollars earned from public sources (specifically the $1.95-per-vote given to registered federal parties annually by Elections Canada), while the grey bar indicates private donations. As you can see from all five examples, the party whose public funding far exceeded its private funding was the separatist party, the Bloc Québécois. They received almost 12 times as much public funding as they did from private donations. No other party even came close to that unbalanced level of financing. As a benchmark, take a look at the Conservatives, their private funding actually exceeded the funding received from public sources. Quite a drastic difference from the pathetic $73,704 the separatist raised since 2008 compared to the $1.5 million we gave 'em in that same time period. A comparative public/private ratio which works out to around 20:1 running up to the fall election. Brutal.

Anyway, as I see it, it's bad enough that the Bloc Québécois (in their 18 years of existence) only passed 4 pieces of legislation in total, not to mention, all the hefty federal pensions they built up over the years via our tax dollars, but for them to be using our money to rescue their fortunes in the last election is ludicrous to say the least. I mean honestly, how many seats did we buy the Bloc anyway?

Let's just say, my consciences hopes it was zero, but my gut suspects it was a lot more --- at the very least a handful. In my books, even one is one too many, especially when you're talking about our tax follars funding separatist. I mean really, can anyone else think of another example — in any Western country — of a government who fully funds a party or group with the intent of breaking their country?

Only in Canada my dear Watson.

Blogging the non-blogging in New Brunswick

2008-10-27T17:47:00.017-04:00

I've been blogging a long time in New Brunswick, for close to four years now. Let's just say, I've seen many good and bad ones come and go, including Charles' original. :) But never have I witnessed a time when there have been so many daily bloggers inactive all at once:

[nbpolitico, spinks, j@ckp1ne, Countering the Nanny State, Blogcastnb, Sorry Centrist, To Be Announced, NB Tory Lady, Voice of the Association, Atlantic Insight, Muddy River Tories]

Thank goodness Gyps, Awareness, Koom, Burton Front, Alec Bruce, Harold Doherty, Workout Rob, Dubya Dubya, Chucky and David are taking up the slack. Without them, the province would be voiceless. Well, unless you count Irving and the mainstream media. lol

**Btw, congratulations to Gypsy for holding court at Carleton FreePress for the past year. His efforts and others there should be commended by us all. Let's hope they make a comeback.

I agree with former Premier Bernard Lord

2008-10-18T10:38:00.019-04:00

Former Premier Bernard Lord hit the nail on the head in the Times and Transcript this morning with regards to the federal Liberal party:

"I think the Liberal party of Canada has some serious issues in rebuilding. It's not just the question of the leader, and if they think their issues are only because of Stéphane Dion, I think they are missing a part of the big picture," said Lord, noting the party's struggles in Western Canada and Quebec.

"The fact is, they are completely not there in some parts of Canada."

I'll even elaborate a little further in saying, if they [Liberals] don't address their party divisions and lack of vision through a policy and rebuilding process, much like the New Brunswick PC party failed to do recently, then they are destined to make the same mistakes over and over again no matter who's at the helm. And yes, that even includes Frank McKenna, who btw, has little to no experience leading a party who doesn't hold all or most of the seats. Good luck with that.

Anyway, it could be just me, but the Liberals appear to still be in a serious state of denial to their overall political situation federally.

Morer

It would seem Globe & Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson agrees with both Lord & I. Not only that, he sees the Liberal coalition built in the 70s as a total non-factor: "The coalition that sustained Pierre Trudeau has largely vanished. No more Quebec. No more industrial Ontario. No more swaths of support in Western Canada." As Gerry Nicholls would say, "The Trudeau Empire has fallen and it can't get up."

Even morer

Peter C Newman: "Lester Pearson understood that allowing a new generation to take over was the cure for what ailed the Liberals, even if it meant being displaced, eight years later, by the Phantom of the Canadian Opera, Pierre Trudeau."

This is exactly what the Liberals need to do, and it's exactly what the PCs under Clark and Reform party under Manning did when they handed over important portfolios to budding young superstars like Peter Mackay, Stephen Harper, Monte Solberg, Chuck Strahl, Jason Kenney, John Herron, Scott Brison, Keith Martin, Rahim Jaffer, Grant McNally, Jim Pankiw, etc.

It's funny b/c I remember telling a colleague of mine in Ottawa around the year 2001 about the fact the Liberals had no new blood coming up through the system. Not on the party executive, not amongst staff, none in the caucus. Near the end of the Chretien era, they were a stalled entity. And now they are seriously hurting because of it.

A Blog for Election Junkies

2008-09-12T15:21:00.000-04:00

Just so you know, I will be over at New Brunswickers Paint the Political Picture for the remainder of the 2008 federal election. So if you want full election coverage from a New Brunswick perspective, don't hesitate to click on the link above. See you after the election.

A true conservative warrior that will be missed

2008-09-12T15:12:00.005-04:00

As Gerry Nicholls notes, [today] we are losing a very special advocate of the conservative movement to the other side of the pond:

Today is John Williamson's last day as federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Starting in a few weeks John will be taking graduate courses at the London School of Economics, which is pretty darn impressive.

And while I certainly wish John luck with his studies across the pond, his departure also makes me a little sad because the Canadian conservative movement will miss him.

For the six years he led the CTF, John was a consistent and principled champion of freedom who held politicians to account, regardless of their partisan stripes.

We need more of that in this country, not less.

I second that. Good luck, my friend.

The Economic Case for Tax Havens

2008-09-08T09:10:00.010-04:00

Here's an excellent Youtube video regarding Tax Havens and their benefit to the economy which Dan (from Cato) passed along. Enjoy.

Dion death watch, a tale of two Bourque polls

2008-09-03T21:03:00.021-04:00

Poll #1 (Fri., March 2nd, 2007)
Poll #2 (Wed., September 3rd, 2008)

It's funny how the farmer from the 'chi [McKenna] can be quickly disregarded as a contender for the leadership of the Liberal party. From second in '07 to off the list completely in '08. A year sure does make a big difference with his popularity on Bourque Newswatch.

Just so you know, even Robert Thibault made the 2nd cut.

Update

Speaking of McKenna, I see there is another local journo that is touting him as a saviour to the so-called boring Stephens in Ottawa. Talk about being out of touch with the rest of the country. I mean, come on, not only is Frankie baby getting too old compared with the current Prime Minister, he possesses a squeaky, less then authoritative voice that ranks him up there with Ross Perault. Not to mention, other then a cup of coffee as Canadian Embassador in the US, he hasn't done anything constructive other then doing the Liberal cocktail circuit and padding his own wallet. Get a grip, Marty.

A federal government subsidy that makes me Gag

2008-08-30T11:33:00.014-04:00

Corporate welfare is despicable enough, it doesn't need any help.

I guess Harper wants the cemetery vote in Saint-Léonard.

<Google translation>

Yes, but it happened on your watch

CBC.ca: Dimitri Soudas, spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office, said in an e-mail to the Canadian Press on Saturday that "Alfonso Gagliano receiving a loan from Farm Credit Canada was disturbing."

"The Conservative Government believes that money should go to help farmers, not former Liberal cabinet ministers," he said.

I find it hard to believe that an individual like Gagliano and his loan application could slip through the cracks no matter what the guidelines are. Weird at best, incompetent at the least.

Graham must put a moritorium on earmark funding

2008-08-25T18:12:00.019-04:00

NB gov't promoting more subsidized failure in the Miramichi

Those that read this blog know I am absolutely no fan of pork barrel politics, especially when it comes in the form of a backdoor earmark request made specifically for local projects that are not vetted in the usual appropriations process nor administered by accountable individuals. Furthermore, many of these earmarks have already proven to be far from successful. Miramichi is simply proof of that! In other words, they didn't work ten years ago, and they don't work now. Yours truly believes it's high time that taxpayers dollars were used wisely, not to mention, fully vetted.

Moreover, it's not only time to scale back the Enterprise ring once and for all, but there must be a moratorium placed on legislative sponsored earmarks hidden under the guise of ACOA, CDT and BNB.

Pollster Frank Graves is wrong too

2008-08-25T15:46:00.014-04:00

There has been much speculation on what PM Stephen Harper will do after he summons the opposition leaders to his chambers. Some (mostly pundits and journos) believe the meeting to be a foregone conclusion and that [he] will pull the plug on the up-and-coming fall parliamentary session thus making a visit to the Governor General to call an early election. Again, one of the main theories being bandied about for an early election is that the PM wants to get it out of the way before the US election in November as many foresee an Obama victory as a momentum booster for the Canadian Libs:

"Pollster Frank Graves, for one, predicts that a Barack Obama victory will result in a big push - possibly a three-point gain - for the Liberals. Hence the prime ministerial rush."

Heck, it all sounds good coming from Mr. Dithers former pollster, but for reasons I listed about a month ago, the two political situations are not conducive, so therefore, the momentum in favour of Dion is capricious at best. If anything, an Obama victory would mean bad news for Dion.

Interesting medals facts

2008-08-20T14:27:00.007-04:00

Last week I was quite critical of those in the MSM who quickly jumped on Canada's slow start in Beijing by suggesting we need more funding for the Olympics via higher taxes. Not only have most of those scenics gone noticeably silent, they are oblivious to some interesting facts regarding Canada's medal production in conjunction to its population:

While many are quick to criticize Canada's "poor showing" at the Olympics, few are willing to define what "success" looks like. The criticism usually begins with something that compares us with the United States and ends with the usual call for throwing more taxpayer dollars at the "issue".

For obvious reasons we can't compare our Olympic medal total with the United States. For starters, their population of 300 million people is almost ten times that our nation's. Not to mention the fact that the United States has a much longer summer for training.

What would be appropriate when considering success for our nation, is Canada's medal haul on a per basis with other countries. Below is a per capita medal earnings comparison between Canada and the top ten medal earning nations.

1) Australia 1:572,222
2) United Kingdom 1:1,691,666
3) South Korea 1:2,050,000
4) France 1:2,133,333
5) CANADA 1:2,553,846
6) Italy 1:2905000
7) Germany 1:2,942,857
8) Russia 1:3,126,666
9) United States 1:3,845,569
10) Japan 1:5,534,782
11) China 1:16,835,443

Suddenly, Canada's one medal for every 2,553,846 people is looking pretty respectable. As you can see, when compared with the top ten medal earning nations, Canada places fifth. Those that are keen on comparing us with the United States can take solace in the fact that on a per capita basis, their nation currently ranks 9th.

Further, as Kevin pointed out, our current total of 13 medals has already passsed the 2004 total of 12. Perhaps it's time for the critics to stop bashing our nation's "poor showing" and to start by cheering our men and women on for their great showing.

"Olympic dream tax" and funding not the answer

2008-08-13T13:40:00.027-04:00

There's no question that Canada is seriously struggling at the Olympic games in Beijing this week. It's so bad that at the pace the team is on right now, our combined medal count for Athens '04 (12 medals) and Beijing will not only be less then a few third world countries --- and North Korea who don't have power at night --- it may well be less then a single US athlete. Can you say "sucking big time"?

Yes, as Canadians, historically we are good natured in that we tend to focus more on participation rather then domination, but some have even maintained that our medal problems exist because we are a nation full of lame excuses. Here are my favorites from Charles Adler:

1) We cannot do well at the Summer Games because we are a northern country. Whattttttttttttttttttttttt? You mean you have to live in a southern country to do well at Weightlifting, or Basketball, or Swimming, or Diving, or dozens of other indoor sports?
Do the winners on the winning teams all live on ocean-beach property where they just swim with the dolphins? Now if only Canadian kids had the opportunities of those spoiled beach boys growing up in North Korea - we too would have seven medals by now like they do.
2) Our government doesn't care enough. Whattttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt?
You mean the polls show this is an issue. The polls show Canadians really want the government to make national athletic achievement a priority? Political parties have an issue that is biting them in the backside - and they cannot feel it. Why can't we just admit that it doesn't matter very much to an overwhelming majority of us? If it did, a political party would swim faster than Michael Phelps to grab the gold on this issue! Every political party in this country is flying around mindlessly in the dark, a rabid blind bat, looking for an issue. If this was an issue, even the blind bats of politics would see it and seize it.

3) We don't want to win “too much” and celebrate “too much” and venerate “too Much” and hero worship “too much”. That would risk turning us into a nation of gloating Americans. As long as we don't perform well on the world athletic stage in the Summer Games, the biggest games, the ones where most of the world shows up, well as long as we aren't too competitive there, we don't run the risk of looking like we are aping the Americans. After all that is the measure of a good Canadian. We must never be too loud, too boisterous, too spontaneous, too celebratory, too triumphalist - too visible. Being invisible guarantees us that nobody could mistake for Americans.

Anyway, all these excuses and finger pointing remind me of something I read by Mark Spector in the National Post today regarding our lack of medals at these games:

"We know that back home, Canadians aren't expecting miracles. But a medal would be nice, wouldn't it?
But tell me that, back home, we're not asking each other again, "Why are we so bad at the Olympics?"
If we are, then here's something else you may have heard before: You get what you pay for at the Olympics. Medals don't fall out of trees - not at the Summer Games. They come through sheer volume of legitimate medal chances, and the countries with most darts come away with the most hardware.
So basically, here's the deal, Canada: We could be the New York Yankees, and show up here with a far greater percentage of athletes who are capable of winning - not just competing - at this level.
But it will come out of your tax dollars."

In some respects I do agree that we need more funding if we are to succeed (and place in the top three in the world). However, from what I do know, too much of that funding goes to fat Canadian Olympic bureaucrats rather then the coaches and athletes who need it. So essentially, more funding would not only mean more bureaucrats would get a free vacation to an exotic location on our dime, it would mean that our podium woes would continue to go unresolved.

Higher taxes is definitely not the answer to our low medal count.

Related: Canada's swim team suffers one-two punch, Canadians settle again for best-evers, Canadian relay team fades to fifth, Early exit for Canada's doubles team, Canada shut out in pool medal hunt, Canadians remain shut out of medals, No medals, no problem.

Citizen input v consultant led unilateralism

2008-08-07T15:43:00.003-04:00

I see the government of this western province is looking for even more participation from its citizens on critical issues and decisions while we default to a bunch of consultants that not only have no clue what the public is thinking, they don't directly represent them either. Gee, I wonder what formula will be more successful in the long run.

David Freddoso: Obama not an agent of change

2008-08-05T14:26:00.009-04:00

Here's an excerpt below which I found interesting from an exclusive Human Events interview with David Freddoso:

The main lesson is that Barack Obama’s record, throughout his career, demonstrates conclusively that he has never been a reformer, that this image of “change and hope” that he projects is really a great lie. In fact there’s never been a single time in Senator Obama’s political career where he did something that was difficult and would cost him politically for the sake of needed reforms and change.

[...]

Just to give a few examples from my book, chapter one discusses at length Sen. Obama’s support for and alliances with Chicago machine politicians, that’s chapters one and two.

The “political machine” is all about using the apparatus of the government treasury, using the taxpayer’s money to keep yourself in power permanently. You put your political cronies on the payroll to help yourself get elected and re-elected and then when you’re in power you get to do things like steer pension funds and investment to benefit your pals. All of this stuff was going on.

Reminds me a lot of how Shawn Graham was portrayed by the public (an agent of positive change) prior to him entering the premier's office. Now that he is in, it's obvious from the outset that he was never about reforming economic policy or making decision that would benefit everyday NBers and our province's future. On the contrary, the most critical decisions made [economically] by this government have benefited former politicos (think strip malls, golf courses and firms that daddy sits on the board for), not to mention, there are a slew of Liberal friendly consultants and cronies living off the public purse. Quite sad since there are thousands of NBers currently struggling to make ends meet on nothing more then a minimum wage salary.

Government using taxpayer's $$ to buy good press?

2008-08-02T15:10:00.015-04:00

It's no secret that the Telegraph Journal's press coverage has been overly generous to the government under premier Graham since they gained power, but if these allegations prove to be true, they are taking the relationship to a whole new "legally shaky" level --- or should I say altitude.

Not to mention, a relationship allegedly funded by New Brunswick taxpayers. This is not good folks.

I hope someone looks into this for the sake of taxpayers. I guess it's time for the CBC to get off their neutral fence post and start digging.

ACOA: Wasting taxpayers money since 1987

2008-08-02T13:40:00.023-04:00

CH: "Taxpayers have picked up the tab for a group of Newfoundland junior high school students to attend a world Lego robotics competition in Atlanta, Ga., for the past five years.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the economic development agency for the region, has paid for a group of about 10 students and two coaches to travel to Georgia for the event from St. Francis School, a junior high school in Harbour Grace, every April since 2004, at a total cost of $53,861."

[...]

"ACOA’s mandate is regional economic development, not Lego-building," said Mr. Williamson. "This is a question of federal priorities and the federal government putting money into Lego building blocks as opposed to infrastructure in this part of the country.

Mr. Williamson said it was "absurd" to spend money on a Lego contest when there are wharfs and sidewalks that need repairing. "There are so many areas in which the government could spend money here in Atlantic Canada," he said. "And $10,000 to $15,000 handed to a municipality for infrastructure could be meaningful."

Funny thing is this callow junket fell under their business development program. Nice one fellas. {H/T Lee Harding}

I guess it's easy to see why there is so much "waste" and "mismanagement" in New Brunswick when it comes to these regional development programs as it's usually the same old business development hacks that end up with the earmarked cash (taxpayer's money) at the end of the day. In other words, judging from the state of economic affairs in this province over the last three decades, it's safe to say that our money has been in the wrong hands, or better yet, ended up in the wrong hands from the wrong hands.

Time to give it back to the taxpayer bubs.

Good reads: ACOA: The Lost Decade, 2005 Pre-election Spend-O-Meter, Who Wants to be a Millionaire?, Another Subsidy Wave Crashes Into Atlantic Canada, 2004 Pre-election Spending.

An Obama victory will be bad news for Dion

2008-07-31T12:51:00.036-04:00

I usually don't get into raw politics much on this blog, but I couldn't help but take exception to a statement made by Lawrence Martin of the Glib and Frail in his column a few days ago regarding an Obama victory ultimately helping the Liberals and Dion in the next general election campaign. Here's what he said:

"The Liberals want to perform reasonably well in the by-elections, then push for a general campaign in the fall. Their ideal scenario is for a vote to come in November on the heels of a rising liberal tide - an Obama victory - in the U.S. presidential election."

Now I can understand every left-of-centre journalists' dream to have the North American power corridor occupied by two very Liberal minded political leaders, however, if you stop for a second and let a few little facts get in the way of clear utopianism, you realize that an Obama victory should be cause for concern for the Dion led Liberals in the next campaign, not cause for optimism. Why?

Well, let's take a look at the political landscape, not to mention, the national poll situation of both the US Democrats and the Canadian Tories for a moment.

First off, much like Democrats, the conservatives under Harper are searching for that last piece of the puzzle that will snap the long hold on power held by their political opponents. In other words, for the Democrats, that would mean regaining the white house; for Harper, that would entail forming a clear majority in the House of Commons.

Unfortunately for Stephane Dion (and Lawrence Martin's scenario above), that's not where the similarities end with Harper and Obama.

What is more important here is that both Obama and Harper have failed to move the polls an inch since gaining the political spotlight. Why is this so significant? Well, the usefulness in national polls is in getting rough ideas of a candidate's popularity, and more importantly as a judge of momentum. It is on this latter score that both Harper and Obama have had some serious concern heading into a general election. In other words, it's cause for concern personally for Obama, as for Harper, it raises doubts on whether or not he can actually sell his party's message to the entire national electorate.

For instance, on June 4th, Rasmussen Reports released its first daily tracking poll of the U.S. general election (3,000 likely voters over three nights, with a margin of error of +/-2%), and it showed Obama 47%, McCain 45%. Fifty-seven days later, the Wednesday, July 30 poll showed Obama at 48% to McCain's 46%-virtually no movement. In the interim, neither candidate has shown movement outside the margin of error.

North of the border, a Nanos tracking poll completed April 9th, 2008 (847 Canadians 18 years of age and older and accurate within 3.4 percentage points) showed the conservatives and Liberals deadlocked at 36 per cent. A scenerio much like Obama's personal numbers, although it's Harper's party numbers, not his personal numbers, that have shown virtually no movement.

So, with that being said, what would a rising Liberal-Democratic tide south of the border and a significant Obama victory mean for Harper and his party? Well, it would indicate two things. First, that voters weren't truly paying close attention, and so minimal movement in the polls was to be expected prior to a race. And secondly, that the strength of a leader during the crucial part of an election campaign means way more to a candidate ultimately forming government, then do a few national polls done months in advance of the real race (or convention in Obama's case).

Furthermore, what the polls say and what the electors do in the next election, I believe, is still up for grabs. So clearly, an Obama landslide victory would defy the current numbers as would a Harper majority. Which is why, in retrospect, the Dion Liberals should be praying for an Obama defeat, not a victory like Mr. Martin has indicated.

As the latter, as I explained above, would not be trending in favour of Mr. Dion.

Oliver Stone's "W" trailer

2008-07-28T19:38:00.003-04:00

I came across this leaked version of Oliver Stone's upcoming biopic of President Bush, "W" on Facebook earlier today. The reason I say 'leaked' is because it's not supposed to premier until later tonight. Anyway, there's been a lot of skepticism about this particular film, especially since Oliver Stone hasn't directed a good flick in many years and his previous political films have been far from riveting. Although, I have to admit, upon first glance of the trailer, this looks well put together, and potentially interesting. It's scheduled to debut in theaters just in time for the November election:

Canada: a tax friendly environment?

2008-07-28T11:55:00.039-04:00

This has to be encouraging news for the feds. Now, if only Shawn G and co. can do something about the regressive personal income taxes and the Small Business Corporate Income Tax Rate.

Doing the policy dirty work, getting no electoral credit

It's quite ironic that the three Canadian cities that are ranked in the top 10 (for having a competitive tax advantage over their global counterparts) are Vancouver - 4th, Montreal - 6th and Toronto - 7th.

All cities that the federal Tories have helped along with their excellent tax policies, but can't seem to breakthrough in --- electorally.

Let me tell you, if I were Harper's communications director, I'd start letting local candidates better sell the positive aspects of their economic policies (as a primary message) to their local constituencies instead of controlling the message too much insofar as to avoid bad press. Come on, lower taxes (both personal and corporate) is an easy sell, especially when your opponent is selling higher ones sprinkled with side deals that benefit his party in favorable jurisdictions.

I mean, it's better then the perceived current alternative which hasn't budged the polls in your favour one bit for months, right? Anyway, I guess only time will tell if the tories' new math and strategic sell job will "truly" include all areas of the 905, 416, 514, 604 and 778.

It has to, if they want to increase their odds at forming a majority.

Born free. Taxed to death

Speaking of high taxes, bloated gas prices and outrageous text messaging fees, it would seem that a majority of Canadians have a common pent-up anger about them, which btw, supposedly unites us.

Ontario's outrageous federal dependency

2008-07-25T10:03:00.022-04:00

Still whining, even after billions and billions has been earmarked (via corporate welfare) for the auto industry over the past two decades;

The lead editorial in Today's Halifax Chronicle Herald provides fodder for the argument that the Ontario Premier really is the small man of confederation that he has been accused of.

McGuinty is whining that Ottawa should give Ontario more cash. Of course, he does this the same day the the Toronto Star runs a front page story about how the feds are committing $7.8 billion for Ontario infrastructure. So much for his timing.

Ontario is flirting with a recession and Mr. McGuinty has spent the provincial cupboards bare, so there is no cash for him to provide the tax relief necessary to help fix things. Why is that? Because he has spent like a drunken sailor - more than twice the combined rate of inflation and population growth for five straight years. He has created almost as many government jobs as private sectors jobs. In fact, more government jobs than Mike Harris, Ernie Eves and Bob Rae combined!

If the feds want to help out Ontario they could scrap equalization altogether and reduce taxes by the same amount. It is better that Ontario taxpayers and businesses get the cash without the Premier getting his mitts on it because he has proven already that he can't be trusted to manage it responsibly.

Any more whining for federal handouts (not to mention excessive spending) and McGuinty's province may very well become the "new" New Brunswick. Although I'm sure the press will pick up on it there.

To fly banana or not to fly banana? That is the $55,000 question

People who read this blog know I'm a huge critic of wasteful subsidies earmarked for ridiculous pet projects. However, this one most definitely takes the cake for the most outrageous proposed project funded by taxpayers ("proposed" because it didn't get off the ground...no pun intended). Anyway, if you don't believe me, take a look for yourself. I have to tell ya, that's a lot of banana cream pie.

That'll explain it

2008-07-21T12:01:00.003-04:00

It's good to know there is a reason why my prayers haven't been met for a more free economic society in New Brunswick. LOL!

New technology, same old concept

2008-07-18T12:32:00.020-04:00

I see Bombardier has launched a "new family of fuel-efficient, single-aisle commercial airliners" called the CSeries (known as the Green planes program to enviro nuts). To tell you the truth, it's not a bad initiative since these planes will release up to 20 per cent less CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Plus, when complete, they will fly four times quieter and deliver huge energy savings .

Unfortunately, that's where the compliments end for Bombardier (and this deal) as this announcement was seriously muddied by the fact that Canadian taxpayers will once again be on the hook for these new planes, to the tune of $350 million (funding which was originally approved by the Martin Libs back in '05).

Quite disappointing since this not only proves that the federal tories are the same as the Liberals when it comes to corporate welfare, it also demonstrates that Maxime Bernier, though a shacky Foreign Affairs Minister, wasn't that bad an Industry Minister, at least not as bad as statist Jim Prentice.

Update: Quebec Libertarian Pierre Lemieux has an excellent article on the subject of subsidies and bombardier over at Liberty in Canada. It's definitely worth the read. Great job, Pierre!

Related: Bombardier shares get a lift from ~~C-Series~~ Taxpayers, Coyne Chides aerospace subsidy, On the Dole (pg.18), I think he will get an argument from Tasha on his stance in the last three paragraphs, Taxpayers to risk more then $100,000 per job, CSeries video.

NBT: Put it all down on your debt Nova Scotia

2008-07-15T10:15:00.019-04:00

Only days after agreeing to an $870 million Crown share settlement, I see the MacDonald government is sending out mixed signals on how it will be invested. Some for the 100-series highway project? Some for education? Some for this? Some for that? When does it end?

Remember, former Premier John Hamm put $830 million on the debt from the Atlantic accord in 2005. Let's hope the current government does the same and puts 100 per cent of the offshore windfalls towards the deficit. Anything less would be fiscally irresponsible.

Related: Why we deserve our billion bucks, Crown-share revenues should go on debt, Offshore Energy Payment Issue Almost Resolved,Crown share deal sets the table, Large day for offshore, Ottawa, N.S. Reach Deal On Payments, Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia Resolve Crown Share, N.S. lands $867M windfall.

"Green Shift" quickly shifting from shift to shaft

2008-07-14T11:24:00.019-04:00

As kit pointed out over at Spink About It, last week Ontario Liberal MP Ken Boshcoff was on record wherein he admitted that Dion's carbon tax, or as his boss calls it 'Green Shift', was anything but an environmental policy, but rather "the most aggressive anti-poverty program in 40 years," which would ultimately "transfer wealth from the oil patch to the rest of the country."

And as National Post columnists Lorne Gunter demonstrates, Boshcoff sure wasn't kidding when he said "transfer wealth from the oil patch":

Two weeks ago, Mr. Dion intimated that while Alberta and Saskatchewan have just 13% of the national population between them, their economies could -- should -- pay up to 40% of the cost of his carbon tax because they produce 40% of Canada's carbon emissions.

At about $16-billion a year in new carbon levies, the Green Shift would cost each Canadian about $500 a year -- just under $2,000 for a family of four. Mr. Dion has promised to return that amount in the form of income tax cuts and subsidies. His proposal would "shift" part of Canadians' tax burden from income to energy consumption.

But if won't shift it evenly across the country. By aiming his taxes at producers, rather than consumers, Mr. Dion clearly means to extract more of his new revenues from some provinces than others -- not coincidentally the provinces that seldom elect Liberal MPs.

The share of the green taxes he wishes to impose on Alberta and Saskatchewan would work out to nearly $1,500 per capita, or $6,000 per family. In the rest of the country, the load would be just $325 per person or $1,300 a family.

And it's not as though Albertans, in particular, aren't making a disproportionate contribution to federal finances already.

In addition to fuelling the federal budget surplus, Albertans contribute about $4,000 more per person to federal finances than they receive back in federal program spending. By comparison, the fiscal deficit Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty frequently speaks of for his province is just over $1,500 per person per year, and Green Shift wouldn't raise that to $2,000.

Add together what Albertans are already contributing to Confederation with the green surcharge Mr. Dion is proposing, and Alberta families would be kicking in more than $20,000 extra per family if the Liberals are ever returned to power.

No wonder it's being deemed the Green Shaft. Because it really is! And trust me, it really must be bad if Harper's cowboy outfit got runner up in the news [today] because of it. Though I have to admit, this outfit sure beats the 2005 version he wore during the barbecue circuit.

Update: Phil (aka Voice of the Association) has an excellent post on how Dion's 'Green tax' is not an environmental plan, but an economic plan that redistributes wealth to areas that are generally more vote-rich for Liberals. Give it a read.

Related: Harper ridicules Dion proposal as 'green shaft', Green shift gives life to Dion, Will Canadians support a hard-nosed approach to climate change?, Hot and bothered over climate.

Industry Canada's $4 Billion Dollar Boondoggle

2008-07-08T13:18:00.053-04:00

Terence Corcoran of the Financial Post makes a case against the Government of Canada's [specifically Industry Canada's] wireless spectrum auction; or as he sees it for cell users, a Wireless Tax.

Yes Mable, Carbon Taxes Really Do Suck

In other tax related news, two out of every three Canadians have tuned out Dion's regressive national carbon tax policy. Another note of interest was the fact that only Albertans hate the policy worse then Atlantic Canadians (as 79 per cent thinks it's "a bad idea").

Not a surprising reaction after what you see happening in British Columbia as "taxpayers are paying more for gasoline and most other energy sources as a result of Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell’s introduction of a carbon tax. The levy went into effect on July 1 and gasoline taxes increased by 2.34 cents a litre (the additional tax paid by consumers is actually 2.46 cents/L when the GST tax-on-tax is factored in). Vancouver, which today has the highest taxes on gasoline, saw pump prices jump to over $1.50. The province’s carbon tax will also hit natural gas, propane, diesel and jet fuel. It will rise again on Canada Day over the next four years unless high energy prices and voter furry prompts Mr. Campbell to rethink his policy."

I see truckers in New Brunswick seem to agree it's bad policy.

Related: Environmental consulting firm suing Liberal Party, Dion's Green Shift isn't as painless as it sounds, Carbon tax confusion everywhere, More holes in Dion carbon tax, Most oppose carbon tax.

Ontario picking winners and New Brunswick losers

2008-07-01T15:41:00.022-04:00

Just remember, the following statement below came from a New Brunswick cabinet minister whose statist Liberal government (and province) has never EVER embraced the private sector, whether it be the IT sector, energy, forestry, consulting, agriculture or the fishery. But alas, as Keir says, the private sector -- within a free market -- will miraculously be the champion in New Brunswick when it comes to nuclear (article here):

"Let's say Ontario doesn't (choose the ACR-100), they pick Areva. The private sector here is going to say 'hold on, we'd better slow down here, because I don't want an orphan technology', but it's the private sector that's going to make that decision, not NB Power, not Francis McGuire, not Jack Keir, not our government" he said, "It's the private sector that's paying the money, it's the private sector that will pick the technology. I can clearly tell you that every indication I've been given from the private sector investors that I've talked to is that AECL is their (preferred) technology."

Not that I want to delve into their politics, but it would seem that once again the NB government has ended up with the short end of the stick because of the manner in which they played their cards (policy-wise). Although, when you lose, it's nice to blame it on something you can't control, or never believed in, like the private sector. Don't worry Jack, most of us know the real reason why.

Ipsos Reid poll out of touch with Atlantic Canadians

2008-07-01T12:50:00.030-04:00

Blogger Right from Alberta makes some great points regarding the latest Dominion Institute and Ipsos Reid poll, specifically part 1, called "THE PEOPLE, PLACES, EVENTS, ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND SYMBOLS THAT DEFINE CANADA." I found his Harper comments interesting:

While I am disappointed that P.E.T. comes in at #1 nationally I am impressed that our current Prime Minister, after 2.5 years in a minority government, comes in at #8, sandwiched between Tommy Douglas and Lester Pearson (some might say that's pretty good company). Former PMs Martin, Chretien, and Mulroney (I intentionally excluded Campbell and Clark since they reallly didn't serve long enough to have any legacy what-so-ever) don't rank in the top 10.

The only region in Canada where Harper doesn't rank in the top 10 is in BC. And, this is where the Conservatives should pay close attention, in Quebec Harper ranks as #3 (just behind PET). Heck, Harper only comes in at #7 in Alberta.

Let's just say I [too] felt disappointed with regards to P.E.T's #1 ranking, but I won't get into that right now as I found a few other things interesting about the overall rankings, specifically the Atlantic Canada rankings. First of all, how on earth did Celine Dion finish sixth amongst Atlantic Canadians? I can see the argument behind her finishing first in La Belle Province (which she did), but one would think that same regional mentality would have propelled Anne Murray past Dion in Atlantic Canada, no? I guess the only explanation I can figure is that Ipsos must have called all fifty maritimers that like Celine. Other then that, I really don't think she is deserved of a top 20 ranking in our neck of the woods, let alone a top ten ranking.

Furthermore, though I was quite impressed with Harper's #7 ranking, I found it a bit curious since I suspect there are many that still haven't forgiven him for his 2002 comments. In other words, he still has a lot to prove to Atlantic Canadians in the next few years before he merits that kind of ranking. That being said, I was very pleased to see Terry Fox, Wayne Gretzky, Sir John A. and Anne Murray on the list as they are all iconic Canadian figures (even with Atl. Canadians). Too bad the "Canadian Soldier" didn't make the cut as they sacrifice so much.

NBT: Boudreau's spending out-of-control

2008-06-30T14:45:00.060-04:00

A $75.9 million dollar summer frenzy of spending

For a government whose Finance Minister made "finding more revenue" an excuse for raising taxes on NBers in '07 (not to mention, not reducing the debt.), they certainly appear to have rebounded quite well as they've spent more money in a week on industry subsidies, upgrades and pilot projects then most government's of small provinces spend in just under a year. Take a look at the corporate welfare [end of the month] June madness (June 23rd-27th):

Cooke Aquaculture Inc. receives $3 million forgivable loan.
Flakeboard Co. receives a $6.7-million term loan.
Fraser Papers Inc. receives $40 million term loan.
Atlantic Hydrogen receives $2-million grant.
Boiestown's Red Pines Park receives $200,000 for "comfort station."
TD Insurance Home and Auto receives $1.12 million forgivable loan.
Agriculture producers receive $650,000 grant to bring land into production.
Week long summer camps receive $440,000 cash injection.
Multi-k pilot project announced to help young Aboriginal NBers discover basketball.
York manor nursing-home receives $21.8 million forgivable loan.

Now I ask you, does the above spending pattern by your finance minister match his verbal commitment to maintain, and run, a fiscally responsible department so as to keep the books balanced and the debt down? Let me answer my own question, not by a long shot.

Moreover, the above is evidence that the March 2007 tax hikes were done for only one reason and one reason alone, and that's to satisfy this government's need to buy voters off with their own money.

In other words, it sounds like more of the same from these Liberals...tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend. Let's face it folks, out-of-control spending has two pernicious affects on New Brunswick's budget. Firstly, keeping debt on the books in Fredericton handcuffs the government's ability to spend where necessary (and to provide meaningful tax relief) as $607 million of our tax dollars are sent (in the form of debt service charges) to pay off the $6.5 billion dollar debt. Secondly, this type of spending will most likely be handed over to a future generation of NB taxpayers. Thus, putting their futures in jeopardy (that is, if any of them decide to stay after graduation).

Let's face the facts, NBers can't afford anymore spending sprees like the $75.9 million dollar one that Boudreau and co. just went on last week. Time to show a little (or make that a lot more) restraint boys.

A bit of this, a bit of that

2008-06-30T13:43:00.010-04:00

Here is a round-up of the week's best articles (both Canada & US):

Dion carbon tax, NEP 2? - Juliet O'Neill, The Ottawa Citizen
Flaherty: Hey Premier Pinocchio, cut taxes! - CTV.ca
Naysayers begin to grow - Bill Curry, Globe & Mail

Hey BC, Happy CO2 Tax Day - Miro Cernetig, Vancouver Sun
Carbon Tax: It won't work in Canada - Jonathan Kay, National Post
Stephane Dion: King of Pain - Alan Caplan, Edmonton Sun

Republicans Must Rein in Earmarks - Rep. Jeff Flake, Human Events
The Energy Quagmire - Ken Blackwell, New York Sun
Obama's Social Security Fine Print - Donald Luskin, Wall Street Journal

NB Education Plan: Spend, spend, spend! - Elizabeth Church, G & M
If you do not succeed, then fail, fail again - Times & Transcript
Corporate welfare summer madness: $43 million in under a week - TJ

Let Millionaires Spend - Samples & Shapiro, Cato Institute
Senate GOP Not Ready to Act on Earmarks - Clarke & Hunter, CQ.com
McCain In Canada Strikes Nerve - IBD Editorials

H/T: Pat Toomey, Club for Growth

Harper Tories: Party of protectionism?

2008-06-27T19:22:00.011-04:00

We all remember reading about the 1911 general election and how Liberal Prime Minister Sir Wilfred Laurier would ultimately turn that election into a referendum on free trade in hopes Canadian voters would finally embrace reciprocity. Well, we all know how that worked out for the great statesman from Saint-Lin, Quebec.

Well, according to Maclean's scribbler Andrew Coyne, those days of federal Liberals fighting for free trade, lower taxes and individual liberty may well be back (as he sees an emerging political trend):

For fifty years or more, conservatives have also said that prices are the vital signaling device of a market economy, informing consumers, workers, investors and businesses as to the costs of different choices. But now, suddenly, they’re irrelevant. Subsidies — sorry, investments — are the new Tory orthodoxy.

We may be witnessing one of those historic exchanges in which the parties sometimes engage, where each takes on the ideological position that the other used to occupy. Just as the Liberals were once the party of free trade, and the Tories the party of protectionism, only to see those positions reversed in the 1980s, can it be that the Liberals are about to become the party of markets and tax cuts, while the Tories embrace regulations and subsidies?

It makes one wonder if we'll ever see the day when there is a true conservative party in this country. There hasn't been one yet. Geesh!

Section 13 (1) debate...Ezra wins!!

2008-06-27T16:05:00.024-04:00

For anyone interested in section 13 (1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the ongoing controversy/debate over the limits of free speech, I recommend you watch this hour long CPAC video from the 30th annual Canadian Association of Journalists conference. It's basically a whole lot of Ezra Lavant letting loose on Ian Fine, the fallacious senior counsel at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Trust me, it's must see tv for anyone who believes very strongly in the protection of free speech. So don't delay folks. Pull up a chair, grab some beer and popcorn and enjoy the proceedings. I know I did.

Don't change the channel, this is as bad as it gets

2008-06-25T20:19:00.029-04:00

Many who have taken the time to read this blog over the past year or so know perfectly well that I am absolutely no fan of the practice of corporate welfare, whether it be in the form of a loan (forgivable loan) to a declining industry or to a company that is churning out healthy quarterly profits. It's all bad.

In other words, I think that the free market should ultimately decide the fate of a company, firm or mill, not government bureaucrats and politicians who have a history of picking losers with our tax dollars.

It's interesting, because some strong advocates of corporate welfare in New Brunswick (and let me tell you, there are many) see my criticisms as far too harsh in that I am not being completely fair to the other side. Well, to them I say: maybe you're right. On second thought, I take that back, especially after reading this blunder.

H/T Gypsy-Blog

Just for fun, I guess?

2008-06-24T14:29:00.007-04:00

I'm a bit bored this afternoon, so just to add to the silliness of the day, I bring you the Obama poster-maker (via IMAO):

Trust me, I could have said worse. Not enough words I guess. lol

Medical marijuana to minors? Whadaya think?

2008-06-24T14:03:00.001-04:00

Dion can learn a few more tricks from Graham

2008-06-19T11:24:00.046-04:00

A snippet from today's Telegraph Journal (snip, snip, snip) :

What the federal Liberals label green-tax shifting, the Graham Liberals call re-balancing the tax system. The proposed policies in New Brunswick will, if enacted, result in a stronger, more dynamic economy. The province is on the right track - smart tax reform is being considered along with tax relief.

I'm glad Williamson is optimistic. However, I have to live under the current tax system in New Brunswick, and as far as I'm concerned, until these tax reforms are enacted, I'm still being unfairly gouged.

Furthermore, from what I have witnessed in the last twenty months, when it comes to this government, whether it be enacting election promises from the Charter for Change, moving forward with recommendations from the Self-Sufficiency report, following benchmarks from the appointed Population Growth Secretariat, sticking to reforms suggested in the report on Post-Secondary Education, their "will" to make the tough decision, and stick with it, is lacking in spades. So if we are banking on them to make the tough decisions recommended in the Green paper on tax competitiveness, then let me tell you, we will be "shift out of luck" once gain.

Plus, as I've said thousands of times on this blog, you can make all the changes you want to the tax code, but if you don't change the political culture of picking winners and losers via corporate welfare, then it will be all for not.

Unfortunately for NBers, it looks like we have a lot of "talk" going on with regards to tax reform and a lot more "action" when it comes to the status quo, especially corporate welfare and increased spending.

Definitely a lose/lose for New Brunswick taxpayers and business.

Update: I see at least one person values "record over rhetoric" when it comes to the current government's tax policies.

Related: 'Shift' hits the fan, N.B. Liberals increase taxes for all, N.B. Liberals face public scrutiny following difficult legislative session, More corporate welfare for AV Nackawic, The summer of Stéphane, Carbon tax primer, Dion to pair income tax cuts with carbon levy, Dion's carbon tax flip-flop, Dion's day of transformation, Dion's 'green shift' to reduce taxes by $15 billion, N.S. premier opposed to notion of carbon tax but not dismissing idea outright, Liberal 'Green Shift' plan to offset carbon tax with tax cuts, Low-income households would see biggest gains, Carbon taxes: Cash grab or climate saviour?, Don't believe Dion's carbon-tax claims: Prime Stephen Minister Harper.

Bathurst High School - "Celebration of the Spirit"

2008-06-18T15:38:00.014-04:00

I just read the speech Ken Dryden gave to the graduating class at Bathurst High School on Facebook. Let me tell you, I had trouble holding back the tears. Anyway, I think all of you should read it (click links to remember the victims):

I am a father and I am a son.

As a son, I played basketball too. As you are the Phantoms, we were the Rams. And I loved playing high school basketball just as much as I loved playing hockey. Hockey we could only play on teams outside school. Basketball was my chance to play on the school team. To represent the school; to show off in front of my friends.

As a son, I didn’t fear. I only dreamed and fantasized about the future.

As a father, I watched our two kids, Sarah and Michael. I loved to watch them do whatever they were doing, sports included – basketball included. It was the chance to watch them grow up.

As a father, I dreamed and fantasized for them too, and sometimes I feared.

On January 12th, I was here in New Brunswick, in the midst of a national anti-poverty tour, giving a talk in Fredericton. And as a father and a son, when I heard the news, like everyone else in the country, I felt at least a little of what you were feeling here.

The Boys in Red.

I played all my minor hockey, year after year, for a team called Humber Valley – we wore red.

I played Junior B for the Etobicoke Indians – we wore red too.

I played university hockey at Cornell. We not only wore red, we were “The Big Red” – that was our nickname.

Then I played on the Canadian National Team – and wore red.

Then I went to Montreal. We were the “bleu, blanc et rouge”, the blue, white and red, but really we were the big, proud red of the Montreal Canadiens.

I played for Team Canada in 1972 against the Russians – and wore red.

All my life as a player, every team I played on, I wore red too.

The Boys in Red.

A team. Not just individuals doing whatever they want whenever they want to do it. Players and coaches – together. With personal and selfish needs too, with a personal need to do well, to feel important, to matter, to belong. But with an even bigger personal need to go through something with others, together, as a team – to hope together, to imagine and dream together, to work together and play together; to win together, to lose together; to fail, to triumph, to feel awful, to feel great, to feel down in the dumps, to feel over the moon – together. To do what teammates do – at moments when things go wrong, when you’re hurt or sick or not playing well, to have your teammate “pick you up”, as teammates say, and for you to do the same for them. A team. Working towards that goal you, as players and coaches, set for yourselves at the start of a season – an Etobicoke High School basketball championship or a Stanley Cup, a New Brunswick High School Triple A basketball championship. For what brought you together in the first place. For the biggest prize you can win. A team.

The Boys in Red.

Then on January 12th, your season changed.

Then what your season was about, what your team was about, what brought you together, the biggest prize you could win – changed.

It wasn’t about winning the championship anymore. It was about surviving, pain, deeper than you’ve ever felt before. About loss. About not knowing what to do, where to go.

But teams hang together. Players and coaches hang together. You hope and dream, work and play, win and lose, fail and triumph, feel down in the dumps and over the moon – together. And if someone is having a hard time, with the hurt and pain, if the mountain seems too high, player or coach, you pick each other up because that’s what good teammates, good friends, good neighbours do.

The Boys in Red.

In hockey, we talk of the “7th man,” in football the “12th or 13th man;” in basketball, the “6th man.” The fans, all those around us who hope and dream so hard they want to do whatever they can to help. Since January 12th, this community, this whole community, has been the “6th man.”

The Boys in Red.

This community has been that because all of you have needed each other more than you have ever needed each other before. Because life is a team sport and no one can do it alone.

The Boys in Red.

What is this team playing for now? For the future. For life. For each other. For those here today and those who aren’t. Still picking each other up, still needing each other – always, forever.

The Boys in Red.

Graduation is a time of memory. And because it is, this year it is a wonderful time and a difficult time. What to feel. What to do. What to say. What is right?

As human beings, we have a need to grieve – and we have a right to smile, to laugh, to celebrate.

We have a need to remember – and we have a right to carry on.

As human beings, we have an obligation to life itself. To live.

To live well.

That’s what we owe ourselves. Player or coach – that’s what we owe each other.

The Boys in Red.

I am here today because all of us, all Canadians, want to play on this team.

I am here today because, like all Canadians, I am a “Boys in Red” too.

Brad "Big Brother" Woodside is watching you

2008-06-17T17:06:00.012-04:00

Now I know it's not quite as bad as Britain's shouting spy cameras, but the latest news that Mayor Brad Woodside is serious considering installing live spy cameras in Nashwaaksis that will stock people's every move as they walk along the street near the field house is not good. Will the summer of 08 be marked as the season in which Fredericton politicians pushed for increased government intrusion into our daily private conduct? Let's hope not. As you know with these types of things, one thing leads to another and before you know it, our civil liberties have eroded so much that our society resembles that of the declining years of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's Russia where everybody's paranoid and looking over their shoulder.

Let's not allow Mayor Wooside to force daily human/electronic surveillance down the throats of the people of Nashwaaksis. This is one time that you can't let the "It can't happen here" attitude towards totalitarianism get the better of you. Let the Mayor know you are displeased with his decision to spy on private citizens.

To reach Mayor Wooside’s office:

Home: (506) 472-8677
Phone: (506) 460-2085
Email: click here
Fax: (506) 460-2134

Charter for Chump Change...as far as I'm concerned

2008-06-16T18:21:00.039-04:00

Taxpayers suffer another setback from the provincial Liberals

Local CBC reporter Genevieve Tomney has a great piece on the Liberal's broken promise to offer "provincial sales tax rebates to NBers who purchase alternative fuel vehicles." A promise which was made almost two years ago when the Liberals rolled out their much lauded Charter for Change platform in 2006. (see 18:28 mark of CBC New Brunswick @ Six)

It's quite comical because for over a year now I have been bugging (and practically harassing) anybody who will listen about the Liberal's lack of a comprehensive green strategy and how it's just a bunch of ministers driving around (or being chauffeured) in their hybrid vehicles which happen to be upgraded to the tune of $7000 a piece thanks, in most part, to hardworking New Brunswick taxpayers.

Actually, to add insult to injury, it turns out that not all ministers are driving fuel efficient vehicles. So they haven't even done that right.

Anyway, I don't know what else to say other than this is typical behaviour coming from a unilateral government whose policies only seem to benefit them and not regular NBers. Talk about elitist! As for their "Charter for Change"? It's turning out to be more like "Charter for absolutely no change" these days, unless you're a Liberal minister looking to drive your subsidized hybrid to the Royal Oak Club for a couple rounds of subsidized golf. Other then that, you're sh&t out of luck.

Update: I noticed Finance Minister Victor Boudreau was interview and he said the reason they haven't gotten around to the 'sales tax rebates' for energy efficient vehicles was because they're still only 20 months into their mandate. A bit of a lame excuse (because that's almost two yrs.), but let's give him the benefit of the doubt on this one for a change. However, where I won't cut him and his cabinet some slack is in regards to the entire cabinet's first year promise to drive fuel efficient vehicles as a way to set an example for the rest of the province. It was a small promise, but a promise just the same.

As it stands right now, according to Tomney, only 11 Ministers (and deputy ministers) are currently fulfilling that promise. And as far as I know, there are 20 ministers in the cabinet and 42 deputy ministers (I believe I am low-balling the deputies). Anyway, if you add those two up, it comes to approximately 62 ministers and deputy ministers. So at the rate they're going, only 18 per cent of them are fulfilling that simple first year promise to drive fuel efficient hybrid vehicles. Makes you wonder about the capabilities of this bunch, doesn't it?

Hat tip anon in the comments section.

Flat tax revolution...even in Estonia NB?

2008-06-15T21:57:00.017-04:00

In my last post I linked you up to a blog by Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute as he praised the Government of New Brunswick and its policy makers for their part in looking into the possibility of adopting a growth-friendly 10 percent flat tax in their next spring budget.

Anyway, I was clicking around a few blogs tonight and noticed that Mitchell has a very good video on YouTube about the Flat Tax Revolution which is currently in place in countries like Estonia, Iceland and Hong Kong. For those who don't know much about the flat tax, or have just heard the typical rhetoric dismissing it as a "far right" policy favouring the rich, I advise you to give Dan's argument in favour of a flat tax a fair shot. It's interesting because a lot of the countries mentioned who have, or are thinking of having a flat tax, are far from being right wing in ideology. (The video is only 6 minutes)

For more interesting videos from the Cato Institute, click here.

Tax Freedom Day: New Brunswick finishes second

2008-06-13T18:53:00.057-04:00

NB taxpayers spent 154 days working for the government this year

According to the Fraser Institute’s annual Tax Freedom Day calculations, New Brunswick finished a solid second this year (June 3rd) behind only "tax friendly" Alberta (and exactly 11 days earlier then the previous two years). Though it is a much earlier date this year, I wouldn't advise any of you to break open the Dom Perignon just yet as NBers are still working just under half the year for the government. Not exactly economic freedom for working class folks, now is it?

Anyway, I think this drastic improvement from last year is due, in most part, to the aggressive personal income tax reforms implemented by the Conservative government in Ottawa, not mention, an additional 1 per cent cut to the GST. Both of which had a modest, if not, significant effect on the annual take home pay and savings of many middle class families in New Brunswick. However, if you're an Atlantic Canadian, an earlier date can also be attributed to increased transfer payments, not provincial or local tax policy:

The Atlantic Provinces historically have had some of the country’s earliest Tax Freedom Days in part because a large share of their total revenue is transferred from other provinces through the federal government’s equalization payments. Tax Freedom Day in those provinces, as well as in Manitoba and Quebec, comes earlier than it would without these transfers.

The only losers? Those who made over $52,700 as provincial reforms by the Graham government resulted in higher income taxes for those falling in the third bracket. Too bad, because we could have edged our way into May if it were not for the March 2007 Boudreau tax hikes.

So, how do we improve our tax environment? We can start by putting a two year freeze on all public sector spending (with the exception of health care) while reversing the tax increases from the March 2007 Budget. Then, and only then, will we be ready to implement what I call "the economic decider", the growth-friendly 10 percent flat tax (a tax Alberta has had in their repertoire for quite sometime now).

Other than that, if Boudreau decides to keep the line on high personal taxes, nothing will change, and in the end, we will continue to work half the year, and maybe even more, for the "man". How sad.

In the meantime, I'm with National Post columnist Jonathan Chevreau when he said, "I find the idea of getting up in the morning and toiling away all day just to remit the fruits of that labor to three levels of Government too depressing. Instead, I choose to believe that each morning I work for governments, and each afternoon I work for myself. The effect is the same, but it feels much better."

Related: Canadian tax freedom day is Saturday, four days ahead of 2007: Fraser Institute, Finally free of taxes, for now, Now we're working just under half the time for Governments, Tax Freedom Day Comes Four Days Earlier for Canadians in 2008, Tax Freedom Day comes early this year, Canada approaches 'Tax Freedom Day', 'Happy Tax Freedom Day' from Voice of the Association.

If you're bored (and have time):The Flat Tax, Want a Flat Tax That Might Work? Try (Gulp) Russia, Critical Issues Bulletins, Flat Tax Folly.

Revenue neutral? Reach for your wallet.

2008-06-12T16:48:00.052-04:00

It would be an absolute understatement to say that a lot of oxygen and even grease has been wasted this week discussing Dion's make believe carbon tax. But before you go buying into the former professors bluff of offering up a "revenue neutral" tax, I advise you to read the excerpt below from American Thinker Blog (which, IMHO, underscores the reality [and confusion] of revenue neutrality when it comes to politicians and their supposed promise):

One might argue that in the current economic environment, not raising tax rates is a good idea. There are no new tax reductions of course, when you merely maintain the current rates. But the way things are scored in Washington DC, keeping rates the same is treated as a tax cut, and hence scored as a big revenue loss for the government, since the current rates are supposed to expire in two years, and go back to the levels where they were prior to the Bush tax cuts in 2001.

Barack Obama supports ending the Bush tax cuts -- in other words he wants individuals' tax rates to go up. However, the way this is scored in Washington , Obama's plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire, is "revenue neutral". So if rates go up, that is not treated as a tax increase. If rates stay the same, that will be reported as a tax cut for federal revenue purposes.

Let's be honest here folks, aside from the rhetoric gushing out of politicians and politicos, there really is no such thing as a "revenue neutral" tax, or as we sometimes see, no such thing as a tax increase...just a tax cut that's not exactly a tax cut but is a tax cut. So are you starting to see where I'm headin' with this one?

Anyway, the idea of Dion and Graham offering up a "revenue neutral" tax is about as laughable as the thought of removing the corporate welfare mentality from government friendly firms and businesses in Atlantic Canada. Which is precisely why I found this bullet point in the Chronicle Herald by Ian Munroe a bit curious (confusing part in bold):

Elimination of targeted tax incentives for favoured sectors, replaced by broad-based tax relief for businesses that takes politics out of the equation.

What does that mean "takes politics out of the equation"? Are they required to repay government loans (and the taxpayers who funded them)? Will corporate welfare be banned altogether? All legit questions from someone (yours truly) who wants to finally see some fairness in the market, not government interference like we've seen for decades.

Goldstein's argument way off base...again

2008-06-08T14:12:00.056-04:00

[click on image for website]

Goldstein: "The campaign, designed to reach ordinary voters directly while bypassing media and academic elites, reveals Conservative thinking.
Clearly, they're worried Dion's carbon tax, whenever he releases it, could appeal to voters concerned about global warming, particularly if the Liberal announcement is backed by environmentalists, economists and business groups stressing it will be effective and "revenue neutral," a claim the Tories mock. You don't put this much effort into attacking someone you don't think is a threat."

Funny, I didn't see it that way at all. Mostly because I always thought it was good strategy if a party reached out to ordinary voters (especially when it's about their hard-earned tax dollars). And yes, that includes messages contained within a party ad campaign.

I mean, let's face it, "ordinary voters" are the very people who send politicians to Ottawa in the first place. So wouldn't it be best to represent their interest first? Well, not according to Lorrie Goldstein who believes our country would be much better off if the governing party bypassed ordinary Canadians and started making decisions, and crafting ad campaigns, based on the narrow advice of the elitist media (found primarily in the PPG), academics high up in their ivory towers and special interest groups. In other words, he's wishing the Tories would do what the Liberals did for well over a decade.

Plus, does he forget that a majority of ordinary Canadians are represented by both the NDP and the Conservatives? (A total of 157 MPs) All of whom do not support a regressive carbon tax.

â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢

Speaking of carbon taxes and higher gas prices at the pump, here's a line I found very interesting over at CTV.ca (in bold below):

However, Jane Taber and Craig Oliver, co-hosts of CTV's Question Period, noted that the Liberal tax -- which hasn't been formally presented yet -- rules out an additional tax on gasoline.
In addition, the carbon tax is supposed to be "revenue neutral" -- meaning revenue raised by the carbon tax is to be offset by accompanying cuts in income and other taxes, Taber said.

No additional taxes on gasoline? I find that hard to believe since Dion formed a deal with Green party leader Elizabeth May, who herself has proposed a 12 cent tax hike at the pumps. I mean, come on, does he [Dion] really expect us all to believe that he formed a working coalition with an environmental party so that he could ignore their core policies on climate change? Who does he take us to be?

Would a carbon tax really be revenue neutral?

2008-06-06T11:55:00.029-04:00

"Quite often revenue neutrality ends up being a tax hike on people. The plan needs to be revenue negative for the government."

~Adam Taylor, Canadian Taxpayers Federation

No doubt. Which is why I have my reservations about a revenue neutral carbon tax for NB. As BC CTF spokesperson Maureen Bader explains, it may be revenue neutral for the provincial treasury, but when it comes to individuals and business, it's anything but:

Premier Gordon Campbell's overly-hyped claim that his government's carbon tax is revenue neutral might be true for the provincial treasury, but it is certainly not neutral for individuals or businesses. It will drain family income directly with higher gasoline and home heating costs, and indirectly as municipalities and businesses pass on their energy cost increases. Equally devastating is the economic hit to some of the province's biggest industries when the carbon tax leaves them less competitive in the world marketplace. The government's own estimates show the carbon tax will do little to help it reach its greenhouse gas reduction goal. Carbon taxes will have unintended consequences for families and the economy in B.C.

Those include:
higher property taxes as municipalities pass the carbon tax cost increase onto ratepayers;
higher costs for everything we buy as businesses past the carbon tax cost increase onto consumers;
fewer jobs in energy intensive industries such as mining, as they leave the province for carbon-tax free provinces.
The carbon tax will do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, will hurt B.C. families and businesses, and won't go away when the wheels of the global warming bandwagon fall off. Canadian taxpayers should hope - and ensure at the ballot box - that Ottawa and other provinces do not follow Premier Campbell's agenda. His quest for a political legacy has put him out of touch with the realities of B.C. families.

IMO, the same consequences hold true for Victor Boudreau's potential "made in New Brunswick" carbon tax as well. And yes, that's even with his latest promise of a "reimbursement credit to off-set the impact of such a measure on low-income New Brunswickers."

Moreover, NBers should all be trained by now to take the grandiose reimbursement promises from this government with a grain of salt. Or as they say in latin, cum grano salis.

Update: Maybe the provincial tories should come out with an attack ad/website like this one. lol Quite funny, and they're even distributing t-shirts like it's a summer blockbuster for gosh sakes.

Related: Cap & Trade: Why It's Tax and Spend, Ontario Cap-and-Trade: Just Another Tax, The Real Cost of the Dion Carbon Tax, Business, environment groups dismiss carbon tax.

Three smart rules to go by, at least here in NB

2008-06-04T15:06:00.026-04:00

Rule #1: Always be weary of a competitive tax plan, or should I say discussion paper that contains additional regressive tax hikes, not to mention, policies that prompt buzzwords like "raise" and "impose".

Rule #2: Be doubly weary if the tax changes "supposedly" being delivered down the road are by a Finance Minister whose government already wears the mantra "only jurisdiction in Canada to raise taxes."

Rule #3: If blogger Charles Leblanc says it's true, it must be true. :)

I knew you'd like rule number three.

Too much conservation is economically harmful

2008-06-02T13:43:00.008-04:00

At least that's what Cato senior fellow Jerry Taylor is saying in today's New York Post:

Should the government mandate even more conservation? No, "too much" conservation is as economically harmful as "too little." Just consider the economic harm that would be delivered by, say, capping speed limits at 30 miles per hour, or banning recreational long-distance travel. Both would save gobs of energy - but at the cost of doing more harm than good.

The only thing government should do on this front is ensure that prices are "right" - that is, that they reflect total costs. That's mainly an issue for electricity, where retail power prices typically bear little relation to wholesale prices. State governments need to encourage real-time pricing of electricity - so that consumers will get the signal to, for example, run the clothes dryer at night, when power is cheaper.

(Incidentally, those who argue that gas and diesel prices don't reflect important "external" environmental and national-security costs are simply wrong - at best, those added costs are trivial on a per-gallon basis.)

But there's a fair bit to do on the supply side. Congress could take four positive steps - if it really wants to bring prices down.

There's some validity to Taylor's argument, especially since "US Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said Sunday that there was no quick fix to high oil prices, which he called an issue of supply and demand," reports The Washington Post. "Paulson said inflation in the Persian Gulf is "significant but suggested that Gulf countries pegging their currencies to the weak dollar was not the only reason for it."

Anyway, regardless of all the musings coming from a host of international speculators, I know that high prices will keep me away from unnecessary trips in my car, like the one I took yesterday where I blew an extra 50 bucks on gas touring from Sackville to Shediac to Moncton and back to Dorchester/Sackville. Although, I guess I did help the local economy out by buying four large clams dinners at Fred's Restaurant in Cap-Pelé. Trust me, it was worth every penny.

Tomorrow: my views on Jack Mintz' "carbon tax" proposal in the green paper.

NB Taxpayers: Cutting taxes just the start

2008-05-31T15:14:00.023-04:00

13 ways to leave economic decline in the dust

With the green paper about to be released early next week, a lot is being made of what 'could' or 'should' be done with the tax system in our province. I won't bother going into another long diatribe on what measures I think should be implemented by Mr. Boudreau in order to make our tax system more equitable and globally competitive.

If you have time and are interested (a little bit or a lot) in the future of our province and how we can achieve great things both fiscally and economically (and how we can all get there together), then I recommend you take a look at my Sensible Solutions for NB, which I might add, go much further then just cutting taxes so that we can achieve the prosperity that we so rightfully deserve. Moreover, unlike Paul Simon's 1975 hit song "50 ways to leave your lover", my plan is only 13 ways/steps to leave economic decline. Go take a look:

NB Budget Recommendations 2008 - Upload a doc

Bits and pieces, this and that

2008-05-31T11:24:00.039-04:00

A few things on this Saturday, the last day of May:

After being overly consulted by so-called tax experts for months now, it will be interesting to see what the Liberals ultimately do with the Green paper's many recommendations? The big question here (which I'm sure is looming on the minds of many NB taxpayers) is: will they "shift" the tax burden in their next budget or will they actually cut personal and corporate income taxes deeper then when they found them?

Oh yeah, and according to Finance Minister Victor Boudreau, when it comes to tax cuts for NBers, his government is listening. But to "who"are they actually listening to anyway? I think that's a reasonable question since they were the only provincial or federal jurisdiction in Canada to raise personal or corporate taxes since they entered office. Remember, "New Brunswick’s provincial income tax increase in 2007 meant that all individuals earning more than $52,700 paid more income tax then the previous year. Individuals with incomes below $52,700 paid less thanks to federal tax reductions, but their savings were smaller than other Canadian taxpayers because of the province’s tax hike." So let's hope they listen to the right people this time around.

One or two rate hikes with a large surplus sitting there was bad enough for NBers, but three? That is definitely not 'the nature of forecasts', Mr. Morrison. Plus, rate hikes, as I said in the past, are like a hidden tax on rate payers. (See Update)

I remember when Stockwell Day was leader of the Canadian Alliance back in 2001-02, he got caught up in a spy-for-hire scandal. Looking back, I'm sure he's thinking that he should have hired this gal instead.

When the New Brunswick government suggested possible pay raises for MLAs last year, it got a very lukewarm reception from many NBers who saw it as unnecessary (it has since been past into law). Anyway, it looks like another provincial government is ready to boost salaries. Although in this particular case, unlike in New Brunswick, there was no panel, no polling and no openness to the process. Stelmach's government sneakily buried a notice in the daily compendium of Orders in Council, of something called the 'MLA Remuneration Order.' So how buried was it? Just click on the link and let Scott Hennig explain.

I don't know about you, but I found this mulling a bit comical to say the least. I mean, come on, Alfonso Gagliano having another mandate (be it municipal) for how taxpayer's money should be spent? what a joke. Although, I know one guy that would disagree with my scribblings. lol

Howard Dean...bonehead! Did I mention, he's a bonehead?

Nothing like a good ol' fight over "oil and taxes"

2008-05-30T16:57:00.013-04:00

What would it actually look like if you moved the "spirit" of the Quebec separatist movement to Alberta, added a devolution clause to the constitution which would give the Wild Rose province their own powers and parliament, while refusing [federally] to use Alberta's oil-tax windfall to help families and companies in the area cope with crippling fuel prices? It would probably look like this.

Nasty. And you thought Harper et al. had problems.

Related: Fuel row: protests grow as costs begin to bite, SNP tax plans 'a huge mistake', Petrol prices a global issue, says Brown, Gordon Brown says oil prices will remain high, Brown: High oil prices here to stay, One of Brown's mistakes was abandoning the fuel-tax escalator.

Is the industry portfolio a good fit for Flaherty?

2008-05-28T17:30:00.022-04:00

Lots of Ottawa chatter regarding a major cabinet shuffle in the Harper government. This post over at Sobering Thoughts (Paul Tuns) is a very good primer as to why this particular shuffle won't be major: "CTV reports that there will a big cabinet shuffle in Ottawa in the next few weeks. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Industry Minister Jim Prentice will probably switch jobs and three current ministers are likely to be dropped from the cabinet completely (Secretary of State Helena Guergis and Treasury Board President Vic Toews), three new faces are likely to be added (MPs James Moore, Gerald Keddy, and Rod Bruinooge). David Emerson will be given the full title to Foreign Affairs and Health Minister Tony Clement moves to take Emerson's trade portfolio -- if it isn't Clement, it could be Immigration Minister Diane Finley. If Clement moves, that will necessitate further changes. I think there will be tweaking, but I doubt that the kind of overhaul CTV is reporting are in the works -- that would be seen as an admission of comprehensive failure(s) by Stephen Harper and he is not going to do that.

Here's one prediction: if Clement moves from Health, either Prentice or Diane Ablonczy, currently the Secretary of State (Small Business & Tourism), will take his place. Flaherty stays in place."

I tend to agree with Paul as I think Flaherty will stay put in Finance even if CTV sources say he wants to "expand Industry Canada".

However, that being said, I'm certain that the business community are still a little nervous in central Canada (mostly the Ontario auto industry) at the thought of Flaherty being shuffled in as Industry Minister, especially those who see his stance on corporate welfare as a threat to their respective bottom lines.

Anyway, when push comes to shove, I don't think they have anything to worry about as Harper's government has veered to the left on a number of issues (including subsidies for business), plus, they need all the help they can get to further break through in Ontario.

Translation: they need to buy votes through the use of lucrative Industry Canada contracts. Furthermore, when has the word 'expand' ever meant less government interference over at 235 Queen St.

This is one blogger that is regretting "more of the same" from the next Industry Minister.

Corporate welfare is costly, and it's wasteful

2008-05-28T14:34:00.009-04:00

~~Province~~ taxpayers out $1.5 million

People ask me: why are you so adamantly opposed to having government grants and loans given to private companies and firms?

Well, for one thing, when they close up shop or leave, New Brunswick taxpayers are still on the hook. Is that a good enough answer?

So much for the 'success' of corporate welfare!

Is the Telegraph Journal being ironical?

2008-05-27T12:10:00.019-04:00

It could be just sheer coincidence, but the title of the A4 editorial in the Telegraph Journal this morning slamming the Liberal government's self-sufficiency policy was a bit curious, especially since it has been used before as the title for a book critiquing a national policy implemented by a Liberal icon.

Again, just a coincidence? Or is this the TJ's way (or code) for saying "we don't endorse your education minister's bilingual policy?" :)

Either that, or they both thought of the same way to reword the title of a great Canadian literary work. Although, I think Mr. Reid has dibs.

Tax Bloc

2008-05-26T12:43:00.010-04:00

With their support dwindling to around 28 per cent in Quebec (down 20 points since the sponsorship scandal), the Bloc Québécois have now decided to put sovereignty and separation talk on the back burner in favour of a new tax idea:

Ottawa should stop collecting taxes in Quebec and let the provincial government do the job on its behalf, the Bloc Québécois is arguing. [...]

Bloc House Leader Pierre Paquette said his party will table a bill on the matter in the fall, arguing a single tax filing would help Quebeckers and the Quebec government save about $600-million a year.

They're content on having the feds completely out of the picture when it comes to filing taxes in Quebec, but when the [full] MP's pension cheque comes in, there aren't too many complaints. I guess they too feel entitled to their entitlements (when it comes to our tax dollars).

In other words, they are good receivers just not good senders.

Jack Layton: Carbon tax would hurt the poor

2008-05-23T13:00:00.047-04:00

Suzuki dumbfounded by Layton's environmental position

NDP leader Jack Layton was at a fundraiser for an Ottawa homeless shelter yesterday where he made a few interesting comments about poverty and how carbon taxes would be harmful to the poor:

"Those advocating a carbon tax suggest that by making the cost of certain things more expensive people will make different choices, but Canada is a cold place and heating your home really isn't a choice," Mr. Layton said. "We shouldn't punish people, and that's what a carbon tax does."

[Layton's] remarks yesterday were preceded by a wake of left-wing discontent where environmentalist David Suzuki told CTV's Question Period this past Sunday that he was "shocked" by the NDP's opposition to the possible implementation of a carbon tax:

"I thought that they had a very progressive environmental outlook," Mr. Suzuki said. "To oppose [the carbon tax plan], it's just nonsense. It's certainly the way we've got to go."

The way we've got to go? Well, it would seem that only Stephane Dion (and a few other environmental alarmist) would like to see this tax rammed through parliament and become reality. Not exactly an overwhelming majority in the house, is it Mr. Suzuki? But wait.

With all that being said, it would still seem that one individual , or party, on the home front here is mulling over whether or not to implement a similar regressive "carbon tax" at the provincial level.

And with global economic uncertainty at an all-time high and provincial income taxes through the roof, just why does our finance minister believe this is a good time to sneak in a permanent new tax on gas, electricity and everything else that NBers buy. And to think, I thought they were supposed to be looking into ways to make our tax system more competitive? Clearly, if Dion and Boudreau get their way, it will mean that NBers will be "double taxed" on fuel and electricity consumption. How's that for competitive? Sucks pretty bad, huh TJ?

I guess your party has absolutely no regard for middle to lower income earners who will not only be gouged by such a tax, but in some cases, be without electricity or heat in the dead of winter.

Not to mention, as in BC and with Elizabeth May, with a carbon tax always comes the promise of it being revenue neutral. We all know that, in the end, this never ends up being the case.

Update: No mention of the 12 cents per litre tax on gasoline which her proposal would include (see the above link), however, Ms. May did continue to tout the carbon tax on CTV's Question Period as "revenue neutral, or as she calls it now, a "tax shift". See 1 minute mark here.

Related: Carbon taxes have little impact on environment: think tank, Suzuki slams NDP, Tories, backs Dion's carbon tax, Harper slams Liberal carbon tax as foolish, Disloyal Grits hurt their own chances, MP warns, Screwing up Canada #2, Suzuki shocked by Layton.

Gov't funding for sex-changes back in Ontario

2008-05-20T11:24:00.019-04:00

I see Ontario Premier [Dalton] McGuinty is spending taxpayers dollars wisely once again in his province (from CTF blog):

Ontario Taxpayers Fund Sex-Change Operations

Ontario began covering the bill for “sex-change” operations in 1971, but ceased doing so in 1998 under the Progressive Conservative government. In 2006, the Ontario Human Rights Commission required compensation for three patients midway through preparation for sex-change surgery during the 1998 insurance plan change. Now public funding is back regardless, at about $17,000 an operation. Health Minister George Smitherman estimates only ten Ontarians a year will have the surgery.

I guess if there is one thing to be pleased with here, it is that this isn't the case in New Brunswick. Plus, it looks like one federal politician intends to stop federal cash from funding such procedures in the future. Glad to see someone has their head screwed on right.

Update: I've received a few hateful emails from people who believe I am a bigot for posting this blog. So I think it is important to clear a few things up. Firstly, I have nothing against individuals who want to have a "sex-change" operation. As I have said many times on this blog, I am a practicing libertarian, and therefore believe it is none of my damn business (nor the governments) what individuals do in their private lives, especially if they obey the law and are not hurting someone else as a result of their behaviour. Secondly, the intention of this blogpost was to place emphasis on the priorities of government spending by the McGiunty government. In other words, I believe it is unacceptable to have hundreds of patients waiting months for basic cancer treatment and MRIs while the Ontario government finds money for a sex-change program. I could be wrong, but having a sex-change isn't a life or death circumstance, so why is McGuinty jeopardizing the lives of many to satisfy a few (on the taxpayers dime btw).

Related: Ottawa shouldn't pick up tab for sex-changes: MP, Tory MP says Ottawa shouldn't pick up tab for Ontario's sex-change coverage, Questions remain about sex-change coverage, Ontario health plan to cover sex-change surgery, OHIP to cover sex changes, Ontario to resume coverage of sex-change operations, Ontario reinstates funding for sex-change surgery nearly a decade after ending program.

Property taxes: Libs sending a conflicting message

2008-05-16T14:32:00.037-04:00

If you haven't heard the latest, a few weeks back Justice Minister TJ Burke (or the "blogger general" as he's known in the blogosphere) was allegedly forced to take down a frank and to the point blog post on his new blog "Say it like it is" where he described provincial property taxes in three words, ""Wow ... they suck!!"

He went onto describe his own personal situation in Fredericton, but I won't get into that (you can read my original post here). Anyway, the main question here IMHO, which is still outstanding with regards to his missing blog post, is: just why was he forced to 86 this post? And who demanded that he do so?

OK, some readers may see it as pointless for "us" bloggers to continue on with our noble crusade regarding this matter, but as I see it, the government now has three conflicting arguments out there in the public sphere on where they stand on high property taxes, so at the very least, they owe NBers an explanation to just what the mindset "really" is in the premier's office on this issue, no? I mean here's what we got so far on property taxes from the Liberal cabinet:

First, we have a Finance Minister --- Victor Boudreau --- who is on record (on the eve of the last budget) stating that "the insurance premium tax on property, at 3%, is equal to that in Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta, and lower than in Newfoundland & Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Québec, Saskatchewan and British Columbia." But just a few months later, he flip-flopped somewhat on his original statement in that his government would be open to changes in the assessment process on property since, as he said, the "Green Paper will outline options to significantly reform the tax system to better facilitate income and wealth generation by all New Brunswickers, and make the province more attractive to investment and high paying jobs." So essentially, property tax (assessment system) should be included in this reform since hardworking folks (who work high paying jobs or regular jobs at that) look at such things when relocating to another province. Anyway, if you're the counting type, that's two messages from good ol' Victor.

Second, just a few months after the budget was dropped by Boudreau, we had Attorney General and Justice Minister TJ Burke come out strong against high property taxes stating on his own blog that "Now, generally I don't complain about taxes, but holy cow what a tax burden I am facing this year! I know many other New Brunswickers saying the same thing. Enough said." I agree with TJ, enough said. But wait?

Here's where things start to get complicated as just a week after posting his frank commentary on his blog, the post magically disappeared. I'm sure nobody would have noticed since he had posted a few more post on top of that one (essentially burying it to the bottom of the page), but thanks to spinks (who I know to be a person who pays attention to detail), the pulling of the blog was outed. Thus, sparking the local MSM to go on a witch hunt both on the radio and in the newspaper for definitive answers regarding TJ's missing blogpost. A witch hunt which led to another conflicting set of circumstances with regards to property taxes and TJ Burke. Just what was it?

Well, since the deafening silence of TJ Burke could be felt clear across the Miramichi all the way to Fredericton, Service NB Minister Greg Byrne decided to jump into the frey on behalf of his cabinet friend stating that Burke must have been misguided in his statements because he "doesn't mind paying taxes." Huh? That's peculiar? Anyway, he went on to tout one of the so-called party lines on property taxes and lumped his own message on the matter into a conversation he said had taken place with Burke, "I have had many conversations with the minister and he certainly recognizes that the property tax assessment system is a fair system and that the asset that you have and the asset that he has, is his best asset." Well, after reading his original blogpost, he could have fooled me. Ha! Ha!

So there you have it folks. We have a Finance Minister who thinks the property assessment system to be so good that he had a tax expert from CD Howe come in to review it, we have an Attorney General who thinks property taxes seriously suck and we have a Service NB Minister who thinks his colleague, TJ Burke, is delusional since he told him he doesn't mind paying taxes and thinks they're great! Talk about a conflicting bunch when it comes to property taxes.

Anyway, I apologize if this post sounded a bit confusing, that's because it was. Which is why I think Mr. Burke could save us all a big headache by clearing up this mess. The ball is in your court Teej.

H/H/T (Huge Hat Tip): Spink About It.

Gas Tax Honesty Day hits the streets of NB

2008-05-15T16:11:00.021-04:00

Once again, NBers are being hosed at the pumps, although roadway spending has substantially increased

Canadian Taxpayers Federation National Director John Williamson speaks with members of the press at the Esso on Prospect and Smythe in Fredericton during the launch of the 10th Annual Gas Tax Honesty Day campaign. For more information, click on the photo below.

CTF Petition: Get involved, sign online gas tax petition sign it!

Video: Watch Canadian Press video of event.

New Brunswick press coverage: Some drivers get a surprise at the gas pumps, A bit beyond customer appreciation, nbt's 2007 campaign.

National coverage: Over 30% gas tax at the pump, Be honest!, CTF wants entire gas tax revenue spent on roads, Canadian Taxpayers Federation Holds Annual Gas Tax Honesty Day, Use gas tax for roads, Ottawa urged, Take 5 pennies off the gas pump, taxpayers federation urges Ottawa, Gas Tax Lies,, 100% of fuel tax windfall should go toward infrastructure, Unsuspecting pumpers get cash back,

NB Municipal elections: post mortem bits & pieces

2008-05-13T13:05:00.029-04:00

Lots of excitement last night, not to mention, judging from the number of incumbents falling to defeat, lots of people favouring change. Anyway, for all those in New Brunswick suffering from post election blues today, I thought I would offer up a few quick observations/points on what I noticed as somewhat relevant:

I know the Times & Transcript officially endorsed his candidacy (and so did I), but I found their lead headline LeBlanc by a landslide a bit much since voter turnout, IMO, was the real issue in Moncton on Monday night whereby almost 70 per cent of Monctonians did not turnout to the polls. Could this be a reflection of discontent/apathy amongst the electorate or did the candidates not engage the voters? By golly, it has to be one of the two!
Speaking of newspaper endorsements, I see spinks has stumbled upon a trend, or should I say an election jinx, with regards to the Telegraph Journal. Not only are they the kiss of death, he believes the TJ may also be "a little out of touch with the people and may be getting a bit of a backlash."
I see Gypsy blog noticed a few trends with regards to voter turnout. A few more tidbits: (highest turnout) Le Goulet with 81.69 per cent; (lowest turnout) Woodstock with 20.32 per cent. I notice another striking difference in turnout, in that, it was much higher in rural New Brunswick then it was in the cities. Cities: 53.6 per cent; Towns and villages: 58.2 per cent. That rural number would have been higher but acclamations in some towns brought the figure down a bit (since there was no reason to turn out).
If the Saint John and Fredericton mayor's races taught us anything, it is that high property taxes (and overall tax burdens) were definitely an issue; although, it seems they were being touted by uncharismatic candidates that couldn't connect to that discontent. So essentially, the issue fell on deaf ears. Speaking of the race in the capital, Brad Woodside should definitely be congratulated for going down in the freddy beach municipal record books as longest serving mayor. The guy's tough to beat.
Tanker is back in the saddle once gain, and according to Adam Huras' title, it's where he wants to be...not sure if his pal Charles Leblanc would agree! Although, Chucky won't have to waste much digital photo space this time following him around the streets of freddy. ;)
I see the town of Sussex voted a resounding "Yes" in their plebiscite to set a clear path for merging (amalgamation) with Sussex Corner. The TJ describes Sussex Corner as "hesitant" over the matter. I can see why considering only 27 per cent of Sussex voted on the manner in the plebiscite. What does the other 73 per cent think? Are they for merger?

NBers getting badly gouged by property taxes

2008-05-08T14:00:00.039-04:00

GMA & surrounding carrying the heaviest property tax load

Atlantic Institute for Market Studies just recently released their interim municipal report card for all 102 New Brunswick municipalities, and let me tell you, the news definitely isn't good at all for NB property taxpayers, especially those in the southeastern part of the province where I live.

According to Times & Transcript reporter Aloma Jardine:

It's no wonder residents of southeastern New Brunswick have been complaining about their tax bills.
Out of the 102 municipalities ranked in the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies' interim municipal report card for the province, five of the 11 communities with the largest average residential tax burden are located here.
Sackville, Dieppe, Riverview, Moncton, and Shediac are all well above the $1,078 provincial average, from Shediac in 11th spot at $1,561 to Sackville at $2,194 -- the highest in the province.
Dieppe residents are in second place and on the hook for an average of $2,000, followed by Riverview in eighth with a tax burden of $1,721 and Moncton in ninth with $1,676.

I guess Justice Minister TJ Burke was right after all when he said, "Property taxes suck!"

Take a look for yourself (I've listed the top 11 property tax burdens) [i]:

Municipalities	Average Residential Tax Burden, 2005-07 [ii]
Sackville	$2,194
Dieppe	$2,000
New Maryland	$1,934
Quispamsis	$1,895
Rothesay	$1,854
St. Andrews	$1,770
Fredericton	$1,743
Riverview	$1,721

Moncton	$1,676
Oromocto	$1,604
Shediac	$1,561

[i] Holly Chisholm and Ian Munroe, Having Your Say: Helping AIMS help you improve local government in New Brunswick (Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, May 2008)

[ii] Chisholm and Munroe, pg. 11

Related: Tax burden heavy in capital, Growth Small business would rather not depend on subsidies, Belledune tops in N.B. development spending, Candidates disagree over taxes.

NBT endorses Leblanc's bid for Moncton mayor

2008-05-06T13:44:00.025-04:00

George Leblanc would "do a brilliant job" as Moncton mayor and is "exactly the kind of leader" the city needs, says tax advocate.

Not only has he demonstrated that he is "twice as charismatic and twice as energetic" as his rival Pierre Michaud, he has clearly set himself apart on the issues, most importantly taxation:

"It is very clear in my action plan that I intend to make (lowering taxes) my first priority," he says. "But it has to be done in a responsible way."

Leblanc has promised to establish a committee to review taxes and spending in City Hall, well in advance of next year's budget. Here are a few highlights from his Action Plan under Building Prosperity:

TAXES

I believe that low taxes and housing costs are essential to maintaining a competitive and quality community. Property taxes are made up of the assessment of your property, which is done by the provincial government multiplied by the tax rate, which is set by city council. To ensure that tax dollars are spent wisely and effectively and that we have a fair and competitive tax rate, I will:

• Establish a committee comprised of members of council and leading citizens to study and report to the mayor and council within four months on recommendations on our taxation levels, spending by the City and determining whether tax cuts are achievable, given our current commitments – all with the goal of determining a fair and appropriate tax level for our citizens.
• Implement an immediate freeze on all discretionary spending and hiring for the City for the remainder of 2008 to permit an appropriate review by the committee.
• Request a meeting with the Minister of Finance and the Premier to discuss the need to immediately deal with the escalating assessments.
• Review potential annexation for areas that benefit from City services to establish a level playing field regarding taxation.

DEMOCRATIC REFORM

Open and accountable municipal government must be one of the cornerstones of any modern city. That is why I believe there are many things we can do to make City Hall more responsive to your needs. As mayor, I will:

• Enact a Citizens’ Bill of Rights to establish and codify citizens’ rights in relation to municipal government, staff and affairs.
• Seek greater community participation in all council committees and commissions, and include at least one citizen on all council committees.
• Establish a Red Tape Reduction Committee.
• Develop an e-communications plan for electronic communications with citizens.
• Hold annual town hall ward meetings with council.
• Provide opportunities for community input in an annual strategic plan review.
• Seek municipal electoral reform to provide open and transparent financing of municipal elections, including spending limits, disclosure on contributions and expenses, equal financial treatment with provincial elections, incentives to facilitate greater participation and to make it easier for mothers, women and all others to run for municipal election, and more effective and modern voting processes
• Electoral boundaries and representation to be reviewed every 10 years.
• Establish a plan of action to be implemented commencing January 1 of every election year to encourage electoral participation and informed voting.

STRATEGIC ECONOMIC PLAN

Moncton has been blessed with a strong and vibrant economy over the last 15 years, however we have to continually ensure we have the right elements in place as a city to keep the various pieces of our economic engine running. To that end, as mayor I will:

• In 2009, hold a major economic summit bringing together community, business and municipal leaders to develop an economic blueprint for Moncton’s future.
• Establish a Mayor’s Economic Roundtable to regularly discuss opportunities to keep our economy moving and our current businesses prosperous.
• Identify specific future growth sectors and develop a strategic plan to promote areas such as:
- Moncton as a shopping destination, sport tourism destination and pursue other tourism opportunities.
- Language and language technology and translation
- Health industry and retirement service
- Transportation services

The mayor, city council, and school board elections will be on May 12. Make sure you get out and vote for George. The choice, this time, could mean the difference between being gouged by higher taxes or having more of your money left in your wallet. Not a hard choice.

Related: George LeBlanc announces candidacy for mayor of Moncton, Former city councillor wants to be Moncton mayor, Mayor hopefuls go face-to-face, Mayor race heats up, Moncton stadium spurs hopes of CFL franchise, LeBlanc unveils election platform, Campaign Photos.

So much for the separation of church and water ;)

2008-05-02T12:57:00.014-04:00

Newspapers: Harper to meet with N.B. flood victims, Province working on flood aid plan, N.B. flood causing headaches for farmers trying to move herds to safety, Flood aid coming, premier says, Harper to visit flood-weary N.B. Friday, Fredericton spared as towns downstream swamped, River levels on decline, Flood waters peak.

The Blogs: NB flooding to hit record, Selling hot dogs in the biggest tourist attraction in flood city of Fredericton, Flood waters don't seem to go down in Fredericton, Flood action, Beechwood dam, assholes, 'Up and Down' Flood Watch.

The Pics: Charles Leblanc I, II, Awareness I, II, Facing Autism in NB.

Facebook: Brent Taylor day 1, day 2, Heather Anslow's Photos.

Youtube: Flood 08

A painful experience

2008-05-01T14:59:00.015-04:00

Canadians would rather visit the dentist than fill out their taxes. No surprise given the delays today on CRA's website due to heavy volumes on the NetFiling system...caused by last-minute filers.

Related: T-Day: Pay the taxman by midnight or else!, Tax deadline extended, unless you owe, Netfile users get May 6 tax extension, Revenue agency fouls up, still gives taxpayers a break. Now, that's a change, Online logjam gives respite to tardy filers, Hey, Mr. Taxman

Bill 54: Repealing the tax-free allowance

2008-04-30T13:00:00.017-04:00

In my last post a commenter known as bill asked me if I thought TJ Burke's tax-free allowance would offset the taxes he payed on property. I replied by saying, "There is no question property taxes would be offset by the gains in exemptions MLA's receive on their monthly per diem. An income stream/benefit regular folks, like us, can't count on at the end of the day."

Well, according to today's Telegraph Journal, it looks like that specific tax exemption benefit will finally come to an end for all MLAs as a bill on pay raises was introduced by government house leader Mike Murphy in the house on Tuesday which "repeals the tax-free allowance (part of their salary) for members of the legislative assembly and rolls that into their taxable salary." Which will now stand at $85,000.

Related: N.B. legislature shut down by threat of rising river, Minister apologizes for 'mafia' comment, Graham's travel allowances costing taxpayers more than $1,000 monthly, Premier Graham's expenses

TJ Burke: New Brunswick Property Taxes Suck!

2008-04-27T18:55:00.058-04:00

Feeling NBers [tax] pain or inflicting it on them?

From Say It Like It Is: "Now, generally I don't complain about taxes, but holy cow what a tax burden I am facing this year! I know many other New Brunswickers saying the same thing."

Huh? You mean to say TJ needed to glance at his property tax bill to figure out what all of us NBers have known all along? That being, that we are burdened to death by gouging liberal tax policy.

INCREDIBLE!

Anyway, I know the blogger general to be a very heady guy, in other words, my gut tells me that something else is at play here?

Methinks Jack Mintz will be rolling out his green paper soon (a government sponsored study on tax competitiveness), and judging from the ~~staged~~ sympathetic comment above, you can bet that the Assessment Act will likely be front and center; not to mention, you can bank on the fact that Boudreau et al. will treat the study as if it is already passed legislation, in that, they will take credit as being great advocates of lower taxes without actually doing anything concrete (hoping the public will quickly engulf their rhetoric and forget about their record to date). Let's just say that would be quite a stretch for the only Canadian provincial/federal government to raise taxes in '07.

I think the most logical next step (that this report will ultimately show) will be for Mr. Boudreau to resign, especially since his policies were based on shaky forcasting which cost NB taxpayers a hefty price.

Update

I guess property taxes suck so bad in New Brnswick that it shouldn't even be talked about or mentioned in our neck of the woods...not even by Burke himself?? Huh? Anybody? Bueller?

Friedman Liberty Prize. And the winner is...

2008-04-25T12:09:00.017-04:00

From Cato.org:

Yon Goicoechea, leader of the pro-democracy student movement in Venezuela, has been awarded the 2008 Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty. Under Goicoechea's leadership, the student movement organized mass opposition to the erosion of human and civil rights in Venezuela and played the key role in defeating Hugo Chávez's bid for a constitutional reform that would have turned the country into a dictatorship. Goicoechea's vision of optimism, tolerance, and modernity has breathed new life into efforts to defend basic freedoms in Venezuela and elsewhere in Latin America where freedom is threatened. Full details.

Congratulations Yon!!

Update: Friedman committee member arrested in raid

From Tom Palmer:

Andrew Mwenda (see above) has been arrested, along with his colleagues Odobo Bichachi and John Njoroge, in a raid by the Ugandan government on the magazine Independence. Andrew is a member of the 2008 International Selection Committee for the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty, which just announced on Thursday the award of the prize to Venezuelan student Yon Goicoechea.

Write to the Ugandan government to insist on freedom of the press and freedom for Andrew Mwenda, Odobo Bichachi, and John Njoroge, (The Ugandan Embassy can be contacted by mail, email, fax or phone: details here. Please be respectful, but direct, clear, and forceful.)

Cutting corporate taxes not a political issue

2008-04-24T17:35:00.025-04:00

Ontario (Canada's Taxachusetts) a notable holdout on tax cuts

Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was in Manhattan, New York yesterday to specifically outline Canada's fiscal achievements as well as to promote his country as a sound place to invest and do business globally. And to nobody's surprise, in his speech, [he] reiterated his position on corporate taxes saying, "lower corporate taxes isn't a political issue, noting that Manitoba's NDP government and Frank McKenna, New Brunswick's former Liberal premier, have come out in support of them."

Mary Anastasia O'Grady, a Wall Street Journal columnist and editorial board member, said it best in Political Diary (a daily political e-mail) about the importance of business tax cuts to a country (or region's) overall economic development and competitiveness:

Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was in New York yesterday to give a speech touting the economic achievements of the relatively new government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He stopped by the Journal offices to give a preview. Since coming to office two years ago, Mr. Flaherty told us, the Harper government has succeeded in steadily whacking down the corporate income tax to 18% from 22%, and is headed for 15% by 2012. Aiming for a total tax burden or no more than 25%, Ottawa has also been pushing the provinces to cut their own taxes on business profits. Ontario (Canada's Taxachusetts) has been a notable holdout and some in the Canadian press even accused Mr. Flaherty yesterday of leaving Ontario out of his sales pitch to U.S. investors. Mr. Flaherty joked in return that he was "gently prodding [Provincial] Premier [Dalton] McGuinty in my own subtle way to reduce business taxes."
Canada's cuts come none too soon. Business tax-cutting has been a global phenomenon, with the OECD countries now averaging less than 27%, down from 38% in 1993 (the U.S. average is 40%). It's also of a piece with the Harper government's broader pro-growth agenda, which includes free trade deals with Colombia, Peru and South Korea and work to speed up transit of goods at the Windsor-Detroit border crossing.

I can only hope that Premier Graham doesn't turn our fiscal well-being into a political football like McGuinty has, especially with a possible recession looming around the corner. Let's just say, yours truly will be eagerly awaiting the recommendations put forward from the much lauded Green report [Mintz report] on tax competitiveness which is scheduled to be released either at the end of the month or early May.

Related: Flaherty sees a silver economic lining, Slow Growth Won't Cause Canada Deficit, Canadian economy resilient, no budget gap, Currency Markets Ignored G-7 Statement, Flaherty to Tighten Regulation of Canadian Banks, Flaherty pulling for ABCP plan

Governments have failed to streamline their costs

2008-04-24T11:26:00.040-04:00

Canadian welfare state adds 175,000 new hires in five years

Well, it looks like Donald Savoie is back in the news, and for all the right reasons. Last week, in an opinion article published in the Business Edge by D'arcy Jenish, Savoie once again proudly touted his new anti-statist views, in that, he believes that the state has unequivocally failed, unlike the current private sector, in their use of new technologies and innovative strategies so as to curb their already Brobdingnagian operational costs.

Savoie's concerns are real, especially since the numbers coming out of Statistics Canada clearly indicate an augmenting trend:

"the country's public sector, which includes, among others, federal, provincial and territorial governments, municipalities, schools, colleges, universities and hospitals, employed nearly 3.3 million people at the end of 2007. That's just over 10 per cent of the population and an increase of 175,000 in five years.

The feds and the provinces combined accounted for a little over 33,000 of the new hires. The health and social services sectors grew by a whopping 48,517. Local school boards were up by 43,208, universities and colleges by 28,152 and municipalities by 27,519."

Furthermore, Savoie believes that the problem lies in the fact that governments have an extremely poor track record of keeping bad public policy on the books:

"The public sector has proven over the years that it is good at launching new programs and services. [...] It is not good at stopping them. Things just keep going even if they are not as useful as they originally were. It would be a stretch to say that this is good [government] management."

Plus, as I've always said, "the business of government should not be the government of business." If these startling numbers say anything to us, it's that we need to start thinking long and hard about reducing the size of government both provincially and federally.

The money belongs solely to taxpayers, so...

2008-04-22T12:11:00.017-04:00

...we have a right to know where it was spent, who it was spent on and why it was dolled out? (i.e details of the agreement) Period.

Which is why I mirror what Canadian Taxpayers Federation Director John Williamson said about the $21.4 million pension plan bailout:

"trying to use the law to deflect questions and deny taxpayers have a right to know how this money's being spent.[...] The government's defence is "completely outrageous" because it could have dictated the terms of the deal, or change the law. [...] When governments offer up that kind of money to a private entity or any group, they could easily demand full disclosure be given to taxpayers as a condition of receiving that money. That it didn't do so speaks volumes about the appropriateness of this financial transfer. [...] If New Brunswick taxpayers are going to be on the hook to top up pension funds they have a right to know the details of the agreement."

Moreover, it would seem ~~the spring thaw~~ the pension plan issue has brought one New Brunswick PC MLA out of longtime hibernation (source Telegraph Journal): "Conservative Kirk MacDonald demanded more information on the issue, and called for an overhaul of the Pension Benefits Act - so taxpayers can see the bail out details."

McKennomics: lower personal & corporate taxes...

2008-04-21T13:15:00.022-04:00

...but hike consumptions taxes (i.e. the HST and GST).

Related: Frankly, McKenna got it right, N.B. tax cuts required now, Apres Dion, Le Deluge, McKenna calls for Atlantic reduction in corporate, capital taxes, Education, small business best places to invest, McKenna desperate for region to work together

Rich should shoulder the tax burden says NB pundit

2008-04-19T12:57:00.009-04:00

I was reminded, after reading this post, how quickly people jump to the conclusion that the rich (approx. the top 5 per cent) aren't shouldering their fair share of the tax burden. According to Ezra, the same Gibsonian argument is being made by Obama and Clinton:

Howard Gleckman points out that while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton aren't as egregiously out-of-touch as Charlie Gibson, they're pandering to the Gibsonian line on taxes, refusing to consider increases for families making less than $200,000 a year, and hamstringing themselves on needed revenue. This gets to a generalized problem in Democratic tax talk, which is that they're very unwilling to talk about taxes in terms of value. There are lots of government services which are actually a good deal for middle income families and should be sold as something that Americans would be wise to invest in. But rather than making a positive case around awesome stuff we're going to get, Democrats talk about taxes in complete isolation from the things that taxes buy, and begin with the premise that they're so odious and painful that they should only be levied on folks too rich to notice. It's not exactly the strongest argumentative ground.

Tandem Temporary Textiles: Not a winner

2008-04-18T13:32:00.042-04:00

Tandem Textiles receives $2.43 million in corporate welfare

Instead of giving my readers the usual earful about how damaging corporate welfare deals are to our provincial treasury, economy and future prosperity, I thought I would list the three steps of corporate welfare (as they pertain to the local textile industry) using my favorite subsidy sinkhole, Atlantic Fine Yarns, as the model case for return on investment of our tax dollars allocated by Business New Brunswick:

Step 1: Corporate welfare formula is announced in a government friendly photo op to an obvious declining industry: "Byrne announced that the Government of New Brunswick will provide Tandem Textiles with a $1.43-million forgivable loan and a $1-million term loan to assist with capital costs and facility upgrades, and the expenditures required to upgrade environmental and water recycling equipment."

Step 2: Market dictates otherwise and the end result [again] is that bureaucrats and politicians are terrible at picking winners or knowing business (better at picking losers): "Two textile companies in northern New Brunswick have filed for protection from their creditors and are one step closer to bankruptcy. Representatives from sister companies Atlantic Yarns and Atlantic Fine Yarns and a trustee met with the company's union Monday to talk about the future. About 365 employees work at the two textile mills in Atholville and Pokemouche." (Oh btw, they have cost NB taxpayers well over $41,583,800 in loans, interest and loan guarantees. The reason I reference "well over" is because corporate welfare not only creates an unfair business environment, it diverts capital from successful companies/firms, who don't receive government assistance, to their subsidized competitors via high small biz taxes & corporate taxes. So these loans indirectly punish other companies as well)

Step 3: Costly legal ramifications ensue when discussions and negotiations take precedent (between the debtor and their creditors) over the avoidance of bankruptsy (plan of arrangement): "The Monitor has prepared and filed with the Court a report on the Creditor meetings, which report is the fifth report of the Monitor set out below under Reports of the Monitor. At the Unsecured Creditor Meeting held on April 2, 2008, the unsecured creditors approved the plan as amended. The creditors were well represented and the plan has overwhelming support of the creditors. A copy of the minutes is attached under Court Documents. At the Secured Creditor Meeting held on April 2, 2008 the secured creditors approved the plan as amended. A copy of the minutes is attached under Court Documents. At the April 11, 2008 Court hearing by agreement between the parties the matter was adjourned until May 27, 2008. A copy of the Court Order is enclosed below under Court Orders. At this date, the Order from the April 1, 2008 hearing has not been received from the Court and will be posted when received. The Government of Canada has not yet passed or proclaimed the legislation related to the Outward Processing Initiative, which is still pending. The plant will remain closed for the next few weeks until this is proclaimed. The Companies continue to work with their secured creditors to finalize the terms and conditions of future involvement. GE remains the only secured creditor in opposition to the Plan. The Companies continue to seek additional financial resources for the Companies for working capital purposes." (See also here, here and here)

So file me under "skeptical" for this most recent corporate welfare arrangement between Business New Brunswick and Tandem Textiles. just me. H/T: Gypsy Blog.

Related posts -- a growing list of offenses by the Graham government

Guest commentary on Prudential deal (Prudential consulting)
Royal Oaks gets $5 million government mulligan (Royal Oaks Estates and Golf Club)
Is ACOA damaging to our local business climate? (ACOA subsidies)
End Corporate welfare now (Atcon Group Inc.)
Should taxpayers be funding known polluters? (AV Cell Inc.)
When in doubt? Give out a forgivable loan (Prudential consulting)
Corporate welfare not the answer (AV Cell Inc.)
I can't drive 55 (Roger Duguay on grants & loans)
Corporate welfare on the march once again (Atcon Group Inc.)
Spinning Yarn of Corporate Welfare (Atlantic Yarns)
Atlantic Yarns: Bottomless subsidy pit (Atlantic Yarns)
Atlantic Yarns: bottomless-pit filing for bankruptcy? (Atlantic Yarns)
The business of gov't is not the government of business
A culture of dependency (Rogers Communications Inc.)
My New Business Plan (The Mactaquac marina)
Business Pork (Cape Jourimain Nature Centre Inc.)
Statist Guile (Premier's pledge to stop use of grants & loans)
Put An End to Wasteful Subsidies (Atlantic Beef Products Inc.)

Nova Scotia air travelers: Beware of high taxes!

2008-04-17T12:28:00.023-04:00

Something has got to be done with the high taxation levels for air travelers in Nova Scotia, especially since this mode of transportation is a vital part of the weekly business routine of business consultants, entrepreneurs and CEOs crucial to the economy. Just how bad is it?

Check out how much tax Chronicle Herald columnist Peter Duffy paid for a flight to his hometown of Manchester, England:

Frankly, the price of the ticket came as a bit of a shock: $1,089. When I groused about it to my travel agent, she pointed out that a good percentage of the price isn’t even for the flight; it’s for taxes.

I asked her how much. She listed them for me: HST, airport tax, security tax, fuel surcharge, departure fees — on and on — for a staggering total of $429!

Almost 40 per cent in fees and taxes. Ouch! Made me wish I hadn’t asked.

That is just unacceptable. Think of it this way, on the same flight to Manchester, if you reduced the taxes and fees by fifty per cent, it would save travellers $1,073 on five flights. That's real cash folks.

Almost exactly what they are charging for the "high taxed" flight.

â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢

On a more positive note, it would appear one of the Atlantic provinces is finally heading in the right direction with lower taxes, not to mention, the possibility of getting off the Ottawa dole.

Tao of Steve[s]

Kinsella hits the nail on the head on where the two federal leaders sit, and where their weak constituencies lie. Plus, it's not something that will resolve itself before the fixed 2009 general election (according to Warren). In other words, for these two uncharismatic souls, it's time to stop throwing ground and start gaining ground before it's too late.

Guest commentary on NB Power & Prudential deal

2008-04-16T12:21:00.011-04:00

I found this commentary by an individual, who would like to remain anonymous, very interesting (not to mention, I couldn't agree more):

On NB Power's 3 per cent raise proposal & Orimulsion

Our "best of breed management" as described by one of our local governement executive in a recent local daily newspaper in justifying their 3 percent salary increase, have orchestrated a $10 billion bad judgement debt over the Venezuela financial scandal to our tax payers. Adding insult to injury, this management team also managed to either keep their jobs or receive a big retirement buyout for their good service.

Where else but in government could one pull such a scandal and not get fired or worst?

And to add icing on the cake; Why not divert and justify the ever increasing Power rates by blaming it on the gas price hikes.

We the people of New Brunswick are not the one to blame for this. But we should be ashame for allowing these sort of scandals to continue without accountability....etc.

On the Prudential Consulting deal with the government

This one also gets me reeling. In Febuary of this year Prudential received $1 million funding from ACOA to train medical transcriptionists and provide transcription services to the medical community across the country. This is a private company who just recently toured our NB and NS hospitals and was unsuccessfull in hiring but a handfull if any transcriptionists on their own token.

And only sixty+ days later, they sold Shaun Graham the very same bag of beans for another +$800,000.00 to setup shop in Saint-John and hire an additional 150 more transcriptionists. Do one actualy beleive they will be hiring that many transcriptionists? It's not a simple coincidence that 350 is the current number of transcriptionists working in our NB & NS healthcare institutions.

And if there is such a demand for medical transcriptionists today, why isn't this money offered to our own provincialy funded Community Colleges in Campbellton & Cape-Breton who currently offer this training but have been struggling to make due.

I placing my bets that Prudential hidden true intentions is to hire our very own provincial healthcare transcriptionists (who coincidently adds up to the promise numbers Prudential promised to hire).

To summarize, we taxpayers pay a private company $1.8 million to hand over our own professionaly trained & experience transcriptionists, who will then in turn charge us a premium fee for their services. And within a few short years later, Prudential will likely hand them back to our Provincial unemployment agencies, as their services will no longer be required and replaced by lower paid transcriptionists based in India).

But worst is; Prudential end up having access to much of our confidential medical record information & history. Unlike having your cedit card replaced in the event that it ever gets lost or stolen, one cannot change or replace his/hers medical history.

What's the big deal?
Here some a few scenarios to think about:

The US Patiotic Act
Your medical insurance rates
Prescription costs...etc.

Is the breakdown of marriage costing taxpayers?

2008-04-15T13:39:00.017-04:00

A study (the first of its kind) by Georgia State University economist Ben Scafidi makes that very claim:

Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing costs U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages.

Sponsors say the study is the first of its kind and hope it will prompt lawmakers to invest more money in programs aimed at strengthening marriages.

More from Tuns: "The authors claim their estimates are low, although the $112 billion number seems a huge number at first glance although in the larger scheme of things -- total government spending or the size of the US economy, it isn't. The takeaway point is that this report quantifies the economic ramifications of the disintegration of family life. The best social program is not, as many conservatives like to say 'a job' but stable families. If libertarians are interested in keeping the cost of government in check, they might want to reconsider the cultural influences on family breakdown (divorce, the contraception mentality, etc...) which they generally support.

An executive summary of the report Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing can be found here. A fact sheet is available here. The press release announcing the release of the report today here. See AP's coverage here."

â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢

At first glance, you may think that pumping more taxpayer dollars into pro-family programs is the solution, like Tuns is suggesting, however, it's not. It is much more complicated then that. Although, some may say that it isn't.

Anyway, yours truly would love a world where everyone is happily married and contributing to the economy, but let's face it, that world (though utopian) doesn't exist anymore. And to think that policy makers believe that forcing people (against their own will and choice), through government programs, to remain in a failing marriage will somehow be more beneficial to society is absurd to say the least.

What needs to change is the way we educate our youth and the values we instill in our communities. This can only be accomplished through personal responsibility, not by government coercion or bureaucratic pilot projects. Let's remember, a happy taxpayer is a good taxpayer.

Donald Savoie a Thatcherite?

2008-04-14T10:13:00.034-04:00

Axe salaries at Business New Brunswick says Savoie

I like Donald Savoie just as much as the next Liberal who drinks the local red kool aid as he's a stand up guy. And even though I don't always agree with his views on economic development, there has been some well intentioned stuff in his public policy writings over the years (all of which I have read btw).

However, after reading the Telegraph Journal article today titled Shake up tradition, I am left wondering three things: 1.) Has the award winning Moncton academic, who gave birth to ACOA and made regional development policies sexy in New Brunswick, lost his mind? 2.) Is he getting back at Premier Graham for tinkering with early french immersion? (check out the direct hits to the self-sufficiency policy in his commentary) or 3.) Is he truly moving to the right (towards classical liberalism) in his thinking on economic development and away from his regionally popular and left leaning statist views?

Yours truly is definitely a little skeptical, but hopes it's the latter.

Update

Considering the fact that the monitoring of water quality is being well managed in my town by a private company in Moncton (it used to be government), it sure makes this statement in today's Telegraph Journal by Tom Mann appear to be a bit of a left-wing stretch:

Slashing staff in the civil service is a "20-year-old solution that didn't work," Mann said, noting we already tried to "pull a Thatcher" here in the early 1990s, when several thousand jobs in the sector were cut.
Doing so led to adverse effects on quality of life in the province, he noted, pointing to "fewer people dedicated to inspection of restaurants, fewer people testing the water we drink, fewer people investigating the safety quality of our highways."

For starters, in this day and age, it's the reverse. Finding private sector solutions for health care, roads and monitoring water quality while reducing the size of the public sector is a win-win for both consumers and taxpayers. Plus, New Brunswick has always had one of the largest bureaucracies of any Canadian province. Not sure what small government Mann is referring to in the 90s? It wasn't McKenna's.

Women continue to shy away from politics in NB

2008-04-11T17:31:00.017-04:00

Gender balance not even close to fifty per cent

These numbers have to be very discouraging for females [in NB] hoping to take the leap into municipal politics in the future. Only 25 per cent have filed their nomination papers to run in the up-and-coming municipal elections next month while an even smaller amount, 20 per cent, are putting their name forward for mayor.

This despite the efforts from such groups as Canadian Women Voters Congress, Equal Voice and New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women who all advocate more gender balance in politics.

This negative trend never ceases to amaze me. Any thoughts?

Royal Oaks gets $5 million government mulligan

2008-04-09T10:54:00.020-04:00

There's wasteful government spending folks, and then there is this:

"The Liberal government has decided to erase nearly $5 million in debt from the books of a Moncton golf club - in exchange for a cut of the club's profits.

The move, approved last November but revealed in freshly released government documents, has critics howling.

The Royal Oaks Estates & Golf Club currently owes the province about $4.8 million, stemming from a loan guarantee issued in 1998.

The Liberals have decided to convert that debt into preferred shares in the company, meaning the province has a stake in any profits.

The government will now receive 50 per cent of the club's net profits - until the debt is paid back.

The club's general manager says the debt reduction will allow Royal Oaks to expand its facilities.

In fact, that expansion will require the club - which includes an 18-hole golf course and condominiums - to borrow more money.

Critics say the whole situation is a waste of government dollars.

John Williamson, of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, says a province with over-crowded classrooms and rising health-care costs should not be fronting money for a golf course.

"That's hardly an activity that is in need of government support," he said. "It's about as frivolous as it gets in terms of spending."

Not sure if using taxpayers hard-earned money to wipe out the debt. of a private golf club will be part of the Liberal tax competitive [Green report] strategy at the end of the month? just sayin'.

Anyway, I can see why Greg Byrne was unavailable for comment.

â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢

Speaking of corporate welfare for companies that don't need it...

â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢

Not only was this an extremely poor business decision by Minister Byrne (on the taxpayer's dime), on the periphery it appears this corporate welfare deal was allegedly struck due to friends, or should I say family connections, with the Royal Oaks golf club to the governing Liberals. Thanks to Rob (The Independent) for the link tip.

Free from government intervention

2008-04-08T01:41:00.004-04:00

I agree with Iain G. Foulds on the spending problems of the federal finance department during the ’70s :

... True liberty is freedom from government economic intervention, "investment", and re-distribution.

... We have only ourselves to blame for allowing our government to slide down this slippery slope- a role without objective boundaries or restraints.

... We will only turn the tide by defining and teaching the values of liberty.

Liberal's four steps to reverse prosperity

2008-04-07T10:37:00.023-04:00

Lots of money for friends, no money for taxpayers

If you're wondering what the current New Brunswick Liberal government's four step formula is for NBers, keep reading:

First, raise taxes on corporations and individuals (and eliminate tax rebates), thus limiting private sector growth. Secondly, expand government even more. Thirdly, when jobs are being lost in the private sector at alarming rates and NBers are being taxed to death, offer yourself a possible pay raise. And if that isn't enough, inflate government wages (well above market value) for your executive friends (appointees) in the public sector while gouging ordinary ratepayers. Sigh.

And you wonder why I'm sick of this self-sufficiency plan.

Update - When it doubt? Give out a forgivable loan

Prudential Consulting Inc. is getting "a ~~corporate welfare~~ forgivable loan of $540,000 for the 50 jobs created" and "$260,000 for the 100 medical transcription jobs created." And guess who's on the hook?

Does bilingualism create a more tolerant society?

2008-04-02T18:32:00.035-04:00

The short answer: NO. Why do I say that? Just look at our only bilingual city, Moncton, and the number of people who classify themselves as a visible minority*. A measly two per cent. Well below other immigrant friendly metropolitan areas in Canada, not to mention, the lowest amongst the "big three" major urban centers in New Brunswick. A coincidence? I think not. As a NBer that has lived many years in two of the largest urban centers in Ontario, these numbers are reflective of what is truly happening on the ground in New Brunswick, both in policy and with people. Dualistic policies which have left our society both intolerant and in decline.

* Source: Statistics Canada

It all comes down to talent, technology and tolerance

Anyway, if you're tired of the crusty [three century old] french/english debate that has been (and still is) raging on in New Brunswick, then here's a piece I wrote on the subject of immigration some time ago:

I agree with Justin Trudeau, there no question we need to push past our “thirty year old” dualistic approach wherein we move to a more multicultural, tolerant model. Our resources are scarce in this province and investing too much in old failed policies has left our province [and region] in the global dust.

It is common knowledge that in the next five years, immigration will account for 100% of net labour force growth in Canada. And furthermore, province’s that have a larger number of people born within, for example the province of Newfoundland, tend to have weaker economies as opposed to those stronger ecomomies who rely more heavily on an outside influx of immigrants. [i.e. Toronto, Calgary, and Ottawa]

So there is no question that New Brunswick, whose french and english populations are dwindling [death rates outnumber their bithrates] need to change the way they view themselves and their society so that our region can become a more fertile place for immigrants to live, work and pay taxes. In other words, old dualistic policy approaches which maintain the status quo and [keep our society insular] are no longer viable in a global economy anchored by a knowledged based economy [KBE]. We must find a way to convince the people and the powers that be that we need a policy overhaul in order to move ahead in a global society. In other words, we must follow the “3 Ts” recommended by economist Tom Corchene whereby he said:

"The regions who come out on top will be those who fare best in terms of Technolgy (as measured by innovation and high-tech industry concentration), Talent (as measured by the number of people in creative occupations) and Tolerance (as measured by the amenities afforded and opportunities available for every possible lifestyle). Cities and regions that score well, especially with respect to the tolerance index, will become places where the creative class will cluster."
I can't stess this more. And it is a huge reason why I support [Corchene's] notion, in that, I believe we are wasting our time with old policies that have left our society insular and in decline. In other words, we will either ride the momentum of the global wave or sit idly by and watch it crash over our heads. We have a choice.

For the record, I have nothing against learning another language. I am bilingual myself. However, when the focus (of policy) leaves your society with entrenched insular attitudes and stunted social and economic progress, isn't it time you questioned that policy to its core?

In other news, I see the CBC is as hypocritical as ever - in the Ottawa area, at least. Not that it is a scientific study per se, but I would have put Victor Boudreau's green report (tax competitiveness) on this list.

Provincial tax policies headed in wrong direction

2008-03-31T10:40:00.024-04:00

My good blogging pal spinks (aka Spink About It) has an excellent post on the tax policies implemented by the last two New Brunswick governments and how it has resulted in most NBers paying more personal income taxes. For him, it means his provincial income tax bill will be around "89% of what I pay federally". Not exactly, the competitive [tax] outcome he was looking for from the province.

Click here for complete Spink From the Right online article.

â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢

NBer - NB - Regressive Tax Regime + Alberta = Prosperity

It's comments like these that remind me why I decided to write this blog in the first place. Let me tell you, anon's beef is relevant and it has serious legs, go ahead and read it: "I am a former resident of New Brunswick, now in the oil patch, an all I can say get out while you can or if you can. The personal income tax rates in the province are from what I understand the highest in the 10 provinces. I am in the trades and felt that the province systematically kept my income low with far too much income taxes as well as the PST. Everytime I thought I was getting ahead I was gauged by more taxes. To hear the MLA's getting raises and that studies indicate that taxes are too high is upsetting at the least. It is the people who work in the middle to low end private sector that suffer the most. My only solution was to leave and not look back until I retire, and believe me that many East Coast- new Albertans have the very same sentiment. It seems that Alberta is a decent model where one industry pays well ans all of the others have to follow suit to get workers, and on top of that we only pay 10% income tax for the province with no sales tax. Go figure! I think that all New Brunswickers should be more prosperous rather than being kept down. And the new slogan "Be.." has all of us former New Brunswickers laughing, then saying it is pathetic."

NBT launches petition to stop MLA’s fat raise

2008-03-25T12:43:00.022-04:00

Click here to sign online petition

New Brunswick Taxpayer has launched a petition calling on NB Liberal Premier Shawn Graham to cancel the 4 per cent pay raise for MLA’s and to allow voters around the province to decide whether their MLA deserves a pay raise in the next general election. As well, budgets for members' allowances, committees and operations will get a 9 per cent boost in 2008-09.

Since, we the taxpayers pay their salaries, we have a right to decide what our representatives earn. In light of Mr. Graham’s poor fiscal record thus far, he shouldn’t be so confident that hardworking taxpayers will rubber stamp a 13 per cent salary and allowance increase.

â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢

CTF spokeman Adam Taylor: "the government's refusal to return the money to New Brunswickers while also setting aside another $765,000 for MLA raises shows a lack or respect for the average New Brunswicker, especially when finance ministers across the country are tightening their belts. [...] They seem to be thumbing the nose at New Brunswick taxpayers, especially with rising assessments, and hikes in hydro. [...] The fact that last year they raised income taxes, it seems a little bit disingenuous to say we need to raise income taxes to prevent our budget from going into deficit, and then turn around and post a surplus and raise MLA salaries before they roll back that tax increase. [...] the members of New Brunswick's legislature are sending the wrong message if they are considering raising their salaries according to a report that based much of its conclusions on MLA salaries elsewhere in the country. [...]To say we are going to pay ourselves comparable to what the booming western provinces are paying their politicians, yet you aren't going to see any more increases and we are going to take more from your paycheque so we can pay ourselves more."

More good stuff from Taylor: "Not only are regular New Brunswickers not likely seeing wage increases, they are also getting less money because of tax increases. [...] Premier Graham should be giving his head a shake. [...] Everybody loves a raise. You will never find someone in the entire world who wouldn't take a pay raise. But the reality is when the government is raising taxes the last thing it should be doing is raising wages."

â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢

"If the MLAs and ministers vote in favour of the almost $800,000 pay hike package recommended by a government commissioned report, they will receive an almost 4 per cent raise as the salary of a sitting members will increase from $81,758 to $85,000.

According to the recommendations that were based on comparisons with other provinces and the input of past and current MLAs, ministers would see their salaries increase to from $122,248 to $137,613, which would raise their salaries to more than $20,000 above Saskatchewan ministers, 30,000 more than Manitoba ministers, and within the $10,000 of Alberta ministers."

Is ACOA damaging to our local business climate?

2008-03-24T13:20:00.021-04:00

Like me, former New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna is on record saying he would scrap ACOA if he became the federal leader. After reading this article in the Daily Gleaner today, I can see why.

Good reads: ACOA: The Lost Decade, 2005 Pre-election Spend-O-Meter, Who Wants to be a Millionaire?, Another Subsidy Wave Crashes Into Atlantic Canada, 2004 Pre-election Spending.

Update: Speaking of McKenna, I was glad to see he mirrored my sentiments today on what is required in the short term in order to position the NB economy for outside business investment:

"Former Premier and TD Bank Deputy Chairman Frank McKenna says New Brunswick will need a major tax overhaul if it hopes to stay competitive in these uncertain economic times."

Budget '08: A few things that the press missed

2008-03-19T13:39:00.056-04:00

I practically hit the floor this morning when I gazed at the front page of the Telegraph Journal to find the Finance Minister getting such a free ride on what I believed to be a poorly delivered budget. It's almost like the press and so-called experts would rather engage in the fluff of the platitudes and future promises that were offered up under the wire instead of properly vetting the budget that was tabled by Victor Boudreau yesterday.

Anyway, since the press seem to be unwilling to analyze anything but the so-called green paper (whatever that is?), then I thought I would add a few last words on this budget and what I think it means for the future of NB. Here goes (I'll add a grade at the end of each section):

Boudreau hasn't controlled spending thus far. So when will he?

Well, this year's budget proposes that spending will exceed the 7 Billion mark in the next fiscal year, which (by government projection standards) is a modest 2.7 per cent increase. But before you get all hot and bothered by what appears to be a modest expenditure increase by any standard, let's take a look at the Liberal governments record on spending since they entered office back in September 2006.

Since taking over the reigns of government (about a year and a half ago), the Liberals have failed to control spending at any level. When the Progressive Conservatives left office total spending in New Brunswick stood at $6.2 Billion (2005/06 fiscal year). In fiscal year 2006/07, the provincial government's first budget called for Fredericton's expenditures to grow by 2.8 per cent. However, at the end of that year provincial government receipts had pilled up even further where it ballooned to an astounding 5.5 per cent.

Under Boudreau, the size of government has quickly grown by an astonishing 14 per cent in just under two years. To mildly put this into context, the previous government under Bernard Lord reduced spending by 3.2 per cent in their first year and a half in government. Not only that, the size of government in Lord's entire tenure as premier grew by a total of 25 per cent. A number that this camper thought could have been much lower if they had of kept with their earlier motto of cutting spending.

Although, to be fair, if the Graham government keeps on their reckless spend-thrift ways, they will exceed Bernard Lord's total growth in government spending in just under 3 years. In other words, they are spending at approximately twice the clip. I don't know about you, but the last thing I want to see is another government reverting back to the old, irresponsible social spending days of the 1970s, 80s and 90s. As I see it, spending are way back into deficit will not only mean that less money will be free to allocate to other important priorities because of higher debt repayments, it will ultimately be a mortgage on future generations who will end up footing the bill (that is, if they stick around?). Grade F

Cut taxes, don't study them

The Premier recently told the Economic Club in Toronto a few weeks ago that: "We have embarked on an aggressive review of our taxation system; we have brought in some of the leading experts from around the world. We’re going to be launching a discussion with New Brunswickers on how our taxation system can be more competitive."

These sentiments were echoed by the finance minister yesterday as he said: "But if we can restructure our tax system differently based on what may have worked in other jurisdictions so that we can generate more wealth here in the province, then we can look at maybe some overall tax reductions."

What the two gentlemen are talking about above is a discussion paper on tax competitiveness, known as the green paper, which the government will release sometime in late April. Furthermore, as quoted in the TJ today, it "will offer a range of options for tax changes and then seek public input from a select committee of the legislative assembly. The committee of MLAs will hand in its findings in the fall, giving Boudreau the opportunity to incorporate those changes in next year's financial plan."

Now I wouldn't have a problem with this, but given the track record of the government on these types of studies, not to mention, on taxes, it gives me reason to be very concerned. Moreover, I heard Premier Graham pleading that New Brunswick must follow the lead of the federal finance minister, in that, we should be looking to have a combined 25 per cent corporate tax rate. Now this is an excellent goal, but I am very surprised that the premier is the one setting it.

Why?

Well, let's look at his record on business taxes both big and small. For starters, in his very first budget, the premier rescinded the tax cut implemented by the previous government. What exactly does this mean? Well, if his government hadn't of interfered with the good corporate tax legislation in place the rate would have dropped to 12 per cent in fiscal year 2007. Instead, they raised it to 13 per cent and kept the line in this budget. So if the premier was really serious about bringing down our corporate tax rate (to 10 per cent), then he should never have raised it in the first place. By doing so, he may have cost our province the precious time needed to position ourselves as a competitive tax jurisdiction in a 21st century global economy.

Furthermore, if he thinks hiring a bunch of consultants and doing a study is a "discussion with New Brunswickers", then we have bigger problems other than just the tax hikes, don't we? Secondly, he raised the small business rate from 1.5 per cent to 5 per cent. And because he believes in spurning on growth through government subsidization, this basically means he is willing to put the interest of a few ahead of the well-being of SMEs since their profits are going to their subsidized competitors via higher taxes. Grade D-

Lack of debt relief a mortgage on future generations

As the Provincial Auditor's report pointed out in February, the problem with the current approach to debt reduction is that there is absolutely no longterm reduction target, no plan to retire the debt and no strategy to keep it from growing incrementally. And let's face it, debt retirement can only happen if it becomes deliberate, in that, it becomes part of the overall budgeting process.

So you can see why I was upset that the finance minister decided to keep debt on the books as it has two deleterious effects on New Brunswick's budget. Firstly, 9 cents of every dollar sent to Fredericton is wasted. It goes entirely to paying off interest from the projected $7.1 billion provincial debt (a net debt which cost about $9,500 for every man, woman and child in the province), thus eroding the government’s ability to spend where necessary and to provide meaningful tax relief. Secondly, deficit financing is risky as it leaves future generations of New Brunswick taxpayers on the hook for current spending. As a result, that's about $600 million which isn’t available for health care, education or the environment. So not only is it important to pursue a downward trend in the debt-to-GDP ratio and public debt servicing costs, it is essential that the government look at a ways to eliminate the province's overall debt. Grade F

Btw, I doubt you'll read these types of budget criticisms in any of the big three newspapers. So I ask my readers, am I being too harsh or is the press giving Boudreau's budget a free ride? whadaya think?

Update - Is Jack Mintz now the go to guy because Boudreau dropped the ball in his first budget? I mean, it looks like the Premier tied his finance minister's hands on this budget.

I applaud this effort (although, I'm a bit biased since I read all his stuff on tax competitiveness). But before you go off thinking I'm all for striking studies, commissions and task forces (which I'm not), just remember, much like other studies struck by this Liberal government (and administered by unelected academics, business people and consultants), in the end, many of these recommendations and reports can be found collecting dust somewhere in bureaucratic wasteland. So it could end up being an expensive exercise which will be all for not?

Which is why I have always felt that leadership and policy initiatives should start, or better yet, originate from our elected officials, not unaccountable academics, consultants and so-called experts. Isn't that exactly why we elect guys like the member from Shediac–Cap-Pelé ?

NB Budget '08: We didn't get our money back

2008-03-18T14:24:00.037-04:00

All together now: Spend, spend, spend

Well, it's a sad day all around for New Brunswick taxpayers as the Finance Minister's so-called "Luck of the Irish Budget" held the line on the '07 tax increases while spending for the province increased again on health care (well above the rate of inflation), education and every other social aspect:

an increase of 5.4 per cent, to $2.2 billion, for the Department of Health;
an increase of 7.2 per cent, to $941.6 million, for the Department of Education;
an increase of 3.4 per cent, to $910.4 million, for the Department of Social Development, including:
$2.4 million to hire 43 new social workers;
$5 million to increase nursing-home care to 3.1 hours per day;
$5.7 million for early learning and child care

All this while running a projected surplus of $18 million as well as an additional $517 million added to the provincial debt by '09 (thus driving up interest payments on the debt to around $600 million, money that could have been used to service other depts or given back to the people in the form of tax relief).

It definitely would have been refreshing to see the finance minister sticks to his commitments of no new spending in the 2008 budget. No such luck.

Anyway, I'm about to step out so I will have more on this tomorrow. But to quickly sum up my feelings on this budget in four words: extremely bad for taxpayers. What do you guys think? Does this budget, or last yrs, set us on the proper course to future prosperity?

Update: No tax increases [says Boudreau] not quite accurate

NB Power reported a healthy profit of $85 million last year. Let's just say, this unexpected windfall came on the backs of ordinary rate payers due to consecutive rate-hikes over the past two years.

Furthermore, even though they made a profit last year, they were somehow just approved for another 5.9% increase? Now I understand that a crown corporation's raison d'être should be to remain competitive with the intent of balancing their books, but when they report a significant profit, the additional rate hikes, like the ones that were recently approved, amount to nothing more then another unfair tax on NBers. The Liberals made a point of saying there were no tax increases in Budget '08. Nothing could be further from the truth as NBers are still being gouged with a 6% hidden tax increase.

Related: Health gets financial boost, Education gets 7.2 per cent spending boost and Debt rises in New Brunswick's budget.

To one person it's a wise expenditure, to another...

2008-03-17T17:25:00.014-04:00

If the fact that he's being chauffeured around in a limo on your dime bothered you, just wait until you see where CBC president Robert Rabinovitch enjoyed a five-day stay in Turkey. Wow, not only is this highly wasteful, but this guy is unelected. So taxpayers have no say.

N.B. finance minister seeks Irish luck

2008-03-17T15:35:00.018-04:00

Well, if Finance Minister Victor Boudreau is looking for Irish luck, then he should start by following the lead of the Irish. Through tax cuts, the land of pubs and drunks has been "miraculously" transformed into one of high-tech firms and entrepreneurs. Here's a good explanation from Alicia Hansen who is a staff writer at the Tax Foundation (I've added commentary and highlighted important text):

Ireland’s economy has undergone a remarkable transformation over the past two decades. A recent New York Times op-ed by Thomas L. Friedman attributes Ireland’s economic growth in part to the country’s low corporate tax rate (which I argued in the pre-budget submission has to be reduced to 10% in New Brunswick for us to be, at the very least, competitive with other jurisdictions).

Ireland is currently the second richest country in the European Union, with a per capita GDP higher than that of Germany, France and Britain. But in the mid-1980s, the economy was faltering, college graduates were emigrating, and the outlook was bleak (sound familiar NBers?):

"We went on a borrowing, spending and taxing spree, and that nearly drove us under," said Deputy Prime Minister Mary Harney. "It was because we nearly went under that we got the courage to change."

This change included a corporate tax rate cut to 12.5 percent, far below the rest of Europe, which attracted foreign investment. Nine of ten of the world's top pharmaceutical companies and seven of the top ten software designers currently have operations in Ireland.

In 2001 the Tax Foundation hosted a delegation of congressional tax staff on a European tax conference that included a meeting with officials from Ireland’s Industrial Development Agency, who explained that the corporate tax rate cut had stimulated economic growth and new foreign investment. Read Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge’s description of the trip.

While some of Friedman’s suggestions are debatable (for example, that free college education is conducive to economic growth), he accurately describes two important aspects of the Irish transformation:

[M]ake your corporate taxes low, simple and transparent; open your economy to competition … and you, too, can become one of the richest countries in Europe.

Click here for more on tax reform in Ireland and other OECD countries.

Moreover, this statement by Friedman, regarding Ireland success, hit home as well since New Brunswick's economy has suffered greatly for decades due to the inept policies of spendthrift, statist regimes:

Yes, the country that for hundreds of years was best known for emigration, tragic poets, famines, civil wars and leprechauns today has a per capita G.D.P. higher than that of Germany, France and Britain. How Ireland went from the sick man of Europe to the rich man in less than a generation is an amazing story. It tells you a lot about Europe today: all the innovation is happening on the periphery by those countries embracing globalization in their own ways - Ireland, Britain, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe - while those following the French-German social model are suffering high unemployment and low growth.

That's why I think it's imperative that the New Brunswick government change its economic course and form a strategy based on the three pillars of low taxes, debt reduction and smaller government. It's time that we seek the "courage to change" like the Irish, not their luck.

Budget Oh-Eight: Sensible Solutions for NB

2008-03-16T19:55:00.013-04:00

After close to a year of advocating on behalf of New Brunswick taxpayers, I have decided to offer up a little advice to Finance Minister Victor Boudreau since he is about to drop his second provincial budget this Tuesday, March 18th.

In the document below, I have come up with "13 Sensible Budget Recommendations", from ending corporate welfare to reforming the property tax assessment system to ballot measures and legislation to stop tax hikes as well as balancing the books. When you get time, make sure you give it a glance. And if you like what you see, download the document and pass it around because remember, as I said in the "about" section of this blog, if we want the politicos to listen, taxpayers have to talk to each other first. A special thanks goes out to Spinks for getting the bugs out of the Scribd system.

End corprate welfare now

2008-03-15T19:10:00.018-04:00

If there was ever any doubt that corporate welfare is a bad idea, this weekend's headlines confirmed it. “Atcon's state-of-the-art plywood plant closed,” protested Saturday’s Telegraph Journal. Yes folks, that would be the same Atcon Plywood Group Inc. whose 'supposed' state-of-the-art facilities (hold your ears children) released wasteful contaminants into the environment just over a year ago, resulting in two violations of the Clean Environment Act. Not only that, they are part of the same group whose sister company, just 5 months ago, wheedled a multi-million dollar subsidy out of the New Brunswick government to build steel beams for a bridge across the MacKenzie River in the Northwest Territories. A sweet corporate welfare deal which Atcon Group itself will now profit off of after becoming a shareholder in the project.

Let's face it folks, as demonstrated by bottomless subsidy pit Atcon Group inc. above, not only is corporate welfare bad for the environment (since it is sometimes given to declining industries that are often the most harmful to the environment), it does not encourage companies to compete based on market forces. Quite the opposite, it encourages them to become better at lobbying governments for forgivable loans and grants and, in turn, they end up growing fat and lazy on the public trough. Not only is this poor use of taxpayers money, the result is that many facilities are not prepared to deal with market downturns and technological changes as less effort is put into modernization and anticipating trends than into cozying up to politicians. A trend that has come to a head in NB with a plethora of plant closures.

In a free market economy, there is nothing wrong with corporations fighting it out for private capital. But when public money is footing the bill, it’s a different story. Through their taxes, corporations which do not receive government subsidies subsidize their competitors. Talk about setting up an unhealthy business environment that is based on redistribution of profits.

I just wish that politicians would wake up and finally put a stop to this unfair practice. In the best performing economy in the country, they already have. Alberta outlawed corporate welfare banning any loan, grant or subsidy over $ 1 million. Rather than favouring particular companies or industries, the province simply has the lowest corporate tax rate in the country – 10 per cent.

Yet in New Brunswick, Premier Shawn Graham’s government has taken the opposite approach, canceling corporate tax cuts implemented by the previous government and meddling in the economy as much as possible. To date, the government has earmarked millions for the textile industry, forestry sector and tourist industry. This, in a province that is $6.5 billion in debt and taxpayers are paying the highest personal income taxes in fourteen years.

It's time to end the costly practice of corporate welfare.

Is Trudeau's statist legacy dying?

2008-03-14T16:03:00.017-04:00

I have run into a few folks in my neck of the woods that are fuming mad about the Education Minister's decision to cut early immersion in the public school system (you should see the editorials in the local paper).

Now I won't get into a divisive debate on social policy as it definitely isn't my strong point. But the recent decision by our provincial "Liberal" government to cut this program does raise one important question: Is Trudeau's statist legacy dying?

To answer my own question, I'm not certain it is dying. Although, after witnessing his own son Justin, a staunch left-wing Liberal himself, question the outcomes of some of his father's policies last year, plus the recent immersion announcement (not by a right-wing government but by a Liberal government), it definitely doesn't bode well for the Trudeau legacy.

Furthermore, is this a sign that libertarian and conservative ideals are on the rise in Canada? My friend Gerry Nichols not only believes it is, but he sees it as an opportunity for the Canadian conservative movement to win the War of Ideas.

Today's announcement in Fredericton can't be going over well with left-of-centre Liberals as it must be like a funeral all over again for their beloved hero . But look on the bright side my socialist friends, you will always have PET day (in the mind of Mario Silva).

Related: Are failing bilingual programs wasteful to taxpayers?, New Brunswick's obsession with dualism.

Should taxpayers be funding known polluters?

2008-03-13T20:40:00.020-04:00

A mere one hundred days after receiving $17.3 million in corporate welfare dollars for facility upgrades, AV Cell Inc. of Atholville was charged in Campbellton Provincial Court with two offences under the Clean Air Act:

The Department of Environment alleges that on July 16, 2007, AV Cell Inc. of Atholville, caused or permitted the release into the air of a contaminant or class of contaminant causing damage to properties. The company is further charged that on the same date, it caused or permitted the release into the air of a contaminant or class of contaminant resulting in substantial loss of the normal enjoyment of the use of any property.

Not only am I against business subsidies in practice (as many of you may already know), I get even more frustrated when corporate welfare loans are given to declining industries that allegedly pollute. There's absolutely no reason why taxpayers should be on the hook for a facility that has been charged with being harmful to the environment. Let's hope the government puts the interest of taxpayers first and recoups this loan from AV Cell Inc., in its entirety, as a warning. Remember, the Graham government should be just as much a steward of the environment as they are of the public purse.

NB property taxpayers "Betting on Betts"

2008-03-12T20:18:00.014-04:00

New Brunswick taxpayer is commending Moncton area MLA John Betts for his efforts in championing the issue of property value assessment. His bill [Bill 17] --- an Act to Amend the Assessment Act --- will be introduced into second reading stage on Thursday. With property tax rates currently gouging NBers at astronomical levels, there has never been a better time for such a bill to go through in the legislature then this one. If passed, this bill would offer some temporary relief for taxpayers via a property assessment cap. Moreover, it would take some of the financial stress off property owners until the government can come up with an alternative municipal tax assessment arrangement like they have in other jurisdictions such as Britain, California, Florida and Israel. As Tory MLA Betts explains, this bill:

"would cap the property assessments at 3%. This would save New Brunswickers between $133 -$250 and upwards, in areas which have seen their property assessments go up between 9.2 - 12%."

This is one private members bill that yours truly hopes doesn't die a quick death. Let's just say that I, and thousands of taxpayers around the province, will be watching its progression very closely.

Is the "self-sufficiency" agenda failing taxpayers?

2008-03-12T18:40:00.018-04:00

Well, let's just say, the proof [again] is in the pudding. That is why it is imperative that the Graham government move immediately to form a new economic strategy based on the three pillars of lower taxes, serious debt reduction and smaller government as the status quo of high taxes, modest debt reduction, increased spending and corporate welfare to declining industries is not working.

Furthermore, not only is their "self-sufficiency" policy driving out business (while putting the interest of a few ahead of taxpayers), it has the potential to drive out the very people in their prime income earning years (25-55) who pay for the majority of services and programs in this province --- the "middle class". Which is why I was glad to see Moncton-Crescent MLA John Betts and interim leader Jeannot Volpé speak out on behalf of honest, hardworking taxpayers as they are the true economic engine of this province.