The past few years the legislature has sat until the very end of June, under threats of continuing into July, until a last minute deal has been cut to avoid returning to to the blistering hot, non-air conditioned chamber after Canada Day.
So, what is left on the legislative agenda?
The main estimates and a subsequent Appropriations Bill to authorize the government to keep spending money and operating must be passed by July 31, and have not made it through yet.
The bill to implement the income tax increases has not yet passed.
Other than that there is no business, but those are some pretty important pieces that need to pass before the House can break.
Also, the Telegraph-Journal reports today that Government House Leader Stuart Jamieson will be introducing some electoral reform bills today, including one that would provide financial incentives to parties who run a certain number of woman candidates. I do not think that that sort of quota system will solve the underlying problems that give us the disgraceful underrepresentation of women in our parliaments and am a bit dissapointed to see a move like this go forward if it actually does so.
UPDATE: It seems the Telegraph was misinformed as no reforms were introduced today. Debate on estimates has continued all day today after routine proceedings.
UPDATE 2: Seems I was careless, though no legislation was introduced, Jamieson did table the government plans in response to the Legislative Democracy Commission.
UPDATE 3: It is 3:10 p.m. and I am about to head away for the weekend. The legislature is still working on the Education Department estimates. After that they have some more departments and after that they need to pass an Appropriations Bill. They have now done about 160 hours on Estimates. Last year the Tories called the Liberals "obstructionist" for wasting the time of the House spending too much time on estimates. How much time was spent? 70 hours.
UPDATE 4: Today is July 4, the House continues to sit. I believe it is unprecedented for the House to sit in July on routine business. It has sat for the election of a Speaker and to deal with an urgent issue before. The budget was introduced two weeks earlier this year than it had been under the Tories. The House has been sitting until 10 p.m. as opposed to 6 p.m. as it was under the Tories. Yet the budget debate drags on. Why? Charles LeBlanc advises that the House will adjourning Friday. If so, then the Tories will have dragged out debate 3 weeks longer than the Liberals did and those weeks each contained an extra 9 hours of debating time. Yet some how the Tories are a cooperative and collaborative opposition and the Liberals in opposition held things up so long that the government proposed a complete inversion of the rules to curtail debate. What a joke. (It should be noted that the rule changes the Liberals now propose were the most moderate fourth rule change suggestion the Tories brought forward, the Liberals have not resurrected the first three more draconian proposals.)
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Sources say the federal cabinet will be shuffled today
All hands seem to believe that Gordon O'Connor will be shuffled out of Defence, which means he would almost certainly be headed to Veterans Affairs, so what does that mean for New Brunswick minister Greg Thompson?
Updates as available...
UPDATE: It seems I was misinformed :( No shuffle today folks.
Updates as available...
UPDATE: It seems I was misinformed :( No shuffle today folks.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Head to Kings Landing this weekend!!
This sounds like a really cool idea. If you haven't filled up your holiday weekend plans, then I think this would definitely be worth checking out. Unfortunately, I will be in Nova Scotia but I hope someone goes and can give us a report.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Chuck Hagel, vice-president of the United States?
I know this sounds quite unlikely, however a thought occurred to me last night. Mike Bloomberg, the ultra-rich mayor of New York is considering running for president as an independent. There has been talk that anti-war maverick Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska would be his running mate.
Let's assume that neither Hillary Clinton nor Rudy Guliani are the nominee's of their respective parties. I think it is fair to imagine that Mike Bloomberg could carry New York. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, won re-election in California last year by a margin of nearly 20 points - 56% to 39% - and he is a keen supporter of Bloomberg. Could his support and Bloomberg's demeanor win him the Golden State as well?
Assuming no other movement, that would leave the electoral college at Republican 286 - Democratic 166 - Bloomberg 86. I wouldn't imagine it would be too difficult for Bloomberg to pick up neighbouring New Jersey (15) and possibly Pennsylvania (21) and Connecticut (7) from the Democrats as well. For fair measure, let's throw in Massachustes (12) where Bloomberg grew up and where, if Romney was the Republican candidate, the Democrats would probably not win with the 60+% they are used to, a large Democratic majority splitting to ways to Bloomberg and, to a lesser extent, Romney, it is not inconceivable to see Bloomberg win in a three way race with less than 40%.
That makes the college R286-B-141-D111. That's right, the Democrats in third place. Now, if Bloomberg were able to take 17 electoral votes from the Republicans - winning one of say Florida (27) or Ohio (20) or some combination of Virginia (13), Indiana (11), Arizona (10) or Nevada (5) - no one would have a majority of the electoral college vote. The result is not a Republican win, despite their huge plurality, it is an election in early January by the House of Representatives, choosing from the top three candidates. Presumably whichever party controlled a majority of states (each state gets one vote) would just choose their candidate regardless, especially if there had been a close popular vote. However, the Senate must choose between the top two vice presidential candidates, if the Democrats continue to control the Senate - as seems likely - would they not choose Hagel over the likely more conservative Republican nominee for vice president?
Could be a very interesting scenario where the ticket would be split by congress. Especially if the House choose a Democrat wherein the result would be the presidential candidate from the third place ticket would become president and the vice presidential candidate from the second place ticket would become vice president and no one from the first place ticket would win any office at all. Gotta love the possibilities in American politics!
Let's assume that neither Hillary Clinton nor Rudy Guliani are the nominee's of their respective parties. I think it is fair to imagine that Mike Bloomberg could carry New York. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, won re-election in California last year by a margin of nearly 20 points - 56% to 39% - and he is a keen supporter of Bloomberg. Could his support and Bloomberg's demeanor win him the Golden State as well?
Assuming no other movement, that would leave the electoral college at Republican 286 - Democratic 166 - Bloomberg 86. I wouldn't imagine it would be too difficult for Bloomberg to pick up neighbouring New Jersey (15) and possibly Pennsylvania (21) and Connecticut (7) from the Democrats as well. For fair measure, let's throw in Massachustes (12) where Bloomberg grew up and where, if Romney was the Republican candidate, the Democrats would probably not win with the 60+% they are used to, a large Democratic majority splitting to ways to Bloomberg and, to a lesser extent, Romney, it is not inconceivable to see Bloomberg win in a three way race with less than 40%.
That makes the college R286-B-141-D111. That's right, the Democrats in third place. Now, if Bloomberg were able to take 17 electoral votes from the Republicans - winning one of say Florida (27) or Ohio (20) or some combination of Virginia (13), Indiana (11), Arizona (10) or Nevada (5) - no one would have a majority of the electoral college vote. The result is not a Republican win, despite their huge plurality, it is an election in early January by the House of Representatives, choosing from the top three candidates. Presumably whichever party controlled a majority of states (each state gets one vote) would just choose their candidate regardless, especially if there had been a close popular vote. However, the Senate must choose between the top two vice presidential candidates, if the Democrats continue to control the Senate - as seems likely - would they not choose Hagel over the likely more conservative Republican nominee for vice president?
Could be a very interesting scenario where the ticket would be split by congress. Especially if the House choose a Democrat wherein the result would be the presidential candidate from the third place ticket would become president and the vice presidential candidate from the second place ticket would become vice president and no one from the first place ticket would win any office at all. Gotta love the possibilities in American politics!
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Whither Gerard Kennedy?
I made no secret on this blog that I was a keen supporter of Gerard Kennedy during the recent Liberal leadership campaign.
Since that time, I have been disappointed that he chose to run in Parkdale-High Park which was my third choice in terms of ridings he should have chosen. He took the relatively easy choice of chosing the riding he represented provincially and already has a base, organization and proven electoral record. I think this decision will badly damage, if not totally sink, any future ambitions he has to run for leader.
In any event, he seems to be getting really screwed now. There were three candidates for leader who did not have seats in the House of Commons. Kennedy, Bob Rae and Martha Hall Findlay. Kennedy had the balls to stand up and run in a riding held by an opposition party (Parkdale-High Park is held by NDP MP Peggy Nash) and in a riding to which he has a personal connection.
Rae, on the other hand, who lives in Parkdale-High Park, chose to run in the ultra-safe, Liberal held seat of Toronto Centre. He lives in Parkdale-High Park and previously represented what is now Toronto-Danforth (Jack Layton's riding) in the House of Commons and what is now York South-Weston in the Ontario parliament.
Hall Findlay, who I am not sure where she lives and my apologies if she lives in Willowdale, is running in Willowdale another safe seat held since 1988 by Jim Peterson.
To add insult to injury, yesterday Bill Graham, the incumbent from Toronto Centre announced he was resigning and today, I am told Jim Peterson will be resigning too. Thus, assuming an election in 2008, Rae and Hall Findlay will be getting free, advanced passes to the House of Commons. Kennedy gets to sit on the sidelines as his reward for not parachuting into an ultra safe riding and for having the nerve to take on an opposition MP. Funny how life works sometimes eh?
Since that time, I have been disappointed that he chose to run in Parkdale-High Park which was my third choice in terms of ridings he should have chosen. He took the relatively easy choice of chosing the riding he represented provincially and already has a base, organization and proven electoral record. I think this decision will badly damage, if not totally sink, any future ambitions he has to run for leader.
In any event, he seems to be getting really screwed now. There were three candidates for leader who did not have seats in the House of Commons. Kennedy, Bob Rae and Martha Hall Findlay. Kennedy had the balls to stand up and run in a riding held by an opposition party (Parkdale-High Park is held by NDP MP Peggy Nash) and in a riding to which he has a personal connection.
Rae, on the other hand, who lives in Parkdale-High Park, chose to run in the ultra-safe, Liberal held seat of Toronto Centre. He lives in Parkdale-High Park and previously represented what is now Toronto-Danforth (Jack Layton's riding) in the House of Commons and what is now York South-Weston in the Ontario parliament.
Hall Findlay, who I am not sure where she lives and my apologies if she lives in Willowdale, is running in Willowdale another safe seat held since 1988 by Jim Peterson.
To add insult to injury, yesterday Bill Graham, the incumbent from Toronto Centre announced he was resigning and today, I am told Jim Peterson will be resigning too. Thus, assuming an election in 2008, Rae and Hall Findlay will be getting free, advanced passes to the House of Commons. Kennedy gets to sit on the sidelines as his reward for not parachuting into an ultra safe riding and for having the nerve to take on an opposition MP. Funny how life works sometimes eh?
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
A sad challenge for Democrats
I know I have not been posting very much lately and, when I do, it is often about U.S. politics. I apologize for that, but it is largely because my main fascination when it comes to politics is electoral machinations and a U.S. presidential election is the biggest series of political machines coming together in the world. Particularly when this is the first election since 1928 where neither the president nor the vice-president is a candidate and therefore both major parties have wide open nominations. I hope you won't mind. If you think I am missing something here at home that I should be writing about, as always, I encourage my readers to drop me a line at nbpolitico@gmail.com and give me a story suggestion.
So anyway, on to the subject at hand. As a Liberal and a slightly-to-the-left moderate, I doubt many would find it a surprise that my U.S. sympathies lie largely with the Democrats - though I have a lot of time for "big picture" Republicans like John McCain and Fred Thompson.
In any event, I thought it noteworthy that the state of the Democratic Party in the Southern United States has become so sad that I saw this on the Drudge Report yesterday and today:
The headline in question: "John Edwards: 'I will win more than one Southern state'". The fact that a southerner, who was until a couple of years ago the Senator for a southern state, stating that he would win more than one state in the south is noteworthy is a really sad state of affairs for the Democrats. I know it is a long time since the Solid South but the Democrats really need to start thinking long and hard about how good it is for their country for an entire region to be written off any time they look to win an election.
The Republicans proved with their Southern strategy, one did need to be explicitly anti-civil rights to carry the south. As Nixon's strategist noted, they only needed 10-20% of the Black vote to carry states because of their domination of the White vote. Today, the reverse is true. Democrats only need about 20% of the rural White vote in the South in order to win due to their domination of the Black vote and competitiveness in the urban White vote.
The Democrats need a Southern strategy or perhaps more generally a rural strategy and they need one fast. Despite the unpopularity of Bush and the Iraq War, without breaking into the South, the Democrats will have a hard time winning in 2008.
So anyway, on to the subject at hand. As a Liberal and a slightly-to-the-left moderate, I doubt many would find it a surprise that my U.S. sympathies lie largely with the Democrats - though I have a lot of time for "big picture" Republicans like John McCain and Fred Thompson.
In any event, I thought it noteworthy that the state of the Democratic Party in the Southern United States has become so sad that I saw this on the Drudge Report yesterday and today:
The headline in question: "John Edwards: 'I will win more than one Southern state'". The fact that a southerner, who was until a couple of years ago the Senator for a southern state, stating that he would win more than one state in the south is noteworthy is a really sad state of affairs for the Democrats. I know it is a long time since the Solid South but the Democrats really need to start thinking long and hard about how good it is for their country for an entire region to be written off any time they look to win an election.
The Republicans proved with their Southern strategy, one did need to be explicitly anti-civil rights to carry the south. As Nixon's strategist noted, they only needed 10-20% of the Black vote to carry states because of their domination of the White vote. Today, the reverse is true. Democrats only need about 20% of the rural White vote in the South in order to win due to their domination of the Black vote and competitiveness in the urban White vote.
The Democrats need a Southern strategy or perhaps more generally a rural strategy and they need one fast. Despite the unpopularity of Bush and the Iraq War, without breaking into the South, the Democrats will have a hard time winning in 2008.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Ouch
Quite a zinger from the president of Fox News with respect to the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards who have derailed several debates organized by Democratic Party arms to be aired by the network:
“The candidates that can’t face Fox, can’t face Al Qaeda,” said Mr. Ailes. “And that’s what’s coming.”
Monday, June 04, 2007
Joementum?
As I said back in January and again in March, if I were a U.S. citizen I would be voting for Joe Biden in my Democratic primary or caucus. Though I didn't see last night's Democratic debate, I was pleasantly surprised to see that he got rave reviews. Let's hope Senator Biden can redefine joementum!
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Wacko prediction of the day
Since my track record is already awful in terms of predictions, when I have a whim like this, I don't mind posting it because my reputation can't get any lower!
Jean Charest will win a narrow majority in early elections in July.
UPDATE: Sources tell me that members of the PQ leadership are avid readers of this blog and, having read this prediction and knowing of my impressive track record on political pontification, cut a deal with Charest to avoid seeing him win a majority.
Jean Charest will win a narrow majority in early elections in July.
UPDATE: Sources tell me that members of the PQ leadership are avid readers of this blog and, having read this prediction and knowing of my impressive track record on political pontification, cut a deal with Charest to avoid seeing him win a majority.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Fixed election dates coming to NB
Government House Leader Stuart Jamieson introduced Bill 75 today which will set fixed election dates starting with September 27, 2010 and every fourth Monday of September every four years thereafter.
This date was chosen over October 18, 2010 and every third Monday of October every four years thereafter as was proposed by the Commission on Legislative Democracy and by Bernard Lord. Presumably this is because Bill C-16, a piece of legislation before the federal parliament, would fix federal election dates on the third Monday of October.
The bill contains a provision for the election date to be moved one week earlier or one week later if there is a religious holiday on the date. It also contains an interesting provision moving the election to either the fourth Monday in August or the fourth Monday in October if there is a conflict with a federal election.
If a fixed provincial and federal election fell on the same year, campaigning for the federal election would be well under way by the end of September so would provincial elections in those cases be moved up to August? That would be unfortunate...
This date was chosen over October 18, 2010 and every third Monday of October every four years thereafter as was proposed by the Commission on Legislative Democracy and by Bernard Lord. Presumably this is because Bill C-16, a piece of legislation before the federal parliament, would fix federal election dates on the third Monday of October.
The bill contains a provision for the election date to be moved one week earlier or one week later if there is a religious holiday on the date. It also contains an interesting provision moving the election to either the fourth Monday in August or the fourth Monday in October if there is a conflict with a federal election.
If a fixed provincial and federal election fell on the same year, campaigning for the federal election would be well under way by the end of September so would provincial elections in those cases be moved up to August? That would be unfortunate...
Stephen McNeil, premier of Nova Scotia?
It might be a little bizarre for me to be asking such a question considering McNeil is the green, brand new leader of the distant third place Nova Scotia Liberals who hold 9 of 52 seats in the Nova Scotia legislature and last year finished third in the popular vote... and it was a distant third.
McNeil comes neither from Greater Halifax (where almost half of the seats are) nor from Cape Breton (where the Liberals traditional strength has been though it was lost in the 2006 election).
So, what gives?
First, let's look at their opponents.
The PCs, despite gaining 3% in the popular vote in the last election slipped 3 seats in the legislature due to the realignment of politics in the province where the Tories are really the only province-wide party, running in two-way fights against the NDP in Halifax and against the Liberals elsewhere (with a few notable acceptions). As a result of their support being evenly spread while the other two parties have strong concentrated bases, the Tories will need more votes to win less seats going forward. Add to that that their new leader, Rodney MacDonald, won the PC leadership by accident and has proved a weak campaigner and an even weaker governer.
The NDP, despite having an ideal scenario in 2006 (a poor campaign by the governing Tories and a Liberal Party, which for the first time, was not running to win but instead to form the official opposition), failed to make substantial gains over their past showings. The NDP has a glass ceiling of about 20 seats and 35% voter support. Since their big break through in 1998, the NDP results have been 19, 11, 15, 20 in terms of seats and 34.2, 29.9, 31.0, 34.5 in terms of popular vote percentage. Twenty seats is impressive and could conceivably be a plurality of seats in the legislature (a future election could yeild NDP 20, PC 16, Lib 16) but I doubt either of the traditional parties would want to give the NDP the legitimacy of having governed so such a minority legislature would not last long and might even seen one of the traditional parties propped up by the other.
So back to the Liberals. They can do no worse ever than they did in 2006. They had a weak leader who ran a weak campaign. The fact that the Liberals managed 9 seats and almost 24% of the vote speaks volumes about the talent and tenacity of the Liberal workers in that province. So they've got nowhere to go but up - at least in terms of popular vote (in 1999 they got 6.2% more votes but only 2 more seats).
So I've explained that the Liberals will do better, the NDP can't do better and that the Tories are very underwhelming but this is hardly a compelling argument for Premier McNeil.
So, let's take a walk down memory lane...
1933 the Liberals return to power in Nova Scotia, in 1935 the Liberals return in PEI and New Brunswick.
1953 the Tories return to power in New Brunswick, they do the same in Nova Scotia in 1956 and PEI in 1959.
1986 the Liberals return to power in PEI, they do the same in New Brunswick in 1987 and in Nova Scotia in 1993.
1996 the Tories return to power in PEI, in 1999 they do the same in PEI and New Brunswick.
2006 the Liberals return to power in New Brunswick, they do the same in PEI in 2007..........
Not a perfect record but in the past 80 years there are four examples of the Maritime provinces being all with one party and en masse switching to the other. So far we got two out of three so it will be interesting to see if history repeats itself in Nova Scotia.
McNeil comes neither from Greater Halifax (where almost half of the seats are) nor from Cape Breton (where the Liberals traditional strength has been though it was lost in the 2006 election).
So, what gives?
First, let's look at their opponents.
The PCs, despite gaining 3% in the popular vote in the last election slipped 3 seats in the legislature due to the realignment of politics in the province where the Tories are really the only province-wide party, running in two-way fights against the NDP in Halifax and against the Liberals elsewhere (with a few notable acceptions). As a result of their support being evenly spread while the other two parties have strong concentrated bases, the Tories will need more votes to win less seats going forward. Add to that that their new leader, Rodney MacDonald, won the PC leadership by accident and has proved a weak campaigner and an even weaker governer.
The NDP, despite having an ideal scenario in 2006 (a poor campaign by the governing Tories and a Liberal Party, which for the first time, was not running to win but instead to form the official opposition), failed to make substantial gains over their past showings. The NDP has a glass ceiling of about 20 seats and 35% voter support. Since their big break through in 1998, the NDP results have been 19, 11, 15, 20 in terms of seats and 34.2, 29.9, 31.0, 34.5 in terms of popular vote percentage. Twenty seats is impressive and could conceivably be a plurality of seats in the legislature (a future election could yeild NDP 20, PC 16, Lib 16) but I doubt either of the traditional parties would want to give the NDP the legitimacy of having governed so such a minority legislature would not last long and might even seen one of the traditional parties propped up by the other.
So back to the Liberals. They can do no worse ever than they did in 2006. They had a weak leader who ran a weak campaign. The fact that the Liberals managed 9 seats and almost 24% of the vote speaks volumes about the talent and tenacity of the Liberal workers in that province. So they've got nowhere to go but up - at least in terms of popular vote (in 1999 they got 6.2% more votes but only 2 more seats).
So I've explained that the Liberals will do better, the NDP can't do better and that the Tories are very underwhelming but this is hardly a compelling argument for Premier McNeil.
So, let's take a walk down memory lane...
1933 the Liberals return to power in Nova Scotia, in 1935 the Liberals return in PEI and New Brunswick.
1953 the Tories return to power in New Brunswick, they do the same in Nova Scotia in 1956 and PEI in 1959.
1986 the Liberals return to power in PEI, they do the same in New Brunswick in 1987 and in Nova Scotia in 1993.
1996 the Tories return to power in PEI, in 1999 they do the same in PEI and New Brunswick.
2006 the Liberals return to power in New Brunswick, they do the same in PEI in 2007..........
Not a perfect record but in the past 80 years there are four examples of the Maritime provinces being all with one party and en masse switching to the other. So far we got two out of three so it will be interesting to see if history repeats itself in Nova Scotia.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Thinking outside the box in health care
Despite how it sounds, the idea of renting unusable hospital space - particularly ORs - on off hours was a good way to think outside of the box and recoup some health care monies.
Similarly, I applaud the announcement that the province will follow the lead of many other jurisdictions in this country and allow midwives to work in our hospitals.
Midwives can do nothing but free up the resources of doctors and nurses and provide our soon-to-be and just-become mothers with more specialized, focussed and senstive care.
Job well done.
Similarly, I applaud the announcement that the province will follow the lead of many other jurisdictions in this country and allow midwives to work in our hospitals.
Midwives can do nothing but free up the resources of doctors and nurses and provide our soon-to-be and just-become mothers with more specialized, focussed and senstive care.
Job well done.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Hope restored
The motto of our fine province is "spem reduxit" which is Latin for "hope restored". I've always thought that Frank McKenna's greatest accomplishment was in living up to this motto. Regardless of the results, which I think were great, the strongest legacy of Frank McKenna was that he restored hope to New Brunswickers. While we had Bernard Lord laughing off the concept of New Brunswick becoming a "have" province as some kind of joke last summer, Frank McKenna had the very opposite MO. McKenna believed in the great potential that our province has and he made sure everyone knew it. Boosting the morale of our citizens boosts our productivity and ecomony, it fosters entrepreneurism and it is an all around good thing.
This is why I like Shawn Graham's general approach, he restores hope. On Monday, I was a little disappointed with the report of the Self-Sufficiency Task Force. I did not have a problem with their recommendations, but I was frustrated that they did not have a plan to implement some of the more ambiguous ones.
I said then that the best hope would be for the premier to move fast to appoint a standalone deputy minister for self-sufficiency who could develop a strategy and have broad ranging powers to ensure that all deputy ministers follow that lead and move towards the ambitious goal of being a "have" province by 2026. Today, the premier appointed such a deputy minister.
Additionally, Graham announced the immediate implementation of one of the most important recommendations (one that was also mirrored in the Liberal Charter for Change platform) which creates "start-up capital of up to $100,000 for new businesses, and up to $60,000 for business expansion". This should go a long way to undo the damage to business creation done by the recent small business tax increases and should create jobs.
I also am very pleased with this: changing the NB brand to position "the province as an exciting and dynamic place to be, with a competitive standard of living, affordable housing, and top quality education and health services"... this goes back to what I said about Frank McKenna. I think we've all seen the Saskatchewan commercials which are done in this vein and I think very useful. Many people in Ontario and points west view New Brunswick as a backwater. The Maritimes in general are not looked upon favourably, but everyone has a story and reference about PEI (potatoes and Anne of Green Gables), about Nova Scotia (Bluenose, Alexander Keith's, the Cabot Trail), about Newfoundland & Labrador (screech, cod, iceburgs, George Street). When you ask them about New Brunswick, many draw a blank. That is a shame but at the same time it is an opportunity. New Brunswick's canvass in the national imagination is blank, we can do a lot of good by marketing ourselves well.
Other announcements today in response to the Task Force report:
With any luck, this new dpeuty minister and the premier will continue to be proactive and some solid plans to implement the lofty ideas of the Task Force will come into being and we may indeed be on the road to prosperity.
My one hesitation is that the guy who wrote the report recommending the appointment of a deputy minister for self-sufficiency is being appointed to that role. This both seems like something of a conflict of interest and makes me wary as he did not have plans in place when he wrote the recommendations, however the recommendations were put together quickly so this man may be best positioned to understand the thinking behind them and develop broader implementation plans. I'll keep an eye on this...
This is why I like Shawn Graham's general approach, he restores hope. On Monday, I was a little disappointed with the report of the Self-Sufficiency Task Force. I did not have a problem with their recommendations, but I was frustrated that they did not have a plan to implement some of the more ambiguous ones.
I said then that the best hope would be for the premier to move fast to appoint a standalone deputy minister for self-sufficiency who could develop a strategy and have broad ranging powers to ensure that all deputy ministers follow that lead and move towards the ambitious goal of being a "have" province by 2026. Today, the premier appointed such a deputy minister.
Additionally, Graham announced the immediate implementation of one of the most important recommendations (one that was also mirrored in the Liberal Charter for Change platform) which creates "start-up capital of up to $100,000 for new businesses, and up to $60,000 for business expansion". This should go a long way to undo the damage to business creation done by the recent small business tax increases and should create jobs.
I also am very pleased with this: changing the NB brand to position "the province as an exciting and dynamic place to be, with a competitive standard of living, affordable housing, and top quality education and health services"... this goes back to what I said about Frank McKenna. I think we've all seen the Saskatchewan commercials which are done in this vein and I think very useful. Many people in Ontario and points west view New Brunswick as a backwater. The Maritimes in general are not looked upon favourably, but everyone has a story and reference about PEI (potatoes and Anne of Green Gables), about Nova Scotia (Bluenose, Alexander Keith's, the Cabot Trail), about Newfoundland & Labrador (screech, cod, iceburgs, George Street). When you ask them about New Brunswick, many draw a blank. That is a shame but at the same time it is an opportunity. New Brunswick's canvass in the national imagination is blank, we can do a lot of good by marketing ourselves well.
Other announcements today in response to the Task Force report:
- appointing a commissioner to evaluate municipal strucutre
- Business NB to enter into a deal with ACOA and community development agencies to create one-stop shopping for grants rather than having to file three separate applications
- review of policies to make sure they are geared towards self-sufficiency
- a meeting has been requested with the PM to gauge the federal willingness to invest in New Brunswick now to save on equalization in the future
- arranging a summit with business and labour groups
- engaging Aboriginal groups as a part of the road to self-sufficiency
With any luck, this new dpeuty minister and the premier will continue to be proactive and some solid plans to implement the lofty ideas of the Task Force will come into being and we may indeed be on the road to prosperity.
My one hesitation is that the guy who wrote the report recommending the appointment of a deputy minister for self-sufficiency is being appointed to that role. This both seems like something of a conflict of interest and makes me wary as he did not have plans in place when he wrote the recommendations, however the recommendations were put together quickly so this man may be best positioned to understand the thinking behind them and develop broader implementation plans. I'll keep an eye on this...
Monday, May 07, 2007
Self-Sufficiency
So the report is out. I am not really all that overwhelmed by it.
There is nothing radical in it and I believe a radical change on par with Equal Opportunity is necessary in order to turn things around in this province.
Eugene took a shot at me and suggested I might like the report but not so much the implementation. I am afraid my disappointment is coming a little bit early, I do remain optomistic for the implementation however.
The report is largely just common sense recommendations that one would not needed to have spent half a million dollars on a commission to come up with. A lot of their recommendations are common sense. In other cases they say that we need to fix a lot of tough problems, but they do not say how, for instance:
Recommendation 32. Ensure that credential recognition processes for doctors, nurses, engineers and other accredited professions are timely, responsive to labour force requirements, transparent and accountable, with first priority being given to post-secondary institutions in those countries targeted under the Provincial Nominee Program.
That is a great idea, if New Brunswick did not have the problems of credential recognition that other provinces have, then we would certainly dramatically increase the number of skilled immigrants that would move to New Brunswick and therefore have a great competitive edge over the rest of Canada. However, the province has nothing to do with the recognition of these credentials. It is the individual professional organizations for each field that is responsible for certifying people and giving them the right to work in that field. How is the province going to implement this recommendation? This is a good thing, that should be done, but how are we going to do it? I am a regular schmoe and could have told you that we should do this and I might even have a few ideas as to how to do it but isn't that what this Task Force was for?
There are plenty of other lofty ideas which are great but there is no plan to enable them.
I guess we can only hope that this will help:
Recommendation 2. Appoint a deputy minister to be responsible for the self-sufficiency agenda and to oversee its implementation.
If this was done and a stand alone DM was appointed to work out of the Executive Council with broad powers to develop policy and implement this plan, then maybe the agenda would work out. My fear however is that some deputy minister in some department (presumably Business NB) will be annointed as the deputy minsiter responsible for Self-Sufficiency but will continue to be housed in BNB and therefore have no real mandate to execute change in other departments and not have the time to devote exclusively to this agenda due to him or her having to deal with the day-to-day administration of a department.
So in summary, what I read here is a good series of recommendations. However, the best analogy I can come up with would be someone telling you that a pirate left a tremendous treasure in the Bay of Fundy but they failed to give you a treasure map. The Bay isn't that big, but it is big enough that without a guide to find the treasure, you probably never would except for a fluke.
Let's hope that the government takes these recommendations and develops a plan to implement them and does it in short order. That is our only hope.
There is nothing radical in it and I believe a radical change on par with Equal Opportunity is necessary in order to turn things around in this province.
Eugene took a shot at me and suggested I might like the report but not so much the implementation. I am afraid my disappointment is coming a little bit early, I do remain optomistic for the implementation however.
The report is largely just common sense recommendations that one would not needed to have spent half a million dollars on a commission to come up with. A lot of their recommendations are common sense. In other cases they say that we need to fix a lot of tough problems, but they do not say how, for instance:
Recommendation 32. Ensure that credential recognition processes for doctors, nurses, engineers and other accredited professions are timely, responsive to labour force requirements, transparent and accountable, with first priority being given to post-secondary institutions in those countries targeted under the Provincial Nominee Program.
That is a great idea, if New Brunswick did not have the problems of credential recognition that other provinces have, then we would certainly dramatically increase the number of skilled immigrants that would move to New Brunswick and therefore have a great competitive edge over the rest of Canada. However, the province has nothing to do with the recognition of these credentials. It is the individual professional organizations for each field that is responsible for certifying people and giving them the right to work in that field. How is the province going to implement this recommendation? This is a good thing, that should be done, but how are we going to do it? I am a regular schmoe and could have told you that we should do this and I might even have a few ideas as to how to do it but isn't that what this Task Force was for?
There are plenty of other lofty ideas which are great but there is no plan to enable them.
I guess we can only hope that this will help:
Recommendation 2. Appoint a deputy minister to be responsible for the self-sufficiency agenda and to oversee its implementation.
If this was done and a stand alone DM was appointed to work out of the Executive Council with broad powers to develop policy and implement this plan, then maybe the agenda would work out. My fear however is that some deputy minister in some department (presumably Business NB) will be annointed as the deputy minsiter responsible for Self-Sufficiency but will continue to be housed in BNB and therefore have no real mandate to execute change in other departments and not have the time to devote exclusively to this agenda due to him or her having to deal with the day-to-day administration of a department.
So in summary, what I read here is a good series of recommendations. However, the best analogy I can come up with would be someone telling you that a pirate left a tremendous treasure in the Bay of Fundy but they failed to give you a treasure map. The Bay isn't that big, but it is big enough that without a guide to find the treasure, you probably never would except for a fluke.
Let's hope that the government takes these recommendations and develops a plan to implement them and does it in short order. That is our only hope.
Friday, May 04, 2007
I have high hopes
On Monday, the Self-Sufficiency Task Force will release its final report. As I have said many times on this blog and in the comments sections of other blogs, I have high hopes for this report.
Say what you will about Shawn Graham, but he has always been a man who has had big dreams, reached high and consistently punched above his weight (he had no chance to win the 2002 Liberal leadership [but won it with 75% of the vote], was sure to lose seats in the 2003 election [but actually quadrupled his total], was never going to survive as leader to the next election [but never faced a serious leadership challenge] and couldn't knock Bernard Lord off in 2006 [but did]).
In appointing this commission he has shown that he stands with leaders like Louis Robichaud, Richard Hatfield and Frank McKenna who are not afraid to think outside of the box and dream big about New Brunswick's future. Bernard Lord was not a member of this group of leaders. It was Lord who compared the idea of self-sufficiency to the liklihood of him becoming a part of the PGA tour. While Louis Robichaud re-invented the province, Richard Hatfield brought together our fractured biculturalism and Frank McKenna made New Brunswick a leader in IT and job growth, Bernard Lord balanced his budgets - from time to time - by living off of a booming Canadian economy and the largest increases in federal transfers to the provinces since the 1950s. In fact, in some years, Lord's "record health care spending increases" were less than the amount of money the feds were giving us earmarked for health. Lord was content to undo the good works of Frank McKenna by moving us more towards reliance on Ottawa and sucking on the federal teet. If Stephen Harper ever listened to Bernard Lord it is no wonder he thought Atlantic Canadians had a defeatist attitude.
When Shawn Graham launched this Self-Sufficiency Task Force he invoked the memories of the Byrne Commission which turned New Brunswick upside down with controversial reforms that today everyone recognizes as good and necessary. This is why I have high hopes.
I hope that I - and you - will be impressed with the recommendations on Monday. And I also hope that we will all be equally impressed with Shawn Graham as I hope he will implement all of the good ideas whether they are popular or not. That is the true sign of a good leader: doing what is right even if it is unpopular.
Say what you will about Shawn Graham, but he has always been a man who has had big dreams, reached high and consistently punched above his weight (he had no chance to win the 2002 Liberal leadership [but won it with 75% of the vote], was sure to lose seats in the 2003 election [but actually quadrupled his total], was never going to survive as leader to the next election [but never faced a serious leadership challenge] and couldn't knock Bernard Lord off in 2006 [but did]).
In appointing this commission he has shown that he stands with leaders like Louis Robichaud, Richard Hatfield and Frank McKenna who are not afraid to think outside of the box and dream big about New Brunswick's future. Bernard Lord was not a member of this group of leaders. It was Lord who compared the idea of self-sufficiency to the liklihood of him becoming a part of the PGA tour. While Louis Robichaud re-invented the province, Richard Hatfield brought together our fractured biculturalism and Frank McKenna made New Brunswick a leader in IT and job growth, Bernard Lord balanced his budgets - from time to time - by living off of a booming Canadian economy and the largest increases in federal transfers to the provinces since the 1950s. In fact, in some years, Lord's "record health care spending increases" were less than the amount of money the feds were giving us earmarked for health. Lord was content to undo the good works of Frank McKenna by moving us more towards reliance on Ottawa and sucking on the federal teet. If Stephen Harper ever listened to Bernard Lord it is no wonder he thought Atlantic Canadians had a defeatist attitude.
When Shawn Graham launched this Self-Sufficiency Task Force he invoked the memories of the Byrne Commission which turned New Brunswick upside down with controversial reforms that today everyone recognizes as good and necessary. This is why I have high hopes.
I hope that I - and you - will be impressed with the recommendations on Monday. And I also hope that we will all be equally impressed with Shawn Graham as I hope he will implement all of the good ideas whether they are popular or not. That is the true sign of a good leader: doing what is right even if it is unpopular.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
If you build it, they will come
Maybe I am foolish or overly optomistic, but I've always thought that line from Field of Dreams is a very applicable statement to a lot of things in the world.
Scott has a post up about the Graham governments approach to self-sufficiency with heavy reliance on an opinion piece that ran in today's Globe & Mail by fromer Telegraph-Journal editor Neil Reynolds.
Scott has banned comments on his site, so I am forced to respond here on my own blog.
Scott is a strong proponent of supply-side economics, this article also seems to suggest that that is the way to go. SSE is the theory that if you cut taxes, you will both grow the economy and increase government revenue because people with more cash in their hands - due to lower taxes - will spend that money to buy goods and services (which creates jobs) and will put cash back into the public treasury (by the income tax paid by those whose jobs have been created due to the increased purchases and through consumption taxes).
Under the right circumstances, SSE makes some sense. However, the revenues lost from government in decreased taxes is never made up, in whole, by the indirect revenues that those monies create. If the government needs to spend money on infrastructure, then the government cannot afford to make tax cuts. I will concede however that lowering taxes, in the right way which is often not the most popular way nor the way governments lower taxes when they do, is a better job creator than government spending in an attempt to stimulate the economy.
In general, I agree that taxes should not be increased for a plethora of reasons. However, I think it is irresponsible to cut taxes when there is debt to be addressed - both real debt and "debts" such as lacking infrastructure.
From 1999 to 2007, New Brusnwicker's saw their tax rates decrease almost every year - by marginal amounts. However, though their tax rates went down, they probably didn't end up with more cash in their pockets most years. This is because the Tories, while cutting income tax rates dindn't actually cut income tax revenues in a number of years because they allowed bracket creep. In other years, they also dramatically (in some cases doubled) user fees through regulations without consulting the legislature.
I find it frustrating at times that my friend Spinks - as an example, he shares the view of many others - rails against the Liberals for shafting taxpayers, etc, etc because of the $50 million personal income tax increase when, in fact, it really isn't that much different than the increases we saw in many of the Lord budgets. The difference is that the Lord government would showcase a tax rate cut, and still take extra money out of your pockets while you were looking at that pretty gem. Graham's government has chosen to be honest with New Brunswickers and tell them flat out what they are doing; for their honesty they are painted as tax-and-spend Liberals, when in fact they are getting the same effect that Lord's crew did but are doing it through honest and direct means instead of cloak-and-dagger skullduggery.
In any event, I have gotten a little bit of track. The crux of the Scott MacKay/Neil Reynolds argument can be summarized in this quote:
We need a made for New Brunswick solution if we are to boost our economy and acheive self-sufficiency. Under the right circumstances cutting taxes could work, but that is not the circumstances we have in our province today.
Reynolds criticizes Victor Boudreau for saying, "this is a transactional budget which lays the groundwork for future transformational change." He called that meaningless bureaucrateese. I don't see it that way. The biggest challenge to the growth of the New Brunswick economy is not its tax structure (neither before nor after his budget) but it is its lack of infrastructure. We need to better prepare ourselves for trade and connectivity with the world. We need roads, seaports and airports to move goods and we need the internet to move services.
The tax increase this year was $50 million. That works out to just under $70/person - if it was shared equally, it would actually be more for the rich and less for the lower and middle class - but let's use it to illustrate a point. What can a person do with $70? Buy two cases of beer OR maybe a blender and a toaster OR half of a cheap bike OR 2/3s of a DVD player, etc. What can the government do with $50 million? Build 50kms of top of the line divided highway OR hire 500 doctors OR build a school or two.
New Brunswickers cannot afford to have their government trim the fat and cut taxes just ot the point where the province breaks even. We need a government that has the means to invest in the infrastructure necessary to grow our economy. Schools grow our economy in the long term. Well equiped and well staffed hospitals grow our economy by attracting immigrations. Roads grow our economy by making it more feasible to trade with the relatively far away major population centres.
A minor tax increase that doesn't change New Brunswick's ranking among other provinces (there are still just as many with lower taxes and just as many with higher taxes) is well worth it if we can make the improvements in infrastructure needed to make long term economic growth.
Scott has a post up about the Graham governments approach to self-sufficiency with heavy reliance on an opinion piece that ran in today's Globe & Mail by fromer Telegraph-Journal editor Neil Reynolds.
Scott has banned comments on his site, so I am forced to respond here on my own blog.
Scott is a strong proponent of supply-side economics, this article also seems to suggest that that is the way to go. SSE is the theory that if you cut taxes, you will both grow the economy and increase government revenue because people with more cash in their hands - due to lower taxes - will spend that money to buy goods and services (which creates jobs) and will put cash back into the public treasury (by the income tax paid by those whose jobs have been created due to the increased purchases and through consumption taxes).
Under the right circumstances, SSE makes some sense. However, the revenues lost from government in decreased taxes is never made up, in whole, by the indirect revenues that those monies create. If the government needs to spend money on infrastructure, then the government cannot afford to make tax cuts. I will concede however that lowering taxes, in the right way which is often not the most popular way nor the way governments lower taxes when they do, is a better job creator than government spending in an attempt to stimulate the economy.
In general, I agree that taxes should not be increased for a plethora of reasons. However, I think it is irresponsible to cut taxes when there is debt to be addressed - both real debt and "debts" such as lacking infrastructure.
From 1999 to 2007, New Brusnwicker's saw their tax rates decrease almost every year - by marginal amounts. However, though their tax rates went down, they probably didn't end up with more cash in their pockets most years. This is because the Tories, while cutting income tax rates dindn't actually cut income tax revenues in a number of years because they allowed bracket creep. In other years, they also dramatically (in some cases doubled) user fees through regulations without consulting the legislature.
I find it frustrating at times that my friend Spinks - as an example, he shares the view of many others - rails against the Liberals for shafting taxpayers, etc, etc because of the $50 million personal income tax increase when, in fact, it really isn't that much different than the increases we saw in many of the Lord budgets. The difference is that the Lord government would showcase a tax rate cut, and still take extra money out of your pockets while you were looking at that pretty gem. Graham's government has chosen to be honest with New Brunswickers and tell them flat out what they are doing; for their honesty they are painted as tax-and-spend Liberals, when in fact they are getting the same effect that Lord's crew did but are doing it through honest and direct means instead of cloak-and-dagger skullduggery.
In any event, I have gotten a little bit of track. The crux of the Scott MacKay/Neil Reynolds argument can be summarized in this quote:
Although it progressed too slowly, New Brunswick had moved in the right direction in the last decade. [in reference to the Lord tax cutting MO]However, the evidence doesn't back that up. Mr. Reynolds talks about how the Lord method is the right way to go and the Graham way is the wrong way to go. As evidence, he says that New Brunswick's population is slipping - more and more every year. Huh? NEWS FLASH: Shawn Graham has been in power for 7 months; if Lord's plan was so great and working so well, why after 7 years of his stewardship were things getting worse?
We need a made for New Brunswick solution if we are to boost our economy and acheive self-sufficiency. Under the right circumstances cutting taxes could work, but that is not the circumstances we have in our province today.
Reynolds criticizes Victor Boudreau for saying, "this is a transactional budget which lays the groundwork for future transformational change." He called that meaningless bureaucrateese. I don't see it that way. The biggest challenge to the growth of the New Brunswick economy is not its tax structure (neither before nor after his budget) but it is its lack of infrastructure. We need to better prepare ourselves for trade and connectivity with the world. We need roads, seaports and airports to move goods and we need the internet to move services.
The tax increase this year was $50 million. That works out to just under $70/person - if it was shared equally, it would actually be more for the rich and less for the lower and middle class - but let's use it to illustrate a point. What can a person do with $70? Buy two cases of beer OR maybe a blender and a toaster OR half of a cheap bike OR 2/3s of a DVD player, etc. What can the government do with $50 million? Build 50kms of top of the line divided highway OR hire 500 doctors OR build a school or two.
New Brunswickers cannot afford to have their government trim the fat and cut taxes just ot the point where the province breaks even. We need a government that has the means to invest in the infrastructure necessary to grow our economy. Schools grow our economy in the long term. Well equiped and well staffed hospitals grow our economy by attracting immigrations. Roads grow our economy by making it more feasible to trade with the relatively far away major population centres.
A minor tax increase that doesn't change New Brunswick's ranking among other provinces (there are still just as many with lower taxes and just as many with higher taxes) is well worth it if we can make the improvements in infrastructure needed to make long term economic growth.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Blogger seeks Liberal nomination
All,
The following is a public service announcement brought by yours truly, nbpolitico.
Last week there was some coverage in the mainstream press and a lot of coverage among blogs of the story of James Curran, a blogger in the Niagara region who had clinched the Liberal nomination in his riding but was arrested hours before on charges of fraud.
I am hopeful that this will not scar Canadians perception of the relevance and credibility of bloggers, something that is growing more-and-more every day.
To that end, I would like to encourage you all to offer your support to Rachel Décoste who will be a candidate for the Liberal nomination in the riding of Ottawa-Orléans this coming Sunday.
Rachel, like me, was a Gerard Kennedy supporting blogger and you can find her blog here. I had the pleasure of meeting this impressive young woman at the leadership convention in Montreal and hope to see her become an MP in the not too distant future.
Rachel is a very intelligent woman. She speaks 4 languages. She is a woman when the Liberal Party and the Commons itself are in desperate need of more ladies. She is an engineer, a trade that is sorely under represented in parliament. And, even without all that, she would be a great candidate. She has passion, she has vision, she has big dreams for her riding and for her country.
And, moreover, for bloggers of all political stripes, I think it would be in our interest to see a grassroots, real blogger elected to the House of Commons.
Therefore, I invite all of you - even if you aren't Liberals - to drop by her campaign site and make a donation.
She is a competitive candidate for the nomination but she is in a tough fight. She is up against four men: two former MPs, a former president of the riding association and a city councillor who happens to be the son of another former MP. It is a tall order, but she has proved remarkable organizational skill and is probably one of two (at most three) viable candidates in this race.
As anyone who has worked on a campaign before knows, every little bit helps, and your support would mean a lot to me and to bloggers. I am sure it would mean a lot to Rachel too but this is an unsolicited public service announcement that I am making on my own intiative wihtout her direction or consent.
$5, $10, $50 or even $1100 (yeah right) ... make your mark and make it count.
Just a little background for you who are interested in donating:
Let's make a difference... help her out.
The following is a public service announcement brought by yours truly, nbpolitico.
Last week there was some coverage in the mainstream press and a lot of coverage among blogs of the story of James Curran, a blogger in the Niagara region who had clinched the Liberal nomination in his riding but was arrested hours before on charges of fraud.
I am hopeful that this will not scar Canadians perception of the relevance and credibility of bloggers, something that is growing more-and-more every day.
To that end, I would like to encourage you all to offer your support to Rachel Décoste who will be a candidate for the Liberal nomination in the riding of Ottawa-Orléans this coming Sunday.
Rachel, like me, was a Gerard Kennedy supporting blogger and you can find her blog here. I had the pleasure of meeting this impressive young woman at the leadership convention in Montreal and hope to see her become an MP in the not too distant future.
Rachel is a very intelligent woman. She speaks 4 languages. She is a woman when the Liberal Party and the Commons itself are in desperate need of more ladies. She is an engineer, a trade that is sorely under represented in parliament. And, even without all that, she would be a great candidate. She has passion, she has vision, she has big dreams for her riding and for her country.
And, moreover, for bloggers of all political stripes, I think it would be in our interest to see a grassroots, real blogger elected to the House of Commons.
Therefore, I invite all of you - even if you aren't Liberals - to drop by her campaign site and make a donation.
She is a competitive candidate for the nomination but she is in a tough fight. She is up against four men: two former MPs, a former president of the riding association and a city councillor who happens to be the son of another former MP. It is a tall order, but she has proved remarkable organizational skill and is probably one of two (at most three) viable candidates in this race.
As anyone who has worked on a campaign before knows, every little bit helps, and your support would mean a lot to me and to bloggers. I am sure it would mean a lot to Rachel too but this is an unsolicited public service announcement that I am making on my own intiative wihtout her direction or consent.
$5, $10, $50 or even $1100 (yeah right) ... make your mark and make it count.
Just a little background for you who are interested in donating:
- donations less than $200 are private and your name will not be listed in financial disclosures - your anonymity is safe
- under the new fundraising rules there are three "pots" of fundraising, though the limits were dropped from $5400 to $1100 by the Tories, it is actually $3300 per party. Under the old rules you could donate a blanket $5400 per party to any of its arms. Under the new rules, you can donate $1100 each to a central party, $1100 cumulatively to a party's ridings, candidates and nomination contestants, and $1100 cumulatively to leadership contestants in a given cycle.
Let's make a difference... help her out.
Friday, April 20, 2007
A responsible response to power rate increases
I want to commend the Graham Government for their decision today concerning the increase in power rates.
A lot of people, including the opposition Conservatives, have been very wary of the widely expected increase that was announced yesterday and comes in just under 10%.
Last year, when NB Power asked for an increase of 11.4%, seeing an election on the horizon, the Lord Government announced a lot of surprising measures. Many of which they had specifically rejected before as irresponsible financially and bad in terms of policy. Most notable among these was the widely known HST rebate program and a cap of 8% for a rate increase, regardless of whether the Public Utilities Board thought it was warranted and in conflict with their previous orders for NB Power to break even. Everyone knew these actions were inconsistent with the principles of conservatism and with the past statements of the Lord Governmemt and were made solely because they had a minority government (Tanker was still sitting as an independent).
This year, NB Power has asked for an increase of 9.6% (one which would probably have been unnecessary or at least lower if not for the irresponsibility of the Tory intervention last year). Spinks has wrongly suggested that this is the government's fault and should be seen as the same or similar to the income tax increase and rightly pointed out that this will mean more revenue for government (in terms of the HST collected on the hgiher power rates).
The government response has been tempered and logical. Rather than irresponsible policy u-turns, the Graham Government is going to invest the increase revenues of $37 million into new programs which will be developed to ease the burden on low income earners and to prevent it from driving businesses out of the province.
The fact that this increase will not change the fact that New Brunswick has the lowest electricity rates in Atlantic Canada and that the government is going to take any monetary benefit it gets from the increase and give it back to the consumers seems far more reasonable than the Tory reaction which was to cripple NB Power by slashing its needed revenue and launching a flawed HST rebate program which they never implemented, planned or developed.
A lot of people, including the opposition Conservatives, have been very wary of the widely expected increase that was announced yesterday and comes in just under 10%.
Last year, when NB Power asked for an increase of 11.4%, seeing an election on the horizon, the Lord Government announced a lot of surprising measures. Many of which they had specifically rejected before as irresponsible financially and bad in terms of policy. Most notable among these was the widely known HST rebate program and a cap of 8% for a rate increase, regardless of whether the Public Utilities Board thought it was warranted and in conflict with their previous orders for NB Power to break even. Everyone knew these actions were inconsistent with the principles of conservatism and with the past statements of the Lord Governmemt and were made solely because they had a minority government (Tanker was still sitting as an independent).
This year, NB Power has asked for an increase of 9.6% (one which would probably have been unnecessary or at least lower if not for the irresponsibility of the Tory intervention last year). Spinks has wrongly suggested that this is the government's fault and should be seen as the same or similar to the income tax increase and rightly pointed out that this will mean more revenue for government (in terms of the HST collected on the hgiher power rates).
The government response has been tempered and logical. Rather than irresponsible policy u-turns, the Graham Government is going to invest the increase revenues of $37 million into new programs which will be developed to ease the burden on low income earners and to prevent it from driving businesses out of the province.
The fact that this increase will not change the fact that New Brunswick has the lowest electricity rates in Atlantic Canada and that the government is going to take any monetary benefit it gets from the increase and give it back to the consumers seems far more reasonable than the Tory reaction which was to cripple NB Power by slashing its needed revenue and launching a flawed HST rebate program which they never implemented, planned or developed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
