First the good news. The latest report from Transport Canada confirms that the Greater Moncton Airport has become the major airport in New Brunswick. In September 2004, there were 3,152 commercial flights out of Greater Moncton (domestic and transborder). There were 2,261 in Saint John and Fredericton combined.



In addition, our flights per capita (a statistic that I have watched for years) are starting to creep up. In my opinion, flights per capita is a key economic statistic as it compares how the local population is interacting, in relative terms, with the outside world.

In the early 1990s, before WestJet, CanJet, et. al. there were less than 10 flights per month per 1,000 population out of Greater Moncton. Now that number is up to 26 flights per 1,000 population.

Of course, the ongoing issue of transborder flights is a major problem for Moncton. Despite having a catchment area of over 1 million people within a 3 hours drive, Moncton only had four (4) transborder flights in September. Halifax, by contrast, had 981 commercial transborder flights. Fredericton had 123 and even Saint John beat out Moncton with 15, commercial (non-private or government) transborder flights.

Did you know there are over 400 companies employing some 16,000 in New Brunswick in the food production business? Over 100 of them are right here in Greater Moncton. It is a major economic generator for the province.

However, according to one expert, New Brunswick's food companies have been very slow to embrace the health food market even though the industry is one of the fastest growing in the world with global sales of over $300 billion per year.

For example, many of our seafood processors could be extracting oil from fish livers to serve the fast growing market for Omega oils.

From an economic development perspective, I have to ask where is the provincial government on this issue? Why aren't they encouraging producers to look at this untapped market?

'Innovation' is the buzzword in New Brunswick from the Premier's Office right on down. Everyone loves to throw it around like it means something. However, when it comes to this very practical application of innovation in one of New Brunswick's top industries - there is almost no effort to make anything happen.

According to Statistics Canada, almost all population growth in Canada from 1971 to 2001 was concentrated into four areas of Canada: Extended Greater Toronto, Greater Montreal, the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor and Greater Vancouver. Collectively, the rest of Canada grew only slightly or declined during this thirty year period.

Some suggest that this is a natural phenomenon - the increasing urbanization of Canada. Places like Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario, etc. are destined to decline.

Interestingly, our neighbour to the south has seen the opposite trend. While the top urban areas in Canada have increased significantly, the top urban areas in the U.S. have only grown moderately. In fact, New York, Boston and Chicago (their big three urban areas) all had tepid population growth over the past 15 years.

The top growing area for the past 15 years in the U.S. has been the southwast: Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Utah and New Mexico. The southeast has also grown strongly - places like North Carolina, Alabama and Georgia.

So in Canada - growth is in our top urban areas and in the U.S. growth is in their 'New Brunswicks'.

I know there must be an interesting lesson here somewhere.....

Stay tuned.

I recently heard that Moncton-based Hi-Tech Gaming was being acquired by Nevada-based IGT. This follows the blockbuster acquisition earlier of Speilo Manufacturing by another U.S. company, GTech.

Some economic developers shudder when they hear that a locally owned and controlled company is being taken over by a foreign company. They fear that the commitment to the local market will wane as the power base of the company shifts to another community - typically in another country.

I, on the other hand, applaud these moves. This is one of the best ways to attract foreign investment into the community. This is beneficial in a number of ways including:

• The new money coming into the market may be spent by the sellers in the local market (they usually build large new houses and purchase waterfront property - which is good - but I am talking about investing in other companies in the community that need the money).
• With each acquisition more and more foreign companies are getting to know our market and its strengths - this in the long run will raise awareness of the community.
• If Moncton is a good place for business - and we think it is - these companies become prime targets for further investments (i.e. Speilo hopefully will become a major manufacturing centre for GTech).
• These foreign companies bring much needed expertise and know-how into the local market.
• Finally, and crucially, these foreign companies open up new markets and marketing channels for the products and services developed right here in Moncton.

So are the naysayers right to be worried? Yes. Many times companies buy out firms and then close them or downsize them. It is a common occurrence. However, the risks associated with not becoming a global city; of not attracting foreign investment; of not leveraging these relationships into new jobs and economic opportunity are far too great.

So I say bring them on. I encourage all of Greater Moncton's locally owned firms to consider bringing in external investment and expertise. This will bring much needed investment capital into the local market and give some form of payback for all the entrepreneurs who have been slaving away for many years for only a limited return.

I once heard a story of two partners in a local business who quarreled and separated the business into two different companies. The one partner sold 50% of his company to a Toronto-based investor. This partnership opened up significant new markets and opportunities for the Moncton firm as well as brought in much needed management expertise. In addition, it put several million into the pocket of the Moncton owner who then spent a large portion of it in the local market. The other partner would not give up any control and has not expanded, not generated any new investment and is plodding along trying to generate wealth out of limited after tax profits. Which scenario is better for the community? The one that led to millions of new dollars spent in the local market and to the expanding of the business or the one that has led to minimal growth and no new investment?

'Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house, not a creature was stirring not even a mouse - and I have the misfortune of my mindshare being occupied by Premier Danny Williams of Newfoundland and his crazy idea to take down Canadian flags in protest of the 'humiliation' that the Federal government has placed on Newfoundland and Labrador over the offshore oil & gas revenue deal. Is this just posturing by an ungrateful Premier or a last ditch, desperate attempt to fix the province's long standing economic problems?

Before I answer that, indulge me by listening to a short story.

There is a region in North America that is endowed with unbelievable natural resources. This area is blessed with large stores of offshore oil & gas. This area has vast mineral deposits. It has large forests for timber. And there's more. This area provides electricity to something like 20% of the entire population of North America. And if this isn't enough, this area has (at least historically) one of the best fisheries in North America. To top everything off, the people are known all over for their strong work ethic.

Where is this mythical place with such abundance and economic wealth? Is it Texas? Is it Alberta? California? No, it's little old Newfoundland and Labrador. Yes, the poorest province or state in all of North America. Yes, the same Newfoundland and Labrador that without the hundreds of millions of dollars in Equalization and Employment Insurance subsidies would be not much better off than your average third world country.

There has been much debate as to why Newfoundland and Labrador has not developed as a strong economy given its vast resources. Some blame the Federal government for mismanaging the fishery. Some blame Quebec for extorting Labrador in the Churchill Falls hydroelectric project. Some blame the very Equalization and EI programs that were in spirit created to help but in actuality have hurt.

I don't claim to have the answers. I would, however; render an opinion. This fight between Newfoundland and Ottawa is not about more pogie or Federal welfare. It's about a frustrated Premier voicing the frustrations of an entire province. Newfoundland lost nearly 10% of its population in the past 15 years. In addition, it sits with chronically high unemployment. Things must change or that province will cease to exist - it's that simple.

So to the hundreds of Ottawa bureaucrats and politicians that are wringing their hands tonight lamenting the ungrateful Premier and his band of Newfoundlanders - here's my message. At some point even welfare bums realize they must change their life or suffer the consequences. And when that bum decides it's time to change, don't bog him down in your bureaucracy with its disincentives to change - disincentives to improve - disincentives to take initiative. Instead of clawing back Equalization when a province like Newfoundland finds a little economic success - I say increase funding.

I think this is a golden opportunity for Ottawa if it would take its collective head out of the eggnog for a few seconds. Give Newfoundland what it wants - even more. But attach one condition. That the Feds and Newfoundland develop a partnership a la Ireland to put Newfoundland on the road to economic recovery. Set targets. Celebrate success.

Who knows. In 50 years, Newfoundlanders may be the ones bailing out Alberta after their oil revenues and their bloated egos have run out.

We can dare to dream, can't we Premier Williams. Happy New Year.

The Trouble with normal is it always gets worse - Bruce Cockburn (1983)

Unknown to most casual fans of Bruce Cockburn, he is actually the quintessential contrarian railing against the Right and the Left. He is a pacifist with a gun collection. Against abortion but for a woman's right to choose one.

But I digress.

The theme of this blog is the trouble with normalcy. Things are pretty normal in Moncton right now. Chugging along at a healthy pace. New retail. Some new manufacturing. A new bridge. Normal.

The problem is that normalcy can bring complacency. And in the world of economic development that can be deadly. The sense of urgency that was felt in Moncton in the late 1980s permeated all aspects of local economic development. The communities cooperated, rivals put aside their differences for the good of the area. Decisions were made speedily. Desperation is an excellent motivator.

However, now we see signs of the trouble with normal in the Cockburnian sense of the word. There is competition and in some cases outright hostility between the communities. Business leaders that once cooperated now squabble about the course of development. And decisions that once were made quickly and effectively are now taking years - if they are happening at all. This breaking down of the solidarity that was once Greater Moncton has not had a major impact on our development.

...As of yet.

How do you instill a 'sense of urgency' when things are humming along? When the local papers spew forth bright, cheery commentary with no critical thinking? I would argue that the stakes are higher now than they were in the late 1980s because now not only is Moncton expected to take care of itself, it has become the anchor of the provincial economy. If the Moncton economy falters, the provincial economy is doomed.

I would urge all the players involved - from the City/Town halls, to the economic development agencies to local business leaders - to put aside petty differences. To think about the community as a whole again. To re-engage themselves in the process of local economic development. To invest time and effort (learn from Saint John on this one). To make sure, darn sure, that the next 10-15 years for Greater Moncton are at least as successful as the previous ones.

I hope I don't sound too critical of the folks charged with developing the downtown. I know the time and effort that many people have put in. However, I am a little cranky. Greater Moncton has undergone a significant economic expansion over the past 10-15 years and the only evidence of that in downtown is what? - A call centre tucked off main street where no one can see it.

Downtowns are the focal point of a community. Some have said that the downtown is the truest reflection of the economic health of a community. In downtown Moncton, however; we have not had any significant new developments since the City Hall complex in the early 1990s.

Four years ago, Verdiroc was tasked with developing a grand vision for the development of a key section of downtown. Do you want to know what has bothered me about the Verdiroc deal all along?

Very simple.

It doesn't seem like they want to put any skin in the game.

In almost any development opportunity, there will be some level of risk to the developer. That is a cost of being in the real estate development business. However, everything coming out of Verdiroc involves almost no risk on their part. A new justice building finance by the province (conveniently developed by them) and a new convention centre financed by government (conveniently developed by them). Where is the risk? The other proposed developments - as I read things - are just that - proposed.

Maybe it's time to jetison Verdiroc and try and find a partner that will be a 'partner' - as in share the risk.

The future of the downtown is at stake.

A recent blog posted here by yours truly questioned the idea that a strong arts & culture community is a direct economic development driver. Some of you took this to mean that I do not support the Bohemians. On the contrary, I am a huge supporter of the arts and I think a strong cultural identity is vital to a community's growth over time.

As Statistics Canada has just released 2003 data on artistic industries in Canada, now might be a good time to assess how we are doing. Because you will undoubtedly never see this data in the local newspapers, you will have to wade through this painful blog once in a while to unearth a few real statistics.

As the table below shows, New Brunswick's performing arts sector (music, theatre, dance and opera) is dead last in terms of theatre, music and opera revenues (adjusted for the size of the population). Now, some of this may be related to the fact we are a small province and cannot attract a lot of big productions. but that argument doesn't hold when we compare to PEI, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, etc.



In my opinion, we should be able to do better than this.

But as with all things, it's a matter of focus.

The Telegraph-Journal's Lisa Hrabluk fancies herself a bit of a thinker. Instead of piling on the drivel, some of the time her columns reflect that she has taken the time to think the issue through.

Not this time.

In her Saturday column Time has come for province to rethink RDC's role, Hrabluk adds her name to the growing list of mostly journalists and political opportunists calling for a reduction in money spent on regional economic development. I, for the life of me, can't understand this. We are right to question 'how' the money is spent but we should be calling for increasing regional development dollars - not reducing them.

I have studied economic development for over 15 years. I have reviewed the programs in every province and U.S. state. I have travelled to Ireland to study the Irish miracle. I have written dozens of studies and reports on the issue of regional economic development - and one conclusion I can make. The areas that take economic development seriously (i.e. spend the most dollars) - by in large - get the best results. Ireland is a great example. But also Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama - U.S. states that have gone from the bottom of the pack to somewhere north of that - in as recent as 10-15 years. And how about Ontario. Study after study has shown the huge amount of government money that has quietly flowed into the auto sector, the high tech sector (talk to John Manley) and others. And let's not get started about Quebec and its aerospace and biotech sectors. We shouldn't leave out Alberta - whose agriculture sector (by the way agriculture is an industry, Mr. Klein) has recieved far more government pogie than any industry in New Brunswick could have ever dreamed of.

Conversely, places like New Brunswick and Maine spend the least per capita on economic development and they get predictable results.

Madame Hrabluk is a particularly troubling example of getting this issue dead wrong. She is heading up this so-called Next NB initiative which is supposed to dream up the New Brunswick of the next generation. Unless we get serious about economic development, build up new industries and reverse the population decline, Mme. Hrabluk's 21 Leaders for the 21st Century may have to be content leading each other around - because they may be all that's left.

I had the pleasure of going to see the Festival acadien de Caraquet's Ode a l'Acadie this weekend. It was awesome. These are truly gifted muscians and performers. However, as is usually the case, my mind wandered during a particularly slow song to economic development issues. These artists, each one, recounted the communities of their birth with great fondness. Places like Edmundston, Bathurst, Tracadie-Sheila, Mont-Carmel (in PEI), Caraquet. These communities have been incubators of top notch artistic talent. In addition, many (perhaps the majority) of New Brunswick's new crop of successful entrepreneurs were born and raised in these communities.

Why then are we doing almost nothing to try and keep these communities alive? In just five years from 1996 to 2001, almost all of these communities suffered population decline (Edmundston down 2%, Bathurst down 6%, Caraquet down 4.5%, Tracadie-Sheila down 1%, Baie-Sainte-Anne down 5%, etc.). Yes, it is true that a large percentage of the Acadians have migrated to the Greater Moncton region but what long term advantage is there to emptying out these distinctly Acadian communities?

My Ode a l'Acadie goes something like this. The Acadians have shown tremendous reslience and have brought forward their culture in a powerful way - particularly in the last two generations. But the slow death of these Acadian communities (at the current rate of population decline, most of these communities will be almost non-existent in one or two generations) will prompt even faster out-migration and many people will end up in places like Toronto, Calgary and the U.S. where they will have a greater risk of losing their community and culture.

The great Acadian experiment hinges on having a vibrant economy on which to build this community and culture. Without a strong economic foundation, community and culture cannot thrive. We must do much more to fortify the economy of Acadie. Anchored in Greater Moncton but spreading northward around the top of New Brunswick and in communities in PEI and Nova Scotia. We need more business investment, more entrepreneurship, more skilled workers. We need less EI and other welfare schemes that provide some economic stimulus but in the long run only accelerate the decline.

While the Premier polishes his national image and his cabinet ministers like Elvy and Jeannot spend their days preoccupied with the minute details of government (potholes, hospitals, etc.), the underlying economic problems are going unaddressed.

This new economic assault on Acadie may not be as stark as the one carried out by Colonel Monkton (yes, in a small historical ironic twist, the namesake of the new capital of Acadie) but it may ultimately prove as challenging to Acadian culture - as once again Acadians are dispersed across North America - this time for economic reasons.

Before you mistake this blog as an appeal for New Brunswickers to stay home this winter (i.e. is it 'right' to migrate to Florida), don't. It's not. It's in reference to professor Richard Florida whose thinking is sweeping the economic development world. He did research on successful economies and found that those that are successful tend to have a more diverse labour pool (higher levels of immigrants), a higher percentage of creative people (persons working in artistic occupations) and, a higher gay population.

His conclusion is that communities need to attract more immigrants, more Bohemians (artists) and more gays - in order to be successful. While there may be some truth to his arguments, something always bothers me when I read his stuff or see him in person (last year in Halifax).

Do certain kinds of economies attract immigrants, Bohemians and gays? In other words, are the economies successful because these elements are present or are these elements present because the economy is successful? The classic chicken and egg. I think you could easily make the argument that artists (broadly defined) tend to aggregate in communities where there are higher amounts of money spent on artistic endeavours (successful economies). You could further make the argument that immigrants settle in areas that are the most economically vibrant (successful economies). If you wanted to stretch things, you could argue that gays tend to be in vibrant economies because they have a higher sensitivity to economic issues (gays have, on average, much higher average income than non-gays).

If that is true, and I am not necessarily advocating it, attracting Bohemians, immigrants and gays to a depressed economy through some form of artificial stimulus (say a short term campaign that makes it attractive for these groups to move to the depressed economy) could actually backfire big time. The gays would move out, the Bohemians wouldn't be able to make a living and move out and the immigrants would see no long term opportunity and move out.

Instead of jumping on the latest bandwagons, I suggests economic developers and policy wonks look at the main underlying factor that is depressing an economy such as New Brunswick which is a systemic lack of business investment. New Brunswick has received less foreign direct investment and Canadian business investment than just about all other provinces over the past decade (and much further if you keep looking). Limited investment (i.e. new software development studios, manufacturing, warehouses, etc.) wil lead to limited job opportunities, limited upward pressure on wages and limited value in pursuing higher education (unless you plan to leave the region). If New Brunswick, like Ireland, could lead all of Canada for business investment for a sustained period, I suspect you would have all the Bohemians and gays you could ever want.

And as far as immigration is concerned. Take a look at Calgary. The fastest growing population in that city is not ex-Atlantic Canadians - no they have moved way beyond that - it's the Chinese. Yes, Chinese immigrants in the heart of hillbilly country.

Draw your own conclusions.

In the early 1990s, then Premier of New Brunswick Frank McKenna struck a partnership with NBTel (now Aliant) to attract call centres to the province. Each party contributed financial support and human resources to the initiative. The partnership was highly successful and resulted in the creation of over 10,000 new jobs in the province. This partnership, however; peetered out after the change in government in 1999 and the number of new company investments in New Brunswick in this sector have plummeted.

While I believe that economic development (i.e. community efforts to attract investment, increase trade or upgrade infrastructure) is primarily the role of local, provincial and federal governments (as representatives of the community as a whole), there are definitely cases in which the private sector should be directly involved (financially and otherwise) in the process.

For example, in the case of NBTel, they had a strong financial incentive to partner on the call centre attraction initiative. At the peak of the initiative, NBTel was generating at least $50 million in high margin revenue that it wouldn't have otherwise had. This new business was definitely worth the limited investment made by NBTel.

I think that we need to look at specific partnerships like this for specific sector development strategies. There are many companies that benefit directly from economic development activities and should be involved.

Earlier this week, the government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced a partnership with Aliant to attract new Information and Communications Technology (ICT) companies to the province. Called Nearshore Atlantic, the initiative will involve a business attraction strategy to attract non NL based companies into the province to conduct software related work for international markets. This partnership, if successful, will generate financial benefits for both parties (tax base for the province and clients for Aliant).

Once again, this is another case of someone else emulating what has been previously done successfully in New Brunswick. It's too bad we no longer see the value in these types of initiatives. Congratulations to the government in Newfoundland for seeing the value in this type of partnership.

The title of this blog is not a typo or misspelling. The goal of this blog is to recommend that Dieppe (and Greater Moncton) learn from the successes of the past decade and expand the environment for that success to a broader pool of potential movers to the community.

According to the latest tax base figures, Dieppe has passed Miramichi and is now the fourth largest municipality in the province (based on the total tax base of the community and not the population). The Mayor of Dieppe stated that the fact the community has been able to attract Acadians from other parts of New Brunswick has been a key element of their success.

The problem is that the supply of Acadians from Northern New Brunswick is very limited. I wouldn't be hinging my long term growth plans on the further evacuation of the Acadian Peninsula. Firstly, this is not good economic development policy for the province. One community's gain is another community's loss - leading to no overall growth for the province.

We need to figure out why Dieppe has been such a good receptor for folks moving in from Northern New Brunswick - it is obviously tied to language, culture, community, etc. Then we need to take that learning and adapt it for a much larger potential pool of movers to New Brunswick - namely other Canadians and immigrants.

I occassionally get the chance to listen to the weekly political panel on CBC radio. Last week, the three panelists discussed a variety of issues including a debate on the new poll suggesting that Liberal leader Shawn Graham is now more popular that current Premier Bernard Lord.

This discussion had the usual partisan fodder but one comment by Brent Taylor (Tory cum COR cum Tory pundit) nearly had me run the car off the road. In his discourse about the merits of Premier Lord, he suggested that he thought the Premier was much better suited than Shawn Graham to negotiate Equalization funding and transfer payments from Ottawa.

So that is what we have come to in this province. We need to select as our Premier the person who can extract the best pogie 'deal' out of Ottawa. This coming from a Tory, the supposed party of business, is all the more astonishing.

I put forward a slightly different vision of leadership. Leadership is not negotiating more welfare out of Ottawa. Leadership would be partnering with Ottawa on a long term strategy to fix the economic problems in New Brunswick. Leadership would be renegotiating the very successful Regional Economic Development Agreements (REDAs) with Ottawa - monies that are exclusively used for economic development (the last one lapsed during the current Premier's tenure). If the Premier is such a skilled negotiator, why didn't he renegotiate a REDA?

In the medium to long term, slightly better equalization/transfer payments will only continue to mask the serious underlying economic problems facing this province. I only hope that whoever takes over from the current Premier (Liberal or Tory) will take our economy more seriously.

In previous blogs, I have been documenting the fact that both Nova Scotia and PEI have been outpacing New Brunswick on most key economic indicators since the late 1990s. A new Statistics Canada report out last week highlights this trend and reveals just how far we have slipped compared to our eastern neighbour, Nova Scotia.

The report entitled: Catching Up and Falling Behind: The Performance of Provincial GDP per Capita from 1990 to 2003 looked at Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita in 1990, 1997 and 2003. In 1990, New Brunswick's GDP per capita was well behind Nova Scotia. However, after a number of years of outpacing Nova Scotia, by 1997, New Brunswick had passed Nova Scotia for this measurement. I personally remember this as a high point in the McKenna years. However, the report goes on to point out that from 1997 to 2003, Nova Scotia has ripped past New Brunswick and now has a larger GDP per capita differential over New Brunswick than it did back in 1990.

We have erased the economic gains we made over Nova Scotia in just a few short years. Not that it is a race. I think we are more like partners with Nova Scotia than competitors. However, if we can't even keep up with our eastern neighbour, how can we ever expect to make gains on provinces such as Ontario and Alberta?

If I had a nickel for every time an economic development made this statement. Governments don't create jobs, industry creates jobs.

The only problem with that statement is that it is patently untrue. Governments do create jobs - millions of them. For starters, there are just under 1 million people working in public administration in Canada - federal, provincial and local government. Then there are all the people working in publicly funded health care - over 1.5 million. But we are just getting started. Public education in Canada accounts for something like 800,000 jobs. And lets not forget about national defense and police services - all funded directly by government - another 500,000 jobs. But wait, there's more. How about all of the crown corporations such as Canada Post and the CBC? Several hundred thousand more there.

You see, the reality is that almost one out of every four jobs in Canada is funded directly by the taxpayer. Governments do create jobs - millions of 'em.

That brings me to the point. Despite the fact that governments led the charge in the 1990s promoting the fact that new technologies mean that work could be done anywhere from the largest city to the smallest village, most of the evidence is that the new jobs created in the public sector (all forms) were overwhelmingly placed in the larger urban centres. After deep cuts in the early 1990s, when the federal government began to hire tens of thousands of new workers late in the decade and into the 2000s, you guessed it, most of those jobs were placed in the National Capital region - Ottawa/Hull.

Ironically, all levels of government have been promoting rural regions such as Cape Breton, the Acadian Peninsula and the Gaspe to business - trying to lure them to setup factories and offices in these rural and remote regions of Canada. These areas are good for business, they say, because they offer lower costs, an eager workforce and cheap labour. However, when it comes to their own job creation - they aren't taking their own advice.

It's time for governments to stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. Promoting these regions for new business and cutting public service and related jobs at the same time. If Caraquet is a good place for business - it should be a good place for government to do its work as well. To top it off, governments, unlike businesses, have a vested interest in keeping these communities alive and prosperous.

We're told that the Federal government is looking at the possibility of moving some of its jobs into the more needy regions of Canada. Unlike many of my colleagues in economic development, I applaud this. 50 high paying, good benefits, year round jobs in rural PEI has much more of an impact than would 50 more jobs in Ottawa.

Governments do create jobs. The question is - where will they put them? Will they continue to artificially inflate provincial capitals - many of which are now so dependant on government jobs that they would collapse without them? Or will they help these government towns become more diversified and attract new non-government businesses? This may free up some government work for the communities that really could use a shot in the arm.

Canadian Business magazine recently ranked Moncton as the best city for business in Canada (outside Quebec – two small cities in that province had better scores). Regardless of the fact that their methodology was biased in favour of small cities (focusing on criteria such as low costs, low crime and low cost of living and not considering access to access to skilled labour, research & development capacity and other cluster elements found in the big cities), it is still a very good news story for Moncton and for New Brunswick.

Why is it good news? Presumably, we can use this title as a marketing tool to attract new business to the region. However, a title such as this will be no good without a significant marketing campaign to promote it. Because the provincial government has been grinding down its efforts to promote the province as a good place for business, it will be up to the local community to pick up this ball and run with it. I hope that Enterprise Greater Moncton will promote this title broadly in Canada and the U.S. And I further hope it will lead to more new businesses coming to Moncton. Let me tell you why.

In the 1990s, each year an average of 4-5 new businesses from outside New Brunswick were setting up in Greater Moncton with the direct influence/support of the provincial government. The then Department of Economic Development and Tourism had an aggressive strategy to bring new businesses into New Brunswick in sectors including call centres, manufacturing and information technologies. Not to mention the fact that they had the ultimate lead sales guy in Frank McKenna. In the past five years or so, these efforts have been scaled back with predictable results. By my estimates, there have only been a half a dozen or so (or less) new firms set up in Moncton since the change of government in 1999 that came in with the direct influence/support of the provincial government. I do not include expansions of existing companies in Greater Moncton because they were already here and benefiting from the Canadian Business-appointed Best City for Business.

Don’t get me wrong. There are all kinds of new businesses setting up in New Brunswick from the Home Depot to Walmart to new restaurants. But take a closer look at the type of businesses that have been fuelling Moncton’s growth in the past five years. These are retail services and food services that come to a community after it starts to grow strongly. Following this short retail and services boom, what will be the next economic driver for Moncton? Where will the next 5,000 call centre jobs come from? Where will the next 1,500 manufacturing jobs come from? Where will the next 800 IT jobs come from? Without these jobs, the current retail and construction boom in Moncton would be nonexistent.

I believe that government has a major role to play here. They can help create a positive climate for business in the community. Then they can sell the heck out of it. It seems that we have the first part, now we must ask ‘Can we sell it?’.

For those of you that have short memories, Moncton was in the Report on Business magazine’s Best Cities for Business four times in the 1990s. It wasn’t that accolade that attracted dozens of major corporations to our city. It was the effective selling of that idea that led to success.

Maybe if Frank is not too busy these days, we should hire him to once again sell the province as a great place for business. Before it’s too late.

Consumer products maker Colgate-Palmolive Co. plans to cut its worldwide work force by about 12 per cent and their Moncton warehouse will be closed by the end of April 2005. It is an especially hard pill to swallow when a big name company like Colgate-Palmolive closes an operation in the community. These companies tend to pay above average wages and benefits and bring foreign investment and exposure to the community.

I am not sure if anything could have been done to prevent this closure but there are steps that a community can take to ensure that every possible action is taken before the company makes the fateful announcement. In economic development parlance, this is called a BRE (business retention and expansion) program. A BRE program builds formal relationships with local companies and provides them with a one-stop-shop for all local, provincial and federal government departments as well as private sector linkages. A good BRE program identifies companies at high risk of closure and works with them well before the point of no return to determine any possible solutions. The personal relationships fostered