In the world of economic development, getting media coverage is a key part of raising your community's profile which is an important step in the ultimate attraction of businesses, people and investment.

Nova Scotia recieved not one but two major, positive media references this week. In a Business Week Online investing chat (and in the print version), Pat O'Neil, president of an influential investment firm, said that one of his favorite locations for investments is Nova Scotia. "We think Nova Scotia is going to be a big deal in the next five years," O'Neil said. He went on to say that 10 Fortune 500 companies, including Microsoft, have established call centers in Nova Scotia as an answer to problems with overseas outsourcing.

In the other case, a California professor has written a book called 'Retire in Style' in which ranks the top 60 communities in North America to move to for retirement. Halifax ranks 9th out of 60 locations across North America among the top locations to retire. In the study, communities were rated on cost of living, transportation, retail services, health care, community services, cultural and educational activities, recreational activities, work and volunteer activities and crime rates and public safety.

Bravo, Nova Scotia and particularly Halifax.

I forced myself to listen the whole federal government budget speech delivered yesterday. I knew full well that it has become a marketing effort but I thought there would be some clues as to the mindset of the government.

That's why I was encouraged to hear the Finance Minister use the words 'self-reliance' over and over again. He talked about providing support to Aboriginal communities to help them become financially self-reliant. He talked about funding support for families with children that have disabilities to help them become more self-reliant. And so on.

However, there was no talk about self-reliance in Atlantic Canada. Nada about helping rural communities become self-reliant. Zip. In fact, they have increased the welfare to these communities by inflating the EI program.

As I have mentioned before, I see real parallels between the aboriginal communities twenty or thirty years ago and Atlantic Canada today. Back then, the government thought that if it poored enough money in, the problems would go away. But they didn't. Economic problems persisted and then came the resulting social problems including low literacy, high rates of suicide and the worst health outcomes of any group in Canada.

Wait, I said back then. Remarkably the last three sentences of that paragraph apply to a place like New Brunswick today - the government poors more and more in - taking the form of EI and Equalization and the economic and social problems get worse. Atlantic Canada has the lowest rates of literacy and the worst health outcomes in Canada (New Brunswick is dead last).

What's our response. Crank up the Equalization and the EI (at the behest, I might add, of the provincial governments).

At some point in time, somebody in the Federal government (usually spurred on by some international condemnation) will notice this trend. More money in worse economic and social outcomes. Then maybe in 2030, the Liberal Finance Minister will read his budget speech and talk about the need for self-reliance in Atlantic Canada.

Unless Daulton McGuinty or Ralph Klein crack the whip for other reasons.....

What do Brian Lee Crowley, John Manyard Keynes and Karl Marx have in common? Brian Lee Crowley is the head of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, an organization that believes that the market, and only the market, should decide labour and capital flows. In other words, they seek a very minimal role for government. John Manyard Keynes was the father of unemployment insurance. In the early 20th century, his ideas shaped the policies of the New Deal. He felt that during times of economic crisis, governments should spend more, not less. He believed in a very active government playing a major role in the economy. Karl Marx needs no introduction. He believed that government should control the economy.

So what, you say, could these three possibly have in common? I'll tell you. They all share a passion for Pepto-Bismal or some other form of stomach acid relief - most notably after another Federal budget (Keynes and Marx in spirit only as they have been dead for years).

Beyond the bubbling stomach acid, however; these three share one major thing in common. Crowley believes in the value of work. The workforce is at the heart of the economy - it is its engine. He believes that market forces, if left to run on their own, would allocate labour and capital in such a way that the workforce would be the most productive. Keynes also believed in the value of work. In fact, he suggested that during a depression, the government should pay men to dig up holes one day and fill them in the next. He knew full well that if you take work and the work ethic out of the picture, the economy is headed for ruin. Karl Marx also was a big believer in the role that work played in the economy. He believed that people should not be paid for different types of work but for need. In fact, the communists were known to shoot people who would not work.

That brings us to Canada. Canadian politicians (and economists allied with the NDP and the Bloc) have actually fashioned a new economic model - not free market, not socialist and not even communist. The Canadian model is to pay people not to work. To actually put in place financial incentives for people not to work. And, as I have stated many times before, this has led to whole communities and regions of this country where 25%-50% of the entire workforce actually works only 14 or so weeks each year and the rest of the year are paid by the government not to work.

And in yesterday's budget, they rolled out another $300 million to sweeten up the EI pot and make it even more attractive not to work. So we are in this weird neverland where many of these communities have unemployment rates of 20% or higher and small businesses can't find workers. They are bringing in Mexicans to harvest strawberries on PEI. They are bringing in the Dutch to drive trucks in Northwestern New Brunswick. Call centres paying $10/hour and offering on site daycare can't get workers in rural New Brunswick. And the Liberal response? Not to provide incentives to work on-season and off-season jobs. Not to find ways to extend the seasonal jobs. Not to set aside money to attract year round jobs to rural New Brunswick. No, our strategy is to spend another $300 million (on top of the billions) to encourage people not to work.

Crowley, Keynes, Marx? No, the 'economist' leading the economic development of Atlantic Canada is Yvon Godin.

Yesterday, the Federal government announced that it would be giving $115 million to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited to support an economic development project in Montreal.

I don't know that I have much to say about this except that it underscores the continuing reality facing Atlantic Canada. The stronger provinces and economies such as Montreal get all the new, high end jobs paid for in large part by government incentives. Atlantic Canada gets more seasonal Employment Insurance support (and I heard a rumour there will be more in the budget today).

When are the politicians going to figure this out. We need the $115 million job creation projects in Atlantic Canada, too. When was the last time any level of government invested this amount of money in a private sector job creation project in New Brunswick? I'll answer that for you - never. But if you're in aerospace in Montreal or automobiles in Ontario, this level of government incentive is a common event.

I would ask them (the politicians) to just try it out. If they spend the next ten years supporting these level projects in Atlantic Canada, let's see if it doesn't transform the economy, reduce our dependence on seasonal EI and on Equalization.

An acquaintance of mine that understands the mindset of government told me it would be a cold day in hell before the Federal government would put that kind of money into an Atlantic Canadian project. You see, he said, there are just not enough votes down here. He did say, however; that if a provincial government brought them a billion dollar, 2,000 job project and asked for $100 million, it would be somewhat hard for them to turn it down. The optics of outright saying 'no' to Atlantic Canada while saying 'yes' to Quebec and Ontario wouldn't be good.

The message here is simple - provincial government go out and find these projects and then drag the feds along kicking and screaming.

Stop fiddling around with small businesses and 'innovation'. Ontario's growth over the 1990s was driven by the auto sector - large, multinational companies.

Go out and get some for New Brunswick.

We would appreciate it.

It seems to me that the public has basically three responses to the rhetoric of politicians: apathy, cynicism and denial. The vast majority of folks don't seem to care one way or another (unless they are directly impacted by a specific move of government). When the Premier talks of the prosperity he has brought New Brunswickers and all the jobs and economic growth, they look around and say 'who's he kidding?', shrug their shoulders and go about their daily lives. The second group of folks are those that for whatever reason look more closely at the actions of government. These are typically advocates of one type or another or others that just take a keen interest in government activities. I include myself in the latter category. These folks, upon hearing all the inflated rhetoric, the skewed stats, the out-of-context figures designed to confuse people, increase their level of cynicism (especially when reading the propaganda machine called the Times & Transcript). The third group of folks are basically the partisans. Not necessarily hard core partisans but just folks who believe the government's story hook line and sinker without any critical analysis. These folks range from the cadre of hangers on through to the party faithful - no matter what.

Which brings me to the point.

What is your response when you see the following graph? Apathy? - oh well. That's just the way it is. The other guys aren't any better. Maybe I should consider Alberta. Cynicism? - how can the Premier look people in the face and claim his Prosperity Plan is working? Denial? - I don't believe these numbers. The Prosperity Plan is working. Just you wait until the numbers come out next month.

Collectively, our responses get translated into government action. If we are all lumped into Apathy or Denial - nothing will ever change (note to the Times & Transcript). If we adopt a healthy criticism of government action - non-partisan - maybe we push them to take steps to redress our economic problems.

I have been studying the various ways that communities and governments attempt to stimulate economic development for almost 15 years. One conclusion that I am prepared to make is that I really believe that some communities and provinces/states try economic development strategies that are 'out of their league' and then get frustrated when there is no success and then cut funding and so the vicious cycle begins.

I believe that we need to take a 'life cycle' approach to developing and implementing economic development programs. It would be unthinkable to use a Silicon Valley economic development model to try and develop Botswana. However, in a slightly scaled down analogy, should New Brunswick be attempting to compete with Ottawa or Toronto? Or should we set our sights - if not lower - at a different target?

Take the call center industry example. In the early 1990s only three jurisdictions in North America were actively pursuing the call center industry (Nebraska, Manitoba and New Brunswick). After the enormous success that this industry brought to communities like Omaha, Winnipeg and Moncton, everyone else jumped on the bandwagon and by the end of the 1990s every province in Canada - including Ontario - had a 'call center strategy'. New Brunswick, was among the first in and among the greatest beneficiaries. Some estimate there are over 16,000 call center workers in New Brunswick. I believe it is more like 10,000 but no matter, there are at least 10,000 jobs and the vast majority are full time with benefits and average salaries approaching and exceeding $30,000/year.

In that case, New Brunswick leveraged its unique advantages of bilingual, relatively low cost labour, low cost office space and excellent telecommunications. Add to that mix a basic government incentive program and an aggressive marketing campaign and ten years later (by 1999) you had over 10,000 jobs.

Now fast forward to 2005. Economic developers talk about 'innovation', 'life sciences', 'aerospace' and other sectors and areas of activity that are highly competitive, where we have very few advantages and almost no industrial base. On the 'innovation' front, there is over 10 times as much R&D activity over the course of a year in just the Ottawa/Hull region than all of Atlantic Canada combined. Some large companies in Ontario spend more on R&D themselves that most of New Brunswick's companies combined. Not that I am against innovation, but if there are new dollars for economic development, I think they should be targeted where they would achieve the greatest results. Further, new 'innovation' funding will, like the last time, end up just making up where the region was not able to secure its fair share from other government sources such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation or NSERC. If we are not getting a 'fair' share of that funding, that is a separate issue.

On the life sciences front, I recently heard there were over 70 life sciences initiatives across North America - all competing for a relatively small industry. Montreal, for example, has spent hundreds of millions of government dollars over 30 years creating its small biotech cluster. Can we compete with that? The Governor of Florida recently announced a funding package of up to $400 million in incentives to attract a 1,500 person medical research facility. Can we compete with that?

The Federal Government and the Government of Ontario recently announced a $1 billion program to support the auto sector in that province. Can we compete with that?

I think we need to be realistic and targeted at the same time. I honestly believe that if the government of New Brunswick was prepared to make the investments in infrastructure, training and yes, the companies themselves, we could attract several thousand new manufacturing jobs over the next ten years. Not overly sexy - $15-$20/hour with full benefits from companies such as Michelin, Irving, etc. but good quality, long term jobs with long term, employers - replacing the resources-based ones that are leaving.

I also think that a highly targeted and properly funded strategy could bring in several thousand new jobs in the high tech sector as a 'near shore' location for information technology growth. Not overly sexy - $40,000-$50,000/year computer programming, technical support and multimedia development - but good quality jobs to keep our graduates here.

Message to both provincial and Federal government policy makers - stop fooling around with abstract concepts such as 'innovation' and setup a few highly targeted and well funded programs to attract real companies and real jobs to the province.

The minister at the church I attend is a particularly effective communicator. He uses a variety of anecdotes, stories and jokes to make his points as to how we can better ourselves and have a better appreciation of the spiritual side of life.

One of his 'jokes' today made me think of the economic challenges facing us here in New Brunswick. The joke goes like this:

One Sunday, a preacher's sermon dealt with the issue of how you get to heaven. He asked the congregation to respond to his questions on how you get to heaven. "Can you get to heaven by just doing good deeds?" "No", the congregation replied in unison. "Can you get to heaven by giving money to the church?" "No", came the response. "Can you get to heaven by loving your neighbour as yourself?" Once again, the congregation responded "no". Then, he asked "How do you get to heaven?". A five year old boy near the front of the church put up his hand. The preacher asks him, "How do you get to heaven?". The boy responds "To get to heaven, sir, you gotta be dead."

Now, notwithstanding that the joke comes across much better with the delivery, it turned my mind to the issue that dominates my thinking.

Maybe things need to get worse in New Brunswick before they will get better. Guys like me that study issues of economy, population, migration, capital formation, investment, etc. have been preaching for years that the 'end is nigh'. For New Brunswickers to 'repent' and 'turn towards a better way' (forgive me the religious metaphors - it is Sunday). However, successive governments have invested less and less and the public's opinion is lukewarm at best. As long as things are sputtering along, we don't have to worry - let's keep are distraction where it belongs - fighting over 'cath labs' at the Moncton Hospital or over potholes in Bouctouche.

In my opinion, the time to tackle the looming economic crisis facing New Brunswick was twenty years or so when enlightened demographers and economic developers began to see the proverbial writing on the wall (oops, another biblical reference). At that time, our population growth rate was already beginning to decline steeply, our unemployment rate was permanently fixed above 10% and the out-migration of our youth was increasing. Further, at that time, forecasters predicted that the forestry, mines and fish of New Brunswick would not be able to sustain the economy in the future to the extent it had been. So Richard Hatfield made a few token attempts at economic development in the 70s and early 80s. But it was Frank McKenna who rightly realized that New Brunswick was on a crash course and made economic development his number one priority from 1987 onward.

The problem with Frank, however; was that he believed that his own hustle would be enough to turn around New Brunswick. And make no mistake, Premier McKenna was the most energetic and engaged politician - probably in New Brunswick's history. But hustle alone is not enough - it is critical - but not enough. Most people don't realize this but all during McKenna's reign, New Brunswick was at the bottom (or close to it) for government spending on economic development.

And that dubious tradition has been continued (if not exacerbated) by the current administration.

Until governments get serious and start funding and supporting economic development - not as much as richer provinces and states but more - I am not sure we will ever see any fundamental, systemic changes.

But, as with most things in politics, it is a vicious cycle. Politicians put their effort where they think they will get and keep the most votes. The public is preoccupied with the here and now and not the future. Those two forces are a toxic mix and explain in large part the under investment in economic development for decades.

I can still remember the public outcry when Premier McKenna spent $10 million of taxpayer money for 900 UPS jobs back in the early 1990s. The media cried foul. Lizzy Weir kicked and screamed. $10 million? How dare they? Well, if anyone had bothered to look around they would have seen $100 million deals to bring Toyota to Kentucky and $200 million to bring BMW to Alabama. And if anyone bothered to look across Canada, they would have seen our government putting hundreds of millions in to the aerospace sector in Montreal and the auto sector in Ontario. Not to mention the billions being spent on seasonal EI that pays people not to work.

So the great old sage of regional development, Professor Donald Savoie, writes a book on McKenna which rightly and fairly shows that all of McKenna's hustle brought no revolutionary turnaround, no massive new investments and no major redressing of the fundamental economic problems facing New Brunswick.

Recently a colleague of mine here in Moncton said to me that he was tired of all the infighting among local economic development groups, counterproductive sniping, communities trying to 'one up' each other, etc. He said it was making economic development almost impossible and he yearned for the late 1980s when all of Greater Moncton came together in a unified way to address the communities problems. Now, he said, its all about 'what's in it for me'. He sarcastically remarked that we may have to fabricate a crisis to get people back together again.

Well, in my opinion, a fabricated crisis may be a better solution compared to the alternative of waiting for a real one.

Anyone that reads my blog will know that this is my own personal bugaboo - the fact that in every opinion poll 'health', 'senior care' and 'education' are always topping the list of priorities.

This was the findings of the New Brunswick Finance Minister's pre-budget PR exercise when he went around the province and pretended to look interested. Now, not withstanding that his PR release uses incorrect grammer (health, senior care and education can't all be 'number one'), it's absolutely fascinating to me that while mill workers in the Miramichi are so desparate that they are barracading the exits to the pulp mill, the Peninsula is emptying out even faster than before, and that the Premier himself is finally acknowledging that we have a huge looming population problem - we still roll out the standard concerns of the public - health care, senior care and education.

So, in keeping with the past five budgets, look for, in this budget, more cuts to economic development (though I expect they will throw in a token new program to look somewhat interested) and almost no focus whatsoever on making any substantiative changes that might address our economic challenges.

The province, by my calculation, spends somthing like less than one percent of its annual budget on economic development. 99% on keeping the lights on and the government paycheques signed. 99% on incubating the new workforce for Ontario and Alberta. 99% on the status quo. 99% on stuff that won't move us one iota towards self sufficiency.

Mr. Minister, keep those deliberations coming - as long as they validate your own lack of vision.

This is the title of an Economist magazine article this week. Now, the Economist is just about the most respected business magazine in the world - and now they are jumping on Paul Martin and the 'ditherer' label.

Just for fun, I did a little Internet search on Paul Martin (as prime minister) and 'dither' and found literally hundreds of references to Paul Martin being a ditherer. From the mainstream media to blogs, it seems that this label is beginning to stick.

The Economist writer says that Prime Minister Martin "cannot quite shake off the impression that Canada's top job is too big for him."

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word 'dither' means:
to act nervously or indecisively : vacillate - dith·er·er

Sounds a lot like New Brunswick's Premier (think auto insurance, NB Power, etc.).

The dictionary lists 'resolve' and 'settle' as antonyms for dither.

Two qualities that are becoming less and less apparent in modern politicians.


Read the Economist article by
clicking here.

It seems that the Newfoundland offshore revenue deal is not going to go away. Premier McGuinty has said that he will press the Federal government for as long as it takes to reduce the level of funding that Ontario pays for Atlantic Canada and other poor provinces.

I had figured that this sentiment was coming - I had expected it to come, however; from Alberta.

What I have to say to Premier McGuinty is this. If you succeed and cut Ontario's subsidization of health care and education in Atlantic Canada, what have you achieved?

Putting the squeeze on Atlantic Canada will only breed more resentment, hostility and ultimately frustration that could jeopardize Confederation as we know it.

The systemic underperformance of any region in a country has to be a shared responsibility. Atlantic Canadians paid to subsidize the St. Lawrence Seaway which effectively cut off Atlantic Canada as a trade route to Central Canada. Going further back, Atlantic Canadians subsidized the colonization of the West - and yes, the only province that has ever gone bankrupt in Canada - Alberta.

Premier McGuinty would be wise to follow my advice. If he wants to reduce the amount that Ontario pays into Equalization, he should support efforts to stimulate the economy of Atlantic Canada. As this region grows, our need for his welfare will be diminished.

Ever wonder why there is no meaningful automobile sector in Atlantic Canada (outside of Michelin and I wouldn't underestimate their impact)?

Oh, you say, it has to do with just in time inventory systems, integrated logistics, the cluster effect, and so on.

Yeah? Tell that to Alabama. Tell that to South Carolina. Tell that to Ireland. Tell that to Curitiba, Brazil - all with no 'integrated logistics', JIT or another BS excuse. All of these areas and more grew large auto sectors from scratch in about the same geographic and economic situation as Atlantic Canada.

There is no auto industry in Atlantic Canada for one reason as far as I can see. Ontario and Buzz Hargrove (a native New Brunswicker) would never let it happen.

How's this for a strategy? Next time Buzz is negotiating with GM, Ford or the others, he negotiates into the contract a major plant for Moncton? How about the Federal government providing $500 million (that's how much they are giving the auto sector in this round of incentives) to start an auto sector in Atlantic Canada?

Not a chance.

Easier to give us EI and welfare.

Until McGuinty blows his top.

Now what?

I may be the only person outside Nova Scotia and Newfoundland cheering the recent deal between the Feds and those provinces that means the provinces will benefit from offshore oil & gas revenues. Now, I see that NB Liberal Leader Shawn Graham has added his name to the list of people condemning the deal. No matter, I am standing my ground on this one, thanks.

This situation is an excellent illustration of the regressive and harmful nature of the current Equalization formula that distributes money from the 'have' provinces to the 'have not' ones (which incidentally is all the provinces in Canada except Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario). Like a classic welfare system, there is almost no incentive to encourage provinces to become self-sufficient. Virtually every dollar brought in from new economic growth (i.e. from something like offshore gas revenues) gets 'clawed back' by the Equalization formula.

This is exactly why our Premier spent so much effort wringing out more Equalization money from Ottawa and no effort at all trying to get a new regional development agreement.

Don't get me wrong, here. The central theme of this blog and all my writings and musings on this issue is that provinces must get off Equalization. They must take back their economic sovereignty to ensure they control their destiny. I fundamentally believe that Equalization has been a weight that has been a prime contributor to New Brunswick's economic decline over the decades.

However, the richer provinces and the Federal government should create a system that provides incentives for the poorer ones to get off Equalization (and EI dependence for that matter).

Here's a little recurring dream I have:

Alberta says to New Brunswick (maybe through the intermediary called the Federal Government), "What would it take to get you out of my wallet?" New Brunswick answers, "25 years of strong economic growth, a doubling of our population and a 25% rise in inflation-adjusted income. After that, we should have enough population base and tax generating capacity to be self sufficient."

Alberta then says, "Sounds good. What will it take to help you achieve that objective."

New Brunswick responds (somewhat shocked at the offer), "We spend the least in Canada on economic development, among the least in education, almost nothing on research and development and we desperately need a four lane highway around the top of the province to open up the region for development. However, our current revenue has forced us to cut back on all these spending areas to feed health care expenditures."

Alberta (who is debt free and has the lowest taxes in Canada) then says, "OK. We'll freeze current Equalization funding at the current level for 25 years. If you can improve your economic fortunes, great. If, however, you slide even further into the tank. We're done. Agreed?"

New Brunswick thinks for a minute (still in a state of shock) and then says, "We accept your offer."

A colleague of mine recently sent me an email entitled "The Feds are coming...". I am not sure he was playing on my last name and the famous Scottish tune but I'll venture the answer is yes.

It goes like this:

The Campbells are comin, Oho! Oho!
The Campbells are comin, Oho! Oho!

The Campbells are comin to bonnie Lochleven
The Campbells are comin, Oho! Oho!

Upon the Lomonds I lay, I lay
Upon the Lomonds I lay, I lay
I looked down to bonnie Lochleven
And saw three bonnie perches play.

Great Argyle he goes before
He maks his cannons and guns to roar
Wi' sound o trumpet, pipe and drum
The Campbells are comin Oho, Oho!

The Campbells they are a'in arms
Their loyal faith and truth to show
Wi' banners rattling in the wind
The Campbells are comin Oho, Oho!


Substitute the word 'Fed's for 'Campbells' and take out the bit about cannons and guns and you have the gist of his email to me.

You see, CBC reported on Saturday that some 30,000 federal bureaucrat jobs could be moved from Ottawa and dispersed across the country to smaller communities that are in desparate need of economic development.

For those of you that don't know this, the Federal government is the largest employer in Canada. They are the largest driver of economic development in Canada. Federal government jobs are among the best paid and offer among the best benefits of any jobs in Canada.

Dispersing 5% more of them out of Ottawa into communities crying out for some help, sounds like a good plan to me.

However, for those of you familiar with the story of the Massacre of Glencoe, you may not be as cheery about this analogy as I am (condolences to the McDonalds).

The Feds are comin', oho, oho!

By the way, listen to The Campbells are comin' oho, oho by clicking here.

Lee Iacocca was one of the most famous leaders in corporate America in the 20th century. It is well known that he took a company, Chrysler Corp., from almost bankruptcy to a thriving company - a miracle by any measure. He cut and slashed, he divested and acquired and ultimately in a fairly short time came up with a formula that worked and worked well.

What business schools don't say very often about Mr. Iacocca, was that he also nearly ran the company into the ground not long after the miraculous turnaround.

You see, and now every Business 101 textbook includes a chapter on this, there is more than one kind of leader. Lee Iacocca was a 'turnaround specialist'. He could come in, kick some arse, and make the kinds of decisions that most corporate executives could never make. However, when it came to the ongoing management of a successful, thriving company, he sucked.

The lesson here is clear. Different situations call for different leaders.

And that brings us to New Brunswick.

What is needed in New Brunswick is a leader (and a leadership team) that, like Lee Iacocca, has a keen sense that New Brunswick is on the verge of economic collapse (not imminent - but within a few decades) and can make the hard decisions and aggressively tackle the issues that must be addressed in order to turn the ship around and get New Brunswick back on the course toward self-sufficiency.

What we have is a leader and leadership team that are really 'managers'. Now, I am not qualified to judge their performance as managers but it is my humble opinion that this is the best way to describe them. They tinker with health care, they shift a few dollars here and a few there, they wax long and hard about their own plans for prosperity, education and health care. They hum and ho about auto insurance. They ponder and tinker with NB Power.

They, essentially, keep the lights on and the cheques signed.

But address the critical issue of the econony? Nada. A loftily written Prosperity Plan with some loosely defined targets and no real plan to get anywhere near them. That's it.

The Premier and his government are acting like the 'Unknown Comic' that performed in Moncton this weekend at the Hub Cap Comedy Festival. They are all walking around with methaphorical bags on their heads - tweaking and adjusting - just like managers of a company without a care in the world.

Somebody - either sooner or later - is going to get serious about fixing our economic crisis. About declining industries, about increase dependence on welfare (EI), about the growing sense of dispair in rural New Brunswick. About our education challenges. About the lack of investment.

Somebody - Tory, Liberal, NDP or none of the above - will get serious.

The question is. Will it be someone inside New Brunswick or outside? I can guarantee that the ultimate outcome will depend on the answer to this question.

I don't mean to pick on Lisa Hrabluk, the Telegraph-Journal writer who seems to cover provincial political or economic issues (I am not overly sure about this). However, I don't seem to understand her reporting style. In her column this weekend, she all but transcribes a letter that the Premier's Office has been sending out to businesses inviting them to discuss the issue of population decline and the economy. For example, she writes:

"New Brunswick's population isn't growing and if nothing changes before this decade is finished, we will no longer have enough people living here to support our current level of social services. In 2006, deaths will overtake births in New Brunswick, making it one of the first province's to have a natural decrease in its population. This, in a province that hasn't experienced a net migration in people in three decades.That shrinking population will affect transfer payments and equalization, which are both calculated based on population numbers."

All of this, I am happy to report, is at least somewhat factual. She then goes on to put in a plug for the Premier's three year old Prosperity Plan - insinuating that it will somehow address these issues.

Now, what I don't understand from both the Premier and Ms. Hrabluk is where have they been for the past six years? These issues have been well known for years and in spite of that, the Premier has been cutting funding to economic development and frantically negotiating new Equalization deals (more welfare) while letting the regional economic development agreement (which brought in tens of millions from the Feds for economic development) lapse without even a whimper. Or, I might add, almost no coverage by Ms. Hrabluk and her colleagues.

By the way, when I said Ms. Hrabluk's were somewhat factual - I meant that one of her comments was ridiculously off base. She said that soon we won't have "enough people living here to support our current level of social services."

This is the most inaccurate thing probably she has ever written. We have not had enough people living here for decades to support our 'current level of social services'. That is why we have needed billions of Ontarians and Albertans money through Equalization just to support our current level of social services - a level, by the way, that continues to fall behind most provinces in Canada.

What she should have said is that at some time in the future (without a major economic boost, within 20 years or so), there will be so few people here that the rest of Canada will get fed up with the welfare and crack the whip. Which, as I have said before, will initially lead to the forced union of the Maritime Provinces and then to a dramatically scaled back level of social services to adjust for the economic realities.

But shifting from Ms. Hrabluk to her muse, Premier Lord, he has not even began to address the serious economic problems facing our province in the past six years of his administration. Now, he acts like he wants to get serious? I think this is more likely a cheap ploy to confuse and distract people from his real record.

He should have been talking like this in 1999. He should have prepared a real strategy, fuelled by a dramatic increase in funding to drive economic growth in New Brunswick.

If you will indulge me, I will opine on this issue a little more. The major media companies in New Brunswick are guilty of transcribing government press releases. It is obvious, they do almost no 'investigative' journalism around the issue of economic development and the economy or they would have uncovered the dozens of warning signals that the economy is in trouble. The goverment is guilty of just 'governing' instead of 'leading' and that will be the subject of my next blog.

I don't prentend to have cornered the market on smarts. I don't particularly vault myself up as overly bright. But I would like to think that I have at least a basic grasp of the economic challenges facing Atlantic Canada.

That's why I am absolutely flabbergasted with all the commentary coming out of Central Canada on this new deal with Danny Williams.

Now, let me set the table on this. Newfoundland and Labrador requires hundreds of millions in Equalization and EI support payments each year just to keep their economy afloat - as the weakest economy in Canada. They lost almost 10% of their population from 1991 to2001. Whole communities are shutting down. The provincial deficit on a per capita basis is the highest in all of Canada and the U.S. The provincial debt is also the worst of the 60 provinces and states.

Want more? Newfoundland and Labrador has the lowest average income, the lowest standard of living and the lowest personal networth of any of the 60 provinces and states. And to top things off, you have to wear a thick sweater in July.

Everybody knows the state of the union in Newfoundland and Labrador. However, the public outcry on the Danny Williams deal goes something like this - as quoted in the Canadian Press:

Premier Dalton McGuinty said taxpayers in his province are in effect subsidizing the agreement between Ottawa and the two Atlantic provinces. "The new arrangement is patently unfair to the people of Ontario,'' he said Wednesday night in Ottawa. "What it essentially means is that we will, through our contributions to equalization, end up providing funding to the people of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia that will enable them to exceed their wealth, on a per capita basis, beyond that of Ontarians.''

Now, like me, Dalton is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed but how can anyone even breathe the fastasy like words 'exceed their wealth beyond that of Ontarians'?

What is this absurdity?

In ten years from now, oil & gas notwithstanding, Newfoundland and Labrador will still be among the most struggling regions in North America. Without the oil & gas revenues, we may as well have just shut the province down in the late 1990s.

There is only one way that Newfoundland or New Brunswick or PEI or Nova Scotia will ever have wealth beyond that of Ontarians and that is if Ontario itself blows it. Doesn't keep on top. Doesn't continue its role as a magnet for investment and immigration. Loses is desire to be a global leader.

You see, if Newfoundland or any other have not province starts to have some success (and there is no guarantee of that), that will only benefit Ontario through decreased equalization and subsidization. Ontario should be the biggest cheerleader for any strategy that will bring economic success to Atlantic Canada. Where are the banks headquartered? Where are the largest national companies headquartered? How many more jobs will be created in Ontario from a successful Atlantic Canada?

Having Atlantic Canada remain on welfare drags every province down - even the mighty Ontario.

They should be the first up applauding any strategy to save Newfoundland. It's in their own best interest.

Now after decades of almost no immigration, now everyone and their dog in Atlantic Canada is talking about it. Provinces are developing strategies, communities are getting 'immigrant friendly' and the federal government is finally starting to show some interest in immigration to prop up Atlantic Canada's sagging population.

I am all for immigration - on many fronts. Just ask my wife who immigrated here from Brazil. Or my cousin who married a Columbian lady or my brother who married a, gasp, American and brought her to Halifax.

But, and with me there is almost always a but, the issue in Atlantic Canada is the systemic underperformance of the economy. Just bringing in immigrants (not including investor immigrants) will just make for more unemployment and frustration. Somebody once said that all the taxi drivers in Toronto are new immigrants because non-immigrant Torontonians will not do those types of jobs. Well, in New Brunswick, there are lots of folks to drive taxis. Bringing in immigrants for these jobs would just displace Mintoians or Miramichiers.

To illustrate this point, recently in Halifax, the Chief Economist of the TD Bank stated that recent immigrants to Canada have not faired as well economically as their predecessors. Forcing them to move to the least economically succesful region of Canada may not improve their lot much.

A successful immigration strategy should target immigrants that will fill a real need in the community. If there are shortages of health care professionals, etc. As the economy grows and more pressure is put on the service sector, then we can look at bringing in immigrants to supplement the existing workforce.

I'll say that bringing in immigrant post-secondary students is a great idea. New Brunswick's universities have a lower than average rate of international students and I think this would be a great way to provide potential immigrants with a 'trial run'.

I also think that immigrant investors (those that must invest $250,000 to get in) are also a good target. If some of our small businesses need a private sector funding partner, this might be a good source (assuming a cultural fit).

But let's not detract from the real issue here. If you build it, they will come - as the saying goes. How can Fort McMurray, located in the most barren wasteland of Canada, grow by 19% in just two years? People are going there for the jobs - duh.

Stick a Michelin-type plant in every region of Atlantic Canada, reduce dependence on EI, raise our collective confidence level - and people will be clamouring to move here.

Trust me on that.