Just a quick follow up to my previous post. I got two calls today from two people with completely opposite views on this subject. So, I'll clarify things.

It's funny how we can easily look back to see how we got to here but have so much difficulty looking forward to see where we are going.

(profound, n'est-ce pas?)

Anyway, here's the thing:

2/3 of all in-migrants to the Moncton CA from 1991-2001 were Anglophones.

Very few of us are working in bilingual work environments (per my previous blog).

An increasing number of the jobs created in Moncton are not bilingual jobs. For example, the bulk of all new call centre jobs are English only. As Greater Moncton becomes more globalized (i.e. not just a local service economy), the requirement for bilingual workers will decrease even more.

Okay, now digest those stats and consider this:

In the next 30 years, Greater Moncton could conceivably grow its population by 100,000 or more - particularly if Premier Graham gets his self-sufficiency wish. Where will those 100k come from?

There's not much more to siphon off Northern New Brunswick. And even if there were, I don't think that emptying out one region to benefit another is the best public policy.

We know from the data that Quebeckers and France emigrants don't end up here.

So, it is likely that the vast majority of the new population needed to feed the Greater Moncton economy will be 80% Anglophone or more over the next 30 years.

Now, cycle back:

A lot of us think that bilingualism is a great feature of the Greater Moncton community. We think that the bi-cultural roots of Acadie and the various Anglo groups supplemented by immigrant groups (there's now something like 14 native Brazilians living in Greater Moncton these days - samba on).

But in order to sustain this bilingualism into the next generation, policy makers and community leaders should think this through. We need a serious program to support the bilingual nature of our community. Not in a heavy handed way (like telling unilingual Anglos they aren't welcome here). This would kill our growth potential faster than anything. We need IT workers to move here. We need doctors to move here. We need highly skilled and educated people to move here and we can't assume that they all speak French.

However, we can do a few things to truly foster bilingualism in our community:

Have a serious immigration strategy that sets targets for Francophone immigrants. Say, 1/3 of all immigrants should be Francophone. Further, we should encourage immigrants to learn both English and French. Remember, 35% of people that live in Greater Moncton that have a non-official language as their mother tongue - claimed on the 2001 Census to speak both French and English. That's a much higher rate of bilingualism (or would that be trilingualism?) than the Anglos.

Have a serious economic development strategy that leverages our strengths in French and English: translation and content localization firms, media production, digital media production, news, etc. - all of this stuff needs French language skills.

Focus on adult French language training. My brother tells me the Dept. of Defense spends $1,000/page to translate technical documents into French and no one uses them. DOD spends millions every year to teach Anglophones how to speak French - and then does very little to encourage bilingual work environments. I say don't translate the technical documents into French, give the City of Moncton the millions of dollars and have them offer free French language lessons to everyone that wants to take it. Bilingualism is not about meeting some arbitrary threshold for document translation or hiring quotas. It's about fostering an environment where people want and do speak both languages freely. In fact, many of the things done in the name of bilingualism end up balkanizing the two linguistic groups.

Get serious about French Immersion programs in school. Look it, my daughter is a straight A (almost) Grade 7 student in French Immersion. She attends classes in French all day and her homework is almost all in French. She speaks and writes French almost fluently. Yet when she gets together with the horde (9-10 friends all in French Immersion) on MSN or face-to-face - it's all English.

We have to make French real to these kids. Not just an academic exercise. So while that does mean later on in their work environments it also also now in Grade 4 or 5 or 6.

I'm not going to argue for school integration but would it kill us to have the Edith Cavell French Immersion kids hook up for homework assignments with a French language middle school? How about an MSN study group in French with participants from both school districts?

And UNB and the community colleges are not off the hook. You can spend a week on the UNB campus in Freddy and never hear a word of French. So you got 30-40-70% of Anglo kids that are coming out of French Immersion and their dumped into an exclusively Anglo post-secondary education environment? Now that makes a lot of sense. Kids going to UNB or Mount Allison or NBCC Moncton should take a % of their courses in French - with full assignments and term papers en francais, s'il vous plait.

And the last point related to kids is this. We have to make Acadie and its history real to the Anglo kids. Learning French for Monctonian Anglos is not just about a 'second language'. It's about our shared history. The first store with bilingual signage in Canada was in Moncton in the late 19th century (it was a partnership between a Franco and an Anglo - read Resurgo sometime). Sure, sometimes we feel like not looking back because there is some crud back there. Maybe lots of crud. But guess what. There's lots of great stuff too. I say put it all on the table. Not to stir up guilt or anger of frustration but to make history real. When my daughter is studying French it shouldn't be so she can get a job at ACOA. It should be so she can be a better Monctonian. So, that is why I was so irked that the Anglo kids aren't really taught the history of Acadie. It makes no sense.

Every since Kelly Lamrock lamented the state of French Immersion education in New Brunswick, there have been a slew of articles, editorials and, yes, even blogs about the subject. Mostly positive stuff but I think that Alec Bruce was on point when he said:


A crucial component of economic self-sufficiency in this province is a literate, bilingual workforce. It provides a competitive edge that few other jurisdictions in North America can boast.



He also made some commentary about the importance of maintaining your French.


That is where I come in.


As of the 2001 Census, only 8% of Anglophone New Brunswickers claimed to use French at the office (Work Language). I am not talking about exclusively speaking French - I am talking about occassionally speaking French at work. Only 8%. Greater Moncton, that bastion of bilingualism was only slightly better with 14% saying that they spoke both English and French at work. Somewhat troubling, almost 12% of Francophones said they only speak English at work.


Now, most people spend 40 hours + at work per week - almost as much time at work as sleeping. If we truly want to be a bilingual society, shouldn't we encourage more bilingualism at work?


Think about it for a minute. If just the Anglophones in the civil service spoke French at work, you would double that 8% to 16% or more.


In a way, that's what riles so many Anglos. You 'must speak French' to get this job or that job - and then you never speak French for a moment while at work.


In the little office where I work, it's a model for bilingualism - at least in some sense - even though 95% of our clients are English only. Staff meetings flow in and out of English and French (and there are now three of us Anglos whose French is passable only) and everybody tries and is accommodating.


Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight, gotta kick at the darkness till it bleeds...


Ooops. I digress.


But my point is valid. If you want these kids in French Immersion to take bilingualism seriously then you should promote it. We should encourage its use at work.


And to all my Francophone friends who think it's just easier to speak English than listen to me try and babble along like a first grader in French - stop and think. If you give in and don't help foster a bilingual workforce, who will? You want the Albert Countians to champion the cause?


Bilingualism is not a natural state. It takes effort. You need to know two languages. That takes effort. But Alec Bruce is right. It's the one thing that we have that very few others have. That's a strategic differentiator.


So I'll finish by tying this whole thing into economic development (of course).


We attract almost no French firms - Nova Scotia has more French investment than New Brunswick.


We attract almost no French (from France) immigrants. Manitoba attracts more. Cripes, over 10 years, we attracted 45 French immigrants out of 22,000 to Canada. Wow. Although, I think thanks to UdeM we are attracting an increasing number of French North African immigrants. Additional kudos to the university. One has to wonder where Moncton would without UdeM.

France Immigration to Canada


Cripes, we hardly attract any Quebec migrants. The last data I saw, we attracted less Quebeckers than any other province.

So, my point? Fostering bilingualism is more than just a new textbook in Grade 11. It's about encouraging French immigration. It's about encouraging bilingual workforces (not to the exclusion of unilingual English by the way - that would be a huge mistake). It's about encouraging more real bilingual jobs (we have less French/English translators than four other provinces). Why aren't we attracting more bilingual economic activity?

Oh, and by the way, a good place to start would be to have an English version of that school book history of Acadie that was published a couple of weeks ago in French only. You want Anglo kids to embrace French - have them embrace Acadie. It's a part of our [NB Anglos] history too.

I think this is going to turn into a major zero-sum game.

Saskatchewan is spending $6 million on a campaign to recruit in-migrants from Alberta and other parts of Canada. Alberta is spending a pile to attract workers from Atlantic Canada (you remember the MoveWest initiative). Nova Scotia has a in-migrant campaign. New Brunswick ostensibly has one.

Canada-wide if the economy needs - let's use a nice round number - one million workers - just spending taxpayer dollars to move people around Canada is not the right way to go - particularly because it is now leading to shortages in the out-migrant locations and more money put into the pot to reverse the trend.

$6 million is a lot of money for an advertising campaign.

I think there needs to be a national discussion on this - maybe the Premier's council should take it on.

Nationally, the focus should be on immigration and maybe a little more focus on bringing back Canadians living abroad. This is what Waterloo, Ontario is doing in California. I don't know the total tally but there must be several million Canadians living abroad (remember Lebanon).

Now, this is naive comment on my part. The reality is that Canada's provinces are likely to increase - not decrease - their inter-provincial people attraction activities. And, if so, New Brunswick has to stop diddling and get into the game. However, see about two dozen previous posts, these activities must be tied directly to real jobs and real careers. Just saying 'come home' means nothing.

There's a considerable amount of buzz surrounding the Commission on Post Secondary education in New Brunswick. Their report likely won't be out until later in the Fall, but I have talked with a few folks with the education sector and here are some things I am hearing:

1. One or more of the smaller English universities will be merged into UNB from an admin perspective (STU, MTA or UNBSJ). This is a cost cutting measure.

I severely doubt this will every happen. The Premier, Greg Byrne and Kelly Lamrock are graduates of STU. You think they are going to let it be swallowed up by UNB? Mount Allison has some very heavy hitters as graduates that would not be happy - and plus I hear they would rather 'go it alone' than be merged. And as for UNBSJ, how many SJ reps are their sitting around the Cabinet table these days? Enough to veto that.

2. The community college system will become more autonomous allowing local schools to offer whatever training they deem necessary to serve the local market.

This is very problematic from a political perspective but changes are likely needed. The way the system is now, if you want to take a specific course you have to go in the province where that course is offered - Woodstock, SJ, Bathurst, etc. The only problem is that a large part of the target market for community college training is not mobile (for example a married man wants to take a course that is only offered in Edmundston but his wife works in Moncton). So, what is happening is that Francophones are enrolling at the English language NBCC in Moncton so they don't have to move to another city to get the same course in French. That is just one example.

Politically, to close smaller city community colleges (this would likely be the impact of allowing all courses to be offered in the large southern cities) would be extremely problematic.

3. More integration between the NBCCs and the universities. For example, better credit transfers and more coordination.

Several education stakeholders have told me that this makes sense. Apparently, British Columbia is a leader in this area.

But I want to remind you of a few comments that were made when this thing was put in place:

From a January CBC report:

New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham is planning a major overhaul of the province's post-secondary education system, and has appointed a commission to travel the province and make suggestions by fall 2007.

"There has to be more than just a tweaking," Graham said. "We recognize that for our universities and community colleges to succeed, there's going to have to be some transformational changes brought forward to allow us to be competitive."

"I'd like to hear from the basic New Brunswickers, who say, 'you know, this is important to me, I want my son or daughter or grandson or daughter to have a future in this province. And the only way they're gonna have a future in this province is if we have a robust economy, and the only way we're gonna have a robust economy is if we have a literate workforce, so this is important to me, so you guys better make some good recommendations,'" Rick Miner, president of Seneca College and head of the commission said.

Miner says New Brunswick has no choice but to overhaul its system if it wants its economy to survive. Within three years, he says, 90 per cent of jobs in the province will require post-secondary education.


Now, you can't accuse the Liberals of using muted language. Everything is talked about in the context of 'massive change' required. Graham wants 'transformational' change to the post-secondary system. Politically, cutting too much or merging is likely not going to happen so what is 'transformational'?

Let's revisit my position:

1. Between 20% to 40% of all university graduates from NB schools leave the province for work every year (depending on the survey you look at).

2. Out-migrants are historically much higher educated than people that stay in New Brunswick (lately that is changing because of the blue collar out-migration to Alberta).

3. Both the NBCC and the universities are graduating hundreds of folks each year for which there is almost no chance of a job in their field in New Brunswick. I have seen graduate follow surveys for both universities and colleges that showed the #1 reason why graduates took a job out of the province was a lack of opportunity in New Brunswick.

4. Despite high tuition, NBCC and university education is highly subsidized by taxpayers so every graduate that leaves New Brunswick takes thousands - maybe as much as 20k or more of public subsidization with them.

5. Until recently, British Columbia had the highest education levels in the population and the lowest level of university students (they have recently added a large number of seats, I am told). That is because the university graduate pool in Canada is highly mobile. Biz grads end up in B.C., IT grads in Waterloo, nurses in Texas.


So my position on this at the macro level is simple:

Educational opportunities need to be aligned with workforce needs in New Brunswick. Period. No more biology if there are no jobs for biologists. No more aircraft maintenance if all the grads are going off to Montreal or Halifax. No more, you get the picture.

The way you do this is much more alignment between the economic development plan and the education plan.

The post-secondary educational system should continue to foster mobility between the communities. I don't think we need to have a college and university in every town offering a full suite of programming. So we should be more deliberate about this. However, we also need to be very realistic. For example, anglophones in Moncton now have among the lowest - if not the lowest - rates of university graduates in all of Canada. So to make the point that Moncton kids should go to UNB and move back or whatever - that doesn't seem to be working.

And this is problematic on a number of fronts. The lack of university education among Anglos in Moncton is dragging down average incomes (still well below SJ and Freddy) and ultimately will be a lid on growth.

However, the good news is that Moncton is starting to attract Anglo university educated folks from across Canada. I know people from Calgary, Toronto, Halifax and Vancouver that have brought their diplomas with them.

To take a 'suck it up, Moncton' attitude towards this problem wouldn't be wise. If Moncton's Anglo population was as educated as Freddy Beaches Anglo population, New Brunswick's university educated rate would be close to the national average. Now, it is second from the bottom. I'm not going to say "as goes Moncton, so goes New Brunswick" but Greater Moncton is the largest population base in New Brunswick - so you figure it out.

I hate it when economists try and boil everything down to a pie chart. The Globe & Mail is reporting this morning on a new report from The Centre for the Study of Living Standards called “The Impact of Interprovincial Migration on Aggregate Output and Labour Productivity in Canada, 1987-2006”. The report concludes:

The increase in interprovincial migration in Canada, and in particular the large net
in-migration to Alberta, has contributed to output growth. In 2006, it estimated that
interprovincial migration added nearly one billion dollars to the Canadian economy when
output is expressed in constant 1997 dollars, and nearly 2 billion when expressed in
current dollars.

Essentially, what they are trying to say is that taking 2,000 people a per year (net) out of New Brunswick (8,000 per year out of Ontario) and moving them to Alberta is really good for the national economy - to the tune of $2 billion per year in 'output' (all provinces combined).

Now, this same group a few years ago issued a report that recommended the federal government provide financial incentives to Atlantic Canadians on EI to move to Alberta.

OK, let's think this through. The CSLS has this as its mandate:

[The CSLS] is a non-profit, national, independent organization that seeks to contribute to a better understanding of trends in and determinants of productivity, living standards and economic and social well-being through research.

Put aside productivity for a moment. How does the CSLS pushing public policy makers to empty out certain regions of the country to fuel the growth of other areas 'contribute to a better understanding of the determinants of 'living standards' or 'social well being'?

Make no mistake. There is very little ideologically neutral research. This report goes to great lengths to make the case for more mobility of people from poor to rich areas.

I have a little different view. Call me a contrarian.

The Globe's headline reads:

Migration west adds $2-billion to national economy
My headline would read (if I could get published):

Migration west over time seriously eroding the social and economic fabric of whole regions of the Canadian economy...

..which could lead ultimately to serious social unrest.

You see most (or many) economists just look at numbers. They are not so good at the human side of the equation.

I have said before that the free flow of goods, services, capital, ideas and people within a country is healthy for a national economy. When one area overheats, another one should rise. When there is a surplus here, it should feed a deficit there. I, on an economic level, have no problem with that.

But my position assumes a two-way flow. That there will be ebbs and flows. A sustained one-way flow for years (now moving into decades - New Brunswick has exported more people to other provinces than imported for 14 straight years) leads to serious social and economic challenges.

Consider an analogy from the corporate world (I know, indulge me). If an automobile company starts to lose market share to another (say New Brunswick Auto Co. Inc. NBACI as the former and Alberta Auto Co. Inc. AACI as the latter), it will start to take increasingly serious measure to protect its market share. Eventually, market forces will dictate radical changes or the NBACI will either go bankrupt or be acquired.

Now, consider that the NBACI and the AACI are both partially owned by the Canadian Auto Co. Inc. CACI. The CACI may continue to cross-subsidize the NBACI with profits from the AACI (like GM has done for years with its brands) but eventually if the NBACI doesn't become profitable, the CACI will shut it down.

Now, in the aggregate economic sense, maybe the CACI is better off with out the NBACI.

But we are talking about freakin' cars here - not communities of people that have existed for hundreds of years.

So, all this to say that I think the CSLS is a front for the Alberta government. It's not about social well-being at all because social-well-being is about community and while people may be better off financially by moving to Alberta - you can't tell me that breaking up families, social networks and communities to the scale that is going right now is good for the social well being of Canada.

Again, I don't blame Alberta. Giddy up. I blame public policy makers in the poor provinces and nationally who use studies like this to ease their consciences. No pain, no gain. They say.

I realize that the de facto public policy advocated both federally and provincially for at least the last 15 years was to slowly empty poor regions of 'surplus' people to areas of Canada that need them. This is obvious by the way governments' are spending their money and writing their policy.

But I am not sure they haven't replaced one problem with another. Communities with high unemployment and low productivity because of very high seasonal employment are a drag on public finances (directly and indirectly). That labour would be better used in Alberta (from a technical perspective). But what is the bigger goal here? What do you do to a country when you slowly erode whole regions to feed others?

I gotta go but I'll make one last point because it is huge.

When you read this report, you will likely say 'yikes' when you see the Ontario out-migration figures. An average of 8,000 out per year since 2001.

Well, don't lose your shorts.

Ontario receives more immigrants per year than Alberta, Manitoba, SK, NB, NS, PEI and NL combined.

Heck, Moncton has a positive in-migration from Ontario (the last time I looked was 2004). When you are bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants, losing a few people to Alberta is not that bad.

New Brunswick, however; and many other provinces, has the out-migration and virtually no immigration.

This is a massive difference.

FatKat's at it again. You gotta like it.

New York-based Animation Collective and Canadian-based Fatkat Studios, today announced a co-venture for the new, 26 half-hour episode action-comedy, animated series, "Three Delivery." The announcement was made at COMIC-CON International, a comic book and entertainment industry trade show in San Diego. "Three Delivery" was created by Larry Schwarz, Animation Collective's founder and C.E.O.

I've said it before, guys like Donald Savoie are few and far between in Atl. Canada. The TJ has an article today that covers his thoughts on self-sufficiency. Now in all fairness, I like Savoie because I like his ideas. If you don't like his ideas it's likely you won't feel the same way as me. But regardless of ideology, you have to appreciate his 38 books. His appointments. His respect in a wide variety of circles.

Premier Shawn Graham needs to be ".... the province's best salesman." \
I agree. However, unlike McKenna, I would recommend that Graham build a very strong team of sales people for New Brunswick. This can't be a one man show.

Savoie conceded that "the bar [self-sufficiency] is set very high." "But I'd rather set the bar high than just give up. That's why I've been supportive of the self-sufficiency agenda."
Contrast this with Jeannot actually 'laughing' at the self-sufficiency agenda.

However, like me, Savoie is not tied to arbitrary dates - rather to measurable progress.

But Savoie said he doesn't believe in either magic bullets or in artificial deadlines. What's needed, he said, is a sense of urgency and to have multiple initiatives - from tax incentives to infrastructure investments to having the federal government onside to, of course, salesmanship - all heading in the same direction. "If at 2026 we're not there yet, we just keep going," he said. "2026 is not Christmas. It's just another year."


I like the Telegraph-Journal. Sure, it has an Irving bias but I guess that's to be expected. However, they have been publishing some smart stuff lately - thinking man's stuff - about the self-sufficiency agenda. Contrast that with the dopey, mealy mouthed stuff we see in the T&T.

You see, now this is an instructive example. The Canadian government sets up something called Sustainable Development Technology Canada to invest in clean technology development.

I, among others, have said multiple times that part of the 'energy hub' concept in New Brunswick should be clean energy technologies and related products. But, of course, not one project in this round of funding goes to a New Brunswick project.

In fact, since April 2002, SDTC has completed ten funding rounds, committed $285 million to 125 clean technology projects. Guest how much has gone to New Brunswick projects? $2.3 million. 0.8% of the total funding. Less than one per cent. Of course, 0.8% is better than the 0.2% from this fund.

The truth is simple. New Brunswick spends all its time begging for more Equalization and social transfers while all the Federal funding programs designed to stimulate economic development go virtually untouched.

This is nothing short of a shame. Billions of Federal dollars - SDTC, TPC, NSERC, NRC, on and on - New Brunswick gets a fraction of anything close to 'per capita' dollars but for welfare, we get well above 'per capita' dollars.

And now, Daulton McGuinty has fought for and won the new federal policy of serving up Health and Social Transfers on a 'per capita' basis.

One has to wonder if old Daulton would agree to all the SDTC, TPC, NSERC, NRC, etc. dollars to be divvied up 'per capita' (Ontario gets the lion's share of virtually all these programs - Quebec second).

Some enterprising and cranky researcher should do the math. Take the billions in R&D the feds spend in Ontario. Take all the economic develpment programs (like those mentioned here) spent in Ontario. Take all the federal government employment in Ontario. Divvy that all up 'per capita' (like old Daulton gets for health and social transfers) and see if New Brunswick comes out ahead.

That would be a lot of work but an interesting project. I, for one, would take economic development leveraging funds over EI or even Equalization any day.

I can say the self-sufficiency plan is likely too ambitious. So can professors at UNB. So can pundits and journalists. But the Leader of the Opposition has to be a lot more politically correct, in my opinion. Here's an excerpt from the TJ article this morning:

New Brunswick will find it next to impossible to achieve the economic growth Premier Shawn Graham's self-sufficiency agenda is counting on, argues Opposition leader Jeannot Volpé - who says New Brunswickers intuitively know it.

"That theme of self-sufficiency - a lot of people are starting to laugh about it now," Volpé said Tuesday.

"I don't think we can attain this kind of growth in New Brunswick," said Volpé, who was finance minister for several years under former premier Bernard Lord.


You see, the problem here is that Volpe is suggesting that New Brunswick can't achieve strong economic growth. That we can't compete. That we can never be self-sufficient. In fact, he thinks people are even laughing at the idea.

Under Volpe's tenure as Finance Minister, Canada went through an unprecedented level of economic and population growth. In New Brunswick, all we could manage was a slight population decline and a significant increase in dependence on Equalization (the opposite of self-sufficiency). So, it is only natural for Volpe to be skeptical - even laughing - at this objective.

But politically, the Tories need a leader that can cast a vision for New Brunswick that is growth oriented. That talks to rebuilding our communities. And, yes, to getting the province on a more stable, own source revenue-driven fiscal situation.

Casting a 'can't do' vision for New Brunswick should not be the goal of the Opposition Leader.

He/she can disagree with how the governing party is doing things - in fact that is in reality part of their job - but they must provide an alternative view.

I think New Brunswickers are sick and tired of being the arse end of Canada economically speaking. I think they are tired of watching their friends and neighbours going down the road. I don't think they are overly militant or passionate about it - after all - most of us that are left are working - but I think New Brunswick's political parties - if they want to attract voters - need to start seriously addressing these issues.

I think this is key for the next Tory leader.

And I think this is key for Shawn Graham. I predict that if after four years we are no further ahead on self-sufficiency; if our population is still stagnant and if the vast majority of our communities are still shedding population; his government may be in jeopardy.

I think that gone are the days of an automatic 10-15 or even 17 years for a Premier in New Brunswick. Look at 2003. After only one term, former Premier Lord just hang on by the skin of his teeth.

I predict the same fate awaits any Premier these days that talks up a storm (prosperity plans, etc.) but is seen to be doing very little.

So, I am looking forward to the Tory convention and election of a new leader. We need to get beyond the Volpe years.

The TJ is running a story today called "Province needs to grow like Alberta" which concludes that:

Self-sufficiency Analysis shows gross domestic product must outstrip Canadian average by 1.5 points to achieve 20-year goal. "To achieve self-sufficiency, New Brunswick will have to dramatically improve its productivity and obtain sustained GDP growth rates comparable to Alberta's - at least in comparison to the current national average," UNB's Foord and McLaughlin say in the analysis."

To me this is self-evident (and I discussed this in several blogs). I have said several times that Alberta-style growth would be required to meet the self-sufficiency targets.

But the other statement that I find interesting is:

Under that scenario [current trend] , "New Brunswick receives payments for hospitals, schools, colleges and universities, and in return offers up its youth as surplus labour for deployment in other parts of Canada and elsewhere," say Foord and McLaughlin.

You say potato, I say potahto. This is my labour market incubator theory (or rather historical observation).

In fact, a cynic might say that this model works just find for the 'have' provinces. Pay us Equalization to cover the cost of developing tens of thousands of workers for their labour markets.

The opposite - a model where New Brunswick is actually attracting workers from Ontario, et. al. while still receiving Equalization - would like to lead to additional stresses on Confederation.

It would upset the apple cart so to speak.

But at least more and more folks are starting realize this stuff.

I'm watching the kids this week while my wife is away. My son tells me that I am doing both the 'dad' and 'mom' thing this week.

So, he says, are you a combination of 'dad' and 'mom' or dom (pronounced dumb) or 'mom' and 'dad' or mad.

Hmmm.

I just read the T&T story about New Brunswick's population challenge. Apparently the government is looking at baby bonuses and other incentives to encourage more procreation.

Sigh.

Spending more money to incubate Ontario and Alberta's future workforce. I hope they appreciate it.

Alberta has the youngest workforce in Canada. Why? Because of 'baby bonuses'? No, I'm afraid it's because there are more than enough jobs for young people to move there.

Maybe policy makers should start connecting a few dots. 14 straight years of net out-migration. More people moving out every year than moving in.

The economy, despite all the exhortations of LeBreton and Hogan, has not created enough jobs to just sustain the people that are here - let alone attract positive in-migration.

I have said it here on dozens of occasions. Enough so that most readers will be sick of it. But citizens are the most expensive to society at two phases of their lives: youth and old age.

Now we have policy makers seriously looking at incentives to encourage more baby creation. Heck, why not encourage senior citizens to move here as well? Why not tax breaks for the old timers? We know all their pension, RRSP and RIFF money is invested in companies in Toronto, Chicago and Beijing but what the heck, they'll need to buy bread.

That's great public policy. Create more people that take more out of the system than put in.

How, exactly, is this related to self sufficiency?

Let me give you my vision of the thing.

Why not let Ontario, Quebec, heck, Alberta - pay for the kids while they are in public schools, using public health care, a cost to society and when they graduate from heavily subsidized universities in those jurisdictions, then have jobs in New Brusnwick for them. We'll turn the tables. Let Ontario become our labour market incubator for a few decades.


Of course, this is all my not-so-successful attempt at tongue in cheek. But the underlying principle is valid. Unless we see serious structural changes to New Brunswick's economic development any attempts to create more babies or attract more immigrants or any other 'population' activities will be futile.

And as I said a couple of blogs ago, the Population Secretariat boss and the economic development boss should be bed buddies (in the plutonic sense). The economic development boss should say he/she is expecting New Brunswick to create employment for 1,500 animators over the next five years. The population tzar should then go out and find them.

As for longer term strategies like baby bonuses? They brag about Quebec's program but out-migration from Quebec has been almost as high as New Brunswick. It's great to create all those little Quebeqois but if they all end up in California what's the public policy point?


POSTSCRIPT:

I just wanted to add another point here. The T&T article talks about how Acadian groups are trying to get these 'baby bonuses' and other similar incentives. They want the population strategy to recognize the importance of family at the centre of community.

I agree with them. But I think they need to get the focus back on the economic revitalization of Acadian communities rather than some stimulative population strategies. From 1991 to 2001, we know that the population of New Brunswick that is mother tongue French dropped by 2% while mother tongue English actually rose 1%.

On the youth population side, this is even more stark. The population of persons with French as their mother tongue and aged 25 years or less dropped from 84,000 in 1991 to 67,500 in 2001 - a drop of 19.5%. Imagine if there was Dieppe. That number would be considerably higher.

So my point is even more valid. Acadian groups need to redouble their efforts to revitalize the economy. The fact is that while the vast majority of Acadian youth would prefer to stay in New Brunswick - they are moving out for economic reasons at unprecedented rates. They may move back some day to retire but by then it may be too late in more ways than one.

Ever have one of those moments where you just couldn't stop laughing? I mean bend over gut pain laughing?

That's what happened when I read this.

Poor old George Bush. He's blamed for bringing down the Middle East. For stirring up Russia. For destabilizing Pakistan. For fomenting anti-Americanism around the world.

And now, according to Maude, he has turned his evil eye towards Canada. No, not all of Canada. Little old Atlantic Canada. Bush wants to "take over Atlantic Canada".

Now, I realize that everyone with a cause these days evokes the name of George Bush to get their desired effect. "Oh, that restaurant is crap. George Bush ate there." "George Bush is responsible for global warming." "George Bush is behind the bad weather in the U.K."

But of all the areas that George Bush would want to take over, why would he ever want Atlantic Canada?

It's kind of neat. I say bring it on. Maybe it would finally shut Maude Barlow up.

I usually don't link to blog comment - particularly when it doesn't espouse anything new or make any interesting points. However, I did find this a bit cheeky:

A conversation on a bloggers' listserve and with a visiting colleague raises a generic policy question we should have much more debate about, and in public. It comes in two distinct sizes that may have different answers.

"What should be done about places that have lost their economic reason to be populated?"
or
"Is there a humane way government can help obsolete regions to grow small gracefully?"

I'm thinking about places like Atlantic Canada, the Northern Great Plains, New Orleans, some swathes of the rust belt at the large scale, and poverty-blighted urban neighborhoods at the small (most of inner Detroit).

Now, I don't know who this blogger is but the fact that Atl. Canada gets rolled in as one of the examples is interesting.

Maybe that's a good place to start all of our discussions: is Atlantic Canada 'obsolete'?

I just find the dismissal or the brushing over of the massive direct government investment to grow successful economies (even the most successful areas like Silicon Valley were the beneficiaries of tens of billions in government funding - things like R&D, large scale government facilities and direct subsidies to industry).

Is Atlantic Canada 'obsolete' because of a lack of government interest in supporting economic development? Again, I'm not talking about corporate welfare or large scale income support programs like EI - I'm talking about deliberate strategies to grow specific sectors with investments in education, R&D, infrastructure, etc. We might call this the 'Donald Savoie' version of obsoletion.

or

Is Atlantic Canada 'obsolete' because of some long term structural, inability of the region's economy to be self sufficient? Are the region's industries destined to decline without massive subsidies? We might call this the emerging 'conventional wisdom'.

Ultimately, of course, that's silly. Highly successful economies have developed in some of the worst places you could imagine. Think about Phoenix - one of the fastest growing economies in North America. It's a desert for crying out loud. Look at Finland - considered by a number of international measurements as in the top five locations in the world to live.

Is Atlantic Canada at the arse end of the North American economy or strategically positioned between Europe (and the Indian subcontinent via the Suez) as the gateway to North America?

My position on this is simple. Communities 'depopulate' or "lose their economic reason to be populated" when community and industry officials give up. When they throw in the towel. Over a 200 year period, there are many examples of communities reinventing themselves several times over. It's not because a specific industry or specific economic activity starts to dry up that communities must die. Rather, they must reinvent themselves. And that requires community leadership - and yes government leadership and involvement.

So, in conclusion, I disagree with the 'generic policy question' raised above. If you ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer.

I see that Enterprise Restigouche has an RFP out for a 'repopulation strategy'. I hope they select a firm to do this work that understands the direct correlation between population and economy.

This, I submit, should be somewhat self-evident. However, having talked with and read the reports of a number of 'immigration' or 'population' consultants in New Brunswick - I have lost faith in its self-evidence. For example, I read last year a 90 page immigration strategy for a community that covered everything from integration, the need for language lessons, the need for the community to be more immigrant friendly, etc. - hardly a mention of economy. Now, when I talked with the consultant about this the response was "economic development was not part of the mandate".

Whoa.

The immigration strategy had as its vision a strategy that would lead to more recruitment and retention of immigrants. Again, that whole self-evidency thing - it would seem that economy is embedded in the mandate.

Now, communities may wish to develop a 'population' strategy and an 'economic development' strategy separately. Fine. But unless they are completely aligned one or both will be doomed to fail. If you can't stimulate economic development - you will not attract migrants or immigrants and if you can't ensure a supply of workers - you will not have economic development.

So my advice to the folks at Enterprise Restigouche is to ask that question of every potential consultant. Anyone claiming that you can develop a 'repopulation strategy' in an economic vacuum should be turfed immediately.

This is good news.

The New Brunswick government triumphed over rival locations to secure a US$1.6-billion investment by the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. to build a second mine in Sussex that will generate 140 new full-time jobs. Premier Shawn Graham joined Garth Moore, president of PCS Potash, at the surprise announcement on Friday morning shortly before stock markets opened. Potash Corp. is the world's largest fertilizer company and this investment will boost its New Brunswick potash production to two-million tonnes annually from 800,000 tonnes.

140 jobs. Wouldn't it be neat if we could attract the users of that potash to do some manufacturing here?

But there is another learning here to be sure. Here's an excerpt:

Starting in January, Arseneault (the Minister) said his staff, particularly Barry and Sam McEwan, the department's director of minerals and petroleum development, worked tirelessly at developing the royalty holiday incentive package. The minister met with Moore in New Brunswick on four occasions and lined up meetings with the ministers of environment and Business New Brunswick.

Hmmm. We work 'tirelessly' to develop a 'royalty holiday incentive package' for potash while at the same time show complete disinterest to develop a 'royalty holiday incentive package' to make some use out of the natural gas that is located in that very same area.

I know for a fact that local stakeholders were petitioning the government to come up with a 'royalty holiday incentive package' for natural gas to encourage economic development.

I find that curious. Anyone have an explanation?