I just finished reading excerpts from Jeannot Volpe's response to the Speech from the Thone yesterday and was reminded of why this blog exists in the first place. For those of you that have not read this thing for a long time, I will give you the thumbnail sketch of why I do what I do.

In 1999, I was toiling away at the Greater Moncton Economic Commission trying to attract industry to this region and having some, measured success. We were continuing to attract call centres and I had just landed OAO Technology Solutions which was a major coup. OAO is an IT firm that has 120 people in their Moncton office. At that time, they were projecting as many as 300-400. Anyway, Moncton was in a battle with Freddy Beach for this project and I got a call from the provincial government rep on the file who told me to 'let it go', that this was a done deal for Fredericton. Maybe not, we had a few tricks up our sleeve and they came here.

At that time, I was also working diligently with Bob Camastro, VP of Virtual Agent Services. VAS had a wacky idea of putting small call centre 'pods' in rural communities all over New Brunswick and linking them together as a 'virtual call centre'. Little did we know they would end up with 17 of these pods throughout New Brunswick and are now the second largest call centre in the province.

But then came the election of 1999. Opposition leader Bernard Lord uttered for me the three most dreaded words in economic development. He called for a "made in New Brunswick" solution for economic development. He decried McKenna's efforts to attract industry and said "we can do better". That was the beginning of the end for me. About 18 months later I had left GMEC in frustration over the lack of interest in any real economic development at the province and started doing some consulting. In 2004, David Jonah convinced me to take the message to the general public through this blog which has evolved into the TJ column and numerous other mass media commentary.

Life is full of little ironies and one of the best for me is that more call centre jobs were created under Bernard Lord than Frank McKenna. Sure, the majority of them were from companies that had decided to come here before Lord arrived on the scene but that didn't matter. Lord supplemented the 10k call centre jobs created during his time in office with another 17-18k public sector jobs and boasted of the success of his economic development policies.

In reality, economic development spending dropped by 50% (as a percentage of government spending) under Bernard Lord and more frustratingly, so did over effort and interest.

I often wonder what would have happened if Lord had come in to office claiming that he could "do better" than McKenna on economic development. That he would be doubling the focus on economic development. That he, unlike McKenna, would finally slay the population decline beast and make New Brunswick a place that attracts people as opposed to repelling them. But he didn't and despite a record level of public sector jobs created and the call centre jobs, New Brunswick slipped further behind.

So, now we sit in 2007. Shawn Graham is almost mimicking the words of McKenna circa 20 years ago. We shall see what he does. Government spending under Bernard Lord went up by an incredible 45% despite a stagnant population growth (from the last budget delivered by the Liberals in 1999 to the current Liberal budget in 2007). The budget has increased by $1.9 billion in that timeframe while economic development spending dropped by $45 million.

So the issue for Graham is simple. If the budget goes up by another $1.9 billion under his tenure (the largest increase during Lord's time came from Equalization), how much of that will go to economic development investments? Will he cut them further?

One thing is for sure. I'll stick around and hold them somewhat accountable to their grand rhetoric.

And back to Volpe for a minute. I have to believe there is a lesson in here for the next leader of the Conservatives. It is clear from the Volpe era that governments can spend money willy nilly. It doesn't matter if population drops. Government spending is almost always going up up up.

What you do with the money, that's what matters.

Like a lot of bloggers, columnists, radio talk show hosts, etc. I tend to get fixated on a subject for awhile and then back off. My current target of choice is the CFIB.

The Premier of Ontario goes on a bender last night - a veritable orgy of economic development 'picking winners' and I can't find a single negative comment in any of the Ontario papers from the CFIB. Here's a few examples:

Setting up the "new Next Generation Jobs Fund, which will create new good, high-paying jobs by developing new clean and green technologies".

Increase support for the rural economic development fund by 50 per cent.

Increasing funding for festivals and events around Ontario, and expanding marketing initiatives to promote Ontario destinations.

Work with the forestry industry through initiatives like the Forest Sector Prosperity Fund.

Bolster regional economic expansion and jobs in northern Ontario by increasing the Northern Heritage Fund to $100 million, and in eastern Ontario by creating a new Eastern Ontario Development Fund.


Why no outrage from the CFIB in Ontario? Tourism. Forestry, Sustainable Technologies. All 'picking winners'.

I have an emerging theory that the CFIB was coddled under Bernard Lord and maybe now the bloom is coming off the rose a bit.

Shipley's got a piece in the TJ this morning that quotes an expert saying that the intellectual heft at provincial universities should be engaged by the government and its self-sufficiency agenda.


But where others failed, Graham could succeed - if he taps into the hundreds of men and women at the province's universities who are paid to be critical thinkers, said Kurt Peacock, the Crabtree visiting scholar at the University of New Brunswick. Peacock is a researcher working with UNB faculty and outside agencies on public policy in New Brunswick.


Too often the entire burden of turning political dreams into economic reality has fallen almost entirely on the civil service, said Peacock. "There isn't that culture of sharing ideas between the academe and the civil service that you see in other parts of Canada."


You will recall that I have been recommending that the government fund an external economic development research institute - loosely fashioned on the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity in Ontario. I would like to see it provide an annual, objective economic report card on provincial economic progress (something that is not available anywhere now). This would be similar to Jeannot Volpe's economic 'report card' only without the ridiculous politics attached.


I would also like it to publish 5-6 major research works each year - with direct, tangible and actionable research for New Brunswick. Topics such as "What works: A review of the benefits of attracting multinational investment - learnings for New Brunswick" or "Evolving from place-based economic development - application to Northern New Brunswick" or "Documenting the symbiotic relationship between large and small business in successful economies" or "Using language as an economic development driver: Best practices" or "Transforming peripheral economies: What can we learn from Wales?" or "Why do New Brunswick corporations contribute less tax to the provincial budget than all other provinces in Canada (except BC)?* - Is there a coorelation between low taxes paid and economic growth/decline?"


And that is my problem with another academic institute. They have no sense of time and little ability to draw a straight line between academic research and much needed policy guidance. Too much "chi squared" and not enough getting hands dirty. If an external economic development institute was funded, I would recommend that tight output requirements be established so that the Phds don't wander through poppy fields for five years and publish one report with marginally interesting findings.

*This is true. If you look at corporate income and capital taxes paid in all 10 provinces, only British Columbia has a lower % of their total revenue from this source. However, in BC this is more than offset by natural resources revenue.

I wonder if the CFIB will criticize this. The Association of Canadian Academic Healthcare Organizations (ACAHO), the national voice of Teaching Hospitals, Regional Health Authorities and their Research Institutes has released a report which provides a framework for the country's health research enterprise.

Oh no. Targeting the health research sector. They are calling for billions in investment in the health research sector. Tisk. Tisk. Why not a tax break for small biz? We shouldn't be picking winners and losers.

At some point, most sane and rational people will understand the need to focus economic development efforts.

First, when I compare economic development spending in the column today, it's not a complete apples to apples comparison. I take economic development, tourism and culture from 1999 and add in parks and compare that to Business New Brunswick and Tourism and Parks in 2007. One of the neat little tricks that old Bernie did in 1999 was to carve up the old EDT so that an apples to apples comparison would be harder to do. However, dropping from $140M to $95M is hard to ignore.

Second, I can't believe all the negative reaction to focusing on a few key economic sectors. The CFIB dragged out the dreaded 'picking winners' analogy. this is the biggest piece of crap I have ever heard. Hasn't Alberta 'picked' oil & gas? Hasn't Ontario 'picked' automotive? Life sciences? Hasn't Quebec 'picked' animation? Pharma? Hasn't Ontario 'picked' financial services? Hasn't Nova Scotia 'picked' financial services and Aerospace? Doesn't the Federal government have eight strategic sectors for investment attraction? This is just crap. The government has scarce resources to spend on research and development, on industry training, on infrastructure development, etc. Getting focused makes all the sense in the world and these guys with their vested interests will just lead the government back down the road of doing nothing.

Let me tell you about the CFIB. They want the government to 'pick' a sector. It's just that they want that sector to be 'small business'. They are a vested interest - a powerful vested interest - and I believe have exerted undue influence on the government over the years because small business owners - all 20k of them - live in local communities, vote and employ local voters. IBM or Xerox do not give a rip about local politics. They will set up in Saint John if it makes good business sense.

As I said yesterday, I still can't figure out what the CFIB's problem is. The small business sector has been absolutely booming in Alberta and British Columbia - because they have a far better mix of multinational business investment and local business investment than New Brunswick. You would think that they would be the first out of the gate supporting efforts to attract industry.

Anyhoo.

And as for me, yes, I am a vested interest too. I admit to that. Policy makers would be well advised not to just follow any one approach to the letter and would be foolish to just take old David Campbell's word on it. However, my positions (most of them) here come from 18 years of research and study of some of the most successful regions in the world. They come from pouring over reams of economic data and they come from my experience working with 29 different municipalities.

I understand that in the Throne speech Premier Graham emphasizes the need to attract business here. This will, naturally, bring out the protest cries from the CFIB, the NB Biz Council, unions, and social policy types. Oh, and the Chamber of Commerce types who have been known to criticize efforts to attract industry.

So, I will put aside my "what are we selling message" to do some clarification for you on the process of generating economic activity.

You basically have six types of businesses. Let's leave aside government for a minute (but don't forget about government - it has been a major contributor to employment growth in the past eight years in New Brunswick):

Microbusinesses - 10 or less employees (local market only)
Microbusinesses - 10 or less employees (emerging as potential serious exporters)
Small to medium sized businesses (local market only) - under a couple of hundred employees
Small to medium sized businesses (exporters) - under a couple of hundred employees
Large businesses (local market only) - 200+ employees
Large businesses (exporters) - 200+ employees

Now, we know that 96% of firms in New Brunswick have less than 50 employees. We also know that Irving alone accounts for about 60% of all exports. When you add in the other big boys McCain, pulp mills, minerals and electricity (and seafood) you get up to around 95% of total exports. So that leaves 5% of our exports coming from everyone else.

Translation? Almost all of our micro to medium businesses do not export and therefore derive virtually all their business on local market activity.

Now, how do you grow an economy? This is a complex issue and hard to fully cover here but I have tried somewhat over the past 1,550 posts.

But I'll pose this question. If you take an economy ceteris paribus and add 50 plumbers (assuming there were enough before), does that generate economic growth? No, that just divides the plumbing business up between more plumbers.

If you take an economy ceteris paribus and add 100 data centre specialists managing data from around the world for Google, does that generate eocnomic growth? Yes. In addition to the jobs in the data centre, you need 0.2 lawyers, 0.15 plumbers, one grocery store clerk and one civil servant.

I put this to my brother once. If you set up 50 small businesses in the Miramichi will that lead to the setting up of a pulp mill? No. If you set up a pulp mill, that will lead, however; to 50 new small businesses.

That in a nutshell is the issue. There are only two ways to grow an economy - attract economic activity here through investment and trade or make the economic activity here more productive. That's it.

So, if all those economists and policy wonks at the CFIB would look at the successful provinces in Canada, they would see a symbiotic relationship between the small to medium sized local business and the multinational firms. When you attract international business (and I think you can actually overdo it - but New Brunswick has never been close to that except with call centres), they use local suppliers, their employees shop in local stores, their homes are constructed by local contractors, etc.

Sure, it puts upward pressure on wages. Sure it tightens the labour market. But that is a good thing!

Check this out. Scroll down to the bottom. You will see that only Newfoundland has a lower Ratio of jobs/population than New Brunswick.

We must crank up business investment in New Brunswick. The kind of business investment that leads to taxes paid. The kind that leads to good paying jobs that will attract immigrants and migrants. The kind that will move us down the road to self-sufficiency.

And I'll debate that until my fingers fall off.

Now that's the final straw. Nothing for New Brunswick but Siberia?

You will have to excuse me this morning. I'm suffering from a kind of cultural whiplash and the collar is making it hard to type.

On Sunday, I saw the Coen brothers' No Country for Old Men and last night I saw Symphony New Brunswick do Handel's Messiah.

And the New Brunswickers actually stood up for the Hallelujah Chorus. Oh, the humanity.

We have come along way from when Burt Reynolds' Smokey and the Bandit was playing in the Capitol Theatre here in Moncton. Now its all opera, ballet and symphonies (although we say SNB in a church).

I am sorry to say we haven't made similar strides in our economic development. We keep dragging out the same old tired thinking from the late 1970s.

If I was advising municipal officials in all three southern NB cities, I'd declare November 27th the official Call Centre Day because without the 15k cc jobs, New Brunswick would have been hammered over the last 15 years. Our IT sector has languished - one of the worst job creation records in North America. Our manufacturing sector is stagnant if not in outright decline. Our tourism - despite all the yakking is back at mid 1990 levels in revenue. And our boys and gals in Freddy Beach are sitting around crossing their fingers hoping that the Irvings and Sussex gas will save the day.

It is interesting to note that the restoration of the Capitol, the establishment of the ballet and opera companies as well as the Symphony were all led by individuals and not government. Government put a few bucks on the table, by in all cases, the cultural/arts initiatives - Northrop Frye Festival, etc. - are led by the private sector.

It would be interesting to see the private sector get interested in economic development. Not vested interested promotion like the NB Biz Council - but genuine economic development. How about an NSBI model with NB Biz Council types actually leading an initiative charged with attracting firms to New Brunswick. Yikes. They'd have to rip up their position papers.

I mentioned it before but it's worth repeating that a Ganong in the 1950s was pushing hard for the establishment of an office in England to attract U.K. investment to the Maritimes. I wonder if this generation of Ganongs is making a similar pitch?

As an aside, it's kind of funny that the SSAP never even mentions setting up foreign offices for investment attraction. Ontario has eight, I believe. I hear Quebec has close to 100 people in France working on investment, trade and diplomatic files. Even Alberta has, I believe, eight offices around the world.

NB has zip. In fact, Atlantic Canada has zip. Maybe we should all just think real hard - you know like the The Secret - and business investment will levitate here.


PS - By teh way Burt Reynolds is one of my favourite actors.

I see the Self Sufficiency Action Plan is quoting Alec Bruce:

It’s all very well to talk about New Brunswick’s emerging industrial clusters, technology centres of excellence, and innovative economic sectors, but none of it means much when the crucial resource needed to power these initiatives is vanishing. As absurdly simple as it sounds, people, not governments, build long-term economic capacity. They launch businesses, invent new products and services, and employ relatives, friends, and strangers. They inspire others to become entrepreneurs, exporters, teachers, lawyers, doctors, architects and engineers. They enrich and diversify the culture. They buy stuff, and they pay taxes.
Alec Bruce, Voice of the People Telegraph Journal (May 4, 2007)

In my mind, the true test of the success of this government will be their ability to quote Alec Bruce after three or four years in power. When his BS-O-Meter starts to go off, they will likely not be able to find many quotes to use. The flip side of that is if they actually start to do what they say they will be doing, maybe Bruce will be kind.

I'd like to make a point on the Self Sufficiency Action Plan. I supposed there will be many of these going forward. Anyway, my little Internet stalker doesn't much care for French. That combined with the seemingly disinterest in leveraging our bilingual skill leads me to this post.

First off, I know that New Brunswick duality of language can be an area of stress. Some Anglophones have concerns as do many Francophones. I am following the debate now in the United States and many respectable intellectuals argue that having more than one language is problematic in a culture and community. I don't even claim to have the intellectual capacity nor the expertise to debate this issue. All I know is that New Brunswick has made bilingualism a priority. The province (rightly in my opinion) legislatively and formally believes the Acadian people, culture and language is an integral part of our past and future.

So, there will naturally be an economic dimension to this - both good and bad. This will impose a higher cost to society in the areas of translation, education and possibly the lost opportunity cost of unilingual folks leaving the province.

But there is a flipside. Namely, our bilingualism should be a key strength and open up significant economic opportunity.

Depersonalize this for a minute. If the state of Idaho went out and spent the next 20 years and $5 billion to teach every Idahoan Chinese, that would be an incredible advantage for that state. They would have an increased ability to attract investment and trade, provide translation and content localization services, develop software and other media products in Chinese, etc.

Now leave Idaho and come to New Brunswick where we have made that level of investment in the promotion of French and English in our province. We have more than 1/3 of our people that claim to speak both French and English. So, we have leveraged this into serious economic development opportunities, right?

Wrong. Nova Scotia has attracted more French investment. Manitoba has attracted more French entrepreneurs. Alberta has attracted more French immigrants. And as for industry, Quebec has something like 91% of the translation business in Canada. New Brunswick has 2%. One survey has only 1 in 5 call centre workers is now bilingual.

That brings me to the self-sufficiency action plan. No mention of trying to leverage our bilingualism for economic development.

We should be a global leader in French language online learning for skills development in French North Africa. We should be developing French language versions of popular English language software and games. We should be a translation hub for the public and private sectors. We should be providing national technical support for the country's IT firms. We should be a global centre of excellence in language translation and localization.

Sigh.

Sorry I haven't posted for a couple of days but I have been flat on my back with something sinister. Maybe the Lord smote me so that I would be kind to the self-sufficiency action plan announced yesterday.

Certainly, it would be tempting to react like the TJ did with it's story entitled "Man of inaction". the T&T was more kind with its "first step" reaction. After 14 months and four years in opposition, having another broad framework document is a "first step". All I can say is that when Al Hogan turns on you, and he will, it will be hell on wheels. Shawn would be well advised to remember the 11 straight days during the 1999 election campaign when Al had a toll highway story on the front page to grind away at Camille.

I think my column this week in the TJ will help (how's that for presumption) with some particular examples for the government. I think I will look at the billions spent on auto, aerospace, life sciences, green technology development, etc. in Ontario and sketch out a scaled down version for New Brunswick.

Because ultimately it becomes about the funding, doesn't it? Today, the government in New Brunswick spends about half on economic development compared to 15 years ago (as a % of overall spending). And they have compensated with double the rhetoric.

But that's not a good balancing act.

When I see a commitment to 4-5% of total government spending going to economic development, I will be happy. It has to be well spent - not willy nilly - and I have some ideas - mostly articulated here over the past four years.

As for the NB Biz Council, I would tread really lightly here - and this message goes to the media as well - they are a 'vested interest'. You may like them more but they are the same as the CFIB, the unions, social advocates, etc. They look at the world through a narrow prism that is basically self interested. They already reacted negatively when McGuire's first document talked about attracting more business investment. Remember that companies moving here will be competing with Biz Council members for labour and bidding up the cost of doing business.

I know, I know. You will say that in the 1950s NB business leaders like the original Ganong where asking the government to help attract more industry here. They were asking for the government to set up an economic development office in England to attract firms and investment here.

But as I have said before - that generation of business leaders knew that attracting global businesses here would only strengthen the business environment for all. The current crop - and not all - is leaning towards protectionism and taking care of its own.

As for the targeted industry sectors? Here's my opinion:

Forestry.
This has been a targeted industry for decades. Hundreds of millions in incentives and cheap power has been poured in over the past 30 years. I posted on this before. They should look at what has been done in Sweden and Denmark leveraging the forestry into some of the best design and value added expertise in the world. Not just grind it up and ship it out stuff.

Agriculture.
Don't forget that this is the most heavily subsidized industry in the country. I don't disagree with trying to squeeze more value added out of it but more taxes to contribute to self-sufficiency? Not overly likely. It's still highly subsidized, highly seasonal and relatively low skilled word (at least measured by education levels).

Aquaculture/fisheries.
They aren't doing much here. Probably a good idea. Relegating thousands of New Brunswickers to $7-$8/hour seasonal processing jobs doesn't contribute to self-sufficiency.

Tourism.
I don't want to talk about this. The only funding allocation $100 million to a sector that is at the lowest level of own source tax revenue generation - the measure of self-sufficiency. I love the idea of tourism. But tourism (not the idea) is seasonal, low wage and low value added jobs. That $100 million would be far better allocated elsewhere, IMO.

Advanced training technology
They have been targeting this sector for almost 20 years and we still have almost nothing here. We had a dozen or so firms that all went bankrupt after the dot.bomb (BKM, e-Com, Provinent, Learnstream, etc. etc.) - and ironically one of the only firms left is the multinational Skillsoft in Fredericton - although I read in their SEC filings they are not doing any content development work there. This sounds like it was ripped from the pages of a 1993 plan.

Energy technology
I hope so.

Bioeconomy
New term for a sector they have been saying has been a 'target' for years.

What's missing?
Just about all of the opportunity sectors (except energy). Data centres, nearshore IT support, financial back offices, animation, etc.

Manufacturing. I searched the document twice - and added a keyword search. No mention of the word manufacture or manufacturing.

That continues to be a shame. While certain manufacturing activity has dropped and been shipped to Asia, when I look at the list of top 100 corporate expansions last year - the bulk were manufacturing. Auto, aero, wind energy infrastructure, electronics, other energy systems. Nothing here.

Point on the Gateway
From the document:
Use funding from the Atlantic Gateway initiative to assist exporters throughout the province with improved transportation infrastructure, including superior quality rail lines and ports in both southern and northern New Brunswick.

As a rule now, any infrastructure investment must be directly tied to a serious plan for economic development of that infrastructure. We have seen far to much overbuild - yes I said overbuild - with no plan for development.


Lastly, the document uses the word 'naysayer' - actually they have used this word a lot. I advise them to have the maturity to know the difference between a political reaction (Jeannot Volpe) and a neutral, genuine informed opinion. You will need a lot more naysaying and you should listen to it.

I am not sure we have to read about this in the national papers. It is not even a negative piece on the Irvings - just a good overview of them and their business interests. One would think this should be one of the most important stories in New Brunswick right now as the Irvings employ tens of thousands of people in a diverse group of businesses ranging from oil to newspapers.

It's hard to know for sure, but my guestimate is that they control around 65% of the province's total exports and employ - this is a wild stab - around 50,000 people in refineries, mills, factories, retail stores, marketing firm, media, etc.

As a result, any major changes to their business structure could have a very significant impact on New Brunswickers.

So, to New Brunswick's media, I ask you to tell us this story. Not in a jaded or skewed way - just tell us the story.

I heard another anecdote this week that drives me nuts. A guy I was sitting with at a kids event told me attends NBCC in Moncton. He said his professor proudly told them on the first day of class that graduates from this class were so high regarded they were getting jobs in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, etc. Don't worry, he said we have a 99% employment rate.

That's failure. For me, that's not success. That's failure.

I heard that Ubisoft was in the Miramichi doing a job fair for the animation graduates to go work in their Quebec city and Montreal animation development studios. 100% employment rate.

That's failure. For me, that's not success. That's failure.

I talked recently with a guy involved with UdeM's language translation program. He told me that almost all the kids coming out of that program were getting 'great jobs' in Ottawa.

That's failure. For me, that's not success. That's failure.

What is the world coming to when our post-secondary system is not only exporting taxpayer funded graduates to other provinces, but our teachers are actually promoting it.

Here's a little belated tip for the post-secondary commission. Stop farting around with nomenclature and look at the real problem. We need to attract and foster good jobs here and we need to have a great feeder system from our universities and colleges. If a few have to leave the province it should be a concern not celebrated by the teachers and promoted to the students.

If UdeM has an excellent language translation program then somebody should be out there attracting global players in language translation and localization. And don't make a comment about other firms that are here in that business. This guy told me that in Ottawa, kids right out of school can make $20k more than if they take a job here. Something as specialized as language translation shouldn't be about the cheapest wages. It should be about the quality of the worker.

Yowsa. This doesn't happen every day.

Sources familiar with the sprawling family conglomerate say the three principal owners, brothers J.K., Arthur and Jack, all in their 70s, are engaged in tense discussions that will see the various Irving businesses split among family members. Most important, the energy business, managed by Arthur and his sons, would become independent from the forestry business, operated by J.K. and his children. The reason, as in most family splits, is a succession impasse, the sources say. Decision making was manageable when there was one owner, the patriarch K.C. Irving, and even three owners – in the person of his three sons, who operated for years on a close collegial basis.


Whatever you say about the Globe & Mail, you learn more about the Irvings in this one article than you will in five years' worth of newspapers in New Brunswick.

In my column today in the TJ I take a jab at the federal government and its "one size fits all" thinking. Ontario, B.C. and Alberta, for example, have experienced very strong population growth over the past decade which has put serious stress on much of those provinces' (particularly the large cities') physical infrastructure. So we get "Building Canada" a $33 billion, seven year behemoth funding program.

I make the case that 'building Canada' in New Brunswick, at this point in our history, should be more about economic development than roads and bridges.

Sure, roads, bridges and such decay even with population decline. I get that. Sure, within New Brunswick there is a need to upgrade highways, etc.

But if you are getting ten bucks from the feds, why not let us use it for what we see as the most pressing need?

I think when you get right down to it most rational people see the need for communities to be involved in economic development. What most people do not like is this. $65 million as a direct subsidy to keep Stora Enso open for a few more years. In other words, the plant would have closed. The government stepped in and propped it up with $65 million in taxpayer money with no idea that it will continue to operate after the subsidy runs out.

I understand the politics of this. Small towns. Mill towns. Major upheaval if the government doesn't step in.

But I would prefer to see $65 million spent proactively to help the economy adjust to the 21st century - not to hang on to the next election.

We do that in New Brunswick, too. UPM got $5 million from the former Premier to stay open past the next election. Just a little capper. But the point remains the same. Of course, the tens of millions sunk into the textile mills in New Brunswick is exactly the same thing.

It would be actually interesting to see how much money goes into bailing out bad or failing companies compared to how much is invested in the future. It would be interesting to know how much taxpayer money is used to eliminate bank risk with government loan guarantees. I would be curious to see how many small business loans or credit lines in Ontario are guaranteed by the provincial government. I just have no idea.

My guess is that we spent way too much time and effort trying to keep bad businesses afloat and stimulate new business start ups compared to attracting global players. And just in case you want to hurl an insult my way about my global company bias, remember I just criticized the Stora Enso deal above - Stora is a huge multinational. I don't discriminate. I don't like the government bailing out companies or doing the job of banks - whether the company is large or small.

The TJ had a story yesterday talking about how Saint John can learn from Fort McMurray's explosive growth. Has anyone seen any real job or population growth forecasts for this growth?

I am thrilled about Saint John's potential growth but the way people are talking you would think SJ was Fort McMurray. By my calculation even if the new refinery and the second Lepreau reactor is built - it will only be about 1,200 new jobs - maybe 1,500 - after the construction phase.

There are two issues, to be sure. The construction phase for these projects will bring in a lot of temporary workers and that will create a short term economic boom but Bob Manning is talking about an explosion in the local population in the school system. These construction workers are bringing their kids?

I know that Enterprise Saint John has a number of good sector development strategies on the go. The Bangor-SJ Corridor. There is work to develop the high tech/IT sector and strategies to try and leverage the new energy infrastructure into much more economic development.

But remember that there was a refinery built before and a nuclear power plant and did these two projects lead into thousands of new jobs? A boom in student population? Thousands of executive condominiums on the waterfront? Just building another couple of large energy infrastructure projects is no guarantee of long term economic success.

Saint John has some of the top minds in regional economic development. Bob Manning is one of the finest examples of a private sector guy playing an out front role in economic development. But I hope (and I suspect this is true) that there is a broader strategy in play than just a couple of large infrastructure projects.

However, I have not seen any growth forecasts. If you have seen any report or data that shows tens of thousands of new jobs over the next 10-20 years, please send me the link.

Remember, the Self Sufficiency plan called for another 100,000 high paying jobs and for the rest of us to get a 20% increase in wages. For this to happen, Saint John will have to play a lead role. But 1,500 jobs in an oil and nuclear factory will not be enough.

The TJ is running a letter to the editor this morning calling for the twinning of the road from Saint John to Fredericton.

At some point, someone has got to do an opportunity cost here. Someone has got to say that if we put another $200 million in roads while cutting economic development spending - what's the point?

It's time to divert our scarce resources to where they are needed most.

It's starting to become comical, actually. The feds will give the province money for everything except economic development.