On Tuesday April 19th, Enterprise Greater Moncton hosted a luncheon in the Hub city tagged as “the Premier’s Forum”.

It was billed as a post-budget accountability session. It provided the Premier with an opportunity to boast his government’s performance and he did a masterful job. He’s grown considerably as a public speaker over the last few years and now plays with his audience where he used to read stiffly from prepared text.

The problem is that he seems not to understand that the audience sees through his show-biz glamorization of facts. As he boasted about balanced budgets and tax cuts, the gentleman beside me, a prominent Conservative said to me “how is it that he can boast about balanced budgets and tax cuts when he continues to go hat in hand to Ottawa searching for higher equalization payments, money to finance the Lepreau refurbishment or money to finance highway development?”

The Premier was also inclined to boast about improvements in the healthcare system, one of which he described as moving funding from back-office to front-line services. He obviously hasn’t been in some of our hospitals lately or he would have seen the results of that expenditure shift – peeling walls, unwashed floors, filthy utility rooms, understaffing, etc. Improved front-line services have not been reflected in emergency room waiting times. I know of three recent examples where waiting times averaged more than 10 hours per person.

Returning to budget performance, provincial government surpluses were recorded in fiscal years ending in March 1996 through 1998 (the McKenna years). In the year ending in March 1999, there was a deficit of $164.3 million.

To Mr. Lord’s credit, a small surplus was recorded in the year ending in 2000, the first year of his government and a $181.8 surplus was recorded in the year ending in 2001. It should be noted that $100 million of the 2001 surplus was deposited into a “Fiscal Stabilization Fund”

In the year ending in 2002, another surplus was recorded in the amount of $143.8 million and like the year before, $100 million of that surplus was deposited in the “Fiscal Stabilization Fund”. That ends the era of surplus.

In the year ending in 2003, the Government drew down $110.4 million from the “Fiscal Stabilization Fund” to underwrite its deficit of $109.4 million. In the year ending in 2004, the Government drew down another $103.2 million to underwrite a second deficit.

Performance against the 2005 budget for the period ending in March 2005 is yet to be recorded but the Government promises a surplus of $112.3 million after worrying last year that it was facing a $300 million deficit. Either they’ve copped a bundle of cash from the federal government or they’ve done a wonderful job managing their budget. You be the judge. Budget projections for the 2005/06 are for a $98.9 million surplus.

One of the problems with boasting about balanced budgets and tax cuts is that boasting invites scrutiny. In 1997, the Provincial Government received $1.5 billion of its revenues from the Federal Government. That was 35% of the total. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004 the Provincial Government received $1.9 billion from the Feds, again 35% of their revenue total.

The 2005-2006 budget projects expenditures of $6.1 billion and a surplus of $98.9 million, meaning revenues will be $6.2 billion. The budget contains no new taxes and no tax increases so we can assume the Province will again rely on federal monies to create their surplus. If the federal contribution is again 35% of provincial revenues, it would be $2.17 billion or a 10% increase in funding compared to fiscal 2004. The difference is $224 million.

I don’t know about most people but if I had to rely on my father for 35% of my income, I wouldn’t go around boasting about what a great job I had done balancing my cheque book. I would also be careful about boasting that I had given away some of my income to a charitable foundation. Who would be able to distinguish my earned income from my father’s subsidization in the giveaway?

It seems to me that a real measure of financial performance for the Provincial Government would be a significant reduction in the amount of federal-dollar transfers required by the province, tangible improvements in the delivery of education, highway and healthcare programs, a balanced budget, debt reduction and tax cuts in that order. Giving away federal transfers in the form of tax-cuts is nothing to boast about unless one can demonstrate a payback in the form of increased tax revenue that is greater than the cost of tax-reduction.

George W. Bush is a tax and cut man. He has also created the biggest deficit in U.S. history. Brian Mulroney and Mike Harris were tax and cut men. They left behind huge deficits.

Cutting taxes is like motherhood. Everyone is in favour of it but not everyone can afford it. We have a financial problem in this province that will get worse as our population gets smaller and our people grow older. We can’t expect the federal government to support us forever. We have to find a way to increase our income.

The Premier’s $10,000 tax credit program for post-secondary student graduates is a good start. Realistically, it should probably be double or triple that amount if it’s really going to change the behaviour of young people by encouraging them to stay in the province.

A young, educated workforce, freed from the burden of student debt will be the builders of our future and generate return on the tax investment with long-term tax paybacks.

Thursday evening, Prime Minister Martin apologized to Canadians, on national television, for the sponsorship scandal, outlined what he has done to address it and promised to call an election within 30 days of receiving the Gomery report.

It’s worrisome that a prime minister has to respond to the media frenzy driving the sponsorship story. It’s worrisome that the media is able to transform an inconclusive public inquiry into a Ku Klux Klan lynch mandate. The sponsorship trial is far from over, yet spectators demand a hanging before the judge delivers his decision. Has due process become a thing of the past in Canada?

There is no defense for wrong-doing. If people profited illegally from the Quebec sponsorship program, they should be prosecuted and if found guilty, punished.

Having said that, I think it’s important to add some perspective to the situation. As I understand it, the sponsorship program was confined to Quebec. Quebec has a long history of dubious behavior when it comes to use of government funds, especially when they come from the federal government.

The Union Nationale and the Duplesis era comes to mind. Expo 67 and the Olympic Stadium with allegations of payoffs and kickbacks come to mind. The shenanigans of Jacques Parizeau during the Quebec referendum are legend.

Brian Mulroney won the country in 1984 by stitching together a band of separatists and opportunists who collectively produced an electoral majority for him in Quebec and in so doing, a majority government in Canada. He fell from office, in part because Quebec separatists deserted him and the opportunists undermined the integrity of his government and his party.

None of this is to suggest for a moment that the people of Quebec are corrupt. That is no more likely than the possibility that all Canadians are corrupt.

Quebec has a history of blackmailing Canada for money and power in the political arena. The threat is always about separation and the disruption of national unity. Near loss of the 1995 Quebec referendum was frightening. Initial response from the federal government was shock and discombobulation. The notion that flags and sponsorship signage could overwhelm the emotions of a people flirting with nationhood and separation was and is a joke. The referendum wasn’t about the need for visual reminders of Canada, it was about language and history and the perceptions of insult and injustice.

The Gomery Commission is dealing with a situation precipitated by an ill-advised response to the 1995 referendum. The response may have been naively conceived. It may have been badly executed. It may have been confiscated by a Quebec wing of the Mafia but surely it was not and was never intended to be a fraudulent grab for Canadian tax dollars.

There has always been two parts to Canada’s Liberal Party – the Quebec Liberal Party and the Liberal Party of the rest of Canada. The Quebec Party has traditionally been left to its own devices when it comes to elections and patronage. In return, it has delivered seats to the national Party that has enabled it to form majority governments for much of the last century. Quebec polls suggest that day has passed.

Two years ago, supporters of Paul Martin chose to push Mr. Chrétien from office. Their success created a backlash in Quebec. It appeared that Martin the Anglophone had humiliated Francophones by publicly driving one of their own from office. One of Martin’s first acts as Prime Minister was to cancel the Sponsorship Program. When the Auditor General jumped on the Program, Martin reacted with high-profile dismissals of Chrétien-supporters and the calling of inquiries that have pillaged Francophone Quebecers. Instead of resolving the issue, the inquiries have prolonged the sacking of Quebecers.

The Gomery Commission is not finished. If we have an election now, we run the risk of convicting defendants without benefit of due process. The current rage is fueled largely by testimony from one Jean Brault - a man who is awaiting trial for fraud - and a few others whose credibility is less than sterling. The broad strokes of the sponsorship outrage were outlined three years ago.

The Auditor General’s report on the program was published more than a year ago. We had an election on the subject less than a year ago and yet politicians continue to rerun the rhetoric of that election.

We need to give the Gomery Commission time to conclude its hearings and prepare its report and recommendations. Surely we owe it to ourselves to await the report before plunging the Country into another election.

A public hanging of Paul Martin in an atmosphere of outrage and public accusation does nothing for the country. There is a chance that an election fought in the current atmosphere would boost the fortunes of the Bloc Quebecois and move the province of Quebec towards the perfect storm, one that would produce a positive vote for separation.

This brings us to our conundrum. Nobody wants to be seen supporting a bunch of wrongdoers and nobody wants to see Quebec separate because of some highly emotional prosecution of wrongdoers. We owe to ourselves as a nation to wait for Gomery.

In the last election, Canadians put the Liberal Party on notice that they were not happy with its involvement in the Sponsorship Program. They also pulled back from the alternative leadership of Stephen Harper.

If Gomery proves that a conspiracy existed to defraud government and/or to redirect funds to the Liberal Party of Canada, those responsible should be held accountable in a court of law. As best we know, members of the current government were not involved in any sponsorship wrongdoing.

It would be wrong to punish them for the sins of others.

The quality of healthcare in Canada is increasingly under attack by users of the system and by the media.

Quality is defined but not limited to a number of issues including: infection control, emergency-room wait-times, diagnostic wait-times and surgical-wait times. All of the above have a money connotation and are linked to the financial circumstance of governments.

Infection control has been the subject of national media attention for months. The CBC launched a series on caesarian-related infections in a British Columbia hospital. Dr. Lynne Johnston, head of the infectious disease unit at the QE II Hospital in Halifax has been quoted as saying that the rate of ‘staff infections such as MRSA has more than doubled in her hospital since 2002.

The CBC reports that hospital-acquired infections, including C. difficile, MRSA and necrotizing fasciitis affect about 250,000 Canadians every year. Infections that originate in hospitals kill an estimated 8,000 Canadians a year. The cost of treating those infections is estimated to be more than $100 million a year because patients who acquire hospital infections often double their stay recovering from the infections.

The sad fact is that infections are preventable. Dutch hospitals are proving it with strict patient isolation policies and a “seek and control” approach to infection control. The question is why not in Canada. It seems that infection-control budgets are the first to be cut when budgets are tight. Cleaning staff and nurses are the first to go when hospital boards face a financial crunch.

Bring it a little closer to home. A few weeks ago, an 84 year old woman was taken to a New Brunswick hospital with severe and sudden diarrhea. She spent nearly twelve hours in emergency before being admitted to the hospital. In emergency, she was treated for dehydration and put on intravenous. Once admitted, she was taken to an upper floor and left in the hallway for the night, next to the nurse’s station. The nurses had no idea what she was suffering from or what was causing her problem.

The morning after her admission and following numerous family interventions, she was moved into a single room and the occupant of that room was moved to a ward. That’s only part of the story.

The walls on her floor were peeling wallpaper. The floors were dirty. They were cleaned and scrubbed after she moved in, not before. The halls outside the room were filthy and the utility rooms were disgraceful. The patient was eventually diagnosed with a contagious bacterial infection and her room was designated as an isolation room.

There’s more. This woman was on blood thinning medication and because she was dehydrated, her dosage was lowered. To combat the bacterial infection, she was put on a high-dosage antibiotic. A few days later, the high-dosage blood thinner was reinstated. The following morning, the woman suffered a stroke.

Apparently, staff and volunteer care-givers failed to recognize the signs of stroke until the woman’s daughter alerted nurses to her mother’s right-side paralysis. The nurses responded quickly and with considerable expertise. Fortunately and at last report, the woman is recovering well and has returned to her home.

This woman’s saga started with her twelve hour wait in emergency. Waiting time is the bug-bear of healthcare in New Brunswick and indeed, much if not all of Canada. We wait in emergency, we wait for access to diagnostic technology, we wait for hospital beds, we wait for surgical interventions and we wait for the system to be fixed.

Governments are so blinded by healthcare costs and so battered by reaction to their cost-cutting efforts that they hide behind studies, royal commissions and budget constraints to justify inaction. Surely there are things we can do to improve the system and things we can do to prepare ourselves for future demands on the system.

New Brunswick has a tiny population of 758,000 people. Three or four hospitals would serve us well if they were mandated to high service standards and supported by a high quality clinic-entry system and a space-age transportation service.

What if we replaced local and regional hospitals with doctor/nurse clinics and 24 hour service in every community of the Province with a population of 3,000 plus. What if we demanded service standards that produced clinical nurse assessments within 15 minutes of patient arrival and doctor assessments/treatments within 60 minutes of a patient’s assessment by a registered nurse or nurse practitioner?

What if we employed a fleet of jet-helicopters in the Province that could deliver patients from community clinics to emergency hospital rooms in 30 minutes? What if we set hospital receiving standards that would provide diagnostic or treatment service on arrival for helicopter-delivered patients?

What if we set standards that would require that hospital patients receive emergency treatment on demand? What if we set standards that would require that patients receive treatment and/or procedures related to life-threatening circumstances within 30 days of diagnosis. What if we required that life-style and comfort-producing surgical procedures be referred to private sector hospitals and clinics?

My scenario of standards and what-ifs may sound expensive or even far-fetched but I suspect they would be a lot less expensive than maintenance of the existing infrastructure. Indeed, I would suggest that replacement of existing hospitals with three new state-of-the art, provincial hospitals combined with appropriate staffing would achieve the standards outlined above and would reduce the cost of New Brunswick’s healthcare system.

The system we have today is inefficient and unfriendly to customers. Demands on the system are growing and will continue to grow. We have to do something to fix it before it’s too late.

Premier Lord promises to build a coal-fired, electricity generating plant if the federal government doesn’t cough up $500 million to help him refurbish the Point Lepreau nuclear generating plant.

Bruce Power submits a conditional offer to refurbish and operate Point Lepreau. Presumably, the condition is a $500 million cash injection or some form of investment guarantee that would equate to $500 million.

Last week in Paris, energy ministers and officials from 74 countries, including the United States were told by experts that only by building more nuclear generating stations will the world be able to meet its energy needs.

The Kyoto Protocol commits governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Power plants fueled by coal and oil are major sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

In the last few weeks, Irving Oil negotiated a long term tax deal with the City of Saint John that will limit its property tax payments to $500,000 a year for the next twenty five years if they go ahead and build a liquid natural gas (LNG) gasification terminal in the city. Some people, including the Deputy Mayor have second thoughts. Nobody stops to smell the roses. No plant, no taxes. $500,000 a year plus the economic activity generated by a billion dollar investment is a lot better than nothing.

Earlier this week, residents of Perry, Maine, with a 65 vote majority decided not to permit Oklahoma-based Quoddy Bay LLC and the Passamaquoddy Indian band to build a $400 million LNG terminal near their town. Concerns for the environment, navigational hazards and lifestyle infringements were given as the reasons for rejection. Logic would suggest the Perry, Maine decision will improve the economics of Irving’s LNG terminal.

On March 22nd, Irving Oil announced that it has reached an agreement to purchase the last 75% interest in the Bayside Power co-generation plant, that it did not already own, from American giant Duke Energy, controlling partners in the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline and parent of Westcoast Energy of Vancouver.

The Bayside generating plant is one of four NB Power generating plants at Courtenay Bay that has been converted from a 100 MW oil-fired electricity generating unit to a 260 MW natural gas-fired electricity generating unit.

A literal translation of the Irving announcement would suggest that NB Power has indirectly sold one of its electricity generating plants, to Irving without the scrutiny of a Public Utilities Board (PUB) Hearing. It also represents a major investment in electricity generation by Irving.

The Bayside plant, together with the co-generation plant at the Irving oil refinery and Irving plans to build a power plant that will use natural gas from its LNG terminal will make it a major player in the electricity industry.

It’s clear the Irvings have an energy development plan. It’s equally clear that the provincial government and NB Power do not. On March 1st, NB Power announced a 3% rate increase to take effect March 31st and a 4.5% fuel surcharge to cover the cost of its Orimulsion fuel replacement.

Combined with a cost of service realignment geared to eliminate cross subsidization from one customer class to another, residential customers will face a combined rate increase of nearly 10% if the PUB approves its application. Oh and by the way, that rate increase will attract the HST so the real increase will be more like 11%.

There is a side note to this rate increase. Apparently, NB Power’s application to the PUB will ask for retroactivity in respect to collection of its fuel surtax. Now I would have thought that a rate-increase application would specify a start date. For example, if the application asked for an increase effective April 1, 2005, it would be effective April 1, 2005 subject to approval by the regulator.

Collection would begin in April but if the regulator subsequently rejected or amended the application, customers would receive a cash rebate or credit, plus interest for any over-collection. That’s a lot easier than trying to collect for six to nine months of under-collection.

There’s another issue. A fuel-surcharge by nature is a variable charge based on the actual cost of fuel. Airlines use it from time to time to offset sudden increases beyond their control. NB Power would use it to offset the additional cost it will incur in replacing Orimulsion. A fuel surcharge should be transparent and not permanent. An unexpected and significant spike in oil costs would justify a fuel surcharge. A drop in oil prices should allow the utility to lower its electricity rates.

New Brunswick is energy deficient, yet hugely dependent on energy for its industrial base. Our climate and lifestyle demand energy but we don’t have the natural resources to generate significant amounts of that energy. Sure, we have wind and we have tides but so far neither has proven to be economically feasible for large scale power production.

NB Power has worked hard to ensure that New Brunswick is independent of a single source of fuel to generate its electricity. Coal, natural gas, oil, orimulsion, diesel fuel, uranium, water, even wood chips contribute to the generation of electricity in this province but we don’t appear to have a go-forward plan that will make our electricity more affordable.

The Utility has applied to the PUB to build a new transmission line between Lepreau and the U.S. border but it does nothing to engage the lowest cost producer of electricity in North America, Hydro Quebec.

Protection of our planet from green house gas emissions is more important than an idle threat to build a coal-fired generating plant in New Brunswick.

At the end of the day, some combination of nuclear power, gas-fired power and hydro power from Quebec may be the way of our future.