The federal election campaign has been under way for weeks now and nothing much has been happening in the polls although I suspect we’ll see some movement by the time you read this column.

Either people have been bored to tears, have made up their minds or simply disengaged for the holiday season. My guess is that things will change after this weekend.

According to a recent poll by The Strategic Counsel released by CTV and the Globe and Mail, 66 per cent of respondents believe the upcoming federal election is about the need for change. 60 per cent of respondents support the NDP notion that the election is about finding a strong voice for Canadians in Parliament while 44 per cent of respondents believe the election is about economic management and keeping the economy strong.

Are these really the ballot questions or is there something else lurking beneath the surface?

Stephen Harper believes the question is “Which party can deliver the change of government that’s needed to bring political accountability to Ottawa?” Clearly he can’t get beyond the sponsorship program or is it same-sex marriage?

There are a number of questions that could serve as the ballot special. Do Canadians want tax-cuts or quality child care programs? Do voters want GST reductions or better healthcare services?

With an aging population and the graduation of baby-boomers to retirement status, should Canada be opening its doors to new immigrants? Should we be developing programs to encourage seniors to work beyond traditional retirement age?

What’s more important to Canada’s future, tax cuts or access (affordability) to post-secondary education? Maybe the question will be “which leader is best able to deal with Quebec and the unity of Canada?”

Is the ballot question about the banning of hand-guns? Is it about crime and drugs and gang warfare? Is it about national security and the fight against terrorism? Is it about leaks and RCMP investigations? Is it about national defense or Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic? Is it about productivity and the deployment of human capital (wow that would create a national yawn)?

Is it tied to Canada’s relationship with the United States? Do we want to be more closely integrated with the U.S. economy? Do we want to stand shoulder to shoulder with our American friends in continental defense? Do we want to create more space between U.S. and Canadian policy on trade and defense matters? Do we want to share our water and increase our energy exports to the United States?

Is it about lower taxes and less government? Is it one of Ralph Klein’s five questions to the federal party leaders concerning fiscal imbalance (meaning the provinces want more money), post-secondary education/skills-training, transportation (not sure what he’s looking for here), the role of provinces in the development of Canada’s foreign policy and their involvement in world trade talks?

Is it the implicit question in Klein’s queries i.e. should the Government of Canada transfer its fiscal, trade and international responsibilities to the provinces so we can have ten voices instead of one in the international community?

Is it Stephen Harper’s promise to create a visible military presence in major Canadian cities under the banner of “territorial defense units”? It’s not clear who they would defend against but presumably it would be neighboring provinces.

Is it about leadership or the values implicit in a specific leader and/or his party? Harper’s cries of corruption and the need for accountability appear not to have captured the imagination of voters so the question must have more to do with values than misbehavior.

Will the question relate to Quebec? According to an Environics’ poll, Bloc supporters (currently 54% of Quebecers) thirst for status and recognition, a need to be held in high esteem and respect by others. That would explain why Quebec was so insulted by sponsorship revelations, the finger-pointing of Gomery and the dismissal of senior appointees from crown corporations.

Collectively, these actions embarrassed Quebecers, injured their pride and showed a lack of respect for their feelings and insecurities.

Mr. Harper would be the obvious beneficiary of a “change” vote but that prospect is scary for many if not most Canadians.

Consider what he told the Council for National Policy, a right-wing U.S. think tank in 1997 “your country (the U.S.) and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world”. Are Canadians really inspired by right wing conservative Republicans like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush?

Or consider this Harper statement “In terms of the unemployed, don't feel particularly bad for these people. They don't feel bad about themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance”. Umm!

At the end of the day, there is one issue that over-rides all others and that is management of our economy.

Fifteen years ago, under a Conservative government, this Country was on the verge of bankruptcy. Paul Martin pulled us back from the brink, turned things around and today we have the funds to pay for heathcare, employment insurance, social security, job creation and seniors’ pensions.

We also have the money to invest in education, literacy and dozens of other programs. Stephen Harper would squander it all in frivolous tax cuts and military build-ups.

In my view, a thriving economy will be the glue that binds Canadians together. It will be the salve that brings Quebec in from the cold. By the 23rd of January, I think the ballot question will be very clear “who would you rather have managing the Canadian economy Stephen Harper or Paul Martin?”

Happy New Year!

'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.

The stockings were hung by the chimney with care, in hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there. The children were nestled all snug in their beds, when out on the lawn there arose such a clatter, I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.

Away to the window I flew like a flash, tore open the shutters and threw up the sash, when into the house my eyes would appear rushed Stephen Harper and his shiny veneer.

Now that’s a scary thought given that it was Stephen Harper who dismissed Canada as “a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term” when speaking to a 1997 gathering of the Council for National Policy, a right wing American think-tank, the same Stephen Harper who earlier this week, griped to a Quebec audience about the “outrageous spending power” of the federal government and promised to limit federal spending if he forms a government.

That would not be good news for New Brunswick.

This is the same gripe we used to hear from Western Canada’s Reform Party, the father of Harper’s Alliance Party and its more recent morphous, the Conservative Party. In his 1997 speech, Harper described the Canadian Reform Party as “populist in the sense used by the infamous Ross Perot”, U.S. billionaire, eccentric, twice fringe party candidate for President and founder of the U.S. Reform party.

It begs the question who and what is Stephen Harper and who and what is today’s Conservative Party.

In his Quebec City speech, Harper promised to give Quebec a place on the international stage by recognizing its provincial autonomy and the special cultural and institutional responsibilities of the Quebec government. He promised to develop mechanisms to allow the Province a greater role in its own jurisdiction as relates to the international arena.

He went on to say “We will work to eliminate the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces and monitor the outrageous spending powers that give rise to domineering and paternalistic federalism” (code for reducing the federal government’s spending power).

The fantasy in Harper’s provincial devolution promises (echo Joe Clark’s “community of communities”) is his pledge to spend billions of dollars on new federal programs, new Arctic patrol ships and new tax cuts, Harper clearly fancies himself as a magician or at least a clone of our good friend St. Nick, who some know as Santa Clause.

Perhaps, a more important issue in this election is Canada’s relationship with the United States.

The U.S./Canada issue is more than softwood lumber and beef exports. It’s more than an issue of Paul Martin’s critique of the Americans at a UN Conference on Climate Change and the subsequent “slippery slope” wrist-slap he received from U.S. Ambassador Wilkins. It’s about the future of the current U.S. Administration and how that future could unfold in ways that could be harmful to Canada.

The U.S. Congress has introduced a resolution creating committees to investigate the Administration on three counts: intent as relates to going to war in Iraq without congressional authorization, manipulation of intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq and the countenance of prisoner torture.

There are two other resolutions that censor President Bush and Vice-President Chaney for misleading Congress and misleading the American people regarding the decision to invade Iraq. Add to that, news from the New York Times that the President authorized illegal spying on American citizens and you begin to see the storm-clouds of impeachment.

Newsweek Magazine says the spying scandal goes far beyond sex and corruption scandals typical of Washington.

Vice President Cheney describes the presidential spy-authorization as a restoration of presidential authority. Bush defends his action by telling Americans the law governing domestic spying doesn’t allow the Administration enough agility in its fight against terrorism. The President goes further by arguing he has the constitutional authority to act without court orders.

In other words, he is convinced that he is the supreme law of the United States.

So why should we care?

We should care because the U.S. is our largest trading partner. We should care because like it or not, we are a military protectorate of the United States.

We should care because the United States is the world’s only superpower. If its leaders refuse to respect U.S. law, it’s not likely they would have much regard for the laws of another country.

We should care because if the Americans fail to impeach the president for such a vast array of blatantly illegal activities, then their claim to be a nation of laws loses its validity because the ideals for which Americans have long served and fought and died for become meaningless.

The last time a U.S. President and his Vice President were toppled was in 1973 when Spiro Agnew was forced to resign after a Justice Department investigation uncovered evidence of corruption during his years in Maryland politics and Richard Nixon was impeached for his Watergate cover-ups.

Fast forward to 2005/06, when the U.S. finds itself mired in Iraq, domestic spying and accusations of illegal confinements, torture and prisoner abuse. It’s not a pretty sight.

On Christmas Eve, it’s better we return to St. Nick.

I laughed when I saw him. A wink of his eye and a twist of his head, soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread. He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work.

He sprang to his sleigh and I heard him exclaim, as he drove out of sight,"Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night."

Did you know that the property tax rate for people living in apartments in New Brunswick is 89% higher than for people living in their own homes?

If you are an apartment dweller, you may not be aware of this because the tax is charged to the registered apartment owner and then passed on to you in the form of rent. Sometimes the tax is not passed on to tenants because of competitive market pressures.

When the owners bear the tax burden, the tenant pays the piper.

Fewer rent dollars mean fewer dollars for maintenance and fewer dollars for apartment improvements like appliances, new windows, new counter-tops, new carpeting, painting or other things that improve the quality of life for an apartment resident.

In New Brunswick, property taxes paid by apartment owners equal or exceed all their other operating costs, except debt-service. It’s been estimated that apartment resident in the Province pay on average $55 a month more in property taxes than in Nova Scotia, $47 a month more than in Prince Edward Island and $65 a month more than in Newfoundland.

The single family home-owner in New Brunswick pays $1.69 per $100 of assessed value in property taxes. Apartment residents pay (directly or indirectly) $3.19 per $100 of assessed value as do cottage owners.

In other Atlantic provinces, the single family home rate is exactly the same as the apartment rate.

Here’s the reason for difference.

In New Brunswick, single family home owners pay a municipal property tax but apartment dwellers pay the municipal property tax plus a provincial property tax. They pay it in the form of higher rents. Most provinces in Canada, including the other three Atlantic provinces do not charge provincial property taxes.

Where is the logic in a tax that targets medium and fixed income people in apartments but exempts those who can afford to buy a house?

The Government’s “Prosperity Plan” promises competitive levels of taxation to encourage economic development. It advocates youth and labour retention. It promotes the patriation of former residents. If successful, the Government’s plan will create demand for housing and apartment rentals. We can’t afford to penalize new residents, some of whom will be apartment renters, with an unfair property tax.

So, what can we do about it?

I’m told the Government collects about $40 million a year in rental property tax. If it removes the tax, who picks up the slack? Who or what else would the government have to tax to make up for the revenue loss?

If the provincial property tax should be lifted from apartments and the monies flowed to tenants, their disposable incomes would increase and their spending power would increase but the tax generated by their spending would generate less revenue for the provincial government than the current provincial property tax.

On the other hand, if the tax remained in the hands of the apartment owners and the owners invested the tax-savings in building and apartment improvements, tax revenues for the province could be much higher. Here’s how it could happen!

A modest economic multiplier of 2.5 applied to a $40 million investment in renovations or building improvements would convert to $100 million in economic activity. That would mean jobs and the purchase of goods and services. It would also mean income, sales and gasoline tax revenue.

Now, here is the hole in this logic; what happens to the $40 million if it all settles in the landlord’s pocket?

Worst case scenario; landlords would pay income tax on the windfall and some of the money would return to the provincial government. A more realistic scenario would see tenants exercising their muscle by moving out of buildings where tax-removal did not result in lower rents or improvements to their living quarters. Vacant apartments would cost landlords big-time money.

There are about 63,000 apartment residents in New Brunswick. My estimate is that they pay an average of $635 a year in provincial property tax, on top of their municipal property tax.

Some argue that fewer apartment buildings are being built because of that tax. Others are convinced that maintenance and property upgrades are left behind because the provincial property tax-burden is being absorbed by landlords.

You might ask why this is a problem.

Do the math. Rental property assessments have increased by about two thirds in the last couple of years. When the assessment goes up, the tax goes up, even though the tax-rate remains the same. If the assessed value of a rental space increases by two thirds, the property-tax payable on that value increases by $2.10 per $100 of value.

Market value is a function of demand. When values go up it’s because people are willing to pay more than the going rate for a property.

In Moncton, a combination of housing demand and an influx of property managers like Killam, who are flush with outside investor funds are acquiring local rental properties at premium prices and pushing up their market value. Tenants ultimately bear the cost in higher property taxes and/or higher rents.

In 1967, the Government of New Brunswick took responsibility for health, education, social services and the administration of justice to ensure equal access to these services for all residents. The cost was transferred from counties and municipalities to the Province.

Funding was generated from market-valued provincial property taxes. The Province has since devolved much of the property tax field to municipalities.

Today’s issue is not with market value assessment or with municipal property taxes; it is with a provincial property tax that is indiscriminately applied on top of a municipal tax paid by apartment-residents.

It’s a double tax and it’s wrong-headed.

Three years after the meltdown of ENRON and more recently the problems of Hollinger and Conrad Black, the issue of corporate governance continues to be front page news.

In fact, governance has been an issue since people began to organize themselves for a common purpose. The OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) provides a functional definition of corporate governance as the system by which businesses are directed and controlled.

The governance structure specifies the distribution of rights and responsibilities among participants in the corporation, including the board of directors, senior executives, managers and shareholders and spells out the rules for making decisions on corporate affairs.

Corporate governance has a wider implication. The World Bank defines it as “the balance between economic and social goals. The governance framework is there to encourage efficient use of resources and requires accountability for the stewardship of those resources."

David Ganong, President & CEO of Ganong Bros. Limited in St. Stephen, NB, is one of Canada’s leading advocates of corporate governance. Just a few weeks ago, he was invested in the Order of Canada (in the shadow of Shania Twain) for outstanding achievement and service to his country. The Order of Canada is the highest form of public recognition in Canada.

One of the reasons cited by Governor General Michaëlle Jean for Ganong’s investiture was his advocacy of corporate governance. He was also cited for his devotion to community and his contribution to economic development, particularly in New Brunswick.

Ganong employs an estimated 400 people in the border town of St. Stephen. It’s a business that others might have moved closer to markets in Ontario but Ganong and his family are fiercely loyal to their community and determined to grow their business from New Brunswick.

When it comes to corporate governance, David Ganong practices what he preaches. He surrounds himself with a powerful Board of Directors that includes Bernard Imbeault, the Pizza Delight entrepreneur from Moncton, Purdy Crawford, former Chairman of Imasco and currently Chairman of AT&T Canada, Roland Frazee, former chief executive of the Royal Bank and new appointees Krystyna Hoeg and Hubert Saint-Onge.

Krystyna Hoeg is the President & CEO of Corby Distilleries Limited.

Hubert Saint-Onge is the founder and Principle of SaintOnge Alliance, a company dedicated to improving organizational performance. Hubert was recently profiled in the best-selling book “What’s the Big Idea? Creating and Capitalizing on the Best New Management Thinking”. He’s one of the world’s elite “idea practitioners”, individuals who turn ideas into action and results.

David Ganong is not intimidated by these people; he draws from their experience and expertise. He’s an amazing guy. I’ve known him for years, having served with him on the Board of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council.

• He’s a 'chocolatier extraordinaire’ but he’s also a man of the community.
• David is Chairman of the Board of Governors at the University of New Brunswick.
• He’s a Director of Sun Life Financial and the Conference Board of Canada and,
• he’s a member of the Canadian Council of Chief Executive Officers.
• He is also a former Director of Air Canada and Past Chairman of Clarica Life Insurance Company.

Three years ago, in a speech to the Faculty of Business Administration at the University of New Brunswick, on the subject of corporate governance, David opened his talk with a personal credentials statement. He said,

“My experience with corporate governance began in a privately owned business approach to governance. It began with Ganong Bros. Limited which has practiced a number of governance procedures for years, even though Ganong has been closely held by management and family since it began in 1873”.

David’s grandfather, Arthur Ganong was a governance leader and went on record with this statement,

“In private companies, even when the owners and management are the same people, the Board of Directors is required to protect shareholders from management decisions”.

Conrad Black might want to resurrect this principle in his next life because Arthur Ganong’s words continue to make good sense. When he delivered them, they may have sounded revolutionary. Use of an outside board of directors has proved to be a tremendous asset for the Ganong business.

Today, only one member of management, the President sits on the Board. A separate audit committee deals with management judgments and outside auditors.

Perhaps the most important governance experience for David Ganong was his involvement in publicly-traded companies. In 1981, he joined the Board of Air Canada and served on a number of committees, including the audit committee, which he chaired before and after privatization.

In 1991, he joined the Board of Mutual Life, which became Clarica before it merged with Sun Life Financial. There he also served on a number of committees and was Chair of the Governance Committee before becoming Vice-Chairman and then Chairman of the Board for three years”.

In his UNB speech, Ganong asked the question “why the attention on governance?”

His answer then was the “ENRON scandal”.

Today, it might be Hollinger or Conrad Black. The ENRON collapse was the result of an intended deception for the benefit of a few senior managers. What was significant about the collapse was the clumsy use of governance rules to protect the interest of shareholders and the absence of distance between auditor and management interests given that the auditors were hired to protect shareholder interests.

It might be easy to jump from there to the Quebec Sponsorship program but the difference would be intent. In the immediate aftermath of the1995 referendum, the intent of the sponsorship program was noble but it was hijacked by a tiny group of Quebec bureaucrats and businessmen who embarked on a program of deception to benefit themselves and a few friends.

Canada’s Auditor General exposed their behavior. Improved corporate governance may prove to be the most positive outcome of her revelations.

Staff recruitment and retention are looming issues for businesses across Canada and yes even here in Greater Moncton as much of the population inches its way towards retirement and our population begins to shrink as death rates overtake our birthrates.

As a result, immigration has suddenly become a hot topic.

Everybody is scrambling to get on the band-wagon - the provincial government, the federal government and business leaders. So, what’s all the fuss about you might ask?

Well it starts with our demographers (that’s a scientist who studies the growth and density of populations and their vital statistics). They’re projecting that New Brunswick’s population will soon be in decline.

The problem is compounded when our young people migrate to Ontario, Alberta and BC looking for jobs and opportunity. New Brunswick is not alone with an aging population and declining birthrates. It’s a problem for much of the developed world.

A smaller population by itself is not a problem. It becomes a problem when customer demands can’t be met. It becomes a problem when skilled labour shortages limit production, productivity and innovation.

After the Second World War, thousands of young men came home to New Brunswick, some with new brides, others to marry the girl back home. As nature would have it, they produced children and continued to do so until the middle 1960s. Their children helped created a population boom and they quickly became known as the baby-boomers.

The problem in New Brunswick is/was that many of them left the province either before or after they produced the children.

To complicate the issue, baby-boomers decided not to be as prolific as their parents. The combination of birth-control and the shift to two income families lowered birthrates in the 80s and 90s.

Today, the boomers are retiring and will continue to do so for the next 20 years. Their children are entering the workplace but in reduced numbers. To make things worse, Stats Canada projects more deaths than births for New Brunswick in 2006.

Do the math!

• More deaths and fewer births compute to a smaller population.
• Fewer people mean fewer candidates for the labour force.

Okay, so you say “we don’t have a problem in Moncton because we’ve grown more than 15% in the last 15 years and everything points to continued growth”.

True, our population has been growing but mainly at the expense of rural and northern New Brunswick, as young people drained out of smaller communities into Greater Moncton. This well of recruits will dry up in the next few years and then we’ll find ourselves in the same boat as the rest of the Maritimes - fewer people, a declining tax-base, an older population and an increase in demand for health services.

That returns us to the subject of immigrants.

Immigration is nothing new to Atlantic Canada, just a forgotten thing. The original inhabitants of this province were aboriginal peoples. The French arrived in the early 16th century as first immigrants, the early beginnings of Acadia.

Conflict between the British and the French led to their temporary removal but many returned under British rule after 1764. More than 10,000 Empire Loyalists from the American Revolution arrived in the late 1700s.

The Scots and Irish followed in the 1800s, pushed out of their countries by political pressures and potato famine. In 1833, sixty six thousand people from Ireland arrived in Canada. Another 70,000 arrived during the potato famine in 1846/47. New Brunswick received its Irish bump in the 1850s when the population jumped 30%.

That was the last significant influx of immigrants in New Brunswick although we have continued to receive a few hundred people a year from various parts of the world.

Canada receives more than 200,000 immigrants each year. The federal Government wants to increase that to 700,000 a year.

Greater Moncton receives less than .001 percent of the Canadian crop. The vast majority of immigrants to Canada settle in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver and more recently in the Calgary-Edmonton corridor.

Almost 75% of today’s immigrants are visible minorities, very different from the predominately European immigrants who settled the Maritimes from traditional source countries such as the United States, Germany and the UK.

Immigrants to Canada tend to congregate in communities where they can integrate with families and friends and share their religion, language and culture. That makes it difficult for communities like Moncton to recruit them.

If Moncton is going to recruit immigrants to fill the looming holes in its population and workforce base, it must have a plan to identify the source countries, to identify the skills we need and a plan to match the availability of skills with the opportunities that exist in Greater Moncton.

Moncton’s first priority is surely to fill its labour force needs from the community’s own resources rather than giving priority to people from abroad. Hiring the newly retired (most of our current immigrant population) or re-training the less productive would be a good start.

Creating jobs that will attract university graduates from in and around Greater Moncton and elsewhere would be a positive start. We need to hold more of our young people and to do that we have to offer them better opportunities to counter their prospects in Toronto and Calgary

Immigration, by itself is not a panacea but it’s one of the tools we must employ if we’re going to continue growing our economy. Immigrant programs for Greater Moncton should focus as much on settlement and retention as they do on recruitment.

I think it’s fair to say that Moncton could benefit from the breath of fresh air that an immigration recruitment and settlement program could bring to the area. It’s been more than 150 years since we altered the bloodlines in our community.

Maybe it’s time for a modest change.