A friend of mine describes Stephen Harper as a “tactician” as distinct from a visionary.

A case in point would be his “child care” program.

It promises a $1,200 a year payment to parents with children under the age of six. It’s estimated there are more than 2 million children under the age of six in Canada so annual cost of the program will be at least $2.4 billion.

If one examines Mr. Harper’s speeeches and newspaper articles over the last few years, one might have called him a reactionary, at the very least a right wing ideologue who worshipped at the alter of American republicanism and subscribed to the notion of western separatisim.

Remember the time he wrote to Ralph Klein prior to the 2004 election. Here’some of what he had to say then.

“Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan to create an Alberta Pension Plan offering the same benefits at lower cost while giving Alberta control over the investment fund. If Quebec can do it, why not Alberta?... Collect our own revenue from personal income tax… Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects, fight in the courts”. This is our Prime Minister.

Here’s what he thinks about healthcare.

"What we clearly need is experimentation with market reforms and private delivery options [in health care]." Stephen Harper, then President of the NCC, 2001. "It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act."- Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997.

His love of Canada is displayed proudly on his sleeve but something else escapes his mouth.

"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it….I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians….[Y]our country [the USA], and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world." - Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank.

The Conservatives so called child care policy may be good politics because it puts money in some people’s pockets but the program is bad public policy and it’s not a child care program. Do the math.

• Assume a family received $1,000 after tax from the program.
• Assume a child needs day care 250 days a year. $1,000 would work out to $4.00 a day and that won’t buy anybody a baby-sitting service for more than an hour.
• That’s the economic equation.

Earlier this week, Quebec pediatrician, Jean-Francois Chicoine, the Doctor Phil of Quebec television unleashed a 520 page bombshell that says “too many parents parachute their kids into daycare at far too young an age”.

In Quebec, there are some 51,000 kids, under the age of two in Quebec daycare centres. Some of them are there for 52 weeks a year about 60 hours a week. Dr. Chicoine argues that the best place for kids under two is with their parents.

He says that “at this time, it’s very important for a baby to get a lot of affection and form a sense of security”. He says that between the age of eight and eighteen months, babies learn to trust people other than their primary caregivers but no more than five of them at a time.

“In daycare, a baby will encounter an average of 17 different caregivers.... During the summer it’s five or six a day”. Intuitively, one would have to agree with him. Ironically, the people who rely most on daycare are the ones at greatest risk – blue collar families who work long hours and struggle to get by on two little incomes.

In an earlier column, I mentioned that in the last federal election, the Government of Canada signed five year agreements with all ten provinces that would see the investment of $1 billion a year in early learning and childcare. Under these agreements, the provinces would invest the federal money in regulated, early learning and childcare programs for children under the age of six. The principle requirement was that investments meet the test of quality, universality, accessibility and development.

If Dr. Chicoine is right, he opens a new daycare debate and drives a wedge between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives would sacrifice the needs of children to the ideology of choice.

The Liberals will need to rethink their early learning philosophy, at least in terms of when it should start outside of the home. Parents will have to balance their economic choices with the best interests of their children.

To compound the problem, Prime Minister Harper is now daring the Opposition in parliament to defeat his minority government over the daycare allowance. That may be fair in politics as are his efforts to enlist socially conservative groups to help sell his program but he crosses the line when he portrays those who believe the money would be better spent on the creation of new daycare spaces as “pie in the sky academics and researchers”.

The issue is not about “day care” in the sense of nine to five baby-sitting. It’s about the proper care of infants and toddlers, first by their parents and then by trained supervised professionals.

Researchers have already established the link between early childhood learning and success in later life. Access to quality daycare, is no longer considered a luxury in Canadian society. It has become a right for working parents and their children.

More importantly, their children are Canada’s future. A $1200 a year childcare allowance will not contribute much to that future.

Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and business owner operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic.

In July 2005, Sydney Crosby was first pick in the NHL Entry Draft.

This week, he finished his first NHL season becoming the youngest player in NHL history to record 100 points in a season. He then proceeded to break Mario Lemieux’s record as all-time highest rookie scorer for the Pittsburgh Penguins.

Now the debate begins over “rookie of the year” honours. Should it be the talented Russian Alex Ovechkin who score 52 goals and 54 assists for a total of 106 points while playing for the Washington Capitals or will it be the talented Sydney Crosby who scored 39 goals and had 63 assists for a total of 102 points?

Based on sheer points scored in the 2005-06 season, it would have to be Ovechkin. Some have suggested his record is more impressive than Crosby’s because Washington was a weaker team than Pittsburgh.

Others will argue that Crosby’s performance was the more impressive because he’s only eighteen while Ovechkin is three years his senior at twenty one. It’s a tough call because they’re both great players.

Regardless of who wins “rookie of the year”, I would have to bet that Crosby will be the more dominant player over the next few years. One just needs to compare their records for the last three years. In 152 games with the Moscow Dynamos of the Russian Super League, Ovechkin had 36 goals and 32 assists while, in just 116 games with the Rimouski Oceanics, Crosby had an amazing 301 points including 120 goals.

Even if the Russian league is competitive with the NHL, Crosby’s record is more impressive because he scored 102 points in the NHL at the age of eighteen while Ovechkin only scored 24 points in the Russian league at the same age.

Even if we’re comparing apples to oranges, my vote goes to Crosby for NHL Rookie of the Year.

Now that leads to the next great debate. Can Crosby beat the records of a Mario Lemieux or a Wayne Gretsky? To even challenge, he will have to keep healthy for a lot of years. He will also need line mates who can score.

Gretsky had Jari Kurri in his best years. Kurri scored nearly 400 goals over a seven year span. Lemieux had Jaromr Jagr. Gretsky won ten scoring championships. Lemieux, with all his health problems, won six.

To put things in context, Gretsky played twenty seasons in the NHL and recorded 2,857 points, an average of 142.8 points a season. In five of those seasons he scored more than 200 points. In 9 of those seasons, he scored more than 150 points. Big shoes to fill!


Sidney Crosby was born and raised in Cole Harbour, Nova Scotia, just outside of Halifax. At age 14, he joined the Dartmouth Subways and scored a record breaking 217 points in 81 games. Those are Gretsky type numbers.

In the fall of 2002, Sidney headed to Shattuck-St. Mary's, a college prep school in Minnesota where he and his fellow teammates led their school hockey team to the championship title. In June 2003, he was selected first in the QMJHL entry draft by the Rimouski Oceanics.

In his first season at Rimouski, Crosby scored 54 goals in fifty four games and added eighty one assists for 135 points. It was in Rimouski where Sydney learned to speak Canada’s second official language. Quite the contrast to Eric Lindros, who many will recall, refused to play in Quebec City years ago because he couldn’t speak French.

In March of 2005, Crosby’s hockey playing abilities landed him his first major endorsement deal, almost 5 months before he was drafted into the NHL. Reebok signed him to a 5 year contract worth between $2 and $2.5 million. It’s rare for an athlete to receive such an endorsement before turning professional.

It happened with NBA superstar LeBron James and golfer Tiger Woods (Nike) and more recently with Michele Wie (also Nike), the teenage golfing sensation but I can’t think of another hockey example who became a sponsored multi-millionaire before lacing on his NHL skates.

Some become instant contract millionaires but even the Great Gretsky had to wait until he signed his famous personal services contract with the Edmonton Oilers' infamous Peter Pocklington.

Before Crosby turned 17, Gretzky had him tabbed as the best player to hit the hockey world since Mario Lemieux. Others have compared him to the NBA’s Lebron James, the NBA star who was constantly compared to the NBA's greatest players before his rookie year a few seasons back. James went on to become rookie of the year in the 2003-04 season, the youngest in NBA history.

To complete the picture, I’m told that Mr. Crosby has added a Moncton connection to his résumé. Apparently he finished his high school education this year via correspondence with Bernice MacNaughton High.

He’ll be here in September to collect his diploma when the Pittsburgh Penguins set up their mini training camp at the Coliseum. Who knows, he might even show up for the final few games of the Memorial Cup after he finishes playing for Team Canada in Latvia at the world hockey championship in May.

It looks like Gretsky had it right when he identified Sydney Crosby as the best since Lemieux. Crosby has already broken two records in the NHL including one held by Lemieux. Only time will tell if he’ll enjoy the longevity of Gretsky and Lemieux but he’s certainly made a great start.
Congratulations to a fine young Nova Scotian.

Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and business owner operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic.

Accountability has several meanings. It is often used synonymously with words such as answerability, responsibility, blame, liability and others. As an aspect of governance, it has been central to discussions related to problems in both the public and corporate worlds.

Accountability implies a concern for the welfare of those with whom one works or serves. At its root, accountability involves either the expectation or assumption of account-giving behavior. In politics, accountability is an important factor in securing good governance. Accountability differs from transparency in that it only enables feedback after a decision or action, while transparency enables feedback before or during a decision or action.

This week, The Conservative Government of Stephen Harper introduced its “Accountability Act”, one of its five legislative priorities along with GST reductions, childcare payments, crime and hospital waiting times.

Accountability is a two way street. The Accountability Act is a reaction to the Liberal’s Sponsorship scandal but the new Prime Minister seems to think that accountability is something that should not apply to him.

In the recent election, the now Prime Minister promised an elected Senate. Mr. Harper’s Minister of Public Works is a non-elected Senator who does not have a seat in the House of Commons and is not accountable to Members of Parliament. The Minister, Michael Fortier is a lawyer from Montreal. He was Chair of Mr. Harper’s leadership campaign for the new Conservative Party in 2003, and during the last federal election, he was co-chair of Mr. Harper’s national election campaign. The Department of Public Works was at the centre of the Sponsorship scandal.

The Accountability Act would ban Cabinet ministers and their staff from lobbying government for five years. It does not prevent Conservatives who have already served in Parliament or in Parliamentary staff positions from lobbying Mr. Harper’s government. Mr. Harper’s Minister of Defense is a former lobbyist for the arms industry.

Will he be accountable to the arms industry or to the Canadian public?

Answerability is a component of accountability. Mr. Harper has muzzled his Cabinet. They are not allowed to speak to or answer to the media without his approval and without advance clearance of their remarks. On Thursday, Mr. Harper or one of his ministers muzzled a senior public servant who was ready to launch a book related to the environment.

Who knows what’s in his book but it probably supports the Kyoto Accord and that would be anathema to the Harper Government. Mr. Harper refuses to take questions from the media. Indeed, on Wednesday when he couldn’t control who would ask him questions, he walked out of a media conference.

His actions contradict the principle of accountability.

The Accountability Act would reform the financing of political parties, strengthen the role of the Ethics Commissioner, toughen the Lobbyists Registration Act and give a new Commissioner of Lobbying enhanced powers to investigate and enforce them. The Act would create the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide objective analysis to Members of Parliament and parliamentary committees concerning the state of the nation’s finances.

It would introduce a uniform process for appointing Agents and Officers of Parliament, appoint an independent Procurement Auditor to provide additional oversight for the procurement process; appoint an Independent Advisor to conduct a full review of public opinion research, provide protection to whistleblowers that disclose government wrongdoing and create a Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal.

It would provide public-sector employees with access to legal counsel and provide a $1,000 reward to public-service employees who expose wrongdoing in the workplace.

It would strengthen the power of the Auditor General by expanding the reach and scope of the Auditor General’s investigative powers and bolstering the internal audit function within departments and Crown corporations. It would also create a Director of Public Prosecutions, outside the Department of Justice, with the authority to conduct criminal prosecutions under federal law.

It would appear from this vantage point that the Act runs contrary to one of the Conservatives' key election pledges: to limit spending growth in departments and agencies.

The bill either strengthens or creates seven senior positions in the public service with such heady titles as director of public prosecutions and the public sector integrity commissioner.

There will be a beefed-up conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, with a required judicial background, to watch over MPs and Senators. A director of public prosecutions will chase down bureaucrats who defraud the system.

It looks to me like a lot more money and resources will be spent in Ottawa to fund a team of unelected officials or underground spies who will serve as members of Mr. Harper’s secret ‘Accountability Police’. The one gift to MPs in all of this is that their new parliamentary budget officer will be able to advise their committees on financial issues.

As far as I can tell, there's only one measure in Mr. Harper’s Accountability Act that will directly affect the average Canadian. Individuals will only be able to donate $1,000 a year to a political party or an individual candidate. That’s down from the current $5,000 limit. I suspect that will draw the ire of most New Brunswickers.

If enacted, a majority of the proposed reforms in the Act would escape the oversight of the Access to Information Act. It may indeed encourage further government secrecy, particularly among public servants. The real danger in this Act may lie in the fact it could go unchallenged by the opposition parties.

The Liberals walk on accountability eggshells. The NDP and the Bloc won’t want to be seen opposing anything as pure in its intent as an Accountability Act. The public will probably react with a yawn.

The devil will be in the details.

Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and business owner operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic.

I’m haunted by pictures of Stephen Harper and George W. Bush, playing the buddy thing and smiling for the camera in Cancun, Mexico last week.

If that wasn’t enough, read this week’s Throne Speech “this Government is committed to supporting Canada’s core values of freedom, democracy, the role of law and human rights around the world”.

Sounds suspiciously like a George Bush line to me. The speech goes on to characterize “Canada’s relationship with the United States as our best friend and our largest trading partner”.

The United States is clearly our largest trading partner and we share a long and mostly friendly relationship with the people of that Country.

We need to build on this relationship but we should not be publicly associating with George W. Bush. This is a man who even now is being investigated in his own country as a possible war criminal. This is a man who some in his country are talking about impeaching.

This is a man who ignores the laws of his country by ordering illegal spying on the American people. This is a man who conspires with his Vice President and senior staff to unmask an undercover CIA operative because her husband disagreed with his claim that Iraq was buying yellow cake uranium to make nuclear weapons.

This is a man who condones the unlawful confinement of prisoners in Guantonamo without access to legal counsel or the right to be heard in open court. This is a man who, directly or indirectly condones the torture of prisoners. This is a man who lied to his own people and to the world in order to justify his invasion of Iraq.

The United States was traumatized by 9/11 and with good reason. On September 10, 2001, George W. Bush, newly elected President of the United States had no raison d'étre. He had been narrowly elected by virtue of a questionable outcome in the State of Florida. His brother was Governor of Florida. The day after 9/11, George W. was energized by his new “War on Terrorism”

A number of the 9/11 terrorists, perhaps a majority were from Saudi Arabia. Within a day or two of 9/11 a bunch of Saudis were secretly flown out of the United States. Some of them were Osama Bin Laden family members.

At the time of 9/11, there was a man being held in a U.S. prison by the name of Zacarias Moussaoui. He was subsequently charged and convicted for conspiring with Osama Bin Laden terrorists in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. During his trial, he claimed that his mission was to fly into the White House.

Earlier this week, a jury in Alexandria, Virginia, across the river from Washington D.C., ruled that his role in the conspiracy his lies to the FBI and the possibility that if he had revealed the 9/11 conspiracy, it might have been prevented, made him eligible for the death penalty.

U.S. Government prosecutors will soon recreate the whole 9/11 thing for the jury. They will bring dozens of family members and survivors of the 9/11 tragedy to testify against Moussaoui and to convince the jury to pronounce the death penalty. If the jury buys the prosecutors’ arguments and delivers the death penalty, it will risk the possibility of turning Moussaoui into a martyr for terrorist groups and that has profound implications for the world.

In Islamic tradition, martyrdom means dying in a way that deserves paradise. A jury spooked by the audio and video images of 9/11 may lose its ability to recognize the implications of martyrdom. If the jury votes to put Moussaoui to death, Osama Bin Laden terrorists could seize on his execution as reason for more terrorism and as propaganda to boost recruitment of new terrorists. Let’s hope the jurists are wise enough to put the man in prison for life where he would fade from public consciousness and cheat the goals of martyrdom.

I can’t leave the United States without mention of border-crossing documents that will be required by the U.S. as early as January 2008. To cross the border into the United States, Canadians will need a passport or some yet to be designed “smart card”. The same will be true for Americans returning to the United States from Canada. This could be become a major trade barrier, particularly in respect to the flow of tourists.

I don’t have a problem with it because I have a passport and travel with it all the time but thousands of Americans who have traditionally been welcomed to Canada as tourists do not have passports and might not be willing to pay the $100 or so dollars to get one for a trip to Canada. Stephen Harper has already acquiesced to the passport initiative so we can expect no help from him.

Noticeably absent from this week’s Throne Speech was any mention of the Kyoto Accord, climate change or global warming although there is passing reference to a “reduction in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

That puts the Government in sync with the U.S. Administration which has forbidden Scientists doing climate research for the U.S. Government from talking to the media or to the American public about global warming. Sounds like Harper’s relationship with the Canadian media.

Prime Minister Harper would be well advised to keep his distance from President George W. Bush.

This man appears to be soiled goods.

Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and business owner operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic.

In one fell swoop, the Provincial Government trampled its ‘free-market’ ideology, emasculated the Public Utilities Board (PUB), undermined the management of NB Power, rendered NB Power’s Board of Directors mute, assumed responsibility for management of NB Power and performed a feat of magic. Here’s how they did it.

In 1999, the Lord Government trumpeted Mike Harris’ ideology of free market electricity and open market competition. They restructured NB Power on the pretext that restructuring would facilitate competition. They preached the philosophy of arms-length management for the utility and directed it to operate like a business.

In late 2005, NB Power applied to the Public Utilities Board for an 11.6% (13% for residential customers) rate increase. The Utility claimed that it needs the increase to offset growing fuel costs. This past week, the Premier announced an 8% HST rebate on electricity for residents and industry. Cost to taxpayers about $100 million.

On top of that he capped the rate increase at 8% making a laughing stock of the PUB’s authority to approve or disapprove NB Power’s application for a rate increase.

Next he took responsibility for the management and governance of NB Power by directing the utility to find $20 million in operational savings, to cancel management’s bonus plan, to diversify its fuel sources, to pursue its legal action against Venezuela for loss of Orimulsion fuel savings, to study the feasibility of a second Lepreau and to discontinue the practice of estimating meter readings.

He makes a mockery of the utility’s Board of Directors and renders implicit the Government’s responsibility for the $750 million Coleson Cove/Orimulsion decision.

By capping rate increases and subsidizing the allowable increase with a tax rebate, the Government acknowledges that the electricity market does not work and competition or lack thereof has failed to deliver the promise of lower rates. It also undermines conservationists who would use price to reduce demand for electricity.

That brings us to the “magic” part of the variety show. On Tuesday, the Provincial Minister of Finance introduced his budget for 2006/07. The Minister promised tax cuts, increased spending and a budget surplus. That sounds a bit like George Bush’s voodoo economics.

For the next fiscal year beginning April 1, 2006 (today), the Minister forecasts $3.5 billion in earned income plus $2.4 billion in transfers from the federal governments (41% of his total revenue) in the form of equalization grants, health and social transfers and other grants. That’s total revenue of $5.9 billion.

Estimates tabled in the Provincial Legislature indicate that operating expenditures will be $5.8 billion. With number rounding, that suggests a surplus of close to $100 million. However, attachments to the Minister’s “Budget Speech” suggest that operating expenses will actually be $6.2 billion. That would turn a surplus into a $300 million deficit.

The difference is explained in non-operational expenses for capital, amortization and “special purpose” transactions. It would appear that a $408 million deficit in the Government’s ‘Capital Account’ is the masking (or is that magic) brew that permits claims of a $22 million "operating-surplus”.

If you are into voodoo economics, you’ll love this little ditty.

The HST rebate will cost something in the order of $100 million a year. Guess what, the Minister’s budget shows a year over year loss in HST revenue of only $23.6 million. To make his numbers, he’ll need the provincial economy to throw off an extra billion dollars or more in taxable purchases of non-energy goods and services (a 10% increase year over year).

I suppose it’s possible with the right mix of expansion, inflation and population growth but realistically....

Assuming NB Power’s application for an 11.6% rate increase is legitimate and based on rising fuel costs, the loss of 3.6 points will cost the utility about $42 million. David Hay, CEO of NB Power was hired to run the corporation as a “business” that would return a profit to its shareholders. Derek Burney (Chairman of NB Power’s Board of Directors) was hired to oversee management of the business. Nobody can run a business for profit when the owner sucks it dry.

As a matter of principle, I would think that Mr. Hay and the entire Board of Directors would want to offer their resignations.

One final consideration – did the Provincial Government do the right thing?

It’s hard to argue against a program that helps both consumers and industry, especially the forest industry.

In the past I have contended that sales tax should not be applied to essential purchases of electricity and heating fuels but timing is everything. The problem with rebating the sales tax in response to a price increase for electricity is that it does nothing to encourage more efficient production. It does nothing to encourage conservation and the benefits flow disproportionately to the largest users of electricity.

The good news is that it might save jobs, particularly in the forest industry.

On a political note, I have to give the Government its due. It will be awfully hard for the Opposition to defeat a budget that rolls back an 11.6 % increase in the cost of electricity.

The only problem is what do they do for an encore? What happens when NB Power goes back to the PUB for its next increase? I guess that’s a matter for another day.

In terms of political expediency, the Premier has delivered a coup. His Government has chosen to invest in a Hollywood “makeover”, ideologically speaking. No longer will its members be recognized as clones of Mike Harris Conservatives. They are now true liberals.

This begs the question – whose costume will they don next?

Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and business owner operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic.