A month ago two thirds of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada endorsed a motion to be presented at the Party’s national convention next week that “the Quebec nation within Canada be recognized and that the Party create a task force to suggest ways to officialize this historical and social reality”.

The Quebec resolution split the Liberals and their leadership candidates.

Earlier this week, as the Liberals tried to smooth over their differences, the Bloc Quebecois decided to embarrass the Liberals by exploiting those differences. The Bloc served notice that they would introduce a motion in Parliament that would read as follows “That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation”.

For the record, Webster defines a nation as “a body of people associated with a particular territory and possessing its own government”.

Others define “nation” as a relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country, a people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language. The term is sometimes used to describe a community of people (First Nations) with common interests or an ethnic group.

Recognizing the challenge presented by the Bloc motion, Prime Minister Harper shocked the House of Commons on Wednesday by serving notice that he too would put a motion before the House. The Harper motion reads “That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada”.

Most members in the House quickly endorsed the Harper motion although there will be no vote on it until Monday.

I think he has unleashed a firestorm.

The Bloc were quick to blast the Harper motion on the grounds that Quebec will never accept the fact that Quebec can only be recognized as a nation if it agrees to remain in Canada.

Michael Ignatieff pronounced it as a good day for Canada. Indeed, pundits interpreted Harper’s motion as a lifeline for Ignatieff in that it gets him out from under his “nation” conundrum.

Defenders of the motion say that it is harmless, only a symbolic gesture that changes nothing. In my view, it will embolden separatists and create bitterness and division among Canadians.

Consider these early interpretations.

• Action democratique leader Mario Dumont endorses the Harper motion by describing it as the first step toward negotiating more power for the province of Quebec and reducing federal spending powers.

• Premier Jean Charest says that recognition of Quebec as a nation will affect how courts interpret the province’s laws and influence the way the international community views Quebec. He says “it changes our place in Canada”.

• Andre Bouteclaire, leader of the Parti Québécois says that recognition of Quebec as a nation will help speed the transition to separation.

Supporters of the Harper motion, including many of the Liberal leadership candidates say the motion removes the question of Quebec nationhood from the leadership race. Some suggest that it will cement Harpers relationship with Quebec and boost his support in that province.

Stéphane Dion says he can live with the motion. Bill Graham, interim Liberal Leader says almost certainly he will support it. Ken Dryden says it has changed things but he doesn’t elaborate.

At this writing, Bob Rae and Gerald Kennedy had reserved comment although Rae had been strongly opposed to the Quebec Liberal motion on the subject. There are some people in both the Conservative and the Liberal caucus who say they may not support the motion.

To be fair and to provide some context, it should be noted that Harper’s motion only recognizes the Quebec people, not the province, as a nation. The flip side is that such recognition may encourage other groups such as the Acadians, or the Italians or the Chinese to demand nationhood “within a united Canada”.

The first draft of this column focused on the Liberal leadership race and prospects for the respective candidates. The Bloc and Harper motions have changed the context for that race.

The Federal Liberal Leadership race started with something in the order of eleven candidates. Reality and money pared that number to eight, leaving four “contenders” and four also-rans.

The surprise to me is that Ken Dryden is among the ‘also-rans’. It seems that people couldn’t get beyond his all-star hockey status. He had more to say than most of the candidates but his French language skills and bland delivery left him on the sidelines. It’s too bad because he is a worthy of frontline consideration.

That brings us to the four front-runners: Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Stéphane Dion and Gerald Kennedy. Michael Ignatieff helped create the “Quebec as a “nation” debacle. Stéphane Dion appears to support the Harper motion but rejects the notion of “officializing” Quebec as a nation.

He would also stand to benefit from any move to preserve the longstanding Liberal tradition of “rotation” between English and French leaders.

Pundits suggest that “winability” will be the most important issue at the convention.

There is no question that winability is important because without it, there is no chance of forming a government and no chance of putting one’s ideas into fruition. There are 308 seats in Parliament. It’s virtually impossible to win a majority without strong support in Quebec (with 75 seats) and Ontario (with 106 seats).

Reaction to the Harper motion will inevitably create context for the next election. When you look at the leadership race through an Ontario/Quebec prism, you quickly reduce the leadership contenders to three: Ignatieff, Rae and Dion, all perfectly bilingual (although some might argue with Dion’s use of the English language).

If winability trumps the day, my bet is that Michael Ignatieff will be the man. He’s new, unencumbered (except by his foot) and looks and sounds like a Canadian Prime Minister.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com 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 small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

A study released this week by “German Watch”, a European-based environmental group, placed Canada near the bottom in a survey of 56 countries, based on their climate change policies and initiatives.

Canada ranked 51 while the United States ranked 53. Among the G8 nations, Canada ranked 7th while the U.S. was last. Great company!

Coincidently, international environmental groups recognized our Minister of the Environment as the “fossil of the day” for making “ridiculous claims” about Canada meeting all of its Kyoto commitments, except for its targets.

Aside from Kyoto targets, it’s interesting to note the political impact of environmental issues on the recent mid-term elections in the United States. There's no question that the environment played a central role in some high-profile victories.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger - one of the few Republicans with anything to smile about on Tuesday - got a boost from signing into law the United States’ first mandatory caps on greenhouse-gas emissions - and then coasted to victory over Democratic challenger Phil Angelides.

What’s striking about the California example isn't just that the climate change issue played a decisive role in electoral races; it's that it was used to bring an optimistic, inspirational message to an election year marked by negative, anti-war campaigning.

In comparison, Canada’s Harper government introduced a “Clean Air Act” in October that would begin regulating smog levels by 2010 and cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050. The Act provides no hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions until 2020 or 2025, yet the government would seek to cut emissions by 45 to 65 per cent by 2050. Until then, the government would set "intensity-based" emissions targets.

Intensity-based targets mean environmental emissions are measured by units of production, not total emissions. An industry could reduce its emissions per barrel of oil but double its use of oil and meet the targets.

Lower your intensity, use more oil and increase greenhouse gas emissions. Does that make sense?

Contrast Canada’s position with France where the objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by the year 2050. According to a report prepared for the French Government and released October 9th the objective is achievable.

Can we in Canada wait until 2020 or 2040 to commit ourselves to hard reductions?

Not according to researchers. The rise in the greenhouse effect is a cumulative phenomenon. "The later we act, the more difficult it will be to return to a level of emissions absorbable by the biosphere; the more elevated the atmospheric concentrations, the more significant the problem will be."

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says the average global surface temperature has risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1900, with much of that rise coming in the 1990s – likely the warmest decade in 1,000 years. The IPCC also found that snow cover since the late 1960s has decreased by about 10 per cent and lakes and rivers in the Northern Hemisphere are frozen over about two weeks less each year than they were in the late 1960s.

Mountain glaciers in non-polar regions have also been in "noticeable retreat" in the 20th century, and the average global sea level has risen between 0.1 and 0.2 metres since 1900.
Earlier this month, a report by Sir Nicholas Stern, Head of the British Government Economics Service and Adviser to the Blair Government on the economics of climate change, warned that the uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases could lead to a rise in average global temperatures of up to 5C by 2100 - about the same temperature difference between now and the last ice age.

According to Stern, unabated climate change could cost the world at least 5% of GDP each year. If more dramatic predictions come to pass, the cost could be more than 20% of GDP. On the other hand, he says the cost of reducing emissions could be limited to around 1% of global GDP if people were charged more for carbon-intensive goods. Stern says that shifting the world onto a low-carbon path could eventually benefit the global economy by $2.5 trillion a year.

Sir Nicholas is at odds with Canada’s Environment Minister Ambrose and her boss Stephen Harper who would do little about environmental matters until 2020. Indeed, election of the Conservative government in 2006 brought about a reversal in Canada's climate change policy.

In April 2005, the Liberals pledged to spend $10 billion over seven years to help Canada reduce its average greenhouse gas emissions by 270 megatonnes a year from 2008 to 2012. When the Conservative government tabled its federal budget in May 2006, there wasn't a single mention of the Kyoto Protocol.

While Canada buried its head in the sand, the State of California’s Governor Arnold Swartzineger signed a deal with British Prime Minister Tony Blair to tackle climate change. They will co-operate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to promote new clean fuel technologies and energy diversity.

The province of Quebec isn’t waiting for the Feds. Claude Béchard, Quebec’s Minister of the Environment says the province will meet its Kyoto targets with or without help from the federal government.

The Conservatives are not alone in the sand.

The Liberal leadership campaign seems bogged in definitions of “nation” while the world worries about war, terror and climate change. The sand may be shifting.

Recent Canadian polls indicate that climate change may soon be a bigger issue than healthcare.

More than 25% of respondents now say the environment will be a key factor in their vote in the next election. The candidate who occupies that space may find him or herself with an unexpected territorial advantage.


W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com 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 small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

I have to take my hat off to the Americans.

For the first time since 9/11 a majority of eligible voters (millions didn’t vote and thousands more were rejected for lack of ID and other non-sequiturs) have acknowledged that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was wrong, that the subsequent handling of Iraqi re-construction was a debacle, that multi-trillion dollar deficits are unacceptable, that scandal and corruption are not acceptable, that the "Military Commissions Act" is non-American and inconsistent with the American Constitution and American values and most significantly that their president is accountable to them for all of the above.

Finally, we witness the first step on a return to the feted American democracy.

At this writing, the Democrats have gained at least 25 seats and a clear majority in the House of Representatives. Early Wednesday, the Senate was tied at 49/49 with two seats undecided in Montana and Virginia.

By Thursday afternoon, the two Republican incumbents had conceded defeat. The Democrats had wrested control of the Senate from Republicans, giving the party complete domination of Capitol Hill for the first time since 1994. The Democrat’s victory in Virginia ended Republican hopes of a 50-50 split that would have given Vice President Dick Cheney tie-breaking authority.

So where do we go from here?

The House of Representatives votes on money bills and thereby can exercise influence over how that money is spent. Neither the House nor the Senate can dictate foreign policy or war policy but they can influence policy by virtue of how they allocate money and how they challenge a presidential decision.

The Senate must approve judicial and cabinet appointments so that gives the Democrats say over who goes to the Supreme Court and who sits in the President’s cabinet.

There is opportunity for the House to introduce legislation that would repeal Mr. Bush’s “Military Commissions Act” (an act that allows the president to arbitrarily declare anyone, including an American citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant."

An Act that permits the president to imprison designated enemy combatants without charge or trial, for the duration of the "War on Terror"." An Act that permits the president to subject captives to "strenuous interrogation techniques" that by any rationale constitutes torture. The Act provides amnesty for U.S. officials, including Bush and others who might have authorized torture, murder or other violations of human rights).

The problem is that even if such repeal legislation passed the House and the Senate, the President would not be inclined to sign it and the bill could sit moribund for the next two years waiting for a new president.

Where else can the Democrats go?

There are a ton of issues that come to mind from minimum wages, to healthcare, funded pensions and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions but the public’s first expectation will be that power in the hands of Democrats will lead to a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

That’s a double-edged sword because total withdrawal or quick withdrawal would likely result in total chaos and civil war in Iraq. To compound the problem, withdrawal of war funds by a Democratic majority would be seen as an abandonment of the U.S. troops in Iraq.

In my opinion, the Democratic leadership should quickly and publicly acknowledge to the world that the invasion of Iraq was a misguided catastrophe. They should apologize, on behalf of the United States to the people of Iraq and to the world for that travesty. They should acknowledge America’s responsibility and they should commit to a realistic reconstruction program and a phased withdrawal program that would be undertaken in partnership with the people of Iraq and the government of Iraq.

Democrats should move quickly to marginalize their president, not in terms of the significance or prestige of his office but by reviving the U.S. Constitution and restoring the powers of oversight vested in Congress and the U.S. judicial system.

Democrats should publicly consider an investigation into the Administration’s practices over the last six years, including but not limited to the awarding of reconstruction contracts in Iraq. They should consider an investigation into how the Administration manipulated facts to justify its decision to invade Iraq. T

hey should hold public consultations to determine how the Bush Administration has contravened the U.S. Constitution and how those contraventions could be over-turned. They should mandate a non-partisan commission of election reformists to determine how the United States of America could implement an impartial, bullet-proof ballot system that would withstand the manipulations of those who would defraud democracy and the American public.

Tuesday’s elections were mid term in the President’s four year mandate. The elections turned out to be a referendum on George Bush and his war policies. Interesting in the result was the number of small ‘c’ conservative Democrats elected. They are fiscal conservatives and not big spenders but they oppose the war in Iraq.

First casualty in the post-election blame game was Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense and one of the architects of Bush’s invasion of Iraq. The back of the "Neo-conservative Revolution" has been broken, perhaps not forever but for a long time to come.

The ideology foisted upon an unwilling populace by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others, the ideology that produced slaughter in Iraq and ravaged America’s reputation abroad, has been exposed and eviscerated.

There is a lesson for Stephen Harper and Liberal leadership candidates in the outcome.

George W. Bush’s right wing, Christian based republicanism is no longer in vogue.

Americans will likely downsize their involvement in Iraq. They may lose interest in Afghanistan.

Canadians may be abandoned or weakened in Afghanistan by an American nation that wants out of war.


W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com 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 small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

So what do we write about this weekend?

There are so many things that are going on and deserve comment –

• the U.S. mid-term elections, the report by British economist Sir Nicholas Stern on greenhouse gas emissions versus Canada’s “Clean Air Act”,
• catastrophic events in Iraq, Canada’s role in Afghanistan,
• the population crisis in New Brunswick,
• ownership of the Beaverbrook art collection,
• the pending financial crisis at NB Power,
• Shawn Graham’s meeting with Steven Harper,
• Michael Ignatieff’s embrace of Quebec-nationhood,
• prospects for the Saint John energy-hub,
• the Federal Liberal leadership race,
• Harper’s (Finance Minister, James M. Flaherty) “income-splitting” announcement for seniors and his parallel trashing of corporate income trusts,
• source rebates on New Brunswick’s provincial sales tax on home-heating costs,
• former Premier Lord’s job prospects or whatever.

The issue most important to Canada and to New Brunswick is leadership.

In respect to Canada, leadership is about this Country’s role in the world, its management of the national economy, its fight against global warming, its fiscal relationships with the provinces and significantly, its relationship with Quebec.

The issue most important to New Brunswick is economic development and self-sufficiency.

How do we become economically self-sufficient? How do we grow our economy?

The new Liberal Government has identified energy as a wealth-creator. There is no doubt that energy is a high-demand commodity, particularly in the United States but wealth-creation is fashioned by export and export is dependent on a combination of demand, price and transportation.

Electricity exports are bottlenecked by transmission deficiencies in the United States. Gas exports are contingent on pipeline capacity to and within the United States. Refined oil products (including gasoline) flow freely in response to demand and ground transportation capacity.

A few months ago, the Lord Government masked an increase in electricity prices by capping a proposed 11.6% rate increase by NB Power at 8% and promising a rebate of New Brunswick’s 8% sales tax on home heating fuels.

Good short-term politics perhaps, but bad economics and bad behavior in a world faced with the impact of global warming, encouraged by greenhouse gas emissions.

The Liberals promised in the recent election to replace the home-heating/electricity tax rebate with a source deduction. They should deliver on that promise, if it’s possible but remind folks that former Premier Lord’s promise of rebate was misleading and irresponsible.

The rebate (source-deducted or claimed) should be a one year only rebate. We cannot afford it long term. Lord did not promise it long-term. More significantly, price subsidization discourages conservation and that is a mistake.

NB Power is responsible for generating and distributing electricity in New Brunswick. It should be compensated for that service on a cost-recovery basis (including the cost of capital replacement and new investment). So long as NB Power is government-owned, it should not be expected to earn a profit except as required to generate replacement and/or expansion capital.

That said, NB Power like other electric utilities is a generator of greenhouse gases. It burns coal, oil and natural gas to generate electricity. As Sir Nicholas Stern, David Suzuki, Al Gore and hundreds of others around the world have warned, greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and that spells potential disaster for the planet.

Capping and masking the true cost of electricity in New Brunswick does a disservice to the province, to its citizens, to the country and to the world because it discourages people from conserving and/or from seeking cleaner fuels.

I’m not insensitive to the pains of higher cost but I know that price influences demand and that higher prices will reduce demand for electricity. We need policies in this province that recognize the balance between cost, affordability and economic growth.

We need policies and programs that encourage personal and corporate investments in energy-saving initiatives. To reach the balance between cost and affordability, we may need interim support programs to bridge the gap between reality and goal.

Energy is one part of the equation; Premier Graham has challenged us with a twenty year self-sufficiency goal.

• We need to understand what it is that will make us self-sufficient.
• We need to understand what we need to do to become self-sufficient.
• We need to know what it is that we need from the federal government and outside investors to help us on the road to self-sufficiency.

We need to hedge our demands for “equalization” with investments in self-sufficiency initiatives.

We need to leverage the notion of “fiscal imbalance” between provinces and the federal government to produce more investment in economic development.

For example, capital invested in extension of the Fundy Trail could create a new and enhanced tourist attraction that would bring new eco-tourists to the province.

Investments in international air service could bring new visitors to the province. Consolidation of inter-provincial air service in Moncton could improve service to the province and bring new investors to this region. Investment in manufacturing ventures like automobile parts (Magna as an example) could bring new jobs to the province.

Frank McKenna focused on soft (by that I mean non-physical) jobs in the communications and tech industries. He was hugely successful. IBM, Microsoft, Boeing, Airbus, Ford, GM, Daimler-Chrysler, Volkswagen, Toyota, Honda, Michelin and tons of other world-brand manufacturers offer a different kind of potential because they produce labour intensive, knowledge-based, semi-physical jobs, much like the energy sector. Let’s go after them.

To my knowledge, there is no economy in the world that survives solely on the basis of intellectual property and/or service jobs.

There is no reason we can’t be self-sufficient. The only excuse we have for failure is ourselves and that’s not good enough.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com 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 small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com