It’s traditional at this time of year for writers to pass judgment on such matters as performer of the year, politician of the year, businessman/woman of the year, events of the year, etc.

Newspapers and magazines document the events that have occupied their pages for the last twelve months. Precocious columnists make predictions about the next twelve months and the events or people who will make news. Some offer New Year’s resolutions in the hope they will titillate readers.

This week, I was tempted to focus on climate change and the long-term forecasting of weather trends but former U.S. President Gerald Ford died on Tuesday. Some of you will remember that he was President from 1974 to 1977. He did not run for President.

He inherited the presidency as a result of two circumstances:

• (i) Vice President Spiro Agnew was forced to resign over charges of tax evasion. President Richard Nixon appointed Ford as Agnew’s replacement
• (ii) Nixon resigned when faced with almost certain impeachment in respect to the Watergate affair. Vice President Ford succeeded Nixon.

The passing of a (former) U.S. president causes one to reminisce. I can remember as a kid hearing my parents talk about Roosevelt and Truman and Eisenhower.

My interest in the U.S. presidency surfaced in 1960, when John F. Kennedy ran as the first Catholic presidential candidate in the history of the United States. He didn’t hide his religion; he confronted it and voters responded positively.

His 1963 assassination was devastating. I was home sick with the flu at the time and watched television, non-stop for at least three days. I watched the replays of his assassination. I watched the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. I watched the assassination of Oswald by Jack Ruby. I watched Jackie Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson travel from Dallas to Washington.

Lyndon Johnson succeeded Kennedy and implemented some of Kennedy’s programs. The Vietnam War caused him to not re-offer for the presidency. He was succeeded by Richard Nixon who won presidential elections in 1968 and 1972.

The Watergate affair surfaced just prior to the 72 election. There was a break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Hotel in Washington. Subsequent denials, cover-ups and audio-tape-wipes led to impeachment proceedings and Nixon’s resignation.

I’ll never forget hearing the news of his resignation. It was the summer of 1973. I was at a cottage on St. Margaret’s Bay in Nova Scotia and received the information in a telephone booth.

The next president was Gerald Ford. Ford was a decent man. He was good to Canada. Indeed, he was instrumental in gaining a seat for Canada in the G-7, an elite group of global economies that included the United States, England, France, Germany, Japan and Italy and later Russia.

Ford lost his first and only presidential election to Jimmy Carter, former Governor of Georgia. Some blame Ford’s loss on the fact he pardoned Nixon for his Watergate crimes. My guess is that the American people were determined to replace Republicans because they were fed up with Nixon’s shenanigans. Ford never had a chance.

Carter was somewhat of an enigma. He was an outsider, a peanut farmer. He was also a man of principle. As President, he enacted strong environmental legislation. He negotiated the Camp David Accords and following Canada, established diplomatic relations with China. The Iranian hostage crisis dominated the last year of his term. A failed rescue attempt led to the resignation of his Secretary of State Cyrus Vance.

Jimmy Carter was defeated by Reagan in 1980. By coincidence, the Iran hostages were released on Carter's last day as President, just five minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.

It’s been suggested by some that George H.W. Bush, the President’s father negotiated a deal with the Iranians during Carter’s tenure but kept it secret until Reagan was sworn in, part of a deal to secure the hostage release.

Ronald Reagan was a former Governor of California; the oldest man (69) ever elected President of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a successful movie actor, television pitch-man for General Electric, a staunch conservative and advocate of free markets. He became a soul-mate of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

George H.W. Bush was Reagan’s Vice President. He was elected President in 1988. In 1990, Iraq led by Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, its oil-rich neighbor to the south.

A U.S. military coalition, under cover of Desert Storm (the Gulf War) was intended to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait and ensure that Iraq did not invade Saudi Arabia. When these objectives were achieved, Bush ordered cessation of combat operations and allowed Hussein to stay in power. He explained that it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs”. Bush Senior was defeated by Bill Clinton in 1992.

Clinton's presidency oversaw the longest period of economic growth in America's history. In 1998, he signed the Kyoto Accord, although it was never ratified. He signed the North American Free Trade Agreement. It was ratified by the U.S. Congress. He was unsuccessful in his attempt at universal health care reform and his presidency was tarnished by an alleged sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Today, he’s a superstar speechmaker/fund-raiser.

A recent book by Bob Woodward, Washington Post reporter of Watergate fame, makes implicit, in descriptions of a relationship between the Bush family and Prince Bandar bin Sultan (longtime Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States) that Bush Junior’s reason for running for president in 2000 was to finish what his father could not - eliminate Saddam Hussein.

He may soon achieve his goal but at what cost to humanity? My hope for 2007 is that the American people will find a way to deal with this caricature.

Happy New Year to all and to all a good new year!

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

Late Thursday afternoon, I attended a Christmas reception in a downtown Moncton office.

As I was leaving the reception, a business colleague was arriving. We shook hands, wished each other a Merry Christmas and then he asked me if I had written the editorial in Thursday’s Times & Transcript. I had not. Indeed, I had not even read it so naturally, I was intrigued.

I have since read the editorial “NB Power rates are too high”. There’s some twisted logic in that editorial and it deserves discussion.

Earlier this year (April/May), NB Power argued before the Public Utilities Board that it needed an 11.4% rate increase to meet its profit objectives in fiscal year 2006/07. The Conservative government of the day usurped the authority of the Board and promised voters that rate increases would be capped at 8%. They also promised to rebate the 8% Provincial Sales Tax on home heating fuels to offset the 8% increase in NB Power’s rates.

The public utility warned in response that the smaller increase would cause it to lose some $40 million plus another $30 million resulting from a time delay in the approval process.

NB Power reported in July 2006 that it had generated a $96 million dollar profit in fiscal year 2005/06 (ended March 31, 2006). The newspaper editorial suggested that NB Power’s fiscal 2005/06 profit should nullify the need for rate increases in fiscal 2006/07 but ignored the fact that NP Power was mandated by the previous government to produce profits consistent with private sector expectations.

A $96 million profit on revenues of $1.585 billion (6% before taxes) is not an acceptable profit ratio in the private sector. I’m not defending NB Power’s 2006 rate application but the notion that a prior year profit should mitigate the need for future revenues is a joke.

The second flaw in the editorial’s logic is the suggestion that because NB Power made a small profit in fiscal 2005/06, the new Provincial Government (elected in September 2006) should honour the former Conservative Government’s promise of an 8% tax rebate when to do so would push the Province towards a deficit. The tax rebate was a government initiative, not an NB Power promise.

In its final point of logic, the Times & Transcript argues that NB Power’s rates are excessive and inflationary, that consumers should not be forced to pay “market rates” for electricity because NB Power is a monopoly and that government should ease the burden of NB Power rates.

It’s true; NB Power is a virtual monopoly. It is not true that NB Power’s rates are insensitive to market competition. NB Power’s rates are 15% lower than Nova Scotia Power’s rates (also a monopoly) and nearly 20% lower than the average kilowatt hour rate in New England.

As to the notion that government should ease the burden of power rates, that would seem to contradict previous positions taken by this newspaper insofar as it has advocated the separation of government and utility and judged the operational performance of NB Power against private sector standards. NB Power is a public utility owned by the government. Ownership does not obligate subsidy.

All of which brings us to the point of this column. What is or should NB Power’s role be in our economy and in our daily lives. Clearly, the cost of energy is a factor in business location and retention. NB Power is a public utility charged with delivering electricity to its customers at affordable prices.

The Lord Government mandated NB Power to deliver profits to the Provincial Government. It re-structured its operations in anticipation of a competitive marketplace. It squandered millions of dollars on the Coleson Cove Orimulsion fiasco. It’s planning to test-burn new coke-based fuels as potential substitutes for Orimulsion.

The Times & Transcript says “NB Power rates are too high”.

The newspaper is right if the utility’s rate structure is financing economic development initiatives and/or if it is contributing revenue to the Provincial Treasury. It is wrong if the utility is operating as a cost-recovery, not-for-profit public utility. It is wrong if NB Power’s lower than market rates are encouraging the use of energy-producing fuels that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

It’s time we woke up to the economic, political and social implications of climate change to realize that it presents serious threats to humanity. As temperature and rainfall records tumble and droughts and floods strike many countries, politicians and business leaders are beginning to recognize the implications of climate change.

• 
  The Arctic tundra is melting faster than previously thought.
• Satellite images indicate that major rivers in Africa are carrying significantly less water than before.
• The Gulf Stream, which warms the north Atlantic, is losing its force. Arctic sea ice is predicted to disappear, along with polar bears, by 2040,
• and almost all the world's glaciers appear to be in retreat.
• World Cup skiing in Europe has been cancelled due to lack of snow.
• Here on December 23rd we have no ice in the Bay and no snow on the ground.

Something is wrong.

The new government’s audit review revealed that the cupboard is bare, no big surprise but a reality check, nonetheless. Tax rebates for home-heating costs (as promised by the Lord Government) are off the table. The new government will replace the rebate with a $100 payment to lower income families.

Some will argue that Scrooge is the ghost of Christmas this year. I would argue that anything that helps to reduce the consumption of electricity and anything that directly or indirectly leads to lower emissions of greenhouse gases, even an increase in the price of electricity is a Christmas bonus.

With all due respect to those who might disagree, I wish you a very Merry Christmas and a healthy New Year.

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 wise man knows when it’s time to move on.

Former Premier Lord showed great wisdom in his decision to step down as Leader of New Brunswick’s Conservative Party earlier this week. He is a young man with unique curriculum vitae.

How many forty year olds do you know with a law degree and seven years experience as the premier of a province?

Former U.S. General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said “Neither a wise man nor a brave man lies down on the tracks of history to wait for the train of the future to run over him”.

Bernard Lord has wisely chosen to make his own future. My guess is that future will take him back to the law or maybe to the vocation of rainmaker. In a year or two, he could choose to run for the leadership of the federal Conservative Party. In seven or eight years, he might even decide he wants to run again for the job of premier. Whatever, we wish him well.

Mr. Lord’s close friend in Ottawa is another story.

On Wednesday, he introduced a bill in the House of Commons that would ask Canadians to vote in Senate plebiscites to wit results would instruct the Prime Minister as to whom he (or she) should appoint to the Senate. What a waste of money!

Under the current system, the Prime Minister selects senators without public input. The prime minister passes his selection to the Governor General, who makes the official appointment.

There are already Senate elections in Alberta and British Columbia, but they are non-binding and the results are traditionally ignored by the prime minister. The new bill, if passed into law, would allow Harper to make changes (e.g. limit terms to eight years) to the Senate without opening the Constitution.

Voters would be asked in plebiscite to rank their favorite candidates for the Senate in order of preference. There would be no limit on the number of people who could run and the qualifications required for a senator would not change. Presumably, these plebiscites would be run every time a Senate vacancy occurs until such time as the total population of the Senate is made up of individuals recommended to the Prime Minister by voters.

While the bill would ask voters to choose their preferred candidates for the Senate, the Prime Minister would still make the final decision in terms of the appointment(s). So what’s the point?

Conservatives defend the bill by suggesting that it simply "expands the group of people the prime minister consults with". Mr. Harper characterizes his bill as “Senate reform”. You cannot reform the Senate without Constitutional change and you can’t change the Constitution without agreement of the provinces.

The Constitution Act of 1982 makes clear that Constitutional change requires “resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces”.

In my view, Mr. Harper’s Senate bill is a joke, just smoke and mirrors, one designed to confuse Canadians, much like his ludicrous bill to “recognize the Québecois as a nation within Canada”.

If Mr. Harper was serious about Senate reform, he would start with the reallocation of seats. The Maritime Provinces have a disproportionate number of seats in the Senate based on their founding status in Canada. That’s a good thing because it gives the Maritimes a voice in national affairs that would be missing if the Senate was based on representation by population.

Harper is not alone in his foolhardiness. The leader of the Bloc Québecois has announced he will introduce a motion in February on the question of Canada’s role in Afghanistan. His initiative would call on the Parliament of Canada to define Canada’s mandate in Afghanistan as a reconstruction mission as distinct from a hunt and kill mission. If Parliament disagrees, Duceppe threatens to introduce a non-confidence motion to defeat the Government and plunge the Country into an election.

The Bloc motion is specious. The party only has 51 seats in Parliament. The Conservatives have 124 seats. To upset the Government, the Bloc would have to attract the support of both the Liberals and the NDP. The NDP is on record in opposition to the Afghanistan mission but the Liberals are compromised. They took Canada to Afghanistan but the Conservatives extended the mission to 2009 and quietly changed the mandate.

Stéphane Dion is uncomfortable with the Conservative mission and sensitive to the fact that some 62% of Quebecers (as distinct from 48% of Canadians) oppose Canada’s role in Afghanistan. Therein lays the Bloc Québecois’ ploy. Force the Liberals to support its motion to grow its Quebec support or join with the rest of Canada to oppose Quebec. Not a pretty choice!

The intent of the Bloc Québecois motion is to force the Official Opposition to subvert its judgment in respect to life and death considerations in Afghanistan to the political imperatives of Quebec.

Canada and its NATO Allies went to Afghanistan to chase down the perpetrators of 9/11 and help with reconstruction of the country after the capture of Osama Bin Laden. The Americans quickly abandoned the hunt and turned their attention to Iraq.

Three years later, the Taliban has re-grouped and the war is on.

For Gilles Duceppe, the issue is not Canada’s role in Afghanistan. The issue is Quebec. If Duceppe introduces his non-confidence motion, the Liberals should introduce a preemptive motion that would render impotent the immoral debate proposed by Duceppe and replace it with a national debate on Canada’s role in Afghanistan.

Perhaps there is a role for Mr. Lord in this debate. He could serve as an arbiter between the Liberals and the Bloc Québecois

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 little over a week ago, on a provincial radio show, I forecast a Stéphane Dion win on the fourth ballot.

People ask me how I knew he would win. I didn’t know he would win anymore than a weather forecaster can prophesize the weather but there were some predictors and I could feel it in my gut.

Three weeks ago, Prime Minister Harper introduced a motion which called for recognition of “Québecois as a nation within a United Canada”.

Conventional wisdom of the day suggested that Michael Ignatieff would benefit from passage of the motion because it would get him out of the bog he had created with his endorsement of a resolution from the federal wing of the Quebec Liberal Party to recognize "Quebec as a nation and seek advice as to how the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada could "officialize" that recognition”.

Ignatieff’s endorsement of the Quebec Liberal resolution unnerved a lot of his non-Quebec supporters and the Harper motion did little if anything to comfort them.

Polls had shown Dion to be the second choice for a huge number (perhaps a majority) of delegates. Going into the convention, Gerard Kennedy and Stéphane Dion together had more votes than either of the two front-runners Michael Ignatieff or Bob Rae. It was widely suspected that Dion and Kennedy had some sort of agreement to support the other if and when it appeared one of them was not going to win.

There were other predictors:

• Bob Rae’s baggage as former NDP Premier of Ontario would hurt him;
• Michael Ignatieff’s early support for the invasion of Iraq and his contradictory remarks in respect to Israel’s military response to Lebanon would hurt him;
• nerve-endings from the longstanding Chrétien-Martin feud would hurt the candidates their people supported;
• there was strong desire among delegates for change and renewal; there was a substantial representation of youth among the delegates and climate change would prove to be a major floor issue, bigger than “winability”.

As to my fourth ballot prediction, that was informed luck.

Delegates were pre-committed to candidates on the first ballot. The only question was who would finish third Dion or Kennedy. Dion squeaked by with a two vote lead over Kennedy. Martha Hall-Finley moved to Dion before the second ballot and Dion increased his lead. Then Kennedy stunned the convention by seizing the role of king-maker and moving to Dion.

With Kennedy’s support, Dion leaped into first place with a significant lead over Ignatieff. Rae was gone.

The only question was whether or not Rae’s votes would stick with the establishment or follow Dion. Most of the high-profile establishment stayed with Ignatieff but their foot-soldiers went to Dion. He won by nearly 500 votes (55% to 45%). It was a paradigm shift, much like the election of Pierre Elliot Trudeau in the late sixties.

There is a New Brunswick story in Dion’s win.

Victor Boudreau, New Brunswick’s Minister of Finance moved to Dion after the first ballot. He will be a man of influence. Charlie Hubbard, MP from Miramichi was an early supporter of Dion, as was Art Doyle, long-time backroom strategist for the Liberals. They will be players.

As Co-Chair of the Convention, Dominic LeBlanc remained neutral but his fine performance at the podium, his stellar performance behind the scene and his strong links to both the English and the French wings of the party will make him an indispensable part of the Dion team.

Post-convention, pundits who had dismissed Dion’s candidacy because he had alienated Quebeckers with his “Clarity Act” (an Act to define the terms of separation if Quebec should ever vote to separate) moved quickly to diminish the importance of Dion’s win by reminding people that most Quebec delegates voted for Ignatieff or Rae. They forget that a lot of people admire Dion for standing up to the separatists. More importantly, Quebec has a long history of supporting its native sons.

Case in point: a Strategic Counsel Poll taken the day after the convention showed that 62% of Quebec respondents acknowledged that Dion was a good choice for leader as compared to the rest of Canada at 55%.

Only 9% were undecided in Quebec while 29% were undecided in the rest of Canada.

Liberal support nationally jumped to 37%

compared to the Conservatives at 31%.

In Ontario, the margin was even bigger with Liberals at 42%

and Conservatives at 32%.

Western Canada was unmoved.

It appears the West could be a bigger challenge for Dion than Quebec.

Dion has work to do before he convinces people that he should be the next Prime Minister of Canada. My brother suggests that he spend an hour a day working on his English. Not a bad idea. Dion is an excellent communicator in the French language. He needs to improve his English to make him more spontaneous, more comfortable and more passionate in English.

Language aside, Dion has a lot going for him. He has a vision for Canada that embraces economic development, social justice and sustainable development. He differs from Harper in his approach to Canada’s role in Afghanistan. He differs from Harper in his approach to the environment. He’s a strong defender of one Canada.

Climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is/are quickly becoming the most important (non-military) issue in the world. It’s a proven winner in California and the new mantra for Tony Blair in England. It could be a defining issue in Canada, one that distinguishes Dion from Harper.

Our kids get it.

There is a growing community of entrepreneurs who get it.

Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment and Stephen Harper missed it. I suspect a majority of the voting public will get it in the next election.

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 colleague asked me the other day, how is it that the issue of recognizing the Québecois as a nation concerns some people while others are completely sanguine about it. I'm not sure I have the answer.

People tend to be more literal than not and often miss the subtleties and nuances delivered by words and context. People view history through the prism of their own experience or the influences of their environment. They can be insensitive to happenings outside their immediate life circumstance unless they can see or feel the impact of events on their own lives.

David Peterson, former Premier of Ontario supported a motion from the federal wing of the Quebec Liberal Party that would not only recognize "Quebec as a nation" but would seek advice as to how the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada could "officialize" that recognition.

Is he stupid or just insensitive to Quebec nationalists who would use the precedent of “nation” recognition to advance the cause of separation and independence?

Already there is a battle over the word "Quebecois".

Quebec Premier Jean Charest says the word is all inclusive, that it includes all peoples resident in Quebec. Others say the word Québecois refers only to the French in Quebec. The French language definition of the word agrees with Charest "a native or inhabitant of Quebec". The English language definition is more specific "a French-speaking native or inhabitant of Quebec".

The Harper/Bloc motion straddled or compromised both languages with the word “Québecois”.

Those who drafted the Bloc motion were French. In all likelihood they did not appreciate the English difference in linguistic interpretation. Harper on the other hand, is a self-described policy wonk and political strategist. He would surely appreciate the difference. In fact, I suspect he was all over it.

Harper calculated that members of Parliament would be so desperate to diffuse the “Quebec nation” issue; they would jump on "a United Canada" as rationale to support the motion, the implication being that a United Canada would take precedence over the recognition of a French-speaking nation. A “United Canada” (not to be confused with the United States) would override the notion of a community recognized as a nation and by so doing would render the designation and recognition null and void.

The reality is that the two concepts; Quebecois as a “nation” and Canada as “united”, constitute an oxymoron. Who will decide which takes precedence, a judge or the people of Quebec? Mr. Harper has opened a Pandora’s Box and I doubt he'll be able to close it.

What does it mean for this weekend’s Federal Liberal leadership convention?

Two weeks ago, I would have said (and did) that Michael Ignatieff was the odds-on favorite to win. Today, the outcome is not so clear.

The Bloc/Harper motion on the Québecois has turned the convention upside down. The Quebec issue has overridden Afghanistan, climate change, healthcare, tax-cuts and the economy as the Country’s number one issue, at least for the moment.

The Quebec motion passed last Monday 266 to 16 with 15 Liberal MPs voting against it. Conservative Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Michael Chong resigned his position as minister because he could not support the Harper motion.

"I believe in one nation, undivided, called Canada," Chong told reporters. "This is a fundamental principle for me, not something on which I can or will compromise. Not now, not ever".

To his credit, Dominic LeBlanc, Member of Parliament for Beausejour did not vote for the Harper motion. According to Campbell Morrison, Ottawa correspondent for the Times & Transcript “LeBlanc’s” instinct was to vote against it but he felt that his duty as Co-chair of the Liberal Convention required him to be neutral and to abstain from the vote.

He was concerned that because the Liberal convention had a motion declaring Quebec a nation (since deferred) and leadership rivals had declared positions on the issue, his vote would be misinterpreted as favoring one or other of the candidates.

As some philosophers might say, everything is connected to everything and that's what makes Stephen Harper's recognition of the Québecois as a nation within Canada so worrying. It has the potential to spread from abstract definitions to legal and/or emotional interpretation.

In theory, the motion isn't much more than formal recognition of the obvious. In theory, it accepts what's always been known. It becomes significant, when it’s woven into the Conservative’s vision of Canada. Stephen Harper, like Joe Clark before him believes in a Canada that is a community of communities.

The Prime Minister used “closure” to end debate on the Quebec motion. He deprived Canadians of a chance to understand its real meaning before the Commons adopted it.

On Saturday, the Liberal Party of Canada will elect a new leader. That leader could become the next Prime Minister of Canada. In my view, there are three candidates for the leadership that promise hope for a united Canada and a healthier environment in all that the term means. They are Ken Dryden, Bob Rae and Stéphane Dion.

• Ken Dryden has been ignored by the media and his party. He has no chance of winning.
• Bob Rae appears to have momentum going into the convention. He’s come from no where to become a respected and credible candidate but he is a newborn Liberal and that may hurt him in the end.
• Over the last year or two, Stéphane Dion took the lead on the most important issue of our times, climate change. He is the only candidate among the group of eight who is equipped to battle the expectations of a province declared a nation by the Parliament of Canada.

Michael Ignatieff will be the leader after the first ballot. Will he be able to hold it through the rest of this day?

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