The 1963 Byrne Report (Royal Commission on Finance and Municipal Taxation) resulted in a radical restructuring of local and provincial governments in New Brunswick.

The recommendations included transfer of financial responsibility for education from local to provincial government and reduction of the number of school districts from 422 to 60 (further reduced to 33 upon implementation) and led to the relocation of St. Thomas University from Chatham to Fredericton, creation of a Saint John campus for the University of New Brunswick and creation of the University of Moncton.

The Report of the Commission on Post Secondary Education, released last Friday wants to turn things upside down once again but in my opinion doesn’t go far enough. The Commission would redefine post-secondary education in New Brunswick by establishing a multi-tiered system that would add three new polytechnics (there are seven others in Canada) to the existing mix of community colleges and universities.

The polytechnics would be created on the backs of our community colleges, the Saint John campus of the University of New Brunswick and the Edmundston and Shippagan campuses of the University of Moncton.

There would continue to be five universities (including the Atlantic Baptist University) but the eleven community colleges would be reduced to one with four campuses. The Saint John campus of UNBSJ would be merged with community colleges in Saint John and St. Andrews to form one polytechnic.

The Edmundston campuses of the University of Moncton and the Edmundston Community College would merge to become a second polytechnic and the University of Moncton campus in Shippagan would merge with community colleges in the Acadian Peninsula, Bathurst and Campbellton to form a Northeastern Polytechnic. The single community college would have campuses in Dieppe, Moncton, Miramichi and Fredericton.

Consider the context. We are a province of 750,000 people with 19 campuses offering some level of post-secondary education. We already have three levels of post secondary education beginning with community colleges which offer two year programs in occupational trades and offer graduates certificates or diplomas in specific employment fields.

The proposed Polytechnic institutions would offer a variety of applied university level courses that would be primarily technical and vocational in nature. The mission of a polytechnic is the advancement of applied knowledge and (commercial) research and provision of programs that provide a balance between theory and application. Subjects taught in polytechnics include things like marketing, business management, forest management, chemical engineering, computer science, etc. Toronto’s Ryerson University is an example of a polytechnic.

A liberal arts university is one that offers undergraduate studies in the liberal arts and sciences. Its intent is to impart general knowledge and develop intellectual capacities including the ability to learn, to inquire, analyze and reason (Mount Allison University and St. Thomas University fit this description). Many employers prefer to hire people with a liberal arts background because of this learned capability. Others prefer graduates with more disciplined skills in engineering and technology.

A full-service university is a large and diverse institution of higher learning created to educate people for a profession, an institution of education and research which grants undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate degrees in literature, science, business, theology, law, medicine, and other. The University of New Brunswick fits that description. A national university is a university created or run by a government. Some national universities are closely associated with cultural or linguistic aspirations. The University of Moncton would fit both of the above descriptions.

About 20% of our population is of an age when they could be attending a post-secondary institution. Only a fraction of this group does so - for cost and other reasons. My guess is about 30,000 people. The structure proposed by the Commission, would consolidate part of the system but add a new layer of instruction and three layers of administrative oversight.

The problem with these recommendations is that implementation would arbitrarily assign large segments of our post-secondary student population to industrial or workplace educations and effectively deny them (by virtue of location and financial circumstance) access to a liberal arts education and graduate studies in the professions.

There are other considerations. A national university attracts millions of dollars in research and development funding. A group of small universities and provincial polytechnics would receive few national research projects and be reliant on local sources of funding. Major universities attract the best in teaching staff. Smaller universities and remote polytechnics would have difficulty attracting the best and brightest.

That said, there is a role for a polytechnic presence in New Brunswick but I don’t think it has to be separated from our universities. The reform proposed in the Commission’s Report pales in contrast to the Byrne Report.

It should go further and reduce the number of universities in New Brunswick to two. The two universities should be mandated to organize themselves in such a way as to enable them to offer university, polytechnic and community college programs that would be accessible to all students across the province. Where class sizes are too small to justify an instructor, plug them into a larger campus via the internet.

The two surviving universities (the University of New Brunswick and the University of Moncton) should be “national” universities with polytechnic and community college divisions. The University of New Brunswick should include Mount Allison, St. Thomas and the university/polytechnic/community college amalgams proposed for Saint John, Fredericton and Moncton.

The University of Moncton should retain its Edmundston and Shippagan campuses but offer a menu of university, polytechnic and community college programs in the northeast.


Lower administration costs, more flexible options for our students, higher quality graduate outcomes, a more competitive workforce, and a fully integrated post secondary education system would be the upshot. All are keys to our goal of self-sufficiency.

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 mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

The Government of Canada (read Stephen Harper) joined with the United States (read George W. Bush), Australia (Prime Minister John Howard) and New Zealand (Prime Minister Helen Clark) this week in opposing a United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

One hundred and forty three nations voted in favour of the Declaration, eleven abstained but only these four, including Canada voted against the Declaration.

I suspect it is only coincidence that all four leaders are right wing conservatives. Surely it is only coincidence that all four spent the earlier part of this week in Australia discussing Asian Pacific policy and a nuclear energy partnership that could see uranium-producing nations, including Canada be charged with disposing of and/or storing the world’s nuclear waste. I’m certain that it is only coincidence that three of the four (New Zealand being the exception) are non-supporters of the Kyoto Accord on climate change remedies.

It’s also interesting that three of the four leaders were early supporters of the invasion of Iraq, including our own Prime Minister Harper. In the days leading up to the Iraq foray, New Zealand refused to support the invasion but after a series of high-level rebukes and trade retaliation by the Bush Administration, New Zealand’s Labour government decided to send troops and army engineers to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2003, New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark announced that 60 defense-force-engineers would be sent to help “rebuild” Iraq and a contingent of 100 armed soldiers would be sent to Afghanistan to operate alongside so-called “provincial reconstruction teams”.

Washington immediately moderated weeks of diplomatic hostilities and warmly welcomed the decision as a “meaningful contribution”. U.S. State Department spokesman Phillip Reeker declared that New Zealand had demonstrated a “strong and abiding” commitment as a “partner in the struggle against terrorism.” Okay, I guess we can agree that 100 armed soldiers would be a significant force alongside 160,000 American invaders.

Canada’s Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl says the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not balanced and conflicts with Canada's Charter of Rights. There is irony in that defense, given that the Federal Progressive Conservative Party (predecessor of the amalgam of Canada’s Reform Party, Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party) opposed the Charter of Rights because it feared liberal bias among judges, should courts be called upon to enforce rights. Conservatives argued further that elected politicians should be trusted rather than the Courts because judges had used the Charter to undermine the powers of Parliament.

In an address to the United Nations General Assembly this week, Canada's UN ambassador, John McNee, said Canada had "significant concerns" over the Declaration's wording on provisions addressing lands and resources, as well as an article calling on states to obtain prior informed consent with indigenous groups before enacting new laws or administrative measures.

Prime Minister Harper had earlier expressed concerns about the language the declaration contained. "We shouldn't vote for things on the basis of political correctness; we should vote on the basis of what's in the document," Harper said. But human rights and aboriginal groups claim Harper's Conservatives launched a well-financed campaign to derail the declaration and undermine a process supported by the previous Liberal government.

The Government's argument that the Declaration goes against the Charter of Rights doesn't stand up, says Paul Joffe, a member of the legal team that has tried to convince countries to support the human rights of indigenous peoples. "We find that totally incredulous because the Declaration expressly states that in the exercise of the rights, every right has to respect the human rights of others," said Joffe.

Phil Fontaine, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, says Canada's refusal to support the declaration is an embarrassment. He says the government is betraying Canada's worldwide legacy as a protector of human rights by going against a declaration Canadians helped draft. Fontaine points out that the Declaration does not include any form of aboriginal veto and would not trump domestic law. "It's an aspirational document, neither convention nor treaty," he says".

“By opposing this Declaration, the Conservative government has signalled to Aboriginal Canadians that their rights aren't worth defending,” says Liberal leader Stéphane Dion. The Conservatives say the Declaration is flawed, vague and open to broad interpretation. Provisions on lands and resources could be used “to support claims to broad ownership rights over traditional territories, even where rights... were lawfully ceded through treaty,” says a synopsis of Canada's position on the Government’s Indian Affairs website.

The United States, Australia and New Zealand have significant Indigenous minorities and argued their national laws conflicted with the Declaration's sections covering native land rights, rights of redress for past wrongs and the right of Indigenous peoples to have a greater say - Canada called it a veto power - in future decision making affecting them.

This is not the first time Conservatives have turned their back on First Nations people. The Kelowna Accord was signed by federal, provincial and native leaders just before the election in December 2005, a $5.1-billion program to fund health, education and housing programs. In March 2007 Parliament voted on a private member’s bill to resurrect the $5.1-billion initiative but the minority Conservative government ignored the vote.

To be fair, there may be issues that support Canada’s opposition to the UN Declaration. They could be legal, precedent, ideological or other but it seems to me that Canada could have acquitted itself more responsibly at the United Nations, by either abstaining from the vote or by introducing an amendment to the Declaration that would have clearly articulated this Country’s support for and embracement of its First Nations people.



Partnership with Bush and Howard (both on their way out) is not my idea of astute political judgment.

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 mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

Canada's military mission to Afghanistan began soon after the 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001.

Although Canada had provided some limited humanitarian aid to Afghanistan prior to that point, about $10 million a year, many people believe that our military commitment was made as an alternative to joining the Americans in Iraq. We could rationalize a multilateral (NATO) engagement with al-Qaeda but not an illegal invasion of Iraq by U.S. led “coalition forces”.

At a conference on Afghanistan in Tokyo in January 2002, Canada made a major commitment to assist in the reconstruction of the war-torn country. Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs says Afghanistan is now "the single largest recipient of Canadian foreign aid." So far, according to Foreign Affairs, Canada has allocated a total of $616.5 million to Afghanistan for the period 2001 through 2009.

In February 2002, a battle-ready group from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry was sent to Kandahar for six months to assist the United States and other NATO forces in their offensive against Osama bin Laden and elements of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the rugged southern regions of Afghanistan.

From August 2003 to December 2005, Canada's military commitment was largely based in the capital, Kabul, as part of the International Assistance Force. The military objective was to provide intelligence and security to allow "rebuilding of the democratic process," something which eventually would lead to elections in the fall of 2005.

In July 2006, Canada assumed a military role in the southern part of the country, with more than 2,000 soldiers based near Kandahar. For six months ending on Nov. 1, 2006, Canada also held the command of one of the main military forces in the area, called Multi National Brigade for Command South.

In May 2006, members of Parliament voted to keep Canadian soldiers there for two years longer than previously planned. At least 70 Canadian soldiers have now been killed in Afghanistan. By the spring of 2007, the natives were getting restless. Liberal Leader, Stéphane Dion and Bloc Québecois Leader Gilles Duceppe called for the government to notify its allies that Canada will not extend its mission leading NATO troops in southern Afghanistan, past February of 2009. The NDP have demanded an immediate withdrawal.

Last Sunday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said in a television interview that Canada has signalled to allies that they cannot count on our troops fighting in the Kandahar region past 2009. Mr. MacKay added that Parliament will vote on Canada's future role in Afghanistan after 2009.

A spokesman for Mr. MacKay, Dan Dugas clarified later that the Defence Minister had really meant that Canada has not sent a new signal to NATO, but rather that allies know that the current mission ends in 2009 and that a new vote must be held in Parliament to decide what Canada will do after that. Mr. Dion says Mr. MacKay's indication that our allies have been advised not to expect an extension of the Kandahar mission is an effort to suggest that it will end in 2009 - but without saying so unequivocally.

On Wednesday, Public Works Minister Michael Fortier (the unelected Senator from Montreal) said that all options remain open, including the possibility that the House of Commons will vote on a different mission for Canada in Afghanistan after 2009.

"Any renewal of the mission in its current form or another form will be subject to the approval of the Parliament of Canada," Mr. Fortier told Radio-Canada television.

On Thursday, NATO's top generals arrived in Canada for a meeting to map out Afghan strategy amid growing strains in the alliance over the increasingly bloody war in that country. The protracted battle to put down the Taliban insurgency has the Netherlands questioning their deployment of combat troops in the region.

General Ray Henault, chairman of NATO's military committee and former chief of Canada's defence staff, said the alliance has not received formal notice from Ottawa that it intends to end its combat commitment as scheduled in February 2009. He said the alliance anticipates there will be changes but has not begun the formal process of scouting out replacement nations.
The General said he hopes Canada will stay because progress is being made, but he also said there's no way to say when NATO will achieve it's objectives in Afghanistan. He sounds a lot like George Bush and his good news stories about Iraq.

The more immediate concern for NATO is the decision expected within weeks by the Netherlands, which has combat troops, helicopters and aircraft operating in Uruzgan province, north of Kandahar. The Dutch are expected to say whether their forces will remain in Afghanistan - a decision that could trigger a domino effect if they decide to leave.

The Australians, who are not members of NATO have about 1,000 support troops and combat engineers in Afghanistan but say they will not stay if the Dutch decide to leave. Such an exodus combined with the reluctance of Germany (they’re begging Canada to stay), Italy and France to commit their combat forces to fighting the Taliban could make a tenuous situation even more dangerous.

Canada has steadily increased its involvement in Afghanistan since the fall of 2001. According to Canada’s Department of National Defense, “Afghanistan is not, nor has it ever been a traditional peacekeeping mission. There are no ceasefire arrangements to enforce and no negotiated peace settlement to respect”.

The question today, is whether or not we are making a difference and whether or not the battle of reconstruction can ever be won?

Canada prides itself in being a peace-keeper. Fighting a war without a foreseeable outcome makes us uncomfortable. That’s not reason enough to cut and run but maybe its justification for a change in role.

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 mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

Two years after Hurricane Katrina smashed into New Orleans and the Louisiana coast, fires rage in Greece, as the result of an extended drought.


In Australia, the Murray-Darling Basin, drains one-seventh of that continent’s land mass and is by far the most significant agricultural area in the country. At the mouth of the Murray-Darling River, one can hear the mechanical drone of a dredging vessel. It runs twenty four hours a day to prevent the river mouth from silting up.


Although the river is Australia's longest, draining a basin the size of France and Spain combined, it no longer carries enough water to carve its own path to the sea. Australia is struggling with the consequences of a devastating seven year drought (with some relief in the last few months) – some say the worst in a thousand years.


A region that accounts for 40% of Australia's agriculture, and 85% of its irrigation, is on the verge of ruin. Most alarming of all, the Murray-Darling troubles are likely to worsen. As Australia's population grows, so will demand for water - in the cities and for the crops that grow in the river basin.


In Greece, there are at least 170 wildfires under way today. As authorities struggle to deal with the crisis, fires push the environment to the top of the political agenda in a country where such issues previously won little attention. This has been one of the hottest and driest summers in recent history and much of southern Europe has been plagued by forest fires. While dry conditions have played a role, apparently many of the fires (in Greece) have been set by arsonists, hoping to clear land for development.

China's rise as an economic power has no obvious parallel in history, so has its pollution problem shattered all precedents. Only 1 percent of the country's 560 million city dwellers breathe air considered safe by the European Union.


China is choking on its own success. The economy is on a historic run, posting a succession of double-digit growth figures. But the growth derives from a staggering expansion of heavy industry and urbanization that requires colossal inputs of energy, almost all from coal, the dirtiest source of energy in the world. China's problem has become the world's problem. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides spewed by its coal-fired power plants fall as acid rain on Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo.


Indeed, much of the particulate pollution over Los Angeles originates in China, according to the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Experts once projected that China would overtake the United States as the world's leading producer of greenhouse gases by 2010. Now, the International Energy Agency says China could become the emissions leader by the end of this year. The Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency says China has already passed that level.

In June, extraordinary flooding in England forced thousands of people from their homes. In mid August, the remnants of Tropical storm Erin turned central Oklahoma into a washbasin dropping up to 11 inches of rain in just a few hours and causing its Kingfisher Creek to rise 25 feet “ the highest its ever been’ said an Oklahoma Highway patrolman.

In southern Africa, the number of severe droughts has doubled since 1978 according to Lesotho’s Minister of Natural Resources Monyane Moleleki (Lesotho is a land-locked country surrounded by the Republic of South Africa).

Logic would suggest that most of these events and circumstances are linked to climate change and that we need to do something about it now. Response from the Harper Government this week was to issue a report that tells us why Canada will not and cannot meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocol.


The report estimates that the required cuts in domestic emissions would devastate the economy (read Alberta). It's a summary of this country’s plight as an energy-exporting nation. It’s also a reflection of the influence exercised by the oil sands industry – now Canada’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Under the Kyoto protocol, which Canada ratified in 2005, greenhouse-gas emissions must drop by an average of 6 per cent below 1990 levels (596 megatonnes) during the period 2008 to 2012. Total Canadian emissions were roughly 747 million tonnes in 2005 (most recent year reported by Statistics Canada). According to the Harper Report, Canada would have to drop to an average of 563 million tonnes a year (a twenty-five percent reduction) over the next five years to meet its Kyoto obligations.

The report then leapfrogs to the conclusion that a one-third cut in emissions in 2008 would lower projected GDP by more than 6.5 per cent, real per-capita disposable income would drop, natural gas prices could double and electricity prices could rise by 50 per cent in the next few years.

Clearly, there is no desire in this province or indeed in this country to reduce our disposable incomes, to increase our energy prices or to be faced with high flood waters or receding shorelines so what is the answer?


It seems clear to me that the answer lies in reduced and/or more efficient consumption – fewer miles on our car, more efficient engines, alternative fuels,s fewer air flights, fewer demands on our home appliances, more efficient roofing, improved capture of solar and wind energy, a move to alternative energy forms, etc.


I see opportunity in this crisis. Man’s response to climate change will change how the world gets its energy and how it uses its energy. Changes are already making multi-millionaires out of early investors in renewable energy, clean technologies and carbon trading and that is just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended).

There are already hundreds of firms competing for next generation energy technology breakthroughs. Man’s desire for survival will drive changes in our energy habits. Ballooning energy costs will speed the process of change.

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 mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com