A little bit of history was made last weekend when the New Brunswick business community came together in a strategic alliance with New Brunswick’s twelve First Nation communities.

Purpose of the alliance, known as the New Brunswick First Nations Business Liaison Group is to support and facilitate partnerships between New Brunswick First Nations and the business community. The intent is to foster economic development that will serve the interests of both parties.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time in the history of this province that such an initiative has been undertaken without the direct involvement of government.

The Business Liaison Group will act as a forum to facilitate communication and to promote linkages amongst New Brunswick’s First Nations and the business community in New Brunswick with a view to advancing and supporting economic development on a province wide basis.

The Group has formally incorporated as a not for profit entity and operates with a Steering Committee and Board of Directors that includes the twelve chiefs or their designated representatives and twelve volunteer individuals from the business sector. Bud Bird, a former provincial Cabinet Minister and a highly respected businessman from Fredericton and Chief Noah Augustine of the Metepenagiag First Nation in Red Bank co-chair the Steering Committee.

Coincidentally, the Atlantic Policy Congress (APC) of First Nation Chiefs has put together a strategic development plan which they presented to the Business Liaison Group last week at the St. Mary’s Reserve near Fredericton. As a matter of interest, the APC represents 37 First Nation communities in Atlantic Canada with a population of 35,000 people.

They embody the youngest demographic group in the region with an average age of 27 as compared to 41 for the rest of us. Perhaps more significant than the demographic is the fact that more than fifteen hundred First Nation students are currently attending an institution of post-secondary learning in the region. They will be the business and community leaders of the future.

First Nations own an estimated 75,000 acres of land in Atlantic Canada.

They have an increasingly educated and skilled workforce. They own a number of very successful businesses including an airline in Labrador, a convention centre in Sydney, hotels in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and a state-of-the-art Heritage Park and Interpretive Centre west of the Miramichi.

They partner in ventures with Boeing, Clearwater Seafoods, SNC Lavalin and Sikorsky Aircraft. They operate on-land aquaculture farms and offshore fishing fleets.

One of APC’s development strategies is to acquire more land in prime development areas in Atlantic Canada. Their immediate business focus will be on tourism, construction, light manufacturing, retailing, farming and aquaculture.

They hope to partner in major projects like the LNG (liquid natural gas) terminal, Point Lepreau, the new refinery and further developments in the aerospace industry. They also want to partner in smaller ventures with like minded entrepreneurs who recognize business opportunity.

The First Nations people that I have met recognize the value of education and the need for a trained and diversified workforce. They are articulate and forceful people and know where they are going.

They acknowledge that some of their people have problems, social problems and problems with drug and alcohol abuse. They also understand that the only way to rid themselves of these problems is to create the jobs that enable people to leave their dependencies.

There are some barriers to their success. Some of the barriers are cultural. Some are caught up in the stereotype images that we have of each other. Some of the barriers are based on fear.

Simple little things like accessing an off-reserve people network can be a major barrier for Aboriginal folks. Many of these barriers can be pulled down with positive and honest communication.

I have watched some of them come down as individuals get to know and trust each other and begin to recognize that they are talking about many of the same things (e.g. business, family and economic opportunity) that help to build healthier communities.

Leaders of these First Nations share something in common with Premier Shawn Graham.

They want to become self-sufficient. They want to grow their share of the economic pie to free themselves from dependence on the federal government. They want to invest in new projects and share the risks and rewards of those projects.

They want to invest in technology and productivity. Their focus is economic development and they seek partnerships and strategic alliances with new and existing businesses.

They look for highly qualified partners to help them run their businesses, recognizing the value of good management and the potential for skill and technology transfers. We need to cheer them on because their success will be our success.

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

A few months ago, the Provincial Government, through its Lottery Commission called for proposals to build and operate a casino somewhere in New Brunswick. Logically that would be in or around the larger population centres of Saint John, Fredericton or Moncton.

Further logic suggests that Moncton/Riverview/Dieppe is the only centre that could meet the test. With a population of 127,000 people, it’s the largest centre in the region but more significantly it’s the hub to an estimated 1.37 million people living within a 2.5 hour drive of the city.

Rationale for the call for proposals is linked directly to the state of New Brunswick’s tourism industry. In 2006, the number of visitors to New Brunswick declined by 5.1% to 1.57 million. Visitors from Ontario and Quebec were down 8.4% and 10.9% while numbers from the United States were down by 4.3%. Ironically, revenues were up slightly to an estimated $1.2 billion. This is explained by increased travel from residents and a strong performance in the shoulder and off-season months (Source: NB Department of Tourism & Parks online Marketing Plan).

While the number of visitors is significant, the more important statistic is how long visitors stay in the province and how much they spend here. In-province travel by New Brunswick residents keeps money in the province and adds revenue to the provincial economy that might otherwise have leaked out to another province or state. In my opinion, a casino will help the province keep more of those dollars and attract new dollars to the economy that otherwise might have passed through the province to Nova Scotia or PEI.

A casino will also cause some visitors to stay in the province a little longer. Recognizing that fact, the government has asked proponents to consider ancillary components that would attract visitors and give them reason to stay for a few days. Some proponents may come to the table with racetracks. Others may propose downtown casino-convention centres and still others may come forward with casino resorts located away from the downtown core.

It’s easy to support the notion of a downtown convention centre but I would prefer to see some sort of coliseum and trade centre that would give new life to the downtown and attract people, investment and residential development. Thousands of downtown visitors every few days would do wonders for the City’s economy. As for the casino, I don’t think it should be located downtown for social and other reasons. The casino should be a controlled access destination, preferably located near the Trans Canada Highway within a short distance of hotels and shopping.

The retail industry attracts thousands of people to Moncton every year. The most recent figures in my possession show sales in 2004 at $1.54 billion, 17% higher than the per capita average for retail sales across Canada. I suspect this number has grown exponentially with the addition of new outlets over the last few years.


As mentioned earlier, it’s my guess that a casino by itself will not attract a significant number of out-of-province visitors to the area. It will help to hold them once they are here and it will be a factor in extending their length of stay. What is needed is a major attraction that complements existing attractions but brings new people into the region.

A casino resort complex is one option. A racetrack casino is a second. A casino retail complex could be another. What if you married a casino to an LL Bean outlet? That would certainly attract visitors and give them reason to spend time and money at the site.

Moncton is a proven “concert” host. The Moncton Coliseum attracts 6,000 to 8,000 people to major performances but location dilutes its contribution to the hospitality industry. The Capitol theatre regularly attracts sell out crowds of 800 to 900 people for events and contributes significantly to the downtown hospitality industry. Big name entertainment is certainly a way to attract visitors but to maintain a year-round, high level standard of quality would be very expensive.

The most successful theatre event in Atlantic Canada may be the long-running Anne of Green Gables musical at the Confederation Centre in Charlottetown. It continues to sell out for six to eight weeks every summer. Le Pays de la Sagouine in Buctouche also does very well with its summer dinner theatre.


Maybe a permanent theatre “company” would work in a mixed use entertainment centre.

The deal-maker for casino proponents will be the differentiator that delivers visitors who become customers of both the casino and the community at large, including the hospitality industry.


At the end of the day, the winner will be the one who delivers on the tourism mandate and demonstrates maximum economic impact within the boundaries of taste and social responsibility.

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

This week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government served notice that it intends to introduce a motion in parliament that would seek approval for extension of Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2009.

The motion would mirror recommendations delivered by the panel led by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley. It won't be voted on until late March and will likely be a confidence vote. If defeated, it would trigger an election.

The Manley Report recommended that the Afghan mission be extended beyond February 2009 but without termination date, conditional on (i) the provision of another 1,000 troops from NATO countries and (ii) the contribution of additional helicopters and other military equipment by NATO members.

The notice of motion came as Defense Minister Peter MacKay was in Lithuania lobbying the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) leaders for more troops and more equipment to fight the war in southern Afghanistan.

The original decision to engage in Afghanistan was made by the Chrétien Liberal government following the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The mission was extended to February 2009 by Mr. Harper’s government in May 2006.

The arrival of NATO forces and U.S. forces in Afghanistan had initially shut down the Taliban and denied Al Qaeda its safe-haven in the country. Sadly, the Americans decided Iraq was more important than Afghanistan and didn’t leave significant force to finish the Afghan job. Nearly five years later, it appears that terrorists continue to operate from southern Afghanistan while the Taliban insurgency has re-grouped and appears to be growing, not shrinking in size.

This is a United Nations (UN) mission carried out by NATO forces. It operates legally under the Charter of United Nations which purpose is “to maintain international peace and security; to ensure “that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest” and to promote the “economic and social advantage of all peoples”. The UN Security Council has repeatedly and explicitly authorized international military presence in Afghanistan, most recently last fall.

There are two fundamental questions for me: can this war be won and second can the reconstruction of Afghanistan be completed without a win and how do we define a win?

I don’t believe in an open-ended commitment to combat in Afghanistan nor do I accept the notion that we abandon the country completely. It seems reasonable that Canadian forces should be rotated in and out of combat and that other NATO countries should also be rotated through combat until this thing is fixed.

Canada has invested too much in blood, sweat and tears to abandon Afghanistan. That said, should we or should we not continue to be engaged in a combat situation if there is no end in sight and no help from the sidelines?

The motion on Afghanistan needs to be debated long and hard by our political leaders without the emotionally charged, partisan shrieking that accompanies most public debate in this country. The issues must be discussed openly so that Canadians understand the Afghan situation and are able to support a rationale decision about Canada’s future commitments. We need to browbeat our NATO allies into providing more troops and more gear. If they are not willing, we may have
to acknowledge defeat and pack our (combat) bags.

Canada has poured hundreds of millions of aid dollars into Afghanistan. Manley has suggested that some of the Canadian money be invested in a “signature” project like a major hospital or a cluster of irrigation projects.

Mr. Harper’s government rejected that recommendation as a public relations stunt. I disagree. A major development project would give tangibility and positive recognition to Canada’s reconstruction commitment. It could help repair some of the bitterness towards Canada that will naturally emerge from armed combat.

As I understand it, the Harper motion will mirror recommendations in the Manley report and deliver an open-ended commitment to stay the course in Afghanistan subject to the NATO contribution of troops, helicopters and other hardware. The Liberal position, again as I understand it, is that Canada should withdraw Canadian forces from combat in February 2009 and redeploy them to non-combatant re-construction activities in Afghanistan.

The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois have stated categorically that they want Canada to abandon Afghanistan completely and withdraw all troops by February 2009. That makes no sense, nor does an open-ended commitment to combat.

It seems to me there is room for a middle-ground here. What if the Government forced the issue by announcing that effective February 2009, Canada’s military will take a time-out, a three year break from combat in Afghanistan to allow it to focus on re-building projects. When other nations have completed their combat rotations, Canada could return for a third round, if needed.

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

A distinguished trio of New Brunswick business leaders were barnstorming the province last week promoting lower stumpage fees and electricity rates for the forest industry and other industrial entities.


They want industrial rates to be reduced by 20%. They suggest that the rate reductions be funded either by residential users or via subsidy from the provincial government. I suspect that both initiatives would be in violation of the Softwood Lumber Agreement signed with the United States in April 2006.

It’s hard to make rate comparisons among large industrial users of electricity because many of them are set by contract and not open to public scrutiny. A comparison of large industrial countries shows Canada in the middle of the pack with average rates of 5.6¢ per kW.

The U.S. average is slightly lower at 5.2¢ per kW while Japan is the highest at 13.6¢ per kW. Cross-Canada comparisons suggest that New Brunswick also sits in the middle of the pack at 5.84¢ per kW. Large industrial rates in Ontario are 7.5¢ per kW while Quebec sits at 4.379¢ per kW. Manitoba is lowest at 3.16¢ kW. The kicker is that some U.S. states like Alabama are significantly lower than even Alabama.

Recent mill closures have been part of a global pattern of consolidation. It’s not likely that lower electricity rates would have kept them in New Brunswick. The real problems are the strength of the Canadian dollar and the weakness of the U.S. economy, particularly the weakness of the U.S. housing market. If the forestry industry can demonstrate clearly that a 20% rate reduction would save the industry, it is incumbent upon Government to find a way to make it happen.

Enbridge Gas New Brunswick (EGNB), a distributor of natural gas has applied for a rate increase. It is being challenged by major industrial customers, including one or more of the above mentioned trio. Distribution is only one part of a typical natural gas bill.

There are three parts:
the commodity;
the delivery charge ;
and the customer charge.

Commodity prices are dictated by the marketplace based on supply and demand. They rise and fall daily. The current price for the commodity is around $7.82 per gigajoules but has averaged under $7.00 since 2003. Distribution costs are regulated by the province.

EGNB is a limited partnership between Enbridge Inc. and several New Brunswick investors. The distribution firm entered into a 20-year distribution agreement with the Province of New Brunswick in 1999. To date, it has invested $300 million into distribution infrastructure and created more than 400 industry jobs. I am told they plan to invest another $140 million over the next five years.

EGNB has 9,700 customers. The distribution system is anchored by large industrial and institutional customers but the Partnership has lost $100 million on operations. To become profitable, they need to reach critical mass in terms of customer base. They want to add another 13,000 customers in the next few years.

Natural gas distribution rates are typically based on cost plus a reasonable rate of return in a mature market. Clearly, New Brunswick is not a mature market. In this province, distribution rates are “market-based” i.e. based on target savings compared to the price of oil and electricity. Market-based rates ensure that distribution losses can be managed prudently while natural gas prices remain competitive.

Enbridge Gas New Brunswick owns and operates more than 600 kilometres of distribution pipeline in New Brunswick, a province of only 750,000 people. Distribution to such a small and widely dispersed population is much more expensive than distribution to a large concentrated city population.

Given the nature of market-based rates and the managed savings in energy costs they produce, it would be a travesty if regulators denied Enbridge’s rate increase because it could also be denying access to natural gas for institutions and industries not yet served by natural gas. The distribution rate increase should ensure further investment in New Brunswick’s natural gas distribution system.

Why should we care?

In my opinion we should care for these reasons. Natural gas has proven to be consistently lower in price than either of electricity or oil. Natural gas is clean. When gas replaces electricity or oil, it reduces Greenhouse gas emissions.

Regulators are responsible for ensuring fair prices for consumers. EGNB is willing to build another 300 kilometres of natural gas distribution pipeline. Consistent with its fair price mandate, I think the regulator has a responsibility to encourage this expansion so long as the distributor can maintain a price advantage over electricity and oil.

Nobody likes a price increase but if that is what it takes to encourage expansion of clean energy distribution, an increase is justifiable.

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