A few months ago, the Provincial Government unveiled a Post Secondary Education (PSE) Commission Report that recommended the introduction of Polytechnics (university/community college hybrids) and the merger of community colleges with universities to create these learning institutions.

The general public and students who would be impacted by these changes panicked, particularly those at the University of New Brunswick’s Saint John Campus (UNBSJ) and others in the north who were students at the Université de Moncton’s campuses in Edmundston and Shippigan.

The existing structure of New Brunswick’s PSE system includes:
(i) the four public universities: Mount Allison; the Université de Moncton; the University of New Brunswick and St. Thomas University
(ii) the government-run New Brunswick Community College system
(iii) private universities and adult learning institutions and
(iv) on the job apprenticeship and other learning programs.

In response to public and student outcries, with respect to the Polytechnics and proposed consolidations in Northern and Francophone New Brunswick, the Government sought further guidance from a PSE “Working Group” (consisting of the university presidents, community college presidents and others in the field of education). Their Report and recommendations were released this past week.

Here’s what they said: the community college component of the PSE system should be autonomous (i.e. freed from government); apprenticeship training should be enhanced and integrated within the PSE system; the principle of linguistic duality should be more collaborative in academic programming; the creation of regionally and community-based partnerships among universities should be pursued and community-colleges and the private sector should accelerate development of applied learning programs.

The Working Group appears to have been overly influenced by the perception of an under-developed New Brunswick Community College system. They have concluded that a healthy, vibrant, modern, nimble and responsive community college system is vital to New Brunswick’s economic and community-development future and that the system must provide training and education programs that respond to current or projected labor-market needs, if the Province is to move towards prosperity and self-sufficiency.

I have no problem with that conclusion but the Report fails (in my brief read) to defend the notion of university education as the training ground for those who will become critical thinkers, analysts and learners – not everyone is a labor-force worker. New Brunswick’s Post Secondary Education System should be focused on excellence, creativity and innovation. Common denomination will not get us to that destination.

A PSE output that focuses too heavily on employer needs without reference to the creative advancement of our society will fail. A progressive and self-sufficient society needs the creativity that comes from the unfettered output of a liberal arts education and the free-thinking graduates of a school of excellence.

The PSE Working Group seems to have concluded that the community college system should be the entry-point to applied post-secondary education as well as to an advanced and/or liberal education. It promotes co-location considerations (Université de Moncton’s Edmundston campus, the community college in Edmundston, the University of New Brunswick’s Saint John campus and the community college in Saint John). It’s difficult for this writer to see how this fundamentally differs from the original Post Secondary Education Commission’s “polytechnic” model.

The Working Group would not replace universities and community colleges. They would complement them and build on their existing strengths. They would make use of existing infrastructure, including; hospitals and private sector environments.

Their recommendations call for an Anglophone institute to be established in Saint John, in partnership with the Saint John and St. Andrews campuses of the New Brunswick Community College and the Saint John Campus of the University of New Brunswick. A francophone institute in northern New Brunswick would partner with the Université de Moncton and the Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick.

The institutes would be incorporated entities owned jointly by the respective college and university and governed by an independent Board of Governors, representing the college, university and local community.

The Government of New Brunswick makes clear that it supports the continued role of the University of New Brunswick’s Saint John campus and the Université de Moncton’s campuses in Edmundston and Shippagan. The Working Group’s plan is to offer first and second-year university courses in community colleges where there is no university in the neighborhood.

The net recommendation of the Working Group’s Report and the Government’s response to the Commission on Post Secondary Commission’s recommendations seems to be that New Brunswick’s post-secondary students should be given the opportunity to learn in their home communities, no consideration for critical mass, economics or excellence.

As so often happens with committee consensus, we now have a Commission Report and a Government response that is neutered by compromise, probably underfunded and lacking in change-driven vision. Too bad! We need more.

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

Yesterday, I talked to a young father about the New Brunswick Appeal Court’s decision on Early French Immersion consultation and more recently about the New Brunswick Ombudsman’s Report and conclusion that Kelly Lamrock’s (New Brunswick’s Minister of Education) decision to proceed with removal of Early French Immersion in New Brunswick’s needs a year-long delay and further consultation.

The young father’s point of view was not legal or political. He has three children, the eldest in Grade I early immersion.

He says that the logic and experience of learning, supports the notion that the younger a child is exposed to a second language, the more likely that child is able and willing to learn a second language. He’s upset with Kelly Lamrock.

The Court Decision and the Ombudsman’s Report deal primarily with process and not the substance of second language learning. That reflects the fact that argument and debate, as relate to the Minister’s decision to scrap ‘Early French Immersion” (EFI) was ignored, denied and side-tracked in favour of Ministerial objective.

With all due respect, the Minister’s position against EFI appears to be that early immersion contributes to New Brunswick’s low rate of (functional) literacy and further that continuation of the EFI program would encourage the process of streaming whereby children unable to adapt to a second language learning environment are moved out of the mainstream learning milieu.

Research into French immersion programs in Canada is somewhat limited but there is a body of scientific research that indicates that the earlier the exposure to a second language, the better the linguistic outcomes. Delayed introduction of second language instruction is statistically associated with lower outcomes in language proficiency.

Early immersion (and middle immersion starting in Grade 3) is perceived to be the best known way to teach a second language.

Early exposure to other languages has been shown to facilitate growth in vocabulary in all languages. Oral vocabulary is among the most powerful predictors of long-term academic success and is intrinsically linked to linguistic intelligence, problem solving, and creative thinking.

French Immersion programs are often seen as elitist and the cause of streaming in the school system. In my opinion, streaming should not be the criteria for judging the legitimacy or value of early immersion programs.

Research has demonstrated that students who transfer out of French Immersion programs due to academic difficulty actually fare less well than students who remain in the program. The benefits of immersion programs have been empirically shown to extend to children of all abilities, even those with selective language impairments.

Minister Lamrock suggests that the streaming associated with French immersion justifies its demise. Evidence suggests that French immersion need not result in streaming at all. The benefits of French immersion have been shown to persist even when academic ability and socio-economic status are controlled in research.

Further, a later onset of second language instruction may actually cause greater academic hardship to lower-functioning students and prove to exacerbate streaming.

The importance of decisions that have great impact on the school system necessitates that there be careful consideration of the evidence and consultation with appropriate experts. The consequences are just too great to do otherwise.

The lack of support for students experiencing difficulty is a valid concern. Scrapping the early immersion program could lead to a reduction in learning standards.

There may not be a critical period for the acquisition of a second language, but there is certainly a sensitive period in development, marked by increased plasticity in the brain when language learning is most successful; this period surely occurs before the onset of puberty and/or the start of Grade Five as the Minister proposes.

More importantly, immersion programs and second language learning have been associated with improved outcomes in reading and writing (in both languages), mathematics and creative thinking. I have observed such outcomes first hand in my family and suggest that cross language interactivity accounts for gains in memory, flexibility in thinking, reasoning and attention control.

Early exposure to other languages has been shown to facilitate growth in vocabulary in all languages. Oral vocabulary is among the most powerful predictors of long-term academic success and is intrinsically linked to linguistic intelligence, problem solving, and creative thinking.

French Immersion programs are seen by some as elitist and the cause of streaming in New Brunswick’s school system. New Brunswick’s Minister of Education appears to be striving for lower (common denominator) achievement. Streaming should not be associated with immersion programs or elitism. Early immersion in New Brunswick’s second language should be viewed as an opportunity to enhance the outcomes of our education system. That is the practical.

There is also the reality. We can fight for the ordinary or we can fight for excellence.

You make the choice!

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 Discussion Paper on tax reform issued recently by New Brunswick’s Department of Finance indicates there are two objectives behind the paper: to ensure that New Brunswickers keep more of their earned income to use as they see fit and secondly to make the province more attractive to business investors and to individuals who might be considering relocation to New Brunswick.

The first is a noble objective but begs the question - if government takes less by way of income tax, will it be able to fund the programs that people want and need? The answer lies in part in the transfer of tax burden from income to consumption. The Discussion Paper proposes an increase in the GST of 2% and a carbon tax that the Times & Transcript describes as a “tax-grab”.

As I’ve said before, I agree with the notion of transferring the tax burden from income to consumption so long as those who pay little or no income tax are protected from the increase in consumption taxes.

On the matter of carbon taxes, those who argue against them cite the rapidly rising cost of oil, gas and electricity as reasons not to inflict a carbon tax on people and businesses. Those who argue in favour argue (a) that we need carbon taxes to change energy-consuming behavior and (b) that we need to dramatically reduce the consumption of carbon to save the planet from fossil-induced climate change.

I lean towards those who favour the carbon tax, even in times of rising fuel prices. I do so because I believe that price (and a carbon tax would clearly contribute to price) will ultimately be the only force (before catastrophic climate-change impacts) significant enough to drive the shift to clean, renewable energy (wind, solar, tidal, other) and drive the intensity of technology investments that will lead to the development of new heat forms and new transportation forms.

We already have hybrid cars (combo of electricity and gasoline). General Motors is finally moving away from gas-guzzlers to smaller more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. Fuel cell energy and electricity-driven cars are closer to reality. There is even a car being developed in Europe that is powered by compressed air.

If you accept my logic, a carbon tax should be 5% or even 10%, not the graduated 2% proposed in the Discussion Paper. Clearly this would pose problems.

• First the financial impact that would have to be mitigated for those on low and fixed incomes.
  
• Secondly, a behavior-changing carbon tax probably wouldn’t work unless it was nation-wide and ultimately continental and maybe even global in application.

On the question of making the province more attractive to business investors and to individuals who might be considering relocation to New Brunswick by lowering income taxes, this has been advocated by a number of people, including former Premiers Bernard Lord and Frank McKenna.

Some argue that productivity declines as income taxes rise and conversely, productivity increases as income taxes are lowered. Increased productivity adds value to produced goods and services and by so doing increases both sale price and volume which in turn increases the total volume of taxes collected.

Makes sense but is it enough?

The example of Ireland’s economic renaissance is often cited as reason to lower income taxes. There are two points of view in respect to Ireland. One view credits Ireland’s economic renaissance to education and training, strong links between education and business, the resulting transfer of knowledge and technology and finally open trade and export policies.

A second view credits low taxes for the renaissance. Sir Anthony O’Reilly, reportedly Ireland’s first billionaire is adamant that a low level of corporate tax is the main reason for Ireland’s economic “miracle”.

He points to the tax differential between Ireland and the UK where the corporate tax rate is 30% compared to (Southern) Ireland’s 12.5 % and cites the outflow of business from the UK to Ireland as evidence of the positive influence of a low tax regime.

He says that people “do not understand that global businesses are free to arrange their tax affairs on a global basis. Most individuals are still tied to the place in which they earn their living, though the genuinely rich can afford to live where tax is lowest. International companies, by definition, earn their profits internationally. They can, by and large, choose to place their headquarters in a low-tax jurisdiction”.

I am convinced that if New Brunswick could create a truly significant income tax advantage without bankrupting itself, without penalizing those who are least able to help themselves and without depriving residents of necessary services, such change could go a long way to making this province self-sufficient.

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, New Brunswick’s Minister of Finance introduced a wide-ranging discussion paper that if translated to public policy would dramatically change the tax landscape in New Brunswick. There are some very interesting and progressive ideas in the paper. There are also a number of unanswered questions.

Two objectives appear to drive the discussion: put more money into the hands on New Brunswickers and make the province more attractive for business investment and people relocation. It’s important to note the paper is not government policy; it is a document designed to stimulate public discussion. That said, the Minister of Finance appears to be promoting some of the ideas in the paper. I trust he will be open to suggestions.

In simple terms, the paper would shift the burden of taxation from income to consumption. In my opinion, that’s a good thing. The challenge with such a shift is to ensure that people on low, marginal or fixed incomes are not penalized by measures that appear to favor working tax-payers over people on fixed incomes.

With that caveat, I buy into the program because it offers hope for the future. A low income tax environment will help to attract skilled people and it will help to attract new business to the province. Ireland is a great example of that premise.

The paper proposes the introduction of carbon taxes to reduce demand for gasoline and fuel oil. It would also increase the price of electricity because New Brunswick generates so much of its electricity by burning fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas). To offset the carbon tax, the paper proposes a carbon credit of $100 a year. That offsets the initial burden of the carbon tax but over time it appears to fall short.

There is also a proposal to increase the HST by 2%. I agree with that recommendation but again, subject to the proviso that there be relief for those people who will not benefit from an income tax reduction.

There is a section in the paper that deals with property taxes and the implications of market value assessments. This section is a bit convoluted but what I did like about it was the notion of three-year average assessments that would minimize and spread the impact of single-year assessment-spikes that lead to significant tax increases, even when there is no rate increase imposed by a municipality or a local service district.

One section in the paper that troubled me was the section on families. Authors of the discussion paper would introduce a non-refundable child tax credit up to $400 a year per child and a universal child care benefit of $600 a year for every child under the age of six. The former would appear to favor higher income earners and the latter would piggyback on the national child tax benefit. Neither addresses, in a meaningful way the issues of daycare costs or early childhood learning.

There is another issue and this may be an age thing but there appears to be nothing in the paper that addresses the needs of seniors. I’m not talking about nursing homes or acute care, I’m talking about those people who have worked all their lives and now live on a fixed income. They have no way to increase their earnings.

They cannot reduce consumption of basic goods and services without significant pain and inconvenience. They are voters and more likely to vote than young parents. The paper talks about balance in the tax system. There needs to be balance in the way our tax system treats young and old.

Perhaps the most interesting proposal is the notion of a flat tax on income. There are two proposals a flat 10% rate on taxable income and a two tiered rate of 9% and 12%. The former would apply to taxable income below $35,000 a year and the latter to taxable income above that number. The good news is that a flat tax appears not to apply to incomes of $25,000 and less. Both proposals would reduce the personal income tax burden in New Brunswick by a considerable margin and make us extremely competitive with Alberta.

The proposal I most like is the one to reduce business taxes from the current 13% to 10%, 7% or 5%. The latter two would make us the lowest business tax regime in Canada. That would make us extremely competitive.

There is one issue and that is tax leakage. The benefits of a low business tax for a New Brunswick-owned business would stay in the province. The benefits of a low business tax for an out-of-province owner might leak out of the province.

This paper gives us lots to think about.

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